[10]We are not using the exact language of any one theologian but we believe that the wording of this argument represents the traditional non-dispensational understanding of Christ as true Israel. We understand that some may word things differently.
[11]Craig A. Blaising, “A Premillennial Response,” in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, 145.
[12]Moore, 118. [13]Moore, 118. [14]Strimple, 87.
[15]Robert L. Saucy, “Israel and the Church: A Case for Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1988), 242. Blaising, 146.
[16]Ibid.
[17]Robert L. Thomas, “The Mission of Israel and of the Messiah,” in Israel, the Land and the People: An Evangelical Affirmation of God’s Promises, ed. H. Wayne House (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998), 264.
[18]John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959, Reprint 1997), 2:9.
[19]Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:96. Ladd states, “It is quite impossible in light of the context and the course of Paul’s thought in this passage to understand ‘all Israel’ to refer to the Church.” George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom: Popular Expositions on the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 119. See also Mark D. Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 275–76; C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975), 576.
[20]S. Lewis Johnson, “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’ An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study,” inEssays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, eds. Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 185.
[21]Ernest DeWitt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, in International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1921), 358.
Recent Comments