Romans 11:26?

Interplanner said:

Krazed,
when a person finds 20 times that Jesus had to correct the literalism of the Pharisees, it is because he is looking clearly at the word of God not away from it to his own understanding. The object is there and is real. He is merely reporting that it is there. The person who is looking away will probably deny that it is there!

Click to expand...

Care to save me some time on research here and tell me the view points of the Sadducees? They had it wrong as well if I recall, right?

We also see his own disciples didn't grasp spiritualization nor literalism either, until his death and resurrection.

Though again, his prophecy concerning crucifixion, was not that real, I mean literally real? I'm sure at the time scholars would all think it was a spiritual, allegorical event, surely the Son of God could not get physically betrayed, restrained, tortured, spit on, beat, and then hanged on a cross with criminals, where He was stabbed in the side, given rotten vinegar (strong drink), and his clothes gambled over, right; whilst not obtaining a broken bone? An not let us forget, God forsaking his only begotten son, Whom HE would raise from the dead who was laid with the rich. An ascend back to heaven, just so Jesus could become the sacrifice for our sins. For surely He couldn't die at the hands of man, nor would He willingly do that, theirs no way they saw that literal; yet it THANKFULLY was.

Yes the entire crux is solely does this passage get told spiritual or literal. Is it past or future. Yes many things will get revealed in the future as to who's right and who's wrong.

In the mean time, we study and converse over eschatology in the hopes that we all will become guided in the proper direction before the events truly begin to unfold, so none are left shocked and bewildered. I personally feel no field has it 100% correct, we are all misguided somewhere in our eschatology belief. Though some are way closer to the truth than others.

Scriptures iterating our Lords death and resurrection( mainly ot, that disciples, Pharisees, Sadducees would have known and misinterpreted their true meaning.)

Isaiah 53:3-9; 53:12
John 1:10-11
Psalm 16:10; 22:1-2; 22:7-8; 22:15; 22:16-18; 24:7-10; 34:20; 41:9; 49:15
Mark 14:10; 15:5; 16:19
Zech 11:12-13; 12:10
Math 22:44; 26:14-16; 27:41-44; 27:35-36; 27:46; 27:48; 27;57-60; 28:2-7
John 19:23; 19:33-36; 20:25-27
Luke 23:34-35
Exodus 12:46
Acts 2:22-32

You can find that pattern (as mentioned) in Daniel and in the Rev a lot.

Click to expand...

We can agree, though I take it slightly further than you- the entire bible, all of the old and New Testament do that.

Last point first:
just to be clear, that was about seeing an image and then getting an explanation from the angel or messenger of God that explained it. No, most of the OT is not like that. Nor the NT. It is just in certain places.

Sadducees:
For whatever reason, they simply denied supernatural activity. So resurrection and angels were out of the question. Yet they believed in a judgement after life.

Literalism:
I was only referring to exact places where a normal event is said to be a metaphor or analogy of another: Lk 9: Jesus was speaking of his "exodus" which he was about to fulfill in Jerusalem. So 1, there had to be an original one; 2, his version would not be the exact same thing. There would be a different enemy and a different solution.

"I am the bread of life." A normal feature of life--or in that case of Israel's manna in the wilderness--is now said to be embodied in himself. He was the new manna; the Law was not food at all.

"Unless you eat my flesh..." The literalist Pharisees then thought cannabalistically. He meant to believe the Gospel for one's spiritual sustenance.

random person said:

And God has always reserved a remnant e.g. 7,000 that did not bow down to Baal.

Israelites can only be saved by accepting Jesus.

Click to expand...

How do you deal with these verses?


Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

Rom 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

random person said:

The Marriage supper already happened.

It happened in 70 AD when God divorced national Israel and married the church. for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. Rev. 18:7

Read Matthew 12:24-28, 43-45 + Revelation 18:2 they are all passages speaking of Israel in the 1st century.

While the kingdom of God was present, demons were cast out. But once Jesus was rejected, crucified and ascended those demons that were cast out brought 7 worse demons back. Jerusalem became the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

Remember the prophecied words of Jesus in Matthew 12:45 - Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

What generation? The generation Jesus was personally speaking to. His contemporary audience.

Where? Judea 1st century.

Click to expand...

Interesting, so you think that Rev 18 is talking about Jerusalem in 70ad?

How do you deal with these verses if that is true?

Rev 18:15 The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,

Rev 18:17 For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off, .

Rev 18:18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!

Rev 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.


I only ask because I want to learn

random person said:

God's grace is irrevocable. God changes not. The gifts and calling and mercy of God can never be annulled. It stood true during the Old Covenant and it still stands true with the New Covenant.

Click to expand...

What is your understanding of this verse?

Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

random person said:

The Jews violently rejected the Gospel in the 1st century, and led the persecutions of Christians before Nero Caesar even hit the scene. Jewish persecution of Christians in the 1 st Century is called the "synagogue of Satan" in Revelation.

But God's abundant mercy, grace, and the waters of life which are in Christ Jesus are still held out to the Jews though.

Click to expand...

Are they still Jews if they reject Christ?

random person said:

Israelites can only be saved by accepting Jesus.

Click to expand...

No doubt about it..

random person said:

Read Romans 2:28-29 & Galatians 6:15 & Philippians 3:3

Click to expand...

Are they still Jews if they reject Jesus?

random person said:

The Jews violently rejected the Gospel in the 1st century, and led the persecutions of Christians before Nero Caesar even hit the scene. Jewish persecution of Christians in the 1 st Century is called the "synagogue of Satan" in Revelation.

But God's abundant mercy, grace, and the waters of life which are in Christ Jesus are still held out to the Jews though.

Click to expand...

That's your interpretation, hunh. It figures.

Actually, he is making the same distinction he has been making throughout Rom. 9-11.

The distinction between "they of Israel" actually "of Israel" - the believing remnant of that nation, and "they of Israel" which "are" not "of Israel," that nation's "disobedient and gainsaying people."

This only proves one more time what you continually deny, that given "the election" of that nation "not yet born" God is not through with Israel. "For they are beloved for the father's sakes" the oath He swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, "For the gifts" He bestowed on that nation, "the adoption, and the glory, ad the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises, pertaining to their "calling" [as Israelites] are without repentance" for actually, He swore the oath concerning them unto Himself.

Danoh said:

That's your interpretation, hunh. It figures.

Actually, he is making the same distinction he has been making throughout Rom. 9-11.

The distinction between "they of Israel" actually "of Israel" - the believing remnant of that nation, and "they of Israel" which "are" not "of Israel," that nation's "disobedient and gainsaying people."

This only proves one more time what you continually deny, that given "the election" of that nation "not yet born" God is not through with Israel. "For they are beloved for the father's sakes" the oath He swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, "For the gifts" He bestowed on that nation, "the adoption, and the glory, ad the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises, pertaining to their "calling" [as Israelites] are without repentance" for actually, He swore the oath concerning them unto Himself.

Click to expand...

Well said.

Rom 11:28 Many of the people of Israel are now enemies of the Good News, and this benefits you Gentiles. Yet they are still the people He loves because He chose their ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Rom 11:29 For God's gifts and His call can never be withdrawn.

Yep. Paul is asserting the very same distinction that Christ made of His Messianic believing fellow Jews in John 1:47 - "Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile!"

There that distinction is between the believing remnant, or believing "nation" within that nation at large, and said nation at large. Just goes to show there is a lot more in Scripture as to the actual identity of this "Israel OF GOD," then we give the Book we claim to believe, credit for.

Slow down. Abraham was Persian, and Isaac was not conceived the normal way. A bit of a shaky start. It never was about the descendancy, says Paul, in Rom 4, 9, Gal 3. It always was about those who would be included by faith. That is how the seed gains the size of a multitude, of the sands of the shore.

The thing you have to be sure you do with the end of Rom 9 is to see the emphatic and decisive inclusion of the Gentile believers in the "we" "elect" "remnant" etc. The 4 OT quotes make it clear. Otherwise, yes, it does look like a subset of genetic Israel.

Interplanner said:

Slow down. Abraham was Persian, and Isaac was not conceived the normal way. A bit of a shaky start. It never was about the descendancy, says Paul, in Rom 4, 9, Gal 3. It always was about those who would be included by faith. That is how the seed gains the size of a multitude, of the sands of the shore.

The thing you have to be sure you do with the end of Rom 9 is to see the emphatic and decisive inclusion of the Gentile believers in the "we" "elect" "remnant" etc. The 4 OT quotes make it clear. Otherwise, yes, it does look like a subset of genetic Israel.

Click to expand...

The shaky start is your claim that Isaac was not conceived in the normal way. Your claim makes God a liar.

...if that is the claim. Interesting parallel to Rom 9 in your point abou lying (has the word of God failed?) and 3:3 because the answer there is not genetic. It is by faith as anyone can see by the end of the chapter. Except BW. Paul was only referring to those Jews who had faith all through his treatment. That's why there is still hope held out that some will believe; there is no blanket endorsement of the genetics past or future.

"His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise." Gal 4:23. It is typically not normal for menopausal women to concieve. (and "born" here means concieved)

It is not genetic in Gal 3 either, as each concluding line of each paragraph and the whole letter and ministry and situation of that church show.

I won't be spending any time on your anti-statements, but if you do have an explanation why the Gentile believers are called sons of Abraham that is positive (does not consist of statements against me or those who believe it), I'd be interested in seeing that. I'm referring to the several statements in rom 9-11 and Gal 3-4 and Eph 2-3.