Hey! I was just wondering about this quote in Millennial options: "Id add that interpreters like O. P. Robertson, N. T. Wright, and Lee Irons have offered amil readings of Rom 11 which—if valid—would undercut that chapter as a prooftext for either premils" What do they say? I thought Wright was a socialist utopia who's final justification is dependant on what done to build this utopia.
The argument by Wright is in his commentary on Romans, while the argument by Robertson is in his book: The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.
What do you think of the notion that Christ came to restore Israel to then be a mission to the Gentiles? I ask since that thesis comes out of those who are NPP or sympathetic to it: http://jimhamilton.info/2007/08/10/review-of-jesus-and-the-origins-of-the-gentile-mission-by-michael-f-bird/
Hey!
ReplyDeleteI was just wondering about this quote in Millennial options: "Id add that interpreters like O. P. Robertson, N. T. Wright, and Lee Irons have offered amil readings of Rom 11 which—if valid—would undercut that chapter as a prooftext for either premils"
What do they say? I thought Wright was a socialist utopia who's final justification is dependant on what done to build this utopia.
The argument by Lee Irons is available online:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.upper-register.com/papers/Rom1126.pdf
The argument by Wright is in his commentary on Romans, while the argument by Robertson is in his book: The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.
What do you think of the notion that Christ came to restore Israel to then be a mission to the Gentiles? I ask since that thesis comes out of those who are NPP or sympathetic to it: http://jimhamilton.info/2007/08/10/review-of-jesus-and-the-origins-of-the-gentile-mission-by-michael-f-bird/
ReplyDeleteI think there's some truth to that. However, it's reductionistic. God can value Israel in its own right as well as a means to an end.
DeleteAny good books from a Reformed perspective? I am weary of those sympathetic to NPP
Delete