Rom. 11:25-28

[Guest]

It's not a matter of whether God owes ethnic Israel anything it's a matter of what is it vthat Paul calls a "mystery" and what are the depths of God's riches and wisdom. Paul in Romans 9 & 10 does talk of spiritual Israel yet in Romans 11 he is changing the subject of the discussion and calling it a mystery or something different than what he was previously referringto. If not it would'nt be a mystery,he would simply conclude his previous discussion.
Steve , much as i respect your insights, in Romans 11.12&15 the word "their" is referring to the subject of Pauls discussion or natural Israel. That's not first blush ,that's second and third blush IMO. I agree that your interpretation is possible but i think improbable except for the fact you want it to blend in with Romans 9 & 10. But Romans 11 seems to stand on it's own and is like a mini chapter of "Revelation" but stuck in the wrong book. The term "fullness" does'nt sound to me that it only means a remnant. Remnant and fullness don't go together,they are not synonyms . One means a tiny amount and one means a large amount IMO. So Isaiah talks of a remnant during one stage of God's redemptive plan yet Paul sounds to me to be referring to a different age when "fullness" of the gentiles and jews will happen IMO. God called Jesus "the savior of the world." Did Jesus do such a poor job and only save a remnant? Oh right there is mans freewill ,like Paul had which took about 30 seconds to change when he came up against Gods intentions.

[Guest]

It's not a matter of whether God owes ethnic Israel anything it's a matter of what is it vthat Paul calls a "mystery" and what are the depths of God's riches and wisdom. Paul in Romans 9 & 10 does talk of spiritual Israel yet in Romans 11 he is changing the subject of the discussion and calling it a mystery or something different than what he was previously referringto. If not it would'nt be a mystery,he would simply conclude his previous discussion.

We can guess at what the "mystery" is but I think what Paul is speaking of is also defined here:

Eph 3:3...by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel

This sounds a lot like what Paul is saying in Romans 11:19-24, in Ephesians Paul calls the mystery the Gentiles being one with Israel. So when Paul says "that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved"

All Israel can easily mean believing Jews and believing Gentiles combined as one, since that's exactly what Paul says in Ephesians 2&3.

Steve , much as i respect your insights, in Romans 11.12&15 the word "their" is referring to the subject of Pauls discussion or natural Israel. That's not first blush ,that's second and third blush IMO. I agree that your interpretation is possible but i think improbable except for the fact you want it to blend in with Romans 9 & 10. But Romans 11 seems to stand on it's own and is like a mini chapter of "Revelation" but stuck in the wrong book. The term "fullness" does'nt sound to me that it only means a remnant. Remnant and fullness don't go together,they are not synonyms . One means a tiny amount and one means a large amount IMO. So Isaiah talks of a remnant during one stage of God's redemptive plan yet Paul sounds to me to be referring to a different age when "fullness" of the gentiles and jews will happen IMO.

The fullness can easily mean all the remnant people added up over all time. That would constitute a large number of people, yet only mean the remnant. See Hebrews 11:39-40

God called Jesus "the savior of the world." Did Jesus do such a poor job and only save a remnant? Oh right there is mans freewill ,like Paul had which took about 30 seconds to change when he came up against Gods intentions.

"Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded."

Why?

"For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God."

and

30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.

By rejecting Jesus they have stumbled and become blinded. It's not like God arbitrarily blinded the Jews until some future time when He opens their eyes again. Instead Paul says that God blinds those who have rejected the Messiah, these are not the elect and so are blinded.

It has nothing to do with Jesus not being able to save all. It has everything to do with those Jews who seek the righteousness of God by works of the law and not by faith.

The problem with all Jews being saved is that Paul already said:

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".

Compare that with: "All Israel will be saved"

Now who is "all Israel"? All who call on the name of the Lord.

And when was the covenant made when God took away sins? How does one enter into that covenant? "Repent and believe the Gospel"

[Guest]

Steve, If this age is the only chance of salvation than i agree only a remnant will be saved. But the "once to die and than the judgement" evidence that this is the only opportunity of salvation is unconvincing to me. Believers get judged in this life so the "once to die" may be the spiritual death we are born with. We are all spiritually dead before we make a conscience decision for Christ so we all die once spiritually. If it means physical death and than the judgement, than judgement does'nt necessarily mean conviction because the greek word "krises" means crises.
You said that outsiders who joined the jews in the OT were considered jews so anyone under the old covenant c/b considered jewish. That's true but initially they were "spiritual jews" the same as in the NT. Ethnic jews were decendents of Judah to my understanding. God sovreignly picked them "because THEY were the WEAKEST NATION."While it's true God is not a respecter of persons he does act sovreignly for his own reasons. Israel was blinded for the sake of the gentiles. That's not a respecter of persons but a sovreign act. God says he will reveal himself to babes and not the wise,that's a sovreign act. This is true to this very day , intellectuals have a much smaller percentage of belief than less educated people.
Sorry but i just don't see the accumulation of a remnant over time as meaning fullness. It's like pouring a glass of water into an empty pool and saying "there it is the fullness is complete."

[Guest]

Israel was blinded for the sake of the gentiles. That's not a respecter of persons but a sovreign act. God says he will reveal himself to babes and not the wise,that's a sovreign act. This is true to this very day , intellectuals have a much smaller percentage of belief than less educated people.

Steve7150,

Perhaps the problem is that we don't see "blinding" the same way. I don't see God supernaturally blinding people on purpose just because they happen to be born a Jew. When God is said to harden someone's heart, I think it can mean that the same mercy and grace He demonstrates to everyone can either soften or harden hearts depending on the condition of that person's heart. God so loved the world that He gave Jesus to die for all. I've heard it compared with the same sun hardening clay and melting wax. The Israelites became very proud that they were the chosen people of God and failed to be compassionate toward the rest of the world. They showed great disdain for Gentiles and even Samaritans because of bloodline. When Jesus showed mercy on sinners and certain Gentiles and Samaritans, proving that the kingdom did not exclusively belong to them, it angered the Pharisees and religious leaders instead of bringing them joy that God is merciful to all. Jonah is a good type of Israel in this respect also. God's heart is that none would perish, but not all people want to accept God's heart in this manner and therefore harden their own hearts. Romans 11:25 says that blindness has happened to Israel but it doesn't say God did it. Even if God did do it, it doesn't say how He did it. "Until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" can very easily mean "from now on until the end of time" because Israel's exclusive Sinaitic covenant has been revoked in the new covenant. I hope you listen to Steve's lectures on this, it really opened my eyes and I think it may clear some things up for you as well if your mind is open to the truth.

God bless.

[Guest]

Guys, we seem to be going around and around and not really getting anywhere. You both have valid points to make, though. [Note: I wrote this before Christopher sent his post in.]

Before we address anything else, let's discuss what the concept of "fulness" is all about. In Romans 11, Paul goes through his remnant versus fulness discussion. In Romans 9:27-28, speaking of the remnant under discussion, Paul quotes from Isaiah 10:22, so let's read that in its context:

And it will come to pass in that day [the day of Israel's repentance] that the remnant of Israel along with those of the house of Jacob who have escaped [destruction] will never again trust in the one who struck them down, but will truly trust in the Lord, the Holy One of Israel. The remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God. For although Israel, your people, are as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will return. The [results of the] decreed destruction will overflow with righteousness, for the Lord God of hosts will carry out His destruction, which has been determined beforehand, in all of the land.

Whereas it's not clear in Romans 9-11 that the remnant of Israel being saved also has to do with their fulness, but the passage is ambiguous enough to make it possible that they're two separate but related events, the original citation from Isaiah 10 makes it clear that they're one and the same. In other words, the "fulness" of Israel's salvation in Romans 11 is here explained as "overflowing with righteousness." What that means is that instead of sinful and untrusting parents passing on their own shortcomings to their children (see Ezekiel 18 ), we'll have a righteous remnant of that sinful and untrusting nation that is able to grow, and grow, and grow until it "overflows with righteousness."

Moreover, the whole issue of faith versus works-righteousness is directly connected with trusting in God. To summarize Paul's argument in Romans 9-11 in much clearer terms, because Jesus trusted in and put His faith in God the Father to the uttermost, God the Father was able to raise Jesus from the dead (cf. Rom. 4:16-25). If we confess that God raised Jesus from the dead then we are in effect proclaiming that we likewise believe in trusting God to the uttermost! (Few of us have that level of trust, by the way. Most of us proclaim that God raised Jesus from the dead without even realizing what that proclamation implies.)

Thus we have the parallel in Romans 11:15, "If the casting away of [ethnic Israel] results in the reconciling of the world [to God], then what will the receiving of [ethnic Israel] be but life from the dead?" That is, the amount of trust that it would take for ethnic Israel to truly return to God would be on a par with the faith that Jesus had which allowed Him to be raised from the dead. So, it would be as if a "dead" nation came back to life, spiritually speaking.

Remember Jesus' statement that it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter in to the Kingdom? This figuratively means that it's harder for Israel, which has been richly blessed by God, to enter in to the Kingdom than for an unclean nation and people (the camel was an unclean animal, after all) to enter in. Why? Because of trust. It was easier for Israel to trust in their heritage, their covenants and their riches than it was for them to truly trust in God Himself.

Now, what this whole passage in Romans is saying is that God hasn't forgotten His people. Nevertheless, they have been blinded in part until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in, meaning that Israel would not, as a nation, fully put their trust in God until the end of the age, when all of the Gentiles who are destined to trust in God have already done so. In that context, "all Israel will be saved" simply means that the whole nation of Israel would believe and trust in God just before Jesus' return. This would only be a remnant of all of ethnic Israel, however, because in the context of Isaiah 10:22 which speaks about this very remnant, all of those who refused to believe and trust in God at that time would instead be destroyed.

As far as man's free will versus God's will, this seems to be a very contentious issue that raises a lot of tempers when it's discussed. However, the resolution is actually quite simple. God does know what will happen. On the other hand, He gives free moral agency to man, whom He knows in advance will sometimes go against His will in the short term (relative to the whole of human history, that is). Nevertheless, God's ultimate, long-term will for man will inexorably come about, because God is able to act on the stage of history to accomplish His will while still preserving man's free moral agency.

What this means from a human perspective is that, while God's will might be to save all of mankind, we are able to frustrate the will of God in certain ways and at certain times because of our own free moral agency, but not totally or completely. God will not force mankind to come to Him, so there is no universal salvation. Nevertheless, God has planned things in such a way as to get the best return possible on His investment, as it were. That is, as many of us as can freely choose to trust in God, however God might choose to intervene in history, will choose to trust in God.

Anyway, I hope all of what I wrote above makes sense.

Damon

[Guest]

Chris, I think i'm open minded since i changed from dispensationalism to ammelianism after listening to Steve and Doug Batchlor. But re jews hardening themselves i don't see it.
Romans 11.7 " What then? What Israel is seeking,it has not obtained ,but those who WERE CHOSEN obtained it, and the rest WERE HARDENED."
11.8 "just as it is written,God GAVE THEM a spirit of stupor."
11.10 "Let their eyes be darkened TO SEE NOT and bend their backs forever."
God did'nt do this because they were jews but because he has a sovreign plan IMO. God does things through the least likely people or nations and IMO he will do something through the biggest unbelievers in the end IMO.
Just my thoughts , i can't prove it or back it up scriptually except to say "the last will be the first and the first shall be the last."
I don't accept the translation of aionas as "forever" but rather i think it means till the end of the age. Steve7150

[Guest]

Damon,

Please forgive my ignorance brother, but much of what you wrote doesn't make any sense to me. Could you please add some scriptural support for some of your points? Especially:

To summarize Paul's argument in Romans 9-11 in much clearer terms, because Jesus trusted in and put His faith in God the Father to the uttermost, God the Father was able to raise Jesus from the dead (cf. Rom. 4:16-25).

The passage doesn't seem to fit the statement about Jesus being raised because of His faith. You may very well be right, but I must confess, that this idea is foreign to me. It seems to me that many people in scripture were raised from the dead that never had the same trust in the Father that Jesus had. And how can a dead person trust or mis-trust at all? Maybe you can help me understand what you mean.

Also, I don't see a nation being able to put trust in God since a nation is not a personal entity with free will, etc. Individuals put their trust in God.

[Guest]

Steve7150,

I certainly didn't mean to sound uncharitable towards you brother, please forgive me if it came across that way. Since I don't know you personally, I simply don't know whether your mind is open to other views or not. But if you say you are, I believe you. In fact, you are to be commended for weighing the evidence and coming out of dispensationalism, I know it's tough because I was also once a dispensationalist and in fact I still attend a dispensationalist church.

Indeed the verses you listed do sound very much like God purposely blinds and hardens certain people, and you may be right in saying so. But it seems to me that there other scriptures that seem to say just the opposite. It may be more intuitive than anything, but it seems to me that God so loved the world that He is more interested in finding valid excuses to show mercy, rather than to harden hearts.

In Acts 17, Paul explains this to the Athenians:

Acts 17:26-27
26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
NKJV

I think Paul may be saying that God put every man in the exact circumstance that would give him the best chance to call out to Him.

Ps 136 (and others) repeatedly states that "His mercy endures forever"

Also, to demonstrate my point, I'd like to turn your attention to Acts 7 (I won't print the whole thing here). Stephen, in the Spirit, is speaking what the Spirit wants him to speak. You could say he is being the mouthpiece of God at that moment. But look at what the religious leaders do:

Acts 7:54-58
54 When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth. 55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, 56 and said, "Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!" 57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord; 58 and they cast him out of the city and stoned him.
NKJV

They stopped their own ears because the hardness of their hearts. But you could also say that God stopped their ears because He was speaking truth through Stephen.

So, all I'm saying is, we really don't know how God blinds, hardens, gives spirits of stupor, only that he does. It could be as a judgment, It could be supernaturally according to His divine right as Calvinists believe, or it could be through the mercy and truth spoken to a heart bent on disbelief. The sun hardens the clay slowly to the point where it's no longer pliable.

A lot more could be said, but I'm out of time and I need to go. Maybe we can pick this up again later.

[Guest]

Hi Chris, I attend a messianic temple which is dispensational so i simply keep a low profile re escatology. Generally speaking God gives us free will and does want us to come to him naturally and he is near to us as Romans 10.8 says. But i think sometimes we tend to look at free will as if it's a birthright an entitlement that God owes us and something sacred. It seems to me God allows it as long as it serves his purpose but he reserves the right to intercede as he sees fit and indeed sometimes he does.
Acts 4.27-28 " For truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servent Jesus ,whom you annointed both Herod and Pontius Pilate along with the gentiles and the peoples of Israel, TO DO WHATEVER YOUR HAND AND YOUR PURPOSE PREDESTINED TO OCCUR."
It seems some or all of this process was sovreignly designed by God to occur in some way. Just as it says in Rev that "the slaying of the lamb WAS DETERMINED before the foundation of the world."
The slaying was determined, not just allowed to happen but determined.
If the slaying was determined than someone or some group had to be the slayer.

[Guest]

Damon,

Please forgive my ignorance brother, but much of what you wrote doesn't make any sense to me.

Sorry, I often write in a very "dense" and hard to understand style. It's not always easy for me to get across what's in my head in a clear manner.

Could you please add some scriptural support for some of your points? Especially:

To summarize Paul's argument in Romans 9-11 in much clearer terms, because Jesus trusted in and put His faith in God the Father to the uttermost, God the Father was able to raise Jesus from the dead (cf. Rom. 4:16-25).

The passage doesn't seem to fit the statement about Jesus being raised because of His faith.

Right, but I was adding in the part that Jesus was raised from the dead because of His faith. That's how I was trying to clarify what Paul wrote. Look at Hebrews 11:17-19 where we read that Abraham trusted in God's promise so much that he was willing to offer Isaac on the altar, believing that God would do something as miraculous and unnatural as raising his son from the dead. That's some pretty awesome faith! The same argument could be made regarding Jesus trusting in the Father to raise Him from the dead, if He offered Himself on the cross.

Does that make more sense now?

Also, I don't see a nation being able to put trust in God since a nation is not a personal entity with free will, etc. Individuals put their trust in God.

What I meant is that Israel as a whole never trusted in Jesus. Just some of the Israelites did. But after the fulness of the Gentiles is come in, what I believe this passage in Romans 9-11 to be saying is that all of the people of the nation of Israel will trust in Jesus, because those who won't will be destroyed.

Damon