ECT There is no difference

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
The "advantage" of the Jew in Rom 3:2 was to have been entrusted with the spoken words of God. This is significant in Romans because Paul is going to bring the race Israel back to this in chs 9-11 to say that it is their mission (or, the mission is in better hands) to preach the Gospel to the nations because of their background. There is of course no thought for the geographic location of Israel.

However, notice that after showing that a chunk of the race didn't believe and is to be judged and complains about that judgement, Paul asks again in v9 if we should conclude that we are any better or worse than them. I believe he is speaking about the current generation of Israel that is to perish in the fire and war of the DofJ.

The answer is no, because everything is relative to what God accomplished in Christ. V22, actually 'through faith of Jesus Christ' is correctly placed with Gal 2's 'the faith of Christ' as having an objective meaning. Neither are about a person's faith in Christ, but about what Christ accomplished. That is the righteousness of God that is apart from the law.

There is no advantage to either the race or the observance of the law. So v22 ends with 'there is no difference' repeating from abov e (v9, 20).

And again, there is no boasting. It is excluded because of the 'faith of Jesus Christ.' That's the "principle" of v27.

Again, v29: God is never the God of the Jews only, but of both. God justifies through the 'faith of Jesus Christ' or else does not justify.

Again, ch 4. There was no advantage to Abraham in his race; he was Persian. Nor of his circumcision. The promise of v16 is justification from sins, and those who believe on what Christ accomplished are the 'nations' promised to Abraham.

We don't hear of the 'advantage' question again for a while in Romans. Obviously, there is no advantage in being of the race of Israel in 9:22+, which is based again on the fact that Abraham's seed are those who have faith of Christ; ch 9 belongs right after ch 4 in many ways.

In 10:12 it is back. "There is no difference." 9:30--10:12 continue ch 4 more than ch 5, 6, 7, 8. The question is right back to the righteousness that is of the law vs that of the faith of Christ. The Abrahamic promise of the mission to the nations does not get its power from the race of Israel or from law observance.

So: not all the Israelites accepted the Gospel. Only the remnant did, and that's not an expresion coined by Paul here; it is from the quote from Is 10 in ch 9 about 'even though the number of Israelites be like the sand of the seashore...' That is the basis that God is not doing anything with the race as such, anymore than he is doing anything special for those who observe the law. Nor will He in the future.

"At the present time, there is a remnant chosen by grace."

11:11--24 shows that those with natural roots will be an advantage in the mission to the nations, but no one will stand by race or works; only by faith.

Then comes "In this manner..." of v26. The manner has been explained beyond question.

The "they" of v31 is not all mankind but the race of Israel. They receive their mercy in Christ just like the Gentiles, and not in a future restoration of the land or state. That verse alone is what precludes any two program scheme. Those who believe such Mercy go on to become living sacrifices (witnesses) for Christ, which is spiritual worship vs. the mechanical kind at the temple.

The mechanical kind at the temple is 'the pattern of this world' (12:2) The Gospel transfers a person away from the 'pattern of this world.' Paul will mention this again in 15:16 where he is has a 'priestly' duty of preaching to the nations, so that they are in turn an 'offering' in the 'temple' for God.

"there is no difference" again in 15:7. Not the exact words, of course. But how to act. Christ fulfilled the promises to the fathers so that Gentiles (but really, all) can glorify God for his mercy, tying this back to the end of ch 11. Four OT texts solidify this.

The Gentiles have "shared in the spiritual blessings of the Jews" so they should help those Jewish believers in miserable conditions over in Judea at that present time. Miserable indeed.

Clearly a 2nd program for the race/law of Israel is the furthest thing from the mind of the apostle.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Its interesting - you are basically erroneously asserting that if not for a change in who was going to carry out "the mission" all would have been lost.

STP and company assert something similar, unaware that is what they too are doing.

Or as they put it "without Ephesians 2" (their erroneous version of it) "we Non-Blesser Gentiles would have had no hope."

They also hold to one heck of skewed version of Romans.

You two ought to come together, form a meeting of hybrid minds, and by that put away your differences aside; at last.

In fact, you could adopt the following by Etta James as your United Hybrids Theme Song.

At last my love has come along
My lonely days are over and life is like a song, oh yeah
At last the skies above are blue
My heart was wrapped up clover the night I looked at you
I found a dream that I could speak to
A dream that I can call my own
I found a thrill to press my cheek to
A thrill I've never known, oh yeah
You smiled, you smiled oh and then the spell was cast
And here we are in Heaven
For you are mine at last

:chuckle:
 
I

iamaberean

New member
Interplanner said:
The "advantage" of the Jew in Rom 3:2 was to have been entrusted with the spoken words of God. This is significant in Romans because Paul is going to bring the race Israel back to this in chs 9-11 to say that it is their mission (or, the mission is in better hands) to preach the Gospel to the nations because of their background. There is of course no thought for the geographic location of Israel.
Click to expand...

Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

One must assume that Jesus and the Apostles knew where the lost sheep of the house of Israel were. We, on the other hand, did not know until the tablets of the Assyrian were found and translated.]

http://asis.com/users/stag/tablets.html
 
Last edited:
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Of course not, why would it?
He's talking about the Body of Christ, in the dispensation of the gospel.
Click to expand...




Which was called the fulness of times. A kingdom in Israel was not even considered and was NOT called the fulness of times. Go take your other agenda and dump on it.

I'm saying it NEVER was a thought. I don't see these people as bi-polar or walking contradictions or schitzophrenic like you and D'ism seem to be so much that such thinking is the new NORMAL. I'm saying the NT is clear that that kind of kingdom NEVER was a thought and it is saying it retroactively back in to the OT, so that the belief that the geographic Jerusalem was intended is a man made myth of Judaism. It is part of the 'weak and miserable elements of the world.' It is not in the OT, but there are people who have generated and industry and a Big Lie that it is there, and enslaved many people. Just read Gal 4 10x.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Regarding the OP,

Matthew 10:23 (KJV)
Click to expand...



To get the mission started and trained, idiot. But the mission was always going to the Gentiles, Mt 4, not just because of 1 lonely quote of Isaiah in Mt 4 but because of the coherent meaning of the OT all along, which was never about geographic Israel or Jerusalem. Heb 11 says it always was about the one above, and Gal 4 likewise. Because the one below is enslaved. The mission to the nations, not a kingdom in israel, always was the goal and objective. it always was what Acts 13's promise meant was the culmination of all promise. It always was the reason 'a kingdom for Israel' is nowhere in the NT.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
You "Di'sts" have no idea what the dispensation of the fulness of time means!!! This tthing, this kingdom, this powerful spread of the Gospel, ALWAYS was the plan of God. Israel was supposed to be missionaries. God had no other plan. He has nothing else he is doing just for Israel. That is a BEIC plan for Zionism.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Interplanner said:
Which was called the fulness of times.
Click to expand...
With a reading comprehension score of zilch, you need to go back to school....

Paul says that the dispensation of the fullness of times is YET FUTURE....

Eph 1:9-12 (AKJV/PCE)​
(1:9) Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: (1:10) That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him: (1:11) In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: (1:12) That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. ​

THAT in the dispensation of the fullness of time he MIGHT father together.... all FUTURE!

Not HAS GATHERED.... but MIGHT GATHER.... you are BOTH a fiction reader and writer.
 
D

DAN P

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
You "Di'sts" have no idea what the dispensation of the fulness of time means!!! This tthing, this kingdom, this powerful spread of the Gospel, ALWAYS was the plan of God. Israel was supposed to be missionaries. God had no other plan. He has nothing else he is doing just for Israel. That is a BEIC plan for Zionism.
Click to expand...



Hi and you believe in Matt 28:19 and 20 that the 12 should of , gone and preached to THE NATIONS / ETHNOS where NATION / ETHNOS can mean , GENTILE , NATION , RACE , OR HEATHEN !!

Israel was to preach to their OWN as Acts 3:38 and especially verse 39 !!

The GIFT in Acts 2:38 is in the Greek FUTURE TENSE as you should know and close your eyes and just as blind as Israel !!

Rev 6:9 and Rev 7:4-8 are the missonaries that reach the Jews scattered abroad as Acts 2:39 is speaking too !!

dan p
 
D

DAN P

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
To the Gentiles, after the LORD returned, yes.
Very simple.
Click to expand...



Hi and IT does not believe that there are Gentiles in the Millennial Kingdom and Gentiles are grafted into the Olve Tree in Rom 11;13 , 17 and 21 , 22 !!

And does not no what Matt 25:33 is talking about !!

dan p
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
To the Gentiles, after the LORD returned, yes.
Very simple.
Click to expand...




Your communication skill is the pits, STP. Returned? Which? Please don't write anything anymore unless you write a whole paragraph or a page. It is total misunderstanding. Complete thoughts, including what you don't mean. Every sentence needs to ask the W questions and checked to make sure you answer them AFTER you write them. Got it?

'Paragraphs are to sentences, what sentences are to words.'
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
DAN P said:
Hi and IT does not believe that there are Gentiles in the Millennial Kingdom and Gentiles are grafted into the Olve Tree in Rom 11;13 , 17 and 21 , 22 !!

And does not no what Matt 25:33 is talking about !!

dan p
Click to expand...





The reign of Christ is now as all the gospels show, and as the verb 'power' shows in Acts 1. That was the power of the kingdom. it is what Daniel said was coming, and it came. There is no stopping it, though it is by faith. It is not like the state governments of this world. It is not a kingdom in Israel.

Only D'ists miss this arrived kingdom when they read Acts 1, 2, 3 etc.

So that is how I believe 'the Gentiles are in the kingdom' and grafted in, because it always was by faith. I know what the ordinary language passages are saying (there is no Judaic kingdom or aspect to the future); no system falls just because they 'don't know what Mt 25:33 means.' That is stupidity.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
To the Gentiles, after the LORD returned, yes.
Very simple.
Click to expand...




You see, knowing your view of things, there are no less than 3 places where you might be hanging this and your post is prob the stupidest thing I've seen today. do you ever re-read? You are painful. and to top it off, you call it 'simple.'

The New Covenant preceded the old because it was from everlasting. The old was added 'because of transgressions'--to show the magnitude of transgressions, until the Seed came! That slavery is not needed anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top