Why Every Self Respecting Calvinist
Should Know the Difference
Between Israel after the Flesh
and The Israel after the Promise
Should Know the Difference
Between Israel after the Flesh
and The Israel after the Promise
Tweet
Narrow Minds Discuss Premil and Amil
Posted in: Amillennialism, Narrow Mind Radio
About the Author
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
I’ve listened to a bit, interesting show. I want to comment quickly on the discussion Gene and you were having on Rom. 9 relative to MacArthur’s presentation.
It seemed you guys glossed a bit on 9:6. You implied that because that text says that “not all Israel who are descended from Israel” is referring to the fact that this text is saying that Israel is not “ethnic Israel” in this passage. Which is wrong. It indeed is referencing “ethnic Israel”–it is a sub-set, i.e. it is a “remnant” of ethnic Israel who indeed, proleptically, will be saved (i.e. grafted back into their olive tree). See Rom. 9:27ff.
Also you guys brought up the issue of amil. hermeneutics contra premil/disp., let me respond to that by saying:
This is the touchstone issue surrounding the amil hermeneutic. There is no such thing as an normative NT hermeneutical model provided by the apostles. As Longnecker illustrates they engaged in all kinds of hermeneutical techniques available to them in the first century-albeit under the “inspiration” of the Holy Spirit–which by definition disallows the possibility for the amil. herm. model to even get off the ground. There are many passages, in the OT (i.e. Is. 2, 11; Ez. 37; etc.), that the apostles did not interpret for us, any attempt to engage in an “atomized” or “midrashic” interpretation of such passages, by the amil. exegete, engages in a “reader-response” hermeneutic constructing meaning via inference from passages that the Apostles actually did interpret for us. Unless the amil interpreter is willing to assume the APOSTOLIC mantle, and claim “inspired” interpretations of the text of scripture–then your argument is, moot.
And if you deny what I just asserted, which you did in the program–then how do you interpret passages like Ez. 37, and Is. 11:11ff–I guess you don’t; but these passages speak proleptically of things that have not yet happened. This presents you with an hermeneutic that does not give account for all kinds of OT passages. Why would anyone want to follow a hermeneutic that does not give an account for many OT passages?
Anyway I could say more, I’ll stop, for now.
Btw, I’m an progressive disp., and do not follow or affirm MacArthur’s version of premil, disp.
Thanks for your work in this area. The pre-mil dispensational stuff makes no sense to me and it is helpful having your site as a resource in my study.
Are you guys done beating this horse?
MacArthur said that he gave his speech so that we would discuss it. So no, we are not finished. We believe that upon this point MacArthur was right: the end of the Biblical story is as important as the beginning.
Author Sido said on the TM Aftermath blog, “Those two hours were some of the best listening I have encountered. Just some brothers in Christ talking rationally about an important doctrine and (here is the key) delving deep into the Word of God to find answers, rather than relying on their preconceived notions. I listened to the low quality files and thought they sounded OK (a little hollow) but I am tempted to pony up the two bucks for the high quality version, as I am certain that I will listen to that discussion again and again. Thanks again to Gene and to Jason for his excellent responses to MacArthur on Fide-O!”
Thanks Author!
“You implied that because that text says that “not all Israel who are descended from Israel” is referring to the fact that this text is saying that Israel is not “ethnic Israel” in this passage. Which is wrong. It indeed is referencing “ethnic Israel”–it is a sub-set, i.e. it is a “remnant” of ethnic Israel who indeed, proleptically, will be saved.”
Good points Bobby. For reference, here is an extended portion of the passage:
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
You said that first Israel should be regarded as an ethnic subset of all of Israel. I would grant this as a possible interpretation. Verse 8 clarifies (a bit) that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. The true Israel of verse 6 are the children of the promise of verse 8. So the question is, who are the children of the promise? Let me make three points that I believe support the notion that the children of the promise (and therefore the Israel of v 6) include the Gentiles believers as well as the remnant of Israel:
1) The categories in which the discussion is framed favors it. When Paul says in verse 8 that “it is not the children of the flesh” that suggests that if we continue to think in terms of physical descendants then we are no longer thinking along the correct lines. I understand that this is not airtight, I am just building a cumulative case.
2) The context better supports it. Paul continues his argument that “For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel” by giving the examples of Isaac rather than Ishmael (7-9) and Jacob rather than Easau (10-12). He then spends v 13-22 defending God’s absolute sovereignty in election. Then in verse 23-29 (and this is the point I wanted to make here) Paul continues his case that it is not the children of the flesh but the children of the promise that are regarded as descendants. In this section he shows the remnant of Israel (v 27) as well as the believing Gentiles (vs 24, 25, 26). And finally in v 30-33 Paul concludes the chapter by showing that faith is the key element in all of this, not DNA.
3) The systematizing of other passages supports it.
First in Rom 4:11-16 “He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. 13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. 16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all”
Second in Gal 3:26-29, “for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
Third in Gal 4: Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now.
These three things taken together cause me to prefer the interpretation that the children of the promise are the true Israel, including both the believers of ethnic Israel and the believing Gentiles.
I know I didn’t answer all of your points, but I have to go now, perhaps the others may take up your remaining points. Thanks for your thoughtful contribution.
Brett,
thank you for your response. I still disagree with you. The Galatians passage, male/female, Jew/Gentile, etc. is interesting because there indeed is a note of ontological unity in Christ–but there is also a point of distinction (i.e. male and female are still distinct, same as Jew and Gentile–functionally). I hold to one people of God, just that they have various roles, distinctions, and functions within that ontological unity.
Also in Rom. 11 we see:
Rom. 11:11ff says:
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. . . . vs. 25. For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. . . . vs. 28. Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. vs. 29. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
Who are the “they” referring to in all of these passages? Well go back to 11:1, it’s ethnic Jews. What is the “fullness of the Gentiles” referring to? And in vs. 23. what does the “grafting back in” refer to? All of my questions above presuppose a distinction between Israel (i.e. the remnant), and the Church (e.g. “fullness of the Gentiles). As a progressive disp. I see this distinction as a role distinction, and not an ontological distinction (i.e. we are all saved in Christ, cf. Eph 2:11ff).
I would be interested in what you think the contrast between the “fullness of the Gentiles” is referring to, Brett. That’s all I have time for now, thanks for the interaction.
Bobby,
Your system of theology is just not consistent within itself or with the biblical record. Your already-but-not-yet view of the New Covenant is just an attempt to be more consistent than your traditional dispy friends while still holding on to a future ethnic Jew political kingdom that will end in failure.
The Apostles understood the nature of the kingdom to be spiritually present and continually expanding till the Lord returns. Even in Romans 11 the remnant among ethnic Jews are being saved “NOW” according to verse 31.
And the favorite verse of all the Dispy camps is Romans 11:25 which mentions the “partial hardening” of Israel “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” But nowhere in this verse or the context does it mention any age after the “fullness of the Gentiles has come in.”
Dispy’s read their millennial age into the text because it is never mentioned or implied. Rather, the “partial hardening” is defined in vv. 28-31 as being a clear divide among ethnic Jews, a divide between the “enemies of God” and the elected “beloved.” And as I mentioned the elected Jews are being saved “NOW” according to verse 31 not in some future age.
By the way, verse 26 simply tells us HOW the elect of Israel will be saved — by the Deliverer!
And please don’t say that “all Israel” means every ethnic Jew in some future generation. Don’t say that for two reasons:
#1 – the text doesn’t say that.
#2 – if you interpret “all” to mean every Jew, then you are forced, if you wish to be consistent, to interpret “fullness of Gentiles” as every Gentile.
So, Bobby, I hope you continue to “progress” all then way over to a postmillenarian view, namely Amillennialism, where almost all sound orthodox theologians have been.
In response to Jason’s,
1st paragraph:
I don’t hold to the idea that the Davidic rule of Christ over the remnant of ethnic Jews will end in failure, but triumph in the Messianic Age (read 1000yrs).
2nd para.
Agreed. Except for your point on Rom. 11:31. See Leon Morris’ commentary on this text (The Epistle to the Romans, in the PNTC commentary series).
3rd para.
“until” or axpris ou denotes a temporal period of time. Zwingli says of this construction: axpis w. gen. until, axpri (s) ou (=axpri tou xpovou w) w. aor. subj. ref. fut. pleroma (Zwingli, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, 484). In other words there is a “time” given the construction that the time of the “gentiles” will become pleroma, “full”, and then ethnic Jews will be saved (see Rev. 1:7). An “age” is presupposed by other passages of scripture, analogia scriptura (see Rev. 20).
4th para.
The Bible has continuity in its communication, thus I engage in “biblical theology” that looks at the organic “parts” which makes the “whole” (again see Rev. 20).
5th para.
I have never said all means “all”, remember I’m “progressive”. I believe the remnant of ethnic Jews (the all Israel) will be saved–viz. that is the third of ethnic Jews found in Zech. 13:9.
Jason I realize you have your amil responses to the passages I just cited, and I’ve heard them, just as you’ve heard mine. I just think your view is reductionistic, hermeneutically, given the complexity represented by the NT authors usage and interp. of the OT. We disagree, hopefully agreeably.
I do appreciate that you are disussing this in rational terms, in contrast to some other bloggers.
“I still disagree with you. The Galatians passage, male/female, Jew/Gentile, etc. is interesting because there indeed is a note of ontological unity in Christ–but there is also a point of distinction (i.e. male and female are still distinct, same as Jew and Gentile–functionally). I hold to one people of God, just that they have various roles, distinctions, and functions within that ontological unity.”
Certainly it is true that men continue to be men, and women continue to be women; and Jews continue to be Jews etc. There may even be role distinctions as you noted. In fact some amillenarians (myself included) do hold to a major turning of Israel back to God (per Rom 11:11). This would qualify as some level of distinction. The salient point I wanted to make is that Rom 9 says that the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. And Galatians makes it clear, whatever other distinctions may yet remain, that all those who believe on Christ are regarded as children of the promise.
Liked the radio program. Just wanted to ask you guys if you read John Calvin’s Commentary on Joshua 21:43-45? What is your take on what he said?
Hayden,
I have read his commentary. What exactly is your question?
Jason
Just listening to what was said on the radio program and what was said in Clavin’s Commentary, there seems to be a disagreement. I know that you guys hold no man above the Scriptures, nor do I being that I too am a pastor, just wondering if I was understanding his thoughts on Joshua 21:43-45 correctly? Thanks for your input.