Questions Regarding Israel

[Guest]

Steve,

I was wondering if you could exegete these passages regarding verses that pertain to Israel. I could call in the show and ask, but I wanted to have it down in words...

Passage 1: Romans 11:11-12 "I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation {has come} to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!"

I'm guessing thier transgression being the crucifying of Jesus and their failure is their failure to accept the gospel. What is the fulfillment that Paul is talking about that will be greater than even these two? Also, is making them jealous supposed to make them come to Jesus?

Passage 2: Romans 11:25-29 "For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB." "THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS." From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of {God's} choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."

I pretty much know your take on "so all Israel will be saved," but I was wondering what the partial hardening until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in is? Because it seems as if once the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, the partial hardening will be lifted and something will happen to ethnic Israel.

Passage 3: Matt 23:39 "For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, 'BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!'"

It seems that there will be a future time when ethnic Israel does say "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" and they will again see Jesus. What is your take on this verse?

[jaiotu]

Rae, you've just made my day. Thank you.

I thought I was the only one seeing conundrums like the ones you've raised.

Damon

[_Steve]

Hi Rae,

These are good questions, and their answers are controversial. The passages in Romans 11 have to be interpreted in light of the whole flow of thought beginning in Romans 9 and concluding at the end of Romans 11. Unfortunately, there are two very different approaches to understanding what Paul is getting at.

The discussion seems to be called for as an explanation of an objection anticipated by Paul. Near the end of chapter 8, Paul indicates that all things work together for good to those who are "the called according to His purpose," and that nothing will separate them from God's love. Paul anticipates that someone will raise the following objection: "But look at the Jews! Are they not 'called and 'chosen' by God? Yet they are not Christians! Are there not promises in Daniel 12:1 that 'your people shall be delivered'? and Isaiah 45:17 that 'Israel shall be saved'? and in Isaiah 59:20f that 'The Redeemer shall come to Zion...and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob'? What has become of God's promises to save Israel? Have these promises failed to take effect?"

Romans 9 through 11 provides Paul's answer to that reasonable question. But what, exactly, is Paul's answer? There are two very different ways that his answer has been viewed by various interpreters.

The dispensationalist believes that Paul's answer is, essentially: " True enough, the promises that God made to Israel have not yet come true. That is because there was something else that God needed to get done first, namely, the gathering-in of the believing Gentiles. Once they are gathered, then God will set about to fulfill those promises that you are wondering about. God has temporarily hardened most Jews until all the Gentiles who are to be saved have been saved, THEN He will turn and fulfill His promise of saving Israel, the Jewish people."

The other view is that Paul is giving an entirely different answer to the question. He is, in effect, saying: "God's promises to Israel have not failed to take effect, but have been quite fulfilled in Christ. The reason for your confusion is that you are misunderstanding what is meant by 'Israel,' as the recipients of the promises. Not all natural Jews belong to Israel, and many Gentiles, like branches grafted onto an olive tree, are now part of what God regards as 'Israel.' To those who believe, whether Jew or Gentile, God's promises to Israel have been realized and fulfilled in Jesus Christ. It is in this way that God will ultimately save all of the true 'Israel,' as He promised--that is, all the believing Jews and all the believing Gentiles--these are the true Israel to whom the promises were made, and to whom they are, even now, being fulfilled."

I understand Paul's answer the second way. If the dispensationalists were correct, Paul's introduction to his case should have been, "Yes, the word of God has not yet taken effect...have patience!" Instead, his words are, "it is not that the word of God has taken no effect" (Rom.9:6).

It would be my contention that there is no reference to the future of the Jews in the discussion. It is not a discussion of eschatology (the doctrine of the end times) but of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). The question Paul concerns himself with throughout the three chapters is not, "When will God save Israel and fulfill His promises?" but rather, "How does God save Israel and fulfill His promises?" The discussion should not be taken in isolation from other places where Paul discusses the same issues, as in Romans 2, Galatians 3, and Ephesians 2. What he presents here is the same doctrine taught in those other places.

However, the passages about which you asked raise the legitimate question, "Is there not some suggestion of eschatology here? Doesn't Paul hint that there is a future restoration of ethnic Israel?"

That the passages mentioned may hint that direction is one possible way of understanding them, but even if this is so, it could only be called a "hint," and no clear declaration. I do not believe that the best way to understand these passages even hints at an eschatological restoration of Israel.

Let us observe, at the outset, that even if we decided that there is something said here about the future of Israel, what is actually said makes no reference restoration of the Jews to their ancient land or the rebirth of a Jewish State. The most that dispensationalists can credibly claim from the passage would be that the Jews will get "saved."

Since salvation simply means embracing Christ, and has nothing to do with geography, postmillennialists (for example) have always understood this to mean that Jews around the world will be converted and added to the church, but without any suggestion of an end-times Jewish state or migration to Israel. Most amillennialists, like myself, in following Paul's train of thought from the beginning, do not even see a reference to the salvation of the Jewish race in these verses.

Let me briefly survey Paul's argument leading up to these verses:

Point #1. God's promises to Israel have not failed to be fulfilled, if you understand who is meant by "Israel." This label does not include all Jewish people (Romans 9:6).

Point #2. As God selected Abraham out of all nations, so He also selected among the children and grandchildren of Abraham, so that, in every generation, some of Abraham's offspring were "chosen" and some were not (Rom.9:7-18)

Point #3. As a potter can make, from one lump of clay, vessels for various uses, so God has made from the one lump (ethnic Israel) two separate vessels. The one vessel represents those who are not to be regarded as Israel, because of their unbelief and disobedience, whereas the other vessel includes all those Jews (and Gentiles as well) who are chosen in Christ as the true Israel (Rom.9:19-24).

Point #4. Even the Old Testament predicted that Gentiles would eventually be a part of God's people (Israel), and that many Jews would be excluded (Rom.9:25-29).

Point #5. The irony of this is that the Gentiles, who had not historically taken an interest in Yahweh, will be included because of their faith, whereas most of ethnic Israel, ostensibly the worshipers of Yahweh, are excluded because they reject faith and attempt to be righteous through the law. God saves. not on the basis of race (there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile), but on the basis of faith (Rom.9:30 through 10:13).

Point #6. The Jews, as well as the Gentiles have had the opportunity to hear and believe the Gospel, but in this era, as in Isaiah's, God appeals to them in vain, finding them to be a "disobedient and contrary people" (Rom.10:14-21)

This brings us up to chapter 11. It is here, for the first time, that some people think Paul introduces an eschatological element, though I believe he continues with the same message.

Paul asks, "Has God cast away His people?" and answers, "Certainly not!" (Rom.11:1). Dispensationalists believe that this rhetorical question means, "Since God seems to have cast away the Jews at this present time, are we to conclude that this condition is permanent?" to which Paul emphatically answers, "Certainly not"--suggesting that there is a future change in the present Jewish apostasy, which Paul now wishes to introduce.

This is a strange interpretation, given the actual wording of the passage. The question is, "Has God cast away His people?" Paul then clarifies that, when he says His people, he is not thinking of the Jews, as a race, but those "whom He foreknew" (v.2). A few chapters earlier, Paul had already identified the Christians as the people that God "foreknew" (8:29).

Thus, though God has indeed discarded the unbelieving Jews (along with the unbelieving Gentiles), He certainly has not cast away "His people" (whom Paul has labored in the previous two chapters to demonstrate to be made up of believing Jews and believing Gentiles).

Paul points out that he, a Jew, has not been cast away (v.1). This argument would be irrelevant, if Paul's aim was to prove anything about some imagined future salvation for the nation of Israel. However, giving the example of his own salvation proves the point that Paul is actually interested in making, namely, that, although God has cast away the unbelieving Jews, He has not cast away ALL Jews. There is a remnant of Israel who have been saved, of which Paul was one. In fact, Paul has already pointed out, in 9:27, that the promise of the salvation of Israel only applies to the faithful remnant--not the whole nation.

Paul develops this remnant idea through most of chapter 11, reaching his clearest illustration in that of the olive tree (Israel-Jer.11:16). The tree is the Israel of God, to whom the promises apply and to whom they are fulfilled in salvation. This tree, as Paul explains, contains two kinds of branches: Jews who believe, and Gentiles who believe. Therefore, Israel is what we normally call "the Church." Paul also makes it clear that Jews and Gentiles who do not believe are not part of this Israel. The unbelieving Jews have been broken off the tree, and are thus no longer a part of Israel (Rom.11:16-24).

So how does this impact the promises in the Old Testament that "Israel will be saved"? Simply thus: some Jews are hardened (others are not and are still a part of the true Israel), and many Gentiles are also coming into this tree. "Thus (or, in this way) all Israel (that is the True Israel, comprised of believing Jews and Gentiles, to whom the promises appertain) will be saved," even as Isaiah 59:20 predicted (11:25-27)

The conclusion of chapter 11 consists of Paul's marveling at the poetic justice of this arrangement: Salvation has initially come to Gentiles through the witness of believing Jews (like the apostles), and now Jews need to be evangelized by believing Gentiles (11:28-36).

This is, admittedly a light summary of the material, and I have not yet sought to answer your questions or show how the verses you raised present no promise of eschatological salvation of the nation of Israel.

You asked, first, about Romans 11:11-12:

"I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation {has come} to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!"

This is ambiguous, but can be seen more than one way without introducing an eschatological element:

The first would be to understand Paul as speaking hypothetically. His point would be: if God in His wisdom can exploit to His advantage even the disobedience of uncooperative Jews, then think how much He can work through Jews (like Paul and others) who actually embrace the fullness of salvation in Christ!

The second (which I prefer) is to see the word "fullness" (rendered as "fulfillment" in your translation) to refer to the "fullness of the Gentiles." Why? For two reasons:

First, because the word "Gentiles" is the nearest antecedent to the pronoun in the phrase "their fullness."

Second, because the word "fullness" (Gr. pleroma) is used twice in this chapter. The second is in verse 25, where it is specifically qualified by the phrase "of the Gentiles." Thus, Paul's statement could be paraphrased:

"Did Israel stumble for no other reason than for God to enjoy watching them fall? Far from it! He exploited their stumbling to acquire the salvation of the world. And if the stumbling of the Jews could accomplish so much--even the salvation of the Gentiles--think of how much He accomplish through the latter (i.e., the inclusion of the fullness of the Gentiles)?"

You also asked about the other passage that mentions the fullness of the Gentiles, Romans 11:25-29:

"For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB." "THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS." From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of {God's} choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."

In addition to the question you raised from this passage (treated below), it would be important to deal with other elements in the passage having bearing on your overall concern.

First, "Jacob" (v.26) is simply a synonym for "Israel," which Paul has previously identified with the church.

Second, "they are beloved" (v. 28) refers, not to the enemies of the first clause, but to the elect remnant ("God's choice," in your translation is actually "the election" [Gr. ekloge], a word which is used to speak of the elect remnant of the Jews in verses 5 and 7).

Third, the irrevocability of "the gifts and the calling of God" (v.29), in the context of this discussion, does not refer to Israel as a nation, but to "us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles"(9:24).

Now, you asked about the significance of the word "until" (v.25), and suggested (as many intuitively would) that there could here be a hint of some change occurring after the "until." It is true that language is often used this way, but not always in scripture. In certain cases, "until" can simply mean "not before."

Thus, Isaiah 42:4 say of Christ, "He will not fail nor be discouraged, till He has established justice in the earth..." The word "till" (until) does not suggest that, after Christ has established justice in the earth, He will then fail and be discouraged. What it means is that there is a time period having as its goal the establishment of justice in the earth. Christ will not fail or be discouraged at any point prior to that goal being reached.

By the same grammarical construction, I believe, Romans 11:25 is saying that there will be a period of time having as its end the fullness of the Gentiles being brought into the church. The Jews will not cease to be a partially-hardened race at any point prior to that goal being reached. Nothing is said about them changing afterward, since (I believe) Christ will come when the fullness of the Gentiles have come in (Matt.24:14), leaving no time for anyone to change their stance after that (Matt.24:50-51).

Finally, what of Jesus' statement to the Jews in Matt 23:39?

"For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, 'BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!'"

I believe that Jesus, as He left the temple for the last time before His crucifixion, was saying something like this: "Until now, I have taught publicly in your temple, and you have had ample opportunity to hear and see me, regardless of your opinion of me. From this point on, I will not be returning to this public forum. If you desire to continue hearing and seeing me from now on, you must become one of my true followers."

This doesn't mean that, from that moment on, Jesus would never again be seen in public, but that His protracted career of public ministry was now ending, and only His disciples would be able to commune with Him. This interpretation dove-tails well with Jesus' statement, the next day, to His disciples in the upper room: "A little while longer and the world will see me no more, but you will see me" (John 14:19).

I know that some have felt that Jesus was telling these Jews that a day would come when they would say (at or around His second coming), 'BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!'" This seems an unnatural interpretation, since the people to whom He made this prediction did not live to see His second coming, or to say these words on that occasion. Many thousands of them did come to this sentiment, however, on the Day of Pentecost, and in the time following.

[Guest]

I definitely see what you are saying. If there is one thing that I have learned more than anything from listening to your teachings, it is that I still find myself reading things that I have been taught in the past into the text. I really have to train my mind to look at the text without any previous biases.

I do have a couple of follow-up questions (I'll ask one now and let you respond so that it doesn't get too long!)...

The second (which I prefer) is to see the word "fullness" (rendered as "fulfillment" in your translation) to refer to the "fullness of the Gentiles." Why? For two reasons:

First, because the word "Gentiles" is the nearest antecedent to the pronoun in the phrase "their fullness."

In this instance, I don't see the grammatical conclusions as clearly. It would seem to me that since Paul is talking about them (Israel) stumbling, their (Israel's) transgression, making them (Israel) jealous and their (Israel's) failure, that he would thus be talking about their (Israel's) fulfillment.

Now, I would see where someone could say that Israel's fulfillment is is Jesus and thus is referring to all of true Israel. But it seems that to interpret it that way, then Paul would be switching back and forth from physical/bloodline Israel in the previous portion of the verse to spiritual Israel in the second part (which I guess he's known to do in this portion of scripture). Could that be what he is doing here?

Also, it seems that everything else in these verses is past tense or present tense (stumbling as to fall, transgression, failure)... but when he talks about the fulfillment it seems to be future tense. Now, my original thought, coming from what I've been taught all my life would be that this future fulfillment is talking about bloodline Israel. But could this just be talking about the future fulfillment of salvation for the fulfillment of Israel -- the Church?

So, to pose a different argument than the two you presented, could I interpret the verses in this way?...

"I say then, they (Israel) did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their (Israel's) transgression salvation {has come} to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. Now if their (Israel's) transgression is riches for the world and their (Israel's) failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their (Israel's) fullness be!" (And their fullness being both Jews and Gentiles being saved in Jesus.)

[_Steve]

Hi Rae,

Sure. I can't see any objection to that possibility. It makes sense. You could be right.

As for the construction I mentioned that I preferred, suppose we read a sentence like the following in a discussion about Egypt:

"If God got so much Glory out of their destruction, via the ten plagues, and if their destruction proved to be the salvation of Israel, what glory might God expect to receive by His bringing them into their promised land?"

Such a sentence has a structure very like the one we are considering in Romans 11. Because we know the underlying story to which the writer is alluding, we would easily recognise that the first two instances of "their" refer to the Egyptians, but that the final "their" is clearly a reference to Israel. The greater ambiguity of Paul's statement is only due to less familiarity with the underlying "story" that informed his statements.

I would suggest that his underlying thoughts had been made reasonably clear in the foregoing discussion. In that discussion, Paul has not alluded to any belief he held concerning a future restoration of the unbelieving portion of Israel (the believing portion needs no restoration). Nor do you find it in any writer of the New Testament.

Paul's reference to "their fullness," if it was meant to apply to the unbelieving Jews turning to Christ en masse , would be introducing a radical new idea to the discussion (and indeed to the New Testament), which is not explained or unambiguously predicted elsewhere, or even in this passage.

The majority of the Jews who fell, to whom Paul refers, never came to Christ, but died in their sins. Any future group of Jews that might someday turn to Christ would not be the same individuals that Paul describes as having fallen, but, rather, a later generation having no connection (other than racial, which is inconsequential) with those individuals. Through the whole discussion, as well as in all his discussions on the topic elsewhere, Paul's emphasis is that God does not assess people on a racial basis, but on a spiritual basis (e.g. Rom.2:28-29; 10:12/ Phil.3:3/ Gal.3:7).

No special benefit accrues to a person simply from having Abraham as an ancestor (John 8:37), since God could raise such from the stones (Matt.3:9). The only thing that matters in distinguishing one person from another in God's sight is whether they are in Christ, the only One whose descent from Abraham matters (Gal.3:16, 29).

Your questions are good ones, and my answers may not satisfy. I know well enough from my own history how difficult this paradigm shift is to accept. I grant you the liberty to make it at your own pace, or not at all, as the Spirit leads you in your study and meditation on His word.

[jaiotu]

Rae, I agree with you that the way you've rendered the verse about "fulness" in Romans 11:11-12 makes much more sense than the way Steve rendered it. I also want to add that while I don't disagree that Paul was certainly pointing towards a present fulfillment of believing Gentiles and Jews, I believe that it's an almost inescapable conclusion that "blindness in part is happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles is come in" connected with the comment about Israel's fulness is pointing directly towards some future redemption of ethnic Israel.

I also want to say that regardless of what conclusions we each might hold to now, all we need to look for to see if there is a future redemption of ethnic Israel is wait to see if a person calling himself Elijah the prophet starts preaching in Jerusalem, followed 3 1/2 years later by his brother Moses. If that happens before the return of Christ, great! If not, then the other way of looking at it was right.

So there we have it.

Damon

[jaiotu]

The majority of the Jews who fell, to whom Paul refers, never came to Christ, but died in their sins. Any future group of Jews that might someday turn to Christ would not be the same individuals that Paul describes as having fallen, but, rather, a later generation having no connection (other than racial, which is inconsequential) with those individuals.

Steve, your argument doesn't make sense. If God waited for a whole generation of Israelites to die wandering in the desert before allowing the next generation to enter the Promised Land, how could having a later generation turning to Christ not fulfill the same sort of spiritual - rather than physical - promise?

Damon

[Guest]

So, to pose a different argument than the two you presented, could I interpret the verses in this way?...

"I say then, they (Israel) did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their (Israel's) transgression salvation {has come} to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. Now if their (Israel's) transgression is riches for the world and their (Israel's) failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their (Israel's) fullness be!" (And their fullness being both Jews and Gentiles being saved in Jesus.)

That's the way I understand it. The fullness of the body of Christ, both Jew and Gentile.

This passage also comes to mind:

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.

Notice how Peter says that "you" (probably speaking to Jews) were once not a people but are now the people of God. Seems a strange thing to say to other Jews, that they were not God's people. But the passage seems to make clear that not only is now the time that Jews have recieved mercy (also noted by Paul in Rom 11:30-32). But also that being in Christ is what being "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people" really means. As Paul says, they can be grafted in again (Rom 11:23). But if they were hardened until the fulness of the Gentiles have come in then Paul's statement would make no sense. The Jews that are hardened are the unbelievers (Rom 9:30-33), if they become believers (Christians) they can be grafted in again.

[_Steve]

Hi Damon,

I wanted to respond to a few of your comments:

You wrote:

"I believe that it's an almost inescapable conclusion that 'blindness in part is happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles is come in' connected with the comment about Israel's fulness is pointing directly towards some future redemption of ethnic Israel."

It seems strange that you could call your conclusion "almost inescapable," since the entire church managed to escape it for most of her history. Your conclusion may be correct, and nothing would please me more, but I have attempted to show (above) that the word "until" (upon which your entire statement seems to be based) does not necessarily convey the idea of a temporary condition—especially in the context of Paul's discussion here.

You wrote:

"all we need to look for to see if there is a future redemption of ethnic Israel is wait to see if a person calling himself Elijah the prophet starts preaching in Jerusalem."

Since there is, among dispensationalists, such a widespread expectation of these two witnesses appearing in Jerusalem, it would prove nothing if two guys showed up one day and said they were Moses and Elijah. In fact, I have met quite a few duos in my lifetime who told me that they were Moses and Elijah—the two witnesses of Revelation 11. I don't know whether any of them had enough money to buy a plane ticket to Israel, but if they had, I guess their doing so would have been all the proof some people would need that their wild system of eschatology is true. However, I will grant you that, if two guys show up and are turning water to blood, calling fire out of heaven and smiting the land with all plagues, that my rejection of the futurist view of Revelation needs re-evaluation.

You wrote:

"If God waited for a whole generation of Israelites to die wandering in the desert before allowing the next generation to enter the Promised Land, how could having a later generation turning to Christ not fulfill the same sort of spiritual - rather than physical - promise? "

We might not agree in seeing that there is a rather vast difference between choosing a race of people to inherit real estate and choosing a race to go to heaven eternally. To me, there is all the difference in the world. I did not suggest that God makes no decisions about geography based on racial considerations. In fact, that is just the kind of choices God does make on that basis:

"And He has made from one blood every nation of men...and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings." (Acts 17:26)

I would also be willing to accept an argument that God chose the aboriginal races, for a time, to possess Australia, the "native American" races, for a time, to inhabit the Americas, etc. This has nothing to do with showing racial preferment with regards to people being in relationship with God or being saved eternally. The Jews were given the land of Canaan, with the stated conditions that they could lose it as surely as did the Canaanites before them (Lev.18:26-28/ Deut.28:21, 63), but no Jew was ever eternally saved just by being a Jew (Rom.2:28-29).

If the argument is that the Jews are not saved just by being Jews, but that their being Jews guarantees that God will bring them to Christ (the only way a Christian could understand "all [ethnic] Israel will be saved") for ultimate salvation, then it seems the same. If God simply saved them for being Jews, or brought them unilaterally, against their wishes, to Christ because they are Jews, what's the difference? It is still saving certain people for no other reason but their racial heritage.

If one would argue, "God won't bring them to Himself against their will, but will win them by the clear revelation of Himself," I have a couple of problems with that argument.

First, the Jews have made it quite clear that God can do everything in His power to draw them to Himself, and yet they can successfully resist Him (Isa.1:2; 5:4/ Hos.11:1-4/ Matt.23:37).

Second, if God has some way of guaranteeing that one ethnic group, who now resist Him, will someday all have a change of heart and embrace Him, then we have as much reason to expect Him to do the same for every human being on earth, since He has as much interest in the Gentiles as in the Jews being saved (2 Pet.3:9).

At any rate, the New Testament is emphatic that God does not relate to anyone because of who their great, great grandparents were (Rom.9:7-8). I am not sure how this can be true and your doctrine be true as well.

[jaiotu]

It seems strange that you could call your conclusion "almost inescapable," since the entire church managed to escape it for most of her history.

I know, but most of the body of Christ has been anti-Semitic for most of their history, too. They would have a vested interest in not seeing it.

Your conclusion may be correct, and nothing would please me more, but I have attempted to show (above) that the word "until" (upon which your entire statement seems to be based) does not necessarily convey the idea of a temporary condition--especially in the context of Paul's discussion here.

My opinion is that Paul is primarily focusing on the present inclusion of Gentiles together with believing Jews as "Israel." That's what you and I are seeing. However, I also see an indication that there will be a future redemption of ethnic Israel.

You point out the possibility that Romans 11:11-12 could simply be referring to God's ability to make much more use of believing Jews (such as Paul himself) as opposed to unbelieving Jews. I concur! But the end of the chapter follows this up with "blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles is come in." When these two passages in Romans 11 are put in the context of one another, I feel that it directly points towards a future redemption of ethnic Israel.

However, I will grant you that, if two guys show up and are turning water to blood, calling fire out of heaven and smiting the land with all plagues, that my rejection of the futurist view of Revelation needs re-evaluation.

Whether the fire out of heaven and the plagues are literal or symbolic (and I myself am not sure), if the message of "Comfort ye, comfort ye my people" is given to the Jews in love, rather than in condemnation and pride, then you've got the real Elijah and Moses.

If God waited for a whole generation of Israelites to die wandering in the desert before allowing the next generation to enter the Promised Land, how could having a later generation turning to Christ not fulfill the same sort of spiritual - rather than physical - promise?

We might not agree in seeing that there is a rather vast difference between choosing a race of people to inherit real estate and choosing a race to go to heaven eternally. To me, there is all the difference in the world.

But the one is merely a type of the other, and that was my point. And there is something special about ethnic Israel over and above the other nations, as well (Deut. 7:6-8 ). It has nothing to do with their faithfulness either (Deut. 9:1-5). Since that was the case back then, when they were entering the physical promised land, why should it have anything to do with God's commitment to spiritually redeem them?

That's how I understand passages like Isaiah 29:22-24, at least.

By the way, I did a study on Isaiah 29 recently and I've come to a very interesting conclusion about the "marvelous work" which is elsewhere called the "unbelievable work". Isaiah is here talking about Israel in their altogether worst state, describing in detail just how bad they are. He then goes on to state that God will work a marvelous work. How so? In that the deaf shall hear and the blind shall see what they've refused to see thus far, and that they will repent! It looked impossible simply because Israel was so bad off and there seemed like no way to get them to change their ways on a national scale. But nevertheless, God makes the ironclad promise that they would. The whole intent and thrust of the chapter isn't that a small fraction of the whole people would repent, either. That was Paul's interpretation in Romans 9-11, and although that's a type of the repentance God promised, it's not the ultimate fulfillment because only part of what was promised actually came to pass in Paul's day. But on the contrary, the whole thrust of Isaiah 29 is that the remnant of whoever is alive at that point would repent! Everyone else would be dead because of the oppressor that God would use to correct them (compare Isaiah 10:20-23 and also Habakkuk 1:1-6).

If the argument is that the Jews are not saved just by being Jews, but that their being Jews guarantees that God will bring them to Christ (the only way a Christian could understand "all [ethnic] Israel will be saved") for ultimate salvation, then it seems the same. If God simply saved them for being Jews, or brought them unilaterally, against their wishes, to Christ because they are Jews, what's the difference? It is still saving certain people for no other reason but their racial heritage.

In effect that's true, but God won't bring them against their will to Him. Rather, He'll correct them with an oppressor in order to get them to choose Him of their own free will.

The whole point is that the Israelites were one of the most stiffnecked and stubborn people around. If they would choose God, then getting the rest of the Gentiles to choose God would be a cakewalk by comparison!

Second, if God has some way of guaranteeing that one ethnic group, who now resist Him, will someday all have a change of heart and embrace Him, then we have as much reason to expect Him to do the same for every human being on earth, since He has as much interest in the Gentiles as in the Jews being saved (2 Pet.3:9).

He'll use the example of Israel finally coming to Him in truth to get the rest of the world to do the same. So what you're positing is essentially true, yes.

Damon