22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[Spiritual Israelite]

No. As I’ve said, I think it jumps in verse 19 to taking about Jerusalem, not the new Jerusalem. I do think He will make Jerusalem a joy during the 1000 years, but the fact that any death exists at all makes me see it has jumped and can’t be talking about NHNE.

I find you to be very difficult to follow. So, please just answer this question. What time period do you believe is represented in Isaiah 65 verses 18 and 19? The eternal new heavens and new earth or the supposed earthly millennial kingdom after Christ's return? Or some other time period?

 

[Phoneman777]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Matthew 25:31-46 indicates that they are judged right after Christ returns, not 1000+ years later.

Christ lumped in a lot of events in a short passage. Things which appear to follow immediately after other things only do so apparently because of the testimony of other verses.

Where does the coming period of total darkness of an emptied destroyed silent Earth fit into a scemlnario where activity takes place now, Jesus comes to outshine the Sun and destroys the wicked and much activity continues to ensue with the creation of the New Heaven and New Earth and all that is made new here? Can you find somewhere on that prophetic timeline for this to fit?

 

[WPM]

Your argument relies on redefining words, "spiritual Israel" and so forth. You can't find such terms in the Bible so you make them up. This is why you haven't proven anything at all. In order to prove your case, you need to stick to the proper definition of words.

To review, you want to argue that Natural Israel has no place in God's economy. Your strategy is to define natural Israel out of existence. Nice trick but it is worthless, because it doesn't mean a thing.

One could claim that blue skies don't exist by claiming that one is talking about a "spiritual" sky, not the natural sky. Okay, delusions come in many forms. But it doesn't mean it is true.

Your assertion is unfounded.

Matthew 18:15-17 is not talking about an assembly of Jesus followers. He is talking to Jews about Jewish culture and practices.

Acts 7:36-28 is talking about the assembly of those who came out of Egypt, not an assembly of Jesus followers.

Peter Ditzel is speaking about typology, which isn't a real thing. There is no such thing as "typology."

The Roman Catholic Church was the first to change the meaning of ekklesia from the congregation of God’s people to a religious institution of man replacing physical Israel.

Not relevant. Just because the RCC change the meaning of the word, it doesn't follow that the assembly who came out of Egypt were Jesus followers.

The author of Hebrews is quoting the Psalms and therefore, the meaning of the word ekklesia is understood in THAT context, which refers to the assembly of those who came out of Egypt, not those who were Jesus followers.

Right, Jesus is talking about a church that HE is building, not one that already exists.

Your view relies heavily on equivocation and obfuscation and conflation.

Hello! The building of the Church has been ongoing since the Garden. The ekklesia can be found in the OT and the NT. There is nothing you can do with that apart from reject the biblical evidence. That is what you do with each conclusive passage presented to you which exposes your theology.

The saved saints under the Mosaic covenant were simply the assembly of God of that day. Also, the kingdom which was repeatedly promised to the remnant of Israel developed into the New Testament gathering. Elect Israel and the elect Church were/are the same entity. The word ekklesia conveys the idea of a common assembly in both eras. The New Testament ekklesia is simply an extension of the Old Testament ekklesia (qâhâl or ‛êdâh), albeit it has taken on a different form under the new covenant.

Mirroring the process that a caterpillar undergoes developing into the maturity and beauty of a colorful butterfly, the Old Testament Church underwent a significant metamorphic change in the New Testament, progressing into the current Spirit-filled international New Testament Church. The ekklesia essentially took on wings! That is not to say that we can separate the elect of God in either dispensation or view them as two different entities. Rather, we must view both as the same organic entity. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod report gives a similar illustration: “The relationship between the two Testaments is similar to that of a bud and its full blossom” (The End Times - A Study on Eschatology and Millennialism).

Just because Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church carry different names and possess a different outward appearance and scope of movement does not negate the fact they are the same overall entity. Ray Porter highlights a notable difference with the New Testament ekklesia compared to its old covenant counterpart. He shows that it is found in the fact that it is “united not on the basis of a shared culture, language, or previous religious loyalties, but … [is] united around the Messiah” (The Church Local, Wider, and Universal).

Dispensational theologians do their best to put a wedge between the people of God in the Old Testament and the people of God in the New Testament. They try to divide them into two unrelated entities. They advocate an apartheid between both and teach a separation theology. They suggest that there is a total disconnect and a radical discontinuity between the Old Testament ekklesia and the New Testament ekklesia. They argue that they are two completely distinct and separate entities. However, repeated New Testament Scripture demonstrates that the believing element (or righteous remnant) of the Old Testament congregation and that of the New Testament congregation are spiritually joined through Christ, and His atoning work on the cross.

 

[WPM]

Of course, we are children of Abraham. But this is exactly why we are not spiritual Israel. Our salvation is not predicated on a promise God made to Israel; our salvation is predicated on a promise God made to Abraham. Refer to Galatians 3:17

Where did the name Israel come from?

Many Christians seem to conveniently overlook the fact that the origin of the name “Israel” is very much spiritual. It refers to the notable encounter Jacob had with God at Peniel and the spiritual transformation that resulted. It was there that Jacob wrestled with God until he was blessed. This incident caused his name to be changed from Jacob to Israel. We should therefore remember that the true and primary meaning of the word Israel refers to a spiritual experience. Whilst the name “Israel” obviously carries natural connotations we need to remember that it primarily carries spiritual qualities.

The name Israel is variously translated as “he wrestles with God,” “he prevails with God” or “God rules.” God said to Jacob, in Genesis 32:28, “Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power (1) with God and (2) with men, and hast prevailed.”

The name Israel from its inception relates to the spiritual character of Jacob. This text reveals that Jacob’s name would be changed to Israel and that he would have power and prevail “with God and with men.” Please notice it didn’t say have he would have power and prevail with just his own race. It doesn’t limit his success to only Jews or Hebrews. It says “men” because Israel’s influence would extend further and wider than natural Israel to embrace Gentile people throughout the world. Whilst many today get captivated with biological ethnic make-up, those who would truly take upon themselves the name “Israel” should be expected, if they want to walk in the footsteps of their father Jacob, have undergone a spiritual transformation.

There are 4 key words in Genesis 32:28:

· Power
· God
· Men
· Prevailed

Whilst these qualities represented who Jacob became, these qualities were only manifested in a limited and imperfect manner. That is because Jacob was merely a man. His offspring that became the children of Israel also carried the same shortcomings. So, they too never truly and perfectly manifested these great qualities as a people. History proves both of these facts.

When you consider the meaning of the word “Israel” and how it ultimately finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ, it forces us to ask, what people, then, today, could possibly meet the criteria and designation of true Israel? It has to be a spiritual people, because that is, ultimately, the core sense of the word. But it also must be a company that recognizes, identifies and embraces Christ (true Israel). That certainly isn’t natural Israel over this past 2000 years. It was them that rejected Him and nailed Him to a tree. What is more, this company is not limited to the Middle East but is rather expressly found throughout “the world” (Isaiah 27:6) and relates to “a company of nations” (Genesis 35:10-11).

True Israel today can only refer to God’s redeemed people (of all nations), the New Testament congregation. Only they can meet the description. They alone belong to Christ. Only they are His ambassadors on this earth. Only they enjoy favor with God and with man. Scripture proves that Gentile believers would be thoroughly blended into the harmonious whole of faithful Israel. This is supported many Old Testament prophecies that tells us that Israel will be enjoined by others and will incorporate the nations. This is talking about the full spiritual expanse of true Israel. If one is in Christ they belong to spiritual Israel.

 

[WPM]

Your dreaming.

The Bible says we part of the citizenship of Israel. You admit that. Which one - ethnic or spiritual?

It is time to cough up or shut up. You choose!

 

[WPM]

I also think you are being clear. We both agree that they are not citizens of the earthly nation of Israel. I agree with you there. But I think you see an inference that Paul didn't intend to make. I understand your logical deduction and I see how you came to it. But there is another interpretation that better fits with what Paul actually meant to say.

Concluding that the Gentiles were added to an existing "spiritual commonwealth" is a fair deduction but this interpretation ignores or minimizes a significant piece of information.

Let me explain. In the context Paul says that Jesus "destroyed the middle wall of partition." Why does Paul mention this? Let's suppose that Paul was discussing an existing spiritual commonwealth. Would the polity of an existing spiritual commonwealth include an actual, physical wall of separation? No, I don't think it would. The presence of a statement concerning a middle wall of partition seems out of place, a non-sequitur.

Suppose, then, that Paul was discussing an existing civil polity, which does involve a middle wall of partition. Might this fact support Paul's contention that the Ephesians were excluded? Isn't Paul talking about a form of government based on the Law of Moses, which includes apartheid as a statutory requirement? And wasn't this wall a matter of enmity between Jews and Gentiles? Wasn't it exclusion from Israeli citizenship that kept the Ephesians from approaching the temple? And didn't the blood of the cross essentially break down that wall?

Earlier I suggested another way that two people can become fellow-citizens. Instead of one person entering into an existing polity, another way to become fellow-citizens is if both people enter into an entirely new and different polity together.

Finally, I don't see why Paul would ever suggest that anyone was excluded from the spiritual commonwealth. From what I understand, no one is turned away.

Ephesians 2:14 makes clear: “For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us.”

What parties were divided with a wall?

Who has Christ made one?

The overwhelmingly Jewish Old Testament redeemed Church and the overwhelmingly Gentile New Testament redeemed Church. This settlement is a spiritual union of believers. This is not a natural arrangement. The fact that Christ and His work on the cross is the means of unification shows that we are exclusively looking at God’s elect throughout time. There is no other way of salvation for man.

The context of the passage in view is basically comparing the dark hopeless condition the Gentiles found themselves in before the cross to the liberated enlightened position those Gentiles who embraced Christ were after the cross. It is only upon conversion that our sins are washed away and the blood of Jesus becomes effectual. Through Calvary, the believing Gentile has been brought into a new dominion and therefore enjoys a new citizenship, with its consequential new benefits. The believing Gentile has been given favor with God and has now fully entered into:

· Christ
· The citizenship of Israel
· The covenants of promise
· Spiritual hope
· Union with God in this present world

This passage is speaking of five distinct, yet inextricably linked, states of alienation that the Gentile believer once suffered before they received the glorious Gospel of Christ. Paul the Apostle makes it clear that all five have been graciously opened up to the Gentiles since Christ’s first advent. The Gentile believer can now experience God in the same way the Jew could prior to the cross through their surrender to Christ and their trust in “the blood of Christ.” Gentiles Christians under the new covenant now enjoy the same undeserved favor and blessing that Israeli Jewish believers did under the old covenant. We essentially see the incorporation of the once darkened Gentiles into true Israel. They now share with Israel its Messiah, Israeli citizenship, spiritual covenants, promises, hope and God.”

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Yes, Jesus quotes the verse but leaves out the last part. Interesting?

It’s most interesting for me in that they thought it must all occur at once. THEY couldn’t see it wouldn’t. So we see a repeat of that now

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I find you to be very difficult to follow. So, please just answer this question. What time period do you believe is represented in Isaiah 65 verses 18 and 19? The eternal new heavens and new earth or the supposed earthly millennial kingdom after Christ's return? Or some other time period?

As I’ve said, the place where I can clearly see a jump backwards has been made is where it begins to talk of death. There will be absolutely no more death (not even a little bit) on the new heavens and earth. So I read it and say, that sounds greatly improved but cannot be NHNE. You read it and say, it HAS to be NHNE so it must not really be speaking of death even if it sounds that way.

 

[WPM]

As I’ve said, the place where I can clearly see a jump backwards has been made is where it begins to talk of death. There will be absolutely no more death (not even a little bit) on the new heavens and earth. So I read it and say, that sounds greatly improved but cannot be NHNE. You read it and say, it HAS to be NHNE so it must not really be speaking of death even if it sounds that way.

I have showed you there is no death in the text in Isaiah 65 but you are determined to ignore that. I will keep reposting until you address. It is you that is adding unto the inspired text and inserting a supposed future millennium where it is not mentioned or belongs in order to sustain your opinion.

Isaiah 65:17-21 declares, “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.”

The one thing we know for sure is that Scripture does not contradict itself in any way. The way you explain this passage would lead us to believe that this passage is the one exception to this rule in Scripture. Of course, we know it isn’t (or can’t be). This much-debated passage before us must therefore beautifully correlates with other similar Scripture, which informs us that the Coming of Christ is climactic and that the new earth is totally free of the curse. It is essential that we always interpret difficult passages like this with other clearer and simpler passages.

The first thing we see in this reading is the time period in view; the Old Testament prophet explains that he is specifically speaking of the “new heavens and a new earth.” This is indisputable and cannot be a matter for theological debate. Whilst there are challenging parts to this passage, we can be sure of the fact that the detail described will be fulfilled in the “new heavens and a new earth.” In fact, the wording is so explicit in relation to the time-period that it removes any ambiguity or uncertainty for the reader on that front. This is the first absolute we can establish with this reading.

Isaiah 65 is speaking about the NHNE, not some imaginary millennium in the future, which none of the OT prophets, Christ or any of the NT writers recognized. What is more: it doesn't say that people die there. Read the original Hebrew.

Let us have a literal word-by-word look at the Hebrew pertaining to Isaiah 65:20.

לֹא־יִֽהְיֶ֨ה מִשָּׁ֜ם עֹ֗וד ע֤וּל יָמִים֙ וְזָקֵ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר
Lo'- yihªyeh mishaam `owd `uwl yaamiym wªzaaqeen 'ªsher
Not be hence more an infant [of] days, an old man after

לֹא־
lō-
Not

יִֽהְיֶ֨ה
yih-yeh
Be

מִשָּׁ֜ם
miš-šām
Hence

ע֗וֹד
‘ō-wḏ,
More

ע֤וּל
‘ūl
an infant

יָמִים֙
yā-mîm
[of] days

וְזָקֵ֔ן
wə-zā-qên,
an old man

אֲשֶׁ֥ר
’ă-šer
After

What is this telling us?

Basically: a child will never become old on the new earth.

לֹֽא־יְמַלֵּ֖א אֶת־יָמָ֑יו כִּ֣י הַנַּ֗עַר בֶּן־מֵאָ֤ה שָׁנָה֙ יָמ֔וּת
Lo'- yªmalee''et- yaamaayw Kiy hana`ar ben- mee'aah shaanaah yaamuwt
Not fulfill your days inasmuch a child old an hundred years die

לֹֽא־
lō-
Not

יְמַלֵּ֖א
yə-mal-lê
Fulfill

אֶת־
’eṯ-
Your

יָמָ֑יו
yā-māw;
Days

כִּ֣י
kî
Inasmuch

הַנַּ֗עַר
han-na-‘ar,
a child

בֶּן־
ben-
Old

מֵאָ֤ה
mê-’āh
Hundred

שָׁנָה֙
šā-nāh
Years

יָמ֔וּת
yā-mūṯ,
Die

What is this telling us?

The exact same thing, only in different terms.

This is called synonymous parallelism. It is telling us that a child will never become old on the new earth. This line reinforces what has just been said. It confirms the thought of the impending reality of no more death in the eternal state for the righteous. In eternity there will be no more aging or dying. It is not going to be like our corrupt age where infants eventually get old. It will not be like the here-and-now where a man could live to be an old person of a hundred years of age and then die.

This passage is actually saying the opposite to what many think. What this is saying is: there will be no more aging, curse or death on the new earth. Every glorified saints will have come to full maturity in Christ with their new perfect eternal bodies. It is the next line of Isaiah 65:20 that has confused many, because the translators have not interpreted it in a literal word-for-word sense. It is not saying there will be more babies, death and old men. It is saying the opposite to what they are alleging. It is saying that there will be no more aging: children getting old, old people and people dying! It is describing eternity to an Old Testament audience in terms they can grasp.

The new heavens and new earth will indeed be a glorious victorious perfect state where death is unknown. God is saying that the eternal state will actually be free of death for young and old alike. This passage is telling us that there will be no more death on the new earth! The Hebrew word Lo' (Strong’s 3808) means “no” or “not.” The word is a simple negation. The word is found twice in this much-debated new heavens and new earth verse.

Debate in Isaiah 65:20 centers in on the use of the original word yaamuw meaning “die” or “death.” What should we relate it to? Is there indeed “death” on the new earth? Also, should the death be related to the “child” in the second phrase or the “sinner” in the third phrase? What is more, in what way should it read? I must admit, if we are to read it in its most natural way it fits perfectly with the context. So why change it? I believe it should be applied to the “child” as it should agree with the first phrase that is simply a reinforcement of the same truth. It then fits perfectly with the whole overall teaching of the prophet on the perfection and bliss of the eternal state.

No (לֹֽא־ or Lo') longer will an infant become like an old man,
No (לֹֽא־ or Lo') longer will a child reach one hundred and die.

This is Old Testament verbiage that describes eternity to the Old Testament listener. It is telling us: no one is going to age! This relates to the new heaven and new earth not some supposed future millennium – that will never happen.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I read it in my own language. What you are really arguing is that it has been mistranslated and can only be understood in Hebrew. I don’t believe that.
I HAVE often thought, here or there, that a certain word might have been translated better, but I don’t think that whatever seems to not fit with my current understanding must mean the opposite of what it says in my language. I instead think my current understanding is not complete.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I have showed you there is no death in the text in Isaiah 65 but you are determined to ignore that.

I ignore it because you say this means the exact opposite of what it says in my own language: the one who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere child;
the one who fails to reach a hundred
will be considered accursed.

So when you say it means the exact opposite of what it says, yes, I ignore you. I mean, I didn’t ignore you at first. I read it the first two or three times you said it to see if I might be wrong, but now I ignore it when you repost it and repost it because anytime someone says a verse means the exact opposite of what it says, I don’t believe them.

 

[WPM]

I ignore it because you say this means the exact opposite of what it says in my own language: the one who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere child;
the one who fails to reach a hundred
will be considered accursed.

So when you say it means the exact opposite of what it says, yes, I ignore you. I mean, I didn’t ignore you at first. I read it the first two or three times you said it to see if I might be wrong, but now I ignore it when you repost it and repost it because anytime someone says a verse means the exact opposite of what it says, I don’t believe them.

Let us look again at the eternal perfect picture that is portrayed by the prophet in Isaiah 65:17-19: “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying."

If there is death there will be "weeping" and "crying." Right? Or are these myriads of millennial phonies so stiff-necked that they lose the ability to cry?

This is pretty water-tight. Crying is terminated. Tears are over. This correlates with Revelation 21:1-4. The wording of this passage also totally negates the possibility of the reintroduction of death, disease and funerals to the new earth as these would obviously reintroduce “the voice of weeping” and “the voice of crying.” From our reading we know that cannot be. Up until here this description closely correlates with the depiction of the new heavens and new earth in Revelation 21-22.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Let us look again at the eternal perfect picture that is portrayed by the prophet in Isaiah 65:17-19: “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying."

If there is death there will be "weeping" and "crying." Right? Or are these myriads of millennial phonies so stiff-necked that they lose the ability to cry?

This is pretty water-tight. Crying is terminated. Tears are over. This correlates with Revelation 21:1-4. The wording of this passage also totally negates the possibility of the reintroduction of death, disease and funerals to the new earth as these would obviously reintroduce “the voice of weeping” and “the voice of crying.” From our reading we know that cannot be. Up until here this description closely correlates with the depiction of the new heavens and new earth in Revelation 21-22.

It’s the next verses I do not believe are still talking about NHNE.

 

[Marty fox]

I ignore it because you say this means the exact opposite of what it says in my own language: the one who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere child;
the one who fails to reach a hundred
will be considered accursed.

So when you say it means the exact opposite of what it says, yes, I ignore you. I mean, I didn’t ignore you at first. I read it the first two or three times you said it to see if I might be wrong, but now I ignore it when you repost it and repost it because anytime someone says a verse means the exact opposite of what it says, I don’t believe them.

They are accused and died because they weren’t in the new heaven and earth they parished and died spiritually. If not then the bible contradicted itself because there was no more death

 

[CadyandZoe]

This is semantics gone mad!
Israel - is a word that has the meaning of; One who prevails with God. An overcomer for God, as Jacob was.
Spiritual - is a word that means; not physical, or ethnic.

Therefore: every faithful, righteous Christian IS a spiritual Israelite.
Who are NOT true Israelites or true Jews; are those people who call themselves Israel, but never acknowledge God as their Protector and who fail to obey His Commandments.

You can use whatever terms you want to use, but the Bible doesn't speak about true Israelites. Gentile Christians are NOT spiritual Israelites because such a thing doesn't exist.

 

[CadyandZoe]

So, I'm not convinced by the argument you're using here against the idea that he was talking about the spiritual commonwealth of Israel rather than the earthly nation of Israel.

Okay, but as I say, in order to hold your position, you need to ignore and toss out important verses.

 

[WPM]

It’s the next verses I do not believe are still talking about NHNE.

Is there weeping in your millennium - yes or no?

 

[WPM]

You can use whatever terms you want to use, but the Bible doesn't speak about true Israelites. Gentile Christians are NOT spiritual Israelites because such a thing doesn't exist.

I have showed you and you have rejected the scriptural texts. You have to. The fact is: we are the true children of Abraham, not ethnic Israel. We are the children of promise, not ethnic Israel. We are true Israeli citizens, not ethnic Israel. We are the circumcision, not ethnic Israel. We are the spiritual Jews, not ethnic Israel.

 

[Marty fox]

I have showed you and you have rejected the scriptural texts. You have to. The fact is: we are the true children of Abraham, not ethnic Israel. We are the children of promise, not ethnic Israel. We are true Israeli citizens, not ethnic Israel. We are the circumcision, not ethnic Israel. We are the spiritual Jews, not ethnic Israel.

Amen

Romans 2:28-29
28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.

 

[CadyandZoe]

No idea of what you're saying here. Please try to communicate more clearly.

I'm sorry if I didn't communicate well. I've typing like crazy for the past week, attempting to answer all the objections and question and I must admit that I kept typing even while I was tired. My apologies.

I'll try to do better. It's a matter of context and focus. What is Paul's main topic in Romans 9 through 11? I take it you think Paul is talking about the church, the body of Christ. Am I right? In your view, Paul is talking about spiritual Israel, which includes both Jews and Gentiles who have circumcised hearts for instance. Okay, please correct me. I will now attempt to give a more complete answer.

I maintain that Paul acknowledges God's promises to ethnic Israel. He doesn't shy away from this idea and neither does he reject it. Paul admits that God made promises to ethnic Israel. He takes that as a given. He then sets out to explain why those promises haven't failed. But although God made promises to ethnic Israel, ethnicity is not the sole condition for salvation and forgiveness.

For eight chapters Paul has argued that justification is based on faith and not works. He has argued that God is saving both Jews and Gentiles on that basis. Ethnicity is no barrier to salvation. Anyone who confesses sin, and approaches God with an honest and contrite heart will be saved, if that person accepts Jesus Christ as savior. We all know that.

But, and this is critical to our understanding, one of God's promises to ethnic Israel is that he would make ethnic Israel into a believing nation. God promised to make ethnic Israel into believing Israel, whereby every person living in Israel will be born again believers, without exception. You will say, but ethnicity doesn't have anything to do with salvation. But this isn't true in every case. Paul argues that ethnicity is no barrier to salvation, but he acknowledges that God promised to save ethnic Israel and so if God doesn't save ethnic Israel, his promise fails.

In case one should believe that God never made promises to ethnic Israel, one can only review passages such as Ezekiel 36, where God promises ethnic Israel that he would clean them up, remove idolatry from them, bring them into their own land, remove their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. He will put his spirit within them and cause them to walk in His statutes and they will be careful to observe His ordinances. He says the same thing in Deuteronomy 30:6. In Jeremiah 31:34 He tells Israel that at a particular point in history, Israel will not need to teach his neighbor to know the lord because they will ALL know him. In that context God is talking to the house of Judah and the House of Israel.

Okay? God made a salvation promise to ethnic Israel, and germane to that promise is a spiritual transformation of all hearts. Every ethnic Jew living in Israel at that time will become a believer, by God's will. This is really important. Not only does God promise to save them all, he promises to cause them all to be born again. But, he says, he is NOT doing this for their sake, he is doing this to restore his holy name.

But Paul faces a challenge from those who oppose his message. The fact that ethic Israel remains partially hardened is a problem for Paul's gospel. You see, God's promise was NOT made to "spiritual Israel" because this would imply that Israel was already spiritual. God made a promise to ethnic Israel to make the entire nation into a nation of believers. According to Paul, the New Covenant is in effect. But if the New Covenant is in effect, then why doesn't every citizen of ethnic Israel believe in God? Why hasn't God cleaned them up and put a new spirit in them all? Why does Israel remain partially hardened? Paul sets out to answer that question.

Follow me?

Romans 9:6
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

In the first five verses Paul acknowledges that the promise belongs to ethic Israel. The adoption as sons belongs to his kinsmen, he says. Having acknowledged that fact, he proceeds to explain why ethnicity isn't the only criteria by which an ethnic Jew stands to inherit the promise. One might expect him to argue that a Jewish man must also confess his sins, and accept Jesus Christ has savior, etc. But he doesn't make THAT argument although he could. Rather, he makes a completely different argument. Remember, according to Ezekiel, God could cause everyone in the entire world to become born again. He simply takes away a man's heart of stone and gives him a heart of flesh. Wiz bang and you have a new believer. So Paul takes another tack; he argues for God's sovereign choice.

Romans 9:11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand,

Here we come to understand that salvation of any individual, whether Jew or Greek, begins with God. If we are being saved, we are saved because he first chose to save us. His purpose; His choice. He saved Isaac because it served his purpose. He saves Jacob because it serves his purpose. If he is saving you, it serves his purpose; if he is saving me, it serves his purpose.

Thus we understand that although God promised to save ethnic Israel, we also know that when he keeps his promise to ethic Israel, every individual in that group will be there by his choice to serve his purpose. Paul talks about a remnant. So when all Israel is saved, the entire nation will be a remnant. Isaiah calls them "survivors." We can get into this more if you like.

Romans 9:18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

If a Jew has a hardened heart, God hardened it. If a Jew has a soft heart, God hardened it. This is true of everyone. If a man stubornly refuses to believe in God, then God is the one who hardened him. Why? It serves his purpose. If God decides to pour out his spirit on an entire nation, he can and will do that if it serves his purpose.

Again, I don't know what you're saying. You're being far too vague. It's saying that they are not all part of Israel #1 who are descended from Israel #2. That means some of Israel #2 are part of Israel #1, but not all of them. Very simple. You're making something simple into something very convoluted and I think it's because of doctrinal bias.

I maintain that Israel #2 is a man. Paul is saying that not all of those descended of Israel, the man, are going to be included in the Israel #1, i.e. the Israel of promise. God made a promise to ethnic Israel, but not each and every person who descended from the man Israel, will be included in the nation whom God will save.

The children of God who are the children of promise and are Abraham's seed. I showed you who that describes by quoting Galatians 3:26-29. Did you miss that? That passage indicates that the children of God who are the children of the promise and are Abraham's seed are those who belong to Christ, whether Jew or Gentile.

That's right. I agree with that. So then, in Romans 9:6, Paul is saying not all of Abraham's natural children are children of promise. He illustrates this point with the story of Isaac and Ishmael.

Having said all that, we must bear in mind that your comparison between Galatians and Romans is apples to oranges. Why? Because the subject matter in Romans 9 is much different than the subject matter in Galatians 3, where Paul argues against the Judaizers, who teach that one must put themselves under Moses in order to please God. In that epistle Paul asserts that "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, man or woman, slave or free." Ethnic distinction is removed in Christ. That is on the one hand. On the other hand, in Romans 9, Paul is dealing with God's promise to ethnic Israel. And remember, God is going to save ethnic Israel in order to restore his holy name. In this context, ethnicity is a given assumption. And the question is, how is God going to keep his promise to them as a people? How is that going to play out?

Good grief. No, he is not talking about ethnic Israel in 1 Peter 2:9! Ethnic Israel includes people who reject Christ! They are not holy! I think I need to reconsider what I said about your interpretation of Romans 9:6-8 because this interpretation might be even worse.

Yes, Peter is talking to believers and those of the faith. This is without controversy. At the same time, we know from clues in the text that he is talking to his own kinsmen specifically. What he says to them most likely applies to the rest of us except the fact that God never declared my family line to be "his people" or a kingdom of priests, etc. Peter is quoting Exodus 19:6, which designates the sons of Jacob and refers to THEM as a holy nation and a kingdom of priests. Peter refers to them as the "diaspora". The Greek term διασπορά (diaspora, “dispersion”) refers to Jews not living in Palestine but “dispersed” or scattered among the Gentiles.