For part one of this study, click here: https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2024/11/is-body-of-christ-under-new-covenant.html
Objections considered
Objection: Although it was promised that the new covenant would be made with “the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Jer 31:31), believers among the nations (i.e., gentiles in the body of Christ) benefit right now from some of the blessings of the new covenant—such as the forgiveness of offenses/sins (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14) and the indwelling of the holy spirit (Rom. 8:9-11; 1 Cor. 3:16; Eph. 1:13-14).
Response: The assumption on which this objection is based is that, because God promised to forgive the sins of his covenant people, Israel, it follows that having one’s sins forgiven is, in itself, a “new covenant blessing.” But that’s not the case. The blessing that’s being promised in the new covenant is the forgiveness of Israel’s sins (not the forgiveness of the sins of those among the nations). Similarly, God promised to give Israel – and not the nations – a “new heart and new spirit” (such that God’s laws are imparted to their comprehension and inscribed on their hearts).
In other words, the promise of the new covenant is not simply “forgiveness of sins” in a general sense. It’s not the promise that anyone’s sins can be forgiven (whether they’re Jewish or not), or the promise that the sins of an ethnically diverse group of people (consisting of Jews and gentiles) will be forgiven; it’s specifically the promise of forgiveness of sins for Israel.
God has no covenant-based obligation to forgive the sins of those among the nations, or to indwell gentiles with his holy spirit. Thus, when God forgives the sins of gentiles and causes his holy spirit to dwell within them (which occurs whenever someone is given the faith to believe the evangel of the grace of God, and thus become a member of the body of Christ), God is acting apart from the new covenant (and not in accord with it). It is as an expression of his super-abundant grace that God is giving spiritual blessings to gentiles at this present time (i.e., those chosen to be members of the body of Christ), and not as an expression of his promise-keeping faithfulness to those with whom he’s going to be concluding a new covenant (i.e., his covenant people, Israel).
Objection: The fact that those in the body of Christ can participate in “the Lord’s dinner” (1 Cor. 11:23-26) indicates that they are spiritual beneficiaries of the new covenant that was inaugurated by Christ.”
Response: Here’s how 1 Cor. 11:23-26 reads in the CLNT:
Then, at your coming together in the same place, it is not to be eating the Lord's dinner, for each one is getting his own dinner before in the eating, and one, indeed, is hungry, yet one is drunk. For have you no homes at all in which to eat and drink? Or are you despising the ecclesia of God, and mortifying those who have nothing? What may I be saying to you? Shall I be applauding you in this? I am not applauding.
For I accepted from the Lord, what I give over also to you, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which He was given up, took bread, and giving thanks, breaks it and said, “This is My body, broken for your sakes. This do for a recollection of Me.” Similarly, the cup also, after dining, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you are drinking, for a recollection of Me.” For as often as you are eating this bread and drinking this cup, you are announcing the Lord's death until He should be coming.
In this passage we read that Paul accepted certain information “from the Lord” – that is, the information that was revealed to Paul came directly from the ascended, glorified Christ (and not from some other source, such as one of the twelve apostles). And the information that Paul received from Christ pertains to what took place during the meal that Christ shared with his disciples on the night that he was arrested (1 Cor. 11:23).
Some have claimed that the Lord’s dinner in which the saints in Corinth participated was the Passover feast. However, there are several considerations that show this position to be mistaken. We know, for example, that there were uncircumcised gentiles in the Corinthian ecclesia, and that some of these believing gentiles (perhaps even most) were formerly idol-worshippers. However, we know from Exodus 12:43-48 that uncircumcised gentiles were not allowed to participate in Israel’s Passover feast (although the imagery that Paul used in 1 Cor. 5:6-8 is derived from Israel’s Passover, Paul was clearly speaking figuratively here; the “Passover” of which he wrote refers to Christ, “leaven” is a figurative way of referring to wicked conduct, and the “festival” likely refers to their regular gatherings/assemblies). In addition to this fact, it’s implied that the meal that Paul had in view was not an annual event only (as was Israel’s Passover feast); instead, it was something that occurred (or, at least, was supposed to occur) whenever the saints came together to eat (1 Cor. 11:33-34).[i]
Now, based on what Christ himself declared on this night (and which Paul quoted him as saying), what would the twelve disciples have understood – or eventually come to understand – concerning Jesus’ death? Well, in Matthew 26:27-28, we read that, after Christ took a wine-filled cup and gave thanks to God, he then gave it to his disciples, saying, “Drink of it all, for this is my blood of the new covenant, that is shed for many for the pardon of sins.”
Here we find that Christ understood there to have been a connection between his death and “the new covenant.” But what was/is that connection? Based on what Christ himself declared on this night (and which Paul quotes him as saying), that which the twelve disciples would’ve understood at this time concerning Jesus’ death was that it was the basis for the new covenant between God and Israel, and the means by which Christ became the Mediator of this covenant (see also Heb. 7:22, 8:6, 10:29, 12:24, 13:20). This was the extent of the meaning that Jesus’ words and actions on that night would’ve had for them.
However, by the time Paul began heralding his evangel among the nations, he knew something about Christ’s death that the twelve apostles didn’t understand at that time, and which gave the Lord’s dinner a whole new meaning and significance for the body of Christ. The most obvious is that, because of Christ’s death, the sins of all mankind are going to be eliminated as a source of condemnation, and all mankind are going to be justified (which is the truth that’s being revealed in the first element of the evangel of the grace of God – i.e., that “Christ died for our sins”). And since those in the body of Christ are the first to benefit from what Christ accomplished for all mankind, Christ’s death has a special significance to us.
In fact, it’s because of Christ’s death that there even is a company of saints that can be referred to as “the body of Christ.” For the spiritual union that we have with Christ – and which makes us members of “the ecclesia that is his body” – is only possible because of Christ’s death. And insofar as this is the case, the Lord’s dinner – through which believers are “announcing the Lord's death until He should be coming” – also signifies our spiritual unity as members of Christ’s body. In accord with this fact, Paul wrote the following in 1 Cor. 10:16-17:
“The cup of blessing which we are blessing, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we are breaking, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, who are many, are one bread, one body, for we are all partaking of the one bread.”
The “one body” to which Paul was referring here is, of course, a reference to that company of saints that Paul elsewhere called “the body of Christ” and “the ecclesia which is [Christ’s] body.” Paul went on to refer to the means by which those to whom he wrote had become members of this “one body” of Christ as being a spiritual baptism:
“For in one spirit also we all are baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and all are made to imbibe one spirit” (1 Cor. 12:12-13).
See also Romans 6:3-10, where we find a further description of the status of those spiritually baptized into the body of Christ. Whether circumcised or uncircumcised, every member of the body of Christ has been reconciled “in one body to God through the cross” (Eph. 2:13-18). We are “now justified in [Christ’s] blood,” “conciliated to God through the death of His Son,” and “shall be saved from indignation, through Him” (Rom. 5:6-11). Because of our spiritual union with the One who “gave himself for our sins,” we who are members of Christ’s body will be extricated “out of this present wicked eon” and thus rescued by Christ “out of the coming indignation” so that “we should be living at the same time together with Him” (Gal. 1:4; 1 Thess. 1:10; 5:9-10).
From everything said above, it’s evident that the death of Christ has a far greater significance for those in the body of Christ than was made known by Christ during his earthly ministry, and as heralded by the twelve apostles after the events of Pentecost. When, by taking part in the Lord’s Dinner, we are “announcing the Lord’s death until his coming,” it’s not merely Christ’s death as the basis for the new covenant that we’re announcing. Rather, it’s Christ’s death as (1) the basis on which the sins of all mankind will be forgiven (and all mankind will be justified) and (2) the basis on which we who’ve been called through Paul’s gospel have been justified and reconciled to God “in one body,” and given an expectation that is completely distinct from Israel’s covenant-based expectation (i.e., eonian life “in the heavens” and “among the celestials”).
Moreover, the “coming” of the Lord that Paul had in mind is not Christ’s return to the earth to restore the kingdom to Israel (i.e., when he descends to the Mount of Olives); rather, it’s the coming of Christ that will involve our snatched away to meet Christ in the air so that we may “always be together with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:15-17). It is, in other words, the coming of Christ that will involve our being vivified and transformed into celestial beings (1 Cor. 15:47-53; Phil. 3:21), and thus made fit for our eonian life “in the heavens” (2 Cor. 5:1-2) where we’ll be “at home with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:6-10).
But what is the Lord’s dinner, as referred to by Paul? It was (and is), I believe, simply this: a shared meal between members of the body of Christ when we come together “in the same place” to fellowship with one another. Whenever this occurs – and there is an endeavor to “keep the unity of the spirit” (Eph. 4:2-4) – our eating and drinking together is the Lord’s dinner (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16-17). Through the sharing of a meal in a way that displays this unity, those who’ve been justified in Christ’s blood and reconciled “in one body to God through the cross” are “announcing the Lord’s death until He should be coming” (1 Cor. 11:26). However, to the extent that disunity characterizes the gathering together of the saints in the body of Christ – and the ecclesia of God is “despised” through selfish, unloving behavior (vv. 21-22) – the Lord’s dinner is not being eaten.[ii]
Objection: Paul and his co-laborers were dispensing the new covenant (2 Cor. 3:6). This means that those to whom he was dispensing this covenant are the beneficiaries of it.
As argued in part one, the new covenant is, by definition, a covenant between God and Israel (and which God will, in the future, be concluding with Israel). However, this means that Paul couldn’t have understood himself as having been “dispensing” this covenant to those whom he elsewhere identified as “the nations” (Rom. 11:11-13, 25), and who comprised “all the ecclesias of the nations” (Rom. 16:4). Those who comprised these “ecclesias of the nations” are not (and never will be) included among the people with whom God promised to conclude a new covenant (“the house of Israel”). So what did Paul mean in 2 Corinthians 3:6?
Here’s how this verse reads in the CLNT:
“[God] also makes us competent dispensers of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter is killing, yet the spirit is vivifying.”
By “us” in this verse Paul meant himself, Silvanus and Timothy. In 2 Cor. 1:18-22 we read the following:
“Now God is faithful, for our word toward you is not "Yes" and "No," for the Son of God, Jesus Christ, Who is being heralded among you through us -- through me and Silvanus and Timothy -- became not "Yes" and "No," but in Him has become "Yes." For whatever promises are of God, are in Him "Yes." Wherefore through Him also is the "Amen" to God, for glory, through us. Now He Who is confirming us together with you in Christ, and anoints us, is God, Who also seals us and is giving the earnest of the spirit in our hearts.”
When Paul went on to refer to himself and his co-laborers as being dispensers “of a new covenant” in 3:6, the more immediate context of this verse (as well as the larger context of everything Paul wrote his letters) indicates that Paul was using metaphorical language to refer to the “word” concerning Jesus Christ that was being heralded by Paul, Silvanus and Timothy. And what “word” was this? Answer: it was the evangel of the Uncircumcision, which had been entrusted to Paul. In fact, Paul actually referred to himself elsewhere as the “dispenser” of this evangel:
Eph. 3:6-7
“…in spirit the nations are to be joint enjoyers of an allotment, and a joint body, and joint partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus, through the evangel of which I became the dispenser...”
Col. 1:23
“…since surely you are persisting in the faith, grounded and settled and are not being removed from the expectation of the evangel which you hear, which is being heralded in the entire creation which is under heaven of which I, Paul, became the dispenser.”
Based on the above considerations, we can reasonably conclude that, when Paul referred to “a new covenant” in 2 Cor. 3:6, he was figuratively referring to the evangel of which he’d been made the dispenser (and which certain other qualified men were helping him dispense among the nations). But why would Paul metaphorically refer to the evangel that he, Silvanus and Timothy were dispensing among the nations as “a new covenant?”
It must be emphasized that a metaphor is always based on some similarity, or point of continuity, between two different things. And in order to better understand what the likeness is between the new covenant and the gospel which Paul and his apostolic companions were dispensing among the nations, we need to understand the difference between the old and new covenants between God and Israel. The primary difference between the covenant made through Moses and that which God promised through the prophet Jeremiah is that God himself carries out the conditions of the new covenant, so that the recipients of the covenant inevitably receive the blessings promised in the covenant. Among other things, the blessings of the new covenant will involve God’s delivering the recipients of the covenant from condemnation (Heb. 8:12; 10:17), as well as the placing of God’s spirit within them (Isaiah 59:20-21; Ezek. 36:26-27).
This is very much like God’s blessings to those called through Paul’s evangel (hence, the metaphor used by Paul). As believers in the evangel which Paul was dispensing, our hearts are engraved “with the spirit of the living God” (2 Cor. 3:3; cf. Gal. 4:6). Significantly, the first time Paul referred to the spirit of God in this letter is in 2 Cor. 1:22 (which was quoted earlier):
”Now He Who is confirming us together with you in Christ, and anoints us, is God, Who also seals us and is giving the earnest of the spirit in our hearts.”
This verse provides us with a contextual clue as to what Paul was referring to in 2 Cor. 3:3-6 when he spoke of our hearts being engraved with the spirit of God. Paul went on to refer to the dispensing of the “new covenant” that is “of the spirit” as “the dispensation of the spirit,” and referred again to this dispensation in 2 Cor. 4:1. Notice, however, what Paul immediately began talking about in the verses that follow (vv. 3-6): the evangel which he and his co-laborers (Silvanus and Timothy) had been dispensing among the nations.
The evangel of which Paul had been made the dispenser essentially involves the receiving of the spirit, which, in 2 Cor. 3:6, is said to be “vivifying” (compare with Romans 8:11, where we’re told that the spirit of God within us - which we received when we believed on Christ - will be “vivifying [our] mortal bodies because of His spirit making its home in [us]”). The vivification to which Paul was referring here (as well as, I believe, in Rom. 8:11) is that which will occur when we undergo the “change” referred to in 1 Cor. 15:50-54, and receive our immortal, spiritual body. The glorified, immortal body which we’ll receive when we’re vivified at “the last trump” is referred to by Paul in 2 Cor. 5:2 as “a house not made by hands, eonian, in the heavens.”
Keeping in mind that Paul referred to believers as having been sealed and given “the earnest of the spirit in our hearts” in 2 Cor. 1:22, it’s significant that Paul went on to link our future vivification with “the earnest of the spirit” that has been given to us:
“For we also, who are in the tabernacle, are groaning, being burdened, on which we are not wanting to be stripped, but to be dressed, that the mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now He Who produces us for this same longing is God, Who is also giving us the earnest of the spirit” (2 Cor. 5:4-5).
God’s placing his spirit into our hearts is, in other words, his pledge to us that we’re going to be vivified at the time referred to by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:50-54.
In light of these considerations, consider now Paul’s words in Ephesians 1:13-14:
“In Whom you also -- on hearing the word of truth, the evangel of your salvation -- in Whom on believing also, you are sealed with the holy spirit of promise (which is an earnest of the enjoyment of our allotment, to the deliverance of that which has been procured) for the laud of His glory!)…”
The vivifying spirit referred to by Paul in 2 Cor. 3:6 is the same “holy spirit of promise” with which we’re “sealed” when we hear and believe. Hear and believe what? Answer: the same “word” concerning Jesus Christ of which Paul, Silvanus and Timothy had been made competent dispensers. But was this “word” the literal new covenant that God will establish between himself and Israel? No. The word that we hear and believe is “the word of truth, the evangel of [our] salvation.” This word is like the new covenant, in that, when we hear and believe it, we are freed from condemnation (Rom. 8:1), and our hearts are engraved with the spirit of God, which is the pledge of the “deliverance of our body” (Rom. 8:23) and of our eonian life “in the heavens” (2 Cor. 5:1-2).
Objection: In Gen. 3:29, the saints in the body of Christ are referred to as being “of Abraham’s seed.” Since the people with whom God will be concluding the new covenant are the seed of Abraham (Genesis 13:14-17, 17:7-10), it follows that the saints in the body of Christ are included among those with whom God will be concluding a new covenant.
This conclusion does not follow. In Paul’s day, there were two distinct companies of saints who, for different (but ultimately related) reasons, could both be referred to as “the seed of Abraham” (and who, together, comprised “the entire seed” to whom “the promise” referred to in Rom. 4:13 is being confirmed):
1. The descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who constitute the promised offspring of Abraham referred to by God in Genesis 13:14-17, 17:7-10 and elsewhere (and to whom God has promised the land of Canaan as an eonian allotment).
2. Those whom Paul referred to collectively as “the nations” (Rom. 1:13; 11:13, 25; 15:16, 18) and who constituted ”all the ecclesias of the nations” (Rom. 16:4) – i.e., the body of Christ.
It is the first company of saints – i.e., the promised seed of Abraham who are “of the law” (Rom. 4:13) – who comprised the chosen remnant within Israel (Romans 9:6-8; 11:5-7), and whom Paul referred to as “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). Among this company of saints were the “many tens of thousands” of believing Jews who were “all inherently zealous for the law” (Acts 21:20). These are the descendents of Abraham who will constitute “the house of Israel” with whom God will be concluding the new covenant when Christ returns.
With regard to the second company of saints referred to above, we read the following in Galatian 3:27-28:
“For whoever are baptized into Christ, put on Christ, in Whom there is no Jew nor yet Greek, there is no slave nor yet free, there is no male and female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus.”
When Paul referred to being “baptized into Christ,” he had in mind the same spiritual “baptism” referred to elsewhere in his letters that is undergone by everyone who, through faith in the evangel of the Uncircumcision, becomes a member of the body of Christ. In 1 Cor. 12:12-13 and v. 27 we read the following:
“For even as the body is one and has many members, yet all the members of the one body, being many, are one body, thus also is the Christ. For in one spirit also we all are baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and all are made to imbibe one spirit…Now you are the body of Christ, and members of a part…”
But if the saints in the body of Christ aren’t identical with, or included among, the “seed of Abraham” to whom God has promised the land of Canaan as an eonian allotment, what did Paul have in mind when he referred to us as “Abraham’s seed” in Gal. 3:29? The answer, I believe, is provided in Galatians 3:16. In this verse we read the following:
“Now to Abraham the promises were declared, and to his Seed. He is not saying ‘And to seeds,’ as of many, but as of One: And to ‘your Seed,’ which is Christ.”
Which promises from God concerning Abraham and his “Seed” did Paul have in mind here? Since Paul clearly had in mind a promise in which the term “Seed” refers to a single individual (i.e., Christ), we can discount all of the promises in which a plurality of Abraham’s descendants are being referred to (e.g., the promises in which we’re told Abraham’s seed will become numerous, and are promised the land of Canaan as an eonian allotment). But is there a promise in which both Abraham and his seed/offspring are referred to, and in which the seed/offspring in view can be understood as a single descendent of Abraham (rather than a multitude of descendants)? Yes, there is.
In Genesis 22:16-18 we read the following:
By Myself I swear, averring is Yahweh, that, because you have done this thing and have not kept back your son, your only one, from Me, that, blessing, yea, blessing you am I, and increasing, yea, increasing your seed am I as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the sea shore. And your seed shall tenant the gateway of its enemies, and blessed, in your seed, shall be all the nations of the earth, inasmuch as you hearken to My voice.
In these verses, the term “seed” (zera) occurs three different times. In its first occurrence, the term clearly refers to a multitude of descendants. However, in its second occurrence (”And your seed shall tenant the gateway of its enemies”), the term is being used to refer to a single descendant of Abraham.[iii]
The fact that Christ alone – and not a plurality of Jewish offspring (as referred to in Gen. 13:14-17 or 17:7-10) – is the “Seed” or offspring of Abraham who is in view in Genesis 22:17b (and v. 18) explains how Paul could refer to a predominantly gentile company of saints as being “OF Abraham’s seed” in v. 29. For when Paul referred to being “baptized into Christ,” he had in mind the same spiritual “baptism” referred to elsewhere in his letters that is undergone by everyone who, through faith in the evangel of the Uncircumcision, becomes a member of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-13, 27). Since every member of the body of Christ is “in Christ,” we are necessarily “of” the One who is “the seed [singular] of Abraham.”
Thus, in contrast with those who are among the promised offspring of Abraham referred to by God in Genesis 13:14-17 and elsewhere (and to whom God has promised the land of Canaan as an eonian allotment), our status as “Abraham’s seed” – and the related blessing of being “enjoyers of the allotment according to the promise” (i.e., the blessing referred to in Gen. 22:18, and which Paul identifies as justification by faith) – has nothing to do with our ethnicity/lineage or covenantal standing. Rather, as those who are members of Christ’s body and “one in Christ Jesus,” our being “OF Abraham’s Seed” (the “Seed” being Christ himself) is based on our inseparable, spiritual union with Christ (the singular Seed of Abraham referred to by Paul in Gal. 3:16 and prophesied in Gen. 22:17-18).
Objection: Since Christ is a descendant of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob (and is thus a member of God’s covenant people), wouldn’t it mean that all who are spiritually united to Christ (which is everyone in the body of Christ) partake of the spiritual benefits of the new covenant?
Response: Although Christ is certainly a descendent of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, he is not a beneficiary of the new covenant with Israel. Rather, he is the Mediator of this covenant with Israel (Heb. 8:6). Thus, our spiritual union with the Mediator of God’s new covenant with Israel doesn’t make us beneficiaries of this covenant. Christ doesn’t mediate the blessings of the new covenant to us, since we aren’t the people with whom God promised to conclude the new covenant. So while it’s true that our spiritual blessings are received by virtue of our spiritual union with Christ, the spiritual blessings we enjoy are not “new covenant blessings” (since, again, new covenant blessings are the blessings promised to those with whom God is going to be concluding the new covenant – i.e., Israel).
Objection: We know that new Jerusalem will be the home of God’s new covenant people during the last eon of Christ’s reign. But Paul said that “the Jerusalem above” is “mother of us all” in Gal. 4:26. Doesn’t this mean that those in the body of Christ will be God’s new covenant people during the last eon?
Response: When Paul referred to new Jerusalem as “mother of us all,” he wasn’t saying that those in the body of Christ be residing in this city in the future. Rather, he was making a point about the kind of freedom that those in the body of Christ have in common with the future citizens of new Jerusalem (i.e., freedom from the law of Moses).
In Paul’s allegorical argument, Hagar (the “slave woman”) represents the old covenant and Mount Sinai, and corresponds to the “present Jerusalem,” who was “in slavery [to the law] with her children” (vv. 24-25). In contrast, Abraham’s wife, Sarah, corresponds to “the Jerusalem above,” who, we’re told, “is free.” But in what sense is new Jerusalem “free?” Answer: After the passing away of heaven and earth, God’s covenant people will no longer be “under law” (i.e., the citizens of new Jerusalem will no longer be under an obligation to keep the law of Moses in order to live, and avoid being cursed).
Thus, the “Jerusalem above” serves as a fitting contrast to the then-present Jerusalem of which the Judaizers were, figuratively, “children” (because of their being in slavery to the law), and which corresponded to mount Sinai/Hagar. It is for this reason that Paul introduced the “Jerusalem above” into his allegorical argument against the Judaizers (which begins in v. 21). And the reason Paul was using an allegorical argument from the law in the first place is because some of the saints in Galatia were being influenced by certain “Judaizers” to come under Israel’s covenant-based obligation to keep the law. But why would he refer to this future home of the saints of Israel during the final eon as “mother of us all?”
Notice that, in verses 26 and 31, both the “Jerusalem above” and Sarah (the “free woman”) are spoken of as if they are the mother of the believers to whom Paul wrote. Obviously, Paul was using figurative, metaphorical language in both instances; neither Sarah nor the “Jerusalem above” are literally the mothers of those to whom Paul wrote. In the case of Sarah, believers are (figuratively) her “children” in the sense that we are like her son, Isaac. Isaac represents those who are “children of promise,” and (being free rather than slaves) are consequently “enjoyers of an allotment” (see Gal. 3:29; 4:7; cf. Rom. 8:17).
Just as Sarah is figuratively described as our mother (and we her children) because we are like her son Isaac (we resemble him in some important sense), so the “Jerusalem above” is metaphorically said to be “mother of us all” because we are like her future citizens (we resemble them in some important sense). Notice that Paul said the “children” of the earthly Jerusalem were “in slavery.” That is, the earthly Jerusalem that was then present was, figuratively speaking, the “mother” of those who were in slavery (i.e., her law-enslaved citizens). As I’ve argued in my study “God’s covenant people,” the believers among God’s covenant people in Paul’s day were just as much “under law” as were the people of Israel in Moses’ day. That is, they had a covenant-based obligation to keep its precepts in order to avoid condemnation/cursing.
However, since the “Jerusalem above is free,” it follows that her “children” are also free. And just as we are said to be “children” of Sarah because of what we have in common with Isaac (we are like Isaac in that we’re “children of promise”), so the Jerusalem above is metaphorically said to be our “mother” because of the distinguishing characteristic that we share with her future citizens. And what distinguishing characteristic is that? Answer: freedom from the law of Moses.
However, we have no reason to believe that Paul understood those to whom he wrote to actually be citizens of the “Jerusalem above.” Abiding in the new Jerusalem during the final eon is a blessing specifically for Abraham (as the circumcised father of the “Israel of God”) and his faithful, Israelite descendants among the twelve tribes (Heb. 11:8-10; Rev. 21:9-14; 22:3-5).
Again, the only reason that Paul even made mention of the “Jerusalem above” in chapter four of Galatians is because it was a fitting contrast to the present Jerusalem, which corresponded to mount Sinai/Hagar. Rather than teaching the saints of Galatia about their eonian expectation in Galatians 4:26, Paul’s reference to new Jerusalem was simply meant to emphasize the fact that, in contrast with God’s covenant people during the present and future eon (but in accord with their destiny during the final eon), members of the body of Christ are free from the law of Moses. However, despite our having this in common with the future citizens of the “Jerusalem above,” we have good reason to believe that our expectation is distinct from the expectation of those who will be dwelling within new Jerusalem during the final eon of Christ’s reign (see, for example, the following article: https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2021/07/did-paul-teach-that-body-of-christ-will.html).
[i] Not only was the Lord’s dinner in which the Corinthian saints participated not the Passover, but the meal that Christ shared with his twelve disciples on the night of his arrest wasn’t the Passover, either. The so-called “Last Supper” occurred on the night before the Passover (John 13:1, 29; 18:28; 19:14, 31, 42). Although certain preparations were made for the Passover feast by Christ’s disciples, Christ knew that his intense yearning to celebrate it with his disciples before his suffering would not be fulfilled (Luke 22:15), and that he would not be eating of the Passover meal with his disciples until after the coming of the kingdom of God (v. 16).
[ii] What about the “judgment” that Paul warned would fall upon those who were eating and drinking “unworthily” (vv. 27-23)? At this time in Paul’s ministry, the “signs and wonders” that Paul mentions in Rom. 15:18-19 (as being part of his apostolic ministry “for the obedience of the nations”) were still being manifested. This was never meant to have a permanent place in the secret administration that began with Paul’s calling; rather, these signs and wonders simply served to authenticate his apostleship and apostolic authority. Such signs and wonders (including miraculous healings, the infliction of judgments and the power to speak in foreign languages) do not indicate a different administration, for they were never meant to be a permanent part of the administration of the grace of God.
[iii] This can be reasonably concluded based on the following two grammatical considerations:
1. The term “seed” is the subject of a third person masculine singular verb (“shall tenant”).
2. The direct object (“enemies”) is qualified by a pronominal suffix that is also in the third person masculine singular (and which refers back to the seed/offspring in view).
In other words, the use of the third person masculine singular verb and the third person masculine singular pronominal suffix that qualifies the word “enemies” indicates that a single descendant of Abraham (rather than a plurality of his descendants) is in view in the last clause of Gen. 22:17.
Here are some English translations that accurately reflect these grammatical facts:
American Standard Version
“…and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies…”
English Standard
Version
“And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies…”
Orthodox Jewish
Bible
“..and thy zera shall possess the gate of his enemies…”
Young’s Literal
Translation
“…and thy seed doth possess the gate of his enemies…”
Moreover, because the immediately
preceding reference to “seed” in v. 17 denotes an individual, this must also be
the case in v. 18 (for there is nothing here to indicate a change in number or
referent with regard to the offspring referred to in the second part of v. 17).
Thus, the offspring in view in v. 18 (and in whom God said “all the nations of
the earth” shall be blessed) should be understood as a reference to the same
singular descendant of Abraham whom God promised “shall possess the gate of his
enemies” (compare with Psalm 72:17, which connects an individual king – i.e.,
the Messiah – with the fulfillment of the “seed” referred to in Gen. 22:17-18).
