...he seems to throw some serious blinders on when he talks about the nation of Israel. He recently stated on his podcast that scripture never refers to gentiles as Jews. I couldn't help but think about Romans 2: For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God'..
Isn't this referring to gentiles?
Other than this small quibble, I really enjoy his show.
I love listening to Dr. Michael Brown but...
Re: I love listening to Dr. Michael Brown but...
Some would dispute that Romans 2:28-29 is necessarily including Gentiles (of course, it wouldn't matter anyway, since "there is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ"). Paul is primarily addressing racial/observant Jews in Romans 2 (see v.17). He could be telling them that it is not enough to be merely ethnic Jews, but also they must have the corresponding heart (in other words, a "limited negative" here).
The passage could be seen as including Gentiles who are "Jews inwardly", since Paul has already mentioned Gentiles who keep "the righteous requirements of the law" (cf. Rom.8:4), and are, thus, as good as circumcised (2:26).
Whether Paul is calling saved Gentiles "Jews inwardly" or not, in 2:28-29, his whole context is arguing that the Jew-Gentile distinction doesn't make any difference to God, since righteous living and a circumcised heart, which is all that God regards in a man, may be equally found among Jews or Gentiles.
Of course, the promises related to "Israel" in the Old Testament are not really said to be "to the Jews," but "to Abraham and his Seed." If Dr. Brown had said "Gentiles are never called the 'seed of Abraham,'" he would have gone directly against Paul, in Galatians 3:16, 29.
The passage could be seen as including Gentiles who are "Jews inwardly", since Paul has already mentioned Gentiles who keep "the righteous requirements of the law" (cf. Rom.8:4), and are, thus, as good as circumcised (2:26).
Whether Paul is calling saved Gentiles "Jews inwardly" or not, in 2:28-29, his whole context is arguing that the Jew-Gentile distinction doesn't make any difference to God, since righteous living and a circumcised heart, which is all that God regards in a man, may be equally found among Jews or Gentiles.
Of course, the promises related to "Israel" in the Old Testament are not really said to be "to the Jews," but "to Abraham and his Seed." If Dr. Brown had said "Gentiles are never called the 'seed of Abraham,'" he would have gone directly against Paul, in Galatians 3:16, 29.
Re: I love listening to Dr. Michael Brown but...
Hi Steve,steve wrote:Some would dispute that Romans 2:28-29 is necessarily including Gentiles (of course, it wouldn't matter anyway, since "there is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ"). Paul is primarily addressing racial/observant Jews in Romans 2 (see v.17). He could be telling them that it is not enough to be merely ethnic Jews, but also they must have the corresponding heart (in other words, a "limited negative" here).
The passage could be seen as including Gentiles who are "Jews inwardly", since Paul has already mentioned Gentiles who keep "the righteous requirements of the law" (cf. Rom.8:4), and are, thus, as good as circumcised (2:26).
Whether Paul is calling saved Gentiles "Jews inwardly" or not, in 2:28-29, his whole context is arguing that the Jew-Gentile distinction doesn't make any difference to God, since righteous living and a circumcised heart, which is all that God regards in a man, may be equally found among Jews or Gentiles.
Of course, the promises related to "Israel" in the Old Testament are not really said to be "to the Jews," but "to Abraham and his Seed." If Dr. Brown had said "Gentiles are never called the 'seed of Abraham,'" he would have gone directly against Paul, in Galatians 3:16, 29.
Thanks for clarifying! I have been trying to observe the passage from Dr. Brown's standpoint and had thought about the "limited negative", so thanks for pointing that out.
Re: I love listening to Dr. Michael Brown but...
I personally find Brown most helpful in his multi-volume work answering Jewish objections to Jesus. Most of that work does not turn on particular views on this issue. But I realize it's a controversial area and one where this group has differing views from Brown. I'm actually not informed enough yet to have a settled view. Both sides sound persuasive when I hear them.
Re: I love listening to Dr. Michael Brown but...
Michael Brown and James White had another debate on predestination on February 14th. I'm just wondering when it will be released for us to hear?
He will not fail nor be discouraged till He has established justice in the earth. (Isaiah 42:4)
Re: I love listening to Dr. Michael Brown but...
Of course, the only seed that Paul says God was referring to in his promise to Abraham was the single seed, Christ. It wasn't a promise to a multitude of people, Paul clearly says it was a promise about one future person.
Doug
Doug