In this case, as I review my post, I find that I have probably been too terse (compact) where I should have expanded. This is not a simple topic nor one that can be done justice briefly. So I welcome your questions. I hope it helps some...
Okay... it is simple. God is clear and consider, we are authors of confusion in league with... well... you know. Thank God for God The Son!
Please be compact and concise. Remember when I told you I can see the leading of the Spirit in your words, squelched by the damage of extra biblical commentary? Yup. Again.
I believe Isaac is (if not natural) certainly that spiritual Israel I was trying to convey. When I hear the term "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", I hear a reference to spiritual Israel (primarily, but not exclusively). Isaac, however, has the unique position of being the father of natural Israel. One could make the case that even Abraham's father is of natural Israel because of his progeny. That, I think, only serves to underscore the nonsense that can be gotten into when one gets into wrangling about genealogies. It does no good - and partly (again, my reading of it) because it misses the point. God's men are God's men because of God - not because of who they are (or were). Israel or not.
To return to the question, though, Abraham was the one who was told that HE would be made the father of many nations (including Israel). Abraham is the father of the 1st century Jews by their own account. Jesus doesn't argue that other than to make the point that their spiritual lineage is what matters.
Bottom line, I do believe that Isaac is of Israel as Abraham's son.
I am seeking to place all elections within the same context. Israel has a certain history that the Gentiles do not - so their path to Christ (and the way God may deal with each individual Israelite) will likely differ. Jesus said He had sheep of different folds - but they were all His sheep and He never distinguished between them (that I read) in terms of election. Israel after the flesh was unique because to them was entrusted the oracles of God. But being the trustees, they got so close that they (most of them) couldn't see the forest for the trees. It became about them instead about God so they rejected Him (over and over and over and....). Their election will be election in the same sense Gentiles are elected.
There is no hope then. This is against scripture and only fallacious justification of pet theology. The Bible does not say what you are saying. I'm going to log off pretty soon. You're getting more set in your lens. Remember our discussion on the Slaying thread. The responsive to scripture you is dying to theological lens of extra biblical proportion.
Short answer, yes. Where I have problems is where certain kinds of respect is given them because they are Israel. Thinking of examples like John Hagee's declaration that it is sinful to evangelize a Jew. Or those that hold that the Law will be the salvation of the Jews. I believe God will bring all - Israelite and non-Israelite alike - that are His to Himself. Here is where we probably differ most sharply. I don't necessarily see as sharp an eschatological distinction made over Israel as you do. I am not a dispensationalist and the kingdom having been taken from at least some of the tribes per Jesus' words, I don't see as much of a national import even if many who are Israelites will turn to Jesus Christ in the last days. If we are to be strict, how many who are really descended from Israel don't even realize it? How many generations have passed and how many scatterings have occurred in the past 2500 to 3000 years such that there is some notable degree of Israelite blood in those throughout the world? Is God going to do a test to determine how much Israelite blood is in someone to determine if they are in natural Israel or not? I don't believe He does things along those lines.
Yes, it's all Jesus. No, it's not all at the same time. The Bible teaches us this over and over. Why reinvent the scriptural wheel, when scripture nails it all down clearly?
I figure this is an important question. I am neither full nor partial preterist. I hold to much of the Reformation eschatological school of prophecy called (at some time) historicism. More precisely, I see historical fulfillment of Revelation over time - but there is a dose of idealism/symbolism mixed into the interpretation (which I think most people have anyway since you can't read Revelation in a physically literal way and have it make sense).
I will also add that I still have more questions than answers about even my own understanding of eschatology.
Aha! ....... There it is! I have enormous hope for your grey matters understanding of the Spirit's teachings.
You remain above the cut in open heart and mind to be molded by Christ alone. I regret that I have grown so gruff on this topic and I know you deserve less harsh answers than those I give, but I figured I would cut to the chase and just lay it all out on the table without any questions.
Could you please quote one chapter that contextually renames Jacobs descendants anything other than Israel, and could you please quote full chapter and contextual verse that redesignates the Body of Christ, Israel?
Rom 9:6-8
For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.
Galatians 3:7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.
Rom 2:28-29 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.
Being children of faith in Abraham like Isaac is totally different than being Jacob who wrestled with God and got Named Israel, by God, for it. God named Israel, Israel. Are you wiser than God now?
Okay... it is simple. God is clear and consider, we are authors of confusion in league with... well... you know. Thank God for God The Son!
Please be compact and concise. Remember when I told you I can see the leading of the Spirit in your words, squelched by the damage of extra biblical commentary? Yup. Again.
Not to be too terse and to the point, but what the Bible says and what your theological influences tell you here are two different matters.
I'll put it this way... you are wanting to see what you embrace, but honestly it's not there.
Don't forget this...
Um... no. Not biblical. Ditch the extra Commentary stuff already. What you "believe" and the Bible "SAYS" are two different matters here.
There is no hope then. This is against scripture and only fallacious justification of pet theology. The Bible does not say what you are saying. I'm going to log off pretty soon. You're getting more set in your lens. Remember our discussion on the Slaying thread. The responsive to scripture you is dying to theological lens of extra biblical proportion.
Yes, it's all Jesus. No, it's not all at the same time. The Bible teaches us this over and over. Why reinvent the scriptural wheel, when scripture nails it all down clearly?
Aha! ....... There it is! I have enormous hope for your grey matters understanding of the Spirit's teachings.
You remain above the cut in open heart and mind to be molded by Christ alone. I regret that I have grown so gruff on this topic and I know you deserve less harsh answers than those I give, but I figured I would cut to the chase and just lay it all out on the table without any questions.
I hope you'll forgive a delay in my expansion of the matter. I do have scripture that I want to bring to bear on the subject, but my approach thus far has been to summarize for the purpose of giving an overview. Likely my fleshing out will reveal some leaps, but at the moment it's how I see it and trust a dealing with the scripture will make things clear. In time.
Rom 9:6-8
For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.
This was to Tetty pie, but it fleshes out the out of context usage of Romans 9, you are trying to "Nisim" all up... which, Romans 9 is specifically talking about "unbelieving Israel" in contrast to believing Israel... and not the Body of Christ. Rotfl... refuting canned doctrine is so easy!
The 12 Apostles knew their King and many in Israel did too, but things Got precursor to Romans 9-11 when Steven got stoned. Anyhow... here it is...
Redundancy and usage to be used for Notes and exegesis.
Spoiler
Romans 9
Israel’s Rejection of Christ <--(Sub Heading says ... LITERAL ISRAEL)
I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
Israel’s Rejection and God’s Purpose
6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”
10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”
Israel’s Rejection and God’s Justice
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25 As He says also in Hosea:
“I will call them My people, who were not My people,
And her beloved, who was not beloved.”
26 “And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,
‘You are not My people,’
There they shall be called sons of the living God.” 27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel:
“Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
The remnant will be saved.
28 For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness,
Because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth.”
29 And as Isaiah said before:
“Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed,
We would have become like Sodom,
And we would have been made like Gomorrah.”
Present Condition of Israel
30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:
“Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”
Spoiler
Romans 10(NKJV)
Israel Needs the Gospel
10 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
5 For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, “The man who does those things shall live by them.” 6 But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’”(that is, to bring Christ down from above) 7 or, “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Israel Rejects the Gospel
14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:
“How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
18 But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed:
“Their sound has gone out to all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world.”
19 But I say, did Israel not know? First Moses says:
“I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation,
I will move you to anger by a foolish nation.”
20 But Isaiah is very bold and says:
“I was found by those who did not seek Me;
I was made manifest to those who did not ask for Me.”
21 But to Israel he says:
“All day long I have stretched out My hands
To a disobedient and contrary people.”
Spoiler
Romans 11 (NKJV)
Israel’s Rejection Not Total
I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, 3 “Lord, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life”? 4 But what does the divine response say to him? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.[c] But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.
7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. 8 Just as it is written:
“God has given them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes that they should not see
And ears that they should not hear,
To this very day.”
9 And David says:
“Let their table become a snare and a trap,
A stumbling block and a recompense to them.
10 Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see,
And bow down their back always.”
Israel’s Rejection Not Final
11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!
13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith.Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness,if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”
28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.
33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!
34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has become His counselor?”
35 “Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?”
36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.
Romans 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelite's, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
Paul immediately identifies that there are still "ISRAELITE'S", and that HE wished HE could take their place in being separated from "whom, according to the flesh, Christ Came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God"
Right from the jump... Paul identifies National Israel... unless one would like to dispute that Jesus was born of the lineage of "National Israel".
6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”
Paul is already setting up for Romans 11 and distinguishing the Age of Grace offering to the Gentiles that is available, because of the "Grafting"... and "Removal".
There is no mistake that Paul is foreshadowing the Union of the "Body of Christ" with the "Body of Moses / Bride of Christ".
If anyone thinks this has happened yet... they are in denial of world events and the literal presence of "DEATH".
Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Paul is aching for the salvation of LITERAL Israel and identifies it with the fact that they are zealous for the LAW, but not submitted to "Christ". This is Blood and Nation... Jacob's children... ISRAEL!
5 For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, “The man who does those things shall live by them.”
18 But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed:
“Their sound has gone out to all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world.”
19 But I say, did Israel not know? First Moses says:
“I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation,
I will move you to anger by a foolish nation.”
20 But Isaiah is very bold and says:
“I was found by those who did not seek Me;
I was made manifest to those who did not ask for Me.”
21 But to Israel he says:
“All day long I have stretched out My hands
To a disobedient and contrary people.”
Who did Moses write to? Who are the "disobedient people"? Christ Rejecting Israel! When did this mount to a head? When Steven was stoned! It's so clear in context that to say any other thing is lunacy! Jews / Christ Rejecting Israel are a deep topic here! Paul is bringing us up to speed here!
Romans 11:1 Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, 3 “Lord, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life”? 4 But what does the divine response say to him? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.
Paul has just underlined GRACE! He is foreshadowing GRACE and using the Analogy of "Elijah"... who thought He was ALONE... and this analogy is to the Body of Christ / Grace age Gentiles!
Paul is sharing a Mystery with us that foreshadows... THAT WE ARE NOT THE ONLY BODY!
7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. 8 Just as it is written:
“God has given them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes that they should not see
And ears that they should not hear,
To this very day.”
Stupor, blindness... LIKE SAUL!!! What did it take to WAKE PAUL UP? The LORD Jesus Christ's Special intervention in HIS LIFE! The Jews haven't had their final "Road to Damascus" yet!
11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!
Now what? Paul is distinguishing Unbelieving Israel from GENTILES under GRACE! He even says that Israel will become Jealous... like a LOVER making His Bride Jealous... because she's been screwing around! If you don't get how that ties with the Gentiles and the book of Hosea... I can't help you!
God has His eye on His bride still! You don't think about a Lover's Jealousy, unless you intend to woo her BACK!
13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
Here Paul is speaking of the DEAD's Acceptance of Jesus! Who's? Literal Israels! You have to deny all of 9 and 10 and everything before 13 to suggest otherwise! He is even saying that the Dead of Israel are different than the "Saved of the Grace Age"! Paul even suggests that they will have ACCEPTANCE in the FUTURE! Bet the next few verses are going to make this point razor sharp!
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.
Here we have "Natural Branches" and "Grafted Branches" being discussed. Who is Natural? ISRAEL... Who is "Grafted" ... GENTILES. What does Paul WARN us NOT to DO... and then warn about the NATURAL BRANCHES broken off being way more difficult to God to "Break off", then casting aside... "Us Grafted Branches"..?
Paul says... Don't BE HAUGHTY! ... Like TET is being about ISRAEL by mocking them in their "shame". That's Jesus' bride! It's not wise to get in-between a man and HIS LOVE!
25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israeluntilthe fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
What's that? Israel is differentiated from GENTILES in VERSE 25 and the word... UNTIL is used in a POST "Pentecost" VERSE!
Do you understand TET? POST PENTECOST! That Pre-Terrorism Garbage is not recognizing the actual Time marking verbiage of Paul that coincides with Jesus!
Not to mention that this is foretelling the Acceptance of Israel and not the Destruction of Israel! This is about God's PROMISES, not the Hard hearted that refuse to forgive those that handed Jesus over to the Cross. We ALL did THAT... anyhow!
“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”
Had the quote said "Israel"... it would be a matter of strong argument... but it says ... JACOB! Gentiles are counted Seed of Isaac / Abraham... but this says... JACOB! There's no denying this! And Covenant is PROMISE! Our Lord, God, Jesus Christ never BREAKS THOSE!
28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
There is no way to miss this! THEY are CHRIST REJECTING ISRAEL, AND THEY ARE ENEMIES OF THE GOSPEL... But Elected by FLESH / their FATHERS! ... and why does this matter?
Because!
"the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."
Does God LIE TETTY?
30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.
Here we have Paul reminding us that we were once outside of the PLAN of SALVATION, just as Israel is now... but LOOK How that TURNED OUT!
These words are POST GOSPEL! It would be wonderful if the Jews could accept Jesus, but not all do... and God is mapped out to HAVE a purpose for this! It's so clear that it is humorous that this is argued against!
33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!
34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has become His counselor?”
35 “Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?”
36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen
How does it finish? It finishes telling us that God's mind is HIS mind alone and only He has the right to "Judge"! Tetty... you judge GOD's Promise as "Revocable"...
Guess WHAT! Paul called and said... "Don't Be Haughty or Ignorant"... Here's a Mystery....
Galatians 3:7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.
Rom 2:28-29 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.
:chuckle: the one that explains that Israel is Jacob and his blood descendants, while Isaac is Jacob's father.
Unlike God the Son who is One with God the Father, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob aren't a Divine Trinity that are One, but Distinct in "Expression and Person".
You crack me up with this misuse and full misunderstanding of Isaac and Ishmael, Hagar and Sarah.
I hope you'll forgive a delay in my expansion of the matter. I do have scripture that I want to bring to bear on the subject, but my approach thus far has been to summarize for the purpose of giving an overview. Likely my fleshing out will reveal some leaps, but at the moment it's how I see it and trust a dealing with the scripture will make things clear. In time.
Fair enough. Keep in mind... I'm blunt, specific and fairly unsweetened. I am always pleased to discuss matters with you and I do my best to be as eloquent towards you... but... alas... I've been around long enough for you to know my style.
I look forward to your reply and wish you the best weekend possible.
Fair enough. Keep in mind... I'm blunt, specific and fairly unsweetened. I am always pleased to discuss matters with you and I do my best to be as eloquent towards you... but... alas... I've been around long enough for you to know my style.
I look forward to your reply and wish you the best weekend possible.
Well that's a mouthful right there.
Why don't you expand your view of what it means for 'Christians that attempt to bypass Israel's suffering and usurp her "election" through complete falsification of scriptural revelation?'
Props to you... excellent reply. Honest, no punches here.
We agree to disagree. In the end, we are both severely postured. I feel this reply deserved respect though. I clearly disagree with your stance and I appreciate your concise articulation here... but what is my exposition going to prove to you when Romans 9-11... especially 11 answers all your questions for you?
Ditch the "nism" and peek for yourself... or not...
[MENTION=9932]andyc[/MENTION] ... may your weekend be wonderful. We are both saved by grace through faith and thus, we are undivided in that matter.
[MENTION=14377]northwye[/MENTION] ... I'm thankful you Love Jesus and accept His grace.
[MENTION=12870]steko[/MENTION] ... [MENTION=3698]Tambora[/MENTION] ... [MENTION=16688]Danoh[/MENTION] ... [MENTION=7053]SaulToPaul[/MENTION] [MENTION=8445]DAN P[/MENTION] ... [MENTION=13955]glorydaz[/MENTION] ... [MENTION=1851]john w[/MENTION] ... @ well ... ...@All of you who lay the smack down, down in the name of God's irrevocable promises...
Thanks for always holding people to the scriptural fire and giving us all a deeper desire to dive into the Word's words to understand our wonderful Jesus so much more!
"Galatians 3:7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham." This is from post Number 63.
Apparently this is from the New King James Version. I have gone through Galatians 3 before in the King James Version and in the William Tyndale New Testament and the word "only" caught my attention because its not in the King James or Tyndale NT.
Here is the Greek from the Textus Receptus for Galatians 3: 7. And I am looking at this verse in my George Ricker Berry 1981 Greek-English Interlinear.
γινωσκετε αρα οτι οι εκ πιστεως ουτοι εισιν υιοι αβρααμ
The translation is straight forward: "know then that they that of faith (are) those are sons of Abraham? "Only has been added by the translation committee.
However, saying that only they who are of faith are the children of Abraham is consistent with Paul's doctrine on faith. And it is interesting that the New King James Translation Committee would insert the word only in Galatians 34: 7, since many in that committee were dispensationalists - by their academic positions,
That the statement "Know then that only they who are of faith are the children of Abraham" is consistent with what Paul says about faith in other verses of Galatians 3 and in Romans chapters 3, 4 and 9 affirms that arguments against this doctrine - "only those who have faith in Christ Jesus are the children of Abraham" - are futile. The doctrine that God decides who is part of his elect based upon their physical DNA is not found in the New Testament.
I'll try to ask a few questions for clearification.
Do you believe that Issac is Israel because he fathered Jacob?
Are you reaching to place the body of Christ within the "election" of Israel?
Do you believe that God has a plan for Israel, in the biblical sense (the Israel that scripture defines and never redefines), that will be part of Christ's second coming?
Are you a preterist, and if so, to what degree? As in Full or partial.
I am going to do something that will possibly seem a little like a "hit and run". In trying to flesh out the issue, I started with a high-level view. It was unfortunately very vague and short on any helpful specifics. Part of the reason for that is that I haven't consulted commentaries and have formed my own understanding (though not without the help and instruction of many over the years). I am not referring to any author when I express my view (though I went to a store on the way home last night and took a quick look at Grudem and his treatment of this in his ST - seems bang on to me). So I think it would be most helpful if I ask a question (or more?) of my own.
You (and, I would think, most dispensationalists) make a big deal of who Israel was. That Jacob was called "Israel" by God that the nation of Israel came from him and distinct from his father(s). What, then, do you see as distinct in Jacob/Israel in terms of God's promises to him - over and against the promises made to Abraham and Isaac?
While this is jumping to the end (there is likely a lot in between the above question and what follows), I want to get a good overview of your take on what I think is important. So with that in mind, how do you view this statement made in multiple places in the gospels :
And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham
Matt 3:9 , Luke 3:8
And to take it a step further, how do you look at this verse:
They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. John 8:39
Specifically, why does Jesus not even acknowledge their natural descent and rather treats their statement (in reinforcing their supposedly spiritual lineage) in a purely spiritual fashion? He actually says they aren't Abraham's children - without qualification (i.e. making it an entirely spiritual matter).
One final question here and I think I will have at least the beginnings of the background I am looking for. If all this is so plain - that Israel has been promised much that has yet to be fulfilled and constitutes a separate body that is in nearly all ways distinct from the Church - why did the disciples (to a man, I think) look for a deliverer to overthrow Rome rather than a Savior to bring about spiritual salvation? If all of prophecy was with that in view and was the Spirit of Christ as given before He appeared on earth (John 5:39, I Peter 1:11-12, Rev 19:10), why should one continue to take a (at least partially) nationalistic/racial/ethnic view of prophecy - especially in light of the fact that there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ? And who qualifies as an Israelite upon whom these prophecies are to be fulfilled?
Sorry...I know this is more than one question, but they all converge and I'm trying to see the foundation for what it is. I think these questions will let me see that (at least some of it).
I am going to do something that will possibly seem a little like a "hit and run". In trying to flesh out the issue, I started with a high-level view. It was unfortunately very vague and short on any helpful specifics. Part of the reason for that is that I haven't consulted commentaries and have formed my own understanding (though not without the help and instruction of many over the years). I am not referring to any author when I express my view (though I went to a store on the way home last night and took a quick look at Grudem and his treatment of this in his ST - seems bang on to me). So I think it would be most helpful if I ask a question (or more?) of my own.
You (and, I would think, most dispensationalists) make a big deal of who Israel was. That Jacob was called "Israel" by God that the nation of Israel came from him and distinct from his father(s). What, then, do you see as distinct in Jacob/Israel in terms of God's promises to him - over and against the promises made to Abraham and Isaac?
While this is jumping to the end (there is likely a lot in between the above question and what follows), I want to get a good overview of your take on what I think is important. So with that in mind, how do you view this statement made in multiple places in the gospels :
And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham
Matt 3:9 , Luke 3:8
And to take it a step further, how do you look at this verse:
They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. John 8:39
Specifically, why does Jesus not even acknowledge their natural descent and rather treats their statement (in reinforcing their supposedly spiritual lineage) in a purely spiritual fashion? He actually says they aren't Abraham's children - without qualification (i.e. making it an entirely spiritual matter).
One final question here and I think I will have at least the beginnings of the background I am looking for. If all this is so plain - that Israel has been promised much that has yet to be fulfilled and constitutes a separate body that is in nearly all ways distinct from the Church - why did the disciples (to a man, I think) look for a deliverer to overthrow Rome rather than a Savior to bring about spiritual salvation? If all of prophecy was with that in view and was the Spirit of Christ as given before He appeared on earth (John 5:39, I Peter 1:11-12, Rev 19:10), why should one continue to take a (at least partially) nationalistic/racial/ethnic view of prophecy - especially in light of the fact that there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ? And who qualifies as an Israelite upon whom these prophecies are to be fulfilled?
Sorry...I know this is more than one question, but they all converge and I'm trying to see the foundation for what it is. I think these questions will let me see that (at least some of it).
What those passages you cited are addressing is "them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised" Rom. 4:12
In other words, as most Dispensationalists will assert, said Jews merely having been of Abraham's physical seed, and or their merely having been circumcised, was not enough.
Said Jews had to "also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised."
Faith is ever the issue.
Even what you cited goes into this very issue - of a difference between two Physical sons of Abraham - a difference in heart attitude.
Matthew 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
There were those. But the thing does not end there.
3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
So there were also those who were not of faith. Which is why the following warning - because the physical ALONE was not sufficient.
3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Next, we see both types of Physical sons of Abraham in a same passage...
3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
In short, as is ever proven the case, as to where you anti-Dispy's argue your points from; your argument is against your own mistaken view of what the Dispensationalist is supposedly asserting.
Passages like those are all dealing with two Physical sons of Abraham: one in unbelief; the other: of faith.
Luke 7:29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.
7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.
I am going to do something that will possibly seem a little like a "hit and run". In trying to flesh out the issue, I started with a high-level view. It was unfortunately very vague and short on any helpful specifics. Part of the reason for that is that I haven't consulted commentaries and have formed my own understanding (though not without the help and instruction of many over the years). I am not referring to any author when I express my view (though I went to a store on the way home last night and took a quick look at Grudem and his treatment of this in his ST - seems bang on to me). So I think it would be most helpful if I ask a question (or more?) of my own.
You (and, I would think, most dispensationalists) make a big deal of who Israel was. That Jacob was called "Israel" by God that the nation of Israel came from him and distinct from his father(s). What, then, do you see as distinct in Jacob/Israel in terms of God's promises to him - over and against the promises made to Abraham and Isaac?
While this is jumping to the end (there is likely a lot in between the above question and what follows), I want to get a good overview of your take on what I think is important. So with that in mind, how do you view this statement made in multiple places in the gospels :
And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham
Matt 3:9 , Luke 3:8
And to take it a step further, how do you look at this verse:
They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. John 8:39
Specifically, why does Jesus not even acknowledge their natural descent and rather treats their statement (in reinforcing their supposedly spiritual lineage) in a purely spiritual fashion? He actually says they aren't Abraham's children - without qualification (i.e. making it an entirely spiritual matter).
One final question here and I think I will have at least the beginnings of the background I am looking for. If all this is so plain - that Israel has been promised much that has yet to be fulfilled and constitutes a separate body that is in nearly all ways distinct from the Church - why did the disciples (to a man, I think) look for a deliverer to overthrow Rome rather than a Savior to bring about spiritual salvation? If all of prophecy was with that in view and was the Spirit of Christ as given before He appeared on earth (John 5:39, I Peter 1:11-12, Rev 19:10), why should one continue to take a (at least partially) nationalistic/racial/ethnic view of prophecy - especially in light of the fact that there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ? And who qualifies as an Israelite upon whom these prophecies are to be fulfilled?
Sorry...I know this is more than one question, but they all converge and I'm trying to see the foundation for what it is. I think these questions will let me see that (at least some of it).
EvilEye wrote: Do you believe that God has a plan for Israel, in the biblical sense (the Israel that scripture defines and never redefines), that will be part of Christ's second coming?
1, the plan was that the Seed would bless the nations. That message was the Gospel, and to spread that message he located them in a land that touched 3 continents.
2, not all Israel are Israel. Within Israel the distinction of faith is applied retroactively back over the whole race and history. Outside Israel, the same faith gives non-Jewish believers the promises and inheritance of the Seed in and through the Seed. Rom 9:24+ is clear that "us" as believers is Jews and non and uses 4 OT passages to underwrite that.
3, the land no longer matters. The whole NT is written against a background of knowing it was going to be decimated. Isaiah shows the 'Israel' of Messiah going to all the islands and the ends of the earth. The apostles thought that the end of the world would take place right after the DoJ, even when talking about marriage (I Cor 7). There is therefore no doctrine about the land of Israel in the NT that matters they way it used to in the OT.
3A, on top of this is the rather emphatic destruction of the temple the 2nd time in 70 AD ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE SAME WEEK AS THE FIRST. "Every fact is established by two witnesses." The DofJ was called 'the judgement of all that is written' in Lk 21, and 'the full wrath of God' in I Th 1.
4, practically, today, I'd rather see a constitutional representative government EVERYWHERE vs. shari'a law. So I'm all for the state of Israel to be that, and hope others in the region will.
EvilEye wrote: Do you believe that God has a plan for Israel, in the biblical sense (the Israel that scripture defines and never redefines), that will be part of Christ's second coming?
1, the plan was that the Seed would bless the nations. That message was the Gospel, and to spread that message he located them in a land that touched 3 continents.
2, not all Israel are Israel. Within Israel the distinction of faith is applied retroactively back over the whole race and history. Outside Israel, the same faith gives non-Jewish believers the promises and inheritance of the Seed in and through the Seed. Rom 9:24+ is clear that "us" as believers is Jews and non and uses 4 OT passages to underwrite that.
3, the land no longer matters. The whole NT is written against a background of knowing it was going to be decimated. Isaiah shows the 'Israel' of Messiah going to all the islands and the ends of the earth. The apostles thought that the end of the world would take place right after the DoJ, even when talking about marriage (I Cor 7). There is therefore no doctrine about the land of Israel in the NT that matters they way it used to in the OT.
3A, on top of this is the rather emphatic destruction of the temple the 2nd time in 70 AD ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE SAME WEEK AS THE FIRST. "Every fact is established by two witnesses." The DofJ was called 'the judgement of all that is written' in Lk 21, and 'the full wrath of God' in I Th 1.
4, practically, today, I'd rather see a constitutional representative government EVERYWHERE vs. shari'a law. So I'm all for the state of Israel to be that, and hope others in the region will.
I am going to do something that will possibly seem a little like a "hit and run". In trying to flesh out the issue, I started with a high-level view. It was unfortunately very vague and short on any helpful specifics. Part of the reason for that is that I haven't consulted commentaries and have formed my own understanding (though not without the help and instruction of many over the years). I am not referring to any author when I express my view (though I went to a store on the way home last night and took a quick look at Grudem and his treatment of this in his ST - seems bang on to me). So I think it would be most helpful if I ask a question (or more?) of my own.
You (and, I would think, most dispensationalists) make a big deal of who Israel was. That Jacob was called "Israel" by God that the nation of Israel came from him and distinct from his father(s). What, then, do you see as distinct in Jacob/Israel in terms of God's promises to him - over and against the promises made to Abraham and Isaac?
While this is jumping to the end (there is likely a lot in between the above question and what follows), I want to get a good overview of your take on what I think is important. So with that in mind, how do you view this statement made in multiple places in the gospels :
And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham
Matt 3:9 , Luke 3:8
And to take it a step further, how do you look at this verse:
They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. John 8:39
Specifically, why does Jesus not even acknowledge their natural descent and rather treats their statement (in reinforcing their supposedly spiritual lineage) in a purely spiritual fashion? He actually says they aren't Abraham's children - without qualification (i.e. making it an entirely spiritual matter).
One final question here and I think I will have at least the beginnings of the background I am looking for. If all this is so plain - that Israel has been promised much that has yet to be fulfilled and constitutes a separate body that is in nearly all ways distinct from the Church - why did the disciples (to a man, I think) look for a deliverer to overthrow Rome rather than a Savior to bring about spiritual salvation? If all of prophecy was with that in view and was the Spirit of Christ as given before He appeared on earth (John 5:39, I Peter 1:11-12, Rev 19:10), why should one continue to take a (at least partially) nationalistic/racial/ethnic view of prophecy - especially in light of the fact that there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ? And who qualifies as an Israelite upon whom these prophecies are to be fulfilled?
Sorry...I know this is more than one question, but they all converge and I'm trying to see the foundation for what it is. I think these questions will let me see that (at least some of it).
I think Romans 9-11 handles the questions of "What about Israel?", if the BOC is different than Israel.
Does GOD still plan to keep His promises to them?
Of course, GOD keeps all His word.
Romans 119 KJV
(28) As concerning the gospel, they [Israel] are enemies for your [BOC] sakes: but as touching the election, they [Israel] are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
(29) For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
I think Romans 9-11 handles the questions of "What about Israel?", if the BOC is different than Israel.
Does GOD still plan to keep His promises to them?
Of course, GOD keeps all His word.
Romans 119 KJV
(28) As concerning the gospel, they [Israel] are enemies for your [BOC] sakes: but as touching the election, they [Israel] are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
(29) For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
That verse was meant to show that they would be blessed in Christ's mission, not in a restoration of the land which doesn't help that mission. Just check later in the chapter. And the middle of ch 10, and the 'burden' of ch 11.
The restoration of the land is a total tacked on out of nowhere to Rom 9-11. Down through church history, a few people believed there might be a surge of Jewish believers toward the end, but the idea of restoring Judea, Judaism, the temple was only recent, and the roots are kinda weird (Ribera the Jesuit Counterreformation zealot).
I think Romans 9-11 handles the questions of "What about Israel?", if the BOC is different than Israel.
Does GOD still plan to keep His promises to them?
Of course, GOD keeps all His word.
Romans 119 KJV
(28) As concerning the gospel, they [Israel] are enemies for your [BOC] sakes: but as touching the election, they [Israel] are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
(29) For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
Yep - and where Israel's Promises are concerned and God's faithfulness to same, Romans 9-11 actually is a part of what Romans 3 both starts out with, and returns to at the very end of Romans 3, and then briefly touches on, both in Romans 4, and again, briefly, in Romans 15.
All in light of Romans 1 and 2, and much of Romans 3.
Or - lol - "over the river, and through the woods, to grandmother's house we go" :chuckle:
