David Weiner, ever the gentleman, has requested that we pick up a conversation from a while ago: link.
The salient question was, Does salvation run in families?
I argue:
click to toggleIn the OT, what percentage of the saved were from the biological line of Abraham? Probably 99.99% or higher.
In the NT era in which we live, what percentage of the saved come from a Christian lineage? Harder to say, but greater than 50%.
So now consider again your statement, “For, I can not find any rationale for God choosing anybody other than His good pleasure and glory.”
Yet, He does give a partial rationale: “I will be a God to you and your descendants.” God’s kindness to Abraham is extended to Abe’s family *for the sake of Abraham.*
If God gave no consideration to families at all, then election would be equally distributed around the globe. Empirically, that’s not the case!
David responds:
click to toggleKindness, as in to Abraham and his family, and election have to be considered synonymous for the argument to hold, it seems to me. And, Scripture does not link the two in any explicit way. So, each of us is ‘free’ to interpret loosely. Not exactly what you would accept in your science classes, I assume.
I don’t want to proof text this discussion; but, Jeremiah 7:23 makes it very clear (probably only to me!) that the idea of God being a God to Israel was not about salvation. It was about blessing. That is unless one can actually earn salvation by works and I know we agree on that one.
I read Barna reports and so I know there are lots of statistics. But, do we really know the geographical distribution of election? I think we are dealing with a lot of anecdotal data here. Certainly not double blind sort of stuff.
This led to a new question: was the covenant with Abraham a covenant of salvation, or of something else?
I argue:
click to toggleIt seems to me, then, that this forces us to conclude that belief is a requirement to properly belong to the covenant. This is made explicit in Romans [2.28ff]. If we see belief as a requirement, unstated but implied in Gen. 17, then several different features come into focus:
(1) Why did God reject so many Israelites along the way, even though they were physically descended from Abraham? Unbelief. They didn’t meet the requirement of belonging to the covenant.
(2) Why did Jesus have to die on the cross for Jews? Because justification is necessary to be a child of God — and Jews as much as Gentiles need justification. One might be tempted to separate the issue of being a child of God and being a child of Abraham, but notice how closely Paul links them in Galatians [3.6-8, 26-29] and also Ezekiel [36.18ff]. Notice how closely Ezekiel links “being righteous” with “being God’s people.” For Ezekiel, salvation is necessary in order to be God’s people.
Even the promise to the physical descendants of Abe in Romans 11 is still conditioned on faith: “And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.”
And David responds
click to toggleIt seems to me that Gen 17 describes a group of people who are called God’s people. And, God says that they will get a bunch of blessings if they only circumcise, an activity that did not require any faith. I know, a statistically invalid single data point, that when I was circumcised my parents were simply following a tradition. As I have said, they were reprobate. I don’t know how to describe what is Gen 17 other than temporal blessings in response to a ‘work.’ I simply don’t see any reference to eternal things or faith, for example. On the other hand, it seems offensive to talk about God’s people being reprobate. And, we know that Abraham’s offspring included a fair share of reprobates.
For me, the solution is to see that there are different covenants. And, the definition of ‘God’s people’ is used to identify the group in question and not to give an absolute definition. The Abrahamic Covenant is not the same as the New Covenant; the people referenced in each covenant are not the same people, although there is some overlap in a Venn diagram sense.
And this led then to a discussion of whether there are many covenants or one.
I argue that a "multiple covenants" view has to clear four hurdles to stand:
click to toggleOn the other, if we say “multiple covenants”, then we have to ask several important questions:
(MCov 1) Why does the Scripture appear to mingle the covenants so freely?
* Believers in Christ are said to be “Children of Abraham and heirs according to the promise.”
* Recipients of the Mosaic Covenant are told that they are being given the land “for the sake of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”
* The sign of the Mosaic Covenant is the same as the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant.
and so on.
(MCov 2) Why are the Gentiles, who formerly were excluded from Israel, now included into Israel:
Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (that done in the body by the hands of men)— remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. — Eph. 2.11-13
(MCov 3) What is “the promise” that Paul speaks of in multiple places?
(MCov 4) Why do we see no hint in the New Testament of separate covenants each running their course throughout history?
And David responds with regard to MCov 2:
click to toggleWhat I see here is first a description of the status of a group of people identified as gentiles. What then follows is a description of the status of the individual gentile who has received Christ. It is initially not about individuals; but, rather the group, in contrast to the group of people who were called Israelites (who were just a segment of those who came from Abraham; which is, of course, where the separation began.)
So what do we learn about the gentiles (before the cross):
1) you were at that time separate from Christ,
2) excluded from the commonwealth of Israel,
3) strangers to the covenants of promise,
4) having no hope
5) without God in the world
And these 5 items are summarized in the passage as their being “formerly far off.” Up to the cross, God had given the nation of Israel lots of promises and information (e.g., the Mosaic Law). He had not given this to all humanity equally. That does not mean that an individual gentile might not have known about the Mosaic Law or may have even tried to keep part of it. It just means that as a group, God had not given these things to them. Of course, each of the 5 items deserves about a book’s worth of explanation (particularly the word ‘covenant’ which as you can see is plural!); but, fortunately for you, I won’t subject you to that pain. (insert smiley face here) But, one thing I have to say about the description: it is not primarily about Israel. Israel is only mentioned as part of the description of the gentile’s pre-cross situation.
What does the passage say about their current status? Well, first of all it does not say anything about the status of the group. It only addresses the status of the individual saved gentile. And that is that they:
1) have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Brought near to what? What does one get when they are saved? Jesus. Not, a part of Israel, the nation. Does saved Israelites also have Jesus. Of course. That is a similarity; but, it does not erase the differences.
and again After much thought about how to address your questions here, it seems to me that starting with ‘membership’ is the best approach. So, here goes.
According to my reading of Galatians 3:16, the promises were spoken to (made to) Abraham and Jesus. Another way of saying this is that God made the AC with Abraham and Jesus. God, for example, did not make the covenant with the nation of Israel. At this point in the discussion, I don’t see how I could add clarity to the role of God, Abraham, or Jesus by adding a term like ‘membership.’
As to the content of the covenant, some applied to individuals and some to groups of people. I would say that these individuals/groups were ‘recipients’ of the promises included in the covenant. I can see how the term ‘membership’ could be applied to these recipients; but, again, I don’t see how that clarifies the term recipients (of the covenant promises).
Another term that enters the discussion is ‘covenant people’ or ‘people of the covenant.’ Again, it seems to me that discussing covenants with regard to a) the people with whom the covenant was made and b) the people who are the recipients of the covenant promises would foster more clarity.
So, how does one become a type a) or type b) person or group? Only by God specifying their role in a specific covenant. And, that He has done quite well with regard to all of the covenants which He specifically makes in Scripture. Thus, I would have to respectfully disagree with the statement that ‘membership in one covenant granted membership in another.’ That is not to in any way take away from the fact that national Israel was made promises in both the AC and the MC. However, in the AC God made the covenant with Abraham and not national Israel and in the MC God made the covenant with national Israel and not Abraham. Similarities and differences existing without any conflicts.
You asked about Ruth, I misunderstood the question, and you responded with:
“By what means?” Faith is the means of inclusion into the New Covenant, circumcision into the Abrahamic (in your understanding). So by what means was Ruth included into the Abrahamic Covenant?
Ruth became part of a group (national Israel) identified as a recipient of promises in the AC by marrying a member of the group (actually, she did this twice). She also may have been a recipient of the AC blessings promised to ‘all families’ by God giving her saving faith. (Ruth 1:16 may show this; but, I don’t see it specifically spelled out in Scripture.)
I’d also like to clear up any misunderstanding that I gave you as to how one gains inclusion in the AC. Your statement above shows that I gave the impression that it was circumcision. That would have been an error on my part; circumcision did not gain one entrance to the AC. It was simply a sign of who was included in national Israel (e.g., it was not a sign of the promises involving ‘all the families’). National Israel was, of course, one of the recipients of promises in the AC. I’d like to just point out that circumcision came many years after the institution and a few reaffirmations of the covenant itself.
Now we get to the real question:
where do we see in the Scripture a positive affirmation that the New Covenant is separate from the Abrahamic?
First, I would not say that the NC is ’separate’ from the AC. What I would say is:
a) The covenant that we call the NC is specified in Jeremiah 31:31-34. (I certainly don’ t expect any disagreement on this? I do expect disagreement with what follows. (insert sad smiley face))
b) The NC is made with national Israel. The recipients of the promises of the NC are national Israel.
c)The foundation of the NC promises is the death (blood) of the Savior. The covenant could not be instituted (even though it was described long before) until Christ died and paid for sin.
d) Sorry for what I have to say next; but, the church is not now receiving the blessings of the NC. The church is receiving the blessings of the AC (in Abraham, all the families of the earth shall be blessed).
e) To enable these blessings to flow to all people while Israel still awaits the blessings of the NC, God made a new creation, the church, Jew and Gentile in one body. This body receives those salvific blessings, because of the self same cross as was required to institute the NC, through faith in Jesus. Or, as Ephesians 3:6 says: “that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members (with the Jew) of the body (the church), and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus (AC promise to all the families of the earth [which would include the Israelites also!]) through the gospel.
So, my specific answer to your question is ‘no.’ There is no reason to expect a ’specific affirmation’ of separation. And, the reasons given above explain why that would not be required. Furthermore, the definitions of each covenant make it clear that they are not the same covenants.
The church is receiving the blessings of the AC because Jesus has paid the price of sin for ‘all the families of the earth’ and God created a new group, the church, a mystery, to receive these blessings. The new covenant only relates to Israel, although the death was also required for the enactment of that covenant. The fulfillment of the NC will have to wait for the second coming.
I’ll bet that there are just a few things in the above that you would like to point out as being not Scriptural. I am anxious to see what you have to say.
And I think this is more or less where we are: hashing through the four questions, and raising various issues in the process.
David, over to you.
JRC
Saturday, May 16, 2009
God's Covenant(s?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
465 comments:
1 – 200 of 465 Newer› Newest»I realize it's a bit awkward to have you respond first, since I left a couple of your points hanging.
First, I have a question. What do you mean when you say that "circumcision was not the entrance into the AC (Abrahamic Covenant)?"
It seems to me that Gen. 17 is pretty strongly worded: "This is my covenant..."
And, if anyone desired to become a Jew -- a "son of Abraham" -- he was required to undergo circumcision.
What am I missing here?
Second, I have some other questions:
* Why is it important to you to view Israel, and not the church, as the recipients of the New Covenant?
* Why does the Church then practice the sign of the New Covenant -- namely, communion? This is practiced in the NT by Jews and Gentiles alike (cf. 1 Cor 11).
* It seems to me that Hebrews 8 - 10 identifies the New Covenant with forgiveness of sins. Would you say that those in the Church are forgiven of their sins, but not a part of the New Covenant?
JRC
Jeff,
"I realize it's a bit awkward to have you respond first, since I left a couple of your points hanging."
After all the work you expended in structuring this exchange here, how could I possibly object to a little awkwardness? Thank you very much; I only hope we move this forward to His glory. As an aside, I am having a hard time not thinking about whether 'hanging points' are anything like 'hanging chads?'
First issue: Entrance into the Abrahamic Covenant
You asked: "What do you mean when you say that "circumcision was not the entrance into the AC (Abrahamic Covenant)?" "
OK, a little over the top! I apologize. However, I am troubled by that idea in that it glosses over a lot of important details. For example, the gentiles who are saved in Christ do not enter the group of people who are recipients of the promises of the AC by means of circumcision. So, you are right in that there was a group of people who were identified as potential targets of the promises if and when they were circumcised.
God made promises to Abraham; each promise had a person or people as the recipient(s). God told Abraham 'do this' (circumcision). The people who are thus marked would constitute one of the groups of people concerning whom God make these promises. By extension, there is also a group of people who will receive of the AC promises who will not be bounded by the mark of circumcision. By the way, I hope we agree that the promises were not to be fulfilled to each and every marked person. Circumcision was a mark of the boundaries of the group.
Let me apologize up front if the following sounds like a quibble. It really isn't intended as such. You said: "And, if anyone desired to become a Jew -- a "son of Abraham" -- he was required to undergo circumcision."
There were many people marked out as 'in the AC' before the first Jew stepped foot on the earth. I don't believe that they were all called son's of Abraham. It was mainly birth that resulted in one being a 'son of Abraham' or after a while, a 'Jew.' Circumcision was simply a sign of who was 'in' the group vs. those who were 'out' of the group. So, if, for example, one was bought by a member of the AC group and he wanted the new person to be included in the group, then, yes, he would circumcise that new person. And, I am sure we agree that during all of this, it was God who was making sure that Jesus would be born to a member of the AC group.
So you ask: "What am I missing here?"
Nothing; I only wish that I possessed your depth of understanding. It is just that the AC is a big umbrella and it seems to me that it can only be understood rightly by considering the elements individually. Start combining elements that should be kept separate and Israel becomes the Church.
You ask: "Why is it important to you to view Israel, and not the church, as the recipients of the New Covenant?"
I only find the New Covenant being made with the nation of Israel. When Jesus instituted it, He did not have to explain anything to the assembled men. Why not? They were Jews; they fully understood what the New Covenant was and to whom its promises applied. Yes, these men went on to become foundational to the church. That continuity is clearly a temptation to put aside the discontinuity also involved in the transition.
You then ask: "Why does the Church then practice the sign of the New Covenant -- namely, communion?"
The church has Jesus. If not for Jesus' death and resurrection there would not be a body of Christ. This mystery, this new creation, depended for its existence on the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Of course the church should remember this, and often. It just so happens that implementation of the New Covenant also depends on the cross. For now, the church is the only group that understands the cross and thus is the only group celebrating communion.
Then you ask: "It seems to me that Hebrews 8 - 10 identifies the New Covenant with forgiveness of sins. Would you say that those in the Church are forgiven of their sins, but not a part of the New Covenant?"
God has told us the price for sin and so forgiveness only come about when that price is paid. The New Covenant did not pay the price for anything; Jesus did. The New covenant promises could not be fulfilled without Him paying the price. As such, He is very closely linked with the New Covenant. As it turns out, the cross accomplished more that just enabling the New Covenant. Voila, the Church. As to your question, the simple answer is yes; but, I don't think that is a helpful answer. I'd like to say something about Hebrews.
The very name tells us that it is written (originally) to people who had a strong coupling to the OT, they were first century Hebrews. But, it is also clear that these people are in The Church. Alas, they are having trouble because of their straddling of two worlds; a fairly unique situation. The typical church of our day does not have many like this on its roles. Thus, it has to be difficult for us to read this letter as the original recipients would have. The discussion of the New Covenant and the Church are so interwoven in Hebrews that it is indeed very hard to be sure of true message. How much ink has been spilled over the warnings? Do you think the writer (God) was trying to confuse these people by being obtuse? Of course not. Whatever the warnings meant (mean), the recipients would have understood the message. Likewise, I believe they understood the message about the New Covenant and the Church.
As I look back over what has transpired so far, it seems to be you asking questions and me responding. Further, I know that my responses do not match your views. I wish you would take the gloves off and show me where I am just plain wrong. I, of course, can't promise that I will see the light. But, I can promise that I will do all I can to see why you make the points you do. Your breadth and depth of theology are far greater than mine and so I am indeed troubled that we have such different views. Thank you again for the effort.
David,
Thanks for the reply.
I'm not troubled by the fact that we have different views. I actually grew up in one theological world and landed in another, on the basis of Scripture -- and I continue to value the Biblical faithfulness of the first world, even while I disagree with some of their particulars.
So I see the world of theology as larger than one single view, and differences of opinion are sometimes due not so much to sin, but to being at different places in God's plan for our lives.
I've been asking questions because I want to be sure of what you are saying. You know how it is on GB; somebody gets a partial idea of something and then goes on a tear. I don't want to be that guy! :)
---
Here's one place where I think we disagree. For you, the covenant with Abraham consists of different parts that apply to different groups of people.
I would guess that you would see the promise of land as applying to physical Jews, while the promise "I will be your God and you will be my people" would apply to those who have the faith of Abraham.
Is that fair? If so, then let's call the two promises "Land" and "People."
I have two challenges to that view. First, the Scripture does not treat the Land and People promises separately, but as a unit. Evidence:
(a) Unfaithfulness -- a violation of the People promise -- was cause for removal from the Land.
(b) Paul specifies that the Land promise is fulfilled by the people who have the faith of Abraham (Rom. 4.13-15).
(c) When Paul speaks of the covenant with Abraham, he speaks of it as "the promise" -- which implies one rather than many.
So my first challenge is this: on what basis do you believe that the Scripture teaches that the AC consists of different parts that apply to different people? Granted that we can see two different sentences containing promise (Gen. 17.8a and 8b), but does the Scripture support the idea that these were directed to two different groups of people?
Second, the Land promise itself was a symbol of being God's people. As we trace the history of Israel in Judges, Kings, and Chronicles, we see that their unfaithfulness continually led to the threat of losing the land due to invaders. When they were finally deported, they did not respond by making sure that everyone got circumcised. Instead, they responded by repenting and returning to the Lord. They understood that the Exile was symbolic of their severed relationship with God.
Thus, the land of Israel was symbolic of and not the reality of the Abrahamic Covenant. Pretrib premillennial scenarios in which Israel finally receives the land miss the point that Paul makes in Romans 4.13. The real promise was to inherit the whole world in the eschaton, because God's people can finally live in the whole world without sin.
So the second challenge is, Why is the Land promise so important after Christ has come? Was not the Land just a shadow whose reality is found in Rev. 21.1-3?
---
Final thought. You said, "It is just that the AC is a big umbrella and it seems to me that it can only be understood rightly by considering the elements individually. Start combining elements that should be kept separate and Israel becomes the Church."
Is combining Israel and the Church truly a terrible thing? I mean, yes, there are ways of combining Israel and the Church that are problematic. The Judaizers, for example, tried to drag the Church back into the Law. "Replacement Theologians" tried to remove physical Jews from God's care entirely, overlooking or ignoring Romans 11.
But their excesses need not force us to create a hard wall of separation between the Church and Israel. Think about how hard Paul works in multiple different books to prove that the Church is not entirely separate from Israel: Eph. 2, Gal. 3, Rom. 4 and 11.
Somewhere along the line, a rule was created: "Thou shalt not mix Israel and the Church."
But is this rule taught in Scripture?
For my part, I abandoned a "separation of Israel and Church" view because I could not find any passages in Scripture that instructed me to do so; and I could find plenty that moved in the opposite direction. On this basis, and especially on the basis of Galatians 3 and Rom 11, I came to view the Church as the place in which believing Jews and Gentiles together receive the reality of the promise made to Abraham.
Grace and peace,
JRC
Jeff,
First, I can't be sure of what you thought; but please be assured that I was in no way 'complaining' in my last comment that you were just asking questions and I was just giving answers.
Next, these are truly great questions! I had planned to continue my study of the Institutes today (the end is in sight!); but will gladly interrupt that to give your questions the serious thought they deserve before I try to answer.
Hi Jeff,
I can't tell you how blessed I am from having struggled today with putting together this response. Thank you for posing the questions.
You start with: "I would guess that you would see the promise of land as applying to physical Jews, while the promise "I will be your God and you will be my people" would apply to those who have the faith of Abraham."
You then ask if this is a fair statement. Well, since nothing here is very simple, my answer is "it is fair; but, does not go far enough." With many words to follow, I will go further.
With regard to your first point of evidence: "(a) Unfaithfulness -- a violation of the People promise -- was cause for removal from the Land."
Removal from the land would not be part of an eternal promise, by definition. So, whoever was in Canaan and then removed had to be part of something other than the AC promise of eternal possession of the land.
With regard to your next two points of evidence:
I see the group that inherits the land (physical; not metaphorical) meeting both of these requirements, they are physical Jews (plus some hangers on, so to speak) and they possess a declaration of righteousness by faith in Jesus. Of course, you had already anticipated that response and so you made the point later on that "Pretrib premillennial scenarios in which Israel finally receives the land miss the point that Paul makes in Romans 4.13" So, I better look at Romans 4!
First, the context is justification comes to all (Jew and Gentile) through faith; not law keeping. So, when Paul mentions the promise in 4:13, it ought to have something to do with justification for all by faith. The promise (singular) is defined in the verse as 'Abraham or his seed would be the heir of the world.' I see this referencing the promise (singular) in Genesis 12:3, "and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." This is a universal promise and not one that is limited to a single group (e.g., the nation of Israel). Genesis 12:3, like Romans 4:13, are both addressing the same thing and both have a very broad reach.
Let me address 'seed.' Becoming an heir of the world based on justification by faith must be referencing someone other than Christ, since He kept the Law and did not need justification by faith. Therefore, it seems more natural (at least to me) to understand seed here as referring to all who by faith become Abraham's children. Children in the sense that he was the first to be identified in Scripture as being declared righteous as a result of his faith (a gift of God) and that all who follow him in being declared righteous through faith are following in his 'footsteps' or are his 'children.'
Finally, what does 'heir of the world' mean? I think it is just a way of saying 'heir of God' or 'children of God' or 'the people of God' (see Romans 8:17a). That is, these are people saved through faith.
To recap then, this verse is not about the land promise. It is about the promise to Abraham that through his seed (Jesus), justification by faith would come to all who would believe, and that, without any works of the law.
Now, to your two challenges:
"1) on what basis do you believe that the Scripture teaches that the AC consists of different parts that apply to different people? . . . . does the Scripture support the idea that these were directed to two different groups of people?"
I'm having difficulty identifying a cogent way of addressing this question. We both know that almost any position on the meaning of Scripture can be supported by Scripture. And, that each of us finds support for the view we have and somehow, do not focus on the passages that the other finds in support of their view. So, I am trying to resist adopting the mode of throwing proof texts over the fence at you. Also, I find it easier to interpret the meaning of some verse than to find a verse that 'proves' some point. Well, now that I have vented. . . . (insert smiley face)
Let me see if I can find more than one group identified as a recipient of any of the AC promises.
In Genesis 12:3 we find that all the nations will be blessed through Abraham. A very general promise that I think you and I can agree on as referring to salvation through faith in Jesus. So this is a foundational promise about salvation to anybody, pre- or post-cross, that is ever declared righteous. Anybody who is of the nation of Israel at any time in history and who is saved is a part of this group; but, the nation of Israel is not this group.
Now, in Genesis 17:8-10 God promises the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession to a people who:
1) are saved,
2) are physical descendants (loosely speaking) of Abraham, and
3) have the mark of circumcision.
This group of descendants can not be the Church. The Church knows nothing of physical circumcision. (I am quite certain that baptism is not far from making its appearance in this discussion. Alas, I'll wait.) And, so I see at least two distinct groups identified regarding the AC: 1) the all inclusive group of saved people of all time and 2) the group of saved people (a group within the first group) at a specific point in time who inherit the land of Canaan.
2) "So the second challenge is, Why is the Land promise so important after Christ has come? Was not the Land just a shadow whose reality is found in Rev. 21.1-3?"
Honestly, I do not know why making this promise was so important to God. But, I can't imagine how it could have been spelled out more clearly so many times. Do you really think that the description in Genesis 15:18-21 is intended to be a description of New Jerusalem? To the Jews of that time, the land described would have been anything but a shadow. They would have understood exactly what land was being defined.
You summarize your view: "For my part, I abandoned a "separation of Israel and Church" view because I could not find any passages in Scripture that instructed me to do so; and I could find plenty that moved in the opposite direction."
Of course, one would not find any instruction in Scripture to separate Israel and the Church. God formed Israel and marked it out with circumcision. He made an eternal promise to Abraham concerning it. We can both read the relevant Scriptures. It is clear that He did this.
Then God created the body of Christ, the Church. A spiritual entity with many spiritual promises to its account. It has no need of 'land.' So, why would God tell us to separate two separate creations of His?
Does God ever tell us to join them? Nowhere. Does God ever tell us that both of them are going to consist of only saved people. Yes, indeed. So, they share a remarkable blessing in common. But, that does not erase their differences.
Here is my question to you: Why is it so important for you (generically speaking) to combine Israel and the Church? What harm is it to the cause of Christ today if someday a group of physical humans get the deed to a small scrap of land somewhere. What does the Church loose in this transaction? In any case, we will be ruling over this land with our Lord. And, finally, after all this is burned up, we will all be together in New Jerusalem. What is the problem for the Church in this?
It's a great series of questions: Why is it so important for you (generically speaking) to combine Israel and the Church? What harm is it to the cause of Christ today if someday a group of physical humans get the deed to a small scrap of land somewhere. What does the Church loose in this transaction?Let me address this and then I'll come back to answers to the other.
The motivation to combine Israel and the Church, for me, is Galatians 3 and Ephesians 2.
I don't feel any need to lay claim to Palestinian land (!), so there's nothing lost in allowing physical Jews to lay claim to it. As you rightly point out, in the New Heavens and the New Earth, God's people get everything, so there's no point in being stingy now.
But I do feel a need to not re-raise the dividing wall that Christ tore down. When Galatians says that we are all sons of Abraham and heirs to the promise, I want to take this plainly for the simple reason that Paul does not qualify this in any way: "You are heirs to part of the promise." I view separating Israel and the Church as a form of restoring the dividing wall based on, well, circumcision v. uncircumcision. So you can imagine that I would want to oppose, or at least very carefully qualify, such a view.
You also mentioned the circumcision/baptism link. One of the prizes here, perhaps the prize, is to establish whether children of believers ought to receive the sign of being in Abraham's Covenant. For me, that's the "practical prize" of this question.
Now, I think we agree in part. You and I both seem to believe that the People promise of the Abrahamic Covenant applies to Jews and Gentiles alike, in Christ. Yes?
So the obvious question this raises is, "Is there one promise or two?" Obviously, if the Land and People promises apply to people meeting two different criteria, then Gal 3 would possibly be referring only to one: the People promise.
So our task would then be to go back and examine the texts more closely in order to answer this question:
Are the statements of the covenant in Gen. 15 and 17 in reference to two different promises, or restatements of one single promise?
Put another way: are the People and Land promises separate legal transactions, or are they two different parts of the same covenant?
Clearly, you've taken the former position and I've taken the latter.
Let's examine this more closely and see whether the Scripture gives enough information to decide the question.
I need to go write an exam, so I'll post more later.
Grace and peace,
JRC
Hi Jeff,
I resisted responding until you had a chance to finish your thoughts on my last post; but, well . . . you can see that I fell to temptation. I hope that what I will say next will not mess up the flow of our exchange and much more importantly, will not in any way give offense.
You said: "You also mentioned the circumcision/baptism link. One of the prizes here, perhaps the prize, is to establish whether children of believers ought to receive the sign of being in Abraham's Covenant. For me, that's the "practical prize" of this question."
I read most of what happens at GreenBaggins. I learn a great deal. One of the subliminal (or maybe not so hidden) messages I have seen there is the one you state so well here. The 'children.' I have always felt that this was a force that drove interpretation of the reformed community as represented there. Please don't see this as a criticism. I can not say it is wrong. I can only say that I don't see it the same way.
Let me just add that throughout the centuries following the covenant with Abraham, the 8 day old baby boys of Abraham's line that received the mark of circumcision were for the most part children of unbelievers.
Yes, I understand. And no offense taken.
For what it's worth, the separation of Israel and the Church is also intimately tied up with the credo-baptist arguments also. If one examines dispensationalist or Reformed Baptist discussions of baptism, much effort is made to decouple circumcision from baptism.
Now, that doesn't change Truth, so our notions of continuity or discontinuity of the covenant(s) can be tested by Scripture independently of the baptism question.
But at the same time, I would like for us to be self-aware of the role that infant baptism (or non-baptism!) plays in motivating our arguments.
For me, historically, I moved out of dispensationalism and into Reformed theology over a process of about 10 years. At first, I believed as I had been taught to believe that Reformed people "spiritualized the Bible."
Then I realized that that wasn't true, so I believed that the Reformed arguments were possible, but not compelling. During that time period, I came to abandon a hardened separation between the Church and Israel.
And eventually, I had to confront the issue of infant baptism head-on because of a romantic relationship with a die-hard dispensationalist.
My study of the Scripture led me to take the position opposite of my perceived best interests. (In reality, God's plan was best!).
So that's my tale. I agree: infant baptism is a player here.
How does your own heritage figure into the discussion?
JRC
P.S. Almost missed this:
Let me just add that throughout the centuries following the covenant with Abraham, the 8 day old baby boys of Abraham's line that received the mark of circumcision were for the most part children of unbelievers.That's likely quite true. It's also true that all of those who had the privilege of worshiping the Lord on the Sabbath were for the most part unbelievers, and that even the priests who offered the sacrifices were in many cases idolaters.
I think we agree that OT Israel was not what she should have been. The prophets certainly thought so.
So what's the remedy?
Jeff,
All I can do is apologize. I have split our discussion in two. Sorry. If only you hadn't said anything in your last response that was worthy of comment!!!
Sadly, proponents of both views throw insults at one another. I really hate it when one of 'my' side throws the 'spiritualization' bomb. It is clear to me that players on each side do what they have to do to remove their own cognitive dissonance. I certainly see dispy's using spiritualization; I don't see much admission of that however. I guess there is nobody so blind as the one who can't see.
I applaud your candid statement about the possibility of infant baptism influencing your thinking. But, then you ask about my possibly being influenced too. I honestly do not think it a player in my view. I have to quickly add that I could be blind to my own faults. But, I am not conscious of the influence.
Of course everything that has ever happened to me is a factor in where I am today. Nevertheless, I came to Christ as an adult who had no idea what church, the OT or the NT was. I had never read the Bible. Certainly, I had never heard the word dispensationalism. For quite a while, I had a hard time voicing the word 'Jesus.' Jews are indoctrinated to really dislike non-Jews and Jesus had something to do with that. The only thing I remember begin told in this regard was that because of Him (not that He was real) they (the non-Jews) had killed a lot of Jews. So, I really don't have a 'baptism' history.
Let me just add that as a ceremony, I have nothing against infant baptism. It is just that I doubt that I would agree with the views that proponents have as to what is going on in the process. For example, the idea of an infant becoming a member of the Abrahamic Covenant as a result of baptism seems unscriptural to me.
"I think we agree that OT Israel was not what she should have been. The prophets certainly thought so."
I am not sure that the point I was trying to make was clear, based on your response. First, I agree with all you said about the unbelievers in OT Israel except this last sentence. Before you react in unbelief, let me explain. Certainly from our (two believing humans) perspective this is a true statement. On the other hand, I believe that it is exactly what God planned. So, in some way that totally escapes me, this way is best.
As to the point, I probably didn't make well . . . . You want believers to baptize their children into the covenant community and that comes from circumcision changing into baptism. So, I just saw irony in that the original parents of a different ritual were most likely not believers. If you had seen that already; just forgive my denseness.
I assume your last question "So what's the remedy" is rhetorical. Nevertheless, it is up to each one to do what they understand by faith is best. God is taking care of the bigger picture in spite of that. I just can't wait for Jesus to just explain all of this.
I just can't wait for Jesus to just explain all of this.No kidding. I have to say, when I get to heaven and if Jesus says, "infant baptism was all wrong", I'll just have to be thankful for grace.
A couple of clarifications:
* When I say that the OT prophets did not think that Israel was what she ought to have been, I was not referring to God's decrees. At that level, everything is as it ought to be! Rather, I was referring to God's precepts; Israel is repeatedly scolded because she doesn't do as she ought.
* When I asked about how your background influences things, I was also considering your Jewish heritage. How does that influence your theology here? (Open-ended question!)
* The question, "What's the remedy?" was not rhetorical, but real. Given that the OT community failed to live up to the requirements of the covenant, should the NT community do something differently?
So for example, many credobaptists view Believer's Baptism as a remedy to the problem. Instead of accepting children into the community prior to an expression of faith, we require an expression of faith as a requirement of membership. In this way, they hope to avoid the problems that plagued Israel.
JRC
OK, I'd like to come back to the questions of the Abrahamic Covenant.
(Unity) One promise or two?
(Continuity) Restated in the New Covenant, or separate from the New Covenant?
Granted that we have different opinions about each of these, let's try to critically examine the arguments and see if we can find some common ground.
(Unity) I would argue that the AC is a single covenant. Argument:
(1) I mentioned earlier that the Scripture treats the two promises as one. Here's some detail:
(A) The structure of Genesis 15 supports unity. In vv. 1-3, Abraham speaks of physical descendants. God responds in vv. 4-5 with the promise of as many descendants as stars in the sky -- and Abraham responds in (justifying) faith. Typically, the "stars in the sky" is taken to mean the same as the "many nations" in Gen. 17, yes? Then in vv. 7ff, God gives the promise of Land to the descendants of Abraham. Which descendants are these? Plainly, the ones promised in v. 6.
(B) The same thing occurs in Gen. 17. Vv. 3-6 find God reiterating the promise of many descendants, phrased as "many nations" -- clearly a reference to Gentiles, yes? And he follows up with the promise of Land to the descendants. Which ones? Again, in context, the "many nations."
Now, one might object that "many nations" cannot all inherit one land. And I would argue, this is why Paul correctly recognizes in Rom 4.13 that the land of Israel is really symbolic of the whole world. Just as Israel has an inheritance, so does each of the other nations, adding up to the whole world.
(C) And then in v. 8, God ties together Land and People: The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."Notice that it is NOT two different groups of people, but the SAME descendants who receive the Land and People promises. I think this one verse makes the case air-tight.
What do you think?
JRC
Hi Jeff,
First I think that you have done a great job (seriously) of laying out a rationale for your view. I really appreciate that it gives me something solid to investigate. What I see is that your position rests heavily on the interpretation of two phrases: (Please understand that I do not in any way mean to denegrate your position by this. It just helps me focus my response. Of course if I have misunderstood you then I am wasting your time. I certainly hope this is not the case.) The two phrases I see are:
a) 'stars of the sky,' a fairly frequent phrase that can be understood from various contexts
b) 'inherit the world,' a rare (appears once?) phrase about which we can not at all be confident.
So, let me respond to each of your points:
Point 1A)
a) I follow you up to Abram (not Abraham) being declared righteous in Gen. 15:6. I see Abram concerned here for a posterity, a line to carry on his name. I don't see him concerned about the political structure (i.e., nations) of his children. Nations just don't seem to be in view here, at least from his point of view.
b) 'Stars of the heavens' is clearly a simile, yes? It is just another way of saying 'dust of the earth' or 'sand of the sea,' yes? God used that same simile in Gen. 13:16 where He also referred to the descendants of Abram. There he explained it as a 'countless multitude.' In Deuteronomy 1:10 God applied this comparison to the number of people already then in just the nation of Israel.
c) In Gen 15:7ff it is clear that the descendants to whom he is giving the land (which is specifically mapped out at the end of the chapter) clearly belong to only one nation (Israel). This is the specific nation that he qualifies as having spent about 400 years in Egypt as slaves. Surely we can agree that the picture that God is painting is that the descendants of Abraham will be very numerous, 'almost' uncountable. But, up to this point, there is only one nation in view.
d) I do not think there is any problem counting the number of nations in the entire world even today. So, isn't more needed to show that God is talking about nations in contrast to individuals at Gen. 15:5 (Gen 13:16)?
e) You say that "Typically, the "stars in the sky" is taken to mean the same as the "many nations" in Gen. 17, yes?" I must respectfully say that I don't see the link in Scripture between the 'stars in the heavens' of Gen: 15:5 and the 'many nations' of Gen. 17:4-6. What is your reason for saying that yours is the typical meaning when Deuteronomy 1:10 makes it so clear that the one nation of Israel had already obtained that status regarding its members.
f) In Gen. 17:2-6 we find God giving Abram the name of Abraham. I believe this means 'father of many nations.' In this passage God is promising that out of the myriad of individual descendants that Abram would have, He, God, would fashion many geopolitical groups. Each having their own king. But, of course, the nations are comprised of these many, individual descendants of Abraham.
g) You conclude the point with "Which descendants are these? Plainly, the ones promised in v. 6." I agree completely. And, if one reads the rest of this chapter God shows that the people referenced to get this specific piece of property are the Israelites and not 'many nations.'
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Point 1B)
a) Gen. 17:3-6 is clearly about Abram becoming the father of many nations and now being known as Abraham. You state that the 'many nations' term is just another way of saying many descendants. The word that is always translated descendants doesn't appear in Chapter 17 until verse 7. The promise has been stated several times up to this point in Genesis and not until chapter 17:1-6 has the idea of many nations (goyim) been introduced. Goyim is never used to refer to Israelites in the OT. In fact, it is always used to separate the world into Gentiles and Jews.
b) Progression of the promises:
b1) Gen 12:2 - Abram will become a great nation (singular)
b2) Gen 13:14-17 - Abram is in Canaan, God says look around, the land you see, THIS is the land I am giving to your descendants (zera or seed). God does not say nations (goyim). And his seed are going to be as the dust of the earth. No mention of any nations. Based on Gen. 12:2, wouldn't it be reasonable for Abram to be thinking God is still describing the great nation that he is to become?
b3) Gen 15:5 - God again talks about Abram's seed being as the stars of the heavens. Still no 'many nations.' Is Abram being declared righteous for believing a lie? No way. He believed he was going to have many seed/descendants (the idea of many nations coming from him was still foreign to him).
b4) Gen 15:7 - God brings up the land and they go through the ritual to confirm the covenant. The ritual was in response to Abram asking God how he would know that He would possess the land (not how he would know that many nations would come from him).
b5) Gen 15:13-18 - Isn't this presenting the fact that the descendants who specifically get this specific land are the Israelites, yes? And, this is one nation; the many nations have not been brought in to the picture yet. The land is given to only one nation.
b6) Gen 15:18-21 - Here is a recap of God making a covenant to give a very specific piece of land to the seed of Abram, NOT Abraham. That was a very specific covenant that had only one element, land for the descendants who were compared to dust or stars regarding their number. This covenant did not depend on the Cross for its inception. And up to this time, nothing has been said about these people being 'saved.' That has to wait for Gen 17.
b7) Gen 17:4 - Now for the first time the idea of many nations appears and the land has already been covenanted to the one nation of Israel. Let's assume for the moment that the saved of the world are in the Church. They are scattered among all the nations of the world. However, the Church can not be considered many nations? It is only Israel, as a nation, that the Scriptures identifies as comprising only saved people (ultimately). So, to tie the two together is not scriptural as far as I can see.
c) I have already addressed Romans 4:13; but, from your next comment ("Paul correctly recognizes in Rom 4.13 that the land of Israel is really symbolic of the whole world.") I conclude that you either did not see my thoughts or that you have deemed them completely wrong. Further, you see the AC being about one thing because Paul links salvation and land here. Why would he do that when the whole context in Romans 4 is salvation by faith and thus inheriting eternal life and adoption into God's family etc., etc. His theme here is not in any way related to inheriting land! How can we support Paul talking about land (which he never explicitly mentions anywhere in the context) when he is so clearly making the foundational point about his message of salvation thru faith? To make the case that the phrase 'inherit the world,' which only appears here in Scripture, has the meaning of 'inheriting all the planetary land' really needs additional scriptural support.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Point 1C)
a) Gen. 17:8 does indeed tie the land and salvation together; but, not for the nations. If one holds that 'many descendants' is the same as 'many nations' then I see how he could conclude that this verse makes the case air-tight. The nations that came from Abraham (for example all the Arab nations from Ishmael) were not saved nations. At least Scripture doesn't indicate any thing like that. It is only the nation of Israel that will ultimately all be saved. And, yes, that one nation, carrying the mark of circumcision, not baptism, is the nation being discussed in Gen 17:8ff.
Our differences really do come down to just a few phrases. At least I have a very clear picture of how you get to your conclusion. All I can say is that the major inference that I would ask you to reconsider is the idea of the stars of the heavens being a symbol of the many nations that would emanate from Abraham and if we have any reason to believe that they could be characterized as saved nations with circumcision. And, to see 'land' in Romans 4, really does introduce a twist in an otherwise clear passage.
Hi David,
Thanks for the excellent replies. Would you prefer for us to chew on #1 for a while, or should we parallel-track and move on to #2?
JRC
Just to reflect back what I've read, your position is that
(~1A1) Gen 15 is entirely in reference to physical descendants and the physical promise of the land of Canaan.
(1.A.a-e) The phrase "stars in the sky" is not in reference to the "many nations", but merely a simile used to describe the numerous physical descendants of Abraham.
(1.A.f, 1.B.a,b, 1.C.a) The phrase "many nations" is distinct from "descendants" and should not be assumed to be the same. In your reading, "many nations" (goyim) is a reference to Gentiles, while "descendants" is a reference to Jews.
(1B.c) The phrase "inherit the world" in Rom. 4.13 is too vague to place weight on.
Is that a correct summary?
JRC
Hi Jeff,
Please respond in any way that seems best. I had to generate multiple comments to get around the comment size limit. Also, use the structure if it is useful. Otherwise, just ignore it.
Gen 15: yes to physical
stars in the sky: yes; but, I also see places (which escape me at the moment) where the spiritual descendants of Abraham are also characterized as being numerous.
many nations: clearly all descendants (physical and spiritual) can be clustered. Nations is one way of doing so. Yes to goyim. Again, descendants is sort of a global label; context is required to see which subset is in view.
inherit the world: vague in the sense that we can't go any place to look up the definition in Scripture. You are comfortable with your view and likewise I am comfortable with my view. We both see 'support' for our view; yet they are so different that one of us just has to be missing something. Bottom line is that it seems too vague to form the foundation of any conclusion.
You ask if your summary is correct. There is no way that I could have summarized my wordy response any better. Great summary.
OK, let's stick with #1 for a bit. My ADD might rebel if we get too many threads of thought going at once. :)
---
On Rom. 4.13, I want to concede the point in part. I agree with you that the phrase "inherit the world" is not specific enough to place heavy weight on.
Having said that, I would ask, "to which promise is Paul referring?" The Scripture gives only two, as far as I can see: "I will be a God to you and your descendants", and "I will give your descendants the land." (Two and a half, if we count, "I will make you the father of many nations", which is part of the People promise).
So the question is, to what is Paul referring? I would say that Rom. 4.13 shows greater similarity to the Land promise than the People promise.
But I concede that the case is not air-tight.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
You ask "to which promise is Paul referring?"
I believe the promise is in Gen: 12:2-3. (I could go back to Genesis 3:15; but, that probably would be counterproductive at this point) There are several parts but the specific 'promise' is "And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." It's the Gospel! At least that is what Galatians 3:8 says:
Galatians 3:8 "The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All the nations will be blessed in you."
If we go back to Romans 3:21ff, we (at least I) see Paul beginning to address what He will flesh out in chapter 4.
Romans 3:21 "But now apart from the Law [the] righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even [the] righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; .."
In Gen. 12 God promises to solve our problem. Here Paul tells us more of the how. And, the solution is not for just the Jew (who, in any case, didn't exist yet in Gen. 12); its for everybody, equally, no favoritism, etc.
Then in Romans 3:28 Paul puts his stake in the ground even more succinctly:
Romans 3:28 "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law."
That's the promise, the gospel, that he is going to explain in detail in chapter 4 and it is the promise that he explicitly references in 4:13. Why would Paul, in the middle of this foundational discourse, bring in a point about land??? He is talking to the Church about salvation by faith alone.
The phrase 'inherit the world' means (at least, just to me) 'getting it all.' Isn't that what the gospel says? Romans 9:8 says it better than I possibly could:
Romans 9:8 "That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants."
Becoming a child of God is 'inheriting the world' by faith in Jesus.
And finally, (so as not to completely tick you off (smiley face here please))
Galatians 3:29 "And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."
How does one get to belong to Christ? Well, apparently, it was according to a promise. Paul knew that when he penned Galatians and he knew it when he penned Romans 4:13. I just can't see any need to bring land into the picture when talking to the Church about the Gospel.
I can see that. I agree fully with you that the argument about justification is the context of Rom. 4, and I would add that the words at the end of Romans, "Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too..." is a direct reference to Gen. 17.7:
"I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you."
The promise to "be a God" to Abe's descendants is, I think, directly in view in Rom. 3.29.
And in light of that, I especially appreciate your phrase, "God promises to solve our problem." As I see it, justification is the solution to the problem, "How can God be the God of sinners?" And the solution is, "By justifying them."
---
One more point on Rom. 4.13 and then I'll go back to Genesis. You asked,
"Why would Paul, in the middle of this foundational discourse, bring in a point about land??? He is talking to the Church about salvation by faith alone."
And I would reply, "Indeed. Why would he?" This very question has been pivotal in my thinking.
Your answer is, "He isn't; he's talking instead, more generally, about 'getting it all.'"
And I would agree. What is 'all'? Well, according to Revelation and 2 Peter 3, the destiny of this world is to be remade, and we saints inherit a new heavens and a new earth.
It is with this in view that I interpret Rom. 4.13 (tentatively!) as literally, 'inheriting the world.'
To expand: Since I view the whole covenant as one, I see
Justification <=> Being God's people <=> Living in God's place
as one unit together. Each one entails the other. We cannot be God's people without being justified; we cannot live in God's place without being God's people; etc.
In the OT, God's place was Israel. In the eschaton, God's place is everywhere, the New Heavens and the New Earth. As his people, we get to live there. We 'get it all.' Thus: we inherit the world.Rom. 4.13 may mean something else other than literally inheriting the world. You are quite right to say that the phrase is too vague to be really certain.
But I would say that your reading does have a weakness: you are reading 'inherit the world' as 'becoming a child of God', which is a rather non-literal rendering.
I don't think the context is so strong to support such a re-reading, especially if a more literal reading is possible.
What do you think?
JRC
A couple of qualifiers: "God's place" does not mean "the territory God owns", which is obviously everywhere! Rather, it means "the place where God's righteousness rules."
In Israel, this rule was typological; in the eschaton, it will be in reality.
Also, my reading of Rom. 3.14 obviously depends on my view of the covenant, so I cannot appeal to it in defense of my view of the covenant. For that reason, I shall move on to Genesis.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
You said "The promise to "be a God" to Abe's descendants is, I think, directly in view in Rom. 3.29." Absolutely.
And you add "(Romans 3:29) is a direct reference to Gen. 17.7" Seems that way to me also.
Unless I am just missing it, we are in violent agreement on 'inherit the world.' You say "Justification <=> Being God's people <=> Living in God's place" YES. I see all of that in 'inherit the world.'
You say "But I would say that your reading does have a weakness: you are reading 'inherit the world' as 'becoming a child of God', which is a rather non-literal rendering." You are absolutely right to say that I am reading this in a non-literal manner. But, what is the difference between 'God's people' and 'child of God?' It is all about the promise of righteousness. From that flows all sorts of 'goodies;' including living eternally in New Jerusalem. Do you really still see that we are saying different things about 'inherit the world?'
Now, even if we are in agreement here, that still leaves us to work out 'descendants' in Gen. 17:7 and 17:8. I've already made my argument and so I'll let you take the next thrust. BUT, may I just put in a question in this regard? Would you say that when God created the Church (it is after all a new creation, no?) that he created 'many nations and kings?'
Now I'll shut up and let you speak.
David, you asked:
But, what is the difference between 'God's people' and 'child of God?' It is all about the promise of righteousness.At first, I thought this was a rhetorical question because the two phrases are so close. But on the basis of your followup answer "all about the promise of righteousness", I think you are positing a distinction here.
So if I understand, you are suggesting that Abraham's physical descendants, who are promised to Abraham in Gen. 12 and 15, are "God's people" but not necessarily "God's children." For you, the difference between those two is the promise of righteousness: the former are God's people by virtue of birth; the latter become sons of God by virtue of new birth.
Am I tracking? Or was my first instinct correct, that you see the two phrases as the same?
Would you say that when God created the Church (it is after all a new creation, no?) that he created 'many nations and kings?'No, not exactly. When Abraham was promised that he would become the father of one nation, through Isaac, that nation had not yet been established. But the "seed" was sown that ultimately grew into that nation.
Likewise, when Jesus came, He did not establish earthly kingdoms. But He did lay the foundation for members of every nation and tribe to become God's children and children of Abraham (in whatever sense that is meant).
In the eschaton, it is those converted people who will be inheriting the new heavens and new earth; at that time, the nations will be made up entirely of Abraham's children (in whatever sense that is meant).
I should say incidentally that I see the fulfillment of this after Christ's return and not before; I am not a "post-millennialist."
So the establishment of the Church was not the establishment of a nation or many nations, but of a "holy race" whose principle converts the nations into Abraham's children. In the End, those nations will be his -- and more importantly, God's.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
My question about people vs. children was triggered by your postulating: "Justification <=> Being God's people <=> Living in God's place" and yet saying that my non-literal (and I agree with you on that) interpretation of 'children of God' is somehow in conflict with what you say here about God's people.
In the OT, the nation of Israel is clearly 'God's people.' But, not all of them are declared righteous. The 'God's people' in your equation above are all righteous. So, there must be at least two 'senses' in which people are 'God's People.'
I can find no place where OT people are called 'children of God.' The Church, the invisible one, is made up only of 'children of God.' So, my point was that the 'promise' that we are talking about relates to those who are actually righteous (thru Christ, of course). Israel could not be called a righteous nation; I don't know the exact number; but that most were not righteous seems to have been the case.
Nevertheless, God made promises to Abraham about blessings to this unrighteous bunch of people. At first, He promises them a parcel of land; later on, He made the promise about an eternal possession of this land. The former was not made to God's people (in the saved sense); the later was and He says so explicitly in the text. So, Paul says 'and then all Israel (I am pretty sure he didn't say 'all the church') will be saved.' This references only that particular subset of Israelites that will inherit the land 'eternally.' The other 'God's people (Israelites)' inherited the land only temporarily.
Sorry to be so wordy; but, what I was trying to show is that Romans 3:29 and Genesis 17:7 are not talking about the nation of Israel as we see it in the OT. These two passages are only talking about 'saved' people and that does not describe OT Israel. When God talks about 'many nations' the idea of salvation is not there.
So, you see this as a promise of the 'world' (naturally including Canaan) to the people of God. Yes; but, God has already covenanted that little piece of land to the nation of Israel. And, there is nothing in the text to indicate that He is talking about Israel as a type.
Your view seems to be that the mixed people of God (Israel) transitions into the church (visible) which ultimately transitions into a pure entity and then inherits the world including Canaan. The only way that I can piece this together so far is to simply read Paul in a straightforward manner as saying that at the time God saves all of the people who are then alive and Israelites, He will put them into the land of Canaan for keeps (i.e., to the end of the age). THEN, after that, you, I and all of them will move to New Jerusalem. Well, you have been very patient if you have read this far. OK, let's get back to Genesis so you can tell me where I have gone astray.
OH, NO. . .I see that I missed the whole second part of your post!!!
I see the creation of the Church and the nations coming from Abe in the same way that you describe. No ABRAKADABRA magic and there they are full grown.
When God promises 'many nations and many kings' He must be talking about a time between Genesis and the eschaton? God said that many nations would come forth from Abraham; He did not say that many saved nations would come forth from Abraham. But, there will be a multitude of God's people as Abraham's children. As far as the percentage of all of these nations that will be saved before the eschaton is concerned I am ignorant. Now, just because all of the Church is obviously scattered among the existing nations, does not make the many nations equivalent to the Church. I see you saying that the promise concerning the many nations is really about the Church since there will be an evolution toward 100% saved people in the nations. I just can't find this in the text.
OK, I'm confused on a point:
what I was trying to show is that Romans 3:29 and Genesis 17:7 are not talking about the nation of Israel as we see it in the OT. These two passages are only talking about 'saved' people and that does not describe OT Israel. When God talks about 'many nations' the idea of salvation is not there.I think I'll just roll my confusion into the discussion of Genesis, but for now, here's my question:
Gen. 17.5,6 is the promise to make many nations out of Abraham. On your account, no salvation is in view here. The word "descendants" is not used, but Abraham is the "father" -- of physical descendants.
Then Gen. 17.7 is the promise to be a God to Abraham and his descendants. This is the promise of salvation. These "descendants" are a different group, spiritual descendants.
Then Gen. 17.8 is a promise to give the "whole land of Canaan to your descendants ... and I will be their God." -- which is back to physical descendants, but combined with the salvation promise. So these descendants must be both physical AND spiritual: believing Jews.
The going back and forth between different referents (physical descendants in 5,6; spiritual descendants in 7; physical AND spiritual descendants in 8) is confusing to me. Can you understand my confusion?
Have a good Sunday!
JRC
OK, I think I've put my thoughts together re: Genesis. At first, I won't try and address the points you've raised, but just give my own reading. And after that, I'll try to interact with your points. Lord willing. :)
---
God's dealings with Abram begin in Gen. 12 in which God promises to "make him into a great nation" and to make him "a blessing" both to those who bless him (cf.: Melchizedek, Abimelech) and also to all peoples on earth.
On the basis of this promise, Abe travels to Canaan, and God promises "to your offspring I will give this land."
At this point in the narrative, it is unclear whether God has made several separate promises OR one promise with several parts. Nevertheless, we can identify these several parts (or promises) as Offspring, Blessing, and Land.
We then have two chapters in which the promise is reinforced. We see Land in 13.8-15, Offspring in 13.16, and Land again in 13.17.
Likewise, Blessing is illustrated in ch. 14 with the Melch. narrative.
The interleaving of Land and Offspring in ch. 13 suggests that we are looking at a single promise with several parts, rather than multiple promises.
Despite these confirmations, Abraham's faith is somewhat frail, and by ch. 15 we find that Abe is trying to work out how the Offspring promise and the Land promise will come to pass. We see this in his question: "O Sovereign Lord, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?" Clearly Abe is concerned that the Offspring promise will not come to pass; and the Land promise will therefore be moot since the inheritance will pass to another line.
Importantly now, God reaffirms the Offspring promise with the famous words, "Count the stars. So shall your offspring be." This latter phrase, "so shall your offspring be", will be a significant part of our later story.
Abram's response is the other famous words, "Abraham believed the Lord, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
This phrase, coupled with 15.1 "I am your shield and your very great reward", introduces the idea that God is entering into a relationship with Abram, as indeed He does -- He cuts a covenant with him.
The covenant explicitly contains two of our three parts: Land and Offspring; and the Blessing is implied in the vv. 13-14 in which God promises to punish the nation that oppresses his descendants.
So again, the text leads us to conclude that there is one promise (now ratified in the form of a covenant) with multiple parts.
Gen. 16 then relates that Abe is once again trying to work out the details of God's promise through his impregnation of Hagar. The narrative at this point raises the question in our minds: will Hagar's son be the beginning of the Offspring?
This thought is rejected in 17.19-21. Yes, Ishmael will be blessed, but he will not be a part of the covenant: that honor will go to Isaac.
(cont.)
(from above)
In chap. 17, God now "confirms the covenant." He does this by reiterating and expanding on the Offspring promise -- not only will God make him a great nation, but into many nations (and Sarah as well, lest the reader think that Ishmael is in view). He reiterates the Land promise also. And, He adds the sign of the covenant: circumcision.
Most importantly, though, God explicitly reveals the ground floor of the covenant relationship: "I will be their God."
Already in the text, then, we find that Ishmael is circumcised out of obedience even though we know that he is not legitimately a part of the covenant. This is confirmed in the narrative in ch. 21 in which we find that the offspring will be reckoned through Isaac BUT that Ishmael will be blessed and made into a great nation for the sake of Abraham "because he is your offspring."
It's a very interesting passage, 21.8-20, because Ishmael is physically an offspring, but not reckoned as an offspring within the covenant. He is even promised that he will become a great nation, though (again) he is explicitly rejected from the covenant.
He won't be the last, either! The same thing happens with Esau: he receives the sign, rejects the covenant (according to God's purpose -- thanks, Paul), and ends up outside of Israel, BUT founds the nation of Edom. Apparently, the blessings of Abraham spill over to those not explicitly within the covenant. (But we already knew that from Gen. 12.3, right?)
To sum up: the Genesis narrative presents a covenant with Abraham consisting of various parts. The ground floor is the promise: I will be your God. On top of that are Land, Offspring, and Blessing. This covenant has a sign, the sign of circumcision. Already in Genesis is introduced the notion that some of Abraham's physical descendants do not have a legitimate right to the promises of the covenant, though they might still be blessed for the sake of Abraham.
To summarize the summary, we have
I will be their God <==> Land, Offspring, Blessing.
JRC
Let me pause to interact with a couple of your points. And then I'll follow up by attempting to confirm my reading with evidence from Deuteronomy, Romans, and Galatians.
---
I think the biggest place where we will differ is whether to see the covenant with Abraham as one promise, many parts OR as many promises.
In some ways, it's like those famous optical illusion puzzles like the cube on this page -- which way of looking at it is "best", or are they equal?
I think your approach has been to use logic to falsify the "one promise" reading. On your account, clearly,
* God was not the God of each Israelite (in a salvific sense), but all Israelites got to go into the land.
* God receives many Gentiles as "sons of Abraham", but they do not receive or need the Land promise;
*and Gentile adopted "sons of Abraham" CERTAINLY should not receive circumcision.
And so on this basis, if I've understood correctly, you have set aside the "one promise, many parts" reading in favor of "many promises", as follows:
Physical descendants <=> Land, sign of circumcision, belonging to God as a nation.
Spiritual descendants <=> Blessing, belonging to God individually.
And I respect that position. Certainly, I prefer that position to one which obliterates any division between OT and NT and tries to put Christians back under the yoke of the Law!
However, I think that "one promise, many parts" is required for the following reasons:
(1) When we seek for some indication in the text of Genesis that the various parts are directed to various groups, we come up empty. Not only are the promises interleaved, as in 13.8-17, but the text contains no distinction between various groups of "descendants."
Granted, this is an argument from silence. But is the silence not a rather loud one? Or put another way: the text of Genesis fails to provide any positive support for a "many promises to different groups" view. If we wish to read that view in Genesis, we will have to do so on the basis of outside support. (Notice that all of the falsification arguments rely on other books). That's not a crime, since Scripture interprets Scripture. But it is worthy of note that Abraham would have no indication from what we read of a "different promises to different groups" nature of the covenant.
(2) The phrase "Covenant" is used in conjunction with every single part (or promise): I will be your God, Land, Offspring, Blessing. While the different outcomes are many, each falls under the umbrella of the one term: My Covenant.
(3) Likewise, "offspring" is used without distinction. We note here the Greek from the LXX: "spermati", consistently used to translate Heb. "zera`", since Paul will use this term when he quotes the LXX in Romans and Galatians. As used in Genesis, there is no hint of different types of offspring -- except in one respect: there are some physical offspring that are excluded from the Covenant. Other than that, offspring are offspring in Genesis (and in context, they are pretty much physical offspring, though I will qualify this when we get to the NT).
So for example, rejecting the sign of circumcision does not merely disqualify one from Land, but also from being Offspring per Gen. 17.14 -- and from the worship of God, though that's not obvious yet in the text (though it would be obvious to the Mosaic audience of Genesis).
(cont.)
(from above)
4) As I mentioned on Saturday, Gen 17 becomes very confusing if we try to consistently apply the many promises schema:
I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God." Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised.We note that the different promises, to be a God (which was supposed to apply to the Spiritual Descendants) and the Land (which was supposed to apply to the Physical Descendants) get all mixed in together, along with circumcision. More interleaving ...
(5) And considerations from Deut. and the NT, which I'll mention below.
---
But what about those falsifying points you raise? They are good points, and need a response.
In my understanding, the falsifying points are satisfied in another way. Rather than dividing Abraham's offspring into Physical and Spiritual, I would divide them into True and False children of Abraham.
On this account, the false children of Abraham would receive the sign but fail to receive the Covenant. I think this is what is going on with Ishmael, Esau, and the Pharisees to whom Jesus says "If you were children of Abraham, you would do the deeds of Abraham." I think this is what is going on with the non-remnant Jews: they are false children of Abraham.
And importantly, I think this view gives proper weight to Paul's stark statement in Romans: "A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code."
One of my major discomforts with the Physical/Spiritual schema is that Paul doesn't go in that direction here in Rom 2. He doesn't give any room for circumcised "physical children." Instead, he says that non-Spirit-filled Jews are "not Jews." That pushes me towards the more stark True/False schema.
"Pseudochildren" -- there's a term for it!
Well, OK, so why did pseudochildren get to enter the Land?
Well ... many of them didn't, first of all. Remember Joshua and Caleb. But even so, I think Ishmael answers that question nicely. Pseudochildren are shown grace for the sake of Abraham, and not for their own sake. To the extent that they were in the Land, it was because of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and not because they themselves were true Covenant members.
Wouldn't this make sense of Romans 11 and the patience of God towards unbelieving Jews? And their preservation, so that in the end, some will repent and become re-grafted as True Jews?
OK, in what sense do Gentile "true children of Abraham" receive the Land promise?
In my view, the Land of Israel was a shadow of the true inheritance to come. Earthly Jerusalem was a type of New Jerusalem.
So the Land promise, in my view, is expanded both for Jew and Gentile -- in Christ, we inherit the world.
I think we just disagree on this point, so I won't press it. But let me ask this question: if believing Jews get the world, why do they need Israel in particular? Does it rob Jews of their promise if we give them Israel AND the rest of the world?
OK, why don't Gentile "children of Abraham" receive circumcision? Paul's answer: they've been baptized into Christ, so they're already sons of Abraham on that basis.
Do these answers respond to your questions?
JRC
Thanks for your patience. This is all jangling in my brain and I wanted to get it all down, but if it's too much at once I can hardly complain!
---
Briefly, we note these facts from Deuteronomy:
(D1) The Land promise is reiterated countless times, always with the phrase "The Lord your God" -- a mixing of the Land promise with the ground floor, "I will be your God."
(D2) Likewise, God gives the Ten Commandments, including "I am the Lord your God; you shall have no other gods before me" to all the Israelites. Thus, no distinction is made between types of descendants. All are required to believe.
(D3) These two points come together in Deut. 4.40 and again in ch. 28: Keeping God's decrees is a requirement for staying in the Land.
This point is not often well-appreciated. If we use the Physical/Spiritual schema, then the only requirement for getting Land is being a Physical descendant of Abraham (and receiving circumcision).
But in fact, Deut. makes quite clear, as does the rest of the OT, that the requirement for staying in the Land was faithfulness to God.
In other words: being a genuine, believing Jew.
Only the remnant had the right to the Land; everyone else was exiled away, or killed by Philistines, or so on.
I'm not suggesting that the remnant was entirely immune from physical harm; their physical fates were wrapped up with the behavior of the nation as a whole.
BUT, I am suggesting that God continually pruned out unbelievers from Israel because they were false children of Abraham.
In this way, the two categories of Physical and Spiritual are seen to be not clearly separated.
JRC
Finally, I'd like to consider how Paul treats the Covenant in Romans and Galatians.
Earlier, we discussed whom God meant when He said, "count the stars; so shall your offspring be." I mentioned on May 20 that the "stars in the sky" of Gen. 15.5 is frequently connected with "many nations" of Gen. 17.5.
You rightly pointed out that this needs Scriptural support. And I got to thinking, "Why do I assume that connection?"
And then on re-reading Rom 4, I realized: because Paul makes that connection!
Rom. 4.18: Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be."The phrase "father of many nations" is of course from Gen. 17.5; "so shall your offspring be" is a direct quote of 15.5 in the LXX.
For Paul, it seems clear (to me?!) that becoming the father of many nations was the fulfillment of the "so shall your offspring be" promise.
Does that work for you as support?
Importantly, then, Rom 4.18 becomes a lynch-pin that ties Gen. 15 (which you have attributed to Physical Descendants only) to Gen. 17 (which you have attributed to Spiritual Descendants, at least in the "many nations" promise) - AND it ties all of these to receiving the promise by faith and not by birth (Rom. 4.16-17).
This seems to add support to the "one promise" hypothesis by denying two different types of descendants in Gen 15 and Gen 17.
---
When we see the discussion of "children of Abraham" in Galatians, two things stick out.
First, Why don't we Gentiles need circumcision in order to become children of Abraham?
Paul's answer is that we are already children of Abraham by virtue of being in Christ, through faith. Paul puts it like this: we are Abraham's seed (there's that spermati -- seed -- again) and heirs according to the promise. We note two things: being an heir and having an inheritance is mentioned in Genesis only in connection with the Land promise (cf. 21.10). And second, being "an heir according to the promise" is a direct reference to Gen 21.1, 12. That this is Paul's intent becomes clear in the next chapter in which Paul identifies believers with Isaac, the child of promise (Gal. 4.28ff).
Additionally, Gal 4 gives further support to the True/False child of Abraham schema. We note in Gal 4.22-27 that in a somewhat ironic reversal, those who continue to be bound by the Law -- that is, physical Jews who have not believed in Christ and thereby been freed from bondage to the Law -- are, figuratively speaking, children of Hagar.
What is he saying? That they are outside the Covenant. They "will never share in the inheritance."
JRC
Testing ... is anyone still there? ...
Just kidding. If you are still here, thanks for the patience with my long-windedness. My hope is that the stuff above can provide specific discussion points.
My other hope is that you can see the basis for the position. In short, in choosing between "one promise, many parts" or "many promises", the way in which Genesis, Deuteronomy, Romans, and Galatians intermingles those promises pushes me into the "one promise" view.
In so doing, I have to pick up the burden of explaining why unbelieving physical children of Abraham received the sign of the covenant and the blessing of the land of Israel. My answer: for the sake of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, they were shown temporary blessing.
That favor to Abraham continues, I think, to this day; so that I anticipate in accord with Rom 11 that there will be a repentance of Jews and a re-grafting onto the true family line of Abraham, in which they stand to inherit not merely Israel, but the whole world.
Come, Lord Jesus.
JRC
Wow, I almost forgot something significant.
A riddle: what is the only verse in the Bible (AFAIK) that explains what circumcision means?
JRC
Hi Jeff,
OMG!!!
I needed some time to make sure that I was not loosing it and you explode onto the scene! I just finished a response to the one where you said you were confused. Probably about 8 or 9 ago! Here it is. If it is all superseded by what you have said here then of course ignore it. As for me, I have my work cut out to absorb what you have provided. How can I explain to my dear wife how those crucial chores can not be done right now???
So, here's what I have:
You ask if I can understand your confusion. Well, I think so and I am sorry for contributing to (causing?) it. It is most assuredly not my objective; although that doesn't get me off the hook. Let me back up a little and see if I can repair the damage.
I went back to Gen. 17 and outlined what God said to Abraham. I tried to keep all of my presuppositions out of it. This is what I got (your comments on the factualness of this would be valuable):
1. live blamelessly
2. a) I will establish my covenant between me and you
b) I will multiply you exceedingly
3.
4. a) My covenant is with you
b) you will be the father of a multitude of nations
5. a) new name - Abraham
b) I will make you the father of a multitude of nations
6. a) I have made you exceedingly fruitful
b) I will make nations of you
c) kings will come forth from you
7. a) item 2a) plus 'and your descendants after you'
- throughout their generations
- an everlasting covenant
b) to be a God to you and your descendants after you
8. a) I will give to you and to your descendants after you
b) the land of your sojournings
- all the land of Canaan
- an everlasting possession
c) I will be their God
9. a) you shall keep my covenant
- you
- your descendants after you
- throughout their generations
10. a)This is my covenant – circumcision
- between me and you and your descendants after you
- every male among you
So, our problem is developing a shared understanding of this text. By the way, I have been wondering why I say that and my answer is that you and I are members of the Church which is supposed to be 'the pillar and support of the truth.' One (both?) of us is wrong; that can only weaken the Church.
We have the advantage (disadvantage?) of ~4000 years of looking at this text. Yet, it has to be very difficult for us to hear God the way Abraham did? Nevertheless, what Abraham heard must still be true even if we can supply more richness and texture due to the NT. Even if a type has an antitype, it does not mean that the type is not actual. Joseph really did live in Egypt; And so did Jesus. That doesn't detract from the actuality of Joseph. A long winded way of saying that I believe our view must allow Abraham's view to be real. After all, he was not deceived, was he?
Another aside: There is a distribution of literalness. I hope that you find me in the middle portion of that continuum. Not too literal and not too figurative; but, a healthy (how to define that?) mixture of both. Please cry 'foul' if my argument seems to go too far in either direction.
So, to Gen. 17:
Verses 1-6 God will establish/cut/ratify a covenant with Abraham. God has and will bless Abraham. Nations and kings will be among Abraham's many physical descendants. The text does not require us to introduce any non-physical aspects. Yes? No?
Verses 7-8 The difficulty starts here. We get 'descendants', 'land', 'everlasting' and the 'God to you' phrase. I'd like to finish thru v10 and then come back to these verses.
Verses 9-10 The descendants need to be circumcised as described. God gives no indication that this is ever to stop. (I can not see where we (the Church) get the right to modify anything that God says here? Can you show me where God takes this covenant back?)
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUED:
OK, back to 7 and 8. In v2 God says that He will covenant with Abraham etc. Now in v7 He adds another party to the covenant!!! It is those descendants. So, who are the descendants? Of course, you know that I say Israelites. Who else would Abraham have thought God was describing? His figurative spiritual off-spring? No, Abraham would never have had that thought. Yes, some of us do; but, not Abraham.
So, just reading the text (not literally and not figuratively) it says God is going to give the land of Canaan to Abraham's physical off-spring 'forever.' By the way, all he says here is that He is going to GIVE it to them. He has already, in chapter 15, covenanted this to them.
But, He does talk in 7 about the fact that He WILL covenant with the descendants. This covenant includes the 'God to you' phrase. Can you show me where in Scripture, God makes such a covenant with Abraham's descendants, who are Israelites? Again, you know that I say that this is the covenant described in more detail in Jeremiah 31:31 and finally put into effect on the cross. Well, you just have to be tired of my babbling by now. Let me just close this comment with some Scripture.
Who did Moses think was supposed to get the land when he was talking to the Israelites? Ex. 32:13 “Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to whom thou swearest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.”
Another passage which seems to strongly support this idea is Leviticus 26:40-46. (Too long to cite here!) Regardless of how badly God deals with the nation of Israel, when it repents, He will remember the AC and be their God and remember the land (promise). Given the word 'eternal' in the promise, this can not have yet happened??? So, what about 586 BC or 70 AD? Certainly not a problem for God?
Finally, (for now) 2 Kings 13:23 “But the Lord was gracious to them and had compassion on them and turned to them because of His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them or cast them from His presence until now.” Israel was God's people not because they merited it or were all 'saved' at any time in the past. It was because of the covenant with Abraham. How can God back out of that?
Hi David,
Sorry for the massive missive there. I was experiencing a rare bout of insomnia ...
---
DW: Even if a type has an antitype, it does not mean that the type is not actual. Joseph really did live in Egypt; And so did Jesus. That doesn't detract from the actuality of Joseph.I fully agree. When I speak of Israel as a type, I mean that it was fully real, and that the promise of Land was real.
By identifying it as a type, I just mean that it was temporary and superseded by something more real.
DW: A long winded way of saying that I believe our view must allow Abraham's view to be real. After all, he was not deceived, was he?Right there with you. See whether my posts address that concern.
---
DW: So, who are the descendants? Of course, you know that I say Israelites. Who else would Abraham have thought God was describing? His figurative spiritual off-spring? No, Abraham would never have had that thought. Yes, some of us do; but, not Abraham.Yes, I think we'll need to work towards a common understanding of this. Clearly, Abraham had some misunderstandings -- for example, he imagined that having a child by Hagar would be a way to fulfill the Covenant.
However, I also agree with you that our understanding of Gen. cannot stray too far from the words themselves.
For this reason, I do not call myself a "spiritual" descendant of Abraham, but an "adopted" descendant of Abraham. I think the principle of adoption is right there in Gen. 17.12, 13.
It seems to me that the principle of adoption was present in Abraham's understanding from the beginning. The only thing he may not have understood was the relative proportion of "natural-born" and "adopted" children.
---
One of the central concerns you express is that God should not back out of His eternal promise.
Obviously (?!) I would agree with this.
So I'd like to consider the passages you mentioned and think about a puzzle.
If the condition for Land is being a physical descendant of Abe, then why does God add an additional condition, that they be obedient, as if they were in fact saved?
You see the strangeness of it. If the only condition is parentage, then completely apostate Israelites met that one condition, and it would seem (?) that God would not kick them out of the land.
And yet -- He does, repeatedly, because of their lack of faith. And He restores them only when they exhibit repentance: a return to faith.
But faith is the condition for Gen 17.7, having God be their God.
So what gives? It looks like we're combining ("interleaving") the promises once again, after we worked so hard to separate them out.
If the Land promise is eternal, conditioned only on parentage, then it seems like God is playing bait-and-switch or something by requiring obedience in addition -- something He never mentioned in Gen 12, 15, or 17.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
Just a quicky while I continue to slog my way through your awful, burdensome,massive missive!
I would have thought that you would know by now just how much pleasure I get from trying to understand and respond to your comments. It is certainly nothing for you to be sorry about.
As to the insomnia, I must admit being confused with the timestamps. We're in the same part of the country and normally they make sense. Not here though. I hope it was just something you ate and nothing more severe.
Lastly, for now, I am just terrible at riddles. To no avail, I even resorted to Google. I found a book for Christian Educators that looked like it might deal with this but alas, I would have to buy it to find out. I mentioned it to my wife and she quickly said 'Jesus Wept' Anyway, I give up. What's the verse?
Sorry, it may have been obscure. And I may be wrong; there may be other verses that define the meaning of circumcision as well.
What I had in mind was Romans 4.10-11:
"Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after [Abraham] was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised."
JRC
(and yes, it really was 2:30 and 4:15 AM. Ack.)
Hi Jeff,
Looking at the fruit of your insomnia I have to say that you amaze me; as such, I am just honored to have you working with me on this. Great, great stuff. I finally know why I did not see any of these comments until I was posting my last comment. Because I did check back to see if you had posted during the interval and did not see any of them until today. Answer: I use Linux and the browser is not the best; but, I know now what to do in the future.
Hopefully my last comment added some clarity to my view. But, in any case, I will try to deal with what you say here. If I miss any important points, please let me know about it.
Yes to offspring, blessing and land. What I see is God continuing to add detail/clarification to the original promise in 12:2-3 in the following chapters.
All of Abraham's physical descendants (and hangers-on) are descendants in an Abrahamic Covenental sense until either 1) God explicitly prunes them out (e.g., Ishmael), or 2) a parent does not circumcise their child. Otherwise, they are in the covenant and God is the God of these descendants. Yet, only a portion of these descendants are 'children of God' or saved. And the manner in which they (saved vs unsaved descendants who are in the covenant) experience the blessings of the AC is not the same. Moreover, circumcision marks the boundary of the households of descendants which includes both saved and unsaved individuals. I am pretty sure Hannah was not circumcised (please forgive the lame attempt at humor) but still seems to be an example of a saved descendant, physical descendant.
You said: "Apparently, the blessings of Abraham spill over to those not explicitly within the covenant. (But we already knew that from Gen. 12.3, right?)"
I am not sure if the 'great nation' of Gen 12:2 is shorthand for the 'father of a multitude of nations' in Gen 17:4. In any case, I see the promise concerning Ishmael as flowing from 17:4. Also, not from the 'In you all the nations will be blessed' phase either. That is about salvation thru faith in Christ (in my opinion) for all of us.
Please forgive me if I am just being dense (seriously); but, I am missing the import of the one promise vs. many promises distinction.
You follow this with:
Physical descendants <=> Land, sign of circumcision, belonging to God as a nation.
Spiritual descendants <=> Blessing, belonging to God individually.
My (somewhat more verbose) version of this would be:
Physical descendants <=> Land (temporary periods until the fulfillment of the New Covenant, 'after I plant them back in the land' - Jeremiah 31:33), sign of circumcision, belonging to God as a nation (yes, for the unsaved; belonging to God as His children for the saved among the nation)
Spiritual descendants <=> Blessing, belonging to God individually, depending only on election and not related to being or not being physical descendants.
As an aside, I absolutely do not see anything in Scripture that would put Christians under the law. Of course,the law is still of great value to all of us (saved & unsaved).
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Responding to your 'one promise, many parts' reasons:
1) ". . . But it is worthy of note that Abraham would have no indication from what we read of a "different promises to different groups" nature of the covenant."
Wouldn't Abraham have had the following view through the end of chapter 17 (NOTE: I am not making any assertions as to Abraham's depth of understanding of any of the following):
1) There is a god who has made promises to me that I believe.
2) God has blessed me and will continue to do so and I will be known as a great man
3) God will covenant with me and my descendants to be a God to me and to my descendants
4) Through me, not only my descendants, but all the people in the world are going to be blessed.
5) I am going to have many children, and they are going to have many children, etc.
6) From my descendants, God will form many nations having kings that are also my offspring.
7) At some point, my descendants are going to possess this land.
8) Ishmael is going to become a great nation and be blessed by God.
9) God's covenant to be the God of my descendants does not include Ishmael nor his descendants.
10) Since God has promised to be my God, I am to circumcise the males in my household.
11) Those circumcised form the households concerning whom God has covenanted to be their God and to give them this land
So far, wouldn't Abraham have seen three different groups each of which were to be treated differently?
a) His descendants within the covenant
b) His descendants outside of the covenant (e.g., Ishmael)
c) Those other than his descendants (not circumcised)
What I have been bringing to this discussion (and I do apologize for adding confusion) from other Scripture and of which Abraham would not have had any idea is that 'not all Israel was Israel.' [Of course, Abraham would have had no idea who Jacob/Israel was so that is not my point here.]
2) OK
3) OK
4) I must be missing something because I don't experience the confusion that you express. And, yet, I know that your grasp of this is at least as good as mine (my guess is that it is actually MUCH deeper). As I said above, I can imagine a consistent view that Abe might have had. My view today is not much different from that; I just know some more of the details. Nothing radically different from what Abe would have thought.
5) waiting to see what you say below.
You end the next section with "Do these answers respond to your questions?"
My response is: Of course they do!
However, there are now so many thoughts rushing around in my head in response to your responses that I can hardly sit still! Well, all I know to do is to try to put them down one at a time and hope you will bear with me.
PseudochildrenThere are different types of individuals in view. Calling them:
physical and not spiritual, or
both physical and spiritual, or
not physical but spiritual, or
not spiritual and also not physical,
or true, or
false, or
pseudochildren
are all OK with me IF there is a definition given that is agreed upon. What I am trying to say is that the label is not the main thing; it's understanding is. For example, I keep seeing us clash over the meaning of 'spiritual children of Abraham.' You most likely know my definition; but, just for the sake of completeness . . .
Physical Child of Abraham - child of a child of a child etc., considering human physical reproduction only and beginning with Abraham/Sarah.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Spiritual Child of Abraham - one who has been declared righteous by God through faith in God. In the Bible, Abraham is the first to be described this way. There may have been others who preceded him (e.g., Noah); but, the Bible is silent on this. Now, it is fairly typical that children do what their parents do. Thus, Abraham can be figuratively considered to be the 'father' of one who God declares righteous. Abraham did it first; this person did it after Abraham; Abraham is the father in a figurative sense of doing it before in time. The term 'spiritual child of Abraham' does not convey any other relation (e.g., physical) to Abraham; it is a purely figurative comparison. The fact of 'righteousness' is what provides all of the definition.
Romans 2:From Romans 1:18 - 3:20 Paul deals with four different types of people and shows that they all desperately need the gospel. Paul's point (forgive my arrogance!) is that whatever the detailed circumstances are regarding any individual, they all fall into one of these four categories and they all need faith in Jesus or they are under God's wrath (and this continues into eternity).
In this context, The statement "that non-Spirit-filled Jews are "not Jews" is not to be taken 'literally.' Of course they are Jews, physically speaking. But, they are not the Jews who God said were going to inherit the land. Abraham probably would not have understood that; you and I do because of the fuller revelation we have. So, if anybody, even a physical Jew who has been circumcised is not spirit filled, then they are going to be separated from God for all eternity.
Covenant MembersI remember writing a long ramble (sorry) on why I thought the term 'member' tended to misplace emphasis. Gen. 17 tells with whom the covenant was made. For example, it was not made with 'all the families of the world.' But, some of them are surely blessed through Jesus, the Abrahamite by fleshly descent. So, I would NOT say that you, for example, are a 'member' of the covenant. I would say that the covenant was not made WITH you. From Gen. 17, it was only made with Abraham and his physical descendants. Moreover, God does not make a distinction in Gen. 17 between saved and unsaved descendants of Abraham. We are the ones who do that.
God to youGod calls the Israelites (elect/non-elect) His people, yes?. The covenant (AC) is about Him promising to be God to Abraham and to his descendants. Didn't He treat the nation of Israel in a special way? For example, He gave them the law. And, couldn't this be rightly understood as Him being their God?
Now, along comes the Mosaic Covenant and we see there is a condition. They are clearly shown as not fulfilling it. God knew all of this before it played itself out. But, in chapter 15, He actually completed the covenant with Abram for the land for his descendants. What He didn't make clear here is that He was only speaking of the elect, whenever He mentioned the 'eternal' aspect of the covenant. The non-elect were never to inherit the land eternally.
Why the Canaan?As you well know, I am a dispy. For some reason, it is important to God for Israel (the physical descendants who are elect) to have a place of prominence during the millennium in Canaan. I know this is not sensible to you; but, that is my understanding. You say:
"In my view, the Land of Israel was a shadow of the true inheritance to come. Earthly Jerusalem was a type of New Jerusalem.
So the Land promise, in my view, is expanded both for Jew and Gentile -- in Christ, we inherit the world.
I think we just disagree on this point, so I won't press it."
Actually, I agree FULLY with what you have said here. The point where I think we do disagree is the 'stop over' in Canaan for the Jews before New Jerusalem.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
CircumcisionYou say: "OK, why don't Gentile "children of Abraham" receive circumcision? Paul's answer: they've been baptized into Christ, so they're already sons of Abraham on that basis."
BUT, water baptism does not make one a 'spiritual child of Abraham.' Nor, does circumcision make one a physical child of Abraham. God told Abraham (a Gentile) to circumcise the males among them, as an eternal rite. It never ends as far as I can see??? He did not tell Abraham to go out into the world and circumcise everybody (nor for that matter even to just do it to the elect). The reason Gentile "children of Abraham" don't receive circumcision is that God never says that they should.
Paul, on the other hand, is talking (I assume you are referring to Galatians 3:23-29.) about the need for circumcision to become a Christian. And, in that regard, there is no point to it. Again, the context is law vs. promise. The promise is the gospel which was preached to Abraham. Whether or not one goes through the rite of water baptism is not the point here. Paul is saying there are no distinctions in the body. All who are saved are baptized into (united with) Christ and belong to Him. And, like Abraham, it is all about faith and not works.
This would seem like a good time to echo what you said to me:
"Thanks for your patience. This is all jangling in my brain and I wanted to get it all down, but if it's too much at once I can hardly complain!"
You say: "If we use the Physical/Spiritual schema, then the only requirement for getting Land is being a Physical descendant of Abraham (and receiving circumcision)."
I don't say this. Before God gave them the land, He gave them conditions. Keeping the land, required obedience for the nation. The eternal possession of the land requires the gift of salvation through faith AND physical descent AND circumcision.
you said: "BUT, I am suggesting that God continually pruned out unbelievers from Israel because they were false children of Abraham."
I agree.
Romans 4:18WOW, this is going to take some study!
You say: "Rom 4.18 becomes a lynch-pin that ties Gen. 15 (which you have attributed to Physical Descendants only)"
If I did, I misled you and all I can do at this point is apologize. The covenant of the land was made with Abraham and did not specify anything about the descendants other than their physical association/descent. Nothing else is apparent to me in ch 15 as a condition. In 15 it doesn't even say anything about circumcision. But, you must know by now that I hold that the 'eternal' possession of the land is only for the elect.
You continue: "to Gen. 17 (which you have attributed to Spiritual Descendants,"
Again, I don't see in the context of ch 17 anything about spiritual condition. It is my belief from the rest of the Bible that a mixed group of descendants get the land but fail the condition for keeping it unless they are ultimately put there (Jeremiah 31) and are saved.
You continue: "at least in the "many nations" promise)"
Sorry, I don't know what I said that you are referencing here.
You continue: " - AND it ties all of these to receiving the promise by faith and not by birth (Rom. 4.16-17)"
OK on this part with no clarifications (equivocations?) needed.
And finally you say:"For Paul, it seems clear (to me?!) that becoming the father of many nations was the fulfillment of the "so shall your offspring be" promise."
OK, I had never thought of in this way; but, it seems valid. I don't think that Abraham would have thought of it in this way. Do you?
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Then you ask: "Does that work for you as support?"
Well, I already feel terrible that I am not able to respond to you more concisely and now you are opening up a huge topic. RELAX. I am not going to open pandora's box. The question I see you raising is what do we do with NT interpretations of the OT. Gen. 17 says nothing (my view) about spiritual children. Yet, Paul clearly does. Does Paul's view then negate Abraham's 'likely' view? Do they somehow both relate to reality. WOW, my mind boggles.
heirYou mention Gen 21:10 in regard to the use of the word 'heir.' I'd like to just point out that it is Sarah who uses the word. I understand her to say: "That boy, Ishmael, is mocking MY son Isaac. Chase him away. I don't want Isaac to have to share any of your (our?) wealth with him." So, I don't really see a connection here with the 'land promise of God.' As we know, God was going to take care of this anyway and remove Ishmael from the covenant people. Isaac was not going to have to share with Ishmael; but, Sarah didn't know it yet.
You say: "What is he saying? That they are outside the Covenant. They "will never share in the inheritance."
I know I am being repetitive, . . .
Non-elect Jews who are circumcised are in the covenant population. God is the God of all covenant descendants of Abraham. What would have changed this? Their unbelief? Their sin? NO. He made a covenant with Abraham. The non-elect Jews, however, will not inherit the land, i.e., be place in the land eternally by God (Jer 31).
You say: "My hope is that the stuff above can provide specific discussion points."
I have tried to be as brief as possible and have only said what I just couldn't resist saying. Yet, we are only scratching the surface on most issues. I propose that you can rest assured that you have indeed provided numerous discussion points. You have provided so much that I wish could be dealt with in the detail that they each deserve. Alas, . . .
Also, I think I have a pretty good idea of where you are coming from and why.
You say: ". . .why unbelieving physical children of Abraham received the sign of the covenant and the blessing of the land of Israel. My answer: for the sake of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, they were shown temporary blessing."
Yes. In addition, because of that temporary blessing, we all have Jesus. In the future, and again for the sake of the Fathers, they (some physical descendants) will get the land and Jesus and then we all will get . . . . the world.
You ask: "If the condition for Land is being a physical descendant of Abe, then why does God add an additional condition, that they be obedient, as if they were in fact saved?"
Forgive me for the obvious: God knew what He was doing when He made the Mosaic Covenant with the nation of Israel. He knew who was and was not elect. So, my answer is that man has to be shown in no uncertain terms that he can not reach up to God on his own. No how; no way. What happened to Israel was 'for our benefit' (1 Cor 10:11).
You state: "If the Land promise is eternal, conditioned only on parentage, then it seems like God is playing bait-and-switch or something by requiring obedience in addition -- something He never mentioned in Gen 12, 15, or 17."
Sorry, I repeat: It is not conditioned on parentage alone. The Mosaic Covenant clearly spells out the 'law keeping' part of the land promise. They didn't need it in Genesis. They needed it as they were about to enter the land.
Let me pause for a moment and say that I'm being very blessed by this interaction as well. In addition to have to take a fresh look at Scripture (always a bonus), I am very refreshed by the positive and godly spirit that you bring to discussions. Thank you!
And, I continue to be impressed by the thoughtful and in-depth approach that you take to the Scripture.
---
I think I had been misunderstanding your view a bit, so let me see if I have it straight now.
Previously, I thought that you divided up Genesis in this way:
Gen 12, 15 refer to physical descendants.
Gen 17 refer to spiritual descendants.
But now, I think I understand you better:
Gen 12 and 15 are directed generically to Abe's physical descendants
Gen 17 is more specifically directed to believing physical descendants.
None of the passages refer to believing Gentiles except as "many nations will be blessed through you."
So in your view, Gentiles do not join the covenant with Abraham in any sense (else, they would have to be circumcised, yes?)
Is that a correct read?
JRC
Hi Jeff,
You are too kind.
You ask: "Is that a correct read?"
I believe so. As long as we are in agreement (and I believe we are) that from Abraham to Jacob, all the people circumcised were Gentiles.
Meaning, that the terms "Jew" and "Hebrew" were not yet applied to Abraham and his physical descendants, so that calling them "Jews" would be anachronistic?
OK.
But you would say that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were different from other Gentiles in being set apart as "God's people", in the same sense that Israel was set apart, yes?
JRC
Hi Jeff,
I made the comment (hopefully not to derail us) to point out that it isn't about Jew vs. Gentile. It's about a set of humans who God treated (will treat??) in a unique manner. God surely selected Abraham, then Isaac and finally Jacob to create the national entity we call Israel. And, in a way that I can not fully understand, Israel (with all its many warts) is identified as God's people. The nation is even identified as God's treasured possession (e.g. Psalms 135:4). And so, Jesus is born to an Israelite.
The word Jew does not even appear in the Bible until Jeremiah. And, originally, it only referred to those of the tribe of Judah. Obviously, the nation was in existence long before that. At any rate the word has picked up a lot of connotations over the years and I was just trying to keep those out of the discussion. (Not that there was any indication that they were in it in any way!!!)
By the way, is Abraham ever referred to in the Bible as a Jew or Hebrew? I can't find it.
OK, perhaps "Israelite" is a better term. If I slip and say "Jews", it is meant as a strict synonym for "Israelite", with no particular overtones beyond being a physical descendant of Abraham.
So now, we seem to have some agreement and some distance still.
We agree (please correct if needed) that
(A1) Abraham's covenant is in the main a single promise with multiple parts: I will be your God, you will inhabit the Land, I will make you into a great nation, you must circumcise your children, all nations will be blessed through you.
(A2) The covenant promises applied in one sense to a corporate body, the nation of Israel. In fact, corporately, Israel is called "God's people."
(A3) The covenant promises also have an 'eternal aspect'. Only the believing Israelites ultimately receive the land. You and I put it slightly differently; you would say that non-believing Israelites are "descendants outside of the covenant", whereas I would say that they are "false children."
I think, however, that the difference is merely labels. Maybe?
Our distance appears to consist of these points:
(D1) When Paul affirms that we are "sons of Abraham and heirs according to the promise", does he mean this literally?
I say, "yes"; you say "no"
(D2) When Abraham receives the covenant, does it include the possibility of non-physical descendants becoming members of the covenant?
I say, "yes"; you say "no"
(D3) And therefore, how are Gentile believers best viewed?
I say, "As participants in the covenant as promised in the gospel preached to Abraham"
You say, "As participants in the gospel preached to Abraham, apart from membership in the covenant (except perhaps symbolically?)."
JRC
Obviously, D1 - D3 are interconnected. If I think that the covenant with Abraham generally excluded non-physical descendants ("no" to D2), then D1 and D3 become less likely; and so on.
So, I'd like to build a bit of a case for "yes" to D1 and D2, if I may.
---
Concerning NT usage:
The New Testament varies in its use of the OT. Sometimes, it uses the OT typologically, so that some point that is not obvious in the OT text is made a symbolic example of what the author is teaching.
The famous examples that I recall are Paul's use of Sarah and Hagar in Gal 4 and Matthew's use of Hosea, "out of Egypt, I called my son."
In these cases, it's hard to take the NT teaching and "read it back" into the OT teaching simply because the way in which the OT teaching is being used is not very literal.
In other cases, however, the NT author is making exegetical points about what the original text meant.
We see this in Jesus' teaching on marriage: "What does the Scripture say? In the beginning, God created them male and female; what God has joined together, let no man separate."
The same occurs in the Sermon on the Mount with teachings on adultery and murder, and again when the Sadducees try to trap Jesus with the "woman with seven husbands."
In these cases, Jesus is saying to the Pharisees and Sadducees, "You've actually misunderstood the Scriptures. Here's what they really mean."
And so in those cases, we are actually obligated to use the NT to understand the OT.
So for example, if I were to preach on the 7th commandment, I would absolutely refer to Jesus' teaching about lustful looks.
To sum up: because the NT uses the OT in various ways, we must be careful to avoid two extremes: always importing the NT back into the OT, or never allowing NT teaching to shape our understanding of the OT.
---
One of my favorite NT commentaries is Heb. 11.17-19:
By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.
I like this because it is so surprising. We have no indication in Gen. 22 that this is what Abe is thinking; and yet, the author of Hebrews (under the inspiration of the HS!) gives us additional information about the meaning of the text of Genesis.
Another favorite is Paul's handling of "seed" in Gal 3:
Gal. 3.16: The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ.
Now the funny part about this is, as you know, in Hebrew, זַ֨רְעֲ is collective, meaning (as in the English 'offspring') that both singular and plural have the same form: one offspring, two offspring.
The same is partially true also in Greek; σπερματος can be singular or plural, although there is also a plural form. The singular/collective form is used exclusively in the LXX of Genesis 12-17.
So the text of Gen 12.7, 13.15, etc. is ambiguous in form: to your "seed" I will give the land. Does that mean "many descendants?" That seems natural in the context of Genesis.
But Paul says, No, the text does not say "seed" σπερμασιν meaning many, but "seed" σπερματι meaning one: Christ.
A very, very interesting commentary. On the one hand, his reading seems odd; so odd, in fact, that the NIV and NASB basically ignore him in their translation of Genesis, translating זַ֨רְעֲ or σπερματι as "descendants"
The ESV takes the clever way out and translates "offspring." :)
What are we to make of this?
(cont.)
My own solution is to consider how Paul is using the OT. Is it typologically, or is he saying something exegetical?
From the context, he appears to make a direct commentary, saying "It doesn't mean this; it does mean that."
Therefore, I feel constrained to follow his lead in reading Genesis. The covenant promise was not made with descendants plural, but with one descendant, in whom all others inherit.
Would Abraham have understood what Paul is revealing? Maybe. He might very well have thought of Isaac as the "offspring of promise", not realizing that a future Messiah was the real offspring of promise. (There's some indication in Gen. 4.1 that Eve thinks this about Cain).
But if you think about the symbolism of circumcision -- it is "the seal of righteousness" applied to the generative organ -- then it's not too hard to see how a future righteous offspring was included in the meaning of the covenant sign, right from the beginning.
Now, I've made a choice here about reading Paul in Gal. 3.16. Is there any evidence that confirms my choice?
I think so.
Taking a look at Gal. 3.15-29, we find the following:
(15-16) The promises of the covenant were spoken to Abraham "and his seed"
(16) That seed was Christ. (!)
(17-18) The law did NOT modify the covenant, and it did not make the inheritance depend upon law-keeping.
(19-24) The purpose of the Law, then, was to make "us" (meaning Israelites) prisoners under the Law until(24) they could be justified by faith.
(25) So that now that faith has come, the law's function is done.
(26-28) We are all therefore sons of God in Christ, because being "baptized into Christ" (meaning?) means being clothed with Christ, and all walls are now broken down.
(29) and all who are in Christ are "Abraham's seed" and "heirs according to the promise."
Now, in many verses above, I just paraphrased the passage because Paul is so clear:
Covenant membership <=> being an heir <=> being Abraham's seed <=> being in Christ.
What we have here, in my view, is a Pauline commentary on Gen 12,15,17 that explains the relationship of faith, justification, and the covenant to one another as it meant to Abraham.
So you can imagine that I have a tendency to read Gen 12, 15, 17 through that lens!
(cont.)
Let me see whether I can anticipate a couple of objections here.
(O1) But isn't Paul talking narrowly about justification and being a child of God, not about the covenant with the promise of land and the sign of circumcision?Yes, Paul is focused on justification. But that's not because he's picking justification out of the covenant and separating it from the rest of the promises. Instead, he's focused on justification because justification is the central problem in the covenant!
The 'eternal' aspect of the covenant, that we agreed to, is conditioned on being one of God's children. That cannot happen without -- justification. So by addressing justification, Paul is addressing the real barrier that both Israelites and Gentiles have in sharing in the covenant promise:
Being God's people <=> living in God's place
(O2) Why read Paul in that way, and not just as having a narrow focus on justification?Because (1) Paul asserts that the covenant and the promises (pl.!) were made with Abraham's seed.
(2) Paul calls all in Christ, "heirs according to the promise." What are they inheriting? Justification? No, justification is the means to their inheritance, making it possible for them to be sons of God and children of Abraham. So what then? It seems hard to escape the conclusion that they are inheriting "God's place to live in."
(O3) But doesn't Gal. 3.14 make it clear that the promise that we inherit is the promise of the Spirit?Two problems with this objection. First, there is no promise of the Spirit mentioned in the text of Genesis. If we want to limit our understanding to what Abraham understood, then Paul has just thrown a massive wrench into our method!
Second, and related, if the Spirit is not promised in Genesis, then where is it promised? (pause because I know we might not agree here...)
The only place I see the promise of the Spirit in the OT is in the promise of the New Covenant: I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh... (in Joel, and comparable in Ezek., etc.).
So I don't think we can connect the discussion of "covenant" and "promises" and "inheritance" in Gal. 3.15-29 with "the promise of the Spirit" in 3.14, as if it were a direct equivalence.
Rather, I think it's best to understand it in this way:
* Why did the Israelites NOT all receive the promise of land?
* Because they were not all God's people in heart -- they were not true children of Abraham.
* How did God promise to solve this?
* By giving them a new heart through the action of the Spirit: the promise of the New Covenant.
* And (Gal. 3.14) Christ redeemed us so that the blessing of Abraham could come to us -- how? By receiving the promised Spirit.
So you can see that I tend to strongly connect
Truly belonging to Abe's covenant <=> Having the Spirit through the New Covenant <=> Being justified <=> Belonging to Christ.
(cont.)
(O4) But what about the corporate aspect of the covenant, in which Israel as a whole is God's nation?When Paul argues in Rom 9 that "not all Israel is Israel", I don't think he's introducing a new principle.
What he says actually has continuity with what Abraham observed in Ishmael, what Isaac discovered in favorite son Esau, and what all manner of Israelites discovered as they were cut out of the covenant through unbelief.
That's why Paul uses the examples of Ishmael and Esau to illustrate that "not all Israel is Israel."
He's continuing in the same line of thought as the prophets, and of Jesus who pronounced the Pharisaic opponents to be "sons of Satan."
But in the world you and I live in, we don't have the ability to determine who is truly justified and who is not; and so boundary markers were introduced.
Circumcision was one boundary marker -- it was the sign of justification, the seal of the righteousness that Abraham had by faith. Not everyone who received the sign had the reality; but everyone who received the sign had the right before men to be treated as a covenant member.
The Law was another boundary marker. Anyone who transgressed was obligated to be cleansed -- symbolically -- or else be "cut off from his people."
So we can see that (1) justification was the central issue with the covenant. To be a legitimate heir of the covenant, one had to be clean, and (2) God did not provide for a "clean separation" between the justified and the unjustified in the world in which we live.So where you would attribute a definite promise to Israel as a nation, I would say it's a definite promise to an indefinite set of people: we mark them out with boundaries like circumcision and law-keeping, but God knows the heart.
---
I've bombasted long enough. Feel free to take this in any direction.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
I've just finished skimming through your last set of comments. Now the real fun begins! No question about it, you have used the 'big guns' this time. Absolutely terrific advocating for your position. I am really looking forward to seeing where this is going to take me.
I had a thought about our distance regarding the word 'membership.' The idea of a last will and testament came to mind. Suppose I decide to include Joe in my will and leave him $100. What is going on?
1) My will has status (I am definitely not a lawyer) because there is a higher power (the state) that has set the conditions for wills. When I die, I can be sure that my executor will be able to give Joe the $100.
2) Joe has no idea about nor say in any of this. In this little scenario, we can even assume Joe has no idea who I am or what I have bequeathed to him.
3) I picked Joe out for this $100 for my own reasons. They may make sense to others or not. That is not germane to his receiving the $100.
4) We say that Joe is 'in my will.' We say that Joe will inherit the $100. Joe is my heir. Joe is 'heir to the promise' as stipulated in my will.
Would we say that Joe is a member of my 'will?' I say no.
Have I made my will with Joe? I say no.
Is Joe in any way a part of my will? I say no.
He is simply one who stands to benefit (i.e., receive $100) from a promise that I have covenanted with the state related to him. Other than that, I don't think he is involved.
Is membership the right term for what we have been discussing?
Oh, that's a very interesting question, and you've posed it quite well.
For of course, one of the traditional synonyms for "covenant" has been "testament", as in "New Testament" and "last will and testament."
If the covenant is a will, then we have heirs according to the terms of the will, and we might speak of participation in the will, but "membership" would be an awkward word except in a set-theoretical sense:
Def: Alice is a "member of the covenant" if and only if she is an "heir according to the terms of the covenant."But you're right; we don't normally use this term because membership implies ongoing participation.
---
However, the term "testament" as a synonym for berit/diateke is of hot debate within the Reformed community and the Protestant community at large.
There are three problems with the "testament" synonym.
(1) God isn't dead, yet He makes covenants. Normally, wills are enforced upon the death of the grantor.
(2) And in fact, God's covenants depend on the fact that He is eternal. In each of the covenants, there is assumed an ongoing relationship between God and the other party.
(3) And additionally, the procession of the Abrahamic covenant suggests that death is the penalty for breaking the covenant, not the condition for inheriting its promises.
(4) You put your finger on it:
"Have I made my will with Joe? No."
And yet we see that God indeed "cuts a covenant with Abraham."
So for these reasons, "testament" has been generally abandoned for terms that convey the sense of active relationship.
(Notice also that the term Old Testament doesn't map correctly to the Old Covenant -- the Old Testament includes the pre-Mosaic covenants)
---
Meredith Kline argues that the covenant is structured more like a treaty. On this account, "membership" would mean "being subject to the conditions and promises of the treaty."
O. Palmer Robertson argues that a covenant is a "bond in blood, sovereignly administered." On this account, "membership" would mean "belonging to the relationship, including the conditions and promises." (the differences with Kline here are subtle).
The Federal Visionaries argue that covenant is relationship, period. The source of this idea is forgotten to me at the moment, but it's not new to them.
But I don't find that definition precise enough. There seem to be non-covenantal relationships, such as acquaintances.
---
Buuttt ... however we want to slice it, it still seems like Paul is attributing to us Gentile believers that we are "heirs according to the promise of the covenant."
So we'll need to hash out whether this can be taken at face value.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
Bombast is the last word I would have used to describe what you have provided here! Actually, SUPERB, comes to mind. Again, no self-serving flattery intended.
Regarding A3: I find 'false children' to be a fine alternate label for 'non-believing Israelites.' However, I would not say that 'false children' who are circumcised according to the flesh are outside of the covenant. Sadly, for them, they will never 'inherit the world.'
I'll get to some questions about the 'D's at the end.
Concerning NT usage:WONDERFULLY SAID!! TRULY!
That is, until I get to 'seed.' This seems to be a big source of our distance! Alas, I have never given Galatians that much time. I have always seen it as sort of just repeating Romans. Well, for the immediate future, that is going to have to change. (It just hit me what a naive view I have. How can any part of God's word be 'just a repeat?' Nonsense!!)
Galatians 3:16My paraphrase: "The promises were made to Abraham and Jesus."
So, the promises were not made to Isaac? Or, Jacob? If we go just by this verse the answer would have to be 'right, they were not.' Yet, we know that they were in Gen. 26:4 and Gen. 28:14, respectively.
When Paul penned Romans 4:18 and 9:7 did he think that there was only one descendant to whom the promises had been made? Hardly. In both these verses he is using sperma (a singular) in its collective sense. In fact, it is even clearer in Gal. 3:29 that he took sperma in its collective sense regarding "heirs according to promise."
So what gives? I say he is using a familiar (to him; not me) 'technique' to make a point. What he is not doing is changing the clear meaning of the texts that talk about Abraham's descendants in a clearly collective sense. Abraham had a lot of descendants per the promise of God. And, God made promises to a lot of them.
Now, this is REALLY speculation (like all the other stuff I say isn't???); but, it seems to me that by bringing in the example of Abraham in Galatians 3 and Romans 4, he is showing how firmly rooted his arguments are in the OT promises. I think he is battling 'Judaizers' and they would probably be referring to the OT also in proving their case.
ASIDE:
By the way, I find something very interesting in Galatians 3:7. But, first take a look at Romans 9:6-8. Paul is talking about the different kinds of descendants and he refers to the 'true' descendants as children and he uses the typical word for children (tekna). These are the true Israelites, the children of God, the children of promise.
Now back to Gal. 3:7. Here Paul uses a different word to talk about those who, like Abraham, are children of God through faith. He uses huios which not only has the idea of son (what about daughters?) but also the idea of sharing something in common. Anyway, I thought that it was interesting or at least supportive of the view I have that 'sons' simply means that we obtain the declaration of righteousness by faith just as Abraham did. It does not imply descendant or covenant member as in being an IsraeliteTO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Back to the business at hand: So, the narrowing of Abraham's sperma continues up to Jacob/Israel. All of Abraham's descendants don't have the promises made to them. But, the text doesn't seem to indicate that this is because any of them lack faith. The narrowing does seem to extend in a sense to David. And, of course, Jesus is his 'sos.' Matthew jumps right in to it in 1:1 with son of David, son of Abraham. If you believe in 'book ends' then you might be drawn to conclude that the blessing promised to 'all the families' is the great commission or the gospel as preached to Abraham. Because, as far as I can tell, the 'blessing' is never really defined in the OT.
So, what I get out of 3:16 is that Paul is making neither a typological nor an exegetical point. The context is justification (and this is not a 'narrow' topic) thru faith in Jesus and not works. He is making the point that the descendants culminate in Jesus. They, even in toto, are the lesser; He, alone, is the greater. It is He, the ultimate descendant, who can bear the weight of representing all the covenant descendants to whom the promises were made. And, it only through Him that the eternal promises included in the Abrahamic Covenant can be fulfilled.
It is in this one that you should place your faith to receive the promise of blessing (adoption as a child of God). For, without salvation by faith in Jesus, the other AC promises are sort of meaningless. But, literally, the promises were not made to Jesus and Paul shows us that he knows this very well in spite of what he says in 3:16. Nor, were the promises made to 'all the families.'
You say: "he's focused on justification because justification is the central problem in the covenant!"
How do you mean: 'problem in the covenant?'
I don't see Paul focused on justification. I see him focused on justification by faith in Jesus. Sorry if that seems a quibble. The issue Paul is addressing is that man (especially those with the Law) has to break the link between works and justification. Faith always was and continues to be the only means of access to God, or of 'inheriting the world.'
The only problem I can see as it relates to God's fulfillment of the AC is finding somebody to pay for the sin of those he plans to bless out of 'all the families.' (Certainly, God could have made Abraham the father of many nations and the possessor (temporarily, at least) of Canaan if Abraham were not righteous.) And, His plan is a God-man descendant of Abraham and a cross. Justification a problem; no way. The sin debt was the problem that nobody could pay except the God/man. As you know, God could not excuse this and still be just Himself.
You say: "It seems hard to escape the conclusion that they are inheriting "God's place to live in."
I agree. That is what the elect in 'all the families' receive. As far as I can tell, that is what the promise of blessing was all about.
The SpiritYes, Israel was promised the Spirit as you point out. Of course you know that I say that that has not yet happened. However, you and I already have the Spirit. How about this: The spirit was not promised to 'all the families' in any specific way that I can tell in the OT. I can not see anything in the OT related to the covenant and the included promises about the spirit and Abraham and/or his descendants. Abraham is said to have inherited the promise; but, I don't think that included the Spirit? We inherit as 'sons' of Abraham what he inherited, no? And, that would not include the Spirit.
However, Jesus promised us the Spirit. Isn't that a good enough promise to satisfy Paul's emphasis?
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Well, I have reread your last posts for the umteenth time and as such I know that I have not said anything here that addresses your foundational understandings. Something about 'fools rush in where . . .' comes to mind! Nevertheless, I'll continue.
Imagine a distribution of 'literalness.' On the left end of the x-axis, totally figurative; on the right end, totally literal. Now you ask (in D1) if sons of Abraham and heirs according to the promise are meant literally. You give the answers: you-yes; me-no.
I take that to mean that neither of us are at a boundary but that I am to your right somewhere along the x-axis. However, I still don't know how to make this D into an A. Can I ask you what you understand Paul to be defining as 'sons of Abraham' and 'heirs according to promise?'
In D2 you use the term 'member of the covenant.' Now I know that God is the one initiating the covenant. I know that He ratifies the covenant with Abraham through a blood rite. And I know that He makes promises to Abraham. If you agree with that much, then would you define for me what you are assuming as the definition of a member? Are there different types of members? How does it relate to one with whom the covenant is made? Or, one about whom a promise is made (the promise being an element of the covenant)?
Also with regard to D3: What does a gentile believer today gain/lose by being viewed as you say you view them or alternatively as you say I view them?
It's interesting that we are so close on the issue of "false children" (or "non-saved physical descendants"). You say,
I find 'false children' to be a fine alternate label for 'non-believing Israelites.' However, I would not say that 'false children' who are circumcised according to the flesh are outside of the covenant. Sadly, for them, they will never 'inherit the world.'
So here's an interesting conundrum: non-believing Israelites are not outside of the covenant, BUT, they don't receive any of its promises.
If I understand the dispy account, the promise to inherit Israel in toto has not yet been fulfilled and will not be until Israel as a nation and as individuals repents of its unbelief during the tribulation, yes?
And so, strictly speaking, no-one who inherits Israel is an unbelieving Jew.
So why would we say that unbelieving Israelites are still members of the covenant?
What I have in mind here is Esau and his descendants, and the Israelites who were judicially "cut off" from their people, and all others whom God has declared, "they shall never enter my rest."
Are they still members of the covenant, if not elected to believe?
---
When I speak of "the problem of justification", I don't mean that J itself is the problem. The problem is the sin debt, just as you say.
The only reason I referred to "the problem of justification" is that what is needed for both Jew and Gentile is justification.
So I think we're seeing the same picture here but using opposite terms to describe it. The problem is sin; the solution is justification: it's "the problem of justification" -- how will we be justified? (Answer: by faith, always, as we agree)
JRC
Hi Jeff,
As part of your previous item 'Agreement 1' you wrote: "Abraham's covenant is in the main a single promise with multiple parts: I will be your God, you will inhabit the Land, I will make you into a great nation, you must circumcise your children, all nations will be blessed through you."
I agree with A1. Nevertheless, there are a few other points that I would add by way of detail:
1) While the covenant is referenced as the Abrahamic Covenant, God actually established it with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
2) The covenant was unconditional and everlasting
3) The statement of the covenant was that 'God would be God to them and their descendants
4) God promised to bless those who blessed them and curse those who cursed them (and their descendants)
You ask: "So why would we say that unbelieving Israelites are still members of the covenant?" and "Are they still members of the covenant, if not elected to believe?"
The AC has no conditions. So, for example, belief is not mentioned. If one were a physical descendant of Jacob and circumcised, they were included in the 'your descendants.' God said this covenant was everlasting. Can He go back on His word?
God covenanted to be God to 'your descendants after you;' He did not covenant to be God to each and every one of them. God covenanted to give the nation the land; He did not covenant to put each and every descendant into the land eternally.
"they shall never enter my rest"
Exactly, the individual 'your descendants' who God did not elect are not going to be part of the remnant that receives the eternal blessings (e.g., land of Canaan).
Jesus was one of the descendants; He was circumcised; He fully kept the Law; He clearly will inherit the land. (It's not exactly clear to me what it means for God to promise to be Jesus' God; but . . .) He is the only one who will inherit the land in that manner. All the others who inherit the land will have to do so through faith in Him. AND, physical relationship and circumcision are also required.
God made the requirement of circumcision crystal clear; there had to be a good reason for that. I just can't any Scripture where a 'reasonable' interpretation shows that circumcision has been removed as a requirement with anywhere near that same level of precision?
Again, what does the individual member of the Church today lose if this just happens to be the correct interpretation?
As to your 'dispy' understanding. I am no expert and I don't have a particular dispy of whom I would say that I am in lock step with his understanding. There are many different views on this as with any theological subject. That is why I try to avoid labels. At any rate, your understanding of the dispy view matches mine.
Regarding the problem of 'justification.' Of course, I never doubted that you understood this. I hope you saw the word 'quibble' in my comment. I just wanted to be sure we were together on this and that there was not a meaning in your phrase that I was missing.
JRC: So why would we say that unbelieving Israelites are still members of the covenant?" and "Are they still members of the covenant, if not elected to believe?
DW: The AC has no conditions. So, for example, belief is not mentioned. If one were a physical descendant of Jacob and circumcised, they were included in the 'your descendants.' God said this covenant was everlasting. Can He go back on His word?
God covenanted to be God to 'your descendants after you;' He did not covenant to be God to each and every one of them. God covenanted to give the nation the land; He did not covenant to put each and every descendant into the land eternally.
This is confusing. I get part of it. On your account, the covenant was made unconditionally with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to be a God to the nation and to grant the land to the nation.
Whereas, individuals participate in the covenant if and only if they are members of the nation.
This creates a confusing situation, since the individuals have conditions placed on them - faith being the central condition - and yet, the covenant is "unconditional" wrt the nation.
What's confusing is the switch of perspectives from nation to individuals, which causes a switch of labels from "unconditional" to "conditional."
Is the covenant truly "unconditional" if faithless physical descendants do not actually inherit?
And what does it mean to say that God is a God to the nation, but not to all of the individuals within it?
This is not a matter of God going back on his word. We agree that the AC is grounded in God's eternal faithfulness.
Rather, it's a matter of sorting out whether the AC is truly "unconditional." From the perspective of individuals, it seems like the AC is in fact conditional.
JRC
You've made a couple of good points that I want to acknowledge.
First, Paul's use of "sperma" in Gal 3 is definitely not straightforward. As you point out, he uses the term collectively further on down and also in Rom 4.
So my treatment of Gal 3 is really incomplete without considering his other uses.
---
DW: God made the requirement of circumcision crystal clear; there had to be a good reason for that. I just can't any Scripture where a 'reasonable' interpretation shows that circumcision has been removed as a requirement with anywhere near that same level of precision?
This is also a good point, and I hadn't meant to ignore it. Seems like we've got some different options here. The passage that comes closest to repealing circumcision is in Gal 5:
I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
---
DW: Again, what does the individual member of the Church today lose if this just happens to be the correct interpretation?
An excellent question. I'll try to address it soon.
Have a good Sunday!
JRC
Hi Jeff,
"This is confusing"
Add one to the agree column!
You conclude with: "From the perspective of individuals, it seems like the AC is in fact conditional."
First, I am sure we agree that everything is conditioned on God's sovereign choice. Somebody has faith and somebody doesn't. What's the difference? God.
God's choice of the nation of Israel was conditioned on His good pleasure; God's choice of Joe the Israelite to possess the land was conditioned on His good pleasure. A difference??? And, poor Joe. He has no say in whether his father or mother are Israelites or not. And, he has no say in whether he will be declared righteous or not. And, this is true, regardless of how he may look at his situation.
I had a thought regarding the idea of a group vs. an individual. God promised that the nation would be victorious against their enemies. So, imagine some meeting on the field of battle. The Israelites win the day; Joe, an Israelite, is brutally carved up and dies a horrible death without Christ. Just a thought.
You ask: "Is the covenant truly "unconditional" if faithless physical descendants do not actually inherit?"
I simplistically answer: 'yes.' And the key for me is the little word 'ALL.' Note that the blessing of Abraham (Jesus) is for 'ALL' the families (but, not ALL the members of each family). The promise of the land does not have the word 'ALL' applied to the descendants. It was missing because God knew His plan. The average person hearing the covenant might not have gotten the implications; but, from a legalistic perspective, it's all there.
There is nothing in the AC as we get it in Scripture that talks about faith. Now, before you frown . . . We agree, that faith is the instrument for 'getting the land.' It simply is not explicit in the AC. BUT, it is in the Mosaic Covenant. That is where the condition is brought in, in an explicit sense of covenant.
Here (MC) is where God says (He had already shown it with Adam) keep ALL my laws or you are out. What did the average Israelite say to themselves? Well, of course, I don't know. But, my guess is they thought, 'NO PROBLEMO' I can do this. Well, you and I know better.
Another question (or two): Did Abraham know that he had been declared righteous? Did Abraham know what God meant with the phrase 'God to you?' We just take for granted all of the resources we have that explain all this (much of it is wrong; but that's just a detail). Anyway, these people were operating under completely different conditions of revelation than us.
So, what does this babbling have to do with anything? Regardless of how God eventually told us what the real situation is or how much any particular individual was informed or not, God was always saving the people He chose to save. So, in some way that I can't really understand this is all OK.
There was a condition on the individual; it did not show up in the AC; it did show up in the MC; and finally, the NC tells us more of 'how' He will actually bring this about. The right people will possess the land; and also, the right people will live in New Jerusalem. NO PROBLEMO, thanks to God.
Am I just wandering all alone in the desert here? (i.e., am I just missing it?)
Hi Jeff,
"You've made a couple of good points that I want to acknowledge."
So, now, who is the gentleman?
OK, you mention Galatians 5 and it is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. I just have to go there and try to see what you are seeing. (I hope you understand I mean this in a good way)
As the broken record that I am, I look at the context first. Paul is talking to grown men who are believers and who are considering circumcision. If they are not circumcised, then they are most likely not Israelites.
This is not about the rite of circumcision. This is not about eight day old infants getting circumcised by their parents. This is about grown gentile believers trying to join the nation of Israel. Not a smart thing to do; because Israelites are still trying to attain justification through the law. These believers already have Christ; salvation; and a promise of 'inheriting the world.' What in the world (no pun intended) do they think they might gain by doing what the legalistic Israelites are telling them to do. They are already full Christians and they don't need any part of Judaism to 'complete' their salvation.
VERY INTERESTING. Read this passage out of context and one might thing that they can lose their salvation by trying to follow the law! My read is that if one tries to be good by following a set of rules they lose the benefits (blessing/joy) of being free in Christ. And, of course, this is where Paul started in verse 1. They damage their fellowship with Christ; they don't lose their salvation. Forgive me for that diversion but I got all exciting at what I was seeing.
However, I don't see how this tells us that God wants the Israelites, who don't know Jesus, to stop doing what He told Abraham to do forever. Please don't get mad; but, they are on a different track and their time of salvation (as a nation) has not come yet. They are to keep on circumcising their young. The nation is to continue as one even in dispersion. Eventually, . . . well you know the drill.
And, you too have a blessed Lord's Day.
As we consider the covenant with Abraham, my reaction is that the dual perspective of "nation" and "individual" makes things complicated.
I think you want to maintain the dual perspective because it is important to you that God has not abandoned the physical descendants of Abraham, and so you desire to affirm that despite their unbelief, the covenant promise is not broken: it was unconditional towards the nation.
But on the other hand, you acknowledge that at least by the time of Moses, there is an explicit requirement of obedience to remain in the land.
So the dual perspective is necessary in order to preserve both of those ideas.
Have I correctly captured the thought?
If so, I'd like to offer up an alternative view that tries to preserve the essence of both of those concerns.
---
First, let's distinguish between condition and cause. A "condition" is simply some criterion that must be met. A "cause", loosely defined, is the ground for something.
So in the Abrahamic covenant, circumcision was a condition but not a cause of inheritance. That is, male children were required to be circumcised; but their circumcision did not guarantee their inheritance. God did not give the land of Canaan to Moses or to the wilderness generation.
How do we know what the conditions were on the AC? Well, two are explicit: being a descendant and being circumcised if male.
Any others? You point out that there are none explicitly in the text of Genesis 12, 15, or 17.
I don't think that's enough evidence. Here's why: Esau and his descendants are cut out of the covenant. It's not merely that Esau doesn't have faith, so he isn't saved; but in point of fact, his tribe of Moab is never included in the promise of land. The "land to your descendants" promise to Abe does not come true for Esau and his race.
Why not? Certainly not because the promise of God failed. It must be that there was another condition that was implied in the AC. I think we're logically compelled to conclude this; I can't think of any other way to make sense of it. Either God failed, or else God's promise remained true and Esau failed to meet its conditions. I think we agree that "God failed" is a ludicrous option. :)
Well, Esau certainly met the two explicit conditions of descent and circumcision, so we can set those aside.
What else, then? Hebrews reveals it: he was godless and despised his birthright (Heb 12.16 ref. Gen 25.27ff). The condition was faith; Esau did not have it (the root cause, of course, was God's sovereign choice).
So ... The consequence of Esau's lack of faith was not limited to salvation alone, but to his participation in the covenant with Abraham in its entirety.
This requires us, I think, to re-examine the covenant reaffirmation in Gen. 17.7,8:
I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."
The same descendants who receive the land of Canaan are the ones for whom God says "I will be their God."
And God being their God carries with it an implied condition: "and you will be my people."
(cont.)
"You will be my people" is the implied condition of the AC. Any physical descendant who was not one of God's people -- talking salvifically here -- had no right to the land.
A non-believing Israelite might inhabit the land of Canaan, but he had no right to it.
Evidence:
* The requirement of faith is actually implied in the requirement of circumcision. The uncircumcised males of Gen 17.14 who are cut off from their people are self-evidently not 9-day-olds who missed the window. Rather, they are "of age" and have refused the sign of circumcision (compare the generation who was circumcised prior to the Conquest in Josh 5). The issue is not the cutting of the flesh, but the refusal of the heart to take the sign of the covenant: in short, unbelief.
* The Deuteronomic Principle (Deut. 28 - 30: "Obey and stay; disobey and get booted") makes the condition of faith explicit as well.
Ah, but wasn't that under the Mosaic Covenant, not the Abrahamic? Ah, but the Law did not set aside a covenant previously made (Gal. 3.17).
That is, if the AC were truly conditioned only on physical descent and circumcision, but the Law clearly added a new condition, then the Law would be setting aside the unconditional AC in favor of a conditional MC.
This is precisely what did not happen, says Paul. Instead, the Law was added "because of transgressions", but the promise of the AC was received by faith.
* Abraham himself receives the covenant by faith. Why then should his descendants do any less?
(cont.)
Ack! Blogger swallowed my next comment. God's way of preventing silliness on my part.
Well, I'll finish up later.
Here's how your concerns will be addressed. I've talked about faith as a condition for covenant participation, which suggests the "individual" perspective.
But federal headship allows us to see a corporate perspective also. Unbelieving Israelites have indeed been "cut off" from the AC just like males who refused circumcision were cut off, just like Esau was cut off.
BUT
Because Abraham is their head, God has compassion on them for the sake of Abraham.
They aren't heirs at this time. In their current state of unbelief, God will not let any of them inherit the land or enter His rest or be His people. But many will become so because God in his mercy will restore them to faith SO THAT they can participate with Abraham, the man of faith, in justification, SO THAT they can be God's people.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
Regarding the dual perspective:
I can not attest to my own objectivity; I am a victim of being me. As 'me,' I don't think that I view it as important that God has not abandoned the physical descendants. I read Scripture and that is what it looks like to me. The great value I put on this exchange is that if there is anybody who can help me see where I am misreading, then it is you.
Given that caveat, I believe you understand what I have been trying to put forth.
You say that what we see in the AC description in Genesis is not enough for us to say that we know all of its conditions. I am surprised by that; but, I am anxious to see where you are leading. AH, Esau.
First, some Scripture:
Malachi 1:2 ... Was not Esau Jacobs brother declares the Lord. Yet I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau, ... thus says the Lord of hosts, They may build, but I will tear down; ... and the people toward whom the Lord is indignant forever.
Romans 9:10-13 relates the birth of Esau and Jacob and ends with a reference to Malachi 1:3.
Romans 9:14 asks the question: Is God unjust then?
Romans 9:15-21 Gives the answer: God does what He decides to do and answers to nobody.
So, we are back to the chicken and egg question. (ASIDE: Forgive me for venting; but I endured one of the worst sermons that I have heard in ages yesterday. It was on 1 Peter 1:1-2. Message: God chooses those whom He knows will choose Him. Sorry, that is not my God. Now I feel better.) Hebrews does indeed characterize Esau. You point out that that was of course rooted in god's sovereign choice. Well, from the above verses and that statement, why aren't we satisfied? Isn't that a good enough answer to why Esau was not considered a descendant, as in not all Israel is Israel? Or, is it that God had foreknowledge of how Esau was going to live and therefore decided to select Jacob? I don't think so.
God's plan was for Jesus to come from the line of David. Esau had no part in that. And, as to why God is indignant to his line for ever, I don't have a clue. That's my sovereign God, for you. I am just so grateful that He chose me. Without that, I am indeed undone.
You say: "The same descendants who receive the land of Canaan are the ones for whom God says "I will be their God.""
I agree; but, of course, I have to add a little something. (insert smiley face, please.)
We see God saying this about the people who He then removed from the land for unfaithfulness. But, the ones to whom He will give the land as an 'eternal' possession will be His people in a different sense. They will all be His children too.
You say: "A non-believing Israelite might inhabit the land of Canaan, but he had no right to it." I agree completely. I know this from the rest of Scripture; I just don't see it in Gen. 17.
You followed with 'evidence' of an implied requirement of faith. Actually, I am quite sympathetic to your approach. I then think back to my personal situation. I am as sure as I can be that there was no faith involved. It was tradition and only tradition.
Surely in the case of Abraham it was faith, saving faith, actually. Yet, how many generations were required before the rite had become more of a tradition than one of faith. How long did it take for them to start playing around with the golden calf? Surely, the Israelites can not be considered, on the whole, faithful while they were in the land? So, we talk about faith. BUT, is it saving faith? Well, God knows the heart and we don't.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
What we know is that if somebody was circumcised, then they were at least not out. The reason for their circumcision is an unknowable. Also, I would postulate, (without any facts whatsoever to back this up!!!) that most of the people who have ever been circumcised are of the infant category and not the grown male class. Faith, would indeed have to be quite strong (although not necessarily saving faith) in the case of the grown male. In the case of the infant, it is sort of easy for the parent to just go along with what their parents did. But, as a whole the nation was thrown out because of lack of faith, yes indeed.
I am left not knowing why we need to infer an unstated condition. The only people who can inherit the land eternally have saving faith. I certainly believe that and it is not stated explicitly in Gen 17. But, if circumcision depended on saving faith, I doubt there would have been too many circumcised males in Israel before 70 AD. Yet, the impression I get is that they all were. In fact, I can't imagine a Pharisee in 30 AD who was not circumcised! And, they were vipers.
AHHH, the Blogger demon gotch ya. Sorry, I know what that feels like. Alas, I see where you say you are going to go next. But, doesn't that require you to set aside the New Covenant?
Full sympathies on the sermon. I visited the church once and the sermon title was "Moses: Mr. Leadership."
I'm sure Aaron would have appreciated it ...
---
I think you're right to ground Esau's rejection in God's sovereign choice. That is the ultimate cause, in fact, of everything.
But of course, God's decrees do not set aside secondary causes, which are the basis for responsibility.
So when unbelieving Alice comes before the judgment throne, there will be no argument that she is innocent because her unbelief was decreed by God; rather, she is guilty because she failed to believe (among other reasons). We are accountable for who we are, even though who we are is decreed.
The same is true with Esau. God rejected him before birth; and yet, as a secondary cause, the text of Genesis clearly represents him as losing the covenant blessings because of his decision to despise his birthright.
SO: it's not "God chose to reject Esau because of his forseen unbelief" -- we agree that this is anathema.
Instead: "Esau failed to believe because God rejected him; and his unbelief was the means of his removal from the covenant."
Why tie his unbelief to removal from the covenant? Well, selling the birthright was selling his inheritance -- his stake in Canaan, among other things. That's why the text emphasizes that Isaac gave everything to Jacob. The sale of the birthright was an act of unbelief, and there we have it.
---
DW: But, if circumcision depended on saving faith, I doubt there would have been too many circumcised males in Israel before 70 AD. Yet, the impression I get is that they all were. In fact, I can't imagine a Pharisee in 30 AD who was not circumcised!
I think I accidentally left the impression that I see circumcision as a certain mark of faith. Far from it!
Rather, circumcision was a sign of what ought to have been true. Just as a wedding band is a sign of faithfulness (though many spouses fail to live up to it) so also circumcision was a sign of cleanness. It was "a seal of the righteousness Abraham received by faith", says Paul.
The Israelites had to be clean in order to be God's people, and circumcision spoke to this.
The Pharisee's mistake, then, was confusing the symbol for reality: instead of cleanness of heart through justifying faith, they settled for cleanness of appearance through (selective) law-keeping.
DW: I am left not knowing why we need to infer an unstated condition. The only people who can inherit the land eternally have saving faith. I certainly believe that and it is not stated explicitly in Gen 17.
Well, it may be that I've erred here. Perhaps I can put it in syllogistic form and you can find the hole:
(1) Esau met the stated conditions of physical descent and circumcision for the AC.
(2) Esau was rejected from the AC.
(3) Therefore, there must have been another condition in the AC
(3a) (which was implied)
(4) We know that Esau despised his birthright, and Hebrews described this as "godlessness"
(5) The sale of his birthright was the action that outwardly separated him from God's blessing.
(6) So the most reasonable unstated condition is "godliness" -- specifically, faith.
---
DW: What we know is that if somebody was circumcised, then they were at least not out.Actually, this is not so. Again with Esau; but let's go farther. When Israel and Judah were exiled, they were removed from the land despite their physical descent and their circumcision. And the condition for return (one sovereignly decreed by God, to be sure) was repentance and return.
So being physically descended and circumcised was not enough.
---
May I play the skeptic for a moment?
One key feature to your approach is to make a distinction between "being God's people" and "being God's children."
What is the Scriptural support for this distinction?
JRC
Hi Jeff,
I too see Scripture telling each of us that we are responsible for our actions/decisions. Also, that God is sovereign, the first cause. I know that I could have chosen God (before I did!). However, I worked the problem and decided not to. So, yes, it's my fault. For some unknown reason, i.e., except for His own good pleasure, He changed me. He never did this with Esau. Why not? Well, He didn't choose to. Yes, Esau showed us this by his actions; but, his actions were not the 'causes.'
When I choose to buy a little red corvette (never have; it was forest green) it ultimately is God who 'made me do it.' Nevertheless, my case here and Esau's seem to have a real difference. God, steps in and announces to
Rebecca that Esau is out; and that is well before we can see Esau doing anything like selling his birthright or acting unfaithfully or even meeting the conditions for acceptance into the AC.
Hebrews puts emphasis on Esau 'despising' his birthright. And, rightly so. But, what about Jacob for manipulating Esau to get him to sell the birthright? Or, what about how Jacob dealt with Isaac to steal the blessing? Isn't all of that of the same caliber as what Esau did? Nevertheless, God never steps in and changes Esau and so he acts out in life just the way all of us would without God.
God wants Jesus to come through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He specifically rules out any descendants of Ishmael and Esau. It isn't because they were or were not circumcised or did or did not have faith. Or, that they did not meet all of the conditions. I am not aware of any other individuals that were explicitly removed from the circumcised people. And, yet, don't we know that the line of descendants was filled with faithless people. Isn't what happened to them (Ishmael and Esau) bigger than unfaithfulness? (please don't think that I am minimizing unfaithfulness.)
Yes, we certainly can see unfaithfulness; but, ... what about Jacob buying the birthright and tricking Isaac on his death bed? And, why do you attach covenant significance to Isaac giving it all to Jacob. Isn't that what Abraham also did with regard to Isaac? And, he had children other than Ishmael that could have inherited part of his wealth. Were not these other children in the covenant? I assume Isaac got it all because God had picked him as the child of promise. I assume Jacob got it all for the same reason. I just don't see it being because Esau rejected the covenant by selling his birthright. I find nothing in Scripture that indicates that one can choose to give up their position within the covenant people of Jacob by some stupid or sinful decision (except of course to deny circumcision if they were not circumcised by their parents in the first place.)
I'm pretty sure we agree on the sign/seal aspect of circumcision. But, I don't agree with "The Israelites had to be clean in order to be God's people, and circumcision spoke to this." I see God attesting to their being His people and yet it is just as clear as can be that they are not clean. How are we to put these two 'facts' together?
My answer has been that the context informs us of the definition of 'my people' or 'people of God.' That is, it is a figurative description and not a technical one. I see 'people of God' who are a mixed bag regarding cleanliness and I also see a 'people of God' who are pure, righteous, clean, redeemed, etc.
So, far, the only Israel I see is of the former category. The one which will inherit the land is of the later category. Now, we get the conflict with the church as the only pure 'people of God.' Isn't that what our difference is really all about? I know Scripture never says there can only be one group that is pure. Where is the support for our saying that there can only be one such people?
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Your syllogism:
1) Esau met the stated conditions of physical descent and circumcision for the AC.
I agree
2) Esau was rejected from the AC.
I agree; but, this happened before your #1 and thus before he met the requirements. So, that there is something going on here that is not about AC requirements, is my conclusion.
3) Therefore, there must have been another condition in the AC
Based on what I conclude in 2) I don't see how to agree.
3a) (which was implied)
4) We know that Esau despised his birthright, and Hebrews described this as "godlessness"
I am not an expert (by any means) on birthrights; but, from what I can tell they involved:
a) a privilege normally belonging to the first born son; although this could be overridden by the father.
b) a double portion of inheritance, in relation to siblings.
c) succession, in the case of a royal family.
d) a title of honor.
e) nothing to do with the AC (can you point me to anything that might show the connection?)
f) Now to accept one's birthright was a sign of honor by the son toward the father. So, clearly, Esau was sinful in his selling this for just a meal. It was sin; no question. He never saw the import of what he had done; he was just sorry that he was not going to get the blessing. Nevertheless, how does this carnal, sinful activity rise to the level of affecting God's covenant with Abraham?
5) The sale of his birthright was the action that outwardly separated him from God's blessing.
I agree. God had chosen Jacob long before; but, how was anybody to know. This clearly showed it to 'us.'
6) So the most reasonable unstated condition is "godliness" -- specifically, faith.
Sadly (and I do mean that) I can not agree. God puts up with lots of sin for his own reasons. But, Esau's sin (and I agree it was lack of faith) is not greater than those of the many who are so clearly not rejected from among Abraham's descendants (e.g., Jacob).
However, the main reason for my not being able to see an unstated condition for covenant inclusion is that Esau was rejected before he met the 'other' conditions of the AC. And, before he acted in a 'godless' manner. He was removed but not because of not meeting the conditions.
You mention the removal of Israel and Judah from the land and conclude with "So being physically descended and circumcised was not enough."
I fully agree. Israel did not meet the conditions of the MC and suffered the consequences. Why is that not a good enough reason for their ejection? Why does the AC have to be brought in and unstated conditions brought forward when the MC handles the situation decisively. The AC, the eternal aspects, absolutely require more than circumcision and being a descendant. But, they don't have to be stated in Gen 17 since it is not yet germane there. Again, I go to the New Covenant as the time and place to make it explicit.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
God's people - children of God.
You ask if there is any Scriptural support for such a distinction. Well, I did some simple searches of the NASB that reveal the following:
a) 'children of God' only appears in John, Acts, Romans, Philippians and 1 John. And, it seems to me to specifically refer to those in the body of Christ (i.e., not to the visible church).
b) 'God's people' does not appear
c) 'people of God' occurs 6 times. The 3 in the OT reference Israel, in the NT: 1 references Israel, 1 references the Church, and 1 is still open for me.
d) 'my people' occurs 231 times. WOW, there is a lot of meat here and I can't possibly do it justice in a few lines. So, here is my (biased, of course) summary:
This phrase refers mostly to Israel. Others, for example, Egypt are also identified by this phrase. But, overwhelmingly it is Israel. For example, 2 Samuel 7:8 "Now therefore, thus you shall say to My servant David, Thus says the Lord of hosts, I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, to be ruler over My people Israel."
These are not a clean people. But, the phrase also relates to them in a different state. For example, Jeremiah 24:7 "I will give them a heart to know Me, for I am the Lord; and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart. Isn't this describing a 'saved people?' Can we see where this has ever happened in the past to Israel? Can it be said of the Church that it 'will return' to God?
Of the 231 times, 7 are in the NT. Well, 3 look to be Israel, 3 the Church, and 1 (Rev 18:4) is a little more complicated.
Romans 9:26 sort of ties all of this together. It shows me that the gentiles were not called 'my people;' but, that now they are and also they are called 'sons.' And, this seems to be the Church.
So, sinful Israel is not called God's children; but, they are called His people. Sinful now; pure later. Also, they are called the 'apple of His eye!' The Church is 'God's people' and also 'His children.'
We're still some ways apart on Esau here, which is not unexpected since we're really trying to put together the whole Bible!
So I'd like to respond to your points, summarize where we are, and then chew on it for a while during our vacation. Feel free to add a followup!
You said,
God, steps in and announces to
Rebecca that Esau is out; and that is well before we can see Esau doing anything like selling his birthright or acting unfaithfully or even meeting the conditions for acceptance into the AC. Hebrews puts emphasis on Esau 'despising' his birthright. And, rightly so. But, what about Jacob for manipulating Esau to get him to sell the birthright? Or, what about how Jacob dealt with Isaac to steal the blessing? Isn't all of that of the same caliber as what Esau did?
I think we're seeing the same data but reading it differently.
First, God's annunciation to Rebecca does not at that time remove Esau from the covenant -- else, he would not have been circumcised, nor would he have been treated as a descendant. That is, had he been out of the covenant at that time, he would have had no birthright to lose.
No, the moment where he stops being a "son of Abraham" is the moment when he throws away his birthright.
Second, I may have accidentally communicated the idea that Esau's removal was because of sin. Thus, you rightly ask, "What about Jacob?" etc. For obviously, these sinned as well.
But actually, the birthright was an inheritance. What was to be inherited? Well, Isaac's stuff of course. But most importantly, the Land. The inheritance to Abraham's descendants was the promise of living in God's place.
So when Esau despises it and sells it, he is forfeiting it.
That's why I link despite of the birthright to the moment of his removal from the covenant.
Just like refusal to wear the sign of circumcision was grounds for removal, so also willingness to trade the covenant promise for a meal was grounds for removal.
So you can see that it's not generalized "sin" that I have in mind, but specific apostasy, a deliberate walking away from the covenant promise. And all of that is presented in the narrative as the way in which God's prophecy to Rebecca is fulfilled.
To summarize:
On my account, Esau is one piece of evidence that the AC had an implicit condition of faith. His act of selling the birthright was an act of rejecting the covenant, in accordance with God's sovereign choice, and it was the means of his removal. Thus, from the start, the AC was not unconditional to all of Abraham's descendants, but only to those who received it by faith.
On your account, the removal of Esau was an exceptional act of God's sovereign choice. As such, it does not have bearing on the general principles of the AC. Instead, the only conditions that were attached to the AC were those explicitly stated in Gen 12, 15, 17: physical descent, and circumcision for males.
Fair 'nuff?
JRC
OK, let me mention a "point of fact" that I think separates us.
You said on May 31, 9:42AM
We agree, that faith is the instrument for 'getting the land.' It simply is not explicit in the AC. BUT, it is in the Mosaic Covenant. That is where the condition is brought in, in an explicit sense of covenant.
(1) I was re-reading Genesis and found this:
The LORD appeared to Isaac and said, "Do not go down to Egypt; live in the land where I tell you to live. Stay in this land for a while, and I will be with you and will bless you. For to you and your descendants I will give all these lands and will confirm the oath I swore to your father Abraham. I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws." -- gen 26.2-5 emph added
Now, obviously God is not referring here to the Decalogue. But whatever He means by "my requirements, my commands", etc. we have an explicit statement of conditionality that is above and beyond physical descent and circumcision, prior to the giving of the Mosaic Covenant. Yes? No?
(2) I'm still stuck on Paul's statement that the Law did not set aside the AC. Given that, can we be so confident that the MC adds a new condition for getting the land? Is it not rather explicitly stating a condition that was already present?
(3) We really only have four generations' worth of evidence between Abraham and Moses: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah. Is that enough to sustain the idea of a difference between the AC and the MC? Why could we not see the MC as an administration of the AC, rather than a completely different convenant? I have in mind here Ex. 6 and Deut. 4.
To sum up: I'm not comfortable saying that the AC is unconditional when so many different lines of thought point to a condition of faith: Gen 15, Esau, Gen 26, Rom 2, Rom 4, Gal 3.
It would be nice if we had a really explicit statement one way or the other in Genesis. Alas, we don't, which is why it's an unsettled point). So I concede that my case is short of air-tight. Having said that, is there any reason to think that the AC is unconditional aside from the lack of explicit conditions stated in Gen 12, 15, 17?
JRC
Re: Sons and Children.
Thanks for doing the research on this. I'll try to put some effort on this end toward the same task when I get a chance.
If I understand, based on your research, the term "God's people" (which includes "people of God"; neither Hebrew nor Greek distinguishes those two phrases) can refer both to Israel and the Church, while "God's children" is used exclusively for the Church.
Thus, you would allow two different senses of "God's people" -- on the one hand, Israel is "God's people" collectively: called by God, participants in the AC, given an unconditional promise. On the other, the Church (and future New Covenant Israel) are "God's people" individually: called by God to salvation. Additionally, future New Covenant Israel are the true, eternal inheritors of the Land.
The underlying basis for this distinction is the observation that Israel contained a mixture of believers and unbelievers, while the Church and New Covenant Israel do not.
The phrase "God's children", on the other hand, always refers to God's people in the second sense - to those who are actually saved.
Is that correct?
---
Assuming so, let me ask these
(1) What do you make of the fact that God calls the nation of Israel, "My son" and "My daughter"?
(2) Why does God appear to make "Sons of the Living God" the opposite of "not my people" in Hosea 1.10? And apparently equivalent to "my people" in Hos. 2.23?
Here's what I'm getting at: sometimes, a difference in word does not imply a difference in meaning simply because the two different words are being used as synonyms. One thinks for example of "Kingdom of God" in Matthew and "Kingdom of Heaven" in Luke.
Here, it strikes me that "sons of God" might very well mean the same thing in Hosea as "God's people."
Yes? No?
JRC
You've asked a couple of questions here.
But, doesn't that require you to set aside the New Covenant?
Here's my overarching view. You probably have put this mostly together already, so pardon the repetition:
God created Adam to be the father of a people who would know, love, and obey God. Adam, however, failed to obey; and through him, sin came into the world -- along with a promise that sin would eventually be crushed.
God's promise to Abe to be a "God to your descendants" was a salvific promise -- the "true" descendants of Abraham were the children of God, justified from their sin.
Further, God ordained the family, and the nation as an extended family, as the means to propagate this promise.
Eventually, when the nation became large enough, it was time for God to administer the promise through a tutor, the Law. The purpose of this Law was to expose transgressions and to symbolize guilt, atonement, and forgiveness so that the family would be ready for their Messiah, the second Adam who would fulfill the promise to Eve.
Within that family, not all were true children of Abraham. Some of these were weeded out quickly (Esau). Others were patiently borne with for a while. As time continued, the presence of these "false children" began to overwhelm the character of the nation, so that several things happened:
(1) The nation disintegrated.
(2) God judged the nation with exile, and
(3) God made a promise through the prophets of a New Covenant in contrast to the Law in which the Law would be written on men's hearts. Thus, God was reassuring the nation that the original promise of salvation to Abe ("I will be your God") would come true.
When the New Covenant arrives through Jesus, He brings final atonement for sin and opens the curtain, the wall of separation, that symbolizes both God's distance from man and also Gentile separation from the promises.
Thus, in Christ, both Jew and Gentile alike participate in the New Covenant, which is the culmination of the promises through the prophets, to Abraham, and to Adam.
All of this is reflected in Revelation:
I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.
And we see from the continuing description in Rev. 21 that "God's people" consist of a single entity composed of both Israel ("the twelve tribes") and the Church ("the twelve apostles").
So I see the Church as carrying on the promise of Abraham, but in a different way from Israel the nation. First, the Church is not under the Law. Israel the nation was organized under the Law, and it is no more.
Second, the Church is guided more directly by the Spirit and the more complete revelation of the New Testament.
The New Covenant, then, is the organizing principle of the Church in which Jews and Gentiles alike participate. Its promise is the promise of the forgiveness of sins, and its signs are baptism and communion.
Is the Church then a pure entity? Not on earth. You asked, "Does the church ever need to repent?" The Church in Laodicea did, as did the Church in Ephesus. The Church continued and continues to deal with unbelievers who need to be put out of fellowship, with false teachers, and so on.
In that respect, the Church resembles Israel the nation; but in many respects it is different (not being under the Law, being sustained by the Spirit).
I don't know if any of that is new, but you can see that I do not set aside the New Covenant, but rather believe that it applies to the Church now rather than to the nation of Israel at a future time.
(cont.)
(cont.)
You also asked,
Now, we get the conflict with the church as the only pure 'people of God.' Isn't that what our difference is really all about? I know Scripture never says there can only be one group that is pure. Where is the support for our saying that there can only be one such people?
So I think you can anticipate my response: on this side of eternity, the Church is not pure, either. It *should* be pure speaking from a moral obligation standpoint. And it *will* be pure from an eschatological standpoint. But not yet.
Finally, you asked, What does a gentile believer today gain/lose by being viewed as you say you view them or alternatively as you say I view them?
I have two concerns.
The first is to not put the Church on a pedestal as a "pure" group in contrast to Israel as a "mixed" group. The history of the last 2000 years illustrates the problems that arise when we try to overpurify the Church. NOT that we should tolerate obvious impurity; but there is a difference between tolerating evil and going and hunting under the bushes for it.
What I mean is that in various times in history, different groups have tried different ways of trying to "make sure" that only believers were members of the local church. Those different ways included the Puritan insistence on a "conversion experience"; the Anabaptist insistence on "believer's baptism"; the Novatian insistence on refusing fellowship to anyone who denied Christ under torture, even if he repented.
All of those practices might be well-intentioned, but they overlooked the Lord's warning that tares and wheat will always be a part of the kingdom on this side of eternity.
The second concern is that we not re-raise the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile. Paul spent so much effort convincing people that they didn't have to become Jewish in order to be a true child of Abraham. I want to preserve that idea, and I don't see any basis for limiting "child of Abraham" to a subset of the covenant promises.
I hope that answers your questions? I'll be spotty for the next week.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
Hope you are having (or had) a great vacation. Well, of course, I can't resist a follow-up while you are resting. . .
Esau:
You are quite correct and what I said was wrong. God does NOT tell Rebecca that Esau will NOT be part of the covenant.
In fact, I think I finally see what you have been trying to tell me about Esau. That being that Esau chose to not be included in the 'sons of Abraham' and that this was because of his lack of faith. Part of his birthright, not just that which normally went to the eldest, was inclusion in the promises to Abraham's descendants. I was missing this. When you mentioned birthright, I only considered the 'Isaac's stuff' part and not the rest of Esau's normal inheritance as Isaac's descendant.
OK, here comes the BUT.
You say: "willingness to trade the covenant promise for a meal was grounds for removal"
I'm confused by the idea of 'grounds for.' I see that he relinquished any rights to the inheritance due the first-born. But, you see that he also had the power to relinquish his position as 'descendant.' Nothing I read about birthright seems to include this implication. Where do you find support for this? By the way, I don't think this has any impact on either of our positions since God took care of it when He extended the AC to Jacob. And, I think we agree that that was not based on what Esau did, yes?
Now, I realize that you see his lack of faith as important as it relates to the unstated condition of the AC.
Abrahamic Covenent:
The main sticking point here seems to be whether or not it is conditional.
I think we are together (at least I really do hope so) that individual reception of any of the eternal blessings were and continue to this day to be contingent on faith. ASIDE: It just occurred to me that there are two kinds of 'blessings' promised in the AC and that distinguishing them is really important. The two kinds I see are 'national' blessings that do not require faith on the part of the recipients and 'eternal' blessings that do require faith. So, the faithless can be God's people in the national sense; and the faithful are His people in the sense of reconciliation. For example, God saved the Israelites from Egypt. That would have been a very good thing for a slave, don't you think? It was part of the national blessings promised to Abraham. Of course, the lack of faith of most of them did then result in their not entering the land but dying in the wilderness.
With regard to what God ratifies in Gen 15 He says "To your descendants I have given this land." What He refers to does not mention individuals, except of course, Abraham. And, even here, he makes His promise before declaring Abraham righteous! None of this has anything to do with the actions of any individual, other than God, Himself. God is going to do whatever it takes to make the promise come to pass. That is what He commits to do. There are no human contingencies stated or implied. So, the promise is to the physical nation, Israel, regarding a very physical piece of land. How do we get away from what is so clearly stated? How does the faith of any individual affect any aspect of this promise?
Genesis 26:2-5 has God talking to Isaac. The covenant has already been ratified with Abraham, i.e., it is in full force. God is now reiterating it to Isaac as the one through whom the covenant will be fulfilled. What God specifically means by Abraham obeying etc. is not very clear to me. (My guess is that he is referring to Gen 18:17-18 and wants Isaac to follow Abraham's lead in living righteously. But, that isn't essential.) What is essential is that we not think that God made the covenant because of Abraham's works or that any failure on the part of Abraham or his descendants were going to cause Him to alter His solemn promise.)
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Mosaic Covenant:
You seem to be asking if the MC isn't just an 'adder or clarification' to the AC. I hope I have that right?
The MC is not about what they had to do to get the land. The MC is about what they had to do to stay in it. The promises of the AC are not in question. God has already promised them the land for all time. The MC says it is a stand alone covenant. The tablets were new; not clarification. Please don't think that I am saying that God did not have LAW before the tablets.
You mention Deuteronomy 4. Verse 4:30-31 seem to say that they are GOING to fail to keep the MC; BUT that God will not forget the AC. They (sorry for this; but, . . .) not the church are going to return to God and listen to Him. But, not now. God gives them the land with a clear condition. They have to follow the covenant that He is now making with them or they will be scattered. BUT, they will come back to Him. How else can one read this chapter?
Sons and Children:
You ask: "(1) What do you make of the fact that God calls the nation of Israel, "My son" and "My daughter"?"
First, I can't find any place where Israel is referenced as 'my daughter.' What Scripture did you have in mind?
Exodus 4:22-23 is one place where Israel, the nation, is referred to as a son. I am fairly sure that Israel, the person, was indeed a saved individual. God always says that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I assume that Jacob (AKA Israel) is indeed a child of God, i.e., His son. Now in this verse, the nation is simply being referenced by its progenitor. Surely, God is not calling that bunch of pagan slaves, saved children of His? Most of them are simply going to die in the wilderness. They won't inherit the land. But, the nation will. Their children will. Their far distant children really will.
Hosea 11:1 is another verse where Israel, the nation, is called 'My son.' Isn't this just referring to the offspring collectively? Israel, the man, was indeed God's son. But, I don't take from this that the nation was made up of all saved people.
Then you ask: "(2) Why does God appear to make "Sons of the Living God" the opposite of "not my people" in Hosea 1.10? And apparently equivalent to "my people" in Hos. 2.23?"
I must be just missing the point. Nevertheless, I'll jump right in. The 'not my people' in 1:10 are just that. They are being disciplined and are scattered and lost. They are part of the nation and so His people; but, certainly not in the salvific sense. They most certainly don't look to the rest of humanity like 'God's people.' So, they are the opposite of 'Sons.' Sons are saved as far as I can tell.
Now in 2:23, God has just told us how He plans to redeem the nation. Then they will indeed be 'His people' (not that they ever actually stopped being that) and all of them will indeed be saved and His sons. I keep looking and looking and what I find is that 'sons' is only ever used to reference saved people and people of God can mean either a mixed or an all-saved people group. Context being our only guide to which kind of 'people' are being referenced. What am I missing?
I really do appreciate your taking the time to lay out your 'overarching view.' I would like to respond to it in detail so that possibly we can see the specific place at which we start to separate.
JC: God created Adam to be the father of a people who would know, love, and obey God.
DW: Yes. But, we also know that this was not really God's plan. His real plan included the cross.
JC: Adam, however, failed to obey; and through him, sin came into the world -- along with a promise that sin would eventually be crushed.
DW: Yes.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: God's promise to Abe to be a "God to your descendants" was a salvific promise --
DW: Yes. But, not right away. First, He would be their God in a non-salvific manner. We just have so many examples of God calling them His people at a time when we know that they were not all, or even mainly, saved.
JC: the "true" descendants of Abraham were the children of God, justified from their sin.
DW: This is where the divergence really takes hold. In the OT, descendants are clearly all physical. The nation of Israel who looked to him as their 'father' would not have had any other understanding of the Scriptures. Isn't that what Paul is saying in Romans 4:1? So, isn't that one kind of "true" descendant?
In the NT we are told that we, in the Church and who are saved, are Abe's children. So, now we have two different kinds of "true" descendants. Is it to be taken literally that Abe is my spiritual father who somehow gave birth to me. Or is this to be taken figuratively in the sense that I am following in his footsteps in coming to righteousness through faith as he did first? I am serious in asking this question.
JC: Further, God ordained the family, and the nation as an extended family, as the means to propagate this promise.
DW: Yes, if you mean it as the way to bring Jesus to earth as a man.
JC: Eventually, when the nation became large enough, it was time for God to administer the promise through a tutor, the Law.
DW: My understanding is that the people were now to enter the land and so they needed a set of rules to live by. Up to this point, they had been slaves under Egyptian rule; they were not a nation and had no idea how to be one. In a gracious manner, God tells them how they are to live before Him. But, regardless, God gave them a set of rules and told them that if they did not follow them, they would be taken from the land.
JC: The purpose of this Law was to expose transgressions and to symbolize guilt, atonement, and forgiveness so that the family would be ready for their Messiah, the second Adam who would fulfill the promise to Eve.
DW: I think you are taking the position here of JC in 2009 with all that he knows today. That's fine, of course. If I try the DW perspective of today I would say that the purpose was to show them that they were not capable of fulfilling God's law in their own strength. Clearly, they did not recognize their Messiah when He came there. Also, I don't see why you say 'so that the family' in contrast to 'the nation' would be ready?
JC: Within that family, not all were true children of Abraham.
DW: Sorry, there were two kinds of 'true' children.
JC: Some of these were weeded out quickly (Esau).
DW: All through human history, God has been weeding out. It started long before Esau. Just one example, Noah. But, God clearly had a specific family in mind into which the Messiah would be born.
JC: Others were patiently borne with for a while. As time continued, the presence of these "false children" began to overwhelm the character of the nation, so that several things happened:
(1) The nation disintegrated.
(2) God judged the nation with exile, and
(3) God made a promise through the prophets of a New Covenant in contrast to the Law in which the Law would be written on men's hearts. Thus, God was reassuring the nation that the original promise of salvation to Abe ("I will be your God") would come true.
DW: Yes and not buts. I would just like to add that He made the promise to the men of a very specific group, 'the house of Israel and the house of Judah.' Isn't this just an odd way of saying 'church?'
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: When the New Covenant arrives through Jesus, He brings final atonement for sin and opens the curtain, the wall of separation, that symbolizes both God's distance from man and also Gentile separation from the promises.
DW: Yes, and a question. Where in any description of the elements of the New Covenant do you see anything about the wall of separation coming down or the inclusion of Gentiles?
JC: Thus, in Christ, both Jew and Gentile alike participate in the New Covenant, which is the culmination of the promises through the prophets, to Abraham, and to Adam.
DW: I do agree that the Church, the body of Christ, saved people after Pentecost, are recipients of the promise of 'all the families of the earth' in Christ.
But, I have to say no to the part about the NC. I know I am repeating but it is not the New Covenant, for that was specifically addressed to the house of Israel and the house of Judah; no other people take part in the NC. This is where a major symbolism is introduced and I can not find any biblical warrant for doing so. Israel is never called the church in Scripture. How do you get from the specific wording of, for example, Jeremiah 31:31 to your view? I really am asking in all sincerity. For, I just don't know how to make that step without adding extra-biblical information.
JC: All of this is reflected in Revelation:
I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.
DW: YES! The final outcome of it all. We are completely together on the end point.
JC: And we see from the continuing description in Rev. 21 that "God's people" consist of a single entity composed of both Israel ("the twelve tribes") and the Church ("the twelve apostles").
DW: Why do the twelve tribes show up? Don't you hold that Israel was completely disowned, disinherited, and destroyed in 70AD? Don't you hold that the NC which seems on the surface, at least to me, to be addressed to only these twelve tribes, is really addressed to the Church? If Israel is still in view at the end as a part of God's people, then why don't the promises made to Israel still have validity in 2009 A.D.?
JC: So I see the Church as carrying on the promise of Abraham, but in a different way from Israel the nation.
DW: First, I am really not trying to be a wise guy here. What do you specifically mean by 'carrying on the promise of Abraham?'
JC: First, the Church is not under the Law. Israel the nation was organized under the Law, and it is no more.
DW: Yes, regarding the law; and yes, Israel is not now a theocracy. But, what about the verses that say that Israel will never be rejected? What about Israel's sons showing up as the gates in New Jerusalem? Does morphing Israel into the church really do them justice?
JC: Second, the Church is guided more directly by the Spirit and the more complete revelation of the New Testament.
DW: Yes.
JC: The New Covenant, then, is the organizing principle of the Church in which Jews and Gentiles alike participate. Its promise is the promise of the forgiveness of sins, and its signs are baptism and communion.
DW: Please humor me for a moment: Take away the NC; pretend that it never was mentioned in the OT. Is there anything that prevents Jesus from 'building His Church' pretty much just like He is actually doing right now? Jew, Gentile, Holy Spirit indwelling us, baptism, communion, etc? In other words, what would be different today if that had been the case?
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: Is the Church then a pure entity? Not on earth. You asked, "Does the church ever need to repent?" The Church in Laodicea did, as did the Church in Ephesus. The Church continued and continues to deal with unbelievers who need to be put out of fellowship, with false teachers, and so on.
DW: Actually, what I asked was "Can it be said of the Church that it 'will return' to God?" This was in reference to Jeremiah 24:7 which is talking specifically about Israel. The examples you gave of Ephesus and Laodicea were indeed in reference to believers (not unsaved people who happen to be on the church role) who needed to repent. I see these two situations as very different.
JC: In that respect, the Church resembles Israel the nation; but in many respects it is different (not being under the Law, being sustained by the Spirit).
DW: Sorry, the lost people who are on church roles are not being sustained by the Spirit. Only the saved fit that description. But, I agree that there are similarities and differences between the Church and Israel.
JC: I don't know if any of that is new, but you can see that I do not set aside the New Covenant, but rather believe that it applies to the Church now rather than to the nation of Israel at a future time.
DW: I am very grateful to you for what you have provided here. It brought clarity to a lot of what had been said previously.
In response to my question about support for only one pure people of God you responded that the church was not pure yet. I guess I picked the wrong word when I used 'pure.' 'Saved' might have been a better term. But, this brings up the question of what 'church' means. I think that when Jesus said He was going to build His Church, and that this Church is called a new creation, He did not have the idea of an entity composed of both saved and unsaved people. Or one that was a new and improved replacement for Israel. The saved church members were still sinful until the end; but, this entity was not like Israel regarding salvation of the membership. I see you equating OT Israel and NT visible church. And, they do indeed have similarities. The problem I see is in putting too much stress on the similarities between OT Israel and NT visible church and then equating this version of church to the one that Jesus described.
wheat and tares
You talk about the problem of man trying to 'make' a pure church. I agree that it is not our problem. God can take care of this and this doesn't mean that we can bury our heads in the sand and let just anything go unquestioned in the Church. However, taking Matthew to be talking about the church, leads to a willingness to see the visible church as the Church that Jesus is building. And, that I can not agree with.
Hi David,
Sorry to have been afk for so long. We had a good vacation, albeit busier than I thought. I thought of our conversation at a couple of points. One was while visiting my parents' church, a Southern Baptist church with a Bible-teaching pastor whose sermon was on baptism.
I hope you've been well.
There are so many different strands of thought here that I'm not sure how to gather them into one bundle. So let me tackle what I think is the most important point.
DW: This is where the divergence really takes hold. In the OT, descendants are clearly all physical. The nation of Israel who looked to him as their 'father' would not have had any other understanding of the Scriptures. Isn't that what Paul is saying in Romans 4:1? So, isn't that one kind of "true" descendant?
In the NT we are told that we, in the Church and who are saved, are Abe's children. So, now we have two different kinds of "true" descendants. Is it to be taken literally that Abe is my spiritual father who somehow gave birth to me. Or is this to be taken figuratively in the sense that I am following in his footsteps in coming to righteousness through faith as he did first? I am serious in asking this question.
You've taken the position, if I understand correctly, that there are two types of true descendants: physical and spiritual.
Here's the thought process that leads me away from your paradigm.
First, Scripture never asserts that there are two types of true descendants (correct me on this if I've overlooked something). In fact, "physical" descent is discussed in only a couple of passages that I'm aware of, and in every case, it is explicitly denied that physical descent qualifies one as a "true" child of Abraham:
John 8 Jesus affirms the physical parentage of the Jews and then denies that they are Abraham's children: "If you were Abraham's children, then you would do the things that Abraham did.", that they are God's children: "If God were your Father, then you would love Me." Instead, he says, they are children of Satan (8.44).
Matt 3 || Luke 3 As John the Baptist is carrying out his ministry, he tells the Pharisees, "Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham."
Here it is clear that (in whatever sense John means it!) being a child of Abraham is a matter of repentance.
Rom 2 Here, physical parentage is in the background and law-keeping in the foreground. Nevertheless, Paul's statement is clear: "A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God."
We note that he does not say, "a man is a Christian if he is one inwardly", but rather he says "a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly..."
Being a "true Jew" -- a true son of Abraham -- requires the inward work of the Spirit.
(cont.)
Rom 9
There is a question on the table at this point in Paul's discussion: why have the people of Israel not been the recipients of salvation even though God promised to be their God?
Paul's answer is that not all physical descendants of Abraham are actually considered descendants of Abraham.
"It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring."
And then, he argues from Esau (just as I have been doing, Lord willing) that not all physical descendants, but rather only children of the promise, are reckoned as Abraham's offspring.
Rom 11 There is a new question on the table: "Did God reject His people?"
Paul says, No. God's people, properly speaking, are remnant chosen and elected by grace. And this applies even to Jews who are currently unbelieving but who have been elected to believe (at some point in the future).
They have been broken off because of unbelief, but they will be grafted back in when they come to faith.
We note here that there is no discussion of two types of true descendants. Physical descendants who do not believe are "broken off" and have no future at all, unless they believe and are grafted back in.
---
Those are the only passages I'm aware of that touch on the status of "physical descendants." And in every case, the answer is the same: physical descendants without faith are not children of the promise. They are not true children of Abraham.
(cont.)
Well, OK, but now I have to address your points. After all, you haven't argued that the Bible directly teaches two kinds of true descendants. Instead, you've argued that this is a good and necessary consequence from the OT narrative.
DW: In the OT, descendants are clearly all physical. The nation of Israel who looked to him as their 'father' would not have had any other understanding of the Scriptures.
We might construct your argument like this:
(1) When God delivered the covenant to Abraham, the understanding of the covenant was of "physical descendants"
(1a) as evidenced by the fact that the sign of the covenant was applied to the physical descendants.
(2) If Abe's understanding is later revealed incorrect -- for example, if "spiritual children" are allowed into the covenant, then the covenant would have been duplicitous: meaning one thing to Abraham and another to God, and
(3) God does not make duplicitous covenants, so
(4) We conclude that "descendants" must mean physical descendants, and
(5) We confirm our understanding by noting that the term of the covenant was the granting of the physical land of Israel, which fits nicely with the covenant being made with physical descendants.
Is that a fair summary?
---
I'd like to challenge your syllogism by introducing a new category. We've talked of "physical" v. "spiritual" descendants. However, since the Scripture does not use that language (except to occasionally speak pejoratively of physical descendants without faith), I would like to use more Scriptural language: there are naturally born descendants and adopted descendants.
As a question of law -- and inheritance is very much a question of law -- adopted descendants have the same full legal rights as natural born children. They *are* children; it's just that their means of becoming children was by adoption instead of by birth.
Now: is not Paul arguing in Gal 3 and Rom 4 that Gentiles who are in Christ have been legally adopted into Abraham's family?
Inversely, when Jesus tells the Pharisees that they are sons of Satan, isn't He declaring that they have been disinherited as children of Abraham?
This is why I brought up Ruth and Esau. Ruth is legally adopted into Abraham's family. Esau is disinherited. The Old Testament understanding of the covenant included both of these categories.
In fact, I would argue that the narrative of Esau is included in Genesis to show this point: that physical descent is not enough.
Recall that the Torah is being delivered to the Israelites right as they enter the land, and it serves to warn the Israelites against unfaithfulness. Esau's narrative fits into this larger theme: if you are unfaithful, God will reject you.
I think this is the same direction Paul takes the Esau narrative in Rom 9.
So in general, I don't speak of "physical" and "spiritual" descendants. Those terms, especially the latter, are not used in Scripture, and they don't really capture what is going on. I haven't been "spiritually born" of Abraham. I've been adopted into his family.
JRC
A couple of questions that you asked.
DW: Take away the NC; pretend that it never was mentioned in the OT. Is there anything that prevents Jesus from 'building His Church' pretty much just like He is actually doing right now? Jew, Gentile, Holy Spirit indwelling us, baptism, communion, etc? In other words, what would be different today if that had been the case?
I think the New Covenant is implied in the Abrahamic: "I will be their God."
Given the presence of sin, the only way for God to fully be their God is to remake their hearts. Thus, the NC is required.
This is also why I think we Gentiles are included. Let's say that Gentiles are excluded from the NC. BUT ...
... we get the Spirit, as promised in the New Covenant.
... we get a new heart, as promised in the New Covenant.
... we observe the sign of communion, which is the sign of the New Covenant.
So we get all of the benefits of the New Covenant, and we observe its sign. In what sense are we outside of the NC, then?
---
DW: Why do the twelve tribes show up? Don't you hold that Israel was completely disowned, disinherited, and destroyed in 70AD? Don't you hold that the NC which seems on the surface, at least to me, to be addressed to only these twelve tribes, is really addressed to the Church? If Israel is still in view at the end as a part of God's people, then why don't the promises made to Israel still have validity in 2009 A.D.?
I think this question is based on a hybrid thought-system, taking my conclusions but articulating them through your categories.
I don't view Israel as completely disowned and disinherited. Israel was a nation, a geopolitical entity. It served a typological function, to point forward to the New Heavens and New Earth when the Law will be truly kept from the heart and no one will need to say, "know the Lord."
When Jesus comes, the function of Israel is transferred to himself. He is the new Israel, the antitypical reality. I think this paper does a creditable job of explaining.
Now, the nation was composed of citizens, the people of Israel. Some of these people were believers; some were not.
Those who are believers have not been disinherited in any way. Rather, they find their inheritance in Christ.
Those who are unbelievers, if they persist in their unbelief, have indeed been disinherited. But if not, they can be grafted back in.
So what is the Church? Is it the replacement for Israel? Not really. Israel the nation was organized under the Law for a typological purpose. Rather, the Church is the covenant community. It is, in fact, much like Jacob's family, a community of those who outwardly profess faith and who inwardly are supposed to possess faith.
There's more to be said, but I think you can understand now that in my view, the 12 apostles and the 12 tribes are both represented in the New Jerusalem because they are one people, the true children of Abraham who are the true people of God.
(cont.)
(cont.)
DW: Where in any description of the elements of the New Covenant do you see anything about the wall of separation coming down or the inclusion of Gentiles?
How about John 10.16? "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd."
Is not the shepherd imagery taken from the New Covenant description in Ezek. 34?
---
DW: What is essential is that we not think that God made the covenant because of Abraham's works or that any failure on the part of Abraham or his descendants were going to cause Him to alter His solemn promise.
I agree with this. Likewise in the NT, we would say that Jesus saves us not because of our works, and that even our failures cannot pull us out of the Father's hand.
And still, we affirm that faith (sovereignly created by the Spirit) is the condition for receiving salvation: it's "what must be logically true of us to be saved."
The reason, of course, is that faith is the means of receiving salvation; so logically, it must be the case that all who are saved must believe.
It is in the same sense that I am saying that faith is the condition for participating in the AC.
It's not a work; it's simply "what must be true of Abraham's descendants in order to participate in the covenant."
JRC
Hi Jeff,
I really enjoyed the paper by Motyer. Thanks for the link. If I were to place him within a normal distribution it would be on one of the tails. But, by his not holding back, he has made it much clearer to me why you and I haven't YET been able to remove our differences.
I have reread all of our exchanges to help ensure that I am hearing you. Also, I have noted each of the points you made in the last series and would just love to address them one by one. But, I don't think that is the best way to narrow the differences. So, I have tried to pick the few biggest gaps to address. If you think I am ignoring an important point you have made, then by all means please bring it up again.
JC: So what is the Church? Is it the replacement for Israel? Not really. Israel the nation was organized under the Law for a typological purpose. Rather, the Church is the covenant community. It is, in fact, much like Jacob's family, a community of those who outwardly profess faith and who inwardly are supposed to possess faith.
DW: I am pretty sure that you are referring to the New Covenant here, i.e., it is through the NC that the Church becomes the covenant community. I need your help, seriously. What do I have to understand in order to read Jeremiah 31 and not see that it can only be referring to the physical, earthly nation of Israel?
Did God ever make an Old Covenant (the Mosaic Covenant) with the Church? Of course not. He made it with the physical nation of Israel. Then how can He make a New Covenant with the Church?
How can God make the NC with the Church when He says in Jeremiah 31:33 that He will make the NC with Israel AFTER He plants them BACK into the land? Wouldn't there have had to have been a FIRST planting? Was the church ever planted, even a first time, into Israel? And, even so you would say that the NC has been inaugurated. Am I just being too literal here? Which of God's words here are not intended to be taken in a reasonable sense?
What is it that Jesus actually says when he defines what the deciples are to do to remember Him (the Cross)? Does He ever say that He is making a covenant with them? What does He say about His blood? Ans: 1) His blood is being poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins and 2) His blood is the blood of the New Covenant (Actually, Matthew and Mark only say 'covenant'). Two very different things are happening here. First, Jesus is sacrificing Himself to pay for sin. Second, He is providing the blood which enables the New Covenant with Israel to be ratified. The NC can not be inaugurated until after God plants the nation back into Israel; and that has not happened even to this day. So, is there really enough support for calling the Church the 'covenant community?' If so, where is this support?
One more question and then I'll stop pestering you on this. What are we doing each time we break the bread and drink the wine? Are we commemorating or even celebrating the NC? No. We are proclaiming the 'Lord's death until he comes.' I find no Scripture mentioning the NC with regard to the Church and the Lord's Supper. It is only about remembering the sacrifice that makes it possible for the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant with regard to 'all the families.'
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: I would like to use more Scriptural language: there are naturally born descendants and adopted descendants.
JC: Now: is not Paul arguing in Gal 3 and Rom 4 that Gentiles who are in Christ have been legally adopted into Abraham's family?
JC: I haven't been "spiritually born" of Abraham. I've been adopted into his family.
DW: We have discussed Abraham quite a bit and I guess you believe that the designation of believers as his 'sons' is to be taken quite literally. I have given you my more figurative understanding and won't repeat it here.
We discuss 'true' descendants and unbelieving descendants and physical descendants etc. The category of 'adopted' descendants is brought into view here. I look and I can not find any reference to our (believers in the Church) having been adopted into Abraham's family. Certainly, I find us adopted into God's family. But, where is being a child of God (and 'adopted' is a fine term to describe the process) made equivalent to being a 'son of Abraham.'
As you must know by now, I really don't see anything about 'adoption' in Romans 4. What verse are you referencing? What I do see is a definition (verse 4:12) of the sense in which Abraham may be considered a 'father' of those who believe. How can Abraham adopt us when he doesn't know us? Wouldn't a father have to know the one's he is adopting? Can Jesus adopt us for Abraham? Sorry, but I really don't see in Romans and Galatians anything about adoption into Abraham's family.
This idea of adoption (by Abe and not by God) seems to be an important tenet of your overall understanding of our relationship to the covenant. If we (Body of Christ) have been adopted by Abraham, then it is reasonable to say that we are his inheriting descendants. But, if not, then . . . .
JC: This is also why I think we Gentiles are included. Let's say that Gentiles are excluded from the NC. BUT ...
... we get the Spirit, as promised in the New Covenant.
... we get a new heart, as promised in the New Covenant.
... we observe the sign of communion, which is the sign of the New Covenant.
So we get all of the benefits of the New Covenant, and we observe its sign. In what sense are we outside of the NC, then?
DW: Maintaining my stance as a broken record I have to say that the NC was described as relating to the physical house of Israel and Judah. It was not described as involving the descendants of Abraham (spiritual or physical). It just so happens that the house of Israel was descended from Abraham.
There is no question that the spiritual blessings that each member of the Church (of course I am referring to the invisible one) receive include the spirit and a new heart. I have tried to show above that communion is not the sign of the NC; it is a rite of remembrance of the Cross. I won't beat that dead horse again here.
These same spiritual blessings will be received by the people with whom God enacts the NC. Alas, there are also some differences described in Jeremiah 31. At any rate, I hold that taking some important similarities and thereby making an equivalence has to ignore what God says about the NC.
Hi David,
DW: What do I have to understand in order to read Jeremiah 31 and not see that it can only be referring to the physical, earthly nation of Israel?
Why are you certain that it is only with Israel?
Let me explain. Sometimes when I compliment one of my daughters, the other one gets upset:
JRC: (Daughter #1) You were really kind today.
Daughter #2: You don't think I'm kind!
(We've really had these kinds of conversations!). Now, the reasoning error is obvious -- just because I've complimented #1 doesn't mean that I don't think the same about #2.
Well, the same kind of problem is occurring here, except it's less obvious because we're adults and so our reasoning is more sophisticated. :)
God promises the New Covenant to the house of Israel. Does it logically follow that He's promising to exclude the Gentiles from it? Not at all.
I think the answer to your question ("What do I have to understand...?") is Ephesians 3:
In reading this, then, you will be able to understand [Paul's] insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is the through the gospel the Gentiles are (1) heirs together with Israel, (2) members together of one body, (3) and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. -- Eph. 3.4-6, nums added.
Think about all the different ways that Jesus and Paul express the fact that Gentiles have been incorporated into the promise given to Abraham: Gentiles and Jews are "one flock", "one body", "fellow heirs", "sons of Abraham", "sharers together in the promise."
So on what basis would we resist this language?
(cont.)
(cont.)
Let's consider also the argument in the book of Hebrews. There, Jesus is presented as a "high priest of the order of Melchizedek" and "the mediator of a new covenant."
Just to make certain that the reader does not mistake, the author to the Hebrews (hereafter: AtH) directly connects the ministry Jesus has received to Jeremiah 31, citing it directly in Heb. 8.8-12.
Now, you've said that the New Covenant will not be inaugurated until the Jews are resettled in their land. But the AtH says that the New Covenant is already in force:
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance -- now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
Not "will be" or "has been designated as", but "is" the mediator of a New Covenant.
Is not Jesus the high priest and the atoning sacrifice of both Jew and Gentile? Surely He is! And is not the believing Gentile also one who will receive the promised eternal inheritance? I know you agree.
So then, why resist the idea that Gentile believers are within the scope of the New Covenant?
Dear brother David, what makes you certain that the New Covenant excludes Gentile believers?
JRC
(to especially add to this point: Paul says that God has made him and Timothy, "ministers of the New Covenant." (2 Cor 3) Given that Paul's ministry was to the Gentiles, what sense would this make if the New Covenant was not for them? I think 2 Cor 3 bears re-reading on this point, because it clearly identifies the New Covenant, not with particular reference to land, but with reference to the work of the Spirit)
DW: Did God ever make an Old Covenant (the Mosaic Covenant) with the Church? Of course not. He made it with the physical nation of Israel. Then how can He make a New Covenant with the Church?
If the Church is not primarily a Gentile organization -- recall that it was primarily Jewish for at least the first 20 years -- but instead the body of those who are in Christ, the promised Messiah of the New Covenant, then this makes a lot of sense.
In other words, if the Gentiles have been grafted into the tree of Israel, made one body with Israel, then it makes a lot of sense.
DW: The category of 'adopted' descendants is brought into view here. ... Where is being a child of God (and 'adopted' is a fine term to describe the process) made equivalent to being a 'son of Abraham.'?
As you must know by now, I really don't see anything about 'adoption' in Romans 4. What verse are you referencing? What I do see is a definition (verse 4:12) of the sense in which Abraham may be considered a 'father' of those who believe. How can Abraham adopt us when he doesn't know us? Wouldn't a father have to know the one's he is adopting? Can Jesus adopt us for Abraham? Sorry, but I really don't see in Romans and Galatians anything about adoption into Abraham's family.
This idea of adoption (by Abe and not by God) seems to be an important tenet of your overall understanding of our relationship to the covenant. If we (Body of Christ) have been adopted by Abraham, then it is reasonable to say that we are his inheriting descendants. But, if not, then . . . .
Yes, absolutely, adoption is a core tenet. Let's examine your last statement: "if we have been adopted by Abraham, then it is reasonable to say that we are his inheriting descendants. But if not, then ..." (presumably, "it isn't reasonable")
And now let's count the times that Paul asserts that believers are Abraham's heirs: Rom 4.13, Gal 3.29, Gal. 4.5, 7; Gal. 4.28-31 strongly implies it, and groups us as "children of the promise" together with Isaac; Eph. 2.12-13 implies it; Eph. 3.6 states it directly.
If we haven't been adopted as Abraham's children, wouldn't it be unreasonable for Paul to call us "heirs" -- not "incidental beneficiaries", but "heirs" -- to the covenant so frequently?
Nor is it the case that one must be personally known by Abraham in order to be adopted into his family. If the current living descendants of Thomas Jefferson adopted a baby, that baby would be a member of TJs family without ever knowing TJ personally.
In the same way, Ruth was adopted into Abraham's family without ever knowing him personally.
But in any event, you nailed it on the head: Jesus is the one who brings us into the family of Abraham: If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Now, you asked, "Where does Scripture equate being a son of God with being a son of Abraham?"
The most direct prooftext is Rom 9: "In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring."
We notice here the antithetical parallelism in which "natural children" are not "children of the promise" (necessarily), but "God's children" are "Abraham's offspring."
But a longer answer is the argument in Galatians 3 coupled with
Gal. 3.29 says, "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendant."
In symbolic form, C ==> A.
And we know that all and only those in Christ are also God's children (Gal. 3.26), C <=> G
So by basic logic, we have
G ==> A
There's the equivalence: being a child of God implies being a son of Abraham.
I would actually make a stronger argument, that G <==> A (being a true child of God is equivalent to being a true child of Abraham), but that's more work (bring in Rom 2) and we don't need that result for our purposes.
JRC
DW: I have to say that the NC was described as relating to the physical house of Israel and Judah. It was not described as involving the descendants of Abraham (spiritual or physical). It just so happens that the house of Israel was descended from Abraham.
Doesn't the New Covenant occur in a historical context? Your phrase "just so happens" is far too strong, I think. The reason the New Covenant is made with the house of Israel is that the house of Israel broke the Old Covenant; but, God had promised to be their God in the Abrahamic.
If not for that promise, then God would have treated Israel like the nations in the time of Noah: destruction. But for the sake of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, God promises to restore them. That's why the central promise of the New Covenant is the same as the central promise of the Abrahamic: "I will be their God, and they will be my people" (Jer. 31.33; cf. Gen. 17.8)
So the new-covenant-making with Israel is not a matter of "just so happens", but a logical outworking of the Abrahamic Covenant under the conditions imposed by the problem of sin.
JRC
Hey Jeff,
I just got back from driving the seniors to Roan Mt. to enjoy the rhododendrons (over 300 miles round trip!!) and just had to see if you had responded. Well, now I don't want you to react like your daughters might; but, the response is even more outstanding than your typical superb responses. My brain is completely dead and so it will be a day or so before I can give it the attention it deserves. However, I am really anxious to see how I understand the passages you have highlighted. I can already see that it is going to be tough going. Thank you for your time and effort with this foolish dispy. I think we are getting to the heart of the matter.
Hi Jeff,
I've been thinking about what you said about your daughters. It occurred to me that there is even more to the story. What you said is of course right on. But, actually, when you compliment one you are not providing ANY information regarding the other. For example, from the story, I don't have any idea of whether you think your second daughter is or is not 'kind.' So the error is in thinking there is ANY information provided when, in fact, none is. Alas, if we didn't make inappropriate inferences, think how boring it would be.
JC: God promises the New Covenant to the house of Israel. Does it logically follow that He's promising to exclude the Gentiles from it? Not at all.
DW: I was VERY surprised (in a good way!) to read that first sentence. At any rate, it seems we have another item for the agree column. All we need to find is where gentiles are adopted into Israel and then the NC must apply to them also. I believe that is how you see it unfolding, no?
As to the rest of the quote, I agree completely. In fact, from Jeremiah we have no idea of whether the gentiles are or are not included; they aren't mentioned. Leaving Jeremiah all we can say is that the NC has to do with national Israel. So, we have to find the adoption or in-grafting to support your view.
OK, you say I should look to Ephesians 3 to see what I am missing. You summarize verses 3-4 --"This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are (1) heirs together with Israel, (2) members together of one body, (3) and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus."
This is indeed a rich passage! My comments are:
A) All of this has to do with 'the gospel.' So, the first question that comes to mind is: to what gospel is Paul referring? I say it is most clearly seen in Galatians 3:8 -- "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, proclaimed the gospel to Abraham ahead of time, saying, "All the nations will be blessed in you."
B) The next question that pops into my mind is "Who is included in All the nations?" Well, Paul says he was to bring the gospel to the gentiles and that Peter was to do the same to the Jews. I know this is oversimplifying the work of the Apostles; but, my point is that it was 'all the nations.' Equally! Nobody is left out in the national sense; but, of course, only the elect actually receive the promised blessing.
C) Finally, I wonder if at any point, Paul mentions ingrafting or adoption into the existing Israelite-ish structure. If so, I can't see it. The Church is completely new; there has never been a 'body' like this before, no? Israel is not the body mentioned in this passage.
D) Like you, I see Paul saying that both are in this same body and that both receive the benefits of the gospel promise to Abraham. You use the word 'incorporate.' I don't see that in the text of Ephesians and I don't see it in the 'gospel' promise of Genesis either. In Genesis, God simply says that ALL the nations will be blessed. He never says that there will be an addition to or a mixing of or whatever way it could be expressed. To see the Gentiles being adopted into the family of Israel is not here???
JC: Think about all the different ways that Jesus and Paul express the fact that Gentiles have been incorporated into the promise given to Abraham: Gentiles and Jews are "one flock", "one body", "fellow heirs", "sons of Abraham", "sharers together in the promise."
DW: I am quite comfortable with all of these expressions. However, the fact of Gentile inclusion in the blessed promise was never in question. The HOW was. No reading of the OT would have come up with the Church. We just keep coming back to whether the 'other' promises made to Abraham's descendants apply to the Church. And, this is where adoption or incorporation is required.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Hebrews
The AtH, like many good authors, tells us what he is going to tell us before he actually does so. Thus, in verse 8:1 he tells us the main point that he is going to develop in the following text. The theme that I see in verse 8:1 is that we (the Church) have Jesus, the True and Perfect high priest, who is in the true tabernacle. That is his only point here; albeit, a big one! One more thing before I address the specifics. I hope we agree that the AtH is writing to Hebrew believers, yes? If you agree, then might it be reasonable that his descriptions and examples would be ones that would be familiar to them and just possibly less transparent to us? So, what does he say that might mislead?
JC: The AtH directly connects the ministry Jesus has received to Jeremiah 31, citing it directly in Heb. 8.8-12.
DW: First, I completely agree with you on the citation of the AtH. However, as far as "The AtH directly connects" I must disagree; that connection has to be inferred. Are there other possibIlities for why the NC is quoted here that are more in line with the AtH's stated goal for this passage? I'll bet you can guess my answer!!!
Verse 8:13 brings his point here to a conclusion with "When he speaks of a new covenant, he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging is about to disappear." His message to these believing Jews is that the priests of the old covenant served a conditional, temporary covenant. These people had actually experienced this covenant. I'll bet they had a hard time giving it up after many centuries. But, even in the OT, God talked of a NC that was going to replace it. The only point that is explicitly made in the text here is that Jesus is the mediator of this new and better covenant. There is no statement that this covenant has been instituted and is in effect with the Church when Hebrews was written. However, and as a separate matter, it is this perfect priest who is interceding for the Church at present. It is this perfect priest, who acting as a mediator, brought His blood into the sanctuary, once and for all. Not at all like the old covenant under which these people had lived.
JC1: But the AtH says that the New Covenant is already in force:
JC2: Not "will be" or "has been designated as", but "is" the mediator of a New Covenant.
DW: I fully agree that Jesus is right now and also at the time of the writing of Hebrews the mediator of THE NC. The AtH is making the point that Jesus is a better High Priest. The OT High Priest was also a mediator. For one, he brought the blood into the inner room. Well, when Jesus gave His blood on the Cross, He was performing the role of mediator. But, what is not said in your examples is that the covenant is already in force. If we go to Romans 11:25-27 we can see that Paul still thinks that THE NC has not yet been put in force. Nothing stands in its way except 'the full number of gentiles coming in (to the Church).'
JC1: So then, why resist the idea that Gentile believers are within the scope of the New Covenant?
JC2: What makes you certain that the New Covenant excludes Gentile believers?
DW: Only that the text never says that they are included. Please resolve this by letting me see the passage that says that Gentiles are now experiencing the covenant described in Jeremiah 31 or Hebrews 8. I know there are lots of similarities between today and the NC description. Do similarities prove congruency? Are these similarities really sufficient to prove the assertion you are making? If Gentiles have been adopted into Israel but as Paul says the NC for Israel is not yet in effect, then how can it be in effect for the gentile part of Israel???
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: I think 2 Cor 3 bears re-reading on this point, because it clearly identifies the New Covenant, not with particular reference to land, but with reference to the work of the Spirit
DW: There are only a few places in the NT where we can 'clearly' see the idea of 'new covenant.' In the gospels, there seem to be some manuscript differences. I like the NASB; but, it only has 'covenant' and not 'new covenant' in Matthew and Mark. However, even the NASB has 'new covenant' in Luke. At any rate, I think all of the gospels are referring to the NC (Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8) and they all have the article (the/ho) in the Greek. I take this to mean that they are talking about a very specific covenant (i.e., not just any new covenant).
1 Corinthians 11:25 also mentions THE NC in reference to Jesus' blood. And, again, here, the article is present. A specific NC is in view here also.
Hebrews 8:8 also has the NC terminology. In the Greek, unlike the English, we have the NC appearing at the end of the verse to give it emphasis. Also, the usual order is 'new' and then 'covenant.' Here, the order is reversed to emphasize, in my opinion, the 'newness' aspect. Alas, there is no article here. However, given the descriptors of 'house of Israel and Judah,' I doubt that there is any room for confusion as to which NC is in view.
Hebrews 9:15 is the next passage and one that you quoted in your last set of responses as support that the NC is now in force. I must admit that this one gave me the most difficulty. Alas, the key is right there in the verse!
Who committed sins under the old (Mosaic) covenant? You? Me? No, of course not. You and I were never under the old covenant. So this verse is talking about those who had been under the MC. Again, Hebrews is talking to first century Hebrews! In their case, the priest had simply delayed the penalty with the blood of animals. It took Jesus providing His blood to finally pay for their sins. Yes, He is the mediator of the NC. And, as a result of His providing His blood, the OT saints are now free to receive the inheritance (the eternal ones) that they were promised. Isn't that what the verse teaches? And, it has nothing to do with the Church or national Israel.
Finally, we get to 2 Corinthians 3:6. Here we have 'new covenant' but it is anarthrous. How can we be sure that Paul is talking about THE NC of Jeremiah/Hebrews? We can't. He is talking in this passage of the ministry of the spirit and how it is so much better than the ministry of the law written on stone tablets. He is talking about the gospel; for that is what he is a minister of. He is talking about the work of the HS in writing on hearts. So, is Paul talking about a 'new covenant?' Yes, he is. And he describes it quite well as the ministry of the Spirit right now in the Church. But, is it THE NC of Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8? This verse does not make that clear.
JC: if the Gentiles have been grafted into the tree of Israel, made one body with Israel, then it makes a lot of sense.
DW: I find the Church described as a new creation. It includes both redeemed Jews and Gentiles. It was a mystery in the OT. How then can it be Israel with Gentiles grafted on? For as Paul says in Romans 11, then ALL Israel will be saved. Does 'All Israel' mean that some of the Israelites will then become members of the Church?
Let me ask this: Are there gentiles today who are not in the Church? Of course there are. So I conclude that the entity, Gentiles, has not gone away. Next, are there Israelites today who are not in the Church. Of course there are. Likewise, I conclude that the entity, Israel, has not gone away. Finally, is there a Church today? etc. etc.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Initially there was one group, Gentiles. After a while, there were two groups, Jews and Gentiles. Today, there are three groups. Neither the Jewish nor the Gentile group has gone away. So why would we think that God's promises to Israel would have had to change in any way whatsoever? Do you disagree with this simple minded picture?
JC: And now let's count the times that Paul asserts that believers are Abraham's heirs:
DW: I have no problem with the idea that believers are Abraham's heirs. Of course, we are both interpreting that phase differently! The point at issue here is the idea of adoption. As far as I can tell, heir, does not mandate adoption. That is, an heir is a person who receives something from another (usually involving a death). Relationship, as in being a blood relative, is not a requirement. One last thing by way of clarification. I hope we can agree that by 'believers' we are talking about those who have been justified by faith, no? So, let's look at each of the Scriptures you quote:
Rom 4:13 "For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would inherit the world was not fulfilled through the law, but through the righteousness that comes by faith."
This verse says that Abraham and his descendants who inherit are believers. It does not say that believers are Abraham's descendants.
Gal 3:29 "And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to the promise."
First, this is clearly talking about believers. The verse defines the term 'Abraham's descendants' for us as 'heirs according to the promise.' Isn't it stating that anybody from 'all the nations' (which is the gospel Paul is preaching) who's sins have been paid for by Christ (i.e., belongs to Him) who, Himself, is a blood descendant of Abraham, can be described as 'Abraham's descendant.' No adoption is required for this definition to hold. Jesus does not adopt us; we are not His children. God the Father adopts us and we are His children.
Gal. 4:5 "to redeem those who were under the law, so that we may be adopted as sons with full rights."
Gal. 4:7 "So you are no longer a slave but a son, and if you are a son, then you are also an heir through God."
I'll just paraphrase briefly: Jesus was sent to redeem those in slavery to sin. Believers are then sons of God (not of Abraham??). And, sons are heirs. Heirs of what? The promise to 'all the nations.' Believers in the Church have received what was promised to Abraham for all the nations. Believers in the Church are not heirs of what was promised to Abraham's physical descendants. (Although his descendants who do ultimately receive those promises will also be believers.) But, to your original point, adoption by Abraham or on his behalf by Jesus is not in view here.
Gal. 4.28-31 strongly implies it, and groups us as "children of the promise" together with Isaac
The term 'Children of the promise' is defined in the passage. It is 'one born according to the Spirit' which is a clear description of believers, no? Just because it was also true of Isaac does not make us adopted children of Abraham??
Eph. 2.12-13 implies it
My paraphrase: You believing gentiles were previously lost and had no idea of what God had told the Israelites. You were separated from God. But, now, through the blood of Christ, you have been brought near to God. Again, nothing about adoption for Abraham. This is simply the gospel, in you all the nations will be blessed.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Eph. 3.6 states it directly
Paul is relating a revelation that had not previously been described with this much clarity.
a) namely:
b) that through the gospel
'all the nations . . .'
c) the Gentiles are fellow heirs,
Gentiles and Jews both inherit the same thing
d) fellow members of the body,
there is a body (Church) and both (Jew/Gentile) are equal members
e) fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus
Jew and Gentile both equally receive the promise in the gospel (spoken to Abraham) by being in Christ Jesus.
Where does the text introduce anything about adoption into Abraham's family??? It is just what God promised Abraham would happen but without telling him how. It turns out that it is through the work of the Spirit and Jesus offering His blood on the cross and a new creation (the Church) being established. Nothing to do with national Israel. At least I don't see it in the text.
JC: If we haven't been adopted as Abraham's children, wouldn't it be unreasonable for Paul to call us "heirs" -- not "incidental beneficiaries", but "heirs" -- to the covenant so frequently?
DW: I haven't been able to find where the Greek makes a distinction between (incidental) beneficiary and heir. The lexicon I use most is Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996, c1989). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains. Here is what it has to say about heir:
κληρονόμος: (derivative of κληρονομέω -- to gain as a possession) one who receives something as a gift—one who receives, one who comes into possession of, receiver, heir.
συγκληρονόμος: one who receives a possession together with someone else -- one who also receives, receiver, fellow heir. NOTE: It is essential in rendering κληρονόμος or συγκληρονόμος to avoid any implication of being an ‘heir’ to anyone who has died. The focus is upon receiving an unearned gift. In the biblical sense ‘heirs of God’ are those who will receive the blessings that God has for his people.
I thought that that added an interesting slant of which I was unaware.
DW: Your point about Thomas Jefferson is a good one. So, I have to agree with you that if Jesus adopts us then it would be proper to say that we were in Abraham's family. Alas, I don't see Him doing that. I do see His Father doing that and so I am indeed in the same family as Abraham but not in his family nor a descendant of his except in a figurative sense that is really clouding this discussion.
DW: I previously asked "Where does Scripture equate being a son of God with being a son of Abraham?" You responded with Romans 9:8. However, only when we put verse 8 into the context here do we have a chance at understanding Paul rightly.
Paul is talking about Israelites, his kinsmen, the physical descendants of Jacob. He is talking about how sad he is that with all the promises and blessings that they have received so many of them are missing Jesus. And, then he adds that it is not as if all of the promises of God to them have turned out not being fulfilled. He makes it clear that the promises were to only a subset of Israel although it appears as if the promises were to all of them. Paul points to how even with Abraham God sovereignly chose to not include Ishmael. The promises were to be thru Isaac, the child of promise. Not all of Abraham's children according to the flesh were to be 'saved.' It has always been this way and it continues to the time that Paul is writing Romans. NOTHING he is saying here has to do with Gentiles; it is only about Israelites according to the flesh. Verse 8 can not be used to prove that saved Gentiles in the Church are Abraham's descendants.
Wow, this got long. If you have stuck with me on this, then all I can do is commend you.
David,
Thank you for your vigorous but courteous rebuttal to my latest. I hope to clarify a couple of issues and then see where we stand.
You were tracking my thought exactly when you said,
So the error [of my daughter] is in thinking there is ANY information provided when, in fact, none is.
Exactly so. It is my contention that we cannot reason from Jer 31 to any conclusion about the status of the Gentiles wrt the New Covenant. You seem to agree, but then later you say,
JC2: What makes you certain that the New Covenant excludes Gentile believers?
DW: Only that the text never says that they are included. Please resolve this by letting me see the passage that says that Gentiles are now experiencing the covenant described in Jeremiah 31 or Hebrews 8. I know there are lots of similarities between today and the NC description. Do similarities prove congruency?
So my first counterpoint is this: Even if the text never explicitly says that Gentiles are included in the covenant, then one ought not to be able to conclude that Gentiles are definitely excluded, on that basis alone.
And if further the text strongly suggests -- and I hope you'll grant that I've at least proved a strong suggestion! -- that Gentiles are adopted sons and heirs of Abraham, then one certainly not ought to be able to conclude that Gentiles are definitely excluded, on the sole basis that no text says those specific words.
So it seems to me that the conclusion that Gentiles are excluded from the NC would have to rest on some other basis than merely, that no passage of Scripture says the exact words "The Gentiles are a part of the New Covenant."
My view, of course, is that the text does say this in so many words, in many different books; your view is that I've not yet shown that my reading is the only possible one. Fair 'nuff -- but I think I've shown that my reading is a possible one, no?
So my first counterpoint really has to do with method: how strong is a rebuttal that is based on the absence of a particular exact phrase?
The second counterpoint has to do with your excellent question, "Do similarities prove congruency?"
Coming as I do from a scientific background, I would answer like this: If two substances have all the same properties, then they are the same substance. (This is a standard definition in chemistry).
What we know about the properties of believing Gentiles is this:
* They are "sons of Abraham."
* They are "heirs according to the promise."
* They are part of "the people of God."
* They will "inherit the world."
Leaving aside, for a moment, the question of how we should understand each of these phrases, let us at least agree that the language of Paul ascribes to believing Gentiles the same properties as granted to descendants of Abraham in Genesis 12, 15, and 17.
In other words, if one accumulates the total set of possible similarities, then yes, we have congruence.
Ah, but perhaps now some of the phrases in Paul mean something different than the matching phrases in Genesis? For example, perhaps Genesis is talking about physical descendants, whereas Paul is talking about some other kind of descendants?
So if you can substantiate that Paul has another meaning in mind than in Genesis, then you've succeeded in showing a genuine difference between the two sets of people.
So one possible option for you is to provide corroborating evidence that shows that Paul really does have an alternate meaning in mind when he repeatedly uses the phrase "descendants of Abraham", than when God uses the phrase, "your descendants" in Gen 17.
(Pause: I realize I've slipped over into the language of debate here - "substantiate", "provide evidence". It's not my desire to slip into debate mode. I'm just thinking out loud about how one would establish our respective positions).
There are a couple of lines of reasoning that so far have not proven persuasive to me:
(1) That God is self-evidently speaking of all and only physical descendants in Genesis.
This appears to be falsified by Esau and Ruth. Esau shows that not all physical descendants were in view; Ruth shows that non-physical descendants could be included (actually, Genesis 17 does also by requiring servants to be circumcised; and Exodus provided for non-Hebrews to become Jews).
(2) That Israelites were promised the land of Israel, but Gentiles are not.
Believing Jews and Gentiles alike get the whole world; which of course includes Israel. So the promise to inherit the world is really a superset of the promise to inherit Israel.
So some other corroborating evidence would be needed to establish your position securely. As it stands, you've raised the possibility that Paul means something different from Genesis -- which is fair to raise -- but nothing "checks out" to help corroborate that possibility. It's not a self-evident truth.
The third counterpoint has to do with the "New Covenant" language in the NT.
* We agree that the "New Covenant" language in the Gospel account (Luke 22 || Matt 26 || Mark 14) is identical to the New Covenant in Jer 31.
* We also agree that 1 Cor 11.25 directly references the death of Jesus. However, I don't think the full implications of this have been spun out by either of us.
In 1 Cor 11, Paul is speaking to a primarily Gentile body concerning their observance of the Lord's Supper. In doing so, he makes two statements about the cup that emphasize the serious sin of their frivolity:
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
We see that Paul has (1) identified the cup that they drink with the New Covenant (else, what is the purpose of citing Jesus' words here?!), and (2) identified the cup as a proclamation of the Lord's death.
Now in a previous post, you said (in effect) "(2) but not (1)" -- that is, that the cup was the proclamation but not the sign of the New Covenant.
But this is not how Paul treats it. He uses Jesus' words, "this is my body ... this is my blood ..." as the basis for saying to the Corinthians that their actions are sins against the body and blood of Jesus.
Further: Paul offers no qualifications whatsoever concerning his quotation of Jesus. One would think that if in fact the Lord's Supper were *not* the celebration of the New Covenant, Paul might say something here? But he doesn't. Instead, he "passed on" to the Corinthians what Jesus had passed on to him: this cup is the New Covenant in Jesus' blood.
Put it this way: Suppose you walked in on Paul while he was instructing the Corinthians on the Lord's Supper. And suppose you heard him say, "Let me pass on what Jesus said: 'this cup is the New Covenant in my blood...'""
Now suppose you said, "this is the proclamation of the Lord's death, but the New Covenant is something else entirely" -- would they believe you? Would Paul agree with you?
What I'm getting at is that correctly affirming that the Lord's Supper is a proclamation of Jesus' death does not amount to rejecting that the Lord's Supper is the sign of the New Covenant. Those two ideas are not exclusive; the New Covenant is established by the Lord's death.
Finally, wrt 2 Cor 3. You ask,
DW: Here we have 'new covenant' but it is anarthrous. How can we be sure that Paul is talking about THE NC of Jeremiah/Hebrews? We can't. He is talking in this passage of the ministry of the spirit and how it is so much better than the ministry of the law written on stone tablets. He is talking about the gospel; for that is what he is a minister of. He is talking about the work of the HS in writing on hearts. So, is Paul talking about a 'new covenant?' Yes, he is. And he describes it quite well as the ministry of the Spirit right now in the Church. But, is it THE NC of Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8? This verse does not make that clear.
You seem to suggest that there's some other New Covenant that is contrasted with the Mosaic Covenant and contained the promise of the Spirit, other than the one in Jeremiah 31.
I've never encountered this suggestion before, so help me understand what you mean. Is there some other new covenant, made with Gentiles, that the Scripture speaks of?
The fourth counterpoint is a point of fact:
DW: Rom 4:13 "For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would inherit the world was not fulfilled through the law, but through the righteousness that comes by faith."
This verse says that Abraham and his descendants who inherit are believers. It does not say that believers are Abraham's descendants.
Well, here's the context and you can judge for yourself. The three marked phrases really pushed me over the edge on this point, since "A is the father of B" is logically equivalent to "B is the descendant of A."
Rom 4.11ff:
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, (1)he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed (2)to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. (3)He is the father of us all. As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.
The fifth and final counterpoint is to clear up a misunderstanding:
DW: Gal 3:29 "And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to the promise."
First, this is clearly talking about believers. The verse defines the term 'Abraham's descendants' for us as 'heirs according to the promise.' Isn't it stating that anybody from 'all the nations' (which is the gospel Paul is preaching) who's sins have been paid for by Christ (i.e., belongs to Him) who, Himself, is a blood descendant of Abraham, can be described as 'Abraham's descendant.' No adoption is required for this definition to hold. Jesus does not adopt us; we are not His children. God the Father adopts us and we are His children.
Yes, I agree with your basic rendering: "Anyone who is a believer can be described as 'Abraham's descendant.'"
Now, it may have appeared that I'm saying that Jesus adopts us. But that's not quite it. God the Father adopts us as his children.
And, according to the text, anyone who is a child of God is also a descendant of Abraham.
Since I wasn't *born* into Abe's family, there's only one other way that I know of to become a son and an heir -- and that's adoption.
So I've called this process "adoption into Abraham's family" because the end result is exactly the same as adoption (it has all the properties of adoption ...), and because Paul is already using this adoption language wrt our relationship to God.
If you want to use some other term to describe it, I have no problem with that. You could call it "snarfation" or something.
But the important thing here is not the word, but the outcome: Since we have been "snarfed" into the family of Abraham, we are his descendants and heirs.
The outcome is non-negotiable to me, because the Scripture affirms it several times in plain language.
---
Think about it like this: why were the Galatians tempted to become circumcised? If the only point of circumcision was to become Jewish so that they could have a stake in the land of Israel, it would not have been an issue.
No, the Judaizers recognized the unity between being a son of God and being a son of Abraham. They knew that the promise, "I will be a God to your descendants" implied justification.
That's why the Galatians were tempted; they were being told, "in order to be justified, you have to be circumcised."
Notice how Paul combats the heresy. He doesn't come along and say, "Silly Judaizers. Don't you know that the Abrahamic Covenant was only for physical descendants?"
Not at all. Instead, he tells the Gentiles, "Foolish Gentiles! Don't know you that by being in Christ, you are already a child of Abraham?"
Paul's rhetorical strategy doesn't make sense unless we see justification and the Abrahamic Covenant as one and the same thing. Abraham was justified in receiving the covenant; he passed the sign of justification on to his offspring; and the promise of justification through faith continued through the remnant down till Jesus' coming -- and beyond.
(This implies, of course, that non-believing Jews do not have a true stake in the AC -- which Paul also affirms).
If we try to split the AC from justification, it makes absolutely no sense for Paul to insist very loudly across two chapters that believers are children of Abraham.
I think that's the real reason I resist the effort to see two different types of "Abraham's children." Paul spends so much effort trying to unite the two groups (believing Jews, believing Gentiles), and here we go splitting them again!
Finally, a reassurance. You said,
DW: Let me ask this: Are there gentiles today who are not in the Church? Of course there are. So I conclude that the entity, Gentiles, has not gone away. Next, are there Israelites today who are not in the Church. Of course there are. Likewise, I conclude that the entity, Israel, has not gone away. Finally, is there a Church today? etc. etc.
Initially there was one group, Gentiles. After a while, there were two groups, Jews and Gentiles. Today, there are three groups. Neither the Jewish nor the Gentile group has gone away. So why would we think that God's promises to Israel would have had to change in any way whatsoever? Do you disagree with this simple minded picture?
Your concern, I think, is that God not change his promises to Israel.
I'm not suggesting that. Rather, I'm suggesting that God is allowed to fulfill His promises in surprising ways.
My dear Jeff,
I just have to say thank you for your efforts here. Your points are excellent and are causing me to delve deeper into Scripture than I ever have. While I am quite aware of not being Mensa material, I thought I had gone deep before.
I know that your view is the majority view and is held by many giants of the faith. I can not begin to equate my thoughts with yours/theirs. And, yet, you stick with me on this with the most gracious demeanor. Thank you. One thing I worry about is that when you have had enough you will not say so. I really don't want you to continue this if you would rather not do so.
Gentiles in the NC
JC: what makes you certain that the New Covenant excludes Gentile believers?
DW: I responded with "Only that the text never says that they are included. . . " I want to apologize; for, this was indeed an error on my part. I misread 'excludes' as 'are not included.' Now, I do, in fact, believe that they are not included. But, not because there is no explicit mention of their inclusion. For, I am also quite convinced that Martians are also not included. Alas, not because Scripture does not have a statement of their inclusion. So, no, I would not say that Scripture excludes Gentiles from the NC in any explicit way.
I guess that means we are together on your first counterpoint. And, as to the strength and reasonableness of your position, again, all I can say is that I acknowlege its being the historical and majority view. Of course, there are more muslims that reformed protestants, so I don't mean majority in that sense.
JC: So my first counterpoint really has to do with method: how strong is a rebuttal that is based on the absence of a particular exact phrase?
DW: I guess I am not through apologizing!!! I am a 'leaf' person and I believe you to be more of a 'tree' person. So I do tend to focus on the smaller rather than the bigger picture. I just don't feel comfortable about the meaning of a verse until I have dissected the Greek. (Not, of course, that this guarantees correctness.) This difference in thought process may be the biggest barrier to our reaching consensus. Nevertheless, I agree that absense of a particular phrase should have little weight here.
I really don't want this to get to be another tome; not that I don't enjoy creating tomes! So, I'll quit here for now with one question. If we run that to ground, then I'll pick up with your second counterpoint, etc. My question has to do with Galatians 3:7. As far as I can tell this is the only verse in the NASB to have the explicit phrase, sons of Abraham. I have provided a rather extended explanation of my view. And, I know you don't agree with it. What I would like to know is what I have said that you find incorrect.
David,
Let me assure you that you've done nothing that needs apology!
Quite the contrary -- Your humble demeanor makes it much easier for our conversation to be a true discussion instead of the deplorable acrimonious debates one often sees.
I hope that my counterpoints have not been too strongly put. While we have some distance between us, and while we both have been embedded in our positions for some time, I find your questions just as challenging as you find mine.
In any event, let's agree to not allow our discussion to be the basis for comparison. The Lord uses the foolish things of this world to shame the wise; Mensa is overrated. :)
---
You asked,
DW: My question has to do with Galatians 3:7. As far as I can tell this is the only verse in the NASB to have the explicit phrase, sons of Abraham. I have provided a rather extended explanation of my view. And, I know you don't agree with it. What I would like to know is what I have said that you find incorrect.
Let's explore this passage, because I gave a rather mangled account of v. 16 before.
If I understand correctly, your position is that
(1) In context, Paul is discussing justification, and
(2) His argument is that circumcision is not required for justification, so that
(3) Being in Christ is enough to be the recipient of the "blessing to all the nations" promised in Gen 12, but that
(4) The promise of land that is central to Gen 15 is not reiterated here and is therefore not in view (nor is it specifically affirmed anywhere in the NT), so that
(5) We cannot conclude that "sons of Abraham" is a literal "sons of Abraham." And further,
(6) (a)Since the command to circumcise was never rescinded, (b) we would expect that if believers *are* literal sons of Abraham, then there ought to be a command in Scripture to circumcise them -- (c) but in fact we see the opposite (you likely have in mind Gal 5.2).
From this, you conclude that "sons of Abraham" is meant in some kind of figurative sense, rather than in a literal sense, since the literal sense is not fully and completely affirmed, and since the literal sense seems to be ruled out by (6).
Is this fair?
(cont.)
(cont.)
I think I mostly agree with all of your data.
Galatians 3 argues from how the Galatians began (by faith) to how they should continue (by faith) (vv. 2,3).
He then argues from the justification of Abraham (by faith) to the central point, vv. 24-29. Vv. 24-25 are particularly trenchant: So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
So I agree with (1) and (2) -- justification is the context, and Paul's argument is indeed that circumcision is not necessary for justification.
It's (3) where I run into trouble, of a subtle sort.
(cont.)
In (3) I take you to say that the promise "in you, all nations will be blessed" is a separate promise from the covenant. That is, you argue that one can "be blessed" without being a covenant member proper.
I think this is mistaken, for three reasons:
* The central blessing of the covenant with Abraham was not land, but "I will be your God, and you will be my people." All the rest of it -- the land, the circumcision -- are leaves on this trunk.
But what is justification, other than the way in which God makes sinners fit to be His people? (Indeed, this is Paul's argument in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, ... perhaps every epistle?)
So the reason that "in you all nations will be blessed" is not because God has attached a separate provision, a rider, onto the covenant. No, the main provision of the covenant, which is the Gospel, is being promised to all the nations.
Thus Paul: The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
The phrase "along with" is significant here (also in v. 14) -- we are said to receive the same blessing that Abe received, and not a different one.
So the first reason I have trouble is that I don't think there is a proper way to divide "in you all the nations will be blessed" from the covenant. The blessing given to the nations is the same one given to Abe, the central blessing of the covenant: I will be your God, and you will be my people.
* Second is the large number of times that Paul directly affirms that we are Abe's descendants, without qualification.
When he does so, he certainly *appears* to be creating in the minds of his readers the expectation that they are the same kind of descendants mentioned in Gen 15 and Gen 17 -- the ones receiving the promises of the covenant.
And indeed, this is where Paul leads the reader in vv. 15-29. He tells them that they are heirs according to the promise, without qualification.
* Third, I think you've not (yet) directly addressed the peculiar and frequent choice of word, "heir." While Louw & Nida make a good point about death being unnecessary (think of the prodigal son, for instance; and L&N rightly point out that God does not die in order for us to inherit!), we don't want to equate the kleron word-group ("heir", for example) with simple giving.
"Inheritance" is not simply "receiving something" -- there are several Greek words for "gift", like doron. Inheritance is receiving something in a familial sense. (I should do a word study here to nail it down...let me do that sometime within the week).
So when Paul calls us "heirs", he's saying something stronger than simply that God is giving us Gentiles a gift. We are receiving the promise of being God's people by inheriting it through our father Abraham. The context supports this stronger reading, no?
So I would say that (3) is problematic because it separates "blessing" from "inheritance" and "descendant", without acknowledging that the blessing comes to the children.
I think (6) is problematic also. On your account, there are two groups -- Israel and the Church. Israelites are to receive circumcision; Church members, baptism.
But Paul has a strong statement concerning circumcision: Receiving circumcision (presumably as a religious rite, over against health reasons!) obligates one to the whole law and alienates one from Christ.
As I see it, this is a direct statement that circumcision is no more a valid sign of the covenant.
Christians don't need it; for their sign of membership is baptism ("for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ ... and if you belong to Christ, you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise").
And Jews cannot use it, for it puts them down the futile path of pursuing righteousness by the law.
Now obviously, this raises the question of what circumcision meant pre-Law. Obviously, circumcision was not a sign of law-keeping for Abraham! But it became so. Why?
My answer is, that circumcision was a sign of the promise of Christ -- the clean descendant (think about where circumcision is applied!) -- and once that descendant appears on the scene, the sign's function is no more. It passes away, to be replaced with the sign of the Spirit, which is baptism.
The paragraph above is somewhat speculative, but it does answer the vexing question of how circumcision became associated with the law, when it was given pre-Law.
Regardless of the meaning of circumcision, though, it is clear that as a sign, it has no more value to Jew or Gentile.
JRC
So just to add to #6 -- *if* my understanding of the meaning of circumcision is correct: that it was the promise of the "future clean descendant", and thus a symbol of the Gospel promise of justification, then receiving circumcision now would be just like offering a sacrifice now: since the reality of Jesus has come, the symbol of the promise has passed away.
I think this is why Paul's language on circumcision is so strikingly similar to AtH's language about sacrifices.
Gal 5.2-4: Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
Heb 10.26-29, in the context of offering sacrifices: If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?
So just connecting the dots: Since (3) is mistaken (in my view), the force of (5) drains away.
There is no obstacle to reading Paul's language as literal language, as indeed it reads: "you are sons of Abraham."
You noted that this phrase appears only once, in Gal. 3.7. However, we know that authors can use more than one word to express the same concept. So Paul's many references to "descendants of Abraham" -- which refer to the language of Gen 12, 15, 17 -- mean the same thing as "sons of Abraham." So does the phrase "Abraham is our father" or "the father of those who believe."
The only difference between "son" and "descendant" is one of emphasis. A son, in Hebrew culture, is the one who inherits. Thus, calling us all, male and female, sons of Abraham, emphasizes our rightful inheritance.
By contrast, "descendant" refers back to the language of the covenant, emphasizing our rightful place in the covenant.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
JC: I hope that my counterpoints have not been too strongly put.
DW: Not even close. And, I of course hope the same thing in reverse.
JC: deplorable acrimonious debates
DW: This is so prevalent in discussions by so-called redeemed people, even ministers of the Word. I guess their Bibles are missing some verses like Philippians 2:3 or maybe even that entire chapter! Oh well. . .
JC: If I understand correctly, your position is that . . . Is this fair?
DW: Very much so.
JC: So the first reason I have trouble is that I don't think there is a proper way to divide "in you all the nations will be blessed" from the covenant
DW: I agree! Really. Also, I think the AC is ONE covenant. It contains a set of promises made by God to various 'recipients.' (are recipients the same as members? I say no; you say yes. That would seem like a simple enough issue to clear up???) And, the part regarding the nations is clearly part of the covenant. So, I am somewhat confused by the comment here. Before I deal with what you say in your next sentence, I am going to list the NASB version of the words of the covenant below so we have the data in front of us:
In Genesis 12, God says:
1) And I will make you a great nation
2) And I will bless you
3) And make your name great
4) And so you shall be a blessing
5) And I will bless those who bless you
6) And the one who curses you I will curse
7) And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed
Note: there is no mention of land. It is not until Gen 15:18 that we read: "On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I have given this land, . . ."
Can you see Gen 15:18 in the list of promises in Gen 12? I can if I want to 'read in' to the text. But, this seems like a stand alone covenant that is ratified right here. None of the other promises of Gen 12 are ratified at this time. The land is different!
Then we get to Gen 17 and God says:
A) My covenant is with you
B) I will make you the father of a multitude of nations
C) I will make you exceedingly fruitful
D) I will make nations of you
E) kings shall come forth from you
F) I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you
G) I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession
H) I will be their God
I) This is My covenant, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised, the sign of the covenant between Me and you.
And then in Gen 22 God says:
i) I will greatly bless you
ii) and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is on the seashore
iii) and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies
iv) And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed
I believe that this was finally ratified here with the burnt offering that God provided.
JC:The blessing given to the nations is the same one given to Abe, the central blessing of the covenant: I will be your God, and you will be my people.
DW: I don't see Abe getting the same promises as the nations. However, we know that Jesus is the main blessing. And, that is what I understand is meant here by blessing for the nations. You agree, no? However, I can't get it from Genesis. Can you? So, we have to wait for the NT to help us out. Or, in fact, to introduce more opportunity for disparity.
The other main question that comes up in our discussion is related to covenant membership. God makes clear with whom He is making the covenant. They are the members, no? Is it with the people who belong to 'all the nations?' Can we see that in Genesis?
TO BE CONTINUED:
Hi Jeff,
This is not really a continuation of the last comment. I want to jump to your last blog response because I am concerned that if I just continue on this path it will not help to move us forward.
JC: There is no obstacle to reading Paul's language as literal language, as indeed it reads: "you are sons of Abraham."
DW: In addition to 'son,' we have the words 'father,' 'descendant,' 'heir,' etc. that are causing problems because of the degree of literalness or figurativeness each of us bring to them. It just seems to me that until you and I can agree on the 'meaning' of these words, we can't agree on the meaning of the relevant passages. (Now, I know this is my 'leaf' mentality talking and so it may seem unnecessary (even irritating) to you.) Alas, I don't know how we can jointly interpret a passage if we disagree on the words.
Now, I don't think either of us is being either 'literal' or 'figurative.' We are somewhere within the distribution. On any given word, one of us is to the left or the right of the other. So, let me just take the word 'son' for a moment. I am certain that we agree that a male offspring of the sexual union of a mature human male and female is a 'son' of the two people involved in the reproduction. Without getting overly technical, isn't that the literal meaning? Additionally, one might call a young male 'son' without having been involved in the birth of that human. Now, this is not a literal use of the word. Is it wrong? Of course, not. But, what does the person using this term in this manner mean???
So, is 'you are son's of Abraham' to be taken literally? According to that verse, I see myself (and you) as sons, no question about it. On the other hand, I know that Abraham had nothing to do with my physical birth. I also see in Gal 3:26 that I (and you) are sons of God. Now, my understanding is that God is spirit. The definition of son does not allow for spirit reproduction? With a thankful heart, I have no problem talking about God as my Father. But, where is the definition of this term, Father? It's in each of our heads and it may be very different for each of us.
So back to my failed attempt to focus this discussion (please, I am not complaining). I asked what you thought I had gotten wrong in my understanding of Gal 3:7. In order to answer that question isn't a shared definition of 'son' required? Aren't I just 'leaning on my own understanding' when I adopt the meaning that seems best to me regardless of how you take that same word? I really don't know what the answer to this is and am seeking your wisdom here.
Hi David,
Hope you're having a good Sunday.
DW: I don't see Abe getting the same promises as the nations. However, we know that Jesus is the main blessing. And, that is what I understand is meant here by blessing for the nations. You agree, no? However, I can't get it from Genesis. Can you? So, we have to wait for the NT to help us out.
Yes, I agree: Jesus is the main blessing to Abraham and his descendants, whether of natural descent or ingrafted.
Do we get this from Genesis directly? In other words, could Abraham have written a Gospel tract? Yes and No -- and that's OK.
Abraham would have understood this from the covenant declarations:
(1) That God would be his God and the God of his descendants.
(2) That those descendants included many nations (Gen 17.4-7)
(3) That Israel would be given to his descendants.
(4) That the sign of the covenant was circumcision
However, #1 also contains several implications that amount to the Gospel. Remember that Genesis is framed by the sin of mankind (in Adam) and the promise to Eve of a future descendant.
Given that mankind is sinful, it must be the case that anyone who is to be "God's people" will have to be made clean.
This is why Abraham had to be justified. Even though the text of Genesis does not use the word "justification", it uses the concept: "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
So the need for justification is right there in Genesis. The promise of being made clean is right there in Genesis. The means of justification (faith) is right there in Genesis.
Further, that justification is to include both natural and other "descendants" (recalling that Abraham is their father!), is there in Genesis also.
What is not obvious in Genesis is *how* God will accomplish this. Nor is it obvious that God's plan includes bringing in a large number of non-natural descendants. Genesis does not exclude these facts, but it doesn't explicitly state them, either.
So, Yes: the core of the Gospel is in Genesis. No: the details of the Gospel are not obvious in Genesis.
And that's OK. We remember that the OT provided shadowy information about God's future plans, and that the meaning of those shadows is revealed in Christ.
DW: The other main question that comes up in our discussion is related to covenant membership. God makes clear with whom He is making the covenant. They are the members, no? Is it with the people who belong to 'all the nations?' Can we see that in Genesis?
I think we can. Paul draws attention to one phrase, and I would draw attention to another, that make this clear.
The first is that Abraham is to be the father of "many nations." If we restrict Abraham's descendants to be just Israelites, then he is not the father of many nations, but of one. (or two: Northern and Southern Kingdoms). Genesis 17 makes clear that God's intention is broader. Abraham is the father of "many nations."
And of course, "father" and "descendant" are correlative terms -- if you are my father, then I am your descendant.
So already, Genesis contains within it the promise that Abraham will have many descendants outside the nation of Israel. Paul picks up on this point in Romans 4 when he declares that Abraham is the father of all those who believe, citing Genesis 15 and 17 for support.
The second phrase is the way that these descendants are blessed: "in you, all nations will be blessed." (Heb: b'qa)
The mechanism here is by headship: the nations are not blessed because of Abraham (i.e., because he is the forefather of Jesus), but in Abraham -- by being his descendant.
The first argument, I think, is stronger than the second. It's probably too much to place a lot of weight on a single preposition. Nevertheless, the weight I'm placing on it is supported by the first argument, so that the two arguments together show that already in Genesis we have a hint of what is revealed in Christ: that believing Gentiles are joint heirs with believing Jews.
DW: It just seems to me that until you and I can agree on the 'meaning' of these ["son", "descendant", etc.], we can't agree on the meaning of the relevant passages.
Yes, exactly. Here we get into a more philosophical discussion about how to determine the meaning of words.
DW: Now, I don't think either of us is being either 'literal' or 'figurative.' We are somewhere within the distribution. On any given word, one of us is to the left or the right of the other.
Yes, I think your framework of a spectrum of literalness is right on.
DW: So, let me just take the word 'son' for a moment. I am certain that we agree that a male offspring of the sexual union of a mature human male and female is a 'son' of the two people involved in the reproduction. Without getting overly technical, isn't that the literal meaning? Additionally, one might call a young male 'son' without having been involved in the birth of that human. Now, this is not a literal use of the word. Is it wrong? Of course, not. But, what does the person using this term in this manner mean???
Yes, exactly. I would argue that we use context to determine what words mean.
(in fact, we use context to even determine what words have been said or written. Suppose I give you a smudged handwritten sentence:
Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of th*** country.
By itself, th*** could fit several dictionary words in English: their, there, those, think, etc.
But in grammatical context, th*** has to be an adjective. In literary context, th*** is in all likelihood a part of the famous phrase,
"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country."
So context determines the what the smudged words are.)
So what is the context for interpreting "son of Abraham"?
I would argue that several contextual clues are relevant.
(1) In Hebrew, "son of ..." is commonly used to mean "one who is like his father."
Thus we have phrases likes "sons of Satan" (meaning, one who acts like an adversary), "son of the right hand" (meaning, a right-handed man), "Son of Man" (meaning, one who partakes of humanity).
Paul is playing with this phrase when he declares us "sons of Abraham" -- we are like Abraham in our faith.
But more is also true...
(2) In Hebrew culture, sons are inheritors. Thus, "son" is a legal term meaning, "one who is legally given the rights of inheritance."
We notice that "legal sons" include "sons by descent", but would also include sons by adoption.
Given the great emphasis on inheritance in Paul, I would argue that this legal definition is primarily what he has in mind. That's why I've called us "adopted sons of Abraham."
(3) In the case of the covenant, the phrase "descendant" is used to refer to "those who participate in the benefits and conditions of the covenant."
So when Paul is using the word "descendant" in Romans and Galatians, that his context is that same covenant language. For him and and all Jews, being a "descendant of Abraham" is language of the covenant.
It is therefore highly unlikely that he would use that same language unless he wanted to deliberately connect back to Genesis.
In other words, context becomes a strong argument that Paul is using "descendant" in the same way as Genesis.
To sum up: from context, it appears that Paul is using the phrase "son of Abraham" as a legal term of inheritance that deliberately connects back to the covenant, affirming that all believers are true participants in the promises and conditions of the covenant.
DW: I asked what you thought I had gotten wrong in my understanding of Gal 3:7. In order to answer that question isn't a shared definition of 'son' required? Aren't I just 'leaning on my own understanding' when I adopt the meaning that seems best to me regardless of how you take that same word? I really don't know what the answer to this is and am seeking your wisdom here.
I think you've nailed it: determining what words mean is a hard question, and the danger for both you and me is that we might assume that "son" means X when in fact it means Y (or XY ;) )
So the argument in my previous post, from context, is not an air-tight or fool-proof argument. It is instead inductive, using contextual evidence to figure out what a given word means.
I don't think, though, that we are guilty of "leaning on our own understanding" unless we were to argue like this:
* Paul interprets Genesis as X
* But it literally means Y, so
* Paul is wrong.
That's the kind of thing one sees in some liberal criticisms, and neither of us is in that ball-park.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
Your responses are VERY challenging! Thank you. I have not been ignoring you these past days. Rather, I have been immersed in Romans 4. I believe it has paid off as I hope to show in the following.
But, first, let me just babble a little. I see your position as extremely well thought out, very insightful, extremely coherent, wide-ranging in what is considered and Scriptural. Alas, I don't see it as being what God is saying. And, that really troubles me.
What I have come to see is that there are some deep insights which drive the Covenant Theology conclusions. Yet, Scripture does not make these points. Rather, they are seen in Scripture by very smart, knowledgeable people, as yourself. And, as we continue this exchange, it is just point-counterpoint on both sides. I wish I knew how to break the log jam. Moreover, I do hope you don't take any of this as a criticism. I personally continue to be blessed greatly by it.
Before I resort to my normal approach (point - counterpoint) let me ask you what I believe I can eventually show as relevant to this exchange. Do you have any familiarity with a program for children called AWANA? If not, then let me just describe it as a Bible verse memorization program. AWANA comes from 2 Timothy 2:15, 'a workman approved, not ashamed.' Well let me start by giving you a little test. What is meant by the phrase, 'word of truth,' in this verse? I know you must be thinking that this has nothing to do with fathers and descendants!!
In both Ephesians 1:13 and Colossians 1:5 Paul tells us what he means by this phrase. This is just a really simple example of Scripture interpreting Scripture. And, until I came across this, I was very sure that I knew what that phrase meant and I was wrong. In fact, the AWANA program, which is international in scope, is wrong. So much for how biblically literate most of us are.
Well, you are very patient to have put up with this digression. My point: Are we letting Scripture interpret itself in our discussion as much as we (both of us) should be? Or, are we the interpreters of record?
JC: Yes, I agree: Jesus is the main blessing to Abraham and his descendants, whether of natural descent or in-grafted.
DW: Might it be true that Jesus is the main blessing to Abraham and the elect of 'all the nations,' which is just another way of saying all elect humans, and that descendancy is not a factor for this blessing? After all, isn't that where we started this journey?
JC: Abraham would have understood . . . (3) That Israel would be given to his descendants.
DW: Forgive me, but I have no idea how he would have known this. Please help.
JC: So the need for justification is right there in Genesis. The promise of being made clean is right there in Genesis. The means of justification (faith) is right there in Genesis. Further, that justification is to include both natural and other "descendants" (recalling that Abraham is their father!), is there in Genesis also.
DW: Yes, there is much we do agree on and yet we don't agree on the 'members' of the covenant. Amazing.
JC: Nor is it obvious that God's plan includes bringing in a large number of non-natural descendants.
DW: I assume by 'bringing in' you mean bringing in to AC membership. Well, if so, then I must certainly agree! ;)
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
I asked about covenant membership being identified in Genesis and you said that there were two phrases that were important:
JC: The first is that Abraham is to be the father of "many nations."
DW: When I think of a nation, I think of a system including people, land, procedures, and resources. Is that what God was telling Abraham? That from his physical descendants there would be formed many nations? Or, was he telling him something like "I will save a number of people from out of 'all the nations' of the earth and add them in a non-physical way to your family." I think I know how you understand this. Please put aside the NT for a minute. How do you think God wanted Abraham to understand that he would be the father of many nations? I'll bring the NT back into the picture in a short while when I address Romans 4.
JC: If we restrict Abraham's descendants to be just Israelites, then he is not the father of many nations, but of one. (or two: Northern and Southern Kingdoms).
DW: Yes; but, why would we do that (restrict)? Looking at Genesis 25 don't you think that it is reasonable to conclude that Abraham did indeed have 'many' nations come from him (according to the flesh) in addition to that of Israel?
JC: So already, Genesis contains within it the promise that Abraham will have many descendants outside the nation of Israel. Paul picks up on this point in Romans 4 when he declares that Abraham is the father of all those who believe, citing Genesis 15 and 17 for support.
DW: Possible; but, is this view required? Based on Gen. 25 we already have Abraham as the father of many nations (physically speaking)? So, do we really have to add a multitude of saved individuals to his family for him to be the father of 'many nations?' A question, are there ANY 'spiritual nations' of which you are aware? I am not aware of even one. So how do we progress from many spiritual individuals to many nations? I am entirely serious in that question.
As to Paul and Romans 4: How does he start this section? He notes that he has a physical relationship with Abraham. Paul is a believer, no? And, yet the fist thing he says is that Abraham is his forefather according to the flesh. Doesn't this seem odd, if Paul is about to claim in a literal sense that Abraham is our (all believers') father? Yes, Paul says that Abraham is the father of us all (who believe). But, how can either of us dogmatically state what that means? Does Paul ever explain that?
Then, as you say, Paul quotes Genesis. But, what is his purpose? Does Scripture tell us? Or, are each of us free to use our very own secret decoder rings to get at the message? (This is not meant as an attack on your position since I realize that it equally applies to me)
Help me see here where I leave Scripture behind. Paul is making the case that salvation is by faith and not works. He is using two witnesses (Abraham and David) to prove his case. Very OTish. He shows that physical circumcision is not a determinant of salvation. (He does not say that it is not important to AC membership.) That is, salvation is open to Jew and Gentile on equal grounds. So why all this reference to the OT? You say to show that gentiles were always considered members of the AC. But, for that to be true, God would have had to let Abraham believe error. That they would always be blessed, yes; but, that they would be in-grafted into his family, no. It isn't in Genesis and so we have to rely on interpreting Paul's 'metaphors' in Galatians and Romans.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
How about this? Paul is mentioning the OT because at least part of his audience is Jewish. They believed that works were required for righteousness. Therefore, they would not have easily accepted his message. So, what is he doing? He is showing them that it is all right there in the OT, their Scriptures. He is not bringing new meaning to the OT; he is using it to support his 'radical' revelation of salvation by faith. Sort of what Jesus did on the road to Emmaus, no?
The picture of Abraham greatly blessed of God and the 'father' of many descendants would have been a clear picture for them, no? Weren't they all rather proud of this heritage? Wouldn't this have been an excellent foundation on which Paul could build support? As you well know by now, I believe that Paul is using a running metaphor of fatherhood to picture Abraham as the first one in the Bible to be thus declared righteous. And, if it was good enough for the esteemed Abraham, isn't it also good enough for each of them? Paul is simply making the point the it is proper now for both Jew and Gentile to think of Abraham as their father, but in a very defined sense. Paul says nothing here about Gentiles now becoming members of the AC; that needs to be inferred from his choice of words and not from his choice of sentences.
Let me add another reason in support of my view from Romans 4:11-12. I am pretty sure that we agree that the focus of this passage is to show that Abraham is the 'father' of those believers who are, and also those who are not, circumcised. You have been using this to explain how gentiles are now his children and so part of the covenant. But, let's look at it another way.
Is Abraham the father of those who are circumcised whether they are or are not believers? (Of course, even here we are using the term father in a metaphorical sense - e.g., Ruth) Well, of course he is. So why does this passage say "so that he might be the father of . . . circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised." Isn't it right there in the passage? Isn't this about them 'following in his footsteps?' He already has the 'father' relation in terms of covenant. This is just building on that to add the dimension of 'he had faith first' as a picture of fatherhood.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Oh, and one more question on these verses. Why did Abraham have to be 'uncircumcised' to become the father of Gentiles? There is absolutely no reason that I can think of other than that it is a metaphor. I say this because he is the archetype father who is the first one in the Bible who is described as righteous through faith. How can we be sure that it is not that simple but that something more is being implied (but not taught!) here?
Could the purpose of quoting Genesis be to indicate that all who believe (Jew or Gentile) are right to think of Abraham as their father in the faith. This is even though they come from many different physical fathers (nations). Now the quote, taken out of the context of Genesis, gives support to the idea that Abraham would be the father of many nations. But, that doesn't have to change the meaning of the original quote in its original context. Furthermore, Paul does not extend any of the other aspects of the AC to the ones he is addressing here except justification by faith. How can covenant membership which Genesis only gives to physical associates also be adduced from this context that is clearly all about justification by faith.
Romans 4:13 is another verse we have examined. Alas, I missed something before. The promise is only made to Abraham! Not to his descendants. Not even to his ultimate descendant. It was reiterated to them (Isaac and Jacob) but the only promise in view here is the one made to Abraham, no? And, of course we have discussed the promise, inherit the world. The only point being made here is that the promise (whatever it means and that has to be inferred because Scripture never defines this phrase) is based on grace and not merit. Scripture does not tie this verse into the an expanded land promise. Nor, does it say that this promise extends to his descendants. Does it?
JC: The second phrase (The first phrase is mentioned above) is the way that these descendants are blessed: "in you, all nations will be blessed."
DW: Why does this not mean that 'in you' (i.e., one of your yet unborn descendants) is the one who will be the blessing? And, this understanding does not require the heirs to be related to Abraham in any sense. Yes, most heirs are related to the giver; but, this is not required?
JC: already in Genesis we have a hint of what is revealed in Christ: that believing Gentiles are joint heirs with believing Jews.
DW: Yes, both receive salvation by faith. But, covenant 'membership?' I keep trying to see it your way and all I can come to is that Paul is not trying to introduce such an astounding revelation here. He is focused on Salvation by faith and you see so much more. If Paul were really trying to make that point, wouldn't he have said so rather than using words that can be interpreted in various ways? I know this is an argument from silence. But, isn't your argument an argument from creative brilliance? Is one type of argument inherently better than the other? ;)
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Son of Abraham
JC: (1) In Hebrew, "son of ..." is commonly used to mean "one who is like his father."
DW: I fully agree with what you say in (1). As to the other two bullet items I have to say that I see assertions that are indeed reasonable. But, then there are conclusions that I can not connect to the premises. So, I try to follow the argument but I can't help but see a 'leap' to the result. How can we be so sure of what Paul has in his mind if he doesn't tell us?
JC: To sum up: from context, it appears that Paul is using the phrase "son of Abraham" as a legal term of inheritance that deliberately connects back to the covenant, affirming that all believers are true participants in the promises and conditions of the covenant.
DW: ALL OF THEM??? Why can't it just be that they are part of 'all the nations' and that these people are not descendants as Genesis 26:4 seems to indicate? In this verse, zera appears 3 times. The NASB translated it in the plural each time. Further it seems to be contrasted, at the end, with those who are blessed in 'all the nations.' If 'all the nations' refers to those who are adopted then aren't they descendants too?
Hi David,
Thanks for your responses. Just a quick point:
JC: Abraham would have understood . . . (3) That Israel would be given to his descendants.
DW: Forgive me, but I have no idea how he would have known this. Please help.
I probably wasn't being clear. What I had in mind was Gen. 15.18-21 -- "To your descendants I will give this land..." I was periphrastically using "Israel" to refer to "this land", which is confusing, since "Israel" could refer to a person, a nation, a group of people, or a land.
Oops.
JRC: The first is that Abraham is to be the father of "many nations."
DW: When I think of a nation, I think of a system including people, land, procedures, and resources. Is that what God was telling Abraham? That from his physical descendants there would be formed many nations? Or, was he telling him something like "I will save a number of people from out of 'all the nations' of the earth and add them in a non-physical way to your family."
Well, the term "nation" may be the issue here. As used in Scripture, "goyim" refers to the people (primarily) and not to the governmental structures.
We use "nation" as a political term today, but in Biblical times, "nations" were more like extended families. Thus, we have nations named after their forebears: Israel, Edom.
So no, God is not telling Abraham that he's going to make a lot of geopolitical entities in his honor.
Rather, he is telling him that many, many families are going to come out of him.
At this point, I don't think Abraham has any idea whether these will be physically descended from him or not. He might well assume so. Or he might not. I'm not sure that that's important.
JRC: If we restrict Abraham's descendants to be just Israelites, then he is not the father of many nations, but of one. (or two: Northern and Southern Kingdoms).
DW: Yes; but, why would we do that (restrict)? Looking at Genesis 25 don't you think that it is reasonable to conclude that Abraham did indeed have 'many' nations come from him (according to the flesh) in addition to that of Israel?
Well, the reason I mentioned restriction is that your position, if I understand, restricts the covenant promise to Abraham's physical descendants of the line of Israel. So my point is that this restriction becomes unreasonable when we see that Abraham is going to be the father of many nations.
In other words, being "a father" in vv. 5-6 is inseparable from the "descendants" in v. 7; those two are correlative. If I'm a father, then I have descendants; if I have descendants, then they have me as the father.
So it's important to see here in Genesis that the "many nations" are Abe's descendants, and that the covenant promise (v. 8) applies to them.
So what about Ishmael in Gen 25? Well, he is not counted as a descendant to whom the covenant promise is made -- so the "many nations" are not his children, but someone else.
(cont.)
DW: A question, are there ANY 'spiritual nations' of which you are aware? I am not aware of even one. So how do we progress from many spiritual individuals to many nations? I am entirely serious in that question.
Me neither; I know of no "spiritual nations." I'm not even sure I would know what that term would mean.
And in fact, I actively avoid using "spiritual" as an antonym for "physical." Such a distinction is not found in Scripture (but rather in Greek philosophy).
The Scripture *does* distinguish between the (Holy) Spirit and the "flesh" -- the sin nature. And the term "spiritual" is often used in reference to the Holy Spirit.
But at no point are Christians identified as "spiritual descendants" of Abraham.
Sometimes, one sees the assumption that if something (a descendant, a nation, etc.) is not "physical", then it must be "spiritual." But this is not the case.
Nor are Christians identified as "spiritual persons" -- in opposition to being "physical persons." Sometimes Scriptural will speak of those who are "spiritual" (1 Cor 2.15), but it's always in reference to the Holy Spirit, not used as an antonym for "physical."
"Spiritual" people are those controlled by the Holy Spirit. They are not "unphysical" people.
So I think the whole "spiritual/physical" distinction has made reading Paul unnecessarily complicated here. Paul is not speaking of "spiritual descendants" -- he's just speaking of "descendants." And he affirms that we are they.
And why do we all make up many nations (as indeed Paul affirms that we do)? Because we come from many different families on earth, but join the one family, God's family, Abraham's family -- in Christ.
It's not about being physical or spiritual.
So what is the opposite of "physical"? If you are a son, but not a physically descended son, then what are you?
An adopted son. You weren't naturally born into the family, but you've been taken in as a son.
If someone called you a "spiritual son", you would look at them funny.
DW: As you well know by now, I believe that Paul is using a running metaphor of fatherhood to picture Abraham as the first one in the Bible to be thus declared righteous.
Yes, that element is certainly there (esp. Rom 4.11). It is clear that Paul wants to illustrate both to his Jewish and to his Gentile readers that justification by faith is not new, but has been the means of justification all along. So yes, we agree up through v. 12.
But after Abraham is used as an example, Paul becomes very specific about "the promise that he would inherit the world" and specifically naming Gentiles as co-inheritors of this promise.
At this point, the metaphorical reading has to "metaphorize" many different, specific phrases.
The danger, then, is that one abandons the plain, literal meaning in favor of a metaphorical meaning that would the plain, intended meaning -- assuming that the plain meaning was indeed the intended one!
So *IF* the metaphorical reading is justified by other considerations, then we should entertain it.
But is it really justified?
A further point along this line. While Abraham is being used as an example in Romans 4, the same is not true in Eph 3 and Gal 3, where Paul once again affirms the co-heritance of Gentiles with Jews, but without using Abraham as an example.
Now clearly, the danger in my position could be that I might be over-literalising. Luther did this at the Council of Marburg, pounding his fist and shouting "THIS IS MY BODY!!!" Perhaps I'm pulling a Luther?: "WE ARE ABE'S CHILDREN!!!"
But as I consider the possibility that I've overliteralized Rom 4, I take comfort in the fact that Paul repeats this same language in plain, literal contexts several times in Scripture, *and* that there are no considerations that really require me to read Rom 4 as an extended metaphor.
Are there? If Paul were using "children of Abraham" metaphorically, wouldn't he have said so somewhere and not made such a fuss about us being co-heirs?
DW: Paul says nothing here about Gentiles now becoming members of the AC; that needs to be inferred from his choice of words and not from his choice of sentences.
Three things cinch the case to me:
(1) We are called his "descendants." The covenant promises were made to his descendants.
(2) Paul affirms that the promise comes to us.
(3) The point of Romans is to explain *how* to become God's people (namely, by faith). This was the central promise of the covenant. Therefore, I conclude that even if we didn't want to *call* us Gentile believers "members of the covenant", nevertheless, we would still have de facto covenant membership by virtue of receiving the promised benefit.
Question for you: does Paul have to use the phrase "you are members of the covenant" in order to be saying exactly that?
I mean, suppose I died tomorrow and the lawyers called my family, and you, into the room. And then he said,
"The will gives Jeff's property equally to all family members. And the will also says that David is to be considered a family member."
Does the lawyer actually have to say the words, "you are getting an equal share of the inheritance"?
Isn't that a necessary consequence of the words he did say?
Likewise, isn't covenant membership a direct and necessary consequence of "you are Abraham's descendants and heirs according to the promise"?
DW: Is Abraham the father of those who are circumcised whether they are or are not believers? (Of course, even here we are using the term father in a metaphorical sense - e.g., Ruth) Well, of course he is.
Actually, for the purposes of the covenant, he is not. We recall the Pharisees, who were told by Jesus that they were *not* children of Abraham. And we recall Esau, who did not receive the covenant benefits despite being a physical descendant. And we recall Paul's emphatic, "A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code."
Salvation and the covenant are not two separate things; being "God's people" requires salvation. Abraham was justified when he received the covenant promise.
The Pharisees understood the unity of salvation and the covenant; they just misunderstood what was required for covenant membership (i.e., circumcision of the heart instead of the body).
DW: Oh, and one more question on these verses. Why did Abraham have to be 'uncircumcised' to become the father of Gentiles?
The passage doesn't say that he had to be "uncircumcised." It says that the fact of his justification prior to his circumcision shows that circumcision is not needed for justification.
It's a cause-effect argument in 4.10-12.
There was no logical requirement that Abraham had to be uncircumcised! It's just that, since happily he was justified prior to circumcision, we know therefore that justification is not a function of being circumcised.
DW: I say this because he is the archetype father who is the first one in the Bible who is described as righteous through faith. How can we be sure that it is not that simple but that something more is being implied (but not taught!) here?
I agree that we should stick to what is actually being taught -- but shouldn't that include what Paul actually says about our being sons of Abraham and joint heirs and such?
Let's keep it simple and take the words at face value! :)
(That's a humorous dig because it's 2:30AM and I'm feeling silly).
DW: Furthermore, Paul does not extend any of the other aspects of the AC to the ones he is addressing here except justification by faith.
That's a contested point. Recall that we differ on how to understand 4.13.
But even if land is not in the mix here, isn't the central promise of the Covenant that "I will be your God"? And isn't that precisely what is promised in the Gospel?
So what other aspects do you have in mind that are missing?
DW: How can covenant membership which Genesis only gives to physical associates also be adduced from this context that is clearly all about justification by faith?
Is it really true that Genesis only gives covenant membership to physical descendants?
I thought we established that Ruth came into covenant membership. How could she, since she was not a physical descendant?
And weren't non-Jewish servants circumcised as a sign of their membership in the covenant?
The text of Genesis doesn't say "to your physical descendants I give this land..."
It just says "descendants."
DW: Yes, both receive salvation by faith. But, covenant 'membership?' I keep trying to see it your way and all I can come to is that Paul is not trying to introduce such an astounding revelation here. He is focused on Salvation by faith and you see so much more.
I think that's because I see true covenant membership as identical to salvation. (And false covenant membership, such as the Pharisees had, as a false salvation).
That's mainly because in order for the promise "I will be your God" to be true for an individual, it must be the case that that individual be justified.
Conversely, the purpose of God justifying people is to make them His people.
So to my mind, justification and the covenant go hand in hand.
The land is just a side-note, really.
But at the same time, isn't it Paul's language that's the astounding thing, calling us "sons of Abraham" and "heirs according to the promise"?
DW: If Paul were really trying to make that point, wouldn't he have said so rather than using words that can be interpreted in various ways? I know this is an argument from silence. But, isn't your argument an argument from creative brilliance?
:) :) :) Touche.
But let's step back for a moment. Try if possible to clear your mind of the assumption that there can be different types of descendants, "physical" and "spiritual."
Are Paul's words really all that ambiguous? Isn't he rather direct, forceful, and easily understood: "You are Abrahams children and heirs according to the promise" (Rom 4) "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise" (Gal 3) "This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus." (Eph 3)
This is actually pretty easy language to understand -- if we assume that Paul is speaking plainly.
It's only when we bring in the idea of different types of children, or assume that Paul is speaking metaphorically, that it gets complicated.
No?
JRC: To sum up: from context, it appears that Paul is using the phrase "son of Abraham" as a legal term of inheritance that deliberately connects back to the covenant, affirming that all believers are true participants in the promises and conditions of the covenant.
DW: ALL OF THEM??? Why can't it just be that they are part of 'all the nations' and that these people are not descendants as Genesis 26:4 seems to indicate? In this verse, zera appears 3 times. The NASB translated it in the plural each time. Further it seems to be contrasted, at the end, with those who are blessed in 'all the nations.' If 'all the nations' refers to those who are adopted then aren't they descendants too?
Yes, all of them. Paul doesn't leave any wiggle room here. He says "heirs", repeatedly and emphatically.
Gen 26.4 does not have to read as a contrast ("I will make your descendants ... BUT all nations"), but as a synonymous parallelism:
"I will make your descendants as numerous ... IN FACT all nations will be blessed."
I mean, there is a focus on Israelite descendants with the "give them all these lands" phrase. We recall that Genesis was likely communicated to the Israelites as they prepared for the conquest. So it makes sense that the promise from God to them that the land was theirs would be emphasized.
But nowhere are descendants limited to Israelites alone. I've already pointed out above that non-Israelite servants were included.
Nothing in Genesis anywhere says "physical descendants only." That's just an assumption that we bring to the text because normally descent is through physical procreation.
But God doesn't require it to be that way in every case, right?
And it just turned out that in the case of Abraham's family, the non-procreated descendants outnumber the procreated descendants by a wide margin. No big deal! :)
Hi Jeff,
Hope you finally got some sleep. Or are you one of those people who don't need much? There was once a person I saw on TV (I think it was 'You Asked For It') who said he only needed 15 minutes a day and so he sort of had two completely separate lives going!
I just wanted to send off a quick response to let you know that your efforts are finally beginning to pay off. I am not throwing the towel in just yet (maybe just a small corner ;) ). Reading your latest response, I felt as though a light had come on. I had understood that Abraham's 'descendants' did not only include blood relations (e.g., Ruth). And, that some blood relations had been pared out. But, I had never grasped the importance of that to the view you are trying to show me of how 'we' have been 'adopted' into his family.
Anyway, I really do feel bad that you can only fit in responses during the wee small hours of the evening. So, I will delay my response as much as possible as I try to go back (again) over what you have said with this new 'insight.' All I can say is thank you.
No need to feel bad. Every now and then, my allergies kick in, and the histamines keep me up.
I am concerned, however, that my late night ramblings might be overly forceful, as if I've "got it all figured out" -- which clearly we never do. I trust you'll let me know if any lines get crossed.
Hi Jeff,
It's like we have scattered bread crumbs everywhere. I'll try to pick up a few.
Acts 2:39
I have been meaning to ask you for some time about Acts 2:39. Every time I come upon a Reformed understanding of this verse, it doesn't seems to consider the phrase, and for all who are far off. What is even harder for me to grasp is that even if this 'fact' is pointed out, the phrase is still not incorporated into the exegesis! [On GB today (7/15) there was this statement by Tim Prussic ". . apart from simply *believing* God’s promises regarding my children . ."] I know I'm far, far from being a good exegete; but, where is this promise and what is it? Is it in Acts 2:39?
In particular regarding Acts 2:39, I wonder what you consider the promise and to whom you think the promise is made? In the interest of full disclosure, ;) my conclusion is that the promise is the indwelling Holy Spirit (and all that involves) and that it is made to the elect in 'all the nations.'
Ephesians
Well, I was going to pass on 'descendant' for a while but then I came upon these two statements of yours:
"While Abraham is being used as an example in Romans 4, the same is not true in Eph 3 and Gal 3, where Paul once again affirms the co-heritance of Gentiles with Jews, but without using Abraham as an example."
"The motivation to combine Israel and the Church, for me, is Galatians 3 and Ephesians 2."
First, I was surprised to see that you only mention that Abraham was being used as an example. I am sure you see him play a much larger role there.
Well, given this motivation, I decided to take a fresh look (to the extent that that is even possible, of course ;) ) at Ephesians. As I look to see what Ephesians teaches I see:
1) Paul is writing to the saints (the elect ones).
2) Paul considers God his father.
3) Paul considers God Jesus' father.
So, for whatever reason, Paul does not bring up Abrahamic relationship. Isn't that a problem? For how are these believers to know that their children are in the covenant? Oh, I just had a thought -- they could move to Galatia ;)
4) God has blessed us with every spiritual blessing when He places us 'in Christ.' So now, we are holy and blameless before Him -- AKA 'we are His people' and 'He is our God.'
5) We are adopted as sons of God. Note, there is no mention of what has happened to the servants or the wife or the children or anybody else who may be in the household of the adopted son.
6) God adopted us so that His grace would receive the praise it so richly deserves.
7) Then follows a list of things that flow to one who is 'in Him.' I assume this is a detailing of 'every spiritual blessing' in verse 1:3, yes?
8) Now, in verse 1:11 we find the first mention of 'inheritance.' Letting Scripture interpret Scripture, the inheritance is 'that which we (both Jew and Gentile) have obtained (which is listed above) as a result of having been placed 'in Him.'
9) The next problem is probably in verse 2:13? What is the reference point for 'near and far?' I say God. Do you see something other than Him as the reference point?
10) Finally, we get to verse 3:6 and the co-inheritance that you referenced (Of course, Paul has been talking about this in several prior verses). All of this joint reception by Jew and Gentile is anchored in the gospel. The text says nothing about covenant membership for it talks about a new body that just happens to be made up of individuals out of two independent groups which together form the entire human race. And since Abraham is not mentioned we aren't influenced to go in that direction either. It never says anything about the Church being a new or improved version of Israel. It is all about 'all the nations' being placed 'in Him.' That is the only inheritance that is in view and there is no need to bring in Abraham to complete a right understanding.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
So, we now have both saved Jew and saved Gentile in equal possession of a list of blessings:
a) heirs - and he already defined what the inheritance was in chapter 1
b) members of the body - the Church (the invisible one)
c) partakers of the promise of the gospel - the one God told to Abraham about 'all the nations.'
Unless Paul is just telling the Ephesians a part of the story as he tries to get them to understand the immensity of what they have received, I can not see how any Ephesian should consider himself a 'covenant member.'
Also, the problem of combining (in any sense) Israel and the Church: God takes some from Israel and He takes some from Gentile nations and puts them into the Church, a new creation. No full description of either Israel or the Church properly applies to the other. There is no question here of separating them. They are different entities that just happen to have some similarities. But, how can this lead to combining them?
AC Member Proper
I'd like to wrestle with the 3 reasons you give for disagreeing that one can be blessed if not an AC member proper.
JC: So the first reason I have trouble is that I don't think there is a proper way to divide "in you all the nations will be blessed" from the covenant. The blessing given to the nations is the same one given to Abe . . .
DW: And, I agree! This promise, one of several to Abraham, which Paul calls the gospel, should not be taken from the AC. What did I say that made you think I wanted to 'divide' it out? However, I still don't see why this leads you to think that 'AC membership proper' is required to receive the gospel promise? What about sola fide? Wouldn't 'membership' be an added requirement?
JC: Second is the large number of times that Paul directly affirms that we are Abe's descendants, without qualification.
DW: I'm tempted to quibble with the adjective 'large;' but, I won't. ;) For I agree with you that Paul does tell us that we are heirs, descendants, sons of Abraham, etc. But, then you add "without qualification." I see at least one main qualification and that is that we have faith, e.g., Gal 3:7.
That is the only requirement and it precedes any possible blessings that might accrue from AC membership. That still leaves the question open as to whether there are any benefits of being a 'descendant' that gentiles are missing out on if these words are not interpreted as 'physical members of Abe's household' but rather descendant in some other sense.
I just wish I could discern a simple answer from your view as to the question: What does a Gentile believer gain when Paul tells him that he is Abraham's descendant or heir or son? Does being a true son of Abraham have any standing next to the fact that one is a true son of God? I think that at one point you said they were equivalent statements. Well, I can't get my mind around that one.
For me, it all keeps coming down to the benefits of being a 'covenant member.' Over and above all the blessings that one gets when God saves him, what does one get after then becoming an AC covenant member proper? I guess another way of asking the same thing is what benefit ever accrued to the non-elect Israelite child from their covenant membership? And, where does Scripture ever tell us that the benefits for AC membership are the SAME for the Abrahamic householder and the one 'in Christ?' IMHO, this is where a major leap occurs.
Continuing to beat this dead horse, ;) I note that in none of the lexicons can I find that sperma or zera have any connotation other than blood relative. The AC promises were only spoken to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the later two are clearly his descendants. Am I missing anybody else to whom the promises were made (excepting, of course, Jesus - Gal 3:16)?
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Those who bore the sign of the AC did not have to be blood relatives; they just had to be in the 'household.' But, it was the blood relatives that were supposed to take care to circumcise their household and God has never taken this back. Where has God told us that we, descendants, don't have to do that anymore? I am serious in this question.
Nevertheless, I agree with you that Paul clearly identifies those in the Church as Abraham's descendants. The only question is where does he list the results of that relationship for those 'in Christ?'
JC: Third, I think you've not (yet) directly addressed the peculiar and frequent choice of word, "heir." . . . So when Paul calls us "heirs", he's saying something stronger than simply that God is giving us Gentiles a gift.
DW: Again, I search the lexicons and do not find that 'heir' forces a 'familial' reading. Certainly, it is the norm; but, it is not required. It is all about dividing by lot and receiving an allotted portion. Take Abraham's being resigned to giving his stuff to Eliezer as his heir before Isaac is born. Eliezer was not an heir in the familial sense?
I'm stumped by your statement: "Inheritance" is not simply "receiving something" How would it not be that for Eliezer?
Timing
Well, this now leads me to the problem of timing. Let me show you what I mean through a simple Q&A progression regarding the AC (as always, please let me know where I go wrong):
1) Who are blessed? -- all the elect
2) What are they (just before they are blessed)? -- Lost Jew or Gentile members of 'all the nations'
3) While unblessed, are some of them descendants of Abraham? -- yes (I am one example)
4) While unblessed, are some of them NOT descendants of Abraham? -- yes, (you are one example)
What is the blessing? -- inheriting adoption as one of God's sons. Also, described as receiving all the spiritual blessings in the heavenly places or being 'in Christ.'
If we don't mention the AC or Abraham what is this blessed person missing? -- nothing; they possess every spiritual blessing there is.
In Galatians 3:29 the Greek word 'ara' translated 'then' is (according to L&N): "a marker of result as an inference from what has preceded (frequently used in questions and in the result clause of conditional sentences): so, then, consequently, as a result." How can one read this verse in any other way than that the result of being in Christ is being a descendant or likewise an heir, in some sense, and not the other way around?
Summary: They did not receive an inheritance because they were sons (descendants) they received the inheritance of becoming sons, as did Abraham. We all share this blessing, inheritance WITH Abraham not FROM him, except in the sense that Jesus came from him according to the flesh.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Promise of the Spirit
Another loose end seems to be related to this and the fact that it is not mentioned in the AC. (Just for the record, I, of course, do agree with you on where it is mentioned.) You said: "First, there is no promise of the Spirit mentioned in the text of Genesis."
In Galatians 3 where the Spirit is mentioned, Paul is talking to the Church. The ones who 'started by the Spirit.' The promise that he is referencing is not the AC, in my opinion. It is the promise by Jesus to the disciples as He was about to ascend to the Father, no? No promise of the indwelling Spirit was made to Abraham as far as I can tell. Nor, was it made to His descendants. But, it sure was made to the Church.
And, one more thought. When Jesus promised the Spirit, He gave no indication that it was THROUGH the NC that He was doing this. There is no tie in between our having the Spirit and the promise of the Spirit to Israel in the NC. At least, I can't find it in Scripture. Again, a huge similarity; not an equality.
Genesis 26:4
While it is a relatively small disagreement, I want to come back to Gen. 26:4. Our exchange went like this:
DW: Why can't it just be that they are part of 'all the nations' and that these people are not descendants as Genesis 26:4 seems to indicate?
JC: Gen 26.4 does not have to read as a contrast ("I will make your descendants ... BUT all nations"), but as a synonymous parallelism:
I can't help but disagree. God is talking to Isaac here. He tells him that He is going to give these lands to his (Isaac's) descendants (are we ever called 'son's of Isaac???'). God says that He is going to 'establish the oath' which he swore to Abraham. Verse 4 is the summary of that very oath, no?
Verse 4 has three clauses and in each one the word descendants (zera) appears. Does the context allow us to infer any different sense for any of the three zera's? I say no.
So, we get to the third clause. What does it say? The descendants are the means through which the nations are to be blessed. There is no 'synonymous parallelism.' Two agents are clearly in view. One is the means; one is the recipient of the action of the passive verb. I truly am confused if this is not the plain sense of the verse? Help???
Hi David,
DW: I have been meaning to ask you for some time about Acts 2:39. Every time I come upon a Reformed understanding of this verse, it doesn't seems to consider the phrase, and for all who are far off. What is even harder for me to grasp is that even if this 'fact' is pointed out, the phrase is still not incorporated into the exegesis! ... where is this promise and what is it? Is it in Acts 2:39?
I actually agree in part, that Reformed usages of this verse are kind of "short-hand" that don't explain the role of election. As a result, it leaves the impression that we are just ignoring the "as many as God shall call" clause. In fact, given the Reformed tendency to revel in election :), you can imagine that the "as many as God's call" is simply assumed without comment.
Here's my understanding:
(1) Peter is here affirming that Joel's prophecy has come true -- in fact, that the "day of the Lord" spoken of in Joel 2.31 is at hand.
Well, already we might have some differences about how to understand prophecy.
But even so, I think we can agree that Peter is saying that "this is what Joel was talking about" -- even if we might disagree about whether this is the ultimate fulfillment of Joel.
(2) In any event, the core promise of that prophecy was that "all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved."
This promise, Peter reaffirms in 2.39.
So the structure of Peter's discourse is
A. Identification of the giving of the Spirit with Joel's prophecy (2.14-21)
B. Supporting evidence of Jesus' Messiahship -- His being "the Lord" of whom Joel spoke. (2.22 - 36).
C. Action point: repent, believe, and be baptized (2.37 - 41).
Within that framework, Peter specifies three groups of people who are eligible to receive the promise: "you, your children, and all who are far off -- as many as God shall call."
So now: why these three groups? And what of "as many as God shall call"? How do those phrases function within Peter's discourse?
By affirming that the promise is for "you", Peter is affirming that Jesus is in fact their Messiah. We remember that he had already charged them with regicide, killing Jesus. He now assures them that the promise of the Spirit is still available for them.
By affirming that the promise is "for their children", Peter is connecting the promise of the Spirit to the covenant structure: "I will be a God to you and to your descendants."
And by affirming that the promise is "for all who are far off", Peter hints at what becomes more explicit later on (Acts 10), that the promise of the Spirit is for the Gentiles also.
BUT
That promise is qualified for all three groups by "as many as God shall call." Neither Jews nor Gentiles can rest arrogantly on their parentage; only those whom God chooses will receive the Spirit. So "as many as God shall call" serves a negative function, which is to temper our universalist tendencies.
There is also a positive function here. We recall that the Jews struggled to understand that Gentiles could be included. Peter's "as many as God shall call" levels the field for the three groups, placing them all equally under the mantle of election. By placing the weight on "as many as", we can see that Peter is actually being much more inclusive that his audience would have felt comfortable being.
Now, Reformed treatments tend to assume election without mentioning it, so that the "for your children" phrase gets all the attention.
Dispensational treatments, on the other hand, tend to emphasize the "as many as God shall call", without noticing the three groups. Peter mentions these three groups on purpose, and it's a mistake (IMO) to overlook the covenantal overtones of "for your children."
To sum up: Peter's audience is directed to consider God's promise for three groups: themselves, their children, and all who are far off. They are to do so with reverence, knowing that God is no respecter of persons but chooses whom He will.
Thank you for the extended work on Ephesians.
I would like to challenge a couple of points:
(1) In points 3, 5, and 10 you suggest that Paul's silence about covenant membership implies (a) they the Ephesians would be ignorant of these matters (point 3), and (b) that covenant membership is not really relevant to their situation, because their real focus is drawn to the Gospel.
In one sense, this is hard to argue with -- because I agree that the Gospel is "the big deal" here. Of course, I see it connected intimately to the covenant, but you knew that.
Now the question: Paul says this in 2.12:
"remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world."
Doesn't Paul's statement ("remember that...") demonstrate that they already knew about the covenants of the promise? So doesn't that undermine the case for their ignorance?
And further, doesn't Paul's statement demonstrate that their separation from the covenants of the promise was a problem that is solved by their being "in Christ"?
(2) Point #9: "The next problem is probably in verse 2:13? What is the reference point for 'near and far?' I say God. Do you see something other than Him as the reference point?"
It's a trick question. :) There are *three* things the Ephesians were "far" from, according to v. 12:
* Christ,
* citizenship in Israel,
* and the covenants of the promise.
So to which have they been brought near? It only makes sense to say, "to all three."
Think about the ludicrousness of this paraphrase of vv. 12-13:
"You used to be separate from Christ, from citizenship in Israel, and from the covenants. But now, God has brought you near to Christ. And you're still separate from citizenship in Israel and the covenants of promise."
By mentioning things that they were separate from, and then saying "you have now been brought near", the only possible conclusion is that they have now been brought near to all of the things that he just talked about in the previous verse.
This reading is confirmed by the continuation in vv. 14-19. The two have been made one. Which two? The "both" (v. 17) who have been reconciled to God: the circumcised and the uncircumcised.
What is the result? That we are no longer aliens or foreigners, but fellow citizens of God's people and members of God's household.
You desire, I think, to say that being a "fellow citizen of God's people" is different from being a "citizen of Israel" -- but that hair can't be split.
Likewise, being "foreigners to the covenants of promise" cannot be split from "you are no longer foreigners and aliens."
Here's the big picture question: if the Gospel is separate from covenant membership, then why does Paul bring it up? If the Ephesians remain separate from Israel, then why does Paul bring it up?
I mean, if you came to my door and said, "until today, you had a slow computer, inferior health insurance, and a worn-out car. But now, all that's changing. Here's a fast computer."
Wouldn't I wonder what happened to the insurance and the car? Normal rules of discourse dictate that there has to be some relationship between our sentences.
Likewise, v. 13 reverses all, not just a part, of v. 12 -- and vv. 14-19 confirm that fact.
---
DW: Unless Paul is just telling the Ephesians a part of the story as he tries to get them to understand the immensity of what they have received, I can not see how any Ephesian should consider himself a 'covenant member.'
Yes, I think that's exactly what's going on. It's clear from 2.12 that Paul has already explained something about the covenants to them. For one thing, he urges them to "remember" it. And for another, he speaks as if they are familiar with the OT prophets (2.20).
So there is obviously some backstory that we don't get from this single letter.
Point #10:
DW: Finally, we get to verse 3:6 and the co-inheritance that you referenced (Of course, Paul has been talking about this in several prior verses). All of this joint reception by Jew and Gentile is anchored in the gospel. The text says nothing about covenant membership for it talks about a new body that just happens to be made up of individuals out of two independent groups which together form the entire human race. And since Abraham is not mentioned we aren't influenced to go in that direction either. It never says anything about the Church being a new or improved version of Israel. It is all about 'all the nations' being placed 'in Him.' That is the only inheritance that is in view and there is no need to bring in Abraham to complete a right understanding.
I'm a bit confused about your account of "inheritance." You mention it in connection with Eph. 1.11, but I'm not seeing it there. Sorry to be slow.
Now down in 1.14, the HS is the deposit guaranteeing our inheritance -- but we still don't know what that inheritance is. More backstory, apparently?
Likewise, I don't understand how "all the nations being in Him" works out to an inheritance for us.
So help me out: what is "our inheritance" on your understanding?
---
It never says anything about the Church being a new or improved version of Israel.
Nor have I, I hope. The Church is really the community of God's people. As such, the best OT analogy is to the family of Hebrews prior to Sinai.
The reason that the Church is not directly comparable to Israel is that Israel was both "the family of God" (visibly) and also a nation-state. It had a king; the Church does not (sorry, Pope.)
Likewise, Israel was both the community of grace in which the promise to Abraham was maintained -- and also the community of Law, which tutored God's people so as to lead them to Christ.
So it's really problematic to try to draw a direct comparison between the Church and Israel. *Some* of the functions of Israel continue in the Church (worship obviously comes to mind!); some do not (sacrifices obviously come to mind).
What Paul affirms is that there is a single people, the people of God. These are identical to the true children of Abraham, acc to Gal 3. Both Jews and Gentiles alike are a part of this people, through faith.
I know that there are some Reformed and Lutheran theologians who have spoken of the Church as "the replacement for Israel" -- but such language is clumsy and misleading. At best, what they mean by it is, "Israel was the community of faith prior to Christ, and the Church is the community of faith now that Christ has come", but the "replacement" language tends to flatten out the differences between the two.
So: when Paul affirms our citizenship in Israel in Eph. 2, he is affirming our membership in "God's people", NOT our being under the Law.
JRC: So the first reason I have trouble is that I don't think there is a proper way to divide "in you all the nations will be blessed" from the covenant. The blessing given to the nations is the same one given to Abe . . .
DW: And, I agree! This promise, one of several to Abraham, which Paul calls the gospel, should not be taken from the AC. What did I say that made you think I wanted to 'divide' it out? However, I still don't see why this leads you to think that 'AC membership proper' is required to receive the gospel promise? What about sola fide? Wouldn't 'membership' be an added requirement?
OK, I think we have some common ground here. We agree that the promised blessing to the nations is the Gospel, is for Gentiles and Jews alike by faith, and is a proper promise of the AC.
OK. So when I say that "Bob is a member of the AC", what I mean is that he is participating in the promise of the AC, by meeting the condition of the AC.
Paul says the same: we meet the condition (by being Abe's descendants), and therefore we receive the promise.
That's it. Nothing more complicated than that.
So since the promise is the Gospel, then "receiving the Gospel by faith" and "being participants in the covenant" are just two ways of saying the same thing. It's not an extra condition -- it's the same condition using different language.
So just as Abraham received the covenant promise by faith -- for him, believing and participating in the covenant were one and the same -- so likewise, the same is true for us. All who are in Christ, ARE sons of Abraham. Justification and the covenant are the same: "I will be your God."
DW: But, then you add "without qualification." I see at least one main qualification and that is that we have faith...
Oh, I was ambiguous. I didn't mean condition, I meant qualifier. Paul doesn't attach any adjectives to our sonship that make it any different from normal sonship. Obviously, in context, we aren't physically descended sons. But in regards to inheritance, we have the full rights of sons.
That is to say, we *are* sons of Abraham, without needed circumcision to improve upon our sonship.
So specifically, Paul does not say, "You are spiritual sons of Abraham." He doesn't add the qualifier "spiritual" to our sonship.
DW: Does being a true son of Abraham have any standing next to the fact that one is a true son of God? I think that at one point you said they were equivalent statements. Well, I can't get my mind around that one.
For me, it all keeps coming down to the benefits of being a 'covenant member.' Over and above all the blessings that one gets when God saves him, what does one get after then becoming an AC covenant member proper?
That *is* the blessing of the AC. Well, secondarily, one gets to inherit the New Heavens and New Earth. But God Himself is our very great reward, just as for Abraham. The point of being a son of Abraham is that Abraham's people are God's people.
The Galatians understood this. They knew that in order to be truly saved, they had to participate in the promise, "I will be your God."
What they didn't understand was that Christ accomplished that already for them, so that circumcision was not necessary.
I guess another way of asking the same thing is what benefit ever accrued to the non-elect Israelite child from their covenant membership?
They weren't members.
OK, now that I made the provocative statement, let me support and explain it. :)
The AC suffered from the same problem that the Church does today. Properly speaking, the only genuine members of the Church are believers, right? BUT, sorting that out requires having God's knowledge about who is saved and who is not.
We don't have that knowledge. And so we administer the Church from our limited human point of view: church government, church membership, yada yada.
The AC had the same problem. The only legitimate sons of Abraham who legitimately received the blessing were those of faith.
All of the others were not true sons.
BUT
Because of limited human knowledge, God commanded that all children be treated as sons of Abraham, until and unless they did something to be cut out of the community. This was the outward administration of the covenant.
Israelites got confused on this point. Some of them, many of them falsely believed that just being born of Abraham's line and getting circumcised made one a "son of Abraham" and therefore a part of the covenant.
The exile proved them wrong: "Lo-Ammi: you are not my people." And then John the Baptist. And then Jesus. And then Paul: "A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit..."
This could not be more direct or plain: Jews who lack faith are not true Jews. In OT times, such people were a part of the outward administration of Israel, but they weren't truly a part of Israel. They were hangers-on and moochers, receiving the benefits by proxy.
But they didn't belong, and God removed them, leaving only the remnant of faith.
So there was no benefit to "non-believing covenant members", because there was (and is) no such thing in reality, as God sees it.
Only from the perspective of outward administration can we speak of those who "appear to be covenant members but do not believe" -- a temporary and unstable state.
DW: I note that in none of the lexicons can I find that sperma or zera have any connotation other than blood relative. The AC promises were only spoken to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the later two are clearly his descendants. Am I missing anybody else to whom the promises were made (excepting, of course, Jesus - Gal 3:16)?
I'm very confused by this point. You say on the one hand that none of the lexicons allow anything but direct physical descent. But on the other, Galatians 3 affirms that we are "sperma" of Abraham, and you've been pointing out all along that we Gentiles aren't physically descended from Abraham.
So either the lexicons aren't giving you the full range of usage, or else some other issue is going on.
Otherwise, we would have to say that Paul means that we are physically descended from Abraham -- and that's self-evidently not the case.
With regard to whom the promises are made: the promises are made to Christ, and we participate in them through Him. That's the direct teaching of Gal 3.29.
Hi Jeff,
Just a quickie while I ponder what you have said. First, this is REALLY GREAT STUFF!
Now, don't jump to the conclusion that the previous stuff was . . . . well, you know what I mean.
I guess it was another bad allergy day. Sorry. Just be thankful that you don't live in my neck of the woods (east TN). We have more mold, mildew, pollen, etc. than almost anywhere else. But, it is beautiful.
Ephesians 1:11 εν ω και εκληρωθημεν . . (WHNU)
1:11 Also we have obtained an inheritance . . . (NASB)
1:11 In Christ we too have been claimed as God's own possession, . . . (NET)
I was triggered by κληρoω in 1:11. This is the word we keep seeing as inheritance. It appears that way in the NASB but not in the NET. That's been my point. It doesn't have to be familial.
See you soon (but not too soon).
OOHH, I feel dumb for relying on NIV and not checking the Greek.
You're right, I think. The NIV translates as "were called", taking εκληρωθημεν as a form of "καλεω." However, it appears to be alone in the English translations to do this.
(It's like John 3.16, μονογενης. Is that μονο+γενναω, "only begotten", or μονο+γινωμαι, "only one to come into being" or "one and only"?)
So now I understand: Eph 1.11 is "In him, we have also obtained an inheritance..."
So: what is the inheritance?
JRC
Good Morning Jeff,
JC: "OOHH, I feel dumb for relying on NIV and not checking the Greek."
DW: "THAT'S NOTHING COMPARED TO HOW DUMB I FEEL!!!"
Coincidences are always hard to explain and may be just that. OR...
Let me bore you with a little story triggered by your mention of μονογενης.
Yesterday, I came across your response and was just beginning to scan it (I have to read your responses several times to try to not miss your points). The door bell rang and it was two ladies with Bibles. One very pregnant and one from Viet Nam with difficulty speaking English. But, neither one was about to let anything stop them from doing God's work. There were also three people in the SUV waiting for them. I am always amazed by the commitment that these lost people show for a lie.
I declined their literature telling them that I had read it and that until we could agree on who Jesus was, I didn't plan to read any more. They protested that we both agreed that He was God's son and so we got to the meaning of son. GEEEE, we do that too. You aren't a Jehovah Witness Are you? ;)
The pregnant lady then asked if she could read Scripture to me. She went to Colossians 1:13 and began. When we got to 'firstborn' in 1:15 I pulled out the big guns. (Now this is where my feeling of utter foolishness should have begun!) I told her that that word, μονογενης, doesn't have anything to do with being born or created, etc. etc. I waxed eloquent.
Well, they said they had never met anybody who knew Greek. This really took the wind out of their sails and did give me the chance to tell them that they needed to stop depending on the writings of the Watchtower and find out for themselves what the Scriptures really teach. We parted in a very friendly manner joking about whether she was going to have twins or triplets.
I had trouble going to sleep last night. The interaction with these ladies kept coming to my mind. Alas, all seemed well until I got your post this morning. What a coincidence that you mention μονογενης! I was not aware of the two possible roots for it in John 3:16 and so I wanted to see if this was also a question in Colossians.
Well, of course not, since its πρωτοτοκος. Pride is such a terrible sin!!! Thank you for pointing that out to me; even if you had no idea that that was what you were doing.
And, yes I saw your question on inheritance.
Speaking of providential coincidences, the sermon in Church this morning by a visiting preacher was on Eph. 2.11 - 22. The preacher did not focus much on Jewish-Gentile issues, so our questions were not addressed. However, it did give me a chance to study the passage a bit.
Perhaps I'll write up a small exegetical bit and post it?
JRC
Hi Jeff,
While I am digesting your last response, I thought I would just dash off an attempt at 'inheritance.'
JC: Thank you for the extended work on Ephesians.
DW: Well, it may have been extended but it was not convincing ;) In particular, I was not able to explain to your satisfaction what the 'inheritance' is. Not being deterred, I press on toward the goal for the prize. . .
OK, let me try this on for size. I have taken the first 11 verses of Ephesians per the NASB and not changed any of the words. I have stripped out what I consider explanatory or descriptive material that clouds the main thought. (VERY SUBJECTIVE, AND DANGEROUS - I understand). I have tried to show by indentation (which doesn't seem to be working here) and line feeds what modifies what in what is left. Here's what I get:
Ephesians 1:
1
2
3 God has blessed us
with every spiritual blessing
in the heavenly [places]
in Christ,
4 He chose us in Him
before the foundation of the world,
that we should be holy and blameless
before Him.
In love
5 He predestined us to adoption
as sons
through Jesus Christ
to Himself,
6
7 In Him we have redemption
through His blood,
the forgiveness of our trespasses,
8
9
10 In Him
11 we have obtained an inheritance,
having been predestined,
My interpretation: Predestination shows up in verse 11 and is explained in verse 5. Thus, we have already obtained an inheritance which is predestination to adoption as His sons. It is an 'already -- not yet' reality. We are his sons now; but, when we receive our resurrected bodies and are with Christ we will be 'complete' sons.
This last part is not in Ephesians 1, it is introduced in 1 Peter 1:3-5 and then really explained in Romans 8:16-23:
1 Peter 1:3-5:
"3 Blessed be God
who has caused us to be born again to a living hope
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ
4 to [obtain] an inheritance
imperishable
undefiled
will not fade away
reserved in heaven for you,
5 who are protected by the power of God
through faith
for a salvation
ready to be revealed
in the last time."
Romans 8:16-23
16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit
that we are children of God,
17 and if children,
heirs also,
heirs of God and
fellow heirs with Christ,
18
19 For . . creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
20
21
22
23 we ourselves,
having the first fruits of the Spirit,
waiting eagerly for [our] adoption as sons,
the redemption of our body.
Also, Titus 3:5-7 tells us that we are heirs of eternal life. That is another way of describing the inheritance. And, one final way to understand this inheritance is that 'death is swallowed up in victory' as explained in 1 Cor 15:50-54.
Inheritance is what we have, eternal life. It is also what we will finally get when we receive imperishable, immortal bodies. Fire away.
Hi Jeff,
Acts 2
JC: Peter is here affirming that Joel's prophecy has come true
DW: Yes, we might indeed have some differences here! ;) I do wonder though how you understand the various 'time stamps' that exist in Joel along side these words. Has God yet poured out His Spirit on all mankind? And, what about the old men dreaming dreams? Does Acts tell us anything about this happening at Pentecost? How is Joel to be read? Do the words in Acts simply make all of this seeming detail moot? Surely God has not littered His word with details that were never really meant to be taken seriously? What could possibly have been the reason for giving all that detail about the land of Canaan when He really knew all along that He was going to give Abraham's descendants the whole world? Don't we need to come up with a sound reason before we just ignore the details as being apocryphal language? Does saying that God can surprise us with more really do His word justice?
JC: To sum up: Peter's audience is directed to consider God's promise for three groups: themselves, their children, and all who are far off.
DW: That could be (seriously); but, isn't there a simpler explanation that ought to be considered? The question that comes to mind is - To whom does the promise apply? Well, 'all the nations' is the best I can come up with. As we know, the Jews would have split this group into Jews and Gentiles? Gentiles are identified by Peter as 'all who are far off,' no? Not a particularly literal way of saying it, is it? So, why can't we allow him likewise to choose a somewhat figurative way of saying 'Jews?' What compels us to read more into his words that what is obvious?
So, how can Peter identify the rest to whom the promise applies, i.e., the Jews? Now, I think we can agree that the 'you' in v2:39 are 'Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven.' At best, these are just a small sample of the nation. Well, Peter chose to identify the Jews by 'you and your children.' Surely, he was not just considering those to whom he was talking? At a minimum, he must have also included the wives and servants and cousins and associates, etc. who these people knew. He just picked one way of saying the House of Israel. So, Peter is not being completely 'literal' here. Whether there are covenantal overtones here or not is really hard to support. But, there can be no doubt that he is at least saying that the promises are for Jews and Gentiles, no?
Now, you see 'covenant' in 'your children.' For me, that seems to stress the text. But, if that is what it means then it is the children of the Jews who are in view and not the children of the Gentiles. For Peter is not talking to 'descendants of Abraham' in the sense of those who have faith. At least, he has no way of knowing the heart of each of his listeners at this point in his message. So, when he says the promise is for you, he means all of the Israelites and not just the elect. Thus it is the children of all the Israelites he is identifying.
But, I am sure you see it as meaning Gentile children too? Isn't that a problem? That is unless the 'you' is really meant as 'God's people' and when the Gentiles become God's people their children are then in view also. I hear you; but, does it not take a lot of assumptions to bring this to fruition? In particular, this requires that zera in Genesis mean exactly the same thing as sperma in Galatians. And, we know that Paul is quite capable of using figurative language.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Ephesians
JC: If the Ephesians remain separate from Israel, then why does Paul bring it up?
DW: The simple answer is because there is now a Church. The Jew and Gentile were separated, both socially and spiritually, before the cross. Much more importantly, the Gentiles were separated from God. Ephesians addresses both aspects and shows that whatever divided them from Israelites or from God before is no longer in place. In fact, God has taken from each of these separated groups and created a new group. Both Jew and Gentile are fully integrated and equal in the Church.
Nowhere does the text say that the Gentiles have been brought into Israel in any sense whatsoever. The confusion, IMHO, comes from blending two ideas: 1) Israel was the people of God and now 2) the visible church is the people of God. Then comes the tacit assumption that God can have only one people. This is followed by the assumption that God has disowned Israel forever. The more correct assumption (again, IMHO) is that God primarily works through one people at any particular time in history.
We know that there were always Gentiles in the nation of Israel, God's people. The requirement placed on them was that they become Israelites. They had to come under the law and also be circumcised. In fact, this is one of the problems which Paul addressed in Galatians. Post cross, to become a child of God does not require first becoming a Jew. Naturally, Jews would have a hard time getting this.
Paul clearly says that there is a new group with no division between the Jew and the Gentile. What we also know is that Israel still exists and that Gentile peoples still exist outside of the Church. There are now three groups. The Church is the one people of God at this time; I think we both agree on that. What you seem to infer is that Israel has been disowned for all time. That the promises that were made to Israel have been transferred from one people of God to another, this new group, the Church. I just can't find where Scripture says that. And, this is not for want of looking.
JC: So: when Paul affirms our citizenship in Israel in Eph. 2, . . .
DW: I truly do not want to be argumentative; but, Paul does not say this in Ephesians 2. He says that there is no longer a wall of division between saved Jews and Gentiles.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC1: OK. So when I say that "Bob is a member of the AC", what I mean is that he is participating in the promise of the AC, by meeting the condition of the AC.
JC2: Paul says the same: we meet the condition (by being Abe's descendants), and there we receive the promise. That's it. Nothing more complicated than that.
DW: Yes, I agree with JC1. But, it creates a slippery slope which shows up in JC2. Once we have Bob as a 'member' and then Paul calls Bob a descendant, we have all we need to make Bob a covenant member in other respects too. That's not warranted by the information supplied in the text. The promise was not made to Bob. It was made to Abraham about Bob. But, being a member (descendant) makes Bob one to whom the promises were made. He is now really in the covenant. In fact, his children are now in it too. Sorry, but it just feels like a shell game to me.
JC: Obviously, in context, we aren't physically descended sons. But in regards to inheritance, we have the full rights of sons.
DW: As far as I can tell we are really in essentially complete agreement up to this point in the discussion. Certainly, there are 'rules' that guide what a physical heir receives due to being a descendant. We both agree that in the case of believers we are not discussing a physical relationship to Abraham. If so, then I just have to ask how you know that we who have 'true' sonship and not 'physical' sonship still abide by the rules applied to physical sonship? It is only those who have physical sonship (as well as election) who can also say that they are members of the covenant in the sense of inheriting from Abraham. They are the only ones who get the land. This does not change the fact that all the elect inherit from God and are explicitly said to be adopted by God. Something which is never said of Abraham.
JC: So just as Abraham received the covenant promise by faith -- for him, believing and participating in the covenant were one and the same -- so likewise, the same is true for us.
DW: Sorry; to equate us and Abraham is wrong. Yes, we share saving faith and that is a major similarity which can only be said of the elect. But, that's it. God made a whole lot of promises to Abraham that he did not make to the rest of us. The only thing that allows this idea of us being 'in the covenant' is Paul calling us descendants. And, there are enough differences between us and Isaac, for example, to say that we are not descendants in the same sense and should not expect to be treated in the same manner.
JC1: All who are in Christ, ARE sons of Abraham. Justification and the covenant are the same: "I will be your God."
JC2: The point of being a son of Abraham is that Abraham's people are God's people.
DW: Not so. The promise can be stated as you say, 'I will be your God.' But, that does not make one Abraham's people unless of course they are such. Can there be any doubt that all believers are God's people? On the other hand, Covenant Theology needs to go further and add the part about Abraham and covenant. It is not satisfied with just being God's people because that is what God promised Abraham. It also wants those who are not God's people (thru faith) to also be God's people through family relationship. While we agree on so much we just can't seem to bridge that gap. Oh, I almost forgot, there is the small matter of God making the New Covenant with Israel and not with Jesus.
Hi David,
About inheritance: I agree with you that the inheritance we are promised is eternal life. In addition to some of the verses you cited, we we could also consider the encounter of Jesus with the rich young ruler: "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" (thus Mark, Luke -- but Matthew simply has "have"). Given that not only Paul but a random Jewish man used the phrase "inherit eternal life", it is likely that eternal life was seen in Jewish culture as an inheritance.
(A grammatical aside. In Eph 1, you have "predestination" as the meaning of the inheritance. Grammatically, this is impossible. The phrase "having been predestined" προορισθεντες is an adverbial participle that modifies, rather than defines, "have obtained an inheritance." This aside does not detract from our overall agreement. Jus' sayin')
So now, what is eternal life? It's not a purely spiritual thing. Spiritually speaking, eternal life consists of knowing God -- and all of the attendant features, such as justification and sanctification.
But physically speaking, eternal life consists of receiving a new body at the eschaton and receiving the new heavens and new earth as a possession.
I think you agree with this, but I wanted to emphasize it because it prevents us from seeing our inheritance as a "purely spiritual" matter. Eternal life affects the whole man, spirit and body.
And likewise, we should not view the AC as a "purely physical" matter. The core of the AC was knowing God -- that is, receiving eternal life. This is why Abe is justified. This is why God is his very great reward.
The model that you have proposed is that the AC is a matter of physical descent and physical inheritance, while the ... covenant (what name do you give to the covenant under which the church operates?) is a matter of spiritual descent and spiritual inheritance.
But that model collapses because it turns out that the inheritance of the AC is *both* physical and spiritual; the inheritance of the church is *both* spiritual and physical.
It makes no sense to say that the church receives a spiritual inheritance when the inheritance includes a physical component.
So I hope we have agreement on two points here: the inheritance mentioned in the NT is none other than eternal life; and that inheritance is both spiritual and physical.
Concerning prophetic interpretation: In short, my approach is that if a NT author says, "This is what Joel was talking about", then I tend to take that at face value. If that requires a more figurative interpretation of the OT passage, then so be it -- especially if the OT passage is presented in apocalyptic language.
I recognize that this creates some problems for myself, such as "what do we do with Zechariah?", or "Why does Joel appear to present definite time stamps in his prophecy?"
But the alternative is to deny that the events in Acts 2 are the actual fulfillment of Joel -- and Peter is quite definite about that. I would rather err on the side of overfigurativizing passages in apocalyptic language, than to err on the side of overfigurativizing direct statements like, "this is what Joel was talking about."
Let me add one thing lest my approach to prophecy seem too glib. You asked,
DW: Does saying that "God can surprise us with more" really do His word justice?
The argument that "God can surprise us with more" is not intended as a hermeneutical principle. It is defense against the argument, "Covenant theology would have God renege on his promise to Abraham." In response to this, I've argued that God's promise to Abraham remains intact and is simply expanded, so that God's integrity is not in question.
The hermeneutical principle that is involved is that Scripture should be interpreted literally, or at face value, when possible.
That principle requires me therefore to defer to Peter when he says, "This is what Joel was saying" or to Paul when he says "You are all sons of Abraham", and not to seek a more metaphorical meaning of those direct pronouncements.
Obviously, though, the logic of that position requires me to take less literal interpretations of prophetic passages.
So I'm in a bind: I must either "literalize" the NT passages, and "figurativize" the OT; or I must do the opposite. But something is going to have to be figurative somewhere.
I've chosen to take Joel more figuratively; you've chosen to read "you are all sons of Abraham" more figuratively.
Even if you disagree with my particular choice, can you agree that our difference comes down to a choice about which passages have literal priority?
JRC: To sum up: Peter's audience is directed to consider God's promise for three groups: themselves, their children, and all who are far off.
DW: That could be (seriously); but, isn't there a simpler explanation that ought to be considered?
I think we're in the same ballpark. Clearly Peter wants to expand the circle of the Gospel to include the Gentiles.
The problem is that "you and your children" is not a known way of saying, "the Jews"; whereas "the far off ones" is a known way of saying the Gentiles. So we're still left with the problem, "Why does he say, 'your children'?"
DW: Nowhere does the text say that the Gentiles have been brought into Israel in any sense whatsoever. The confusion, IMHO, comes from blending two ideas: 1) Israel was the people of God and now 2) the visible church is the people of God. Then comes the tacit assumption that God can have only one people. This is followed by the assumption that God has disowned Israel forever.
Hm. I need to dissent here.
Let's start with the last statement. I don't recall saying that "God has disowned Israel forever." Have I said something that leads to that impression?
Now, the statement previous I would agree with: "God can only have one people." Partly, I would agree with this because of the passages we've already looked at.
Partly, I would agree with it because God's people, both Israel and then the Church, are called His "bride" -- and I'm not comfortable with God having two brides.
---
So we seem to disagree about whether the text of Eph 2 ways that Gentiles have been brought into Israel in any way whatsoever.
First, we would have to understand which "Israel" we are talking about.
(1) There is the tract of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean called "Israel"
(2) There was Jacob himself.
(3) There are all those descended from Jacob.
(4) There are all those who have the faith of Abraham.
(5) There was a geopolitical entity under the judges and then under Saul, David, and Solomon.
(6) There was the Northern kingdom after the rebellion.
(7) The two kingdoms together are sometimes called Israel also.
(8) And there is the modern nation called "Israel."
My claim is that God's promises were also and only to Israel #4, the True Israel -- and that we believing Gentiles have been incorporated into Israel #4.
I think you agree with incorporation under that definition, but you disagree that God's promises were given to True Israel.
---
Does Eph 2 say that Gentiles have been brought into Israel? Well, here's what Paul says:
"You were excluded from citizenship in Israel"
απηλλοτριωμενοι της πολιτειας του ισραηλ
"But (now) you are fellow citizens of the saints and of God's household."
αλλα εστε συμπολιται των αγιων και οικειοι του θεου
It must be the case that "you were excluded from citizenship" and "but now you are fellow citizens" are direct opposites of each other.
We therefore must conclude that "Israel" and "God's household" are being used as synonyms.
As long as we understand that "Israel" means "the True Israel", then I don't understand why this should be the least bit objectionable.
The same thing happens with the word "stranger":
"(at that time you were) strangers to the covenants of the promise"
ξενοι των διαθηκων της επαγγελιας
"Therefore now you are no longer strangers"
αρα ουν ουκετι εστε ξενοι
These sentences must be opposites of one another -- their position as strangers to the covenants of promise has ended, and their inclusion into the covenants of promise has occurred.
The interesting thing about the word ξενοι is that it had particular significance to the Greeks. A ξενοι was a barbarian, an alien, one who was not a citizen. So the citizenship πολιτειας and "no longer a stranger" are also synonymous here.
So I have to conclude that citizenship in Israel is directly here in the text. However, I'm not speaking of Israel #3, 5, or 8; but only of True Israel, those who have the faith of Abraham and are therefore the right recipients of the promise in the covenant.
About covenant membership: I agree with your analysis that once we accept covenant membership for Bob, we have to give him the rest.
And it doesn't really matter at that point whether the text directly affirms it or not. I think Gal 4.5 does directly affirm it, but even so, granting him the rest is a matter of simply logic once we confirm that Bob is a covenant member.
So why does that feel like a shell game to you? There aren't any hidden moves at all. We go simply like this:
* We are children of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.
* We identify "the promise" as the promise made to Abraham, "I will be your God" -- that is, that knowing God is our inheritance.
* We therefore conclude that we have been made members of his covenant, part of "the descendants" that God mentioned in his promise to Abraham.
Where's the sleight of hand?
DW: If so, then I just have to ask how you know that we who have 'true' sonship and not 'physical' sonship still abide by the rules applied to physical sonship? It is only those who have physical sonship (as well as election) who can also say that they are members of the covenant in the sense of inheriting from Abraham. They are the only ones who get the land.
Permit me to challenge this. How do we know that "only those who have physical sonship who can say that they are members of the covenant in the sense of inheriting from Abraham"?
I can see that you've inferred it from Gen 12, 15, 17, assuming that the text means "physical descendants (only)."
But does the rest of Scripture confirm this proposition? Haven't we already shown that some physical descendants don't inherit; and that some non-physical descendants do inherit?
And why is "getting the land" your certain marker of membership in the AC, as opposed to having God be one's God? I mean, Joshua did not possess the land to the extent promised and yet he was a member of the AC. Jews in the diaspora didn't even live anywhere near the land, but they were members of the AC.
So what's up with the fixation on land? To me, it seems like focusing on the minor issue (land) while ignoring the major issue (salvation). Yes, physical land fits nicely with the whole physical/spiritual division. But it's not the center of the covenant. God says, "*I* am your very great reward."
Doesn't focusing on the land and on physical descent run the risk of falling into the same error as the Pharisees, of wrongly assuming God's favor on the basis of parentage and circumcision?
DW: Sorry; to equate us and Abraham is wrong. Yes, we share saving faith and that is a major similarity which can only be said of the elect. But, that's it. God made a whole lot of promises to Abraham that he did not make to the rest of us.
A "whole lot"? Which ones? I can see that you would put forward the land promise. But are there any others?
DW: The only thing that allows this idea of us being 'in the covenant' is Paul calling us descendants.
And "heirs according to the promise", yes.
That should be enough. God made the promises to Abraham's descendants; Paul affirms that we are Abraham's descendants AND that we are heirs, according to the promise.
That's direct proof, unless the case can be made that Paul means something different by "descendant" than God meant in Genesis.
And, there are enough differences between us and Isaac, for example, to say that we are not descendants in the same sense and should not expect to be treated in the same manner.
Could you please enumerate those differences? I don't mean to be dense, but I just can't see any differences except those that result because he lived before the birth of Christ and we, after Christ's birth.
DW: On the other hand, Covenant Theology needs to go further and add the part about Abraham and covenant. It is not satisfied with just being God's people because that is what God promised Abraham.
I can see why it appears like "addition" from your perspective, because you see salvation and covenant as separate. But from our perspective, we aren't "adding" anything; we are simply affirming that being saved and being in the covenant are identical.
DW: It also wants those who are not God's people (thru faith) to also be God's people through family relationship.
Not exactly. The key to understanding covenantal ecclesiology is the distinction between inward reality and outward administration of the covenant.
All and only believers possess the inward reality of the covenant. They are the ones who have in fact inherited eternal life.
But outwardly, all who profess faith and their children are considered covenant members.
Basically, the recent food fight over the Federal Vision concerns how separate those two ideas are. The Thornwell Presbyterians keep a hard wall of separation between the two; the Murray branch tends to see more of a connection between the two; the Federal Vision sought to almost merge the two in the temporal sphere.
But we Presbies all agree that unbelieving church members are "covenant members" only from the perspective of the here-and-now, and will not in fact inherit eternal life.
Just like Esau. :)
DW: While we agree on so much we just can't seem to bridge that gap.
I'm OK with that, so long as we both continue to seek God's guidance through the Scripture, and continue to subject our views to the scrutiny of Scripture.
DW: Oh, I almost forgot, there is the small matter of God making the New Covenant with Israel and not with Jesus.
Yes, I don't quite understand that. I would think that 1 Cor 11.25 would falsify that view: they are partaking of the cup, certainly; and that cup is (a symbol of) the New Covenant; and therefore their participation in the cup is (a symbol of) their participation in the New Covenant.
At least, that's way the entire Church -- RCC, Protestant, EOC -- has taken it for two millennia! :)
JRC
Hi Jeff,
Hope all is well with you and the family.
JC: At least, that's way the entire Church -- RCC, Protestant, EOC -- has taken it for two millennia! :)
DW: I do hope you are not advocating our acceptance of every new idea that just happens to come down the pike? ABSOLUTELY JUST KIDDING.
Furthermore, relax, this is not a response to your last series that might require a response from you. I just wanted to tell you how very honored and blessed and appreciative I am of your efforts. On the surface, this might just look like a point, counter-point exchange. To me, it is so much more. Thank you very much.
David,
Thanks for the well-wishes. We just got back from a wedding in PA.
I'm glad that this is helpful for you. It is for me also. Because I'm on the "proposing" side of things -- proposing Covenant theology, that is -- I've been concerned that I not come across as "knowing it all" or such. I trust that you'll let me know if that happens.
Grace and peace,
Jeff
Hi Jeff,
You have mentioned a couple of times now your concern about 'seeming to know it all.' I do not perceive this in your writings. What I perceive is a man of God with outstanding gifts who has frim, well grounded beliefs. A very rare person in my neck of the woods! As for me, I do worry that my sinful nature will give offense in these exchanges. Do let me know when I fall.
On a totally unrelated subject; but, certainly another one of your areas of expertise (and no; not the butterfly), I would be appreciative of any resource suggestions. Our church's AWANA team wants to start a new class for high schoolers. I have been asked to design and direct the activity. So, while I know what material to cover (the Word of God) I don't know how best to reach high school age people? It seems to me that I did attend high school once; but, that is about all I remember about it. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Now to the task at hand:
JC: The phrase "having been predestined" προορισθεντες is an adverbial participle that modifies, rather than defines, "have obtained an inheritance
DW: Not that I am defensive or anything like that . . . First, my wording was sloppy. The inheritance is not predestination; we are together on that. On the other hand, isn't προορισθεντες an adjectival participle modifying 'we?'
JC: The model that you have proposed is that the AC is a matter of physical descent and physical inheritance, while the ... covenant (what name do you give to the covenant under which the church operates?) is a matter of spiritual descent and spiritual inheritance.
DW: I know that it is not an issue with anybody that the Church operates under the NC. That is, except me. Even the Dispy's talk about first the Church and then Israel under the NC. So, I am aware that I am treading on very, very thin ice. Even my wife and I who are in absolute lock step on every Biblical issue can't quite get there on the NC. I hope to probe this at some point with you to try to see where I am going wrong. The way I would say it is that the Church does not operate under a covenant; but, rather under the headship of Christ.
Further, I would not say that the Abrahamic Covenant is a matter of physical descent. Surely, there are physical aspects. Even Jesus being born to Abraham's descendants is 'physical.' Yet it is all about God's glory, Jesus, and man spending eternity with God. That has to be called spiritual. And, oh yes, there is the matter of a few people possessing some insignificant land for a while.
JC: So I hope we have agreement on two points here: the inheritance mentioned in the NT is none other than eternal life; and that inheritance is both spiritual and physical.
DW: Yes to the first but a 'not so sure' for the second. I really don't have a grasp on the composition of our resurrected bodies. But, according to 1 Cor 15:42ff it seems to be spiritual and not physical. As to eternal life, I think of it as God, Himself. We have it when He places us 'in Him.'
Joel and Acts
I am aware that the Joel passage and Peter quoting it have been discussed by much greater minds than mine for a long time. But, I will pursue it a little more because a) I am a fool, or b) I'm hoping that you can help me understand my error. You seem to summarize your view by "So I'm in a bind: I must either "literalize" the NT passages, and "figurativize" the OT; or I must do the opposite. But something is going to have to be figurative somewhere." I would like to try to show you that an either / or choice is not required here. In the process, maybe you can straighten me out.
JC: if a NT author says, "This is what Joel was talking about", then I tend to take that at face value.
DW: Yes, this is exactly what we all should do. Seriously.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: (1) Peter is here affirming that Joel's prophecy has come true -- in fact, that the "day of the Lord" spoken of in Joel 2.31 is at hand. . . .
DW: Joel's prophesy starts in verse 1:1 and continues for 3 chapters. [Wow, what insight!] What Peter has done is take a few verses out of that context. In fact, I think there is a strong indication that he knew exactly what he was doing (now that ought not to be a surprise!) in that he starts his 'quote' differently from Joel. Even the LXX, has Joel 2:28 starting with και εσται μετα ταυτα. Nothing about the 'last days' as in Acts 2:17. In Joel, there is a very specific connection to what has gone before; In Peter's case, he blurs the time element. So, Peter is not simply quoting Joel. He is making a point by using what Joel said. Right away, there is an indication that we better go carefully or we may misunderstand what Peter is saying.
The 'quote' addresses:
a) spirit outpouring (and attendant visible signs of that),
b) signs and wonders to happen BEFORE the day of the Lord, and
c) Salvation for believers. In the context of Joel, these believers are the remnant of God's judgment on Israel. But, in Peter, these same people are not in view, as far as I can tell.
Some observations:
1) Peter is not talking about the time period that Joel is addressing. Peter is talking about right then, Pentecost.
2) Peter is not talking about the same people as Joel. Peter is talking about Jews right there who are acting like 'drunkards' but they are not 'all' flesh. The people who he is talking about and who are heavily under the influence of the HS are just a small segment of Israelite 'flesh.'
3) The reference here in both Joel and Peter to the 'Day of the Lord' is only with regard to signs to occur BEFORE that day and not to any indication of the actual day. In point of fact, there is no indication in Acts that any of these signs happened on Pentecost. How then can we be sure that Acts has anything to do with the 'Day of the Lord?' Pentecost was an outpouring of the HS, a blessing; the Day of the Lord is a time of judgment, no?
4) It has always been true that 'all (with saving faith) who call on the Lord' will be saved.
I am not anxious to confuse our discussion by bringing in politics. BUT, . . . ;) Bill Clinton is not a particular favorite of mine; but, I do think he is a very smart man. When he said " . . . it all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." he was saying something very important. Just replace 'is' with 'this' (Acts 2:16) and I think we may have something.
So, what does 'this' reference? Your answer seems to be 'the prophesy of Joel that Peter quotes.' Well, first off, it is out of context since Peter obviously does not quote all of Joel here. But, you knew that.
Peter is addressing a problem, i.e., the people are confused by what they are seeing. Verses 2:4-8 tells this to us. Peter's 'quote' is, at a minimum, a solution to this problem. And, in verse 2:33 he confirms this and explains how the one who they killed has responded.
2:33 "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear.
This is the 'this.' All that Peter is trying to explain is right here. God promised Jesus the HS and Jesus has in turn poured out the HS on these people and they are talking 'strangely' and that is what you are hearing and seeing. They are not drunk. So then, with this as a backdrop, Peter explains that they should repent etc. and they too can be saved. They too can receive the HS; but, most likely is a less visible manner! There is absolutely no need to take either Joel or Acts figuratively. They both explain themselves very well in a 'literal' sense. This is what it looks like when God pours out His Spirit in a visible manner. A rare occurrence; but, not a once only occurrence.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: Even if you disagree with my particular choice, can you agree that our difference comes down to a choice about which passages have literal priority?
DW? I think it is about figuring out what the author intended the message to be. Where that lands one on the figurative - literal axis is not critical. We know that normal language contains figurative expressions. But, what did the author want us to hear? Now, that's hard because we all have so many presuppositions well below the surface.
Gentiles into Israel
JC: I would agree with: "God can only have one people." . . . Partly, I would agree with it because God's people, both Israel and then the Church, are called His "bride" -- and I'm not comfortable with God having two brides.
DW: Well, we are right back into the figurative / literal soup. I am pretty clear on what it means for Alice to be Ralph's bride or wife. For the nation of Israel to be God's wife is a little more difficult for me to grasp. At any rate, I need some help here.
My understanding is that Israel is pictured as God's wife; not his betrothed; not His bride. On the other hand, I see the Church (the real, invisible one) being pictured as Jesus' bride. That is until Rev 21 where she is finally called his wife. But, it is only then (after the rapture and marriage of the Lamb) that the Church is called Jesus' and not God the Father's wife. Have I got this wrong? If not, then there is no need to worry about God having two brides and the idea of two different 'people of God' need not be troublesome.
JC: My claim is that God's promises were also and only to Israel #4, the True Israel -- and that we believing Gentiles have been incorporated into Israel #4.
DW: Very nice list. When we say Israel we indeed could have any of these 8 definitions in mind. So that listing is quite helpful.
Now as to Israel #4. The problem I have is that the Scriptures never identifies such an entity. (Let me hasten to add that I am fully aware that Scripture does not use the term 'Trinity' either. So, that is not my point.) I know of no place in Scripture where the group of people who are of the faith of Abraham (FOA) are collectively called Israel. Surely, the true Israelites that Paul refers to in Romans 9 all have the FOA; surely, believing Gentiles are those with the FOA. Even Noah had the FOA and Abraham was not yet even alive.
Based on Romans 9, I see Jacob's physical descendants (in the wide sense of household) who have the FOA as the only ones who could possibly be considered as members of Israel #4. Thus, I just don't see how Gentiles can be part of Israel #4. Now, I would agree to call the group of all those throughout history who have the FOA Gorgol or maybe Mernix; just not Israel. For, I can not see how that does anything but introduce confusion.
Since a picture is worth a thousand words (give or take a few) I have sent you one via e-mail which I hope will clarify why I don't see Israel #4 actually existing as an entity. If I knew how to put a graphic on your web page, I would have done that and not clogged up your inbox. Let me know if the graphic helps or if you find any errors.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: It must be the case that "you were excluded from citizenship" and "but now you are fellow citizens" are direct opposites of each other.:
DW: Possibly; but, first let me deal with the logic here. If some thing is A, and then that thing is said to change and now be B, is there a requirement that B == not A? Is there really a requirement on the relationship of A and B other than time?
There is at least one other interpretation that, IMHO, ought to be considered. First, no Gentile was ever excluded from citizenship in Israel! That is, if they would first become a Jew through either marriage (Ruth) or circumcision or by being a female family member of one who received circumcision. So, either Paul is wrong (not possible) or this phrase does not mean what it seems to be saying.
However, it was true that Jews did not have much regard for Gentiles. (My guess is that the feeling was mutual.) In fact, God told Jews to remain separated from Gentiles. Thus generally speaking Gentiles were excluded from national Israel and were not part of the group of people known as Israelites. So the first phrase is simply providing a factual assessment of the situation regarding the general hostility or split between these two people groups, no?
Now we get to the second phrase. Surely we agree that Gentiles are fellow citizens of God's household. But, what is 'God's household?' You say "We therefore must conclude that "Israel" and "God's household" are being used as synonyms." This assertion simply can not be supported by this verse. My reason for being so strong in this is that 1 Timothy 3:15 tells us in the most direct manner possible that the 'household of God' is nothing other than the Church. And, Israel is not the Church. But, Israel #4, as you have defined it and which is not identified in Scripture, does, in fact, contain only those with the FOA. But, if we call Israel #4 Gorgol, we have no confusion. Of course, it already has a name and doesn't need Gorgol. It is already called the Church.
OK, then who are 'the saints?' Well, if this doesn't refer to believers who are part of the body of Christ, then I have no idea who it could be. So, there is no Israel #4 in view here. It is the Church. Gentiles and Jews are fellow members. No dividing wall exists between them because there is no longer any Law of Moses to separate them. They were separated but now are one body. And, again, there is no indication that the Gentiles somehow became part of Israel.
Paul has described the Church as a new creation that is made up of Jew and Gentile. When Israel was prominent as 'God's people' there was enmity between Jew and Gentile. Now that God household is the Church (for now, anyway), Gentiles are full equal members. Paul is not using Israel here as Israel #4. He is using Israel here as Israel #7.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Shell game ?
JC: We are children of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.
DW: I assume you are referring here to Galatians 3:29? I have been unable to 'prove' that this is a figurative meaning that Paul is carrying along in the chapter and that the last phrase, provides a simple explanation of his meaning. We are Abraham's offspring/descendants in the sense that we, like him, have inherited eternal life through faith as God promised. Part of the 'slight of hand' (please don't take offense) is to take the explained figurative reading out of context and then read it back elsewhere with a more literal meaning.
Regarding the promise? I say the gospel, the one about all the nations. The one that would not make any sense to Abraham until he read the NT. The promise is not any of the other promises in the AC, i.e., blessing / fruitfulness for Abraham, blessing for his household (those with the FOA or not), lineage to the Messiah and finally, to be their God. Note, He does not promise that any of Abraham's descendants will be given the FOA.
I think Exodus 3:10 may be helpful in explaining my problem with your paradigm.
Exodus 3:10 "Therefore, come now, and I will send you to Pharaoh, so that you may bring My people, the sons of Israel, out of Egypt."
The verse talks about the sons of Israel. Well which version of Israel should be seen here? Based on what I have heard you say about the focus of the AC, I would conclude that you would say Israel #4. The only way that can be supported though is to take some NT verses out of context and apply them back here. Clearly, we know that God took a lot of people (most of them?) out of Egypt that did not have the FOA. But, He calls them all 'My people.' He does this so very many times in the OT when we know they are not mainly of the FOA. So, in the OT this does not have to mean in a salvific sense as it so clearly does in the NT.
JC: We therefore conclude that we have been made members of his covenant, part of "the descendants" that God mentioned in his promise to Abraham.
DW: Yes, but this is not required. God was the God of Abraham and his descendants. No question about that. Most of them did not possess the FOA and they were 'members' of the covenant.
But, for us who have the FOA to conclude we must be members of that covenant simply does not follow. The only way he mentioned 'us' is in 'all the nations' which is a different promise than the one to his descendants. One more try. If 'all the nations' is not the promise to you, then why is it mentioned as being the gospel. Aren't you saying that all that would have been needed for your salvation is there without it?
I know you know this very well; but, I just have to repeat it. The context defines the meaning.
The AC or the Covenant
JC: But does the rest of Scripture confirm this proposition? Haven't we already shown that some physical descendants don't inherit; and that some non-physical descendants do inherit?
DW: God removed Ishmael and Esau. Those are the only ones I am aware of who don't inherit. All non-physical descendants (which are only those with the FOA) inherit. But, they are only 'descendants' because in a few places Paul uses figurative language to make the point he is actually trying to make and is not there trying to make any point regarding descendancy in the normal sense.
JC: And why is "getting the land" your certain marker of membership in the AC, as opposed to having God be one's God?
DW: Only a very few of those who were ever in the AC are going to inherit the land. The point is that God promised a time of complete rest and prominence to this people. That is why it is important. As I hope I showed above, the reprobate nation of Israel was God's people. You and I are redeemed members of God's people. Two very different meanings of God's people. Context is again crucial.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: God says, "*I* am your very great reward."
DW: Positively. But, those who ultimately get the land, also happen to get God because they will all have the FOA. You and I don't need the land; at some point, they won't either.
JC: Doesn't focusing on the land and on physical descent run the risk of falling into the same error as the Pharisees, of wrongly assuming God's favor on the basis of parentage and circumcision?
DW: I do not have any inclination to think that God favors on the basis of parentage or circumcision. But, He does have a plan and it turns out that at some point, all those remaining who are descended from Israel and who are of a circumcised household, will receive the FOA and a rather insignificant piece of land.
JC: That's direct proof, unless the case can be made that Paul means something different by "descendant" than God meant in Genesis.
DW: I hate animal cruelty. So, I really want to resist beating that dead horse. I think the NT context defines 'descendant' very differently than it is used in Genesis. Obviously my reasons have not been persuasive.
JC: we are simply affirming that being saved and being in the covenant are identical.
DW: I know. I just don't know what covenant you are in? I know you are saved and have the FOA. I know your family is blessed by your being in this state. But, I don't know if any of them have the FOA. (I certainly hope thEy all do!!!) But, I don't see how any un-named covenant might help any of you??? It is only God's good pleasure and not anything of yourselves that are going to result in your possession of the FOA. And, just because you have that does not make you any closer to Abraham. But, it surely gets you closer to God.
JC: But we Presbies all agree that unbelieving church members are "covenant members" only from the perspective of the here-and-now, and will not in fact inherit eternal life.
DW: Yes, I know you agree on that. There were/are AC covenant members who were/are only such in the here-and-now. I see nothing in Scripture about people being in the Church in the here-and-now only. Paul makes it oh so clear that he is only writing to the Saints; not, that he is writing to covenant members.
JC: I would think that 1 Cor 11.25 would falsify that view.
DW: That passage talks about the blood of the NC. It is the blood that is needed to ratify the covenant. Without that blood the NC could not be put into effect someday. The verse does not say anything about the NC itself or to whom it applies. Although we (well, maybe just me) know that it applies to a relatively small group of true Israelites.
But, the Church is to remember the meaning (for the Church) of Christ's death through this sacrament. From the point of view of the Church the main thing is that His death enables us to receive eternal life. We don't need anything promised by the NC; we just need the blood, the payment, His death, the ransom, etc.
It just so happens that we get every spiritual blessing by being in Him, not by being in the NC. [A real question: Does Paul ever mention the NC with regard to the blessings the Church receives? If so, then I am not aware of that fact.] Jesus was talking to Jews; they well knew what the NC was. Jesus does not say that He is initiating the NC. The Church is not told to rejoice in being in the NC through participation in the sacrament.
Israel will receive many spiritual blessings when God enacts the NC with them. Whether the blessings are all the same as ours or not, I can't be sure. But, there are plenty to go around and both groups, Israel and the Church, will lack nothing.
Hi David,
Thanks for the diagram and your posts. I'll be AFK for a bit, so bear with me.
Jeff
DW: Our church's AWANA team wants to start a new class for high schoolers. I have been asked to design and direct the activity. So, while I know what material to cover (the Word of God) I don't know how best to reach high school age people?
Here are my thoughts (from the perspective of teaching middle school SS):
(1) Work at creating an environment of community with Eph. 4 and Rom 14 as the underpinnings. It probably works best to be implicit rather than explicit about it.
So for instance, my co-teacher and I set aside 10 min every Sunday for taking, writing down, and praying for the prayer requests for the week. We also get the kids involved in (small) service projects. And we work at fostering an attitude in the kids of supportiveness towards one another.
All of that may seem "froofy", but our culture actively undermines real fellowship, and we've decided to put energy into bucking that trend.
(2) If it's an AWANA class, then there will be a lot of memorization and such. Some kids are better than others at it, and by high school, the difference can be really large. If that's the case, think about ways to encourage the lower end.
(3) Help them put it together into a big picture. We sometimes take for granted the developmental change that takes place as we move into adulthood, the ability to step out and see the bigger picture. High school students, on average, are still learning that process. Help them out -- charts, outlines, etc.
(4) Be gospel-centered in your teaching. Our world alternates between license and legalism, and many Christians try to find a "happy medium" between the two. There is no such thing -- license and legalism are both manifestations of the flesh; the fruit of the Spirit is a result of keeping in step with the Spirit by faith.
So the gospel continues to be relevant for those who are already Christians as we trust God to change us by the power of His Spirit. Make sure that the kids understand that we never "get past" the cross and needing Jesus.
I'm writing #4 in condensed form, but if you're interested in this I can recommend some titles to you.
JRC
Let's tackle some small points first.
DW: On the other hand, isn't προορισθεντες an adjectival participle modifying 'we?'
I would defer to more professional opinions here, but my take is that προορισθεντες is used to describe When -- that is, "after having been predestined" -- which is an adverbial function. Thus, the participle follows directly after the verb.
If Paul had intended "We who have been chosen", the adjectival meaning, then I *think* he would have written it as
εκληρωθημεν οι προορισθεντες
or
εκληρωθημεν ημεις προορισθεντες
But again, if you have more expert knowledge available on this, I'm always eager to improve the Greek.
---
DW: I really don't have a grasp on the composition of our resurrected bodies. But, according to 1 Cor 15:42ff it seems to be spiritual and not physical.
I share your lack of exact knowlege. However, the same passage emphasizes that our bodies will be like Jesus' body.
It is a profoundly important fact that Jesus' resurrection body was not merely "spiritual", as if he were a ghost, but physical also. Thus Paul argues that there is a real, physical resurrection from the dead after the pattern of Jesus' resurrection, and thus the victory over death is Real, encompassing both spiritual and physical aspects of our being. The early Church shed a lot of ink on this issue fighting against the Gnostic teaching that salvation was a spiritual matter only.
That said, the "spiritual body" of Jesus is of a different quality from the "natural body" of Adam -- but this quality is not along the axis of physical v. non-physical, but rather of natural v. supernatural. That is, "πνευματικος" is usually used by Paul to mean "of the Spirit" rather than "non-physical."
Both are bodies; but the second s(S)piritual body is (somehow!) not subject to decay and corruption.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
JC: Here are my thoughts (from the perspective of teaching middle school SS):
DW: OOOOPs, I thought you were a high school teacher. Sorry. No matter. Your inputs are exellent (as expected) and I will definitely keep them in mind as things move forward. Thank you for your efforts.
JC: However, the same passage emphasizes that our bodies will be like Jesus' body.
DW: I was wrong to say that the body is not 'physical.' You have said it much better. Certainly it is like Jesus' resurrected body. In what sense it is not 'just spiritual' I don't know. To imply that it is not 'real' but rather 'ghostly' is definitely not my intention. Natural vs. supernatural is just fine with me. And, I look forward to the 'no decay / no corruption' part with great anticipation!
JC: But again, if you have more expert knowledge available on this, I'm always eager to improve the Greek.
DW: Well, up to this point, I was basing my comments on my reading of the NASB and looking at the Greek. But, since I'd like agreement on at least the small points, then I wrote to a Greek list and just got a response from one of the guru's there. Note that in the end, while she has made a choice, she is tentative!
Here's the response from Elizabeth Kline:
On Aug 10, 2009, at 8:54 AM, Carol & David Weiner wrote:
> In the first part of Ephesians 1:11, can we determine if the participle PROORISQENTES modifies the verb, EKLHRWQHMEN, and thus is adverbial in function or the subject (we) and thus is adjectival in function?
it is customary to cite the text.
11 EN hWi KAI EKLHRWQHMEN PROORISQENTES KATA PROQESIN TOU TA PANTA ENERGOUNTOS KATA THN BOULHN TOU QELHMATOS AUTOU 12 EIS TO EINAI hHMAS EIS EPAINON DOXHS AUTOU TOUS PROHLPIKOTAS EN TWi CRISTWi.
One question is word order. The aorist circumstantial participle will often, not always, be found prior to the main verb, quote from Greenlee 1986:58 who quotes Burton:
"Let us discuss first the aorist circumstantial participle, since it is the more subject to misunderstanding and mistranslation. Actually, as Burton (1900:173–174) correctly states, “It is…often equivalent to a coordinate verb with καí [‘and’].” It differs from a temporal participle in that it gives new information, whereas a temporal participle implies that the information is known and uses that information to give a time relationship for the leading verb. The aorist circumstantial participle “[n]ormally precedes the leading verb in word order [and] describes an action coordinate with, prior to, and of the same mood semantically as the leading verb.…It gives new information.” (Greenlee 1986:58)."
The question is one posed by the traditional framework which imposes either/or decisions which often just befuddle the exegete to no good purpose. I read through 1:1-14 to get the drift. It seems to me that Paul [the author] is most likely at this point to be describing a state of being, the main thrust of the PROORISQENTES being adjectival. But this isn't strictly based on syntax, which in this case is ambiguous. It is derived from principles of relevance.
3 EULOGHTOS hO QEOS KAI PATHR TOU KURIOU hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU, hO EULOGHSAS hHMAS EN PASHi EULOGIAi PNEUMATIKHi EN TOIS EPOURANIOIS EN CRISTWi, 4 KAQWS EXELEXATO hHMAS EN AUTWi PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU EINAI hHMAS hAGIOUS KAI AMWMOUS KATENWPION AUTOU EN AGAPHi, 5 PROORISAS hHMAS EIS hUIOQESIAN DIA IHSOU CRISTOU EIS AUTON, KATA THN EUDOKIAN TOU QELHMATOS AUTOU, 6 EIS EPAINON DOXHS THS CARITOS AUTOU hHS ECARITWSEN hHMAS EN TWi HGAPHMENWi.
Note how many times hHMAS appears in 3-6
hO EULOGHSAS hHMAS
4 KAQWS EXELEXATO hHMAS
EINAI hHMAS hAGIOUS
PROORISAS hHMAS
ECARITWSEN hHMAS
With this in mind, I would prefer to read (tentative) v.11 EN hWi KAI EKLHRWQHMEN PROORISQENTES as having an implied pronoun qualified by PROORISQENTES. This is nothing more than thinking out loud (e-text = speech act).
Oh, that was probably confusing given my Blogger profile.
I teach HS math and science, but MS Sunday School at my church.
---
Elizabeth's take on προορισθεντες was enlightening. Thanks for taking the time to do that.
From her reply, I gather that the "traditional framework" of adjectival v. adverbial is not the way that such things are classified at the expert level.
JRC
OK, I'm going to talk about methodology for a bit. Before that, a couple of points of agreement:
(1) I'm happy (I think) to concede that προορισθεντες makes sense as modifying the subject "as a state of being." As long as we agree that the usual translation, "having been predestined" (what the traditional paradigm would classify as adverbial!), is a reasonable and not misleading translation.
(2) Although I lapse into the language of "literal" and "figurative", I agree with you that those two terms are really on a continuum, and that the real goal is to determine the intent of the author. (In fact, authorial intent used to be the meaning of the word "literal" -- as in "literary").
Earlier in reference to Joel you said,
DW: Bill Clinton is not a particular favorite of mine; but, I do think he is a very smart man. When he said " . . . it all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." he was saying something very important. Just replace 'is' with 'this' (Acts 2:16) and I think we may have something.
President Clinton's statement provides a profound illustration of a particular kind of fallacy that I think is at play (sorry!) in your method.
We remember with the help of Wikipedia that Clinton's statement came about because of the Starr investigation into Whitewater. As a result, a possible sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinski surfaced.
When he was then pressed on this issue at the grand jury deposition, the following exchange occurred:
BY MR. WISENBERG:
Q: Mr. President, I want to, before I go into a new subject area, briefly go over something you were talking about with Mr. Bittman. The statement of your attorney, Mr. Bennett, at Paula Jones deposition, "Counsel is fully aware" – it's page 54, line 5 – "Counsel is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed, has an affidavit which they are in possession of saying that there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton". That statement is made by your attorney in front Judge Susan Webber Wright, correct?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: That's correct.
Q: That statement is a completely false statement.
Whether or not Mr. Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the statement that there was "no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton," was an utterly false statement. Is that correct?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. If the – if he – if "is" means is and never has been that is not – that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.
Let's analyze this in slow motion.
Mr. Clinton latches onto the fact that the word "is" has several possible meanings. He chooses the meaning of that word that is most favorable to his cause, without considering whether the context supports his chosen meaning.
This is known as a shifting ground fallacy.
In Mr. Clinton's case, the fallacy was a deliberate attempt to evade the truth. It is clear that Ms. Lewinsky's denial was intended to mean that "no sexual relating has occurred between the President and myself." Clinton shifts the ground and attempts to make "is" refer only to the present time.
Lexically, this is a plausible meaning of "is." Contextually, it is impossible. Thus, the shifting ground fallacy, for which Clinton was eventually censured by the judge and fined $90k.
(cont.)
Now before I focus on the role of the Shifting Ground Fallacy in our discussion, I want to make absolutely clear that I do NOT suspect for a second that you are arguing in bad faith as the President was.
Nor do I hold myself to be fallacy-free; in fact, I may well unintentionally commit this same fallacy in some of my arguments! (Can you tell it's getting warm and sweaty over here?)
On we go ...
---
The common thread that I see in your arguments is that you shift ground with the meaning of words, choosing the possible meaning that is most favorable to your cause, then asserting that this possible meaning is the meaning, without further supporting contextual argument. Informally, we might call this the "Amplified Bible Fallacy", the practice of readers of the Amplified Bible of taking whichever possible meaning they prefer rather than the one that is required by context.
Let's consider the issue of the New Covenant.
The evidence that believers, Jew and Gentile alike, are currently members of the New Covenant, is clear and has been persuasive to the Church for millennia.
First, Jesus identifies the cup of communion as "the New Covenant in His blood, poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
It is undeniable that Christians are to participate in communion, taking part in this cup.
Thus, by means of symbol (or something stronger!) the Christian participates in the New Covenant.
Your response to this argument is that the Church has Jesus, and thus remembers Jesus through communion; but the fact that Jesus calls the communion cup, "The New Covenant in my blood" is merely incidental.
This is a shifting ground fallacy. Jesus established the meaning of the cup ("New Covenant in my blood"); you propose a new meaning ("remembrance of Jesus") and assert that this new meaning is the true meaning.
To assert this new meaning requires additional supporting evidence; you need something to confirm your view that the Church's participation in communion is something other than what Jesus said it was.
But 1 Cor 11 is of no help to you; in fact, Paul reaffirms the "New Covenant" meaning of communion. The fact that Paul also calls communion a "proclamation of the Lord's death" does not support a continuing argument "...rather than the New Covenant" -- that's a Disjunctive Fallacy.
The only supporting evidence that you bring is that the New Covenant in Jeremiah is only promised to Israel, and that it is associated with Israel's restoration.
But the force of that evidence depends upon Jeremiah's prophecy being limited to Israel -- and that's by no means obvious. And in fact, it's quite a disputed point.
So we have a proposed new meaning for communion, supported by one very ambiguous piece of evidence.
This is not enough, IMO, to go against the united collective wisdom of the Church.
(cont.)
Second, the book of Hebrews affirms that those who are forgiven of their sins are a part of the New Covenant:
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. -- Heb 9.15.
Your response to this is that Gentiles are indeed forgiven of their sins, through the death of Jesus, who is in fact our high priest -- but just not under the New Covenant; instead, it is under some other arrangement. Even though Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant, you say, that doesn't mean that Hebrews is actually saying that anyone is in the New Covenant! The author to the Hebrews doesn't use the words "You are members of the New Covenant", so he might not mean that ... and so he doesn't mean it.
Again, your analysis jumps from a possible reading of the words to the bare assertion that this is what the words mean.
Again we see the Shifting Ground: On most reasonable readings, the author to the Hebrews is describing to his audience how they have been forgiven under the promised New Covenant (hence the quotation of Jer. 31 in Heb. 8). You take the absence of the words "You are in the New Covenant" to mean that the author is not actually teaching that the New Covenant has started yet.
On what evidence? Again, it comes down to the assertion that Jer 31 requires the NC to apply only Israel and only after her millennial restoration to the land.
What if your reading of Jer 31 is too limiting? Doesn't that completely undercut your whole case against the current NC?
In short, you have chosen a reading of Hebrews 9 that is favorable to your position, but has little evidence to support it and that fits poorly with the surrounding context.
Let me stop here and ask whether this close critique is helpful?
JRC
Hi Jeff,
JC: Let me stop here and ask whether this close critique is helpful?
DW: Very helpful. I know that neither of us has any conscious intention of including fallacies in our positions. So, if you believe you see one in mine, I am quite pleased to have you point that out. Alas, I seem to be committing the Shifting Ground Fallacy, the Amplified Bible Fallacy, and the Disjunctive Fallacy! Where to begin??? :)
You raise an interesting point (one of many) regarding picking meanings to support prior conclusions. I too see this as a real risk. One that I am sure neither of us wishes to make. I sincerely desire to know when I seem to be guilty of this.
Alas, the real problem you are having is not that I pick a meaning with which you differ; but, rather that I am not providing 'further supporting contextual argument.' Please, ask for it. It may not be obvious; but, I am concerned about keeping these responses as short as possible to minimize the burden of your having to deal with a lot of verbiage. So, often I will leave out reasoning and just provide my conclusions.
If either one of us is guilty of the 'shifting ground fallacy' (SGF) then it ought to be possible to first identify the word or concept in question and then state a definition to which we will adhere. Then, should either of us move to either side of the agreement, it ought to be obvious, no? At this point, I don't think we have taken the first step which would then allow one of us to actually commit the falacy.
JC: The evidence that believers, Jew and Gentile alike, are currently members of the New Covenant, is clear and has been persuasive to the Church for millennia.
DW: Quite possibly I am the only one to whom it is not clear. And, yes, I understand what that implies! :) Thus, a proponent of majority rule might conclude that he had already won the day. I have just finished studying a fairly comprehensive 1998 article which purports to lay out the majority Dispensational view regarding the relationship of the Church and the NC. I don't agree with it's conclusions. So, maybe I am not a dispy after all! Or, maybe I am just a nutcase???
JC: It is undeniable that Christians are to participate in communion, taking part in this cup.
DW: YES: BUT. Jesus gives the direction regarding the bread and wine to his disciples. They are not Apostles. They are not leaders of the non-existent Church. They are not yet even indwelt by the Holy Spirit. They certainly are not leaders of the 'Jewish Church.' And, none of them have written any inspired texts yet either.
So, all of His disciples should do this. It turns out that true Christians are indeed His disciples. So, your statement is right for them. And, many of them are church members. On the other hand, He does not give this direction TO the Church. Contrary to Covenant Theology, Israel was not the Church before the cross. Of course, they were 'A' church as is any assembly. (Is this the SGF?) There was no Church (body of Christ) before Pentecost. This all took place before Pentecost. So, Jesus could not have been telling the Church what to do before it even existed. He was telling His disciples what to do; they moved into the Church; they became Apostles and leaders; they followed His directions. There really is no mystery here.
JC: First, Jesus identifies the cup of communion as "the New Covenant in His blood, poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
DW: Question: If we take the words of Jeremiah at 'face value' (is that a naive thing to do?), is there any conflict with this quote? If so, would you be so kind as to please state it briefly for me?
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Assuming not, then here is my summary reading of what Jesus was communicating in that quote:
1) My blood is the blood that ratifies the NC; let wine represent My blood; repeat this activity (sharing the wine) as you continually remember my sacrifice, and
2) The sacrifice of my body is payment for the sins of many.
Again, is this reading off the wall? If so, would you please humor me with a brief reason?
I definitely would not say that His mention of the NC at the 'last supper' is 'merely incidental.' He is after all celebrating a Seder with Jews who, unlike the Church, are actually legal parties to the NC.
Moreover, (get ready for a rash statement) he is not giving direction to the church. He is talking to 'disciples;' His disciples. He is telling them what He is about to do. He is telling them the meaning of what He is about to do. He is telling them that they should remember this. He is telling them that they should memorialize this. etc. He is absolutely NOT making any statement as to whether or not the Church is 'under' the NC. That has to be read INTO these passages.
JC1: This is a shifting ground fallacy. Jesus established the meaning of the cup ("New Covenant in my blood"); you propose a new meaning ("remembrance of Jesus") and assert that this new meaning is the true meaning.
JC2: To assert this new meaning requires additional supporting evidence; you need something to confirm your view that the Church's participation in communion is something other than what Jesus said it was.
DW: You often reference 1 Cor 11 and I assume that that is at least one passage you are referring to here, no?
11:25 In the same way [He took] the cup also, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink [it,] in remembrance of Me."
11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.
Based, at least somewhat, on these verses:
a) Can you briefly tell me what you believe to be the meaning of "This cup is the new covenant in my blood?"
b) Can you briefly tell me what the purpose of their sharing the bread and the cup is?
c) What do we learn here about the relationship between the Church and the New Covenant?
d) How can 'remembrance of Jesus' (NOT, by the way, my definition of the meaning of the cup!) be considered a new idea in light of these verses?
JC1: But the force of that evidence depends upon Jeremiah's prophecy being limited to Israel -- and that's by no means obvious. And in fact, it's quite a disputed point.
JC2: So we have a proposed new meaning for communion, supported by one very ambiguous piece of evidence.
DW: This is a serious question - what about 'the House of Israel ' is open to a wider understanding when Jeremiah is speaking to the House of Israel and the author to the Hebrews is speaking to, well . . . , Hebrews?
You raised many more issues, particularly those involving Hebrews that I would like to deal with. But, I wanted to keep this short until we can bridge some of the rough ground we seem to be on here.
DW: Alas, the real problem you are having is not that I pick a meaning with which you differ; but, rather that I am not providing 'further supporting contextual argument.' Please, ask for it.
That's totally fair. I should not have assumed that what I see as a lack of supporting evidence amounts to an actual deficit of evidence on your part.
DW: At this point, I don't think we have taken the first step which would then allow one of us to actually commit the [Shifting Ground Fallacy].
You raise a good point concerning the SGF. It's one thing to shift ground from one's own definition; it's another to shift ground from a definition provided by prior context.
The first is a strong SGF, amounting to a blatant contradiction. It's not merely a fallacy but (usually) a sign of a serious reasoning problem.
The second is a weak SGF; it might be an actual problem, or it might be a supportable redefinition of a word. Weak SGFs are even frequently used as poetic devices.
In Mr. Clinton's case, he was committing a weak SGF in which the word "is" had not been formally defined, but had been defined contextually.
My argument was that Jesus' words sufficiently defined the meaning of the cup, so that taking a different meaning amounts to a weak SGF.
So clearly, I need to establish what Jesus had to say about the cup before we can talk about our participation in it.
Lord willing, we shall do so!
JRC: JC: The evidence...has been persuasive to the Church for millennia.
DW: Quite possibly I am the only one to whom it is not clear. And, yes, I understand what that implies! :) Thus, a proponent of majority rule might conclude that he had already won the day.
I would take an inductive approach to this. In terms of formal logic, appeal to the majority is not a proof. So you clearly are not in the position of having to "accept the majority view or admit irrationality."
However, there is wisdom in many counselors; so that such strong agreement within the Church should cause you (or me, or anyone else) to take a prejudicially negative view of the position that "believers are not within the NC."
In other words: If we're thinking about burden of proof, the testimony of the Church places a higher burden of proof upon you, not merely with respect to our own discussion but in terms of your own private evaluations of your beliefs.
(cont.)
DW: Jesus gives the direction regarding the bread and wine to his disciples. They are not Apostles. They are not leaders of the non-existent Church. They are not yet even indwelt by the Holy Spirit. They certainly are not leaders of the 'Jewish Church.' And, none of them have written any inspired texts yet either.
So, all of His disciples should do this. It turns out that true Christians are indeed His disciples. So, your statement is right for them. And, many of them are church members. On the other hand, He does not give this direction TO the Church. Contrary to Covenant Theology, Israel was not the Church before the cross. Of course, they were 'A' church as is any assembly. (Is this the SGF?) There was no Church (body of Christ) before Pentecost. This all took place before Pentecost. So, Jesus could not have been telling the Church what to do before it even existed. He was telling His disciples what to do; they moved into the Church; they became Apostles and leaders; they followed His directions. There really is no mystery here.
I need some clarification on this.
(1) You say that these directions were given to the disciples who were not apostles. It appears from Luke 22 that the Meaning Formula "This is my body...this cup is the New Covenant..." and also the Direction "...do this in remembrance of me", are given to the apostles.
So what do you have in mind?
(2) You say, "So, Jesus could not have been telling the Church what to do before it even existed." I'll come back to the timeline of the Church later, but let's accept here for the sake of argument that the Church comes into being at Pentecost. (Why then?) Does it follow that Jesus cannot give directions in advance for that Church to follow?
Do we not give pre-marital counseling to couples not yet married, so that they will follow that advice when they are married?
Do we not make wills with directions to be followed after our deaths?
So I don't understand the argument that Jesus cannot give directions to the Church just because it does not yet exist. It seems to me that Jesus could easily give his apostles (Luke 22.14) directions for the Church-to-be, which they certainly knew was coming (Matt 16.18).
And in fact, isn't that what Paul says about communion to the Corinthians: "I passed on to you what I received from the Lord..."?
What Paul received and passed on was the Meaning Formula and the Directions.
So I conclude that there's good evidence here that Paul was explicitly carrying over the meaning and directions of communion from that Passover meal in the upper room, to the practice of communion in the Church.
That argument is independent of any assumptions about the starting time of the Church or its relationship to Israel; it's based solely on the texts we have about communion.
(3) So I know that a lot of ink has been spilled on the significance of Jesus' choice of words for his Bride, εκκλησια. I imagine it would add a whole different layer of complexity to try to unravel it, and probably involve discussions above my Greek pay grade, so to speak.
But I do want to make a drive-by point about evidence. It appears to be the case that Covenant Theologians (or at least this one :)) have not provided enough evidence to persuade you that the OT εκκλησια has continuity with the NT εκκλησια.
BUT, that lack of proof does not count as a proof of discontinuity. To prove discontinuity, you would need to adduce evidence to that effect (which you probably have).
So at this point, your statement "Israel was not the Church before the Cross" hangs out as an unsupported assertion. Even though I have not successfully convinced you that "Gentile believers are included in True Israel" (#4 in the list), does not give ground for asserting that Israel was not the Church before the Cross.
(cont.)
JRC: First, Jesus identifies the cup of communion as "the New Covenant in His blood, poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
DW: Question: If we take the words of Jeremiah at 'face value' (is that a naive thing to do?), is there any conflict with this quote? If so, would you be so kind as to please state it briefly for me?
That's a very thought-provoking question! One of the interesting things about Jeremiah 31 is that within context, the "face value" reading of the words would strongly suggest that the timeline for the New Covenant should begin with the return from Babylon. What I have in mind is the progression
Jer 25.12-13 --> 27.22 --> 29.10-14 --> 30.3, 18-22 --> 31
It would be easy to read these as a series of prophecies all describing one event; the restorations in ch 25, 27, 29 (which are definitely tied to the return from Babylon) are thematically tied to the restoration in 30 and 31, so that one could easily see them as the same.
The only reason that we know that they are *not* the same is because of how events played out.
Sorry for the tangent. I was just struck by the complex nature of Jeremiah's prophecy.
Anyways: no, I don't see a conflict here between Jesus' statement and Jer 31.
DW: 1) My blood is the blood that ratifies the NC; let wine represent My blood; repeat this activity (sharing the wine) as you continually remember my sacrifice, and
2) The sacrifice of my body is payment for the sins of many.
Again, is this reading off the wall? If so, would you please humor me with a brief reason?
No, I don't think it's off the wall, but it is incomplete because you haven't clarified the relationship between statements 1) and 2).
You seem to be suggesting that there's some daylight between Jesus' blood "of the covenant" and His body, given for the forgiveness of sins. Is that the direction you are going?
DW: He is absolutely NOT making any statement as to whether or not the Church is 'under' the NC. That has to be read INTO these passages.
Well, I think we have partial agreement here. The Gospel accounts by themselves are insufficient to make the case that believers are under the NC. But in combination with 1 Cor 11, the case is (it seems to me) quite solid.
(cont.)
OK, now to the questions:
DW: a) Can you briefly tell me what you believe to be the meaning of "This cup is the new covenant in my blood?"
At minimum, Jesus is affirming that the cup symbolizes the NC. Certain things follow from this ...
DW: b) Can you briefly tell me what the purpose of their sharing the bread and the cup is?
...namely, that receiving the cup symbolizes receiving the NC.
Thus, 1 Cor 10.16: "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?"
Participating in the blood of Christ, the "blood of the covenant", and receiving the items promised in the covenant (forgiveness of sins, being God's people), is indistinguishable from participating in the covenant.
c) What do we learn here about the relationship between the Church and the New Covenant?
That the Church in communion declares the Lord's death which was the means of the New Covenant. Jesus' "blood of the covenant" was God's way of bringing about forgiveness (again with the book of Hebrews); the Church participates in His blood, receives the forgiveness, is a part of God's people -- they are most definitely participating in the New Covenant.
d) How can 'remembrance of Jesus' (NOT, by the way, my definition of the meaning of the cup!) be considered a new idea in light of these verses?
It's not a new idea at all; it's just not an idea that conflicts with the New Covenant participation.
Earlier you argued,
DW: We don't need anything promised by the NC; we just need the blood, the payment, His death, the ransom, etc.
That's like saying, "We don't need food; we just need vitamins, minerals, protein, fiber, etc."
Jesus' blood is the NC; more precisely, Jesus' blood brings about the promises made in the NC. You've split "forgiveness" and "the New Covenant" apart, even though Jesus, Paul, and Hebrews all collectively affirm that the focal point of the New Covenant is forgiveness of sins.
A large part of this turns on the notion that the NC is still in the future. What is the ground for this belief?
(cont.)
DW: This is a serious question - what about 'the House of Israel ' is open to a wider understanding when Jeremiah is speaking to the House of Israel and the author to the Hebrews is speaking to, well . . . , Hebrews?
That's a totally fair question. I think Hebrews is easier to deal with, so I'll tackle it first.
We don't actually know the audience of the book of Hebrews. It has been commonly inferred that the audience was familiar with the sacrificial system and was in danger of returning to it; thus, it is inferred that the audience was Hebrew.
But the book doesn't actually say this; even more to the point, nothing in the book limits its teaching to Jews.
Most importantly, the Church accepted the book as Scripture and useful for teaching, reproof, etc. How could this be if Hebrews is all about something entirely irrelevant to the Church -- namely, Jesus' place as the high priest of a better covenant?
So despite the fact that I think it likely that Hebrews was written to Hebrews, I don't think that fact limits its teaching to Jews only; it seems more likely that its teaching applies to all those who "have fled to Jesus for refuge" and who have "found their eternal Sabbath rest" in Him, to those who know Him as their Great High Priest.
Jeremiah is harder because he is rather specific: "The time is coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah."
And yet despite his specificity, he does not exclude others from either (a) becoming a part of the fortunes of Israel, or (b) participating in the New Covenant.
I think that it's unlikely that Jeremiah understood the full scope of the New Covenant. As Paul says, the mass inclusion of Gentiles was hidden until Christ.
But Jeremiah's words are not inconsistent with inclusion; they just don't consider it.
So I don't find either Hebrews or Jeremiah to be an obstacle to my view. If you want to ask a tough one, my biggest "problem passage" would be Zech. 14. :)
JRC
My answer to (c) could be sharper. Here's take two:
We know that the cup symbolizes the New Covenant. We know that Paul passed this fact along to the church at Corinth (and by reasonable extension, to other churches).
It therefore follows that when the members at Corinth partook of the cup, they accepted that as a symbol of partaking of the New Covenant.
Participating in the symbol is symbolic of participating in the reality. Wearing a wedding ring is symbolic of being married.
This understanding is confirmed in 1 Cor 10.16 in which Paul affirms that participating in the cup is symbolic of participating in Jesus' blood. And as we know from Luke 22, Jesus' blood 'was' the New Covenant.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
This is NOT in response to your last posts. (As I was posting this I saw your take-2 post. Let me just say that I agree with it and this hopefully will explain that change.) As I was thinking about how to respond I was very troubled at not being able to clearly define for myself the relationship between the Church and the new covenant. As you have pointed out, there is no lack of agreement that the Church is under the NC. Yet, I just couldn't make the pieces fit. EUREKA! The scales have fallen from my eyes! (Well, maybe they haven't, who knows??? :) ).
At any rate, I just wanted to try this out on you before addressing your specific points in the last series. I have been avoiding trying to make sense out of Hebrews and the NC. It has always been such a hard book for me; all those warnings etc. that confuse so many. But, I realized that if we were to make any progress toward agreement, then that would be necessary. Yesterday, I tried to approached Hebrews without blinders (impossible, of course) and I definitely see things differently. What I now understand is:
0) The term new covenant (NC) has been a stumbling block for me!!
1) There was an old way and now there is a new one.
2) The old way was law; the new way is grace. (I knew this and yet didn't understand how the Church, which is of course under grace, related to Jeremiah and something called THE new covenant.)
3) The Mosaic Covenant with Israel was a 'specific institution' (administration?) of the old way; it was not THE old way.
4) Jeremiah gives us a prophesy that God will make a NC with the nation of Israel at a time which has still not yet arrived.
5) Even though this specific covenant has not yet been made with Israel, we have Jeremiah's and Isaiah's and Ezekiel's description of THE new way (forgiveness, indwelling spirit, etc.)
6) The NC of Jeremiah is not THE new way; it is a specific institution of the new way to Israel. As it turns out, the specific application of the new way to the individual Church member is essentially identical!!!
7) MY ERROR was in thinking of the NC as a THING (i.e.,a prophesy specifically for Israel) and not as an order or arrangement or overarching paradigm.
8) Jesus, by dying on the cross, supplies the blood of the NC (THE new way; not just the NC of Jeremiah) which allows God to graciously deal with humanity or to put this new order into effect. Jesus does not just supply the blood for the NC of Jeremiah; He supplies it for the NC for all the nations (per the AC), which also happens to include Israel.
9) The Church is not now enjoying the blessing of the NC with Israel. Nor is there any need to somehow 'blend' Israel and the Church for there to be a way for the Church to be in the NC. God has simply created the church under the new way (NC).
So, the Church is under the NC; there, I have said it and I will never again (I hope) take that back. You were exactly right in holding to this position (not the part about Israel and the Church, of course). I can't imagine how I would have seen through my haze if not for you and your perseverance. Thank you.
10) So, Jesus is our high priest who is right now serving in the true tabernacle in heaven at the right hand of God. (Sorry; but, that is not where the Throne of David is located!) He is mediating the NC with the Church. And yes, we should indeed 'remember' this and His enabling sacrifice as we commune around the Lord's Table.
Do you resonate with any of this? Or, more importantly, with what here do you NOT resonate? By the way, I am quite aware that all of the preceding is assertion and not support. I hope I am ready to offer that if you so desire.
Praise the Lord! Of the New Testament books, I've found Hebrews to be one of the most transformative.
Let me walk down your points in order so we can see how far or close apart we are.
(1,2) Yes. More can be said. The old way was not an effective way of salvation. Paul gets at this with reference to the Law, while the author of Hebrews gets at this with reference to the ineffective sacrifices that foreshadowed the death of Christ.
Likewise, there was a *still older way* -- the covenant with Abraham -- that really was effective for justification, for those who had the faith of Abraham. Paul makes the point in Gal. that the covenant with Abraham came prior to the Law and was not nullified by it.
So grace by faith was a constant, running through the whole thing; but the Law was added "because of transgressions."
(3) The classic Westminsterian perspective is that the "old way", the covenant of works, was present in the Garden (where the first Adam failed) and fulfilled at the cross (where the second Adam succeeded). The Law was then a shadow of the covenant of works. No one could be saved by following the Law, but the Law reflected (or symbolized) the righteousness one needed in order to be saved -- which righteousness comes through Christ.
So paradoxically, the Law was a part of or a symbol of the "old way" of works; but it was also a tutor to lead to the "new way" of grace.
(4) I would say that the NC arrives in Christ. He completes the symbols found in the Law and gives them their true meaning, so that the forgiveness promised in the NC can be had by faith.
(5-7) Here's a question: if the New Covenant is a specific instance of the "new way", as applied to Israel, then what would prevent the New Covenant from being the "new way" for all?
That is, why not simplify your paradigm and simply call the "new way", the New Covenant?
That would simplify the complexities you introduce in #8 and #9.
So that ...
(8-10) I'm perfectly happy to identify the New Covenant with the "new way" of grace under which the Church lives; and now to make the circle complete, I would suggest that we also identify the "new way" with the New Covenant, so that Israel's hope is precisely the same as the Gentile's hope: to be justified in Christ so that they can be God's people and live in God's place.
Thoughts?
JRC
Hi Jeff,
Indeed - Praise the Lord! This lack of clarity was driving me crazy. Alas, I am afraid that I have conveyed to you that I have become an adherent of Covenant Theology and given up being a dispy.
JC: Here's a question: if the New Covenant is a specific instance of the "new way", as applied to Israel, then what would prevent the New Covenant from being the "new way" for all?
DW: I used the term 'new way' to try to separate what Jeremiah talks about as a 'new covenant' from the term 'new covenant' as usually connected with the Church. For, in that equation lay the source of my confusion.
I do agree (and have for some time now) that the way of salvation, (i.e., becoming God's people in the salvific sense) is exactly the same for all mankind, saving faith. This was true for Abraham, it is true for me and you, and it will be true for those that Jeremiah talked about. But, there is a difference. This was the breakthrough which I think I have made. Of course, I may soon find out that I am just as confused as before.
I am an example that Israel is being redeemed right now just as you are regarding gentiles. While I am an Israelite, I am only one Israelite. So, Jews and Gentiles are being individually redeemed as we speak. These redeemed people are immediately full and equal members of the Church, the body of Christ. Not to be confused with being entered on a church roll.
Abraham was declared righteous; but, he did not receive the indwelling HS. So, before the cross, there was a difference, no? Whatever the 'church' to which Abraham belonged (and I don't mean national Israel) was, it had at least that difference with what we have.
Now, Jeremiah talks about a 'new covenant.' It is not exactly the same as what is going on today. Yes, the salvation part is precisely the same. However, tied up in that covenant is a lot of other stuff. God will enact that covenant in the future at a specific time and in a specific place for a whole lot of people who also happen to all be Israelites. That's the difference between what is going on regarding the Church today and what will happen in the future to Israel. Jeremiah's new covenant involves details that do not apply to us; however, redemption proper is the same for them as well as us.
JC: That would simplify the complexities you introduce in #8 and #9.
DW: If it is me who is introducing these complexities, then you are absolutely right. Alas, I see God as the one who has introduced them.
So, as you can see, there is still some light between our views! At least, we never have to debate whether the Church is under the NC. Although, we may still have to debate what each of us means by the term NC???
Ah, I was pretty sure that you hadn't become a covenant theologian! :)
So let's clarify a couple of things:
(1) What is the "whole lot of other stuff" entailed in the New Covenant that is not a part of the "new way"?
(2) We have two different models going on here. For convenience, let's label them the "Covenant" and "Dispensational" models with the understanding that not all would agree with some of the details.
CM: The term "New Covenant" is used in the same sense (univocally) throughout the OT prophets and the New Testament to refer to God's plan of salvation made complete.
DM: The term "New Covenant" is used in two different senses (bivocally) to refer to two different things: (a) the New Covenant proper as prophesied by Jeremiah, and (b) the "new way" of salvation under grace that encompasses the New Covenant (a).
Now for the critical questions that will hopefully shed some light:
* What motivates the bivocal usage? That is, what specific evidence do we have that "New Covenant (a)" as used in Jeremiah is different from "New Covenant (b)" as used in Hebrews?
* Which usage, (a) or (b), is in play in the words of institution in Luke 22? Why?
* Why do the New Testament writers not explain or make reference to the bivocality of the New Covenant? In particular, why does Hebrews appeal to Jeremiah without the author explaining that he means something broader than New Covenant (a)?
I think you can see where I'm going. To my simple mind, if Alice and Bob are in conversation and use the same word, my default assumption is that they are trying to mean the same thing by it -- unless I have reason to suspect otherwise.
So likewise, when I read Hebrews' quote of Jer 31 (or any other quote from Scripture), my assumption is that New Covenant is being used in the same sense in both, unless there is good reason to suspect otherwise. So: what's that reason?
JRC
DW: Abraham was declared righteous; but, he did not receive the indwelling HS. So, before the cross, there was a difference, no? Whatever the 'church' to which Abraham belonged (and I don't mean national Israel) was, it had at least that difference with what we have.
Very true. But that's the interesting thing: the pouring out of the Spirit is one of the markers of the New Covenant (a) in Jeremiah and Joel and Ezekiel, right? So isn't Pentecost a sign of the inauguration of New Covenant (a)?
In other words, the difference can be explained I think as a pre-Christ v. post-Christ difference.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
Sorry to be so dense; but could you just give me a 1 or 2 sentence description of what you mean by 'God's plan of salvation made complete?'
Hi David,
School just started up, so my posting pace is going way down.
In two sentences: God's plan of salvation, first announced in Genesis, is to create and save a people for himself. The New Covenant is the way in which God brings this to completion.
In more sentences: God announces his plan of salvation in Gen. 3.15, but in hidden form. As Genesis unfolds, God reveals that salvation centers around being God's people and being counted as righteous -- these are the solutions to being separated from God by sin.
As the OT unfolds, it becomes clear that being physically descended from Abraham is insufficient to guarantee being God's people or being righteous. Instead, it is revealed that preserves a remnant whose hearts belong to Him.
The New Covenant is then the promise to make a substantial portion of Israel participate in this remnant.
But as the New Covenant unfolds, it becomes clear that God has also intended to include substantial numbers of Gentiles within the New Covenant also.
All of this culminates in the vision in Revelation of a single people of God, Jew and Gentile alike, who are all saved through the blood of the true Passover Lamb, Jesus.
Does that make sense?
JRC
Hi Jeff,
Well, work does have a tendency to get in the way. ;) So, I guess I'll just have to wait for you to get a chance to respond. Not a problem. Having a job and eating are good things.
By the way, I was trying to clean out some of the stuff on my computer and I came upon a cache directory that had a bunch of graphics files from my browser. Low and behold it was filled with your butterfly pictures that had been downloaded by my browser without my knowledge. They were great! I really enjoyed looking them over. I had been missing the best part of your blog!! And, of course what it says about creation is simply amazing. What a God we serve!
Your questions are right on and I want to try to address each one. First, I'm pretty sure from your questions and responses that I have not been clear. OR, if clear, then certainly not persuasive. Please humor me in the following as it is an attempt to clarify what I see in Scripture and not to convince you of anything. I'll do that when I respond to your specific points! ;)
Let me try a simple Venn diagram. Imagine a circle that represents the 'new way' ('NW') which comprises redemption made possible by God's acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice (cleansing or purification of sins - Hebrews 1:3). Now, draw two NON-overlapping circles within the first circle. Label one of these: 'C' (Church between Christ's advents). Label the other: 'I' (Israel after the second advent). [There are other circles; but, they almost surely would not help at this point.]
The 'I' circle is what the OT prophets were talking about with regard to Israel and what Jeremiah called a new covenant. He was not specifically talking about the 'NW' circle; he was focused on the 'I' circle within the 'NW' circle. Of course, there could not be an 'I' circle without there first being the 'NW' circle. Psalms 53 provided a lot of the detail of the cross; but, I don't think that was the main focus of the prophesies of Israel's ultimate state. Even though their prophesies required it.
The main features of the 'I' circle include a) a particular people (Israelites, all of those alive at the time of its fulfillment, the ones having ancestors that God had delivered from Egypt), b) a specific time of fulfillment (after the wrath [therefore, not possibly yet]), c) a specific place (Israel), d) an age lasting duration of peace and prosperity [again, not possibly yet], and e) the indwelling HS, forgiveness of sin. Is there really any valid way to see this circle as now in effect?
The 'C' circle is what we are part of right now. The main features of this include a) all elect people equally (Israelites and Gentiles), b) a broad sweep of time (at least 2000 years), c) people occupying the entire planet, and d) the indwelling HS, forgiveness of sin.
In order for there to be an 'I' or 'C' circle there has to be an 'NW' circle. In order for there to be an 'NW' circle Jesus had to die as a sacrifice and God had to accept that sacrifice. His blood made purification for the sin of ALL the elect of all time. His blood also served to ratify the NC of Jeremiah. It's the same blood. When it is called the blood of the NC that does not mean it is not the blood (required by the 'NW' circle) that also covers all sin. This was the agreement between God the Father and God the Son before this all began. Call it a covenant if you wish. In fact, call it a new covenant if you wish. When Paul says that he is a minister of a new covenant he is referring not to the Jeremiah NC but to the 'NW' circle and Jesus' blood. Paul specifically says that this covenant is the gospel and that he says is the AC part about all the nations. It all fits very well.
End of clarification and beginning of the part where I try (unsuccessfully) to convince you. . . :)
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: The term "New Covenant" is used in the same sense (univocally) throughout the OT prophets and the New Testament to refer to God's plan of salvation made complete.
DW: This quote it the reason for my last post to you and you were gracious enough to provide an answer. You ended that post by asking if what you said "made sense?" Well, of course it did. I don't think you are capable of NOT making sense. On the other hand, we still understand the Scriptures somewhat differently! I'll try to deal with what you said in that post before continuing with my reactions to your previous post. But, let me just add that I can only find the phrase 'new covenant' in Jeremiah. It appears once in the OT. Yes, others seem to be talking about the same covenant. But, only once in the OT is anything called a new covenant as far as I can tell.
JC: The New Covenant is then the promise to make a substantial portion of Israel participate in this remnant.
DW: This is a quibble; but, I think it is really important. My reading of what Jeremiah calls 'a new covenant with Israel' is that ALL Israel is saved under that covenant. It does not talk about a 'substantial portion.' And certainly today we don't see a substantial portion, let alone 'all,' of Israel being saved.
Well, one reasonable reaction to what I have just said is that I am just being picky. But, I think that there is a major difference between substantial portion and all. A remnant is not all unless all the others who are not part of the remnant are no longer alive. That is unless the word 'all' is just hyperbole. So, does God really mean 'all' (at that point in time) or does He mean a 'substantial portion' being brought into the Church over a period of at least 2000 years?
JC: But as the New Covenant unfolds, it becomes clear that God has also intended to include substantial numbers of Gentiles within the New Covenant also.
DW: Sadly, I think we are back to the idea of 'covenant membership' regarding which I don't think we ever reached resolution. Scripture never includes Gentiles 'within' the NC. The NC is a very specific set of promises to the nation of Israel; not to Gentiles. At least I have been unable to find a Scripture that teaches that it is a promise to Gentiles other than of course proselytes.
Before you get upset at my refusal to see the obvious, let me try to add some more. The Mosaic Covenant is made with the house of Israel. We can actually see that in Scripture. And Moses actually spills (sprinkles) the blood required to ratify that covenant. After that for hundreds of years, the priests offered blood to cover sins. This animal blood could never remove sin; that had to wait for Jesus' sacrifice. So, we can see the parties to the covenant and the blood and the mediator and the priests. It is all very neatly laid out, no?
Now, in the OT, we see Jeremiah's new covenant defined similarly. The parties are still the same and when we get to Hebrews, we see that there is also a mediator and also blood. There are however major differences. First, it is an unconditional, eternal covenant and not a temporary, conditional one. Next, Jesus supplies all of the blood (the blood to ratify and the blood to make satisfaction for sin). And, this He has to do only once. Again, very neatly laid out. Jesus says that His blood is the blood of the NC. A new order is set up and Jesus is appointed the high priest. He ratifies the NC (Jeremiah) and sits at the right hand of God as its high priest, waiting for it to be set up. But, we learn in the NT that Jesus is also our high priest. Can He not be Israel's and our high priest? Additionally, is there any place in Scripture that shows that the NC is made (in the sense of parties to the covenant) with Church members?
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
But, I have already agreed that the Church is 'under' the NC. Well, in a sense. The NC has not yet been fulfilled with regard to Israel. I stand by that. On the other hand, Jesus makes it very clear that He has supplied the blood (ratification and also satisfaction) for the NC. Well, do we need more blood to make purification for the sins of everybody else who is elect? NO.
Inherent in the NC is the removal of sin, once and for all. That is one of the reasons that He makes this clear to us in places like Luke 22. This blood (of the NC) also puts away sin for all the elect for all time. To be crass, it serve double duty. So, yes, the reason that you and I have forgiveness of sin is this blood, His sacrifice. For this to be true, there is no requirement that the NC has to have already been fulfilled. We only 'need' the blood; and, that we already have. It's the very same blood of the NC. However, nowhere in Scripture can I find that the NC has been fulfilled to its lawful party, Israel.
So, the Church could be said to be under the blood of the NC and that its high priest is also our high priest in the new order of grace in contrast to the old order of law. That is what I have been calling the 'NW' circle.
JC: All of this culminates in the vision in Revelation of a single people of God
DW: I really can't find this is Revelation. Which passage(s) did you have in mind that show this?
Now to your penultimate post:
JC: What is the "whole lot of stuff" entailed in the New Covenant that is not a part of the "new way"?
DW: Nothing. I only hope that my little Venn Diagram explains this. The difference in "stuff" has to do with the 'I' and 'C' circles which are both in the 'NW' circle.
JC: what specific evidence do we have that "New Covenant (a)" as used in Jeremiah is different from "New Covenant (b)" as used in Hebrews?
DW: First, in the OT, as I have already said, I can only find the term NC(a) in Jeremiah. BUT, I believe all the other prophets were likewise talking about NC(a). All of them were talking about national Israel and not the Church as we know it. On the other hand, the NT writers are not telling us about Israel; but, rather the Church. Of course, reference is made to Israel to help us (confuse us???) understand their message.
Jeremiah is talking to Israelites about Israel. The old covenant is the Mosaic Covenant. The new is positioned in relation to the MC. It is not called 'the new covenant.' It is called 'a new covenant.' While Jeremiah 31 is what is quoted in Hebrews 8 and 10, the description of the application of a NC to Israel also appears in other places in Jeremiah. In fact, Jeremiah 32:40 is a great summary of what is discussed in chapter 31.
In Hebrews, the term covenant appears 14 times (διαθηκη each time). In addition, it is inferred (in the NASB) 4 additional times. In these 4 verses we (at least I) learn some things about the old covenant and also that if there is a new, then the old must be ready to disappear. Not much relating to your question in these verses.
From the 14 specific διαθηκη verses we learn:
a) Jesus is the guarantee of a better covenant
b) Jesus is the mediator of a better covenant
c) Jesus is the mediator of a new covenant
d) Jesus was raised through the blood of the eternal covenant
e) Jeremiah 31 is quoted
f) The old covenant and ark are referenced
g) The relationship of death to covenants is mentioned
h) There is a question regarding punishment for one who tramples the blood of the covenant
Again, not much in these 14 verses that directly addresses your question. So, it would seem to all boil down to the reason for quoting Jeremiah 31. That seem right to you?
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Let me take a stab at answering that starting with Hebrews 7:
Chapter 7
1) The Mosaic/Aronic order was weak. It depended on humans who die.
2) Each priesthood has its own set of regulations.
3) Melchizedek is a perpetual priest not related to the Mosaic/Aronic order (law) but rather a higher order (grace).
4) God appointed Jesus to the Melchizedek priesthood (Psalms 110:4)
5) Jesus thus mediates a better (grace vs. law) promise and guarantees its fulfillment.
6) Thus our inheritance (eternal life) is guaranteed by a much better priest than ever existed under the old (law) covenant. (Aside: 'NW' circle come to mind?)
The writer of Hebrews is talking to believers. Whether they are Hebrews or not isn't really germane. Although, if the readers understand the OT then this is going to make a lot more sense to them. So, from Hebrews 7 we know that we (in the Church) have a much better high priest than did those under the MC. And, that it is He who guarantees our inheritance, a much better promise than those under the MC had. Would you agree that this is referencing the 'C' circle and that any similarities to the facts related to the 'I' circle are not central to the argument of Chapter 7?
Chapter 8:
1) The first few verses tell us what the main point of chapter 7 was
2) Jesus is the mediator of a better covenant, having better promises (than the MC). (Aside: the specifics of this covenant are not listed and it must be inferred that it is the Jeremiah NC)
3) God told the Israelites (not the Church) that the old covenant had faults and that a new one was required.
4) God said to Israel (#7) that they did not keep their first covenant; so a new (in the sense of quality or superiority and not just time) covenant was required for them.
5) Furthermore, God told them what it would look like (quote of Jeremiah 31)
6) Israel (#7) should have understood that the old arrangement (Law) was obsolete and 'ready to disappear.'
The chapter ends (v13) by making the point that God had spoken of a new covenant (Jeremiah 31) and that was proof to the Israelites (and now to us!) that He was making the first covenant obsolete. Law as a guiding principle (for salvation) was going to disappear. Based on the context, that is the reason for the quote. Again, there is no mention in this chapter that any of the details in the quote do or do not apply to the Church. That has to be read into the chapter. The author is simply proving from the OT that there was going to be a new way which is entirely consistent with his description of our new high priest and His ministry. I must stress that Hebrews is primarily about Jesus; and only secondarily about covenants.
Chapter 9:
1) The first/old covenant (MC) had regulations and an earthly sanctuary.
2) There were gifts and sacrifices that could not remove sin as they were only regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation. (v10)
3) BUT NOW Christ has come as our (believers and not just Israelites) high priest into the most holy place in the true tabernacle to clean our consciences so that we can worship God.
4) And so He is the mediator of a new covenant (new arrangement or 'NW' ??)
5) His one sacrifice put away (made atonement for) sin once for all.
Jesus is the mediator of a new covenant. Since He is our high priest, the Church must be under this NC. But, again, nothing here about this NC being the specific NC that Jeremiah presented to Israel. The NC here is the 'NW' circle. The parties to this NC are God, the Father, and Jesus. Nothing about this new covenant requires that there be either a 'C' circle or an 'I' circle within it. It just so happens that the 'C' circle is the way that God has decided to apply grace to the nations at this time. Isn't this what Philippians 2 is talking about? Isn't that the NC?
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Chapter 10:
1) The MC could not perfect those who came to worship.
2) Jesus came to make the one and only perfect offering for the new arrangement.
3) In so doing, he does away with the first (law) and establishes the second (grace).
4) It is this act of His that has made our (believers) sanctification possible.
5) The writer now quotes the first part of Jeremiah 31:33 regarding the indwelling HS and then skips to the last part of Jeremiah 31:34 regarding not remembering their sin.
6) 10:18 then tells us the reason for the quote. It is to prove that where sins are no longer remembered there is no longer a reason for sacrifices. This describes the situation in the 'NW' circle. Naturally, this also describes the situation in both the 'I' and 'C' circles as well.
7) The chapter ends with the 'therefore' - Stand firm, God has it all under control.
So, once more the author has quoted Jeremiah to make his point based on what Scripture has told us in Jeremiah. The author tells us explicitly why he quotes Jeremiah. There is no reason for us to add to the reasons that the author has already given us.
JC: Which usage, (a) or (b), is in play in the words of institution in Luke 22? Why?
DW: Both. Hebrews talks about Jesus and his role as high priest over a new covenant. This is what I was trying to define with the 'NW' circle. Additionally, Jesus was talking to Jews who would have no trouble identifying the NC as what Jeremiah et al talked about in the OT. So, the blood is truly the blood of institution of the NC and also the blood that Jesus as the high priest brings into the heavenly tabernacle once and for all for the sins of all the elect.
My summary:
1) The NC has now been ratified by Jesus' blood; however, it has not been fulfilled to Israel yet.
2) As a high priest of the order of Melchizedek, Jesus brought His blood (the same blood as in 1) above) into the Heavenly tabernacle. This blood purified all sin for all time for all the elect.
3) Scripture does not show any covenant (new or old) being made with the Church. The Scriptures never show the Church as a party to any covenant with God. Recipients of covenant promises, yes; legal parties, no.
4) We, in the Church, have forgiveness of sin due to His death (the once and forever sacrifice) having paid the price of sin. (And, most importantly, God's agreement to accept this payment, which is really what Philippians 2 talks about!)
5) Jesus' blood is the blood of the NC with Israel per Jeremiah. The covenant between Father and Son did not require blood! (Looks like they trusted one another!!) But, like the MC, the old; the new per Jeremiah did require blood for its ratification.
6) There was an Israel; there is an Israel; God has promised that there will always be an Israel. And, this does not depend on their righteousness or state of rebellion. For example, Jeremiah 31:35-36:-
35 Thus says the Lord, Who gives the sun for light by day, And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; The Lord of hosts is His name: 36 "If this fixed order departs From before Me," declares the Lord, "Then the offspring of Israel also shall cease From being a nation before Me forever."
Please note: this is not talking about Jesus, the ultimate Israelite, and those in Him. This is talking about a people being a nation.
7) Israel was promised a NC at a time and place that has not yet come to pass.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: In particular, why does Hebrews appeal to Jeremiah without the author explaining that he means something broader than New Covenant (a)?
DW: Each of the times that Hebrews references Jeremiah 31 it is for a specific purpose. In fact, the writer tells us each time what that purpose is. I tried above to explain my understanding of the reasons why the author references Jeremiah. His purpose is to talk about Jesus; not covenants. He uses the quotes to prove the particular point, which he identifies in the text, that he is making and not the one we may wish he would have made.
JC: So likewise, when I read Hebrews' quote of Jeremiah 31 (or any other quote from Scripture), my assumption is that New Covenant is being used in the same sense in both, unless there is good reason to suspect otherwise. So: what's that reason?
DW: There is a great reason to suspect otherwise. It is the reason that the author tells us for each quote. Hebrews is not redefining Jeremiah; it is using Scripture to support his point. That is the way the rabbis argued their points. In Hebrews, Jeremiah 31 is out of context. If one wants to know what Jeremiah means when it uses the term NC, then they have to read Jeremiah. Hebrews is talking to the Church and making a point regarding what Jesus has done and is doing. It is NOT talking about the NC with Israel as per Jeremiah. Well, at least he doesn't say that he is. Although you, a very bright believer, have somehow figured out that that was his real reason.
JC: So isn't Pentecost a sign of the inauguration of New Covenant (a)?
DW: The cross is the inauguration of the 'NW' circle. Christ was the mediator of a new covenant at the right hand of God several weeks before Pentecost. Pentecost is the inauguration of the 'C' circle. We await the inauguration of the 'I' circle.
Post a Comment