The Israelites/Jews and the Seed of Abraham

[A.J.]

Greetings,

I already did a search on this in the archives, but still looking for concrete answers. In what sense were the Israelites/Jews the seed of Abraham if only those who are united to the Lord Jesus by faith are the seed of Abraham (Rom. 4 and 9; Gal. 3)? If the land of Canan was a type (Gen. 17:8; Heb. 11:8-10; Heb. 12:22-24), what then was typological about the promised seed (Gen. 17:7; cf. Gen. 15:13-16)? Is it true that the Israelites/Jews (as such) were never the seed of Abraham (in the OT) as Herman Hoeksema argues?

I offer, that the Word of God knows only of one seed of Abraham, the spiritual, the elect, the children of the promise. This is true both of the old and of the new dispensation. It is not correct to say that in the old dispensation the Jews were the seed of Abraham, while in the new dispensation believers are this seed. The Jews never were the seed of Abraham. It is correct to say, that for a time the seed of Abraham were found exclusively among Abraham's descendants, as they are found now among all nations. But Scripture never identifies Abraham's descendants with the seed of Abraham. The latter, the children of the promise, are at all times only the believers. In the times of the Old Testament they are found in the generations of Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham Israel. In the new dispensation they are among all nations, there being no difference anymore between Jew and Gentile. But wherever they are found the children of the promise, named after Abraham as the father of believers, are always the true children of God,the believers. These and these only are the seed of Abraham.

(emphasis his)

link: The Biblical Ground for the Baptism of Infants by Herman Hoeksema

I do not necessarily agree with everything Hoeksema's group believes. But his argument in my opinion is throughly consistent. Also, I notice that how these questions are answered will eventually determine whether one would believe in infant baptism. And honestly they are some of the most difficult theological questions I have encountered as I study the issues involved in this controversial doctrine of Christian baptism.

Baptists tend to see the inclusion of children in the covenant as having passed away when the fulfillment of the promise had already come. Since the OT types and shadows (and the nationalistic aspects of the former administrations of the Covenant of Grace) have been fulfilled already in and by the Lord Jesus, it is argued that infant inclusion have ceased away with them. Circumcision thus secured the national line from which the Christ would come. Reformed Baptists do affirm the unity of God's people and the fact that circumcision signified spritual and gospel blessings. But since we are now in the New Covenant (Jer. 31; Heb. 8), we are told that we are not supposed to administer the sign purposefully to reprobates (like Ishmael and Esau) or to those whom we are not sure would believe later in life. Baptism is a spritual sign, they say, and must be given only to the spiritual seed of Abraham (Rom. 4; Gal. 3). The sacrament is therefore for believers only. Infants cannot believe. So they should not be baptized.

What kept me from initially seeing the plausibility of infant baptism was this particular agument.

What of the "Seed of Abraham?"

As we mentioned in the introduction, paedo-baptists lay great stress on the continuation of the principle laid down in Genesis chapter 17, where God speaks to Abraham concerning His covenant arrangements and agreements. As the promise was to Abraham and his seed after him, so the promises of the gospel are to believers and their seed after them. As the 'sign and seal' of the covenant was then administered to Abraham's seed, in circumcision, so the sign and seal of the New Covenant, in baptism, is to be administered to the believer's children. There are three basic questions to ask and answer in relation to this: 1. What was contained in the covenant promise made to Abraham? 2. What was its initial fulfilment? 3. What did it really mean?

1. What was contained in the covenant promise?

The promise is essentially threefold: God would give to Abrham a multitudinous "seed;" that seed would inherit a "land; in that land God would bless them by being in their midst, where He would be their God and they would be His people. On the grounds of that covenant promise, then, circumcision was instituted as the "sign and seal." Abraham himself was circumcised, and then, all his male children (and servants etc.) as well.

2. What was its initiat fulfilment?

The initial fulfilment of the covenant made with Abraham is found in the nation of Israel of which Abraham stands as patriarchal father. Israel itself as a nation is the "seed" of Abraham, as the most fundamental reading of the Old Testament will show. Canaan, into which Israel eventually entered, is the "land" that God spoke to Abraham concerning. And the "blessing" of God's presence in their midst in Canaan is visibly manifested to them, first of all in the Tabernacle and later, in the Temple. In Israel as a nation, then, the promises of the covenant meet their initial fulfilment; and to Israel as a nation, the "sign and seal" of the covenant in circumcision belongs.

3. What did it REALLY mean?

It only requires a very basic reading of the New Testament scriptures to show how and where the fulness and the finality of the covenant promises really belong. The "seed" of Abraham are those who exercise faith in our Lord Jesus Christ– believers; the "land" of promise and inheritance is ultimately heaven itself; and in heaven at last the "blessing" of the real and ever-abiding presence of God with His people is realised– "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God." "land," "seed," and "blessing," all find their real fulfilment in the believing people of God. As Paul tells the Galatians, (GaI.3:2 6ff) "for ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesuand if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise".

The deduction is a very simple one:

In the Old Testament, Abraham's "seed" is first and foremost, physical– the children of Israel who inherit the promised land of Canaan. To them alone was given the "sign and seal" of the covenant in circumcision. To no others.

In the New Testament, Abraham's "seed" is spiritual– those who, like their father Abraham, have believed and been justified "by faith," and who inherit heaven at last. To them alone, then, must be given the "sign and seal" of the New Covenant in baptism. To no others. Baptism is for believers only, because believers only are the heirs of heaven– the"heirs according to the promise" that God really gave to Abraham in that blessed 17th chapter of Genesis.

Failure to see this belongs to that cardinal error of Presbyterianism, etc. – i.e. failing to adhere to the supremacy of New Testament revelation in the scheme of God's history of redemption given to man. Their is no 'physical' link in the terms of the New Covenant (believers and their children,) just as there is no physical "land" to be inherited by the New Covenant heirs. Abraham's "seed," rightly understood,' 'are' the "children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." To them alone belongs the New Covenant "sign and seal"– baptism.

In conclusion. In the New Testament Scriptures of God, who were baptized? The answer can only be, believers and believers only.

(emphasis mine)

link: An Introduction to Christian Baptism by W.J. Seaton

There are obviously flaws in the argument. One is that many who received circumcision were not even the physical seed of Abraham. The bonservants of Abraham and the many Gentile proselytes to Judaism did not come from the patriarch's loins! Moreover, there was no Israelite or Jewish nation present yet when God made a covenant with Abraham. Ishmael and Esau were not Israelites. But Seaton's argument still stands. Reformed Baptists are convinced that Paedo-Baptists cannot claim the seed promise without claiming the land promise as well! It's all or nothing.

As I want to give a profession of faith (thereby affirming my commitment to the 3FU which teach infant baptism) and become a communicant member before the year ends (i.e., as early as possible), I would like to be completely sure about what I believe on this. After all, a valid baptism is pre-requisite to the receving of the Lord's Supper. I was told by the pastor of the Reformed Baptist church I am attending that I would be required to receive baptism (again) if I decide to join their membership. But since I find myself in the direction of accepting infant baptism, I will probably end up in the Reformed Paedo-Baptist fellowship I am also attending and not get re-baptized.

Any thoughts? (See questions and Scriptural references in the first paragraph.)

Blessings,
Albert

 

[Scott Bushey]

Greetings,
In what sense were the Israelites/Jews the seed of Abraham if only those who are united to the Lord Jesus by faith are the seed of Abraham (Rom. 4 and 9; Gal. 3)? Blessings,
Albert

Greetings boarders; Couldn't resist this one.....
The visible/invisible church distinction must be considered when viewing either of these passages.

So, to answer your question, Jews/Israelites who truly believed and were spiritually regenerated by God were part of the invisible/visible church where as those that were unbelieving weren't. Those that weren't, obviously were solely part of the visible church.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Hi Scott!

AJ,
I suppose if "first and foremost" the seed is physical, as Seaton is quoted, then his argument proceeds, how well I'm not sure. But, I deny the premise. So the rest of his words are wasted on me.

The seed is "first and foremost" Christ; that Seaton completely fails to even reference this fact shows how different his perspective is to begin with. Subsequent to this identification "seed" is by parts an indicator (for those who believe the promise) unto a particular generational line that the Savior of the world will come from here; as well as signaling who are the chosen people in the world, and how one may incorporate with said congregation; which is an earthly claim to spiritual union with the One seed.

One reference you've left out is Gen.22:18, a singular reference, which is doubtless the particular reference Paul has in mind in Gal.3:16 where he emphasizes it.

In the OT, Abraham's true seed is spiritual as well. Paul says as much when he denies that those uncircumcised in heart are "true Jews" (Rom.2:28-29). This isn't simply a NT claim, that has no relevance to time past, see Lev.26:41; Dt.10:16; 30:6; Jer.4:4; 9:26; Eze.44:7,9; cf. Acts 7:51. Jesus said the same thing to the unbelieving Jews, Jn.8:44.

The "cardinal error" of the Baptist is his failure to credit the OT church with ability to understand that their land was naught but a symbol, and that their real inheritance lay elsewhere. If Abraham understood that, then why shouldn't those descendants (and adoptees) who shared his faith also understand it?

The practical effect of Seaton's attitude to the Bible (and so far as it is typical of the Baptist) in elevating the "supremacy of NT revelation" to such a degree, is that the OT is undervalued. Here's an illustration.

Suppose that on his way to heaven, mankind was meant to live on the peaks of the mountains. There are two ways to measure the heights, one is from sea level upward, the other is from the relative plain upward. By the first measure, the highest peaks are the ones that reach the highest into the atmosphere. The whole mountain is visible, and the peaks "complete" or "fulfill" the mountain.

By the second method, the highest peaks are found anchored to the sea-floor. They rise until they break the surface of the ocean, and rise thousands of feet more. But they are not as high above Sea-level as mountains on the continents. At the water's edge, the mountain ends, for all practical purposes. Divers may descend in the depths, but the views of the full mountain are distinctly limited and murky. The island peaks that "fulfill" the mountain are the whole aspect.

The former aspect represents the Presbyterian view, the latter the Baptist. The Baptist will say he fully appreciates the heights of his mountain, how without 20,000 feet of mountain beneath his Island, he could not live on the last 10,000 feet. But this gorgeous beach begins the "supremacy" of his mountain; the remainder is drowned in the creation of his paradise.

The Presbyterian is glad he lives on the high elevations of his mountain. He could not live so high if others had not first built their cities on the lower slopes. They kept moving up the mountain, exploring it until the final heights came into view, fulfilling it. And there they settled. But when we say we live on the mountain, we are talking about all 20,000 feet of it.​

It's also helpful to read the OT promises of the fulfillment of the CoG (NC), and note the copious references to one's children found therein.

 

[A.J.]

Rev. Buchanan,

Thanks for Gen. 22:18. I'll think more about this today, and ask for more clarifications on Monday. It's 12:02 AM Sunday (Southeast Asian time). Time for sleep.

 

[A.J.]

I suppose if "first and foremost" the seed is physical, as Seaton is quoted, then his argument proceeds, how well I'm not sure. But, I deny the premise. So the rest of his words are wasted on me.

The seed is "first and foremost" Christ; that Seaton completely fails to even reference this fact shows how different his perspective is to begin with. Subsequent to this identification "seed" is by parts an indicator (for those who believe the promise) unto a particular generational line that the Savior of the world will come from here; as well as signaling who are the chosen people in the world, and how one may incorporate with said congregation; which is an earthly claim to spiritual union with the One seed.

One reference you've left out is Gen.22:18, a singular reference, which is doubtless the particular reference Paul has in mind in Gal.3:16 where he emphasizes it.

In the OT, Abraham's true seed is spiritual as well. Paul says as much when he denies that those uncircumcised in heart are "true Jews" (Rom.2:28-29). This isn't simply a NT claim, that has no relevance to time past, see Lev.26:41; Dt.10:16; 30:6; Jer.4:4; 9:26; Eze.44:7,9; cf. Acts 7:51. Jesus said the same thing to the unbelieving Jews, Jn.8:44.

I re-read Rom. 4 and Gal. 3 yesterday, and 1 Cor. 10 and Heb. 3 this Monday morning. Seen in the light of these NT texts and the OT verses you cited speaking of the true meaning of circumcision, it became clearer to me that when John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus rebuked the Pharisees and the unbelieving Jews for their dependence on their physical descent from Abraham, and when the Apostle Paul spoke of true Jews as those who are circumcised in heart and as those who cling to Christ by faith, they were indicating something that has been true from the very beginning. God's promises to Abraham (including the land even in its typological form) were never realized apart from a genuine turning away from sins and faith in the God of Israel.

Lev. 26:40-42 (which you cited) was particularly helpful.

But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers in their treachery that they committed against me, and also in walking contrary to me, so that I walked contrary to them and brought them into the land of their enemies—if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and I will remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. (ESV)

The author of Hebrews (3:12-19) repeats the same idea that physical descent (or being externally part of ethnic Israel) never ultimately mattered.

Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. As it is said, “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.” For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief. (ESV)

So I think my question about Herman Hoeksema's thesis has been answered. The seed of Abraham is primarily Christ Himself, and that is something I must always remember in reading both the OT and the NT.... Thank you.

-----Added 2/22/2009 at 08:48:23 EST-----

P.S. I am also reminded of a text I have read many times in the past.

But the steadfast love of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, and his righteousness to children's children, to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments. - Psalm 103:17-18 (ESV)

The unbelieving and the unrepentant (like the first generation of the Israelites who came out of Egypt) cannot claim this promise for themselves. It is only for those who are of the faith of Abraham in union with the Lord Jesus by faith.

 

[brandonadams]

Albert,

I have been trying to understand this issue as well and I'd like to throw a kink in for you to consider.

Bruce mentioned above:

Jesus said the same thing to the unbelieving Jews, Jn.8:44.

Here is the passage:

39 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41 You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” 42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

So clearly Jesus denies that they are Abraham's offspring. But if that is the case, then why does Jesus say right before that

37 I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you.

So what is it Jesus, are they Abraham's offspring or not? Clearly "Abraham's offspring" has more than one meaning. I'm not sure how anyone can claim otherwise.

R. Scott Clark has a great article called "The Israel of God" in which he argues against Dispensationalism, showing how Christ is the true Israel of God and how the nation of Israel was only a type. But notice that in so doing, he does not say that national Israel was not actually national Israel. In other words, he sees Christ re-defining "Israel" and using the nation of Israel as a lesson to point to Himself. Nowhere does it say that Israel was not Israel, but rather, it says that Christ is the true Israel of God, of which the actual nation foreshadowed.
Westminster Seminary California clark

I think the same can be said of Abraham's offspring. Jesus' redefinition or spiritual application of what it means to be the offspring of Abraham does not negate that "Abraham's offspring" still has a literal, physical meaning, and always has.

 

[Mushroom]

Perhaps there is a distinction between Abraham's offspring and Abraham's children.

 

[brandonadams]

Galatians 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

 

[PastorTim]

I encourage you to read

Who Is Israel? here

 

[DonP]

It is used both ways, to refer to ethnic Jews and spiritual or elect.

The nation of Israel and the elect;

You have to determine if he is speaking at that time of the physical type or the or the spiritual reality. Its is used both ways throughout the NT

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think the same can be said of Abraham's offspring. Jesus' redefinition or spiritual application of what it means to be the offspring of Abraham does not negate that "Abraham's offspring" still has a literal, physical meaning, and always has.

But my contribution to the thread started off with by questioning the original premise for Smeaton's syllogismm that asserted: "Abraham's "seed" is first and foremost, physical..."

Since the whole question of the doctrine is a logical one, I find him completely wrong. If, in the the "first" place, the focus is properly on the anti-type, Christ, rather than on the nation, then the fact that Abraham's seed also refers to his physical descendants (ala John 8:37) doesn't deny the more fundamental truth that their physical descent is rendered meaningless by their ultimate commitment.

By denying them their cherished appellation, Jesus isn't making an "application" of an allegedly more essential truth (i.e. their worldly heritage). The "application" is in God's allowing a visible collection of men--gathered by inheritance and adoption--to be denominated as the "people of God" (i.e Abraham's seed, or Israel, etc.).

In other words,, Jesus isn't saying to those hostile Jews, "Because of your disobedience, you are sort-of the Devil's children." No, Jesus is saying, "You are only sort-of Abraham's children; you are only sort-of united to Israel (me)." The spiritual is more concrete than the physical.

 

[DonP]

Bingo!

But are you really 2 kingdoms?

 

[A.J.]

Brandon, thanks for the answer. I've read Dr. Clark's article last year.

Though I agree that Abraham's seed does have a "literal, physical meaning," I believe that when John the Baptist, the Lord Jesus and the Apostles taught that physical descent never ultimately mattered and when they pointed out that the Jews of their time misunderstood the meaning of circumcison, they were teaching principles that have always been true. A true Jew has always been one who is circumcised in heart. A true child of Abraham has always been one who has faith. The children of the promise have always been those like Isaac and Jacob. They are saved by the sovereign will of God (John 1:12, 13). These are things that are not just true now. They have been true from the very beginning.

I understand that the present discussion would probably involve a look into the relationship of the Mosaic Covenant to the Abrahamic Covenant. But that doesn't change the fact that Christ is primarily the seed of Abraham. It is to Him to that the promises were made. By faith, those who believe in Christ are also the seed of Abraham. They and they alone are the seed of Abraham (as Hoeksema says) in this sense.

Gal. 3:29 (ESV) And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

 

[brandonadams]

Tim,
Thanks for the link. I don't quite understand your interpretation of the following verses you quoted. Do you mind elaborating a little more?

“So the Lord gave unto Israel all the land, which he hath sworn to give unto their fathers: and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.” Joshua 21:43

“There failed nothing of all the good things, which the Lord had said unto the house of Israel, but all came to pass.” Joshua 21:45

Bruce,

In other words,, Jesus isn't saying to those hostile Jews, "Because of your disobedience, you are sort-of the Devil's children." No, Jesus is saying, "You are only sort-of Abraham's children; you are only sort-of united to Israel (me)." The spiritual is more concrete than the physical.

I'm sorry I'm having a hard time with this, but I just don't follow you. I don't see Jesus telling the Pharisees that they are "sort-of" anything. I see Him saying that they are physically Abraham's offspring, but they are spiritually Satan's offspring. I don't see the spiritual as being "more concrete" than the physical, but being completely other. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the Pharisees are sort-of united to Christ.

To clarify, in the verses above from Joshua, do you believe the land was given to those Israelites because they were the spiritual seed of Abraham, or because they were the physical seed of Abraham?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Bruce,

In other words,, Jesus isn't saying to those hostile Jews, "Because of your disobedience, you are sort-of the Devil's children." No, Jesus is saying, "You are only sort-of Abraham's children; you are only sort-of united to Israel (me)." The spiritual is more concrete than the physical.

I'm sorry I'm having a hard time with this, but I just don't follow you. I don't see Jesus telling the Pharisees that they are "sort-of" anything. I see Him saying that they are physically Abraham's offspring, but they are spiritually Satan's offspring. I don't see the spiritual as being "more concrete" than the physical, but being completely other. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the Pharisees are sort-of united to Christ.

Brandon,
I get it, that you are having difficulty understanding my position. But you aren't so far from understanding it, because you've put your finger on the key, in my opinion.

I bolded the portion that is the crux. If you can wrap your head around the inverse principle from your way of looking at the issue, then you will understand where I'm coming from , even if you don't agree with me.

I said the Pharisees viewed their lineage (or their circumcision) as fundamentally tying them as meaningfully to Abraham as could possibly be--it is what MADE them "sons of Abraham" in the most essential way. I'm not saying this pejoratively, but You are adopting the Pharisees self-perception as being essentially correct. Jesus, however, denies them that fundamental premise.

You see Jesus as "taking away" from their claim by an analogy: that first he accepts their natural affiliation with Abraham as a bedrock reality; he then contrasts this core truth with an analysis of their profession that surmounts or "dresses" what they are at the basic level. If being circumcised and lineal or adopted sons of Abraham makes them that in a way that cannot be denied, then only in a figurative/higher/spiritual sense can they be children of Satan.

I see Jesus as correcting their basic understanding about what counts. "Mere" physical descent or circumcision, in Jesus' view, cannot change what they ACTUALLY are, namely Satan's seed. And if this is the fundamental reality, then only in a subordinate/visible/ethno-religious sense can they be children of Abraham.

You are either putting the "physical" and "spiritual" on-par, as two ways of speaking about a single entity; or you are putting the spiritual "above" the physical, more abstract and less concrete, the former being the basis for talking about the latter.

As you noted, this is the exact inverse of the principle I'm espousing. In my view, the "spiritual" is the basis for talking about the "physical." The physical is simply a "picture" of the spiritual.


So, to address another of your questions, the Pharisees see themselves as "united to Abraham/Israel," and its all about circumcision, descent, and the Law. Jesus says to them that they are NOT united to Israel, because HE is Israel, the only Israel with eternal significance, the "concrete" Israel. The Pharisees, being only those outward things, are only "sort-of" Israelites, instead of Israelites in truth. Jesus said of Nathaniel, "Behold a TRUE Israelite, in whom there is no deceit!" (Jn.1:47). What did he mean?

To clarify, in the verses above from Joshua, do you believe the land was given to those Israelites because they were the spiritual seed of Abraham, or because they were the physical seed of Abraham?

The OT church (the Israelites) was given the land because of God's promise to Abraham that God would actualize his redemptive purposes through Abraham, he being the father of the church.

Those redemptive purposes included the creation of a unique context: ethnic, geographic, and religious--from which the Messiah would emerge onto the stage of history, and do his Mediatorial work. Paul characterizes the long history of God's people as a 1500-year object lesson upon which the church should (continue to) meditate (1 Cor.10:6).

So the answer to the question, in my opinion, isn't according to the either/or categories you provided. God gave Israel the land because they were the church, a mixed body.

The nation of Israel has never been pure and unmixed. Gathered around a core of Abraham's physical descendants, starting exclusively with Isaac from among his many sons, the nation was continuously "adopting" outsiders. Exodus explicitly states that at the "birth" of the nation, they were a "mixed multitude" who were "called out of Egypt, my son."

Caleb of the 12 spies, identified as the Judahite representative, was an Edomite by extraction (the Kenezite). He and countless others received the land as a circumcised man, as members of the church, who were the spiritual (i.e. true) seed of Abraham, though many of them had less of Abraham's blood in their veins than Caleb did (not a drop in thousands of them). And there were many who took possession of the land who were doubtless mere outward members of the church.

What was the land? It was a representation of the heavenly city. But obviously not being heaven, it certainly pointed the pious Israelite to the same inheritance father Abraham hoped for (Heb.11:10). All the TRUE believers realized the land was only meant to signify something greater (Heb.11:15-16).

 

[DonP]

In simpler terms if I might try

There was a literal earthly fulfillment of these promises but they also were types that pointed to their ultimate reality, a spiritual reality.

Note here our instructor teaches that though they did indeed inherit the earthly promised land, etc. they did not get the real promise. It was not a country so the True Jews, believers, did not go back to restore Israel the nation. They were pursuing a spiritual fulfillment
Heb 11:13-16
These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14 For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. 15 And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.
NKJV

Does that help at all. There are two promises, earthly and spiritual.

Rom 2:28-29
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit,
NKJV

The jews had the same question you do

Rom 9:8

But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.
NKJV

 

[brandonadams]

In simpler terms if I might try

There was a literal earthly fulfillment of these promises but they also were types that pointed to their ultimate reality, a spiritual reality.
[...]
Does that help at all. There are two promises, earthly and spiritual.

Certainly, and I agree with you. The earthly promises were made to Abraham's earthly offspring and the spiritual promises were made to his spiritual offspring. Would you agree? Or would you say both earthly and spiritual promises were made only to Abraham's spiritual seed?

Going back to the OP, Hoeksema denies that earthly promises were made to earthly offspring.

I offer, that the Word of God knows only of one seed of Abraham, the spiritual, the elect, the children of the promise. This is true both of the old and of the new dispensation. It is not correct to say that in the old dispensation the Jews were the seed of Abraham, while in the new dispensation believers are this seed. The Jews never were the seed of Abraham... But Scripture never identifies Abraham's descendants with the seed of Abraham.

That was my point in my original comment about John 8. Jesus does not say what Hoeksema says. Jesus says that in one sense the Pharisees were Abraham's offspring. But in a different sense they were not his offspring.

Bruce, thanks for your response. I will have to read it a couple more times because I still don't get what you're saying. Maybe it's just cause it's lunch time.

 

[DonP]

yes I think the PR is a bit hyper and try to make the unknown mysteries all fit into logic.

Obviouslt living jews did inherit land even if they were not converted, it just did not have as much meaning to them and was worthless ultimately.

Just like being a covenant child the baptism is only a condemnation if they are a covenant breaker.
But there was profit being a jew... see that thread here

"Bruce, thanks for your response. I will have to read it a couple more times because I still don't get what you're saying. Maybe it's just cause it's lunch time."

I think it is because Bruce has a brain like an encyclopedia of technical science.
Wonder where he went to grammar school. We should all be so gifted

 

[brandonadams]

I said the Pharisees viewed their lineage (or their circumcision) as fundamentally tying them as meaningfully to Abraham as could possibly be--it is what MADE them "sons of Abraham" in the most essential way. I'm not saying this pejoratively, but You are adopting the Pharisees self-perception as being essentially correct. Jesus, however, denies them that fundamental premise.

You see Jesus as "taking away" from their claim by an analogy: that first he accepts their natural affiliation with Abraham as a bedrock reality; he then contrasts this core truth with an analysis of their profession that surmounts or "dresses" what they are at the basic level. If being circumcised and lineal or adopted sons of Abraham makes them that in a way that cannot be denied, then only in a figurative/higher/spiritual sense can they be children of Satan.

I see Jesus as correcting their basic understanding about what counts. "Mere" physical descent or circumcision, in Jesus' view, cannot change what they ACTUALLY are, namely Satan's seed. And if this is the fundamental reality, then only in a subordinate/visible/ethno-religious sense can they be children of Abraham.

Perhaps the quote from Seaton is what's throwing us off. I affirm that their ethnic descent is subordinate. I certainly don't believe that the Pharisee's physical descendency made them offspring "in the most essential way." I see Jesus as both teaching by analogy and correcting them about what counts. "Yes, you are physical descendants of Abraham. But you are spiritual sons of Satan. And spiritual realities are more important than earthly."

As you noted, this is the exact inverse of the principle I'm espousing. In my view, the "spiritual" is the basis for talking about the "physical." The physical is simply a "picture" of the spiritual.

My issue is not with the hierarchy of the two. My issue is acknowledging that there are in fact two. Yes, physical is a "picture" or a shadow of the spiritual.

I would interpret Seaton's comment to mean that in the OT, the physical seed of Abraham was held in the forefront as earthly promises were worked out. That's not to say that it actually was pre-eminent or primary, but only that the shadow had not yet given way and the focus was on the physical.

So, to address another of your questions, the Pharisees see themselves as "united to Abraham/Israel," and its all about circumcision, descent, and the Law. Jesus says to them that they are NOT united to Israel, because HE is Israel, the only Israel with eternal significance, the "concrete" Israel. The Pharisees, being only those outward things, are only "sort-of" Israelites, instead of Israelites in truth.

The way I see it is that Jesus does not discount circumcision, descent, and the Law. They served an actual purpose, which was to prepare the way for Him. But now that He is there, their purpose is fulfilled, so stop looking to the physical and see the spiritual. Abraham saw the spiritual, so should you. I just can't agree with the "sort-of" Israelites. Either they are or they aren't. Either they're Christians or they aren't. They are Israelites in a physical sense, but in a completely different spiritual sense, they are not Israelites. In other words, an Israelite and a TRUE Israelite are not gradations of the same thing, but two different things.

The OT church (the Israelites) was given the land because of God's promise to Abraham that God would actualize his redemptive purposes through Abraham, he being the father of the church.
[...]
So the answer to the question, in my opinion, isn't according to the either/or categories you provided. God gave Israel the land because they were the church, a mixed body.

To clarify, you believe Israel was given the land of Canaan as mentioned in Josh 21:
1. because they are the spiritual offspring of Abraham, of which there happens to be unbelievers amidst? Or
2. because they were the physical offspring, of which there happens to be spiritual offspring amidst?

The nation of Israel has never been pure and unmixed.

Certainly. But their inheritance of Canaan wasn't because they were mixed (as if to say if they were pure they would not have inherited it). What then was the deciding factor? Physical or Spiritual? Or did they have to be both physical and spiritual?

 

[brandonadams]

These are things that are not just true now. They have been true from the very beginning.

Just to clarify: I agree. But there still existed a type, a shadow. Simply because the shadow has been removed by the substance does not mean there never was a shadow.

 

[DonP]

Bang on buddy I think you are a covenant theologian!! Praise God!!

But to answer your last couple questions.

Sort of

Now don't hit me.
I know you don't like that term.

I think he meant by sort of that this is not the most significant. You have it correct, it is both

I think the cleanest way to say it is

God had a plan to redeem a people for Himself.

He chose to do this working through the means of a visible covenant people.

The unregenerate covenant people are partakers of some real earthly benefits sine they are part of the visible covenant. national Israel or the visible congregations of the church

I am not sure if the earthly benefits were actually only for the elect and the covenant people get them accidentally as it were or by association in the covenant.

I am not sure if this matters and some may say one way or the other so lets not quibble here.

But the ultimate promise of God to redeem and bless a people was to the elect only, who were living in and out of the visible covenant.

Some Greek person could have had an experience like the thief on the cross or possibly the Eunuch Phillip spoke to may not have been in the visible covenant community. Some say yes but I doubt the Eunuch was allowed to attend a synagogue.

So the ultimate purpose of God was to redeem a people for eternity and he did it primarily through a visible covenant people, who also got earthly promises and benefits by being in the covenant, but not being mixed with faith are ineffectual to salvation and end up rather than being a blessing to them. a stronger condemnation.

 

[Thomas2007]

Since the whole question of the doctrine is a logical one, I find him completely wrong. If, in the the "first" place, the focus is properly on the anti-type, Christ, rather than on the nation, then the fact that Abraham's seed also refers to his physical descendants (ala John 8:37) doesn't deny the more fundamental truth that their physical descent is rendered meaningless by their ultimate commitment.

Paul says it very plainly:

"For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision." Romans 2:25

 

[DonP]

Or put another way once you are converted Gal 3:26-29

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
NKJV

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I'll try to be waaay more succinct than I was.

My issue is not with the hierarchy of the two. My issue is acknowledging that there are in fact two. Yes, physical is a "picture" or a shadow of the spiritual.

I would interpret Seaton's comment to mean that in the OT, the physical seed of Abraham was held in the forefront as earthly promises were worked out. That's not to say that it actually was pre-eminent or primary, but only that the shadow had not yet given way and the focus was on the physical.

True enough in the narrow sense; there are "two ways" of being Abraham's seed. Nor do I think Hoeksema would deny this fact if he were expressing all nuance. But he is suppressing nuance.

Re. the final comment, I think its a mistake to say that in the OT, the focus was on the physical. Paul tells us that the reason the OT was "glorious" in earthly terms was in order to blind the reprobate (2Cor.3,esp.vv13-15), not because externals were where the "focus" belonged at any time.

The way I see it is that Jesus does not discount circumcision, descent, and the Law. They served an actual purpose, which was to prepare the way for Him. But now that He is there, their purpose is fulfilled, so stop looking to the physical and see the spiritual. Abraham saw the spiritual, so should you. I just can't agree with the "sort-of" Israelites. Either they are or they aren't. Either they're Christians or they aren't. They are Israelites in a physical sense, but in a completely different spiritual sense, they are not Israelites. In other words, an Israelite and a TRUE Israelite are not gradations of the same thing, but two different things.

But does the preparatory "actual purpose" of those things mean that they were supposed to be treated as "things-in-themselves?" That is our point of disjunction. Not whether those things had "actual purposes" or no.

This is actually coming down to the difference in our covenant theologies. Where you see two things, I don't. It's that simple. We call it full participation in the "substance" of the covenant, versus connection to "bare administration" of the covenant realities. Inner and outer, or just outer. You see two circles side by side or one above the other. I see concentric circles.

I do not share the view that those folks ought EVER to have been looking at the physical things and missing their spiritual import. Blinded Israel looked at the covenant trappings all throughout their history as though such were badges that made them special, and that they were special people and so got to wear badges. When the badges were telling a different story altogether: about God--who he was and what he was doing. He wasn't talking about THEM.

I'm probably still sounding obscure...

To clarify, you believe Israel was given the land of Canaan as mentioned in Josh 21:
1. because they are the spiritual offspring of Abraham, of which there happens to be unbelievers amidst? Or
2. because they were the physical offspring, of which there happens to be spiritual offspring amidst?

I suppose, of these two options I prefer the first. But, again, the whole question as you present it seems to revolve around the notion that getting the land was about THEM somehow. But it wasn't about THEM! It was about GOD, and what he's doing. They get the land because God promised it to the Church, and he made good on his promise. They get it because they were "baptized into Moses," united to the mediator of the Old Covenant.

Are we promised heaven because WE are the spiritual seed of Abraham? Or because Christ the SEED has a people, and will take them there?

The nation of Israel has never been pure and unmixed.

Certainly. But their inheritance of Canaan wasn't because they were mixed (as if to say if they were pure they would not have inherited it). What then was the deciding factor? Physical or Spiritual? Or did they have to be both physical and spiritual?

<aaak!!!>
Neither. and Both. Whatever.

I mean, they got it because they were the church, and God promised Abraham he'd give the land to his descendants, meaning the church. And so, because they were the church, they were blessed on account of God's friendship with Abraham.


I'm trying too hard... You are used to thinking/communicating in those bifurcated categories, physical & spiritual. I'm used to thinking/communicating in unified categories, concentric circles.

Sorry. Not succinct. It's really hard to talk across the baptism divide. But I'm thankful for the opportunity to try. It will be helpful in the future. Peace.

 

[brandonadams]

This is actually coming down to the difference in our covenant theologies. Where you see two things, I don't. It's that simple. We call it full participation in the "substance" of the covenant, versus connection to "bare administration" of the covenant realities. Inner and outer, or just outer.

I suppose so. Thanks for trying with me.

 

[PastorTim]

Tim,
Thanks for the link. I don't quite understand your interpretation of the following verses you quoted. Do you mind elaborating a little more?

“So the Lord gave unto Israel all the land, which he hath sworn to give unto their fathers: and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.” Joshua 21:43

“There failed nothing of all the good things, which the Lord had said unto the house of Israel, but all came to pass.” Joshua 21:45

Bruce,

In other words,, Jesus isn't saying to those hostile Jews, "Because of your disobedience, you are sort-of the Devil's children." No, Jesus is saying, "You are only sort-of Abraham's children; you are only sort-of united to Israel (me)." The spiritual is more concrete than the physical.

I'm sorry I'm having a hard time with this, but I just don't follow you. I don't see Jesus telling the Pharisees that they are "sort-of" anything. I see Him saying that they are physically Abraham's offspring, but they are spiritually Satan's offspring. I don't see the spiritual as being "more concrete" than the physical, but being completely other. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the Pharisees are sort-of united to Christ.

To clarify, in the verses above from Joshua, do you believe the land was given to those Israelites because they were the spiritual seed of Abraham, or because they were the physical seed of Abraham?

I am seeing in this that the physical promise was fulfilled and that we are not to be waiting for a physical fulfillment as is popular today

 

[DonP]

I am seeing in this that the physical promise was fulfilled and that we are not to be waiting for a physical fulfillment as is popular today

YES!
Praise God, Hallelujah !!! Alright brother !!

 

[DonP]

The promises to Abraham & Jews were never to Ethnic Jews

Rom 2:28-29
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit,
NKJV

Rom 9:6-8

But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.
NKJV

Gal 3:28-29
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
NKJV


By law he means by ethnic Jew, by national Israel and the laws given to them as a people.

Rom 4:13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect,
NKJV