Romans 9 -- What Is It Saying?

[genesis12]

After reading Romans 8:39, one must flip over to Romans 12:1 for the continuation of Paul's thought. Try that later on. Romans 9 thru 11 is known as "the Jewish interlude," and that is precisely what it is. At some risk I must say that it is a parenthetical ! (Where have I heard that before?)

 

[AresMan]

I think Romans chapters 9-11 are primarily about nations. This is all my speculation from reading this controversial passage several times and trying to make sense of the flow of context. Chapter 9 is a historical rundown to show Israel God's sovereignty in how they came to be. Then the end of chapter 9 and chapters 10 and 11 show how all this fits into the new covenant.

9:6-9 says that only those through Isaac (and not of Ishmael) were of the promise (the national covenant). Therefore, there are children of Abraham that are not of the promise (Ishmaelites). This is talking about the individuals involved and not symbolizing nations, but is presented in the context of recollecting the history of the nation of Israel.

9:10-13 continues that the promise came further through Jacob (even though Esau was the firstborn). Therefore, there are children even of Isaac that are not of the promise (Edomites). This is also talking about the individuals involved and not symbolizing nations, but is presented in the context of recollecting the history of the nation of Israel.

9:14-17 show that God controled Pharaoh and hardened his heart (so that even from captivity in the most powerful nation in the world at that time God would show His power in leading His people Israel out of captivity to become His chosen nation). This is talking about the individual involved, but is presented in the context of recollecting the history of the nation of Israel.

Chapters 10-11 talk about nations in general, but individuals specifically and how this generally affects the nations in question.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Come on, people. Pay attention to how Paul sets things up in chapter nine. He talks about the fact (in verses 1-5) that although Israel had all the great benefits mentioned in verses 4-5, he wishes he could even be accursed for them (his brethren, his kindred according to the flesh). Why does Paul wish that he could be accursed for his brethren (individual Israelites, not the nation in general)? They are unsaved. They have rejected the Messiah.

How is it possible that the chosen people of God could have rejected the Messiah that He sent to save them? Didn't God promise them that they were His people? This is the very question that Paul precludes with his statement in verse 6 - It is not as though the word of God has taken no effect. His explanation - For they are not all Israel who are of Israel.

This answer has NOTHING to do with national destiny or nations in general. He is making a distinction within the nation of Israel between those who are true Israel and those who are not true Israel, regardless of the fact that they are all descended from Abraham.

The question we must ask is "what makes the distinction?" It would have been a perfect time for the Apostle Paul, who champions justification by faith, to have chimed in with "for some have believed and some have not." But that wouldn't solve his problem because that IS the problem. The answer that Paul gives is election. He uses three examples (Isaac-Ishmael, Jacob-Esau, Moses-Pharaoh) to show this.

This is what Romans 9 is about. It is about giving a reason to why individual Israelites (the majority of them) have rejected their Messiah and been rejected by God. That is why chapter 10 begins with a prayer for their salvation and a continuing discussion of their rejection of God, this time focusing on their part, not God's. And that is why chapter 11 begins with Paul talking about himself as an example of at least one Israelite who is of true Israel - the "remnant according to the election of grace" (Romans 11:5).

 

[Mel Miller]

Calvibaptist,

Good reasoning! I would like your opinion not
only on what Rom.9 is about; but what Rom.11
is about. What is God's overall purpose here?

Mel Miller www.lastday.net

 

[J.D.]

Calvi, Good post, I think you broke the code.

 

[AresMan]

Come on, people. Pay attention to how Paul sets things up in chapter nine. He talks about the fact (in verses 1-5) that although Israel had all the great benefits mentioned in verses 4-5, he wishes he could even be accursed for them (his brethren, his kindred according to the flesh). Why does Paul wish that he could be accursed for his brethren (individual Israelites, not the nation in general)? They are unsaved. They have rejected the Messiah.

Yes, he was talking about how Israel in general has rejected their Messiah. The majority of individuals of the nation of Israel were rejecting while the "remnant" were accepting. Paul (a Jew) was wishing to be accursed from Christ so that the "nation" of Israel (i.e. the vast majority of individuals who were unsaved). Wasn't Paul allowed to speak in generalities? When we say "Japan attacked Pearl Harbor" we don't mean that every individual from Japan attacked it, nor would we even imply that every individual in the nation of Japan supported the attack, but merely for the sake of conciseness the generality is used.

How is it possible that the chosen people of God could have rejected the Messiah that He sent to save them? Didn't God promise them that they were His people? This is the very question that Paul precludes with his statement in verse 6 - It is not as though the word of God has taken no effect. His explanation - For they are not all Israel who are of Israel.

Don't you believe that there are two separate and distinct "covenants"?

One is a national covenant to the seed of Abraham->Isaac->Jacob that they would be a great nation, that the throne of David would be established forever, and that the Saviour of the world would come through Abraham. I believe that this covenant still stands and that Jesus will reconcile His people Israel and will reign on the throne of David during the millenial kingdom.

The other is the covenant to people of all nations, kindreds, and tongues who believe on His name. This is the covenant that prompted Peter to say, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respector of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him" (Acts 10:34-35)

When verse 6 says "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel," verses 7-13 explain who are of Israel:
1) those of the seed of Abraham
2) further, those of the seed of Isaac (not Ishmael)
3) further yet, those of the seed of Jacob (not Esau).

Although many of these "cousins" lived in the same land area, they were not the children of the promise. Verses 4-18 are all explaining through a brief history the people to whom he was referring in verse 3 ("my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh"). And these people were Paul's brethren as Paul was a pure Hebrew (Romans 11:1; Philippians 3:5). Remember the epistle to the Romans was written to a mixed church of Jew and Gentile saints. He may have had to explain what he meant by "Israel".

This answer has NOTHING to do with national destiny or nations in general. He is making a distinction within the nation of Israel between those who are true Israel and those who are not true Israel, regardless of the fact that they are all descended from Abraham.

The whole point of these chapters is that, yes, but I think verses 4-18 are explaining verse 3 and referring to the national covenant to Israel as opposed to the new covenant of the gospel.

Romans 11:1 shows that God has not cast away His people Israel (the nation), because He promised that they would never die off and that there would always be a remnant who would seek Him. The new covenant of the salvation of individuals from all nations does not remove the old covenant to the nation of Israel.

The question we must ask is "what makes the distinction?" It would have been a perfect time for the Apostle Paul, who champions justification by faith, to have chimed in with "for some have believed and some have not." But that wouldn't solve his problem because that IS the problem. The answer that Paul gives is election. He uses three examples (Isaac-Ishmael, Jacob-Esau, Moses-Pharaoh) to show this.

Precisely. And that is one reason that I would say that election does not always refer to individual salvation.
1) God elected Abraham to be the father of a great nation.
2) God elected Isaac to be the child through which this nation would come.
3) God elected Jacob the younger (instead of Esau the firstbord) to be the child of Isaac through which this nation would come.
4) God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that He could display His power in the forming of a nation out of slavery.
5) God elected Jesus to be the Chief Cornerstone (I Peter 2:6)
6) God elected those before the foundation of the world who would believe on Him.
7) Depending on the context, God's elect can refer to (a) the nation of Israel, (b) Jesus Christ, (c) an individual (or the collective body of these) who is saved by grace, (d) an individual used for any purpose for His glory.

I hope I made some sense.

 

[AresMan]

And while Paul was explaining the history of Israel, he was showing God's sovereignty in how this all worked out, and that this same sovereignty allows God to give mercy to the Gentiles, since most Jews at the time thought that God only favored them through the seed of Abraham and that the Gentiles were rejected by God since they didn't have the Law.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by AresMan:
Yes, he was talking about how Israel in general has rejected their Messiah. The majority of individuals of the nation of Israel were rejecting while the "remnant" were accepting. Paul (a Jew) was wishing to be accursed from Christ so that the "nation" of Israel (i.e. the vast majority of individuals who were unsaved). Wasn't Paul allowed to speak in generalities? When we say "Japan attacked Pearl Harbor" we don't mean that every individual from Japan attacked it, nor would we even imply that every individual in the nation of Japan supported the attack, but merely for the sake of conciseness the generality is used.

Sure, good example. But if I was to then go on and say "Not all descended from the original Japanese are truly Japanese" I would be bringing it down to the individual level, not just national. This is precisely what Paul does.

Don't you believe that there are two separate and distinct "covenants"?

One is a national covenant to the seed of Abraham->Isaac->Jacob that they would be a great nation, that the throne of David would be established forever, and that the Saviour of the world would come through Abraham. I believe that this covenant still stands and that Jesus will reconcile His people Israel and will reign on the throne of David during the millenial kingdom.

The other is the covenant to people of all nations, kindreds, and tongues who believe on His name. This is the covenant that prompted Peter to say, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respector of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him" (Acts 10:34-35)

The New Covenanent to which I assume you are referring is not a separate covenant. It is the development of progressive revelation regarding how God is going to fulfil the Abrahamic Covenant.

When verse 6 says "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel," verses 7-13 explain who are of Israel:
1) those of the seed of Abraham
2) further, those of the seed of Isaac (not Ishmael)
3) further yet, those of the seed of Jacob (not Esau).

But that is not what Paul says.

Romans 9:7-8 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

Do you see that verse 8 explains what he means in verse 7 by the reference to Isaac? It had nothing to do with the physical relation of anybody. It had everything to do with God's promise.

1) Isaac was a child of the promise. Ishmael was not
2) Jacob was a child of the promise. Esau was not.

WHY?

Romans 9:11 that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls

Although many of these "cousins" lived in the same land area, they were not the children of the promise. Verses 4-18 are all explaining through a brief history the people to whom he was referring in verse 3 ("my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh"). And these people were Paul's brethren as Paul was a pure Hebrew (Romans 11:1; Philippians 3:5). Remember the epistle to the Romans was written to a mixed church of Jew and Gentile saints. He may have had to explain what he meant by "Israel".

You are seriously telling me that after writing 8 chapters of deep theological truth, referencing covenants, Abraham, David, the Law, etc. that Paul has to then say, "Oh, by the way, when I say Israel I mean the true children of Abraham. I'm not talking about Ishmael or Esau." He wasn't relating history to tell them who Israel was. He was relating history to make a point about election of individual. This is what he even says in verse 11.

The whole point of these chapters is that, yes, but I think verses 4-18 are explaining verse 3 and referring to the national covenant to Israel as opposed to the new covenant of the gospel.

This is why I am moving away from dispensationalism. The New Covenant is not OPPOSED to the Abrahamic Covenant. It is a fulfillment of it.

Romans 11:1 shows that God has not cast away His people Israel (the nation), because He promised that they would never die off and that there would always be a remnant who would seek Him. The new covenant of the salvation of individuals from all nations does not remove the old covenant to the nation of Israel.

But Romans 9 had just described the true Israel as the children of promise. In other words, the covenant was not made with all the physical children of Abraham. It was made with the elect. The New Covenant brings that to fruition.

Precisely. And that is one reason that I would say that election does not always refer to individual salvation.
1) God elected Abraham to be the father of a great nation.
2) God elected Isaac to be the child through which this nation would come.
3) God elected Jacob the younger (instead of Esau the firstbord) to be the child of Isaac through which this nation would come.
4) God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that He could display His power in the forming of a nation out of slavery.
5) God elected Jesus to be the Chief Cornerstone (I Peter 2:6)
6) God elected those before the foundation of the world who would believe on Him.
7) Depending on the context, God's elect can refer to (a) the nation of Israel, (b) Jesus Christ, (c) an individual (or the collective body of these) who is saved by grace, (d) an individual used for any purpose for His glory.

I hope I made some sense.

All of these types of election are used by Paul to point out why some Israelites have believed and some have not.

And you made perfect sense. Thank you for cogent arguments.

 

[J.D.]

Originally posted by Me4Him:
Mt 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Ro 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.

20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Jesus was only sent to Israel, but because of "THEIR" unbelief, they were "Broken off".


Calvinist have said that God give the "FAITH" to be saved.

If God's not willing that any should perish, then God "failed" to give these "unbelievers" the Faith they needed to be saved, and broke them off, and then accused them of being guilty of the unbelief that prevented them from being saved.

If God's not willing for any to perish, would God not do everything necessary for him to do so that "none perish"??

Calvin accuses God of being responsible for these going to hell, but God prefers that men turn from their evil and live, God has done all that's necessary to "Save the whole world", but the "CHOICE" to turn is left up to man.

First a compliment. That's the best post I've seen from Me4. I can understand the point you're making. And yes, they were broken off because of unbelief. No one doubts that. But as it is with all issues of repentance, saving faith and belief, there's another layer of truth to examine. That layer involves finding the source of their belief. Is it within their human natures?

You said "Jesus was only sent to Israel,". This is true (at that particular time). Why do you think this is true? Why didn't the gospel go to the Gentiles until Acts 10? Was God "hoping" that Israel would recieve their messiah?

Me4, tell us plainly, are you an open theist? In other words, do you believe that God is observing time as we are and simply reacting to the events? Or do you, like the rest of us, believe that God has prescience, that he already knew that Israel would reject Christ through their unbelief? And if he knew that they would reject Christ, was he then HOPING that they would?

Unless you can answer these questions in an honest way, you will never understand the purpose of God's plan.

Again, you said "If God's not willing that any should perish, then God "failed" to give these "unbelievers" the Faith they needed to be saved...".

God did not fail, for if he had purposed to give them faith, then they would surely have it. You simply assume failure because you insist that God has an OBLIGATION to give every person faith. If you believe that God has that obligation to man, then you believe in salvation by human worth.

Your assumption that God has a desire to save each and every person has no doubt been dealt with extensively in this forum. You simply refuse to hear it.

As far as God being a failure, I accuse YOU of making him a failure by alleging that He desires to save each and every person, but yet is unable to do it. Can you deny this?

In the parable of the sower in Luke 8, when the devil steals the seed of the word from the hearts, lest they should believe and be saved, was that a victory by Satan over God? Do you actually believe that God is so weak that he can't keep Satan away from the seeds He's sowing?

I say to you that Satan has NO power or presence that God has not granted to him. Those good-ground believers on which the seed fell are the elect that God hath before prepared unto glory. There is no other conclusion. Either God is omnipotent or he is not. There is no middle ground, nor self-imposed weakness in God.

Your failure to come to grips with the omnipotence of God keeps you in a continuous state of confusion and shallow understanding. You have not worshipped God until you have worshipped Him in His Sovereignty. I'm not saying you're not saved. I'm saying your worship is shallow.

And, last point, your REFUSAL to believe the plain teaching of scripture puts you in a state of rebellion against God. This was all said for your benefit, not your hurt.

[ March 31, 2006, 12:47 AM: Message edited by: J.D. ]

 

[Me4Him]

The promise to Abraham's "Seed" was not through those born of/by the will of the flesh,

Ro 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his (natural) seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Ga 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Ga 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

And what was the "promise"??

Ro 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Was part of Israel rejected because it was "predestined", or did their lack of "faith" caused their rejection.

Ro 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law.

Ga 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

Heb 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Re 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven,


When you eliminate the necessity of "Man having Faith" for salvation, you completely destroy the whole plan of salvation.

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by Me4Him:
When you eliminate the necessity of "Man having Faith" for salvation, you completely destroy the whole plan of salvation.

No one here, to my knowledge, denies the necessity of faith for salvation.

 

[J.D.]

PLEASE once again let me give a hearty AMEN! to Calvibaptist on that last post. You did a fine job Aresman, but as calvi alluded to:

You need to make sure you distinguish between the 1)Abrahamic Covenant, 2)the Mosaic Covenant (Law), and 3)the Covenent of Grace

And as Calvi said, the Abrahamic Covenant was fulfilled in the new covenant.

Now it's been my observance that when the bible speak of the OLD covenant, it is not speaking of Abraham, but Moses. It was the covenent of the law that was done away with due to the failure of man to maintain it, and so a new covenant was made, not tainted with the faithlessness of man, but a work of God. See Hebrews 8:

"For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 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: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:"

But unlike Calvi, I'm not willing to say that I'm "moving away" from dispyism, but I have been modifying my understanding of it quite a bit! I still believe in a future "regeneration" of national Israel.

 

[J.D.]

Me4, you're right! I NEED FAITH TO BE SAVED. BUT TELL ME, WHERE CAN I GET IT IF I DON'T HAVE IT? HOW CAN I BELIEVE SOMETHING THAT I DON'T BELIEVE???

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
The one flaw I see in your argument is that he is not only speaking of the nation of Israel...as Pharaoh (the leader of Egypt) was the object of wrath whom he hardened. Now, a question for you, Marcia:

Why does it state in Romans 9 that God hardened Pharaoh's heart?

I started this thread and have not had a chance to look at it until very late tonight!

I think in context -- and I mean by looking back in Exodus -- we see that Pharaoh was given the chance to listen to God but he refused. God "hardened" his heart because Pharaoh was already not wanting to hear God -- he was an Egyptian who worshiped other gods, after all. Even after being presented with the evidence of the true God, he did not want to acknowledge Him. So God hardened his heart -- I take this the same way as the phrases that say God "gave them over" in many other passages.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by J.D.:
I can understand the point you're making. And yes, they were broken off because of unbelief. No one doubts that. But as it is with all issues of repentance, saving faith and belief, there's another layer of truth to examine. That layer involves finding the source of their belief. Is it within their human natures?

Unless you can answer these questions in an honest way, you will never understand the purpose of God's plan.

Again, you said "If God's not willing that any should perish, then God "failed" to give these "unbelievers" the Faith they needed to be saved...".

God did not fail, for if he had purposed to give them faith, then they would surely have it. You simply assume failure because you insist that God has an OBLIGATION to give every person faith. If you believe that God has that obligation to man, then you believe in salvation by human worth.

human worth
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,

2Pe 3:9 not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Your assumption that God has a desire to save each and every person has no doubt been dealt with extensively in this forum. You simply refuse to hear it.

I hear it, I'm just not brave enough to call God a lair when he spoke the two verses above.

As far as God being a failure, I accuse YOU of making him a failure by alleging that He desires to save each and every person, but yet is unable to do it. Can you deny this?

Jesus died for the sins of the "WHOLE WORLD", WHY????

Under predestination Jesus's death for all sin was also a "worthless failure".

In the parable of the sower in Luke 8, when the devil steals the seed of the word from the hearts, lest they should believe and be saved, was that a victory by Satan over God? Do you actually believe that God is so weak that he can't keep Satan away from the seeds He's sowing?

In light of what God has said and Jesus done, I think you need to answer that question yourself.

I say to you that Satan has NO power or presence that God has not granted to him. Those good-ground believers on which the seed fell are the elect that God hath before prepared unto glory. There is no other conclusion. Either God is omnipotent or he is not. There is no middle ground, nor self-imposed weakness in God.

God's not willing for any to perish, Jesus died for all sins, if the "ominipotent" is "functioning", why aren't "ALL SAVED"???

Your failure to come to grips with the omnipotence of God keeps you in a continuous state of confusion and shallow understanding. You have not worshipped God until you have worshipped Him in His Sovereignty. I'm not saying you're not saved. I'm saying your worship is shallow.

Either that or "TOO DEEP" for you to comprehend, (the other side)

And, last point, your REFUSAL to believe the plain teaching of scripture puts you in a state of rebellion against God. This was all said for your benefit, not your hurt.

My job is only to "tell", it's God's words, he'll have to do the "proving", I'm "content" to let "HIM" bear witness.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by whatever:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Me4Him:
When you eliminate the necessity of "Man having Faith" for salvation, you completely destroy the whole plan of salvation.

No one here, to my knowledge, denies the necessity of faith for salvation. </font>[/QUOTE]The question, is it "God's faith" or "man's faith".

Does God "FORCE" his faith on man to make him believe,

Or does God just give man the the choice to believe or not believe, with man making the decision between the two??

That's the question.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by J.D.:
Me4, you're right! I NEED FAITH TO BE SAVED. BUT TELL ME, WHERE CAN I GET IT IF I DON'T HAVE IT? HOW CAN I BELIEVE SOMETHING THAT I DON'T BELIEVE???

Many "Are" called, few chosen, "BECAUSE" they lacked "FAITH".

God requires "YOU" to "BELIEVE", by "YOUR FAITH",

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

God doesn't "hope for things", as our faith does.

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by Me4Him:
The question, is it "God's faith" or "man's faith".

Does God "FORCE" his faith on man to make him believe,

Or does God just give man the the choice to believe or not believe, with man making the decision between the two??

That's the question.

But yours are not the only two possible answers. Do you know what a "false dilemma" is?

My faith is given to me by God, and by it I freely choose to repent and believe.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by J.D.:
Me4, you're right! I NEED FAITH TO BE SAVED. BUT TELL ME, WHERE CAN I GET IT IF I DON'T HAVE IT? HOW CAN I BELIEVE SOMETHING THAT I DON'T BELIEVE???

You can decide of your own free will to believe it. For example, decide right now to believe that your eternal destiny rests entirely on your left sock. You have free will, so exercise your free will to decide to believe that. Let me know how it goes.

 

[Mel Miller]

AresMan,

Unlike Me4Him who has gone off on a tangent as usual, you and Calvbaptist are sticking to the
question Marcia raised about the purpose of
Rom.9:-11.

I respect your response over that of Calvibaptist
because you seem to grasp a larger purpose beyond that of the question of Election and of
whether nations as well as individuals are included in that Election; and of who makes up
that Election in the case of individuals.

Calvibaptist did not respond to my quest for his
view of the greater purpose for the final, future saving of "all of Israel" by producing a remnant from the house of Jacob and re-uniting the Houses of Israel and Judah as given by Jeremiah and Heb.8:8-12.

You wrote:
________________________________________________
"The whole point of these chapters is that, yes, but I think verses 4-18 are explaining verse 3 and referring to the national covenant to Israel as opposed to the new covenant of the gospel.

Romans 11:1 shows that God has not cast away His people Israel (the nation), because He promised that they would never die off and that there would always be a remnant who would seek Him. The new covenant of the salvation of individuals from all nations does not remove the old covenant to the nation of Israel".
________________________________________________

Your view requires a Messianic Dispensation with
the absolute rule of law which requires all the nations to come to Jerusalem (individually and
collectively) to worship the one true God. In this coming Theocracy, that will be a totally new Covenant with respect to the obedience of
faith.

All men will know the Lord when He concludes both Gentiles and Jews in a state of disobedience; but not all individuals and/or
nations will worship from the heart. This will
lead to a final separation of sheep and goats
and the eternal judgment of the latter in Hell.

I cannot see the judgment of the sheep and the
goats taking place at the end of this present
dispensation of grace with salvation by faith
alone. Only individuals are being saved now.

In the "age to come" the emphasis will be on
the obedience of faith represented by entire
nations; not the means of faith for individuals.
That emphasis will begin with the salvation of
the entire remnant of Jacob turning to Christ
on the Day He reveals Himself in glory.

Mel Miller www.lastday.net