The Son of Man returns with and for his people

[CadyandZoe]

From where are you getting this? It's certainly not in the KJV.

Specific reference, please, including the Bible version.

I prefer to stay away from discussions of the KJV. I found the reference in the NASB, the RSB, the NET bible, and the ASV. Here is a sample from the NASB.

Romans 9:1-5

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying; my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my countrymen, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and daughters, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the temple service, and the promises; 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.​

Notice: Salvation is conspicuously absent from the enumeration in Romans 9:4. Everything therein pertains exclusively to the Old Testament.

The NASB contains an error in that Paul didn't say "daughters." The proper phrase is "The Adoption as Sons, " a fitting analogy Paul borrowed from Roman culture. During Paul's time, Roman "adoption" wasn't an agreement to raise a child; adoption was an agreement to give money, property, or a title, to another, younger man. When the elder died, the younger would receive money, property, or a title) as an heir at the death of the elder. To be adopted as a "son" in this instance is a legal means to transfer wealth and title to another person, just as if that person was the family's firstborn son.

Paul employs this phrase when speaking about the gift of eternal life, which is legally ours now, but given to us at a later date. This phrase appears in the following passages,

Romans 8:15
Romans 8:23
Romans 9:4
Galatians 4:5
Ephesians 1:5

Consider Ephesians 1:5

In that context, we read:

Ephesians 1:13-14

In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of the promise, who is a first installment of our inheritance, in regard to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.​

Take note of Paul's reference to an "earnest of our inheritance", the Holy Spirit. He pictures the gift of eternal life in terms of a Roman adoption, whereby all of those "in Christ" are considered a family's "firstborn son" who will inherit eternal life from the Father at the right time. For now, Paul says, he has given us the Holy Spirit as an "earnest" of our inheritance. We know we will receive eternal life then, because we have the Holy Spirit now.

Now consider Romans 9 again.

Romans 9:1-6

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying; my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my countrymen, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and daughters, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the temple service, and the promises; 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.​

​

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

Verse 4 is the antecedent to verse 6. What particular promise, not being given to Israel during Paul's time, was in jeopardy of failing to be fulfilled? God's promise to grant the Adoption as Sons" to Israel. Paul acknowledges that it belongs to Israel, and he sets out to explain how God will fulfill it eventually.

His argument in chapter 9 is to say, although the "adoption as sons" was promised to Israel, God still reserves the right to pick and choose Israelites to bless. He picked Jacob over Esau for instance.

God is not a racist.

He made a covenant with the descendants of Jacob. His "hesed" is everlasting.

 

[CadyandZoe]

My my, look here.

You've been recently desperately attempting to persuade us that God dealt and deals with Israel as a unit, not individually.

Have you finally decided to embrace obvious truth?

What I said didn't contradict what I said earlier. God made a covenant with Israel and treated them as a unit. That is true. He ALSO picks and chooses to bless individuals within Israel. That is also true.

 

[covenantee]

I prefer to stay away from discussions of the KJV. I found the reference in the NASB, the RSB, the NET bible, and the ASV. Here is a sample from the NASB.

Romans 9:1-5

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying; my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my countrymen, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and daughters, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the temple service, and the promises; 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.​

The NASB contains an error in that Paul didn't say "daughters." The proper phrase is "The Adoption as Sons, " a fitting analogy Paul borrowed from Roman culture. During Paul's time, Roman "adoption" wasn't an agreement to raise a child; adoption was an agreement to give money, property, or a title, to another, younger man. When the elder died, the younger would receive money, property, or a title) as an heir at the death of the elder. To be adopted as a "son" in this instance is a legal means to transfer wealth and title to another person, just as if that person was the family's firstborn son.

Paul employs this phrase when speaking about the gift of eternal life, which is legally ours now, but given to us at a later date. This phrase appears in the following passages,

Romans 8:15
Romans 8:23
Romans 9:4
Galatians 4:5
Ephesians 1:5

Consider Ephesians 1:5

In that context, we read:

Ephesians 1:13-14

In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of the promise, who is a first installment of our inheritance, in regard to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.​

Take note of Paul's reference to an "earnest of our inheritance", the Holy Spirit. He pictures the gift of eternal life in terms of a Roman adoption, whereby all of those "in Christ" are considered a family's "firstborn son" who will inherit eternal life from the Father at the right time. For now, Paul says, he has given us the Holy Spirit as an "earnest" of our inheritance. We know we will receive eternal life then, because we have the Holy Spirit now.

Now consider Romans 9 again.

Romans 9:1-6

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying; my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my countrymen, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and daughters, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the temple service, and the promises; 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.​

​

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

Verse 4 is the antecedent to verse 6. What particular promise, not being given to Israel during Paul's time, was in jeopardy of failing to be fulfilled? God's promise to grant the Adoption as Sons" to Israel. Paul acknowledges that it belongs to Israel, and he sets out to explain how God will fulfill it eventually.

His argument in chapter 9 is to say, although the "adoption as sons" was promised to Israel, God still reserves the right to pick and choose Israelites to bless. He picked Jacob over Esau for instance.


He made a covenant with the descendants of Jacob. His "hesed" is everlasting.

He made a covenant with faithful obedient Israelites, both descendants and non-descendants of Jacob. I've provided the multiple attesting Scriptures previously.

The unfaithful and disobedient, He slew.

Why do the words "faith" and "obedience" appear nowhere in your post?

Ephesians 1:13-14
In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of the promise, who is a first installment of our inheritance, in regard to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.

The key to this verse is self-evident:

"having also believed"

Without "having also believed", the described blessings would not and did not follow.

The "faith" part of faith and obedience.

 

[covenantee]

What I said didn't contradict what I said earlier. God made a covenant with Israel and treated them as a unit. That is true. He ALSO picks and chooses to bless individuals within Israel. That is also true.

If they were treated as a unit, why did God not slay the entire nation as a unit upon the first instance of unfaithfulness or disobedience by an Israelite, rather than slaying only the guilty individual?

 

[CadyandZoe]

He made a covenant with faithful obedient Israelites, both descendants and non-descendants of Jacob.

That is incorrect.

The unfaithful and disobedient, He slew.

That is incorrect.

Why do the words "faith" and "obedience" appear nowhere in your post?

Why should they?

Without "having also believed", the described blessings would not and did not follow.

No kidding. Duh. What's your point?
Is that the only verse in your Bible or something?

 

[CadyandZoe]

If they were treated as a unit, why did God not slay the entire nation as a unit upon the first instance of unfaithfulness or disobedience by an Israelite, rather than slaying only the guilty individual?

What passage are you talking about?

 

[covenantee]

What passage are you talking about?

Just answer the question, if you can.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Just answer the question, if you can.

Your question reveals that you don't understand the concept of "nation." I can't help you there.

 

[covenantee]

That is incorrect.

That is incorrect.

Deny, deny.

Error's last gasp.

 

[covenantee]

Why should they?

Yes, such a question should never be asked of someone to whom "faith" and "obedience" are veritable curse words.

 

[covenantee]

Your question reveals that you don't understand the concept of "nation." I can't help you there.

No help needed.

You've been telling us that a nation is a unit.

That is reflected in my question.

So what's your problem?

 

[CadyandZoe]

No help needed.

You've been telling us that a nation is a unit.

That is reflected in my question.

So what's your problem?

I maintain that God has made a national covenant with the 12 Tribes. This is clearly what the Bible teaches. You seem to be having trouble with the concept of "nation." The word is not unusual at all. And I can't explain why you don't know what it means.

 

[covenantee]

I maintain that God has made a national covenant with the 12 Tribes. This is clearly what the Bible teaches. You seem to be having trouble with the concept of "nation." The word is not unusual at all. And I can't explain why you don't know what it means.

Scripture maintains and demonstrates that God covenants with the faithful and obedient, exclusively. That is clearly what the Bible teaches.

I incorporated your definition of nation as a unit in my question. Suddenly you cannot understand your own claims.

I can't explain you to you.

Apparently neither can you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If it is a lie, it is your lie, not mine. You say you accept it as written as long as those words are symbols and not literal.

You are the one saying I'm not accepting it as written. That is a lie. I accept it as written, which is with symbolic text. Text doesn't have to be literal to accept it as written. You know that not all text in scripture is literal, right? Some is written literally and some symbolically. I accept the literal text as written and the symbolic text as written.

Are thrones literal? Are souls literal? Is being beheaded literal? Is a resurrection literal? Yes, all those things are literal, and not symbolic of something totally different that is also literal.

Did I say that everything written in the book is symbolic? No, I did not. Is at least some of it symbolic? Obviously, some of it is. So, you're wasting your time with this. We all know that some of the text is symbolic and some is literal. We obviously disagree on which is which in some cases.

A symbol: A literary symbol is an object, a person, a situation, or an action that has a literal meaning in a story but suggests or represents other meanings.

A symbol: a thing that represents or stands for something else, especially a material object representing something abstract.

Now you state that John only uses symbols in Revelation, or you claim posters here don't know what is a symbol and what is not in the book of Revelation.

I never stated that John only uses symbols in Revelation. You continue to just make things up. Why do you do that?

Then your default symbol is a dragon, and then you ask is the dragon literal? The serpent in the Garden had legs and then did not have legs. Or is that not literal, and only symbolic? There could have been a literal dragon that then lost it's legs. So a dragon is a literal symbol of a serpent with legs. Perhaps people don't accept the point the legs are now gone? Who knows?

LOL. What in the world are you attempting to say here? Satan is described as a dragon with seven heads and ten horns. Are you trying to make an argument that he is a literal dragon and literally has seven heads and ten horns? If not, then what is your point?

We know there is not a literal dragon in the future. It is Satan. Who really cares what Satan looks like? The dragon is an abstract symbol of Satan's involvement in human government, also abstract concepts. Satan is a literal created being, not an abstract concept of evil and death, also abstract concepts.

The point is that symbols don't have to look like what they are symbolizing in reality. Do you understand that or not?

But now you claim souls cannot be literal, so what does a soul represent in that chapter since you claim I called you a liar?

I never claimed that souls cannot be literal. So, you are either lying or you have absolutely horrible reading comprehension. Which is it?

You would also have to claim no one literally gets their head chopped off, that is only symbolic of being martyred, except beheaded is a literal term for a literal event, which is, wait for it, can you guess? A beheading. A throne is a literal term for a literal seat of judgment. So according to you, no one gets their head chopped off, and no one ever sits on a throne in judgment. You have decided instead, that all should mean: something you and a bunch of others think is just symbolic of people dying over the last 1993 years.

So you don't accept it as written, and you don't even think it will happen in the future.

If it's symbolic then I'm accepting it as written. You have made up the idea that accepting something as written means you have to accept it as being literal. But, not everything is written literally. Everyone here besides you can understand this. But, can you understand this?

I don't accept it as very literal, whatever that means. I accept a soul is a literal soul. I accept a throne is a literal throne. I accept that being beheaded is actually being beheaded. No guess work nor hyper interpretation is necessary, nor very very much interpretation is necessary. Just one interpretation, as it is written. And certainly not hyper literal. Just plain literal.

Yeah, and you think a spirit being like Satan can be literally bound with a literal chain, too. Why would you assume it's all literal when there is a mix of symbolic and literal text throughout the book?

"Hyper- is a prefix that means excess or exaggeration."

If accepting God's Word as written is not just simple interpretation, then what is simple interpretation to you? Just a step past, as written? Because as written means Revelation 20:1-6 takes place just after Revelation 19:11-21. Yet your alleged "as written", means John goes back in time after this battle you claim is merely symbolic and not literal, to the first century. How is that not an interpretation, that is a step past as written? I don't have to make up anything nor add my own interpretation, even if I do. There are added points that are implied that do not contradict the text, the context, nor other Scriptures no matter how much you claim these Scriptures as your defense for your interpretation.

Why does accepting it as written mean that it has to be literal? Can we not accept the symbolic text as written, which would mean we accept that it's symbolic and not literal?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Who told you that the OT contains passages that are "purposely obscure"? Why do you assume that you have a perfect understanding of the NT? This kind of rigid thinking indicates a religious commitment to a theological position, not one seeking to know what the Bible actually means by what it says.

I reject your assumptions as untrue and detrimental to a full knowledge of the truth.

I could give you the benefit of my experience, comparing OT passages with NT passages but you aren't willing to listen.

No one needed to tell me that. If that wasn't the case then why did the disciples need Jesus to give them understanding of the OT passages about Him? Why does the NT give fulfillments of OT prophecies if those fufillments were all already known? Where is it made clear in the OT that the promises made to Abraham and his seed applied to Jesus and those who belong to Jesus (Galatians 3:16-29)?

You have no explanation for any of these things, so I couldn't care less if you reject my view of this or not. I believe you have no discernment whatsoever, as evidenced by the fact that you deny the deity of Jesus Christ. You have not given me any reason to listen to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't agree.

Paul believes that Hosea's prophetic word is probative, supporting his contention that God orchestrates history in order to "make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy. He does not intend to say that Hosea predicted the salvation of Gentiles. Hosea wasn't speaking about Gentiles. Hosea was speaking about the Northern Ten Tribes. And Hosea's prophecy records the great extent to which God is willing to go in order to make his mercy known.

We understand Hosea's prophecy from within the larger context of the prophetic word. Hosea is predicting a moment in time when God will not only reconcile with a people whom he once called "my people" he will grant them eternal life at a particular location. (Verse 26). Hosea is predicting a unique event, which will be located at a particular place.

People can come to faith anywhere and at any time. Time and place are unique to each person's salvation experience. In general, we can be saved at any time and at any place. Nevertheless, Hosea is predicting a special time and place that a particular group of people will all share in common. "In the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' there they will be called 'children of the living God.'"

Is Hosea predicting the wholesale conversion of every individual among the Ten Tribes? No. But he does predict a mass conversion of a subset of that people group, all of whom God has hand-picked for eternal life.

Looks like you just completely ignored Romans 9:24 then. It's clear to me that you have a very low opinion of Paul and don't trust his understanding of the Old Testament.

 

[Timtofly]

If it's symbolic then I'm accepting it as written. You have made up the idea that accepting something as written means you have to accept it as being literal. But, not everything is written literally. Everyone here besides you can understand this. But, can you understand this?

Since you fail to make a point, I can only guess what you think is symbolic and what is literal.

 

[ewq1938]

You got that completely wrong , guess you think there will be flesh people during the millennium .

Of course there will be, the unsaved nations that are ruled over. We see a great number of them killed by fire at Jerusalem after the Mill ends. After that they are resurrected to die a second time.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Since you fail to make a point, I can only guess what you think is symbolic and what is literal.

I didn't fail to make a point, you failed to see it. I'm telling you that taking any given scripture passage as written means to take it as it was intended to be understood, whether it's symbolic or literal. You do acknowledge that not all scripture is literal and that some of it, especially in books like Revelation, is symbolic text, right? So, we should take the symbolic text as written (it's written symbolically) and the literal text as written (it's written literally). The way you talk makes it as if it's all literal, but even you know that is not the case since even you can recognize that the beast with seven heads and ten horns is not a literal beast that has seven literal heads and ten literal horns.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What I said didn't contradict what I said earlier. God made a covenant with Israel and treated them as a unit. That is true. He ALSO picks and chooses to bless individuals within Israel. That is also true.

What covenant did God make with Israel that included unbelievers like the Pharisees, scribes, Sadducees, etc.?