The Narrow Path Ministries

I'm not posting to bash Steve. I've learned a lot from Steve and am appreciative of that. I'm only posting to challenge his claims regarding our future hope as outlined in both the Old and New Testament.

In the debate, I don't think Steve was able to provide any solid evidence that the Gentiles (or the Church at large) is Israel. He mentioned a few verses:

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.

*From the context ("Indeed you are called a Jew"- v.17), it is simply saying that from God's perspective a true Jew are those who have embraced the Messiah and have been circumcised in heart (not those who are following the Law). It is not saying that the Gentiles can now be referred to as Jews.

15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. 16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

*Notice that the "Israel of God" is a sub group among those who "walk according to this rule." Again, this is the Jewish remnant who had embraced the Messiah during Paul's lifetime. This is the best way to intepret Paul's statement, grammatically. This remnant followed the faith of Isaac and Jacob (while the unbelieving majority followed the example of Ishmael and Esau- see Romans 9)

3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh,

*That Paul would include himself and his readers among those who are of "the circumcision" does not imply that believers should now be called Israel. What physical circumcision pointed to (and where it finds its fulfillment) was the circumcision of the heart (Rom 2, above) via the new covenant. The circumcision of the heart allows one to now "worship God in the Spirit." Paul was not too fond of the Judaizers and this statement would surely make them boil. It does not mean, however, that the church is now Israel. Colossians 2 adds more weight to this as well ("In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ", )

Lastly, I would like to pose the following question to Steve. I'm reading from the Apostolic Bible, which is a literal Greek NT translation, which reads from Romans 11:25 like this:

For I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, that you should not be [in yourselves intelligent], that callousness [in part to Israel has happened] until of which timethe fullness of the nations should enter in.

There are many issues we could discuss from Romans 11, but I'd like to hear Steve's response to this initial question. The verse states that when the fullness of the nations should enter in, callousness (in part) will not affect Israel. From your perspective, has this occured? If the fullness of nations has not yet entered in, what do you think this removal of callousness (from Israel) will look like?

Brian

.

postpre wrote: I'm not posting to bash Steve. I've learned a lot from Steve and am appreciative of that. I'm only posting to challenge his claims regarding our future hope as outlined in both the Old and New Testament.

In the debate, I don't think Steve was able to provide any solid evidence that the Gentiles (or the Church at large) is Israel. He mentioned a few verses:

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.

*From the context ("Indeed you are called a Jew"- v.17), it is simply saying that from God's perspective a true Jew are those who have embraced the Messiah and have been circumcised in heart (not those who are following the Law). It is not saying that the Gentiles can now be referred to as Jews.

I diagree that the context is speaking only of physical Jews. Even verse 17 starts by saying "Indeed you are called a Jew". Why say it like that, is there any other kind of Jew? Sure, there are faithful Jews and unfaithful Jews, but they are all called "Jew". So what's his point? I think his point is brought out later in the context:

Rom 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.

Verse 25: If a Jew breaks the law he is considered "uncircumcision". What is that? That's a Gentile. Verse 26: Uncircumcision is circumcision if one kept the "righteous requirements" of the law. That's a Gentile being considered a Jew. Verse 27: Physically uncircumcised stand above a physical Jew who is a transgressor of the law. Verse 28: Being a true Jew is not physical, nor is true circumcision physical. Verse 29: True Jew defined: it's inward, it's done by the Spirit.

That is how Paul can confidently say:

Phil 3:3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh

You can see the direct parallels from Romans 2:29. We are "the circumcision". Who is. Those who worship "in the Spirit" and have "no confidence in the flesh". A false Jew is one who puts confidence in who is ancestors are, his flesh. And does not have the Spirit.

postpre wrote: 3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh,

*That Paul would include himself and his readers among those who are of "the circumcision" does not imply that believers should now be called Israel. What physical circumcision pointed to (and where it finds its fulfillment) was the circumcision of the heart (Rom 2, above) via the new covenant. The circumcision of the heart allows one to now "worship God in the Spirit." Paul was not too fond of the Judaizers and this statement would surely make them boil. It does not mean, however, that the church is now Israel. Colossians 2 adds more weight to this as well ("In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ", )
Brian

I already mentioned this passage above but I would like to say that were are not called "Israel" today. We are called the church today. As I posted in response to you in another thread the church is the body of Christ. The body consists of two parts, the remnant of Israel and believing Gentiles. I think one reason people have a hard time with this is they look at the OT and don't see Gentiles being there. That's not by accident. Your not going to see it without NT revelation.

Eph 3:3...that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 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

The revealed mystery is that the Gentiles share in all the blessings & promises to Isreal. That's because they are now members of the same body. They are not kept seperate and distinct in the NT. Nor can someone say that there are promises that do or will someday apply only to the physical seed and not to the Gentiles as well. They have been made one.

Brian,

You wrote:

15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. 16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

*Notice that the "Israel of God" is a sub group among those who "walk according to this rule." Again, this is the Jewish remnant who had embraced the Messiah during Paul's lifetime. This is the best way to intepret Paul's statement, grammatically.

I disagree that the grammar supports the idea that "the Israel of God" is a subgroup within the church. The word you hilighted is the Greek kai, which can mean "and" or "even" (as in e.g., Rom.5:14/ 1 Cor.15:24/ Heb.11:19—and in many places where the expression "our God kai Father" clearly speaks of identity of the two words, not separate and distinguished entities).

Your view, that the Israel of God is a subcategory of the church does not work with either translation of the word kai. If it is translated "even," then the two groups are identical; if it is translated "and," then the two groups are separate and distinct from each other. Neither translation can suggest one group being a subgroup of the other. To make your point, he should have used a word like "including."

That Paul would anywhere in his writings (especially in Galatians) address the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians as discreet and separate groups (as you are suggesting) is unthinkable, because he was willing to be jailed, tortured and killed for his refusal to see any distinction between these two groups. In Galatians 2, he said that he rebuked Peter publicly for making such a distinction!

There are good reasons to take the meaning of kai as "even" In Galatians 6:16 as well. Here are my reasons:

1) By referring to the Church as the Israel of God, Paul is summarizing the point that he made by extensive argument in chapters 3 and 4 of the same epistle; and

2) If Paul is distinguishing between two groups (i.e., the church and the "Israel of God"), then he has just indicated that the Israel of God is not walking by the proper rule. This is because Paul has just referred to the true Christians as those who "walk according to this rule." If the Israel of God is not this same group, then there is the rather unmistakeable implication that the Israel of God walk by some other rule (that is, they glory in something other than the cross of Christ—v.14).

Steve,

You have not exhausted the definitions of "kai." "Also" is another viable translation. If the better translation is "and" or "also", this passage would not be a case where a single identity (of the two concepts) should be employed. The Granville Sharp rule that connects the two concepts together would not apply in this instance (which we could get into if need be).

Your statement that no "translation can suggest one group being a subgroup of the other" is lacking foundation. Paul can single out, near the end of an epistle when his argument and flow of thought reaches its conclusion, his affectionate heart toward the Jewish "remnant according to the election of grace, the true "Israel of God." To state that it must be implied that the Israel of God walk by some other rule (from the previous group) is linguistically unsubstantiated. Cannot Paul bless all those who walk "according to this rule" and also express his gratitude for his 'countrymen according to the flesh" that were walking "according to this rule" as well? Your position requires that the "Israel of God" is equated with all those who "walk according to this rule." The majority of uses of "kai" in the NT would undercut this position.

There is no NT conundrum in addressing Jewish and Genitle Christians as distinct. How one can read the NT and miss this is head scratcher. Christ has indeed "broken down the middle wall of separation," and has made a way for both to now "have access by one Spirit to the Father." Amen, there is no more disparity between Jew and Gentile. Both can be reconciled to God and both receive the same inheritance via the Abrahamic Covenant. But, there still remains a distinction. Ethnic distinctions will remain througout eternity (Rev 21:24). Don't confuse me with Traditional Dispensationalists like Tommy. The Church consists of the remnant of all nations (including Israel).

No disparity, but distinction between Jew and Gentile pervades the NT:

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 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.

17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near.

4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;

5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Brian

Brian,

Your statement that no "translation can suggest one group being a subgroup of the other" is lacking foundation.

I find it interesting that you had to change my statement in order to refute it. I did not say that there is no translation that would make such a point (though I might be willing to make this claim, since your preferred "also" does not make your point any better than does "and"). I said that "neither translation" (that is, neither "and" nor "even") would make your point—and your denials to the contrary do not change the validity of this statement. I leave to the discretion of anyone who knows the meaning of words, and who has a modicum of grammatical knowledge in any language, to decide between your claim and mine.

The majority of uses of "kai" in the NT would undercut this position.

You should know that one cannot decide upon the translation of an ambiguous word in a given statement by appeal to "the majority of its uses." There are minority uses as well, and their occurrence must be determined by exegesis of the relevant passages, not by majority considerations. Besides, this is a strange objection for you to raise, since my suggested "even" is at least one established meaning of kai, whereas your idea (which would best be represented by a word like "including" or "especially") does not appear to be known even as one of its meanings. I gave examples of kai meaning "even." Do you know of an example of it ever being used as you are suggesting?

Of the scriptures listed at the end of your post, only one could possibly be used to make your point. The others are all cases where Paul acknowledges the presence of ethnic Jews and/or ethnic Gentiles in his readership, but where he does not suggest that the one bears a different status in God's purposes from the other.

The verse that sounds helpful to your point is: "who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises" (Rom.9:4). In this verse, Paul is indeed referring to his unsaved countrymen, and cataloguing the spiritual advantages that they have historically known. However, in speaking of his "kinsmen" after the flesh, he is not referring to the nation of Israel as a whole, but of individual "Israelites" who are not believers.

As Paul points out elsewhere in his discussion, there are many of his kinsmen (a sizable remnant) who, like himself, have become believers—so they cannot be thought to be among those for whom he has "great sorrow and continual grief in [his] heart" (v.2). His sorrow is for individual Israelites who remain unbelievers. Thus, his statement in verse 4 is not affirming some continuing privileged status of the nation as a whole, but is bemoaning the fact that these individuals, though sharing in the historical privileges of the Jewish nation, have failed to embrace (and thus failed to benefit from) the covenants, promises, etc. that would be their birthright—had they only believed in Christ.

Paul does not, and cannot, suggest that these very unsaved Jewish men, who were giving him so much grief in his time, possessed some guarantee of future benefit from the covenants and the promises, since a great number of them (we may safely assume) have long since died without Christ, and have thus lost all claim to those blessings which would have been theirs. In Romans 9:1-5, Paul does not say anything about a future generation of Jewish people, nor of the nation of Israel as a unitary entity. The future of the Jewish race does not enter into the purview of Paul's discussion in Romans 9 through 11—nor any other passage in the New Testament. This is very strange, if the New Testament writers felt about Israel the way you do.

I find it interesting that you had to change my statement in order to refute it... I said that "neither translation" (that is, neither "and" nor "even") would make your point—and your denials to the contrary do not change the validity of this statement.

I'm well aware that, in this case, "also" is nearly identical to "and." Thus, when I quoted your statement I did not alter it to suit my needs. You suggested that one group- in this case the Israel of God- cannot be a subgroup of those who walk "according to this rule." I am suggesting that they can be (whether Paul intends to include the Israel of God as a subgroup among those who walk "according to this rule," or if he is speaking of Gentile and Jewish believers distinctly- which would not be too far fetched especially since, in the book of Galatians, he is frustrated with the Judaizers and would be inclined to bless the Jewish remnant who had recognized the New Covenant reality- is immaterial. The burden of proof is on the Amill proponent to show why "even" must be employed.

The others are all cases where Paul acknowledges the presence of ethnic Jews and/or ethnic Gentiles in his readership, but where he does not suggest that the one bears a different status in God's purposes from the other.

I've never advocated such. I do not believe that Jew and Gentile bear a different status in God's purposes. This is traditional dispensationalism. I believe as Paul did when he stated that the nation of Israel is still beloved on account of the patriarchs. When taken literally the OT prophets speak of a national restoration (salvation) of some Jews on the Day of The Lord.

Paul does not, and cannot, suggest that these very unsaved Jewish men, who were giving him so much grief in his time, possessed some guarantee of future benefit from the covenants and the promises, since a great number of them (we may safely assume) have long since died without Christ, and have thus lost all claim to those blessings which would have been theirs.

This is not an argument against my position.

The future of the Jewish race does not enter into the purview of Paul's discussion in Romans 9 through 11—nor any other passage in the New Testament. This is very strange, if the New Testament writers felt about Israel the way you do.

My first post on this thread addressed Romans 11:25. I said, "The verse states that when the fullness of the nations should enter in, callousness (in part) will not affect Israel. From your perspective, has this occured? If the fullness of nations has not yet entered in, what do you think this removal of callousness (from Israel) will look like?"

Brian

Paul never predicts the removal of the partial "callousness" of Israel. Verse 26 does not make a chronological statement, as you apparently are wishing for it to do.

Paul never predicts the removal of the partial "callousness" of Israel.

In the passage at hand, the Greek word "acri" functions as a conjunction and is translated "until." When "ou" follows "acri" it most certainly implies until (the time when). Notice some other uses.

until (acri ou) there arose another king over Egypt who knew nothing about Joseph (Acts 7:18)

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till (acri ou) the Seed should come to whom the promise was made;....(Gal 3:19)

that blindness in part has happened to Israel until (acri ou) the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. (Rom 11:25)

The thrust is that partial callousness of Israel will end (will take place until) the fullness of the nations enters in. Can we agree that this has not occurred yet? Notice that Paul distinguishes Israel and the Gentiles. And the next verses state, "And so all Israel will be saved... The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob... but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers." Is Paul now talking about the Church when he employs the terms "Israel, Jacob, and the fathers" or is he still speaking of Israel?

that blindness in part has happened to Israel until (acri ou) the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. (Rom 11:25)

I have never argued against the use of the word "until" in verse 25. What I am saying is that there is nothing indicating what will happen after the "until." There is no corresponding "after that..."

If my son is considering going to college, but is concerned about whether he will have adequate finances to complete his education, I might say, "I am committed to your support until you complete your education." This would be true, though it would not be possible to conclude from my statement that my support for my son would necessarily end after his education is complete. What I am saying is that, for the duration of the period of time under consideration (i.e., the time that he is in college), he can count on my support. If he wanted to know whether he will have my support after his graduation, we would have to open a new discussion.

Similarly, if I were to say, "I will remain single until my ex-wife is remarried," this does not imply that I will certainly remarry once she has remarried (she actually remarried years ago, and I am still unmarried). As far as anyone could deduce from my words, I may or may not remarry after my ex-wife has remarried. My use of the word "until" in my statements does not necessarily place limitations upon the duration of my commitments. It word only means that, for the period of time under discussion, the circumstance of which I speak will prevail.

Now, if my statements had been made in Koine Greek, can you tell me which expression, other than acri ou, would be my best choice of words to express this concept of "until"?

I have no problem acknowledging that there will be a change of circumstances once the last man among the Gentiles has been grafted into the olive tree (Israel). In my opinion, Jesus will come back at that time. After that, all bets are off about the continuing obstinacy of the unbelieving Israelites (and of the unbelieving Gentiles, too). To predict any change in Israel's callousness after that point requires the opening of a new discussion, which Paul never opens.

Paul makes no prediction about the conversion of a future generation of Jews, after the conversion of the last Gentile. His statement, in verse 25, is only focusing on God's program of Gentile inclusion, and affirming that a portion of ethnic Israel will remain callous for the duration of this period. What your position needs, and does not have, is a statement about the later conversion of Israel when this program has reached its completion.

And the next verses state, "And so all Israel will be saved... The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob...

If you had followed Paul's line of argument from chapter nine up to this climax of his discussion (and especially in the immediate preceding context), you would have no trouble seeing that "all Israel" means "the whole olive tree"—which includes the believing Jews and Gentiles (as Paul has just finished explaining). This group of believing Jews and Gentiles, both in Paul's day and in ours, is what the Bible also calls "the church." The reference to "Jacob" in the Isaianic quotation is simply the common synonym for "Israel"—as these terms are normally used interchangeably in the prophets. Paul has just finished telling us who Israel (a.k.a., "Jacob") is (the olive tree, comprised of believing Jewish and Gentile "branches"), so his citation of an Old Testament passage to make his point cannot mean otherwise than what he has been arguing. Since Paul has already, in the same discussion, affirmed that only a remnant of Israel (not the whole nation) will be saved (9:27), it would be strange for him to directly contradict himself two chapters later, in 11:26, in saying that all Jewish people will be saved!

...but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers." Is Paul now talking about the Church when he employs the terms "Israel, Jacob, and the fathers" or is he still speaking of Israel?

Paul does not say, in 11:28, that all Israel is beloved because of the fathers. He says that "the election" (i.e., the elect among the Jews, as he used the exact same term to mean in the same chapter, verse 7) are beloved, in contrast to the nation as a whole, which are, according to Paul, God's enemies.

Since Paul has already used the term "the election," in verses 7, to mean the believing portion of the Jewish race, in contrast to the majority, it would be very strange for him to turn around, in verse 28, and use the same term for the whole of Israel. Wouldn't Paul be inviting unnecessary confusion if he switched his vocabulary around so arbitrarily? Why not just take the position that agrees with every one of Paul's remarks—both in Romans 9-11 and elsewhere—which is the simplest solution to the problems your position creates?

Just to preempt your raising questions that I have answered elsewhere, I will provide here some links to earlier discussions of this topic at this forum...
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=399
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=346
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=525
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=1468
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=1571