Interplanner
Well-known member
In another thread, a participant asked why passages in Joshua and then the prophets were being quoted which show that the land promises to Israel had been fulfilled already (before the NT).
(I Kings 4) is one of many verses from the OT that show that geo-political things promised to Israel in certain passages have already been fulfilled. There are several in Joshua. There are a number of things to notice.
1, those aspects of Israel's promises never matter to the apostles, in their commissioned preaching (you could say it mattered in Acts 1 where they were lagging in understanding about what the mission was supposed to be)
2, there is a geo-political hazard to Israel in the 1st century if they do not enter into God's mission. It was the destruction of Jerusalem. There are tons of warnings that this would happen. The earliest of Paul's letter says it was as good as done, though the event was still a couple decades out.
3, I would like to know why these people who think there are geo-political (and therefore theocratic) promises 'left over' to be fulfilled think that way when there are actually already two episodes when they were fulfilled:
1, the conquest and
2, the return from Babylon.
Given the fact that the DofJ takes place as warned in Dan 9 after the return from Babylon, the geo-political promises become almost a game, and God becomes a gamer. You would now have 3 different episodes to sort through (or, to sort promises out in) and I do not believe that is the intent. Lk 21 and 2 Th 1 say that the full wrath of God upon Israel was dispensed in the DofJ; another round of fulfillment and destruction would simply trivialize things and be totally unbiblical.
(I Kings 4) is one of many verses from the OT that show that geo-political things promised to Israel in certain passages have already been fulfilled. There are several in Joshua. There are a number of things to notice.
1, those aspects of Israel's promises never matter to the apostles, in their commissioned preaching (you could say it mattered in Acts 1 where they were lagging in understanding about what the mission was supposed to be)
2, there is a geo-political hazard to Israel in the 1st century if they do not enter into God's mission. It was the destruction of Jerusalem. There are tons of warnings that this would happen. The earliest of Paul's letter says it was as good as done, though the event was still a couple decades out.
3, I would like to know why these people who think there are geo-political (and therefore theocratic) promises 'left over' to be fulfilled think that way when there are actually already two episodes when they were fulfilled:
1, the conquest and
2, the return from Babylon.
Given the fact that the DofJ takes place as warned in Dan 9 after the return from Babylon, the geo-political promises become almost a game, and God becomes a gamer. You would now have 3 different episodes to sort through (or, to sort promises out in) and I do not believe that is the intent. Lk 21 and 2 Th 1 say that the full wrath of God upon Israel was dispensed in the DofJ; another round of fulfillment and destruction would simply trivialize things and be totally unbiblical.
