The Son of Man returns with and for his people

[Spiritual Israelite]

You said,

"People like CadyandZoe and marks say: "It is the children by physical descent who are God's children"."

I do not say that. Period.

I wasn't meaning that you actually said those exact words. I'm saying your beliefs seem to imply that. So, explain how you don't believe that when you do believe that everyone in the nation of Israel will be saved one day, but not everyone in any other nation. How can you believe that, but at the same time claim that salvation has nothing to do, or will never have anything to do, with one's nationality?

And I couldn't help but notice you chose to not "tag" me on this post, only speaking about me, that is, falsely putting words into my mouth, but secretly, behind my back.

That is not true. I knew you were following the discussion as evidenced by you liking CadyandZoe's posts. So, I didn't feel any need to tag you there. I assumed you would see it. I have nothing to hide from you. Are you kidding? Why have I talked to you directly as much as I have if I'm trying to hide something from you? That's ridiculous.

 

[marks]

That is not true. I knew you were following the discussion as evidenced by you liking CadyandZoe's posts. So, I didn't feel any need to tag you there.

I've checked in from time to time on the thread. I've not read all your posts, not by a long shot! You are on my ignore list, so unless I go out of my way, I don't see your posts. Anyway, you misrepresent me, now you defend yourself in doing so. There's a reason I have you on ignore. Are there other posts you've written things that you've assumed I saw?

There's nothing I've said that reasonably implies what you've said. You posted to make me look bad by putting your words into my mouth, misrepresenting my views.

You could at least own your own words.

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I've checked in from time to time on the thread. I've not read all your posts, not by a long shot! You are on my ignore list, so unless I go out of my way, I don't see your posts.

Well, excuse me for assuming that when you were reading CadyandZoe's replies to me that you also were reading what I said. I think it was quite reasonable for me to assume that you were at least reading some of my comments since he quoted them in his replies to me.

Anyway, you misrerpresent me, now you defend yourself in doing so.

But, you do nothing to explain why what I said misrepresented you. Can you please do that? It is not my intention to misrepresent what you believe. I have no desire to do that and no reason to do that. If you're going to not take my word for that and assume I am doing that on purpose (even though I have no reason to) then just put my back on your ignore list. I don't want to talk to someone who thinks I would purposely lie and misrepresent what someone else believes.

There's a reason I have you on ignore.

I believe the reason is because you are too thin skinned. Disagreements are going to happen on a forum like this. You have to be able to accept that and not be offended every time it happens. And you have to allow for people to accidentally misunderstand what you're saying without assuming they are purposely misrepresenting your view.

Are there other posts you've written things that you've assumed I saw?

You mean where I mentioned your name without tagging you? No.

There's nothing I've said that reasonably implies what you've said.

I've explained why I believe you have implied that multiple times now. So, please explain to me why I'm misunderstanding you. How does believing that God will save all the people from one nation but not any other nation not imply that their nationality will have a bearing on their salvation?

You posted to make me look bad by putting your words into my mouth, misrepresenting my views.

I did not do that purposely. Why would I? I have no reason to do that. I'm sure you have mistakenly misrepresented other's beliefs before. It happens all the time on here. I have no reason to do that purposely. So, please tell me how I misrepresented your view exactly and what you believe that doesn't line up with what I said.

 

[marks]

I don't want to talk to someone who thinks I would purposely lie and misrepresent what someone else believes.

You said,

"People like CadyandZoe and marks say: "It is the children by physical descent who are God's children"."

God's children are those who are by physical descent?? That's something I'd say??

No, again, no, again, I said nothing of the kind.

These were your words, not mine, and I'll leave everyone else to figure out for themselves why you would say that.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I've explained why I believe you have implied that multiple times now.

You've explained how I've indicated that nationality might have something to do with salvation for certain individuals, namely that when Jesus returns, all remaining Israelites will believe in Him. Other nations do not have that same prophetic word given. The prophecy for the nations is that Jesus will divide righteous from wicked.

But you've not explained how anything I've ever written implies,

"It is the children by physical descent who are God's children".

That's a very different thing. God's children are those who are born from Him. Let's not confuse this. And let's not attribute that confusion to me. OK? For whatever reason.

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You said,

"People like CadyandZoe and marks say: "It is the children by physical descent who are God's children"."

God's children are those who are by physical descent?? That's something I'd say??

No, again, no, again, I said nothing of the kind.

These were your words, not mine, and I'll leave everyone else to figure out for themselves why you would say that.

I've already explained why I said that more than once. Have you somehow missed that? If my impressions of what you said led me to the wrong conclusion about what you believe, so be it. I will adjust my understanding of what you believe then. But, I was not purposely misrepresenting your view and that is a fact. If you don't want to believe that, so be it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You've explained how I've indicated that nationality might have something to do with salvation for certain individuals, namely that when Jesus returns, all remaining Israelites will believe in Him. Other nations do not have that same prophetic word given. The prophecy for the nations is that Jesus will divide righteous from wicked.

But you've not explained how anything I've ever written implies,

"It is the children by physical descent who are God's children".

That's a very different thing. God's children are those who are born from Him. Let's not confuse this. And let's not attribute that confusion to me. OK? For whatever reason.

I did explain it, but you're not understanding my explanation. Your view that God will one day do something for one nation in regards to salvation (save all of them) that He will not do for any other nation implies that you at least think that in the future one's nationality will be a factor in their salvation. So, that's where I came up with the impression that you believe "It is the children by physical descent who are God's children" or at least that you believe that will be the case at some point in the future. I think my explanation is not hard to understand at all, yet you still don't understand it. Oh well. There's nothing I can do about that.

 

[covenantee]

One must be circumcised to enter Israel

Circumcision has never saved anyone, and Israel outside of Christ is lost.

God does not kill all those who are unfaithful and disobedient.

Only thousands. Do you think He was wrong?

Was Moses talking about members of Israel or "the great multitude?"

24,000. Numbers 25:9. A great multitude of Israelites.

 

[n2thelight]

That isn't true though. It's like people who think the bible says money is the root of all evil. They are not remembering it correctly.

Okay so I know it's the love of money, and I also know flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom God

 

[n2thelight]

Debunked.

There is no deliverance, of any kind, for anyone, Israelite or otherwise, apart from faith and obedience.

None.

Yes it is , that's why true Israel is under a curse right now

 

[ewq1938]

Okay so I know it's the love of money, and I also know flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom God

Right. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom, but can enter the current heavenly kingdom. This is how Elijah and Enoch were able to and how John (Revelation) did.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Their ancestry and ethnicity did not change.

While their ancestry is different, they abandoned their ethnicity in favor of a new one.

Ruth is a prime example. Hear what she says to her mother-in-law about her desire to stay in Israel rather than return home after the death of her husband.

Ruth 1:15-18
Then [Naomi] said, “Behold, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and her gods; return after your sister-in-law.” But Ruth said, “Do not plead with me to leave you or to turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you sleep, I will sleep. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord do so to me, and worse, if anything but death separates me from you.” When she saw that she was determined to go with her, she stopped speaking to her about it.

Ruth has promised steadfast allegiance to Naomi, her people, and her God. Whatever may befall them, what falls on Naomi, will fall on Ruth also. Ruth will never abandon Naomi even if times get tough. She will remain loyal to Naomi, her people, and her God until the day she dies. Eventually, Ruth will solidify her commitment through marriage and join with a man from among Naomi's people.

They continued to be Gentiles, people of whom faith and obedience were required.

No, as we see in Ruth, those who enter the people of God are no longer Gentiles, they pledge loyalty to God and his people.

In the US, in order to become a citizen of our country, one must pledge allegiance to the United States. If one promises to support and defend the Constitution, then one is granted all the rights and privileges associated with citizenship. And what might befall our country falls on each of the citizens.

 

[covenantee]

While their ancestry is different, they abandoned their ethnicity in favor of a new one.

Their DNA did not change, their ancestry did not change, their origins did not change, and Scripture identifies them as "not of thy seed" and "strangers" to distinguish their temporal ethnicity from that of Abraham's seed.

What did change was their spiritual ethnicity, as they forsook heathen worship and practice, and committed in faith and obedience to God and His covenant, in fellowship with the faithful obedient seed of Abraham.

And God commanded that they be recognized, without partiality or discrimination or differentiation, under the laws which He established for all of the faithful and obedient in the nation of Israel.

They were the faithful obedient Gentiles of Israel, God's People in every respect.

 

[marks]

Your view that God will one day do something for one nation in regards to salvation (save all of them) that He will not do for any other nation implies that you at least think that in the future one's nationality will be a factor in their salvation. So, that's where I came up with the impression that you believe "It is the children by physical descent who are God's children"

Even here this is non-sequitor.

Face up to it. And then it just goes away.

Much love!

 

[CadyandZoe]

No matter what you may think of me, just know that I would never purposely twist any words. Why would I? Do you think I don't want to be a Christian? Purposely twisting words would be a dishonest act. A sin. Why would I do that? I wouldn't.

Spiritual Israelite,
My post was too long so, Lord willing, I will attempt to answer your thoughtful post with more than one post. (Zoe says that I was writing a book and I think she is right.)

I appreciate your kind sentiments and I trust that you would never purposely twist my words. And I also appreciate your patience with me. Thank you.

You certainly seem to imply it when it's your belief that God will ensure the salvation of all Israelites one day, but will not do that for any other nation.

I admit, that was my former understanding of the prophets many years ago. But I no longer believe in a "mass conversion" of the entire nation of Israel and neither have I taught doctrine in this forum or on this board. As you may know, however, I believe that when Jesus returns to rule on earth, one of the very first things he will do when he returns is meet with the faithful Hebrews in Jerusalem.

How can you acknowledge that your belief at least can seem to imply that? If it's not based on nationality at all, then why would all Israelites be saved, but not all Americans, all Mexicans, all Nigerians, all Indians or all Chinese, etc.?

God made a covenant with Israel. He didn't make a covenant with Americans, Mexicans, Nigerians etc. And the Bible explicitly says that God's "hesed" is everlasting. That is, God's "covenant faithfulness" is everlasting. At Mt. Sinai, God made an agreement with the Hebrew people, "I will be a god for you and you will be a people for me." And that covenant will continue forever. (Jeremiah 31:36)

That's like saying there is a distinction between the people of God and the children of God. There is not. That's ridiculous.

Ridiculousness is relative to a particular group of people and a commonly held understanding of things. But it goes without saying that since you don't believe what I believe, what I say will sound ridiculous to you. That goes without saying. But what if you change your mind like I did? Will you still think that my views are subject to ridicule? Maybe or maybe not. But I would like a chance to convince you.

Let me put it to you this way. Do you think that each and every person who claims to be a Christian is a child of God? I don't. According to the Bible, a child of God is a person in whom the Spirit of God dwells. Consider for instance my favorite chapter of the Bible, Romans 8.

Romans 8:12-17

So then, brothers, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— for if you are living in accord with the flesh, you are going to die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.​

Given that definition then, we can confidently say that among the local congregation of Christians, some will be "sons," being led by the Spirit, and some will not be "sons," not being led by the Spirit. All of them confess to being "Christian," but not all of them are Christian in truth.

God chose a particular family line, Jacob and his descendants, to be his people. Even so, just as above, not each and every individual among the people of God are "sons" of God. Only those who are being led by the Holy Spirit are sons. That being the case then, it doesn't sound ridiculous to me to say that the Bible draws a distinction between the "people" of God and the "sons" of God.

God chose the Hebrew people to be his people, but not each and every Hebrew is considered a "son" because some of them are not being led by the Holy Spirit. The "Adoption as sons" belongs to them as a people, but not all of them are "sons".

I am going to suspend my response here. Hopefully, this will post. If so, I will continue to answer your thoughtful post in other posts to follow.

 

[CadyandZoe]

That's like saying there is a distinction between the people of God and the children of God. There is not. That's ridiculous.

If you please, this post is a continuation of my answer to your previous post. Sorry, for the multiple posts but I think your comments and questions deserve thoughtful and complete answers.

That's like saying there is a distinction between the people of God and the children of God. There is not. That's ridiculous.

I think there is a distinction to be had between the Hebrews, who are God's people, and individual Hebrews whom God has sanctified by his Spirit. Think about Christian culture and those who claim to be "Christian" as an example.

I think we can both agree with this fact. Not all those who call themselves "Christian" are Christians indeed. Not every Christian is a "child of God" because only true Christians alone are given the Holy Spirit as a down payment of their inheritance.

And I'm sure you are already aware of this. But just for the sake of our discussion, according to the Bible, a child of God is a person in whom the Spirit of God dwells. Consider for instance my favorite chapter of the Bible, Romans 8.

Romans 8:12-17
So then, brothers, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— for if you are living in accord with the flesh, you are going to die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

Given Paul's definition above, we can confidently say that among the local congregation of Christians, some will be "sons," being led by the Spirit, and some will not be "sons," not being led by the Spirit. All of them confess to being "Christian," but not all of them are "sons."

At the same time, the Bible teaches that God chose the Hebrews to be his "people". And it stands to reason that being a Hebrew is no guarantee of being a "son" since only those Hebrews who are being led by the Spirit are sons.

Be careful about generalizing too much. I don't argue that nothing in Romans 9 has anything to do with one's nationality. My argument is that Romans 9:6-8 in particular teaches that one's nationality has nothing to do with whether or not they are a Spiritual Israelite/Child of God/Child of the promise/Spiritual Seed of Abraham.

The point you raise is valid, but we can't use Romans chapter 9 as support for the point you made. Here in Romans 9, Paul is not arguing that "one's nationality has nothing to do whether or not one is a child of God." While that is true, Paul isn't teaching THAT idea in Romans 9.

Beginning in Romans 9, Paul raises an entirely new issue. The implied subtext of his argument is a response to an objection to Pauls' teaching. A Jew living in Rome might say, "What are you saying, Paul, that the word of God has failed? God promised the blessing to the Hebrews, didn't he? If Jesus is the Christ as you say, then why didn't God pour out his Spirit on all of us as he promised?"

Paul is focused on the Hebrews because he is answering the question he raised about God's promise to the Hebrew people. As part of his defense, he mentions four men, each of them descendants of Abraham. Paul declares that God chose Isaac over Ishmael; he chose Jacob over Esau. All four of these men are descendants of Abraham. If Paul wanted to make a point about inclusion, he would have chosen a story that compared a Jew to a Gentile.

My answer will continue in the next post.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Here my answer continues.

I don't know what you're talking about. It's as if you just completely ignore Romans 9:6-8 where Paul contrasts two different Israels. That is the passage that I normally talk about when I talk about Romans 9. And you're not even referencing that at all here for some reason. What do you think Paul meant when he said "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel"? What do you think he meant when he followed that up by saying "In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring"?

On the face of it, taken all by itself, the statement, "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." is meaningless. It's like saying, "Not all apples that grew from an apple tree are apples." But Paul's statement is not meaningless because the term "Israel" is ambiguous, having more than one meaning. God changed Jacob's name to "Israel" and so the term "Israel" can either refer to the man himself or it can refer to the man's descendants.

Thus, Paul is saying, "Not all of Jacob's descendants are Israel." But, taken out of the context of Paul's argument, that single sentence is untrue. By definition, the word "Israel" refers to Jacob's descendants. Paul's statement must be understood from within his argument, where he introduces the concept of "a child of promise." By strong implication then, Paul means to say, "Not all of Jacob's descendants will be included in the promise God made to Israel. Descent from Jacob is not the sole qualification for God's promised blessing to Israel.

What is that choice based on? Is it just random or is it based on the behavior of the people, such as whether or not they have faith like Abraham did?

Paul answers that question later in the chapter. He gives the analogy of a potter.

Question: Is God's choice predicated on the behavior of those whom he blesses? Must they exhibit faith like Abraham first?
Answer: No, God's choice is not predicated on any attribute of the individual.

Potter analogy:
The basis of Paul's defense that God is not unjust for choosing one twin over the other twin before they were born is the fact that God is a creator. The significance of this can be seen in the following analogy.

Say a woman goes to the store in order to buy a pot for her flowers. Or suppose she is choosing a pot in which to grow some mint. She looks over the entire inventory of pots and picks the most suitable pot for her needs. This process is analogous to God choosing to bless a person based on his or her attributes. Just like the woman chose a pot based on its attributes, according to a particular doctrine, God chooses people to bless based on a person's attributes.

That is on the one hand. On the other hand, in Paul's analogy of the potter, the strategy for obtaining a pot is different. God doesn't search all the available pots to choose the most suitable pot for his purpose. Rather, God designs and creates a pot that will be suitable for his purpose. God isn't "selecting" a pot. He is creating a pot. Unlike the woman who selects a pot from all of the available pots, God creates the pots himself. God is not selecting people that have faith like Abraham's faith. No. Rather, he is creating people having the faith of Abraham.

Once we understand the weight and profundity of Paul's position, then we can understand why Paul spent so much time on the subject. If what Paul said is true concerning God as creator, then it stands to reason that if God wanted, he could create an entire nation of Hebrews, filled with the Spirit and all believing that Jesus is the Christ. He can create an entire nation of Hebrews that confess Jesus Christ and walk in the Spirit of the Lord. In fact, he could have created an entire world of people, filled with the Spirit, that walks according to the Spirit. He is the creator and he can do all of that if he wished. So why didn't he? THAT is the underlying question. If God promised to bless the Hebrews, why didn't he use his creative power to make an entire family line of Hebrew - Christian converts?

 

[CadyandZoe]

So, he was NOT contrasting children of the flesh with children of the Spirit as you are claiming. He was contrasting natural descendants of Abraham and Israel with spiritual descendants. Of course, some natural descendants were also spiritual descendants, but them being spiritual descendants was not on the basis of them being natural descendants, but rather is on the basis of them having faith like Abraham.

That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

The question on the table is "Who is a child of Abraham" with respect to God's promise to grant eternal life to the Hebrews"? Be careful not to insert concepts that Paul doesn't offer. The contrast between natural and spiritual is absent from his argument here. The actual contrast is between "children of the flesh" and "children of the promise."

Paul is defending his position against his opponents who maintain that Paul is a false teacher since his teaching, taken to its logical conclusion, contradicts a promise God made to the Hebrews. He must make a defense for why the Gentiles are receiving the benefit of the Holy Spirit while some Hebrews are lacking.

For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
The structure of his defense can be seen as a Venn diagram. Consider the following two diagrams.

A. Two overlapping circles. One circle represents the Hebrews and the other circle represents the non-Hebrews. The intersection of the circle contains all those who are children of God and destined for eternal life.

B. A smaller circle inside a larger circle. The larger circle represents the Hebrews, and the smaller circle represents all those who are the children of God and destined for eternal life.

Paul argues for A. in the book of Galatians; Paul argues for B. in the book of Romans.

Paul writes: "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel" Some people read that and they hear A. Other people read that and they hear B. I hear B. Some people hear, "Spiritual Israel includes more than just Hebrews". Others hear, "God made a promise to Israel, but not all of the Hebrews will be included in that promise." That's what I hear.

Also, other translations make it more clear as to what Paul was saying in Romans 9:8. I'll give a few examples:

That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

With regard to the subject at hand (verse 9:1-6) the verse above is understood given the provisos that Paul enumerated earlier. The children of the flesh are certainly the people of God. Deuteronomy 7:6. And according to Paul, the "adoption as sons" belongs to his kinsmen of the flesh. And so, according to the objection of his Jewish detractors, it would appear that Paul's teaching contradicts God's word that he would bless his people the Hebrews.

It wouldn't do Paul any good to answer that God didn't make a promise to the children of the flesh. He just admitted that fact. Instead, he argues that the Hebrews God will bless, will be the Hebrews of God's own choice. He refers to these particular Hebrews as "the children of the promise."

This ends my response to your thoughtful post. Hopefully, I have addressed your comments and questions.

 

[CadyandZoe]

John 8:39,44

Covenants with sons of the devil.

That's not the God that I serve.

Romans 3:1-4

3 Then what advantage does the Jew have? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First, that they were entrusted with the actual words of God. 3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? 4 Far from it! Rather, God must prove to be true, though every person be found a liar, as it is written: “So that You are justified in Your words, And prevail when You are judged.”​

Paul argues that the Jew has an advantage and the benefit of circumcision is great in every respect. First in importance is the fact that God gave them his oracles. He answers your objection by suggesting that although some of them did not believe the oracles, this will not nullify the faithfulness of God.

This has been my point to you. Just because some of them didn't believe in God, just because some of them were faithless and disobedient, this does not nullify God's commitment to his covenant.

 

[covenantee]

Romans 3:1-4

3 Then what advantage does the Jew have? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First, that they were entrusted with the actual words of God. 3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? 4 Far from it! Rather, God must prove to be true, though every person be found a liar, as it is written: “So that You are justified in Your words, And prevail when You are judged.”​

Paul argues that the Jew has an advantage and the benefit of circumcision is great in every respect. First in importance is the fact that God gave them his oracles. He answers your objection by suggesting that although some of them did not believe the oracles, this will not nullify the faithfulness of God.

This has been my point to you. Just because some of them didn't believe in God, just because some of them were faithless and disobedient, this does not nullify God's commitment to his covenant.

God's covenant faithfulness and commitment were and are reserved for the faithful and obedient.

No others.

His covenant faithfulness and commitment did not and do not extend to the sons of Satan.

Nothing in Scripture could be more plain.

John 8
39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
44 Ye are of your father the devil...

Matthew 23
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Why wasn't Jesus complimenting them for their circumcision?