Thread: Anyone want to take a crack at answering John MacArthur here?

Question

Originally Posted by ReformedWretch

Question

Buy him a copy of O. Palmer Robertson’s THE ISRAEL OF GOD, send it to him and have him pay special attention to chapter six “the Israel of God in Romans 11”

Israel in scripture:

Israel in the Old Testament is the forerunner of and the continuous with the New Covenant phase of the church which is the fruition if Israel. New Testament Christians may even call Abraham our father and the Old Covenant peoples our “fathers”.

Romans 4

16That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring--not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

1 Corinthians 10

1I want you to know, brothers,[1] that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,

We are grafted into Israel.

Romans 11
16If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
17But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root[1] of the olive tree, 18do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."

We were made ONE with Israel partaking of her promises!

Ephesians 2
11Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- 12remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19So then you are no longer strangers and aliens,[1] but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

In fact, Christ chose 12 disciples in order to serve as the spiritual seed of a new Israel taking over for the 12 sons of the Old Covenant Israel. Both the names of the 12 sons and the 12 apostles are incorporated into the one City of God, the New Jerusalem.

Revelation 21
12It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed-- 13on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. 14And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Terms that the Church is called in the New Testament that associates her with Israel.

-Seed of Abraham
-The Circumcision
-A royal Priesthood
-Twelve Tribes (James 1:1)
-The Temple of God

1 Peter 2
5you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For it stands in Scripture: "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."
7So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, "The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,"[1]
8and "A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense."They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
9But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

1 Peter 2
10Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Titus 2
14who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.




The Church is flat out referred to as the Israel of god!

Galatians 6
16And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

The ENTIRE book of Galatians speaks to the incorrect notion that there is some “special” status amongst the Jews for being Jewish!

Galatians 3
26for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[1] nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.


WHY would Paul believe or speak to a “special section” of God’s people (The Israel of God) when he had taught this?

Galatians 6
15For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.

Now we DO need to understand that the Church is NOT a “straight line” continuation of Israel! The church FULFILLS Israel through Christ.

2 Corinthians 1
20For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory.


Galatians 3
29And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Romans 8
17and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Ephesians 1
23which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

Colossians 2
10and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.





Scripture clearly tells of this in the Old Testament.

Jeremiah 31
31"Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah

This NEW covenant was started with the Lords Supper!

Matthew 26
28 for this is my blood of the[1] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14
24And he said to them, "This is my blood of the[1] covenant, which is poured out for many.

Luke 22
20And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.[1]

Notice here that it is NOT said that he is a minister of a second covenant or another new covenant!

2 Corinthians 3
6who has made us competent[1] to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Look at Hebrews 8 that CLEARLY speaks of the NEW covenant! There are NOT two covenants still in force here as the text clearly teaches!

Hebrews 8
1Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2a minister in the holy places, in the true tent[1] that the Lord set up, not man. 3For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. 4Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain." 6But as it is, Christ[2] has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
8For he finds fault with them when he says:[3] "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah,
9not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
For they did not continue in my covenant,
and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
11And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more."
13In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Paul PLAINLY teaches that the conversion of the Gentiles is a “confirming of the promises to the fathers”.

Romans 15
8For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God's truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs, 9and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written, "Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles,
and sing to your name."
10And again it is said, "Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people."
11And again, "Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles,
and let all the peoples extol him."
12And again Isaiah says, "The root of Jesse will come,
even he who arises to rule the Gentiles;
in him will the Gentiles hope."

The preaching of the gospel is the hope of the Jews!

Acts 26
6And now I stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our fathers, 7to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship night and day. And for this hope I am accused by Jews, O king!





Look, the promises to Israel did NOT set forth a literal, political kingdom, but a spiritual, gospel kingdom!

Acts 13
32And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, 33this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, "'You are my Son, today I have begotten you.'

Could it get ANY clearer at all?????

Why yes, yes it CAN get more clear!

Romans 2
28For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

The Old Testament does indeed refer to the Church.

Hosea 1
9And the LORD said, "Call his name Not My People,[1] for you are not my people, and I am not your God."[2]
10[3] Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, "You are not my people," it shall be said to them, "Children[4] of the living God."

Hosea 2

23and I will sow her for myself in the land.
And I will have mercy on No Mercy,[1]
and I will say to Not My People,[2] 'You are my people';
and he shall say, 'You are my God.'"

How do we know this refers to the Church? Why Paul tells us!

Romans 9
24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25As indeed he says in Hosea, "Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,'
and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'"
26"And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,'
there they will be called 'sons of the living God.'"





The “Church” was only a mystery to the Gentile Nations! But the Church was clearly revealed in the Old Testament however to the Jews!

Ephesians 3
3how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 4When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6This mystery is[1] that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

Luke 24
44Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

The distinction between Jew and Gentile has forever been done away with! Paul points this out!

Ephesians 2
11Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- 12remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

Colossians 3
11Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave,[1] free; but Christ is all, and in all.

There is a real future for Hebrews, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and become Christians.

MacArthur wants ONE defining verse in scripture that says that Israel is the Church, which one would you use if trying to show him? I am certain there is not one verse, but what about passage?

I think we could use this-

Hosea 1
9And the LORD said, "Call his name Not My People,[1] for you are not my people, and I am not your God."[2]
10[3] Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, "You are not my people," it shall be said to them, "Children[4] of the living God."

Hosea 2

23and I will sow her for myself in the land.
And I will have mercy on No Mercy,[1]
and I will say to Not My People,[2] 'You are my people';
and he shall say, 'You are my God.'"

How do we know this refers to the Church? Why Paul tells us!

Romans 9
24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25As indeed he says in Hosea, "Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,'
and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'"
26"And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,'
there they will be called 'sons of the living God.'"

Maybe verses that parallel Israel and the church (e.g., compare Isaiah 45:14 and Rev. 3:9)?

good one!

Respectfully, I want one defining verse from Johnny Mac that says there are two distinct peoples (in an eschatalogical sense) of God (which is the logical result of his eschatology, regardless of how he spins it). I cut my teeth on John MacArthur, and I'm thankful for His work, but his tenacious clinging to eschatalogical dispensationalism is baffling.

MacArthur wants one verse? Verse headings or divisions are not inspired so how about a whole sermon? Stephen's apologia for Christ found in Acts 7.

But if one verse is needed how about Acts 7:38? "This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us"

N.B.: 'congregation' is ekklesia in the Greek, or the word we translate as 'church' in English

Doesn't the analogy of the tree in Romans 11 imply that there has always been one covenant community of God, and that Jews for the moment have been taken out and Gentiles in?

Originally Posted by Poimen

MacArthur wants one verse? Verse headings or divisions are not inspired so how about a whole sermon? Stephen's apologia for Christ found in Acts 7.

But if one verse is needed how about Acts 7:38? "This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us"

N.B.: 'congregation' is ekklesia in the Greek, or the word we translate as 'church' in English

He wants an old testament verse

Hi Adam!

Here's a recent thread on just this topic:

Israel has not been replaced by the church

The paper has been on my back burner for a while, till a strong Dispensationalist attended our church Sunday and we had a discussion. I put the paper on the front burner again - to refresh and sharpen my mind on the topic, and just finished it.

My view is that the key to a) refuting dispensationalism, and b) understanding prophecy is to determine what Israel is.

Dispensationalists of MacArthur's ilk have a difficult time separating national Israel from believing Israel. Being on my iPhone right now it's difficult for to cite chapter and verse, but dispenationalists would do well to remember Paul's admonition, "Not all Israel is Israel." God did not eternally choose every physical son and daughter of Israel, just as He does not choose every person born after the time of His Son. The connection between the saints of both covenants has always been Sola Fide.

While God has always had one called out people, spanning both covenants, there are certain distinctives to the New Testament church that were not present in national Israel; namely the function and scope of the Holy Spirit and an emphasis on a regenerate church (Baptist, not dispensationalist, distinctive). That aside, God has always had one elect church.

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

Doesn't the analogy of the tree in Romans 11 imply that there has always been one covenant community of God, and that Jews for the moment have been taken out and Gentiles in?

Absolutely right! There is a future for Israel - as a part of the Church!

Originally Posted by joshua

Respectfully, I want one defining verse from Johnny Mac that says there are two distinct peoples (in an eschatalogical sense) of God (which is the logical result of his eschatology, regardless of how he spins it).

Are you sure that's the consequence? I haven't read much of MacArthur, but can't it agree with MacArthur that Israel will be brought back into the one people of God? In the quoted article, he seems to keep it simple enough to allow it.

"For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?" They were chopped off, are currently being provoked to jealousy, and shall be grafted back on to the same tree that we have been grafted on to.

Originally Posted by dr_parsley

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

Doesn't the analogy of the tree in Romans 11 imply that there has always been one covenant community of God, and that Jews for the moment have been taken out and Gentiles in?

Absolutely right! There is a future for Israel - as a part of the Church!

Originally Posted by joshua

Respectfully, I want one defining verse from Johnny Mac that says there are two distinct peoples (in an eschatalogical sense) of God (which is the logical result of his eschatology, regardless of how he spins it).

Are you sure that's the consequence? I haven't read much of MacArthur, but can't it agree with MacArthur that Israel will be brought back into the one people of God? In the quoted article, he seems to keep it simple enough to allow it.

"For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?" They were chopped off, are currently being provoked to jealousy, and shall be grafted back on to the same tree that we have been grafted on to.

As noted above: Buy him a copy of O. Palmer Robertson’s THE ISRAEL OF GOD, send it to him and have him pay special attention to chapter six “the Israel of God in Romans 11”

Originally Posted by Joshua

Respectfully, I want one defining verse from Johnny Mac that says there are two distinct peoples (in an eschatalogical sense) of God (which is the logical result of his eschatology, regardless of how he spins it). I cut my teeth on John MacArthur, and I'm thankful for His work, but his tenacious clinging to eschatalogical dispensationalism is baffling.

MacArthur is intelligent, and Reformed in some ways, but I think his fundamentalist Baptist upbringing will let him loosen his grip on dispensationalism only so far. I'll give him this, though: his explanation of dispensationalism is better-written than many I've seen through the years.

He has said many times (as above) that he truly believes there is a difference between Israel and the church. This is what keeps him from dropping his dispensationalism - while keeping his premillennialism, of course.

Westminster Seminary California clark

Charles Provan wrote a book a number of years ago entitled "The Church is Now Israel." It is out of print, but perhaps it can be found somewhere in download form online.

It is an interesting book in that all he does is quote scriptures in the OT and scriptures in the NT that correspond to those OT verses to convincingly demonstrate that Israel has always been the Church - OT and NT. He provides no commentary of his own except for Galatians 6:16, which dispys typically dispute.

I am disappointed by MacArthur's immature response of "show me one verse" to prove the position. That is what the typical immature believer says when you challenge one of his positions. The Scriptures are not a recipe cookbook. Jesus told the Sadducees as much in Matthew 22 when commenting on their error in not believing in life after death. Using Exodus 3:14 to prove the position is mind boggling. I doubt very few people would accept such reasoning today had it not been for Jesus himself saying it.

Originally Posted by R Harris

Charles Provan wrote a book a number of years ago entitled "The Church is Now Israel." It is out of print, but perhaps it can be found somewhere in download form online.

It is an interesting book in that all he does is quote scriptures in the OT and scriptures in the NT that correspond to those OT verses to convincingly demonstrate that Israel has always been the Church - OT and NT. He provides no commentary of his own except for Galatians 6:16, which dispys typically dispute.

I am disappointed by MacArthur's immature response of "show me one verse" to prove the position. That is what the typical immature believer says when you challenge one of his positions. The Scriptures are not a recipe cookbook. Jesus told the Sadducees as much in Matthew 22 when commenting on their error in not believing in life after death. Using Exodus 3:14 to prove the position is mind boggling. I doubt very few people would accept such reasoning today had it not been for Jesus himself saying it.

Provan's The Church is Israel Now is still in print. I bought a copy about a month ago from Chalcedon.edu. It is a good and concise read although I prefer Robertson's book.

Gentlemen,

We all read Scripture through a grid and perceive things accordingly. This thread is a typical example. Most of you know that I agree with MacArthur in many of these particulars, particularly premillennialism and a future for ethnic Israel. As I read through the refutations here I thought, over and over, "no problem." Much of the problem is that those of you who came out of dispensationalism came out of the same dispensationalism that MacArthur distances himself from (as do I). And now you read Scripture through a covenantalistic grid. I carried no such baggage from my dispensationalism, so simply changed my perspective as I grew in knowledge. That doesn't mean I'm right, but that my perspective is perhaps less of a pendulum swing. And, it's probably why I'm one of only a spattering of leaky dispies who enjoy interacting on this board.
MacArthur knows his stuff. I think he goes overboard in his eschatology. But I think a lot of you do too. Your views fit your grid, and some of them fit mine. MacArthur's fit his grid, and some of them fit mine. And, I find that mine sort of overlap a bit, though my insistence that there is a future for ethnic Israel keeps me in a sort of dispy camp.
And the idea that dispies can't separate ethic Israel from spiritual Israel is silly. Many, maybe even most, disipies haven't ever considered the idea. But the more "progressive" dispies consider saved Israelites as part of the church, but still see a future for ethnic Israel.

May we all grow in the grace of God,

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Originally Posted by dr_parsley

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

Doesn't the analogy of the tree in Romans 11 imply that there has always been one covenant community of God, and that Jews for the moment have been taken out and Gentiles in?

Absolutely right! There is a future for Israel - as a part of the Church!

Originally Posted by joshua

Respectfully, I want one defining verse from Johnny Mac that says there are two distinct peoples (in an eschatalogical sense) of God (which is the logical result of his eschatology, regardless of how he spins it).

Are you sure that's the consequence? I haven't read much of MacArthur, but can't it agree with MacArthur that Israel will be brought back into the one people of God? In the quoted article, he seems to keep it simple enough to allow it.

"For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?" They were chopped off, are currently being provoked to jealousy, and shall be grafted back on to the same tree that we have been grafted on to.

As noted above: Buy him a copy of O. Palmer Robertson’s THE ISRAEL OF GOD, send it to him and have him pay special attention to chapter six “the Israel of God in Romans 11”

Doesn't Palmer Robetson espouse an amillenialism that does not teach a future national conversion of the Jews, and that God is practically finished with the Jews? I'll have to get a hold of his book to find out.

I don't know how amillenialists and others get from Romans 9-11 that God is practically finished with the Jews apart from a small number of conversions down the centuries. If God had been completely finished with the Jews he would have allowed them to be wiped out in A.D. 70. I wonder if this amillenialist, "God is finished with the Jews" approach, is sometimes an over reaction to dispensationalism?

The vast majority of the Jews have been cut off from the Covenant, but God is still providentially working with the others and will reingraft the nation into the Covenant in His own good time.

Re the Land, since they have been cut out of the Covenant and the vast majority are unbelievers, the Jews cannot claim the Land on the basis of God's promises, but only on the same basis we all lay claim to land as nations. It is a significant providence that they have been preserved as a nation and been permitted to return to the Land.

The times of the Gentiles (Luke 21:24; Rev.11:2) will end when the Jews are converted, and the worldwide church (the true Israel of God - Gal. 6:16; Eph. 2:12; Heb. 8:10) is in the ascendant in a way it has not been in the last 2,000 years (that would be the "times of the true Israel").

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Originally Posted by dr_parsley

Absolutely right! There is a future for Israel - as a part of the Church!



Are you sure that's the consequence? I haven't read much of MacArthur, but can't it agree with MacArthur that Israel will be brought back into the one people of God? In the quoted article, he seems to keep it simple enough to allow it.

"For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?" They were chopped off, are currently being provoked to jealousy, and shall be grafted back on to the same tree that we have been grafted on to.

As noted above: Buy him a copy of O. Palmer Robertson’s THE ISRAEL OF GOD, send it to him and have him pay special attention to chapter six “the Israel of God in Romans 11”

Doesn't Palmer Robetson espouse an amillenialism that does not teach a future national conversion of the Jews, and that God is practically finished with the Jews? I'll have to get a hold of his book to find out.

I don't know how amillenialists and others get from Romans 9-11 that God is practically finished with the Jews apart from a small number of conversions down the centuries. If God had been completely finished with the Jews he would have allowed them to be wiped out in A.D. 70. I wonder if this amillenialist, "God is finished with the Jews" approach, is an over reaction to dispensationalism?

The vast majority of the Jews have been cut off from the Covenant, but God is still providentially working with the others and will reingraft the nation into the Covenant in His own good time.

Re the Land, since they have been cut out of the Covenant and the vast majority are unbelievers, the Jews cannot claim the Land on the basis of God's promises, but only on the same basis we all lay claim to land as nations. It is a significant providence that they have been preserved as a nation and been permitted to return to the Land.

The "times of the Gentiles" ( will end when the Jews are converted, and the worldwide church (the true Israel of God) is in the ascendant in a way it has not been in the last 2,000 years(the times of Israel).

Upon what basis can you say that the founding of the nation of Israel (the political state) is of "significant providence"?

The fact that the Jews have been preserved and then permitted to return to the Land of Israel, is indicative of the fact that God is still working with them in His providence, to bring them to a future national conversion as indicated in Roman 9-11.

That doesn't justify any bad behaviour on the part of the Jews. If they were truly thankful to God for His mercies and judgements with regard to them, they would repent as a nation and acknowledge the Messiah.

I believe they will, but I'm not holding my breath.

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

The fact that the Jews have been preserved and then permitted to return to the Land of Israel, is indicative of the fact that God is still working with them in His providence, to bring them to a future national conversion as indicated in Roman 9-11.

That doesn't justify any bad behaviour on the part of the Jews. If they were truly thankful to God for His mercies and judgements with regard to them, they would repent and acknowledge the Messiah.

In what ways has he preserved them? There is no pure Jewish race, there religion has certainly changed very much over time.
The fact that there is a state called Israel does not necessarily show that the have been preserved. I think that is speculation IMHO.
Especially considering the actual population of Israel the the historical founding of the nation.

The current nation called Israel does not necessarily have eschatological significance. It might. But God will honor His promises, which are associated with a people group and land, in His way and in His time. And He's more than competent to establish blood lines however He wants, regardless of our puny understanding.

Originally Posted by Grillsy

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

The fact that the Jews have been preserved and then permitted to return to the Land of Israel, is indicative of the fact that God is still working with them in His providence, to bring them to a future national conversion as indicated in Roman 9-11.

That doesn't justify any bad behaviour on the part of the Jews. If they were truly thankful to God for His mercies and judgements with regard to them, they would repent and acknowledge the Messiah.

In what ways has he preserved them? There is no pure Jewish race, there religion has certainly changed very much over time.
The fact that there is a state called Israel does not necessarily show that the have been preserved. I think that is speculation IMHO.
Especially considering the actual population of Israel the the historical founding of the nation.

There's no pure American race, Scottish race or British race, either.

The fact that the Apostle Paul rejoiced that they would be re-ingrafted into the Olive Tree, and that that would be life from the dead for the Olive Tree shows that something significant has been preserved.

Maybe you believe God finished with the Jews in A.D.70?

Jewish Christians are not in any sense better than American or Scottish Christians, but according to Romans 9-11 they have their part to play in redemptive history.

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Originally Posted by Grillsy

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

The fact that the Jews have been preserved and then permitted to return to the Land of Israel, is indicative of the fact that God is still working with them in His providence, to bring them to a future national conversion as indicated in Roman 9-11.

That doesn't justify any bad behaviour on the part of the Jews. If they were truly thankful to God for His mercies and judgements with regard to them, they would repent and acknowledge the Messiah.

In what ways has he preserved them? There is no pure Jewish race, there religion has certainly changed very much over time.
The fact that there is a state called Israel does not necessarily show that the have been preserved. I think that is speculation IMHO.
Especially considering the actual population of Israel the the historical founding of the nation.

There's no pure American race, Scottish race or British race, either.

The fact that the Apostle Paul rejoiced that they would be re-ingrafted into the Olive Tree, and that that would be life from the dead for the Olive Tree shows that something significant has been preserved.

Maybe you believe God finished with the Jews in A.D.70?

Jewish Christians are not in any sense better than American or Scottish Christians, but according to Romans 9-11 they have their part to play in redemptive history.

I don't disagree that they have a part in history. I think that we may disagree in certain nuances pertaining to Romans 9-11.
What I am trying to say is that you cannot just say that the founding of the nation is Israel is somehow a proof that God is not done with the Jews (who are not Jews really). There is no reason to assume this. The preserved culture thing is also a bit of myth. Look at how that culture has changed over the centuries is has not been that well preserved at all.

After God promised Abraham the land saying, "To thee will I give it." God told Abraham "Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee."

In Acts 7:5 Stephen pointed out that Abraham did not receive any land, not even "so much as to set the sole of his foot upon".

Did Stephan point this out to show God is a promise breaker?

bryan
tampa, fl
.
.
.
.
.

Modern Kararite Jews (sort of "fundamentalist" and minority) refuse to have anything to do with the State of I. According to them, the only way that Jews can get that (or any other) bit of land back is by God's miraculous intervention. So, they repudiate what they call (not my name for it) "the Zionist State."

So, who is "closer" to the truth? Certain religious Jews (and irreligious) who reject "Israel", or irreligious Jews (and religious) who embrace it?

The "Israel" that is there in the M.E. may be there til Jesus returns.
Or the whole place could be the world's first (or last) chemical, biological, and nuclear wasteland, and uninhabitable for a few centuries.

Who Knows? Just pray for the "fulness" of the Gentiles to come in, whatever you may think that means. And be prepared to be surprised at what actually happens.

Don't be like some of these people who says that his overall trust in God's truthfulness and faithfulness depends on having his particular eschatological expectations fulfilled just SO.

Originally Posted by Turtle

After God promised Abraham the land saying, "To thee will I give it." God told Abraham "Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee."

In Acts 7:5 Stephen pointed out that Abraham did not receive any land, not even "so much as to set the sole of his foot upon".

Did Stephan point this out to show God is a promise breaker?

bryan
tampa, fl
.
.
.
.
.

Yes, because the point of Stephen's sermon was God and land grants. You need to pay careful attention to the Pauline epistles and Hebrews especially Galatians in order to properly understand what the promises made to Abraham really meant and to whom they belong.

Bruce, this is not a scholarly statement, but sometimes I cringe when an eschatological system has all it's I's dotted and all it's T's crossed.

Originally Posted by Grillsy

Originally Posted by Turtle

After God promised Abraham the land saying, "To thee will I give it." God told Abraham "Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee."

In Acts 7:5 Stephen pointed out that Abraham did not receive any land, not even "so much as to set the sole of his foot upon".

Did Stephan point this out to show God is a promise breaker?

bryan
tampa, fl
.
.
.
.
.

Yes, because the point of Stephen's sermon was God and land grants. You need to pay careful attention to the Pauline epistles and Hebrews especially Galatians in order to properly understand what the promises made to Abraham really meant and to whom they belong.

Abraham and Stephan were confused because they hadn't read Hebrews and Galatians?

Stephan reminded us of Abraham's foot that walked the land he didn't inherit, but that God promised to him.

What was Stephan's purpose to point out a promise God had not fulfilled?

The problem lies in the way the question is stated. From a biblical theological perspective it is important to stress that Jesus is the Israel of God who was made under the law, fulfilled the stipulations of Israel's covenant, and is declared to be the Son of God by His resurrection from the dead. The true Israel is not the church in and of itself, but those who are united to Christ by faith, that is, are "in Christ." Those who are united to Christ by faith are the church, members of Christ, the Israel of God, whether they be Jew or Gentile.

Bruce and Bill, thank you. Both of you bring a breath of fresh air.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The problem lies in the way the question is stated. From a biblical theological perspective it is important to stress that Jesus is the Israel of God who was made under the law, fulfilled the stipulations of Israel's covenant, and is declared to be the Son of God by His resurrection from the dead. The true Israel is not the church in and of itself, but those who are united to Christ by faith, that is, are "in Christ." Those who are united to Christ by faith are the church, members of Christ, the Israel of God, whether they be Jew or Gentile.

-----Added 7/15/2009 at 11:24:44 EST-----

Originally Posted by Turtle

Originally Posted by Grillsy

Originally Posted by Turtle

After God promised Abraham the land saying, "To thee will I give it." God told Abraham "Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee."

In Acts 7:5 Stephen pointed out that Abraham did not receive any land, not even "so much as to set the sole of his foot upon".

Did Stephan point this out to show God is a promise breaker?

bryan
tampa, fl
.



.
.
.
.

Yes, because the point of Stephen's sermon was God and land grants. You need to pay careful attention to the Pauline epistles and Hebrews especially Galatians in order to properly understand what the promises made to Abraham really meant and to whom they belong.

Abraham and Stephan were confused because they hadn't read Hebrews and Galatians?

Stephan reminded us of Abraham's foot that walked the land he didn't inherit, but that God promised to him.

What was Stephan's purpose to point out a promise God had not fulfilled?

Abraham and Stephen were not confused. They understood to who the promises belong and exactly what they mean just at Paul clearly defines in Galatians and elsewhere.
I think that perhaps you need to understand to whom Abraham's seed refers to.

It also seems that your argument proves too much. Are you saying that Abraham will come back from the dead to inherit the land for himself?
Otherwise from your perspective, at least in your wording, God would have not fulfilled His promise.

Originally Posted by Turtle

Originally Posted by Grillsy

Originally Posted by Turtle

After God promised Abraham the land saying, "To thee will I give it." God told Abraham "Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee."

In Acts 7:5 Stephen pointed out that Abraham did not receive any land, not even "so much as to set the sole of his foot upon".

Did Stephan point this out to show God is a promise breaker?

bryan
tampa, fl
.
.
.
.
.

Yes, because the point of Stephen's sermon was God and land grants. You need to pay careful attention to the Pauline epistles and Hebrews especially Galatians in order to properly understand what the promises made to Abraham really meant and to whom they belong.

Abraham and Stephan were confused because they hadn't read Hebrews and Galatians?

Stephan reminded us of Abraham's foot that walked the land he didn't inherit, but that God promised to him.

What was Stephan's purpose to point out a promise God had not fulfilled?

What are you trying to get at?

Abraham inherited the Land of Israel, which God had given him, in his children. The fullest extent of that land wasn't taken possession of until David and Solomon.

In Christ - the Israel of God have been given the whole Earth including the Land of Israel. As more and more people get saved more of the Earth comes into the possession of God's people. It becomes de factotheirs, as well as theirs de iure.

They will not take possession of it in its fullness until the Second Advent when the cosmos is transformed into a New Heavens and New Earth. In the meantime they are to make the most of what God has given them as stewards. The whole Earth is Eretz Israel since A.D. 70.

Sometimes we feel like Abraham, walking the length and breadth of a land that has been given us but we don't possess; sometimes like the Children of Israel, walking through the wilderness of this world under Christ, our Moses, to the Promised Land; sometimes like the Children of Israel going in to possess the Land under Christ, our Joshua, David and Solomon.

The Jews have been cut off from the Covenant as a nation since the First Century. In Romans 9-11 God promises to reingraft them (maybe when the Church is in a bad way - "life from the dead"). When they are converted, the God and Christ of the Covenant will be of far more importance to them than Eretz Israel.

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Originally Posted by dr_parsley

Absolutely right! There is a future for Israel - as a part of the Church!



Are you sure that's the consequence? I haven't read much of MacArthur, but can't it agree with MacArthur that Israel will be brought back into the one people of God? In the quoted article, he seems to keep it simple enough to allow it.

"For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?" They were chopped off, are currently being provoked to jealousy, and shall be grafted back on to the same tree that we have been grafted on to.

As noted above: Buy him a copy of O. Palmer Robertson’s THE ISRAEL OF GOD, send it to him and have him pay special attention to chapter six “the Israel of God in Romans 11”

Doesn't Palmer Robetson espouse an amillenialism that does not teach a future national conversion of the Jews, and that God is practically finished with the Jews? I'll have to get a hold of his book to find out.

I don't know how amillenialists and others get from Romans 9-11 that God is practically finished with the Jews apart from a small number of conversions down the centuries. If God had been completely finished with the Jews he would have allowed them to be wiped out in A.D. 70. I wonder if this amillenialist, "God is finished with the Jews" approach, is sometimes an over reaction to dispensationalism?

The vast majority of the Jews have been cut off from the Covenant, but God is still providentially working with the others and will reingraft the nation into the Covenant in His own good time.

Re the Land, since they have been cut out of the Covenant and the vast majority are unbelievers, the Jews cannot claim the Land on the basis of God's promises, but only on the same basis we all lay claim to land as nations. It is a significant providence that they have been preserved as a nation and been permitted to return to the Land.

The times of the Gentiles (Luke 21:24; Rev.11:2) will end when the Jews are converted, and the worldwide church (the true Israel of God - Gal. 6:16; Eph. 2:12; Heb. 8:10) is in the ascendant in a way it has not been in the last 2,000 years (that would be the "times of the true Israel").

Robertson's exegesis of Romans 11 warrants serious consideration.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

But God will honor His promises, which are associated with a people group and land, in His way and in His time. And He's more than competent to establish blood lines however He wants, regardless of our puny understanding.

How do you reconcile this idea of a land promise with Hebrews 11, where the hope of the OT saints was clearly not an inheritance in the land but the city built by God and the better resurrection?

Originally Posted by Grillsy

It also seems that your argument proves too much. Are you saying that Abraham will come back from the dead to inherit the land for himself?
Otherwise from your perspective, at least in your wording, God would have not fulfilled His promise.

You are generous to classify my question as an argument, and overly generous to ascribe to it a perspective and wording sufficient to become an argument that proves too much.

Is the question not reasonable considering Stephan's predicament?
.
.
.
.
.

-----Added 7/16/2009 at 06:53:58 EST-----

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Originally Posted by Turtle

Originally Posted by Grillsy

Yes, because the point of Stephen's sermon was God and land grants. You need to pay careful attention to the Pauline epistles and Hebrews especially Galatians in order to properly understand what the promises made to Abraham really meant and to whom they belong.

Abraham and Stephan were confused because they hadn't read Hebrews and Galatians?

Stephan reminded us of Abraham's foot that walked the land he didn't inherit, but that God promised to him.

What was Stephan's purpose to point out a promise God had not fulfilled?

What are you trying to get at?

...

Considering Stephen's predicament, what was he trying to get at? Since Stephan was dragged before the high priest to answer the accusation of blasphemy, isn't it counterproductive for Stephan to begin by telling the high priest that Abraham did not receive the land promised to him by God? Just in case there was any room for confusion about whether God had yet kept that promise Stephan added "not so much as to set his foot upon" (Acts 7:5, Gen 13:17). Why did Stephen start out by showing God had made a promise that Abraham had not received? Surely Stephan could have made his defense against blasphemy by skipping a controversy about Abraham's lack of land and instead start his argument with a more agreeable promise that God did obviously keep, like the promise to free His people from Egypt (which Stephen did add, Acts 7:6,7).

Why did Stephen pair up a promise God had not kept with one He had kept? Moses was rejected the first time and returned the second time to fulfill God's promise.

Originally Posted by Turtle

Originally Posted by Grillsy

It also seems that your argument proves too much. Are you saying that Abraham will come back from the dead to inherit the land for himself?
Otherwise from your perspective, at least in your wording, God would have not fulfilled His promise.

You are generous to classify my question as an argument, and overly generous to ascribe to it a perspective and wording sufficient to become an argument that proves too much.

Is the question not reasonable considering Stephan's predicament?
.
.
.
.
.

-----Added 7/16/2009 at 06:53:58 EST-----

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Originally Posted by Turtle

Abraham and Stephan were confused because they hadn't read Hebrews and Galatians?

Stephan reminded us of Abraham's foot that walked the land he didn't inherit, but that God promised to him.

What was Stephan's purpose to point out a promise God had not fulfilled?

What are you trying to get at?

...

Considering Stephen's predicament, what was he trying to get at? Since Stephan was dragged before the high priest to answer the accusation of blasphemy, isn't it counterproductive for Stephan to begin by telling the high priest that Abraham did not receive the land promised to him by God? Just in case there was any room for confusion about whether God had yet kept that promise Stephan added "not so much as to set his foot upon" (Acts 7:5, Gen 13:17). Why did Stephen start out by showing God had made a promise that Abraham had not received? Surely Stephan could have made his defense against blasphemy by skipping a controversy about Abraham's lack of land and instead start his argument with a more agreeable promise that God did obviously keep, like the promise to free His people from Egypt (which Stephen did add, Acts 7:6,7).

Why did Stephen pair up a promise God had not kept with one He had kept? Moses was rejected the first time and returned the second time to fulfill God's promise.

Here is the Matthew Henry's exegesis of Acts 7

"Stephen was charged as a blasphemer of God, and an apostate from the church; therefore he shows that he is a son of Abraham, and values himself on it. The slow steps by which the promise made to Abraham advanced toward performance, plainly show that it had a spiritual meaning, and that the land intended was the heavenly. God owned Joseph in his troubles, and was with him by the power of his Spirit, both on his own mind by giving him comfort, and on those he was concerned with, by

giving him favour in their eyes. Stephen reminds the Jews of their mean beginning as a check to priding themselves in the glories of that nation. Likewise of the wickedness of the patriarchs of their tribes, in envying their brother Joseph; and the same spirit was still working in them toward Christ and his ministers. The faith of the patriarchs, in desiring to be buried in the land of Canaan, plainly showed they had regard to the heavenly country. It is well to recur to the first rise of

usages, or sentiments, which have been perverted. Would we know the nature and effects of justifying faith, we should study the character of the father of the faithful. His calling shows the power and freeness of Divine grace, and the nature of conversion. Here also we see that outward forms and distinctions are as nothing, compared with separation from the world, and devotedness to God. (Ac 7:17-29)"

_________________________________

Again, I also want to stress that you read Galatians and see just who the Seed of Abraham is as well. You would do well to also recognize to who the promise is not made. You would also do well to due further research on the entire speech that Stephen gives and then search out what the significance of the message is.