What is distinct from Judaism?

[Douggg]

Not so, Doug. Moses was a descendant of Israel; and the promise to Abraham was not to seeds, as in many, but to one seed.

You are taking a passage from the new testament which was referring to Abraham's promised numerous descendants in Genesis, and misapplying that passage to this passage in Exodus on Mt. Sinai.

In this passage in Exodus 32, God repented from destroying his people because it would have broken his promise to them He had just brought out of Egypt, and also was not able to deliver on the promises He had made to their forefathers Abraham, Issac, and Jacob about the land and them becoming numerous.

It is not part of the gospel message of Salvation that gentiles become inheritors of the land of Israel over there, by receiving Jesus.

 

[Interplanner]

I appreciate Rev 20 cracking open what seemed a done deal in the OT, but I always check finally in the NT anyway, and the land doesn 't figure in any promise that I know of there. There's the world to come of Rom 4:13 and Heb 2:5, but not Israel per se. The content of the promise (singular) in Gal 3 is not the land, that's for sure. Yet all the OT is subsumed in it, just as in Acts 13's sermon.

 

[Interplanner]

But Doug the NT does that over and over. It doesn't say read the OT on your own and come up with your own organizing principles. We are Christians, not members of Judaism, remember? Paul said you could have even sat in the front row of Jesus of Nazareth ministry and "read" him Judaistically! 2 Cor 5:16. What does that say about the fallibility of the human as a reader? That is why we have a NT interp of these critical things.

 

[Interplanner]

"Worldly" in 2 Cor 3-5 is 'kata sarka' and contextually he means his former life or current opponents in Judaism.

 

[Rev20]

You are taking a passage from the new testament which was referring to Abraham's promised numerous descendants in Genesis, and misapplying that passage to this passage in Exodus on Mt. Sinai.

In this passage in Exodus 32, God repented from destroying his people because it would have broken his promise to them He had just brought out of Egypt, and also was not able to deliver on the promises He had made to their forefathers Abraham, Issac, and Jacob about the land and them becoming numerous.

Your interpretation is simply not true, Doug. The promise to Abraham was to his seed (singular). Paul explained how a single seed, Christ, received all the promises (Gal 3:16-17); and he warned about reading too much into the old covenant (the old testament):

"And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ." -- 2Cor 3:13-14 KJV​

"not like Moses, who put a veil over his face to keep the people of Israel from gazing at the end of the glory that was being set aside. But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that same veil is still there, since only in Christ is it set aside." -- 2Cor 3:13-14 NRSV​

There is another part of 2Cor 3 that helps explain the difference in our interpretative methods:

"Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." -- 2Cor 3:5-6 KJV​

"Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." -- 2Cor 3:5-6 NKJV​

Paul's allegory of the two Jerusalem's should convince everyone that old testament prophecies that mention Jerusalem in a positive light are rarely (if ever) about earthly Jerusalem:

"Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. . . . But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman." -- Gal 4:24-26, 29-30 KJV​

There is a wealth of information in that short passage. It compares the children of bondage (of the old covenant), with the children of freedom (of the new covenant); and how the children of the old covenant persecuted those of the new covenant, which is the Church.

But this is the key point: the children of the old covenant will NOT BE HEIRS.

It is not part of the gospel message of Salvation that gentiles become inheritors of the land of Israel over there, by receiving Jesus.

Add words to the scripture if you must. My bible says the "meek" are the "meek".


.

 

[shturt678s]

Your interpretation is simply not true, Doug. The promise to Abraham was to his seed (singular). Paul explained how a single seed, Christ, received all the promises (Gal 3:16-17); and he warned about reading too much into the old covenant (the old testament):

"And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ." -- 2Cor 3:13-14 KJV​

"not like Moses, who put a veil over his face to keep the people of Israel from gazing at the end of the glory that was being set aside. But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that same veil is still there, since only in Christ is it set aside." -- 2Cor 3:13-14 NRSV​

There is another part of 2Cor 3 that helps explain the difference in our interpretative methods:

"Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." -- 2Cor 3:5-6 KJV​

"Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." -- 2Cor 3:5-6 NKJV​

Paul's allegory of the two Jerusalem's should convince everyone that old testament prophecies that mention Jerusalem in a positive light are rarely (if ever) about earthly Jerusalem:

"Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. . . . But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman." -- Gal 4:24-26, 29-30 KJV​

There is a wealth of information in that short passage. It compares the children of bondage (of the old covenant), with the children of freedom (of the new covenant); and how the children of the old covenant persecuted those of the new covenant, which is the Church.

But this is the key point: the children of the old covenant will NOT BE HEIRS.



Add words to the scripture if you must. My bible says the "meek" are the "meek".


.

Your sense and a half, is golden...only a few flakes of fools gold we can purge out...head's up only. Gal.4:24, "...conveying another meaning..." a truer rendition (white out ur "allegory" installing "another meaning.")

Mr. Luther seen through this one, ie, he seen that the rabbis were very great allegorizers, namely inventors along this line. Contextually we thus see at once that when Paul uses this verb he has in mind something that's far different from the method of interpretation devised by those ancient Jews and any of their followers.

Their allegories dissipate the original sense of Scripture thus is my end point why we need to purge our translations, and merge genuine gold flakes. An illustration is selected, a parable constructed in order aid in presenting some fact. Allegory does the reverse; it takes a fact (a Bible statement or an account) and turns it into a picture of something else which is often no more than a fancy...iow takes the fact of the Word and turns it into a litany of other facts.

Sorry, always have enjoyed this area....got carried away...now the two covenants with you.

Old Jack's opinion

 

[Rev20]

Your sense and a half, is golden...only a few flakes of fools gold we can purge out...head's up only. Gal.4:24, "...conveying another meaning..." a truer rendition (white out ur "allegory" installing "another meaning.")

Mr. Luther seen through this one, ie, he seen that the rabbis were very great allegorizers, namely inventors along this line. Contextually we thus see at once that when Paul uses this verb he has in mind something that's far different from the method of interpretation devised by those ancient Jews and any of their followers.

Their allegories dissipate the original sense of Scripture thus is my end point why we need to purge our translations, and merge genuine gold flakes. An illustration is selected, a parable constructed in order aid in presenting some fact. Allegory does the reverse; it takes a fact (a Bible statement or an account) and turns it into a picture of something else which is often no more than a fancy...iow takes the fact of the Word and turns it into a litany of other facts.

Sorry, always have enjoyed this area....got carried away...now the two covenants with you.

Old Jack's opinion

I wonder why Paul called it an allegory? I checked the translation, and allegory is correct for the Greek. Maybe Paul was using this definition:

"allegory: a story in which the characters and events are symbols that stand for ideas about human life or for a political or historical situation." [Merriam-Webster]


.

 

[ebedmelech]

EbedM,
were you a bit tired?

the post quoted was by Doug. did you mean to reply to him or point out to Rev20?

what do you mean about the old covenant promises ringing true to ethnic Israel?

You're right Inter. I blew it...but I'm gonna fix it. I'm in vocational training all day and working at night.

Something wrong with the website too...or it has problems with Google Chrome.

 

[shturt678s]

I wonder why Paul called it an allegory? I checked the translation, and allegory is correct for the Greek. Maybe Paul was using this definition:

"allegory: a story in which the characters and events are symbols that stand for ideas about human life or for a political or historical situation." [Merriam-Webster]


.

A valid rendition for a translated "text," ie, invalid for rendition based upon the "context."

Allegory: The example of a lucid "allegory" that I've been using for decades is Jn.15:1-6 An "allegory" presents a blending of realities and figures with a hidden spiritual comparison..

Don't pay that much attention as only an opinion from the least of the pecking order...me.

Old Jack trying to move up a notch.

 

[shturt678s]

You're right Inter. I blew it...but I'm gonna fix it. I'm in vocational training all day and working at night.

Something wrong with the website too...or it has problems with Google Chrome.

I mess up so bad I have to have our Lord 'fix it.'

Old Jack that sinfully works hard not to work.

 

[Danoh]

I wonder why Paul called it an allegory? I checked the translation, and allegory is correct for the Greek. Maybe Paul was using this definition:

"allegory: a story in which the characters and events are symbols that stand for ideas about human life or for a political or historical situation." [Merriam-Webster]


.

I wonder what Paul means by "allegory" WHERE he uses this word - NOT in Galatians 3, nor, for that matter, as to 3:16, BUT in Galatians 4 - SPECIFICALLY IN verse 4:24, where the issue is TWO sons, born of TWO woman, and TWO Jerusalems - Bondage and Freedom - I look at that, and I DON'T run to Websters.

Instead, for some off the wall reason, I apply 2 Tim. 3:16, 17 to my "what could this be about?"

Those who do likewise will run into the wall of indifference of those who do not.

Likewise as to Galatians 3:16's "Now TO Abraham AND HIS SEED were the promises made. He saith NOT, And to SEEDS as of MANY; BUT as of ONE, And to THY SEED, which IS Christ."

But, wait a minute! This is to Abraham BUT ALSO to Christ as ABRAHAM'S seed!

Wait a minute, "by HIM were ALL things" - INCLUDING Abraham, John 1 and John 8.

So why does Paul assert a promise that was to the Son BEFORE Abraham was - why does he assert it was to ABRAHAM'S seed?

Because hs is dealing with Jews as to the Galatian problem - "the law which was four hundred and thirty years after," verse 17.

And that, Paul is NOT disannuling said promise's MULTIPLIED seed aspect, RATHER, he is asserting the foundation of BOTH, "which is Christ."

In Acts 3, for example, Peter preached Christ to His MULTIPLIED seed as to those "things, which God HATH SPOKEN by the mouth of ALL his holy prophets SINCE the world began," Acts 3:21. Verse 25, and 26's "Ye are the children," and "Unto you first..."

While Paul later spoke of "the wisdom of God, IN A MYSTERY, EVEN THE HIDDEN wisdom - which God ordained BEFORE the world unto OUR glory - FOR HAD THEY known it... NONE of the princes OF THIS WORLD... WOULD HAVE crucified the Lord OF glory," 1 Cor. 2:7,8.

In Gal. 3, Paul is describing that aspect of His TWO-FOLD Purpose that He purposed in His Son that He only revealed AFTER Paul: HIS Grace AGE Mystery.

He is NOT describing John 1's, 1 Peter 1's PROPHESIED Grace.

 

[Rev20]

I wonder what Paul means by "allegory" WHERE he uses this word - NOT in Galatians 3, nor, for that matter, as to 3:16, BUT in Galatians 4 - SPECIFICALLY IN verse 4:24, where the issue is TWO sons, born of TWO woman, and TWO Jerusalems - Bondage and Freedom - I look at that, and I DON'T run to Websters.

Instead, for some off the wall reason, I apply 2 Tim. 3:16, 17 to my "what could this be about?"

Those who do likewise will run into the wall of indifference of those who do not.

Likewise as to Galatians 3:16's "Now TO Abraham AND HIS SEED were the promises made. He saith NOT, And to SEEDS as of MANY; BUT as of ONE, And to THY SEED, which IS Christ."

But, wait a minute! This is to Abraham BUT ALSO to Christ as ABRAHAM'S seed!

Wait a minute, "by HIM were ALL things" - INCLUDING Abraham, John 1 and John 8.

So why does Paul assert a promise that was to the Son BEFORE Abraham was - why does he assert it was to ABRAHAM'S seed?

Because hs is dealing with Jews as to the Galatian problem - "the law which was four hundred and thirty years after," verse 17.

And that, Paul is NOT disannuling said promise's MULTIPLIED seed aspect, RATHER, he is asserting the foundation of BOTH, "which is Christ."

In Acts 3, for example, Peter preached Christ to His MULTIPLIED seed as to those "things, which God HATH SPOKEN by the mouth of ALL his holy prophets SINCE the world began," Acts 3:21. Verse 25, and 26's "Ye are the children," and "Unto you first..."

While Paul later spoke of "the wisdom of God, IN A MYSTERY, EVEN THE HIDDEN wisdom - which God ordained BEFORE the world unto OUR glory - FOR HAD THEY known it... NONE of the princes OF THIS WORLD... WOULD HAVE crucified the Lord OF glory," 1 Cor. 2:7,8.

In Gal. 3, Paul is describing that aspect of His TWO-FOLD Purpose that He purposed in His Son that He only revealed AFTER Paul: HIS Grace AGE Mystery.

He is NOT describing John 1's, 1 Peter 1's PROPHESIED Grace.

I have no idea what you said.


.

 

[ebedmelech]

I have no idea what you said.


.

Nor I...

One would think when Paul is pointing out that there is no difference between "the circumcision" (Jews), and "the uncircumcision" (Gentiles)...that to go on thinking there is a difference, is the antithesis of what the apostle's point is.

Reading IS FUNDAMENTAL!!!

 

[Interplanner]

Yeah Danoh, those last two lines are extremely strained and unclear. You apparently believe in an extremely sharp contrast between "prophesied" grace and "age of grace" mystery.

Look at Eph 3:6 again, the mystery is not the inclusion of the Gentiles in the promises. It is that it is by the Gospel, not by Judaism.

I haven't commented on I cor 2's line about mystery because I don't see the related language that makes it similar to Col 1, 2, Eph 1, 3, Rom 16. It's just the mystery of the crucifixion as Gospel and blessing in itself, without mentioning the inclusion of the Gentiles in the promises. Not a big issue at Corinth as at Pisidia, Galatia and Rome (where the banished Jewish Christians had returned to Gentile churches, Acts 18).

 

[Interplanner]

Doug,
my comment on 'kata sarka' is why Luther said 'there's worldliness and then there's worldliness.'

Here's a good theological excercise: can you describe how Judaism was worldly? It is treated that way here, in the expression 'weak and miserable principles of the world' (gal 4 and Col 2) and in I Jn, where the world is that which denies Jesus came in the flesh (ie they don't believe Jesus of Nazareth in the flesh was messiah). Ie, it is anti-messiah. Similarly in John's gospel, you will find the world to be mostly Judaism. That's the stage of the event.

 

[Rev20]

Because hs is dealing with Jews as to the Galatian problem - "the law which was four hundred and thirty years after," verse 17.

And that, Paul is NOT disannuling said promise's MULTIPLIED seed aspect, RATHER, he is asserting the foundation of BOTH, "which is Christ."

In Acts 3, for example, Peter preached Christ to His MULTIPLIED seed as to those "things, which God HATH SPOKEN by the mouth of ALL his holy prophets SINCE the world began," Acts 3:21. Verse 25, and 26's "Ye are the children," and "Unto you first..."

Danoh, I still don't know what you are talking about, generally; but I would like to expound this part, of which you excluded the context. Peter was explaining that the promises were not automatic, but required faith in Christ and repentance:

"But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." -- Acts 3:18-21​

Now to the meat of his message: if they did not accept Christ, they would be destroyed:

"For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." -- Acts 3:22-23 KJV​

But if they did accept Him, they would be blessed by Him:

"Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." -- Acts 3:24-26 KJV​

So, Peter is speaking these points to the Children of Israel:

1. You are the natural children of Abraham and of the first covenant.
2. Christ is the natural seed of the promise, and through him are all nations blessed.
3. Repent, and Christ will turn you away from iniquities and blot out your sins.
4. If you don't hear Christ, you will be destroyed from among the people.
5. These blessings are offered to you, first (and only later to the Gentiles.)


That was the beginning of the second "half-week" of covenant confirmation (Daniel 9:27,) which was also the second "half week" of seeking out only the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The following are the supporting verses.

In this first passage, Paul explains that Jesus was sent to confirm the promises of the covenant:

"Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:" -- Rom 15:8 KJV​

And that covenant confirmation included his entire ministry (one-half week), plus and additional half-week:

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease . . . " -- Dan 9:27​

That could only happen if he was speaking through those that followed him, which he was:

"He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." -- Matt 10:40 KJV​

This was presented in the new covenant in another way:

"But [Jesus] answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." -- Matt 15:24 KJV​

"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." -- Matt 10:5-6 KJV​

Jesus was sent exclusively to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and his disciples were also sent exclusively to them, until Acts 10 where Cornelius was converted and the Gentiles were allowed into the kingdom/Church. Therefore,

"Unto you first [Israel,] God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." -- Acts 3:24-26 KJV​

.

 

[shturt678s]

Danoh, I still don't know what you are talking about, generally; but I would like to expound this part, of which you excluded the context. Peter was explaining that the promises were not automatic, but required faith in Christ and repentance:

"But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." -- Acts 3:18-21​

Now to the meat of his message: if they did not accept Christ, they would be destroyed:

"For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." -- Acts 3:22-23 KJV​

But if they did accept Him, they would be blessed by Him:

"Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." -- Acts 3:24-26 KJV​

So, Peter is speaking these points to the Children of Israel:

1. You are the natural children of Abraham and of the first covenant.
2. Christ is the natural seed of the promise, and through him are all nations blessed.
3. Repent, and Christ will turn you away from iniquities and blot out your sins.
4. If you don't hear Christ, you will be destroyed from among the people.
5. These blessings are offered to you, first (and only later to the Gentiles.)

That was the beginning of the second "half-week" of covenant confirmation (Daniel 9:27,) which was also the second "half week" of seeking out only the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The following are the supporting verses.

Only a head's up, Dan.9:27, the person under consideration as making the covenant is naturally the Antichrist.

In this first passage, Paul explains that Jesus was sent to confirm the promises of the covenant:

"Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:" -- Rom 15:8 KJV​

And that covenant confirmation included his entire ministry (one-half week), plus and additional half-week:

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease . . . " -- Dan 9:27​

Antichrist

That could only happen if he was speaking through those that followed him, which he was:

"He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." -- Matt 10:40 KJV​

This was presented in the new covenant in another way:

"But [Jesus] answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." -- Matt 15:24 KJV​

"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." -- Matt 10:5-6 KJV​

Jesus was sent exclusively to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and his disciples were also sent exclusively to them, until Acts 10 where Cornelius was converted and the Gentiles were allowed into the kingdom/Church. Therefore,

"Unto you first [Israel,] God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." -- Acts 3:24-26 KJV​

.

Old Jack's opinion

 

[Danoh]

To the few with ears to hear...

There are various Dispensational camps, and they differ on some of the major issues.

Some, for example, view Israel back in her land as there of their own volition, rather than by God's hand. Other's obviously view the opposite of that.

To view all Dispensationalists as the same in their views betrays a lack of objecttivity. Perhaps the same lack of objectivity that causes its opponants to arrive at the conclusions they do on the passages they do.

For example, in Romans 15, the Apostle Paul adds the following about his unique ministry among the Gentiles:

20. Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, NOT where Christ was named, LEST I should build upon ANOTHER MAN'S FOUNDATION:
21. BUT as it is written, To whom he was NOT spoken of, THEY SHALL see: and they that have NOT heard SHALL understand.

The Apostle of the Gentiles, Rom. 11:13, basically has the same PRINCIPLE of Isaiah 52:55 in mind, BUT, as he has CLEARLY just noted, his ministry in this DIFFERED from those whom Isaiah was referring to, both as the people, as well as to who Isaiah was referring to as to their messenger.

Both Isaiah and Paul have Christ in mind - among the Gentiles. Thus, the PRINCIPLE IS the SAME.

BUT Isaiah has ISRAEL in mind as the LORD'S evangelist concerning His Son, "among the Gentiles," Romans 15:9, with ISRAEL'S RISE, Romans 15:8-12; Isaiah 2:1-5.

Paul ON THE OTHER HAND, has HIS OWN ministry concerning Christ among the Gentiles, Romans 15: 13-22, THIS SIDE of Israel's FALL, Romans 2 and 3, and 9-11.

Thus, Paul's "But as it is written," in Romans 15:21, is his God given apllication of the SAME Principle - Christ among the Gentiles - BUT thru a DIFFERENT agency.

Isaiah's equally God given understanding foresees the Lord among the Gentiles thru Israel in said nation's PROPHESIED RISE to, or FULLNESS of, their PROPHESIED Kingdom Glory.

While Paul's God given Mystery Gospel, Romans 16:25, has him building NOT on ANOTHER MAN'S foundation.

The problem that arises around these issues is similar to a conversation, say, between two employees, in which one of them has just expressed his unhappiness with some company policy.

The other employee, responding with, "this witness is true, BUT, AS THEY SAY, 'you can't fight city hall...'"

At which point the lamenting employee, having jumping the gun a bit too soon, responds with "who's talking about city hall?" Even looks at their co-worker as if there is something wrong with said co-worker...

Is it any wonder we Dispensationalists have trouble getting through to some - who take the forest for the trees.

All, these last few examples, by the way, of symbolic language used to describe a real, literal problem in perception on the part of our opposition...

 

[shturt678s]

To the few with ears to hear...

There are various Dispensational camps, and they differ on some of the major issues.

Some, for example, view Israel back in her land as there of their own volition, rather than by God's hand. Other's obviously view the opposite of that.

To view all Dispensationalists as the same in their views betrays a lack of objecttivity. Perhaps the same lack of objectivity that causes its opponants to arrive at the conclusions they do on the passages they do.

For example, in Romans 15, the Apostle Paul adds the following about his unique ministry among the Gentiles:

20. Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, NOT where Christ was named, LEST I should build upon ANOTHER MAN'S FOUNDATION:
21. BUT as it is written, To whom he was NOT spoken of, THEY SHALL see: and they that have NOT heard SHALL understand.

The Apostle of the Gentiles, Rom. 11:13, basically has the same PRINCIPLE of Isaiah 52:55 in mind, BUT, as he has CLEARLY just noted, his ministry in this DIFFERED from those whom Isaiah was referring to, both as the people, as well as to who Isaiah was referring to as to their messenger.

Both Isaiah and Paul have Christ in mind - among the Gentiles. Thus, the PRINCIPLE IS the SAME.

BUT Isaiah has ISRAEL in mind as the LORD'S evangelist concerning His Son, "among the Gentiles," Romans 15:9, with ISRAEL'S RISE, Romans 15:8-12; Isaiah 2:1-5.

Paul ON THE OTHER HAND, has HIS OWN ministry concerning Christ among the Gentiles, Romans 15: 13-22, THIS SIDE of Israel's FALL, Romans 2 and 3, and 9-11.

Thus, Paul's "But as it is written," in Romans 15:21, is his God given apllication of the SAME Principle - Christ among the Gentiles - BUT thru a DIFFERENT agency.

Isaiah's equally God given understanding foresees the Lord among the Gentiles thru Israel in said nation's PROPHESIED RISE to, or FULLNESS of, their PROPHESIED Kingdom Glory.

While Paul's God given Mystery Gospel, Romans 16:25, has him building NOT on ANOTHER MAN'S foundation.

The problem that arises around these issues is similar to a conversation, say, between two employees, in which one of them has just expressed his unhappiness with some company policy.

The other employee, responding with, "this witness is true, BUT, AS THEY SAY, 'you can't fight city hall...'"

At which point the lamenting employee, having jumping the gun a bit too soon, responds with "who's talking about city hall?" Even looks at their co-worker as if there is something wrong with said co-worker...

Is it any wonder we Dispensationalists have trouble getting through to some - who take the forest for the trees.

All, these last few examples, by the way, of symbolic language used to describe a real, literal problem in perception on the part of our opposition...

Spiritual Israel," yes! "Israel," no!

Old Jack's opinion

 

[Rev20]

Only a head's up, Dan.9:27, the person under consideration as making the covenant is naturally the Antichrist.

Not possible, Old Jack. Only 70 weeks were determined or decreed to fulfil the six items mentioned in Dan 9:24:

1) Christ was anointed the Messiah at the beginning of the 70th week.

2) Christ ministers for 3.5 years, or one-half week, during which time he confirms the covenant with the house of Israel (Matt 15:24; Rom 15:8.)

3) Christ is cut-off (killed) in the middle (midst) of the 70th week.

4) The disciples take over his ministry (Matt 10:5-6; 10:40) and resume covenant confirmation to the house of Israel for the remaining one-half week (beginning shortly after Pentecost in Acts 3:25).

5) Cornelius is converted: the 70 weeks are fulfilled.

6) Desolations are determined (decreed) separately (Dan 9:26-27), and they occur about 35-40 years later, according to historical records.


.