Category:
Premillennialism
Premillennial Nuggets – Romans 11:25-27
The Freedom of God in Saving a Future Ethnic Israel
written by Alan Kurschner
I must preface this article with a few brief comments on the contextual flow of Paul’s argument. It is important to grasp chapter 11 by what just came before it in chapters 9-10. Just as Paul teaches in Romans 9 that it is the freedom of God to save individuals based solely on his mercy to demonstrate his glory and power, likewise, in chapter 11, Paul reminds his audience that God is free and absolutely sovereign in saving Israel in the future.
In Romans 9, Paul responded to the objection that God failed to save a people for himself by arguing that God has not failed because he has graciously chosen Gentile individuals to be saved, “It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all those who are descended from Israel are truly Israel” (vv. 6ff).
And similarly, in Romans 11, Paul reminds his audience that God has not failed with the nation of Israel since their salvation is in the future; and thus believing Gentiles should not become “conceited” and “wise in your own estimation” because “a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in and so all Israel will be saved.”
Paul is confident that God will bring about a saved future Israel one day. He furthers writes, “I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be!” (v. 1) “Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!” (v. 12) The apostle could not be more emphatic about this future reality.
Let me make this observation. It is essential that we grasp this consistency on seeing Paul’s concern in both Romans 9 and 11 as he is defending God’s freedom in saving Gentiles (chapter 9) and Israel (chapter 11) which constitute the one people of God. I have observed that many in the Reformed tradition will proclaim fervently God’s freedom of individuals in Romans 9, but will not allow God to be free in respect to the future salvation of Israel. And conversely, I have seen many in the non-Reformed tradition proclaim God’s freedom in the salvation of a future Israel from Romans 11, but suppress the interpretation of his freedom of saving Gentile individuals in Romans 9. We cannot pick and choose when to apply God’s salvific freedom–we must be consistent. We must allow the text to speak, not our Traditions read into the text. We need to submit to the Potter’s terms, not ours.
The following is an argument for a future ethnic Israel in God
There are different reasons why many individuals change their view to either preterism or amillennialism, and in most cases, both. In their mind, it is just easier to regulate the events in Matthew 24 or Revelation to the 1st century and be done with it and move onto something else. Or, for many, they feel more pious to view Revelation as mostly teaching spiritual truths (e.g. the Antichrist is not a literal future historical figure but is symbolic and represents “the principle of evil.”)
And lest we forget, in my opinion, one of the key reasons why individuals embrace these views. Their favorite theologians are right on when it comes to the nature of God, humanity, and salvation–so “they must be right when it comes to eschatology.”
And given that it is demonstrable that amillennialism is a human creation that developed out of the nascent Roman Catholic church, the premiller has the confidence to know that the early church in a singular voice affirmed a premill position. And that same level of confidence can be displayed in the Biblical arguments as well.
The reason I want to start this continuous nugget series on premillennialism is so I can equip many of you with the best arguments for premillennialism against their best arguments.
I do not want you to be intimidated by their arguments, and certainly not intimidated by their terms they invoke. You will often hear an amill brother or sister say, “We use a ‘God-centered’ hermeneutic when interpreting the Bible.” Or “Christ-centered” hermeneutic. The suggestion is that you are not God-centered–and who wants to be against that!
Another term they use is “Biblical-Theology” hermeneutic. As if premillennialism is not based on a Biblical-Theological hermeneutic.
In reality, when it comes to key texts such as Revelation 20, Acts 15, Romans 11, Matthew 24, Luke 21, and various O.T. passages, their hermeneutic is inconsistent in practice.
Though for the rest of the year I will be working on the Thessalonian series, I will punctuate blog posts with this ongoing series defending premillennialism and equipping you with solid arguments against amillennialism.
As far as the preterist view and interacting with that position, after I am finished with the Thessalonian series, I will commence with an Olivet Discourse series that will indeed last for at least two years. This is where I will interact with the best that the preterist view has to offer, not merely giving asides, but full-length discussions and critiques against the preterist position.
Older Posts