Galatians

[The Biblicist]

Some will try to say that because the text says “and upon the Israel of God” Paul has a different group in mind at the end of the verse, not the group associated with the new birth. However this makes no sense for two reasons.

First; Paul just finished explaining in verse 15 (indeed, in the entire book!) that circumcision (and by extension the Mosaic Law) doesn’t matter, nor does uncircumcision (being a Gentile) but only the new birth in Christ matters. Why would Paul then immediately contradict himself and now say that there is a distinction between the circumcised –Israel – and those who are in Christ? He wouldn’t.

Second; the word “and” (kai) does not necessarily show a change in focus. For example, Eph 1:3 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…” Clearly Paul intends the reader to understand that there is One who is both God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the same way Paul clearly intends to show that those who walk according to the rule of the new creation are the Israel of God and he wishes peace and mercy upon his fellow Christians.

There is no difference in regard to circumcision in its relationship to salvation but that does not mean there is no difference between Gentile believers and the Israel of God.

Second, my argument is not merely based upon the various uses of "kai" but upon the overall context of Scripture. Romans 11:25-28 is impossible to overturn IF objective and honest analysis is followed. Moreover, one has to spiritualize Revelation 7:1-8 to mean practically the same people as Revelation 7:9-14. There are many other New Testament passages that must be reversed or explained away.

 

[RLBosley]

If you agree that salvation "has always been the same" then Jews and gentiles have always been one spiritually in Christ - the elect - neither Jew or Gentile in regard to salvation.

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.

Ephesians 2:10-21 is speaking of "works" they are created unto in connection with the PUBLIC EXPRESSION of those works. Formerly, it was through the Old Testament house of God that provided a barriar between Gentiles and Jews in regard to SERVICE in God's House. That is no longer the condition in the New Testament PUBLIC HOUSE OF GOD. Note the indefinite article "a" in verses 20-21 which refers to the church at Ephesus.

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.

However, it critically affects your thesis as demonstrated above.

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.

The kingdom of God has many facets. For example, his kingdom ruleth over all creation. On earth there is a spirtual kingdom one must be born into where God rules in the hearts of men. On earth there is a professing kingdom where the tares will be removed out of this kingdom at His coming. On earth there is a public visible expression of His kingdom - the public house of God and public ordinances and public ordained ministry which yeild the "keys of the kingdom." There is yet a future coming kingdom in the Person of Christ when all the kingdom s of this world will be overthrown and He will rule over all. The word "kingdom" (baslea) refers to the Person, reign, and territory of a king. When John the Baptist came he sent before a PERSON who is described as KING (Mk. 1:1-4) to prepare the way for and thus the kingdom actually came to Israel in the PERSON OF THE KING and this is the gospel of the kingdom which is still being preached throughout the book of Acts right to the last chapter and last verses.

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

That is simply not true for many reasons. You are looking at types instead of the promised antitypes. Not even their promised king had yet come although they had the types galore just as palestine was a mere type. The post-exilic books still look forward to the promises of God to Israel. Hebrews four teaches the very opposite. They only entered the promised rest spiritually but not actually in its fulfillment in body and soul under the promised King.

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.

Just the promises pertaining to salvation not to Israel as a nation.

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.

There is a clear distinction and no glossing it over will destroy that distinction as it is impossible to gloss it over in Romans 11:25-28 if HONEST OBJECTIVE analysis is followed.

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.

There is no difference in regard to circumcision in its relationship to salvation but that does not mean there is no difference between Gentile believers and the Israel of God.

Second, my argument is not merely based upon the various uses of "kai" but upon the overall context of Scripture. Romans 11:25-28 is impossible to overturn IF objective and honest analysis is followed. Moreover, one has to spiritualize Revelation 7:1-8 to mean practically the same people as Revelation 7:9-14. There are many other New Testament passages that must be reversed or explained away.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

Salvation promises yes but national promises no!

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."

Yes, the work of salvation must be the basis or foundation for service. The gentiles must first be saved before their service can be accepted and Paul is asserting that has occurred. However, the 'middle wall of partition" existed not in salvation but in SERVICE within the house of God. Gentile proselytes (believers in the Messiah) could not serve EQUALLY with Jews in the public house of God, public ministry and public ordianances. Under the new covenant PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION in the NEW House of God and the NEW PUBLIC MINISTRY they are equal.

The Gentiles in the Old Testament were always JOINT HEIRS in the SALVATION promises of Abraham (Adam, Abel, Noah, Job, Abraham = ALL GENTILES) they were all elect "in Christ" before the foundation of the world and all believers in the Messiah = "Christ". However, after Moses they did not have EQUAL rights to the public service in the public house of God. Now under the PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION of the new covenant they do.

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

There is yet a visible kingdom aspect yet to come that includes restoration of NATIONAL ISRAEL over which Christ and His church rules this world. Restoration to its full land and city and it occurs at His second return after the rapture of the saints.

So then the inspired word given to Joshua was wrong?

No, it was simply not complete. The complete rest is not merely spiritual, but spiritual must come first and it will at Christ return (Rom. 11:25-28) and then the return to the full boundaries of the promised land with Christ reigning over them with us will occur as well.

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."

I can't but God can and did. He made promises specific to the nation of Israel that are not applicable to anyone else and he made promises to the elect of the gentiles not applicable to the nation of Israel (bride, church, ordinances, commission now).

All the promises were to Abraham's seed.

but not all the seed of Abraham are the same as in the very promise God distinguishes between those of his own loins versus the nations and even there is no distinction as to the promise of salvation there is distinctions in other promises.

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.

I think you misjudge me. I never applied this to you personally. I simply said that a fair and objective treatment of Romans 11:25-28 in its context cannot yeild any other outcome. I am ready to demonstrate that fair and objectively.

 

[RLBosley]

Salvation promises yes but national promises no!

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?

Yes, the work of salvation must be the basis or foundation for service. The gentiles must first be saved before their service can be accepted and Paul is asserting that has occurred. However, the 'middle wall of partition" existed not in salvation but in SERVICE within the house of God. Gentile proselytes (believers in the Messiah) could not serve EQUALLY with Jews in the public house of God, public ministry and public ordianances. Under the new covenant PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION in the NEW House of God and the NEW PUBLIC MINISTRY they are equal.

The Gentiles in the Old Testament were always JOINT HEIRS in the SALVATION promises of Abraham (Adam, Abel, Noah, Job, Abraham = ALL GENTILES) they were all elect "in Christ" before the foundation of the world and all believers in the Messiah = "Christ". However, after Moses they did not have EQUAL rights to the public service in the public house of God. Now under the PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION of the new covenant they do.

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.

There is yet a visible kingdom aspect yet to come that includes restoration of NATIONAL ISRAEL over which Christ and His church rules this world. Restoration to its full land and city and it occurs at His second return after the rapture of the saints.

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.

No, it was simply not complete. The complete rest is not merely spiritual, but spiritual must come first and it will at Christ return (Rom. 11:25-28) and then the return to the full boundaries of the promised land with Christ reigning over them with us will occur as well.

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.

I can't but God can and did. He made promises specific to the nation of Israel that are not applicable to anyone else and he made promises to the elect of the gentiles not applicable to the nation of Israel (bride, church, ordinances, commission now).

Which promises where specific to a national Israel?

but not all the seed of Abraham are the same as in the very promise God distinguishes between those of his own loins versus the nations and even there is no distinction as to the promise of salvation there is distinctions in other promises.

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.

I think you misjudge me. I never applied this to you personally. I simply said that a fair and objective treatment of Romans 11:25-28 in its context cannot yeild any other outcome. I am ready to demonstrate that fair and objectively.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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?

Salvation does not equal land, specified dominion or specifics that have nothing to do with salvation. You cannot blur them as one and the same because they are not. You cannot make the promise to Abraham about Israel from his own loins to be about Gentile nations because they are not one and the same.

I agree! However that doesn't mean that God is going to, at some future time revert back to the Old Covenant

Where have I ever said anything about reverting back to the Mosaic Covenant??? The Mosaic covenant did not even exist until 430 years after Abraham who was a GENTILE not a Jew.

I assume you mean the millennial Kingdom? I do not see how this is a time of restoration of National Israel.

Do you think those in Revlation 1:7 who peirced him are gentiles? Do you think in Mathew 23 he is talking to Gentiles when he tells his audiance they shall not see him UNTIL they say some very special words???? Do you think those in Revelation 7:1-8 are Gentiles and the very same as those in Rev. 7:9-15??? Romans 9-11 is expressly given to demonstrate that God is not through with the nation of Israel as a Nation. What was "cut out" is what is grafted in "AGAIN" and "remnant" Israel was never "cut out." He is not referring to Gentiles that were "cut out." Romans 11:25-28 cannot be successfully interpreted any other way than to Israel as a NATION and its restoration at the second advent of Christ as described in Reve. 1:7.

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.

The church rules with Christ over the nation of Isarel as Christ sits on the throne and shares it with His bride as glorified saints while Israel enters in an unglorified state after the rapture and resurrection as they are saved after the saints meet the Lord in the clouds at the last trumpet.

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.

They never attained the whole land within the promised boundaries for an "everlasting" inheritance.

 

[RLBosley]

Salvation does not equal land, specified dominion or specifics that have nothing to do with salvation. You cannot blur them as one and the same because they are not. You cannot make the promise to Abraham about Israel from his own loins to be about Gentile nations because they are not one and the same.

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?

Where have I ever said anything about reverting back to the Mosaic Covenant??? The Mosaic covenant did not even exist until 430 years after Abraham who was a GENTILE not a Jew.

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?

Do you think those in Revlation 1:7 who peirced him are gentiles? Do you think in Mathew 23 he is talking to Gentiles when he tells his audiance they shall not see him UNTIL they say some very special words???? Do you think those in Revelation 7:1-8 are Gentiles and the very same as those in Rev. 7:9-15???

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.

Romans 9-11 is expressly given to demonstrate that God is not through with the nation of Israel as a Nation. What was "cut out" is what is grafted in "AGAIN" and "remnant" Israel was never "cut out." He is not referring to Gentiles that were "cut out." Romans 11:25-28 cannot be successfully interpreted any other way than to Israel as a NATION and its restoration at the second advent of Christ as described in Reve. 1:7.

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.

The church rules with Christ over the nation of Isarel as Christ sits on the throne and shares it with His bride as glorified saints while Israel enters in an unglorified state after the rapture and resurrection as they are saved after the saints meet the Lord in the clouds at the last trumpet.

Well that's an interesting theory.

They never attained the whole land within the promised boundaries for an "everlasting" inheritance.

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

 

[kyredneck]

Right on! I agree fully. I noticed that Rom. 11:25,26 came up later on in this discussion. I admit that is a difficult passage. But, I notice that I do not see a "throne", nor a "temple" nor reinstituted "sacrifices" there. I still have not made up my mind if there is to be a great influx of Jews into the church, the body of Christ in our future. That was the old view among many in the church, but then, the elect Jews have been coming to Christ down through the centuries also. I shy away from being dogmatic here. I do insist that there will NOT be a reinstitution of the Old Covenant!

You’ve spoken my mind on this exactly. I’m short on time, might comment more, but we do totally agree on this much above.

 

[The Biblicist]

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?

You are confusing the new heaven and earth with the millennial earth.

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?

There is nothing wrong with the Mosaic law. God is its author. God never gave the law to redeem anyone. God's design for the law was a TEACHING instrument. We still use the Mosaic law for that purpose now, without observing it. The observation is abolished but the principles and purpose will never be abolished. No one yet has been able to fully teach the meaning behind all the details in the Mosaic Law. The Lord will do so in the millennium without implementing its practice.

Circumcison occurred 430 years prior to Moses and is the sign of the Abrahamic covenant as well.

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.

He is quoting Zechariah! Go look at the passage and its context and you will see who it applies to.

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.[/QUOTTE]

The issue is not about whether Israel in Romans 11:25-28 is "spiritual" Israel but whether it is PHYSICAL Israel being made "spiritual". You are wrong, it cannot possibly be interpeted to refer to Gentiles - utterly impossible for many contextual based reasons.

1. The term "Jacob" is NEVER once applied to Gentiles -Rom. 11:27
2. Gentiles are placed in contrast to Israel in vers 25
3. Gentiles are not "cut out" of the tame olive tree nor is the "remnant"
4. The Israel in verse 26 is NOW enemies of the gospel - v. 28

I could list many more contextual problems to your interpetation. If you want to start a thread on this subject please do and I will entertain you.

 

[RLBosley]

You are confusing the new heaven and earth with the millennial earth.

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

There is nothing wrong with the Mosaic law. God is its author. God never gave the law to redeem anyone. God's design for the law was a TEACHING instrument. We still use the Mosaic law for that purpose now, without observing it. The observation is abolished but the principles and purpose will never be abolished. No one yet has been able to fully teach the meaning behind all the details in the Mosaic Law. The Lord will do so in the millennium without implementing its practice.

Circumcison occurred 430 years prior to Moses and is the sign of the Abrahamic covenant as well.

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.

He is quoting Zechariah! Go look at the passage and its context and you will see who it applies to.

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.

The issue is not about whether Israel in Romans 11:25-28 is "spiritual" Israel but whether it is PHYSICAL Israel being made "spiritual". You are wrong, it cannot possibly be interpeted to refer to Gentiles - utterly impossible for many contextual based reasons.

1. The term "Jacob" is NEVER once applied to Gentiles -Rom. 11:27
2. Gentiles are placed in contrast to Israel in vers 25
3. Gentiles are not "cut out" of the tame olive tree nor is the "remnant"
4. The Israel in verse 26 is NOW enemies of the gospel - v. 28

I could list many more contextual problems to your interpetation. If you want to start a thread on this subject please do and I will entertain you.

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.

 

[Van]

Thanks. Well part of that problem comes from the WIDE range of beliefs that is included in "dispensationalism," it's akin to trying to nail spaghetti to a wall... As for Progressive dispy, I'm not extremely familiar with it, but I was under the impression that they still maintained the distinction between Israel and the Church. After all that distinction is one of the defining marks of dispensationalism. Regardless, any move AWAY from classic Dispensationalism is a GOOD thing!

And while I am still pre-mill (historic) I don't see there being any promise left unfulfilled except what can only occur in the eternal state. Christ already reigns from David's throne and His Kingdom began at the ascension (Acts 2), it just isn't yet revealed in it's fullest form.

Progressives see the Church as part of the Promise of the OT, i.e. the new covenant. Thus the Church is part of "All Israel."

See this link for a short Progressive Dispensationalism 101 presentation:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/741853/posts

 

[RLBosley]

Progressives see the Church as part of the Promise of the OT, i.e. the new covenant. Thus the Church is part of "All Israel."

See this link for a short Progressive Dispensationalism 101 presentation:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/741853/posts

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: