For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Acts 28:27Rex said:
The proper and harmonious interpretation of Romans 11:25 [split from another topic]
- Thread starter Rex
- Start date
-
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!
Israel, according to the bible and to God, is both a physical nation AND a congregation of Gentiles (nations).
Gen 35:10 And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel.
Gen 35:11 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations (Kehal goyim means congregation or church) shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;
So it is only natural that the fulness of the Gentiles (Ephraim) means ALL of Israel is complete.
Gen 35:10 And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel.
Gen 35:11 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations (Kehal goyim means congregation or church) shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;
So it is only natural that the fulness of the Gentiles (Ephraim) means ALL of Israel is complete.
what i do not understand is why everyone is arguing black and white view points? why is it not possible that some verses have a double meaning or that different verses could be referring to physical isreal and others to spiritual isreal? is it so hard for us to hear from the Holy Spirit who reveals the mysteries of God to us? is it possible we are still immature in Christ which is why we take so much of what is said personal?
only the bible is special and has a lot of valuable information in it but should there be a disagreement within scripture or a contradiction, is not something that in the scheme of life is anywhere as important as salvation. as long as we realize and know that we are saved then we will go to heaven. everything else is secondary compared to salvation.
all these issues that are debated/discussed here will allow us to live a victorious and overcoming lifestyle here on the earth. in otherwords we are able to live the promises of God and thus get blessed in return. the more we follow the Word the more we get blessed. but the promises of God are not a requirement in order to get to heaven.
there seem to be only a small remnant that understand this and put it into action. few seem to realize that the greatest miracle happens upon the transformation of ourselves into a Godly nature when we get saved. our emotions and everything that makes us up doesn't change but what actually changes is that we now have a the ability to change ourselves into something greater. our limits have been removed upon ourselves and we are now only limited by our desires. it sounds easy but it is not. if it were easy then everyone would be doing it.
well sorry for rambling but i should go now.
God bless
only the bible is special and has a lot of valuable information in it but should there be a disagreement within scripture or a contradiction, is not something that in the scheme of life is anywhere as important as salvation. as long as we realize and know that we are saved then we will go to heaven. everything else is secondary compared to salvation.
all these issues that are debated/discussed here will allow us to live a victorious and overcoming lifestyle here on the earth. in otherwords we are able to live the promises of God and thus get blessed in return. the more we follow the Word the more we get blessed. but the promises of God are not a requirement in order to get to heaven.
there seem to be only a small remnant that understand this and put it into action. few seem to realize that the greatest miracle happens upon the transformation of ourselves into a Godly nature when we get saved. our emotions and everything that makes us up doesn't change but what actually changes is that we now have a the ability to change ourselves into something greater. our limits have been removed upon ourselves and we are now only limited by our desires. it sounds easy but it is not. if it were easy then everyone would be doing it.
well sorry for rambling but i should go now.
God bless
Rex ..... I want to make sure we are arguing about the same thingRex said:
Romans 9:6 said ...... For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.
You said ..... it means there is a literal Israel and a spiritual Israel
I said no ..... it is talking about Israel descendants thru Issac and thru Ishmael
Made clear in Romans 9:7 .... 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.”
Hi Arnie,
Just for your information,
Romans 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 13 For the promise, that he [Abraham] should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Galatians 3:8, 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Do you see how these two sections of scripture are linked?
Do you see that Paul defines Gentiles by uncircumcision; not by parentage?
Just for your information,
Abraham came first, then Ishmael, then Isaac, then Esau and Jacob. Remember, Abram was uncircumcised when God called him. His descendants were circumcised, but very many of them did not have faith like Abraham's faith - the kind with which God is satisfied.
Romans 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 13 For the promise, that he [Abraham] should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Galatians 3:8, 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Do you see how these two sections of scripture are linked?
Do you see that Paul defines Gentiles by uncircumcision; not by parentage?
Arnie just read verse Romans 9:8 the next verse.Arnie Manitoba said:
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.
If you don't understand yet refer to Gal 3:28-29
I really believe If we had a long conversation we would find our basic understanding of the gospel differs, this is an advanced subject that I don't believe from reading your post you fully grasp the implications and proper understanding of these verses, and how it can and does effects the gospel message. In that I don't believe you comprehend what it is your arguing against or for. I may be wrong but the topic is who is Israel? who is of the promise to Abraham its clear from many NT scriptures its not the blood line from Abraham exclusively. It never has been and it isn't today.
Rex.... I stand by what I said in my post # 24
After that you added Romans 9:8
But that actually confirms what I said
Because Romans 9:9 nails it .... 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”
Here again we have the word "promise" ..... and of course it alludes to Sarah's son (Issac)
Summary .... The Israel of the promise are thru Issac .... not thru any other lineage of grandpa Israel (Jacob)
if all the descendants of (grandpa israel) (grandpa Jacob) were the "people of the promise" .... it would mean all the descendents from Jacob on down were included in the promise ... including Ishmael and Muslims of today etc.
THE WHOLE POINT of Romans 9:6-9 is that not all the children and grandchildren of (grandpa Israel) (Jacob) are the Israel of the promise
Only the descendants of Grandpa Israel (Jacob) thru the lineage of Abraham AND ISSAC are true Israel
This whole convoluted debate stems from the bible verse that says ..... "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel "
Most people mis-understand that verse because they fail to realize the word Israel (in red) is talking about Jacob (who God renamed Israel)
WHEW !!!!! ...... I want to be done pointing that out.
Please everybody ..... slowly and carefully re-read Romans 9:6-9 ... and you will realize it too.
addendum
Actually the proper way it could have been written is.... "not all who are descended from Jacob are Israel"
But God changed Jacobs name to Israel so he wrote it as .... "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel"
its as simple as that
thanks
After that you added Romans 9:8
But that actually confirms what I said
Because Romans 9:9 nails it .... 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”
Here again we have the word "promise" ..... and of course it alludes to Sarah's son (Issac)
Summary .... The Israel of the promise are thru Issac .... not thru any other lineage of grandpa Israel (Jacob)
if all the descendants of (grandpa israel) (grandpa Jacob) were the "people of the promise" .... it would mean all the descendents from Jacob on down were included in the promise ... including Ishmael and Muslims of today etc.
THE WHOLE POINT of Romans 9:6-9 is that not all the children and grandchildren of (grandpa Israel) (Jacob) are the Israel of the promise
Only the descendants of Grandpa Israel (Jacob) thru the lineage of Abraham AND ISSAC are true Israel
This whole convoluted debate stems from the bible verse that says ..... "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel "
Most people mis-understand that verse because they fail to realize the word Israel (in red) is talking about Jacob (who God renamed Israel)
WHEW !!!!! ...... I want to be done pointing that out.
Please everybody ..... slowly and carefully re-read Romans 9:6-9 ... and you will realize it too.
addendum
Actually the proper way it could have been written is.... "not all who are descended from Jacob are Israel"
But God changed Jacobs name to Israel so he wrote it as .... "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel"
its as simple as that
thanks
Arnie heres a basic run down of the promise you and many other Christians have no clue about all you see is descendents or blood lines from Abraham.
It is true the promise went to Isaac instead of Ismael, they had different mothers that's the point, the promise was to Sarah. Isaac now holds the promise and has twin boys Esau and Jacob, by tradition Esau was the oldest and would receive the promise. They both had the same mother and father; by yours and other recollection they were both the Seed of Abraham and Isaac. But what happened was Esau sold the PROMISE to Jacob. It is true that Esau inherited all of his fathers wealth "land animals" ect. But Jacob when away and worked for his own wealth, but more importantly he carried the promise not Esau. So you see in the very first instance of the promise that went from Abraham and to Isaac it did not pertain to BOTH THE TWINS, its not the blood it never has been and it never will be.
If you believe all Israel is the blood descendents what about Esau? Gen 25:19-34 The LORD said to Rebekah, "two nations are in your womb. and two peoples from within you will be separated: one people will be stronger than the other, and the older shall serve the younger.
Did you get that two nations are in you womb, not one. But some will say the promise was to Abraham and his seed, so what are we talking about? Believe me were not about about blood but spirit.
Here is what the LORD said about Ismael, Gen 17:20 not a part of Israel just as Esau was not a part of Israel, though he was the twin brother of Jacob. Its the promise not the blood line that counts. Gal 3:29
Romans 2:28-29
Romans 9:6-9
Gal 3:28-29
Look at Jacobs final blessing before he dies and tell me where did the promise go>
Gen 49:1-28
It is true the promise went to Isaac instead of Ismael, they had different mothers that's the point, the promise was to Sarah. Isaac now holds the promise and has twin boys Esau and Jacob, by tradition Esau was the oldest and would receive the promise. They both had the same mother and father; by yours and other recollection they were both the Seed of Abraham and Isaac. But what happened was Esau sold the PROMISE to Jacob. It is true that Esau inherited all of his fathers wealth "land animals" ect. But Jacob when away and worked for his own wealth, but more importantly he carried the promise not Esau. So you see in the very first instance of the promise that went from Abraham and to Isaac it did not pertain to BOTH THE TWINS, its not the blood it never has been and it never will be.
If you believe all Israel is the blood descendents what about Esau? Gen 25:19-34 The LORD said to Rebekah, "two nations are in your womb. and two peoples from within you will be separated: one people will be stronger than the other, and the older shall serve the younger.
Did you get that two nations are in you womb, not one. But some will say the promise was to Abraham and his seed, so what are we talking about? Believe me were not about about blood but spirit.
Here is what the LORD said about Ismael, Gen 17:20 not a part of Israel just as Esau was not a part of Israel, though he was the twin brother of Jacob. Its the promise not the blood line that counts. Gal 3:29
Romans 2:28-29
Romans 9:6-9
Gal 3:28-29
Look at Jacobs final blessing before he dies and tell me where did the promise go>
Gen 49:1-28
Look Rex ..... here is what you are doing .... you are getting off track and even going all the way to Galatians and try to drag that back to determine the meaning of Israel and Israel in Romans 9
I am not trying to dispute anything you are trying to say as far as Galatians and what Galatians means
But until we nail down what Israel and Israel is in Romans 9 we cannot take even the tiniest step forward.
I think that is my whole point.
I could care less if somebody thinks Israel is a cockroach living in their baseboard in Florida
================
ps ... Rex .... I meant to say this a while back .... my comment about "save your breath Rex" in my post #3 was because we already had that topic going in another thread and i thought you were starting a new thread to pound your argument from two different directions
I did not realize a moderator had moved your post here and thus my confused reaction
Some of these debates and arguments can become heated and I think that is just fine.
But when moderators put their nose in it makes it even worse
I wish the moderators would focus on all the one time poster preachers who take a big dump here and never return
I am not trying to dispute anything you are trying to say as far as Galatians and what Galatians means
But until we nail down what Israel and Israel is in Romans 9 we cannot take even the tiniest step forward.
I think that is my whole point.
I could care less if somebody thinks Israel is a cockroach living in their baseboard in Florida
================
ps ... Rex .... I meant to say this a while back .... my comment about "save your breath Rex" in my post #3 was because we already had that topic going in another thread and i thought you were starting a new thread to pound your argument from two different directions
I did not realize a moderator had moved your post here and thus my confused reaction
Some of these debates and arguments can become heated and I think that is just fine.
But when moderators put their nose in it makes it even worse
I wish the moderators would focus on all the one time poster preachers who take a big dump here and never return
That's not what it's stating at all, at least in the way you're explaining it. There is the natural seed and the spiritual seed. The red Israel refers to the natural seed, the latter refers to the spiritual seed, i.e., those of faith, the true seed of Abraham.Arnie Manitoba said:
Your torturous logic reads a carnal twist into that scripture; no wonder you want to be done pointing it out.
Retrobyter
Well-Known Member
Shalom, ChristRoseFromTheDead.
Shalom, again, ChristRoseFromTheDead.
Quit picking-and-choosing which verses you quote! Look at the WHOLE context of what is being talked about and READ FIRST what the author was saying before jumping on a verse or two as your "proof" and neglecting what was being said!
For instance, I find it ironic that you can't understand Romans 11 correctly because you fail to read it with Romans 9 and 10! Furthermore, even Romans chapters 9-11 must be read in the FULL context of the book of Romans! (And, no, moderator, I'm not ABOUT to quote the whole book! It wouldn't help, anyway! If one doesn't read it how it is printed now, then they will CONTINUE not to read it if I quote it. Perhaps, ESPECIALLY if I quote it!)
And then, there's the definitions of some words. "Salvation" is GREATLY misunderstood, for instance. "Salvation" (and its various forms like "save," "saves," "saved," and "saving") in the Scriptures is NOT talking about God's justification of an individual! It is talking about RESCUE!!! And, no, not a "rescue" from sin, nor is it an individual "rescue." The word, particularly where it is quoted from the Tanakh (the OT), is talking about a NATIONAL rescue of the Isra'elis from oppressing, invading, and occupying neighbor nations, and it is almost ALWAYS talking about the future when the Messiah returns! That's ESPECIALLY true for that often misused verse in Romans 10, verse 13! The proof of that is to simply go back to the passage from whence the verse was quoted, and read THAT verse in its context!
When you look at that verse in the light of its context and transfer that concept back to the NT where it was quoted, read the passage there to see if there might be some way that Paul was using the verse in a way you hadn't anticipated, in a way you didn't expect! You MIGHT just find that you've been looking at Romans 10 wrongly all along!
And, the same could have been said for Gentile believers of THIS generation, had Yeshua` or the Twelve had been here today! Learn from their example!ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
Shalom, again, ChristRoseFromTheDead.
No. Arnie is correct. It's not a "carnal twist of Scripture" nor is it "torturous logic." He is RIGHT ON THE MONEY! What is the "twist" is that "everything in the Scriptures, particularly the New Testament, has to be interpreted in some SPIRITUAL (falsely so called) WAY!"ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
Quit picking-and-choosing which verses you quote! Look at the WHOLE context of what is being talked about and READ FIRST what the author was saying before jumping on a verse or two as your "proof" and neglecting what was being said!
For instance, I find it ironic that you can't understand Romans 11 correctly because you fail to read it with Romans 9 and 10! Furthermore, even Romans chapters 9-11 must be read in the FULL context of the book of Romans! (And, no, moderator, I'm not ABOUT to quote the whole book! It wouldn't help, anyway! If one doesn't read it how it is printed now, then they will CONTINUE not to read it if I quote it. Perhaps, ESPECIALLY if I quote it!)
And then, there's the definitions of some words. "Salvation" is GREATLY misunderstood, for instance. "Salvation" (and its various forms like "save," "saves," "saved," and "saving") in the Scriptures is NOT talking about God's justification of an individual! It is talking about RESCUE!!! And, no, not a "rescue" from sin, nor is it an individual "rescue." The word, particularly where it is quoted from the Tanakh (the OT), is talking about a NATIONAL rescue of the Isra'elis from oppressing, invading, and occupying neighbor nations, and it is almost ALWAYS talking about the future when the Messiah returns! That's ESPECIALLY true for that often misused verse in Romans 10, verse 13! The proof of that is to simply go back to the passage from whence the verse was quoted, and read THAT verse in its context!
When you look at that verse in the light of its context and transfer that concept back to the NT where it was quoted, read the passage there to see if there might be some way that Paul was using the verse in a way you hadn't anticipated, in a way you didn't expect! You MIGHT just find that you've been looking at Romans 10 wrongly all along!
Spirit is the ultimate reality, so those who try to denigrate the discernment of spiritual truths in scripture by calling it spirtualizing of scripture are obtuse and ignorant.Retrobyter said:
The whole context of Romans 9-11 is that only a remnant of natural Israel will be saved.
Arnie,
I do not need to justify my decisions as a mod to you...but just to clarify this again [and yes! have already clarified it to Rex] I split this thread because we were going down another line of thinking and I did not want the O/P going off track. This was an interesting topic on it's own and deserved further discussion - alright! If you did not want to discuss it, you just need to stop posting here... :huh:
Shalom!
Just how many verses do you need to show that Israel is not Israel of the flesh. The Israel that will receive salvation is not the "all" Israel that were and are the descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The only evidence I see above is a plea to see it yours and Arnies way. Please respond to my original request for evidence "see post below" I have to work so I'll respond latter. But so far nether of you have provided a bit of evidence other than the interpretation of the verses in question, now common sense says the answer to point in question should go those that can prove their interpretation is correct which I have done in spades. But you and Arnie continue to plea "believe my way thou I can't provide other scriptures to support it".Retrobyter said:
Just who's being foolish and who is following the Berean example, by looking to see what Paul taught was true? Acts 17:11
Rex said:
I don't have a NT verse (because one doesn't exist), but how about the OT. This is as good as it gets:Rex said:
I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, ... Jude 1:5
The whole nation of Israel was saved. Say what? You want the rest of the verse?
...afterward destroyed them that believed not. Jude 1:5
Heh... Eh... well... erk!
Thank You CRFTD for adding to the mountain of evidence VS empty arguments.
Someone? Axehead started a tread about common slogans found in churches today, the one that sets them apart from all the others for me is "Gods not finished with Israel yet" as in the blood line by virtue of birth, and most every christian in main stream American churches raised their hands and says amen.
I love Israel and I am in no way anti-semitic but there is a plague in the land a spirit of deception, I call them temple watchers, those that believe God saves Israel according to ancestors. The 70 weeks of Danial -->> salvation and the Messiah have come to pass being presented to the nation of Israel or the Jews how ever you like. The end result is what we are discussing, the new covenant. The 70th week was fulfilled the Jews had completed the dilivery of the promise that promise was Christ. And for the 3.5 years after the cross that salvation the promise was presented to the Jews and the Jews alone, not one Gentile receive the HS until after the stoning of the first Apostle Stephen, the first disciple of Christ to die. The in Acts what do we see Paul being called to Cornelius house and Paul being prepared to take the promise to the rest of the earth. This displaced 70th week is nothing but an end times delusion, a delusion being played out in temple watches "Gods not done with the nation of Israel" The truth is judgement has not fallen on those that do not believe in Christ, not that were waiting for God to fulfill His PROMISE to the Jews, many Rejected the PROMISE the Promise of salvation aside of works stands at the door just as Stephen described in Acts, Jesus doesn't owe Israel anything. As others are trying to prove with no evidence.
Someone? Axehead started a tread about common slogans found in churches today, the one that sets them apart from all the others for me is "Gods not finished with Israel yet" as in the blood line by virtue of birth, and most every christian in main stream American churches raised their hands and says amen.
I love Israel and I am in no way anti-semitic but there is a plague in the land a spirit of deception, I call them temple watchers, those that believe God saves Israel according to ancestors. The 70 weeks of Danial -->> salvation and the Messiah have come to pass being presented to the nation of Israel or the Jews how ever you like. The end result is what we are discussing, the new covenant. The 70th week was fulfilled the Jews had completed the dilivery of the promise that promise was Christ. And for the 3.5 years after the cross that salvation the promise was presented to the Jews and the Jews alone, not one Gentile receive the HS until after the stoning of the first Apostle Stephen, the first disciple of Christ to die. The in Acts what do we see Paul being called to Cornelius house and Paul being prepared to take the promise to the rest of the earth. This displaced 70th week is nothing but an end times delusion, a delusion being played out in temple watches "Gods not done with the nation of Israel" The truth is judgement has not fallen on those that do not believe in Christ, not that were waiting for God to fulfill His PROMISE to the Jews, many Rejected the PROMISE the Promise of salvation aside of works stands at the door just as Stephen described in Acts, Jesus doesn't owe Israel anything. As others are trying to prove with no evidence.
I truly believe that this episode (not Steven's stoning) marks the end of GOD's second 3.5 year confirmation of the new covenant to Israel (the 3.5 years of Jesus' ministry being the first half of the 7 years), and the beginning of the gathering of the fullness of the nations.Rex said:
Also, I am tempted to believe that this Cornelius was the centurion whom Jesus said had greater faith than anyone he had met in Israel, and that GOD was honoring his faith by making him the first saved of the nations.
Retrobyter
Well-Known Member
Shalom, ChristRoseFromTheDead.
For instance, I challenge ANYONE to show me a Scripture verse that proves there is a "spiritual seed!" That's just bogus! People misuse the term "spiritual" OFTEN, and half the time, they don't know what they're talking about, and the other half of the time, they don't care as long as it sound good! Gimme a break!
Furthermore, if that's all you get out of the "whole context of Romans 9-11," something is wrong with the version you're reading!
I call it "spiritualizing" because that's what allegorists call it, although it CERTAINLY doesn't fit! The correct word is "allegorizing" of Scripture - that is, making everything out to be some sort of ALLEGORY or FIGURATIVE SPEECH! Most of the "spiritual truths" I've heard are simply FICTION that is trumped up to be something more!ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
For instance, I challenge ANYONE to show me a Scripture verse that proves there is a "spiritual seed!" That's just bogus! People misuse the term "spiritual" OFTEN, and half the time, they don't know what they're talking about, and the other half of the time, they don't care as long as it sound good! Gimme a break!
Furthermore, if that's all you get out of the "whole context of Romans 9-11," something is wrong with the version you're reading!
I wouldn't disagree with that a bit.ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
Because the actual date can not truely be know as to when or how long after the cross they took place its clear the chain of events proves the 70th week was fulfilled. The new covenant is in full effect it has been for nearly 2000 years. The Jews have not been displaced they were served the promise first, exclusively, we are nearing the end of the promise to Abraham were in the red zone, and in you and in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.
Gal 3
15Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established,
so it is in this case.
16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,”i meaning one person, who is Christ.
17What 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.
18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
Similar threads
