All Israel will be Saved: Romans 11:26

[asterisktom]

This is the "Christlikeness" that really comes through in you trying to teach all of us inferior subjects on your vast wisdom and theological superiority.

I'll continue to ignore your posts...but just wanted to point out your hypocrisy for the list. Carry on in your proselytizing of the baptist board...

As far as "inferior subjects" and "eureka moments" is concerned, you are unfairly putting words in my mouth and trying to make me seem like a know-it-all. But take this for what it is worth: I am about twenty years older than you. Please consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, I know something that you don't. That is what I do when I read the writings of others who have been around for a while.

I am sorry I said you are "a waste of time". I shouldn't have said that, because it is judging on my part. Please forgive me for that.

But, other than that, yes, you can ignore what I write. Better for both of us probably.

 

[canadyjd]

Tom

I generally support your interpretation of these texts. However, your position concerning the future of the Jewish people hinges an awful lot on translating "until" as "while".

Paul seems to be going out of his way to insure the Gentiles understand there is a future salvation for the Jewish people.... that their blindness is temporary... and at some point, God will remove that blindness.

That is consistent with the view of re-grafting the natural branches and so forth.

The best way to understand this passage (and be consistent with Paul's argument in chps. 8-11), IMHO, is to see a future lifting of the blindness from the eyes of the Jews (generally) and mass acceptance (not necessarily 100% of the Jews) of Jesus as their Messiah Savior (saved by grace like everyone else who is saved). The "Jews" become part of the Church and both Jew and Gentile are the Israel of God.

I don't believe that view supports the dispensationalist view of a separate future for National Israel.

peace to youraying:

 

[Grasshopper]

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1922_mauro_hope-israel.html#CHAPTER_XVII

 

[J.D.]

I responded to your first question in my other post in this thread. Hopefully that is sufficient. If not, I don't mind going further into this.

BTW, I didn't mean to seem to castigate Piper. I do appreciate much of what he has written. For that matter the same goes for Macarthur - though, ever since his anathematizing of Preterists - I feel less warm fuzzies about him. But I do have several books of his on other topics that have been very helpful.

Also, about Covenant theology: That too can get kind of tricky. In the sense of believing in two basic ages of God's dealing with man: "this age" and "the age to come" (AKA the present Kingdom Age) I am a covenant theologian. I do also believe that we also can break it down further into Noahic, Mosaic, New Covenant, etc. But I do not read the idea of "covenant" all the way back to Adam. I don't believe that He was offered a covenant. The definition of "covenant" (per Sproul, for instance) does not seem to fit the case of Adam.

I'm currently reading MacArthur's "Ashamed of the Gospel". I love the man for his stinging boldness, but that sting hurts when he turns it on me. You probably remember his statement about "you have to be a dispensationalist to be a good Calvinist" (or something like that). That hurt.

I didn't hear his anathema of preterism but I wouldn't expect anything less from him - and I mean that both as a compliment and a criticism.

Perhaps we can get into it over Covenant Theology some day. I used to spend a lot of time on BB and hopefully will get back to it eventually. I've really learned a lot on this board and a couple of other boards I visit. I definitely don't agree with you on Adam, there's no doubt in my mind that Adam was under a "Covenant of Works", and the whole integration of the Biblical theme is dependent in part on that Covenant.

Anyway, as I've said before, although you make fairly sound arguments, I remain unconvinced of FULL preterism. Sometime in the near future I will start a thread stating some of my objections to your position and let you and Grasshopper and other see if you can change my mind.

Oh, and don't let the personal attacks bother you. It's just the way it is around here.

 

[kyredneck]

Tom, it's good to see you back.

.......Whenever a prophecy from the Old Testament is written about, and when possible fulfillment of the same prophecy is put forth then, it seems to me that our attention should first be given to any passage in the New testament that claims to fulfill the prophecy. Am I being unreasonable in saying this? If we have a prophecy given - and then later in the Bible we are told "Here is the fulfillment." shouldn't that be touched upon?.......

Amen. It makes our job soooo much easier when scripture interprets itself. Why would anyone have a problem with that?

...the Bible says clearly that this is the fulfillment of Zechariah 12:10...
....these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled[/U], “Not one of His bones shall be broken.” 37 And again another Scripture says, “They shall look on Him whom they pierced. John 19:37.... If John was inspired to say Zech. 12:10 was fulfilled at Calvary how dare we say otherwise?...

Excellent point. Thanks for bringing that out.

...Paul's - and the Bible's - repeated theme, in Romans 2 and elsewhere, that there is no lasting spiritual advantage in being a Jew. God is not a "respecter of persons"....

Amen. Another excellent point.

 

[kyredneck]

....One does not have to be a dispy to hold the "popular" view. I know of many historical premils and amils that believe in some kind of national salvation of the Jews in the future. ......

....the covenantal view for those that hold this position differs from dispensationalism in some major ways.

Covenant: Israel is "saved" by receiving Christ and enters the Church by the same evangelical means and participates in the same covenant signs (ordinances) as believers do today.

Dispy: Israel is "saved" by physically seeing "him whom they pierced" and enter into some kind of Mosaic-flavored fulfillment of the New Covenant....

.... an en masse conversion of Israel ......

I actually waffle between two possible opposite extremes here when the issue of Khazaric Jewry comes into the picture, and this is contrary to what I think is safe to say is the general Primitive Baptist belief that Romans 11 has been verified down through the centuries due to the fact that there have been Jews from each generation that have converted to Christianity; but I DO look for a future 'spiritual revival' amongst the physical Jews for what I think are scriptural reasons, and as J.D. says, they would participate in the same covenant as believers do today, however, this is 'not a hill for me to die on' (as someone else put it). The overall gist of the text from Romans 11 still leaves me with the impression God is not done dealing with the Jews, perhaps not 'en masse', but at least a 'core group' of them.

 

[RAdam]

Romans 11 might be the most difficult chapter in the bible, and one of the most interesting.

Now, the big question is this: who is Israel? The answer to that question will tell a lot. Some say it is national Jewry, that is the Jewish nation. Others will say it is spiritual Israel, that is all of God's people whether Jew or Gentile. I think the best answer based on the entire context of Romans 9, 10, and 11 as well as Paul's redefinition of a Jew in Romans 2 is that Israel is God's people among the Jews.

Now, the next big question is, what is being taught here? Paul has taught that God has blinded them until the fullness of the Gentiles come in. My big question has always been whether this teaches a mass conversion of God's people among the Jews in the latter day or not. Really, I'm not totally sure. Does the word "until" mean that Paul is teaching of a day prior to the Second Coming when the blindess will be taken away, or is it merely a way of expressing the perpetuity of this blindness? I can't fuss too much about either view. I lean towards there not being a mass conversion of Jews based on Daniel 9 and the severe judgements pronounced on them by Jesus, the apostles, and even OT prophecy. That said, I'll have to again state I'm not dogmatic about that, in fact I'm not even sure about it. There are, after all, many OT passages that seem to teach some sort of latter day conversion. Really, it doesn't take long to see the great difficulty of this section of scripture.

 

[lastday]

Lastday

Canadyjd,

In Post #22 you bring up a very controversial subject with reference to what occurs at Christ's physical Return. Will "all Israel" be a part of the Church or will their deliverance fulfill the Davidic Covenant to "restore National Israel" and rulership over the nations"?

The discussion has centered on whether Tom's view is correct that "God's Integrity is at Stake" by his insistence that Jesus would NOT come “in the flesh” at His Apocalypse. For Tom thinks John's teaching that He must "come in the FLESH" fails to uphold that "Integrity"! [See Tom's "Conclusion" in Post #3, 8/16/10 - 6:41 PM].

Was the "partial blindness of the Jews" removed in the first century at AD 70 OR has it continued to this day because Jesus has not yet returned "in the flesh"? John states that "anyone is of the antichrist who denies that Christ is coming in the flesh"... not "past tense, "has come"; but present participle, "is coming". John would have used the aorist tense, indicative mood for a "past action, aylthen". It's still to be expected!

Tom ignores the major issue with me (is stuck with the minor issue) by suggesting I might "be devious and show graciousness to him or at least pray for him". It's a minor issue of his hypocrisy (to which Webdog has "agreed") in not "talking with Winman or me"!!

It's a major issue to state that my belief "questions God's Integrity" while he denies the "Doctrine of Christ, i.e., that He is coming in the flesh"...for that denial is “of the antichrist”!!! 2 John 1:7.

I am not "bitter" but just blunt about upholding the "Doctrine of Christ...that He is coming in the flesh".
Mel

 

[asterisktom]

2 John 1:7 means.... what?

It's a major issue to state that my belief "questions God's Integrity" while he denies the "Doctrine of Christ, i.e., that He is coming in the flesh"...for that denial is “of the antichrist”!!! 2 John 1:7.

I am not "bitter" but just blunt about upholding the "Doctrine of Christ...that He is coming in the flesh".
Mel

For a person who makes a big deal about the Greek Mel sure makes some major blunders. His recent gaffe - and with serious consequences - is his cavalier treatment of 2 John 7.

He gives his special interpretation of the verse, makes that interpretation THE interpretation. And he anathematizes all those who disagree with his interpretation.

Since one wouldn't recognize the verse from his treatment of it above, here is the verse:

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."

The Greek of the phrase underlined does not mean "will come in the flesh". Mel tries to make it be all about his favorite subject, eschatology. But it actually refers to the Incarnation, and the "continuous manifestation of the incarnate Christ" (David Smith, The Expositors Greek New Testament). Don't take my word for it. Do a search in any number of reputable commentaries (I. Howard Marshall, Calvin, Adam Clarke, Matthew Henry, etc.) and you will see this brought out.

Or, better even than that, just consider John's own use of this same idea. This shows us what he refers to. 1 John 4:1 - 3:

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Both of these passages quoted thus far repeat what John had written in most clear terms in his Gospel. Here is John 1:14 - 18:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

These passages all together show the important truth that Christ came in the flesh. And - in all of those important tasks that faced Him in regards to our salvation - He remained in the flesh. John, here in these three passages, was fighting against gnostics like Cerinthus and others, some of whom said either that Christ never came in the flesh at all, or, like Cerinthus, He came in the flesh but by the time of Calvary, when time came to die for humanity, He was no longer in the flesh.

These are the crucial truths that John was safeguarding. He taught nothing here, absolutely nothing, about Christ coming back in the flesh. To say he did - and to make his verse say only that - is to seriously and fearfully twist God's Word.

 

[asterisktom]

Tom

I generally support your interpretation of these texts. However, your position concerning the future of the Jewish people hinges an awful lot on translating "until" as "while".

Paul seems to be going out of his way to insure the Gentiles understand there is a future salvation for the Jewish people.... that their blindness is temporary... and at some point, God will remove that blindness.

That is consistent with the view of re-grafting the natural branches and so forth.

The best way to understand this passage (and be consistent with Paul's argument in chps. 8-11), IMHO, is to see a future lifting of the blindness from the eyes of the Jews (generally) and mass acceptance (not necessarily 100% of the Jews) of Jesus as their Messiah Savior (saved by grace like everyone else who is saved). The "Jews" become part of the Church and both Jew and Gentile are the Israel of God.

I don't believe that view supports the dispensationalist view of a separate future for National Israel.

peace to youraying:

I don't really put that much emphasis on my proof of "until" meaning "while". I mean I do believe it, but the other points are stronger, I would say. I didn't mention it in the OP but one of the greatest proofs IMO is Ephesians where we are told that the middle wall of partition came down once for all. That wall was the separating one between Jews and Gentiles. Jews and Gentiles have mixed in together into the church of God, "where there is neither Gentile nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free." Col.3:11.

The other reason I don't see this en masse conversion is that it would require either A. a change in the Message - the gospel, which we agree is impossible, B. a change in the method, "by faith through grace," and "through the foolishness of the word preached" (quoted from memory), or a change in Mankind themselves - the Jews.

Thanks for writing.

 

[asterisktom]

I actually waffle between two possible opposite extremes here when the issue of Khazaric Jewry comes into the picture, and this is contrary to what I think is safe to say is the general Primitive Baptist belief that Romans 11 has been verified down through the centuries due to the fact that there have been Jews from each generation that have converted to Christianity; but I DO look for a future 'spiritual revival' amongst the physical Jews for what I think are scriptural reasons, and as J.D. says, they would participate in the same covenant as believers do today, however, this is 'not a hill for me to die on' (as someone else put it). The overall gist of the text from Romans 11 still leaves me with the impression God is not done dealing with the Jews, perhaps not 'en masse', but at least a 'core group' of them.

Hi , Kyredneck. I'll have to look up that term "Khazaric".

I suppose that if you hold to even just a "core group" of Jews being saved you would already have moved far away from the common interpretation of the passages.

 

[kyredneck]

....I suppose that if you hold to even just a "core group" of Jews being saved you would already have moved far away from the common interpretation of the passages.

Oh yes! I've come a long way since my 'dipsy days'!

 

[lastday]

Lastday

Tom,
You fail to do justice to the Present PARTICIPLE in 2 John 1:7.
Then fail miserably to do justice to a PERFECT Participle in I John 4:2.
The PERFECT PARTICIPLE means Christ continues in the Flesh ALWAYS.
2 John 1:7:

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ
is come (continues) in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."

Here John states "anyone who denies Christ continues in the flesh is of antichrist"!
The Present Participle demands a continuation of His existence in human flesh!!
Those who deny this "Doctrine of Christ" have opened the door for Scoffers!!!

But thanks for making Christ's Doctrine even stronger by quoting I John 4:2:

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ
is come (continues) in the flesh (glorified flesh forever) is of God:

Here we have a PERFECT Participle...more forceful than a Present Participle!
In both verses John supports the ongoing existence of Christ in the Flesh!!
To deny He remains in the FLESH reveals a deliberate spirit of Antichrist!!!

This "spirit of Antichrist" is spreading fast among those who listen to heresy!
Those who coddle such heresy unwittingly contribute to a bevy of Scoffers!!
It will result in much departure from Truth by taking the "mark of the Beast"!!! Mel

 

[asterisktom]

Tom,
You fail to do justice to the Present PARTICIPLE in 2 John 1:7.
Then fail miserably to do justice to a PERFECT Participle in I John 4:2.
The PERFECT PARTICIPLE means Christ continues in the Flesh ALWAYS.
2 John 1:7:

Here John states "anyone who denies Christ continues in the flesh is of antichrist"!
The Present Participle demands a continuation of His existence in human flesh!!
Those who deny this "Doctrine of Christ" have opened the door for Scoffers!!!

But thanks for making Christ's Doctrine even stronger by quoting I John 4:2:

Here we have a PERFECT Participle...more forceful than a Present Participle!
In both verses John supports the ongoing existence of Christ in the Flesh!!
To deny He remains in the FLESH reveals a deliberate spirit of Antichrist!!!

This "spirit of Antichrist" is spreading fast among those who listen to heresy!
Those who coddle such heresy unwittingly contribute to a bevy of Scoffers!!
It will result in much departure from Truth by taking the "mark of the Beast"!!! Mel

Your Mel- down is giving me flashbacks, Mel, of my Greek classes. You broke several rules in the above flurry of bristling allcaps. By the way, resorting to allcaps does not make you righter.

I started to get into more detail here but why bother? I guess the spirit of antichrist is making me lazy.

 

[canadyjd]

...I didn't mention it in the OP but one of the greatest proofs IMO is Ephesians where we are told that the middle wall of partition came down once for all. That wall was the separating one between Jews and Gentiles. Jews and Gentiles have mixed in together into the church of God, "where there is neither Gentile nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free." Col.3:11.

The Eph. passage is one of the strongest arguments against the doctrine that there is a separate future for the Jews and the Church. So, we agree.

The other reason I don't see this en masse conversion is that it would require either A. a change in the Message - the gospel, which we agree is impossible, B. a change in the method, "by faith through grace," and "through the foolishness of the word preached" (quoted from memory), or a change in Mankind themselves - the Jews.

Well, you are close with the last point. Paul seems to argue, or at the very least holds out the hope, that the change in the Jews will occur when God lifts the blindness. The "blindness" is certainly a reference to blindness concerning who Jesus is and what He has done.

Personally, I don't see any reason to doubt the possibility of a mass conversation of the Jews. All salvation is of God. Jesus is the Messiah. All of us, at one time, were blinded to that truth.

Thanks for writing.

Your welcome

Peace to youraying:

 

[lastday]

Lastday

Canadyjd,

Tom Riggle is great regarding the present state of the New Covenant.
The Holy Temple in the Lord will be the Lamb's Bride, New Jerusalem.
But I see a difference between the Bride and the future of nations.

The Eph. passage is one of the strongest arguments against the doctrine that there is a separate future for the Jews and the Church. So,
we agree.

In making my thought clear, I agree with you, but not with Tom, about
the "removal of blindness" resulting in the total deliverance of Israel/Judah.

The total restoration of Israel does not involve a "change in the Message of the Gospel"; but a sudden change of hearts. That change does not require a prior act of faith but the instantaneous recognition of Messiah brought on by the act of God's Mercy and Grace as the Lord changes their hearts. It also involves the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant which will be "new" to Israel by having been released from their blindness and coming to "know the Lord...from the least to the greatest".

Before God shows mercy to the entire world in a new and universal way,
the Gentiles must be humbled just as Israel and Judah have been humbled.
The Church has been chosen as the Bride of the Lamb forever and it will be completed before "all Israel can be delivered from destruction by Gentiles".
Then all the nations COULD inherit the "eternal Davidic Kingdom on the earth".
Mel

 

[RAdam]

It's sad to see Christians having the same erroneous expectation of a throughly wordly Davidic kingdom that the Jews had and stumbled over in the first century.

 

[lastday]

RAdam,

It's sad to see Christians having the same erroneous expectation of a throughly wordly Davidic kingdom that the Jews had and stumbled over in the first century.

Of course it's "sad" for haughty Gentile Believers who ignore God's promise to Ephraim!
The New Covenant is not restricted to Israel as representing the Ten Northern Tribes!!
You've been blinded by the teaching that their "New Covenant" refers to the Church!!!
Mel

 

[Winman]

It's sad to see Christians having the same erroneous expectation of a throughly wordly Davidic kingdom that the Jews had and stumbled over in the first century.

If you read Ezekiel chapters 47 and 48 you will see that the future restoration of Israel is very real, the scriptures giving specific instructions on how the land will be divided among the twelve tribes.

Eze 47:1 Afterward he brought me again unto the door of the house; and, behold, waters issued out from under the threshold of the house eastward: for the forefront of the house stood toward the east, and the waters came down from under from the right side of the house, at the south side of the altar.

This verse speaks of the temple which was destroyed in 70 A.D.. But we see it will be built again.

Eze 47:8 Then said he unto me, These waters issue out toward the east country, and go down into the desert, and go into the sea: which being brought forth into the sea, the waters shall be healed.
9 And it shall come to pass, that every thing that liveth, which moveth, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be healed; and every thing shall live whither the river cometh.

The sea spoken of here is the Dead Sea (toward the east country), it shall be healed and great multitudes of fish will live in it. This hardly happened in 70 A.D..

Eze 47:13 Thus saith the Lord GOD; This shall be the border, whereby ye shall inherit the land according to the twelve tribes of Israel: Joseph shall have two portions.
14 And ye shall inherit it, one as well as another: concerning the which I lifted up mine hand to give it unto your fathers: and this land shall fall unto you for inheritance.
15 And this shall be the border of the land toward the north side, from the great sea, the way of Hethlon, as men go to Zedad;
16 Hamath, Berothah, Sibraim, which is between the border of Damascus and the border of Hamath; Hazarhatticon, which is by the coast of Hauran.
17 And the border from the sea shall be Hazarenan, the border of Damascus, and the north northward, and the border of Hamath. And this is the north side.
18 And the east side ye shall measure from Hauran, and from Damascus, and from Gilead, and from the land of Israel by Jordan, from the border unto the east sea. And this is the east side.
19 And the south side southward, from Tamar even to the waters of strife in Kadesh, the river to the great sea. And this is the south side southward.
20 The west side also shall be the great sea from the border, till a man come over against Hamath. This is the west side.
21 So shall ye divide this land unto you according to the tribes of Israel.

These are very specific instructions concerning very real physical places of how the land will be divided among the twelve tribes of Israel.

Eze 48:35 It was round about eighteen thousand measures: and the name of the city from that day shall be, The LORD is there.

After giving very specific instructions and dimensions of the city Jerusalem, the scriptures show that Jesus will physically be there.

 

[Jim1999]

Many of us theologically equate Israel with the church.

Cheers,

Jim