Romans 10:19; Key to Romans 11:25

[Notrash]

Keys to a noneschatological understaning of Romans 11.

Here are a few thoughts I'm working on to summerize the understanding of Romans 11 that I have come to:

Romans 11 as well as all of Pauls letters as well as most of the books must be understood in light of who the letter was written to, the time period that it was written, the historical circumstances of that time period and thus most importantly how the original readers would have understood the letter.

Furthermore, each word must be understood in it's context in the sentence and the chapter and the surrounding chapters. Each sentence likewise is to be understood in view of the it's surrounding paragraph, chapters and themes of the books and chapters.

Time period was approx 55 Ad from most sources which would have been about 15 yrs before the intense Neronic persecution and tribulation of those days and the desolation of Jerusalem. Equally or perhaps moreso important was that it was perhaps 15 yrs after the Gospel began going to all nations of peoples, if we consider Cornelius' conversion was approximately 40 AD.

Some of the key phrases that dispensationalists use in Romans 11 to support a restoration of Israel are vs 25 and 26.

25For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

"The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;

Some would say that "this mystery" is the same Mystery of the church composed of jew and gentile that Paul spoke of in Eph. I think rather that Paul describes the mystery that he is referring to in the surrounding sentences.

Take note that the reason that he does not want the "romans" or nations to be ignorant of the mystery he is to tell them is so that they do not become wise in their conceits (about God including them in His kingdom) He says just a few verses earlier in verse 23 says that IF they continue not in UNBELIEF, they {Israelites} will be grafted in. Here he is referring to the part of Israel (Individuals) in 55-60 AD that have been blinded to the Gospel even though it has been preached to them by Jewish disciples in Jerusalem and Judea with many results and confirmation by the Holy Spirit. BUT, some of them still do not Believe. Are all Israelites who did not initially believe the Gospel when it was preached in Jerusalem and Judea now in 55 AD cast away ? Has God forsaken remaining Israelites from salvation due to their partial rejection? Verse 23 has the answer as well as other places in ch 11.

18do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." (This type of boasting would be the arrogance that Paul refers to in vs 25) 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

25For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be [fn6] saved, as it is written:
"The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;

Thiis "in part" can either mean partially blinded, or that part of the remaining Israel has been fully blinded. It doesn't make a large difference in this discussion as both are UNTIL or UNTO the fullness of the Gentiles. Perhaps a greek scholar can tell weather part refers to blinded or Israel.

In the previous chapter Paul says concerning Israels blindness and unbelief;

vs 3. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

vs 16,But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

vs 18, But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

Thus, Paul is saying that in 55-60 AD the gospel has been preached in Jerusalem, Judea and unto the ends of the world. Vs 12 includes the Gentiles as equal to the jews needing to hear and call upon Him.
From the progression of the book of Acts we understand that the gospel was first preched in Jerusalem, then Judea, and then to all the nations, and includes the conversion of the non-jews beginning with Cornelius.

vs 19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by [them that are] no people, [and] by a foolish nation I will anger you.

Here Paul asks, Did Israel not know of the gospel going to all the ends of the earth? The hint was told by Moses as Paul explained in vs 19.

The phrase 'them that are no people' would have a familiar sound in a jewish ear. For at the time that the Israelites were first called "a people of God, (Deut 27:9) it was there that non-Israelite would by exclusion be called "not" a people of God. Thus moses was prophesying that God's blessing would one day go out towards those other nations who were considered 'foolish' and who had previously "not" been a people of God. This prophecy is part of the curses that was promised to come upon the Israelites if they did not continue to do all that was recorded in the law (Deut 11-32). As the old covenant of the land/nation promises came to a close and the nation/house of Israel would suffer the curses found in the law, Paul recognized that one of these curses could actually be a blessing to those who might be made jealous unto Salvation by the pouring out of the Spirit upon all nations.

Coincidently, the 'place' where Israel was first called 'a people', and the nations were called 'not' a people of God (east of the Jordan) is the same 'place' that the Church would gather and be formed during the seige and desolation of Jerusalem. Also, both the proclaiming of the Israelites as a People of God AND the place in scripture where they would be called not a people of God were both in the law of the Old Covenant as written in Deut 11-32. This is connected with the Lo-ammi prophecies of Hosea where some people of all nations who were not the people of God will become the people of God.

vs 20, But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. (Here he is again confirming the nations belief in the Christ and the salvation by election, grace and faith.)

They were in a inter-covenant time period. Multitudes of jews believed the gospel and received the Holy Spirit, then the gospel was again rejected by the leaders in Jerusalem symbolized by the Stoning of Stephen and the message went out to Judea again to the Jew first. Then it went to the Gentiles with Cornelius possibly being the first to receive the Holy Spirit.

Now in verse 19, Paul cannot be referring to all of Israel needing to be jealous of those who are not a nation, because multitudes of the Jews DID believe in Christ. Thus he must be referring to the remaining Israel who did not initially believe through the Disciples testimony and remained antagonistic towards Christians even pursuing and persecuting the jew and non jew believers. This would correspond with the time period and events in which they were living. "Judaisers" were trying to reconvert jews who became Christians and were scouring the countryside to find these and other Christians. Remember how they had flogged Peter and told him to stop preaching in his name even early in Jerusalem and how many times Paul says that he received 'lashes'.

 

[A Brother In Christ]

Keys to a nondispensational understaning of Romans 11.
.

which way are you attacking this scripture?

sorry I am stumbling today

 

[Notrash]

which way are you attacking this scripture?

sorry I am stumbling today

It's a good question, especially since it is a long post. And the answer to the question is the very reason for the post.

The answer is through the inductive study practices and CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT..AND MORE CONTEXT.

Historical context, Time period Context, Literary context, context of the covenants, context of the word definition, context within the sentences, phrases, paragraphs, chapters, sections, and book themes, scope and purpose.

Giving meaning and interpretations to phrases and verses out of thier contextual meanings to support the stated doctrinal statements is what Dispensationalism is being accused of. Rather, we begin with inductive study practices of reading, observing, re-reading, defining words and observing tenses, re-reading, asking questions of what a word or phrase is referring to; circling and connecting similar words and phrases in nearby sentences, noticing repeated phrases and stanzas, etc..etc.. etc..

The meaning and understanding of chapter 11''s ideas must be found within the contexts and continuityof their sentences, paragraphs, sections (9-11) , themes, scope and purposes of the book and it's chapters and sections, etc. Dispy's hermeneutic does not agree with and is not supported by Inductive study.

For example, as mentioned in the post, THIS Mystery in 11:25 does not refer to the Mystery that Pual mentions in Eph 2. The understanding of THIS mystery in 11:25 is found in vs 25, and in verses, words, paragraphs and chapters surrounding it and their proper inductive study. "Inductive study" primarily refers to thourough study without pre-mediated or preconceived outcome. It means letting the passage speak for itself by finding it's contextual meaning. The confirmation and testing against other passages is also observed.

The "fullness of the Nations" of 11:25 is associated with vs 10:19. After many jews have recieved the Gospel in Jerusalem and Judea, and it was both recieved and rejected of their bretheren of the flesh, it has gone to the Gentiles who now wonder if the rest of Israel has been cast off.
Paul says, dont' be ignorant of this mystery that some of Israel that will be provoked to Jealousy (preceeding verses) by the fullness of Christ (not full number)in the nations. Paul is referring to Moses prophecy that he mentioned in 10:19.

Don't be arrogant or conceited by believing that God has now favored you. Dont's stop your kindness to the remainng Jews, Don't stop being merciful to them, even though they are your enemies. Christ said to love your enemies....

Notice how this ties into the summary.

30, For as ye (gentiles and unbelieving) in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: (the Gospel went out to the nations) 31, Even so have these (part of Israel who are blinded) also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
For God hath concluded them all (all the nations) in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.(all the nations)

I wanted to write this as kind of a summary of the iron sharpening iron process that has been happening with me in some of these discussions.

Romans 11 is a typical passage in which dispensationalism in even it's earlierst form can be shown to apply meaning to passages and scriptures that are different from their meaning derived from contextual and inductive study.
The claim that Dispy's apply scripture to support doctrinal statements rather than interpret and understand books and sections of scripture whithin their context seems very accurate.

This is not an attack on the people who are dispy's, but a comment about the differences of contextual, inductive, literary hermeneutics compared to supporting doctrinal statements with verses and phrases removed from their contextual meaning. The latter method is similar to the ideas and methods of interpretation of the Talmud where the Pharisees twisted the meaning of the Old testament to support themselves, their desires and their "place" of honor.

AS was mentioned by other writers such as MacPherson and Need (and others) Darby, Irving, Scofield and others promoted a new form of bible reading and study, in which scripture woudl be interpreted and read apart from their contexts.

This also I write to support those who are not comfortable with dispensational hermeneutics, but do not have an alternative manner of study or alternative understanding of some passages.

 

[Notrash]

Romans 10:19; key to Romans 11;25 part 2
This theme of Provoke you to Jealousy that is found in chapter 10 is repeated twice by Paul in chapter 11.

First vs 11.I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall (irrevocably)? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

The next time the phrase "to provoke them to jealousy" is a few verses later in vs 13,14.

For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
If by any means I may provoke to emulation (jealousy)[them which are] my flesh, and might save some of them.

Here Paul is magnifying his office as apostle to the Gentiles EVEN THOUGH he has stated that 9:1

I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: and stated in 10:1Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

Why is Paul magnifying his office as evangelist to the Gentiles?? Because He believes that some of the remaing blinded Part of Israel (vs 25)who did not believe in the Gospel initially in Jerusalem or Judea will yet be made jealous by the fullness and riches in Christ that has come to the Gentiles who have believed in Christ. Paul firmly believes the prophecy given to Moses that he wrote in Rom 10:19,

But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by [them that are] no people, [and] by a foolish nation I will anger you.

This is why it is very important to see that "fullness" in Romans 11:25 does not mean full number as the NIV states. It means fullness and riches in Christ as expressed in parallel in vs 12;

Now if the fall of them [be] the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

Thus, to summarize vs 25, I believe that the fullness of the Gentiles is referring to fullness and riches in Christ that by that time has come upon individuals of all nations (gentiles; same word) after the Gospel was preached in Jerusalem and Judea to the Jews. Part of those remaining Israelites are blinded but are yet elected for saving faith either before their deaths or before the desolation of Jerusalem. Some will be made jealous by this fullness and pouring out of the Holy Spirit upon "them that are not a people" and will (as Pauls hope, confidence and trust is) yet come to believe on Christ. They are not all lost even though they have rejected the Gospel thus far and may be presently persecuting jewish and non jewish believers in Christ JUST AS PAUL did.

So blindness in part having come to Israel "until the fullness of the gentiles (nations) has come in" refers to part of Israel that did not initially believe the preaching in Jerusalem or Judea, were reserved to be "provoked to jealousy" unto salvation by {the fullness of}[them that are] no people, [and] by a foolish nation I will anger you. 10;vs 19. The christian nation is foolishness to the jews, and the cross foolishnes for those who are perishing, but the power of God to those being saved.


This passage is not eschatological and does not refer to a "church age" parenthesis.

Notes on construction of chapter 11.
Paul answers and asks questions that would normally pop up by those reading his letter. For example in 11:1 he asks.

I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin.

This question would be a natural response to the preceeding 3 verses of chapter 10.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-...ion=nkjvp&book=Rom&chapter=010&navigated=yes#

19 But I say, did Israel not know? First Moses says:

"I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation,
I will move you to anger by a foolish nation."

20 But Isaiah is very bold and says:

"I was found by those who did not seek Me;
I was made manifest to those who did not ask for Me."

21 But to Israel he says:

"All day long I have stretched out My hands
To a disobedient and contrary people."

In vs 7 he asks or states:

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for? but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded".

This is a response to vs 5. and NOTICE AT THIS PRESENT TIME:

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

And vs 11 is a response to the questions and ideas raised about stumbling in vss 8-10 which ties vss 7 and 11 together.

I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

8 "God has given them a spirit of stupor, Eyes that they should not see
And ears that they should not hear,
To this very day." [fn3]

9 And David says:

"Let their table become a snare and a trap,
A stumbling block and a recompense to them.
10 Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see,
And bow down their back always."

From verse 12 on he talks about how those who initially disbelieved would be granted the riches and fullness of Christ and regrafted into salvation and their heritage of faith if they abide not in unbelief.

Again, Romans 11 is not eschatological in it's discussion, but Paul with support through the prophets answers the question of the status of those of the jews who had not yet beleived in Christ in 55-60 AD.. Some of them were blinded purposely until the gospel would go to the nations and the riches of Christ would be filled in gentiles. Perhaps it was designed that way so that jews would recognize that this was the promises of Abraham and not the law of Moses and would come out of judaism.....

There might be a difference between blinded and hardened of chapter 9, but that is not part of this discusion.

Some comments about vs 26

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:

1. "AND SO", does not mean 'and then'. It means "In this manner "..... or ... And this is the manner. If we read it without mentally putting a comma after so, it reads.. And this is the manner all Israel shall be saved:

The "and so" can refer to something before it in the sentence but most often something afterwards in the sentences as in this case.

What is the manner that "all Israel shall be saved" ? Paul says ' There shall come out of Zion a deliverer and shall turn ungodliness from Jacob. For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

When were the sins of the elect (figuratively represented as Jacob from it's association in chapter 9) taken away?? Answer, at the cross.

I used to think that the 'deliverer' is Jesus coming in the clouds to remove the ungodly, unbelieving part of Israel from the believing part of Israel at the desolation. But I am more inclined to notice that this section is talking of being saved from ungodliness from within the inner man of the elect. This was His Covenant when he took away sins. He not only canceled sins wages at the cross, but also when HE came "out of Zion" at the ascension he also gave His Holy Spirit to gradually remove ungodliness.

Paul quotes the OT verse which says: there shall come TO Zion a deliverer, (not out of Zion) and it is possible that he is hinting at a double meaning of this section. Isaiah 59, where this quote comes from, expresses ideas of removing oppression from the people which would also point towards Christs allowing the Roman armies to remove the opression from jewish Christians. Thus, there could have been a double meaning.

"All Israel" has been previously defined in chapter 9.

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel:
8)That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Paul uses examples of Isaac and Jacobs election in the womb to explain the promise of election and mercy of salvation as he sums up in vs 16. (CONTEXT)

16, So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

And also in verse 23 and 24

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Thus, "all Israel" in chapter 9 is "not of the jews only, but also of the Gentiles". This is the "Israel of God", the church of elected and faithful of both jews and gentiles together in the body of Christ. The manner in which "All Israelites" (not of the jews only, but aslo of the Gentiles) of the promise and the spirt will be saved; is by having the penalty of their sins taken away and by removal of ungodliness in their lives through the Holy Spirits work. Paul is confirming the characteristics of salvation. Having the penalty and judgement of sin removed from your soul provides the freedom from wrath to work on the ungodliness in our lives through the Holy Spirit.

The main point of this post is to offer an interpretation and understanding of Romans 11 that is taken from a natural reading and studying the passages IN THE CONTEXT OF THEIR HISTORICAL SETTINGS, AND THEIR CONTEXT IN THE SENTENCE, THE PARAGRAPH, THE CHAPTER, AND ESPECIALLY THE SECTION.

For support of those who might believe and interpret likewise, not for prodding under swine hoof.

 

[A Brother In Christ]

This is not an attack on the people who are dispy's, but a comment about the differences of contextual, inductive, literary hermeneutics compared to supporting doctrinal statements with verses and phrases removed from their contextual meaning. The latter method is similar to the ideas and methods of interpretation of the Talmud where the Pharisees twisted the meaning of the Old testament to support themselves, their desires and their "place" of honor.

.

So by context what way should we eat today .... according to the bible

Gen 2:16 eat of any tree
or
gen 9:3-4
or
Lev 11:1-47... law for food
or
1 tim 4:3-5
romans 14:20-23
1 cor 8:12

waiting to here your answer....

 

[Notrash]

So by context what way should we eat today .... according to the bible

Gen 2:16 eat of any tree
or
gen 9:3-4
or
Lev 11:1-47... law for food
or
1 tim 4:3-5
romans 14:20-23
1 cor 8:12

waiting to here your answer....

You forgot the message of Acts of Peters vison. Take eat. Also Paul says that what goes in the body doesnt' defile the soul except if it offends anothers conscience. There are some basic principles still active and beneficial in Leviticus, such as herbs for medicine, but they are not "law" for believers.

In addition, I refered to the context of the covenants as being part of the information to consider.

But your sideskirting the OP.
post this question in it's own thread..

 

[A Brother In Christ]

You sidestep the question and talked alot...

which rule are we to follow?

 

[zeke37]

So by context what way should we eat today .... according to the bible

Gen 2:16 eat of any tree
or
gen 9:3-4
or
Lev 11:1-47... law for food
or
1 tim 4:3-5
romans 14:20-23
1 cor 8:12

waiting to here your answer....

the levitical health laws....


our physical bodies nutritious requirements did not change after Christ

1Tim does not go against this...God created some foods to be received, and some not to be received...they are pointed out in detail in Lev. and all foods we should give thanks for...

but what you eat is not a helll or heaven matter...it is not a salvation matter...but it is stillim[portant..and once one knows the truth, they are accountable for it. don't eat scavengers or bottom feeders...they will make you sick...and that include the scavenger swine/pig/porker...

and I used to love bacon...mmmmmm bacon.


Rom 14, has to do with the way our bretheren see us following God...

eating unclean food does not make one unworthy to be saved by Christ....and to receive the Holy Spirit...else the Christian movement would be rather slow, as most of the entire world eats unclean foods...

we are to understand that we are not to make our bretheren stumble in any way....

1Cor8...same thing...don't offend the bretheren or those who are about to come to Christ....if what you eat offends them, then don't eat it around them...

but it does not mean that we can eat the unclean food, or that we should! at any rate, if one eats unclean food, they are not judged by that alone...but it will make you sick.



sorry OP, i would like to discuss your posts, but I have not the time now, later possibly....I felt I should comment on the health issues though.

in His service
c

 

[Notrash]

which rule are we to follow?

If talking of what to eat, It's not the subject of the Opening post.
Start your own thread. I can answer there if I wish. But as already mentioned, you left out the principles of Peters vison. Zeke answered the question admirably, and I apreciate at least his homage to the OP.
Christ has set us eternally free from any laws of "what to eat".

If your referring to what rule to use to understand Romans 11, the rules of inductive study and interpretation as well as common sense are recommended. As a co-worker in carpentry once said, 'use common sense if available'.
Incorporating context of the covenants is part of inductive study and application. I do not ignore wether the letter was written to the old covenant or the new, eternal (alpha/omega) Covenant.

 

[garry2]

the levitical health laws....


our physical bodies nutritious requirements did not change after Christ

1Tim does not go against this...God created some foods to be received, and some not to be received...they are pointed out in detail in Lev. and all foods we should give thanks for...

but what you eat is not a helll or heaven matter...it is not a salvation matter...but it is stillim[portant..and once one knows the truth, they are accountable for it. don't eat scavengers or bottom feeders...they will make you sick...and that include the scavenger swine/pig/porker...

and I used to love bacon...mmmmmm bacon.

Rom 14, has to do with the way our bretheren see us following God...

eating unclean food does not make one unworthy to be saved by Christ....and to receive the Holy Spirit...else the Christian movement would be rather slow, as most of the entire world eats unclean foods...

we are to understand that we are not to make our bretheren stumble in any way....

1Cor8...same thing...don't offend the bretheren or those who are about to come to Christ....if what you eat offends them, then don't eat it around them...

but it does not mean that we can eat the unclean food, or that we should! at any rate, if one eats unclean food, they are not judged by that alone...but it will make you sick.



sorry OP, i would like to discuss your posts, but I have not the time now, later possibly....I felt I should comment on the health issues though.

in His service
c

Philippians 3
19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

 

[A Brother In Christ]

If talking of what to eat, It's not the subject of the Opening post.
Start your own thread. I can answer there if I wish. But as already mentioned, you left out the principles of Peters vison. Zeke answered the question admirably, and I apreciate at least his homage to the OP.
Christ has set us eternally free from any laws of "what to eat".

If your referring to what rule to use to understand Romans 11, the rules of inductive study and interpretation as well as common sense are recommended. As a co-worker in carpentry once said, 'use common sense if available'.
Incorporating context of the covenants is part of inductive study and application. I do not ignore wether the letter was written to the old covenant or the new, eternal (alpha/omega) Covenant.

the law was the knowledge of sin.... romans 3:20

so by your common sense veiw.... we are to put ourselves under the law... or not

 

[A Brother In Christ]

So by context what way should we eat today .... according to the bible

Gen 2:16 eat of any tree
or
gen 9:3-4
or
Lev 11:1-47... law for food
or
1 tim 4:3-5
romans 14:20-23
1 cor 8:12

waiting to here your answer....

the levitical health laws....


our physical bodies nutritious requirements did not change after Christ

1Tim does not go against this...God created some foods to be received, and some not to be received...they are pointed out in detail in Lev. and all foods we should give thanks for...

but what you eat is not a helll or heaven matter...it is not a salvation matter...but it is stillim[portant..and once one knows the truth, they are accountable for it. don't eat scavengers or bottom feeders...they will make you sick...and that include the scavenger swine/pig/porker...

and I used to love bacon...mmmmmm bacon.


Rom 14, has to do with the way our bretheren see us following God...

eating unclean food does not make one unworthy to be saved by Christ....and to receive the Holy Spirit...else the Christian movement would be rather slow, as most of the entire world eats unclean foods...

we are to understand that we are not to make our bretheren stumble in any way....

1Cor8...same thing...don't offend the bretheren or those who are about to come to Christ....if what you eat offends them, then don't eat it around them...

but it does not mean that we can eat the unclean food, or that we should! at any rate, if one eats unclean food, they are not judged by that alone...but it will make you sick.



sorry OP, i would like to discuss your posts, but I have not the time now, later possibly....I felt I should comment on the health issues though.

in His service
c

so you follow any one you want.... ?


dispensational different groups

But God stays the same... He deals differently with different people

 

[Notrash]

the law was the knowledge of sin.... romans 3:20

so by your common sense veiw.... we are to put ourselves under the law... or not

Irrelevent to the OP.

 

[Notrash]

so you follow any one you want.... ?


dispensational different groups

But God stays the same... He deals differently with different people

Your living in the old covenant times when the nation of Israel was set apart and instructed in the ways of God directly. Their relationship with God was partly a type of the relationship that beleivers now have with the father. The mosaic law and it's ministry pointed to and confirmed Christ as the Messiah, savior of the world. The old covenant of death, and the people of death were to proof that righteousness of the law is unobtainable. (I Cor 3) Neither was the land/nation "old" covenant obtainable because they were unable to continue to keep the law due to being in the flesh.

But Christ has already obtaiined the New Covenant and those who call upon him are crossed over to the Kingdom of God and keep the new Covenant through the Spirit of Life and faith in Christ.

There is now, now jew or gentile... as Paul exposes many times and sums up in chapter 11 vs 32. For God hath concluded them all (all nations) in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all (nations).

 

[A Brother In Christ]

this is a dispensational point of view..... romans 11 is what dispensation?

 

[Notrash]

this is a dispensational point of view..... romans 11 is what dispensation?

Romans 11 in in the intercovenental period of the growth of the New Covenent as the Old covenant is getting ready to disappear. (Hebrews) Just as the old covenant was established over a 40 yr period after the time they killed the passover lamb, so also the New Covenant was increasingly confirmend to be the genuine replacement for the old covenant through a 40 yr period from the killing of the eternal passover lamb.

The dispensational view of interpreting Rom 11:25/26 as referring to a PARANTHETICAL church age of the gentiles is wrong because of using erroneous literal hermeneutic and a scheme that allows the bible to be read and interpreted apart from it's context. That is PART of the point of the post. However, the post doesn't start out by assuming that it is wrong, it starts out by establishing correct hermeneutic and then using inductive study principles to study and understand Romans 11:25,26 within the context of the verses, phrases, paragraphs, and chapters of Rom 9-11 and also within the the whole book of Romans (although the post primarily focuses on Rom 9-11).

Your response above gives a strong inclination that you haven't read the Opening post. Otherwise you would be discussing points of the post, rather than maintining the laws of dispensationalism.

An example of one conclusion or interpretive understanding is that the "fullness of the Gentlies" refers to the time when the Gospel went to and was recieved by the 'nations' begining with Cornelius. Thus begun the fullness of the Nations (gentiles; exact same word) in Christ. This is confirmed by the verb tense at the end of the sentence which says 'the fullness of the nations which has come in. (the idea that I have read is that this verb tense means "that which has come in" as in past tense.)

This conclusion is also confirmed IN CONTEXT of the preceeding verses in chapter 11 where he asks: I say then, Have they (unbelieving Israel) stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, [nations] (BEGINNING WITH CORNELIUS) for to provoke them to jealousy. And a few verses later Paul is boasting of his ministry to the Gentiles in hopes he might make some of his own people jealous unto emulation, AND SAVE SOME OF THEM. (IN 55 AD AND ONWARD)

Both of these verses in Chapter 11 stem from Romans 10:19 in which Paul quotes the old testament which predicted that the Gospel would go to those who are not a nation, and 'a foolish people', and promised/predicted the jealousy unto salvation in the new covenant that would be wrought back to the jews. vs 19, But I say, Did not Israel know? (that the gospel would go to all the earth, vs 18) First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by [them that are] no people, [and] by a foolish nation I will anger you.

It might help to read the post before commenting on it.

 

[A Brother In Christ]

Keys to a nondispensational understaning of Romans 11.

.

which way are you attacking this scripture?

sorry I am stumbling today

yet you forget I could not get past the first sentence .....


Gal 3:28..... col 3:11 anyone saved right now has no earth citizenship but a heavenly one phil 3:20-21

thus thu a dispensational glasses have different promises than OT Jews that believed 2 peter 1:4, heb 11:39-40

They are apart of the New man..... eph 2:15

 

[A Brother In Christ]

Keys to a nondispensational understaning of Romans 11.


Some of the key phrases that dispensationalists use in Romans 11 to support a restoration of Israel are vs 25 and 26.



Some would say that "this mystery" is the same Mystery of the church composed of jew and gentile that Paul spoke of in Eph. I think rather that Paul describes the mystery that he is referring to in the surrounding sentences.

Take note that the reason that he does not want the "romans" or nations to be ignorant of the mystery he is to tell them is so that they do not become wise in their conceits (about God including them in His kingdom) He says just a few verses earlier in verse 23 says that IF they continue not in UNBELIEF, they {Israelites} will be grafted in. Here he is referring to the part of Israel (Individuals) in 55-60 AD that have been blinded to the Gospel even though it has been preached to them by Jewish disciples in Jerusalem and Judea with many results and confirmation by the Holy Spirit. BUT, some of them still do not Believe. Are all Israelites who did not initially believe the Gospel when it was preached in Jerusalem and Judea now in 55 AD cast away ? Has God forsaken remaining Israelites from salvation due to their partial rejection? Verse 23 has the answer as well as other places in ch 11.

definition of a mystery.... eph 3:9-10,col 1:26,romans 16:25-26

Mystery Gospel......... romans 16:25-26,eph 6:19
Mystery of the dispensation of grace from God.... eph 3:2,9
Mystery of Christ in You the hope of glory ..... col 1:27
Mystery of the Christ ... eph 3:3-6
Mystery of the God even the Father and the Christ ..... col 2:2-3
Mystery of Goliness ...... 1 tim 3:16
Mystery of the Faith ... 1 tim 3:9
Mystery of Israel's hardness.... romans 11:25
Mystery of the Rapture of the Church .... 1 cor 15:51-54
Mystery of Christ and the bride.... eph 5:32
mystery of lawlessness ..... 2 thes 2:2-7
Mystery of God's will eph 1:9-10

Thiis "in part" can either mean partially blinded, or that part of the remaining Israel has been fully blinded. It doesn't make a large difference in this discussion as both are UNTIL or UNTO the fullness of the Gentiles. Perhaps a greek scholar can tell weather part refers to blinded or Israel.

In the previous chapter Paul says concerning Israels blindness and unbelief;


Thus, Paul is saying that in 55-60 AD the gospel has been preached in Jerusalem, Judea and unto the ends of the world. Vs 12 includes the Gentiles as equal to the jews needing to hear and call upon Him.
From the progression of the book of Acts we understand that the gospel was first preched in Jerusalem, then Judea, and then to all the nations, and includes the conversion of the non-jews beginning with Cornelius.


Here Paul asks, Did Israel not know of the gospel going to all the ends of the earth? The hint was told by Moses as Paul explained in vs 19.



They were in a intercovenant time period. Multitudes of jews believed the gospel and recieved the Holy Spirit, then the gospel was again rejected by the leaders in Jerusalem symbolized by the Stoning of Stephen and the message went out to Judea again to the Jew first. Then it went to the Gentiles with Cornelius possibly being the first to recieve the Holy Spirit.

Now in verse 19, Paul cannot be referring to all of Israel needing to be jealous of those who are not a nation, because multitudes of the Jews DID believe in Christ. Thus he must be referring to the remaining Israel who did not initially believe through the Disciples testimony and remained antagonistic towards Christians even pursuing and persecuting the jew and non jew believers. This would coorespond with the time period and events in which they were living. "Judaisers" were trying to reconvert jews who became Christians and were scouring the countryside to find these and other Christians. Remember how they had flogged Peter and told him to stop preaching in his name even early in Jerusalem and how many times Paul says that he recieved 'lashes'.

All unbelievers at the 2nd coming will die....... whether Jew or Greek

 

[Notrash]

definition of a mystery.... eph 3:9-10,col 1:26,romans 16:25-26

Mystery Gospel......... romans 16:25-26,eph 6:19
Mystery of the dispensation of grace from God.... eph 3:2,9
Mystery of Christ in You the hope of glory ..... col 1:27
Mystery of the Christ ... eph 3:3-6
Mystery of the God even the Father and the Christ ..... col 2:2-3
Mystery of Goliness ...... 1 tim 3:16
Mystery of the Faith ... 1 tim 3:9
Mystery of Israel's hardness.... romans 11:25
Mystery of the Rapture of the Church .... 1 cor 15:51-54
Mystery of Christ and the bride.... eph 5:32
mystery of lawlessness ..... 2 thes 2:2-7
Mystery of God's will eph 1:9-10





All unbelievers at the 2nd coming will die....... whether Jew or Greek

And what does this information have to do with an inductive study of Romans 11 within the context of Romans 9-11.

Your simply spittign out dispensational doctrines and perspectives to also include rom 11;25,26 into that doctrine. In effect, your writing your own bible according to a doctrine to be promoted and pulling verses here and there to prop it up without using the meaning of those verses in their context.

The "mystery" in Rom 11;25 is the mystery of part of remaining unbelieving Israels conversion through the jealousy invoked through the conversion and FULLNESS of the Nations; through the gospel going out to the nations. Again, the "hardness" is not the subject or focus of Rom 11;25, but the mercy of God even to 55 AD jews through the spreading of the gospel to the nations.

Focusing on the hardness of the jews is again due to looking through dispensational glasses and not through contextual, inductive study.
Read the entire post and it's subject and theme, before cutting it up.

 

[A Brother In Christ]

And what does this information have to do with an inductive study of Romans 11 within the context of Romans 9-11.

Your simply spittign out dispensational doctrines and perspectives to also include rom 11;25,26 into that doctrine. In effect, your writing your own bible according to a doctrine to be promoted and pulling verses here and there to prop it up without using the meaning of those verses in their context.

so there is context of one book ... then the context of the bible as a whole.... trinity is not in the bible but do you believe in it? Dispensation or steward is used in 1 cor 9:17 ; eph 1:10,3:2 ; col 1:25

The "mystery" in Rom 11;25 is the mystery of part of remaining unbelieving Israels conversion through the jealousy invoked through the conversion and FULLNESS of the Nations; through the gospel going out to the nations. Again, the "hardness" is not the subject or focus of Rom 11;25, but the mercy of God even to 55 AD jews through the spreading of the gospel to the nations.

the believers in 55ad where not Jews anymore in the heavens... maybe still on earth.... but not positionally

Focusing on the hardness of the jews is again due to looking through dispensational glasses and not through contextual, inductive study.
Read the entire post and it's subject and theme, before cutting it up.

so you cannot do both... ? limiting yourself aren't you