Chronology of Ethnic Israel's Conversion

[Solo Christo]

OK. So I'm finished with Hoeksema's "God's Eternal Good Pleasure". He holds the view that the conversion of ethnic Israel in Romans 11 is a simultaneous and continuous event alongside the Gentiles--while excluding any prophetic possibility of a future mass conversion upon the fullness of the Gentiles entering in and the partial hardening lifted. Now, to me his argument is purely for the sake of validating amillenialism (in its full pessimistic glory at that), of which he is a staunch supporter. My question is if there is any other take on a simultaneous and continuous salvation of the Jews that isn't dependent upon the backbone of this kind of eschatology?

No offense to my amillennial brothers....just thought I'd ask.

 

[Solo Christo]

I suppose I should clarify that (of course) I believe that Jews have been, are, and will be converted before the last day. The focus of my post lies in the understanding of prophecy concerning a future conversion of exceptional prosperity (upon the partial hardening being lifted).

 

[Puritan Sailor]

The argument doesn't rest on the eschatology but on the interpretation of "partial" hardening. If the partial hardening is interpreted to mean that the hardening is lifted only after the Gentiles are gathered, then you have no grounds to expect Jewish conversions until that hardening is lifted. Since even most "mass conversion" proponents shutter at such a logical conclusion from their interpretation they have to soften it somewhat. Hoekema's interpretation is perfectly consistent with what Paul is saying in the beginning of the chapter regarding his mission work, and his own practice in Acts. "Partial" hardening means that not all ethnic Israel have rejected or will reject the Messiah (as illustrated by Paul's own scriptural examples in ch. 11). The spiritual remnant (the elect) of ethnic Israel are provoked to jealousy and saved as the massive conversions of the Gentiles are taking place. And they are both saved the same, by faith, and engrafted into the same tree, the Church. "And so all Israel shall be saved" is better interpreted "And in this manner all Israel will be saved."

[Edited on 5-21-2005 by puritansailor]

 

[Solo Christo]

Thanks for your response Patrick. I agree that the focus is indeed on partial hardening. But Hoeksema uses the argument of simultaneous and continuous conversion almost solely for the purpose of validating amillennialism. He strongly relates that the Bible should have us expect a steep downward spiral of morality, sin, and apostasy and that the only way Paul's words can prove true is if remnant Jews are simultaneously converted with Gentiles along the way. His eschatalogical view holds no room for a Christian prosperity of which ethnic Israel can become jealous and join with repentance in the end. I am wondering how the argument stands apart from his eschatology.

As far as the translation of Paul's letter, it is interesting that you should mention:

"And so all Israel shall be saved" is better interpreted "And in this manner all Israel will be saved."

...as the ESV does quite literally.

But Hoeksema was extremely adamant about the translation sticking to "and so". The problem is that we are dealing with the Greek word ουτως (hoo´-toce, used this way when preceding a vowel):

Strong´s dictionary G3779 defines ουτως as:

in this way (referring to what precedes or follows): - after that, after (in) this manner, as, even (so), for all that, like (-wise), no more, on this fashion (-wise), so (in like manner), thus, what.

This can very easily be taken as what follows, even more explicitly as "afterwards", or "after that"-- which would in turn crumble his entire argument. As far as using his choice of "so" (KJV) in it's place, it still does little or no damage to the idea that God has in store a large future salvation for the Jews.

I must disagree with the idea that if there is to be a mass conversion on the horizon that we should not expect any Jews at all to be converted in the meantime. I myself have Hebrew blood in my veins and am confident of God's work in my life. But this, as you have correctly pointed out, has to do with the understanding of partial hardening. Nowhere are we told that there are no more elect among the Jews to be expected until the end, and such speculation seems to me beside the point of God's promise in Paul's letter. The Puritans preached this well. I'm trying to pinpoint where everything became derailed.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

"Amillennialism wears a dress and plays with dolls."
- Doug Wilson

 

[Poimen]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
"Amillennialism wears a dress and plays with dolls."
- Doug Wilson

Sorry - lost my temper!

[Edited on 5-21-2005 by poimen]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Solo Christo
Thanks for your response Patrick. I agree that the focus is indeed on partial hardening. But Hoeksema uses the argument of simultaneous and continuous conversion almost solely for the purpose of validating amillennialism. He strongly relates that the Bible should have us expect a steep downward spiral of morality, sin, and apostasy and that the only way Paul's words can prove true is if remnant Jews are simultaneously converted with Gentiles along the way. His eschatalogical view holds no room for a Christian prosperity of which ethnic Israel can become jealous and join with repentance in the end. I am wondering how the argument stands apart from his eschatology.

It all depends on how you are defining prosperity. I have no problem as Amil seeing a triumphant Chrisitanity, defined by the successful gathering of all the elect, many many elect. But I do not believe there will be a physical Christian kingdom on this earth. That runs completely contrary to the spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom, and to the clear teachings that this old creation, the age of the first Adam, is reserved for destruction. The Bible is clear, particularly in the parables that the kingdom is ripening along side the ripening tares. Both are growing and the tares are not expelled until the harvest is ready. Evil and good ripen together. The more massive the kingdom of Christ grows, the more passionate opposition from the world who hates Christ. The climax and finale is at the return of Christ. So again, it all depends on how you define "prosperity."

 

[Solo Christo]

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by Solo Christo
Thanks for your response Patrick. I agree that the focus is indeed on partial hardening. But Hoeksema uses the argument of simultaneous and continuous conversion almost solely for the purpose of validating amillennialism. He strongly relates that the Bible should have us expect a steep downward spiral of morality, sin, and apostasy and that the only way Paul's words can prove true is if remnant Jews are simultaneously converted with Gentiles along the way. His eschatalogical view holds no room for a Christian prosperity of which ethnic Israel can become jealous and join with repentance in the end. I am wondering how the argument stands apart from his eschatology.

It all depends on how you are defining prosperity. I have no problem as Amil seeing a triumphant Chrisitanity, defined by the successful gathering of all the elect, many many elect. But I do not believe there will be a physical Christian kingdom on this earth. That runs completely contrary to the spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom, and to the clear teachings that this old creation, the age of the first Adam, is reserved for destruction. The Bible is clear, particularly in the parables that the kingdom is ripening along side the ripening tares. Both are growing and the tares are not expelled until the harvest is ready. Evil and good ripen together. The more massive the kingdom of Christ grows, the more passionate opposition from the world who hates Christ. The climax and finale is at the return of Christ. So again, it all depends on how you define "prosperity."

I hear you loud and clear, but let's try to remember that this is a wheat field and not a tare field. And yes, this age is reserved for destruction--after a great apostasy, of which there can be none if there is no Christian kingdom to turn apostate from (otherwise it would not be apostasy, but rather a slow, predictable, and constant backsliding). I am not suggesting that sin, evil, suffering, or passionate opposition will ever be fully conquered in this world until Christ comes again, but I do believe that the enemies of the gospel will be made as a footstool to the feet of Jesus who is reigning now from the right hand of the father. We have many promises to claim, trust, and believe that hold infinitely stronger weight than the headlines of our local newspaper in our little slice of the world.

I didn't mean to open a millenial , really. Just wanted to reach out for some further insight on the salvation of the Jews apart from Hoeksema's explanation, in which I feel he put the cart before the horse. I felt this would be a great place to bring it up since the Puritans seem to be well known for their input on the subject.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Solo Christo

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by Solo Christo
Thanks for your response Patrick. I agree that the focus is indeed on partial hardening. But Hoeksema uses the argument of simultaneous and continuous conversion almost solely for the purpose of validating amillennialism. He strongly relates that the Bible should have us expect a steep downward spiral of morality, sin, and apostasy and that the only way Paul's words can prove true is if remnant Jews are simultaneously converted with Gentiles along the way. His eschatalogical view holds no room for a Christian prosperity of which ethnic Israel can become jealous and join with repentance in the end. I am wondering how the argument stands apart from his eschatology.

It all depends on how you are defining prosperity. I have no problem as Amil seeing a triumphant Chrisitanity, defined by the successful gathering of all the elect, many many elect. But I do not believe there will be a physical Christian kingdom on this earth. That runs completely contrary to the spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom, and to the clear teachings that this old creation, the age of the first Adam, is reserved for destruction. The Bible is clear, particularly in the parables that the kingdom is ripening along side the ripening tares. Both are growing and the tares are not expelled until the harvest is ready. Evil and good ripen together. The more massive the kingdom of Christ grows, the more passionate opposition from the world who hates Christ. The climax and finale is at the return of Christ. So again, it all depends on how you define "prosperity."

I hear you loud and clear, but let's try to remember that this is a wheat field and not a tare field. And yes, this age is reserved for destruction--after a great apostasy, of which there can be none if there is no Christian kingdom to turn apostate from (otherwise it would not be apostasy, but rather a slow, predictable, and constant backsliding).

I don't think a kingdom is necessary for apostacy. Apostacy refers to those who forsake the faith. If you mean forsaking the spiritual reign of Christ in the Church, which I consider His covenant kingdom on earth, then I would agree with you. But a world theocracy is in no way necessary for apostacy.

I am not suggesting that sin, evil, suffering, or passionate opposition will ever be fully conquered in this world until Christ comes again, but I do believe that the enemies of the gospel will be made as a footstool to the feet of Jesus who is reigning now from the right hand of the father. We have many promises to claim, trust, and believe that hold infinitely stronger weight than the headlines of our local newspaper in our little slice of the world.

I agree He is making His enemies His footstool, but not physically. He conquers them spiritually, by subduing them to Himself and effectually calling them to faith, or by executing their sentence of condemnation and delivering them to eternal wrath.

I didn't mean to open a millenial , really. Just wanted to reach out for some further insight on the salvation of the Jews apart from Hoeksema's explanation, in which I feel he put the cart before the horse. I felt this would be a great place to bring it up since the Puritans seem to be well known for their input on the subject.

It's all tied together. So it's easy to get into millenial things. Especially when you start understanding eschatology in light of covenant theology.

Just to clarify: Did you mean Hoekema or Hoeksema? If you meant Hoeksema, then yes, I would agree he tends to be too pessimistic in his amil eschatology.

[Edited on 5-22-2005 by puritansailor]

 

[Solo Christo]

I don't think a kingdom is necessary for apostacy. Apostacy refers to those who forsake the faith. If you mean forsaking the spiritual reign of Christ in the Church, which I consider His covenant kingdom on earth, then I would agree with you. But a world theocracy is in no way necessary for apostacy.

I agree that apostasy refers to those who forsake the faith. I'm not suggesting a theonomic or theocratic primary objective here, just that the Bible gives promises that entail the abundance of the earth's population coming to accept the glory of the gospel--and let the remaining chips fall where they may.

I agree He is making His enemies His footstool, but not physically. He conquers them spiritually, by subduing them to Himself and effectually calling them to faith, or by executing their sentence of condemnation and delivering them to eternal wrath.

Habbakuk 2:14 For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.

Just to clarify: Did you mean Hoekema or Hoeksema? If you meant Hoeksema, then yes, I would agree he tends to be too pessimistic in his amil eschatology.

The latter...

Homer C. Hoeksema
God's Eternal Good Pleasure
Copyright 1979 by the Reformed Free Publishing Association, Grand Rapids, MI

 

[ReformedWretch]

You want to see a

I believe that it is very possible that Paul was speaking about a remenant of his Jewish brothers that would escape the judgment of AD 70 and not some future event. I am in a small minority with that belief however.

Tehre, now that is a :bigsmile:

 

[Solo Christo]

Originally posted by houseparent
You want to see a

I believe that it is very possible that Paul was speaking about a remenant of his Jewish brothers that would escape the judgment of AD 70 and not some future event. I am in a small minority with that belief however.

Tehre, now that is a :bigsmile:

Hmm. So do you believe that the full number of Gentiles is already in? Help me out here.

 

[ReformedWretch]

It all comes down to who "all Israel" is. I believe there could be some "mass conversion" but if all Israel here speaks of the church then what do we have? All Israel will be saved because of who Israel is. I don't believe the entire populace of living National Jews will accept Christ at some point. But I could be wrong.