Hebrews 3 & 4 - Future Promises For Israel

[Guest]

postpre wrote:

Chris,

If compelled, please continue with your posts. I should have qualified my last statement. Mainly, Hebrews 11, as I layed it out, has not been dealt with. But you are providing some challenging rebuttals, and for that I am thankful.

Hi Brian,

Don't worry, I haven't abandoned the conversation. I promise that I will do my best to answer your arguments when I get a chance. But I'm finding myself drawn to other topics that are more interesting to me (like the unity thread for example) and because of time restraints, I can't do both at the same time.

I appreciate your patience.

[Guest]

As I see it, there do seem to be future promises for Jewish people. Paul speaks of a time when their "eyes will be opened", and also asks "What will their acceptance be but life from the dead? [Rom 11:15].

However, I do not think there any promises for the future of Israel as a nation. Many people disagree, and quote passages which they interpret as promises for a future status of national Israel.

[Guest]

Actually, I agree with you Paidion. Only, I don't apply it to something God is going to do in the future, but rather a past, present, and future reality that Jews are not disqualified from being grafted on to the olive tree. I think that was part of Paul's whole point in this chapter:

Rom 11:13-14
14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.
NKJV

I think he's telling gentiles that Jews are not cast out just because they have as a nation rejected their Messiah. God doesn't throw the baby out with the bath water, but allows for believing Jews to remain or be grafted onto the tree by faith in Christ. I think he's basically telling the gentiles that they need to see the Jewish Christians as brothers.

There's that pesky unity theme again.

[Guest]

Hi Brian,

I’m finally finding a little time to get back to this thread. Since the thread has taken many twists and turns, I thought I would just briefly summarize my own position in relation to your original assertion in order to bring back some sense of organized flow of thought:

1. All the literal promises to Abraham concerning land have been literally fulfilled. (Josh 21:43-45, Josh 23:14). IMO You haven’t given a convincing argument that this is not the case.
2. The “everlasting” possession of the land was likely hyperbole (as was circumcision, Levitical priesthood, and Solomon’s temple), and conditional (Josh 23:15-16, Lev 26:40-42…thanks Sean). This is in keeping with God’s usual mode of operation throughout the bible (Jer 18:9-10). I don't believe that we can require that God give his conditions at the time of the covenant. Some of the more obvious ones (like obedience) can simply be implied. That's His perogative.
3. The land belongs to God, not the Jews. (Lev 25:23)
4. God’s “rest” is a spiritual promise fulfilled in Christ. It is the “promise that remains” (remains open that is) and is entered into presently, not in some future restoration of Israel (Heb 4:3). I personally see it as speaking of a spiritual promise land (Heb 11:8-16), which is also referred to as Mt Zion, heavenly Jerusalem, and the church (Heb 12:22-24). A type of “rest” was given to the Jews at the dedication of Solomon’s temple (1Ki 8:56). It includes a cessation of sacrifices for atonement (Heb 10:12).
5. In the New Covenant (which replaced the old), there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in God’s eyes either in position or future plans (Gal 3:28-29, Eph 2:11-22) and that being a “Jew” is now defined spiritually rather than ethnically (Rom 2:28-29, Rom 9:6).
6. Likewise, as far as God is concerned, “Israel” is now a spiritual entity rather than a political one (Gal 6:16, 1Pet 2:9-10) made up of believing Jews and believeing gentiles (Eph 2:11-22, Rom 11).
7. The only remaining covenant that God recognizes IMO is the new covenant (Heb 8:13). All others were either revoked or fulfilled in Christ.



I’d also like to make a few general points here if I may.

1. First, I’d like to say that the assertions and arguments you’ve made so far have a lot of merit within the dispensational paradigm and are internally consistent with that system IMO. With explanations like some of the ones you and Tim have given (some more elaborate than others), you can offer plausible solutions to the apparent problems with the dispensational model. You could say the same thing for my position also, as well as any other. There is usually a way to interpret certain problematic scriptures in a way that provides a possible explanation to the problem. And all the views have these problems.

However, when forming an opinion to what is truth, to me it comes down to what is the most probable explanation of the data in light of what is revealed in the bible. What has the best evidence in it’s favor? What is the most consistent with the rest of the bible?

To my mind, the explanations you’ve provided become real awkward to the context of the passages without first having the dispensational paradigm in place.

When I first became a Christian, I read through the NT very quickly and without any theological presuppositions (I was too green to know of any). As I read, I was never encouraged to see the Jews as a separate class of God’s people than gentiles. It never even entered my mind. It was only when the teachers at my church “enlightened” me to what I was missing that I began to see that aspect and I, of course, adopted that view (after all, they knew much more than I did). I thought this was a universal belief among Christians for many years and it wasn’t until I discovered that others held different views that I even began to question it.

Now as I read the bible, I’m back to where I was when I began. I’m not encouraged to see two distinct groups of God’s people because racism doesn’t seem to fit the character of God that I see revealed in scripture. I don’t see two flocks, but one (John 10:16).


2. Second, I’d just like to make clear, is that it is not my goal in this discussion to convince you, or anybody else, that you’re wrong because I’m absolutely certain that you are. My only purpose is to present challenges to what you assert based on my own understandings in order to give balance to your claims. Whether anyone changes their minds or not makes no difference to me. Judging by the charitable tone of your responses, I believe you have the same thing in mind as well.

3. Lastly, if you don’t mind, I prefer to dialogue with a person directly rather than through article clips of another person. I’m sure Tim Warner reflects your views very accurately, and I know how convenient it is to just to copy and paste an article in rather than formulate your own words. However, I tend to lose interest in a thread when that is done because it becomes less like a personal discussion between two truth seekers and more like an argument stacking exercise to try to win an argument. I know that is probably not what your intention is, but that’s the way I perceive it. I almost never read an unsolicited link to another article as a part of an on-going discussion. I just don’t have time for all that.

Anyways, I gave the summary above to review so that we can figure out together whether there are any unanswered rebuttals or clarification still needed in this very fragmented conversation of ours.

Having said all that, I’ll attempt to address some of the unanswered challenges that I still owe you…….stay tuned.

[Guest]

Regarding the 1Peter passage:

Tim may or may not be correct regarding the intended recipients of Peter’s epistle. Sean posed a good challenge to that (they were once not a people). However, to my mind, it makes no difference. If he was talking to believing Jews, that still makes them Christians and a part of the church. I think he was deliberately using similar language to that found in Exodus 19:

Ex 19:6
6 And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel."
NKJV

It can hardly be assumed that Peter was suggesting that the Sinaitic covenant was still valid and that they were still that “holy nation” and “kingdom of priests” according to that covenant now obsolete. As you yourself have acknowledged, that covenant was conditional upon obedience and therefore revoked. I think it more likely that he is using that statement in the same way Jesus did in telling the Jews that their covenant was about to be revoked and transferred to someone else:

Matt 21:43
43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.
NKJV

Who do you think that “nation” was that Jesus was talking about? It’s the same greek word mind you.

In my mind, it’s clear that Peter and Jesus were not talking about a literal nation, but metaphorically using the word to describe a spiritual entity….namely the church.

Can't prove it. But that's the explanation that makes most sense to me.

Lord bless.

[Guest]

Regarding Galatians 6:

Brian, as I indicated earlier, I can’t prove that your interpretation of this is incorrect. However, it would seem absurd to me in the highest degree for Paul to be calling a blessing on ethnic Jews in his last statement after he just go through…..

Chapter 1 - Emphatically cursing those who would preach a “different” and “perverted” gospel of Judaism mixed with the gospel of Christ. (Gal 1).
Chapter 2 - Sternly rebuking Peter for his racist actions towards gentile brothers in the church. (Gal 2).
Chapter 3 - Telling the Galatians they have been “bewitched” for foolishly wanting to become as Jews. Declaring that only those of faith are sons of Abraham. Saying there is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ, but all are one and heirs according to the promise.
Chapter 4 – Using the examples of Sarah and Hagar to demonstrate the superiority of the promise (realized by faith) over flesh.
Chapter 5 – Wishing that those who preach circumcision (sign of the Abrahamic covenant) would immasculate themselves.
Chapter 6 - Saying neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything


It would seem contradictory to me for Paul to then turn around and say “long live the Jews!”

It seems more likely that what he is doing here is communicating to the gentiles that they need not jump through all these hoops to be God’s chosen people, they already are. The term “Israel of God” would indicate that they are already God’s chosen people if they are in Christ.

The reason I pointed out that the word kai can be translated “even” is because it’s a common way of adding emphasis, or cumalative force to a statement in scripture. For example:

Phil 2:8
even the death of the cross.
NKJV

2 Peter 1:9
9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness,
NKJV

Matt 26:38
"My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death.
NKJV

So it seems to me that Paul is telling the Galatians that they don’t need to try to become Israelites, they are already citizens of God’s Israel….the body of Christ. That would agree with analogies he made elsewhere (Eph 2, Romans 11).

[Guest]

Regarding Hebrews 11

Hi Brian,

I believe this is the last of the rebuttals I owe you and this should settle our account . Let me know if it’s not.

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.

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.

I agree with the first part about the word ge, in fact I would take that way in many places you probably would not (Matt 24:30, several places in Revelation, etc). But I would say that in the passage you quoted that it wouldn’t really matter either way. However you look at it, Abraham is not occupying that land, he’s dead and with the Lord in a place a million times better. It really doesn’t matter how Abraham would have understood either. IMO what’s important is how the NT writers understood it since they are more enlightened than any of the OT writers.

Notice that the author says:
“He has prepared a city for them.”

What city is that? I don’t exactly know. But it could be related to how the author later uses the analogy of a city:

Heb 12:22-23
22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven,
NKJV

I would like to suggest to you the possibility that after the cross, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob became a part of the new “heavenly Jerusalem” (the church), the “city” prepared by God. The only difference being that they are part of the body of Christ in heaven, and we are the part that is still on earth. And this is the “better country” that they now desire. I certainly wouldn’t want to leave that to go live in Palestine, would you?

Even if I’m wrong on this, I’m still not encouraged by this passage to see a future time that God deeds over the land to them and their physical grandchildren forever.

Anyway, that’s the best I can do on that at the moment. Look forward to your continued dialogue.

Lord bless.