Isa. 59 & Rom. 11 ("and thus all Israel will be saved" in context)

[thomas15]

What bothers me more as a pre-miller more than what you stated above is exactly "how" some of these people supposedly "held" to their former position of dispensationalism in the first place. When I dig deeper, I sometimes find out that they really had no hermeneutical foundation for it at all. They had just read "books". Swayed by whatever "winds" were blowing behind them from reading those "books", they accumulate teachers who match their currently favored pre-suppositions. Of course, the same can be said of others who hold other eschatological positions also.

Agreeded. An example is my good friend Dr. Riddlebarger who argues that the dispensationalist say that Matthew 24 is the rapture, which is not the case. Of course it is possible to dredge some who does but this is not a dispensationalist position. He, Dr. Riddlebarger, should know this, this is why I say he is writing to those who are already in his camp. And being swayed by the winds is exactly what I'm trying to avoid in my theology.

It wasn't this way with me. My foundational hermeneutics were founded and grounded as pre-mill from the starting gate over 35 years ago. To me it was simple (as God says He uses to confound the world). There was an Israel in the Old Testament who were given Promises. God is either done with them or He isn't. He will either fulfill those promises to that "Israel" or He won't. For me, adhering to the literal/historical/grammatical method of interpretation and contexts founded on that hermeneutic have never failed me. Anything else associated with pre-mil (dispensationalism, "rapture" timing, etc.) is a matter of constant testing and revisiting by me and will continue to be so.

You sound like you are seeking that "peace" like I was. I hope you find it. I have.

Thank you, my thoughts exactly. As I study the covanent position, the "already-not yet", shaddows of the future, the OT in light of the NT, the application of scriptures intended for Israel being applied to the Church, on and on. the fact that the covanent system has to tie themselves up in knots to make sense of their theology only reinforces my position that the dispensational system while not perfect is the best one.

Not to add my own "bamm" to this dicsussion, but when I was saved and for the first 6 years of my walk I was under the covanent teaching in a Presbyterian setting. However, interesting to me is that it wasn't until I moved and found myself in a dispensational setting that the study of systematic theology and not just end times was presented to me as something good to study. I never looked at any of this in a critical light as a covanent believer. Of course this isn't everyone elses experience but it was mine and hence the only experience I can draw on.

I am forcing myself to learn and understand the covanent position. I would hope that if an even application of the scriptures shows that my beliefs are wrong, then I would have the humility to correct and recalculate my beliefs, not the other way around. Not that Chafer is perfect or Riddlebarger totally wrong, but it is a struggle to keep from pulling the little bit of hair I have left out by the roots when reading Riddlebarger. So AnotherBaptist, thanks for the encouraging words.
Tom

 

[olegig]

Agreeded. An example is my good friend Dr. Riddlebarger who argues that the dispensationalist say that Matthew 24 is the rapture, which is not the case. Of course it is possible to dredge some who does but this is not a dispensationalist position. He, Dr. Riddlebarger, should know this, this is why I say he is writing to those who are already in his camp. And being swayed by the winds is exactly what I'm trying to avoid in my theology.

I would like to also express my agreement with the words of AnotherBaptist as well as with you thomas15.
For me the dispensationalist position is the only one that permits as well as requires a literal reading of scripture and imposes no great distraction from or changing of the OT words and promises of God.

Thomas, I do not wish to derail this thread any further than it already is; but above you mentioned Matthew 24. If I may, I suggest the passage be read and considered with this thought in mind.
Please, just read the chapter (centering around vs. 30,31) with the thought of a possible mid-trib rapture of those Jews who have become believers during the trib through the preaching of the gospel by the 144,000.

 

[AnotherBaptist]

...I am forcing myself to learn and understand the covanent position. I would hope that if an even application of the scriptures shows that my beliefs are wrong, then I would have the humility to correct and recalculate my beliefs, not the other way around. Not that Chafer is perfect or Riddlebarger totally wrong, but it is a struggle to keep from pulling the little bit of hair I have left out by the roots when reading Riddlebarger...

I've only read one book by him. It was on the antichrist. I give him kudos for identifying his camp early in the book instead of making me guess. But the rest of the book then became predictable and boring. Take some advice from me. And it's actually not mine originally. John Walvoord once told his students at DTS that there are only two "truly consistent" hermeneutical positions to apply to eschatological matters. One is the literal/historical/grammatical approach and the other the spiritualization/allegorizing approach. Both consistently strive towards their end. Every other eschatological position between those two points (pre-trib/pre-mill<-------------------->almost full preterism) on a sliding scale is inconsistent in which end it strives for on various matters. Finally recognizing this took a lot of frustration out of addressing my preterist/amill brothers/sisters or reading opposing viewpoints. In the end it really does just come down to hermeneutics.

...So AnotherBaptist, thanks for the encouraging words.
Tom

Any time, Brother.

 

[thomas15]

..... When I dig deeper, I sometimes find out that they really had no hermeneutical foundation for it at all. They had just read "books". Swayed by whatever "winds" were blowing behind them from reading those "books", they accumulate teachers who match their currently favored pre-suppositions. Of course, the same can be said of others who hold other eschatological positions also.

If I can add one more item, as mentioned in my post #9, as I read Riddlebarger, I'm nagged by the thought that he probably never intended anyone to anaylze his words in the manner that I'm doing. In my notes and scribbles, I find sentences that are basically repeat thoughts, sentences that really just take up space and not say anything useful at all. There are several flat out contridictions spaced by a 100 pages. There are important quotes that have only foot note references. And quite honestly, he takes some of his opponents out of context. I'm not impressed by this at all. And yet the book have some heavy duty endorsements, so there is a lot of head scratching going on here.

 

[Grasshopper]

This is an important topic. For those who haven't come to a conclusion and wish to study more, here are some links you might find helpful:

1. Systems of Theology

Reformed? Dispensational? Other? Though it is unlikely that you have had to check a box on a job application to indicate your system of theology, the way you read the Bible is informed by a theological framework you have obtained either through explicit teaching, or implicitly through your own eclectic lens. By carefully examining the available evangelical systems of theology, this study is aimed at helping Christians not only identify and criticize their own theological presuppositions, but also at contributing to the larger discussion of the whole Bible as Christian Scripture.


Teachings found here:
http://www.solidfoodmedia.com/messages/seriesview.php?id=7

2.

It is a sad commentary on the state of the church these days that so few professing Christians are knowledgeable of the high and lofty calling that the church occupies in the eternal purpose of God. One cannot read the letters of the apostles and but be struck by the eminency that they attached to it and the esteem in which they held it. The glowing terms they employed to describe it were calculated to instill in the minds of their readers its exalted position as the spouse of Christ and the very temple in which He will display the majesty of His glory throughout all ages.
Yet tragically, there are untold thousands of Christians who are blind to this wondrous truth about themselves and instead are obsessively preoccupied with national Israel and the Jewish race. They speak in ravishing terms of this Israel and incessantly search the headlines coming out of that part of the world feverishly anticipating the fulfillment of Biblical "end-times" prophecies. Indeed to listen to them speak, one gets the distinct impression that many of them would gladly trade their physical birth-parents if they could so that they might be born of the stock of Abraham and become Jews themselves! Such is the obsequious attitude that is fostered among many of this persuasion that they display an almost god-like reverence for those Jews whom they deem as "completed", i.e., Jews who have become converts to Christianity and now own Jesus of Nazareth as their true Messiah. In their minds, these completed Jews can do no wrong, can never err in their understanding of the Scriptures nor be misguided in any way. Somehow, they are more "spiritual" than those poor Gentiles such as themselves who were not so highly favored as to be born of the "chosen race".

Entire article found here:
　
http://www.sovereigngracebible.org/

follow these links:
　
Articles by Dan Norcini
The True Israel of God


3.

A study of Zion

Tonight Don Preston and William Bell continued their discussion they began two weeks ago from Isaiah 9 regarding the promises made by God to Israel.

Podcasts found here:
　
http://ad70.net/podcast/category/two-guys-and-a-bible/

 

[asterisktom]

This is an important topic. For those who haven't come to a conclusion and wish to study more, here are some links you might find helpful:

1. Systems of Theology

Reformed? Dispensational? Other? Though it is unlikely that you have had to check a box on a job application to indicate your system of theology, the way you read the Bible is informed by a theological framework you have obtained either through explicit teaching, or implicitly through your own eclectic lens. By carefully examining the available evangelical systems of theology, this study is aimed at helping Christians not only identify and criticize their own theological presuppositions, but also at contributing to the larger discussion of the whole Bible as Christian Scripture.


Teachings found here:
http://www.solidfoodmedia.com/messages/seriesview.php?id=7

2.

It is a sad commentary on the state of the church these days that so few professing Christians are knowledgeable of the high and lofty calling that the church occupies in the eternal purpose of God. One cannot read the letters of the apostles and but be struck by the eminency that they attached to it and the esteem in which they held it. The glowing terms they employed to describe it were calculated to instill in the minds of their readers its exalted position as the spouse of Christ and the very temple in which He will display the majesty of His glory throughout all ages.
Yet tragically, there are untold thousands of Christians who are blind to this wondrous truth about themselves and instead are obsessively preoccupied with national Israel and the Jewish race. They speak in ravishing terms of this Israel and incessantly search the headlines coming out of that part of the world feverishly anticipating the fulfillment of Biblical "end-times" prophecies. Indeed to listen to them speak, one gets the distinct impression that many of them would gladly trade their physical birth-parents if they could so that they might be born of the stock of Abraham and become Jews themselves! Such is the obsequious attitude that is fostered among many of this persuasion that they display an almost god-like reverence for those Jews whom they deem as "completed", i.e., Jews who have become converts to Christianity and now own Jesus of Nazareth as their true Messiah. In their minds, these completed Jews can do no wrong, can never err in their understanding of the Scriptures nor be misguided in any way. Somehow, they are more "spiritual" than those poor Gentiles such as themselves who were not so highly favored as to be born of the "chosen race".

Entire article found here:
　
http://www.sovereigngracebible.org/

follow these links:
　
Articles by Dan Norcini
The True Israel of God


3.

A study of Zion

Tonight Don Preston and William Bell continued their discussion they began two weeks ago from Isaiah 9 regarding the promises made by God to Israel.

Podcasts found here:
　
http://ad70.net/podcast/category/two-guys-and-a-bible/

I have only fairly recently discovered Don Preston and greatly appreciate is work. His studies have been helpful, especially in his pointing out connections in scripture I hadn't noticed.

Like you say, Grasshopper, this is certainly an important area to study. I feel bad that I haven't been able to participate in the last few days because of outside stuff. Hopefully I will have time in just a bit.

 

[asterisktom]

Tom,
To try to get back on topic (sorry for taking this thread on a joy-ride). This is what you are asking me to believe, I add words in italics to make a point:

Acts 1:4-12

4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave spiritual Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.

5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

6 So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to spiritual Israel?"

7 He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.

8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in spiritual Jerusalem, and in all spiritual Judea and spiritual Samaria, and to the ends of the spiritual earth."

9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them.

11 "Men of spiritual Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."

12 Then they returned to spiritual Jerusalem from the hill called the spiritual Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day's walk from the spiritual city.

In my opinion, if you are going to apply spiritual to some things, why not to everything, would not consistency demand it? Is this correct? No? If the deciples were standing on a literal mound of olives [vs. 12] in a literal city [vs.4] in a literal country of Israel [vs.4], then why not a literal kingdom [vs.6]?

Thanks,
Thomas

I am just now getting to these posts. Sorry for the delay. I think that consistency is not a rule that we should hold to inflexibly when approaching the Bible. As some have already said, certain terms require being taken in different ways in verses. Some of the Jerusalem verses clearly are physical. For instance, "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies", Luke 21;20, and "but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all." Gal. 4:26, are clearly different, one physical the other spiritual.

Sometimes the same word is used in two ways in the very same verse. When Jesus said, "Let the dead bury the dead." it requires two types of "dead's". It cannot be "Let the physically dead bury the physically dead." Neither can it be "Let the spiritually dead bury the spiritually dead." It would have to be "Let the spiritually dead bury the physically (conceivably, also, spiritually) dead".

Thus, I think that consistency is more a man-made rule than a spiritual requirement. I believe the spiritual rule is "comparing spiritual things with spiritual".

The biggest single help in my Bible study is just reading the Bible book by book, with only minimal resort to commentaries. And then - when commentaries are referred to I try not to let any one author insinuate himself into my thinking - something very easy to do.

 

[asterisktom]

There was an Israel in the Old Testament who were given Promises. God is either done with them or He isn't. He will either fulfill those promises to that "Israel" or He won't.

You suggested just two possibilities. May I suggest another: That He did fulfill those promises, though most of them did not recognize that fulfillment. One of those promises was that He would enlarge the tents of Israel, which is what he did when the Gentiles came into the Kingdom.

 

[AnotherBaptist]

You suggested just two possibilities. May I suggest another: That He did fulfill those promises, though most of them did not recognize that fulfillment. One of those promises was that He would enlarge the tents of Israel, which is what he did when the Gentiles came into the Kingdom.

My two possibilities were based on those opposing poles of literal and allegorical which I mentioned in my next post. Your view lies (as does all the others) between those two opposing poles. Like I said...hermeneutics.

 

[asterisktom]

My two possibilities were based on those opposing poles of literal and allegorical which I mentioned in my next post. Your view lies (as does all the others) between those two opposing poles. Like I said...hermeneutics.

Hermeneutics doesn't allow for this ignoring of that third option. Rather hermeneutics is what suggests to us that third option. The real determiner in your - and Walvoord's - this-or-that model seems to be a superimposing of consistency over Bible interpretation. As I wrote to Tom, consistency of interpretation is the exact thing that is not called for. It got the Jews into deep misunderstanding. It is doing the same today.

 

[thomas15]

Thus, I think that consistency is more a man-made rule than a spiritual requirement. I believe the spiritual rule is "comparing spiritual things with spiritual".

Tom,

I'm busy at work and cannot respond in detail as I would like. I will try to get back in a day or so. But let me just ask this question, what is your understanding of the dispensational approach to dealing with Scripture passages that must be taken as allegory when they claim to strive for the literal?

I know the answer, but rather than me tell you, I want you to tell me so that I can to be quite honest, guage your understanding of the matter. I'm not trying to be sneaky.

Thanks,
Thomas

 

[asterisktom]

Tom,

I'm busy at work and cannot respond in detail as I would like. I will try to get back in a day or so. But let me just ask this question, what is your understanding of the dispensational approach to dealing with Scripture passages that must be taken as allegory when they claim to strive for the literal?

I know the answer, but rather than me tell you, I want you to tell me so that I can to be quite honest, guage your understanding of the matter. I'm not trying to be sneaky.

Thanks,
Thomas

Short answer before work. Actually I need a clarification of the question. My understanding of the disp. approach would take longer to explain than I have time now, but I am unsure what you mean by "Scripture passages that must be taken as allegory when they claim to strive for the literal".

1. "Must be taken as allegory" according to whom? This overlooks entirely the considerable difference between allegorical interpretation and spiritual interp.

2. How do these passages "strive for the literal"?

I know you are not trying to be sneaky. I just don't understand the question as it stands.

Off to work.

 

[AnotherBaptist]

Hermeneutics doesn't allow for this ignoring of that third option. Rather hermeneutics is what suggests to us that third option. The real determiner in your - and Walvoord's - this-or-that model seems to be a superimposing of consistency over Bible interpretation. As I wrote to Tom, consistency of interpretation is the exact thing that is not called for. It got the Jews into deep misunderstanding. It is doing the same today.

Tom, you abandoned dispensationalism, which is one of those two "poles". You had no other direction to go but toward the other pole. I don't agree with you. Hermeneutics not only allows for the ignoring of other "options", it demands it. Passage by passage and verse by verse, one will either interpret in one direction or the other. There is no "neutral" stance. If you don't believe me, I'll get you in touch with a good friend of mine who was dispensational like you and is now an almost full preterist. Even he agreed with Walvoord about the consistency. And yes, he is a Baptist minister.

This isn't about whether the interpretation arising from the hermeneutic employed is right or wrong. It's about having consistency in applying the hermeneutic you choose to employ. Being true to it. I am pre-millennial because I always strive toward the literal hermeneutic pole. In my opinion, it is the only one which keeps the balance of Scripture related to issues beside eschatology together for me without violating that hermeneutic. IOW, it allows me to remain true to it. That's all I was trying to say.

My almost full preterist friend will disagree with everything I have to say about eschatology. I expect him to...if he remains true to his hermeneutic.

 

[asterisktom]

Tom, you abandoned dispensationalism, which is one of those two "poles". You had no other direction to go but toward the other pole. I don't agree with you.

You have the order reversed. I first noticed the other option (third option, that I mentioned - but what you call, erroneously, "the other pole"). You make it sound like, having let go of dispensationalism, I had no choice but to drift, but the truth is entirely different.

Also, there is no "my hermeneutic" and "your hermeneutic", only correct and incorrect hermeneutic.

Oh well, I think we are reaching diminishing returns on this discussion. Take care.

 

[thomas15]

Tom, I still intend to respond to the above. This is going to be a hit and run because I've got things to do.

You have the order reversed. I first noticed the other option (third option, that I mentioned - but what you call, erroneously, "the other pole"). You make it sound like, having let go of dispensationalism, I had no choice but to drift, but the truth is entirely different.

You may be able to argue this point intellectually, but if you chart out the results of your hermeneutic, as well as the results of the other rival hermeneutic and group areas of agreement and disagreement I'm certain you will find that AnotherBaptist is correct. In a previous post to me where you plainly state that you agree with most of Riddlebarger (Amillennialist) and yourself (Preterist) basically makes my point for me.

Also, there is no "my hermeneutic" and "your hermeneutic", only correct and incorrect hermeneutic.

For several reasons I wish that you would retract this statement. Please consider doing so.

Oh well, I think we are reaching diminishing returns on this discussion. Take care.

Of course Tom this is your right and privledge but I disagree with you that there isn't anything left to discuss. This discussion is different form others that I have either been a spectator of or participated in because there is a certain level of civility and free exchange of ideas. Please reconsider your decision to discontinue this thread.

Yours truly,
Tom

 

[asterisktom]

You may be able to argue this point intellectually, but if you chart out the results of your hermeneutic, as well as the results of the other rival hermeneutic and group areas of agreement and disagreement I'm certain you will find that AnotherBaptist is correct. In a previous post to me where you plainly state that you agree with most of Riddlebarger (Amillennialist) and yourself (Preterist) basically makes my point for me.

(snipped for now)

Of course Tom this is your right and privledge but I disagree with you that there isn't anything left to discuss. This discussion is different form others that I have either been a spectator of or participated in because there is a certain level of civility and free exchange of ideas. Please reconsider your decision to discontinue this thread.

Yours truly,
Tom

The reason I hesitated to continue in this is not a question of incivility - both of you have been quite careful and respectful. I hope I have too - but because we are delving into things hard to prove. Case in point is your taking exception to disputed order of beliefs. All I meant was that there were certain verses that have caused red lights to go on. These are the "soonness" verses & "this generation" verses especially. Also the spiritual Zion passages. These all constituted that third option. I was first aware of these back in the early 80's, when I was still very much a Dispensationalist. Now these ideas didn't germinate totally, but neither were they dormant either. But eventually, like I said above, they pulled down my disp. paradigm.

BTW, I can't find where I ever told you that I agreed with most of Riddlebarger. I do see several places where I had serious caveats about his teaching.

 

[thomas15]

BTW, I can't find where I ever told you that I agreed with most of Riddlebarger. I do see several places where I had serious caveats about his teaching.

I know it has been a while and you want to close this thread but on review I just wanted to bring some closure the the above statement. At the end of post #6 you said:

Thanks for the comments, Tom. I know that there is a lot of similarity between Riddlebarger's beliefs and mine, preterism being a prickly exception. I don't want to overlook those many points of agreement.....

I took this to mean that you are mostly in agreement with Riddlebarger.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Romans 11 refers to national ethnic Israel who are gathered in the last days to the geographical area where Jerusalem is now located today. God did not merely promise Abraham a people from other nations but promised to save "all Israel" as an ethnic nation.

Romans 11:28 should put the nail in the coffin of the Preterist and A-mill speculation and eisgetical fallacy that Romans 11:25-27 refers to all the elect from all nations rather than to national ethnic Israel:

As concerning the gospel, they [Israel]are enemies for your sakes[Gentiles]: but as touching the election, they [Israel] are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.

Paul's arguement is very simple. Israel as an ethnic nation has always rejected God but God has always had a remnant in every generation of the Israelites since Abraham and even at the present time when Paul spoke God has a remnant (vv. 1-4). Simply being a ethnic Jew does not procure salvation (Rom. 9:1-11; 11:5-8) but it is secured through election of grace.

National ethnic Israel has again rejected God but just as God has always had a remnant in past rejections by national ethnic Israel God will continue to have a remnant out of national ethnic Israel. However, for the time present God has turned from National ethnic Israel as the primary sphere of calling out an elect and turned to ethnic Gentile nations as the sphere for His redemptive work. Therefore, temporarily the ethnic Gentile nations have supplanted national ethnic Israel as the sphere of God's redemptive activities. Neither olive plants represent the elect but only represent the SPHERE OF REDEMPTIVE ACTIVITIES of God.

However, when God has called out all His elect among the ethnic Gentile nations he will return to ethnic Nation Israel (Rom. 11:25) and he will save Israel as an ethnic nation. Just as not every Jews rejected Christ but there was a present remnant in that national rejection, in that day not every ethnic Jew will be saved but instead of national rejection there will national acceptance of Christ.

Paul began this exposition in regard to NATIONAL ETHNIC ISRAEL in Romans 9 where his point is that the promise to save National Ethnic Israel was not by being born a natural Jew but being a TWICE born natural Jew (Rom. 9:7-13). That the elect are elected unto belief of the truth (Rom. 10). However, national ethnic Israel rejected Christ and that is in keeping with God's plan so that He would temporarily turn to national ethnic gentiles but that is only temporary because God will again return redemptive activies in calling out a people to national ethnic Israel because because God will fulfill his promise of elective salvation of Israel as a nation.

Therefore, YOU gentiles make a big mistake in thinking God has forsaken national ethnic Israel in regard to election unto salvation. Instead you should be thankful for their TEMPORARY rejection of Christ:

As concerning the gospel, they [Israel]are enemies for your sakes[Gentiles]: but as touching the election, they [Israel] are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Who has God rejected temporarily?

As concerning the gospel, they [Israel]are enemies for your sakes[Gentiles]: but as touching the election, they [Israel] are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.

Who are your "enemies"??? The same ones God has cut off! God has never cut off the "remnant" among Israel but always has a remnant! What God cut off was ETHNIC NATIONAL ISRAEL. The same ones God has cut off "for God is able to graff them in again."

It is very elementary my dear Watson, What God cut off - national ethnic Israel is what God will graft back in - national ethnic Israel - and national ethnic Israel is your present "enemies" but national ethnic Israel "as touching the election, they [national ethnic Israel] are beloved for the Father's sake."

False doctrine and eisgesis simply confounds and confuses the simplicity of the Word.

 

[RAdam]

They aren't beloved for the Father's sake, they are beloved for the fathers' sake. That is a huge difference.

The Israel Paul is talking about is not the entire race of the Jews. He's talking about God's people among national Israel. In Romans 2 Paul redefines a Jew. He states that he is not a Jew which is one outwardly, meaning that being a natural descendant of Abraham doesn't make one a Jew by his new definition. Rather, says Paul, he is a Jew which is one inwardly. His meaning is, they are not all Israel which are of Israel. Not all natural Jews are real Jews, spiritual Jews, children of God. Only with this definition in mind does the rest of Romans make sense. When Paul redefines the Jew in Romans 2 he is not talking about Gentile believers. That is key. He is talking about Jewish children of God.

Chapters 9, 10, and 11 deal with these redefined Jews. The big question Paul is tackling is, what is going on with Israel? What is God doing with the Jewish people? This is a serious question because most of national Israel is rejecting the gospel. What is going on? Well Paul begins by first expressing his great love for his brethren according to the flesh. This is needful because of his role as apostle to the gentiles. Then he state that not all Israel are of Israel and teaches God sovereignty in election. He goes back to the fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Not all children of Abraham were accounted for the seed, only Isaac, the child of promise. Likewise, God chose Jacob and not Esau from Isaac. The point is not all natural Jews are God's people. Next he states how they are caught up in the error of trying to establish their own righteousness before God through the law, and are thus ignorant of God's righteousness. He is praying for their salvation from this ignorance, stating that if they will confess Christ and beleive in Him they will be saved from their state of ignorance and bondage. Finally, He deals with God's dealings with the Jews as large. Israel has been blinded and cut off, and this is according to OT prophecy. Yet, God will save His people.