The Contextual Israel in Romans 11:26

33 ¶ O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

Remember that Paul's most intense desire was that Israel might be saved (Rom. 9:1-3). He knew that PRESENTLY God had a remnant that He will save (11:5) but what makes Paul break out in this song of adoration to God is that he knows in the future when Christ returns that "all Israel" as a nation will be saved.

Paul reflects upon God's plan of redemption that is inclusive of a remnant of Jews in every generation, and the use of Israel's rejection of Christ to bring salvation to the Gentiles wherein God will call out a people "until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in" and then God will use the rejection of Christ by the Gentiles to redeem "all Israel." God's purpose of election cannot be overturned or overruled by either Jewish or Gentile rebellion and God's plan of redemption cannot be merited but is of pure mercy. These truths well up in the heart of Paul until he can no longer contain them and so he breaks out in praise and adoration to God.

God's purpose of election cannot be thwarted by demons or the rebellion of mankind but will be accomplished according to God's purpose as previously stated in Romans 8:28-39.

 

15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.


I need to make an additional comment upon the relationship of verse 15 to verse 16.

Verse 15 continues to emphasize the restoration of that which had "stumbled" over the "stumbling stone" in verses 9,10,

In Verse 16 Paul begins to prove that Israel as a nation shall be restored in keeping with his emphatical denial "God forbid" that their "fall" was utterly and irreversably forever (v. 11).

His logic is very simple, the tree he considers is the TAME tree or the nation of Israel in God's redemptive plan. In God's redemptive plan for any harvest, the firstfruit comes first and in the FINAL harvest the "lump" or mass will be ingarthered!

The "remnant" is the "firstfruit" that is now being harvesting from the nation of Israel but the "mass" or Israel as a whole, or Israel AS A NATION will surely be in the FINAL harvest. Paul confirms this by a careful logic concerning the tame tree as a whole in regard to the steps of harvesting.

He argues that if the "firstfuits" be holy, and it is because it is separated and presented to God, then the "lump" or remaining mass of fruit which is not gathered NOW but will be gathered in the final harvest is also "holy." Hence, ultimately Israel as a WHOLE consisting of "firstfruits" NOW and the rest or the mass, the lump later will all be harvested and that later harvest is dated AFTER the fullness of the gentiles be come in WHEN Christ comes out of Zion at the second advent (vv. 25-28).

However, until that later date comes, God has TEMPORARILY cut off the "lump" or mass of Israel AS A NATION and grafted in among the "remnant" Jewish branches, branches from a wild olive tree or the Gentile Nations.

However, this grafting in of the Gentile NATIONS into the sphere of God's redemptive work is also TEMPORARY because there will come a time when "the fullness of the Gentiles be come in" (v. 25) and God will break off the branches of the wile tree and "AGAIN" graft in the very branches he cut off or Israel AS A NATION and "all Israel" shall be saved in the FINAL HARVEST of the TAME olive tree. There will come a time when the GENTILE NATIONS rise up in rebellion against God the very same way that Israel did and they will be broken off.

Hence, God's present sphere of redemption is inclusive of both Jews and Gentiles where the MAJORITY work of redemption is among the GENTILE NATIONS and the MINORITY work of redemption is among the Jewish NATION. the current TAME olive tree is a Hybrid of Jews and Gentiles. However, WHEN "the fullness of the Gentiles be come in" God will BREAK OFF the Gentile nations from his sphere of redemptive work, thus breaking off the WILD Olive tree branches that were grafted in and regrafting the branches that were formerly broken off into His redemptive plan in the FINAL HARVEST of the TAME Olive Tree as the "LUMP" is holy or set apart for salvation just as the "firstfruits" were holy and previously harvested during the times of the Gentiles.

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. {blindness: or, hardness}
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
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.

 

1 ¶ I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid....
11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid:

These two questions would never have to be raised if Paul was talking about the "remnant" of Israel as it is self-evident that the "remnant" in EVERY GENERATION were God's people. The remnant never "stumbled" and never were "broken off" and never did "fall" SO THAT SALVATION SHOULD COME TO THE GENTILES.

The questions are about Israel AS A NATION because it was no secret that Israel AS A NATION had always been rebellious in EVERY GENERATION, always resisting and rejecting God and in particular in Paul's generation where they came to their APEX of rejection when they rebelled against God and rejected the Messiah.

Hence, the natural question would be has God rejected Israel AS A NATION and if so, is it PERMENANT rejection! Paul's response to both is "GOD FORBID" as they are the "ELECT" nation of God and God's purpose of election has not yet been fulfilled in regard to the "elect NATION."

However, God's purpose of election is always being fulfilled in regard to elect INDIVIDUALS in every generation and so it would be entirely stupid to ask such questions about the elect remnant who are obviously God's people and who are obviously being saved in every generation.

 

You know, you are really not worth reading or responding to as you are not capable of dealing with anything placed before you.

However, to the other readers this jerked out of context dribble that SBG quotes over and over again is taken from a context dealing striclty and only with JEWS and not Gentiles.

Romans 9:1-5 is all about JEWS only and NOT ONE GENTILE.

Romans 9:6-13 deals with JEWS only and NOT ONE GENTILE.

Paul's point is so simple and so easy to see if one has eyes to see. The promise to Abraham was to Israel but not to Israel ONCE born but to a TWICE born Israel. You become part of the TWICE born Israel by (1) Supernatural birth like as unto Isaac's birth and by Election like unto Jacob's election over Esau.

Gentiles are not introduced until Romans 9:24 and Gentiles are consistely placed in contrast to Israel and Jews throughout Romans 9-11. As for "in Christ" there is neither Jew or Gentile as salvation is the same for both without distinction of ethnic race, gender or station in life.


Gentiles are no part of "Israel" whether it is Israel "according to the flesh" or TWICE BORN Israel.

Abraham has a promised seed OUTSIDE OF ISRAEL among the PLURAL "nations" and that seed is not ONCE born Gentiles but TWICE born Gentiles.

 

NOT ONE SINGLE SOLITARY GENTILE IN CONTEXT - Romans 9:1-5​

​

1 ¶ I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 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;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Any attempt to read into this text a single solitary Gentile is simply profuse blundering stupidity!

 

]

NOT ONE SINGLE SOLITARY GENTILE IN CONTEXT - Romans 9:6-9​

​

6 ¶ Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

The Question is not about the promise to abraham concerning GENTILE NATIONS PLURAL but about the promise concering the SINGULAR Nation of Israel. God did make a promise to abraham about PLURAL nations among the gentiles IN ADDITION to the promise of a SINGULAR nation out of his own "loins."

Paul has not jumped ships from the topic of how the promises pertain to physical national Israel to the topic of how they pertain to a mixture of Jews and Gentiles! He is simply defining who among the PHYSICAL nation of Israel are the true SPIRITUAL Israel according to promise from Abraham's own loins.

1. It is not ONCE born ethnic Israelites but TWICE born ethnic Israelites.

2. There are NO EXAMPLES used for Gentile elect - NONE! Zilch! Nada, not one!

3. No mention, no insertion, no reference to ANY GENTILE seed of Abraham.

They who are of this SINGULAR nation "Israel" according to promise of a seed from HIS OWN LOINS are not all who are from his own loins but ONLY those from his OWN LOINS who have been TWICE born.

Certainly the same SALVATION principle of TWICE born applies to the Gentile seed of promise but note that Paul does not call the Gentile seed of promise Israelites or spritiual Israel but calls them "Gentiles" (Rom. 9:24).

SBG's interpretation has NO EXEGETICAL or EXPOSITORIAL basis - it is simply dribble! Absolute proof that it is "dribble" is he still is not able to answer the exegetical based arguments presented to him SEVEN different times, NOR been able to respond to his own CONTRADICTORY statements concerning Romans 11:9-11.

However, he is a blind man committed to his error and NO AMOUNT OF BIBLICAL EVIDENCE will turn him because his conscience is SEARED with error (1 Tim. 4:2-3).

 

NOT ONE SINGLE SOLITARY GENTILE IN CONTEXT - Rom. 9:10-13​

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.


Not one single solitary example of a Gentile used by Paul to respond to the question he raises in Romans 9:4-6? Not One!

Paul is not excluding PHYSICAL BIRTH or all who are born "according to the flesh" as being the true seed of Abraham as he would have to exclude himself and all other "remnant" Jews. He is merely excluding all Jews who are only ONCE BORN in the NATION of Israel as the SPIRITUAL Israel of promise.

If he wanted to define "Israel" of promise to include Gentiles he would have stated so, he would have given examples to show so BUT HE DOES NOT - NADA - ZILCH - NOT ONE!!

SBG has absolutely no contextual basis to include what Paul excluded in this context.

Paul does not mention saved Gentiles until verse 24 and there he continues to disguish them from saved Jews and there he does not call the combination "Israel" - NADA- ZILCH - NOT ONCE!

 

VERY FIRST MENTION OF A SAVED GENTILE - Rom. 9:24​

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Here is the very first mention of a saved GENTILE in Romans chapter 9. However, he simply comes under the classification as one "called" not as one of "Israel" according to promise!

Here Paul makes a distinction between the "called" as Jews who are called versus Gentiles who are called, rather than identifying them both as "Israel."

Although both share in common being "called" or regenerated/born again and thus children of God by spiritual birth, but the Gentile does not become a Jew but only becomes a child of God based upon the same redemptive work regardless if one is Jew or Gentile.

Paul then justifies saying the Gentile was "called" to salvation as is the JEWISH elect by quoting Hosea:


25 ¶ As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26 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.

Here is the opportune time for Paul to add his own inspired commentary and say the Gentile elect shall be called "Israel" but HE DOES NOT. Instead he continues in Romans 9:27-29 to use the term "Israel" for ONLY THE NATION signular from Abraham's physical loins while contrasting the term "Israel" with the "Gentile" elect in verses 30-31.



27 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:
28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
29 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.
30 ¶ What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

There is not one single solitary text in Romans 9 that supports SBG's theory that Gentile elect are now called "Israel" but Paul carefully reserves that term from verse 1 to verse 32 for ONLY Abraham's PHYSICAL seed which contain ONCE and TWICE born Jews.

 

Romans 2 and Galatians 4 ​

In Romans 2 and Galatians 4 Paul is repudiating the doctrine of the Judiazers that Gentiles must become Jews in order to be saved and it starts with submission to circumcision. The A-millennial interpretation of Romans 9-11 and Romans 2 as well as Galatians 5 is similar as they too demand one must become a Jew in order to be saved.

Abraham was promised a seed from his OWN LOINS as a singular NATION as well as a seed that was not from his own loins but from among the plural NATIONS of the gentiles.

1. What this seed would have in common was
a. The same SECOND birth as illustrated in Isaac
b. The same ELECTION to salvation as illustrated in Jacob
c. The same Everlasting covenant of Redemption, same Savior, same gospel

2. What this seed did not have in common was that ONLY ISRAEL was God's "ELECT" nation whereas the PLURAL NATIONS of the Gentiles were never called His "elect" nations.

3. God fulfills both promises in regard to INDIVIDUALIZED elect seed composed of Jews and Gentiles and a NATIONAL seed composed only of Jews when Jesus comes again.

The immediate preceding and following context of Romans 2:28-29 regards Jews and their boast in the law of circumcision. Paul merely informs them that a true Jew is a complete Jew whose outward circumcision accompanies an inward circucmision of the heart.

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 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.

Just previous in verses 26-27 Paul addresses the ethnic circumcised Jew and tells him that his circumcision does profit him if he can keep the law or else it does not profit him at all. Since no Jew can keep the law then circumcision does not profit the Jew. In addition the Jew must be SECOND BORN or circumcised of the heart and that makes him a true Jew of promise. In regard to Gentiles they do not practice circumcision in the first place but they too must be more than ONCE born Gentiles but also must be SECOND BORN or circumcised in heart.

However, Paul is not addressing Gentiles in Romans 2:17-3:8 but Jews who believed they were the seed of Abraham by simply being ONCE BORN. Romans 2:28-29 is addressed to the PHYSICAL BORN JEW who thinks mere outward circumcision and natural birth are sufficient to be the "Jew" of promise as circumcision originated with Abraham.

 

What further proof is needed to show that SBG is not on this forum to discuss or debate but here to make proselytes!

Does he really believe anyone is going to read his study and/or take it seriously when he cannot even intelligently responds to overwhelming evidence that his intepretations are wrong?

I opened this thread for discussion. I did not open it for SBG to advertise his ignorance or use it as a means to proselyte.

SBG if you are not going to discuss the issues, answer the objections, respond to the evidences placed against your interpretations then please open your own thread to dribble on!

 

Look, I don't want to argue your interpretation here. I want to point out what I beleive is a major flaw in the way you approach the scriptures.

1. Instead of dealing with the internal evidence found in the text itself, you go OUTSIDE the text and then use other scriptures OUTSIDE the context to READ back into the text what you want it to mean. For example look at your immediate LEAP from Romans 9:1-5 to Romans 11:5 instead of dealing with the interior of Romans 9:1-5 first.

This method can make a text mean anything you like it to mean as you can find scriptures OUTSIDE the text to conform it to any theory you like.

Your method is called EISEGEIS when attempt to interpret a text by GOING OUTSIDE to some other text in some other context and then READ IT BACK INTO the text under question. This method can make that text mean anything you like.

Also, you are reverting to a text (Rom. 11:5) that you have not yet demonstrated from its context what it means but nevertheless attempt to use it to define what Romans 9:1-5 means. This is your CONSISTENT METHOD of scripture interpretation jerking a text out of context to define another text that you have not yet first defined by its context - endless merry go round!

EXEGESIS begins WITHIN the text dealing with the actual words and grammar and their relationship to each other and to the preceding and following verses in a developmental fashion.


YOUR METHOD is the method used by all cults and it is responsible for all FALSE DOCTRINE in this world.

Of course there is no defense against your method because it is an endless attempt to make you first prove by context the validity of your interpretation of a text BEFORE using it to interpet other texts outside the context of the text you are using. It is a merry go round that never stops going round and round because every time you are challenged to prove your interpretation by contextual factors you respond by GOING OUTSIDE the text to do it!

On the other hand, EXEGESIS is first going INSIDE a text and establishing your interpretation of that text based upon INTERNAL evidence, in regard to the specific words chosen by the writer and their grammatical relation ship to each other and to the verses that precede and follow it in that context.

THIS YOU NEVER DO! You ALWAYS approach a text EXTERNALLY instead of INTERNALLY. Just look at your response below or ANY and EVERY response you have given to objections against your interpretation of a text.

Do you at least understand what I am saying?

 

You have changed the subject! I did not ask if Paul is referring to elect versus none elect Jews in Romans 9:1-5. I asked can you find any menton of GENTILES in this passage?

You admit that no gentiles can be found in this passage but then jump back to reasserting something this text says nothing about!

Paul makes no distinction between elect versus non-elect Jews in this passage ANYWHERE! He makes no classification between Jews in this passage. If you want to make that case in verses 6-8 fine! But you cannot make that case here as there is nothing here to make that case. Deal with the facts of the text FIRST before you start READING INTO this text what is obviously not even mentioned here. Be HONEST with this text. You are ASSUMING your intepretation is right BEFORE proving it is right by proper exegesis.

This text INTRODUCES the subject matter that Paul wants to address and if you do not understand the INTRODUCTION how in the world can you properly interpret anything correctly which follows the introduction. THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION of Romans 9:8!

The issue between us is whether Romans 9:6-8 is strictly talking about a distinction between JEWS within Israel and thus an Israel within a Israel OR a distinction between humanity at large and the elect! You are defending the latter while I am defending the former. You cannot ASSUME your position is correct and merely assert it UNTIL you first PROVE it is correct by proper exegesis and proper exegesis does not begin with a text OUTSIDE of this text (Rom. 11:5) but with the internal evidence of the text and its relationship to verses before and after in the immediate context.

The fact that Romans 9:1-5 does not contain ANY REFERENCE to humanity at large or gentiles in specific supports my interpretation not your interpretation. The same is true concerning Romans 9:6-13 as there is no mention of humanity at large and specifically no mention of gentiles at all.

These facts provide a basis to argue that Paul's intent is to define a distinction between Jews or an Israel within Israel rather than a distinction between humanity and the elect.

 

1 ¶ I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 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;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

My position is based upon the fact that NO GENTILES are included in this introduction by Paul. Furthermore, verses 1-3 are explicitly descriptive of no other entity than CHRIST REJECTING ISRAEL AS A NATION and therefore specific to CHRIST REJECTING ISRAEL AS A NATION.

Moreover, the term "Israelite" in verse 4 includes CHRIST REJECTING ISRAEL AS A NATION as verse 3 demands this by the descriptives given in that verse. However, the same descriptives are GENERAL and include both Christ rejecting Jews and Christ receptive Jews as both fit these GENERAL descrptives in verse 3 which precedes and defines what Paul means by the term "Israelites" in verse 4. Thus the promises were given to ETHNIC JEWS – v. 5 and Jesus was born from parents that were ETHNIC JEWS without any present distinction given to those who fit that general defintion.


CONTEXTUAL PROOF:

1. Verse 1-3 is a wish by Paul to be "accursed" not for the "Remnant" of Israel but for CHRIST REJECTING ISRAEL. The "remnant" have Christ "accursed" in their behalf but CHRIST REJECTING ISRAEL have rejected the only provision to be "accursed" in their behalf. Therefore Paul makes a WISH that He could be "accursed" in their place so that they might be saved. The grammar shows that His wish is IMPOSSIBLE and therefore they will be "accursed" rather than Paul.

2. Verse 3 defines those for whom Paul vainly wised to replace in hell to be “my brethren…my kinsmen ACCORDING TO THE FLESH.” Now, Christ rejecting Jews as well as Christ receiving Jews fit that description as “my brethren….my kinsmen ACCORDING TO THE FLESH” simply means ETHNIC JEWS or ETHNIC ISRAEL.

3. Hence, verse 4 and the term “Israelites” means simply ETHNIC Israel or ETHNIC Jews without any other distinction than “my brethren….my Kinsmen ACCORDING TO THE FLESH.”

4. It is to this definition of “Israeites” (ethnic Jews; ethnic Israel) that Paul says “TO WHOM PERTAINETH” all the covenant promises given to the father’s. It was to ETHNIC JEWS that Jesus was born.

Now, Paul did not say “To whom ONLY pertaineth” but rather “TO WHOM pertaineth…” That is the covenant promises were given to ETHNIC ISRAEL as a nation and they were FIRST originally given by God to ETHNIC ISRAEL rather than to any other ethnic races.

The term “Israelite” cannot possibly be defined as “remnant” Israel because the grammar will not allow that because the words “of whom” grammatically refers to the descriptions in verse 3 which INCLUDE the CHRIST REJECTING ETHNIC ISRAEL AS A NATION for whom Paul vainly wishes to be “accursed” in their place.

The key here is that the term “Israelite” is non specific in regard to which sort of ethnic Jews and that is precisely why verses 6-8 are necessary to distinguish between which ethnic Jews the covenant applies to. It only demands that God gave the covenant to ETHNIC ISRAEL and some within ETHNIC ISRAEL received it (remnant) in every generation and some rejected it (ETHNIC ISRAEL AS A NATION).

CONCLUSION: The text (Romans 9:1-5) denies that “Israelite” in verse 4 refers only to “remnant” Israel and so to read in that definition from Romans 11:5 is wrong and it is false. The grammar will not permit such a definition as the terms “of whom” grammatically demand that Paul is including all people who fit the previous definitons in verse 3 regardless of their spiritual condition as the phrase "according to the flesh" in verse 3 defies being defined as only "remnant" Israel. Thus the term "Israelite" by contextual definition is merely a GENERAL and INCLUSIVE term of all jews by ethnicity.

This introduction provides the basis for the objection raised in verse 6 - since Paul in verses 1-3 declares they are "accursed" and that Israel as a nation has rejected Jesus Christ, then does that mean God's promise to Israel has failed?

Second, since Paul also confirms that God did in fact give the covenant to "Israelites" in verses 4-5 as an ETHNIC NATION then Paul must harmonize what seems to be a contradiction between verses 1-3 and verses 4-5. This he does in verses 6-13.

 

These two statements above have nothing to do with the texts you JERK out of context! and have no basis in this text for you to even make these comments. Indeed I have presented contextual based evidnce in great detail to prove these statements are false!

Howeer, do you respond intellighently? Do you discuss the evidence? No! You simply ignore the evidence that is placed in your face over and over.

You are responding in character like false teachers must respond when their errors are exposed by the truth! Their conscience is so seared by error they cannot deal honestly or objectively with God's Word so they resort to IGNORING the evidence, and repeating their errors over and over again.

If you want to dribble your ignorance then start your own thread and don't do it on mine. If you want to intelligently disucss the issues and the evidence then do so but this kind of commentary is so sillly no one on this forum is goiing to take you serious and no one should since you are showing yourself to be incapable of dealing with anything that contradicts your opinions.

 

Readers,

As you can see it does absolutely no good to continue to discuss anything with SBG. He will not deal with evidence that has been placed before him over and over again. He simply ignores contrary evidence placed before him and makes no attempt to respond to it in any kind of intelligent manner.

He is not here to discuss the issues. He is not here to debate the evidence. He is here simply to use the forum to propagandize his own ideas that have been exposed over and over again as error.

His supposed commentary is a model of eisgesis. He is incapable of doing exegesis and so he resorts to the method every cult and every false teacher must use to overthrow exegetical evidence. He JUMPS out of context finds a scripture in another context and then demands that is the proper interpretation of his text. Of course, using this kind of method you can prove anything you like as one can always find some text they can JERK out of context to defend what they want another text to mean. There is no end to this kind of merry-go-round eisgetical method.

I don't think the Moderator should allow someone like SBG to simply take over a thread and propagandize his ideas WHEN he refuses to respond to evidence that his commentary is in error. What if I took over your thread and just kept on writing my opinions while ignoring your evidence that what I was writing was in error? What if I refused to address your arguments?? Whether you agree with my responses or not you know I have never ignored contrary evidence or refused to address your arguments.

This man is not here to discuss anything rationally or reasonably. He is not here to be a witness for the truth as any witness for the truth will deal with the evidences that deny what he is saying is truth!!! This man is here to proselyte and propagandize his opinions without accountability for what he says.

 

1 ¶ I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 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;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.



CONTEXTUAL PROOF:

1. Verse 1-3 is a wish by Paul to be "accursed" not for the "Remnant" of Israel but for CHRIST REJECTING ISRAEL. The "remnant" have Christ "accursed" in their behalf but CHRIST REJECTING ISRAEL have rejected the only provision to be "accursed" in their behalf. Therefore Paul makes a WISH that He could be "accursed" in their place so that they might be saved. The grammar shows that His wish is IMPOSSIBLE and therefore they will be "accursed" rather than Paul.

2. Verse 3 defines those for whom Paul vainly wised to replace in hell to be “my brethren…my kinsmen ACCORDING TO THE FLESH.” This description simply means ETHNIC JEWS as both Christ rejecting and Christ accepting Jews fit this description. Christ rejecting Jews are "my brethen...my kinsmen ACCORDING TO THE FLESH" just as Christ accepting Jews are "my brethren...my kinsmen ACCORDING to the flesh. Hence, Paul has made a transition from the wish to save Christ rejecting Jews in verse 1-3 to ETHNIC JEWS in general in verse 4.


3. Hence, verse 4 and the term “Israelites” grammatically has for its antecedent the general ETHNIC JEWISH definition in verse 3. That is exactly what a Christ rejecting Jew is and that is exactly what a Christ accepting Jew is - "Israelites." Thus the descriptions of verses 3-4 is ETHNIC JEWS in generally with specifying any classifications within that general descriptive.

4. It is to this definition of “Israeites” (ethnic Jews; ethnic Israel) that Paul says “TO WHOM PERTAINETH” all the covenant promises given to the father’s. Tha is the covenant promises were given to ETHNIC JEWS or "my brethren...my kinsmen ACCORDING TO THE FLESH...Israelites." Also it was to ETHNIC JEWS that Jesus was born or "my brethren.....my kinsmen ACCORDING TO THE FLESH."


IMPORTANT CLARIFICATIONS:
The term “Israelite” cannot possibly be defined as “remnant” Israel because the grammar will not allow that because the words “of whom” grammatically refers to the descriptions in verse 3 which INCLUDE the CHRIST REJECTING ETHNIC ISRAEL AS A NATION for whom Paul vainly wishes to be “accursed” in their place.

The key here is that the term “Israelite” is non specific in regard to which sort of ethnic Jews and that is precisely why verses 6-8 are necessary to distinguish between which ethnic Jews the covenant applies to. It only demands that God gave the covenant to ETHNIC ISRAEL and some within ETHNIC ISRAEL received it (remnant) in every generation and some rejected it (ETHNIC ISRAEL AS A NATION).

CONCLUSION: The text (Romans 9:1-5) denies that “Israelite” in verse 4 refers only to “remnant” Israel and so to read in that definition from Romans 11:5 is wrong and it is false. The grammar will not permit such a definition as the terms “of whom” grammatically demand that Paul is including all people who fit the previous definitions in verse 3 regardless of their spiritual condition as the phrase "according to the flesh" in verse 3 defies being defined as only "remnant" Israel. Thus the term "Israelite" by contextual definition is merely a GENERAL and INCLUSIVE term for ETHNIC JEWS.

This introduction provides the basis for the objection raised in verse 6 - since Paul in verses 1-3 declares they are "accursed" and that Israel as a nation has rejected Jesus Christ, then does that mean God's promise to Israel has failed?

Second, since Paul also confirms that God did in fact give the covenant to "Israelites" in verses 4-5 as an ETHNIC NATION then Paul must harmonize what seems to be a contradiction between verses 1-3 and verses 4-5. This he does in verses 6-13.