The True Meaning of Romans 9-11

[Danoh]

Are you sure, BAB2, that BW is excluding Ruth?

Remember, we each see these things differently... here is my take, which I believe resulted in the Dispensational hermeneutic - when the passages are approached on their own merit.

Here is the issue Paul is dealing with in Romans 2.

John 5:
43. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45. Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

John 8:
33. They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34. Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

Romans 2:
17. Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,

In Romans 2, Paul, is dealing with issues under the Law prior to the Cross that he is gradually moving the focus of his argument towards by the latter portion of Romans 3.

He relates in Romans 2 that, back then, it was not enough for a Jew to rest in his being a Jew by the covenant of circumcision - to conclude from that, that "we be of Abraham's seed."

25. For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

In this, someone like Ruth - a Gentile in Time Past - would have fit the description as to faith under that system back then that Paul here relates as:

26. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

27. And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

In this, the Gentile's - who had not the Law - their conversion in faith to that Law system then in place - their heart actually judged the heart of these self-styled pious Jews, who "restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;" 2:17, 18.

Compare, for example, the sameness in issue between the following passages:

John 5:
44. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

John 8:
33. They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34. Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

37. I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

Romans 2:
28. For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

The issue Paul is dealing with; as he moves the case he is trying forward – that all are guilty; that there is none righteous; that all need the Cross - is the issue of those Jew's guilt in this – Jews in the flesh, or by the covenant of circumcision, who concluded from said circumcision in the flesh, that that was enough.

Paul is relating not only that it had not been enough, but why, back when the issue was the Law system:

25. For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
28. For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.


In short, Paul is not dealing with how that works now, as he brings that in after the Cross at about Romans 3:21.

But prior to Romans 3:21’s “But now, the righteousness of God without the Law,” he is dealing with an issue of faith back then, with how that worked then – when the Jew was to rest in the Law – he is proving a case against those who, when such had been the issue back then, they had failed in it.

He is not talking about some spiritual, ethnic-less Jew. He is dealing with the Jew in the flesh under the Law, with their failure under the Law.

And again, a Gentile like Ruth would not have been an issue for God, were such Gentiles to "become Jews."

Romans 2:

26. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

What makes that Dispensational is the Things That Differ, as to that then, in contrast to now - for that is what the Dispensational hermeneutic basically is - distinctions - but more importantly how, it came to be recovered.

In this, in my estimate of someone like a Darby, let's say for the sake of your argument that he was reading Lacunza or whomever, just as one might read the writings, of say, Josephus.

And he has either already been moving in a direction similar in distinctions or becomes aware of them, through a Lacunza, or a Josephus, and sees them for what they are regardless of their source just as one might respect Martin Luther's distinctions back when he had yet parted company with the RCC.

Considerations on these issues without that possibility, is, in my observation, poor inductive reasoning, thus, its resulting incomplete premise and those deductions said premise then erroneously moves forward from.

I mean, that is how I came to embrace the Dispensational hermeneutic when I first encountered it - I had been noting distinctions between Things That Differ that only rationalizing them away could hide one's eyes from.

Later, when I found others had been noting my same Acts 9 [Mid-Acts] distinctions longer than I had been on this earth, and looked into same from the two-fold principle of Acts 17:11 I had long since embraced as my own before knowing of any of these people, I found we had that in common - distinctions as to Things That Differ - that could not be gainsaid other than by rationalizing them away.

You may or may not agree with any of this, but that does not give you a right to besmirch these men as if you know what their actual heart and thought process had been - which is Paul's very case in Romans 2 - the issue of the heart, in the spirit.

An issue which, rant all you wish, only God knoweth.

 

[BABerean2]

I don't know what he meant, that is why I asked him.

I think the last time I heard the word "besmirched" was on an episode of the Andy Griffith Show. It may have been uttered by "Mr. Darling".

I have to admit Danoh, I did get a chuckle out of that comment.

 

[Danoh]

I don't know what he meant, that is why I asked him.

I think the last time I heard the word "besmirched" was on an episode of the Andy Griffith Show. It may have been uttered by "Mr. Darling".

I have to admit Danoh, I did get a chuckle out of that comment.

We aim to please, so... please aim, lol

 

[eclipsenow]

"Other scriptures clearly and explicitly state that "all the house of Israel, all of it" will again inhabit "the mountains of Israel," with "the hills, the valleys, the rivers, and the desolate places." And they go so far as to define the future borders of the land."
​

This was a superlative, hyperbole laden passage that spoke of a super-temple and super-land: a metaphor for the kingdom of God in heaven! Jesus fulfils ALL OT prophet, priest, and king roles: and that flows through into how we see the scriptures, priesthood, and nations / kingdom of God. In this way the gospel so OVER-fulfils the OT exile 'land' promises, by giving us the whole world, that any literal reading of those passages reduces the effectiveness of Jesus priestly, prophetic, and kingly work for us: and indeed, reduces the gospel itself.

"And Paul never so much as implied that someone who is not a Jew by blood could be a Jew. He was saying that it is not enough to be a Jew by blood, it must be by faith as well as by blood."​

Show me where Paul says we must become Jews to be saved! You're getting the gospel twisted up in your Dispensational end-times-tables requirements.

nd those who simply believe the promises made to Israel do not even imagine that anyone will ever be saved without faith in Jesus.

I'll grant you that in your theology: but it's when you start to apply it to history that your statements come out ambiguous and start to erode the clear gospel Paul presents to us in Romans.

The same scriptures that promise that absolutely all of Israel will be restored,

All the kingdom has been restored through Jesus death on the cross. We cannot be a Jew outwardly, but inwardly, circumcision of the heart, faith not works, and all that jazz. But let's just ignore the majority of Romans to misread one verse, shall we?

"also plainly declare that when that happens, all the rebels will be purged from their midst, and that all the rest will repent with bitter weeping."​

Yes, OT apocalyptic language shows us some sort of heavenly Jerusalem. It's apocalyptic! It is imagery with a certain vibe. But getting too hung up on the details misses the point of the vibe of the passages! That vibe is actually fulfilled in eschatological tension. It's now, and then heaven. The kingdom IS secure right now! Jesus DID save us all! All Israel has been saved, in that every Christian that trusts in Jesus is secure in his love. But not yet. We're not there yet. We're seated in heaven (Eph) but we're not actually living there in subjective experience yet. Eschatological tension: can ya dig it?

 

[Biblewriter]

"Other scriptures clearly and explicitly state that "all the house of Israel, all of it" will again inhabit "the mountains of Israel," with "the hills, the valleys, the rivers, and the desolate places." And they go so far as to define the future borders of the land."
​

This was a superlative, hyperbole laden passage that spoke of a super-temple and super-land: a metaphor for the kingdom of God in heaven! Jesus fulfils ALL OT prophet, priest, and king roles: and that flows through into how we see the scriptures, priesthood, and nations / kingdom of God. In this way the gospel so OVER-fulfils the OT exile 'land' promises, by giving us the whole world, that any literal reading of those passages reduces the effectiveness of Jesus priestly, prophetic, and kingly work for us: and indeed, reduces the gospel itself.

So, as always, the only way you can "get around" these plainly stated scriptures is to simply deny that they actually mean what they so explicitly say. But it is simply false to claim that these are "superlative, hyperbole lade" passages. They are plain, simple statements, made in ordinary language. The ony reason you want to dismiss them as mere "hyperbole" is because you simply do not want to believe what they say.

"And Paul never so much as implied that someone who is not a Jew by blood could be a Jew. He was saying that it is not enough to be a Jew by blood, it must be by faith as well as by blood."

Show me where Paul says we must become Jews to be saved! You're getting the gospel twisted up in your Dispensational end-times-tables requirements.


I'll grant you that in your theology: but it's when you start to apply it to history that your statements come out ambiguous and start to erode the clear gospel Paul presents to us in Romans.

Your distortion of dispensational doctrine is positively libeious, and is a violation of forum rules. We most certainly do not teach that anyone has to become a Jew to be saved. And no dispensational teacher I even even heard of has even made such a ridiculous statement.

And I have no idea how you imagine that we "apply it to history." We know it is future, not history, because the scriptures plainly declared it would happen, and it has never happened.

All the kingdom has been restored through Jesus death on the cross. We cannot be a Jew outwardly, but inwardly, circumcision of the heart, faith not works, and all that jazz. But let's just ignore the majority of Romans to misread one verse, shall we?

"also plainly declare that when that happens, all the rebels will be purged from their midst, and that all the rest will repent with bitter weeping."​

Yes, OT apocalyptic language shows us some sort of heavenly Jerusalem. It's apocalyptic! It is imagery with a certain vibe. But getting too hung up on the details misses the point of the vibe of the passages! That vibe is actually fulfilled in eschatological tension. It's now, and then heaven. The kingdom IS secure right now! Jesus DID save us all! All Israel has been saved, in that every Christian that trusts in Jesus is secure in his love. But not yet. We're not there yet. We're seated in heaven (Eph) but we're not actually living there in subjective experience yet. Eschatological tension: can ya dig it?

Oh yes, I most certainly "dig" the fact that the only way you can "get around" these plainly stated scriptures is to imagine that they are merely "apocalyptic language." But when you say this, you only show that you do not wish to believe what these scriptures very plainly and explicitly say will happen.

Apocalyptic language never explicitly says that the things in the visions will happen. It gives a vision, in which things happen, and then, when it is explained, the future events are stated, not in apocalyptic language, but in plain speech.

Daniel 7 is a perfect example of this. the vision is apocalyptic. But the explanation is in plain speech.

 

[eclipsenow]

So, as always, the only way you can "get around" these plainly stated scriptures is to simply deny that they actually mean what they so explicitly say. But it is simply false to claim that these are "superlative, hyperbole lade" passages. They are plain, simple statements, made in ordinary language. The ony reason you want to dismiss them as mere "hyperbole" is because you simply do not want to believe what they say.

​

1. Interpret the clearer verses of scripture (like the essential gospel itself!) first and then the less clear
2. The passages I *think* you're referring to are anything but clear, literal, simple, easy to understand passages. They are often by prophets in highly apocalyptic, symbolic language open to a variety of interpretations.

Your distortion of dispensational doctrine is positively libeious, and is a violation of forum rules. We most certainly do not teach that anyone has to become a Jew to be saved. And no dispensational teacher I even even heard of has even made such a ridiculous statement.

No, it's not libellous or a violation of forum rules because I did not say that is what you teach! I asked you to watch how you phrase things. If you don't believe what you said could be misconstrued, then please go back and have another look. You're getting too emotional for this conversation and I'm thinking of pulling out unless you can become a bit more objective.

And I have no idea how you imagine that we "apply it to history." We know it is future, not history, because the scriptures plainly declared it would happen, and it has never happened.

Plainly. Yeah, riiiight.

Oh yes, I most certainly "dig" the fact that the only way you can "get around" these plainly stated scriptures is to imagine that they are merely "apocalyptic language." But when you say this, you only show that you do not wish to believe what these scriptures very plainly and explicitly say will happen.

They are apocalyptic language... or Jesus has 7 horns and 7 eyes, and Greece has giant panthers, and Rome has big iron teeth, etc etc etc.

Apocalyptic language never explicitly says that the things in the visions will happen. It gives a vision, in which things happen, and then, when it is explained, the future events are stated, not in apocalyptic language, but in plain speech.

Just like Revelation is all reinterpreted for us in plain speech! Oh, THAT apocalyptic language! That one that's always interpreted for us! Yeah, that one.

Daniel 7 is a perfect example of this. the vision is apocalyptic. But the explanation is in plain speech.

And revelation is a perfect example of apocalyptic language that isn't interpreted plainly for us, so unless you're going to say Revelation isn't apocalyptic language, I think you'd better drop that rather contrived and entirely unscholarly, unreal definition of prophetic apocalyptic symbolism right now.​

 

[Biblewriter]

1. Interpret the clearer verses of scripture (like the essential gospel itself!) first and then the less clear
2. The passages I *think* you're referring to are anything but clear, literal, simple, easy to understand passages. They are often by prophets in highly apocalyptic, symbolic language open to a variety of interpretations.


No, it's not libellous or a violation of forum rules because I did not say that is what you teach! I asked you to watch how you phrase things. If you don't believe what you said could be misconstrued, then please go back and have another look. You're getting too emotional for this conversation and I'm thinking of pulling out unless you can become a bit more objective.


Plainly. Yeah, riiiight.


They are apocalyptic language... or Jesus has 7 horns and 7 eyes, and Greece has giant panthers, and Rome has big iron teeth, etc etc etc.


Just like Revelation is all reinterpreted for us in plain speech! Oh, THAT apocalyptic language! That one that's always interpreted for us! Yeah, that one.


And revelation is a perfect example of apocalyptic language that isn't interpreted plainly for us, so unless you're going to say Revelation isn't apocalyptic language, I think you'd better drop that rather contrived and entirely unscholarly, unreal definition of prophetic apocalyptic symbolism right now.

You are falsely accusing me of interpreting apocalyptic symbols. I make a point of avoiding that. I speak of the prophecies that are not couched in apocalyptic symbolism, but in plain speech.

The fact that you do not understand the difference between these different modes of prophesying, only proves that you have never actually studied the scriptures you are so crassly discarding.

 

[eclipsenow]

You are falsely accusing me of interpreting apocalyptic symbols. I make a point of avoiding that. I speak of the prophecies that are not couched in apocalyptic symbolism, but in plain speech.

The fact that you do not understand the difference between these different modes of prophesying, only proves that you have never actually studied the scriptures you are so crassly discarding.

The fact that you read them literally means you have a category error. They're not literal. It's like reading Shakespeare to find out how to tune your car. (IF it's the chapters I think you're referencing).

 

[Biblewriter]

The fact that you read them literally means you have a category error. They're not literal. It's like reading Shakespeare to find out how to tune your car. (IF it's the chapters I think you're referencing).

Actually, I rarely say anything about the Revelation at all. I do not often cmment on apocalyptic passages, because no one can be certain of their meaning, and I normally deal only with that portion of Bible prophecy that is expressly stated in plain words. The prophecies I spoke of, that are expressly stated in plain words, are almost all in the Old Testament.

 

[eclipsenow]

Actually, I rarely say anything about the Revelation at all. I do not often cmment on apocalyptic passages, because no one can be certain of their meaning, and I normally deal only with that portion of Bible prophecy that is expressly stated in plain words. The prophecies I spoke of, that are expressly stated in plain words, are almost all in the Old Testament.

Where do you think apocalyptic symbolism started?

 

[Biblewriter]

Where do you think apocalyptic symbolism started?

Yes, there is indeed apocalyptic symbolism in the Old Testament. But the meaning of most (although by no means all) of that symbolism is explained in the very inspired text of scripture itself. So when we come to the part that explains the meaning of the apocalyptic symbolism, we are no longer dealing with apocalyptic symbolism, but with express statements made in clear language.

And by the way, most of the apocalyptic symbols explained in the Old Testament are used again in the New Testament.

I took exception only to your claim that "all" the futuristic prophecies are contained in apocalyptic symbolism. That is clearly incorrect.

For instance, there is nothing even resembling apocalyptic symbolism in the following words:

"When the Assyrian comes into our land, And when he treads in our palaces, Then we will raise against him Seven shepherds and eight princely men. They shall waste with the sword the land of Assyria, And the land of Nimrod at its entrances; Thus He shall deliver us from the Assyrian, When he comes into our land And when he treads within our borders." (Micah 5:5-6)

And there is no rational way to even pretend that this has ever been fulfilled.

 

[Rev20]

Yes, there is indeed apocalyptic symbolism in the Old Testament. But the meaning of most (although by no means all) of that symbolism is explained in the very inspired text of scripture itself. So when we come to the part that explains the meaning of the apocalyptic symbolism, we are no longer dealing with apocalyptic symbolism, but with express statements made in clear language.

And by the way, most of the apocalyptic symbols explained in the Old Testament are used again in the New Testament.

I took exception only to your claim that "all" the futuristic prophecies are contained in apocalyptic symbolism. That is clearly incorrect.

For instance, there is nothing even resembling apocalyptic symbolism in the following words:

"When the Assyrian comes into our land, And when he treads in our palaces, Then we will raise against him Seven shepherds and eight princely men. They shall waste with the sword the land of Assyria, And the land of Nimrod at its entrances; Thus He shall deliver us from the Assyrian, When he comes into our land And when he treads within our borders." (Micah 5:5-6)

And there is no rational way to even pretend that this has ever been fulfilled.

There is no rational way that prophecy can be properly interpreted without assistance from the Holy Spirit (which we received on other prophecies from Christ and his Apostles.) And NO prophecy can be properly interpreted without taking into account the time contexts provided by the scripture.

For example, Micah was a pre-Assyrian prophet, and Micah 5 is CLEARLY referring to the upcoming invasion and captivity of Israel by the Assyrians, followed by the destruction of the Assyrians (by the Chaldeans.) Micah states the Lord will give up Israel to the invaders(5:3.) But in the same verse, and the previous one, Micah also gives hope to Israel that, in the future, a permanent ruler (Christ) would come forth from among them. That kind of "punishment for now, but hope for the future" was common in many, maybe most prophecies. A notable exception would be Deuteronomy 31:29.

 

[Danoh]

There is no rational way that prophecy can be properly interpreted without assistance from the Holy Spirit (which we received on other prophecies from Christ and his Apostles.) And NO prophecy can be properly interpreted without taking into account the time contexts provided by the scripture.

For example, Micah was a pre-Assyrian prophet, and Micah 5 is CLEARLY referring to the upcoming invasion and captivity of Israel by the Assyrians, followed by the destruction of the Assyrians (by the Chaldeans.) Micah states the Lord will give up Israel to the invaders(5:3.) But in the same verse, and the previous one, Micah also gives hope to Israel that, in the future, a permanent ruler (Christ) would come forth from among them. That kind of "punishment for now, but hope for the future" was common in many, maybe most prophecies. A notable exception would be Deuteronomy 31:29.

That is your "rational."

Admittedly this may offend... my apology in advance...

Fact of the matter is that "when that which is perfect" was "come" the Spirit's help outside of The Book ceased, as those "words [by] which the Holy Ghost teacheth" were now "perfect," or complete.

Apparently never having thought to exegete this aspect of study, what you really rely on is what you read about in the books of your favorite authors that you then read the reasoning of into the Scriptures, and then conclude "the Spirit led me..."

You really need to look into this; study out its workings.

 

[eclipsenow]

In this post:

1. Romans is about one kingdom of God in Christ
2. Other New Testament passages to deal with
3. Romans 11: ‘All Israel’

1. ROMANS IS ABOUT ONE KINGDOM OF GOD IN CHRIST
Paul went to great lengths to explain to us that true Jews are us individual Christians who have trusted in Jesus death and resurrection to save us and make us a part of the New Covenant, the New Kingdom! He did so in the same book of Romans that Dispensationalist's misread, making their interpretation even more unfathomable!

EG: Romans 2:28-29
"A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God."

Paul also said that "all Israel" is not "all Israel." I would think very carefully before I let the misinterpretation of a single verse in Roman's 11 blind me to other parts of Paul's address to the Romans. For example, would Paul have said this if "all Israel," as you understand it, would be saved?
Romans 9:2-8
"2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring."

Summary: Israel, like all outside of Christ, are cursed. But the kingdom of God continues in Christ.

Who are the children of the promise? Paul then uses a number of God's acts of mercy in the OT to show how it is God's choice, not human effort, that determines who will be saved. Some Dispensationalist try to argue that Paul highlights human bloodlines here, and so some special promises still remain for Israel. That’s rubbish. Paul doesn’t highlight human bloodlines but discusses *a number* of God’s choices in judgement and mercy, including Moses and Pharaoh, God as the potter and the *whole human race* as the clay. Bloodline promises? That’s a figment of Dispensationalist’s fevered imagination. Paul even highlights Hosea’s prophecy concerning us gentiles coming into the kingdom. “In the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘children of the living God.”

In case there was any doubt about how we are to enter this kingdom, Paul unpacks it at the end of Romans 9:
“30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”

Yet Dispensationalist try to make Romans 9 to 11 to be all about inevitable promises to a human-effort bloodline? I don't understand how they flip God's election through Jesus around like that. It's not about bloodlines. It's just not: no matter what whacky end-times tables the Dispensationalists might want to add to scripture here. It's about the gospel. It's about both ethnic Jews and non-Jews finding salvation in Christ.

2. OTHER NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES TO DEAL WITH

Peter says:
Acts 3:22-23
22 For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. 23 Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from their people.’"

If a Jew rejects Jesus, they are cut off from their people.

Matthew 3:8-10
“8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”


3. ROMANS 11: ‘All Israel’
Even the famous ‘all Israel’ of Romans 11 is about the gospel, not the ‘nation’. Dispensationalists hyperventilate with excitement about the 1948 formation of the largely secular nation of Israel. They claim it is something to do with Romans 11 being fulfilled! But a serious reading of the passage shows 1948 to be irrelevant, a fluke of history, and nothing to do with some foreordained scriptural promise. The focus of the passage? Nothing other than the gospel itself, and how Jesus death and resurrection is the only hope through which both Jews and Gentiles can be saved.

Romans 11: 25 to 32
“25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”
28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”

First, Paul is not explaining something that *will* happen but that *has* happened and is continuing to happen. It’s past tense and present tense promises, not prophecy. Because of the Jewish rejection of the Christ, salvation has come to us gentiles. This is a repeated theme in the New Testament, and Paul is “giving a theological interpretation to historical events’. (Ziesler, 1989). In Acts Luke shows 4 significant moments where they took the gospel to the Jews who refused it, and so the gospel goes to the Gentiles. Paul does the same in his missions. Romans 11 merely sums up what has already happened.

Further, Luke also mentions occasions where Jews are jealous of the gospel and the disciples success (Acts 5:17, 13:45, 17:5). Paul mentions that this can lead to an even higher jealousy for friendship with God. (Romans 11:11).

“Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.””


I cannot see any promise of large-scale Jewish repentance here, only the gospel and the events we have seen in Acts and Paul’s missionary journey. Israel are hardened to the gospel, and many Gentiles are coming in, and only envy / curiosity over the gospel itself (11:11) will bring hardened Jews into the kingdom. In this way all Israel will be saved: there is no other way or bloodline or covenant. All Israelites can only be saved by faith in Christ. Then Paul quotes an Isaiah gospel prophecy to make it clearer! The Covenant is fulfilled in Jesus, and the gospel is the only way to be saved. It’s pretty much what Paul could have said of any nation, except with a focus on Israel’s particular jealousy. But he could just have easily said, “In this way, all Australians will be saved…” and then quoted the gospel! It’s the only way all humans are saved: there is no other way. There is no other mechanism. Any human being that has been saved, whether Jew or Gentile, has been saved through faith in Christ.

If there was any doubt, Paul shows they are in exactly the same position we are in!

“Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”

Romans 11 is a gospel declaration that both Jews and Gentiles are sinful, rebellious, and that because the Old Covenant is fulfilled in the New, all humanity must be saved by Jesus. There is no other way.

It’s that simple. 1948 has nothing to do with it.

 

[ebedmelech]

That's quite excellent eclipsenow! However, it will not convince many because most have been taught that Israel is the "apple of God's eye".

I know...I was taught this very early in my Christian life and basically as a "babe in Christ", not knowing the scriptures as I do now, as well as attending a "Fundamental Independent Baptist Church", I believed this.

That's what you're dealing with when it comes to many who follow dispensational theology/eschatology.

It takes the Holy Spirit breaking through that type of teaching of the scriptures.

 

[ebedmelech]

That is your "rational."

Admittedly this may offend... my apology in advance...

Fact of the matter is that "when that which is perfect" was "come" the Spirit's help outside of The Book ceased, as those "words [by] which the Holy Ghost teacheth" were now "perfect," or complete.

Apparently never having thought to exegete this aspect of study, what you really rely on is what you read about in the books of your favorite authors that you then read the reasoning of into the Scriptures, and then conclude "the Spirit led me..."

You really need to look into this; study out its workings.

The ONLY thing *PERFECT* that will come, is the Lord Jesus Christ. When He comes you may understand!

 

[eclipsenow]

"When the Assyrian comes into our land, And when he treads in our palaces, Then we will raise against him Seven shepherds and eight princely men. They shall waste with the sword the land of Assyria, And the land of Nimrod at its entrances; Thus He shall deliver us from the Assyrian, When he comes into our land And when he treads within our borders." (Micah 5:5-6)

And there is no rational way to even pretend that this has ever been fulfilled.

Being emphatic again? Well, let's try it the other way around. There is absolutely no rational way to even pretend that there is even any possibility that this has *not* been fulfilled.

1. Assyria destroyed Israel, just as this passage predicted.
2. Assyria was destroyed, just as this passage predicted.
3. Israel was restored in the post exile period, just as this passage predicted.

Jesus fulfils Micah's OT prophecies about a ruler, and from his death and resurrection in Jerusalem, Jesus sent the apostles out into the whole earth to spread his rule. Jesus now rules from heaven in the reign of the church spreading out through all the earth.

 

[eclipsenow]

I think that the bible is best understood through the Covenant Theological understanding of how the OT and NT relate to each other. It presents a clearer gospel, a clearer eschatology, and keeps us presenting the gospel without any sense that the Lord can't return yet because XYZ has to happen first. Being Amillennial also helps us focus on the gospel more and eschatology less: but eschatology leaks out of nearly every sermon because the gospel IS our eschatology! In other words, the gospel says that we should repent and accept Jesus as our King and Saviour, because he could return at any moment and judge this world as heaven and earth meet!

Through this lens, Israel's formation in 1948 is just a fluke of history, not some long unfulfilled prophecy. Everything was fulfilled in Christ. Israel is more a troubling social justice concern than anything else. After forming to protect themselves from the likes of Hitler and the holocaust, the sad irony is that they now run the world's largest concentration camps in West Bank and Gaza! Yet American Christian Zionist's would blind themselves to these concerns and have us fund Israel's persecution and gradual removal of the Palestinian people, all in the name of some whacky end-times-tables of their own that frankly, I can't see in scripture. What kind of mindset asks us to support Israel so that they can build the temple so that the AntiChrist can stand in the temple so that the Lord can return?
1. I don't see them in the bible, as antichrists are a dime a dozen: anyone who denies Jesus is Lord is one.
2. *IF* I'm wrong and some kind of antichrist in the temple prophecy is actually in the New Testament (the bits that I think are actually about Jesus crucifixion and then Titus coming along to destroy Jerusalem!), then surely God will look out for Israel and his end-times-tables? We should be pouring our money and time and effort into evangelism, you know, the Great Commission, and not obsessing over every last little detail in our preferred end-times-table. We should definitely not be wasting time and money co-operating with the antichrist in establishing his temple reign! (I just cannot believe Christians think like this!)

Anyway, back to Covenant Theology. Here is a useful summary. I highly recommend

Anglican Diocese of Sydney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most Sydney Anglicans stand within the Reformed and English Puritan traditions. Evangelicals within the diocese see themselves as standing in the heritage of the English Reformation and direct the diocese accordingly. As such the diocese officially holds to belief in the divine inspiration and authority of scripture in line with the official statement of Anglican belief, the "Articles of Religion" (more commonly known as the Thirty-nine Articles).

There are, however, a number of beliefs that differentiate the Evangelicalism of the Diocese of Sydney from other Evangelical and Calvinist traditions:
Typological interpretation of the Old Testament—a biblical theological approach which interprets Old Testament prophecies regarding the Land of Israel, the Jerusalem Temple and the Davidic Kingdom as having a typological rather than literal fulfilment in the New Covenant; thus rejecting dispensationalism and Christian Zionism which are more characteristic of American Evangelicalism. This approach is described by Graeme Goldsworthy, a Sydney theologian, in his book According to Plan.​

 

[Rev20]

That is your "rational."

Admittedly this may offend... my apology in advance...

Fact of the matter is that "when that which is perfect" was "come" the Spirit's help outside of The Book ceased, as those "words [by] which the Holy Ghost teacheth" were now "perfect," or complete.

Apparently never having thought to exegete this aspect of study, what you really rely on is what you read about in the books of your favorite authors that you then read the reasoning of into the Scriptures, and then conclude "the Spirit led me..."

You really need to look into this; study out its workings.

I have no idea what you are talking about, Danoh.

 

[BABerean2]

I do not agree with everything in this presentation.

However, it does a good job of showing what the Reformers got right and wrong.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KssxfiP8At8