A Saviour unto Israel

The problem is that your interpretive brackets [] that you have conveniently ADDED to God's Word are not found in God's Word nor does the context support your theory.

In Romans 11:27 the Israel Paul refers to is called "Jacob" and the Gentile elect are NEVER referred to as "Jacob." Indeed, when God uses the term "Jacob" He ALWAYS has reference to the REBELLIOUS ethnic nation of Israel (Mal. 3:6).

 

Pure presumption without one shred of Biblical evidence that "Jacob" means the church.

 

Both uses of the term "Israel" in Romans 9:6 refer to ethnic Israel. Paul's point is very simple, Israel composed of once born jews is the not the promised Israel of TWICE born Jews.

False and irrational reasoning! Simply because all the elect share the same salvation does not mean Jews are to be defined as gentiles or gentiles be defined as Jews or the church be defined as Israel or Israel defined as the church. The same salvation applied to Israel will be applied to the elect who preceded Abraham in Genesis 1-11 as well as, the gentiles who followed the temporary setting apart of Israel.

The church and the elect are not synonyms. The elect preceded the building of the church as the Church is strictly confined to the New Testament - its foundation and first members are Apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28) not Old Testament elect saints.

 

The immediate context demands it! Verses 3 is talking about "my kinsman ACCORDING TO THE FLESH" not gentiles. There are NO GENTILES ever mentioned in verses 1-23. The grammar demands it, as the word "who" in verse 5 stems back to Jews NOT GENTILES! Hence right up to verse 6 there are NO GENTILES. Verses 7-23 there are NO GENTILES.

Romans 9:23-11:25 Gentiles are ALWAYS contrasted with the term "Israel" NEVER INCLUSIVE!

What you intentionally ignore is the fact that Abraham is the father of BOTH PLURAL Gentile nations and in addition the father of SINGULAR Israel as a nation without confusing the two.

Furthermore, you intentionally ignore that what was cut off for the sake of the gentiles in Romans 11 ISRAEL AS A NATION - Not "remnant" Israel - and what is grafted back again into her "own" tree is exactly what was cut off - Israel as a nation.

Finally, you ignore context, grammar and plain common sense when it comes to the explicit teaching of Paul in Romans 11:25-29 which corresponds perfectly with Zecharian 12-13.

In short, you EXPLOIT and PERVERT the Word of God with no objectivity or honesty.

 

You totally disregard grammar and every single definitive evidence of immediate context that precedes and follows that text in order to FORCE your interpretation upon that text! No objectivity, no honesty no adherence to standard principles of interpretation. Therefore, you can make it apply to Santa Clause the way you interpret scriptures!

Neither Galatians 3:29 or 4:28 use the word "Israel."

Your question demonstrates my point. Some how in your mind you IMAGINE that Abraham has but ONE nation that can be called his "seed" when he is a father of MANY NATIONS and in addition to "MANY NATIONS" he is the father of ONE ELECT NATION separate and distinct from the rest - the NATION of Israel. Hence, Galatians 3:29 refers to elect from BOTH - the promised children out of MANY NATIONS in addition to the promised children currently from "remnant" Israel and ultimately from Israel as a nation in its fullness at the coming of Christ (Rom. 11:25-29). Together they now make up the KINGDOM OF GOD on earth and when Israel as a NATION is saved the theocratic kingdom of God will be ushered into power upon earth.

 

Both statements above are completely false! Ishmael and his descendents were NEVER called "Israel."

Second, the "MANY NATIONS" did not come from Ishmael but only the Arab nations. The Germanic nations did not come from Ishmael or the Negroid nations or the Slavic nations. You simply do not know what you are talking about!

What you should have said was, God promised two different ethnic spiritual seed through Abraham - Gentile seed of promise from "MANY NATIONS" who for the MOST PART have absolutely no PHYSICAL relationship to Abraham; and a JEWISH seed that comprises of a "remnant" between Abraham and the second coming but is fulfilled in NATIONAL salvation at Christ's return.

That is patently false! Paul does not use the term "Israel" in Galatians 3:29 and Galatians 4:28 but rather refers to the "seed" of promise which could come from MANY NATIONS or THE NATION of Israel.

You are FORCING your interpretation upon all these passages when they do not call for it at all!

According to your mentality these texts ought to have read thus:

Gal. 3:29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye ISRAEL, and heirs according to the promise.

Gal. 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of ISRAEL.

However, these texts DO NOT SAY THAT! The reason they do not say that is because the promise seed are drawn from MANY NATIONS as well as from the NATION of Israel and Gentiles do not become Israelites and Israelites do not become Gentiles, as there is equal basis to argue the Israelites by salvation become MANY NATIONS as much as there is to argue many nations become Israelites.

Be honest with how the text reads! It does not say "Israel"! You have built a straw man argument and burnt it because GENTILES can be identified as the "seed" because they come from MANY NATIONS as much as Israelites can be identified as the promised "seed" without confusing either.

 

Jacob is called "Israel" not Abraham. Isaac is not called "Israel." Gal. 3:29 nor Gal. 4:28 ever use the term "Israel."

Abraham's promised seed come from two sources "MANY NATIONS" and the nation of "Israel." Hence, you cannot PRESUME the term "seed" in either of these passages is a synonym for "Israel" as that assumption is based upon circular reasoning. You cannot assume what you are being challenged to prove to be true! You are assuming "seed" in these texts means "Israel" when there is no basis for that assumption.

 

So, why are the apostles the "FIRST" to be added to the Church - 1 Cor. 12:28

So, why are the apostles the "FOUNDATION" of the church - Eph. 2:20

Old Testament prophets and Old Testament saints could not be part of the New Covenant church as it was not even built until Christ built it during his personal ministry (Mt. 16:18). If the church had existed previous to the apostles and New Testament prophets there is no way Paul could say the apostles were the "FIRST" to be SET IN the church or that they were the FOUNDATION of the church.

You simply refuse to use common sense or to abide by sound principles of hermeneutics! How many SPIRITUAL fathers do children of God have???????

1. Paul said he had begotton those he discipled - Paul a spiritual father
2. The prophets you say are spiritual Father's
3. Abraham is our spiritual Father
4. God is our spiritual Father
5. Satan was our Father - Jn. 8:44

The term "father" is used commonly in scriptures for SOURCE and/or ROLE MODEL. It is used INSTRUMENTALLY. Sometimes it is literal/physical and other times metaphorical.

How were they "children of the prophets"? Literal or metaphorical? The New Testament scriptures were not available when Paul wrote. The only scriptures available were those produced by the "prophets." God used the writings of the prophets - the word of God to beget children. Since the Old Testament scriptures came INSTRUMENTALLY through the prophets, thus they were METAPHORICAL "children of the prophets." This is exactly the sense that Paul had "begotten" some and was a "father" to those who were saved under him. Not their Literal physical father. Not literal physical seiman. Metaphorical "father" and metaphorical "seed."

Physical life comes from God as the original source (Father) much more spiritual life. God is the original source (father) for both physical and spiritual life but God uses many instrumental and METAPHORICAL sources (fathers) for both.

For example, spiritual life comes from God as the primary/original source (Father) but spiritual life comes through the metaphorical "seed" of the Word of God and the prophets are the instrumental and metaphorical sources (fathers) whereby the word comes to us. They are not our literal physical father's any more than "the seed" of God's Word which they wrote is our literal source of physical life. They are METAPHORICAL father's in the sense of instruments used by God.

Sorry, but the church under the New Covenant had NO EXISTENCE previous to the ministry of Christ on earth and EXCLUDES old Testament saints as well as the prophets. It is something that Christ built in his personal ministry on earth and the apostles were the "FIRST" to be set in the church (1 Cor. 12:28) and that very statement exposes your teaching as false doctrine. The aposles cannot possible be the "FIRST" to be set in the church if Old Testament saints are in this church. Neither can the apostles and New Testament prophets (who were set SECOND - I Cor. 12:28) in the church be the "foundation" if Old Testament saints were in this church previously.

Yes, that puts a nail in the coffin of your whole ecclesiology. When you attempt to mix ecclesiology with soteriology (like Rome) you not only run into a lot of problems with the scriptures but you are teaching a church salvation. Your idea of salvation is just like Rome's. If you are lost you are outside your kind of church and if you are saved you are in your kind of church - hence church salvation instead of Christ salvation. The church has nothing to do with salvation but with service. The church is "the house of God" where a properly ordained ministry stand to administer the ordinances of God to baptized beleivers already "in Christ" by regeneration and justification.

 

You can't be a New Testament church IF you don't even know what it is! Rome and Protestantism teach a church salvation. To be in the church is to be saved and to be outside the church is to be lost. Rome defines their church as universal visible while Protestantism defines their church as universal invisible but neither distinguishes the church from salvation.

Many of the Christian cults of the 19th century also teach church salvation. To be outside their kind of church is to be lost and to be in their kind of church is to be saved. They define their kind of church as local and visible.

True New Testament churches distinguish between salvation and the church. The church is "the house of God" where a properly ordained ministry administer the ordinances in the kingdom of God and where "the keys of the kingdom" reside (Mt. 18:17-18). Only those who are already SAVED - already BORN AGAIN, already in the family of God, already children of God, already "in Christ" by regeneration and justification are proper candidates to be considered for baptism and church membership (Acts 2:41). Those already saved are added to the church in that manner (Acts 2:47). The church is a local visible congregational body of Christ consisting of properly baptized believers who can and who do habitually assembly together in one place wherever they may live. ("when you come together in one place" - 1 Cor. 11).

The elect existed from Genesis to Matthew but the New Testament church had no previous existence to the earthly ministry of Christ (Mt. 16:18) and to the "FIRST" to be set in the church (apostles - I Cor. 12:28) as these were the corner stone and foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20).

Hence, true churches of Christ DO NOT claim they are the only ones saved as they demand a profession of salvation BEFORE accepting persons for baptism and membership. True churches of Christ recognize there are saved people not only outside their own congregations but even in institutions that preach "another gospel" as God is able to save people in spite of the institution they are in or those who are in no institution. True congregations of Christ do not confuse salvation with church membership on any level of thinking or theology. The gospel is for the lost to be saved and the church is for the saved to serve.

Just as there are Biblical essentials necessary to be saved, there are Biblical essentials necessary to be true churches. (1) the right gospel; (2) the right ordinances; (3) the absence of institutional approved apostate doctrines; (4) the right church government and officers.

 

The text says they were the first to be "set in" the church NOT that they were the first to receive greater light in the church - Inspired chosen language means nothing to you.

Ephesians 2:20 says they are the "foundation" not the ROOF TOP. Anyone who knows anything about building knows you begin with the foundation not the roof!!! The combination "foundation" and "set first" destroys your imaginative teaching. The fact that Jesus uses the FUTURE tense in Mt. 16:18 demonlishes your theory into oblivion.