The only place where I might disagree with any of that a bit is more on terminology.
I count myself among the groups who reject "dispensationalism", at least in its classic forms. The notion of a "Church age", which some people additionally equate with the strange notion of an "age of Grace" (clearly consisting of people who have never read the book of Hebrews nor any of Paul's letters), is something for which I find zero Biblical support.
Jesus never speaks of a Church age, or the coming of the Church. Jesus always speaks of the Kingdom. There are exactly two places in the Bible where Jesus is quoted as referring to the "church" (Matt 16:18, Matt 18:17), but even there the baggage carried by the word "church" is misleading. "Ekklesia" is a Greek translation of his actual word, which likely was "qahal". Qahal, like the Greek "ekklesia", is an assembly. In the NT, ekklesia, and in the OT, qahal, usually refer to a religious assembly, but can refer to any community assembly. The key here is that Jesus wasn't inventing a new word to describe a non-Jewish "kingdom" that was to come. He used a standard Hebrew (Aramaic) term that was well recognized at the time as referring to a (usually religious) assembly. Absolutely nobody who heard his words (and remember that every one of those hearers were Jewish) would have thought that he was talking about some new non-Jewish thing. They all would have thought that he was talking about the normal Jewish thing that they were accustomed to using the term to describe.
Just a few examples of the well over a hundred uses of qahal in the OT: Gen 49:6, "let not my soul enter into their council (sod); let not my glory be united with their assembly (qahal); Psalm 26:5, "I hate the assembly (qahal) of evildoers, I will not sit with the wicked"; Deuteronomy 23:1-8, "the assembly of the LORD", by my count used 6 times in those verses, is "qahal YHWH"; Judges 20:2, "... stand in the assembly of the people of God (qahal am ha'elohim).
Jesus' listeners were well-acquainted with the "qahal", and it never would have remotely occurred to them that he was talking about anything other than its normal Jewish use. Thus, people reading some sort of new Gentile thing into what is translated as "church" in these two verses are doing something wildly wrong.
Back to "Kingdom". The Kingdom is the Kingdom; it is not the assembly (ekklesia). Just like Old Testament usage, the ekklesia (the qahal) can be a local assembly, or sometimes it can be used as a term for the full assembly (as in Judges 20:2), of the entire nation, or keeping with Kingdom of God terminology, for the entire Kingdom. We are more than subjects though; we are sons (and daughters), and therefore inheritors of the Kingdom.
And here is where the break is made. All Jews may be descendants of Abraham, but not all Jews are counted as inheritors of the promise (Romans 9:3-22). Onto that same root of the inheritors of the promise who have never lost the promise (Romans 11:1-16) have been grafted (Romans 11:17-36) the non-Jewish inheritors of the promise (Romans 9:23-33). It's the same promise, not a new promise. We Gentiles are grafted onto the same root. We are not a new root, but a new branch on the same old root. That root was never plucked up, to be replanted later. It remained, and still remains, only now it has some new branches attached to it.
The only place where I might disagree with any of that a bit is more on terminology.
I count myself among the groups who reject "dispensationalism", at least in its classic forms. The notion of a "Church age", which some people additionally equate with the strange notion of an "age of Grace" (clearly consisting of people who have never read the book of Hebrews nor any of Paul's letters), is something for which I find zero Biblical support.
Jesus never speaks of a Church age, or the coming of the Church. Jesus always speaks of the Kingdom. There are exactly two places in the Bible where Jesus is quoted as referring to the "church" (Matt 16:18, Matt 18:17), but even there the baggage carried by the word "church" is misleading. "Ekklesia" is a Greek translation of his actual word, which likely was "qahal". Qahal, like the Greek "ekklesia", is an assembly. In the NT, ekklesia, and in the OT, qahal, usually refer to a religious assembly, but can refer to any community assembly. The key here is that Jesus wasn't inventing a new word to describe a non-Jewish "kingdom" that was to come. He used a standard Hebrew (Aramaic) term that was well recognized at the time as referring to a (usually religious) assembly. Absolutely nobody who heard his words (and remember that every one of those hearers were Jewish) would have thought that he was talking about some new non-Jewish thing. They all would have thought that he was talking about the normal Jewish thing that they were accustomed to using the term to describe.
Just a few examples of the well over a hundred uses of qahal in the OT: Gen 49:6, "let not my soul enter into their council (sod); let not my glory be united with their assembly (qahal); Psalm 26:5, "I hate the assembly (qahal) of evildoers, I will not sit with the wicked"; Deuteronomy 23:1-8, "the assembly of the LORD", by my count used 6 times in those verses, is "qahal YHWH"; Judges 20:2, "... stand in the assembly of the people of God (qahal am ha'elohim).
Jesus' listeners were well-acquainted with the "qahal", and it never would have remotely occurred to them that he was talking about anything other than its normal Jewish use. Thus, people reading some sort of new Gentile thing into what is translated as "church" in these two verses are doing something wildly wrong.
Back to "Kingdom". The Kingdom is the Kingdom; it is not the assembly (ekklesia). Just like Old Testament usage, the ekklesia (the qahal) can be a local assembly, or sometimes it can be used as a term for the full assembly (as in Judges 20:2), of the entire nation, or keeping with Kingdom of God terminology, for the entire Kingdom. We are more than subjects though; we are sons (and daughters), and therefore inheritors of the Kingdom.
And here is where the break is made. All Jews may be descendants of Abraham, but not all Jews are counted as inheritors of the promise (Romans 9:3-22). Onto that same root of the inheritors of the promise who have never lost the promise (Romans 11:1-16) have been grafted (Romans 11:17-36) the non-Jewish inheritors of the promise (Romans 9:23-33). It's the same promise, not a new promise. We Gentiles are grafted onto the same root. We are not a new root, but a new branch on the same old root. That root was never plucked up, to be replanted later. It remained, and still remains, only now it has some new branches attached to it.
As usual, excellent contribution. Love you Kenny baby. Thank you so much for this most helpful clarification. Super!
Such a good piece thank you Stuart. I really enjoyed it.
I am happy to hear this Sharon. Thank you for taking the time to read these posts.
Thank you Sharon. Much appreciated.
Great teachings Brother Stuart. Thank you for sharing this, it really breaks it down
Thank you Cindy. Glad it was helpful.