Sorry brother, but we'll have to part ways on this one. God has promised a literal earthly kingdom to the Jews and they have yet to receive it. There is only Israel, Gentiles, and the church. Israel and the church are still 2 separate groups.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Romans 11:24
- Thread starter kyredneck
- Start date
Romans 11 is such a rich and joyous passage of Scripture, for Jew and Gentile alike. It's a difficult thing to take a verse from this chapter without considering the larger context.
Our Lord said, "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews" (John 4:22).
Jesus was telling His audience that the message of the Covenant of Redemption was entrusted to the Jewish nation. This important truth is helpful in understanding what Paul was writing about in Romans 11. The "nourishing root of the olive tree" (Romans 11:17 ESV) is spiritual Israel, or rather, what all of Israel was supposed to be. Israel was to be a "light of revelation to the Gentiles" (Isaiah 42:6; 49:6; 52:10; 60:3). Boaz understood this when he told Ruth, "May the LORD reward your work, and your wages be full from the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to seek refuge" (Ruth 2:12; emphasis mine).
In Romans 11 Paul stated a common condition for both Jew and Gentile. "They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith" (Romans 11:20 ESV). The term "broken off" in regards to unbelieving Jews has more to do with Israel's covenant relationship with God than it does with the individual. We are not to suppose that an unbelieving Jew is somehow removed from the Covenant of Redemption and can be added in at a later time. Speaking to a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles, Paul wrote, "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins..." (Ephesians 2:1 ESV). Both Jew and Gentile alike are separated from a true relationship with God because of sin. God has always had one called-out people for His very own.
I believe Scripture clearly teaches that there is one kingdom of God, and its citizens are made so on the basis of faith alone, in Christ alone; without regard to national origin.
Our Lord said, "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews" (John 4:22).
Jesus was telling His audience that the message of the Covenant of Redemption was entrusted to the Jewish nation. This important truth is helpful in understanding what Paul was writing about in Romans 11. The "nourishing root of the olive tree" (Romans 11:17 ESV) is spiritual Israel, or rather, what all of Israel was supposed to be. Israel was to be a "light of revelation to the Gentiles" (Isaiah 42:6; 49:6; 52:10; 60:3). Boaz understood this when he told Ruth, "May the LORD reward your work, and your wages be full from the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to seek refuge" (Ruth 2:12; emphasis mine).
In Romans 11 Paul stated a common condition for both Jew and Gentile. "They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith" (Romans 11:20 ESV). The term "broken off" in regards to unbelieving Jews has more to do with Israel's covenant relationship with God than it does with the individual. We are not to suppose that an unbelieving Jew is somehow removed from the Covenant of Redemption and can be added in at a later time. Speaking to a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles, Paul wrote, "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins..." (Ephesians 2:1 ESV). Both Jew and Gentile alike are separated from a true relationship with God because of sin. God has always had one called-out people for His very own.
I believe Scripture clearly teaches that there is one kingdom of God, and its citizens are made so on the basis of faith alone, in Christ alone; without regard to national origin.
Thanks for commenting, and welcome to the BB!
Amen!
I liked Calvin's comments on Mt 8:12
But the children of the kingdom Why does he call those persons children of the kingdom, who were nothing less than children of Abraham? for those who are aliens from the faith have no right to be considered a part of God's flock. I answer: Though they did not actually belong to the Church of God, yet, as they occupied a place in the Church, he allows them this designation. Besides, it ought to be observed that, so long as the covenant of God remained in the family of Abraham, there was such force in it, that the inheritance of the heavenly kingdom belonged peculiarly to them. With respect to God himself, at least, they were holy branches from a holy root, (Romans 11:16) and the rejection of them, which afterwards followed, shows plainly enough, that they belonged, at that time, to the family of God. Secondly, it ought to be observed, that Christ does not now speak of individuals, but of the whole nation. This was still harder to endure than the calling of the Gentiles. That the Gentiles should be admitted, by a free adoption, into the same body with the posterity of Abraham, could scarcely be endured: but that the Jews themselves should be driven out, to make way for their being succeeded by the Gentiles, appeared to them altogether monstrous. Yet Christ declares that both will happen: that God will admit strangers into the bosom of Abraham, and that he will exclude the children There is an implied contrast in the phrase, the darkness that is without It means that out of the kingdom of God, which is the kingdom of light, nothing but darkness reigns. By darkness Scripture points out that dreadful anguish, which can neither be expressed nor conceived in this life.
Excellent Herald. Good stuff. I agree. Welcome to baptistboard.
Your insight will be very helpful here. I hope you stick around for a good while and visit frequently.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Romans 9, 10 and 11 must all be read together and understood as a flowing consistent thought and teaching from the apostle.
1. He begins expressing his great love and desire of salvation for his fellow countrymen (Jews) and unless you believe Paul is more merciful than the God who is inspiring His words then you must conclude that is God's ultimate feeling as well.
2. He teaches that God can and does choose to use some Jews for noble purposes and others for common use. Jacob and his heredity will be used to bring redemption to the world, Esau, a firstborn Jew, was left for common use.
3. He teaches that Jews who run, will and chase after the law to attain righteousness are not attaining it, thus they are being hardened, cut off, and stumbling. BUT, they are not stumbling beyond recovery...for they may be provoked to envy and saved.
4. He teaches that the scattered nations (the unclean Gentiles), who aren't really even nations, are being shown mercy and made into a nation. They are being grafted into the tree, sent the gospel and show mercy by which they too may now enter covenant with the "God of Israel." They are attaining righteousness because they are pursuing it through faith, not the law.
5. He concludes showing that God has bound all people over to disobedience so as to show mercy to ALL.
1. He begins expressing his great love and desire of salvation for his fellow countrymen (Jews) and unless you believe Paul is more merciful than the God who is inspiring His words then you must conclude that is God's ultimate feeling as well.
2. He teaches that God can and does choose to use some Jews for noble purposes and others for common use. Jacob and his heredity will be used to bring redemption to the world, Esau, a firstborn Jew, was left for common use.
3. He teaches that Jews who run, will and chase after the law to attain righteousness are not attaining it, thus they are being hardened, cut off, and stumbling. BUT, they are not stumbling beyond recovery...for they may be provoked to envy and saved.
4. He teaches that the scattered nations (the unclean Gentiles), who aren't really even nations, are being shown mercy and made into a nation. They are being grafted into the tree, sent the gospel and show mercy by which they too may now enter covenant with the "God of Israel." They are attaining righteousness because they are pursuing it through faith, not the law.
5. He concludes showing that God has bound all people over to disobedience so as to show mercy to ALL.
convicted1
Guest
I disagree, Sissy, but do so in much love. The promise was to Abraham's seed, and not seeds. If the promise was for ethnic Israel and for spiritual Israel, then the promise was destined for more than one. Or that's how I see. it. :love2:
Paul expresses creaturly, peer love. God does not have such love. He is not a creature and he has no peers.
Paul can love in a way that God cannot- as a creature loving fellow creatures.
God can only love creatures from the standpoint of being their creator- not like Paul whose love is based on their equality with him, and his commonness with them. He is a sinner feeling compassion for fellow sinners because they are like him.
That passage does not necessitate that God has to love in a salvific sense all men. Since the Bible teaches explicitly in this same text that he does not- we know that your interpretation is wrong.
That's not what the text is teaching.
Right. These people whom God did not elect are doing this.
Right. These people who God elected are doing this.
Wrong.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Hi Luke! Missed you buddy. 
And since Paul is writing under inspiration, is his expression not reflective of God too?
Paul, in his concluding remarks, said, "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."
Notice that my words are almost a verbatim quote of Paul and your defense is simply, "wrong." You may have an issue with Paul, not me.
So, Paul's 'peer' love is greater and more merciful than God's divine love?
And since Paul is writing under inspiration, is his expression not reflective of God too?
Hatred is an expression of choosing one OVER another in the 1st century vernacular. You "hate" you mother and father in the sense that you chose God OVER them, not that you literally dishonor them with hatred, otherwise scripture would contradict itself by teaching us to love and honor our parents and God would be hypocritical to call us to love our enemies while hating his own. The concept of God choosing Jacob and his lineage for noble purposes, while choosing Esau and his lineage for common use is being expressed here. Even some scholarly Calvinists hold to this view of this passage, as discussed before.
You responded saying...Skandelon said:
Paul, in his concluding remarks, said, "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."
Notice that my words are almost a verbatim quote of Paul and your defense is simply, "wrong." You may have an issue with Paul, not me.
Oh. Really? And Christ spoke to them in parables why?
Last edited by a moderator:
convicted1
Guest
I'd venture to say that the Jews had repeatedly rejected God's commands concerning the sacrifice that was offered, which were the lame, halt, blind, sick, etc. They went through judicial hardening, and they were cut off because of their continual rebellion towards God. That's my two cents worth.
All true Willis, but, this is where the majority (mostly dispensationalists ) greatly err in not applying the 'Preterist Modifier', and not recognizing the immense significance of the events surrounding 'THAT GENERATION' of Christ's day.
It was foretold in the 'Song of Moses' (Dt 31:16 thru Dt 32), some 1400 years prior to it, of 'that particular generation' where it was declared then that 'they are not His children'.
'THAT GENERATION' is referred to as 'the flock of slaughter' in Zech 11; Christ fed the flock of slaughter parables, and they weighed for His hire thirty pieces of silver. God never had any intention for 'that generation' to come to repentance and enter into (or remain in) the kingdom:
10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 And he answered and said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables; because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And unto them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall in no wise understand; And seeing ye shall see, and shall in no wise perceive:
15 For this people`s heart is waxed gross, And their ears are dull of hearing, And their eyes they have closed; Lest haply they should perceive with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And should turn again, And I should heal them.16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear. Mt 13
33 And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it;
34 and without a parable spake he not unto them: but privately to his own disciples he expounded all things. Mk 4
Incidently, a parable is synonymous with a riddle or a dark saying.
Last edited by a moderator:
convicted1
Guest
Please expound on what you mean by the "Preterist modifier". I am a partial Preterist, but I do believe He is coming again....that's another topic altogether.
That's correct, it was foretold what was going to happen. God knows the first from the last and the last from the first. He knows all things. Moses was telling them what was going to happen because God had revealed it to Him.
Their hearts they had hardened because they continually polluted the altar. It was through their continual rejection, that their hearts became hardened.
Malachi 1
7 Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the LORD is contemptible.
8 And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the LORD of hosts.
12 But ye have profaned it, in that ye say, The table of the LORD is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible.
13 Ye said also, Behold, what a weariness is it! and ye have snuffed at it, saith the LORD of hosts; and ye brought that which was torn, and the lame, and the sick; thus ye brought an offering: should I accept this of your hand? saith the LORD.
14 But cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth, and sacrificeth unto the LORD a corrupt thing: for I am a great King, saith the LORD of hosts, and my name is dreadful among the heathen.
And another thing, their ears could not hear, and their eyes could not see, so that Jesus would be betrayed, whipped, stripped, beaten and crucified to fulfill the scriptures. If they truly knew that He was/is the Son of God, they would not have slaughtered Him. But Malachi is a precursor to what happened to Jesus in the four Gospels.
I agree with this.
In short, it's properly applying time-frame indicators, audience relevance, hyperbole/apocalyptic imagery to one's interpretation of scripture. I quote Kenneth Gentry:
“Orthodox preterism is not so much an eschatological system as a hermeneutic tool. It recognizes the interpretive significance of: (1) time-frame indicators (e.g., Matt. 24:34; Mark 9:1; Rev. 1:1, 3); (2) audience relevance (e.g., the Seven Churches enduring tribulation, Rev. 1:4, 9); and (3) the possible non-literal character of apocalyptic imagery (“falling stars” may indicate “collapsing governments”).”
I believe partial preterism is orthodox preterism.
Question for you: How do you apply this statement of Christ below?:
“.....I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” Mt 15:24
I agree.
You make some very good points here from Malachi. But, I suppose your free will beliefs lead you to assert their hardened/corrupted hearts to their own doing more than to God's doing, I'm sure it was both, but somewhere you have to acknowledge the right of the potter over the clay, and that they were ultimately vessels of wrath fitted for destruction.
Willis, I believe the rulers did 'truly know', or at least understood what He claimed to be:
For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God. Jn 5:18
The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jn 10:33
.......Pilate saith unto them, Take him yourselves, and crucify him: for I find no crime in him. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. Jn 19:6,7
37 But afterward he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
38 But the husbandmen, when they saw the son, said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and take his inheritance.
39 And they took him, and cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him. Mt 21
If they had known 'God`s wisdom in a mystery', they would not have crucified the Lord of glory:
6 We speak wisdom, however, among them that are fullgrown: yet a wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, who are coming to nought:
7 but we speak God`s wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory:
8 which none of the rulers of this world hath known: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory: 1 Cor 2
But Christ spoke in parables to them so that they WOULD NOT know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
That's a great question. If they are born Totally Depraved what would be the need to speak to them in parables?
He does it so they won't be saved YET. If they come to Christ then they won't crucify Him. God, according to Paul, is temporarily hardening/blinding the Jews (except a chosen few) to accomplish redemption for the world. This is what Romans 11 is all about.
The answer lies in the 'Song of Moses' (Dt 31:16 thru Dt 32), where it was declared concerning 'that generation', that 'they are not His children'.
The simple explanation, which I know you will not accept, is they simply didn't belong to Him.
If Christ had spoke to them plainly, and IF they had repented, it would have been a feigned obedience in order to escape the wrath that was to come.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Proof?
Because the scripture says they may have been saved had he not spoken to them in parables. Was Jesus just bluffing?
“....Unto you it is given to know....but to them it is not given”. Mt 13:11
“.... Unto you is given the mystery..... but unto them that are without, all things are done in parables Mk 4:11
“.....without a parable spake he not unto them: but privately to his own disciples he expounded all things. Mk 4: 34
I'm not going into a Cal/Arm debate here. The simple truth of the matter is that Christ deliberately spoke to them in riddles so that they would not understand. That can't be denied.
convicted1
Guest
Thanks for the info on "preterist modifier". :thumbs:
Well, He did come to save the Jews first, or I believe it to be that way. He came to His own, and His own believed Him not......(John 1:11?)
:thumbs:
I agree with this assessment here Brother. I see it as a combination of man's rejection, and God hardening their hearts because of it.
I do not know if they truly knew that Jesus was the Son of God or not. But I do know the end result, and eventhough it was a horrific conclusion to Jesus' life, He fulfilled the will of the Father, and I am thankful for it. He did say if they believed Moses' writings they would have believed Him, because Moses wrote of Him. They also told Him that they have a father, father Abraham. So I am under the assumption that they really did not know who He really was/is.
That what I bolded is what I have been driving at for the last few years on here. They did not know that He did come as "God manifested in the flesh". I think that some thought He was a "kook" looking to deceive them. Some I think were just plain jealous because of the power He had, and all the miracles He performed.
All this had to take place so that He would fulfill all the prophecies concerning Him and His coming to die for you and me, two unworthy, sinners.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
How about we look at the verses in their entirety?
Lets take the Mk 4 passage: "God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that, " 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!' "
You left out the embolden part because it shows what may have happened IF indeed he didn't speak to them in parables, something that would be IMPOSSIBLE if they were born Totally blind and unable to believe without the prior work of regeneration.
What is really happening here? Jesus has preselected a few from Israel to be his apostles, to take the message of redemption to the rest of the world. The rest of Israel is being temporarily blinded to keep them in the darkness so they will crucify him thus fulfilling the prophecy and providing atonement for the world. It is ONLY after He is raised up (crucified and resurrected) that he draws all men to himself (sends the Spirit, and the gospel into all the world) thus beginning the His church....built on the rock of his appointed and inspired messengers (those on the inside that are being given to know these things).
No Arminian worth his salt would deny this truth. This is a problem for Calvinists, not Arminians.