 |
|
|
Adam was a super being when God created him. I don't know whether people realize this, but he was the first Superman that really ever lived. First of all, the Scriptures declare clearly that he had dominion over the fowls of the air, the fish of the sea - which means he used to fly. Of course, how can he have dominion over the birds and not be able to do what they do? The word 'dominion' in the Hebrew clearly declares that if you have dominion over a subject, that you do everything that subject does. In other words, that subject, if it does something you cannot do, you don't have dominion over it. I'll prove it further. Adam not only flew, he flew to space. He was - with one thought he would be on the moon."
-- Benny Hinn
|
|
| |
Bedfellows or Bedlam -- a considered response
Posted on Friday, September 23 @ 12:32:31 PDT by John |
|
davo submitted: "Samuel Frost has written an informative article [Universalism and Preterism: Bedfellows or Bedlam?] on his understanding of "universalism" as defined by Keith DeRose and its apparent reading of certain scriptural texts, and subsequently his analysis of such. His article has sprung out of a request to counter or at least challenge what some label 'PU' or preterist universalism. Others seeking to broaden their particular angle on scripture have asked many questions around this area of a more inclusive or comprehensive appreciation of God's grace. Most here advocating such a position have been pejoratively labeled "universalists". This can be both simplistic and misleading in that we who advocate from our various positions on these things, are readily told WHAT we believe and then told how wrong we are.
By way of clarification and in response to some of Sam's article I submit the following:
Universalism per se is focused predominately on the "here-after" whereas 'pantelism' [my position] is more interested in the "here-and-now", or as I write, in this life. Pantelism is unapologetically inclusive and comprehensive in its view as to the reach and scope of God's grace. Pantelism is universalistic – it views the blight of sin as universal, and likewise God's response to it. Now if someone needs to call me a "universalist" I can wear that, but as a Pantelist this is less than accurate and leads to misleading assumptions and or accusations. I believe that Mary the mother of Jesus is the most blessed of all women, yet I am no more a Roman Catholic than Billy Graham. So if some take umbrage with my position please be specific to my position i.e., pantelism.
Pantelism is both pręteristic and inclusionistic and views both eschatology and the redemption-reconciliation as finalized in Christ's AD70 Parousia. It readily agrees that not "every" ALL of Scripture is universal in scope nor is "every" reference to WORLD global. Pantelism is a developing and progressing base of pręteristic and inclusionistic thought that seeks to follow a more consistent fulfilled hermeneutic.
Below is the crux of Sam's argument in defining to whom Paul's "all" was referring:
Sam: But, we know that Moses was "alive" soulishly for to God "all is alive." To be in the state of sleep was to be under the sting of the Death; that is, Moses was soulishly alive, but alive in a state of death/sleep. What Moses awaited for was to be made alive again by through Christ.
Now, if "those who have been asleep and are still asleep" are those who are being denied resurrection life by "some" of the Corinthians is compared with those who are "fallen asleep in Christ" (15.18 – the verb here is aorist), then we have a definition of Paul's "all."
If those who have previously fallen asleep are being denied, but those who have fallen asleep in Christ are not denied, then Paul is arguing that all, that is those who have fallen asleep and those who have fallen asleep in Christ will be raised. Both groups will be "made alive in Christ" since both groups have fallen asleep in Adam. In other words, falling asleep in Adam does not discount a person from being raised in Christ, which, apparently, some in Corinth thought that it did. From this perspective, "all" is not defining "every single human being," but the group that was being denied ("those who have fallen asleep" – perfect tense) and the group that was being affirmed ("those who have fallen asleep in Christ" – aorist tense). Paul is saying that all (both groups) will be raised in Christ without entertaining every individual.
…Context is everything. In my view the "all" is balanced nicely because the same "all" that were dying in Adam (sleeping) is the same "all" that will be made alive in Christ.
…Those who would participate in the resurrection are not only those who fell asleep in Christ, but all those who hoped in Christ long, long ago. It was the latter group that was being denied in Corinth.
Those "others" then who were "soulishly alive, but alive in a state of death/sleep" who hoped in Messiah and were therefore "in the Christ" can be none other than historic old covenant Israel:
1Cor 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that OUR forefathers were ALL under the cloud and that THEY ALL passed through the sea. THEY were ALL baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. THEY ALL ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for THEY drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied THEM, and that rock was CHRIST.
In spite of the biblical fact that a whole generation dropped in the desert through unbelief, ALL historic Israel inclusively so, were redeemed and in Christ.
Jesus was God's redemptive agent of and for Israel. Jesus was THEIR Messiah, thus ALL Israel, from God's perspective, were in Christ in that Israel was God's "vine" [Isa 5:7] – Jesus prophetically, redemptively and eschatologically was "the true vine" [Jn 15:1]; therefore Jesus was True Israel, fulfilling in himself the divine mandate [Isa 49:3]. Jesus was THE ELECT [Messiah] of the elect [Israel] [Isa 49:8-9]. Jesus WAS Israel's Redeemer [ Lk 1:68], thus ALL Israel was in Christ, and in the Parousia they were ALL delivered from the "ungodliness of Jacob" having their "sins taken away" and so ALL Israel was set free [Rom 11:26-27]. It was to ALL Israel that the prophetic promise was made of a new covenant [Jer 31:31-34], and this redemptive promise of restoration WAS the "hope of Israel" i.e., her resurrection [Eze 37:1-14; Act 23:6; 24:15; 26:6-8 ]. It was THIS promise that Yahweh would make good through the remnant on behalf of the greater whole.
Though rebellious enemies of the gospel, historic Israel were elect and beloved and ultimately in the mercy of God, accepted and redeemed:
Rom 11:15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
Or to paraphrase it: "For if Israel's temporal hardening brings the reconciling of the world, what will Israel's acceptance by God be but resurrection life?"
And this is the crux of the matter – Israel's redemption brought about the world's reconciliation. And "world" in this context clearly extends beyond the limits of historic Israel. Paul's "all Israel" is corporately inclusive and so likewise "the world". Thus we have all humanity in Christ by virtue of Israel's redemption, for as Paul states: "…God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, NOT imputing their trespasses to them…" 2Cor 5:19.
Those who seek to read Paul's "all Israel" as "the church only" plainly ignore the context made clear in Rom 11:1, 28 and can only do so by reading into the text this bifurcation and need to consider the following: When Paul and others spoke in terms of NOT ALL Israel being "Israel", "Jews" or "God's children" [Rom 2:28-29; 9:6, 8; Rev 3:9] they were delineating the fact that historic Israel was not, and had not for some time, lived in accordance with her holy vocation and calling as Yahweh's priests to the world, i.e., being Yahweh's light to the Gentiles, as was their mandate as kingdom priests [Ex 19:5-6; Isa 42:1, 6; 43:10; 49:3-6; Zech 3:8]. It was THIS kingdom mandate of having the authority as witnesses to Yahweh that was stripped of from old covenant historic Israel and given through Christ to the nation producing its fruits [[b]Mt 21:43-45[/b]] i.e., new covenant [true] Israel, aka "the Israel of God" [[b]Gal 6:16[/b]]. Historic Israel through her self-centred and self-righteous exclusiveness abdicated her God-given role as God's redemptive handiwork in the earth – it was THIS mandate and role that those "this generation" first-fruit saints of "faith" inherited, i.e., received and entered into inheritance.
Further then, in the context then of the first-fruit believers those who Paul specifically speaks of as "in Christ" are those of "faith", called as priests unto God, brethren of Christ – those who are saved to serve. Essentially then, "the world" has been brought "in Christ" into Israel [Eph 2:11-13]; "believers" are His priesthood [1Pet 2:9-10] to minister within Israel i.e., to "the world" His blessing and Presence. Active faith then is the key to THE CALL, not the key to Heaven – "getting to heaven" was never the issue, but coming into the covenant call of priestly service.
Sam: If all things are reconciled to Christ, then every man will be made a member of the body of Christ. Let us continue to read Paul, however. "And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister." Does DeRose take this last verse to refer to the same content of "the all things" in 1.15-20? "All creation" and "under heaven" are two phrases Paul has already used, but who would argue that the gospel was preached in Paul's day to the Eskimos or the Chinese?
Certainly according to Scripture humanity IS reconciled to God THROUGH Christ – the fact that many don't realize it does not negate the reality of it – this is why Pantelism advocates evangelism. Now I can't and don't speak for DeRose, so taking a fulfilled perspective we can see that this creational language is age specific to the "world of Israel of that day" – a world that was "passing away" [1Jn 2:17]. We know that the gospel spread far and wide and that there was a "foundation" for its reception in that as James says: For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” Act 15:21. This also helps explain in part how it was that folk "from every nation under heaven" [Act 2:5] responded so readily to the gospel.
Sam: Also, there appears to be a conditional "if" in verse 23. What would it matter "if" they didn't remain in the faith, stable and steadfast? They are already reconciled.
Yes reconciled they were, yet should any stray from the faith having bowed or returned to law observance, i.e., having "fallen from grace" [Gal 2:13], a constant issue that Paul wrestled with on behalf of those he loved, then it mattered greatly as such would place one in the perilous position of perishing in the 'end of the age' conflagration – something not just limited to within the walls of Jerusalem.
Now to some other related issues:
Certainly by its very nature much of Scripture IS Israel specific, this however in no way negates its value for believers post Parousia in applying its truths and principles beyond the first-fruits time frame, for this reason: Israel was the redemptive microcosm for what God was outworking redemptively on behalf of the whole creation – macrocosm. God predestined-called-elected historic Israel; out of Israel He chose a remnant; through this remnant came the Christ [Messiah]; through Christ God called a remnant [the first-fruits]; through this remnant God delivered [saved] all Israel; and in redeemed Israel the whole world obtained the reconciliation. Or putting it another way:
Out of the world God chose Israel.
.... Out of Israel God chose the Remnant.
........ Out of the Remnant God chose the Messiah.
........ In the Messiah God chose the Remnant.
.... In the Remnant God chose Israel.
In Israel God chose the world.
So then, God's unilateral covenant with the Gentile Abram "that ALL families of the earth would be blessed" [Gen 13:3] found fruition in the Seed – Christ, and thus through Christ's Body – the first-fruits believers was ministered the redemptive plan and purpose of God for and on behalf of ALL humanity. This is how that which had a fixed "this generation" fulfilment, purpose and reality extended through the Parousia to embrace all.
Paul states it this way – using my pantelistic paraphrase that I believe gives Paul's intent:
Rom 8:18-23 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us first-fruit believers. For the earnest expectation of Israel eagerly waits for the revealing of the first-fruit sons of God. For Israel was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected her in hope; because Israel herself also will be delivered from the bondage of the law into the glorious liberty of the first-fruits children of God. For we know that even the greater world groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. And not only that, but we as believers also who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption-resurrection out of this old covenant body.
This then touches on the issue of election. From the pantelistic perspective "election" had naught to do with future post mortem position, but with the redemptive this life purpose of God. Paul indicates that the issue of "works" whether good or bad – hence "judgment" was not the point with regards to election:
Rom 9:11 …for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls…
The outworking of redemption by those elect would cost many their lives. The rejection of the new covenant would likewise cost many their lives – being wiped out of the 'Book of Life' i.e., a covenantal euphemism for the literal loss of life [Psa 69:28]. The cost was not only the temporal loss of physical life in Jerusalem's AD70 'lake of fire' but also the greater loss of "reward" in the coming Resurrection.
To say then that Christ died for the elect ONLY with "the elect" being viewed a special group to gain entrance into heaven upon physical death is to have the whole redemptive scenario upside down. The first-fruit elect were the ones losing their lives [Mk 8:35; Jn 15:13] "in Christ" [and some quite literally] as they were laying down their lives on behalf of their brethren – natural and spiritual Israel, present and past. It was this "laying down" in sacrificial service that is the essence behind those who were being "baptized for the dead" of 1Cor 15:29.
Coming to "faith in Christ" is not and never was about the 'fire insurance' of avoiding Hell or anihilation, but about coming into a life of service with God. By responding affirmatively in faith and repentance to the call of God, one enters into the priesthood of service, experiencing conversion – being saved to serve.
All who answered the call of God as evidenced in the Old Testament did so, again, not to get to Heaven – as that was not an issue, but to minister on behalf of God's people. Through Christ's atoning sacrifice the whole of humanity has been restored and now 'the people of God', or as Virgil has said elsewhere – humanity being Israel and believers i.e., the Church being the New Jerusalem. "Believers" then are God's ministers in His new creation – a priesthood of believers.
Some with a critical eye of judgment view Romans 9 as the touchstone of election and reprobation with regards to existence beyond the grave, but miss the mark in such as not appreciating that the new covenant heavenward call was and is a call toward justice, mercy and humility [Mic 6:8], which ultimately is demonstrated by the axiom "love thy neighbour…" – in doing so we are loving God and experientially in life being loved by God, and thus knowing His assurance of peace.
God's displeasure towards Esau as reflected by Paul in Romans was not that of a rancid hatred, but needs to be seen and understood in the light of redemptive history i.e., Esau was not the one chosen or elect for such a high redemptive calling. When God "hates" Esau [Rom 9:13] it means to have no regard towards him – in relation to the outworking of the Divine redemptive plan. It does not mean: "therefore he shall be eternally damned!!" This is why 'election' in its proper context of redemption was [past tense] about purpose and NOT position it was about service and NOT security i.e., gaining Heaven; it was and is about "Immanuel!! God with us" – Yahweh dwelling and present with man, reunited with Him in the last Adam – restoration.
So rejection or what some wrongly label "reprobation" simply means NOT chosen for the higher redemptive purpose. Take the account of the call of David in 1Sam 16:1-13. In particular verse 7 where refusal or rejection clearly means nothing more than NOT CALLED for that redemptive ministration.
1Sam 16:6-7 So it was, when they came, that he looked at Eliab and said, "Surely the LORD's anointed is before Him!" But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look at his appearance or at his physical stature, because I have refused [rejected] him. For the LORD does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
This is the essence of Paul's election issue of Rom 9 – whether helped or hardened of the Lord had nothing to do with post death destinies, but rather God's redemptive plan for man. That was the story of Israel – to be the world's light. Christ and the first-fruit saint fulfilled Israel's mission.
Paul's various vessels [Rom 9:21-23; 2Tm 2:20-21] be they honourable OR NOT, were of the same lump, all were of the one house [kingdom]. Israel, believing AND unbelieving, rebellious OR faithful were all-together no less the covenanted people of God – faith obtained the blessings and promises and faithlessness certainly led to temporal judgment and forfeiture of blessing [consequences of actions] yet such as these were still experienced in this life. So the scope of redemption as it applied to Israel WAS comprehensive, yet "faith" enabled one to be useful in the redeeming reconciling hand of God – something the first-fruit saints came into, and so found salvation.
So we find that scripturally speaking "rejection" by God was NOT about post death retributive judgment through damnation or obliteration; it was simply non-election to the greater redemptive purposes of God – nothing more and nothing less. This notion that election is about exclusion from Heaven has NO biblical warrant, at least no one here has produced any scriptural evidence of such. Ultimately "election" was for the benefit and inclusion of others, NOT their exclusion. And that benefit was and is the covenantal relationship with God in life – this life, i.e., eternal life. It is this LIFE that is grasped by faith in Christ and so finds the salvation of life that is distinct from the redemption-reconciliation that encompasses all.
Any divine calling and empowering subsequent to the Parousia was and is for the maintaining and testimony of this grand reality, in worship and witness. This truly is what a "fulfilled paradigm" is all about. Folk can banter back and forth on the platform of supposed "orthodoxy" quibbling over the virtues of Calvinism or Arminianism for example, while the train of spiritual seekers is passing them by.
I think that it is possible that Calvin erred in dragging redemptive election past the Parousia, and that Luther erred in dragging "justification" i.e., salvific vindication past this life in making it the means of escaping a supposed post death calamity and thus a passport into heaven. Yes there is a "righteousness of faith" for the believer – but that again is in relation to one's standing in the call of God for service [2Pet 1:10], one's standing in the new covenant in this life, NOT in getting to Heaven.
It is time for folk of the "fulfilled" framework to stop ignoring this and start re-examining their so-called consistency as it relates to the fulfilment of redemption if THAT is what we claim Christ's Parousia was truly all about.
We who live post Parousia are the "offspring" of that generation i.e., we live in the endless age of righteousness – that of which they were at that time awaiting. We who believe today are like those who believed then – we are God's priests to His world. The pre Parousia priesthood "Body of Christ" played a part in securing redemption – the post Parousia priesthood is all about proclaiming-demonstrating that job done, which is; humanity HAS been reconciled, now "COME!!" and walk in the fruits of it – doing so decisively in faith IS salvation, which is; finding, experiencing, and sharing the presence of God in this life. This is Pantelism.
I could say more, but this will suffice for present and let Sam have the last word, well nearly :)
Sam: It is a weak person that seeks to write off everything and everyone that disagrees with him. That's easy. Love is hard.
Others, like myself… have attempted to wrestle with this question, and have come out with two very different answers. I applaud the wrestling.
Bravo Sam!!
davo – pantelism.com –
"And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." 1Jn 2:2"
|
| |
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: Bedfellows or Bedlam -- a considered response (Score: 1)
 by MichaelB on Friday, September 23 @ 13:29:31 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Davo writes:
Though rebellious enemies of the gospel, historic Israel were elect and beloved and ultimately in the mercy of God, accepted and redeemed:
Rom 11:15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
This event in Romans 11 is a parallel event to Ephesians 2. The RECOCILIATION of the world was through FAITH. The Reconciliation was the bring of the Jews and Gentiles who believed and making them the TRUE ISRAEL.
Notice the "reconciliation" language below along with the "faith" language and the "Citizenship in Israel".
Ephesians 2
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household,
The reconciliation was by faith and it was to make this group "Israel".
Davo writes:
Though rebellious enemies of the gospel, historic Israel were elect and beloved and ultimately in the mercy of God, accepted and redeemed:
Rom 11:15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
Also it should be pointed out theat "life from the dead" came through FAITH.
John 11
24Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." 25Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies;
<= The dead believers in 1 Corithians 15
26and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
<= The living believers in 1 Corinthians 15.
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by MichaelB on Friday, September 23 @ 13:52:36 PDT
- by Erick on Friday, September 23 @ 15:10:07 PDT
- by davo on Saturday, September 24 @ 10:45:21 PDT
- by davo on Saturday, September 24 @ 11:02:47 PDT
- by MichaelB on Saturday, September 24 @ 18:47:37 PDT
- by davo on Sunday, September 25 @ 10:40:12 PDT
- by MichaelB on Sunday, September 25 @ 12:42:46 PDT
- by davo on Sunday, September 25 @ 20:08:43 PDT
- by MichaelB on Sunday, September 25 @ 21:45:00 PDT
- by davo on Sunday, September 25 @ 23:39:56 PDT
Re: Bedfellows or Bedlam -- a considered response (Score: 1)
by parousia70 on Friday, September 23 @ 13:31:20 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Davo,
Enjoyed the article. I have been reading through
the articles about the "universalist" idea, yet what I don't see is clarity. If the average Christian were to ask you "Does a man go to hell if he rejects Christ?" How does that fit in your view? You argue humanity has been reconciled to God through Christ, yet are you using reconciled in another manner. Usually when one hears the word "reconciled" it is equated with salvation and redemption.
Look forward to your thoughts.
Phillip |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Virgil on Friday, September 23 @ 20:58:58 PDT
- by davo on Saturday, September 24 @ 07:38:17 PDT
- by Virgil on Saturday, September 24 @ 08:59:22 PDT
- by vinster on Sunday, September 25 @ 05:11:14 PDT
- by davo on Saturday, September 24 @ 07:36:40 PDT
- by parousia70 on Sunday, September 25 @ 10:50:11 PDT
- by davo on Sunday, September 25 @ 11:57:41 PDT
- by vento on Sunday, September 25 @ 14:40:51 PDT
- by davo on Sunday, September 25 @ 20:01:07 PDT
- by PreteristAD70 on Sunday, September 25 @ 20:38:51 PDT
- by Kyle on Monday, September 26 @ 07:00:05 PDT
- by PreteristAD70 on Monday, September 26 @ 07:28:51 PDT
- by Barry on Monday, September 26 @ 09:33:21 PDT
- by PreteristAD70 on Monday, September 26 @ 12:38:40 PDT
- by davo on Tuesday, September 27 @ 01:11:15 PDT
- by PreteristAD70 on Tuesday, September 27 @ 11:58:34 PDT
- by Barry on Tuesday, September 27 @ 12:54:58 PDT
- by PreteristAD70 on Tuesday, September 27 @ 13:12:00 PDT
- by Barry on Tuesday, September 27 @ 15:14:50 PDT
- by PreteristAD70 on Tuesday, September 27 @ 20:26:37 PDT
- by Barry on Tuesday, September 27 @ 22:23:43 PDT
- by PreteristAD70 on Tuesday, September 27 @ 23:50:58 PDT
- by Barry on Wednesday, September 28 @ 06:01:47 PDT
- by davo on Wednesday, September 28 @ 00:09:33 PDT
- by PreteristAD70 on Wednesday, September 28 @ 01:34:52 PDT
- by davo on Wednesday, September 28 @ 06:30:13 PDT
God's loving exclusivism from a (Score: 1)
by forgivenone2002 on Monday, September 26 @ 03:26:33 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Davo,
Interesting article. I am enjoying reading the exchange between you and Michael B. The issue of "Calvinism" has come up quite a bit in the exchanges over this topic during the last few months.
For anyone interested, on Sunday, Sept. 25, Don Preston and John Anderson dialogued about the topic of "universalism" on the Voice of Reason broadcast. Don comes from what would be considered an "Arminian" perspective, so his views may shed a slightly different light on the topic for you or anyone else interested.
The link for that is:
http://www.lighthouseproductionsllc.com/broadcast.htm |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by davo on Tuesday, September 27 @ 22:21:49 PDT
A man is not a Judean if he is only one outwardly RO 2:28 (Score: 1)
by DavidF on Monday, September 26 @ 11:11:31 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Davo, you said “When Paul and others spoke in terms of NOT ALL Israel being "Israel"… they were delineating the fact that historic Israel was not, and had not for some time, lived in accordance with her holy vocation and calling as Yahweh's priests to the world,” - End of quote.
I am sorry, but I cannot agree with you on this. Romans 9 does not discuss historic Israel’s “holy vocation and calling as…priests to the world.” This chapter is defining God’s choice/election of some of the Israelites to receive mercy. It does not, as you say, criticize Israel for ignoring the work God called them to.
Actually it is quite the opposite. Israel is criticized because they believed they were righteous through their works of law - through their “holy vocation and calling as Yahweh's priests.” vv. 31-32 says “Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.”
“Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” v.6. This chapter specifically states that this is because most of them were not elected by God to have His mercy. vv. 11-16 says, “God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls…It [God’s choice] does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.“ And v. 27 says that “only the remnant will be saved.”
No, I see this chapter, and ch.10-11, is describing how a small amount of chosen people from historic Israel were saved through the mercy of God, and the rest were set out for destruction by trusting in their “holy vocation” as priests, that is, their works.
G’ Day,
DavidF |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by davo on Tuesday, September 27 @ 22:19:46 PDT
- by DavidF on Thursday, September 29 @ 10:23:33 PDT
- by davo on Thursday, September 29 @ 12:17:46 PDT
| 
|
