Read in Gal. 4:21-31 about the son of the bondwoman and the son of the free woman and who they are.

v. 30 -- For the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.

This is scripture, not antisemitism.

_________________
Jade

I can't see how this is contrary to what I said... Maybe I'm just dim.

I don't understand your vehemence against the view that says we are included in the promises of Abraham, but that God is not done with the Jewish people, Pauls, and Abrahams descendants according to the flesh (physical descent, before walking according to the spirit and not according to the flesh is brought up).

I simply cannot comprehend how someone is so adamant in insisting God has broken His promises to physical Israel, and for that reason, I will leave it to Doc and others to continue to explain, because as Paul said, its blindness. Blindness cannot be cured by reason or exegesis.

ES,

The church or "saints" ( I don't mean Gentiles) don't replace. I acknowledge some wrongly say that. It was always God's plan that the true Jew would be one circumcised in heart so the true Jew is defined by Scripture, unless you are willing to assert that Paul by the Spirit had come up with that as new idea instead of it being a constant truth through time. Otherwise, you are stuck with asserting that God reacted to the Jewish rejection of Jesus by including Gentiles by default which isn't how Scripture works. Things happen and choices get made by men to fulfill God's plan, not to determine it. ("These things happened so that Scripture might be fulfilled")


There is a "first and last" of course as the Scriptures teach. Ethnic Jew first, Gentile Jew second, Ethnic Jewish remnant last. God said it's not enough for Jesus to be the redeemer of the ethnic Jew only. He deserves worship and praise from all nations. That was always God's plan.

The promises to Abraham were always for the "descendants" of Abraham "before circumcision" and that's where you should reconsider your post. It's the Adamic and Abrahamic promises that are in focus. So many focus on the OT promises through Moses and many times this is where the error comes in with Bible interpretation in so many categories on this site. There are some Mosaic promises and prophetic words that are brought forward clearly in the words of Jesus through NT writers. The trap has always been in which ones should come forward as completely unrealized and which ones are time specific.

_________________
Robert

/Read in Gal. 4:21-31 about the son of the bondwoman and the son of the free woman and who they are.

v. 30 -- For the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.

This is scripture, not antisemitism./

It's a head scratcher for me as to why references such this are made in the midst of discussions like this. Of those you disagree with, who said anywhere or in any way that the sons of the bnondwoman would be heirs also with the sons of the free woman? It's not remotely anti-semitic to quote this scripture. But again, who has implied anywhere that the bond and the free will be heirs together? Does believing that God has a future for the geographic land Israel and its occupants, though presently mired in unbelief, somehow imply in certain quarters they are advocating that unbelieving Jews will be heirs also with believers? If so, it's not true in the least. I'm confused. Can it be pointed out where anyone even suggested this? If not, then why the scripture reference?

Sincerely baffled.

_________________
David Winter

UNBIBLICALLY MIXING THE COVENANTS

It is common for non-millennialists to associate the temporal nature of the conditional Mosaic covenant with the abiding nature of the unconditional Abrahamic covenant, the result being that elements of the former are imposed on the latter. The promise of the land to Abraham in Gen. 12:13 thus becomes absorbed into a conditional, typological frame of reference. As a result, this same land, having been forfeited through disobedience, is merely regarded as a micro-earthly representation of future macro-heavenly glory that the Church inherits on a universal scale. Palmer Robertson wrote,

“The land of the Bible served in a typological role as a model of the consummate realization of the purposes of God for His redeemed people that encompasses the whole of the cosmos. Because of the inherently limited scope of the land of the Bible, it is not regarded as having continuing significance in the realm of redemption other than its function as a teaching model.”

Over 150 years before Palmer, Patrick Fairbain expressed a similar approach. He likewise wrote,

“The relations of the covenant people, as connected with the occupation of Canaan, leads naturally to the conclusion, that their peculiar connection with the territory has ceased with the other temporary expedients and shadows to which it belonged.”

In other words, the land is merely a basic type that projects through the Mosaic economy into the NT reality, and as such has no tangible relevance today. Hence one cannot help but suspect that this association of the Abrahamic land promise with the Mosaic economy is most necessary, even if unbiblical, so that the former might, by association, be abrogated. A necessary progression from Abraham to Moses is advocated.

Fairbain again,

“The Mosaic religion did not start into being as something original and independent; it grew out of the Patriarchal, and was just, indeed, the Patriarchal religion in a further state of progress and development….We are not to imagine, however, that the additional religious truths and principles which were to be historically brought out as the commencement of the Mosaic dispensation, must have appeared by themselves, distinct and apart from those which descended from Patriarchal times.”

This unsupported portrayal, however, is incorrect, and proof for what is a most necessary point to uphold this system that in fact would be difficult to produce. After all, if the land promised to Abraham remains as permanent for national Israel as the other terms of that covenant, then it radically interferes with supercessionist theology. The NT makes a clear distinction between the Abrahamic covenants, and especially their conditionality, along with the permanence of one and the abrogation of the other, as Gal 3:17 and Heb. 8:13 make abundantly clear. Further, Paul’s explanation concerning the purpose of the law, that it “was added because of transgressions” (Gal. 3:19; see Jer. 11:7-8; Rom 5:20), also conflicts with the idea of progression from Abraham.

(From "Future Israel" - by Barry Horner)

_________________
David Winter

Paul's teachings are clear to me.

You are free to disagree.

No further comment.

_________________
Jade

That's fine. No problem. But if I may, do you think him or I ever advocated that the bond woman will be joint heirs with the free woman? If you don't want to answer ok, but I remain confused in regard to this as to why certain scriptural references were used seemingly to imply such.

_________________
David Winter