Future For Israel and Covenant Theology

Status
Not open for further replies.

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
The only people I know of who argue for a continuation of animal sacrifice are dispensationalists. Dispensationalism doesn't really teach that God deals differently in different ages. It teaches that God deals differently with different people groups. Jews have one way of worshipping, and gentiles have another; God has one plan for Jews, and another plan for gentiles.

Prog Disps like Blaising reject animal sacrifices in the future.

Dealing "differently" is a bit ambiguous, I grant. Most dispensationalists wouldn't have a problem with saying
"different modes" of the economy of salvation without implying different ways of salvation.
 

David Taylor

Puritan Board Freshman
The only people I know of who argue for a continuation of animal sacrifice are dispensationalists. Dispensationalism doesn't really teach that God deals differently in different ages. It teaches that God deals differently with different people groups. Jews have one way of worshipping, and gentiles have another; God has one plan for Jews, and another plan for gentiles.

Covenant theology, on the other hand, teaches that God has one covenant people, and that his way of dealing with that one people differs in different ages.
Again, this is the fringe mixed with the caricature.
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
Again, this is the fringe mixed with the caricature.
It's certainly not a caricature. I don't think it's the fringe, either. That's mainstream dispensationalism where I live. It's not progressive dispensationalism, I grant, and it may not be what's taught at DTS (I have no idea), but it's definitely the popular view among dispensationalists in the South. It's also the standard classical dispensational view.

It's you who has made a caricature, by ignoring the dual emphasis of continuity and discontinuity in covenant theology. But that's to be expected, given that you apparently haven't studied out what you're arguing against.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
That's good. That means they're giving up some of the worst of the distinctive tenants of dispensationalism.

Which behooves Covenant theology students today to start interacting with the best of what dispensationalism is today.

And Covenant theology isn't uniform, either. We have everything from PRCA to Federal Vision to "Vanilla Westminster" to Reformed baptist. We are also in flux.
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
Which behooves Covenant theology students today to start interacting with the best of what dispensationalism is today.

And Covenant theology isn't uniform, either. We have everything from PRCA to Federal Vision to "Vanilla Westminster" to Reformed baptist. We are also in flux.
I agree 100%. We should be careful, however, to recognize that the dispensationalists of the academy aren't the only ones impacting peoples' lives. Very few people in my neck of the woods will ever read them. Thousands upon thousands will listen to their pastors preaching from their Scofield bibles, though. That's the reality that I deal with from day to day in my workplace, among family, etc.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
I agree 100%. We should be careful, however, to recognize that the dispensationalists of the academy aren't the only ones impacting peoples' lives. Very few people in my neck of the woods will ever read them. Thousands upon thousands will listen to their pastors preaching from their Scofield bibles, though. That's the reality that I deal with from day to day in my workplace, among family, etc.

Sadly, that's true. And in all my sympathy to progressive dispensationalism, I reject a pretrib rapture. I do think, though, that dispensationalism is changing. Charles Ryrie more or less conceded defeat to the progs on that point.

The whole question is whether it is fair to judge a movement by its academics or "Bubba in the pew."

Should we judge KJV advocates by men like Steven Anderson or by Waite and others? That kind of stuff.
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
So who is "all Israel" in Romans 11? <-- back to the OP

The answer is "ethnic Jews".
 
Last edited:

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
Sadly, that's true. And in all my sympathy to progressive dispensationalism, I reject a pretrib rapture. I do think, though, that dispensationalism is changing. Charles Ryrie more or less conceded defeat to the progs on that point.

The whole question is whether it is fair to judge a movement by its academics or "Bubba in the pew."

Should we judge KJV advocates by men like Steven Anderson or by Waite and others? That kind of stuff.
The difference here, though, is that the Ruckmanites, etc., are the new kids on the block when it comes to advocacy for the KJV. They are departing from the classical view.

With dispensationalism, on the other hand, the ones departing from the classical view are the progressive Dispensationalists. They have all but given up on dispensationalism, except when it comes to the last things. We shouldn't pretend that they hold to classical dispensationalism, but neither should we pretend that they are an accurate representation of dispensationalism as a whole. They are departing from archetypal dispensationalism, not changing it, if I may speak of it in those terms.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
With dispensationalism, on the other hand, the ones departing from the classical view are the progressive Dispensationalists

Maybe, but dispensationalism in its early days was already in flux and couldn't have been pinned down on those points. See the introduction to Three Views on the Rapture (Zondervan) regarding the Niagara Bible Conferences.
 

David Taylor

Puritan Board Freshman
I agree 100%. We should be careful, however, to recognize that the dispensationalists of the academy aren't the only ones impacting peoples' lives. Very few people in my neck of the woods will ever read them. Thousands upon thousands will listen to their pastors preaching from their Scofield bibles, though. That's the reality that I deal with from day to day in my workplace, among family, etc.


I've been in dozens of dispensational churches in my life and have NEVER seen the caricatures in the real world. Not saying they do not exist. I'm saying its not as much the norm as people here try to make it out to be.
 
Last edited:

GulfCoast Presbyterian

Puritan Board Junior
That reply actually saddens me. Why take a swipe at your Presbyterian brethren to attempt to gain a point on an ancillary matter? This is the PB, we are better than that, here.

Many of us have not only "been" in dozens of Dispensational credo-Baptist churches, some of us were actually ordained in them (me), and are very deeply familiar with what they teach. Just this week I had relatives all happy-buzzy because of an alleged man in Tenn breeding "the perfect red heifer" designed for "sacrifices in the millennial temple." This sort of thing is common.

Just as you would assert "it is not as much the norm as people here try to make it out to be" and rest on your own experience, it is equally valid for those of us in the deep south, who deal with this theological error on a regular basis, to rest on our own experience with what those churches teach.
 

David Taylor

Puritan Board Freshman
That reply actually saddens me. Why take a swipe at your Presbyterian brethren to attempt to gain a point on an ancillary matter? This is the PB, we are better than that, here.

Many of us have not only "been" in dozens of Dispensational credo-Baptist churches, some of us were actually ordained in them (me), and are very deeply familiar with what they teach. Just this week I had relatives all happy-buzzy because of an alleged man in Tenn breeding "the perfect red heifer" designed for "sacrifices in the millennial temple." This sort of thing is common.

Just as you would assert "it is not as much the norm as people here try to make it out to be" and rest on your own experience, it is equally valid for those of us in the deep south, who deal with this theological error on a regular basis, to rest on our own experience with what those churches teach.
My point is don't lump them all together. That's not fair or accurate.
 

Charles Johnson

Puritan Board Sophomore
It does have a bearing when talking about the Israeli state, however, and indeed any restoration of an ethnically Jewish state. From a Christian perspective, who decides who qualifies as the ethnic Jews to whom Paul is referring? If we, as Christians, are meant to look for a restoration of a Jewish state and support it then this matters a lot.
Who's an American? Most Americans can't prove their descendency from the Americans of 1776. Ergo, contemporary reports referring to so-called "Americans" must have been fulfilled within the generation following the revolution.
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
I've been in dozens of dispensational churches in my life and have NEVER seen the caricatures in the real world. Not saying they do not exist. I'm saying its not as much the norm as people here try to make it out to be.
I haven't presented any caricatures--only what I gew up with and regularly experience in my day-to-day interactions with the people of Calhoun, GA. These are standard views in the SBC around here.
 

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
My point is don't lump them all together. That's not fair or accurate.

I came out of a Bible church that taught all of the stuff you said is fringe (at least, about 10 years ago).

I am in Texas and this was a fairly large congregation of probably 1,000 or so.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
I grew up in a church that was formally dispie (700-1,000; it's now about 2,000) and it never taught any of that. Each person has his own anecdotal experience.
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
I grew up in a church that was formally dispie (700-1,000; it's now about 2,000) and it never taught any of that. Each person has his own anecdotal experience.
Jacob,
I think the point is that the doctrines that David keeps calling "fringe" and "caricature" are actually widespread. You can't walk 10 feet in a public place where I live without bumping into someone who believes this stuff.

Interesting note: none of them know the word "dispensationalism." To them, it's just what the Bible teaches. They've never heard anything else.
 

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
Good call on Calvary Chapel. I was introduced to Calvinism because a dispie friend of mine in California called it a heresy. They also had their prophecy conferences regularly where they exegeted the newspaper.

@BayouHuguenot - my point is the same as @TylerRay’s. This stuff is pretty widespread in my area. They certainly outnumber the folks who hold to Covenant Theology (both Baptist and Presbyterian flavors) in my neck of the woods!
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Good call on Calvary Chapel. I was introduced to Calvinism because a dispie friend of mine in California called it a heresy. They also had their prophecy conferences regularly where they exegeted the newspaper.

@BayouHuguenot - my point is the same as @TylerRay’s. This stuff is pretty widespread in my area. They certainly outnumber the folks who hold to Covenant Theology (both Baptist and Presbyterian flavors) in my neck of the woods!

I don't doubt that it is widespread in some areas (though not in others). At the end of the day, though, I don't care what brother. Bodunk's congregation thinks. I'm keeping up with scholarly movements and it does trickle down. Maybe not fast enough, but it's there. Consider:

Biola and DTS have watered down key aspects of dispensational teaching.
Trinity Evangelical dropped the pre-trib rapture as a tenet of belief.
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
So, we've verified that the fringe/caricature dispensational view is widespread in the Southeast, Texas, and California. Doesn't sound so fringe.
 

SGW

Puritan Board Freshman
So who is "all Israel" in Romans 11? <-- back to the OP

The answer is "ethnic Jews".
By referring to “all Israel” I assume your talking about verse 26. I believe this is speaking of all those grafted into the olive tree, including the elect from “ethnic Jews” and Gentiles.
O. Palmer Robertson’s book “The Israel of God” is a great resource on this topic.
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
By referring to “all Israel” I assume your talking about verse 26. I believe this is speaking of all those grafted into the olive tree, including the elect from “ethnic Jews” and Gentiles.
O. Palmer Robertson’s book “The Israel of God” is a great resource on this topic.

Yes, I'm speaking about v26 which is what the OP is really about right? Of course that's what ch. 11 is about as a whole.

You bring up the olive tree that is in the passage, and it should be brought up in this as context for "all Israel" of v26.

What do we learn from this illustration:

"Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches."

We can come back to this, but necessarily the branches are tied closely to the root, as the lump is to the firstfruit. That the branches are holy, as is the root.

"Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, "

Branches can be broken off. Even those grafted in (v21-22). Which means if we interpret this as 'all the elect' is Israel - then we can lose our salvation. There is no longer perseverance/preservation of the saints. This is obviously wrong. The branches broken off are 'ethnic Jews' as is the context of the whole passage preceding this, including (9:1-5, 10:1). "His people" v1 Paul is also of them, as an Israelite. He's talking about ethnic Jews. Same v2. V5 from among the same ethnic Jews there is a remnant at the present time (in Paul's day and in our day). V7, Israel (ethnic Jews) has not obtained what it seeks. A small portion have obtained it of those God elected from among ethnic Jews. The rest were blinded by God.

"Rom 11:11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles."

They who? Ethnic Jews. They fell/transgressed in order that salvation would come to Gentiles, which by the Gentiles coming would provoke to jealousy the ethnic Jews to also come to salvation.

"Rom 11:12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!"

Whose fall? The ethnic Jews. Their fall is means for riches to the world/Gentiles. Then how much more will the fullness of the ethnic Jews coming in mean riches for the Gentiles? Even more so. He says the same thing in v15.

Who is Paul speaking to? Gentiles.

"Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
Rom 11:14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them."

Paul is speaking to the Gentiles, and he ministers to Gentiles because he desire the salvation of ethnic Jews, his fellow country men (9:1-5; 10:1). Because at the present time for Paul and us, the gospel is going to the Gentiles and this is the means to bring in the Jews (v11-15).

"Rom 11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches [ethnic Jews], He may not spare you [Gentiles] either.
Rom 11:22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell [v12 ethnic Jews], severity; but toward you [Gentiles], goodness, if you [Gentiles] continue in His goodness. Otherwise you [Gentiles] also will be cut off."

Cut off from the olive tree. That is where perhaps baptists will not get this. The olive tree is clearly the visible church on earth, just as in the illustration of the vine in John 15.

"Rom 11:23 And they [ethnic Jews] also, if they [ethnic Jews] do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them [ethnic Jews] in again.
Rom 11:24 For if you [Gentiles] were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and [Gentiles] were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these [ethnic Jews], who are natural branches, be grafted into their [ethnic Jews] own olive tree?"

Of which the root is the Patriarchs (v16, 28). The covenant promises communicated to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob of which all Jews come forth from.

"Rom 11:25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you [Gentiles] should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you [Gentiles] should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel [ethnic Jews] until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved..."

The fullness of the Gentiles is of course contrasted by ethnic Jews as it has been even since ch. 1:16 and throughout ch. 11. What is this fullness of Gentiles? It is that a great number of Gentiles coming into the Church, which brings about a great provocation of jealousy to ethnic Jews so ethnic Jews will desire the riches that the Gentiles have (v11, 14). So a partial blindness has happened to [ethnic Jews] Israel (v7). And that for a time. "Until" the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. And in that way, All Israel will be saved. Now who is Israel up until this point? Ethnic Jews. There's no other possibility unless you believe that one can lose their salvation and we rip what Paul is saying out of context (even since 9:1 and for that matter 1:16). But the fact that Paul already has taught what v26 says should convince everyone all the more. He's already said that the riches going to the Gentiles will bring about a fullness of ethnic Jews coming in (v.12, 15). That's why he's ministering to the Gentiles (v.13-14).

Then what? Paul quotes Scripture to prove what he's just said from Isaiah. That God's covennat still stand to "Jacob" - Israel.

Now what else? If you think v.26 suddenly changes from ethnic Jews to all elect Israel (to read like Gal. 6:16) then v28 will disappoint you. The context continues...

"Rom 11:28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers."

Who is "they"? The context requires that "they" be "All Israel". "All Israel" were enemies for your sake. For whose sake? Gentiles is what context requires. They were enemies to whom? God. He blinded and hardened them. He broke off their branches. All Israel can be nothing but ethnic Jews. But concerning election (v2, 16) they [ethnic Jews] are beloved for sake of the fathers. Who are the fathers? They are the firstfruit, the root --> patriarchs of whom were given the covenant promises.

We continue still.

"Rom 11:30 For as you [Gentiles] were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their [ethnic Jews] disobedience,
Rom 11:31 even so these [ethnic Jews] also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you [Gentiles v11-15] they [ethnic Jews v11, 14] also may obtain mercy."

Who are these people? The same as the beginning of ch. 11. Nothing's changed! The whole context has been ethnic Jews and (ethnic) Gentiles. Paul has from the beginning been concerned about ethnic Jews because he said,

9:1-5 "I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit,
Rom 9:2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart.
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
Rom 9:4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;
Rom 9:5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen."

and "Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved."

Paul's concern is for his brethren according to the flesh, that's never changed and so he prays for them and ministers to Gentiles so that Jews will be at some point grafted back into the visible Church on earth and be saved.

Further, Paul is pushing the Gentiles to not boast or be haughty (v16-32). So that Gentiles won't boast of their current position (v18-20). What is going to cause them to not boast? The Jews being grafted back in. If v26 "All Israel" is all the elect, guess what, that doesn't accomplish Paul's purpose of rooting out the pride of the Gentiles over the Jews. So this last thing is to show that Paul's purpose is actually ruined if "All Israel" is not ethnic Jews.

Honestly, I've recently preached on this. Everything I have to say is in the sermons. I posted this in my first post on this thread: https://www.sermonaudio.com/search....setitem=Romans&subsetitem2=11&AudioOnly=false
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
By referring to “all Israel” I assume your talking about verse 26. I believe this is speaking of all those grafted into the olive tree, including the elect from “ethnic Jews” and Gentiles.
O. Palmer Robertson’s book “The Israel of God” is a great resource on this topic.

The problem with Robertson's interpretation is that it has Paul do a sudden pivot on the term Israel and he gives no warning that he is changing the meaning of the term.
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
The problem with Robertson's interpretation is that it has Paul do a sudden pivot on the term Israel and he gives no warning that he is changing the meaning of the term.
Define "problem."

There's more than one interpretation, and so each leans on which seems to be the "best," or have the fewest weaknesses. If Robertson's interpretation has a "problem," that would seem to indicate he made no effort to address this "sudden pivot," that strikes you (or possibly the majority) as a problem. If he does address it, then it's only a "problem" that others have with it, not that OPR has.

I think the real issue is whether Paul's expression in Rom.11:26 is simply an adjectival use of "pas," or if his (new) expression is "pas Israel." That would be a new expression, not one he used prior. And it would signal a comprehensive statement on his part: "And therefore: All-Israel will be saved."

In his correspondence, Paul often uses these two closely related joint-conjunctions: "houtos kai," and "kai houtos." The latter is here in Rom.11:26 (the nearest of the former is 11:31). The former is typically, "Even so," or the equivalent; it speaks of a close entailment. Note Paul's use in 5:15, where he negates the entailment, "not... even so." This use is juxtaposed with v12, where "hosper" "as indeed" is used to present a positive entailment.

The latter is, "And/So therefore." The former is used 3-4X as many as the latter in Romans. Oddly enough, in Rom.5:12 just after "hosper" comes the other "kai houtos" found in Romans; it's not a close logical entailment that follows the expression, but a theological conclusion of several previous ideas drawn together.

Rhetorically, there is an argument that Paul does not just use these word-choices first one direction, then the other, for variety; but because they present the conclusion he's making in a verbally subtle, but meaningfully distinctive way.

I think it is the latter. I think Paul is summarizing, and pointing to the wholistic salvation, which is eschatological Israel, ALL-ISRAEL. So, all who are (true) Israel, united to the Israel of God, the Israel of One even Jesus, will be saved--no doubt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top