The remnant

Pilgrimshope · Sep 28, 2022

“One can also be an Israelite and be blinded, reject Christ, and not be on good terms with the God of Israel. In Romans 11, Paul uses 'Israel' to include such people as well.”

I’m not equating one israel with being saved you are I’m saying there is an old israel defined By the old covenant because they are of abrams bloodline and jacobs descendants of jacobs sons ( the children of Israel ) and a new Israel born of Christ from any nation beginning at Christ not Adam

the reason there are two is explained in the Old Testament prophets in prophecy like this but you have to let it be relevant to what we’re talking about for it to make any sense

“I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name. I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts; a people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick; which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels; which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day. Behold, it is written before me: I will not keep silence, but will recompense, even recompense into their bosom, your iniquities, and the iniquities of your fathers together, saith the LORD, which have burned incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed me upon the hills: therefore will I measure their former work into their bosom. Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all. And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there. But ye are they that forsake the LORD, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for that troop, and that furnish the drink offering unto that number. 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. 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: behold, my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall howl for vexation of spirit. 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: 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. For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭65:1-9, 11-18‬ ‭KJV‬‬

when Paul is talking about israel what he’s talking about is written in prophecy in the ot of the Bible is what I’m getting at his word is coming from what the law and prophets said out things like israel because it’s thier history. They’ve always been the people who received Gods word and then carried it out to the earth

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

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

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.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭9:4-8‬ ‭

What he’s saying and then goes into later is in Isaiah and other prophecy

All this stuff is well explained in the prophets and is quoting from them is my point Mainly

“even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; And her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; There shall they be called the children of the living God. 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: for he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, We had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha. What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; as it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: And whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭9:24-33‬ ‭KJV‬‬

that’s basically all quotes from the prophets but to fully grasp it we need to find those prophecies and read them as a whole message and the. We find it’s just repetitive and keeps pointing to Jesus in every way

but brother I don’t feel as if you need to agree or anything with me and everything I say is just what I myself think , my opinions change when I hear something that makes more sense and then I just go with that if it fits better so I’m always open truly and always think we all have something to learn and share and teach

presidente · Sep 28, 2022

ForestGreenCook said:

Why would you consider those who do so to be elect? In chapter 11, he writes about the elect as opposed to the blinded.

7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

presidente · Sep 28, 2022

Pilgrimshope said:

Can you find any scripture that uses 'Israel' to refer to or include Gentile believers.... without just assuming that is what the word means? It's an assumption, not something you can clearly show from scripture. If you can show otherwise, please do.

Gentile believers are the seed of Abraham by faith. Abraham is the father of both the circumcised and uncircumcised through faith--- father of believing Jews/Israelites, but also Gentiles through faith.

How is this evidence for your thesis here? Are you assuming 'Jacob' includes believing Gentiles?

If you back up a bit right before what you quoted, Paul clarifies he is talking about his 'kinsmen according to the flesh.'

Notice he says they are not all Israel that are of Israel. What is does NOT do in this passage is call believing Gentiles 'Israel.'

Notice Paul does not say that believing Gentiles are 'Israel' here. If we read a bit before what you wrote, we can see there are Gentiles... and Jews... who are 'vessels of mercy. Believing Gentiles are included in the people of God. But he does not say that they are Israel. Clearly the part about Israel not following the law of righteousness is not talking about believing Gentiles.

presidente · Sep 28, 2022

birdie said:

I addressed this in my last post to pilgram's hope. What you are doing is making an assumption and assuming the 'Israel' in 'not all Israel' includes Gentiles. Paul had just established that he was talking about his kinsmen according to the flesh. There isn't really a scripture that states that Gentile believers are 'Israel.' The idea of the church as Israel is a big part of the theology of many who hold to supercessionism (also called 'replacement theology.") But this is an assumed doctrine, not one that is really explicit in scripture. If one holds to that, then one might interpret the verse from Romans 9 you quoted to include Israel. It doesn't seem as appealing to non-supercessionists.

The controversy in the first century was whether Gentiles could be saved, and if so, what was required, like we see in Acts 15. Jews being saved through faith in Jesus was not controversial among His followers. The question is why isn't much of Israel, probably most of Israel, accepting the Gospel, while many Gentiles were accepting it. Paul makes a case for this from the Old Testament. It is to provoke them to jealousy.

Paul's answer to 'has God cast away his people' is not to say Gentile believers replaced Israel. He rebukes Gentiles who would make such a boast.

Here you have Paul just redefining the word 'Israel', right in mid-thought without giving any heads-up that this redefinition is taking place. The only reason to believe it is because you (or whatever commentator) just decrees the meaning of the word changed. Honestly, the only logical argument I could think of to accept such a thing is if someone prophesied 'thus saith the Lord' that the meaning of "Israel' changed in 'blindness in part is happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved..." if you believe the guy is a prophet.

It also really messes up the flow of the argument that follows, which I intend to comment on below.

You cut off the quote. The rest of the passage clarifies the meaning.

27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

Who is the Israel who shall be saved, the Jacob whose sin this passage says the Deliverer will take away? These people are natural Israel. Why would he say that the church, made up of believing Gentiles are, concerning the Gospel, enemies for your sakes? The part about 'beloved for the fathers' sakes' does not make sense if we are talking about Gentile believers. Why would Gentile believers be enemies for your sakes regarding the gospel, but beloved for the sake of the patriarchs? That doesn't make sense.

But it does make sense that the people-group Israel is beloved for the sake of the patriarchs. Consider how when Solomon sinned, through idolatry, God left his lineage on the throne for the sake of David.

birdie · Sep 29, 2022

presidente said:

Thanks presidente for your comments. When verse 28 talks about Israel being enemies and then being election it is talking about the two different Israels, that is why it uses the the phrase but as touching the election to show the difference. The enemies mentioned are the Israel that is hardened and did not receive the gospel who are unsaved. The election mentioned is the part of Israel that does receive the gospel and is saved. Paul would be a good example of such a person. If you decide that the phrase 'and so all Israel will be saved' is not talking about Jews and Gentiles together but is only talking about that part of Israel which is not hardened and is saved then it will not change the nature of what is being addressed in some ways. It would still simply be saying that Israel was in part hardened and in the other part saved. There is nothing about 'and then a politcal nation of cultural physical Jews will be established after the fulness of the Gentiles'. Incidentally, another term similar to Israel is Jew. It is used in the Bible to talk about Gentiles as well. Just one of the places this occurs is: "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

presidente · Sep 29, 2022

birdie said:

Your interpretation seems rather nonsensical to me. Grammatically, these words seem to be referring back to the same subject, translated 'they' in English. Greek could have nouns, and new definite articles for them to signify a subject change. Is there any reason to think the subject changes, other than the fact that you say so. It is the same 'they' (indicated by nominative plural adjectives) who are enemies as are beloved for the sakes of the fathers.

Israel is one entity. Within Israel, there are the blinded and there are the elect Israelites. Paul uses 'Israel' throughout the chapter to refer to members of the people-group, and 'Gentiles' to refer to Gentiles, including Christians (or exclusively Christians in this chapter or those who will be.)

The 'all Israel' that is around when the fullness of the Gentiles comes in is 'all' of the people-group, in whatever sense of the word that means. There is no evidence that "Israel" includes Gentiles. That's an assumption.

The idea of a political national Israel shows up in Acts 1, when the apostles ask Jesus if He will restore at that time the kingdom to Israel, and He said it was not for them to know the times that the Father had put in His own power.

[/quote]

Again, you are assuming that 'Jew' here includes Gentiles. If Paul says that a genuine Jew has to be circumcised in their heart, that doesn't mean that Gentiles who are circumcised in the heart are also Jews. Gentiles weren't Jews to begin with.

birdie · Sep 29, 2022

presidente said:

Again, you are assuming that 'Jew' here includes Gentiles. If Paul says that a genuine Jew has to be circumcised in their heart, that doesn't mean that Gentiles who are circumcised in the heart are also Jews. Gentiles weren't Jews to begin with.[/QUOTE]

Thanks presidente. Here is what you say about the following verse: "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes."
Your interpretation seems rather nonsensical to me. Grammatically, these words seem to be referring back to the same subject, translated 'they' in English. Greek could have nouns, and new definite articles for them to signify a subject change. Is there any reason to think the subject changes, other than the fact that you say so. It is the same 'they' (indicated by nominative plural adjectives) who are enemies as are beloved for the sakes of the fathers.
My response: Yes there is a reason for my definition and it is the words of the verse. 'They' refers to cultural physical Israel here, and so it remains constant. However, there are two parts of cultural physical Israel, the unsaved and the saved. See how the the words of the verse describe them: the unsaved part of this group is enemy to the gospel BUT the saved part of this group is elect and not only that but also beloved. The term beloved in the Bible means saved. I think you must be thinking it is saying all of the cultural physical Israel they refers to are enemies of the gospel BUT still beloved. Rather, it is saying cultural physical Israel has two parts, the unsaved and the saved. See.

You say: "
The 'all Israel' that is around when the fullness of the Gentiles comes in is 'all' of the people-group, in whatever sense of the word that means. There is no evidence that "Israel" includes Gentiles. That's an assumption.
My response: It is not at all an assumption. Didn't you just read that a Jew is not one outwardly. Didn't you just read that not all of Israel are Israel. My point is that if they are of Israel then they must be of Israel. Once you are aware that the Bible uses these terms to describe all in Christ in other places in the Bible (for example in Luke 21 where those in Judea are told to flee to the mountains) then you see that this is advice for all believers in Christ. Judea, the location of Jerusalem, which describes all believers, flee to the Lord (the mountains). Similarly, in Rev 21: "But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months." The temple is the body of Christ (which includes Gentiles but is here denoted as Jewish since the unsaved (here called Gentiles) tread the holy city (not physical Jerusalem) underfoot. I think the difficulty you are having is that you don't realize that God uses parable language throughout the Bible and you are taking things literally which have interpreted meanings. But I am not making arbitrary ASSUMPTIONS. Rather, scripture defines the meanings and says that a Jew is not outward!

The political nation of Israel idea that you mention in Acts 1:6 :"Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" is responded to by Jesus as being the time when the Holy Ghost comes and makes saved persons witnesses. Thus, there is more evidence that it is meant, at least by Jesus, to mean a spiritual kingdom. That is why, perhaps, Jesus said: "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."

presidente · Sep 29, 2022

birdie said:

The verse is a good piece of evidence against the rigid Calvinistic understanding of 'elect' as applying to individuals (at least in every case.) For the people-group 'the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.' Romans 2 show us that God judges individual Jews without partiality.

Just grammatically, your interpretation doesn't make sense, IMO.

If that is the case, then why didn't they translate it as 'saved' instead of 'beloved'?

Look at the argument. What is the actual 'mystery' Paul is unveiling in your interpretation? That Israel is partly blinded and the blinded part will just remain blinded and a bunch of Jews and Gentiles get saved. What is the significance of their being blinded UNTIL the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Here, Paul is addressing the issue of whether God has cast away his people. He'd written a while back in the book that his heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they might be saved. Look at the themes running throughout chapter 11 about Israel, the people-group. Why would Paul ask if the casting away of them brought riches to the Gentiles, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? Earlier in the chapter he wrote about the 'receiving of them' before he explains the mystery more clearly. So Israel was blinded, except a remnant, but Paul tells a mystery-- they are blinded until the full number of the Gentiles be come in. After that, Israel isn't blinded anymore. The Deliverer turns away ungodliness from Jacob, and their sins are forgiven. He clarifies that these are the physical descendants-- concerning the Gospel enemies for your sakes but beloved for the sakes' of the fathers.

And look at another example in the passage-- Gentiles ...do not boast against the branches saying they were removed that we might be grafted in... a warning that God could remove you Gentiles... and then a statement that God is able to graft them in again. And then he tells about the mystery that the blindness on Israel is temporary. It lasts until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.

Yes I did, and I responded to it and you quoted that response at the top of the message I am responding to (which I edited out.) I'll reword.

If he that is a Jew is not one outwardly, but one inwardly, that doesn't make believing Gentiles into Jews. It does tell Jews that they are not 'real Jews' unless they are also circumcised in the heart.

Paul asks in the next chapter, "Is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also."

Notice Paul differentiates here. One group is Jews. The other is Gentiles. God is the God of both. For the Jews to be right before God, he'd already explained that they needed to be Jews inwardly, not just outwardly in terms of circumcision.

Again, you are just assuming that makes Gentile believers a part of 'Israel.' you are bringing in that assumption from supercessationist theology (presumably) that was developed a few centuries later that Paul doesn't actually explain here in these chapters from which the doctrine is supposed to be derived.

If there are Israelites who are not truly 'of Israel' because their heart is not right before God and they lack faith, that doesn't mean the Gentiles who have faith are 'Israel.' The Bible does not call them 'Israel', or if it does, it does not do so in a way that is unambiguous. You could assert that "Israel of God' includes Gentiles, as opposed to referencing Israelites who are redeemed through Christ, but there is no evidence for it. It's eisegesis. It's an assumption.

You could also do circular reasoning and argue that since you assume "Israel of God' includes Gentiles, that 'they are not all Israel that are of Israel' means believing Gentiles are part of Israel, and therefore 'Israel of God' must mean so to.

Realistically, is there any reason to think that readers in the historical background of Roman believers would interpret the word 'Israel' that way? I don't see a Biblical onramp to the highway of circular reasoning to this issue.

Paul goes on to refer to believing Gentiles as 'Gentiles' and Israelites as 'Israel' or 'Israelites.

There is also the whole issue of the song of Moses, which is something Paul quotes a couple of times in Romans in chapter 10 and 15, and his reference to provoking Gentiles to jealousy in chapter 11 is a reference to the song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32 (quoted in Romans 10.) In the song of Moses, it is predicted how Israel will serve other gods, go into unbelief. God uses Gentiles to provoke them to jealousy.

But by the end of the song of Moses it says, 'Rejoice, ye Gentiles with his people.' Again, there are two groups identified here. One is Israel, who in Deuteronomy 32 was the Lord's inheritance while the other nations had been divided according to the number of the sons of God (in accordance with DSS manuscripts in line with the LXX tradition.) the other group who rejoices with His people are the Gentiles. So there is still a distinction made in the language here.

The 'of Israel' are not all of Israel in this verse. But be that as it may, it doesn't say believing Gentiles are of Israel. Just they are not all Israel that are of Israel. There being some spiritually non-Israelite Jews doesn't mean that it is appropriate to call Gentiles 'Israel.' If it is appropriate to do so, can you show another verse that does so to justify such an interpretation of this verse in Romans 9?

That is not a good example. It says to let them that be in Judea flee to the mountains. If you asked a first-century non-Christian Jew if Pontius Pilate was in Judea (when he was there) he would have said yes. But that doesn't make Pilate Jewish or Hebrew or Israelite. It just means he was located in Judea.

If you read scripture interpreting 'Israel' to include Gentile believers in the Messiah, then you are going to interpret it differently from how I do. But we would run into the assumption/circular reasoning issue again. The point is to show scripture that actually demonstrates that 'Israel' refers to or include Gentile Christians. It is very clear that it does not in all cases, as we have discussed. But some interpreters, where it is not explicitly clear, _assume_ the term includes Gentile Christians. That is not evidence for such a huge theological point... that affects how one would interpret scripture.

continued next message

presidente · Sep 29, 2022

Using that to assume 'Israel' includes Gentiles is more than a stretch. Paul is explicit about using 'temple of God' and 'temple of the Holy Spirit' language for the church. That is not the case with terms like 'Jew' and "Israel.' This seems a bit to me like grasping at straws.

Flipping the definition of 'Israel' from physical Israel to the church between one verse and another in Romans 11 is arbitrary.

Please read the passage:
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

That's 'but' is 'alla' in Greek, a stronger 'but' than 'de' or 'kai' or other words that get translated that way in certain contexts.

Christ's kingdom is from heaven. This doesn't contradict the predictions of the eschatological future.

birdie · Sep 29, 2022

presidente said:

Thanks presidente. It seems we simply disagree in many areas. There are many who see things as you do. It seems to me you label things as arbitrary or without basis or grasping at straws as a convenient dismissal when they have full basis. However, we appear to have a different notion of how to interpret scripture generally, which is quite a common situation. Whereas I see scripture as being given in parable form (Psalm 78:1-2, Mark 4:34) you use the very popular method of surface interpretation for most scripture. To me, it seems that this leads to all kinds of incorrect interpretations by many denominations and groups who see the Bible as being 100 percent true but at the same time fail to see it as needing interpretation beyond the surface text. For example, I don't see the term beloved or blessed as lacking for the notion of being saved, whereas you see them as different entities. I encourage you to look at the idea of 'until the fulness of the Gentiles come in' as being followed by the phrase 'and SO all Israel shall be saved'. Not and THEN all Israel shall be saved. But rather, SO meaning 'and IN THIS MANNER (the manner that was just outlined, of Jews and Gentiles being partly hardened and partly saved) shall all Israel be saved. Think I'll leave you to your own ideas at this point.

ForestGreenCook · Sep 29, 2022

presidente said:

Let's look at Romans 11, @ForestGreenCook, @Pilgrimshope, and others. I'll be using the NKJV unless otherwise noted.

Paul makes it clear above that he is referring to Israel as a people-group in this discourse, not some notion of 'spiritual Israel'.

Notice 'Israel has not obtained what it seeks' is definitely not a reference to saved spiritual Israel. To plug 'church' into Israel clearly does not work in this passage. It makes sense to consider the 'elect' here to refer to a subset of Israel or a group that includes a subset of Israel, here in this passage, because Paul says later in the chapter that blindness, in part, is happened to Israel. Part of Israel is blinded, and part is not.

Paul is not talking about the saints of God being partly blinded, and he is not talking about some kind of visible church being partly blinded and part being the real church. That is certainly not the immediate context, though some may take the passage as some kind of allegory for that. But here, Paul is talking about his own nation as we see in verse 1.

Notice the context here is 'Israel'. This is not stuff Paul is saying about the church. These are blinded Israelites he is writing about.

Again he is talking about Israel here, when he asks if they stumbled that they should fall. Notice here, Gentiles who receive salvation are called 'Gentiles' not Israel. In this passage, Israel falls. But that is not the end of it. There is a fullness coming to Israel, which should ring about even more riches for the world and riches for the Gentiles.

Notice again the terminology here. Gentile believers are called 'Gentiles' and not 'Israel.'

Notice he calls his Christian Gentile readers 'Gentiles', not 'Israel.' Apparently, it is not a dirty word for Paul, certainly not in this context. Paul considers them children of Abraham according to chapter 4, but he calls them 'Gentiles' as opposed to 'Israel' in this passage as we can all see.

And notice this part about the Jew provoking the Gentiles to jealousy,. Paul quoted from the Deuteronomy 32 song of Moses previously in Romans 10, "I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you." God had divided up the nations according to the number of the sons of God, but had kept Israel as His own people... that Israel made God jealousy through idols and went off into unbelief, but that God would use Gentiles to provoke them to jealousy and to anger them, and toward the end it says 'Rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people' as Paul quotes in Romans 15. The Jew without the revelation of the mystery of the Gentiles which was revealed through the apostles and prophets of the church, might have thought of this as referring to the captivity and oppression from the Romans... but why does it say provoke to jealousy?

Israel, God's people, had served other gods. But now we know that while many Israelites would not believe the Messiah, while many Gentiles would believe and would have faith in the God of Israel. And they come to faith not through unbelieving blinded Jews, also. So now there are all these people using 'their' holy books, praying to their God, but not doing it through them. And they think they are supposed to be the light to the nations. But the light came through the Jews who actually believed in the Messiah that they rejected. God pours out His favor on believers, Jew, and Gentile alike.

God pouring out His favor has a redemptive purpose, also, for the nation of Israel, as part of the plan to eventually reconcile the nation to Himself. Continued in the next message.

Your scriptures are not going to harmonize unless you consider that Jacob, who's name was changed to be called Israel, (Gen 32:28) is spiritual Israel, that includes every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation (Rev 5:9).

Rom 9:6 - Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel (the nation), which are of Israel (Jacob as spiritual Israel).

Isaiah 2:2 - And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow into it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

ForestGreenCook · Sep 29, 2022

Evmur said:

But the election of Romans 9:11 can by no means cancel out the election of Genesis indeed it is Paul who draws the doctrine of our election out of the election of Jacob and enforces it saying that election is irrevocable. The gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

We need to know that Jacob's and our election was decided upon BEFORE we did either right or wrong, good or bad .... before we either accepted or rejected Christ.

God has chosen, that is what election means. Chosen for WHAT? to be saved? no, no,

Chosen to be God's people, God's church. To exclude everybody else? No, NEVER. we are chosen to be a city built upon a hill, not to exclude anybody but that men who are lost and destitute, hungry and naked might look up and find their way to us that they might receive succour.

THAT'S what election is all about.

Nobody considers that the Jews although at present are fallen from grace are still witnesses, negative witnesses, for they clearly show the state of people who reject Christ, what will be their lot. Who does not know that the Jews were chucked out for rejecting Christ? made to wander.

One day the Jews will be vindicated, not for rejecting Christ [although they were predestined too] but that they are still the ELECT, the chosen of God.

Therefore God calls them beloved and we would be wise to consider them so.

It would be helpful to me, if you would give scripture reference with your comments.

presidente · Sep 29, 2022

ForestGreenCook said:

So if that is the case, can you show some scripture that uses 'Israel' to describe the future believing Gentiles? I posted a prophecy that told about Egypt, Assyria, and Israel in, treating them as three distinct groups, all apparently reconciled to God.

Neither of the scriptures offer any evidence for Gentiles that trust in the Messiah as predicted in the Old Testament being called Israel. Paul did not have a problem calling ___Gentiles___ fellow heirs with Israel. He does not say that they are Israel.

So there are some who are of Israel that are not Israel. So spiritual illegitimate Jews... okay. But that doesn't make believing Gentiles 'Israel' or 'Jacob.' Why the Old Testament say, 'in His name shall the Gentiles trust' if the Gentiles aren't Gentiles anymore, but are Israel instead.

The song of Moses says 'rejoice, ye Gentiles, with His people.' So in the eschatological end (or maybe this time) that Moses talks about here, that Paul quotes in Romans 15,the Gentiles are still called Gentiles.

So this is evidence against your theory, because it calls them nations. It doesn't call them Israel.

Can you show any scripture that calls all the scattered nations that do or will believe in the Messiah 'Israel' or 'spiritual Israel.' It is an assumption at best, and assumption that is used as some kind of 'exegetical key' by adherents of some eschatological systems. But still an assumption, not the teaching of scripture.... or if it is please show scripture that demonstrates this.

presidente · Sep 29, 2022

birdie said:

It is arbitrary. How in the world would Paul's reader... who didn't have the historical development of supercessionist commentary to read...know that Paul was flipping definitions of the word 'Israel' mid-thought without any kind of clue form the context between references to 'Israel' in 'Blindness in part is happen to Israel until the fullness of he Gentiles be come in? And so all Israel shall be saved..."

And you have the definition of 'Israel' or 'they' (what is referenced in plural adjectives in Greek) changing, too. You should run that by a Greek expert, since that is a semantic and grammatical issue. I don't think that holds water as a matter of grammar, but you could ask an expert.

Since Paul establishes being Jewish does not guarantee salvation for the individual, there is a case where 'beloved' can be used that does not guarantee salvation. The same people are enemies as are enemies concerning the Gospel who are beloved for the sakes' of the fathers. To interpret it otherwise is quite nonsensical. Bounce that interpretation off a supercessionist theologian or Greek scholar and see if he/she agrees.

Your interpretation misses the logic of the argument, including the 'so'/'houtos' part of it. There is a mystery here. Israel is blinded. The mystery is that the blindness is temporary and only lasts until the Gentiles all enter. Then the blindness is lifted. The temporariness of the blindness and the fact that it is tied to the Gentile conversion was the mystery that Paul revealed here. And so-- after all that happens in line with the Deuteronomy prediction quoted in chapter 10 and referenced in chapter 11 that the Gentiles provoke Jews to jealousy-- then all Israel shall be saved. The deliverer turns away ungodliness from Jacob--- that is the physical descendants of Jacob, not even using the more spiritual term 'Israel' here.

As we read on these very same people are enemies for the gospel's sake, the one's, the people who are enemies for the gospel's sake.

How does your interpretation explain the part about the blindness on part of Israel being there UNTIL the fulness of the Gentiles comes in. That's part of the mystery Paul explains.

The way I am interpreting it is a plain sense reading of the passage, something the original readers would have understood. Yours would have required an interpretation system that just doesn't have a background in scripture. You can assume it was a part of extra-biblical sacred tradition that the Romans would have had access to. But it still doesn't fit the passage.

When you read it with your interpretation system, doesn't it bother you that you have to flip definitions of Israel with no cues from the text to do so? How in the world would a first century Roman have figured that out?

There is also the fact that, according a commentary I read and my own dabbling as far as I can tell, all those labeled 'fathers' of the church saw a future salvation of the Jews up until Augustine. That's the interpretation of the passage by Greek-speaking readers who read the passage, even though supercessionism had evolved by the time of some of them. It is not like there is some secret in the Greek there translated as 'so.' Is there even a Bible translation that says that 'then' all Israel shall be saved?

Btw, the interpretation I am sharing and the idea of future salvation of the Jews can be found across the writings of eschatological systems. more recently I saw this in post-mil interpretations. The Reformer Beza wrote of the future salvation of the Jews. Calvin's view is, IMO, a mix of the (wrong) supercessionist view you hold to mixed with a proper interpretation of the passage.

He wrote,
"When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; "

And on 'beloved'
"They were become God’s enemies, and alienated through their rejection of the gospel; but they were still regarded as descendants of the Fathers and in some sense on their account “beloved,” as those for whom God entertained love, inasmuch as his “gifts and calling” made in their behalf, were still in force and never to be changed "

from "https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/cal/romans-11.html"

Plenty of 'church is Israel' commentators, like Calvin, see the salvation of 'the Jews' in this passage. Augustine held to a view something like yours for a time, and that is probably why it got a little bit of traction, probably among a minority of commentators.

The whole underpinnings of 'the church is Israel' is a theological and interperative _assumption_, as far as I can see.

TheDivineWatermark · Sep 29, 2022

ForestGreenCook said:

I believe this is the ones being spoken of here in this text:

“Therefore will He give them up, until the time when she that travaileth hath brought forth; then the remnant of His brethren shall return to the children of Israel.” - Micah 5:3 (distinct from the birth of Jesus Himself being spoken of in the previous verse).

I believe this phrase "the remnant of his brethren" is the same ones being spoken of in Rev12:17 "the rest of her seed" (the "woman" in both passages being the same); "remnant / rest" being the same word.

I agree with what Gaebelein says in his commentary of this passage (differing only minorly regarding the identity of "the man child / the male [arsena G730]," in Rev12:5,13... I agree with those scholars who believe "the man child / the male [G730]" speaks of "the Church which is His body" in union with Him... not speaking of Jesus' Own Birth in Bethlehem, past... that's really the one point I differ with him here):

-- Micah 5 Gaebelein's Annotated Bible (biblehub.com)

[See also Zech2:6 and context, "...I have spread [scattered] you abroad as the four winds of the heavens..." (later to be "gathered" in the same-sounding way--all earthly-located though)]

Speaking of Israel's FUTURE (the believing remnant of Israel yet future to us)

Randy4u2c · Sep 29, 2022

The remnant are those who have brought God's word forward through the ages with understanding. It are these that will make the stand against Satan when he comes pretending to be God. II Thess 2:1-4

ForestGreenCook · Sep 29, 2022

birdie said:

Respectfully, I disagree with your interpretation. Jacob, as spiritual Israel includes every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation (rev 5:9). Isaiah 2:3 - And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up unto the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths, for out of Zion shall go forth the law.

The two groups are both saved eternally, but the remnant group will have the knowledge of the truth of Jesus's accomplishments on the cross. The other group that is saved eternally are blinded to the truth of Jesus accomplishments on the cross. They are considered to be the lost sheep of the house of Jacob.

When we are born again, we are in Christ, and Christ in us. Those that are in Christ that have died and are in their graves, at the last day, will be called up first, and immediately afterwards those who remain alive in Christ will meet him in the alr.

Rom 9:11, explains that Jacob is representative of the elect children of God, that were chosen before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4).

Randy4u2c · Sep 29, 2022

The remnant are those that have brought God's word forward over the years with understanding. It is these that will stand against Satan when he comes pretending to be God. !! Thess 2:1-4

Search

The remnant

Pilgrimshope

Well-known member

presidente

Senior Member

presidente

Senior Member

presidente

Senior Member

birdie

Senior Member

presidente

Senior Member

birdie

Senior Member

presidente

Senior Member

presidente

Senior Member

birdie

Senior Member

ForestGreenCook

Well-known member

ForestGreenCook

Well-known member

presidente

Senior Member

presidente

Senior Member

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member

Randy4u2c

Active member

ForestGreenCook

Well-known member

Randy4u2c

Active member