The proper and harmonious interpretation of Romans 11:25 [split from another topic]

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Rex

New Member
Oct 17, 2012
2,060
122
0
Kingman AZ
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
A, do you believe the unbelievers in Israel are Israel? Maybe that's your problem...
I'll anser that right now, yes he does. Clear back on page 8 when he reopened this conversation with me. Please click on the bent arrow to read Arnies full post.
I have posted his position a couple of times, it is completely contrary to basic salvation in Christ through faith. It would seem that when Christ raises all the unbelievers He's going to offer the Jews a choice at that time to choose Him, kind of a no brainer wouldn't you think. LOL Standing before the Lord in all His glory duh I think I pick your side.

Arnie Manitoba said:
I expect that some day most (if not all) of Israel will believe in Messiah .... and that is when the branch will be grafted back in to include the unbelieving Jews of the last 2000 years ..... thus fulfills the verse "all Israel will be saved"

Sounds rather convoluted .... I know ..... but we are clearly told as much in Romans 11:16

If the part of the dough offered as first fruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

A careful reading of Romans lays it out systematically and better than I do

it should not be difficult for us to understand

If we want to.
 

HeRoseFromTheDead

Not So Advanced Member
Jan 6, 2012
1,727
62
48
Rex said:
I'll anser that right now, yes he does. Clear back on page 8 when he reopened this conversation with me. Please click on the bent arrow to read Arnies full post.
I have posted his position a couple of times, it is completely contrary to basic salvation in Christ through faith. It would seem that when Christ raises all the unbelievers He's going to offer the Jews a choice at that time to choose Him, kind of a no brainer wouldn't you think. LOL Standing before the Lord in all His glory duh I think I pick your side.
Christ is not interested in people that only want his glory. Any ungodly fool would pick that. He only wants those who love him enough to suffer with him.
 

Rex

New Member
Oct 17, 2012
2,060
122
0
Kingman AZ
You're preaching to choir my friend.

Out of the abundence of the heart the mouth speaks
Matthew 24:24
Luke 6:45

Matthew 12:34

Hmm the matthew 24 quote was a mistaken quote on my part, but I'm going to leave it just the same
How I mixed up 24:24 and 12:34 is beyond me.
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
All I see here is the continued influence from men's doctrines about Rom.11. Little or no consideration of the "house of Israel" having been moved and put under Christ Jesus and The Gospel in new lands is even touched upon by those here, simply because it destroys most of the doctrines of men on Rom.11 being pushed here. God's Israel became Christ's Church, and the elect remnant of the seed according the election of grace were chosen as the earliest foundation members.
 

Rex

New Member
Oct 17, 2012
2,060
122
0
Kingman AZ
veteran said:
All I see here is the continued influence from men's doctrines about Rom.11. Little or no consideration of the "house of Israel" having been moved and put under Christ Jesus and The Gospel in new lands is even touched upon by those here, simply because it destroys most of the doctrines of men on Rom.11 being pushed here. God's Israel became Christ's Church, and the elect remnant of the seed according the election of grace were chosen as the earliest foundation members.
I disagree with your overall conclusion. Arnie has been trying to pigion hole me repeatedly for replaceing Israel with the church. The text gives no idication of any such thing that I can find. But I see it is you Arnie is speaking about, now that you have made that clear would you like to provide the reason for your belief?
I would like to make the distinction beteen Arnies favorate tag and myself using you.
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
Rex said:
I disagree with your overall conclusion. Arnie has been trying to pigion hole me repeatedly for replaceing Israel with the church. The text gives no idication of any such thing that I can find. But I see it is you Arnie is speaking about, now that you have made that clear would you like to provide the reason for your belief?

I would like to make the distinction beteen Arnies favorate tag and myself using you.
The proof is well within the Old Testament histories already written in God's Word, The Bible. One has to understand that first, and actually heed... it, and quit listening to men's doctrines like what Arnie's on (Dispensationalism).

In Christ's parable of the husbanmen in Matt.21, He told the chief priests and elders of the Jews that care of His vineyard would be removed from them and given instead to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Have you not understood that? Per His Word, who is represented by His vineyard there? (requires OT study to properly answer that)

In Ephesians 2, why would Paul apply the term "commonwealth of Israel" to Gentile believers there, saying they had come into the covenants and promises to Israel through Jesus Christ? That is direct evidence via Paul that God moved... His promises and covenants to 'believing' Israel, and that Gentile believers are graffed in with them. Just so happens that means Christ's Church, because outside Christ's Church there is no belief on Jesus Christ as God's Promised Saviour.
 

Purity

New Member
May 20, 2013
1,064
15
0
Melbourne
veteran said:
In Ephesians 2, why would Paul apply the term "commonwealth of Israel" to Gentile believers there, saying they had come into the covenants and promises to Israel through Jesus Christ? That is direct evidence via Paul that God moved... His promises and covenants to 'believing' Israel, and that Gentile believers are graffed in with them. Just so happens that means Christ's Church, because outside Christ's Church there is no belief on Jesus Christ as God's Promised Saviour.
Veteran, a sound point to assist those to better define God's plan with natural Israel. He will eventually through their refining become Spiritual Israel. What mindset ought the Christian possess as Paul taught in Rom 15:27 concerning our partaking of their spiritual things.

Gentiles (CB forum) have been aliens from the commonwealth of Israel Eph 2:11-22 cp Eph 3:16 & John 4:22, but now they are attached to the hope of the promise made of God to the fathers (Acts 26:6KJV).

Purity

p.s Note to Rex the Church has not replaced Israel but we have been grafted into their Olive Tree.
 

Rex

New Member
Oct 17, 2012
2,060
122
0
Kingman AZ
veteran said:
The proof is well within the Old Testament histories already written in God's Word, The Bible. One has to understand that first, and actually heed... it, and quit listening to men's doctrines like what Arnie's on (Dispensationalism).

In Christ's parable of the husbanmen in Matt.21, He told the chief priests and elders of the Jews that care of His vineyard would be removed from them and given instead to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Have you not understood that? Per His Word, who is represented by His vineyard there? (requires OT study to properly answer that)

In Ephesians 2, why would Paul apply the term "commonwealth of Israel" to Gentile believers there, saying they had come into the covenants and promises to Israel through Jesus Christ? That is direct evidence via Paul that God moved... His promises and covenants to 'believing' Israel, and that Gentile believers are graffed in with them. Just so happens that means Christ's Church, because outside Christ's Church there is no belief on Jesus Christ as God's Promised Saviour.
What your missing is Israel of the flesh was first and Israel of the Spirit as well, the church as you call it has not replaced Israel of the promise it has become grafted into the promise first spoken to Abraham. Abraham David Jer Ezek Joesph, Jacob were all the first fruits including the Apostles. That has not been replaced and never will be, and nether has the door of salvation been shut unto any Israelite of the flesh to be saved by faith in Christ.

It's a poor choice of words you use "God's Israel became Christ's Church", and you foster unsubstantiated tags that people like myself have to deal with. The church has replaced Israel of the promise; Its quite the opposite those being saved have become Israel of the promise. Gal 3:7-9

As for your interpretation of the word nation KJV strongs says probably one things for certain it was being taken away from them, and who did he astablish? why 11 deciples and Paul all of the same nation.
1484. ethnos eth'-nos probably from 1486; a race (as of the same habit), i.e. a tribe; specially, a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually, by implication, pagan):--Gentile, heathen, nation, people.
and how were the Gentiles delivered into the promise? Why by hearing the words Peter spoke Acts Ch 10 a Jew of the promise Read John 17:20 The church has not and never will replace Israel. Those born of the promise are Israel, Read Gal chapter 3 Gal 3:8 and Gal 3:14-16 read the whole chapter and 1 or 2 before and after as well. Just as the promise was spoken to Abraham Gen 22:18 we see this in Acts 10 Peter. God chose Abraham and this people was charged with, or perhaps better said, through this line shall come the Messiah, once delivered and offered to Israel the second part of the promise kicks in, And unto the nations of the earth. Gal 3:7-9
The promise never had anything to do with the blood line and everything to do with faith.

What does it all mean John 4:22-24
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purity

Rex

New Member
Oct 17, 2012
2,060
122
0
Kingman AZ
Purity said:

p.s Note to Rex the Church has not replaced Israel but we have been grafted into their Olive Tree.
p,s. Note to Purity That what I was saying to veteran, so lets not get your facts mixed up.
It's a poor choice of words you use "God's Israel became Christ's Church", and you foster unsubstantiated tags that people like myself have to deal with. The church has replaced Israel of the promise; Its quite the opposite those being saved have become Israel of the promise. Gal 3:7-9

Now thats the bottom line
sign0098.gif

ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
Note to Purty - it's not their Olive Tree; it's GOD's.
 

Purity

New Member
May 20, 2013
1,064
15
0
Melbourne
Rex said:
p,s. Note to Purity That what I was saying to veteran, so lets not get your facts mixed up.

It's a poor choice of words you use "God's Israel became Christ's Church", and you foster unsubstantiated tags that people like myself have to deal with. The church has replaced Israel of the promise; Its quite the opposite those being saved have become Israel of the promise. Gal 3:7-9

Now thats the bottom line
sign0098.gif
Agree with your first point.
The second is true also although Paul uses terminology of ownership. "their spiritual things"

We "become"...."Partakers" & "sharers": of root and fatness of olive tree (Rom 11:17), of spiritual things (Rom 15:27) and so on...which become our spiritual things by promise through faith.

But rightly stated all Glory to the Father and His beloved Son.

Purity

Law of Adoption VRS Spirit of Adoption

Many moons ago I recall researching the practices of Roman law concerning adoption during Paul's day and the contrast between natural and spiritual adoption was rather interesting.


Roman Adoption cp Divine Adoption
Once Deemed adopted you became entitled to the name & religion of your new father cp (Acts 15:14 KJV) God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.


All previous ties are no longer valid cp (Rom 8:2 KJV) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.


If child owed money, service or debts of any kind – they were cancelled cp (Psa 103:11 KJV) For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him. (Psa 103:12 KJV) As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.



After the contract was signed and witnessed you legally became a new child cp (2 Cor 5:17 KJV) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.


Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Rom 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

Gal 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

I believe Rom 9:4 is a good text to consider. Concerning "sonship". No other people had God as their Father in the specific sense that Israel enjoyed: Exo 4:22; Hos 11:1; Isa 63:8, Isa 63:16, Isa 63:19; Isa 64:8; Deu 14:1. The Gr "huiothesis" ("adoption as sons", used also in Rom 8:15) does not occur in LXX, but the idea is certainly present, especially in Deut 14:1-2 (cf Exo 4:22; Hos 11:1). Paul uses the word, as though to say that even the status of Israel was not something necessary and inherent, but the result of an act of graciousness on the part of God.

No doubt Rom 9:4 "Who are Isralites" is very topical

This is the second reason for Paul's compassion: it is based on the divinely bestowed privileges which had been given to the chosen people (Rom 3:1-3). They were partakers of the promises made to Jacob upon whom the name "Israel" was conferred. This honoured name signifies A Prince with God (El), or He who Strives with God and Prevailed will Prevail with Men See Gen 32:28). Those who descended from Israel are consequently called by God: "a holy people unto Yahweh... chosen to be a special people unto Himself above all people that are upon the face of the earth" (Deut 7:6). The name of Israel was bestowed upon Jacob in acknowledgement of his changed and elevated status before God, and to indicate that, despite all difficulties and reverses, he would ultimately prevail both with God and man (Esau). Since they are beneficiaries of the divine promises to their father Jacob, Paul recognises Israel's right to the privileges of their calling. It was their national wickedness, in rejecting both God and their Saviour, that alienated that generation from divine grace. This is the first occurrence of the name "Israel" in this epistle. It serves as a subtle reminder to Jewish readers that they were a people whom Yahweh made His own. See Deut 7:6. The very name "Israel" illustrated the fact that they were the most exalted of all nations. Every Israelite was called to become A Prince with El, but they could only attain such a state by becoming "Israelites indeed" (John 1:47KJV). Abraham and David (referred to in ch. 4) were outstanding examples to the nation in this regard.

Are we Israelitish indeed? or a Modern christian?

Amen


ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
Note to Purty - it's not their Olive Tree; it's GOD's.
CRFTD

Did you notice how Paul in Rom 9:4 teaches the ownership or what has been given - the source of Sonship is in Israel?

"To whom (pertaineth) the adoption"

The word "adoption" (Gr. huiothesia: the placing of a son). It relates to the maturing of adulthood, for the nation of Israel was called out of Egypt that it might represent the wisdom of Yahweh to all peoples. For that reason Yahweh declared: "Israel is My son, even My firstborn" (Exo 4:22). The "adoption" was the process by which the nation would be developed in faith and understanding. Hence Paul says that "when the fullness of the time (i.e., the moment at the time appointed, according to the divine economy and purpose) was come, God sent forth His Son... to redeem them that were under the law (and consequently, still in servitude), that we might receive the adoption (sonship) of sons" (Gal 4:4 5). Unfortunately, the nation acted rebelliously and defiantly: it crucified "the Lord of glory", and was therefore estranged from Yahweh. Notice that Paul emphasizes that the privilege of sonship "pertaineth" (belongs) to Israel. This accords with the advice of the Lord to the Samaritan woman: "Salvation is of the Jews" (Joh 4:22). Sonship (full maturity of faith) is only possible for Gentiles by them embracing "the hope of Israel" (Act 28:20).

To Israel belong the adoption!

Rom 9:4KJV
Rom 9:4ESV
Rom 9:4YLT
Rom 9:4NET
Rom 9:4RSV

There is no other way for a man or woman to be saved.
 

HeRoseFromTheDead

Not So Advanced Member
Jan 6, 2012
1,727
62
48
Purity said:
Did you notice how Paul in Rom 9:4 teaches the ownership or what has been given - the source of Sonship is in Israel?
There is no other way for a man or woman to be saved.
The source of sonship is Christ through the new covenant made with Israel in the persons of 11 men. Believing branches are grafted into that covenant, and partake of the blessings of that covenant. It has nothing to do with what you call Israel.
 

Retrobyter

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2011
1,783
45
48
66
Tampa Bay, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Shalom, Rex.

Rex said:
Sure they are, you're the one that offered DF a choice that didn't include believing in the seed, which was Christ. Instead you teach by the seeds salvation is delivered Gal 3:16 Not much of a choice or the salvation message. I won't be thanking or be standing in reverance to the Jews of delivering salvation, and God is of the same opinion, Ezek 20:9 It's God who gets the glory, not a bunch ego maniacs


Exclusion of the promise "not a covenant" is also not something I find, Gal 3:8 so my salvation has nothing to do with Israel of the flesh zero nada nothing, God literately had to drag them to the birth of Christ, FOR HIS NAME SAKE.

Salvation is of the Jews meaning Christ would be born from the seed of David "Abraham" You see David was recipient of the promise by faith.
Not, salvation because of the Jews

I have every bit of respect for those of the promise Being John, James, Abraham ect ect ect And I thank them for delivering the message they witnessed John 17:20
But your not part of the promise your teaching a different Gospel

This I'm attending the wedding feast by showing my birth certificate today is nonsense, it has already been offered and refused by those living at the time of Christ. Matthew 22:1-14
Then the second part of Gods promise came into being Gal 3:8 or the last part of the parable Matthew 22:7-9 he destroyed those murderers and burned their city "70 AD anyone" The Jews had exclusive right to the promise and salvation from John the Baptist Matthew 3:9-10 till Acts 10:1-48 now the promise is given to the nations. The ax was laid at the root Israel as nation of flesh inspite of the great embarrassment they were to God the time was fulfilled NIV says The time has come. Mark 1:15 KJV
Would you mind punctuating just a little bit? I can hardly make heads or tails of what you're talking about!

If you mean "you are" when you say "your," please use "you're." "Your" is a possessive pronoun and it throws me off. "You're" is the contraction.

That said, this is another instance where versions like the NIV have problems. Allow me to walk you through what I'm talking about:

In the KJV, the verses you quote from Galatians 3:16-18 say a totally different thing than what the NIV says:



Galatians 3:16-18
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
KJV

Galatians 3:16-18
16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
NIV

The Greek says it this way:


Pros Galatas 3:16-18
16 Too de Abraam erretheesan hai epaggeliai kai too spermati autou. Ou legei, "Kai tois spermasin," hoos epi polloon all' hoos ef' henos, "Kai too spermati sou," hoos estin Christos.
17 Touto de legoo, diatheekeen prokekuroomeneen hupo tou Theou ho meta tetrakosia kai triakonta etee gegonoos nomos ouk akuroi eis to katargeesai tee epaggelian.
18 Ei gar ek nomou hee kleeronomia, ouketi ex epaggelias; too de Abraam di' epaggelias kecharistai ho Theos.
Greek New Testament

16 Too = 16 To-the
de = but
Abraam = Abraham
erretheesan = were-spoken
hai = the
epaggeliai = promises
kai = and
too = to-the
spermati = seed
autou. = of-him.
Ou = Not
legei, = did-he-say,
"Kai = "And
tois = to-the
spermasin," = seeds,"
hoos = like/as
epi = upon
polloon = many
all' = but
hoos = like/as
ef' (epi) = upon
henos, = one,
"Kai = "And
too = to-the
spermati = seed
sou," = of-him,"
hoos = like/as
estin = is
christos. = messiah/anointed.
17 Touto = 17 This
de = but
legoo, = I-say,
diatheekeen = a-covenant
prokekuroomeneen = previously-ratified
hupo = under
tou = the
Theou = God
ho = the …
meta = amid/after
tetrakosia = four-hundred
kai = and
triakonta = thirty
etee = years
gegonoos - which-was
nomos = Torah/Law
ouk = cannot
akuroi = invalidate
eis = into
to = the
katargeesai = render-useless
tee = the
epaggelian. = promise.
18 Ei = 18 If
gar = for
ek = out-of
nomou = Torah/Law
hee = the
kleeronomia, = inheritance,
ouketi = no-more
ex = out-of
epaggelias; = a-promise;
too = to-the
de = but
Abraam = Abraham
di' (dia) = through
epaggelias = a-promise
kecharistai = gave
ho = the
Theos. = God.

16 To-the but Abraham were-spoken the promises and to-the seed of-him. Not did-he-say, "And to-the seeds," like/as upon many but like/as upon one, "And to-the seed of-him," like/as is messiah/anointed.
17 This but I-say, a-covenant previously-ratified under the God the amid/after four-hundred and thirty years which-was Torah/Law cannot invalidate into the render-useless the promise.
18 If for out-of Torah/Law the inheritance, no-more out-of a-promise; to-the but Abraham through a-promise gave the God.

16 But the promises were spoken to (the) Abraham and to his seed. He did not say, "And to the seeds," as though upon many but as upon one, "And to his seed," as is anointed.
17 But I say this: The Torah/Law cannot invalidate a Covenant previously ratified under (the) God after four hundred and thirty years into a useless promise.
18 For if (the) God gave the inheritance out of Torah/Law, no more out of a promise, but God gave a promise to (the) Abraham.

Just some basics of Greek: In the word "henos" (meaning "one"), the "h" in transliteration is NOT a Greek letter; it comes from the rough breathing above the beginning epsilon (e).

So, when "epi" is used before a word, such as "henos," that begins with a vowel, the iota is dropped and the pi (p) changes to a phi (f). Thus, "epi" and "ef'" are the same Greek word, the preposition meaning "upon."

There is no word for "person" or "persons" or "people" within those phrases. The translators of the NIV felt that it was "many PEOPLE" and "one PERSON," so they SUPPLIED the words to clarify their assumptions in their translation. However, it does NOT say that! The last noun in play is the word "SEED" ("SPERMA")!

Notice, too, that there is NO definite article before the word "christos," and while it is a noun that means "anointed-one," it doesn't necessarily have to refer to Yeshua`. A minor point, to be sure, but a point of interest anyway. Whether the word "christos" (there were no capital letters as we use them today to signify Yeshua` as THE Christos) refers to the Messiah Himself or to the seed from which He sprang makes little difference here. My point is that the SEED is the genetic line TO the Messiah from Avraham!

Avraham ("most exalted father") didn't just have two sons, Ishma'el and Yitschaq (Isaac); he had MANY children who each became peoples! He had more than just two "wives," Sarah and Hagar. He also had a second concubine after Sarah died named Keturah:


Genesis 25:1-6
1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.
3 And Jokshan begat Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were (the) Asshurim, and (the) Letushim, and (the) Leummim.
4 And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah.
5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.
6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.
KJV

We can also learn more about Ishmael:


Genesis 25:12-16
12 Now these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's handmaid, bare unto Abraham:
13 And these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations: the firstborn of Ishmael, Nebajoth; and Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam,
14 And Mishma, and Dumah, and Massa,
15 Hadar, and Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah:
16 These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their towns, and by their castles; twelve princes according to their nations.
KJV

1 Chronicles 1:29-31
29 These are their generations: The firstborn of Ishmael, Nebaioth; then Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam,
30 Mishma and Dumah, Massa, Hadad, and Tema,
31 Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. These are the sons of Ishmael.
KJV

We can also piece together information about Esau and his descendants:


Genesis 36:1-43
1 Now these are the generations of Esau, who is Edom.
2 Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite;
3 And Bashemath Ishmael's daughter, sister of Nebajoth.
4 And Adah bare to Esau Eliphaz; and Bashemath bare Reuel;
5 And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these are the sons of Esau, which were born unto him in the land of Canaan.
6 And Esau took his wives, and his sons, and his daughters, and all the persons of his house, and his cattle, and all his beasts, and all his substance, which he had got in the land of Canaan; and went into the country from the face of his brother Jacob.
7 For their riches were more than that they might dwell together; and the land wherein they were strangers could not bear them because of their cattle.
8 Thus dwelt Esau in mount Seir: Esau is Edom.
9 And these are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in mount Seir:
10 These are the names of Esau's sons; Eliphaz the son of Adah the wife of Esau, Reuel the son of Bashemath the wife of Esau.
11 And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz.
12 And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz Esau's son; and she bare to Eliphaz Amalek: these were the sons of Adah Esau's wife.
13 And these are the sons of Reuel; Nahath, and Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah: these were the sons of Bashemath Esau's wife.
14 And these were the sons of Aholibamah, the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon, Esau's wife: and she bare to Esau Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah.
15 These were dukes of the sons of Esau: the sons of Eliphaz the firstborn son of Esau; duke Teman, duke Omar, duke Zepho, duke Kenaz,
16 Duke Korah, duke Gatam, and duke Amalek: these are the dukes that came of Eliphaz in the land of Edom; these were the sons of Adah.
17 And these are the sons of Reuel Esau's son; duke Nahath, duke Zerah, duke Shammah, duke Mizzah: these are the dukes that came of Reuel in the land of Edom; these are the sons of Bashemath Esau's wife.
18 And these are the sons of Aholibamah Esau's wife; duke Jeush, duke Jaalam, duke Korah: these were the dukes that came of Aholibamah the daughter of Anah, Esau's wife.
19 These are the sons of Esau, who is Edom, and these are their dukes.

20 These are the sons of Seir the Horite, who inhabited the land; Lotan, and Shobal, and Zibeon, and Anah,
21 And Dishon, and Ezer, and Dishan: these are the dukes of the Horites, the children of Seir in the land of Edom.
22 And the children of Lotan were Hori and Hemam; and Lotan's sister was Timna.
23 And the children of Shobal were these; Alvan, and Manahath, and Ebal, Shepho, and Onam.
24 And these are the children of Zibeon; both Ajah, and Anah: this was that Anah that found the mules in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father.
25 And the children of Anah were these; Dishon, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah.
26 And these are the children of Dishon; Hemdan, and Eshban, and Ithran, and Cheran.
27 The children of Ezer are these; Bilhan, and Zaavan, and Akan.
28 The children of Dishan are these: Uz, and Aran.
29 These are the dukes that came of the Horites; duke Lotan, duke Shobal, duke Zibeon, duke Anah,
30 Duke Dishon, duke Ezer, duke Dishan: these are the dukes that came of Hori, among their dukes in the land of Seir.
31 And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.
32 And Bela the son of Beor reigned in Edom: and the name of his city was Dinhabah.
33 And Bela died, and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his stead.
34 And Jobab died, and Husham of the land of Temani reigned in his stead.
35 And Husham died, and Hadad the son of Bedad, who smote Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his stead: and the name of his city was Avith.
36 And Hadad died, and Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his stead.
37 And Samlah died, and Saul of Rehoboth by the river reigned in his stead.
38 And Saul died, and Baal-hanan the son of Achbor reigned in his stead.
39 And Baal-hanan the son of Achbor died, and Hadar reigned in his stead: and the name of his city was Pau; and his wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab.
40 And these are the names of the dukes that came of Esau, according to their families, after their places, by their names; duke Timnah, duke Alvah, duke Jetheth,
41 Duke Aholibamah, duke Elah, duke Pinon,
42 Duke Kenaz, duke Teman, duke Mibzar,
43 Duke Magdiel, duke Iram: these be the dukes of Edom, according to their habitations in the land of their possession: he is Esau the father of the Edomites.
KJV

Using an outlining system, the seeds of Avraham are as follows:

I. Abraham
I. A. Ishmael
I. A. 1. Nebajoth/Nebaioth
I. A. 2. Kedar
I. A. 3. Adbeel
I. A. 4. Mibsam
I. A. 5. Mishma
I. A. 6. Dumah
I. A. 7. Massa
I. A. 8. Hadad
I. A. 9. Tema
I. A. 10. Jetur
I. A. 11. Naphish
I. A. 12. Kedemah
I. B. Isaac
I. B. 1. Esau
I. B. 1. a. Eliphaz
I. B. 1. a. i. Duke Teman
I. B. 1. a. ii. Duke Omar
I. B. 1. a. iii. Duke Zepho
I. B. 1. a. iv. Duke Gatan
I. B. 1. a. v. Duke Kenaz
I. B. 1. a. vi. Amalek
I. B. 1. b. Reuel
I. B. 1. b. i. Duke Nahath
I. B. 1. b. ii. Duke Zerah
I. B. 1. b. iii. Duke Shammah
I. B. 1. b. iv. Duke Mizzah
I. B. 1. c. Duke Jeush
I. B. 1. d. Duke Jaalam
I. B. 1. e. Duke Korah
I. B. 2. Jacob, a.k.a. Israel
I. B. 2. a. Reuben
I. B. 2. b. Simeon
I. B. 2. c. Levi
I. B. 2. d. Judah
I. B. 2. e. Dan
I. B. 2. f. Naphtali
I. B. 2. g. Gad
I. B. 2. h. Asher
I. B. 2. i. Issachar
I. B. 2. j. Zebulun
I. B. 2. k. Joseph
I. B. 2. k. i. Manasseh
I. B. 2. k. ii. Ephraim
I. B. 2. l. Benjamin
I. C. Zimran
I. D. Jokshan
I. D. 1. Sheba
I. D. 2. Dedan
I. D. 2. a. (the) Asshurim (these are all PLURAL words; they are each a PEOPLE)
I. D. 2. b. (the) Letushim
I. D. 2. c. (the) Leummim
I. E. Medan
I. F. Midian
I. F. 1. Ephah
I. F. 2. Epher
I. F. 3. Hanoch
I. F. 4. Abida
I. F. 5. Eldaah
I. G. Ishbak
I. H. Shuah

Only the highlighted ones were the anointed seed.

So, there were LOTS of SEEDS (GENETIC LINES) that came out of Avraham (hence, his name)! But, the LINE OF PROMISE, the LINE OF THE ANOINTED, was that of Yitschaq (Isaac).
 

Rex

New Member
Oct 17, 2012
2,060
122
0
Kingman AZ
Purity said:
No doubt Rom 9:4 "Who are Isralites" is very topical

This is the second reason for Paul's compassion: it is based on the divinely bestowed privileges which had been given to the chosen people (Rom 3:1-3). They were partakers of the promises made to Jacob upon whom the name "Israel" was conferred. This honoured name signifies A Prince with God (El), or He who Strives with God and Prevailed will Prevail with Men See Gen 32:28). Those who descended from Israel are consequently called by God: "a holy people unto Yahweh... chosen to be a special people unto Himself above all people that are upon the face of the earth" (Deut 7:6). The name of Israel was bestowed upon Jacob in acknowledgement of his changed and elevated status before God, and to indicate that, despite all difficulties and reverses, he would ultimately prevail both with God and man (Esau). Since they are beneficiaries of the divine promises to their father Jacob, Paul recognises Israel's right to the privileges of their calling. It was their national wickedness, in rejecting both God and their Saviour, that alienated that generation from divine grace. This is the first occurrence of the name "Israel" in this epistle. It serves as a subtle reminder to Jewish readers that they were a people whom Yahweh made His own. See Deut 7:6. The very name "Israel" illustrated the fact that they were the most exalted of all nations. Every Israelite was called to become A Prince with El, but they could only attain such a state by becoming "Israelites indeed" (John 1:47KJV). Abraham and David (referred to in ch. 4) were outstanding examples to the nation in this regard.

Are we Israelitish indeed? or a Modern christian?
Here's where you go of the track with your own interpretation of Romans 9:4
You simply don't continue to read what Paul says, which is very different than what your spreading even though it very flowery and sounds very nice it's not Paul's message is it?
I particularly like the way slid Eseu in as well.

Paul’s Anguish Over Israel
9 I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying,[SIZE=80%]n[/SIZE] my conscience confirms[SIZE=80%]o[/SIZE] it through the Holy Spirit—[SIZE=80%]2 [/SIZE]I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. [SIZE=80%]3 [/SIZE]For I could wish that I myself[SIZE=80%]p[/SIZE] were cursed[SIZE=80%]q[/SIZE] and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people,[SIZE=80%]r[/SIZE] those of my own race,[SIZE=80%]s[/SIZE] [SIZE=80%]4 [/SIZE]the people of Israel.[SIZE=80%]t[/SIZE] Theirs is the adoption to sonship;[SIZE=80%]u[/SIZE] theirs the divine glory,[SIZE=80%]v[/SIZE] the covenants,[SIZE=80%]w[/SIZE] the receiving of the law,[SIZE=80%]x[/SIZE] the temple worship[SIZE=80%]y[/SIZE] and the promises.[SIZE=80%]z[/SIZE] [SIZE=80%]5 [/SIZE]Theirs are the patriarchs,[SIZE=80%]a[/SIZE] and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah,[SIZE=80%]b[/SIZE] who is God over all,[SIZE=80%]c[/SIZE] forever praised!a [SIZE=80%]d[/SIZE] Amen.
God’s Sovereign Choice
[SIZE=80%]6 [/SIZE]It is not as though God’s word[SIZE=80%]e[/SIZE] had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.[SIZE=80%]f[/SIZE] [SIZE=80%]7 [/SIZE]Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”b [SIZE=80%]g[/SIZE] [SIZE=80%]8 [/SIZE]In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children,[SIZE=80%]h[/SIZE] but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.[SIZE=80%]i[/SIZE] [SIZE=80%]9 [/SIZE]For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”c [SIZE=80%]j[/SIZE]
[SIZE=80%]10 [/SIZE]Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac.[SIZE=80%]k[/SIZE] [SIZE=80%]11 [/SIZE]Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad[SIZE=80%]l[/SIZE]—in order that God’s purpose[SIZE=80%]m[/SIZE] in election might stand: [SIZE=80%]12 [/SIZE]not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”d [SIZE=80%]n[/SIZE] [SIZE=80%]13 [/SIZE]Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”e [SIZE=80%]o[/SIZE]


Eseu is evidence Paul is using to show that Israel of the flesh is not Israel of the promise.
For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel

That's pretty plain isn't it?
Retro I'll watch my punctuation and proper use of your and you're. If you can limit your post to less than 500 words :rolleyes:
And spare everyone the stupid lesson in Greek and Hebrew. Definitions of words seems to be your greatest piece of evidence.

It's really no different than people that disagree in English, in short its always been the fly in the ointment even when Jesus spoke directly, some understand and others didn't. Nothings changed and your long winded language lesions don't change a thing.

Besides I already covered that point
Rex said:
What your missing is Israel of the flesh was first and Israel of the Spirit as well, the church as you call it has not replaced Israel of the promise it has become grafted into the promise first spoken to Abraham. Abraham David Jer Ezek Joesph, Jacob were all the first fruits including the Apostles. That has not been replaced and never will be, and nether has the door of salvation been shut unto any Israelite of the flesh to be saved by faith in Christ.

It's a poor choice of words you use "God's Israel became Christ's Church", and you foster unsubstantiated tags that people like myself have to deal with. The church has replaced Israel of the promise; Its quite the opposite those being saved have become Israel of the promise. Gal 3:7-9


and how were the Gentiles delivered into the promise? Why by hearing the words Peter spoke Acts Ch 10 a Jew of the promise Read John 17:20 The church has not and never will replace Israel. Those born of the promise are Israel, Read Gal chapter 3 Gal 3:8 and Gal 3:14-16 read the whole chapter and 1 or 2 before and after as well. Just as the promise was spoken to Abraham Gen 22:18 we see this in Acts 10 Peter. God chose Abraham and this people was charged with, or perhaps better said, through this line shall come the Messiah, once delivered and offered to Israel the second part of the promise kicks in, And unto the nations of the earth. Gal 3:7-9
The promise never had anything to do with the blood line and everything to do with faith.

What does it all mean John 4:22-24
 

Purity

New Member
May 20, 2013
1,064
15
0
Melbourne
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:

The source of sonship is Christ through the new covenant made with Israel in the persons of 11 men. Believing branches are grafted into that covenant, and partake of the blessings of that covenant. It has nothing to do with what you call Israel.

Christ is a Jew and Salvation is of the Jews....it has a lot to do with Israel more than you have appreciated in this thread.

Rex said:

Eseu is evidence Paul is using to show that Israel of the flesh is not Israel of the promise.
For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel

That's pretty plain isn't it?
Rex,

Where did I say Israel of the flesh is Israel of promise?

Do you not see the definition of what is Israelitish indeed?
 

Rex

New Member
Oct 17, 2012
2,060
122
0
Kingman AZ
Purity said:
Christ is a Jew and Salvation is of the Jews....it has a lot to do with Israel more than you have appreciated in this thread.
Look right above you, my reply to veteran, the quote from the last page I guess you just didn't read it did you?
Don't feel bad nether did Retro

What your missing is Israel of the flesh was first and Israel of the Spirit as well, the church as you call it has not replaced Israel of the promise it has become grafted into the promise first spoken to Abraham. Abraham David Jer Ezek Joesph, Jacob were all the first fruits including the Apostles. That has not been replaced and never will be, and nether has the door of salvation been shut unto any Israelite of the flesh to be saved by faith in Christ.

It's a poor choice of words you use "God's Israel became Christ's Church", and you foster unsubstantiated tags that people like myself have to deal with. The church has replaced Israel of the promise; Its quite the opposite those being saved have become Israel of the promise. Gal 3:7-9


and how were the Gentiles delivered into the promise? Why by hearing the words Peter spoke Acts Ch 10 a Jew of the promise Read John 17:20 The church has not and never will replace Israel. Those born of the promise are Israel, Read Gal chapter 3 Gal 3:8 and Gal 3:14-16 read the whole chapter and 1 or 2 before and after as well. Just as the promise was spoken to Abraham Gen 22:18 we see this in Acts 10 Peter. God chose Abraham and this people was charged with, or perhaps better said, through this line shall come the Messiah, once delivered and offered to Israel the second part of the promise kicks in, And unto the nations of the earth. Gal 3:7-9
The promise never had anything to do with the blood line and everything to do with faith.

What does it all mean John 4:22-24
There now my comment and giving credit to the Jews "of the PROMISE" is surrounding your inability to read what I posted.



I see now you edited your post to include
Purity said:

Rex,

Where did I say Israel of the flesh is Israel of promise? You didn't in those words did you

Do you not see the definition of what is Israelitish indeed?
I explained that in your own interpretation of Romans 9:4
all we need to do is read Pauls interpretation of 9:4 and ignore yours.
Post 334 in case you missed it http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/18010-the-proper-and-harmonious-interpretation-of-romans-1125-split-from-another-topic/page-12#entry203038

You disagree with Paul is that clear enough for you?

An Israelite from the tribe of Benjamin a "Jew" of both the flesh and the promise to Abraham

Not to mention testified to by the risen Lord Jesus and witnessed by Ananias, to bear the Lords name to both Gentiles and kings and children of Israel. Acts 9:15
It's not me you're in disagreement with.
 

Purity

New Member
May 20, 2013
1,064
15
0
Melbourne
Rex said:
Look right above you, my reply to veteran, the quote from the last page I guess you just didn't read it did you?
Don't feel bad nether did Retro


There now my comment and giving credit to the Jews "of the PROMISE" is surrounding your inability to read what I posted.



I see now you edited your post to include
I explained that in your own interpretation of Romans 9:4
all we need to do is read Pauls interpretation of 9:4 and ignore yours.
Post 334 in case you missed it http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/18010-the-proper-and-harmonious-interpretation-of-romans-1125-split-from-another-topic/page-12#entry203038

You disagree with Paul is that clear enough for you?

An Israelite from the tribe of Benjamin a "Jew" of both the flesh and the promise to Abraham

Not to mention testified to by the risen Lord Jesus and witnessed by Ananias, to bear the Lords name to both Gentiles and kings and children of Israel. Acts 9:15
It's not me you're in disagreement with.
Rex, it is all rather messy is it not?

Simple question for you to answer to see if we both agree with Paul.

Abraham, Isaac & Jacob (Israel); David and the prophets and all those who believed and worship God in Spirit and in Truth are they not Israel after the flesh? and Israel of promise? Israelitish indeed!

They are Israelites, and to them (see above including Christ) belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises.

Purity
 

In Christ

New Member
May 19, 2013
50
0
0
Purity said:
What if you understood Jeremiah 3:14 to be the calling of scattered Jewry throughout the earth through a messenger sent Matt 11:14? Small steps are needed to be taken to understand the future fulfilment of Jer 3:14.

Firstly do you understand what Jer 3:14 is teaching?
Purity

I've used Jer. 3:14 as a reference only that God said He was married to Israel and I will not have used this text to prove God will bring National Israel together again to Zion.

The reason is that Zion is a reference to heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22; Rev. 21:2,10). This will be fulfilled AFTER the universe has been destroyed by God (Rev.21:1), and not as you've said in your post #286

Yes, I do believe I have the correct teaching of Jer. 3:14 as set forth in Scripture which is very different from your interpretation.

Again, I reiterate that the condition of National Israel in unbelief and blindness will remain until the last of the Gentiles have become saved, as set forth in Romans 11:25.

God has no other provisions for National Israel after the divorce (Jer.3:8) except for a remnant saved by grace (Ro. 9:27), and this is true for every nations of the world. Divorce means to separate and God had separated Himself from National Israel.

Romans 9:27

Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved.

Romans 11:26

And so (in this manner) all Israel (body of all believers, Jews and Gentiles alike) shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion (New Jerusalem) the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob (Spiritual Israel).

Romans 9:25-26

25 ¶ As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people (gentile believers, before salvation); there shall they be called the children of the living God.
 

Purity

New Member
May 20, 2013
1,064
15
0
Melbourne
In Christ said:
Purity

I've used Jer. 3:14 as a reference only that God said He was married to Israel and I will not have used this text to prove God will bring National Israel together again to Zion.
Well you may have learned something today :)

The reason is that Zion is a reference to heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22; Rev. 21:2,10). This will be fulfilled AFTER the universe has been destroyed by God (Rev.21:1), and not as you've said in your post #286
Zion is a literal place - you know this right?

Yes, I do believe I have the correct teaching of Jer. 3:14 as set forth in Scripture which is very different from your interpretation.
I ask you below to show us this correct understanding - look forward to your explanation.

Again, I reiterate that the condition of National Israel in unbelief and blindness will remain until the last of the Gentiles have become saved, as set forth in Romans 11:25.
This is true in part though a small number of Jewish converts still occur today - as a generalisation you are correct.

God has no other provisions for National Israel after the divorce (Jer.3:8)
Wow - did you hear that CB members - what a bold statement from one who is yet to explain God's calling and drawing of her in Jer 3:14,15

Imagine that - "In Christ" does not count himself as one of the shepherds of Jer 3:15!

Staggering I say staggering!...what is your hope?

So by this you are saying the OT prophecy of God bringing his refined back to Zion is not only unfulfilled prophecy but that God never intended to do this in Israel?

Do you realise the problem you have created for yourself?

Let me see if you can enter the Word of God with me.

Return, O faithless children, declares the LORD; for I am your master; I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion.
(Jer 3:14)

Why 1 from a city? 2 from a family?

He states "I WILL" but you say "HE WILL NOT?"

Explain the verse to me and especially my favourite verse in all Scripture Jer 3:15

Purity
 

Retrobyter

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2011
1,783
45
48
66
Tampa Bay, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Shalom, Rex.

Rex said:
...

Retro I'll watch my punctuation and proper use of your and you're. If you can limit your post to less than 500 words :rolleyes:
And spare everyone the stupid lesson in Greek and Hebrew. Definitions of words seems to be your greatest piece of evidence.

It's really no different than people that disagree in English, in short its always been the fly in the ointment even when Jesus spoke directly, some understand and others didn't. Nothings changed and your long winded language lesions don't change a thing.

Besides I already covered that point
Well, it's clear to me that you fall into that category of people who say, "My mind's made up; don't bother me with the facts." I will try to reduce the lengths of my posts whenever I can, but I can see that my "stupid lessons in Greek and Hebrew" are just falling on deaf ears, anyway. In one ear and out the other with nothing in between to catch them.

I'm done talking with you. Anything more will just be a waste of time and effort.


Matthew 7:6
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
KJV