My New Book on Israel and the Church

I am really excited to announce the release of my new book, God's Chosen People. As you probably know, the relationship between Israel and the church is a debated one. It is also extremely important. In some ways, most of the NT is dealing with this issue. It certainly looms large in the Gospels, Acts, Romans, and Galatians. We all come to these passages with certain lenses and this book is meant to help us examine those assumptions in light of Scripture, especially the NT view of the OT. We want and need to have an apostolic hermeneutic as we approach these passages.

In many ways, this book is an exegetical handbook on the key passages. I hope it is accessible and helpful. Coming in at just under 200 pages, it should meet a need. Being such an important topic, I was surprised at how few shorter, accessible resources there are on the church and Israel.

Grab a copy from Amazon or Cross to Crown.

New Covenant Theology (NCT) Resources and Links

The Church and Israel

Conclusion of my forthcoming book on the church and Israel:

Let’s tie all this up. God creates all things good but his image-bearers think they know better and utter ruin follows. He calls an old barren couple to sort it all out. Through the offspring of Abraham, God will undo what Adam did, defeating evil and blessing the nations. Abraham’s family is taken out of Egypt but God must do a new work to take Egypt out of Abraham’s family. They were supposed to be the solution to the problem but they merely add to the problem. They were called to bless the nations by being a light, but their lives are full of darkness. Rather than seeing themselves as elect to bless, they see themselves as elite to spurn. They want a king like the nations but God gives them a man after his own heart and promises his son an eternal kingdom. Their idolatry only increases. So God sends the prophets to warn of impending judgment. But judgment won’t be the last word. God will use judgment to purify his people. According to the prophets, the Lord will return, inspect the temple, judge his enemies, rescue his people, gather the exiles, forgive them of their sin, transform them from the inside out, and dwell among them as King. Then Israel will be and do what she was meant to be and do. God would send a messenger to warn his people before he comes. Elijah comes in John. God follows in the prophet from Nazareth. He reconstitutes Israel around himself and sends them out to proclaim good news and be witnesses. God is restoring Israel through the expansion of the international church. The kingdom has come and the King sends heralds out to announce it. This is the chief task of the community of the new covenant. 

Israel in Romans 11

An excerpt from my forthcoming book on the church and Israel:

All Israel Will Be Saved
            Romans 11 is often misread, assumed, and thrown about as if it closes the conversation on the church/Israel topic. I can’t count how many times I have been told, “But Romans 11 teaches the future restoration of ethnic Israel.” Full stop, as if that undemonstrated assertion is all there is to say. Now, this is a dense chapter and many solid exegetes disagree on how to interpret it. Again, I do not claim to have the new covenant view, but I hope to show this reading best fits the hermeneutic that has been shown throughout.[1]
            One main question is driving Paul in Romans chapter 11: “Has God completely rejected Israel?” That’s how he starts: “I ask, then, has God rejected his people” (Rom. 11:1)? To feel the force of it, we could paraphrase it as, “Has God completely rejected his people?” Lest his readers lose track, he repeats himself in verse 11: “So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall?” Again, we could read it as “That they might totally fall?” His answer to the question in both instances is the same: no way.
            But the question is a legitimate one that doubtless many in that day were asking. Paul himself says in the previous verse that all day long God had held out his “hands to a disobedient and contrary people” (Rom. 10:21). In 1 Thessalonians 2:16, we read that God’s wrath has come on the Jews forever (eis telos). Jesus had told the Jews, “The Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruit” (Matt. 21:43). In his rebuke of the Jewish leaders, Jesus said, “Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers” (Matt. 23:32, cf. Gen. 15:16) and “on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar” (Matt. 23:35). Jesus pleaded with the Jews: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing” (Matt. 23:37)!
The pagan Pilate (and his lady-friend) was hesitant to crucify Jesus and gave the Jews a chance to change their mind. Pilate would release Jesus and crucify Barabbas if they agreed. But the leaders told the Jewish people to “destroy Jesus” (Matt. 27:20). They “all” said, “Let him be crucified” (Matt. 27:22)! Pilate again hesitates and they shout, “all the more, ‘Let him be crucified’” (Matt. 27:23)! Pilate literally washes his hands and says this is on them and not him. Astonishingly, “all the people (pas ho laos) answered, ‘His blood be on us and on our children’” (Matt. 27:25)! John records the Jews threatening Pilate. They say, if you don’t put him to death, you are no friend of Caesar. Pilate asks them, “Shall I crucify your king?” Astoundingly, they reply, “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15). The Jewish people calling Caesar their only king? Bone-chilling. After the Jews reviled Paul and his message, he said, “Your blood be on your own heads” (Acts 18:6)! Luke closed his second volume with Paul telling the Jews that their hearts were dull and now “this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen” (Acts 28:28). So asking whether or not God was totally done with the Jews is a legitimate question. In Romans 11, Paul shows how salvation is still available to any Jew who trusts in Christ. They, indeed, anyone who trusts in Christ can and will be saved.
            Another overlooked fact is the abundance of time indicators in the chapter. Interpreters often assume that Romans 11 is about the future but Paul repeatedly makes it clear that his concern is a present one. Paul’s focus is on the 1st – not the 21st – century:

·      “Has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite” (Rom. 11:1). Paul in the first century is current proof that God has not totally rejected Israel.

·      “So too at the present time there is a remnant” (Rom. 11:5, my italics).
·      Now I am speaking to you Gentiles” (Rom. 11:13, my italics).
·      “I magnify my ministry” (Rom. 11:13, my italics). He is focused on his ministry in the first century.

·      “For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience” (Rom. 11:30). Now in the first century.

·      “So they have now been disobedient” (Rom. 11:31, my italics).
·      “By the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy” (Rom. 11:31).
So it is clear that this chapter is not about the future, but Paul’s present.
            In Romans 9-11, Paul explains that Israel’s rejection of their Messiah is not failure on God’s part. He never promised to save every Israelite, but only the elect. There is an Israel within Israel. “Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (Rom. 9:6). There are children of promise and children of the flesh within the physical offspring of Abraham (Rom. 9:6-13). God has not “rejected his people whom he foreknew” (Rom. 11:2). Part of Israel has been hardened, but not all! “What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened” (Rom. 11:7).
            The point of Romans 11 is that Israel’s fall is not total. No, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel jealous and “some” of them will be saved (Rom. 11:14). Some ethnic Jews – not all. Lest the Gentiles become arrogant about this new situation, he warns them. In doing so, he says that Gentiles are wild olive shoots grafted in and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree. This word for “share” (sygkoinōnos) is similar in form to the words Paul uses when speaking of the same reality in Ephesians 3:6: “The Gentiles are fellow heirs (sygklēronoma), members of the same body (syssōma), and partakers (symmetocha) of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” Each of these words begins with syn, which means “together with.” The Gentiles are together with Israel in the root, in the inheritance, in the body, and in the promise. In other words, like the prophets prophesied, Gentiles have been grafted into Israel.
            Now we come to the controversial passage. Romans 11:25-27 reads,

Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins”.

Paul doesn’t want his audience to miss this. A partial hardening has come upon Israel. Many interpreters wrongly read this hardening in temporal rather than quantitative terms. It literally reads, “a hardening from part in Israel” (pōrōsis apo merous tō̧ Israēl). Part of Israel has been hardened “until (arxi) the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.”[2] With “until,” Paul is saying this will be the state of things throughout this present era. He uses the same word with regard to the Lord’s Meal, when he says we proclaim the Lord’s death “until” he comes (1 Cor. 11:26). Or later he says that Jesus must reign “until” he has put all his enemies under his feet (1 Cor. 15:25). So this hardening of a portion of Israel will endure during this whole present era until its goal is reached at the end of history.[3]
The fullness of the Gentiles refers to the full number of elect Gentiles in history.[4] At this stage in salvation history, most Jews have been hardened but not all. The elect obtained it but the rest were hardened (Rom. 11:7). “Some” will be saved as Gentiles are being saved (Rom. 11:14). “And in this way all Israel will be saved.” Again, interpreters often take “in this way” as temporal. So they read it as, “Gentiles will be saved then all Israel will be saved.” But that is not what the word houtōs means, here or elsewhere! The ESV nails it here; it is modal not temporal. In this way all Israel will be saved. Paul is explaining the manner in which all Israel will be saved. God has hardened part of Israel, is saving Gentiles, which is causing some Jews to become jealous and so be saved – and in this way, all Israel will be saved. We will unpack just who “all Israel” is below.
Then Paul provides important OT grounding:

As it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins”.

Here, Paul is combining several OT promises. Getting these verses right is crucial because 11:26b explains 11:26a. In other words, we learn what “all Israel will be saved” means from learning what these OT promises mean. The main passage Paul is drawing on should not surprise us at this point: Isaiah 59, where God promises to rescue his people, reign as king, and dwell with his people. Right after the verse Paul quotes, the LORD speaks of this future covenant where God will do the inward work that Jeremiah and Ezekiel spoke of as well (Isa. 59:21). So Isaiah 59 is a “new covenant” promise. This is what Jesus came to accomplish in his first coming.
Interestingly, Isaiah 59:20 says “A Redeemer will come to Zion.” Paul says, the redeemer “will come from Zion (ek Zion).” Did Paul just slip? No, the Spirit is moving him along. With “from Zion” Paul is making a couple of points. First, he is quoting a passage that is future from Isaiah’s perspective but past from his own perspective. The Messiah came from Zion. He is Israel’s Messiah for the world. Second, with “from Zion,” Paul is alluding to two other prophecies. Psalm 14:7 speaks of the future restoration of Israel. It reads, “Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion (ek Zion)! When the LORD restores the fortunes of his people, let Jacob rejoice, let Israel be glad.” The other prophecy is from Isaiah’s earlier vision where he describes, in poetic form, what the world will look like when God restores Israel. Isaiah 2 is a vision of the latter days where the Lord’s mountain will be the highest, the nations will flow to it,  “for out of Zion (ek gar Zion) shall go the law” (Isa. 2:2-3, cf. Micah 4:2). Rather than seeking the instruction of the Lord (Torah) coming from Zion, the Apostle sees the fulfillment in the King coming from Zion since Christ is the “culmination of the law” (Rom. 10:4 NIV).
Another passage Paul includes in Romans 11:26-27 is Isaiah 27:9.[5] Isaiah 27 is about the deliverance of Israel. God promises that “in days to come Jacob shall take root, Israel shall blossom and put forth shoots and fill the whole world with fruit” and “the guilt of Jacob will be atoned for” and the fruit of this atonement will be the removal of idols (Isa. 27:6, 9). He then speaks of Gentiles being included within Israel: “those who were lost in the land of Assyria and those who were driven out to the land of Egypt will come and worship the LORD on the holy mountain at Jerusalem” (Isa. 27:13).
The last passage alluded to here in Romans 11:26 is Jeremiah 31 and the promise of the new covenant. When any Jew heard language of “taking away sin” and “covenant” they would immediately think of Jeremiah’s grand promise:

Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jeremiah 31:31–34)

Again, this passage finds fulfillment in the first coming of Jesus. This is what the church celebrates every time we celebrate the Lord’s Supper. The Deliverer has come and forgiven our sins. Many interpreters assume these verses are about the future but it should be clear from the OT background that this verse about the coming redeemer is referring not to the second coming, but the first coming of Jesus. These are new covenant passages and the new covenant was inaugurated with the first coming of Jesus.[6] They are also all passages that speak of the inclusion of Gentiles within the people of God.
Now we are at a place to answer the question, “Who is all Israel in Paul’s summary statement of these chapters?” Before answering that question, it is important to state what is emphatically not in this chapter: a rebuilt temple, anything about the land, a reconstitution of geopolitical Israel, a millennial kingdom for ethnic Israel, etc.[7] These sorts of things are often assumed to be included but these things are not what Paul has in mind. Contrary to many (especially American) interpreters, this chapter is not about a future millennium for the nation of Israel. These things are simply not found in this chapter.
Context makes it clear that there are three legitimate options for who “all Israel” is. Many interpreters take the view that all Israel refers to “all” ethnic Jews who will trust in Christ at the last day when Christ returns.[8] It is important to say that these interpreters do not separate the church and Israel. They view these Jews as those who will join the church at the second coming and so be saved in a future mass conversion. Most don’t think “all” means “all” here.[9] But “many” Jews will be saved at this last minute altar call given by the Lord Jesus himself.[10]
Others would agree with my view of the “present” concern of the chapter, and define “all Israel” as all elect Jews who will come to Christ throughout history.[11] They would agree with much of what I have articulated, but would say the immediate context lends toward viewing “all Israel” as only ethnic Jews. A good case can be made for this view.
I take “all Israel” as referring to anyone – Jew or Gentile – who trusts in Christ. In other words, it is all the elect. In yet other words, all Israel is the church. Though both of these last options are viable, five reasons cause me to believe that Paul is referring to the church with “all Israel” in Romans 11:26.[12]
First, the immediate context. He has just finished saying that Gentiles are grafted into Israel. This is what we saw again and again in the prophets. The olive shoots are grafted into the olive tree (Rom. 11:17). When Paul says that part of Israel has been hardened “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (Rom. 11:25), he means, “until all elect Gentiles come into Israel.” In chapter 10, Paul wrote that everyone who believes in Jesus will not be put to shame “for there is no distinction between Jew and Greek” (Rom. 10:11-12). He just said there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles in Christ, which is exactly what I am saying Romans 11:26 says. Paul uses very similar language in Romans 10:13 as he does in Romans 11:26. In the former he writes that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (sōthēsetai). In the latter he says that all Israel will be saved (sōthēsetai). All Israel consists of everyone who calls on the name of the Lord. They will be saved. Romans 10:18-21 quotes the OT a few times to speak of the ends of the world, the nations and Israel’s jealousy, and the Lord being found by the nations. He closes that section saying, “But of Israel he says, ‘All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people” (Rom. 10:21).
Second, the larger context of Romans. Paul has already redefined Jewishness at the beginning of the letter. Readers of chapter 11 mustn’t forget the earlier chapters. A Jew is no longer one outwardly but inwardly (Rom. 2:28-29). Romans 4 spoke of Abraham as the father of both Jews and Gentiles. Romans 9 quoted Hosea to refer to the inclusion of Gentiles in Israel. So by the time we get to Romans 11, new covenant Israel has already been defined as including Gentiles.
Third, the even larger context of Pauline theology. We have only looked at Galatians so far, but will see much the same below. All over the place, Paul defines Israel around the Messiah. If you are of Christ, then you are the children of Abraham (Gal. 3:29). He concludes his letter to the Galatians by calling Jews and Gentiles “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16).[13] We will demonstrate this with other texts in the next chapter.
Fourth, the meaning of “mystery” in Paul’s letters. In Romans 11:25, Paul writes that he does not want the Romans to be unaware of “this mystery.” The mystery is that part of Israel is hardened, which leads to the salvation of Gentiles, and in turn some Jews will be saved, and in this way all Israel will be saved (Acts 13:46, 18:6). “Mystery” in Paul does not refer to something hard to understand but to revelation. It is something that was previously hidden but now revealed. He uses the word again at the close of this letter:

Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith— to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.
(Rom 16:25–27)

The mystery was kept secret but now disclosed to all nations. The command was to bring about the “obedience of faith.” Paul sandwiches this letter with this apostolic goal. Romans 1:5 says that he was given his commission to “bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations.”
Paul uses this same word in the same way in Ephesians to speak of the inclusion of Gentiles within the Israel of God: “This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel”(Eph. 3:6). We’ll unpack the specifics of this verse below but here Paul says the mystery is Gentiles becoming fellow heirs with Israel and members of the same body. Paul’s theology of the people of God in Romans is consistent with his theology of the people of God in the rest of his letters.

Fifth, the OT grounding.[14] We saw above that Paul explains what all Israel being saved means by quoting passages about the first coming of Jesus to establish the new covenant, which includes Jews and Gentiles. In Paul’s theology, the removal of sin from the people of God occurs at the cross and resurrection, not the second coming. As he put it a few chapters earlier, there is therefore now no condemnation for those in Christ (Rom. 8:1).
So Paul answers the question that started the whole section by saying that God has not abandoned his people. Rather, he always only promised to save the elect and in the new age he has expanded Israel to include Gentiles. How should one conclude such a section? One cannot improve on the way the Spirit moved Paul to do so: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways” (Rom. 11:33)!

[1] Solid theologians who have a similar hermeneutic as this book, but who hold a “futuristic” view of this chapter include Tom Schreiner, Doug Moo, John Piper, and Jason Meyer, to name a few.
[2] 2 Corinthians 3:14-16 says, “But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.”
[3] O. Palmer Robertson, “Is There a Distinctive Future for Ethnic Israel in Romans 11?” in Perspectives on Evangelical Theology ed. Kenneth S. Kantzer and Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 219-20; idem., The Israel of God, 179-81.
[4] In personal correspondence, Douglas Goodin suggests that “the fullness of the Gentiles” refers to the time of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. He bases his view on the similarity of language used by Paul and Luke. Romans 11:25 reads, “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (arxi hou to plērōma tōn ethnōn eiselthȩ̄) and Luke 21:24, referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, reads “until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (achri hou plērōthōsin kairoi ethnōn). So the hardening in his view is temporal. There was a hardening of Israel until God’s full judgment was poured out on Jerusalem through Rome and after that the hardening was removed and salvation is now freely available to all Jews who trust in Christ. This particular reading of Rom. 11:25 would fit my overall reading of the whole section.
[5] The quote is clearer in Greek. The LXX of Isaiah 27:9 reads “hotan aphelōmai autou tēn hamartian.” Romans 11:27 reads hotan aphelōmai tas hamartias autōn.
[6] David G. Peterson, Transformed by God: New Covenant Life and Ministry (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2012), 130-32.
[7] For example, in his commentary on these verses, John MacArthur says that all Israel are “all the elect Jewish people alive at the end of the Tribulation. . . . the Lord Jesus Christ’s millennial rule will be associated with Mt. Zion.” One wonders where he gets the “Tribulation” or the “Millennium” in this passage. Neither is anywhere to be found anywhere in Romans 9-11, or all of Romans for that matter. The MacArthur Study Bible (Nashville: Nelson, 1997), 1715.
[8] Moo, The Epistle o the Romans,710-29; Schreiner, Romans, 611-623; Jason C. Meyer, The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2009), 177-229; Piper D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Church and the Last Things (Wheaton: Crossway, 1998), 113.; Kim Riddlerbarger, Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 180-94.
[9] But as Robertson puts it, “In this context, ‘all’ can hardly mean ‘most.’” Israel of God, 183.
[10] Besides the exegetical difficulty, this brings evangelistic difficulty as well. The view could hinder gospel urgency among Jewish people. It would also seem logical to urge those who reject Christ to consider Judaism since if Jesus returns in our day, presumably they’d be part of the “all” Israel who will get saved at the parousia.
[11] Ben L. Merkle, “Romans 11 and the Future of Ethnic Israel,” JETS 43.4 (December), 709-21; Charles M. Horne, “The Meaning of the Phrase ‘And Thus All Israel Will Be Saved’,” JETS 21.4 (December 1978), 329-34; Storms, Kingdom Come, 303-34. Robertson, “Is There a Distinctive Future for Ethnic Israel in Romans 11?,” 209-227. Note that Robertson later changed his view.
[12] See Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Barth, Hays, Moral Vision 416-17; Wright, “Jerusalem in the New Testament,” 65-67; idem., The Climax of the Covenant (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 231-57; idem., Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Book Two (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), 1156-1259; Robertson, The Israel of God, 167-92; Paul Williamson, “Covenant,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, 428.
[13] Hays writes, “The ‘Israel’  of Romans 11:26 is the same as the ‘Israel of God’ in Galatians 6:16, a description of the elect eschatological people of God consisting of Jews and Gentiles together in Christ,” Moral Vision, 417.
[14] Christopher R. Bruno, “The Deliverer From Zion: The Source(s) and Function of Paul’s Citation in Romans 11:26-27,” Tyndale Bulletin 59.1 (2008), 119-34.

8 Resources on the Restoration of Israel

I recently finished a 45K word manuscript on the expansion of the church as the restoration of Israel. Twas a rich study! I don't hear this theme of sin/exile/restoration preached/talked about enough so I wanted to point readers to a few helpful resources. The Bible is full of the stuff. Here are some helps:

Roy Ciampa, "The History of Redemption," in Central Themes in Biblical Theology 

R.T. France, "Old Testament Prophecy and the Future of Israel" 

Scot McKnight, A New Vision for Israel

C. Marvin Pate, The Story of Israel: A Biblical Theology

James Scott, "Restoration of Israel" in DPL.

________. "Jesus' Vision for the Restoration of Israel as the Basis for a Biblical Theology," in Biblical Theology: Retrospect Prospect

Chris Wright, "A Christian Approach to Old Testament Prophecy Concerning Israel"

N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God

N.T. Wright's New Covenant Theology

"The Torah is neither abolished as thought it were bad or demonic, nor affirmed in the sense in which the Jews took it. It was a good thing, given deliberately by God for a specific task and a particular period of time. When the task is done and the time is up, the Torah reaches its goal, which is also the conclusion of its intended reign, not because it was a bad thing to be abolished but because it was a good thing whose job is done. In terms of the Luther-Calvin debate which has dominated discussion of this issue, we can put it like this. The Lutheran wants to maintain the sharp antithesis between law and gospel; so does Paul, but within the context of a single plan of God, and with no suggestion that the Torah is itself a bad thing. The Calvinist wants to ensure that God did not change his plan, or his mind, in the middle of history; so does Paul (that, indeed, is what Romans 9-11 is all about), but he insists that the single plan always involved a dramatic break, a cross and a resurrection written into the very fabric of history. The Messiah is the fulfilment of the long purposes of Israel's God. It was for this that Torah was given in the first place as a deliberately temporary mode of administration. In the Messiah are fulfilled the creator's paradoxical purposes for Israel and hence for the world. He is the climax of the covenant."

~N.T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, 241

Who is the "Israel of God" in Galatians 6:16?

At the end of his letter to the Galatians, Paul closes with:

Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.               (Gal. 6:15-16)
Lots of debate has surrounded the phrase "Israel of God." Who is Paul referring to? Is he referring strictly to ethnic Jews or the church - Jews and Gentiles? I think it is pretty clear that Paul is referring to the church. Two main reasons lead me to this conclusion: the larger context and the immediate context.

First, the larger context. The rule of exegesis is the same as that of real estate: location, location, location. On this question, the grammar and syntax are ambiguous so, as with every interpretive decision, context must be determinative. We must examine the conclusion of the letter in light of the whole letter. And in many ways, the point of the letter is that there is in fact no distinction between Jews and Gentiles. Remember that the anti-gospel missionaries had come along and were trying to force the Gentiles to "Judaize" (ἰουδαΐζειν), that is "to follow Jewish customs" (Gal. 2:14 NIV). They were saying to be come the true people of God, one must essentially become a Jew. Paul disagrees. Sharply.

So Paul is at pains to show that their teaching is emphatically false. It is anti-gospel. To force Gentiles to live like Jews is not walking in step with the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:14). He shows again and again that Gentiles become part of the children of God through faith in the Messiah. One becomes a child of Abraham - that is, a Jew - by being united to the Jewish King. Notice how pervasive this truth is throughout the letter:

  • Galatians 3:7 - "Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham." This is the exact same thing as saying that believers are Jews. The church is Israel because of faith in Jesus.
  • Galatians 3:28 - "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Again, the clarity is crystal. There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. All are one in Christ Jesus. One, not two.
  • Galatians 3:29 - "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." Who is the seed of Abraham? Who is Israel? Who are the Jews? Those who belong to Christ. The church is the heir of the promise made to Abraham.
  • Galatians 4:28 - "Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise." The Gentiles are the children of promise if they are in Christ.
  • Galatians 4:31 - "Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman." The Galatian believers are children of the free woman. Sarah's offspring is the church.

I am not really sure how Paul could be any clearer. He's flogging a flat-lined pony here. To make a distinction between Jews and Gentiles stands at odds with the warp and woof of the whole letter.

Second, the immediate context shows that the "Israel of God" includes Jews and Gentiles. Notice the structure of verses 15 and 16: in verse 15 Paul lays out the "rule" (κανών) of the new creation: "neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything." In other words, ethnicity means nada. Paul uses this same "rule" in two other places: Galatians 5:6 and 1 Corinthians 7:19. "What counts is the new creation" (Gal. 6:15). After laying out this "rule," Paul wishes peace and mercy on all who follow it, namely the Israel of God:
Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.               (Gal. 6:15-16)
What is striking here is that the prayer for peace and mercy is excluded from those who would posit that ethnicity matters; that circumcision and uncircumcision do matter; that there is a distinction between Jews and Gentiles in the economy of God!

So if Paul is wishing peace and mercy on those who follow the rule of the new creation, the rule that says in essence what he already said: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile", then he cannot be making a distinction between Jew and Gentile with the phrase "Israel of God" at the conclusion of this letter! This would not make sense in light of the immediate context. In fact, it would undermine everything he has said so far in the letter. All throughout, he has shown that all who are in Christ by faith are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Therefore, based upon the larger and immediate context, the Israel of God in Galatians 6:16 includes any who are in Christ, Jew or Gentile.

A couple of my books on Galatians:

What is New Covenant Theology?

In short, New Covenant Theology (NCT) is Christ-centered biblical theology. It is a theological system that seeks to keep Christ central in every area, seeks to be exegetically grounded on every point, takes the progressive nature of Scripture seriously, and views the new covenant that Jesus inaugurated as the goal and climax of the previous biblical covenants. The Bible is not about Israel. The Bible is not about covenants. The Bible is about King Jesus.

I have sought to capture the seven core essentials on NCT in my little book What is New Covenant Theology? For that book, I wanted to make sure that these seven points were agreeable to all major NCT proponents I know. That is why the book has a disproportionate amount of blurbs for its size!

There are two other major theological systems: Covenant Theology (CT) and Dispensationalism. Whether they know it or not, all Christians land in one of these three camps. Of course each system is not completely uniform, but how one answers certain questions about certain passages will land a person in one of these three camps. Some of the following points fit right into the system of Dispensationalism. Others will gain a hearty amen from a Covenant Theologian. But taken altogether, they constitute a distinct third way.

Here is a summary of the seven points of NCT:

1. There is one plan of God centered in Jesus Christ.

This point is in contrast to both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. The former's view amounts to two plans: one for Israel and one for the church. Plan A for Israel did not work so God inserts a parentheses for the church, then removes Plan B to focus back on Plan A. NCT teaches that the body of Christ was always the point. Or as the Apostle Paul says, the plan hidden for ages was that "through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known and this was according to God's "eternal purpose" that is now realized in Christ Jesus (Eph. 3:10-11). Jesus and his body was always plan A.

CT does not see two plans, but uses the language of the "covenant of grace" to describe this one plan. The danger in seeing one over-arching covenant of grace is that such a concept tends to "flatten out" the various biblical covenants. The Bible speaks of covenants - plural - not of the covenant (Rom. 9:4, Eph. 2:12).

We are most jealous to guard the newness of the new covenant. The new covenant is not simply a new administration of the same old covenant of grace. It is not renewed. It is new. When Jeremiah was promising a new covenant, he explicitly said "not like the covenant" God made with Israel (Jer. 31:32). Jesus brings about change. There is one plan of God, unfolded through the covenants, centered in Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:10).

2. The Old Testament should be interpreted in light of the centrality of Jesus.

This is the fundamental axiom of NCT. Jesus and his Apostles teach us how to do exegesis. We follow him in life and we follow him in hermeneutics. He said that the whole of Scripture was about him (Luke 24:25-27, 44-48, John 5:46). The preacher who wrote Hebrews said that God spoke long ago at many times and in many ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son. Jesus is the pinnacle of divine revelation.

Virtually every page of the New Testament shows how the Old Testament pointed forward to and is now fulfilled in Jesus. So, if a rigid grammatical-historical hermeneutic of the Old Testament puts an interpreter at odds with the God-breathed, Christ-centered hermeneutic of the authoritative Apostles who learned from their King, we need to go back to the drawing board. In that instance, it is our hermeneutic that has gone astray, not that of the Apostles.

The Bible really is all about Jesus and we must read it all in light of his supremacy. I love the story of the Transfiguration. There you have Peter, James, John, Jesus, Moses (representing the law), and Elijah (representing the prophets). A cloud overshadows them and God says, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him." "Beloved son" comes from Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7 about the coming Davidic King. "Well pleased" points back to the servant who will come, suffer, and restore Israel in Isaiah 42:1. "Listen to him" comes from Deuteronomy 18:15 and the coming of an authoritative prophet like Moses. All the streams of redemptive history flow to the feet of the royal Galilean and we can never look back at those streams without him in mind. And when the cloud passed, and when the disciples "lifted up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only" (Matt 17:8). The law and the prophets - indeed the whole Old Testament - points to and gives way to the Anointed One. We now must read everything in light of him.

3. The old covenant was temporary by divine design.

This point and the next two are mostly in dialogue with CT. The old covenant law was never meant to be "God's eternal moral will." Galatians 3 is most helpful in this regard. There we learn that the law had a definite starting point - 430 years after the promise to Abraham, and a definite ending point - when the Messiah came (Gal. 3:17-19). It was never meant to be eternal. It was a parenthesis in God's plan. Or to use the language of Galatians 3 again, the law was our babysitter. It was our guardian (Gal. 3:24). Babysitters are great for children, but once they reach maturity, the babysitter has served their purpose.

Hebrews 8 also shows us that the old covenant was never intended to last forever. He says that if the old covenant would have been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second (Heb. 8:7). He then quotes the passage in Jeremiah about a coming new covenant and concludes by saying, "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Heb. 8:13). The new covenant replaces the old covenant. Jesus brings about a better one.

4. The law is a unit.

CT follows Calvin, who followed Aquinas in the breaking up of the law into three aspects: the civil, ceremonial, and moral. Some covenant theologians say that Jesus only fulfilled the ceremonial and the moral and civil remain, but most covenant theologians argue that the civil and ceremonial are fulfilled by Christ but the moral law of God, encapsulated in the Ten Commandments, is eternal and therefore binding on Christians.

NCT denies this three-fold distinction, finding such a division nowhere in Scripture - or in Jewish tradition for that matter. Rather, everywhere it is stated and assumed that the law is a unit (Gal. 5:3, James 2:10, Heb. 7:11-12).

5. Christians are not under the law of Moses but under the law of Christ.

This point is an obvious entailment of the previous two points. If the law is a unit and was divinely instituted to be in place until the Messiah came, then clearly Christians are not bound to the old covenant law.

This point is easily demonstrable from the Word. We'll just mention a few. First Corinthians 9:20-21 is explicit. There Paul writes, "To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law." Here, Paul says that he is not under the law, but not outside the law of God but under the law of Christ. So there are three categories:

  1. Those under the law (Jews)
  2. Those outside the law (Gentiles)
  3. Those under the law of Christ (Christians)

This verse makes it clear that Christians are not under the law of Moses. It also makes clear that the "law of God" can no longer be equated with the Law of Moses. Now, to be inside the law of God is to be under the law of Christ (literally in-lawed to Christ). Clearly, the ethical standard has changed from old covenant to new covenant.

Romans 6:14 says we are no longer under law but under grace. In the next chapter, Paul says that Christians have "died to the law" and have been "released from the law" and that we now "serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code" (Rom. 7:4-6).

As shocking as this may sound, this even means that Christians are not bound by the Ten Commandments. NCT has no problem with obeying nine of the ten, but the rubber meets the road with the 4th Commandment: the Sabbath commandment. There is no textual evidence that the Sabbath has switched from Saturday to Sunday and the New Testament is very clear that the Sabbath is fulfilled in Jesus. Colossians 2 says that the Sabbath was a shadow but the body belongs to Christ (Col. 2:16-17). Romans 14:5 is a far cry from commanding those who break the Sabbath to be killed by rocks. There, concerning the Sabbath, we read that each one should be fully convinced in his own mind! Hebrews 3-4 shows that the rest of the Sabbath pointed forward to finding rest in Jesus. The Sabbath was a signpost. One needs no sign pointing to DC when in Capitol Hill.

But, it is important to note that being without the Law does not lead to being outlaws. To be Law-less does not lead to being lawless. There are an abundance of commands in the new covenant, the primary one being the love command.

6. All members of the new covenant community (the church) are fully forgiven of their sins and are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

For the most part, NCT and Dispensationalism are on the same page here. CT teaches that an infant becomes part of the new covenant community through baptism. They argue this because they see the continuity of the covenant of grace and see baptism and replacing circumcision. They believe the new covenant community is "mixed," consisting of believers and unbelievers. This is a key place where NCT sees discontinuity between the old and new covenants. NCT teaches that only those who have faith are part of the new covenant community. One enters the new covenant community by faith, which infants cannot exercise. In Jeremiah's new covenant promise, he prophesies that the nature of the covenant community will change. It will move from being a "mixed" community of believers and unbelievers to a "regenerate" community. He writes, "And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD" (Jer. 31:34).

There are several Old Testament prophecies that predict the pouring out of the Spirit on Israel when God returns and restores them. These are fulfilled when Jesus pours out the Spirit at Pentecost (note how Peter interprets Joel 2 in Acts 2). The Spirit regenerates and indwells every person when they trust in Jesus and join the new covenant community, which is in striking contrast to the old covenant. As John Reisinger likes to say, the old covenant did not come with batteries included. Every member of the new covenant community is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who enables us to live a life pleasing to God.

7. By virtue of union with Christ, the church is the end-time Israel.

Dispensationalism teaches that the church and Israel are separate. This is a hard case to make from Scripture. CT teaches that the church is Israel and Israel is the church. NCT is much closer to CT here but teaches that Israel is summed up in her Messiah, who then opens the gates of Israel to any and all who trust him as Lord. NCT centers the Christ/church relationship on union with Christ. It really is all about him.

All the promises of God are yes in Christ (2 Cor. 1:20). The story of Israel finds its resolution in the story of Jesus. Matthew starts the New Testament with the bold assertion that this biography will be about the Messiah who is both the son of David and the son of Abraham (Matt. 1:1). He sums up Israel in himself. He is the singular offspring of Abraham (Gal. 3:16) who bears the curses and inherits all the promises and then shares them will all who trust in him. We are co-heirs with Christ. If you are of Christ then you are heirs of the promises to Abraham (Gal. 3:29). Ephesians 2:11 and following clearly say that the two have become one because of the cross-work of Christ. Romans 2 redefines Jewishness around the Spirit: "For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter" (Rom. 2:28-29).

Sometimes, NCT is accused of replacement theology. That is just a straw man. We teach inclusion theology. All the promises of God about him coming back to regather Israel begin to be fulfilled in the first coming of Jesus - God-made-flesh - who comes and restores Israel. Just take a glance at the cross references in Mark 1 to see how many Old Testament verses are alluded to there. He begins with 12 disciples, alluding to the reconstituting of the 12 tribes, then expands his kingdom to include all who come to him. The Messiah came to his own people but his own people did not receive him but to any and all who did receive him - regardless of ethnicity - to them he gave the right to become Israel, who were born not of bloodlines but of God (John 1:12-13). Jesus came to restore Israel and redefine Israel around himself, expanding its borders to any who are joined to him by faith.

Each of these points begs to be unpacked further, but to my mind, and the minds of many others, these are the seven core essentials of new covenant theology. 

Other NCT Resources:

What is the Law of Christ?

What exactly did the Apostle Paul mean when he spoke of "the law of Christ?"A lot of debate surrounds this little phrase, probably due to the fact that it only occurs one time in the whole New Testament. Galatians 6:2 says, "Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ" [ton nomon tou Christou] (ESV). Paul uses a very similar phrase in 1 Corinthians 9:21: "To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ [ennomos Christou]) that I might win those outside the law." This verse could be translated "in-lawed to Christ."

Based upon these two occurrences and their surrounding contexts, I define the law of Christ as the pattern of rights-renouncing, self-giving love exemplified by Jesus on the cross.

Let's start with the Galatians passage. The first question to ask is what Paul means by "law?" He has used the word all over the letter and the vast majority of the time he is referring to the law of Moses given to Israel. Because of past usage in the letter, many think Paul is talking about the law of Moses here, just in light of Christ or some other variation. I don't think Paul is talking about the law of Moses in Galatians 6:2. First and foremost because he says law of Christ. Plus, throughout the letter, Paul has put Christ and the law in opposition to one another. This would be the first time to use them together in a positive way. The final reason that I think Paul is referring to some "other" law here comes from the passage we will look at next.There we will see that Paul explicitly says that the law of Christ and the law of Moses are distinct.

What then does he mean by "law of Christ"? Some think he means all the teaching of Jesus, a Messianic Torah of sorts. I simply do not think that much can be packed into these two verses. While it is obviously true that new covenant believers are bound to the teaching of Jesus, I just do not think that is what Paul means here by "the law of Christ."

Rather, I think Paul is pointing us to the example of Jesus. More specifically, the "pattern" Jesus shows us. Paul often uses word-plays and that's what he is doing here with "law" in Galatians 6:2. Right away, we see that fulfilling the law of Christ has something to do with bearing one another's burdens. It is by bearing one another's burdens that we fulfill the law of Christ. And Paul has shown again and again in this letter that Christ is the ultimate burden-bearer. He dies for our sake. He gives of self for our good - our salvation. That's what biblical love is: giving of self for the good of another. "This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters" (NIV). He is the paradigmatic burden-bearer. He gave himself for our sins in order to deliver us from the present evil age (Gal 1:4). He gave of self for our good. He loved us and gave himself for us (Gal 2:20). Jesus redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. He gives of self for our good, bearing our burden. We, in turn, our called to do the same, thus fulfilling the pattern of Jesus.

Now, let's consider our second occurrence in 1 Corinthians 9. For a little more context, read 1 Corinthians 9:19-22: "For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some."

We see clearly here that the law of Christ and the law of Moses are distinct. He says that he is not under the law, meaning law of Moses, but is under the law of God, which now means being in-lawed to Christ. He is neither under the law, nor outside the law. He is in another place altogether: in-lawed to Christ. He is law-less, not lawless but under the jurisdiction of Jesus.

These verses and their larger context in 1 Corinthians 8-11 are where I get the "rights-renouncing" part of the definition. A large portion of these chapters deal with food. With regard to eating food offered to idols, love should be the operating principle. Give up your right to eat to keep your brother from stumbling. "Take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak" (1 Cor 8:9). Give up your rights for the sake of love for one another. If food makes another stumble, Paul says "I will never eat meat" (1 Cor 8:13). Chapter 9 is all about Paul's rights as an apostle. First Corinthians 9:4-5 says, "Do we not have the right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife?" Later he says he has a "rightful claim" to receive money for his labor, "nevertheless, we have not made use of this right" (1 Cor 9:12). The Apostle has all kinds of rights and claims "I have made no use of any of these rights" (1 Cor 9:15).

Which leads us back to our main passage in 1 Corinthians. He is free from all. He has that right, but he gives it up and becomes a servant of all to win as many as possible. To the weak he becomes weak. He becomes all things to all people to save some. He renounces his rights and gives of self for the good of others. That's precisely what it means to be "in-lawed to Christ."

Moving onto chapter 10, he basically defines the law of Christ for us: "Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor" (1 Cor 10:24). Sounds like the Golden Rule, doesn't it? Or the Great Commandment? Must be onto something. At the end of the chapter he unpacks this pattern of Christ further: "I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved." He bears burdens, renounces rights, and gives of self. Then, overlooking the unfortunate chapter break, he ends this section with a command: "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (1 Cor 11:1). Imitate me in this renouncing of rights and this giving of self because I am simply imitating Christ. I am simply fulfilling the law of Christ.

More could be said. More passages could be unpacked. Though the phrase "law of Christ" is not mentioned, I can't help but mention one more passage. The Christ hymn of Philippians 2 lays out this law of Christ beautifully. There Paul exhorts the Philippian believers to consider others better than themselves and to put the interests of others before their own. In other words, to give of self for the good of others. Then he commands them to have the mind of Christ, who though in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be used for his own advantage. Rather he emptied himself, took on human form, and died on a cross. Though he had rights (the form of God) he gave of self and bore our burden.

This is already long enough, but I think this view is easily confirmed by the writings of John. In fact, I think Paul is probably thinking of the episode recorded in John 13 where Jesus renounces his right to have his feet washed, "takes upon the form of a slave," and gives of self for the good of his disciples. Then the chapter ends with the new commandment to love others just as Jesus loved us. I hope a brief reflection on the context of the only two passages that mention the law of Christ is enough to see the validity of seeing it as the pattern of the rights-renouncing, self-giving love of Jesus - for the good of others and the glory of God.

Sub-Christian Reading

"The New Testament's witness is clear - as also understood in the early church - that a proper reading of the Jewish Scriptures is one that reads them as fulfilled in Christ (otherwise, it is a sub-Christian reading) while also not denigrating or denying the continuing validity of the Old Testament's own witness (as opposed to Marcion's famous heretical view). 'Fulfillment' is the key idea here."

JT Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely, 251

Conference on New Covenant Theology

I'm honored to be a part of this year's Heritage Bible Conference "Understanding New Covenant Theology: The Law, The Gospel, and The Christian on June 26-29 in Lake Charles. Here is the web page and here is the schedule:

Thursday, June 26 - 7 pm – Blake White, “What Is New Covenant Theology?”

Friday, June 27 - 12 noon – Fellowship Luncheon at the Church
7 pm – Blake White, “The Place of The Law in Redemptive History”

Saturday, June 28, 10 am – Blake White, “The New and Better Covenant”
11:30 am --- Q&A with Bro. Blake
12:30 pm --- Lunch at the Church

Sunday, June 29 - 11 am – Ron McKinney, “Adopted: A New Covenant Reality”
6 pm – Ron McKinney, “Hebrews: It's Just Better!”

Other similar conferences to note:

2014 John Bunyan Conference

2014 Council on Biblical Theology

2014 John Bunyan Conference

The 2014 John Bunyan Conference looks like a ton of fun. Here are the speakers:

  • Peter J. Gentry (PhD, University of Toronto) is professor of Old Testament Interpretation at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and director of the Hexapla Institute.
  • Larry McCall has served as a pastor at Christ’s Covenant Church, Winona Lake, IN since 1981. He has written a number of articles and is the author of two books, Walking Like Jesus Did and Loving Your Wife as Christ Loved the Church. He received his BA in New Testament Greek and MDiv from Grace College and Theological Seminary. In 1993, he completed his Doctor of Ministry at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
  • Stephen Wellum (PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is professor of Christian Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and editor of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology.
  • Steve West (PhD) is the Lead Pastor of Crestwicke Baptist Church, Guelph, Ontario, and an adjunct professor at Toronto Baptist Seminary.
  • A. Blake White (MDiv, SBTS; ThM, SWBTS) is pastor of Spicewood Baptist Church in the Texas Hill Country. He and his wife Alicia have three children: Josiah, Asher, and Karis. He is the author of What is New Covenant Theology? An Introduction and eight other books focusing on exegesis and biblical theology.
Here are the topics:

Gentry: Overview of How the Covenants are Central to the Plot Structure of Scripture Culminating in the New Covenant and Exposition of the Covenant at Creation and Its Foundational Role in the Understanding of the New Covenant

McCall: Loving Your Wife as Christ Loves the Church – 2 Messages

Wellum Underpinning and Understanding Biblical Theology
Understanding the Covenants—Central to Theology

West Shepherding the New Covenant Community – 3 Messages

White: Mark’s Prologue and the Isaianic New Exodus (Mark 1:1-15) &
The Gospel Gift of God’s Righteousness (Romans 1:16-17)

Register here and see the schedule here.

Rosner on Paul and the Law