Was MacArthur a dispensationalist?

[TMSO]

No, and that is what Paul is explicitly denying in Chapter 4:1-6. Paul is interpreting the full meaning of the Abrahamic covenant in the OT.

Follow the context. That is not what Paul is doing. Even the Bible translaters new that, and gave the section the heading of Justification in the Old Testament by faith. The Abrahamic covenant has NOTHING to do with salvation. The promises God made about blessing all the nations of the earth, and that by Christ all the nations of the world would be blessed, do deal with salvation, but they were not covenants, but promises.

It was something that could not be fully revealed (interpreted) until the one who ultimately fulfilled it, Christ, had come, completed perfect righteousness, died, was resurrected. ascended back to the Father. He has completed all those things. Had done so in Paul's day. Jesus is already King of kings and Lord of lords. He is already on Zion (Ps 2). He is already the Son of David sitting as King.

So please explain how that works in relation to Daniel 2. According to God, He doesn't even set up the kingdom until the 10 concurrent kings. That is the leg portion of the statue, which speaks to the Roman Empire which did not end until the Turks took Constantinople in the 15th century I believe. The 10 kings are not chronological, they are kings concurrently. So where in the first/second century were there 10 nations with 10 kings? (No more, no less.) And then where was one king who showed up and wiped out three? Not an additional king, but one of the original 10.

Those who interpret the Abrahamic covenant and its "all nations will be blessed" as only belonging to the Jews are still hanging out in the old covenant just as the Jews of Jesus' day were. Does God have a covenant with the reconstituted (1948) nation of Israel? Or with the Jews?

That is not a covenant.
"15 Then the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, 16 and said, “By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your [e]seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your [f]seed shall possess the gate of [g]their enemies. 18 In your [h]seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”"

This is not a covenant. This is a promise sworn by God, by His own name. The seed here is Jesus Christ, and this is saying that salvation will be to the whole world, not simply Israel. Again, this is NOT a covenant.

That is reading your interpretation into what I said and doing so using language that undermines your own argument by having to resort to analogies that are ridiculous and unfounded. No covenant was violated and I have not said anything that remotely suggests that unless one is misinterpreting the Abrahamic covenant. The result of a backward hermeneutic that makes the OT interpret the NT.

You aren't even talking about the Abrahamic covenant, but the promises God made outside of the covenant. Even Paul is clear when he said that all this came before Abraham was circumcised. Paul is saying that it is outside the covenant, which was only for the Jews. As such, since the promise came before Abraham was circumcised, and the promise came by Abraham's faith, the uncircumcised can be saved by faith.

All the caps does not change the fact that I never said or implied that the Mosaic covenant superseded the Abrahamic. In fact I remember at one point saying it was within the Abrahamic C not separate from it. Distinct, but not separate. You do know, I hope, that it is against the rules to misrepresent a persons view and you have done that several times. Ask questions if you have them but don't simply assume and then misstate.

The Mosaic covenant is separate. The Mosaic covenant was made with Israel through Moses, hence Mosaic. The Mosaic covenant is based in the Law, the Abrahamic covenant, again, has its fulfillment in faith, not the law. They are contradictory in nature. The Mosaic covenant was made with a nation, the nation of Israel. The Abrahamic covenant was made with Abraham, and covered his descendants, who were identified by physical circumcision. In other words, it is an ETHNIC covenant. It is later (thanks to the wonders of progressive revelation) that we learn that God does not consider the physical descendants of Abraham by the Law to be saved, but only those physical descendants that are ALSO (just emphasis) spiritual descendants by faith. That is, the elect remnant of Israel, who are the true Israel of God within the secular nation of Israel.

It has happened. That support would be in those portions of my posts that you ignore. Jesus is the constant focus, the central figure, the protagonist of the overarching Covenant of Redemption from Gen 3:14-15 on of the OT as well as the NT. A geo/political nation and an ethnicity never replace that and is never the focus. Israel is about Jesus iow, not an ethnic people and a political/religious power. Israel one might say is simply the womb of the incarnate Jesus. It serves a purpose---many purposes---all of which needed to be worked out in history as God gathers his people, giving them to Christ---through regeneration and faith. When they have all been gathered into the flock. then Jesus returns and all is made new. It is all about him and as Scripture says FOR him.

Why do you keep bringing in things that don't mean anything. I understand your envy of Israel and the Jews, considering it grows out of the deep antisemitic hatred of the old Catholic Church. (An extension, I am not saying you are antisemitic, just envious.) This is why you need to remember Romans 11. Paul already covered this about the Gentiles. Ooh, they were cut out so I could be grafted in. Be aware. We are solely in the new covenant (not Israel), by the kindness of God. He is ready to cut out any who do not continue in said kindness. The Jews were cut out by the severity of God in response to their unbelief/rejection. Unlike the Gentiles, God will reattach those Jews who turn to unbelief. If a Gentile gets cut out, there is no remediation. Hence Paul's warning.

That had nothing to do with the Sinai covenant or the Abrahamic covenant.
Acts 16:3
“Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him on account of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.”
If you put that into the context where it belongs it was not about salvation or the covenant but about effective ministry and removing stumbling blocks.

What is the stumbling block? Timothy took his Jewish heritage so that the fact that the people knew his father was Greek would not become a stumbling block. His MOTHER was Jewish, and for him to remain as a Gentile/Greek would become a stumbling block. Paul had Timothy take his Jewish heritage. He did not have Titus do so, because Titus was not Jewish. The Jewish identity/heritage comes from the mother, not the father. It's in the Law.

As for why there are so many paragraphs, is that so many ideas are presented originally, and I deal with all of them. However, that makes my response like the original, with many ideas presented. I'll consider how to break it up in the future.

 

[TMSO]

Response to @TMSO post 89 PART THREE!!!

This will be broken up because the passage to answer your question is long, and that bottom part is going to be really deep.

Same reason he had Timothy circumsised. It had nothing to do with any covenant.

It had everything to do with the covenant. In the covenant was a command. All Abraham's descendants were to be circumcised. It was NOT a suggestion. For Paul, taking Timothy along with him would cause issues, because Timothy was technically Jewish on his mother's side, while his father was Greek. By being circumcised, Timothy was choosing his Jewish heritage over the Greek. A big deal, especially with the Judaizers who would gain a lot of ammunition against Paul. Titus was not Jewish at all, so Paul did not have Titus get circumcised. If you read Acts, you will find Paul keeping the Law and traditions of the Jews, first of all, because he is a Jew, second of all, to avoid problems with his ministry. He did not leave his Jewish heritage and culture behind. He just does not believe, or follow it as the way to salvation. It was ethnic for him at that point. It is that way in many places, not just Israel. You may leave your homeland, but don't lose your culture or heritage.

Titus was not compelled to be circumcised because the apostles unanimously upheld the doctrine that Gentiles are justified by faith apart from Mosaic works. His uncircumcised status served as a living demonstration that salvation is granted solely through the grace of the resurrected Christ, nullifying any demand for ritual additions. Bible Hub Questions and Answers

Can you give scripture that states this? Are we avoiding context? I mean, Paul did not have Titus circumcised because he was not a Jew. The statement you make above seems to say that the Gentiles are justified by faith, but the Jews by circumcision. Paul held that salvation is apart from circumcision COMPLETELY directly connecting circumcision to the Law and to the flesh. Circumcision was a sign for the Jews that one was under the Abrahamic covenant, since in that covenant, God commanded that all Abraham's descendants be circumcised. It didn't save anyone. It was ethnic. Since Titus was fully Gentile, circumcision meant nothing and would have shown that Titus did not trust in Jesus to save. Timothy was part Jewish and took up his Jewish heritage, so circumcision meant something. God said that the one who didn't get circumcised was to be cut off from his people. [It is possible this meant exiled and God would deal with them. Or it simply meant executed. Either way, it seems it was a big deal to God that His command be followed.]

Give the passage. And the portion of the OC that dealt with the Aaronic priesthood ceased when Jesus, from the tribe of Judah was named High Priest on the order of Melchizedek at his completion of the redemptive work and ascension back to the Father. Not only that all possibility of it ever returning according to the old covenant law ended when the temple was destroyed, and no traceable line to Aaron remained.

Here is the long passage. Jeremiah 33
14 ‘Behold, days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will fulfill the good word which I have spoken concerning the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 15 In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch of David to spring forth; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth. 16 In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell in safety; and this is the name by which she will be called: the Lord is our righteousness.’ 17 For thus says the Lord, ‘[g]David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; 18 [h]and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man before Me to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to prepare sacrifices continually.’”

19 The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying, 20 “Thus says the Lord, ‘If you can break My covenant for the day and My covenant for the night, so that day and night will not be at their appointed time, 21 then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant so that he will not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levitical priests, My ministers. 22 As the host of heaven cannot be counted and the sand of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the [j]descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.’”

23 And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying, 24 “Have you not observed what this people have spoken, saying, ‘The two families which the Lord chose, He has rejected them’? Thus they despise My people, no longer are they as a nation [k]in their sight. 25 Thus says the Lord, ‘If My covenant for day and night stand not, and the [l]fixed patterns of heaven and earth I have not established, 26 then I would reject the [m]descendants of Jacob and David My servant, [n]not taking from his [o]descendants rulers over the [p]descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But I will restore their [q]fortunes and will have mercy on them.’”

This is thus saith the Lord. It will happen as the words have come from His mouth to His prophet. He really is specific with "rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." He is speaking of solely the Jews.

A Son of David is now seated on the throne and forever will be. No one said the land that is known as Israel would cease. But it is not God's kingdom.

It will be.

Not according to Paul.

You mean, not according to you.

Gal 3:39
And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

You do know that Greek has words for promise and for covenant, right? The promises and the covenant are not the same thing. That promise you speak of is completely separate from the covenant, and was made when Abraham was supposed to sacrifice Isaac. God swore an oath (completely different than a covenant) in His own name with Abraham that day. Understand, the whole basis for salvation for the Gentiles is the faithfulness of God. If God violates/ignores/breaks covenants, than what hope do Gentiles have of salvation?

 

[TMSO]

Response to @TMSO post 89 PART THREE!!!

Well, you know what we are talking about.

Sort of.

We aren't talking about what the Jews consider so why bring it up?

Because the audience and writing is for the Jews. God was speaking to them, so they would understand. They understood many ages, as generations, but, as seen with the disciples, they also believed in a consummation, that is, the end of everything. The end of the temporal age.

Then you need to demonstrate that is the case. You need to demonstrate that Jesus is not already reigning as King and also demonstrate that a small dot of land in the Middle East is his kingdom.

Jesus is serving as High Priest, mediator of the new covenant. He is sitting at the right hand of the King, at the right hand of the Father. And notice the chronology:
"20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in [h]Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, 24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power." 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.

So, conveniently, we have Revelation 19, where Jesus returns to save Israel from the beast, his army, and all his allies, then a millennial kingdom, and then the final battle where death is finally abolished.

Now, where do we see the messianic kingdom specifically presented as to when it arrives? Daniel 2. What is Danile 2? A prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar's statue, which is man's view of the times of the Gentiles. The times of the Gentiles began when Nebuchadnezzar attacked Israel the first time. The statue is magnificent and beautiful, just how man/Nebuchadnezzar would view it all. The prophecy of the four beasts later is God's view of the times of the Gentiles.

To try to keep this short, consider the rock not hewn by hands. This is the Messianic Kingdom. It comes at the end of the times of the Gentiles. Can this be happening now? No. Emphatically no. God tells us when this Kingdom is formed in Daniel 2 in very specific terms.
"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. "

Consider the prophecy of the fourth beast:
"23 “Thus he said: ‘The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it. 24 As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise; and another will arise after them, and he will be different from the previous ones and will subdue three kings. 25 He will speak [y]out against the Most High and wear down the [z]saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law; and [aa]they will be given into his hand for a [ab]time, [ac]times, and half a [ad]time. 26 But the court will sit for judgment, and his dominion will be taken away, [ae]annihilated and destroyed [af]forever. 27 Then the [ag]sovereignty, the dominion and the greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people of the [ah]saints of the Highest One; His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all the dominions will serve and obey Him.’"

So the kings are the ten toes, which are the ten horns of the fourth beast. The fourth kingdom is different then all the others because it isn't a specific kingdom/empire. It started with Rome, but the difference is... Imperialism. It started with Rome and continued all the way through until even now. Prior to Rome, if a country was invaded, the invading country did not take over. They picked someone from the country and made them basically a puppet ruler. With Rome, the Romans took over with kings, proconsuls, military power, etc. The country became a part of Rome, right down to the leadership. Full takeover. Colonialism did the same exact thing. Imperialism is what devoured the whole Earth. Rome didn't. And out of this, ten kings will arise, which basically means, ten countries with ten kings. A kingdom divided.

It goes a lot deeper than this, but that rock that comes and destroys/ends the times of the Gentiles is the Messianic Kingdom. And as it says that all of this will be given to... Israel. All dominions (so all outside) will serve and obey Him.

This is a pretty shallow rendering. There is a lot more to it then this little bit. However, Daniel 2 is clear. The Kingdom hasn't even been started yet, for the ten countries/kings have yet to show themselves.

 

[Arial]

Because the audience and writing is for the Jews. God was speaking to them, so they would understand. They understood many ages, as generations, but, as seen with the disciples, they also believed in a consummation, that is, the end of everything. The end of the temporal age.

Are you a Jew? I asked you. There is no need to go into reams of windiness to answer a simple question.

25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.

Does that say he is reigning now or not? We are in a right now/not yet situation but that does not mean Christ is not now reigning. And where does it ever say that Jesus reigns only in Jerusalem? Never mind. Consider it a rhetorical question. I have no desire to receive another longwinded, rabbit trailing, missing the point post from you.

So, conveniently, we have Revelation 19, where Jesus returns to save Israel from the beast, his army, and all his allies, then a millennial kingdom, and then the final battle where death is finally abolished.

Presuppositional interpretation. There are other views and persons who would fight just as stubbornly as you to defend them---and do so by quoting scripture. The fact that this is your view does not automatically make it an absolute fact.

Now, where do we see the messianic kingdom specifically presented as to when it arrives? Daniel 2. What is Danile 2? A prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar's statue, which is man's view of the times of the Gentiles. The times of the Gentiles began when Nebuchadnezzar attacked Israel the first time. The statue is magnificent and beautiful, just how man/Nebuchadnezzar would view it all. The prophecy of the four beasts later is God's view of the times of the Gentiles.

Presuppositional interpretation. That doesn't make it right.

Consider the prophecy of the fourth beast:
"23 “Thus he said: ‘The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it. 24 As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise; and another will arise after them, and he will be different from the previous ones and will subdue three kings. 25 He will speak [y]out against the Most High and wear down the [z]saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law; and [aa]they will be given into his hand for a [ab]time, [ac]times, and half a [ad]time. 26 But the court will sit for judgment, and his dominion will be taken away, [ae]annihilated and destroyed [af]forever. 27 Then the [ag]sovereignty, the dominion and the greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people of the [ah]saints of the Highest One; His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all the dominions will serve and obey Him.’"

Interpreting specific prophecies goes way past the issue that was raised and never resolved concerning Romans 4. It is just deviating word salad. I have no intention of carrying on what is loosely called a conversation about prophecy interpretation.

It goes a lot deeper than this, but that rock that comes and destroys/ends the times of the Gentiles is the Messianic Kingdom. And as it says that all of this will be given to... Israel. All dominions (so all outside) will serve and obey Him.

This is a pretty shallow rendering. There is a lot more to it then this little bit. However, Daniel 2 is clear. The Kingdom hasn't even been started yet, for the ten countries/kings have yet to show themselves.

Presuppositional interpretation presented as though it has the same authority as the Bible itself. There are other views.

 

[Arial]

This will be broken up because the passage to answer your question is long, and that bottom part is going to be really deep.

Wait while I go get my mud boots professor.

It had everything to do with the covenant. In the covenant was a command. All Abraham's descendants were to be circumcised. It was NOT a suggestion. For Paul, taking Timothy along with him would cause issues, because Timothy was technically Jewish on his mother's side, while his father was Greek. By being circumcised, Timothy was choosing his Jewish heritage over the Greek. A big deal, especially with the Judaizers who would gain a lot of ammunition against Paul. Titus was not Jewish at all, so Paul did not have Titus get circumcised. If you read Acts, you will find Paul keeping the Law and traditions of the Jews, first of all, because he is a Jew, second of all, to avoid problems with his ministry. He did not leave his Jewish heritage and culture behind. He just does not believe, or follow it as the way to salvation. It was ethnic for him at that point. It is that way in many places, not just Israel. You may leave your homeland, but don't lose your culture or heritage.

The conflict that had arisen from Jewish believers, and which Peter had to be reprimanded for, never mentions a covenant and just because circumcision was the sign of the OC does not mean that the dispute had anything to do with the covenant in particular. Critical thinking is needed here.

The statement you make above seems to say that the Gentiles are justified by faith, but the Jews by circumcision.

It wasn't my statement but maybe you should read it again if the above is what you got out of it.

Circumcision was a sign for the Jews that one was under the Abrahamic covenant, since in that covenant, God commanded that all Abraham's descendants be circumcised. It didn't save anyone. It was ethnic. Since Titus was fully Gentile, circumcision meant nothing and would have shown that Titus did not trust in Jesus to save. Timothy was part Jewish and took up his Jewish heritage, so circumcision meant something. God said that the one who didn't get circumcised was to be cut off from his people. [It is possible this meant exiled and God would deal with them. Or it simply meant executed. Either way, it seems it was a big deal to God that His command be followed.]

Circumcision means nothing in regard to salvation, and it means nothing in the Jewish religion no escept to the Jews who reject Christ, but not to God. The OC has been made obsolete. That is the issue being resolved here. Circumcision for salvation plus faith is what the Judaizers were trying to impose on the Gentiles. The Jews my friend were already circumcised.

Here is the long passage. Jeremiah 33
14 ‘Behold, days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will fulfill the good word which I have spoken concerning the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 15 In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch of David to spring forth; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth. 16 In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell in safety; and this is the name by which she will be called: the Lord is our righteousness.’ 17 For thus says the Lord, ‘[g]David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; 18 [h]and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man before Me to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to prepare sacrifices continually.’”

Presuppositional interpretation applied and then regarded as absolute with no consideration of any other possibility. There are other views.

If Jer 33 is interpreted through the lens of the NT---as it should be since the original hearers of the prophecy did not have the information that could only come through the arrival of Christ and his earthly work completed---a whole different interpretation comes about. One I might add, that is Christ (the Redeemer in the historical redemption story) centered and not a single nation centered.

Christ, Son of David. is now king and priest. There was partial fulfillment for the Jews when they returned from Babylon, but that just isn't the whole story.

It will be.

And such a small kingdom it is!

You mean, not according to you.

No. The words were Paul's. A direct quote from Galatains.

You do know that Greek has words for promise and for covenant, right? The promises and the covenant are not the same thing.

The Greek has words for promise and covenant because they are not necessarily the same thing. That does not mean that a covenant is not made up of promises. And they are. When God makes a promise, that is a covenant. Those in Christ are Abraham's offspring and
therefore, heirs of all the promises. Who are those in Christ? The church (the called-out ones) whether Jew or Gentile.

 

[JesusFan]

I understand the historic pre mill view. But thank you

Glad that you do, as many in CT theology do not seem to realize that premil is a viable position to hold

 

[Arial]

Even the Bible translaters new that, and gave the section the heading of Justification in the Old Testament by faith.

Or some translations have the heading "Abraham justified by faith" which is actually what Paul is specifically talking about and for the very purpose of connecting it to salvation by faith apart from works for all who believe God. I don't know what translation says Justification in the Old Testament by faith. Maybe none? Was that simply your way of missing the point of what Paul was saying by imposing your belief onto it and shifting the conversation?

The Abrahamic covenant has NOTHING to do with salvation.

So, it has nothing to do with Christ?

That is not a covenant.
"15 Then the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, 16 and said, “By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your [e]seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your [f]seed shall possess the gate of [g]their enemies. 18 In your [h]seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”"

This is not a covenant. This is a promise sworn by God, by His own name. The seed here is Jesus Christ, and this is saying that salvation will be to the whole world, not simply Israel. Again, this is NOT a covenant.
You aren't even talking about the Abrahamic covenant, but the promises God made outside of the covenant. Even Paul is clear when he said that all this came before Abraham was circumcised. Paul is saying that it is outside the covenant, which was only for the Jews. As such, since the promise came before Abraham was circumcised, and the promise came by Abraham's faith, the uncircumcised can be saved by faith.

Already covered twice maybe three times and my input ignored.

The Mosaic covenant is separate.

It is distinct within the one Covenant of Redemption. It was serving a purpose in the Covenant of Redemption, but it did not nullify the CoR or stop its forward motion to the fullness of redemption in history. Read Gal 3. I am not going to quote the whole chapter.

Why do you keep bringing in things that don't mean anything.

The fact that they don't mean anything to you is your stumbling block. If they meant something to you it would change your division between Israel and the church into a light bulb moment, perhaps even be an embarrassment that your sights are so set on the nation Israel that Christ had been relegated to the shadows instead of the OT worship system's place as a shadow.

. I understand your envy of Israel and the Jews, considering it grows out of the deep antisemitic hatred of the old Catholic Church.

This is a blatant violation of Rule 4.10.4. and will be dealt with appropriately. It also shows am unsanctified area of attitude towards those you cannot bend to your will/view and the very woke view of dealing with controversy. Instead of critical thinking and logical reason, simply attack the person or their beliefs with wild assumptions and accusations of bigotry. It will also end my exchanges with you. There is no purpose in continuing to deal with someone who has reached that level of lack of self-control.

4.10.4. Hate speech or discrimination will not be tolerated. There is to be no racism, antisemitism, ethnic slurs, or derogatory language targeting any group. All people are made in the image of God and should be treated with dignity and respect, insofar as we are called to love our neighbor as ourselves.

(An extension, I am not saying you are antisemitic, just envious.) This is why you need to remember Romans 11. Paul already covered this about the Gentiles. Ooh, they were cut out so I could be grafted in. Be aware. We are solely in the new covenant (not Israel), by the kindness of God. He is ready to cut out any who do not continue in said kindness. The Jews were cut out by the severity of God in response to their unbelief/rejection. Unlike the Gentiles, God will reattach those Jews who turn to unbelief. If a Gentile gets cut out, there is no remediation. Hence Paul's warning.

That does not change the rules violation one iota.

 

[TMSO]

Are you a Jew? I asked you. There is no need to go into reams of windiness to answer a simple question.

No, no I am not. How this changes the fact that the Bible was written to Jews (with the exception of Paul) escapes me.

Does that say he is reigning now or not? We are in a right now/not yet situation but that does not mean Christ is not now reigning. And where does it ever say that Jesus reigns only in Jerusalem? Never mind. Consider it a rhetorical question. I have no desire to receive another longwinded, rabbit trailing, missing the point post from you.

Is He acting High Priest now, or King? Is He mediating for us? To whom?

Presuppositional interpretation. There are other views and persons who would fight just as stubbornly as you to defend them---and do so by quoting scripture. The fact that this is your view does not automatically make it an absolute fact.

Other views that deny the simple straightforward reading of the text. Daniel is also an apocalyptic piece, and it's prophecies are pretty straight forward. We know because a number have been fulfilled, so one doesn't have to/can't spiritualize it away.

Presuppositional interpretation. That doesn't make it right.

It isn't presuppositional. This is Daniel. We have predictive prophecies fulfilled in Daniel as written. Sure, some symbols, but the fulfillments were dead on. Right down to Alexander the Great having his kingdom divided amongst four of his generals. Right down to the Mede and Persians where the prophecy says one is weaker than the other. Two legs for the Roman Empire, East and West. We have direct fulfillments. There is no reason to change the interpretation method simply because you don't like it.

Interpreting specific prophecies goes way past the issue that was raised and never resolved concerning Romans 4. It is just deviating word salad. I have no intention of carrying on what is loosely called a conversation about prophecy interpretation.

Romans 4 is talking about justification by faith for the circumcised and uncircumcised that is it. It has nothing to do with whether Israel is reconciled with God, as He states more than once will happen, or not. It has nothing to do with the Abrahamic covenant. Stop throwing red herrings.

Presuppositional interpretation presented as though it has the same authority as the Bible itself. There are other views.

Just say there are views that deny what God said to Daniel and move on. Just consider that Daniel has other prophecies that validate this.

 

[TMSO]

Wait while I go get my mud boots professor.

So, what position do I have to hold to bring up the derogatory nature of the response as I understand it? I broke out the middle section, because it isn't something easily discussed so a part 2.

The conflict that had arisen from Jewish believers, and which Peter had to be reprimanded for, never mentions a covenant and just because circumcision was the sign of the OC does not mean that the dispute had anything to do with the covenant in particular. Critical thinking is needed here.

You are correct. Critical thinking is needed. Somehow you missed the whole entire point. Peter wasn't reprimanded for being a Judaizer, but for his fear that caused him to withdraw whenever

It wasn't my statement but maybe you should read it again if the above is what you got out of it.

Read the statement again, and you might see how I got that out of it. I read it multiple times before I responded.

Circumcision means nothing in regard to salvation, and it means nothing in the Jewish religion no escept to the Jews who reject Christ, but not to God. The OC has been made obsolete. That is the issue being resolved here. Circumcision for salvation plus faith is what the Judaizers were trying to impose on the Gentiles. The Jews my friend were already circumcised.

Romans 3 "Then what [a]advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God." So why reinterpret the oracles of God to shut them out?

Presuppositional interpretation applied and then regarded as absolute with no consideration of any other possibility. There are other views.

Generally, when God speaks, it is absolute. At least, that is my belief. There is no room for any view that makes God speak presumptively in His own name. Sorry. Won't do that.

Christ, Son of David. is now king and priest. There was partial fulfillment for the Jews when they returned from Babylon, but that just isn't the whole story.

Read Zechariah again.

And such a small kingdom it is!

"35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were crushed [aq]all at the same time and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away so that not a trace of them was found. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth."

Okay, not such a small kingdom is it?

" 45 Inasmuch as you saw that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold, the great God has made known to the king what will take place [aw]in the future; so the dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy.”"

So, since the interpretation is not trustworthy, let's reinterpret. I mean, God's interpretation through Daniel is presuppositional after all.

No. The words were Paul's. A direct quote from Galatains.

Your interpretation is not a direct quote from Galatians. It was a pretext made without context. Everyone does it, and that doesn't make it right.

The Greek has words for promise and covenant because they are not necessarily the same thing. That does not mean that a covenant is not made up of promises. And they are. When God makes a promise, that is a covenant. Those in Christ are Abraham's offspring and
therefore, heirs of all the promises. Who are those in Christ? The church (the called-out ones) whether Jew or Gentile.

Covenants were not just simply statements. The Mosaic covenant was made in blood. The covenant between Jacob and Laban was made in blood. The Abrahamic covenant of the land promise was made in blood. The New covenant was made in the blood of Christ. The big difference with the Abrahamic covenant is that Abraham did not pass through the sacrifices, where in a general covenant, both parties pass through. The covenant was one way, sealed in the sacrifices God had Abraham gather for Him.

"17 It came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces. 18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying,
“To your [t]descendants I have given this land,
From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates:
19 the Kenite and the Kenizzite and the Kadmonite 20 and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Rephaim 21 and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Girgashite and the Jebusite.”"

This was not some simple promise or agreement, it was a covenant. It was substantial. And it was for Abraham and his physical descendants. I add nothing to what God said, and I remove nothing. The only thing one could add is history, but, when God speaks, that is enough.

 

[TMSO]

Presuppositional interpretation applied and then regarded as absolute with no consideration of any other possibility. There are other views.

If Jer 33 is interpreted through the lens of the NT---as it should be since the original hearers of the prophecy did not have the information that could only come through the arrival of Christ and his earthly work completed---a whole different interpretation comes about. One I might add, that is Christ (the Redeemer in the historical redemption story) centered and not a single nation centered.

A whole comment, just for this section because... it shows a foundational flaw in reasoning and critical thinking processes. Revelation is progressive. (At least, I believe it is). As such, one does not look backwards, but ever forward. The Old Testament is the lens to the New Testament. How did Jesus explain His place in history? He used the Old testament, and didn't use any lenses. The apostles did not use the New Testament as a lens for the Old Testament. They went to the Old Testament and explained it as given. Paul didn't reinterpret the story of Abraham. He expressed what was already there. Abraham's faith was present before he was circumcised. It is clearly evident. And that faith was credited as righteousness. He just highlighted what was already present. That means that Abraham was justified before God when he was uncircumcised. That means anyone who is uncircumcised can be, not will be but can be, justified before God by faith. That is the exercise of critical thinking, without introducing anything new. It is all there.

There is no need to reinterpret Jeremiah 33. It is the word of God, and it doesn't speak of anything new. All the Israelites knew what the Abrahamic covenant was, the Mosaic, the covenant God made with the Levites, etc. They knew exactly what they were, and God was stating them clearly and concisely. They also knew what God mean when He talked about the covenant of day and covenant of night. No understanding of the New Testament would change what that means, because God defined it in the prophecy. To have God violate the covenants of day and night is to cause day and night not to happen in their season, which means that they don't happen when they are supposed to. You have a day of no day and no night... that's not right. God specifically, in Genesis, divided the light from the darkness, made the sun and the moon, one to govern the day and one to govern the night. There is more than enough information in the Old Testament to explain it.

Of course, one's beliefs may require one to go back to God and tell Him what He actually meant. I won't do that. I won't change what God said no matter the situation. Consider that I would rather be like Abraham, who despite the situation, trusted that God meant what He said, and that God would do what He said. God promised that Isaac would be the one through whom the promises would be fulfilled. God then told Abraham to kill Isaac. Did Abraham take time to consider that Isaac may have been figurative speech for something else, through the lens of his circumstance? No. He went straight to being unable to wait for God to raise Isaac from the dead. He never doubted for a moment. Why? God said He would do something, therefore God was going to do it, exactly as He said.

Do note the last part of the prophecy:
"23 And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying, 24 “Have you not observed what this people have spoken, saying, ‘The two families which the Lord chose, He has rejected them’? Thus they despise My people, no longer are they as a nation [k]in their sight."
Reminds me of some groups of believers, like the old Catholics.

What is God's statement to them, perhaps in ridicule? "But I will restore their [q]fortunes and will have mercy on them."

Somewhere you mentioned 1948. Some will say that is the fulfillment of the prophecy of the final exile of Israel in the Old Testament, following the Leviticus principle. Someone did the math, using the approximate start time of that exile, multiplied by the seven of the Leviticus principle, and he got 1948. However, this is a regathering for judgment, as the final judgment of Israel is still coming. After, there will be a regathering to the kingdom and peace, but first comes God's final punishment for the transgression mentioned in Daniel 9. In the final judgment, an end will be made for the transgression. (Singular, and so severe a violation as to use the word transgression and not simply sin. Just what is so terrible that it has its own mention, is singular, and is a show stopper for Israel? I think it is the rejection of God/Messiah.)

God will not reject His people, will not violate/break the Abrahamic covenant, the covenant with the Levites, or the Davidic covenant. They stand exactly as God stated them. Do not change what God has said. Just figure out how that works. What does it mean if God isn't going to violate/break those? Abraham went straight to what one should have believed impossible. God was going to raise Isaac from the dead. Why? God told Abraham, straight up, Isaac is the one through whom the promises are fulfilled. Then God told Abraham to kill [sacrifice] Isaac. So now, those promises can't be fulfilled. However, critical thinking Abraham, God said that He would do all these things through Isaac, and God would, so he went straight to the logical conclusion. God was going to raise Isaac from the dead. It doesn't matter how illogical that might have seemed to people back then. To Abraham, there were no other solutions, so, even if the least logical, seemingly illogical response was all that was left, it had to be the answer. God was going to do everything through Isaac, and that was the only way... until God just simply told Abraham to stop what he was doing.

So, while I can't always understand what God is doing, I have what He has said He would do, and I believe He will do it. It doesn't matter what I can see, because there is always everything I can't see. The Old Testament does not need to be reinterpreted at all. One needs to consider all the avenues God can/will take to fulfill it as is. Progressive revelation. Such as the church. Paul clearly states that the church was a complete mystery that was not present anywhere in the Old Testament, but was revealed to the disciples at that time. (Progressive revelation.) There are hints in the Old Testament, but nowhere does it say that Gentiles and Jews will be on the same level before God in some sort of church. It is not there. The church began at Pentecost with the Holy Spirit. Jesus told Peter that upon this rock He WILL [future tense] build His church. Jesus is the foundation of the church. Progressive revelation.

 

[atpollard]

I always liked the introduction that R.C. Sproul gave to this topic at a conference in Florida:

• "Everyone is a 'dispensationalist' ... if you believe that something changed when Adam and Eve left the garden, then you are a dispensationalist."

It is the DETAILS that we argue over.

 

[Arial]

How this changes the fact that the Bible was written to Jews (with the exception of Paul) escapes me.

It wasn't relevant to the question that was being asked of you.

Is He acting High Priest now, or King? Is He mediating for us? To whom?

You didn't answer my question. You just asked three questins of me.

25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.

Does that say Christ is reigning now or not? That was my question.
As to the answer to your questions, Christ is the fulfillment all the offices--Priest, King, and Prophet. Now. Not during some thousand years, the beginning of which no one knows. As Priest he is mediating the covenant between believers and God. He is King now---he is God. Putting all enemies under his feet is future when he returns Rev 21.

 

[Arial]

Other views that deny the simple straightforward reading of the text. Daniel is also an apocalyptic piece, and it's prophecies are pretty straight forward. We know because a number have been fulfilled, so one doesn't have to/can't spiritualize it away.

I would like to know what view you think spiritualizes it away and exactly what that spiritualizing is? Amillennial views probably vary in how they interpret the Dan prophecy you refer to but the method, or hermeneutic is to read prophecy according to how Scripture presents prophecy. It often has a direct application to those hearing it and it and is fulfilled in their time. But also extends into a time beyond them. I am not going to debate the meaning of the prophecy as I have already told you and that is not what this discussion is about. I will remind you however that Daniel was praying about a specific thing when God gave him the interpretation. And that was concerning a prophecy that Jerimiah had made and Daniel knew of, directly related to the Babylonian captivity. God answered that first, and it came to pass. The interpretation then extends into a complete fulfillment that happens post-incarnation.

It isn't presuppositional. This is Daniel. We have predictive prophecies fulfilled in Daniel as written. Sure, some symbols, but the fulfillments were dead on. Right down to Alexander the Great having his kingdom divided amongst four of his generals. Right down to the Mede and Persians where the prophecy says one is weaker than the other. Two legs for the Roman Empire, East and West. We have direct fulfillments. There is no reason to change the interpretation method simply because you don't like it.

Who has changed it?

Peter wasn't reprimanded for being a Judaizer, but for his fear that caused him to withdraw whenever

I never said he was reprimanded for being a Judaizer. Critical and comprehensive reading is also necessary.

So why reinterpret the oracles of God to shut them out?

Who said the oracles should be reinterpreted to shut the out? Or even reinterpreted the oracles? Do you just make stuff up to argue about?

 

[JesusFan]

It wasn't relevant to the question that was being asked of you.

You didn't answer my question. You just asked three questins of me.

Does that say Christ is reigning now or not? That was my question.
As to the answer to your questions, Christ is the fulfillment all the offices--Priest, King, and Prophet. Now. Not during some thousand years, the beginning of which no one knows. As Priest he is mediating the covenant between believers and God. He is King now---he is God. Putting all enemies under his feet is future when he returns Rev 21.

Jesus is God, so indeed must be the One in control, but he has not yet decided to come back, as THAT event will be when He formally reigns and rules in an absolute fashion, as right now is allowing Satan to still be loosed, and still allow for war, diseases, false cults and isms etc, so will shift from His current High priestly role to King of the Messianic Kingdom role

 

[Arial]

Jesus is God, so indeed must be the One in control, but he has not yet decided to come back, as THAT event will be when He formally reigns and rules in an absolute fashion, as right now is allowing Satan to still be loosed, and still allow for war, diseases, false cults and isms etc, so will shift from His current High priestly role to King of the Messianic Kingdom role

So, nothing I said was relevant or worth considering?

Where does Scripture differentiate between formally reigning and not formally reigning? Where does it say Jesus reigns not absolutely. It certainly wasn't in this passage: "He must reign until all his enemies are put under his feet."
There is nothing in there that says he must reign but not absolutely until all his enemies are put under his feet. Nothing about a future thousand-year reign in Jerusalem where he absolutely reigns and formally reigns.

This is Jesus, Son of God we are talking about----God incarnate. Think about it.

 

[Arial]

Just say there are views that deny what God said to Daniel and move on.

There are views that disagree with your interpretation of Daniel. Interesting that you would consider your presentation as God speaking.

Well, "There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed." Luke 8:17

 

[JesusFan]

So, nothing I said was relevant or worth considering?

Where does Scripture differentiate between formally reigning and not formally reigning? Where does it say Jesus reigns not absolutely. It certainly wasn't in this passage: "He must reign until all his enemies are put under his feet."
There is nothing in there that says he must reign but not absolutely until all his enemies are put under his feet. Nothing about a future thousand-year reign in Jerusalem where he absolutely reigns and formally reigns.

This is Jesus, Son of God we are talking about----God incarnate. Think about it.

Jesus has been since his ascension though functioning in his role of being the Intercessory High Priest, and that is not yet His mediating Kingly role as the King Messiah over all the earth

 

[Arial]

A whole comment, just for this section because... it shows a foundational flaw in reasoning and critical thinking processes. Revelation is progressive. (At least, I believe it is). As such, one does not look backwards, but ever forward. The Old Testament is the lens to the New Testament.

Since you keep bringing up critical thinking as though you engage in it yourself, lets see how your "critical thinking" has led you to view and state something backwards and even non-sensical.

You say revelation is progressive.
The OT is pre-NT history.
The NT then is progressed from the OT.
Therefore, (according to you) the old not progressed tells us what the NT (progressed) means.

On the other hand. Since the NT tells us that the OT is filled with types and shadows and prophecies of things not yet come to pass, when the NT refers to them it is the types and shadows and many of the prophecies revealed (ultimately all of them---in Christ--- except for the consummation at his return).

The Old Testament is the lens to the New Testament.

The OT does not reveal what the NT is saying. The NT reveals what the OTis referring to. And what is that? Christ and him crucified to put it in a nutshell. If the OT is the lens to the NT then the NT is not progressive revelation.

How did Jesus explain His place in history? He used the Old testament, and didn't use any lenses.

Jesus used the OT to show who he was and why they should have known who he was. He used the OT to indict unfaithful Israel. He used it to explain what a passage previously shrouded in mystery meant. He used the OT, the only Scripture of its day and was considered by the Jews as the word of God, to verify his word was the word of God.

The apostles did not use the New Testament as a lens for the Old Testament. They went to the Old Testament and explained it as given.

I did not say the apostles used the NT as a lens for the OT. You argue nothing but straw man arguments. They WROTE the NT. It is our interpretive lens. Think critically instead of by consulting a straw man.

Why do you make a distinction between explaining the OT and interpreting the OT? "They went to the OT and explained it as given." Are you trying to make "the NT interprets the OT" mean the "NT reinterprets the OT"? It doesn't interpret it the way you do is all and that does not qualify as reinterpreting it. Surprise. Surprise.

Paul didn't reinterpret the story of Abraham. He expressed what was already there.

Aha! You do confuse interpret and reinterpret. Or else you consider anything other than your interpretation as reinterpretation. Where did I ever say that Paul reinterpreted the OT? Straw man.

Abraham's faith was present before he was circumcised. It is clearly evident. And that faith was credited as righteousness. He just highlighted what was already present. That means that Abraham was justified before God when he was uncircumcised. That means anyone who is uncircumcised can be, not will be but can be, justified before God by faith. That is the exercise of critical thinking, without introducing anything new. It is all there.

You seem to be inventing arguments to have with yourself. I never said or implied that Paul was saying anything other than that. The entire reason I brought up Romans 4 is to counter your assertion that Israel and the church are separate. Critical thinking keeps track of what the debate is about and doesn't manufacture non-existent points of disagreement while ignoring the one point being debated.

What exactly was the new thing that I introduced?!!

 

[Arial]

Jesus has been since his ascension though functioning in his role of being the Intercessory High Priest, and that is not yet His mediating Kingly role as the King Messiah over all the earth

Where does Scripture differentiate between formally reigning and not formally reigning? Where does it say Jesus reigns not absolutely. It certainly wasn't in this passage: "He must reign until all his enemies are put under his feet."
There is nothing in there that says he must reign but not absolutely until all his enemies are put under his feet. Nothing about a future thousand-year reign in Jerusalem where he absolutely reigns and formally reigns.

This is Jesus, Son of God we are talking about----God incarnate. Think about it.

 

[Arial]

There is no need to reinterpret Jeremiah 33.

Question: Reinterpret if from what?
Answer: TMSO's interpretation.

Amillennialism interprets Jer 33. It does not reinterpret it!

Of course, one's beliefs may require one to go back to God and tell Him what He actually meant. I won't do that. I won't change what God said no matter the situation.

IOW whatever you think something means is automatically what God means?

Somewhere you mentioned 1948.

If you were to go back and see where I mentioned it and in what context you could respond to that instead of posting a big paragraph that has no connection to the conversation.

God will not reject His people, will not violate/break the Abrahamic covenant, the covenant with the Levites, or the Davidic covenant. They stand exactly as God stated them. Do not change what God has said.

More straw man fighting. The way amil understands those passages does not change what God has said and breaks no covenants. All that changes is it is different than what you say God means.

Do you find it abhorrent that the Pope claims he has the sole authority to interpret Scripture? Yes? Didn't think so. Don't take that attitude for yourself. We are Protestants and won't accept it.

The Old Testament does not need to be reinterpreted at all.

The fact that I and whoever does disagree do not interpret the OT the same way you do does not =reinterpreting the OT. To present such a conclusion is the opposite of critical thinking. Among other things which I won't state.

Progressive revelation. Such as the church. Paul clearly states that the church was a complete mystery that was not present anywhere in the Old Testament, but was revealed to the disciples at that time. (Progressive revelation.)

Exactly. So why do you claim that the OT reveals the NT? Maybe it is because where you live Christmas comes in the summer.