Let us first pray and then examine this and see how we must
abandon the belief of Dispensationalism, which says that God
failed to bring His word to pass and teaches that Jesus
failed in His mission. I'm not saying this because of
my own beliefs. That is what Dispensationalism teaches.
That Jesus came to establish an Earthly kingdom and failed.

Let us first look at some ancient quotes...

"Having in remembrance, therefore, this saving commandment
and all those things which have come to pass for us:
the Cross, the Grave, the Resurrection on the third day,
the Ascension into heaven, the Sitting at the right hand,
and the second and glorious Coming" - St. Chrysostom's
Liturgy (4th century)

"Tis evident that when Christ speaks of his coming;
his being revealed; his coming in his Kingdom; or
his Kingdom’s coming; He has respect to his appearing
in those great works of his Power Justice and Grace,
which should be in the Destruction of Jerusalem and
other extraordinary Providences which should attend it."
- Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)

"This being so, then the words relating to a personal
return of Jesus are to be taken as pointing to the
Destruction of Jerusalem (Mat 10:23; 16:28)."
- Philip Schaff (19th century)

Please see:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/index.html
...for further comments about historic views of the
2nd Coming.

Now on to the subject at hand...

Did you know that what is now taught by the church...
Dispensationalism and "the Rapture", are taught because
of one belief? And do you know what that belief is?

It is the belief that the Messiah FAILED! That's right!
The belief that THE MESSIAH FAILED!!!

Not too many "Dispensationalists" realize that their belief
is based on the idea that the Messiah came to establish
His Kingdom and failed to do it, causing the Jews to reject
Him and so, His Kingdom was postponed.

Darby gave us popularized Dispensationalism. And
no one can deny that it was after Darby, that Christian
colleges began springing up that taught this idea of
Dispensationalism. Of course, Scofield, Ryrie, et al,
helped to popularize this system.

But how can they claim that the Lord failed?!

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth:
it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish
that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing
whereto I sent it." - Isaiah 55:11

That which He pleased. Hmmm...

"Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; he hath put Him
to grief: when Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the
pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand."
- Isaiah 53:10

It seems to me that what pleased the Lord, was for His Son
to be rejected and to make Him an offering for our sin.

Dispensationalism is built on the idea that God was wrong
and that these two passages are lies. And yet, those who
buy into this false theology, which is what all doctrines
that put off the Lord's Kingdom are based on, claim to
be serving God. How can that be?!

Darby believed that previous dispensations had failed and
that the church also had failed and that only a remnant of
it would be saved and of course, this "remnant" consisted
of his own followers, known as, "the Assembly" and he also
speculated that the church would be replaced with a revived
national Israel. Hmmm... Sound familiar to what you are
now waiting for??? National Israel to be saved? Hmmm?

Dispensationalism believes that the purpose of the first
advent of Jesus Christ was to offer an earthly Kingdom
to the Jews. This Kingdom would reinstate the Old Testament
legal system and it's expansion to the entire world under
the Messiah.

Does this sound familiar to you? It should. What you
believe is a reworking of this. (:

When the Jews rejected Jesus Christ and His Kingdom offer,
Plan B went into effect and Christ went to the cross to
initiate the dispensation of Grace and the "mystery church".
Had Israel received her King there would have been no cross
and no Gospel!

That is what your belief is based on. (:

So what if Jews had accepted the offer? Then what of the
prophecies pointing to Christ's atoning death? Once again,
we have a belief that God's word could come back void
and one which seeks to make the cross a consolation prize!

Darby believed that the church is just a "parenthesis" in
God's divine plan, which is for national Israel (words in
brackets and parenthesis added for clarification only).

"The Church has sought to settle itself here, but it has no
place on the earth... [Though] making a most constructive
parenthesis, it forms no part of the regular order of God's
earthly plans, but is merely an interruption of them to give
a fuller character and meaning to them (the Jews)." - Darby

So according to Darby, man "interrupted" God's plan to
establish a physical kingdom for the Jews. Interesting,
huh?

But *you* don't believe this, you say? Then why are you
waiting for a rebuilt Temple, complete with animal
sacrifices and a saved national Israel? Have you taken
the time to realize just how messed up that belief is?

1) God sets up the system of animal sacrifices.

2) God sends His Son to die on the cross as a ONE TIME
sacrifice for our sins.

3) God decides that what is necessary, is to ordain a
rebuilt Temple in which animal sacrifices are performed
and then later, Jesus moves in there and rules from
there.

Say what?!? God sends His Son to die on the cross as
a one time sacrifice, so that He can go back to animal
sacrifices?!?

And this all means that somehow God maintains dual
covenants. One with national Israel and one with the
church. How else can the church be the saved and
national Israel be saved?

Yet the Bible says...

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond
nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are
all one in Christ Jesus." - Galatians 3:28

And the Bible says that there is no more "national Israel",
as far as Biblical salvation is concerned. Paul showed that
the prophecies related to God's church and that "Israel" is
symbolic of His church, "the Israel of God".

Galatians 6:15-16

15) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth
any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16) And as many as walk according to this rule,
peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the
Israel of God.

Now if this is true, how can it be that God is looking
to save *NATIONAL* Israel?

And didn't Paul warn the church in Galatia not to return
to Judaism? Didn't he call the idea of following Christ
and the Law "returning to the beggarly elements"?
And didn't he call them "foolish" for wanting to do this?

3:1) O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you,
that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes
Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified
among you?
3:2) This only would I learn of you, Received ye the
Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3:3) Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit,
are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
4:9) But now, after that ye have known God, or rather
are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and
beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in
bondage?

So again I ask, how can you be waiting for God to save
national Israel, given these Biblical facts?

Well, many would quote the following passages from Romans.
Before quoting them though, I would submit that to do so
and to take the stance that they do, is to pit Scripture
against itself. How can the passages quoted above be true
*AND* what they believe be true? Huh???

Romans 11:25-26a

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 fullness of the Gentiles be come in.
26a) And so all Israel shall be saved

Now at first glance, given how we are trained to read it,
it seems as if what is believed today, is right. That God
saves part of Israel, then some Gentiles, then goes back
and saves all of national Israel. But given what we read
from Galatians, I would suggest a different way of
reading it.

You probably read it as follows...

1) It says "in part" and so, some Jews are saved.

2) Then the Gentiles are brought in.

3) Then God goes back and saves all of national Israel.

But that doesn't really make any sense. And the question
here is, what does Paul mean by "all Israel"? That is the
key here, isn't it? And we will look at that further down.

And note that it doesn't say, "and then all Israel...".
Rather, it says, "and so all Israel...". That word "so"
from the Greek, means "in this manner". In other
words, it is saying that some Jews would be saved,
then the fulness of the Gentiles (whatever amount
that was) and IN THAT MANNER, all Israel would
be saved!

So try reading it with that in mind. The way I see it...

1) Many Jews were saved (the first century church
started out Jewish and was almost exclusively Jewish
for the first 3 1/2 years after Pentecost).

2) Israel was blinded, but only in part, so that the
Gentiles could be brought in (this is when the Apostle Paul
shook the dust off of him at the Jews and went to the
Gentiles and became the Apostle to the Gentiles). So some
Jews were still being saved and the fullness of the Gentiles
was being brought in.

3) Once the fullness of the Gentiles was brought in,
THEN, "all Israel" was "saved".

Some Jews are saved and some Gentiles are saved.

*THEN*, "all Israel", *IS* saved.

God started with the Jews and Scripture shows, that when
they rejected the Gospel, that it was brought out to the
Gentiles. The Jews had their chance. They said no. (:
That does not mean that no Jews can be saved. It does
however mean that this concept of "national salvation"
is a farce and quite frankly, it makes joke out of
Scripture. Or have we not read that "there is neither Jew,
or Gentile" in Christ? How can that be true, if God
is preferencing national Israel? That simply does not
make sense. (:

The "blindness" happened "in part" to national Israel,
so that the fullness of the Gentiles could come in. Since
it does say, "in part", this does not mean that no Jews
could be saved during that time, so yes, they had their
opportunity.

Most are assuming that he means that some Jews are saved
and some Gentiles are saved and then God goes back to
national Israel and saves it, thereby forcing every single
Jew on the planet to be saved.

That would mean that the blindness would have to happen
to national Israel AS A WHOLE. And yet, we know that
there were some Jews still being saved. In fact, it was
mostly Jews.

Paul was not saying that the whole of national Israel was
blinded. He said, "in part". And what would be the point
of that? If He's going to save all of national Israel
anyway, why save some Jews first and then some Gentiles
and then the rest of the Jews? Huh?! This has God
proceeding in a non-sensical manner! (:

We must stop taking passages out of context, for it is then
that they do not read as they were meant. Looking in
THE SAME LETTER, we can see that Paul discounted the
idea of "national Israel" as being what he was talking
about.

"For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel"
- Romans 9:6b

Now how can it be that God is going to save national Israel,
when the Scriptures tell us that not everyone who is born
into national Israel, is of Israel? Therefore, it cannot be
"national Israel" that was being discussed as being saved
(although some of it would be, as Paul said).

Do you not see that when this claim is made, that by
default, one is claiming that it is circumcision that is the
key and not faith in Christ, because it ends up saying that
God is going to save national Israel, regardless if they
believe or not and btw, as a side note, that also fries
the "free will" belief, if you have one. :)

Let us read it again, with Romans 9:6b (quoted above) in
mind...

"For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant
of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own
opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until
the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel
will be saved" - Romans 11:25-26a

The "shall be" is not future tense from the point of time
after the fullness of the Gentiles came in. It was future
tense to the point in time that Paul was writing it and
present tense to the point in time that the fullness of
the Gentiles had come in.

And now we can see that it reads quite differently.
Unless of course, you do think that God was acting
in a non-sensical manner? Surely not, right? :)

"Come, let us REASON TOGETHER, saith the Lord."

Paul is saying that some Jews are saved and some Gentiles
are saved and once the fullness of the Gentiles had come in,
AT THAT POINT, "all Israel shall be saved".

How can this be said? Easy! The true Israel is *NOT*
"national Israel". It is "the Israel of God", remember?
Dispensationalists are confused about what the true
"Israel" is and it was the true Israel that God was
going to save, amen?

To say otherwise, is to pit the Bible against itself.
Namely, for example, it is to pit Romans 11:25-26 against
both Romans 9:6b and Galatians 6:15-16.

Furthermore, it is to pit it against more passages!

What else does Paul say in Romans?

"Isaiah also crieth concerning Israel; Though the number
of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work,
and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work
will the Lord make upon the earth." - Romans 9:27-28

Note: A REMNANT will be saved, not all of national Israel!!!

And let us look at Romans 11, which is where the verses
come from, that the Dispy's think prove their case,
to give it some context...

Romans 11:5,25-26a

5) Even so then at this present time also there is
a remnant according to the election of grace.
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 fullness of the Gentiles be come in.
26a) And so all Israel shall be saved

Now how can it be "a remnant" and be "all of national
Israel" at the same time??? Hello??? :)

It says, "and SO all Israel...", i.e., "and IN THIS MANNER".

It does NOT say, "And THEN all Israel shall be saved"!!!

Shouldn't we be taking the time to think this through???
Or is our vanity so great, that we will believe *anything*,
if it means that we can claim that it's all about us today?!

Darby clearly believed that it was up to man, what would
happen and so, God, in His grace (according to Darby),
kept adding "dispensations", to continue to give man a
chance. God was merely "interfering" with what man
was doing, bringing in these new "dispensations" and
each time, man failed and so, God had to keep bringing
in more dispensations.

Now doesn't this mean that God simply couldn't get it
right and that man is running the show, making God
contuanually rework His plans? How can we trust our
Bibles, if that is true?!

"...the dispensations themselves all declare some leading
principles or interference of God, some condition in which
He has placed man, principles which in themselves are
everlastingly sanctioned of God, but in the course of these
dispensations placed responsibility in the hands of man for
the display and discovery of what he was, and the bringing
in their infallible establishment in Him to whom the glory
of them all rightly belonged.....in every instance, there
was a total and immediate failure as regarded man (sic),
however the patience of God might tolerate and carry on
by grace the dispensation in which man thus failed in the
outset; and further, that there is no instance of the
restoration of a dispensation afforded us, though there
might be partial revivals of it through faith."

Of course, this makes God *reactive* to what man decides,
instead of the other way around. And Scripture may or
may not be fulfilled, is the inevitable conclusion reached.

I.e., God sets a plan in motion, man fails to accept it and
so, God adds another "dispensation" out of His grace and
there is no way to recapture that previous dispensation.
Now this might not be so bad, except that Darby believes,
as I previously stated, that it also means that God has
failed to establish what He stated, since Darby believes
that the reason the Messiah came, was to establish an
Earthly kingdom and that He failed to do so and so, here
we are, in another "dispensation", which has also failed
btw and so, now we wait for national Israel to be
established again, as God's people. So God's plans were
a waste of time and He will end up going in a big circle. (:

Now as I said, look at what it is YOU believe and you'll
see a lot of what Darby said in it. That is because what
you believe came from what Darby, et al, popularized.

But for me, these things only serve to remind me of what
the Lord Jesus Christ *actually* said, which flies in the
face of all of this! Jesus said that He came for the
purpose of dying and being raised. So how could God's
purpose have failed? And when did Jesus EVER preach
an *Earthly* kingdom? Can anyone show me even one
passage, in which Jesus preached a *physical*, *Earthly*
kingdom? Can anyone show me even one passage in
which Jesus preached the saving of all of national Israel,
or even that He came then to establish an Earthly kingdom?

So how does the teaching of Darby and most in the modern
church compare with what Jesus said, when we look at how
He answered the question of whether or not a physical
kingdom would come, since that is exactly what the Pharisees
were asking about (and note that Jesus did not say,
"But later it will be.")?

Luke 17:20-21

20) 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;
21) Nor will they say, See here!, or See there!.
For indeed, the Kingdom of God is within you.

The word "observation" is translated from a Greek word.

Parateresis - Inspection, that is, ocular evidence

Ocular = Of or relating to the eye; the sense of sight.

So let's compare what Jesus said, to what Darby and
most today claim about this.

Jesus: The Kingdom of God does *NOT* come with observation
(seeing by the human eye).

Most: The Kingdom of God *WILL* come with observation
(seeing by the human eye).

Jesus: They will *NOT* be able to point at it and say,
"Look! There it is!".

Most: They *WILL* be able to point at it and say,
"Look! There it is!".

Let us note that Jesus NEVER, EVER taught a physical Kingdom
of God on Earth, that people could see with the eye and
point at and say, "Look! There it is!". NEVER AND NOT
ONCE!

So when we see the claim that what they read elsewhere
in the Scriptures proves their claim, they are really saying
that Jesus was wrong and they are pitting the Bible against
itself! (:

Quite simply, they are failing to see the typology of the
Old Testament and they are failing to see that the
prophecies of a "New Jerusalem" (Isaiah 65:17-25,
for example) are not physical truths, but spiritual truths
that would later be revealed! They are reading the
Scriptures "with a veil on".

Jesus' statement was VERY SIMPLE AND CLEAR! It was not
some "super fantastic, sci-fi, complex" statement, made up
of "reverse language Bible speak"! Yet Darby and those like
him want us to believe that we are to interpret what Jesus
said, as meaning the exact opposite of what He did say. (:

And not only this, but that this "kingdom" will be a Jewish
national kingdom. So where does that leave the church?

Now you see why Darby reached the conclusion he did.
Either it is the church, or it is national Israel. How can
it be both? It can't!!!

Now who are we to believe? Darby? Those in the modern
church who twist even his teaching and claim a dual kingdom?
Or Jesus?

I know Who I pick! :)

But what of national Israel? What place does it hold
in Biblical prophecy today? I would submit.. NONE!

I know that seems strange and even "anti-Biblical" to some,
but the cold hard fact is, they have no place left in
prophecy. Many will point to the "fig tree" statement
by Jesus. But where does Jesus say that the fig tree
is national Israel? And have we forgotten what we just
learned about where this idea of national Israel being saved
came from and how it pits the Bible against itself?!

Since many quote Joel, let's look at what Joel said about
when Jerusalem was destroyed.

Joel 1:6-12

6) For a nation is come up upon my land, strong, and without
number, whose teeth are the teeth of a lion, and he hath the
cheek teeth of a great lion.
7) He hath laid my vine waste, and barked my fig tree:
he hath made it clean bare, and cast it away; the branches
thereof are made white.
8) Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the
husband of her youth.
9) The meat offering and the drink offering is cut off from
the house of the LORD; the priests, the LORD's ministers,
mourn.
10) The field is wasted, the land mourneth; for the corn
is wasted: the new wine is dried up, the oil languisheth.
11) Be ye ashamed, O ye husbandmen; howl, O ye vinedressers,
for the wheat and for the barley; because the harvest of the
field is perished.
12) The vine is dried up, and the fig tree languisheth; the
pomegranate tree, the palm tree also, and the apple tree,
even all the trees of the field, are withered: because joy
is withered away from the sons of men.

Now if the fig tree is Israel, then can we conclude from
this quote from Joel, that Jesus was dried up (v12), even
though He wasn't born yet? After all, didn't Jesus call
Himself the vine (John 15)?

And can we look at v8 and claim that the virgin is mourning
for the destruction of Jesus, given that the church is the
virgin bride and Jesus is the bridegroom (husband)?

And is Israel represented by the wheat and barley (v11)?
I don't see Jesus talking about wheat and barley in Mat 24.

Or is it possible... just possible... that Jesus was simply
using the fig tree in exactly the way He said He was,
which was to tell them that just like they know that summer
is near, when the fig tree puts forth its leaves, that they
should also know that the end was near, when they saw
the signs that Jesus described? I mean after all, isn't
that what Jesus *ACTUALLY SAID*???

Matthew 24:32-33

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.

And who did He say it to? To some generation, thousands
of years away? Or did He look at them and say, "When
*YOU* see..." ???

And what did He say next?

"Verily I say unto YOU, THIS generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

Now that word "verily" doesn't seem to mean much to us,
but in the Greek, it is VERY EMPHATIC! It is as if Jesus
is staking His whole credibility on this one 'time'
statement!

Now you may THINK that what He said before that is all
literal language, but it isn't. Jesus used symbolism. We
can prove this, for example, by looking at a fulfilled
prophecy found in Isaiah 19:1, which tells us about the
time that God used the Assyrians to judge Egypt and it
says that God "rode a swift cloud". Now did anyone see
with their eyes, God riding a cloud? No, they didn't!

But "every eye shall see Him", you say? Quote the rest
of that verse (Rev 1:7) and see that it says, "even they
who pierced Him" and that places it in the first century,
not the twenty first!

Read Mat 13:13 and see that the word "see" can also be used
to mean "understand" and also realize that it can't be first
century people resurrected and then see Him, because the
belief is that He is seen coming and THEN the resurrection
happens, so those who pierced Him must still be alive when
He is "seen" coming!

Revelation 22:12, as everyone knows, speaks of His return
in judgment. I will place that verse in between the
following quoted verses, so that you can compare
the wording...

Matthew 16:27-28

27) For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his
Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every
man according to his works.

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me,
to give every man according as his work shall be." - Rev
22:12

28) Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here,
which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man
coming in his kingdom.

No, it is not about the Transfiguration. That was only days
later and all of them were still alive and there was no
coming with the Father's angels, nor any rewarding of
every man according to his works.

No, it is not about the Pentecost. That was only days later
and all but one of them were still alive and there was no
coming with the Father's angels, nor any rewarding of
every man according to his works.

Jesus said that *some* of them (at least one, but not most)
would be alive when it happened. He said He was coming
"quickly".

And let's not forget that we just compared it with
Rev 22:12, which absolutely is about the Second Coming
and the reading is virtually identical!

Now don't ignore the words. Read them and believe,
whether you can understand how, or not.

Anyway, back to the "national Israel in prophecy" subject...

One of the first things we should note, is that while people
today wait for national Israel to be restored, it wasn't
Israel that was prophesied about anyway. They were cut off
a long time ago! Israel and Judah were divided and it was
out of Judah that the Savior would come.

Genesis 49:8-10

8) Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise:
thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies;
thy father's children shall bow down before thee.
9) Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son,
thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as
a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?
10) The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a
lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come;
and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

Note that the scepter would not depart FROM JUDAH.
Also note that this was *UNTIL* Shiloh comes, which
we all know is Christ. Christ would come out of the
tribe of Judah and that is when the scepter would pass
from national, to spiritual.

And let us also note that Genesis 49 is about "the last
days" and that nowhere is mentioned "a revived Roman
Empire", nor a "restored Israel". It was about the 12
tribes!

"And Jacob called unto HIS SONS, and said, Gather
yourselves together, that I may tell *YOU* that which
shall befall *YOU* IN THE LAST DAYS.

It is obvious here, when reading what follows, that Jacob
was telling them what would happen with the 12 tribes,
which is what he goes on to specify in Genesis 49 and
which is what the last days were about (the destruction
of the national and the bringing in of the spiritual).

This idea of national Israel being saved, is based on
the concept that Israel must get all of her land. That
this never happened. Did you know that this belief is
not based on the belief that Israel regains her land,
but that she never received all of it and so, God has yet
to fulfill that promise to Israel? Well, it is, so let us
look at the promise that God made to Israel and see if
it has been fulfilled. Certainly, if the Bible says that it
has been, then we should abandon this belief, right?

"For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it,
and to thy seed forever." - Genesis 13:15

"In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram,
saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river
of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates"
- Genesis 15:18

Genesis 17:7-8

7) And I will establish my covenant between me and thee
and thy seed after thee in their generations for an
everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to
thy seed after thee.
8) And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee,
the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of
Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be
their God.

Now this is an unconditional promise! There is no denying
that! God did not require that Israel fulfill some contract
in order to GET the land. But of course, getting the land
and keeping the land, are two different things. :) God
would give it to them for their possession forever. He also
however, established a covenant with them, that they were
obliged to keep, in order for that gift to be maintained,
which involved His protection and not His punishment.
As we all know, maintaining possession of a gift is quite
different than being given the gift. For example, our
parents can give us a shiny new car and tell us it's ours
forever. But they may also say that if we do not adhere
to the rules, we may lose that car, of our own doing.
Or, we could wrap that car around a telephone pole.
Guess what? No more car. :)

Now what is the sticking word here, for those who await the
national salvation of Israel? Well, that would be the word,
"everlasting", wouldn't it? If God said they would have it
forever, then certainly, they have not had it forever,
right?

But what does that word imply? Can we take it by itself,
out of context and build a doctrine on it? No!

Let us say, for example, that after God said this and after
they came into the land, they said, "No thanks, we don't
want it. See ya later.". What then? Haven't they now
broken the covenant and rejected the gift? Of course
they have!

What is definitely unconditional, is that God would give
them the land. However, He also said that He was entering
into a covenant with them. And a covenant implies a mutual
agreement that both parties must adhere to, or it becomes
void. Thus, God GIVES them the land. However, once they
have the land, they are bound by the covenant. There is no
such thing as a covenant that does not have legal
stipulations!

For example...

"And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant
therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their
generations." - Genesis 17:9

This was about circumcision. Now if man stopped doing this,
does that mean he gets God's CONTINUED blessing in the
matter?

And why don't we seem to get this simple idea of what a
covenant is when discussing God, but we do when discussing
covenants that men make with each other? Doesn't the same
idea hold? Both parties need to uphold their end, or it is
null and void and bad things may follow?

"And Abraham took sheep and oxen, and gave them
unto Abimelech; and both of them made a covenant."
- Genesis 21:27

Does anyone read this and think, "Abimelech can break it
any time he wants to, but Abraham must uphold his end
anyway, because no matter what Abimelech does, the
covenant is still valid and Abraham should bless him." ???

So here we see that the gift of the land was just that,
a gift. But to maintain that gift, they had to keep the
covenant. This doesn't make God (pardon the phrase)
an Indian giver, not a covenant breaker. Rather, it makes
the Jews the covenant breakers!

So let us now deal with the claim by the modern
Dispensational church, which is that this covenant has still
not been fulfilled and that God has not yet given them all
of their land, because they have not received the land to
"the River of Egypt". This is what this claim that God is
still fulfilling this covenant is based on. But that is
because in their ignorance, the Dispensationalists think
this river is way over in what we now know as Egypt.
But this is not where "the River of Egypt" is. We have
to remember, that Egypt used to control a lot more land
and looking at modern maps and trying to force the Bible
to wrap around them, won't work. (:

According to the ancient maps however, the tale is told
differently.

"The Wadi el-`Arish, known as the 'River of Egypt', formed
the southern boundary of the tribe of Judah, as it did
earlier of the Philistine territory. It drains the seasonal
surplus water from the Wilderness of Paran into the
Mediterranean. South of the Wadi el-`Arish was territory
controlled by Egypt." - Baker's Bible Atlas, p. 31

The River of Egypt is not in what is currently Egypt. It is
in an area of land that Egypt used to control, but no longer
does. Therefore, this claim by the Dispensationalists is
not only irrelevant, but completely and wholly incorrect.
And it flies in the face of what the Bible teaches regarding
this issue also. But since when do the Futurists care what
the Bible says? They are ignorant of God's word and think
the Old Testament should be turned into kindling, except
when they think they have found a passage that supports
their claims (it never does). They never look to what the
whole of Scripture teaches on a given subject. (:

Let us now turn to the Bible and see what it says about
whether or not they had received all of the land that God
had promised them that He would give them.

Joshua 21:43-45

43) And the Lord gave unto Israel *_ALL_* the land which
he swore to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it,
and dwelt therein.
44) And the Lord gave them rest round about, ACCORDING
TO *ALL* THAT HE SWORE UNTO THEIR FATHERS: and
there stood not a man of all their enemies before them;
the Lord delivered *_ALL_* their enemies into their hand.
45) THERE FAILED NOT AUGHT OF ANY GOOD THING
WHICH THE LORD HAD SPOKEN UNTO THE HOUSE OF
ISRAEL; ALL CAME TO PASS.

It is clear here, that God has *ALREADY* fulfilled His
promise! In fact, He did so A LONG TIME AGO, in the days
of Joshua!

But remember that God had said that He would give it to them
forever? Well sure, but let's not forget THE COVENANT.

Let's take a look at what else God said about this subject,
should they transgress the covenant of the Lord.

Joshua 23:14-15

14) And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the
earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls,
that NOT ONE THING HATH FAILED of all the good things
which the Lord your God spoke concerning you; ALL are
come to pass unto you, and NOT ONE THING HATH FAILED
THEREOF.
15) Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things
are come upon you, which the Lord your God promised you;
SO SHALL THE LORD BRING UPON YOU ALL EVIL THINGS,
UNTIL HE HAVE *DESTROYED YOU FROM OFF THIS GOOD
LAND* which the Lord your God hath given you.
16) WHEN YE HAVE TRANSGRESSED THE COVENANT of the
Lord your God, which he commanded you, and have gone and
served other gods, and bowed yourselves to them; THEN shall
the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, AND YE SHALL
PERISH QUICKLY FROM OFF THE GOOD LAND WHICH HE
HATH GIVEN UNTO YOU.

So here it is clear that when they transgressed the
covenant, that they lost the right to the land. They would
be "destroyed from off this good land". They would,
"perish quickly" from it. So if what the Dispy's believe
is true, then God's a liar!

Now we can surely turn to times in Scripture when God
said that He would return them to the land, if they
repented, but the point I'm making here, is that the concept
of it being "their land forever", was tied to this covenant,
which they did transgress and thereby, lost their "eternal"
"national" right to it.

So when people today are rooting for Israel to blow away
their enemies, they are not acting in a Christian manner,
first of all and secondly, they are thinking, as was shown
earlier, that God's plan is to return to the old system.

They think that Armageddon is the final battle of the whole
world and that Israel wins this war, etc.. But Jesus said
differently, didn't He? Read Luke 21:20-22 and see for
yourselves. And while they claim that Zechariah 14 shows
that Israel will win some future war, the reality is that it
clearly says that Jerusalem would be taken and destroyed.

"But it says that He will turn and fight". Yes, it does.
AFTER JERUSALEM IS DESTROYED! And as every
historian of that era knows, 70 A.D. was the beginning
of the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact, it almost did
fall during the War of the Jews (Rome vs Israel). Now
you know what the fatal wound of the beast was, from
which it recovered. The beast was a man AND an empire.
And the heads were rulers also. Nero died during this
war and Rome almost fell apart, but the beast (Rome)
did live on. It did decline steadily though after this war
and it did eventually crumble into nought.

Read Isaiah 62-64 and Zechariah 12-14 and you will see
that what Jesus said lines up perfectly with this.

Israel is "the Israel of God", not national Israel and their
salvation (national Israel's) was to come at the time of
their destruction, when God took the Mosaic system out
of the way and established His Kingdom, which is spiritual,
not physical (Luke 17:20-21 specifically says this). Thus,
their salvation was to be eschatological, not national.
I.e., they were not to be "nationally saved", but rather,
"eschatologically saved". Isn't this the whole thing of it?
Don't we claim that the Jews failed to recognize that their
Messiah came on a spiritual mission??? So why do you
reject that idea now?! Does that make you a hypocrite,
pitting Scripture against itself?! Think about it, please!

And this did happen, in 70 A.D.. Jerusalem was destroyed
and the Temple was torn down, stone by stone. His
Kingdom was established and it is spiritual, as Jesus said
it would be (Luke 17:20-21)! The old Mosaic system was
removed and as every Rabbi knows, Biblical Judaism ended
in 70 A.D.!

And no, the Wailing Wall does not count! It was part of
the foundation and Jesus specified the Temple buildings!
That would be like telling someone who's house was
destroyed in Hurricane Andrew that it didn't really happen,
because gee, look, the cement foundation survived! (:

A foundation is just that.,.. a foundation. One can build
many things on a foundation! And as I said, Jesus
responded regarding the Temple buildings (Mat 24:1;
Mark 13:1)!

There is no "future restoration of national Israel" and no
"third Temple in which sacrifices will be performed and
in which God will live". It is a farce! And it is based on
the idea that JESUS FAILED to establish His Kingdom
and that God has to keep working around what man does!

The covenant that God had with national Israel is over
and has been for a long time!

In fact, even before 70 A.D., Israel was cut off, remember?
Judah was the one that God helped and it was Judah that
would bring forth the Savior. And that was when the concept
of "national" would end. The Bible says so!

Genesis 49:8-10

8) Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise:
thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies;
thy father's children shall bow down before thee.
9) Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son,
thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as
a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?
10) The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a
lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come;
and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

Note that the scepter would not depart FROM JUDAH.
Also note that this was *_UNTIL_* Shiloh comes,
which we all know is Christ. Christ would come out of
the tribe of Judah and that is when the scepter would
pass from national, to spiritual.

Take a lesson here folks! Why are you waiting for something
that is not going to happen and that returns us to the old
covenant, Mosaic system?! As Paul said to the church in
Galatia, that was being mislead by the Judaizers, who were
telling them that they also had to honor the Mosaic
system...

"Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now
made perfect by the flesh?" - Galatians 3:3

And so now, I ask you the same question and hope that
you pick the spiritual and not the physical!