Tim’s Blog

Theses Regarding “All Israel Will Be Saved”

April 18, 2024

Theses regarding the widespread restoration of Israel:

1) The people provided the promise have not been redefined. The Old Testament prophecies frequently distinguish between Gentiles and Israel with reference to future blessing. Moreover, when Paul says “all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26), he is not speaking merely of “all the elect remnant of Jew and Gentile,” which would be at best nothing more than a tautology.

A responsible reading of Rom 11:26 must fully reckon with 11:28. In terms of the “Israel” Paul has in view, “As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards the election, they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.” This verse makes absolutely no sense if Paul is not referring to the presently unbelieving mass of “ethnic” Israel, and it makes no sense if he does not have a massively significant reversal in view.

2) The nature of the blessing has not been redefined. On the one hand, Yahweh has always been fully committed to his creation (the earth and its environs), which is why the doctrine of the resurrection is so central to Christian faith. Given that, there is nothing “carnal” in itself regarding the long-held desire of Israel to hold God to his promise of land. On the other hand, the promises to Israel have always been spiritual promises. The promises to Israel stand in the context of a promise of a new heavens and a new earth, and they are messianically defined. That is, they are all about Jesus, and always have been.

3) The distinction between Jews and Gentiles in the promises, therefore, does not mean that one is an “earthly seed” and the other is a “heavenly seed.” The biblical program is one of full integration and shared blessing between Israel and the nations.

4) It is useless to object that “God has divorced Israel” and is therefore done with them. Ironically, the only actual biblical texts which explicitly mention Yahweh divorcing Israel also explicitly affirm that he will restore them (post-divorce)! (That is a key aspect of the message of Hosea.)

5) The promises of God, not the dilution of Israelite blood through the vagaries of history, must always establish the starting point and immovable foundation of what we believe.

6) The biblical promises are in fact much more miraculous than simply envisioning that some day the people we know as “Jews” will embrace the Messiah en masse. Throughout the later Old Testament prophets, including well after the obliteration and displacement of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians, Yahweh still promises a future for Ephraim as representative of the northern tribes. The radical character of God’s promises for Israel are so daring that Ezekiel portrays it most starkly as life from the dead.

7) These promises remain future, and they do not introduce an alternate route of redemption.

A] It will not do to suggest that the promises were fulfilled by the return from exile, because i) The return from exile was a return of a small remnant from only the Babylonian exile; and ii) still in Romans 11, Paul anticipates the fulfillment of these promises in the future.

B] Neither will it do to suggest that the promises were fulfilled in the 1st century, but later than when Paul wrote Romans. Not only is there zero evidence of a widespread turning to the Messiah by 1st century Jews; even if there were, that would not satisfy the promises, as we have noted in (5) above.

C] Neither yet will it do to suggest that these promises will be fulfilled at Christ’s return. His return will be for judgment, and after that a reversal will be too late. To the contrary, Jesus himself sets the timetable in Matthew 23:39: Israel will not see him again until they say “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,” that is until they submit to him as Messiah and Lord.

—–

It may be objected that if the northern tribes must be restored, the promises are impossible.

We must take this bull by the horns. Read through the prophetic books. The promises are what they are. They involve a very significant form of “all Israel,” including the so-called “lost tribes” (see e.g. Jer 31:1, which refers to all the clans of Israel; see also Jer 30:3; Ezek 36; 37:16–17; Zech 8:13; 10:6ff etc). Indeed, the signature new covenant prophecy itself clearly distinguishes between “the house of Israel” and “the house of Judah” (Jer 31:31; cf Ezek 36:25–26 in context).

Does God break his Word? Does he renege on his promise? Does he redefine his promises to the degree that they are utterly meaningless?

He does not.

How then can he restore the northern tribes when they have been sown into the Gentile world to the degree of apparent untraceability?

There is one way that I know of.

He can save the world.

And just coincidentally, that seems to be exactly what Paul says God is up to. “If their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!” [Rom 11:12] “For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?” [11:15]

“For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy by their disobedience, so also these now disobeyed regarding the mercy shown you, in order that they themselves may obtain mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, in order to have mercy upon all.” [Rom 11:30–32]

There is None Righteous…

April 15, 2024

It is interesting that of the various passages Paul quotes and cites in his catena of Romans 3:10–18, only the (possible) first is about universal sinfulness in its original context, i.e. Ecclesiastes 7:20 (which appears to me the most probable allusion at 3:10a for the phrase “there is none righteous”).

In the remaining passages (Ps 53/14; Ps 5:9; Ps 10:7; Isa 59:7–8; Ps 36:1), the “all” is in fact not universal, but refers specifically to those who oppose David or the poor oppressed of Yahweh etc.

Moreover, the overwhelming sin-type found in this catena regards not sexual perversion, covetousness, theft etc, but violence against Yahweh’s chosen, whether his anointed king or his people.

This fits with a Christocentric reading of Rom 3:1–8. While Paul is indeed advocating a generalized, universal human sinfulness (illustrated by the apparent Ecc 7:20 citation), it appears he is following up the preceding passage. This, for him, is the climactic “fall” of Israel, as becomes very clear at the end of Romans 9, where he speaks of them stumbling over Christ, the Rock whom God has appointed (cf also Rom 11:11).

Sin abounds through Torah in Israel (Rom 5:20), and it comes to a head specifically in her encounter with her own Messiah.

Worship as Death and Resurrection

February 18, 2023

When Moses asks to see Yahweh’s glory, God tells even this beloved, familiar servant: you cannot see my face, for no man shall see me and live (Ex 33:20).

And yet Yahweh called upon Israel to “seek his face” (1 Ch 16:11; 2 Ch 7:14). He said, “Seek my face,” and the psalmist responds, “Your face, Yahweh, will I seek” (Ps 27:8).

Are two different things meant by this?

Yes, and no.

Yahweh was telling Israel to seek his pleasurable countenance (“may his face shine upon you”), which could only happen through faith and faithfulness — living in a spirit of repentance and true worship. He wasn’t saying he would literally show his face to them.

To be sure, God is not a man and doesn’t have a “face” in the sense that creatures do. In that sense, it is impossible to “see God’s face.”

And yet … there is a face he could have shown Moses if he wanted to destroy him. There is a mysterious truth there about the incomprehensible God who is not embodied like we are.

But Israel could not see that face and live. That’s why in the tabernacle and temple, only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies, and only once a year, and only in a cloud of smoke.

We approach the mystery in Revelation 1. John is “in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day” i.e. the Day of the Lord, divinely admitted into the church’s worship even while alone in exile. The glorified Jesus, the son of man who is the son of God, with eyes like a flame of fire and a voice like the roar of many waters — the visual form of this God who cannot be seen without the one seeing him dying as a result — Jesus speaks to John, and when the apostle turns and sees him, he “fell at his feet as though dead” (Rev 1:17). But Jesus lays his right hand on him, and describes himself as the living one who has indeed died, but is now alive forevermore (1:17–18).

There is a sense in which when we approach God in Spirit we do die, in order to be raised up. The Day of Yahweh is the meeting place, the day of death and resurrection.

Worship in Spirit and truth means worship in the heavenly Spirit who unites us to God and one another in the heavenly worship which John witnesses in Revelation. And it is in “truth,” i.e. the Truth, Jesus (I am the way, the Truth, and the life, Jn 14:6). We die and are raised with Jesus again and again in worship.

When God calls us to worship, he calls us to come and die — and to come and live.

Exchanging the Glory Theopolis Podcast Interview

January 7, 2023

Last week, Peter Leithart of the Theopolis Institute interviewed me in connection with my book, Exchanging the Glory: Idolatry and Homosexuality in Romans 1 (2022 Athanasius Press, Theopolis Explorations series). This interview is available on these podcast platforms:

Spotify — https://open.spotify.com/episode/2kXl2sk5UG6nuLOFVzYaYy

Apple — https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-theopolis-podcast/id1148175126?i=1000592768187

SoundCloud — https://soundcloud.com/user-812874628/episode-607-idolatry-and-homosexuality-with-tim-gallant

False Humility Regarding the Lord’ Supper

December 28, 2022

Jacob the Unfeigned Character

October 2, 2022

Talk about irony. Jacob repeatedly gets pegged as “the deceiver.” Supposedly, he was all about treachery and lies in order to gain advantage. Which is itself a misreading of the Genesis text, but that’s beyond my scope here.

The interesting thing about the description of the characters of Jacob and Esau in Genesis 25:27 is that Jacob is described as “a tam [Heb] man, dwelling in tents.” The word tam is frequently rendered as “quiet” or “mild” but that is doubtful. More commonly it stresses completeness or blamelessness. But even more fascinating is that the LXX (Greek version of the OT) renders it ἄπλαστος, which means unmoulded and even unfeigned, i.e. true and transparent.

In other words, pretty much the opposite of the stereotype.

Laying on of Hands

September 17, 2022

There is an interesting sequence in Numbers 8:10–12. The people of Israel are to lay their hands upon the Levites, so that Aaron can offer them to Yahweh as a wave offering. The Levites in turn are then to lay their own hands upon two bulls, and offer one for a sin offering and the other as an ascension offering, to make atonement. Thus laying on of hands ties together threads both of representation and of vocation.

One of a myriad of texts both familiar and less familiar that I’m looking at in connection with next month’s Zoom class for Theopolis.

Wisdom and Maturity

September 2, 2022

As I am preparing to teach my Theopolis Zoom class (“Infancy and Maturity in the Messiah’s Kingdom”), I have been reflecting on the integral relationship between maturity and wisdom.

Wisdom is not simply knowledge. It is true that biblical wisdom has as its core the intimate knowledge of God’s Word. But in Scripture, experience with conflict seems to be a key element in applying that knowledge in mature wisdom. Wisdom arises within the context of conflict and suffering. This is the pathway to maturity.

We can see this in the juxtaposition of Adam and Jesus (the new Adam). Adam in some ways is created as an adult but has no life experience, and therefore he is not just “given the car keys.” The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (a function of mature wisdom) is withheld from him. When conflict arises in the form of the tempter, instead of growing through applying the word he has received, he waits to see what will happen to Eve, and then grasps for something for which he is unprepared.

In the case of Jesus, immediately upon his baptism he is driven into the wilderness to be tempted by the serpent. As with Eve, he cites the word of the Father, but in his case that word trumps what the tempter has to say. This is part of the process of conflict and suffering by which he is “perfected” (i.e. matured and completely prepared for his task; the Hebrew and Greek words carry similar ranges in this regard). This often does not sound right to us (“Jesus didn’t need to undergo such a process! He’s God!”) — but it’s what we are explicitly told in Hebrews 2:10 and 5:8–9.

Do you want to grow up in Christ? Learn the Word, and face conflict and suffering in faith and faithfulness.

Killing and Getting Dressed

July 24, 2022

It’s interesting that in the contrasting lists in Colossians 3, the contrast is not between mortification and giving life, but between mortification (3:5) and getting dressed (3:12). I suppose the reason for this is that while we must kill the deeds of the old man, we do not in fact give life to the marks of the Spirit. That life comes from God himself.

Of course, the mortification section does also speak of divestment/getting undressed (apekduomai) of sin, 3:9. This is a link not only to the contrast of being dressed in vv 12ff, but also to what the Messiah accomplished on the cross, where he accomplished the removal (apekdusis, stripping off, undressing) of the body of the flesh (somatos tês sarkos), 2:11. We can mortify the old man, because the elements of the stoicheia were put to death in him; and we can strip off the old man, because the Messiah has already stripped off the body of flesh. Our mortification is an outworking of the accomplishment of Jesus on the cross.

Another interesting feature in Colossians 3 is that in both the “sin list” and the righteousness” list there is one articular item (something like a the rather than just a general reference to a characteristic) that gets explanation/epexegetical treatment. In 3:5, Paul refers to tên pleonexian (the covetousness/avarice), “which is idolatry,” and in 3:14, he climaxes the virtue list with “above all, tên agapên (the love), which is the bond of teleiotêtos (completeness, maturity, perfection). It’s fascinating to ask whether those two particular characteristics are intended to be specifically contrasted. Certainly, covetousness or even idolatry is not the first thing that comes to mind when we are looking for a contrast to love. Yet there are ways in which it is an apt juxtaposition. Pleonexia seeks its own, while agape seeks the other. Moreover, in comparing the old fallen kosmos, we note that the action of Adam and Eve is one of pleonexia, whereas in 1 Corinthians 13, Paul describes agapê as the eternal virtue, and thus (as here) the hallmark of the new creation (the heaven-and-earth kosmos).

It would also be pertinent to discuss Philippians 2, which implicitly contrasts the grasping of Adam over against the obedient loving service of the Messiah Jesus, whose self-giving is the very embodiment of agapê (cf Phi 2:1).

I do wonder whether we reflect deeply enough upon the matter of covetousness or avarice. As Paul himself says, it is form of idolatry and it stands in definitive antithesis to the new creation.

Between Two Insurrectionists: Riots in the Capital

April 15, 2022

No, not that capital, silly. We’re talking about real insurrectionists here. It is Good Friday, after all.

So first things first.

Insurrectionists, Not Thieves

Jesus did not die between two thieves.

“What??” you exclaim. “My Bible tells me he did just that, in both Matthew and Mark” (Matthew 27:38, 44; Mark 15:27).

The Greek word used, however, is lestai (singular lestes). While this term apparently can refer to violent bandits (and thus “robbers”), it is not a term associated with what we generally think when we hear the word thief (pickpockets, burglars, larcenists etc). Such thieves would almost certainly never have been crucified.

read more »