The Meaning of: "Scripture Cannot Be Broken"

[jeremiah1five]

• Inerrancy and Authority of Scripture: The phrase "Scripture cannot be broken" underscores the belief in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures. It means that the Scriptures are wholly reliable, authoritative, and cannot be annulled, invalidated, or contradicted. Jesus is asserting that the Word of God is unchangeable and must be completely trusted.

• Consistency and Integrity: It also implies that Scripture is internally consistent and coherent. The teachings and prophecies within it are interconnected and harmonious. Therefore, one part of Scripture cannot be used to invalidate another; all parts of Scripture must be understood as a unified whole.

• Fulfillment and Permanence: Jesus’ statement reinforces the idea that all of Scripture will be fulfilled. The prophecies and promises contained in the Bible are certain and will come to pass as ordained by God. This affirms the permanence of God's Word as expressed in passages like Isaiah 40:8, "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever."

Therefore, if the Abrahamic Covenant is between God, Abram the Hebrew, and with his seed, and there are no non-Hebrew Gentiles named or mentioned in this covenant, then this covenant is between God, Abram, and His Hebrew seed passed on to Isaac and then Jacob, and then to Jacob's twelve sons, a people which are called of God the (Hebrew) Children of Jacob/Israel..

Therefore, if the Mosaic Covenant is between God and Moses and the Children of Jacob/Israel, and there are no non-Hebrew Gentiles named or mentioned as being included in this covenant, then this covenant is between God and Moses and the Hebrew Children of Jacob/Israel.

Therefore, if the New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah in 31:31-34 is between God and the House of Israel (ten northern kingdom tribes), and between God and the House of Judah (two southern kingdom tribes), then the New Covenant which is the Mosaic Covenant between God and the children of Israel fulfilled by Christ and through whom at the Hebrew Passover meal instituted this New Covenant through His death and resurrection and there are no non-Hebrew Gentiles named or mentioned included in this covenant, then this New Covenant remains between God and the Hebrew House of Israel and the Hebrew House of Judah.

Scripture cannot be broken. Any interpretation of Scripture that alters what is already written should be declared heresy, contrary to Scripture and is to be rejected.

As a true, born-again Christian I believe Jesus' words that Scripture as written in the Law, Psalms, and Prophets (Hebrew Scripture) cannot be changed or altered upon the whims of men, and I hold to the integrity of Scripture as the solid Word of God provided by God to His Hebrew covenant people for life and living and the basis of all we are called to believe as Scripture, unalterable, unchanging, and the eternal Word of God.

Scripture cannot be broken.

 

[Mr GLee]

Therefore, if the Abrahamic Covenant is between God, Abram the Hebrew, and with his seed, and there are no non-Hebrew Gentiles named or mentioned in this covenant, then this covenant is between God, Abram, and His Hebrew seed passed on to Isaac and then Jacob, and then to Jacob's twelve sons, a people which are called of God the (Hebrew) Children of Jacob/Israel..

Abram (exalted father ). Born again name. . Abraham the second born.(the father of all the nations )

He finds himself somewhere in the middle of the doctrine of the second born. The geanalolgy of the son of man Jesus until birth . End of geanalolgy of the seed (one ) Christ

Cain murdered the second born . . . The first born again son of God, Abel . God replaced him with another second born Enos .

It was at that time period that men began to call on the Lord by faith (the unseen) You could say having beforehand introduced the loving law. . . a man must born again .. . . Saying wonder not but rather believe exercise the faith that does work in the believer . . . . .a man must be born again (a new creature)

Genesis 4: 25-26 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.


Onan refused to pass on the seed (Christ) by which men are born again from above. Esau the second born also seeing no value in the unseen spiritual things of God .

God protected his seed (Christ) until the birth of the Son of man Jesus.

God is not served by the dying hands as a will of mankind .He has no needs but satisfices all good needs

 

[jeremiah1five]

Abram (exalted father ). Born again name. . Abraham the second born.(the father of all the nations )

He finds himself somewhere in the middle of the doctrine of the second born. The geanalolgy of the son of man Jesus until birth . End of geanalolgy of the seed (one ) Christ

Cain murdered the second born . . . The first born again son of God, Abel . God replaced him with another second born Enos .

It was at that time period that men began to call on the Lord by faith (the unseen) You could say having beforehand introduced the loving law. . . a man must born again .. . . Saying wonder not but rather believe exercise the faith that does work in the believer . . . . .a man must be born again (a new creature)

Genesis 4: 25-26 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.


Onan refused to pass on the seed (Christ) by which men are born again from above. Esau the second born also seeing no value in the unseen spiritual things of God .

God protected his seed (Christ) until the birth of the Son of man Jesus.

God is not served by the dying hands as a will of mankind .He has no needs but satisfices all good needs

You said they were all "dying flesh" and "dying mankind."

Now you say they aren't.

Which is it? The Holy Spirit does not dwell in anything dead. It is contrary to His Nature and purpose who is Life to bring life to whomever He dwells in.

 

[Mr GLee]

You said they were all "dying flesh" and "dying mankind."

Now you say they aren't.

Which is it? The Holy Spirit does not dwell in anything dead. It is contrary to His Nature and purpose who is Life to bring life to whomever He dwells in.

I think I said . God who is not a Jewish man is not served by the dying hands as a will of mankind .He has no needs but satisfices all good needs.

The let there be and it was God alone good

Acts gives us some insight I believe ,

Acts 17: 24-26 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

 

[Ghada]

Therefore, if the Mosaic Covenant is between God and Moses and the Children of Jacob/Israel, and there are no non-Hebrew Gentiles named or mentioned as being included in this covenant, then this covenant is between God and Moses and the Hebrew Children of Jacob/Israel.

You missed a few people, such as Rahab and Ruth. Rahab being one of the two examples of justification with the God of Israel. Alongside Abraham.

Not to mention the many other Gentile strangers laying hold of His covenant, offering sacrifice to the LORD, and keeping His passover, sabbaths, and law.

Scripture cannot be negated is one of the most common breakings of the whole of Scripture. Taking pieces out of the puzzle and leaving a painting full of holes.

Therefore, if the New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah in 31:31-34 is between God and the House of Israel (ten northern kingdom tribes), and between God and the House of Judah (two southern kingdom tribes), then the New Covenant which is the Mosaic Covenant between God and the children of Israel fulfilled by Christ and through whom at the Hebrew Passover meal instituted this New Covenant through His death and resurrection and there are no non-Hebrew Gentiles named or mentioned included in this covenant, then this New Covenant remains between God and the Hebrew House of Israel and the Hebrew House of Judah.

First the Jew. True. And also the Gentile. True.

The Hebrews' only Bible doesn't even begin until Abraham. The Jews' only Bible is pockmarked with holes under the OT, with half of the NT is blasted away.

I've heard of Jews lusting after the flesh seeking to Judaize Christianity, but this takes the cake.

But then, it's nothing new. Many Jews contended with Peter and James, when it was concluded by Scripture that the God of Israel prophesied all men that repent, would be brought into the NT of the risen God of Israel.

I've never seen any other book on earth actually changed, in order to try and make the Author say something else. All other books are read to be understood as the Author intends, and either agree or disagree with it, not change it into something the reader wants to believe instead.

There have been many break away sects naming the name of Christ, and separating themselves from the body of Christ. Jesus says to just let them go their own way...

Jde 1:19These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

As a true, born-again Christian I believe Jesus' words that Scripture as written in the Law, Psalms, and Prophets (Hebrew Scripture) cannot be changed or altered upon the whims of men, and I hold to the integrity of Scripture as the solid Word of God provided by God to His Hebrew covenant people for life and living and the basis of all we are called to believe as Scripture, unalterable, unchanging, and the eternal Word of God.

Rom 16:18For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

Scripture cannot be broken.

True, and not true. The Scripture cannot be broken and justified with Christ.

But with men, all breaking is possible. Until the grave.

 

[jeremiah1five]

I think I said . God who is not a Jewish man is not served by the dying hands as a will of mankind .He has no needs but satisfices all good needs.

The let there be and it was God alone good

Acts gives us some insight I believe ,

Acts 17: 24-26 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

I do not believe the New Covenant writings contradict the Old Covenant writings.
It is the erroneous false Constantinian Gentile interpretations I come across that contradict the Old Covenant writings, and these need to be rejected.

So, if you have an interpretation from a New Covenant Scripture passage that contradicts any Old Covenant Scripture, then that interpretation is in error and a lie.

That's what it all comes down to.

 

[Mr GLee]

I do not believe the New Covenant writings contradict the Old Covenant writings.
It is the erroneous false Constantinian Gentile interpretations I come across that contradict the Old Covenant writings, and these need to be rejected.

So, if you have an interpretation from a New Covenant Scripture passage that contradicts any Old Covenant Scripture, then that interpretation is in error and a lie.

That's what it all comes down to.

Who said they are different .It is all together one book of law(no philosophical theories)

God is not a Jewish man as King of kings That is a wile of the father of lies

 

[Ghada]

I do not believe the New Covenant writings contradict the Old Covenant writings.
It is the erroneous false Constantinian Gentile interpretations I come across that contradict the Old Covenant writings, and these need to be rejected.

So, if you have an interpretation from a New Covenant Scripture passage that contradicts any Old Covenant Scripture, then that interpretation is in error and a lie.

That's what it all comes down to.

True. The God of Israel before and after His resurrection, allowed for Gentiles to lay hold of His old and new covenants. The only difference now is that birth and circumcision of flesh have no honor in His new covenant.

The only covenant that remains to be fulfilled, that pertains only to natural Hebrews and Jews, is the land Abraham walked on, that his God personally promised to him and his natural seed.

God Almighty's covenant of circumcision with Abraham, also included Gentile servants of Abraham's household. By commandment, not by choice. To have forbidden entrance into the covenant of circucmision, would have been disobedience of Abraham to His own God.

 

[Ghada]

Rom 9:24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Rom 3:29Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

It's true that God first established His covenants with Hebrews and Jews. And if anyone wants to remind the world of that, then no problem. If it makes someone feel really special, then so be it. Hooray, hooray, isn't that special.

But the God of the Bible only established 2 covenants exclusively to one man and his seed:

Gen 6:18But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
Gen 9:9And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;

The first was a covenant of all the earth with Noah and all children of men on earth:

Gen 15:18In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

And the second was a covenant of land with Abraham and His natural seed to come

 

[Josheb]

Therefore, if the Abrahamic Covenant is between God, Abram the Hebrew, and with his seed, and there are no non-Hebrew Gentiles named or mentioned in this covenant, then this covenant is between God, Abram, and His Hebrew seed passed on to Isaac and then Jacob, and then to Jacob's twelve sons, a people which are called of God the (Hebrew) Children of Jacob/Israel..

The problem is that "if" is incorrect. The first part of that problem is the fact the covenant was made by God with Abraham the man of faith, not Abraham the Hebrew. Abraham's genetic constitution had/has absolutely nothing to do with his covenant participation or status. In fact, Abraham wasn't a Hebrew. Abraham was Chaldean. Hebrews are his progeny (just as the Jews are a progeny of the Hebrews). Hebrews are a Semitic people that came from Egypt to the land that would eventually be called Israel. Chaldea was in Babylon, or what we know call Iran. Abraham was Chaldean. He was Babylonian. If we used the kind of (misguided) reasoning employed in this "therefore.... if..." we would necessarily have to say only Chaldean Babylonians are included in the covenant.

That is a really dumb argument.

The second part is the covenant was made with Abraham the man of faith and Abraham's seed, Jesus, and Jesus is preexistent. Jesus of Nazareth is just from Nazareth and while his incarnation came through the bloodline of Abraham the Chaldean, Jesus the Son of God is from God, and he is God. There is no bloodline for that. The covenant, therefore, was made with Jesus the pre-existing Son of God, the Jesus who before Abraham I Am. It' a huge mistake to look at this temporally as if the history was a single line that flows in only one direction. The covenant was made with a guy who existed long before Abraham the man of faith from Chaldea was ever conceived, longer than before God called Abraham out of Ur. This same Jesus who was with God in the beginning and is God with whom the covenant was also made was foreknown before the world was created to be the perfect sacrifice by which the covenant with Abe the man of faith from Chaldea and Jesus the preexistent incarnate Son of God would be fulfilled.

Scripture cannot be broken.

Then you should stop breaking it and teaching others to do the same.


Over the last few years you have made some adjustments to your thinking based on our exchanges. I notice you now use "Hebrew" where you previously would have used "Jew." That's a good thing. It makes your posts more accurate. The problem is as I have stated above: Abraham was not a Jew or a Hebrew. Abe was Babylonian, and the covenant is not based on bloodline/genetics/ethnicity. The Jews thought it was, but they were wrong. This is why I often tell you.....


Tanakh is always correct, but Judaism is often incorrect.


God, through Jesus and the NT writers, openly repudiated the Jews who thought it was their bloodline, and their Judaic view of the Law that qualified them for anything. God can make people who will praise His Son out of rocks. There's nothing special about having a particular genetic constitution. Abraham was chosen because of his faith, not his faithfulness (works), and most definitely not his genes.


So.... while I commend your gradual openness to these exchanges you've got further to go, and because of admonitions like that found in James 3:1-2 we should all be careful about our biases and prejudices.... and attempting to persuade others to do likewise.

 

[jeremiah1five]

True. The God of Israel before and after His resurrection, allowed for Gentiles to lay hold of His old and new covenants. The only difference now is that birth and circumcision of flesh have no honor in His new covenant.

The covenant between God and Abram the Hebrew is found in Genesis 15 and 17. There are no Gentiles named or mentioned as being in this covenant. Any interpretation of New Covenant Scripture that contradicts this truth is a false interpretation born from a leaning upon one's own understanding in the vanity of their mind. Gentiles were NEVER included in any of the three Hebrew covenants.

The only covenant that remains to be fulfilled, that pertains only to natural Hebrews and Jews, is the land Abraham walked on, that his God personally promised to him and his natural seed.

No, the Law of God is not "abolished" or "obsolete." God's Law is eternal, and men cannot void it. The Law was fulfilled by Christ and now the Law is in us through Christ, to lead and guide us from within in our daily lives. We still have to obey the Law to "not have other gods before us" or "to not steal" or "bear false witness."

God Almighty's covenant of circumcision with Abraham, also included Gentile servants of Abraham's household. By commandment, not by choice. To have forbidden entrance into the covenant of circucmision, would have been disobedience of Abraham to His own God.

No, God Himself said this covenant is between God, Abram the Hebrew and his seed.
Just because one is circumcised as Abraham's household was does not constitute the servants being included in the covenant. They were NOT Abraham's seed according to the Promise. It went from Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob, and to Jacob's descendants. In short, it is a covenant between God and the Hebrew people who one day will be recognized and the twelve tribes of Jacob/Israel and the children of Israel.
Gentiles do not come from the loins of Abraham. Hebrews do.
The covenant is "in your flesh."

 

[Ghada]

The first part of that problem is the fact the covenant was made by God with Abraham the man of faith, not Abraham the Hebrew. Abraham's genetic constitution had/has absolutely nothing to do with his covenant participation or status. In fact, Abraham wasn't a Hebrew. Abraham was Chaldean.

While not exactly correct, it makes an excellent point. The record is of Abram the Hebrew, though his father Chaldean. However as you say, the Scripture says nothing about being a Hebrew had anything more to do, than being a Chaldean, with being imputed righteousness by faith and justified with God Almighty.

Hebrews are his progeny (just as the Jews are a progeny of the Hebrews).

And it is with them alone that the land promise pertain, not the promised seed Christ.

The whole NT is about the flesh no longer having to do with the covenant of the God of Israel. What most offended many of Jesus' disciples, was telling them so:

Jhn 6:63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

John the Baptist was prophesying it:

Luk 3:8Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

This is all just a disciplinary session with Judaism on steroids. It's not even worthy of being called an argument or debate.

If we used the kind of (misguided) reasoning employed in this "therefore.... if..." we would necessarily have to say only Chaldean Babylonians are included in the covenant.

True. Or Hebrews and Jews.

The second part is the covenant was made with Abraham the man of faith and Abraham's seed, Jesus, and Jesus is preexistent. Jesus of Nazareth is just from Nazareth and while his incarnation came through the bloodline of Abraham the Chaldean, Jesus the Son of God is from God, and he is God. There is no bloodline for that.

True again. Like all fleshy covenants, it's all about the flesh and not the Spirit. The only Messiah and Christ being preached here for Hebrews and Jews alone, is only an earthly one until the grave.

Jhn 5:43I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

There have been many such Jews-only messiahs come and gone, and still are.

So.... while I commend your gradual openness to these exchanges you've got further to go

Maybe one day we Gentiles can rest easy in newfound 'inclusiveness...'

It's always good to learn something new from Scripture, that distinctly corrects error. There's always one or two arguments of Scripture, that God has foreseen and written to do so.

The obvious one is one of the oldest, such as He is only the God of the Jews, because He only has covenant with the Jews on earth.

Rom 3:29Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

And once again as you point out. His covenant with Abraham for the coming of the promised seed, had everything to do with his faith, and nothing to do with his flesh and blood. Thanks.

 

[Ghada]

The covenant between God and Abram the Hebrew is found in Genesis 15 and 17.

15 is the land covenant to Abraham and His seed, including the first part of 17. Later in 17 is covenant of circumcision to Abraham, his son Isaac, and the servants of his house, including Ishmael.

Gen 17:13He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

And any stranger in the house.

is a false interpretation born from a leaning upon one's own understanding in the vanity of their mind.

And a Jews' only covenant from another Jews' only messiah, may be a whopper, but an old tired one.

A quick look for the latest one was some Schneerson Jews that died and 1994, and as all the others, never heard from again.

No doubt they loved him for his distinctive schneering at Gentiles, or even philo-gentile Jews.

Gentiles were NEVER included in any of the three Hebrew covenants.

Other than strangers laying hold on His covenant. A couple were from Jericho and Moab. The one from Jericho is honored alongside Abraham as example of justification by the God of Israel.

As I say, this isn't an argument, but just an easy exercise in Bible correction. But, hey, it's always good to bone up on the basics.

No, the Law of God is not "abolished" or "obsolete."

The law of God is now the law of Christ, not the law of Moses. Same as His covenent from Sinai is not the covenant of the resurrected god of Israel.

1Ti 1:7Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

Out with the old, in with the new. We have your unbelieving forefathers to thank for it. So, thanks.

Rom 11:25For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

We still have to obey the Law to "not have other gods before us" or "to not steal" or "bear false witness."

True. The law of Christ says so.

Although the first one is simply called idolatry now.

No, God Himself said this covenant is between God, Abram the Hebrew and his seed.

The land one. But not Abraham the Hebrew. Just Abram on the plains of Mamre.

Just because one is circumcised as Abraham's household was does not constitute the servants being included in the covenant.

Then neither Isaac a son of his household.

And now we see the depths of ditch digging needed to argue against simple Bible. Being circumcised by covenant commandment of God, is not being in His commanded covenant of circumcision.

And laying hold of His covenant, is no doubt not having His covenant.

This is not just an exercise of plain Bible correction, but also of sentence structure and standard comprehension.

They were NOT Abraham's seed according to the Promise.

True. You prove the point: They were not all Hebrews circumcised into the covenant of circumcision commanded by the Lord.

In fact, the Hebrews were a minority in the beginning of that covenant of circumcision.

. In short, it is a covenant between God and the Hebrew people who one day will be recognized and the twelve tribes of Jacob/Israel and the children of Israel.

The 12 tribes of the children of Israel have not been recognized? Where are they then?

Is this a kind of 10 lost tribes mystery?

Gentiles do not come from the loins of Abraham. Hebrews do.

Profound

The covenant is "in your flesh."

Gen 17:13He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

True. A covenant commanded in the flesh of every male circumcised in their flesh.

It certainly isn't in their bones. (Thank the Lord, I'm sure.)

However, even eunuchs, whether Jew or stranger, could still lay hold of His covenant from Sinai. (Is that uncircumcision or supracircumcision?)

 

[jeremiah1five]

You missed a few people, such as Rahab and Ruth. Rahab being one of the two examples of justification with the God of Israel. Alongside Abraham.

Not to mention the many other Gentile strangers laying hold of His covenant, offering sacrifice to the LORD, and keeping His passover, sabbaths, and law.

Scripture cannot be negated is one of the most common breakings of the whole of Scripture. Taking pieces out of the puzzle and leaving a painting full of holes.


First the Jew. True. And also the Gentile. True.

The Hebrews' only Bible doesn't even begin until Abraham. The Jews' only Bible is pockmarked with holes under the OT, with half of the NT is blasted away.

I've heard of Jews lusting after the flesh seeking to Judaize Christianity, but this takes the cake.

But then, it's nothing new. Many Jews contended with Peter and James, when it was concluded by Scripture that the God of Israel prophesied all men that repent, would be brought into the NT of the risen God of Israel.

I've never seen any other book on earth actually changed, in order to try and make the Author say something else. All other books are read to be understood as the Author intends, and either agree or disagree with it, not change it into something the reader wants to believe instead.

There have been many break away sects naming the name of Christ, and separating themselves from the body of Christ. Jesus says to just let them go their own way...

Jde 1:19These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.



Rom 16:18For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.



True, and not true. The Scripture cannot be broken and justified with Christ.

But with men, all breaking is possible. Until the grave.

Ruthie was a Moabitess.
Moab is a descendant of Lot and Lot is a descendant of Haran.
Haran is brother of Terah, Abraham's father, and this makes Ruthie Hebrew and descendant of Eber.

The bible does not give the ancestry of Rahab so guessing doesn't prove anything but your false Gentile interpretation and adding to the bible things not recorded. Rahab was a descendant of Abraham through Sarai.

 

[Ghada]

Ruthie was a Moabitess.

Correct not a child of Israel by birth, to whom the old covenant was given from the mount in the wilderness.

A Moabitess by Lot.

The bible does not give the ancestry of Rahab

Because it doesn't matter to God in His covenant laid hold of, by any stranger not born of Jacob and His sons.

so guessing doesn't prove anything but your false Gentile interpretation and adding to the bible things not recorded. Rahab was a descendant of Abraham through Sarai.

Not a descendant of Jacob with the children of Israel by birth. Nor were the children of Ishmael.

Now, you have resorted to disannulling the necessity of being a child of Israel by birth, in order to cling to a covenant made only with the children of Israel by birth. (Not to mention making all Moabites Hebrews, and thus equal to the children of Israel by Jacob.)

Mar 3:25And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.

If you preached such examples of them that are not children of Israel by birth, as good partakers of the God of Israel's covenant, then the real Jews preaching a Jews' only covenant of the God of Israel, would reject you the same as they did Jesus, who told the Jews that flesh bloodline was not necessary to lay hold of the covenant of the God of Israel.

Which now is of the risen God of Israel, where no birth of Jew nor Greek is necessary to lay hold of His covenant, but only repentance of faith and obedience, to the Jew first and also the Gentile.

The same as the old covenant to a child of Israel first, and also the Gentile.

The problem with a gentile trying to preach a Jews' only covenant, is that the gentile just doesn't get what a Jews' only covenant is, and would make any Jews' only covenant Jew gnash his teeth in angry offense.