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.
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]
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.
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.
Matthew 18 and Church Discipline
August 30, 2016
Matthew 18 is a series of portraits of grace: the grace to those who humble themselves as children, the parable of the lost sheep, and the parable of the unforgiving servant, with its attendant call to forgive our brothers 70×7 times. It also includes a warning against putting a stumbling block in front of other people (which is not at all the same as the modern notions regarding “being offensive”; rather, it is about not being the occasion of tempting others to sin).
In the midst of this is a short passage that, if considered carefully, provides discomfort for various Christians. I am referring in particular to vv 15–20, which in some Bibles comes under the heading “If Your Brother Sins Against You.”
The little passage is uncomfortable for those who pretend the Church has no authority, who think “Judge not, lest you be judged” means accepting everyone no matter what they do. In these verses, Jesus gives the Church the authority of binding and loosing, so that the impenitent are set outside the Church, with the promise that such activity will be ratified in heaven. All of that implies, of course, that the Church is supposed to exercise discipline. It implies that there is such a thing as sin, and more importantly, that recalcitrance (an insistence upon maintaining wrongdoing; a refusal to be corrected) is grounds for expulsion.
But the details of the passage also prove problematic for those who like to think of these verses as outlining “the steps of discipline,” which in fact is simply not true. read more »
Why the Resurrection of Jesus the Messiah Matters
March 27, 2016
In 1 Corinthians 15, the Apostle Paul identifies the resurrection as one of the cornerstone truths of the Christian faith. Along with the Messiah’s death “for our sins,” he identifies the resurrection with “the gospel” (1 Cor 15:1–4). He even goes so far as to say that if the Messiah has not risen, we believers are of all men most pitiable (v 19); indeed, we are still in our sins (17) and our faith is vain (14).
But why? Isn’t the resurrection just a proof of the deity of Christ? Is it really necessary for us?
Much in every way.
We see why this is so when we understand Romans 4:25, which says (literally) that Jesus our Lord was “delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised because of our justification.”
We like to talk about Jesus’ death as representative—carried out on our behalf. But that representative death by itself is an enactment of condemnation. (This is why the concept of substitution, while valuable, cannot carry within itself the whole significance of Christ’s work.)
It is Jesus’ resurrection that constitutes His vindication in the face of the condemnation against Him and us. In other words, His justification, which is why in 1 Timothy 3:16 Paul writes that God was “manifest in the flesh, justified by (Greek en) the Spirit, seen of angels, proclaimed to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”
This is why if Jesus died but did not rise, we are still in our sins. If the representative Man was not justified, neither are the represented men. If the representative death did not issue in representative resurrection, then death and only death is rightly ours.
The resurrection is not simply a sign of the glory of Christ. It is that, of course—it is in response to it that James blurts out, “My Lord and my God!”
But it is more than that.
It is our hope.
Paul’s Use of Scripture in Romans 3 (3)
May 24, 2014
In our previous post, we examined the sundry texts from which Paul quotes in his great catena of quotations in Rom 3.10-18. But the thought unit is not yet complete; Paul makes his assessment of the implications in 3.19-20. This followup makes Paul’s intent clearer, although it is frequently misread (verse 19, in particular; I think this is likely also the case with verse 20, but my understanding of the verse is still being formed).
Paul’s Use of Scripture in Romans 3 (2)
May 24, 2014
In our earlier look at Paul’s use of Scripture in Romans 3, we focused upon how Psalm 51, from which the apostle quotes in verse 4, determines and shapes our reading of 3.1-8. We also noted that the psalm contains a reference to divine righteousness (Ps 51.14), where it refers to God’s salvific activity. In this post, we move on to the next subsection, and begin our consideration of Romans 3.9-20. What are these passages from which Paul quotes? What do they contribute to our understanding of Paul’s train of thought?
Paul’s Use of Scripture in Romans 3 (1)
May 24, 2014
It has always been important to pay attention to the Old Testament quotations we find in the New Testament, but in recent years, it has become even more clear that one must take into account the extended context of the passage cited, not simply the words directly quoted. This is understandable: unlike our situation, the ancient world largely communicated texts as an oral culture, and nobody footnoted.
But it is understandable on an even more important level: the New Testament writers are not manufacturing a de novo religion; they are drawing upon an inspired and authoritative text that has come to new light with the advent of Christ and the Spirit. (Indeed, this is what Paul says almost directly in 2 Corinthians 3.) And if this is the case, we can be sure that – no matter what our untrained eyes may lead us to believe at first glance – the writers of the New Testament were contextual and faithful to the Scriptures from which they drew. Our failure to recognize this stems, not from our superior training in hermeneutics, but from the poverty and weakness of our biblical understanding.
In the case of Romans 3, we have one of the heaviest concentrations of biblical citations to be found within the Pauline corpus. This means that proceeding to define terms and phrases must not be done in a vacuum; we must investigate the passages Paul cites.
Must We Behave?
May 22, 2014