You said earlier that the old covenant woman REPRESENTATION cannot be brought into new covenant times. That statement contradicts Paul in Galatians 4.
Facepalm. Here you go again.
You have misunderstood what I meant by the
“woman” representation in Galatians 4.
I am not saying that Paul cannot use the woman imagery in the New Covenant era. He obviously does. My point is that the
covenant represented by the woman changes at the Cross.
Paul gives us two women representing two covenants:
“For these are the two covenants…” — Galatians 4:24
The woman associated with the
present Jerusalem represents the Jews who were still practicing under
Mosaic covenant, despite being expired at the Cross, which Paul describes as being “in bondage with her children” (Gal. 4:25). But the woman associated with the
Jerusalem above represents the New Covenant Church, which is “free” (Gal. 4:26).
So there is no contradiction.
The
woman is not permanently locked to the Old Covenant. Rather, the woman is the covenant-community representation, and her covenantal identity is determined by which covenant she represents.
The transition occurs through the death of Christ. Remember, in Hebrews tells us that Christ is the Mediator of the
New Covenant, and that His death brought about the redemption necessary for those UNDER the first covenant (Heb. 9:15). Christ also said that His blood was shed FOR the
New Covenant (Luke 22:20).
Therefore, after the Cross, the covenantal representation of God's Kingdom is
no longer vested in the Old Testament congregation as it was before Christ. Christ took the Kingdom representation from those who rejected Him and gave it to a people producing its fruits (Matt. 21:43). The New Testament congregation therefore becomes the covenant congregation represented by the
free woman.
This is precisely why Paul can use the woman imagery in Galatians 4
during the New Covenant age. The imagery has not disappeared; rather, the covenantal identity represented by the woman has been revealed in its New Covenant fulfillment.
And this also explains Romans 11.
The unbelieving Jews who had been part of the Old covenant according to the flesh did not suddenly cease to exist as Jews when Christ established the New Covenant. Paul says that
“blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in” (Rom. 11:25).
Meanwhile, Gentile believers are being grafted into the covenantal
olive tree (Rom. 11:17–24).
But notice what Paul does
not say. He does not say that the Old Covenant must continue as a valid covenant in order for unbelieving Jews to remain present during the New Covenant age. Nor does he say that a physical temple, physical Jerusalem, or the Mosaic covenant must continue in force to prove that Israel remained in some kind of Old Covenant status until 70AD or the rest of New Testament period. Not happening!
The
people, however, remain, but the
covenant administration has changed. They just are spiritually blinded as a judgment until fullness of Gentiles Christians are coming in. That means SOME Jews will be allowed to be added to it, and the rest of Jews who still practice Old Covenant are blind forever.
That distinction is critical.
The Old Covenant congregation once occupied the covenantal position and represented God's Kingdom. But when the Messiah came, the Kingdom was taken from that unfaithful administration and given to the people who would produce its fruits (Matt. 21:43). The New Covenant congregation now occupies that covenantal position.
Therefore, when Paul speaks of the two women in Galatians 4, he is not teaching that the Old Covenant itself continues alongside the New Covenant throughout the New Testament age. He is contrasting the
Old Covenant community in bondage with the
New Covenant community that is free.
The woman imagery continues, but the covenantal administration she represents has changed. Get it?
So there is no contradiction in saying that the
Old Covenant woman cannot continue as the covenantal representative of God's Kingdom after Christ, while also saying that Paul uses the
woman imagery in the New Covenant era.
The imagery remains. The covenantal identity it represents has changed.
And Romans 11 does not require the physical temple, physical Jerusalem, or the Mosaic covenant to continue. It simply describes the unbelief of part of Israel while Gentiles are being grafted into the covenant people through faith in Christ.
No one’s arguing this. I think your ChatGPT generated response is confused.
ChatGPT?? LOL.
Agreed, I already said this. He is using the real, physical city of Jerusalem that existed in his day, with all of its temple cultic worship, as a representation of the mosaic law and those in bondage to it.
Rolling eyes.
I never said this. Your ChatGPT response is confused or not getting the full context of our discussion. Always make sure to feed full context plus proof read it.
I think I have explained this enough that you don't like to hear.
Read again.
