It is Enough to be an Israelite, But Enough for What?, Part 1

Apparently VLC on Windows, which I have used to apply metadata for years, has been ruining podcasts. But only some listeners had problems while others did not. So once again, I have resampled and uploaded a new file, as of 11:30 AM on the 22nd. Thank you for your patience! 

It is Enough to be an Israelite, But Enough for What?, Part 1

The medieval Roman Catholic paradigm relating to salvation and heaven, or judgment and hell, has been ingrained into all modern Christian theology to such a degree, having been imbued into our thought from perhaps as long ago as 1,800 years, that it may be one of the most difficult errors of Roman Catholicism to overcome. But it really cannot be overcome at all, until one learns the proper differences between the wheat and the tares, the sheep and the goats, and can identify the good race of fish in the parable of the net. While Bertrand Comparet did know those differences, in my opinion he nevertheless had not fully thought them out in other areas of Scripture, and especially in this area. But we can forgive him, since the subject of salvation and the common perception concerning salvation is probably the deepest rabbit hole in Scripture. No matter how many times one may read the promises to the fathers and the words of Christ, there is always that one verse by which one may imagine that a child of God may ultimately and eternally be cast into the pits of hell, or the Lake of Fire.

But in this light we must ask ourselves: Are the promises to the fathers unconditional guarantees, or are they merely the offer of an opportunity to men?

Then, if they are a mere opportunity: Are we subjected to vanity for our edification, as both Solomon (Ecclesiastes 1:13) and Paul of Tarsus (Romans 8:20-21) had attested, or as a business venture which we may win or lose at any given time?

For example, a man may be a perfectly pious Roman Catholic for many years, never having sinned, having a pious wife and raising pious children, and then one day his neighbor's wife begins hinting at him and making advances, hoping to tempt him into adultery. So the man resists his temptation for many months, and when he is finally about to give in, when he is weak, something happens and he is stricken dead. Just think of the odds. If he had been struck one day later, he may have had his neighbor's wife that afternoon, and spent an eternity in hell! But if he had been struck one week later, he may have had his neighbor's wife, felt sorry after the act and repented, gone to church on Sunday and confessed, and then in a few days he would enter into eternity in heaven! So long as he dropped some cash in the basket and said whatever prayers he was told to say for penance.

This is an example of the paradigm that has sustained the professional priesthood for all these centuries. But in Christ, a priest cannot absolve you of your sins, for which Christ has already made the ultimate sacrifice. This was what Paul had taught in Hebrews chapter 9 where he concluded: “27 And inasmuch as it is reserved for men to die once, and judgment after that, 28 so also Christ had been offered once to make contribution for the sins of many. He shall appear a second time apart from sins, to those who look to Him for preservation.”

Finally, there is one more question: Do the Scriptures cancel one another out?

If we perceive one oracle of God to mean one thing, and another oracle of God to mean something contrary, do we simply choose a favorite and deny the validity of the other? Or must we study to learn how both statements may be true, especially when they are examined in their own context? I am not considering poor translations or glosses from this perspective, as we should always check translations. If two passages seem to conflict with one another, we cannot simply scratch one of them out. We must understand them both and reconcile the understanding, since as long as they are not among the glosses or interpolations of men, then they are both truth from God.

So here we are going to examine an unusually long sermon by Bertrand Comparet, which is titled as a question, Is it Enough Merely to be an Israelite? That should explain the title of our own presentation this evening, since it is enough to be an Israelite, but enough for what? Most of Comparet's sermons, the ones of which we have transcriptions, are nearly half this length, and this one is about 7,000 words. Here we may easily add another 7,000 words, and perhaps many more. So for this one, and for the complexity of the subject, it may take several presentations, two or even three, to critique the entire sermon. Of course, Comparet's position on this subject is also more complex than our example, and it will take time to examine and discuss it all. But as we proceed, we shall indeed see that Comparet has selected passages to support his argument that not all Israel shall be saved, while ignoring many other passages which are far more relevant to his question. Beginning with Comparet:

IS IT ENOUGH MERELY TO BE AN ISRAELITE?

By Bertrand L. Comparet

The trouble with religion is not that people know so little about it, it is that they know so much about it that is not so. Christians have been taught so much that is not true, but has become church doctrine or dogma. Yahshua quoted to the Pharisees those terrible words from Isaiah, “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” There is much that is taught today, as religion, that is not in the Bible.

Of course, Bertrand Comparet said many things with which we agree, but that is why we give him the respect which we do in the first place. However all men must be examined and be able to receive due criticism and withstand correction. That does not mean we love him less, it only means that we love God more. So he continues:

In general, the major churches don't teach about the kingdom of Yahweh anymore, in fact they don't believe in it. These preachers believe in a sort of democracy of God, everybody reduced to the same dead level as part of the masses. If your doctrine is such that it is not going to bring in enough Negro, Filipino or one of the other of the colored masses as converts, then rebuke Yahweh for having been too exclusive and change your doctrine to one that will bring them in. These preachers are going to answer for this in due time, because Yahweh gave nobody authority to change His word.

As in all of their transcriptions of Comparet's sermons, where Comparet had used the titles Lord and God, both Jeanne Snyder and Clifton Emahiser had usually substituted the name, Yahweh, with which I cannot disagree.

We must agree, that Yahweh certainly did not give anyone authority to change His Word, and the pastors and priests of our churches will answer for that. However Yahweh also said that “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”, as it is found in the King James Version of Matthew chapter 4 in the words of Christ. So neither should any man ignore or cancel out any of the Word of God, because he should live by every word and not just by some or by those which he likes. Returning to Comparet:

To restore a true perspective, those of us who have been preaching and teaching the Israel identity and kingdom message, have pointed out that Yahweh is no politician. He doesn't need the votes of the colored races; He is a majority all by Himself. He picked His own people who were qualified by Him for a specific job. Yahweh rewarded them with both duties and responsibilities, as well as authority.

Of course the so-called “colored races” do not belong to Him and He did not create them, but we shall leave it there and continue:

We have tried to swing the pendulum too far the other way. Some have been teaching that if you were just born into Israel, you have got it made automatically, it doesn't matter what your character is, or what you do with your life. You can be the worst scoundrel on earth, but this doesn't matter because if you are an Israelite, you have your predestined high place in heaven all cut out for you.

This is a comforting doctrine for those who don't feel they are morally equal to living up to their responsibilities, but the Bible doesn't verify this doctrine. With all the great offers Yahweh made to Israel, always has gone the responsibility of the nation of Israel and for each individual Israelite to live up to these responsibilities.

Note the words “all the great offers”. There were two types of promises made to the fathers. There were the unconditional promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and then there were the conditional promises made at Sinai. The promises of a kingdom at Sinai and the sustenance of that kingdom were conditional on the keeping of both the rituals and commandments of the law by the people. When they failed, the kingdom was destroyed and the people were scattered. But the New Testament is founded on the unconditional promises which were made long before the law, and for that Paul of Tarsus wrote, in Galatians chapter 3, that “17 Now this I say, a covenant validated beforehand by Yahweh, the law which arrived after four hundred and thirty years does not invalidate, by which the promise is left idle. 18 For if from law, the inheritance is no longer from promise, but to Abraham through a promise Yahweh has given it freely.” The giving of the law at Sinai was about 430 years after the first promises which were made to Abraham.

So already we must disagree with Comparet, as he is setting a stage for his argument that not all of Israel shall be saved in the eternal sense. But judging the spirit of another man, no man can read the thoughts or heart of another, no man can understand the weakness or the challenges faced by another, and Yahweh did not choose Israel because they were more qualified than others. Rather, Yahweh chose Israel because they were the least of the Adamic nations, not the greatest of them, and no man is justified in His eyes.

Where Comparet said that Yahweh “picked His own people who were qualified by Him for a specific job” that is not true. Rather, Yahweh chose a people through whom He would work to accomplish His Own objectives, to do His Own “specific job”, and while those people were given certain promises, and even more promises as time had progressed, they would never do anything through any skill of their own without Him, they themselves never knew how He would accomplish the fulfillment of those promises, and they still do not know, except for what He has written in the Gospel and the prophets.

In Deuteronomy chapter 7 we read: “7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: 8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.”

Then in spite of that, Yahweh observed in the Exodus that the children of Israel were a stiffnecked people, a people who would remain disobedient, yet He still promised in many places to save them, and to redeem them. We cannot imagine that Yahweh, being God, did not foresee this, or that the behavior of the children of Israel had taken Him by surprise in the desert. So after they sinned with the golden calf, we read in Exodus chapter 32: “9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: 10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.” Here Yahweh had tested Moses, and presented him with an opportunity to be aggrandized, but Moses passed the test by refusing, showing his own humility and love for his brethren, where it continues and says: “11 And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? 12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. 14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.” Of course, Yahweh did not repent except in the eyes of Moses, He knew what He had planned to do all along: to save Israel in spite of their sins, and never because they were righteous of themselves. He made those unconditional promises to the patriarchs knowing this long in advance, and the ultimate proof of that lies in the fact that Yahshua Christ is the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

A man is certainly not righteous of himself. As Paul of Tarsus had written in Romans chapter 3: “19 Now we know that whatever the law says, to those in the law it speaks, that every mouth shall be stopped, and all the Society will be brought under the judgment of Yahweh, 20 since from the rituals of the law not any flesh will be deemed acceptable in His sight; indeed through the law is knowledge of sin.” There Paul had alluded to the words of David in the 143rd Psalm where we read: “1 Hear my prayer, O LORD, give ear to my supplications: in thy faithfulness answer me, and in thy righteousness. 2 And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.”

So where Comparet also said, if one believes that all Israel is saved, that “this is a comforting doctrine for those who don't feel they are morally equal to living up to their responsibilities”, we must also disagree. Did David himself live up to these “moral responsibilities”, being a murderer who had a man killed because he coveted that man's wife? So David was an adulterer and a murderer. Yet David was a prophet and a man after God's own heart, and a he was type for Christ Himself! Being a type for Christ, David is also an example of the extent to which Yahweh God shall forgive the sins of His people, because God does not judge unequally, as He himself had professed that every man is rewarded according to his works. But here, if Comparet imagines that any other Israelite who committed such sins should be destroyed for eternity, then Comparet would have to also imagine that David has been cast into the Lake of Fire.

In another sermon, titled Scattering the Power of the Holy People, Comparet seems to agree with our position. There he said, in part:

This has been a puzzle. To solve this puzzle, we had better start with a definition of, who are the holy people? First, what is meant by holy? Is it a person who is sanctimonious and self righteous, who makes a six reel production out of refusing to taste a glass of beer? No, holy simply means dedicated to the service of Yahweh. All men are imperfect, even King David was imperfect, he was an adulterer and a murderer. In spite of these imperfections, King David was the only person Yahweh ever called a man after mine own heart.

Yahweh didn’t choose King David because of his sins, but in spite of them. King David had sincerely dedicated his life to the service of Yahweh. The sacrifice of Yahshua, on the cross, was sufficient to take care of all sins. The holy people are the race who are dedicated to the service of Yahweh, carrying out His purposes, despite their individual faults and sins, Yahweh selected them. It is the same as Yahshua’s statement to His 12 disciples recorded in John 15:16. “Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you.” This is confirmed in many places in the Bible.

But here in this sermon, we see that Comparet contradicts himself, as he tries to convince us that it is not enough to merely be an Israelite without mentioning the example of David! So which is it? Did the sacrifice of Christ “take care of all sins”, as he admitted there, or did it not, as he indirectly seems to claim here? We would assert that not only David, but all of Israel is chosen, as Comparet had also inferred, and therefore all of Israel shall be forgiven.

Continuing with Comparet:

One of the things that is so often quoted as a sweeping all inclusive statement is the verse taken out of Romans 11:26. "And so all Israel shall be saved, as it is written..." The punctuation is different than is commonly believed, it really says, "

“And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.”

The argument concerning the punctuation is immaterial, but we shall continue:

We have often enough condemned other churches for taking one verse out of context and founding a doctrine on it. Certainly we should never be guilty of this ourselves, because we know better. In the first place, Paul is not correctly quoting Isaiah, because Isaiah didn't say all Israel shall be saved, Isaiah 45:17.

Now it is awfully arrogant of Comparet for having said that “Paul is not correctly quoting Isaiah”, especially because Paul in his epistle never wrote any reference such as “Isaiah 45:17”. But here Comparet committed another error, since in the very place where he said “we have often enough condemned other churches for taking one verse out of context” he has just done that very thing. In Romans 11:26 Paul certainly was paraphrasing from Isaiah chapter 45. But although Isaiah wrote in verse 17 that “Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation”, where he did not use the word “all”, just a little further on, in verse 25, the Word of Yahweh in Isaiah had clarified that and said “In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.” So Paul was certainly not wrong for having written that “all Israel shall be saved …” and Comparet's accusation fails because he took one verse out of context.

Now where Comparet continues, he seems to contradict himself again where he said:

If you read the rest of Romans chapter 11, you will understand that Paul doesn't intend any such sweeping statement as those few words, as taken out of context, would indicate.

So was Paul “not correctly quoting Isaiah” or did Paul not “intend any such sweeping statement as those few words, as taken out of context, would indicate”? Comparet seems to want it both ways, but the truth is that he failed to read the full passage in Isaiah, and he exploited the lack of the word “all” in verse 17 while ignoring it in verse 25, in his own endeavor to convince us that not all Israel is saved. That is dishonest, even if it was not necessarily intentional.

But perhaps Paul himself can define what he meant in Romans 11:26, because although it certainly is a correct interpretation of the meaning of Isaiah chapter 45, he made more explicit statements in other places which do not necessarily rely on that one passage from the prophet. So elsewhere and in other contexts, in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 Paul wrote that “22 Just as in Adam all die, then in that manner in Christ all shall be produced alive.” Then a little further on, quoting certain of the prophets, he wrote: “51 Behold I tell you a mystery, we shall not all fall asleep, but we shall all be changed. 52 In an instant, in a dart of an eye, with the last trumpet; for it shall sound and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 This decay wants to be clothed in incorruptibility, and this mortal to be clothed in immortality. 54 And when this decay shall have put on incorruptibility, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then the word that has been written shall come to pass: 'Death has been swallowed in victory.' 55 'Death, where is your victory? Death, where is your sting?' 56 Now the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; 57 but gratitude is to Yahweh, in whom we are being given the victory through our Prince, Yahshua Christ.”

If Adam was created to be immortal, as the Genesis account attests and as the wisdom of Solomon had professed (Wisdom 2:23), then if one descendant of Adam dies eternally then God has failed in His creation and Death does have at least one small victory. Paul agrees with this where in Romans chapter 5 he wrote: “12 For this reason, just as by one man sin entered into the Society, and by that sin death, and in that manner death has passed to all men, on account that all have sinned: 13 (for until the law sin was in the Society; but sin was not accounted, there not being law; 14 but death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned resembling the transgression of Adam, who is an image of the future. 15 But should not, as was the transgression, in that manner also be the favor? Indeed if in the transgression of one many die, much greater is the favor of Yahweh, and the gift in favor, which is of the one man Yahshua Christ, in which many have great advantage. 16 And not then by one having sinned is the gift? Indeed the fact is that judgment of a single one [Christ] is for condemnation, but the favor is from many transgressions into a judgment of acquittal. 17 For if in the transgression of one, death has taken reign through that one, much more is the advantage of the favor, and the gift of justice they are receiving, in life they will reign through the one, Yahshua Christ.) 18 So then, as that one transgression is for all men for a sentence of condemnation, in this manner then through one decision of judgment for all men is for a judgment of life. 19 Therefore even as through the disobedience of one man the many were set down as wrongdoers, in this manner then through the obedience of One the many will be established as righteous. 20 Moreover, law entered in addition, that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, favor exceeded beyond measure, 21 that just as sin reigned in death, so then favor shall reign through justice for life eternal, through Yahshua Christ our Prince.”

So there in Romans chapter 5, Paul explained that not only would all of Israel be saved, but all of the entire Adamic race, which he had also attested in 1 Corinthians chapter 15, and that they are not saved through many individual decisions of judgment, but through one: which was the decision of Yahweh God to come as a man and die in exchange for the death of His people, thereby nullifying all of the accusations against the children of Israel by the “accuser of our brethren”, as the enemies of God are called in Revelation chapter 12. That attitude of jews and many other non-Whites is manifest in society today, because as they are constantly accusing Whites of injustices, then they establish themselves as the accuser of our brethren.

Moreover, Comparet having criticized Paul for his statement in Romans chapter 11 had failed to examine the balance of that passage, which reads: “26 And in that manner all of Israel shall be delivered; just as it is written, 'From out of Zion shall come the Deliverer, and He shall turn away impiety from Jakob.'” The later half of that citation is not from Isaiah chapter 45, but rather it is from Isaiah chapter 59.

Here we shall briefly examine the citation from Isaiah chapter 59 found in the later half of Romans 11:26, but since Paul's Greek agrees with the Septuagint, we will cite Brenton's translation of that edition. There is a key difference. In the King James Version, Isaiah 59:20 reads “And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.” But where Paul cited it in Romans 11:26, the King James Version reads “… There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.” The key difference is whether Jacob turns himself from transgression, by his own volition, or whether Yahweh turns Jacob from transgression, or in the Greek, from impiety. Paul's Greek and that of the Septuagint are identical in that regard, where the words ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβ inform us that Yahweh turns transgression from Jacob. The verb ἀποστρέψει is a future tense active indicative third person singular form, i.e. “he shall turn away” and not “they shall turn away”.

Repentance is a gift from God. Men may only repent of transgression if it is the will of God, and that is because, as Paul of Tarsus also explained in Romans chapter 1, sin is often, but not always, a trial or punishment from God. So in Deuteronomy chapter 30, after the blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience are uttered, we read: “1 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, 2 And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; 3 That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee. 4 If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: 5 And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers. 6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.”

Repentance is a gift from God, so we read in the words of Peter in Acts chapter 5 that “30 The God of our fathers raised up Yahshua, whom you had taken in hand, hanging upon a timber. 31 Him, Founder and Savior, Yahweh elevated to His right hand for which to give repentance and a remission of sins to Israel.” Then again, in 2 Timothy chapter 2: “24 Now a bondman of the Prince does not need to fight, but to be gentle towards all, inclined to teach, enduring evil, 25 in meekness correcting those who are in opposition; perhaps Yahweh would give to them repentance for acknowledgment of the truth, 26 and they return to sobriety from the trap of the False Accuser, being captivated by him for that of his will.” All of these passages agree with the reading of the Septuagint, and Paul's citation in Romans, of Isaiah 59:20, that the Redeemer shall turn Jacob from transgression, or literally, from impiety.

Since sin is often a punishment from God, and since the children of Israel are currently in that same state of punishment for disobedience which is described in Deuteronomy chapters 28 and 29, under such curses often entire nations and communities suffer, the good along with the wicked, as a result of that sin. In Ezekiel chapter 21, condemning Jerusalem the Word of Yahweh says in part: “3 … Behold, I am against thee, and will draw forth my sword out of his sheath, and will cut off from thee the righteous and the wicked.” Therefore most grievous sinners are often a result of the punishment for sin being suffered by those communities, and if the people would turn their hearts to Yahweh and endeavor to keep His commandments, “perhaps Yahweh would give to them repentance for acknowledgment of the truth”, as Paul wrote to Timothy. But instead their pastors often lead them into deeper sins, and they remain in the trap of the devil, the jew who feeds them everything they know and believe through the news media and various forms of entertainment which they idolize.

So in Isaiah chapter 59, where we shall cite from Brenton's translation of the Septuagint, the children of Israel who are in the captivity are portrayed as lamenting their sins, and saying, in part: “12 For our iniquity is great before thee, and our sins have risen up against us: for our iniquities are in us, and we know our unrighteous deeds. 13 We have sinned, and dealt falsely, and revolted from our God: we have spoken unrighteous words, and have been disobedient; we have conceived and uttered from our heart unrighteous words. 14 And we have turned judgment back, and righteousness has departed afar off: for truth is consumed in their ways, and they could not pass by a straight path. 15 And truth has been taken away, and they have turned aside their mind from understanding. And the Lord saw it, and it pleased him not that there was no judgment.”

Now, as it continues, where we shall read to the end of the chapter we shall see that there was no man to turn this transgression and ungodliness from Jacob, so Yahweh God Himself had to do it, and therefore even in the overall context we see that the reading of verse 20 as it is found both in Paul's epistle to the Romans and here in the Septuagint is correct, so we continue: “16 And he looked, and there was no man, and he observed, and there was none to help: so he defended them with his arm, and stablished them with his mercy. 17 And he put on righteousness as a breast-plate, and placed the helmet of salvation on his head; and he clothed himself with the garment of vengeance, and with his cloak, 18 as one about to render a recompence, even reproach to his adversaries. 19 So shall they of the west fear the name of the Lord, and they that come from the rising of the sun his glorious name: for the wrath of the Lord shall come as a mighty river, it shall come with fury. 20 And the deliverer shall come for Sion's sake, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. 21 And this shall be my covenant with them, said the Lord; My Spirit which is upon thee, and the words which I have put in thy mouth, shall never fail from thy mouth, nor from the mouth of thy seed, for the Lord has spoken it, henceforth and for ever.” Reading that chapter carefully we should also see that ungodliness is not turned from Jacob until the enemies of Yahweh are destroyed, and that is also in general agreement with the prophecies found in chapters 18 and 19 of the Revelation of Yahshua Christ.

Upon examining the historical books and early prophets of the Old Testament and the reasons for which they were taken into captivity, their transgressions were very great indeed. But in spite of that, Yahweh is portrayed as responding to their words, and the Word of Yahweh says: “And the deliverer shall come for Sion's sake, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.” In this and in all of the other promises of redemption from sin, not even the most sinful of Israelites are ever excluded. Earlier in Isaiah, in chapter 50, speaking of Israel in captivity, we read “1 Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.” Israel needed to be redeemed from sin because they had sold themselves into sin, and Christ is that Redeemer, who forgave all the sins of Israel, without exception. So in that same context, we read in Hosea chapter 13: “14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.” Not one of the children of Israel is ever excluded from this promise, and if death and the grave, Sheol or Hades, are destroyed, then not one of the children of Israel shall die. In Revelation chapter 20 we read “14 And Death and Hades are cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death: the lake of fire.” In Jeremiah chapter 33 we read another confirmation: “7 And I will cause the captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return, and will build them, as at the first. 8 And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me.”

Which sin did Christ not die to forgive? And if repentance is a gift from God, how could the righteous man vaunt himself above his own brethren who have not yet received of that gift, which is also the will of God? If men are blind and cannot repent, that too is a punishment from God, not only on the individual, but upon the entire community and nation, as we read among the curses for disobedience in Deuteronomy chapter 28: “28 The LORD shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart: 29 And thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness, and thou shalt not prosper in thy ways: and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore, and no man shall save thee.” So blindness is a curse from God, not only upon His enemies, who are bound in chains of darkness, but also upon His people, when they are disobedient and follow in the ways of His enemies.

Now returning to Comparet, he continues with an earlier passage from that same chapter of Romans:

Note this from Romans 11:2-5,7. “Know ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he madeth intercession to God against Israel, saying, Master, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine alters; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of Yahweh unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal…”

Note what Paul goes on to say here. “Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace … But what then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.”

We can't laugh off the word remainder by saying that is all that remain, implying that the great majority are the ones who remain. This is taken from the Greek and trying to find similar English words isn't the solution, we have to see what the Greek says.

“There is a remnant”, Paul said. This is the Greek word leimma and is derived from the root word leipo, which not only means a few but which connotes a lacking or insufficient number. If we wanted to say “not only a few but not enough”, the Greek word leipo is the word we would use, and leimma is derived from and based on this. So this remainder is going to be a few, not 99 and 99/100%, or something like that. Paul isn't teaching any such doctrine. Neither did Isaiah say they were all going to come through just because they were Israelites, Isaiah knew better. Isaiah knew the history of his people.

Here Comparet has removed these short phrases found in verses 2 through 7 of Romans chapter 11 from their context, and he is using them to explain the later passage in verse 26. But Paul's intention was just the opposite: the statement in verse 26 is part of the conclusion of an explanation of his words in the earlier portion of the chapter, as well as in chapters 9 and 10. The overall context begins in chapter 9 where Paul prays and makes a plea for his brethren according to the flesh, that they turn to Christ, and states that not all of those in Israel are of Israel, for which reason he then contrasts Jacob and Esau. So the regard for the salvation in chapters 10 and 11 concern Jacob, and not Esau, the Israelites and not the Edomites in Judaea.

It is evident, as we had explained in detail in our exhibitions on the order of the writing of Paul's epistles, that Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans while he was in the Troad as he was about to travel to Jerusalem for the last time. At the time, most of the people in Judaea were hostile to Christianity, and even among the Christians there, there was much hostility to Paul for what he had taught concerning the rituals of the law, which is evident in the words of James in Acts chapter 21 (21:18-26). There was also hostility towards Paul for bringing the Gospel to the captivity of Israel scattered abroad, which is evident in the actions of the crowd to whom he had preached in Acts chapter 22 (22:21-22). Paul knew in advance that he would have challenges such as these when he went to Jerusalem. So in Romans chapter 11 he cited Elijah in the hope that the same situation would be true in Judaea. Elijah felt alone, and Yahweh assured him that there was a remnant in the Israel of his time that would support him because they had clung to Yahweh. Likewise, Paul going to Judaea also felt alone, and hoped that a similar remnant would be found among the Judaeans, getting his encouragement from the example of Elijah. But neither Elijah's words, nor those of Paul, were intended to modify any of the promises of God concerning the ultimate salvation or redemption of all Israel. If all Israel were always obedient, there would have been no need for any promises of salvation or redemption, nor any need for the forgiveness of sins!

Therefore, while his elaborations on the definitions are wrong, Comparet's arguments concerning the meaning of the words λεῖμμα and λείπω are superfluous in this context because neither man, Elijah or Paul, had used them in application to the promises of salvation, redemption, or forgiveness of sins which Yahweh God had made to all Israel. Paul was not speaking of eternal salvation alone in Romans chapter 11. He was speaking of temporal salvation, because knowing the Gospel and the prophets, Paul understood that Jerusalem was about to be destroyed. Yet the words he cited in Romans 11:26 were meant as an assurance of eternal salvation in spite of their temporal fate. In the Messianic prophecy of Daniel chapter 9, we read that after Messiah the Prince is cut off, that the people of the Prince, that same Messiah, would come and destroy Jerusalem. Then Paul wrote in Romans chapter 16, speaking of the Romans, that “20 … the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly”, and that was fulfilled only 13 years after Paul wrote that epistle. That is why Paul prayed for his kinsmen in Judaea to turn to Christ, so they would be saved temporally from the coming destruction of Jerusalem. Christ had warned His disciples of that same destruction in the Gospel, where it is recorded in Matthew chapter 24, Mark chapter 13, and Luke chapter 21, where after the disciples marveled at the magnificence of the temple, we read in part that Christ had answered them and said: “6 These things which you behold, the days shall come in which there is not left here a stone upon a stone which shall not be thrown down.” There His subsequent words present an even more ominous description of the destruction which was to come upon Jerusalem, and that is the scope and context of Paul's prayer for his fellow Israelite Judaeans in Romans chapters 9 through 12. Accepting the Gospel, his “kinsmen according to the flesh” would have had the warnings of Christ. If they did not turn to Christ and suffered, they nevertheless had a share in that assurance of which Paul had attested in Romans 11:26.

Furthermore, where Paul wrote that “Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded”, as it is in the King James Version, we have that verse punctuated in the Christogenea New Testament to read “7 What then, what Israel seeks after, this it did not attain to? But the chosen have succeeded, and the rest were hardened.” The chosen have succeeded not on their own volition, but because Paul understood the promises of ultimate salvation and repeated them in verse 26 of the chapter, the meaning with which Comparet had argued and had wrongly accused Paul of not properly quoting. But the rest were hardened, and after a citation concerning blindness, or hardening as we have it, in verse 8 which follows Paul cited the 69th Psalm where David wrote: “20 Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none. 21 They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink. 22 Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap. 23 Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not; and make their loins continually to shake. 24 Pour out thine indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them.” In context, this is a Messianic prophecy and the curses are upon the enemies of God, which is consistent with the context of Romans chapter 11 as it is a continuation of Paul's remarks contrasting Jacob and Esau in Romans chapter 9. Of course, there are no promises of salvation, redemption or forgiveness made to the enemies of Yahweh.

So all of Comparet's arguments against salvation for all Israel in connection with Romans chapter 11 are hereby discredited in several ways, but of course his sermon is much longer so we will continue to its end. Continuing with Comparet:

There were many times when Israel strayed from the path Yahweh had given them. Moses was up on mount Sinai getting the laws from Yahweh and after he had been gone for a few days the people became restless. Remember; up to this time Moses was the one who had performed the miracles Yahweh gave him power to do in Egypt. Moses was the one who led Israel out of Egypt. He was the one who stood on the shore of the Red Sea and held his staff out over the water. The waters of the Red Sea parted and Moses led Israel through to safety.

Moses had led Israel along in the wilderness quite a distance. Out in the desert Moses was the leader who always saw to it that Israel had enough food and water. However, there was mixed multitudes that were with Israel. The word mixed used there was the Hebrew word ereb, which means mongrel. Some of Israel had mixed their race, with the Egyptians, while they were in Egypt. Here was the nation of Israel, and there were a lot of them. After Moses had been gone a few days, they went to Aaron and complained about Moses being gone so long. They were worried he might not come back. Just in case Moses didn't return, they demanded Aaron make some idol gods to lead them.

It was Yahweh, and not actually Moses, who ensured that the Israelites had food and water.

The patriarch Joseph took a wife from Egypt, and others of Jacob's sons who went into Egypt without wives had descendants which came out as tribes, so certainly not all those in Egypt were mongrels. Rather, the phrase mixed multitude may also describe a multitude of people of various nations, not all of whom are necessarily mongrels. The Egyptians of the time were apparently not yet mongrels, and certainly not as they are today. Continuing with Comparet:

After all the miracles they had experienced, Israel wanted idol gods. The mixed multitude that was among them egged them on. In spite of seeing the pillar of cloud, that lead them, they still were easily led into apostasy. Well, Aaron was a good example of the clergy then and now, he gave the people what they wanted, not what was right for them. So Aaron collected gold from the people, melted it down and made the golden calf.

When Moses came down from the mountain and called Aaron to account for his actions, Aaron's excuse was, “I put this gold in the fire and this calf came out.” Aaron neglected to state who made the mold in which the melted gold was cast. Exodus chapter 32 tells us 3,000 people were killed, by the plague, in the penalty that came upon Israel for their apostasy.

While we are not going to analyze all of Comparet's remarks on the incident of the golden calf and the culpability of Aaron, it is clear that Aaron was just as responsible for the sin as the rest of the people, and that Comparet is correct in that regard, where we read in Deuteronomy chapter 9, in the words of Moses as he reflected on the incident before the people: “20 And the LORD was very angry with Aaron to have destroyed him: and I prayed for Aaron also the same time. 21 And I took your sin, the calf which ye had made, and burnt it with fire, and stamped it, and ground it very small, even until it was as small as dust: and I cast the dust thereof into the brook that descended out of the mount.”

Earlier in this presentation we have already discussed the incident of the golden calf described in Exodus, and asserted that Yahweh, being God, must have foreseen it. It was He who had told them to borrow all of the gold and silver that they could from the Egyptians and take it with them, which is described in the closing verses of Exodus chapter 3. After they sinned with the golden calf, we read in Exodus chapter 32: “9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: 10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.” As we had asserted, by saying this Yahweh had tested Moses, but Moses showed his own humility and love for his brethren, and prayed for them saying: “11 … LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? 12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.” These are among the same promises to the fathers which Christ had come to uphold, as Paul of Tarsus also attested in Romans chapter 15. Paul himself acted in the same manner that Moses did here, where in Romans chapter 9 he wrote “3 for I have prayed that I myself would be accursed from the Anointed for the brethren, my kinsmen in regards to the flesh; 4 those who are Israelites, whose is the position of sons, and the honor, and the covenants, and the legislation, and the service, and the promises; 5 whose are the fathers; and of whom are the Anointed in regards to the flesh, being over all blessed of Yahweh for the ages.”

So Paul, willing to exchange himself on behalf of his brethren, followed the example of Moses in Exodus chapter 32, who could have received all the promises to Abraham, but refused and instead had prayed for his sinful brethren. This is the example which all Christians should follow today, not being willing to see their own brethren perish in eternal destruction, not being self-righteous and denouncing their own kinsmen, but instead, praying on their behalf that they too would receive the repentance which comes from God, because as Paul also said, all Israel shall be saved and Yahweh our Redeemer shall transgression turn from Jacob. This is the prayer for the Kingdom of which Comparet had complained at the beginning of this sermon that it had not been taught by the churches.

Now, continuing with Comparet, he offers another example from Leviticus:

Leviticus chapter 10 tells us the two older sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, knew the instructions governing the priests, that had been given as to who might approach the tabernacle and how. But Aaron's sons were ready to take over, and do it their way. They offered incense and strange fire, as the Bible calls it, so they were slain by Yahweh. We can't say that Nadab and Abihu were part of the mongrel mixed multitude. They were the two oldest sons of Aaron, so they were pure Israel stock.

It was rough going through the desert. There were many hardships and the people began complaining. They wished they had remained in Egypt, even though they had been slaves there, because in Egypt at least they had eaten well.

What were they going to do? Here was a rebellion against what Yahweh had told them to do. Sure, they were mainly Israelites and Yahweh had given them a tough job to do and they weren't equal to it, they were ready to quit. Numbers 11:1-2 tells us, “And when the people complained, it displeased Yahweh: and Yahweh heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of Yahweh burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the outermost parts of the camp. And the people cried unto Moses; and when Moses prayed unto Yahweh, the fire was quenched.” The people grumbled about the food. Yahweh had promised them, through Moses, they would have plenty to eat. They were complaining they didn't like the manna Yahweh had sent, they wanted meat. Yahweh told them, “I will give you meat till it is running out of your nostrils.” So Yahweh sent them quail, more than they could eat, but with this quail, he also sent a great plague, which killed a great many of them.

This is the last section of Comparet's sermon which we shall discuss this evening, and we shall return to it soon.

For now, here I will only state that one apparent objective of the trials in the desert was to weed out the mixed multitude, as well as those of the Israelites who were prone to rebellion. While this is not stated in the books of Moses, it is attested later, in Ezekiel chapter 20, where we read: “35 And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there will I plead with you face to face. 36 Like as I pleaded with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you, saith the Lord GOD. 37 And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant: 38 And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me: I will bring them forth out of the country where they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the land of Israel: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.” If Yahweh purged the rebels in the wilderness in the later captivities, so did He in the wilderness of Sinai after the Exodus, whereby the rebels are made examples as they are punished and perish prematurely in this life. In addition to the rebels, all of “them that transgress” would include the bastards as well, who are transgressions in themselves.

But even if many of the rebels were Israelites who had died in the flesh, that has no bearing on their eternal salvation, and it was not the will of Yahweh that even the rebels die. In Numbers chapter 17 we read: “10 And the LORD said unto Moses, Bring Aaron's rod again before the testimony, to be kept for a token against the rebels; and thou shalt quite take away their murmurings from me, that they die not.” That concerns a later event, of which Comparet makes another example in a later portion of this sermon.

Here, and as we proceed, it shall become even more evident that all of Comparet's arguments against the plain statement of Paul that “all Israel shall be saved” are based on examples of temporal suffering and death in the consequences of sin, which have no bearing on any of the promises of eternal life for the children of God, and it should also be clear that his examples do not cancel out those promises. In fact, the promises of eternal life, salvation and redemption stand both in spite of sin, and were made as assurances on account of sin, beginning with the first sin of Adam. When we return, we shall commence at this point in our discussion, and Comparet shall continue his examples through the Book of Numbers.