[Colossians]

This thread has been replaced by thread:

EXPLAINING: “THEY ARE NOT ALL ISRAEL, WHICH ARE OF ISRAEL”

Please see that thread.

[Lee52]

So, let me understand your main point here.... Is this yet another thread to debate predestination as held in Augustine's and Calvin's view?

[Colossians]

Er....if you think that was the main point, then you haven't read what I have written.

The main point of the exposition is found at the 3rd paragraph of the summary.

[themuzicman]

Once again, Colossians imposes his theology on a text in order to derive his theology. Let's expose these...

Originally Posted by Colossians

EXPOUNDING ROMANS 9:6-9, THE ‘GATEWAY’ TO ROMANS 9–11


In the introductory verses (1-5) of this 9th chapter of Romans, Paul laments the unregenerate state of the bulk of those who are physically descended from Abraham.

This is Colossians' biggest mistake. Colossians ignores Paul's introduction to this passage. However, verses 1 through 5 are vital to understanding the discussion at hand.

So, let's go there:

9:1 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.

This is the lament. Israel as a whole is not turning to their messiah. And Paul is making it clear that he is not happy, but rather heartbroken that this is the case.

Why?

4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

Notice that Paul details eight things that are specific to the nation of Israel as formed by God with Covenant on Sinai, including the law and the worship (aka the temple services.)

All of these things combine to tell us that Paul is talking specifically about the nation of Israel, excluding the Gentiles. What is discussed here is specifically Jewish.

[6] “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect,
However he now at v6 turns to encouragement in a reorienting of things away from the prima facie of outward perception and instead toward that which accords with spiritual mindedness: we are about to be introduced to a far bigger picture.

And included within this we will note the very characteristic understating of the Spirit: we are not beckoned to the viewing room via that which positively declares that the word of God will have its way, but rather via the double negative – that the word of God has “not.…. taken none effect”.

Scripture is often written like this in order to more effectively invoke the hope of the reader, for the gospel seeks the “poor in spirit” (Mt 5:3), the lowly of disposition, who oft have difficulty in receiving the positive, but who will readily latch on to the same truth when expressed in the double negative. So David: “Take not thy Holy Spirit from me” (Ps 51:11); and thus the gentleness of the Holy Ghost, one who will never quench the “smoking flax” (Mt 12:20).

Of course, there is nothing here about "spiritual mindedness" or anything "inward." Nothing here about the "characteristic understating of the Spirit." These are inventions to attempt to make Colossians look smart, but any reader of this passage is going to see this as fairly meaningless to the passage as a whole. You see, Colossians misses the context of 1-5.

Paul just referred to the promises given to Israel, one of which was the New Covenant, which came through Christ, who came to them. So, the question of why Israel is not turning to Christ is a matter of question: Did God's word fail? And Paul is stating up front that, no, it has not. And this gives the setting for the discussion to follow.

So, once we examine the context, we find that all of Colossians' fancy words are simply his words and not related to what Paul is saying.

For they are not all [the] Israel [(of ultimate concern)], which are of Israel [(of the flesh)]:”
Paul comes quickly to the heart of the matter: the reason God’s word will achieve its purpose, is that its scope with regard to Israel of the flesh was never universal in the first place: it is implied to us here that only some of those who are of Israel of the flesh will also be members of the Israel with which God is ultimately concerned and to which therefore the word of God was actually directed.

Given then that the only alternative to a determination along fleshly lines is a determination along spiritual lines, we understand that the Israel with which God is ultimately concerned is delineated solely by the spirits within it and not at all by the flesh within which those spirits reside. Thus the implication in Jesus’ words to the Jews:


“And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” Mt 3:9

and in the more doctrinal:

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” John 3:6

What is incidental then but nevertheless worth stating, is that given that there can be no fleshly criteria by which one who calls upon the name of the Lord might be excluded from the Israel with which God is ultimately concerned, such Israel will highly likely be far greater in number than Israel of the flesh.

You will notice that Colossians feels the need to modify the text of Scripture to fit his theology. The words in the brackets are inserted by Colossians.

The passage is simply saying that not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Remember that in the first 5 verses, we established that Paul is referring specifically to the Jews, to the nation of Israel.

And Paul hasn't even yet explained what he means by verse 6, and Colossians is already imposing his theology here. He wants us to read Matthew and John and draw his conclusions as to whether they have influence here without providing ANY justification for tying these verses together.

Any reasonable theologian is going to let Paul explain himself, rather than needing to add words to Scripture and substitute his own theology for Paul's exposition.

Thus, there is no basis here for claiming "determination along spiritual lines" or talking about a group with whom "God is ultimately concerned and to which therefore the word of God was actually directed."

As we saw in verses 1-5, the promises, the law, the temple services, were all directed at the nation of Israel. The whole nation. So, to suddenly claim that only certain Jews actually received these things is simply wrong. Once again, the mistake of ignoring verses 1 through 5 is evident.

All we see here is that Paul is establishing that there is a sub-group within the nation of Israel. And Paul goes on to describe this sub-group:

[7] “Neither, because they are the [(physical)] seed of Abraham, are they all children:
Paul here reinforces his teaching thus far via the literary device known as “synthetic parallelism”.*

In particular, his substituting “the [(physical)] seed of Abraham” here for the second-mentioned “Israel” of v6 conveys to us in no uncertain terms the fact that the Israel with which God is not primarily concerned is one and the same as that which has proceeded physically from Abraham.

We might reasonably expect then to find that, just as “Israel” is used in reference to two very different entities, so also might “the seed of Abraham” be used in reference to two very different entities. And indeed such is the case, for in addition to what is manifestly a reference to the physical seed of Abraham here at Rom 9:7, we find elsewhere in scripture the following reference to the spiritual seed of Abraham:

“And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed” Gal 3:29

but In Isaac shall thy seed be called.”
Accordingly and in place of any argument he might otherwise provide, Paul here invokes a direct quote from the Lord to Abraham: “In Isaac shall they seed by called” (Gen 21:12), in so doing laying over the top of everything an ‘overhead transparency’, as it were, of the story of Isaac in pictorial form: it would be Isaac’s miraculous birth that would provide the conceptual template by which the bona fide children of God would be delineated: they would be they who would be “born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13): their lives would be characterised solely by the will of the Spirit.

And so it is the spiritual seed of Abraham which Paul here at Rom 9:7 implies constitutes the bona fide children of God.

He again imports his theology through citing other verses out of context and asking us to draw his conclusions without really giving us a basis for tying the two together. Same with John.

And, once again, the mistake of ignoring verses 1 through 5 is evident. Galatians is making an entirely different case than Romans 9. Remember from above that Paul is lamenting and speaking about the nation of Israel. The Jews. Those who received the law and worship and promises. Colossians, having failed to grasp this idea, wants to expand this to include all of us by citing Galatians, which is speaking of Abraham, but in a different way to a different audience.

* What is providential with regard to this exposition, is that Paul elsewhere employs synthetic parallelism with regard to the exact same topic, for at Gal 6:16 we find: “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God”, where the phrases we have underlined are in reference to one and the same group of people. But what is perhaps of even greater providence, is that at the very preceding verse (15) we find: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature”.

And now that we see Colossians error in not exegeting verses 1 through 5 that we can chuckle at another attempt to sound smart, and then coming off as having completely missed it.

[8] “That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”

Paul sums up decisively with the same as we have preempted above.

Which is to finally establish this sub-group: National Israel, to whom the promises were made and the temple services and law were given, and the sub-group of the nation of Israel, who are "children of the promise", which Paul will explore later.

And which summation is in accord with his elsewhere words:

“For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” Rom 2:28,29

: any and only those persons who will call upon the name of the Lord, regardless of genealogy and background, are in God’s eyes, Jews. No-one else qualifies for the brand name.

And, once again, Colossians wants us to read a verse from another context (which is speaking about sin and guilt before the law, not promises), and wants us to draw his conclusion. However, no basis is given for relating that context to this one.

In addition, as we read from verses 1 through 5, this discussion is about the nation of Israel, those who received the temple services, the law, and the promises. The gentiles did not receive these things.

Thus it is unmistakably clear that this “promise” is not constrained in any manner whatsoever by the flesh, either in the positive, which would have Israel of the flesh selected for salvation on the basis of the flesh, or the negative, which would have Israel of the flesh rejected from salvation on the basis of the flesh and which would therefore contradict Rom 11:2. **

** Romans 11:2 is commonly misunderstood: in declaring that God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew, Paul does not intend to relate that God favours Israel of the flesh with regard to salvation, but simply that He has not barred them from salvation. That is, and putting the matter of particular election momentarily aside, all Paul is saying at Rom 11:2 is that those who are of Israel of the flesh are no less able to come to Christ than the Gentiles.

Once again, Colossians jumps to Romans 11:2 without any discussion of any material in between, and asks us to accept his conclusion. The idea of what it means to be "of the promise" is not yet discussed by Paul. Paul has only just finished establishing that there is a sub-group, and that this sub-group is of Abraham not by birth, but by promise.

Thus, drawing this conclusion here is simply premature.

Paul's explanation begins here:

[9] “For this is the word of promise, At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son”
As if what he has thus far related were not sufficient for us, Paul reprises the matter of the miraculous: yet again he invokes a direct quote from God to Abraham, only this time that which focuses more on the faithfulness of God, for he points us again to the notion that is “promise”.

Thus we are not only led to understand that our being born again is supernatural - that it was solely by the will of God – but that with regard to our election it was never in doubt: just as God had first of all to appoint the time at which He would visit Sarah, so also He appointed the time that each of us who are born of the Spirit, would indeed be so born.


“Of His own will begat He us” James 1:18

Again, notice that Colossians wants to refer to "our being born again", failing the context of verses 1 through 5, which clearly establish that Paul is speaking of those in the nation of Israel, and not the gentiles.

And Paul has only begun to describe this sub-group and its significance.

10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

The first thing we notice is that Paul doesn't go beyond saying that the was a promise that Sarah would have a son. Paul immediately moves on to Rebekah.

I think what Paul wants us to see both with Isaac and Jacob is that neither were the firstborn, and yet because of God's choice, they were the ones through whom the promises were fulfilled. Ismael was older than Isaac. Esau the elder rather than Jacob. And Paul is drawing a parallel between this and Israel of the flesh and the children of the promise in saying "the older will serve the younger." Just as Isaac and Jacob, the younger two, were chosen by God, the New Covenant, which has been embraced by Israel of the promise, has been chosen by God to be the vehicle of Salvation rather than the Old Covenant, which defines the nation of Israel, and remains embraced by all but the sub-group.

Thus, when Paul cites God who says, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated", we see two covenants. One for salvation, and one not for salvation.

And that introduces the remainder of the chapter. One who is in the Old Covenant laments remaining there, and Paul explains how this is not unjust.

Perhaps the best picture comes back to the two pots, one prepared for wrath (Old Covenant), and one prepared for glory (New Covenant.) Suddenly all of this falls into place as we understand first that Paul is talking specifically about the nation of Israel, and the sub-group that he speaks of is only Jews who now believe in Christ.

Summary

Since we have such an epic imposition of Colossians' theology on this text, and the rendering of the first 5 verses if Romans 9 by Colossians is reduced to "blah blah blah", when it is clearly very important, the summary isn't worth examining further, as it is only a summation of material built upon errors.

[Cross Reference]

Originally Posted by Colossians

This work may be quoted within the thread, but may not be reproduced outside the thread without the express permission of the author.





________________________________________________

EXPOUNDING ROMANS 9:6-9, THE ‘GATEWAY’ TO ROMANS 9–11


In the introductory verses (1-5) of this 9th chapter of Romans, Paul laments the unregenerate state of the bulk of those who are physically descended from Abraham.


[6] “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect,
However he now at v6 turns to encouragement in a reorienting of things away from the prima facie of outward perception and instead toward that which accords with spiritual mindedness: we are about to be introduced to a far bigger picture.

And included within this we will note the very characteristic understating of the Spirit: we are not beckoned to the viewing room via that which positively declares that the word of God will have its way, but rather via the double negative – that the word of God has “not.…. taken none effect”.

Scripture is often written like this in order to more effectively invoke the hope of the reader, for the gospel seeks the “poor in spirit” (Mt 5:3), the lowly of disposition, who oft have difficulty in receiving the positive, but who will readily latch on to the same truth when expressed in the double negative. So David: “Take not thy Holy Spirit from me” (Ps 51:11); and thus the gentleness of the Holy Ghost, one who will never quench the “smoking flax” (Mt 12:20).

For they are not all [the] Israel [(of ultimate concern)], which are of Israel [(of the flesh)]:”
Paul comes quickly to the heart of the matter: the reason God’s word will achieve its purpose, is that its scope with regard to Israel of the flesh was never universal in the first place: it is implied to us here that only some of those who are of Israel of the flesh will also be members of the Israel with which God is ultimately concerned and to which therefore the word of God was actually directed.

Given then that the only alternative to a determination along fleshly lines is a determination along spiritual lines, we understand that the Israel with which God is ultimately concerned is delineated solely by the spirits within it and not at all by the flesh within which those spirits reside. Thus the implication in Jesus’ words to the Jews:

“And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” Mt 3:9

and in the more doctrinal:

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” John 3:6

What is incidental then but nevertheless worth stating, is that given that there can be no fleshly criteria by which one who calls upon the name of the Lord might be excluded from the Israel with which God is ultimately concerned, such Israel will highly likely be far greater in number than Israel of the flesh.



[7] “Neither, because they are the [(physical)] seed of Abraham, are they all children:
Paul here reinforces his teaching thus far via the literary device known as “synthetic parallelism”.*

In particular, his substituting “the [(physical)] seed of Abraham” here for the second-mentioned “Israel” of v6 conveys to us in no uncertain terms the fact that the Israel with which God is not primarily concerned is one and the same as that which has proceeded physically from Abraham.

We might reasonably expect then to find that, just as “Israel” is used in reference to two very different entities, so also might “the seed of Abraham” be used in reference to two very different entities. And indeed such is the case, for in addition to what is manifestly a reference to the physical seed of Abraham here at Rom 9:7, we find elsewhere in scripture the following reference to the spiritual seed of Abraham:

“And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed” Gal 3:29

but In Isaac shall thy seed be called.”
Accordingly and in place of any argument he might otherwise provide, Paul here invokes a direct quote from the Lord to Abraham: “In Isaac shall they seed by called” (Gen 21:12), in so doing laying over the top of everything an ‘overhead transparency’, as it were, of the story of Isaac in pictorial form: it would be Isaac’s miraculous birth that would provide the conceptual template by which the bona fide children of God would be delineated: they would be they who would be “born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13): their lives would be characterised solely by the will of the Spirit.

And so it is the spiritual seed of Abraham which Paul here at Rom 9:7 implies constitutes the bona fide children of God.

* What is providential with regard to this exposition, is that Paul elsewhere employs synthetic parallelism with regard to the exact same topic, for at Gal 6:16 we find: “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God”, where the phrases we have underlined are in reference to one and the same group of people. But what is perhaps of even greater providence, is that at the very preceding verse (15) we find: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature”.



[8] “That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”
Paul sums up decisively with the same as we have preempted above.

And which summation is in accord with his elsewhere words:

“For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” Rom 2:28,29

: any and only those persons who will call upon the name of the Lord, regardless of genealogy and background, are in God’s eyes, Jews. No-one else qualifies for the brand name.

Thus it is unmistakably clear that this “promise” is not constrained in any manner whatsoever by the flesh, either in the positive, which would have Israel of the flesh selected for salvation on the basis of the flesh, or the negative, which would have Israel of the flesh rejected from salvation on the basis of the flesh and which would therefore contradict Rom 11:2. **

** Romans 11:2 is commonly misunderstood: in declaring that God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew, Paul does not intend to relate that God favours Israel of the flesh with regard to salvation, but simply that He has not barred them from salvation. That is, and putting the matter of particular election momentarily aside, all Paul is saying at Rom 11:2 is that those who are of Israel of the flesh are no less able to come to Christ than the Gentiles.



[9] “For this is the word of promise, At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son”
As if what he has thus far related were not sufficient for us, Paul reprises the matter of the miraculous: yet again he invokes a direct quote from God to Abraham, only this time that which focuses more on the faithfulness of God, for he points us again to the notion that is “promise”.

Thus we are not only led to understand that our being born again is supernatural - that it was solely by the will of God – but that with regard to our election it was never in doubt: just as God had first of all to appoint the time at which He would visit Sarah, so also He appointed the time that each of us who are born of the Spirit, would indeed be so born.

“Of His own will begat He us” James 1:18





Summary

The Israel with which God is ultimately concerned and which Paul at Gal 6:16 calls “the Israel of God”, is that Israel which of necessity is born of the Spirit of God and not of the will of man. As such it is in no way delineated by the flesh.

For God is “the Father of spirits” (Heb 12:9).

We therefore understand that Israel of the flesh enjoys no favour with regard to the salvation of its members, and that any interpretation of scripture which ascribes such a favour to it, is necessarily errant.

Romans 9:6-9 provides the definitive hermeneutic by which we are to interpret Romans 9-11. Let us be sure we stay within the constraints it provides.

Amen.

So who's the author?

[OMEGA]

Big Words for a little man.

Does Collosianss sspeakadeeEnglishh?
---------------------------
Given then that the only alternative to a determination along fleshly lines is a determination along spiritual lines, we understand that the Israel with which God is ultimately concerned is delineated solely by the spirits within it and not at all by the flesh within which those spirits reside. Thus the implication in Jesus’ words to the Jews:
----------------------------

[Colossians]

Muzicman,

I have noted your post, and it consists merely of preclusion of Paul's argument of 9:6-9, on the basis of 9:1-5.

So you don't understand how to read.

v6-9 is not precluded by v1-5, but overrides it and subsumes it: v1-5 is essentially pushed aside by Paul in deference to the bigger picture.

But you have essentially erased v6-9. Anyone can do that. So you don't understand how to properly weight progressive argument, nor even how to identify it.

As for your idea that Galatians is speaking to a different audience than Romans, well...duh....one lot was in Galatia, and the other lot in Rome. But that is about as far as your idea carries, for both letters address the Body, and are not to be segregated by your humanist hermeneutic which wrongly divides the word.

Unless you can show by way of argument and logic that texts from certain epistles cannot be superimposed on texts from other epistles for the sake of amplification, your idea that the seed of Abraham in Galatians cannot be superimposed over the top of Rom 9:7,8, is hopeless. It is manifestly clear that the thrust of Rom 9-6-9 is identical to that of Galatians 3,4 and 5, and that aside from the fact that Gal 5 actually compares Isaac with Ishmael, referring to the first as an allegory for those in Christ, and Ishmael for those of Israel of the flesh, he being of Hagaar who represented Jerusalem.

So once again we see that you resort to mere assertions rather than argument and structured logic, and that you fail to understand that unless you refute that which is said, it stands by default. "Galatians is a different audience" doesn't cut it in this regard.

What I have written is water tight and irrefutable. Contrasting, what you have written is voluminous fluff.

Here are some samples of your fluff:



You will notice that Colossians feels the need to modify the text of Scripture to fit his theology.
And yet you don't tell us what was wrong with the parentheticals I inserted. Which means you had nothing to say but wanted to make it look like you are refuting something.



The passage is simply saying that not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.
Here you declare what I have declared, and yet imply that you are replacing what I have declared with what should be declared. Your're a slippery fellow aren't you! So once again you've said nothing, and somehow made it look like you've said something of value. Straw value.



Remember that in the first 5 verses, we established that Paul is referring specifically to the Jews, to the nation of Israel.
No kidding.

But as we have said, your implication that these 5 verses constrain the following 4, is all topsy turvey. V1-5 is merely introduced as tragedy-apparent: it is not the main course, but simply the entre, the lead up, to the big picture. Most of us have progressed past our John-and-Betty reader days Mr Muzic: journalists will also begin articles in papers just as Paul has here: they begin with an appetizer which leads into the main course.



And Paul hasn't even yet explained what he means by verse 6, and Colossians is already imposing his theology here.
Again you make it sound like you're saying something, when you're saying nothing of any argumentative value. Unless you can show that what I said was wrong, you only make yourself look sillier than you already look with this sort of synthetic indignation you commonly employ.



Any reasonable theologian is going to let Paul explain himself , rather than needing to add words to Scripture and substitute his own theology for Paul's exposition.
Er...no.

Any reasonable theologian will be able to preempt what is going to be said, otherwise he is simply a kindergarten kid learning words. Like you.

And in the very next section, I pointed out that Paul confirmed what we had preempted. And you conspicuously avoided that.




Thus, there is no basis here for claiming "determination along spiritual lines" or talking about a group with whom "God is ultimately concerned and to which therefore the word of God was actually directed."
More of your confidence tricks again.

There is indeed every reason for a determination along spiritual lines, for if the children of the flesh are not the children of God, then guess what lines the children of God are determined along!

So the point I made stands: if the determination is not along physical lines, then by default it is along spiritual lines, lest any man should boast. For God is no respecter of persons.

So we see your usual tricks in full flight: you understand the argument made, and then pretend to have defeated it by denying it. Basically you are aware that most who attend these sites are not learned, and you hope to bluff them with your high-browed synthetic pomp consisting of assertions which go nowhere.



Paul is establishing that there is a sub-group within the nation of Israel.
Actually he's not.

He's pointing out that there is a sub-group which is part of a larger spiritual entity which is not delineated by the flesh, and thus the first "Israel" mentioned in v7 is the Israel of the Spirit which is necessarily indiscriminate with regard to the flesh, and if indiscriminate with regard to the flesh, necessarily determined along spiritual lines. And that therefore your idea of a national Israel is false, for such idea constitutes a hybrid which is determined along both fleshly and spiritual lines at the same time, with the flesh competing with the spirit for preeminence. You can't have spiritual flesh, or fleshly spirit Mr Muzic: it is one or the other.






So we see that your waffle is mindless and unintelligent. You continually avoid the logic of argument, and instead replace it with simple John-and-Betty reader type paraphrasing of texts which are in fact simply precursors to and subtexts of the actual argument. So you supplant the whole with the parts thereof, and think you are going great guns, when your analysis is actually puerile and elementary.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to give you a mark of 2/10. (1 for handing in a paper, and 1 for bluff.)

As to your idea that I am trying to make myself look "smart":

1. Anyone who uses "smart" instead of "intelligent", is himself usually not too intelligent or educated. That means you.

2. If I look intelligent, it's probably because I am. So telling everyone that I am trying to look intelligent, is actually dumb: all you are doing is declaring me obviously intelligent, and in the same breath telling everyone to ignore the obvious because you say so. Which means you are not one of the intelligent.






I have no further time for you: the exposition is one of the tightest I have written, and will stand unrefuted. And that beside the fact that the exposition is to a large degree, actually redundant. For what Paul has said is really quite self-explanatory, a fact I considered before I went ahead on the work.

Your analysis apparent, is of a very low standard, and would not pass even the most elementary of academic levels.

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by Colossians

Muzicman,

I have noted your post, and it consists merely of preclusion of Paul's argument of 9:6-9, on the basis of 9:1-5.

So you don't understand how to read.

v6-9 is not precluded by v1-5, but overrides it and subsumes it: v1-5 is essentially pushed aside by Paul in deference to the bigger picture.

We ought to generally reject any argument which declares any text of scripture as overridden or subsumed by the context.

Paul wrote verses 1 through 5 for a specific purpose, as an introduction and definition to the remainder of his discussion through chapter 11. That you cannot incorporate what Paul writes in verses 1 through 5 into your systematic theology is an indicator that your systematic theology is, in fact, in error.

Thus, the remainder of your argument is invalid because you fail the exegetical test of considering context.

[andyc]

Originally Posted by themuzicman

Once again, Colossians imposes his theology on a text in order to derive his theology. Let's expose these...



This is Colossians' biggest mistake. Colossians ignores Paul's introduction to this passage. However, verses 1 through 5 are vital to understanding the discussion at hand.

So, let's go there:

9:1 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.

This is the lament. Israel as a whole is not turning to their messiah. And Paul is making it clear that he is not happy, but rather heartbroken that this is the case.

Why?

4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

Notice that Paul details eight things that are specific to the nation of Israel as formed by God with Covenant on Sinai, including the law and the worship (aka the temple services.)

All of these things combine to tell us that Paul is talking specifically about the nation of Israel, excluding the Gentiles. What is discussed here is specifically Jewish.



Of course, there is nothing here about "spiritual mindedness" or anything "inward." Nothing here about the "characteristic understating of the Spirit." These are inventions to attempt to make Colossians look smart, but any reader of this passage is going to see this as fairly meaningless to the passage as a whole. You see, Colossians misses the context of 1-5.

Paul just referred to the promises given to Israel, one of which was the New Covenant, which came through Christ, who came to them. So, the question of why Israel is not turning to Christ is a matter of question: Did God's word fail? And Paul is stating up front that, no, it has not. And this gives the setting for the discussion to follow.

So, once we examine the context, we find that all of Colossians' fancy words are simply his words and not related to what Paul is saying.



You will notice that Colossians feels the need to modify the text of Scripture to fit his theology. The words in the brackets are inserted by Colossians.

The passage is simply saying that not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Remember that in the first 5 verses, we established that Paul is referring specifically to the Jews, to the nation of Israel.

And Paul hasn't even yet explained what he means by verse 6, and Colossians is already imposing his theology here. He wants us to read Matthew and John and draw his conclusions as to whether they have influence here without providing ANY justification for tying these verses together.

Any reasonable theologian is going to let Paul explain himself, rather than needing to add words to Scripture and substitute his own theology for Paul's exposition.

Thus, there is no basis here for claiming "determination along spiritual lines" or talking about a group with whom "God is ultimately concerned and to which therefore the word of God was actually directed."

As we saw in verses 1-5, the promises, the law, the temple services, were all directed at the nation of Israel. The whole nation. So, to suddenly claim that only certain Jews actually received these things is simply wrong. Once again, the mistake of ignoring verses 1 through 5 is evident.

All we see here is that Paul is establishing that there is a sub-group within the nation of Israel. And Paul goes on to describe this sub-group:




He again imports his theology through citing other verses out of context and asking us to draw his conclusions without really giving us a basis for tying the two together. Same with John.

And, once again, the mistake of ignoring verses 1 through 5 is evident. Galatians is making an entirely different case than Romans 9. Remember from above that Paul is lamenting and speaking about the nation of Israel. The Jews. Those who received the law and worship and promises. Colossians, having failed to grasp this idea, wants to expand this to include all of us by citing Galatians, which is speaking of Abraham, but in a different way to a different audience.




And now that we see Colossians error in not exegeting verses 1 through 5 that we can chuckle at another attempt to sound smart, and then coming off as having completely missed it.



Which is to finally establish this sub-group: National Israel, to whom the promises were made and the temple services and law were given, and the sub-group of the nation of Israel, who are "children of the promise", which Paul will explore later.



And, once again, Colossians wants us to read a verse from another context (which is speaking about sin and guilt before the law, not promises), and wants us to draw his conclusion. However, no basis is given for relating that context to this one.

In addition, as we read from verses 1 through 5, this discussion is about the nation of Israel, those who received the temple services, the law, and the promises. The gentiles did not receive these things.



Once again, Colossians jumps to Romans 11:2 without any discussion of any material in between, and asks us to accept his conclusion. The idea of what it means to be "of the promise" is not yet discussed by Paul. Paul has only just finished establishing that there is a sub-group, and that this sub-group is of Abraham not by birth, but by promise.

Thus, drawing this conclusion here is simply premature.

Paul's explanation begins here:



Again, notice that Colossians wants to refer to "our being born again", failing the context of verses 1 through 5, which clearly establish that Paul is speaking of those in the nation of Israel, and not the gentiles.

And Paul has only begun to describe this sub-group and its significance.

10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

The first thing we notice is that Paul doesn't go beyond saying that the was a promise that Sarah would have a son. Paul immediately moves on to Rebekah.

I think what Paul wants us to see both with Isaac and Jacob is that neither were the firstborn, and yet because of God's choice, they were the ones through whom the promises were fulfilled. Ismael was older than Isaac. Esau the elder rather than Jacob. And Paul is drawing a parallel between this and Israel of the flesh and the children of the promise in saying "the older will serve the younger." Just as Isaac and Jacob, the younger two, were chosen by God, the New Covenant, which has been embraced by Israel of the promise, has been chosen by God to be the vehicle of Salvation rather than the Old Covenant, which defines the nation of Israel, and remains embraced by all but the sub-group.

Thus, when Paul cites God who says, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated", we see two covenants. One for salvation, and one not for salvation.

And that introduces the remainder of the chapter. One who is in the Old Covenant laments remaining there, and Paul explains how this is not unjust.

Perhaps the best picture comes back to the two pots, one prepared for wrath (Old Covenant), and one prepared for glory (New Covenant.) Suddenly all of this falls into place as we understand first that Paul is talking specifically about the nation of Israel, and the sub-group that he speaks of is only Jews who now believe in Christ.



Since we have such an epic imposition of Colossians' theology on this text, and the rendering of the first 5 verses if Romans 9 by Colossians is reduced to "blah blah blah", when it is clearly very important, the summary isn't worth examining further, as it is only a summation of material built upon errors.

I can't understand your gripe here. Colossians hasn't done anything different than what you would find in commentaries around the world. It is every believer's privilege to teach on any given passage, and I can't see anything wrong with the points he made.

There is a physical and spiritual Israel. Those who are believers are the spiritual seed of Abraham, and the bible tells us that the physical seed of Abraham who are defiant shall be cut off. Those who are of faith are the elect, and as Colossians explained, it is the elect that God was after right from the beginning.

Popular theologians like John Gill, Matthew Henry, Jamieson Fausset Brown etc would all give similar explanations of the passage to what Colossians gave. Although he can be controversial in some of his points, he isnt here. Its straightforward stuff he's explaining in this thread.

The "ultimate concern" that Colossians put in brackets within the text (that repulsed you), was simply his way of pointing out that there is a more significant Israel in the eternal plan of God than simply the physical seed of Abraham. There was nothing wrong with this.

[andyc]

Originally Posted by themuzicman

We ought to generally reject any argument which declares any text of scripture as overridden or subsumed by the context.

Paul wrote verses 1 through 5 for a specific purpose, as an introduction and definition to the remainder of his discussion through chapter 11. That you cannot incorporate what Paul writes in verses 1 through 5 into your systematic theology is an indicator that your systematic theology is, in fact, in error.

Thus, the remainder of your argument is invalid because you fail the exegetical test of considering context.

Paul's heartache at the unbelief of his brethren according to the flesh, is put in proper context when he proceeds to talk about the real Israel that matters most to God - those of the household of faith.
It looks to me that you have not actually sat and digested the OP, but have been too eager to find flaws in the poster.

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by andyc

Paul's heartache at the unbelief of his brethren according to the flesh, is put in proper context when he proceeds to talk about the real Israel that matters most to God - those of the household of faith.
It looks to me that you have not actually sat and digested the OP, but have been too eager to find flaws in the poster.

I disagree. Paul begins with a lament, but this lament is in no way disconnected from what follows. Paul doesn't make random insertions into his letters. Verses 1 through 5 are as much of Paul's argument in 9-11 as any other content. Indeed, the question of whether God is unjust comes from the very lament Paul reveals. We cannot simply say that a portion of Scripture is subsumed or overridden by context that immediately follows. That's a denial of inerrancy.

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by andyc

I can't understand your gripe here. Colossians hasn't done anything different than what you would find in commentaries around the world. It is every believer's privilege to teach on any given passage, and I can't see anything wrong with the points he made.

You didn't ready my reply.

There is a physical and spiritual Israel. Those who are believers are the spiritual seed of Abraham, and the bible tells us that the physical seed of Abraham who are defiant shall be cut off. Those who are of faith are the elect, and as Colossians explained, it is the elect that God was after right from the beginning.

Again, this ignores verses 1 through 5, which limit the discussion to the nation of Israel.

Popular theologians like John Gill, Matthew Henry, Jamieson Fausset Brown etc would all give similar explanations of the passage to what Colossians gave. Although he can be controversial in some of his points, he isnt here. Its straightforward stuff he's explaining in this thread.

And all of these men are defending Calvinism. Their view of Scripture is shaped by their need to support and defend that systematic theology. Collosians has the same issue.

The "ultimate concern" that Colossians put in brackets within the text (that repulsed you), was simply his way of pointing out that there is a more significant Israel in the eternal plan of God than simply the physical seed of Abraham. There was nothing wrong with this.

And, while this is very Calvinistic, it isn't what Paul is saying at all. That's what I was pointing out in his entire post. By ignoring Paul's context and adoption a Calvinist context, the meaning of these three chapters are altered away from the text's intent.

And that's why I reply.

[andyc]

Originally Posted by themuzicman

I disagree. Paul begins with a lament, but this lament is in no way disconnected from what follows. Paul doesn't make random insertions into his letters. Verses 1 through 5 are as much of Paul's argument in 9-11 as any other content. Indeed, the question of whether God is unjust comes from the very lament Paul reveals. We cannot simply say that a portion of Scripture is subsumed or overridden by context that immediately follows. That's a denial of inerrancy.

Paul's point was help his readers understand that the children of the flesh are not the children of God. Being a physical descendant of Abraham accounts for nothing from an eternal perspective (the flesh accounts for nothing).

It is in Isaac that Abraham's seed shall be reckoned. And the promise was that Abraham would be a father of many nations. So the children of promise are not Jews from a physical perspective, but a spiritual perspective. When we understand this, the lament is put into perspective. However grand physical Israel was, it was only a temporal arrangement in a far greater eternal plan.

Originally Posted by themuzicman

You didn't ready my reply.

Yes I did.

Again, this ignores verses 1 through 5, which limit the discussion to the nation of Israel.

Colossians didn't deny this.

And all of these men are defending Calvinism. Their view of Scripture is shaped by their need to support and defend that systematic theology. Collosians has the same issue.

I do not agree with the Calvinist elements of his views, just as I do not agree with your open view ideas, but this is not what his OP was about. He's really targeting dispensationalists who insist on giving physical Israel some kind of future significance.

And, while this is very Calvinistic, it isn't what Paul is saying at all. That's what I was pointing out in his entire post.

Arminianists also believe in the predestination of the elect, but not as predetermined by God.

By ignoring Paul's context and adoption a Calvinist context, the meaning of these three chapters are altered away from the text's intent.

And that's why I reply.

He used this passage to remove the significance of the flesh in how people relate to God. There is no Jew or gentile, and from an eternal perspective there never has been. Only those who are of faith are Abraham's seed.

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by andyc

Paul's point was help his readers understand that the children of the flesh are not the children of God. Being a physical descendant of Abraham accounts for nothing from an eternal perspective (the flesh accounts for nothing).

Huh? No, it's not. Paul's point is that God is not unjust, in spite of the fact that the bulk of the nation of Israel has not come into the promise of the New Covenant, in spite of being the very entity to whom the promise was made.

Read verses 4 and 5 again. They are the basis for the statement made in verse 6. Why would Paul need to say that the Word of God had not failed? Because the nation of Israel is the one who received the law, the temple services, and the promises

This is why I say that you didn't read my post.

Why else would Paul make the first statement of verse 6?

It is in Isaac that Abraham's seed shall be reckoned. And the promise was that Abraham would be a father of many nations. So the children of promise are not Jews from a physical perspective, but a spiritual perspective. When we understand this, the lament is put into perspective. However grand physical Israel was, it was only a temporal arrangement in a far greater eternal plan.

Again, you've made the same error as Collosians. When you ignore verses 1 through 5, this is the error you make.

Paul's discussion here isn't about the Church. It's about Israel and whether God's word has failed with respect to God's interaction with Israel in history.

Yes I did.

Then you did not understand it.

Colossians didn't deny this.

Um.. yes, he did. He said that verses 1 through 5 are subsumed and overridden by verse 6. And you do the same.

I do not agree with the Calvinist elements of his views, just as I do not agree with your open view ideas, but this is not what his OP was about. He's really targeting dispensationalists who insist on giving physical Israel some kind of future significance.

Then he needs to do a better job, because his exegesis is very poor.

He used this passage to remove the significance of the flesh in how people relate to God. There is no Jew or gentile, and from an eternal perspective there never has been. Only those who are of faith are Abraham's seed.

How you can read verse 4, 5 and 6 and make this claim is a mystery. Paul's discussion here is about Israel and Israel alone until we get to verse 24. The promises and law and temple services were not given to the gentiles, so there is no question with respect to unsaved gentiles as to whether God's word failed.

[Colossians]

A couple of logical points the pro-Israel-of-the-flesh camp don't seem to think about:


1. All of Israel of the flesh were, apart from those who were proselytes, born of Isaac. For they were all of Jacob, who was all of Isaac. (Unless Jacob's arms and legs came out of Rebecca and the rest of him out of another woman, which is unlikely.)

So when Paul then tells us that people who shall be saved shall be so because they are "in Isaac", we necessarily understand this to be not speaking of physical descent, but rather that it is a metaphor relating to us the fact that any who are in Christ are not selected on the basis of who they are physically descended from, but are saved despite themselves and saved miraculously.

The passage of Paul is so clear in this regard it is mind-bending to think that anyone could come up with another rendering. How much clearer does one have to be than "the children of the flesh are not the children of God"?





2. The idea of a national Israel all being saved is simply not possible, nor even verifiable if it were possible. This is because Israeli nationality includes atheists, Satanist, Muslims, secular Jews, Hasidic Jews, liberal Jews, Orthodox Jews, Scientologists, Italian-Israelis, Americano-Israelis, Anglo-Israelis, new born babies, toddlers, teenagers addicted to heroin, unborn babies in the womb, Musad agents on overseas assignments, Israeli diplomates living in Argentina, Isaelis who have sinned against the Holy Spirit and who are therefore unsaveable, etc etc.

The list is endless.





3. Putting Calvinism aside for a moment, those who usually believe in this "God will save Israel as a nation" idea, also believe in free will. So how on earth could God guarantee the saving of any national group, if they can only be saved via the invocation of their own individual free wills anyway? And so ironically here, those who believe such an idea have all of a sudden become determinists/Calvinists.





4. Why on earth would God delay saving the nation of Israel now, in deference to some group of Israelis down the track? Are not the people who live in Israel today just as important as those who will live there in the future? Why the discrimination? What's the benefit of the salvation of future Israelis, to the current Israelis? How will it make the fires of hell any more comfortable for them knowing that their great grand children got saved?





And so we see that those who hold to said view have not thought further than their noses.