Dispensationalism - yea or nay.

[Wesley Briggman]

OP here. I appreciate all who have shared their views/conviction and resources. I have enough avenues of research to last a long time.

I must say, at this point, my understanding, or lack thereof, of Covenant Theology is mind-boggling. Additionally, I am surprised to learn of the many different types of Dispensationalism.

I continue to believe in the prophecies of the rapture, seven years of tribulation on earth, the return of Christ to establish His 1000 yr. reign on earth, the Bema Seat Judgement and finally the Great White Throne Judgement.

I find the application of allegory to explain all unfulfilled prophecy disturbing as there seems no logical limit to apply it or not.

God is in charge and will sort it out in the end.
Jhn 10:2 KJV - But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
Jhn 10:3 KJV - To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Putting on my Admin hat, Concur.

No Israel is Israel. Jesus is Jesus. Calling Jesus Israel is heresy not just a secondary issue. I suggest you be very careful on this board with such heresy. If you want to stick around that is.

 

[TCassidy]

Putting on my Admin hat, Concur.

Putting on my Admin hat, I also concur.

 

[Covenanter]

The word "Israel" occurs 11 times (twice in one verse) in Romans (all in 9-11), and every single time is clearly the nation Israel. So, I don't see how it can be other than allegorical when not interpreted literally, as the nation Israel, in the NT.


Yeah, I'm not sure how far we can go in this direction and keep to the OP.

I'm happy to be numbered with the alligators - including Paul in Galatians 4:21-31

It is unwise and dangerous to plunge into the swamp of these things without accepting the way Jesus and his Apostles interpreted the OC prophecies.

I came from a Dispensationalist background having only ever been taught that. But what helped me the most was Romans 11. Paul says God removed the unbelievers from Israel. And will reattach any who believe. So, Jesus (Abraham's seed) and believers in him are Israel under the new covenant. And the broken off Jews are not. So in view of this, when Paul says “For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.” (2 Corinthians 1:20), it nullifies today's state of Israel's claim to the promises. And makes them just another nation of the world.

Well I'm sure you won't be too shocked to discover that I don't believe that all those references to Israel are referring to the nation of Israel. If we take the very one you mentioned: 'For they are not all Israel who are of Israel' (Romans 9:8), we can see that not everyone who is a physical descendant of Israel (aka. Jacob) is an Israelite. This is in line with Romans 2:28-29 and Philippians 3:3.

As it is written, 'I have reserved seven thousand in Israel, all whose knees have not bowed to Baal......' (1 Kings 19:18; Romans 11:4). Only a remnant of Physical Israel will be saved, and that by grace (Romans 9:15) through faith (Romans 11:5). The rest are not of Israel QED.

Yet, 'And so all Israel will be saved' (Romans 11:11:26). 'All Israel' is the believing Jews plus the believing Gentiles. The 'middle wall of separation' has been broken down, 'that He [Christ] might reconcile them both [Jew and Gentile] to God in one body through the cross.......'(Ephesians 2:14-16). There is now only one people of God, and that's not 'replacement theology,' it's Inclusion Theology! 'For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call on Him. For "Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved"' (Romans 10:12-13; Joel 2:32).

If that's allegory then I'll be an allegorizer and proud of it!

Fair enough. Perhaps we can look at Revelation 13 on another thread.

May I add that it's always a pleasure to discuss with you, John, however sharp our disagreements. You take the Scriptures seriously and that counts for a lot with me. I'm always happy to defer to your knowledge of the Biblical languages, though not always your interpretation of those languages.

 

[tyndale1946]

Jesus is Israel “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, And called my son out of Egypt.” (Hosea 11:1) compare to; “And (Jesus) was there (in Egypt) until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.” (Matthew 2:15)

Now Dave really?... Brother Glen

Genesis 32:24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.

32:25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.

32:26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.

32:27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.

32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

 

[1689Dave]

Now Dave really?... Brother Glen

Genesis 32:24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.

32:25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.

32:26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.

32:27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.

32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

“It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all those who are descended from Israel are truly Israel,nor are all the children Abraham’s true descendants; rather “through Isaac will your descendants be counted.”This means it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God; rather, the children of promise are counted as descendants.” (Romans 9:6–8) (NET)

“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.” (Galatians 3:16) (KJV 1900)

“And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:29) (KJV 1900)

“For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” (Romans 2:28–29)

If faith reunites the broken off branches to Christ in Romans 11, Jesus IS Israel along with those who believe in him.

 

[John of Japan]

Well I'm sure you won't be too shocked to discover that I don't believe that all those references to Israel are referring to the nation of Israel. If we take the very one you mentioned: 'For they are not all Israel who are of Israel' (Romans 9:8), we can see that not everyone who is a physical descendant of Israel (aka. Jacob) is an Israelite. This is in line with Romans 2:28-29 and Philippians 3:3.

Let's look at that Rom. 9 passage:

Vv. 1-3--Paul is burdened for his unsaved brothers--DNA Israel.
V. 4--The same people as vv. 1-3. The grammar demands this.
V. 5--Still the same people. Vv. 3-5 are one long sentence. Paul does these long sentences, esp. in Rom. and Gal., and they are very hard to translate.
V. 6--"For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel." This means he is still talking about DNA Israel, because the logical continuance of the thought is that not all Israelis are true Israelis (using the modern term for clarity), but only those Israelis who have true faith. In other words, in God's eyes true DNA Israel is the Israelis who have faith.
V. 7--Talking about the "seed of Abraham," or DNA Israel. Still not the "church."
Vv. 8-9--What is the promise for these two verses? It's the one to Sara. So to make Israel here the "church" is to ignore the meaning of the promise. That brings up the question, if Israel is suddenly the "church" here, then who in the world is Sara? And Isaac in v. 10?

Then:
V. 27--The remnant is a remnant of Israel, not the church.
V. 29--Isaiah is obviously talking about Israel.
V. 30--Another group is mentioned, the Gentiles, distinguished from Israel.
V. 31--Beginning with "But," the contrast is made between Gentiles and Jews. In the light of that, how do you make anything in the chapter be Gentiles becoming Jews?

As it is written, 'I have reserved seven thousand in Israel, all whose knees have not bowed to Baal......' (1 Kings 19:18; Romans 11:4). Only a remnant of Physical Israel will be saved, and that by grace (Romans 9:15) through faith (Romans 11:5). The rest are not of Israel QED.

Exactly. But if v. 8 is about the "church," then how have you gone back to DNA Israel? You have to choose one or the other for the whole passage. The grammar does not allow you to jump back and forth between Israel and the "church" in Rom. 9.

Yet, 'And so all Israel will be saved' (Romans 11:11:26). 'All Israel' is the believing Jews plus the believing Gentiles. The 'middle wall of separation' has been broken down, 'that He [Christ] might reconcile them both [Jew and Gentile] to God in one body through the cross.......'(Ephesians 2:14-16). There is now only one people of God, and that's not 'replacement theology,' it's Inclusion Theology! 'For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call on Him. For "Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved"' (Romans 10:12-13; Joel 2:32).

If that's allegory then I'll be an allegorizer and proud of it!

But it clearly distinguishes between Gentiles and Jews in ch. 11! How in the world are you able to jump from Paul being the apostle to the Gentiles to all of a sudden Gentiles being true Jews? It clearly says when the blindness of the Jews will cease: when "the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (v. 26). So for your position you have to ignore the clear difference Paul makes in the chapter between DNA Jews and DNA Gentiles. Dispensationalism handles the difference easily, by interpreting literally and saying that someday all Jews will get saved.

Fair enough. Perhaps we can look at Revelation 13 on another thread.

We'll see.

May I add that it's always a pleasure to discuss with you, John, however sharp our disagreements. You take the Scriptures seriously and that counts for a lot with me. I'm always happy to defer to your knowledge of the Biblical languages, though not always your interpretation of those languages.

Thank you for the kind words.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm happy to be numbered with the alligators - including Paul in Galatians 4:21-31

That passage is typology, a bonafide figure of speech. A type (Greek, tupos) is an example developed from a real, historical event. (See 1 Cor. 10:6, "examples.") In other words, it's a sermon illustration. To think of the Greek word translated "allegory" as just like a modern allegory (Pilgrim's Progress) is a large mistake.

It is unwise and dangerous to plunge into the swamp of these things without accepting the way Jesus and his Apostles interpreted the OC prophecies.

Yes, they were always fulfilled literally. About Christ:
Virgin birth (Is. 7:14, Matt. 1:18)
Descendant of Abraham (Gen. 22:18. Matt. 1:1)
In the lineage of David (Jer. 23:5, Luke 3:23, 31)
Of the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10, Micah 5:2, Luke 3:23, 33)
The descendent of Jesse (Is. 11:1, Luke 3:23, 32)
Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Matt. 2:1-6)
The gifts of the Magi (Ps. 72:10, Matt. 2:1, 11)

And many, many other prophecies of Christ's 1st coming were fulfilled literally. But for some strange reason, you folk don't want to interpret prophecies of the 2nd coming literally.

 

[Covenanter]

That passage is typology, a bonafide figure of speech. A type (Greek, tupos) is an example developed from a real, historical event. (See 1 Cor. 10:6, "examples.") In other words, it's a sermon illustration. To think of the Greek word translated "allegory" as just like a modern allegory (Pilgrim's Progress) is a large mistake.

It is an extraordinary example of allegory/typology, which reverses what we would expect in teaching about Israel. Hagar & Ishmael were not on the scene at all on Sinai. only the descendants of Sarah, together with Egyptians who had joined them.

Paul describes the Jews as if they were Ishmaelites -

For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.​

And quotes directly to show their status before God -

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.​

Clearly by that allegory/analogy, unbelieving Jews - aka Israel - have no claim to privilege by virtue of their Abraham descent - John (baptist), Jesus, & now Paul dismiss them. Their natural birth is is no status - they must be born after the Spirit - a point the Apostle John makes very clear in the opening of his Gospel.

Yes, they were always fulfilled literally. About Christ:
Virgin birth (Is. 7:14, Matt. 1:18)
Descendant of Abraham (Gen. 22:18. Matt. 1:1)
In the lineage of David (Jer. 23:5, Luke 3:23, 31)
Of the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10, Micah 5:2, Luke 3:23, 33)
The descendent of Jesse (Is. 11:1, Luke 3:23, 32)
Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Matt. 2:1-6)
The gifts of the Magi (Ps. 72:10, Matt. 2:1, 11)

And many, many other prophecies of Christ's 1st coming were fulfilled literally. But for some strange reason, you folk don't want to interpret prophecies of the 2nd coming literally.

And you folk don't recognise the events of Acts & AD 70 as the fulfilment of OC prophecy - Joel 2; Isaiah 66:8; Dan. 9; Zec. 13:1; etc, including Covenant Theology as developed in Scripture.

This passage in Luke 24 is an important conversation that shows Jesus' own approach to the interpretation of OC prophecy -

Luke 24:19 ..... And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: 20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. 21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: .....
.....
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26 ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.​

Jesus DID redeem Israel. At Pentecost & after, many thousands of Jews/Israelites, including priests & Pharisees from every nation under heaven responded to the Gospel, & formed the church of believers. Soon Gentiles were added to the church & welcomed without them being circumcised.

It's instructive the way Peter handles the Sinai Covenant in 1 Peter 2. Christ fulfilled the terms of the Exo. 19 covenant by his own perfect obedience. Now the believers (strangers) become the full beneficiaries of the OC & are experiencing the OC promise.

Exo. 19: 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

1 Peter 2: 9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.​

There's no "IF" in Peter's quote. John alludes to the same Covenant promise -

Rev. 1: 4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; 5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.​

 

[John of Japan]

I'm not going to answer your whole post. Much of it is irrelevant to my points and probably the OP, and I finally realized that this is a fellowship thread rather than a debate thread. So I'll post this in a friendly spirit.

And you folk don't recognise the events of Acts & AD 70 as the fulfilment of OC prophecy - Joel 2; Isaiah 66:8; Dan. 9; Zec. 13:1; etc, including Covenant Theology as developed in Scripture.

Actually, it's pretty hard to ignore the fact that Acts 2 fulfills Joel 2, since Peter says it does. As for A.D. 70, you don't really know what I believe about that date and prophecy. No one on the BB has ever asked me what I believe. They just tell me what they believe--that Christ's 2nd Coming was then but that it was only "spiritual," whatever that means to them.

​

It's instructive the way Peter handles the Sinai Covenant in 1 Peter 2. Christ fulfilled the terms of the Exo. 19 covenant by his own perfect obedience. Now the believers (strangers) become the full beneficiaries of the OC & are experiencing the OC promise.

Exo. 19: 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

1 Peter 2: 9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.​

There's no "IF" in Peter's quote. John alludes to the same Covenant promise -

Rev. 1: 4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; 5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.​

The key to 1 Peter is realizing to whom it was written. My son is a Petrine scholar. You can buy his Ph.D. dissertation-turned-book on 1 Peter here: https://www.amazon.com/Foreknowledg...swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1536952916&sr=8-5

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Let's look at that Rom. 9 passage:

Vv. 1-3--Paul is burdened for his unsaved brothers--DNA Israel.
V. 4--The same people as vv. 1-3. The grammar demands this.
V. 5--Still the same people. Vv. 3-5 are one long sentence. Paul does these long sentences, esp. in Rom. and Gal., and they are very hard to translate.

No problem.

V. 6--"For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel." This means he is still talking about DNA Israel, because the logical continuance of the thought is that not all Israelis are true Israelis (using the modern term for clarity), but only those Israelis who have true faith. In other words, in God's eyes true DNA Israel is the Israelis who have faith.

What he is saying is that not all DNA Israel is the true Israel which is what I am arguing. I have been working on a sermon on Romans 2:17-29. 'For "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you [Jews]," as it is written. For circumcision [being a Jew] is indeed profitable if you keep the law, but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision' (vs. 24-25). Unconfessed sin excludes Physical Jews from the Kingdom of God just as it does professing Christians (e.g. 1 John 1:6). This is all part of Paul's argument that Jew and Gentile alike 'are all under sin' (Romans 3:9). We're all inn the same boat; shut up to the mercy of God that is in Christ Jesus.

V. 7--Talking about the "seed of Abraham," or DNA Israel. Still not the "church."
Vv. 8-9--What is the promise for these two verses? It's the one to Sara. So to make Israel here the "church" is to ignore the meaning of the promise. That brings up the question, if Israel is suddenly the "church" here, then who in the world is Sara? And Isaac in v. 10?

You need to understand two things here:
1. Isaac is a type of Christ. Long expected, miraculously born, born under the law, persecuted by his kin, offered up by his father, the people of God (of all nations-- Genesis 26:4) come from him (c.f. Hebrews 2:13).
2. Ishmael is a type of Israel after the flesh. Born by natural procreation, carries the covenant sign, but is not part of the covenant of grace (Genesis 17:18-21), persecutes the true Seed, has physical promises (great nation, 12 princes-- Genesis 17:20), but not the spiritual ones. Banished by his father (Genesis 21:10; Galatians 4:30).

Then:
V. 27--The remnant is a remnant of Israel, not the church.

You seem, rather egregiously, to have overlooked verses 24-26.

V. 29--Isaiah is obviously talking about Israel.

Indeed, but only after Paul has spoken very clearly about the incoming of the Gentiles.

V. 30--Another group is mentioned, the Gentiles, distinguished from Israel.
V. 31--Beginning with "But," the contrast is made between Gentiles and Jews. In the light of that, how do you make anything in the chapter be Gentiles becoming Jews?

What I'm talking about is Jew and Gentile together becoming the New Covenant people of God. There is a remnant of believing Jews and these are united with the incoming believing Gentiles to make the people of God. 'Even us, whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles' (v.24). 'As it is written, "Behold I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, and whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame"' (v.33). The stumbling stone etc. is obviously the Lord Jesus.(1 Peter 2:8) and He is specifically 'to the Jews a stumbling block. But to those who believe, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and Christ the wisdom of God' (1 Corinthians 1:23-24).

I'm going to stop there, because it's my bed-time and I think you've got enough to reply to already, but I can come back and deal with the rest if necessary.

 

[kyredneck]

Calling Jesus Israel is heresy not just a secondary issue. I suggest you be very careful on this board with such heresy. If you want to stick around that is.

​

Putting on my Admin hat, Concur.

Putting on my Admin hat, I also concur.

The Israel of God is the Church and the Church is the body of Christ.

Also, did you not read this post?:

Jesus is Israel “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, And called my son out of Egypt.” (Hosea 11:1) compare to; “And (Jesus) was there (in Egypt) until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.” (Matthew 2:15)

By type, not only is "Jesus is Israel", but Jesus is Adam, Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Melchilzedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob aka 'Israel', Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, and many others.

...and you're concurring with Mitch that this is heresy on this board?​

 

[Covenanter]

I'm not going to answer your whole post. Much of it is irrelevant to my points and probably the OP, and I finally realized that this is a fellowship thread rather than a debate thread. So I'll post this in a friendly spirit.

I have sought with the OP to be informative rather than argumentative.

Actually, it's pretty hard to ignore the fact that Acts 2 fulfills Joel 2, since Peter says it does. As for A.D. 70, you don't really know what I believe about that date and prophecy. No one on the BB has ever asked me what I believe. They just tell me what they believe--that Christ's 2nd Coming was then but that it was only "spiritual," whatever that means to them.

I have often been told that because Israel did not accept the Pentecost Gospel, the Joel prophecy has been deferred until after the trib. End times & Daniel's 70th week await the renewal of the nation of Israel.

​

The key to 1 Peter is realizing to whom it was written. My son is a Petrine scholar. You can buy his Ph.D. dissertation-turned-book on 1 Peter here: https://www.amazon.com/Foreknowledg...swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1536952916&sr=8-5

I looked up his book & quote the only Amazon review -

3.0 out of 5 stars

Just fine, but I wish I hadn't wasted my time on it.
ByAmazon Customeron June 13, 2018
Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
It's OK, but I wish I hadn't wasted my money on it. By the Anchor volume and Ben Witherington. Between those guys you'll get everything this book has to say, but it will be better.

The official reviews are much more positive.

I thought it was clear from the intro & context who the recipients were - 1:1, 1:10-12, 2:9-10, 3:1, 4:1-6, 5:1-7, 5:14b.

I have heard it argued that Peter was writing to Jewish Christians, not including Gentiles, (quoting Gal. 2:7-8) but although including the Galatians in 1:1, he doesn't mention the problems Paul dealt with. Also I don't think the Jews of the dispersion - who attracted Gentiles into their gatherings as recorded in Acts - would have lived as described in chapter 4 -

3 For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: 4 wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you:5 who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.
​

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think this is a very interesting thread. I shall be sorry if it gets curtailed just because it's on the wrong forum.
May I suggest that the mods move it somewhere more appropriate?

 

[church mouse guy]

The problem with dispensationalism is the sensational eschatology, which is often defended by labelling any opponent as a heretic. To me it appears to be an American doctrine (albeit borrowed from the UK) amongst Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Pentecostals, who all join hands at this point in a curious alliance. It is a pity that Christian logic cannot be applied to this debate even after two hundred years. However, mostly dispensationalism lapses into silence about Darby's thinking on the Blessed Hope. So who cares?

 

[Covenanter]

Back to the OP -
I think the great divide is the two Testaments/Covenants.

The restoration of Israel as a nation in the promised land is clearly taught in the OC Scriptures. No such teaching occurs in the NC Scriptures. This results in the present church/Gospel "dispensation" being seen as a "gap" in God's purposes for Israel, with the OC promises & prophecies to be fulfilled in a future dispensation after Jesus returns.

Amil teaching (partial Preterist, Covenant theology) sees the OC prophecies being fulfilled in & by Christ in the church which initially comprised only believing Jews from "every nation under heaven." Soon, by a special revelation to Peter, Gentiles were welcomed into the church without circumcision. This was also clearly prophesied in the OC Scripture. (Zec. 2:10-12)

Thus Amil teaching is "fulfilment theology" rather than "replacement theology." Jews & other Israelites were NEVER excluded from the Gospel call & command, as Peter made very clear to the Jewish leaders in Acts 4. Paul made it his priority to go to the synagogues to proclaim the Gospel. He made it clear, e.g. in Ephesians 2 that all believers regardless of ethnicity become one redeemed people of God, & in Eph. 3 that this was an OC mystery "now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6 that the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel."

Can anyone of dispensationlist persuasion give a list of NT Scriptures that explicitly teach the restoration of Israel as a nation in the promised land, with the Lord Jesus Christ as an earthly ruler on David's throne in Jerusalem in a future dispensation?

I do understand that Romans 11 teaches the salvation of "all Israel" according to Isaiah's prophecy. That is salvation, not restoration as a nation. Many thousands did respond as recorded in Acts. Zechariah indicates 1/3 to be delivered from the tribulation. (13:1, 7-9) Revelation 7 & 14 indicate 144,000 (firstfruits) from all the tribes of Israel.

 

[church mouse guy]

The news is saying that it would be racist to say that an Englisman is a good egg or that his actions are white than white. So no compliments for you today. With Sadiq Khan as the possible anti-Christ, I don't know why you don't believe in dispensationalism? Don't you think that when Jesus reigns in Jerusalem that there will be a lot of Abraham's offspring around?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

With Sadiq Khan as the possible anti-Christ, I don't know why you don't believe in dispensationalism?{/QUOTE]
Sdaiq Khan? The anti-Christ? I don't think so! Neither smart enough nor plausible enough.

Don't you think that when Jesus reigns in Jerusalem that there will be a lot of Abraham's offspring around?

Galatians 3:7. And the Jerusalem the Lord Jesus rules from is the new one.

 

[church mouse guy]

I don't want to go to war over Israel. Actually, pound for pound the Israeli army may be the best in the world so we might just get in their way. As for Galatians 3:7, that refers to Heaven, not the millennial reign on earth in Old Jerusalem (for lack of a better term). And yes, there are a lot of Europeans who just might be the anti-Christ, including Pope Francis, the head of the EU, and the current Mayor of London.

 

[John of Japan]

No problem.

What he is saying is that not all DNA Israel is the true Israel which is what I am arguing. I have been working on a sermon on Romans 2:17-29. 'For "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you [Jews]," as it is written. For circumcision [being a Jew] is indeed profitable if you keep the law, but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision' (vs. 24-25). Unconfessed sin excludes Physical Jews from the Kingdom of God just as it does professing Christians (e.g. 1 John 1:6). This is all part of Paul's argument that Jew and Gentile alike 'are all under sin' (Romans 3:9). We're all inn the same boat; shut up to the mercy of God that is in Christ Jesus.

Since this is a fellowship thread, I'll not get too far into this, except to say, (1) This passage is a good example of how all through the whole book of Romans Paul carefully distinguishes between Israelite & Gentile. That's the context of 9-11.

You need to understand two things here:
1. Isaac is a type of Christ. Long expected, miraculously born, born under the law, persecuted by his kin, offered up by his father, the people of God (of all nations-- Genesis 26:4) come from him (c.f. Hebrews 2:13).
2. Ishmael is a type of Israel after the flesh. Born by natural procreation, carries the covenant sign, but is not part of the covenant of grace (Genesis 17:18-21), persecutes the true Seed, has physical promises (great nation, 12 princes-- Genesis 17:20), but not the spiritual ones. Banished by his father (Genesis 21:10; Galatians 4:30).

You need to understand one thing here. Granting the typology, Romans is not the place to study ecclesiology. The only place in the whole book that ekklesia occurs is three times in ch. 16, all three to what art clearly local churches. You do have "the body of Christ" in Rom. 7:4, but that's it, and that's not in 9-11. So to find the universal church in 9-11 is, to me, impossible.

You seem, rather egregiously, to have overlooked verses 24-26.

Not a problem. The distinction between Jews and Gentiles continues there. And not a word of the church!

Indeed, but only after Paul has spoken very clearly about the incoming of the Gentiles.

The Bible doesn't use the term "incoming" there. (Is the church a battlefield? "Incoming! Hit the dirt!!" ) Any mention of the church is inserted there, not found in the text.

What I'm talking about is Jew and Gentile together becoming the New Covenant people of God. There is a remnant of believing Jews and these are united with the incoming believing Gentiles to make the people of God. 'Even us, whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles' (v.24). 'As it is written, "Behold I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, and whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame"' (v.33). The stumbling stone etc. is obviously the Lord Jesus.(1 Peter 2:8) and He is specifically 'to the Jews a stumbling block. But to those who believe, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and Christ the wisdom of God' (1 Corinthians 1:23-24).

And again, there is no church there. The Jews who believe are true Jews, and the Gentiles can join them as believers. That's what the text says--nothing about the church at all, much less that it replaces Israel.

I'm going to stop there, because it's my bed-time and I think you've got enough to reply to already, but I can come back and deal with the rest if necessary.

Again, this is not a debate thread, so I'm trying to be non-combative (maybe failing ).