The Narrow Path Ministries

The following is an argument that the New Testament portrays that the Jews have not received all of their promises (via the Abrahamic Covenant) and that Joshua had not given them the rest intrinsic to these promises. Feel free to pick apart my argument. I'm hoping to dialogue on this issue and come to a better understanding myself. So here it is:

What is interesting about Hebrews 3 & 4 is that the writer quotes Psalm 95 from the Septuagint. David, the writer of Psalm 95, exhorts Israel well AFTER the days of Joshua. He tells them not to follow the example of their forefathers at Kadesh Barnea:

Psalm 95:8-11: To-day, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, according to the day of irritation in the wilderness: 9 where your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works. 10 Forty years was I grieved with this generation, and said, They do always err in their heart, and they have not known my ways. 11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest. (LXX)

The generation of Israelites who hardened their hearts at Kadesh Barnea would not enter the rest of God (the promised land). Yet, why would David employ this illustration and warning to the Jews of his day if all the promises made to Israel were in the past? The implication is that if the Jews of David's day would not harden their heart and would listen to God's voice, then they would assuredly enter into God's rest.

The writer of Hebrew's quotes this Psalm (Hebrews 3:7-11), finding it applicable to Jews centuries later, in the first century! Then he writes

Hebrews 3:15- 4:11: While it is said: "Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion."
For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses?
Now with whom was He angry forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose corpses fell in the wilderness?
And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey?
So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.
Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it.
For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.
For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: "So I swore in My wrath, 'They shall not enter My rest,' " although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works";
And again in this place: "They shall not enter My rest." Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience,
Again He designates a certain day, saying in David, "Today," after such a long time, as it has been said: "Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts."
For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day.
There remains therefore a rest for the people of God
For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.
Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience.

Even in the first century, God was still giving Jewish Christians the opportunity to hear His voice. And like the opportunity in David's day, if these Jews heeded this warning (and turned from the example of their forefathers at Kadesh Barnea) then there would be a future place/time of rest for them.

Concerning "My rest" and "God's rest", Tim Warner says the following:

"Paul was not speaking here of Israel simply achieving a generic "rest" from her enemies in the promised land under Joshua. Paul's emphasis was on entering God's "rest," something quite different from merely having rest from one's enemies. He got this idea directly from Psalm 95, where David wrote, "they shall not enter MY rest." Notice in verse 3 Paul stated that "we who have believed do enter that rest."That "rest" is the rest Israel hoped to achieve in the promised land, the ultimate realization of the inheritance promise to Abraham. But they failed to do so because of unbelief. "We," (Paul and Jewish believers) are the ones who will realize the hope Israel had of entering His rest, the inheritance promised to Abraham and his seed.

Paul then cited Genesis 2:2, where Moses spoke of God's rest - the seventh day. He then tied this in with "My rest" in Psalm 95."

http://www.pfrs.org/pd/hebrews.html

Any thoughts?

Brian

Hi Brian,

I guess I'll go ahead and get the ball rolling here.

I know you're probably anticipating this question, but how would you factor these verses into your argument about the unfulfilled land promises to Abraham:


Josh 21:43-45
43 So the LORD gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it. 44 The LORD gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers. And not a man of all their enemies stood against them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand. 45 Not a word failed of any good thing which the LORD had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass.
NKJV

Josh 23:14
14 "Behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth. And you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one thing has failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spoke concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one word of them has failed.
NKJV

By the way, I personally think the author of Hebrews is making the point that the "rest" (abode) of God is fulfilled spiritually in Christ, not the physical land of Canaan. That's why he says:

Heb 4:3
3 For we who have believed do (present tense) enter that rest,
NKJV

Those who believe(d), enter that rest. Those who don't (or didn't), do not.

Later the author writes:

Heb 11:8-16
8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; 10 for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God. 11 By faith Sarah herself also received strength to conceive seed, and she bore a child when she was past the age, because she judged Him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born as many as the stars of the sky in multitude--innumerable as the sand which is by the seashore.

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14 For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. 15 And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.
NKJV


Just out of curiosity, why do you think God would be concerned about the physical land of Israel/Palestine?

Hi Cristopher,

Thanks for your willingness to dialogue.

Genesis 17:8: Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

The question that we must pose is if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ever possessed the land as an eternal inheritance and possession (which God said they would), or if they merely lived their as strangers and pilgrims. Hebrews is clear on this mater.

Hebrews 11:8-9,13,16
By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going.
By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise;
These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.

It's unfortunate that the above Greek word "ghay" is translated "earth." It just as easily can be translated as "land" or "ground." In fact, the context makes it plain that escaping "planet earth" for heaven (a concept that Abraham would have been utterly unfamiliar with) is foreign to the motivations of Abraham. Rather, Abraham, Isaac, Isaac and Jacob realized that during their earlthy pilgrimage they would occupy the land (that they would one day inherit as an everlasing possession) as "strangers and pilgrims", as a "foreigner", and as ones who would only later "receive the promises." Furthermore, many think that "heavenly country" is referring to heaven, and that Abraham was waiting to be whisked away off this earth. But "heavenly" is a descriptive adjective, and in the context Ur of the Chaldees is being contrasted with the "better" land that Abraham was promised, that of the land of Canaan.

Remember when God, in Genesis 15, gave an oath to Abraham concerning His promises of an everlasting land inheritance? In Hebrews 6, the Jewish author presents this as the collective future hope both for him and his Jewish audience.

Hebrews 6:17-19
Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath,
That by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us. This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence behind the veil,

In a similar vein Paul explains.

Romans 4:13,16
For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all

There is good reason to take the verses you quoted from Joshua as hyperbole (like when Paul said that the Gospel had been preached to every creature). For there is certainly more to the promises given to Abraham (which Joshua said had all been fulfilled) than to just initially seize the land of Canaan. It was said to be an everlasting inheritance for Abraham and his descendants! And Galatians 3 remarks that the part of the Abrahamic covenant which pertains to Christ (the "seed"), who would be a blessing to all nations including Gentiles, had just begun in the first century!

By the way, I personally think the author of Hebrews is making the point that the "rest" (abode) of God is fulfilled spiritually in Christ, not the physical land of Canaan.

God rested on 7th day. IMO, there remains a day when the people of God will rest in the land as well (perhaps the 7th millennium; some of the early Church Fathers were convinced of this)

Hebrews 4:5,6,8-9
And again in this place: "They shall not enter My rest."
Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience,
For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day.
There remains therefore a rest for the people of God.

I think David was on to something (written well after Joshua).

Psalm 37:9
For evildoers shall be cut off;
But those who wait on the Lord,
They shall inherit the earth.

Thoughts anyone?

Brian

Hi Brian,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I am familiar with the arguments that you pose, but there are several points that I would have to disagree with you on.

You wrote:

The question that we must pose is if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ever possessed the land as an eternal inheritance and possession (which God said they would), or if they merely lived their as strangers and pilgrims. Hebrews is clear on this mater.

It may not be as clear as you think it is. We cannot rely too heavily on the word “everlasting” in this promise to Abram for several reasons:

1. There are many times in the bible that forever and everlasting are used as hyperbole. In fact the very chapter in Genesis you quoted contains one such example:

Gen 17:13-14
13 He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. NKJV

There is hardly a Christian alive today that would suggest that circumcision is still required by God. No doubt the Judaizers of Pauls’ day took “everlasting” literally in this verse. But Paul emphatically refutes this notion in the book of Galatians.

There are other examples as well.

2. There would seem to be a contradiction between God’s promise and God’s warnings if we were to say that Abrahams’ descendants had some unconditional eternal claim to the land. In Deuteronomy 28, God lays out the consequences if Israel fails to obey the commandments. This includes being vomited out of the land forever. (Deut 28:45-46).

3. An unconditional blank check promise of blessing to a people based merely on bloodline doesn’t seem to fit God’s M.O. revealed in scripture. He says in Jeremiah:

Jer 18:9-10
9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.
NKJV


You wrote:

There is good reason to take the verses you quoted from Joshua as hyperbole

Well, maybe. But the passage doesn’t tell us it is. So that’s entirely speculative IMO. I guess we just have to disagree on that.


You wrote:

And Galatians 3 remarks that the part of the Abrahamic covenant which pertains to Christ (the "seed"), who would be a blessing to all nations including Gentiles, had just begun in the first century!

Interesting you bring up Galatians 3. This to me is one of the main chapters in the whole bible that kills the idea that there are still unfulfilled promises owed to the ethnic Jews. Paul says:

Gal 3:28-29
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
NKJV

It seems to me that Paul is saying that God expanded the definition of “Abraham’s seed” (and all the promises therein) to include all who are in Christ. Including us lowly gentiles.

You wrote:

God rested on 7th day. IMO, there remains a day when the people of God will rest in the land as well (perhaps the 7th millennium; some of the early Church Fathers were convinced of this)

The main reason I think that this phrase is probably speaking of something other than physical rest is from the qualifier "enter into" and from the definitions found in the Hebrew and Greek references:

OT:4496
menuwchah (men-oo-khaw'); or menuchah (men-oo-khaw'); feminine of OT:4495; repose or (adverbially) peacefully; figuratively, consolation (specifically, matrimony); hence (concretely) an abode:

KJV - comfortable, ease, quiet, rest (-ing place), still.

NT:2663
katapausis (kat-ap'-ow-sis); from NT:2664; reposing down, i.e. (by Hebraism) abode:

KJV - rest.


God’s “abode” is the church. Those who are faithful enter into it, those who aren’t do not.

The promised land in the OT is a merely a type and shadow of a beautiful spiritual reality that is found in Christ. Those who did not have the faith to press into it fell in the desert. Those who had faith in God to deliver the victory (Joshua, Caleb, etc) entered into the promised land and more importantly, entered into God’s rest. This was true in Joshua's day, David's day, Jesus' day and ours as well.

So again I would ask you, why do you think God would be concerned about the land of Israel/Palestine when Jesus is the fulfillment of all those types and shadows?

postpre wrote:Hi Cristopher,

Thanks for your willingness to dialogue.

Genesis 17:8: Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

The question that we must pose is if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ever possessed the land as an eternal inheritance and possession (which God said they would), or if they merely lived their as strangers and pilgrims. Hebrews is clear on this mater.

Hebrews 11:8-9,13,16
By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going.
By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise;
These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.

It's unfortunate that the above Greek word "ghay" is translated "earth." It just as easily can be translated as "land" or "ground." In fact, the context makes it plain that escaping "planet earth" for heaven (a concept that Abraham would have been utterly unfamiliar with) is foreign to the motivations of Abraham. Rather, Abraham, Isaac, Isaac and Jacob realized that during their earlthy pilgrimage they would occupy the land (that they would one day inherit as an everlasing possession) as "strangers and pilgrims", as a "foreigner", and as ones who would only later "receive the promises." Furthermore, many think that "heavenly country" is referring to heaven, and that Abraham was waiting to be whisked away off this earth. But "heavenly" is a descriptive adjective, and in the context Ur of the Chaldees is being contrasted with the "better" land that Abraham was promised, that of the land of Canaan.

Remember when God, in Genesis 15, gave an oath to Abraham concerning His promises of an everlasting land inheritance? In Hebrews 6, the Jewish author presents this as the collective future hope both for him and his Jewish audience.

Hebrews 6:17-19
Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath,
That by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us. This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence behind the veil,

In a similar vein Paul explains.

Romans 4:13,16
For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all

There is good reason to take the verses you quoted from Joshua as hyperbole (like when Paul said that the Gospel had been preached to every creature). For there is certainly more to the promises given to Abraham (which Joshua said had all been fulfilled) than to just initially seize the land of Canaan. It was said to be an everlasting inheritance for Abraham and his descendants! And Galatians 3 remarks that the part of the Abrahamic covenant which pertains to Christ (the "seed"), who would be a blessing to all nations including Gentiles, had just begun in the first century!

By the way, I personally think the author of Hebrews is making the point that the "rest" (abode) of God is fulfilled spiritually in Christ, not the physical land of Canaan.

God rested on 7th day. IMO, there remains a day when the people of God will rest in the land as well (perhaps the 7th millennium; some of the early Church Fathers were convinced of this)

Hebrews 4:5,6,8-9
And again in this place: "They shall not enter My rest."
Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience,
For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day.
There remains therefore a rest for the people of God.

I think David was on to something (written well after Joshua).

Psalm 37:9
For evildoers shall be cut off;
But those who wait on the Lord,
They shall inherit the earth.

Thoughts anyone?

Brian

Actually, I think I might agree with you. At least seen one way. Since you mentioned Galatians 3, and Romans 4, you realize that it not the physical descendants who recieve the promise(s). Rather, it's those who of the faith of Abraham who are counted as seed.

So I do see the land promise as literal and going to all believers. This is the new heavens and new earth we look forward too (2 Peter 3:13). We will one day live in the land, but it will be bigger than the physical land we associate with the middle east.

Christopher,

In keeping with Christian love, yet mature enough to seriously engage the Scriptures I write the following

Concerning Galatians 3 you wrote:

It seems to me that Paul is saying that God expanded the definition of “Abraham’s seed” (and all the promises therein) to include all who are in Christ. Including us lowly gentiles.

How is God expanding the defintion of Abraham's seed in Galatians 3? God tells Abraham in Genesis 22:18 that "in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." Romans 4:24 declares that Abraham is the "father of many nations." Abraham's seed was always meant to include the believing remnant from every nation, both Israel and the Gentiles.

I believe that Paul's argument in Galatians is simply that there is no longer any disparity (in terms of salvation) between Jew and Gentile. But how would that fact that there is no longer any disparity between Jew and Gentile "kill the idea that there are still unfulfilled promises owed to the ethnic Jews."?

That "the middle wall of separation" has been broken down between both(notice that they are still distinct ethnic groups) believing Jew and Gentile does not mean that one becomes the other or that both become something altogether different. Gentiles now partake, along with Israel, of the "covenants of promise."

I think you may be confusing Abraham's seed from Israel. The former includes peoples from all nations, while the latter is those strictly of the lineage of Jacob (whom God name Israel).

Some questions: Are there two Israel's? Where in the New Testament is the Church called Israel? When in the New Testament did Israel stop meaning those of the lineage of Jacob (Israel)?

There would seem to be a contradiction between God’s promise and God’s warnings if we were to say that Abrahams’ descendants had some unconditional eternal claim to the land. In Deuteronomy 28, God lays out the consequences if Israel fails to obey the commandments. This includes being vomited out of the land forever. (Deut 28:45-46).

I don't see a contradiction. That's because there is a demonstrable difference between covenants that are Conditional vs. Unconditional. God's promise to Abraham was unconditonal, that is, it depended not on any action performed by anyone. Conversely God's Word to Israel in Deut. 28 was strictly conditional, that is, obedience was required. Those Isrealites who obeyed God's Word in Deut. 28 will be among those who, in the future, inherit the land of Canaan as an everlasting inheritance.

We cannot rely too heavily on the word “everlasting” in this promise to Abram for several reasons

IMO, to prove your point you must show from the New Testament that the authors did not interpret everlasting as such. And this is what is up for debate! But the passage you quoted from Genesis 17 does not seem to necessarily prove your point. This is the same everlasting covenant mentioned in verse 8. Circumcision is merely the sign given to Abraham that it is indeed an everlasting covenant!

More later concerning God's rest and abode....


Brian

postpre wrote:
I believe that Paul's argument in Galatians is simply that there is no longer any disparity (in terms of salvation) between Jew and Gentile. But how would that fact that there is no longer any disparity between Jew and Gentile "kill the idea that there are still unfulfilled promises owed to the ethnic Jews."?

Paul never seems to hold out any hope for ethnic Jews in Galations apart from the single "seed" Christ. In other words, faith is required. Paul said that if you belong to Christ then you are Abrahams seed (meaning you are part of the body of Christ, the new man) then you are heirs. So if you are not part of Christ, you are like the bondwoman who is thrown out (mentioned in Galations 4) and called "Jerusalem which now is".

postpre wrote:
That "the middle wall of separation" has been broken down between both(notice that they are still distinct ethnic groups) believing Jew and Gentile does not mean that one becomes the other or that both become something altogether different. Gentiles now partake, along with Israel, of the "covenants of promise."

Paul does speak of the two becoming one new man. They were seperate, but now, in Christ they are not. For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one. That is something althoghether different, is it not? While there are different ethnic groups involved they no longer distinguish themselves that way. These groups now are distinguished by wether they are in Christ or not. It certainly isn't a continuation of what was.

Eph 3:5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel

Seems to be something new that was not revealed until now. The mystery says that the Gentiles are fellow heirs of the same body. The same body as what? True Israel.

postpre wrote:
I think you may be confusing Abraham's seed from Israel. The former includes peoples from all nations, while the latter is those strictly of the lineage of Jacob (whom God name Israel).

Paul seems to speak of Abraham's seed and ethnic Jews as one in the same here:

Romans 9:6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham.

Paul seems to equate the two here for his discussion. Paul's division of "Israel" from "All Israel" is not based on if one was decended from Jacob (or Abraham for that matter) or not, but rather the division is based on their faith, which is also the condition for the Gentiles (verse 32). Paul uses the same rationale in Romans 4.

postpre wrote:
Some questions: Are there two Israel's?

Yes, those of the flesh and those of the Spirit. Mentioned in Romans 9
Also mentioned by Paul: "Jews, Greeks and the Church of God". The first two are lost, the Church contains both, and both are saved and called one in Chirst. Mentioned in Ephesians 2-3 and Galations 3-4

postpre wrote:
Where in the New Testament is the Church called Israel?

Galations 6:16, Ephesians 2-3, Romans 9

postpre wrote:
When in the New Testament did Israel stop meaning those of the lineage of Jacob (Israel)?

Israel is the linage of Jacob. But as Paul points out in Romans 9, not all Israel is of Israel. Meaning, there is a spiritual difference between some ethnic Jews, even though they all came from one source. The difference is faith. As Paul points out, God has the right to make two vessels, one for destruction and one for glory. Both vessels contain Jews.

postpre wrote:

There would seem to be a contradiction between God’s promise and God’s warnings if we were to say that Abrahams’ descendants had some unconditional eternal claim to the land. In Deuteronomy 28, God lays out the consequences if Israel fails to obey the commandments. This includes being vomited out of the land forever. (Deut 28:45-46).

I don't see a contradiction. That's because there is a demonstrable difference between covenants that are Conditional vs. Unconditional. God's promise to Abraham was unconditonal, that is, it depended not on any action performed by anyone. Conversely God's Word to Israel in Deut. 28 was strictly conditional, that is, obedience was required. Those Isrealites who obeyed God's Word in Deut. 28 will be among those who, in the future, inherit the land of Canaan as an everlasting inheritance.

I don't believe the promise to Abraham was unconditional. I think the burden of proof would lie on the one making the claim that it is unconditional. Besides, wasn't it made with Abraham and his "seed" whom Paul says isn't many people but to one, Christ. So to be one of those "seed" you must belong to Christ?

Finally God stated this in Leveiticus 26:
40 ‘But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers, with their unfaithfulness in which they were unfaithful to Me, and that they also have walked contrary to Me,

41 and that I also have walked contrary to them and have brought them into the land of their enemies;
if their uncircumcised hearts are humbled, and they accept their guilt—

42 then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and My covenant with Isaac and My covenant with Abraham I will remember;
I will remember the land.

It seems as if the land was an unconditional promise, the people would not have to repent or do anything to keep it. Yet God says it is only after reconciliation that He will "remember" the covenant with Abraham and the land.

If the land promise was unconditional, then God could never have thrown the Jews out of it for any reason or He would be a covenant breaker. It seems the covenant was conditional.

Sean,

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post.

One quick point only tonight. When I asked if there were two Isreal's you responded:

Yes, those of the flesh and those of the Spirit. Mentioned in Romans 9

Romans 9:6-8
6. But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,
7. Nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called."
8. That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

I believe you are making a mistake by drawing your above inference from, I'm guessing, this passage in Romans. Below is a response from Tim Warner when another made a similar claim:

"There is a "physical" and "spiritual" Israel. But the terms "spiritual" and "physical" do NOT imply literal and allegorical. "Physical Israel," or what Paul calls His "kinsmen according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:3), are the descendents of Jacob (Israel) via the 12 tribes (the "circumcision"). "Spiritual Israel" is still Israel (12 tribes), but is LIMITED to only those Jews who are "spiritual" -- the SAVED of Israel (Rom. 2:28-29). Spiritual Israel is a sub-group of BOTH physical Israel and the Church.

You quoted Rom. 9:6-7 to prove your point. But it proves just the opposite: “... they are not all Israel, that are of Israel: neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” The phrase, "not all Israel who are of Israel" does NOT INCLUDE Gentiles into Israel. It EXCLUDES some of Jacob's descendents from "Israel" in Paul's jargon. Jacob's name was changed to "Israel." So, when Paul says, "they are not all 'Israel' who are of [descended from] Israel [Jacob]," he is LIMITING Israel NOT expanding or replacing Israel with Gentiles! When Paul says, "neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children," he again is LIMITING the "children" of Abraham, to only SOME of Abraham's actual offspring: "but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called." By quoting this statement, Paul EXCLUDED Ishmael, who was also Abraham's seed, from the covenants and promises. BOTH Ishmael and Isaac were Abraham's literal sons. But, ONLY ONE of the two was the heir of promise. Isaac, the child of promise was a sub-set of "Abraham's seed." He is NOT someone other than Abraham's physical seed, a kind of "spiritual seed" meaning an allegorical "seed." It is just that he is only one PART of Abraham's physical seed. It is the same with the whole nation. He next gives Jacob and Esau as examples. This example shows that Esau was EXCLUDED from the covenants and promises that were promised to Abraham and his seed. Again, both Jacob and Esau were "Abraham's seed," but the covenants and promises flowed only through a SUB-SET of these boys - Jacob. The point Paul was making by citing these two examples was the same principle applies to the whole nation of Israel at the present time. The whole nation did NOT retain the covenants and promises. Only a SUB-SET of Israel did, those who believed the Gospel. This whole section of Rom. 9 is about part of Israel being disqualified and divorced from the commonwealth of Israel and covenants of promise. It is NOT about the Gentiles REPLACING Israel, and usurping the name "Israel.""

I don't have the link (its from an old message board and would take me a while to locate it); but here's a general link for his work:

http://www.pfrs.org/pd/index.html

Brian

postpre wrote:Sean,

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post.

One quick point only tonight. When I asked if there were two Isreal's you responded:

Yes, those of the flesh and those of the Spirit. Mentioned in Romans 9

Romans 9:6-8
6. But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,
7. Nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called."
8. That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

I believe you are making a mistake by drawing your above inference from, I'm guessing, this passage in Romans.

Actually I was responding to your wanting proof of "two Israels". That is what I provided. I didn't try to make my point by saying one was spiritual and one was physical. They are both physical, yet there is a difference between these two physical descendants. Hence, "two Israels".

postpre wrote: "There is a "physical" and "spiritual" Israel. But the terms "spiritual" and "physical" do NOT imply literal and allegorical. "Physical Israel," or what Paul calls His "kinsmen according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:3), are the descendents of Jacob (Israel) via the 12 tribes (the "circumcision"). "Spiritual Israel" is still Israel (12 tribes), but is LIMITED to only those Jews who are "spiritual" -- the SAVED of Israel (Rom. 2:28-29). Spiritual Israel is a sub-group of BOTH physical Israel and the Church.

I disagree. First, in Romans 9-11 Paul goes on to say that the Gentiles are grafted into the olive tree and partake of the root and the fatness of the tree. This seems to be a clear reference to the Gentiles being grafted into the "True Israel" aka the remnant. This is also called the Church. I never stated as you put: "This whole section of Rom. 9 is about part of Israel being disqualified and divorced from the commonwealth of Israel and covenants of promise. It is NOT about the Gentiles REPLACING Israel, and usurping the name "Israel."

I never stated the Gentiles replaced Israel or "usurped" the name Israel.

postpre wrote: You quoted Rom. 9:6-7 to prove your point. But it proves just the opposite: “... they are not all Israel, that are of Israel: neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” The phrase, "not all Israel who are of Israel" does NOT INCLUDE Gentiles into Israel. It EXCLUDES some of Jacob's descendents from "Israel" in Paul's jargon. Jacob's name was changed to "Israel." So, when Paul says, "they are not all 'Israel' who are of [descended from] Israel [Jacob]," he is LIMITING Israel NOT expanding or replacing Israel with Gentiles! When Paul says, "neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children," he again is LIMITING the "children" of Abraham, to only SOME of Abraham's actual offspring: "but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called." By quoting this statement, Paul EXCLUDED Ishmael, who was also Abraham's seed, from the covenants and promises. BOTH Ishmael and Isaac were Abraham's literal sons. But, ONLY ONE of the two was the heir of promise. Isaac, the child of promise was a sub-set of "Abraham's seed." He is NOT someone other than Abraham's physical seed, a kind of "spiritual seed" meaning an allegorical "seed." It is just that he is only one PART of Abraham's physical seed. It is the same with the whole nation. He next gives Jacob and Esau as examples. This example shows that Esau was EXCLUDED from the covenants and promises that were promised to Abraham and his seed. Again, both Jacob and Esau were "Abraham's seed," but the covenants and promises flowed only through a SUB-SET of these boys - Jacob. The point Paul was making by citing these two examples was the same principle applies to the whole nation of Israel at the present time. The whole nation did NOT retain the covenants and promises. Only a SUB-SET of Israel did, those who believed the Gospel.

I agree that the section of Romans you are talking about speaks of a physical sub-set of Israel. However, if you read on in Romans 9 we find that these sub-sets reach different ends, one faces destruction and one faces glory:

Romans 9:22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Paul then, seemingly out of nowhere places the Gentiles in with the Jews who were prepared for glory and even calls this group "us". The "us" Paul was a part of that consists of Jews and Gentiles is called the Church. Paul then goes on to quote from the prophets that the Gentiles were destined to be called "God's people". All this in the very context and discussion of true Israel.

Additionally, Romans 2 seems to shed some light on the matter:

Romans 2:25 For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? 27 And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

If an uncircumcised man (Gentile) keeps the law will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?

Interesting statement. How can someone who is not physically circumcised be "counted as circumcision"? Sounds spiritual. Paul then, in this same context says: he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter. Paul says it's not your physical descendants that make someone a "Jew" at least in the sense that God looks at the matter (Rev 2:9), it's the heart. Gentiles have one of those, so they can be equated as a Jew. Paul is repeating the idea of verse 26 again in verse 29.

God bless,
Sean

Hi Brian,

note: I prepared this response off-line and hadn't had time to paste it in yet. I apologize for any redundancy with your progressing discussion with Sean.


You wrote:

How is God expanding the defintion of Abraham's seed in Galatians 3? God tells Abraham in Genesis 22:18 that "in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." Romans 4:24 declares that Abraham is the "father of many nations." Abraham's seed was always meant to include the believing remnant from every nation, both Israel and the Gentiles.

You’re right, the definition of Abraham’s “Seed” wasn’t expanded (it always meant Christ according to Gal 3:16). I should have said that God’s definition of “Jew” was expanded to include Gentiles (Eph 2:11-22, Rom 2:28-29). Not an ethnic distinction, but a spiritual one. However, this doesn’t change a thing of what I said earlier. I believe Paul shatters the illusion of distinction in this statement:

Gal 3:28-29
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
NKJV

You wrote:

I believe that Paul's argument in Galatians is simply that there is no longer any disparity (in terms of salvation) between Jew and Gentile.

I don’t believe there ever was disparity between the two in regards to salvation. There were many Gentile converts in the OT that I suspect were saved (Rahab, Ruth, Uriah the Hittite, etc.) and many ethnic Jews that were not. The difference between them was that God chose the ethnic nation of Israel to reveal His law as a school master and to bring forth the Savior of the world that is condemned by that law (Gal 3:24-25). Paul later says:

Gal 6:15
15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.
NKJV

Now if circumcision was the “everlasting” sign of the covenant, and Paul says it avails nothing, than I have to conclude that means nothing (including real estate). Paul says there’s no difference, I’ll go with him on this. He gives no qualifiers to that statement that would suggest that there’s still a difference with regard to unfulfilled land promises so I’m personally not encouraged to read that into his statement. Elsewhere he says there is "no distinction" between Jews and Gentiles (Rom 10:12). I tend to take that at face value because that's the natural reading of the verse.

Some questions: Are there two Israel's? Where in the New Testament is the Church called Israel? When in the New Testament did Israel stop meaning those of the lineage of Jacob (Israel)?

Yes, there is the political nation of Israel that God judged and destroyed in 70AD, and there is now the everlasting true "Israel of God" (the church) made up of both ethnic Jews and non-ethnic Jews.

Gal 6:16
16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.
NKJV

Rom 9:6-8
6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.
NKJV

We’ve already agreed that Abraham’s “seed” are all those who are in Christ (the church). Paul is using the terms interchangeably here IMO.

In Ephesians, gentiles are called "fellow citizens":

Eph 2:11-20
11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh--who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands-- 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. 18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.

19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
NKJV

I take this to mean that what God considers true "Israel" has been expanded to include Gentiles. This goes along with what Paul says in Romans 11 about believing gentiles being grafted in to the olive tree:

Rom 11:17
17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree,
NKJV



You wrote:

I don't see a contradiction. That's because there is a demonstrable difference between covenants that are Conditional vs. Unconditional. God's promise to Abraham was unconditonal, that is, it depended not on any action performed by anyone. Conversely God's Word to Israel in Deut. 28 was strictly conditional, that is, obedience was required. Those Isrealites who obeyed God's Word in Deut. 28 will be among those who, in the future, inherit the land of Canaan as an everlasting inheritance.

I think you need to read the passage a little closer:

Deut 28:44-46
45 Moreover all these curses shall come upon you and pursue and overtake you, until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you. 46 And they shall be upon you for a sign and a wonder, and on your descendants forever.
NKJV

God is talking to the whole nation of Israel here. We don’t have to read very far to see that they did not meet these conditions. If God tells Abraham his descendants will possess the land forever and then tells his descendants that they and their descendants will lose it forever, than we must conclude that “everlasting possession” is either hyperbole or it’s conditional.

note: I think the passage in Leviticus that Sean pointed to is another great example.

You wrote:

IMO, to prove your point you must show from the New Testament that the authors did not interpret everlasting as such.

Why? There is lots of evidence that words like “forever” and “everlasting” didn’t mean that literally. Do a search of the word “forever” in the Levitical law and you’ll see many feasts and laws that are listed as “statutes and ordinances” to be kept by the Jews forever. Yet Paul says:

Col 2:16-17
16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
NKJV

Solomon’s temple was to be a dwelling place for God “forever” (2 Chron 7:16), but where is it now?


Regarding God’s rest, I should probably add to my original statements that of course being in God’s abode (the church) includes a physical rest (ceasing) of sorts. That is a ceasing from offering sacrifices. Because the writer says:

Heb 10:12-13
12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.
NKJV

I take that as kind of a given. That is my current understanding of God's rest, but I could definitely be wrong on that (it wouldn't be the first time). It's kind of enigmatic IMO.

I need to tell you that as much as I’m enjoying our discussions, please be patient if I don’t respond in a timely manner in the coming days. I have a lot on my plate this week. In the meantime, I would encourage anyone else that would like to add their 2 cents to pick up this discussion.

Lord bless.