Featured Galatians

Yes in principle, though there is little evidence that gentiles were saved before Jesus came. And you must agree that now after the gospel has come, which was promised to Abraham, all those that have the faith of Abraham inherit the promises given to Abraham. Thus the church inherits those promises.

I disagree. Eph 2:10 is speaking of works yes, but Paul reverts back to speaking of justification in verse 11 and particularly in 13. Paul explicitly points out that they were previously "excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world."

So these Gentiles formerly were excluded from the commonwealth of Israel and had no part in the covenants of promise (meaning the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants). But God, through the work of Christ brought them "near, by the blood of Christ," and they now (and we also)"are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household." Thus we are now included in that commonwealth of Israel (God's household) and inherit the covenants of promise.

Apparently not since I don't see anything being demonstrated. Also since we agree as to the nature of the Kingdom, that cannot be the source of our disagreement here.

I agree with that all and that supports my point. What's your point?

So then the inspired word given to Joshua was wrong? I know that the land of Palestine and the physical rest associated with it were types. Hebrews 4 agrees that there is a yet future rest after Joshua's conquest of Canaan and looks forward to those promises, but it in no way says the future fulfillments are for Israel alone. You have it backwards - they entered rest physically (as a type) but HAVE NOT achieved the final spiritual rest.

The promises are the promises.. you can't chop it up into pieces and say "That's for every one, but this piece is only for Jews." That's akin to those who try to create the false tripartite division of the law. God plainly said the Abraham that "ALL NATIONS" would be blessed (or happy) through him.

All the promises were to Abraham's seed. The type fulfillment was complete in Abraham's seed of the nation of Israel. However, Paul clearly says the true Seed is Christ, thus Christ inherits the true promises and we inherit them through our identification with Christ.

We are having a good conversation on this topic. Is it really necessary to ruin it by implying dishonesty on my part? You disappoint me friend.

Regardless, I disagree that I'm "glossing over" anything. The entire book of Galatians is plain that all believers are united in Christ, all believers receive the promises, that all believers are the Israel of God.

Paul is basing this entire passage around circumcision, as a representative of the entire Mosaic Law, and the passage doesn't speak only of salvation (by which I assume you mean justification) but who receives the promises. There simply is no way to justify that Paul spends the entire letter breaking down the supposed division between Jew and Gentile and then suddenly say that there is a division!

Regarding Romans 11 - I am undecided whether that means there will be a sudden influx of Jews at the end of the age or not; regardless if it is so, they will not comprise a second distinct people of God but will simply be included in the church.

Also, Revelation 7: No one has to "spiritualize" anything. It is the same group of people, the church, but from two different perspectives - the Heavenly, and the earthly.

 

Again, you cannot divide them. The promises are the promises. On what basis do you say that some promises apply to the physical descendants of Jacob and others apply to all believers?

I agree! However that doesn't mean that God is going to, at some future time revert back to the Old Covenant way of working solely with the Jews and sequester the Gentile believes off into a corner. The whole point is that Gentiles are now on equal footing as the Jews and always will be, not only in salvation and service, but also as inheritors of the promises.

I assume you mean the millennial Kingdom? I do not see how this is a time of restoration of National Israel. That is contrary to everything Paul says throughout the New Testament. If there is a Millennial Kingdom (which I currently do agree with, though I can see A-Mill has good points) then Christ will rule with the CHURCH, we are High Priests, Saints, Kings, and Joint-heirs with Christ! There is no reason to segregate physical Jews from gentile believers in the Millennium.

Also Paul in Romans 4 explains that the land promise was not just the land of Canaan (Which as we both agree was a type) but the land promise was actually the inheritance of the whole world and that inheritance is given to those that have the faith of Abraham. Thus all believers receive that global inheritance because of our faith in the true seed Christ, not because of physical birth.

It was complete, as a type. Joshua says "ALL CAME TO PASS." As they understood it, everything had been fulfilled, it was through the later prophets that they apparently came to understand the land was a type and were still looking to a future rest. The true "promised Land" is the whole world, as shown above and we all inherit that, not just a restored national Israel.

Which promises where specific to a national Israel?

I agree that "seed of Abraham" has many definitions depending on context, but in the end it all points to Abraham's true special seed - Christ.
Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. - Gal 3:16 NASB

All the promises were to Christ. We are "in Christ," we have "put on Christ," we are "Joint heirs with Christ" there is no reason to say we don't inherit those same promises because of our relationship to Jesus.

If I jumped to a premature conclusion I apologize. It seems though that you are accusing me of being dishonest or unfair in my study. I disagree. And I am honestly not sure of how to treat Romans 11, I'm not settled on that yet as I said earlier.

And let me say, I am ready to demonstrate that Revelation 7 is referring to the church, fair and objectively of course.

 

Which land promise? The type (Canaan) or the reality (the World)? If the type you are correct, but that has already been fulfilled in Joshua's day. If the reality then yes it is part of salvation because the believers inheriting the earth is part of our glorification. Salvation is the whole deal, not simply justification! If there were some particular promises left to be fulfilled by Israel in the future, why did Paul say so? Why was he so adamant that ALL believers inherit ALL the promises through Christ?

I know. But you yourself said that the distinguishing between Jew and Gentile was based on Mosaic Law. If that distinction continues in the future millennium then it must also be based on the Mosaic Law correct?

Possibly - in a sense we all pierced Him.
Possibly - He clearly wasn't talking directly, literally to those around Him. They still saw Him for a while after that.
Yes in a sense - Not Gentiles only but the redeemed of all ages, Jew and Gentile. and Yes they are the same group.

I disagree. Paul is speaking of Israel as a people, not a nation.And yes Romans 11:25-28 CAN be interpreted as Spiritual Israel. It CAN ALSO be interpreted as physical Israel. Thus I am not dogmatic on that. I Hope there is an influx of Jews into the church! But that's just it, if there is a sudden conversion of Israel, they we be a part of the church, NOT a restored national Israel.

Well that's an interesting theory.

I assume you mean from the Euphrates to the River of Egypt? Gen 15:18
They did actually. In the Old Covenant age.

 

No I'm not. Unless we have differing opinions on what the millennium will be like.

I agree with all of that. But just because the Lord can/will use it as an instrument of instruction during the millennium doesn't mean that the Gentile/Jew division will be in place.

Yes I am aware. Are you aware of the fact that the New Testament quotes the old multiple times and CHANGES the context/application of the Old Testament verses? Often something applying to Israel in the OT context is changed to apply to the entire church, Jew and Gentile united, in the NT.

Utterly impossible perhaps with your hermeneutic. (Not saying that your hermeneutic is necessarily wrong here.)

And don't call it "my interpretation," as I've said several times I'm undecided on this passage and have no interpretation that I'm totally satisfied with.

For the record I DO lean towards the passage meaning an endtimes conversion of many Jews. However they do not compose a second "people" in God's eyes. God's ONLY "chosen nation" now is the church.

 

Thanks Van. I would say that if that is the consensus view of Progressive Dispy then I have only a handful of differences with that, as a New Covenant Theologian. Mostly I disagree with the idea that Israel as a nation still has some inherent blessing JUST because they are Jews, and that they will be the "head of the nations" during the millennium.

A very good read! :thumbsup::thumbsup: