How Rom 15 used the OT

[Interplanner]

15:3. The model of Christianity is that of Christ who did not please himself.

15:9. It is re-asserted that the promises to the fathers are fulfilled, which repeats that God's mercy has been historically expressed. Psalms, even Samuel's visions, spoke of this purpose for Israel in its future. Christ 'served Israel on behalf of God's truth'

15:10. The two peoples rejoice in God for the same reason.

15:11. Same.

15:12. This root of Jesse is a fulfilled fact. This is the kingdom of God. This is a done deal, in the past tense, like v8.

15:21. This kingdom of God is a mission. In fact, Paul is a new priest in that he raises up and presents the Gentiles as an offering to God in the Spirit, in the new temple that is in the spirit, not the old temple.

 

[riverrat]

Preterist garbage!

 

[Biblewriter]

15:3. The model of Christianity is that of Christ who did not please himself.

This is cpmltetly true, but has zero bearing on futurism.

15:9. It is re-asserted that the promises to the fathers are fulfilled, which repeats that God's mercy has been historically expressed. Psalms, even Samuel's visions, spoke of this purpose for Israel in its future. Christ 'served Israel on behalf of God's truth'

The Christ indeed came to fulfill the promises. But neither this nor any other scripture even hints at the idea that His first coming completely fulfilled all of them.

15:10. The two peoples rejoice in God for the same reason.

15:11. Same.

15:12. This root of Jesse is a fulfilled fact. This is the kingdom of God. This is a done deal, in the past tense, like v8.

15:21. This kingdom of God is a mission. In fact, Paul is a new priest in that he raises up and presents the Gentiles as an offering to God in the Spirit, in the new temple that is in the spirit, not the old temple.

This scripture indeed says that Paul was "on a mission" to preach the gospel but neither this or any other scripture even hints at the idea that this was the sum total of Paul's mission. Indeed Paul said the very opposite, telling the elders of Ephseus "I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God." (Acts 20:27) This goes far beyond just the gospel.

 

[ebedmelech]

This is cpmltetly true, but has zero bearing on futurism.



The Christ indeed came to fulfill the promises. But neither this nor any other scripture even hints at the idea that His first coming completely fulfilled all of them.


This scripture indeed says that Paul was "on a mission" to preach the gospel but neither this or any other scripture even hints at the idea that this was the sum total of Paul's mission. Indeed Paul said the very opposite, telling the elders of Ephseus "I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God." (Acts 20:27) This goes far beyond just the gospel.

Except Paul NEVER EVER speaks of a future kingdom for Israel...why?

That would be because Paul knew it would not be so. The Holy Spirit revealed to him how to understand the prophecies...which is why he quotes Isaiah and Hosea in Romans 9...but even more...Paul is a master at applying OT Psalms and prophets...as you say "explicity".

Yet Paul NEVER says "explicitly", what you say. I wonder why?

 

[Biblewriter]

Except Paul NEVER EVER speaks of a future kingdom for Israel...why?

That would be because Paul knew it would not be so. The Holy Spirit revealed to him how to understand the prophecies...which is why he quotes Isaiah and Hosea in Romans 9...but even more...Paul is a master at applying OT Psalms and prophets...as you say "explicity".

Yet Paul NEVER says "explicitly", what you say. I wonder why?

In recent posts I have repeatedly demonstrated that the Holy Spirit indeed taught repeatedly through Paul that Israel would indeed be restored in her land.

 

[ebedmelech]

In recent posts I have repeatedly demonstrated that the Holy Spirit indeed taught repeatedly through Paul that Israel would indeed be restored in her land.

No...you haven't..you tried. I won't do that again with you though.

 

[Interplanner]

So BW, write your one line paraphrase of Rom 15:8.

 

[Biblewriter]

So BW, write your one line paraphrase of Rom 15:8.

No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. Evert one must be taken in the light of all the rest of scripture. In this case, taking verse 8 by itself destroys what it is saying.

8 Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers,
9 and that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy, as it is written: "For this reason I will confess to You among the Gentiles, And sing to Your name."
Romans 15:8-9

Jesus Christ indeed came "to confirm the promises made to the fathers." But that does not even imply that He fulfilled all of them in his first coming. He also came "that the gentiles might glorify God for his mercy." But that does not even imply that Jesus came for only that purpose. Thus we have two distinct reasons given for his coming, and neither of these even hints at a notion that these were the only two reasons.

 

[riverrat]

No...you haven't..you tried. I won't do that again with you though.

Yes he has but being a preterist you cannot accept it.

 

[Interplanner]

BW, it is devastating to read the NT the way you do. You have dessicated it. You have ruined it. You have destroyed it. You have made it ugly. You have taken all the beauty away from what was accomplished in Christ.

And then you tell me I'm the one not intersted in the glories to follow the suffering of Christ!

 

[riverrat]

BW, it is devastating to read the NT the way you do. You have dessicated it. You have ruined it. You have destroyed it. You have made it ugly. You have taken all the beauty away from what was accomplished in Christ.

And then you tell me I'm the one not intersted in the glories to follow the suffering of Christ!

No, he has rightly divided it!

 

[Interplanner]

No, you're obsessed with what is not there, and with what is not the pulse or passion of the NT, and then telling me I'm missing the glories of Christ that followed his Gospel.

You're amateurs.

 

[Interplanner]

BW, if I was you, I'd rather just write that I was a heart of concrete than write the lab technician comments you put above. You don't have the heart or passion of the NT.

 

[riverrat]

No, you're obsessed with what is not there, and with what is not the pulse or passion of the NT, and then telling me I'm missing the glories of Christ that followed his Gospel.

You're amateurs.

And us amateurs understand the NT and preterists have no clue.

 

[Interplanner]

BW, would you please comment on what rom 15:8 says instead of what it does not say or does not talk about (your fav futurist topics)?

 

[Biblewriter]

BW, would you please comment on what rom 15:8 says instead of what it does not say or does not talk about (your fav futurist topics)?

I already pointed out both what it says and what it does not say.

 

[Choose Wisely]

BW, it is devastating to read the NT the way you do. You have dessicated it. You have ruined it. You have destroyed it. You have made it ugly. You have taken all the beauty away from what was accomplished in Christ.

And then you tell me I'm the one not intersted in the glories to follow the suffering of Christ!

Is your purpose to lead people astray Interplanner? I see no truth...nor logic in the things you post.

I am unable to comprehend why you waste your time with these viewpoints, as there is not the slightest scriptural truth being presented.

 

[Interplanner]

so what is your 1 line paraphrase of Rom 15:8?

mine is the futurism is totally mistaken on each of the points it speaks to and its passion or mission.

I made 6 threads today on Rom 9-16. Until I read your post, I was under the impression that Romans was scripture. But you've said my posts have no basis in Scripture. So I'm "stumped"

 

[Biblewriter]

I made 6 threads today on Rom 9-16. Until I read your post, I was under the impression that Romans was scripture. But you've said my posts have no basis in Scripture. So I'm "stumped"

The scriptures you referred to are indeed wholly true and reliable. But many of the the "paraphrases" of them that you have made are not paraphrases at all, but wrested perversions of what it says.

 

[Interplanner]

Nope, they are what Paul meant as a missionary. The proper way to interp the OT is not the labored complications you bring up that takes gobs of space; it is to use the passage to reach the Gentiles.

The reason for this is given is in Rom 16; God has now decreed that that is what the OT scriptures are for. that dang "now" word again, just like the end of 11. I assume this is why BW and B2 never speak clearly about Rom 16's finale.