The Son of Man returns with and for his people

[CadyandZoe]

What in the world does that mean? Are you incapable of communicating in a straightforward way or do you just choose not to?

I am being straightforward. If you didn't know, there is a difference between meaning and significance. I am fully aware that when we look up the definition of "significance," in the dictionary, it will typically give "meaning" as one possible definition. Even so, the distinction remains.

Consider the following sentence.
"She left the store."
What does that mean? A particular subject, "she" traversed in such a way that at one moment she was located in the store, and at the next moment she was absent from the store. Right?

Why is this significant?
She is on the stand, testifying about a crime she witnessed. Her testimony is challenged on the grounds that she wasn't in the store when the alleged crime took place. Security cameras show that "she left the store."

So, do you now see the difference between meaning and significance? The original statement has meaning all by itself. It stands alone as the means to communicate the idea that a woman departed from a store. But the statement doesn't give the reader why this is important information.

All I'm saying is that the OT stands on its own. It has an objective meaning, one that the author intended. But, the significance of the prophetic word is manifest when the event takes place.

So, those who lived prior to Paul understood that God's promises to Abraham and his seed applied to Jesus Christ and those who belong to Christ who have faith like Abraham?

No, but again, you are talking about significance. Those reading Genesis would never have understood why it was important from the text of Genesis alone. But that doesn't mean that the text of Genesis was incomprehensible.

What a load of nonsense. Tell me this. Do you believe that the promises God made to Abraham and his seed apply to Abraham and to his seed, Jesus Christ?

Of course, I do. Do you believe that the OT is incomprehensible?

Galatians 3:16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.

Followup question. Do you believe those promises also apply to those who belong to Christ?

Galatians 3:29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Of course, but again, Paul is giving his readers why promises spoken to Abraham are important to Christians. God's word to Abraham is understandable. What it means to Christians is added revelation.

 

[David in NJ]

Their souls are kept under the Altar, they are therefore not conscious or actually living in heaven, although God does allow them to cry out at times.
However their 'crying out', may just be metaphorical, stated for our instruction, from their, [when alive] and our desire for justice and retribution.

All the Saints, whether on earth or in Heaven, are ALIVE because of the Blood Atonement, therefore we have acccess to the Throne of God.

Hebrews ch4
"Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need."

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Okay, but how does this support the contention that the OT is incomprehensible?

It supports the contention that it was incomprehensible without the aid of the Holy Spirit giving people understanding of them.

Okay, but doesn't this passage indicate that spiritual enlightenment is required to understand the OT?

Yes.

It doesn't seem to prove that the NT is required to understand the OT. Right?

Maybe not when it comes to the NT authors who were given insights directly by the Holy Spirit that they later wrote down, which became the New Testament. But, for most other people ever since then we primarily get our understanding of the OT from what is written in the NT. The Holy Spirit takes part in that, of course. While we read the NT the Holy Spirit helps us understand the explanations of the fulfillments of OT prophecies that the NT authors wrote about.

Right. So far, you have shown that spiritual enlightenment is required to understand some of the OT, particularly how the OT applies to Jesus. But I question whether it shows that the NT is also required since the NT didn't exist when Jesus made his statement.

I clarified above how I see it, so hopefully you can understand my position now. Obviously, the NT authors didn't need the NT to understand these things since they were revealed to them directly by the Holy Spirit. But, when it comes to everyone else, including us...how does God intend for us to understand OT scripture? By way of NT scripture.

Even so, Jesus and the apostles argued from the OT scriptures, which logically implies comprehensibility. Seems to me that it takes supernatural enlightenment in order to make the connection between Jesus and what was predicted, not that it takes supernatural enlightenment to understand the OT.

If it doesn't take supernatural enlightenment to understand the OT then why did the disciples need that in order to understand it? The disciples were with Jesus every day. If they couldn't understand it without supernatural enlightenment, then who could?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Can we have a friendly conversation? I think so.

I don't think so. I am not friends with anyone who has been clearly shown the truth about something as important as the deity of Christ and still rejects it.

Instead of concluding motives that I may or may not have, why not work through the passages together under the pretext that we both want to understand them?

Because I don't believe that about you. I know that isn't pleasant to see someone say that about you, but the only explanation I can think of for the ridiculous way you interpret some scripture is that you purposely twist it to fit your doctrine.

I think we can both agree that God poured out His Spirit on the disciples that day, and he continues to pour out His Spirit on believers throughout history. In fact, I think we can both agree that God trained the apostles to believe that Gentiles were also being saved through the outpouring of His Spirit on Cornelius and his household.

What do you mean that God trained them to believe that? That comes across as if you're saying that it wasn't really the case, but they were trained to believe that. But, maybe this is just another case of you wording things in a confusing way.

So then, what did Peter mean when he said "this is that? (Whatever he meant I'm okay with it.) I think we can both agree, perhaps, that Peter meant to say, "This particular outpouring of the Holy Spirit is just like the outpouring spoken of in Joel."

No, we can't agree on that. Have I not made it clear multiple times that I believe THIS is the beginning of THAT? That's not the same as saying this is LIKE that.

What I deny is the claim that Joel was predicting Pentecost. He wasn't.

Yes, he absolutely was in the sense that it would be the beginning of the fulfillment of his prophecy. I find you saying otherwise to be utterly ludicrous. Peter did not say "this is like that", he said "this is that". For you to make this to not be that at all is just completely ridiculous.

He was predicting another moment when God would pour out his Spirit.

No, he was not. There was no indication of that whatsoever. Again, Peter said "this is that", not "this is like that".

I am not convinced that Peter meant to say, "Joel predicted this day would happen."

I couldn't care less what you are convinced of because I know you are very lacking in spiritual discernment, as evidenced by you denying the deity of Christ and other ridiculous things that you believe (or don't believe).

Hmm. Okay. So Amill allows that some OT prophecy remains to be fulfilled?

LOL! Of course, you silly goose. For example, I believe this future event:

Daniel 12:2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

Is the same event as this:

John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned

How can you be so ignorant of what Amills believe? It makes no sense for you to debate Amills without even knowing what we believe.

I mean, I realize that Amil believes that the prophetic word concerning the Second coming is yet to happen. I get that.

I would hope so. You've certainly never seen me or any other Amil on this forum claim that literally all prophecy, including NT prophecy, has all been fulfilled.

But when I argue that the prophetic word anticipates the millennial kingdom when Jesus will rule on earth, your view sounds a bit like Preterism. No?

What do you mean exactly? Partial preterists (not full preterists) are also Amils, but I am not a partial preterist. Just as is the case with Premills, Amills don't all agree on everything. I don't believe that Jesus came in 70 AD and things like that which partial preterists believe (they do believe He will come again in the future, unlike full preterists).

I understood your point concerning the continuance of the outpouring. On that, we both agree. But I maintain that Pentecost is lacking significant elements from Joel's word that it seems unlikely that Joel was predicting Pentecost.

He wasn't only predicting Pentecost. Which I've made clear. You understand that, right? His prophecy relates to the entirety of "the last days" which began on the day of Pentecost but continue until the second coming of Christ (2 Peter 3:3-4).

Do you think Joel was predicting Pentecost?

LOL. Have I not made that clear already that I believe he was? I'm pretty sure I have. But, I've also made clear that I don't believe he was ONLY predicting what would happen on the day of Pentecost. You already said we agree "concerning the continuance of the outpouring" of the Holy Spirit, so I clearly don't believe the prophecy ONLY had to do with that day. Right? Do you understand what I'm saying?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I am being straightforward.

No, you absolutely are not.

If you didn't know, there is a difference between meaning and significance.

Of course I know that, but you didn't explain what exactly what you meant by that in relation to what we've been talking about.

I am fully aware that when we look up the definition of "significance," in the dictionary, it will typically give "meaning" as one possible definition. Even so, the distinction remains.

Consider the following sentence.
"She left the store."
What does that mean? A particular subject, "she" traversed in such a way that at one moment she was located in the store, and at the next moment she was absent from the store. Right?

Why is this significant?
She is on the stand, testifying about a crime she witnessed. Her testimony is challenged on the grounds that she wasn't in the store when the alleged crime took place. Security cameras show that "she left the store."

So, do you now see the difference between meaning and significance?

LOL. I already knew the difference. Good grief. You can't get the time back that you waste explaining things that all of us here already know.

The original statement has meaning all by itself. It stands alone as the means to communicate the idea that a woman departed from a store. But the statement doesn't give the reader why this is important information.

All I'm saying is that the OT stands on its own. It has an objective meaning, one that the author intended. But, the significance of the prophetic word is manifest when the event takes place.

The significance can be known even before it takes place. So, I disagree with you on that. Take Christ's second coming, for example. Do you think that we can't know the significance of that until it happens? I certainly believe we can.

No, but again, you are talking about significance. Those reading Genesis would never have understood why it was important from the text of Genesis alone. But that doesn't mean that the text of Genesis was incomprehensible.

LOL. This is getting very boring.

Of course, I do. Do you believe that the OT is incomprehensible?

You said this in response to me asking this question: "Do you believe that the promises God made to Abraham and his seed apply to Abraham and to his seed, Jesus Christ?". I'm glad you agree that the promises God made to Abraham and his seed apply to Abraham and to his seed, Jesus Christ. But, is that made clear in the OT? No, it is not. Do you deny this?

Of course, but again, Paul is giving his readers why promises spoken to Abraham are important to Christians. God's word to Abraham is understandable. What it means to Christians is added revelation.

What does that even mean to say that "Paul is giving his readers why promises spoken to Abraham are important to Christians"? Do you think being vague like this is helpful?

What you said after that means you're saying God's word to Abraham, as recorded in the OT, is understandable, right? If that is the case then wouldn't that mean we could understand that God's promises to Abraham and his seed applies to Jesus Christ and those who belong to Christ from the OT text alone? It seems to me that is what that would mean. But, can we understand that from the OT text alone? I don't believe so.

 

[CadyandZoe]

It supports the contention that it was incomprehensible without the aid of the Holy Spirit giving people understanding of them.

I disagree. Rather it supports the idea that apart from divine aid, one is constitutionally incapable of accepting what the OT says. It isn't that the OT is incomprehensible. Those who reject it understand it just fine. They simply don't like what it says.

Paul argues this point at the opening of his epistle to the Romans. Unbelief is not a matter of the intellect; it's a matter of the will. Those who willfully reject the truth are blameworthy, or as Paul says, "they are without excuse." Empirical knowledge is the predicate of his argument that those who reject God's existence after having looked around at the created order, are unjustly suppressing that knowledge, and for this reason, they remain blameworthy. Such people choose to be stubborn and blind. One of the roles of the Holy Spirit is to soften hearts and open eyes. Once the hearts are softened and the eyes are opened, the OT is clear and unambiguous.

Later Paul will argue that through the Law comes knowledge of sin. It convicts the whole world. Romans 3:19-20 In your view, how does the Law convict the whole world of sin, if divine aid is required to understand it? This seems like a problem for your view.

If it doesn't take supernatural enlightenment to understand the OT then why did the disciples need that in order to understand it? The disciples were with Jesus every day. If they couldn't understand it without supernatural enlightenment, then who could?

The disciples were slow to believe, not slow to understand.

If you are interested in exploring more of this dynamic, this is a major theme in John's gospel. John sets out to explore the barriers to belief. Why do some believe while others don't? Why do some doubt while others don't? Why do some reject what they witness with their own eyes? What are other barriers to belief? Jesus asks them, "Why are you slow to believe?"

 

[CadyandZoe]

What you said after that means you're saying God's word to Abraham, as recorded in the OT, is understandable, right? If that is the case then wouldn't that mean we could understand that God's promises to Abraham and his seed applies to Jesus Christ and those who belong to Christ from the OT text alone? It seems to me that is what that would mean. But, can we understand that from the OT text alone? I don't believe so.

Yes, I believe that God's word to Abraham, as recorded in the OT, is understandable.

The underlying principle of Biblical exegesis is "authorial intent." That is, the correct, objective meaning of any particular Biblical passage is the idea or concept that the Biblical author intended to convey.

So for example, God's word to Abraham as recorded in Genesis, conveys the idea that God's blessing to Abraham involves a coming "seed" and all those "in that seed" will be blessed. God's word through Paul identifies the seed as Jesus.

Now, consider the question in each case. Can the reader, by reading what Moses wrote in Genesis, apprehend the ideas that God wanted to convey at that time? I would say yes. Can the reader, by reading what Paul wrote in his epistle to the Galatians, apprehend the ideas that Paul wrote in his epistle? Again, I would say yes.

But, do I expect that the book of Genesis necessarily conveys every idea that Paul did? No. I expect that Paul intends to expound the ideas expressed in Genesis, combining new revelation with previous revelation to explicate God's will more fully.

My contention is this. When we compare two passages of scripture, we must bear in mind that we are actually comparing our interpretation of one passage with our interpretation of the other passage. But what if our interpretation of either one or both is incorrect? I take issue with the idea that scripture interprets scripture. On the contrary, we interpret scripture and we would expect scripture to be self-consistent. If we find an inconsistency then we need to do more work on our interpretations.

My expectation is that the ideas conveyed in Genesis can be apprehended apart from the NT. But with regard to the ideas conveyed in Galatians, one must have a firm grasp of the ideas found in Genesis before one can apprehend the ideas found in Galatians.

Do I need the writings of Paul in order to apprehend the ideas expressed in Genesis? No. Why? Because it was not God's intent to convey the ideas found in Galatians. I need the ideas conveyed in Genesis in order to understand the ideas conveyed in Galatians.

Accordingly, one idea expressed in Genesis is the fact that God's promise to Abraham applies to all those "in Abraham." Genesis 12:3 "And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.” That idea is clearly expressed in Genesis. Also, the idea that a seed of Abraham would be the focal point of God's blessing is also clearly expressed in Genesis. Genesis 22:18 "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

What is NOT understood from Genesis 22 is the identity of the person God had in mind. The idea that Jesus would be that seed is a new revelation. Paul is not explicating Genesis in order to come up with the idea that Jesus is the seed. Paul is declaring a new revelation that shines a light on what was expressed in Genesis.

I could never argue that Genesis was inexplicable until Paul came along. Rather we can argue that Paul added a significant piece to the overall picture of salvation and God's promise of a blessing.

How'd I do this time?

 

[CadyandZoe]

What do you mean that God trained them to believe that? That comes across as if you're saying that it wasn't really the case, but they were trained to believe that. But, maybe this is just another case of you wording things in a confusing way.

You understand the concept of training I assume. It's a fact of human nature; sometimes people can be told something; other times they need to be shown.

Now, God could have simply told Peter that he was saving Gentiles apart from Judaism. But God decided, in his wisdom, to demonstrate the case instead. The book of Acts contains several instances when God poured out his spirit on Gentiles, and speaking in tongues made the Spirit evident to all, especially to the apostles. This is what I mean by "God trained them." He coached them, he trained them, he educated them through the manifestations of the Holy Spirit that God was blessing uncircumcised Gentiles.

No, we can't agree on that. Have I not made it clear multiple times that I believe THIS is the beginning of THAT? That's not the same as saying this is LIKE that.

Then you are mistaken for the reasons I gave you. Joel was not predicting an outpouring in the context of the growth of the body of Christ. That never entered Joel's mind.

Yes, he absolutely was in the sense that it would be the beginning of the fulfillment of his prophecy. I find you saying otherwise to be utterly ludicrous. Peter did not say "this is like that", he said "this is that".

Again, what someone says has more than one possible meaning.

For you to make this to not be that at all is just completely ridiculous.

No, it's not ridiculous. In your mind, I am not worthy of ridicule for my view that someone's words can be taken more than one way. Admit it. You believe I am worthy of ridicule for two main reasons, 1) I disagree with you and 2) I don't accept the ruling of the Council of Nicaea.

I couldn't care less what you are convinced of because I know you are very lacking in spiritual discernment, as evidenced by you denying the deity of Christ and other ridiculous things that you believe (or don't believe).

As I said.

How can you be so ignorant of what Amills believe? It makes no sense for you to debate Amills without even knowing what we believe.

Why do you complain so much?

I would hope so. You've certainly never seen me or any other Amil on this forum claim that literally all prophecy, including NT prophecy, has all been fulfilled.

Yes, I have seen it. Perhaps you haven't. We are having this discussion because you don't believe that Christ will literally set up a kingdom on earth just as the prophets clearly said.

What do you mean exactly? Partial preterists (not full preterists) are also Amils, but I am not a partial preterist. Just as is the case with Premills, Amills don't all agree on everything. I don't believe that Jesus came in 70 AD and things like that which partial preterists believe (they do believe He will come again in the future, unlike full preterists).

You believe, as you and the others have said, that when Christ returns. God will destroy the earth. In other words, the ONLY unresolve prophecy is the coming of Jesus Christ.

He wasn't only predicting Pentecost. Which I've made clear. You understand that, right? His prophecy relates to the entirety of "the last days" which began on the day of Pentecost but continue until the second coming of Christ (2 Peter 3:3-4).

But you are wrong about what Joel said and meant. Do you understand that?

LOL. Have I not made that clear already that I believe he was? I'm pretty sure I have. But, I've also made clear that I don't believe he was ONLY predicting what would happen on the day of Pentecost. You already said we agree "concerning the continuance of the outpouring" of the Holy Spirit, so I clearly don't believe the prophecy ONLY had to do with that day. Right? Do you understand what I'm saying?

Yes, I understand what you are saying. But you are wrong. Why? Because you believe that all of Joel is in our past.

 

[covenantee]

But you are wrong about what Joel said and meant. Do you understand that?

Do you understand that you are in denial of the unanimous testimony of 17 centuries of every recognized defender of the historic true Christian faith, who were united in their recognition of the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy in Acts 2?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Do you understand that you are in denial of the unanimous testimony of 17 centuries of every recognized defender of the historic true Christian faith, who were united in their recognition of the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy in Acts 2?

I told you. I don't care about numbers. A truth claim is not subject to how many believe it. 17 centuries of people could be wrong.

 

[covenantee]

I told you. I don't care about numbers.

I tell you. I don't care that you don't care about numbers.

A truth claim is not subject to how many believe it. 17 centuries of people could be wrong.

I attempted to quote that without emitting a guffaw.
I was unsuccessful.

Who's/What's right?

1. Seventeen centuries of defenders of the true Christian faith
2. One modern cultic denier

Who needs a hint?
Hint: Seventeen centuries of defenders of the true Christian faith need no hint

 

[Timtofly]

It certainly does follow.

Did Jesus' followers ultimately stop offering sacrifices after Calvary?

Where in the OT were they told to stop offering sacrifices?

Show us in history were Christians ultimately stopped sacrifices. Paul was still offering sacrifices as a Jew after the Cross. Acts 21-23.

The NT did not tell any one to stop following the Law of Moses. They were told it was no longer necessary.

 

[Timtofly]

No longer a part of what Israel? They were still a part of the nation of Israel, so he couldn't have been saying they were cut off from the nation of Israel. What did Jesus say was being taken from them in Matthew 21:43-45? The kingdom of God. What does that tell you about the Israel they were cut off from?

No, they were not, any longer, a part of Israel. That was the whole point. Just like those cast into the LOF are no longer a part of humanity. Even those God hardens their heart and makes them reprobate are no longer able to change their state of mind, and will ultimately end up in the LOF. Being removed from Israel is just that, forever removed from Israel. They will never return, but end up in the LOF.

These of Israel literally gave up their birthright by their actions. In the parable it was likened to God taking away their birthright and giving it to the Gentiles.

Paul stated the same thing that those no longer of Israel were cut off from the kingdom (an olive tree) and the fulness of the Gentiles took their place in the kingdom of God (the olive tree) . Different metaphor, same thought process.

The biggest difference is now they "must be born again" through the second birth which was fully in place once the Cross and Atonement were a part of physical creation. The first birth was no longer viable, along with faith and obedience. Now there was the unseen spiritual kingdom that humans would be born into. Same kingdom just a new set of rules.

 

[covenantee]

Show us in history were Christians ultimately stopped sacrifices. Paul was still offering sacrifices as a Jew after the Cross. Acts 21-23.

The NT did not tell any one to stop following the Law of Moses. They were told it was no longer necessary.

Thanks for the guffaw.

Are you offering sacrifices?

 

[Timtofly]

Thanks for the guffaw.

Are you offering sacrifices?

You did not show where they stopped.

 

[covenantee]

You did not show where they stopped.

You did not answer the question.

 

[Earburner]

Here is the problem I have with Replacement Theology. Let's just substitute the word "Israel" for "Jews and Gentiles in Christ" in the following passage...

Rom 9.1 I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of [Jews and Gentiles in Christ], my people, those of my own race, 4 the [Jews and Gentiles in Christ/, the people of Israel. [The Jews and Gentiles in Christ/--theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

Hopefully, you can see how ridiculous this reads, unless you drop "Jews and Gentiles in Christ" as a substitute for "Israel?"

I do understand Replacement Theology. The Church has always considered itself the heir of Israel, knowing that God didn't just make promises to a single nation, but really, to many nations. This was the Abrahamic Promise. And certainly the New Covenant has supplanted and fulfilled the Old Covenant of Jewish Law.


I'm not name-calling when I use the term "Replacement Theology." That is just what it is called. I do understand that those who hold to that position sometimes are offended with the term, since it seems to imply a cavalier abuse of the term "Israel." One cannot lightly exchange the meaning of a single Jewish nation with another entirely-different meaning!

Nonetheless, the traditional understanding of "Replacement Theology" is the exchange of "Natural Israel" for "Spiritual Israel." I do not hold to any "Replacement Theology," as you suggest I do. This is a technical term, and I do not fill the bill.

You may character my beliefs as a form of "Replacement Theology," but that might confuse others. I do *not* hold to the technical definition of "Replacement Theology." You do.

Replacement Theology, or Supersessionism (from WIkipedia):
Supersessionism, also called replacement theology or fulfillment theology,[1] is a Christian theology which describes the theological conviction that the Christian Church has superseded the Jews and the nation of Israel, assuming their role as God's covenanted people,[2] thus asserting that the New Covenant through Jesus Christ has superseded or replaced the Mosaic covenant exclusive to Jews. Supersessionist theology also holds that the universal Christian Church has succeeded ancient Israel as God's true Israel and that Christians have succeeded the ancient Israelites as the people of God.

Rom. 8:8-9 explains it all.
[8] So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
[9] But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I disagree. Rather it supports the idea that apart from divine aid, one is constitutionally incapable of accepting what the OT says. It isn't that the OT is incomprehensible. Those who reject it understand it just fine. They simply don't like what it says.

Paul argues this point at the opening of his epistle to the Romans. Unbelief is not a matter of the intellect; it's a matter of the will. Those who willfully reject the truth are blameworthy, or as Paul says, "they are without excuse." Empirical knowledge is the predicate of his argument that those who reject God's existence after having looked around at the created order, are unjustly suppressing that knowledge, and for this reason, they remain blameworthy. Such people choose to be stubborn and blind. One of the roles of the Holy Spirit is to soften hearts and open eyes. Once the hearts are softened and the eyes are opened, the OT is clear and unambiguous.

Later Paul will argue that through the Law comes knowledge of sin. It convicts the whole world. Romans 3:19-20 In your view, how does the Law convict the whole world of sin, if divine aid is required to understand it? This seems like a problem for your view.

So, tell me again where the OT makes it clear that the fact that God's promises to Abraham and his seed apply to Jesus Christ and those who belong to Christ.

The disciples were slow to believe, not slow to understand.

They were slow to understand and believe. You aren't reading the text.

Luke 24:
44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, they were not, any longer, a part of Israel. That was the whole point.

The Pharisees and scribes were still a part of the nation of Israel even after the kingdom of God was taken from them, so they had to have been cut off from a different Israel than that. And that would be Spiritual Israel.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, I believe that God's word to Abraham, as recorded in the OT, is understandable.

The underlying principle of Biblical exegesis is "authorial intent." That is, the correct, objective meaning of any particular Biblical passage is the idea or concept that the Biblical author intended to convey.

So for example, God's word to Abraham as recorded in Genesis, conveys the idea that God's blessing to Abraham involves a coming "seed" and all those "in that seed" will be blessed. God's word through Paul identifies the seed as Jesus.

Now, consider the question in each case. Can the reader, by reading what Moses wrote in Genesis, apprehend the ideas that God wanted to convey at that time? I would say yes. Can the reader, by reading what Paul wrote in his epistle to the Galatians, apprehend the ideas that Paul wrote in his epistle? Again, I would say yes.

But, do I expect that the book of Genesis necessarily conveys every idea that Paul did? No. I expect that Paul intends to expound the ideas expressed in Genesis, combining new revelation with previous revelation to explicate God's will more fully.

My contention is this. When we compare two passages of scripture, we must bear in mind that we are actually comparing our interpretation of one passage with our interpretation of the other passage. But what if our interpretation of either one or both is incorrect? I take issue with the idea that scripture interprets scripture. On the contrary, we interpret scripture and we would expect scripture to be self-consistent. If we find an inconsistency then we need to do more work on our interpretations.

My expectation is that the ideas conveyed in Genesis can be apprehended apart from the NT. But with regard to the ideas conveyed in Galatians, one must have a firm grasp of the ideas found in Genesis before one can apprehend the ideas found in Galatians.

Do I need the writings of Paul in order to apprehend the ideas expressed in Genesis? No. Why? Because it was not God's intent to convey the ideas found in Galatians. I need the ideas conveyed in Genesis in order to understand the ideas conveyed in Galatians.

Accordingly, one idea expressed in Genesis is the fact that God's promise to Abraham applies to all those "in Abraham." Genesis 12:3 "And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.” That idea is clearly expressed in Genesis. Also, the idea that a seed of Abraham would be the focal point of God's blessing is also clearly expressed in Genesis. Genesis 22:18 "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

What is NOT understood from Genesis 22 is the identity of the person God had in mind. The idea that Jesus would be that seed is a new revelation. Paul is not explicating Genesis in order to come up with the idea that Jesus is the seed. Paul is declaring a new revelation that shines a light on what was expressed in Genesis.

I could never argue that Genesis was inexplicable until Paul came along. Rather we can argue that Paul added a significant piece to the overall picture of salvation and God's promise of a blessing.

How'd I do this time?

Terrible. I'm not buying what you're selling.