Many Covenant Theology followers keep insisting that no Bible-Prophecy about Israel was ever about visible Israel at all.
So I ask: If Jesus had instead ministered in some other random place - say in Spain - instead of in Israel, so long as the Church as we see it today was nonetheless successfully established, would that mean any detail in Bible-Prophecy hadn't been complied with?
They instinctively know it was necessary for Jesus to do what He did, in visible Israel rather than in any other random place - yet none of them dare admit that that detail had ever actually been prophesied. Because if they cited any prophecy about that, it would force a wider meaning for the term Israel than spiritual Israel alone. So they can't way whether that detail was ever actually prophesied in Scripture at all.
And yet Jesus' ministry in Israel is only about the biggest event in human history!
This makes the point that spiritualising every use of the term Israel in the Bible is not a valid hermeneutic.
There are numerous incidences in Bible-Prophecy where the term Israel meant visible Israel.
If that is not the case, then Christianity doesn't have a historical basis for its assertion that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled the specifics of Messianic prophecy.
And since Israel doesn't always mean spiritual Israel, it means that any eschatology which is built on the mistaken idea that it does, needs to find an alternativ foundation in Scripture - or be adjusted, to say the least.
So I ask: If Jesus had instead ministered in some other random place - say in Spain - instead of in Israel, so long as the Church as we see it today was nonetheless successfully established, would that mean any detail in Bible-Prophecy hadn't been complied with?
They instinctively know it was necessary for Jesus to do what He did, in visible Israel rather than in any other random place - yet none of them dare admit that that detail had ever actually been prophesied. Because if they cited any prophecy about that, it would force a wider meaning for the term Israel than spiritual Israel alone. So they can't way whether that detail was ever actually prophesied in Scripture at all.
And yet Jesus' ministry in Israel is only about the biggest event in human history!
This makes the point that spiritualising every use of the term Israel in the Bible is not a valid hermeneutic.
There are numerous incidences in Bible-Prophecy where the term Israel meant visible Israel.
If that is not the case, then Christianity doesn't have a historical basis for its assertion that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled the specifics of Messianic prophecy.
And since Israel doesn't always mean spiritual Israel, it means that any eschatology which is built on the mistaken idea that it does, needs to find an alternativ foundation in Scripture - or be adjusted, to say the least.
No comments:
Post a Comment