The Jewish rejection of Jesus and church age did not come out of thin air, it was all predicted throughout the OT prophets. Including the Jews and rabbis BLINDNESS to the fact that its plainly written in the prophets.

There are massive amounts of scripture on how the Jews would reject Jesus, how they would be scattered across the earth for virtually the entire church age for their sin and rejection of Him, and how God would bring them back to the land (still in unbelief) and reform them as a nation in the land at the tail end of the church age. And how the terrible events of the tribulation would finally bring the nation to accept Jesus and come under the New covenant at the end. This whole thing is laid out in the Bible from start to finish.

There is no real way to reject this undeniable fact unless people are just not reading most of their Bible. Its like if a person said they read Moby Dick and there is no whale. Its a dead giveaway that they actually have not read some large sections of the book. I don't say that to point fingers at individual people here (like you G-man, I'm not personally criticizing you or anyone else here at all, we all have busy lives) I'm criticizing these denominations who have teachers and leaders who absolutly should be reading these things in scripture and know them already.

And here is a key point to realize....

God says in Ezekiel and other prophets (concerning the latter day rebirth of Israel as a nation) that HE does not do this because the Jews are righteous people. He does this for HIS OWN NAMES SAKE. Because He placed His name on them long ago and the whole world knows they are supposed to be His People and nation. He does this for HIS NAME SAKE, not because the Jews are righteous or deserving people.

Ezekiel 36
22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, thus saith the Lord God; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.

23 And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord God, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.

32 Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord God, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel.

In my passion I probably over explain this stuff so lets just simplify it again and let Paul, Jesus and the Father speak for themselves on this (starting with the Ezekiel 36 passage above):

Luke 21:24
And they (Israel) shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations (70 AD): and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Romans 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.

Romans 11:28
28 As concerning the gospel, they (Jews) are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.


"Enemies of the Gospel" yet "Beloved for the Fathers sake". Who are we to say God cannot still love them? Paul tells us flat out He still does. And all the prophets (including Jesus Himself) tell us God is not done with them.

One of the most common mistakes people make on this is saying Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant and its not longer in effect.

That is absolutely true but the key mistake here is there is more than just ONE Old testament covenant. There is the Noahic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, The Mosaic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant. 3 of these are eternal, 1 was temporary and conditional.

The Abrahamic covenant and Mosaic Covenant are given 400 years apart and are completely separate with separate promises and conditions. The Mosaic Covenant was always temporary and totally conditional based on the Jews obedience to the law and God. This covenant is the OT law given by Moses. Jesus fulfilled this covenant by ushering in the New Covenant through His shed Blood. The entire NT teaches this, how Jesus fulfilled the OT law and now we are under the New Covenant.

The Abrahmic covenant was never temporary or conditional, it was solely about the land being promised to Abrahams physical descendants and it is ETERNAL. The Hebrew/Jews were never required to keep this covenant, Only God was bound to keep this and He made it eternal.

Genesis 17:7-8
7 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.”

To further show this, in Genesis 15 God had Abraham make a sacrifice and divide the pieces against and across from each other. This was the OT custom to make a covenant where both parties would walk between the pieces to show they were binding themselves to keep this covenant. But God put Abraham in deep sleep and only God walked through the pieces showing that only God was bound to keep and hold this Covenant by His Word. Abraham and his descendants were never bound, it was always an eternal promise from God that He would never eternally break.

God would judge and punish them for their wickedness, but He would never fully break this covenant.

(12-06-2024 11:13 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  G-man, I'm glad you posted this because its a perfect example of the misunderstanding most have on this. I'm not singling you out here, I'm saying that is by far the most common response on this. This is how the conversation always goes and it highlights how this is not a scriptural disagreement, its a misunderstanding of what is being said. No one is saying they are saved simply because they are Jews, and no one is saying they are currently part of the flock/the body of Christ or that they have some different path to salvation. Just as no one is saying we are not the seed of Abraham by faith. That is not what is being said here at all.

That's not what he said.

(07-02-2025 08:21 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(12-06-2024 11:13 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  G-man, I'm glad you posted this because its a perfect example of the misunderstanding most have on this. I'm not singling you out here, I'm saying that is by far the most common response on this. This is how the conversation always goes and it highlights how this is not a scriptural disagreement, its a misunderstanding of what is being said. No one is saying they are saved simply because they are Jews, and no one is saying they are currently part of the flock/the body of Christ or that they have some different path to salvation. Just as no one is saying we are not the seed of Abraham by faith. That is not what is being said here at all.

That's not what he said.

I didn't say he said that directly, its just always inferred in the objection.

The problem anti-dispensational theology on this is it can't remotely explain what all the prophets are talking about concerning Israel in the last days. And that encompasses a MASSIVE amount of scripture that you really can't explain at all and make work within the text.

He referenced the "Israel of God" phrase which is used one single time in the entire NT (its actually in Galatians, not Romans), and the context there is those in Christ. The other 72 times the word Israel is used in the NT, every single instance is a referee to the Jews who have rejected Jesus. Paul always refers to the church and Israel as separate entities, one that has accepted Christ and one that has rejected Him.

I'll never understand the hard core resistance to what God and the Bible says on this. If God says the nation of Israel is going to accept Jesus in the tribulation, who are we to argue with God on this?

Paul says in Romans 11 ....
"God has NOT cast His people away forever",
that "we should not be wise in our conceits" on this,
that "we should not be ignorant of this mystery"
that "Blindness in part has happened to Israel UNTIL all the Gentiles have come in"
that "we should not boast against the natural branches that were cut off saying God has cast them away",
and says that "they are still beloved for the Fathers sakes".

Yet many Christians say and do all those things exactly. Its mind boggling.

I agree, eric. I think Dispensationalists often teach some form of pre-trib Rapture is what turns many away from it. People associate it w/ that. Since they reject that Rapture theology, they reject Dispensationialism automatically. I don't agree w/ that view of the Rapture, I don't think Christians are spared from the tribulation, so can see why that being tacked onto what's labeled as Dispensationialism would turn people away.

(07-02-2025 06:02 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  I agree, eric. I think Dispensationalists often teach some form of pre-trib Rapture is what turns many away from it. People associate it w/ that. Since they reject that Rapture theology, they reject Dispensationialism automatically. I don't agree w/ that view of the Rapture, I don't think Christians are spared from the tribulation, so can see why that being tacked onto what's labeled as Dispensationialism would turn people away.

I have to give you props on this Bronco, you actually are trying to honestly learn the truth here.

And you hit it out of the park there. I have noticed that many people think dispensationalsim means "pretrib rapture". Its true that dispensationalists tend to be more pre trib or mid trib on average but the timing of the rapture has nothing to do with any of this.

And that goes back to the point I made originally, that people reject dispensationalism before they even know what they are rejecting and what the Bible says on this.

They reject it literally before the even know what the term means, which is just crazy.

People have such silly visceral tribal reactions over the timing of the rapture. It really is spiritually immature and embarrassingly stupid. The worst part is people who have the most visceral reactions over it often could not even begin to have a serious biblical discussion on the topic or defend their views, yet they have this very personal and often angry reactions to other views on it.