Dispensationalism and the Abrahamic Covenant

[adam.naranjo]

note: I give credit to where credit is due. Gary DeMar, Kenneth Genrty, and Greg Bahnsen are in one way or another behind this short response to dispensationalism. I quote them often, and borrow their arguments. So, check out their websites at: http://www.americanvision.com | http://www.cmfnow.com | http://www.kennethgenrty.com

Also note: Covenant theologians quoted in red and Dispensational theologians quoted in blue
_________________________________________________

Dispensational denials, discrepancies, and distortions.

Paul Benware (former professor of Bible and theology at Moody Bible Institute) writes regarding the "everlasting" blessings of the Abrahamic covenant, that , "Those blessings included the guarantee of national existence as well as the greatness of the nation, the land area of Canaan as an everlasting possession, and the continuation of the Abrahamic covenant as an everlasting covenant." However, does this 'everlasting' 'continuation' cohere with the dispensational 'postponement' of the covenant? Or, does dispensationalism actually distort and deny the 'everlasting' covenant? The following are some problems with the dispensational view.


'Lasting through all time, or Postponement?
The above represents the view of dispensationalism. However, dispensationalists abandon their self-claimed "consistently literal" hermeneutic at this point by interpreting "everlasting" in a non-literal, or 'non-common', fashion. How is this, you ask? Dispensationalists deny the definition of "everlasting" here, which is simply, "lasting forever" -- or "lasting through all time." Instead they contend that the Abrahamic covenant lasted only for a time, then was postponed at a later time (for about 2,000 years so far), until it should be re-established at a yet future time. How can something which is 'lasting through all time' be 're-established' after having been 'un-established' for a time. If we are to understand that the covenant with Abraham included "the guarantee of national existence as well as the greatness of the nation", and "the land area of Canaan as an everlasting possession", then we cannot hold to a postponement of the promises which make the covenant itself.


Hermeneutical Discrepancy
Not only this, they show inconsistency because they interpret all other "everlasting" covenants as being without interruption.
Gary DeMar puts it well when he calls out dispensationalist inconsistancy of dealing with the everlasting noahic covenant in comparison to the everlasting Abrahamic covenant:


"Prior to the establishment of the Abrahamic covenant, God instituted the Noahic covenant. Even though "the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth," God says that He "will never again destroy every living thing" (Gen 8:21). The everlasting nature of this covenantal promise is so secure that the earth itself would have to pass away in order for it to be postponed, put off, or revoked (8:22). Couch insists that the Noahic covenant will remain in effect "As long as earth history remains in its present physical state." He can affirm this because, as the Bible states, it's an "everlasting covenant":

"And I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the cloud, then I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth (Gen. 9:15–16)."

Following dispensational postponement theology, God could send another worldwide flood and claim that He was not abrogating the everlasting nature of the Noahic covenant. God could claim, following Ryrie and other dispensational advocates, that He was only interjecting a parenthesis, an indeterminate period of time in which the keeping of the promise is delayed (stopping the prophetic clock, so to speak). Would anyone accept such an argument, dispensational or not, as being legitimate? And yet this is exactly what dispensationalists do with the Abrahamic covenant.

Dispensationalists see no problem in manufacturing gaps, delays, postponements, and parentheses8 while still claiming that the Abrahamic covenant is eternal. But they would be hard pressed to apply and defend a similar methodology when it came to God's everlasting character (Gen. 21:33; Ps. 93:2; Isa. 40:28; 1 Chron. 16:34, 41; 2 Chron. 5:13; Ps. 136; Ps. 119:142; 135:13; 145:13; Is. 45:17; Jer. 31:3; Hab. 3:6) or the everlasting nature of the Noahic covenant."

DeMar adds:

Of the Abrahamic covenant, Ryrie writes, "The Scriptures clearly teach that this is an eternal covenant based on the gracious promises of God. There may be delays, postponements, and chastisements, but an eternal covenant cannot, if God cannot deny Himself, be abrogated." As we've seen, the Abrahamic covenant is identical in wording to the Noahic covenant in that both are said to be everlasting. Let's apply Ryrie's qualifier to the Noahic covenant that he applies to the Abrahamic covenant and see if it makes sense: "The Scriptures clearly teach that the Noahic covenant is an eternal covenant based on the gracious promises of God. There may be delays and postponements, but an eternal covenant cannot, if God cannot deny Himself, be abrogated." An eternal covenant cannot be abrogated or delayed or postponed and still be described as "eternal."

Definition distortion
Furthermore, their interpretation of "everlasting" allows for the Abrahamic covenant to have been done with long ago -- Because their view of the word "everlasting" is simply, "some period of time". I quote Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, who at first agrees that "everlasting can mean eternal and perpetual", but then adds, "that is not the meaning of the Hebrew words themselves....The Classical Hebrew term "forever" (olam) as BDB states, means "long duration," "antiquity," or "futurity." The Hebrew forms mean nothing more than, "until the end of a period of time." What the period of time is must be determined by the context or determined by related passages. In classical Hebrew, these words never meant or carried the concept of eternity, but had a time limitation. The period of time may have been to the end of a man's life, or an age, or dispensation, but not for ever in the sense of eternity."

So then, dispensational scholors will admit that these promises may have already been fulfilled. It is possible, in fact highly probable, that, because these promises are not being fulfilled today, these promises have already seen their "everlasting time". The fact is, that given Fruchtenbaum's defintion the Abrahamic covenant HAD to have been done away with at the end of a past dispensation. Because if they are not being fulfilled today, which they are not, then they must be past there "time". Unless dispensationalist would argue that God's promise was that there would be TWO everlasting abrahamic covenants == one already fulfilled, and another yet to be fulfilled.

Fruchtenbaum is not the only dispensationalist to admit that the "everlasting" doesn't necessarily mean " lasting forever". The the Theological word book of the Old Testament (published by Moody Press) Allan MacRae writes, "neither the Hebrew [olam] nor the Greek word [aion] in itself contains the idea of endlessness. . . . Both words came to be used to refer to a long age or period. . . ."


So the, what we find is that both definitions destroy the dispensational postponement. If the covenant is "everlasting" or as Ryrie puts it "permenant" ("continuing or enduring without fundamental or marked change") then there can be no postponement of it. However, we are now in a postponement of the covenant, so it must mean "until the end of a period of time". BUT, if it means a period of time, then it must have already past because the the promises of the covenant are not being fulfilled now. The only other option is to say that God had two promises -- a now promise and a then promise. But that is not the case. There is one promise.

So in the end, the only plausible understanding would be that the promise was not meant to be permenant, and has been fulfilled.

(ps, dispensationalists now say that the promise was never fufilled and thus the original promise of God awaits fulfillment the next part will deal with that issue)


The Truth: Eternal covenant not postponed, but fulfilled.

The following is from Gary Demar's The Abrahamic Covenant: fulilled or postponed. From which much of what I have written comes -- although some thoughts are original, its hard to add to what's almost perfect.

"Contrary to what the Bible actually states, dispensationalists argue that Israel never had full possession of the land, so the "everlasting" nature of the promise (no matter which definition is used) is not effective until the Jews are reestablished as a nation and living in the full borders of their land. But Israel did enter and possess the land thousands of years ago:

So the LORD gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it. And the LORD gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the LORD gave all their enemies into their hand. Not one of the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass (Joshua 21:43–45).

All the elements necessary for the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant as related to the land are present in these verses: God gave the Israelites the land He had promised to give; they possessed and lived in the land; they had rest; their enemies did not stand before them; not one of the promises God made to the house of Israel failed. If these verses do not teach what they seem to teach, then how else could God have put it, said it, or written it if He had wanted to inform the Israelites that they had in fact possessed the land as promised? Even after being confronted with these crystal clear words from Joshua, futurists continue to insist that they do not teach what they seem to teach. Consider the commentary of Old Testament scholar Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.:

"Oftentimes students of the Bible point to three passages that appear to suggest that the promise of land to Israel has indeed been fulfilled: Joshua 21:43–45; 23:14–15; Nehemiah 9:8. These texts assert that "not one of all the LORD's good promises to the house of Israel failed; every one was fulfilled" (Josh. 21:45; cf. 23:14)."

However, the boundaries mentioned in Numbers 34:2–12 are not the ones reached in the accounts of Joshua and Judges. For example, Joshua 13:1–7 and Judges 3:1–4 agree in maintaining that there was much land that remained to be taken.19

So much for a literal interpretation of Bible prophecy. Since Numbers 34:2–12 and Joshua 13:1–7 precede Joshua 21:43–45, it seems obvious that by the time we get to the end of the book of Joshua the land was in Israel's possession even though there were nations dwelling in Israel's midst (Josh. 23:4–7). Just because other nations resided in the land does not mean that Israel did not have full possession of the land. The nations are said to be "an inheritance for your tribes" (23:4). Notice the conditions of remaining in the land: "Be very firm, then, to keep and do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, so that you may not turn aside from it to the right hand or to the left" (Josh. 23:6). Failure to follow this specific condition will mean that these nations "shall be a snare and a trap to you, and a whip on your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from off this good land which the LORD your God has given you" (23:13).

What about Judges 3:1–4? While the land was possessed and was in the hands of the Israelites before Joshua died, some nations were left "to test Israel . . . to find out if they would obey the commandments of the LORD" (Judges 3:1, 4). It was Israel's disobedience that put the land back into the hands of her enemies. God delivers Israel through Othniel, and then we read, "Then the land had rest forty years" (3:11): Not part of the land, but the land--the land occupied by Israel--had rest.

The New Testament says nothing about there being a need to fulfill the land promises. There is no discussion about a future return to the land. The physical land of Israel has no role to play in the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant since the coming of Christ. It's not surprising therefore that the Jewish Christians saw nothing covenantally wrong with selling their land:

For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales, and lay them at the apostles feet; and they would be distributed to each, as any had need (Acts 4:34–35).


Notice that the Bible does not say that they sold their possessions or "their goods," as The Bible Knowledge Commentary has it. They sold their land and houses. Jesus had told them earlier that the temple would be destroyed and Jerusalem judged within a generation (Matt. 24:1–34). Jesus is the focal point of history not dirt (land) or stone (temple) (John 2:19; 3:20–24; Eph. 2:19–22; 1 Peter 2:4–8). Nothing in the New Testament is said about a return to the land or a rebuilding of the temple. The New Testament only describes the destruction of the temple (Matt. 23:38; 24:2) and indifference to the land (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 8:1).

Conclusion

If the Abrahamic covenant is said to be everlasting and permanent, and Israel has not been in possession of the land since the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, then the Bible is mistaken. Of course, this is impossible. Like so much of the Bible, dispensationalists misunderstand the theological significance of the Abrahamic covenant as it is developed and finds fulfillment under the New Covenant."

[19] 19. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Back Toward the Future: Hints for Interpreting Biblical Prophecy (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989), 111. Benware references Joshua 23:4–7 to support his contention that "The statement in Joshua reflects an Old Testament concept of fulfillment wherein the promise of God was being fulfilled and that generation was getting their share. But it was not the final or ultimate fulfillment of the promise" (Understanding End Times Prophecy, 55). What is "the final or ultimate fulfillment of the promise"? Is it in the physical land of Israel, or does the NT direct us to consider a more permanent possession of which the physical land of Israel was a mere type and shadow similar to the tabernacle, temple, circumcision, priesthood, and animal blood sacrifices? (John 4:21; Rom. 4:13; Gal. 4:25–26; Heb. 11:15–16; 12:22–23). "After depicting the role of the servant in this restoration (52:13–53:12), Isaiah pictured the great expansion Zion will experience (54:1–3). This expansion is expressed in territorial terminology. It says, ‘Your descendants [seed] will dispossess nations and settle in their desolate cities’ (54:3). This is reminiscent of the territorial connotations noted earlier in Genesis 22:17, where it says Abraham's offspring will possess the gates of their enemies" (Thomas Edward McComiskey, The Covenants of Promise: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985], 54). Paul makes use of Isaiah 54 by showing how the fulfillment is not in the "children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman" (Gal. 4:31). And who are the children of the free woman? Those who reside in "the Jerusalem above" which "is free" (4:26).


Peace
---------
Adam

[Hitch]

PERF!

[adam.naranjo]

Dispensationalists and premillennialists have questions for preterists...but they aren't responding to this.

[themuzicman]

If the Abrahamic covenant is said to be everlasting and permanent, and Israel has not been in possession of the land since the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, then the Bible is mistaken. Of course, this is impossible. Like so much of the Bible, dispensationalists misunderstand the theological significance of the Abrahamic covenant as it is developed and finds fulfillment under the New Covenant."

They weren't in posession of it for 500 years after Abraham died, never really did take full posession of the land, and weren't in posession of it during or after the exile. Even though they lived there in the post-exilic period, the land was ruled by gentiles continuously from the exile (732(?) and 577 BC) until 1948.

Go Figure.

Michael

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 02:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=189784#post189784)
adam.naranjo:

Dispensationalists and premillennialists have questions for preterists...but they aren't responding to this.

they make several mistakes from my view. I may not be a classic dispy in this case, but I see God completing the Abrahamic covenant with Christ, who is the seed who blessed all mankind according to the Abrahamic covenant.

Still I find it difficult from Abraham's pov. He was told by God that the land would be his and his descendants. If this was spiritual only, then God was being a bit deceptive. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob took it literally, as did Moses, David, Solomon, etc. The land belonged to them. If God was "just joking" and it was a spiritual blessing, then the land never really belonged to them and Joshua took it wrongly.


I also ran across this verse and am not real sure what to make of it. A little assistance would be helpful:

Heb 9:17 For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.

[adam.naranjo]

themuzicman

I cant believe that you didn't read the article. Its quite obvious that you didn't read the whole articles because it addresses these issues. It just makes me sad. Please don't respond if you don't have something worth while to say, especially When it was addressed in the very post your responding to.

Bill

Is that a response to me? I'm not sure i'm following you. (I agree that the promise of the covenant was made to Christ, I would love to discuss that.) Your very correct in mentioning the physical issues as well...

I'll be back later tonight.

Adam

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 04:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=189907#post189907)
adam.naranjo:

Bill

Is that a response to me? I'm not sure i'm following you. (I agree that the promise of the covenant was made to Christ, I would love to discuss that.) Your very correct in mentioning the physical issues as well...

I'll be back later tonight.

Adam

Adam, yes that was to you. It actually was more of a musing followed by a question.

I'm really concerned about how Abraham, Isaac, and others that these Land promises were made to would understand. Was God being deceptive or cryptic? Did Joshua misunderstand God and take the promised land by mistake? If the immediate application of the promise was possession of the land, why is the long term application different??

[Hitch]

Maybe the difference is that Christ expanded it to inclued 'all the world'


H

[adam.naranjo]

Bill,

Actually your thinking is right no line. The covenant had to do with real land. And according to scripture God gave them the land. (this was mentioned in the first post - scripture clearly says that the promised land was given to them, thus fulfilling the promise) However, as many promises, prophecies, and covenants during the Old Testament period go, it was not only physically fulfilled, but was also typologically fulfilled. (Also called allegorically, or in some older translations mystically) For example, Galations 4:22 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. 23 But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24 This is allegorically speaking: for these women are two covenants, one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. 27 For it is written,
“Rejoice, barren woman who does not bear;
Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor;
For more are the children of the desolate
Than of the one who has a husband.”
28 And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30 But what does the Scripture say?
“Cast out the bondwoman and her son,
For the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.”
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.

The promise to sarah was a real literal promise. However, the two suns were a type fulfilled in the time of Christ when the Old Covenant was passing away, and the Jews who were persecuting the Christians were 'cast out', only those who entered the covenant by faith, both Jew and Gentile were born from the heavenly Jerusalem -- which was typified in the Old Testament by the earthly Jerusalem. The TRUE holy city in heaven, tha tabernacle in heaven (Hebrews) the true mount zion, the heavenly land of rest/sabbath, etc., these were all the TRUE realities that were typified by the earthly types. (as a matter of fact, I have a quote from a dispensationalist where He admits that their literal understanding of these covenant promises are inconsistant -- even within their own "literal" hermeneutic (which is a bunch of bull).

So Here we a principle at work, that God's call of Abraham and promises to him are going to be allegorically fulfilled as well as literally fufilled (the literal fulfillment has already taken place -- and is actually still being fulfilled through Christ like hitch mentioned). This is a common theme that God uses. The final, and truest fulfillment is in Christ. There are many typological fulfillments in Scriptures. As a matter of fact 75% percent of the prophecies concerning Christ's first coming were not literal fulfillments. Perhaps I will write something longer on the issue at some point.

There are some great books on the subject, and I'm going to be posting a bunch of them in another thread that touches on the same topic. I'll send you the link when I post it.


Adam

[Manasseh]

The covenant had to do with real land. And according to scripture God gave them the land. (this was mentioned in the first post - scripture clearly says that the promised land was given to them, thus fulfilling the promise)

That’s where you’re wrong. When Israel entered and took possession of the land they did so under the Law, not under the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Gal 3:17 Now I say this, A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which took place four hundred and thirty years after, does not annul, so as to make the promise of no effect.
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance be on the principle of law, it is no longer on the principle of promise; but God gave it in grace to Abraham by promise.

Before Israel entered the land they were given the Law and their possession of the land was conditional upon keeping the Law. But God gave the land to Abraham on the principal of promise not on the principal of Law.

Exo 19:5 And now, if ye will hearken to my voice indeed and keep my covenant(Law), then shall ye be my own possession out of all the peoples--for all the earth is mine--
Exo 19:6 and ye shall be to me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak to the children of Israel.

And

Deu 4:1 Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you.
Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

“……..A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which took place four hundred and thirty years after, does not annul, so as to make the promise of no effect.”

“For if the inheritance be on the principle of law, it is no longer on the principle of promise; [i]but God gave it in grace to Abraham by promise”[i/]


Rom 4:13 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.
Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

You fail to see the dual application of the above passages. Yes, the promise of salvation by faith in Christ is the foremost application. But the promise to Abraham that his seed would possess the land was on the principal of the Grace of the promise is also applicable to the above passages as a plain reading will show. It will have its final fulfillment in the Seed (Christ) at the second advent of Christ.

Of course your answer will entail a singular application of the above passages. I whole heartily disagree.

The Abrahamic Covenant was made on the pricipal of the "I will" of God. The principal of Grace.

Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Gen 17:8 And I willgive unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I willbe their God

The Law was given on the principal of "if ye will".

Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
Exo 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Israel's New Covenant will be on the "I will" Principal of Grace of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that b]I will[/b]make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, b]I will[/b]put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

So the whole point is this. Though Israel Possessed the Land Promised to the Fathers (although they didn't actually possess all of it, the original inhabitance were still there paying tribute, true possession of the land entailed compete possesion Exo 23;27-30, but that's not the point). [i]Israel did not possess the land under the Abrahamic Covenant but under the Mosaic Covenant.[i]

The Abrahamic Covenant will be fulfilled in a day to come.

Regards
M

[Solly]

Today @ 10:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=190186#post190186)
Manasseh:
That’s where you’re wrong. When Israel entered and took possession of the land they did so under the Law, not under the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Gal 3:17 Now I say this, A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which took place four hundred and thirty years after, does not annul, so as to make the promise of no effect.
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance be on the principle of law, it is no longer on the principle of promise; but God gave it in grace to Abraham by promise.

Before Israel entered the land they were given the Law and their possession of the land was conditional upon keeping the Law. But God gave the land to Abraham on the principal of promise not on the principal of Law.

Exo 19:5 And now, if ye will hearken to my voice indeed and keep my covenant(Law), then shall ye be my own possession out of all the peoples--for all the earth is mine--
Exo 19:6 and ye shall be to me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak to the children of Israel.

And

Deu 4:1 Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you.
Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

“……..A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which took place four hundred and thirty years after, does not annul, so as to make the promise of no effect.”

“For if the inheritance be on the principle of law, it is no longer on the principle of promise; [i]but God gave it in grace to Abraham by promise”[i/]


Rom 4:13 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.
Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

You fail to see the dual application of the above passages. Yes, the promise of salvation by faith in Christ is the foremost application. But the promise to Abraham that his seed would possess the land was on the principal of the Grace of the promise is also applicable to the above passages as a plain reading will show. It will have its final fulfillment in the Seed (Christ) at the second advent of Christ.

Of course your answer will entail a singular application of the above passages. I whole heartily disagree.

The Abrahamic Covenant was made on the pricipal of the "I will" of God. The principal of Grace.

Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Gen 17:8 And I willgive unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I willbe their God

The Law was given on the principal of "if ye will".

Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
Exo 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Israel's New Covenant will be on the "I will" Principal of Grace of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that b]I will[/b]make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, b]I will[/b]put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

So the whole point is this. Though Israel Possessed the Land Promised to the Fathers (although they didn't actually possess all of it, the original inhabitance were still there paying tribute, true possession of the land entailed compete possesion Exo 23;27-30, but that's not the point). [i]Israel did not possess the land under the Abrahamic Covenant but under the Mosaic Covenant.[i]

The Abrahamic Covenant will be fulfilled in a day to come.

Regards
M

Not quite sure how you manage to get away from the clear import of
Gen 17.8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
Note the fact that there was a stipulation in the term:
Gen 17.10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
So the Land promise does not appear to be unconditional:
Gen 17.14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
It is difficult to see how this promise can be delayed so many thousands of years, esp as the Jews were in Canaan for 1500 - and yet this seemingly does not count. Another gap?

You also quote Gal 3, but that is not referring to the promise of land, but to righteousness imputed, and The Seed - there identified as Christ - to come. That is all Paul had in view, yet he had ample opportunity to address it in Rom 9-11. The promise is of grace unto salvation for the Jews, not some real estate.

I think you misunderstand how the Jews viewed Abraham: they considered that they were living in the blessing that comes from him; he earned the land, and other things, by his obedience - a view Paul is at pains to deny in Romans and Galatians, but he simply corrects their misunderstanding of how righteousness comes, not any view of their possesion of the land.

So I hold that you are the one who has conflated the promise and the covenant, and the lack of any mention of the land promise in the NT only reinforces the point.

[themuzicman]

OK, I misunderstood the direction you were going with that....

I guess one question would be whether the covenant with the Israelites was ended at the point that the conditions were first met, or whether giving them the land meant that God would help them keep it.

From Judges to the Exile, that seemed to be the case. When an enemy would attack (usually after Israel started worshipping idols), and Israel would call on God, He would come along and win their battles to reclaim their land.

So, it doesn't appear that the covenant was fulfilled and ended at the moment God pushed back their enemies under Joshua.

Now, there have been significant times when Israel, because of their sin, was displaced or removed from the land, but God has always restored it to them. Granted that they have not really ruled their land since the exile, but time is something God has a lot of, and I don't see where God has terminated his covenant with Israel.

Michael

[Solly]

One question that should be asked is: what is the land? What function does it fulfill? The existence of the church, and even of the jewish people since 70ad is proof that a piece of territory is not essential to identity and corporateness.

My answer:

The Land is the place of blessing, and the place of the saints of God. The land of Canaan is typical - as with much else under the OT - of the work of God in Christ. The equivelant idea to "in the land" in the NT is "In Christ" - he is the place of blessing, the place of the saints, and the place where God will be with his people.

Just as circumcision, right from the start, pointed to something more - Dt 30.6, so did the promise of land:

Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
Heb 11:9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as [in] a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
Heb 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker [is] God.
Heb 11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
Heb 11:12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, [so many] as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of [them], and embraced [them], and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
Heb 11:14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
Heb 11:15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that [country] from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
Heb 11:16 But now they desire a better [country], that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.


Perhaps Abraham knew more than dispensationalists give him credit for.

The whole point about the Bible is that it is not about two separate peoples, one of which happens to be given some real estate in perpetuity, regardlass of clauses in the lease - and it was a lease - but that, from the Garden of Eden, God is working to restore a new humanity to live in his presence in the place he has established; which for our understanding, is "in Christ"

Eph 1:3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:


He is the place of blessing. The failures of Israel in the land, before and after the exile - read Malachi, coupled with God's longsuffering of their ways, points to a greater work. Why would any OT saint settle for less?

Finally, the covenant can be terminated from both sides. It was not an unconditional covenant/promise purely from God's side, any more than Sinai was.

Another question: what are the Jews about; why did God "make" the Jews? Because that was the bloodline though which Messiah would come into the world, the protected lineage. Why wait until Abraham to start the Jews? Out of Zion comes the King, the Saviour. Also they are the witness to the world of God's righteousness - through the law - and God's access - through the worship of the temple. But now Christ has come, the old covenant has waxed old and worn out, and is discarded. All are on the same footing now, sinners before God.

[Spokoina]

Hitch: Maybe the difference is that Christ expanded it to inclued 'all the world'

I would have to agree here with Hitch, and I will explain why then add another aspect, often overlooked by dispensationalists about the land covenant.

God's work from Abraham has expanded progressively from the individual, to the family, tribe, society and national level. Jesus came on the world level to really fufill substantially the covenant, and not prepare for the covenant on the world level. Jesus was the last Adam, and Adam was to have dominion over the world. That is God's final sight. imo.

This is also seen in the 10 versus two remnant in Israel...ten sons of Jacob and two sons favored, Benjamin and Joseph. (individual and family level) Then ten spies, faithless, two spies, faithful in the wilderness. (tribal, societal) Ten tribes, two tribes, from the time of the controversy with Solomon, to the divided kingdom, commonly known as the "two sticks" of Hosea. (national level).

From individual to family, tribe, national, and lo and behold, Paul applied this ten/two to the remnant of Israel and gentiles, the two sticks of Hosea, to the world level here:

Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Rom 9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Rom 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

God told Adam to have dominion over the world, beginning with Adam as an individual, then family, tribe nation and then world. That is why I agree with Hitch, that land represents more than land on the national level, but restoration thru Christ on the world level of true earthly domionion from Adam's responsibility.


OK..having said this: Land, Paul said clearly, also applied to the promise of the Gentiles, just like the two sticks Paul applied on the world level. Paul went back, in Romans 4, and in Gal. 3 and applied NOT the Gen. 17 covenant to the Gentiles, but the Gen. 15 covenant, oft overlooked by dispensationalists, which was identical in contents, but not sealed with circumcision, to that of Gen. 17.

Here are the relevant passages:

Gen 15:6 And he believed in Jehovah. And He counted it to him for righteousness.
Gen 15:7 And He said to him, I am Jehovah that brought you out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give you this land to inherit it.

This covenant of Gen. 15 was sealed by the cutting of animals, wherein lies the root of the word "covenant itself", as a way to seal covenants, like here in Jeremiah:

Jer 34:18 And I will give the men that have transgressed my covenant, which have not performed the words of the covenant which they had made before me, when they cut the calf in twain, and passed between the parts thereof,

This is where Paul applies it to the Gentiles directly and explicitly:

Rom 4:9 Is this blessedness then on the circumcision only, or on the uncircumcision also? For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Rom 4:10 How then was it reckoned? Being in circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

(Genesis 15 note: Abram was NOT circumcised, nor instructed to be)

Rom 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which [he had] being [yet] uncircumcised.
Rom 4:13 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.

NOTE: The law was not the first land covenant promise, it was Abram, in Genesis 15, followed by Abraham in Gen. 17, by righteousness of faith. And who acheived that as well?

Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith

Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.
Gal 3:7 Therefore know that those of faith, these are the sons of Abraham.
Gal 3:8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the nations through faith, preached the gospel before to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all nations be blessed."
Gal 3:9 So then those of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham

Paul, for the world level providence following Christ's advent, rightfully took the covenant of God, and its contents, to the world level. And thus the meaning of who what where how when and why as well.

And finally, one small comment about the death and sealing a covenant in Hebrews: the terms of the covenant are always laid out by God first, then sealed, like a signature at the bottom of the contract.

The death of Jesus was the signature in blood on the new covenant, but Jesus had been laying out all the terms of that covenant in his life in ministry during the previous three years, a point also oft overlooked by dispensationalism ..classical dispyism at least.

God bless.

[Manasseh]

Solly


Not quite sure how you manage to get away from the clear import of

Scripture Verse: Gen 17.8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.


Note the fact that there was a stipulation in the term:

Scripture Verse: Gen 17.10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.


So the Land promise does not appear to be unconditional:

Scripture Verse: Gen 17.14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.


It is difficult to see how this promise can be delayed so many thousands of years, esp as the Jews were in Canaan for 1500 - and yet this seemingly does not count. Another gap?

You also quote Gal 3, but that is not referring to the promise of land, but to righteousness imputed, and The Seed - there identified as Christ - to come. That is all Paul had in view, yet he had ample opportunity to address it in Rom 9-11. The promise is of grace unto salvation for the Jews, not some real estate.

I think you misunderstand how the Jews viewed Abraham: they considered that they were living in the blessing that comes from him; he earned the land, and other things, by his obedience - a view Paul is at pains to deny in Romans and Galatians, but he simply corrects their misunderstanding of how righteousness comes, not any view of their possesion of the land.

So I hold that you are the one who has conflated the promise and the covenant, and the lack of any mention of the land promise in the NT only reinforces the point.

I was going to type something out in response but I’ll let Mr Showers say it for me. He does a better Job.

“First, the biblical statements that appear to indicate that the Abrahamic Covenant is conditional in nature were made years after God formally established the covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15. When God formally established the covenant, He stated no conditions. This is significant, because, according to Galatians 3:15, once a covenant is established no conditions are added to it.

Gal 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

Thus, to conclude that the statements of Genesis 17:1-2; 22:16-18, and 26:3-5 indicate that the Abrahamic Covenant is conditional is to say that God added conditions to the Abrahamic Covenant after it was established and thereby violated the principle of Galatians 3:15

Second, when the covenant was formally established, only God passed between the
halves of the animals. A deep sleep came upon Abraham so that he could not move between them (Genesis 15:8-18). This indicated that the fulfillment of the covenant’s promises was totally dependent upon God, not upon Abraham meeting certain conditions. The only time that both parties of a covenant would pass between the pieces of animals was when the fulfillment of the covenant was dependent upon both parties keeping commitments. Concerning the significance of God alone moving between the halves of the animals, George R. Berry wrote, “Here it is to be noted that it is a smoking furnace and a flaming torch, representing God, not Abraham, which passed between the pieces. Such anact, it would seem, should be shared by both parties, but in this case it is doubtless to be explained by the fact that the covenant is principally a promise by Jeh. He is one who binds Himself” (“Covenant,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1957], Volune II, p. 727).

Third, God formally established the Abrahamic Covenant in response to Abraham’s question, “Lord GOD, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it [the land]?” (Genesis 15:8). In the immediate context (v. 7) God had just reminded Abraham of the fact that He had brought him out of Ur of the Chaldees in order to give him the land of Canaan to possess it.
In response to this reminder Abraham asked God for proof that he would fulfill His promise to give him the land. God consented to give such proof and formally established a solemn covenant with Abraham as that proof. The point is that the purpose for the formal establishment of the Abrahamic Covenant was that of assuring Abraham that God would keep His word. The total focus of the covenant was the faithfulness of God to His commitment. The focus had nothing to do with the faithfulness or obedience of Abraham or his physical descendants, the people of Israel. If the fulfillment of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant depended in any way at all upon the faithfulness of anyone other than God, how could that covenant accomplish its intended purpose—confirming proof to Abraham that
God would keep His word to give him the land of Canaan?”


It is difficult to see how this promise can be delayed so many thousands of years, esp as the Jews were in Canaan for 1500 - and yet this seemingly does not count. Another gap?

Why is it difficult? This question actually comes under the heading of Paul’s question in Gal 3:19

Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Why did Israel enter the Land under Law and not under the Covenant of promise? The reason for Israel being in the Land under Law all has to do with Gods purpose with regards to the testing of mankind (through Israel Rom 3:19) under Law. There are no gaps in the purposes of God.


You also quote Gal 3, but that is not referring to the promise of land, but to righteousness imputed, and The Seed - there identified as Christ - to come. That is all Paul had in view, yet he had ample opportunity to address it in Rom 9-11. The promise is of grace unto salvation for the Jews, not some real estate

I disagree…..

Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

The JFB Commentary

Gal 3:18 - the inheritance--all the blessings to be inherited by Abraham's literal and spiritual children, according to the promise made to him and to his Seed, Christ, justification and glorification (Gal_4:7; Rom_8:17; 1Co_6:9).


Yes it involves the righteousness of Faith. But that righteousness has very much to do with Abrahams Faith in God’s promise that he would inherit the Land. Your right, there is a lot more to do with God’s promise to Abraham than just real estate. But it does involve real estate.

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Rom 11:26 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:
Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
Rom 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

The whole point being is that the Abrahamic covenant was ratified in Gen 15, any other conditions that came later cannot affect the original covenant as per Gal 3:15.

“The Inheritance” of Gal 3:18 involves all of the promises to Abraham involved in the Abrahamic Covenant.

Israel entered the Land under Law not under Promise. God gave the Land to Abraham by the grace of promise (yes; and everything else).

Having said all that I’ve made my point; Adam wanted an answer and he got one. He might not believe it but I think it’s a strong argument. Definitely enough to show that his view is not open and shut, far from it.

Regards
M

[Hitch]

That’s where you’re wrong. When Israel entered and took possession of the land they did so under the Law, not under the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant. That is so strained it makes my back hurt.

H

[Manasseh]

That is so strained it makes my back hurt

Thats because your clueless. Great informative, scripturally based answer WTB.

M

[Hitch]

Yesterday @ 01:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=190221#post190221)
themuzicman:

OK, I misunderstood the direction you were going with that....

I guess one question would be whether the covenant with the Israelites was ended at the point that the conditions were first met, or whether giving them the land meant that God would help them keep it. I think this is a good time to look directly at the passage;


Josh 21:43-44
43 And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.
44 And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand.
(KJV)

The writer is affimative in the extreme and coulples the receiving of th eland directly to the promise given to the fathers. And repeats it all in the next line. So I dont see how any question of covenantal fulfillment could come from this passage.



From Judges to the Exile, that seemed to be the case. When an enemy would attack (usually after Israel started worshipping idols), and Israel would call on God, He would come along and win their battles to reclaim their land.

So, it doesn't appear that the covenant was fulfilled and ended at the moment God pushed back their enemies under Joshua.

Now, there have been significant times when Israel, because of their sin, was displaced or removed from the land, but God has always restored it to them. Granted that they have not really ruled their land since the exile, but time is something God has a lot of, and I don't see where God has terminated his covenant with Israel. Surely you have noted the NT referencing the church as the holy nation? Not to mention Christ''s direct judgemental proclamation in M 23?


Michael take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

Today @ 03:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=190849#post190849)
Manasseh:



Thats because your clueless.

M Well give me a clue Man. Show me an apostolic reference that supports your position.

[Manasseh]

Well give me a clue Man. Show me an apostolic reference that supports your position.

I already have. Read gal 3, Rom 11 and open your eyes

m

[Hitch]

Today @ 03:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=190853#post190853)
Manasseh:



I already have. Read gal 3, Rom 11 and open your eyes

m There is no relation or corralation to your comment.

Out side the usual artificial distinctions DFs bring to the table. I looked over your answer and I was struck buy what you left out;


Gen 26:4-5
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
(KJV)


Your dichtomy does not exist in Scripture,it is imaginary.

Take care

Hitch

[Manasseh]

There is no relation or corralation to your comment.

As i said, thats because your clueless, you have no idea, because you have those sightless eyes.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Gal 3:17 Now this I say: A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect.
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no more of promise: but God hath granted it to Abraham by promise.

Prove to me the above passage does not include all of the promises made to Abaham.....Apostolic proof of course.

M

[Hitch]

Today @ 04:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=190856#post190856)
Manasseh:



As i said, thats because your clueless, you have no idea, because you have those sightless eyes.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Gal 3:17 Now this I say: A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect.
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no more of promise: but God hath granted it to Abraham by promise.

Prove to me the above passage does not include all of the promises made to Abaham.....Apostolic proof of course.

M What does that have to do with:

That’s where you’re wrong. When Israel entered and took possession of the land they did so under the Law, not under the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant.

If there is any realtion it is that the passage you quoted teaches the opposite concept doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect I cant read your comment in a way that doesnt come out opposite the very passage you quote to prove it.


Perhpas there is some DF notion that ,,well in fact its plain isnt it? Since Israel 'rashly accepted the Law'... Its reasonable to see a subtracton here rather than an addition. In reality the Law is the gratest of blessings second only to Christ wrt the affairs of men.



Take care

Hitch

[Manasseh]

Perhpas there is some DF notion that ,,well in fact its plain isnt it? Since Israel 'rashly accepted the Law'... Its reasonable to see a subtracton here rather than an addition. In reality the Law is the gratest of blessings second only to christ wrt the affairs of men.

yes, thats what I thought, pure Theonomy.

Anybody who cannot see Rom 6:14 for what it is, not to mention Rom 6-8 and the whole of Galatians. Could hardly see Gal 3:16-19 for what it is.

Regards
M

[Hitch]

Ps 1:1-2
1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
(KJV)

[Hitch]

Today @ 05:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=190882#post190882)
Hitch:

Ps 1:1-2
1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
(KJV)

But it hadly take a Theonmist to see the taking of the Land as fulfillment of that particular promise.

H

[adam.naranjo]

wow I didn't realize this thread was takin' off. I've been very busy, I will be busy until moday so I wont even be back here. but as soon as I get back I'll see whats going on over here.
- I would like to challenge people to read books from authors on both sides, with a willingness to learn.


Adam

[Just The Facts]

Well hello everyone This is my first post here at this site.

Hi Dee Dee

this is really a good place to start if you want to understand Bible prophecy.

If you do not know who the Bible is talking about when it mentions all these tribes and names then how can you understand what it is saying.

What we need to do is stick to the Truths of the Whole Bible and apply them with the knowledge of the Truth..

So just to make sure everyone understands the covenant with Abraham and what it entails and WHO gets what I will post this mile long post I made up for another Forum.

You may find what is said in here new to you so please do take the Time to read it through. The reality is that the Sinia Covenant is just a deal with the Hebrews at Moses time that would allow for fulfilment in their time if they kept the deal IT IS NOT a separate covenant it is a sub-covenant if you will .




WHO ARE THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL?


This is a long one, a lesson in Bible history, but worth the time.

In Revelation it says there will be 144,000 sealed 12,000 from each of the twelve tribes of Israel

So who are these Twelve Tribes are they all Jews or are they another people today?

Since they have a new song just before the Great tribulation it would seem important to see who this prophecy is about.

Well modern Israel says it is only made up of the House of Judah and the Tribes associated with it and the Government of Israel has commissioned a study at the University of Telavive to find the Lost Ten Tribes. This is the name they have become known by.

Lets look at this from a strictly Biblical perspective.

The story starts with Abraham

We start in Genius where Abraham receives his new name and a conditional promise. By conditional I mean it requires that Abraham do something . "walk before me, and be thou perfect"

Genesis 17: 1: And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. 2: And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. 3: And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, 4: As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. 5: Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. 6: And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. 7: And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

As you can see this promise requires that Abraham be perfect before God, we know that only Jesus was perfect before God. So Abraham is promised to be the father of nations and that Jesus will be born from his descendant. Let's continue. We now move on to the passing of this promise, which has now become a Birth Right from Abraham to Isaac

chapter 17: 19: And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shall call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

We now move on to when God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and Abraham is just about to do it and Gods stops him, provides a Ram and then says this in

chapter 22.15: And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
16: And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 17: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

The promise has changed. It is not based on any act that Abraham or his decedents must Performa in the future. God has now promised to turn him into Nations and that Kings will be born of him "for because thou hast done this". The promise is now UNCONDITIONAL. His descendant will be many millions of people and they will posses the gates of their enemies. We now see the Power of the Holy People developing that is spoken of in Daniel Chapter 12. So Just what is a gate? It is A mountain pass, such as Khyber pass in India, or the straight of Gibralter, the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal, these are a few of the gates of the world. This promise is repeated to Rebekah in chapter 24:59

Isaac has the promise confirmed in

chapter 26: 4: And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

Isaac to Jacob. Jacob lies to Isaac and pretends to be Esau and steals the Birth Right

chapter 27: 27: And he came near, and kissed him: and he smelled the smell of his raiment, and blessed him, and said, See, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field which the LORD hath blessed:28: Therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of grain and wine: 29: Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.

So here the promise is expanded it now includes the dew of Heaven and the fatness of the Earth.
Two things are noticed one it says all these countries plural more than one, and Jesus is clearly defined as coming through Jacob. So the promise is a material promise as well as spiritual promise.

On one hand they will be many Nations with the best soil (fatness of the Earth) plenty of grain and wine, all the riches of the Earth (Gold, Silver) they will posses the gates of their enemies and rule over the nations of the Earth. That is a pretty impressive promise of World Power and wealth. Now we see the Power of the Holy people that is spoken of in Daniel. The more important spiritual promise is that the Saviour Jesus will be born from Jacob decedents.

Let's follow this amazing unconditional promise. We must remember this will happen because of what Abraham has already done. It is not based on any future covenant or on the ability of Jacobs's decedents to do as God asks. Abraham has already done all that is necessary "because you have done this". This was confirmed to Isaac "because Abraham kept my command"There is no future deed or act required, God himself will bring these prophecies to reality "By myself have I sworn, says the LORD"

But Jacob is evil he lies and he fights God for many years. God punishes him in many ways until Jacob turns to God and then God turns to Jacob and passes on the promise in

chapter 35:11: And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

Notice God further defines the many nations, it will now be a company of Nations a group or company of Nations acting as one. God renames Jacob Israel. Israel has twelve sons I would ask that you read the story of Joseph if you are not already familiar with it. When Jacob arrives in Egypt he finds not only Joseph alive but that he has two sons Ephraim and Manasseh we pick up the Birth Right in

chapter 48: 5And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon are.
11And Israel said to Joseph, "I had not thought to see your face; and lo, God has let me see your children also." [/b]

Now notice how detailed this passing of the birthright is, with the crossed hands and all.

13: And Joseph took them both, Ephraim in his right hand toward Israel's left hand, and Manasseh in his left hand toward Israel's right hand, and brought them near unto him. 14: And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim's head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn. 15: And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, 16: The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.
Here Israel transfers his name to Ephraim and Manasseh "let my name be named on them"

This fact is passed over by most Bible scholars but the name Israel is to go with the Boys Ephraim and Manasseh. Joseph protest because Israel has put his right hand on Ephraim's head for he is the younger of the two and Manasseh should get the Birth Right. Jacob tells Joseph that they will start together but Ephraim shall be greater than Manasseh and he shall be a company of Nations. Manasseh will come after Ephraim and will be a great Nation. But Ephraim shall be first.

17When Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him; and he took his father's hand, to remove it from Ephraim's head to Manasseh's head. 18And Joseph said to his father, "Not so, my father; for this one is the first-born; put your right hand upon his head." 19But his father refused, and said, "I know, my son, I know; he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great;nevertheless his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his descendants shall become a multitude of nations." 20So he blessed them that day, saying, "By you Israel will pronounce blessings, saying, 'God make you as Ephraim and as Manasseh'"; and thus he put Ephraim before Manasseh.

So the promise has been defined even further, a great company of nations with a great nation coming out of it. They shall have the riches soil (fatness of the Earth) all the water (dew of the Earth) all the riches (gold, silver, et.) an abundance of grain they will rule over the other nations of the Earth and will possess the Gate of their enemies. That is indeed a Powerful promise of World Power, and God has said that he will bring this about himself because of what Abraham did.

After many years in Egypt the Hebrews are taken captive and enslaved.

Because of the Covenant with Abraham God intervenes, not because the decedents of Jacob were worthy, not because of some future Sinai covenant with Moses and the Israelites but BECAUSE OF THE COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM.

Exodus:2: 24: And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.

Then Moses comes and takes the Hebrews out of Egypt and into the desert where God promises to fulfil the covenant with Abraham in them, if the Hebrews will keep the Ten Commandments. If they will do as God asks, then he will fulfil the Birth Right in them, they will get this incredible World Power. However if they fail then there will be a punishment time and the covenant will not be fulfilled in them. However this is a unconditional promise "because you have done this" so after the punishment period God will fulfil his promise to Abraham. While many Christian scholars ignore this covenant with Abraham or say it is fulfilled in the Jews this is simple not true. The Jews don't think it has been fulfilled and as scripture will show us it has not been.

Let’s continue

Exodus24: 7: And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.

Exodus:34: 28: And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

So if the Hebrews keep it together, than God will fulfil in their time the Material Promise in Joseph ( Ephraim & Manasseh) and the Spiritual Promise in Judah.

Please read about all the tribes and their blessings..

So what if they break the covenant with God? We find this recorded in

[Leviticus 26: 1"You shall make for yourselves no idols and erect no graven image or pillar, and you shall not set up a figured stone in your land, to bow down to them; for I am the LORD your God.
2You shall keep my Sabbaths and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD. 3"If you walk in my statutes and observe my commandments and do them,

First they are told what they must do to get the promise. Next they are told the extent of the promise.

4then I will give you your rains in their season, and the land shall yield its increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit. 5And your threshing shall last to the time of vintage, and the vintage shall last to the time for sowing; and you shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land securely. 6And I will give peace in the land, and you shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid; and I will remove evil beasts from the land, and the sword shall not go through your land. 7And you shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword. 8Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall chase ten thousand; and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword. 9And I will have regard for you and make you fruitful and multiply you, and will confirm my covenant with you. 10And you shall eat old store long kept, and you shall clear out the old to make way for the new.

Here the promise is defined even further. Not only will they be a great Company of Nations with a Great Nation coming out of it. They shall have the richest soil (fatness of the Earth) all the water (dew of the Earth) all the riches (gold, silver, etc.) an abundance of grain they will rule over the other nations of the Earth and will possess the Gate of their enemies. They also will have to throw out last year's grain to make way for this year's grain. No war on their soil, they will drive outs the wild beast from their land. In war they will over power their enemies even when out numbered. I will say it again this is indeed a powerful promise of World Domination.

So what if they break the covenant to fulfil Gods promise in them

14: But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments;
15: And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant: 16: I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. 17: And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you. 18: And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins. 19: And I will break the pride of your power


So What happens to the Hebrews how do these 12 tribes settle in Israel.

Well everyone knows the story of David and of course his son Solomon.

But what happens after that. We pick up the Story with Solomons son in 1 Kings this is where the kingdom of Israel is divided into Two Parts The South Part to be called Judea and the Northern part (what we call Lebanon) to be called Israel.

12: So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had appointed, saying, Come to me again the third day. 13: And the king answered the people roughly, and forsook the old men's counsel that they gave him; 14: And spake to them after the counsel of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke: my father also chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions. 15: herefore the king hearkened not unto the people; for the cause was from the LORD, that he might perform his saying, which the LORD spake by Ahijah the Shilonite unto Jeroboam the son of Nebat. 16: So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, the people answered the king, saying, What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David. So Israel departed unto their tents.17: But as for the children of Israel which dwelt in the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them.18: Then king Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was over the tribute; and all Israel stoned him with stones, that he died. Therefore king Rehoboam made speed to get him up to his chariot, to flee to Jerusalem.
19: So Israel rebelled against the house of David unto this day. 20: And it came to pass, when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again, that they sent and called him unto the congregation, and made him king over all Israel: there was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only.
21: And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah, with the tribe of Benjamin, an hundred and fourscore thousand chosen men, which were warriors, to fight against the house of Israel, to bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam the son of Solomon. 22: But the word of God came unto Shemaiah the man of God, saying, 23: Speak unto Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and unto all the house of Judah and Benjamin, and to the remnant of the people, saying, 24: Thus saith the LORD, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren the children of Israel: return every man to his house; for this thing is from me.

So the Northern tribes break away from the house of David and leave ONLY THE JEWS in the Southern part of the Kingdom soon to be known as Judea.

So Now the Tribes are situated as Such

http://jtf27.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/israel-judea.jpg

While many Christian scholars say that this Power was fulfilled in the first temple era they fail to consider Jeremiah 33: this is written in about 586 BC 11 years after Nebuchadnezzar carried away the Jews. With the Northern tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh carried off into captivity in 718BC(Israel or Jacob "Let my name be on the Lads")their promise of World Power seemed lost. And now the Jew's promise of the Messiah, which was given to David's line seems lost. The people are saying that God has forgotten his promise to Jacob (Ephraim) and David(Judah).

Jeremiah 33: 24"Have you not observed what these people are saying, 'The LORD has rejected the two families which he chose'? Thus they have despised my people so that they are no longer a nation in their sight. 25Thus says the LORD: If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the ordinances of heaven and earth, 26then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his descendants to rule over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes, and will have mercy upon them."

That is pretty strong language, as sure as there is day and night this promise to Abraham, which is yet unfulfilled in 586BC, will be fulfilled. Don't believe Scholars who try and twist the truth about the fulfilment of this incredible promise. It had not been fulfilled in 586BC and was for sure not Fulfilled by the time of the Romans and the second captivity of the Jews.

Well that is enough for now I think I have explained the covenant inside the covenant.

Stay tuned for part two in which we will find out how God fulfills this promise to these two Houses.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey JTF, thank you for joining us. Let me find out for you what what awry with your VB center formatting. You may want to note we have a Bible verse code that most boards do not have... try:

INSERT BIBLE VERSE HERE

Just some board hints. Adam here is one of our best posters in eschatology IMHO. I think you will enjoy conversing with him. He is one of the ones I told you about that are much more capable than me.

[Just The Facts]

Hi Dee Dee

I tried just center that didn't work, I was going to try some other variations I have run across but morning chores took me away. i will try to fix that now.

I seen the Bible quote thing cool idea For me though often my response will be cut and pasted from documents i have already created.

I noticed you do not have the SRV which is by far the most literal translation of the Texts. There are some very important differences especially in the book of Daniel.

Looking forward to sharing with everyone here studying is great fun.

I should warn everyone i have dyslexia so I mix up who and how and bear and bare and so on and so on. i use the spell check tools but lots still slips by so bear with me ............... bare with me.

[Manasseh]

Hi Just The Facts

Just wondering what particular theological view you adhere to. Juz so's I know where your coming from.

Old MacDonald was Dyslexic I O E O I. You heard that one?

Regards
M

[Dee Dee Warren]

JTF, let me find out about centering right now for you.

[Just The Facts]

Hi Manasseh

hey is that your real name or just your Handle.


Well I am not sure what you mean by that question.

I do not belong to a religion, I go and talk with many different Christian faiths.

I don't know if you could say I belong to A particular view of theology.

I belong to the Truth of the Words and the Spirit and history.

Some views I hold are as the Baptists some as the Catholics some as the Seventh Day people some as the JW the list really does go on and on. Oddly enough everyone seems to have at least a small piece of the Truth.

Would you agree with what I have posted above with the Two Houses and the Promise not yet fulfilled in 586 BC? And the covenant inside the covenant

[Manasseh]

JTF

Manasseh is my handle.


Would you agree with what I have posted above with the Two Houses and the Promise not yet fulfilled in 586 BC? And the covenant inside the covenant

I'm still looking at it. I read it once, but I have to have a good look before comenting.

I'll will get back to you in the next couple of days on this.

Regards
M

[Manasseh]

JTF

Just a question.

Is this that British/Israel teaching?

Thnx

Regards
M

[Hitch]

Today @ 05:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=192578#post192578)
Manasseh:

JTF

Just a question.

Is this that British/Israel teaching?

Thnx

Regards
M The seas may rage and the mountains crumble desolations will multiply.


Mannaseh and Hitch agree.


'course we could both be wrong....

[Just The Facts]

Hi

No not in that sense of like the World Wide Church of God.

Arguments Like Thutha de Danna meaning the Tribe of Dan or because it has D...N in the name it means Dan went by or founded the town or named the river. These arguments are ......well......they are less than accurate and well they are just poor work for the most part.

My personal Fav is the one where they say British means covenant people. The linguistics used in these arguments make me laugh.

But yes in the sense of Britain and America are certainly part of the fulfilment of the covenant but then Again so is Greece so is Russia So is France so Is and so is and so is get what I am saying.

Now with the seals of these two countries and the symbols of the houses I spoke of this is no accident no random happening, BUT THAT DOES NOT mean that God ordained it as part of some secret message.

Man himself can do things based on his beliefs and in the end that is what makes the world go round so to speak.

When God says I have spoken it I brought it into being people misunderstand what is really being said. There is free will………… no one gets to stand before the Judgement seat and go But you made me do it.


For now we should just go through this from the beginning step by step.

If you question the accuracy of what I have posted please point out where then we can deal with those issues. And I will see if I can clarify it for you.

So do you agree with what I have posted so far with the two Houses and God's promise that he has not Forgotten.

[GrayPilgrim]

This whole discussion is marred by a misunderstanding of the nature of covenants and the constituent components of covenants.


Subsequents do not and cannot contravene previous covenants
Covenant curses do not abrogate a covenant. If it did then when you read of the famine in Ruth, the whole shebang is over. If you would read Leviticus 26


40 "But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers in their treachery that they committed against me, and also in walking contrary to me, 41 so that I walked contrary to them and brought them into the land of their enemies- if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, 42 then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and I will remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. 43 But the land shall be abandoned by them and enjoy its Sabbaths while it lies desolate without them, and they shall make amends for their iniquity, because they spurned my rules and their soul abhorred my statutes. 44 Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not spurn them, neither will I abhor them so as to destroy them utterly and break my covenant with them, for I am the LORD their God. 45 But I will for their sake remember the covenant with their forefathers, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am the LORD." 46 These are the statutes and rules and laws that the LORD made between him and the people of Israel through Moses on Mount Sinai.

Thus your critique falls short of an understanding of covenantal succession. To be sure the dispy's got it wrong too, but your critique fails to show a true understanding of how covenants function and rel;ate to each other. I would recommend checking out Daniel C. Lane's Meaning and Use of Berith in the Old Testament (it is a doctoral dissertation from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2000) call # BM612.5.L35x2000 it is available through UMI Dissertation Services.

[Just The Facts]

Well that is a lot of talk of how I am perceiving things wrong………….. SO SAYS YOU.

Perhaps you could show me some verses to correct me or am I just supposed to guess.(smile)

I fail to see why you say I do not see how the two covenants relate to each other.

Please give some examples of what you feel falls short.

I think it is obvious how the two covenants relate to each other .

To put it in a not shell it is like this I have made a promise to Abraham it is one I have promised to keep.

If you will walk it my statues then I will fulfil this promise in you fail and i will punish you. IE: Send you back to the nothing you have come from. But I will still fill the promise because the Promise is to Abraham not to the Hebrews.

Now I have laid this out and provided scripture to back each claim please use some to back your claims. The one verse you do quote only proves what I have said.

I have read what you suggest before you will have to back up your words with scripture not Some "Wise Mans" Doctrine

[Spokoina]

The issue I have with anything resembling Brit/Israelite teaching is this:

God never hesistated to cut off faithless people. Even faithless Israelites, and scatter them. They were not scattered to spread some precious seed that will be rediscovered in any race or nationality. They were scattered for being faithless and then unrepentant, just like the ten faithless spies were not allowed to enter Canaan.

IN fact, only two from that generation were allowed. The qualification was faith and obedience.

And the sins of these ten tribes was great, even the seventy rulers of the Sanhedrin brought idols into the temple to worship. Both houses were punished, but the ten tribes sins were great and their hearts hard, thus they were scattered.

BTW, the Samaritans were thought to be the mix of ten tribes and Assyrians....go figure.

I have more, but I am not sure if this is the direction needed of this particular thread.

[Just The Facts]

I agree there is no promise to a particular nation if you will.

Ie: Because you are American or British or What ever you are saved YOU ARE NOT.

We Are saved By Repentance and Faith unto Works.

Whether we Are Jew Gentile or of the ten Tribes. It has nothing to do with salvation.

Please read again NOWHERE DID I SAY THIS IS ABOUT BRITISH ISREALISM.

Others have suggested that that was where I was going but THEY ARE WRONG.

Now I have had one person say that what I have posted is wrong I have asked him to post a reasons backed by scripture. Not point me to some theological and linguistic essay on what the True meaning of a particular word is.

Do you think what I have said was wrong Is the promise divided between two Houses and was it fulfilled by 585BC.

I wish to establish these two, most basic of facts, about the covenant up to this point in history. Then I can move on to the time from 585 BC to Jesus' Death. Then after we establish the Truth amongst ourselves about that period in History we can move forward through to today.

[GrayPilgrim]

I was not responding to you, I posted after having read only the posts on the first page (most of my post was directed at Adam, Hitch and BTC).


Did you not read the segment from Leviticus that I posted?
How much have you studied ANE covenantal practices?
Besides there are more than two covenants that must be dealt with and their inter-relatedness

to list just a few of them

Noahic
Abrahmic
Mosaic
Davidic
New


Thus forgive me if I upset you, but I was not responding to yours so any comments that might have offended were inadvertent.

GP

[Just The Facts]

Sorry Gary I must admit I was having trouble understanding what you were saying to me. I was not offended it is just my way of posting I AM never offended this is a debate and I have a rather "unique" way of posting. Please always remember I am never upset.

now I know why i was confused you weren't talking to me .........Hello JTF daaaaaa.

Yes there is more then Just the Abramic covenant

The Sinai Covenant is just a defining of the Whole covenant with Abraham with the promise of fulfilment in them if they obey.

The covenant to David is within the covenant with Abraham.

David was Promised that Jesus would be born of His Line of the House of Judah.

So it is just a further defining of the covenant with Abraham. That is it is saying you get this part.

[adam.naranjo]

everyone

Again, i'm sorry I havn't been around. I'll certainly post some more tomarrow.

Just the Facts

I'll just let you know right at the outset that your two house theology wont fly here . You may not have noticed, but "we debate theology...seriously". The presuppositions of "two-house" are unbiblical, illogical, and irrational. Because the assumptions made are so off balance its hard to disuss the issue without going back to the very basics -- Hermeneutics. And by Hermeneutics I mean the specifics of interpretation. You focus on an extreamly limited amount of torah to 'prove' your case -- which is all you've come here to do, im sure. A discussion over two-house cannot start here, it must go all the way back to discussions over Hermeneutical science (language, context, genre, and more), history, rabbinic interpretation, and more...in short, we need to go back to 'bare facts', not 'selectively limited facts'.

With the wave of your hand you have discarded the majority of historical, rabbinical, and Biblical information. I know that you know this is the case. You've accepted a theology that must strech and deform God's truth - and history - in order to fit its system. Scripture is much more clear then you make it out to be -- and is not interpreted according to news papers and modern movements.

And you certainly do not have 'all' of God's truth -- a little from the JW's, a little from the Baptists, a little from the Messianic Jews...why don't you just come out and tell me which version of two house you hold to.

(This is a personal peeve:
Please don't post straight from something you wrote in the past in a different context. It shows that you don't have the willingness to take the time to deal with the specific issues being discussed in the thread. Now if you want to re-write a document to fit within the context of the currect discussion, thats great.)



One more thing, the SRV is the Spanish Reina-Valera -- how is that a better translation?

--------
Adam

[Just The Facts]

A note to everyone I POST IN CAPS TO MAKE POINTS not because I am yelling or upset. It is just easier for me then putting in the VB colour code

Hi Adam Nice to meet you

I did warn you I have dyslexia try the RSV Revised Standard Version. not the SRV sorry.

I cut and past only when it is relating to the thread topic. I spend hours a day posting at sites and often as I am sure you are aware I run into the same debates over and over.

Sorry Adam your method of debating will not fly with me I take the study of the word very seriously. I do not need to try and rip apart Gods inspired word down to linguistic arguments of men.

Please do post THE VERSES not some "Teachers" fancy linguistic work to show why I have misunderstood.

Why don't you provide some verses to prove I am wrong in my first post "The 12 Tribes" instead of making BLANKET STATEMENTS like you have.

WHERE YOU ARE WRONG I MIGHT ADD.

THIS WILL FLY BECAUSE IT IS THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD.

There are two houses…….. it is not out of context……. I know many Rabitical Jews who know and teach this to be true. Adam, even the State of Israel has commissioned a study to determine who the Lost Tribes have become so they can bring Home the House of Jacob. To try and fulfil Jesus mission as defined in Ezekiel. They do this not as the will of god but as the will of man it is part of the lie that is Modern Israel and Fundamental Christianity

I can post literally hundreds of verse IN CONTEXT to show what I say is true. I DO NOT TAKE JUST A FEW VERSES.

Adam if you want to debate with me you can forget all your "SCHOLARLY REFERENCES" I will not debate some supposed "WISE MAN" theories for three reasons.

1) For every Scholar you provide that says one thing I can provide one Just as respected that says NO that is Wrong. It is an endless loop of the reasoning of men. I have been at this for many decades Adam I know of the vast majority of these teachings and the teachings of those who disagree. I WILL NOT go there.

2) In centuries past OVER AND OVER again such "Wise Men's Scholarly Works", Doctrines, have been the trap that has encased Christianity in the Doctrines of the Whore and led Christianity to MURDER ON MASS.

It was all the "GREAT WISE Religious Leaders who MURDERED PEOPLE over such things as the Sun orbiting the Earth. The Earth being flat, The points of light in the night Sky being Stars with Planets around them,. The necessity to keep the bible in Latin just to name a few. If we still listen to these "WISE MEN" we would be living in darkness still murdering people because they have demons when all they really have is a disease or as was quite often the case just a DIFFERENT OPINION.

They wrote RESPECTED paper after paper about Gods ways on such issues……….. hey guess what THEY WERE ALL WRONG.

So let us keep this discussion and quotes between the two of us confined to, GOD'S WORDS.………… your words………. my words and the truth of the Historical facts.

I TELL YOU NOW posting anything else will GET YOU NO WHERE WITH ME

I flat out will not except Doctrines of other men when it comes to these issues post the verses and explain IN YOUUR OWN WORDS why you believe I have misunderstood.

I take this warning from Paul very seriously. This is reason number 3

[3] For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, [4] and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

Notice it says WANDER it does not say Jump or Run this began Immediately, and in fact was already at work in the second century That is what happened………. Christianity WANDER generation after generation piling up the words of WISE TEACHERS Until we have turned our Lords name into an Abomination amongst the unbelievers. All part of Satan's plan I assure you.

So please do post the verses that show your point not words of teachers.

[Manasseh]

JTF

I'm not really familiar with the British Israel teaching. I have only heard that Ephraim and Manasseh are supposed to be Britain and America or something like that.

Are you saying that Ephraim and Manasseh are now Israel and the other Tribes don't count as Israel?

Regards
M

[Spokoina]

There were never ten lost tribes...just the fact.

The tribes were not lost, they were dispersed for disobedience and faithlessness and an unrepentant heart.

Anna, in the New testament, was from the tribe of Aser, and Paul in Acts, and James, certainly addressed the twelve tribes.

That was my point. They were not lost, they were punished. There is no reason biblically, that I have ever seen that God would try to harvest, due solely to some supposed secret seeding done by the dispersion of a faithless group, the ten tribes.

The key has been faith. Always has been. Always will be. God doesn't ever seem to hesitate to chop off faithless branches and engraft faithful people into the remnant of faith. Enter covenant requirements and not physical seed lines!

Here are the scriptures for this:

The North and South both were sinful, but the North was filthy compared to the South.

Eze 4:5-6 For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.

Eze 6:9-11 And they that escape of you shall remember me among the nations whither they shall be carried captives, because I am broken with their whorish heart, which hath departed from me, and with their eyes, which go a whoring after their idols: and they shall lothe themselves for the evils which they have committed in all their abominations. And they shall know that I am the LORD, and that I have not said in vain that I would do this evil unto them. Thus saith the Lord GOD; Smite with thine hand, and stamp with thy foot, and say, Alas for all the evil abominations of the house of Israel! for they shall fall by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence.

Eze 8:11 this is where the seventy sandhedrin of the north participated in idolatry in the temple And there stood before them seventy men of the ancients of the house of Israel, and in the midst of them stood Jaazaniah the son of Shaphan, with every man his censer in his hand; and a thick cloud of incense went up.

Hos 1:5-7 And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel. And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away. But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.

Hos 6:10-12 I have seen an horrible thing in the house of Israel: there is the whoredom of Ephraim, Israel is defiled. Also, O Judah, he hath set an harvest for thee, when I returned the captivity of my people. They shall tremble as a bird out of Egypt, and as a dove out of the land of Assyria: and I will place them in their houses, saith the LORD. (12) Ephraim compasseth me about with lies, and the house of Israel with deceit: but Judah yet ruleth with God, and is faithful with the saints.



God took a remnant of Judah, and a remnant of the ten tribes scattered abroad in the nations, and brought them into faith in Jesus.

Rom 11:7 What then? What Israel seeks, this it did not obtain, but the election obtained it, and the rest were hardened;

Luk 2:36 And there was Anna, a prophetess, a daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in many days, having lived seven years with a husband from her virginity;

Act 26:6-7 And now for the hope of the promise having been made by God to the fathers, I stand being judged; to which our twelve tribes hope to arrive, worshiping in earnestness night and day, concerning which hope I am accused by the Jews, king Agrippa.

Jam 1:1 James, a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion, greeting:

Heb 8:8-10 For finding fault, He said to them, "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will make an end on the house of Israel and on the house of Judah; a new covenant shall be, not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day of My taking hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I did not regard them, says the Lord.

Rom 2:28-29 For he is not a Jew that is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that outwardly in flesh; but he is a Jew that is one inwardly, and circumcision is of heart, in spirit, not in letter; of whom the praise is not from men, but from God.

Rom 4:12-13 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. For the promise was not through Law to Abraham, or to his seed, for him to be the heir of the world, but through a righteousness of faith.

Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. .then Genesis 17, Abraham was circumcised.

Gal 3:16-19 But the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his Seed (it does not say, And to seeds, as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," which is Christ) And I say this, A covenant having been ratified before to Christ by God, the Law coming into being four hundred and thirty years after, does not annul the promise, so as to abolish it. For if the inheritance is of Law, it is no more of promise; but God has given it to Abraham through promise. Why the Law then? It was for the sake of transgressions, until the Seed should come, to whom it had been promised, being ordained through angels in a mediator's hand.

Est 8:16-17 The Jews had light, and gladness, and joy, and honour. And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them. People became Jews, even in the OT, by faith and fear of God, and not always by seed!

Kicking out the faithless has always been God’s way. He has no desire to bring in faithless and unrepentful people to build his Kingdom.

Mat 3:9 And do not think to say within yourselves, We have a father, Abraham. For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.

Luk 3:8 Then bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say within yourselves, We have Abraham as father. For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham out of these stones

Mat 21:43 Because of this I say to you, The kingdom of God will be taken from you, and it will be given to a nation producing the fruits of it.

Mat 8:11-12 But I say to you that many will come from east and west, and will recline with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven, but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of the teeth.




God bless.

[Hitch]

Yesterday @ 11:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=192702#post192702)
GrayPilgrim:

This whole discussion is marred by a misunderstanding of the nature of covenants and the constituent components of covenants.


Subsequents do not and cannot contravene previous covenants
Covenant curses do not abrogate a covenant. If it did then when you read of the famine in Ruth, the whole shebang is over. If you would read Leviticus 26



Thus your critique falls short of an understanding of covenantal succession. To be sure the dispy's got it wrong too, but your critique fails to show a true understanding of how covenants function and rel;ate to each other. I would recommend checking out Daniel C. Lane's Meaning and Use of Berith in the Old Testament (it is a doctoral dissertation from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2000) call # BM612.5.L35x2000 it is available through UMI Dissertation Services.
Is marriage a covenant? Is the relationship of Israel and God ever likened to marriage?

[adam.naranjo]

Just the lie..ahum..I mean Facts

I dont have time to waist on two-house discussions. Two-house theology is stupid, just plain stupid.

As far as scholars go, scholars in general do not hold to, or even consider, two house as a viable theology -- you know this as well as I do. You're whole "anti-scholor" attitude just shows that you are not willing to be challeged by many who are much wiser than you. IF you have not read any aticles or books that discount two-house theology then I suggest you do so. Read both sides of the issue. Why? Because there are Biblical exegetes who KNOW far more about the Hermeneutical issues invovled -- more than you may ever know. If you have already read the majority of scholorly material against the two-house view then you can not expect to hear anything new from me. All I have to say would be in agreement.


I started to make this post into a resposne to two house, but as I wen't along I realized that there is so much error -- as I mentioned before -- and so many false presuppositions at the core of the theory that I won't be able to address the details in a couple of 24,000 character posts. It's almost like dealing with dispensationalism...Two House theorists are so far from the truth they can barely recognize truth when they see it.

I suggest anyone who wants to study this issue read:

2house theory: three fatal flaws (http://torahresource.com/English%20Articles/Two%20House%20Fatal%20Errors.pdf)

The ephramite error: a short summary (http://www.cmy.on.ca/ephraim/ephramite_error.htm)

A bunch of anti-two house articles (http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=two+house+theology&sp-a=0004039b-sp00000000&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=any&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-x=any&sp-c=10&sp-m=1&sp-s=score)

-----------------
I cannot waist my time discrediting something this ignorant. I'm sorry. I have better things to do.


Adam


ps the context of Rom 11, or any of the scriptures you quote (from the n.t.) has nothing to do with two houses. Acts 26 gives no hint of lost tribes. James 1 proves that they new exactly where the twelve tribes were, scattered but still unified and worshiping. Not Gentiles. Hebrews 8:8 quotes the use of a hebrew parallelism commonly used in hebrew lit. Those mentioned in your quotes from Romans are not uncircumsized Israelites, but gentiles not related to Israel in any way. Galations 3 is speaking of the seperation and cerimonial laws that the Isralite converts were using to force gentiles to become "israelites" in the flesh before they could enter the covenant community. (and be assured salvation)

I agree with your emphasis of faith for covenant memebership. However, the rest of your seudo-mormon theology can burn.

[Hitch]

Just like an Orange, sugar coatin' ev'ry thing..

[Just The Facts]

Hi Manasseh The Jews do not hold the name Israel they hold the Name Judah their Kingdom WAS ALWAYS The Kingdom Of Judea Jesus was Born In Judea Herold was King over Judea. The Romans Invaded Judea. And if you look at the Map I posted you will see that that is what history records their land as The Land of Judea.

This is the Only time in History the Jews have used Israel without the other Tribes. The Reason why The Northern Tribes Got Called Israel was That GOD GAVE THE NAME TO THEM not the Jews. If God wanted the Line Of David to keep the name Israel then it would have been so it was not.

As I said this is the only time EVER that the Jews have named themselves Israel. In fact is was going to be Judea except it was changed at the last minute before submission to the UN. Read what God says to the Jews in Modern Israel

1: Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the LORD, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth, nor in righteousness. 2: For they call themselves of the holy city, and stay themselves upon the God of Israel; The LORD of hosts is his name.



Hi Spokonia Great Post

you explain your points and then back them with scripture. That is what I like to see.

The reason the are called Lost is because they see themselves as Gentiles not of the 12 Tribes not only in the sense of not worshipping the true God but also in the loss of circumcision. Don't get me wrong some understood who they where but most did not.

Look At Cor:

1Cor:10:1: Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

here he tell the Corithians that they should not be lacking in the Knowledge of WHO THEY REALLY ARE.

You see the House of Judah where promised never to lose their Identity But God tells the The House of Jacob or Joseph or Ephraim or ISRAEL that they WILL lose their Identity and think themselves gentile right up to the end. Yet even though they will wander many Years Isaiah tell us this about them.

2: The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD. 3: So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son. 4: And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.
5: And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel. 6: And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Lo-ruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away. 7: But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.
8: Now when she had weaned Lo-ruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son. [b]9: Then said God, Call his name Lo-ammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.[b]10: Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

Your assertion is true AND VERY WELL BACKED I MIGHT ADD and where I will be at the end of it all. However I am not sure if you truly understand this………….. and the implications of it as it relates to understanding prophecy, especially Revelation and Daniel.

I just thought it better to start at the beginning and establish an agreed upon set of FACTS.

Please Don't jump to the end, let's talk about where we are Now with Both Houses sent into exile as God said he would in the Covenant laid out in Leviticus 26:

There is much info and prophecy fulfilled between where we are now and where you are so lets go through it all. After All it is all part of the Covenant.

[Just The Facts]

Adam doesn't that mean easily fooled by Satan and his lies.

I too can post like a heathen.

Why don't you burn me that is what religious scholars have done with those who disagree since the beginning.

The very fact that you are not willing to post verses to prove your point shows your point is only with THE DOCTRINE OF MEN.

Not only that Adam you have missed the whole point of what I said.

There are far too many scholars I can put up WELL RESPECTED WORKS THAT BACK the two House Theory. Check out some of the work of the University of Televive.

Since when EVER IN HISTORY was the scholarly work on the Truth of God ever valid.

Was it valid at Moses Time NO All the Wise men said build the calf.

Was it valid at the Fall of Israel NO they said don't worry build the false God

Was it valid at the fall of Judea No they said God will not destroy Jerusalem he Loves this city.

Was it valid at the Time of Jesus NO NO NO NO NO NO. The said We have our God you we do not know

Was it valid about the Earth being Flat NoNO No NO

Was it valid about the sun orbiting the Erath NO NO NO NO NO

Was It valid about the Stars being suns NO NO NO NO NO

Oh I see but now the Scholars have it all right. SPARE ME. Traditional Christianity is sooooo lost that it thinks evil is good.

And Yes There are more and More Scholars that are BREAKING AWAY FROM THE LIE YOU PROFESS THOUGHT UP BY THE WHORE and turning and coming to the Truth.

I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO READ THE LINKS ADAM HAS POSTED.

Then come back and talk to me bring up ant points you want I will show you miles and miles of scripture Archaeology and Historical Facts as to why and how THESE PAPERS ARE DEAD WRONG.

Adam I would suggest you have jumped the gun here and made some assumptions as to what it is I am leading too. Are you psychic or did your crystal ball tell you this did you get to talk to Satan himself.

Look Adam I WILL NEVER POST SUCH STATEMENTS AGAIN IF YOU DO NOT

If you don't have time then BYE for all who wish to debate like Sons of God please read the references provided and then ask your questions.

I can provide HUNDREDS OF VERSES to back my statements. Just grab Jeremiah and read for yourself the Two Houses are everywhere.

Here are some for just the House of Judah in GOD'S WORD

2Sam:2:4: And the men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah. And they told David, saying, That the men of Jabesh-gilead were they that buried Saul.

2Sam:2:7: Therefore now let your hands be strengthened, and be ye valiant: for your master Saul is dead, and also the house of Judah have anointed me king over them.

2Sam:2:10: Ish-bosheth Saul's son was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and reigned two years. But the house of Judah followed David.

2Sam:2:11: And the time that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months.

1Kgs:12:21: And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah, with the tribe of Benjamin, an hundred and fourscore thousand chosen men, which were warriors, to fight against the house of Israel, to bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam the son of Solomon.

1Kgs:12:23: Speak unto Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and unto all the house of Judah and Benjamin, and to the remnant of the people, saying,

2Kgs:19:30: And the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah shall yet again take root downward, and bear fruit upward.

1Chron:28:4: Howbeit the LORD God of Israel chose me before all the house of my father to be king over Israel for ever: for he hath chosen Judah to be the ruler; and of the house of Judah, the house of my father; and among the sons of my father he liked me to make me king over all Israel:

2Chron:11:1: And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he gathered of the house of Judah and Benjamin an hundred and fourscore thousand chosen men, which were warriors, to fight against Israel, that he might bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam.

2Chron:19:11: And, behold, Amariah the chief priest is over you in all matters of the LORD; and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the ruler of the house of Judah, for all the king's matters: also the Levites shall be officers before you. Deal courageously, and the LORD shall be with the good.

2Chron:22:10: But when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she arose and destroyed all the seed royal of the house of Judah.

Neh:4:16: And it came to pass from that time forth, that the half of my servants wrought in the work, and the other half of them held both the spears, the shields, and the bows, and the habergeons; and the rulers were behind all the house of Judah.

Isa:22:21: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

Isa:37:31: And the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward:

Jer:3:18: In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers.

Jer:5:11: For the house of Israel and the house of Judah have dealt very treacherously against me, saith the LORD.

Jer:11:10: They are turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers, which refused to hear my words; and they went after other gods to serve them: the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers.

Jer:11:17: For the LORD of hosts, that planted thee, hath pronounced evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke me to anger in offering incense unto Baal.

Jer:12:14: Thus saith the LORD against all mine evil neighbours, that touch the inheritance which I have caused my people Israel to inherit; Behold, I will pluck them out of their land, and pluck out the house of Judah from among them.

Jer:13:11: For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.

Jer:22:6: For thus saith the LORD unto the king's house of Judah; Thou art Gilead unto me, and the head of Lebanon: yet surely I will make thee a wilderness, and cities which are not inhabited.

Jer:31:27: Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.

Jer:31:31: Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Jer:33:14: Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah.

Jer:36:3: It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way; that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin.

Ezek:4:6: And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.

Ezek:8:17: Then he said unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here? for they have filled the land with violence, and have returned to provoke me to anger: and, lo, they put the branch to their nose.

Ezek:25:3: And say unto the Ammonites, Hear the word of the Lord GOD; Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou saidst, Aha, against my sanctuary, when it was profaned; and against the land of Israel, when it was desolate; and against the house of Judah, when they went into captivity;

Ezek:25:8: Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because that Moab and Seir do say, Behold, the house of Judah is like unto all the heathen;

Ezek:25:12: Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because that Edom hath dealt against the house of Judah by taking vengeance, and hath greatly offended, and revenged himself upon them;

Hosea:1:7: But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.

Hosea:5:12: Therefore will I be unto Ephraim as a moth, and to the house of Judah as rottenness.

Hosea:5:14: For I will be unto Ephraim as a lion, and as a young lion to the house of Judah: I, even I, will tear and go away; I will take away, and none shall rescue him.

Zeph:2:7: And the coast shall be for the remnant of the house of Judah; they shall feed thereupon: in the houses of Ashkelon shall they lie down in the evening: for the LORD their God shall visit them, and turn away their captivity.

Zech:8:13: And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, O house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing: fear not, but let your hands be strong.

Zech:8:15: So again have I thought in these days to do well unto Jerusalem and to the house of Judah: fear ye not.

Zech:8:19: Thus saith the LORD of hosts; The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness, and cheerful feasts; therefore love the truth and peace.

Zech:10:3: Mine anger was kindled against the shepherds, and I punished the goats: for the LORD of hosts hath visited his flock the house of Judah, and hath made them as his goodly horse in the battle.

Zech:10:6: And I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph, and I will bring them again to place them; for I have mercy upon them: and they shall be as though I had not cast them off: for I am the LORD their God, and will hear them.

Zech:12:4: In that day, saith the LORD, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness.

Here are some for Jacob and as you may have noticed above often THE TWO HOUSES ARE MENTIONED IN THE SAME VERSE.

Isa:2:5: O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the LORD.

Isa:2:6: Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers.

Isa:8:17: And I will wait upon the LORD, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him.

Isa:10:20: And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and such as are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth.

Isa:14:1: For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.

Isa:29:22: Therefore thus saith the LORD, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale.

Isa:46:3: Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, which are borne by me from the belly, which are carried from the womb:

Isa:48:1: Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the LORD, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth, nor in righteousness.

Isa:58:1: Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.

Jer:2:4: Hear ye the word of the LORD, O house of Jacob, and all the families of the house of Israel:

Jer:5:20: Declare this in the house of Jacob, and publish it in Judah, saying,

Ezek:20:5: And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; In the day when I chose Israel, and lifted up mine hand unto the seed of the house of Jacob, and made myself known unto them in the land of Egypt, when I lifted up mine hand unto them, saying, I am the LORD your God;

Amos:3:13: Hear ye, and testify in the house of Jacob, saith the Lord GOD, the God of hosts,

Amos:9:8: Behold, the eyes of the Lord GOD are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; saving that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the LORD.

Obad:1:17: But upon mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions.

Obad:1:18: And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken it.

Micah:2:7: O thou that art named the house of Jacob, is the spirit of the LORD straitened? are these his doings? do not my words do good to him that walketh uprightly?

Micah:3:9: Hear this, I pray you, ye heads of the house of Jacob, and princes of the house of Israel, that abhor judgment, and pervert all equity.

The house of Israel is often called by Joseph's name notice the Two houses in some of the verses.

Josh:17:17: And Joshua spake unto the house of Joseph, even to Ephraim and to Manasseh, saying, Thou art a great people, and hast great power: thou shalt not have one lot only:

Josh:18:5: And they shall divide it into seven parts: Judah shall abide in their coast on the south, and the house of Joseph shall abide in their coasts on the north.

Judg:1:22: And the house of Joseph, they also went up against Bethel: and the LORD was with them.

Judg:1:23: And the house of Joseph sent to descry Bethel. (Now the name of the city before was Luz.)

Judg:1:35: But the Amorites would dwell in mount Heres in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim: yet the hand of the house of Joseph prevailed, so that they became tributaries.

2Sam:19:20: For thy servant doth know that I have sinned: therefore, behold, I am come the first this day of all the house of Joseph to go down to meet my lord the king.

1Kgs:11:28: And the man Jeroboam was a mighty man of valour: and Solomon seeing the young man that he was industrious, he made him ruler over all the charge of the house of Joseph.

Amos:5:6: Seek the LORD, and ye shall live; lest he break out like fire in the house of Joseph, and devour it, and there be none to quench it in Bethel.

Obad:1:18: And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken it.

Zech:10:6: And I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph, and I will bring them again to place them; for I have mercy upon them: and they shall be as though I had not cast them off: for I am the LORD their God, and will hear them.


Adam my Brother read verses like this one

1Kgs:12:21: And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he assembled ALL THE HOUSE OF JUDAH, with the tribe of Benjamin, an hundred and fourscore thousand chosen men, which were warriors, to fight AGAINST THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL, to bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam the son of Solomon.

They even went to war against each other.


Do I need to post more verse s to prove that there are two different Houses

[Spokoina]

JTF: The reason the are called Lost is because they see themselves as Gentiles not of the 12 Tribes not only in the sense of not worshipping the true God but also in the loss of circumcision. Don't get me wrong some understood who they where but most did not.

You see the House of Judah where promised never to lose their Identity But God tells the The House of Jacob or Joseph or Ephraim or ISRAEL that they WILL lose their Identity and think themselves gentile right up to the end. Yet even though they will wander many Years Isaiah tell us this about them.


I am posting this here mainly to lay out for others what I have come to understand about this ten lost tribe assertions scripturally. JTF: You will have a hard time convincing me, because I have thoroughly, and open mindedly studied both sides of this issue and the overwhelming evidence Biblically directly refutes your position. I can lay it out over time, just for the sake of laying it out, but I want you to understand, it isn't like I consider seriously what you are posting now. I had, and have found too much in error.

Your first point, about the loss of identity making them considered to be Gentiles is not entirely true. Gentiles were non-Jews, and in terms of faith, became Jews by conversion, not by some magical DNA transplant. Ruth was another example. I posted Ester 8:11, where converts were also considered "JEWS", by virtue of faith, and this was OT.

The oft misquoted: Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. will NOT prove your point, rather it hinders it greatly. Gentiles is the same word, exact same word that Jesus said:

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Nations in Matt 28 and Gentiles in Matt 10 is the greek "ethnos", nations, races, non-jews and non-israelites as well. The issue was of timing, jew first then to greek, not Jew first then to lost jews. That is a huge error.



Second, Samaritans, well there you do have a mix of the ten tribes and Assyrians, historically. uh oh. Read that again very carefully! Go nowhere among the gentiles, nor the samaritans, but the lost sheep of the house of israel????? WAIT..Samaritans were from the ten tribes.

You kinda overlook that very important history, and use this "Don't take the children's bread and give it to the dogs" to insist that Jesus came only for the "lost sheep" (ten tribes), without really understanding that the samaritans were exactly part of those ten tribes themselves!


I quote here in great length from the heading "samaritans" in IBSE (International Bible standard Encyclopedia), but the info can be found in most historical sources outside of the two house theory revisionary history.

sa-mar´i-tanz (שׁמרנים, shōmerōnīm; Σαμαρεῖται, Samareitai, New Testament; Σαμαρίτης (singular), Samarítēs): The name “Samaritans” in 2Ki 17:29 clearly applies to the Israelite inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom. In subsequent history it denotes a people of mixed origin, composed of the peoples brought by the conqueror from Babylon and elsewhere to take the places of the expatriated Israelites and those who were left in the land (722 BC). Sargon claims to have carried away only 27, 290 of the inhabitants (KIB, II, 55). Doubtless these were, as in the case of Judah, the chief men, men of wealth and influence, including all the priests, the humbler classes being left to till the land, tend the vineyards, etc. Hezekiah, who came to the throne of Judah probably in 715 BC, could still appeal to the tribes Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, Asher and Zebulun (2Ch 30:5, 2Ch 30:10, 2Ch 30:11, 2Ch 30:18 ff); and the presence of these tribesmen is implied in the narrative of Josiah's reformation (2Ch 34:6 f). .....

In the intermixture that followed “their own gods” seem to have fallen on evil days; and when the Samaritans asked permission to share in building the temple under Zerubbabel, they claimed, apparently with a good conscience, to serve God and to sacrifice to Him as the Jews did (Ezr 4:1 f). Whatever justification there was for this claim, their proffered friendship was turned to deadly hostility by the blunt refusal of their request. The old enmity between north and south no doubt intensified the quarrel, and the antagonism of Jew and Samaritan, in its bitterness, was destined to pass into a proverb. The Samaritans set themselves, with great temporary success, to frustrate the work in which they were not permitted to share (Ezr 4:4 ff: Neh 4:7 ff. etc.).

From the strict administration of the Law in Jerusalem malcontents found their way to the freer atmosphere of Samaria. Among these renegades was Manasseh, brother of the high priest, who had married a daughter of Sanballat, the Persian governor of Samaria. According to Josephus, Sanballat, with the sanction of Alexander the Great, built a temple for the Samaritans on Mt. Gerizim, of which Manasseh became high priest (Ant., XI, vii, 2; viii, 2 ff). Josephus, however, places Manasseh a century too late. He was a contemporary of Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh_13:28). MY NOTE: SO THERE IS WHERE YOUR "BELOVED" FAITHLESS AND UNREPENTANT TRIBES OF EPHRAIM AND MANASSEH ENDED UP...SAMARITANS!

When it suited their purpose the Samaritans claimed relationship with the Jews, asserting that their roll of the Pentateuch was the only authentic copy (see PENTATEUCH, THE SAMARITAN); they were equally ready to deny all connection in times of stress, and even to dedicate their temple to a heathen deity (Josephus, Ant., XII, v, 5). MY NOTE: THIS IS WHY THE SAMARITAN WOMAN CAME TO JESUS, AND SAID YOU ARE THE LORD, SHE UNDERSTOOD BUT WAS FALSE FROM HER BACKGROUND ABOUT THE TRUE MESSIAH.

In 128 BC, John Hyrcanus destroyed the temple (XIII, ix, 1). In the time of Christ the Samaritans were ruled by procurators under the Roman governor of Syria. Lapse of years brought no lessening of the hatred between Jews and Samaritans (Ant., XX, vi, 1). To avoid insult and injury at the hands of the latter, Jews from Galilee were accustomed to reach the feasts at Jerusalem by way of Peraea. “Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a demon” was an expression of opprobrium (Joh 8:48). Although Jesus forbade the Twelve to go into any city of the Samaritans (Mat 10:5), the parable of the Good Samaritan shows that His love overleaped the boundaries of national hatred (Luk 10:30 ff; compare Luk_ 7:16; Joh 4:9).



Huge two house error, for they seem to be fascinated with the supposed hidden "jewel" of the ten tribes, the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" awaiting to be rediscovered and mined into the true beauty it really was, when just in fact, it was renegade faithless, unrepentant, dispersed as punishment but never lost.

It is a myth, Just for fact, and the truth, as I posted, is that they were dispersed for punishment for being filthy and unreptant, and that is why they were so despised in Jerusalem.

Now, Christ, whose standards of faith and obedience DID exceed national boundaries, tried to get the Jews out of the same trap: that trap of pride of nationalism...to the Samaritans. Jesus recognized goodness where goodness was, as a gift from God, even when it came from the samaritans...and hence the power of the Good samaritan story..overcoming nation enmity to see God working in those that men despise when it occurs. But hey, if it doesn't occur, he certainly didn't recognize it.

The story of the woman eating the master's crumbs illustrates this even more. The fact she came, saying he was the Lord, and in the spirit of the ten tribe mix in Samaria was wrong, and it was not honest...pretending to be a faithful servant when her true background was proud, unrepentant and idolatrous, as if she was entitled to eat from the Master's table-- this was what Jesus was addressing.

And when she became repentful, said, yes, even the dogs eat from under the master's table, how powerful that heart of repentance and honesty from an unrepentant and proud ten triber that was! Jesus extended her mercy at that point. What a merciful God!


Mat 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
Mat 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
Mat 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
Mat 15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.


There is more. Enough for now, but as I said, this is historical Just facts.

[Just The Facts]

Hi Spokonia

I will read your whole post through a couple of Times but it strikes me already you are using arguments against British Israelisism.

I AM NOT MAKING SUCH A CLAIM.

Did you not read that I agreed with you on the final out come.

I said
Quote
"Your assertion is true AND VERY WELL BACKED I MIGHT ADD and where I will be at the end of it all.

Maybe you should stop jumping past where I am and STOP ASSUMING you know where I am going.

The Question I asked of everyone is this

IN 585 BC WHERE THERE TWO DIFFERENT HOUSES?????

NOt after Jesus BUT IN 586 BC

[Spokoina]

Again, the houses were divided for purification of faith. God separating and punishing faithlessness, not hiding some hidden seed.

That is not just Brit israelism. It is the theory that has taken off in lots of directions, based on the assertions you make about the ten.

[Just The Facts]

.Hi

You are quoting arguments that I have never made verses I have never quoted.

Such as going out to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.

you are jumping past where i am and assuming you know where I am leading.

You do not know.

It really is a simple Question did God in 586 BC see the Hebrews as two separate houses.

You must agree at this point in History this assertion is true.

I have not made one single quote from the New testament because WE ARE NOT THERE YET we are in 586BC.

So once again is there two Houses in Gods eyes AT THIS POINT IN HISTORY.

Oh and I believe you have misunderstood the woman and the Dog and the scraps.

This woman is Gentile that is why she calls herself a Dog and so does Jesus the Term "dog" was commonly used to denote Gentiles by Jews.

[Just The Facts]

Since you have to read the last page of the book first here is where I am going.

Israel is Christianity all of the promises to Abraham and the Hebrews are fulfilled in Christianity whether by blood or by faith we are all one in Gods eyes and the only way to Become part of the Olive Tree is through our lord Jesus Christ.

Now can we get back to the beginning of the story so that all who are reading can learn and understand the truth of Gods word and prophecy so that all can stop following the many varied doctrines of the Whore. There are so many to witness the Truth to and (oh by the way the witness thing does not mean I am JW) it is best if they first understand the beginning, understand all the characters involved so that they do not end up being led by those who are in the dark themselves.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Oh by the way this is all said with a big SMILE

[Just The Facts]

Hi Dee Dee

there is a problem with the text boxes in your software.

If you try and highlight and copy in has trouble and cause the browser to crash. Not every time but quite often.

I think it may have to do with the background where you choose the background select none and it may well fix the problem.

It could also be the software needs to be reinstalled I am sure you know how to do this stuff.

Well the paste worked but then it would not let me send you this email. said a field was not choosen all of them where choosen


Bye for Now
Peace
Stephen

[Manasseh]

JTF

So now your saying that Christians are the physical descendants of Abraham? or are you saying those that are saved are saved either by Faith or by physical descent from Abraham?

"Now Jacob claims the two sons of Joseph as his own, calling them Ephraim and Manasseh rather than Manasseh and Ephraim in order of their birth (v. 5). This was not just a whim of Jacob's old age, but history has proved it to be an important matter. Jacob had 12 sons at the time, the exact number of administrative completeness. Why should he give Joseph an extra place among the tribes by naming them after his two sons? The wisdom of God was in this, for later we find that Levi was given no distinctive inheritance among the tribes (Num. 1: 47-53) because that tribe was separated in order to do the service of God in the tabernacle and among all the tribes. Thus the 12 tribes were each given their distinct inheritance in the land of Canaan, while the Levites were dispersed among the tribes."

I reject that Judah is essetually separate from Israel.

There are verses in the NT that make no distinction e.g.

Joh 1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

Act 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

With

Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

and

Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Regards
M

[Just The Facts]

It is not NOW that I am saying anything why can't we just go through this one step at a time.

This is so funny some one else says OH I THINK HE IS SAYING this

I SAY NO

They that is wrong because of this

I say I never said that nor will I ever say that.

They say you are still wrong .

How can I be wrong if I NEVER SAID THAT.

Here is my question

Question: were there two distinct and separate houses in Gods eyes in 586 BC

Now you said

Quote
I reject that Judah is essetually separate from Israel.
End Quote

GOD SAYS

21: And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah, with the tribe of Benjamin, an hundred and fourscore thousand chosen men, which were warriors, to fight against the house of Israel, to bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam the son of Solomon. 22: But the word of God came unto Shemaiah the man of God, saying,23: Speak unto Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and unto all the house of Judah and Benjamin, and to the remnant of the people, saying, 24: Thus saith the LORD, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren the children of Israel: return every man to his house; for this thing is from me. They hearkened therefore to the word of the LORD, and returned to depart, according to the word of the LORD. 25: Then Jeroboam built Shechem in mount Ephraim, and dwelt therein; and went out from thence, and built Penuel. 26: And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David:

Here when the House of Judah was going up to retake control of the Northern Tribes …………………TO MAKE SURE JUDAH WAS NOT SEPARATE from Israel …………………

GOD tells them the splitting of the two houses WAS OF HIS DOING.

Below it says unto this day THIS DAY WAS 586 BC in Babylon

1Kgs:12:19: So Israel rebelled against the house of David unto this day.

Now lets NOT jump to the end IS THERE TWO HOUSES IN GODS EYES AT THIS TIME. YES ......OR ......NO

[cjf375ptl]

I very much liked the article you posted regarding dispensationalism, which I believe is full of error. Here are a couple of things I'd like to say regarding the Hebrew word "everlasting" and "future rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem."

1. The Hebrew word "everlasting" regarding Abraham's possesion of the physical land God promised him and his seed obviously cannot mean "eternal," but rather "long duration" or similar. Why? Because prophetic Scripture foretells the literal passing away/destruction of the present heavens and earth, which that promised land is a part of (eg, NAS, Rev 21:1, Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.)

2. Your article states "Nothing in the New Testament is said about a return to the land or a rebuilding of the temple..."

Actually, in the New Testament, both Christ and Paul strongly imply that the temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt after its destruction (which as you know, occured in 70 A.D. by the Romans).

Christ states, in Mat 24:15 15 "Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place... 21 For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will." (NAS) The proof that this refers to the future time just before Christ returns to earth to establish His millenial reign--and not to anything that has already occured--follows. In relation to this, Paul states, in 2The 2:1-9 "Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him ... the day of the Lord has come ... it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? 6 And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. 8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;
9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders,"

The "abomination of desolation" and "man of lawlessness" are one and the same--the future antichrist. So far, there is no recorded historical event in which Christ "slew with the breath of His mouth and brought to an end by the appearance of His coming" an individual who specificly took his seat in the temple of God and proclaimed himself God. Since this has not happened yet, therefore, for this to be fufilled, the temple in Jerusalem in which the man of lawlessness does this, has yet to be built. Non-Christian Jews will rebuild the temple because they don't believe in Christ, who did away with animal blood sacrifices once and for all time. Consequentlly, they have for years been recreating the temple utensils and have been trying to obtain a red hefer, etc., for the day when they finally do rebuild the temple as they plan to do.

NOTE that just because the temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt in fufillment of prophecy, does not mean that Dispensationalism is alright.