Recently I’ve tried to tackle some of these issues at my blog. I stress a Christological, redemptive historical interpretation of the Old Testament, and I lean toward covenant theology in many respects. Again I greatly appreciate how much you said in this succinct post.

Regarding Romans 11, I recently read O. Palmer Robertson’s book “The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow”. He argues that Romans 11 is not teaching a far flung eschatology but focuses on what was happening in Paul’s day, with Paul himself as one of the proofs that God hadn’t rejected Israel. Robertson’s chapter on Romans 11 is worth a look.

Blessings in Christ,

Bob Hayton

Quite to the contrary to the claims of many today, the children “were” crucified with Him (Paul), being in Him, just as the Seed, was in Abraham, or as Hebrews intends, Levi paid tithes through Abraham (the father of the multitude in whom the Seed was from whom the seed is derived.

Particular atonement is attacked as not taught in Scripture. Dividing out of Christ those for whom he was incarnated, those for whom he was crucified, though, strips from Him the essence of the meaning of his name. He is the Head of His body and there are no other members of it that went to the cross. Once the integrity of Israel is broken, and the body of Christ becomes some for whom Christ died who were not in Him at Calvary, the bifurcation will result in a non-Christocentric hermenuetic. Then it becomes about what we do to inherit -what a contradiction in terms. The only view that can maintain Christocentricity, is limited atonement.

Is there a true Israel and a false one? There are many anti-christs. There are many who go out from us, many who came out of Egypt only to fall in the rebellion. How is it that the promise is only found in Israel? Why are there two different circumcisions; one of Promise received and one of promise to come? How is it that the Promise is a person, not persons, but persons are who make up the Promise? And how is it then that a covenant (promise) includes those for whom it was never intended?

Jesus is the firstborn among the dead. He is the first and only Son who in bringing many sons to glory was perfected and by that perfected, past tense, those who are being save. Which means, when a Southern Baptist is baptized without the knowledge that it was because he “was” crucified with Christ, and merely thinks that his acceptation of Christ is what places him there as opposed to the eternal covenant made with Israel, his baptism is founded not upon the Jesus of the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection, another Christ. No wonder then that they amount to nothing more than baptized infants having never come to a knowledge of the Son.

The nation of Israel believed they were Israel. The church thinks that it is. But Scripture reveals to us that we have been adopted and that by promise. There is one Israel, and he has given us his name because we were given to him as a promised inheritance. Again, inheritance does not include in the terms of it any provision for anything which is not intended in it, nor for anyone whose name is not written in it.

Israel is the Lamb whose name is written in the Lamb’s book of Life. We must then be careful how we transcribe it lest he comes and finds additions to it which do not belong. For then he will remove those names and subtract from them the blessings and add to them, just as they have added to Him, the curses found in it.

Is there a future for Israel? I think that in any case, no matter what one thinks of who Israel is, throughout Scripture there has always been the types, anti-types, and proto-types, shades, shadows, and usurpers. The final day will reveal the truth, who is the real Israel, and who is not, who is the wheat and who are the tares, but we can be assured that there is a future for Israel. Can it be political? I believe in either case, the end portends political isolation for Israel, be it His body, or a mere representation of it.

In your last paragraph, you mentioned that there are political blessings for Israel. Can you elaborate on that in light of your Christocentric hermeneutic? In other words, what are the specific political blessings?

Andrew

As I studied through both views I was amazed because I found myself debating both points of view in almost the same way using almost the same scriptures. The bottom line when dealing with both points of view is to ask the question, “Who are the children of God?” Genetic Jews? Baptized babies? John answers this question clearly:

“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13)

We are sons of God due to our connection to the Son of God. Amem to every word you said Dr. Moore!

You theological beast! You’ve done it again w/ a fantastic little article on a topic that is one that I am very interested in and passionate about! Funny, but I popped in MacArthur’s first “talk” at Shepherd’s Conference ‘07 a few days ago in my car (entitled something like, “Why every Calvinist is a premillinialist”) - not b/c I like it, but b/c I think it’s so ridiculously argued (hermeneutically) and I want to analyze his thinking. He sets up so many “straw men” and knocks them over that I feel like I’m watching Scarecrow in the “Wizard of Oz” get torn apart, not to mention his ad hominem attacks, too. I love Johnny Mac, b/c he had a HUGE impact upon my life in the 1990’s (ate up his tapes like potato chips), but he’s downright awful on that topic. Maybe next time Dr. Mohler can’t make it to Shepherd’s, you can fill in for him and preach a sermon entitled, “Why every Calvinist Uses a Christocentric Hermeneutic.” That’d be sweet!

(I think if I ever did a Ph.D., it’d definitely be on the topic concerning which you wrote in this article.)

Thank you for teaching me to think with a Christocentric hermeneutic while at Southern, showing me how to do so through your teaching/preaching while under you in both the classroom and 9th & O.
Brother, you’re da’ man!

In the grip of the gospel,
Ryan Gold

Thank you.

You have said it well. It is ALL about Unity IN Messiah.

I have found in my limited studies much difficulty with all the Established Escathologies, whether of my Reformed brethren, of the Dispensational brethren or of the others.

I am glad to be one with Christ and thus to know that all His promises to ALL His people are established in Him for me and ALL His children equally, whether Jew or Gentile.

I am just grateful that I am also grafted in by grace Alone through Faith Alone, in Messiah Alone, for our Triune YAHWEH’s glory Alone.

Your brother & servant in service with the Gospel of grace Alone