You try to make this topic a mill stone that somehow invalidates God's promises through the centuries.
I am not trying to make it anything. I quoted the scriptures and asked a legitimate question of dispensationalists?
You show a very rudimentary understanding of Scripture and of history.
This is known as an ad hominem fallacy that begins the debate with a personal attack---in this case on the persons intellect as being inferior to their own. I have found it a very common approach when someone can't actually give a straight forward or legitimate, direct response. Within the ad hominem in this case is another fallacy that suggests the person knows the intellectual level of the poster's understanding of Scripture and history. Neither of which actually applies to the scriptures given or the question asked. So whatever follows is already undermined itself, and is likely to be more of the same, and never actually answers the question. We'll see.
Here, let me show you the answer to your supposed problem.
You focus in on Solomon and assume that his failings somehow invalidated God's promises. But notice that God said (in verse 6) "you or your children". So it was also Solomon's descendants that were in view here. God did not take away the land from Israel after Solomon's death. So your primary assumption fails right at that point. But God did remove the 10 tribes from their land. And then also removed the remaining population from Judah after that. At that point, that is when the judgement of God fell on the Jewish people.
Well there is a bit more of the same in the first sentence. It negates the OP by calling it a "supposed" problem and suggests I have a problem, which I don't. I simply asked a question of dispensationalists given what was in the scriptures I quoted. It is the Dispensationalist that has the problem---the question to be answered.
It was not just Solomon's failings. I could have quoted a great deal of the OT going back to the exodus all the way through the Judges, on into Saul; and as to kings that reigned from Solomon onward in both Judah and Israel. But this is a forum. And even though I only quoted two sections of 1 Kings to simplify the matter for dispensationalists, unbeknownst to you, I had the entire book on my mind. I know that what happened that caused Israel to lose the land did not all fall at Solomon's feet. And since I quoted direct scriptures to make my foundation for the question asked, it is fallacious to assume that means my entire focus on the issue is on Solomon.
And God did divide the kingdom, taking all but one tribe out of the hands of Solomon's son, and later scattering the entire northern kingdom by their being conquered by Assyria. They never returned. (1 Kings 9:1-9). And in due time he did the same to Judah and only a remnant of them returned and that for the sake of Christ.
1 Kings 11:9-13
And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods. But he did not keep what the Lord commanded. Therefore the Lord said to Solomon, "Since this has been your practice and you have not kept my convenient and my statues that I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and will give it to your servant. Yet for the sake of David your father I will not do it in your days, but I will tear it out of the hand of your son. However I will not tear away all the kingdom, but I will give one tribe to your son, for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem that I have chose.
In the rest of chapter 11 we see God set the stage for this, and the account of Solomon's death. From chapter 12 onward through the rest of 1 Kings and 2 Kings we see it play out in history. Just as you yourself have indicated. But God did not leave Judah and later allow a remnant to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the walls and temple for the sake of the land and Israel's possession of it----they had already thoroughly violated the "quid pro quo" land aspect of the Sinai covenant. It was for the sake of Christ who would come from the loins of David so to speak---as promised. They never had another earthly king, again came under the government of the Roman empire, spent over 400 years without so much as a word from God until Christ was born and John the Baptist began his mission of one crying in the wilderness.
This is very plain in Jeremiah:
God fulfilled His warning to Solomon and his descendants. He removed them from the land. But it was for only a specific period of time. Not forever.
Jeremiah lays all of this out.
But it was not just for that time period. God, in HIs prophecies extends the time period out to the Last Days. It is during this time that ultimately everyone will understand the full purpose of God and His plans for His nation of Israel.
Zechariah contains the ultimate fulfillment of the promised Land and the Ruler who will take the throne. Notice the "Me" who is talking. It's not God the Father. The final 1000 years, the Day of Yahweh is this time period. A period which starts less than a decade from now.
See how very difficult you make it to respond when you put the scriptures in a quote box? They will not quote in my response.
So I will say regarding them. You presuppose what the "last days" of Jer 30 are; you read a presupposition of a thousand years onto Zech, and then in unimaginable presumption declare the actual decade when it will start.
Doing this does not answer the question I asked. All it does is pit one promise against another. God promised they could keep the land on certain conditions. They violated those conditions. But since dispensationalists have their beliefs set in stone, they in effect say he only has to keep the good promise and ignore the bad promise. It is a matter of ignoring the purpose of and type of the Sinai covenant. They have the land completely overriding the Seed, which is the redemptive purpose of the nation for all the land of creation and its inhabitants. The land does not disappear, and Jews do not disappear, and they are not excluded from redemption in Christ. And if God continues to have a special love for Jerusalem, it is not about the city or the land. It is part and parcel of his love for the Son. It is never about land----it is always about Christ.
But I know, you will still think you adequately answered the question. There is no way to make a person see what they do not want to see.
I would go so far to say that it is the very reason that God made the possession of the land a conditional covenant. Because it is not about the land but about Christ. First page to last page.
