Israel's Final Deliverance

I didn't insert it. @Aaron56 did. I merely expounded on it. Your view is simply a natural physical view. It doesn't take into account the way the Bible is actually written, or the spiritual nature of it.

I'm not a full preterist.

It was the claim about the whole of Revelation being an allegory that no one made.

You're getting off topic.

Regarding Israel: the Israel that is God's people are all in Christ. It's not clear what God has in store for the physical nation or Israel. Currently, they are enemies of the gospel.

It's always interesting when someone claiming to be a Christian promotes "praying for the Jews" in lieu of "praying for the Arabs". The Arabs will come into the kingdom before the Jews. Most of them are currently held down by Islam. Pray for the Arabs, man. It's their time to break out of their bonds. It's happening now but because many believe that Arab = muslim (and because Ishmael is set against Isaac) they pray according to U.S. policy and not according to the Spirit.

Yes, same thing. If you're defending Aaron's position, the same applies. Your view that the Bible is to be "spiritually applied" is your personal view--not an established fact. Well, yes the Bible is spiritual revelation. But that doesn't mean it should not be literally applied or interpreted.

Was Jesus just a "spiritual concept" for you? When we read about Jesus life, is it just "allegory" to you? Of course not.

How we interpret biblical prophecy is critically important when considering whether Zechariah's prophecy in ch. 12-14 is about our world today. You are acting as if Replacement Theology is the default position for all Christians. It isn't. Both Dispensationalists and non-Dispensationalists accept the hope of Israel's future salvation as a nation. Amillennialism has dominated for centuries, but Catholics Ribera and Lacunza contributed to a revival of Futurism, and has led to a revival of Premillennialism indirectly.

Romans 11 is misunderstood because of present-day politics.

It starts with "I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin."

Here, Paul gives proof that salvation came to the Israelites.

Paul writes "I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them."

Paul was working within the grace provided to all men in his time and today: Christ is the way to the Father. He wasn't waiting on a future event.

So his reference to "Israel" cannot mean "all national Jews". It means "all the people of promise". Remember "In Isaac shall thy seed be called"

So he writes "Israel (this is national Israel) has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way (meaning, when Gentiles are included in spiritual Israel) all Israel (this is spiritual Israel) will be saved.

He also writes about national Israel "And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in..."

So ALL PEOPLE OF PROMISE WILL BE SAVED. Some of those people will be Jews.

The real replacement theology are those doctrines that replace Christ with something natural. Christ is the Israel of God. Do you disagree?

Paul makes pains in Romans 9-11 to show how only a remnant is saved. Yet for some reason, verse 11:26 is read by some to mean a whole nation will be saved. It's really out of bounds to what Paul meant, and really to the whole bible.

No one is replacing anyone. God's people have always been "people of promise": "..nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.”

First the Jews, then the Gentiles.

Peter, writing to Gentile believers, said "But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light".

I cannot understand how this plain scriptural concept continues to get muddled up.

You already spiritually apply scripture. You probably don't believe you are an actual sheep. Nor that Jesus is an actual lamb. So it's not as if @Aaron56 is doing anything differently than you do. You simply disagree on which passages to do so.
I just happen to agree with his understanding over yours. It's not personal.

We all grew up somewhat affected by politics surrounding national Israel so I can understand some of the confusion. But, when you read the revelation given to the apostles in the New Testament (who were natural Jews!) there's no way to reconcile the political message and the gospel message.

I fully recognize that Replacement Theology adherents view things differently than Dispensationalists and Premillennialists who believe in a future Israel. I'm not using RT as a term of disparagement or insult--it is only for convenience. The importance is not in the word "replacement" but rather, in whether we see God's promise to Abraham regarding physical Israel as still binding.

You what is also disconcerting: the moral passes Christians are willing to give Israel when they conduct war; as if anything they do is permitted because they are "God's people": as if the standard in the earth, for those who love God, is anything less than Christ's.

Peter was writing to Jewish believers. The call to the Israeli *nation* still applies, in my theology. There was also a call to other "nations," which also applies literally. The promise God made to Abraham concerning "nations" was intended to convey a political and social sense of administration, as well as produce spiritually-regenerated people in those nations. One can have a Christian nation and also a large number of regenerated believers influencing the form of government as well as the social environment and norms.

We know that in the present age, nations of faith, though existing, always fall. Israel fell, and Christian nations have fallen.

But I don't think that means they have fallen never to rise again. I believe God has promised their resuscitation, as well as the resuscitation of Israel. We disagree, and that's okay.

Actually, I think too much leeway has been given to Muslims on the issue of "Israel."

And this is where it diverges: There was never a promise to physical Israel through Abraham.

The promise to physical Israel came at Sinai only and that was through the law. While it was supposed to be the time in which all national Israel came into the covenant of promise, they did not come into the presence of God and instead sent only Moses. Because of that transgression, the law was added to them. Then, instead of a people of promise, they became slaves, beholden to God and owned by Him. That's what happens in a covenant when one party keeps their side of the bargain and the other does not keep their side. Because God gave them life, He then owned their lives.

Paul revealed to us that "In Isaac shall your seed be called" and then "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ".

So, everywhere we read "descendants" in the promise scriptures it is referring to Christ.

No he wasn't.

He references “former ignorance” and “the futile ways inherited from your forefathers”. This does not fit a Jewish audience.