And as King Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun. Both sad and fascinating to watch Satan rear his ugly head over and over in the very same way.
Thank you, Robert, for your gracious and thoughtful reply—it's clear you're approaching this with an open Bible and a heart for truth, which I deeply appreciate. I agree wholeheartedly that Christ is central as our Mediator and King, and that the gospel is one for all, expanding God's promises without cancellation. Your point on typology as fulfillment (not erasure) is a strong bridge; it's how I see passages like Joshua's conquest pointing to Christ's ultimate victory (Hebrews 4:8-11), preserving the covenant's depth while centering on Him.
On Romans 9-11: I see Paul's use of "Israel" as primarily ethnic/national in context (e.g., Romans 9:4-5 on privileges), but shifting to a remnant fulfilled in Christ (Romans 9:27, 11:5-7). The "all Israel will be saved" (11:26) could refer to the full number of elect Jews and Gentiles as one people (like the olive tree graft in 11:17-24), not a separate national track. But you're right—it's not nationalism; it's theology paired with the call to evangelize and bless. Ephesians 2 and Galatians 3 affirm that unity in Christ erases those walls without revoking God's faithfulness.
I'm not wedded to labels, just seeking to keep Christ at the center. Happy to dive deeper into Romans 11 or any verse—perhaps starting with how "Israel" changes (or doesn't) through the chapter? What do you see as the key shift?
Misguided dispensationalism rears its head here for me because I believe it misinterprets Scripture by over-literalizing prophecies and creating a "two-peoples-of-God" divide. Covenant theology sees the church as the fulfillment/expansion of Israel—Jews and Gentiles united in Christ (Galatians 3:28, Ephesians 2:14-16).
Old Testament promises (land, blessings) are typological, shadows pointing to spiritual realities in Jesus (e.g., eternal rest in Hebrews 4, not geopolitical land). For instance, Joshua's conquest of the land serves as a type of Christ's ultimate victory over sin (Hebrews 4:8-11), showing these promises aren't about modern borders but about rest and redemption in Him.
Modern Israel isn't specially "chosen" prophetically; it's a political state like any other. Supporting it blindly can mix faith with nationalism, ignoring New Testament emphasis on the gospel for all.
In a 2024 podcast, Chad Bird called it "misguided" for promoting a "separate track" for Jews, potentially downplaying evangelism and seeing current events (e.g., wars) as "signs" rather than calling for peace. Even dispensationalists like John MacArthur emphasize a future for Israel but focus on spiritual fulfillment in Christ over political activism - salvation through Him alone for all, not state support as primary.
I'm not anti-Israel but question Zionism as tying Christianity too closely to politics, risking idolatry of a nation over Christ. This ties into my "fiat" word for 2026 - letting go of over-literal interpretations to trust God's unified plan.
Thanks for the thoughtful pushback. I hear the concern behind it—especially the warning about nationalism, political idolatry, and treating headlines like prophecy. I share those guardrails. Christ is not running for office, and the Church is not commissioned to build a geopolitical kingdom before the King returns.
That said, I don’t think dispensationalism requires “two peoples of God” in the sense you mean. There is one way of salvation and one gospel for Jew and Gentile alike: grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Full stop. If any system—dispensational or covenant—softens evangelism or implies a separate saving track, it’s wrong.
Where we differ is this: I believe the New Testament can expand, clarify, and apply the Old Testament without retroactively cancelling what God promised to Israel as Israel. Ephesians 2 and Galatians 3 teach unity in Christ—amen. But unity in Christ does not require the erasure of Israel’s covenant identity, any more than it requires erasing male/female distinctions even while affirming equal standing in Christ (Gal. 3:28).
On “typology”: I’m with you that Joshua/rest/land have typological fulfillment in Christ. Hebrews does that openly. But typology is not the same as cancellation. A type can be fulfilled and still leave room for the plain sense of God’s covenant faithfulness in history. The New Testament authors don’t treat God’s promises as “bait and switch.” Paul in Romans 9–11 goes out of his way to defend God’s faithfulness to Israel, and he roots it in covenant language and the irrevocable nature of God’s calling.
As for modern Israel: I don’t equate the modern state with righteousness or treat it as above critique. It’s a political state with sinners like any other. I don’t support anything “blindly.” My point is narrower: God is not finished with ethnic Israel, and Scripture gives us reason to expect a future national turning to Messiah (Romans 11). That’s not nationalism. That’s theology—paired with the same gospel call I’d give anyone: Jews and Gentiles must be born again.
And on current events: I’m not interested in “wars = this verse” interpretations. That kind of newspaper-exegesis produces heat, not holiness. But it’s also possible to reject sensationalism without flattening Romans 11 into “Israel = Church” and calling it done.
So yes—let’s talk. But not as a vanity debate. I’m happy to discuss it as brothers under the text: open Bible, careful definitions, and a shared commitment to keep Christ central—One God. One Mediator. One King.
If you want a simple starting point: are you comfortable saying Romans 11’s “Israel” refers to ethnic/national Israel consistently through the chapter, and if not, where exactly do you see the definition changing?
O Lord of all things, help people to see the truth and the light of Christ Jesus and be healed! The world is in turmoil because they don’t have the power of TRUTH- when the Lord of Glory comes back,it is to Israel 🇮🇱 Come Lord Jesus ‼️🙏🇮🇱🇺🇸✝️
And as King Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun. Both sad and fascinating to watch Satan rear his ugly head over and over in the very same way.
Once again, this is so appreciated!!
AMEN, COME LORD JESUS‼️✝️💟
Thank you, Robert, for your gracious and thoughtful reply—it's clear you're approaching this with an open Bible and a heart for truth, which I deeply appreciate. I agree wholeheartedly that Christ is central as our Mediator and King, and that the gospel is one for all, expanding God's promises without cancellation. Your point on typology as fulfillment (not erasure) is a strong bridge; it's how I see passages like Joshua's conquest pointing to Christ's ultimate victory (Hebrews 4:8-11), preserving the covenant's depth while centering on Him.
On Romans 9-11: I see Paul's use of "Israel" as primarily ethnic/national in context (e.g., Romans 9:4-5 on privileges), but shifting to a remnant fulfilled in Christ (Romans 9:27, 11:5-7). The "all Israel will be saved" (11:26) could refer to the full number of elect Jews and Gentiles as one people (like the olive tree graft in 11:17-24), not a separate national track. But you're right—it's not nationalism; it's theology paired with the call to evangelize and bless. Ephesians 2 and Galatians 3 affirm that unity in Christ erases those walls without revoking God's faithfulness.
I'm not wedded to labels, just seeking to keep Christ at the center. Happy to dive deeper into Romans 11 or any verse—perhaps starting with how "Israel" changes (or doesn't) through the chapter? What do you see as the key shift?
Misguided dispensationalism rears its head here for me because I believe it misinterprets Scripture by over-literalizing prophecies and creating a "two-peoples-of-God" divide. Covenant theology sees the church as the fulfillment/expansion of Israel—Jews and Gentiles united in Christ (Galatians 3:28, Ephesians 2:14-16).
Old Testament promises (land, blessings) are typological, shadows pointing to spiritual realities in Jesus (e.g., eternal rest in Hebrews 4, not geopolitical land). For instance, Joshua's conquest of the land serves as a type of Christ's ultimate victory over sin (Hebrews 4:8-11), showing these promises aren't about modern borders but about rest and redemption in Him.
Modern Israel isn't specially "chosen" prophetically; it's a political state like any other. Supporting it blindly can mix faith with nationalism, ignoring New Testament emphasis on the gospel for all.
In a 2024 podcast, Chad Bird called it "misguided" for promoting a "separate track" for Jews, potentially downplaying evangelism and seeing current events (e.g., wars) as "signs" rather than calling for peace. Even dispensationalists like John MacArthur emphasize a future for Israel but focus on spiritual fulfillment in Christ over political activism - salvation through Him alone for all, not state support as primary.
I'm not anti-Israel but question Zionism as tying Christianity too closely to politics, risking idolatry of a nation over Christ. This ties into my "fiat" word for 2026 - letting go of over-literal interpretations to trust God's unified plan.
I'd like to discuss further.
Thanks for the thoughtful pushback. I hear the concern behind it—especially the warning about nationalism, political idolatry, and treating headlines like prophecy. I share those guardrails. Christ is not running for office, and the Church is not commissioned to build a geopolitical kingdom before the King returns.
That said, I don’t think dispensationalism requires “two peoples of God” in the sense you mean. There is one way of salvation and one gospel for Jew and Gentile alike: grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Full stop. If any system—dispensational or covenant—softens evangelism or implies a separate saving track, it’s wrong.
Where we differ is this: I believe the New Testament can expand, clarify, and apply the Old Testament without retroactively cancelling what God promised to Israel as Israel. Ephesians 2 and Galatians 3 teach unity in Christ—amen. But unity in Christ does not require the erasure of Israel’s covenant identity, any more than it requires erasing male/female distinctions even while affirming equal standing in Christ (Gal. 3:28).
On “typology”: I’m with you that Joshua/rest/land have typological fulfillment in Christ. Hebrews does that openly. But typology is not the same as cancellation. A type can be fulfilled and still leave room for the plain sense of God’s covenant faithfulness in history. The New Testament authors don’t treat God’s promises as “bait and switch.” Paul in Romans 9–11 goes out of his way to defend God’s faithfulness to Israel, and he roots it in covenant language and the irrevocable nature of God’s calling.
As for modern Israel: I don’t equate the modern state with righteousness or treat it as above critique. It’s a political state with sinners like any other. I don’t support anything “blindly.” My point is narrower: God is not finished with ethnic Israel, and Scripture gives us reason to expect a future national turning to Messiah (Romans 11). That’s not nationalism. That’s theology—paired with the same gospel call I’d give anyone: Jews and Gentiles must be born again.
And on current events: I’m not interested in “wars = this verse” interpretations. That kind of newspaper-exegesis produces heat, not holiness. But it’s also possible to reject sensationalism without flattening Romans 11 into “Israel = Church” and calling it done.
So yes—let’s talk. But not as a vanity debate. I’m happy to discuss it as brothers under the text: open Bible, careful definitions, and a shared commitment to keep Christ central—One God. One Mediator. One King.
If you want a simple starting point: are you comfortable saying Romans 11’s “Israel” refers to ethnic/national Israel consistently through the chapter, and if not, where exactly do you see the definition changing?
O Lord of all things, help people to see the truth and the light of Christ Jesus and be healed! The world is in turmoil because they don’t have the power of TRUTH- when the Lord of Glory comes back,it is to Israel 🇮🇱 Come Lord Jesus ‼️🙏🇮🇱🇺🇸✝️