|Home About Me Email Me Topics|
1 - INTRODUCTION
2 - GOD COULD HAVE BEEN SPECIFIC
3 - THE GOSPEL WAS ANNOUNCED IN ADVANCE
4 - THE LAW WAS A GUARDIAN AND TEACHER NOT A SAVIOR LIKE THE SEED
5 - EVIDENCE OF TWO COVENANTS
6 - HOW TO BECOME THE SEED OF ABRAHAM
7 - WE CAN'T REPLACE GOD's CHOSEN PEOPLE AND WE CAN'T ADD (S) TO THE WORD SEED
8 - INCONSISTENCY WITH THE WORD "SEED"
9 - RAMIFICATIONS OF THE COVENANT BEING AN INHERITANCE
10 - THE MYSTERIES OF THE KINGDOM ARE ONLY REVEALED TO THOSE WHO ARE PRE-DESTINED FOR SALVATION
11 - GOD'S GIFTS ARE IRREVOCABLE
12 - CAN WE REMAIN NUETRAL OR DO WE HAVE TO CHOOSE SIDES
13 - GOD WILL KEEP HIS PROMISES TO ISRAEL BUT HE DIDN'T MAKE PROMISES TO OTHER NATIONS
14 - PROPHESIES ABOUT CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR BOTH TESTAMENTS
15 - REVIEW
The truth that salvation can't be earned through obeying the laws God gave to Moses is proved by the fact that the laws were not given until 460 years after God established the salvation covenant with Abraham.
After establishing a covenant that is apart or seperate from the law, God then hid the covenant by making a second covenant with terms dependent on obedience to the laws God gave to Moses, but God made this second covenant indistinguishable from the first covenant by using a tricky word.
The word seed is tricky because people are always using it in a plural context even though the word has no (s) at the end of it so that technically and legally it is not plural.
I believed that God used the word seed and its common plural misinterpretation to dupe the Jews into not realizing he was creating a second covenant with them that involved the same land but different terms.
I believe that the second (conditional-law) covenant is eternal like the first (unconditional-faith-promise) covenant even though temperary diasporas (dispersions from the promised land) are part of the law covenant's conditions.
I believe that Jesus is the seed of the eternal unconditional (promise) covenant and that those who are one in Christ are heirs of salvation according to the promises of the covenant.
I believe that God made the covenant with Abraham because of his faith in the resurrection of the "seed" of God's promises and that we as Christians through faith in the sacrifice and resurrection of God and Abraham's seed (Jesus) receive God's grace and Holy Spirit that gives us unity with the seed and makes us heirs.
My main scriptural reference for this book is the third chapter of the New Testament Pauline epistle of Galatians. I believe it is one of the most important chapters of the Bible to understand along with the fourth chapter of Galatians which reinforces it.
I believe that God's purposes in his use of the tricky word seed is not to exclude Israelites from his promises, but to include Christians and to establish then hide the fact that salvation can't be obtained through obedience to the law.
In the Apostle Paul's letter to the Galatians he explained the singularity of the word "seed" in God's promises to Abraham and one decendant.
We all need to ask ourselves the following questions about what Paul wrote:
If you assume that Paul is a fraud (I don't) and that the word seed is plural (I don't) then why didn't God prevent his fraud by being specific? God must have known that by using a word that has no (s) on the end of it (seed) he would make it convenient for someone to point out its singularity.
If God intended a plural meaning then why didn't he block Paul from pointing out that it had no (s) on the end of it by being being more specific? If God wanted to he could have told Abraham that through many of his decendants all the nations of the world would be blessed but he didn't.
Here is one of God's promises to Abraham:
If Paul was fraudulent in pointing out the singularity of the word "seed" then why didn't God prevent that fraud. Surely God would have had fore-knowledge of his fraud and could have prevented it by using words that clearly indicate plurality.
If Paul was mistaken then God could have pre-empted his mistake by being specific.
If Galatians was mis-translated or if I am mis-interpreting it then God could have prevented that by being specific.
This is no unimportant matter or mishap. The question of whether or not the word seed is singular or plural has far reaching ramifications especially since it is a word that God used in covenants.
I believe that God wanted the word "seed" to be mis-interpreted by the Jews so they would think they were Abraham's seed and would think that they were getting in on the original covenant with abraham and would fail to realize that they were getting a different covenant.
I think that God wanted to establish a covenant that was apart from the laws given to Moses but then make it look like it was dependent on obedience to the Law of Moses.
This following scriptural passages make it look like the Jews got the same covenant as Abraham and that it was dependent on obedience to the Law of Moses:
These passages make it look like the Israelites got the same promises as Abraham because it was the same land but, even though it was the same land that doesn't mean they received the same covenant.
The land was the same but the promises spoken to Abraham which God swore were made 460 years before the laws were given to Moses and so they could not have been nullified or made void by failure to obey the law.
God knew that the Israelites would interpret "seed" to mean more than one person and consider themselves Abraham's "seed" and because obedience was emphisized in scriptures in reference to staying in the land the Israelites would mistakenly think that the covenant was conditioned on the laws given to Moses.
The promise (salvation) covenant made with Abraham was indistinguishable to the Israelites from the land dwelling covenant made with them after the laws were given because they thought they were the seed of the original covenant.
It seems obvious to me that God wanted to hide a covenant not conditioned on the Law of Moses with a separate covenant that was conditioned on the Law of Moses but made to look like an extension of the original covenant through the mis-interpretation of the word "seed".
By not being specific God must have wanted to dupe the Israelites into thinking they were the "seed" of Abraham so they would not be able to distinguish the separation of the covenants.
The Apostle Paul made it clear that the Israelites are not the "seed" of Abraham and that the promises spoken to Abraham could not have been conditioned on obedience to the Law of Moses.
In the following passages from Paul's epistle (letter) to the Galations he revealed the singular usage of the word seed and that the promises spoken to Abraham could not be nullified by the law:
God's plan of salvation that was by grace and received through faith was announced to Abraham in advance.
God used the words forever in the covenant which indicates salvation.
The only way that a person can receive an eternal inheritance is to be eternal. That makes this a promise of salvation.
The Gospel was not announced directly but rather indirectly in the Old Testament.
It did not directly indicate grace but because the promises were made 460 years before the laws were given to Moses they would have to be a gift and not something that could be earned through obedience.
God's promise that all the nations would be blessed through Abraham's "seed" has strong indications of salvation because how else could one person bless the whole world.
The Apostle Paul explained that a justification by faith was advanced in the Old Testament.
Paul explained that the covenant promises were made to Abraham because of his faith and apart from the works of the law.
Abraham had faith in the resurrection of the promised seed and he proved it by his trust in that he was willing to sacrifice Isaac even though he was told that the promised seed would come through Isaac.
God made covenant promises to Abraham because of his faith in resurrection of the seed.
Notice that God emphasised the amount of descendants yet then prophesied about the singular "seed" who would be a descendant of Abraham's "only son" Isaac.
Abraham demonstrated his faith by obeying God's voice and doing something that seemed to conflict with what God had promised.
Abraham must have believed that if he killed Isaac that God would raise him from the dead so that the "seed" could come through him as promised.
The promises spoken to Abraham that form the covenant God made with him and his seed (Jesus) were obtained through faith that was credited to him as righteousness.
Justification can't be obtained from obedience to the law because nobody except Jesus Christ lived up to it. The Law is a curse to anybody who doesn't continue to obey it all.
The principal of justification by faith apart from the law was prophecied in the Old Testament through Abraham's faith and through faith we receive grace and become Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.
The story of Abraham taking his only son to be sacrificed is prophetic of God's only Son's sacrifice and it is an announcement of God's plan of salvation that is by grace and through faith and apart from the law.
The covenant that God made with Abraham based on justification through faith was established 460 years before the laws were given to Moses but then hiden until the object of the faith (the "seed" - Jesus) came.
As Christians we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
In the following passages we can see that justification through faith was hidden under the law until it was time to be revealed:
This says that people were in custody under the law and locked up, but what does that mean? I believe it has to do with curse of the law which is a dilemma caused by our inability to continue to obey all the laws.
Not having the revelation of justification by grace through faith prevented people from escaping the curse of the law.
Paul explained the curse of the law and how we are redeemed from it in the following passages:
The law was given as a temporary gaurdian until the faith was revealed when the seed of the promise (faith) covenant had come.
The law can't and wasn't intended to resolve our sin because nobody except for Jesus lives up to it.
The law is a teacher and makes us aware of sin but it doesn't resolve the problem of sin.
Only Jesus was perfect at obedience to the law and therefor eligible to make atonement for us and resolve the problem of sin.
God swore the promises to Abraham and established the salvation covenant 460 years before the law in order to for-shadow a faith based plan of salvation.
The concept of justification through faith was hidden when God emphasized obedience to all his commands to the Israelites in order for them to remain in the promised land.
The Israelites may have thought they were getting the same deal as Abraham but it was a different covenant that involved the same land.
The Evidence that there are two covenants (one based on promise received through faith and one based on the law) is in the following New Testament passages by Paul and also mysteriously in the Old Testament since he is quoting representational examples from Genesis.
The Apostle Paul taught that we were no different than slaves being under the law (guardian) until we were adopted as sons and became heirs through Christ.
These things Paul wrote about are very complicated and hard to understand but in Genesis there is a definite differentiation between slavehood and sonship and God made it clear that he doesn't accept the child of flesh as a legitimate son or heir unlike the free child born out of promise whom God considers his only son.
Doesn't it make sense that these examples from Genesis are representational because God loves all people and why else would he not consider the bondwoman's son a ligitimate heir except that it represents how salvation is not obtained? (by fleshly acts being under the law)
Ishmael can't help that he was born from a bondwoman any more than Isaac could help being born to a free woman.
Ishmael was a child of Abraham so God must have excluded him from the promise because he was not the child of promise but represented human efforts to try to resolve things.
Abraham's act represent a failed attempt to bring about the promise by his own works.
Abraham's doubt about having a child caused him to lay with the bondwoman but that was not Ishmael's fault so then doesn't it make sense that these stories in Genesis are representational?
Did Isaac have anything to do with his being born of a promise to a woman who was too old to have children without a miracle?
It is true that Ishmael persecuted Isaac but God did not even consider him to be a legitimate son of Abraham.The following verse where God spoke to Abraham shows that God did not consider Ishmael to be Abraham's legitimate son because God called the son that Abraham was prepaired to sacrifice (Isaac) his (Abraham's) "only son" after substition of a ram stopped the sacrifice of Isaac which for-shadowed the sacrifice of God's only son Jesus.
It seems likely that Ishmael's illigitimacy has more to do with what he represents than what he did.
Ishmael was born in doubt not promise and in slavery, but God wants us to be born again through faith, in freedom from the curse of the law (inability to live up to all of it) as his adopted sons, not servants under the law but children with the law written on our hearts.
It seems obvious to me that God doesn't want to force obedience (crack the whip) which would be treating us like we were slaves but would rather treat us like children who obey because of love and recognition of the worthiness of God.
Are the things that Paul taught so complicated that we can't see the simple difference between children and slaves?
If you were God would you want children or slaves to spend eternity with you?
Wouldn't you want people to obey you because they recognized your worthiness and your laws worthiness rather than because they felt forced to obey you?
If all God wants is blind obedience he could come right now and force obedience and the fact that he doesn't should show us that he wants willingness.
The law doesn't have the power to bring about willingness but the demonstration of God's worthiness at Calvary does have the power to win our willing service through faith in the "seed" of Abraham and God.
Abraham believed that if he sacrificed the "seed" God would resurrect the "seed" and his faith was credited to him as righteousness.
Will we be like Abraham when he believed the promises and trusted God or will we be like Abraham when he tried to resolve the problem of his childlessness through his own works?
The laws of God make us conscious of sin but not righteous.
It is important to understand what God's laws can do and it is also important to understand what the law can't do.
The laws were not given to be a contentious thing that could seperate us from the love of God or the gifts of God.
It was temporary diasporas that were conditioned on obedience to God's laws not the the gift of land.
God made it very clear that the dispersions would not last forever and that the Israelites would ultimately be returned to the inheritance land given to their fore-fathers.
Failure to obey God's laws resulted in temporary dispersions not the loss of land. The permanent return of the Israelites after a second diaspora was prophesied.
Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones coming back to life is allegorical To Israel's national rebirth and return to the land.
The last part of the 37th chapter of Ezekiel makes it clear that Israels return will ultimately be for ever.
The gift of land can't be lost because the loss of land would go against prophecy about Israelites future and the gifts of God are irrevocable.
God's assignment of the land to the twelve tribes of Israel is part of the Law Covenant because temporary diasporas from that land were conditioned on observance of the law but that doesn't mean that the gift of land was temporary and it absolutely was not.
God's gift of the land to the Israelites and its boundaries is made clear in the Bible in chapters 14 through 21 of the book of Joshua and concludes with the following passages.
God's gifts are irrevocable and he gave the twelve tribes of Israel possession of land he swore to their fathers and he promised their permanent return after being driven out and scattered all over the world.
The law covenant that God made with the 12 tribes of Israel is eternal like the covenant God made with Abraham because the Jewish diasporas (dispertions) are prophesied as temporary.
The law covenant un-like the covenant with Abraham is not a salvation covenant but Jews can be saved just as anybody can through faith.
The land inheritance promise covenant that God made with Abraham and his seed (Jesus) did not include the Israelites originally because "seed" is singular and refers to Jesus only and those who are one in him.
The following verses show that as Christians we are one in Christ and since he is the "seed" we are also.
We are no longer considered seperate from Christ by God.
If you are a Jew then don't panic when I say that the word "seed" didn't include the Israelites because you can become the "seed" like anybody through faith in God.
I believe it is a mystery that Jesus is the "seed" and it is an even deeper mystery that Jesus is God.
I will get into more detail about the mystery of Jesus' being the Lord God in my chapter "RAMIFICATIONS OF THE COVENANT BEING AN INHERITANCE" later in this book.
Before Jesus came to the earth people were saved through faith in God without knowing Jesus except through prophesy or by knowing God (who is Jesus) through the Tenach (Old Testament).
A person's responsibility or ability for knowing Jesus is proportionate to God's revelation, their environment, education and time that they live.
I believe that God wanted to hide the revelation of Jesus from most Jews for a time because of the benefit of their hardness towards Jesus to those who understand Bible prophecy.
An important link in the chain of evidence that shows that Jesus is the Savior is mysterious Old Testament prophecy about Jesus.
The hardness of most Jews towards Jesus and their acceptance of the Tenach (Old Testament) but not the New Testament proves that the Old Testament was written before the New Testament and was being used by the Jews in the practice of their religion long before Jesus appearance.
The prophecy in the Old Testament about Jesus is powerful evidence to those who understand the mystery of it being in prophetic actions and events and not so much words.
Since we have evidence that the Old Testament was written long before Jesus' birth as a man then it is a miracle that Old Testament people had events and actions that pointed into the future at Jesus.
The Apostle Paul wrote about the importance of understanding the mystery of Jewish temporary hardness towards Jesus.
For more the about the mystery of the evidence of prophecy about Jesus in the Old Testament see my book "A SIGN FOR MORE THAN ONE GENERATION."
The hardness on the part of Jews proves that the prophecy about Jesus in the Tenach was miraculously written before it happened.
This is an important link in the chain of evidence that can increase our faith
We become the "seed" of Abraham and heirs through our unity with Jesus (God) through the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit.
In Old Testament and New Testament times God poured out his spirit on people of faith.
Nobody was ever saved through observing God's laws and Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness.
Since Jesus is the embodiment of God in his sinless perfection and the atonement by which our sin is forgiven we are accountable to accept him once we receive knowledge of him.
Before Jesus became a man and came to us people were saved by having faith in him (God) but without much knowledge of him.
This passage in Hebrews shows that the point of accountability didn't change at Jesus' sacrifice but rather at the point a person receives "knowledge of the truth."
The writer of Hebrews wrote about Jesus' being a once and for all sacrifice at the beginning of the chapter but didn't write about accountability at that point.
The whole chapter that includes this passage begins with the writer addressing the temporary aspect of animal sacrifice and warning against forsaking the assembly of Christians.
It is only after the warning about forsaking the assembly that the writer warned about condemnation.
This chapter was given to address the problem of some Jews abandonment of Christianity and their attempt to fall back into Judaism and the sacrifice of animals.
To a person who takes this passage out of context and is legalistic in their thinking, who doesn't understand salvation by grace this passage may appear to support that a person could be a Christian at one time but later be condemned for "deliberately" sinning.
I believe that the Holy Spirit is a "seal" of salvation and that if this passage is taken in the context of the whole chapter and situation, then one should conclude that it is a warning against denial of Jesus, not so much deliberate sinning.
Everyone that became a Christian has deliberately sinned afterward and this passage isn't saying that those who continue in Christ have no sacrifice.
I believe that the writer of Hebrews used the word "deliberately" because deliberate sin is the type of sin that formerly required animal sacrifice and he wanted to make it clear that animal sacrifice can't work for somebody that knows the truth about Jesus.
By forsaking the the assembly of Christians and sacrificing animals after supposedly becoming a Christian these Jews were in denial of Christ and even insulting Jesus.
Of course their denial of Christ puts them in danger of condemnation, but not believing in Jesus or not having knowledge of the truth may not be the same as denial.
Denial is when you know something but will not admit to it, not a failure to realize something.
Don't get me wrong because I'm not trying to lessen the danger of not believing in Jesus, but denial is far worse than not knowing and a person that doesn't know may find out later on.
The book of Hebrews addresses the denial of Jesus as causing condemnation but lack of understanding that Jesus is the Messiah can ultimately be rectified.
The 6th chapter of Hebrews has to do with a person's inability to repent after they have "fallen away" (Denied Christ by abandoning Christianity).
It is hypothetically a point of no return not a warning against those who who have no experience with Christianity.
I believe this teaching is hypothetical because the Holy Spirit is a seal of salvation and I don't believe that a legitimate Christian could fall away, nor would a real Christian deny Christ by sacrificing animals after receiving knowledge of Jesus.
The allegorical example in Hebrews 6:7-8 cites crops as a result of continued watering ("rain often falling on it") and the rain represents what God is doing in a person not what that person is doing on their own.
The book of Hebrews explains that continuing to sin is dangerous and that it leads to denial and that coming back to Christ after denial would be like trying to crucify Christ twice.
However, nobody is perfect and it takes time to grow in fruitfulness, and continuing to sin is not denial though it could lead to denial.
We are not saved by our own merit or our obiedience or works (fruitfulness) but rather we are saved by the atonement that Jesus made for us at Calvary.
Fruitfulness is a result of being a Christian not how we become Christians. (See my book "Fruitfulness must result")
We didn't become Christians because of our own merit and the necessary ("in part") veil of hardness towards Jesus some Jews are experiencing is not necessarily because of their negative merit.
God reveals himself to people according to his own time frame and purposes and he could be secretive and do it in the last minutes of a persons life so that people may have become Christians without our realization.
I secretly witnessed Anne Frank's Christian testimony when God sent me back in time to Amsterdam but she is not openly or publicaly known to be a Christian. (See the story of my journeys to Amsterdam on my home page link)
We don't know if a Jew or anybody has died without accepting Christ and I'm not making Christians out to be replacements of God's chosen people the Jews by saying that we are Abraham's "seed."
The scriptures (Galatians 3:28-29) of the Bible teach us that as Christians we become Abraham's spiritual "seed" not his spiritual children.
Children is a plural word and if we exclude the Jews (except Jesus) from the original promises based on the singularity of the word "seed" then we shouldn't try to pluralize the word seed when applying it to Christians even though it applies to us all because of our unity (one-ness) in Jesus Christ.
When the scripture says that Christians are the "seed" of Abraham it is saying that we are one with the one child (Jesus) who is the heir and it is not saying that Christians are the children of Abraham.
The word "seed" includes us Christians but it is still a singular word.
As Christians we become God's adopted children not Abraham's children.
Jesus taught us to relate to God as "Our Father" not Abraham.
I often hear Christians refer to father Abraham and I suppose there is nothing wrong with thinking of him as a father figure from the sense of him being a patriarch of faith, but the Jews are his decendants (a plural word for children) and we shouldn't think of ourselves as being their replacements.
We shouldn't try to take away and indeed we can't take away all the history, gifts, promises and prophecies of God relating to the Israelites.
If Christians understand that the "hardness" that some Jews have towards Jesus is "necessary" that is a mystery with a purpose until the "fullness of the Gentiles has come in" then they should realize that the ability to understand the truth is not based on human merit.
The veil of understanding about Jesus and the mysteries of the Old Testament (Tenach) does not separate Jews from God's love or promises.
The 11th chapter of Romans brings out the following points:
The problem with arrogance toward Jews is that it prevents understanding history and prophecy and God's plans in general.
How can anyone understand prophecy if that person can't understand the evidence that it was written in advance?
How can anyone understand the fulfillment of prophecy if they can't understand what prevents impostership (fraudulent fulfillment of prophecy by a person?)
Judaism proves the prophecy was written in advance and that it was hidden.
Hidden prophecy prevents fraudulent fulfillment because an imposter wouldn't even be able to see it.
The scripture accepted by Judaism had to have been written seperately and in advance of the scripture that Judaism doesn't accept.
Israel's temporary hardening provides a foundation for evidence and a way in which Jesus could hide his sacrifice.
Some people may think that the Jews killed Jesus but they along with the Romans only provided the means for Jesus to hide his own sacrifice.
Jesus gave up his life on the cross but he was not killed by the crucifixion.
Jesus stated that his life could not be taken.
Death is the wages of sin and since Jesus never sinned he was not subject to its wages or penalty.
I believe that even if he bled out completely he would still continue to live until he gave his own life.
This is why I believe his last words were part of the act of giving up his own life and think they are telling of the mystery of his own sacrifice.
Jesus sacrifice was needed for all men's sin so why single out the Jews for their rejection of Jesus?
It's not like their rejection didn't serve a purpose and their inability to understand about Jesus isn't unique to them.
Even many Christians don't understand the mysteries of the Bible even though they accept Jesus.
How can we find hidden things if we don't understand why they are hidden?
If we blame the Jews for what happened to Jesus then how can we understand that their hardness is needed until "The full number of the gentiles has come in?"
How can we understand grace if we make the Jews rejection of Jesus out to be a matter of negative human merit.
Grace and human merit are opposing concepts.
Paul explained that a gift could never be considered to be wages and that wages is never a gift.
If we don't understand grace how can we understand a salvation apart from the law?
As Christians we should be humble toward the Jews because it wasn't our own merit that put us in situations to learn about and accept Jesus.
Jesus and the way of salvation through him was hidden in the Old Scriptures to provide evidence and was never meant to be easily understood.
Even many Biblical scholars don't understand the mystery of the word "seed" and made errors when translating the Hebrew and Greek words for "seed" because it was meant to be hidden.
I will explain translators errors and inconsistency in the next chapter.
God's use of the word "seed" in his covenant with Abraham and the ramifications of its singular meaning while appearing to be plural is one of the most important mysteries to understand, yet even Bible translators appear to have failed to understand this mystery.
Many Bible translators used a different word in the Old Testament than the New Testament word that is making reference to the same word in the Old Testament.
This translational mistake hinders understanding the mystery of the plural misinterpretation of the word that is translated to "seed" in Hebrews 3:16 in most versions of the Bible.
If a New Testament statement is a quotation of an Old Testament statement then the word used in both places should be the same but in many translations it is not.
In the New Testament most translators translated the Greek word "spermati" to the English word seed in Hebrews 3:16.
I believe that the word seed for spermati is a good translational choice but no matter what word was used it should be obvious that Paul is pointing out that that word (which was used in God's promises recorded in the Old Testament) is singular because it does not have a plural identifier.
It doesn't matter so much what word is used in translation as long as it is a word that can have a plural identifier that is not used in the first and third instance of this verse yet is used in the middle instance of the word in this verse.
No matter what word is used for "spermati" in this verse if you consider this verse in its full context it clearly explains that the word used in the promises made to Abraham (recored as the Hebrew word "zera" in the Torah which is where we get the book of Genesis) is singular even though it might be mistakenly considered plural by some.
The King James version of the Bible used the English word "seed" for both the Hebrew word "zera" and the Greek word "spermati" but other translators used the words "offspring" or "descendants" for the Hebrew word "zera" and that was inconsistant.
Here are examples of different version's translational choices (in bold) for the word "zera" in Genesis.
Although the King James version and a few others were partially consistant many versions were not consistant at all and the inconsistancy hinders understanding that God used the word "seed" as a purposeful deception.
But even the King James that used the word seed in the Old Testament and New Testament quote of the Old Testament was inconsistant by using different words for "zera" in the Old Testament.
Every word that was in bold in the versions of Genesis 26:4 that I listed were translations for only the word "zera" which was used 3 times in that passage in the original Hebrew text of Genesis.
Translators messed up using different words for one word.
It is not that most translators don't understand that Jesus Christ is the only one who would bless all the nations of the earth but understanding that Christians inclusion into these promises through the word "seed" and the timing of the promises (460 years before the law) which prevent the covenant from being conditioned on the law given to Moses is undermined by inconsistancy or the use of plural words.
Christians unification and one-ness with Jesus by being "in Christ" and "Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promises" is hidden in the Old Testament by the purposefully deceptive word "seed" which is often interpreted plural even though it has no (s) at the end.
Translators should translate both the word "zera" and the word "spermati" to the English word "seed" not only because of consistancy but because God obviously wanted to use a purposefully deceptive word to hide its singularity and the word "seed" hides its singularity because it is so often used in a plural context.
Hiding Christian inclusion into the covenant God made with Abraham and salvation apart from the law must be a purposeful deception of using the word "seed" and its common mis-application (used for plural even though it has no -s- on the end of it) because if not a purposeful deception then why didn't God stop the Apostle Paul from using its not having an (s) as proof texting by being specific.
The translators must have been inconsistant because of failure to fully understand the mystery and purposeful deception of the hidden singularity of the word "zera" or "seed" and failure to understand how a plural group (Christians) can be singular by being in Christ who is the zera.
I can understand translators wanting to translate to a plural word like descendants because God said that he would make Abraham's zera as numerous as the stars in the sky but it is Jesus and those who are one with him who are like the stars in the sky.
The word zera is not plural as the Apostle Paul explained and it refers to one person (Jesus) and all those (that are numerous like the stars) who are in that single person.
Obviously if the translators had understood the mystery that a plural group can be one and if they had understood the purposefully deceptive use of the word zera then they would have used the same word in all places that "zera" is used in the hebrew text of Genesis.
There is no excuse for using different words for one word except they just don't get it.
I hope you get that the word "zera" is a purposeful deception by God to hide a salvation covenant that is seperate from the law.
God didn't stop the Apostle Paul from making the word "zera(Hebrew)-spermati(Greek)-seed(English)" into a big-big-big deal.
The mystery of the singularity of the word seed is not the only mystery we need to understand.
If we understand the mystery that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob then perhaps we could gain a better understanding of God's relationship with Christians and the Jews and his plans through both groups.
God hinted that he is Jesus by his use of the word inheritance.
An inheritance is not just any gift that is given and in order to receive an inheritance you must survive the one who gave it.
It seems silly to have to explain what an inheritance is but even though everybody knows what it is doesn't mean that they are aware of the ramifications of God's promises to Abraham and his "seed" being an inheritance.
It would seem that God slipped in the word inheritance without virtually anyone asking the question, "If God gives an inheritance doesn't that mean God has to die?"
The answer to the question is a resounding, "Yes, of course God has to die if he is going to give an inheritance."
An inheritance is an inheritance.
Merriam Webster Dictionary defines an inheritance as: money, property, etc., that is received from someone when that person dies.
You can't have an inheritance without death.
I had a man argue that point with me and he cited the Biblical story of the prodigal son who received an inheritance before his dad died.
Just because the prodigal son's dad gave him what he planned to pass on to him at his death early that doesn't mean that death is done away with.
You can't have an inheritance without death and this simple fact should be a big hint that God planned on dying and I believe he did die at Calvary on a cross.
The use of the word inheritance by God is just one of many hints that Jesus is the embodiment of God on earth.
The following passages show the unity between God the Father and the Son of God, Jesus Christ.
This passage in Zechariah written centuries before Jesus came to the earth is a strong hint that the God of the Hebrew Scripture (Tanakh) is Jesus.
Survivability and everlasting life is implied by inheritance because an inheritance can only be given to a person who lives beyond the person giving the inheritance and if that person is resurrected and lives forever then the person who receives the inheritance must also or it can't be an inheritance.
The whole point of an inheritance is to pass on a gift or heritage to a survivor.
Jesus was already resurrected and alive before we were born so if he just gives us a gift of promised land from a person who is alive that would not be an inheritance.
In order for the gift to be an inheritance we have to receive it through or because of his death.
This implies atonement and everlasting life.
Because the word inherit was used then what we inherit has to be something we gain because of his death.
The whole idea of an inheritance is to pass on your heritage.
The Lord's heritage was not just what he said but also what he did and overcame.
How could God pass on his heritage to us without giving us life after death?
There would be little point to our being given the promised land if we were not alive to use it or we don't receive it before we die and that is why the words "forever" and "inheritance" both imply eternal life.
It is incredible the amount of biblical passages that refer to the promises spoken to Abraham and his seed as an inheritance and that also use the words for ever.
Some people might think that the land will be passed on for ever from descendant to descendant through inheritance from ancestors but the inheritance is from God not the person that dwelled in it before you.
There are no passages that directly refer to the land as being an inheritance from somebody other than God.
The debate about whether "for ever" means that the land is passed on from descendant to descendant through inheritance and that this process will continue un-ending or that the land is inherited from God by people that will dwell in it eternally is resolved by the following passage:
This passage indicates that the inheritance is not for all Jews and that those who inherit will gain eternal life.
The main aspect of the inheritance is eternal life not the land.
The inheritance is not a process of the land being passed on from descendant to descendant but rather it is a gift of eternal life with the Lord Jesus Christ in the land which will be the New Jerusalem and all the other nations.
This passage indicates that those who inherit will get it all, not just the land of Israel.
If God is the one giving the inheritance then I think we should consider the relationship between those who give and receive inheritances.
Inheritances are usually given to family members or people who have such a close kinship that they have been unofficially adopted or considered to be like family.
God wants to have a relationship with us as our father and for us to be his children not servants.
God obviously wants willing obedience not forced obedience.
God doesn't want us to obey just because we must.
God wants us to recognize that his rules are needed and he wants us to appreciate them the way that children admire their parents and respect their ways for the most part.
Jesus gave evidence to our father/child relationship to God by teaching us to call God our father when praying.
In the Old Testament book of Genesis our relationship with God as children not servants was prophecied by example.
God's exclusion of the bondwoman's son from the inheritance was an example to show us the relationship God wants with us is based on free not forced observance of him.
We are God's children not his slaves and we are waiting on a inheritance which he swore to give before the law and the seperate covenant that came at the time the law was introduced.
Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and he is the God of Abraham and He is the one who died in order to give us an inheritance.
Jesus is a Israelite by nationality and a Jew (He is a decendant of the tribe of Judah) by breeding.
He has a historical relationship with Israelites that began before his birth but who and what Jesus is was meant to be hidden from those not destined for his kingdom.
Jesus taught that recognition of him was not dependent on human merit and only those given to him by the father (pre-destined) can come to him.
The Jehovah's Witnesses use the seperate wills of verse 38 to try to proof text that Jesus is not God but they take this point out of context with many other scriptures that indicate that he is God.
Jesus indicated pre-destination many times but spoke indirectly and mysteriously to hide the mysteries of his kingdom.
Jesus used the words "gives me or given" twice (Once in verse 37 and once in verse 39) and when the scriptures refer to people or understanding being given in the Bible it indicates a predestinational statement.
Just a few verses later Jesus was more direct at indicating pre-destination when he reiterated his point after telling his disciples not to grumble.
Please notice that it says "by God" not (from God) and if it meant indirect teaching from God then why wasn't it more specific to prevent incorrect interpretation?
It's not like I don't want to be correct and get things in context.
If it referred to being taught God's word then why doesn't it say God's word?
If it referred to being taught without words then why doesn't it say that they would be lead by God to understanding.
It looks to me that it reads "by God" because Jesus is God.
It also looks to me that the context of this teaching is about the hidden aspects of the kingdom.
When they asked Jesus why he spoke in parables his answer indicated that that the mysteries of the kingdom are secrets only "given" to those who are pre-destined for the kingdom.
Jesus didn't say that he wanted to illustrate the principles of the kingdom to make them easier to understand and indicated the opposite in the next verse.
The word "given" seems to be a word often indicating pre-destination and I have more examples of secrecy on the part of Jesus in my book "Let Him Who Hath An Ear Hear" which is about pre-destination and the intentional secrecy of God.Those Jews who are not able to see the revelation of Jesus Christ are not necessarily failing to recognize him based on their own merit.
God intentionally hides the secrets of the kingdom in order to delineate between those destined for his kingdom and those who are not destined for his kingdom.
In Matthew 13:12 there are indications that God will prevent people from walking the fence when it comes to Christianity.
I believe that God wants to prevent half hearted people from poluting the Church and that he even made it covenient to not believe.
I think God had Noah build an ark to create a story that would seem impossible in order to make it convenient for those who want to dismiss belief in God.
There are many people (even Christians) who refuse to believe in pre-destination because it seems un-fair so I want to include the response of the Apostle Paul to the seeming un-fairness of pre-destinational teaching.
I believe that anti-semitism and lack of understanding about pre-destination prevents people from understanding God's intent to be secretive and that it stops them from searching for hidden mysteries in the Bible.
Before the Apostle Paul addressed the seeming un-fairness of pre-destination he explained that Israels hardness was not a matter of human merit.
Christians should be humble towards Jews and realize that just because we have some revelations of Jesus, that doesn't mean we know everything.
For more on the issue of pre-destination read my book "LET HIM WHO HATH AN EAR HEAR."
God wants to show his sovernty, loyalty, faithfulness and power by showing himself strong for Israel after returning his chosen people to the promised land.
The prophecies of Ezekiel chapter 38 about the end times invasion of Israel by Gog (Battle of Armageddon) make it clear that God will not allow anyone to defeat Israel after they have returned to the land from the diaspora.
Some people, even some Christians believe that Ezekiels vision of the dry bones is allegorical to the church not the Israelites but the church has not and will not be "gathered" then face an invasion by Gog in the "latter years."
God's promised land is a everlasting covenant with Israel.
People need to understand that just because most Jews don't believe in Jesus that doesn't mean that they are Christian's enemies or that God is finished with them.
For the cause of Christ those Jews who believe in a Messiah but don't believe that he is Jesus are our adversaries.
That does not mean they are enemies to Christians and in fact the truth is quite the opposite.
It is very important to understand the difference between an adversary and an enemy.
The nation of Israel and all the Jews all over the world are not prohibative of any religion but the same can't be said for the enemies of Israel.
Virtually all nations that have a Muslim majority have blasphemy and proselytization laws that prevent freedom of religion.
Not only are Christians murdered by Muslims in various countries but there are death penalty laws against a Muslim convert to Christianity.
In virtually all Muslim majotity nations there are death penalty laws against anybody who insults Islam or Muhammad.
To somebody that has no understanding of the situation that may not seem prohibative and they may ask the question, "Can't a Christian teach Christianity and yet be respectful of other beliefs?"
A person may also ask, "Does a Christian have to insult Islam in order to teach Christian beliefs?"
The answer to that question is yes.
The most basic Christian beliefs are an insult To Islam.
The most basic Christian teaching is that Jesus Christ died on a cross for our sins.
Islam teaches that Jesus only appeared to die on a cross and that he was not crucified and did not actually hang on a cross.
The most basic teaching of The Christian religion disputes what Muhammed claimed which was recorded in the Quran:
The Quran clearly teaches that Jesus was not crucified, and if a person teaches that Jesus was crucified then he is insulting (calling false) the Quran and the one (Muhammed) from who it came.
Though some may believe that only the radical Muslum jihadists are dangerous, I believe that all Muslims have a potential for becoming enemies of those who are not Muslim because of the Quran's false teachings and the support among Muslims of blasphemy laws that prescribe the death penalty to those who insult Islam.
The Jews are an ally for religious freedom and an ally against our potential enemies the Muslims who don't believe in and can't practice religious freedom.
I could not survive in any nation that has blasphemy laws and the only nation in the middle east that I could survive living in is Israel.
The land that God gave to Israel is strategically located and is a potential base of operations against those who would deny religious freedom and seek to kill Christians and Jews.
Some people who read this may think that my religion forces me to be an enemy of the Muslims but that is not directly true.
Indirectly it may be true because I have to be a defensive enemy to anybody who is a danger to my life or the life of my allies and because of my religion those who follow the Quran's teachings have a potential for being a danger to my life.
The struggle over Jerusalem, the land of Israel and the battle of Armageddon that it will lead up to is a burden that the whole world is going to unavoidably be caught up in.
These passages make it clear that even against overwhelming odds ("all the people of the earth gathered together against it") the Jews will prevail.
I believe that verse 10 indicates that in that day the Jews will realize that Jesus is their savior and even though they win the battle they will be bitter and mourn for him.
Clearly, God has not forgotten the the Jews and plans to reveal himself to them when the time is right.
Please do not forget what I wrote in the previous chapter about pre-destination and Romans 9:16 that indicates the revelation of God has nothing to do with human merit, but everything to do with mercy.
God will finish or fulfill everything that he starts with people.
How could we even begin to think of forsaking our ally Israel when their overthrow is pre-destined for failure but destruction of Israel's allies by Muslims is possible?
Trying to remain neutral concerning the conflict between the Israelites and the Palestinians, is like trying to ignore all the killing and approaching danger, caused by the religion of Islam.
It isn't just support of the nation of Israel that causes terrorists to want to kill Christians, because their intolerance is against anyone that insults Islam.
The basic tenants of the Christian religion are are an unavoidable insult to Islam, and it is common in nations that have a muslim majority to have blasphemy laws.
Even in the United States (according to a survey) 45 percent of Muslims support blasphemy laws which means they can't support the Constitution of the United States and they are a danger to Christians.
Many Muslims do not recognize Jerusalem as a historical capital of Israel, and although they may recognize that there are verses in the Quran that support Jewish ownership of land in Palistine most Muslims believe those verses have been abrogated (nullified by later verses in the Quran) and that the Jewish control is an illegal occupation.
All Christians should believe that all the land of Israel including the West Bank and Gasa Strip is owned by God who assigned the land to the nation of Israel as a permanent gift because it is in the Bible.
The Bible prophecied about the Arabs (descendants of Edom) false claims on Israel's territory and the conflict over Jerusalem which will not be resolved by mankind.
Even though I know that the Battle of Armageddon (invasion of Israel) is inevitable, and I recognize Muslims claims to Palistine as false, my religious beliefs do not force me to appose a peace plan or 2 state solution.
I supported a 2 state solution for a while even knowing that it would ultimately fail, becaused I hoped that it would temporarily bring peace.
Just because I believe that God assigned the territory in question to the Jews doesn't mean that they aren't at liberty to share it with whoever they want.
It is the realization of aggression and unacceptance by Muslims that prevents my support of a 2 state solution, not my religion.
I supported a 2 state solution for a while, but I began questioning the sincerity of Palestinian support when I found out that the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was compairing his his peace deals with Israel (Oslo peace accords) to a fake and broken treaty by Islam's prophet Muhammad.
Yasser Arafat made this statement on the Official Palestinian Authority TV, April 16, 1995: "When the Prophet made the peace of Hudaybiyyah, (Muhammad's followers) Omar ibn Al-Khattab and Ali ibn Abi Talib said: 'How can we accept an agreement like that?' 'How can we accept such humiliation of our religion, Oh Messenger of Allah?' And when we signed the agreement in Oslo, if anyone has an objection to that agreement, I have a hundred."
My scepticism about a temporary peace was greatly increased when the second Intifada (Palestinian violent uprising against Israel) broke out in the year 2000.
In the year 2002 when a Palestinian ship (Korine A) with rifles, missles, mortars and anti-tank weapons aboard was intercepted by Israel's forces, and its captain was a former Palestian Authority leader, I realized that the Palestinians could not be appeased even temporarily.
In addition to peace deals failing to even bring a temporary peace, I now believe they are bad because they could hide or mask deadly intentions.
I don't believe that most Muslims want peace in Palestine until the Jews are ruled over by a majority of Arabs (Muslims),driven out, or killed.
If the Arab nations around Israel wanted peace they would have assimilated the Palestinian refugees (I reluctantly call them refugees because I don't believe they were forced out by the Jews).
I think their religious pride prevents them from resolving the conflict.
The Palestinian demand for what they call the "Right of Return" (Refugees returning to Israel would become Israeli citizens with the right to vote in Israel's elections) is not a demand that could ever have the slightest chance of working.
If ever there is a Muslim majority in Israel there will likely be blasphemy laws and a tax for those who are not Muslims (Jisyah tax) that would make it intolerable for Jews and Christians.
There is no support among Muslims for a western version of a 2 state solution.
Mahmoud Abbas (Palistinian leader) made it clear during negotiations that his support is only for a secular state of Israel, not for a Jewish state, and his support is contingent on Palestinian refugees right of return.
The western concept of a Jewish state beside an Arab state has no support among Muslims.
It would be a mistake to think that the Palestinians could ever give up on the demand for the "Right of Return" because returning to Israel, and gaining a majority so as to rule over Jews, is one way that Islam's commandment to reclaim territory can be met.
Instructions in the Quran allow only 10 years of peace for territory once ruled by Muslims that has fallen to people who are not Muslims.
After 10 years Muslims are suppose to reclaim the territory and there is no stipulation in the Quran about who lived in the land first.
Even though the Jews were there first the land was part of the Ottoman (Muslim ruled) Empire.
I believe the religion of Islam is the force driving the world towards the Battle of Armageddon.
I believe that from a Christian perspective we should not act contrary to Bible prophecy, by failing to recognize that God has given the land to the Jews, and we should not be trying to pressure Israel into a 2 state solution.
In the 35th chapter of Ezekiel, God made it clear that he is against the Edomites (Arabs) for attacking Israel during the climax of Israel's calamity (Holocaust), and for taking possession of Israel's "inheritance" land because of their ancient hatred and jealousy.
There are some Jews and Christians that don't think the Arabs are descendants of the Edomites and who believe the Edomites judgement has already occured.
It is true that the territory (Petra) of Edom is already desolate, but I think this passage in Ezekiel refers to Arabs and end time prophecy for several reasons:
Esau, also named Edom had a wife who was a descendant of Ishmael who is the recognized ancestor of the Arabs, so it is possible for Edomites to be descendants of both Ishmael and Esau.
Even if this prophetic judgement does not directly pertain to the current Israeli and Palestinian conflict it should still serve as a warning because of the similarities of the situations.
I do not want my religious views to force political positioning or laws, but religious freedom is the very reason for my belief that siding with Israel is justified.
It is the Muslims that endanger religious freedom with their blasphemy laws, jisyah tax and support of terrorists.
The nation of Israel is a vital ally for the cause of freedom against those who would take it away.
Even if I were to set my religion aside (hypothetically) I would still have the right to support the nation of Israel, based on their rights to freedom and their alliance in preserving my own freedom.
In the 47th chapter of Ezekiel there is prophecy about a miraculous river that flows from the Temple to the Dead Sea which doesn't exist now, but will be in Jerusalem when the Lord is present.
After the prophecy about the miraculous healing river the Lord began to declare the boundries of the 12 tribes of Israel's inheritance land in chaper 47, and finished in the 48th chapter of Ezekiel.
After a declaration of Israel's territorial boundries in the last 2 chapters of Ezekiel (chapters 47 and 48) the scriptures reveal the names of the gates and concludes with the name of the city.
There are several things that can be concluded from examining the last 2 chapters of Ezekiel.
The placement of Israel's territorial boundries between descriptions of things that will exist in the capital city of God's coming kingdom indicate this is how it will be after the Lord's return (During the millennial reign of Jesus Christ).
The name of the city indicates the permanent presence of the Lord.
If the Lord's statements in several scriptures about Israel's evil not stopping him from from fulfilling his promises to Israel are not enough, the fact that this assignment of territory to the 12 tribes of Israel is for after the Lord's return shows that some Israelite's rejection of Jesus Christ does not invalidate the gift of land to Israel.
Even the gates of God's capital city are named after the 12 tribes of Israel.
This prophecy is too particular to be allegorical, with its detailed boundries and naming of gates, it has to be taken literally or not believed at all.
Replacement theologians who tend to believe that the prophecies in Ezekiel are allegorical and apply to the Church, not Israel, should be embarrassed that these scriptures show that God is literally not finished with the Jews and that the gift of land is eternal.
There is some allegory in Ezekiel about literal situations.
The 37th chapter of Ezekiel is about a vision of Israelite's Dry bones taking on flesh after being resurrected from graves then returning to the promised land.
The prophesies of the 38th and 39th chapters of Ezekiel are about a literal failed invasion by the "Persians" (Iranians who are predominantly Muslims), "Gog and Magog"(Russia - the strong ally of Iran), and all the other hordes that invade Israel at Armageddon against those who have returned from the diaspora.
I think the dry bones in Ezekiel's vision of chapter 37 are allegorically referring to the Israelites dead spiritual state due to being cut off from the land and seperated from God.
I think that the return of Israelites to the promised land is literal even though opening up the graves may be allegorical.
The "one King" that rules forever over the returned Israelites is an aspect of chapter 37 that makes it look like the renewal of flesh on dry bones and their coming back to life then returning to the promised land occurs when Jesus is present to rule, but the Battle of chapters 38 and 39 is against the returned Israelites and should occur before Jesus reigns during the 7 year tribulation period.
I think it should be obvious that these passages are about the Israelites literal future and that even though all the armies of the world invade they will not succeed in stopping God's promises to the Israelites.
It seems clear that the nation of Israel is special to God, and that they have an invincability based on God's protection of his own reputation, which is associated to his promises concerning his chosen people.
These scriptures make it clear that the deliverance of God is not conditioned on positive human merit, though spiritual death (separation from God) is based on negative human merit.
The blood shed (child sacrifice) associated with unfaithfulness (idol worship) to God is the specific negative merit that earned people separation (cut off) from God's promised land.
As an American, when I see inocent children's blood being shed (abortion) because of inconvienience (money is made into an idol) or unfaithfulness to God (their parents don't trust God for provision), then I'm concerned for the United States future.
The Lord's likening of Israel's conduct [Israel's conduct was bloodshed and idolatry. (child sacrifice combined both)] to a woman's menstruation in verse 17, is in my extremely strong opinion, a hidden link between child sacrifice and abortion by God.
Menstruation is what naturally happens when a pregnancy ends so what would God possibly have against this natural process unless it reminds God of child loss due to child sacrifice or abortion.
There seems to be child loss representation and then it is linked to the womb by God.
God is going to vindicate himself through Israels deliverance, but God didn't prophecy deliverance for other nations.
Destructions of different types (economic ruin - destruction from war - kaos and anarchy) not only can occur, but are likely to be a natural result of rebellion against God.
God drove out the nations before Israel for the same reasons that the Israelites were driven out after them, and child sacrifice was the major abomination.
The nation of Israel fell short of God's glory just like all the others, and we are all in need of redemption.
The redemption of Israel's having been cut off from the land is not based on human merit, but rather on God showing promise keeping.
I know that my staunch support for the nation of Israel makes it look like I think it can do no wrong, and I don't mean to undermine the danger that most Jews are facing for not accepting Jesus Christ.
My intent is to show that God's plan of salvation is based on a promise that can't be earned by human merit, so that the Jews will understand how the Gospel was taught in advance, in their old scriptures.
It doesn't do any good to criticize Jews for rejecting Jesus Christ.
By showing God's faithfulness in spite of the Jews not deserving it, I supported the principal, that salvation is a gift, which can't be earned through good works.
Jews need to see the Christian principles that are hid in the old scriptures.
The whole purpose of this book is to show that salvation is based on what God did and that it can't be nullified by our failures to obey the law.
Providing evidence is the best way to convert both secular (agnostic or atheist) and religious (Judaism) Jews or Muslims.
The evidence of prophecy and its fulfillment is the powerful truth that has the potential for settling matters for those people who are destined to God's kingdom.
Armageddon is coming and most people will never realize that God's plan of salvation through Jesus Christ was forshadowed in the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testament).
The Apostle Paul provided evidence to the legitimacy of his own position, and Jesus Christ, by using the old scriptures to prove that God's plan of salvation is apart from the law which didn't exist at the time of God's promises to Abraham.
It is true that I have a natural bias towards the beliefs of my upbringing (Christian), but I would never allow my own prejudice to reign over the truth.
I'm a Christian because of the evidence of prophecy and its fulfillment that links the Old Testament with the New Testament.
My upbringing led me to the truth, but it is evidence that keeps me believing in the Bible.
It is the Bible that contains the evidence of prophecy and its fulfillment, not the Quran.
I see people of different religions debating irrelevant points because they miss the prophetic links to well established doctrines.
A prime example is the debate over whether or not Abraham married Hagar.
I am certain that the exclusion of Hagar's descendants from God's inheritance had nothing to do with her marriage, or slave status.
It was doubt, not faith, that caused Abraham to have a child through Hagar.
That child (Ishmael) represented mankind's failed attempt to obtain God's promise through his own effort.
I believe that God loves Ishmael just as much as Isaac but excluded him from his inheritance because of what he represents.
Isaac represents that salvation can't be gained through human effort also, because his birth was humanly impossible.
Sarah was way too old to have children, and her miraculously giving birth represents the virgin Mary's miraculously giving birth.
Isaac was included in the inheritance because he represents that God's promise (salvation) can't be gained by human effort, and is something that only God can provide.
There is also a debate over which son of Abraham was taken to be sacrificed.
The sacrifice that wasn't carried out was a forshadowing of the sacrifice of God's son, so it's not about Isaac or Ishmael so much as it is about Jesus.
It is important to understand that it was Isaac that Abraham took to be sacrified, not Ishmael, because the Biblical story about Isaac has links to the sacrifice of Jesus.
Here is a list of similarities between the two sacrificial stories:
By using the old scriptures to prove that salvation can't be gained by works, the Apostle Paul showed his legitimacy through his knowledge of mysterious prophetic aspects of the scriptures.
I want to conclude this book with the entire 3rd chapter of Galatians so that you can see it in context.
The Apostle Paul really showed that he is the man that knows what's going on with God, yet there is so much criticism and slander of Paul.
Paul has been called a bigot for the anti-homosexual prophecies that he wrote in the Bible.
In spite of the fact that Paul reinforced his teaching with more scripural references than any other Christian, still many people will not hold to sound doctrine, even though it is evidenced by the fulfillment of prophecy.
If you can't see that Paul understood Scriptural prophecy better than anyone else (except Jesus), then I can only hope that some day you will understand.
I hope this book helps bring understanding of the unconditional promises of God.