22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

CadyandZoe said:

We went over this. Stop putting words in my mouth. I'll tell you this. If you insult me one more time I am going to accuse you of antisemitism, which is the birthplace of Amillennalism.

Click to expand...

Keep your childish threats to yourself. They do not intimidate me or move me. There was no insults intended in my last post. There was no misrepresenting of your position. Because you could not deal with what I said you resort to threats of spreading lies about Amil. Really? Is this Christ-like? Does this advance your cause?

Your objection to my interpretation of Revelation 20 is typical of those who refuse to see a place for Israel, having not forgiven the Jews for killing the Messiah. You are not offering us anything new, just more hatred of Israel.

You are wrong about that. You are reading your view that "God rejected Israel" into the scriptures. If you see it there you brought it with you. What you fail to see, being blinded by your self-righteousness, is the fact that the focus of God was ALWAYS spiritual Israel. Since you don't see that it's no wonder you ate the bate hook, line and sinker.

Refer to Romans 11:1-6, in that passage Paul argues that God has not rejected his people and in that context he repeats what God said to the prophet, "I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” From this we know the road to salvation has never changed and that the criteria never changed. Your bogus narrative is proven wrong also by Paul's next argument, where he answers the question, "but Paul, we understand that God has not rejected Jewish believers, but what about the nation of Israel? Has God rejected that nation?" He writes, "I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be!"

There was no turning away from natural Israel, as you suppose. Rather, as Paul writes, "For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?" By this we understand that the Apostle anticipated God's acceptance of natural Israel, and the initial marker of that effort will be Israel's "rise from the dead."

Click to expand...

With the first advent of Christ, God introduced a new religious arrangement that changed the format of God’s engagement with man, and also enlarged the geographical range of His grace. Israel lost its exclusive privileged place under the new economy. The theocratic system was dismantled. The old covenant ceremonial system was replaced with a better, stronger, broader, more glorious and longer-lasting covenant. Under the new covenant there was absolutely no difference placed between Jews and Gentiles. Both enjoy equal status through faith in Christ. The New Testament expanded the Gospel thrust to embrace all nations. The new covenant knew no ethnic, political or religious boundaries. It was a global trans-national scheme that targeted a fallen world.

A lot of Christians today overlook this reality because they have a bias and faulty perspective of natural Israel. They make the mistake of viewing physical Israel today through Old Testament glasses. They fail to see that the Old Testament dispensation has gone forever and the New Testament era has fully and wholly superseded it. The old system has been totally dismantled and abolished because it was only ever intended to be a temporary covenant with an expiration date. Its conclusion occurred when Christ died on the cross. We see that with the ripping of the curtain in the temple at the very moment Jesus breathed His last breath (Matthew 27:50-51, Mark 15:37-38 and Luke 23:45-46). It therefore has no further purpose for time and eternity.

Ignorance of New Testament truth leads many to a distorted and erroneous understanding of Old Testament truth. Ironically, and paradoxically, especially allowing for how they describe themselves, many Futurists choose to live in the past. They understand ethnic Israel today in an old covenant sense, rather than a new covenant context. It is as if the old covenant is still active and valid and the new covenant has yet to arrive. Futurists seem unable (or unwilling) to recognize the seismic shift that occurred through the introduction of the new covenant. When pressed, they continually run back to the Old Testament for some type of support for a favored place for national Israel, a return of the Jews to their ancient land boundaries, the reintroduction of the old covenant apparatus, including a rebuilt physical temple, animal blood sacrifices, and a restored Old Testament priesthood. They have to pitch their tent in the Hebrew Scriptures because they have absolutely no endorsement in the New Testament for their theological model.

Sensible and enlightened Bible scholars place greater emphasis on the New Testament because it is the fuller revelation and it is where we now reside. God’s truth has been a gradual progressive unfolding and unveiling of truth to mankind from the beginning. The change and advancement that came with the New Testament era did not jettison the old Hebrew promises but rather fulfilled them. The doctrinal light became a lot clearer with Christ’s appearance and vivid illumination of the whole dynamic between the Old and the New Testament and the first and second advents. Our Lord removed the existing vail, dispelled the religious mist and has shed much-needed light on God’s redemptive plan.

Jerusalem and Zion are physical places. Only Amillennial teaching and cultists change the meaning of words to suit. The passage in Galatians does not support your idea of two Jerusalems. Rather, Paul is speaking of one Jerusalem at two different points in history. He is comparing a Jerusalem that now is . . . with a Jerusalem which is above. The locus of the comparison is "time"; Paul is comparing the current Jerusalem with the future Jerusalem. Currently Jerusalem is in bondage, but in the future, Jerusalem will be free. Both of the Jerusalems are physical.

Click to expand...

You are so entangled in Zionism that you fight with Christ, Paul and the NT writers that show true Israel to be that believing remnant that expanded out to the nations. We have been grafted into believing Israel.

Read the inspired NT text and see how the Holy Spirit deems modern-day Christ-rejecting Jerusalem, that you are mistakenly besotted with:

Galatians 4:22-31 says, “Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.”

Revelation 11:8 explicitly states, “the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.”

These are not commendations but condemnations. They expose modern-day Premil Zionism. This was theology birthed by the heretical founders of modern-day Premil - Cerenthius, Marcion and Apollinarius. Such was rejected by ancient Chiliasm and ancient Amil.

It was always God’s heart to expand His old covenant congregation (the ekklesia) out beyond the borders of national Israel, to reach the Gentile people. The Church itself was not a mystery (or secret) prior to Paul, neither was God’s great eternal plan of redemption, neither was the ingathering of the Gentiles. Passage after passage in the Old Testament predicted these events. What was a mystery was the Gentiles being “fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.” Dispensationalists make the existence of the ekklesia the “mystery” in order to support their theology, even though it has been around as long as there have been believers.

Mirroring the process that a caterpillar undergoes developing into the maturity and beauty of a colorful butterfly, the Old Testament Church underwent a significant metamorphic change in the New Testament, progressing into the current Spirit-filled international New Testament Church. The ekklesia essentially took on wings! That is not to say that we can separate the elect of God in either dispensation or view them as two different entities. Rather, we must view both as the same organic entity.

CadyandZoe said:

Wrong again. As we have seen in Romans 11:4 God has always had natural progeny of Abraham. You unwittingly have adopted the division inherent in the antisemitic Amillennial point of view, constantly attempting to do away with Abraham's natural progeny at every turn. You make race a significant division and according to your misconstrued interpretation of Paul's analogy, you focus on the flesh. But Paul's focus is NOT on the flesh. His focus is on "justification by rule keeping" otherwise known as justification by works of the law.

I do not accept your premise that the Bible recognizes a "spiritual Zion", especially because when you say "spiritual" you actually mean, "allegorical". You seem to have a fatal attraction to allegory.

Click to expand...

Not so! The Israeli theocratic tree has been cursed forever. We are now under the new covenant where there is no racial preference. We will never go back to the old arrangement. It is time to leave the old covenant behind you.

To fully understand the continuity of God’s people from the beginning, one must first grasp the difference between the outward gathering of the professing people of God in both testaments and the true elect “remnant” within that overall company. Secondly, one has to see the synonymous biblical interchange between the terms “Israel” and the “ekklesia” in Scripture. These terms overlap each other in both covenants and can refer to either the visible congregation of God (the professing community) in a general sense or the invisible congregation of God (God’s household of faith) in a narrow sense, all depending on context.

When one truly grasps a revelation of the distinction between the outward visible congregation of God’s people and His true believing elect among them, it makes it simpler to understand who God’s chosen people really are in Scripture. Racial birth, national citizenship or outward religious identification never signified automatic favor with God in any day. It was always an intimate and personal (internal and invisible) work within man. That is because God is a personal God who enjoys a living relationship with His true people.

Paul makes 3 overriding points in Romans 9–11:

· He establishes the great and lofty truth of divine election.
· He determines who true Israel is.
· He then shows how the Gentiles have been integrated into faithful Israel.

But the central (and overriding) theme that permeates Paul’s teaching in Romans 9–11 is his remnant theology. It is in these chapters that the teaching reaches its apex in regard to content and development. Paul brings much meat to the table and highlights the difference between national Israel and true remnant elect Israel. Paul also references various Old Testament Scriptures to show the continuity of the faithful remnant from the old economy to the new. He then shows on what grounds the Gentiles have been integrated into faithful Israel. He demonstrates how the New Testament congregation of God of all nations constitutes the covenant remnant of God today. He reveals how this elect company has grown to be a significant force on this earth. Paul lays all this out in a very structured, systematic and unambiguous way in these chapters.

The whole thrust of the olive tree metaphor in Romans 11 is that only the believing remnant of Israel are qualified to remain in covenant blessing. The teaching of Romans 11 in regard to one cultivated olive tree forbids the Dispensationalist ‘Separation Theology’. It also negates ‘Replacement Theology’. The New Testament congregation is clearly not a new Israel. But the analogy reinforces a faithful ‘Remnant Theology’ or an ‘Expansion Theology’ or ‘Continuation Theology’.

Ronald Nolette said:

Jesus was not even the first to be resurrected from teh dead.

He is the firstfuits of the resurrection. Meaning the first to physically rise glorified never to die!

But REv. 20 is the first resurrection of people en masse at the onset of the millenial kingdom.

If Jesus was the first resurrection then who are th epeople resurrected in teh first resurrection as it says in Rev. 20 who were beheaded fdor not taking th emark? Unless of course you do not accept what god wrote there as well and have dcided to redefine those words.


Revelation 20:4-5
King James Version

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.


Please enlighten us as to where Jesus' resurrection is mentioned here.

Anyone who believes the bible to be the word of God believes jesus rose 2000 years ago.

So please- tell us who are those mentioned in verse 4 as you say Jesus is th efirst resurrection. So this passage according to amils occurred 2,000 years ago.

As God is consistent in defining symbols and you demand the 1,000 years of revelation is symbolic as well as all other mentions of 1,000, you believe the thousand years is at least 2,000 years now? A thousand generations is at least 2,000 generations? and so on?

Click to expand...

I am shocked that you deny that Jesus is the first resurrection.

Acts 26:23 presents Christ’s physical resurrection as the first resurrection, saying, “Christ should suffer, and that He should be the first resurrection from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles."

Colossians 1:18 closely mirrors Acts 26:23, saying, “And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”

Revelation 1:5 uses the same Greek word to describe Christ’s triumphant resurrection, saying, “Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.”

Paul similarly says in 1 Corinthians 15:20, “now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.”

Revelation 20:6 simply says, “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.”

This is evidence! This is corroboration!

CadyandZoe said:

Look again. John pictures Jesus already seated on the throne. He has not pictured any sort of "Parousia."



I think you find pushback difficult.



Obviously. But I don't hold it against you. On the other hand, I think if you spent the time to understand ME and MY words, you might find the process a bit more interesting.

But aren't you the one who claims that Jesus is currently on his throne, ruling from heaven? How can you not see that the Seventh Trumpet prophecy defeats your view? You were the one who brought it up. I am always amazed when people defeat their own point of view.


The idea that time ceases to exist is a philosophical perspective that needs to be proven. I don't accept your premise that "time shall be no more."

Click to expand...

He is on the throne reigning and will come back enthroned. No Premil theology will dethrone Christ's sovereign reign over all. Since His coronation, after His ascent, He reigns over everything. He carries all power and authority. There is nothing that is not under His feet! All these Scriptures reinforce the Amil position and expose Premil.

Enoch111 said:

The one displaying his own ignorance of NT truth is Paul Malcomson. When a person FLATLY DENIES what is plainly stated in the New Testament, anything else that he says is simply rubbish.

Click to expand...

Your constant ad-hominem shows you have no answer for the biblical arguments presented. Because you can get nothing on the message you attack the messenger. That is always a sign that one has no answer to the truth displayed. Stop your avoidance and deal with the Scripture that forbid your teaching.

Phoneman777 said:

You're failing to take into account the whole testimony of Scripture, so please allow me to:

The "few men left" are the resurrected Just who are "caught up" and go back to "His father's house", as in the case of all Hebrew bridegrooms when they come to collect their brides.

How do we know these "few" that are left alive when Jesus comes and turns the Earth upside down are the resurrected "few there be that find life"???

Because Isaiah says the Earth will be "emptied" and Jeremiah says there will be "no man", got it? Good gravy, man, you've included "emptied" in your post so why are you zipping by it and pretending it's not there? How are you going to explain this "emptied" Earth away?

Also, Jeremiah says the Earth will have zero light - darker than a Nigerian ninja on a moonless night - how the flip will the Earth be pitch black Egyptian dark if the light of Jesus comes from up there and outshines our Sun with eternal brightness down here? How you gonna explain that one away, as well?

I've already brought to your attention these points, which up to now you've failed to explain, right or wrong? Are the "few men left" not caught up, leaving the Earth "emptied" and uninhabited with "no man"? Sure they are!

Click to expand...

Where are you speaking of in Jeremiah?

CadyandZoe said:

I disagree. Show us where the Bible uses the term "Israel", in context, as a synonym for the “ekklesia” You won't find more than one case. Some have pointed out Galatians 6:16. But in Romans 9-11, where Paul argues that God has not abandoned natural Israel, he never uses the term "Israel" as a reference to the “ekklesia”

Click to expand...

Under the new covenant, Gentile believers are being integrated into the citizenship of Israel. God’s promises and blessings have been extended beyond the righteous remnant of Israel to believing Gentiles who accept Christ as Lord and Savior. They are being grafted into the good Israeli olive tree by way of salvation throughout this intra-Advent period. Gentiles are being added to the household of Israel through faith in Israel’s Messiah. Under this Jewish umbrella, Gentiles enjoy favor with God and intimacy with Christ. They are now living stones in the New Testament temple. This renewed and expanded Israel includes countless Gentiles from all the nations of the world. The elect of God has grown from one single small physical nation in the Old Testament to incorporating millions of believers throughout the world today.

Paul gives us some interesting thoughts in Romans 11. In Romans 11:11-15 he teaches: “I say then, Have they (natural Israel) stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?”

The apostle continues in Romans 11:17-24: “And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them, partakest of the root and fatness [or oiliness] of the olive tree. Boast not against the branches [Israel]. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root [Jesus], but the root [Jesus] thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches [Israel] were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. 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?”

The New Testament depicts the New Testament Church as a continuation of faithful Israel. The Greek word interpreted “partakest” here is sugkoinonos which literally means co-participant. The Gentile believer is a co-participant with the Jewish believer in this spiritual organism. This couldn’t be any more inclusive. A people that were once alien to the “citizenship of Israel” have now been “graffed in among them” and (significantly) “with them partakest of the root and fatness [or oiliness] of the olive tree” (Romans 11:17).

But what Israel have the Gentiles actually been “graffed in among” or “come in” to? After all, Paul tells “Israel” this is “their own olive tree.” Are we looking at natural ethnic Israel or are we looking at spiritual believing Israel?

This is definitely not a natural Israeli tree but a spiritual Israeli tree. It describes faithful Israel. After all, if the tree was naturally Israeli instead of spiritually Israeli why would ethnic natural Israelites be cut out of that nation on the grounds of not believing in Jesus? Christ-rejecting Jews are certainly not barred from national Israeli citizenship. No, they actually make up the vast bulk amount of its inhabitants.

We are clearly looking at a spiritual tree, because partaking in its blessing and sustenance comes through the exercise of faith. Proof of that is seen in the fact that the reason they are banishment from the olive tree blessings is “unbelief” (Romans 11:20, 23, 30 and 32) The reason for Gentile acceptance was because “they … standest by faith” (Romans 11:20). This continual emphasis here on the believing Gentiles being “graffed in” to “the good olive tree” demonstrates their integration into the Israel of God (true Israel).

Galatians 6:15-16 supports the idea that we are spiritual Israel today, asserting: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”

Those that would argue that a man’s natural race carries any merit or virtue before God when it comes to salvation or that it in any way adds anything to a man’s spiritual status are severely censured by passages like Galatians 6. The reading declares, “And as many as walk according to this rule” (what rule?) – the non-racial new birth experience, – then “peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” Paul places a blessing upon all who “walk according to this rule” – all who are conformed to this standard. As Christopher W. Cowan puts: “All who have experienced the new creation in Christ will have lives that manifest conformity to it” (Context Is Everything: “The Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16). Manifestly, Paul only had one company in mind: the redeemed Church of Jesus Christ.

We should carefully consider what verse 16 is actually saying, as so many people misinterpret it: “as many as walk according to this rule (namely not looking to any hope or advantage in your natural birth but rather in a spiritual new birth), peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”

This is not telling us that there is a group of Gentile Christians that “walk according to this rule” and then there is another group of Jewish Christians that are called “the Israel of God” (as some argue). Such an interpretation would totally undo everything the writer has just taught. It would butcher the text. The “as many as walk according to this rule” are all believers. Paul message is crystal clear: there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile today. Favor with God does not come through natural birth. That only comes through the new birth. That is where we become a “new creation” in Christ. That makes both Jew and Gentile co-members of the same body of Christ and renders them “the Israel of God.” Both equally experience the gift of new creation life in Christ. This totally tears apart the Futurist argument in regard to 2 distinct groups here.

The verb interpreted “walk according to” here [Gr. stoicheō] means to keep in step with, to conform to or to follow. Paul uses the same word in Galatians 5:25: “If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk [Gr. stoicheō] in the Spirit.” Paul’s approval in Galatians 6:16 is placed upon all those who live their lives in strict conformity with the rule/standard he has just proclaimed.

Dispensationalists turns Paul’s whole argument on its head and make it nonsensical by trying to maintain a distinction between Jewish believers and Gentile believers, when that was actually the opposite to Paul’s intent and totally opposite to what he was teaching in this passage. They put a division in Galatians 6:15-16 between Jewish and Gentile believers that actually contradicts everything that Paul was actually teaching and trying to repudiate in the text. He was actually demonstrating that one’s ethnic standing meant nothing when it comes to the blessing and favour of God, but rather it is only one’s spiritual standing that counts. He then adds a postscript: “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”

CadyandZoe said:

I disagree. Show us where the Bible uses the term "Israel", in context, as a synonym for the “ekklesia” You won't find more than one case. Some have pointed out Galatians 6:16. But in Romans 9-11, where Paul argues that God has not abandoned natural Israel, he never uses the term "Israel" as a reference to the “ekklesia”

Click to expand...

Ephesians 2:11-19 declares, “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth [Gr. politeia or citizenship] of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby … Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens [Gr. sumpolites] with the saints, and of the household of God.”

We cannot fail to see that there are two distinct ethnic groupings in this reading that are supernaturally knitting together into one. Whilst they start off separate, they end up as “one new man.” There are many Christians today that try to make two out of one, but the Holy Spirit actually does the opposite. There is no “them” and us” within the body of Christ. The New Testament ultimately classifies people according to their faith in Jesus or lack thereof, not race. One is either saved or lost.

The “one new man” here is neither a Jewish man or a Gentile man but an altogether new spiritual entity comprising of all those who love Christ. Jews and Gentiles finish up sharing the same citizenship and enjoying the same blessings. Gentiles are described as being “fellowcitizens” with Jews through the sovereign work of the Lord. What is this citizenship? It is plainly and unambiguously identified in the reading as “the citizenship of Israel.” God did not create a new Israel; the Gentiles were grafted into an existing organism.

Ephesians 2:19 shows that faithful Gentiles are “no more strangers and foreigners” (as in literal outsiders), but rather have become real active participating “fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God.” Through Christ, they enjoy a common “citizenship of Israel.” They are no longer alienated. There is no distinction between them in Christ.

We should carefully note: to belong to “the citizenship of Israel” requires saving faith. This proves that we are looking at a spiritual organism. What is more, natural birthright means absolutely nothing in regards to participating in this spiritual entity. Significantly, the people of God of all races have been integrated into true Israel – spiritual Israel, not natural Christ-rejecting Israel. Those Jews that made up the membership of the early Church – faithful Israel, have been joined by faithful Gentiles throughout the nations under the select designation of “the citizenship of Israel.”

Paul the Apostle is careful in Ephesians 2 and 3 to show the tight unity and continuity between the largely Jewish Old Testament Church and the largely Gentile New Testament Church. He demonstrates how they are not two separate spiritual entities (as many modern writers try to suggest) but one harmonious whole. The lone spiritual edifice that holds the elect throughout time is symbolically described by the Apostle as both a building and a body. These are common representations for the elect elsewhere in Scripture.

Ephesians 2:21-22 shows how both are “builded together” and “framed together” into a “building,” “an holy temple” and “an habitation of God through the Spirit.” The people of God throughout time are frequently described throughout the New Testament in building terms. They are figuratively described in Scripture as a spiritual construction that is built up in Christ into “the temple of God” (1 Corinthians 3:16-17). “God's building” (1 Corinthians 3:9) – “built up in him and stablished in the faith” (Colossians 2:6-7) “as lively stones” – is “built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5).

CadyandZoe said:

I disagree with this perspective. The central theme of Romans 9-11 is an objection to the gospel Roman Christians will often hear from Jews living in Rome. That is, Paul's gospel can't be true because his gospel teaches that God's word to Israel has failed. Your argument is that God's promises to Israel were not meant for "natural" or "physical" Israel. They were meant for "spiritual" Israel instead. This is partially correct, but incomplete information.

First of all, in Romans 9-11, Paul never combines Jews and Gentiles into a single entity known as the “ekklesia” . He makes this point earlier in the first eight chapters, but when he gets to Romans chapter 9, he begins an entirely new point. In the first eight chapters, he argues for a unified church based on faith. In chapter 4, for instance, he argues that God is justifying all those who have the same faith as Abraham, both Jews and Gentiles. But Paul is very careful NOT to use the term "Israel" in those eight chapters. He NEVER uses the term "Israel" to indicate any one or any other nation or group other than the decedents of Jacob and the nation which came from them, Israel.

Click to expand...

The principal element that joins the old and the new, Jew and Gentile, together is shown to be Jesus Christ. He overlaps both covenants, He brings a continuity in salvation and is at the core of meeting man’s greatest need in any day. Paul, in Romans 9:30-33, shows how one’s response to Christ will ultimately determine one’s eternal destiny. Accept Him, and experience eternal life. Reject Him, and experience eternal damnation. Participation in God’s elect remnant therefore is determined by our relationship with Jesus – man’s redeemer and Israel’s only Messiah. Paul presents Christ as the epicenter of man’s favor with God. He supports his teaching with the analogy of a figurative stone which the elect embrace but the religious balk at. He refers back to the Old Testament to Psalm 118:22 and Isaiah 8:14 to support his thesis.

Romans 9:30-33 records: “the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”

Paul shows how national religious Israel missed the boat because they rejected Christ (“they stumbled at that stumblingstone”). Also, they were bound to a religious aberration that revolved around keeping the law. The fact is: none of them could keep it. They were totally deceived if they thought they could. They were not a believing people which is why they were cut out of the good Israeli olive tree. On the other hand, Paul shows natural Gentiles (heathens) embracing that stone, experiencing salvation, and entering into the favor of God. Albert Barnes explains: “This rock, designed as a corner stone to the church, became, by the wickedness of the Jews, the block over which they fall into ruin.”

Through Calvary, the Gentiles have been brought into a new realm, a new spiritual status, and therefore enjoy a new citizenship, with new sanctified benefits. Gentile believers united with Jewish believers on an equal basis, inhabiting God’s Zion. Christ taught this same truth (that Paul shares in Romans 9:30-33) in Matthew 21:42-44 – relating various messianic prophecies to Himself (only adding Isaiah 28:16 to the mix). By doing this, Christ reveals the literal fulfilment of these figurative Old Testament prophecies in our day. In Matthew 21:44, Jesus laid it out as straight and simple as it could honestly be said: “whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.” Nothing has changed today!

Dispensationalists argue that Romans 9–11 is all about ethnic Israel. But it clearly isn’t! They fail to see that it is primarily focused on Christ and His spiritual elect (irrespective of race). They miss how the apostle defines who true Israel is and demonstrates how believing Gentiles would be integrated into faithful Israel on the grounds of saving faith. This is seen in the detailed symbolism in these chapters of the good olive tree. The whole analogy is central to his reasoning. He focuses on national Israel because there was so much confusion in the fledgling Church as to ethnic Israel’s place (or not) in the plan of God, with the introduction of the new covenant. Paul addresses this in great detail to give a proper perspective. But natural Israel is an extra in the main play, both in this narrative and in repeated New Testament instruction.

Let us look at Paul’s arguments!

Paul’s first argument is personal. He supports his contention by presenting himself as exhibit A: “For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.” He volunteers himself as tangible proof of God’s continued faithfulness toward Israel. We should recognize, there is no more compelling a spiritual argument than personal testimony. Paul proves that by presenting himself as an evidence of a chosen Israeli. God had not (nor has not) completely cast away Israel, Paul was living proof of this nearly 2,000 years ago. Even though much of Israel rejected Christ, not all did. Thus, Paul is saying not all Israel rejected the Messiah.

Please note, he did not present the continued survival of national Israel as proof (which many mistakenly do today), no, but rather his own personal relationship with God. He presents his own credentials as “an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin,” as proof that God has not finished with Israel. Paul was showing that he was living evidence that God has not turned his back on all Israel.

Paul’s second argument is theological: “God has hath not cast away his people” (Romans 11:2). Paul builds upon what he has been previously teaching in Romans 8 and 9. His teaching in Romans 8:29–30 and the whole of Romans 9 set the stage for this. God in His infinite wisdom chooses who He wishes. Paul underlines his overriding argument in Romans 9:18: “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” Romans 9:21 sums up the whole matter succinctly: “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”

Salvation does not emanate from man. It cannot be realized by human effort. Man can no more create his second birth than he can his first birth. It is a Sovereign act of God’s mercy. This may be humbling to the flesh, but it is so. Professor R. Scott Clark asks: “Has God rejected his people? No, the elect are His people and all the elect will be saved … God’s election of some and reprobation of others are the twin facts of the history of redemption which Paul brings to bear on the question of ‘Who is the Israel of God?’”

Paul’s third argument is historic: "Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.”

He presents Elijah’s day where there was a very small remnant of true Israelites (7,000 in number) as support for the fact that God always has a faithful people who remain in covenant arrangement with their Lord. This proved that his day was not unique or unprecedented at all. McArthur adds: “There are only selected ones of faith who are the true Israel. God always in all Israel’s history had a small remnant that was His elect. In Elijah’s time there were only 7,000 who hadn't bowed to Baal” (Is God finished with Israel? Part 1).

This historic reference to Elijah’s day is pivotal to Paul's argument in Romans 11. It serves to reinforce his case that God has not cast off His people. Michael G. Vanlaningham contends: “By the use of 1 Kings 19, Paul demonstrates that … God’s plans for the Jews had not failed. He had not rejected His people. On the contrary, the gracious preservation of a (small) remnant had been squarely within God's sovereign plan throughout history” (Paul’s use of Elijah's Mt. Horeb experience in Rom 11:2-6).

Paul’s fourth argument is covenantal. He concludes his argument proving God was faithful to His covenantal obligations by asserting: “there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” Here was his legal case, and it was water tight. Paul was tireless in demonstrating that God was a covenant-keeping-God. He shows that Yahweh did not break His Word or forsake His true people Israel. He was faithful in all His dealings with His elect. God did not wipe His hands clean of Israel at the first advent. No! He stayed committed to the believing element within national Israel. This was true Israel (Romans 9:6).

Paul is careful to demonstrate God’s ongoing covenantal favor to Israel through the continuation of a faithful remnant in his day. He shows this enlightened company to be part of the ongoing historic existence of true Israel, not some brand new faction. This is integral to his whole argument that God has not abandoned Israel.