The Contextual Israel in Romans 11:26

[savedbymercy]

dw

. Verse 1-3 is a wish by Paul to be "accursed" not for the "Remnant" of Israel but for CHRIST REJECTING ISRAEL

Paul could wish himself accursed not for the nation of Israel, but for spiritual Israel within that Nation whom like himself, are Christ haters by Nature. Even Spiritual Israel by nature reject Christ, Paul is proof of that..

So you do lie. For Paul does have the remnant in mind, we see that in Rom 11:5

5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

That remnant was still dead in sin just as Paul was when he was in Israel dead in sin. Paul has a strong desire to see them converted as He was, and They will be converted.

For Paul would not wish himself accursed for all natural Israel, for Paul himself wrote that the children of flesh [ Natural Israel in and of themselves ] are not the children of God Rom 9:8

8That 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.

Paul was merely praying and could wish himself accursed for the jewish children of God in National Israel who are still ignorant of God as he was and going about to establish their own righteousness.

 

[Dr. Walter]

dw



Paul could wish himself accursed not for the nation of Israel,

Paul wished he could be accursed for "my" PLURAL "brethren" not my SINGULAR "brother" and my PLURAL "kinsmen" not my SINGULAR "kin." The optative mode denies it is possible but that does not change his wish does it? So you are wrong and you lie!

but for spiritual Israel

Paul knows how to use the term "remnant" but HE DOES NOT. He says "ACCORDING TO THE FLESH" not according to election" or "according to the spirit" or "according to the promise"! So you lie again!

Furthermore, your answer makes Paul look stupid! He has just declared in Romans 8:28-39 that the elect will be saved! Why would he wish himself to be "accursed" for those he already emphatically asserted will be saved???? The "remnant" are included in the "elect" in Romans 8:32 and that is precisely what Paul says in Romans 11:5 is it not! Did not Paul call those Jews whom God saves in every generation according to election the "remnant"? Why would he wish himself to be "accursed" for those he defines as the "remnant" when HE KNOWS and TEACHES that THEY WILL BE SAVED?

Moreover, why would he wish himself to be eternally accursed for ANY ELECT as that is totally stupid and unnecessary! Your answer is stupid and it makes Paul look stupid! Again it is you who is proven to be a liar on both counts.

However, lying is your only recourse in defending lies!

 

[Dr. Walter]

Paul wished he could be accursed for "my" PLURAL "brethren" not my SINGULAR "brother" and my PLURAL "kinsmen" not my SINGULAR "kin." The optative mode denies it is possible but that does not change his wish does it? So you are wrong and you lie!






Paul knows how to use the term "remnant" but HE DOES NOT. He says "ACCORDING TO THE FLESH" not according to election" or "according to the spirit" or "according to the promise"! So you lie again!

Furthermore, your answer makes Paul look stupid! He has just declared in Romans 8:28-39 that the elect will be saved! Why would he wish himself to be "accursed" for those he already emphatically asserted will be saved???? The "remnant" are included in the "elect" in Romans 8:32 and that is precisely what Paul says in Romans 11:5 is it not! Did not Paul call those Jews whom God saves in every generation according to election the "remnant"? Why would he wish himself to be "accursed" for those he defines as the "remnant" when HE KNOWS and TEACHES that THEY WILL BE SAVED?

Moreover, why would he wish himself to be eternally accursed for ANY ELECT as that is totally stupid and unnecessary! Your answer is stupid and it makes Paul look stupid! Again it is you who is proven to be a liar on both counts.

However, lying is your only recourse in defending lies!

SBG cannot harmonize his interpretation of Israel with Romans 11:9-11 for the following obvious reasons.

1. The Israel in Romans 11:9-11 are CHRIST REJECTORS not "spiritual" Israel.

2. The CHRIST REJECTING Israel in Romans 11:9-11 is the stated reason why God forsook THIS KIND OF ISRAEL and brought salvation to the Gentiles (v. 11) but that cannot be said about "spiritual" or "remnant" Israel as God has not forsook them to go to the Gentiles as they are presently being saved in every generation (v. 5).

3. The CHRIST REJECTING Israel in Romans 11:11 is the SAME ISRAEL that David describes in Romans 11:9-10. It is the SAME ISRAEL that Elijah described in his day as well in Romans 11:2-3. Neither Elijah or David or Paul is speaking about "remnant" Israel but about the SAME ISRAEL that has historically rejected Christ and rebelled against God so that God turned away from THIS KIND OF ISRAEL unto the Gentiles.

4. The CHRIST REJECTING Israel in Romans 11:2-3 and 11:9-11 or the SAME ISRAEL in Elijah's day, in David's day and now in Paul's day that has continued from Elijah to Paul's day in REBELLION against God and in REJECTION of Christ are continuing in their stumbling, continuing in their fall, but this is not true of the "remnant" Israel but remnant Israel in Elijah's day was saved, in David's day was saved and in Paul's day is being saved (v. 5).

5. The CHRIST REJECTING Israel in Romans 11:11 will not continue in their "fall" so as to be irreversably fallen as Paul in the strongest words deny they will continue in that fallen condition "God forbid." However, that fallen condition had contined in Elijah's day, in David's day and in Paul's day so that God turned to the Gentiles UNTIL that SAME CHRIST REJECTING ISRAEL is made jealous (v. 11) and "UNTIL the fullness of the Gentiles be come in" and then that same CHRIST REJECTING Israel that continued in their stumbling in Elijah's day and in David's day and in Paul's day becomes a CHRIST RECIEVING Israel WHEN Christ's Second Advent occurs (Rom. 11:25-28) and "all Israel" MEANING "all" rather than "remnant" MEANING "all" Israel as a NATION will be saved. MEANING in contrast to their previous history AS A NATION in Elijah's day, and in David's day and in Paul's day - the SAME Israel AS A NATION that had continued in CHRIST REJECTION. This is not true of "remnant" Israel in Elijah's day (v. 3) or in David's day or in Paul's day or in our day.

Will SBG deal with the above evidence in any kind of contextual and substance response? No! He will continue to JUMP out of the context and/or PIT scriptures against scriptures because HE CANNOT DO ANY KIND OF SOUND WORD BY WORD EXEGESIS OF ROMANS 11:9-11 because if he attempts to do so it will expose his interpretation as only a HALF truth.

 

[Dr. Walter]

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. 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.

These verses deny that it is Remnant Israel that is their subject but rather prove that it is the nation of ethnic Israel that will be saved. The time frame established in these verses deny "Israel" in verse 26 refers to "remnant" of Israel and/or gentile elect:

1. These verses are set in a very defined time zone - the end of the age

PROOF:

a. It is WHEN "the fulness of the Gentiles be come in"
b. It is WHEN "there shall come out of Zion the Deliverer"
c. It is "WHEN" the Deliverer "SHALL" turn the ungodliness from Jacob
d. It is WHEN "I SHALL take away their sins."
e. It is WHEN they are no longer "enemies for your sakes"

In regard to God's calling a people out of the Gentiles, the "fullness" of the Gentile elect has not yet "come in" as God is still saving Gentiles then, and today! Hence, this time has not yet arrived and yet the promised salvation cannot be Gentiles because it occurs AFTER the FULLNESS of gentiles be come in.

In regard to the "deliverer SHALL come out of Zion" it is obvious by the use of the FUTURE TENSE that Paul is speaking of something yet FUTURE from His own day. This cannot be A.D. 70 because the fullness of the Gentiles did not "come in" in A.D. 70 and that time event in verse 25 is given before this time event is given in verse 26. Hence, this refers to the time his second advent.

In regard to a FUTURE time of Paul's perspective the Deliver that comes out of Zion "SHALL" turn the ungodliness from Jacob is placed AFTER the Deliverer comes out of Zion not before and therefore cannot refer to the generational salvation of the "remnant" of Israel. Furthermore, the term "Jacob" is NEVER used of Gentiles but only of the NATION OF ISRAEL as an UNGODLY nation and that is the context here "the UNGODLINESS of Jacob".

In regard to a FUTURE time when the Deliverer "SHALL" take away their sins - this occurs AFTER the fullness of the Gentiles be come in (v. 25) and AFTER the deliverer comes out of Zion (v. 26) and AFTER the deliver turns Israel from its "UNGODLINESS" and therefore it cannot refer to the "remnant" then, now or any other time BEFORE the second Advent.

Finally, during this present time BEFORE the fullness of Gentile elect be come in, BEFORE the deliverer comes out of Zion, BEFORE he turns the ungodliness from Jacob, BEFORE he takes away their sins they are DURING ALL THIS TIME BEFORE these things occur "ENEMIES OF THE GOSPEL for your (gentiles) sake but neverthelesss "touching ELECTION they (enemies right now) are BELOVED for the "father's" sake.

Israel is God's "ELECT NATION" and election is TO salvation but that time come yet but will just as it comes according to God's time table for all His elect individual children of God (2 Thes. 2:13).

 

[savedbymercy]

dw

Paul wished he could be accursed for "my" PLURAL "brethren" not my SINGULAR "brother

The remnant according to the election of grace in National Israel at Pauls time would have been more than one singular brother. Paul was desirous of their conversion Rom 11:5

Rom 11:5

5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Paul knew God would never save the whole Nation, many in the Nation would only remain Abraham's Children according to the Flesh, and none of those are the Children of God Rom 9:8


8That 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.

Paul would never pray for the conversion of the non elect, the children of the devil..

 

[Dr. Walter]

dw



The remnant according to the election of grace in National Israel at Pauls time would have been more than one singular brother. Paul was desirous of their conversion Rom 11:5

Are you charging Paul with UTTER STUPIDITY that he would sacrifice his soul in hell and to see those saved whom He knows are not going to hell but be saved according to election??????????????

That is how brilliant your response is!

However, this is the kind of "brillance" that SBG must reduce himself to in order to avoid admitting he is wrong and admitting the text condemns his HALF truth.

 

[Dr. Walter]

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.


SBG's Brilliant Responses thus far: -Paul wishes himself "accursed" in hell for those he knows God is going to save - elect remnant Israel - Absolutely brilliant!!! He makes Paul an idiot!


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.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The remnant according to the election of grace in National Israel at Pauls time would have been more than one singular brother. Paul was desirous of their conversion

Paul knows how to use the term "remnant" but HE DOES NOT use it here. He says "ACCORDING TO THE FLESH" not according to election" or "according to the spirit" or "according to the promise"!

Furthermore, your answer makes Paul look stupid! He has just declared in Romans 8:28-39 that the elect will be saved! Why would he wish himself to be "accursed" for those he those he knows are going to be saved????

Moreover, why would he wish himself to be eternally accursed for ANY ELECT as that is totally stupid and unnecessary! Your answer is stupid and it makes Paul look stupid!

 

[Dr. Walter]

NO GENTILES IN ROMANS 9:6-8​

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.

WHAT WE HAVE PROVED THUS FAR:

1. I have proven there are no Gentiles mentioned in Romans 9:1-5.

2. I have proven that it is completely absurd to interpret "Israelite" in Romans 9:5 to be "remnant" Israel as Paul would never wish himself "accursed" for those He knows will not be "accursed" but will be saved.

3. I have proved that Romans 9:1-3 refers to CHRIST REJECTING ISRAEL while Romans 9:4-5 reaffirms that God's covenant promises were given to ETHNIC ISRAEL.

The apparent contradiction is that Israel as a Nation has rejected Christ (vv. 1-3) and yet the covenant promise is to Ethnic Israel (vv. 4-5). This leads to the explanation in verses 6-8;

1. Paul's response to the the National rejection of Christ by Israel in verse 6 is that their rejection does not make the promise of God' non-effectual:

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect.

2. Paul's harmonization of Romans 9:1-3 with Romans 9:4-5 is that not "ALL ISRAEL" is of Israel. Here the words "of Israel" mean the same thing as Paul's description in verse 3 "my brethren.....my kinsmen according to the flesh" or all that are ethnic Jews. There is another Israel within the boundaries of Ethnic Israel The words "all Israel" refer to the JEWISH CHLIDREN OF PROMISE such as Isaac in contrast to Ishmael and Jacob as in contrast to Esau. An Jewish ethnic Israel of promised children within the boundaries of Ethnic National Israel. NO GENTILES included in this "of Israel."

3. Proof that he is referring only to JEWISH children of Promise in contrast to JEWS as "brethren....kinsmen according to the flesh" is that in verses 7-13 he restricts the children he is speaking about to those PHYSICALLY born from Abraham:


7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Note the careful langauge: "neither because THEY ARE THE SEED of Abraham, are THEY ALL children.." This is saying the very same thing as he said in verse 6 - "not ALL Israel is OF Israel."

1. The fact that he says THEY ARE THE SEED OF Abraham restricts all the children to PHYSICAL BORN JEWS simply because that is the ethnic foundation that all Jews assume makes them "all children" of promise when in fact not all who "are the seed of Abraham" are "all children" of promise! Hence, again the language denies that Paul is going beyond ETHNIC JEWS in either case. - NO GENTILE ELECT included here.

2. Secondly, comes the further explanation of the distinction between the SAME TWO TYPES OF ETHNIC JEWS, again proving that Paul is not including Gentiles in either use of "Israel":


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.


Verse 7 has defined both types as "THEY ARE the children of Abraham"! ?After establishing that both types were PHYSCALLY BORN through Abraham and thus ETHNIC Jews he makes the distinction between ETHNIC JEWS that were merely "children of the flesh" versus ETHNIC JEWS that are "children of the promise"!

3. Thirdly, this restricted JEWISH ETHNIC types of children "of the flesh" and "of the promise" are then illustrated by TWO kinds of PHYSICALLY born children from Abraham (1) Isaac versus Ishmael; (2) Jacob versus Esau - all PHYSICALLY born through Abraham. AGAIN, NO GENTILE ELECT included in this "Israel".

Hence, Spiritual "Israel" refers to only elect ETHNIC JEWS. It refers to the "remnant" ethnic Jews who are saved in every generation and it refers to the LAST GENERATION of Ethnic Jews as the NATION of Israel. This LAST Generation of Israel is proved by the time frame set in place in Romans 11:25-28. In a previous post we have proven that there is a FUTURE generatio of Ethnic Jews as a NATION that will be saved AFTER the fullness of the Gentile elect "comes in" (Rom. 11:25) and AFTER Christ comes out of Zion as a DELIVERER to earth (Rom. 11:26b) WHEN he turns the UNGODLINESS from Jacob and THEN he delivers them from THIER SINS - thus proof of a yet FUTURE salvation of ISRAEL at the Second advent. Paul denies that FUTURE salvation is the PRESENT "remnant" of Israel because ISRAEL AS A NATION remains in this present period of redemption from among the Gentiles to be the "enemy of the gospel FOR YOUR SAKES" but "ELECT" in regard to their future salvation.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No Gentile Elect in "Israel" - Romans 9:6-8​

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.

What we want to do is take a closer look at the three contrasting phrases in verses 6-8:

1. "They are not all Israel" versus "of Israel"
2. "they are the seed of Abraham" versus "all children"
3. "the children of the flesh" versus "children of God...of the promise"


Paul is asserting that WITHIN the boundaries of ETHNIC ISRAEL there is another Israel, just as WITHIN the boundaries of the seed of Abraham there are other children, just as WITHIN the children of the flesh there is the children of God/of promise. NO GENTILES within this framework and the chosen illustrations proves this is Paul’s promised Israel within ethnic Israel.



A. "they are not all Israel" - v. 6

The pronoun "they" refers to all who are ethnic Jews. Paul's argument is that "they" who are ethnic Jews are all "of Israel" as an ethnic nation BUT not all the Ethnic nation is "of Israel" of promise.

In other words, within ethnic Israel there is another "Israel" that does not include all ethnic Jews but is Jewish. – NO GENTILES. This interpretation is proven to be true by the next phrase:


B. “Neither BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SEED OF ABRAHAM”

The pronoun “they” is equal to the “they” in the former passage and means ALL ETHNIC JEWS. All Ethnic Jews are by birth the seed of Abraham. No consideration of Gentiles at all within this “all” – only Jews. Hence, the conclusion "all children" does not go beyond the boundary of ethnic Jews within Israel. However, that does not mean that ALL ETHNIC JEWS are His children by promise! Hence, within Ethnic Israel there is another “Israel” that is JEWISH without including ALL ETHNIC JEWS.


C. “children of the flesh” versus “children of God…of promise”

Again, there are no GENTILE children of flesh being considered just as there was no Gentile seed considered in verse 7 or Gentile Israel considered in verse 6. All ethnic Jews are physical seed of Abraham or “children of the flesh” but not all “children of the flesh” are “children of God” or children by promise. Hence, among the children of the flesh there are “children of God” or “children by Promise” just as among “all Israel” there is another Israel and just as among the “seed of Abraham” there are “children” of promise.

Paul is asserting that WITHIN the boundaries of ETHNIC ISRAEL there is another Israel, just as WITHIN the boundaries of the seed of Abraham there are other children, just as WITHIN the children of the flesh there is the children of God/of promise. NO GENTILES within this framework and the following chosen illustrations proves this is Paul’s meaning.


D. All seed of Abraham but not all children of promise/all Israel but not all of Israel/all children according to the flesh but not all children of God: - vv. 9-13

1. Isaac versus Ishmael – all seed of Abraham but not all children/all Israel but not all of Israel/all children of the flesh but all children of God.

2. Jacob versus Esau - all seed of Abraham but not all children/all Israel but not all of Israel/all children of the flesh but all children of God.
There is no Gentile elect in this “Israel” of God but this Israel of God is confined within the boundaries of ETHNIC ISRAEL.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No Gentile Elect in "Israel" - Romans 9:6-8​

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.

What we want to do is take a closer look at the three contrasting phrases in verses 6-8:

1. "They are not all Israel" versus "of Israel"
2. "they are the seed of Abraham" versus "all children"
3. "the children of the flesh" versus "children of God...of the promise"


Paul is asserting that WITHIN the boundaries of ETHNIC ISRAEL there is another Israel, just as WITHIN the boundaries of the seed of Abraham there are other children, just as WITHIN the children of the flesh there is the children of God/of promise. NO GENTILES within this framework and the chosen illustrations proves this is Paul’s promised Israel within ethnic Israel.



A. "they are not all Israel" - v. 6

The pronoun "they" refers to all who are ethnic Jews. Paul's argument is that "they" who are ethnic Jews are all "of Israel" as an ethnic nation BUT not all the Ethnic nation is "of Israel" of promise.

In other words, within ethnic Israel there is another "Israel" that does not include all ethnic Jews but is Jewish. – NO GENTILES. This interpretation is proven to be true by the next phrase:


B. “Neither BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SEED OF ABRAHAM”

The pronoun “they” is equal to the “they” in the former passage and means ALL ETHNIC JEWS. All Ethnic Jews are by birth the seed of Abraham. No consideration of Gentiles at all within this “all” – only Jews. Hence, the conclusion "all children" does not go beyond the boundary of ethnic Jews within Israel. However, that does not mean that ALL ETHNIC JEWS are His children by promise! Hence, within Ethnic Israel there is another “Israel” that is JEWISH without including ALL ETHNIC JEWS.


C. “children of the flesh” versus “children of God…of promise”

Again, there are no GENTILE children of flesh being considered just as there was no Gentile seed considered in verse 7 or Gentile Israel considered in verse 6. All ethnic Jews are physical seed of Abraham or “children of the flesh” but not all “children of the flesh” are “children of God” or children by promise. Hence, among the children of the flesh there are “children of God” or “children by Promise” just as among “all Israel” there is another Israel and just as among the “seed of Abraham” there are “children” of promise.

Paul is asserting that WITHIN the boundaries of ETHNIC ISRAEL there is another Israel, just as WITHIN the boundaries of the seed of Abraham there are other children, just as WITHIN the children of the flesh there is the children of God/of promise. NO GENTILES within this framework and the following chosen illustrations proves this is Paul’s meaning.


D. All seed of Abraham but not all children of promise/all Israel but not all of Israel/all children according to the flesh but not all children of God: - vv. 9-13

1. Isaac versus Ishmael – all seed of Abraham but not all children/all Israel but not all of Israel/all children of the flesh but all children of God.

2. Jacob versus Esau - all seed of Abraham but not all children/all Israel but not all of Israel/all children of the flesh but all children of God.
There is no Gentile elect in this “Israel” of God but this Israel of God is confined within the boundaries of ETHNIC ISRAEL.

Spiritual Israel - is confined within the ethnic boundaries of Ethnic Israel and therefore excludes all Gentile elect.

However, that does not mean there are not "children of promise" outside the NATION of Israel within the NATIONS of the Gentiles. Abraham was not only promised a "seed" and thus an "elect" nation from his own loins but was also promised a "seed" within the NATIONS or Gentile world.

Ge 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

Ge 17:4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations

So, it is not one or the other but both. If you select but one you have a HALF truth and therefore a lie.

Rom. 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

At the end of the age WHEN the last Gentile promised child has "come in" then God will turn and complete his promise to "ELECT" Israel and save her WHEN Jesus comes from heaven. Then, Israel will be grafted back "AGAIN" into "her OWN" olive tree.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Romans 2 are Ethnic Jews who are Spiritual Jews Not Gentiles​

25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
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.
1 ¶ What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

Contextual Factors:

1. Verses before (Rom. 2:17-24) and after (Rom. 3:1-8) are dealing with Jews who believe they can be justified by the works of the law.

2. Romans 2:25-3:1 deals explicitly with the role of circumcision as a means of justification before God.

3. Circumcision is the boast of the Jew that separates him from Gentiles and in his mind makes him more acceptable to God.

4. Paul makes a cogent argument concerning the value of circumcision in regard to justification before God.


A. The Value of Circumcision to the Jew for justification before God:

1. It has profit ONLY if you keep all other laws:

25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

2. If the Jew does not keep all other laws then his uncircumcision is invalidated and it becomes uncircumcision before God.


B. The value of Law keeping to the Gentile for justification before God:

1. Just as the Jew's circumcision is invalidated if he does not keep all the law, the gentiles uncircumcision is viewed as circumcision if he does keep all the law as the value of circumcision is merely the initial rite that commits the person to a life long obedience to the law.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

2. This is why circumcision is condemned by the apostles because neither Jew or Gentile can be justified by law keeping as the Law demands sinless obedience to be justified by it (Acts 15). Thisis precisely why Paul entertains the rhetorical question in Romans 3:1 as to the value of being a jew and the value of circumcision if the Law cannot be obeyed as it demands - without sin!


C. Hence, for an ethnic Jew, to be a real Jew or promised child of Abraham, it has nothing to do with the outward act of circumcision but with the inward circumcision 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.

The very next verse proves that the term "jew" has not been redefined to include Gentiles but rather redefined to distinguish saved from lost Jews:

1 ¶ What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

The supposition is that if salvation is a matter of the heart not of the flesh (vv. 28-29) a matter of INWARD condition not OUTWARD condition, then what advantage is it to be a "Jew" according to the flesh and to be "circumcised" according to the flesh?

Paul's answer is that it is of great matter because they have an advantage over the Gentiles because they have received special revelation - God's Word and all the types and ordinances that are designed to teach them how to become SPIRITUAL JEWS and that gives them an edge over Gentiles who did not have that revelation or those privileges.

Salvation is the same for both but Gentiles do not become Jews by salvation as there is NEITHER JEW OR GENTILE in Christ! However, ethnic Jews become SPIRITUAL Jews according to their ethnic condition when they are saved just as ethnic Gentiles become SPIRITUAL gentiles according to their ethnic condition when they are saved BUT the basis for salvation of both is neither Jewish or Gentile as there is neither JEW NOR GENTILE in Christ.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No GENTILE spiritual JEWS in Galatians 4​

21 ¶ Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
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.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.


A. Contextual Factors:

1. This section is addressed to those Gentile believers who are contemplating submission to circumcision as a commitment to law keeping for the purpose of obtaining justification by the works of the law – v. 21 “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?”

2. Sarah and Hagar are used as an “allegory” (v. 24a) to teach about “two covenants” (v. 24b) the covenant of law and the covenant of grace. These two covenants are represented by two mountains (Mount Sinai vs. Mount Zion) and two cities (Jerusalem beneath, Jerusalem above) and two children (Isaac vs Ishmael). The mountains represent their place of origin. The two cities represent where their capitals or source of government. The two children represent the two adherents to these two covenants.

3. Isaac represents children born of elective promise whether Jew or Gentile in keeping with the covenant of grace that implemented in the temple on Mount Zion in the government of heaven or New Jerusalem where God resides in power.

Gentiles do not become Jews by the covenant of grace no more than Jews become Gentiles as there is neither JEW OR GENTILE “in Christ.” What they have in common is merely the same relationship with God by the covenant of grace implemented from temple in heaven on mount Zion and citizens of the New Jerusalem and thus becoming children from above not through law from beneath.

In regard to their ethnic conditions on earth the Jewish promised child becomes a SPIRITUAL JEW and is a seed of promise of SPIRITUAL NATIONAL ISRAEL as by promise to Abraham, whereas, the gentile promised child is a seed of promise from the NATIONS as by promise to Abraham.

 

[Dr. Walter]

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?

Here are the problems that SBG has in trying to make the first "them" in this passage refer to National Israel while making the second "them" in this passage refer to "remnant" Israel.
SBG's interpretation has something else received other than that which is cast away and something else brought to life other than that which was dead.

1. However, Paul's argument is that the grandeur of it all is that which was cast away shall be what is recieved and what was dead is what shall be brought to life and later what was cut off is what shall be grafted in "again."

2. The receiving and bringing to life happens in the FUTURE as Paul's uses the future tense "shall" and the only FUTURE time given in the context is in verse 25. This casting away, cutting off, deadness is present but temporary "until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. THEN "all Israel" shall be saved - v. 26.

3. If SBG includes the elect remnant in that which is cast away then he is teaching the elect have been cast away, cut off and dead not merely one of these descriptions but all of them.

However, my interpretation perfectly harmonizes without once casting away or cutting off to deadness any of God's elect at any time.

My interpretation of "them" is NATIONAL ISRAEL AS A WHOLE in its present condition versus its future condition.

Presently, National Israel as a whole consists of Christ rejecting Jews who are being cast away, cut off to deadness and will continue to be UNTIL at a precise time in the FUTURE when NATIONAL ISRAEL AS A WHOLE will consist of the elect who will be received, grafted back in again and made alive from the dead.

 

[Dr. Walter]

When Does Christ take away the Sins of Israel?​

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.
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.

SBG and other A-millennialist who interpret Romans 9-11 believe that "Israel" in verse 26 refers to the total elect in all ages consisting of Jews and Gentiles.

However, that idea is IMPOSSIBLE for several contextual reasons! It can be easily exposed as error by simply asking a very simple question "WHEN" does Christ "take away their sins"???

The immediate context answers this question with precision time details.

1. God takes away their sins only AFTER God "shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob" - verse 27 - God does not remove sin from the unrepentant.

2. God "shall turn away the ungodliness from Jacob" when their Deliverer "shall come out of Zion" - v. 26 - can't refer to His first coming as Paul uses the future tense from his day "shall". Can't refer to A.D. 70 because that was due to their "ungodliness" rather than "taking away the ungodliness of Jacob." It can only refer to the Second Advent yet to come.

3. The Deliver "shall come out of Zion" AFTER "the fullness of the Gentiles come in" - v. 25. Note the words "come in"!! Come in to what? Paul has just been discussing why the Nation of Israel as a whole has been broken off in order to bring salvation to the Gentiles and call in the promised children among the gentiles. Paul immediately after this statement reaffirms that is his meaning in verse 28 as he tells gentile believers that the Nation of Israel as a whole are PRESENTLY "enemies of the gospel FOR YOUR SAKES" but still are "elect" in view of what will happen when the Deliverer comes out of Zion.

Hence, Romans 11:25-28 cannot possibly include Gentile elect in the term "Israel" in verse 26 because the gentile elect must first "come in" before the deliverer comes out of Zion and it is only AFTER the Deliverer comes out of Zion that Israel shall be DELIVERED by the DELIVERER who at that time turns the ungodliness from Jacob and takes away their sins.

This cannot be done PRESENTLY because verse 28 explicitly states that PRESENTLY they are "enemies of the gospel FOR YOUR SAKES" that is for the elect Gentile sakes who are still being called "in" by God and "all Israel shall be saved" only AFTER "the fullness" of the Gentiles be come in! Therefore PRESENTLY they are still "enemies of the gospel" and thus God has not delivered them from their "ungodliness" and has not taken away their sins and won't until the Deliverer comes out of Zion!

Why do you thinks Jesus is called the "deliverer" in verse 26???? It is because at that time "all Israel shall be saved" or delivered by Christ! How will they be delivered? He will "turn the ungodliness from Jacob" at His second advent. He will take away their sins at His second advent:

Rev. 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Zech. 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn....13:1 ¶ In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness.

There can be no mistake that Romans 11:25-28 is a YET FUTURE point of salvation of the nation of Israel as a whole AT the Second Advent of Christ. Hence, "all Israel" in Romans 11:26 cannot include Gentile elect nor does it include "remnant" of Israel that has been and is being saved in every generation while God is calling out the Gentile elect.

 

[savedbymercy]

dw

When Does Christ take away the Sins of Israel?

When He went to the Cross Jn 1:29

29The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

John was a ethnic jew and knew something of the Nation of Israel, what you think ?

 

[Dr. Walter]

dw



When He went to the Cross Jn 1:29

29The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

John was a ethnic jew and knew something of the Nation of Israel, what you think ?

You are just arguing to argue! The immediate context purposely uses the time word "when" in Romans 11:28 that flatly denies your attempt to READ Jn. 1:29 INTO Romans 11:25-28!

You don't care about God's Word or what it teaches in truth. What you care about is doing anything and everything you can possibly do to defend your willful ignorance of God's Word.

There is a big difference between what happed in the PAST at Calvary compared to the repeated use of the FUTURE TENSE "shall" in Romans 11:25-28 which obvioulsy was written long after the fulfillment of John 1:29.

Why not attempt for the first time to deal honestly with the context, with actual language the Holy Spirit chose to place in those texts?? Try a little honesty!

 

[savedbymercy]

dw

You are just arguing to argue!

Listen to you, you are denying the finished work of Christ and its accomplishments. Jn 1:29 should quiet you, and make you reconsider your error, a very serious one at that !

 

[Dr. Walter]

dw



Listen to you, you are denying the finished work of Christ and its accomplishments. Jn 1:29 should quiet you, and make you reconsider your error, a very serious one at that !

Your responses are so stupid and unbeleivable it is difficult even to continue any kind or rational and reasonable discussion with you!

Anyone who has two scents of common sense knows you cannot lift John 1:29 out of its context and then stuff it into Romans 11:25-27 when Paul is speaking of something in the FUTURE from his time of writing and John 1:29 is a fulfilled prophecy at the cross in the PAST from Paul's perspective!

However, this is your mode of operation, and it is EVERY HERETIC's mode of operation to pit scripture against scripture, to lift scripture out of one context and force it into another context, to jump out of a context and jump into another context in their attempts to pervert and strangle the Word of God.

You don't seem to have any amount of common sense because it does no good to reason with you about common sense obvious things. You can't even figure out that the cross is a past completed fulfillment when Paul wrote the letter of Romans and in the context we are debating he is talking about something YET FUTURE from the time he is writing and repeatedly uses the FUTURE tense to describe a FUTURE event when Christ comes out of Zion to turn the ungodliness of Jacob. To anyone who has two grains of common sense that means it has not yet occurred whereas John 1:29 at the cross has occurred.

However, you don't seem to have any common sense or any training in the proper use of principles of interpretation which are nothing more than common sense principles!

 

[Dr. Walter]

When Does Christ take away the Sins of Israel?​

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, [U]until[/U] the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
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.

I have emphasized the term "shall" above because SBG seems incapable of reading simple English and seeing it. He vainly imagines that Paul is talking about a PAST tense event at the cross (Jn. 1:29) rather than something yet FUTURE and therefore yet UNFULFILLED!

SBG and other A-millennialist who interpret Romans 9-11 believe that "Israel" in verse 26 refers to the total elect in all ages consisting of Jews and Gentiles.

However, that idea is IMPOSSIBLE for several contextual reasons! It can be easily exposed as error by simply asking a very simple question "WHEN" does Christ "take away their sins"???

The immediate context answers this question with precision time details.

1. God takes away their sins only AFTER God "shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob" - verse 27 - God does not remove sin from the unrepentant.

2. God "shall turn away the ungodliness from Jacob" when their Deliverer "shall come out of Zion" - v. 26 - can't refer to His first coming as Paul uses the future tense from his day "shall". Can't refer to A.D. 70 because that was due to their "ungodliness" rather than "taking away the ungodliness of Jacob." It can only refer to the Second Advent yet to come.

3. The Deliver "shall come out of Zion" AFTER "the fullness of the Gentiles come in" - v. 25. Note the words "come in"!! Come in to what? Paul has just been discussing why the Nation of Israel as a whole has been broken off in order to bring salvation to the Gentiles and call in the promised children among the gentiles. Paul immediately after this statement reaffirms that is his meaning in verse 28 as he tells gentile believers that the Nation of Israel as a whole are PRESENTLY "enemies of the gospel FOR YOUR SAKES" but still are "elect" in view of what will happen when the Deliverer comes out of Zion.

Hence, Romans 11:25-28 cannot possibly include Gentile elect in the term "Israel" in verse 26 because the gentile elect must first "come in" before the deliverer comes out of Zion and it is only AFTER the Deliverer comes out of Zion that Israel shall be DELIVERED by the DELIVERER who at that time turns the ungodliness from Jacob and takes away their sins.

This cannot be done PRESENTLY because verse 28 explicitly states that PRESENTLY they are "enemies of the gospel FOR YOUR SAKES" that is for the elect Gentile sakes who are still being called "in" by God and "all Israel shall be saved" only AFTER "the fullness" of the Gentiles be come in! Therefore PRESENTLY they are still "enemies of the gospel" and thus God has not delivered them from their "ungodliness" and has not taken away their sins and won't until the Deliverer comes out of Zion!

Why do you thinks Jesus is called the "deliverer" in verse 26???? It is because at that time "all Israel shall be saved" or delivered by Christ! How will they be delivered? He will "turn the ungodliness from Jacob" at His second advent. He will take away their sins at His second advent:

Rev. 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Zech. 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn....13:1 ¶ In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness.

There can be no mistake that Romans 11:25-28 is a YET FUTURE point of salvation of the nation of Israel as a whole AT the Second Advent of Christ. Hence, "all Israel" in Romans 11:26 cannot include Gentile elect nor does it include "remnant" of Israel that has been and is being saved in every generation while God is calling out the Gentile elect.

I realize that SBG is incapable of understanding what I have said and incapable of dealing with my overall argument much less dealing with the specifics and I understand and expect him to do what he has done consistently in this discussion and that is to continue to IGNORE the Biblical evidence, make snippy remarks and force outside scriptures into this context to pervert what it says and what it means. I expect this because he only has a HALF truth and that is the only way you can defend a HALF truth. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------