Romans 11:25 - Partially blinded

[CTK]

Ok, that difficulty in understanding that the ceremonies were done away with can be considered blindness. Partial blindness could be considered believing in Jesus but continuing the ceremonial practices due to a lack of understanding.

That is exactly what we see in the many thousands of Jews who believed but were zealous for the law in Acts 21:20. The ceremonial practices ended in 70AD which was also, according to Luke 21:22, when all things written were fulfilled, which agrees with the idea that the fullness of the Gentiles comes in when the Gentiles fulfill what is prophesied for them.

This also meshes very well with 2 Corinthians 3:14-16 where we see the reading of the Old Testament is a vail which blinds the mind. I have yet to see any other view on this corroborate all these verses. The other views tend to make everything an isolated event.

I wish I had your understanding of the Scriptures where you can connect this Word to that Word …

In studying Daniel, there are so many verses that point both back to other OT passages as well as to many NT verses. Only God could weave such a masterpiece! Please keep showing me these relationships.

 

[rwb]

Well, how can partial blindness be talking about full blindness on only a part of the Jews?

We have the Acts 21:20 many thousands of Jews who were both zealous for the law and believed. Were they in the partially blinded group or in the non-blinded group?

Until they heard the Gospel proclaimed and believed in Christ, they believed salvation came through obedience to the Law. They were in partial blindness until they knew Christ came and fulfilled all the Law of Old demanded.

Even though Jews of faith in Christ continued to be zealous of the Old Law as long as the Old Temple continued to stand, they continued to keep the Law, even though they knew that the Old Law was not the way to everlasting life that comes only through faith in Christ.

 

[grafted branch]

Until they heard the Gospel proclaimed and believed in Christ, they believed salvation came through obedience to the Law. They were in partial blindness until they knew Christ came and fulfilled all the Law of Old demanded.

Even though Jews of faith in Christ continued to be zealous of the Old Law as long as the Old Temple continued to stand, they continued to keep the Law, even though they knew that the Old Law was not the way to everlasting life that comes only through faith in Christ.

I agree, and Paul wrote the book of Romans while these conditions were prevalent.

 

[CTK]

Do you think the old covenant vanished or do you think it is still around and hasn’t vanished yet?

That is a terrific question… I really never thought of it this way before.
Perhaps both.

The Jews who accepted Jesus accepted the New Covenant. It was and is a better Covenant.

But the Jews that rejected Jesus had to continue with the old Covenant given to them on Mt. Sinai. But just as the Jews who showed no faith in their God (except for Joshua and Caleb), they were kept in the wilderness for 40 years. After the cross, those that rejected their Messiah were kept from crossing over for 40 years. Over 1 million Jews were murdered and would not see the promised land (New Covenant).


Perhaps those that failed to “see” (10 of the 12) the “promised land” would have to pay their sin / unfaithfulness with their own blood, just as those Jews in 70 AD. In both times, the only way to salvation was through their belief in the Covenant with God.

Today, most Jews obey the 10 commandments but a still blinded to Jesus - the only way to God. They continue with the moral part of the old Covenant, but do not see the new part of the New Covenant.

Their has been an exchange from the way sin has been removed from us- from the ceremonial laws and practices to the acceptance of the Criss Cross which “done away” with them.

It also may seem that they were given 40 years of “testing” after the cross before God would destroy them just as in the wilderness. They “partially” accepted God’s promises.

 

[rwb]

Over 1 million Jews were murdered and would not see the promised land (New Covenant).

Be careful that you don't confuse the promise of God to the natural seeds of Abraham (promised land), conditioned on their faithfulness, with the unconditional promise of God through the SEED (Christ) to Abraham's seeds according to grace through faith.

 

[grafted branch]

But the Jews that rejected Jesus had to continue with the old Covenant given to them on Mt. Sinai. But just as the Jews who showed no faith in their God (except for Joshua and Caleb), they were kept in the wilderness for 40 years. After the cross, those that rejected their Messiah were kept from crossing over for 40 years. Over 1 million Jews were murdered and would not see the promised land (New Covenant).

Personally, this is how I see it. Those who rejected going into the promised land were without hope, they died in the wilderness over the forty year period.

When the new covenant came those who rejected it weren’t without hope, they were given most of the forty years, until Jerusalem was surrounded by armies, if the held onto to old covenant ways and refused to flee then they were destroyed.

Jesus said except those days be shortened no flesh would be saved, for the elects sake those days were shortened. I believe the days without hope, wandering in a wilderness, were shortened to the days between when Jerusalem was surrounded until its destruction.

 

[rwb]

I agree, and Paul wrote the book of Romans while these conditions were prevalent.

I'm reminded of the words of Paul, saying "unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law" (1Co 9:20). Why would Paul, a Jew, feel the need to become as a Jew since he is a Jew?

Yet when speaking to Gentiles (Romans) Paul says "....For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin." (Ro 11:1)

Paul had to use ethnicity (Jewish) to lead those who were clinging to their ethnic identity (Jewish) for everlasting life by obedience to the Old Law. Paul had to become as a Jew, because through Christ ethnicity has been done away. Paul here claims to be an Israelite, but not through his natural birth, but through his supernatural new birth from above.

This is how we can be certain that when Paul writes that Gentiles being grafted into the same good olive tree of faith is not speaking of ethnic Jews. That's why Paul says that "all Israel shall be saved" after the fullness of Gentiles have been grafted into the good tree of faith with Israel of faith. Not ethnic Jews, but "Israel of God" where there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but one new people of faith from ALL the nations of the world.

 

[grafted branch]

I'm reminded of the words of Paul, saying "unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law" (1Co 9:20). Why would Paul, a Jew, feel the need to become as a Jew since he is a Jew?

Yet when speaking to Gentiles (Romans) Paul says "....For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin." (Ro 11:1)

Paul had to use ethnicity (Jewish) to lead those who were clinging to their ethnic identity (Jewish) for everlasting life by obedience to the Old Law. Paul had to become as a Jew, because through Christ ethnicity has been done away. Paul here claims to be an Israelite, but not through his natural birth, but through his supernatural new birth from above.

This is how we can be certain that when Paul writes that Gentiles being grafted into the same good olive tree of faith is not speaking of ethnic Jews. That's why Paul says that "all Israel shall be saved" after the fullness of Gentiles have been grafted into the good tree of faith with Israel of faith. Not ethnic Jews, but "Israel of God" where there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but one new people of faith from ALL the nations of the world.

Yes, I definitely believe Paul makes the case that there is an Israel of God that contains true believers and it’s not based on ethnicity. However Paul isn’t consistent in always using the term “Israel” to refer to the true Israel of God or the ethnic Israel.

Maybe a similar situation would be when someone says they are a native. It could mean they are a Native American or a native of the state they were born in or possibly something else.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well, how can partial blindness be talking about full blindness on only a part of the Jews?

To me, it's very obvious as to what the partial blindness refers to and it can be seen in what is actually written in Romans 11.

Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. 7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Part of Israel was blinded and part was not. Blinded in part. There's the partial blindness. Very obvious to me. It's not talking about people being partially blind as opposed to being fully blind. Anyone who thought that keeping the law was necessary for salvation was fully blind and not partially blind.

We have the Acts 21:20 many thousands of Jews who were both zealous for the law and believed. Were they in the partially blinded group or in the non-blinded group?

There is no partial blindness in the sense that you're talking about. A person is either spiritually blind or not. The blindness relates to not being able to see that one had to have faith in Jesus Christ in order to be saved. Those who were blind to that were fully blind, not partially blind. Those who were still zealous for the law were mistaken that for thinking they still had to keep the law, but that didn't mean they were partially blind in relation to salvation. What mattered is whether they trusted in Christ for their salvation or not. If they didn't then they were fully blind. If they did then they were not blind. But, even in the case of those who were blinded at that time, it wasn't a permanent blindness because some of those who were blind at that time later became saved (Romans 11:11-14).

 

[grafted branch]

There is no partial blindness in the sense that you're talking about. A person is either spiritually blind or not. The blindness relates to not being able to see that one had to have faith in Jesus Christ in order to be saved. Those who were blind to that were fully blind, not partially blind.

2 Peter 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.


Are the people who Peter is referring to in the partial blindness category, or do we need a third category of “not blind but with the blind”? They had known the way of righteousness and they had knowledge of Jesus as savior so they aren’t spiritually blind yet clearly they aren’t saved.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

2 Peter 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.


Are the people who Peter is referring to in the partial blindness category, or do we need a third category of “not blind but with the blind”? They had known the way of righteousness and they had knowledge of Jesus as savior so they aren’t spiritually blind yet clearly they aren’t saved.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. I already said there is no partial blindness and that everyone is either blind or not, so why would you ask me if they're in the partial blindness category that I already indicated that I don't believe even exists?

If someone is not saved, as those described in that passage would not be after being "again entangled" in "the pollutions of the world", then they would be blind, not partially blind. A person is either blind or not. While being entangled in the pollutions of the world, people are blind regardless of whether they once were not blind or not. I don't want to get in a big discussion about this here since this is more of a soteriological issue than eschatological as far as I'm concerned. I've had those kinds of discussions here before, but I don't really want to do it again. There are forums set up specifically for those discussions.

 

[grafted branch]

I don't want to get in a big discussion about this here since this is more of a soteriological issue than eschatological as far as I'm concerned. I've had those kinds of discussions here before, but I don't really want to do it again. There are forums set up specifically for those discussions.

I don’t want to debate soteriology here either but you’re suggesting that a person doesn’t have free will when you equate being spiritually blind or not as being saved or not.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don’t want to debate soteriology here either but you’re suggesting that a person doesn’t have free will when you equate being spiritually blind or not as being saved or not.

I believe in free will, so I really don't know what you're talking about and I've lost interest in this discussion at this point. Thanks.

 

[grafted branch]

I believe in free will, so I really don't know what you're talking about and I've lost interest in this discussion at this point. Thanks.

You are defining spiritual blindness as being unsaved and not being spiritually blind as being saved. In other words a person cannot spiritually see and be unsaved, a person has to believe once they see Jesus is the savior. This is the “I” in T.U.I.L.P.

I’m not debating whether free will is correct or not, just pointing out that there is a conflict in your view.

 

[CTK]

To me, it's very obvious as to what the partial blindness refers to and it can be seen in what is actually written in Romans 11.

Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. 7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Part of Israel was blinded and part was not. Blinded in part. There's the partial blindness. Very obvious to me. It's not talking about people being partially blind as opposed to being fully blind. Anyone who thought that keeping the law was necessary for salvation was fully blind and not partially blind.


There is no partial blindness in the sense that you're talking about. A person is either spiritually blind or not. The blindness relates to not being able to see that one had to have faith in Jesus Christ in order to be saved. Those who were blind to that were fully blind, not partially blind. Those who were still zealous for the law were mistaken that for thinking they still had to keep the law, but that didn't mean they were partially blind in relation to salvation. What mattered is whether they trusted in Christ for their salvation or not. If they didn't then they were fully blind. If they did then they were not blind. But, even in the case of those who were blinded at that time, it wasn't a permanent blindness because some of those who were blind at that time later became saved (Romans 11:11-14).

Nice comments! Hope you do not mind… I made an earlier comment that I would like to hear your thoughts on (assuming I may have missed it).

I believe no one, perhaps with the exception of one of the thrives on the cross (which has its own special purpose), could recognize Jesus as their Messiah BEFORE the cross, (all were blinded despite all the miracles, raising the dead, etc.), but after the cross, ALL (Jew and Gentile) are on the same footing- any individual has the ability to recognize Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Now, the divinely sent blindness has been removed and each can choose .

I would appreciate your thoughts… thanks.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are defining spiritual blindness as being unsaved and not being spiritually blind as being saved. In other words a person cannot spiritually see and be unsaved, a person has to believe once they see Jesus is the savior. This is the “I” in T.U.I.L.P.

I’m not debating whether free will is correct or not, just pointing out that there is a conflict in your view.

Nope, there is not. You don't understand what I'm saying and I don't feel like explaining it to you. Moving on....

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Nice comments! Hope you do not mind… I made an earlier comment that I would like to hear your thoughts on (assuming I may have missed it).

I believe no one, perhaps with the exception of one of the thrives on the cross (which has its own special purpose), could recognize Jesus as their Messiah BEFORE the cross, (all were blinded despite all the miracles, raising the dead, etc.), but after the cross, ALL (Jew and Gentile) are on the same footing- any individual has the ability to recognize Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Now, the divinely sent blindness has been removed and each can choose .

I would appreciate your thoughts… thanks.

I would not say that the disciples and the women who were in that close circle of Jesus didn't recognize that He was the Messiah before the cross. They certainly did. They just didn't understand that He was supposed to die for their sins and be raised again from the dead. They thought He was supposed to come and take over as King of Israel while defeating the Roman empire. Being mistaken about what the Messiah was supposed to do didn't mean they didn't recognize Him as the Messiah.

Paul, writing 25 years or so after the cross, talked about some (most) in Israel still being blinded at that time, so how could the blindness have been removed before that? If that was the case then Paul would not have talked about people in Israel being blind at the time he was writing his letter to the Romans. Paul believed that he could help save some of those who were blinded at that time he was writing the letter, so that means their blindness was not something permanent that prevented them from being saved. They needed to hear the gospel. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17).

 

[CTK]

I would not say that the disciples and the women who were in that close circle of Jesus didn't recognize that He was the Messiah before the cross. They certainly did. They just didn't understand that He was supposed to die for their sins and be raised again from the dead. They thought He was supposed to come and take over as King of Israel while defeating the Roman empire. Being mistaken about what the Messiah was supposed to do didn't mean they didn't recognize Him as the Messiah.

Paul, writing 25 years or so after the cross, talked about some (most) in Israel still being blinded at that time, so how could the blindness have been removed before that? If that was the case then Paul would not have talked about people in Israel being blind at the time he was writing his letter to the Romans. Paul believed that he could help save some of those who were blinded at that time he was writing the letter, so that means their blindness was not something permanent that prevented them from being saved. They needed to hear the gospel. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17).

I understand and appreciate your comments... The only response to that is that Mary and others went to the tomb on the day after the Sabbath and brought burial ointments and perfumes, etc. Jesus did tell them He would rise on the 3rd day and He did say the Father and He were One and the same before the cross.

As far as His disciples, all scattered the evening before His death, yet all were willing to die for Him after the cross -and not immedately after the cross, but later on... This is such a terrific topic!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I understand and appreciate your comments... The only response to that is that Mary and others went to the tomb on the day after the Sabbath and brought burial ointments and perfumes, etc. Jesus did tell them He would rise on the 3rd day and He did say the Father and He were One and the same before the cross.

Yes, I am aware of that, but, again, they just didn't get it because of what they believed their whole lives about what the Messiah was supposed to do when He came. It just didn't sink in when He told them that, but it doesn't mean they didn't believe He was the Messiah.

As far as His disciples, all scattered the evening before His death, yet all were willing to die for Him after the cross -and not immedately after the cross, but later on... This is such a terrific topic!

Yeah, it's interesting. Anyway, the idea that the blindness was removed from everyone after the cross can't be supported because of the fact that Paul said 25 years later that some (most) of Israel was blinded at that time. So, I'm just going to leave it at that.

 

[grafted branch]

As far as His disciples, all scattered the evening before His death, yet all were willing to die for Him after the cross -and not immedately after the cross, but later on... This is such a terrific topic!

Hey CTK, here’s something that might be linked to what your looking at happening prior to the cross. When Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist He received the Holy Spirit. When Jesus died on the cross He asked why hast thou forsaken me.

I would say the Holy Spirit left Jesus at some point prior to His death. Have you looked at when possibly the Holy Spirit left Jesus? Are there any verses that might show this?