The New is in the Old concealed, and the Old is in the New revealed...

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

It’s been said that the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. From a Christian perspective, probably nowhere is this more evident than in the Psalms. In fact, this book is cited in the New Testament more than any other book of the Old Testament. More to the point, however, the Old Testament often speaks in typologies-- or, as Wick Broomall states…

…a shadow cast on the pages of Old Testament history by a truth whose full embodiment or antitype is found in the New Testament revelation.

In other words, A typology is a real, exalted happening in the Israelite’s history which was divinely ordained by God to be a prophetic picture of the good things which he purposed to bring to fruition in Christ Jesus. Or, as the Scriptures themselves succintly and aptly say in Colossians 2:17…

These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

As an example of some typologies which Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants accept, any one of us could point toward Adam as a type of Christ. This is something which is outlined in Romans 5:19 for example. Likewise, the brazen serpent which was lifted up in the wilderness – through which the people found physical healing – was a type of the lifted-up Christ according to John 3:14 & John 12:32. It likewise seems to be generally agreed, as yet another example, that the Patriarchal Age in some way corresponds to the Apostolic Age-- in particular, the 12 tribes of Israel strongly parallels the 12 Apostles for example.

That mostly all Christians agree that there are certain typologies within the Hebrew Scriptures which fore-shadow greater revelations within the Christian Scriptures is a given.

But is it possible that these kinds of typologies and analogies are true in more ways than one, even extending well past the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures and into the scope of human history as well?

It is well known that, upon further examination, the typologies and analogies do not seem to stop with Adam, the brazen serpent, or the twenty four elders. The typologies are credited by some to be over one thousand for example. However, since “the New is in the Old concealed, and the Old is in the New revealed,” it would seem that a study of the Old Testament would be an imperative foundation for clarity of both Old and New Testament teachings.

More interestingly, though, is it possible that the general outline of the history of Israel itself actually in some way mirrors the general outline of the history of the Church herself?

In other words, it is possible that the entire history of Israel from approximately Abraham to Chirst roughly acts as broad typology for the entire history of the Christian Church as a whole-- with the 12 tribes of Israel roughly corresponding to 12 basic kinds of Christian denominations?

Consider some resources which are available on some non-Catholic web sites as follows:

For example, from the Orthodox, we observe the following outline of Church history from an Orthodox perspective.

Likewise, from an Evanglical tradition, we observe the following detailed outline of the Israelites history from the Old Testament.

Along similar lines, we also observe another detailed outline of the Israelites history from the Old Testament.

And, again, here we find yet another detailed outline of the Israelites history from the Old Testament.

 

[SedesDomi]

Which denomination corresponds to which tribe?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Likewise, within my own NIV Study Bible, there is an Outline of Old Testament History which outlines broad historical periods rather than specific events. Interestingly, when I compare the Outline of Old Testament History with an Outline of New Testament History, a striking pattern of similarity does appear to emerge.

The Church in Relation to the History of Israel

As with the NIV Study Bible, this outline I linked to above emphasizes broad historical periods rather than specific events. Dates, which often depend on scholarly interpretation, are approximate. In other words, this timeline is by no means exact. Nonetheless, when one compares the general outline of the Old Testament in contrast to the general outline of the New Testament, a striking pattern of similarity does appear.

As I already mentioned above, it is generally agreed by many Christian groups that the Patriarchal Age in some way corresponds to the Apostolic Age-- in particular, the 12 tribes of Israel strongly parallels the 12 Apostles for example. However, the similarity in general outline does not seem to rest there.

For example, shortly after Patriarchal period, the Israelites appear to pass through the kingdom of Egypt in a way similar to the Early Church passing through the Roman Empire. Likewise. the Israelite’s Exodus from Egypt seems to mirror the Church surviving the Fall of the Roman Empire. Even Joshua clearing the lands of Canaan which were opposed to the Israelites strangely corresponds to Constantine’s victory over those Roman generals opposed to Christianity. And the brutal, chaotic period of the Judges strongly parallels the Dark Ages-- in these days the land had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.

One could also note that the United Kingdom of Israel parallels the Acendence of the Papacy from within the Catholic Church. Consequently, shortly thereafter, the Israelite kingdom dividing into Israel and Judah seems to correspond to the great schism of the Church dividing into the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. In this sense, after the kingdoms divided, Israel seems to mirror the pattern of the Orthodox Church whereas Judah seems to mirror the pattern of the Catholic Church. It is also during this time that the highest degree of corruption was observed within the both the kings of the divided kingdom Israel and the heirarchy of the Church

Furthermore, just as Israel was eventually exiled to Assyria, the Orthodox Church seems to have been largely dominated under the tyranny of radical Islam. In both cases, neither Israel nor the Orthodox ever completely ceased to exist. Their power and influence, however, became severely reduced when compared to their former glory. Likewise, just as Judah was eventually exiled to and returned from Babylon, the Catholic Church seems to have passed through the Protestant Reformation, a period of radical and destructive re-examination of doctrine and conscience for both Protestants and Catholics.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

It is also interesting to note that during this particular time in Old Testament history, just prior to the beginning of the Intertestament period, the world as a whole seems to have been undergoing a revolutionary kind of thinking-- a turning away from supernatural explanations toward philosophy during the Axial period that is not much different from the shift toward secularist thinking during the Renaissance during the New Testament. In other words, there seems to be strong elements of a world-wide shift in thinking transpiring during this period of human history-- and this movement away from religion toward philosophy during the Intertestimant periods seems to strongly mirror the movement toward secularlism after the Renaissance.

For example, during this time within the Old Testament, the Chinese philosopher Confucious proposed a new set of moral standards to replace the magical and religious standards of his time. This development in Chinese thought actually seems to parallel in many ways the shift from religion to philosophy that occured during the same time within the Greek culture too. Anaxagoras, the Greek philosopher, particularly stands out at this time; he was imprisoned for claiming that the Sun was not a god and that the Moon reflected the Sun’s light. One could even draw a parallel between Anaxagoras and Copernicus in our Church Age when he challenged the heliocentric cosmology. In addition to this, it is also interesting to note that the composition of the Hebrew Scriptures (according to the Rabbinical schools of thought but not according to Catholic or Orthodox theology*) stops shortly around this time as well. For example, the book of Malachi is apparently claimed by modern day Judaism, to be the last book of the Hebrew Scriptures (and also the last book of the prophets in the Jewish editions). I find it rather remarkable that the time that modern day Judaism points toward the closing of the Hebrew Scriptures also mirrors the time the Prostestant Reformers rose up within the era of the New Testament and rejected these same books traditonally held within the canon of the Catholic Church.

*The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, however, teach that additional books of Scripture were indeed generated after this period, albeit in Greek.

More importantly however, just as the exiles of Judah returned to their land and initiated reforms under Ezra, the Catholic Church initiated the Counter Reformation. After this time, Judah no longer struggled with idolatry to the level they had formerly struggled, and the Catholic Church no longer struggled with abuses of Church authority to the level we had formerly struggled.

As noted above, after this time, the divided kingdom went through the Intertestimant period, just as the Catholic Church went through the Age of Enlightenment. But there’s abit more too.

Indeed, Antiochius Epiphenes (which means “Manifestation of Light” or “Illustrious One”, his coins having been inscribed with the title: theos epiphanies meaning, “God manifest.”) rose up and defiled the Hebrew Temple during this time, essentially proclaiming himself to be God while desecrating the Holy of Holies with pig’s blood. Similarly, in approximately 1864, Bahá’u’lláh (an Arabic word which means “The Glory of God”, or “He whom God shall make manifest”, or, in a broader sense, the “supreme Manifestation of God”) rose up and defiled the world’s perception of God, essentially proclaiming himself to be God while initiating the dictatorship of relativism that we are currently struggling with in our modern day-- the abominable idea that all religions worship the same God or that all paths lead to the same spiritual destination.

I would also note that the slaughtering of the innocents during the birth of Christ seems to parallel the incredibly tragic and inhumane loss of life through abortion that we’ve observed around the world over the last 30 years or so.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Which denomination corresponds to which tribe?

Keep in mind that this is more of a thought experiment than an actual Catholic teaching. In other words, this is more of a ecumenical discussion designed to generate a good and holy discussion between Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants if possible.

My hope is that casting denominations in the light of fractured Israeli tribes instead of separated breathren may generate a more fruitful discussion which doesn’t provoke frustration on any side of the debate if possible.

I realize that someone is bound to take offence. But the picture of several tribes from the same family working within one unit (even if working in opposition to each other at times) may prevent some offence.

Consequently, for the sake of this discussion, I’m treating the Catholic faith as if she were the tribe of Judah. There is a twist even with this however, since types often correcpond to antitypes-- so their is a sumblime inverison going on too.

Nonetheless. my hope and prayer is that this may generate true ecumenical discussion (and less arguing), true ecumenical discussion that is more in line with the Pope’s urgeing us faithful to long for unity.

 

[apophasis]

The Church, the Body of Christ, was neither concealed or revealed in the Old Testament. It is a mystery that has now been revealed, but no prophecy in the Old Testament anticipated it.Rom. 16:25-26 “Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, {leading} to obedience of faith; to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.”

Eph. 3:4-5 “By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;”

Eph. 3:9 “and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things;”

Col. 1:25-26 "Of {this church} I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the {preaching of} the word of God, {that is,} the mystery which has been hidden from the {past} ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints,"The Old Testament knew nothing of this Church age. It prophetically anticipated the first Advent of Christ (and anticipates still His second), the future, earthly, Millennial rule of Christ, the future glory of national Israel during that Millennial age with her King reigning and ruling on David’s throne in Jerusalem over all the nations; but it knew absolutely nothing of the mystery of this present Church age when Christ is building His Church, made up those who personally believe in Him for salvation, calling it out from both individual Jews and Gentiles.

The Apostle Paul was chosen to be the revelator of this divine mystery. Without his Epistles we would know almost nothing of it.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

The Church, the Body of Christ, was neither concealed or revealed in the Old Testament. It is a mystery that has now been revealed, but no prophecy in the Old Testament anticipated it.

My apologies, but your theology appears to reflect a very small minority within Christianity. Catholics, Orthodox and many, many Protestants do very much believe that the New is in the Old concealed, and the Old is in the New revealed-- and this thought can be found all throughout Church history too, going right back to the Scriptures.

Anyway, thanks for the reply. But if we can’t even agree on one of the common points that all Christians (except, apparently, you) agree with to at least some extent, then I’m not sure what else can be said.

Again, thanks for the reply. But I’ll wait for another response from another poster if you don’t mind. I’m not interested in arguing with you or changing your mind. I’m just interested in finding common ground that we can agree upon and then moving further from there as the Spirit carried us along.

 

[Zooey]

Well, I’m subscribing, just becasue this is such an interesting idea!!
I hadn’t heard that old saying (thread title) since, I believe, my grandmother died! My goodness. Hadn’t even though t of it…

 

[apophasis]

My apologies, but your theology appears to reflect a very small minority within Christianity.

Maybe so, but as I’ve demonstrated, it’s Pauline and not based on the theory of one man.

Since you’re trying to draw from history please take note that God always dealt with and through a minority, a remnant that believed and never departed from His literal Word.

The danger of your “experiment” is that of spiritualizing away many literal truths found in Scripture. The fact that there are “types” revealed in the Scriptures does not give the reader a licence to “typologize” anything he wants at will. Types themselves are revealed BY Scripture (allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture). Otherwise Scripture would be subject to the endless imaginations of mere men and will have lost all authority as the written Word of God.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Well, I’m subscribing, just becasue this is such an interesting idea!!
I hadn’t heard that old saying (thread title) since, I believe, my grandmother died! My goodness. Hadn’t even though t of it…

Thanks Zooey.

Like I said, I’m really trying to step back from a more aggressive and argumentative kind of ‘evidence’. I’m hoping that this kind of more ecumenical approach can bridge gaps better and at least lead to better understanding between denominations of Christianity.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Maybe so, but as I’ve demonstrated, it’s Pauline and not based on the theory of one man.

I guess I would just note that your demonstration actually demonstrates your interpretation of Pauline theology-- something which may not actually reflect Paul’s theology in and of itself.

apophasis:

Since you’re trying to draw from history please take note that God always dealt with and through a minority, a remnant that believed and never departed from His literal Word.

There’s no doubt about this-- no doubt that God’s preserves a special group for the sake of clarity. But I don’t think that your assertion necessarilly proves that your interpretation indicates that your theology reflects this remnant so to speak.

Besides that, the Scriptures clearly do indicate that faith in God will flourish under the new covenant in Christ. For example, Ezekiel 37:26 says…

I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever.

And, again, in Habakkuk 2:14, we read…

For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

So, bearing this in mind, I don’t think your interpretation necessarilly implies that only certain people will know the truth. Rather, as the knowledge of the Lord spreads throughout the world, the glory of the Lord will likewise become more evident as people’s hearts are changed by his increasing presence.

Indeed, as Jeremiah 31:31 clearly states…

“The time is coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.”

Almost every Christian I know, contrary to your claims above, believes that this reference in Jeremiah is being fulfilled within the period of the New Testament leading toward the Second Coming of Christ. There’s a lot more than this too.

So if you’re going to claim that the Church, the Body of Christ, was neither concealed or revealed in the Old Testament, then I think you need to re-examine vitually every Hebrew text which many Christians do indeed believe are being fulfilled in the Christian era.

It is a mystery that has now been revealed-- and many prophecies in the Old Testament did indeed anticipate it.

apophasis:

The danger of your “experiment” is that of spiritualizing away many literal truths found in Scripture. The fact that there are “types” revealed in the Scriptures does not give the reader a licence to “typologize” anything he wants at will. Types themselves are revealed BY Scripture (allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture). Otherwise Scripture would be subject to the endless imaginations of mere men and will have lost all authority as the written Word of God.

Well, which one is it?

On the one hand you admit that there are many ‘types’ revealed in the Scriptures, types within the Scriptures which point toward Christ himself. And, on the other hand, you’re claiming that the Church, the Body of Christ, was neither concealed or revealed in the Old Testament.

I’m not sure what you’re claiming at this point.

 

[inJESUS]

Interesting thread please keep posting . God bless you.

 

[apophasis]

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

I guess I would just note that your demonstration actually demonstrates your interpretation of Pauline theology-- something which may not actually reflect Paul’s theology in and of itself.

Sure it does since I am not reading anything into Paul’s theology. I am allowing his writings to speak for themselves.

Besides that, the Scriptures clearly do indicate that faith in God will flourish under the new covenant in Christ. For example, Ezekiel 37:26 says…

Ezekiel is stating nothing about the Church in this prophetic verse. In verse 24 the Lord says that at the time He makes (or establishes) that “covenant of peace” His Servant David will be king over them, they will walk in His ordinances, keep and observe His statutes. In verse 25 He says they will be living in the land He gave to Jacob and in which their father’s lived. Now if that doesn’t give you a hint as to whom the Lord is addressing through Ezekiel, then jump up to verse 21 for the context of Ezekiel’s prophecy:Ezek. 37:21 "Say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I will take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king will be king for all of them; and they will no longer be two nations and no longer be divided into two kingdoms” )cf. Eze. 34:11; 13; 20-25; 30; 36:8-12; 22-28; 33Ezekiel 37 is the famous prophecy of the “dry bones” which refers to the physical and spiritual resurrection of national Israel at the end of the age (Matt. 24:3; cf. Acts 1:6). It speaks nothing of the Church or this present Church age.

Men spiritualize that prophecy and allegorically apply it to the Church, but when you allow the prophet to speak literally, the Church is not in view. As Paul taught in his Epistles, and I pointed out in my previous post, neither Ezekiel or any of the ancient Hebrew prophets knew anything of the Church or this Church age. It was a mystery hidden with God.

And, again, in Habakkuk 2:14, we read… Quote:
“For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.”

Compare this to Zechariah 14:8-9, 16. Both Habakkuk and Zechariah were prophets to Israel and prophesied of the future glory of the reign of Messiah over Israel and the nations of the earth. This is the promised, earthly, Millennial Kingdom, and has no reference to the mystery of this Church age or the Church itself.

Continued next post.

 

[apophasis]

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

Indeed, as Jeremiah 31:31 clearly states…
Quote:
“The time is coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.”

You said it yourself. I put in bold type with whom this “new covenant” is established.

Jer. 31:31-40 is the prophecy concerning the New Covenant. Read further as Jeremiah elaborates even more on this future Covenant in 32:37-44. All within the context of national Israel.

Almost every Christian I know, contrary to your claims above, believes that this reference in Jeremiah is being fulfilled within the period of the New Testament leading toward the Second Coming of Christ. There’s a lot more than this too.

I don’t doubt that almost every Christian you know interprets Jeremiah in such a way. But they could not interpret him that way unless they ignored completely who Jeremiah was literally addressing, and to whom the Lord Himself said He would establish His Covenant.

The New Covenant was certainly inaugurated at the cross of Christ through His shed blood, which brought an end to the “old” Covenant, the Mosaic Law. But although we individuals who make up the Church, the Body of Christ, are saved through the salvific value of Christ’s shed blood, by which the New Covenant was inaugurated, the Covenant itself is yet to be “established” literally with national Israel just as Jeremiah literally indicates, and Paul himself agrees:Rom. 11:25-27 "For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery – so that you will not be wise in your own estimation – that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.” This is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins."Paul never commingles God’s present program of Christ building His Church with God’s revealed, future prophetic program for national Israel in the O.T. They are always kept distinct.

Well, which one is it? On the one hand you admit that there are many ‘types’ revealed in the Scriptures, types within the Scriptures which point toward Christ himself. And, on the other hand, you’re claiming that the Church, the Body of Christ, was neither concealed or revealed in the Old Testament. I’m not sure what you’re claiming at this point.

There are “types” of Christ in the O.T., such as Abraham and his promised son Isaac, and as you pointed out, the lifting up of the bronzed serpent in the wilderness. But the point I am making is that nowhere in the Scriptures is it ever taught that God’s primary purpose for Israel was to be a type of the Church. And nowhere in the N.T. is it ever taught that the Church is the antitype of national Israel.

This allegorical method of interpreting the O.T. Scriptures did not become prominent in the Church until Augustine. But neither Paul or the other writers of the N.T. viewed Israel allegorically, or as a type of the Church. The idea that Israel in the O.T. was a type of the Church is an invention of men and not at all supported in N.T. writings. Your allegorical method of interpreting O.T. prophecies regarding national Israel is completely unwarranted - and certainly not Pauline.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Interesting thread please keep posting . God bless you.

Thanks inJESUS. I’ll try my best.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Sure it does since I am not reading anything into Paul’s theology. I am allowing his writings to speak for themselves.

You most certainly are reading things into Paul’s theology-- just like the rest of us do.

The question is not whether people read things into the Scriptural record.

Of course they do. Everyone does.

The question is not whether people read things into the Scriptural record. The question is whether the Holy Spirit is truly revealing the interpretion that is presented as the true Scriptural meaning of the text.

And, even with that, the Scriptural texts in question can certainly have a dualistic meaning– one prophetic meaning usually fulfilled around the the time the prophecy was spoken, and a later meaning which is illuminated by the original event, a later event which the original event itself prophecies of.

In other werds, some prophecies can have more than one fulfillment throughout the course of human history-- more than one meaning so to speak. And, for the record, most of them often do.

Probably the famous passage from Isaiah 7:14 is one of the best examples of this kind of dualistic prophecy.

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Like so many prophecies, this one probably had two meanings: one for Isaiah’s time and another for much later.

As one commentary form the NIV Student Bible notes, Isaiah actually urged King Ahaz to seek a sign from God about Judah’s safety from it’s neighbors. Ahaz, being notoriusly stubborn and ungodly, outright refused.

In response to this, Isaiah told the sign anyway: a young boy would be born-- and before he grew out of childhood, Judah’s feared enemies would be destroyed.

Sure enough, only 12 years after this prediction, the Northern Kingdom of Israel fell.

Consequently, the Christian Scriptures sees a further meaning in this prophecy, applying it to the birth of Christ in Matthew 1:23…

“The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” —which means, “God with us.”

You at least agree with this much, correct?

If not, then there really is no chance for Spirit led dialogue on this.

But, if so, and in the hopes that we have at least some common ground here, let’s continue with the passage from Ezekiel and also move onto the other passages as well, just as we pray the Holy Spirit leads us…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

The Old Testament knew nothing of this Church age. It prophetically anticipated the first Advent of Christ (and anticipates still His second), the future, earthly, Millennial rule of Christ, the future glory of national Israel during that Millennial age with her King reigning and ruling on David’s throne in Jerusalem over all the nations; but it knew absolutely nothing of the mystery of this present Church age when Christ is building His Church, made up those who personally believe in Him for salvation, calling it out from both individual Jews and Gentiles.

So, before I proceed further, let me be sure of your position on this matter.

You’re asserting that the Hebrew Scriptures have spoken in the following matters…

1. 
   *]Historically teaches of God’s creation of the heavens and the earth…
   
   *]Historically outlines the time from Adam to Noah, culiminating in the Great Deluge…
   
   *]Historically outlines the time from Noah to Abraham, the father of faith…
   
   *]Historically outlines the time from Abraham to Moses, the law giver…
   
   *]Historically outlines the time from Moses to King David, the man whom God promised the Messiah would descend from…
   
   *]Historically outliness the time from King David to the various periods of exile from whence Ezra initiated reforms upon their return…
   
   *]Prophetically speaks of Christ’s 1st Coming…
   
   *]Prophetically speaks of Christ’s 2nd Coming…
   
   *]Prophetically speaks of the Millenial Reign of Christ after his 2nd Coming…
   
   *]Prophetically speaks of the reign of Christ in Jerusalem throughout all the world with King David as his ‘prime minister’ so to speak…
   
   *]Prophetically speaks of the end of time where the devil and his false apostles and his ‘children’ so to speak will perish in the abyss…
   
   *]Prophetically speaks of the end of time where all those who have truly believed thoughout human history will be raised in Christ forevermore…
   
   …But, even though they speak on all these matters, the Hebrew Scriptures are utterly silent, without even a hint or glimpse of the Church Age in Christ that we currently live in?
   

   ---

   You’re honestly claiming that the Old Testament knew nothing of this Church age?
   
   And you’re honestly claiming that the Hebrew Scriptures knew absolutely nothing of the mystery of this present Church age when Christ is building His Church, made up those who personally believe in Him for salvation, calling it out from both individual Jews and Gentiles?
   
   Are you 100% sure about this?
   
   I’m sorry but this claim you’re making makes absolutely no sense to me. I’m not even sure if I should debate it to be honest. Actually, instead of debating this, let me ask you another more simple question:
   
   Why should I accept your word on this matter over the word of many Catholics, Orthodox and Protestant voices who are actually in agreement to some extent on this subject?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Ezekiel is stating nothing about the Church in this prophetic verse.

Really?

Let’s continue with this for a moment.

apophasis:

In verse 24 the Lord says that at the time He makes (or establishes) that “covenant of peace” His Servant David will be king over them, they will walk in His ordinances, keep and observe His statutes.

Was King David present duing this other covenant of peace that he established with Phinehas son of Eleazar?

This covenant of peace was, after all, a covenant of a lasting priesthood.

I can also point toward Isaiah 54:10 as well…

Though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed, yet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed," says the LORD, who has compassion on you.

It would appear that this covenant of peace is already somewhat in effect well before the anticipated second coming of Christ.

I can also point toward Ezekiel 34:25 too…

I will make a covenant of peace with them and rid the land of wild beasts so that they may live in the desert and sleep in the forests in safety.

…which likewise points toward a future covenant of peace.

I can also, as I’ve done already, point toward Ezekiel 37:26 again…

I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever.

…which again indicates that this covenent of peace will be put unto effect in the future.

In addition to this, I can also point toward Malachi 2:5 too…

My covenant was with him, a covenant of life and peace, and I gave them to him; this called for reverence and he revered me and stood in awe of my name.

…which indicates that this covenant of life and peace was, once again, already in effect long before the coming of Christ-- in this case pointing toward the priests of Levi.

One might quibble a bit about a covenant of life and peace. However, in the Scriptures, peace often means well-being, repose, security, success, glory. Indeed, sometimes it means the totality of the messianic goods and is synonymous with salvation and goodness:

How beautiful are the feet of the messenger of good news on the mountains, he who announces peace, the messenger of goodness and of salvation

Isaiah 52:7​

This all seems to lead toward Christian passages, such as Hebrews 13:20-21 for example…

May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

I could also point toward Jesus words too, as found within Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20 & 1 Corinthians 11:25 too, all of which make clear statements of his blood being the blood of the covenant-- which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

In addition to this, I can also point toward John 14:27, which says…

Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

And Romans 15:33, which says…

The God of peace be with you all. Amen.

And also Romans 16:20, which says…

The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.

There’s actually many references to the “God of peace” all throughout the Scriptures, such as in Philippians 4:9 and 1 Thessalonians 5:23 in addition to the passages from Hebrews 13:20, Romans 15:33 & Romans 16:20 already quoted above.

The new covenant is indeed called a “covenant of peace” in Ezekiel 37:26, and the Gospel is called the “Gospel of peace” in Ephesians 6:15-- as if the word “peace” summarized the whole content of the covenant and the Gospel.

In the Old Testament, peace is often side by side with justice, such as in Psalm 85:11, which says, “Justice and peace shall kiss”.

And, in the New Testament, peace is often side by side with grace. In fact, when Paul writes: “Justified by faith we are at peace with God” in Romans 5:1, it is clear that “at peace with God” has the same pregnant meaning as “in the grace of God.”

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

In verse 25 He says they will be living in the land He gave to Jacob and in which their father’s lived. Now if that doesn’t give you a hint as to whom the Lord is addressing through Ezekiel, then jump up to verse 21 for the context of Ezekiel’s prophecy:Ezek. 37:21 "Say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I will take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king will be king for all of them; and they will no longer be two nations and no longer be divided into two kingdoms” )cf. Eze. 34:11; 13; 20-25; 30; 36:8-12; 22-28; 33Ezekiel 37 is the famous prophecy of the “dry bones” which refers to the physical and spiritual resurrection of national Israel at the end of the age (Matt. 24:3; cf. Acts 1:6). It speaks nothing of the Church or this present Church age.

Well, I suppose you can make many assertions if you wish. I remain unconvinced. I would say that Ezekiel 37 speaks volumes of the Church of this present Church age. :yup:

apophasis:

Men spiritualize that prophecy and allegorically apply it to the Church, but when you allow the prophet to speak literally, the Church is not in view.

My apologies apophasis, but these claims are not going to work here. :nope:

If you’re going to make an assertion that the Church is not in view, then you’re going to have to offer more than “you need to read it in context” types arguments. Eveyone makes that claim-- and many people who make this claim often disagree which each other too.

So I have to ask by what authority have you arrived to this conclusion that the Church is not in view. In my own opinion, I think that one could even see the Church in Ezekiel 37 even if one speaks literally.

For example, there’s this passage of the Scriptures…
Matthew 27:52-54:

The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!”

Clearly, many people had observed something which was very much like Ezekiel 37, with many people even within the holy city apparently observing these literal events. In fact, this all corresponded to the Jesus’ resurrection. Even more, this event within Matthew 27:52-54 is a minor fulfillment of prophecy which points towards a greater prophecy of the Day of Judgement when some will rise to everlasting life, and others will rise others to shame and everlasting contempt-- just as Daniel 12:2 clearly states.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

As Paul taught in his Epistles, and I pointed out in my previous post, neither Ezekiel or any of the ancient Hebrew prophets knew anything of the Church or this Church age.

So, even though the Hebrew Scriptures speak on so many matters as I’ve already pointed out here, the Hebrew Scriptures are nonetheless utterly silent, without even a hint or glimpse of the Church Age in Christ that we currently live in?

If I’m understanding you correctly, you are saying that, in short, the Hebrew Scriptures speak of everything except that of the Church Age itself. And, I’m sorry, but that’s simply nonsense.

I’ve been holding back so far. But would you like me to proceed to demonstrate all the different ways the Hebrew Scriptures speak of the New Testament age?

It was a mystery hidden with God.

Then, before I get started on this, I think I’ll just note that there’s an important distinction between not understanding the full meaning of a prophetic utterance and the radical claim that no one even conceived of what the prophetic utterance spoke of. I’ll agree with you on the first point. But the the later point is simply absurd and makes no sense in light the apostles own words.

For example, Peter tells us how even the prophets may not have understood the chronology of their own visions nor their vision’s exact meaning for that matter.
1 Peter 1:10-12:

Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.

If those who preached these visions sent by God’s Holy Spirit did not actually understand the time and circumstances of their own visions, then we too may likewise not be able to fully understand all of them yet either. As Peter indicates, some prophecies were indeed intended to be understood only in the fullness of time, essentially only by those people of faith who will be living during the time foreseen by the prophets.

Paul was indeed a man chosen by God to clearly expound on these things since the fullness of time had come at last-- he lived and witnessed the events that were indeed prophecied. But this is a far cry from the claim that the Old Testament knew nothing of this Church age.

In fact, this latter claim is simply not true apophasis-- and I’ll be willing to dig in a little deeper on these facts if you desire before I actually move toward the theoreticals that I’ve proposed in this thread.