# MacArthur on Covenant Theology



## ccravens

I've gotten a lot of good information from John MacArthur over the years. Just finished his new systematic theology. While reading through his _Romans 9-16 _book, I ran across the following:

"Among those who most strongly insist that God is through with the nation of Israel are those whose theology is commonly referred to as covenant theology. It is ironic that, because of a distorted view of Israel, covenant theology cannot escape the implication that God is not faithful in fully honoring His covenants."

So, not being well versed in covenant theology, I was wondering the following:

*is this a faithful/accurate description of what most supporters of covenant theology believe? Do they believe that God is "through with the nation of Israel?

*I have no idea what he is referring to in his second sentence. Help would be appreciated. 

Definitely not trying to troll or flame. If it comes across that way, chalk it up to my ignorance on the subject, but my willingness to learn.


----------



## hammondjones

MacArthur:



> “The Bible calls God “The God of Israel” over 200 times— the God of Israel. There are over 2000 references to Israel in Scripture. Not one of them means anything but Israel. Not one of them, including Romans 9: 6 and Galatians 6: 16, which are the only two passages that Amillennialists go to, to try to convince us that these passages cancel out the other 2000. There is no difficulty in interpreting those as simply meaning Jews who were believers, “the Israel of God.” Israel always means Israel; it never means anything but Israel. Seventy-three New Testament uses of Israel always mean Israel.”



He'll then say that if you hold to the sovereign election of the individual, you must also hold to the sovereign election of national Israel (and be a dispensationalist). So, he would charge Covenant Theology with having God abandon Israel, and break his promise.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

It's the dispensational "take" on the other side, that being covenant theology. It is the result of not seeing ONE people of God throughout the entire Bible, but two; and two essential foci for Scripture.

If you slam the wedge between "Israel" and "the Church," and insist on it, and press this distinction, and say that only national-Israelites can call God "the God of Israel" and correctly mean for it to describe the relation between God and themselves; if this is your hermeneutical starting point, then CT is going to sound to your ears like it's denying God's covenant faithfulness.

CT answers JMA's charge: If God promises he'll give you a million dollars next time he sees you; and the next time he sees you, he gives you a billion dollars; you're not entitled to hold out for that "additional" million. because otherwise he didn't "fulfill" the letter of his promise. Dispensationalism is holding out for Israelite inheritance of some real-estate in the Levant; when the whole world has already been given to the Sole Heir of the Promises, namely Jesus, Yea and Amen.

In addition, dispensationalism regularly discounts various aspects of stated or implied conditions to what it often presents as "unconditional" promises. In every generation, God disinherited a percentage (large or small) of Israel for faithlessness. As of the crucifixion and rejection of Christ, he disinherited the whole lot--all except for One, namely Jesus, the one true Israelite. This is the message of Pentecost. All of you have been cut off... nevertheless, you may be recovered and regrafted in, by repentance and faith in Jesus, the Head.

The separate *nation* of Israel has served its redemptive purpose, bringing Messiah into the world. Since he is the ONE focus of the Bible (not one focus on him, and one focus on Israel), there's nothing to the claim that there's still some matters God has to settle with any national body. In any case, as Isaac prefigured the reality, there's just One who is the sole Son and Heir of everything the nation was promised.

There is literally nothing leftover whatever for anyone outside of the complete and total inheritance that has already been handed over to Christ. He owes nothing to anyone. Everyone else is disinherited and gets nothing--but he gives liberally out of his grace.

There aren't any national-specific, corporate blessings for an narrowly ethno-religious body called Israel, but this does not mean there are no more ethno-religious Israelites/Jews to call to faith. We pray for a great revival to sweep a host of people of that background into the church, the everlasting body of saints drawn from "many nations" (who were promised Abraham as their father, Gen.17:5).

JMA can't conceive of the fulfillment of the Abrahamic/Israelite promises as already having taken place just fine in typical fashion, or is fully realized already in Christ, or will finally be revealed in the new heavens and earth. Somehow, there is a generation that has a right to be unsatisfied with their inheritance being_ in Christ alone,_ and there's still some "preview" of the final state that is "due" to be shown on earth.

This overlooks the bride of Isaac, Rebekah, who is a type of Israel in the future (Exodus), and both of them of types of the Bride of Christ. Rebekah, the elect lady, is promised the God of Abraham if she will go back and be the sole son and heir's bride. She will become partaker of all this man's inheritance. And yet, Isaac does not possess so much as a foots-breadth of this promised land. That is owned by Canaanite squatters.

Canaanites have it now, in this life. But death will take it away from them forever. Meanwhile, Isaac does not have it now, but he and his bride will have it later, and forever. So, Rebekah is shepherded to a union with the son, in order to be part of the promises and have this God as hers. She shall be satisfied in having the son and heir, which is better than a deed to some land. For all he has, and all he WILL have is hers.

The Promised Land is a type of heaven. It is not a thing all about itself. In typical form, it was already gained by the nation of Israel. And in the end, the sole Son and Heir has also come into possession of his property, now expanded to fill the universe, Mt.28:18. There's no backtracking now to settle for a little bit of eastern Mediterranean geography.

Reactions: Like 11 | Edifying 5 | Amen 1


----------



## Herald

ccravens said:


> I've gotten a lot of good information from John MacArthur over the years. Just finished his new systematic theology. While reading through his _Romans 9-16 _book, I ran across the following:
> 
> "Among those who most strongly insist that God is through with the nation of Israel are those whose theology is commonly referred to as covenant theology. It is ironic that, because of a distorted view of Israel, covenant theology cannot escape the implication that God is not faithful in fully honoring His covenants."
> 
> So, not being well versed in covenant theology, I was wondering the following:
> 
> *is this a faithful/accurate description of what most supporters of covenant theology believe? Do they believe that God is "through with the nation of Israel?
> 
> *I have no idea what he is referring to in his second sentence. Help would be appreciated.
> 
> Definitely not trying to troll or flame. If it comes across that way, chalk it up to my ignorance on the subject, but my willingness to learn.



Chris, as a fellow Baptist who started this journey nearly 20 years ago, do not feel intimated by Covenant Theology. Like anything else, CT has its nuances, but as a systematic theology, it views God's faithfulness to one people throughout the whole scope of human history. Bruce provided a detailed and helpful response to your question.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1


----------



## ccravens

Thanks so much Bruce. Going over your post again, slowly.

Looks like I need to study some good literature on the subject. Something that explains the differences between dispensational and convenantal theology. While faithfully/accurately representing both.

Any suggestions?


----------



## Dachaser

ccravens said:


> Thanks so much Bruce. Going over your post again, slowly.
> 
> Looks like I need to study some good literature on the subject. Something that explains the differences between dispensational and convenantal theology. While faithfully/accurately representing both.
> 
> Any suggestions?


The ST of MacArthur would reflect traditional Dispensational Theology, would also want to read works by Darrel Bock for Progressive wing of the Dispensational group.


----------



## Dachaser

ccravens said:


> I've gotten a lot of good information from John MacArthur over the years. Just finished his new systematic theology. While reading through his _Romans 9-16 _book, I ran across the following:
> 
> "Among those who most strongly insist that God is through with the nation of Israel are those whose theology is commonly referred to as covenant theology. It is ironic that, because of a distorted view of Israel, covenant theology cannot escape the implication that God is not faithful in fully honoring His covenants."
> 
> So, not being well versed in covenant theology, I was wondering the following:
> 
> *is this a faithful/accurate description of what most supporters of covenant theology believe? Do they believe that God is "through with the nation of Israel?
> 
> *I have no idea what he is referring to in his second sentence. Help would be appreciated.
> 
> Definitely not trying to troll or flame. If it comes across that way, chalk it up to my ignorance on the subject, but my willingness to learn.


The nuances are found even among CT, as some would hold to a hope for national Israel in Covenant premil position, as at the time of the the Second coming of Christ.


----------



## ccravens

Any general textbooks on the subject of dispensational vs. covenantal theology, which also points out the differences in each camp (traditional & progressive wings of DT)?

Similar to _Faith Has It's Reasons_ by Boa and Bowman for apologetics, with a set of chapters each on classical, evidential, pre-suppositional, and fideistic apologetics.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

See this recent thread:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/rebuttals-to-dispensational-prophecy-interpretations.95263/


----------



## Pergamum

Just an aside: Plenty of the Puritans also believed that God was not through with ethnic Israel. See Iain Murray's The Puritan Hope, a provocative read: https://www.amazon.com/Puritan-Hope...d=1522563342&sr=8-2&keywords=the+puritan+hope

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## JTB.SDG

Pergamum said:


> Just an aside: Plenty of the Puritans also believed that God was not through with ethnic Israel. See Iain Murray's The Puritan Hope, a provocative read: https://www.amazon.com/Puritan-Hope...d=1522563342&sr=8-2&keywords=the+puritan+hope



As far as I can tell, this was indeed the MAJORITY position.
PS, Perg--you may be interested to know that this used to be the topic of missions' conferences back in the day.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

JTB.SDG said:


> As far as I can tell, this was indeed the MAJORITY position.
> PS, Perg--you may be interested to know that this used to be the topic of missions' conferences back in the day.


I would love to hear more about that, interesting. I tend to be optimistic and so I have come to embrace that God may yet bless the ethnic Jews and not discard them completely but do a great work near the End.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Pergamum said:


> Just an aside: Plenty of the Puritans also believed that God was not through with ethnic Israel. See Iain Murray's The Puritan Hope, a provocative read: https://www.amazon.com/Puritan-Hope...d=1522563342&sr=8-2&keywords=the+puritan+hope


I love this book. But at the very start of the book Murray distances this view from any kind of dispensationalism. It is important to keep this distinction. If God is not through with ethnic Israel, it is not to fulfill any land promises, but to save his people and to bring them into the church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

ccravens said:


> I've gotten a lot of good information from John MacArthur over the years. Just finished his new systematic theology. While reading through his _Romans 9-16 _book, I ran across the following:
> 
> "Among those who most strongly insist that God is through with the nation of Israel are those whose theology is commonly referred to as covenant theology. It is ironic that, because of a distorted view of Israel, covenant theology cannot escape the implication that God is not faithful in fully honoring His covenants."
> 
> So, not being well versed in covenant theology, I was wondering the following:
> 
> *is this a faithful/accurate description of what most supporters of covenant theology believe? Do they believe that God is "through with the nation of Israel?


If one reads carefully through Romans 9-11 one can see some key points:

God elects and saves His people. It is in this way God keeps His promises.
The doctrine of the remnant (see Rom 10) is that the elect are a remnant. How big or small that remnant can be debated. A remnant of the nation of Israel wil be saved until the end of the age. This shows MacArthur's contention is untrue.
I think Rom 11:5 nicely sums up the three chapters "So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace."


----------



## Ben Zartman

My wife can trace her ethnicity to Jewry, and God has saved her. He is still saving Jews--in fact we can be confident that every Jew that God has elected will be saved. So He has not cast off that race entirely as reprobates.
If you offered my wife a scrap of Middle Eastern real estate, telling her that was the final fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham, she would say, "what need have I of dirt on this passing earth, when I have Christ, and Him forever?"

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Trevor:

Jon is right that this view of a yet future ingathering of ethnic Israel in terms of the "Scottish view" (this really kicked off Scottish missions to Jewry in the 19th c.) was prominent, though, as Stephen notes, note even slightly dispensational (tied to land promises and political restoration).

One of the common misconceptions is that this view is solely the purview of postmillennialism. John Murray expresses the view clearly in his Romans' commentary as does Cornelis Venema is his _Promise of the Future, _as well as here: http://www.midamerica.edu/uploads/files/pdf/journal/02journal2011venema.pdf. They and some other amillennialists (of an "optimistic" sort, to be sure!) hold to this view (including me).

On a related note, I've just finished preaching through the book of Hebrews and it is, with its incomparable Christology, a Jewish apologetic _non pareil _that might be used to convert continuing, unbelieving, orthodox Judaism. I believe that this book may, in the ingathering, come to have more play than ever.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## JTB.SDG

Pergamum said:


> I would love to hear more about that, interesting. I tend to be optimistic and so I have come to embrace that God may yet bless the ethnic Jews and not discard them completely but do a great work near the End.



No, that's what I meant. The majority position as I understand it was an optimistic one towards Israel--the very position that Murray contents for in his book, The Puritan Hope. I loved that book and totally agree.


----------



## TheOldCourse

ccravens said:


> Any general textbooks on the subject of dispensational vs. covenantal theology, which also points out the differences in each camp (traditional & progressive wings of DT)?
> 
> Similar to _Faith Has It's Reasons_ by Boa and Bowman for apologetics, with a set of chapters each on classical, evidential, pre-suppositional, and fideistic apologetics.



It's not directly to that point, but O. Palmer Robertson's _The Israel of God_ is the book that finally convinced me of Covenant Theology years ago. He doesn't spend a lot of time on Covenant Theology systematics proper or debating the intricacies of Dispensationalism, but he carefully and clearly goes through Scripture and demonstrates how the Bible itself finds the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel in Christ Jesus. Once that is demonstrated, dispensationalism is cut off at the knee.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Alan D. Strange said:


> John Murray expresses the view clearly in his Romans' commentary



I thought John Murray was postmil. If I recall correctly, Iain Murray and Sproul refer to him as postmil.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

BayouHuguenot said:


> I thought John Murray was postmil. If I recall correctly, Iain Murray and Sproul refer to him as postmil.



It's understandable why someone may make that mistake, especially given all the confusion over clearly distinguishing post and amil from each other, which was not clearly done until the 1940s.

Palmer Robertson and Richard Gaffin, colleagues and students of Murray, both speak of him as amil. The latter does so in his piece on the millennial question in the WTS volume, _Theonomy: A Reformed Critique _and the former, I believe, in his _Israel of God_.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

Many false beliefs begin in order to defend a good value. For example, Charismatics often react against dead orthodoxy, Arminians often strive for good works, and I think Dispensationalists want to preserve hope for the Jews. The theological infrastructure they develop goes awry and is errant, but they are often defending good things to be valued. Sadly, many opponents of these false views go too far in the opposite direction in over-reaction and thus deny the active role of the Holy Spirit, or the place of good works, or the probable future hope for Jews to be gathered in. I agree with Venema that we can have a healthy hope for the Jews (even without advocating Dispensationalism). Christ will have victory over the whole world, after all, and the Great Commission will be successful throughout the whole world, not just the Gentile nations.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## msortwell

ccravens said:


> Thanks so much Bruce. Going over your post again, slowly.
> 
> Looks like I need to study some good literature on the subject. Something that explains the differences between dispensational and convenantal theology. While faithfully/accurately representing both.
> 
> Any suggestions?



I found "Sacred Bond" by Michael Brown to be an excellent primer on CT. However, as a former dispensationalist I am embarrassed to admit that I cannot recall a good reference designed as an introduction to that view. But one dispensationalist work did have a significant impact on me - "Issues in Dispensationalism" edited by Charles Rirey. Its tortured explanation regarding the "proper" understandings of the term "kingdom" convinced me that their hemenuetic is not sustainable.


----------



## RefPres1647

The Christ of the Covenants is a good one by O. Palmer Robertson as well. It's one of the books they assign at RTS for their Covenant Theology course and makes a clear argument for God's use of covenants and what they are.


TheOldCourse said:


> It's not directly to that point, but O. Palmer Robertson's _The Israel of God_ is the book that finally convinced me of Covenant Theology years ago. He doesn't spend a lot of time on Covenant Theology systematics proper or debating the intricacies of Dispensationalism, but he carefully and clearly goes through Scripture and demonstrates how the Bible itself finds the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel in Christ Jesus. Once that is demonstrated, dispensationalism is cut off at the knee.


----------



## ccravens

Thanks for all the suggestions. I have added 3-4 books to my Amazon wish list for next month. My monthly allotment for books has been spent already for April (didn't take too long..).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TylerRay

For what it's worth, a doctrine of the conversion of the Jews is implied in Larger Catechism 191:


> *Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?*
> 
> A. In the second petition, (which is, _Thy kingdom come,_) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, *the Jews called*, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate:that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser

Stephen L Smith said:


> I love this book. But at the very start of the book Murray distances this view from any kind of dispensationalism. It is important to keep this distinction. If God is not through with ethnic Israel, it is not to fulfill any land promises, but to save his people and to bring them into the church.


Good point, as there have been in the past and present those like myself who see the Lord still going to do a saving work among the Jewish people, not to grant the elected out heir land promises, but to have them receive spiritual blessings in Yeshua at the time of His second coming.


----------



## Dachaser

Stephen L Smith said:


> If one reads carefully through Romans 9-11 one can see some key points:
> 
> God elects and saves His people. It is in this way God keeps His promises.
> The doctrine of the remnant (see Rom 10) is that the elect are a remnant. How big or small that remnant can be debated. A remnant of the nation of Israel wil be saved until the end of the age. This shows MacArthur's contention is untrue.
> I think Rom 11:5 nicely sums up the three chapters "So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace."


The doctrine of the Faithful elect remnant among the Jewish people since Israel existed would seem to indicate that those Jews to be saved now and yet to be until the time of the Second Coming would have a real promised blessing come unto them from God.


----------



## De Jager

"In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates" (Genesis 15:18)

"And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt: they brought presents, and served Solomon all the days of his life."

I thought Israel did in fact receive all the land promises.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Joshua said it even earlier:
"And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the Lord your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof."
Joshua 23:14

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> "In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates" (Genesis 15:18)
> 
> "And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt: they brought presents, and served Solomon all the days of his life."
> 
> I thought Israel did in fact receive all the land promises.


I agree on the physical land blessings, but the Jewish people still appear to have future spiritual blessings involving the Second Coming of Christ.


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> I agree on the physical land blessings, but the Jewish people still appear to have future spiritual blessings involving the Second Coming of Christ.



Are you speaking of a future widespread conversion among ethnic Jews?


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> Are you speaking of a future widespread conversion among ethnic Jews?


yes, at the time of the Second Coming of Christ.


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> yes, at the time of the Second Coming of Christ.



1 Thessalonians 5:1-3

_"But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape."
_
Matthew 24:48-51

_"48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."_

So you think that when Jesus comes back, ethnic Jews are going to have a chance to repent and believe? Where do you get this in scripture?


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3
> 
> _"But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
> 2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
> 3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape."
> _
> Matthew 24:48-51
> 
> _"48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
> 49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
> 50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
> 51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."_
> 
> So you think that when Jesus comes back, ethnic Jews are going to have a chance to repent and believe? Where do you get this in scripture?


Zechariah 12:10


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> Zechariah 12:10



Is this not fulfilled in John 19:37 ?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

De Jager said:


> Is this not fulfilled in John 19:37 ?


I think it could well be said that this text prophesies the_ piercing_ of Messiah, but that there is some sort of later act also implied, namely that of their_ mourning._

The question to follow would be: does the event of Pentecost, or some other time or event or process of response (past or still future) correlate?


----------



## TylerRay

De Jager said:


> Are you speaking of a future widespread conversion among ethnic Jews?





De Jager said:


> So you think that when Jesus comes back, ethnic Jews are going to have a chance to repent and believe? Where do you get this in scripture?



For my own part, I don't at all believe that the Jews will undergo a mass conversion _at the time of Christ's return_; but I do believe that they will be converted.

The clearest passage on this is Romans 11:


> *23*And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. *24*For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural _branches_, be graffed into their own olive tree?
> 
> *25*For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
> 
> *26*And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
> 
> *27*For this _is_ my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
> 
> *28*As concerning the gospel, _they are_ enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, _they are_ beloved for the fathers' sakes. *29*For the gifts and calling of God _are_ without repentance. *30*For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: *31*Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. *32*For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.


----------



## De Jager

TylerRay said:


> For my own part, I don't at all believe that the Jews will undergo a mass conversion _at the time of Christ's return_; but I do believe that they will be converted.
> 
> The clearest passage on this is Romans 11:


When people speak of a mass conversion at Christ's return, it makes no sense to me. From my understanding, if you are not a believer when Jesus comes back, there is no other chance.

I will grant that the Scriptures do allow for some kind of mass conversion before the end...but not at the end. There is a big difference. 

Sent from my STH100-1 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager

Contra_Mundum said:


> I think it could well be said that this text prophesies the_ piercing_ of Messiah, but that there is some sort of later act also implied, namely that of their_ mourning._
> 
> The question to follow would be: does the event of Pentecost, or some other time or event or process of response (past or still future) correlate?


Are you speaking of when the people were "cut to the heart" after hearing Peter's sermon?

Sent from my STH100-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Contra_Mundum

De Jager said:


> Are you speaking of when the people were "cut to the heart" after hearing Peter's sermon?


I wasn't thinking of that specific text (though it sure makes a striking verbal parallel, doesn't it?). Only that many thousands of Jews (a remnant, but still a host) did, in fact, turn in faith to Christ in the aftermath of his death.

The generation that killed Jesus--not just a later generation of descendants, appalled at what they did, and cheered, ignored, failed to do, etc.--saw many people mourn repentantly for their sin. V10 states explicitly association of this moment to the outpouring of the Spirit, even upon Jerusalem.

The rest of that generation, the faithless of it, also mourned--regretfully, not repentantly--but still they mourned, because of the judgment of God that fell at the end of it, 40yrs later. Yet, I'm sure that the "mourning" that Zecharaiah mentions is the genuine kind, and stands in contrast to the tears of those found guilty and sentenced.


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> Is this not fulfilled in John 19:37 ?


I tie this into Revelation 1:7 also


----------



## Dachaser

Contra_Mundum said:


> I think it could well be said that this text prophesies the_ piercing_ of Messiah, but that there is some sort of later act also implied, namely that of their_ mourning._
> 
> The question to follow would be: does the event of Pentecost, or some other time or event or process of response (past or still future) correlate?


I tie this into both Zechariah and Revelation 1:7, as see the Lord remembering His Promise to have all Israel saved and reborn when He returns again.


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> For my own part, I don't at all believe that the Jews will undergo a mass conversion _at the time of Christ's return_; but I do believe that they will be converted.
> 
> The clearest passage on this is Romans 11:


Also can tie into Acts 3:19-21


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> I tie this into both Zechariah and Revelation 1:7, as see the Lord remembering His Promise to have all Israel saved and reborn when He returns again.



"when he returns again"

Could you please clarify: does this mean that those ethnic Jews who are alive on the Day of the Lord will get a chance to see the Risen, glorified Christ, and _then_ repent and believe? What about the non-Jews?


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> "when he returns again"
> 
> Could you please clarify: does this mean that those ethnic Jews who are alive on the Day of the Lord will get a chance to see the Risen, glorified Christ, and _then_ repent and believe? What about the non-Jews?


there will be a great multitude saved by God from the time of Great tribulation, so a lot of this depends on ones eschatological framework. In my understanding, God is still saving in end of days, perhaps greatest harvesting in history.


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> there will be a great multitude saved by God from the time of Great tribulation, so a lot of this depends on ones eschatological framework. In my understanding, God is still saving in end of days, perhaps greatest harvesting in history.



I feel like you are coming from a dispensationalist side of things where Jesus will come back and reign for a literal 1000 years in literal Jerusalem. Correct me if I am wrong.

This makes no sense to me. Paul exhorts the Thessalonians that the day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night and of "sudden destruction". That does not square with the idea that ascended, glorified Jesus comes back and then gives the ethnic Jews a chance to repent.


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> I feel like you are coming from a dispensationalist side of things where Jesus will come back and reign for a literal 1000 years in literal Jerusalem. Correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> This makes no sense to me. Paul exhorts the Thessalonians that the day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night and of "sudden destruction". That does not square with the idea that ascended, glorified Jesus comes back and then gives the ethnic Jews a chance to repent.


Not the Dispensational viewpoint, but as one who holds to what a Spurgeon did, as in a premil Kingdom here on earth, and that God would have the Jews alive at the time of the Second Coming, whether during the time of the End, or at that event itself, be moved upon by the Holy Spirit to receive Jesus as their promised messiah and turn to Him.


----------



## Cymro

With Tyler I cannot hold with a mass conversion of the Jews but there is an election of a remnant in every tongue and nation including the Jews. Thessalonians, to whom Paul writes to rectify a mistaken view of the last days is strangely silent on such a momentous notion. As to Romans there is no quantifying of a national mass turning of the Jews, but it states not WHEN the Jews believe, “but IF they abide not in unbelief.” 
I think Math 21:43- 46 clinches it for me. “Therefore I say unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” In v45 “the chief priests and Pharisees perceived that He spake of them.” Notice it is singular, not nations! What nation is this? Is not this the nation of the elect., foretold in the OT and corroborated by Peter like this, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an HOLY NATION, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light; which in time past were NOT a people but are Now the people of God.” This is the Nation that should be born in a day. That glorious resurrection day.
I also think that a backward glance is to be given to Zech12:10-14, back to 2Chron 35:23-25, where good king Josiah (King of Judah), was wounded by the archers, and he said “I am sore wounded”. I have read that it could be translated”pierced”, but he was taken by chariot and died in Jerusalem. And we read there was great lamentation or mourning for him amongst all the branches of Jewry.


----------



## Dachaser

Cymro said:


> With Tyler I cannot hold with a mass conversion of the Jews but there is an election of a remnant in every tongue and nation including the Jews. Thessalonians, to whom Paul writes to rectify a mistaken view of the last days is strangely silent on such a momentous notion. As to Romans there is no quantifying of a national mass turning of the Jews, but it states not WHEN the Jews believe, “but IF they abide not in unbelief.”
> I think Math 21:43- 46 clinches it for me. “Therefore I say unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” In v45 “the chief priests and Pharisees perceived that He spake of them.” Notice it is singular, not nations! What nation is this? Is not this the nation of the elect., foretold in the OT and corroborated by Peter like this, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an HOLY NATION, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light; which in time past were NOT a people but are Now the people of God.” This is the Nation that should be born in a day. That glorious resurrection day.
> I also think that a backward glance is to be given to Zech12:10-14, back to 2Chron 35:23-25, where good king Josiah (King of Judah), was wounded by the archers, and he said “I am sore wounded”. I have read that it could be translated”pierced”, but he was taken by chariot and died in Jerusalem. And we read there was great lamentation or mourning for him amongst all the branches of Jewry.


I also have to deal with Romans, that states to us that God is now dealing with the Gentiles, but that there is coming a time when he turns back to Jewish nation, and that all Israel shall be saved. this promise to me is not for all Jews until the end times, but refers primarily to those of the end times.


----------

