She already knows that we believe that the church is the fulfilment of the covenants.Where did I say anything about replacement ? Did you read it ?
She already knows that we believe that the church is the fulfilment of the covenants.Where did I say anything about replacement ? Did you read it ?
So the entire Bible is never about ethnicity.Of course. Only that the promises (in time and space) vested first in Abraham, a descendant of Eber, from whom we derive the word "Hebrew". Abe was a Chaldean: a people-group that was not distinct until after Abe's time on the earth.
When a husband dies - is the woman that was married to that husband still married to him ?
Romans 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
Israel was the marital name, Judah and Benjamín were the only tribes left with that marital name - the northern tribes had been divorced by God. When Jesus died, Israel/Judah was released from that status. Jesus was then free to remarry when he rose again:
Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Those former Israelites from both houses - the house of Judah and the house of Israel - that accepted the risen Christ, were remarried to him. This does not apply to those we call Jews today and the land we call Israel today, they rejected Him
Isaiah 65:15 And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord GOD shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name:
Judah retains it's name as a curse, and God will slay them. Whereas Israel/his servants will be known by a new name - Christians.
So do you really know what the Bible teaches about Israel ? Or do you just spout what your favorite preacher teaches ?
With regard to salvation, all are welcome!So the entire Bible is never about ethnicity.
Just as we shall not bow down to statues made of rock, gold, wood, ethnicity is nothing, just a created thing.
Only worship the creator![]()
Isaiah is speaking about the nation as a whole, but he does so by addressing individuals within the nation who embody two contrasting responses to God. In other words, the passage is national in scope but personal in application. That’s the prophetic pattern: Isaiah speaks to “my servants” and “you who forsake the LORD,” and those labels describe groups of people inside the nation, not abstract theological categories. So the judgment (“I called, but you did not answer”) falls on the segment of the nation that persists in rebellion, while the blessings (“my servants will eat… my servants will rejoice”) fall on the faithful remnant. Isaiah is not dividing Israel ethnically or geographically; he is dividing them morally and spiritually. The nation is addressed, but the dividing line runs through the hearts of individuals.Isaiah 65:12-16
12 Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.
13 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry: behold, my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty: behold, my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed:
14 Behold, my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall howl for vexation of spirit.
15 And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord God shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name:
16 That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes.
Is that not what I said ? The New Covenant under Christ is what brings them together - I do not believe the Church replaces the bride which is Israel in Christ, but they are part of the church. In that parable about the wedding we have the bride and the friends or wedding guests, I see the part of the church that is not descended from Jacob Israel as the friends and guests, and the part of the church that is descended from Jacob Israel as the bride.Hosea explains the fall of the northern kingdom by portraying God as a husband who finally issues a covenant “divorce” because Israel has persistently chased other gods. When God says, “She is not my wife, and I am not her husband,” He is declaring that the covenant with Israel (the northern kingdom) has been legally dissolved, while Judah remains disciplined but not rejected. Yet Hosea insists that this judgment is not the end of the story: the same God who declares “You are not my people” also promises to reverse the sentence, restore the relationship, and reunite Israel and Judah under a renewed covenant. This is why Paul can quote Hosea in Romans—because the God who judges is the God who restores.
In Ezekiel 37 God gives a vivid sign of His intention to reunite the divided nation: He tells the prophet to take two sticks, one labeled “Judah” and the other “Ephraim,” and to join them together in his hand so they become one. This symbolic act declares that the covenant rupture between the northern and southern kingdoms will not be permanent. The same God who divorced Israel in Hosea promises here to heal the division, restore both houses, and make them one people under one Shepherd‑King. In other words, judgment may divide, but God’s redemptive purpose ultimately reunites.
If you want, I can craft a version that flows directly into your teaching on Romans 11 or one that highlights the messianic dimension of the one Shepherd in Ezekiel 37.
From New Jerusalem not OldWith regard to salvation, all are welcome!With regard to Israel, God's promise that Jesus would rule from Jerusalem is still valid and it will happen.
That is true but I believe that within the church we have the bride - the descendants of Jacob Israel, and also the wedding guests those that are not descended from Jacob Israel. So I do not hold a replacement theology.She already knows that we believe that the church is the fulfilment of the covenants.
May God raise up more and more pastors like him, not afraid to preach the true gospel.I just spout what my favorite preacher teaches.
It may sound like a predestination argument—if that’s what you’re referring to—but that’s not really what is happening here. In Romans 2, Paul is not discussing predestination unto salvation, and the cases of Ishmael and Esau have nothing to do with salvation either. As I mentioned earlier, God’s choice of Isaac and Jacob was not based on their moral worth. God chooses whom He wills simply because He is God.The first part sounds a bit like the old debate about man's free will vs. God's free will.
In the times of Ishmael and of Esau the Abrahamic covenant was in place, yet it seems that you are telling me that God was free to NOT choose those two children?
Well I can see that too, but did God bound Himself in a different way to the children of Jacob than He did to the children of Abraham before Jacob?
There is of course the covenant of Sinai, but like circumcision it seems that man has power to break that too, if he chooses to do so.
As long as man is still a party to the covenant, it is possible for God to be 100% faithful and intend to be so for eternity, yet man like an adulterous wife can break the marriage.
I can see the unbreakable part of the Abrahamic covenant, especially in light of Galatians 3:16 where we learn that the covenant was made with Jesus, but I can not find the part where citizenship in the holy land was ever unconditional.
You make a point that for those who obey in the matter of circumcision, their citizenship remains despite the unbelief of the individual who disobeys and is cut off, but do you also consider that it is possible for a man under the law to be circumcised in vain?
"For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision."
So if a man's status is now "uncircumcision" that means he is like a Gentile, regardless of what is done to his flesh.
He is not a rightful citizen of the holy land.
So what happens if it is not just one man who loses his citizenship in this way, but every single man other than Jesus?
Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" ?
Well, adultery is Biblical grounds for divorce, and God has divorced the earthly nation of Israel (Isaiah 50).
Just as Jesus was sentenced to death with a capital letter sign on the cross; "JESUS Of NAZERETH THE KING OF THE JEWS",
the earthly nation was also sentenced to death in the presence of two witnesses.
"MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH".
So what now of the covenant with Jesus that cannot be broken?
Well that part continues for all!
Galatians 3:28 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.
You are getting mixed up with someone else - I never mentioned Romans 11 in my post
Not to mention all that analogy so twisted.
Man is man, woman is woman.
But the twisted view is man is woman and woman is man...
She already knows that we believe that the church is the fulfilment of the covenants.
So the entire Bible is never about ethnicity.
Just as we shall not bow down to statues made of rock, gold, wood, ethnicity is nothing, just a created thing.
Only worship the creator![]()
I do not hold a replacement theology.![]()
It may sound like a predestination argument—if that’s what you’re referring to—but that’s not really what is happening here. In Romans 2, Paul is not discussing predestination unto salvation, and the cases of Ishmael and Esau have nothing to do with salvation either. As I mentioned earlier, God’s choice of Isaac and Jacob was not based on their moral worth. God chooses whom He wills simply because He is God.
Regarding “citizenship,” I’m not entirely sure what you mean, but the core issue is straightforward: God promised the land to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants—and He kept that promise.
Under the Mosaic covenant, Israel’s prosperity in the land depended on obedience. If they turned away from God, He would discipline them, including exile. But like any good Father, His discipline was never meant to be permanent. The Abrahamic covenant is unconditional, so even when Israel is exiled, the land still belongs to them. God does not revoke His promises, and He ultimately restores them—as history repeatedly shows.
Romans 2:25 can seem confusing, but context resolves the tension. God does not contradict Himself. He repeatedly declares that the land belongs to Israel as an everlasting inheritance—Genesis 13:14–15; 17:8; Psalm 105:8–11; Isaiah 60:21, and many others. When God repeats something, we should pay attention.
Paul, as a Jew and a trained Torah scholar, knew this well. He understood the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic covenant. In Romans 2, Paul is addressing a different issue entirely: pressure from some Jews insisting that Gentiles must be circumcised to be right with God. Paul argues—consistently across his letters—that circumcision does not establish righteousness. If circumcision alone made someone right with God, then Christ’s sacrifice would be unnecessary.
Many Jews believed that to belong to the covenant people, one had to be circumcised and live as a Jew. Paul counters this by saying that true covenant standing comes from the heart, not from the physical sign. Whenever Paul discusses Gentiles, the topic is salvation, not land inheritance.
Therefore, Romans 2:25 has nothing to do with the land promise. It concerns spiritual standing before God—Jew or Gentile—not territorial rights.