Justification and Law in Paul

[Dr. Walter]

You are ignoring another possibility: that when it comes to statements about Jesus being "righteous" or "obedient", Paul is referring to Jesus' obedience to Israel's covenantal obligations.

You cannot simply sweep such a possibility off the table. I have presented it and, in my last post, I argued for it at some length.

You have merely asserted it but you have not produced ANYTHING to prove it. It is just your THEORY but you have not given any EVIDENCE to support your theory but your own ASSERTIONS and ASSUMPTIONS.

Give me one single scripture that spells out a "vocation"! Give me one single scripture that separates the moral, ceremonial, and civil law from the JEWISH covenant????? Just one clear explicit statement!

If you cannot provide it, but have to REINTERPRET "deeds" to mean "vocation" and "the law" to mean a "covenant" lacking moral, ceremonial and civil obligations then you are simply PERVERTING the scripture to suite your fancy!

 

[Andre]

You have merely asserted it but you have not produced ANYTHING to prove it. It is just your THEORY but you have not given any EVIDENCE to support your theory but your own ASSERTIONS and ASSUMPTIONS.

Incorrect. I have made a detailed argument for it in post 38.

Give me one single scripture that spells out a "vocation"!

I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed

Israel's vocation - her "job" if you will - is to be the people by whom the nations will be blessed.

Give me one single scripture that separates the moral, ceremonial, and civil law from the JEWISH covenant????? Just one clear explicit statement!

I do not need to provide any such statement. God gave the Law of Moses to the Jews as the means by which they would fulfill their covenantal obligation to bless the nations. We can discuss how the Jews being under the Law of Moses blesses the nations. But there is no problem with asserting that the Jews were (1) given the Law of Moses; and (2) given a covenant task to be the means by which the nations are blessed.

 

[Andre]

Give me one single scripture that spells out a "vocation"!

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2Great in every respect. First of all, that (A)they were entrusted with the (B)oracles of God.

To be "entrusted" with something means to be given something for the sake of others. If I entrust you with a letter, your job is to ensure that letter reaches its recipients. Paul discerns that Israel was "entrusted" with the Law of Moses for the sake of the nations. But, as Romans 3 goes on to say, the Jews did not live up to their covenantal obligations.

So what does God do? Scrap the covenant?

No. He finds a faithful Israelite to fulfill it - Jesus of Nazareth.

On the cross, Jesus takes on the role of Israel and fulfills the covenant.

The promises made to Abraham have come true after all - Israel has blessed the nations.

Lest ye think I am speculating here, I would point out the concept of the King (Messiah) acting on behalf of his people is there in the Old Testament.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed

Israel's vocation - her "job" if you will - is to be the people by whom the nations will be blessed.


I do not need to provide any such statement. God gave the Law of Moses to the Jews as the means by which they would fulfill their covenantal obligation to bless the nations. We can discuss how the Jews being under the Law of Moses blesses the nations. But there is no problem with asserting that the Jews were (1) given the Law of Moses; and (2) given a covenant task to be the means by which the nations are blessed.

You are confusing the covenant of grace with the covenant of law. God promised no such thing through the covenant of law. What comes through the covenant of law is wrath not salvation, not just for Jews but for all "the children of men" (Psa. 14:2-3 with Rom. 3:9-11) as the same law is written upon the conscience of all men including the Gentiles (Rom. 2:14-15 with Rom. 3:9-11).

It is the blood of the "everlasting covenant" of grace that redeems mankind from the "curse" of the law as all mankind have violated God's moral law.

Israel was never placed in a position as SAVIOR of the world through covenant of law - NEVER! Hence, God had NEVER given Israel or any other nation such a "vocation." Christ was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world to take away the sin "OF THE WORLD" and Israel was NEVER given that vocation as a Nation - NEVER!


From the very beginning this blessing was to be through Christ (Gal. 3:17)not the law covenant as the law covenant brings wrath upon Israel as well as all mankind as it based upon a moral standard that "the children of men" (Psa. 14:2-3; Rom. 3:9-11) have violated not just the Jews.

 

[Andre]

You are confusing the covenant of grace with the covenant of law. God promised no such thing through the covenant of law. What comes through the covenant of law is wrath not salvation, not just for Jews but for all "the children of men" (Psa. 14:2-3 with Rom. 3:9-11) as the same law is written upon the conscience of all men including the Gentiles (Rom. 2:14-15 with Rom. 3:9-11).

I am on firm Biblical footing with my claim.

God repeatedly tells Abraham that through his descendents the nations will be blest. And Israel has a role to play in this - they are to be "a light to the nations". This is there all over the place in the Old Testament in various forms.

So it is entirely Biblically accurate to claim that Israel has a "covenantal" obligation to follow God's law and fulfill its function to be a light to the nations.

I am not saying anything controversial. I would have thought no one would disagree with this:

1. God makes a covenant with Abraham and his descendents;
2. Israel (Abraham's people) are instructed to obey the terms of the covenant;
3. Through this same covenant, the Gentiles will be blest.

Therefore it is entirely coherent to say that Israel had a job to do.

Paul certainly believed they did -and that they "dropped the ball":

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God. 3What if some did not have faith?

Its clear that Paul believes:

1. The Jews had a job - to be entrusted with the words of God is to be given those world for the benefit of someone else.

2. The Jews were not entirely faithful to that job.

The job that the Jews were given is indeed connected to the matter of "salvation".

But this is besides the point - the Jews did indeed have a vocation: a task, a covenantal obligation.

And my argument is that Jesus fulfilled that coventantal obligation. This is the sense in which Jesus was obedient.

I have argued for this in detail in this thread in post 38. Please address the content of my argument. You have entirely ignored the content of the actual case that I make that Jesus acts as Israel. You need to engage my argument.

It is the blood of the "everlasting covenant" of grace that redeems mankind from the "curse" of the law as all mankind have violated God's moral law.

I am not sure exactly what you are saying. I am not in any sense denying that, on the cross, Jesus redeems the whole world in a great act of pure grace. But He is acting as Israel when He does so.

Remember - Israel is promised that the entire world will be blessed through her. As it turns out, this works out as the entire world benefiting from the salvific work of Jesus as Israel's representative who takes her place and is the vessel of God's wrath.

Are you denying that Jesus acts "as Israel". Fair enough, I can make many more Biblical arguments for this foundational principle.

I have never said that God didn't know from the beginning that Israel would fail and that Jesus would have to act on her behalf. But I suggest it is Biblically clear that Jesus indeed does take on the role of Israel and fulfills the covenant.

 

[Dr. Walter]

So it is entirely Biblically accurate to claim that Israel has a "covenantal" obligation to follow God's law and fulfill its function to be a light to the nations.

You are making a HUGE leap from being "A" light to the nations to "THE" light of the world! There is nothing in scripture to bridge this gap. You simply assert it without any evidence.

I am not saying anything controversial. I would have thought no one would disagree with this:

1. God makes a covenant with Abraham and his descendents;
2. Israel (Abraham's people) are instructed to obey the terms of the covenant;
3. Through this same covenant, the Gentiles will be blest.

Are you really serious? You have got to joking?

1. First, the covenant that God made with Abraham was THROUGH the singular "seed" Jesus Christ rather than through "his descendants" or Israel as a nation.

Gal. 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.


2. The covenant of law at Mount Sinai occurred 430 years after the Abrahamic covenant and they are NOT THE SAME.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

The covenant with Abraham was through CHRIST ALONE whereas the Law covenant was with Isael. You cannot confuse the two or mix them together as the Scriptures do not confuse or mix them.


3. The covenant with Abraham is applied only to the PROMISED CHILDREN not to the "children after the flesh" but the law covenant on Mount Sinai is to all Israel.

Rom. 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Gal. 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

This destroys your foundation for everything you draw as your conclusions in the rest of this post.

 

[Andre]

You are making a HUGE leap from being "A" light to the nations to "THE" light of the world! There is nothing in scripture to bridge this gap. You simply assert it without any evidence.

When time permits, I will support this claim: The covenantal task of Israel was to solve the Adamic sin problem - the problem of sin and death in mankind.

 

[Andre]

Are you really serious? You have got to joking?

1. First, the covenant that God made with Abraham was THROUGH the singular "seed" Jesus Christ rather than through "his descendants" or Israel as a nation.

Gal. 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Its kind of funny that you think I am joking when the scriptural evidence supports what I am saying.

I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed;

The text says what it says - through the descendents of Abraham the nations will be blest. This is not a text where you can say the author is talking about a single person.

I am fully aware of what is said in Galatians 3:16. I will probably deal with that text and its relation to my position in another post.

But that is beside the immediate point. This text - the Genesis 26 one I quote here - says what it says: Through the covenant, the Israelites will bless the entire world.

 

[Andre]

2. The covenant of law at Mount Sinai occurred 430 years after the Abrahamic covenant and they are NOT THE SAME.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

I can counter this objection by asserting that the fact that the Law was given later does not mean that the giving of the Law to Abraham's descendents at Sinai is not simply one further step in God's single unfolding covenant plan.

The covenant with Abraham was through CHRIST ALONE whereas the Law covenant was with Isael. You cannot confuse the two or mix them together as the Scriptures do not confuse or mix them.

Genesis 26:4 refutes this claim - there is certainly an element of the covenant whereby the descendents of Abraham - the Jews - bless the nations:

I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed;

In Romans 9, Paul clearly argues that the salvation of the Gentiles has indeed been achieved, at least in part, through Israel:

What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much (AQ)patience vessels of wrath (AR)prepared for destruction? 23And He did so to make known (AS)the riches of His glory upon (AT)vessels of mercy, which He (AU)prepared beforehand for glory, 24even us, whom He also (AV)called, (AW)not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Who are the vessels of destruction here - they are Jews. And while I will not argue the point in this present post, I am more than ready to stoutly defend this assertion. Paul is saying that in God's covenant plan, Jews are hardened in order that Gentiles can be blessed.

In fact, Paul makes the case explcitly in Romans 11, where it is crystal clear that what has happened to Israel has indeed had salvific effect for the Gentile:

But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles,

This makes my case, irrespective of anything else. Paul is obviously talking about Jews here - I can make that case if you really need it to be made.

And what is he saying? That, mysteriously, the unbelief of the Jew has been part of the plan to bring salvation to Gentiles.

Any effort to suggest that God's dealings with Israel are not an integral part of the redemptive plan of God cannot survive careful examination of the Scriptures.

Jesus' work on the cross is the climax of, yes, the "Abraham" plan that God put in place to solve the problem of sin and death.

 

[Dr. Walter]

When time permits, I will support this claim: The covenantal task of Israel was to solve the Adamic sin problem - the problem of sin and death in mankind.

I believe you will justify anything it takes to support this unbiblical, absurd and rediculous heresy you are trying to pass off as God's Word. What you are proving is that one error leads to another error until you have backed yourself into a corner of absurdity.

You are claiming that God has a plan A (which failed) and then a plan B to solve the adamic sin problem when the scriptures repudiates that idea from Genesis to Revelation that God has only one plan and it was through the Person and work of of one individual man alone - the Second Adam. God does not consider any other options but a first and a second Adam in regard to sin as to its origin and to its solution.

I will no longer stoop to such a absurd rediculous heretical discussion as your mind has been given over to error and nothing will turn it. From this point forward I will simply declare your position to be what it is - heresy.

 

[Andre]

Give me one single scripture that spells out a "vocation"!

Among the many texts that demonstrate that Israel indeed has a vocation is this text from Romans 2:

But if you bear the name "Jew" and rely upon the Law and boast in God, 18and know His will and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law, 19and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness,

Paul knows his Old Testament – he is evoking the image of Israel as a light to the pagan nations. Remember the context here in Romans 2: Paul is lecturing the Jew who thinks he is superior to the Gentile (this can be easily shown by what Paul goes on to say later in Romans 2 where he speaks of Gentiles judging Jews). This text, from Isaiah 42, places the “servant” in the position of being the one who is a “light” to the pagan nations:

Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold;
My chosen one in whom My (D)soul delights
I have put My Spirit upon Him;
He will bring forth justice to the nations.
2"He will not cry out or raise His voice,
Nor make His voice heard in the street.
3"A bruised reed He will not break
And a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish;
He will faithfully bring forth justice.
4"He will not be disheartened or crushed
Until He has established justice in the earth;
And the coastlands will wait expectantly for His law."
5Thus says God the LORD,
Who created the heavens and stretched them out,
Who spread out the earth and its offspring,
Who gives breath to the people on it
And spirit to those who walk in it,
6"I am the LORD, I have called You in righteousness,
I will also hold You by the hand and watch over You,
And I will appoint You as a covenant to the people,
As a light to the nations,

Before anyone baldly claims that this is about Jesus to the exclusion of Israel, note what Isaiah has said just one chapter back about the identity of the servant:

But you, Israel, My servant,
Jacob whom I have chosen,
Descendant of Abraham My friend,

And then in chapter 43, Isaiah places Israel squarely in the role of a servant who brings light to the pagan nations:

But now, thus says the LORD, your Creator, O Jacob,
And He who formed you, O Israel,
"Do not fear, for I have redeemed you;
…..
Bring out the people who are blind, even though they have eyes,
And the deaf, even though they have ears.
9All the nations have gathered together
So that the peoples may be assembled
Who among them can declare this
And proclaim to us the former things?
Let them present their witnesses that they may be justified,
Or let them hear and say, "It is true."
"You are My witnesses," declares the LORD,
"And My servant whom I have chosen,
So that you may know and believe Me

Note the echoes of Paul’s indictment of the Jew in Roman 2. Paul says that the Jew was to be a light to the blind. Understood in the Biblical context, as these Isaiah text show, Paul is making is a clear allusion to the role that Israel is supposed to perform – being a light to the pagans, so that the pagans can know that YHWH is the true God.

This is but one of many scriptural arguments that Israel indeed has a vocation. And it goes beyond this – Paul is indicting the Jew for failing to live up to his covenantal obligation.

And, as we will shortly see, Paul understands that Jesus acts as Israel, fulfilling her covenantal obligation to be light to the nations.

 

[Andre]

I believe you will justify anything it takes to support this unbiblical, absurd and rediculous heresy you are trying to pass off as God's Word. What you are proving is that one error leads to another error until you have backed yourself into a corner of absurdity.

The above is a rude, demeaning statement. You have produced precisely zero items of actual substantive evidence that I in any sense have deviated from the intended meaning of the scriptures.

You are claiming that God has a plan A (which failed) and then a plan B to solve the adamic sin problem when the scriptures repudiates that idea from Genesis to Revelation that God has only one plan and it was through the Person and work of of one individual man alone - the Second Adam. God does not consider any other options but a first and a second Adam in regard to sin as to its origin and to its solution.

You are mistaken - I believe no such thing and, as usual, you will not be able to substantiate this conclusion of yours. I believe in one plan, but it does indeed involve Israel. Now I have not entirely explained what I think Paul's argument is, but I do not, repeat do not, believe in 2 plans.

I will no longer stoop to such a absurd rediculous heretical discussion as your mind has been given over to error and nothing will turn it. From this point forward I will simply declare your position to be what it is - heresy.

In the post to which this is your "response", I provided a clear statement from Paul about how Paul makes the case explcitly in Romans 11 that what has happened to Israel has indeed had salvific effect for the Gentile:

But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles,

Do you believe this statement or not, Dr. W? Is Paul right when he says that by Israel's transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Or is he mistaken.

I suggest you invest your energy in responding to my arguments and drop the "heresy" bluster. Heresy needs to be demonstrated, not Dr. W. Merely claiming it is nothing.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Israel is personified as the Messiah because Christ would come through Israel. This is clear if you look at Isaiah 53. However, this does not mean that Israel is performing the covenant obligation for the rest of the world.

We are to be a "light" to the world and we are to be teachers of God's Word but that does not mean we are fulfilling a covenant obligation for the rest of the world. It means that we are simply reflecters of the true light and true redeemer. The same with the nation of Israel. They fulfilled no covenant law obligation for the world any more than we do.

Moreover, you cannot mix the Abraham covenant with the Mosaic Covenant as they are not the same. They do not have the same people in view (promised children versus all enthnic Israel). They were not given at the same time. The Abraham covenant is "sure to all the seed" (Rom. 4:16) whereas "NO FLESH" can fulfil the Law covenant.

You simply close your eyes to the tremendous problems and go full steam ahead into absurdity.

Among the many texts that demonstrate that Israel indeed has a vocation is this text from Romans 2:

But if you bear the name "Jew" and rely upon the Law and boast in God, 18and know His will and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law, 19and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness,

Paul knows his Old Testament – he is evoking the image of Israel as a light to the pagan nations. Remember the context here in Romans 2: Paul is lecturing the Jew who thinks he is superior to the Gentile (this can be easily shown by what Paul goes on to say later in Romans 2 where he speaks of Gentiles judging Jews). This text, from Isaiah 42, places the “servant” in the position of being the one who is a “light” to the pagan nations:

Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold;
My chosen one in whom My (D)soul delights
I have put My Spirit upon Him;
He will bring forth justice to the nations.
2"He will not cry out or raise His voice,
Nor make His voice heard in the street.
3"A bruised reed He will not break
And a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish;
He will faithfully bring forth justice.
4"He will not be disheartened or crushed
Until He has established justice in the earth;
And the coastlands will wait expectantly for His law."
5Thus says God the LORD,
Who created the heavens and stretched them out,
Who spread out the earth and its offspring,
Who gives breath to the people on it
And spirit to those who walk in it,
6"I am the LORD, I have called You in righteousness,
I will also hold You by the hand and watch over You,
And I will appoint You as a covenant to the people,
As a light to the nations,

Before anyone baldly claims that this is about Jesus to the exclusion of Israel, note what Isaiah has said just one chapter back about the identity of the servant:

But you, Israel, My servant,
Jacob whom I have chosen,
Descendant of Abraham My friend,

And then in chapter 43, Isaiah places Israel squarely in the role of a servant who brings light to the pagan nations:

But now, thus says the LORD, your Creator, O Jacob,
And He who formed you, O Israel,
"Do not fear, for I have redeemed you;
…..
Bring out the people who are blind, even though they have eyes,
And the deaf, even though they have ears.
9All the nations have gathered together
So that the peoples may be assembled
Who among them can declare this
And proclaim to us the former things?
Let them present their witnesses that they may be justified,
Or let them hear and say, "It is true."
"You are My witnesses," declares the LORD,
"And My servant whom I have chosen,
So that you may know and believe Me

Note the echoes of Paul’s indictment of the Jew in Roman 2. Paul says that the Jew was to be a light to the blind. Understood in the Biblical context, as these Isaiah text show, Paul is making is a clear allusion to the role that Israel is supposed to perform – being a light to the pagans, so that the pagans can know that YHWH is the true God.

This is but one of many scriptural arguments that Israel indeed has a vocation. And it goes beyond this – Paul is indicting the Jew for failing to live up to his covenantal obligation.

And, as we will shortly see, Paul understands that Jesus acts as Israel, fulfilling her covenantal obligation to be light to the nations.

 

[Dr. Walter]

There are so many obvious contradictions in your arguments. One error simply leads to another until there are so many that it is frustrating to know where to begin to unravel the nonsense as one presumption is being laid upon another presumption.

You obviously don't understand Messanic personifications. King David is personified as the Messiah. Israel is personified as the Messiah. Others are personified as the Messiah in the Old Testament ("wisdom", etc.)

To take these personifications and interpret them literally into the actual role of the Messiah is misapplication of the Scriptures.

Just because Israel is given the "oracles" and has the responsibility to be the "light" of truth to the rest of the world, and teachers of righteousness does not mean they were to fulfil any convenant obligation "for the world" any more than we are to be "lights" in this world, teachers of righteousness that fulfil covenant obligations "for the world."

The Abraham covenant is "SURE TO ALL THE SEED" (Rom. 4:16) but the law covenant is sure to NONE (Rom. 3:20). You cannot treat them as one covenant nor can you treat them as applicable to the same people. You cannot treat the law covenant as the basis for justification for Israel or through Israel for the world.

If you do, then you are creating another POTENTIAL Savior other than Christ and another POTENTIAL salvation than provided by Christ.

The above is a rude, demeaning statement. You have produced precisely zero items of actual substantive evidence that I in any sense have deviated from the intended meaning of the scriptures.


You are mistaken - I believe no such thing and, as usual, you will not be able to substantiate this conclusion of yours. I believe in one plan, but it does indeed involve Israel. Now I have not entirely explained what I think Paul's argument is, but I do not, repeat do not, believe in 2 plans.


In the post to which this is your "response", I provided a clear statement from Paul about how Paul makes the case explcitly in Romans 11 that what has happened to Israel has indeed had salvific effect for the Gentile:

But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles,

Do you believe this statement or not, Dr. W? Is Paul right when he says that by Israel's transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Or is he mistaken.

I suggest you invest your energy in responding to my arguments and drop the "heresy" bluster. Heresy needs to be demonstrated, not Dr. W. Merely claiming it is nothing.

 

[Andre]

Israel is personified as the Messiah because Christ would come through Israel. This is clear if you look at Isaiah 53. However, this does not mean that Israel is performing the covenant obligation for the rest of the world.

Well, this is not the whole story.

As my last post shows, Israel indeed had a covenant obligation to be "a light" to the pagan nations. And it is clear that, in Romans 2 and 3, Paul critiques the Jew for not living up to that oblibgation.

Now let's talk about Isaiah 53 and the suffering servant. I believe that is Biblically correct to see the servant as Israel. One cannot simply "retroject" Jesus into that role and ignore the Old Testament context.

Note this (again) from Isaiah 41:

But you, Israel, My servant,
Jacob whom I have chosen,
Descendant of Abraham My friend,
You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth,
And called from its remotest parts
And said to you, 'You are My servant,...

And this text (again) from Isaiah 42 is even more telling. Note how the first few verses echo the suffering servant of chapter 53. Now who is this servant? It is the one who is appointed to be a light unto the nations. Biblically, this is Israel – it is Israel that has the covenant role of being a light to the nations.

Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold;
My chosen one in whom My (D)soul delights
I have put My Spirit upon Him;
He will bring forth justice to the nations.
2"He will not cry out or raise His voice,
Nor make His voice heard in the street.
3"A bruised reed He will not break
And a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish;
He will faithfully bring forth justice.
4"He will not be disheartened or crushed
Until He has established justice in the earth;
And the coastlands will wait expectantly for His law."
5Thus says God the LORD,
Who created the heavens and stretched them out,
Who spread out the earth and its offspring,
Who gives breath to the people on it
And spirit to those who walk in it,
6"I am the LORD, I have called You in righteousness,
I will also hold You by the hand and watch over You,
And I will appoint You as a covenant to the people,
As a light to the nations, ...

Now to be clear, I do indeed think that there is a way where we can, from the post-cross perspective, legitimately see the suffering servant as Jesus. But this analysis really does require us to see Jesus as the embodiment of Israel, the one who bears Israel’s destiny.

One of Paul's arguments in Romans is this:

1. Israel had a covenant obligation to be a light to the nations (in the sense of being the solution to the sin problem);
2. Israel substantially failed to live up to that obligation (although God knew this would happen from the start);
3. While Israel did not entirely fulfill her covenant obligation to be the means by which sin and death are dealt with, God did indeed use her in the overall salvation plan:But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles,

 

[Andre]

There are so many obvious contradictions in your arguments.

Please make an actual case that there are any contradictions.

One error simply leads to another until there are so many that it is frustrating to know where to begin to unravel the nonsense as one presumption is being laid upon another presumption.

As usual you make claims with no evidence to support them. If what I am posting in nonsense, then by all means, make the actual case.

You obviously don't understand Messanic personifications. King David is personified as the Messiah. Israel is personified as the Messiah. Others are personified as the Messiah in the Old Testament ("wisdom", etc.)

Yet again, you make statements with no support.

If you have a case, I mean an actual argument, that my understanding of the nature of Messiahship is mistaken, then please make the case. I suggest it is entirely Biblical to assert that Israel's true King - Jesus - can indeed take on her (Israel's) covenantal obligations and fulfill them. I will be more than happy to fill in the Biblical arguments on the nature of "representative Messiahship". And when I do, I will show that it is entirely Biblical for the king to act on behalf of her people.

And in the case of Jesus and Israel, Jesus, as true Messiah, does for Israel what Israel failed to do. But what Israel failed to do was still her covnental obligation as I have already argued, based on what Paul says in Romans 2 and the relevant Old Testament framework in which those statements must be understood.

Just because Israel is given the "oracles" and has the responsibility to be the "light" of truth to the rest of the world, and teachers of righteousness does not mean they were to fulfil any convenant obligation "for the world" any more than we are to be "lights" in this world, teachers of righteousness that fulfil covenant obligations "for the world."

I have already produced an argument to the contrary which you have not engaged.

In summary, and to repeat:

1. In Romans 2, Paul tells the Jew that he failed to be a light to the blind;

2. Now while this is very inconvenient for your position, texts from Isaiah, if not elsewhere clearly place on Israel the role of being a light to "blind" pagan nations.

3. Isreal, therefore has this vocation to be a blessing to the world.

If you do, then you are creating another POTENTIAL Savior other than Christ and another POTENTIAL salvation than provided by Christ.

As I will show, I am doing no such thing.

I am only agreeing with Paul that Israel has played a vital role in bringing salvation to Gentiles.

Why are you not engaging this text, Dr. W:

But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles,

Simple question: Do you agree with Paul here or not? This is a clear, unambiguous statement that the "transgression" of Jews has indeed has some salvific effect in respect to Gentiles/

Lest anyone bend my words, I am not denying that Jesus saves the world, I am saying Israel played a key role in the overall process of redemption which is ultimately consummated by Jesus.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Now to be clear, I do indeed think that there is a way where we can, from the post-cross perspective, legitimately see the suffering servant as Jesus. But this analysis really does require us to see Jesus as the embodiment of Israel, the one who bears Israel’s destiny.

One of Paul's arguments in Romans is this:

1. Israel had a covenant obligation to be a light to the nations (in the sense of being the solution to the sin problem);
2. Israel substantially failed to live up to that obligation (although God knew this would happen from the start);
3. While Israel did not entirely fulfill her covenant obligation to be the means by which sin and death are dealt with, God did indeed use her in the overall salvation plan:But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles,

Israel NEVER was God's delight when it came to obeying His law - but repeatedly and consistently disobeyed and defiled themselves AS A NATION. Therefore, God could not have possibly had Israel in view except in personification of the promised seed that would accomplish all this.

1. Israel had a covenant obligation obey God's law which IT NEVER DID.

2. Israel had a covenant obligation to MANIFEST the solution for sin through the MESSANIC ORDINANCES as we do through preaching the gospel.

3. Israel was NEVER the means to deal with the sin problem or provide the sin solution - NEVER - as that was restrictly solely to the promised "seed" coming through Israel. To say that Israel was designed to be the solution for the sin problem is a tacit repudiation of Jesus Christ as the ONLY REDEEMER and solution for sin.

Again, the LAW COVENANT was NEVER given to obtain life (Gal. 3:19) - NEVER but was given to reveal the knowledge of sin (Gal. 3:18)

Gal. 3:19 ¶ Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions,

Gal. 3:21 .......for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

Rom. 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

Gal. 3:12 And the law is not of faith:

Therefore you cannot mix the Abrahamic Covenant with the Mosaic Covenant as they are presented by Paul in Galatians 4 as in OPPOSITION to each other.

 

[Andre]

We are to be a "light" to the world and we are to be teachers of God's Word but that does not mean we are fulfilling a covenant obligation for the rest of the world. It means that we are simply reflecters of the true light and true redeemer. The same with the nation of Israel. They fulfilled no covenant law obligation for the world any more than we do.

This is a statement, nothing more.

By contrast, I have provided an actual Biblical argument - based on what Paul says in Romans 2 and the Old Testament context on which he draws - that Israel has a covenantal obligation - a job to do in God's plan for her. And I never said that Israel actually fulfilled their covenantal obligation. They substantially did not, as I have repeatedly said. But, as Paul argues in Romans 9 to 11, God did indeed use Israel, with salvific benefit for the world.

Moreover, you cannot mix the Abraham covenant with the Mosaic Covenant as they are not the same. They do not have the same people in view (promised children versus all enthnic Israel). They were not given at the same time. The Abraham covenant is "sure to all the seed" (Rom. 4:16) whereas "NO FLESH" can fulfil the Law covenant.

Beside the point. As my argument shows:

1. Israel had a job to do (whatever "covenant" you wish to file it under is not that important) - to be a light to pagan nations.

2. Israel substantially failed to fulfill that obligation (as per Paul's critique of the Jew in Romans 2 (and 3 for that matter, although I have yet to make that argument.

Now what I have not yet argued in detail is this:

1. Despite her failure to fulfil her obligation (something God knew from the start), Paul argues that God's plan to use Israel to save the world has indeed been fulfilled. How? By sending Jesus to act on her behalf on the cross. I cannot emphasize this enough: the nature of the Jewish concept of representative Messiahship is such that the Messiah can, as an individual, act on behalf of the entire nation. And so, God's covenantal plan to use Israel to save the world, precisely because, as Messiah, Jesus is the personal emodiment of Israel.

2. Notwithstanding the fact that Jesus has to act on her behalf and fulfill the covenant, God indeed used the actual nation of Israel to play a vital role in "setting up" what happened on the cross. This is what Romans 9 to 11 is all about.

You simply close your eyes to the tremendous problems and go full steam ahead into absurdity.

Unsupported speculation.

 

[Dr. Walter]

To be a light to the nations, to teach the truth about the gospel is not denied (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2). Romans 2 simply makes it THEIR CLAIM they are a light to the blind, a teacher.

However, they had no covenant obligation to SAVE THE WORLD, unless you mean, they were obligated to proclaim salvation through the Messiah that should come through them, which they antipated, expected and preached (Acts 10:43; Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12).

There has only been ONE way of Salvation since Genesis 3:15. There has only been ONE Savior since Genesis 3:15 (Acts 4:12; 10:43; 26:22-23). There has only been ONE gospel since Genesis 3:15 (Gal. 1:8-9 with Gal. 3:6-8). There has only been ONE hope for Israel and mankind since Genesis 3:15 and it was Christ born through the nation of Israel. It was never Israel as a nation per se, or Israel's obligation to a covenant per se.

Israel was NEVER presented to mankind as "a" or "the" redeemer of mankind or as "a" or "the" solution to sin except through its proclaimed, anticipated, expected Messiah.

Jesus never fulfilled the nation of Israel's obligation to redeem anyone as Israel never had that obligation. Jesus never fulfilled Israel's obligation to be a solution for sin as Israel Never claimed any such obligation as that belonged exclusively to the promised Messian since Genesis 3:15.

Romans 2 makes no such claim. Romans 2 refers to the judgement seat of God and their claim as INDIVIDUAL Jews in judgment of their GOOD WORKS as a basis to pass judgement as INDIVIDUALS not as a nation. There is no NATIONAL claim made there any more than there is for Gentiles as NATIONS in the same context.

This is a statement, nothing more.

By contrast, I have provided an actual Biblical argument - based on what Paul says in Romans 2 and the Old Testament context on which he draws - that Israel has a covenantal obligation - a job to do in God's plan for her. And I never said that Israel actually fulfilled their covenantal obligation. They substantially did not, as I have repeatedly said. But, as Paul argues in Romans 9 to 11, God did indeed use Israel, with salvific benefit for the world.


Beside the point. As my argument shows:

1. Israel had a job to do (whatever "covenant" you wish to file it under is not that important) - to be a light to pagan nations.

2. Israel substantially failed to fulfill that obligation (as per Paul's critique of the Jew in Romans 2 (and 3 for that matter, although I have yet to make that argument.

Now what I have not yet argued in detail is this:

1. Despite her failure to fulfil her obligation (something God knew from the start), Paul argues that God's plan to use Israel to save the world has indeed been fulfilled. How? By sending Jesus to act on her behalf on the cross. I cannot emphasize this enough: the nature of the Jewish concept of representative Messiahship is such that the Messiah can, as an individual, act on behalf of the entire nation. And so, God's covenantal plan to use Israel to save the world, precisely because, as Messiah, Jesus is the personal emodiment of Israel.

2. Notwithstanding the fact that Jesus has to act on her behalf and fulfill the covenant, God indeed used the actual nation of Israel to play a vital role in "setting up" what happened on the cross. This is what Romans 9 to 11 is all about.


Unsupported speculation.

 

[Andre]

From the very beginning this blessing was to be through Christ (Gal. 3:17)not the law covenant......

Nothing I have written is untrue to this text from Galatians:

Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. 16Now 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. 17What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

Of course, I agree that Paul here refers to promises that were made to one seed - Christ. Nothing I have posted contradicts this in any way.

Here is the key point: The fact that God makes promises to the Christ does not change the facts that:

1. Israel is given a job to do under her broad covenantal relationship to God;

2. Israel plays a vital role in God's plan of redemption.