The True Meaning of Romans 9-11

Interplanner said:

re future belief in #71:
and the reason a prophecy's future cannot refer to what happened in the wake of the Gospel is _____? I'm not refering to Rom 11's appeal, of course, which is rhetorical. But its quote of Isaiah is historic. Future to Isaiah, of course, but past tense to Paul. Apply my question to all the OT passages you say are our future. You're reading them as though the NT never happened or said anything.

If your method won't work with Jer 23-33, then what's the point?

--Inter

Click to expand...

Compare these explicitly stated details from Jeremiah 23-33:

"I will give them an heart to know me, that I am the LORD: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart." (Jeremiah 24:7)

"And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:34)

"And they shall be my people, and I will be their God: And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them:" (Jeremiah 32:38-39)

With these explicitly stated details from Nehemiah 13:

4And before this, Eliashib the priest, having the oversight of the chamber of the house of our God, was allied unto Tobiah: 5And he had prepared for him a great chamber, where aforetime they laid the meat offerings, the frankincense, and the vessels, and the tithes of the corn, the new wine, and the oil, which was commanded to be given to the Levites, and the singers, and the porters; and the offerings of the priests. 6But in all this time was not I at Jerusalem: for in the two and thirtieth year of Artaxerxes king of Babylon came I unto the king, and after certain days obtained I leave of the king: 7And I came to Jerusalem, and understood of the evil that Eliashib did for Tobiah, in preparing him a chamber in the courts of the house of God. 8And it grieved me sore: therefore I cast forth all the household stuff of Tobiah out of the chamber. 9Then I commanded, and they cleansed the chambers: and thither brought I again the vessels of the house of God, with the meat offering and the frankincense.
1. 10And I perceived that the portions of the Levites had not been given them: for the Levites and the singers, that did the work, were fled every one to his field. 11Then contended I with the rulers, and said, Why is the house of God forsaken? And I gathered them together, and set them in their place. 12Then brought all Judah the tithe of the corn and the new wine and the oil unto the treasuries. 13And I made treasurers over the treasuries, Shelemiah the priest, and Zadok the scribe, and of the Levites, Pedaiah: and next to them was Hanan the son of Zaccur, the son of Mattaniah: for they were counted faithful, and their office was to distribute unto their brethren. 14Remember me, O my God, concerning this, and wipe not out my good deeds that I have done for the house of my God, and for the offices thereof.
15In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine presses on the sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses; as also wine, grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the sabbath day: and I testified against them in the day wherein they sold victuals. 16There dwelt men of Tyre also therein, which brought fish, and all manner of ware, and sold on the sabbath unto the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem. 17Then I contended with the nobles of Judah, and said unto them, What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the sabbath day? 18Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city? yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the sabbath. 19And it came to pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened till after the sabbath: and some of my servants set I at the gates, that there should no burden be brought in on the sabbath day. 20So the merchants and sellers of all kind of ware lodged without Jerusalem once or twice. 21Then I testified against them, and said unto them, Why lodge ye about the wall? if ye do so again, I will lay hands on you. From that time forth came they no more on the sabbath. 22And I commanded the Levites that they should cleanse themselves, and that they should come and keep the gates, to sanctify the sabbath day. Remember me, O my God, concerning this also, and spare me according to the greatness of thy mercy.
23In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: 24And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews’ language, but according to the language of each people. 25And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves. 26Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin. 27Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to transgress against our God in marrying strange wives? 28And one of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib the high priest, was son in law to Sanballat the Horonite: therefore I chased him from me. 29Remember them, O my God, because they have defiled the priesthood, and the covenant of the priesthood, and of the Levites. 30Thus cleansed I them from all strangers, and appointed the wards of the priests and the Levites, every one in his business; 31And for the wood offering, at times appointed, and for the firstfruits. Remember me, O my God, for good.
Nehemiah 13:4-31

The stark contrast between these statements is conclusive proof that Jeremiah 23-33 was not fulfilled in the return at the tine of Ezera and Nehemiah.

Interplanner said:

re the new covenant:
and the passages (2 Cor 3-5 and Hebrews) say what exactly about the restored kingdom? Is 49 is now. The day of favor and salvation is now (6:2). The temple of the living God is now (6:16). Lev 26, Jer 32, Ezek 37, Is 52, Ezek 20, 2 Sam 7 is now. Paul's now, through the Spirit.

--Inter

Click to expand...

Isaiah 49:1-8 is clearly now. But there is no way to even pretend that Isaiah 49:19 was present in Paul's day or is present today. "For thy waste and thy desolate places, and the land of thy destruction, shall even now be too narrow by reason of the inhabitants, and they that swallowed thee up shall be far away."

ebedmelech said:

I figured as much. When these prophecies speak of the last days you just deny that they apply to the "Israel of God". That's why you have that view.

Click to expand...

My "view" is only that the scriptures actually mean what they explicitly say. Your view is that they mean something entirely different from what they say. You base this view upon a generalized wresting of the words used by the Holy Spirit, such as your bad use of the term "the Israel of God," which you inexcusably interpret to mean "the church." I say inexcusably because there is not an atom of scripture to back up your conclusion about this. it is based in its entirety on your interpretation of the meaning of this one phrase, which the Bible does not define.

Paul, in revealing God's mystery of these things , has told you who Israel is:

Ephesians 3:1-5
For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles—
2 if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace which was given to me for you;
3 that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief.
4 By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,
5 which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;
6 to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,
7 of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God’s grace which was given to me according to the working of His power.

This is revelation from God to the apostle, and you ignore it.

Click to expand...

I do not ignore this at all. In the body of Christ, Jew and gentile are indeed one. But neither this scripture nor even one other scripture says that that one body is Israel.

Now Paul has already told you "they are not all Israel that are descended from Israel"...but you consistently fail to apply that, and therefore you hold to the nation. This is the mystery you ignore!

Click to expand...

I consistently apply this very scripture. I pointed out that the "all Israel" that God will save is a subset of the fleshly Israel, which is exactly and only what the Holy Spirit said in that scripture.

Peter goes further in telling you the same thing:
1 Peter 2:9, 10:
9 But you area chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Do you not notice Peter is telling you the very things God said of Israel? Therefore Jew and Gentiles in Christ are the Israel of God. You just don't understand that.

So be it.

Click to expand...

Your interpretations are built upon two total assumptions. The first is that the scriptural term "the Israel of God" means "the church." This is a rank assumption because no scripture says it. Your second assumption is that the meaning of the clause "they are not all Israel which are of Israel" means that "all Israel" is something different from "Israel." This is not only a pure assumption, but is manifestly incorrect, for every example God gave to demonstrate his meaning in saying this was an example of some, but not all, of the fleshly seed of Abraham being recognized as his seed.

ebedmelech said:

This is what you assume Biblewriter, but is that actually true? As I have said in other posts, that these are spiritual things. He said that to the woman at the well:

John 4:22-24:
22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.
23 But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
24God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Jesus is known for this...like when he spoke to Nicodemas and said "You must be born again". Just as Nicodemas thought that Jesus was speaking literally, you think you should understand the prophecies literally.

I stand not on "my interpretation", I do as the apostle said! I compare spiritual things, with spiritual things.


That's what the scriptures say! It's not assumption! It's exactly what I expect "literalism" to say. You persist in assuming that God is concerned about a nation, that Paul and Peter has told you is ALL BELIEVERS.

Where do you find Jesus affirming any restoration of Israel? When He said to them "BEHOLD YOUR HOUSE IS LEFT TO YOU DESOLATE"...He meant that!!!

Click to expand...

Yes, Jesus most certainly meant exactly what He said at that time, even including the word "until" which He attached to that announcement. You want to ignore that word "until," but it was there nonetheless.

I insist that the scriptures are all true, even that parts you do not like.

And I have repeatedly pointed out an absolutely undeniable fact, that neither Paul nor Peter ever, even once, said that the nation of Israel is "all believers." They only said things you choose to interpret to mean that. But man's interpretation of the meaning of scripture is not scripture.

The reason your chosen system of interpretation is unacceptable is because it simply does away with much of the Bible, making it all out to be simply symbols and riddles, when it is explicitly stated in plain words.

ebedmelech said:

No Biblewriter! Again you make an assertion that I want to do away with the scriptures. You need to stop making that assertion. Even in disagreement, I don't accuse you of "doing away with the scriptures" because I don't assume to know your motive. That is between you and God. Please refrain from making that accusation towards me.

What you have "repeatedly" done is point out that which you believe to be literal interpretation. I have asserted it is spiritual interpretation; and that is a difference in view using the scriptures. if I'm using scripture, I can't be denying scripture. Think on that.

To your point on the word "until"...I don't ignore it. "Until refers to the second coming of The Lord Jesus! That is when it will happen...the only thing is that you will find that there will be know restoration of the Israel.

They broke their covenant Biblewriter...and God owes them nothing. However, in His mercy, He is always saving a remnant of Jews, and will continue to.


Anytime you wish to deal with a passage (whether by PM or in this forum), I will gladly show you I don't deny anything in scripture.

You believe that God is going to bring all the Jews back to Israel...I believe that God is referring to a spiritual Israel of EVERY TRIBE NATION KINDRED AND TONGUE".

That is provable from scripture...without denying anything!

Click to expand...

In regard to the part I have highlighted in boldface, I do not point out what "I believe to be a literal interpretation." I point out what the scriptures actually say. What they actually say is not an interpretation. You point out scriptures that say things you interpret to have a meaning that is different from what they actually say. Claiming the scriptures mean something different from what they actually say is interpretation.

So you are interpreting scripture and I am not interpreting scripture. It is that simple.

You claim you can prove your points from scripture. But you simply cannot, for there is not even one scripture that actually says what you claim they mean. The only thing you can ever point out is scriptures that say things you think mean things other that what they actually say.

Notrash said:

I'm basically asking biblewriter to state what he thinks the "law of God" which will (we believe was/is) wtitten on the heart. This includes the circumcision and indwelling of Deut 39; Ez 36 and Jer 31.

Click to expand...

I am dumbfounded that anyone would even make an issue of this. the law of God written on the heart is an understanding of and heart attachment to the things God would have us to do. That is something that is given to every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, whether now or in the future.

And asking him to either couner and refute the understandings presented about Rom 11 or acknowledge the concept presented.

Click to expand...

This thread is a counter to and a refutation of the distortions of Romans 11 that your group has been systematically presenting.

There have been several points made in other threads which he has not countered (but this often occurs in discussions and sometimes time is needed.for reflection). Points such as John 14:1 equating Jesus enemies with "mine " or Gods enemies in Deut 32 and Isaiah 59 and the great importance of seeking the intent of the writer ( the spirit and meaning of his words ) rather than the "letter" of the words as the appear.

Click to expand...

I utterly reject the concept of "seeking the intent of the writer" as even a way to even begin to approach the truth of God. The only, and I stress, the only way to get the truth of scripture is to seek the intent of the Holy Spirit in inspiring the words that were written. The scriptures explicitly tell us that at least some of the writers of scripture did not understand the very words they personally penned.

I agree that a or perhaps THE primary difference and error of BW's and dispensationalisms view is that of not understanding that Israel of the new covenant is of grace and the blessing promised to the second son over the natiinal mosaic entity of Law. (Gal 4:21ff) and that many prophecies dpoke among the prople of the then still intact national covt were/are fullfilled in brcoming children of God via the Law of faith (Rom 3:31) Ebrdmelech continurs to patiently point these principlrs out as did I in another thread including Rom 2:29, 7:6 and especially 2 Cor 3:6.

It is as Ebed says, BW and dispensationalism must ignore the intended (spiritual) fulfillment in orderto glory in their proclaimed "Faith" in a future fantacy of the letter, law and nation or to justify their own participation of them.

Click to expand...

The truth is, that you must ignore the actual words used by the Holy Spirit to even begin to come up with your supposed "spiritual" fulfillments of scripture. This is unbelief.

It is serious business that has effected individuals, society and the world, even from the ECF's.
,
The more Ebed and others like us expose the faults of the scheme of interpretation the more others , even if not BW, will be able to see those mistakes and the Gozpel of the faith in the reality of the maker of life incarnate and justificatiion and approval via that belief.

The more BW uses words such as Unquestionably, explicicit and so forth the more questionable his defense and perspectuves become as evidenced from theier not standing on their own truth.

.
.

Click to expand...

I use the word explicit for a very simple reason. The things I point out are what the scriptures explicitly say. I know you do not like to hear this, but it is simple fact.

And I use the word unquestionably because there is absolutely no way to even question the fact that the scriptures I point out explicitly say the things I am pointing out.

And I insist on doing this to interfere with your attempts to turn others away from believing what the scriptures explicitly say.

Notrash said:

Rearagraph one. Your answer is to vague to be of any use. What is it that God eould have us do that you say all chridtians now do and which is apparently different than what Jews do now. What is the law of God and the Gospel with respect to it being written on the hearts of believers in accordance with Deut 30, Jer 31 and Ez 36?

Click to expand...

Jews now do not have the law of God written on their hearts, nor did they in Deut 30, Jer 31 or Ez 36. Those three passages promised a future day in which that law wold be written on their hearts. In the past they had the law of God written on paper. And that is all Jews or anyone else who has not personally trusted Jesus will ever have. But when someone truly trusts in Jesus, they get that law written on their hearts. That happens to everyone who trusts now, and it will happen to everyone who trusts Jesus when God finally brings the entire nation of Israel (all of them that have survived up to that time) to a true and living faith in himself.

Re paragraph 2. In the response associated with this 'bump'; specific corrections of your understandings were offered using the very verses.you chose out of Romans 11. They are supported from several angles within the context.

Re: Paragraph 3. I note that BW has declared that his understanding and application of the letter of the words (the explicit reading) to be considered as accurate interpretation OVER the intended meaning of the words as written by the author and writer of the letters.

I hope anyone following this thread or reading it afterwords notes a specific cause and reason of differences of understanding: and that being the faulty hermeneutic principle employed by the dispensationalist AND the open disreguard for seeking the intended meaning and message of the writer.

Thanks for that confession BW.

Click to expand...

You are wresting my words just like you wrest scripture. I did not say that my understanding is accurate as opposed to the intended meaning of the words as written by the authors.

I said, and I rigidly maintain, that the meaning intended by the Holy Spirit is the only true meaning of scripture. What the specific human author meant is immaterial. What God intended when He inspired the words is what really counts. This is a radically different concept from what the human writer thought the words meant.

I pointed out that in some cases the human writers of scripture did not understand the meanings of the very words they penned. The scriptures explicitly tell us this in more than one place.

This stress on the intent of the human author wholly leaves out the divine element in scripture. It is highly related to the false system of interpretation based on what the words would have meant to the original readers. The scriptures explicitly tell us that some of the scriptures were written for the benefit or readers that would come long afterward.

I just noticed that while I was writing this you added the following:

It is the OT prophets who did not completely grasp the message that they were given to relay. It must have been as if they were in a hypnotic state for some prophecies. But the NT writers were commenting upon and interpreting the fulfilling of those OT GRAPHE (Scriptures) in their letters (epistole) to their first century audiences. There is a huge difference between graphe and epistole.

Click to expand...

Thank you for that confession. In making it, you destroyed your thesis. For you have admitted that some of the scriptures were written by men who did not understand the full import of what they were writing.

But then you make the claim that the New Testament writers were entirely different. It is true that they were indwelt with the Holy Spirit when they wrote. But when you stress the thought the human writer had in mind, even as when you stress what the words would have appeared to mean to the first ones to read them, you are simply ignoring the divine element in their writing.

My point was, and is, that the true meaning of any scripture is what the Holy Spirit of God had in mind when He inspired the words. And that this is the only true meaning of any scripture whatsoever.

So a comment in second Corinthians can indeed have been made in reference to a comment in the Revelation, even though the Revelation was by a wholly different author, and had not even been written yet when second Corinthians was written. (And I am not commenting on any particular scripture, just on a principle of interpretation.)

When we look at all scripture as coming directly from God, it becomes very simple. We do not have to know a great deal about the background of the authors or of their original audiences. We only need to be familiar with the entire Bible.

ebedmelech said:

Nonsense Biblewriter! You, I, and everyone else interprets scripture...so that's a non issue.

Click to expand...

It is not a non-issue for one simple reason. My "interpretation" of scripture is that it means what it says, while your interpretation of scripture is that what it means is something wholly different from what it says.

Like I said, ANYTIME you want to prove that something I have stated from scripture is not proper...we can go from there.

Just like I picked apart your assertion here of "The True Meaning Of Romans 9-11", because you ignore the apostle's whole meaning.

Click to expand...

That is what the OP was all about. And rather that ignoring the apostle's whole meaning, I was demonstrating that his meaning was exactly what he said.