15 comments

1. The reason more Jews are not putting their trust in Christ right now, is because the time of the gentiles is not complete. As Romans 11:25-27 says. Perhaps this recent conflict is the catalyst, but only God knows.

   • Jan,

     That’s a possible inference and may turn out to be true but Paul is quite clear in Rom 9 and 10 that the reason anyone believes is God’s free, unconditional, electing grace and the reason some a left in their sins is God’s sovereign decree. Romans 9:6-13 (ESV):

     But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

     Paul plainly teaches a remnant theology. Romans 9:27-28 (ESV):

     And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.”

     As I keep saying, as we approach this issue, we must never rebuild the wall that Christ tore down in his body. Romans 10:12-13 (ESV):

     For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

     Further, We can’t assume that we may substitute “Jews” for “his people” in Rom 11:1. After all, he wrote just above: “But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”

     God has not forgotten “his people, whom he foreknew.” Who are they? Romans 11:1-2 (ESV):

     I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.”

     How is that anyone becomes “his people”? Romans 11:5-6 (ESV):

     So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

     Who obtained it? Romans 11:7 (ESV): “What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened…”.

     So, it is possible that, after the fullness of the Gentiles is brought in that there will be an ingathering of Jews but when one says that one must not (again) rebuild the wall that has been torn down, make election a matter of race not grace, and ignore Paul’s remnant theology.

     Those are some considerable qualifications to the theory that there will be a future ingathering of Jews.

   • What I think would be helpful for those of us with a Dispensational background is to get a clear understanding of the distinction between national(or ethnic) and religious Jews, it seems like the Bible deals with those two groups distinctly.

     • Hi Grant,

       Check out the Romans series, where I deal with this question extensively:

       https://heidelblog.net/romans

2. The most joyous aspect of this episode is the clear, emphatic presentation of the gospel – and it’s directed to ALL hearers. I can’t recall hearing such an inclusion occurring in the mainstream religious commentary on eschatology, especially in the case of these events surrounding Israel.

3. Thank you for a needed presentation of scripture and the gospel.

4. Really enjoyed the last 13 minutes of this especially, this is VERY helpful for those of us who are being deprogrammed from the Lehaye syndrome. I would wonder if Rev 18 and 19 are literal and future, and even if the thousand years are symbolic and really mean a very long time, what I am curious about is are the things that happen during that very long time literal or figurative? I have read some things by Charles Feinburg on this, I think he references Isaiah mainly, but does believe in a millenium. Rev 21 describes the new heaven, new earth, new city – are those symbolic or literal? How do we make the jump from symbolic to literal? Thanks for this BTW and for all you to encourage the Body and to tear down walls!

   • Grant,

     Get Dennis Johnson’s commentary on the Revelation.

     Take a listen to the h-cast series on eschatology.

     https://heidelblog.net/eschatology

     In general, the Revelation should be understood to be figurative unless there is good reason to think otherwise.

5. Make the coffer clink folks! These resources are worth a portion of our paychecks.

6. Thank you for this well-thought-out episode!

   • Thank you Susan.

7. ALWAYS enjoy and learn from your writings, brother Clark! I/We highly thank you, Sir✝️📖🛐

   • Thank you Rob.

     • Thank YOU, Sir, for your/Yahweh’s Ministry!✝️📖🛐👍😊

8. Excellent episode, Dr. Clark. It’s very difficult to try to exegete around what Paul says in Romans, Ephesians, and Galatians about who the people of God are as they form the Church. The Prophets, too, are far more complex and majestic to simply scour for information on what may perhaps happen in the future.

   Dispensationalism kind of reminds me of a developer that just razes the natural landscape to build a house with no tree shade (being from Florida, I have seen this too often), rather than building with the landscape and playing to its strengths. As you were talking about Romans and election, a thought occurred to me: Dispensationalism seems to be a system that tries to get around the whole idea of election and reprobation while simultaneously holding to a form of it. (Sort of like the “four-point Calvinist?”).

Comments are closed.