Romans 11:25-27. New prophecy about the future or old prophecy about an ongoing reality?

[WPM]

Right. Somehow destroying the world in Noah's day was a case of grace and mercy but doing so when Christ returns is not? This is nothing new, though. He contradicts himself often. He clearly has no idea of what he's talking about. Ever.

I agree.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Thank you. I really respect that...honestly! Let me just say that I'm responding to relatively-recent attacks I've seen being made on Jews by some in these forums. And it is largely due to their Replacement Theology, which of course they believe is a term of contempt and completely deny.

Dude, I have told you several times that I dislike that term and here you are using it while talking to me again! You're thanking me and saying "I respect that" and then you turn around and totally disrespect the fact that I don't want you using that term when speaking to me, as I've told you several times. Why can't you respect THAT?

But it isn't a term of contempt from my pov,

But it is from mine, so don't use it when talking to me. I'm not going to tell you again.

but only an abbreviated description of what I see is rejection of the possibility of full national salvation, whether for Israel or for any nation. It is, in effect, rejection of the whole idea of a Christian State!

In my view, I believe that God wants all people from all nations to be saved. It isn't about nations, it's about individuals having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. You can't inherit eternal life because of what nation you live in. You inherit eternal life because of what Jesus did for you and having faith and trust in Him.

This in itself is dangerous, I feel, since God called Israel to be just that--a nation of faith. The only alternative that I can see is a pagan nation, an Islamic nation, or some kind of vague pluralistic nation?

Dangerous? You are overly dramatic. If someone doesn't agree with your understanding of national salvation but still believes that God wants all the people from that nation to be saved, that's somehow dangerous? Come on.

But Amills are, by nature, Replacement Theologians, as I use the term in a non-confrontive way. I was RT at one time, myself, and accepted the eschatology of such.

It's not taken that way, so don't use it.

Based on my own studies and influences, I've gone over to Premillism. I find the Biblical Prophets to be supportive of a future Messianic Age, replete with a full national restoration of Israel, along with many other nations. That is, as I've said many times, the Abrahamic promises.

The Abrahamic promises are summed up in Galatians 3:16-29 and what Paul taught there does not agree with your understanding of them.

To be fair to you and to all Amills, I do recognize that most of you would welcome Christian conversion from the Jews.

Wow. Gee, thanks.

It's just that you don't expect it to happen in mass, and so find yourselves, often, depreciating the possibility, and in effect, discouraging it, though I'm sure you wouldn't characterize it that way.

I don't expect it only because it's not realistic. If it could happen for them then do you believe it could happen for any other nation as well? If not, then why not? I do certainly believe that God wants all people to be saved. But, since I also believe that he makes people responsible to choose what they believe, it's simply not reasonable to think that all people from any nation, would all choose to believe at the same time. Especially as we get closer to the time Paul talked about when there will be a mass falling away from the faith (2 Thess 2:1-3). Even Paul himself talked about SOME of his fellow Israelites being saved (Romans 11:14). He, of course, wanted all of them to be saved, but he was realistic. Why would he go from saying that to saying all of them would one day be saved? I don't believe that would make any sense.

I certainly don't think Amills are non-evangelical with respect to the Jews. But in furthering the anti-Semitic-type rhetoric, it actually frightens Jews away from Christianity.

What anti-Semitic-type rhetoric are you talking about?

 

[WPM]

Dude, I have told you several times that I dislike that term and here you are using it while talking to me again! You're thanking me and saying "I respect that" and then you turn around and totally disrespect the fact that I don't want you using that term when speaking to me, as I've told you several times. Why can't you respect THAT?

That is who he is. He likes to offend.

 

[WPM]

What anti-Semitic-type rhetoric are you talking about?

What he actually means is: by preaching that Jesus and His atoning sacrifice at Calvary is the only way to heaven. That is what he's talking about bro. That is his definition of anti-Semitic.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That is who he is. He likes to offend.

It's very odd. He went from thanking me and saying he respected what I was saying to completely disrespecting my wishes right after that.

 

[amigo de christo]

Tame compared to the character assassination I've been witnessing on the forums lately.

quite tame to the names i have been called by many . Expect not the wordly to love the true lambs . BUT NEVER CONFORM
to the ways of the ungodly . Expose all lies , all errors and do so for the sake of the peoples .
And no matter how much a lamb is hated for doing so , let the lambs continue to do so .
The false ones take no time off pumping lies unto the masses , SO lambs take no time off exposing the lies
and pointing only to CHRIST and all biblical sound doctrine as firm and steady reminders by which lambs shall grow .

 

[jeffweeder]

Yes, Amills believe that Christ's Coming will bring a complete end. There will be no mercy for the nation Israel, nor for any nation after that because Amills believe all the issues of judgment are resolved in the current age. At least, that's what I've gotten from them repeatedly.

We get it from Jesus and the rest of the NT writers repeatedly .
God has fixed a day at the end of this age. Today is the day of mercy and amazing grace.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Dude, I have told you several times that I dislike that term and here you are using it while talking to me again! You're thanking me and saying "I respect that" and then you turn around and totally disrespect the fact that I don't want you using that term when speaking to me, as I've told you several times. Why can't you respect THAT?

Well DUDE, I don't respect the fact you disrespect my use of the word as an abbreviated form of what you *do believe!* It's a word I choose to use, and I specifically told *you* that I did not mean to use the term in a disrespectful way. If you have another term that properly represents your position, I would use it. But instead, the words you choose to use appear as propaganda to undo the biblical opposition I use to reject it.

For me, the Bible teaches that Israel is a nation called to be a nation of God in perpetuity. Israel's failure under the Covenant of Law does not undo that.

And so, when you wish to say that Israel will never recover, that means Israel is being "replaced" with the International Church--no longer the Nation of Israel. Even if you say that Israel never was God's true people, you're still "replacing" the standard belief that Israel was in fact called to be a nation of God. It was a promise God clearly made to Abraham.

Some people claim that perhaps Covenant Theology is a better term? That accepts Israel's original calling, resulting in a remnant of Christian Jews, and expands to include remnants from many nations. Though this may fit your notion of what God was doing, for me it is just another form of Replacement Theology, because the *Jewish Nation* is being replaced with a *Jewish Remnant,* who will never again form into a nation.

But it is from mine, so don't use it when talking to me. I'm not going to tell you again.

Goodbye then. I don't wish to upset you. But you do adhere to Replacement Theology, whether you want to own up to it or not. It fits exactly what you believe, which is that Israel either was never called to be a Nation of God or failed in that mission, turning it over to International Christianity.

If you have a better term, such as Supersessionism, let me know. I need a term to summarize the position in a way that describes why I differ from it.

 

[Randy Kluth]

We get it from Jesus and the rest of the NT writers repeatedly .
God has fixed a day at the end of this age. Today is the day of mercy and amazing grace.

Yes, Jeff, I wasn't insulting the position. I used to believe it myself. I was just backing up someone who depicted this properly, and was condemned for it. It was likely some kind of miscommunication, and I hoped to clear it up.

 

[jeffweeder]

Goodbye then. I don't wish to upset you. But you do adhere to Replacement Theology, whether you want to own up to it or not. It fits exactly what you believe, which is that Israel either was never called to be a Nation of God or failed in that mission, turning it over to International Christianity.

The only way Israel can fulfill its true calling is to accept their true king. It's appropriate that a new name be written on their forehead.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What he actually means is: by preaching that Jesus and His atoning sacrifice at Calvary is the only way to heaven. That is what he's talking about bro. That is his definition of anti-Semitic.

If that's his definition of anti-Semitic then I don't mind being anti-Semitic (according to his definition).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well DUDE,

I'm getting the sense that you didn't like me calling you "Dude". Sorry, dude.

I don't respect the fact you disrespect my use of the word as an abbreviated form of what you *do believe!* It's a word I choose to use, and I specifically told *you* that I did not mean to use the term in a disrespectful way. If you have another term that properly represents your position, I would use it. But instead, the words you choose to use appear as propaganda to undo the biblical opposition I use to reject it.

So, I suppose you wouldn't have any problem with me calling you a fool if I don't mean that disrespectfully?

My goodness. You can't even honor a simple request like this. Something is seriously wrong with you.

For me, the Bible teaches that Israel is a nation called to be a nation of God in perpetuity. Israel's failure under the Covenant of Law does not undo that.

And so, when you wish to say that Israel will never recover, that means Israel is being "replaced" with the International Church--no longer the Nation of Israel. Even if you say that Israel never was God's true people, you're still "replacing" the standard belief that Israel was in fact called to be a nation of God. It was a promise God clearly made to Abraham.

Some people claim that perhaps Covenant Theology is a better term? That accepts Israel's original calling, resulting in a remnant of Christian Jews, and expands to include remnants from many nations. Though this may fit your notion of what God was doing, for me it is just another form of Replacement Theology, because the *Jewish Nation* is being replaced with a *Jewish Remnant,* who will never again form into a nation.

You just don't get it. You have hijacked that term and redefined it, but it means something different to most people. So, I don't like that term. But, you don't care if I like it or not. I don't want to waste my time talking to someone like you any longer then.

Goodbye then.

Goodbye.

I don't wish to upset you.

Too late. And I don't believe you, anyway. It shouldn't be that big of a deal for you to not use that term to describe my beliefs. But you insist on doing it, anyway.

But you do adhere to Replacement Theology, whether you want to own up to it or not.

I truly could not care less if I adhere to it according to your own definition of the term that only you use.

It fits exactly what you believe, which is that Israel either was never called to be a Nation of God or failed in that mission, turning it over to International Christianity.

Where does scripture teach that God has two groups of people? Scripture repeatedly teaches that Christ brought Jews and Gentiles together as one. Why do you want to separate them again? You believe in Separation Theology.

If you have a better term, such as Supersessionism, let me know. I need a term to summarize the position in a way that describes why I differ from it.

My view could be described as Unity Theology because I emphasize how God brought Jews and Gentiles together as one through the sacrifice of His Son. I believe that He wants all people from Israel to be saved, so your attempt to make it as if I don't care about Israel and try to claim they have been replaced is pure nonsense.

 

[ScottA]

Romans 11:25-27 is one of the most highly debated passages in all of scripture.

What does it mean? What was Paul teaching there?

Is it a new prophecy that Paul was making about some time in the future when all Israelites, or everyone in the nation of Israel, will be saved?

Or was Paul referencing an Old Testament prophecy and explaining its ongoing fulfillment up until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in?

Let's take a look and see.

Romans 11:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:“The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. 27 And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”

We can see that this is NOT a new prophecy that Paul was making because he said "as it is written...". He was referring to an old prophecy. He was referring to this prophecy:

Isaiah 59:20 “The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins,” declares the Lord. 21 “As for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the Lord. “My Spirit, who is on you, will not depart from you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will always be on your lips, on the lips of your children and on the lips of their descendants—from this time on and forever,” says the Lord.

So, a question we should answer here is when in the future from the time of the prophecy being made in Isaiah 59:20-21 would the Deliverer/Redeemer come to turn godlessness away from "those in Jacob who repent of their sins"? Didn't He already do that? Scripture says He did.

Acts 3:25 And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’ 26 When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.”

Peter made it clear that, according to a covenant God made with the people of Israel, God sent Jesus to the people of Israel "to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways". If that's isn't a fulfillment of Isaiah 59:20, I don't know what is.

Notice that the prophecy related directly to a covenant that would result in the Spirit of God coming to dwell in people without departing from them. Has that not been happening since the day of Pentecost long ago? What is the covenant God made with people that results in taking away their sins and in the Spirit of God dwelling in people? That is the new covenant established by the blood of Christ long ago, is it not? Passages like the following would indicate that is the case.

Luke 22:20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

2 Corinthians 3:4 Such confidence we have through Christ before God. 5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

So far I have established that Romans 11:25-27 is not a new prophecy that Paul made that will be fulfilled some time in the future, but rather it is a reference to an old prophecy that was already being fulfilled back then. The only covenant God has ever made that takes away sins is the new covenant and that was established long go. So, that must be kept in mind when interpreting Romans 11:25-27.

But, you might be asking what about Paul saying that all Israel will be saved in relation to the prophecy he referenced (Isaiah 59:20-21)? How could that already be fulfilled or be in the process of being fulfilled? Well, keep in mind that he said all Israel would be saved according to what was written in Isaiah 59:20-21.

According to the prophecy from Isaiah that Paul interpreted for us, all Israel is saved by way of the Deliverer coming to turn people in Israel away from godlessness in fulfillment of the covenant God made to take away their sins. Again, that covenant is the new covenant since that is the covenant God made to take away sins.

So, we know how all Israel is saved. By way of repenting of their sins which places them under the new covenant of salvation and forgiveness of sins through the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

So, when Paul said all Israel will be saved, the question is this: was Paul talking about all people in the nation of Israel being saved in the future which would mean every person in Israel would repent of their sins at some point in the future? I don't believe so. It wasn't just the future that Paul had in mind there. Again, he was not making a new prophecy about something that would occur in the future, but was referencing an Old Testament prophecy and talking about its fulfillment by way of a covenant that had already been established back then rather than some time in the future.

What else could Paul have meant when he said all Israel will be saved then? To answer this, we need to go back to something Paul had written a little bit earlier in his letter to the Romans.

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

In this passage Paul contrasted two Israels. One that consisted of those who were physical descendants of the nation of Israel. Paul said that not all those who are physically descended from that Israel are Israel.

How do we identify the other Israel and who are part of that Israel? I highlighted natural, physical Israel (nation of Israel) in red and the other Israel in blue. Notice that the other Israel consists of those who are "Abraham's children", are reckoned "through Isaac", are "God's children", and are "children of the promise".

Who does scripture teach are "Abraham's children", "God's children", "children of the promise" and are reckoned "through Isaac"? We can see that here:

Galatians 3:26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Galatians 4:28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise.

We can see here that the ones who fit the description of those who are part of the other Israel (what many call Spiritual Israel) are those who belong to Christ.

So, in which Israel are all its members saved? The one from which people descend physically which would suggest that nationality has something to do with salvation? National Israel, in other words? Or the one of which is comprised of those who have faith in Jesus Christ and belong to Christ, which I'll call Spiritual Israel?

The answer is clear. It's Spiritual Israel. When Paul said all Israel will be saved by way of the covenant God made that takes away sins, as propesied in Isaiah 59:20-21, he was talking about Spiritual Israel since it is those who are in Spiritual Israel that have been saved under the new covenant established by Christ's blood long ago. This is the way people have been saved for almost 2,000 years and how they will continue to be saved until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.

The passage is not so much about Israel, but about the times of the gentiles, to whom Paul was made an apostle.

The point is that a major transition was occurring in their times between Israel and the gentiles and the salvation of each, which Jesus referred to in being "finished" with Israel, that He must also bring another sheep fold...that being the gentiles.

"All Israel" in the above passage was not to quantify how many of Israel were to be saved, but rather to note the end of it...as one would say, "That's all."

 

[amigo de christo]

The only way Israel can fulfill its true calling is to accept their true king. It's appropriate that a new name be written on their forehead.

And that KING IS the GLORIOUS KING JESUS .
Lets here what another jew , named john had to say as well .
If they dont believe the testimony of GOD which HE gave of His own son , they make GOD out to be a liar .
OH YES . No jew , no gentile will inherit the KINDGOM of GOD lest his or her faith IS IN JESUS CHRIST .
Let all that has breath both praise and thank the LORD for the wonderful mercies of His grace given us IN JESUS CHRIST .
Lift those hands and praise the KING .

 

[Randy Kluth]

The only way Israel can fulfill its true calling is to accept their true king. It's appropriate that a new name be written on their forehead.

Yes, physical Israel must accept the Christian label in order to be saved, whether that involves spiritual salvation for the individual or political salvation for the nation. I wouldn't say that the "new name" replaces the entity, but rather, gives the same entity a new identity. Thanks Jeff!

 

[jeffweeder]

And that KING IS the GLORIOUS KING JESUS .
Lets here what another jew , named john had to say as well .
If they dont believe the testimony of GOD which HE gave of His own son , they make GOD out to be a liar .
OH YES . No jew , no gentile will inherit the KINDGOM of GOD lest his or her faith IS IN JESUS CHRIST .
Let all that has breath both praise and thank the LORD for the wonderful mercies of His grace given us IN JESUS CHRIST .
Lift those hands and praise the KING .

Party time Amigo De Christo.

 

[jeffweeder]

Yes, physical Israel must accept the Christian label in order to be saved, whether that involves spiritual salvation for the individual or political salvation for the nation. I wouldn't say that the "new name" replaces the entity, but rather, gives the same entity a new identity. Thanks Jeff!

One beautifully crafted stone at a time is what makes it unblemished and Divinely Glorious... Gods Image.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I'm getting the sense that you didn't like me calling you "Dude". Sorry, dude.

So, I suppose you wouldn't have any problem with me calling you a fool if I don't mean that disrespectfully?

Bad example. But on rare occasion, someone may call somebody a fool to jar him and to sincerely awaken him to wisdom. Most often, though, calling someone a "fool" is meant to be derogatory and provocative. I have *no wish at all* to provoke you when I refer to RT.

My goodness. You can't even honor a simple request like this. Something is seriously wrong with you.

I'm not being stubborn. Give me a term I can use to abbreviate it in order to avoid writing 2 paragraphs on it every time I refer to "it." I've learned from experience those who believe *what you believe* will never give me a term that adequately expresses the argument. So I'm left without an abbreviation, a term that saves me time.

I've been called all kinds of things, and even when it sounds negative I embrace it if it is true. If it is only partly true, then it is my duty to correct it. If you wish to correct it and to give it the proper name, please do so. Otherwise, quit complaining that I want to reduce the many conversations on this in size!

Goodbye.

No need to read any further then.

 

[farouk]

God has foreknowledge and is Omniscient, he's the Alpha/Omega, it's that simple

Great, Biblical truths there....

 

[CadyandZoe]

Two Israel's are seen below "TWO", simple, clear, easy to understand

1.) Israel The Church, Children Of The Promised Seed, both Jew & Gentile

2.) Israel Of The Flesh "Jews", They Aren't The Children Of God

Romans 9:6-8KJV
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

The following illustrates my interpretation of Paul's statement.

1) Israel, those among the descendants of Jacob who are also children of the Promised Seed.
2) Israel, all of Jacob's descendants.

Romans 9:6-8KJV
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.