Comments on: Two Thoughts

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:13:34 +0000

Robert, your justification that is based around future descendants is a straw man. The presentation revolving around Paul’s definition of a Jew, which is paralled in the verse you mentioned (Deut 30:6), speaks of a Jew (or that being the elect of God), as being not held to a physical circumcision. Paul equates the two testaments by illustrating that true Jews are not just of physical but spiritual descendance as well (Romans 2) and that God’s promise to the Jews hadn’t failed (Romans 9) which is in the context of weaving in Gentiles (Romans 11).

By: robert828

robert828 — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 04:39:07 +0000

in the above post iwrote that your uncircumcision is counted against you, the verse says what i meant to say “your circumcision is not counted against you. robert

By: robert828

robert828 — Tue, 21 Jun 2005 04:53:35 +0000

chris what’s up? judging from your site, you’re busy! Circumcision is the issue, NOT what a Jew is. every letter of the Bible awnsers a ? we don’t always get clear idea what the ? is. hold up i just heard that an orthodox nun was found dead from an apparent excocism, weird. although Romans is a clear letter from which we can tell that Paul is talking to the church at Rome about the Gospel in which some jews were confused about. circumcised? keep the law? great there is value. uncircumcised? keep the Law? great your uncircumcision is counted against you. but can a man keep the Law? James 2“10 says that a man that stumbles at just one point is then guilty of breaking the whole thing.Gal. 3:21 says that the law cannot impute righteousness. Deut. 30:6–descendants– what do you think that means? what do i think that means? it doesn’t matter What did the writer and the recipients think, The jewish life and future was all about their phisical descendants. so it was said and understood as physical descendants.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 02:57:20 +0000

Well, Robert, the question to me is not about the land promise (as I can see that being fulfilled in a greater context, even within a milennial rein inside a covenant view). The issue for me is what Paul was talking about a Jew being that of the heart (Romans 2) and is even echoed is Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 30:6 cf. 10:16).

By: robert828

robert828 — Sun, 19 Jun 2005 07:57:28 +0000

Chris where is the church ever promised actual literal land in the N.T. also the israelites were seperated from all gentile nations ex.33:16, lev,20:24. 1ki.8:53. Israelites also had a national pride of descent,Jer.13:9, Jn.8:33,41. Love of country,ps.137:6. Israel is seperated from all other nations. Ex. 33:16. Lev.20:24. 1Ki.8:53

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 04 Jun 2005 19:45:08 +0000

Since I’m not sold on dispensationalism, it’s not fair for me to comment on “two different destinies for Israel and the church.” I do agree with dispensationalists that the church started around Acts 2. I also agree that ethnic Israel served in a different function than the church. Dr. John Walton and Dr. Andrew Hill from Wheaton have written a lot of good material here. I would strongly recommend their A Survey of the Old Testament. It’s a great help, not just with this issue, but with the OT at large.

According to Walton, the focus of the Old Covenant was primarily revelation–to reveal God’s character to the nations. Whether through obedience or disobedience of Israel, God accomplished this pourpose. On the other hand, I don’t think that this is the primarily role of the church.

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 04 Jun 2005 16:44:12 +0000

I have continued to stick with the intepretation that what the passage says is that the Church and ethnic Israel will dine together. That’s all I’ve elaborated here, and I’ve wanted to know what impact that has on the two different destines for Israel and the Church in dispensationalism.

Where is there discontinuity? Could you explain your assertion?

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 04 Jun 2005 15:12:29 +0000

I have no problem with what Gill wrote. Dispensationalists believe that OT saints will be in the kingdom along with the church made up of Gentile and Jewish believers.

Anytime we study Scripture, we must recognize the continuity and discontinuity between the OT and the NT. Here’s an area of continuity. However, just because we find one area of continuity doesn’t mean that there’s not any discontinuity.

Let’s not assume that this passage means that God didn’t work in different ways with Israel and the church.

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 04 Jun 2005 05:23:32 +0000

Precisely, they will join in the kingdom together; it is a statement that He does not work different from Israel and the Church. Forgive me as I appeal to authority.

[Matthew 8:11] shows, that the faith of Old and New Testament saints, Jews and Gentiles, is the same; their blessings the same, and so their eternal happiness; they have the same God and Father, the same Mediator and Redeemer, are actuated and influenced by the same Spirit, partake of the same grace, and shall share the same glory.
John Gill, Exegetical Commentary on Matthew 8:11

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 04 Jun 2005 00:42:25 +0000

Not that I’m a dispensationalist, or a least a classic Scotfield-style dispensationalist for that matter, but I think that you’re overstating your case. All the text says is that both Jews and Gentiles will enjoy the kingdom together. The passage doesn’t address whether in the OT God worked in a different way with Israel than He does with the church.