Israel's Final Deliverance

How do you mean?

Which is why I asked if you disagree that Christ is the Israel of God

So, you've just contradicted yourself! You said "there never was a promise to physical Israel," and now you say there was "at Sinai" and "through the Law."

The people were kept apart from God, with the exception of Moses, for the purpose of holiness. This is something we all need to recognize, saved or not. Israel clearly came under the provisions of the covenant and were only kept in relative distance from God's holiness to show that redemption was future, requiring the atonement of Christ.

The temporary covenant of the Law was not insignificant and kept Israel from Eternal Life, but not from the *hope* of Eternal Life, nor did their lack of final redemption prohibit them from obtaining their promises. Paul argues that God's promises still apply to Israel, even though under the Law Israel failed. In fact, we all fail under the standards of the Law!

There is no call to any nation. It's to whosoever wills, let him come

Do you ever wonder who the "priests" are referenced at Sinai before the law was given? You cannot have a priest without a covenant. So what covenant was in place when they were brought up to Sinai?

However, the law was intended to be temporary until the Seed (who is Christ) appeared. But, since they did not receive Christ, the Jews remain in bondage under the law.

I wrote a lot about it in these posts;
https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...s-with-abraham’s-2-wives.215543/#post-5321232
https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...s-with-abraham’s-2-wives.215543/#post-5321233
https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...s-with-abraham’s-2-wives.215543/#post-5321234

You must take the whole quote:

There was never a promise to physical Israel through Abraham.

(This is a repost since I messed up the format of the original one.)

Israel didn't start this current war, Hamas did by murdering innocent Jews and taking hostages, as young as a baby. Israel has offered peace and every single time Hamas has turned them down. Even Bill Clinton said they were impossible to deal with. If Palestinians want peace, they can have it, just get rid of Hamas and tell Iran to stuff it. Peace is their choice, Israel has peace with other neighbors, even gave up land for peace. The ball remains in their corner.

Some might say "But what about blessing or cursing Abraham? If we don't support natural Israel we will be cursed." A lot of preachers turn that around and say a curse will befall anyone who doesn't support Israel.

Paul actually directly addressed this in Galatians:

Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

So, the Jews were cursed because they did not enter into God's presence at Sinai. There, they would have found liberty in the presence of the Spirit of God. Instead, rejecting the promises of Abraham, they became cursed. That is why Christ had to become a curse for anyone who wanted to inherit the promises: He nullified the curse, succumbing to death without sin, and made a spectacle of Death (who is a spirit) and the enemies of the people of God.

There is probably a better place to discuss the Israel Hamas war.

And yet they never received the promise EVEN of the physical land. They could never keep the Law perfectly so they became a slave instead. A slave can never inherit the estate of the Lord. Hence, they are currently like Ishmael in relation to Abraham. That's what Paul explains in Galatians.

The promise was to Abraham's seed, who is Christ. God never promised to give ownership of the land to anyone but Christ. All others are guests and resident aliens and are given the right to live there in association with him

I've written all this out before. You're new so you'd have to search out my posts. God made a land promise to Abe and to each generation after that. He said that He will re-gather the Jews back to their homeland. He set out the borders. He made a covenant with His chosen people that still stands to this day. And He will keep His promise, otherwise how could we trust any promise if He went back on the promise he made to the Jews. 1948 began Gods time prophetic time clock. Israel is the nation born in a day. God is not done with the Jewish people.

Romans 11 says that God will restore the Jews, nothing else in the Word negates that. The Word says that they are blinded for a time but will come to know their Messiah and realize they were wrong. It says they will weep for Him who they pierced.

I guess we have a disagreement then. Scholars disagree on this.

God said he was giving them the land to live in, not to own, solely under the condition they obeyed the covenant. God gave no title deed to the land to anyone but Christ.

Judah and Israel were already regathered to the land when Christ first appeared. Who do you think he ministered to and made the new covenant with? That is the only covenant God has with Israel. The old covenant became useless and passed away

The borders from the Nile to the Euphrates were fulfilled thousands of years ago. David and Solomon reigned over all the land from the Euphrates to Egypt.

God fulfilled his promises to Israel by bringing in the new covenant, as spoken by his prophets. The nation born in a day happened at Pentecost when Israel and Judah were reunited in the lord's hand forever.

Romans 9-11 says a only remnant will be saved. Paul wouldn't contradict everything he said in those chapters to end by saying the whole nation will be saved. That idea is ludicrous, contradicts all of scripture and comes from misreading the text.

Actually it doesn't say only a remnant will be saved. This debate has gone back and forth for years, and it will be the Lord Himself who settles it I suppose.


And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob

I don't see how that could be mistaken, but as I say, it's been debated over the years.