I heard a sermon yesterday on Ecclesiastes 8:1-9. Verse 2 says I say, “Keep the command of the king because of the oath before God. (NASB) The sermon observed that this passage was about seeing wisdom in the world and that one primary effect of having wisdom is submission to authority. If you go to the…
Month: July 2017
Romans 13 – Where is the Exception? — Reformed Libertarian Blog
The following is from Douglas Moo’s NIV Application Commentary on Romans. Where is the exception? As we noted above, the key question most of us ask when we come to Romans 13 is not “What does it mean?” but “Where is the exception?” Since it is taught so consistently in Scripture, we do not have…
via Romans 13 – Where is the Exception? — Reformed Libertarian Blog
A Twitter Exchange on Galatians 3:16
Galatians 3:16 is not an easy verse to understand. It has stumped many, many theologians. Paul’s argument, however, is actually very simple. He is making a distinction between the seed in Genesis 13:15 & 17:8 and the seed in Genesis 22:18. And he is, thereby, making a distinction between the promise made to the seed in 13:15 and 17:8 and the promise made to the seed in Genesis 22:18. The promise that in Abraham’s offspring (singular) all nations of the earth shall be blessed (note Gal 3:8) is different from the promise that Abraham’s offspring (plural) will inherit the land of Canaan. To see this argued and explained more fully, please see here.
The following was an exchange with Brad Mason (Heart & Mouth blog). I thought it was useful in showing 1) that the paedobaptist has no coherent, logical explanation for how Paul could possibly be making an argument from the text of Genesis, and 2) that their argument that all Abrahamic promises were only made to Christ contradicts their claim that the Abrahamic promises were made to Abraham’s children, and thus to ours. Note Paul’s logic:
- P1 The “offspring” in the text under discussion cannot mean both offspring plural and offspring singular (law of contradiction & law of excluded middle).
- P2 The text says offspring singular.
- C Therefore the text does not say offspring plural.
The paedobaptist simply cannot affirm Paul’s syllogism (as we see below).
I did my best to format this to make it readable.
Who was the Abe Cov’t made with? Christ (Gal. 3:19). What was the sign of this Cov’t? Circumcision. Circumcision was the OT sign of Christ.
Brandon Adams @brandon_adams 3h3 hours ago
I’m assuming that’s a typo and you meant Gal 3:16?
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 3h3 hours ago
Riffin’ off of 19, “until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made”
Brandon Adams @brandon_adams 3h3 hours ago
So, just to be clear, you would say that the promise of Gen 17:7-8 was made to Christ, not to Abraham’s children?
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 3h3 hours ago
To his children, by means of the Mediator, Christ.
Brandon Adams @brandon_adams 3h3 hours ago
Paul’s argument in v16 rests on mutual exclusivity. Was it made to Abraham’s children (plural) or to Abraham’s child (Christ)?
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 3h3 hours ago
To Christ, and through Christ to Abe’s children, or also Paul contradicts himself in Rom 4, or Moses is wrong in Gen. 17.
Brandon Adams @brandon_adams 3h3 hours ago
So the promise says both “and to offsprings” referring to many, and “to your offspring” (singular) referring to Christ?
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 3h3 hours ago
Paul’s point is not that the promises were not to Abe’s offspring, or we’d have hundreds of false statements in the Bible, even from Paul…
.. His point is that Christ is the primary recipient of these promises, and that He is the means to all the plural offspring receiving…..
…the promises, and therefore receiving the “sign” of the promises.
Brandon Adams @brandon_adams 3h3 hours ago
What is Paul denying in v16? “It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many,”
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 3h3 hours ago
Not himself, God, or Moses, that’s for sure.
Brandon Adams @brandon_adams 19 hours ago
What is Paul denying in v16? “It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many,”
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 2h2 hours ago
It seems clear to me that we either have to assume Paul contradicts himself, Moses contradicts himself, or that the point is that Christ …
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 2h2 hours ago
…is and always was the sole means of anyone receiving the promise.
Brandon Adams @brandon_adams 2h2 hours ago
It seems to me you can’t answer the question. What is Paul denying in v16? “It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many,”
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 2h2 hours ago
It is obvious he is denying plural; what is not as obvious is what he is intending to mean by this, given that he himself often uses plural.
Brandon Adams @brandon_adams 2h2 hours ago
Is Paul making an argument from the text of Genesis?
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 2h2 hours ago
Gen 13:15 (very next verse identifies the seed as numerous as the stars and sand)
Brandon Adams @brandon_adams 1h1 hour ago
What is Paul denying Genesis 13:15 says?
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 1h1 hour ago
I don’t think he is. In vs. 8 he quotes Gen. 22:18. I think is welding them to make the point that the plural is and always was via the….
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 1h1 hour ago
…singular, Ot and NT. Ergo, Gentiles are not excluded, which was his point from ch. 2 on.
Brandon Adams @brandon_adams 1h1 hour ago
What text is Paul referring to when he says
“It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many,”
?
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 1h1 hour ago
Closest would be Gen. 22:18, though cannot be abstracted from the others and he does not specify.
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 1h1 hour ago
How about I go Socratic. Do you think his point was to exclude the plural seeds from the promises expressly given to them?
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 1h1 hour ago
Is his point still Gentile inclusion as in tge first half of tge chapter, or has he changed his point?
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 1h1 hour ago
Does he call the plural seed sons but under a guardian in the same context because he is attempting to exclude them?
Brandon Adams @brandon_adams 1h1 hour ago
What is Paul denying Gen 22:18 says?
“It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many,”
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 1h1 hour ago
That the promises are not via Israel, such that the Gentiles need to be circumcised to recieve them. The promises, OT and NT, are via Christ
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 1h1 hour ago
The Jews made themselves the door to the Gentiles. That is why Paul wrote the letter.
Brandon Adams @brandon_adams 1h1 hour ago
You’re not answering the ?. What is Paul denying Gen 22:18, specifically, says?
“It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many,”
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 1h1 hour ago
Is his point still Gentile inclusion as in the first half of the chapter, or has he changed his point?
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 1h1 hour ago
Does he call the plural seed sons but under a guardian in the same context because he is attempting to exclude them?
Brandon Adams @brandon_adams 1h1 hour ago
You keep jumping 15 steps ahead. Slow down. Let me help:
Paul is denying that “offspring” in Gen 22:18 is a plurality. Agree?
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 1h1 hour ago
As I have said, yes.
Brandon Adams @brandon_adams 1h1 hour ago
So the original text of Gen 22:18 refers to a single descendant. But the text of 13:15 and 17:8 refer to a plurality of descendants. Agree?
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 59m59 minutes ago
No. I think all of them are speaking of a plurality via a singular. Can’t separate Gen 22 from 12, 13, 15, and 17, & especially not Rom 4:16
Brandon Adams @brandon_adams 54m54 minutes ago
So Paul is not making an argument about what the text of Genesis says?
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 52m52 minutes ago
He is making an argument from Gen, taking the collective term as singular, w/out thereby excluding the plural and contradicting himself …
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 52m52 minutes ago
…and the texts from Moses.
Brandon Adams @brandon_adams 51m51 minutes ago
So when he denies that it is plural, he is not denying that it is plural?
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 50m50 minutes ago
He is saying that the collective is summed up in the singular, who is Christ. Or he is contradicting himself and Moses.
Brandon Adams @brandon_adams 45m45 minutes ago
The collective is summed up in the singular, such that the two are not mutually exclusive? Text is both singular and plural?
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 43m43 minutes ago
It is, and treated as such by both Moses and Paul.
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 17m17 minutes ago
And the original point was that Gal 3:19 says the promise was made to Christ, and the children of Abraham recieved the sign of Christ.
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 16m16 minutes ago
The intricacies of how Paul uses the singular/plural is beside the point, especially since I began the argument by saying that the promise..
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 17 hours ago
…was to Christ. That was a premise of my argument. If that’s where you want to land, we are already there. The difficulty of how Paul ….
…uses a singular collective term to get there is just another discussion. We’re already there!
Brandon Adams @brandon_adams 15m15 minutes ago
lol. No brother, it’s the entire point.
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 13m13 minutes ago
You’re not hearing me. I’ve granted from the start that the promise was to Christ. So, start there and make your point. I’m not willing….
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 12m12 minutes ago
…to involve Paul or Moses in contradictions in order to interpret his path to the singular, especially since it has been granted from ….
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 12m12 minutes ago
…the start.
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 17 hours ago
I suppose we could have this same discussion from Rom 4 which uses plural seed throughout and to much the same end.
Brandon Adams @brandon_adams 4m4 minutes ago
1. Paul’s argument from the grammar of singular vs plural is not “beside the point.” It is very much the point.
Brandon Adams @brandon_adams 4m4 minutes ago
2. “Or he is contradicting himself and Moses” Your assumptions are severely stunting your analysis.
Brandon Adams @brandon_adams 4m4 minutes ago
3. In the original text, Gen 22:18 refers to a single offspring, unlike 13:15 and 17:8 https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tb/seed_alexander.pdf and https://www.academia.edu/5312741/_Galatians_3_16_What_kind_of_exegete_was_Paul_
Brandon Adams @brandon_adams 3m3 minutes ago
4. Thus Paul is making an argument about the promise to bless all nations (Christ) vs the promise of Canaan (Israel).
5. Israel and the land of Canaan are applied typologically to speak of Abe’s spiritual offspring & heaven.
Brad Mason @AlsoACarpenter 17 hours ago
None of that is in Galatians, nor does Paul conclude that from his arguments, nor is that what he is arguing for. You have imported all …
…of that into the text. Paul is making a specific argument in those chapters, and never says any of that. It is about Jew & Gentile and…
…the place and purpose of the Law, explicitly.
At the very least, you cannot say you understand Paul’s argument if you come to completely different conclusions than does Paul.
Brandon Adams @brandon_adams 32 minutes ago
1. Since you have no explanation of Paul’s line of argumentation regarding plural vs singular, you have no leg to stand on brother.
2. This is the only logical and grammatically possible explanation for Paul’s argument that has been offered
Brandon Adams @brandon_adams 34 minutes ago
3. The OT scholars I linked to who make this argument were not importing 1689 Fed. They were just reading the text.
4. All of what I said is in Galatians, and yes Paul does conclude that (see 4:21-31). Thank you for the exchange. It has been useful.
Samuel Renihan on New Covenant Union
In Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology and Biblical Theology (found in the volume Recovering a Covenantal Heritage), Micah and Samuel Renihan explain New Covenant union with Christ.
Jesus Christ has been and always will be the federal head of the covenant of grace/New Covenant. To be federally united to him you must be 1) promised to him outside of time in the covenant of redemption and 2) brought into union with him in time by the Holy Spirit.
The Son was the one elected by the Father to win the redemption of the elect. All of this is accomplished in the New Covenant, which is the historical climax of the covenant of grace. To be in the covenant of grace/New Covenant, you must be united to Christ, its federal head.17
Since the covenant of grace is the retro-active application of the New Covenant, if we posit that Christ is the mediator of the covenant of grace, we can only understand the terms of his role as mediator, and our relation to him as such, through the way that he is presented in the New Covenant. That Christ is the mediator of the covenant of grace, the New Covenant, no Reformed theologian denies. Thus, in line with New Testament doctrine, the only way to be under Christ’s federal headship is to be united to him by the Holy Spirit. This union finds its roots outside of time as we are chosen in Christ in the covenant of redemption and is applied to the elect in time by the Spirit, begun in effectual calling and consummated in the faith of the believer. Apart from saving faith there can be no union with Christ, because the Spirit does not indwell any except the elect, those who have been justified by faith.18 Christ is the one and only federal head of the covenant of grace, the New Covenant. Federal headship is never mediate, thus none can enter the covenant other than those who are directly or immediately under his federal headship by the Holy Spirit.19
17 Cf. WLC 57-59.
18 Cf. Acts 2:38, Eph. 1:13.
19 Cf. WLC 65-69.
[…]
To bring this to a conclusion, a right understanding of the membership of the covenant of grace is founded on the covenant of redemption and the New Covenant. Those who are in the covenant of grace are those who were promised to the Son by the Father in the covenant of redemption, won by the Son’s life, death, and resurrection, and sealed by the Holy Spirit, uniting them to their federal head, Jesus Christ. Laying claim to Christ and his benefits is a serious matter, and as Scripture shows, only those who have saving faith can truly make that claim. There is no external federal relation to Jesus Christ. In terms of membership or qualification, there are no distinctions in the body of Christ, that is, the church. All are sons of God through faith, under one head, indwelt by one Spirit. “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him” (Rom. 8:9). In spite of the false professions, unbelief, and lies of apostates, God knows his own, Christ knows his sheep, and the Spirit of adoption knows the children of God.26 The covenant people of God are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession” (1 Pet. 2:9). The glorious New Covenant does not look to the Old for its pattern and people but stands on the eternal foundation of the covenant of redemption and comes to the elect as a covenant of grace, purchased, mediated, and eternally kept by “our great God and savior Jesus Christ who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people” (Titus 2:14).
26 Cf. 2 Tim. 2:19, John 10:27, Matt. 7:15-23, Rom. 8:16.
See also:
Contrast 