Skip to comments.Jerusalem, Mother of Harlots
Posted on 12/31/2010 9:03:44 PM PST by topcat54
By | Published:
Jesus told his listeners, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (Matt. 21:43). For many people, this verse provides the heart of replacement theologythe idea that the Christian Church has replaced the old physical nation of Israel as Gods chosen people and priestly nation (1 Pet. 2:910, et al).
Without requiring the use of the label replacement, this is essentially what the verse teaches. It does not mean that Jewish people can never again taste of Gods grace, it simply means that the Old Jewish way of Gods witness and work on earththe Old Testament Temple ritual systemwas being abolished. It was being abolished because it was never meant to be permanent, but only a symbol that pointed to the reality of Jesus Christ, the true Temple, the true Emanuel. Those Jews who rejected the true Temple and insisted on clinging to the Old Testament traditions were thereby committing idolatry just as grossly as any pagan ritual. The Kingdom had moved on to its greater fulfillment. Those who refused to embrace the fulfillment found themselves bereft of the true kingdomit would be taken from them, and given to the disciples of the true and faithful people of God.
Jesus denounced the teachers of the Old tradition which led the way in opposing Him. These were the Pharisees, and Christs denunciation of them appears in Matthew 23 among other places. It extends to the whole of the physical city of Jerusalem of which they were representatives in disbelief. Jesus concluded with the prediction that Jerusalem would fall because she was responsible for all the righteous blood shed upon earth and that she was the city that kills the prophets (Matt. 23:35, 37).
From this sweeping condemnation we can learn that the city called Babylon in Revelation 17 and 18 is not the Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar, but Jerusalem called Babylon because she had corrupted herself and become like that ancient pagan Empire:
The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet [colors of the chief priest and the Temple; Ex. 2528; 3839], and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earths abominations (Rev. 17:45).
And how do we know this blasphemous Babylonian mystery whore is indeed Jerusalem? Because she is pronounced guilty of the exclusive crime which Jesus earlier pinned on Jerusalem:
And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, So will Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence, and will be found no more. And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slain on earth (Rev. 17:6, 18:21, 24).
It is not possible that two cities can both be guilty of a crime of which only one party could be guiltykilling all the prophets and all who have been slain in the earth. Jesus clearly attributed this crime to Jerusalem in Matthew 23; so we must conclude that here in Revelation, Babylon is a name of mystery because it symbolizes what Jerusalem had become.
Thus, it is highly likely that when Peter wrote his first epistle from Babylon (1 Pet. 5:13), he was literally writing from Jerusalem, which he had by then already condemned in these last times (1 Pet. 1:20) as Babylon. Peter was, after all, an apostle to the Circumcision as Paul said (Gal. 2:7).
It was not uncommon practice in that window between Christs ascension and Jerusalems destruction that the New Testament writers symbolized Jerusalem with the names of the great enemies of Gods people down through the ages. Thus, Revelation speaks of the great city where the Lord was crucifiedobviously Jerusalemthat symbolically is called Sodom and Egypt (Rev. 11:8).
Some would complain that interpreting the Great Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 as Jerusalem is anti-Semitic. This is ad hominem nonsense. Besides, how anti-Semitic was it of John! Calling Jerusalem Sodom and Egypt instead of praying for her peace as dispensationalists demand we do. The nerve of him.
Thus it is understandable when Paul compares the false teachers creeping in the church to Pharaohs magicians (2 Tim. 3:89). Likewise, Matthew 2 presents Jesus as the New Israel fleeing from the new Pharaoh who kills all the male babies. Except the roles are reversed: Jesus family has to flee into Egypt in order to avoid this new Pharaoh, who is Herod; and the children killed are not Egyptian, they are Jewish. Lesson: Old Israel has become like Egypt, the persecutor of Gods people, and she shall suffer the plague of Egypt, while Jesus is the true Israel.
Keep in mind, it was Herod who then ruled Jerusalem and who had rebuilt the Temple at which the Jews then sacrificed. Once Jesus appeared on the scene as the Final Sacrifice, the sacrifices at the Temple became idolatrous and pagan. It was then rejecting God to continue that system. It was, in fact, to commit the abomination of desolation, because it was an idolatrous sacrifice in the Temple which caused Gods presence to leave that House desolate. Indeed, Gods presence would forever leave that Temple to dwell in the New Temple, His People. This occurred on the day of Pentecost. Within a generation, the idolatrous, adulterous nationthe great whore temple in Jerusalemsuffered a final blow from God. It was destroyed into oblivion.
Thus it is further understandable that the inspired writers would refer to their persecutors and false brethren in their Church as them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan (Rev. 2:9).
Modern day Christians simply do not understand that when they demand the land of Israel for the Old Jewish people so that they may rebuild a Temple and resume sacrifices, they are praying for the rankest and vilest of idolatries to occur. God destroyed that temple for that very reason in AD 70. Why would he now change and desire it to be rebuilt?
You may think that since God did this once before, sending His people into exile with their temple destroyed behind them, then He will do the same againhave them return to rebuild the temple. But this time was different. This time the True Temple came as the rebuilt (resurrected) temple. This time there would be no bricks and mortar, stones cut out with hands. The Old Jewish people were not merely exiled from their kingdom someday to return. No. This time, the kingdom was taken from them and given to the true nation.
Christ created a new bride. Why would Christ desire to return to the whore he has cast aside and divorced when He has a pristine Bride descending from heaven, uncorrupted by idolatry? He didnt. He left that whore riding her patron, the beast of Rome. And the great mother of harlots suffered the judgment of her whoredom. She was divorced and disinherited. The inheritance now belongs to the Bride.
Hmmm, Judaism says that once a Jew "converts" to Christianity, he/she is no longer a Jew. No?
Call me when the sacrifices commence, otherwise ...
One who converts is still considered to retain a Jewish status, but is disqualified from the responsibilities and benefits of Jewish life, such as participation in a prayer quorum or burial in a Jewish cemetery. If female, one’s children are considered Jewish. Such a one may return to Judaism without any ‘conversion’.
> (1 Peter 2:9,10)
Yes, this is the promise made to Israel being extended to those who were grafted on to the root of Jesse. Read Romans 11.
As for Rev 11-17, I’m thinking about things like being able to see events happen all over the world simultaneously. Not possible until recently.
Things like a government that encompasses the entire world, not just Europe or the Middle East. You know, like the flood that encompassed the entire world. You do believe in the global flood, right?
Things like the 12,000 from 12 of the tribes of Israel being given God’s seal before the angels are allowed to do hurt to the entire Earth.
You know, stuff like that.
If you think all of these things have already come to pass, good for you.
By and by, we shall see who was correct.
Not likely that you and I are going to agree on this until it’s over.
I have a large family and a full-time job, and probably spend way too much time on this web site already.
But there are several prophecies about building the Tabernacle of David again. A different temple altogether.
“But there are several prophecies about building the Tabernacle of David again. A different temple altogether.”
Please show me.
But Peter is writing to the Church. It is the body of Christ, neither Jew nor Greek, that is called a holy nation. And clearly it has nothing to do with physical land. In fact there is nothing in the NT about promises to the people of God having to do with physical parcel of land.
As for Rev 11-17, Im thinking about things like being able to see events happen all over the world simultaneously. Not possible until recently.
I think you are reading stuff into the text that is not there, not plainly anyway. You see satellites and big screen TVs because you want to see those things. You see modern technology where there is no technology, not in any plain text sense.
You do believe in the global flood, right?
Yes, I do, but I don't read the prophetic scriptures as I read the historic scriptures ala Genesis 4-6. They are a different literary genre, and must be approached in a different manner. If you want to understand Revelation, put down the New York Times read the rest of the Bible, especially Ezekiel.
You know, stuff like that.
Again, if you want to understand what stuff like that means, you have to compare it to the rest of the Bible. E.g., as we see in 1 Peter 2, the apostle applied terms reserved for OT Israel to the NT Church. Paul called the Church, the Israel of God. He taught that gentiles were being included in the commonwealth of Israel. So, if you want to understand the image of the 12 tribes in Rev, 7 and 14, you need to understand how the NT refers to God's covenant people, the body of Christ.
By and by, we shall see who was correct.
How long do we have to wait? Futurists have been predicting that this stuff is gonna happen real soon now for decades. They have been wrong on every turn. They are no closer to getting it right today that 40 years ago. Every one of these silly articles either begins or ends with the claim that the rapture is gonna happen very soon. But it appears that every author is just talking through their hat. They are no more believable than a Harry Potter tale. The difference is that these folks think they have it right. They are self-deluded. So, tell us, how long do we have to wait? 100, 200, 500 years? A thousand?
You don't really know, do you?
A Christian would say something similar they are ethnically Jewish but religiously Christian except for different reasons.
I just saw your tagline.
The fact remains that nowhere in the NT, not from the lips of Jesus nor from the apostolic writers, do we find the notion of a rebuilt temple with Jesus seated in a literal throne.
As to the Temple, The Revelation mirrors Ezekiel
As to the throne, Matthew 25:31...
But more to the point, your position causes these prophecies (among many, many others) to be made lies: Isaiah 16:5; Zechariah 6:12, 13; Jeremiah 3:17
And this (among many more):
Psa 132:13 For the LORD hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation.
Psa 132:14 This is my rest for ever: here will I dwell; for I have desired it.
[...] That what the apostate Jews wanted, and why they rejected Jesus, because He had rejected their ideas of the kingdom.
Their "idea" of the Kingdom may have been skewed, but the idea comes from the prophets. Your position requires Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, Hosea and Joel to be removed from the canon, as all speak explicitly of the time AFTER Christ's return.
Informs, but does not override. E.g., the sacrificial system with the priesthood and temple was a pointer forward to Christ. It was intended to pass away when that to which it pointed, Jesus Christ, came on the scene.
Then why do the prophets predict sacrifices in the Millennial Kingdom?
The law was out tutor to point us to Christ. The law and prophets testified of Christ.
But the Torah stands FOREVER. And John tells us that we know we love God when we are walking in His Commandments... And that those who claim to be God's that do not keep the commandments are liars.
13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete . Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (Heb. 8)
Obsolete. Yet some sad Christians see it as being reconstituted in the future, complete with animal sacrifice for sin. This is blasphemy.
Ahh... Hebrews 8... It does not say it IS obsolete. It says it is becoming obsolete... It is about to pass away... When EXACTLY does it pass away?
At the very least, the Old Covenant MUST remain open until every word of the prophets is fulfilled. It MUST remain until every Holy Day and the Jubilee have their final fulfillment.
The only date that I have found to tie that to is Rev 10:7, at the sounding of the Seventh Trump.
Rev 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.
Most assuredly, that is not yet. And even after that, the saints are seen singing a song of Moses AND of Christ.
This is part of what I am finding so intriguing about jettisoning Greek/Roman thought. Thank you for the Hebrew perspective.
I cannot believe there is any efficacy ANYMORE (at least) in the blood of animals. Atonement... covering, was done perfectly in the blood of Yeshua, and for all time (perhaps to the beginning thereof).
However, there are many types of sacrifice which are not about atonement - Praise offerings, First Fruits, and etc... I don't know exactly how all that works out.
But I DO know that the prophets show those sacrifices being resumed... and at least 3 Holy Days that transcend His coming - I am content with that, as by that time, we will have THE most marvelous Rabbi to teach us in truth.
I wonder though, if your point does not apply more broadly, too: Many things might be better understood from the Hebrew perspective.
> You don’t really know, do you?
Nope. Only One knows.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
> put down the New York Times read the rest of the Bible,
> especially Ezekiel.
LOL!! We don’t get *ANY* newspapers here, because they have content, especially in the ads, that would compromise the innocence of our children. We don’t have any TV either! No cable, no antenna, no FM radio, nothing.
In my personal devotions, I just finished Ezekiel and Daniel, into Hosea now. I got the exact opposite sense as you, concerning the return of Israel and the nations that will come against her.
I have not numbered the times that I have been through the Bible, but we have family devotions very frequently, almost every evening (no TV, remember), where each of my 9 children is given 10 minutes to present to the rest of the family what they got out of their Bible reading for the day. They choose their own devotions, according to their interest, or according to the Spirit for those who have given their lives to Jesus.
Now, from Matthew 24:29-33
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
No interpretation necessary. Certainly, these things have not happened, yet.
But then, in Matthew 24:34, we read ...
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
... but what generation was the one to which Jesus was referring? Don’t know that either, but it certainly wasn’t the one that was sitting in front of Him at that time, because those things had not, and still have not, happened.
And Matthew 24:35 for emphasis ...
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
In the verses following that, He continues to make clear that He is talking about the time when He returns. Maybe you don’t see it that way, but I certainly do.
Now there are these worldwide events that are yet to happen. I’m sure you have a way to allegorize these, but my opinion is that they are real events yet to take place.
Rev 11:8-13 The Two Witnesses
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
11 And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.
13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.
There is so much more, such as
* sealing of the 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel
* Wormwood (meteor?) falling into the ocean
* the seas and the fountains WORLDWIDE turning to blood
* all the fishes in the sea dying WORLDWIDE
* 1/3 of humanity being wiped out, as well as 1/3 of the vegetation WORLDWIDE
* Tigris and Euphrates drying up
* the 200 million man army coming from the East and crossing the dried out Tigris and Euphrates.
* Gog and Magog with a host of named nations coming against Israel for the final battle
I’ve heard some of the ways in which these things have been allegorized. All I can do is nod politely and say that I disagree. I’ve been studying these matters on my own, off and on, for years. I’ve listened to the various allegorizations of Revelation and the Olivet Discourse. They sounded false in my ears, and I don’t even remember them, as I have found more plausible explanations through my own studies, my observations from World History and Current Events, and from other saints in study groups and in lectures.
You probably came to your conclusions in much the same way. Why are your conclusions so different from mine? Don’t know. But I know I’m not gonna convince you, and I know you’re not gonna convince me.
Let others decide for themselves.
As to the throne, Matthew 25:31...
But the imagery in Matt. 25:31ff is the final judgment. The only thing left after than judgment is eternity. See verse 46. It corresponds to the White Throne judgment of Rev. 20.
Their "idea" of the Kingdom may have been skewed, but the idea comes from the prophets.
Yes, but the Jews were misinterpreting the prophets by demanding a literal earthly kingdom. Jesus refused. His kingdom was entirely spiritual and a present reality. The Jews were looking for something you could touch with a king you could handle.
Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, " The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:21,20)
Then why do the prophets predict sacrifices in the Millennial Kingdom?
Its prophetic imagery. The sacrifice language in the prophecies was all indicative of the person and work of Jesus Christ. We are in the kingdom now, experiencing the benefits and blessings of His sacrificial work on our behalf.
But the Torah stands FOREVER.
Of course it does, by the covenant has changed from old to new. The terms of the covenant has been altered since the coming of the Torah maker, Jesus Christ. The old covenant terms were mere shadows and were fading away even once Jesus appeared at the end of that old covenant age (cf. Heb. 8:13; 9:26; Col. 2:16,17). Any notion of animal sacrifice once God finally removed the old covenant temple and eliminated the Levitical priesthood in favor of the Melchizedek one is blasphemy (Heb. 5:6,10).
When EXACTLY does it pass away?
When the temple was finally destroyed. There is no longer any way of keeping the old covenant system. God didnt put the decaying on hold for 2000+ years. It was decaying and passing away in the first century. There is no reason to look forward to a decayed and rotting system in the future when we have the perfect system in Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God.
You might be interested in this article. It explains a workable chronology for Matthew 24/Luke 21.
Just one point of clarification. My methodology for interpreting the Bible does not involve allegory per se. Allegory is defined as, the representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative. E.g., the Br'er Rabbit/Uncle Remus stories are a form of allegory. In the Bible, we see an allegory in Paul description of the new/heavenly Jerusalem in Galatians 4. The bondwoman represents old Jerusalem and the freewoman represents the new.
I understand biblical imagery in terms of the prophetic genre. For example, in Isaiah 13 we have the prophecy against ancient Babylon. In the prophecy, Babylons temporal judgment is spoken of in term of
For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light; The sun will be darkened in its going forth, And the moon will not cause its light to shine.The language and context makes it clear that this is not speaking of actual physical phenomena, but is a symbolic image used by the author to describe the magnitude, intensity, and cosmic significance of this temporal judgment. We see similar imagery when the Bible speaks of God riding on the clouds of heaven (Psalm 68:4). We dont expect to see God literally seated on a visible mass water droplets.
In similar fashion the harlot of Rev. 17 represents something. We usually dont take it as an actual woman with a huge posterior seated physically on seven mountains. In this case the explanation is in the immediate context, but in other cases the text requires that we search the rest of the Bible of a suitable explanation. We cant just take the first thing that pops into our head, or use some other standard (like current events) for deciding the true meaning.
In my view that process is not strictly allegorical.
> It explains a workable chronology for Matthew 24/Luke 21.
I’ll have a look, when I have time, but my experience with these things is that they involve a lot of word-mincing and dancing around things that cannot be easily explained away. At times I must roll my eyes at some of the contrivances used by the proponents of each of the eschatological points of view: pre-millenial, post-millenial, and amillenial.
The truth is we see things as through a glass, darkly. We can only guess at what all this means. But a plain reading of the text convinces me that there is a lot yet to come, and that cannot be easily dismissed.
I am inclined to a pre-millenial view. There are pre-millenialists that I think are screwy, but it does not sway me from my pre-millenial view. The other eschatological views appear to me to fly in the face of any plain reading of the text and serve only to justify some of their other, sometimes suspect, theology.
We all come at these things with a set of preconceptions. If youre already looking for something that fits you preconceptions of the Bible (e.g. a so-called plain reading of the text) you may not find what you are looking for. But then most folks view of literal is something that is not taught in the Bible itself. Its a technique they impose on the text. You can always find what you are looking for if youve made up your mind ahead of time.
I was not referring to forced/false conversions. So it's really a red herring in context.
If a Jewish person willingly acknowledges Jesus as their Messiah, they are generally no longer considered a Jew in any practical sense by their community, is that not correct?
> You can always find what you are looking for if youve
> made up your mind ahead of time.
Which is where most of the guys that come up with this stuff are coming from.
Fact is, nobody, NOBODY, knows for sure.
If you think my “plain reading of the text” is a contrivance, then you must be depending on others to interpret it for you. In that case, you are assimilating their contrivances.
Good luck with that.
Just one more thing ...
Early in my Christian life, I came to a preacher with a passage of Scripture I could not understand.
The preacher looked at the passage, then asked me, “Are you going to live this passage today?”
I was quite taken aback and asked him, “If I don’t understand it, then how am I going to live it?”
He replied, “Then, live the Scriptures that you can understand. Perhaps if you get those right, the Lord will bless you with the understanding you will need for the less obvious ones.”
Best advice I ever got.
It depends upon the community.
In fact it was even common at the time of Christ.
His parents said these things because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had agreed already that if anyone confessed that He was Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue. (John 9:22)
So, just to clarify, within most Jewish communities you can be a religious Jew of various and divergent stripes, you can be a secular Jew, you can even be an atheist Jew, but you cannot be a Christian Jew.
So, just to clarify, within most Christian churches you cannot be a Christian Jew.
Not true. You can be a Christian Jew, a Christian Italian, a Christian Indian. No problemo.
You need to actually visit some Christian churches.
God reports ... You decide.
I was tempted to let the last comment stand, as it’s pretty damning, but I have to ask:
If you’re posting an article such as this one, why not embrace the term “Replacement Theology”? Isn’t that really what you’re all about? I mean, I know that the terms you like to use, expansion or whatever, sounds a bit kinder, but this is one extremely harsh viewpoint expressed in this article. If you posted it, why not embrace what is really being put forth here?
Because the term was invented by futurist opponents. It was not intended to be accurate. I don't think we should allow our position to be uncritically characterized by our opponents.
Supersessionism is better, but I prefer a term like kingdom expansion that best defines the view (as opposed to the kingdom deferred view of the futurists).
It does not mean that Jewish people can never again taste of Gods grace,Unfortunately, our futurist opponents believe that is precisely the issue when they use the term replacement theology, that somehow we believe Jews are incapable of being saved. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We believe in a significant intake of Jewish people into the kingdom by normal gospel means, without the need for the futurist holocaust of their great tribulation. We deny that race plays any part in God's plan for His people. Abraham's seed is without racial distinction.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal. 3)Some folks can't abide such views, so they invent terms like replacement theology to twist our views.
What in the article would you claim is harsh? Perhaps you have to define harsh for me, and ell us whether you think being harsh is always a negative thing.
I’m sure that you like the term “kingdom expansion”. However, it does not reflect the reality of what you believe. Kingdom expansion is what I believe. You deny the Jews their rightful place in God’s kingdom. God would never break His promise. He is not a liar, and that is what your view makes Him out to be.
If you would only do a thorough, critical reading of Romans 11, (with your mind open and heart open to the Holy Spirit) you would see that God is not dealing with the unbelieving Jews by “normal gospel means”. If your view is correct, why would He have “blinded” them or “hardened their hearts”? What would be the reason for that?
There would be no reason to do that if your view was correct.
Quite frankly, reading this article one time through was too much. Calling it harsh wasn’t really getting my point across. I thought it was disgusting.
Im not surprised. If you are misreading the Bible, esp. the NT, preferring your own notions of what constitutes Gods chosen people, then you will no doubt find this article disgusting.
Did you read this article? It basically explains the term.
Kingdom expansion is what I believe.
Sorry, but you believe in kingdom deferred. For you, Jesus is not yet reigning on the throne of his father, David. In fact there is no kingdom, so there can be no King Jesus (yet) in your system. You dont really believe what the NT says about the true nature of the kingdom (spiritual, not carnal).
Since I have many times, what you are saying is that if I would only set aside the text of the Bible and adopt your futurist assumptions, put on your futurist glasses, drink the futurist kool aid, it would all become obvious.
Romans 11 is about unity, not disunity. Its about integration, not racial separation. Its about one people being created, not two being divided. Its about one chosen people, not two.
This is not really clear to you because in the futurist scheme the only part of Romans 11 that really matters is verse 26. You see only Jew when what Paul is really teaching about is root, with its conjoined branches, and the nature of true Israel. Of course you have to read everything in Romans, not just a part of chapter 11, to get Pauls argument.
I look forward to your studied explanation of Romans 11 (in context). Not just the nuh-uhs.
Why can’t you simply answer the question that I posed in post 92?
The only problem is that this is what the "new testament" claims. It's no different than the "holy qur'an" claiming toe invalidate chr*stianity.
For the "old Jewish system" to be temporary and preparatory, it must claim this for itself . . . not have such a claim made only by the religion that claims to be replacing it.