Pastor Scott Markle

*Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

    1,065
  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Pastor Scott Markle

  • Rank
    Abiding in Christ
  • Birthday 08/13/1971
  • Bio My name is Scott Markle, and I have served the Lord my God and Savior in pastoral ministry since 1992. I have served as the pastor of Melvin Baptist Church, a small country church in the Thumb area of Michigan, since 1998. I have been joyfully married to my beloved wife Kerry since 1993; and we have been blessed of the Lord with two sons, Padraic and Westley.

    My life-verses are Philippians 3:8 and John 15:4-5. "Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ." "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine: no more can ye except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in, and I in him, the same bringeth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." The burden of my life is to pursue "the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord" and to walk daily abiding in Christ, and Christ in me.

    Concerning all my ministry, it is the burden of my heart to exalt, not myself, but the name of Jesus Christ and the truth of God's Word. It is my burden that Christ must increase, while I must decrease. Therefore, I maintain the policy that my name, as the author of a book, must remain smaller, while the phrase, "For the Glory of the Lord," must stand larger above it. Thus far the Lord our God has graciously allowed me to self-publish two books which can be purchased at my website: "God's Wisdom for Marriage & The Home" and "The Spirit of Revival: A Contrite and Humble Spirit." In addition, I maintain a daily (Monday-Friday) Bible study blog at that website.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://www.shepherdingtheflock.com

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location: Melvin, MI
  • Are you IFB? Yes

Recent Profile Visitors


4,599 profile views

Pastor Scott Markle's Activity

  1. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Eve's Transgression?   

    Brother "Saintnow,"
    Respectfully, I am honestly unable to concede any of the points that you have requested for me to concede.  Indeed, I am honestly unable to concede from a position that possesses some Biblical support to a position that possesses no Biblical support.
  2. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Eve's Transgression?   

    Brother "Saintnow," (It would be nice to know your given last name in order that I might address you respectfully with it.)
    If your above two statements were a public request for forgiveness for having not "dropped it" and having "beat a dead horse," then I wish to publicly express my forgiveness.
    (Note: I fully recognize that this does not indicate your change in position or your agreement with my position on the subject under discussion-debate.)
  3. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Debate - Prophecy in Daniel 9   

    Actually, no effort at all has been put forth with any intention whatsoever “to falsify the promises of God.”  Rather, some effort was put forth in order to illustrate a single point, the point being that a “gap” of time between the end of the 69th “week” (of years) and the beginning of the 70th “week” (of years) would not cause the failure and the falsifying of our Lord God’s prophetic utterance in Daniel 9:24-27.  Furthermore, a great deal of effort has been put forth throughout the entirety of this discussion-debate in order to demonstrate the inaccuracies of your position concerning the details of Daniel 9:24-27.

    Except that the Lord God of heaven and earth, God the Father, does not die; therefore, He can never “die in debt with a promise broken.”

    Except that the Lord God did not wait until after the 69th “week” was completed before He gave report concerning the “gap” in time between the end of the 69th “week” and the beginning of the 70th “week.”  Actually, He gave this report even before the entire process of the 70 “weeks” began.

    How does the Lord God keep His promises?  He keeps them precisely according to the details with which He gave them.  Now, (as I stated with the conclusion of my previous posting) since God the Holy Spirit through inspiration arranged for a gap in the layout between the end of the 69th “week” (of years) and the beginning of the 70th “week” (of years), I myself expect this prophetic utterance to be fulfilled precisely in the same manner as it was presented under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, with the “gap” included.

    _____________________________________________

    Concerning Daniel 9:27.

    Grammatically, this verse presents four independent statements (clauses), as follows:

    1.  “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.”
    2.  “And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.”
    3.  “And for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation.”
    4.  “And that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”


    Herein we find a specific reference to “one week.”  In this context this appears to be a reference unto the 70th and final “week” (of years) of the 70 “weeks” (of years) that the Lord God had determined to administer “upon” Daniel’s people, the children of Israel.  Even so, this verse begins with a statement concerning the initiation of that “week” (of years) by indicating that some specific “he” will “confirm” some specific “covenant” with a group of “many” (presumably, in this context, a “many” from among the children of Israel) for a time period of “one week” (7 years).  Furthermore, this verse speaks concerning the middle point of that “one week” period (the 3.5 year point), wherein the same specific “he” will “cause the sacrifice and the oblation” (presumably, within this context, at the temple in Jerusalem) “to cease.”  Third, this verse indicates that this same specific “he” at this middle point of this “one week” period (the 3.5 year point) will, “for” the purpose of “the overspreading of abominations,”  make “desolate,” presumably in this context, the temple in Jerusalem (as well as, possibly, the city of Jerusalem and the people of Jerusalem), and that this specific “he” will maintain this “overspreading of abominations” and this desolation “even until the consummation,” presumably in this context, of this “one week” (which would also be the consummation of the entire 70 “weeks”).  Finally, this verse indicates that those desolations which were determined as per the concluding statement of Daniel 9:26 will be “poured upon the desolate” (presumably, in this context, upon the children of Israel).  Thus we are able to observe that Daniel 9:27 covers details concerning the beginning, the middle, and the conclusion of the 70th and final “week” (of years).

    However, this general overview of the verse does raise a number of questions concerning certain details, as follows:

    1.  To whom does the pronoun “he” make reference?

    Grammatically and contextually, there are two possible antecedents for the pronoun “he” in Daniel 9:27.  The first of these is “the Messiah the Prince.”  The second is “the prince that shall come.”  Three times throughout the context of Daniel 9:24-26 the Messiah is referenced, and each time He is referenced with an exalted title, as follows: (1) “the Most Holy” in verse 24, (2) “the Messiah the Prince” in verse 25, and (3) “Messiah” in verse 26.  Considering that such exalted titles are used for Him in each of these prior cases, it seems out of contextual character then to reference Him in verse 27 simply with the pronoun “he” for all three uses.  Furthermore, when the pronoun “he” could have been used for the Messiah in verse 26 without any ambiguity from the context of verse 25 (since the other “he,” “the prince that shall come,” had not even been mentioned yet in the context), still the exalted title “Messiah” was employed.  As such, this seems to emphasize the characteristic of this context to reference the Messiah only with exalted terminology.  On the other hand, by referring to “the prince that shall come” with such a more general and less exalted phrasing, it would fit the character of the context quite well then to reference him in verse 27 with the simple pronoun “he.”  Furthermore, it is a common principle of communication (although not a universal principle) to arrange the antecedent for a pronoun as the closest possibility, which “the prince that shall come” would be in the contextual flow of thought from verse 26 unto verse 27.  As such, the grammatical and contextual evidence seems to point unto “the prince that shall come” as the correct antecedent for the pronoun “he” in Daniel 9:27, rather than “the Messiah the Prince.” 

    Even so, I myself would contend that the “he” of Daniel 9:27 refers to some political leader of the Roman kingdom (within the context of its “iron and clay mixed” form as a religious force) “shall come” unto Jerusalem and “shall confirm” some specific “covenant” with some “many” (presumably, in this context, a “many” from among the children of Israel).  Furthermore, I myself would contend that this “prince” from the Roman kingdom “shall confirm” this specific “covenant” only and specifically for a period of “one week” (or, for a period of 7 years), even as the modifying prepositional phrase, “for one week,” directly indicates.  Finally, I myself would contend that this confirming of this specific “covenant” will initiate the beginning of the 70th and final “week” (of years) of the 70 “weeks” that were determined by the Lord God to be administered “upon” Daniel’s people, the children of Israel.

    2.  What is the meaning of the phrase “shall confirm” in this context?

    The verb “to confirm” indicates the strengthening of something that had previously been or become weak and/or ineffective.  In relation to a covenant, the verb “to confirm” indicates the affirming, or establishing, or engaging of a covenant that was or had become previously weak and/or ineffective.  As such, the phrase “shall confirm” in this context seems to imply a specific covenant that had previously existed, but that had also previously become ineffective.

    3.  To what specific covenant does the phrase “the covenant” make reference?

    The use of the definite article “the” in the phrase “the covenant” seems to indicate that this “covenant” is some definitely specific covenant.  However, no further description is given in Daniel 9:27 concerning this “covenant,” or even in the full context of Daniel 9:24-27, by which to specifically define this “covenant.”  Therefore, we must consider the broader context of the entire chapter of Daniel 9 and of the entire book of Daniel.  In so doing, we find one other reference to a covenant with the definite article “the” in Daniel 9, in Daniel 9:4.  Furthermore, we find five other references to a covenant with the definite article “the” in Daniel 11, in Daniel 11:22, 28, 30 (2), 32. 

    In Daniel 9:4 Daniel indicated that the Lord God was keeping (in the present tense of Daniel’s time) “the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments.”  So then, what “the covenant” was the Lord God keeping with His people at that present time?  It would seem most likely that Daniel was referring to the covenant that the Lord God had made with the children of Israel at Mount Sinai during Moses’ time.  This would seem to be supported when we consider the similarity in terminology, as per Moses’ declaration unto the children of Israel in Deuteronomy 7:12-13, saying, “Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers: and he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee.”  Furthermore, this would seem to be supported when we consider Daniel’s own reference unto “the law of Moses” in Daniel 9:11-13, saying, “Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him.  And he hath confirmed his words, which he spake against us, and against our judges that judged us, by bringing upon us a great evil: for under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem.  As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the LORD our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth.”  Finally, within their context every one of the five references to “the covenant” or “the holy covenant” in Daniel 11 also appears to be a reference unto the covenant that the Lord God had made with the children of Israel at Mount Sinai.

    So then, in what way will the “he” of Daniel 9:27 “confirm” the Lord God’s covenant with the children of Israel that He had made with them at Mount Sinai?   In order to answer this question, it might be of value to consider the opposite behavior as presented in Daniel 11:30-31.  Therein we learn of a foreign ruler who would “have indignation against the holy covenant,” which he would demonstrate by polluting “the sanctuary of strength” (that is – the temple in Jerusalem) and by taking away “the daily sacrifice” from being engaged.  Even so, if having indignation against “the holy covenant” is to pollute the temple and to take away the sacrificial system from the temple, then it would seem reasonable to conclude that confirming “the covenant” would be to support the temple and the engagement of the sacrificial system in the temple.

    Even so, I myself would contend that some political leader of the Roman kingdom (within the context of its “iron and clay mixed” form as a religious force) “shall come” unto Jerusalem and “shall confirm the covenant with many” among the children of Israel for a seven year period (“one week”), such that there shall be an agreement that those “many” among the children of Israel will be permitted to engage in the sacrificial system of the temple for that period of time.

    4.  What does it mean that this “he” will “cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease”?

    The second independent statement (clause) of Daniel 9:27 states, “And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.”  This statement clearly indicates that this event will occur “in the midst of the week,” that is – at the 3.5 year point of the 7 years for which “the covenant” had originally been confirmed.  What then will this “he” do at this time?  He personally “shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.”  He will cause the sacrificial system of the temple in Jerusalem to cease being engaged.  He will no longer permit sacrifices and oblations to continue.  Now, if it is correct that the confirming of “the covenant” would be an agreement to permit the engagement of the sacrificial system in the temple, then this act would be a direct violation of the agreement of that confirming of “the covenant.”

    5.  What does it mean that this “he” shall “make it desolate”?

    The third independent statement (clause) of Daniel 9:27 states, “And for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation.”  Having caused the sacrificial system of the temple to cease at the 3.5 year point of the 7 years, the “he” of this verse will make something to be “desolate.”  In a context concerning the confirming of “the covenant” of the sacrificial system in the temple at Jerusalem and concerning the cessation of that sacrificial system, it would seem reasonable to conclude that the temple in Jerusalem and its sacrificial system, at the least, is that which is “made desolate.”  It is even possible that this work of desolation by the “he” of the verse will also encompass the city of Jerusalem and the Israelite inhabitants of Jerusalem.  Furthermore, this work of desolation by this “he” will occur “for the overspreading of abominations,” that is – for the purpose of abundantly spreading abominations in and upon the temple in Jerusalem.  Finally, this work of desolation by this “he” will continue “even until the consummation,” that is – until the completion of the seven year (“one week”) period, which will also be the completion for the entire 70 “week” period.

  4. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Eve's Transgression?   

    So then, our options are as follows:
    1.  God reiterated the command to both Adam and Eve, yet Eve misrepresented God by adding the phrase concerning not touching.
    Biblical evidence -- None whatsoever, just human conjecture.
    2.  Adam reported God's command to Eve, yet Eve misrepresented Adam and God by adding the phrase concerning not touching.
    Biblical evidence -- None whatsoever, just human conjecture.
    3.  Adam misrepresented God's command to Eve by adding the phrase concerning not touching, and Eve reported Adam's misrepresentation.
    Biblical evidence -- None whatsoever, just human conjecture.
    4.  Adam reported God's command to Eve and added his own standard of not touching, and Eve misunderstood Adam's report by attributing the added standard to God.
    Biblical evidence -- None whatsoever, just human conjecture.
    5.  Adam reported God's command to Eve and added his own standard of not touching, and Eve misrepresented Adam's report by attributing the added standard to God.
    Biblical evidence -- None whatsoever, just human conjecture.
    Concerning all of these options, I wish to present the following warning of another --
    6.  God reiterated the command to both Adam and Eve and added the phrase concerning not touching, and Eve reported God's command accurately.
    Biblical evidence -- The biblical record of Genesis 3:3 wherein Eve reports this very quote from God, "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."
    I myself choose to accept Eve's word on this matter for the following reasons:
    1.  It is the only option that actually possesses any Biblical evidence whatsoever.
    2.  Eve made this claim while she was yet in the condition of a sinless character.
    3.  There is no Biblically recorded rebuke anywhere against Eve for misrepresenting either God or Adam.
    4.  There is no Biblically recorded indication anywhere that Eve misrepresented either God or Adam.
    So then, with the Biblical evidence of Eve's claim and without any Biblical evidence to counter that claim, I will accept her claim as the very truth.
     
    Yet there is one declaration of absolute conviction that stands against this position, as follows:
    Throughout, the premise of this absolute conviction and absolute declaration is basically the following:
    Adam's eyes were not opened to death until after the moment that he ate of the forbidden fruit, not at the moment when he touched the fruit; therefore, touching the fruit could not have been sin and thus could not have been forbidden directly by God.
    Now, there are a few problems with this premise, as follows:
    1.  In neither of the two reports of the command, not in the report of God's Word in Genesis 2:17 or in the report of Eve in Genesis 3:3, is there any statement whatsoever about when eyes would be opened unto anything.  Therefore, to make claims about when eyes should or should not, could or could not, would or would not be opened throughout the process is not Biblically founded, since God's Word does not reveal this information.  In fact, God's Word only gives us the report that their eyes were opened and at what point in the process this happened.  However, God's Word does not tell us exactly why this happened at the exact moment that it did.  So then, the above premise is based upon a bit of human speculation.
    2.  The first sin was in fact a process, just as in the case of any sin.  First, there is the temptation, the drawing away and enticing of one's lust.  Second, there is the conception of the lust, wherein the heart and mind make the decision to engage in the sin.  Third, there is the birthing of the sinful activity itself.  Fourth, there is the bring forth of death.  In the case of Eve's and Adam's sin, this process was also present.  First, the serpent tempted Eve.  Second, Eve came to agreement in her heart with the serpent, seeing the fruit in her mind as something good for her.  Third, she took of the fruit.  Fourth, she ate of the fruit.  First, Eve tempted Adam by offering him of the fruit and inviting him to join with her in eating.  Second, Adam willfully decided to join with his wife in eating, although he was not at all deceived and thus knew full well that it was not at all good for him.  Third, Adam took of the fruit from Eve's hand.  Fourth, Adam ate of the fruit along with his wife.  In both cases the sin began with a decision, not with an action.  Yet in this case the decision was acted out within seconds, for the entire process of decision, taking, and eating could not have taken more than 4-5 seconds as a whole.  
    3.  Upon what Biblical evidence may we conclude at what point the corruption of death began, whether at the point of decision, at the point of touching, or at the point of eating?  Is there any statement at all in the passage concerning precisely when this occurred?  If not, then why would we seek to make absolute declarations of interpretation upon the foundation of information that is not precisely revealed?
    4.  Finally, simply as a thought question -- How long might it have taken for the conviction of conscience and the consciousness of corruption to open their eyes unto full understanding of their new sinful condition?  I would suppose that it did not take long.  However, even if it took a few seconds, the entire process of sin (decision, taking, and eating) would have been completed before the opening of the eyes unto understanding.
     
     
  5. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Eve's Transgression?   

    First, Brother "Saintnow," I did not quote you in order to contend with you directly, but in order to present you as an example of a commonly held view.
    Second, there actually is something said "about exactly who told Eve whatever about eating of the tree;" and there actually is something that says "it was God who said not to touch the fruit."  As recorded under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit in Genesis 3:3, Eve herself made the following claim, "But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."  Eve did not give the report that Adam told her that God had said.  Eve did not give the report that God had said something to which Adam then added in giving to her.  Eve gave the report that God had said what she then quoted.  Now, either Eve spoke the truth in this statement; or she spoke a falsehood.  If she spoke the truth, then God Himself had said, "Ye [plural, which is different than the command statement in Genesis 2:17] shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it [which whole statement is different than the command statement in Genesis 2:17], lest ye die." 
    I myself choose to believe that Eve was giving a truthful report.  Why?  First, because there is no indication anywhere in the context of Genesis 3 that Eve was speaking falsely when she gave this report.  Second, because if she was not giving a truthful report, then the first human sin was speaking a lie (not eating of the fruit).  Yet there is no indication anywhere in all of Scripture that Eve spoke falsely or that the first human sin was speaking falsely. 
    ____________________________________________________________
    Brother "Saintnow,"
    Now, with the remainder of my posting, I do wish to speak more directly to you.  You posted a second posting while I was yet in the midst of preparing that which I presented just above in this posting.  I desire to respond directly to that posting.
    Indeed, there is a danger in doing so.  That is the reason that we should stay as close to that which is actually recorded in the Scriptures as we are able.  It is interesting that after you provided the above warning, then you yourself proceeded to engage in "things that are speculative and not directly revealed in God's Word," as follows:
    Concerning the belief or lack of belief that "there was any command from God regarding touching the fruit," Eve herself did make the claim that God said it. 
    I would rather contend that God did make such a command in accord with the record of God's Word concerning Eve's report to that very effect, than to completely conjecture concerning what Adam may have reported to Eve, when God's Word gives not a single word concerning any such communication on Adam's part to that effect.
    I pray that this set of statements was intended as a joke.  However, even as a joke these statements present a Biblical falsehood.  First, God did not rest after He mad the man.  Rather, after the Lord God made the man, then He gave the following report in Genesis 2:18 -- "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."  Second, God did not only created the man in His own image; for the report of Genesis 1:26 is -- "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them . . . ."  Again the report of Genesis 1:27 is -- "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."  Third, it is only after God made the woman as a wife and helper meet for the man that He declared all which He had created to be "very good" and that He proceeded to rest on the seventh day.  Fourth, it was the sin of the first man Adam, not the sin of the his wife, that was committed with willful, knowing rebellion (as opposed to deception) and that caused the entire universe and the entire human race to be plagued with corruption and continuing "unrest."
     
  6. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Everlasting Covenants?   

    Concerning God’s Covenants & The Land Promise 
    (Part 2)
    By Pastor Scott Markle
    (www.shepherdingtheflock.com)
     
    (For the introduction to this study see here.  For the basic outline to this study see here.  For the first part of this study see here.)
     
    3.  The Lord God’s covenant with the children of Israel concerning “the land.”

    In Exodus 19 the Lord God made a covenant with the children of Israel.  The various elements of that covenant then continue throughout the books of Exodus and Leviticus, wherein the Lord God gave instructions concerning the sacrificial system and the societal behavior of the children of Israel.  Concerning the land, the Lord God continually made promise that He would lead the children unto the land and that He would go before them and fight for them against the inhabitants of the land, in order that the children of Israel might take experiential possession of the land.  However, the first generation of the children of Israel after the deliverance from Egypt rebelled against the Lord God at Kadesh-barnea and were cursed to wander in the wilderness for an additional forty years. 

    Even so, at the end of that forty year wandering, the servant of the Lord Moses reiterated the covenant and the law unto the second generation of the children of Israel after the deliverance from Egypt.  This we find in the book of Deuteronomy; and at the end of this book, we also find promise statements, both positive and negative, concerning “the land.”

    Deuteronomy 28:1-2 – “And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth: and all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God.”

    Deuteronomy 28:8-14 – “The LORD shall command the blessing upon thee in thy storehouses, and in all that thou settest thine hand unto; and he shall bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.  The LORD shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, and walk in his ways.  And all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the LORD; and they shall be afraid of thee.  And the LORD shall make thee plenteous in goods, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy ground, in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers to give thee.  The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow.  And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the LORD thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them: and thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.”

    Deuteronomy 28:15 – “But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee.”

    Deuteronomy 28:21 – “The LORD shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest to possess it.”

    Deuteronomy 28:25 – “The LORD shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them: and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth.”

    Deuteronomy 28:36-37 – “The LORD shall bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone. And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations whither the LORD shall lead thee.”

    Deuteronomy 28:45-47 – “Moreover all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee: and they shall be upon thee for a sign and for a wonder, and upon thy seed for ever.  Because thou servedst not the LORD thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things.”

    Deuteronomy 28:62-64 – “And ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude; because thou wouldest not obey the voice of the LORD thy God.  And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.  And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone.”

    (Note:  In the Lord God’s covenant with the children of Israel, there are many details concerning various things; however, for the sake of this exercise, I wish only to consider those details that relate to the land promise.)

    A.  Precisely what conditions did the Lord God place upon the land promise of blessing?

    Deuteronomy 28:1-2 – “And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth: and all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God.”

    Deuteronomy 28:13-14 – “And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the LORD thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them: and thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.”

    B.  Precisely what consequence did the Lord God proclaim if they did not meet His conditions for the land promise of blessing?

    In Deuteronomy 28:21 He indicated that He would consume them “from off the land;” in Deuteronomy 28:25 He indicated that He would remove them “into all the kingdoms of the earth;” in Deuteronomy 28:36 He indicated that He would bring them unto a nation which they had not known; and in Deuteronomy 28:63-64 He indicated that He would pluck them “from off the land” and would scatter them “among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other.”

    On the one hand, in this covenant the Lord God clearly presented a condition for the experiential possession of the land and its benefits.  That condition was faithful obedience.  On the other hand, in this covenant the Lord God also clearly presented a consequence for disobedience.  That consequence included, among many other curses, the loss of the experiential possession of the land and its benefits.


     
    4.  The Lord God’s covenant with the children of Israel concerning restoration to “the land.”

    Indeed, in this covenant the Lord God also delivered a provision for restoration unto the land and its benefits after the curses had been administered against them.  This provision for restoration is presented in Deuteronomy 30:1-10 – “And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, and shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; that then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee.  If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: and the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.  And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.  And the LORD thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee.  And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the LORD, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day.  And the LORD thy God will make thee plenteous in every work of thine hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, for good: for the LORD will again rejoice over thee for good, as he rejoiced over thy fathers: if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.”

    A.  Precisely what condition did the Lord God establish for this restoration to the land?

    Deuteronomy 30:1-2 – “And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, and shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.”

    Deuteronomy 30:10 – “If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.”

    B.  Precisely what blessings did the Lord God promise to administer personally for them in this restoration?

    (1)  To restore them unto the land.

    Deuteronomy 30:3-5 – “That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee.  If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: and the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.”

    (2)  To bless them abundantly in the land.

    Deuteronomy 30:5b – “And he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.”

    Deuteronomy 30:9 – “And the LORD thy God will make thee plenteous in every work of thine hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, for good: for the LORD will again rejoice over thee for good, as he rejoiced over thy fathers.”

    (3)  To convert their hearts unto loving obedience.

    Deuteronomy 30:6 – “And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.”

    Deuteronomy 30:8 – “And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the LORD, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day.”  (Note: This verse is not presented as a conditional requirement, as in the cases of verses 1-2 & 10, but as a promised result, which seems to flow from the promise of verse 6.)

    (4)  To curse their enemies that persecuted them.

    Deuteronomy 30:7 – “And the LORD thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee.”

    (Note:  It is interesting that some wish to consider the “conversion” blessing as being valid, while considering the other three promised blessings of restoration as being invalid.  If any one of these promised blessings is invalid, then all four of these promised blessings must be viewed as invalid; for all four of these promised blessings of restoration are founded upon the same conditions.)

    Concerning Gods Covenants & The Land.pdf
  7. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Eve's Transgression?   

    Just my "two cents."
    I myself have never believed that Eve misrepresented God's Word on the matter.  If she had, then this falsehood would have been the first sin of humanity; and it would have been a sin of willful falsehood, not of deceived transgression (as 1 Timothy 2:14 reports concerning Eve's part "in the transgression").  
    Now, the timeline of the creations, commandment, and temptation has been given already, as follows:
    1.  The Lord God created Adam.
    2.  The Lord God commanded Adam not to eat of the forbidden tree.
    3.  The Lord God created Adam's wife, Eve.
    4.  The Serpent, the Devil, tempted and deceived Eve.
    However, I wish to bring forward a grammatical element in relation to this timeline, as follows:
    1.  In Genesis 2:17 the Lord God delivered His commandment unto Adam, saying, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."  Herein the Lord God employed the pronoun "thou" three times.  This pronoun is a singular pronoun; therefore, in delivering this command the Lord God was only speaking to a single individual.  Even so, this would be appropriate in the context since Adam's wife Eve had not yet been created, such that the Lord God was indeed only speaking to Adam himself.  
    2.  In Genesis 3:3 Eve delivered her report of the Lord God's command, saying, "But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."  Herein Eve employed the pronoun "ye" three times.  This pronoun is a plural pronoun, indicating a command that was delivered by the Lord God Himself (as per the phrase, "God hath said") unto more than one person.  Since there is no indication within this context or within the Lord God's rebuke against Eve that she had falsely misrepresented God, and since there is no indication in 1 Timothy 2:13-15 that Eve had transgressed by speaking falsely, I would contend in accord with the plural pronouns that Eve employed that the Lord God reiterated His command unto Adam and Eve as a group sometime after Eve was created.  Furthermore, I would contend that Eve reported the Lord God's command with perfect accuracy.
    Some thoughts to consider -- Did "the voice of the LORD God" regularly meet and walk with Adam and Eve "in the cool of the day"?  If He did, then there is a significant amount of communication between them that is not recorded in the Scriptures.  As such, is it likely that Eve was directly quoting out of that unrecorded communication?
  8. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Debate - Prophecy in Daniel 9   

    I have continually argued throughout this discussion-debate that Daniel 9:24 is not speaking concerning the event of our Lord Jesus Christ’s crucifixion, resurrection, and exaltation.  Furthermore, there is not one single reference to our Lord Jesus Christ’s crucifixion, resurrection, or exaltation in the entire portion of my posting that you quoted above.  So then, how did you come to the conclusion that we agree on this point?  You could only do so by reading into my statements something that I did not say, rather than reading out from my statements that which I actually presented.

    We do agree on this point.

    We would agree that all believers possess the elements of “everlasting righteousness” which I have listed in my previous post as (1) forgiveness and imputation, (2) justification, and (3) regeneration.  However, this agreement does not have any relevancy to any agreement on our part concerning Daniel 9:24, since I have specifically contended above that these are the very aspects of “everlasting righteousness” that cannot be intended in the context of Daniel 9:24.

    Since your above listing of “agreements between us” is not accurate, your proposed conclusion is also not so clear.

    Actually, I have not even engaged very much concerning the grammatical and contextual reasons that the 70th “week” (of years) does not follow immediately consecutive to the end of the first 69 “weeks” (of years).  These grammatical and contextual reasons are found in Daniel 9:26-27, and I have not yet focused upon these two verses in their details.  In fact, I intend to set my focus upon Daniel 9:26 later in this very posting.

    However, in order to demonstrate that having a gap of time between the end of the 69th “week” (of years) and the beginning of the 70th “week” (of years) is not necessarily to cause the prophecy to fail, allow me to present a couple of illustrations.

    1.  Let us suppose that I declare my determination to pay you $70.  Then let us suppose that I count out sixty-nine $1 bills to you.  Then let us suppose that in one week from today, I count out the last and final $1 bill to you.  Did I fulfill or fail my declared determination to pay you $70, even though I put a gap of time between my payments?  Now, let us also suppose that during the days between my two payments to you, I used various other monies to pay bills and to buy merchandise.  Did I then fulfill or fail my declared determination to pay you the $70?  The fact is that I fulfilled my declared determination regardless of the intervening time and regardless of the usage of other monies for other purposes.

    2.  Let us suppose that I declare my determination to work for you for seven days.  Then let us suppose that I engage in working for you for six consecutive days.  Yet let us suppose that I then do not work for you for the next six days.  Then let us suppose that after this six day break, I then work for you for one day.  Did I fulfill or fail my declared determination to work for you for seven days, even though I put a gap of time between the first six days of work and the seventh day of work?  Now, let us also suppose that during the time period wherein I did not work for you, I worked for someone else.  Did I then fulfill or fail my declared determination to work for you for seven days?  The fact is that I fulfilled my declared determination regardless of the intervening time and regardless of my usage of that intervening time.

    If the Lord God determined (as He did) to administer 70 “weeks” (of years) upon Daniel’s people, the children of Israel, for a specific set of purposes, and if the Lord God administered the first 69 of those “weeks” (of years), but then placed a gap of time until the administration of the 70th “week” (of years), would He have failed in His declared determination and purpose?  He would not, as long as He did not specifically declare that the 70 “weeks” (of years) would be consecutive, and as long as the intervening period of time had no direct relationship to the fulfillment of His declared purposes for the 70 “weeks” (of years) that He had determined.

    _______________________________________

    By definition the phrase, “to bring in,” indicates the bringing in to existence and/or experience something that was previously not in such existence and/or experience.  Since, as you yourself acknowledge, the elements of “everlasting righteousness” that are related to the event of a believer’s salvation (that is – (1) forgiveness and imputation, (2) justification, and (3) regeneration) were already in existence and experience thousands of years before the prophetic utterance unto Daniel, then these elements of “everlasting righteousness” had no need to be brought in.  They already were in.  Even so, the phrase, “to bring in everlasting righteousness,” must then refer to some other element of “everlasting righteousness” than these. 

    Making the argument that “the basis for” these elements of “everlasting righteousness” had not yet occurred in history until our Lord Jesus Christ’s crucifixion, resurrection, and exaltation is not really relevant, since Daniel 9:24 does not use the phrase, “to bring in the basis for everlasting righteousness.”  Rather, Daniel 9:24 uses the phrase, “to bring in everlasting righteousness,” which is a grammatical reference to the bringing of the “everlasting righteousness” itself.

    ______________________________________________

    Concerning Daniel 9:26.

    Grammatically, this verse presents four independent statements (clauses), as follows:

    1.  “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.”
    2.  “And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.”
    3.  “And the end thereof shall be with a flood.”
    4.  “And unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”


    Concerning the first of these independent clauses, we are agreed that it refers to and was fulfilled in our Lord Jesus Christ’s crucifixion, “not for himself,” but the salvation of us sinners.  Concerning the second of these independent clauses, we are agreed that it refers to and was fulfilled in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the armies of Rome.  Concerning the third of these independent clauses, we are agreed that it refers to and was fulfilled in the “overwhelming armies” of Rome (acknowledging that the word “flood” is a common figure of speech in the Old Testament Scriptures for a multitude of people) that were sent against the children of Israel at that time.  Concerning the fourth of these independent clauses, we are agreed that it refers to the “desolations” that the Lord God has “determined” to administer against the children of Israel throughout and unto the end of the war (conflict) between Rome and the children of Israel.

    (Note: The word “war” in this context simply refers to a matter of conflict between two opposing parties.  It may refer to a single battle.  It may refer to a war with an established beginning and ending.  It may also refer to an ongoing conflict over a lengthy period of time that may include periods of intensity and periods of inactivity.  I myself believe that the conflict between Rome, both in its “iron” form as an empire and in its “iron and clay mixed” form as a religious force, and the children of Israel has not ceased unto this very day.  As such, I myself also believe that the “desolations” which the Lord God “determined” to administer against the children of Israel are still in force unto this day.  However, this is not a point over which I care to make any specific argument one way or the other.)

    Now, concerning “the prince that shall come,” there are four characteristics that we can discern from this verse about him, as follows:

    1.  He shall be a “prince,” that is – a political leader of some kind.

    2.  He shall be characterized by “coming,” whether this means coming into existence or coming specifically to Jerusalem is not specified.  (Note: I myself believe that this is a reference to his coming unto Jerusalem and the children of Israel.)

    3.  His “coming” would be in the future to Daniel’s time.

    4.  This “prince” will have a direct relationship to Rome (the “people” who would destroy Jerusalem and the temple).  Herein we should note that the verse does not state that this prince would be personally responsible in any way for that destruction.  Rather, it only indicates that this prince would be “of” (that is – would have some form of relationship with) the people who would destroy Jerusalem and the temple.

    Finally, concerning the revealed time elements in Daniel 9:24, we find only one at the beginning of the verse – “And after threescore and two weeks . . .”  Even so, this time element clearly indicates that all of the events that are prophesied in this verse will occur after the first 69 “weeks” (of years) are completed.  However, this verse does not make any direct reference at all to the 70th and final “week” (of years).  This verse does not indicate whether the prophesied events of this verse are all to be contained within that 70th “week” (of years), whether they are to occur after the 70th “week” (of years), whether they are to occur through and beyond that 70th “week” (of years), or whether they are to occur in a period of time between the end of the 69th “week” (of years) and the beginning of the 70th “week” (of years).  Again, this verse states nothing whatsoever at all concerning the 70th “week” (of years). 

    On the other hand, Daniel 9:27 does make specific reference unto the 70th and final “week” (of years).  In fact, Daniel 9:27 makes reference to the beginning of that “week” (of years), to the middle of that “week” (of years), and to the end (“consummation”) of that “week” (of years).  So then, if we consider the Holy Spirit inspired layout of Daniel 9:24-27, we find the following:


                        (v. 24)  70 “weeks” (of years) are determined  by the Lord God upon Daniel’s people, the children of Israel

                    ________________________________________________________________________________________
                        (v. 25)  The first 69 “weeks” (of years), from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince

                    +  (v. 26)  ---  After the first 69 “weeks” (of years), but no reference to the 70th “week” (of years)  ---

                    +  (v. 27)  The beginning, middle, and end of one “week” (of years), the 70th and final "week" (of years)

     
    Or, to put this equation in an easier format:

                   (v. 24)  70 “weeks”  =  (v. 25)  69 “weeks”  +  (v. 26)  --no “weeks”--  +  (v. 27)  1 “week,” the 70th

     
    So then, by the Holy Spirit inspired layout of this passage, we find a gap in the layout between the end of the 69th “week” (of years) and the beginning of the 70th “week” (of years).  That gap is found in Daniel 9:26.  I myself did not arrange for that gap in the layout.  God the Holy Spirit arranged for that gap in the layout.  However, I myself intend to accept that gap in the layout just as the Holy Spirit inspired it; and I myself also expect this prophetic utterance to be fulfilled in exactly the same manner as it was presented under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, with the “gap” included.

  9. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Everlasting Covenants?   

    ​Brother Day,
    From my perspective, there was no need for me to deal with the various passages that you presented since none of them were in the immediate context of Romans 11:25-27.  Furthermore, all of those passages that you presented were based upon your premise, which was as follows:  "If all Israel shall be saved then we need a Bibilical definition of "all Israel" that makes the prophetic statement true. It cannot mean all the physical descendants of Israel. It must mean what I have stated above. i.e. The Covenant promises to Israel are appropriated only by true believers, not by unbelievers, however much they claim descent from Abraham through Israel."  Basically, your premise was that an alternate definition for the phrase "all Israel" in Romans 11:26 was needed because the natural definition could not be legitimate within this context.  Therefore, it was only necessary for me to focus my argument against your premise (and not upon the various passages that you based upon it) by demonstrating that the natural definition for the phrase "all Israel" certainly can and does have legitimacy within the context of Romans 11:25-27.  As such, the issue was not over your alternate definition itself.  Rather, the issue was over whether an alternate definition was even necessary at all.  By undercutting your foundational premise, I cause all of the arguments and/or passages that you build upon it to become irrelevant.
    This is a basic principle of good "debate."  Do not seek to cut down your "opponent's" tree (position) one limb (point) at a time.  Rather, seek to cut down your "opponent's" tree (position) at the trunk (foundational premises).  In so doing, you do not have to put forth the extensive effort and spend the extensive time to deal with all of the multiplied and extraneous limbs (points) of your "opponent's" tree.  Rather, by cutting down your opponent's tree (position) at the trunk (foundational premises), you bring down the entire tree (position), including all of the multiplied and extraneous limbs (points).
    (Note:  I myself have never accused you of being anti-semitic.  I simply believe that you are unbiblical -- even as you believe that I am unbiblical.)
  10. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Replacement   

    ​Hey! Wait! What??! I got cheated! Cheated, I say. Cheated out of some man-ufactured doctrine from a man-ufactured chapter, for that man-ufactured chapter is not in my copy of God's Holy Word????!!! (Indeed, my tone is very much dripping, dripping, dripping with sarcasm.)
  11. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Everlasting Covenants?   

    ​1.  The prophetic utterance concerning "all Israel" in Romans 11:26-27 cannot refer to the Isrealite believers of the Old Testament time because that prophetic utterance is presented in the future tense to the apostle Paul's time, whereas the Isrealite believers of the Old Testament were in the past tense to the apostle Paul's time.
    2.  The prophetic utterance concerning "all Israel" in Romans 11:26-27 cannot refer to the Israelite believers of this time of the New Testament church because this time is in the present tense wherein spiritual "blindness in part is happened to Israel," as per Romans 11:25.  Such Israelite believers of this time of the New Testament church would comprise the other part upon whom spiritual blindness has not happened.
    3.  The prophetic utterance concerning "all Israel" in Romans 11:26-27 cannot refer to Gentile believers of any time because the term "Israel" is never made equivalent in God's Word to Gentiles.
    4.  The prophetic utterance concerning "all Israel" in Romans 11:26-27 can refer to every single physical descendant of Jacob-Israel that will be alive on the whole earth at the future time wherein the fulfillment of this future prophetic event will occur, if in fact every single physical descendant of Jacob-Israel that is alive on the whole earth at that time places heart-faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior.  
    Now, since God the Holy Spirit inspired the future tense helping verb "shall be," I will believe that this will be a future event.  And since God the Holy Spirit inspired the noun "Israel," I will believe that this refers to the physical descendants of Jacob-Israel.  And since God the Holy Spirit inspired the adjective "all" as a modifier for the noun "Israel," I will believe that this future event will occur in relation to every single physical descendant of Jacob-Israel who is alive at that time.  And since God the Holy Spirit inspired the full future tense verb "shall be saved," I will believe that every single physical descendant of Jacob-Israel who is alive at that time will be saved through the only Biblical means for eternal salvation, through heart-faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior.  And so (a phrase that indicates a resulting conclusion from that which has come before it), I will also believe that every single physical descendant of Jacob-Israel who is alive at that time will come to heart-faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior, which belief on my part is in perfect unity with the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Lord God's new covenant unto the children of Israel.  And so also, I will believe that the prophetic utterance of Romans 11:26-27 is a New Testament confirmation for those Old Testament prophecies concerning the Lord God's new covenant promises (including the physical land promises) unto the children of Israel, which new covenant has not yet been fulfilled unto the children of Israel, but shall yet be fulfilled unto them.  
    (Note:  Although we are now in the time of New Covenant blessings in relation to the church, such that any individual sinner, whether Israelite or Gentile, experiences the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior, the full new covenant promise unto the children of Israel themselves has not yet been engaged or fulfilled.  As a people group they are now in a time of spiritual darkness "in part;" they are not in their time of full new covenant promise.  However, that time of new covenant fullness for them is yet to come when our Lord Jesus Christ returns in His Second Coming, wherein "all Israel" at that time shall be gathered unto Him and unto their land from wherever they are scattered throughout the whole earth, wherein "all Israel" at that time shall experience eternal salvation and complete conversion, and wherein "all Israel" at that time shall experience and enjoy the full possession and blessings of their promised land.  "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: for this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.")
  12. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Replacement   

    ​Indeed, that first generation of the children of Israel after the deliverance from Egypt died throughout the forty years of wilderness wandering (except Joshua and Caleb) because of their unbelief in the Lord God's promise to fight for them against and grant them victory over the forces of the Canaanites.  However, I would ask a couple of questions:
    1.  How many of that generation of the children of Israel were "unbelievers" (using the word, not in relation to the moment-by-moment practice of believing, but in relation to the eternal condition of being a "believer," one who is eternally saved through faith)?
    2.  How many of that generation of the children of Israel were redeemed by the Lord God through faith in the Lord God's promise of deliverance in and through the shed blood of the Passover lamb?
  13. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Everlasting Covenants?   

    I do express my apology.  In the above posting, I should have included the second point at the original posting of the post.  That second point is very closely related to the first point, and it is too short for it to simply stand alone as a posting by itself.  I have now edited my posting to include the second point.  If you read that posting prior to this moment, then you may want to see the additional point that has now been added.  
    Thank you all for your grace and patience with me in this matter.
  14. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Everlasting Covenants?   

    Concerning God’s Covenants & The Land Promise
    (Part 1)
    By Pastor Scott Markle
    (www.shepherdingtheflock.com)
     
    (For the introduction to this study see here.  For the basic outline to this study see here.)
    Now, let us engage in a study exercise wherein we shall apply this principle of “precise detail” to the land-promise elements within a number of Biblical covenants.  I have chosen this subject for this study exercise specifically because it is a matter of controversy with regard to the fulfillment of the Lord God’s covenants.  There is little controversy over whether both Israelites and Gentiles will experience the spiritual, salvation benefits of the New Covenant, if they place heart-faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior from sin.  On the other hand, there is much controversy over whether the land promises of the Old Testament covenants are still in force under the New Covenant.  Let us consider?
     
    1.  The Lord God’s covenant with Abraham concerning “the land.”
    Genesis 17:3-8 – “And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.  Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.  And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.  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.  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.” (See also Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis 12:7; Genesis 13:14-17; Genesis 15:4-21; Genesis 22:15-18) 
    (Note:  In the Lord God’s covenant with Abraham, there are many details concerning various things; however, for the sake of this exercise, I wish only to consider those details that relate to the land promise.)
    A.  Precisely to whom did the Lord God promise to give the land? 
    Answer – “And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land . . . .”
    B.  Precisely what land did the Lord God promise to give unto Abraham and unto his seed after him?
    Answer – “And I will give . . . the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession . . . .”
    Also in Genesis 15:18-21 – “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: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”
    C.  Precisely what conditions did the Lord God place upon this land promise?
    Answer – “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.”
    The Lord God did not place any condition on this land promise.  Any condition that needed to be met had already been met when Abraham believed and obeyed the Lord God to leave his country, kindred, and father’s house in order to go unto a land that the Lord God would show him.  Rather, the Lord God presented that this land promise would have an everlasting force, in that He was promising the land as “an everlasting possession.”
    Yet it is necessary at this point for us to consider the meaning and application of the word “possession.”  On the one hand, the word possession can be used to mean that over which an individual has ownership.  On the other hand, the word possession can also be used to mean that which an individual is actually holding in hand at the moment.  To illustrate these two ideas, let us consider a book that is mine by ownership, but that I have lent out to another.  If you were to ask me if I possess that particular book, I can answer either “yes” or “no,” depending on the meaning of your question.  On the one hand, if you were asking me if I have ownership of that particular book, then the answer would be – “Yes, I do have ownership possession of that book.”  On the other hand, if you were asking me if I was presently experiencing a reading benefit of that particular book, then the answer would be – “No, I am not having experiential possession of that book.”
    What then did the Lord God mean when He employed the phrase, “everlasting possession,” in relation to His land promise unto Abraham and unto Abraham’s seed after him?  Certainly, He did intend to communicate that Abraham’s descendants would sometime in the future enjoy experiential possession of the land.  However, did the Lord God’s use of the phrase, “everlasting possession,” leave room for times wherein Abraham and his descendants might have ownership possession of the land without having experiential possession of the land?  Yes, He did; for the Lord God indicated that He was giving the land unto Abraham himself, as well as unto Abraham’s seed after him.  Yet Abraham himself never enjoyed full experiential possession of the land.  In fact, within the very declaration of the covenant, the Lord God described Abraham’s personal relationship unto the land in the following manner – “the land wherein thou art a stranger.”  So then, the phrase, “everlasting possession,” in this context appears definitely to indicate a continual (“everlasting”) ownership possession, but also appear to allow room for times wherein there is a lack of experiential possession.
     
    2.  The Lord God’s covenant with Isaac (Genesis 26:2-5) and with Jacob-Israel (Genesis 28:13-15) concerning “the land.”

    These covenant statements are a repetition of the Lord God’s covenant with Abraham, being passed down specifically unto Abraham’s son Isaac, and then being passed down specifically unto Isaac’s son Jacob-Israel.  There is nothing truly added by these covenant statements to that covenant statement which the Lord God had previously made unto Abraham.  However, these covenant statements do reveal that the other descendants of Abraham (the children of Ishmael and the children of Midian) and the other descendants of Isaac (the children of Esau) are not included in this covenant and its promises, including the land promise.

    (Note:  The entire study is provided in the attachment below.)
    Concerning Gods Covenants & The Land.pdf
  15. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Everlasting Covenants?   

    To the audience as a whole,
    Please remember that Biblical truth is understood as we, being guided by God the Holy Spirit, come to discern the Holy Spirit inspired grammar and context for any given statement of God's Holy Word.  This Holy Spirit inspired grammar and context is the straightforward meaning of God the Holy Spirit for the passage.  Anything else is simply a man-ufactured idea.
    Yes, necessarily.  Grammatically, Romans 11:26-27 is a single sentence as inspired by God the Holy Spirit.  The word "as" that is found in the midst of this single sentence begins the phrase, "as it is written," which in turn introduces the quotation from Isaiah that concludes this single sentence.  Furthermore, this word "as" in this single sentence serves as a modifier for the statement with which this Holy Spirit inspired single sentence began -- "And so all Israel shall be saved."  As such, this word "as," the phrase that it begins ("as it is written"), and the quotation from Isaiah that it introduces all serve to provide Old Testament Scriptural evidence for that Holy Spirit inspired statement in the same sentence.  Even so, the quotation from Isaiah found in Romans 11:26-27 is not at all provided in relation to the truths of Romans 9:1-12 or the truths of Romans 11:1-6, which are whole paragraphs distant from the quotation.  The straightforward reading does not require us to jump from one grammatical sentence and paragraph to the context of a completely different and distant paragraph.  The straightforward reading allows us to remain within the context of the same sentence and the same paragraph wherein the quotation is found.
    1.  Who comprise "all Israel"?  Israel = Israelites, the biological descendants of Jacob-Israel.  All = every single one at the time period wherein the prophecy applies.
    2.  How will all Israel be saved?  The same way that every sinner since Adam and Eve have ever been saved -- through faith in the Lord God and His Savior.
    3.  Yes, the phrase, "And so . . .," does relate to what has gone before, that is -- to the truths of the verse that immediately precede it, Romans 11:25.
    4.  The following quotation from Isaiah is to substantiate what the apostle Paul stated under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit at the beginning of that very same sentence ("And so all Israel shall be saved"), which is not all the initiation of a "new" prophecy, but is a New Testament confirmation for the multitude of Old Testament prophecies that the Lord God had already made through His prophets unto the children of Israel.
    Yes, let us look at the grammar.  Yes, the phrase, "And so . . .," refers back to the truths immediately previously described in the verse (and sentence) immediately previously presented (Romans 11:25) -- "that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."  This is not a statement about "salvation by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."  Rather, this is a statement about the spiritual blindness "in part" that has happened and is now happening to the children of Israel.  Such is the straightforward reading of the immediate context.
    The mystery is the blindness "in part" of ethnic Israel, "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."
    No, we would only expect the apostle Paul to employ the adverb "then" if he is strictly presenting a sequence of events.  However, if he is presenting the manner by which something is brought to pass or the reason for which something is brought to pass, then we would expect him to employ the adverb "so," which is just what he did under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit.  At the present time, spiritual blindness "in part" has happened and is happening to the children of Israel.  That spiritual condition of blindness "in part" will continue "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."  However, when the event of "the fulness of the Gentiles" comes in, then the spiritual blindness "in part" that has happened and is happening to the children of Israel will be removed.  "And so," through the very means and for the very reason that this spiritual blindness "in part" has been removed, "all Israel shall be saved."  In fact, since the adverb "so" indicates the means or reason for something to come to pass, by definition it requires a sequence of events.  First, the means or reason must happen (that is -- "the fulness of the Gentiles" must "come in"), then the result can occur (that is -- "And so all Israel shall be saved.").  As such, the phrase, "And so . . .," does not indicate an explanation at all.  Rather, it indicates a resulting event.
    Yes, the children of Israel certainly can expect "a fulness," as per the statement -- "And so all Israel shall be saved."  That word "all" certainly does communicate "a fulness."
    No, "a great Jewish revival," such that they engage in a "great Gospel activity toward the Gentiles," so that there might be a "fulness of both" at the same time, is not at all Biblically possible.  The children of Israel cannot have "a fulness" until the spiritual blindness "in part" is removed from them.  That spiritual blindness "in part" will not be removed from them "until" after "the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."  Only then can "a fulness" happen for the children of Israel, even as the prophetic utterance will be fulfilled that "all Israel shall be saved."  This is the straightforward truth of Romans 11:25-26 just as God the Holy Spirit inspired it.
    There most certainly is specific prophecy "for Israel after the flesh," declared a multiple number of times in the Old Testament Scriptures and confirmed in Romans 11:26 -- "And so all Israel shall be saved."  This is God's Own Word on the matter.  Furthermore, when the apostle Paul delivered this prophetic utterance in Romans 11:26, the first coming of the Lord Jesus Christ was years in the past.  Yet the apostle Paul made this statement under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit in the future tense.  The apostle delivered this prophetic utterance concerning the future for "all Israel" after first revealing under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit in the present tense (with a present perfect tense verb) the reality that spiritual "blindness in part is happened to Israel."  In addition, the apostle revealed under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit that this spiritual blindness "in part" upon Israel would continue "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."  Each of these statement, as given by the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit Himself, indicate time periods and time sequences.  So then, has "the fulness of the Gentiles" yet "come in"?  If it has not, then the blindness "in part" is still even now happening to Israel.  Furthermore, if it has not, then we are still awaiting the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecy that "all Israel shall" yet "be saved."
     Indeed, as I have communicated above, the phrase, "And so . . ." does relate to the truths that come immediately before it in Romans 11:25; and it reveals a result that will follow after those things are completed -- "And so all Israel shall be saved."  It is not by my reasoning.  The Lord God of heaven and earth Himself has caused "blindness in part" to be happening unto and upon the children of Israel.  I myself have had no say in the matter whatsoever at all.  The Lord God did not ask for my opinion.  He has done and shall continue to do whatsoever He has willed and does will to do.  I am simply communicating that which He Himself has reported in His Holy Word that He has done and is doing.
    Furthermore, you can only understand the apostle Paul to mean what you have stated above if you view the Biblical definition (or, even the New Testament definition) for the word "Israel" to be "believing Israelites."  However, if you do view the definition of the word "Israel" as such, then I would ask -- Does it mean this in every case wherein we find it within the Holy Scriptures (or, even just in the New Testament)?
    When our Lord Jesus Christ comes again, He will indeed come out from Heaven unto Zion.  Furthermore, He will send forth from Zion unto the uttermost parts of the earth in order to call every single one of the children of Israel that are alive at that time back unto their land, as per the Old Testament prophecies of the Lord God's new covenant unto them.
    If we desire to accept God's Own Word on the matter, we most certainly do need to look for a future event, as per the Holy Spirit inspired time elements that we find in Romans 11:25-27 -- (1) ". . . is happened . . .," (2) "until . . .," (3) "And so . . . shall be . . . ."
    The remnant is "small" when compared to the size of the whole, since the size of the whole is "as the sand of the sea" and "as the stars of heaven."  Thousands is a fairly small number when compared to millions upon millions.
    That is too bad, since God the Holy Spirit inspired the prophetic utterance that "all Israel shall be saved."  Seems like God the Holy Spirit sees "the wholesale conversion of ethnic Israel after Jesus returns."  Indeed, "there shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: for this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."