23 major reasons to reject the Premil doctrine!

[Spiritual Israelite]

Now if only the amils and covenant theologians would remove their glasses and see this biblical truth! they would not alter so many Scriptures to their own disadvantage and at times peril.

Why do you act as if there is only one Israel in scripture? That is not biblical truth. Please read post #657 and learn something for once.

Can you tell me how you interpret this passage:

6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 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.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It is so sad that some members on this forum believe their own dribble on the context of the bible and what it states. Sadly, the changes to the translations that we use today add to their/our confusion.

Shalom

Yes, it's very sad that you are included among them.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So, you are objecting to my understanding that the Israelites in the last Age will show the way to the Gentiles so that they can reach Mt Zion.

The way has already been shown to the Gentiles. The way is Jesus Christ (John 14:6). Why would Israelites need to show Gentiles that "in the last Age"?

 

[covenantee]

Why do you act as if there is only one Israel in scripture? That is not biblical truth. Please read post #657 and learn something for once.

Can you tell me how you interpret this passage:

6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 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.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

Good to see you back, bro.

Referring to Bro. Ross:

He doesn't interpret. Instead, he denies all other interpretations.

He also claims to be the sole exegete among all Bible translators, past and present, of Romans 11:26.

Entertaining.

 

[covenantee]

Good to see you back, bro.

He doesn't interpret. Instead, he denies all other interpretations.

He also claims to be the sole exegete among all Bible translators, past and present, of Romans 11:26.

Entertaining.

Sorry, correction, I was referring to Bro. Ross. My mistake.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Good to see you back, bro.

Thank you. I've been a bit busy. Also, I became weary of the utter nonsense that I see on this forum on a regular basis, so I took a break from it. I see that nothing has changed.

Referring to Bro. Ross:

He doesn't interpret. Instead, he denies all other interpretations.

He also claims to be the sole exegete among all Bible translators, past and present, of Romans 11:26.

Entertaining.

Yes, he needs to humble himself. He seems to think he knows it all about everything, but does NOTHING to back up his beliefs. All opinions and no scripture. Typical.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Sorry, correction, I was referring to Bro. Ross. My mistake.

Yes, that was already clear to me. But, thanks for confirming that, anyway.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Why do you act as if there is only one Israel in scripture? That is not biblical truth. Please read post #657 and learn something for once.

Can you tell me how you interpret this passage:

6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 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.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

And you seem to forget the context. Isaac is the child of promise- not Ishmael. Israel the ethnos are the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob! Period! It is not some mystical far reaching into the future promise that gentiles who get saved somehow become Israel.

There is only one Israel in the bible not two.

Spiritual Israel are those saved jews from physical Israel. the church did not get the name "Israel" at any time.

And I have no #657 post on my end. It is [probably from someone I have placed on ignore for various reasons.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And you seem to forget the context.

You seem to not know what you're talking about. I'm not forgetting ANY context.

Isaac is the child of promise- not Ishmael.

Yes, and what does that mean? Have you never read this:

Galatians 4:26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written: “Be glad, barren woman, you who never bore a child; shout for joy and cry aloud, you who were never in labor; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband.” 28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise.

This is Paul speaking to both Jew and Gentile believers. He indicates that you (Christians), like Isaac, are children of promise. It has nothing to do with race or nationality as you falsely believe.

Israel the ethnos are the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob! Period! It is not some mystical far reaching into the future promise that gentiles who get saved somehow become Israel.

Then how do you make sense of Paul saying "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel"? If there is only one Israel then that statement would make no sense whatsoever. Obviously, all who are physically descended from the physical nation of Israel are Israel, yet Paul said that "NOT ALL who are descended from Israel are Israel". So, he was clearly referring to another Israel besides just the physical nation of Israel there. Why can't you be honest and acknowledge that?

There is only one Israel in the bible not two.

That is absolutely false. Paul referred to two Israels in one verse (Romans 9:6). You are denying clear scripture here.

Spiritual Israel are those saved jews from physical Israel.

It also includes saved Gentiles, but let's say you were right about this. That would still mean that Spiritual Israel and physical Israel are two different Israels. So, why do you insist on just one Israel?

the church did not get the name "Israel" at any time.

Yes, it did. Paul called it "the Israel of God" in this passage:

Galatians 6:15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. 16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.

In this passage, Paul called those who are part of "the new creation" in Christ "the Israel of God". So, don't tell me that the church did not get the name Israel at any time.

 

[covenantee]

You seem to not know what you're talking about. I'm not forgetting ANY context.


Yes, and what does that mean? Have you never read this:

Galatians 4:26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written: “Be glad, barren woman, you who never bore a child; shout for joy and cry aloud, you who were never in labor; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband.” 28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise.

This is Paul speaking to both Jew and Gentile believers. He indicates that you (Christians), like Isaac, are children of promise. It has nothing to do with race or nationality as you falsely believe.


Then how do you make sense of Paul saying "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel"? If there is only one Israel then that statement would make no sense whatsoever. Obviously, all who are physically descended from the physical nation of Israel are Israel, yet Paul said that "NOT ALL who are descended from Israel are Israel". So, he was clearly referring to another Israel besides just the physical nation of Israel there. Why can't you be honest and acknowledge that?


That is absolutely false. Paul referred to two Israels in one verse (Romans 9:6). You are denying clear scripture here.


It also includes saved Gentiles, but let's say you were right about this. That would still mean that Spiritual Israel and physical Israel are two different Israels. So, why do you insist on just one Israel?


Yes, it did. Paul called it "the Israel of God" in this passage:

Galatians 6:15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. 16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.

In this passage, Paul called those who are part of "the new creation" in Christ "the Israel of God". So, don't tell me that the church did not get the name Israel at any time.

He has me on ignore, but as a dispen he deliberately ignores Galatians 4:28, which unambiguously places the Church of redeemed Jews and Gentiles, the children of promise; within the redeemed "all Israel" children of promise of Romans 9:6-8.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

He has me on ignore, but as a dispen he deliberately ignores Galatians 4:28, which unambiguously places the Church of redeemed Jews and Gentiles, the children of promise; within the redeemed "all Israel" children of promise of Romans 9:6-8.

I agree. It amazes me when people blatantly disregard passages like that. Paul was quite clear in Galatians 4 that Gentile believers are included among the children of promise like Isaac was. Romans 9:6-8 should be understood in that context.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You seem to not know what you're talking about. I'm not forgetting ANY context.

Yes you are. Because if you believe that Gentiles can become an "Israel" then you (unless you are one of the less than .001%) who use this passage to show gentile believers become "spiritual Israel " or whatever else you wish to call it.

Galatians 4:26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written: “Be glad, barren woman, you who never bore a child; shout for joy and cry aloud, you who were never in labor; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband.” 28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise.

Yes but there was more than one promise in the OT. Teh one to Isaac was for the nation of Israel. We gentiles are from other promises! sorry. Like is a comparative term sayi9ng that like Isaac gentiles have a promise and are children of promise. It does not mean the same promise.

And the Jerusalem above is also called heaven or New Jerusalem in Rev. 21.

That is absolutely false. Paul referred to two Israels in one verse (Romans 9:6). You are denying clear scripture here.

I wish you would keep verses in context and not rip them out to misapply elsewhere!

5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

This passage is all about teh physical seed.

This is Paul speaking to both Jew and Gentile believers. He indicates that you (Christians), like Isaac, are children of promise. It has nothing to do with race or nationality as you falsely believe.

I agree! But it is not Israel! We are simply the
body of Christ where there is no Jew nor gentile.

But the promises of God to teh nation of Israel still belong to ethnos Israel and will be fulfilled as declared!

Then how do you make sense of Paul saying "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel"? If there is only one Israel then that statement would make no sense whatsoever. Obviously, all who are physically descended from the physical nation of Israel are Israel, yet Paul said that "NOT ALL who are descended from Israel are Israel". So, he was clearly referring to another Israel besides just the physical nation of Israel there. Why can't you be honest and acknowledge that?

Once again if you keep verses in their immediate and larger context int eh letter they are in, you would see Paul was making distinctions between saved and unsaved Israel!

It also includes saved Gentiles, but let's say you were right about this. That would still mean that Spiritual Israel and physical Israel are two different Israels. So, why do you insist on just one Israel?

Yes and No! Saved Israel is till physical Israel. It is simply a distinction to differentiate the saved Israel from the unsaved!

Romans 11

King James Version

​

11 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.
2 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,
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 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.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

They are all of Israel, but the 7000 are saved within Israel. So the answer is both yes and no

Yes, it did. Paul called it "the Israel of God" in this passage:

Galatians 6:15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. 16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.

In this passage, Paul called those who are part of "the new creation" in Christ "the Israel of God". So, don't tell me that the church did not get the name Israel at any time.

And this is where your lack of grammar hurts you.

15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Simple Univeral rule applies here! when two thoughts are connected by an "and" unless otherwise noted iti s two things.

Paul say Peace and mercy. these are two different attributes so he is saying two things to the people to have. Same construct follows the part B of that sentence. And here could also be rendered also because He is now speaking of someone else.

Teh first group is by implication based ,on the the fact Paul makes big differentiations between Jews and gentile believers, is gentile believers. We know this is gentile believers because god will not give His peace and mercy to one who is an unbeliever. so now we come to the and! this simply signifies another group other than those who walk according to the rules Paul gave down in the first 6 chapters. It is the Israel of God- the people who are described as teh remnant in many other places.

 

[Truth7t7]

Now if only the amils and covenant theologians would remove their glasses and see this biblical truth! they would not alter so many Scriptures to their own disadvantage and at times peril.

Of course you promote Dispensationalism's Zionism, John N. Darby on display

 

[covenantee]

Yes you are. Because if you believe that Gentiles can become an "Israel" then you (unless you are one of the less than .001%) who use this passage to show gentile believers become "spiritual Israel " or whatever else you wish to call it.

Yes but there was more than one promise in the OT. Teh one to Isaac was for the nation of Israel. We gentiles are from other promises! sorry. Like is a comparative term sayi9ng that like Isaac gentiles have a promise and are children of promise. It does not mean the same promise.

And the Jerusalem above is also called heaven or New Jerusalem in Rev. 21.

I wish you would keep verses in context and not rip them out to misapply elsewhere!

5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

This passage is all about teh physical seed.

I agree! But it is not Israel! We are simply the
body of Christ where there is no Jew nor gentile.

But the promises of God to teh nation of Israel still belong to ethnos Israel and will be fulfilled as declared!

Once again if you keep verses in their immediate and larger context int eh letter they are in, you would see Paul was making distinctions between saved and unsaved Israel!

Yes and No! Saved Israel is till physical Israel. It is simply a distinction to differentiate the saved Israel from the unsaved!

Romans 11​

​

King James Version​

​

​

11 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.
2 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,
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 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.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

They are all of Israel, but the 7000 are saved within Israel. So the answer is both yes and no

And this is where your lack of grammar hurts you.

15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Simple Univeral rule applies here! when two thoughts are connected by an "and" unless otherwise noted iti s two things.

Paul say Peace and mercy. these are two different attributes so he is saying two things to the people to have. Same construct follows the part B of that sentence. And here could also be rendered also because He is now speaking of someone else.

Teh first group is by implication based ,on the the fact Paul makes big differentiations between Jews and gentile believers, is gentile believers. We know this is gentile believers because god will not give His peace and mercy to one who is an unbeliever. so now we come to the and! this simply signifies another group other than those who walk according to the rules Paul gave down in the first 6 chapters. It is the Israel of God- the people who are described as teh remnant in many other places.

There is not a single NT promise for physical Israel outside of Christ.

In God's New Will and Testament, all covenants and promises are fulfilled only in Christ, and in those who are in Christ.

The OT covenants and promises are the promissory clauses of God's Old Will and Testament, and they are both revoked and fulfilled in the promissory clauses of His New Will and Testament, written in the Blood of His Son Jesus Christ, the Divine Testator, coming into full force and effect upon His death.

If you have made your own Will and Testament, you will see that the very first clause states the following or its equivalent:

"I HEREBY REVOKE all former Wills and other testamentary dispositions by me at any time therefore made and declare this to be my Last Will and Testament."

This means that all former wills and testaments, and all of their promissory clauses in their entirety, are completely null and void. In their place, the promissory clauses of the current last new will and testament are the only ones in force and effect. Any promissory clause which appeared in the old will and testament, but does not appear in the new will and testament, is irrevocably null and void unless yet another new will and testament is made which re-includes it.

Thus we see:

Hebrews 9
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Hebrews 10
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Hebrews 8
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

God`s New Will and Testament is everlasting:

Hebrews 13
20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant.

There is none greater.

We see other new promissory clauses of the New Will and Testament in:

Matthew 21:33-45
In this parable, the son, who is identified as the heir, typifies Christ.

Galatians 3:16
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.

2 Corinthians 1:20
For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

Hebrews 1:1,2
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

In them, we see that the Heir and Beneficiary is Christ alone, that all of the promises are affirmed and confirmed in Him, and that He is Heir of all things. All includes the OT land promises, the restoration promises, the blessings promises, and all else. There are no exceptions.

If you deny that God has appointed His Son alone as heir of all things, you declare God to be a liar.

His New Will and Testament contains even better promises:

Hebrews 8
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Such as:

Hebrews 11
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Additional promissory clauses in...:

Romans 8:16-17
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Galatians 3:29
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

...declare that we who are in Christ are joint heirs with Him.

But notice:

There are no promissory clauses for anyone, Jew or Gentile...

Who is not in Christ.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes you are. Because if you believe that Gentiles can become an "Israel" then you (unless you are one of the less than .001%) who use this passage to show gentile believers become "spiritual Israel " or whatever else you wish to call it.

Context includes taking other scripture into account, including Galatians 3:16-29 and Galatians 4:21-32. You don't do that. You interpret any given verse in isolation from the rest of scripture and that's why you interpret so many verses incorrectly.

Yes but there was more than one promise in the OT. Teh one to Isaac was for the nation of Israel.

You are blatantly disregarding what Paul wrote here to both Jew and Gentile Christians:

Galatians 4:28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise.

Compare that to this:

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 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.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

In verse 6 Paul declares that "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel". Then in verses 7 and 8 he expands on what he meant by that. Notice that he makes it clear that being a physical descendant has nothing to do with being part of the Israel of which not all of physical Israel are part. That's why he said "Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children" and "it is not the children by physical descent who are God's children". That shows that being a physical descendant has nothing to do with being part of spiritual Israel and being a child of God and a child of the promise.

As he said, "it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned" and we can see from Galatians 4:28 that Gentile believers are included in that because Paul said to both Jew and Gentile believers "you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise".

We gentiles are from other promises! sorry. Like is a comparative term sayi9ng that like Isaac gentiles have a promise and are children of promise. It does not mean the same promise.

That is complete nonsense. You're just making things up here. You're not accepting what Paul clearly taught.

And the Jerusalem above is also called heaven or New Jerusalem in Rev. 21.

I wish you would keep verses in context and not rip them out to misapply elsewhere!

I'm not doing that. We can use scripture to interpret scripture, but the way you look at scripture, you can't relate any two passages to each other. That is ridiculous.

Note: "Romans 9:5-10 was quoted here but I'm saving space to get down to less than 10,000 characters in this post

This passage is all about teh physical seed.

What?! Then why did Paul say "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children" and "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God"? He said those things because the passage is NOT about the physical seed. You have everything backwards.

I agree! But it is not Israel! We are simply the body of Christ where there is no Jew nor gentile.

We are the spiritual Israel of God, as Paul said.

But the promises of God to teh nation of Israel still belong to ethnos Israel and will be fulfilled as declared!

Which promises are those exactly? It's interesting how the New Testament authors like Paul had a very different understanding of God's promises. Don't you trust their understanding of God's promises?

Once again if you keep verses in their immediate and larger context int eh letter they are in, you would see Paul was making distinctions between saved and unsaved Israel!

Yes, he did do that at times, but he also made it clear in his writings that saved Israelites and saved Gentiles are brought together as one by the blood of Christ. So, why do you make a distinction between saved Israel and saved Gentiles when scripture doesn't?

Yes and No! Saved Israel is till physical Israel. It is simply a distinction to differentiate the saved Israel from the unsaved!

Yes and no? It can't be yes and no. You are making things up as you go along. Are there two Israels or not? You went from a definite no to now saying yes and no. But, it's either yes or no. And there obviously are two Israels or else what Paul said in Romans 9:6-8 would make no sense whatsoever.

So, let's say there are two Israels and one is saved Israel, which we could see as a spiritual Israel and the other is the physical nation of Israel. So, saved Israelites would be part of both Israels while unsaved Israelites are only part of one. It's still two different Israels that we're talking about here. I'm not sure why you can't at least acknowledge that much.

Romans 11

King James Version​

11 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.
2 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,
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 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.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

They are all of Israel, but the 7000 are saved within Israel. So the answer is both yes and no

No, the answer is yes in that case. The unsaved are not part of spiritual Israel so that makes two Israels and the unsaved are only part of one of them.

And this is where your lack of grammar hurts you.

LOL. This is very ironic coming from you.

15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Simple Univeral rule applies here! when two thoughts are connected by an "and" unless otherwise noted iti s two things.

Did you read the version I posted (NIV) which more clearly shows what Paul was saying than the KJV does? That version shows that Paul used the term "the Israel of God" as another way of referring to those who have been made a new creation in Christ.

But, let's put your claim to the test here by looking at another passage from the KJV.

Revelation 19:5 (KJV): 5 And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.

Using your grammar rule we would have to conclude that "ye his servants" and "ye that fear him, both small and great" are referring to two entirely different groups of people. But, it's not! All of His people are His servants and all of His people fear Him. So, each reference is to the same people. That is the case in Galatians 6:15-16 as well. The people who have been made "a new creature" in Christ and "walk according to this rule" are the same people as "the Israel of God". Just different ways of referring to the same people.

Paul say Peace and mercy. these are two different attributes so he is saying two things to the people to have. Same construct follows the part B of that sentence. And here could also be rendered also because He is now speaking of someone else.

Are you trying to tell me that he was saying "peace" to one group and "mercy" to another group? If so, that is completely ridiculous.

Same construct follows the part B of that sentence. And here could also be rendered also because He is now speaking of someone else.

Teh first group is by implication based ,on the the fact Paul makes big differentiations between Jews and gentile believers, is gentile believers. We know this is gentile believers because god will not give His peace and mercy to one who is an unbeliever. so now we come to the and! this simply signifies another group other than those who walk according to the rules Paul gave down in the first 6 chapters. It is the Israel of God- the people who are described as teh remnant in many other places.

You're not making any sense here at all. He didn't say "these rules", he said "this rule". He was referring to what he had just been talking about which are those who live according to the rule that says being circumcised or uncircumcised means nothing because what matters is spiritually being made a new creation in Christ. The ones who walk according to that rule are the Israel of God.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 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.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

And you are ignoring the whole passage that Isaac is the child of promise. and then it was confirmed to Jacob as well!

Context includes taking other scripture into account, including Galatians 3:16-29 and Galatians 4:21-32. You don't do that. You interpret any given verse in isolation from the rest of scripture and that's why you interpret so many verses incorrectly.

First and foremost a verse has to be interpreted in its direct context before you open it up to the greater Scripture. but even understanding this verse in light of greater Scripture, there is but one Israel, and within that Israel is the Israel of God!

And you have twisted these two vewrses terribly. They do not refer to Jew and Gentile but to the law and the people of promise- Isaac versus Ishmael. and we are spiritual children and fleshly children persecute us! That is not Jews persecuting us today but unsaved!

As he said, "it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned" and we can see from Galatians 4:28 that Gentile believers are included in that because Paul said to both Jew and Gentile believers "you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise".

So are you saying you are spiritual Isaac and not spiritual Israel? NOthing is mentioned about spiritual Isaac.

That is complete nonsense. You're just making things up here. You're not accepting what Paul clearly taught.

Yes I am! I accept what He says as hew wrote it in the language he wrote it and do not allegorize it as you have.

I'm not doing that. We can use scripture to interpret scripture, but the way you look at scripture, you can't relate any two passages to each other. That is ridiculous.

YOu speak out of
total ignorance. You wish to willy nilly couple verses that should not be coupled together. I showed earthly and heavenly Jerusalem form Scripture!

What?! Then why did Paul say "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children" and "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God"? He said those things because the passage is NOT about the physical seed. You have everything backwards.

And you have isolated this verse out of its context to imply it means something it doesn't! IN its context without reinterpreting what Paul wrote, Paul declared that Ishmael was the childof teh flesh and Isaac was the child of promise. Don't believe me? go back to Genesis and reread the promise that Abraham and Sarah would have a child well after their child bearing years! That is coupling Scriptures properly!

Yes and no? It can't be yes and no. You are making things up as you go along. Are there two Israels or not? You went from a definite no to now saying yes and no. But, it's either yes or no. And there obviously are two Israels or else what Paul said in Romans 9:6-8 would make no sense whatsoever.

So, let's say there are two Israels and one is saved Israel, which we could see as a spiritual Israel and the other is the physical nation of Israel. So, saved Israelites would be part of both Israels while unsaved Israelites are only part of one. It's still two different Israels that we're talking about here. I'm not sure why you can't at least acknowledge that much.

And that is why I said yes and no! there is only one people of Israel. teh children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and within that nation there is the saved Israel which are born of the spirit and not the flesh. They are still Israel, but they and they alone are spiritual Israel! Paul makes that clear in Galatians and Romans. Nowhere does he imply gegntiles can become "spiritual Israel.".

LOL. This is very ironic coming from you.

I may spell lousy and not use punctuation properly- those are physical issues., But you grossly violate the rules of grammar for understanding passages. I know you do not do this with other pieces of literature, but you feel you have the right to run rough shod over Gods Word and redefine it as you see fit. god created grammar anbd uses it properly to communicate with mankind!

What you and the others like you do is to use an old gnostic trick that there is a deeper meaning to the bible than what is just written
and you have the key to properly understand it. HOGWASH!!!!!

Using your grammar rule we would have to conclude that "ye his servants" and "ye that fear him, both small and great" are referring to two entirely different groups of people. But, it's not! All of His people are His servants and all of His people fear Him. So, each reference is to the same people. That is the case in Galatians 6:15-16 as well. The people who have been made "a new creature" in Christ and "walk according to this rule" are the same people as "the Israel of God". Just different ways of referring to the same people.

Well it is speaking of two different groups of living. Teh people of God and the angels of God! this is taking place in heaven and the voice speaks from the throne of God to the inhabitants of heaven which are people and angels. See how simple this is?

Are you trying to tell me that he was saying "peace" to one group and "mercy" to another group? If so, that is completely ridiculous.

Nope He was wishing peace and mercy (two different blessings) to two different groups of peop

You're not making any sense here at all. He didn't say "these rules", he said "this rule". He was referring to what he had just been talking about which are those who live according to the rule that says being circumcised or uncircumcised means nothing because what matters is spiritually being made a new creation in Christ. The ones who walk according to that rule are the Israel of God.

Well seeing you wish to nitpick let us look.

The word rule Paul used is the word "KANON" which is singular. It can mean one simple rule or law or it can also mean a complete set of rules or laws bundled into one rule.

If it means just one, then Paul would be referring directly back to verse 15: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

It can mean one or a group bundled into one. I accept the scholarship that says it is the entire argument Paul made in Galatians and not just the previous verse. If you want to think otherwise- that is your business.

 

[WPM]

And you are ignoring the whole passage that Isaac is the child of promise. and then it was confirmed to Jacob as well!

First and foremost a verse has to be interpreted in its direct context before you open it up to the greater Scripture. but even understanding this verse in light of greater Scripture, there is but one Israel, and within that Israel is the Israel of God!

And you have twisted these two vewrses terribly. They do not refer to Jew and Gentile but to the law and the people of promise- Isaac versus Ishmael. and we are spiritual children and fleshly children persecute us! That is not Jews persecuting us today but unsaved!

So are you saying you are spiritual Isaac and not spiritual Israel? NOthing is mentioned about spiritual Isaac.

Yes I am! I accept what He says as hew wrote it in the language he wrote it and do not allegorize it as you have.

YOu speak out of
total ignorance. You wish to willy nilly couple verses that should not be coupled together. I showed earthly and heavenly Jerusalem form Scripture!


And you have isolated this verse out of its context to imply it means something it doesn't! IN its context without reinterpreting what Paul wrote, Paul declared that Ishmael was the childof teh flesh and Isaac was the child of promise. Don't believe me? go back to Genesis and reread the promise that Abraham and Sarah would have a child well after their child bearing years! That is coupling Scriptures properly!

And that is why I said yes and no! there is only one people of Israel. teh children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and within that nation there is the saved Israel which are born of the spirit and not the flesh. They are still Israel, but they and they alone are spiritual Israel! Paul makes that clear in Galatians and Romans. Nowhere does he imply gegntiles can become "spiritual Israel.".

I may spell lousy and not use punctuation properly- those are physical issues., But you grossly violate the rules of grammar for understanding passages. I know you do not do this with other pieces of literature, but you feel you have the right to run rough shod over Gods Word and redefine it as you see fit. god created grammar anbd uses it properly to communicate with mankind!

What you and the others like you do is to use an old gnostic trick that there is a deeper meaning to the bible than what is just written
and you have the key to properly understand it. HOGWASH!!!!!



Well it is speaking of two different groups of living. Teh people of God and the angels of God! this is taking place in heaven and the voice speaks from the throne of God to the inhabitants of heaven which are people and angels. See how simple this is?

Nope He was wishing peace and mercy (two different blessings) to two different groups of peop

Well seeing you wish to nitpick let us look.

The word rule Paul used is the word "KANON" which is singular. It can mean one simple rule or law or it can also mean a complete set of rules or laws bundled into one rule.

If it means just one, then Paul would be referring directly back to verse 15: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

It can mean one or a group bundled into one. I accept the scholarship that says it is the entire argument Paul made in Galatians and not just the previous verse. If you want to think otherwise- that is your business.

Why can you not directly address the biblical arguments Spiritual Jew has presented instead of name-calling?

P.S. Never criticize anyone about grammar when you cannot even spell the word "the" ("teh") in all your posts. That is duplicitous.

 

[Jay Ross]

@Spiritual Israelite

Thank you for quoting my previous posts, but you are pushing a particular wheelbarrow to the determent of God's word in the scriptures.

As I have previously posted and have stated on more than one occasion, this is above my pay grade to say who God will or will not draw or gather to Himself. As such the positions being advocated becomes an academic ball to kick around with not firm conclusion that can be reached because of the hard hearts of the people on either side in the grey area of understanding.

Hosea 6:1-3 addresses the third and the fourth ages of the visitation of the fathers' iniquities upon their children and their children's children. A day of the Lord in Hosea 6:1-3, is the same as the third and the fourth (generation/age) spoken about in Exodus 20:4-6.

The third day of the Lord in Hosea 6:1-3 is referencing God's grace towards the nation of Israel after the completion of the visitation of the father's iniquities during the 3rd and 4th generation/age.

God has an expectation that the Israelites that he will gather to himself will repent of their and their fathers ' idolatrous worship during the previous four ages of their existence.

In Daniel 9:24a God was showing Grace toward the nation of Israel to repent of their continual idolatrous worship by giving them 490 opportunities to repent of their open and visible idolatrous worship, but they would not repent of their sin nor put this sin away from them. God had warned Israel through the word recorded by King Solomon that if Israel did not humble themselves and repent of their wicked sins that he would cause the temple to be destroyed and for the nation of Israel to be scattered throughout all of the Gentile nations.

Now in Romans 11:26 when Paul wrote that "All of Israelwill be saved," as is customary within God's word, the word "All" does not always mean "everyone" or "everywhere." That was why when reflecting on this verse recently, that I suggested that the Greek word "Pas" should be understood to have the meaning of "those" such that the verse could be translated as: - "After that, 'those of Israel' will be saved."

In making this suggestion, I have not limited God as to who He will gather to Himself. I have not tried to judge who is worthy of God's Grace or whether or not, I as a "Chrisitan" should also be considered to be part of "those of Israel." I am simply content to be just a lowly doorman who greets those who God is gathering to Himself at the end of Time.

If God includes me among those of Israel, then I am blessed. If God does not include with Those of Israel, I am still blessed because I will still be able to gaze upon Him from among all of the Saints.

When the mother of two of the disciples ask Jesus to sit one of her sons at his left hand and for the other son to sit at His right hand, Jesus replied that giving that position to either disciple was not His to determine. Perhaps we should consider our position with respect to where we would stand after we enter into Eternity to be with Him from that time onwards.

This is why I kept repeating that who God draws to Himself is way above my pay grade as well as your paygrade in God's Everlasting Kingdom.

But if you want to be dogmatic about how you perceive things will pan out, then be my guest, but also please be respectful of other peoples' position. Their position may be closer to the truth than yours. Please note that this applies to us all.

 

[covenantee]

This is why I kept repeating that who God draws to Himself is way above my pay grade as well as your paygrade in God's Everlasting Kingdom.

Does God draw to Himself those who are faithful and obedient to Him?

 

[covenantee]

Now in Romans 11:26 when Paul wrote that "All of Israelwill be saved," as is customary within God's word, the word "All" does not always mean "everyone" or "everywhere." That was why when reflecting on this verse recently, that I suggested that the Greek word "Pas" should be understood to have the meaning of "those" such that the verse could be translated as: - "After that, 'those of Israel' will be saved."

There is not a single instance in Scripture that I can find where the Greek "pas" 3956 [e] or its derivatives is translated to the English "those".

It is always translated "all".

The Greek for "those" is most frequently "ho" or "hé" or "to" 3588 [e] or its derivatives.

I invite you to prove me (and Strong, Thayer, et al) wrong.