There's no refutation of the clear wording of the perpetual land grant in Scripture. You construe metaphors too broadly in an effort to erase it and you don't deal satisfactorily with Romans 11 which makes a clear distinction between the root and branches. Furthermore, God is the judge of the worth of his promises not us but I would point out that land possession is very important when the rest of the world has proven too often that it would love to kill you. In fact, Scripture condemns the generation that would not enter the promised land. Do you think all that "kill everything that breathes" in Joshua was just metaphor? Paul says in Romans 11 that the gifts of God are irrevocable but you argue that God has revoked his gift of land to the Jews.
Discussion
The land grant was promised to Abraham and his offspring. His offspring is Christ. Not all Israel is Israel. Not those of the same blood but those of the same faith are blessed with Abraham. Those in Christ are Abraham's offspring indeed, subject to *all* the promises. The promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir *of the world* did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. Why did they not obtain it? Because they pursued it by works and not by faith. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
Which of the above statements "construes metaphors too broadly"?
If the promise to Abraham was only about the land, and if it was unconditional, then why were the curses in Deuteronomy written, and why were they later applied for their disobedience? Why were they kicked out of -- excommunicated from -- the land?
I will say again: we read the OT in the greater light of the NT, we do not read the NT in the lesser light of the OT.
✌
Here's the point: [Jesus *is* Israel](https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/jesus-true-israelhttps://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/jesus-true-israel).
Don't put words in my mouth. I see that you are acquainted with the strawman. I never stated, or even implied, that the promises were only about the land. As I recall, I started this conversation with a post about the land grant and it is my impression that you have introduced an assortment of other issues into the mix. Is that because there is no clear scriptual obviation of the land grant as it is clearly stated? You seem to treat the entire OT as an allegory in order to get around the plain meaning of the words. Do you think that the words were incorrectly translated, that eternal does not mean eternal? That the Jews were disciplined for a time by removal from the land does not obviate the land grant just as God's discipline of Christians does not obviate their salvation or their title to real estate in the New Jerusalem. God's gifts are irrevocable. Do you think there is a translation error in Romans 11, that irrevocable means revocable? Yes, the Jews were disciplined for a time but the Scriptures prophesied that they would be regathered in a particular parcel of real estate and indeed they have been.
Woah, brother, I was not putting words in your mouth. I do not mean to offend. My point was to say that these are Paul's words, not mine. The land grant was not removed it was expanded to include the entire world. And the culmination of all the promises to David, to Israel, to Abraham, and back to Gen. 3:15 culminate in the receiving of the Spirit by faith, and are fulfilled in Christ--the offspring of Abrahamto whom the promises were given. This is not to misapply a metaphor. I'm not trying to start a fight here, only get at the true teaching of the whole counsel of God, and reading the OT in light of the NT and not the reverse.
✌
Would I be incorrect to assume your view is some form of premillennial dispensationalism? Honest Q.
Do you ask that question to put me in a category so you can categorically dismiss my arguments? Is that an ad hominem argument? I prefer to focus on the issue at hand. Please don't take offense. I've worked as an attorney in litigation for decades and I've come to view argument as an essential tool to find the truth. It's basically the Socratic Method. It's been employed as a means of seeking the truth for thousands of years but I have found that it isn't very efficient if the interlocutors go off on tangents and don't stay focused on the issue at hand. We don't seem to be making much headway on the land grant issue. How about I just say, "Bless You Brother" and give it a rest for now?
No: I asked because labels and categories can function as conversational shorthand; they can sometimes come pre-packaged with other positions which, once discovered, may get closer to the issue at hand. Presuppositions matter: if there is disagreement downstream, the real source of disagreement may be somewhere upstream. Call it a kind of root cause analysis.
✌🏻