Genesis 15:18-21 ESV
[18] On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, [19] the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, [20] the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, [21] the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.”
The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord
According to the NT, who are the "offspring of Abraham"?
According to the NT, what is "the land"?
What is the argument of Romans 9-11?
Or of Galatians?
Why were they excommunicated from the land (hint: Deuteronomy) and how does that relate to Adam and Eden?
For whom was the Abrahamic promise all along?
[Rom. 926] And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’ (ESV)
In Romans 11 Paul clearly makes a distinction between believers and enthnic Jews, i.e. the branches and the root and it is clear that in verse 26 he refers to ethnic Israel. Otherwise, it would be a tautology, i.e. all the saved will be saved. Furthermore, verse 26 takes place at a certain point in time defined by verse 25. I don't see any need for Israel to have an identical meaning in every instance that it appears in Scripture. It's meaning should be defined by the context. You wouldn't argue that the word "world" has an identical meaning in the entirety of Scripture or even in the writings of John would you? Similarly, I believe that Scripture refers to Israel in both a spiritual sense and an ethnic sense. Also, I think that you are on dangerous ground if you attempt to negate the plain meaning of a particular Scripture by importing a metaphor from another portion of Scripture.
Yes, they are a distinct people group. But there is only one way to be "Abraham's offspring" and that is to be in Christ by faith. There is one shepherd, one flock. There is one faith, one baptism. The issue of how this great mystery (that the Gentiles are included, and the two become one in Christ) plays out was a major source of controversy but the question was resolved first by the Jerusalem council, and later by Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. Gentiles don't have to come to Christ via Moses because no one has to come to Christ via Moses, not even ethnic Israel.
It is not eisegesis to repeat Paul: "ALL the promises are Yes and Amen in Christ." In context he is referring to the promises given to Abraham. "If you are in Christ, you are Abraham's seed indeed, subject to ALL the promises."
Whether Romans 11 is referring to a future mass conversion or something that is ongoing since the days of the Apostles is a matter of some debate.
Nice feint. This has nothing to do with the argument that I made about the land grant to the Jews. I'm not arguing that they have a different means of salvation.
It is no feint. There is only one way to receive all the promises (including the land grant, which is expanded yet again to include the whole world) and that one way is to be grafted into Christ by faith--just like Abraham who "rejoiced to see [Christ's] day."
"If we are in Christ, then we are the offspring of Abraham indeed, subject to all the promises."
This question - what about the promises (including the 'land grant')? - is the very question Paul is dealing with in his Epistle to the Galatians. Yes: the promises to Abraham were unconditional, and faith was (and still is) the alone instrument through which God grants those promises "to all who believe." This is why, it seems to me, that the underlying argument Paul is making is that the chief promise given to Abraham was that of the Spirit: they must be born again, they must be grafted into Christ, in order to receive the promises. This is not what we would call an antecedent condition -- something that we do that prompts or provokes the thing which follows -- but a consequent condition -- a thing that must follow given a prior thing that has already been done. The giving of the Spirit is the sine qua non of all the other promises; and it is the consummation of God's primordial promise to sovereignly "put enmity between the Serpent's seed and the seed of woman." It's one unfolding promise to bring his people to the consummated kingdom of God, back into his favorable presence, revealed chapter by chapter through history. Being grafted into Christ -- by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to Scripture alone, and to the glory of God alone -- which happens with the giving of the Spirit - - is the means by which God grants "all the promises." The borders of the promised land, expanded once or twice in the OT, are blown wide open to include the entire cosmos: "all authority in heaven and earth has been granted unto me" he says. Christ has, by his perfect obedience, won not just the bordered land in the Middle East, but the entire created cosmos. And he gives it to us: "the meek shall inherit the earth."
But not yet. Now we are pilgrims--"in the world" but not "of the world" precisely because we are "of the kingdom" but not yet "in it" (in the geopolitical sense). Here we have no continuing city. We look for a better, an heavenly city, one with foundations. But Joshua is at the gates, and we pray like Rahab must have: "thy kingdom come."
How do you reconcile this with a land grant? Can all Christians claim title to a particular parcel of real estate in the Middle East?
The land grant was fulfilled, their tenure their was dependent on obedience. It was a typoligical recapitulation of Adam in the Garden, and the purpose was to ahow that "the just shall live by faith [of Abraham]." Paul tells us that all the promises [to Abraham] are fulfilled in Christ, and that the inheritance (for the meek, one might say) is the whole earth--and it always was.
Romans 4:13 KJV — For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Not yet, no.
I'm also aware that the nature, role, and function of the Mosaic economy vs the Abrahamic covenant is one of the most debated isses in the history of Reformed theology. E.g., was the moral law given to Adam in the garden republished under Moses in an administrative, substantive, or typological way? The typological seems, to me, to make the most sense of the whole counsel of God. There are deeper questions too about its nature, role, and function *for those in Adam* vs. *for Christ* (Gal. 4) as well, with the pactum salutis in the background...
