Can modern Israel really still claim God's promise to Abraham?

[1LoverofGod]

EDITED as of 10:41 Saturday PST, 10-4-25...so sorry for the typos...it was late. It should read much more straight forward for any who might have already given it a shot. A very important issue of discussion. Amen...and blessings.

Thanks Pastor. lol. I believe I was answering the wrong question. Forgive me brother. Originally i was thinking it was how we might view if the Abrahamic covenant is in effect today and if so how. lol. Although you were kind of asking that in reference to their land, I think I decided to take it into another county. Wow. So sorry. Ok, so as far as the land, yes, as TT pointed out. They will have it in the millennial kingdom. I guess how i might understand it specifically is that prior to 1948, they may have had a right to it, but experientially only when God would determine the end of the diaspora. But yes, that land given to them in the Old Testament is theirs forever. Amen. In that sense though, in diaspora they did not have God's permission to dwell in the land promised for 2,000 years. On account of their chastisement from the first century.

The point I was going after like a cat playfully attacking a string of yarn like, was even though they are on their land as promised, they will in the short term (Ezekiel 38) lose some of it for a minute from that war. From discipline + a likely entrance into the tribulation....the cat walk unto the thousand year reign.

Although God promised an eternal covenant with Israel, they would be susceptible to chastisement if they themselves did not honor it. For example the 70 years in captivity, not permitted to their land for that time. And Lamentations capturing what it looked like for Israel to cling to their land during a period God would not permit them to dwell therein. I would see that same aspect of their wondering the desert (even at their initial timeframe to receive that land). And a 40 year interval of God not permitting Israel to receive their promise, even initially again because of discipline.

I agree pastor it is an eternal covenant initiated and kept by God, thus the burning furnace and pillar of cloud passing between the pieces. What i was just referring to earlier would be like Gen 17:10, where even in this covenant made and kept by God alone, Israel being able to benefit from and experience its core blessing, they were to remain obedient. So a promise that is eternally secure for Israel, and kept by God as an eternal promise and eternal offering. Yet, Israel's ability to experience it would seem to have some notions of Israeli obedience to experience the fullest blessing of it. So like God does not keep that promise dependent on their obedience--as example they live there today...not so obedient. So God keeps it always and does not end or annul the covenant based on Israel's obedience. But for Israel to lay hold of that promise biblically would seem accessed through faith in living action of obedience.

Again, the promise itself is set forever. The endowment fully realized concerning Israel would seem to have conditions though, no? If their dwelling in their land is symbolic of that eternal promise, it is enjoyed by Israel in their obedience. And from an historic view, it would seem that the world gets to see God provide them with their land regardless of their obedience (but still, wow, with a lot of contemporary tension...that is for sure). A graced expressed of the God of that covenant to them before all. That the fact that Israel is dwelling there in Ez 37 manner, amidst all the controversy...testifies to the "eternity" of that promise God gave to Israel.

I would though suggest "this" [the following] sense is a part of what is expressed in God's word too though brother. Experientially in noticing how that functioned in their wandering the desert for 40 years, and the Babylonian exile for 70.

9 God said further to Abraham, “Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your [j]descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.

14 But as for an uncircumcised male, one who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

Blessings.

God has chastised His people Israel for their disobedience and rebellion every time they did so. They are still in disbelief, and are in temporary spiritual blindness, but God's plan for Israel is a promise God will keep.

Exile from the land has been one way God has chastised them, but even in exile the land has Always belonged to the nation of Israel.
Removing the land ownership itself was never part of the chastisement.
God never took the covenant promised land away from them, but whenever God led them back to the land it was because that is where God chose for His people to be.
The land of Israel a permanent residence for His people, that is why Jerusalem was chosen by God to be where is presence would be for the nation of Israel to worship Him.

Speaking of Jerusalem....

"But you are to seek the place the Lord your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for His dwelling. To that place you must go” (Deuteronomy 12:5).

God never took the land away from Israel, even when they were scattered among the nations.
The land is prominently God's land, and when He chose to bring Israel back into the land, whether from Egypt or from all the nations, the land God gave to them is prophetically part of God's plan to ultimately restore the nation of Israel in completeness, in salvation, reconciliation with God, and the covenants promises coming to fruition, when they receive Messiah Jesus as their Savior during Jacob's trouble, and during the Millennial Reign of Jesus into the New Heavens and New Earth forever

 

[1LoverofGod]

It should be encouraging to know God never breaks His promises.
God doesnt change.
Gods promises to Israel and how He has dealt with them sheds light on how His Love and Mercy abounds, and that should give us hope in that same Love and Mercy God has towards the church as His children who we are.

The Character of God is unchanging.

“For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed."
Malachi 3:6

"For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope."
Romans 15:4

God wouldn't break His promise even for a time, because everlasting means everlasting......

"And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.
8 Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”
Genesis 17:7-8

 

[TCC]

So the you in Genesis 12:3 is best considered as: Abraham and his (genetic) descendants throughout the ages?

Because of Galatians, it kind of means both I believe. Let's ask this question, who is more important here, Christ or Abraham? We don't see types of Abraham in the old testament. But we do of Christ. I am just being a little playful here. But the things is, I think because of Galatians it has to mean both. And ultimately it means Christ and all in Him...not descended Jews who did not believe (although generically it is true "a bunch of people" saved and unsaved will come from his lions).

To me I am not concerned with replacement theology. I was in the reformed camp for 25 years. So i'm not really thrown by is it physical Jews or spiritual. I do believe ultimately because of Christ the Seed is Him. But since the Jews (Gods chosen people) and the covenant as it relates to that line and the promise God made, it also refers to all the Jews since. And the ones going through the tribulation. And the ones saved in it. And the ones who will rule with Christ from Jerusalem on earth for 1,000 years.

So for me its not either or but both and. However i don't use that argument to not land soundly on either side. I am hopeful i am sound on both sides. So on the side that deals with Israeli land (which is what the thesis is for this thread) i would say that that land is promised to them eternally. And they will reign on it. But as we have seen over the centuries God has used keeping the land from Israel (even though promised) is generally related to their cooperation. Not the promise of it. That is not affected. And will be theirs no matter what for the 1,000 year reign. It is a divine appointment. Israel will not lose it. It is guaranteed. No matter what.

But in the meantime we have seen how God has kept it from Israel at times of discipline. Heck, even Moses was not allowed to go on it though Abraham was promised it for them prior. Because why? Because Moses dishonored God. That does not mean that the promise is subject to obedience. That just means that whether God permits them to experience fully what was promised is kind of sovereignly in His hands. This make sense though, yes? I am just not sure why might be confusing though. Not that you are confused by what i might mean. You are just asking. But I just stated what i did earlier because...

Well just generally what i have seen in eschatology circles is like the church's role is to quarterback how Isreal is doing in relation to that promise. Things like, "Israel should not go with the Abraham Accords because its a trap," as if Israel was under some kind covenant with God at the local level. Israel is by no means coming from obedience. So it does not make sense, at least in my mind, if Israel should go left or right. Either way, they are moving in rejection of Christ. And great stories and theories are formed on presuming Israel is in some state of obedience. If we say the Abrahamic Covenant is without condition then who cares what Israel does or does not do. It does not matter. But yet it seems some how evangelicalism has because of a genuinely good vibe to want to honor God in loving on Isreal somehow seems to create like a story board thing where the church can discern what is all going on up in Israel.

So for me, i am just saying, they are not honoring God in obedience. The Abrahamic Covenant is God doing whatever He wants with it...because ultimately He will have them on that land ruling with Him. In the meantime its quite enough to understand the middle east in flux eschatologically. But it might be even more difficult if we see Israel in some sense honoring God or in some covenant that has them doing something. They are partially hardened and there is no real response from them. So God in His mercy is showcasing His Abrahamic Covenant with them in what Israel does not deserve in their partially hardened state. And the whold dang world is high octane involved with that. Which is awesome precious. Likely this story in the age of grace ends with Israel losing 2/3rds of their people. And God reviving them for the tribulation.

I apologize if i am not tracking with the best purpose and intent of this thread. I am very interested in this subject and have had many discussions on it. I can always learn more though. But I get the feeling I am not really discussing this in the framework intended. If so I apologize. But it would be great for some guidance in the thesis that is best for this thread. Blessings.

 

[TCC]

God has chastised His people Israel for their disobedience and rebellion every time they did so. They are still in disbelief, and are in temporary spiritual blindness, but God's plan for Israel is a promise God will keep.

Exile from the land has been one way God has chastised them, but even in exile the land has Always belonged to the nation of Israel.
Removing the land ownership itself was never part of the chastisement.
God never took the covenant promised land away from them, but whenever God led them back to the land it was because that is where God chose for His people to be.
The land of Israel a permanent residence for His people, that is why Jerusalem was chosen by God to be where is presence would be for the nation of Israel to worship Him.

Speaking of Jerusalem....

"But you are to seek the place the Lord your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for His dwelling. To that place you must go” (Deuteronomy 12:5).

God never took the land away from Israel, even when they were scattered among the nations.
The land is prominently God's land, and when He chose to bring Israel back into the land, whether from Egypt or from all the nations, the land God gave to them is prophetically part of God's plan to ultimately restore the nation of Israel in completeness, in salvation, reconciliation with God, and the covenants promises coming to fruition, when they receive Messiah Jesus as their Savior during Jacob's trouble, and during the Millennial Reign of Jesus into the New Heavens and New Earth forever

I agree with everything said here. Amen. I started off on the wrong foot thinking this thread was leaning perhaps a certain way i got into. But ok so my "guess" is that maybe it might sound like i mean that God takes the land back from Israel? If so i never said that at least intentionally. But like for 2k years God would not let them take possession. I would not say God took the land back from them and broke His promise. I would just say, He would not allow them to experience the fullness of what is theirs. Which as i say that kind of rings a bell in my own life...lol. So this is edifying amen.

But if i had to pin the tail on some donkey, I would pin it on this one: "Is it ok for the Trump Admin to keep Israel from annexing Gaza?" Now that might be a thesis mirror. If so, I used to be on JD's side where the Deal of the Century seemed to break up Jerusalem. Jack Hibbs argued it was ok. JD argued it was not. At the time i sided with JD because i had never been anywhere else on that issue before. But apparently what happened is that it would seem Trump pulled a fast one and did the Abraham Accords instead. lol. So i think most of us knew Palestine would never agree to terms anyway. So it was just a paper gesture we were arguing about at the time.

But now? If we are going to be adamant (not saying we are....but this is where i would see grooves possibly in the discussion surface) about how things might go lets say for Gaza, then i think we should get a group of Christians together, team up with insider Israeli's and do one million man sit in around the Aqsa Mosque and demand this site be given back to Israel for their temple mount proper. And die sitting in if necessary. But instead its like we hear arguments about Gaza this or that.

So i am just saying the above because i see Gaza as still in the Lord's discretion of discipline toward Israel. He may let them have it all. He may not let them have much of Gaza. In a way in the big picture this is all heading toward Ez 38 anyway...so whatever goes down there in my view will be very temporary, i believe. I understand the principle of the thing. A lot of people want to see Israel have Gaza back. I agree. I want that too. But what i want more is whatever God in His sovereignty will do with that for them. I feel like we are talking about the same thing though. Am i missing something?

 

[1LoverofGod]

I agree with everything said here. Amen. I started off on the wrong foot thinking this thread was leaning perhaps a certain way i got into. But ok so my "guess" is that maybe it might sound like i mean that God takes the land back from Israel? If so i never said that at least intentionally. But like for 2k years God would not let them take possession. I would not say God took the land back from them and broke His promise. I would just say, He would not allow them to experience the fullness of what is theirs. Which as i say that kind of rings a bell in my own life...lol. So this is edifying amen.

But if i had to pin the tail on some donkey, I would pin it on this one: "Is it ok for the Trump Admin to keep Israel from annexing Gaza?" Now that might be a thesis mirror. If so, I used to be on JD's side where the Deal of the Century seemed to break up Jerusalem. Jack Hibbs argued it was ok. JD argued it was not. At the time i sided with JD because i had never been anywhere else on that issue before. But apparently what happened is that it would seem Trump pulled a fast one and did the Abraham Accords instead. lol. So i think most of us knew Palestine would never agree to terms anyway. So it was just a paper gesture we were arguing about at the time.

But now? If we are going to be adamant (not saying we are....but this is where i would see grooves possibly in the discussion surface) about how things might go lets say for Gaza, then i think we should get a group of Christians together, team up with insider Israeli's and do one million man sit in around the Aqsa Mosque and demand this site be given back to Israel for their temple mount proper. And die sitting in if necessary. But instead its like we hear arguments about Gaza this or that.

So i am just saying the above because i see Gaza as still in the Lord's discretion of discipline toward Israel. He may let them have it all. He may not let them have much of Gaza. In a way in the big picture this is all heading toward Ez 38 anyway...so whatever goes down there in my view will be very temporary, i believe. I understand the principle of the thing. A lot of people want to see Israel have Gaza back. I agree. I want that too. But what i want more is whatever God in His sovereignty will do with that for them. I feel like we are talking about the same thing though. Am i missing something?

While God permits things to happen, it doesnt mean He is leading it nor approving of it.
God permits evil, but not because He approves of it.
The Gaza issue doesnt necessarily have to be over God's disciplinary actions towards Israel.
Evil exists from among Israel's adversaries without it having to be Israel's fault.
Its not that God would let them have Gaza as though its His will to let them have it, but He would allow the dividing of Israel to happen because He knows the end from the beginning, and God has already made it known in His Prophetic Word in advance that His land would be divided, but while He allows it to happen its for His purpose, so all will know He is The Lord when He judges the nations for doing harm to His people, and for dividing His land, according to Joel 3:2.

I think even in Israel's disobedience, God has continued to demonstrate that He is still doing good in behalf of His people. Only God could be the One Who has kept Israel from genocide and complete annihilation from her enemies.
Israel is surrounded by enemies. If they all attacked Israel together, Israel would be gone. But it wont happen, because God wont let it happen.
Israel has survived because of God's Mercy and Grace because He knows they will receive Jesus in acknowledgement as their Messiah for the completion of God's plan for them.

 

[TCC]

Good point. I agree. Discipline, however, has a familiar history concerning their land. Whatever else God might do aside providentially is not as easy of a landing the plane type of understandable. And would be almost too hugely speculative though to demonstrate consideration as example reasons as for why God might permit dividing. We talk about not dividing Israel as something many see as something to "stand" with Israel regarding. And well we should, amen. Its a covenant God has over Israel. But just as it may not be for disciplinary reasons, for what ever reasons, it has not been made known to us the reasons for Israel not to annex Gaza. We know God does not want Israel divided. But since we don't know for what reason He might permit Israel not to have Gaza for now, I would not think affirming that God not permitting Israel Gaza be answered with conclusions the church may make. Like understanding God does not want Isreal divided, is true. But what might also be equally true is God may permit here, for unknown providential reasons, a granting of Gaza to remain not theirs, yet for a time. And with that being true (if it were) understanding their division as something God has promised He does not want may not mean He won't allow it for strategic ends. And if He permits it to divide for strategic providence, we would not know some things according to His unfolding plans in that. Which in His sovereign care, might mean something other for His purposes.

For example believers asserted for the Deal of the Century not to divide Israel. But on paper it would have seemedt to have been strategic toward the formation of the Abraham Accords No one saw that coming. @Hol had noted it is believed the reason why Trump said he won't let Bibi annex Gaza is to get some overt conservative Israeli group off from pressuring Bibi. And if that is true, it is likely that there would be something likely coming that is perhaps to be a surprise. And if so, it would have been the strategic hand of God possibly selling the appearance of not allowing Israel to annex. Like some creative way to annex Gaza no one is thinking like. In a potential like that, to believe that Trump is turning on Israel and becoming closer friends with Israel's enemies (which i am not saying you are saying...but some are) may not be the best way to consider how to think upon the various players involved, was kind of my point. Just like Abraham Accords. At least in some circles we made it about not divided Jerusalem. But in reality (because Palestine would never go for it anyway) some had concern that Jerusalem might have been divided. But that was a "look over there, not over here," optic. That worked. This Gaza issue has similar earmarks. If that makes sense?

 

[mattfivefour]

I'm not sure I understand the disconnect though pastor. How is it conflating though? Well, the way I am asking it is like this: If we look at Gen 15 and say it is eternal and whatever is made in 17 has no bearing...I am not sure of the point on that. Surely 15 does not mean that Israel would occupy its land from the time of capture and forevermore. If we say "eternal" in that respect, then 40 years they did not have their land, and 70 years they did not have their land, and 2,000 years they did not have their land. So they are on their land experiencing the eternal covenant. The fact that we can say, "they are back" means God would not let them have their land for 2,000 years providentially. Respectfully brother to just say I'm conflating i don't think helps clarify the reality that the land of Israel belongs to them experientially under conditions. Because that is kind of what we have seen for centuries, no? That is not to say chapter 15 is not eternal. But what it does not mean is that Israel could have insisted to God after rejecting their Messiah that He keep their land because of the eternal Gen 15 promise, though, and not let Rome chase them from their own land, correct? What am i missing?

Maybe I just did not understand your points, brother. I saw both Genesis 15 and 17 mentioned almost in one breath and it seemed to me --perhaps erroneously (for which I sincerely apologize if I misunderstood)-- that you were not differentiating between the covenant in Genesis 15 which is unconditional and the one in Genesis 17 which I believe is clearly largely conditional.

 

[mattfivefour]

I apologize if i am not tracking with the best purpose and intent of this thread. I am very interested in this subject and have had many discussions on it. I can always learn more though. But I get the feeling I am not really discussing this in the framework intended. If so I apologize. But it would be great for some guidance in the thesis that is best for this thread. Blessings.

I think you're tracking right on target, brother. You bring some fresh ideas. And that provokes discussion, obviously. But that is good, as we seek to understand this topic more fully.

 

[AnyMinute]

I have been asked to begin a discussion on the subject of Israel and the land they occupy. Specifically, does Israel have an existing right to that land? And if so, just how much land?

@ mattfivefour
Has the question been answered adequately for the person you started the thread for?
I'm curious because I have some other thoughts that have been rattling around for days but I didn't want to stray too far off topic.
I think these thoughts are in the natural progression of the Abrahamic Covenant but feel free to move or delete if it muddies the water of the original question.


There's an interesting detail in God's promise to Isaac, which is made upon the promise to Abraham, in Genesis 26:3-4

Dwell in this land, and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. 4And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed;

The word seed in this translation is what I find to be especially of interest. The word in Hebrew is often translated 'offspring' or 'descendant' which are also correct though I think 'seed' gives the clearer implied meaning.
My daily reading is in the book of Romans right now and here's one of many NT scripture speaking of Abraham.

Romans 4:13
For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world was not given through the law, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.

Here we see offspring used, some translations use the word descendants.

The book of Galatians makes it more clear why 'seed' is a better fit in Genesis 26:4 (IMHO).
Galatians 3:16
16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say, “and to seeds,” meaning many, but “and to your seed,” meaning One, who is Christ.…

Now offspring or descendant singular works but seed drives home the point that Jesus is that seed back in Genesis 26:4, from the lineage of Abraham, in whom all the promised blessings will be fulfilled!

Another aspect that relates to this thread is that not just the Abrahamic Covenant, but all the blood covenants including the Mosaic Covenant, whether conditional or unconditional, all point to the New Covenant.
The New Covenant is an unconditional blood covenant!
The covenant with Abraham was a type and mirrored the covenant that Christ would enter into with His own blood.

I just found it interesting that even when looking back through all the covenants, starting with the Adamic Covenant, they all point to and are ultimately fulfilled in Jesus through His shed blood at the cross and His resurrection.

Those who are covered by His blood and are justified by faith-

Romans 3:21-26
21But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all [f]and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24being justified [g]freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God set forth as a [h]propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

are also partakers in the blessings promised to come through Abraham and his descendants (including Jesus).
Galatians 3:26-29

26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

[mattfivefour]

Absolutely correct, brother! Well done. But, that being so (ie: the covenant with Abraham being a type), should we then spiritualize the promise given to Abraham and nullify physical Israel's claim to the land today? After all, Christ and His followers fulfill the type. Or does that promise to Abraham's physical descendants still hold true?

 

[Hol]

@Hol had noted it is believed the reason why Trump said he won't let Bibi annex Gaza is to get some overt conservative Israeli group off from pressuring Bibi.

Did I write that? If I did, it was an error. The issue was when Trump said Israel should stop efforts to annex Judea & Samaria, or the Westbank. I suggested that Netanyahu had his far right threatening to split his govt.

Because of Galatians, it kind of means both I believe. Let's ask this question, who is more important here, Christ or Abraham? We don't see types of Abraham in the old testament. But we do of Christ. I am just being a little playful here. But the things is, I think because of Galatians it has to mean both. And ultimately it means Christ and all in Him...not descended Jews who did not believe (although generically it is true "a bunch of people" saved and unsaved will come from his lions).

Hmmm

A couple of things: 1) Christ’s church does not inherit land, 2) He will rule the earth from Jerusalem soon, and 3) gentiles are reminded to stop entertaining that we can boast over our Jewish roots (we are grafted in).

@TCC maybe you haven’t dug into Bible reading in the OT? I only ask because it seems that you may not grasp the significance of God’s covenants?

Reading the OT several times I’ve got to say it was a huge relief to learn that there’s a good reason for the deep details about property, boundaries, inheritance and long genealogies. I love seeing Jesus in the OT, and He will fulfill His promises to Abraham and place Jews in Israel.

Brother, most of us are not Jewish. Jesus wasn’t planning on equally promising the church and Jews the land of Israel. Christ and all in Him means that God developed this entire plan with covenants (un or conditional) to glorify Himself, focused first on Jesus. He chose that through Abraham the world would be blessed and that includes the subset we know as Christ’s church.

And I always love reading your ending… Blessings!

 

[TCC]

Did I write that? If I did, it was an error. The issue was when Trump said Israel should stop efforts to annex Judea & Samaria, or the Westbank. I suggested that Netanyahu had his far right threatening to split his govt.


Hmmm

A couple of things: 1) Christ’s church does not inherit land, 2) He will rule the earth from Jerusalem soon, and 3) gentiles are reminded to stop entertaining that we can boast over our Jewish roots (we are grafted in).

@TCC maybe you haven’t dug into Bible reading in the OT? I only ask because it seems that you may not grasp the significance of God’s covenants?

Reading the OT several times I’ve got to say it was a huge relief to learn that there’s a good reason for the deep details about property, boundaries, inheritance and long genealogies. I love seeing Jesus in the OT, and He will fulfill His promises to Abraham and place Jews in Israel.

Brother, most of us are not Jewish. Jesus wasn’t planning on equally promising the church and Jews the land of Israel. Christ and all in Him means that God developed this entire plan with covenants (un or conditional) to glorify Himself, focused first on Jesus. He chose that through Abraham the world would be blessed and that includes the subset we know as Christ’s church.

And I always love reading your ending… Blessings!

Hi Hol. Thanks for your reply.

REGARDING BIBI -- This was your qoute:

If what I heard is true, you can cheer up

Bibi wanted to have an excuse to get his right wing off his back. They were threatening to shut Netanyahu’s govt down if he didn’t annex Judea and Samaria URGENTLY. Israel has one priority and that is exterminating the threat from Hamas.

CONCERNING GALATIANS
15 Brothers and sisters, I speak [v]in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s [w]covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds [x]conditions to it. 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as one would in referring to many, but rather as in referring to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. 17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came 430 years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is [y]based on law, it is no longer [z]based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

Which covenant is that then though?

I mention it because the word mentions it. I did not mean to suggest that Christ in Gal 3 gives what was promised to Israel in land is to go to the church. The clear correlation though is that correlation of decedents being in Christ not Abraham ultimately. Would you say that is not accurate though? When I look at this verse it is not that I am thinking God gave gentiles Israel. I believe that will be fulfilled in the 1,000 year reign unique to Israel. I don't see anything related to land in Gal 3. That was not my focus. Nor the focus on Gal 3. But are we to say that "seed" rather than "seeds" does not mean that Christ is the ultimate descendant of "the promise?"

Blessings.

 

[Spartan Sprinter]

My random question is whether there is an earthly Jerusalem and a new Jerusalem that co exist during the millenial kingdom ?

Hi Hol. Thanks for your reply.

REGARDING BIBI -- This was your qoute:

If what I heard is true, you can cheer up

Bibi wanted to have an excuse to get his right wing off his back. They were threatening to shut Netanyahu’s govt down if he didn’t annex Judea and Samaria URGENTLY. Israel has one priority and that is exterminating the threat from Hamas.

CONCERNING GALATIANS
15 Brothers and sisters, I speak [v]in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s [w]covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds [x]conditions to it. 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as one would in referring to many, but rather as in referring to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. 17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came 430 years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is [y]based on law, it is no longer [z]based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

Which covenant is that then though?

I mention it because the word mentions it. I did not mean to suggest that Christ in Gal 3 gives what was promised to Israel in land is to go to the church. The clear correlation though is that correlation of decedents being in Christ not Abraham ultimately. Would you say that is not accurate though? When I look at this verse it is not that I am thinking God gave gentiles Israel. I believe that will be fulfilled in the 1,000 year reign unique to Israel. I don't see anything related to land in Gal 3. That was not my focus. Nor the focus on Gal 3. But are we to say that "seed" rather than "seeds" does not mean that Christ is the ultimate descendant of "the promise?"

Blessings.

 

[TCC]

My random question is whether there is an earthly Jerusalem and a new Jerusalem that co exist during the millenial kingdom ?

I've been briefed on that. But if i tell you i will have to kill you. However, I did get a hall pass and also stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. So there might be some wiggle room. I'l put in a good word for you so you don't end up on somebodies list, if i can help it.

. . . . .

That is a interesting question. Like what happens in the Jerusalem above before it comes down as the final state. Like is there something going on with that while its up there? Or is it just on standby for the eternal state? I never thought of that before.

In Rev 21 the description does not sound like it had peeps doing stuff in it prior. There is no statement that echoes something like that. But what a wonderful place to turn our thoughts brother. To think that we are not the temple of the Lord, but that He will be the temple...wow...and the light. He will MAX OUT on His person toward His creation. Wow. What a God.

22 I saw no [q]temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its [r]temple. 23And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb. 24The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth

 

[Hol]

The clear correlation though is that correlation of decedents being in Christ not Abraham ultimately. Would you say that is not accurate though?

I’m known in my classes at church for loving and knowing more about the Hebrew Bible (OT) than any others (and hopefully less than our new incoming pastor).

There is so much to understand! I could never grasp and appreciate it all in 100-yrs. One thing I’ve begun to grasp is God as the Husbandman. He patiently selects Abraham and cultivates through Issac and Jacob a flourishing vineyard rescued from Egypt. Thousands of years later, after many prunings we get Isaiah 53:

1 Who hath believed our message? and to whom hath the arm of Jehovah been revealed?

2 For he grew up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

3 He was despised, and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised; and we esteemed him not.

The patient Husbandman is bringing about a Marvelous Seed, The Messiah.

God’s relationship with Abraham is incredible & unique. I found this blog and want to ask you if can suss out where I’m going? The Befriending God - Credo Magazine

“Enoch and Noah, like Adam and Eve before them, walked with God. And what did they find as a result of friendship with God? Enoch found unending life instead of death, and Noah found deliverance instead of destruction. Here, even on the first pages of the Bible, we find God as the great friend of sinners.

And he has a plan. God will reconcile people to himself from every generation and every nation. But God’s plan to befriend many comes through his relationship with one. God called Abraham “my friend” (Isa. 41:8; also 2 Chron. 20:7). James later wrote that Abraham “was called a friend of God” (James 2:23).

In Genesis 18, God treated Abraham as a friend when he was about to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. He didn’t need to tell Abraham these plans. Yet he said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?” (Gen. 18:17). He added, “For I have known him”—a deeply relational idea (v. 19 ESV alternate reading). Thomas Goodwin observed here that God “could not do a great thing, but he must tell his friend of it. He speaks as one shackled and restrained by the laws of friendship.”[3] Abraham then interceded for Sodom, and he did so quite boldly, as only a friend would dare. This conversation was full of transparency and candor.

In Genesis 18, God treated Abraham as a friend, but then in Genesis 22, Abraham treats God as a friend. God tested him by asking him to sacrifice his son, and Abraham showed unwavering faith. He trusted that God could even raise his son from the dead. This is why James called Abraham God’s friend (James 2:21–23). His loyalty proved his friendship—this is James’s point. Abraham’s obedience to God demonstrated his faith in God, which proved his friendship with God.“ (emphasis mine)

Long winding post…

It’s through God’s friendship with Abraham that Jesus is The Seed.

God Himself has forever been in a loving relationship. (That’s explained in the doctrine of aseity.) He reaches out to rescue fallen mankind through His relationship of the vine Israel to produce Jesus. The church is grafted in.

The clear correlation though is that correlation of decedents being in Christ not Abraham ultimately. Would you say that is not accurate though?

Christ is in Abraham when He became incarnate.

 

[mattfivefour]

Christ is in Abraham when He became incarnate.

Yet He can say, "Amen, amen. I say to you, before Abraham was I am."

Doesn't the mystery of God just boggle your mind?

 

[TCC]

I’m known in my classes at church for loving and knowing more about the Hebrew Bible (OT) than any others (and hopefully less than our new incoming pastor).

There is so much to understand! I could never grasp and appreciate it all in 100-yrs. One thing I’ve begun to grasp is God as the Husbandman. He patiently selects Abraham and cultivates through Issac and Jacob a flourishing vineyard rescued from Egypt. Thousands of years later, after many prunings we get Isaiah 53:

1 Who hath believed our message? and to whom hath the arm of Jehovah been revealed?

2 For he grew up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

3 He was despised, and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised; and we esteemed him not.

The patient Husbandman is bringing about a Marvelous Seed, The Messiah.

God’s relationship with Abraham is incredible & unique. I found this blog and want to ask you if can suss out where I’m going? The Befriending God - Credo Magazine

“Enoch and Noah, like Adam and Eve before them, walked with God. And what did they find as a result of friendship with God? Enoch found unending life instead of death, and Noah found deliverance instead of destruction. Here, even on the first pages of the Bible, we find God as the great friend of sinners.

And he has a plan. God will reconcile people to himself from every generation and every nation. But God’s plan to befriend many comes through his relationship with one. God called Abraham “my friend” (Isa. 41:8; also 2 Chron. 20:7). James later wrote that Abraham “was called a friend of God” (James 2:23).

In Genesis 18, God treated Abraham as a friend when he was about to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. He didn’t need to tell Abraham these plans. Yet he said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?” (Gen. 18:17). He added, “For I have known him”—a deeply relational idea (v. 19 ESV alternate reading). Thomas Goodwin observed here that God “could not do a great thing, but he must tell his friend of it. He speaks as one shackled and restrained by the laws of friendship.”[3] Abraham then interceded for Sodom, and he did so quite boldly, as only a friend would dare. This conversation was full of transparency and candor.

In Genesis 18, God treated Abraham as a friend, but then in Genesis 22, Abraham treats God as a friend. God tested him by asking him to sacrifice his son, and Abraham showed unwavering faith. He trusted that God could even raise his son from the dead. This is why James called Abraham God’s friend (James 2:21–23). His loyalty proved his friendship—this is James’s point. Abraham’s obedience to God demonstrated his faith in God, which proved his friendship with God.“ (emphasis mine)

Long winding post…

It’s through God’s friendship with Abraham that Jesus is The Seed.

God Himself has forever been in a loving relationship. (That’s explained in the doctrine of aseity.) He reaches out to rescue fallen mankind through His relationship of the vine Israel to produce Jesus. The church is grafted in.


Christ is in Abraham when He became incarnate.

Thanks for all that, beautiful sister Hollie And...the short answer is: Yes it is the same covenant. Yes?