Revelation Daily

[The Overcomer Magazine @TheOvercomerMag]

https://t.co/thAmzc4W1h

This is one of Joel’s favorite arguments, but notice what he has to do to make it work.

He assumes:

1. A.D. 70 was a divine judgment on national Israel (which many Christians, including me, would agree with).

2. Therefore, 1948 must be a divine restoration of national Israel.

But that conclusion does not follow.

The Bible teaches that God governs all nations and all historical events. If God raised up:

* Babylon,
* Persia,
* Greece,
* Rome,

then those events were also under His providence.

The real question is not:

“Did God permit or ordain 1948?”

The real question is:

“Did God promise 1948?”

Those are two completely different questions.

A Christian could say:

God sovereignly permitted the establishment of the modern State of Israel.

without saying:

Amos 9, Ezekiel 37, and Isaiah 11 were fulfilled by the modern State of Israel.

Joel conflates the two.

His use of Amos 9 is especially problematic because the New Testament already tells us how Amos 9 is fulfilled.

In Acts 15, James quotes Amos 9:11-12 and applies it to:

the rebuilding of David’s fallen tabernacle through the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of God.

James does not say:

“This awaits a twentieth-century Jewish state.”

He says:

“Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets…” (Acts 15:14-15)

The apostles saw Amos 9 being fulfilled in Christ and the Church.

Joel sees Amos 9 being fulfilled in the United Nations vote of 1947 and the declaration of the State of Israel in 1948.

Those are very different hermeneutics.

His use of Romans 11 is similar.

“God has not cast away His people which He foreknew.” (Rom. 11:2)

Paul immediately proves that point by pointing to:

the remnant according to the election of grace (Rom. 11:5)

Not an unbelieving nation-state, nor a future political government. A believing remnant.

Likewise:

“The gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” (Rom. 11:29)

Paul is defending God’s faithfulness to His covenant promises.

He is not predicting the establishment of a secular parliamentary democracy in 1948.

The irony is that Joel accuses others of stealing Israel’s promises while overlooking Paul’s own interpretive keys:

* Christ is the Seed (Gal. 3:16)
* All the promises are Yes and Amen in Christ (2 Cor. 1:20)
* They are not all Israel which are of Israel (Rom. 9:6)
* If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed (Gal. 3:29)

The issue is not whether God is faithful, the issue is how God fulfills His promises.

The apostles consistently answer:

In Christ.

Joel consistently answers:

In a future Jewish kingdom centered in Jerusalem.

That is the real divide.
@Christsavedme77
#Endtimes
#Prophecy

[Pastor Matt Furse @PastorMFurse]

https://t.co/RJVE3QBIK0

[Tommy McMurtry @TommyMcMurtry2]

How is this guy still preaching in Baptist churches? If I claimed the Jews were all running the banks I would be called a conspiracy theorist and an anti-Semite. If Gipp states the exact same fact he is right because he thinks it is good. In this sermon he may have given the dumbest explanation of Genesis 12:3 that I have ever heard.
The nations are blessed through Jesus not at ethnic group. It isn't complicated.

[🛑 mocking the PEOPLE @alextopol]

Knowledge is the key! 🤷‍♂️

[JD™ @LostMyHats]

Part V of Stola Scriptura delves deeper into the specific allegations of Jewish Scripture-tampering made in real-time by the Church Fathers against the Rabbinic scribes. Far from a recent "Internet conspiracy" by those rascally antisemites, it was Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine, Tertullian, Origen - they all pointedly claimed that the Bible had been tampered with in an attempt to weaken Christian proof-texting that Jesus is the awaited Messiah.

The men who watched the editing happen said so in public, naming passages, translators, and motives. For example, Justin accused them of cutting three words from Psalm 96, "from the wood," to remove an obvious reference to the cross. Irenaeus accused them of intentional Scripture-twisting when they changed Isaiah 7:14 from "virgin" to "young woman" to weaken the Christian talking point about Jesus' miraculous conception.

Origen so strongly believed the Jewish scribes were deceptively editing the scriptures to gut the Old Testament prophecies of details that show Jesus is the Messiah, that he created the first parallel Bible, a 50-volume work that laid out 6 Jewish translations side-by-side, to easily show who was doing the twisting and where they were doing it.

But it wasn't just the church fathers. This was a constant claim up through the Reformers. John Calvin, writing his commentary on Psalm 22, concluded that the verse had been "fraudulently corrupted by the Jews." He used those exact words. Martin Luther, in his treatise On the Jews and Their Lies, accused the rabbis of deliberately distorting Old Testament messianic passages and specifically named their handling of Isaiah 7:14 as a calculated deception.

Even Jerome, who built his entire Vulgate translation on the Hebrew rather than the Greek, grew increasingly uneasy in his later writings about what that proximity to Jewish "scholarship" in Palestine had cost him, acknowledging in letters that the rabbinic tradition had influenced his translation decisions in ways he regretted. Augustine, writing from Africa, accused him of being mind-melded by that Jewish influence and warned him he'd come under their spell. He also warned him that by choosing the Hebrew over the Greek, he would fracture the church between East and West. He was right.

And then there's this: the same punctuation mark the Masoretes inserted into Daniel 9 to push the messianic timeline away from Jesus accidentally became the entire foundation of the whole Dispensational prophetic system. The rapture, seven-year tribulation, the rebuilt temple, the antichrist's covenant, all of it rests on a hard stop punctuation mark inserted by tenth-century Jewish scribes into a verse they needed to not point at Jesus. Harold Hoehner of Dallas Theological Seminary built the standard Dispensational chronology on that punctuation mark, which doesn't belong there. The scribes didn't do it to help Dispensational mythology, obviously, but that was the downstream consequence of Jewish scripture-twisting. It's amazing how much damage a single out-of-place punctuation mark can do.

As I've stated in each article in this series, the point isn't to make you doubt your Bible, but trust it. The reason we know an attempt was made to corrupt the Bible is that it was uncovered and largely unsuccessful. From the church fathers to the Reformers to the modern Bible translators, the church has done a good job of looking verse by verse to determine the best reading, knowing that the Jewish translators in the Masoretic Text had been shady, a fact largely agreed upon by almost everyone except modern Christians who know little about textual criticism.

The reason why James White - or anyone else - freaks out when the topic comes up isn't because this is some wild-eyed conspiracy theory, no matter how much they paint it that way. It's because it reveals an uncomfortable truth: Rabbinic Judaism was willing to corrupt its own Holy Book in order to rip Jesus out of its pages. We have invested so much in the myth of a "shared religious heritage" that any attempt to speak historic truths that might make Jews look bad is met with hostility instead of truthfulness. It busts the myth about how careful the Jewish Scribes were with the Bible, and nobody hates myth-busting like people who've been repeating them their entire career.

Read more at Insight to Incite. Link in bio. Audio version IS available!

[Gojo @Gojo1471498]

@mikevlach 1 Peter 2 quotes Exodus 19 giving the same names God promised to Israel to Christians. Those in Christ are Abraham's heirs, God's chosen people and holy nation. Jesus is the true Israel and those in him are part of it. Those who deny him are cut off.

[JD™ @LostMyHats]

💯 Jesus didn’t terminate “Judaism” because that is an extra-biblical term completely fabricated in the 2nd century BC. It’s not even Hebrew, but Greek (Ἰουδαϊσμός). It was referring to Jewish culture and traditions, not a religion. And it’s true that Jesus doesn’t come to dismantle cultural garnish.

“Judaism” wasn’t used to describe a religion at all until the the late 2nd century AD, and it was Christian theologians who began to use it that way, to differentiate between Χριστιανισμός (Christianity) and the Rabbinic counterfeit manufactured in the post-temple era. Referring to the Old Testament religion as “Judaism” is a historical error, at least, unless you put an adjective like “Mosaic” in front of it to clarify we aren’t talking about the tiny-hat-wearing, Talmudian, Temu-version spin-off religion.

But Jesus **definitely** came to lay the Old Covenant to bed. In Hebrews 8:13, we’re told, “In speaking of a new covenant, He makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”

Nighty-night Mosaic Covenant.

Likewise, Hebrews 10:9 says, “He abolishes the first in order to establish the second.” Paul echoes this in Romans 10:4, declaring that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes,” and in Ephesians 2:15, where Christ “abolished the law of commandments expressed in ordinances.”

The “full expression of the Old Covenant faith is found entirely in Jesus. He is the fulfillment of that which was preached to Noah (Genesis 9:9), looked forward to by Abraham (Genesis 12:3, ), mediated through Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15), promised to David (2 Samuel 7:12-16), and proclaimed by the prophets (Isaiah 53, Jeremiah 31:31-34).

Every sacrifice pointed to His blood (Hebrews 10:1-4), every priest foreshadowed His intercession (Hebrews 7:24-25), and every feast announced His coming (Colossians 2:16-17). Paul confesses this in Romans 10:4, declaring that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes, and in Ephesians 2:15, where Christ abolished the law of commandments expressed in ordinances.

It’s called the New Covenant, not the Newly Renovated Covenant. And it’s the only Covenant by which anyone can be saved, and it’s exclusively by faith in Christ alone.

Deny the New Covenant, deny Christ.

“But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away” (2 Cor 3:14).

[Revelation Daily @StudyEndTimes]

You didn’t run out of money. You ran out of time.

[The Overcomer Magazine @TheOvercomerMag]

https://t.co/vg4BXQBATv

[JD™ @LostMyHats]

Tons of Christians have been asking the same questions lately about the Septuagint and the Masoretic text, trying to discover where conspiracy stops and the truth starts, and worried about the reliability of their Bible. One would think the people with the credentials to answer them would have responded with something other than silence or finger-wagging shame-lobbing, alleging the question is "antisemitic." It's not.

Part III of Stola Scriptura is written for the Christian Proletariat that dares ask the tough questions. It treats their questions seriously, works through the manuscript evidence, and arrives at conclusions that will build confidence instead of shake it. That doesn't happen if we pretend like the Word of God hasn't been under attack since the beginning, or that it isn't still today. In Part III, we dive into where the passages differ and why the Christian proof-texts were those most affected by curious changes, with only one plausible, logical conclusion possible to be drawn.

Thankfully, unlike apologists and theologians who'd rather tell you to sit down and shut up than answer your questions, modern Bible translators do a fairly good job of acknowledging these attacks and discerning how and where to draw the lines. Read Stola Scriptura I, II, and III and you'll not only have a better idea how we got the Bible in your possession, but you'll have more confidence in it than when you started.

Read more at Insight to Incite. Link in bio. Audio version available.

[JD™ @LostMyHats]

This is - hands down - the worst example of the Galatian 'Bewitching' I've seen of the Jewish mind-meld rotting perfectly reasonable peoples' brains. I've got a lengthier treatment in tomorrow's edition of I2I, but here are some quotations I couldn't fit into the article.

In an attempt to paint historic Covenant Theology (the ONLY view of the Christian Church until 1821) as novel, and allege that Dispensationalism was the historic position, Harris practically blasphemed (if you could blaspheme mortals) by alleging historic Christian figures would support the primary position of Dispensaitonal Zionism, IE the belief that Jews have retained Covenant membership, blessings, and promises irrespective of their rejection of Jesus.

Harris claimed Spurgeon supported his view. Spurgeon said of Dispensationalism and Darby that their followers were "with a diligence never exceeded and a subtlety never equaled, laboring to seduce the members of our churches to the subversion of the truth" (The Sword and the Trowel, Volume 1 pp. 345-350).

Spurgeon said of Dispensationalism that it "has attained some notoriety in our day," and that "our spiritual instincts revolted at the heresy" (same as above).

Spurgeon said of Darby's Dispensationalism and its adherents, "We never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed at one time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement" (ditto ibid),

Harris said Justin Martyr supports Dispensational Zionism. Martyr said in Dialogue with Trypho (AD 155):
"All who through Him have fled for refuge to the Father, constitute the blessed Israel. But you (the Jews), having understood none of this, since you are the children of Jacob after the fleshly seed, expect that you shall be assuredly saved. But that you deceive yourselves in such matters, I have proved by many words."

Harris said Tertullian supports Dispensational Zionism. Tertullian said in An Answer to the Jews (c. AD 200): "Without doubt, the first, the elder people, namely the Jewish, inevitably will serve the younger. The younger people, namely the Christian, will rise above the elder."

And in Prescription Against Heretics, he said, "The Jews had formerly been in covenant with God; but being afterwards cast off on account of their sins, they began to be without God."

Harris said Origen supports Dispensational Zionism. Origen said, "We say with confidence that they will never be restored to their former condition. For they committed a crime of the most unhallowed kind."

Harris said Augustine supports Dispensational Zionism. Augustine wrote Tractatus Adversus Judaeos, the Tract Against the Jews, and said, "Behold Israel according to the flesh. This we know to be the carnal Israel; but the Jews do not grasp this meaning and as a result they prove themselves indisputably carnal, having forfeited their claim to the covenants."

Harris even cited Chrysostom. If you know anything about Chrysostom, CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS? Incredible. Chrysostom said, "The synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater; it also is a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts. But when God forsakes a people, what hope of salvation is left? When God forsakes a place, that place becomes the dwelling of demons."

Chrysostom said, "Now, after the grace of the Spirit has abandoned them, after all those august solemnities have been taken away, they are still stubborn with God and carry on their irreligious rites. Now you give it a name more worthy than it deserves if you call it a brothel, a stronghold of sin, a lodging-place for demons, a fortress of the devil, the destruction of the soul, the precipice and pit of all perdition."

And let's not forget the classic, "[The synagogue] is a criminal assembly of Jews, a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ, a house worse than a drinking shop, a den of thieves, a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, the refuge of devils, a gulf and abyss of perdition. As for me, I hate the synagogue. I hate the Jews for the same reason."

Every witness Harris called testified for the other side.

It was classic bait and switch. It works like this:

1. Find a historic figure who believed that in the eschaton, God would cause many Jews to repent of denying Jesus and - like Eskimos and Europeans and starving Pgymies in New Guinea and countless other people groups - be grafted into the Covenant from which they were once broken off and utterly severed from its promises and blessings.

2. Claim that this future hope **is the same as** the novel Dispensational view invented in 1821 that claims Jews - even amidst their sinful unbelief - retain Covenant membership, blessings, and promises apart from faith in Jesus, and that we are obligated to treat them like they are currently in Covenant with God.

These are not the same things. This is a sin to history. It bears false witness against our fathers. And it should cease to be committed.

This ancient heresy is being reborn, it's just as bewitching now as it was then; it causes good men to lose their minds, clouds their judgments, causes them to make these embarrassing intellectual errors, and needs to be excised from the Christian faith, post haste.

[JD™ @LostMyHats]

Here is a summary play-by-play of Harris' Dispensationalist errors and shady low-blow arguments against historic Christianity, explained within the latest I2I article:

1. Harris argued that believing that the Abrahamic Covenant is applied to believers in Jesus only is a recent, politically motivated development. I explain in the article that this was the position of the early church, and prove that Harris is projecting; although he refused to name Darby, it's actually his position that is, as a matter of proven, verifiable fact, a little more than 200 years old.

2. Harris used the Church Fathers' Historic Premillennial view that Jews would one day be restored to the Covenant post-conversion to Jesus in the eschaton, to support the idea that Jews remain in Covenant with God even today and retain Covenant blessings and promises prior to conversion in Jesus. The article shows you quote after quote that the Church Fathers emphatically state that they rejected the notion that Jews remain in the Covenant or have access to its blessings or promises without Jesus.

Harris cited the dead guys - including Spurgeon - to support his position, conflating Spurgeon's belief that Jews will be restored to the Covenant AFTER converting to Christianity with Harris' belief that Jews remain in Covenant BEFORE their conversion and DESPITE their unbelief. I provide you in the article with quotations showing that Spurgeon explicitly named both Darby and Dispensationalism and had a loathing contempt for Harris' position. He also does this with Calvin, Matthew Henry, Dabney, et al. Not a single one affirms the belief that is the actual subject of the controversy. I explain in the article the dirty trick that this really is, which is finding agreement on an issue that isn't the actual controversy, to stack corpses in your corner who actually testify against you.

Harris argued the Abrahamic covenant is unconditional because of the Covenant imagery of Genesis 15, arguing God remains obligated to ethnic Israel despite their rejection of Jesus. Three paragraphs later, Harris quotes Leviticus 26 to explain why the restoration has not yet happened: Israel has not yet met the conditions for restoration to the Covenant. The irony that he refuted his own argument was lost on him.

Harris deployed the Hebrew word "olam" to argue the land promise is perpetually binding on God toward ethnic Israel. I pointed out that Genesis 17:13 uses the identical word to describe circumcision as an everlasting covenant. Harris does not believe physical circumcision is perpetually binding on believers. He never explains why the same word establishes perpetual obligation in one case and not the other.

This is the really insane one: Harris used first-century Jewish messianic expectations as evidence for his position. His claim is that because the Jews were expecting a political messiah and a literal kingdom, his view must be right because it conforms with theirs. I point out the sheer insanity of arguing for fidelity to a view that led people to miss their own Messiah, and how the New Testament is one giant refutation of that Jewish misconception. This, in particular, shows the Dispensationalist mind-rot is of an advanced stage and possibly terminal. I also gave scriptural evidence that Jesus repeatedly corrected their Zionist expectations.

Harris built his entire case on Romans 9 through 11 as proof of ethnic Israel's ongoing covenant despite their lack of faith in Christ. I noted that Harris never once addresses Romans 9:6, the thesis statement of the entire passage: "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel," and went deeper into his cherry-picking of the Text while running from the verses that refute his position.

This was the second-lowest and second-most vulgar tactic in the article: Harris included a section on the Islamic interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant, and then the Hebrew Israelites, poisoning the well to suggest that those who disagree with Darby's novel view should be lumped in with Muslims and crazy black people. I explained in the article the lack of integrity in this tactic, which alleges the historic position of the church is somehow Islamic or associated with the Black Hebrew Israelites. This was **absolutely** below him, and it was disgusting and cheap. I also used it as an opportunity to explain Judaism's pre-20th-century love-affair with Islam, its kid-gloves for the Mohammadians, Hallakah's spitting-image of Sharia Law, and the fact that Rabbinic teaching allows Jews to pray in Mosques but not churches, and classifies Islam as more similar to Judaism - and less heretical - than Christianity.

Harris accused his opponents of letting politics drive their theology while describing Israel's military victories as "miraculous," endorsing strategic military alliances, and framing his entire piece as a response to criticism of military and diplomatic support for a foreign government. I pointed out that the Israeli government has spent hundreds of millions each year promoting Dispensational theology to Americans, has the most sophisticated religious interference campaign in history, and that Dispensationalism's most vocal defenders literally cannot locate the Abrahamic Covenant in Scripture. There is politicization, but it's not on our side.

Harris cited Edward Bickersteth as a restorationist forefather supporting his position. I noted that Bickersteth explicitly stated Jews have no valid claim to the Holy Land given their unbelief, and provided quotations stating that Christians may assist Jews get settled in Palestine but not for that reason, so long as it must "not do injustice to others" and must be "peaceful assistance." Harris left that part out, while arguing for American military help (that every honest person knows is being used in ways Bickersteth would have found appalling).

Harris cited Charles Ryrie and J. Vernon McGee, two of the most committed dispensationalists of the twentieth century, as supporting witnesses for his theological framework. Harris rightly acknowledged that both men explicitly stated the modern state of Israel does not qualify as the fulfilled prophecy because Israel has not repented and returned to God. I pointed out this creates a problem Harris never addresses. If the most doctrinally committed Dispensational theologians in history looked at the modern state of Israel and said it is not prophetic fulfillment, and Harris agrees with them, then Harris has no argument against people who are skeptical of the modern state's covenant significance. He spent four thousand words constructing a theological framework designed to make that skepticism look dangerous, and went on to accuse them of becoming modern-day Hamans (more on that in a second).

Harris dismissed questions about the genetic continuity of modern Jewish populations as conspiratorial. I pointed out that the genetic question is theologically irrelevant because Paul settled the genetic inheritance debate in Galatians 3:16 and 3:29 (although, let's be honest, in 2026 America, you can't just dismiss an argument by waving your hands and calling it "conspiratorial" anymore). Abraham's promise runs through Christ to those who are in Christ, not through a chromosome. Harris's framework depends on the theologically decisive role of genetic ethnic continuity. Paul already told us it is not.

Harris charged unnamed online voices with questioning Christ's Jewish identity, made without a single name, quote, or citation (no doubt, because naming them would allow the reader to research that debate for themselves). I explained that the actual argument serious people are making is that folks are using "Jesus was a Jew" (for example, Israeli influencers who deny his Messiahship) for explicitly political purposes to manipulate evangelicals to insist we support Israel, and in doing so, want the hearer to presume that Jesus was a Rabbinic Jew (a charge that cannot go unanswered). The debate has not suggested that Jesus isn't the Son of David, a descendant of Abraham, and an ancient Israelite, which every orthodox Christian confesses without reservation. But it's not about what term we use. It's about intentionally misrepresenting your opponents' views - especially when they have an obvious point about your side politicizing theology by using Jesus' biology to demand more bombs for Israel.

Harris then made the lowest blow possible, repeating the talking points of Josh Hammer in his propaganda piece at the David Horowitz Freedom Institute, likening Israel critics to Haman, who attempted a genocide of the Jewish people. I understand a Jew like Hammer doing it. But it was absolutely beyond the pale for a Christian to do. While arguing that our side politicizes the faith, he literally brings out HAMAN to suggest this is the end-product of holding to historic Christian doctrine. I suppose Hitler was unavailable. This type of thing is not honest, is not fair, and is a hyperbolic and shameful.

Harris ended with a claim he's compiled a folder over the years of Christians who deconstructed because "Christianity was too Jewish," which is an interesting thing to compile over the years when one is as disinterested in eschatology as he claims. I pointed out that not once in all of the New Testament did the Apostle to the Gentiles ever warn his readers not to distance themselves from the "Jewishness" of the faith. Not once. But Paul did repeatedly warn his readers of precisely the opposite. The bewitching Judaizing spirit was Paul's biggest bugbear. And while someone might have at some point apostacized over the "Jewishness of Jesus" incessant talking points (seriously, maybe stop doing it), poke your head out on X and see multitudes of Christians being baptized in the Judaizing heresy. If you want to see what that does to a man, look no further than Jon Harris.

Please look forward to several upcoming podcast interviews on this article, because I'm not done firing yet.

[Servant of the Lord Jesus Christ @osasisHERESY]

If zionists really believe this means all jews will be saved...

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, And shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob

Then Paul wouldn't have said "if they abide not still in unbelief"

Romans 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again

Clearly zionists are reading what they believe into scripture instead of letting scripture speak for itself

[The Overcomer Magazine @TheOvercomerMag]

https://t.co/8fXcDfKGHN

[The Overcomer Magazine @TheOvercomerMag]

The issue isn’t whether God keeps His promises, it’s how Scripture itself says they are fulfilled.

The apostles don’t bring us back to the shadow (land, city, throne) as the final reality—they show those things fulfilled in Christ.

Amos 9 is interpreted in Acts 15 as the inclusion of the Gentiles, not a future land reset.

David’s throne is explained in Acts 2 as Christ already reigning at the right hand of God.

Zion is identified in Hebrews 12 as the heavenly Jerusalem we have already come to.

And the land promise expands in Romans 4:13 to “heir of the world.”

That’s not spiritualizing the promises, it’s following how the apostles themselves understood them.

The prophets spoke in shadow. The apostles reveal the substance: Christ.

He keeps saying: “Not allegory… restoration”

But what he’s actually doing is:

Freezing the shadow
Ignoring apostolic interpretation
Rebuilding an Old Covenant framework after Christ fulfilled it

His graphic is built on this assumption: “Fulfillment must look exactly like the promise”

But Scripture teaches: Fulfillment looks like Christ

[The Overcomer Magazine @TheOvercomerMag]

You’re assuming something the apostles never assume:

that “land, throne, and nations” must remain geopolitical in fulfillment.

But the New Testament shows those promises are fulfilled in Christ, not postponed into an earthly system.

Throne?

“God… raised up Christ… to sit on his throne” (Acts 2:30–36)

Peter doesn’t say “will sit.”

He says He is seated now.

Kingdom?

“Who hath delivered us into the kingdom…” (Col. 1:13)

Not future —> present.

Jerusalem?

“Jerusalem which is above is free…” (Gal. 4:26)
“Ye are come unto mount Sion…” (Heb. 12:22)

Not earthly geography —> heavenly reality.

Land?

The apostles never preach land as real estate in the Middle East. Never!

They preach:

inheritance in Christ
a heavenly country (Heb. 11:16)
an incorruptible inheritance (1 Pet. 1:4)

So the issue isn’t “spiritual vs real,” it’s shadow vs fulfillment

The prophets spoke in land, throne, and nation language.

The apostles show those realities fulfilled in:

Christ
His kingdom
His people

Moving fulfillment back to geography isn’t faithfulness to Scripture, it’s stepping behind the apostles and undoing the way they revealed everything fulfilled in Christ.

[Pastor Matt Furse @PastorMFurse]

https://t.co/DoJrfZeirD

[The Overcomer Magazine @TheOvercomerMag]

https://t.co/JGoYeRynhH

[Lozzy B 🇦🇺𝕏 @TruthFairy131]

🔥 Israel Hijacking Christianity 🔥

“We are going to train 100,000 Christian Ambassadors to be Ambassadors in their own country’s for the state of Israel.

To defend Israel’s brand & to combat Antisemitism.

We will train Christian’s at all major Universities so that they can fulfil what I am doing for the state of Israel.

We are creating an online academy to train 10’s of millions of Evangelicals.

One billion Evangelicals & no one ever harnessed their power, it’s enormous. We are doing that here”.