Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

[Interplanner]

We also have to ask: if the gift of the Gospel is so wondrous that angels wish they could look upon it, what's the value of a land promise that wasn't even the promise, as far as Heb 11 was concerned? Are we just trying to find ways to devalue the Gospel?

 

[ebedmelech]

I've just read most of EbedM & BW #205 to #226 and have this observation. The thing that BW is protecting is not physical descent, it's the land. You kind of wouldn't want to 'protect' physical descent in Rom 9 because the "3 strikes" rule (there are 3 exceptions right off). But what matters to BW is the land promise.

I have to say, this is the weakest place to protect the land promise from. It is also BW's favorite dismissive target, the error of circular reasoning. The most you can 'protect' from Rom 9-11 about ancient promises is that all of those in Israel who believe that a Redeemer would come to Zion and take away the debt of sins would be saved from those sins. (I'm saying this in a way to allow for this Israel--the one in 11:26--to be the ethnos, although it is not.) Given the climate, the times, the things going on in Judea, I don't think Paul thought any thing from the land would be saved, and there seemed to be reports already that it was totalled. (Has anyone else ever noticed that while the Thess thought they heard the day of the Lord had already happened, Paul, for his part, already reports that the complete wrath of God had come on Israel? No internet back then.)

Rom 9-11 explains why more Jews don't believe in a sort of automatic way, given their heritage and background. Paul says it is a problem right to the end of time by using the expression 'kai houtos' in 11:26. "in this manner": with this partial unbelief continuing on in the ethnos Israel (BW says 2/3 won't believe all the pressure of the wrath of God in the GT anyway), the real Israel will always believe the debt of their sins was handled by the Redeemer who came, historically, (past tense) to Zion.

Actually Biblewriter's critical error is he tries to make the issue God's choice of Isaac over all of Abraham's children, when the apostles argument surrounds the people "Israel" being in unbelief.

The case is as simple as this:

*God chose Isaac over Ishmael (Romans 9:7)

*Isaac has two sons, Jacob and Esau...BEFORE either were born, God chose Jacob over Esau (Romans 9:9-13)

*Jacob has 12 sons, and God changes his name to "Israel"...and from Israel and his 12 sons, the nation of Israel is born.

This entire choosing of God, is for HIS PURPOSE! God is making His choice with the line of which Christ would come in mind.

It's about spiritual descendants of Abraham who have "the faith of Abraham" through Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. They too become descendants of Abraham. That was clearly stated back in Romans 4:13-25!

Biblewriter is erroneously believing it's about the choice of Isaac, when really it's about the choice of Jacob, who is Israel and the fact that it's about spiritual descendants rather than physical descendants.

This is a key flaw of the whole dispensational idea that God has "two peoples"!

Throughout time God has only had one people...and that is ALL who are of the faith of Abraham!

 

[shturt678s]

Actually Biblewriter's critical error is he tries to make the issue God's choice of Isaac over all of Abraham's children, when the apostles argument surrounds the people "Israel" being in unbelief.

The case is as simple as this:

*God chose Isaac over Ishmael (Romans 9:7)

*Isaac has two sons, Jacob and Esau...BEFORE either were born, God chose Jacob over Esau (Romans 9:9-13)

*Jacob has 12 sons, and God changes his name to "Israel"...and from Israel and his 12 sons, the nation of Israel is born.

This entire choosing of God, is for HIS PURPOSE! God is making His choice with the line of which Christ would come in mind.

It's about spiritual descendants of Abraham who have "the faith of Abraham" through Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. They too become descendants of Abraham. That was clearly stated back in Romans 4:13-25!

Biblewriter is erroneously believing it's about the choice of Isaac, when really it's about the choice of Jacob, who is Israel and the fact that it's about spiritual descendants rather than physical descendants.

This is a key flaw of the whole dispensational idea that God has "two peoples"!

Throughout time God has only had one people...and that is ALL who are of the faith of Abraham!

Overall I

 

[precepts]

You said that Daniel 7 leads up to the perpetrator of the Abomination of Desolation.

I said the greek kings are chronicled up to the perpetrator of the abomination of desolation. I never said it was mentioned in Dan 7.

"Revelation's interpretation" is the interpretation of the Holy Spirit.

I gave conclusive proof that your scenario only approximately matches the prophecy. That is not hoe Bible prophecy works. When a prophecy of God is fulfilled, every detail pf the prophecy is precisely fulfilled, exactly as it was given by God. In the case of Daniel 11:5-32, the fulfillment was so precisely acc\curate that unbelievers claim its very accuracy proves it could not have been written before the events took place.

Try re reading what I've been saying; your amnesia is acting up again. I have mentioned numerous facts from Daniel related to Revelation and the Roman kings/horn's chronologies than you want to address.

Revelation 17:13 says that "These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast." (Revelation 17:13)

There is no way to even pretend that the ten successive emperors had "one mind," or that they "gave" their power to the eleventh. Thereare just too many details that just don't fit. The only way to make them fit is to start with the assumption that these prophecies are about this time, and just ignore the details that don't fit.

It's as if you haven't read anything I've said. Dan 7's 4th beast is Revelation's 1st beast, which is Rome. Dan 7's 4th beast's 11th horn that plucks up 3 of the 10 horns is the 5th beast kingdom in Daniel with the feet and toes of iron and clay, and also the 2nd beast in Revelation who is the false prophet. This is why this 11th horn is given to the flame in Dan 7:11. There's no circular knowledge or disproving of approximation involve with these facts. It's these facts that. I keep explaining. proves Rome's 1st 10 kings/emperors to be Dan 7's 4th beast's 10 horns and the 10 horns on Revelation's 1st beast with the 7 heads. These are the facts you continue to ignore. And since it's proven Dan 7's 11th horn is the false prophet by his trip to the lake of fire in Dan 7:11, the Beast/the Antichrist has to be the 8th horn in Dan 7, making the 10 horns in Dan 7, the 7 kings on the 7 heads because the 8th king that's with them is the Beast. There are two views of the beginning of Christ's possession of the heavenly kingdom, Dan 7:8-27 and Rev 4-19.

No, the simple wordings of scripture are the facts that you are refusing to pay any attention to.

Not worth answering because of your selective amnesia when it comes to the whole truth.

 

[precepts]

You specifically excepted the four kings of "the year of the four emperors" from your calculations, because they did not fit.

So why did I bring it up?

I ignore facts that approximately match the prophecies because, and specifically because facts that only approximately match the prophecies are not fulfillments of the prophecies. If the event in question does not completely match the prophecy, the prophecy has not been fulfilled.

That's the selective amnesia talking.

 

[precepts]

Because both refer to a time in the future when ten kings will voluntarily unite giving their power to "the beast," who will be the end tme ruler of the roman empire.

It's ironic that you assume it has to future, creating your unfulfilled fantasy. I stress again, if there where more Beast kingdoms they would of been mentioned by Daniel. There's no gaps between the beast kingdoms nor between the succession of the kings chronicled and prophesied about. Dan 7:11's 11th horn is not a kingdom, but the False prophet in Rev 19:20. There's nowhere in scripture supporting a future event that you're describing other than the same early church fathers that are liars. You would rather believe them than the see the simple facts between Daniel, Revelation, and the 2nd temple's destruction and advent of the Antichrist as prophesied by Christ to soon come after him. The point.

Your "approximate" fulfillments of prophecy simply do nt fit the prophecies, and there is no way to make them fit.

You haven't proven that yet, nor will denying the facts because history numbers the kings differently than they need to be scripturally. That excuse doesn't hold up. Rome is the final and last beast kingdom that reigns until the end of the world. There's no gaps between Daniel's 4 to 5 beast kingdoms or their successions of kings. I proved this showing God prophecy about each beast's line of kings/horns. You're the one wanting to be forced to accept the facts knowing no can force anyone to do anything, but the facts are there.

Besides all these facts, Ebedmelech has already provided the facts that Israel is all who believe on Christ. The old Israel is no more in prophecy or in existance in God's eyes. That's your stumbling block. Your fitting the square peg into the round whole.

But in addition to these failures, you entire system of interpretation simply ignores the vast bulk of Bible prophecy, such as the statement in Ezekiel 36 that absolutely all of "the house of Israel" would once again inhabit "the land of Israel," with its "Mountains, hills, rivers, and valleys." Or the precise definition of the future borders of the land, as spelled out in detail in Ezekiel 47. Or the precise description of the path that Isaiah 10 says that "the Assyrian" will follow as he attacks Jerusalem.

Your problem is that you like the most of denominational christianity haven't discovered the meaning behind those verses. Everything from Israel's Babylon captivity have been doubled. Shalem is said to of recieved double for her sins, the heavenly temple is attacked by the beast as the earthly one was by Nebuchadnezzar, followed by a second earthly and heavenly attack by the Greek lil horn. Gog of Magog. Until you realize all the prophecies in the OT that speaks of Israel's return pertained not only to their physical return to the earthly promise land, but also to the heavenly promise land when Christ conquers death, they will seem unfulfiled. God speaks in parables. Any OT verses that you think aren't fulfilled I can prove they have and their double meaning interpretation if you provide them.

 

[precepts]

Sorry your words reflect this, ie, I thought we were both seeking the Kingdom first?

Anyway, Rev.13:1 the "10 horns" bearing the "10 diadems" can only be unveiled by understanding the symbolical numbers "7" & "10."

Old Jack

You didn't answer the question, So why does Rev's 1st beast have ten horns also?

Originally quoted by shturt678:
Since the 10 horns all exist at the same time together on the head of the beast, the 10 kings that arise out of the 4th kingdom are to be regarded as contemporary.

I quoted you so you could better understand my point. Both Dan 7's 4th beast and Revelation's 1st beast with the 7 heads both have "ten horns all existing at the same time together." Rev 17:12 states the ten horns on the 1st beast in Rev are ten kings, not kingdoms, as does Dan 7:24.

Btw, Dan 7:18 says the saints possess the kingdom during the reign of the 4 kings of the 4 beast kingdoms in Dan 7:17, not during the reign of ten kings after these four.

 

[shturt678s]

You didn't answer the question, So why does Rev's 1st beast have ten horns also?

Rev.13:1, "ten horns and seven heads" Both number aere beyond question contextually symbolical. Like the dragon, the brute arrogates to himself the sacred "seven," the number of God's dealing with men. Will shorten as you'll have to agree to disagree of course. The dragon and brute has appropriated the "seven" for their heads as though all their plans and designs for men were holy and sacred as God's are, ie, operate wtih royal power. As a rejectable bonus Rev.13:1-10 = the whole antichristian power.

I quoted you so you could better understand my point. Both Dan 7's 4th beast and Revelation's 1st beast with the 7 heads both have "ten horns all existing at the same time together." Rev 17:12 states the ten horns on the 1st beast in Rev are ten kings, not kingdoms, as does Dan 7:24.

Understanding the Text, ie, Bible translations, as the inspired Word of God, and interpretating as such, one could very well conclude as you do.

Btw, Dan 7:18 says the saints possess the kingdom during the reign of the 4 kings of the 4 beast kingdoms in Dan 7:17, not during the reign of ten kings after these four.

Old Jack, and thank you so much for your patience

 

[Interplanner]

re Rom 9-11:
can we say that, based on the passion of the verses like 9:2, 6; 10:1, 16; 11:1, 7, that Paul is trying to answer: why is it so few of Israel believe? In fact, isn't 10:16 a restart (besides being the same question I just asked)?

 

[Biblewriter]

re Rom 9-11:
can we say that, based on the passion of the verses like 9:2, 6; 10:1, 16; 11:1, 7, that Paul is trying to answer: why is it so few of Israel believe? In fact, isn't 10:16 a restart (besides being the same question I just asked)?

No. That would not be correct.

 

[Biblewriter]

I've just read most of EbedM & BW #205 to #226 and have this observation. The thing that BW is protecting is not physical descent, it's the land. You kind of wouldn't want to 'protect' physical descent in Rom 9 because the "3 strikes" rule (there are 3 exceptions right off). But what matters to BW is the land promise.

I do not know where you got that idea. The only reason the land promise is important is because t was made to Israel.

I have to say, this is the weakest place to protect the land promise from. It is also BW's favorite dismissive target, the error of circular reasoning. The most you can 'protect' from Rom 9-11 about ancient promises is that all of those in Israel who believe that a Redeemer would come to Zion and take away the debt of sins would be saved from those sins. (I'm saying this in a way to allow for this Israel--the one in 11:26--to be the ethnos, although it is not.) Given the climate, the times, the things going on in Judea, I don't think Paul thought any thing from the land would be saved, and there seemed to be reports already that it was totalled. (Has anyone else ever noticed that while the Thess thought they heard the day of the Lord had already happened, Paul, for his part, already reports that the complete wrath of God had come on Israel? No internet back then.)

Rom 9-11 explains why more Jews don't believe in a sort of automatic way, given their heritage and background. Paul says it is a problem right to the end of time by using the expression 'kai houtos' in 11:26. "in this manner": with this partial unbelief continuing on in the ethnos Israel (BW says 2/3 won't believe all the pressure of the wrath of God in the GT anyway), the real Israel will always believe the debt of their sins was handled by the Redeemer who came, historically, (past tense) to Zion.

All this is pure interpretation. I have demonstrated that the covenants and the promises still belonged to Paul's "kinsmen according to the flesh. who are Israelites" In Romans 9:3-4, and that all three examples given to explain "they are not all Israel, who are of Israel" was a case of only some of the physical descendants of Abraham being the promised seed. But not a single one of them was a case of anyone being called "the seed of Abraham" who was not actually a physical descendant of Abraham.

The proof I was giving was simply that your interpretation, that "they are not all Israel, who are of Israel" means the real Israel is something different from the physical Israel, cannot even possibly be correct.

 

[Biblewriter]

We also have to ask: if the gift of the Gospel is so wondrous that angels wish they could look upon it, what's the value of a land promise that wasn't even the promise, as far as Heb 11 was concerned? Are we just trying to find ways to devalue the Gospel?

The gift of the gospel was made to an entirely different people from those who were given the land promise.

These are two entirely different things, and neither one intrudes upon the other.

 

[Biblewriter]

Actually Biblewriter's critical error is he tries to make the issue God's choice of Isaac over all of Abraham's children, when the apostles argument surrounds the people "Israel" being in unbelief.

The case is as simple as this:

*God chose Isaac over Ishmael (Romans 9:7)

*Isaac has two sons, Jacob and Esau...BEFORE either were born, God chose Jacob over Esau (Romans 9:9-13)

*Jacob has 12 sons, and God changes his name to "Israel"...and from Israel and his 12 sons, the nation of Israel is born.

This entire choosing of God, is for HIS PURPOSE! God is making His choice with the line of which Christ would come in mind.

It's about spiritual descendants of Abraham who have "the faith of Abraham" through Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. They too become descendants of Abraham. That was clearly stated back in Romans 4:13-25!

Biblewriter is erroneously believing it's about the choice of Isaac, when really it's about the choice of Jacob, who is Israel and the fact that it's about spiritual descendants rather than physical descendants.

This is a key flaw of the whole dispensational idea that God has "two peoples"!

Throughout time God has only had one people...and that is ALL who are of the faith of Abraham!

No, the point is that God's choice was, in every example given, one of only some of Abraham's pysical descendants being chosen. Not even one of these examples even hinted at an idea that people who were not Abraham's physical descendants were those spoken of in the promise.

I am speaking here only of Ramans 9, and the falsehood of the interpretation that the expression "not all Israel is of Israel"eans that the true Israel is simething different than a subset of the physical descendants of Abraham.

 

[Biblewriter]

I said the greek kings are chronicled up to the perpetrator of the abomination of desolation. I never said it was mentioned in Dan 7.



Try re reading what I've been saying; your amnesia is acting up again. I have mentioned numerous facts from Daniel related to Revelation and the Roman kings/horn's chronologies than you want to address.




It's as if you haven't read anything I've said. Dan 7's 4th beast is Revelation's 1st beast, which is Rome. Dan 7's 4th beast's 11th horn that plucks up 3 of the 10 horns is the 5th beast kingdom in Daniel with the feet and toes of iron and clay, and also the 2nd beast in Revelation who is the false prophet. This is why this 11th horn is given to the flame in Dan 7:11. There's no circular knowledge or disproving of approximation involve with these facts. It's these facts that. I keep explaining. proves Rome's 1st 10 kings/emperors to be Dan 7's 4th beast's 10 horns and the 10 horns on Revelation's 1st beast with the 7 heads. These are the facts you continue to ignore. And since it's proven Dan 7's 11th horn is the false prophet by his trip to the lake of fire in Dan 7:11, the Beast/the Antichrist has to be the 8th horn in Dan 7, making the 10 horns in Dan 7, the 7 kings on the 7 heads because the 8th king that's with them is the Beast. There are two views of the beginning of Christ's possession of the heavenly kingdom, Dan 7:8-27 and Rev 4-19.

I read, and not only read, but studied, everything you said, and I pointed out details in the prophecies that most absolutely were not fulfilled in the historical events you referred to.

The fact that only some of the details were fulfilled is conclusive proof that the prophecies were not fulfilled in these historical events.

The fact that some of the details were fulfilled simply does not meet muster. For a prophecy to have been fulfilled, every detail in that prophecy has to have been fulfilled.

And there is no escape from the undeniable fact that important details of these prophecies were not fulfilled in the historical events you are citing..

 

[Biblewriter]

That's the selective amnesia talking.

No, this is not "selective Amnesia." It is insisting upon the complete reliability of every word in the Bible. It all stands or falls together. You want to pretend that events that fail to fulfill the prophecies were nonetheless a fulfillment of them. I will not, and can not accept such trifling with the word of God.

 

[ebedmelech]

No, the point is that God's choice was, in every example given, one of only some of Abraham's pysical descendants being chosen. Not even one of these examples even hinted at an idea that people who were not Abraham's physical descendants were those spoken of in the promise.

No Biblewriter, you keep straying from the point IT'S ABOUT ISRAEL It only mentions Abraham one time Biblewriter! You are simply wrong!

I am speaking here only of Ramans 9, and the falsehood of the interpretation that the expression "not all Israel is of Israel"eans that the true Israel is simething different than a subset of the physical descendants of Abraham.

Well...let's just continue with Romans 9. Explain why Paul makes this statement at Romans 9:24 if it's just about "physical descendants:
24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Explain also why he's quoting Hose 2:23 and Hosea 1:10 simultaneously at Romans 9:25, 26.

You simply don't get it Biblewriter....and you're digging yourself in a deep hole!

 

[precepts]

Rev.13:1, "ten horns and seven heads" Both number aere beyond question contextually symbolical.

Where does it say that in scripture?

Like the dragon, the brute arrogates to himself the sacred "seven," the number of God's dealing with men. Will shorten as you'll have to agree to disagree of course. The dragon and brute has appropriated the "seven" for their heads as though all their plans and designs for men were holy and sacred as God's are, ie, operate wtih royal power. As a rejectable bonus Rev.13:1-10 = the whole antichristian power.

shturt 12:4-15.

Understanding the Text, ie, Bible translations, as the inspired Word of God, and interpretating as such, one could very well conclude as you do.



Old Jack, and thank you so much for your patience

You still didn't answer the question. You said that because Dan 7's 4th beast's 10 horns existed at the same time together that meant they were contemporary as the reason why they couldn't be the 10 horns in Revelation which is false because Rev's 1st beast's 10 horns also exists all at the same time.

No need to respond to this message because I don't think you're interested in the truth. You've had enough of my precious time and pearls.

 

[precepts]

I read, and not only read, but studied, everything you said, and I pointed out details in the prophecies that most absolutely were not fulfilled in the historical events you referred to.

That is a lie. You're latest excuse was unfulfilled OT verses as to why you want to ignore the facts to which I told you I could rightly interpret any.

The fact that only some of the details were fulfilled is conclusive proof that the prophecies were not fulfilled in these historical events.

Another lie. There's more evidence supporting the facts than your assumption of it having to be future just because of Rev 17:12's account of the ten kings.

The fact that some of the details were fulfilled simply does not meet muster. For a prophecy to have been fulfilled, every detail in that prophecy has to have been fulfilled.

Only according to you. You don't even have a fundamental argument for a future event that could be credible other than it must be future because nothings literal enough for you to comprehend.

And there is no escape from the undeniable fact that important details of these prophecies were not fulfilled in the historical events you are citing..

Spare me the details.

What your "selective" amnesia keeps ignoring:
(1)Dan 7:9's setting up of God's throne is Rev 4.
(2)Dan 7:8-27 is Rev 4-19, two accounts of Christ possessing his kingdom.
(3)The 11th horn thrown into the lake of fire is not a kingdom but a man.
(4)Dan 7:17-18 states in the days of these 4 kings of the 4 kingdoms will the saints possess the kingdom.
(5)Who is the 4th king of the 4th Kingdom?
(6)The saints possess the kingdom during the reign of the 4th king/kingdom, not during a partion of 10 kings.
(7)Etc..

These are facts you haven't addressed.

 

[Interplanner]

BW,
the reason you think it is only about the ethnic descendants of Abraham is because you don't read the end of the chapter "even us...both Jews and Gentiles". That's your censorship at work, to protect futurism.

I got the idea that it was the land because all you have is the visions of Ezekiel. You never grasp the NT theology. That's why you don't know what Heb 11 is about, and how it is saying that the land never was the thing promised anyway. That's why you never comment clearly on Gal 3 or Eph 2-3. Not once.

You are totally mistaken saying that Heb 11 and the land promise are two entirely different peoples and programs. Totally.

I know where you got your "exact fulfillment" ideas, and it is not the NT. Not a chance. David's fallen tent raised up is the believers from the other nations of Acts 15 (Amos 9). That (Acts 15) is pure interpretation, not me.

Sorry but I see little value in your award from "Christian publisher." Hooey.

 

[Biblewriter]

No Biblewriter, you keep straying from the point IT'S ABOUT ISRAEL It only mentions Abraham one time Biblewriter! You are simply wrong!

Well...let's just continue with Romans 9. Explain why Paul makes this statement at Romans 9:24 if it's just about "physical descendants:
24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Explain also why he's quoting Hose 2:23 and Hosea 1:10 simultaneously at Romans 9:25, 26.

You simply don't get it Biblewriter....and you're digging yourself in a deep hole!

BW,
the reason you think it is only about the ethnic descendants of Abraham is because you don't read the end of the chapter "even us...both Jews and Gentiles". That's your censorship at work, to protect futurism.

To get the context, we have to go back to Romans 9:10.

Romans 9:10-16 teaches us that God’s promises to Israel are based upon his election, not upon their obedience.

God’s sovereignty in such matters is stressed again in the two verses that follow. “For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, ‘For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.’ Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.” (Romans 9:17-18) Here God declares that He not only has mercy on whoever He wills, He also hardens whoever He wills.

But this generates a potential problem. Men object to this doctrine because they imagine it would make God unfair. But God’s answer is not to explain why this is indeed fair. Instead, He simply says: “You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?’ But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?” (Romans 9:19-21) God therefore does not defend this course of action on the basis of its fairness, even though it is fair, but on the basis of his right as the creator to do as He pleases.

So He continues in Romans 9:22-24:

“What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”

Again, the point God is making is that He can do as He pleases. And He pleases to call not the Jews only, but also the Gentiles. This right of God to do as He pleases, and to choose whomsoever He wants to choose, is now illustrated by quotations from the Old Testament. The first of these are from Hosea, and are given in Romans 9:25-26.

“As He says also in Hosea: ‘I will call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved.’ ‘And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, ‘”You are not My people,”’ There they shall be called sons of the living God.’”

The first part of this, “I will call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved.” is a quotation from Hosea 2:23, Where we read, “Then I will sow her for Myself in the earth, And I will have mercy on her who had not obtained mercy; Then I will say to those who were not My people, ‘You are My people!’ And they shall say, ‘You are my God!’” The second part, “And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ There they shall be called sons of the living God.” is a quotation from Hosea 1:10, where we read, “Yet the number of the children of Israel Shall be as the sand of the sea, Which cannot be measured or numbered. And it shall come to pass In the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ There it shall be said to them, ‘You are sons of the living God.’”

In both of these places, some might imagine that these passages refer to the church. But a close examination shows that this is cannot even possibly be their meaning. Looking at the last passage first, for it was first in the Order God gave them in Hosea, verses 1-9 of Hosea 1 detail God’s rejection of “the house of Israel.” (verse 8) Then we read the wonderful promise that, even though they were rejected, “it shall come to pass In the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ There it shall be said to them, ‘You are sons of the living God.’” This blessing, “You are sons of the living God,” was not to be said to someone else, but “it shall be said to them.” The very ones to whom God had said, “Lo-ruhamah” (not pitied) and “Lo-ammi” (not my people,) would be told, “You are sons of the living God.” But they would not only be told this, but they would be told this in the very place where they had been so cursed. This is concluded in the first verse of chapter 2. (We must remember that the chapter and verse divisions in our Bibles were added by man, there were no such divisions in the scriptures when God first gave them. And in some places the divisions actually break up what God was saying.) So God concluded this portion of his holy word by saying, “Say to your brethren, ‘My people,’ And to your sisters, ‘Mercy is shown.’” (Hosea 2:1) To whom were these words to be said? To the church? No. They were to be said “to your brethren.” and “to your sisters.” Whose “brethren” and “sisters” were to be told “My people,” and “Mercy is shown.”? The very ones to whom it was said “Lo-ruhamah” and “Lo-ammi.” These were unquestionably the sinning “house of Israel.” No scripture anywhere even suggests the idea that either the church or its individual members are the “brethren” and “sisters” of the “house of Israel.”

We find the same thing again in the next portion of Hosea, where God first pronounces his divorce and judgment of guilty Israel; (Hosea 2:2-13) but then, just as in the first chapter, He continues by promising their eventual restoration. (Hosea 2:14-23) Even as He had just pronounced his divorce and judgment, He now promises his betrothal and blessing of the children of that same guilty nation which He had divorced. For even as He had said in verse 2, “Bring charges against your mother, bring charges; For she is not My wife, nor am I her Husband,” He now repeatedly tells them, “I will betroth you to Me,” (verses 19 and 20) and says “you will call Me ‘My Husband.’” (verse 16) God had called the one He had divorced, “your mother,” but He now calls the ones He will marry, “you.” This, then, is the context of verse 23, where we read, “Then I will sow her for Myself in the earth, And I will have mercy on her who had not obtained mercy; Then I will say to those who were not My people, ‘You are My people!’ And they shall say, ‘You are my God!’”

We have taken this detailed look at Hosea 1 and 2 to clearly understand that the two passages from Hosea which the Holy Spirit quoted in Romans 9:25-26 are most certainly not about replacing the physical nation of Israel with a different people, but about a future restoration of that same nation which had previously been rejected for her sin.