The True Meaning of Romans 9-11

[Rev20]

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".

Israel is the "apple of God's eye," as in Paul, Peter, James, John, and, in general, all Israel -- the ones who established the Church for God's Son, Jesus Christ. But they also opened the doors of the commonwealth of Israel to the Gentiles. So, now, "all Israel" is simply the Church.

 

[riverrat]

Israel is the "apple of God's eye," as in Paul, Peter, James, John, and, in general, all Israel -- the ones who established the Church for God's Son, Jesus Christ. But they also opened the doors of the commonwealth of Israel to the Gentiles. So, now, "all Israel" is simply the Church.

Replacement theology has again raised its ugly head.

 

[eclipsenow]

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

It iseth moreth holieth than Ieth becauseth iteth useth holieth talketh.

 

[eclipsenow]

Israel is the "apple of God's eye," as in Paul, Peter, James, John, and, in general, all Israel -- the ones who established the Church for God's Son, Jesus Christ. But they also opened the doors of the commonwealth of Israel to the Gentiles. So, now, "all Israel" is simply the Church.

Hi Rev20,
theologically speaking, I agree with you, but in Romans 11 the term Israel seems to be consistently used as the decedents of Abraham. Does this mean I abandon Covenant Theology and Amillennialism? No way!

I think the particular emphasis is that by rejecting their Messiah, Israel is just as rebellious and lost as Gentiles, and that all Israel can only be saved through Jesus just as all Gentiles can only be saved through Jesus just as all Americans can only be saved through Jesus just as, last but not least, even all Australians (and even myself!) can only be saved through Jesus. There simply is no other way.

While everyone tries to cast their own meaning into 'all Israel', Paul unpacks the meaning a few verses later on.

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.​

How are all Australians saved? Jesus. Not all Australians will be saved, but that all Australians that are saved are saved through Jesus. There is only one way: and both Jews and Gentiles must be saved in that one way.

In my view, that's the only way to read 'all Israel' without inserting the thin edge of the wedge that can end up splitting the gospel into 2 categories of salvation. It's the only way to read it consistently with the rest of Romans, and the Old and New Testament, and the way that the bible says it fits together with shadows and types in the Old Testament and the reality fulfilling all that in the New. A nice side effect of this being true is that it is consistent with the gospel, and frees us from all kinds of end-times-madness.

 

[Rev20]

Replacement theology has again raised its ugly head.

What is replacement theology?

 

[Rev20]

Hi Rev20,
theologically speaking, I agree with you, but in Romans 11 the term Israel seems to be consistently used as the decedents of Abraham. Does this mean I abandon Covenant Theology and Amillennialism? No way!

I agree. The first Church was, and will always be the natural descendents of Abraham, those who were also faithful to the covenant and who heard the words of the Lord:

"And now if ye will indeed hear my voice, and keep my covenant, ye shall be to me a peculiar people above all nations; for the whole earth is mine. And ye shall be to me a royal priesthood and a holy nation: these words shalt thou speak to the children of Israel." -- Exo 19:5-6 LXX​

That promise to the faithful of Israel was fulfilled in the days of Christ. This is Peter to the scattered tribes:

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;" -- 1Pet 2:9​

But there was also this passage about the Lord providing a pathway for Gentiles into the Commonwealth of Israel:

"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." -- Eph 2:11-13​

Note how the Gentiles are described:

1. Without Christ
2. Aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel
3. Strangers from the covenants of promise
4. Having no Hope
5. Without God in the World

How did Christ solve that dilemma for the Gentiles? He made both into one body:

"Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father." -- Eph 2:15-18 KJV​

Some cast aspersions on that concept of one body in Christ, calling it "replacement theology," marginalizing the sacrifice by our Lord. But to those Gentiles (and Jews) who do believe, this is part of their destiny:

"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:" -- Eph 2:19-21​

Israel was the Church from at least the day of Pentecost; but the process of fulfilling the promise to Abraham was not initiated until the Gentiles were allowed into the Commonwealth. The first was Cornelius in Acts 10.

I think the particular emphasis is that by rejecting their Messiah, Israel is just as rebellious and lost as Gentiles, and that all Israel can only be saved through Jesus just as all Gentiles can only be saved through Jesus just as all Americans can only be saved through Jesus just as, last but not least, even all Australians (and even myself!) can only be saved through Jesus. There simply is no other way.

While everyone tries to cast their own meaning into 'all Israel', Paul unpacks the meaning a few verses later on.

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.​

How are all Australians saved? Jesus. Not all Australians will be saved, but that all Australians that are saved are saved through Jesus. There is only one way: and both Jews and Gentiles must be saved in that one way.

In my view, that's the only way to read 'all Israel' without inserting the thin edge of the wedge that can end up splitting the gospel into 2 categories of salvation. It's the only way to read it consistently with the rest of Romans, and the Old and New Testament, and the way that the bible says it fits together with shadows and types in the Old Testament and the reality fulfilling all that in the New. A nice side effect of this being true is that it is consistent with the gospel, and frees us from all kinds of end-times-madness.

I agree.

 

[eclipsenow]

Replacement theology has again raised its ugly head.

Hi Riverrat,
does Jesus covenant with us replace the sacrificial system, or do you still go and sacrifice doves and lambs? Does Jesus covenant with us function as the High Priest forever, or do you still have to go see a priest? Does Jesus covenant with us offer his body as the temple broken down and raised again in 3 days, or do you still have to go to Jerusalem to be a part of the temple? Does Jesus covenant with us bless all people in all lands, or do you have to go live in the Middle East to be a part of God's people?

"replacement theology" is a crude misnomer anyway: Jesus does not 'replace' the OT, but fulfils it. It's like saying a Marriage 'replaces' an engagement, or a nice cold beer 'replaces' a hard day's work, or an exam 'replaces' a year of hard work and study towards that exam. It's a nonsense. The church is full of both gentiles and ethnic Jews, so the church does not 'replace' Israel but fulfils the OT expectations of Israel. The gospel events of the first day of the Lord are the whole point of Israel existing in the first place.
Luke 24:
27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. The whole OT points towards Jesus. There is no other plan. Replacement? That's as crude as saying a successful Wedding Day and Marriage replaces an engagement. It misses the point entirely!

 

[Bro in Christ]

Romans 9-11 even thou Jews failed God will fulfill his promises because he knows all things and God does not lie ... Nothing surprises him .... Since God is faithful to the Jews he will be faithful to the church when we will fail

 

[BABerean2]

Israel is the "apple of God's eye," as in Paul, Peter, James, John, and, in general, all Israel -- the ones who established the Church for God's Son, Jesus Christ. But they also opened the doors of the commonwealth of Israel to the Gentiles. So, now, "all Israel" is simply the Church.

Recently, I heard the comment that the New Covenant was made with Israel. So far, this is a true statement. However, the next statement was that the New Covenant was not made with the Church. This made the statement false.

Dispensational Theology attempts to create a separation between Israel and the Church that does not exist.

They say Matthew was written to the Jews, and then they turn around and say it was not written to the Church.
The question is, "Is this what we find in the text of Matthew?".


Mat 16:17

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealeditunto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

​

​

Mat 16:18​

​

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

​

​

Mat 16:19​

​

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

​

​

Mat 28:18​

​

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

​

​

Mat 28:19​

​

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

​

​

Mat 28:20​

​

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway,evenunto the end of the world. Amen.

Another claim often made is a reference to the modern "gentile Church", as if today it is made up only of gentiles. This is another false statement intended to separate Israel and the Church. After Paul's ministry, the Church has always been made up of both the descendants of Jacob and the gentiles who were grafted in. ​

Then they turn around and yell, "Replacement Theology".​

Brother Rev, you clearly spoke the truth above that shows the claim of "Replacement Theology" to be another false statement intended to separate the descendants of Jacob from the Church.
When two trees are grafted together, neither tree is replaced.​

The main arguments in this thread, over the true meaning of Romans 11, are created by the attempts to create a separation that does not exist.

Thanks for clearly speaking the truth.

.​

　​

​

 

[Danoh]

BAB2, my observation is that you are assuming ours are merely claims, or forced attempts of the passages - even as it appears to me that you assume that because the word "church" is mentioned there in Matt. 16, "well, that's the Body of Christ."

Return the word to its generic sense - assembly of people.

Study out the sense of Peter's "Thou art the Christ; the Son of the living God" - do so through the passages that relate the four writer's Spirit inspired understanding of that as to their narrative.

You will find it is the same Messianic understanding asserted in the latter half of John 1 and Acts 1-3.

If you will simply allow the narrative to inform your understanding through Scripture comparison within the same narrative.

You related the need for the things in between when I posted that Moses and two Israelites analogy - that was my point.

Apply it in the above.

Their commission was based on that - Matthew 28 is the Matthew 10 expanded towards Isaiah 2. This is the sense of Luke 24 and Acts 1-3.

Its not that we assert that that was interrupted but that the narrative does when those things in between within each narrative are studied out both independently of one another as well as together.

I have to conclude that you clearly do not understand why we conclude what we do. You have to ask why, not assume you know.

For example, do you know what passages our understanding of what the Great Commission is about are based on?

First, solve for the above - then tackle this question.

And do that through Scripture - not through books about, regardless of author or view.

If nothing else, at least your debate will be that much more informed.

 

[Danoh]

Hi Riverrat,
does Jesus covenant with us replace the sacrificial system, or do you still go and sacrifice doves and lambs? Does Jesus covenant with us function as the High Priest forever, or do you still have to go see a priest? Does Jesus covenant with us offer his body as the temple broken down and raised again in 3 days, or do you still have to go to Jerusalem to be a part of the temple? Does Jesus covenant with us bless all people in all lands, or do you have to go live in the Middle East to be a part of God's people?

"replacement theology" is a crude misnomer anyway: Jesus does not 'replace' the OT, but fulfils it. It's like saying a Marriage 'replaces' an engagement, or a nice cold beer 'replaces' a hard day's work, or an exam 'replaces' a year of hard work and study towards that exam. It's a nonsense. The church is full of both gentiles and ethnic Jews, so the church does not 'replace' Israel but fulfils the OT expectations of Israel. The gospel events of the first day of the Lord are the whole point of Israel existing in the first place.
Luke 24:
27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. The whole OT points towards Jesus. There is no other plan. Replacement? That's as crude as saying a successful Wedding Day and Marriage replaces an engagement. It misses the point entirely!

Study out this assertion - don't just go against it because it does not fit your own - will you do this much.

The New Covenant was promised Israel and Judah. Its promise is that it will enable them to keep the Law. How that would be enabled would be by the Spirit the Blood of Christ qualifies the Believer in same to be enabled by.

Paul applies this enablement aspect to the Body of Christ, but it is not by Promised Covenant, rather by Grace alone through the Father's promise of His Son as Saviour, as far back as Genesis 3.

This promise of a Savior was repeated to Abraham, and through him, to his people, as well.

It went to their heads - this is why Paul brings up Abraham in Galatians - but he is actually pointing out the same promise of a Saviour made the first Gentile - Adam.

He joins both in their guilt in Adam in Romans 5, for example.

The New Covenant promise is to enable Israel - as a nation - to keep the Law because said Law is their Covenant with Him.

The New Covenant's enablement - the Spirit - enables us - as individuals - to walk by Grace. upon our belief in Christ - and Grace, not Law teaches us to deny ungodliness, etc.

In this we are fellow citizens with these saints of that nation.

While this "us" is actually a reference to both - Jew and Gentile - in the One Body that God "hid in God," planning to unveil it - after - Israel's fall.

Corporately concluded by Him in - uncircumcision - individual Jews were now availed access into this Gentile salvation. You'll note that Ephesians 2 refers to Israel as "them that were nigh."

But, as He has promised that nation - especially Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David - what He has promised - their rest as to that aspect of the above that pertains to them as a nation - now awaits "the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

When that is all said in done - "the fulness of times" will result in one kingdom, "in earth as it is in heaven" - "the whole family of God in earth and heaven" - at which point the Son turns it back unto the Father - the Spirit resident in all.

I know that does not resonate with you. It should not as that is not your tradition. But that is no valid reason for not - first - receiving it with all readiness of mind - that you might - then - search the scriptures daily whether those things are so.

Doing so is the application of "grace believeth all things..." - in other words, of giving one the benefit of the doubt.

 

[BABerean2]

BAB2, my observation is that you are assuming ours are merely claims, or forced attempts of the passages - even as it appears to me that you assume that because the word "church" is mentioned there in Matt. 16, "well, that's the Body of Christ."

Return the word to its generic sense - assembly of people.

Study out the sense of Peter's "Thou art the Christ; the Son of the living God" - do so through the passages that relate the four writer's Spirit inspired understanding of that as to their narrative.

You will find it is the same Messianic understanding asserted in the latter half of John 1 and Acts 1-3.

If you will simply allow the narrative to inform your understanding through Scripture comparison within the same narrative.

You related the need for the things in between when I posted that Moses and two Israelites analogy - that was my point.

Apply it in the above.

Their commission was based on that - Matthew 28 is the Matthew 10 expanded towards Isaiah 2. This is the sense of Luke 24 and Acts 1-3.

Its not that we assert that that was interrupted but that the narrative does when those things in between within each narrative are studied out both independently of one another as well as together.

I have to conclude that you clearly do not understand why we conclude what we do. You have to ask why, not assume you know.

For example, do you know what passages our understanding of what the Great Commission is about are based on?

First, solve for the above - then tackle this question.

And do that through Scripture - not through books about, regardless of author or view.

If nothing else, at least your debate will be that much more informed.

What I need to do is reread C.R. Stam's book "Things that Differ", over and over until my small mind can understand that the word "Church" does not mean Church unless it is found in the part that has been "rightly divided".

Then maybe I could understand why there is more than one Gospel and more than one Great Commission.

Also, maybe it would help me change the "so" in Romans 11 to the word "then".

Until then Danoh, I will have to depend on your correction to keep me on track.

Where are my reading glasses?

.

 

[Danoh]

What I need to do is reread C.R. Stam's book "Things that Differ", over and over until my small mind can understand that the word "Church" does not mean Church unless it is found in the part that has been "rightly divided".

Then maybe I could understand why there is more than one Gospel and more than one Great Commission.

Also, maybe it would help me change the "so" in Romans 11 to the word "then".

Until then Danoh, I will have to depend on your correction to keep me on track.

Where are my reading glasses?

.

BAB2, I feel where you are coming from. I was once there myself, and still find myself there when I fail in the following. You're not alone in this, but it will result in the following if not addressed.

Until then, BAB2, there will be no addressing you on these Things That Differ issues with out your making yourself the issue.

Your flesh blinded you from seeing that that is what you are doing - taking another's words personally as some kind of a put down rather than as the attempt it actually is - of "iron" attempting to contribute its contribution to "sharpeneth iron."

Your battle is with those kinds of "every imagination that exalteth itself against the knowledge of Christ" - not with me. "Ye are straightened in your own bowels" [realm of our emotions].

Attempted put down was not my intent, believe me.

So long as you do that to yourself, there will be no getting through to you on these other matters.

And I'll tell you why you take my words as some sort of a put down when you do.

Because in that moment you allow your flesh's lie to do just that. We all end up here sooner or later if not careful.

You could have victory over that - so much so that neither of us would be the issue, and thus not need moderators having to babysit each's emotions.

Note how carefully they often feel compelled to word their warnings and even then it backfires on them when taking wrong by some - out of their own issues.

All you have to do is assert to yourself during such in the flesh imposed painful moments - "No! This is not who I am in Christ! This is exactly what my Saviour died to put away by the sacrifice of Himself on my behalf!"

That is what I do during such moments - including past, post-traumatic ones.

Do that, and you will find how "tribulation worketh patience [peace under pressure], and patience experience [the next time we encounter tribulation] and experience hope [confident expectation not that "this too shall pass," but that "I can do all things" they are all a cakewalk "through Christ who strengtheneth me" if I will just "think on these things" on the absolute fact that] the love of God was shed abroad in our hearts" as to what all took place on That Old Rugged Cross - Christ died that we might live - IN - Him!!!

Now, take all I said, and apply it to the injury you now perceive was intended towards you by these words.

I'm telling, we just cannot lose in Him as to these emotional issues!

The Grace Life!!!

 

[Interplanner]

Danoh wrote:
Its not that we assert that that was interrupted but that the narrative does when those things in between within each narrative are studied out both independently of one another as well as together.

What on earth are you talking about? Fix the grammar of this, eliminate the antecedents and try it again.

 

[Danoh]

Danoh wrote:
Its not that we assert that that was interrupted but that the narrative does when those things in between within each narrative are studied out both independently of one another as well as together.

What on earth are you talking about? Fix the grammar of this, eliminate the antecedents and try it again.

What is it you take from it as to its intended sense?

It is not that we assert that God's plan and purpose in the nation Israel was interrupted.

Rather, that the narrative asserts that.

And it does so when those things in between and within each narrative, are studied out - both independent of each narrative, as well as, as one, overall narrative.

Of course, as I had already established the sense of what I am here talking about in another narrative, or post between myself and BAB2, I was not addressing you, thus why you perhaps do not know what I am talking about.

And no, I am not asserting "keep out of it," lol

 

[Interplanner]

What does "in between" a narrative mean? STam's book, you book-hater?

The real, remnant, elect Israel did join the mission of the Gospel, the others did not. God does not do things with ethnos-groups. It does take a while for this to sink in, for them and for us. Especially since 2P2P attempts to harden ethnos-grouping.

 

[Danoh]

What does "in between" a narrative mean? STam's book, you book-hater?

The real, remnant, elect Israel did join the mission of the Gospel, the others did not. God does not do things with ethnos-groups. It does take a while for this to sink in, for them and for us. Especially since 2P2P attempts to harden ethnos-grouping.

It is not that I hate books, I just do not care for the reasoning about a thing that over reliance on books results in, "by reason of use."

Note how yours is ever a reasoning about.

Write a book, it cannot but follow this same reasoning about as your method of reasoning.

You and yours consistently display your not attempting to get at the intended sense of the passages through the passages - through reasoning things through the passages - rather, through reasoning about what they are asserting through your Systematics that you then apply to the passages - what does not fit that is "wrong" in your reasoning.

Its "the Greeks seek after wisdom" that Paul put down in 1 Corinthians 2, but that became the prevailing means of approaching "the things of God" all those centuries ago, but even more prevalent now.

Years and years of this practice on your part may just have so seared the habit that I sincerely doubt you even know what I am talking about.

My observation in "books about," by the way, in light of "nevertheless, what saith the scripture?"

To you and yours, it is odd that one would not only speak with authority from Scripture, rather than from "well, perhaps this... or maybe one of these possible alternatives..." and or "well, based on Dr. So and So..."

I say all this to you, not as a put down, but as an observation from years at observing said mechanics at work - as to how they work - in all walks of life.

 

[riverrat]

What is replacement theology?

Google is sometimes your friend.

 

[BABerean2]

What does "in between" a narrative mean? STam's book, you book-hater?

The real, remnant, elect Israel did join the mission of the Gospel, the others did not. God does not do things with ethnos-groups. It does take a while for this to sink in, for them and for us. Especially since 2P2P attempts to harden ethnos-grouping.

Inter,

Don't you get it.

All books are bad, except for Stam's book.

.

 

[Rev20]

Google is sometimes your friend.

But, in this case, Google did not bring up the subject: you did!

Are you ashamed of using that term, or is it simply a matter that you don't have a clue what it means, except that it is an aspersion futurists cast against those whose ideologies are not founded in myth?