Rom. 11:25-28

[Guest]

It's Zechariah 9:9. The context is quite interesting, by the way. Verses 10-12 have to do with being in impossible circumstances and trusting in the coming "King" of verse 9 for deliverance, rather than in their own military strength, despite how bad things look.

Damon

[Guest]

Chris, I've posted on the "alternative views of hell" thread about eternal damnation in hell. If you're interested to check it out you'll see i'm not a believer in damnation nor eternal nor torment in hell because i believe the words are mistranslations.
We all agree that God is fair and loving and merciful and just and holy but we probably disagree on how he demonstrates that. You said that God gives everyone a fair opportunity "whosoever" but throughout history most of humanity never really knew much about Jesus in this life unless they were incredibly blessed and were born into an active christian family.If they were hindus,muslims or countless other groups than according to orthodox christianitys understanding of "once to die and than the judgement" than it's on to eternal damnation from the God who tells us to "love our enemies." So from your point of view that our eternal destiny is sealed in this brief life than you almost have to believe God would'nt blind people because it would be unjust.
But we both agree that scripture is the final judge ,right?
Mark 4.11 " To you has been given the MYSTERY of the kingdom of God, BUT those who are outside get everything in parables. (Why parables?)
So that while seeing ,that they may see AND NOT PERCEIVE,and while hearing ,they may hear and not understand , OTHERWISE they might return and be forgiven."
Jesus spoke in parables not so they would understand but so they would'nt understand and be forgiven. This is an example of God interceeding because he has a bigger purpose in mind yet i don't believe these people are damned to eternal torment.

[Guest]

Hi Steve (Gregg that is),

I wanted to resurrect this thread if I could because I'd like to get some clarification on something from you. In catching up with some of your previous broadcasts over the last few weeks, I recently heard you debating with a lady regarding this pronoun issue in Romans 11. I’ve wanted to bring this up before, but I keep forgetting. Earlier in this thread, I posted an alternative to your explanation of it, and I’d like you to critique its viability if you would please. I’ll paste it again at the end of this post But before that I’d like to examine two verses that have similar structure in which there appears to me that there might be inconsistency in your grammatical structure logic. They are Daniel 9:26-27, and Romans 11:12.

Looking at the Daniel passage:

Dan 9:26-27
26 "And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate."
NKJV

The arguments I’ve heard you teach (and I agree with) against the dispensational assertion that the “he” in v. 27 is the anti-christ are as follows:

1. Logically, the Messiah is the most natural antecedent for “he” in verse 27 because it is the last mentioned person who was the subject of a sentence.
2. The prince to come is merely the object of a prepositional phrase.

I agree 100% with your reasoning on this. However, when you explain the Romans passage, it seems that you use the reverse logic:

Earlier in this thread you wrote:

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.

Isn’t the phrase “for the Gentiles” a prepositional phrase making the word “Gentiles” on equal footing in this passage as “prince” is in the Daniel passage?

Maybe I’m mistaken in that. But if you could just elaborate a little, that would be helpful. It’s very difficult for me to read it as you describe it. I’m by no means an expert in English grammatical structure, much less greek grammar.


Also, I’d like you to critique the alternative that I posted earlier.

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.”

It seems to me that Paul is still addressing the anticipated question in verse 1.

Rom 11:1
11:1 I say then, has God cast away His people?
NKJV

And sharing his desire in vs. 14...

Rom 11:14
14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.
NKJV

The total number of that "some of them" would be the "fullness" of the Jews it seems. And that is happening, not as a future event after the rapture (as dispensationalists think), but historically and presently right along side the Gentiles until Jesus comes back. And there's no distinction between the two groups besides their ethnicity (which means nothing to God).

Anyway, this is how I currently see that statement. But if it’s not viable for some reason, I want to find an alternative way to look at it. Maybe yours makes more sense and I'm just not seeing it yet.

Thanks Steve.

Lord bless.

[Guest]

bump

[Guest]

Though I have not looked into these verses whatsoever, there is a commentary which may or may not beneficial to those seeking to understand the current texts. Here it is:

http://www.solidrock.net/library/thomps ... _11-32.php

[Guest]

Hi Allyn,

My last post on this was way back in January. Were you looking for an answer from Steve to my challenge? Or are you just wanting to re-open the thread for discussion in general? Just wondering. I wasn't sure what "bump" meant.

[Guest]

Yeah Christopher, both reasons. I do like this subject and I do like to read Steve's responses.

[Guest]

Isn’t the phrase “for the Gentiles” a prepositional phrase making the word “Gentiles” on equal footing in this passage as “prince” is in the Daniel passage?

Good observation Christopher, I'm hoping Steve will answer.

[Guest]

Christopher, Just an observation; Isn't Paul carrying forward the fact that not all Israel is Israel but only those whom God forknew? Isn't Paul adding himself to the foreknown ones thus proving the point that since he is also Jewish then it shows that God has not cast away those whom He forknew.

I wonder if the real anticipated question is the fact whether all Israel is Israel or not? For just as Paul says not all Israel is Israel...but instead only the foreknown are Israel, likewise the fulness of Israel comes about through the inclusion of the Gentile.

As to your point concerning who "their" is, I believe you are right.

[Guest]

Hi Allyn,

I’m not sure I understand your questions. Did I imply something to the contrary?

I do believe as you do that the main point Paul is making in Chapters 9-11 is as you described based on a hypothetical challenge to the prophesy regarding Israel being saved having "no effect":

Isa 45:17
17 But Israel shall be saved by the LORD
With an everlasting salvation;
NKJV

(or course, we don’t know which promise he’s referring to until we get to Rom 11:25 where he uses words similar to that of Isaiah)

So his opening assertion is this:

Rom 9:6
6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel
NKJV

So I agree that it’s the main point overall. However, as he makes his case, he goes off on several related tangents to tie up all the loose ends he can anticipate. One of them being the anticipated question:

Rom 11:1
11:1 I say then, has God cast away His people?
NKJV

I think “His people” here is speaking of ethnic Jews descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and not Israel in a spiritual sense. He says in 3 places in this treatise that his desire is that the Jews (or at least some of them) would be saved (Rom 9:1-5, 10:1, 11:14).

I see Paul making the point to the gentile Christians here not to think more highly of themselves than they ought to (v.13) and not to mistakenly assume that ethnic Jews as a whole have been disqualified from the Olive tree (Israel of God). Even those in his day who originally rejected Jesus still had a chance to be saved and God had foreknowledge of which ones would be (v.23). Paul (a Jew) himself rejected Christ at first and yet he was later saved.

Paul is generally emphatic about there being no distinction between Jews and Gentiles in the new and improved “Israel of God”. But I think he makes an appropriate exception in this argument because of the premise that he begins with (vs.1).

Perhaps there were some gentiles in that church who thought that God had rejected Jews outright since they, as a whole, did not receive their Messiah. Or perhaps Paul just wanted to put that notion to rest before it ever got off the ground. Who knows?

In any case, I think Paul is saying that there is a “fullness” of Gentiles (v.25) and a “fullness” of Jews (vs.12) that will come into one olive tree (the church). In neither case is that “fullness” universal (as dispensationalists think), but only a remnant of each group together will make up the “Israel” that will be saved and thereby fulfilling the word of God in Isaiah 45:17 that can be mistakenly assumed as “taken no effect”.

In general, it seems to me like one of Paul’s objectives in the book of Romans is to exhort both Jews and Gentiles to love and receive each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. In many places, we see hints of Paul addressing petty divisions going on between the two groups in the church.

That is what I understand about this passage at this point anyways. Please correct me if I'm wrong...anyone.