Galatians 3 vs 1689

[Christodulus]

So the question is this: was the Abrahamic covenant a different covenant according to substance from ours, or only a different administration of one selfsame covenant of grace? This is what Paul is answering in Galatians 3, because he argues that in making our personal righteousness the ground of our justification the judaizers have altered the terms of the covenant which God established with Abraham. Abraham was justified by faith (indeed, he goes so far to say the gospel was preached to him) while being uncircumcised, therefore the sons of Abraham, the heirs of the covenant, are not those which were begotten by him but which share his faith in the promise. This is also why those who are seeking to be justified by law are under a curse, for there are two ways to relate to God: either through the works of Christ in our place (which is the covenant of grace), or through our own works of righteousness (which is the covenant of works). And if we will stand before God in a covenant of works, we may not do so partially, we may not seek to be justified by law only in our circumcision and leave the rest to Jesus; for if we stand before God on the basis of our own righteousness, then our standing is on the basis of our own righteousness, and the standard is perfection, the penalty for failure is a curse. So either we relate to God through the covenant of grace, or through the covenant of works.



Now, here is the vital part: the law, which came 430 years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to abolish the promise. In this Paul declares as plainly as possible his opinion concerning the nature of the Abrahamic covenant, and its relationship to us, for he says the law was added later, (which while he certainly means the codification of the law through Moses and not the law per se to which all men have been bound by nature since the beginning of the world, nevertheless) showing that the law and its obedience was not the essence of Abraham’s covenant, since Abraham was a full member of the covenant apart from it; and in being added, the law did not nullify the covenant. That is, the covenant never was founded upon the obedience of the Israelites, even in the days of Moses and David, since if it had been it would have nullified the very covenant to which it had been subjoined and abolished the very promise of that covenant.



So the covenant which was formed with Abraham, to which the law was only added hundreds of years later, was therefore the covenant of grace. Indeed, we are told that even his circumcision, such an object of contention in the controversy, was given to him as “a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith” (Rom. 4:11). But in private dialogs with my Particular Baptist brethren, I have heard an explanation which is rather incredible, a very strange idea that Abraham, although he was given the promises of the covenant of grace in which he also believed, although he enjoyed the blessings and privileges of this covenant, although he bore the sign and seal of this covenant, although he related to God through this covenant, nevertheless he was not a member of this covenant, but only somehow saved “through it”, which is the new covenant alone? What do words mean? A covenant is the ground upon which two parties relate to each other, if Abraham was not a member of the covenant of grace, then nor is he saved by the blood of Christ, for if he is saved by the blood of Christ, then he must be a member of the covenant of grace. So Abraham, Moses, David etc. can only be excluded from our covenant of grace if they are also excluded from the kingdom of heaven. But the reason for the controversy to begin appears to me to be because not only Particular Baptists, but also every opponent of infant baptism seems to recognize that *if* there is continuity of one and the same covenant of grace from Abraham to ourselves, *then* we also inherit the inclusive promise for our children for which they receive the sign of the covenant.

 

[paranymph]

Abraham was a member of the covenant of grace. The covenant of grace is not precisely equivalent to the Abrahamic covenant.

 

[brandonadams]

Scott,

Paul's argument is much more nuanced than just saying "they're the same covenant" or that the Abrahamic "was the covenant of grace."

First,
The Covenant of Circumcision promised 2 distinct things about 2 distinct seed

1. Abe’s offspring according to the flesh would be numerous, would inherit the land of Canaan, & God would be their God. The condition of this was circumcision and obedience to Mosaic law (Ex. 19:5-8; 23:20-22; Deut 4:1; 6:3, 17-18, 24-25; 7:12; 8:1-2; 11:8, 22-24; 29:13; note 6:25; Jer. 11:5)

2. One single offspring would bless the nations (which was the gospel, per Gal 3:8). Note carefully that this is a historia salutis promise (you will be the father of the Messiah), not an ordo salutis promise (your sins are forgiven in Christ).

See elaboration here https://contrast2.wordpress.com/202...us-abrahamic-covenant-of-circumcision-quotes/

The Jews were absolutely correct that in order to receive the inheritance of the first promise, you had to be circumcised and obey Mosaic law. Their mistake was to conflate the two distinct promises. Thus Paul carefully notes the specific promise he has in mind in Gal 3:8 (the second promise). He says the Judaizers are mistaken because this eternal inheritance (blessing the nations) was always based upon the coming Messiah. Therefore it was never based on obedience to the law. The giving of the Mosaic law could never have changed the 2nd promise given to Abraham, which was that the Messiah would have to come and die to bless the nations. Therefore they are wrong to require the nations to be circumcised in order to receive the blessing of Christ.

For a much longer answer, please read my essay here https://contrast2.wordpress.com/wp-...irbs_promiselawfaith.reviewarticle.adams_.pdf

Second,
Abraham received this blessing of Christ in advance. Those ordo salutis blessings only come from Christ as mediator of the New Covenant (which is union with Christ). Sometimes baptists are not careful in how they articulate this. Abraham was part of the New Covenant/Covenant of Grace. (In addition to being the federal head of the Covenant of Circumcision).

OT Saints Were Saved by the New Covenant (Quotes)

Only the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace. OT saints were saved the same way we are today: by New Covenant union with Christ. This concept is not baptist eisegesis. Here are a variety of quote…

contrast2.wordpress.com

 

[DNM300]

Original 1689 federalists relied heavily upon John Owen in expounding the old and new covenants. Apparently, John Owen departed from the reformed-tradition-majority-report of his day and embraced an older, Augustinian view. Augustine’s view is not “untouchable” though. See Patrick Fairbairn’s Opening Scripture chapter 7 for a general critique of Augustine’s view.

 

[Christodulus]

Paul's argument is much more nuanced than just saying "they're the same covenant" or that the Abrahamic "was the covenant of grace."

Of course it is not so simplistic, but this is the core and the foundation of his argument, and I can see no way to separate the Abrahamic covenant from the covenant of grace without fundamentally subverting his purpose.

First,
The Covenant of Circumcision promised 2 distinct things about 2 distinct seed

1. Abe’s offspring according to the flesh would be numerous, would inherit the land of Canaan, & God would be their God. The condition of this was circumcision and obedience to Mosaic law (Ex. 19:5-8; 23:20-22; Deut 4:1; 6:3, 17-18, 24-25; 7:12; 8:1-2; 11:8, 22-24; 29:13; note 6:25; Jer. 11:5)

This is a common opinion, but I do not believe it can stand the scriptural test for several reasons.

1. If the covenant were formed with Abraham’s natural seed, then all of Abraham’s natural seed would be party to it. The covenant was made not with Israel, but with Abraham, and yet there were many natural sons of Abraham which were strangers from the covenant of promise. The reason the Ishmaelites were cut off was because although they were sons of Abraham, they were not children of promise, who are the sole heirs of Abraham 2. Likewise it would imply none could be members of the covenant besides the natural seed of Abraham, which again is disproven by many counter-examples e.g. Uriah the Hittite. Yet while the Ishmaelites were descended from Abraham and Uriah was not, the latter was an heir of Abraham’s covenant and a member of the covenant people, and the former were not, since he was a child of promise by faith. So the limitation of the old covenant to the Jewish nation was more geographical than racial. 3. We read nothing in scripture about this third covenant which is neither the covenant of works nor the covenant of grace, whenever it is addressed we see two seeds (Gen. 3), two humanities (Rom. 5) or two covenants (Gal. 4) but not three; nor does Paul make any reference to it here where you claim it is pivotal to his argument, of which he seems unaware. 4. Albeit the prooftexts contain many commands with corresponding punishment or reward for disobedience or obedience, we find the same thing frequently in the New Testament, e.g. Matthew 7:17-23, Galatians 5:19-21. The implication is not that obedience was the basis of their covenant but that they possessed the law, the purpose of which is to be a tutor unto Christ and to bring the knowledge of sin, but not to make men righteous. 5. The earthly promises and blessings of the old covenant were only intended to lead the Israelites toward Christ and the greater fulfillment to come, having no end in themselves (Heb. 11:10) 6. God will not suffer any unclean thing to enter His presence, and those who are under the law are bound to keep every part of it. It does not accord with His holiness to only judge sinners temporally and not eternally. If they are judged for their own merits, they must perish eternally, if they are judged on Christ’s merits, they will suffer no punishment at all. Likewise, if one keeps the whole law he merits not land but eternal life.

2. One single offspring would bless the nations (which was the gospel, per Gal 3:8). Note carefully that this is a historia salutis promise (you will be the father of the Messiah), not an ordo salutis promise (your sins are forgiven in Christ).

The basis of forgiveness in Christ is His work through His life, death, and resurrection, whether one lived prior or posterior to Him. The gratuitous forgiveness of sin in Christ belonged to the old covenant (Psalm 103).

See elaboration here https://contrast2.wordpress.com/202...us-abrahamic-covenant-of-circumcision-quotes/

I would say Paul is not comparing the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, he is comparing the covenant of grace and the covenant of works.

The Jews were absolutely correct that in order to receive the inheritance of the first promise, you had to be circumcised and obey Mosaic law. Their mistake was to conflate the two distinct promises.

As I said above, there is nothing about this in Galatians.

For a much longer answer, please read my essay here https://contrast2.wordpress.com/wp-...irbs_promiselawfaith.reviewarticle.adams_.pdf

I appreciate it and I may read it if I find the time, but I didn’t really post this thread either to invite or respond to a 49 page essay.

 

[MW]

1. Abe’s offspring according to the flesh would be numerous, would inherit the land of Canaan, & God would be their God. The condition of this was circumcision and obedience to Mosaic law (Ex. 19:5-8; 23:20-22; Deut 4:1; 6:3, 17-18, 24-25; 7:12; 8:1-2; 11:8, 22-24; 29:13; note 6:25; Jer. 11:5)

Romans 9 distinguishes children of the flesh and children of the promise. Yet you make the children of the flesh the children of promise. So this is clearly false. Revelation 7, a multitude that no man can number is looking at the fulfilment across all nations. Eph 2, uncircumcision is a marker of being a stranger to the covenants of promise, but now the Gentiles are fellow citizens.

2. One single offspring would bless the nations (which was the gospel, per Gal 3:8). Note carefully that this is a historia salutis promise (you will be the father of the Messiah), not an ordo salutis promise (your sins are forgiven in Christ).

Romans 4. Justification by faith and forgiveness of sins in Christ are all part and parcel of the promise. You are setting forth an unbiblical dichotomy.

 

[No Other Name]

So the question is this: was the Abrahamic covenant a different covenant according to substance from ours, or only a different administration of one selfsame covenant of grace? This is what Paul is answering in Galatians 3, because he argues that in making our personal righteousness the ground of our justification the judaizers have altered the terms of the covenant which God established with Abraham. Abraham was justified by faith (indeed, he goes so far to say the gospel was preached to him) while being uncircumcised, therefore the sons of Abraham, the heirs of the covenant, are not those which were begotten by him but which share his faith in the promise. This is also why those who are seeking to be justified by law are under a curse, for there are two ways to relate to God: either through the works of Christ in our place (which is the covenant of grace), or through our own works of righteousness (which is the covenant of works). And if we will stand before God in a covenant of works, we may not do so partially, we may not seek to be justified by law only in our circumcision and leave the rest to Jesus; for if we stand before God on the basis of our own righteousness, then our standing is on the basis of our own righteousness, and the standard is perfection, the penalty for failure is a curse. So either we relate to God through the covenant of grace, or through the covenant of works.



Now, here is the vital part: the law, which came 430 years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to abolish the promise. In this Paul declares as plainly as possible his opinion concerning the nature of the Abrahamic covenant, and its relationship to us, for he says the law was added later, (which while he certainly means the codification of the law through Moses and not the law per se to which all men have been bound by nature since the beginning of the world, nevertheless) showing that the law and its obedience was not the essence of Abraham’s covenant, since Abraham was a full member of the covenant apart from it; and in being added, the law did not nullify the covenant. That is, the covenant never was founded upon the obedience of the Israelites, even in the days of Moses and David, since if it had been it would have nullified the very covenant to which it had been subjoined and abolished the very promise of that covenant.



So the covenant which was formed with Abraham, to which the law was only added hundreds of years later, was therefore the covenant of grace. Indeed, we are told that even his circumcision, such an object of contention in the controversy, was given to him as “a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith” (Rom. 4:11). But in private dialogs with my Particular Baptist brethren, I have heard an explanation which is rather incredible, a very strange idea that Abraham, although he was given the promises of the covenant of grace in which he also believed, although he enjoyed the blessings and privileges of this covenant, although he bore the sign and seal of this covenant, although he related to God through this covenant, nevertheless he was not a member of this covenant, but only somehow saved “through it”, which is the new covenant alone? What do words mean? A covenant is the ground upon which two parties relate to each other, if Abraham was not a member of the covenant of grace, then nor is he saved by the blood of Christ, for if he is saved by the blood of Christ, then he must be a member of the covenant of grace. So Abraham, Moses, David etc. can only be excluded from our covenant of grace if they are also excluded from the kingdom of heaven. But the reason for the controversy to begin appears to me to be because not only Particular Baptists, but also every opponent of infant baptism seems to recognize that *if* there is continuity of one and the same covenant of grace from Abraham to ourselves, *then* we also inherit the inclusive promise for our children for which they receive the sign of the covenant.

Given yesterday's thread, I thought you said your argument would be exegetical, but this strikes me as a dogmatic argument. Huh.

No criticism though. You post how you feel the need to post.

I am working on Gal. 3 exegetically and investigatively into whether the text itself does not flatly contradict the 1689 framework. (Remember that was your claim and if true - then we would need to repent)

 

[Christodulus]

Given yesterday's thread, I thought you said your argument would be exegetical, but this strikes me as a dogmatic argument. Huh.

No criticism though. You post how you feel the need to post.

I am working on Gal. 3 exegetically and investigatively into whether the text itself does not flatly contradict the 1689 framework. (Remember that was your claim and if true - then we would need to repent)

It is an exegetical argument, I just didn’t insert the text into the post (if you compare the text to it you’ll see I am working through it). Admittedly I don’t think it is a deep or thorough exegetical argument, it’s something I put together that day to serve as a foundation for further discussion.

 

[No Other Name]

It is an exegetical argument, I just didn’t insert the text into the post (if you compare the text to it you’ll see I am working through it). Admittedly I don’t think it is a deep or thorough exegetical argument, it’s something I put together that day to serve as a foundation for further discussion.

And you believe you have established here in your OP that the 1689

is flatly contrary to Romans 4 and Galatians 3.

as you claimed in the other thread?

[with "flatly" being defined as "completely, absolutely, no prerequisite of any degree of adherence to Westminster/Savoy et al needed"]

 

[Christodulus]

And you believe you have established here in your OP that the 1689

More so separation of the covenants in general

[with "flatly" being defined as "completely, absolutely, no prerequisite of any degree of adherence to Westminster/Savoy et al needed"]

I would not say “completely” or “absolutely” so as to imply there is nothing correct in it, but I mean that as a whole system it is not reconcilable with Paul’s teaching. And no adherence to the confessions is needed, since this text and others like it are the basis of the confessions’ teachings.

 

[No Other Name]

I would not say “completely” or “absolutely” so as to imply there is nothing correct in it,

That is not on the table nor called into question. To draw from a concurrent thread, even Mormon covenantal theology may have some things correct in it.

You said the 1689 covenantal system is flatly contrary to Romans 4 and Galatians 3. This strong language you used in the other thread can be read that it is impossible to believe Romans 4 and Galatians 3 in what is taught there and simultaneously 1689 without contradiction or inconsistency.

If I am reading too much in your claim, please let me know.

And no adherence to the confessions is needed, since this text and others like it are the basis of the confessions’ teachings.

This is hardly helpful, since we can - and do - say likewise.

 

[Christodulus]

This strong language you used in the other thread can be read that it is impossible to believe Romans 4 and Galatians 3 in what is taught there and simultaneously 1689 without contradiction or inconsistency.

Correct.

This is hardly helpful, since we can - and do - say likewise.

It is not relevant whether the claim that one’s doctrine is the doctrine of scripture is made, only if it is true.

 

[No Other Name]

It is not relevant whether the claim that one’s doctrine is the doctrine of scripture is made, only if it is true.

Well yeah sure, but stay with the train of thought here though.

The train of thought here is that you claim 1689 (or rather at least one or more of the teachings contained therein) is completely and absolutely (it's what "flatly" means) contradicted by a direct reading of Romans 4 and Galatians 3. It must also logically follow that there is no need for any prior adherence - nor even particularly any knowledge of - WCF. So when you say:

And no adherence to the confessions is needed, since this text and others like it are the basis of the confessions’ teachings.

it now appears as if you are distinguishing WCF as using texts from Scripture as the basis of the teachings in opposition to the 1689 as if we do not - or at least not solely.

You know like drawing from some other source like an Anabaptist confession and definition of "sacrament" or something.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Correct.

It is not relevant whether the claim that one’s doctrine is the doctrine of scripture is made, only if it is true.

So lets discuss the OP point, and neither side reference either of the Confessions of faith, just discuss this from bible only

 

[No Other Name]

So lets discuss the OP point, and neither side reference either of the Confessions of faith, just discuss this from bible only

This will probably happen sometime next week from my end

 

[Venator Veritatis]

Isn't the difficulty in this situation that when any given person appeals to Scripture, they are asserting their understanding or interpretation of what that scripture says. You cannot seperate your reading and understanding of Scripture from the church tradition that you adhere to. That's like telling someone who holds to the Doctrines of Grace to simply read and interpret the relevant passages without the interpretive grid set up for us by hundreds of years of solid theology.

If scripture is to be interpreted by the church as a body, as reflected in the confessions, how is anybody going to show that their exegesis stands on its own two feet apart from any church tradition understanding of that passage? In other words, if someone expertly exegets Romans 4 and Galatians 3 and it disagrees with your position, won't you in the end just disagree with their interpretation and move on?

 

[faithandfreedom]

Isn't the difficulty in this situation that when any given person appeals to Scripture, they are asserting their understanding or interpretation of what that scripture says. You cannot seperate your reading and understanding of Scripture from the church tradition that you adhere to. That's like telling someone who holds to the Doctrines of Grace to simply read and interpret the relevant passages without the interpretive grid set up for us by hundreds of years of solid theology.

If scripture is to be interpreted by the church as a body, as reflected in the confessions, how is anybody going to show that their exegesis stands on its own two feet apart from any church tradition understanding of that passage? In other words, if someone expertly exegets Romans 4 and Galatians 3 and it disagrees with your position, won't you in the end just disagree with their interpretation and move on?

Exactly.

 

[DNM300]

Isn't the difficulty in this situation that when any given person appeals to Scripture, they are asserting their understanding or interpretation of what that scripture says. You cannot seperate your reading and understanding of Scripture from the church tradition that you adhere to. That's like telling someone who holds to the Doctrines of Grace to simply read and interpret the relevant passages without the interpretive grid set up for us by hundreds of years of solid theology.

If scripture is to be interpreted by the church as a body, as reflected in the confessions, how is anybody going to show that their exegesis stands on its own two feet apart from any church tradition understanding of that passage? In other words, if someone expertly exegets Romans 4 and Galatians 3 and it disagrees with your position, won't you in the end just disagree with their interpretation and move on?

I do believe that in order to properly consider the “other” position you have to wipe your slate completely clean.

edit: retracted a benign, useless comment

 

[YeshuaFan]

Isn't the difficulty in this situation that when any given person appeals to Scripture, they are asserting their understanding or interpretation of what that scripture says. You cannot seperate your reading and understanding of Scripture from the church tradition that you adhere to. That's like telling someone who holds to the Doctrines of Grace to simply read and interpret the relevant passages without the interpretive grid set up for us by hundreds of years of solid theology.

If scripture is to be interpreted by the church as a body, as reflected in the confessions, how is anybody going to show that their exegesis stands on its own two feet apart from any church tradition understanding of that passage? In other words, if someone expertly exegets Romans 4 and Galatians 3 and it disagrees with your position, won't you in the end just disagree with their interpretation and move on?

real question then would be is our final alliance to any Confession or Creed, or Church authority, or to the scriptures themselves, as we in the Baptist and the Reformed traditions both strongly affirm sola scriptura , correct?
[automerge]1775849659[/automerge]

I do believe that in order to properly consider the “other” position you have to wipe your slate completely clean.

edit: retracted a benign, useless comment

Actually would have to come to the bible alone and try to deduce what it is saying itself unto us

 

[DNM300]

real question then would be is our final alliance to any Confession or Creed, or Church authority, or to the scriptures themselves, as we in the Baptist and the Reformed traditions both strongly affirm sola scriptura , correct?
[automerge]1775849659[/automerge]

Actually would have to come to the bible alone and try to deduce what it is saying itself unto us

What you are saying about Bible alone, is actually what I meant.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

real question then would be is our final alliance to any Confession or Creed, or Church authority, or to the scriptures themselves, as we in the Baptist and the Reformed traditions both strongly affirm sola scriptura , correct?
[automerge]1775849659[/automerge]

Actually would have to come to the bible alone and try to deduce what it is saying itself unto us

But again. Saying "the Bible alone" means what? To paraphrase Keith Mathison we can't just set the scriptures on the table and ask it to arbitrate between two positions. Any appeal to scripture is an appeal to an interpretation of scripture.

 

[Christodulus]

But again. Saying "the Bible alone" means what? To paraphrase Keith Mathison we can't just set the scriptures on the table and ask it to arbitrate between two positions. Any appeal to scripture is an appeal to an interpretation of scripture.

A true interpretation of scripture is indistinct from scripture.

 

[faithandfreedom]

A true interpretation of scripture is indistinct from scripture.

Whose is the true interpretation? Yours or mine? Who decides?

 

[Venator Veritatis]

A true interpretation of scripture is indistinct from scripture.

I would heartily agree. Truth is absolute and only one interpretation can be correct.

 

[Christodulus]

Whose is the true interpretation? Yours or mine? Who decides?

It is discovered rather than decided, and it is demonstrated through standard methods of exegesis. When one objects to the possibility of knowing true interpretations they object not to perspicuity but to the possibility of communication.

 

[faithandfreedom]

It is discovered rather than decided, and it is demonstrated through standard methods of exegesis.

If one person proposes an exegesis of a passage and another person suggests a different exegesis, how do we decide who has correctly discovered the meaning of the text?

 

[Christodulus]

If one person proposes an exegesis of a passage and another person suggests a different exegesis, how do we decide who has correctly discovered the meaning of the text?

It is through use of the text itself, just as if I say my interpretation of your post is that everything I say is true this is refuted not by an appeal to authority but by reference to the text itself with which it is inconsistent. The holy scriptures are both text and gloss, and contain in themselves everything necessary for true religion, with the less clear passages being interpreted through the more clear ones and not through the traditions of men (which serve to nullify rather than exposit the scriptures).

 

[Ed Walsh]

Any appeal to scripture is an appeal to an interpretation of scripture.

Amen!

 

[brandonadams]

Romans 9 distinguishes children of the flesh and children of the promise. Yet you make the children of the flesh the children of promise. So this is clearly false. Revelation 7, a multitude that no man can number is looking at the fulfillment across all nations. Eph 2, uncircumcision is a marker of being a stranger to the covenants of promise, but now the Gentiles are fellow citizens.

Brother, I believe you have mis-read Romans 9:8. Paul does not in any way deny that Abraham's children according to the flesh (narrowed to the line of Ishmael, then Isaac) were the ones with whom the Covenant of Circumcision was made. As Paul just said in v5, to them belong the covenants and promises. Paul's concern is to answer the question of the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning Israel's greater exodus at the coming of the Messiah. His kinsmen according to the flesh have rejected the Messiah and do thus God's Word seems to have failed.

His answer is that the restoration prophesied at the coming of the Messiah refers to spiritual Israel, not Israel according to the flesh ("But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel"). In this, he is simply following Jesus' instruction for interpreting those prophesies taught in John 6:45. Paul's appeal to the Covenant of Circumcision is not to argue for a two-fold membership in that covenant or to deny that it was made with Abraham's offspring according to the flesh. Rather, he is setting the precedent that it has always been a matter of God's sovereign choice.

Which of Abraham's offspring did God promise to give the land to? Paul says it was those descended through Isaac, not Ishmael. Simple descent from Abraham alone was never sufficient. It was always dependent upon God's choice, His promise. God promised that Abraham would miraculously be given an heir through Sarah. Ishmael was not that promised offspring. Isaac was. "The children of promise will be counted as offspring" in this context refers to God promising Isaac's miraculous physical birth, not being born again spiritually: "For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”"

Paul establishes the same point using the next generation as an example. The line through Jacob, not Esau, would receive the promised land of Canaan. “The older will serve the younger” is not a statement about salvation.

Having established that everything concerning Israel was always a matter of God's sovereign choice, even for things promised to Abraham's offspring according to the flesh, he then applies it to the question of salvation (the greater Exodus of the prophets) and shows that this, too, is a matter of God's sovereign choice. Therefore the fact that Israel according to the flesh has rejected salvation in Christ does not nullify God's promise of restoration because this promise was always about Israel according to the Spirit, which Paul shows consists of believing Jews and Gentiles united to Christ (the rest of Romans 9, and I would argue all the way down to the end of Romans 11).

So no, Romans 9 does not teach that the Covenant of Circumcision was the Covenant of Grace. Augustine rightly notes that Rom 9:6-8 is a parallel of Galatians 4:21-31. Isaac is a type of Christians. He is a child of promise in that he was physically by God's promise. We are children of promise in that we are born spiritually by God's promise.

See more here https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/they-are-not-all-israel-who-are-of-israel/

Re: Rev 7, right, that's typology. The promise was fulfilled literally in Abraham's offspring according to the flesh who were like the dust of the earth, as numerous as the stars of heaven and as many as the sand by the seaGen 12:2; 13:16; 15:5; 22:17; 26:4; 28:14; 32:12; Ex 32:13; Num 23:10; Deut 1:10; 10:22; 1 Kings 3:8; 4:20; Is. 10:22; 48:19; Jer 15:8; Heb 11:12. But the offspring according to the flesh were only ever a type of the offspring according to the Spirit.

Eph 2, right, again, typology. We are Israel according to the Spirit, so yes, we are "the circumcision" - but not in the sense that Israel according to the flesh was. Note carefully that Israel according to the Spirit is "one new man, in place of the two [Israel according to the flesh and Gentiles]."

Romans 4. Justification by faith and forgiveness of sins in Christ are all part and parcel of the promise. You are setting forth an unbiblical dichotomy.

We distinguish, biblically.

 

[JH]

If one person proposes an exegesis of a passage and another person suggests a different exegesis, how do we decide who has correctly discovered the meaning of the text?

Westminster 1.9 answers that, scripture decides; that is, who's system of interpretation is more coherent with the totality of scriptures testimony, that's what we call hermeneutics. As Protestants, we are not only sola scriptura, but tota scriptura; we always measure exegesis by scripture's entire counsel. There cannot be a higher authority than the scriptures, to look for a higher authority is to abandon the essence of Protestantism.