Do Christians Partake of the New Covenant Promised to Israel?

[LookingUp]

Read it again in context. Part of the evidence that you have been born of God is that you love the children of God and keep His commandments. It's similar to what is said here:

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

This is a general reference to Christians and Christians are identified as those "which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.".

I don’t deny that one with faith and given His Spirit will display love, especially toward the brethren. But John does not say God will “cause” us to display this love.

But God has already put His Spirit within His people! Is that causing them to perfectly walk in His statutes without fail? No. So, it doesn't make sense to conclude that God putting His Spirit within someone has something to do with them perfectly walking in His statutes at all times.

I don’t think that putting His Spirit within us causes us to walk in His statutes. When He both puts His spirit within and writes His Torah on hearts, this will “cause” His people to walk in His statutes and no one will teach “know the Lord” to his neighbor down the street for ALL will know the Lord for the knowledge of the Lord will cover the earth. This has NOT happened yet. We still must teach “know the Lord” to our neighbors, ALL do not know the Lord and the knowledge of the Lord does not cover the earth. All of these things are connected to the implementation of the New Covenant which has not happened yet.

Since the spiritual seed of Abraham are the ones who make up spiritual Israel then what is the difference between the spiritual seed of Abraham and spiritual Israel? None! Yet you are trying to say those are two different groups? You're not making any sense to me at all.

To be a member of the “spiritual seed of Ab club,” you have to have faith and faith alone. It’s open to the public. To be a member of the “spiritual Israel club,” you have to be a circumcised member of the “spiritual seed of Ab club.” It’s a private club that requires not only faith but circumcision. Abraham came first. People were joining that club long before the “spiritual Israel club” was even in existence. Its formation came about when the Mosaic Law was implemented. All who were already in the “spiritual seed of Ab club” automatically became members of the “spiritual Israel club,” also known as remnant Israel.

No, the faithful Israelite is part of the groups that Paul mentions in Romans 9:6. One is spiritual Israel and the other is the nation of Israel (natural descendants). A natural Israelite is part of natural Israel by physical birth but they are only of spiritual Israel by way of spiritual birth.

Just because faithful, circumcised Joe Jew can be a part of spiritual Israel through spiritual birth, doesn’t mean that faithful, uncircumcised George Gentile can be a part of spiritual Israel through spiritual birth.

Can't you see that the requirement for being a spiritual seed of Abraham is the same as the requirement for being part of spiritual Israel?

No, you have to be circumcised to be a part of spiritual Israel.

So, what is the difference between the two? None. What you're saying here is like saying that you can't be a Christian without being a part of the church. Does that means Christians and the church are two different groups? Of course not.

No, that’s not what I’m saying. In your comparison, the Christian would be spiritual Israel and the member of the Church would be the spiritual seed of Abraham. So, that doesn’t work. It’s more like saying you that you can’t be a pastor (“spiritual Israel”) without being a member of the Church (“spiritual seed of Ab”). Anyone can be a part of the Church through faith, but only those who are called to special service within that group can be a pastor.

[percho]

I have a question.

Amos 9:9 For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as [corn] is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.

nations gowy from the Septuagint ἔθνεσιν Gentiles The very same Greek word found in Acts 15:12 for Gentiles.

God scattered the house of Israel among the Gentiles.

Question. Is it probable from reading all the prophesies in the OT of God regathering his people to understand this verse,"Acts 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, (ἐθνῶν) (nations in Rom 4:18 KJV) to take out of them a people for his name." as God regathering the house of Israel?

If your answer is no. Why?

[LookingUp]

I have a question.

Amos 9:9 For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as [corn] is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.

nations gowy from the Septuagint ἔθνεσιν Gentiles The very same Greek word found in Acts 15:12 for Gentiles.

God scattered the house of Israel among the Gentiles.

Question. Is it probable from reading all the prophesies in the OT of God regathering his people to understand this verse,"Acts 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, (ἐθνῶν) (nations in Rom 4:18 KJV) to take out of them a people for his name." as God regathering the house of Israel?

If your answer is no. Why?

I'm not completely sure what you're asking. It sounds like you're saying that part of purpose of the gospel message going out to the Gentiles is because a large portion of these "Gentiles" are actually part of the lost tribes of Israel. After He gathers them (including "real" Gentiles), He will gather the house of Judah. Is that what you're saying?

[Raybob]

...I don’t think that putting His Spirit within us causes us to walk in His statutes. ...

How can you possibly say that? If we are filled with the spirit of truth, and walking with the spirit of truth in us, it's impossible to do wrong. If we are tempted to allow the spirit of error to motivate us, we need repentance immediately.

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
(Joh 14:16-17)


Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
(Joh 16:13)

Please don't forget the words of Jesus:

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
(Mat 22:37-40)

[JerryShugart]

I'm not ignoring those verses at all. Stop being so insulting! I addressed those verses by addressing Hebrews 8:6-13 where that passage is quoted in full.

When a person actually addresses verses they give the interpretation of the meaning of what is said. You never gave your interpretation of the meaning of what is said in "bold" in the following verses nor did you address my remarks about the meaning:

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD" (Jer.31:31-32).

The New Covenant will be made with those who broke the Covenant which God made with "their fathers." So that can only be referring to Israel "after the flesh." It was Israel "according to the flesh" who broke the Covenant which God made with "their fathers." Also, it was Israel "according to the flesh" who was brought out of the land of Egypt.

You never addressed what I said about exactly "who" it is that received the promises of the New Covenant.

You keep insisting that the verses in Hebrews which you mentioned are in regard to Christians so that answers all my questions and because I continue to ask you to actually answer my specific points that I am somehow insulting you.

We can see from the following verses that the New Covenant will be given to the nation of Israel and it is obvious that what is prophesised there has not happened in the past nor is it happening now:

"I will make an everlasting covenant with them. And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the LORD hath blessed" (Isa.61:8-9).

Certainly this does not describe the condition of things today or the condition of things which has ever happened in the past. herefore its fulfillment remains in the future.

But the point that Paul makes in Romans 9-11 is that all Israel is being saved, will continue to be saved and eventually will all be saved. And he's talking about spiritual Israel.

It does little good to attempt to show you the truth because you just ignore it. I will repeat what I said. Paul used the "future" tense when he said "shall be saved." If you are right then he would have used the "present" tense. These things are so simple but for some reason you cannot grasp them. Since this truth does not fit your view you try to convince us that the "future" tense does not necessarily mean that it will happen in the future but it is also happening now:

I guess I'm going to have to spell this out to you. For one thing the Greek word does not have to only refer to the future. For another thing the English phrase "shall be" does not mean that whatever "shall be" has not already begun to take place.

Please give me just one example from the Scriptures where the "future" tense is used in that way. Here is what the Greek experts say about the Greek "future" tense:

"The future tense corresponds to the English future, and indicates the contemplated or certain occurrence of an event which has not yet occurred" (The Blue Letter Bible).

This directly contradicts your ideas and at the same time we can understand that the New Covenant promised to Israel is not now in force.

[LookingUp]

When a person actually addresses verses they give the interpretation of the meaning of what is said. You never gave your interpretation of the meaning of what is said in "bold" in the following verses nor did you address my remarks about the meaning:

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD" (Jer.31:31-32).

The New Covenant will be made with those who broke the Covenant which God made with "their fathers." So that can only be referring to Israel "after the flesh." It was Israel "according to the flesh" who broke the Covenant which God made with "their fathers." Also, it was Israel "according to the flesh" who was brought out of the land of Egypt.

You never addressed what I said about exactly "who" it is that received the promises of the New Covenant.

You keep insisting that the verses in Hebrews which you mentioned are in regard to Christians so that answers all my questions and because I continue to ask you to actually answer my specific points that I am somehow insulting you.

We can see from the following verses that the New Covenant will be given to the nation of Israel and it is obvious that what is prophesised there has not happened in the past nor is it happening now:

"I will make an everlasting covenant with them. And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the LORD hath blessed" (Isa.61:8-9).

Certainly this does not describe the condition of things today or the condition of things which has ever happened in the past. herefore its fulfillment remains in the future.


It does little good to attempt to show you the truth because you just ignore it. I will repeat what I said. Paul used the "future" tense when he said "shall be saved." If you are right then he would have used the "present" tense. These things are so simple but for some reason you cannot grasp them.

Exactly. And that's why in Romans Paul tries to help them understand what happened to "physical" Israel. They know it's "physical" Israel (the house of Israel and the house of Judah) that is supposed to be gathered together to inherit the land forever and receive the New Covenant promise. Paul reassures them that this will happen (Rom. 11). Physical Israel is partially hardened for only a temporary period of time until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. Why would anyone need to be hardened at all in order for the fullness of the Gentiles to come in? Instead of gathering the houses together, putting His Spirit in them and writing His Torah on their hearts, He chose to harden them because of their unbelief. This wouldn't stop His plan of redemption going out to all the nations, and after He finishes with the Gentiles He will turn His attention back to "physical" Israel who will also become "spiritual" Israel.

[John146]

To be a member of the “spiritual seed of Ab club,” you have to have faith and faith alone. It’s open to the public. To be a member of the “spiritual Israel club,” you have to be a circumcised member of the “spiritual seed of Ab club.” It’s a private club that requires not only faith but circumcision.

Where are you seeing this taught in scripture?

Just because faithful, circumcised Joe Jew can be a part of spiritual Israel through spiritual birth, doesn’t mean that faithful, uncircumcised George Gentile can be a part of spiritual Israel through spiritual birth.

Please read the following passage very carefully:

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

What I've done here is color coded the parts that speak of spiritual Israel (red) and the parts that speak only of the nation of Israel (blue). Now, in order to be part of natural Israel all that is required is to be a natural physical descendant of Abraham. That's it. Paul points out the fact that being a physical descendant is not a requirement for being part of spiritual Israel, which is to be among the children of God and the children of the promise. What you are saying is contradicting what Paul said in this passage. Nowhere does scripture say that being a natural descendant of Abraham and being circumcised is required in order to be part of spiritual Israel. Paul said regarding those who are part of spiritual Israel and among the children of God and children of the promise: "In Isaac shall thy seed be called". What does that mean? We can look at the following passage to see what that means:

Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

Look at this. Paul is including the Gentile believers he was writing to as being among "the children of promise" just "as Isaac was". Since in Romans 9:6-8 he indicated that in order to be part of spiritual Israel required someone to be among the children of promise and being called "in Isaac" then it shouldn't be hard to see that Gentile believers meet the requirements of being part of spiritual Israel every bit as much as Jewish believers do. Nowhere does it say you must be physically circumcised to be part of spiritual Israel (that was a requirement for the nation of Israel). I guarantee you will not find such a thing taught anywhere in scripture.

No, you have to be circumcised to be a part of spiritual Israel.

You are going to have to provide scripture to back up this claim.

No, that’s not what I’m saying. In your comparison, the Christian would be spiritual Israel and the member of the Church would be the spiritual seed of Abraham. So, that doesn’t work. It’s more like saying you that you can’t be a pastor (“spiritual Israel”) without being a member of the Church (“spiritual seed of Ab”). Anyone can be a part of the Church through faith, but only those who are called to special service within that group can be a pastor.

You lost me here. Faith in Christ is what is required to be a spiritual seed of Abraham and part of the spiritual Israel. That is what scripture teaches.

[John146]

When a person actually addresses verses they give the interpretation of the meaning of what is said. You never gave your interpretation of the meaning of what is said in "bold" in the following verses nor did you address my remarks about the meaning:

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD" (Jer.31:31-32).

The New Covenant will be made with those who broke the Covenant which God made with "their fathers." So that can only be referring to Israel "after the flesh."

Sure. The covenant was originally made to natural Israel. But what you are missing is that God graciously included the Gentiles in His new covenant.

It was Israel "according to the flesh" who broke the Covenant which God made with "their fathers." Also, it was Israel "according to the flesh" who was brought out of the land of Egypt.

Yep, that's right. None of what you're saying means that Gentile believers can't also be included in the new covenant.

You never addressed what I said about exactly "who" it is that received the promises of the New Covenant.

You have to be kidding me. I have been addressing that over and over again. While it may not be clear in the OT, the NT makes it abundantly clear that Gentile believers are including among those who inherit the promises made to the Israelite fathers. It really couldn't be more clear. Just read Galatians 3 and 4 and, well, just read the entire NT and you should be able to see that if you have any discernment at all.

We can see from the following verses that the New Covenant will be given to the nation of Israel and it is obvious that what is prophesised there has not happened in the past nor is it happening now:

"I will make an everlasting covenant with them. And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the LORD hath blessed" (Isa.61:8-9).

Certainly this does not describe the condition of things today or the condition of things which has ever happened in the past. herefore its fulfillment remains in the future.

Same thing here. This does not say that Gentiles cannot be included in the new covenant. Jesus sometimes spoke as if His only people were Israelites but then He made it clear that He also had another fold:

John 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

So, just because scripture is at times very Israel-centric does not mean that it's all about Israel and Gentiles are just second class citizens or something. No, God has brought both together as one in the body of Christ under the new covenant by way of the shed blood of Christ.

It does little good to attempt to show you the truth because you just ignore it.

No, I don't ignore the truth at all. I also don't ignore your comments, I just disagree with them.

I will repeat what I said. Paul used the "future" tense when he said "shall be saved." If you are right then he would have used the "present" tense.

No, he wouldn't have because if something was already occurring and would continue to occur, such as the saving of spiritual Israel, then you wouldn't say "all Israel is saved". You would say "all Israel shall be saved". Saying that does not mean that no part of Israel can be getting saved now.

These things are so simple but for some reason you cannot grasp them.

That is how I see you. I think you are very lacking in discernment. But it doesn't do any good for us to point things like this out. Okay, we both think the other has no understanding at all. Fine. Let's not dwell on that and see if we can find any common ground, if any. If not then let's at least discuss these things respectfully even if we seem to disagree on pretty much everything.

Since this truth does not fit your view you try to convince us that the "future" tense does not necessarily mean that it will happen in the future but it is also happening now:

I'm sorry, but I don't see your words and truth as going hand in hand.

Please give me just one example from the Scriptures where the "future" tense is used in that way. Here is what the Greek experts say about the Greek "future" tense:

"The future tense corresponds to the English future, and indicates the contemplated or certain occurrence of an event which has not yet occurred" (The Blue Letter Bible).

This directly contradicts your ideas and at the same time we can understand that the New Covenant promised to Israel is not now in force.

Here is an example where the Greek word sōzō (translated as "shall be saved" in Rom 11:26) is used to speak of salvation that would occur in an ongoing sense:

Matt 18:11For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Is this saying that the Son of man was going to come in the future to save the lost? No, He had already come to the earth, obviously. Is this speaking of a future mass conversion as you believe is the sense that the word is used in Matt 18:11? No. The lost were getting saved back then, have been getting saved since and will continue to get saved from now on until the end of the age when Christ returns.

Here is a case where the word was even used in the past tense:

Mark 5:34 And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.

There are other examples but this is enough to prove that your claim that the word has to be speaking only in the future tense in Romans 11:26 is false.

[episkopos]

Quote Originally Posted by LookingUp View Post
To be a member of the “spiritual seed of Ab club,” you have to have faith and faith alone. It’s open to the public. To be a member of the “spiritual Israel club,” you have to be a circumcised member of the “spiritual seed of Ab club.” It’s a private club that requires not only faith but circumcision.

So the flesh does give profit? Muslims are also circumcised. Do they have a better place in the kingdom for this?

[LookingUp]

So the flesh does give profit? Muslims are also circumcised. Do they have a better place in the kingdom for this?

When Paul spoke of "the circumcision," it's clear he's speaking of Israel. And, yes, Paul said circumcision does profit, in this way: "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every aspect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God" (Rom. 3:1-2). Paul also writes, "...my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh..." (Rom. 9:3-5).

[JerryShugart]

John146,

Let us look the these verses again:

"...blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins" (Ro.11:25-27).

Here the words shall be saved" is in the future tense, and according to the Greek experts "The future tense corresponds to the English future, and indicates the contemplated or certain occurrence of an event which has not yet occurred" (The Blue Letter Bible).

Despite this you think that you know more about the Greek language than the experts know. what are your credentials in the greek language, by the way? You said:

For one thing the Greek word does not have to only refer to the future. For another thing the English phrase "shall be" does not mean that whatever "shall be" has not already begun to take place.

Even though the Greek experts say that the Greek word translated "shall be saved" is in the future tense and that tense speaks of an event "which has not yet occured" you say that they are wrong because you know that it has already begun to take place! You try to prove the Greek experts wrong here:

Here is an example where the Greek word sōzō (translated as "shall be saved" in Rom 11:26) is used to speak of salvation that would occur in an ongoing sense:

Matt 18:11For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Is this saying that the Son of man was going to come in the future to save the lost?

This proves nothing. The Greek word translated "is come" is not in the "future" tense at all, but instead the "Second Aorist." The Greek experts say that "The "second aorist" tense is identical in meaning and translation to the normal or 'first' aorist tense. The only difference is in the form of spelling the words in Greek, and there is no effect upon English translation" (Blue Letter Bible). Here is what the same experts say about the "first aorist tense":

"The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations" (Blue Letter Bible).

Since this verb is not in the future tense your explanation is in error and proves nothing. All you have proven is that you are totally lost when it comes to understanding the tings of the greek language but at the same time you are so arrogant that you injsist that you know more about the Greek language than the Greek experts.

Earlier I said:

We can see from the following verses that the New Covenant will be given to the nation of Israel and it is obvious that what is prophesised there has not happened in the past nor is it happening now:

"I will make an everlasting covenant with them. And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the LORD hath blessed" (Isa.61:8-9).

Certainly this does not describe the condition of things today or the condition of things which has ever happened in the past. Therefore its fulfillment remains in the future.

Despite these facts you say:

This does not say that Gentiles cannot be included in the new covenant.

You just IGNORE the fact that the verse which shows exactly how Gentiles will receive blessings through the agency of the nation of Israel when her New Covenant is in effect. According to this the Gentiles will be brought into blessings through the agency of the nation of Israel while the New Covenant is effect for her:

"Give ear and come to me; hear me, that your soul may live. I will make an everlasting covenant with you...Surely you will summon nations you know not, and nations that do not know you will hasten to you, because of the Lord your God, the Holy One of Israel, for he has endowed you with splendor" (Isa.55:3,5; NIV).

But now the blessings that Gentile believers receive is not according to the agency of the nation of Israel but instead through their fall:

"I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?" (Ro.11:11-12).

If the New Covenant was in force now then all Israel would already be saved and the Gentiles would be receiving blessings through the agency of that nation. Here we see what will happen when the nation of Israel finally fulfills her destiny and begins to be a blessing to the world:

"And I will bring them (Israel), and they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God, in truth and in righteousness...And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, O house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing...In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you" (Zech.8:8,13,23).

That has not yet happened so common sense dictates that the fulfillment of the New Covenant promised to the houses of Judah and Israel remains in the future.

[LookingUp]

Where are you seeing this taught in scripture?

Please read the following passage very carefully:

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

What I've done here is color coded the parts that speak of spiritual Israel (red) and the parts that speak only of the nation of Israel (blue). Now, in order to be part of natural Israel all that is required is to be a natural physical descendant of Abraham. That's it. Paul points out the fact that being a physical descendant is not a requirement for being part of spiritual Israel, which is to be among the children of God and the children of the promise. What you are saying is contradicting what Paul said in this passage. Nowhere does scripture say that being a natural descendant of Abraham and being circumcised is required in order to be part of spiritual Israel. Paul said regarding those who are part of spiritual Israel and among the children of God and children of the promise: "In Isaac shall thy seed be called". What does that mean? We can look at the following passage to see what that means:

Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

Look at this. Paul is including the Gentile believers he was writing to as being among "the children of promise" just "as Isaac was". Since in Romans 9:6-8 he indicated that in order to be part of spiritual Israel required someone to be among the children of promise and being called "in Isaac" then it shouldn't be hard to see that Gentile believers meet the requirements of being part of spiritual Israel every bit as much as Jewish believers do. Nowhere does it say you must be physically circumcised to be part of spiritual Israel (that was a requirement for the nation of Israel). I guarantee you will not find such a thing taught anywhere in scripture.

You are going to have to provide scripture to back up this claim.

You lost me here. Faith in Christ is what is required to be a spiritual seed of Abraham and part of the spiritual Israel. That is what scripture teaches.

Sorry, I forgot to respond to this post. Abraham “received the sign of circumcision so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised” (Rom. 4:11). Abraham is the father of Gentiles with faith. The next verse says that Abraham is the “father of the circumcision” (natural Israel). The verse goes on and says that Abraham is not only the father of the circumcision (natural Israel) but “of those (in natural Israel) who follow the steps of faith of Abraham” (Rom. 4:12). Abraham is the father of natural Israel with faith (“spiritual Israel”). He is the “spiritual” father of two groups: Gentiles with faith and natural Israel with faith.

In Rom. 9:6 Paul says that just because they’re circumcised (Israel) doesn’t mean they’re part of Israel (“spiritual Israel”). Then Paul says NEITHER are they (Israel) the seed of Abraham just because they’re related to him. It’s only those with faith who are the seed of Abraham. Abraham is the father of natural Israel with faith (“spiritual Israel”).

[John146]

John146,

Let us look the these verses again:

"...blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins" (Ro.11:25-27).

Here the words shall be saved" is in the future tense, and according to the Greek experts "The future tense corresponds to the English future, and indicates the contemplated or certain occurrence of an event which has not yet occurred" (The Blue Letter Bible).

Despite this you think that you know more about the Greek language than the experts know.

Jerry, I already gave you an example in scripture where the word is not used in that sense. What more do you need than that? Why didn't that "expert" bother mentioning that the word is not always used only in the future tense in scripture? What kind of "expert" is that?

Even though the Greek experts

Experts (plural)? You quoted one "expert". Now, you're acting as if all Greek "experts" said that. You are quite a character, Jerry. I am not a Greek expert and I know you are not either since you wouldn't be consulting other Greek "experts" if you were. But I can look at how the words are used elsewhere in scripture to see all the possible meanings of the word. You apparently didn't bother to do that.

This proves nothing. The Greek word translated "is come" is not in the "future" tense at all, but instead the "Second Aorist." The Greek experts say that "The "second aorist" tense is identical in meaning and translation to the normal or 'first' aorist tense. The only difference is in the form of spelling the words in Greek, and there is no effect upon English translation" (Blue Letter Bible). Here is what the same experts say about the "first aorist tense":

"The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations" (Blue Letter Bible).

Since this verb is not in the future tense your explanation is in error and proves nothing. All you have proven is that you are totally lost when it comes to understanding the tings of the greek language but at the same time you are so arrogant that you injsist that you know more about the Greek language than the Greek experts.

This is hilarious. You reference one Greek "expert" and he somehow represents all Greek "experts". That is too funny. Are you going to try to tell me the word is used only in the future tense in the following verse as well:

Mark 5:34 And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.

Just to be clear, the words "hath made...whole" in this verse are translated from the same Greek word as "shall be saved" is translated from in Romans 11:26. Is this verse saying her faith will make her whole in the future, Jerry? Or is it saying her faith had made her whole at that time? The fact of the matter, that you probably will try to deny, is that the word does not have to be used only in the future tense. It can even refer to the past or present tense and can also refer to something that is already occurring and will continue to occur, such as spiritual Israel being saved, until eventually all spiritual Israel has been saved.

Earlier I said:

We can see from the following verses that the New Covenant will be given to the nation of Israel and it is obvious that what is prophesised there has not happened in the past nor is it happening now:

"I will make an everlasting covenant with them. And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the LORD hath blessed" (Isa.61:8-9).

Certainly this does not describe the condition of things today or the condition of things which has ever happened in the past.

Certainly, it does. Have you never read the NT, Jerry? Why do you not allow the NT to illuminate the OT for you? That is speaking of the same covenant mentioned here:

Isa 59:20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD. 21As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

And Paul refers to this covenant in Romans 11:26-27:

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

It is the covenant by which God takes away sins. It should be obvious that is referring to the new covenant which was established long ago by the blood of Christ.

Matt 26:27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

It should be very clear that the covenant Isaiah prophesied about is the new covenant that Christ put into effect by shedding His blood for Israel and also the whole world.

Despite these facts you say:

Don't confuse your flawed opinions with facts, Jerry.

You just IGNORE the fact

I don't ignore any facts, Jerry. Stop acting like a child. I don't even ignore your flawed opinions, I just disagree with them. You try to read OT passages and interpret them on their own without using the NT to help you understand the real meaning of those OT passages. That is not wise.

[John 8:32]

How can you possibly say that? If we are filled with the spirit of truth, and walking with the spirit of truth in us, it's impossible to do wrong.

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Hmmm, written 20 years after receiving Holy Spirit.

[quiet dove]

You guys are going round and round about natural Israel and spiritual Israel. I would like to put forth that this has always been the case. (not your going round and round, but that there has always been spiritual Israel..)

Circumcision did not make a natural Israelite a spiritual Israelite. Circumcision was the visible sign that the Israelite had chosen to place their faith in God, thus making them, by faith, a spiritual Israelite. Circumcision was the sign of their faith in God and thus their having chosen to be in covenant with God.

In other words, circumcision was the sign of the established covenant of faith placed in God, not the making of the covenant, nor was circumcision the imputing of faith. It was the sign of faith with which the person agreeing to be in covenant with God, had placed in God, the faith and belief came first, the spiritual came first, then the outer visible sign of the agreement/covenant.

Just like with Christ, first we believe, we place our faith in Him....'get saved'. Then we are, as a result of being saved and according to the promise of Christ, indwelt by the Spirit....sealing us, our guarantee. We get baptized to make a public confession so that could be a sign, but the Holy Spirit with in us, the circumcision of the heart, the Holy Spirit is who seals us.

OT or NT...first faith, then sign. Circumcision never got anyone into the kingdom of God, faith did.