The Contextual Israel in Romans 11:26

The fact remains what was "cut off" is ethnic national Israel - not the remnant, not all the elect, not the elect Gentiles. It is this Israel described in verses 8-10 that Paul says in verse 11 that God only allows to presently "stumble" but shall not allow to "fall" and thus it is this Israel that must be saved or else it does completely "fall"!

Why not deal with the bulk of the evidence? Because you cannot! You have to do exactly what you do with all your proof texts - pervert the scriptures - jerk them out of context and that is precisely what you have done with the evidence placed before you.

 

Obviously you have not read posts #36 and #38 or else you could not make such a senseless response as you do above. I suggest you not only read those posts but attempt to give a reasonable response to the evidence provided in those posts.

In short, you admit to being in error as you admit it is ETHNIC NATIONAL ISRAEL that is cut off. What you are totally blind to is that what is "cut off" is what will be "grafted...in AGAIN"! You can't graft in "again" what was has not been formerly cut off and was not previously "in" to be cut off and you admit this is ETHNIC NATIONAL ISRAEL - go repent of your false teaching.

 

As I have repeatedly stated, you are very good at taking proof texts out of context but not too good at expository teaching based upon proper exegesis.

Again, I repeat my challenge. Demonstrate that the elect never were unglorified, and never unregenerated as that is what you will have to prove to support your interpretation they were eternally justiifed and never under condemation because "justified" is inseparably united with both "called" and "glorified" in Romans 8:30 within the eternal purpose of God.

 

This challenge has been REPEATEDLY laid down in every thread and still no answer.

 

Well, would you be so kind to point out that thread and the post # because the only response I have read did not make any serious attempt to answer that challenge and I think you are referring to that very superficial post.

 

I found it and it is absolutely empty of any kind of substantial response. You simply ignore the challenge and make unsubstantiated parrot assertions just as you do everywhere else.

Why are you even continuing to write? You have nothing to write about because you cannot defend anything you say! You just repeat proof texts that have been proven over and over to mean the very opposite of what you force them to mean!!!

This is supposed to be a discussion forum not a proganda forum!

 

1. First you fail to recognize the reason Paul brings up Elijah and that reason is not to show that God corrected Elijah as you imagine. He brought up Elijah to illustrate that this is not the first time Israel has rebelled against God and yet God never cast them away (v. 1). This is not the first time they have "stumbled" but yet God never allowed them to completely "fall" (v. 11). This is not the first time they were blinded tothe truth as Isaiah points out and yet God still did not reject Israel and the proof that he did not reject Israel in Elijah's day, in Isaiah's day and in Paul's day is He has always saved a "remnant" of Israel.

2. The "remnant" does not replace Israel and God's promise to Israel as a Nation but is proof that God's promise will not be broken and that God has a FUTURE fulfillment of that promise and what has TEMPORARILY "stumbled" and what has TEMPORARILY "fallen" and what has been TEMPORARILY "cut off" shall be "grafted...in AGAIN" and "should not fall" completely but shall be "saved" (v. 26) AFTER God has called out his promised children from the GENTILE nations (v. 25).

3. What you clearly ignore is that Paul repeatedly denies their fall is permenant but only temporary and partial and that what was "cut off" is what will be grafted in "again." The remnant was not cut off. Gentile believers are not cut off but is ETHNIC NATIONAL ISRAEL that has been TEMPORARILY cut off because it is what has been cut off that will be grafted in "again".

4. The election of grace that is applied to the current "remnant" is the election of grace that will save "all Israel" WHEN they are grafted back into their own olive tree "AGAIN."

You cannot honestly deal with the scriptures that cleary spell out these four facts of the context. You will do as usual, ignore and pit scripture against scripture as you have consistently done in the past.

 

Then you are forced to believe that Romans 11:7-10 describes the "remnant" rather than ethnic national Israel because whatever is described in Romans 11:7-10 has "stumbled" in verse 11 but "should not fall." Whatever is described in Romans 11:7-10 has been temporarily "cut off" because it is going to be grafted in "AGAIN" (Rom. 11:22).

Go ahead and explain how Romans 11:7-10 is the "remant" because the pronouns from verse 10-28 prove it refers to same Israel that is NOW "cut off" but will be graft in "AGAIN" and is NOW "enemies of the gospel for your sakes" but is also NOW "touching election beloved of the FATHER'S sake."

Please explain it!

 

Exegesis and/or expository teaching is not isolating each text from verses before and after and reinterpreting it according to proof texts outside the context! That is eisgesis not exegesis.

I have already proved by the overall and developing context that the "remnant" CANNOT POSSIBLY be the "Israel" Paul defines in Romans 11:7-10 and even you must admit the "remnant" is not that "Israel" as the description of that Israel is:


7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day.
9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.

QUESTION: Those in verses 7-10 above identified by the pronouns "them" and "they" - are these the "remnant" or are these ETHNIC NATIONAL ISRAEL?

You are forced to admit "they" and "them" in verses 7-10 are not the "remnant" correct?

However, notice that this SAME "them" and "they" are the subjects of verses 11-25 and I quote:


11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
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 fulness of the Gentiles be come in.


Furthermore, the SAME ISRAEL in verse 25 is the SAME ISRAEL in verse 26 which is the very SAME ISRAEL that in verse 28 Paul clains that is NOW (at the time he writes) are "enemies of the gospel" and yet at the same time He writes there is NOW "a remnant" (v. 5).

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 fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.

5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.


Note also, that the "Israel" in verse 25 is placed in CONTRAST to the children of promise among the Gentiles that will "come in" rather than INCLUSIVE of them:

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 fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Hence, "all Israel" in verse 26 cannot include the Gentile children of promise in verse 25 as verse 25 sets them in CONTRAST to each other and in addition conditions the coming in of these Gentiles as the STARTING POINT for when the PRESENT PARTIAL rejection of Israel as a NATION will change so that "ALL" Israel will be saved rather than a mere "remnant" as in the past.

I dare you to deal with the pronouns as I have done and demonstrate that the "remnant" is the Israel that is described in verses 7-28!

Here is what you are going to do. You are going to do as you have always done. You are going to IGNORE the grammatical evidence of the pronouns in their contextual and developmental relationships. You are going to PROOF TEXT your way through this doing your common pick and choose methodoly - the same methodology used by all cults.

 

I am waiting for you to point out where I am wrong in the grammatical antecedent for "them" and "their" and "they" in the exposition below??????? :sleeping_2:

 

Just reasserting your position and mixing proof texts proves nothing! This is not exegesis but eisegesis.

The promised "nation" of redeemed Israel is future as Romans 11;25 gives the precise future time point while the "remnant" are past and present proof that God will not fail to save "all Israel" as a nation in that yet future day (Rom. 11:25-28) according to "election" and according to His promise to the "father's".

The contextual Israel in Romans 9:3-5 is national and ethnic but natural birth does not obtain the promises but new birth does. New birth obtains the promises for National Israel's "remnant" in all generations and for "all Israel" as a nation yet in the future at the coming of Christ (Rom. 11:25-28).