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.