/
Some Christian circles believe in a doctrine which contends that all descendants of Israel by paternal lineage — who are also genetically pure Adamites –- white people –- will be unconditionally saved. This “all Israel will be saved” doctrine is lifted verbatim from Romans 11:26,
…and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written: ‘The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.’
That “saving” refers to an eternal salvation – eternal life — and those five words — “all Israel will be saved” — are applied to every single individual who makes up Israel by birth.
Those who adhere to this doctrine often use Isaiah 45:17 as a “second witness” which says,
Israel has been saved by the Lord with an everlasting salvation; you will not be put to shame or humiliated to all eternity.
Again – merely as statement of fact — they have taken Israel’s collective everlasting salvation and applied it to every individual who makes up Israel.
We certainly should not disagree with Paul’s words in Romans 11:26 -– along with Isaiah 45:17 –- in the context in which they are given. “All Israel will be saved” does indeed have a context — but it is demonstrably not an unqualified statement.
Not only that, the “All Israel will be saved” doctrine — by its permissive and unqualified nature — is likely to fail to produce a holy people in its adherents which our Lord desires and — more importantly — what He deserves.
In addressing this doctrine, our hope is not simply to break it down, but to show the life that a true bride of Christ ought to live — along with the power Christ gives us with which to live it. Revelation 19:8 says of His bride,
It was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.
We can see that the bride is clothed with very specific clothing which speaks to her and her character. We can also see that without this clothing entry into the kingdom will not be allowed, as in Matthew 22:11-14 the Lord says,
11 But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, 12 and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ And the man was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the servants, ‘Tie his hands and feet, and throw him into the outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth in that place.’ 14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
In the above parable, we can conclude that having no wedding garment is grounds for exclusion from the wedding feast – eternal death. We should be very sure that the wedding garment we put on – or the one we assume we already have – is the correct one.
Before we proceed, we should clarify a crucial stipulation about the Bible for the purposes of this essay.
We should keep in mind that the ancient writers wrote the Old Testament for Israelites only — and the New Testament was written only for the Israelites and Genesis 10 nations. They wrote for an audience who — they assumed — knew that white people were the true descendants of Adam. This assumption was so implicit — and so obvious — that they would not have even thought they would need to make it explicit. To them, white people were “men” and Adamites — while non-whites simply were not. For this reason, the scope of the Scriptural teachings was to the benefit of Adamites — and did not need to include any explicit teachings on “race” — which is an anachronistic concept that really wasn’t created until the 1700s after Christian Europeans had begun to establish their Third World colonial empires.
That is not to say, however, that non-whites do not exist at all in the Scripture — or that the Scripture does not clearly teach us what our relationship must be with them — but suffice to say that its moral and spiritual teachings are written for its audience: Pure white Adamites.
The “all Israel will be saved” camp advocates a banal doctrine where the wedding garment is literally our white skin. Truly, our white skin is merely the nakedness of our flesh – literally and figuratively — and is no wedding garment at all. The Lord warns us in Revelation 16:15,
Blessed is the one who stays awake and keeps his clothes, so that he will not walk about naked and people will not see his shame.
Revelation 3:18, however, provides us with an antidote for this warning,
I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to apply to your eyes so that you may see.
Our white skin is presumed in this conversation –- as Christ is addressing white people to begin with -– yet the Lord has advised us to buy from Him something which we do not inherently have. Verily, how could one buy white skin? If white skin – with which we are born – were all we needed for salvation, then why would we suppose there is need for faith in the Lord? His words in John 3:14-15 would then be in vain:
14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 so that everyone who believes will have eternal life in Him.
On the contrary, we need the white garments from Him — otherwise our nakedness will be revealed. We need to clothe ourselves in wedding garments made of white linen, bright and clean. It is our hope then in Christ to reveal the nature of these wedding clothes — and to show why “all Israel will be saved” is merely nakedness, which will be revealed for all to see.
In our hearts the words of Paul are manifest when he says in 2 Corinthians 11:2-3,
2 For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. 3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his trickery, your minds will be led astray from sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
By what trickery did the serpent deceive Eve? Adam and Eve had received the command in Genesis 3:16-17,
16 …From any tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for on the day that you eat from it you will certainly die.
Note how the serpent’s first deception was to call into question the command of God in Genesis 3:1,
Has God really said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?
But when Eve reiterates the command of God, the serpent reassures her,
You certainly will not die! (Genesis 3:4)
Notice how the serpent continually calls into question these plain commands of God, twisting them to be something other than what has been simply stated. Yet Eve readily accepts another command — contrary to what God had given — just as Paul says in 2 Corinthians 11:4 — continuing on from the verses quoted just earlier,
4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, this you tolerate very well!
Eve does exactly that — tolerates the command of the serpent, a command she hadn’t received from God — by allowing the serpent to twist it in her mind. Likewise, “all Israel will be saved” twists the gospel into something which it is not — preaching “another Jesus” not preached in the Scripture.
As Christians, it shouldn’t be difficult to understand how being “tricked” into believing that we will be saved simply by being born with white Adamic/Israelite skin could indeed easily lead us “astray from sincere and pure devotion to Christ.”
Those who tell you that “all Israelites will be saved” are repeating exactly what the serpent told Eve — that you surely will not die — that your immortality is guaranteed as your birthright.
As Christian Israel, we ought to know that certain knowledge is necessary to bring about that which we are called to, as Peter says in 2 Peter 1:3
…for His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.
Peter says Christ called us by His own glory and excellence, and if He called in glory and excellence, then that is what His calling ought to produce in us, as 1 John 2:3-6 says,
3By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 The one who says, ‘I have come to know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5 but whoever follows His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: 6 the one who says that he remains in Him ought, himself also, walk just as He walked.
Peter says that the Lord’s divine power has granted to us — the true Israel — the means with which to attain to true life and godliness, and that true knowledge of Him is a necessary step in the process, as 1 John 1:9 states,
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous, so that He will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
This is a two-step process — we must first be forgiven of our sins, and then we must be cleansed from all unrighteousness. In order to be forgiven our sins, we must first confess our sin rather than justifying ourselves like the adulterous woman in Proverbs 20:30:
This is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats and wipes her mouth, and says, ‘I have done no wrong.’
Instead, we ought to humbly approach our Lord just as David did when he said in Psalm 51:10-11,
10 Create in me a clean heart, God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me. 11 Do not cast me away from Your presence, and do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.
And in Psalm 19:12-13,
12 Who can discern his errors? Acquit me of hidden faults. 13 Also keep Your servant back from presumptuous sins; let them not rule over me; then I will be innocent, and I will be blameless of great wrongdoing.
An Israelite and Christian ought to understand that one who has a heart after the Lord – as was David’s (1 Samuel 13:14) – is not even able to discern their own errors, and that they need our Lord’s help to be kept from presumptuous sins. Thanks be to our glorious Father that His Son — the Lord Jesus Christ — has the divine power with which to cleanse us. Where we struggle against our flesh and fail time and time again, Hebrews 4:14-16 assures us,
14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let’s hold firmly to our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things just as we are, yet without sin. 16 Therefore let’s approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace for help at the time of our need.
However, when David said, “Do not cast me away from your presence, and do not take Your Holy Spirit from me,” this is where a serious problem arises for the “All Israel will be saved” doctrine.
People who believe this “salvation by race” doctrine never consider that they may indeed be cast away, and that the Holy Spirit may be removed — contradicting what David himself said is possible. Furthermore, they fail to consider that the Holy Spirit might not even have been there in the first place.
Their prevailing view is that even if they have not lived a good life in this life, they will merely be relegated to a lower position of reward in the next life. Clearly, there are different positions of reward — as the Lord makes this much clear in such verses as Matthew 19:28, Luke 22:30, and Revelation 20:4 among many others. But we are told that even the lowest position will be occupied by men and women who were “zealous” for our Lord — rather than merely unrepentant Israelites (Revelation 3:19).
It’s easy to see how this laissez-faire doctrine would create an attitude in many where they simply resign themselves not to care overly much for God’s ways and become content with a lower position in the Kingdom — which they believe to be their birthright as Israelites.
Like a children’s race in which no one’s feelings are to be hurt, the child who comes last is content with their last place trophy — because they knew from the start that everyone gets a trophy regardless of effort or performance. But Paul cautions against this mindset in 1 Corinthians 9:24,
Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.
Paul — whose life stands out to us millennia later as a true servant of the Lord — even imagines himself to not necessarily have reached the prize in Philippians 3:12-16,
12 Not that I have already grasped it all or have already become perfect, but I press on if I may also take hold of that for which I was even taken hold of by Christ Jesus. 13 Brothers, I do not regard myself as having taken hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Therefore, all who are mature, let’s have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that to you as well.
Paul says that those “who are mature” ought to have this ever-reaching attitude, yet those who adhere to the “all Israel will be saved” doctrine have given themselves a safety net even if they have no desire or motivation to strive upwards in Christ. Therefore, it will utterly fail to bring about their spiritual maturity.
The Lord Himself confirms what this maturity is in His parables in Matthew 13:44-46,
44 The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells everything that he has, and buys that field. 45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking fine pearls, 46 and upon finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold everything that he had and bought it.
The kingdom of heaven requires everything that we have — and an attitude which intends to run the race to win it — not to merely show up. One would think that the words of Deuteronomy 6:5 would be enough,
And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.
Before continuing, something should be cleared up, lest the true gospel not find root in any of us because of affliction, persecution, or anxiety of the world (Matthew 13:21-22). Just like some are hardened to the truth that non-whites are not Adamites because they have non-whites in their families, those who uphold “all Israel will be saved” become hardened to truth of salvation because they fear for those fellow Israelites whom they love.
This is a very tragic situation, but the Lord addresses it in Luke 14:26-27, 33-35,
26 If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. 27 Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple 28 For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost, to see if he has enough to complete it?…. 33 So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions. 34 Therefore, salt is good; but if even salt has become tasteless, with what will it be seasoned? 35 It is useless either for the soil or the manure pile, so it is thrown out. The one who has ears to hear, let him hear.
We certainly do not advocate a literal hating of our family — though some certainly have taken this verse as a license to do so — but the point is, we cannot allow the spiritual lives of our family members — even our own spouses — to hinder our own. We cannot subconsciously fall by our families and friends simply because we cannot imagine that they will not attain to eternal life with us.
Even so, we have more hope for these situations when we acknowledge the truth of salvation. The Lord concludes in Luke 14, “…salt is good; but if even salt has become tasteless, with what will it be seasoned?” Therefore, if we do not have this attitude of “hating” those we love and our possessions, we’re not good for anything anyway — the situation is hopeless.
In what seems to be a paradox, we must “hate” them in order to love them — that we may be salt to them. The Lord says in Matthew 5:13-16
13 You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by people. 14 You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; 15 nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Your light must shine before people in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
Then we should acknowledge the truth and set our light before those around us and pray for them so that there may be hope indeed for them. If we are afraid to lose them in our flesh, then we love them only in the flesh, but we hate them in the spirit.
Some may imagine themselves to have been wronged by those around them — and come to truly hate their family and their kindred in the flesh. In their own eyes, those around them become useless to their own flesh and their own ego, so they seek to discard them. This is not done out of love on a spiritual basis, but rather in the most carnal way possible.
Such people may think that just because they have come up with a doctrinal justification in their own minds that it is also a justification in God’s eyes. In reality, all that they have done is thought up a “reason” to hate their kindred — and pretend they have God’s blessing in doing so.
It should be stressed that these words are not easy, and these situations are indeed hard, as many of us perhaps have been through its trials — but the words of Paul should again manifest in our hearts, just as he says in 2 Corinthians 2:4:
For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you with many tears; not so that you would be made sorrowful, but that you might know the love which I have especially for you.
However, acknowledging the truth has brought about fruit of righteousness around us, as we strive to sanctify our wives, families and friends in meekness and true love, of which Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7,
4 Love is patient, love is kind, it is not jealous; love does not brag, it is not arrogant. 5 It does not act disgracefully, it does not seek its own benefit; it is not provoked, does not keep an account of a wrong suffered, 6 it does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 it keeps every confidence, it believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
In this context we ought also to remember the words of the Lord in Matthew 12:50,
For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother, and sister, and mother.
We have a true family — an eternal family — with whom in years uncountable, we will be by one another’s side in love and unity. In that time when we are together, we will be consoled with one another in the love of our Lord Jesus — pain and tears in times past having faded into insignificance. We should press forward toward that family, that we may even begin our fellowship in this life.
That said, we will begin with Matthew 7:21-23:
21 Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
Those in the “all Israel will be saved” camp maintain that when the Lord says, “I never knew you,” that He is not, in fact, referring to Israelites at all. They further claim that “I never knew you” fundamentally cannot refer to Israelites because God has known only Israelites — quoting Amos 3:2 as a witness,
You only have I known among all the families of the earth; Therefore I will punish you for all your wrongdoing.
This is a convenient connection to be made — at face value it seems to confirm the view — but the flaw is that Amos 3:2 is very obviously referring to corporate Israel — while Matthew 7:23 is referring to individual Israelites. Paul makes a clear distinction between the prophecies which apply to corporate Israel, and to those that apply to individuals who make up Israel, when he says in Romans 9:6,
For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.
Some may inevitably deny that Paul is referring to genetic Israelites here — and propose that he might be saying that all who are in Israel are not genetic Israelites.
Romans 9 is a wonderful piece of writing, where Paul’s case is so strong that even those who deny the writings of Paul would struggle to deny it. Romans 9 is written with such fantastic persuasion that one need not even accept it as divinely inspired in order to accept its truth.
Nevertheless, many still assume that we need “extra context” in order to understand Paul’s simple argument — and that Paul “needed help” to bring his idea across — perhaps because his language wasn’t explicitly “racist” enough for their liking.
Romans 9 can — and should be — best understood with the simple explanation which Paul himself provides.
In his preface to Romans 9:1-5 Paul establishes that he is not talking about those who are not genetically pure Israelites — clearly, he is talking only about Israelites. There is no reason to believe that when talking about Israel that he is referring to anything other than pure Israelites. Because Paul has established his own context, we do not need extra context — unless we want to make Paul say something other than what his plain words state:
1 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.
Paul refers here to his own kinsmen according to the flesh — to whom pertain the promises of the Israelites. But if the Lord has made specific promises of salvation with all his kinsman according to the flesh, then why does Paul express great sorrow and grief in his heart over them?
Paul then says in Romans 9:6
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.
“The word of God” here refers to the promises God has made to Israel — his kinsmen according to the flesh. Romans 9:1-5 provides a very concise summation of the law and the prophets – the word of God – concerning Israel. Why would he say this unless — in some way — it had seemed that the promises made to Israel in the law and the prophets were failing? Paul even further clarifies this grief when he says in Romans 10:1-2,
1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation 2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge.
Remember, “true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” is necessary to bring about righteousness and salvation, as in 2 Peter 1:3.
The Lord also says in John 17:3,
And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
In Philippians 3:4-6, Paul even laments his pursuing of “righteousness which is in the Law” –- not according with knowledge, when he concludes in verse 7-8
7 But whatever things were gain to me, these things I have counted as loss because of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them mere rubbish, so that I may gain Christ.
In Romans 10:3-8 Paul explains how the righteousness of faith is greater than the righteousness of the law — and concludes that the righteousness of faith is a belief in the Lord Jesus in Romans 10:9-10:
…9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
Paul asserts that a belief in Jesus as Lord will necessarily result in righteousness — and it will result in salvation. And by this we can also infer that belief in a “Jesus” which does not result in righteousness is a belief in “another Jesus”.
Paul flatly asserts that his kinsman according to the flesh did not attain to that righteousness — and so they could not have attained to salvation. His “desire for their salvation” clearly implies that their salvation is not guaranteed.
Bear in mind that eternal life and eternal salvation are promised to Israel many times in the prophets — and even in the law — as Hebrews 4 makes clear.
Because many Israelites are failing to attain to eternal salvation, Paul is concerned that we may therefore erroneously conclude that the word of God and His promises toward Israelites are failing
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.
Paul gives a very important clarification in Romans 9:8,
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.
Paul explicitly states here that the flesh — even Israelite flesh — is useless in order to inherit the promises of God. Remember, he said, “my kinsmen according to the flesh” — with “flesh” here something different and distinct from the “promise”. His “kinsmen according to the flesh” have already satisfied the condition of the flesh for those promises, which is to be pure Israelites.
Even though Abraham had many children — and Ishmael was even his first born — it was Isaac whom God chose as the heir of the covenant. Ishmael was technically the first in line to be an inheritor of the promises — at least according to the flesh.
Abraham himself even desired Ishmael to be an inheritor where he says to God in Genesis 17:18,
Oh that Ishmael might live before You!
Immoveable in His choice, God replies in verse 19,
No, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.
To reiterate for emphasis: Ishmael was a legitimate heir according to the flesh — and the promise God made to Abraham was to his progeny.
However, Paul quotes Genesis 18:10 and Genesis 21:12 as prophecies which predestined the realization of the promise in Isaac. Of all of the legitimate heirs of Abraham according to the flesh, Isaac was the only inheritor. Isaac was a child of the promise.
Isaac also had two sons — Jacob and Esau. Both sons were also each legitimate heirs of the covenants of Abraham, seeing as how the promise was to be called in Isaac. Yet even though Isaac had two sons — with Esau being the first born — Paul observes in Romans 9:11
…for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand.
Again, the covenants were not realized through all of Isaac’s descendants — but only in Jacob — and Paul quotes Genesis 25:23 as proof that only Jacob was the child of the promise. All of Isaac’s children were legitimate heirs according to the flesh, but only one of them was chosen. Jacob was a child of the promise.
The argument which Paul is clearly making here is that being an Israelite child according to the flesh is only a necessary precondition for being a child according to the promise — but it does not guarantee being a child of the promise. In order for the promise to stand — and for the Lord to be trustworthy — there must be at least one child of the promise.
Paul has also made sure that in order not to confuse the reader about Ishmael’s deeds — and the deeds of Abraham’s other sons, Jacob and Esau — he has given us two examples of choice according to promise. In other words, the common denominator in all of their lives is that they were legitimate heirs according to the flesh, but not according to the promise. There’s no need to go any further than that according to Paul’s argument.
Knowing that Esau was a godless man, Paul was even more sure to draw our attention away from Esau’s deeds, which is why he emphasizes the fact that the promise was made before Esau and Jacob had done anything good or bad.
Paul is saying that living a righteous life is a result of having been chosen – it is by grace and God’s choice that we are purified – which is why Jacob lived the good life that he did. Paul clarifies in Romans 11:5-6,
5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, since otherwise grace is no longer grace.
Despite all these Scriptural examples Paul provides for us to clarify why God made this choice, those defending “all Israel will be saved” have no recourse but to simply ignore them — and doggedly proceed to make Paul’s argument about the deeds of Esau — often as an alleged race mixer — even though Paul has already proven that it wasn’t about anything he did. They make it appear as if God chose Jacob because of his own works relative to Esau’s, in spite of the fact that God announced the promise in Isaac before he was born.
In verses 14-23 Paul morally defends the argument which he has made, implying that all children of Abraham and Isaac who are not Isaac and Jacob are simply objects of wrath, while Isaac and Jacob are objects of mercy. He makes this defense specifically because those objects of wrath were genetically pure and legitimate heirs of those covenants according to the flesh.
There would be no reason for Paul to morally defend this argument if the objects of wrath were not legitimate heirs according to the flesh — or if they had done anything right or wrong to deserve their fate.
After having provided the basis for that logic, and having morally defended that logic, he gives the conclusion in Romans 9:27,
27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, ‘Though the number of the sons of Israel may be like the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved; 28 for the Lord will execute His word on the earth, thoroughly and quickly.’
Paul has concluded that just because genetic Israelites are technically heirs of the promises made to Israel, it does not necessarily mean that all of those Israelites will inherit those promises. He concludes that only the Israelites who are according to God’s choice – the objects of mercy – the children of the promise – will inherit those promises. Just earlier in Romans 8:29-30 he said,
29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
His entire methodical discourse from Romans 9 to Romans 11 proves this fact. With the above in mind — contrary to all reason — many still stubbornly conclude that when Paul says, “all Israel will be saved” in Romans 11:26, he is referring to every individual who makes up Israel — as if he did not just earlier make the qualifying statement, “only the remnant will be saved.”
To make this interpretation of Paul’s argument even more sure, let’s look at another example of a genetic promise which was realized only in the child of the promise. It is clearly attested that the high priests of the time of Christ were true high priests. Being in that office, they had it confirmed by unwittingly prophesying in John 11:51,
Now he [Caiaphas] did not say this on his own, but as he was high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation.
Also in Acts 4:5-6, the true lineage of the high priests are attested to:
5 On the next day, their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem; 6 and Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and all who were of high-priestly descent.
Where it says “descent” here, it is from the Greek “genos” (Strong’s G1085). In Acts 5:6 it is given in genitive masculine singular, where in that same form, it is referred to by the same writer in Acts 13:26:
Brothers, sons of Abraham’s family [G1085]…
Clearly this could be – and is even likely to be – referring to a familial descent, which was literally the requirement for the office of high priest, as it says in Numbers 18:7,
But you [Aaron] and your sons with you shall attend to your priesthood for everything that concerns the altar and inside the veil, and you are to perform service. I am giving you the priesthood as a service that is a gift, and the unauthorized person who comes near shall be put to death.
Luke states that these men were legitimate high priests — and there is no reason to question it. If we try to make Luke say something other than what he is saying, we are discarding his witness, because he has spoken his words plainly. If we question or cast doubt on his plain words, we are arrogantly asserting that we know better than Luke did.
The promise was made to Aaron and his descendants to be servants of God, as Exodus 29:9 and 44 make clear:
9 And you shall wrap their waists with sashes, Aaron and his sons, and fit caps on them, and they shall have the priesthood by a permanent statute. So you shall ordain Aaron and his sons….
44 I will also consecrate Aaron and his sons to serve as priests to Me.
Malachi 2:1, 4-8 once again confirms this promise – even while lamenting its supposed failure – and reveals more detail about it:
1 And now, this commandment is for you, the priests….4 ‘Then you will know that I have sent this commandment to you, so that My covenant may continue with Levi,’ says the Lord of armies. 5 ‘My covenant with him was one of life and peace, and I gave them to him as an object of reverence; so he revered Me and was in awe of My name. 6 True instruction was in his mouth and injustice was not found on his lips; he walked with Me in peace and justice, and he turned many back from wrongdoing. 7 For the lips of a priest should maintain knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of armies. 8 But as for you, you have turned aside from the way; you have caused many to stumble by the instruction; you have ruined the covenant of Levi,’ says the Lord of armies.
The phrase “my covenant with him was one of life and peace” refers even to Phinehas, son of Eleazar — son of Aaron — with whom God made the following covenant in Numbers 25:12-13,
12 Therefore say, ‘Behold, I am giving him My covenant of peace; 13 and it shall be for him and for his descendants after him, a covenant of a permanent priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement for the sons of Israel.’
The purpose of a priest was to turn many back from wrongdoing and to maintain knowledge — which is exactly what Phinehas did.
Aaron and his sons were to serve as priests to God, but there were those of Aaron’s sons who clearly did not attain this promise – all throughout their generations, in spite of being children according to the flesh and legitimate heirs. There are Nadab and Abihu — the first generation from Aaron — his literal sons — who were killed by the Lord Himself for offering “strange fire” before the Lord in Leviticus 10 — killed and cut off without descendants — and so, being fleshly heirs, they were not heirs according to the promise.
Consider Eli, Hophni and Phinehas who — during the time of Samuel — were killed by God, not serving God and maintaining knowledge. Instead, Hophni and Phinehas would steal meat from the sacrifices and lie with women who came to the tabernacle. Eli, being partial to his family, did not discipline them as necessary and so died along with them.
Should we be surprised that the high priests of the time of Christ — such as Caiaphas and Annas — would also fail to be children of the promise when so many had also failed before them? Is it as though the word of God had failed? God forbid!
The father of John the Baptist was also a priest of high priestly descent who served as a priest during his life, as Luke 1:5 describes,
In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah…
Zechariah was, according to the division of Abijah, one of the twenty-four high-priestly divisions stated in 1 Chronicles 24. Clearly, they must have had some detailed genealogy –- even in that time –- in order to know this. Zechariah was literally performing the office of high priest because he was offering incense “according to the custom of the priestly office” (Luke 1:9) – see Exodus 33.
We can conclude then that John the Baptist was of high-priestly descent as well. Furthermore, given that John and his father were according to the division of Abijah, we can conclude that they were also descendants of Phinehas.
Abijah was the eighth priest to be mentioned in the list given in 1 Chronicles 24:7-18. The first sixteen of the twenty-four were descendants of Eleazar (1 Chronicles 24:4), the father of Phinehas who was Eleazar’s only son — by which we can conclude that all sixteen priests who were descendants of Eleazar were descendants of Phinehas as well. Therefore, John the Baptist was a legitimate heir according to the flesh of the covenants with Aaron and Phinehas simultaneously.
This is further confirmed because John the Baptist is the solution to the supposed failings of the promises to Aaron and Phinehas lamented in Malachi 2:1-8, as he is referred to in Malachi 3:1:
Behold, I am sending My messenger, and he will clear a way before Me.
The same is said of him in Isaiah 40:3,
The voice of one calling out, ‘Clear the way for the Lord in the wilderness; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.’
These same words are spoken over John by his father in Luke 1:76:
And you, child, also will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go on before the Lord to prepare His ways
Although he wasn’t recognized as such in the temple, he was the child of the promise, as John in Luke 1:16 states,
And he will turn many of the sons of Israel back to the Lord their God.
This is a confirmation of John the Baptist’s calling as a high priest of God — a confirmation that he was a child of the promise, which would realize the promises made in his flesh through Aaron and Phinehas. It is crucial to understand that this confirmation of John’s status was made before he was even born — just as was the case with Isaac and Jacob.
And so John the Baptist was truly a child of the promise who consecrated the new High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek — and who would be High Priest forever from then on.
Here we have confirmation then that even within more exclusive promises and covenants within Israel itself, there are children of the flesh who are not children of the promise. If it was this way for priests, how much more for each individual Israelite?
Moving back to Amos 3:2, we have confirmation that the prophecy of Amos 3 cannot be used to interpret what makes up the true Israel at the end of time — but rather to know only whom God had known at that time. Of course, no one would argue against the fact that it was only “the entire family which He brought up from the land of Egypt” (Amos 3:1) whom He had known in the context of Amos 3:2. Despite that, Paul says in Acts 14:16-17,
16 In past generations He permitted all the nations to go their own ways; 17 yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.
This is a reference to the law in Deuteronomy 4:19,
19 And be careful not to raise your eyes to heaven and look at the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the heavenly lights, and allow yourself to be drawn away and worship them and serve them, things which the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.
Even though God knew only Israel at that time, He was sure to leave for Himself a witness to the nations — as they too were to be brought into the promises of Abraham. We can conclude that this refers to all the Genesis 10 nations – pure Adamic descendants who had received rain and fruitful seasons – which is to say all of them. The verse must refer to all nations over and above Israel — not to merely Israel scattered among the nations — otherwise those nations would not have survived because they would not have been provided for. Those same nations were also to be known by God at some point later, in spite of being left to their devices then — and God left them witness to this fact.
“You only have I known” applied to Israel at that time of Amos 3 — and it also applies to the prophetic fate of corporate Israel unto the end of the age. This also is the conclusion of Paul’s discourse as he clearly explains the relationship between Israel and the nations — and the prophetic fate of each by the time Romans 11 concludes.
Now that we understand what Paul meant by “they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel,” there is yet another significant problem that faces those who insist on the literal “all Israel will be saved” doctrine. Because it has such a great focus on “race”, its adherents either miss or ignore by necessity obvious qualifying statements in what the Lord says.
They find themselves forced into disagreeing with the context and clarification the Lord Himself provides, while they instead seek to establish their own preferred context. In that pursuit, there are obvious qualifying Scriptures which they have no choice but to entirely ignore. For example, in Matthew 7:23, the Lord says,
I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.
Christ seems to be quoting Psalm 6:8, where David speaks of the lawless/sinning Israelites, according to the flesh, who persecuted him:
Leave me, all you who practice injustice, for the Lord has heard the sound of my weeping.
Christ could very well also be quoting Psalm 139:19, again a saying of David, who was persecuted by Israelites:
If only You would put the wicked to death, God; leave me, you men of bloodshed.
And He may even be quoting Psalm 119:115:
Leave me, you evildoers, so that I may comply with the commandments of my God.
While Psalm 119 is not attributed to any specific person, but given the themes and similarities with David’s writings evident above, it is nevertheless likely one of David’s. Ultimately, though, the Lord may very likely have been quoting or echoing all three — as we will see going forward.
If His plain words were not obvious enough — with the reference to the Psalms — we can see that Israelites are — at the very least — definitely not excluded from this statement. Given the hyper focus on “race” in the “all Israel will be saved” camp, many do not even consider these Psalms in that context.
Luke captures the same words differently in Luke 6:46-47:
46 Now why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? 47 Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like…
These verses are immediately followed by the parable of the building on the sand and rock in Luke 6:48-49 — just as Matthew 7:23 is followed by that same parable in Matthew 7:24-27. These two accounts are obviously the same teaching given in different ways for the following reasons:
They both have people approaching Christ calling Him “Lord, Lord”.
The saying in Luke 6 is succeeded by “Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them…” (v47), and in Matthew 7 it is succeeded by “Therefore, everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts on them…” (v24)
Each is further succeeded by the parable of the building on the sand and the rock.
Of all the common denominators between these two accounts, the phrase “I never knew you” is not one of them. But that is not to suggest that “I never knew you” is not useful to the interpretation –- on the contrary.
However, we can safely conclude that “not ever having being known” to Christ is a consequence of the teaching — not a pre-requisite of the teaching. That is to say, the teaching shows who will be known and who will not be known — by certain criteria.
In both instances the Lord has given commands, but there are those who act on them and those who do not. This account in Luke shows emphatically that He is referring to those who claim to know Him. He is saying that He does not know those who claim to know Him because they do not keep His commands.
In both accounts they have come to Him saying, “Lord, Lord” as if they are His servants. They have even cited works they have done in the Matthew 7 account. And they have claimed to “know” Him, but in response He has said, “I never knew you.”
At this point we should consider what His commands actually were. John 13:34 says,
I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
John 15:12 says,
This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.
1 John 3:23 says,
This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.
2 John 5 says,
Now I ask you, lady, not as though I were writing to you a new commandment, but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another.
Matthew 5:44 says,
But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you
1 Thessalonians 4:9 says,
Now as to the love of the brothers and sisters, you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another
Hebrews 13:1 says,
Let love of the brothers continue.
1 Peter 1:22 says,
Since you have purified your souls in obedience to the truth for a sincere love of the brothers and sisters, fervently love one another from the heart
It should be obvious then that His commands are for us to love one another — and this is what He means when He says,
‘Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them’ (Luke 6:47) / and ‘everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts on them’ (Matthew 7:24).
Even this command is a command from the law in Leviticus 19:18,
You shall not take vengeance, nor hold any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.
The Lord confirms this even in Matthew 7:12 when He says,
In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Paul confirms this again in Galatians 5:14,
For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’
And again, in Romans 13:10,
Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the Law.
Although there is one other law which is greater than these, as it says in Matthew 22:36-40,
36 ‘Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?’ 37 And He said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.
We cannot pretend as if we are keeping the law of love if we live in sin — or allow the sin of others to hinder us — as love “does not rejoice in unrighteousness” (1 Corinthians 13:6). Love cannot be achieved through sin because the law is all about loving others. Therefore, if we sin in some way contrary to the law, then by definition we are acting in sin — and not love. Paul says in 1 Timothy 1:8-11
8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and worldly, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, homosexuals, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
Paul says that the law is made for “those who are lawless and rebellious….according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God” — and not being lawless and rebellious is a crucial part of the gospel.
If indeed we are truly righteous — living in true love — then we are keepers of the law — especially the laws “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” and “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
We should not, however, see the laws and commands written in the Old and New Testaments merely as checkboxes to tick off so that we may justify ourselves. Certainly, in our lives we should not contradict that which the Scripture commands, but all pathways to sin are not necessarily codified in the Scriptures, especially given how society has changed over time.
Genesis 6:1 says that it was only when mankind began to multiply on the earth that there was this opportunity for sin. How much more, when there are so many of us, and so much added technology? Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:7,
For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work…
He says in 1 Timothy 4:1,
…the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith…
He says in 2 Timothy 3:1,
But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come.
The Lord confirms when He says in Matthew 24:12-13,
12 And because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will become cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end is the one who will be saved.
It is interesting how here again the Lord has pointed out a causal relationship between lawlessness and love. Therefore, we should expect that forms of sin and lawlessness will increase in unprecedented ways, just as society has changed in unprecedented ways. The Lord even says that an increase in lawlessness necessarily causes love to become cold. Hebrews 5:14 says,
But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to distinguish between good and evil.
Paul says in 1 Timothy 4:7,
…train yourself for the purpose of godliness
Psalm 119:10-11 says,
10 With all my heart I have sought You; do not let me wander from Your commandments. 11 I have treasured Your word in my heart, so that I may not sin against You.
We should be all the more awake then, not justifying ourselves. We ought to train ourselves that we may distinguish between good and evil. When commanded to keep the law of love, we ought to be careful of what that means and how it applies in our lives.
Getting back to Matthew 7:23, and the main argument, the Lord says,
I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.
Not keeping the Lord’s commands is the same thing as practicing lawlessness — because His command is to love one another, which is the summation of the law. Therefore, Matthew 7 and Luke 6 agree that this is all about not keeping His commands. If we do not keep His commands, then we are lawless — and He never knew us — which makes sense in the context of Psalm 6:8 because those who are lawless practice injustice.
This also makes sense in the context of Psalm 139:19 because those who are lawless are wont to bring about bloodshed. Also, the teaching has to do with those who will be excluded from eternal life, as the wicked of Israel will be put to death eternally. This also makes sense in the context of Psalm 119:115 because the lawless are evildoers, who interfere with fellow Israelites keeping the commandments of God.
The Scripture elaborates even more on what it means “to be known,” as the Lord says in John 14:21-24,
21 The one who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and the one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will reveal Myself to him. 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, ‘Lord, what has happened that You are going to reveal Yourself to us and not to the world?’ 23 Jesus answered and said to him, ‘If anyone loves Me, he will follow My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our dwelling with him. 24 The one who does not love Me does not follow My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me.’
Therefore, if we do not keep His word, neither He nor His Father will make their dwelling in us. John is saying that if we do not keep His commands, He and His Father will never have been in us. If He says that He will never have been in us if we have not kept His commands, then this easily –- along with the rest of the evidence –- explains that this is what He means by “not having known us” — that He was never in us. Why? Because we did not keep His commands!
We find further witness of this in 1 Corinthians 8:4,
…but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.
Then again in 2 Timothy 2:19,
Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal: ‘The Lord knows those who are His;’ and, ‘Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to keep away from wickedness.’
That firm foundation is one and the same of which the Lord teaches in Matthew 7 and Luke 6. When we stand on that foundation, we are known by Him — and He knows who are His. Those who know Him — and who love Him — are those who keep away from wickedness.
2 Timothy 2:19 states that these are those who have His seal, of which Revelation 7:3-4 says,
3…’Do not harm the earth, or the sea, or the trees until we have sealed the bond-servants of our God on their foreheads.’ 4 And I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel
What is the only seal with which the servants of God are to have on their foreheads? It says plainly in Deuteronomy 6:5-6 and 8,
5… you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. 6 These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart….8 You shall also tie them as a sign to your hand, and they shall be as frontlets on your forehead.
It is sure then that having the seal of God — and the foundation of God — and to be known by Him and to love Him is to not be lawless, as is witnessed again of those 144,000 in Revelation 14:4-5:
4 These are the ones who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are celibate. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased from mankind as first fruits to God and to the Lamb. 5 And no lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless.
It is worth deviating slightly from the main argument here in order to reveal how naturally this interpretation flows with the rest of the Scripture — and that all of the Scripture agrees without having to add to it. The Lord says in John 10:26-29,
26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. 27 My sheep listen to My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
The Lord came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but not all Israel are sheep!
He says of His sheep that He knows them, and they follow Him. They follow Him because they keep his commands, which is what it means to follow Him. Just as the 144,000 “follow the Lamb wherever He goes” because they have the seal of God on their heads.
Sheep are children of the promise. Those who are not sheep are children of the flesh who are not children of the promise. Those who are not children of the flesh -– not pure Adamites — are not even part of the scope of the parable.
Does the constant nit-picking of the “all Israel will be saved” doctrine –- with its constant explaining why the context given in Scripture is insufficient –- not seem banal and ugly in comparison?
Back onto the main argument — to take this yet further, in the Lord’s explanation of the parable of the wheat and the tares -– which we can all agree refers to eternal salvation and eternal death — Christ says in Matthew 13:41-42,
41 The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42 and they will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Those to whom this parable refers is clear — it explicitly states that those who commit lawlessness will be cast out. Surely then we must be found to not be committing lawlessness. At this point, there are multiple cross-references from this interpretation into Luke 13:23-28 which says
23 And someone said to Him, ‘Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?’ And He said to them, 24 ‘Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25 Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin standing outside and knocking on the door, saying, ‘Lord, open up to us!’ and He then will answer and say to you, ‘I do not know where you are from.’ 26 Then you will begin saying, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets!’ 27 And yet He will say, ‘I do not know where you are from; leave Me, all you evildoers.’ 28 In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out.
In the above passage we can see that when the Lord says, “I do not know where you are from” –- which is similar to “I never knew you”— it is a response to Israelites who claim to have known Him — “We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets!”
Once again, the Lord has quoted those same Psalms, and He has given the same clarifying statement — “leave Me, all you evildoers.” He has made it very clear that this is about those who practice evil — about those whom “He did not know” because they were lawless.
However, the “all Israel will be saved” doctrine would like to convince you that this is about something other than Israel doing evil. By completely disregarding its plain language, it would have you believe that this is instead about “race” — even though no such thing is said.
Just like the Emperor’s New Clothes— even though the clothes are not visible – and the doctrine does not exist in the Scripture — you are told to believe that the clothes and doctrine are actually clear for all to see. And just like the emperor, those who uphold this doctrine are naked without realizing it because –- being together in the delusion -– they all affirm to one another that they are in fact all wearing clothes.
We see again — cross-referencing Matthew 13:42 and Luke 13:28 — that they were cast out, weeping and gnashing their teeth — because they were lawless. Once again, He says to the lawless, “I do not know where you are from; leave Me, all you evildoers.”
Matthew 8:12 says,
12 but the sons of the kingdom will be thrown out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Matthew 13:42 says that they will be thrown into the furnace of fire, and Matthew 13:50 connects these concepts of gnashing of teeth and the furnace of fire to mean the same thing:
47 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet that was cast into the sea and gathered fish of every kind; 48 and when it was filled, they pulled it up on the beach; and they sat down and gathered the good fish into containers, but the bad they threw away. 49 So it will be at the end of the age: the angels will come forth and remove the wicked from among the righteous, 50 and they will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Once again — in the same context — it is about removing the wicked from the righteous. At this point, the inter-connectedness of the true interpretation is surely so obvious that it does not even require much exposition. We do not “need” these parables to prove “race” — and unnecessarily insisting that they must be about “race” utterly soils the true meaning of the Scripture.
In the context of doing good and evil — and being burned in fire — we have the narrative in Revelation 20:12-15,
11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them; and they were judged, each one of them according to their deeds. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Once again, this shows clearly that we will be judged according to our deeds — not according to our flesh — and if we are found to be evildoers and lawless, we will be destroyed eternally despite our Israelite flesh.
That same lake of fire — which is the second death — the furnace of fire and the place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth — is where we will be destroyed. If this were not clear enough already, Exodus 32:32-33 should remove any doubt:
32 But now, if You will forgive their sin, very well; but if not, please wipe me out from Your book which You have written! 33 However, the Lord said to Moses, ‘Whoever has sinned against Me, I will wipe him out of My book.
Does anything even need to be said? Is it not obvious yet? Sinners — even Israelites — will be removed from the book! Consider also Revelation 3:4-5,
4 But you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments; and they will walk with Me in white, for they are worthy. 5 The one who overcomes will be clothed the same way, in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.
Those who are dressed in white are worthy because they have not soiled their garments — and their names have not been erased from the book of life — because they are not evildoers. Yes, there is a sacrifice for sin in our Lord Jesus, but if we do not seek to please Him — and do not supplicate to Him to remove our sins as we ought to — Hebrews 10:26 explains what awaits us,
For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.
But He is ready and willing and has the power with which to cleanse our lives — if only we will have the faith in Him to do so along with the humility with which to acknowledge our sin.
Does it not make one stop and think when reading Romans 11:26-27?
26 …and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written: ‘The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.’ 27 ‘This is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.’
Those Israelites who do not have their ungodliness removed — and do not have their sin taken away — are children of the flesh and objects of wrath. They are not a part of the true Israel according to the promise — in spite of being a part of the true Israel according to the flesh!
Isaiah 4:3-4 and Romans 11:26-27 refer to the same thing:
3 And it will come about that the one who is left in Zion and remains behind in Jerusalem will be called holy — everyone who is recorded for life in Jerusalem. 4 When the Lord has washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and purged the bloodshed of Jerusalem from her midst, by the spirit of judgment and the spirit of burning
Those who are left behind in Jerusalem are those who are recorded for life in the Lord’s book — the ones who have had their clothes washed from the filth of sin — and they walk in white with the Lord, following Him as sheep wherever He goes.
We can conclude then that every individual who makes up Israel according to the flesh will not be saved — and we should thank our Lord for that because those who commit lawlessness will not be in the kingdom.
Isn’t it odd how the gospel repeatedly affirms that we must conform ourselves to the image of the Son, yet the “all Israel will be saved” doctrine does not fundamentally bring about the desire to do so? It seems to always be something which happens in the future — without any effort on our own part.
“All Israel shall be saved” doctrine is all about Abraham’s faith in us — rather than about our faith in the Lord Jesus. James says in James 2:26
…faith without works is dead.
If we do not even care to have works which attest to the faith in our lives, then our faith is dead. It is a tacit admission to the deadness of our faith, even though Hebrews 11:6 warns,
And without faith it is impossible to please Him…
If we have no faith — and we do not seek to be a holy people — quite simply we do not love our Lord Jesus. He deserves a people who are holy and eager for good deeds. He has made the way narrow so that those Israelites who do not care about Him will not be able to enter.
When we sit with our Lord at the end of days, we will know that it was only those who truly cared about Him in this life who were given eternal life. Our eternal family will be united in true love — and in love of our Lord and Savior. We ought then to praise God — that all Israel will not be saved.
All this having been lain out, let us consider again where Revelation 19:8 says of the bride,
It was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.
Our wedding garment is comprised then of acts we must do — not merely of our white Israelite skin.
Consider then Matthew 22:11-14 once again:
11 But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, 12 and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ And the man was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the servants, ‘Tie his hands and feet, and throw him into the outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth in that place.’ 14 For many are called [children of the flesh], but few are chosen [children of the promise].’
Revelation 17:14 says likewise,
He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are the called [children of the flesh] and chosen [children of the promise] and faithful.
Therefore, let those of the children of the flesh – the called ones – show who are chosen indeed — and put on garments which are white and clean in humility and faith in the Lord Jesus. He is the Lord of lords and King of kings, and with His divine power, He will make us clean.
He will do so because He has promised it to those who have faith in Him, as He Himself…
…is faithful and righteous, so that He will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9)
He is indeed faithful and true and trustworthy.
As a parting thought, consider the words of Paul in 2 Timothy 2:20-22, especially in light of his words in Romans 9:21-23:
20 Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver implements, but also implements of wood and of earthenware, and some are for honor while others are for dishonor. 21 Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be an implement for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work. 22 Now flee from youthful lusts and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.
Now consider Peter’s words in 2 Peter 1:10,
Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling [children of the flesh] and choice [children of the promise] of you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble;
Does this not show the “all Israel will be saved” doctrine for the nakedness which it is?
Finally, in acknowledgement of our God’s unassailable wisdom, loving grace, and the incomprehensible gifts which He seeks to bestow upon us — Israel — it is only fitting then to end off with the beautiful words of Paul in Romans 11:33-36:
33 Oh, the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34 For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? 35 Or who has first given to Him, that it would be paid back to him? 36 For from Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.
[Note: We, of course, welcome comments on this essay, but we request that if you have any objections to anything written here that you confine your comments to the specific parts or verses you wish to discuss. Our experience has shown us that these discussions can easily get sidetracked on non-essential issues.
We will not post comments that make vague generalities without specifics or scriptural proof so as not to waste everyone’s time.]
The Christogenea people preach very hard that every single Israelite will be in the kingdom. What puzzles me about this is the unhappiness that will result from evil people who will forced to live an eternal life in some low position. Think of a rotten, power hungry witch like Hillary Clinton being forced to work as a doorman for eternity. That would be worse for her than anything Dante could have come up with. I don’t perceive God as being that sadistic.
It’s more plausible to me that the white throne judgement in Revelation 20 is a period of time that allows people to be resurrected in the flesh (Ezekiel 37) and retaught in a world without Satan and given a chance to repent. But even then, there will be people who will not want God’s way. It is more merciful that they are simply burned up. It’s bad enough that there are angels who will live forever on the bad side of God. He is not going to increase the number of beings with an axe to grind against Him.
THE CHILDREN OF THE FLESH
Christs new covenant with Israel opened the door to Israels salvation through faith in Christ. Since that day, Israel never turned unto Christ. They rejected Christ and nail him to a cross.
Acts 2:36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
Probably the only prophecy that failed to manifest, that being salvation of the Jews through Christ. Or, at least, a total replacement of Judaism with Christianity, which is why real Christians often call themselves the True Israel. That is not to say millions of Jews have not turned unto Christ over the centuries, that is obvious for Judeites remain but a small fraction of the population.
“But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.”
You see this verse has as much meaning today as it did then,
Let me rephrase that
“Its not as though Gods word failed, for they are not exclusively Israel who are descended from Israel.”
That’s why wiser Christians call themselves Israel. The modern state of Israel has in the minds of many Christians usurped and supplanted the New Covenant and the supremacy of Christ with that of the anti-Christ, in the form of a modern physical Jewish state. Christ formerly denounced the Jewish nation three days prior to his crucifixion, prophesying its destruction, for they were not bringing fourth the fruits of the kingdom of God.
And Jesus said “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be toppled.” And. “Therefore say I unto you [Israel], the Kingdom of God shall be TAKEN FROM YOU, and given to a nation bringing fourth the fruits thereof.”
Despite his mercy, and covenant with Israel of his day, Christ ran out of patience with the Israelite’s, as the Jews did with him… however:
Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not exclusively Israel, which are the seed of Israel*: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they exclusively children: but, too in Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, [race worshipers] these are NOT the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
I recovered the scripture. Watch yourself, see if you can read the scripture:
Galatians 3:26 For ye are *all* the children of God *by faith in Christ Jesus.* 27 For *as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.* 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Christ brought people out of the stone age, and liberated people from the founders of racism. The bible says those who believe salvation is through genetics, racial characteristic, the physical decadents of Abraham, that being a physical Israel, a physical nation etc, are *not* the children of God. Those who value the flesh, the DNA above everything else, these are NOT children of God.
Jews thought they were special because of their DNA. Christ brought these primitives out of the stone age and into a deeper spirituality inclusive to all.
Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
Ty….
First Century Israelites have almost absolutely NOTHING to do with Modern Jewry. Only men like Paul Newman could potentially claim Israelite Ancestry.
I suggest read/study — https://christiansfortruth.com/who-are-jews/
https://christiansfortruth.com/the-error-of-christian-dispensationalists-did-israel-reject-jesus/
Good point. In the same token, Christianity for 1800 years never had associated the “israel” in the new testament with a modern Jewish occupation.
Hmmm Ty, you quote “Therefore say I unto you [Israel], the Kingdom of God shall be TAKEN FROM YOU, and given to a nation bringing fourth the fruits thereof.”
If that is literally true, then why does the Kingdom of Heaven in Revelation 21:12 have 12 gates through which the 12 tribes of Israel shall enter?
“And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:”
Since scripture cannot contradict itself, it would seem that it is you and your universalist doctrine that contradicts scripture.
Thank you for pointing that out, that’s an excellent question. The modern Israel today has little to no connection to the biblical Israelite’s and the Jews at the time of Christ had little to no connection to the Israelite’s of the old testament.
Rev 21-22 I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.
One cannot even immigrate to modern physical Israel without renouncing the name of Christ and their former religion. You quote in reference to a ‘new heaven, and a new earth’, as well as a ‘new Jerusalem’, as in a ‘heavenly one’, not the one that currently is, and not a physical one… for the first one passed away.
21 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”[a] for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.
The bible states also that they are not all Israel who are of Israel, aka, they are not exclusively Israel, who are Israel.
Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law;[bible] for they are unprofitable and vain.
I believe Elon Musk discusses the New Heaven and Earth precisely, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wotmu1KL0E
Don’t forget, the apostles and Christ weren’t idiots, for did not take any scripture any more serious than necessary…
Galatians 3:10 “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law [The scriptures] in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man at doeth them shall live in them. 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us:”
Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? [is bible sin?]
2 Corinthians 3:3 Since as you are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, *written not with ink,* but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also has made us able ministers of the new testament; *not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English: He who made us worthy to be Ministers of The New Covenant, not in The Scripture, but in The Spirit, for The Scripture kills, but The Spirit gives life.
A few points about “Will All Israel Be Saved – Or Just A Remnant?”
The article doesn’t address the *Southern Baptist* claim of eternal assurance of salvation – which is confessional, not racial.
A summary at the end would have been helpful.
Reading the article it seems the cft position is racial, i.e., only Adamic people can attain Heaven – but only some of these. Is that correct?
“…..only Adamic people can attain Heaven – but only some of these…….”
Citizenfitz,
19th Century Anthropologists were all in agreement that there exists 4 Primary Groups of People — White, black, yellow and red.
I personally believe that Adam and Eve produced White Peoples — Kind after Kind.
I believe the black, yellow and red peoples were part of the animal creation.
What do you believe?
If you believe everyone is descendants of Adam and Eve — could you explain HOW that is even possible and what Scriptures would you cite to support such a position? Thanks.
We’d be surprised if there were any Christian circles anywhere that didn’t hold that only Adamic people can attain to salvation — because they believe that all people are Adamic — a belief that we do not hold.
Our position is not racial per se, because neither “race” nor “human” exist in the Bible. Rather, our position is that only pure Adamic people are white — and non-whites are not Adamic.
Within the group that is Adamic people, only certain of them will attain to salvation. Their salvation is not ensured merely by being Adamic — so, no, we do not believe in salvation by race as you perhaps are suggesting.
The purpose of the article was to address other Christian circles other than Southern Baptists. However, this article implicitly addresses all doctrines which justify lawlessness — “eternal security” or “once saved, always saved,” included, which is not exclusive to Southern Baptists.
If you’d like a more direct address toward “confessional” doctrines, have a look at How Do I Know I’m An Israelite? — or James 2:19.
I’m a new Christian. I understand the Adamic people are the only ones that have a slim chance of reaching heaven. I have been living for YAHWEH in every way possible. I want salvation too. I came to this site to donate and came across this article. I walk away crushed of any hope I had. I have sinned. I sin today. There’s a 99.99% chance Christ, my “loving God” is going to slam the door in my face. No wonder Paul lamented. Most of us are living in false hope. Am I missing something? Please let me know!
Donna, all of us sin and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). God reads our hearts, our intentions (1 Timothy 1:5). Why do you feel you cannot be redeemed through sincere repentance?
I sin everyday; either knowingly, knowingly but reluctantly, or completely unconsciously that I’ve sinned. Adam sinned. Moses sinned. King David sinned. Peter sinned. Paul sinned… in fact pretty much evey single person in Bible sinned in some way. Only Jesus did not sin! He is perfect. Mankind is not perfect. Jesus knows this. He picks who shall enter the kingdom. So don’t be down-hearted, Donna. GOD BLESS YOU 🙂
New to this site and feel blessed by the discussion. Paul in Romans 11 is talking with Gentiles and mentions that they to may be cut off in verse 22. In verse 23 he claims that they (Israelites) can be grafted back in.
It would be wise to review Gen 17:14, Ex 12:15, Ex 30:33 and others to properly understand the idiom “cut off”.
So what Paul understands is that when Jesus ascended out of the Jordan and the Spirit of God in dwelt him fully, God cut off everybody else from Israel. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant Galatians 3:16. In other words he was the last, the true remnant. So Jews then like today can be saved by bending the knee and acknowledging Jesus Christ as Gods singular unique Messiah. Anybody that does not will be discarded at the end.
This interpretation compliments every verse in Romans and what Jesus said in John 15.
Furthermore, it adds more value to Hebrews 1 and Colossians 1:15-20.
Cheers
Romans 9:6 is dispositive. The rest is commentary.
I see this article referenced a lot in the others that have been posted on this site.
I think there is a fundamental dichotomy (all seed of israel vs renmant only, with the notion that the remnant is small) happening here where there should be no dividing line. And both sides are on a biblically correct side in some ways, but are failing to see the big picture.
If anyone who writes on the site is reading this, maybe keep the below ideas in mind when thinking of salvation. I may write something on it and submit it to you guys at some point and you could then feel free to cast it off or keep it.
There is a temporal salvation based on works, and there is an eternal salvation based on Christ’s blood and His election. Christ’s blood grants you forgiveness from the eternal death penalty. Your temporal works will either grant you blessings in this life (being a Christian matyr is a blessing) or will bring the Lord’s judgement on you in this life. Your works in this life are what bring eternal treasures and rewards, and they are one of the only things you can control if youre elected for salvation.
Feeling eternally secure in your salvation through Christ’s sacrifice brings glory to Christ’s death and resurrection and His worthiness of being the perfect atoning sacrifice. While doing good works in Christ brings glory to His life that He lived on this earth and His teachings and His worthiness of being followed and His worthiness of being the one idol in your life as the one true living God.
When people preach all Israel is saved and then they layer in that you can only produce good works and not bad (which in and of itself isnt false, but its misleading), then they rob people of their heavenly reward by making them not focus on doing good and overcoming. And they cause people to come under the judgement of God for correction in the true way.
Similarly, when people preach this message and cause people to lose their faith in their eternal security, then youre also robbing them of their heavenly reward by causing some to lose heart and feel like they are not elected, or that they have lost their eternal salvation because their works dont meet someone’s standard, then the inevitable attitude of ““Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”” is laying at the door ready to deceive.
If we look at the Sheep vs the Goats of Matthew 25:34-46, we will see that the Sheep are the elect and the Goats are the non elect. The Sheep and Goats are not perfect. They have similar works as can be seen in the responses of the Sheep and Goats. But, because the Sheep are elected and His blood covers their sins, the Lord’s perspective of them is to only look at their good deeds. They receive judgement based on their good deeds. The Lord makes no mention of their bad works at all (which surprises the Sheep), and states that even the smallest thing they did that was good will reap them a reward, even if they did it in ignorance.
On the other hand, the Goats state that they have done good works and helped out those in the kingdom. But, the Lord doesnt look at their good works at all (he doesnt even rebuke them for their statements). He merely looks at their bad works and judges them only on their bad works. Why? because Christ’s blood isnt for them. They have not been elected for salvation.
Hopefully this is a blessing to someone.
“when people preach this message and cause people to lose their faith in their eternal security, then youre also robbing them of their heavenly reward by causing some to lose heart and feel like they are not elected, or that they have lost their eternal salvation because their works dont meet someone’s standard”
Paul said, “5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test?” (1 Corinthians 13)
Peter said, “10 Therefore, brothers and sisters, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choice of you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble;” (2 Peter 1)
Feeling like one is not elected is the time to start making certain of one’s election, and this is the command of Peter and Paul. You have only assumed that telling someone their “eternal security” is unsecure would be robbing them their heavenly reward. You haven’t shown why this is the case.
James said, “19 My brothers and sisters, if anyone among you strays from the truth and someone turns him back, 20 let him know that the one who has turned a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.” (James 5)
Christ said, “15 Now if your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 17 and if he refuses to listen even to the church, he is to be to you as a nation and a tax collector” (Matthew 18)
Did you see where it was said to Ezekiel, “8 When I say to the wicked, ‘You wicked person, you will certainly die,’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked about his way, that wicked person shall die for his wrongdoing, but I will require his blood from your hand.” (Ezekiel 33)
The Scripture says that telling someone they may lose their heavenly reward is to give them their heavenly reward. In telling others not to discuss salvation a certain way, you would rob others of the means of gaining their salvation. One could go as far as to say that one of the cornerstone aspects of the gospel and acknowledging one’s sin is to understand that we were lost to salvation.
John said, “8 Therefore produce fruits that are consistent with repentance, and do not start saying to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children for Abraham. 9 But indeed the axe is already being laid at the root of the trees; so every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” (Luke 3)
Christ said, “2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away 6 If anyone does not remain in Me, he is thrown away like a branch and dries up; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned” (John 15)
Christ said, “19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” (Matthew 7)
There are numerous articles which prove this all at length, all from different angles. The evidence is overwhelming, and it may yet just be scratching the surface.
At the end of the day, you presume to tell others what to believe and what not to believe regarding salvation. You would silence another to give their views on salvation, because it offends you… Without even addressing the Scripture which is presented.
Thus in practice, you presume to supersede the due process of discussion out of the Scripture, because you are offended by the Scripture. Would you have silenced Christ and His apostles with the Pharisees in their time when they made others doubt their salvation? When Christ said that the sons of the kingdom would be thrown into outer darkness, would you have told Him not to tread on your “eternal security”?
If you want to discuss, then discuss. If you want to read, then read. But if you want to discuss, and you want to read, make sure you are not offended by the words of Christ.
Remember the words of Paul: “37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. 38 But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.” (1 Corinthians 14)
A very good case can be made for racial salvation based on the three verses that say ‘all Israel is saved’ (Romans 11:26, Isaiah 45:25, Isaiah 45:17 ) in the Bible. That is three witnesses. And then there are many supporting verses, such as ‘every knee shall bow’ and verses where Paul tells us about the fornicator and the Judgement of the Adamic man (1 Corinthians 3, 1 Corinthians 5). At Romans 11:26 Paul is actually speaking about unbelief, about the hardness of hearts in Judea.
CFT didnt mention Isaiah 45:25; it says “all the seed”.
Israel is a race.
A very strong case. Based on the plain words of Scripture. Certainly a good proof for racial salvation. Later we see Christ judging the nations and He divides by ethnos (the judgement of nations at Matthew 25).
To dismiss these witnesses CFT seems to use verses that have multiple valid interpretations. While Isaiah clearly says ‘all Israel is saved’ the verses CFT cites could be interpreted to be in agreement with racial salvation very easily. I would suggest that it is better to interpret such verses as CFT cites in respect of Isaiah rather than trying to reinterpret Isaiah with verses that have multiple possible meanings. It is a better approach, objectively speaking. We must have an approach that honestly seeks to understand the message of Scripture, to conform ourselves to Scripture with humility. CFT’s case relies on a flawed approach imo. It isnt a very strong case because of it’s methodology. As I have explained.
I would rather interpret the verses CFT cites in respect of the plain meaning of Isaiah. I accept what the prophet says as true. I believe his report ; racial salvation is the Bible.
I also dont hate my family because satan has deceived them. I love my race, I love because Christ died for them while they were yet sinners. I am blessed to be able to understand CI and I pray for the day that they will profess His Name also, as Isaiah prophesied.
4ntioch, the CFT essay makes clear that there is a racial aspect to salvation in the Bible. In fact, the essay clearly stipulates that only Israelites and pure Adamic people from the Genesis 10 nations have the opportunity for salvation. Those people are the “children of the flesh”, while the ones who are saved among those are the “children of the promise”.
I just wanted to add that I look forward to the day when the traitors of our race receive their reward. They will have everlasting contempt which may be worse than death.
And many white folk will come to Christ so that their good works may be manifest.
When I profess racial salvation, that does not mean that all white folk will have an equal reward or that traitors will be happy since they will have no reward.
4ntioch wrote,
“A very good case can be made for racial salvation based on the three verses that say ‘all Israel is saved’ (Romans 11:26, Isaiah 45:25, Isaiah 45:17 ) in the Bible. That is three witnesses.”
I just want to make something vividly clear, in case it was not clear already:
The contention that you have with the essay is introduced in the essay itself as one of its fundamental considerations; the essay is literally specifically addressing your contention.
No one denies what those verses say, but Paul has made it clear that they are not referring to all of the children according to the flesh. Those witnesses you provided have already been cross-examined by the exposition which the essay gives of Romans 9. This is also attested to by the web of cross-references starting with Matthew 7:22, which agrees with Paul in Romans 9, 1 John 3, John 8 and all the teachings of the New Testament.
I am very curious to hear how your views fit in with Hebrews 3 and 4 as well.
With respect, all you are presenting is a restating of the very point that the essay has sought to address. When you state the contention you have given, the response is simply to go back to the essay, because it is specifically addressing your contention.
4ntioch wrote, “CFT didnt mention Isaiah 45:25; it says “all the seed”.
Israel is a race.”
Israel is not a “race”, even by the modern conception of the word. The first generation sons of Israel took for themselves non-Israelite wives and the Bible is replete with examples of Israelites taking non-Israelite, white/Adamic wives. So fundamentally Israel cannot be a “race”.
Paul says in Romans 9,
“6…For they are not all Israel who are [descended – ’95 NASB] from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants shall be named.” 8 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.”
He says they are not all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, which is seed (“sperma” — Strong’s G4690) in the Greek. He says the children of the flesh are not seed, but the children of the promise are seed. Paul himself is addressing your own contention, and so to insist that Isaiah 45:25 is referring to seed without any additional qualifiers necessarily ignores Paul’s own writing.
Paul makes this all the more clear, being aware of verses like Isaiah 45:25, he says, “BUT IT IS NOT AS THOUGH THE WORD OF GOD [Isaiah 45:25] HAS FAILED”, because “IT IS NOT THE CHILDREN OF THE FLESH WHO ARE CHILDREN OF GOD, BUT THE CHILDREN OF THE PROMISE ARE REGARDED AS SEED.”
4ntioch wrote, “such as ‘every knee shall bow’ and verses where Paul tells us about the fornicator and the Judgement of the Adamic man (1 Corinthians 3, 1 Corinthians 5)”
Every knee shall indeed bow, because each and every individual will be resurrected. That does not necessarily mean that everyone who bows will inherit eternal life, which is exactly what the parables are teaching. Every time the ones who are excluded would like to enter, but they are denied. Hebrews 12,
14 Pursue peace with all people, and the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. 15 See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many become defiled; 16 that there be no sexually immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. 17 For you know that even afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.
Please allow me a little madness — It seems like you are ignoring me when I already addressed your contentions on 1 Corinthians 3 and 5. I say madness, because I don’t know if you’re ignoring me. By my experience so far, that’s how it seems to me. If we cannot address one another’s points, then our communication is going to break down before it even started. I would like to know why you insist on quoting those in spite of me having already address them, without even acknowledging where I have addressed them? If you disagree, then why do you disagree?
4ntioch wrote, “Later we see Christ judging the nations and He divides by ethnos (the judgement of nations at Matthew 25)”
Matthew 25:31-46 qualifies what the criteria for separation will be in verses 34-46. That qualifier is really the same qualifier as in Matthew 7:22-23, because He is describing those who were lawless — those who did not love. The Lord separating the nations is not separating one nation from another, but He took them out of every nation/ethnos, as it says in Revelation 5:9, “… You purchased people for God with Your blood from every tribe, language, people, and nation.”
Further to that, if you start reading from Matthew 24:42 you will realize that everything in Matthew 25 is really just a clarification of Matthew 24:42-51, where in verse 51 it says, “there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” This is a concept already cross-referenced within the web of cross-references in the essay itself, again proving how effortless this interpretation moves unashamedly with everything in the Scripture.
Matthew 25 starts off with, “Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to ten virgins…” He has connected this parable with His coming in Matthew 24 by saying, “THEN the kingdom of heaven will be…” By the time we get to verse 31, He is still referring to His own return, which proves again it is connected with Matthew 24:42-51.
For example, Romans 9:6; the edomites also had Abraham as a father but they were born of fornication as John 8. Edomites, being bastards, cannot inherit the promises of God. Paul contrasts Jacob and esau often. The edomites are not heirs to the promises made to Abraham even though they have Abraham as a father.
Malachi 2:10 is a prophecy of these things. I cross-referenced John 8, Romans 9:6 and Malachi 2:10 as others. If you go to verse 13 of this chapter, Romans 9:13, we see that Paul is contrasting Jacob and esau:
Rom 9:12 to her it was said, “the elder will serve the younger:”
Rom 9:13 just as it is written, “Jakob I love, and Esau I hated.”
The edomites were the vessels of wrath. Jacob was put on the altar for the pruposes of God and he made one son of Jacob for honour (Israel) and the other is for dishonour (esau).
This is what Paul is speaking about. It isnt only about Israelites as CFT suggests. This is what Paul is saying, the word of God has not failed, just that some of those in Judea were not true born sons. It is racial.
Also the sheep are according to ethnos. It is not according to belief as CFT seems to say. Matthew 25 is sheep nations. Not the ‘sheep church’. The goat ethnos are born from the sin of the world and the sheep nations are born from God’s Law of ‘kind after kind’. In the Old Testament it is a nation, the sheep were the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24). So Christ is dividing the world by ethnos, His sheep hear His voice and follow Him.
“You do not believe because you are not my sheep” (John 10:26) …racial.
Belief is a racial phenomenon. In the end every sheep will know Him and profess Him as prophesied. Belief is genetic. That is why Christ is not dividing according to a sheep church and a goat church. You goat cannot become a sheep, and vice versa, no matter what it professes. Christ didnt come to start a new religion, He came to redeem Israel.
Where I say Jacob I obviously meant Isaac, Isaac was put on the altar. It was a small error that I missed. Jacob was a son of Isaac.
4ntioch wrote, “the edomites also had Abraham as a father but they were born of fornication as John 8. Edomites, being bastards, cannot inherit the promises of God.”
Where is your proof from Scripture that Edomites were racial “bastards”, that is, not pure Adamic people? Esau was pure, being the brother of Jacob. His two wives were Hittite, but what is the evidence that Hittites were not a pure Adamic tribe? After all, King David’s wife, Bathsheba, was married to a Hittite, Uriah, which means she wasn’t an Israelite — and perhaps a Hittite herself. Her father is listed as Eliam (in Sam.) and Ammiel (in Chron.) in different places, but there’s no clear proof of who either were. And if Hittites aren’t pure White, then one of Christ’s ancestors was either non-Adamic or a race mixer, correct? This is problematic, no?
Most people who claim that Esau was a “fornicator” cite Hebrews 12:16, “Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.”
But the problem is that this verse doesn’t say Esau was a fornicator but rather he was a “profane person”. The verse reads, “lest there be any fornicator, OR a profane person like Esau”, which is an either/or statement, not an and/or statement as many assume. And indeed Esau was a profane person for selling his birthright and taking pagan, non-believing wives who worshiped strange gods. Esau’s other wife was the daughter of Ishmael, and she also was clearly Adamic and not mixed race.
Hittite can refer to the tribe or it can have another meaning. Uriah the Hittite was “Uriah the fearsome”, he was not a Hittite by race.
You seem to be following Clarke and he is not necessarily correct. It is entirely valid to interpret Hebrews 12:16 as meaning that esau was a profane man because of his fornication. The ‘or’ is not a basis for your argument, as can be found with other commentators and translators. You can also check a Bible dictionary G2228 does not necessarily, in respect of context, have the meaning you ascribe in Greek.
But I dont even need Hebrew 12:16.
Gen 27:46 And Rebekah said to Isaac, I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth: if Jacob take a wife of the daughters of Heth, such as these which are of the daughters of the land, what good shall my life do me?
The daughters of Laban were also pagan. So the distinction is not religious. The distinction between the daughters of Laban and the daughters whom esau married was racial. Israelites were permitted to take Adamic wives, Moses took an Adamic wife. Rebekah was concerned that she would have no legitimate offspring and asks “what good will my life do me?”
Esau certainly was a fornicator. He took canaanite wives, of those tribes. That is why God will destroy esau’s descendents, God is not unjust.
At Ezra 9:
Ezr 9:1 Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.
The very same tribes that esau took wives from.
Ezra 10:3 Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.
They put away the strange wives according to the Law. Israelites were permitted to take Adamic wives, so these strange wives and the children of them cannot be born according to the Law. They are bastards that are not permitted to enter the congregation of God. They had to put them away, put them out of the congregation (Deuteronomy 23).
Judah’s wife, a canaanite, was a daughter of a strange god (Malachi 2). They were not of a different religion, it was the priests who were sinning. God says He will corrupt their seed. Read all of Malachi 2. Judah’s wife was the daughter of a strange god because they had no origin with the God of Israel, not because she was of a different religion. As we saw with Rebekah, the daughters of Laban were acceptable yet they were idolaters.
Mal 2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.
Am I suppose to believe in “spiritual seed”?
Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?
Mal 2:11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.
The tribe of Judah had profaned the covenant of the fathers by joining themselves to the peoples of a strange god (ie bastards peoples). Judah was a noble vine that had been degenerated through race-mixing (Jeremiah 2). A corrupted seed . This is prophetic of what is seen in John 8 where we also find those who did not have God as a Father, those born of fornication.
Joh 8:44 You are the sons of a father: the False Accuser! And you wish to do the desires of your father! He was a murderer from the beginning and did not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him! When he speaks a lie, he speaks from of his own devices, because he is a liar and the father of it!
God was not their Father. The preposition Ek, in greek, translated as “of” in English denotes origin, check a Bible dictionary. It does not mean they were of a church of satan, they were of satan. Children of Satan. Genetically. Born of fornication at John 8:41.
1Jn 3:9 Each who has been born from of Yahweh does not create wrongdoing, because His seed abides in him, and he is not able to do wrong, because from of Yahweh he has been born.
Would you claim that being born from God is a metaphorical phenomenon? It isnt. Spiritual Israel is a lie. The Bible is about origin and destiny, those born from God, from above, and those born from the sins of the world who have no future in His coming KINgdom.
Revelation 2:9, 3:9, Romans 9:6 etc. There were people in Judea who were not truly of Judah, who were not true heirs. They were the edomites and others of the land.
4ntioch wrote, “Hittite can refer to the tribe or it can have another meaning. Uriah the Hittite was “Uriah the fearsome”, he was not a Hittite by race.”
“Can have” another meaning? Seriously? What rabbi have you been reading? What you are saying about Uriah literally comes straight out of the Babylonian Talmud. Like you, and whoever taught you this nonsense, the rabbis “strained at a gnat” to twist the Scriptures to “rescue” Bathsheba and her marriage to a Hittite. That should be a big red flag for you. Think!
Your whole thesis can be summed up by Matthew 23:24:
“Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.”
The “abominations” of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites — wasn’t their race but rather their paganism — they all violated the first commandment — and most important commandment — that they worship no other God than the God of Israel. This is why Rebecca was distraught at the prospect of Jacob marrying wives of “strange gods” — Jacob could not fulfill his destiny as the spiritual leader of Israel if he followed Esau into paganism.
Obviously, you’ve chosen a NT translation to suit your two seedline doctrine. And you seem to be cutting and pasting someone else’s words. Beware of false teachers:
“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” (2 Thessalonians 2:11)
“For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
Two seedline is a myth straight out of Babylon, and you’ve swallowed it whole without questioning it. I used to believe what you believe until I learned that this is the basis of all occult Babylonian paganism which you’ve been misled to believe is Christian:
https://christiansfortruth.com/what-really-happened-between-eve-and-the-serpent-in-the-garden-of-eden/
Since I cant reply to Chesterton below I will reply here. Chesterton is wrong to say that Hittite cant have another meaning.
People can check H2851 in strong’s concrodance. It certainly does mean fearsome.
The idea that Christ was a mongrel or mixed race is blasphemy. Also chesterton maintained that the canaanites were distinguished because of religion rather than race, yet the daughters of Laban and Laban himself were also pagan yet were acceptable to Rebekah who was the mother of Laban.
So Rebekah is the salient example but I also provided others. The Israelites were permitted to take Adamic wives, such as Joseph and Moses but they were not permitted to bring mamzers into the congregation of Yahweh, I cited Ezra 9, 10 and Deuteronomy 23.
Paul also spoke of the ‘unbelieving spouse’ and advised Christians to stay together and that their children were still sanctified in their faith even if they had an unbelieving spouse (1 Corinthians 7:14). So the issue in the Christian era is race not religion, as with the time of Rebekah. Christ did not come to start a new religion, He came to redeem Israel.
4ntioch wrote, “Paul contrasts Jacob and esau often”
I think this statement encapsulates the challenges we are having in this discussion.
Paul literally only mentions Esau once, and it’s in Romans 9. Esau is mentioned in Hebrews 11 and 12, which may be Paul, but that is the only other time it’s mentioned in the NT. Jacob appears in Romans 9 and 11, and then Hebrews 11.
You’ve made a blanket statement, “Paul contrasts Jacob and esau often”, but he just doesn’t. It seems though that the statement was true in your mind, and you said it without really verifying it.
Therefore, there is a disconnect between your own mind and the content of the Scriptures. This seems to be how you are operating in this discussion; merely pulling things out of the air, because they make sense within your own mind. What hope is there of fruitful discussion?
I would like to encourage you to take a more serious, thoughtful and methodical approach to the Scripture. Verify things before you say them. If you’ve managed to convince yourself of something, it doesn’t mean that someone else should accept what you have accepted. Especially when you have perceptions of the Scripture which are categorically wrong, as I highlighted in the beginning of this comment.
4ntioch wrote, “The idea that Christ was a mongrel or mixed race is blasphemy.”
Who said Christ was a mongrel? I would never suggest such thing. You are putting words in my mouth.
My whole point was that Christ had a Hittite ancestor through Bathsheba, and that’s okay, because Hittites were Adamic. Israelites are allowed to take pure Adamites as wives. You disagree — you claim, without any proof, that the pagan Hittites were not Adamic. Because you falsely believe that, you are forced to “prove” that Uriah was not really a Hittite. You painted yourself into a corner, and you can’t get out of that corner without making the Scripture say things it doesn’t say.
God does not recognize marriages between Adamics and non-Adamics. That means if the Bible says Esau’s “wives” were Hittite, that means they were Adamic. Get it? An Adamic cannot marry a non-Adamic. It’s not a marriage. Leviticus 18:23, read it. It’s not a “wife” by God’s law. You claim otherwise. You claim marriages and “wives” are recognized in Scripture between Adamics and non-Adamics. Prove it. It’s just not there.
4ntioch wrote, “People can check H2851 in strong’s concrodance. It certainly does mean fearsome.”
I’m afraid you’ve misapplied the Strong’s Concordance. Strong’s H2850 — which is what is used in 2 Samuel 23:39 for example — is literally the word for descendants of Heth. If the writer of the book meant anything else, he would not have used H2850. More specifically, the writer used it in proper noun masculine singular. Look where else the word is used in this manner: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/hachitti_2850.htm
See, you can’t just click through Strong’s and claim the root word is what it means. Other uses of the same form of the word need to be considered. If they were saying that Uriah was “fearsome”, they word have used a word other than H2850 in the proper noun masculine singular.
Even so, H2865 is about being dismayed, not causing dismay. So you are saying that Uriah was fearful.
I’m afraid in the mental state you are in you need to be learning, not debating. Please accept this in the sincerity with which it is meant. It will only do you good.
Obviously I meant to say “Rebekah was the mother of esau” lol. It was merely a typo.
Paul was contrasting Jacob and esau at Romans 9, Johan now admits that. I was right. I mean how often is often, isnt that subjective. I think it was often just in the verses he mentions and ofcourse there are others where Paul may not use the patronym.
I havent said anything wrong. Johan hasnt proven anything I have said is wrong. As I said, he now admits that Romans 9 is as I say.
Also Chesterton has still failed to explain Ezra 9, 10 properly or Rebekah’s exclamation at Genesis 27 or Paul’s statement. The sin of Ezra 9 was not that they joined themselves to people of another religion, it was that they joined themselves to people of a mongrel race, the hittites were a canaanite race. And that is the sin of esau who was a fornicator Hebrews 12:16.
Anyways all of this upholds my original assertion.
Racial salvation is the Bible, Christ came to redeem the lost sheep. Paul makes it clear that race is the issue not belief when he speaks of the unbelieving spouse while elsewhere, he condemns a fornicator. In the very same epistle (1 Corinthians).
The issue is race not religion. And Rebekah is the salient example.
I’m sorry 4ntioch, as much as it grieves me, I can’t continue to take this conversation seriously.
Luk 23:41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
Luk 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
Luk 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Christ speaking to the robber.
Good case study to apply
Ezekiel 28,
27 But when a wicked person turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices justice and righteousness, he will save his life. 28 Since he understood and turned away from all his offenses which he had committed, he shall certainly live; he shall not die.
1 John 1:9,
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous, so that He will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Luke 15:24,
for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.
Hebrews 4
12 For the word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, even penetrating as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him to whom we must answer.
Knowing the sincerity of his heart, the Lord must have judged him to be righteous in his confession, even though there was not much time left for him to live a righteous life. By his simple words in that passage, the repentant man seemed to have a true knowledge of
Christ.
And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
How much more should we repent likewise, that He may remember us when He comes into His kingdom, lest we also receive the due reward for our deeds…
Hebrews 3,
12 Take care, brothers and sisters, that there will not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God. 13 But encourage one another every day, as long as it is still called “today,” so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
…who apparently is one of the called – proving to be one of the chosen – as he gave glory to Christ for His blamelessness and at the same time repented of his own misdeeds – having done exactly what we are all called to do.
And this is proof that all racial Israel is to be saved?
He had no good works.
So you now accept that a man who was being executed for a crime is saved. Just like the fornicator who Paul advised should be given up to satan for destruction of the flesh so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Prince in 1 Corinthians.
Christ divides by ethnos. That is racial. At Matthew 25.
So now you accept that a man with no good works can be saved …well belief is also a racial phenomenon. Christ told His enemies they didnt believe because they were not His sheep. And we know that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall swear in the end. Every Adamic tongue shall swear ….it doesnt matter what the devils believe.
I have addressed your contention that a man was saved who “had no good works” in this comment: https://christiansfortruth.com/will-all-israel-be-saved-or-just-a-remnant/#comment-44403
To add to that, it should be reiterated: Works do not save anyone. It is God’s choice which saves us. It was God’s choice to save the man on the cross, which is evident in his final supplication to the Lord Jesus, and the Lord’s subsequent acceptance of that supplication. He didn’t get to live out his life after that, which is fine. However, if he was rescued and released from the cross, he would most certainly have lived a righteous life.
I’m afraid that so long as you do not understand this fundamental principle of salvation according to God’s choice, we will keep going around in circles. I would encourage you to break away from the idea that the essay is proposing that anyone is saved by works. So long as you are contending that the essay is saying something which it isn’t, then we are doomed not to be able to relate to one another in discussion.
As for your contention on being delivered up for destruction of the flesh, please see my comment here: https://christiansfortruth.com/will-all-israel-be-saved-or-just-a-remnant/#comment-44122
It worries me that you’ve brought this up again, even though I addressed this contention directly with you earlier. I would hope that if you disagree, you would have told me why instead of simply bringing it up elsewhere, as if we hadn’t discussed it already.
You have also simply reiterated your point to Ottify without addressing my reply to your contention above, as if I didn’t address your contention. It makes me lose faith in our ability to discuss this honestly and openly with one another. Therefore, I would make the following requests:
1. Please study the essay until you understand the doctrine of salvation being proposed. If you come to the conclusion that salvation is by works, then suffice to say you do not yet understand it, and that more study is necessary. Any critique of yours on the essay will be fundamentally flawed until this realization is achieved.
2. If you have stated a contention, and I or anyone else has addressed that contention, please get back to myself or that person on whether you agree on not, instead of pressing ahead on that contention as if it hadn’t already been discussed.
Would you be able to do those things please, 4ntioch? Would you agree that without them, we cannot discuss this productively? Would appreciate your reply.
Hi Johan
I gave an explanation in my latest post which should be approved shortly.
Simply I do not have to accept your subjective interpretations of your citations, especially when I feel I can make an objective interpretation that respects Isaiah 45:24 and Romans 11:26.
Honestly there are many valid interpretations for the verses you cite. And that is why I think it is important to make an interpretation that respects the plain words of Isaiah and upholds them.
For example jewdeo-xtians will take that word ‘Israel’ and invent a new concept called ‘spiritual Israel’ and apply it …yet that cannot be what was meant in the Bible. Likewise I think Isaiah meant “all Israel (race) is saved” when he says that, and I would not invent a new concept to reinterpret those plain words.
4ntioch, I can see what you are trying to do, and it’s not working. You blatantly lie on the forums of Christogenea (the site you claim can’t be named, but there, I just named it) about this site claiming it’s universalist, hates White people, and you claim CFT lies.
I remember you, you always were a snide character, always bullying people to agree with you. You cannot even answer basic questions addressed here, then you get all up in your fee fees and go and slander this site on that forum. What p**ses me off is your control freak behavior towards our brethren. Address the points or leave.
Elijah, I remember back in the day when 4ntioch almost got kicked out of that forum for being such a hot head. Then when people left the forum en masse, there were few people left, and 4ntioch all of a sudden got elevated to “trusted” member after almost getting kicked to the curb. He’s the “best” of the “remnant” that’s left, and that says a lot.
Mark: Wow, I honestly didn’t know that, but that would make sense though. I concur with what you have said – the fruit they bear reeks.
For the short time I was there I never saw any Christian Solidarity, but what I did see was those who didn’t toe the party line – and those who didn’t reiterate and agree with everything this individual said – would be banned. There was always something off about certain individuals there.
Matthew 7:15-20 We will know them by their fruits.
4ntioch, Why didn’t you answer Johan when he proved Uriah was of Hittite descent? Strong’s 2850 “H2850
חִתִּי
chittı̂y
khit-tee’
Patronymic from H2845; a Chittite, or descendant of Cheth: – Hittite, Hittites.”
That is used for Uriah the Hittite in 2 Samuel 23:39.
It is quite clear that you purposefully ignored this contention as you have with the other arguments, you clearly did not read the essay. Child of the Promise vs Children of the Flesh. The Bible is only for White Adamic Israelites, that is true, this does not mean that every individual Israelite is Saved as outlines in Romans 9:27, Luke 13, etc.
It seems you are being intellectually dishonest here,
There was once a kind master who lived in his mansion, who resolved to adopt orphans from the street. He promised them peace in his house, and to grow up as successful and respected men, who the master himself would be proud to call his children.
Only he required of them to live up to that honor while still on the street. In order to be adopted, they had to act in a manner befitting a child of the master’s family, even prior to being adopted.
None of the children were fit for the master’s family, and they were each afflicted with various burdens which hindered them in their own minds. But being a kindly man, the master would go out into the streets and help each child with their needs and challenges, so that nothing would stand in their way.
Sadly, it was still very burdensome on many of the children to have to act like men of the master’s house instead acting like the street children they were. They did not ask the master to help them, and so he spent no time with them.
For the few who asked, he sat with them day in and day out, until the time came for the bringing in of children to be adopted. Those he taught he knew – their behavior being proven already, and so he called to them immediately, ushering them into his house.
The rest of the children, having seen the door open and the lovely interior, were suddenly eager to enter. The master said to them, “Children, I asked for you to behave in a manner fitting my house, and I sat with you daily to teach you the way, but you found more pleasure in your childishness and proved that you have no pleasure my rules. If you could find no pleasure in my way on the street, how could you fit into a place where everyone finds pleasure in my way?”
Thereafter, the master went into his house and closed the door, calling to his servants to receive his new children. The children outside, realizing it was too late, saw that their peers’ success under the guidance of the master was a witness against their own failure and childish impulsivity. They wept over their own failure and their rejection of the master’s generosity.
Thumbs up! Well said.
What a wonderful modern Christian parable 🙂
This was superbly written and covered. Thank you!
The covenant with israel was broken and all blessings and being “chosen” all died when they “killed” Jesus. Game over. No blessings. No favoritsim or nepotism. All the jews have is banking and fear of being caught. They lie for a living and the illusion is over. Thank Jesus.
Susan, what you are saying here is in direct contradiction to Jeremiah 31:31, “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: 32Not 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: 33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel”
The Jews today are NOT Israel and NEVER were Israel. They are Khazars who adopted Judaism and the false Identity of Israel. Not the same people. Therefore, the Old Covenant has nothing to do with today’s so-called “Jews”.
Romans 11 says,
28 In relation to the gospel they [Israel] are enemies on your account, but in relation to God’s choice they are beloved on account of the fathers; 29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
Clearly Paul disagrees with you, Susan. Romans 11 goes into detail to explain the dynamic to which you are referring.
Although Susan, did you know that “jews” are not at all related to the true Israel of Scripture? Assuming you are a pure white, you also may well be an Israelite yourself…
Yup, spiritual Israel will be saved. The Northern Kingdom and Israel was full of tribes that were unlike modern Jews today. God makes them enemies on our account but loves them nonetheless, that does not mean, however, they will be saved because of flesh. One must CIRCUMICISE THE HEART!!!
Looking at my comment again, I can see how it was ambiguous. What I was trying to say is that the “Jews” as we know them today have absolutely nothing to do with the true descendants of Jacob on a genetic level or a religious level. The “Jews” are something else entirely, who have usurped the Israelite identity in order that Satan can foment his counterfeit theology with them at the center.
The true Israel of Scripture — the “children of the flesh” as it were, can only be white people, who are the true descendants of Adam. From there, the “children of the promise” — the circumcised of the heart — will be a subset of that, along with those of the Genesis 10 nations — also only white people, who are also brought in.
Isa 45:23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
Isa 45:24 Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.
Isa 45:25 In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.
This is basically an argument about personal salvation. CFT feels that man can save himself, that something a man does will save him. Just like the old priesthood came to count on their rituals as a covering for sin.
While the “All Israel is saved” camp believes that God’s purpose for His people cannot fail, that man is not the author of His own destiny. That the will of God cannot fail. That every mouth shall confess His Name. That His promises to His people will never fail.
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
This is genetic. A good race, with an origin in God can not bring forth bad fruit. God will cover the sins of Israel and not count them against him.
Psa 32:1 A Psalm of David, Maschil. Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
1Jn 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
1Jn 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Born of God.
4ntioch wrote, “This is genetic. A good race, with an origin in God can not bring forth bad fruit. God will cover the sins of Israel and not count them against him.”
So which one is it? Is a “good race” not able to sin? Why would that “good race” need their sins covered? Your own view contradicts itself. Isn’t that obvious?
Also how do these views of yours fit with the context of our discussion, which is the essay presented above? It seems strange to simply come in and state your view, ignoring that context.
4ntioch wrote, “Psa 32:1 A Psalm of David, Maschil. Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.”
Children of the promise are forgiven their sins, as all have sinned (Romans 3). This verse does not contradict anything.
4ntioch wrote, “1Jn 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
1Jn 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”
Being “born of God” easily fits with the premise of “child of the promise”. You need to be more specific.
Again, you also have to reconcile your own views, as to how a “good race” cannot commit sin, but also need forgiveness of sin.
Born again, faith in God, truly then, one cannot sin, if his faith never dies.
4ntioch wrote, “This is basically an argument about personal salvation. CFT feels that man can save himself, that something a man does will save him.”
Then maybe you missed the entire argument which is being made in the essay. Salvation happens according to God’s choice, and because of God’s choice the life of the person chosen will inevitably be a righteous life. This is the purest form of grace, and the purest form of there being nothing a man can do to save himself.
The New Testament writers, as we have shown, exhort their readers to make sure of that calling and choice.
It is not uncommon for accusations such as yours to come up, but the accusation comes from a fundamental ignorance of our view. We would recommend you simply re-read the essay and consider again the argument which has been presented.
God’s purpose is that “all the seed of Israel shall be justified.”
And His purpose cannot fail. If you have an origin with God, you have a destiny with Him also (John 3). In this very same place in Isaiah we see that to Him “every knee shall bow.”
Of-course Yahweh is not going to rule over bastard peoples, they cannot even exist under His Law.
Solomon also expresses the intention of God where he says “For God created man to be immortal” and God’s purpose cannot fail. Although every Adamic man is saved, in the sense that he has eternal life; there are different rewards.
So a man that has no good works, although he has eternal life by the nature of His origin in God, He will have no reward.
Paul speaking of a fornicator:
1Co 5:5 deliver such a wretch to the Adversary, for destruction of the flesh, in order that the Spirit may be preserved in the day of the Prince.
The spirit saved on the day of the Prince.
Paul speaking of the Judgement:
1Co 3:13 the work of each will become evident; indeed the day will disclose it, because in fire it is revealed; and of what quality the work of each is, the fire will scrutinize.
1Co 3:14 If the work of anyone who has built remains, he will receive a reward.
1Co 3:15 If the work of anyone burns completely, he will suffer loss, but he himself will be preserved, although consequently through fire.
He will have no reward yet he will be preserved. Because each Adamic man has an immortal spirit from of God. And God doesnt make mistakes. God’s promise, His will, cannot fail.
In the Gospel of John:
Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
A resurrection of damnation. So he will be preserved.
So although every Adamic man will enter the Kingdom of God since He is born from above, many men will have eternal shame.
The prophet Daniel:
Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
God is Sovereign.
I do not believe in personal salvation or salvation by works.
I believe the justice and mercy of God is made evident in the doctrine of racial salvation, that God will justify Israel to glorify Himself, for His sake …not because Israelites have righteousness apart from Him. As Isaiah says. Every knee shall bow. All Israel shall be saved.
Even the Adamites of the flood were preserved and Christ preached to them.
Lastly I would cross-reference Romans 9:6 to Revelation 2:9, 3:9, 1 John 2:19, John 8 (those of Abraham yet born of fornication) and Malachi 2:10. I think that is how I would interpret Romans 9:6, with multiple witnesses to understand.
4ntioch wrote, “If you have an origin with God, you have a destiny with Him also (John 3).”
Having an origin in God is what it means to be a child of the promise.
4ntioch wrote, “Solomon also expresses the intention of God where he says “For God created man to be immortal” and God’s purpose cannot fail.”
You’ve cited chapter and verse, except for your reference to “The Wisdom of Solomon” from the Apocrypha. The fact that you didn’t cite chapter and verse reveals that you were sheepish to do so, knowing that the Apocrypha is not cannon, and also knowing that the book itself disagrees with you. This omission of yours comes across as very disingenuous.
I don’t acknowledge this writing as equal to canonical Scriptural witness, but will quote it to show all how quoting it at all was pointless, because it disagrees with you:
Wisdom of Solomon 2,
21 Such things they did imagine, and were deceived: for their own wickedness hath blinded them. 22 As for the mysteries of God, they knew them not: neither hoped they for the wages of righteousness, nor discerned a reward for blameless souls.
23 For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity. 24 Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that do hold of his side do find it.
In any case, Psalm 82 echoes the same,
6 I said, “You are gods,
And all of you are sons of the Most High.
7 Nevertheless you will die like men,
And fall like one of the princes.”
This acknowledges the intention, while showing that it will not necessarily happen. Assuming all who were created with that intention having that intention realized in themselves is the reading of your own interpretation into the passage. The intention was stated already in Genesis 1:26, but Colossians 3 shows once again what is required to attain to that image and intention,
9 Do not lie to one another, since you stripped off the old self with its evil practices, 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created it
That image of the Creator must be attained to, or the realization of immortality will not happen. It’s ironic that you raised this point, but it is just another avenue into the true salvation, which is God’s choice. In the context of attaining to the image of the Creator, Colossians 3 says in verse 12,
So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience;
Those who are CHOSEN of God are the ones who will attain to that image.
4ntioch wrote, “So a man that has no good works, although he has eternal life by the nature of His origin in God, He will have no reward.”
You have a lot to go through in the essay in order to prove that. I’ll cover all of your points which you raise, but your argument simply represents the side-stepping of a rather comprehensive and detailed argument lain out in the above essay. Will you ever address any of those arguments, I wonder?
4ntioch wrote, “1Co 5:5 deliver such a wretch to the Adversary, for destruction of the flesh, in order that the Spirit may be preserved in the day of the Prince.”
“Destruction”, or “olethros” (Strong’s G3639) by definition implies an ongoing ruin and to this end it is even used as a noun. This is why the adjectives “suddenly” and “eternal” are used in 1 Thes 5:3 and 2 Thes 1:9 respectively. This is why 1 Timothy 6:9 also implies an ongoing state of “destruction”, having fallen “into temptation and a trap, and many foolish and harmful desires”.
The word does not imply death necessarily, but rather a hope that through physical trial that man will return to the truth. Paul says “may be preserved”, which is “sózó” (Strong’s G3639) used in aorist subjunctive passive, indicating Paul’s desire and simultaneously not implying any form of certainty. This is captured in the English word “may”, which exactly conveys what is in the Greek. The translators have done well with this verse, but sadly those who read it with agendas tend to ignore the “may” aspect.
This interpretation can be confirmed in 1 Timothy 1:20,
Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.
4ntioch wrote, “He will have no reward yet he will be preserved. Because each Adamic man has an immortal spirit from of God.”
Apollos himself, being a good man, was the work of others, having been built into the foundation (Acts 18:24-28). The same applies to Paul, naturally, being the work of Christ Himself. If the Corinthians, who are the work of Paul and Apollos, end up not being saved through their factions (Galatians 5:20), then Paul and Apollos will still be saved because they themselves are a work which is able to withstand the fire, because they are not factious like the Corinthians.
The fact that the Corinthians might be burned away through their own error does not change the fact that Paul and Apollos will not be burned away, because they themselves are not in error. They will withstand the fire. To interpret this as a teaching of some “un-killable spirit” doctrine is quite a stretch, as you have torn it out of context.
4ntioch wrote, “A resurrection of damnation.
I already addressed this point. See my comment with timestamp, “MARCH 7, 2021 AT 6:49 AM”.
4ntioch wrote, “I believe the justice and mercy of God is made evident in the doctrine of racial salvation, that God will justify Israel to glorify Himself, for His sake …not because Israelites have righteousness apart from Him.”
It seems you still fundamentally do not understand the doctrine of salvation according to God’s choice which. Ironically, the “racial salvation” doctrine is another form of doctrine which is according to God’s choice. “Racial salvation” and “children of the promise” are simply different criteria for God’s choice. With that in mind, your moral posturing comes across as hypocritical.
The righteousness is a result of the choice. The choice is not a result of the righteousness. Except your own doctrine of “racial salvation” has failed to produce the righteousness necessary to identify the children of the promise. You still haven’t addressed that aspect.
Romans 9:11,
for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls
4ntioch wrote, “Lastly I would cross-reference Romans 9:6 to Revelation 2:9, 3:9, 1 John 2:19, John 8 (those of Abraham yet born of fornication) and Malachi 2:10. I think that is how I would interpret Romans 9:6, with multiple witnesses to understand.”
This is a weak cross-reference, made all the more so given a lack of exposition or explanation. John 8 refers to children of the promise (children of God/Abraham) and children of the flesh (children of Satan), which the audience of John 8 seems not to understand. Similarly, Nicodemus suffered the same ignorance in John 3.
John 8 is very much not a problem for the doctrine of salvation according to God’s choice though. One could much more easily cross-reference 1 John 3 for the sake of that doctrine,
4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. 6 No one who remains in Him sins continually; no one who sins continually has seen Him or knows Him. 7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; 8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one who has been born of God practices sin, because His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin continually, because he has been born of God.
Being born of God will necessarily result in righteousness, which is the wedding garment — the righteous deeds of the saints, because “the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous”. Being born of God, a son of God, having an origin in God, being a child of the promise, or being a sheep, all according to God’s promise, MUST RESULT IN RIGHTEOUSNESS. All else will end up in the lake of fire.
Ive been reading the comments and mostly abstaining from the conversation, but I really pondered this one and couldnt help but get stuck on this:
“The righteousness is a result of the choice. The choice is not a result of the righteousness. Except your own doctrine of “racial salvation” has failed to produce the righteousness necessary to identify the children of the promise. You still haven’t addressed that aspect.”
Specifically this part:
“Except your own doctrine of “racial salvation” has failed to produce the righteousness necessary to identify the children of the promise.”
Unless you’re the most high judge, how can you state this with such authority?
John wrote, “Unless you’re the most high judge, how can you state this with such authority?”
I suppose quite simply because it’s true. It is “another Jesus”. Belief in the true Jesus, and true knowledge of him, will bring about attitudes which are not present in “All Israel will be saved”. This is evident in the Scripture.
Also I don’t presume to deal out punishment, so I don’t see the necessity of being the “most high judge”. Rather, I want for my kindred to stand righteous in the judgement of the true Most High Judge, for their sake and for the Judge’s sake. It’s a win-win scenario.
If the judgement of eternal life and death of Israelites can be proven, which it has been, then wouldn’t I actually hate my kindred if I didn’t speak thus? But I do love my kindred! So I will say what needs to be said.
Consider Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 7,
2 Make room for us in your hearts; we have wronged no one, we corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one. 3 I do not speak to condemn you, for I have said before that you are in our hearts, to die together and to live together. 4 My confidence in you is great; my boasting in your behalf is great…
8 For though I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it; though I did regret it—for I see that that letter caused you sorrow, though only for a while— 9 I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, so that you might not suffer loss in anything through us. 10 For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death. 11 For behold what earnestness this very thing, this godly sorrow, has produced in you: what vindication of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what punishment of wrong! In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter. 12 So although I wrote to you, it was not for the sake of the offender nor for the sake of the one offended, but that your earnestness in our behalf might be made known to you in the sight of God.
Honestly, I see myself in my kindred, and it frightens me. Although it gives me hope as well, that if one like myself could have sorrow according to the will of God — though likely not having had my full measure of it yet, then my kindred who who I love will too. Then we can be consoled in one another and in the promises to come. Being known by the true Jesus, not shying away from Him with a pure conscience, together with Him and one another in His day of joy.
“I want for my kindred to stand righteous in the judgement of the true Most High Judge, for their sake and for the Judge’s sake.”
That’s a good hearted perspective to have. I know you have a good heart.
This is my opinion, and take on the scriptures, that proving to an Israelite that they will receive eternal death, and telling them that their beliefs bring forth no righteousness (hence condemning their current state to that of eternal destruction), is not the way to win over an Israelite. Maybe some, unknown portion, but not all. But, the scripture say this is how we win over israelites; we provoke them to jealousy (Rom 11:14, and OT prophets, and Duet) with love, kindness, generosity, mercy and grace towards our spiritual brethren (all throughout the NT).
At the end of the day, the only thing that will remain from this world to the next is love. All other things are shadows of what to come and will perish, but love remains:
1 Cor 13:1-3
“If I speak with the tongues of mankind and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give away all my possessions to charity, and if I surrender my body so that I may [a]glory, but do not have love, it does me no good.”
“If the judgement of eternal life and death of Israelites can be proven, which it has been, then wouldn’t I actually hate my kindred if I didn’t speak thus? But I do love my kindred! So I will say what needs to be said.”
This goes along with 1 Cor 13:2. You can have all the knowledge you want, and believe that sharing it with others is the love. But, is it really? If you go back and read your conversations with the people who disagree with you (sometimes slightly, even ever so slightly), do you believe that your responses to them make them feel loved? Are you presenting them with mercy and grace, or with judgement and accusation? Do you think that saying things like:
“you were sheepish to do so”
“It seems you still fundamentally do not understand the doctrine of salvation”
“your moral posturing comes across as hypocritical.”
“This is a weak cross-reference, made all the more so given a lack of exposition or explanation.”
and other tonal choices like:
“Will you ever address any of those arguments, I wonder?”
“This omission of yours comes across as very disingenuous.” (assumes they made conscious omissions)
“You have a lot to go through in the essay in order to prove that.” (are we going over scripture, or the essay)
Is this the way? Or is this the way of your opponents and the way they act?
I dont mean stir up anything, or cause a defense. I am truely saying this out of love, and maybe a little frustration. Im not trying to single you out, but you have had maybe the biggest voice on this site for a while. Most of CFT frequenters fall under the same trap, I too do the same. But, i realize that im not enlightening anyone, and rather am just blinding them.
I’m happy to take the feedback. However, if you want to dispute the truth of salvation, then it’s going to have to be on a Scriptural level. A detailed and comprehensive case has been given.
I’m going to discontinue any kind of “meta-discussion”. If you disagree with the case given, I’d like to hear which specific points of the case you disagree with.
The idea that all Israel will be saved regardless of their actions or beliefs has even less conditions than what is called ‘unconditional salvation’ (since the condition there is just keeping a vague, passive faith), and such a belief will only corrupt people into a perverse, sinful and haughty mindset- the complete opposite of the “refined” ministers God wanted for the sake of all mankind.
This is no easy ticket.
The 144k are going to judge along-side Christ, they are the ones who are sealed during the Tribulation- the purification and white robes mean they have washed their sin away, they sin no more, and being called “virgins” means they have never worshipped false gods.
They each descend from the literal tribes, as it was literally promised to their forefathers.
They must not be illegitimate like Ishmael, since that would make them no longer “set-apart” or a true Israelite, since they are “given over to another people.”
The resurrection of everyone else is dependant on the judgement on each individual, according to his entire character & heart and all his choices- based on the new covenant. Even how a person interprets the Bible is likely going to be a consideration- if they simply listen to other people without thinking about it or if they properly study and ask questions.
And then there are some who will be awoken from death but have to live on with the shame of what they did in this life. Acts 24:15
God wants those who serve others just as God serves his children- God is almighty yet he allowed himself, in the flesh, to be humiliated and tortured to death, just to show us that his love was genuine and not some kind of trick, and he knew that this is what was required from the start with Adam & Eve, because he saw the distrust in their hearts towards superiority as well as their ambitions.
The Bible states who will not inherit the Kingdom of God in many passages- this is not because of God’s whims, it’s because the traits can’t exist in an ideal world, free from entropy, societal as well as physical, according to the balance of his creation. But there is a difference between sin that is defiant and sin that isn’t, and the Bible makes it clear that you can be redeemed from sin.
Also, if non-Israelites were automatically sent to eternal destruction, then why would Christ say in Matthew 23:33 “How will you escape the sentence of Gehenna?”
And why would he give the Canaanites hundreds of years to repent their evil ways?
Realising the reality of who is who, historically, is just part of understanding the Bible-
It says nothing about your practical qualities, whether you study and try to avoid sin or not, and live by the Heart of the Law and not just the letter.
Romans 12:17″Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Carefully consider what is right in the eyes of everybody.”18 “If it is possible on your part, live at peace with everyone.”
Matthew 5: 21 “You have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Do not murder’ and ‘Anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’” 22 “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ will be subject to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be subject to the fire of Gehenna. “
John 1:46 “Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. 47 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see. 48 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! 49 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. 50 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. 51 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these. 52 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see the heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.”
Here we see conformation from Jesus that just because one is of Jacob doesn’t necessarily make one a true Israelite. A true Israelite is one of Jacob that believes Jesus is King and High Priest, son of God, God himself who has no guile (deceit, cunning duplicity). So yes, all Israel will be saved by this definition. But we should also remember that as was previously pointed out that we will all be in the Kingdom who believe in him. Stations will vary but this is confirmed in this passage as well where we do not know if Jesus is speaking to an Esau or Jacob Pharisees and this question also has baring on the issues of who’s saved or condemned we are speaking about.
Matthew 21:28 “But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. 29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. 30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. 31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. ”
As we see, these Pharisees will be entering the Kingdom and that those who they railed against as big sinners as if they were so righteous would enter before them. When we read in revelation we must be aware that we can say we only know of “6” who are for sure going into the lake of fire and that’s Satan, the Devil that deceived them, the Beast, the false prophet, death and hell”.
Technically, we all may be in the book of life but I don’t think we should act as if that is for certain because it is not.
Revelation 20:10 “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. 11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”
“And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”
That statement implicitly means that there will be people — Adamites — not found in the book of life and will be cast into the fire, which contradicts everything you’ve said previously. And the only people that can be written in the book of life are those who descend from Adam, and not everyone on earth comes from Adam.
No, it does not mean that the people of Jacob (Adamites) will go into the lake of fire. You are assuming. It simply said “those not written”. So what if everyone that is actually of Jacob is written in? I am not saying that this is what will happen but it is possible as anything is possible with I AM/Jesus. But I don’t think that is what will happen, but it could and I will tell you why.
Revelation 13:4″ And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? 5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. 6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. 7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. 8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”
Here again the plain words seem to suggest everyone that dwells on the earth will take the mark. But not necessarily. What if only non Jacob/Adamites take the mark? What if those that we believe are Jacob/Adamites take the mark but they are not fully Jacob/Adamites in reality because their bloodline was polluted centuries ago but we cannot tell by simple observation? Maybe this is why the wheat and the Chaff are allowed to grow to maturity so that their actions by taking the mark reveal who they actually are on the inside?
Revelation 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. 20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
Here again the plain language seems to suggest that the Beast, False Prophet and those they deceived and took the mark are all going into the lake of fire. But are they all? It says BOTH are going for sure. Both means two and the Beast, False Prophet, and those they deceived taking the mark would make three. Plus it says that those who took the mark and were deceived by the Beast and False Prophet (the remnant) would be slain by the rider of the white horse (Jesus) and that does not automatically mean they will go into the lake of fire which brings us right back to Revelation 20:10 understanding that this particular Judgement is at the end of this particular age which begins the 1000 year reign of Christ with his 144,000. At the end of those 1000 years Satan is released again but he is unable to conquer the Saints this time since the Saints have their original Adamic bodies back that has perpetual life and that’s why the second death (meaning the judgement at the end of the 1000 year reign) has no power over them.
Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”
Remember, at the end of this particular age there is a judgement. Those who overcame are part of the resurrection of the just and the second death (second judgement at the end of the 1000 years) has no power over them. Those who are of the resurrection of the unjust can be overcome by the second death when Satan is released again. So the question then becomes, do the unjust have a second chance? It would seem so and maybe, just maybe in “round two” they are all saved and are found in the book of life.
Tyron Parsons wrote, “Here again the plain words seem to suggest everyone that dwells on the earth will take the mark.”
Where do you see that? Verse 8 from your quote says, “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” Clearly it says all who are not written in the Lamb’s book of life will worship him. This is clearly not even possibly everyone that dwells on earth.
Tyron Parsons wrote, “Maybe this is why the wheat and the Chaff are allowed to grow to maturity so that their actions by taking the mark reveal who they actually are on the inside?”
I don’t necessarily disagree, but I’m curious as to what you think about this in the context of the essay above. The essay clearly addresses the wheat and the tares parable, and shows how wheat are children of the promise while tares are children of the flesh who are not children of the promise.
Non-whites will automatically be excluded from being wheat. Ironically, white people who are not children of the flesh, and the bipedal animals who we are supposed to believe are “people”, do not act very differently from one another in practice. The children of the promise — the wheat, should be evident to those who are spiritually minded.
Tyron Parsons wrote, “Here again the plain language seems to suggest that the Beast, False Prophet and those they deceived and took the mark are all going into the lake of fire. But are they all?”
I struggle to follow your method of reading comprehension. It clearly does not say that those who they deceived are going into the fire then. It says from your quote, “And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse”. The beast and the false prophet go into the lake of fire, while the rest will simply be killed.
Tyron Parsons wrote, “So the question then becomes, do the unjust have a second chance? It would seem so and maybe, just maybe in “round two” they are all saved and are found in the book of life.”
The first resurrection has specific criteria according to Revelation 20:4, which are:
* Be a martyr of Christ
* Do not take the mark of the beast
These are those who are not judged, and they will reign with Christ in the millennial reign. It is not a large stretch of the imagination that there may be a good amount of people who do not fit that criteria, who will be judged righteous in the final judgement. There is no “second chance” for anyone who was wicked in their life.
This is all interesting theorizing, but again, it would be most productive if you could actually connect your ideas with the exposition presented in the essay. Especially considering the essay touches specifically on the final judgement and how it is connected with lawlessness in this life.
Johan says “Where do you see that? Verse 8 from your quote says, “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” Clearly it says all who are not written in the Lamb’s book of life will worship him. This is clearly not even possibly everyone that dwells on earth.
I said it “seems to suggest”. Consider verse 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Seems pretty comprehensively universal doesn’t it? I am not saying all will, on the contrary I believe not all will. I was simply making a point about what may seem and what I believe is.
Johan says “I don’t necessarily disagree, but I’m curious as to what you think about this in the context of the essay above. The essay clearly addresses the wheat and the tares parable, and shows how wheat are children of the promise while tares are children of the flesh who are not children of the promise.”
This is where we might be going off track a little and why I didn’t at first want to address this. But the Wheat and the Chaff are not the Children of the Promise only. There are the Children of the Promise and the Children of God. The first (Promise Children) I believe are clearly the Jacobites/Adamites and the other, Children of God, are both non Jacobites races or Jacobite races who fall short of the promise who still believe in I AM/Jesus which is in accord with how I interpret Revelation Rev 7:9. Some may think this is speaking ONLY of Jacobite/Adamites but then they have to try and explain Paul explaining the difference between the Children of the Promise and Children of God in Romans 9:8 wheras I would contend that the Children of the Promise are ONLY from Jacob who believe and do I AM/Jesus will, are virgins not knowing any women (144,000) where as those who fall short of that but still believe in Jesus/I AM of Jacobite or any other race are “Children of God” . Thus the Chaff/Tares/children of the flesh are the so called Jews who don’t believe and everyone else on earth in this present age of that category (including Jacobites).
Johan says “I struggle to follow your method of reading comprehension. It clearly does not say that those who they deceived are going into the fire then. It says from your quote, “And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse”. The beast and the false prophet go into the lake of fire, while the rest will simply be killed.
Yeah, that’s the point. Most would assume that the remnant who’d taken the mark and were slain by the rider of the white horse are going into the lake of fire but I would not say that it has to be that way otherwise why does Revelation clearly mention only the TWO being cast into the fire (false prophet and beast) while not simply and implicitly saying to the reader “and all of them were thrown into the lake of fire”? Are you following me?
Johan says “The first resurrection has specific criteria according to Revelation 20:4, which are:
* Be a martyr of Christ
* Do not take the mark of the beast”
Not exactly I would contend. I would say there are 3 categories. 1. Be a martyr of Christ 2. Do not take the Mark of the Beast (which will bring you back to #1 or make you part of category 3. Do not take the Mark and survive onto the end of Christ’s true second coming hence again I reference Revelation 7:9
Revelation 7:9 “After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds (races), and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; 10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.”
Johan says “These are those who are not judged, and they will reign with Christ in the millennial reign. It is not a large stretch of the imagination that there may be a good amount of people who do not fit that criteria, who will be judged righteous in the final judgement. There is no “second chance” for anyone who was wicked in their life.
To rein with Christ doesn’t mean that a person gets his or her Adamic immortal body back at the end of this particular age, necessarily. It simply means that you are part of the “saved” category which would mean you are either part of the inner sanctum 144.000 with their adamic immortal bodies or you are saved to be part of the outer courtyard meaning that you will still suffer physical death in the 1000 year reign but you are part of the healed nations with Christ as your King.
Everyone is judged. The just are judged after their resurrection by Christ who are to be part of the 144.000, 12.000 from each of the 12 tribes who get their immortal adamic bodies back and then they in turn are those who judge the others who are to be saved but don’t get their adamic pre fall bodies back. And this brings me back to Rev 7:9 where we can see people of all races, all nations etc that are saved, but are not of the 144.000. Then of course there are those who are judged to be of the category of the unjust. But even so, this does not mean that the unjust go into the lake of fire automatically right then at the end of this particular age judgement because to not be found written in the book of life judgement happens 1000 years later after Satan is released again to deceive the Nations. And when this happens, next time, the Saints (those of the 144.000 immortals) are unable to be overcome like they were able to be murdered in this present age. Is this starting to make sense?
Johan says “This is all interesting theorizing, but again, it would be most productive if you could actually connect your ideas with the exposition presented in the essay. Especially considering the essay touches specifically on the final judgement and how it is connected with lawlessness in this life.”
Buddy, I am doing the best I can lol. I hope this new round might clarify some misconceptions as to what I am trying to explain.
Correction. I said: “But the Wheat and the Chaff are not the Children of the Promise only. There are the Children of the Promise and the Children of God.
I was meaning to say: “But the Wheat are not the Children of the Promise only. Those are the Children of the Promise and the Children of God.
Tyron Parsons wrote, “Some may think this is speaking ONLY of Jacobite/Adamites but then they have to try and explain Paul explaining the difference between the Children of the Promise and Children of God in Romans 9:8”
Paul says, “it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.”
I don’t see where Paul has made any distinction between children of God and children of the promise. He is using “children of God” and “descendants” interchangeably, which is no stretch of the imagination given that “descendants” are always “children” in some form by definition. It also makes sense in the context and pacing of the argument, and the structure of the very sentence itself. If he has used those interchangeably, then in the context of the sentence he has also equated “children of God” with “children of the promise”.
If the sentence itself weren’t enough, I will connect them outside of the sentence. Romans 4:16 says, “so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham” Those who are of the promise are those who have faith. They are regarded as descendants.
Then in Galatians 3:26, “For you are all sons and daughters of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” Those who are of faith are descendants, and they are also sons of God. The descendants are sons of God.
It seems strange to me to have to explain this though, as interpreting it as a distinction would indeed be a jarring break in Paul’s rhetoric and not make a lot of sense. It sort of defies all semantics and comprehension. If one had to accept your interpretation, it would set a precedent for the abstraction of everything into meaninglessness, where everyone can come up with their own interpretation based on the random scattering of words.
Unless of course your interpretation represents a calculated and willful ignoring of basic language for the sake of an agenda?
This matter of Romans 9:8 represents a lot of what I read in your interpretations. I can’t really relate with you, because we seem to read and comprehend with very different rulesets… I allow the Scripture to tell me it’s meaning, whereas you seem to want to dictate to the Scripture what it ought to mean.
Tyron Parsons wrote, “And this brings me back to Rev 7:9 where we can see people of all races, all nations etc that are saved”
It never says “races”, or anything even remotely close to “race”. Especially given Revelation 7’s connection with Isaiah 49, this is referring to Genesis 10 nations only.
Johan, I have to respond up here to your post below and this will be my last one. What I am saying in a nutshell is that the word “gentiles” is used in 2 ways. Gentile meaning the dispersed ethnic Israelites/Judaites (Nations) and non Israelites of other races. II contend that Paul is speaking cryptically often referring to those in dispersion as opposed to those who were still in the land, and then other times referring to all 12 tribes collectively (children of the promise) as in Romans 9:4 and others not of the 12 tribes as “gentiles” (children of God).
The old physical temple system attests to this. The temple contained four separate “courts,” separated from one another and each designed for a different purpose: the Court of the Gentiles, the Court of the Women, the Court of Israel (or the Court of Men), and the Court of Priests. The Court of the Gentiles is referred to as “the outer court”.
I am contending that the “outer Court” is reserved for non virgin Israelite believers as well as NON ISRAELITE believers. Look at Revelation 7:4 again “And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel. 5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand. 6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand. 7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand. 8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand. 9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; 10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.”
As we know, to be part of the 144.000 one MUST believe in I AM/Jesus and do His will and ALSO be a VIRGIN. Are you a virgin having not known a women? Above when the writer describes the 12,000 from EACH of the 12 tribes he is describing the inner sanctum but then he moves on to describe the outer court saying “a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues”.
Did you know that the Great Pyramid is a physical monument to the 2 comings of Christ? Did you know that the surface used to be bright white limestone and those stones, under the cap stone that was originally dedicated to the “Great I am (Jesus)” that the builders rejected number exactly 144.000? Did you know that beneath where the cap stone (or corner stone) should be there are 12 stones? 3 facing north, 3 west, 3 east and 3 south and that under each of those 12 stones correspond exactly 12.000 white lime stones? What do you think the 12 stones represent? I will tell you. They represented the 12 patriarchs of the OT and later the 12 Apostles. Encased or enveloped inside those 144.000 limestones are approximately 2.3 million stones that are not bright white limestones. I contend that those 2.3 million are synonymous with the Children of God who are non virgin Israelites and non ethnic Israelite believers and that the 144.000 are synonymous with the Children of the Promise in it’s ultimate form.
This is the best way I can think of how to describe what I am trying to say which I believe is the only way to make sense of the many different uses of the terms “Jew”/Israelite-Gentiles-Children of the Promise and Children of God.
If someone is 0.000003% African, 99% European, are they Adamic or the other?
What about 60% African, 40% European?
Why did God give the Canaanites time to repent their evil ways?
Dan wrote, “If someone is 0.000003% African, 99% European, are they Adamic or the other?”
They are “other”.
Dan wrote, “Why did God give the Canaanites time to repent their evil ways?”
Because by and large Canaanites were 100% Adamic.
It’s not just that you “believe” in Jesus that gets you into the Kingdom — that’s mainstream born again doctrine, which is full of holes. To believe in Jesus you must follow his commandments. After all, how can you say you “believe” in Jesus and not follow his commandments. That’s silly, and semantic.
I didn’t interpret “Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. ” as a promise of ever-lasting life to them or all Harlots…
I’ve always understood it that all Israel will be saved because Israel is all of the saved.
There is one commandment you are to teach: that God is the Savior of all men, especially those that believe.
It is worthy of all your acceptance and is faithful to Him.
1Tim 4:9
And who do you include in the phrase “all men”? Every bidped hominoid on Earth? If so, then it isn’t 1 Timothy 4:9 that says that. The phrase “all men” refers only to the Adamic creation. There are certainly “beings” outside that creation. Leviticus 18:23 is proof that there are non-Adamic “beings” called beasts. Do you believe that these “beasts” can be saved, too?
Why would Leviticus 18:23 be proof of your assertion and not just a warning against the activities that primitive, tribal people tend to take part in, even now?
It is true that Men = Adam.
Leviticus 18:23 states,
…nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.
It comes down to the meaning of the word for “perversion”, which is “tebal” (Strong’s H8397). The root word is “balal” (Strong’s H1101), which according to Strong’s Concordance means “to mingle, mix, confuse, confound”. Brown-Driver-Briggs agrees.
There is one other time “tebal” is used in the Scripture, which is in Leviticus 20:12,
If there is a man who sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. They have committed incest, and have brought their own deaths upon themselves.
That word for “incest” is also “tebal”, which as we can already see is an incorrect translation. A man who sleeps with his daughter-in-law will produce a child, and that child is a mixing or confusion, given that the origin of the child is unknown. Is it the father-in-law or the husband’s child?
Applying that principle to Leviticus 18:23, also taking cognizance of the root meaning, it will produce a child which is a “confusion” or “mixing”. When we look at “race-mixing” today, we can see that such an act is indeed “mixing” and “confusion”.
1Timothy 2:4
The Greek in 1 Timothy 2:4 shows instead that God is “willing” or “wants” that “all men” be saved, not that “all men” will be saved as a statement of fact, as most judeo christians believe. It’s their favorite verse for that reason, but they will never check the Greek because it would spoil their doctrine.
The other issue is that “all men” includes only those of the Adamic creation, and not all “people” are from Adam. Salvation is indeed open to all those of Adam, but not all will achieve it, and that’s why Paul is distraught about it in Romans 9.
https://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1ti2.pdf
So you don’t think God is able to save all men, you are saying God’s will is not sovereign. If it is God’s will that all men will be saved, then all men will be saved. Otherwise God is not sovereign, but is subserviant to the will of man, by the way there is no such thing as a judeo- christian
The Bible is very clear to you when you quote one verse out of context and ignore everything that contradicts your universal salvation doctrine. To the point, what part of the above essay do you dispute? What verse do you dispute? Because everything in this essay above contradicts your narrow, rigid, and literal-minded interpretation of Timothy. And saying you “just don’t agree with it” isn’t an explanation. That’s a cop out.
At the time that the King James translation was published, the English meaning of “race” had nothing to do with how we understand the word today — as this essay suggests. Back then a person’s “race” was his family, his ancestry. People of different “races” were from different families, different ancient tribes, but all of them were white. They never would have considered blacks or asians as part of their “race” or family. Nor would they have understood non-whites as part of the Adamic creation. It wouldn’t have occurred to them, except in some esoteric metaphysical debates perhaps.
Some make the spurious claim that the King James translators intentionally obscured the “racial” message of the Bible by intentionally “universalizing” certain verses. This contention is ridiculous because those translators did not think of “race” the way we do today. The only issue for the KJV translators would have been to ask themselves, “Are the British Israelites or the Nations?” Many of the European monarchies believed they could trace their ancestry directly back to Noah, so they would have believed they were from the same extended “family” as the Israelites.
I agree 100% with your interpretation (which is pretty straightforward to draw) that one has to be of both the Calling and the Choice in order to be saved.
However, it’s your definition of “Calling” that is completely unscriptural and anti-Christian (you may omit that you have to).
No, just being “Pure Adamites” is not enough to qualify as “children of the flesh”.
You have to be a descendant of Jacob-Israel as well.
It seems that in the essay, there is a reference to this very matter, where Paul clearly includes the Genesis 10 nations in Acts 14:16-17. Deuteronomy 4:19 shows what this means, in that other nations were left to their devices. Israelites were cultivated by the law and the Genesis 10 nations were not. Israel is the cultivated olive three and the Genesis 10 nations are the wild olive tree.
What are your thoughts then? You’ve condemned the conclusion as “anti-Christian”, but you haven’t provided any kind of explanation or exposition. Should all just believe it because you said so? I hate to be obtuse, but please allow me some degree of madness. I don’t at all understand the mindset behind walking in with such a condemnation without bothering to go into any detail.
So many times people quote verses as if no one else has ever even considered them, or wouldn’t use them in their own arguments. If you have something to cite, then please, at the very least, do not present it as if it hasn’t been considered already.
As in Adam ALL die, so in Christ ALL shall be made alive (same ALL). This has been a point of contention for years. There is the ultra Universalist doctrine that ALL (meaning every being of every race) will be saved. Then there is the heaven-hell crowd (majority) who thinks only the ones who said the “sinner’s prayer” (magic words), will make it. Then many Identity people think only Whites make it, BUT some won’t if they don’t tow the line. Then many believe ALL Whites are saved, period. The problem comes from not rightly dividing the Word. There are some who believe in annihilationism, some believe in a temporary hell, and some believe in a hell of eternal torture in fire forever!
Salvation is a collective or national reference. This is true Covenant theology. The personal Saviour doctrine is man-made. Salvation means “preserved”. Many times in Scripture, salvation is about saving from harm or escaping enemies, and has nothing to do with eternity. Eternal salvation is for the descendants of Abraham exclusively. However, we will all be resurrected and judged. Some to eternal happiness, and some to everlasting shame and contempt (Daniel 12). Scripture says everyone’s works will be tried as by fire. Some will have rewards, others will not and be ashamed. The servants (the least) in this life will be the greatest in the Kingdom. Some get their rewards here. Some get them in the Kingdom. But the non-whites are reserved for the blackness of darkness forever. It will be as though they never were. It’s not all Black and White. It’s not Heaven or Hell and we have to figure out the formula. All pure Whites will be saved, but we will not all have the same standing. If you are a great person with many works, you will be great in the Kingdom. If you are pure White, but a degenerate, you will have all eternity to regret it, but you will still be in the Kingdom. Jesus said if you do wrong and teach others to do wrong, you will be the LEAST in the Kingdom, but you will still be in the Kingdom. The Kingdom is NOW. It is within us. So, we can go in and out of the Kingdom on Earth, in our lifetimes. But, after the resurrection, we will all be judged and receive our rewards, or receive shame and contempt. But, remember, the Covenant was promised to Abraham (without conditions) and ALL…ALL…ALL of his descendants were included, not based on our individual worthiness, but simply because Abraham was God’s friend and his faith pleased God. I did not quote chapter and verse for all of this but it is in the Book. I hope this clears up some misunderstanding.
I wish you had included some citations in Scripture for what you are claiming because without any references, it’s all just your opinion, right? We should just “trust” that everything you said is backed up by non-contradictory scripture?
For example, I wasn’t aware that the Bible even addresses the fate of non-Whites, the non-Adamic people, so where do you get the idea that they are “reserved for the blackness of darkness forever”? Is that a doctrine in Scripture? If so, I’d like to know the chapter and verse.
Are you one of those who believe just because you are white, you will be saved? Whites won’t be among those “reserved for the blackness of darkness forever”? Hard to tell from your comments what you really believe…..
Daniel 12:2 says,
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.
We can agree that all Adamites will be resurrected. Or for argument’s sake — for the sake of your own views — all Israelites. Revelation 20:12-15 confirms this. It also confirms that directly after their resurrection, depending on how they are judged, they will be killed immediately again, which is the second death.
Now we must connect the “second death” of Revelation 20 to the “everlasting contempt” of Daniel 12. Mark 9:47-48 easily does that when it says,
47 And if your eye is causing you to sin, throw it away; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be thrown into hell [Gehenna], 48 where their worm does not die, and the fire is not extinguished.
This is a quote from Isaiah 66:24, where Isaiah 66:22 has already confirmed that this is a reference to the new heaven and new earth of Revelation 21 — the holy city,
Then they will go out and look at the corpses of the people who have rebelled against Me. For their worm will not die and their fire will not be extinguished; and they will be an abhorrence to all mankind.
Their eternal death is their everlasting shame and contempt, and they will be viewed as such for all eternity.
Mike wrote, “Jesus said if you do wrong and teach others to do wrong, you will be the LEAST in the Kingdom, but you will still be in the Kingdom.”
Is it surprising that one could have a true zeal for God, and yet get something wrong? I don’t see how this proves that all will be in the Kingdom. Matthew 13:8 confirms we will produce different amounts of fruit, but the one who produces no fruit will be burned in the lake of fire (John 15:2,6).
Mike wrote, “Covenant was promised to Abraham (without conditions) and ALL…ALL…ALL of his descendants were included”
Wasn’t this covered in detail? What do you make of Paul calling Isaac the child of the promise, while Ishmael was not?
Mike wrote, “I hope this clears up some misunderstanding.”
I’m sorry Mike, it just doesn’t. Too little addressing of the arguments of the essay, too much “explaining” with very little exposition of Scripture.
Gehenna is where refuse is thrown to be completely destroyed- no trace or return.
The historical fires of Gehenna would burn seemingly without end.
It’s interesting how many identity Christians will mock or chastise Judeo-Christians for the way they use the word “ALL”…..as in, “all men”, “all races” and “all nations” will be saved. But then they themselves turn around and use “ALL” to apply to themselves, “all Israel” will be saved unconditionally. It’s the same universalist mindset but with a different focus group. Unconditional salvation makes a mockery of Christ’s death. How can it not?
More is expected of those who are given greater gifts, not less.
If you are less righteous than the Pharisees- being part Canaanite, then you will not inherit the Kingdom of God, regardless of how Adamic, or Abrahamic, or Israelite you think you are biologically.
Where is your proof biblical that the Canaanites were non-Adamic, non-White? The Phoenicians were Canaanite, and no one would seriously contend that they were not White. In fact, the Phoenicians founded Carthage, clearly a white civilization.
The Phoenicians were, in the main, the tribe of Dan and not canaanaites.
The answer to the original question in the article is ‘a remnant’. jesus makes this abundantly clear, as do the apostles writing. Jesus Himself said that ‘in that day, many will say Lord Lord, didnt we do great things’ etc etc ‘in your name’ and he will say He never knew them.
The parable of the field seems to me to indicate that there is the possibility of nonIsraelites being saved; it won’t happen too often because they are not wired that way, but remember when Jesus said ‘that such faith has not been seen in all of Israel?’ What happens to the rest of the humanoids? I dont know.
Salvation – in the personal sense – requires several things ; belief, repentance, confession, BAPTISM [Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21 etc] and continuing to try and live the Christian life.
Salvation – in the national/societal sense – is offered only to Israel , and only when, we , as a a people/nation adhere to His laws, statutes and ordinances. See II Chronicles 7:14
The Phoenicians were from the region of Tyre and Sidon, which were Canaanite cities. Sidon was son of Canaan (Genesis 10:15), and Tyre was founded by the Sidonians.
Then even Mark 7:26 and prophecies like Ezekiel 26-28 confirm that Tyre and Sidon were Phoenicians, no? To say they are the tribe of Dan is a big stretch and we’d need a lot of information.
Luke2236 wrote, “The parable of the field seems to me to indicate that there is the possibility of nonIsraelites being saved; it won’t happen too often because they are not wired that way, but remember when Jesus said ‘that such faith has not been seen in all of Israel?’ What happens to the rest of the humanoids? I dont know.”
Of course plenty of people from White/Adamic nations will be saved, but mixed/non-white humanoids aren’t even considered. We might as well include cows and chickens in the parable then. Maybe the vegans are on to something (:
Luke2236 wrote, “Salvation – in the personal sense – requires several things ; belief, repentance, confession, BAPTISM [Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21 etc] and continuing to try and live the Christian life.”
I agree in a way, but I think prayer is critically important as well, as we need the Lord’s help in order to live a Christian life. It’s basically Matthew 7:7-11, which is not talking about asking for sports cars, but rather asking for His guidance and help in our life, so that we as Israelites can be priests for Him. We cannot keep His ways in our flesh, as Paul makes clear in Romans 7, but gives the solution in Romans 8.
Luke2236 wrote, “Salvation – in the national/societal sense – is offered only to Israel , and only when, we , as a a people/nation adhere to His laws, statutes and ordinances. See II Chronicles 7:14”
Agreed. Although our national restoration will happen when the Lord returns. The pattern is shown many, many times in the prophets. For example, consider Joel 3:15 which is the return of Christ (Matthew 24:29), then have a look at the rest of Joel 3. See also Joel 2:10, then until verse 27. Then Isaiah 34:4, and to the end of the chapter. The return of Christ is the restoration of Israel.