Jewish identification

[LamorakDesGalis]

Romans 9:4-5 4 Theirs [the people of Israel] is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

No, Here is what Paul said concerning the heritage of the Jews concerning the promises.

No!??? One cannot ignore that Romans 9:4-5 is Scripture, and its a direct quote of what Paul said/wrote in Romans. It specifically mentions that "theirs is...the promises" in verse 4, right between the temple worship and the patriarchs.


LDG

 

[Notrash]

No!??? One cannot ignore that Romans 9:4-5 is Scripture, and its a direct quote of what Paul said/wrote in Romans. It specifically mentions that "theirs is...the promises" in verse 4, right between the temple worship and the patriarchs.

LDG

And you cannot pull those verses from the context of why Paul is saying those words to make a doctrinal ascertion and to say what he did not mean. The old covenant was still in operation along with the temple worship. It was still standing. But as Hebrews explains, it was a faulty covenant and depended on man to keep it in order to preserve and contain the land/nation. The oportunites of that covenant ended with the desolation and ended the age of Law as ordained by God. Those people of the old covenant ushered in and confirmed the new covenant which was the Abrahamic covenant.

I can imagine Paul tearing his shirt and beating his chest each time he would think of his unbelieving bretheren according to the flesh many of whom would soon suffer destruction and death along with Jerusalem.

Paul is speaking from his heart about something very soon to happen. It was (and at that time still "IS") the poeple of the old covenant who carried the types and shadows of the temple worship, who had the examples of faith of the patriarchs....... and who even carried the lineage of Jesus. It was them who should be blessed with recieving faith in Christ. But some of them stumbled and even some would remain fallen as was preordained for them. Others yet had the opportunity to be won to Christ through the testimony of the grace of God manifest in the 'gentiles' and through the jealousy it would create.

As he continues in Chapter 9, some of his bretheren pursue righteousness by the covenant of the law, and did not find it and stumbled at that stumbling stone (Christ). Paul also sought righteousness by pious obedience to the law even to the point of persecuting Christians and Christ teaching others to do the same. No wonder he would have wished to be 'cut off' for his people for he had been one of them and had led some of the astray.

Those who sought righteousness based on keeping the ordinances apart from faith in Christ or due to their lineage where destined for destruction just as Sodom/Gomorrah.

In The Rapture Plot, This is the point that MacPherson makes about Kelly, Darby and Irvings new style of Bible reading and study in that they taught a way of reading and studying the bible that was apart from Contextual and Historical parameters.

 

[RND]

Very nice dissertation! Short, to the point and very well said. Brevity is the mark of true genius!

And you cannot pull those verses from the context of why Paul is saying those words to make a doctrinal ascertion and to say what he did not mean. The old covenant was still in operation along with the temple worship. It was still standing. But as Hebrews explains, it was a faulty covenant and depended on man to keep it in order to preserve and contain the land/nation. The oportunites of that covenant ended with the desolation and ended the age of Law as ordained by God. Those people of the old covenant ushered in and confirmed the new covenant which was the Abrahamic covenant.

I can imagine Paul tearing his shirt and beating his chest each time he would think of his unbelieving bretheren according to the flesh many of whom would soon suffer destruction and death along with Jerusalem.

Paul is speaking from his heart about something very soon to happen. It was (and at that time still "IS") the poeple of the old covenant who carried the types and shadows of the temple worship, who had the examples of faith of the patriarchs....... and who even carried the lineage of Jesus. It was them who should be blessed with recieving faith in Christ. But some of them stumbled and even some would remain fallen as was preordained for them. Others yet had the opportunity to be won to Christ through the testimony of the grace of God manifest in the 'gentiles' and through the jealousy it would create.

As he continues in Chapter 9, some of his bretheren pursue righteousness by the covenant of the law, and did not find it and stumbled at that stumbling stone (Christ). Paul also sought righteousness by pious obedience to the law even to the point of persecuting Christians and Christ teaching others to do the same. No wonder he would have wished to be 'cut off' for his people for he had been one of them and had led some of the astray.

Those who sought righteousness based on keeping the ordinances apart from faith in Christ or due to their lineage where destined for destruction just as Sodom/Gomorrah.

In The Rapture Plot, This is the point that MacPherson makes about Kelly, Darby and Irvings new style of Bible reading and study in that they taught a way of reading and studying the bible that was apart from Contextual and Historical parameters.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

And you cannot pull those verses from the context of why Paul is saying those words to make a doctrinal ascertion and to say what he did not mean.

I've already shown the context of what Paul was saying in the first half of Romans 9, but neither you or RND have even addressed those verses. So don't go accusing me of taking something out of context when you (and RND) have completely ignored what has already been said.

And again, its not me who is denying Romans 9:4-5 where Paul said "theirs is the promises" - which obviously refers to the Jews.

The old covenant was still in operation along with the temple worship. It was still standing. But as Hebrews explains, it was a faulty covenant and depended on man to keep it in order to preserve and contain the land/nation. The oportunites of that covenant ended with the desolation and ended the age of Law as ordained by God.

The old covenant - Mosaic covenant - wasn't the only covenant cut with the Jews.

Before the Mosaic covenant was the Abrahamic covenant. And after the Mosaic covenant was the Davidic covenant.

Its clear from Scripture that all three were in effect. Here is Paul's remarks on two of the three:
Galatians 3:17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

Those people of the old covenant ushered in and confirmed the new covenant which was the Abrahamic covenant.

No, the new covenant and the Abrahamic covenant are clearly distinctive covenants. In Gal 3:17 Paul remarked that the Abrahamic covenant was not "set aside" when the Mosaic covenant went into effect. New covenant passages are clear that the new covenant would replace the old Mosaic covenant.

I can imagine Paul tearing his shirt and beating his chest each time he would think of his unbelieving bretheren according to the flesh many of whom would soon suffer destruction and death along with Jerusalem.

Yes, that is in line with his statements in Romans 9:2-3. Paul also revealed in Romans 11:25 the mystery that "Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in."

Paul is speaking from his heart about something very soon to happen. It was (and at that time still "IS") the poeple of the old covenant who carried the types and shadows of the temple worship, who had the examples of faith of the patriarchs....... and who even carried the lineage of Jesus. It was them who should be blessed with recieving faith in Christ. But some of them stumbled and even some would remain fallen as was preordained for them. Others yet had the opportunity to be won to Christ through the testimony of the grace of God manifest in the 'gentiles' and through the jealousy it would create.

Neither the Jews or history ceased in 70 AD. Paul said that the Jews were "partially hardened" - and he denied they were fallen permanently. The Jews will return to Christ - en masse - shortly before Christ returns to this earth. This is believed by not just dispensationalists, but also a number of postmils as well.

Also the period referred to as the "full number of the Gentiles" is still ongoing, as its evident that the church is still made up of predominately Gentile believers.

As he continues in Chapter 9, some of his bretheren pursue righteousness by the covenant of the law, and did not find it and stumbled at that stumbling stone (Christ). Paul also sought righteousness by pious obedience to the law even to the point of persecuting Christians and Christ teaching others to do the same. No wonder he would have wished to be 'cut off' for his people for he had been one of them and had led some of the astray.

Those who sought righteousness based on keeping the ordinances apart from faith in Christ or due to their lineage where destined for destruction just as Sodom/Gomorrah.

Yes - dispensationalists certainly believe that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ...as I've often said before...

Ironically your emphasis on the dichotomy between law and faith makes you sound an awful lot like a dispensationalist.

In The Rapture Plot, This is the point that MacPherson makes about Kelly, Darby and Irvings new style of Bible reading and study in that they taught a way of reading and studying the bible that was apart from Contextual and Historical parameters.

No one really takes MacPherson seriously, the dude was way off the mark in so many areas. This link just scratches the surface with some of the problems with his book(s)...

The historical record shows that dispensationalists do listen to their critics, when that criticism is valid. George Ladd was one who had some valid criticisms, and dispensational views have changed.

But dudes like MacPherson, and Gerstner, and Keith Matheson are not only extremely inaccurate but also so obviously vitrolic and caustic that some dispensationalists actually wonder if those books are some kind of elaborate joke. Dispensational schools certainly aren't afraid to carry these books, and they are often used as examples of how certain people can so distort a point of view that its not even recognizable.


LDG

 

[RND]

I've already shown the context of what Paul was saying in the first half of Romans 9, but neither you or RND have even addressed those verses. So don't go accusing me of taking something out of context when you (and RND) have completely ignored what has already been said.

Lets take what the scripture says in total, nor just a few verses taken out of context.

Rom 9:4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; Rom 9:5 to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen. Rom 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, Rom 9:7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants; but "Through Isaac shall your descendants be named." Rom 9:8 This means that is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants.
In using the RSV we can see what Paul is saying that it IS NOT the children of the FLESH (Israelites) who are the children of God but "the children are of the promise are reckoned as descendants.

This is consistent with what Paul says in Romans 4, and that it is those that accept God as Abraham did, by faith, that are part of the same promises that Abraham received.

It can't be anymore clear that God saves all of Israel because all of Israel consists not of just children of the flesh (circumcised in the law) but those circumcised in the Spirit.

Rom 4:9 Is this blessing pronounced only upon the circumcised, or also upon the uncircumcised? We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. Rom 4:10 How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. Rom 4:11 He received circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, Rom 4:12 and likewise the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but also follow the example of the faith which our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. Rom 4:13 The promise to Abraham and his descendants, that they should inherit the world, did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. Rom 4:14 If it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.
There is a circumcision that has nothing to do with physical marks but Spiritual marks. This is consistent with all of the teachings in the scripture as to how the gentiles are saved.

Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

 

[Notrash]

I've already shown the context of what Paul was saying in the first half of Romans 9, but neither you or RND have even addressed those verses. So don't go accusing me of taking something out of context when you (and RND) have completely ignored what has already been said.

It was addressed here http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47065954&postcount=39

And again, its not me who is denying Romans 9:4-5 where Paul said "theirs is the promises" - which obviously refers to the Jews.

I do not deny that the words are there, but I disagree with the meaning that you apply to them based on the context of Pauls Greif and the rest of the context of Rom 9-11, Rom 4 and Gal 3. The old conditional covenant and it's promises is abolished. I Cor 3 and Heb.

The old covenant - Mosaic covenant - wasn't the only covenant cut with the Jews.
Before the Mosaic covenant was the Abrahamic covenant. And after the Mosaic covenant was the Davidic covenant.

The Abrahamic, Davidic (and Mosaic) covenant are fulfilled in the New and Eternal Covenant of the Creator which as Paul says was 'The Gospel" preached to Abraham beforehand in Gal 3:8. Furthermore, the Abrahamic covenant was not made with Abraham 'the jew', but with Abraham the Hebrew or wanderer. I believe that covenant was a descendant of the promise made to Eve in Gen 3:15. Both of those covenants pointed towards Christ as the fulfillment.

Its clear from Scripture that all three were in effect. Here is Paul's remarks on two of the three:
Galatians 3:17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

That's exactly right, the law which was the mosaic (old)covenant described in Deut 11-28 was imperfect, inferior and has been abolished. All Paul was saying was that the law (conditional and faulty covenant) did not set aside the Abrahamic covenant when Abraham was told that 'all nations will be blessed through you even though it came after that covenant.

No, the new covenant and the Abrahamic covenant are clearly distinctive covenants. In Gal 3:17 Paul remarked that the Abrahamic covenant was not "set aside" when the Mosaic covenant went into effect. New covenant passages are clear that the new covenant would replace the old Mosaic covenant.

The Abrahamic covenant was continued to be developed and added to with the prophecies of the Davidic and New Covenant all of which being fullfilled through the ministry and actions of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Christ is the 'end of the law'. The 'Old Covenant" was given as a conditonal covenant to a people who would carry the types and figures of the salvation that was brought in Christ and established in the NEW Covenant. The old covenant was never intended to be accomplished but was a test that was failed in human strenght, just as the test in the Garden was failed.

Yes, that is in line with his statements in Romans 9:2-3. Paul also revealed in Romans 11:25 the mystery that "Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in."

Again, you are using a version that translates spiritual fullness as "full number" when the word is exactly the same as used in verse 12 as fullness. It shows that some modern translations translate to itching ears.
Your previous lack of acknowledgement of this error also shows your unwillingness to accept or research this aspect of the problem. You continue to proclaim that this verse means "full number' when it does not.
Please do a word study on the greek for 'fullness' and show me how it is able to be translated as "full number". Do a lexicon search for the word 'number' and notice that it is not found in Rom 11:25.

12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!

Neither the Jews or history ceased in 70 AD. Paul said that the Jews were "partially hardened" - and he denied they were fallen permanently. The Jews will return to Christ - en masse - shortly before Christ returns to this earth. This is believed by not just dispensationalists, but also a number of postmils as well.

Even the Virtual Jewish Encyclopedia admits that Israelism of the mosaic law died with the desolation of Jerusalem. The only things that survived were Pharisaism and some sects of the Saducees. (Isaiah 59: out of that which is crushed a viper shall arise). What you claim are Jews, are really pharisaic talmudists or talmudic judaism. It is not the mosaic covenant Israeli people. The sacrificial system and the promises and opportunites of the mosaic "old" covenant has ended and been abolished. It was a type and shadow to point towards Christ and the realities of all covenants being fulfilled in Christs work and ministry. When the reality has come, the shadow and type is no longer needed.

As for partially hardened, it cannot mean half hardened, half believing as if 'sitting on the fence'; but rather is referring to part of the group that did not initially accept Christ during the first 3 1/2 yrs (or however long) that the message went first to Jerusalem. The gospel of the Creator then went to Judea to other Jews and then to the uttermost parts of the world.

Paul is saying that the remaining unbelieving group in Judea/Israel in 55-60 AD who did not believe in Christ through the testimony of the jewish disciples were not neccessarily 'cast off' and did not fall beyond repentence. Paul is saying that part of that present day (60 AD) group had been hardened so the prophecy could be fullfilled that he mentioned in 10:19 But I say, did Israel not know? First Moses says:
"I will provoke you to jealousy bythose who are not a nation, (Christians of all nations)
I will move you to anger by a foolish nation."

Notice his use of the word jealousy in Rom 11 again.
11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall?
This is the continual theme, Have they stumbled to be condemned to fall eternally?
Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.

12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! 13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what [shall] the receiving [of thembe but life from the dead? (This is still in 55-60 AD)

An association is to be made between their fullness, and "life from the dead".

Also the period referred to as the "full number of the Gentiles" is still ongoing, as its evident that the church is still made up of predominately Gentile believers.

Again, perhaps forgive me by being so blunt, but you are making a mockery of scripture by believing, promoting and using a translation of 'fullness' as full number. Unless you can show me that it should be translated that way. The word and the intent of the passage is 'fullness" and can be fullness of Grace given to believing individuals or fullness of God (individually) but it does not mean a 'full number".

As for the rest of the comments, It is not a 'gentile church'. It is a church of one faith, one lord and one baptism of all nations including many, many, many who have probable genetic heritage from Jews even of that day. There is no longer any realistic difference between a 'gentile believer' and jewish believer. The fullness of the Gentiles came in beginning with Cornelius (from the record we have). Part of Israel did not believe the testimony of the Jewish disciples even though they were of the same blood. They were hardened and set apart to be witnessed to and made jealous by those of the nations (gentiles)who had recieved fullness in Christ. No doubt, jews were made jealous by the joy and testimony of the Gentiles and yet came to Christ. Some of even the hardest and most pious of those would have been made jealous unto salvation and others probably futher angered as Rom 10:19 implies.

Yes - dispensationalists certainly believe that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ...as I've often said before...

Ironically your emphasis on the dichotomy between law and faith makes you sound an awful lot like a dispensationalist.

In a way, I am due to the temporary nature of the old covenant and it's oportunities. The present land confiscation of Rothschild through the manipulations of the Balfour declaration and the manipulated vote of the U.N. was not in obedience to the Old Covenant. They did not have the Ark of the Covenant to go before them nor did they have the levites sprinkling blood etc, etc. They claim old covenant rights to the land (as a PR move) but they did not follow the old covenant parameters in taking the land. This was a secular and tactical confiscation of land from the Palestinians and jews who were residing there. They desire that land to war on and control the vast resouces of the area and to attempt to establish humanistic world rule (even again). The Rothschilds (and pharisaic judaism of some of the zionistic sects) have manipulated sypathetic support and contributions of our tax dollars through indoctrinating the religious and bible respecting people of America (and other countries) into believing first that those who pushed into Palestine were "jews" or "Israel" (Paul says a jew is one who is circumcised of the heart) and then also telling us through the scofield bible and various other publications and authors that those who bless "the jews, i.e. Israel will be blessed. That phrase belongs to the birthright of Christian faith like Abraham as Paul says in Gal 3:8.And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed. When we look that up in the old testament, we see that is a pre-law blessing and includes the promise that those who bless you will be blessed and those who curse you will be cursed. This belongs with the Believer in Christ.

No one really takes MacPherson seriously, the dude was way off the mark in so many areas. This link just scratches the surface with some of the problems with his book(s)...

Nobody's perfect, but it would seem condecending to say that 'he' was way off in many areas. Perhaps he had some false ideas of dispensationalisms teachings, but he also hit the nail on the head in others. His insight into the early dispensational writers teachings to read and study scripture out of it's context is what I was mostly referring to and trying to show as true through comparing dispensational or contextual interpretations and study of Rom 9-11.

But dudes like MacPherson, and Gerstner, and Keith Matheson are not only extremely inaccurate but also so obviously vitrolic and caustic that some dispensationalists actually wonder if those books are some kind of elaborate joke. Dispensational schools certainly aren't afraid to carry these books, and they are often used as examples of how certain people can so distort a point of view that its not even recognizable.
LDG

"Dudes" like Macpherson, Gerstner may seem caustic perhaps because they understand the tremendous effect that it has had on Christianity and in their perspective, the tremendous wrong being done through its teaching. For some of this understanding, see http://www.endtimesmadness.com/about.html and it's sister site, http://www.americanvision.org

 

[Jerrysch]

Regarding the "choseness" of the Jew, what are the identifying and distinguishing characteristics whereby one can recognize such chosen individuals?

To further elucidate: Romans 11:26 tells us that all Israel will be saved. What must an individual do or be to qualify for inclusion within Israel?

If no one is able to provide an answer, could you recommend a forum or site which might be able to?

To be considered son or daughter one must be a descendant of Israel . We see Him first referred to in Gen32: 27So he said to him, "What is your name?" And he said, "Jacob."
28 He said, "Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed."

 

[Jerrysch]

Israel is Christ's Holy Church. To become part of the Church, one must be baptized into Christ.

Where does Scripture indicate what you have suggested?

 

[Jerrysch]

Thanks for the response, although it doesn't sound very dispensational. Is there, or will there be, then, any New Testament scriptural significance to the middle eastern nation-state of Israel?

Yes, if you read the Book of Revelation and understand its references to Israel (and Jerusalem) as being literal ones, you will discover quite a bit of significance.

 

[RND]

If I may....

Where does Scripture indicate what you have suggested?

Where doesn't scripture suggest this?

Galatians 3, Romans 2 & 4, Ephesians 2, John 3:16, 1 Peter 2......

2Cr 1:20 For all the promises of God in him [are] yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

 

[Notrash]

Very nice dissertation! Short, to the point and very well said. Brevity is the mark of true genius!

I apreciate your comments also. I am not always so brief and it is good to be reminded to keep things concise.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Lets take what the scripture says in total, nor just a few verses taken out of context.

Rom 9:4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; Rom 9:5 to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen. Rom 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, Rom 9:7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants; but "Through Isaac shall your descendants be named." Rom 9:8 This means that is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants.
In using the RSV we can see what Paul is saying that it IS NOT the children of the FLESH (Israelites) who are the children of God but "the children are of the promise are reckoned as descendants.

Its just so ironic that you complain about context - but then you just simply ignored key components in the entire passage!

First you cannot deny the fact that Isaac is actually a physical descendant of Abraham:

Rom 9:7-8 - and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants; but "Through Isaac shall your descendants be named."
This means that is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants.

The physical children of Abraham include Ishmael, Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, Shuah and Isaac. Paul's point is that only one of them was chosen.

Romans 9:8-13 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants. 9 For this is what the promise said, "About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son."

Second, the passage isn't talking about faith - Paul was pointing out that the children of the promise - Isaac and Jacob, both physical descendants of Ahabram - were both chosen by God before they were born.

You can't ignore the key names in this passage:
"Not all are children of Abraham...Through Isaac shall your descendants be named...Sarah shall have a son...when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac...Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

And as I said in post #38, if you really think Paul was attempting to say that physical blood doesn't make one an Israelite, its very odd for Paul to be talking all about their descendants this way.

Its clear from the context that the "children of the flesh" is referring to Abraham's physical children, not "Israel." Paul's progression is from Abraham's children to one specific Isaac, and then from Isaac's children to one specific Jacob. From there Paul defends God's choice in Rom 9:14ff.

This is consistent with what Paul says in Romans 4, and that it is those that accept God as Abraham did, by faith, that are part of the same promises that Abraham received.

That is what is going on in Romans 4, but as I've clearly shown above, that is not what is going on in Romans 9.

It can't be anymore clear that God saves all of Israel because all of Israel consists not of just children of the flesh (circumcised in the law) but those circumcised in the Spirit.

I'll stick with what Paul said in Rom 9-11, because Scripture never equated "all of Israel" with "all those who believe." Israel is used 70+ times in the NT, and its used to designate the Jews - the ethnic nation of Israel. This is especially true with regard to Rom 9-11.


LDG

 

[Notrash]

Sorry to jump in here, but this theme of Contextual interpretation is very key to exposing some of the differences of interpretation.

That is what is going on in Romans 4, but as I've clearly shown above, that is not what is going on in Romans 9.

This is a perfect example of not respecting the context of the themes and subjects of the letter.
Romans 9 is not seperated from Romans 4. Romans 9 is built upon the context of the information and foundations of Romans 1-8. Romans 9 is further clarified and built upon in Romans 10-15 but especially in Rom 10,11. Again, if all genetic Israel was to be saved, why is Paul so remorsefull in Rom 9:1-3? And why does he mention in 11:14,15 that he is a minister to the nations so that he might PROVOKE TO JEALOUSY his bretheren of the flesh and might save "SOME" of them. And why does he say in 11:23 that God is able to graft them in again IF they continue not in unbelief?

Children of the flesh is developed in chapter 8 and is contrasted with children of the Spirit. That is the context of the usage of children of the flesh in chapter 9. The children counted for the Promise refer to the Promise of the Spirit through righteousness by faith and the Promise of blessing given to Abraham. That the Spirit is given according to foreknowled and election of God is the point that Paul is making by using Isaac and Jacob's births as examples.
Yes, Romans 9-11 is a continuation of the themes developed in preceeding chapters. "All Israel" are all those who are elected to recieve the Promise of righteousness by faith as confirmed by the remainder of chapter 9:14-33.

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

It is not the failure to note the context of the words in particular verses, but pulling and interpreting the verses out of the topical context of the the themes of the paragraphs, chapters and especially the letter.

An example of this is:

Second, the passage isn't talking about faith - Paul was pointing out that the children of the promise - Isaac and Jacob, both physical descendants of Ahabram - were both chosen by God before they were born.

The theme of Romans is the law of righteousness by faith apart from keeping the law of moses or apart from works. Thus the whole passage is framed by that theme and the discussion in the previous chapters as evident from verses 1-3 and 14-33.

Romans 9-11 is not a eschatological passage but applies the truths of the "Righteousness" by faith in Christ as developed in the previous chapters to the then Present condition of the unbelieving Israelites and kindred of Paul.

I look forward to your word study on 'fullness' and lexiconal research of 'number' and also your further interation on Dan 7:27 in another thread.

 

[RND]

Its just so ironic that you complain about context - but then you just simply ignored key components in the entire passage!

First you cannot deny the fact that Isaac is actually a physical descendant of Abraham:

Rom 9:7-8 - and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants; but "Through Isaac shall your descendants be named."
This means that is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants.

The physical children of Abraham include Ishmael, Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, Shuah and Isaac. Paul's point is that only one of them was chosen.

But why were they chosen?

Gen 12:7
And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.
Gal 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Jesus lineage came through Issac not Ishmael, Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, or Shuah.

Romans 9:8-13 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants. 9 For this is what the promise said, "About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son."

Second, the passage isn't talking about faith - Paul was pointing out that the children of the promise - Isaac and Jacob, both physical descendants of Ahabram - were both chosen by God before they were born.

You can't ignore the key names in this passage:
"Not all are children of Abraham...Through Isaac shall your descendants be named...Sarah shall have a son...when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac...Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

That's why we have to take ALL of Romans into proper context, blending parts with the whole. Paul clearly defines who is a "child of promise" of being by faith and not of blood.

See Romans 4 and read all of it, carefully and with much prayer.

Rom 4:13¶For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Paul clearly tells us that Abraham or his seed DID NOT receive the promises of Gof by the law, but by faith. Paul tells us in verse 14 that had it been by law, being made heirs of Abraham, then it would not have been a promise.

Paul sums up everything in verse 16:

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,

And as I said in post #38, if you really think Paul was attempting to say that physical blood doesn't make one an Israelite, its very odd for Paul to be talking all about their descendants this way.

This point is reiterated in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Peter, Hebrews and many other of the epistles. It is a point made so clear, so many times, that it can only be ignored willfully.

Its clear from the context that the "children of the flesh" is referring to Abraham's physical children, not "Israel." Paul's progression is from Abraham's children to one specific Isaac, and then from Isaac's children to one specific Jacob. From there Paul defends God's choice in Rom 9:14ff.

"Children of the flesh" is common language in the NT to discuss the whole of the the Children of Israel. But assuming your point true for a second, it would completely negate what Paul said in Romans 9:8:

Rom 9:8 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.

In your argument, you would be suggesting that Isaac, which was a child of Abraham (a physical descendant), WOULD NOT BE a child of God - which on it's face would be hard to shallow considering from Isaac's loins as well sprang Israel!

That is what is going on in Romans 4, but as I've clearly shown above, that is not what is going on in Romans 9.

Nope. You would have to completely ignore what Paul is saying in Romans 4 to come to such a conclusion.

I'll stick with what Paul said in Rom 9-11, because Scripture never equated "all of Israel" with "all those who believe." Israel is used 70+ times in the NT, and its used to designate the Jews - the ethnic nation of Israel. This is especially true with regard to Rom 9-11.

Nope.

To come to that conclusion one would have to completely suspend the fact that of all the Gospel accounts on thing is unmistakable, Jesus Christ came to "fulfill" all of the promises and prophecies that the Nation of Israel couldn't.

Everything that the nation of Israel couldn't do, Jesus Christ did. That's why we become "children of the promise" by faith in Jesus Christ which is the same faith that Abraham displayed when God promised him the land. This is a common and reoccurring theme in the Bible and one that only can be ignored willfully.

Follow Paul carefully here, talking about Jesus Christ:

2 Cr 1:20 For all the promises of God in him [are] yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

All of God's promises, not some, not a few, not 3/4 but ALL of God's promises are in Him (Jesus Christ) and are yes! Thus, when one accepts by faith these promises, one becomes part of Abraham's seed.

Gal 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29
And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
If one believes in Christ, then they are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.

So what have we learned?

The promises are not by law but by faith.
The promises are in Christ, all of them.
Faith in Christ makes us Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.

 

[RND]

I apreciate your comments also. I am not always so brief and it is good to be reminded to keep things concise.

Thanks and BTW I think you are doing fine! Quite concise in my mind.

 

[RND]

I was making similar points but unfortunately, for some strange reason, I've been placed on moderator lookout.

Nice post Notrash.

Sorry to jump in here, but this theme of Contextual interpretation is very key to exposing some of the differences of interpretation.

This is a perfect example of not respecting the context of the themes and subjects of the letter.
Romans 9 is not seperated from Romans 4. Romans 9 is built upon the context of the information and foundations of Romans 1-8. Romans 9 is further clarified and built upon in Romans 10-15 but especially in Rom 10,11. Again, if all genetic Israel was to be saved, why is Paul so remorsefull in Rom 9:1-3? And why does he mention in 11:14,15 that he is a minister to the nations so that he might PROVOKE TO JEALOUSY his bretheren of the flesh and might save "SOME" of them. And why does he say in 11:23 that God is able to graft them in again IF they continue not in unbelief?

Children of the flesh is developed in chapter 8 and is contrasted with children of the Spirit. That is the context of the usage of children of the flesh in chapter 9. The children counted for the Promise refer to the Promise of the Spirit through righteousness by faith and the Promise of blessing given to Abraham. That the Spirit is given according to foreknowled and election of God is the point that Paul is making by using Isaac and Jacob's births as examples.
Yes, Romans 9-11 is a continuation of the themes developed in preceeding chapters. "All Israel" are all those who are elected to recieve the Promise of righteousness by faith as confirmed by the remainder of chapter 9:14-33.

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

It is not the failure to note the context of the words in particular verses, but pulling and interpreting the verses out of the topical context of the the themes of the paragraphs, chapters and especially the letter.

An example of this is:


The theme of Romans is the law of righteousness by faith apart from keeping the law of moses or apart from works. Thus the whole passage is framed by that theme and the discussion in the previous chapters as evident from verses 1-3 and 14-33.

Romans 9-11 is not a eschatological passage but applies the truths of the "Righteousness" by faith in Christ as developed in the previous chapters to the then Present condition of the unbelieving Israelites and kindred of Paul.

I look forward to your word study on 'fullness' and lexiconal research of 'number' and also your further interation on Dan 7:27 in another thread.

 

[Terral]

Hi RND:

I was making similar points but unfortunately, for some strange reason, I've been placed on moderator lookout.

Welcome to the party . . . I posted a reply to you early this morning on the Two Churches Thread and somebody is taking their sweet time. This is the kind of thing that sends me packing for six months or more. If someone has a problem with our work, then we have 'report' buttons for God's sake . . .

One must wonder if 'all' the posts are even finding their way to the appropriate places 'and' if the micromanaging of member content is going on. Who knows? Finding a 'level' playing field to post on Christian Topics is becoming more and more difficult all the time. I thought this place was an exception . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[RND]

Honestly Terrel, it's no big deal to me. My post was posted in a matter of five minutes. I'm quite content to go with the flow.

Hi RND:



Welcome to the party . . . I posted a reply to you early this morning on the Two Churches Thread and somebody is taking their sweet time. This is the kind of thing that sends me packing for six months or more. If someone has a problem with our work, then we have 'report' buttons for God's sake . . .

One must wonder if 'all' the posts are even finding their way to the appropriate places 'and' if the micromanaging of member content is going on. Who knows? Finding a 'level' playing field to post on Christian Topics is becoming more and more difficult all the time. I thought this place was an exception . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Terral]

Hi RND

Honestly Terrel, it's no big deal to me. My post was posted in a matter of five minutes. I'm quite content to go with the flow.

Mine was posted early this morning and the time now is pass noon. If you find any errors in my reply (if it ever posts), then kindly fix them in your reply. I do not have all day to wait around to see if my work is ever going to see the light of day on my own cotton picking thread. Even if I disagree with everything coming out of your mouth, I will stand for your right to post your views on my threads or anywhere.

Methinks it is time once again to reset my homepage.

GL,

Terral

 

[Notrash]

I was making similar points but unfortunately, for some strange reason, I've been placed on moderator lookout.

Nice post Notrash.

They say that there are bugs in the system that cause the approval of moderator message. That is the answer I've gotten from the mod.