God has only got one chosen people

[WPM]

I think a lot of people have got confused with this subject of true Israel over the years because they fail to recognize the centrality of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. Many get tangled up in the activities of national Israel, old covenant rituals, laws, locations and traditions and fail to see that these only served as temporary pointers to the coming of the Messiah and the introduction of the new covenant. All of the old covenant promises and covenants find their fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ. He is the realization of every single Old Testament type.

Jesus reveals, in Matthew 13:17, that the old covenant prophets and righteous leaders longed for His day, asserting: “verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.”

He was the long-anticipated deliver of Israel.

Nathanael testified to Philip in John 1:45: “We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

Our Lord accomplished every expectation that the Old Testament writers predicted.

Even though they did not have a full epiphany of Him, the old covenant prophets were preoccupied with the Messiah’s person, His appearance and His ministry. The Old Testament text gradually and assuredly steered history ahead to the fulfillment of every ancient promise. The momentum and revelation grew the closer it got to the first advent.

There is an undoubted steady unfolding continuity of plan and purpose from the Old to the New Testament, concentrated on the promised Messiah. Christ is indeed God’s final, fullest and ultimate revelation of perfection and truth. In fact, Jesus Christ is the key to understanding the biblical covenants.

Jesus famously rebuked the two downcast disciples on the road to Emmaus on resurrection day, stating: “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?” (Luke 24:25-26).

After this, he began to open their eyes to the meaning of the sacred pages. Luke 24:25 records: “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.”

Despite the fact that these disciples had sat under the teaching of the Lord for 3 ½ years they were still largely ignorant of the full meaning and import of the Old Testament Scriptures. That is why Jesus had to explain the meaning and application of these Old Testament passages to them in detail. He had to show how they spoke about Him. They should have known all this, but didn't because of their human limitations and lack of faith. Because of this they needed Jesus to interpret the ancient Scriptures that referred to Him for them.

Jesus began at the beginning with Moses in the Pentateuch and followed right through to the prophets showing these disciples the things pertaining to Himself, His sufferings and His glory. He revealed the Gospel message in the Old Testament pages. Jesus was not just referring to the Old Testament pages. We often see the descriptive coupling of Moses and the prophets as an alternative description of, and distinction between, the written Word and the spoken Word. That is likely why Moses and Elijah joined Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration. They represented both groups and together they pointed to our Redeemer.

Our Savior continues in Luke 24:44-46: “These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day.”

His intent was to confirm that He completed every demand that was made of Him from the ancient inspired pages. His life was the perfect realization of predicted Old Testament prophecy.

The central theme of the Old Testament Scriptures is the exact same as that in the New Testament – it is Jesus Christ. He was/is the hope of Israel. He was/is the hope of the nations. It was only through Christ’s sinless life, His atoning death and His glorious resurrection that we can experience freedom from the curse of sin and deliverance from eternal punishment.

Jesus was indeed the “hope of Israel” – the only hope. Those among this privileged nation that were given the Gospel and ordinances of God who took a hold of the covenant promises – by faith – entered into a relationship with God and experienced personal salvation.

 

[Marilyn C]

Yes they did! Adam would have passed that on to his offspring.

The Gospel is written all over Adam and Eve's experience. Adam would have told his kids how he tried in his foolishness to cover his own sin. He ran from God. He tried to hide from God. But God in His love, grace and mercy came to him. God made a sacrifice. God covered his nakedness with a covering. There is the salvation message!

In this, we our righteousness is as filthy rags. In this, we see there is no covering without the shedding of innocent blood. Every Old Testament sacrifice, feast and ordinance pointed to Christ. Every Old Testament office pointed to Christ.

So why didn`t Jesus come earlier in the first century. Evil men still would have killed Him but then when He arose and ascended to the Father He could have started a whole new race of Adam. There would not have been centuries of suffering and torment.

So why?

BTW God could have had made prophecies for that.

 

[WPM]

So why didn`t Jesus come earlier in the first century. Evil men still would have killed Him but then when He arose and ascended to the Father He could have started a whole new race of Adam. There would not have been centuries of suffering and torment.

So why?

BTW God could have had made prophecies for that.

What are you talking about?

 

[Marilyn C]

What are you talking about?

If God only wanted one people He could have started that in the very first century. The Lord could have come, evil men kill Him, He rises from the dead, ascends to the Father and makes all things new. He begins a whole new mankind without sin.

That seems to be what you are saying His purpose is.

 

[Zao is life]

Hi WPM,

Today we, the Body of Christ are whom the Lord is working our His purposes for. However, that does NOT negate His other purposes - Israel and the Nations.

`Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.` (Rom. 11: 28)

@Marilyn C

I'm going to give you the reasons why I disagree with what you say about this. The question at the bottom is only to show the difference between one type and the other type of Zionism.

In Romans 11:28 Paul is merely remaining consistent with the same distinction he made in Romans 11:1-17 between the Israel that is saved and the Israel that was broken off:

"Concerning the gospel, they (those who have been broken off - vs 1-10) are enemies for your (the Gentiles' sake - vs 11-17), but concerning the election, they (the remnant of Israel - vs 1-5 & 17) are beloved for the father's sake.

Then Paul repeats again what he said in vs 1-5:

"For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.": ("I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace").

If it weren't for the gifts and calling of God being without repentance there would have been no remnant, and if it weren't for the remnant, there would have been no Israel - no elect - for the Gentiles to have been grafted into (v 17).

Paul is not talking about those who have been broken off when he says "as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes"

- he's talking about the remnant.

The remnant of "Jewish" Israel + the Gentiles grafted in are the "all Israel" Paul is referring to when he refers to the fact that Christ has made a covenant with them in the day He took away there sins nearly 2,000 years ago (vs 26-27).

Paul also explains that because of the mercy shown the Gentiles God will have mercy upon any genetic seed of Jacob who repents of his unbelief:

"And they also, IF they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again." (v 23).

In vs 23-32 Paul did not contradict what he said in vs 1-17 - but the Dispensationalist botched interpretation of Paul's words has Paul contradicting what he said in vs 1-17 with what he said in vs 25-32.

Those who have been broken off have NO covenant with God - because God DOES NOT AND WILL NOT ACCEPT the blood sprinkled on a mercy-seat made with human hands by a high priest from an old order (Hebrews 8:4; Hebrews 7:12) - NOR does He, or will He accept any other offering or sacrifice or Rabbinic ritual in its place - because He ONLY accepts the blood of Christ - this is why God said through Jeremiah that the New Covenant would NOT BE LIKE THE OLD (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

God ALSO said in Jeremiah 31:35-37 that He would not cast off ALL the house of Israel - which is exactly what Paul says in Romans 11:1-10 when he talks about the remnant that was not cast off, and in Romans 9:6-7 - another passage which Dispensationalist false doctrine has botched up in their interpretation of it.

It's that domino-effect: Botch up Romans 11:25-32 the way your interpretation does, and you will have to botch up Jeremiah 31:35-37 and Romans 9:6-7 (+ a whole bunch of other scriptures) also, to make scripture comply with your theology.

PS: Amillennialism does the same (just with a different set of scriptures, and for a different set of false doctrines - and they are as blind to the fact as they accuse Dispensationalists of being), but I'm afraid understanding the reason why is way too deep for @WPM (and I say that without making myself guilty of breaking the rule written in Philippians 2:3).

PPS: (Real) Christian Zionism has Christ exalted and seated on His throne in Zion, and gratefully receives the covenant that God has made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah in His blood - the forgiveness of sins (Jeremiah 31:31-3; Luke 22:20).

The Zionism that the modern state of Israel is based on is not Christian Zionism. Not real Christian Zionism. Dispensationalists have illegitimately stolen the term Christian Zionism, and Amillennialists and others have freely handed it to them.

Dispensationalists have done the same thing by creating the term "Replacement Theology" and applying it to real Christian Zionists instead of to themselves (because "Replacement Theology" is a name belonging to them - because it is they who replace the true Zion with a non-Zion),

Which Zionism is your Zionism?

 

[WPM]

If God only wanted one people He could have started that in the very first century. The Lord could have come, evil men kill Him, He rises from the dead, ascends to the Father and makes all things new. He begins a whole new mankind without sin.

That seems to be what you are saying His purpose is.

No, it is not. I don't know how you can conclude that. He repeatedly predicted throughout the Old Testament that he would reach the nations with the Gospel. That they would become His people. The New Testament Church is just a development of the Old Testament Church. It has taken on a different form , just like the caterpillar become a butterfly. It is the same entity. It is the same household of faith, it just looks different.

 

[Davidpt]

@Marilyn C

I'm going to give you the reasons why I disagree with what you say about this. The question at the bottom is only to show the difference between one type and the other type of Zionism.

In Romans 11:28 Paul is merely remaining consistent with the same distinction he made in Romans 11:1-17 between the Israel that is saved and the Israel that was broken off:

"Concerning the gospel, they (those who have been broken off - vs 1-10) are enemies for your (the Gentiles' sake - vs 11-17), but concerning the election, they (the remnant of Israel - vs 1-5 & 17) are beloved for the father's sake.

Then Paul repeats again what he said in vs 1-5:

"For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.": ("I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace").

If it weren't for the gifts and calling of God being without repentance there would have been no remnant, and if it weren't for the remnant, there would have been no Israel - no elect - for the Gentiles to have been grafted into (v 17).

Paul is not talking about those who have been broken off when he says "as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes"

- he's talking about the remnant.

The remnant of "Jewish" Israel + the Gentiles grafted in are the "all Israel" Paul is referring to when he refers to the fact that Christ has made a covenant with them in the day He took away there sins nearly 2,000 years ago (vs 26-27).

Paul also explains that because of the mercy shown the Gentiles God will have mercy upon any genetic seed of Jacob who repents of his unbelief:

"And they also, IF they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again." (v 23).

In vs 23-32 Paul did not contradict what he said in vs 1-17 - but the Dispensationalist botched interpretation of Paul's words has Paul contradicting what he said in vs 1-17 with what he said in vs 25-32.

Those who have been broken off have NO covenant with God - because God DOES NOT AND WILL NOT ACCEPT the blood sprinkled on a mercy-seat made with human hands by a high priest from an old order (Hebrews 8:4; Hebrews 7:12) - NOR does He, or will He accept any other offering or sacrifice or Rabbinic ritual in its place - because He ONLY accepts the blood of Christ - this is why God said through Jeremiah that the New Covenant would NOT BE LIKE THE OLD (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

God ALSO said in Jeremiah 31:35-37 that He would not cast off ALL the house of Israel - which is exactly what Paul says in Romans 11:1-10 when he talks about the remnant that was not cast off, and in Romans 9:6-7 - another passage which Dispensationalist false doctrine has botched up in their interpretation of it.

It's that domino-effect: Botch up Romans 11:25-32 the way your interpretation does, and you will have to botch up Jeremiah 31:35-37 and Romans 9:6-7 (+ a whole bunch of other scriptures) also, to make scripture comply with your theology.

PS: Amillennialism does the same (just with a different set of scriptures, and for a different set of false doctrines - and they are as blind to the fact as they accuse Dispensationalists of being), but I'm afraid understanding the reason why is way too deep for @WPM (and I say that without making myself guilty of breaking the rule written in Philippians 2:3).

PPS: (Real) Christian Zionism has Christ exalted and seated on His throne in Zion, and gratefully receives the covenant that God has made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah in His blood - the forgiveness of sins (Jeremiah 31:31-3; Luke 22:20).

The Zionism that the modern state of Israel is based on is not Christian Zionism. Not real Christian Zionism. Dispensationalists have illegitimately stolen the term Christian Zionism, and Amillennialists and others have freely handed it to them.

Dispensationalists have done the same thing by creating the term "Replacement Theology" and applying it to real Christian Zionists instead of to themselves (because "Replacement Theology" is a name belonging to them - because it is they who replace the true Zion with a non-Zion),

Which Zionism is your Zionism?

Romans 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.”

The interpretation you’re providing seems to split the two occurrences of “they” into two different groups:

“They are enemies for your sakes” = the Jews who were broken off (unbelieving Israel).

“They are beloved for the fathers’ sakes” = the remnant (believing Israel).

But grammatically and contextually, that doesn’t work. The same subject (“they”) must be carried through the whole sentence. The first clause defines who “they” are, and it is clearly the group presently “enemies” with respect to the gospel---the unbelieving portion of Israel. That same group is then called “beloved” with respect to election on account of the fathers.

This does not mean the unbelieving are presently saved or part of the remnant. Paul’s point is that even though they are currently in unbelief and therefore “enemies,” they are nevertheless still beloved in terms of God’s covenantal purpose rooted in the patriarchs. That’s why Paul immediately adds that God’s gifts and calling are “without repentance” (v. 29)---God has not abandoned His covenant promises, even though many Israelites have abandoned belief.

But this in no way removes the requirement for salvation. Just like Gentiles, any Jew who was “cut off” must come to Christ the same way anyone else does---by faith in Jesus as the Messiah. The remnant did not need to be grafted back in because they never left, they believed from the beginning. But that does not change the fact that the “they” in verse 28 refers to unbelieving Israel, not the remnant.

The flow of Romans 11 supports this reading.

Verses 1–7---Paul describes the remnant---those already saved.

Verses 11–24---Paul speaks of branches broken off through unbelief.

Verse 25---He describes Israel’s current state as 'hardening in part'.

Verse 28---He refers to this unbelieving portion of Israel as enemies yet still beloved because of God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Verse 23---These same enemies can be grafted in again if they do not continue in unbelief.

This is completely consistent with--the remnant = the believing Jews.

The enemies/broken-off = the unbelieving Jews.

But the unbelieving Jews remain beloved---not saved, but still within the scope of God’s covenant promises---because of the fathers.

 

[WPM]

@Marilyn C

I'm going to give you the reasons why I disagree with what you say about this. The question at the bottom is only to show the difference between one type and the other type of Zionism.

In Romans 11:28 Paul is merely remaining consistent with the same distinction he made in Romans 11:1-17 between the Israel that is saved and the Israel that was broken off:

"Concerning the gospel, they (those who have been broken off - vs 1-10) are enemies for your (the Gentiles' sake - vs 11-17), but concerning the election, they (the remnant of Israel - vs 1-5 & 17) are beloved for the father's sake.

Then Paul repeats again what he said in vs 1-5:

"For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.": ("I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace").

If it weren't for the gifts and calling of God being without repentance there would have been no remnant, and if it weren't for the remnant, there would have been no Israel - no elect - for the Gentiles to have been grafted into (v 17).

Paul is not talking about those who have been broken off when he says "as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes"

- he's talking about the remnant.

The remnant of "Jewish" Israel + the Gentiles grafted in are the "all Israel" Paul is referring to when he refers to the fact that Christ has made a covenant with them in the day He took away there sins nearly 2,000 years ago (vs 26-27).

Paul also explains that because of the mercy shown the Gentiles God will have mercy upon any genetic seed of Jacob who repents of his unbelief:

"And they also, IF they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again." (v 23).

In vs 23-32 Paul did not contradict what he said in vs 1-17 - but the Dispensationalist botched interpretation of Paul's words has Paul contradicting what he said in vs 1-17 with what he said in vs 25-32.

Those who have been broken off have NO covenant with God - because God DOES NOT AND WILL NOT ACCEPT the blood sprinkled on a mercy-seat made with human hands by a high priest from an old order (Hebrews 8:4; Hebrews 7:12) - NOR does He, or will He accept any other offering or sacrifice or Rabbinic ritual in its place - because He ONLY accepts the blood of Christ - this is why God said through Jeremiah that the New Covenant would NOT BE LIKE THE OLD (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

God ALSO said in Jeremiah 31:35-37 that He would not cast off ALL the house of Israel - which is exactly what Paul says in Romans 11:1-10 when he talks about the remnant that was not cast off, and in Romans 9:6-7 - another passage which Dispensationalist false doctrine has botched up in their interpretation of it.

It's that domino-effect: Botch up Romans 11:25-32 the way your interpretation does, and you will have to botch up Jeremiah 31:35-37 and Romans 9:6-7 (+ a whole bunch of other scriptures) also, to make scripture comply with your theology.

PS: Amillennialism does the same (just with a different set of scriptures, and for a different set of false doctrines - and they are as blind to the fact as they accuse Dispensationalists of being), but I'm afraid understanding the reason why is way too deep for @WPM (and I say that without making myself guilty of breaking the rule written in Philippians 2:3).

PPS: (Real) Christian Zionism has Christ exalted and seated on His throne in Zion, and gratefully receives the covenant that God has made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah in His blood - the forgiveness of sins (Jeremiah 31:31-3; Luke 22:20).

The Zionism that the modern state of Israel is based on is not Christian Zionism. Not real Christian Zionism. Dispensationalists have illegitimately stolen the term Christian Zionism, and Amillennialists and others have freely handed it to them.

Dispensationalists have done the same thing by creating the term "Replacement Theology" and applying it to real Christian Zionists instead of to themselves (because "Replacement Theology" is a name belonging to them - because it is they who replace the true Zion with a non-Zion),

Which Zionism is your Zionism?

I totally agree with you up until your untrue and unsubstantiated wild claims against Amil.

 

[WPM]

@Marilyn C

I'm going to give you the reasons why I disagree with what you say about this. The question at the bottom is only to show the difference between one type and the other type of Zionism.

In Romans 11:28 Paul is merely remaining consistent with the same distinction he made in Romans 11:1-17 between the Israel that is saved and the Israel that was broken off:

"Concerning the gospel, they (those who have been broken off - vs 1-10) are enemies for your (the Gentiles' sake - vs 11-17), but concerning the election, they (the remnant of Israel - vs 1-5 & 17) are beloved for the father's sake.

Then Paul repeats again what he said in vs 1-5:

"For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.": ("I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace").

If it weren't for the gifts and calling of God being without repentance there would have been no remnant, and if it weren't for the remnant, there would have been no Israel - no elect - for the Gentiles to have been grafted into (v 17).

Paul is not talking about those who have been broken off when he says "as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes"

- he's talking about the remnant.

The remnant of "Jewish" Israel + the Gentiles grafted in are the "all Israel" Paul is referring to when he refers to the fact that Christ has made a covenant with them in the day He took away there sins nearly 2,000 years ago (vs 26-27).

Paul also explains that because of the mercy shown the Gentiles God will have mercy upon any genetic seed of Jacob who repents of his unbelief:

"And they also, IF they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again." (v 23).

In vs 23-32 Paul did not contradict what he said in vs 1-17 - but the Dispensationalist botched interpretation of Paul's words has Paul contradicting what he said in vs 1-17 with what he said in vs 25-32.

Those who have been broken off have NO covenant with God - because God DOES NOT AND WILL NOT ACCEPT the blood sprinkled on a mercy-seat made with human hands by a high priest from an old order (Hebrews 8:4; Hebrews 7:12) - NOR does He, or will He accept any other offering or sacrifice or Rabbinic ritual in its place - because He ONLY accepts the blood of Christ - this is why God said through Jeremiah that the New Covenant would NOT BE LIKE THE OLD (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

God ALSO said in Jeremiah 31:35-37 that He would not cast off ALL the house of Israel - which is exactly what Paul says in Romans 11:1-10 when he talks about the remnant that was not cast off, and in Romans 9:6-7 - another passage which Dispensationalist false doctrine has botched up in their interpretation of it.

It's that domino-effect: Botch up Romans 11:25-32 the way your interpretation does, and you will have to botch up Jeremiah 31:35-37 and Romans 9:6-7 (+ a whole bunch of other scriptures) also, to make scripture comply with your theology.

PS: Amillennialism does the same (just with a different set of scriptures, and for a different set of false doctrines - and they are as blind to the fact as they accuse Dispensationalists of being), but I'm afraid understanding the reason why is way too deep for @WPM (and I say that without making myself guilty of breaking the rule written in Philippians 2:3).

PPS: (Real) Christian Zionism has Christ exalted and seated on His throne in Zion, and gratefully receives the covenant that God has made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah in His blood - the forgiveness of sins (Jeremiah 31:31-3; Luke 22:20).

The Zionism that the modern state of Israel is based on is not Christian Zionism. Not real Christian Zionism. Dispensationalists have illegitimately stolen the term Christian Zionism, and Amillennialists and others have freely handed it to them.

Dispensationalists have done the same thing by creating the term "Replacement Theology" and applying it to real Christian Zionists instead of to themselves (because "Replacement Theology" is a name belonging to them - because it is they who replace the true Zion with a non-Zion),

Which Zionism is your Zionism?

I have amended my first post for the sake of clarity so as not to suggest all Premils are Dispies and hold what I am rebutting. I know it is only a wing of Premils (albeit a substantial wing).

 

[Zao is life]

Romans 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.”

The interpretation you’re providing seems to split the two occurrences of “they” into two different groups:

“They are enemies for your sakes” = the Jews who were broken off (unbelieving Israel).

“They are beloved for the fathers’ sakes” = the remnant (believing Israel).

But grammatically and contextually, that doesn’t work.

You are wrong, because "they" is talking TO one group of people (Gentiles) ABOUT another group of people (Jews) who are ALL being referred to as "they" - both the saved remnant and those who had been cast off - it's the same "they" whom Paul began talking about in verses 1-17, where "they" refers to two different groups of Jews - one cast off, and a saved remnant among whom Gentiles have been grafted in.

The same theme is being carried through the sentence in verse 28 also.

You are illegitimately taking verse 28 out of context from the rest of the passage to come to the above false interpretation of verse 28.

PS: If I put this to AI (as I see you have done by the way "you" have worded things below, AI will confirm what I say.

The same subject (“they”) must be carried through the whole sentence. The first clause defines who “they” are, and it is clearly the group presently “enemies” with respect to the gospel---the unbelieving portion of Israel. That same group is then called “beloved” with respect to election on account of the fathers.

The first clause is talking about the same group which Paul began referring to as Israelites in verse 1, dividing them into two separate groups of Israelites from verse 2 to verse 17 - the remnant, and those who had been cast off. You cannot legitimately isolate verse 28 from verses 1-10 the way you are doing.

You are ignoring the context of the passage and have decided for yourself and on your own (illegitimately in terms of sound hermeneutic), to isolate verses 28 from the context of verses 1-10 as though it's a completely different subject.

If I put this to AI (as I see you have done by the way "you" have put things below, AI will confirm what I say.

This does not mean the unbelieving are presently saved or part of the remnant. Paul’s point is that even though they are currently in unbelief and therefore “enemies,” they are nevertheless still beloved in terms of God’s covenantal purpose rooted in the patriarchs.

Did you know that the promise of God recorded in Genesis 12:2-3 was the very first promise that God made to Abraham, and this promise therefore forms the basis for:

(a) Any subsequent promise that God made to Abraham; and

(b) Anything that God later did in the life of Abraham and his descendants?

"Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." (Genesis 12:1-3:).

Did you know that Paul, an apostle of Jesus, wrote the following about the above promise:

"Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say, "and to your seeds", referring to many, but "and to your seed", referring to one, who is Christ." (Galatians 3:16)?

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:22).

Did you know that the second time God made a promise to Abraham (based on the first promise), He told Abraham that he would become the father of many Gentile nations?

Genesis 17:3-6
"And Abram fell on his face. And God talked with him, saying, As for Me, behold! My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of a multitude of gôyim (Gentiles/Gentile nations). Neither shall your name any more be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham. For I have made you a father of a multitude of gôyim, and I will make you exceedingly fruitful, greatly so, and I will make gôyim (Gentiles/Gentile nations) of you, and kings shall come out of you.". *

[ Strongs Hebrew Dictionary H01471: gôy ]
Apparently from the same root as H1465 (in the sense of massing); a foreign nation; hence a Gentile; also (figuratively) a troop of {animals} or a flight of locusts: - {Gentile} {heathen} {nation} people.

* Did you notice how God repeated the above promise (Genesis 17:3-6) three times?

So God changed Abram's name to Abraham because He was going to make Abraham a father of many Gentile nations (I did not say it - God said it - read it above) - and Abraham BELIEVED God, and his faith in the Word of God was credited to him for righteousness.

That promise was made manifest through the seed of Abraham, who is Christ. The subsequent covenants were all about Him. Israel was a nation of 12 tribes consisting of a mixture of nations. The Jews are the descendants of only one of those brothers - and they reject the Word of God, those who reject Christ the Lord.

God's covenants based on the covenant He made with Abraham were never about or for those who reject the Word of God. As Paul said, not ALL those who are born of the seed of Israel were ever truly Israel.

 

[Zao is life]

Romans 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.”

The interpretation you’re providing seems to split the two occurrences of “they” into two different groups:

“They are enemies for your sakes” = the Jews who were broken off (unbelieving Israel).

“They are beloved for the fathers’ sakes” = the remnant (believing Israel).

But grammatically and contextually, that doesn’t work. The same subject (“they”) must be carried through the whole sentence. The first clause defines who “they” are, and it is clearly the group presently “enemies” with respect to the gospel---the unbelieving portion of Israel. That same group is then called “beloved” with respect to election on account of the fathers.

This does not mean the unbelieving are presently saved or part of the remnant. Paul’s point is that even though they are currently in unbelief and therefore “enemies,” they are nevertheless still beloved in terms of God’s covenantal purpose rooted in the patriarchs. That’s why Paul immediately adds that God’s gifts and calling are “without repentance” (v. 29)---God has not abandoned His covenant promises, even though many Israelites have abandoned belief.

But this in no way removes the requirement for salvation. Just like Gentiles, any Jew who was “cut off” must come to Christ the same way anyone else does---by faith in Jesus as the Messiah. The remnant did not need to be grafted back in because they never left, they believed from the beginning. But that does not change the fact that the “they” in verse 28 refers to unbelieving Israel, not the remnant.

The flow of Romans 11 supports this reading.

Verses 1–7---Paul describes the remnant---those already saved.

Verses 11–24---Paul speaks of branches broken off through unbelief.

Verse 25---He describes Israel’s current state as 'hardening in part'.

Verse 28---He refers to this unbelieving portion of Israel as enemies yet still beloved because of God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Verse 23---These same enemies can be grafted in again if they do not continue in unbelief.

This is completely consistent with--the remnant = the believing Jews.

The enemies/broken-off = the unbelieving Jews.

But the unbelieving Jews remain beloved---not saved, but still within the scope of God’s covenant promises---because of the fathers.

Continued from my reply to your post in Post #50

SOME OF THEM - verse 14

Verses 13-14
"For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them."

SOME OF THEM - verse 17

Verse 17
"And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree"

Some are saved (the remnant), some are broken off = hardening in part has happened to Israel (hardening has happened to PART OF Israel):

Verse 25
"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness [G4138 pleroma]" of the Gentiles be come in."

Therefore all Israel (the remnant + the Gentiles who are grafted in among them) was saved by the Deliverer who came out of Zion and made a covenant with them in they day He took away their sins:

Verses 26-27
"And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."

The above happened nearly 2,000 years ago - and it will never be done again.

But:

Verse 12
"If the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness [G4138 pleroma]?"

You are wrong, because "they" is talking TO one group of people (Gentiles) ABOUT another group of people (Jews) who are ALL being referred to as "they" - both the saved remnant and those who had been cast off - it's the same "they" whom Paul began talking about in verses 1-17, where "they" refers to two different groups of Jews - one cast off, and a saved remnant among whom Gentiles have been grafted in.

The same theme is being carried through the sentence in verse 28 also.

You are illegitimately taking verse 28 out of context from the rest of the passage to come to the above false interpretation of verse 28.

PS: If I put this to AI (as I see you have done by the way "you" have worded things below, AI will confirm what I say.



The first clause is talking about the same group which Paul began referring to as Israelites in verse 1, dividing them into two separate groups of Israelites from verse 2 to verse 17 - the remnant, and those who had been cast off. You cannot legitimately isolate verse 28 from verses 1-10 the way you are doing.

You are ignoring the context of the passage and have decided for yourself and on your own (illegitimately in terms of sound hermeneutic), to isolate verses 28 from the context of verses 1-10 as though it's a completely different subject.

If I put this to AI (as I see you have done by the way "you" have put things below, AI will confirm what I say.



Did you know that the promise of God recorded in Genesis 12:2-3 was the very first promise that God made to Abraham, and this promise therefore forms the basis for:

(a) Any subsequent promise that God made to Abraham; and

(b) Anything that God later did in the life of Abraham and his descendants?

"Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." (Genesis 12:1-3:).

Did you know that Paul, an apostle of Jesus, wrote the following about the above promise:

"Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say, "and to your seeds", referring to many, but "and to your seed", referring to one, who is Christ." (Galatians 3:16)?

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:22).

Did you know that the second time God made a promise to Abraham (based on the first promise), He told Abraham that he would become the father of many Gentile nations?

Genesis 17:3-6
"And Abram fell on his face. And God talked with him, saying, As for Me, behold! My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of a multitude of gôyim (Gentiles/Gentile nations). Neither shall your name any more be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham. For I have made you a father of a multitude of gôyim, and I will make you exceedingly fruitful, greatly so, and I will make gôyim (Gentiles/Gentile nations) of you, and kings shall come out of you.". *

[ Strongs Hebrew Dictionary H01471: gôy ]
Apparently from the same root as H1465 (in the sense of massing); a foreign nation; hence a Gentile; also (figuratively) a troop of {animals} or a flight of locusts: - {Gentile} {heathen} {nation} people.

* Did you notice how God repeated the above promise (Genesis 17:3-6) three times?

So God changed Abram's name to Abraham because He was going to make Abraham a father of many Gentile nations (I did not say it - God said it - read it above) - and Abraham BELIEVED God, and his faith in the Word of God was credited to him for righteousness.

That promise was made manifest through the seed of Abraham, who is Christ. The subsequent covenants were all about Him. Israel was a nation of 12 tribes consisting of a mixture of nations. The Jews are the descendants of only one of those brothers - and they reject the Word of God, those who reject Christ the Lord.

God's covenants based on the covenant He made with Abraham were never about or for those who reject the Word of God. As Paul said, not ALL those who are born of the seed of Israel were ever truly Israel.

 

[Davidpt]

You are wrong, because "they" is talking TO one group of people (Gentiles) ABOUT another group of people (Jews) who are ALL being referred to as "they" - both the saved remnant and those who had been cast off - it's the same "they" whom Paul began talking about in verses 1-17, where "they" refers to two different groups of Jews - one cast off, and a saved remnant among whom Gentiles have been grafted in.

I just submitted the following to ChatGPT for analysis.
-----------------------
Another poster in opposition to my interpretation of verse 28:

You are wrong, because "they" is talking TO one group of people (Gentiles) ABOUT another group of people (Jews) who are ALL being referred to as "they" - both the saved remnant and those who had been cast off - the same subject that Paul began talking about in verses 1-17, where "they" refers to two different groups of Jews - one group of which, Gentiles have been grafted in among.

The same theme is being carried through the sentence in verse 28 also.

You are illegitimately taking verse 28 out of context from the rest of the passage to come to the above false interpretation of verse 28.

The first clause is talking about the same group who he began referring to as Israelites in verse 1, dividing them into two separate groups of Israelites from verse 2 to verse 17 - the remnant, and those who had been cast off. You cannot legitimately isolate verse 28 from verses 1-10 the way you are doing.

You are ignoring the context of the passage and have decided for yourself and on your own (illegitimately in terms of sound hermeneutic), to isolate verses 28 from the context of verses 1-10 as though it's a completely different subject.



---------------------
Me and how I was anticipating replying in response, though I have not submitted my response below to that that thread, as of yet:

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.



How does it make sense that in verse 28, the first 'they' is not also referring to the 2nd they? How is that reasonable? How can the nearest antecedent to the 2nd 'they' not be meaning the first 'they'? Which antecedent is nearer to the 2nd 'they' if not the first 'they'?

Look at verse 30---yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief---how can that be agreeing with your interpretation of verse 28 if you have the 2nd clause meaning the saved remnant? Verse 28 is not about the saved remnant. Verses 30-32 also proves it.
----------------------------
Chatgpt:

Below is a **clear, structured rebuttal** you can give that shows (1) the grammar, (2) the flow of Paul’s argument, and (3) the contextual continuity *all* support your reading of Romans 11:28 rather than your opponent’s.

---

# **A Clear Response**

Your opponent’s claim is that in Romans 11:28 *“they”* in clause 1 (“they are enemies for your sakes”) refers to unbelieving Jews, while *“they”* in clause 2 (“they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes”) refers instead to the believing remnant.

This interpretation fails on **three levels**: grammatical, contextual, and thematic.

---

# **1. GRAMMAR: The two “they”s in v.28 must have the same referent**

Verse 28 is one sentence with *two parallel clauses*, joined by **ἀλλά** (“but”).
This creates a standard Greek **antithetical parallelism**:

> **κατὰ μὲν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐχθροὶ…**
> **κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἐκλογὴν ἀγαπητοί…**

This is the same *they* looked at from two different perspectives:

* **according to the gospel → enemies**
* **according to the election → beloved**

It is *linguistically impossible* for Paul to switch referents mid-sentence without any signal.
If Paul intended two different groups, he would have marked the shift (e.g., “these… but those…”).

**The nearest antecedent to both “they”s is the same group: “Israel” in vv. 25–26.**
There is *no* nearer antecedent referring to two different subgroups.

Your opponent’s reading requires:

* the *first* “they” = unbelieving Jews
* the *second* “they” = believing remnant

But Greek does **not** allow this unless clearly indicated, and Paul does *not* indicate it.

---

# **2. CONTEXT: Paul is describing unbelieving Israel throughout vv. 25–32**

Your opponent incorrectly jumps back to vv. 1–10, ignoring the immediate context that governs the pronouns in vv. 25–32.

Look at the flow:

## **v. 25 — “blindness in part has happened to Israel”**

This is not the remnant. The remnant is *not blind*. This is unbelieving Israel.

## **v. 26–27 — “all Israel will be saved… when I take away their sins”**

Still the same group: **the nation temporarily hardened**, not the remnant already saved.

## **v. 28 — same group, same sentence**

“As concerning the gospel, **they** are enemies…
but as touching the election, **they** are beloved…”

Nothing has changed. It’s still **the temporarily blinded portion of Israel**, not the remnant.

## **v. 30–32 — Paul explicitly restates the same group**

Verse 30:

> **you** (Gentiles) obtained mercy **through their unbelief**

Whose unbelief?
The unbelieving Jews who are **enemies** in v. 28—not the remnant.

Verse 31:

> **Even so have these** (same unbelieving Jews) **now not believed**…

If “they” in v. 28b referred to the remnant, then v. 31 becomes nonsense:

* How could the saved remnant “now not believe”?
* How could Gentile mercy bring mercy to “them” if they already have mercy?

Verse 32:

> God has concluded **them all** in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon **all**.

Again: the unbelieving majority.

**The entire flow from v. 25 to v. 32 concerns ONE group—unbelieving Israel—not the remnant.**

---

# **3. THEME: Paul contrasts two perspectives on the same unbelieving Jews**

Paul is using a **two-angle description** of the same people:

* **Angle 1 (present condition):**
They are *enemies* of the gospel—currently unbelieving.

* **Angle 2 (covenantal position):**
They are *beloved* because of God’s promises to the patriarchs.

This is exactly how Paul uses paradoxical identity statements elsewhere (e.g., Romans 9:6: “not all Israel is Israel”).

Your opponent’s reading destroys Paul’s logic:

* If the second clause refers to the remnant, then
the remnant = enemies of the gospel?!
That’s impossible.

* If the first clause refers to unbelievers and the second to believers,
then Paul is saying:
*“They (unbelievers) are enemies, but they (different people) are beloved”*—
which makes the sentence schizophrenic and destroys the parallelism.

---

# **A concise summary you can use in your reply**

**1. Grammatically**, the two “they”s in v. 28 must refer to the same antecedent; Greek parallelism forbids switching referents without explicit markers.

**2. Contextually**, vv. 25–32 consistently address **unbelieving Israel**, not the remnant. Verse 30–31 absolutely requires that “they” in v. 28 be the same unbelieving group.

**3. Thematically**, Paul’s point is that Israel is simultaneously:

* **an enemy** in their current unbelief
* **beloved** due to God’s irrevocable covenant with the patriarchs (v. 29)

This only works if both halves of v. 28 refer to the same group.

---

 

[Zao is life]

I just submitted the following to ChatGPT for analysis.
-----------------------
Another poster in opposition to my interpretation of verse 28:

You are wrong, because "they" is talking TO one group of people (Gentiles) ABOUT another group of people (Jews) who are ALL being referred to as "they" - both the saved remnant and those who had been cast off - the same subject that Paul began talking about in verses 1-17, where "they" refers to two different groups of Jews - one group of which, Gentiles have been grafted in among.

The same theme is being carried through the sentence in verse 28 also.

You are illegitimately taking verse 28 out of context from the rest of the passage to come to the above false interpretation of verse 28.

The first clause is talking about the same group who he began referring to as Israelites in verse 1, dividing them into two separate groups of Israelites from verse 2 to verse 17 - the remnant, and those who had been cast off. You cannot legitimately isolate verse 28 from verses 1-10 the way you are doing.

You are ignoring the context of the passage and have decided for yourself and on your own (illegitimately in terms of sound hermeneutic), to isolate verses 28 from the context of verses 1-10 as though it's a completely different subject.



---------------------
Me and how I was anticipating replying in response, though I have not submitted my response below to that that thread, as of yet:

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.



How does it make sense that in verse 28, the first 'they' is not also referring to the 2nd they? How is that reasonable? How can the nearest antecedent to the 2nd 'they' not be meaning the first 'they'? Which antecedent is nearer to the 2nd 'they' if not the first 'they'?

Look at verse 30---yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief---how can that be agreeing with your interpretation of verse 28 if you have the 2nd clause meaning the saved remnant? Verse 28 is not about the saved remnant. Verses 30-32 also proves it.
----------------------------
Chatgpt:

Below is a **clear, structured rebuttal** you can give that shows (1) the grammar, (2) the flow of Paul’s argument, and (3) the contextual continuity *all* support your reading of Romans 11:28 rather than your opponent’s.

---

# **A Clear Response**

Your opponent’s claim is that in Romans 11:28 *“they”* in clause 1 (“they are enemies for your sakes”) refers to unbelieving Jews, while *“they”* in clause 2 (“they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes”) refers instead to the believing remnant.

This interpretation fails on **three levels**: grammatical, contextual, and thematic.

---

# **1. GRAMMAR: The two “they”s in v.28 must have the same referent**

Verse 28 is one sentence with *two parallel clauses*, joined by **ἀλλά** (“but”).
This creates a standard Greek **antithetical parallelism**:

> **κατὰ μὲν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐχθροὶ…**
> **κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἐκλογὴν ἀγαπητοί…**

This is the same *they* looked at from two different perspectives:

* **according to the gospel → enemies**
* **according to the election → beloved**

It is *linguistically impossible* for Paul to switch referents mid-sentence without any signal.
If Paul intended two different groups, he would have marked the shift (e.g., “these… but those…”).

**The nearest antecedent to both “they”s is the same group: “Israel” in vv. 25–26.**
There is *no* nearer antecedent referring to two different subgroups.

Your opponent’s reading requires:

* the *first* “they” = unbelieving Jews
* the *second* “they” = believing remnant

But Greek does **not** allow this unless clearly indicated, and Paul does *not* indicate it.

---

# **2. CONTEXT: Paul is describing unbelieving Israel throughout vv. 25–32**

Your opponent incorrectly jumps back to vv. 1–10, ignoring the immediate context that governs the pronouns in vv. 25–32.

Look at the flow:

## **v. 25 — “blindness in part has happened to Israel”**

This is not the remnant. The remnant is *not blind*. This is unbelieving Israel.

## **v. 26–27 — “all Israel will be saved… when I take away their sins”**

Still the same group: **the nation temporarily hardened**, not the remnant already saved.

## **v. 28 — same group, same sentence**

“As concerning the gospel, **they** are enemies…
but as touching the election, **they** are beloved…”

Nothing has changed. It’s still **the temporarily blinded portion of Israel**, not the remnant.

## **v. 30–32 — Paul explicitly restates the same group**

Verse 30:

> **you** (Gentiles) obtained mercy **through their unbelief**

Whose unbelief?
The unbelieving Jews who are **enemies** in v. 28—not the remnant.

Verse 31:

> **Even so have these** (same unbelieving Jews) **now not believed**…

If “they” in v. 28b referred to the remnant, then v. 31 becomes nonsense:

* How could the saved remnant “now not believe”?
* How could Gentile mercy bring mercy to “them” if they already have mercy?

Verse 32:

> God has concluded **them all** in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon **all**.

Again: the unbelieving majority.

**The entire flow from v. 25 to v. 32 concerns ONE group—unbelieving Israel—not the remnant.**

---

# **3. THEME: Paul contrasts two perspectives on the same unbelieving Jews**

Paul is using a **two-angle description** of the same people:

* **Angle 1 (present condition):**
They are *enemies* of the gospel—currently unbelieving.

* **Angle 2 (covenantal position):**
They are *beloved* because of God’s promises to the patriarchs.

This is exactly how Paul uses paradoxical identity statements elsewhere (e.g., Romans 9:6: “not all Israel is Israel”).

Your opponent’s reading destroys Paul’s logic:

* If the second clause refers to the remnant, then
the remnant = enemies of the gospel?!
That’s impossible.

* If the first clause refers to unbelievers and the second to believers,
then Paul is saying:
*“They (unbelievers) are enemies, but they (different people) are beloved”*—
which makes the sentence schizophrenic and destroys the parallelism.

---

# **A concise summary you can use in your reply**

**1. Grammatically**, the two “they”s in v. 28 must refer to the same antecedent; Greek parallelism forbids switching referents without explicit markers.

**2. Contextually**, vv. 25–32 consistently address **unbelieving Israel**, not the remnant. Verse 30–31 absolutely requires that “they” in v. 28 be the same unbelieving group.

**3. Thematically**, Paul’s point is that Israel is simultaneously:

* **an enemy** in their current unbelief
* **beloved** due to God’s irrevocable covenant with the patriarchs (v. 29)

This only works if both halves of v. 28 refer to the same group.

---

Remind Chat GPT that Paul had begun by talking about SOME of the Jews as those who have been broken off and about SOME of the Jews who have been saved (the remnant) BEFORE he said that PART OF Israel has been blinded.

Stop wasting my time by making me go to chat GPT to get AI to argue with itself in these forums, I KNOW that it depends on how you phrase your questions and what argument you put forward OR FAIL TO PUT FORWARD OR POINT OUT - I have had a number of chats where its reply was disagreeing with what I believed and when I pointed out certain things, it changed it's mind - basically telling me about "how clever I was" to have seen this.

The questions you ask and the way you phrase those questions decides how Chat GPT will respond - so waste your own time by now going back again and pointing out to your intelligence - that you rely on instead of asking God for the understanding - that Paul had already begun by talking about SOME of the Jews as those who have been broken off, and about SOME of the Jews who have been saved (the remnant) BEFORE he said that PART OF Israel has been blinded.

Don't waste my time with debating with Chat GPT just because you expect me to by asking it questions without challenging its replies and then carrying its responses over into here before and without you even having challenged AI's replies yourself. You are being lazy.

 

[Zao is life]

I totally agree with you up until your untrue and unsubstantiated wild claims against Amil.

Okay. Since you are one of the people who repeatedly substantiates the claims I made by your repeated ignoring of the many scriptural problems with your interpretations that lead you to your false and unsubstantiated Amil interpretation, are you wild?

 

[Davidpt]

The following is in regards to this thread in general, not to any specific person.

Ezekiel 39:21 And I will set my glory among the heathen, and all the heathen shall see my judgment that I have executed, and my hand that I have laid upon them.
22 So the house of Israel shall know that I am the LORD their God from that day and forward

Ezekiel 39:29 Neither will I hide my face any more from them: for I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord GOD.

Has verse 29 already been fulfilled? If the answer is yes, how can this verse be fulfilled before God executes His judgment on Gog and his multitude first? Has He already executed that judgment? How can the house of Israel meant here not be meaning the part of Israel that is blinded and cutoff for disbelief?

Who would argue that God has been hiding His face from the remnant of Israel that were never cutoff? Anyone? No one. Right?

Ezekiel 39:7 So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel; and I will not let them pollute my holy name any more: and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel.


Why is God still calling the house of Israel that He has been hiding His face from, His people? How can verse 7 possibly be meaning the saved remnant that were never cutoff, that the following fits them to a T---I will make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel; and I will not let them pollute my holy name any more? Rather than, that fits to a T the part of Israel that was blinded and cutoff instead?

 

[Zao is life]

The following is in regards to this thread in general, not to any specific person.

Ezekiel 39:21 And I will set my glory among the heathen, and all the heathen shall see my judgment that I have executed, and my hand that I have laid upon them.
22 So the house of Israel shall know that I am the LORD their God from that day and forward

Ezekiel 39:29 Neither will I hide my face any more from them: for I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord GOD.

Has verse 29 already been fulfilled? If the answer is yes, how can this verse be fulfilled before God executes His judgment on Gog and his multitude first? Has He already executed that judgment? How can the house of Israel meant here not be meaning the part of Israel that is blinded and cutoff for disbelief?

Who would argue that God has been hiding His face from the remnant of Israel that were never cutoff? Anyone? No one. Right?

Ezekiel 39:7 So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel; and I will not let them pollute my holy name any more: and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel.


Why is God still calling the house of Israel that He has been hiding His face from, His people? How can verse 7 possibly be meaning the saved remnant that were never cutoff, that the following fits them to a T---I will make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel; and I will not let them pollute my holy name any more? Rather than, that fits to a T the part of Israel that was blinded and cutoff instead?

So according to your use of that scripture, are all those who have been broken off from the house of Israel and perishing in unbelief in a spiritual wilderness these last nearly 2,000 years, included in the group God is talking to?

 

[Davidpt]

Remind Chat GPT that Paul had begun by talking about SOME of the Jews as those who have been broken off and about SOME of the Jews who have been saved (the remnant) BEFORE he said that PART OF Israel has been blinded.

Stop wasting my time by making me go to chat GPT to get AI to argue with itself in these forums, I KNOW that it depends on how you phrase your questions and what argument you put forward OR FAIL TO PUT FORWARD OR POINT OUT - I have had a number of chats where its reply was disagreeing with what I believed and when I pointed out certain things, it changed it's mind - basically telling me about "how clever I was" to have seen this.

The questions you ask and the way you phrase those questions decides how Chat GPT will respond - so waste your own time by now going back again and pointing out to your intelligence - that you rely on instead of asking God for the understanding - that Paul had already begun by talking about SOME of the Jews as those who have been broken off, and about SOME of the Jews who have been saved (the remnant) BEFORE he said that PART OF Israel has been blinded.

Don't waste my time with debating with Chat GPT just because you expect me to by asking it questions without challenging its replies and then carrying its responses over into here before and without you even having challenged AI's replies yourself. You are being lazy.

You really getting hostile, aren't you? Maybe it's best that maybe you and I don't converse anymore.

 

[Davidpt]

Chatgpt does not recall past history with anyone if they chat with it while not logged in. I'm never logged in when I converse with it. So I then submitted the following since I was being accused of asking it questions in the wrong manner. Is one going to accuse of me of framing the question below in the wrong manner as well?


---------------------------
Me:

Romans 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.


This verse mentions 'they' twice. Who are they meaning each time?
-----------------------

In Romans 11:28 the **two uses of “they” refer to the same group—unbelieving Jews** (i.e., ethnic Israel that, at that time, had not accepted the gospel).
Paul is speaking about **Israel as a whole**, not individual Jews, and specifically about those who had rejected Christ.

However, the two clauses describe **two different relationships** that this same group has:

### 1. **“As concerning the gospel, *they* are enemies for your sakes”**

Here, *they* = **unbelieving Jews** who opposed or rejected the gospel.
They are called “enemies” not in the sense of personal hostility, but in the sense that **their rejection of the gospel resulted in salvation going to the Gentiles** (see Romans 11:11–12, 15).

### 2. **“But as touching the election, *they* are beloved for the fathers’ sakes”**

Here, *they* = **the same group—ethnic Israel**, still nationally chosen by God because of His promises to the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob).
Even though they have rejected the gospel, **God’s covenantal love for Israel remains**, because His promises to the patriarchs are irrevocable (Romans 11:29).

---

### Summary

* **Both “they” refer to unbelieving Israel (ethnic Jews who have not accepted Christ).**
* **First “they”** = their present stance toward the gospel → “enemies”
* **Second “they”** = their status in God’s long-term plan → “beloved”

Paul uses this contrast to show that God has not rejected Israel; their current unbelief is temporary and part of a larger redemptive plan.

 

[WPM]

Chatgpt does not recall past history with anyone if they chat with it while not logged in. I'm never logged in when I converse with it. So I then submitted the following since I was being accused of asking it questions in the wrong manner. Is one going to accuse of me of framing the question below in the wrong manner as well?


---------------------------
Me:

Romans 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.


This verse mentions 'they' twice. Who are they meaning each time?
-----------------------

In Romans 11:28 the **two uses of “they” refer to the same group—unbelieving Jews** (i.e., ethnic Israel that, at that time, had not accepted the gospel).
Paul is speaking about **Israel as a whole**, not individual Jews, and specifically about those who had rejected Christ.

However, the two clauses describe **two different relationships** that this same group has:

### 1. **“As concerning the gospel, *they* are enemies for your sakes”**

Here, *they* = **unbelieving Jews** who opposed or rejected the gospel.
They are called “enemies” not in the sense of personal hostility, but in the sense that **their rejection of the gospel resulted in salvation going to the Gentiles** (see Romans 11:11–12, 15).

### 2. **“But as touching the election, *they* are beloved for the fathers’ sakes”**

Here, *they* = **the same group—ethnic Israel**, still nationally chosen by God because of His promises to the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob).
Even though they have rejected the gospel, **God’s covenantal love for Israel remains**, because His promises to the patriarchs are irrevocable (Romans 11:29).

---

### Summary

* **Both “they” refer to unbelieving Israel (ethnic Jews who have not accepted Christ).**
* **First “they”** = their present stance toward the gospel → “enemies”
* **Second “they”** = their status in God’s long-term plan → “beloved”

Paul uses this contrast to show that God has not rejected Israel; their current unbelief is temporary and part of a larger redemptive plan.

You are delusional to depend on Chatgpt. You are at home there because you can manipulate it. Knowing how you manipulate Scripture over the years i am not surprised.

I don't take what you write serious anymore more. It is therefore pointless reading your posts. That is why I largely ignore your posts.

 

[Davidpt]

Guess what? For anyone who might be interested. Before Chatgpt was a thing, for decades now, how I interpret and understand Romans 11:28 has never changed. I can read what the verse says. I can comprehend what it means. Even decades ago I already had enough sense to realize that both 'they's in that verse are referring to the same group of ppl. In this case, unbelieving Jews. I didn't need Chatgpt to tell me that. Yet Chatgpt appears to agree with my reading of that verse. But since some are unwilling to accept my reading of that verse, thus I was apparently unconvincing, I then thought, maybe Chatgpt might be more convincing since it is capable of arguing things I never considered for arguments, such as--

# **1. GRAMMAR: The two “they”s in v.28 must have the same referent**

Verse 28 is one sentence with *two parallel clauses*, joined by **ἀλλά** (“but”).
This creates a standard Greek **antithetical parallelism**:

it is *linguistically impossible* for Paul to switch referents mid-sentence without any signal.
If Paul intended two different groups, he would have marked the shift (e.g., “these… but those…”).

* the *first* “they” = unbelieving Jews
* the *second* “they” = believing remnant

But Greek does **not** allow this unless clearly indicated, and Paul does *not* indicate it.