Tim’s Blog
The Promises to Abraham: Israel & the Nations
December 23, 2024
A key reason why “conversations” between dispensationalists and hard supercessionists rarely get anywhere (beyond the fact that people are obviously predisposed to their own convictions) is that neither side does adequate justice to the texts, beginning with the Abrahamic promises themselves.
Yahweh’s promises to Abraham distinguish between those who will come from his own body, and those who will be blessed in (not simply by) him. Both these promises are “everlasting.”
On the one hand, this means that “Israel” is not “replaced” by “the Church,” much less by Gentiles. On the other, it means that the covenantal goal of the Abrahamic promises was organic unity between Israel and the nations in one people of God.
Paul maintains this delicate balance in Romans, a letter which each side tends to privilege certain aspects and eviscerate others.
In Romans 2:25–29, Paul says that the uncircumcised (i.e. Gentiles) who “keep the righteous deeds [dikaiomata] of the law” are regarded as circumcised (2:26). As he continues, it becomes clear that he is speaking of the work of the Spirit (2:29). He is thus saying that Christians are … well, Jews.
While this would have shocked his contemporaries, in fundamental respects, it is in fact not at all surprising that personal, physical circumcision is not inherent to being a Jew. After all, roughly half of Jews were not subject to circumcision to begin with, being female.
All Jews recognized this, although on that point, the position of women was considered to be inferior; in the Eighteen Benedictions, one thanked God that he is not a woman. This is because Torah is viewed as life, and for a woman, there is ostensibly less of Torah to observe.
In contrast to this, Paul says that in the Messiah, there is no male and female (Galatians 3:28). This, of course, does not mean that Paul obliterates the roles of male and female, as is clear in his deployment of “household codes” and his other instructions. But it does mean that the ground before the cross is completely leveled. The reason for this, Paul says, is that in baptism, one has “put on” (clothed himself with) the Messiah (Galatians 3:27), and therefore his inheritance belongs to all the baptized. (This is the whole point of Paul’s argument in the latter part of Galatians 3 and into the early verses of chapter 4.)
But if that is so, men and women, young and old, slave and free, Jew and Gentile, are all incorporated into the (circumcised) king of the Jews, Jesus, and therefore they are Jews.
Thus the apparently unprecedented move Paul makes in Romans 2:25–29 is organically related to his view of union with Christ, and necessarily flows from it.
While this all may sound great to the supercessionist, Paul’s discussion of Israel in Romans 9–11 shows that he still envisions things in terms of the original promises to Abraham, including the other side of the coin. Whereas the foregoing shows how God includes and blesses “all the families of the earth” in Abraham, Romans 9–11 reflects upon the correlating promises to those who come from Abraham’s own body; and both hard supercessionists and dispensationalists are wrong to set these in opposition one to another.
In Romans 9, Paul speaks of his grief for his kinsmen; and affirms that they are Israelites, to whom belong the adoption, glory, covenants, promises, and so on. Note well that this grief is rooted in their current position of rejection of the Messiah; it is these to whom, he says, all those covenantal blessings belong. That is, while they do not currently enjoy the benefits and blessings of what belongs to them in terms of promise, that does not negate the fact that they really are theirs. There is really no room in supercessionism for this fact, although some will claim it was a very temporary reality.
The problem with taking this situation as temporary, however, is that the very foundation of the existence of these things that belong are the everlasting promises to Abraham. Were those promises not everlasting, Paul’s appeal to what belongs to them in Romans 9:4–5 would have had no place, even then.
Moreover, in Romans 11, Paul very clearly distinguishes between the natural branches and the ingrafted branches. And he makes clear that even the severed branches remain natural branches. God has them demarcated as beloved for the sake of the fathers, even when they are enemies of believers for the sake of the gospel (Romans 11:28).
Paul says that the trespass of Israel was for the sake of “riches for the world” (11:12a). This means, in the first place, that the initial rejection of the Messiah was in fact the means of his sacrificial death which brings reconciliation to the world, but it seems to go much further than that, which implies an ongoing rejection for a more extended period.
But if the initial rejection means “riches for the world,” Paul says, even much more so will their “fullness” (pleroma, 11:12b). This “fullness” must be read as a quantitative and comparative term over against the “remnant” language Paul has been using throughout the context (leimma, 11:5), as well as the “some” whom he himself hopes to rescue (11:14). It is impossible to equate the remnant and the fullness, which is nonsensical on the terminological level, and runs headlong against the grain of Paul’s entire argument.
The initial rejection is the ground of reconciliation for the world, Paul says; the life from the dead, however, is predicated upon their “acceptance” (11:15), which appears to be another way of saying their “fullness,” as in 12b.
Romans 11 has two coordinating themes of fullness/all, having to do with “the world” (i.e. the nations, the Gentiles) and “Israel.” These correspond to the everlasting promises to Abraham regarding the fruit of his body and the families of the earth being incorporated into him. In both cases, Paul anticipates a fullness: the world will be reconciled (11:15a); the “fullness of the Gentiles will come in” (11:25b).
The “partial hardening” of Israel is the context for this ingathering of the Gentiles (again 11:25b); once the Gentile nations have been reconciled in fullness, “all Israel will be saved” (11:26a, again parallel to Israel’s fullness in 11:12). It is when both of these “fullnesses” are brought in that “life from the dead” occurs (11:15b).
That this is the correct reading of Romans 11 is evident from the far too-neglected verses that follow, in particular 11:28–32.
As already noted, the larger mass of Israel, over against the remnant, remain beloved for the sake of the fathers with regard to Israel’s election, even while they are enemies with regard to the gospel (11:28). It is specifically in this connection that Paul says the gfits and calling of God are irrevocable (11:29). Note that. He is not speaking of the irrevocability of the promises to Christian believers. He is specifically speaking of the irrevocability of the promises to the offspring of Abraham, and specifically those who presently do not believe and are in fact enemies of the gospel.
Paul says that “you” Gentiles were at one time disobedient, but have received mercy precisely through Israel’s disobedience (11:30), and even so their present disobedience is part of the unfathomable purpose through which God will extend them mercy precisely through the mercy he has shown to Gentiles (11:31). This consigns the judgment of disobedience upon “all” — and it extends mercy to “all.”
I believe the message of Romans as a whole reinforces several things.
1) Paul fervently believes that which Yahweh had insisted in the prophets: the promises to the offspring of Abraham are utterly irrevocable; they are as settled as the “fixed order” of the moon and stars (Jeremiah 31:35–36).
2) Paul works thoroughly within the distinction between the offspring of Abraham’s body and the inclusion of all the families of the earth in Abraham.
3) The promises in view regarding Israel are not something that occurred in the first century. Quite apart from the fact that there is zero evidence of a mass influx of Jews into the Church after Romans was written (the evidence suggests the opposite; the Church from that point was increasinly Gentile), the text itself insists that the “fullness of the Gentiles,” not the “fullness of Israel,” occurs first; and the fulfillment of the latter triggers the resurrection.
4) Conversely, the promises in view regarding Israel are not post-resurrection promises (i.e. it’s not simply that God will raise up previous generations of Israel to life after the Second Coming). To the contrary, it is Israel’s “fullness” which will trigger “life from the dead.”
5) The promises in view envision the salvation of the world. The promises to Israel and to the Gentile world are mutually reinforcing, and make clear that the last enemies which will be destroyed is death.
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.
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.
John 20:19–23: The True Adam Releases New Adams
April 22, 2014
As a lot of folks have recognized, there are Edenic themes in the resurrection scenes of the Gospel. This should not be surprising; Jesus’ resurrection is the commencement of a new creation, and the resurrection in particular therefore marks out Jesus as the new and true Adam. He is taken to be “the gardener,” which is both a mistake by Mary—and at the same time, precisely the truth.
But the Genesis-new creation theme does not end in the garden where Jesus is entombed. The new creation is not so readily restricted.read more »
Jesus and Paul on the Fall of the Blameless
March 22, 2013
In Romans, Paul says that Israel is under judgment, not because of some general failure to live up to the demands of an impossibly perfect law, but because they stumbled over the Messiah, the holy stumbling stone (Rom 9:32-33).
This insight is not new to Paul. Indeed, Jesus Himself identifies Himself as the occasion for Israel’s fall (cf Rom 11:11-12), as well. “If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both Me and My Father” (John 15:24). It is their rejection of Christ which is their decisive sin, which is why Jesus goes on to say that the Spirit’s role will be to convict “the world” (kosmos) concerning sin, righteousness and judgment (John 16:8).
Sabbath: Import vs. Ethos
March 11, 2013
In Galatians 4:8-10, Paul calls the Galatians to task. Why? Because they had formerly been enslaved by idols, but now, having come to know God, they have returned to the weak and beggarly stoicheia (elements) of the world, becoming enslaved again. This is seen in the fact that they “observe days and months and seasons and years,” i.e. the Sabbath-oriented calendar of the Mosaic law.
At first glance, this line of argument seems mystifying. How can Paul suggest that observing the Sabbath and the new moons and Mosaic festivals is like returning to paganism? After all, God Himself gave the law, including the Sabbatical calendar.
The answer to this lies in (1) understanding Paul’s old creation-new creation contrast, as well as (2) making a distinction between import and ethos.
Covetousness vs Wholesome Desire
March 5, 2013
As I am arriving at the end of a sermon series on the Ten Commandments, I have been given occasion to reflect upon the difference between covetousness and acceptable or even good desire. After all, it is God Himself who has created good and desirable things, and He has not given all of them to each of us. And indeed, He Himself promises desirable things to us: “Delight yourself in Yahweh, and He will give you the desires of your heart” (Psalm 37:4)?
How then are we to distinguish between good and wholesome desire, on one hand, and covetousness (which, in the words of Paul in Colossians 3:5, is idolatry), on the other?read more »