# Will there be a massive harvest of Jews before Jesus Returns?



## Jon 316

Do these verses suggest that a large number of Jews will turn to Christ after the 'fulness of the gentiles has come in'?




> 25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved,[g] as it is written:
> 
> 
> “ The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
> And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
> 27 For this is My covenant with them,
> When I take away their sins.”[h]
> 
> 28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.


----------



## N. Eshelman

The Westminster Divines thought so.


----------



## Rich Koster

There will be a complete number of God's elect.


----------



## Athaleyah

I believe that massive numbers of Jews will come to Christ before the end. Fits in well with my postmillinial eschatology.


----------



## DMcFadden

Amil Kim Riddlebarger sees an influx before the end.


----------



## Skyler

The answer is a definite maybe.


----------



## Leslie

It'll happen. There is a lot of consensus on this. To a small extent it's happening already with the Messianic Jewish movement.


----------



## Skyler

On another note, I've heard the interpretation that the Ishmaelite(Arabic) nations will experience a great revival, which will "inspire Israel to jealousy" and then result in many converts from both sides. Interesting thought.


----------



## Michael

I think the more difficult question is will the harvest of the Jewish people be vividly punctuated or more of a simultaneous gathering over time?


----------



## historyb

I think Isreal has a place still in God's end plans, In my humble opinion


----------



## DonP

I think God made it extremely clear He is done with Israel the nation, the land etc. 
As for Israel of the promise, the elect, well yes hey will continued to be saved including as Paul says, some who were of Jewish decent. 

But He is now fulfilling the promise to Abraham to make him a father of many nations. So Israel was never of the seed according to the flesh, Israel was always that of faith and that is who all those promises were to. 

Watch out for that ol scoundrel Scoffield and his buddies who have clouded our thinking. 

Hey maybe lots of people who think they have some blood of the 12 patriarchs will be saved but so what? And after the captivity most records were not ever found and most can't prove they were of the lost tribes for sure or most any other. 

We don't know who the elect are so we evangelize without preference to all. 

Watch out for the Beast, British Israelism is a strong movement. 

Why would the question arise seeing God says
Gal 3:28 *There is neither Jew nor Greek,* there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for *you are all one* in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then *you are Abraham's seed,* and heirs according to the promise NKJV

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, NKJV

Rom 4:13
For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression. 

16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all 17(as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations" NKJV

Rom 9:6
But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. NKJV

So there are a certain number of elect descendants of Abraham just as Paul was one and he hold no hope for them other than the same conversion he got.

All Israel shall be saves is all the elect. 

You have to watch for how they use Israel whether they are speaking of blood decent or of the elect. The covenant people, or the elect. 

It is used in different ways and meanings.  

In His Service,

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## moral necessity

No...Jews are those who are so inwardly...and not so outwardly according to the flesh. Those who are of faith, are those of Abraham!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jesus is my friend

PeaceMaker said:


> I think God made it extremely clear He is done with Israel the nation, the land etc.
> As for Israel of the promise, the elect, well yes hey will continued to be saved including as Paul says, some who were of Jewish decent.
> 
> But He is now fulfilling the promise to Abraham to make him a father of many nations. So Israel was never of the seed according to the flesh, Israel was always that of faith and that is who all those promises were to.
> 
> Watch out for that ol scoundrel Scoffield and his buddies who have clouded our thinking.
> 
> Hey maybe lots of people who think they have some blood of the 12 patriarchs will be saved but so what? And after the captivity most records were not ever found and most can't prove they were of the lost tribes for sure or most any other.
> 
> We don't know who the elect are so we evangelize without preference to all.
> 
> Watch out for the Beast, British Israelism is a strong movement.
> 
> Why would the question arise seeing God says
> Gal 3:28 *There is neither Jew nor Greek,* there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for *you are all one* in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then *you are Abraham's seed,* and heirs according to the promise NKJV
> 
> Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, NKJV
> 
> Rom 4:13
> For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.
> 
> 16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all 17(as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations" NKJV
> 
> Rom 9:6
> But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.
> 
> Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. NKJV
> 
> So there are a certain number of elect descendants of Abraham just as Paul was one and he hold no hope for them other than the same conversion he got.
> 
> All Israel shall be saves is all the elect.
> 
> You have to watch for how they use Israel whether they are speaking of blood decent or of the elect. The covenant people, or the elect.
> 
> It is used in different ways and meanings.
> 
> In His Service,



This is a great question John316 (again).I am still working this one out however this post sounds right and with scripture proofs, is there anyone who's view differs with verses to support thier thoughts? This would have been good as a poll question also


----------



## N. Eshelman

Larger Catechism 191

191. What do we pray for in the second petition?

A. In the second petition, (which is, "Thy kingdom come") acknowledges ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, *the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in*; the Church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him for ever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.


----------



## Michael

moral necessity said:


> No...Jews are those who are so inwardly...and not so outwardly according to the flesh. Those who are of faith, are those of Abraham!



You are right we are Jews who are so inwardly. However, the flesh of ethnic Israel has played a very important part in God's plan of redemption. The crescendo of Romans 9, 10, and especially 11 outline how there is still more in store. Not only are are there promises made but also grave warnings to Gentiles who may boast.


----------



## Roldan

What Jews? There is no pure 100% Jew out there so how can we call them Jews if they are mixed with other ethnicities. Even in 70 Ad their books that kept their record of their bloodline was destroyed and burned up, coincidence? I think not.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Roldan said:


> What Jews? There is no pure 100% Jew out there so how can we call them Jews if they are mixed with other ethnicities. Even in 70 Ad their books that kept their record of their bloodline was destroyed and burned up, coincidence? I think not.



Interesting. Would you please point me to a resource regarding this matter?

-----Added 3/8/2009 at 02:54:59 EST-----



nleshelman said:


> Larger Catechism 191
> 
> 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
> 
> A. In the second petition, (which is, "Thy kingdom come") acknowledges ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, *the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in*; the Church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him for ever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.


I notice that the answer doesn't state anything about how the Jews respond to the call. In my mind, that leaves both interpretations open. How have notable Presbyterians interpreted this phrase?


----------



## Skyler

Roldan said:


> What Jews? There is no pure 100% Jew out there so how can we call them Jews if they are mixed with other ethnicities. Even in 70 Ad their books that kept their record of their bloodline was destroyed and burned up, coincidence? I think not.



I'm not 100% of Caucasian origin either. Yet I'm called a Caucasian. 

Isn't there a reference in the OT to the issue of incorporating Gentile blood into the Jewish nation? I can't remember...


----------



## Pergamum

If we are to reach Sundanese, Tunisians, Romanians with the Gospel, i.e., target every ethno-linguistic group with the Gospel, then are not the Jews to be considered a distinct ethno-linguistic group which we are to target? Who cares about the political state...missions-wise, the Jews in that region represent an unreached cluster of people. If we are granted Gospel success, then this will indeed be a glorious harvest


----------



## Jon 316

There seems to have been a little confusion. Some have thought, I think, that I am speaking of Zionism or dispensationalism. I'm not. I'm just asking if these verse teach that some (a significant amount) who are 'natural' Israel will come to believe in Christ prior to Christs return?


----------



## DonP

nleshelman said:


> Larger Catechism 191
> 
> 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
> 
> A. In the second petition, (which is, "Thy kingdom come") acknowledges ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, *the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in*; .



Thank you for reminding us of the Catechism. Being a more strict and extreme Creedalist as I tend to be, I agree with that loose statement and pray for the salvation of all men, those called Jews, Romans, Gentiles, Chinese etc. 
Acts 17:30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now *commands all men everywhere to repent*, NKJV

1 Tim 2:1Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks *be made for all men,*
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 *who desires all men to be saved* and to come to the knowledge of the truth. NKJV

I speculate there may have been some influenced by a Zionist idea so this minimal statement was included as a compromise and to make sure no one would think there necessarily was a large influx of Jews coming so as to bias our evangelistic efforts with prejudice to one race or country more than others. I see it as more regulative and restrictive than adding to this concept 

Now whatever the following verses mean they do not mean God is partial to the Jews, just because the Gospel first came through them. 
Rom 2:9-12
9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For *there is no partiality with God. *
12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law NKJV

In fact it seems to set us all on equal ground. Whether having heard the law or not you will be judged accordingly.

It is good that some have said we hold no dispensational hope for such a revival in Israel that would lead to rebuilding of the temple, a national Israel state set up and a return to sacrifices, all which, esp. the sacrifices would be an abomination to God, and a denial of Christ and not a revival of the true faith. This is one of the deeps heresies and misunderstanding of the dispensationals that show they have no sound understanding of the gospel or the history of redemption. The see the church as some separate parenthesis in God's dealing with the nation and national people and fleshly seed of Abraham and ignore the wider blessing and fulfillment of the unfolding and eventual promise and covenant to make Abraham the father of many nations. They ignore scriptures saying the promise was never to the fleshly seed. See below.

As said in a previous post, the Jewish lineage was lost, two tribes completely, it is now a fabricated made up lineage for a few who claim it, and the rest were lost to a great extent, most intermarried with Babylonians, and few could call themselves pure Jews and trace a genealogy back to Biblical Jews.

And if it was the case these JEws were to continue to trace their genealogy to show their grandchildren as being some of these Jews, why would we be told. 1 Tim 1:4... charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 4 *nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies,* which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. NKJV

Seems they should have continued keeping genealogies if there was to be an influx of Jews and we needed to know it. I know God doesn't need it, but if there is no Jew in human eyes then the concept is meaningless anyway, and if we simply mean people who have chosen to live in Israel with some Jewish blood decent... well what would be the point? 

God's love for the Jews is that He is in the business of fulfilling His promise to Abraham in making him a father of Israel from all races now. A spiritual Israel of all races, the House of Israel of faith not the fleshly descendants. Jews and Gentiles alike. Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame." 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

I don't know what could be more clear? 
Rom 9:6-8
But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For* they are not all Israel who are of Israel*, 7  nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, *those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; *but the children of *the promise are counted as the seed*.  NKJV

The children of the flesh are not the Jews God was talking about, referring to, promises made to. Future anything to. Not the children of the flesh!! These aren't even real Jews or real Israel. They were the type the shadow of real Israel, The believers are Israel the real people of God, of all races of all ages. 

So if it never was the fleshly descendants then why at the end of the world would it all of a sudden be about some fleshly descendants??

Please, be careful with the word, Jew and Israel, they are used interchangeably and without much notice as Paul knew in his mind what he meant. Sometimes fleshly descendants maybe, sometimes covenant people in the OT, sometimes covenant people as in visible church, sometimes true invisible elect. 


The reason for writing this was to prevent an anti-Semitic feeling and give up all hope for Israel. Paul seems to have, and gone to the Gentiles. Should we hate the Jews since they persecute us and they crucified Christ and they oppose us? Should we not bother to witness to them at all because God is so clearly done with Israel the nation and people? 
In response to these things, in this context, Paul writes that they are still as any other heathen, no better no different, but still some remnant of them may be converted just as he was. No differently, no special age for it. But the Jew of the flesh have not been utterly banished or cut off from having a chance to convert now. 

Rom 11:1 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. 5 Even so then,* at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace*. NKJV

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

So Paul does not tell us here, the perfect place, that there will be some future revival of Jews. He says God is still converting Jews. That is all no more. In following verses he says
Would heir fullness be nice? Or more of them converted. Or the full number of elect Jews is the fullness, how ever many or few that is. And he says he hopes to provoke them to jealousy so some will believe. he holds no hope a bunch will at some time in the future. 
*He hopes some will now. *
Their blindness has partly happened to force the spread of the message to the Gentile world, ie. me, I Paul went to the Gentiles and left Jerusalem. Yes he still speaks in synagogues, but calls himself a minister to the Gentiles. 

And so what if a lot of Jews convert at some time int he future? It is certainly not all Jews being saved, for many have already died in their sins for centuries? So the fullness of the Jews will come in, as many as were ordained to eternal life, today as Paul says, or tomorrow, but what do I have to do with that? 
As Paul we should be about getting the message to all, esp those who have not heard it, they had the prophets and even Jesus rebukes them for not believing them. 

But given that this zionist dispensational view is not what someone has in mind, and they think there is some post-millenial hope that a lot of people who either live in a nation called Israel or some group of people who have some partial blood decendency from Abraham will be converted, fine, I hope they are right on all counts. 

I just hope it is truly based on some inference they see in the word, and has nothing to do with dispensational influence, or human partiality for a reason they think a lot of Jews would be saved. 

This indeed is covenant theology. I just love what God did through this covenant!! 
In His Service,


----------



## OPC'n

I think there will be a massive harvest of every nation before Christ comes if that is what He chooses to do. I still don't understand why we separate the Jews from the rest of the world when talking about "end times".


----------



## Knoxienne

sjonee said:


> I think there will be a massive harvest of every nation before Christ comes if that is what He chooses to do. I still don't understand why we separate the Jews from the rest of the world when talking about "end times".


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

PeaceMaker said:


> I just hope it is truly based on some inference they see in the word, and has nothing to do with dispensational influence, or human partiality for a reason they think a lot of Jews would be saved.



The belief that the Jews will en masse come to Christ before the end is FAR older than dispensationalism (as Nathan has pointed out), so no, don't think that those of us who believe this are closet dispensationalists. We were there first!!!


----------



## KMK

Roldan said:


> What Jews? There is no pure 100% Jew out there so how can we call them Jews if they are mixed with other ethnicities. Even in 70 Ad their books that kept their record of their bloodline was destroyed and burned up, coincidence? I think not.



It seems to me that the word 'Jew' does not have the same connotation today as it did 2000 years ago. Paul's audience would have understood 'Jew' to either refer to a direct descendant of Jacob or a Christian. If he refers to a harvest of 'direct descendants of Jacob', then how will we know when it happens? For all I know, I could be a direct descendant of Jacob.


----------



## DonP

KMK said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Jews? There is no pure 100% Jew out there so how can we call them Jews if they are mixed with other ethnicities. Even in 70 Ad their books that kept their record of their bloodline was destroyed and burned up, coincidence? I think not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that the word 'Jew' does not have the same connotation today as it did 2000 years ago. Paul's audience would have understood 'Jew' to either refer to a direct descendant of Jacob or a Christian. If he refers to a harvest of 'direct descendants of Jacob', then how will we know when it happens? For all I know, I could be a direct descendant of Jacob.
Click to expand...


 
Well if you would spend more time doing your endless genealogy instead of lurking here we would all know ?? 

These young pups, idealistic and haven't read enough Josephus and history. Claiming to be a Jew is a good way to get a minority benefit. If your stuck in freezing Siberia and you can get an emotional dispensationalist to buy you a plane ticket to Israel, where you will be taken care of by a new state govt. which was seeking to establish itself, it was a good deal. 

Right, if God wanted to make sure we all knew He was going to save a bunch of descendants of the 12 tribes, He would have made sure to preserve the genealogies so they would know and could prove their lineage. 
What part Descendant must one be to qualify for being a part of this fullness of the Jews. 1/16 or ??
And what is the purpose of this? To show God still loves the fleshly descendants, or would He somehow be unfaithful to His promise if He didn't? What would be the purpose of me knowing this?


----------



## Pergamum

sjonee said:


> I think there will be a massive harvest of every nation before Christ comes if that is what He chooses to do. I still don't understand why we separate the Jews from the rest of the world when talking about "end times".



AMEN to the Massive Harvest of every tongue, tribe and people!!!


Jesus shall reign where’er the sun
Does his successive journeys run;
His kingdom stretch from shore to shore,
Till moons shall wax and wane no more.

Behold the islands with their kings,
And Europe her best tribute brings;
From north to south the princes meet,
To pay their homage at His feet.

There Persia, glorious to behold,
There India shines in eastern gold;
And barb’rous nations at His word
Submit, and bow, and own their Lord.

To Him shall endless prayer be made,
And praises throng to crown His head;
His Name like sweet perfume shall rise
With every morning sacrifice.

People and realms of every tongue
Dwell on His love with sweetest song;
And infant voices shall proclaim
Their early blessings on His Name.

Blessings abound wherever He reigns;
The prisoner leaps to lose his chains;
The weary find eternal rest,
And all the sons of want are blessed.

Where He displays His healing power,
Death and the curse are known no more:
In Him the tribes of Adam boast
More blessings than their father lost.

Let every creature rise and bring
Peculiar honors to our King;
Angels descend with songs again,
And earth repeat the loud amen!

Great God, whose universal sway
The known and unknown worlds obey,
Now give the kingdom to Thy Son,
Extend His power, exalt His throne.

The scepter well becomes His hands;
All Heav’n submits to His commands;
His justice shall avenge the poor,
And pride and rage prevail no more.

With power He vindicates the just,
And treads th’oppressor in the dust:
His worship and His fear shall last
Till hours, and years, and time be past.

As rain on meadows newly mown,
So shall He send his influence down:
His grace on fainting souls distills,
Like heav’nly dew on thirsty hills.

The heathen lands, that lie beneath
The shades of overspreading death,
Revive at His first dawning light;
And deserts blossom at the sight.

The saints shall flourish in His days,
Dressed in the robes of joy and praise;
Peace, like a river, from His throne
Shall flow to nations yet unknown.


----------



## Matthias

The term "Jew" originally only described a descendant of the house of Judah.
Therefore, all "Jews" are Isrealites, but not all Isrealites are "Jews"

Just thought I would further confuse the issue


----------



## BJClark

I haven't read all the responses, but my former pastor explained it this way--

The Gospel Started in Israel and is working it's way around the globe to where it will eventually end back up in Israel, when some Jews will turn to Christ.


----------



## Roldan

BJClark said:


> I haven't read all the responses, but my former pastor explained it this way--
> 
> The Gospel Started in Israel and is working it's way around the globe to where it will eventually end back up in Israel, when some Jews will turn to Christ.




It did end up back in Israel, the Church, TRUE Israel and if we are true Israel whats the point in going back to the shadow, guys let us leave our Dispensational tendencies at the door please.......


----------



## Pergamum

Bobbi, your pastor ought to come out and join my national co-workers who believe the same thing. 

From Jerusalem to the Ends of the Earth; and now the ends of the earth back to Jerusalem has been their theme this year as they have tried to launch their own international missions program.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

That verse is the only thing that has kept me with a hints of dispensationalism.



That is so difficult to admit.


----------



## Roldan

puritanpilgrim said:


> That verse is the only thing that has kept me with a hints of dispensationalism.
> 
> 
> 
> That is so difficult to admit.



Well, all the passage is saying is that national Israel has been blinded (but not all of course) so that the Gentiles can be grafted in hence "the fullness of the gentiles". "until" does not indicate that God will go back to save NATIONAL Israel, it just indicates that that when all God's elect are saved then ALL Israel will be saved. There is no reason to conclude any going back to deal with Israel as a nation at all.

the passage doesn't say "until the fullness of the gentiles come in, AND THEN I WILL SAVE ALL NATIONAL ISRAEL WHEN I REMOVE THE BLINDNESS".

Thats what we insert in the text but is that what it really says? I don't think it does anyways.

I think it says this "when all the elect from all nations is come in then together with the already believing Jews that I have preserved, the remnant, ALL ISRAEL or THE TOTAL CHURCH, shall be saved"

Of course taking into account the other texts as provided by Peacemaker, we can conclude as such.


----------



## TimV

> The term "Jew" originally only described a descendant of the house of Judah.
> Therefore, all "Jews" are Isrealites, but not all Isrealites are "Jews"



The Kingdom of Judah included those of Judah, Benjamin (like Paul) and some Levites (like Caiaphas). But there is a purpose for all Scripture



> Luk 2:36 And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the *tribe of Asher*. She was advanced in years, having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin,
> Luk 2:37 and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshipping with fasting and prayer night and day.
> Luk 2:38 And coming up at that very hour she began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.



And there is no more hint of excluding Anna than the Roman Centurion from being part of Israel. The idea that a blue eyed Russian that vaguely remembers a Jewish grandma somehow has a bigger part to play than the Palestinian Christians descended from those Jews who converted to Christianity in the first century AD is utterly insane.


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> The term "Jew" originally only described a descendant of the house of Judah.
> Therefore, all "Jews" are Isrealites, but not all Isrealites are "Jews"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Kingdom of Judah included those of Judah, Benjamin (like Paul) and some Levites (like Caiaphas). But there is a purpose for all Scripture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luk 2:36 And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the *tribe of Asher*. She was advanced in years, having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin,
> Luk 2:37 and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshipping with fasting and prayer night and day.
> Luk 2:38 And coming up at that very hour she began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is no more hint of excluding Anna than the Roman Centurion from being part of Israel. The idea that a blue eyed Russian that vaguely remembers a Jewish grandma somehow has a bigger part to play than the Palestinian Christians descended from those Jews who converted to Christianity in the first century AD is utterly insane.
Click to expand...


I tend to agree with you, Tim, except for the 'utterly insane' part. I think those who see a future for ethnic Israel have 'sane' reasons for doing so.


----------



## TimV

> I tend to agree with you, Tim, except for the 'utterly insane' part. I think those who see a future for *ethnic Israel* have 'sane' reasons for doing so.



We're talking about people who are so blind that they don't even know what ethnic Israel is. In my example the Palestinian Christian has more genes from Jacob than the Russian.


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> I tend to agree with you, Tim, except for the 'utterly insane' part. I think those who see a future for *ethnic Israel* have 'sane' reasons for doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about people who are so blind that they don't even know what ethnic Israel is. In my example the Palestinian Christian has more genes from Jacob than the Russian.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I thought you were referring to all those who believe that Rom 11 teaches a future for ethnic Israel.


----------



## DonP

BJClark said:


> I haven't read all the responses, but my former pastor explained it this way--
> 
> The Gospel Started in Israel and is working it's way around the globe to where it will eventually end back up in Israel, when some Jews will turn to Christ.



That sounds like circular reasoning. 

Unless you mean it as Roldan Said. 

Please Please, Context context. Jew, Israel, My People, Children of God, House of Israel, House of Judah, Seed of Abraham, 

These are all beautifully covenantal terms. Rich in symbology or typology and do not only mean one thing. 

You have to check the context in light of clear truth to determine who is being referred to. 

Visible Covenant people who get the covenant blessing of being treated like they are God's people, 
or invisible elect who actually are God's people. 

There is no circle. its a fan. Its starts with Adam - Noah - Abraham - Jacob -then expands to 12 tribes, then national Israel wider and wider yet to all nations. This is the unfolding expanding promise of God to Abraham. He was never to be a father of nation. Many nations. It never ever had anything to do with one nation. It never had to do with only Israel as a nation, but Israel as a visible covenant picture of the invisible covenant people. A subset of all nations. 

So Then it would not come back to just the 12 tribes? Why, they are already in and can still join in. 
Paul said they are not blocked out now, they can join now as he did. 

So there is no blindness stopping children of Jacob now. There is an apparent part blindness on some of them, as there was on Pharoah, so only the elect get it.

Does it make sense that if it was never about national Israel and the descendants of Jacob that it can not be about them again 
or later be about them for the 1st time?

It never was about the fleshly descendants so why would it be at the end?

NEVER EVER NEVER - PLEASE, AS ONE POSTED, THIS THINKING KEEPS HIM CONFUSED IN DISPENSATIONAL THINKING 
This is a horribly dangerous and confounding belief. Please be open to having it removed. Pray as you read on. 

READ THIS VERSE 

Rom 9:6-11 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect.
_he specifically says this to prevent the same error the dispensationals have. Paul replies to those who think cutting off the children of jacob would be wrong or nullify the promise,* because they thought the promise was to the children of Jacob,* But it wasn't read on _

*For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,* 7 *nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham*; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are 

*the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; *

_did you see this? did you get it? 

Please read it again.

* the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God;*

Here is my amplification if i may, Oh you Judaizers and all who think that it was ever about a race, a country, or descendants of Abbraham or Jacob hear this. 
The children of the flesh, though, under the covenant were addressed as children of God, but never ever were really the children of God or had any promises made to them, therefore God has not failed them by not giving them anything earthly or eternal. He owes them nothing now or later. No land, no nation, no salvation.

They were never His special people, they were covenant breakers going to hell or they were His loved elect. 

The promise never was to the children of natural racial descent, so it doesn't need to come back to them.

*It wasn't even for them in the OT and certainly won't be in the NT* 

It never was for or about the children of Jacob and he proves this by using one child of Jacob as an example to say, see it is not just racial descent it is by election. He could have said it is not Joseph and his sons, it is the elect only who are Jews and the promises are to. The children of promise below, are only the elect _

but the children of the promise are *counted as the seed*. 9 For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son." 

_the elect weren't all really the seed fleshly, but they are *counted *as the seed and who the promise is to. It is the spiritual seed, the true children of God who Jesus died to redeem who the promises were to_

10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that t*he purpose of God according to election might stand*, NKJV

_Easau was to prove it wasn't by natural descent, but by election.
He was as much a natural descendant as Jacob. But God wasn't going by the descent of Abraham, nor the descent of Jacob, nor the Descent of Judah, nor the descent of Barbara Streisand. Its not about any race of people and never was. 
Can we now finally put this whole descendants of national racial children of Abraham and Jacob to death? 

They were in the visible covenant of jewish people, therefore called jews after the flesh, but many were never in the invisible covenant of elect who actually receive the promises and who the promises were made to. No promise was ever made to a or a group of fleshly jews. God hated those covenant breakers. The non believing fleshy jews accidentally or by common grace if you can tolerate the term, were partakers of the earthy promises only as much as these temporal types came on the elect jews around them. This is the benefit of being a jew racially and why all Christians should be paedo-baptists. The promises were to the elect, earthly, typologically, and spiritually_

Rom 2:28-29
28 For *he is not a Jew who is one outwardly*, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; NKJV

*He never was a jew* just by being a descendant of Jacob. 
God never meant to include him in promises by the letter of his race. 

This is not Paul teaching some new revelation of a different covenant. This is Paul explaining to misunderstanding jews the truth of the covenant that it, the one and only covenant of grace, never was with a race, it was always only with the elect and the promises to the jews was really with the real jews who are all elect of all nations who obey the faith of Abraham. That was the Jew God meant. But the Pharisees and dispensationalists though He meant racial Jews initially then changed to all people. 

It was always ever only about His People. Oh the glory and awesomeness of the wisdom and plan of God most High, beyond our thinking and imagination, only revealed by the Spirit to His people. Selah.....


I hope this is clear enough and helpful to cut the incipient dispensational thinking that you were sure you never had or were free from by now, out of your thinking on this subject. 

Now you can still be post mil, you can still witness to people living in Israel or who call themselves Jews because God is no respecter of persons and saves all people, but there never was a promise that needs to be fulfilled to any race. The race was a visible covenant people, Called my people, but only figuratively, shadow, typologically to point to the reality. Just as members of the church today are only the visible covenant of professors, we don't know who truly is elect and will inherit the promises. 
Its all about His Elect and always has been and always will be. 
This is the basic essence of covenant theology, the book of Hebrews who shows Jesus the true sacrifice is what was only typified by the blood of bulls and goats that never took away a sin. 

That whole thing, nation, civil and ceremonial laws, land, race, etc. was only a type of the visible church, and the world of whom only a subset will be saved, the remnant, elect from before the foundations of the world. 

His People. 
In His Service,


----------



## Roldan

PeaceMaker said:


> BJClark said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't read all the responses, but my former pastor explained it this way--
> 
> The Gospel Started in Israel and is working it's way around the globe to where it will eventually end back up in Israel, when some Jews will turn to Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like circular reasoning.
> 
> Unless you mean it as Roldan Said.
> 
> Please Please, Context context. Jew, Israel, My People, Children of God, House of Israel, House of Judah, Seed of Abraham,
> 
> These are all beautifully covenantal terms. Rich in symbology or typology and do not only mean one thing.
> 
> You have to check the context in light of clear truth to determine who is being referred to.
> 
> Visible Covenant people who get the covenant blessing of being treated like they are God's people,
> or invisible elect who actually are God's people.
> 
> There is no circle. its a fan. Its starts with Adam - Noah - Abraham - Jacob -then expands to 12 tribes, then national Israel wider and wider yet to all nations. This is the unfolding expanding promise of God to Abraham. He was never to be a father of nation. Many nations. It never ever had anything to do with one nation. It never had to do with only Israel as a nation, but Israel as a visible covenant picture of the invisible covenant people. A subset of all nations.
> 
> So Then it would not come back to just the 12 tribes? Why, they are already in and can still join in.
> Paul said they are not blocked out now, they can join now as he did.
> 
> So there is no blindness stopping children of Jacob now. There is an apparent part blindness on some of them, as there was on Pharoah, so only the elect get it.
> 
> Does it make sense that if it was never about national Israel and the descendants of Jacob that it can not be about them again
> or later be about them for the 1st time?
> 
> It never was about the fleshly descendants so why would it be at the end?
> 
> NEVER EVER NEVER - PLEASE, AS ONE POSTED, THIS THINKING KEEPS HIM CONFUSED IN DISPENSATIONAL THINKING
> This is a horribly dangerous and confounding belief. Please be open to having it removed. Pray as you read on.
> 
> READ THIS VERSE
> 
> Rom 9:6-11 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect.
> _he specifically says this to prevent the same error the dispensationals have who think cutting off the children of jacob would be wrong or nullify the promise,* because they thought the promise was to the children of Jacob,* But it wasn't read on _
> 
> *For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,* 7 *nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham*; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are
> 
> *the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; *
> 
> _did you see this? did you get it?
> 
> Please read it again.
> 
> * the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God;*
> 
> Here is my amplification if i may, Oh you Judaizers and all who think that it was ever about a race, a country, or descendants of Abbraham or Jacob hear this.
> The children of the flesh, though, under the covenant were addressed as children of God, but never ever were really the children of God or had any promises made to them, therefore God has not failed them by not giving them anything earthly or eternal. He owes them nothing now or later. No land, no nation, no salvation.
> 
> They were never His special people, they were covenant breakers going to hell or they were His loved elect.
> 
> The promise never was to the children of natural racial descent, so it doesn't need to come back to them.
> 
> *It wasn't even for them in the OT and certainly won't be in the NT*
> 
> It never was for or about the children of Jacob and he proves this by using one child of Jacob as an example to say, see it is not just racial descent it is by election. He could have said it is not Joseph and his sons, it is the elect only who are Jews and the promises are to. The children of promise below, are only the elect _
> 
> but the children of the promise are *counted as the seed*. 9 For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son."
> 
> _the elect weren't all really the seed fleshly, but they are *counted *as the seed and who the promise is to. It is the spiritual seed, the true children of God who Jesus died to redeem who the promises were to_
> 
> 10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that t*he purpose of God according to election might stand*, NKJV
> 
> _Easau was to prove it wasn't by natural descent, but by election.
> He was as much a natural descendant as Jacob. But God wasn't going by the descent of Abraham, nor the descent of Jacob, nor the Descent of Judah, nor the descent of Barbara Streisand. Its not about any race of people and never was.
> Can we now finally put this whole descendants of national racial children of Abraham and Jacob to death?
> 
> They were in the visible covenant of jewish people, therefore called jews after the flesh, but many were never in the invisible covenant of elect who actually receive the promises and who the promises were made to. No promise was ever made to a or a group of fleshly jews. God hated those covenant breakers. The non believing fleshy jews accidentally or by common grace if you can tolerate the term, were partakers of the earthy promises only as much as these temporal types came on the elect jews around them. This is the benefit of being a jew racially and why all Christians should be paedo-baptists. The promises were to the elect, earthly, typologically, and spiritually_
> 
> Rom 2:28-29
> 28 For *he is not a Jew who is one outwardly*, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; NKJV
> 
> *He never was a jew* just by being a descendant of Jacob.
> God never meant to include him in promises by the letter of his race.
> 
> This is not Paul teaching some new revelation of a different covenant. This is Paul explaining to misunderstanding jews the truth of the covenant that it, the one and only covenant of grace, never was with a race, it was always only with the elect and the promises to the jews was really with the real jews who are all elect of all nations who obey the faith of Abraham. That was the Jew God meant. But the Pharisees and dispensationalists though He meant racial Jews initially then changed to all people.
> 
> It was always ever only about His People. Oh the glory and awesomeness of the wisdom and plan of God most High, beyond our thinking and imagination, only revealed by the Spirit to His people. Selah.....
> 
> 
> I hope this is clear enough and helpful to cut the incipient dispensational thinking that you were sure you never had or were free from by now, out of your thinking on this subject.
> 
> Now you can still be post mil, you can still witness to people living in Israel or who call themselves Jews because God is no respecter of persons and saves all people, but there never was a promise that needs to be fulfilled to any race. The race was a visible covenant people, Called my people, but only figuratively, shadow, typologically to point to the reality. Just as members of the church today are only the visible covenant of professors, we don't know who truly is elect and will inherit the promises.
> Its all about His Elect and always has been and always will be.
> This is the basic essence of covenant theology, the book of Hebrews who shows Jesus the true sacrifice is what was only typified by the blood of bulls and goats that never took away a sin.
> 
> That whole thing, nation, civil and ceremonial laws, land, race, etc. was only a type of the visible church, and the world of whom only a subset will be saved, the remnant, elect from before the foundations of the world.
> 
> His People.
> In His Service,
Click to expand...


Masterfully done sir....


----------



## ModernPuritan?

I just wonder why if Israel physical is no longer Gods ppl but the church is, than why does God keep them around, since the church inherits the Abraham prophecy and stuff..

seriously
where are the amaorites
amalekites
Babylonians
AI
Romans
Nazis, 

etc

why is it, that God has essentially destroyed every single nation that has tried to destroy the Jews, just like God promised to them that He would?

and other groups that have sought to destroy the "no longer Gods people"?
why does it seem that it was accepted from Augustine on that Israel would never be a nation??? yet 1948 occurred?

why despite overwhelming odds did the 6 day war or yom kippur war??, etc go so well for them? weren't they outnumbered by 6-1??

nope, im no Dispensational. I just dont see the logic between what we know, and what covenant theology says about the Jews.

-----Added 3/9/2009 at 03:19:41 EST-----

see Peacemaker, thats a well done article, but it sounds like it was written by someone just after the destruction of the temple, and exiles around that time period (so written in the 400s lets say)..

but, I don't think it really addresses the issues involved with any potential "mass salvation" like what i mentioned about "why are they still here when they shouldn't be because the promises in the OT are no longer for them"


----------



## Roldan

ModernPuritan? said:


> but, I don't think it really addresses the issues involved with any potential "mass salvation" like what i mentioned about "why are they still here when they shouldn't be because the promises in the OT are no longer for them"



Thats the point....are they(real jews) really still here? According to the scripts any mixed jew was a samaritan dog(no disrespect intended just quoting God's law) a true ethnic jew was one of pure bloodline, are there any?


----------



## ModernPuritan?

Roldan said:


> ModernPuritan? said:
> 
> 
> 
> but, I don't think it really addresses the issues involved with any potential "mass salvation" like what i mentioned about "why are they still here when they shouldn't be because the promises in the OT are no longer for them"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the point....are they(real jews) really still here? According to the scripts any mixed Jew was a Samaritan dog(no disrespect intended just quoting God's law) a true ethnic jew was one of pure bloodline, are there any?
Click to expand...


yes there are, they have kept their family genealogies generation by generation .. all the way back to Aaron and Judah. of course we can make rude comments and just incidentally discredit that notion.. Just like discounting the holocaust, or the existence of the temple, etc... would be silly, 

I know a Kohen/levite


----------



## Roldan

ModernPuritan? said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ModernPuritan? said:
> 
> 
> 
> but, I don't think it really addresses the issues involved with any potential "mass salvation" like what i mentioned about "why are they still here when they shouldn't be because the promises in the OT are no longer for them"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the point....are they(real jews) really still here? According to the scripts any mixed Jew was a Samaritan dog(no disrespect intended just quoting God's law) a true ethnic jew was one of pure bloodline, are there any?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes there are, they have kept their family genealogies generation by generation .. all the way back to Aaron and Judah. of course we can make rude comments and just incidentally discredit that notion.. Just like discounting the holocaust, or the existence of the temple, etc... would be silly,
> 
> I know a Kohen/levite
Click to expand...


Nah, theres no need for rude comments and all that. 

Again are they 100% or mixed? and if you say 100% then please have them prove it. And if you say mixed then the point still stands.


----------



## TimV

> I just wonder why if Israel physical is no longer Gods ppl but the church is, than why does God keep them around, since the church inherits the Abraham prophecy and stuff..
> 
> seriously
> where are the amaorites
> amalekites
> Babylonians
> AI
> Romans
> Nazis,
> 
> etc



You are reasoning backwards. You take a theory and try to prove it by cherry picking. 


> why is it, that God has essentially destroyed every single nation that has tried to destroy the Jews, just like God promised to them that He would?



The Egyptians are destroyed? The Greeks? The Syrians? Last I looked they were still around.


----------



## historyb

It seems that those who came out of a dispensational type of thinking what to go the other way and throw Israel under the Bus. I know for a while I went completely the other way to full preterism than found out an hour later that full was wrong but partial was okay.

Now I am reconsidering my positions and wondering; However, I don't think the church is Israel. I still believe Israel is Israel and the Church is the Church, makes me wired with some here no doubt.


----------



## DonP

Dear Rod, 

What Jews? 

If Barbara Streisand is a Jew then so am I. I am a direct descendant of Noah, Shem Ham and Japheth became the Canaanites or what we call Palestinians, and spread to the world, doubtful I came from Ishmael, don't think it was Easu, but maybe. 
Hey where did the Chinese come from? 
You can find someone who is an expert in tracking all the genealogies of the races. 

As for the Romans being gone they are still here an called Italians. The babylonians are still here, and Nazis, they are now called Germans and most don't want to wipe out Jews or Homosexuals anymore but do appear to be persecuting the Christian Church as are most countries. The others are all still here; Assyrians, Syrians, Egyptians, some changed their country name, but the tribes and races are still here. 

*But what does any of that have to do with* 
Rom 9:6-8
But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For *they are not all Israel who are of Israel,* 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are *the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; *but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. NKJV 

This is not new modern theology nor is it 400 AD theology. This is Paul helping the jews to understand the Pharisees were wrong. There are no Jews of the flesh, they were all supposed to be Christians; looking for the Messiah, Christ, and the promises were never even back then to all the jews or descendants of Jacob. 
*That was a mistaken understanding even back then.*
Paul corrected this mistake 2000 years ago for the jews. Don't fall back into it. 

It was always only for the believers. The elect. The body of Christ of all ages. One body not two. 

Whew this is so burnt into people's minds it makes them devoid of the ability to read and think. 

There are no fleshy seeds of Jacob that anyone can prove. Do some google work on the Jewish people and you will find some great articles on who these people are that live in the land Called Israel right now. Russians, and all kinds of other people. 

And the reason the Arabs want to kill them is because they came into Palestine the land god allowed the Arabs to take over from the jews. These people claimed a God Given right to the land and started killing off the people who have lived there thousands of years. 
Where were your Jews prior to 1948?? 

In the eyes of God not even real descendants of Jacob have a right to that land and God said He was finished with them and dispersed them. Did God lie? He changed His mind and isn't done with the fleshly descendants, Paul is wrong, and there is some special thing thing for them and God is a respecter of persons and races? 
So now, as it has been for thousands of years, what ever group of people wants to fight a war over land can and the winner gets it. 

Don't interpret the Bible based on modern historic coincidences, they are usually deceptions of the Devil to fool even the elect if he could. 

just follow the simple clear scripture;
those who are *the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God

This was radical! this was the amazing revelation of the mystery of God! 

This was why the jews wanted to kill Paul because he was saying the ones called Jews weren't the people of God, never had been. 

Now do you get why they wanted to kill him? It wasn't because he believed Jesus was the Messiah. It was because he taught the Jews were not, never had been the people of God, only the believers were. 

This was the radical teaching. Being a Jew didn't give you anything except the benefits of the visible covenant, they got to hear the gospel and prophets and see the types, but it did nothing for them in relation to God. 
Only faith did. 
Those, whether Jew or Gentile, who didn't have faith, had nothing. yes they were Paul's relatives to he had an affection for them. 

Now I do admit this passage alone can be confusing so lets sort it out. Note Paul goes into an emotional awestruck amazed state after contemplating this mystry too. 

Rom 11:25-34
25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins." 

OK who is he talking about? will all Jewish descendants be saved? No impossible, some have not been already. So for those who think there will be a future day when all Jewish descendants of Jacob will be saved it still won't answer to this verse. So this says nothing about descendants. 

The covenant with them was to take away their sins. So is this all descendants? No! 
Who then gets their sins taken away? All the elect. 
So the covenant for a Deliverer out of Zion was not for the Jews of flesh, but for the true Jews, true Israel, the believers of every nation of all ages, the elect people of God. 
Including those who are not of Israel of the flesh, or descendants. 

28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 

Will non-elect Jews be beloved of God concerning election? No.

29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. 

We already know, All doesn't mean everyone so who is the All who God will have mercy on? The elect. 
Even if it was every single jewish fleshly descendant living in some year ahead of us, this is not all Jews. 

So he is speaking of the elect though it is difficult to understand 
Be sure you are pretending to be an antagonistic Jewish descendant arguing with Paul when you try to understand his writing. That is who he is writing to. Not someone in the 21st century looking at the last 70 years history of a new nation called Israel, after watching a movie on the rapture. 

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! 

34 "For who has known the mind of the LORD?
Or who has become His counselor?" NKJV
AMEN!
In other words, I can't even imagine that He would do such a thing. It is so mind straining it hurts to contemplate, I can't even search it all out and understand it I just accept it. Amen brother Paul!!*


----------



## Wannabee

I've been a part of this board for years. Those who know me know my desire to be gracious, though I do at times fail. I find great pleasure in interacting here and striving to sharpen one another in our love for, knowledge of and efforts to exemplify Christ. But, there comes a time when statements made reek of pride and arrogance to the point that frankness and bluntness seem to be appropriate. In this, I will not depart from attempting to display the love of Christ. But neither will I shirk from calling a spade a spade.

There is an ever present ebb and flow of elitism on this board, as can easily happen when men are purveyors of the truth of God. These ebbs and flows usually involve either baptism or dispensationalism bashing. And, sadly, here we have another thread with overt Dispensational bashing elitism. The broad brush and straw man doesn't make one right because of philosophical brashness and proof-texting. Whether I'm a Dispensational or not, all who perceive a future for ethnic Israel have been labeled as, or as teaching, "heresy", "no sound understanding of the gospel" (in other words - lost/hell bound - post 21) and "horribly dangerous and confounding" (38). 

First, we must see past and realize that authoritarianistic reasoning pervades many of these posts, as if a truth exists simply by forceful assertion. Who says Jews have to keep track of their lineage to be Jews? Did God say that? God can keep track of all men, with no effort whatsoever. In fact, He does. Furthermore, Jews always included proselytes as they blended into their lineage. On top of this, one's genealogy was generally through the male lineage, so as long as there were male heirs then the lineage was perpetuated. This is just one example of drawing lines where God does not, and is not meant to prove anything else.

Second, the dichotomy forced on the perspective that Israel as a distinct people have a future is false. It is not two gospels, as some old classic dispensationalists taught. It is not necessary in dispensationalism, or any understanding of a future for ethnic Israel. This straw man has been forced on this perception and is a type of ad hom. attack and effort at shaming any who disagree. It's an irresponsible manner of taking a position with no respect or charity given to any who disagree. It's akin to the college professor who opens the first day of class with the statement, "Please raise your hand if you're stupid enough to believe the Bible." 

Finally, It is the height of ignorance and arrogance to boast of any knowledge, period. If you boast, boast in Christ. If you fly the flag of covenantalism first, then you are a covenantalist first and can have your baggage. If you fly the flag of the reformation first, then fine, be reformed and known as reformed - only. If you fly the flag of Calvin first, you can have that too. We are to boast in Christ and fly His banner. It is GOD who works in man to will and to do, and He is the giver of all knowledge. What foolish ignorance in boasting of knowledge, and looking down one's nose at those who don't have the same understanding, whether one is right or not. Quite frankly, the elitism that reeks from this thread is an abomination and should bring about great repentance. We must all be careful that we do not win one proselyte, and when he is won, make him twice as much a son of hell as ourselves. I beseech you, is this the love of Christ?


----------



## DonP

historyb said:


> It seems that those who came out of a dispensational type of thinking what to go the other way and throw Israel under the Bus. I know for a while I went completely the other way to full preterism than found out an hour later that full was wrong but partial was okay.
> 
> Now I am reconsidering my positions and wondering; However, I don't think the church is Israel. I still believe Israel is Israel and the Church is the Church, makes me wired with some here no doubt.



So there are two bodies of Christ? The church and Israel? And which body will the future jews who believe be in, the Israel or the church?

Glad you caught the error of preterism. Now work on this one. 

Gen 1:1 - Rom 11:8 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! 

_Why not? He cast away the Jews. Because the JEws were not His people. Read on as He explains the misconception that God cast off His people when He cast off the Jews. _
For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. 
_whoops, who did God foreknow? Those going to hell? The race of Jews or the elect?
See you were thinking he was talking about Jews, he wasn't he was talking about the people of God, His people, His true people the elect, whom He foreknew from before the foundations of the earth. _

Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, 3 "LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life"? 4 But what does the divine response say to him? "I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men *who have not bowed the knee to Baal*." 5 Even so then, *at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace*. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work. 
_We are talking about elect here in the midst of the jews, but not the jews in general. He says Elijah is baffled that God's people have Gone astray, how can this be? How will God fulfill His promise if most of his people, understood as the jews, are falling away. But God says those aren't my people, there is a remnant and those are the only ones who were ever My people and who will carry on and get the promises_
7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. NKJV

Which Israel? The descendants haven't obtained it, but the elect jews did and the gentiles did, so *they are the Israel that obtained it*.

----------
Rom 11:26 26 And so all Israel will be saved, NKJV Which Israel?

The only ones saved are the elect. So the invisible church is the elect. The elect is Israel. The ecclesia in the wilderness is the church. Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the *church *in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: KJV

Gal 6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon *the Israel of God*. NKJV 
Believers are the Israel of God. He is not saying peace be on covenant breakers and those jews going to hell?

So yes the only ones who think that the church is not Israel are dispensationals. It clearly says we are graft into Israel. We are not some new separate strange body. 

This is sooo coool Rom 11:18 But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. 
19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 
_so the root is Israel and the jews were broken off. And he warns those in the NT visible church covenant that the same thing can happen to them, not lose their salvation, but not be true believers and therefore be broken off branches from the visible church, Israel. 
And God can graft jews back in like He adds Gentiles, No different. So jewish descendants still have a chance if they will repent and believe now to be in grafft into the true Israel because they aren't now._

22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness,* if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise* you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? NKJV

It is glorious, it is amazing wisdom. It is beyond comprehension. It is the blessed covenant of Grace. Hallelujah Amen! 

In His Service,


----------



## historyb

Now honestly where did I say that. Sorry I am not in your field of thinking, God is not done with Israel. I don't buy into the notion of replacement. Unfortunately we are not all super Calvinist.


----------



## TimV

> Quite frankly, the elitism that reeks from this thread is an abomination and should bring about great repentance.



Joe, elitism is the whole point of this thread. That is, elitism is bad. If you think Jews are either more or less special than the rest of us, that is elitism. In the one case, Jews are some sort of chosen race. In the second, they are second class citizens. The simple fact is that there is now no difference.


----------



## satz

Rhetoric and tone aside, how would those who disagree deal with the verses Peacemaker has brought up, which seem (to me at least) to clearly state that God no longer makes a distinction between Jew and Gentile? How are those verses consistent with the idea that God still has a special plan for Abraham’s physical descendants?

Also, those verses occur (mainly) in the first part of Romans, and as such the “all Israel will be saved” in Romans 11 should be read in light of all those verses. I do believe the sense of Paul’s words is that all elect Israel will be saved. Paul is, from what I understand of the verses now, telling the romans that there is a special portion of elect Israel whom God has in his sovereignty purposely withheld the gospel from for his own purposes. But when read in context of the rest of the bible, the passage does not refer to national Israel.

I think another helpful pair of verses which I don’t think was mentioned yet is Gal 3:16 and 3:29

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

These verses seem to say that even at very beginning, God never meant to extend his spiritual promises to the physical descendants to Abraham. The promises were always meant to be to Jesus Christ, and Christians (i.e. those who are Christ’s - v 29) of any descent.

-----Added 3/9/2009 at 09:23:24 EST-----

Just to avoid being misunderstood, I want to express agreement with what Tim said above. It is not, or should not, be about putting down anyone or any race. It is about saying there is no race that currently has some sort of special favour from God above the others.


----------



## DonP

Wannabee said:


> There is an ever present ebb and flow of elitism on this board, as can easily happen when men are purveyors of the truth of God. These ebbs and flows usually involve either baptism or dispensationalism bashing. And, sadly, here we have another thread with overt Dispensational bashing elitism. ?



Why is having a belief and explaining that belief, with scriptures, bashing. 

Why attack a person because of the fact they seek to teach or educate or share their view or correct someone even? 

Why is this seen as bashing? why do you attack my character this way. I mean to bash no one. I disagree with the dispensational teaching. Perhaps you have taken personal offense, but I did not speak against people, but an un-Confessional teaching. 

I do not say someone who thinks this way is not saved. I think he is wrong. I hurt for him because I once was so blinded and missed the glories of God and it hurts me deeply and my hearts desire is that those confused by that thinking can come to understand these glorious truths. 

That is what this board is for, to discuss these Confessional truths. And if anything my understanding is that people are not to try to promote un-confessional teaching. 

My experience is that people who feel convicted often seek to attack others and say they are being mean spirited or not kind or some other slander on their character when they cannot refute their theology from scripture. Their insecurity causes them to strike out in the flesh and attack as they feel they have been attacked because they did not love the writer in spite of his differences and they did not obey 1Cor 13 and took personal offense. 

I have no ill will to any one nor ego in this. Nor pride. It is not as though it is my idea or I discovered this. I am just reciting the scripture and explaining them in a Confessional way consistent with the historic church.

One is free to benefit from it or disagree with it, but it gives them a chance to be exposed to teaching that is all to rare in the professing Christian churches today. 

I don't say someone promoting immersion or dispensationalism is bashing me or being arrogant or anything. 
I would never be so rude as to attack someone's character and say they are an elitist or arrogant or rude because of their strong conviction I am wrong on a doctrine.

Why do they feel the need to say this of those who present the other side. 

I am sorry if you feel I have been arrogant or bashing and if you would like to confront me personally as a brother on my shortsightedness and help me understand how I can present this doctrine then feel free to send me a private message and follow Matt 18 I would be happy to give you my phone number, and my elder's to discuss with him as well if needed. 

How could I be arrogant? My boast would be in calvin or the Westminster Assemblymen or those who I learned this from. I didn't figure this out. My boast is in the Lord and His glorious work not in me. Isn't that what I said in the doxologies? 

And if I seek to help others come to this understanding why would I bash them? 

If I bashed anything it would not be people but the error anyway, I call an error, error. What shall I say instead? It is optional what someone is to believe, it is all relative there is no truth on this matter, God does not have a truth here, we both can be right???

No one of us is clearly wrong. Whether me or the other, one is wrong. I am sorry if that offends you or if you fear others will be offended to know there is truth and right and wrong. 

And of course I think I am right. Or I wouldn't believe it. I certainly would not seek to explain it and respond to others if I didn't think I was correct? 
Don't you think you are correct in your understanding? 

Don't you think you are right about some of us being elitists and arrogant? Which is a subjective judgment not fact. It is your opinion and feeling and reaction. 

You think you are right about this being bashing? Is that OK for you to think you are right on that? 

Then why would it be wrong for me to think I am right about Israel? I just don't get the double standard? It is kind to be right about saying someone is arrogant because they believe they are right, but it is not arrogant to think you are right about them being arrogant?

Why not just let imperfect Christians express their views and debate the scriptures with them instead of bashing them with character assaults and judging their heart and motive which you can't possibly know. 

I may not be the gentlest person in my writing but I love people. I love them so much I am willing to risk hearing people like you accuse me of being arrogant and a basher just so I can get this information to them that I wish some one had gotten to me sooner. 

What do you think of Jonathan Edwards, John Knox, were they Bashers? 

Lets stop attacking and accusing one another and have a little charity to overlook imperfections of the flesh and personality differences and just discuss the scriptures as if we really wanted to come to the truth. 

Lets stop being unloving by "Taking offense" which we are told not to do. Funny how few pastors ever tell people Love does not take offense, It does not take into account a wrong suffered? 
No they are much about be gentle, don't hurt anyone's feelings, etc. 

Lets stop assuming someone is attacking people when they are simply discussing what they in faith and confidence believe is truth. 

Lets stop being children and crying to the teacher, Billy stuck his tongue out at me? 

I was a dispensational. I have dispensational friends, I know some I call brother. I love them and yet I will die for the doctrine I wrote. 

You can whine and get me off this site but God will hold you responsible for your judgment. We do not all feel the same things are arrogant or harsh. Who made you right about what is?

Eliteism? The board required me when I joined to say I agreed to the Westminster confession and would not teach contrary to it. 

So it is not being an elitist to hold to the doctrine of the Confession;, if you don't that is your choice, but please don't say I or others are being elitist because we do. 
We are different. We love and accept each other in spite of differences we don't attack them and call them names. But we are not better than they. 
Just as you think you are right about some things. 
Just say I differ with you and don't think this is so black and white or whatever. 

If we were on a Baptist, London Confession board I would not call you or someone there an elitist for telling me about how Baptism always means immersion or why independency is better? 

Maybe this was not a requirement when you joined so I do not mean to hold you to anything you did not subscribe to. But that was my understanding and they said reformed Baptists, London confession could join in here, but not teach contrary to the WC. 

And of course no I don't think all people who do not agree 100% with what I and others have written about here is a complete dispensationalist or holds to all of the misconceptions I pointed out. I am sorry if I made it sound like they did. 
Some hold to one or some and others hold to different ones so don't feel like I am making you or anyone to hold to all of them. 

I am just generalizing saying here are common errors to this thinking. Not all hold to all of them. 

I am sorry I did not say that. I assumed we were big boys and girls and would not assume I meant everyone held to all parts of the thinking. Its doctrine, we hold to some and different parts. 
i am not trying to put anyone into a box, just exposing other ideas about how these passages can be interpreted. 
I though the other way and gradually changed bits and pieces of it over time so I do not judge anything bad of anyone who differs on parts. I don't even think they have to know it. I don't think someone who does know it is better, they may be a smart unregenerate. 
It means nothing about elite or better than at all. It is like Christ who said the widow gave more than all those others who gave more. 
So I have no idea how God thinks of another person and I am real sure I am not in any top ranking of faithful believers. I am man whose has sinned against much more light and and worse than one who knows less. 
Confident, yes, meek before God to change my belief when instructed from scripture, yes been my life story, but no better than anyone. 
Excited and passionate about these truths yes. I am sorry if my excitement and enthusiasm for this truth came across as better than. I truly never meant it that way. Just seeking to follow the advice of William Gurnall in my signature.


----------



## historyb

I will say once last thing in this thread In my humble opinion it is the height of absurdity to believe we as a peoples have replaced God's Chosen. Yes we have been *grafted in* not a replacement, God doesn't change Israel still has a purpose unless of course one believes that God indeed does change.

That's all I will say.


----------



## Roldan

historyb said:


> Now honestly where did I say that. Sorry I am not in your field of thinking, God is not done with Israel. I don't buy into the notion of replacement. Unfortunately we are not all super Calvinist.



wow 

-----Added 3/9/2009 at 09:59:08 EST-----



historyb said:


> I will say once last thing in this thread In my humble opinion it is the height of absurdity to believe we as a peoples have replaced God's Chosen. Yes we have been *grafted in* not a replacement, God doesn't change Israel still has a purpose unless of course one believes that God indeed does change.
> 
> That's all I will say.




Wow pt2 

Replacement theology??!! You do hold to the WCF right as a requirement to join this board?


----------



## historyb

Actually there are 3 that one can hold to, no I am not a strict subscriber of the WCF


----------



## Wannabee

There is too much that has been said to attempt to address it all. Simply put, the discussion is overweighted and has taken on so much baggage that sorting through is too much effort. But, Tim, your observation is very fair though, and I say this with no disrespect, misguided. 



TimV said:


> Quite frankly, the elitism that reeks from this thread is an abomination and should bring about great repentance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe, elitism is the whole point of this thread. That is, elitism is bad. If you think Jews are either more or less special than the rest of us, that is elitism. In the one case, Jews are some sort of chosen race. In the second, they are second class citizens. The simple fact is that there is now no difference.
Click to expand...


What happens here is that one's understanding is imposed on another. First of all, even when God chose Israel, He made it clear that He chose them to make them what He wanted them to be, not because they had something to offer. They were not special because they were Jews. He made them Jews. He built Israel from nothing.

In regard to salvation, there is no difference. Those who are saved are of the church. The spiritual significance of the Abrahamic covenant is found in Christ, for all people. 

The simple distinction is an eschatological significance for ethnic Israel, nothing more. Does that make them special? Sure, in a sense. But it also adds responsibility to them, for which they will answer. Furthermore, it does not mean that they are special because they are Jews. It is simply that God chooses whom He wills for the purposes He has for them. He loved Jacob and hated Esau. It wasn't because Jacob was special in and of himself. I certainly would have chosen Esau. Jacob was special only because God loved him. Furthermore, if one understands the principle of "race," then that is not an issue (race is an evolutionary concept - we all are of Adam's race). They are a people drawn out of others and made a nation by God himself. Why would this bother anyone?

What many fail to realize is that this is all that is inherent in dispensationalism. All the other baggage often comes along for the ride, but is not necessary. 

It's really as simple as that Tim. It doesn't need to be made more complicated. I don't expect everyone to agree on a discussion board such as the PB. But there is room for mutual understanding and respect.

Don, regardless of what you claim, you did attack people. You attacked all who hold to a certain position. That's why I quoted you.


> Whether I'm a Dispensational or not, all who perceive a future for ethnic Israel have been labeled as, or as teaching, "heresy", "no sound understanding of the gospel" (in other words - lost/hell bound - post 21) and "horribly dangerous and confounding" (38).


These are your words, not imposed upon you. And you engineered your response with condescension.


> I am sorry if that offends you or if you fear others will be offended to know there is truth and right and wrong.
> Lets stop being children and crying to the teacher, Billy stuck his tongue out at me?


I have no desire to go back and forth on this. Simply put, your comments lacked grace. Regardless of your heart, they demonstrated pride whether you meant to or not. It's not even a matter of who's right and wrong. It's a matter of the character of Christ. Let us pursue Christ together and discuss our differences with charity. And, Mark, that's not rhetoric.


----------



## moral necessity

There are not two ways of Salvation. When the Gentiles are said to be grafted in, it is meant that they are now included into the vine of Faith that Abraham partook of. The Israelites benefited from the promise made unto Abraham, in that they were part of his loins, and were further benefitted b/c of their dealings w/ Moses. But, they were not guaranteed to be a beneficiary of the true and overall covenant to the degree that those endued w/ a similar faith of Abraham were. For, the true covenant was to be had by faith alone. Some under the Mosaic covenant were of the faith, such as David and Solomon and even my dear Samson. But, the rest showed themselves to be many of which the Lord was displeased, in that they rejected the faith. I believe that there may very well be many true Jews who will embrace Christ by faith, but, I do not personally think that it must be from some national collection today known as "Israel". Although some may be very well present there, some may well be very well obscured somewhere else.


----------



## TimV

> What many fail to realize is that this is all that is inherent in dispensationalism. All the other baggage often comes along for the ride, but is not necessary.
> 
> It's really as simple as that Tim. It doesn't need to be made more complicated. I don't expect everyone to agree on a discussion board such as the PB. But there is room for mutual understanding and respect.



You've totally lost me, Joe.


----------



## Pergamum

Can anyone give a simple 3rd grade explanation of us being grafted into the olive tree?

I am translating materials for the national church to help curb their theological bent towards Dispyism. 

I want to gather and translate materials about the hope of the Jewish peoples being saved, even at the same time that I stress one people of God and I combat false notions about the nation of Israel.


----------



## KMK

Wannabee said:


> First, we must see past and realize that authoritarianistic reasoning pervades many of these posts, as if a truth exists simply by forceful assertion. Who says Jews have to keep track of their lineage to be Jews? Did God say that? God can keep track of all men, with no effort whatsoever. In fact, He does. Furthermore, Jews always included proselytes as they blended into their lineage. On top of this, one's genealogy was generally through the male lineage, so as long as there were male heirs then the lineage was perpetuated. This is just one example of drawing lines where God does not, and is not meant to prove anything else.



I don't think anyone is asserting that Jews must keep a lineage back to Jacob in order to be, in fact, Jews. The question at hand is what is a 'Jew' in the context of Rom 11?

Is a 'Jew' someone descended from Jacob? Yes.
Is a 'Jew' someone who is of the tribe of Judah? Yes.
Is a 'Jew' someone who lives in the land of Judea? Yes.
Is a 'Jew' someone who practices Judaism? Yes.
Is a 'Jew' someone whose heart has been circumcised and has no confidence in the flesh? Yes.

Which of the above fits the context? Is it a combination? If Rom 11 does refer to those who are descended from Jacob, how do we know who they are? According to Chuck Smith God will figure it all out even though we aren't able to. But if this future harvest is 'invisible' why does Paul tell us about it? What relevance does it have to us? How is it any different than the fullness of the Gentiles?


----------



## Roldan

Wannabee said:


> I've been a part of this board for years. Those who know me know my desire to be gracious, though I do at times fail. I find great pleasure in interacting here and striving to sharpen one another in our love for, knowledge of and efforts to exemplify Christ. But, there comes a time when statements made reek of pride and arrogance to the point that frankness and bluntness seem to be appropriate. In this, I will not depart from attempting to display the love of Christ. But neither will I shirk from calling a spade a spade.
> 
> There is an ever present ebb and flow of elitism on this board, as can easily happen when men are purveyors of the truth of God. These ebbs and flows usually involve either baptism or dispensationalism bashing. And, sadly, here we have another thread with overt Dispensational bashing elitism. The broad brush and straw man doesn't make one right because of philosophical brashness and proof-texting. Whether I'm a Dispensational or not, all who perceive a future for ethnic Israel have been labeled as, or as teaching, "heresy", "no sound understanding of the gospel" (in other words - lost/hell bound - post 21) and "horribly dangerous and confounding" (38).
> 
> First, we must see past and realize that authoritarianistic reasoning pervades many of these posts, as if a truth exists simply by forceful assertion. Who says Jews have to keep track of their lineage to be Jews? Did God say that? God can keep track of all men, with no effort whatsoever. In fact, He does. Furthermore, Jews always included proselytes as they blended into their lineage. On top of this, one's genealogy was generally through the male lineage, so as long as there were male heirs then the lineage was perpetuated. This is just one example of drawing lines where God does not, and is not meant to prove anything else.
> 
> Second, the dichotomy forced on the perspective that Israel as a distinct people have a future is false. It is not two gospels, as some old classic dispensationalists taught. It is not necessary in dispensationalism, or any understanding of a future for ethnic Israel. This straw man has been forced on this perception and is a type of ad hom. attack and effort at shaming any who disagree. It's an irresponsible manner of taking a position with no respect or charity given to any who disagree. It's akin to the college professor who opens the first day of class with the statement, "Please raise your hand if you're stupid enough to believe the Bible."
> 
> Finally, It is the height of ignorance and arrogance to boast of any knowledge, period. If you boast, boast in Christ. If you fly the flag of covenantalism first, then you are a covenantalist first and can have your baggage. If you fly the flag of the reformation first, then fine, be reformed and known as reformed - only. If you fly the flag of Calvin first, you can have that too. We are to boast in Christ and fly His banner. It is GOD who works in man to will and to do, and He is the giver of all knowledge. What foolish ignorance in boasting of knowledge, and looking down one's nose at those who don't have the same understanding, whether one is right or not. Quite frankly, the elitism that reeks from this thread is an abomination and should bring about great repentance. We must all be careful that we do not win one proselyte, and when he is won, make him twice as much a son of hell as ourselves. I beseech you, is this the love of Christ?






-----Added 3/10/2009 at 12:46:22 EST-----



Wannabee said:


> There is too much that has been said to attempt to address it all. Simply put, the discussion is overweighted and has taken on so much baggage that sorting through is too much effort. But, Tim, your observation is very fair though, and I say this with no disrespect, misguided.
> 
> 
> 
> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite frankly, the elitism that reeks from this thread is an abomination and should bring about great repentance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe, elitism is the whole point of this thread. That is, elitism is bad. If you think Jews are either more or less special than the rest of us, that is elitism. In the one case, Jews are some sort of chosen race. In the second, they are second class citizens. The simple fact is that there is now no difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What happens here is that one's understanding is imposed on another. First of all, even when God chose Israel, He made it clear that He chose them to make them what He wanted them to be, not because they had something to offer. They were not special because they were Jews. He made them Jews. He built Israel from nothing.
> 
> In regard to salvation, there is no difference. Those who are saved are of the church. The spiritual significance of the Abrahamic covenant is found in Christ, for all people.
> 
> The simple distinction is an eschatological significance for ethnic Israel, nothing more. Does that make them special? Sure, in a sense. But it also adds responsibility to them, for which they will answer. Furthermore, it does not mean that they are special because they are Jews. It is simply that God chooses whom He wills for the purposes He has for them. He loved Jacob and hated Esau. It wasn't because Jacob was special in and of himself. I certainly would have chosen Esau. Jacob was special only because God loved him. Furthermore, if one understands the principle of "race," then that is not an issue (race is an evolutionary concept - we all are of Adam's race). They are a people drawn out of others and made a nation by God himself. Why would this bother anyone?
> 
> What many fail to realize is that this is all that is inherent in dispensationalism. All the other baggage often comes along for the ride, but is not necessary.
> 
> It's really as simple as that Tim. It doesn't need to be made more complicated. I don't expect everyone to agree on a discussion board such as the PB. But there is room for mutual understanding and respect.
> 
> Don, regardless of what you claim, you did attack people. You attacked all who hold to a certain position. That's why I quoted you.
> 
> 
> 
> Whether I'm a Dispensational or not, all who perceive a future for ethnic Israel have been labeled as, or as teaching, "heresy", "no sound understanding of the gospel" (in other words - lost/hell bound - post 21) and "horribly dangerous and confounding" (38).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These are your words, not imposed upon you. And you engineered your response with condescension.
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry if that offends you or if you fear others will be offended to know there is truth and right and wrong.
> Lets stop being children and crying to the teacher, Billy stuck his tongue out at me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no desire to go back and forth on this. Simply put, your comments lacked grace. Regardless of your heart, they demonstrated pride whether you meant to or not. It's not even a matter of who's right and wrong. It's a matter of the character of Christ. Let us pursue Christ together and discuss our differences with charity. And, Mark, that's not rhetoric.
Click to expand...


----------



## historyb

Off topic to point out the arrogance or the know more than anyone else pervasive with some?


----------



## Roldan

historyb said:


> Off topic to point out the arrogance or the know more than anyone else pervasive with some?



Ummm no...i think you need to check yourself. I was just saying that its off topic of which it is....start another thread if you want to use ad hominems, and again do you adhere to WCF when it speaks of covenant theology?


----------



## historyb

I answered you and it was you all that started the attacks as if you all that recently joined are more knowledgeable than us that have been here for along while.


----------



## Pergamum

How would you teach about Romans 11 to your children?


----------



## DonP

satz said:


> I think another helpful pair of verses which I don’t think was mentioned yet is Gal 3:16 and 3:29
> 
> Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
> Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
> 
> These verses seem to say that even at very beginning, God never meant to extend his spiritual promises to the physical descendants to Abraham. The promises were always meant to be to Jesus Christ, and Christians (i.e. those who are Christ’s - v 29) of any descent.
> 
> -----Added 3/9/2009 at 09:23:24 EST-----
> 
> Just to avoid being misunderstood, I want to express agreement with what Tim said above. It is not, or should not, be about putting down anyone or any race. It is about saying there is no race that currently has some sort of special favour from God above the others.



Satz I agree, this is another good passage where Paul tries to help the Jews understand this. 
The seed of promise was Christ. He is our Adam, federal head of His people. The promises was not to seeds, the ethnic jews, it was to SEED, who is Christ and only those who are in that SEED are who the promises were intended. 

Awesome!! 
And again he adds these are Abraham's seed and heirs of promise it was never the ethnic jews as the Jews incorrectly thought. 
-----------========

Joe you added to my words. I did not say going to hell?
_"no sound understanding of the gospel" (in other words - lost/hell bound - post 21) and "horribly dangerous and confounding" (38)._

No wonder you felt it was offensive. 

Not "in other words", those are your words Joe, you judged me to mean this and added to my words. 
I would ask you privately but I ask you to apologize now because you posted this publicly here. 

What would you say about someone who added these words to scripture? It would at least be a violation of the 9th commandment. 

I do not think the thief on the cross had a clear understanding of the gospel either. Nor do many who are saved. I did not say a person who sees a future for Israel is devoid of sufficient saving knowledge of the gospel. 

And I do not know the rules of this board well yet but I do think they would expect people to think dispensationalism is horrible and confounding. 

And I do think that if one was in a healthy Confessional Presbyterian Church that was not weak on discipline as many are today, and a pastor taught this he would be guilty of error or heresy, and told to recant and no longer teach it or be defrocked but not excommunicated. 

So I do not mean by heresy such that would bar one from the kingdom either; I mean error of significant import. 

Not everyone may have gotten an idea for some sort of future for Israel from dispensationalism, but it is an integral part of the common errant teaching they have so prevalent today. I think many of us have been influenced by it, Scofield, and other sources so that many are affected by it and it colors their interpretation. But maybe not all. 
-------------

The point is *I am not even so much arguing against there not being a future for Israel* as I am that we *not base it on the fact there was a history for ethnic jews. *

Joe that is my main point. Not the future. I don't know what will happen and don't speculate on it. 

I want to make sure people are clear on what Paul taught that the promises were never for ethnic Israel. This is why God could cut off so many Jews and only a remnant be elect and He is still faithful even in shutting down the nation of Israel and no longer having any dealings with the nation. 
Because the promises were never to the ethnic Jews. Israel after the flesh. 

This was a Jewish misunderstanding and Paul explained not only are we not saved by the works of the law or by being a jew, but further that the promises were never to the jews. so much so that he had to explain well what profit was there even being a Jew. Only being in the covenant and having the prophets and signs, etc.

So much so that he had to say well god has not cast off every individual ethnic jew such that there is no hope for the to ever be saved. 
They can be grft in to Israel as much as a Gentile and no special way, not special time, but now they can in the same way be converted. 

There is no Jew anymore. No Greek in God, no partiality. Only elect or non-elect. 

The promises were never to ethnic Jews. Not the land, not the messiah, nothing. It was all promised to the elect. 

So God never saw them as a special people. He saw them as covenant breakers going to hell or elect. 

So a sensible question is why would He and how could He
"again" do something with an ethnic people He never had any dealings with. 

God had no more to do with a non-elect Jew than He does with a non-elect person in a church pew today? 
They are both in the visible body, church , covenant whatever word works for you, by man's fleshly judgment, but they are not in the invisible covenant of Grace. 

So Doug I hope you see you misunderstood too. I never said replacement. 

I said the ethnic Jew never was in, so they didn't need to be replaced. Believers today are added in to Israel the elect. They are not added in with unbelieving ethnic Jews. They don't replace ethnic Jews. Ethnic Jews were never in. Never had promises to them. God hated their sacrifices. 

He finally stopped dealing with them altogether as a nation and as Jews. Now he deals with them only as humans as all people. No distinction. There is no more jew or Greek. Not now, now will be later, there is no more Jew in god eyes. Don't you see it would be a violation of His word to all of a sudden deal with an ethnic people? There are only saved and unsaved. Not even male or female. No more distinctions based in ethnicity or sex as far as promises and salvation and that is one reason women now get the sign of being in the covenant. 

Rom 10:11-12
11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame." 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, NKJV
The gospel was preached to the ethnic jew 1st, then to the Greek, but there is neither now and no preferential treatment or benefit or special opportunity now or later. 

Gal 3:22-24
that *the promise *by faith in Jesus Christ might be *given to those who believe*. 23 But before faith came, *we *were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was *our *tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. NKJV 
"We and our", are ethnic Jews who were or are now true believers. The promise was to them and not ethnic Jews who aren't believers or elect. The promise was by faith, not by ethnic descent as they thought. And the promise was in the SEED, not in seeds of Abraham. Only those in the SEED were ever promised anything. therefore all that was in ethnic judaism., the law, was to bring the elect to faith in Christ. It was all for us, believers, not for the ethnic jews, so God didn't fail or let any jews down. 

The 1st verses of Rom 9 tell us what the ethnic Jews got an no promise is mentioned, just the external covenant opportunities to hear that the heathen did not get. Which ends up being a curse to them who did not respond. Then he says 
Rom 9:6-8
*But *it is not that the word of God has taken *no effect*. For they are not all Israel *who are of Israel*, 7 *nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham*; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but *the children of the promise are counted as the seed* NKJV
They are not all of ethnic Israel who are of Spiritual Israel because they are of all nations all over the world who are Israel. So definitely absolutely the church is here called Israel. 
Spiritual Israel not the nation Israel. 


I hope this is clearer. I really do not mean to insult anyone or feel like I am better than. Its just this is such and important doctrine to understand and I remember how hard it was for me to see also. 

I wish someone had taken the time and understood this enough earlier to help me see this. So I am excited to give others an opportunity.

thanks for bearing with my exuberance and overly dramatic emotional expression for this great mystery! 
I will seek to contain myself more, but it blows me away how I was blind to this and now i am permitted to see it, by God's grace, and it is so glorious. But I am probably more of a sinner and less spiritual than you others and certainly no better even if I am correct on this doctrine. Understanding some scripture doesn't make us better; living it and living like Christ, knowing Him and being transformed to Him is our goal and *He is the only one we compare ourselves to, not each other. *
In his Service,


----------



## Wannabee

Simply put, Roldan, you're wrong. It is always on topic to pursue the character of Christ. And it's not ad hominem. You need to use your terms correctly (which, actually, were off topic). I didn't discredit what anyone said in regard to their position on Israel according to their personality or character. I pointed out that the manner in which the discussion had been pursued was ungodly. This is always on topic when Christians discuss theology.

Tim, I attempted to address your question as clearly as I could. I'm not sure how to make it more simple.

Ken, actually someone did make such an assertion earlier in the thread. And, like I said, my comments weren't so much to clear up that issue as to point out that assertions were being made from an authoritarian stance, rather than objective reasoning. 

Don, you said, "no sound understanding of the gospel" and "heresy." This points to someone who is lost. My inserted words (in parentheses) were an honest interpretation of what you wrote with an effort to show you the implication. If your intent was any different then it was not apparent in your words. I do appreciate the clarification. Thank you.

Hopefully this brings us to a point where we can more fully engage the topic at hand. First, Don, you've posted so much that I can't even begin to work through it all. But let me point out that you consistently say that the promises of the Abrahamic covenant were not for ethnic Israel. I admit that I may be misunderstanding you, but the land promises inherent in God's promises to Abraham are repeated to Isaac and Jacob. How can these not be physical promises to a physical people?

For greater understanding, I don't see a disagreement in the spiritual aspect of the covenant. Though there are obviously spiritual implications, I am speaking of the physical nature of the covenant.


PeaceMaker said:


> Understanding some scripture doesn't make us better; living it and living like Christ, knowing Him and being transformed to Him is our goal and *He is the only one we compare ourselves to, not each other. *


----------



## Roldan

historyb said:


> I answered you and it was you all that started the attacks as if you all that recently joined are more knowledgeable than us that have been here for along while.



ooooook

-----Added 3/10/2009 at 01:54:09 EST-----



Wannabee said:


> Simply put, Roldan, you're wrong. It is always on topic to pursue the character of Christ. And it's not ad hominem. You need to use your terms correctly (which, actually, were off topic). I didn't discredit what anyone said in regard to their position on Israel according to their personality or character. I pointed out that the manner in which the discussion had been pursued was ungodly. This is always on topic when Christians discuss theology.
> 
> Tim, I attempted to address your question as clearly as I could. I'm not sure how to make it more simple.
> 
> Ken, actually someone did make such an assertion earlier in the thread. And, like I said, my comments weren't so much to clear up that issue as to point out that assertions were being made from an authoritarian stance, rather than objective reasoning.
> 
> Don, you said, "no sound understanding of the gospel" and "heresy." This points to someone who is lost. My inserted words (in parentheses) were an honest interpretation of what you wrote with an effort to show you the implication. If your intent was any different then it was not apparent in your words. I do appreciate the clarification. Thank you.
> 
> Hopefully this brings us to a point where we can more fully engage the topic at hand. First, Don, you've posted so much that I can't even begin to work through it all. But let me point out that you consistently say that the promises of the Abrahamic covenant were not for ethnic Israel. I admit that I may be misunderstanding you, but the land promises inherent in God's promises to Abraham are repeated to Isaac and Jacob. How can these not be physical promises to a physical people?
> 
> For greater understanding, I don't see a disagreement in the spiritual aspect of the covenant. Though there are obviously spiritual implications, I am speaking of the physical nature of the covenant.
> 
> 
> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Understanding some scripture doesn't make us better; living it and living like Christ, knowing Him and being transformed to Him is our goal and *He is the only one we compare ourselves to, not each other. *
Click to expand...



And you are entitled to your opinion but please base them on scripture not emotions, thats all I ask. And some respect to for I am also your brother in Christ.


----------



## historyb

Pergamum said:


> How would you teach about Romans 11 to your children?



If I had children I would tell them we are grafted in (joined to) and that God still has a plan for His original chosen people


----------



## Wannabee

Roldan said:


> And you are entitled to your opinion but please base them on scripture not emotions, thats all I ask. And some respect to for I am also your brother in Christ.



Emotions???  That's an imposition, brother. My focus was, from the beginning, to foster more humble and Christ honoring communication. 


Pergy, read this. Though I might not take it in full, it should give you a decent idea of how I'd teach Rom 11.


----------



## Roldan

Wannabee said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are entitled to your opinion but please base them on scripture not emotions, thats all I ask. And some respect to for I am also your brother in Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emotions???  That's an imposition, brother. My focus was, from the beginning, to foster more humble and Christ honoring communication.
> 
> 
> Pergy, read this. Though I might not take it in full, it should give you a decent idea of how I'd teach Rom 11.
Click to expand...


I thought the thread was very humble and going very well actually (or maybe its just me) until you came in and accused individuals of "elitism" and "arrogance" just because we actually have a stance on a subject. Now back to the subject at hand........

-----Added 3/10/2009 at 02:30:40 EST-----

Wannabee, are you a progressive dispensationist? I was wondering why all the hostility then I went to your church website and read this in reference to the end times............



> We believe and teach that Jesus Christ will rapture (take up to meet Him) His Church from this earth before the seven year tribulation (1 Thessalonians 4.16—17; Titus 2.13; John 14.1—3; 1 Corinthians 15.51—53; 1 Thessalonians 4.15—5: 11).



Now it all makes sense, I apologize if you are offended by Covenant Theology but I can only speak what I believe, but truly I didn't mean to offend. My sincere apologies brother. I apologize for making some strong statements which are sensitive to our progressive dispensationalist and or dispensationalist but I don't apologize for what I believe.


----------



## Wannabee

Roldan said:


> Wannabee, are you a progressive dispensationist? I was wondering why all the hostility then I went to your church website and read this in reference to the end times............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We believe and teach that Jesus Christ will rapture (take up to meet Him) His Church from this earth before the seven year tribulation (1 Thessalonians 4.16—17; Titus 2.13; John 14.1—3; 1 Corinthians 15.51—53; 1 Thessalonians 4.15—5: 11).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now it all makes sense, I apologize if you are offended by Covenant Theology but I can only speak what I believe, but truly I didn't mean to offend. My sincere apologies brother.
Click to expand...


Ha, now that's an interesting turn. That is no longer our statement. We are premil, but leave the tribulation alone. Our new statement of faith, drafted and approved last fall, is much more comprehensive, clearly reformed in soteriology, premil, baptistic, but takes no stand on the tribulation.

I am not offended by covenant theology in the least. In fact, I am quite influenced by it. And, I really don't know if I'm progressive, NCT, or what. It depends who I'm reading and what he says is what when it comes to theological systems. I simply don't fit any mold, as many who have interacted with me on this board may attest. And, honestly, I don't care. I desire truth, and appreciate how much of it I gain from interaction on this board.

What's interesting, Roldan, is that I never was angry, emotional, upset, hostile, etc., in my posting here. What I saw in many posts I pointed out as arrogant. It would have been proper even if I agreed. As iron sharpens iron, regardless of what the other brother's motive is, we must help one another see when we display character that does not exemplify our Savior. I confronted what appeared to be sin. Graciousness and humility go a long way in persuasion and lead to a deeper understanding. If you'll read my first post in this light perhaps you'll see that I was not so reactionary as you perceived, but seeking the godliness of my brothers in Christ, as any Christian brother should do.


----------



## Manuel

I think the Bible is very clear when it says that the wall of partition that made the distinction between Jews and Gentiles has been torn down and we are now one people. We, as Gentiles were alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, but now through Christ, have become part of the true Israel.

Eph 2:12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 
Eph 2:14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 

Also it is very clear in Romans 9, 10 and 11 that God's future plan with Israel according to the flesh is to save a remnant elected by grace so they can also be made part of God's people. The book of Revelation calls the Jews who don't obey the Gospel "a synagogue of Satan". We must pray for them that God brings them to repentance.


----------



## Dearly Bought

I'm predisposed to take the view of a massive conversion of ethnic Jews. I think I would stand in good Reformed company in doing so.



> Something has been hidden in the mind and counsel of God, but no longer is it a “mystery” (Rom. 11;25). The partial hardening of Israel has taken place until “the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.” Here Paul is not referring to a remnant of believers among the Gentiles, for the word “fullness” stands over against the concept of a remnant (cf. v. 12). Besides, a remnant elect among the Gentiles was at that very time (in Paul’s day) coming into the kingdom, and thus Paul’s statement that Israel is partially hardened “until” such a remnant (=”fullness”) comes would be senseless. He must mean by “fullness” the mass of the Gentiles. Until this large portion of the Gentiles comes into the kingdom of God, a part of Israel will remain hardened against the gospel. With the mass conversion of the Gentile populace, Israel’s hardening will cease then. Provoked to jealousy (cf. vv. 11, 14). Israel will turn to the Messiah for salvation. And “thus” – in this manner – “all Israel shall be saved” (v. 26). By this declaration Paul must have meant by “Israel” what he has meant by the term throughout the chapter: namely, ethnic Jews (his brothers “according to the flesh”). To maintain, as some do, that Paul was simply stating that “all the elect among the Jews and Gentiles” (that is, “all true Israel”) will be saved is to overlook how irrelevant, obvious, unmysterious and anticlimatic Paul’s declaration would be made. Paul is showing the mysterious wisdom of God, how He marvelously uses the hardening of the Jews to save the mass of the Gentiles, which in turn provokes the Jews to save the mass of the Gentiles, which in turn provokes the Jews to seek in mass the salvation enjoyed by the Gentiles. This mutual interaction cannot be suppressed in interpreting Paul here.
> (_Gospel Prosperity and the Future of Israel_, Greg Bahnsen)





> "The interpretation by which "all Israel" is taken to mean the elect of Israel, the true Israel in contrast with Israel after the flesh, in accord with the distinction drawn in 9:6, is not tenable for several reasons. (1) While it is true that all the elect of Israel, the true Israel will be saved, this is so necessary and patent a truth that to assert the same here would have no particular relevance to what is the apostle's governing interest in this section of the epistle. Furthermore, while true that the fact of election with the certainty of its saving issue is a truth of revelation, it is not in the category that would require the special kind of revelation intimated in the words "this mystery" (vs. 25). And since verse 26 is so closely related to verse 25, the assurance that "all Israel shall be saved" is simply another way of stating what is expressly called "this mystery" in verse 25 or, at least, a way of drawing out its implications. That all the elect will be saved does not have the particularity that "mystery" in this instance involves. (2) The salvation of all the elect of Israel affirms or implies no more than the salvation of a remnant of Israel in all generations. But verse 26 brings to a climax a sustained argument that goes far beyond that doctrine. Paul is concerned with the unfolding of God's plan of salvation in history and with the climactic developments for Jew and Gentile that will ensue. It is in terms of this historical perspective that the clause in question is to be understood. (3) Verse 26 is in close sequence with verse 25. The main thesis of verse 25 is that the hardening of Israel is to terminate and that Israel is to be restored. This but another way of affirming what has been called Israel's "fulness" in verse 12, the "receiving" in verse 15, and the grafting in again in verses 23, 24. To regard the climactic statement, "all Israel shall be saved", as having reference to anything else than this precise datum would be exegetical violence.
> If we keep in mind the theme of this chapter and the sustained emphasis on the restoration of Israel, there is no other alternative than to conclude that the proposition, "all Israel shall be saved", is to be interpreted in terms of the fulness, the receiving, the ingrafting of Israel as a people, the restoration of Israel to gospel favour and blessing and the correlative turning of Israel from unbelief to faith and repentance."
> (_The Epistle to the Romans_, John Murray, pp. 97-98)


----------



## KMK

Wannabee said:


> Ken, actually someone did make such an assertion earlier in the thread. And, like I said, my comments weren't so much to clear up that issue as to point out that assertions were being made from an authoritarian stance, rather than objective reasoning.



This thread is going in too many directions for me to keep up, but... 

Speaking for myself, I am not making an assertion. I am asking a question. When you and many other godly men refer to 'ethnic Jews'. What does that mean? 

Also, accusing certain posts as being arrogant is like shooting fish in a barrel on PB. You could pretty much make that accusation on any thread in any forum except the Prayer Forum. I think you need to be more specific. Are you saying that anyone who disagrees with the position that there is a future for 'ethnic Israel' is arrogant?


----------



## Wannabee

KMK said:


> Also, accusing certain posts as being arrogant is like shooting fish in a barrel on PB. You could pretty much make that accusation on any thread in any forum except the Prayer Forum. I think you need to be more specific. Are you saying that anyone who disagrees with the position that there is a future for 'ethnic Israel' is arrogant?


Ken, thanks for asking. Point taken. But I was very specific, with quotes and post numbers. I'm not sure what more you could want. Perhaps you could be specific in regard to my vagueness...  And, yes, we can often come across as arrogant in our assertion of truth. But the quotes I presented went beyond charitable and responsible debate. However, as Don has explained, it appears that his intent was not as forceful as his impassioned words may have first appeared.



> Speaking for myself, I am not making an assertion. I am asking a question. When you and many other godly men refer to 'ethnic Jews'. What does that mean?



Jews by physical descent.


----------



## TimV

> Jews by physical descent.



Modern Jews can tell a three quarter Jew he's not a Jew because of a Gentile mother. And obviously the reverse it true, that a one quarter Jew gets automatic citizenship in Israel if his mom is a Jew.

How would you define a Jew?


----------



## Dearly Bought

Charles Hodge also understood Romans 11 to speak of a massive conversion of ethnic Jews in the future, going so far to call it a "national restoration."

See his commentary on Romans for more.


----------



## Wannabee

God defines a Jew, regardless of modern technology. Scripture doesn't tell us how He does it. This isn't about contemporary Jewish law or practice. It's about what God, the One who established/made/built the Jews, has said He will do. I don't see any fruit, or even the possibility of a conclusion, in attempting to draw these lines within the boundaries of what passes for a "legal" Jew today. This is often done by some dispensationalists. And even more often it's imposed as necessary by many who disagree with any future for ethnic Israel. But it just isn't a necessary component of those who see a future for Israel any more than paedo communion is a necessary component of covenantalism.


----------



## KMK

Physical descent from whom? Abraham? Isaac? Jacob?

How does a person living in the 21st century know if they are a physical descendant?


----------



## KMK

Wannabee said:


> There is an ever present ebb and flow of elitism on this board, as can easily happen when men are purveyors of the truth of God. These ebbs and flows usually involve either baptism or dispensationalism bashing. And, sadly, here we have another thread with overt Dispensational bashing elitism. The broad brush and straw man doesn't make one right because of philosophical brashness and proof-texting. Whether I'm a Dispensational or not, all who perceive a future for ethnic Israel have been labeled as, or as teaching, "heresy", "no sound understanding of the gospel" (in other words - lost/hell bound - post 21) and "horribly dangerous and confounding" (38).



Sorry, I missed this. That clears up my question.


----------



## Wannabee

KMK said:


> Physical descent from whom? Abraham? Isaac? Jacob?
> 
> How does a person living in the 21st century know if they are a physical descendant?



See my previous post. Also, who says that they must know if they are a physical descendant? I don't have a clue about the intricacies of this, Ken. I don't know how God is going to do what He's going to do any more than the Jews knew that the Messiah was going to free them from the oppression of sin, rather than that of Rome. Scripture simply makes promises that have to do with a people He has chosen for His purposes. Other than that, I wait and see.

On the other hand, what does one do with the land promises handed down to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?


----------



## KMK

Wannabee said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Physical descent from whom? Abraham? Isaac? Jacob?
> 
> How does a person living in the 21st century know if they are a physical descendant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my previous post. Also, who says that they must know if they are a physical descendant? I don't have a clue about the intricacies of this, Ken. I don't know how God is going to do what He's going to do any more than the Jews knew that the Messiah was going to free them from the oppression of sin, rather than that of Rome. Scripture simply makes promises that have to do with a people He has chosen for His purposes. *Other than that, I wait and see.*
Click to expand...


Your post assumes that this harvest of 'ethnic Jews' is still future. But since only God knows who 'ethnic Jews' are, is it possible that it has already happened? Could it have happened during the Welsh or the Azusa St revivals, for example? Could it have happened during the Reformation?


----------



## Wannabee

It doesn't "assume" so much as submit. I'll defer to the OP on this one.



> 25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel *until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.* 26 And so all Israel will be saved,[g] as it is written:
> 
> 
> “ The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
> And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
> 27 For this is My covenant with them,
> When I take away their sins.”



This has been addressed in the thread already, however. No sense in reinventing the wheel.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/wil...t-jews-before-Jesus-returns-44922/#post565785
http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/wil...t-jews-before-Jesus-returns-44922/#post565856
http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/wil...t-jews-before-Jesus-returns-44922/#post566245
http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/wil...re-Jesus-returns-44922/index2.html#post567441
http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/wil...re-Jesus-returns-44922/index2.html#post567598


----------



## charliejunfan

I just read Romans11 again and it does seem that a big amount of national Israelites will be brought in.
I used to interpret all Israel being saved to mean all those in Christ, however now it seems that he is talking about national Israelites.
HMMMMMM......
By no means does this mean one is a dispensationalist, like many have said on here, this belief was believed by many Puritans and the like.


----------



## KMK

Wannabee said:


> It doesn't "assume" so much as submit. I'll defer to the OP on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel *until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.* 26 And so all Israel will be saved,[g] as it is written:
> 
> 
> “ The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
> And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
> 27 For this is My covenant with them,
> When I take away their sins.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been addressed in the thread already, however. No sense in reinventing the wheel.
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/wil...t-jews-before-Jesus-returns-44922/#post565785
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/wil...t-jews-before-Jesus-returns-44922/#post565856
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/wil...t-jews-before-Jesus-returns-44922/#post566245
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/wil...re-Jesus-returns-44922/index2.html#post567441
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/wil...re-Jesus-returns-44922/index2.html#post567598
Click to expand...


I guess those do address my question if one assumes that this harvest of 'ethnic Jews' does not occur until the precise moment that the fullness of the Gentiles is brought in and that hasn't happened yet. This opens a whole other 

Thank you for your attempts to answer my questions. I do not desire to be a pest.


----------



## Roldan

charliejunfan said:


> I just read Romans11 again and it does seem that a big amount of national Israelites will be brought in.
> I used to interpret all Israel being saved to mean all those in Christ, however now it seems that he is talking about national Israelites.
> HMMMMMM......
> By no means does this mean one is a dispensationalist, like many have said on here, this belief was believed by many Puritans and the like.



How did you come up with that conclusion? You said it "seems" twice.....I can as easily say that it seems to me that to read Rom. 11 and come to the conclusion that ethnic or national Israel will be saved seems very unlikely considering the whole context of chp 9,10. The more I read the context the more unlikely interpreting 11:26 as speaking to some ethnic Jewish future conversion. And again, yes, it begs the question as to what Jews.....There is none, except for the True Jew as described by the Apostle Paul.

Please explain


----------



## OPC'n

Wannabee said:


> On the other hand, what does one do with the land promises handed down to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?



Buddy! I thought I had cleared this one up for you!


----------



## Wannabee

KMK said:


> I guess those do address my question if one assumes that this harvest of 'ethnic Jews' does not occur until the precise moment that the fullness of the Gentiles is brought in and that hasn't happened yet. This opens a whole other
> 
> Thank you for your attempts to answer my questions. I do not desire to be a pest.



You're not a pest at all Ken. Good questions. And this is a logical route for the discussion to take. So, what is the fullness of the Gentiles? Some would claim that it's the inauguration of the church. But that makes little sense since Paul is writing after this and clearly pointing to a future date. 

It's not "assuming" to claim that the blindness won't be lifted until this time. That's what the text says. And in doing so it clearly maintains a separation between Jew and Gentile. So, what is the fullness of the Gentiles?


----------



## Roldan

Wannabee said:


> You're not a pest at all Ken. Good questions. And this is a logical route for the discussion to take. So, what is the fullness of the Gentiles? Some would claim that it's the inauguration of the church. But that makes little sense since Paul is writing after this and clearly pointing to a future date.
> 
> It's not "assuming" to claim that the blindness won't be lifted until this time. That's what the text says. And in doing so it clearly maintains a separation between Jew and Gentile. So, what is the fullness of the Gentiles?



The fullness of the Gentiles are all those who are unbelieving and uncircumcised of the heart, in keeping with Pauls whole context.

Lets remember that I am not denying that national Israel will be saved, but that a remnant of national Israel WAS saved in the past therefore the Remnant of Israel+grafted in Gentiles=ALL ISRAEL. Was ALL Israel hardended and blinded when Paul was writing afterall Paul was a chief Jew not to mention all the Jews that was saved prior to 70 AD. 

What does Paul mean when he states that Israel is experiencing a "hardening in part"?The noun...("hardening") corresponds to the verb ("were hardened") in verse 7 where Paul contrasts the "elect" with the "rest."As in verse 7, in verse 25 Paul is speaking quantitatively ("in part") and not temporally ("for a while"). The verse should not be understood as meaning "for a while hardening has happened to Israel" but "a partial hardening (or 'a hardening in part') has happened to Israel." Also, by a "hardening in part" Paul does not mean that all of Israel is only partially hardened, but that some are fully hardened while the elect remnant is being saved. In no way does the phrase suggest that God intends to initiate a special salvation era for Israel in the future. 

Again this is in harmony with Paul's teaching of not "ALL Israel is Israel" and "there is a REMNANT WITHIN Israel" 

So what is a Gentile according to scripture? a non-Jew.

what was a samaritan according to scripture? a Mixed Jew(worse than a Gentile).

So what are our mixed of Jewish descent brothers today? Gentiles 

And what do you say to the Jews for Jesus Movement today about their unblindness and recieving of the Gospel?

Do we tell them "hey your are supposed to be blind still until the future mass re-exodus"

How does one who believes in a future mass salvation of Jews explain their conversion?

And if you are going to use the "blindness in PART" argument then it is obvious that you are conceeding to the fact that God has maintained a remnant and then the future ALL Israel as a nation is gone out the window.

Please help me out....I am really open to being corrected this is just what keeps me at bay in my position.


----------



## KMK

Wannabee said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess those do address my question if one assumes that this harvest of 'ethnic Jews' does not occur until the precise moment that the fullness of the Gentiles is brought in and that hasn't happened yet. This opens a whole other
> 
> Thank you for your attempts to answer my questions. I do not desire to be a pest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not a pest at all Ken. Good questions. And this is a logical route for the discussion to take. So, what is the fullness of the Gentiles? Some would claim that it's the inauguration of the church. But that makes little sense since Paul is writing after this and clearly pointing to a future date.
> 
> It's not "assuming" to claim that the blindness won't be lifted until this time. That's what the text says. And in doing so it clearly maintains a separation between Jew and Gentile. So, what is the fullness of the Gentiles?
Click to expand...


Sorry my reply has been delayed.

I do not know what the fullness of the Gentiles will look like. I think it is an invisible event. And if the 'ethnic Jews' that are called are descendants of Jacob, then I can't help but think that it is also an invisible event. As you have pointed out, only God knows who the true descendants of Jacob are.


----------



## Wannabee

Perhaps Robert Haldane is helpful here.


> Verse 25.—For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, (lest ye should be wise in your own conceits,) that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.
> Having in the two preceding verses exhibited first the possibility, and next the probability, of the restoration of the Jews, according to the order of God’s providence, the Apostle, in this and the following verses, down to verse 28, goes on to prove the certainty of the future conversion and restoration of Israel. He here addresses the Gentiles as his brethren, thus expressing his affection for them, and stimulates their attention, by declaring that he was about to reveal to them a mystery—a thing hitherto hidden or unknown. The restoration of the Jews is called a mystery, for though declared in the Scriptures, it was not understood. And in this mystery there were two parts, both of which are here unfolded,—first, that blindness is happened to Israel in part only; and, secondly, that this blindness should continue till the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. This mystery was opened to prevent the Gentiles from being wise in their own conceits, that is, from being puffed up on account of the preference they now enjoyed. Ignorance of the Scriptures is the cause of high–mindedness in Christians. They are often arrogant and contemptuous through want of knowledge. In the absence of real knowledge, they often suppose that they have a true understanding of things with which they are still unacquainted, and are thus vain and conceited.
> Blindness in part is happened to Israel.—This does not mean that their blindness was only partial, and limited in degree, for it was total and complete; but that it did not extend to all Israel, but only to a part, though indeed the far greater part. It is a consolation that the Jews are under no exclusion that forbids the preaching of the Gospel to them, and using every effort for their conversion. Though the national rejection will continue till the appointed time, yet individuals from among them may at any period be brought to the knowledge of God. This fact is of great importance. They are excluded only through unbelief, and this unbelief is not affirmed of all, but only of a part.
> Until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.—Here is the clearest attestation that the blindness of the Jews will yet cease, not only as to individuals, but as to the body. It is not stated at what time this will happen, but it is connected with the fullness of the Gentiles. The fullness of the Gentiles is the accession of the Gentiles to the body of Christ. Here we have another glorious truth presented for our consolation. The world has hitherto groaned under heathen and antichristian idolatry, but the time will come when the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ; and this will be closely connected with the recovery of the Jews from their unbelief. This declaration of the Apostle coincides with that remarkable prediction of our blessed Lord: “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”
> Robert Haldane, _An Exposition of Romans_, (Simpsonville SC: Christian Classics Foundation, 1996), 548.



I'm really not very familiar with James Dunn. But his words here may be helpful as well.


> ἄχρι οὗ τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν εἰσέθῃ, “until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.” ἄχρι οὗ certainly suggests a temporal sequence (“until the time when”), implying that once the full number of the Gentiles has come in Israel’s blindness will cease. It does not follow, however, that Paul had a clear perception of the final events as happening in strict sequence or of how the Parousia of Christ was related to Israel’s final conversion (vv 26–27). His conviction is simply of a mounting climax with the incoming of the Gentiles as the trigger for the final end in which Israel’s conversion, Christ’s Parousia, and the final resurrection (v 15) would all be involved. The thought once again is characteristically apocalyptic, expressive of the certainty that events on earth are following a schedule predetermined by God (e.g., Dan 11:36; Jub. 1.29; 2 Apoc. Bar. 48.2–3, 6; see further Russell, Apocalyptic, 230–34). In particular, the idea of the number of the elect as planned by God and awaiting completion was one which came strongly to the surface in the second half of the first century a.d. (see particularly 2 Apoc. Bar. 23.4; 30.2; 75.6; 4 Ezra 4.36–37; Apoc. Abr. 29.17; Rev 6:11; 7:4; 14:1; 1 Clem 2.4; 59.2; 4 Ezra 2.40–41; Stuhlmann, chap. 3). That such an emphasis need not and should not serve as any excuse for human indolence and passivity is sufficiently indicated by the example of Paul himself (11:13–14; 15:14–15; 16:25–26).
> For πλήρωμα see further on 11:12. By using the same word Paul presumably intended to indicate that the incoming of the Gentiles would be equivalent to that of Israel (cf. particularly Murray). This is not necessarily an exact numerical equivalence—no attempt is made to specify what “the full number” might amount to (cf. Munck, Christ, 133–35; though, as Barrett notes, “ ‘the number intended by God’ might be identical with the ‘total number’ ”; in Revelation the figure 144,000 is, of course, symbolical)—but sufficiently equivalent (as many, or as few) for ethnic origins (Jew or Gentile) to be unimportant (see also Stuhlmann, 173–78). For Jewish expectation of an eschatological conversion and pilgrimage of the nations to Zion, see on 9:26; it is certainly possible that Paul had in mind as part of the Christian variation of this Jewish hope his forthcoming journey to Jerusalem with the collection (so particularly Aus, 242; Hübner, Israel, 112–13; see also on 11:12).
> The frequency of the verb εἰσέρχομαι in the Jesus tradition in talk of entering into the “kingdom” or into “life” (Mark 9:43, 45, 47 par.; 10:15, 23–25 pars.; Matt 5:20; 7:21; 19:17; John 3:5), its distinctiveness as one of Jesus’ characteristic idioms (Jeremias, Theology, 32–33), and its infrequency in Paul (only three times elsewhere) make it likely that Paul is drawing here on pre-Pauline tradition which stems from Jesus (Michel, Käsemann, Schlier, Wilckens; but see also Munck, Christ, 132; Aus, 251–52; Schmitt, 110, Räisänen, “Römer 9–11, ” 2922—εἰσέρχομαι from the motif of the incoming of Gentiles to Zion [though none of the passages cited under 9:26 use εἰσέρχομαι]; a continuation of the metaphor of grafting, as Fitzmyer, is less natural). If that is the case, however, it is a tradition charismatically reshaped (see further on 12:14) as part of the revelatory answer given to Paul (see above on μυστήριον); cf. Käsemann (with bibliography). Moreover, Paul has used the spatial imagery of Jesus’ formulation to transform the traditional Jewish expectation that the final acceptance of the Gentiles would be a physical pilgrimage to Jerusalem. What marks out Paul’s view from that of his fellow Jews (and Jewish Christians?) is that for him the gentile “incoming” would not establish Jewish superiority (on Israel’s terms in effect), but rather the character of God’s election, so that in an important sense Israel’s restoration is on Gentiles’ terms (that is, in terms of grace alone). It is in this way that Paul resolves what Davies rightly calls “Paul’s quandary …: how to do justice to the historical role of his own people without thereby, ipso facto, elevating their ethnic character to a position of special privilege” (“Israel,” 147).
> James D. G. Dunn, vol. 38B, Word Biblical Commentary : Romans 9-16, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 679.


----------



## Roldan

Wannabee, we can go back and forth with commentaries but the questions remains...who is this remnant that God has preserved unto Himself? And Why are "jews" saved by the thousands today at the same time while gentiles continue to come in? Granting your position of course.

This cannot be ignored........


----------



## Wannabee

I'm not ignoring you Ricky. I thought Haldane particularly helpful in light of the lack of dispensational influence in his day. And this next quote answers your question to a degree. I had gathered it before I saw your post. Bear with me, my time today is short. I'll post this and then have to return tomorrow. While I don't necessarily buy into the tribulation and all that MacArthur teaches in regard to end times, some of his observations here deserve consideration.


> For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in; and thus all Israel will be saved; (11:25–26a)
> Paul had just warned Gentile believers about becoming proud and conceited because unbelieving Israel was cut off from blessing in order that it might be offered to Gentiles, explaining that “if God did not spare the natural branches [Israel], neither will He spare you [the Gentile church]” (Rom. 11:20–21). If in His sovereign grace He is now granting salvation to believing Gentiles, “how much more” will He bring His covenant nation Israel back to Himself in belief and for blessing and cut off the apostate Gentile church (vv. 24). God is not finished with His ancient chosen people, and even during this time when Jews as a nation are severed from God’s special blessing because of unbelief, anti-Semitism in any form is anathema to the Lord. Whoever harms God’s chosen people “touches the apple [pupil] of His eye” (Zech. 2:8).
> Doubtless with great joy and expectation, Paul tells believing Jews and Gentiles alike that he does not want them to be uninformed of a marvelous mystery. At the end of the epistle Paul defines mystery as being a revelation “which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God” (Rom. 16:26; cf. Eph. 3:5–7).
> Before Paul identifies and explains the particular mystery of which he is speaking here, he once again cautions Gentiles against pride, warning them to avoid construing the truths of that mystery as reasons for being wise in their own estimation.
> The first component of this mystery is that a partial spiritual hardening has happened to Israel. Partial does not modify mystery but Israel. That is, those who are hardened—the great majority—are totally hardened, but not every Jew has been or will be hardened. As always through the ages of redemptive history, God sovereignly has preserved for Himself a believing remnant. That is the gracious truth Paul emphasizes in the first part of this chapter (11:1–10).
> The second component of this mystery is that the hardening will remain only until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in. Until refers to time, fulness indicates completion, and together those terms denote impermanence. The hardening will last only for God’s divinely-determined duration. It began when Israel rejected Jesus as her Messiah and Savior, and it will end when the fulness of the Gentiles has come in.
> Has come in is from eiserchomai, a verb Jesus frequently used. He used it of entering the kingdom of heaven/God (Matt. 5:20; Mark 9:47; John 3:5; cf. Acts 14:22) and of entering eternal life (Mark 9:43, 45), both of which refer to receiving salvation. Israel’s unbelief will last only until the complete number of the Gentiles chosen by God have come to salvation. Paul’s special calling was “to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, that my offering of the Gentiles might become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 15:16). In his letter to Titus, Paul refers to himself as “an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God” (1:1). The mystery ends when the gathering of the elect is complete.
> That, of course, is also the calling of the church. Although many Jews have been saved through the church’s witness, the vast majority of converts have been, and will continue to be, Gentiles—until their number is complete. That will signal the beginning of events that lead to Israel’s redemption, when all Israel will be saved—a truth that must have filled Paul’s heart with great joy (cf. Rom. 9:1–3; 10:1).
> All Israel must be taken to mean just that—the entire nation that survives God’s judgment during the Great Tribulation. The common amillennial view that all Israel refers only to a remnant redeemed during the church age does injustice to the text. Paul’s declaration about all Israel is set in clear contrast to what he has already said about the believing Jewish remnant which the Lord has always preserved for Himself. The fact, for instance, that only some of the branches (unbelieving Jews) were broken off (v. 17), plainly indicates that a remnant of believing Jews—those not broken off—will continually exist while the fulness of the Gentiles is being completed. These are Jews being redeemed who are not part of the spiritual hardening that has come upon Israel because of her rejection of her Messiah (v. 25).
> Before all Israel is saved, its unbelieving, ungodly members will be separated out by God’s inerrant hand of judgment. Ezekiel makes that truth vividly clear:
> “As I live,” declares the Lord God, “surely with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm and with wrath poured out, I shall be king over you. And I shall bring you out from the peoples and gather you from the lands where you are scattered, with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm and with wrath poured out; and I shall bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I shall enter into judgment with you face to face. As I entered into judgment with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will enter into judgment with you,” declares the Lord God. “And I shall make you pass under the rod, and I shall bring you into the bond of the covenant; and I shall purge from you the rebels and those who transgress against Me; I shall bring them out of the land where they sojourn, but they will not enter the land of Israel. Thus you will know that I am the Lord.” (Ezek. 20:33–38, emphasis added; cf. Dan. 12:10; Zech. 13:8–9)
> Those who hear the preaching of the 144,000 (Rev. 7:1–8; 14:1–5), of other converts (7:9), of the two witnesses (11:3–13), and of the angel (14:6), and thus safely pass under God’s rod of judgment will then comprise all Israel, which—in fulfillment of God’s sovereign and irrevocable promise—will be completely a nation of believers who are ready for the kingdom of the Messiah Jesus.
> “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jer. 31:31–34; cf. 32:38)
> God’s control of history is irrefutable evidence of His sovereignty. And as surely as He cut off unbelieving Israel from His tree of salvation, just as surely will He graft believing Israel back in—a nation completely restored and completely saved.
> It is helpful to note an additional truth that Paul does not mention at this point—namely, that, just as the fulness of the Gentiles will initiate the salvation of Israel, so the salvation of Israel will initiate the millennial kingdom of Jesus Christ.
> That three-stage plan of God was predicted in the Old Testament and proclaimed in the New. In about a.d. 50, a council of “the apostles and the elders came together” in Jerusalem to discuss whether or not Gentiles had to submit to the Mosaic law, including circumcision, in order to be saved (Acts 15:1–6). After considerable debate, including statements by Peter, Paul, and Barnabas,
> James answered, saying, “Brethren, listen to me. Simeon [Peter] has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, ‘After these things I will return, and I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen, and I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, in order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old’ ” (vv. 12–18).
> John MacArthur, Romans (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996, c1991, c1994), 127.


----------



## Roldan

> *Blindness in part is happened to Israel.—This does not mean that their blindness was only partial, and limited in degree, for it was total and complete; but that it did not extend to all Israel, but only to a part, though indeed the far greater part. It is a consolation that the Jews are under no exclusion that forbids the preaching of the Gospel to them, and using every effort for their conversion. Though the national rejection will continue till the appointed time, yet individuals from among them may at any period be brought to the knowledge of God. This fact is of great importance. They are excluded only through unbelief, and this unbelief is not affirmed of all, but only of a part.*



So he agrees with me that "in part" is not to be taken as to only partial blindness of Jews but of Complete blindness to Some Jews hence God preserving His remnant.

Also, this commentator runs in circles. So whats the point of National Israel conversion if they are as of right now getting saved? 

A conversion of National Israel is the remnant of Dispensational thought.

Dispensationalism has done more to our theology than we would like to admit.

-----Added 3/11/2009 at 04:00:05 EST-----



Wannabee said:


> I'm not ignoring you Ricky. I thought Haldane particularly helpful in light of the lack of dispensational influence in his day. And this next quote answers your question to a degree. I had gathered it before I saw your post. Bear with me, my time today is short. I'll post this and then have to return tomorrow. While I don't necessarily buy into the tribulation and all that MacArthur teaches in regard to end times, some of his observations here deserve consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in; and thus all Israel will be saved; (11:25–26a)
> Paul had just warned Gentile believers about becoming proud and conceited because unbelieving Israel was cut off from blessing in order that it might be offered to Gentiles, explaining that “if God did not spare the natural branches [Israel], neither will He spare you [the Gentile church]” (Rom. 11:20–21). If in His sovereign grace He is now granting salvation to believing Gentiles, “how much more” will He bring His covenant nation Israel back to Himself in belief and for blessing and cut off the apostate Gentile church (vv. 24). God is not finished with His ancient chosen people, and even during this time when Jews as a nation are severed from God’s special blessing because of unbelief, anti-Semitism in any form is anathema to the Lord. Whoever harms God’s chosen people “touches the apple [pupil] of His eye” (Zech. 2:8).
> Doubtless with great joy and expectation, Paul tells believing Jews and Gentiles alike that he does not want them to be uninformed of a marvelous mystery. At the end of the epistle Paul defines mystery as being a revelation “which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God” (Rom. 16:26; cf. Eph. 3:5–7).
> Before Paul identifies and explains the particular mystery of which he is speaking here, he once again cautions Gentiles against pride, warning them to avoid construing the truths of that mystery as reasons for being wise in their own estimation.
> The first component of this mystery is that a partial spiritual hardening has happened to Israel. Partial does not modify mystery but Israel. That is, those who are hardened—the great majority—are totally hardened, but not every Jew has been or will be hardened. As always through the ages of redemptive history, God sovereignly has preserved for Himself a believing remnant. That is the gracious truth Paul emphasizes in the first part of this chapter (11:1–10).
> The second component of this mystery is that the hardening will remain only until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in. Until refers to time, fulness indicates completion, and together those terms denote impermanence. The hardening will last only for God’s divinely-determined duration. It began when Israel rejected Jesus as her Messiah and Savior, and it will end when the fulness of the Gentiles has come in.
> Has come in is from eiserchomai, a verb Jesus frequently used. He used it of entering the kingdom of heaven/God (Matt. 5:20; Mark 9:47; John 3:5; cf. Acts 14:22) and of entering eternal life (Mark 9:43, 45), both of which refer to receiving salvation. Israel’s unbelief will last only until the complete number of the Gentiles chosen by God have come to salvation. Paul’s special calling was “to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, that my offering of the Gentiles might become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 15:16). In his letter to Titus, Paul refers to himself as “an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God” (1:1). The mystery ends when the gathering of the elect is complete.
> That, of course, is also the calling of the church. Although many Jews have been saved through the church’s witness, the vast majority of converts have been, and will continue to be, Gentiles—until their number is complete. That will signal the beginning of events that lead to Israel’s redemption, when all Israel will be saved—a truth that must have filled Paul’s heart with great joy (cf. Rom. 9:1–3; 10:1).
> All Israel must be taken to mean just that—the entire nation that survives God’s judgment during the Great Tribulation. The common amillennial view that all Israel refers only to a remnant redeemed during the church age does injustice to the text. Paul’s declaration about all Israel is set in clear contrast to what he has already said about the believing Jewish remnant which the Lord has always preserved for Himself. The fact, for instance, that only some of the branches (unbelieving Jews) were broken off (v. 17), plainly indicates that a remnant of believing Jews—those not broken off—will continually exist while the fulness of the Gentiles is being completed. These are Jews being redeemed who are not part of the spiritual hardening that has come upon Israel because of her rejection of her Messiah (v. 25).
> Before all Israel is saved, its unbelieving, ungodly members will be separated out by God’s inerrant hand of judgment. Ezekiel makes that truth vividly clear:
> “As I live,” declares the Lord God, “surely with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm and with wrath poured out, I shall be king over you. And I shall bring you out from the peoples and gather you from the lands where you are scattered, with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm and with wrath poured out; and I shall bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I shall enter into judgment with you face to face. As I entered into judgment with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will enter into judgment with you,” declares the Lord God. “And I shall make you pass under the rod, and I shall bring you into the bond of the covenant; and I shall purge from you the rebels and those who transgress against Me; I shall bring them out of the land where they sojourn, but they will not enter the land of Israel. Thus you will know that I am the Lord.” (Ezek. 20:33–38, emphasis added; cf. Dan. 12:10; Zech. 13:8–9)
> Those who hear the preaching of the 144,000 (Rev. 7:1–8; 14:1–5), of other converts (7:9), of the two witnesses (11:3–13), and of the angel (14:6), and thus safely pass under God’s rod of judgment will then comprise all Israel, which—in fulfillment of God’s sovereign and irrevocable promise—will be completely a nation of believers who are ready for the kingdom of the Messiah Jesus.
> “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jer. 31:31–34; cf. 32:38)
> God’s control of history is irrefutable evidence of His sovereignty. And as surely as He cut off unbelieving Israel from His tree of salvation, just as surely will He graft believing Israel back in—a nation completely restored and completely saved.
> It is helpful to note an additional truth that Paul does not mention at this point—namely, that, just as the fulness of the Gentiles will initiate the salvation of Israel, so the salvation of Israel will initiate the millennial kingdom of Jesus Christ.
> That three-stage plan of God was predicted in the Old Testament and proclaimed in the New. In about a.d. 50, a council of “the apostles and the elders came together” in Jerusalem to discuss whether or not Gentiles had to submit to the Mosaic law, including circumcision, in order to be saved (Acts 15:1–6). After considerable debate, including statements by Peter, Paul, and Barnabas,
> James answered, saying, “Brethren, listen to me. Simeon [Peter] has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, ‘After these things I will return, and I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen, and I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, in order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old’ ” (vv. 12–18).
> John MacArthur, Romans (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996, c1991, c1994), 127.
Click to expand...


I would expect that from JohnnyMac since he is a progressive Dispensational.




> *The first component of this mystery is that a partial spiritual hardening has happened to Israel. Partial does not modify mystery but Israel. That is, those who are hardened—the great majority—are totally hardened, but not every Jew has been or will be hardened. As always through the ages of redemptive history, God sovereignly has preserved for Himself a believing remnant. That is the gracious truth Paul emphasizes in the first part of this chapter (11:1–10).*




Again, contradicting. How can ALL Israel be saved if they are being saved already? Is there some special couple hundred thousand Jews that are specifically special to God after the Gentiles have come in? 

I don't get it


----------



## Dearly Bought

Roldan said:


> A conversion of National Israel is the remnant of Dispensational thought.
> 
> Dispensationalism has done more to our theology than we would like to admit.



I don't know if I'm going to have the time today to respond in detail regarding the exposition of these verses, but I want to make one comment. Your repeated allegations that the national conversion interpretation is a remnant of Dispensational thought are not helpful or accurate. As I've pointed out, more recent Reformed scholars such as Charles Hodge, John Murray, Greg Bahnsen, and Kim Riddlebarger have held this position. These are not men influenced by Dispensationalism, except perhaps to run far, far away. The national conversion interpretation existed long before Dispensationalism was a twinkle in Darby's eye. Check out the Geneva Bible's note for Romans 11:25. See Ian Murray's _The Puritan Hope_ for discussion of the great number of English Puritans who took such a view.

This is not a Reformed vs. Dispensationalist issue.


----------



## Jon 316

> This is not a Reformed vs. Dispensationalist issue.



good point.


----------



## Roldan

Dearly Bought said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A conversion of National Israel is the remnant of Dispensational thought.
> 
> Dispensationalism has done more to our theology than we would like to admit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if I'm going to have the time today to respond in detail regarding the exposition of these verses, but I want to make one comment. Your repeated allegations that the national conversion interpretation is a remnant of Dispensational thought are not helpful or accurate. As I've pointed out, more recent Reformed scholars such as Charles Hodge, John Murray, Greg Bahnsen, and Kim Riddlebarger have held this position. These are not men influenced by Dispensationalism, except perhaps to run far, far away. The national conversion interpretation existed long before Dispensationalism was a twinkle in Darby's eye. Check out the Geneva Bible's note for Romans 11:25. See Ian Murray's _The Puritan Hope_ for discussion of the great number of English Puritans who took such a view.
> 
> This is not a Reformed vs. Dispensationalist issue.
Click to expand...


I didn't say it was full blown Dispensational. And I would thoroughly disagree with the men you mentioned above and would say that they unconsciously make God a respecter of persons and can just as easily quote other reformed men who would hold to the view we who disagree have presented so thats neither here nor there actually. I know that you are just making the point that these men agree with you and are Reformed and Dispensational, point well taken, but yes some of them were influenced by Dispensationalism like Riddleman and Bahnsen(if I'm not mistaken). But again that does nothing for this issue but try to get as many theologians we can who agree with our points as if to justify a view. I don't think that works quite honestly though it helps to persuad lol

Also there would be no twinkle in Darby's eye if it wasn't for this seperation of Jew and Gentile that Paul clearly joins together. 

ANd I know its not a Reformed vs Dispensational issue but it is a hermeneutical issue and I believe that no matter how many puritans or reformers or whoever held to that view, it is ultimately the proper exegesis of the text that matters, sure I know we are influenced by Church History and all that but they don't always get everything right. Semper Reformanda

Again please deal with my questions to continue the topic.


----------



## KMK

The idea that the Jews shall be called is not Dispensational vs. Reformed. However, the idea that we look to this little nation in Palestine for the fulfillment might be.

The Reformers did not look to 'national Israel' for the fulfillment because 'national Israel' as we know it today did not exist. But Dispensationalists as well as some who claim not to be Dispensationalists still look toward that little nation in Palestine for fulfillment.

My point is, if we do not know who the descendants of Jacob are, then we cannot look toward that little nation in Palestine for the fulfillment. Does anyone really believe that there are more descendants of Jacob in that little nation in Palestine than there are in the rest of the world? It seems to me that if every descendant of Jacob in the US or in Russia were to suddenly repent and believe it would just as likely be the fulfillment than a revival in that little nation in Palestine.


----------



## Roldan

KMK said:


> The idea that the Jews shall be called is not Dispensational vs. Reformed. However, the idea that we look to this little nation in Palestine for the fulfillment might be.



Exactley


----------



## Dearly Bought

KMK said:


> The idea that the Jews shall be called is not Dispensational vs. Reformed. However, the idea that we look to this little nation in Palestine for the fulfillment might be.
> 
> The Reformers did not look to 'national Israel' for the fulfillment because 'national Israel' as we know it today did not exist. But Dispensationalists as well as some who claim not to be Dispensationalists still look toward that little nation in Palestine for fulfillment.
> 
> My point is, if we do not know who the descendants of Jacob are, then we cannot look toward that little nation in Palestine for the fulfillment. Does anyone really believe that there are more descendants of Jacob in that little nation in Palestine than there are in the rest of the world? It seems to me that if every descendant of Jacob in the US or in Russia were to suddenly repent and believe it would just as likely be the fulfillment than a revival in that little nation in Palestine.



Yes, insistence on the modern nation-state of Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy might well be interpreted as a remnant of dispensationalism. I wasn't aware that anyone on this thread was advocating such a view.

-----Added 3/11/2009 at 06:29:47 EST-----



Roldan said:


> I didn't say it was full blown Dispensational. And I would thoroughly disagree with the men you mentioned above and would say that they unconsciously make God a respecter of persons and can just as easily quote other reformed men who would hold to the view we who disagree have presented so thats neither here nor there actually. I know that you are just making the point that these men agree with you and are Reformed and Dispensational, point well taken, but yes some of them were influenced by Dispensationalism like Riddleman and Bahnsen(if I'm not mistaken). But again that does nothing for this issue but try to get as many theologians we can who agree with our points as if to justify a view. I don't think that works quite honestly though it helps to persuad lol
> 
> Also there would be no twinkle in Darby's eye if it wasn't for this seperation of Jew and Gentile that Paul clearly joins together.
> 
> ANd I know its not a Reformed vs Dispensational issue but it is a hermeneutical issue and I believe that no matter how many puritans or reformers or whoever held to that view, it is ultimately the proper exegesis of the text that matters, sure I know we are influenced by Church History and all that but they don't always get everything right. Semper Reformanda
> 
> Again please deal with my questions to continue the topic.



Kim Riddlebarger has written and taught very forcefully _against_ Dispensationalist eschatology (cf. his _A Case for Amillennialism_ and _The Man of Sin_). If there was one thing that Bahnsen adamantly was not, it was Dispensationalist (cf. his _House Divided: The Break-Up of Dispensational Theology_). I think it is relevant that the national conversion interpretation has a strong history within the Reformed tradition.

I will try and address the exposition of the text shortly.


----------



## KMK

Dearly Bought said:


> Yes, insistence on the modern nation-state of Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy might well be interpreted as a remnant of dispensationalism. I wasn't aware that anyone on this thread was advocating such a view.
> 
> I think it is relevant that the national conversion interpretation has a strong history within the Reformed tradition.



You say that no one is advocating a 'national' conversion of Israel, yet you state there is a strong history in the Reformed tradition of the 'national' conversion interpretation.

How can there be a strong tradition of the 'national' conversion interpretation if there was no nation-state of Israel at the time of the Reformation? What the Reformed confessions state is that the Jews will be called. I don't think they believed that the nation of Israel would be called. How could they?


----------



## Dearly Bought

KMK said:


> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, insistence on the modern nation-state of Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy might well be interpreted as a remnant of dispensationalism. I wasn't aware that anyone on this thread was advocating such a view.
> 
> I think it is relevant that the national conversion interpretation has a strong history within the Reformed tradition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that no one is advocating a 'national' conversion of Israel, yet you state there is a strong history in the Reformed tradition of the 'national' conversion interpretation.
> 
> How can there be a strong tradition of the 'national' conversion interpretation if there was no nation-state of Israel at the time of the Reformation? What the Reformed confessions state is that the Jews will be called. I don't think they believed that the nation of Israel would be called. How could they?
Click to expand...


I am using 'national' as a reference to a body of people, not a political unit.


----------



## Roldan

Dearly Bought said:


> Kim Riddlebarger has written and taught very forcefully _against_ Dispensationalist eschatology (cf. his _A Case for Amillennialism_ and _The Man of Sin_). If there was one thing that Bahnsen adamantly was not, it was Dispensationalist




I know I have the books and they are two of my favorites especially Riddleman.

And I don't mean to sound like a jerk or "elitist" LOL but you are just making statements and are not dealing with my post and its points directly, not that you have to but if you strongly disagree please show me why at least lol and I mean that with the utmost respect, sometimes we can get the wrong impression on message boards when we read people wrong, know what I mean


----------



## Dearly Bought

My understanding of Romans 11 is that the _pleroma_ (fullness) of ethnic Israel (v. 12) must be subsequent to the _pleroma_ of the Gentiles (v. 25), due to the partial hardening of ethnic Israel. The _akris ou_ (until which) in verse 25 is the justification for this order.


----------



## historyb

Dearly Bought said:


> Yes, insistence on the modern nation-state of Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy might well be interpreted as a remnant of dispensationalism. I wasn't aware that anyone on this thread was advocating such a view.



I think the modern nation-state of Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy might be, but still I am on the fence about it myself.


----------



## Dearly Bought

To add to my commentary above...

Two separate verses in this chapter emphasis a direct parallel between the rejection and restoration of ethnic Israel:



> "Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!"
> (Romans 11:12, ESV)
> 
> "For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?"
> (Romans 11:15, ESV)



It seems natural to me to read both the rejection and restoration as _corporate_ in nature. There is no reason that I see in the text to interpret the first as a rejection of the nation, but the latter as an inclusion of individuals only.


----------



## KMK

Dearly Bought said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, insistence on the modern nation-state of Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy might well be interpreted as a remnant of dispensationalism. I wasn't aware that anyone on this thread was advocating such a view.
> 
> I think it is relevant that the national conversion interpretation has a strong history within the Reformed tradition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that no one is advocating a 'national' conversion of Israel, yet you state there is a strong history in the Reformed tradition of the 'national' conversion interpretation.
> 
> How can there be a strong tradition of the 'national' conversion interpretation if there was no nation-state of Israel at the time of the Reformation? What the Reformed confessions state is that the Jews will be called. I don't think they believed that the nation of Israel would be called. How could they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am using 'national' as a reference to a body of people, not a political unit.
Click to expand...


What does 'body of people' mean. That is the first time someone has used that phrase in this thread.


----------



## Wannabee

Roldan said:


> Again, contradicting. How can ALL Israel be saved if they are being saved already? Is there some special couple hundred thousand Jews that are specifically special to God after the Gentiles have come in?
> 
> I don't get it



He actually dealt with this. And it doesn't require the tribulation in order for this to make sense. It's MacArthur's understanding. But the point that these things will take place before the millennium is well taken.


> All Israel must be taken to mean just that—*the entire nation that survives God’s judgment during the Great Tribulation*. The common amillennial view that all Israel refers only to a remnant redeemed during the church age does injustice to the text. Paul’s declaration about all Israel is set in clear contrast to what he has already said about the believing Jewish remnant which the Lord has always preserved for Himself. The fact, for instance, that only some of the branches (unbelieving Jews) were broken off (v. 17), plainly indicates that a remnant of believing Jews—those not broken off—will continually exist while the fulness of the Gentiles is being completed. These are Jews being redeemed who are not part of the spiritual hardening that has come upon Israel because of her rejection of her Messiah (v. 25).
> Before all Israel is saved, its unbelieving, ungodly members will be separated out by God’s inerrant hand of judgment. Ezekiel makes that truth vividly clear:
> “As I live,” declares the Lord God, “surely with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm and with wrath poured out, I shall be king over you. And I shall bring you out from the peoples and gather you from the lands where you are scattered, with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm and with wrath poured out; and I shall bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I shall enter into judgment with you face to face. As I entered into judgment with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will enter into judgment with you,” declares the Lord God. “And I shall make you pass under the rod, and I shall bring you into the bond of the covenant; and I shall purge from you the rebels and those who transgress against Me; I shall bring them out of the land where they sojourn, but they will not enter the land of Israel. Thus you will know that I am the Lord.” (Ezek. 20:33–38, emphasis added; cf. Dan. 12:10; Zech. 13:8–9)
> *Those who hear the preaching of the 144,000 (Rev. 7:1–8; 14:1–5), of other converts (7:9), of the two witnesses (11:3–13), and of the angel (14:6), and thus safely pass under God’s rod of judgment will then comprise all Israel, which—in fulfillment of God’s sovereign and irrevocable promise—will be completely a nation of believers who are ready for the kingdom of the Messiah Jesus.*
> “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jer. 31:31–34; cf. 32:38)
> *God’s control of history is irrefutable evidence of His sovereignty. And as surely as He cut off unbelieving Israel from His tree of salvation, just as surely will He graft believing Israel back in—a nation completely restored and completely saved.*
> It is helpful to note an additional truth that Paul does not mention at this point—namely, that, just as the fulness of the Gentiles will initiate the salvation of Israel, so the salvation of Israel will initiate the millennial kingdom of Jesus Christ.


I don't expect to persuade here, though I hope to. But I do think this answers the question. And this answer should be framed in the context of Ken's response, which was excellent.


KMK said:


> The idea that the Jews shall be called is not Dispensational vs. Reformed. However, the idea that we look to this little nation in Palestine for the fulfillment might be.
> 
> The Reformers did not look to 'national Israel' for the fulfillment because 'national Israel' as we know it today did not exist. But Dispensationalists as well as some who claim not to be Dispensationalists still look toward that little nation in Palestine for fulfillment.
> 
> My point is, if we do not know who the descendants of Jacob are, then we cannot look toward that little nation in Palestine for the fulfillment. Does anyone really believe that there are more descendants of Jacob in that little nation in Palestine than there are in the rest of the world? It seems to me that if every descendant of Jacob in the US or in Russia were to suddenly repent and believe it would just as likely be the fulfillment than a revival in that little nation in Palestine.


I made this point earlier. The contemporary understanding of Israel only has basis if God has ordained it. But we cannot know if this is the case. Yes, may dispensationalists rely on this. But they are relying upon a perception that is not spelled out in Scripture. If Israel as we know it disappears this weekend, it will not shake my understanding of eschatology on bit, because I am not dependent upon the current "nation" of Israel. I am dependent upon God making good on His promises to save all Israel according to His place and time. 


KMK said:


> What does 'body of people' mean. That is the first time someone has used that phrase in this thread.


I don't want to speak for Bryan, but I think I understand what he's saying. Consider this in light of what I've shared here (and previously in this thread). By "body of people" I think he's referring to those of Israeli descent. This, however, does not necessitate being any part of what passes for national Israel today. This understanding needs to be divorced from the discussion. To put it simply and as clearly as I know how, the nation of Israel as we know it today may or may not have any eschatological significance. There is nothing happening in the middle east today to indicate to me that prophecy is currently being fulfilled there. I won't claim that there is, nor will I deny that it's possible. As far as I'm concerned it's unknowable because God hasn't given us enough information. Therefore, if the current nation of Israel were to disappear from the face of the earth then my eschatological perception would not change on iota (or yod  ). I would grieve, for I appreciate the culture, history and character of the people, and it would be tragic. But I would not see it as tragic on an eschatological level, other than the possible loss of biblical treasures that we enjoy because of their presence today. I don't know if I can make that any clearer.


----------



## Dearly Bought

KMK said:


> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say that no one is advocating a 'national' conversion of Israel, yet you state there is a strong history in the Reformed tradition of the 'national' conversion interpretation.
> 
> How can there be a strong tradition of the 'national' conversion interpretation if there was no nation-state of Israel at the time of the Reformation? What the Reformed confessions state is that the Jews will be called. I don't think they believed that the nation of Israel would be called. How could they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am using 'national' as a reference to a body of people, not a political unit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does 'body of people' mean. That is the first time someone has used that phrase in this thread.
Click to expand...


In contemporary discourse, we tend to use the terms "nation" and "state" interchangeably. However, a nation specifically refers to a socio-cultural community, whereas a state is a political organization. In terms of our conversation, I think the exile of Israel in Babylon is a good example. In that situation, Israel existed as a nation without the existence of the theocratic state.

This is how Charles Hodge can speak of a "national restoration" without in any way envisioning a reestablishment of the Mosaic theocracy.


----------



## Beoga

I am pretty new to this discussion, so please forgive me if this is an ignorant question:
Concerning the land promises, aren't there some promises that say some like Israel possessing the Land forever (Isaiah 60:21)? If the land that is promised to Israel concerns literal land on this earth, how does that work if God is going to destroy this earth and make a new Heaven and a new Earth? Are we supposed to understand "land" and "Israel" literally but not "forever?"
If this has been addressed in this thread, my apologies.


----------



## KMK

Wannabee said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the Jews shall be called is not Dispensational vs. Reformed. However, the idea that we look to this little nation in Palestine for the fulfillment might be.
> 
> The Reformers did not look to 'national Israel' for the fulfillment because 'national Israel' as we know it today did not exist. But Dispensationalists as well as some who claim not to be Dispensationalists still look toward that little nation in Palestine for fulfillment.
> 
> My point is, if we do not know who the descendants of Jacob are, then we cannot look toward that little nation in Palestine for the fulfillment. Does anyone really believe that there are more descendants of Jacob in that little nation in Palestine than there are in the rest of the world? It seems to me that if every descendant of Jacob in the US or in Russia were to suddenly repent and believe it would just as likely be the fulfillment than a revival in that little nation in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> I made this point earlier. The contemporary understanding of Israel only has basis if God has ordained it. But we cannot know if this is the case. Yes, may dispensationalists rely on this. But they are relying upon a perception that is not spelled out in Scripture. If Israel as we know it disappears this weekend, it will not shake my understanding of eschatology on bit, because I am not dependent upon the current "nation" of Israel. I am dependent upon God making good on His promises to save all Israel according to His place and time.
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does 'body of people' mean. That is the first time someone has used that phrase in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't want to speak for Bryan, but I think I understand what he's saying. Consider this in light of what I've shared here (and previously in this thread). By "body of people" I think he's referring to those of Israeli descent. This, however, does not necessitate being any part of what passes for national Israel today. This understanding needs to be divorced from the discussion. To put it simply and as clearly as I know how, the nation of Israel as we know it today may or may not have any eschatological significance. There is nothing happening in the middle east today to indicate to me that prophecy is currently being fulfilled there. I won't claim that there is, nor will I deny that it's possible. As far as I'm concerned it's unknowable because God hasn't given us enough information. Therefore, if the current nation of Israel were to disappear from the face of the earth then my eschatological perception would not change on iota (or yod  ).
Click to expand...


At last, in spite of my density, we are on the same page! But I don't think you are a 'run of the mill' premiller. (Quote not intended) Most premillers I talk to, even thought they don't claim to be dispensational, still look to Palestine for the fulfillment of Paul's prophecy. Would you agree, or am I just talkin' to a strange bunch?


----------



## Wannabee

Some historical examples 

Leroy Edwin From: _The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers_, I, 207: "The early church was distinctly premillennialist in her cherished expectations of Christ´s second advent. His coming and Kingdom were her constant hope. The Apostolic Fathers anticipated a future Kingdom in connection with the Redeemer´s Advent."

Here's a rather remarkable list of dispensationalists.
a. Papias (d. 155)
According to Eusebius, Church History, _Fragments of Papias_, in ANF, I, 154: "Amongst these he [Papias] says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth."​
b. Justin Martyr (100-165)
_Dialogue with Trypho_, in ANF, I, 239:"But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare."​_First Apology_, 52 ANF 1:180"And what the people of the Jews shall say and do, when they see Him coming in glory, has been thus predicted by Zechariah the prophet: “I will command the four winds to gather the scattered children; I will command the north wind to bring them, and the south wind, that it keep not back. And then in Jerusalem there shall be great lamentation, not the lamentation of mouths or of lips, but the lamentation of the heart; and they shall rend not their garments, but their hearts. Tribe by tribe they shall mourn, and then they shall look on Him whom they have pierced; and they shall say, Why, O Lord, hast Thou made us to err from Thy way? The glory which our fathers blessed, has for us been turned into shame."​In regard to this comment by Justin, Hauser states, “Justin also links the Jews with the second advent of Christ. It will be at this time that Christ will gather the nation Israel and the Jews shall look on him and repent tribe by tribe.” Charles August Hauser, Jr., “The Eschatology of the Church Fathers” (Ph.D. diss., Grace Theological Seminary, 1961), 112.

c. Tertullian (160-c. 230)
_Against Marcion_, in ANG, 3, 343:	"But we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us on earth. . . . inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem "˜let down from heaven. . . .´"​_Against Marcion_, 5.9 ANF 3:448“He [God] will favour with His acceptance and blessing the circumcision also, even the race of Abraham, which by and by is to acknowledge Him.”​_On Modesty_, 8 ANF 4:82He also urged Christians to eagerly anticipate and rejoice over the coming restoration of Israel: “. . . for it will be fitting for the Christian to rejoice, and not to grieve, at the restoration of Israel, if it be true, (as it is), that the whole of our hope is intimately united with the remaining expectation of Israel.”​
d. Hippolytus (d. 236)
Concentrated on the Book of Daniel.
Premillennial interpretation of the image, and the animal passage.
Excellent interpretation of the days, seeing them as days, not years.
Even a good start on the interpretation of the 70 weeks.
Separated the 70th week from the 69th.
From, 278: "Hippolytus is believed to be the first to have projected such a theory, making the sixty-nine weeks reach from the first year of Darius the Mede to Christ´s first coming, and the seventieth to begin separately after a gap, just before Christ´s second coming."​
e. Origen 
_The Song of Songs, in Ancient Christian Writers_, eds. Johannes Quasten and Joseph C. Plumpe (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1957), 26:252.“But when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, then will all Israel, having been called again, be saved.”​
f. John Chrysostom (349–407)
_The Gospel of Matthew_, 57 NPNF¹ 10:352"To show therefore that [Elijah] the Tishbite comes before that other [second] advent . . . He said this. . . . And what is this reason? That when He is come, He may persuade the Jews to believe in Christ, and that they may not all utterly perish at His coming. Wherefore He too, guiding them on to that remembrance, saith, “And he shall restore all things;” that is, shall correct the unbelief of the Jews that are then in being."​_The Epistle to the Romans_, 19 NPNF¹, 11:493
In reference to Romans 11:27 and the statement, “For this is my covenant with them, when I will take away their sins,” Chrysostom declared, “If then this hath been promised, but has never yet happened in their case, nor have they ever enjoyed the remission of sins by baptism, certainly it will come to pass.”

g. Augustine (interestingly, the "father of amillennialism" saw the future salvation of the Jewish people)
_The City of God_, 29 NPNF¹, 2:448"It is a familiar theme in the conversation and heart of the faithful, that in the last days before the judgment the Jews shall believe in the true Christ, that is, our Christ, by means of this great and admirable prophet Elias who shall expound the law to them. . . . When, therefore, he is come, he shall give a spiritual explanation of the law which the Jews at present understand carnally, and shall thus “turn the heart of the father to the son,” that is, the heart of the fathers to the children."​_The City of God_, 20.30, NPNF¹, 2:450“And they shall look upon me because they have insulted me, and they shall mourn for Him as if for one very dear (or beloved”, and shall be in bitterness for Him as for an only-begotten.” For in that day the Jews—those of them, at least, who shall receive the spirit of grace and mercy—when they see Him coming in His majesty, and recognize that it its He whom they, in the person of their parents, insulted when He came before in His humiliation, shall repent of insulting Him in His passion.​_The City of God_, 20.30, NPNF¹, 2:451"And at or in connection with that judgment the following events shall come to pass, as we have learned: Elias the Tishbite shall come; the Jews shall believe; Antichrist shall persecute; Christ shall judge; the dead shall rise; the good and the wicked shall be separated; the world shall be burned and renewed."​_Sermons on New-Testament Lessons_, Sermon 72, NPNF¹, 6:472"What! have we supplanted the Jews? No, but we are said to be their supplanters, for that for our sakes they were supplanted. If they had not been blinded, Christ would not have been crucified; His precious Blood would not be shed; if that Blood had not been shed, the world would not have been redeemed. Because then their blindness hath profited us, therefore hath the elder brother been supplanted by the younger, and the younger is called the Supplanter. But how long shall this be?... The time will come, the end of the world will come, and all Israel shall believe; not they who now are, but their children who shall then be.”​
h. Jerome (347–420)
_Commentary on St. Matthew_, ch. 2, quoted in Dennis Fahey, _The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation_ (Kimmage, Dublin: Holy Ghost Missionary College, 1953), 108“[W]hen the Jews receive the faith at the end of the world, they will find themselves in dazzling light, as if Our Lord were returning to them from Egypt.”​
i. St. Prosper of Aquitaine (c. 390–455)
_The Call of All Nations_, 1.21, ACW 14:69. Italics in original."As we have already said above, it is not given to any human study or genius to explore the decree and design according to which God . . ._hath concluded all in unbelief, that He may have mercy on all_ . . . He delayed for centuries, while He was educating Israel, to enlighten the countless peoples of infidels; and now He allows that same Israel to go blind till the universality of the Gentiles enter the fold. He allows so many thousands of this people to be born and die to be lost, when only those whom the end of the world will find alive will attain salvation."​_The Call of All Nations_, 1.21, ACW 14:103. "But He has shown His mercy for all men in a far more extraordinary manner when the Son of God became the Son of man . . . . Since then the glory of the race of Israel shines not in one people only . . . The promised heritage falls no longer to the sons of the flesh, but to the sons of the promise. The great parsimony in bestowing grace which in the past ages befell all other nations, is now the lot of the Jewish people. Yet, when the fulness of the Gentiles will have come in, then a flood of the same waters of grace is promised for their dry hearts . . . . When the Apostle Paul stopped in his knowledge and discussion of this problem and gave way to utter astonishment, who would be so presumptuous as to believe that he could try and explain it rather than admire it in silence?"​
j. Theodoret of Cyrus (393-457)
_Interpretatio in xiv epistulas sancti Pauli in Patrologia graeca_, ed. J.P. Minge 162 vols., 82:180. Translation by Joel A. Weaver, _Theodoret of Cyrus on Romans 11:26: Recovering and Early Christian Redivivus Tradition_ (New York: Peter Lang, 2007), 15"And he [Paul] urges them not to despair of the salvation of the other Jews; for when the Gentiles have received the message, even they, the Jews, will believe, when the excellent Elijah comes, bringing to them the doctrine of faith. For even the Lord said this in the sacred gospels: ‘Elijah is coming, and he will restore all things.’"​
k. St. Cyril of Alexandria (378-444)
_Explanation of the Letter to the Romans, in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture_, ed. Gerald Bray (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 6.298-99“Although it was rejected, Israel will also be saved eventually, a hope which Paul confirms . . . . For indeed, Israel will be saved in its own time and will be called at the end, after the calling of the Gentiles.”​
l. Others: Cyprian (200-258); Lactantius (250-330); Athanasius (297-373) and other Nicene Council participants; Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315–386); Ambrose (c. 340–397); Cassiodorus (c. 485–585).​Much of this was from Patristic Era / Israel


----------



## KMK

Beoga said:


> I am pretty new to this discussion, so please forgive me if this is an ignorant question:
> Concerning the land promises, aren't there some promises that say some like Israel possessing the Land forever (Isaiah 60:21)? If the land that is promised to Israel concerns literal land on this earth, how does that work if God is going to destroy this earth and make a new Heaven and a new Earth? Are we supposed to understand "land" and "Israel" literally but not "forever?"
> If this has been addressed in this thread, my apologies.



This would be an excellent question...for another thread. Why don't you start a new one. It would prove very fruitful, I'm sure.


----------



## Wannabee

Beoga said:


> I am pretty new to this discussion, so please forgive me if this is an ignorant question:
> Concerning the land promises, aren't there some promises that say some like Israel possessing the Land forever (Isaiah 60:21)? If the land that is promised to Israel concerns literal land on this earth, how does that work if God is going to destroy this earth and make a new Heaven and a new Earth? Are we supposed to understand "land" and "Israel" literally but not "forever?"
> If this has been addressed in this thread, my apologies.



This is a little bit off the path, but I think I remember this correctly. For a premil time as we know it ends at the end of the millennium. If the earth is destroyed then what is the significance of time. Therefore, "forever," being a referent of time, ends when the millennium is over. "Eternal," however, supersedes time. I might have missed the boat on this, so if my quick answer is off-base, I'll step aside for correction.



KMK said:


> At last, in spite of my density, we are on the same page! But I don't think you are a 'run of the mill' premiller. (Quote not intended) Most premillers I talk to, even thought they don't claim to be dispensational, still look to Palestine for the fulfillment of Paul's prophecy. Would you agree, or am I just talkin' to a strange bunch?


That's a tough call, Ken. I know that the most visible premillers are the eschatological sensationalists. But I don't know if they're visible because they write fiction and make movies, or because they're a majority. In my circles I don't run across this often. And MacArthur made it a point a couple of years ago to teach that present day Israel is not to be taken as a fulfillment of prophecy. Apparently he saw a need to straighten this out at Grace. Off the cuff, I'd say that the majority of premil Dispensationalists probably see prophetical significance in today's Israel. But I don't know if that can be said about non-Dispensationalists. In our church there appears to be a propensity toward seeing such significance, if I understand correctly. But I don't see this as something I need to address at this time. We have enough irons in the fire, and I'm slowly taking them in the direction of a more historical premil position. Even then, I really don't know how long it will be before I teach on eschatology. Where does it first come up in Luke? 

-----Added 3/12/2009 at 01:14:11 EST-----

Sorry Ken, I was writing when you posted. Ixnay on the oreverfay erspectivepay.


----------



## KMK

Thanks for the thoughtful interchange, Joe. 

I am leaning, at this point, toward looking at the calling of the Jews to refer to the conversion, perhaps past or future, of many of those who practice Judaism...not those who are descended in some physical way from Jacob. I am leaning this way for a couple of reasons:

1) Paul goes out of his way to teach the flesh profiteth nothing.
2) Physical descent from Jacob is 'invisible'.
3) The practice of Judaism is visible and it continues even today.
4) Those who were blinded were not blinded because of their ancestry but because of their rejection of Christ in favor of Judaism.

I am very much open to criticism, however.


----------



## Wannabee

Thanks Ken. It was a good exchange. I don't think we'd gain much ground at this point. There are differing hermeneutics at play that are hard to overcome. Nevertheless, consider yourself criticized, for good measure.


----------



## KMK

Wannabee said:


> Thanks Ken. It was a good exchange. I don't think we'd gain much ground at this point. There are differing hermeneutics at play that are hard to overcome. Nevertheless, consider yourself criticized, for good measure.



Thanks for critiquing me publicly rather than loving me secretly!


----------



## Marno

Quite a journey for me. I used to be a Dispensational, blah blah, yada, yada, until I became Reformed. Then I studied under O. Palmer Robertson, Robert Reymond, etc., for several years and came to be thoroughly convinced the Romans passage referred to "spiritual" Israel, "in this way" all Israel -- spiritual Israel -- will be saved. Preached it, I was a conference speaker on it.

Then I preached a verse-by-verse series on Romans a few years later (2001- 2007). More in-depth study led me to change my mind. I do not change my mind easily. Nevertheless, I am now convinced beyond a doubt that Paul's text teaches there will be a massive influx to faith in Christ by national Israel near or at the end of the age. In fact I think it is pretty much the point of chapters 9 - 11.


----------



## Wannabee

Thank you Mike. 
I've heard this from several men. One brother had an experience much like yours, but his was in a class on Romans. In his exegesis of those very chapters he had to change his view. 

Blessings,


----------



## Roldan

Marno said:


> Quite a journey for me. I used to be a Dispensational, blah blah, yada, yada, until I became Reformed. Then I studied under O. Palmer Robertson, Robert Reymond, etc., for several years and came to be thoroughly convinced the Romans passage referred to "spiritual" Israel, "in this way" all Israel -- spiritual Israel -- will be saved. Preached it, I was a conference speaker on it.
> 
> Then I preached a verse-by-verse series on Romans a few years later (2001- 2007). More in-depth study led me to change my mind. I do not change my mind easily. Nevertheless, I am now convinced beyond a doubt that Paul's text teaches there will be a massive influx to faith in Christ by national Israel near or at the end of the age. In fact I think it is pretty much the point of chapters 9 - 11.



I had the opposite experience. But anyways what national Israel?


----------



## Marno

Roldan said:


> I had the opposite experience. But anyways what national Israel?



You went from a Reformed view to a Dispensational view??? 

I think the text itself assumes a "national Israel" rather than a "spiritual Israel".

"Israel" ("Israelite") is mentioned at least 6 times in Romans 11, as well as many references to "them" and "they" and "his people", meaning national, or at least _ethnic_ Israel. Verse 25 speaks of a "partial hardening" having come "upon Israel", and the very next verse speaks of "all Israel". I do not think that Paul in a singular change of meaning singles out "all Israel" as a spiritual body of God's elect from all nations and races. I think the context and flow of thought of "Israel" is the same throughout the chapter -- ethnic Israel, descendants of Abraham.

-----Added 3/15/2009 at 01:40:16 EST-----



Wannabee said:


> Thank you Mike.
> I've heard this from several men. One brother had an experience much like yours, but his was in a class on Romans. In his exegesis of those very chapters he had to change his view.
> Blessings,



Yep. It's not easy to eat humble pie after having made a passionate case for the "spiritual Israel" interpretation for a number of years. But the truth, or at least the truth as we believe it to be, must win out over our pride. If we have come to change our minds -- one way or the other -- we should make it as public as our previous opinion had been.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## baron

TimV said:


> Jews by physical descent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modern Jews can tell a three quarter Jew he's not a Jew because of a Gentile mother. And obviously the reverse it true, that a one quarter Jew gets automatic citizenship in Israel if his mom is a Jew.
> 
> How would you define a Jew?
Click to expand...


I did not see an answer to this question but this morning in sunday school we were discussing this question of what or who is a Jew. My confusion runs from that my great great something grandparents were supposedly Russian and Polish Jews that ended up becoming catholic. This was told to me by a long dead aunt. There were some Jewish tradations that my grandmother and her mother followed. My mother had no idea why. But they never considered themself Jewish. If my anut had not told my mother she would never of thought about being part Jewish.

My wife is of Mexican and other nationalities but here last name is of Spanish-Jewish decent. 

I read articles of Mexicans in New Mexico and Arizonia of being Catholic but also had Jewish beliefs that have been handed down for generations. I do not have the article but it was about a type of cancer that is common to Jewish woman I believe and these Mexican woman had the same gene defects or something on that order. But the article concluded that these Mexican woman were of Spanish-Jewish descent.

So who or what makes someone Jewish? Is it Religon or physical descent. If I convert to Judasim does that make me Jewish.

Sorry if I am not clear because my brain works a lot faster than my fingers doing the typing.


----------



## DonP

baron said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jews by physical descent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you define a Jew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who or what makes someone Jewish? Is it Religon or physical descent. If I convert to Judasim does that make me Jewish.
> 
> Sorry if I am not clear because my brain works a lot faster than my fingers doing the typing.
Click to expand...


I would go with Gods definition 

Rom 2:28 For he is *not a Jew who is one outwardly*, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but *he is a Jew who is one inwardly*; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; NKJV

Definitely nit physical descent. 
-----Added 3/16/2009 at 01:11:19 EST-----



Marno said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the opposite experience. But anyways what national Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You went from a Reformed view to a Dispensational view???
> 
> I think the text itself assumes a "national Israel" rather than a "spiritual Israel".
> 
> "Israel" ("Israelite") is mentioned at least 6 times in Romans 11, as well as many references to "them" and "they" and "his people", meaning national, or at least _ethnic_ Israel.
> 
> -----Added 3/15/2009 at 01:40:16 EST-----
Click to expand...


Yes I have to agree, what national Israel? National Israel was done away with. At least for 1940 years. 

But be careful. He goes back and forth on the meaning and use of the words Jew, Israel, Israelite. It does mean more than one thing even in one verse as my last post shows. 


In His Service,

-----Added 3/16/2009 at 01:22:51 EST-----
--------------------------------
I am confused 

What is so complicated about this 

Rom 9:6-8
But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, *those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God*; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. NKJV

We absolutely clearly emphatically see that ethnic born Jews are not, never were the Children of God 

It was the chosen elect of all nations and ages, Jew 1st then all nations. These are Israel who the promises were made to. 

The ethnic people were only a visible covenant type of the true. 

And vrs 6, not all who are Israel are ethnic Jews. I can't mean anything else and make sense. Spiritual Israel is made up of all believers and not all of them are ethnic Jews. 

So here is a perfect example that of course he does use the same word to mean 2 different things and not the same. 
Not all frogs are frogs. Doesn't make sense. One Israel must mean something different. 

So as long as you don't disagree with this you are not dispensational 

But why, if God never ever had anything to do with ethnic Jews would He later??

His promises were to His people. And all ethnic Jews will never be saved because some already haven't been saved. 

The only ALL who will be saved is the elect. 

In His Service,


----------



## Marno

baron said:


> So who or what makes someone Jewish? Is it Religon or physical descent. If I convert to Judasim does that make me Jewish.



I don't know. I am relying on the text of Romans 9, 10, and 11. Whatever Paul meant, it was not "spiritual" Israel, but Israelites, descendants of Abraham. If it were clear and obvious we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But yes, converting to Judaism would make you Jewish.


----------



## Manuel

I think that a massive conversion of Jews is a possibility based on the teachings of Romans 9, 10 and 11. In chapter 9, at the beginning, Paul expresses his sorrow for Israel, the Jewish people; he uses the words "my brothers, *my kinsmen according to the flesh*." I think that undoubtedly he is talking about ethnic Israel here. He continues to say: 

Rom 9:4 *They are Israelites*, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 
Rom 9:5 To them belong the patriarchs, *and from their race, according to the flesh*, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. 

Paul's concern is that the Israelites (according to the flesh) in their majority have rejected the Gospel of our Lord Jesus, but then proceeds to explain that it's not that God's word failed because the true Israel is not those who are children according to the flesh but those who are His children according to the promise. This is the true Israel, no doubt about it.

However, in verse 30 he switches back to a distinction between jews and gentiles according to the flesh.

Rom 9:30 What shall we say, then? That *Gentiles* who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 
Rom 9:31 but that *Israel *who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 

I think it's very clear in these verses that the Jew-gentile distinction is ethnic, not spiritual. In all of chapter 10 this ethnic distinction continues. His prayer is for them (those who are Israelites according to the flesh) that they may be saved. He explains that they tried to establish their own righteousness and for this cause they did not submit to God's righteousness. They were following a righteousness that is by works and commandments, but God's righteousness is by faith, and regarding this faith there is no distinction in God's eyes between Jews and gentiles.

The rest of the chapter he continues his lament about Israel according to the flesh because they have not believed the Gospel. He concludes saying: "But *of Israel *he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people." 

Chapter 11 is a continuation of chapter 10, the Israelites' unbelief doesn't mean that God has rejected His people (obviously here His people is ethnic Israel), and he offers two reasons for why he thinks this is so.

1- Not all Israelites (according to the flesh) have rejected the Gospel, but there is a believing remnant just like in Elijah's times, and Paul counts himself among them saying: "For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin." It is pretty obvoius that he is talking here about an ethnic Israel, not a spiritual one.

2-The second reason that he offers is that this partial hardening of Israel according to the flesh has a purpose and it's temporary. Their trespass is riches for the world and their rejections means the reconciliation of the world (vs. 12, 15), and this hardening will continue "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." and in this manner *all Israel *will be saved. By this I understand, of course, *spiritual Israel*, all of the elect both gentiles and the elect remnant of Jewish people who are saved throughout the ages and a remnant of physical descendants of Abraham, whom only God knows, and has reserved for obedience to the Gospel when the fullness of the gentiles has come in.

So I think there will be a massive conversion of Jews before the Lord's return.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## BlackCalvinist

Manuel said:


> I think that a massive conversion of Jews is a possibility based on the teachings of Romans 9, 10 and 11. In chapter 9, at the beginning, Paul expresses his sorrow for Israel, the Jewish people; he uses the words "my brothers, *my kinsmen according to the flesh*." I think that undoubtedly he is talking about ethnic Israel here. He continues to say:
> 
> Rom 9:4 *They are Israelites*, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises.
> Rom 9:5 To them belong the patriarchs, *and from their race, according to the flesh*, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
> 
> Paul's concern is that the Israelites (according to the flesh) in their majority have rejected the Gospel of our Lord Jesus, but then proceeds to explain that it's not that God's word failed because the true Israel is not those who are children according to the flesh but those who are His children according to the promise. This is the true Israel, no doubt about it.
> 
> However, in verse 30 he switches back to a distinction between jews and gentiles according to the flesh.
> 
> Rom 9:30 What shall we say, then? That *Gentiles* who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith;
> Rom 9:31 but that *Israel *who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law.
> 
> I think it's very clear in these verses that the Jew-gentile distinction is ethnic, not spiritual. In all of chapter 10 this ethnic distinction continues. His prayer is for them (those who are Israelites according to the flesh) that they may be saved. He explains that they tried to establish their own righteousness and for this cause they did not submit to God's righteousness. They were following a righteousness that is by works and commandments, but God's righteousness is by faith, and regarding this faith there is no distinction in God's eyes between Jews and gentiles.
> 
> The rest of the chapter he continues his lament about Israel according to the flesh because they have not believed the Gospel. He concludes saying: "But *of Israel *he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people."
> 
> Chapter 11 is a continuation of chapter 10, the Israelites' unbelief doesn't mean that God has rejected His people (obviously here His people is ethnic Israel), and he offers two reasons for why he thinks this is so.
> 
> 1- Not all Israelites (according to the flesh) have rejected the Gospel, but there is a believing remnant just like in Elijah's times, and Paul counts himself among them saying: "For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin." It is pretty obvoius that he is talking here about an ethnic Israel, not a spiritual one.
> 
> 2-The second reason that he offers is that this partial hardening of Israel according to the flesh has a purpose and it's temporary. Their trespass is riches for the world and their rejections means the reconciliation of the world (vs. 12, 15), and this hardening will continue "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." and in this manner *all Israel *will be saved. By this I understand, of course, *spiritual Israel*, all of the elect both gentiles and the elect remnant of Jewish people who are saved throughout the ages and a remnant of physical descendants of Abraham, whom only God knows, and has reserved for obedience to the Gospel when the fullness of the gentiles has come in.
> 
> So I think there will be a massive conversion of Jews before the Lord's return.



Thank you for saving me the trouble of typing this.  You expressed my thoughts perfectly here.


----------



## Manuel

You are very welcome, good to know that I haven't lost my telepathic powers.


----------



## DonP

Who do you think these are??

Rev 2:9 I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. NKJV

Rev 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan , which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. KJV

These are the covenant breakers! Those who were ethnic Jews and possibly church attenders.

Again I say the simplicity of this matter is overwhelming and one must seek to support his own belief to not see how Paul clarifies to those who think it was for ethnic Jews, what God meant in His promises to the Jews. There is no way ethnic Jews can all be saved because some are dying without Christ now. So All saved must and can only mean the elect. So shall all Israel be saved means in this way shall God fulfill His promise to save all Israel, all Jews, all covenant people, only in the invisible covenant, the elect of all believers Jew and Gentiles, the heirs of Abraham, of all nations. 

Rom 2:28 For *he is not a Jew* who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but *he is a Jew *who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, NKJV

Rom 3:22 For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God NKJV

Think as if you were a Jew complaining to Paul for preaching salvation to Gentles. Paul now explains the whole thing to you so you understand the Gentiles were always part of the Plan and God started with ethnic Jews but promised Abraham it would go to all nations. And it did. Israel is all the elect of all nations and heirs of the promise to Abraham and all of this was done before the law, before the nation, and before circumcision. Before Israel the nation was, Israel of promise to Abraham was made for people of all nations, then Gos started this process with the nation of Jews. Its all one, one plan., one body, one unfolding beginning with the promised child of Abraham and then his ever expanding family of faith. 
any non ethnic Jew who came in and believed could always become a part of Israel, would be a Jew of faith. 

Rom 3:29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. NKJV

Rom 4:9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? NKJV

The Jews hated this and wanted it to be only for ethnic Jews. Paul had to keep pounding it into them even to chapt 15 it was always for Gentiles and not ever for ethnic Jews. In fact in Gods eyes there is no difference. Never was. 

Rom 4:13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, NKJV
LOOK If there was ever a promise to ethnic Jews it would make faith and grace void!! 

Rom 4:16 so that the promise might be sure to* all the seed,* not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, NKJV
All the seed is all in Christ. 

Next he speaks of fleshy seed of Abraham he switches how he uses seed and Jew and Israel back and forth. Not all of ethnic Israel who are in Spiritual Israel.

Rom 9:6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For *they are not all Israel who are of Israel,* 7 *nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham*; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, *those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God*; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. NKJV

So the above verse shows us that the children of the flesh, are not the who the promise was made to. There never ever was a promise to ethnic Jews. They only mistakenly thought there was. Paul says it was always meant to be the seed of Abraham, those in Christ, the elect. 
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame." 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek,NKJV

Rom 11:7 Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.NKJV
Ethnic Israel did not obtain what it thought was going to be, but the elect of all ages obtained it because it was never to ethnic Jews only people of faith.

This is how all Israel will be saved, by all the elect being saved, the coming in of the Gentiles and the current ongoing conversion of Jews like Paul

Rom 11:25 the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, NKJV

Because all Israel is and always was all the elect who would have faith in Christ and no others. 

So God id not fail in making promises to the Jews because in His mind a Jew was not a fleshly descendant but a faithful believer regardless of ethnicity even in OT times.


----------



## KMK

I think this thread has run its course. Everyone has had a say. Instead of continually resurrecting this thread, those who have more to add should start a new thread. That way we can keep the conversation 'streamlined'.


----------

