William Tyndale and John Gill On the Anti-Christ

[tulsa 2011]

William Tyndale and John Gill On the Anti-Christ

When claiming that the early church fathers interpreted I John 2: 18 and I John 4: 2-3 to mean that there is to be a future one man anti-Christ who is a political leader, the actual quotes for this need to be shown. They may be using the singular anti-Christ as a type, when, in fact, they are not saying there is to be one anti-Christ in the future. And they are sometimes talking about the man of sin of II Thessalonians 2: 3-7 and not the prophecy in I John 2 and 4. In addition, in referring the the anti-Christ type, the early church fathers were talking about anti-Christs being religious guys, like Simon Magus, the Menandrians, Saturnilians, Basilidians, Nicolaites, Gnostics, Carpocratians, Cerinthians, Ebionites, and Nazarenes, not political leaders.

"Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt... I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy." John Calvin, in the Institutes.

Calvin was applying the prophecy of the anti-Christ to one man, the Pope.

Yet, early in the Reformation, William Tyndale, and later in 1697 to 1771, a follower of Calvinism who was an English Baptist, John Gill, do not agree with Calvin - if Calvin means that the prophecy of anti-Christ applies to one man only and is totally fulfilled in that one man anti-Christ. Calvin may have agreed that there were other anti-Christs before the Pope and would be others after the Pope..

William Tyndale said "The Jews look for Christ, and he came fifteen hundred years ago and they are not aware of it. And we also have looked for Antichrist, and he hath reigned as long, and we are not aware – and that because we both look carnally for him, and not in the places where we ought … The Jews would have found Christ verily if they had sought him in the law and the prophets, whither Christ sendeth them to seek. (John v.) We also would have spied out Antichrist long ago if we had looked in the doctrine of Christ and his apostles." Tyndale, Parable of the Wicked Mammon, Benedicton Classics facsimile reprint, 2008, p 5.

William Tyndale lived from 1494 to 1536 and was one of the important early reformers. He translated the Bible from the original Greek and Hebrew, while earlier English translations were from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. Tyndale consistently translated ekklesia as congregation, except for Acts 14: 13 and Acts 19: 37 where he used churche, meaning a pagan place of worship. Tyndale was the first English translator of the Textus Receptus to use "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie" in II Thessalonians 2: 11.

The William Tyndale Bible of 1526 for II Thessalonians 2: 3-7 says "Let no man deceive you by any means, for the Lord cometh not, except there come a departing first, and that sinful man be opened, the son of perdition which is an adversary, and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshipped: so that he shall sit in the temple of god, and shew himself as god. Remember ye not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth: even that he might be uttered at his time. For already the mystery of iniquity worketh. Only he that holdeth, let him now hold, until he be taken out of the way.."

The King James Version for II Thessalonians 2: 6-7 is different,and says "And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way."

The key difference between the King James and the Tyndale translation is the English word "holdeth," in Tyndale's Bible, from katecho, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Number 2722, "to hold down, withhold..." Letteth in the King James can mean to restrain. But Tyndale translates it as "holdeth," meaning to lock in place that takeover of the temple of God in the believer by the sinful man.

The King James Version supports the interpretation that the man of sin is to appear sometime in a future when the restrainer is taken out of the way. Since Paul says that the falling away from sound doctrine is to occur at the time of the appearing of the man of sin, then the King James Version could also support the idea that the falling away is also some time in the future, and has not begun to occur yet.

Tyndale added the word spirit to I John 4: 3, an addition followed by the King James Version of 1611. Literally, the Greek says for I John 4: 3, και παν πνευμα ο μη ομολογει τον ιησουν χριστον εν σαρκι εληλυθοτα εκ του θεου ουκ εστιν και τουτο εστιν το του αντιχριστου ο ακηκοατε οτι ερχεται και νυν εν τω κοσμω εστιν ηδη

There is no πνευμα (pneuma, spirit) following και τουτο εστιν το (and this is that) του αντιχριστου (of the antichrist). Tyndale added spirit for the word which is left out of John's Greek.

"And every spirit which confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God. And this is that spirit of Antichrist of whom ye have heard how that he shuld come: and even now already is he in the world." Tyndale Bible for I John 4: 3

On the issue of whether there is a future one man anti-Christ or the spirit of anti-Christ has been around a long time and exists now, John Gill gives a view of the anti-Christ held by him and probably reflecting the view of others at the time (1697-1771).
I John 2: 18

"The apostle might well say there were many, since in his time were the followers of Simon Magus, the Menandrians, Saturnilians, Basilidians, Nicolaites, Gnostics, Carpocratians, Cerinthians, Ebionites, and Nazarenes, as reckoned up by Epiphanius. And hence we learn, that antichrist is not one single individual, but many; antichrist in the former clause is explained by antichrists in this; see ( 1 John 2:22 ) ( 1 John 4:1 1 John 4:3 ) ( 2 John 7 ) ; and though the popes of Rome are, by way of eminence, the antichrist that should come, and which those deceivers were the forerunners of, and paved the way for; yet they are not the only antichrists, there were others before them, and there are many now besides them."

I John 4:3

"And this is that [spirit] of antichrist:
who is against Christ, or opposes himself to him; as he who denies his sonship, his deity, his humanity, his offices, and his grace, manifestly does; every doctrine that is calculated against these truths is the spirit and doctrine of antichrist:"

The dispensationalist "hermeneutic" on their one man anti-Christ goes sort of like this:...First, decide that there is to be a future one man anti-Christ, and then take each sentence in I John 2: 18 and in I John 4: 2-3 to be separate from the other verses and assume that each verse creates a doctrine on anti-Christ. Then pick out the first sentence of I John 2: 18, "Little children, it is the last time, and as ye have heard that anti-Christ shall come..." and use this to prove that there is a future one man anti-Christ figure.

How can John be saying there is one anti-Christ, but there are many anti-Christs when he was writing and that there is a spirit of anti-Christ? The answer is that he is not saying there is one anti-Christ, but he is using the singular anti-Christ as a type, or you might say an office. The second beast of Revelation 13: 11-18 is not identified there as the False Prophet, but what this beast does shows he is the False Prophet, but not one man. Again, he is a type, or an office of False Prophet, where the office is filled at any one time by a huge number of individuals. The type, False Prophet, is thrown into the lake of fire in Revelation 19: 20.

Why is it so important to dispensationalists that the prophecies on anti-Christ in I John refer to one individual anti-Christ who is to come in the future and do not refer to a spirit of anti-Christ which has existed all along and means a rejection of Christ, or a severe diminishing of him and of his Gospel? One reason is to take attention away from any idea that Israel of the flesh is of the spirit of anti-Christ. In supporting Israel of the flesh, dispensationalists do not want to be seen as supporting the spirit of antichrist, so they replace the anti-Christ spirit by a one man figure who is not here now but will come sometime in the future.

 

[NoHype]

Be careful brethren, there are some today that want us to believe our Lord Jesus and His Apostles did not warn us of a particular Antichrist entity coming at the end of this world to exalt himself as king, and in place of our Lord Jesus Christ. The following early Christian Church fathers understood the New Testament Scripture warnings about the coming singular Antichrist-false Messiah for the end, as the following quotes do reveal:

Irenaeus


"y means of the events which shall occur in the time of the Antichrist it is shown that he, being an apostate and a robber, is anxious to be adored as God, and that although a mere slave, he wishes to be proclaimed as king. For he, being endued with all the power of the devil, shall not come as a righteous king nor as a legitimate king in subjection to God, but as an impious, unjust, and lawless one . . . setting aside idols to persuade [men] that he himself is God, raising himself up as the only idol. . . . Moreover [Paul] has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways: that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God [2 Thess. 2:4] . . . in which the enemy shall sit, endeavoring to show himself as Christ" (Against Heresies 5:25:1-2 [A.D. 189]).

"But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months and will sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire" (ibid., 5:30:4).

Hippolytus

"Now as our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also God, was prophesied of under the figure of a lion, on account of his royalty and glory, in the same way have the scriptures also beforehand spoken of Antichrist as a lion, on account of his tyranny and violence. For the deceiver seeks to liken himself in all things to the Son of God. Christ is a lion, so Antichrist is also a lion. Christ is a king, so Antichrist is also a king. The Savior was manifested as a lamb, so he too in like manner will appear as a lamb without; within he is a wolf. The Savior came into the world in the circumcision [i.e., the Jewish race], and he will come in the same manner. . . . The Savior raised up and showed his holy flesh like a temple, and he will raise a temple of stone in Jerusalem" (The Antichrist 6 [A.D. 200]).


"[W]e find it written regarding Antichrist . . . ‘Dan is a lion’s whelp, and he shall leap from Bashan’ [Deut. 33:22]. But that no one may err by supposing that this is said of the Savior, let him attend carefully to the matter. Dan, he says, is a lion’s whelp. And in naming the tribe of Dan, he declared clearly the tribe from which Antichrist is destined to spring. For as Christ springs from the tribe of Judah, so Antichrist is to spring from the tribe of Dan. And that the case stands thus, we see also from the words of Jacob: ‘Let Dan be a serpent, lying upon the ground, biting the horse’s heel’ [Gen. 49:17]. What then is meant by the serpent but Antichrist, that deceiver who is mentioned in Genesis [Gen. 3:1], who deceived Eve and supplanted Adam? . . . t is in reality out of the tribe of Dan, then, that tyrant and king, that dread judge, that son of the devil, is destined to spring and arise" (ibid., 14).

"Above all, moreover, he will love the nation of the Jews. And with all these [Jews] he will work signs and terrible wonders, false wonders and not true, in order to deceive his impious equals. . . . And after that he will build the temple in Jerusalem and will restore it again speedily and give it over to the Jews" (Discourse on the End of the World 23-25 [A.D. 217]).

Tertullian

"[T]he man of sin, the son of perdition, who must first be revealed before the Lord comes, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped; and who is to sit in the temple of God and boast himself as being God. . . . According indeed to our view, he is Antichrist; as it is taught us in both the ancient and the new prophecies, and by the apostle John, who says that ‘already many false prophets have gone out into the world,’ the forerunners of Antichrist, who deny that Christ is come in the flesh, and do not acknowledge Jesus, meaning in God the Creator" (Against Marcion 5:16 [A.D. 210]).


Lactantius

"[A] king shall arise out of Syria, born from an evil spirit, the overthrower and destroyer of the human race, who shall destroy that which is left by the former evil, together with himself. . . . But that king will not only be most disgraceful in himself, but he will also be a prophet of lies, and he will constitute and call himself God, and will order himself to be worshipped as the Son of God, and power will be given to him to do signs and wonders, by the sight of which he may entice men to adore him. He will command fire to come down from heaven and the sun to stand and leave his course, and an image to speak, and these things shall be done at his word. . . . Then he will attempt to destroy the temple of God and persecute the righteous people" (Divine Institutes 7:17 [A.D. 307]).


Cyril of Jerusalem

"This aforementioned Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman Empire shall have been fulfilled, and the end of the world is drawing near. There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts, perhaps, but all reigning at the same time. After these there shall be an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by the evil craft of his magic shall seize upon the Roman power. Of the kings who reigned before him, three shall he humble [Dan. 7:24], and the remaining seven he shall have as subjects under him. At first he shall feign mildness—as if he were a learned and discreet person—and sobriety and loving kindness" (Catechetical Lectures 15:12 [A.D. 350]).


"Having beguiled the Jews by the lying signs and wonders of his magical deceit, until they believe he is the expected Christ, he shall afterwards be characterized by all manner of wicked deeds of inhumanity and lawlessness, as if to outdo all the unjust and impious men who have gone before him. He shall display against all men, and especially against us Christians, a spirit that is murderous and most cruel, merciless and wily. For three years and six months only shall he be the perpetrator of such things; and then he shall be destroyed by the glorious second coming from heaven of the only-begotten Son of God, our Lord and Savior Jesus, the true Christ, who shall destroy him with the breath of his mouth [2 Thess. 2:8], and deliver him over to the fire of Gehenna" (ibid.).
==================================================

The doctrine of the coming Antichrist being an individual, a wicked person, a lawless one, who will exalt himself as a king, and as God, demanding to be worshipped as God, was the common ground these early Church fathers all had. Even Tertullian per the above understood Apostle John was speaking of the "many antichrists" only as "forerunners of Antichrist", meaning servants of the Antichrist that come working prior to his coming.

Another understanding they had in common was the Antichrist exalting himself over the Jews involving Jerusalem and the temple in Jerusalem. They well understood Apostle Paul was not speaking of some spiritual temple idea in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, but a literal temple of the Jews in Jerusalem where the Antichrist will exalt himself as God, and over all that is called God or that is worshipped, just as Apostle Paul stated in that Scripture.

There are other Bible Scripture proofs of this coming singular Antichrist figure for the end of this world. Our Lord Jesus in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 warned of a coming pseudochristos (KJV "false Christs", but the meaning is 'a pseudo Christ' from that Greek word) that will come to Jerusalem and work great signs and wonders that if possible, deceive Christ's own very elect.

In the Book of Daniel about the "little horn" and "vile person", Daniel was given this prophecy of that Antichrist coming to end the daily sacrifices and place the abomination idol that makes desolate, which our Lord Jesus connected with that pseudochristos working for the endin Matt.24 and Mark 13.

In Revelation 13, our Lord Jesus through His Apostle John warned us of this Antichrist as the "another beast" that appears with two horns like a lamb, but speaks as a dragon, and how he will work great signs, wonders, and miracles, raining fire down from heaven in the sight of men, and will cause all to bow to the "image of the beast" that he will setup in false worship.

Since this amount of Scripture evidence exists about the coming false one, the Antichrist, exalting himself in place to God for the end of this world, with major warnings to not be deceived by that false one per our Lord Jesus and His Apostles, then WHY... would some men want our Christian brethren to deny the existence of that prophecy for the end? Why do they not want us to understand even like the early Church fathers did about a coming singular Antichrist person?

The reason is... to deceive you, my brethren in Jesus Christ. If they can get you to deny all that Scripture evidence of a singular Antichrist figure, and instead make you believe it is only about a spiritual concept only, will you then be on watch for the coming Antichrist false one, so as to not be deceived by him? No, you will not be looking, on guard against that coming Antichrist.

Who instead might you believe that coming Antichrist would be if... you didn't know a specific Antichrist person is to come first prior to our Lord Jesus' coming? You could easily... be persuaded that Antichrist is our Lord Jesus! That is where the doctrine of men that there is no specific Antichrist in prophecy originates from. It's from Satan's servants who want you to be deceived into worshipping their false 'rock' when he comes to exalt himself in place of our Lord Jesus Christ in the temple in Jerusalem like Apostle Paul revealed, and also those early Church fathers revealed.

Clearly this understanding about the end has been forgotten by the majority of Christian Churches today, and some of them are so against it that they continually attempt to trick believers into thinking it never was a held Christian Doctrine in the early Christian Church. The reality is that through the later centuries 'other' doctrines crept into the Church to try persuade brethren away from this understanding about a coming singular Antichrist per Scripture. The Reformation era certainly was no help on this matter, as many of my Protestant brethren were continually taught that the pope is the Antichrist, as some still believe today (no, I am not a Catholic, I'm a Protestant Christian).

 

[Travis]

Be careful brethren, there are some today that want us to believe our Lord Jesus and His Apostles did not warn us of a particular Antichrist entity coming at the end of this world to exalt himself as king, and in place of our Lord Jesus Christ. The following early Christian Church fathers understood the New Testament Scripture warnings about the coming singular Antichrist-false Messiah for the end, as the following quotes do reveal:

See, now that is helpful that you actually quote the early church fathers here for us to read. That's all I really wanted before when you mentioned the early church fathers, is for you to be more specific and show us some of the things they said.

Now concerning the word anti-Christ. When the bible uses the specific word anti-Christ, it refers to the spirit of anti-Christ, or many number of men who are anti-Christs, etc... It's been a while since I've looked into this, but I do not remember ever seeing any scripture that precisely referenced anti-Christ as one specific person that will rise up at the very end of the age. Now, the scriptures talk about the "son of perdition," "the lawless one," "the little horn," etc etc. I think that is a reference to a single person. And perhaps we can call that same person 'The' anti-Christ, and have it make sense. But I don't think that the scriptures ever explicitly refer to this one person as The anti-Christ.

Just saying,

Travis

 

[tulsa 2011]

This is part of a quote on the anti-Christ, or anti-Christ spirit: "There is the Antichrist that denies every manifestation of God in your flesh, this is the ***** that you commit fornication with daily. This is the Babylon, whose downfall will be joyous to the saints. This is the heretic and the schismatic.

This it is that which makes rents and divisions among us: and therefore we ought everyone of us, to desire God to subdue the wisdom of the flesh in us, and to wait upon the Lord until He comes to show us the judgment of the spiritual *****, this Antichrist in us; and not so much desire downfall of either Pope, Presbyter, or Independent, or any other state whatsoever; but to desire the ruin of this mystical Babylon, which in us, is the Mother of all our harlotry from the Lord." - Joseph Salmon, "Antichrist in Man"

The anti-Christ spirit diminishes the finished work of Jesus Christ on the Cross. Focusing on a one man anti-Christ who is to appear in the future and fulfill the dispensationalist view of I John 2: 18 and I John 4: 2-3 hinders us from getting rid of the anti-Christ spirit in us. Yet there are religious people who promote the spirit of anti-Christ and can be said to be anti-Christs and they are getting worse toward the end.

The man of sin of II Thessalonians 2: 3-7 is within those who claim to be Christians. The man of sin sits in the temple of God, which in the New Covenant is within the Christian (I Corinthians 3: 16-17, I Corinthians 6: 19). Joseph Salmon may be assuming that Paul's man of sin is the same as John's anti-Christ or spirit of anti-Christ. Yet the spirit of anti-Christ has subtle differences from the false prophet spirit. Both can move us away from what Christ did on the Cross and can lead us to compromise his Gospel, and the Gospel is not limited to what Paul says in I Corinthians 15: 1-8. II John 1: 9-11 refers to the doctrine of Christ, which are all the doctrines given by Christ and revealed by him to his Apostles.

 

[NoHype]

See, now that is helpful that you actually quote the early church fathers here for us to read. That's all I really wanted before when you mentioned the early church fathers, is for you to be more specific and show us some of the things they said.

The serious Bible student still would have taken time to look into those early Church fathers, which I assumed most here had, but I was wrong on that. And my posting that evidence still doesn't seem to matter with some here who would still rather hold to doctrines of men against it that later crept into the Church.

Now concerning the word anti-Christ. When the bible uses the specific word anti-Christ, it refers to the spirit of anti-Christ, or many number of men who are anti-Christs, etc...

A direct translation from the Greek of the word "antichrist" is from 2 Greek words, anti and Christos. Anti in the Greek can also mean 'instead of', or 'in place of'.


From Smith's Bible Dictionary:

"Antichrist
This term is employed by the apostle John alone, and is defined by him in a manner which leaves no doubt as to its intrinsic meaning. With regard to its application there is less certainty. In the first passage-- ( 1 John 2:18 ) --in which it occurs, the apostle makes direct reference to the false Christs whose coming, it had been fore-told, should mark the last days. In v. 22 we find, "he is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son;" and still more positively, "every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of antichrist." Comp. ( 2 John 1:7 ) From these emphatic and repeated definitions it has been supposed that the object of the apostle in his first epistle was to combat the errors of Cerinthus, the Docetae and the Gnostics on the subject of the Incarnation. (They denied the union of the divine and human in Christ.) The coming of Antichrist was (believed to be foretold in the "vile person" of Daniels prophecy, ( Daniel 11:21 ) which received its first accomplishment in Antiochus Epiphanes but of which the complete fulfillment was reserved for the last times. He is identified with "the man of sin, the son of perdition." ( 2 Thessalonians 2:3 ) This interpretation brings Antichrist into close connection with the gigantic power of evil, symbolized by the "beast," ( Revelation 13:1 ) ... who received his power from the dragon (i.e. the devil, the serpent of Genesis), continued for forty and two months, and was invested with the kingdom of the ten kings who destroyed the harlot Babylon, ( Revelation 17:12 Revelation 17:17 ) the city of seven hills. The destruction of Babylon is to be followed by the rule of Antichrist for a short period, ( Revelation 17:10 ) to be in his turn overthrown in "the battle of that great day of God Almighty," ( Revelation 16:14 ) with the false prophet and all his followers. Rev. 19. The personality of Antichrist is to be inferred as well from the personality of his historical precursor as from that of him to whom he stands opposed. Such an interpretation is to be preferred to that which regards Antichrist as the embodiment and personification of all powers and agencies inimical to Christ, or of the Antichristian might of the world."

It's been a while since I've looked into this, but I do not remember ever seeing any scripture that precisely referenced anti-Christ as one specific person that will rise up at the very end of the age. Now, the scriptures talk about the "son of perdition," "the lawless one," "the little horn," etc etc. I think that is a reference to a single person. And perhaps we can call that same person 'The' anti-Christ, and have it make sense. But I don't think that the scriptures ever explicitly refer to this one person as The anti-Christ.

That's strange, I see the association very clearly from our Lord in His Word, just as Smith's Bible Dictionary states that understanding about the Antichrist person to come is to be the preferred interpretation over thinking it applies to " all powers and agencies inimical to Christ, or of the Antichristian might of the world."

Interpreting the word "antichrist" only is a spirit of antichrist sense also goes directly against what those early Church fathers understood, which MUST be explained by those who disagree.

One just saying they don't see the Scripture evidence for a singular coming Antichrist is not a valid proof against the interpretation, since the early Church fathers, and even Smith's Bible Dictionary laid out the evidence in the Scriptures.

 

[NoHype]

The anti-Christ spirit diminishes the finished work of Jesus Christ on the Cross. Focusing on a one man anti-Christ who is to appear in the future and fulfill the dispensationalist view of I John 2: 18 and I John 4:2-3 hinders us from getting rid of the anti-Christ spirit in us. Yet there are religious people who promote the spirit of anti-Christ and can be said to be anti-Christs and they are getting worse toward the end.

There you go again pushing that falsehood that the interpretation of a coming singular Antichrist for the end came from the much later Dispensationalists. Do you not realize how denying what those early Church fathers wrote about the Antichrist in the early 1st to 3rd centuries makes you appear foolish when you push that false view???

 

[Travis]

The serious Bible student still would have taken time to look into those early Church fathers, which I assumed most here had, but I was wrong on that. And my posting that evidence still doesn't seem to matter with some here who would still rather hold to doctrines of men against it that later crept into the Church.

You have a whole lot of knowledge of the scriptures. Many of the things you say are pretty smart.

But, man, you are more prickly than a thorn bush. Having a conversation with you is as about as pleasurable as walking through a patch of them too. I need to go get some body armor, thick leather gloves and boots, a helmet, some good eye protection and a good helping of patience if I'm going to discuss anything with you in the future....

sheesh,

Travis

 

[tulsa 2011]

"But, man, you are more prickly than a thorn bush. Having a conversation with you is as about as pleasurable as walking through a patch of them too. I need to go get some body armor, thick leather gloves and boots, a helmet, some good eye protection and a good helping of patience if I'm going to discuss anything with you in the future...."

Dave MacPhearson exposed the false pre-tribulation rapture of the dispensationalists and he also showed that many of the celebrity dispensationalists are dishonest. Many of them plagiarize each other's books. We call him Fearless Dave MacPhearson because the dispensationalists get nasty when someone shows their doctrines are false and that many of them are dishonest.

I have been on only one Christian forum that was not dominated by dispensationalists. This was a forum called "Christian Wilderness Forum, A meeting place for Christians who have Found Themselves in the Wilderness. " They don't mean a literal wilderness. The owners tend to be reformed, and in some ways appear to be remnant Christians, but they too shy away from dealing with the language of metaphor in scripture.

 

[tulsa 2011]

"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." I John 2: 18-19

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." I John 4: 2-3

These verses define the anti-Christ type or the spirit of anti-Christ. Every spirit that teaches that Christ did not come in the flesh is of anti-Christ. The anti-Christ type or the spirit of anti-Christ was in the world at the time John wrote. John says in I John 2: 19 that "they, " implying they were of anti-Christ, went out from us, the elect of God, to show that they were not of us, that is, the elect of God.

Israel of the flesh, the multitude of Old Covenant Israel, the Jews, the Jews in Talmudic Judaism rejected Christ as their Messiah and continue to reject him. They are of anti-Christ.

Then, even in John's time there were the Gnostics who taught that Jesus was a spirit who could not have taken on the flesh of man. The Gnostics thought that matter, and flesh, is evil. A Gnostic Aeon, the Christos, they taught, was sent into the world to bring gnosis or secret knowledge to some men. He did not die to atone for our sins, and in gnostic theology sin is not a big problem. Man, or some men,
have a spark of spirituality or "god-nature" in them, and secret knowledge can develop this spark and liberate them from bondage to the material world.

The Gnostics too were of anti-Christ, the spirit of anti-Christ.

Then there are the Greek pagans in John's time who did not believe in Christ and that he came in the flesh. In our time Zen Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism are pagan relgions which were popular during the Counterculture and this too is of anti-Christ.

Here is the definition of the False Prophet: "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many." Matthew 24: 4-5

"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many." Matthew 24: 11

The False Prophets teach that there is a Christ, but they deceive many. What they teach about the doctrines of Christ deceive many into believing them. As Ezekiel 13: 6 says the False Prophets have made those they deceive hope or believe that what the False Prophets say is from the Lord. And as Ezekiel 13: 22 says the False Prophets promise life - spiritual life - to those who believe their false doctrines. That is, the False Prophets cause those they deceive into thinking there is spiritual life in the false doctrines taught to them. And the False Prophets cause the people deceived to think these doctrines are from the Lord (Ezekiel 13: 6).

On the other hand, the Jew - who does not claim to be a Christian - can come along and not really be that deceptive in saying to the person who claims to be Christian, that Jesus Christ is not the Messiah, because he did not fulfill the expectations of the Messiah, which were expectations of a physical nature rather than of a spiritual nature.

As long as the Gnostic does not claim to be Christian he also is not as deceptive as the False Prophet. The same goes for the Zen Buddist, Taoist or Hundu holy man. He is not as deceptive as the False Prophet, because he does not claim to be Christian.

Jesus Christ's work on the Cross and his ministry before the Cross and his revelations to his Apostles as the risen Christ (Acts 26: 15-18) transformed Old Covenant Israel from that which is physical to that which is spiritual. Those born again in Christ are new creatures. The old man has passed away, and has been transformed - metamorphousthe, metamorphosized in Romans 12: 2 - by the mind of Chrst being formed in him. He is raised up higher in the Spirit, and having Christ in him, he is able to sit with Christ, metaphorically in heavenly places. "And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:" Ephesians 2: 6

So, whether or not the anti-Christ - the spirit of anti-Christ - or the doctrines of the False Prophet occupy us in our minds and hearts is what is important. When the spirit of anti-Christ occupies us Christ does not live in us. The spirit of anti-Christ says Christ did not appear on earth in human flesh and is not God - or that spirit tries to diminish the finished work of Christ on the Cross. And when the false teachings of the False Prophet occupy us, Christ is not in us.

So, how can the person who claims to be a Christian and knows a little scripture be deceived into accepting some of the doctrines of anti-Christ, the spirit of anti-Christ, since this guy knows that the doctrines of Talmudic Judaism and those of Far Eastern pagan religions are not of Christ? He may not know what Gnosticism is, but probably would not accept it if he encountered it. It is in some version of the New Age movement.

The answer is in Revelation 13: 11-12: "And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed."

The first beast whose deadly wound was healed is in Revelation 13: 3, one head of the first beast of Revelation 13. The second beast of Revelation 13 is the False Prophet, but not one man; "he" represents the many False Prophets of Matthew 24: 11.

The False Prophet is able to deceive those claiming to be Christians because he, the False Prophet, poses as a Christian to them. He does not pose as a Jew, Gnostric or Zen Master. He claims that the doctrines he teaches are from God, and those deceived believe him. See Romans 9: 6-8 and Galatians 3: 3, 16, 26-29 for some of the scripures which show that basic dispensationalist doctrines are false.

And the doctrines the False Prophet teaches are that Israel of the flesh, without Christ, is the Israel of God of Galatians 6: 16. And he says that all Israel will be saved sometime in the future, which is of the spirit of anti-Christ because it diminishes the finished work of Christ on the Cross to redeem the lost sheep of the house of Israel. That mission was fulfilled in the remnant of Israel which accepted Christ (Romans 11: 1-5).

"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." II Peter 2: 1-3

Making merchandise of you, from emporeusontai, is metaphoric, not limited to what the NIV has -"exploit you." Making merchandise of you means making you like mere merchandise, that is, reducing your spiritual condition back to that of the natural man of I Corinthians 2: 14, who cannot discern the things of the Spirit. One's spiritual condition is significant under the New Covenant.

The dispensatinalist as False Prophet lures those he deceives into thinking that the doctrines of dispensationalism are from God, and he causes them to think they have spiritual life in those doctrines. Then the False Prophet dispensationalist does what the more straightforward Jew, Gnostic and Zen Buddhist cannot do. He, the dispensationalist, deceives people into diminishing the work of Christ on the Cross by focusing so much on Israel of the flesh without Christ, and upon that which is merely physical and not spiritual in nature.

 

[NoHype]

You have a whole lot of knowledge of the scriptures. Many of the things you say are pretty smart.

But, man, you are more prickly than a thorn bush. Having a conversation with you is as about as pleasurable as walking through a patch of them too. I need to go get some body armor, thick leather gloves and boots, a helmet, some good eye protection and a good helping of patience if I'm going to discuss anything with you in the future....

sheesh,

Travis

It's not prickliness, it 'boldness' and 'saltiness', something many in Christ's Church today have lost. When we speak God's Truth as written, it's always going to be painful when its saltiness hits open running sores that many have today from men's doctrines. Just the way it is.

 

[NoHype]

"But, man, you are more prickly than a thorn bush. Having a conversation with you is as about as pleasurable as walking through a patch of them too. I need to go get some body armor, thick leather gloves and boots, a helmet, some good eye protection and a good helping of patience if I'm going to discuss anything with you in the future...."

Dave MacPhearson exposed the false pre-tribulation rapture of the dispensationalists and he also showed that many of the celebrity dispensationalists are dishonest. Many of them plagiarize each other's books. We call him Fearless Dave MacPhearson because the dispensationalists get nasty when someone shows their doctrines are false and that many of them are dishonest.

I have been on only one Christian forum that was not dominated by dispensationalists. This was a forum called "Christian Wilderness Forum, A meeting place for Christians who have Found Themselves in the Wilderness. " They don't mean a literal wilderness. The owners tend to be reformed, and in some ways appear to be remnant Christians, but they too shy away from dealing with the language of metaphor in scripture.

Thing with me is, I LIKE Dave MacPhearson's research, and I totally agree with most of what he's written from his research. I am not a Dispensationalist nor a Pre-Trib rapturist, and neither were the early Church fathers.

So when you learn to get rid of your false pre-conceived notions of my Biblical responses, then you might learn something.

 

[NoHype]

"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." I John 2:18-19

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." I John 4:2-3

These verses define the anti-Christ type or the spirit of anti-Christ. Every spirit that teaches that Christ did not come in the flesh is of anti-Christ. The anti-Christ type or the spirit of anti-Christ was in the world at the time John wrote. John says in I John 2: 19 that "they, " implying they were of anti-Christ, went out from us, the elect of God, to show that they were not of us, that is, the elect of God.

However, that does not mean to teach there is no such thing as a singular Antichrist person that is to come, like John ALSO said there with...

"... and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come..."

Those Apostle John said that to had already "heard that antichrist should come", but how many here know where they first heard that warning?

 

[NoHype]

Then, even in John's time there were the Gnostics who taught that Jesus was a spirit who could not have taken on the flesh of man. The Gnostics thought that matter, and flesh, is evil. A Gnostic Aeon, the Christos, they taught, was sent into the world to bring gnosis or secret knowledge to some men. He did not die to atone for our sins, and in gnostic theology sin is not a big problem. Man, or some men, have a spark of spirituality or "god-nature" in them, and secret knowledge can develop this spark and liberate them from bondage to the material world.

The Gnostics too were of anti-Christ, the spirit of anti-Christ.

Very true, as the doctrines of 1st & 2nd century Gnosticism originated from a mixture of pagan Neoplatonism and early Christian doctrine, causing false leaven on top of the latter.

Gnosticism has continued with that group today, which today mostly reside within the secret fraternal societies of occult initiation.

 

[B-A-C]

From a certain perspective, it seems the whole purpose of this is to be "anti-Israel". It almost seems you are calling the Jews the antichrist.
Are the Jews believers in Christ right now? No, I would say as a nation they are not. But this is God's plan. He will bring them back.

Rom 11:1; I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Rom 11:7; What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;
Rom 11:8; just as it is written, "GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR, EYES TO SEE NOT AND EARS TO HEAR NOT, DOWN TO THIS VERY DAY."
Rom 11:9; And David says, "LET THEIR TABLE BECOME A SNARE AND A TRAP, AND A STUMBLING BLOCK AND A RETRIBUTION TO THEM.
Rom 11:10; "LET THEIR EYES BE DARKENED TO SEE NOT, AND BEND THEIR BACKS FOREVER."
Rom 11:11; I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous.

Rom 11:25; For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;
Rom 11:26; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
Rom 11:27; "THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."
Rom 11:28; From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;

All Israel will be saved. They may seem like our enemies right now, but they are still in God's plan.

 

[tulsa 2011]

One of the reasons why Romans 11: 25-26 has to be interpreted to mean that All Israel shall be saved refers to the Israel of God and not to Israel of the flesh, without Christ, who are not the children of God (Romans 9: 6-8, Galatians 3), is because to say that Christ failed to save those he was sent to save (Matthew 15: 24) is to diminish his finished work on the Cross. Paul would not have done that. When you read Romans 11: 1-5 Paul begins in saying that God has not cast away his people, and then he writes about the seven thousand who did not bow down the knee to Baal, which is a remnant, and finally he says there is a remnant according to the election of grace. God did not cast away his people Old Covenant Israel because a remnant of them was elected to salvation. Dispensationalism is interested in the multitude which goes into apostasy in times of falling away, and dispensationalism is not interested in the remnant which God preserves at that time. This is the same perception of dispensationalists that leads them to scream about anti-semitism when someone follows Romans 9 and Galatians 3 and says Israel of the flesh without Christ is not the Israel of God. Israel of the flesh is not Israel. The remnant is Israel, so how could affirming the Israel of God and not affirming that Israel after is the flesh is of God be anti-semetic?

 

[B-A-C]

Don't Romans 11:11; and Rom 11:25; say the Gentiles will be saved first? If the Gentiles are saved, why would it then add the Israelites.
We can become Jews (spiritually in our hearts) Rom 2:29; But that doesn't make us Israelites. Israel is a place. Jews are a people. Israelites are people from that place. ( Rev 2:9; Rev 3:9; )

 

[Travis]

Don't Romans 11:11; and Rom 11:25; say the Gentiles will be saved first? If the Gentiles are saved, why would it then add the Israelites.
We can become Jews (spiritually in our hearts) Rom 2:29; But that doesn't make us Israelites. Israel is a place. Jews are a people. Israelites are people from that place. ( Rev 2:9; Rev 3:9; )

I think we are in agreement,

The whole context of Romans 11 seems to be Israel after the flesh. Even though Israel of the flesh is apostate as an overall group, there is a remnant, and it seems there are future promises specifically for them that are yet to be fulfilled (I'm not sure what all applies to them, but I think at least some of it).

The whole talk about natural and wild branches seems to be talkings about Jews vs gentiles concerning the flesh. The physical descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob can still be grafted back into the tree as a whole at some point.

Travis

 

[tulsa 2011]

"Israel is always the people of God [and] cannot cease to be the people of God.”

“The Jews are the habitual object of the thoughts of God; for, although He cannot recognize them for the moment, as being under His chastening hand, they are nevertheless still His people…”

From Wilkinson, Paul R. “John Nelson Darby and His Views on Israel.” Bibliotheca Sacra 166, no. 661 (January-March 2009): 84-99.

"Jerusalem is always Jerusalem, Israel is always Israel, Zion is always Zion..." C. I. Scofield, Scofield Bible Correspondence Course (Chicago, Moody Bible Institute), pp. 45-46.

"Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne so that in eternity, '...never the twain, Israel and church, shall meet." Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, Dallas Seminary Press, 1975), Vol. 4. pp. 315-323..

For dispensationalism when the word Israel is used in scripture, it must always be Old Covenant Israel. For dispensationalism there is only one Israel, and that is Israel of the flesh. To dispensationalists the Israel of God in Galatians 6: 16 must consist of Jews only. When Paul teaches in Romans 9: 6-8 that "For they are not all Israel, which are of israel...They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God," dispensationalists tend to leave this scripture alone and bring up other texts which they can more easily claim supports their doctrine that Israel of the flesh remains the chosen people of God, and that all Israel of the flesh will be saved sometime in the future. Paul is not teaching there are two Israels, both of which are of God, and are elect Israel, but to help us understand, he is saying that those in Christ are Israel, but that those of Israel of the flesh, without Christ, are not the children of God. In Galatians 6: 16, he is saying that the Israel he is talking about there is not Israel of the flesh without Christ, but it is the Israel which is of God.

Galatians 3, especially Galatians 3: 3, 16, 26-29, shows that the teaching that Old Covenant Israel of the flesh is now a people of God because of their flesh, that is, their genetics from Abraham, is false. "Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect in the flesh?" ..... "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." ..... "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male not female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." "And if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." This all does not agree with the teaching that Old Covenant Israel of the flesh remains the people of God because they have the physical seed - DNA - of Abraham.

The "hermeneutic" used by many dispensationalists tends to treat each sentence or phrase of scripture as though it stands alone as a doctrine, independent of other scriptures that can be relevant to its topic. Using this "hermeneutic" it is easier to make scriptures seem to support the doctrines of dispensationalism.

In addition, dispensationalism starts from some assumptions. One is that all scripture must be interpreted as being literal, that its meanings are limited to the plain language stated in the verses. There is no metaphor for dispensationalism, but of course metaphor is used very much in scripture. Classical dispensationalists, John Darby, C.I. Scofield, Lewis S. Chafer and others, state the other starting assumption of dispensationalism, that Old Covenant Israel and the capital C Church (not ekklesia as congregations) must be two different peoples of God, existing side by side.

So, starting from these assumptions a dispensationalist must interpret Romans 11: 25-26 as saying someday all Israel of the flesh will be saved. You define Israel as always being Old Covenant Israel of the flesh and then you say, here we have proof that all Israel of the flesh will be saved, proving this Israel is still the chosen people of God. You - as dispensationalists - do not give scripture, such as Romans 2: 28-29, Romans 9: 6-8 and Galatians 3: 3, 16, 26-29 a chance to be considered - because these texts do not agree with your doctrine that Old Covenant Israel of the flesh is still the chosen people of God. "For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth." Luke 21: 35 "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish: because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie." II Thessalonians 2: 10-11

The remnant of Israel in Romans 11: 1-5 should be honored, along with the seven thousand who did not bow the knee to Baal and the list of people of faith in Hebrews 11, also a remnant of Israel. That Old Covenant Israel of the flesh, which is now Talmudic Judaism, is the chosen of God, is the end time delusion. It is the source of error in our time.

Paul is apparently assuming that his readers who are in Christ will understand that when he shifts from Old Covenant Israel to the Israel of God in verse 26 they will know that Old Covenant Israel of the flesh is not the Israel of God (Romans 9: 6-8).

Another reason why Romans 11:25-26 has to be interpreted to mean that All Israel shall be saved refers to the Israel of God and not to Israel of the flesh, without Christ, who are not the children of God (Romans 9:6-8, Galatians 3), is because to say that Christ failed to save those he was sent to save (Matthew 15: 24) is to diminish his finished work on the Cross.

When you read Romans 11:1-5, Paul begins in saying that God has not cast away his people, and then he writes about the seven thousand who did not bow down the knee to Baal, which is a remnant, and finally he says there is a remnant according to the election of grace. God did not cast away his people Old Covenant Israel because a remnant of them was elected to salvation. Dispensationalism is interested in the multitude which goes into apostasy in times of falling away, and dispensationalism is not interested in the remnant which God preserves at that time.

This is the same perception of dispensationalists that sometimes leads them to scream about anti-semitism when someone follows Romans 9 and Galatians 3 and says Israel of the flesh without Christ is not the Israel of God.

Then Romans 11: 28 is often misinterpreted by dispensationalists. "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father' sakes."

The father' sakes refers not to God but to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And a key word here is "touching." The George Ricker Berry Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, 1058, p. 426 translates the Greek, kata de, as "as regards." Touching is Strong's number 2596, kata, meaning "about, according to, after, against...concerning, pertaining to..."

The Greek for Romans 11: 28 says "κατα μεν το ευαγγελιον εχθροι δι υμας κατα δε την εκλογην αγαπητοι δια τους πατερας." And the word for word translation by the George Ricker Berry Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, 1958, page 426 is "As regards indeed the glad tidings (they are) enemies on your account; but as regards the election, beloved on account of the fathers." The Greek word translated as fathers, pateras, is plural, which means Paul is talking about the fathers of Old Covenant Israel, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And those who are enemies on your account must be Old Covenant Israel which reject Christ, and those who are beloved by the fathers must be the elect who accept Christ, the remnant of Israel in Romans 11: 1-5. But dispensationalists do not interpret Romans 11: 28 in this way, because this interpretation does not promote their doctrine that Old Covenant Israel of the flesh is the chosen people of God now.

Paul is saying that concerning the election "they," which refers back to Israel in verse 26, which is a different Israel from verse 25, are beloved for the sake of the Fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Those of Old Covenant Israel who are the elect are beloved, not Old Covenant Israel which rejected Christ.
Dispensationalists do not like the fact that Paul in Galatians 6: 16 is using the phrase "Israel of God" in a sense that includes Gentiles, because this undermines their contention that "the Church" must be different from "Israel."

Having the dialectic mind or mind-set dispensationalists want to argue with scripture as absolute truth, and find loopholes, ambiguities or make up a sleight of hand procedure for finding that a text does not say what non-dispensationalists take it to say.

"Those who walk by this rule" are the same people as "the Israel of God."

What rule is Paul talking about?

The rule refers back to verses 12-15, "As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.
13. For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.
14. But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
15. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."

Those who walk by "this rule" are the elect, in Paul's times made up of former Jews and former non-Jews. In our time, Jews can become part of the elect.

Paul is seemingly made to contradict himself by the dispensationalists, because in Romans 10: 12 and in Galatians 3: 28 he teaches that in Christ there is no difference between former Jew and former non-Jew. Except that for dispensationalists, each sentence and sometimes each phrase is independent of any other sentence or phrase relevant to the topic. To dispensationalists there is no contradiction between saying only the Jews are part of the Israel of God in Galatians 6: 16 and that in Christ there is no difference between former Jew and former non-Jew - because scripture must be interpreted to fit the doctrine of dispensationalism that Old Covenant Israel of the flesh are now the chosen people of God and that sometime they all will be saved.

C.I. Scofield in Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (New York, Loizeaux Brothers, 1888) says, "Comparing, then, what is said in Scripture concerning Israel and the Church, [a careful Bible student ] finds that in origin, calling, promise, worship, principles of conduct, and future destiny--all is contrast." Charles Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism Today (Chicago, 1965) claims that the "basic premise of Dispensationalism is two purposes of God expressed in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction throughout eternity." (pp. 44-45).

The traditional Protestant and Catholic view on this issue says "Israel" is the Church. But the church, from ekklesia, is a local congregation. So, the Israel of God follows Romans 10: 12 and Galatians 3:28, saying in Christ there is no difference between Jews or non-Jews, and refers to those who are of God and are part of Israel reborn in Christ.

 

[Travis]

Then Romans 11: 28 is often misinterpreted by dispensationalists. "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father' sakes."

The father' sakes refers not to God but to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And a key word here is "touching." The George Ricker Berry Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, 1058, p. 426 translates the Greek, kata de, as "as regards." Touching is Strong's number 2596, kata, meaning "about, according to, after, against...concerning, pertaining to..."

The Greek for Romans 11: 28 says "κατα μεν το ευαγγελιον εχθροι δι υμας κατα δε την εκλογην αγαπητοι δια τους πατερας." And the word for word translation by the George Ricker Berry Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, 1958, page 426 is "As regards indeed the glad tidings (they are) enemies on your account; but as regards the election, beloved on account of the fathers." The Greek word translated as fathers, pateras, is plural, which means Paul is talking about the fathers of Old Covenant Israel, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And those who are enemies on your account must be Old Covenant Israel which reject Christ, and those who are beloved by the fathers must be the elect who accept Christ, the remnant of Israel in Romans 11: 1-5. But dispensationalists do not interpret Romans 11: 28 in this way, because this interpretation does not promote their doctrine that Old Covenant Israel of the flesh is the chosen people of God now.

Paul is saying that concerning the election "they," which refers back to Israel in verse 26, which is a different Israel from verse 25, are beloved for the sake of the Fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Those of Old Covenant Israel who are the elect are beloved, not Old Covenant Israel which rejected Christ.
Dispensationalists do not like the fact that Paul in Galatians 6: 16 is using the phrase "Israel of God" in a sense that includes Gentiles, because this undermines their contention that "the Church" must be different from "Israel."

Having the dialectic mind or mind-set dispensationalists want to argue with scripture as absolute truth, and find loopholes, ambiguities or make up a sleight of hand procedure for finding that a text does not say what non-dispensationalists take it to say.

I for one am not a dispensationalist. Not in the way you use the term at least. I'm not sure exactly where I fall on the topic, but that's a whole different discussion. What is relevant is the text at hand.

Romans 11 really isn't a hard chapter. It reads pretty plainly. One has to really try to make it say something else to get something like you are pulling from it, IMO.

"But dispensationalists do not interpret Romans 11: 28 in this way, because this interpretation does not promote their doctrine that Old Covenant Israel of the flesh is the chosen people of God now."​

Dispensationalists don't interpret this verse the way you do, because you have to totally twist the basic meaning of this verse and it's context to do so. Even they can see that interpreting it that way would be absurd.

I don't think Old Testament Israel of the flesh is "THE" chosen people of God. But, I think even the apostate Israel of the flesh is part of God's elect plan, which will have a future culmination. Not a single individual who is a part of that group will spend eternity with God without having faith in his Son, but the group as a whole has a future that fit's into God's election.

I think you are kind of fighting against a straw man in many ways. I'm not sure who exactly you are arguing with about these things.

*Shrugs*

Travis

 

[B-A-C]

Dispensationalists don't interpret this verse the way you do, because you have to totally twist the basic meaning of this verse and it's context to do so. Even they can see that interpreting it that way would be absurd.

I don't think Old Testament Israel of the flesh is "THE" chosen people of God. But, I think even the apostate Israel of the flesh is part of God's elect plan, which will have a future culmination. Not a single individual who is a part of that group will spend eternity with God without having faith in his Son, but the group as a whole has a future that fit's into God's election.

I think you are kind of fighting against a straw man in many ways. I'm not sure who exactly you are arguing with about these things.

*Shrugs*

Here..here. I have been saying this along. I am kind of missing the point of all this.
The Jews/Israelites of today are saved the same way everyone else is. Jesus.

If God is showing any partiality/dispartiality to them right now, or has blinded them to salvation right now.
What difference does that make? If after the Gentiles have had their chance to come to salvation God opens
the eyes of the Jews to receive Jesus, what difference does that make? In the end they get saved the same way we do.

In the Old testament was God's chosen people because they were virtually the only nation that really knew anything about Him.
You don't really hear about the God of the Bible in other nationalities or cultures prior to the time of Jesus. (new Testament)
However we know that non-Jews were saved in the Old Testament (Rahab, Ruth, the city of Ninevah, etc...)
And I personally believe many Jews will saved in the future. (I use the word Jews as nationality here not a theology).
But whether they do or don't.. I don't see what difference this makes?

Deut 7:6; "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.
Deut 7:7; "The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples,

1 Kings 8:53; "For You have separated them from all the peoples of the earth as Your inheritance, as You spoke through Moses Your servant, when You brought our fathers forth from Egypt, O Lord GOD."

In the New Testament the Gentiles are included into the plan.

Acts 13:46; Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.
Acts 13:47; "For so the Lord has commanded us, 'I HAVE PLACED YOU AS A LIGHT FOR THE GENTILES, THAT YOU MAY BRING SALVATION TO THE END OF THE EARTH.'"
Acts 13:48; When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Acts 26:23; that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles."

Eph 3:6; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,

In the end, there is one body. So I don't really see the point of all this?