When is "fulness of the Gentiles"

[npetreley]

The fullness of the Gentiles comes in after a trip to the local Chinese buffet.

 

[Brother Bob]

The fullness of the Gentiles comes in after a trip to the local Chinese buffet.

Sounds about as good as the rest.

BBob,:tonofbricks:

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Its possible they all could of been saved, but Paul knew he couldn't reach them all, so he said that he might save some of them.

What do you mean by, "its possible they all could have been saved, but Paul knew he couldn't reach them all"?

As in the following scripture. We can tell its talking about the same Israelites that were blinded because the scripture says so.


Romans 11:

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 stumbling block, and a recompence unto them:
10: Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back always.
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 fullness?
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. (it was impossible to save them until the fulness of the Gentiles had come).

Where did that underlined statement(done for my emphasis) come from? That's your words, right? All the other words in red are scripture, right. Just checking. Your use of red is confusing.

The above passage stated their eyes were darkened, so it was those who were blinded for salvation to come to the Gentiles.

At the bottom of above passage, still talking about the ones whose eyes were darkened, of blinded, Paul said that he might at least save some of them.

Below, show that they could not be saved until the fulness of the Gentiles came, but yet Paul felt he might save some of them, so Paul must of believed the fulness of the Gentiles was over.

Rom 11:25 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.

That's why I'm not sure what the 'hardening in part" means.
I don't think the fulness of the Gentiles had come in in Paul's time, nor do I think it has come in yet.
I think that Paul might mean that the elect Jews are being saved and indeed some were saved in his time, but all the while the Gentiles are being brought in and are still being brought it and Isreal is still experiencing a hardening.
But I'm not dogmatic on this, since I haven't really settled on what verse 25 means.

So, those who were blinded could not be saved until the fulness of the Gentiles came and Paul stated that he might save some, so Paul must of believed the fulness of the Gentiles had come. After all, Paul is the one who wrote the passages concerning salvation to the Gentiles.

I know, you can find where Paul said they would be blinded until the fulness of the Gentiles.

I also know, you can find where Paul thought in his life time, he might save some of them.

All can be found in the above passages.

The reason I question what you're advocating is that because of your insistence that the salvation of the Gentiles was completed in Paul's time.
And again I ask you, in what sense is this true of the Gentile nations?

 

[Brother Bob]

What do you mean by, "its possible they all could have been saved, but Paul knew he couldn't reach them all"?
I figure that he knew he would die and Israel was scattered all over the place.


Where did that underlined statement(done for my emphasis) come from? That's your words, right? All the other words in red are scripture, right. Just checking. Your use of red is confusing.

The underlined is from scripture saying Israel in part would be blinded, until the fulness of the Gentiles. In other words they couldn't be saved because they were blinded until then.


That's why I'm not sure what the 'hardening in part" means.
I don't think the fulness of the Gentiles had come in in Paul's time, nor do I think it has come in yet.
I think that Paul might mean that the elect Jews are being saved and indeed some were saved in his time, but all the while the Gentiles are being brought in and are still being brought it and Isreal is still experiencing a hardening.
But I'm not dogmatic on this, since I haven't really settled on what verse 25 means.

If you read closely Romans 11:7, Paul is talking about those blinded, and scripture says the election were not blinded.

The reason I question what you're advocating is that because of your insistence that the salvation of the Gentiles was completed in Paul's time.
And again I ask you, in what sense is this true of the Gentile nations?

Yes, the nations of Gentiles. As when Peter had the vision of the sheet coming down from Heaven and God said "slay and eat". Peter said not so Lord, there is nothing common or unclean ever entered my mouth. And the Lord told Peter to not call that common and unclean, which He had cleaned up. Then was Peter converted that the Gentiles indeed could be saved.

BBob,

...........

 

[Isaiah40:28]

I figure that he knew he would die and Israel was scattered all over the place.

So they could have all been saved, if it were not for Paul's limitations?

14: If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. (it was impossible to save them until the fulness of the Gentiles had come).

The underlined is from scripture saying Israel in part would be blinded, until the fulness of the Gentiles. In other words they couldn't be saved because they were blinded until then.

The underlined words in parenthesis are your words, Bob. That's not in the text in verse 14 as you have it written in your "red" posting. That's all I'm trying to clarify.

If you read closely Romans 11:7, Paul is talking about those blinded, and scripture says the election were not blinded.

Are you forgetting our previous discussion of this passage? The elect obtained it and the rest were hardened. But in the group of hardened Jews, there were still some who were elect that would be brought in by envy. Their hardening was temporary, while for others it appears to have been permanent.

 

[Brother Bob]

So they could have all been saved, if it were not for Paul's limitations?

Right!




The underlined words in parenthesis are your words, Bob. That's not in the text in verse 14 as you have it written in your "red" posting. That's all I'm trying to clarify.

(it was impossible to save them until the fulness of the Gentiles had come).
I think this is what you mean, but not sure. But if so, the answer is below.

Rom 11:25 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.


Are you forgetting our previous discussion of this passage? The elect obtained it and the rest were hardened. But in the group of hardened Jews, there were still some who were elect and that would be brought in by envy. Their hardening was temporary, while for others it appears to have been permanent.

Well, scripture says the "election" obtained it, but I am sure there were more later that were born "elect". I think these were what Paul meant when he said he might save some, plus any that might have been blinded temporary. I think the blindness was only going to be a short space of time, not all the way until the resurrection.

BBob,
...........

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Sorry, I accidently posted before I responded to this last part.

Yes, the nations of Gentiles. As when Peter had the vision of the sheet coming down from Heaven and God said "slay and eat". Peter said not so Lord, there is nothing common or unclean ever entered my mouth. And the Lord told Peter to not call that common and unclean, which He had cleaned up. Then was Peter converted that the Gentiles indeed could be saved.

I don't think you read my question right. Here is what I wrote:

The reason I question what you're advocating is because of your insistence that the salvation of the Gentiles was completed in Paul's time.
And again I ask you, in what sense is this true of the Gentile nations?

 

[Brother Bob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isaiah40:28
The reason I question what you're advocating is because of your insistence that the salvation of the Gentiles was completed in Paul's time.
And again I ask you, in what sense is this true of the Gentile nations?

I am not saying that all of the Gentiles were saved when Paul talked about the fulness. I mean that the plan of salvation had been completed to the Gentile nations. I hope this is what you mean?

BBob,

 

[Isaiah40:28]

You really believe that salvation of the Jews was dependant upon Paul???
If he could have lived longer and traveled more, all could have been saved?

That sounds like a very man-centered view of salvation.
All the Jews might have been saved except that Paul's ministry was cut short by his own death and his inability to travel to all the necessary locations of the scattered Jews.

That sounds like Paul failed them. More might have been saved if it weren't for Paul's finiteness.

Please tell me you don't think that way.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

I am not saying that all of the Gentiles were saved when Paul talked about the fulness. I mean that the plan of salvation had been completed to the Gentile nations. I hope this is what you mean?

BBob,

Okay. Now I'm starting to get you.

 

[Brother Bob]

You really believe that salvation of the Jews was dependant upon Paul???
If he could have lived longer and traveled more, all could have been saved?

That sounds like a very man-centered view of salvation.
All the Jews might have been saved except that Paul's ministry was cut short by his own death and his inability to travel to all the necessary locations of the scattered Jews.

That sounds like Paul failed them. More might have been saved if it weren't for Paul's finiteness.

Please tell me you don't think that way.

I don't think that way..............

 

[EdSutton]

Yes, the nations of Gentiles. As when Peter had the vision of the sheet coming down from Heaven and God said "slay and eat". Peter said not so Lord, there is nothing common or unclean ever entered my mouth. And the Lord told Peter to not call that common and unclean, which He had cleaned up. Then was Peter converted that the Gentiles indeed could be saved.

Huh???

Edited to add: (The format required me to add more characters, hence the "Edit" note.)

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

You need to catch up on the thread before opening your mouth Ed and the mush come out of it. I was referring to a statement by Rip and Npet.

BBob,:BangHead:

I both understand the statement, and I have read and followed each and every post, FTR. But the fact I was referring to, as well as the statement you made are still meaningless. The fact that one Biblical writer does not address a particular subject does not invalidate another who does.

You almost seem to see a 'need' to argue against any potential literal rule and reign of Jesus Christ on the earth, as well as anything that might suggest such. Also, your posititon of argument seems to be that almost always, the rendering found in the KJV, is the correct one. That POV may or may not be the case, I would say. If, however, that is one of the points you are attempting to make, I think you need to argue this particular position in another forum, no?

Yes, Christ, the Son, is seated on the right hand of the Father, as of now. He is, both now, always has been, and always will be the King of kings and Lord of lords.

And He was this in the manger, as a babe; at Cana; in Galilee; in Samaria; in Jerusalem; when crucified on Mt. Moriah; coming out of the tomb; ascending into heaven; now seated at the Father's right hand; as well as at any other time - always King of kings and Lord of lords. (Remember, He was born "King of the Jews".)

That fact does, in no way, rule out a physical reign in a literal kingdom on the earth. Jesus said all of these following things, as well as many other things, not dealing with the subject, which is recorded elsewhere, in Scripture, as well. (All quotes from NKJV, unless noted.)

36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews;but now My kingdom is not from here.”
37 Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?”
Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” (Jn. 18:36-37)

22 So the Jews said, “Will He kill Himself, because He says, ‘Where I go you cannot come’?”
23 And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” (Jn. 8:22-24)

It seems a bit disingenious to make an attempted difference in interpreting exact identical phrases, to me. So to say the "origin" of Jesus' kingdom is "not of this world", is merely to say it is of 'heavenly origin', as Jesus also said His kingdom "is not from here", and also to say it is "from" the same "origin" as He. That is entirely different than saying that it is (only) a "spiritual kingdom", and that its promises and provisions are now somehow a part of the "church".

Most of us would agree, I think, that the "Church age' is one part of the overall "Kingdom of God". But I don't agree that that suddenly makes "the church" the complete package in the "kingdom of God". Paul and Jesus both have something to say about this, I believe. We've seen a bit of what Jesus said, Here is Paul.

25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved,[a] as it is written:


“ The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”[b]

28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. (Rom. 11:25-28)

Couple of other Scriptures-

13 Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
And Your dominion endures throughout all generations.[a] (Ps. 145:13)

44 And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. (Dan. 2:44)

One cannot fairly ignore the present tense in some places, and the future tense in other places, used in some
Scriptures about this (or any other) subject.

And it seems a misuse of Scripture to attempt to pit "the words of Jesus" over against other Scriptures, as well. All Scripture is God-breathed-out, not just the words of Jesus. Nor are his words any more Scripture, than those of Moses, Paul, Apollos, Obadiah, Luke, or Nahum, to name but six examples, IMO. Add to that that Jeuss' words are not given directly into Scripture by Him, as He Himself, wrote none of Scripture, but were recorded by others, unlike these named six who wrote/spoke as they were 'borne along' by the Holy Spirit. Even God - the Holy Spirit, did not have all the words ever spoken by God - the Son, to be recorded, as John, under the influence of God - the Holy Spirit, tells us.

Off subject, just a bit, but this supposed "distinction" is the main reason why I do not like "Red-Letter" editions of the Bible. All Scripture is the written Word of God, even though it is not all directly from the mouth of the incarnate Word of God.

I gotta' get to bed. G'nite, all.

Ed

 

[skypair]

Here is the entire passage and Paul was speaking about those who were blinded. How many times did God blind some of Israel, so salvation would come to the Gentiles??

Once. It was prefigured in Moses wearing a veil that they might not see the glory that was to come (which was the glory of the presence of the Lord with Moses).

Romans 11:

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 stumbling block, and a recompence unto them:
10: Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back always.
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 fullness?
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.

Very familiar, thanks

(it was impossible to save them until the fulness of the Gentiles had come).

It is impossible to save but a few, correct. Then comes the fulness of the Gentiles followed by the rapture. And then God will deal with Israel again proving them the revelation of Christ at His first advent by our disappearances.

The passage says what it says and if it was against my theology, I would be honest enough to admit it. If I did not understand the passage, I would admit it, but it is plain enough that a child could understand it.

You don't carry the passage through to the concludion, Bob. Rom 11:19-23 "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." They stumbled -- there's no doubt about it! But they will be grafted back in in the future at the point when the church is part raptured, part apostate.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Below, show that they could not be saved until the fulness of the Gentiles came, but yet Paul felt he might save some of them, so Paul must of believed the fulness of the Gentiles was over.

Some could be saved before the fulness of the Gentiles was come in -- some of the branches weren't broken off to begin with. What Paul means is NOT that the fulness of the Gentiles was already come in but that when it does, "all Israel shall be saved!"

So, those who were blinded could not be saved until the fulness of the Gentiles came and Paul stated that he might save some, so Paul must of believed the fulness of the Gentiles had come. After all, Paul is the one who wrote the passages concerning salvation to the Gentiles.

No, no, no, Bobby. First off, he'd have gone to the Jews if thought that! Second, Paul was expressing the futility of ministering to them so that only some would come. Three chapters here, Rom 9, 10, & 11, show is Paul aching to save those he knows are blinded! But he also knows that some way future day the fulness of the Gentiles will come in and THEN "all Israel will be saved."

skypair

 

[Isaiah40:28]

I don't think that way..............

Have I mispresented your view in any way?

 

[Brother Bob]

I both understand the statement, and I have read and followed each and every post, FTR. But the fact I was referring to, as well as the statement you made are still meaningless. The fact that one Biblical writer does not address a particular subject does not invalidate another who does.

You almost seem to see a 'need' to argue against any potential literal rule and reign of Jesus Christ on the earth, as well as anything that might suggest such. Also, your posititon of argument seems to be that almost always, the rendering found in the KJV, is the correct one. That POV may or may not be the case, I would say. If, however, that is one of the points you are attempting to make, I think you need to argue this particular position in another forum, no?
No, it does not need to be in another forum. Read the OP. I do like the KJV though.

Yes, Christ, the Son, is seated on the right hand of the Father, as of now. He is, both now, always has been, and always will be the King of kings and Lord of lords.

Glad to know that you believe He is King now and being King, then He must be King of something.

And He was this in the manger, as a babe; at Cana; in Galilee; in Samaria; in Jerusalem; when crucified on Mt. Moriah; coming out of the tomb; ascending into heaven; now seated at the Father's right hand; as well as at any other time - always King of kings and Lord of lords. (Remember, He was born "King of the Jews".)

So, here you say He is King of the Jews, well the Gentiles are now a part of that Kingdom, for we were grafted in and Salvation has come to the Gentile nations in full as of now, so that would make Him our King also, or at least He is mine!!!!!!!

That fact does, in no way, rule out a physical reign in a literal kingdom on the earth. Jesus said all of these following things, as well as many other things, not dealing with the subject, which is recorded elsewhere, in Scripture, as well. (All quotes from NKJV, unless noted.)It seems a bit disingenious to make an attempted difference in interpreting exact identical phrases, to me. So to say the "origin" of Jesus' kingdom is "not of this world", is merely to say it is of 'heavenly origin', as Jesus also said His kingdom "is not from here", and also to say it is "from" the same "origin" as He. That is entirely different than saying that it is (only) a "spiritual kingdom", and that its promises and provisions are now somehow a part of the "church".

You are correct, it is not of this world and never has been or never will be. It is a Spiritual Kingdom as was preached for hundreds of years until your friend Darby came along, a couple hundred years ago. With the exception of a "few", who were not allowed to expouse thier belief of a literal Kingdom.

Most of us would agree, I think, that the "Church age' is one part of the overall "Kingdom of God". But I don't agree that that suddenly makes "the church" the complete package in the "kingdom of God". Paul and Jesus both have something to say about this, I believe. We've seen a bit of what Jesus said, Here is Paul. Couple of other Scriptures-One cannot fairly ignore the present tense in some places, and the future tense in other places, used in some
Scriptures about this (or any other) subject.

I agree whole heartly that the Kingdom is not complete and I have never never said it was. The bodies still have to be added to the Kingdom in the resurrection.

And it seems a misuse of Scripture to attempt to pit "the words of Jesus" over against other Scriptures, as well. All Scripture is God-breathed-out, not just the words of Jesus. Nor are his words any more Scripture, than those of Moses, Paul, Apollos, Obadiah, Luke, or Nahum, to name but six examples, IMO. Add to that that Jeuss' words are not given directly into Scripture by Him, as He Himself, wrote none of Scripture, but were recorded by others, unlike these named six who wrote/spoke as they were 'borne along' by the Holy Spirit. Even God - the Holy Spirit, did not have all the words ever spoken by God - the Son, to be recorded, as John, under the influence of God - the Holy Spirit, tells us.

I also agree that the whole Bible is the inspired word of God and have never said anything different. I said when, what others say does not line up with Jesus's words, then we have it wrong and need to start over, for the Bible does not cross itself. Seems to be a lot of crossing on here, such as Jesus never preached a literal Kingdom on this earth, but you and others continue to do so. So, if your belief will not stand up to the words of Jesus, you got problems!


Off subject, just a bit, but this supposed "distinction" is the main reason why I do not like "Red-Letter" editions of the Bible. All Scripture is the written Word of God, even though it is not all directly from the mouth of the incarnate Word of God.

I gotta' get to bed. G'nite, all.

Ed

Everyone to his own liking, myself, I do like the red letter edition of the Bible.

BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

Once. It was prefigured in Moses wearing a veil that they might not see the glory that was to come (which was the glory of the presence of the Lord with Moses).

Very familiar, thanks

It is impossible to save but a few, correct. Then comes the fulness of the Gentiles followed by the rapture. And then God will deal with Israel again proving them the revelation of Christ at His first advent by our disappearances.

Someone should of told Apostle Paul, that he could not save any of them, of which Apostle Paul said he could. No one has addressed the fact that Paul said he might save some of them.

You don't carry the passage through to the concludion, Bob. Rom 11:19-23 "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." They stumbled -- there's no doubt about it! But they will be grafted back in in the future at the point when the church is part raptured, part apostate.
Blinded and unbelief are the same and its talking about the same people Apostle Paul said that he might save some of them.

skypair

Paul said he might save some of them in his time, so they are already being grafted back in if Paul could save some of them. That is what the scripture says, not some of this eschatology of all these resurrections, kingdoms, living on earth thousand years and that is no where in the Bible, but was made up by men.

BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

Huh???

Edited to add: (The format required me to add more characters, hence the "Edit" note.)

Ed

I can see here that you didn't get the message of the vision. Before the vision, Peter would not accept Gentiles, after the message, he went and preached unto them. He became converted, that the Gentiles did indeed have a right to salvation, which is what the "fulness of the Gentiles" is talking about.

BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

Have I mispresented your view in any way?

Never, you have always been polite. I was making a joke and answering you when you said "please tell me you do not think that way", so I typed "No, I don't think that way...........:thumbs: