Yes, I know. Relevance to the millennial reign or the Messianic era as you call it? That has all been dealt with already. It is time to deal with the issue at hand, which is whether or not Chapter 4 of Romans is showing grounds for the restoration of national Israel to deal with the Jews for a thousand years or is it showing that such a theory is misguided? To do that you will need to actually address its content instead of just superimposing your position onto it by a series of red herrings, while at the same time not actually dealing with the passage.
It is not Romans 4, but Romans 9-11 that deals with the Messianic Kingdom aspect of the restoration of Israel. However, this won't be the Israel of the failed Mosaic Covenant, it won't be of those who are of Israel, but are not Israel, it will be the elect remnant of Israel, the true Israel of God, not the false Israel of the secular nation of Israel. Romans 4 is dealing with justification by faith being visible in the Old Testament. What you will notice is, not once does Paul says that Jesus was the content of the faith. Progressive revelation is the proper understanding. The people in the Old Testament didn't have any idea about Jesus. They just knew of a promise. Their faith was in God's faithfulness to do all He had said He would do.
Paul is dealing with the law and the sign of the covenant and pointing out that the sign (circumcision) does not save because no one can keep the whole law perfectly. Leading up to the big "therefore" of chapter 3. The circumcised Jew is just as much in need of a substitute Savior as the uncircumcised Gentile. The book of Romans is a letter. Its recipients did not read/hear it broken into chapters. It flows ever forward as Paul lays the groundwork of what is said in our chapter 4.
The reason is because the religious leaders held the view that no Jew was damned. All Jews are saved. Abraham stands outside the gates of hell (I don't remember the Jewish term the rabbis use) to turn back any Jew. He was dealing with the beliefs of judaizers, and those who put their faith in the Law, and not in Christ.
Already covered. We are now discussing chapter 4 and in truth, always were supposed to be. Volume does not equal substance. You are just repeating what I already presented as context for chapter 4 in my first post to you.
Why did I quote Romas 1:14? It wasn't so you could tell me what it means. It was in case you were using that scripture to claim that verse 11 in chapter 4 was speaking of three groups of people. Verse 11 in chapter 4 is speaking of two groups. The circumcised and the uncircumcised.
It is all three groups, however, two are covered simply by uncircumcised. He doesn't have to deal with again, as he had already defined the terms in the first three chapters. Context is king. Any text with context is a pretext.
Wow. Just as I said. Why are you repeating it. I told you why I digressed with that information. It was not for a discussion on it but to point out that it is crucial information that should be taken into consideration in interpreting the book of Romans if someone is going to make doctrinal eschatological claims. It was intended for you to recognize historical/cultural events as a hermeneutic and consistently.
It is impossible to make eschatology claims without dealing with Israel. Such as, Israel is NOT the church. The church is NOT Israel. The church was founded on the day of Pentecost. The first group that became part of the church was the Jews. The disciples and other received the Holy Spirit with the speaking of tongues. This is IMPORTANT, as it is the basis of establishing who is a part of the one church, which is one church by one Spirit. Hence Peter's reaction to the Gentiles speaking in tongues. The Jews weren't going to welcome the Gentiles into the church. Peter asked afterwards who would refuse these the water, who have received the same Spirit. They weren't even going to baptise the Gentiles. However, in the church, all have the same access to God by the same Spirit, as such, there is no distinction. However, notice that next you have that there is neither male nor female. If you follow the logic, Paul is not saying the distinction between Jews and Gentiles outside the church is removed. He is solely speaking of within the church.
Did I ever say the Abrahamic covenant was conditional? No, I did not. I said the land grant (no need to inform me of that as I have already stated it) of the Sinai/Mosaic covenant with those God brought out of Egypt (the descendants of Jacob, their households and any strangers who left with them) was conditional. And I will ask you again---did God give that land to Israel? Did they lose it as a nation by breaking the covenant agreement?
Did God violate the Abrahamic covenant? Or, will there be at time when Israel, that is the true Israel of God, the remnant Jewish believers, will see the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant as an everlasting land promise? (Age-enduring). Plenty of land for the Gentiles to have outside of that, and, in reading Revelation, it sounds like the are pretty spread out throughout those other lands.
This is where you jump to a conclusion without ever supporting that conclusion. You are assuming something when a different but legitimate hermeneutic followed consistently from page one of the Bible to the final page arrives at a different conclusion. Something you simply dismiss as "spiritualizing".
I'm not jumping to a conclusion. The Abrahamic covenant is not the only covenant that needs to be fulfilled. There is also the Davidic covenant, and the covenant God made with the Levites.
So why is it necessary for there to be what you call a Messianic kingdom---a literal thousand years of Jesus reigning in Jerusalem over a geo-political nation--- in order for all believing Jews to be saved?
Hmmm... Let's see. Perhaps Daniel 2? Zechariah? Isaiah? Ezekiel? Lot's of prophecies. For Daniel 2, the statue symbolizes the times of the Gentiles, which started when Nebuchadnezzar first attacked Jerusalem, and ends with the Messianic Kingdom. And, how can we know the messianic kingdom has not happened yet? Daniel 2. The ten toes are ten kings, and they are not chronological, but are living concurrently, and serving as kings concurrently. When is this kingdom set up?
"44 In the
days of those kings the
God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and
that kingdom will not be [av]left for another people;
it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever."
That is, this Kingdom marks the end of the times of the Gentiles quite visibly. Do note that the Roman Empire did not end until the Turks took Constantinople. If you read the prophecy of the four beasts, it is just God's view of the times of the Gentiles. Not some beautiful glorified statue, but horrible beasts. That fourth beast Daniel says is terrifying and horrible, and devours/consumes the whole world. There is only one thing, one political system that did this, which had its start with Rome. That is Imperialism, which became the heart of colonialism, which tookover the whole world. There isn't a place on Earth that was not touched by Imperialism. Oh, and do note: the Jewish priests and/or high priests are not kings, were not kings, cannot be kings. It is expressly forbidden by God's Law.
Simple. Because it is the promises that make up the covenant content.
The promises were made outside of the covenant. I thought Paul was clear in Romans 4.
That is a covenant. And it is not a separate covenant from the one made with Abraham's descendants. It is part of it. What does Romans 4 say? Abraham is the father of all who believe, the previous chapters having already established that in this regard there is no difference between Jew and Gentile.
It also said that this all happened prior to the covenant, because the mark of the covenant is circumcision. Paul made a big deal that it was before Abram's circumcision.
God made a covenant with Abraham and the seed (ultimately Christ and those in him through faith) inherits the covenant promises.
You should reread the covenant again, where God specifically states that the covenant is between Him and Abram. No one else. The promises made outside of the covenant are a different story. Again, this is why Paul makes such a big deal about it in Romans 4. If this was all after the covenant, then no Gentiles could be saved. They would have to be physical descendants of Abraham in order to be saved. Paul's point is that because this all happened prior, the Gentiles also have salvation.
Because you have made this post and dealing with it so long by all the excessive and unnecessary wordage, I will deal with the rest of your post separately. Please don't do that again. Stick to the subject and scripture being debated.
Actually, what is being debated is whether John MacArthur was a dispensationalist or not. However, I am not like other people on the board, and invite open discussion, as this does relate to some of what John MacArthur taught. He was not a dispensationalist, but he was a futurist millennialist with many dispensational aspects.
I understand length. I try to answer each part, and can get a little long. My point is that the view of Israel is wrong, so the eschatological view needs help.
So, thanks again.
Reformation Bible College +1
