Rom. 11:25-28

[Guest]

Steve,

I know we have discussed the issue of Israel several times on your broadcast, however the issue of how to interpret the meaning of "Israel" in Rom. 11:26 is still, to my dismay, something I'm grappling with and for some reason feel important to understand.

I completely understand from the context preceding Rom. 11:26 how you arrive at your conclusion, and to me, seems the most plausible explanation. What irks me is that the following few verses do not seem to flow with what seems to be Paul's previous line of thinking...

"...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;"

We discussed this on your program a few months ago, but I didn't completely understand your response and do not remember which program it was, so I was hoping to maybe get a written response.

The "they" of verse 28 would seem to be the same group as the "their" from verse 27. Verse 27 is a prooftext Paul gives to prove his point in verse 26 that all Israel would be saved. So it would seem that the "they," "their" and "Israel" all refer to the same group of people. And since we know clearly from verse 28 that the "they" is referring to ethnic Israel, it would seem to follow that verses 26 and 27 are referring to them as well.

Any response is much appreciated. Also, do you know of any good, lengthy, scholarly books that would go in depth in defending your view of Israel? Thanks brother and much love in Yeshua Hamelek (Jesus the King!)

Ryan

[Guest]

To my understanding "Jacob" always refers to natural Israel not spiritual Israel and "they are enemies for your sake" also seems to me to be natural Israel. Plus the contrast Paul is making between disbelief of the gospel verses "I will take away their sins" indicates natural Israel. This type of terminology is a perfect fit for natural Israel but IMHO is a stretch to apply it to spiritual Israel. To apply these descriptions to Spiritual Israel or "believers" seems strange when terms like "Jacob" or "enemies of the gospel" or "beloved for the sake of the fathers" are used when they apply to natural Israel in a straightforward manner. Plus since i'm jewish i can tell you that the jews have been set apart in disbelief because IMHO God does have some kind of plan to make "the first shall be the last" prophecy be fulfilled. It's not just a cultural thing there is something more.

[Guest]

I certainly hope that our Jewish brother Steve is correct, and that God does have some plan to save all the Jews--I just find it hard to reconcile with Paul's earlier discussion, especially in Romans 9:27-28, where he cites Isaiah saying that only a "remnant" of ethnic Israel will be saved.

Different amillennialists may explain this differently, but I have always taken my own path (as I recommend all our readers to do!), and did not become an amillennialist by reading or hearing (or even knowing of the existence of) other amillennialists. My thoughts are my own, coming out of my own study of the Bible passages themselves. My answer, therefore, to your question may not commend itself even to all amillennialists, and is, I admit, somewhat subjective.

There are three passages in Romans 11 like the one that is bothering you. They are:

Romans 11:12--"Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!"

Romans 11:15--"For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?"

Romans 11:28--"Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers."

I have hi-lited the words "they" and "their" in these passages because it is these words which, in my opinion, are ambiguous. At first blush they appear to all refer to ethnic Israel, and, if Paul's earlier discussion had gone somewhat differently, I would be inclined to agree that this makes the most sense. However, Paul has spent two previous chapters, and much of this one, telling us that the promises made to Israel only concern a relatively small remnant of that race, and that that remnant has been united with believing Gentiles to form a new organism, which Paul here calls an olive tree (as Jesus used the imagery of the Vine--John 15:1-7) , but which he elsewhere calls the "Body of Christ."

Just for the sake of stretching your thinking for a moment (if your mind is sufficiently elastic, it can quickly spring back to its old perimeters when this exercise is done) read these verses as follows:

Romans 11:12--"Now if their fall [Israel's] is riches for the world, and their failure [Israel's] riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness [that is, the Gentiles' fullness]!"

This approach seems defensible by two considerations: 1) the word "Gentiles" is the nearest antecedent to the final "their;" and 2) Paul, in the same chapter, speaks of "the fullness of the Gentiles"(v.25), while he nowhere else speaks or alludes to a similar "fullness" of the Jews.

Romans 11:15--"For if their being cast away [Israel's] is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance [the world's] be but life from the dead?"

It seems that this understanding has the same two arguments in its favor as that which I presented above for verse 12: 1) "The world" is the nearest antecedent to the final "their," and 2) the "acceptance" of the world is established by the reference to its "reconciliation" in the same verse, while the "acceptance" of all the Jews (apart from the rest of the world, that is) is not taught here or elsewhere.

Romans 11:28--"Concerning the gospel they [Israel] are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they [the election] are beloved for the sake of the fathers."

The term "the election" refers to the believing remnant of Israel, as contrasted with the nation as a whole. This is, at least, how Paul has used the same word earlier in the same chapter (v.7).

Thus, these three verses can be made to harmonize quite naturally with Paul's whole argument without doing any violence to their grammar or vocabulary. It is true that their grammar can also be taken in the more familiar way, but (as you have observed) there is the little matter of reconciling these verses with the context of this discussion (and the rest of New Testament theology).

Don't bother looking for confirmation of my position on these three verses in the commentaries! I doubt that any of them have suggested this solution. At least, I have not found them, if they have. This is strictly the fruit of my own study and meditation. I hope that your views, when finally formed, will also be the result of your own critical thinking. It has never bothered me if people do not reach the same conclusions as I have reached. God bless your research and thinking!

[Guest]

Are the jews any better or worse than anyone else? Of course not so then why do they almost uniformly reject Christ?
Romans 11.8 " just as it is written, God GAVE THEM a spirit of stupor,eyes to see not, and ears to hear not,down to this very day."
Rom 11.11 " I say then, they did not stumble SO AS TO FALL did they?
May it never be! But by their trangression SALVATION HAS COME TO THE GENTILES to make them jeolous."
Rom 11.12 " Now if their transgressions are riches for the world and their failure is riches for the gentiles HOW MUCH MORE WILL THEIR FULFILLMENT BE."
None of this would make any sense if this age is the only age of salvation.
There simply would be no way to reconcile it to anything logical.
Why did Jesus speak in parables? Was it so everyone would understand?
Mark 4.11-12 " To you HAS BEEN GIVEN the mystery of the kingdom of God but those WHO ARE OUTSIDE get everything in parables."
Why do they get it in parables?
12- " So that while seeing they may see and NOT PERCEIVE and while hearing they may hear AND NOT UNDERSTAND otherwise they might return and be forgiven."

[Guest]

Steve,

Thanks for your response. My brain has been officially stretched and may take few days to get back to normal. Thanks for your help as I work through these issues.

Ryan

[Guest]

Here is a verse from Hebrews 11 which to me bolsters Steve Gregg's view.

Heb 11:39-40
39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. 40 God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

Todd

[Guest]

My previous reply was'nt meant to imply that there is any way to eternal life other than faith in Christ. Only that God in his sovereignty may have designed a plan beyond the obvious for his own reasons. In Romans 11.25 Paul calls this process a mystery which seems to mean that it was hidden frm sight. Yes it's clear that Spiritual Israel is real but it seems to me Romans 11 is about natural Israel.

[Guest]

Hi Steve150,

As I said, I hope you may be right. I would be so pleased if all the Jews someday would turn to Christ...or all Gentiles, too, for that matter.

I wanted to comment on your question of why the Jews almost uniformly reject Christ. You know, most Gentiles reject Christ as uniformly as do the Jews. I consider Jews to be just another ethnic category of people who need Jesus, but who, for their own reasons, are not easily made to see their need.

I think it was my friend Moishe Rosen (founder of Jews for Jesus) who told me that, given the racial demographics of the Christian church and the non-Christian world, there may actually be a higher percentage of the world Jewish population who are Christians than the percentage of the non-Jewish population who are.

Anyone who has tried to witness to Jews has probably been struck by the resistance that they usually put-up to the gospel, compared to that of non-Jewish people. However, the non-Jewish people who are drawn to Christ are most often those from at least a nominally Christian culture.

Unlike most western Gentiles, the Jews already embrace a non-Christian religion and culture from which it is not easy to extract them. If one were witnessing to Gentiles from non-Christian religious cultures (say, Muslims or Hindus), one might find them just as resistant to the Gospel as are the Jews.

For this reason, I would not necessarily be inclined to describe today's phenomenon of Jewish unbelief as remarkable or necessarily supernaturally induced. God did blind most of the Jews of Christ's day (as in Isaiah's) for the same reason (I think) that He had earlier hardened Pharaoh's heart. I think it was a judgment upon their existing obstinance. However, I am not sure that Paul's assessment of their blindness necessarily extends beyond that generation. I don't profess to know.

[Guest]

Great discussion my dear friend, who shares with me both a name and a dually-named city!

And, as always, many blessings to you brother Steve, thanks for your ministry and the example you set forth on your program. I hope to meet you one day soon and get to know you better.

Along the same lines here, I received an article by Dr. Michael Brown the other day that I felt I would post here to serve as another viewpoint/opinion. He makes some interesting points, especially at the end, that I thought I would throw out there to see what thoughts arise.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts on Israel
by Dr. Michael Brown

Some things are non-negotiable. God's covenant with Israel
is one of them. How could He have made Himself more clear?

He gave His oath to Abram, and reiterated it six more
times to Abraham, to his son Isaac and to his grandson Jacob. On one
occasion, "When God made His promise to Abraham, since there was no
one greater for Him to swear by, He swore by Himself" (Heb. 6:13).

Why did God speak so decisively? It was because He "wanted to make the
unchanging nature of His purpose very clear to the heirs of what was
promised, [so] He confirmed it with an oath' (Heb. 6:17). God Who
cannot lie bound Himself by an oath!

His covenant with Israel was reiterated through Moses,
repeated by the prophets and rehearsed by the psalmists. Jesus Himself
affirmed it (Matt. 19:28), Paul articulated it (Rom. 9-11) and the
gates of the New Jerusalem announce it forever (Rev. 22:11-12). God
has chosen Israel as His covenant people.

What if Israel broke the covenant? What would then happen
to them? Listen to these unmistakably clear truths: "Though I
completely destroy all the nations among which I scatter you, I will
not completely destroy you. I will discipline you but only with
justice; I will not let you go entirely unpunished" (Jer. 30:11). God
will completely destroy other nations, but He will not completely
destroy Israel! He treats His people differently from other people;
they are judged more strictly, but they will never be wiped out.

No matter what Israel does, God will never forsake them as
a distinct people. In Jeremiah 31:31-34, the Lord declares that He
will make a new covenant with Israel and Judah. But He doesn't stop
there. It's as if He's saying, "Now, don't get me wrong! Don't think
that this new covenant means that I'm abandoning My people. No!"

'This is what the LORD says, He who appoints the sun to shine by day,
who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea
so that its waves roar – the LORD Almighty is His name: "Only if
these decrees vanish from My sight," declares the LORD, "will the
descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before Me." This is
what the LORD says: "Only if the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below be searched out will I reject all the
descendants of Israel because of all they have done," declares the
LORD (Jer. 31:35-37).

As long as there is a sun, moon, stars, earth, and sea,
there will be a distinct people of Israel – no matter what they do.
It's God's promise! It's true!

"Is not Ephraim my dear son, the child in whom I delight? Though I
often speak against him, I shall remember him. Therefore My heart
yearns for him, I have great compassion for him," declares the Lord
(Jer. 31:20)

Look at how relevant God's prophetic word is to our day and age. For
centuries the Church, in arrogance, because of ignorance, claimed that
she alone was the true Israel, that she had replaced the ancient
covenant people. The Church taught that it was the Christians alone
who were the true Jews. (How strange that these Christians were not
claiming to be Jewish during the Holocaust!) The Church taught
emphatically that the physical people of Israel (those who were
ethnically Jewish and those who joined the nation through conversion
to Judaism) were eternally rejected.

This is not some worn-out old doctrine. It is on the increase again in
our day. Yet the Lord is not surprised. Twenty-five hundred years ago,
He already addressed this issue:

The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: "Have you not noticed that
these people are saying, 'The LORD has rejected the two kingdoms He
chose?' So they despise My people and no longer regard them as a
nation. This is what the LORD says: 'If I have not established My
covenant with day and night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth,
then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David My servant and
will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have
compassion on them' " (Jer. 33:23-26)

People are still murmuring against Israel and despising the people and
the nation.

God's answer is still the same: "I will never reject them!"

What exactly did God promise Abraham and his descendants?
How long are His promises good? Psalm 105 has the answer for us.

'He remembers His covenant forever, the word He commanded for a
thousand generations, the covenant He made with Abraham, the oath He
swore to Isaac. He confirmed it to Jacob as a decree, to Israel as an
everlasting covenant: "To you I will give the land of Canaan as the
portion you will inherit" (Ps. 105:8-11).

Did God make himself clear? The Scriptures speak of God's covenant,
the word He commanded, His oath which He confirmed as a decree
forever, for a thousand generations, as an everlasting covenant. The
Lord is trying to make a point!

Not only did He promise to bless Abraham and make him into a great
nation; not only did He promise to multiply his seed; not only did He
promise to make him the father of many nations; not only did He
promise to bless those who blessed him and curse those who cursed him;
He also promised Abraham the land of Canaan, with clearly defined
borders, as an everlasting inheritance to his natural descendants –
until this earth is no more.

Amazingly, some teachers have tried to get out of this
perpetual land promise to Israel. They claim that in the New
Testament, neither Jesus nor the apostles ever reiterate this
particular aspect of the covenant. But why should they reiterate it?
When almost all of the New Testament was being written, about one
million Jews were living in the Land, Jerusalem was the spiritual and
national capitol and the Temple was still standing. And Jesus made it
clear that, despite Jerusalem's soon-coming destruction – a
destruction that would last "until the times of the Gentiles are
fulfilled" – He would come back to a Jewish Jerusalem (Luke 21:24;
Matt. 23:37-39). Obviously Jews would be in the Land!

But there is another reason why Jesus and the apostles did not
explicitly stress the land promise to their people. The specifics of
God's covenant with the patriarchs were so clearly stated in the
Scriptures that it would have been a waste of words to repeat them
all! David Brown, the respected nineteenth century Bible commentator,
was correct when he said: "What is permanent in the kingdom of God
under the Old Testament is PRESUMED in the New."

And let all believers who question Israel's rights to the
Land, based on the New Testament, take note of this: The New Testament
doesn't state that Israel would be exiled from the Land either! Both
of these Old Testament truths, Israel's scattering and Israel's
regathering, are presumed in the New.

The covenant God made with Israel is just like the
covenant He made with David. The Lord declared to David that He would
establish a lasting dynasty for him. He gave this promise to David's
son who would succeed him on the throne:

When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with
floggings inflicted by men. But My love will never be taken away from
him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your
house and your kingdom will endure forever before Me; your throne will
be established forever (2 Sam. 7:14-16)

What a wonderful word! In spite of David's terrible sin and Solomon's
tragic backsliding, in spite of the godlessness of Davidic kings like
Ahaz and Manasseh, the kingdom would never be taken from his physical
descendants.

When the kingdom was divided and God gave Jeroboam the ten northern
tribes, He did so to humble David's descendants, "but not forever" (1
Kin. 11:39). He still left one tribe with the sons of David, "so that
David My servant may always have a lamp before Me in Jerusalem, the
city where I chose to put My Name" (1 Kin. 11:36). The King of kings
and Lord of lords is a direct descendant of David! God was faithful to
keep His word to David, and He is just as faithful to keep His word to
Israel.

His covenant with Abraham is just as unconditional and everlasting as
His covenant with David. Read Genesis 15 carefully. In ancient days,
that is how covenants were made. Sacrificial animals were cut in two
and their severed bodies placed in two lines. Both parties entering
into the covenant would then walk between the carcasses. By doing so
they were symbolically saying, "If I break this binding agreement, if
I fail to uphold my side of the pact, then let me suffer the same fate
that these animals have suffered." But something was different in
Genesis 15. Only God passed through the pieces! This was a one-way
deal (see Gen. 15:17-21)

The Land belonged to other nations. But at the proper time
it would be given to Abraham's seed. If they violated the terms of the
covenant – especially as expressed through Moses – then they would be
punished and even driven temporarily from the Land. But just as God's
word to David stands firm, His word to Abraham endures, no matter what
Israel does. This is what He said through Moses. When the Israelites
are

'…in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so
as to destroy them completely, breaking My covenant with them. I am
the LORD their God. But for their sake I will remember the covenant
with their ancestors whom I brought out of Egypt in the sight of the
nations to be their God. I am the LORD (Lev. 26:44-45; see also Deut.
4:27, 30-31)

Even today, when "As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies
on [our] account; [yet] as far as election is concerned, they are
loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and His call are
irrevocable" (Rom. 11:28-29). Could anything be more plain?

Right now the great majority of the Jewish people are our "enemies"
as far as the gospel is concerned. They reject our message (the
Orthodox Jews reject it most strongly), and some even actively oppose
it. As individuals, they forfeit their covenant blessings when they
turn from Jesus the Messiah. But as a people, they are still elect and
loved "on account of the patriarchs." Otherwise, God's promises have
no meaning and election has no significance. "Abraham, I'm swearing by
Myself, I'm putting My reputation on the line. I will bless your
offspring always – no matter what. (But I may replace them with
someone else one day!)" That is not the Lord that we serve.

God's covenant with Abraham is just as unconditional and everlasting
as His covenant with the Church. The Lord "saved us, not because of
righteous things we had done, but because of His mercy" (Titus 3:5).
Praise God, we were chosen by grace! But we are not the only
recipients of the Lord's unmerited favor. To Israel, Moses said:

The LORD did not set His affection on you and choose you because you
were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all
peoples. But it was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath He
swore to your forefathers that he brought you out with a mighty hand
and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh
king of Egypt (Deut. 7:7-8).

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? God's covenants with Israel and with the
Church are based on His promise, not our performance.

Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church both stood, and
still stand, by grace. Both received God's eternal promises. Together
we make up the family of God: The faithful ones of Israel and the
chosen ones from every nation become one new man out of the two, one
body, one people. "For through Him [Jesus!] we both have access to the
Father by one Spirit" (Eph. 2:18). Great is the wisdom of God.

This is not what the Muslims believe. It is a fundamental
tenet of the Koran that both Israel and the Church failed. Moses was a
prophet. Jesus was a prophet. But Muhammad was the seal of the
prophets, the messenger of the final revelation. The Jews are not the
people of God – they failed! The Christians are not the people of God
– they failed! It is Muslims who are the people of God.

Of course, this is preposterous. But, in the event that
you are still uncertain about the calling of Israel, consider this
simple truth: If God could forsake Israel, in spite of His
unconditional, everlasting promises, then He could forsake the Church!
If God could replace Israel, in spite of His unconditional,
everlasting promises, then He could replace the Church! So, if you
hold to a theology that says, "God has forsaken physical Israel," or
"The Church has replaced Israel," you had better be extremely careful.

Maybe the Koran is right!

[Guest]

Hi Steve (Steve Gregg that is),

I’d like to throw something into this discussion for your consideration if I may. These passages do indeed seem to be difficult, but they may not have to be. I’m fully convinced that your interpretation of the 11:25-26 is the correct one. However, I have a difficult time reading the pronouns you listed in the other verses as referring to anything other than ethnic Jews. This need not be a problem for your view however.

Is it possible that Paul gives us a hint of what his whole point for this chapter is in vs. 13-14?

Rom 11:13-15
13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.
NKJV

We can all relate to Paul’s affection for his own people, I’m sure. As Christians, we of course want as many people saved as possible. But I think each one of us also know specific people that we are especially hoping to be saved (family, friends, neighbors, countrymen, etc.).

Is it further possible that Paul is either anticipating or answering a fallacious claim by someone in the church of Rome that ethnic Jews are disqualified from inheriting the kingdom since they (as a nation) rejected their king (Jesus)?

On the surface, Paul seems to be making a distinction between Gentiles and Ethnic Jews, but I don’t think he is since that would contradict what he said in the previous chapter.

Rom 10:12-13
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."
NKJV

Is it possible that he could be “entertaining”, as it were, this distinction anticipated or falsely made by someone else only for the sake of his argument here?

I’d like to propose an alternate possibility for the verses you listed above if I could:


1) Rom 11:12-13
12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!
NKJV

I have a hard time seeing the Gentiles as the antecedent for the last “their” in this sentence since “Gentiles” is merely the object of a prepositional phase. However, even if “their fullness” is referring to ethnic Jews in this verse, why would we look at it any different then “their fullness” when speaking of the Gentiles in vs. 25? None of us imagine that all Gentiles will be saved, only a remnant. Likewise, only a remnant of ethnic Jews will ever be saved as well (and in the same manner as Gentiles). That’s their fullness, the total number of ethnic Jews that will come to Christ in the course of time. And their fullness is realized at the exact same time as the Gentiles fullness…the 2nd coming. It’s as if Paul is saying:

“Yes, it was a good deal for you [Gentiles] that they [the nation of Israel] rejected their king, because now you are qualified to be part of that holy nation and kingdom of priests (1Pet 2:9) established at the cross which was originally promised only to them if they met God’s conditions (Exodus 19). But isn’t it an even better deal that ethnic Jews were not forever disqualified from that kingdom? Any ethnic Jew can still be saved too if they come to Jesus. Everybody gets to be in the kingdom if they want to.”



2) Rom 11:15-16
15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
NKJV
Same argument applies here. The first “their” I would take to be the nation of Israel. The second “their” would seem to mean those Jews who would later accept Christ. We see this very thing happening in the book of Acts. When they discovered what they had done, they were “cut to the heart” and realized they were “dead” (so to speak).

Acts 2:36-39
36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

But God doesn’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Peter lets them know that they can still be “brought back to life” into the kingdom they rejected.

38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."
NKJV



3) Rom 11:28-29
28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.
NKJV

I agree with your interpretation of this verse listed above. This seems to agree with everything else Paul has been saying up to this point, especially:

Rom 9:27
27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel:

"Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
The remnant will be saved.
NKJV


Paul goes on in this chapter to marvel at this divine orchestration of two distinct peoples into one kingdom.

Rom 11:33
33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!
NKJV

And of course, glorifies God in all of it.

Rom 11:36
36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.
NKJV


Now of course, I’m only looking at this from the standpoint of an English speaking person living in America in the 21st century. I know nothing about Greek grammatical structure and am in no way qualified to comment on Paul’s intended meaning here. In other words, take it with a grain of salt.

And to our other brother Ryan who posted the article by Dr. Brown. I would simply suggest that you listen to Steve Gregg’s lectures on “What are we to make of Israel?.” You can find it on his tape download page. It might provide a little balance to that article and demonstrate that our God is not a respecter of men or a racist. God owes the nation of Israel nothing.

God bless.