If God doesn't have a future for the Jews...

[Yeshua1]

Paul does teach that the Abrahamic covenant was set up in the past. But he does not teach that this was a covenant of nationalities (of Gentiles on one side and Jews on another). The Object of this covenant is the Promise, the Seed (singular) who is indeed a Jew (to the Jew's first, and then the Gentiles). But to Abraham there was no Israel (Jacob/Israel was one of Abraham's grandchildren). Paul goes back to that covenant and declares (although you disagree) that the Seed is Christ and the children are those who believe.

I also believe that God has a purpose for Israel (as a nation) that will come to pass in the future. A belief that God has a future for Israel (as a nation) is not dependent on restricting the Abrahamic Covenant to Jacob and his descendants. Abraham was not a Jew. He was not an Israelite. Abraham was not even the "father" of the Jews (in terms of sole lineage). That would be Jacob (whom God chose and changed his name to Israel, and whose descendants are the twelve tribes of Israel).

You can't go back to Abraham and restrict that covenant to a future (to that time) people because it would exclude Abraham himself. Abraham had Isaac. God established his covenant (within the Abrahamic Covenant) with Isaac (for it is through Israel the Seed will be delivered). And God established his covenant with Jacob (Israel). Again, within the Abrahamic Covenant. But the Object of the Abrahamic Covenant is not provision for national Israel, but salvation to the world. And if you cannot understand that simple point, then you are wrong even in your dispensationalism.

The Abrahamic Covenant was instututed by God as the means by which he would bring the blessing of salvation unto all who would qualify as Abraham did, by receiving the promised Messiah yeshua, so that all who place faith in Him will be saved!

 

[JonC]

Still seems that paul saw spiritual israel as being saved remnant Jews, who were placed into the Church along with the gentiles!

If not Gentiles, who is grafted into Israel?

 

[Yeshua1]

If not Gentiles, who is grafted into Israel?

If not Gentiles, who is grafted into Israel?

Are you calling the church then spiritual israel?

 

[Jope]

Those "red hearings" and "straw men" are facts that disprove YOUR statements that YOU introduced into this thread. YOU, not I, brought up pre-trib. You, not I, claimed most, if not all, early church fathers were pre-trib.

Here's what I said:

Where I differ (although it doesn't matter to this thread) is in the constitution of the ekklesia after the church is raptured: I believe that the ekklesia exists on earth (the jews and gentiles) and in heaven, during the tribulation. This is the belief of the Church Fathers, who were mostly, if not all, pretribulational, although this isn't the reason why I believe in their ecclesiology. My belief, like theirs, is based on the study of scripture.

I said it doesn't matter to this thread! And it really doesn't.

And look! I said that I believe, with the church fathers, that the ekklesia exists on earth during the tribulation! You claimed that I did not believe this, quoting their beliefs of the church on earth during the tribulation. I specifically stated that I believe this with them. What was that about misrepresenting beliefs?

 

[Jope]

Paul goes back to that covenant and declares (although you disagree) that the Seed is Christ and the children are those who believe.

Nice straw man. Where did I ever claim that?

 

[Jope]

A belief that God has a future for Israel (as a nation) is not dependent on restricting the Abrahamic Covenant to Jacob and his descendants.

If Israel's future isn't dependent on the Abrahamic covenant, what is it dependent on? I'm not claiming that we ought to restrict the covenant to the Jews. The covenant doesn't even claim that. I'm asking about the wall of separation that Paul talks about.

 

[Jope]

Well, my apologies! I have heard of Machen and Van Til, but never Oswald Allis. Being a Brit, I am not as familiar with American theologians as I should be.
However, the facts do not change. If he claimed that the Abrahamic Covenant is 'cancelled' or 'abolished,' he was wrong. He may well have said that it was 'fulfilled' by or 'subsumed' in the New Covenant, but that's a different matter. I wonder if you can provide me with a quotation.

(2) It is true that, in the express terms of the covenant with Abraham, obedience is not stated as a condition. But that obedience was presupposed is clearly indicated by two facts. The one is that obedience is the precondition of blessing under all circumstances...The second fact is that in the case of Abraham the duty of obedience is particularly stressed. In Gen. xviii. 17f it is plainly stated that, through His choice of Abraham, God proposed to bring into being, by pious nurture, a righteous seed which would 'keep the way of the Lord,' in order that as a result and reward of such obedience 'the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.' (p. 33).

"But if the Abrahamic covenant was unconditional why is Esau excluded from the blessings of the covenant?" (p. 35).​

Allis is implying that the Abrahamic covenant is conditional.

(1) As to the seed, it is to be observed that the very words which appear in the covenant...are used of the nation of Israel in the time of Solomon...This would indicate that the promise was regarded as fulfilled in this respect in the golden age of the Monarchy...
(2) As to the land, the dominion of David and of Solomon extended from the Euphrates to the River of Egypt...Israel did come into possession of the land promised to the patriarchs. She possessed it, but not 'fore ever.' Her possession of the land was forfeited by disobedience...it can be regarded as having been fulfilled centuries before the first advent... (pp. 57-8).
​

Allis says that the Jews lost the land because of disobedience because the Abrahamic covenant is conditional. The covenant won't have a fulfillment in the future: it was fulfilled historically.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Allis says that the Jews lost the land because of disobedience because the Abrahamic covenant is conditional. The covenant won't have a fulfillment in the future: it was fulfilled historically.

It is the Sinaitic Covenant that was conditional, not the Abrahamic. But I have said several times that the Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled in Christ.
Thanks for giving me those pages from Alliss. I will reply in more depth later on, but may I ask, have you read my post #39? I may enable you to see where I'm coming from even if you disagree with me (which you will! ).

 

[Jope]

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.

I took a gander through post 39 Martin. I disagree here, but I mostly agree with everything else. Since the seed of Abraham is Christ and we are in Christ, we are under the Abrahamic covenant in this sense. It seems that you also believe this, so it's probably just poor wording on your part.

 

[Jope]

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.

His earthly Geneology could be preserved through Shem. What difference does it make, if covenant theology is correct, if Christ is born into a Jewish nation? We read that God is making us into a nation (1 Pet 2:9), with the wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles being disregarded.

 

[JonC]

Are you calling the church then spiritual israel?

Yes, I am.

 

[JonC]

If Israel's future isn't dependent on the Abrahamic covenant, what is it dependent on? I'm not claiming that we ought to restrict the covenant to the Jews. The covenant doesn't even claim that. I'm asking about the wall of separation that Paul talks about.

Nice straw-man argument My comment was that I believe God has a purpose for Israel as a nation, but that does not necessitate restricting the covenant to Israel (as a nation).

There was a separation insofar as God chose to deliver salvation through Israel. By necessity, when you choose one thing it is separated from the others. This is inherent in the choosing. But insofar as the Abrahamic covenant is concerned, the blessing (salvation) is not to the Jews but to the world:

Genesis 12:1-3 Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go forth from your country, And from your relatives And from your father's house, To the land which I will show you; And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed."

This is not a Covenant separating the Jews and Gentiles. As God builds a nation through which the Messiah will come, sure there is a separation. But it is not the point of the Abrahamic Covenant to separate Jews and Gentiles. It is to make a people as a special possession of God through redemption. It looks to the Seed, in whom the promise is fulfilled. Not Israel as a nation, but Israel as the "true Israel" in whom Gentiles will be grafted. The covenant does not separate, but includes.

 

[JonC]

And look! I said that I believe, with the church fathers, that the ekklesia exists on earth during the tribulation! You claimed that I did not believe this, quoting their beliefs of the church on earth during the tribulation. I specifically stated that I believe this with them. What was that about misrepresenting beliefs?

Perhaps I misunderstood. I do see where you say the church exists on earth during the tribulation (I think everyone believes that there will be Christians on earth during the tribulation - those who don't worship the anti-Christ). But pre-tribulation is the belief that the church will be "caught up" to heaven before ("pre") the tribulation (those on earth during the tribulation are those who are saved during the tribulation) - which is not what the early church believed. So you see my confusion here.

This is the belief of the Church Fathers, who were mostly, if not all, pretribulational,

The above statement is false. Perhaps you typed pretribulational when you meant premillennial. If so, then yes. That was the belief of the early church.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

(2) It is true that, in the express terms of the covenant with Abraham, obedience is not stated as a condition. But that obedience was presupposed is clearly indicated by two facts. The one is that obedience is the precondition of blessing under all circumstances...The second fact is that in the case of Abraham the duty of obedience is particularly stressed. In Gen. xviii. 17f it is plainly stated that, through His choice of Abraham, God proposed to bring into being, by pious nurture, a righteous seed which would 'keep the way of the Lord,' in order that as a result and reward of such obedience 'the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.' (p. 33).​

Abraham was called by a holy God to holiness (Genesis 17:1), but he was not called because of his holiness (Joshua 24:2-3) and I see nowhere where obedience is made a condition of the covenant. God called him and persevered with his various failings as He does with you and me, so no, the Abrahamic covenant was not conditional. It is a promise of the Christ who died for sinners.

"But if the Abrahamic covenant was unconditional why is Esau excluded from the blessings of the covenant?" (p. 35).
Allis is implying that the Abrahamic covenant is conditional.

Because of the sovereign will of God. 'Jacob I have loved and Esau I have hated.' There were ever so many reasons why God might have hated Esau; the wonder is that He should have loved Jacob......or me.

(1) As to the seed, it is to be observed that the very words which appear in the covenant...are used of the nation of Israel in the time of Solomon...This would indicate that the promise was regarded as fulfilled in this respect in the golden age of the Monarchy...

(2) As to the land, the dominion of David and of Solomon extended from the Euphrates to the River of Egypt...Israel did come into possession of the land promised to the patriarchs. She possessed it, but not 'forever.' Her possession of the land was forfeited by disobedience...it can be regarded as having been fulfilled centuries before the first advent... (pp. 57-8).
​

Allis says that the Jews lost the land because of disobedience because the Abrahamic covenant is conditional. The covenant won't have a fulfillment in the future: it was fulfilled historically.

If you look again at my post #39, you will see that there are two seeds of Abraham. To the physical seed came the promise of the land, and that promise came fully to pass in the time of Solomon. But that is not the covenant, for the true covenantal promises to Abraham had nothing to do with a piece of real estate in the Levant (Genesis 14:19; John 8:56; Romans 4:13; Hebrews 11:9-10, 16). Abraham's children of promise (Galatians 3:7; 4:28), who have the faith of Abraham, inherit something a whole lot better (Galatians 3:14). That inheritance will never be lost (1 Peter 1:3-5).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I took a gander through post 39 Martin. I disagree here, but I mostly agree with everything else. Since the seed of Abraham is Christ and we are in Christ, we are under the Abrahamic covenant in this sense. It seems that you also believe this, so it's probably just poor wording on your part.

I suppose this depends on what you mean by 'under.' I don't believe that anyone is 'under' the Abrahamic covenant, as Israel was under the Sinaitic covenant, with blessings dependent upon works. Christians are 'the seed of Abraham and heirs according to the promise' (Galatians 3:29) through our union with Christ. The New Covenant in Christ's blood is the fulfilment of the covenants of promise, which includes the Abrahamic.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

His earthly Genealogy could be preserved through Shem. What difference does it make, if covenant theology is correct, if Christ is born into a Jewish nation? We read that God is making us into a nation (1 Pet 2:9), with the wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles being disregarded.

I don't know what your thing is with Shem. God didn't make a covenant with Shem; He made one with Abraham for His own high and holy purposes. This is the way God decided to do things and I don't see how it helps to ask why He didn't do it another way. There was nothing special about Abraham (Joshua 24:2-3) and nothing special about Israel (Deuteronomy 7:7-8), but God chose them to be the vehicle through which His plans for the whole world would come to pass (Genesis 12:3; Galatians 3:28-29).

 

[Jope]

The above statement is false. Perhaps you typed pretribulational when you meant premillennial. If so, then yes. That was the belief of the early church.

...I could give you the quotes again. But judging by my last post of the same quotes, you are probably just going to overlook them again. And I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about the Abrahamic covenant separating Jews from Gentiles. I don't believe that the Abrahamic covenant restricts salvation to the Jews, so that only Jews can get saved: I do, however, believe that the Abrahamic covenant exalts the Jews above the Gentiles (and, not to get carried away into another discussion, I also lean towards the belief that in the new heaven and new earth, this distinction will be removed--Mt 5:17-18).

Have a good one JonC

 

[Jope]

If you look again at my post #39, you will see that there are two seeds of Abraham. To the physical seed came the promise of the land, and that promise came fully to pass in the time of Solomon. But that is not the covenant, for the true covenantal promises to Abraham had nothing to do with a piece of real estate in the Levant (Genesis 14:19; John 8:56; Romans 4:13; Hebrews 11:9-10, 16). Abraham's children of promise (Galatians 3:7; 4:28), who have the faith of Abraham, inherit something a whole lot better (Galatians 3:14). That inheritance will never be lost (1 Peter 1:3-5).

This is where we disagree. I don't believe God cancelled His land promises with the Jews (Rom. 11:28-29). God promised to Abraham that his seed (Christ) would be like the stars in heaven AND like the dust on earth.

Gen. 15:5 KJV
And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

Gen. 13:16 KJV
And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.​

Colossians 1:16 says that there are thrones created for Christ in heaven and on earth. See also Ephesians 1:10. Paul teaches that Christians (of this dispensation) have no lasting inheritance here on earth (Philipp. 3:20; Eph. 2:6-7; Gal. 4:26; etc.). Jesus says that the Jews inherit earth (Mt 5:5; Rom. 15:8; Gen. 12:7--to thy seed, Christ, I will give this land; etc.).

 

[Jope]

I don't know what your thing is with Shem. God didn't make a covenant with Shem; He made one with Abraham for His own high and holy purposes. This is the way God decided to do things and I don't see how it helps to ask why He didn't do it another way. There was nothing special about Abraham (Joshua 24:2-3) and nothing special about Israel (Deuteronomy 7:7-8), but God chose them to be the vehicle through which His plans for the whole world would come to pass (Genesis 12:3; Galatians 3:28-29).

If there was no point in the perpetual Jewish land promises of the abrahamic covenant, as covenant theology teaches, why did God bother making this covenant? It only makes Him look like a lying fool who makes covenants on the whim without being able to fulfill them.

 

[JonC]

...I could give you the quotes again. But judging by my last post of the same quotes, you are probably just going to overlook them again. And I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about the Abrahamic covenant separating Jews from Gentiles. I don't believe that the Abrahamic covenant restricts salvation to the Jews, so that only Jews can get saved: I do, however, believe that the Abrahamic covenant exalts the Jews above the Gentiles (and, not to get carried away into another discussion, I also lean towards the belief that in the new heaven and new earth, this distinction will be removed--Mt 5:17-18).

Have a good one JonC

I agree partly. I am still not clear about the pre-trib part (were you seriously contending the quotes you provided...in the entire context where they believe the tribulation was in process as they wrote...shows them to be pre-trib???).

You have a good day as well.