Amen, brother, I couldn't agree more. We might be missing each other here. My only thought (or maybe question) was, wouldn't it be adding a condition to an already ratified covenant (albeit Abrahamic or Mosaic) to change the recipients it was intended for? My point was that Paul seemed to argue that point when it came to the Abrahamic covenant (seed does not equal seeds). And my logic was, since it was true for the Abrahamic covenant, wouldn't it also be true for the Mosaic covenant, that you can't change the recipients for that covenant as well? Abrahamic covenant = Christ; Mosaic covenant = Jews. To add a recipient change to either covenant would be adding a condition which would be wrong.
What say you?
Mark
24jreisinger26@... wrote:
Mark wrote: If you look at the context of Galatians 3:15 Paul specifically
has in mind the adding of a condition concerning the word, "seed" to
"seeds." That would be an added condition -- braodening the scope of the
Abrahamic covenant. So is it an added condition to make the same apply to
the Mosaic covenant -- broadening the scope to include gentiles? After all,
the covenant is to the fathers and their children.
JGR responds: The promise, according to Gal. 3:16, cannot be
plural, seeds. It must not only be singular, seed, but it must be with
Christ alone. No spiritual blessing was ever promised anyone, Jew or
Gentile, in any dispensation apart from repentance and faith. We do not
"broaden the scope of the promise to includes Gentiles." The promise here
spoken of was madw ith Israel or with Geniles. The promise was, is, and
always will be, made with Christ and those "in him" whom he represents. I
think that is what Romans 9:6-8 is stating. The logical question in reponse
to Romans 8 concerning the glorious promise of uncondittional security for
any and all persons in a saving covenantal relationship with God is, "Why
about Israel? They were were God's loved, chosen, redeemed, called, etc.
people of God but he cast them off. Did he not fail to honor his covenant"?
The short answer is, (1) the nation of Israel was never in a saving
covenantly relationship with God (Romans 9:6-8), and (2) the redemptative
words, "loved, chosen, redeemed, called," etc. do not mean the same thing
when used of Israel as they do when used of the Body of Christ. Israel was
the "earthly" people of God but most of those "loved, chosen, redeemed,
called, etc. people of God" died and went to hell. God was not unfaithful
simply because he never entered into a saving covenantal relatonship with
Israel. God's love for Israel was not the same as "having loved his own he
loved them unto the end." Calling out of Egytp is not the same as the
"effectual call of Romans 1:7." Redemption by blood on Passover night is not
the same as "redeemed by the blood of Christ," etc. (3) The covenant made
with the fathers was a legal covenant conditioned upon obedience. Israel met
the terms.
The one word you will never read describing Israel is the the word
"justified." The covenant that is made with the Seed, Christ, is the
"everlasting" covenant that will never need the slightest addition or
change. All of the elect are inculded in the covenant by virtue of thier
union with Christ. JGR
--
Read the Sound of Grace pages at
http://www.soundofgrace.com
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
To view our online archive go to our web page at
http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
--
Read the Sound of Grace pages at
http://www.soundofgrace.com
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
To view our online archive go to our web page at
http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace