If Amils are right and we are in the Millennium "Kingdom" now, what other verses back this up?

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To me, everything in Matthew 28:20 literally means everything.

To you, everything can mean "He was talking about the moral law specifically there, not the ceremonial and ritualistic laws."

No wonder you find it difficult to understand scripture literally.
LOL. I find it difficult to believe that someone would take all of scripture literally when it clearly is not all literal. Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 that scripture needs to be spiritually discerned by way of the Holy Spirit. If it was all literal as you believe then why would we need any help from the Holy Spirit to understand it? You act like it's no different than reading a news article.
 
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,830
1,311
sg
✟216,927.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What do you think, that Paul and James believed different things and taught different things that were contradictory? Do you not understand that they both were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what they did and neither of them taught anything that contradicted the other? It seems like you think Paul taught things which contradicted what Peter, James and John taught. Is that what you believe?

Again, the problem with your way of interpreting scripture is that you think every scripture in the NT, is about you or written to you.

Because you cannot distinguish between scripture written to the nation Israel, and scripture written to the Body of Christ (2 Timothy 2:15), you cannot accept literal interpretation and you need to do various tricks to fit everything together.

In the end, to me at least, you mess everything up.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Again, the problem with your way of interpreting scripture is that you think every scripture in the NT, is about you or written to you.
No, that is not true at all. I'm really getting tired of your false accusations. Do you do it on purpose or is it just out of ignorance?

Because you cannot distinguish between scripture written to the nation Israel, and scripture written to the Body of Christ (2 Timothy 2:15), you cannot accept literal interpretation and you need to do various tricks to fit everything together.

In the end, to me at least, you mess everything up.
And here's another false accusation. I interpret scripture literally when it's literal and I don't when it's not. You're giving the false impression that I don't interpret any of it literally. It's no wonder that you have to resort to making false accusations about me. It's all you have.
 
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,830
1,311
sg
✟216,927.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, that is not true at all. I'm really getting tired of your false accusations. Do you do it on purpose or is it just out of ignorance?

And here's another false accusation. I interpret scripture literally when it's literal and I don't when it's not. You're giving the false impression that I don't interpret any of it literally. It's no wonder that you have to resort to making false accusations about me. It's all you have.

Another term where we have different definition. I am not accusing you of anything at all.

People make all kinds of comments about me, I don’t go around claiming they are making false accusations
 
Upvote 0

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
2,218
449
Pacific NW, USA
✟104,370.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
But aren't those who are not faithful to God also biological heirs of Abraham? Sure, they are. So, you don't seem to be taking that into account. Paul was differentiating between the Israel of which people are part of simply by being physical descendants and the Israel of which people are part because of being children of God and children of the promise.

I was answering that point, and you seem to have missed it? I said that for the sake of argument one could say that two categories of "Israel" are created when we say that one group of Israelis are of faith whereas the other group of Israelis are not of faith.

Yes, they are both descended from Abraham. But the language of Scripture does not in this way determine that there are 2 Israels--only 1 Israel with one part of the group proving faith and the other group not.

No. The promise has to do with spiritual children who have faith like Abraham as Paul wrote about in other places like Galatians 3:26-29.

Yes, the children of faith are the "spiritual children," or "true Israel."

But Romans 9:6-8 says "Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children" and "it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children". Yet, you are making it as though being a biological heir has something to do with it even though it seems clear to me that Paul said it doesn't have anything to do with it in terms of being a child of Abraham (child of God, child of the promise).

I don't think Paul said biology has nothing to do with it--just that biology alone is insufficient. Pedigree of race does not matter in regard to proving one's self to be a child of faith. But pedigree of race does matter in terms of God's faithfulness to His promise to Abraham to give him a biological heir!

You denied that there are 2 Israels and then you proceeded to reference "the nation of Israel" in contrast to the "Israel that God promised Abraham". Isn't that 2 different Israels? In other words, the nation of Israel, which are a majority unbelievers, are not the Israel of faithful people that God promised Abraham, right?

Read my previous post. I explained that, and again here. Yes, 2 categories of Israel are created when we organize them into believers and unbelievers. But it is a single nation. The nation God promised Abraham will cast off those who choose not to have faith. They will cease to belong to Israel even though they truly belong to Israel.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,084.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The term "spiritual Israel" actually comes from your own imagination.

I don't recall any such term in scripture, but feel free to show me

When i presented the following you relating all these Hebrew titles to "the body of Christ." Here was my initial enquiry:

1. The Bible says we have been grafted into 'an Israeli tree' (Romans 9-11). Is that an ethnic or spiritual tree?
2. The Bible says we who were once aliens from the "citizenship of Israel" have now been brought in through the blood of Christ to that privileged place (Ephesians 2). Is that ethnic or spiritual Israel?
3. The Bible says that Jew and Gentile alike, have now been graciously merged together into "the Israel of God" (Galatians 6:15-16). Is that ethnic or spiritual Israel?
4. The Bible says we are 'Jews' and we are "the circumcision" today (Romans 2:25-29; Philippians 3:3 and Colossians 2:11). Is that ethnic or spiritual Jews?
5. The Bible says we are "the children of Abraham" (Romans 4:11; 4:13-15; 4:16-18; 9:6-8; Galatians 3:7-9; 3:12-14; 3:16 and 3:26-29) today. Are we the ethnic or spiritual "children of Abraham"?
6. The Bible says we now reside and abide in "Jerusalem" and "Mount Zion" (Matthew 21:42-46; John 3:3; Romans 9:33; 11:26; Ephesians 1:3; Ephesians 2:4-6; Philippians 3:20; Hebrews 12:22 and 1 Peter 2:5-10). Is that natural physical earthly "Jerusalem" and "Mount Zion" or is that spiritual heavenly "Jerusalem" and "Mount Zion"?

Here was your response:

"Answer to all your questions: that is the Body of Christ."

So, has the body of Christ become ethnic Israel or spiritual Israel? They have to be one or the other. After all, you admit these relate to the NT Church.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,084.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
They will cease to belong to Israel even though they truly belong to Israel.

Obviously, you are trying to say: They will cease to belong to spiritual Israel even though they belong to ethnic Israel. But you are struggling to say that, because you would have to admit you have been wrong all along in your reasoning.
 
Upvote 0

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
2,218
449
Pacific NW, USA
✟104,370.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Obviously, you are trying to say: They will cease to belong to spiritual Israel even though they belong to ethnic Israel. But you are struggling to say that, because you would have to admit you have been wrong all along in your reasoning.

Sorry, there was a planned outage in my area last night. I'll now try to get back to your latest arguments.

I don't divided Israel into two "Israels." So no, I would speak of "spiritual Israel" and "ethnic Israel" as if they are two Israels. They are one Israel--some make the cast and some don't.
 
Upvote 0

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
2,218
449
Pacific NW, USA
✟104,370.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You have to understand that male Jews from Israel were circumcised when they were 8 days old.

So when you claim that James delegitimize circumcision, just because he made no mention of it in his letter, is subjective at best.

Yes, I admitted that circumcision as basically a "Jewish institution." James, Peter, and John had zero interest in arguing about superficial rules that no longer determined obedience to God, nor did they do any harm in the form of observing traditions.

To me, you already start with that as an axiom and you are attempting to insert that into the book of James.

To put it in another way, whatever Paul said about physical circumcision in Galatians 5, especially when you reach the 2nd verse, did James, Peter and John said the same explicitly?

No, and I went to pains to explain why. James, Peter, and John began their ministries among the Jewish People. They sought to bring the experience of Christ's life to their own people, while not beginning by prejudicing them against their message. They therefore avoided arguments over practicing traditions like circumcision and emphasized the need to experience Christ.

Paul, on the other hand, had to explain to Gentiles that Jewish traditions had been for Jews, and that any effort to try to use their customs to obtain redemption was bound to fail. Salvation comes through life in Christ. Paul, James, Peter, and John all taught that.

Once experiencing the life of Christ, it was thought the Jewish People would see that rituals of redemption were no longer needed, and that tradition was merely superficial.

If all you can say is that, "since they never talk about physical circumcision, they must be thinking the same as Paul," that is reading into scripture to me.

By emphasizing Christ as the sole basis for salvation James, Peter, and John were in effect saying the same thing as Paul, though going about it a different way. It was thought that by emphasizing the experience of Christ as preeminent, then it would follow afterward that Jews would understand the superficiality of circumcision.

Gentile converts to Christ have no concern with Jewish tradition because that tradition was never for them. In turning to Jewish tradition they would actually be looking away from Christ to experience Jewish salvation, something that had never had merit for them.

Personally James exchange with Paul in Acts 21:18-25 is very clear, to me at least, how important physical circumcision remain for Jews, but gentile believers, as he stated in vs 25 are exempted.

It's very clear to me that the agreement between James and Paul was based on compromising the Law, which meant it was now purely superficial. The agreement was designed to lessen the provocation of Christians in the presence of Jews who had not yet been converted and were concerned about antinomianism.

How much clearer must Jesus said about the importance of the Law for the house of Israel, in Matthew 5:19, before you will be convinced?

Jesus said all 613 requirements of the Law were in effect while the covenant of the Law was still in effect. But he also said it would be fulfilled in himself. You seem to have missed that part?

Matt 5.7 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
 
Upvote 0

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
2,218
449
Pacific NW, USA
✟104,370.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
But that is not what it is saying. You don't need dual circumcision to be a true Jew, it is only spiritual circumcision. The text actually says the opposite to what you are inferring. Nowhere does it say that you must be inwardly and outwardly "circumcised" as you suggest. Please re-read the text. It is not saying what you are saying.

I do believe the implication in the text is that under the OT Law Israel was to be both physically and spiritually circumcised.

The term “the circumcision” is a New Testament term which refers to the natural offspring of Abraham. It is interchangeable with the terms Israelites, Hebrews or Jews. For example, Acts 10:45 says: “they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

Yes, I agree--Paul referred to the Jewish People as "the circumcision." That's because under the covenant of Law, all Hebrew males were to be physically circumcised.

NT Scripture teaches we are “the circumcision” and confirms we are spiritual Jews (Romans 2:25-29; Philippians 3:3 and Colossians 2:11).

I understand your argument, but can't agree. It makes more sense to me that Paul is calling Christians "spiritually circumcised," but not "Jewish."

Who argued otherwise that we are of a different ethnic nationality than natural Israel? No one! That is not the issue. According to multiple NT Scripture: we are off the lineage of Abraham. The question is: is it the physical lineage or spiritual lineage. As with all these NT designations: we are off the spiritual offspring of Abraham.

Physical lineage is important to establish the distinction of nations and to identify Israel's place among these nations. But yes, spiritual lineage is critical to determine who comprise the membership of these nations. They must all have faith.

Natural designations mean nothing under the new covenant. The fact that the Holy Spirit spiritualizes all the natural old covenant Hebrew designations and relates them to the international Church of Jesus Christ speaks volumes.

Yes, OT Israel and the Law can in a sense to "spiritualized" to teach the NT Church moral and spiritual lessons. Paul says that in 1 Corinthians.

1 Cor 10.6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.

None of this meant to say the international Church is the nation of Israel, or some kind of "spiritualized Israel!"

Paul makes a clear contrast between those who are “the children of the flesh” and those who are “the children of promise.” He shows us that these are two different diverse peoples.

Two kinds of people in Israel, but not two "Israels." The children God promised Abraham were children of faith, who would produce good deeds. God did not promise an Israel to be peopled by ungodly irreligious people.

I've had to shorten this reply due to our power outage last night--I have too much to catch up on. Hopefully I've covered the gist of your concerns here?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,084.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sorry, there was a planned outage in my area last night. I'll now try to get back to your latest arguments.

I don't divided Israel into two "Israels." So no, I would speak of "spiritual Israel" and "ethnic Israel" as if they are two Israels. They are one Israel--some make the cast and some don't.

You are basically saying the same thing, only wording it more esoterically.
 
Upvote 0

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
2,218
449
Pacific NW, USA
✟104,370.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
He's not talking about "fellowship." He doesn't mention fellowship. You force that upon the text. He is talking about the "citizenship of Israel."

We are not talking about exact translations, but about what the words actually mean. You don't explain a translation by using the exact same words! ;)

A citizenship is a membership in a nation, which is in fact a "fellowship" when it concerns matters of faith! You don't think spiritual fellowship is a critical component in God's nation? The entire NT teaches the importance of spiritual unity in the international Church. The same would apply in OT Israel!

But which "citizenship of Israel"? Amils say spiritual Israel. You say natural Israel. This is where we disagree big-time.

You're arguing what you wish to prove! Your statement is predicated on the false notion "2 Israels" are being presented, and they aren't! The only Israel that God ever spoke of was the nation biologically descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And although God knew they would not all have faith, His promise was concerned only with those who proved to be faithful.

We should carefully consider what verse 16 is actually saying, as so many people misinterpret it: as many as walk according to this rule (that race is irrelevant under the New Testament), peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”

This is not telling us that there is a group of Gentile Christians that “walk according to this rule” and then there is another group of Jewish Christians that are called “the Israel of God(as some argue) who are not subject to this rule. Such an interpretation would totally undo everything the writer has just taught.

On the contrary, Paul is suggesting that when Israel--natural Israel--walked according to the rule of God, they would be blessed. If so, then those today who walk according to how Israel should walk with Christ, they also will be blessed. They do not *become Israel,* but rather, enjoy the same kinds of spiritual benefits that Israel enjoyed.

Gal 6.15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. 16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.

As regards becoming members of God's family there is no requirement to belong to the nation of Israel--all nations are now called in the NT era. The only requirements for becoming the People of God is faith, and life in Christ.

Paul is saying that life in Christ is as much a rule for Israel in the NT as the Law of Moses was required, along with circumcision, in the OT era. He was teaching that though temporary peace for Israel was available through the Law, final peace comes through life in Christ.

Paul was declaring faith as a necessary criterion for Israel's national salvation. If so, then it is incumbent upon all nations to follow the same rule. All must have faith and experience life in Christ--not rely upon the Law and physical circumcision.

Paul did *not* say, "You Gentile Christians now *become Israel* when you follow the rule of God." Rather, he footnoted his theology by grace alone with a reference to the fact Israel also cannot rely on physical circumcision and rituals of legal redemption.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,316
568
56
Mount Morris
✟124,857.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The term "spiritual Israel" actually comes from your own imagination.

I don't recall any such term in scripture, but feel free to show me
Since it is a metaphor of the heart, mind, and soul; it should be called Soul Israel.
 
Upvote 0

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
2,218
449
Pacific NW, USA
✟104,370.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The coming kingdom is endless.

What will end at the end of the Millennium will be Satan's rebellioin on the earth. He will be bound for a thousand years, and then released again. Then he'll be forever cast into the lake of fire, never more to bother God's People.

Yes, the Kingdom that Christ will bring at the end of the present age will be endless. Satan's final rebellion will not disrupt that Kingdom--he's be soundly defeated.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,084.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I do believe the implication in the text is that under the OT Law Israel was to be both physically and spiritually circumcised.

What has the OT Law have anything to do with following Christ in this new covenant period? This has absolutely no relevance to us or anyone else. Physical circumcision means nothing to God today. All that matters is spiritual circumcision. Believing Jews and Gentiles alike partake in that important requirement as spiritual Jews today. The old covenant has been abolished and has been replaced by the new eternal covenant. We have entered the New Testament era where racial status or physical circumcision means absolutely nothing to us.

Yes, I agree--Paul referred to the Jewish People as "the circumcision." That's because under the covenant of Law, all Hebrew males were to be physically circumcised.

I understand your argument, but can't agree. It makes more sense to me that Paul is calling Christians "spiritually circumcised," but not "Jewish."

This is very clear in the New Testament. That is why you cannot refute it. All you can do is disagree with it. Once again, your disagreement is with the wording of Scripture.

Throughout the New Testament, the natural ethnic title “uncircumcision” (normally used to describe a Gentile) is amazingly used to describe the unbelieving Jew. Also, the natural ethnic title “circumcision” (normally used to describe a natural Jew) is amazingly used to describe the believing Gentile. This would have been anathema to the unbelieving Jews of Paul’s day. It would have been the greatest insult to a Jew.

The Apostle declares in Romans 2:25-29: “For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? 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? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit.”

Paul reinforces his argument in Philippians 3:3, speaking of the Church generally, “For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the Spirit [Gr. pneuma], and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.”

The notable thing about Romans 2:25-29 and Philippians 3:3 is that the Holy Spirit takes common natural terms pertaining exclusively to the Jews under the old covenant and applies it to the redeemed Church of Jesus Christ – all those that have been born again of the Spirit of God (whether Jew or Gentile). Hence, a people that are by nature uncircumcised are here strangely described as “the circumcision.”

So, what does this term mean? And why is it applied to physically uncircumcised people? There is no doubt it is employed in a spiritual sense to describe a spiritual people. It is referring to spiritual Jews/Israelites. Obviously, it is not being employed in its normal literal physical sense. So, it cannot be referring to natural Jews/Israelites, because that is an issue of physical birthright. Christians do not become natural Jews upon salvation but spiritual Jews. What Paul is saying therefore is, “For we are the true Jews, which worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.”

Both Philippians 3 and Romans 2 purposely and significantly restrict the terms “the circumcision” and “Jew” to those today that are “in the spirit” or pneuma. Only those who are born again of the Spirit of God can fit the criteria. Anyway, there are (and have only ever been), two types of people on this earth, those that are (1) “in the flesh” and those who are “in the Spirit.” The Word of God makes clear: “if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” (Romans 8:9). New Testament teaching repeatedly, and powerfully, blows apart any form of Jewish nationalism.

Physical lineage is important to establish the distinction of nations and to identify Israel's place among these nations. But yes, spiritual lineage is critical to determine who comprise the membership of these nations. They must all have faith.

Yes, OT Israel and the Law can in a sense to "spiritualized" to teach the NT Church moral and spiritual lessons. Paul says that in 1 Corinthians.

1 Cor 10.6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.

None of this meant to say the international Church is the nation of Israel, or some kind of "spiritualized Israel!"

Two kinds of people in Israel, but not two "Israels." The children God promised Abraham were children of faith, who would produce good deeds. God did not promise an Israel to be peopled by ungodly irreligious people.

I've had to shorten this reply due to our power outage last night--I have too much to catch up on. Hopefully I've covered the gist of your concerns here?

1. I have showed you previously that we have been grafted into 'an Israeli tree' (Romans 9-11). Is that an ethnic or spiritual tree?
2. I have showed you previously that we who were once aliens from the "citizenship of Israel" have now been brought in through the blood of Christ to that privileged place (Ephesians 2). Is that ethnic or spiritual Israel?
3. I have showed you previously that Jew and Gentile alike, have now been graciously merged together into "the Israel of God" (Galatians 6:15-16). Is that ethnic or spiritual Israel?
4. I have showed you previously that we are 'Jews' and we are "the circumcision" today (Romans 2:25-29; Philippians 3:3 and Colossians 2:11). Is that ethnic or spiritual Jews?
5. I have showed you previously that we are "the children of Abraham" (Romans 4:11; 4:13-15; 4:16-18; 9:6-8; Galatians 3:7-9; 3:12-14; 3:16 and 3:26-29) today. Are we the ethnic or spiritual "children of Abraham"?
6. I have showed you previously that we now reside and abide in "Jerusalem" and "Mount Zion" (Matthew 21:42-46; John 3:3; Romans 9:33; 11:26; Ephesians 1:3; Ephesians 2:4-6; Philippians 3:20; Hebrews 12:22 and 1 Peter 2:5-10). Is that natural physical earthly "Jerusalem" and "Mount Zion" or is that spiritual heavenly "Jerusalem" and "Mount Zion"?

You have to admit these are spiritual designations relating to the redeemed international Church.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: rwb
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,084.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We are not talking about exact translations, but about what the words actually mean. You don't explain a translation by using the exact same words! ;)

A citizenship is a membership in a nation, which is in fact a "fellowship" when it concerns matters of faith! You don't think spiritual fellowship is a critical component in God's nation? The entire NT teaches the importance of spiritual unity in the international Church. The same would apply in OT Israel!

Again, you are dodging the issue. You are forcing your opinions into the sacred text. You are adding onto Scripture. That is never smart. It does not say that we have come into "fellowship" in the passage it says we have become citizens of Israel. You cannot bring yourself to admit that. That is what the text says. That is what the text means. It does not need to explain the way or watertight in order to facilitate your beliefs. The one question you will not answer is which citizenship – natural ethnic Israel or spiritual Israel?

You're arguing what you wish to prove! Your statement is predicated on the false notion "2 Israels" are being presented, and they aren't! The only Israel that God ever spoke of was the nation biologically descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And although God knew they would not all have faith, His promise was concerned only with those who proved to be faithful.

OK, so we have become citizens of natural ethnic Israel? That is ludicrous, and you know it! Every argument you present here is contradicting itself. You are all over the place!

On the contrary, Paul is suggesting that when Israel--natural Israel--walked according to the rule of God, they would be blessed. If so, then those today who walk according to how Israel should walk with Christ, they also will be blessed. They do not *become Israel,* but rather, enjoy the same kinds of spiritual benefits that Israel enjoyed.

Gal 6.15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. 16 Peace and mercy to all who follow rulethis rule—to the Israel of God.

As regards becoming members of God's family there is no requirement to belong to the nation of Israel--all nations are now called in the NT era. The only requirements for becoming the People of God is faith, and life in Christ.

Paul is saying that life in Christ is as much a rule for Israel in the NT as the Law of Moses was required, along with circumcision, in the OT era. He was teaching that though temporary peace for Israel was available through the Law, final peace comes through life in Christ.

Paul was declaring faith as a necessary criterion for Israel's national salvation. If so, then it is incumbent upon all nations to follow the same rule. All must have faith and experience life in Christ--not rely upon the Law and physical circumcision.

Paul did *not* say, "You Gentile Christians now *become Israel* when you follow the rule of God." Rather, he footnoted his theology by grace alone with a reference to the fact Israel also cannot rely on physical circumcision and rituals of legal redemption.

Paul is constantly telling us in his writings in lucid terms that there is no ‘them and us’ within the body of Christ. He emphasizes how one’s Jewishness or Gentileness means absolutely nothing today “in Christ Jesus.” He actually rebukes those that try to establish distinct groupings within the body of Christ (namely Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians). Paul repeatedly instructs the New Testament believer that there should be no racial, cultural or economic division within the body. 1 Corinthians 12:25 says: “That there should be no schism in the body.”

Those that would argue that a man’s natural race carries any merit or virtue before God when it comes to salvation or that it in any way adds anything to a man’s spiritual status are severely censured by passages like Galatians 6. The reading declares, “And as many as walk according to this rule” (what rule?) – the non-racial new birth experience, – then “peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” Paul places a blessing upon all who “walk according to this rule” – all who are conformed to this standard. As Christopher W. Cowan puts: “All who have experienced the new creation in Christ will have lives that manifest conformity to it” (Context Is Everything: “The Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16). Manifestly, Paul only had one company in mind: the redeemed Church of Jesus Christ.

The verb interpreted “walk according to” here [Gr. stoicheō] means to keep in step with, to conform to or to follow. Paul uses the same word in Galatians 5:25: “If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk [Gr. stoicheō] in the Spirit.” Paul’s approval in Galatians 6:16 is placed upon all those who live their lives in strict conformity with the rule/standard he has just proclaimed.

This is the clearest and most straightforward way to interpret this passage. Objective commentators agree.

James Burton Coffman remarks: “It is surprising that any could misunderstand this, as if Paul were, in any manner, invoking a blessing upon racial Jews. ‘Israel of God’, in the true sense, with Paul, was never racial Israel, but the spiritual Israel … This meaning of ‘spiritual Israel’, of course, included all of every race, including Jews, who accepted Christ.

John Wesley agrees: “‘Peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel, that is, the Church, of God. Which consists of all those, and those only, of every nation and kindred, who walk by this rule.” John Calvin writes: “I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, according to this meaning, - When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God.”

The Bible makes clear, only the second birth can create “a new creature” – nothing else. That is why Paul commences by saying, in Galatians 6:16, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature” (Galatians 6:15). Those who subject themselves to this divine decree (namely, giving their life to Christ), will, irrespective of race, experience the peace of God and the mercy of heaven.

The New Testament is constantly reminding us that we are saved by grace and not by race; and that when we are saved we become one unique spiritual race. The Church in fact is a spiritual nation with it passport stamped in heaven.

John Gill comments: “‘and upon the Israel of God’; which is a further description of the persons, for whom he prays for these blessings; and is not to be understood by way of distinction from them, but as an amplification of their character; and as pointing out the Israel, by way of emphasis, the Israel, or Israelites indeed, the spiritual Israel, as distinct from Israel according to the flesh; see (1 Corinthians 10:18). The ‘Israel of God’, or as the Arabic version reads it, ‘Israel the propriety of God’, which he has a right unto, and a claim upon; who are chosen by him, Israel his elect; who are redeemed by him, out of every kindred, tongue, people, and nation; who are called by his grace, and are styled Israel his called; who are justified in his Son.”

We should carefully consider what verse 16 is actually saying, as so many people misinterpret it: “as many as walk according to this rule (namely not looking to any hope or advantage in your natural birth but rather in a spiritual new birth), peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”

This is not telling us that there is a group of Gentile Christians that “walk according to this rule” and then there is another group of Jewish Christians that are called “the Israel of God” (as you argue). Such an interpretation would totally undo everything the writer has just taught. It would butcher the text. The “as many as walk according to this rule” are all believers. Paul message is crystal clear: there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile today. Favor with God does not come through natural birth. That only comes through the new birth. That is where we become a “new creation” in Christ. That makes both Jew and Gentile co-members of the same body of Christ and renders them “the Israel of God.” Both equally experience the gift of new creation life in Christ. This totally tears apart the Futurist argument in regard to 2 distinct groups here.

As Richard Hays explains, “The ‘Israel’ into which Paul's Corinthian converts were embraced was an Israel whose story had been hermeneutically reconfigured by the cross and resurrection. The result was that Jew and Gentile alike found themselves summoned by the gospel story to a sweeping re-evaluation of their identities, an imaginative paradigm shift so comprehensive that it can only be described as a ‘conversion of the imagination’” (The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel's Scriptures).

Whilst the Israel of God in the Old Testament was overwhelmingly restricted to the populace of national Israel it has widened since the cross to include all nations. Today, the Gospel is no longer limited to an interim ethnic nation, but rather to a spiritual heavenly nation found throughout the globe. That nation (the Israel of God) is called the New Testament “Church,” which transcends every land boundary, racial group, color and creed and incorporates every age. It includes Jew and Gentile, rich and poor, free and bond alike, and is God’s only structure on this earth by which man can enter into intimate union with God.

Gary M. Burge comments: “Paul’s ecclesiology finds in the Church the true heirs to Abrahams faith and, hence, the true identity of Israel … In Christ the awaited messianic community has emerged – the true Israel, the Abrahamic Israel – and to this community the Gentiles could become a part by faith … As earlier, he had attached a Christian community of Jews and Gentiles to the heritage of Abraham, now Paul is willing to attach to that same community one of Judaism’s most sacred titles for itself: Israel … No longer based on ethnic or historic claims to race or identity, Israel now is the title for the people of God who belong to Abraham no matter their ethnic make-up.”
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: keras
Upvote 0

Trivalee

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 1, 2021
706
162
55
London
✟186,050.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
You just don't get it, for some reason. I'm not contradicting myself at all! Israel was called to be a nation of God. That is beyond dispute. It's all recorded as such in the Bible.

But that didn't mean that Israel had to follow the Law God gave them. At times they followed God as a nation, and at other times the whole nation went down the wrong path. They still had the same calling, to be a nation of God. There's no contradiction in this at all!

It is the same with Germany. Germany was called to be a Christian nation. No disputing that--Germany accepted Christianity, even though in Luther's time he remarked that Germans were largely ignorant barbarians. Becoming a Christian people is a process, just as it was for Israel coming out of Egypt, going through the Wilderness, and learning to live in the Promised Land. Being called did not mean living the call.

So Germany was indeed a "Christian nation." But that doesn't mean a Christian nation cannot walk down the wrong path, such as it did during the Nazi regime. They compromised, they closed their eyes, and they became corrupt for the most part. Relatively few likely held to their principles.

What you *think* is a contradiction is the use of a Satanic name for Germany in conjunction with a Divine name for Germany. "Nazi Germany" doesn't fit "Christian Germany."

And in many ways it doesn't fit. And that's why I showed you God set Israel aside when they did this. God said, "You are not My People." But in reality, God still considered them called, because He would take them through a period of judgment to prepare them eventually to take their inheritance.

You have clarified it to my understanding, thank you. Yes, Germany took the wrong path by allowing a psychopath to sell them an unrealistic view of their place on the world stage as the "master race" and, subsequently, shaped their condescending look toward the rest of humanity. I think it's a burden and a stain on their conscience since the end of WWII and they have been trying to expiate for it.

This is how I believe it will be with Germany. One day, after judgment has passed over them they will enter into their calling as a Christian nation. They've only received the call and obtained a partial, temporary inheritance. But one day I believe it will be a calling that is fulfilled and will last, just as it will be for Israel.

Are you saying they are no longer a Christian nation?
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Another term where we have different definition. I am not accusing you of anything at all.

People make all kinds of comments about me, I don’t go around claiming they are making false accusations
You said to me: "you think every scripture in the NT, is about you or written to you.". That was an accusation you made about me and it is false. That is a false accusation. Period. You can deny it all you want, but everyone can see that.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I was answering that point, and you seem to have missed it? I said that for the sake of argument one could say that two categories of "Israel" are created when we say that one group of Israelis are of faith whereas the other group of Israelis are not of faith.

Yes, they are both descended from Abraham. But the language of Scripture does not in this way determine that there are 2 Israels--only 1 Israel with one part of the group proving faith and the other group not.
How does this line up with what Paul actually said in Romans 9:6, though? I don't believe it does. He said "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.". So, he was speaking of an Israel (he didn't call it a group within Israel, he called it Israel) of which not all who are descended from the nation of Israel are part. That's 2 different Israels, not two groups within the nation of Israel.

One Israel contains both believers and unbelievers because the only requirement for being part of that Israel is to be a physical descendant of the nation of Israel. The other Israel contains only believers because Paul goes on to describe them as being the seed of Abraham, children of God and children of the promise.

Yes, the children of faith are the "spiritual children," or "true Israel."
Now you are referencing "true Israel". Is "true Israel" not different than the nation of Israel? I'm amazed that you're not willing to acknowledge that there are two Israels while at the same time you acknowledge that the children of faith are "true Israel".

I don't think Paul said biology has nothing to do with it--just that biology alone is insufficient.
Wow. I couldn't disagree more. I believe he made it clear that it had everything to do with being a child of God and child of the promise and, according to what he wrote in Galatians 3:26-29, it is all of those who have faith in Christ that are the children of God and children of the promise, whether Jew or Gentile.

Read my previous post. I explained that, and again here. Yes, 2 categories of Israel are created when we organize them into believers and unbelievers. But it is a single nation. The nation God promised Abraham will cast off those who choose not to have faith. They will cease to belong to Israel even though they truly belong to Israel.
Sorry, but I can't make any sense out of what you said here.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Trivalee

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 1, 2021
706
162
55
London
✟186,050.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Yes.
  • Ethnic believing Gentiles are grafted into the part of Israel that was not cut off.
  • Repentant believing Israel is grafted into the part of Israel that was not cut off.
What does "ethnic believing Gentiles" mean? There's no evidence in scripture that believing Gentiles are grafted into fallen/cut-off Israel. We are grafted into the root of the olive tree (Christ).

Also, "believing" Israel is NOT grafted into their lot that is cut off. Please read Romans 11 again.
 
Upvote 0