Postrib vs Dispy

[RandyPNW]

I'm Postrib and also believe in the future salvation of national Israel. I think it's important to state this because many Postribs reject Israel in prophecy altogether, or reinterpret it to apply to the international Church.

Let me say, first of all, that there is a difference between the biblical view of national salvation and the biblical view of individual salvation. National salvation has more to do with the survival of the entire society rather than with spiritual salvation.

But these things are obviously tied together. God said that without spirituality and without obedience, a nation will not be saved. It will ultimately perish or suffer significant judgment.

Many get confused about this because they think that saving a society is not important in relation to saving an individual. Actually, both are important to God--both nations and individuals. The nation protects the individual, and thus provides a healthy spiritual climate for the individual if the nation is itself generally spiritual, or tolerant of spirituality.

The problem with Postribs who deny the place of national Israel in prophecy is that God did indeed promise this to Abraham. And God doesn't break His promises. Though the Early Church gave up hope in Israel's future salvation because Israel didn't repent, this does not mean that after many generations God cannot begin again with Israel, and ultimately refine her through the fires of His judgment.

So I do believe in Israel's future salvation, and also in the salvation of other nations--primarily Christian nations. Like Israel, many Christian nations have fallen on hard times, and have come under divine punishment. If Israel can be saved, so can these former Christian nations.

So where in the Bible do we see the salvation of Christian nations? We don't, because when the Bible was written Christian nations did not yet exist. And yet God promised them to Abraham. He was promised he would become father of a multitude of nations.

The problem I see with Pretribs and their Dispensationalism is that not only are they wrong about Pretrib itself, but also wrong to emphasize Israel's salvation through the lens of OT realities. They see Israel as returning to the Law, and they see Israel as still an exclusive nation in a sea of pagan nations.

That reality has changed, although some of it remains true. Whereas the nations ultimately capitulate to paganism it is not true that other nations did not become nations of God. Many nations have become Christian nations. They just ultimately fall, as Israel did. All nations do, ultimately, turn against Israel.

So the idea is to recognize that Israel is no longer alone in prophecy, and the future will involve not just Israel's recovery, but also the recovery of many other nations, formerly of faith. And most certainly, there will be no return to the Law. If all nations oppose Israel, they also oppose the idea of "Christian nations." They will stand not in opposition to the practice of the Law of Moses, but rather, in opposition to Christ and to those promised to Christ.

[The Parson]

You do know there are "non" dispensationalist, pretribulation believers, don't you?

[Fenris]

They see Israel as returning to the Law

I hate to be "that guy", but the bible does say that.

For example, Deuteronomy 30:8, referring to end times- "You will again obey the Lord and follow all his commands I am giving you today." Or Ezekiel 37:24 "They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees." Or Ezekiel 36:27 "And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." And so on.

[RandyPNW]

They see Israel as returning to the Law

I hate to be "that guy", but the bible does say that.

For example, Deuteronomy 30:8, referring to end times- "You will again obey the Lord and follow all his commands I am giving you today." Or Ezekiel 37:24 "They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees." Or Ezekiel 36:27 "And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." And so on.

There's a good chance you know, Fenris, that some Jews view a change in the Law in the Messianic Kingdom? Christians believe that the laws governing Israel, pre-Messiah, were designed to show the need for atonement for sin. Now that we believe Messiah has come and has made atonement for sin, law exists, but not in the context of requiring a future atonement for sin.

This changes the need for passage through walls that separate God and Man, so that there is no need for priesthood, sacrifices, and temple any longer. At any rate, those don't exist anymore, regardless.

What I don't do is fault the perennial Jewish perspective that there is one true God who cares about nations, who makes covenants with His People. And I certainly don't fault any concern to have established, black and white moral laws.

Unfortunately, I associate "Jews" today with liberals, who I might characterize as those who want to define law as an "individual thing." I understand why those of a minority religion might want to do this. But I do appreciate Jews more who consistently rely upon black and white law. You perhaps fall into this latter category?

[The Parson]

Randy, we're getting on the borderline of being antisemitic. Ease up a bit there.

[agnostic]

Now that we believe Messiah has come and has made atonement for sin, law exists, but not in the context of requiring a future atonement for sin.

How does this square with the numerous statements in the Torah that its priesthood, sacrifices, and rituals were eternal?

Exodus 31:17 It (the Sabbath) is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Leviticus 10:9 Drink no wine or strong drink, neither you nor your sons, when you enter the tent of meeting, that you may not die; it is a statute forever throughout your generations.

Leviticus 16:34 This shall be an everlasting statute for you, to make atonement for the people of Israel once in the year for all their sins.

Leviticus 23:41 You shall keep it as a festival to the LORD seven days in the year; you shall keep it in the seventh month as a statute forever throughout your generations.

Leviticus 24:3 Aaron shall set it up in the tent of meeting, outside the curtain of the covenant, to burn from evening to morning before the LORD regularly; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations.

Numbers 18:19 All the holy offerings that the Israelites present to the lord I have given to you, together with your sons and daughters, as a perpetual due; it is a covenant of salt forever before the LORD for you and your descendants as well.

Deuteronomy 4:2 You must neither add anything to what I command you nor take away anything from it, but keep the commandments of the LORD your God with which I am charging you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 You must diligently observe everything that I command you; do not add to it or take anything from it.

Like... if God wanted to tell Israel that their laws were an everlasting command, never to be revoked, never to be "transformed", never to be terminated once they were "spiritually fulfilled" by a messiah centuries later... how else could he have possibly said it than "this is an everlasting command", "you must keep these commands forever in all your generations", "do not ever change these commands"? Saying that Jesus abrogated these laws because he abstractly "fulfilled" them in his crucifixion really doesn't fit with these statements.

The idea among some Christians that Jesus will restore Torah observance among Jews seems the most cohesive with what the Torah clearly says about its own everlasting perpetuity, in addition to Jesus himself saying he didn't come to abolish the law, but to uphold and keep it.

[Fenris]

There's a good chance you know, Fenris, that some Jews view a change in the Law in the Messianic Kingdom?

I'm not aware of any changes in the law. Did you read the passages I posted?

Christians believe that the laws governing Israel, pre-Messiah, were designed to show the need for atonement for sin.

That sells God's word so short. Just a set of arbitrary rules that we can fall short on? Love your neighbor, love the stranger, give charity, care for the widow and orphan, and on and on, just to show the need for atonement? No. No way. These laws contain essential truth about who God is and what He does, and how we are to emulate Him.

Christians believe that the laws governing Israel, pre-Messiah, were designed to show the need for atonement for sin.

Which, weirdly enough, come from the very bible that you say doesn't apply anymore.

Unfortunately, I associate "Jews" today with liberals, who I might characterize as those who want to define law as an "individual thing." I understand why those of a minority religion might want to do this. But I do appreciate Jews more who consistently rely upon black and white law. You perhaps fall into this latter category?

Religious Jews by and large are not liberal. But that's neither here nor there and isn't relevant to this discussion.

[Fenris]

Like... if God wanted to tell Israel that their laws were an everlasting command, never to be revoked, never to be "transformed", never to be terminated once they were "spiritually fulfilled" by a messiah centuries later... how else could he have possibly said it than "this is an everlasting command", "you must keep these commands forever in all your generations", "do not ever change these commands"?

Well, this is the crux of it. It's one of the reasons that Christianity is a hard sell to observant Jews.

[agnostic]

Christians believe that the laws governing Israel, pre-Messiah, were designed to show the need for atonement for sin.

That sells God's word so short. Just a set of arbitrary rules that we can fall short on?

It's a pretty obvious contradiction to Deuteronomy 30:11 -- "Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away."

To say it was actually -- secretly -- designed from the very start to be a demonstration of how it's actually "impossible" to perfectly keep (something the Torah acknowledges and provides instructions for!) and therefore necessary to replace with something very different necessarily makes Deuteronomy 30:11 a purposeful deception.

[Fenris]

It's a pretty obvious contradiction to Deuteronomy 30:11 -- "Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away."

Very well said.

Also Deuteronomy 4 comes to mind, which you partially mentioned earlier-

Now, Israel, hear the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land the Lord, the God of your ancestors, is giving you. Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you. You saw with your own eyes what the Lord did at Baal Peor. The Lord your God destroyed from among you everyone who followed the Baal of Peor, but all of you who held fast to the Lord your God are still alive today. See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the Lord my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?

This says that the laws are positive, and provided by God to uplift us.

[RandyPNW]

Randy, we're getting on the borderline of being antisemitic. Ease up a bit there.

Sorry Parson, I'm not in the least Antisemitic. Perhaps I lack tact? If there's something that I said that appears to be Antisemitic, I'd sure like to know what it is?

[RandyPNW]

There's a good chance you know, Fenris, that some Jews view a change in the Law in the Messianic Kingdom?

I'm not aware of any changes in the law. Did you read the passages I posted?

Christians believe that the laws governing Israel, pre-Messiah, were designed to show the need for atonement for sin.

That sells God's word so short. Just a set of arbitrary rules that we can fall short on? Love your neighbor, love the stranger, give charity, care for the widow and orphan, and on and on, just to show the need for atonement? No. No way. These laws contain essential truth about who God is and what He does, and how we are to emulate Him.

Christians believe that the laws governing Israel, pre-Messiah, were designed to show the need for atonement for sin.

Which, weirdly enough, come from the very bible that you say doesn't apply anymore.

Unfortunately, I associate "Jews" today with liberals, who I might characterize as those who want to define law as an "individual thing." I understand why those of a minority religion might want to do this. But I do appreciate Jews more who consistently rely upon black and white law. You perhaps fall into this latter category?

Religious Jews by and large are not liberal. But that's neither here nor there and isn't relevant to this discussion.

Yes, I've read where some Jews believe that some laws in the future Kingdom will no longer be needed, which is akin to what Christians say is true today, believing that Jesus fulfilled the need for atonement.

You really misunderstand me, though. I never meant to say that loving God and others was designed to show the need for atonement. No, I was referring to many of the laws under the Law of Moses that demonstrated a need for cleansing rituals in order to present themselves before a holy God. I believe atonement is key to obtaining eternal purification so that there are no longer any obstacles between God and men.

Tied in with atonement are, as I said, rituals of cleansing and purification, and rituals of sacrifice. Obviously, when one is purified through legal atonement, what need any more to distinguish, symbolically, between clean and unclean foods?

I agree that *religious Jews* may be less libertine than liberal Jews, who are less religious. But Jews identify as a minority, whether as an ethnic group or as a religious group, and would likely want to see Christianity be tolerant. This would call for liberalizing Christians laws, right?

I would add that I don't reject the Jewish Bible, our OT Scriptures. I just reject the Old Covenant, which was exclusively for Jews and prior to Christ's atonement. To remain in that covenant is to fail to obtain the purpose for which it existed, which was to bring final atonement both for Israel and for all nations.

[RandyPNW]

Christians believe that the laws governing Israel, pre-Messiah, were designed to show the need for atonement for sin.

That sells God's word so short. Just a set of arbitrary rules that we can fall short on?

It's a pretty obvious contradiction to Deuteronomy 30:11 -- "Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away."

To say it was actually -- secretly -- designed from the very start to be a demonstration of how it's actually "impossible" to perfectly keep (something the Torah acknowledges and provides instructions for!) and therefore necessary to replace with something very different necessarily makes Deuteronomy 30:11 a purposeful deception.

I don't see the connection. How is saying that the Jewish Law is outdated, but still a matter of relevant black and white morality, depreciating moral commands from God? What is outdated is the fact that atonement has already been legally accomplished, rendering the need for laws of purification unnecessary. Having come under Christ's atonement there is no longer any need for rituals that beg for purification and acceptance!

[RandyPNW]

You do know there are "non" dispensationalist, pretribulation believers, don't you?

No, I didn't know that. Please tell me more!

[RandyPNW]

Like... if God wanted to tell Israel that their laws were an everlasting command, never to be revoked, never to be "transformed", never to be terminated once they were "spiritually fulfilled" by a messiah centuries later... how else could he have possibly said it than "this is an everlasting command", "you must keep these commands forever in all your generations", "do not ever change these commands"?

Well, this is the crux of it. It's one of the reasons that Christianity is a hard sell to observant Jews.

The Law was "everlasting" in the sense of being in continuous application, as long as the nation continued to be faithful to their God. Obviously, when Israel turned to idols, the laws ceased to be of application to them, and they were cursed almost as if they weren't God's people anymore.

The effort to promote everlasting righteousness is the entire purpose of atonement, to restore a fallen people to a place where only the righteous remain. And the righteous have to be enabled to obtain a new immortal existence where sin no longer exists.

In Jer 31 we read that the Law of Moses would be replaced with something more secure.

Jer 31.31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
    “when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
    and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
    I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
    to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
    though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.