The problem I have with your interpretation is that Jews are included in today's church of Christ. So, Zechariah is prophesying about how the disbelieving Gentiles and Jews will grab hold of a Christian Gentile or Jew to learn about the LORD. This is way too foggy of an interpretation. It makes us have to discard all the Jewish covenants. Abrahams covenant is discarded if your interpretation is correct. I'm pretty sure Zechariah was talking about the earthly Jerusalem and Gentiles going to Jerusalem to seek the LORD among the Jews. That's how the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Palestinian and Davidic covenants read. And I don't read anywhere among the NT authors that God has cancelled these covenants: it is only inferred from covenant theologians. Hebrews 8, 10, Acts 15, Galatians 3 and etc. don't explicitly teach that God has cancelled these covenants and has cut off the Jews from their kingdom. Best to just believe that the covenants haven't been yet fulfilled then. If you're actually interested in what dispensational theologians have to say about these NT passages, I can show you.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
If God doesn't have a future for the Jews...
- Thread starter Jope
- Start date
- Status
The problem I have with your interpretation is that Jews are included in today's church of Christ. So, Zechariah is prophesying about how the disbelieving Gentiles and Jews will grab hold of a Christian Gentile or Jew to learn about the LORD. This is way too foggy of an interpretation. It makes us have to discard all the Jewish covenants. Abrahams covenant is discarded if your interpretation is correct. I'm pretty sure Zechariah was talking about the earthly Jerusalem and Gentiles going to Jerusalem to seek the LORD among the Jews. That's how the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Palestinian and Davidic covenants read. And I don't read anywhere among the NT authors that God has cancelled these covenants: it is only inferred from covenant theologians. Hebrews 8, 10, Acts 15, Galatians 3 and etc. don't explicitly teach that God has cancelled these covenants and has cut off the Jews from their kingdom. Best to just believe that the covenants haven't been yet fulfilled then. If you're actually interested in what dispensational theologians have to say about these NT passages, I can show you.
Jews are included in today's Church of Christ. Paul confronted Peter about that (Galatians 2:11-13). There is only one people of God.
I don't see why. As I said above, the fulfilment of this is being played out before our very eyes all over the world. "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."
For the umpteenth time, it is not discarded; it is fulfilled in Christ, and we should rejoice to see the fulfilment of God's promises, not grumble about them!
Why would anyone do that? The number of Jews living in Jerusalem who know the Lord Jesus is miniscule. They need the Gospel!!
I think you'll find it isn't.
God has clearly cancelled the Sinaitic/Mosaic covenant. 'It that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now that which is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to pass away' (Hebrews 8:13). The other covenants are not cancelled. Has there been another worldwide flood (Genesis 9:11)? Is the Seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:16) still reigning? Is not the Son of David, the Messiah, on the throne (Matthew 23:41-46)?
That was what the Jews believed when our Lord came the first time (John 7:45-52).
I'm sure I don't know as much about Dispensationalism as I should, and it's pretty clear that you don't know much about Covenant Theology, so maybe we can learn from each other.
I believe dispensational theory will get your tire stuck in a rut. No promise has ever been canceled out by the Lord God. The scriptures tell us that we Gentiles are inheritors of the promise or promises! So what's the big debate over? Am I missing something here? God the Father has never acted "differently" in one age as He has in another. That would make Him like man with the mind of man. Neither would He ever lie. That's not possible. So please educate me...
And there is only one way to God.
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me. Jn 14
The bottom line is if the aberration in the ME that goes by the name 'Israel' didn't exist there would be no debate.
But it does exist and has a purpose in God's plans even for today. Not that the Jew is favored above the gentile. That would make God a respecter of persons and we know that's not true.
Dispensationalism existed a long time before 1948, and the Puritans and others were praying and looking forward to the conversion of the Jews long before that.
But your earlier post is spot on. 'For there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.'
Spoken by a Jew.
Why do you think Genesis 12 and 17 should be applied to separate Jews and Gentiles in opposition to Paul's interpretation (that it separated "true Israel" which includes Gentiles from the World)? Do you believe Paul's explanation that Abraham was uncircumcised at the giving of the Covenant, that the circumcision that matters was the one of the heart, that this promise pointed to Abraham's "Seed" and was a covenant to those "in" this Seed rather than the Israel as a nation supports his conclusion (or was this merely Paul's opinion)? Does it even matter that, although the Promise would be fulfilling through Jacob, Abraham's physical descendents far exceed Jacob (Israel)?
If the Covenant was made with Shem then you'd be asking why not Ham, or Japheth. Why not Noah? Because God does not answer to you.
Think that we would agree that God "might" still have a future for the Jewish people, not tha the totally shut them off as some here propose!Well I actually do think I've given a satisfactory response.
As I assume you've realised, I don't think the Jews do have a future 'as separate from the present Church.' The two have been made one; the middle wall of separation has been broken down; there is one flock with one shepherd and neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female but all are one in Christ Jesus, with God saying, 'Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance' (Isaiah 19:25).
The covenant with Abraham is the promise of the coming Seed. The purpose of God through history has been to make a people for Himself. This He did, starting with Abraham. The purpose of Israel as a nation was to bring the Messiah into a people that had at least an outward knowledge of Jehovah. But right from the start there was a greater purpose: 'And in you [Abraham] all the families of the earth shall be blessed' (Genesis 12:3). This is confirmed, of course, in the NT: 'For the promise that he [Abraham] should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his Seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith' (Romans 4:13). Therefore the covenant with Abraham always had the New Covenant in mind and is fulfilled in Christ, not in Israel.
Hey Martin, I'm done talking with you. And btw this is usually how my talks with covenantalists go. They can't tell me what the abrahamic covenant is and are very uninformed, usually in regards to their own position even. If a covenentalist, in the future, decided to find out what the abrahamic covenanf was, what progressive revelation was (and that it was actually cocceius, father of covenant theology, who is probably the father of modern progressive revelation doctrine), learn a little bit about dispensational theology, I might be tempted to become a covenantalist.
Usually what I do, is I'm teaching babies who kick and scream at the abrahamic covenant, progressive revelation, learning about their own position, and finally, any taste whatsoever of our position so that they can actually make a plausible rebuttal.
Have a nice day and I'll see you in other threads most likely
I doubt I'll continue talking on this thread with you.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Think that the basic question here would be does the NT support the notion that the Church is now spiritual israel, I think that paul would see spiritual israel as being saved jews, who are then part of the Church itself!
You should read "Prophecy and the Church" by Oswald Allis sometime. He sets down what covenantal amillennialism is: himself a covenantal amillennialist. He explicitly teaches that God has cancelled the Abrahamic covenant.
Last edited:
...Do you know what progressive revelation is?
Yes? Have you read any dispensational theology whatsoever?
Is that a red herring?
? What in tarnation. Hey pink flamingos came from outer space, did you know that?
...So dispensationalists teach that Jesus is not the way to God. LOL you should become a covenental theologian and write theology or something, this is brilliant! Maybe I'll become a theologian and start claiming that covenantalists believe that [Crude and insulting language edited].
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sorry that I'm too ignorant for you to discuss with me.Hey Martin, I'm done talking with you. And btw this is usually how my talks with covenantalists go. They can't tell me what the abrahamic covenant is and are very uninformed, usually in regards to their own position even. If a covenentalist, in the future, decided to find out what the abrahamic covenanf was, what progressive revelation was (and that it was actually cocceius, father of covenant theology, who is probably the father of modern progressive revelation doctrine), learn a little bit about dispensational theology, I might be tempted to become a covenantalist.
Usually what I do, is I'm teaching babies who kick and scream at the abrahamic covenant, progressive revelation, learning about their own position, and finally, any taste whatsoever of our position so that they can actually make a plausible rebuttal.
Have a nice day and I'll see you in other threads most likely
Surely a man of your great wisdom and learning would wish to impart a little more of it and educate me a little?But never mind. I won't attribute your reluctance to a lack of confidence in your ability to sustain a discussion. I'll just carry on posting. BTW, Cocceius is not the father of Covenant Theology, God is.
But before Cocceius there was Robert Rollock of Edinburgh (c1555-1599), He was the first Principal of Edinburgh University and wrote a Catechism of God's Covenants some time before Cocceius was born. Wiliam Perkins was another early proponent of C.T.And if Oswald Allis (who he?) thinks that the Abrahamic Covenant has been 'cancelled,' I think you should be reading someone else on C.T.
I think it may be helpful to comment on the two seeds of Abraham; for there are two seeds with two different promises.
Firstly, there is a physical seed to whom are given physical promises- a great nation and a physical land for it to dwell in. These promises were received by Israel in full (Josh 21:43-45). This seed ‘after the flesh’ (Gal 4:29) is represented by Ishmael. It is most important to understand that Ishmael is not in the Covenant. ‘And Abraham said to God, “Oh, that Ishmael might live before you!” Then God said, “No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish My covenant with him”’ (Gen 17:18-19). Nothing could be clearer than this; Ishmael is not in the covenant, although he receives the covenant sign (v26). Ishmael, though not an Israelite, is a type of Israel after the flesh. He receives the earthly promises (Gen 17:20) and the outward sign, but not the spiritual blessings (Gal 4:30; Acts 7:51-53). He persecutes the True Seed (Gen 21:9; John 8:37ff; Gal 4:29). His circumcision is of no avail to him since he lacks what circumcision symbolized; a humble, circumcised heart (Jer 9:25-26).
There is also a spiritual seed of Abraham; those who are in Christ, the True Seed, by faith. These are they who are looking for a heavenly country just as Abraham was. Just as Abraham did not receive an earthly inheritance (Acts 7:5 etc), so the true Israelite knew that Canaan was not his true home (Psalm 39:12; 119:19. cf. 1Peter 2:11). He put no confidence in his circumcision, but rather his circumcision spoke to him of the promised Seed of Abraham who should come (cf. Luke 2:25-32; Phil 3:3).
It may be asked then, are there two Abrahamic covenants, one to the physical descendants of Abraham and one to his spiritual seed? No, for as we have seen, Ishmael receives certain promises, and is given the sign of circumcision, but he is not in the covenant. But what then of Gen 17:10ff, which says, “This is My covenant which you shall keep between me and you and your descendants (lit. ‘Seed’) after you. Every male child among you shall be circumcised; and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you………and the uncircumcised male child who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant”? How could someone break the covenant if he’s not in it?
As so often in the Scriptures, we can use the New Testament to shed light upon the Old. First, we can look at circumcision: ‘And [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also’ Rom 4:11). First we should note that circumcision was not a seal of anything to anybody but Abraham, and even to him it was simply a confirmation of the blessings that had been already promised to him. It was a divine pledge to him that from him should come that Seed through whom all nations should be blessed. It was not a seal of his faith, but of the righteousness that should, in due time, be wrought by Christ in Whom he had believed (cf. John 8:56).
What then did circumcision signify to Abraham’s physical male progeny and to his male servants? Well, firstly it had nothing to do with faith. It was a requirement for service in Abraham’s household. If you wanted to work for Mr Abraham, you had the snip. Indeed, nowhere in the entire Bible will you find physical circumcision connected with anybody’s faith but Abraham’s. In itself it signified precisely nothing. From the descendants of Abraham, the Messiah would be born, but it did not follow that any particular descendant should be an ancestor of Christ. Circumcision was a sign, not to Abraham’s physical seed, but to those ‘Israelites indeed’ (John 1:47) who were looking forward to the Christ by faith, that the promises of God should eventually be fulfilled.
Next we can look at the ‘promises:’ ‘Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ……..and if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise’ (Gal 3:16, 29). In the light of this divinely-inspired commentary on Gen 17, it is perverse of the NKJV and other modern translations to speak of ‘descendants’ in Gen 17:10 and elsewhere, instead of ‘seed.’ The Authorised Version is more reliable at this point. The spiritual promises of the Abrahamic Covenant never applied to those who were physical descendants of Abraham, but to those of all nations (including Israel, of course) who are in Christ by faith. Very solemn are the words of our Lord on this matter: “And I say to you that many will come from east and west and will sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the sons of the kingdom will be cast into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt 8:11-12).
So we see that the Abrahamic Covenant is tied up with the coming of the promised son- the miracle child (Gen 15:2-6). Isaac is not Christ, but he is a type or foreshadowing of Christ: long promised, born miraculously, persecuted by his own kin (Ishmael), offered up by his father, who received him (figuratively- Heb 11:19) back from the dead. The children of God come from him (Rom 9:7; Heb 3:5b). It is worth reading Isaiah 54 prayerfully in the light of these points.
So are Christians in some way ‘under’ the Abrahamic Covenant? The reader may search the whole Bible through but he will find no indication that they are. Believers are the true children of Abraham, and we read in Gal 3:14 that, ‘…….. the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.’ There is no promise here for the children of believers, any more than there was for Abraham’s children by Hagar or Keturah (Rom 9:7 again!). ‘Know therefore that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham’ (Gal 3:7).
In the words of A.W.Pink: “The grand design of God’s covenant with Abraham was to make known that through him should come the One who would bring blessing to all the families of the earth.” But in order for this design to come to pass, it was necessary for a nation to arise for Christ to be born into, so that His earthly genealogy might be preserved. Pink continues, “Abraham is called a ‘father’ neither in a federal nor in a spiritual sense, but because he is the head of the faith clan, the prototype to which all believers are conformed. Christians are not under the Abrahamic covenant, though they are ‘blessed with him’ by having their faith counted unto righteousness. Though New Testament believers are not under the Abrahamic covenant, they are, because of their union with Christ, heirs of its spiritual inheritance.” [A.W. Pink, The Divine Covenants]
Firstly, there is a physical seed to whom are given physical promises- a great nation and a physical land for it to dwell in. These promises were received by Israel in full (Josh 21:43-45). This seed ‘after the flesh’ (Gal 4:29) is represented by Ishmael. It is most important to understand that Ishmael is not in the Covenant. ‘And Abraham said to God, “Oh, that Ishmael might live before you!” Then God said, “No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish My covenant with him”’ (Gen 17:18-19). Nothing could be clearer than this; Ishmael is not in the covenant, although he receives the covenant sign (v26). Ishmael, though not an Israelite, is a type of Israel after the flesh. He receives the earthly promises (Gen 17:20) and the outward sign, but not the spiritual blessings (Gal 4:30; Acts 7:51-53). He persecutes the True Seed (Gen 21:9; John 8:37ff; Gal 4:29). His circumcision is of no avail to him since he lacks what circumcision symbolized; a humble, circumcised heart (Jer 9:25-26).
There is also a spiritual seed of Abraham; those who are in Christ, the True Seed, by faith. These are they who are looking for a heavenly country just as Abraham was. Just as Abraham did not receive an earthly inheritance (Acts 7:5 etc), so the true Israelite knew that Canaan was not his true home (Psalm 39:12; 119:19. cf. 1Peter 2:11). He put no confidence in his circumcision, but rather his circumcision spoke to him of the promised Seed of Abraham who should come (cf. Luke 2:25-32; Phil 3:3).
It may be asked then, are there two Abrahamic covenants, one to the physical descendants of Abraham and one to his spiritual seed? No, for as we have seen, Ishmael receives certain promises, and is given the sign of circumcision, but he is not in the covenant. But what then of Gen 17:10ff, which says, “This is My covenant which you shall keep between me and you and your descendants (lit. ‘Seed’) after you. Every male child among you shall be circumcised; and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you………and the uncircumcised male child who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant”? How could someone break the covenant if he’s not in it?
As so often in the Scriptures, we can use the New Testament to shed light upon the Old. First, we can look at circumcision: ‘And [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also’ Rom 4:11). First we should note that circumcision was not a seal of anything to anybody but Abraham, and even to him it was simply a confirmation of the blessings that had been already promised to him. It was a divine pledge to him that from him should come that Seed through whom all nations should be blessed. It was not a seal of his faith, but of the righteousness that should, in due time, be wrought by Christ in Whom he had believed (cf. John 8:56).
What then did circumcision signify to Abraham’s physical male progeny and to his male servants? Well, firstly it had nothing to do with faith. It was a requirement for service in Abraham’s household. If you wanted to work for Mr Abraham, you had the snip. Indeed, nowhere in the entire Bible will you find physical circumcision connected with anybody’s faith but Abraham’s. In itself it signified precisely nothing. From the descendants of Abraham, the Messiah would be born, but it did not follow that any particular descendant should be an ancestor of Christ. Circumcision was a sign, not to Abraham’s physical seed, but to those ‘Israelites indeed’ (John 1:47) who were looking forward to the Christ by faith, that the promises of God should eventually be fulfilled.
Next we can look at the ‘promises:’ ‘Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ……..and if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise’ (Gal 3:16, 29). In the light of this divinely-inspired commentary on Gen 17, it is perverse of the NKJV and other modern translations to speak of ‘descendants’ in Gen 17:10 and elsewhere, instead of ‘seed.’ The Authorised Version is more reliable at this point. The spiritual promises of the Abrahamic Covenant never applied to those who were physical descendants of Abraham, but to those of all nations (including Israel, of course) who are in Christ by faith. Very solemn are the words of our Lord on this matter: “And I say to you that many will come from east and west and will sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the sons of the kingdom will be cast into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt 8:11-12).
So we see that the Abrahamic Covenant is tied up with the coming of the promised son- the miracle child (Gen 15:2-6). Isaac is not Christ, but he is a type or foreshadowing of Christ: long promised, born miraculously, persecuted by his own kin (Ishmael), offered up by his father, who received him (figuratively- Heb 11:19) back from the dead. The children of God come from him (Rom 9:7; Heb 3:5b). It is worth reading Isaiah 54 prayerfully in the light of these points.
So are Christians in some way ‘under’ the Abrahamic Covenant? The reader may search the whole Bible through but he will find no indication that they are. Believers are the true children of Abraham, and we read in Gal 3:14 that, ‘…….. the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.’ There is no promise here for the children of believers, any more than there was for Abraham’s children by Hagar or Keturah (Rom 9:7 again!). ‘Know therefore that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham’ (Gal 3:7).
In the words of A.W.Pink: “The grand design of God’s covenant with Abraham was to make known that through him should come the One who would bring blessing to all the families of the earth.” But in order for this design to come to pass, it was necessary for a nation to arise for Christ to be born into, so that His earthly genealogy might be preserved. Pink continues, “Abraham is called a ‘father’ neither in a federal nor in a spiritual sense, but because he is the head of the faith clan, the prototype to which all believers are conformed. Christians are not under the Abrahamic covenant, though they are ‘blessed with him’ by having their faith counted unto righteousness. Though New Testament believers are not under the Abrahamic covenant, they are, because of their union with Christ, heirs of its spiritual inheritance.” [A.W. Pink, The Divine Covenants]
Funny thing is that when we all get to Heaven we will all look back and realize that we really did not know all that we assumed that we do concerning God and His word!I'm sorry that I'm too ignorant for you to discuss with me.
But never mind. I won't attribute your reluctance to a lack of confidence in your ability to sustain a discussion. I'll just carry on posting. BTW, Cocceius is not the father of Covenant Theology, God is.
And if Oswald Allis (who he?) thinks that the Abrahamic Covenant has been 'cancelled,' I think you should be reading someone else on C.T.
- Status