The Olive Tree--Romans 11

[joelkaki]

I believe the Olive Tree is one major break-up of dispensational theology. I'll debate the issue here with anyone willing.



Joel

[joelkaki]

You see, loss of salvation is not an issue here. The point of the passage is to show that Israel fell "bacause of their unbelief" and the body of Christ may also be taken out of God's program to believe into the body of Christ.[quote from Acts9out]


Ah, here is where I have a problem. You see this passage through dispensational eyes, which I believe mangles the text. You say that "the body of Christ may also be taken out of God's program." Where does the text say anything about that? It doesn't. You see, because you are dispensational, you automatically view this text as talking about two things--Israel and the Body of Christ. But it never does. It rather talks about these two things--Israel and the Gentiles. Notice the very important distinction. There is only one olive tree. The Jews were initially in the olive tree. However, because of unbelief, as a nation they were cast out. (Matt 21:43; Gal 4:25-30). The GENTILES were grafted in. That is an important point. The Body of Christ was not grafted in. The Gentile believers were grafted into the people of God. (look at Eph 2:11-22) Neither was a new olive tree of God's people started called the Body of Christ. The Gentiles are grafted into the same body that the Jews in the OT were in, for the patriarchs are of that olive tree. The Body of Christ is God's plan.

Joel

[Darth Xena]

Exactly.

[Act9_12Out]

Joel & Dee Dee,

Thanks for the discussion. I would like to make it known, that neither of you addressed any other parts of my previous post. This is the crux of the issue.

God was dealing with His special, chosen, sanctified nation. All of the Bible except the Pauline epistles speak directly to the nation of Israel, and God's plan for Israel. The nation of Israel continually rejected God, and as I stated before, "the straw that broke the camel's back" was Israel's rejection of God in Acts 7. Jesus Christ stands in judgement and sets Israel aside positionally as God's special, chosen people. People who believe in God no longer become members of the church that is Israel. We see that God has started a new program with the Apostle Paul where the Jew is no longer top dog. Before this point, a Gentile needed to proselyte to Judaism and practice the circumcision gospel (baptism, circumcision, law works) by faith to be in right standing with God. Now, in the body of Christ, there is no Jew nor Greek, no slave nor free, no male nor female, but are equal in the body of Christ. This is a significant difference. Do you disagree that God was dealing exclusively with Israel, and then set them aside? I do not view Romans 11 with some type of magical dispensational goggles, but rather, attempt to rightly divide the Word of Truth.

As far as the Olive Tree is concerned, I disagree with your exegesis. The Olive Tree is an analogy of believers in general. Israel is the root of that tree, which stands to reason due to my previous post. Now that God has started a new, never prophecied body of Christ, he grafts those believers into the Tree which represents believers in general. Again, those of the Tree are in a position of salvation, and my point was that the passage did not support loss of salvation. Rather, the passage shows Israel's stumbling, falling and being cast away from the ability to believe into a certain group. Again, God through Paul is warning the new body of Christ that they may suffer the same fate if they reject God.

In Christ, --jER

[Act9_12Out]

So that others can follow, here is my previous post:

I would like to chime in on the "Olive Tree" debate. The first and most fundamental concept to grasp is that yes, Israel has "fallen" has been "cast away" but will be restored. What does it mean that God has "cast them away?" Does this mean God is through dealing with them? No Way! Their blindness is "in part."

When God began to implement His plan of redemption for mankind, he worked toward starting a group of believers that would be sanctified (set apart) from the heathen of the world. This group of believers is known as "believing Israel." God dealt with this people from the beginning and even sent His Son for them.The New King James Version

Matthew 15
15:24 But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."After the nation of Israel rejected His Son and hung Him on a cross, God continued working with these people. He continued to offer their promised, earthly knigdom (Acts 1:11, 2:38, 3:19-21). The "straw that broke the camel's back" if you will, came at the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7. Israel was set aside because of their unbelief" (Rom 11:20). An interesting note: Acts 7:55 is the only time that the Son is shown standing in the NT. Just as Jehovah stood many times in the OT to judge Israel, Christ now stands in judgement over Israel in Acts 7. God sets Israel aside, and "cuts them off" from the ability to believe in the circumcision message and become members of the church that is Israel. God raises up the Apostle Paul shortly after with a new set of house rules for the body of Christ. The blood of Christ saves all who believe, but God, being the Perfect Steward over His creation changes the way He asks man to show faith many times throughout the Bible.

The point of Romans 11 is WARNING! Paul is warning members of the body of Christ. He is telling them that, just as God "cut off" Israel from having the ability to believe and become in a position of salvation in the church that is Israel, body members may also be "cut off" from the ability to believe and enter the body of Christ. In short, God is warning that He is able to "set aside" the body and change His house rules once again.The New King James Version

Romans 11
11:11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.
11:12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!
11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
11:14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.
11:15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
11:16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
11:17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree,
11:18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
11:19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in."
11:20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.
11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.
11:22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.
11:23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
11:24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
11:25 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.You see, loss of salvation is not an issue here. The point of the passage is to show that Israel fell "because of their unbelief" and the body of Christ may also be taken out of God's program to believe into the body of Christ.

In Christ, --jER

[Darth Xena]

Dear Acts 9:

When I posted here I was not aware of your earlier post in another thread which is why no comment was proffered. I was simply acknowledging my agreement with what Joel had said. As I have opportunity I will expound further. Have a great day!

[Act9_12Out]

Dee Dee,

Thank you... Joel and I have agreed to use Scripture to buttress our arguments (The only reason I say that is because many do not use Scripture). I also ask that you keep me in check, and if I make a statement that you disagree with, please call me to the carpet and ask me to prove it with Scripture.

You also have a great day...

--jER

[Hitch]

God was dealing with His special, chosen, sanctified nation. All of the Bible except the Pauline epistles speak directly to the nation of Israel, and God's plan for Israel.


Well what is the term for that wich is based on a lie?

Hitch

[Hitch]

Before this point, a Gentile needed to proselyte to Judaism and practice the circumcision gospel (baptism, circumcision, law works) by faith to be in right standing with God.


That didnt take long another out right fabrication. But the dispensationism is a lie and so are his offspring..

H

[Hitch]

The Olive Tree is an analogy of believers in general. Israel is the root of that tree, which stands to reason due to my previous post. Now that God has started a new, never prophecied body of Christ,


LMAO .

H

[brother vinny]

Hitch:
God was dealing with His special, chosen, sanctified nation. All of the Bible except the Pauline epistles speak directly to the nation of Israel, and God's plan for Israel.


Well what is the term for that wich is based on a lie?

Hitch

Hitch:
Before this point, a Gentile needed to proselyte to Judaism and practice the circumcision gospel (baptism, circumcision, law works) by faith to be in right standing with God.


That didnt take long another out right fabrication. But the dispensationism is a lie and so are his offspring..

H

Hitch:
The Olive Tree is an analogy of believers in general. Israel is the root of that tree, which stands to reason due to my previous post. Now that God has started a new, never prophecied body of Christ,


LMAO .

H

It's one thing to call someone a liar and to laugh at him; it's another thing altogether to produce evidence of such.

Readers will note which of these Hitch has chosen to do.

[Darth Xena]

Dear Acts 9:

Sure no problem.. my involvement will not be as intensive as I hope as I have some other indepth debats in progress, but I will certainly be following along.

And Mano!! Good to see you here.

[Act9_12Out]

Wow Hitch! Thanks for the input... I think I'll get a lobotomy now so I can understand your posts...

:bonk: <---- Me getting my lobotomy!

I sure hope everyone else is convinced....

If you read the previous posts Hitch, we ask that you use Scripture to support your claims. Please offer something more than personal attacks...

In Christ, --jER

[Hitch]

(bIt's one thing to call someone a liar and to laugh at him; it's another thing altogether to produce evidence of such.

Readers will note which of these Hitch has chosen to do.

Who called you a liar ?

What Scripture says the church was never prophesied ? Which one?


Where is it?


When did Jesus ever tell a Gentile to be circumscised?


Are you born-again?


What Scripture says all but Paul's letters are nationallly specific?Where is this passage?


Where does Paul say that only his letters are to the church?
What is the passage where is it?

Hitch

[joelkaki]

Acts9_12out, I will finish responding to the rest of your post. I just didn't have enough time at the moment to do it all. However, I notice that you didn't answer a substantial part of my argument either.


Joel

[Hitch]

Still waiting....




Who called you a liar ?

What Scripture says the church was never prophesied ? Which one?


Where is it?


When did Jesus ever tell a Gentile to be circumscised?


Are you born-again?


What Scripture says all but Paul's letters are nationallly specific?Where is this passage?


Where does Paul say that only his letters are to the church?
What is the passage where is it?

Hitch

[joelkaki]

Again, God through Paul is warning the new body of Christ that they may suffer the same fate if they reject God.

New Body of Christ? That is what we are really debating. If you look closely at Romans 11, you will see that Paul is doing no such thing. He is not warning the body of Christ. He is warning Gentile believers.


Joel

[joelkaki]

OK, I finally got to the rest of your first post. I may not be able to do all right now, but I'll try.

I would like to chime in on the "Olive Tree" debate. The first and most fundamental concept to grasp is that yes, Israel has "fallen" has been "cast away" but will be restored. What does it mean that God has "cast them away?" Does this mean God is through dealing with them? No Way! Their blindness is "in part."

God is through dealing with them as a separate nation. However, I believe God will save Israel as a nation as 11:26 teaches. The important point is that Israel will not be brought into a covenant relationship with God outside of the body of Christ. You can search Romans 11 and anywhere else, but you won't find that. Verse 26 tells us that Israel will be SAVED. Those who are saved, who are the sheep for whom Christ died (John 10:11), are in his church. (Eph 5:23-25). Israel will be brought into the church.


When God began to implement His plan of redemption for mankind, he worked toward starting a group of believers that would be sanctified (set apart) from the heathen of the world. This group of believers is known as "believing Israel." God dealt with this people from the beginning and even sent His Son for them.

Not all Jews in the OT were saved. Only the ones who believed. In the OT, the people of God, in its visible form, was seen as the nation of Israel. However, in its invisible form, which only God sees, only the believing Jews were part of the people of God--true Jews. Now, in the NT, the visible form is not the nation of Israel, but the institution we call the church. However, we know that not all who profess to be in the church are truly believers and the people of God. The invisible church, only seen by God, is made up of those who believe, who are Abraham's seed (Gal 3:29), and true Jews. (Rom 2:28-29). So the outward form of God's people has changed, but the essential make up of the people of God has not changed, nor ever will change. It is made up of those who truly believe in Christ, the Messiah. National Israel was a type, a foreshadowing of true Jews. Christ came to die for those who would believe in Him. (Don't take that statement wrong--I am a Calvinist).


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New King James Version

Matthew 15
15:24 But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After the nation of Israel rejected His Son and hung Him on a cross, God continued working with these people. He continued to offer their promised, earthly knigdom (Acts 1:11, 2:38, 3:19-21).

Whoa! Hold it! Here is where I have objections. Earthly kingdom--Christ clearly said, "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36) CHRIST NEVER OFFERED A GEOPOLITICAL KINGDOM. Acts 1:11 says absolutely nothing about offering a earthly kingdom. Acts 2:38 says nothing about offering an earthly kingdom. Peter was telling them to repent. We still must proclaim to all, Jew and Gentile alike. However, that doesn't mean God continued working with these people in a way he didn't to others, for look at verse 39--"For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." To all who are afar off--Gentiles. Here the promise was not exlusively to Jews--God was not exclusively dealing with them. I'm afraid Acts 3:19-21 mentions nothing about an earthly kingdom either, so that idea is unfounded. Rember, Christ himself clearly said--"My kingdom is not of this world."


The "straw that broke the camel's back" if you will, came at the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7. Israel was set aside because of their unbelief" (Rom 11:20). An interesting note: Acts 7:55 is the only time that the Son is shown standing in the NT. Just as Jehovah stood many times in the OT to judge Israel, Christ now stands in judgement over Israel in Acts 7. God sets Israel aside, and "cuts them off" from the ability to believe in the circumcision message and become members of the church that is Israel. God raises up the Apostle Paul shortly after with a new set of house rules for the body of Christ. The blood of Christ saves all who believe, but God, being the Perfect Steward over His creation changes the way He asks man to show faith many times throughout the Bible.

The straw that broke the camel's back was the national rejection of Christ when he came. Where do you see such a change in what he asks man to believe?


The point of Romans 11 is WARNING! Paul is warning members of the body of Christ.

Again, I think your dispensational presuppositions are getting in the way here. Paul is, in Romans 11, specifically warning Gentiles, not the Body of Christ as a separate organism.


He is telling them that, just as God "cut off" Israel from having the ability to believe and become in a position of salvation in the church that is Israel, body members may also be "cut off" from the ability to believe and enter the body of Christ. In short, God is warning that He is able to "set aside" the body and change His house rules once again.

It seems to me that you are adding a number of things here that are not in the text. Nowhere does the text mention the church that is Israel as opposed to the body of Christ. In fact, it would seem to argue against such an idea, for it tells us that we are of the same olive tree, the same group as the Jews. No, God is warning that Gentiles can be cut off just as Jews were.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New King James Version

Romans 11
11:11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.
11:12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!
11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
11:14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.
11:15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
11:16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
11:17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree,
11:18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
11:19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in."
11:20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.
11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.
11:22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.
11:23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
11:24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
11:25 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You see, loss of salvation is not an issue here. The point of the passage is to show that Israel fell "because of their unbelief" and the body of Christ may also be taken out of God's program to believe into the body of Christ.

I agree loos of salvation is not an issue. However, I know I have stated this before, but the point is not at all that the Body of Christ may also be taken out of God's program. You won't find anything of that nature anywhere in the text. What you will see is that Gentiles who do not believe can just as easily be cut off.


I guess I did get to all of it. I would like to see refutation of what I have said--tons of times people just ignore my arguments.


Joel

[Reba]

Joel,


Take heart sometimes "tons of times people just ignore my

arguments. Just means you WON ;)

[Hitch]

Second

[joelkaki]

Thanks reba, Hitch.


Joel

[Ted]

The major problem in this discussion, as with many others, is that the terminology in many places is undefined. For example:

1. Who, by the way, is Israel? There are at least 7 biblical definitions. The following list is taken from chapter 2 of my book, I Want to be Left Behind. Why is it necessary in each place that Israel in prophecy is the sum of the Hebrews? Or that it be the SECULAR nation occupying the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean?

I am unaware of ANY scholar of Dispensational bent who has attempted to answer this question. This includes Dwight Pentecost, John Walvoord, Tim LaHaye (I am using the term scholar loosely here), or any other. Good biblical scholarship REQUIRES that we use context to define terms with multiple uses.

a. Jacob, who was renamed Israel by God.
b. Jacob’s descendants.
c. The congregation in Egypt and the wilderness, including the “mixed multitude” not descended from Jacob.
d. The united monarchy.
e. The northern kingdom during the divided monarchy.
f. The name of the nation of Jews after the return from Babylonian exile.
g. The Church (accepted by most Christians, but disputed by Futurists).

In my book I show that the term Israel has the root meaning of “believers,” and all further uses of the term, PARTICULARLY IN PROPHECY have this root meaning in view. http://www.bibleonly.org/press/

2. When we say that Israel was chosen by God, we must identify the purpose for which Israel was chosen. Scripture actually makes this one quite clear. Israel was to be a missionary light to the heathen nations. (Gen 12:3, Isa 49:6) It was placed at the crossroads of the world (all land trade routes went through Palestine) (Isa 19:24). It was given the prophetic ministry and miraculous powers for this purpose. But Israel was NEVER chosen to be God’s people because God had a special reward for them, regardless of their behavior.
Dispensationalism places Israel as the chosen people of God above other peoples based on God’s perceived choice to reward them. This is flatly unbiblical.
Daniel 9 places a set of probationary conditions on Israel. Gabriel tells Daniel that the Jews have 490 years to accomplish six conditions. This is a statement with an implied “or else.” They failed, and in Acts 7, Stephen, as God’s prosecuting attorney, brings a covenant lawsuit. The Jews LOST their mission and the special tools to carry it out. It was continued in that small body of believers now commonly called the church. It is of particular interest that in his speech, Stephen calls the Israelites that left Egypt a “church” (Acts 7:38) using “ekklesia,” the same word for “church” in the rest of the NT. Put bluntly, the church existed in the days of Moses, in those who were “called out of Egypt” (the root meaning of ekklesia, cf. Hos 11:1). It is not, as Dispensationalists aver, an unforeseen development in the OT, an intercalation in God’s plan for the Jews. To say that, one must say that God does not know the future. That is an admission that you cannot be sure of your own salvation, since God cannot be sure that he can save you.

3. We must know what “the kingdom” means. When Christ said “the kingdom is among you” (Matt 12:28; 21:43, Luke 10:9-11; 11:18, etc) he is saying that the power of the kingdom is among you. So when he says that the kingdom is taken from the Jews (Matt 21:43; 23:37-38), he is saying that the power of the kingdom (prophecy and miracles) has been taken from them. They failed in their task, so the tools to do that task are being given to those who will do it! This is specifically identified in Luke 12:32, where Jesus tells the disciples that God has seen fit to give the kingdom to them. This is a COMPLETED ACT.
Nowhere in scripture do we find any statement that the kingdom removed from the Jews will ever be returned to them. And this brings us to Romans 11.

4. Romans 11:26 26 and thus all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob."

We have a problem to address. Paul, in Romans 11:14 says that he would love to save “some” of the Jews. This implies that “some” will be lost. This means that Romans 11:26 CANNOT mean Jews. (Much more could be said, and I deal with it in detail in my book. http://www.bibleonly.org/press/) Which raised a question.

Many Dispensationalist authors, including writers on this thread, state that the Jews WILL BE GRAFTED into the olive tree. Where does Paul say this? It’s not in my Bible!

Ted Noel
----------------------
I Want to be Left Behind
http://www.bibleonly.org/press/

[Hitch]

Thats Ted, always sugar coating everything...

[joelkaki]

Ted, I agreed with some of your post, but not all of it. I am certainly not dispensational, but I do believe Israel, as a mass nation, will be grafted back into the olive tree. Being saved implies grafting into the olive tree of God's redemptive blessing.


Joel

[Act9_12Out]

I believe the olive tree teaches that we Gentiles have been brought into a previously existing reality of which the Jews were already a part. I agree that the “trunk” of the olive tree is not Israel but an eligibility for salvation in Christ which used to be the exclusive province of Israel. It has now been opened up to the Gentiles. Acts 11:18 “When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, ‘Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.’”Therefore, I agree that this text does not teach that we have been “grafted in” to Israel. But it does teach that we have been grafted in to a reality that righteous Israel was already a part of. We know Israel was the only nation blessed with the oracles of God. The message of God’s grace was written in the sky, His handiwork, and the hearts of all humans, but Israel was His people. If people knew of Israel and her relationship with God, they could proselyte to Jehovah’s true religion.

They were favored because God had to choose someone to bring His redemption to mankind. Mankind had turned totally away from God, and God had to make special provision. As you know, He chose Abram/Abraham and, later, Israel had the law, the covenants, the adoption, the glory, and the promises.

By the time we get to the New Testament, it shows us that He cut Israel off. He cut off all of Israel from the special opportunity they had with God. But in the metaphor of the olive tree, God only cut out those in v. 20 who “Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.” They were no longer the favored nation. Now, they had to believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior just like the Gentiles now could.

But now, in verses 21&22, He warns the Gentiles who have been grafted into the opportunity to believe directly rather than proselyte to Judaism. 21 “For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.
22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.” Israel fell out of her special privileged relationship with God. But only those who did not believe were in this category.

We must be careful to read the 11th chapter in its context of Rom 9-11. In Rom 9:30, we see that the Israel who was cut off was the unbelievers trying to establish their own righteousness rather than submitting to God’s righteousness, Rom 9:30-10:4
9:30 “What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith;
31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.
33 As it is written: ‘Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, and whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.’
10:1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.
2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”The ones cut off were never saved. They fell from the special opportunity that Israel had. Any Jew could believe after the body of Christ started, but now their opportunity was not special like it was. I believe God is going to make the opportunity special again after the rapture. In the tribulation, Israel will be purged. When God is through with the Gentiles in this dispensation, all the believers will be raptured, all the unbelieving Gentiles will be cut off, and everyone will be under the circumcision gospel rules of the tribulation.

Another important point we should look at is the understanding that eternal security or lack of it, is not the question in Rom 11:11-31: 11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.
12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!
13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.
15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree,
18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.”
20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.
21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.
22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.
23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
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, 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.”
28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.
29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience,
31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy.I believe the whole purpose of this section is summarized for us in Rom 11:32 “For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.”

In Christ, --jER

[joelkaki]

Any Jew could believe after the body of Christ started, but now their opportunity was not special like it was.


I still have not seen any evidence that the body of Christ did not exist before the NT. I haven't seen any evidence from Scripture indicating some point in the NT when the body of Christ began.






Joel

[joelkaki]

everyone will be under the circumcision gospel rules of the tribulation.

What is this circumcision gospel? What is its message?


Joel

[Ted]

Joel,

You say that you believe that the Jews will be grafted in en masse to the olive tree. It's one thing to believe it. It's another to show it from scripture. My challenge was for you is to show it from scripture.

Act9_12Out

In your generally well-reasoned post you say, "In Rom 9:30, we see that the Israel who was cut off was the unbelievers trying to establish their own righteousness rather than submitting to God’s righteousness." You then quote scripture, but do not exegete it.

I challenge you to show a consistent definition of "Israel" within Paul's discussion that will allow your assertion as well a consistent understanding of 11:26. It's not easy! If you read my book, you will discover that I find that Paul is wrestling with inadequate language. In particular, our concept of "ethnic" doesn't work in the Greek, since "ethnos" means nations, and is generally applied in Hebrew thought to the Gentile nations. It would be very out of place for him to use that term.

Finally, you suggest that eternal security is not at issue in the pruning and grafting. You quote a long passage, but offer us no exegetical commentary to support your assertion. Please go through this in detail to support your position. In particular you need to deal with "all Israel will be saved" in 11:26.

The word for saved in the NT refers either to healing or salvation in the sense of eternal security. Since Paul is not speaking of physical healing in Romans, the natural conclusion is that he is speaking of eternal security. Please show how he is not.

Ted

[joelkaki]

Ted, I believe that Scripture supports the fact that there is no salvation apart from being in the body of Christ. Christ is the savior of the body. (Eph. 5:23-25). No one can be saved apart from being in Him, and thus He is the Savior of anyone who is saved, no matter what time period. Those saved then, are his body. He died for the sheep. (John 10:11). The sheep is his body, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles from the New and Old Testaments. (John 12:15-16). So, I say all this to cement my argument about Romans 11:26. I believe the Olive Tree to represent the ONE people of God, manifested in the OT as Israel, and in the NT as the church. So, since their is no possibility of salvation outside of Christ's body (make no mistake, I mean here the invisible church--only God knows who all the members are. I am not saying someone has to be inside of a particular church/denomination to be saved), then when it says "all Israel will be saved," I believe that Israel will be regrafted en masse into the people of God. This is supported by the context of Romans 11, for it talks about Israel's acceptance as being life from the dead, which would bring blessing to the Gentiles; thus they would be regrafted into the same group we are in.

I hope this explains my position from Scripture. If you have more questions or comments (or challenges) on what I have said, please speak up.

Joel

[joelkaki]

I believe the olive tree teaches that we Gentiles have been brought into a previously existing reality of which the Jews were already a part. I agree that the “trunk” of the olive tree is not Israel but an eligibility for salvation in Christ which used to be the exclusive province of Israel. It has now been opened up to the Gentiles.


So what exactly is the olive tree?

I believe the olive tree to be God's people in its visible form. The OT has a number of references referring to Israel as the olive tree.(I can find them for you if you so desire) Israel was considered the people of God. However, not all the Jews were saved. Israel (the nation) was the outward form of God's people, not every outward member of which was saved. This imagery of the olive tree was familiar to Jews at least, because they saw themselves as God's people, and the olive tree represented them, they thought. So the olive tree represents God's people. Now, according to dispensationalism, there are two peoples of God (or is it three or four--it gets so confusing sometimes)--Israel and the Body of Christ. So Israel was the olive tree in the OT, being God's people. But if we were dispensational, we would have to expect that in Romans 11, there would be a new olive tree of God's people started. But that is distinctly not what happened. There is still that same olive tree of God's people. In the OT, the outward form was Israel, but in the NT, the outward form of God's ONE people is the church, which includes both Jews and Gentiles. So when we get to Romans 11, Paul does not tell us that another olive tree of God's people started called the Body of Christ. Rather, he distinctly tells us that the Gentiles are grafted into the same olive tree. We are grafted into the same body of people. There is only one people of God. The outward appearance has changed, yes, in the unfolding of God's redemptive plan, but there is only one people of God.


Joel

[Ted]

Joel,

You do SO well, then say you think that all "Israel" will be grafted back in. But you don't define Israel. You have to give us a solid definition. Otherwise, we can't intelligently comment. You may be speaking of one thing, while I'm speaking of another.

You make a marvelous point that the body of Christ begins with Adam and Eve, but don't offer scripture to support it. I agree with you. But for the others, please offer scripture. I'll give you one. In Acts 7:38 Stephen calls the Israelites in the wilderness the "church."

Now back to the olive tree. Paul makes a great point that the composition of the olive tree is exclusively defined by belief. This stands in stark contrast to any idea that a national or ethnic body might be grafted in. Such a group would NOT be defined by belief, but by ethnicity. This is the opposite of the point Paul has just been making. Therefore it cannot be true.

Your task is to prove my last paragraph false. I don't think you can do it. But first you must offer a definition of Israel so that we know what you are talking about.

Ted

[joelkaki]

Joel,

You do SO well, then say you think that all "Israel" will be grafted back in. But you don't define Israel. You have to give us a solid definition. Otherwise, we can't intelligently comment. You may be speaking of one thing, while I'm speaking of another.

The mass body of those who are ethnically Jewish.


You make a marvelous point that the body of Christ begins with Adam and Eve, but don't offer scripture to support it. I agree with you. But for the others, please offer scripture. I'll give you one. In Acts 7:38 Stephen calls the Israelites in the wilderness the "church."

I believe the body of Christ is made up of those who have believed in Christ, and with Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:15 is the first promise of the Seed, and we would think that they believed it, thus they would be in the Body of Christ. He is the Savior of the Body, and he is their Savior.


Now back to the olive tree. Paul makes a great point that the composition of the olive tree is exclusively defined by belief. This stands in stark contrast to any idea that a national or ethnic body might be grafted in. Such a group would NOT be defined by belief, but by ethnicity. This is the opposite of the point Paul has just been making. Therefore it cannot be true.

Your task is to prove my last paragraph false. I don't think you can do it. But first you must offer a definition of Israel so that we know what you are talking about.

Ted

I disagree. What do you think he meant by "natural branches."? Like I said, I don't believe this is talking about the invisible church, for then people could lose their salvation. I believe it speaks of the visible church. In the OT, the visible church was seen in the form of national, ethnic Israel. Jews were therefore "natural branches" of the olive tree. However, the visible body is representative of the invisible body, and thus the unbelieving Jews were cast off. So, belief, yes, decides who will ultimately be in God's people. I believe that Israel (national, ethnic, en masse) will be regrafted because of God's love for the patriarchs. DO NOT THINK I MEAN THIS IS APART FROM FAITH! I am not saying God will just regraft them apart from belief in Christ. That is not it. God will give faith to Israel en masse, and they will turn to him en masse, and he will graft them in en masse.

Joel

[charis humin]

Ted:

Now back to the olive tree. Paul makes a great point that the composition of the olive tree is exclusively defined by belief. This stands in stark contrast to any idea that a national or ethnic body might be grafted in. Such a group would NOT be defined by belief, but by ethnicity. This is the opposite of the point Paul has just been making. Therefore it cannot be true.

I think you've missed the rhetorical thrust of Paul's argument in Romans. He himself wrestles with the fate of ethnic Israel. Remember in Rom 9:3 Paul says he could wish he would be accursed and cut off from Christ "for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh "

And the group being grafted inis not theethnic body Israel, but the gentiles, those who are now being counted as righteous because of God's grace. Paul reckons as by the "depth of the riches and the knowledge fo God" that all Israel will be saved (11:26). From the context Israel has to be the ethnic descendants of the patriarchs.

[joelkaki]

And the group being grafted inis not theethnic body Israel, but the gentiles, those who are now being counted as righteous because of God's grace. Paul reckons as by the "depth of the riches and the knowledge fo God" that all Israel will be saved (11:26). From the context Israel has to be the ethnic descendants of the patriarchs.


The Gentiles are grafted in, but Jews who believe are regrafted in also.



Joel

[charis humin]

yes, from 11:23 I would say that is correct. I merely wanted to point out the tension that runs throughout that whole section of Romans about the fate of the Jews in light of God's covenant with the patriarchs--that Paul struggled with the revelation that, on account of the Christ event, only those who have faith in Christ are accorded righteous by God.

[Ted]

Joel,

You suggest that “Israel” equals “ethnic Jews.” This brings us to Romans 9:3-6. Paul makes this distinction clear when speaking of his “kinsmen according to the flesh.” By using such language, he makes it clear that he has kinsmen who are “not according to the flesh.” BTW, he uses this construction since he can’t use “ethnic.” “Ethnos” means “nations,” and in the NT that refers to the Gentile nations.

He continues with “kinsmen according to the flesh” through verse 5. But verse 6 poses a severe problem for your thesis. Recall that a Jew is a Jew because his mother is a Jew. But in verse 6 Paul says that “not all are Israel who are descended from Israel.” If the ethnic definition of Israel is in play, Paul has just made a nonsensical statement. But if “Israel” means “the body of believers,” his statement makes perfect sense. In fact, there is no other definition that allows his statement to be true.

Now let us return to Romans 11. Verse 26 says that, “as a result of the pruning out for unbelief and the grafting in for belief (that’s what “therefore” means), ‘all Israel will be saved.’” This is the ONLY text that can be stretched to suggest (improperly) that “every Jew will be saved.” But we know that Judas was a Jew, and our Lord himself said that Judas was lost. Therefore, either Jesus or Paul is wrong if “Israel” means ethnic Jews. Further, Jesus condemned the Pharisees (more Jews) and declared that because of their lost state, the kingdom was removed from them and their house was left desolate (Matt 22-23).

On the other hand, if “Israel” in Rom 11:26 means “believers,” then Paul’s statement is in perfect harmony with Jesus, and applies for all periods of history. But another problem awaits.

You said, “ethnic Jews.” The word “Jew” is used 268 times in scripture. It first comes into use after the return from Babylonian exile. And it refers only to the tribes of Judah (Jesus was from Judah), Benjamin (Paul was from Benjamin), and some of Levi (the priests). The northern ten tribes had been almost completely dispersed in the seventh century BC by Assyria. The few remnants intermarried with foreigners, and became the hated Samaritans. So by biblical usage, “Jew” clearly EXCLUDES the ten tribes. If we allow the Bible to be its own interpreter, this is the only definition available for “ethnic Jew.” But Paul says “Israel.”

How shall we define “Israel?” Or shall we say, how shall we define “ethnic Jew?” Most Dispensationalists are far more expansive in their definition. Shall we make it include every member of every tribe throughout history? Or shall we be even more complete and use a variant quoted by Paul, “seed of Abraham?” It’s time to be more specific than you have been. Make the call…

Ted

[Ishmael]

:o

[joelkaki]

Ted, I agree that "not all of Israel are Israel." The church is the true (Spiritual) Israel. Unbelieving Jews are not true Jews. However, you must admit that the Bible does use Israel not only to refer to the church (The Israel of God), but also to ethnic Israel. I don't think that is really a point in dispute.

Let me clarify something:
When the Bible says all about something, it does not necessarily mean every single individual (even in a certain group) that ever lived. I do not believe "all Israel" to be referring to every Jew who is ever to have lived, for then the Bible would contradict itself. Nor do I believe it to refer every single Jew alive at the time. I believe it to refer to the Jews as a mass people. They rejected Christ as a mass in the first century (and still do) with a few exceptions, and I believe "all Israel" refers to the same. The mass body of people, with a few exceptions.
The difficulty with saying that all Israel is the church is this:
Notice the context: "For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that hardening in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved..."
I think it is fairly clear that "Israel" in verse 25 refers to ethnic Israel, not the church. Hardening has happened to Israel that the Gentiles might believe. But this hardening is only for a time. When the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, then all Israel will be saved. I see no reason to change the meaning of Israel from verse 25 to verse 26.
"Ethnic Jew"--I am not going to be dogmatic about this, but I believe it would be those descended from Jacob.

Joel

[Ted]

Joel,

The problem with defining "Ethnic Jew" as "those descended from Jacob" is that the Bible uses the term only for the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi that came back from Babylon. Any other definition is imposing on scripture an outside definition. In this case, that is very problematic, since the term "Jew" is so well attested in scripture. A term that has little use in scripture might depend on outside information for definition, but not "Jew."

As for saying that "all Israel" doesn't mean "all," you are making a fairly common assertion. But that would mean that Paul is making a nonsense statement. For this to be valid, you MUST supply scriptural examples.

Next, let us consider your assertion that "Israel" in 11:26 means "Jews" since it is contrasted to "Gentiles." This might be an "obvious" conclusion, but one must be careful. Paul refers to the ethnic Jews as those "according to the flesh." He has made a very clear distinction between ethnic and true Jews. This is a distinction you have missed.

Paul also uses the term "Israelite" (11:1) for ethnic Jew. But in verses 4-5 he points out there is NOW a "remnant" according to God's grace. A remnant is a small minority. It cannot be stretched to mean "all."

I believe that the central problem here is that you believe that an unbelieving Jew who was broken off for unbelief (vv17ff) remains part of Israel. This is untrue. If an Israelite refused to participate properly in the Day of Atonement (Lev 23:29), he was "cut off from the camp." This is the same action described in being broken off for unbelief.

One who has been "cut off" is no longer part of Israel. At the same time, one who does act on belief (cf. Exod 12:48) becomes part of Israel. The language is expressive. He shall become as one "born of the land." This literally means "born again," and is the source of Nicodemus' confusion in John 3. He was already a Jew, and the term was understood to mean that he had to become a Jew. Jesus meant that he was not a true Jew, and had to become a true member of Israel by conversion.

As for "partial hardness," we should note that Paul has not directly expanded the term. But it implies that some in Israel will become hardened. Those are the ones who are "broken off". This is the claim of the arrogant convert of the place for the grafting in (v. 19). But none have to be broken off to allow grafting. Note that Paul does not say that the hardening allowed the grafting, but rather that it would continue until the last Gentile who would become part of Israel did so. At that point Israel would be complete, and all Israel would be saved. All means all.

Paul is NOT using Israel to mean Jews here. Rather, he is speaking of the apostasy (cf. 2 Thess 2) that is ongoing. The only consistent definition of Israel within Paul's discourse is "the people of God." Any other definition creates contradictions. We must seek a consistent understanding.

For "Jews" to apply, one must show how "all" does not mean "all." Further, one must show a consistent definition of "Israel" that does not create contradictions. Go for it!

Ted

[joelkaki]

Joel,

The problem with defining "Ethnic Jew" as "those descended from Jacob" is that the Bible uses the term only for the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi that came back from Babylon. Any other definition is imposing on scripture an outside definition. In this case, that is very problematic, since the term "Jew" is so well attested in scripture. A term that has little use in scripture might depend on outside information for definition, but not "Jew."

I'm not sure I see your point in going into all this. Jews are those descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That is what Israel refers to when I say it unless I refer to spiritual Israel--the church.


As for saying that "all Israel" doesn't mean "all," you are making a fairly common assertion. But that would mean that Paul is making a nonsense statement. For this to be valid, you MUST supply scriptural examples.

That is not a nonsense statement. "All" in Scripture is very commonly used to refer to the large part, or mass part, of a group. Whether it does or not, though, is not really something that I feel the doctrines we are speaking of hinge on.


Next, let us consider your assertion that "Israel" in 11:26 means "Jews" since it is contrasted to "Gentiles." This might be an "obvious" conclusion, but one must be careful. Paul refers to the ethnic Jews as those "according to the flesh." He has made a very clear distinction between ethnic and true Jews. This is a distinction you have missed.

I have not missed the distinction between ethnic Jews and true Jews. I hold to it very tightly. But if we are to say that 11:25 refers to ethnic Jews, so must 11:26. There is no reason to think the meaning changed between the verses.


Paul also uses the term "Israelite" (11:1) for ethnic Jew. But in verses 4-5 he points out there is NOW a "remnant" according to God's grace. A remnant is a small minority. It cannot be stretched to mean "all."

I think you are confused as to what I am saying. I am not saying that now "all Israel" is saved. You're kind of missing the whole point here. There is a remnant now, yes. We could say now that all Israel has rejected Christ, for we are referring to the nation en masse, and not saying that every individual has indeed rejected him. However, one day, God will bring "all Israel," the mass nation, to believe in Him.


I believe that the central problem here is that you believe that an unbelieving Jew who was broken off for unbelief (vv17ff) remains part of Israel. This is untrue. If an Israelite refused to participate properly in the Day of Atonement (Lev 23:29), he was "cut off from the camp." This is the same action described in being broken off for unbelief.

An unbelieving Jew who was broken off because of unbelief remains a physical Jew. I don't see how you can disagree with that. Physical lineage does not change. Those who do not believe are not true Jews, no, nor ever were.


One who has been "cut off" is no longer part of Israel. At the same time, one who does act on belief (cf. Exod 12:48) becomes part of Israel. The language is expressive. He shall become as one "born of the land." This literally means "born again," and is the source of Nicodemus' confusion in John 3. He was already a Jew, and the term was understood to mean that he had to become a Jew. Jesus meant that he was not a true Jew, and had to become a true member of Israel by conversion.

Not a part of the true Israel, yes, but the physical lineage stays the same. National Israel is no longer the visible form of God's people, so they are not cut off from that because of unbelief.


As for "partial hardness," we should note that Paul has not directly expanded the term. But it implies that some in Israel will become hardened. Those are the ones who are "broken off". This is the claim of the arrogant convert of the place for the grafting in (v. 19). But none have to be broken off to allow grafting. Note that Paul does not say that the hardening allowed the grafting, but rather that it would continue until the last Gentile who would become part of Israel did so. At that point Israel would be complete, and all Israel would be saved. All means all.

You disregard the fact, though, that Israel in verse 25 does not mean spiritual Israel. It is talking about physical Jews, and must also mean so in verse 26.


Paul is NOT using Israel to mean Jews here. Rather, he is speaking of the apostasy (cf. 2 Thess 2) that is ongoing. The only consistent definition of Israel within Paul's discourse is "the people of God." Any other definition creates contradictions. We must seek a consistent understanding.

OK, so Israelite in verse one means physical Jew, but to be consistent here, Israel has to mean spiritual? You are being totally inconsistent there. Paul does not always use Israel in such a way.


For "Jews" to apply, one must show how "all" does not mean "all." Further, one must show a consistent definition of "Israel" that does not create contradictions. Go for it!

Ted

I don't know where you stand on Calvinism, but some passages say that Christ died "for all", and yet do not refer to every single individual. All can speak of the corporate body, rather than every individual. Your definition of Israel is not consistent.

Joel

[Ted]

[Ted] The problem with defining "Ethnic Jew" as "those descended from Jacob" is that the Bible uses the term only for the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi that came back from Babylon. Any other definition is imposing on scripture an outside definition. In this case, that is very problematic, since the term "Jew" is so well attested in scripture. A term that has little use in scripture might depend on outside information for definition, but not "Jew."

[Joel] I'm not sure I see your point in going into all this. Jews are those descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That is what Israel refers to when I say it unless I refer to spiritual Israel--the church.

[Ted replies] **Joel, the problem here is that you have chosen to take a definition that is clearly outside of scripture. If you do that, then all scriptural exegesis must stop. Note this footnote from my book.

“ This discussion invites a glance at the logical absurdity of the Futurist position. Two issues come to mind. First, how much “Jewish” heritage is required for a person to be a “Jew”? Jacob’s descendants lived in Egypt for 430 years, during which intermarriage with Egyptians was a virtual certainty, spreading “Jewish” genes throughout the Egyptian populace. Similarly, the ten Northern tribes were thoroughly dispersed, spreading their gene pool throughout what became the peoples of Europe and Central Asia. Are all Egyptians and Northern peoples “Jews” because they have an element of “Jewish” ancestry? Second, “seed of Abraham” (Ps 105:6; cf. Gal 3:29) is a common expression describing a person’s status as a Jew. Ishmael was Abraham’s son and father of the Arab peoples. By this definition the Arabs are “Jews.” If this definition is rigorously applied, then the Futurist Armageddon scenarios that have the Arab/Israeli conflict at their center are actually “Jew” against “Jew.” The allegedly evil Arab hordes are actually righteous Jews! It’s enough to make even a rabbi’s head spin!”


[Joel] That is not a nonsense statement. "All" in Scripture is very commonly used to refer to the large part, or mass part, of a group. Whether it does or not, though, is not really something that I feel the doctrines we are speaking of hinge on.


[Ted replies] **Once again you step outside of scripture. You make an assertion, but haven’t shown a single example from scripture to back yourself up. You MUST use scripture, or we aren’t discussing biblical theology.



[Joel] However, one day, God will bring "all Israel," the mass nation, to believe in Him.

[Ted replies] **And this is the crux interpretum. You make an assertion, but have not yet proffered texts to support it. Further, this stands in stark opposition to the principle in scripture that God never forces anyone to accept Him. A mass conversion requires force.


[Joel] An unbelieving Jew who was broken off because of unbelief remains a physical Jew. I don't see how you can disagree with that. Physical lineage does not change. Those who do not believe are not true Jews, no, nor ever were.

[Ted replies] **We can agree on this. But if the definition of “Israel” is “true Jew,” (note that Paul does not use the word “Jew” in this part of his discussion, and that should be a hint to Dispy’s) then ALL Israel will be saved. We won’t have to parse the word “all” to determine if “is” means “is.”


[Ted] One who has been "cut off" is no longer part of Israel. At the same time, one who does act on belief (cf. Exod 12:48) becomes part of Israel. The language is expressive. He shall become as one "born of the land." This literally means "born again," and is the source of Nicodemus' confusion in John 3. He was already a Jew, and the term was understood to mean that he had to become a Jew. Jesus meant that he was not a true Jew, and had to become a true member of Israel by conversion.

[Joel] Not a part of the true Israel, yes, but the physical lineage stays the same. National Israel is no longer the visible form of God's people, so they are not cut off from that because of unbelief.

[Ted replies] **If you can agree with me here, why can’t you see the point? True Israel is the point of Paul’s discussion, not ethnic Israel. He says that because unbelievers are broken out of true Israel and believers are grafted into true Israel, all of true Israel will be saved!



[Ted] As for "partial hardness," we should note that Paul has not directly expanded the term. But it implies that some in Israel will become hardened. Those are the ones who are "broken off". This is the claim of the arrogant convert of the place for the grafting in (v. 19). But none have to be broken off to allow grafting. Note that Paul does not say that the hardening allowed the grafting, but rather that it would continue until the last Gentile who would become part of Israel did so. At that point Israel would be complete, and all Israel would be saved. All means all.

[Joel] You disregard the fact, though, that Israel in verse 25 does not mean spiritual Israel. It is talking about physical Jews, and must also mean so in verse 26.


[Ted replies] **Your assertion that Paul is speaking of physical Jews doesn’t stand up to close inspection. Your position places Paul in the position of lying, since you have not offered any proof that “all” does not mean “all.” We should consider what Paul has said. Verse 25 says, “you should not be proud, saying that others were hardened so I, a Gentile (former unbeliever) could be grafted in.” As a practical fact, Paul is saying that such a claim would be a lie! He is arguing instead for humbleness for the new convert. Also, there is no reason to suggest that he is using “Israel” in a physical sense here. It’s not necessary, since the natural conclusion (see 9:6 again) is that the word means believers, not Jews. And we must revisit the definition of Jew. You are using an unbiblical definition. We must remain within scripture.


[Joel] I don't know where you stand on Calvinism, but some passages say that Christ died "for all", and yet do not refer to every single individual. All can speak of the corporate body, rather than every individual. Your definition of Israel is not consistent.


[Ted replies] **Isn’t this fun! My definition is very consistent. Christ died as the propitiation for everyone that ever lived. 2 Cor 5:14-15 makes it clear that Christ’s purpose was that everyone could be saved, just as Peter says in 2 Pet 3:8-9. The fact that the wicked do not choose to accept the gift doesn’t change the size of the payment. It was enough to save ever person that ever lived. This means that “all” in this passage does not mean the corporate body. It means every individual.

Ted

[joelkaki]

Ted, I'll get back on your post. I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but I am definitely not a futurist. I am postmillennial, orthodox preterist, Calvinist.

Joel

[joelkaki]

[Ted replies] **Joel, the problem here is that you have chosen to take a definition that is clearly outside of scripture. If you do that, then all scriptural exegesis must stop. Note this footnote from my book.

I fail to see how my definition is outside of Scripture. Israel=those descended from Jacob.


“ This discussion invites a glance at the logical absurdity of the Futurist position. Two issues come to mind. First, how much “Jewish” heritage is required for a person to be a “Jew”?

How much Jewish heritage? I don't know and I don't worry about it. That is God's decision, not mine, and I will leave that to him.


Jacob’s descendants lived in Egypt for 430 years, during which intermarriage with Egyptians was a virtual certainty, spreading “Jewish” genes throughout the Egyptian populace. Similarly, the ten Northern tribes were thoroughly dispersed, spreading their gene pool throughout what became the peoples of Europe and Central Asia. Are all Egyptians and Northern peoples “Jews” because they have an element of “Jewish” ancestry? Second, “seed of Abraham” (Ps 105:6; cf. Gal 3:29) is a common expression describing a person’s status as a Jew. Ishmael was Abraham’s son and father of the Arab peoples. By this definition the Arabs are “Jews.” If this definition is rigorously applied, then the Futurist Armageddon scenarios that have the Arab/Israeli conflict at their center are actually “Jew” against “Jew.” The allegedly evil Arab hordes are actually righteous Jews! It’s enough to make even a rabbi’s head spin!”

Again, I will leave that to God.



[Joel] That is not a nonsense statement. "All" in Scripture is very commonly used to refer to the large part, or mass part, of a group. Whether it does or not, though, is not really something that I feel the doctrines we are speaking of hinge on.


[Ted replies] **Once again you step outside of scripture. You make an assertion, but haven’t shown a single example from scripture to back yourself up. You MUST use scripture, or we aren’t discussing biblical theology.

Forgive me for not giving specific instances; I figured you would have been familiar with what I am talking about. 1 Timothy 2 says we are to pray for "all men." I think it should be apparent that we are not supposed to pray for every individual, for that is not possible--we don't know them.


[Joel] However, one day, God will bring "all Israel," the mass nation, to believe in Him.

[Ted replies] **And this is the crux interpretum. You make an assertion, but have not yet proffered texts to support it. Further, this stands in stark opposition to the principle in scripture that God never forces anyone to accept Him. A mass conversion requires force.

I believe Romans 11 teaches it. I saw no need to add more and more texts; I believe Romans 11 adequately proves it. I never said God forces anyone to accept him. All men are dead in sin and opposed to God. God regenerates men, giving them new hearts, so that they will accept him of their will. There is no forcing. He changes their nature.


[Joel] An unbelieving Jew who was broken off because of unbelief remains a physical Jew. I don't see how you can disagree with that. Physical lineage does not change. Those who do not believe are not true Jews, no, nor ever were.

[Ted replies] **We can agree on this. But if the definition of “Israel” is “true Jew,” (note that Paul does not use the word “Jew” in this part of his discussion, and that should be a hint to Dispy’s) then ALL Israel will be saved. We won’t have to parse the word “all” to determine if “is” means “is.”

Verse 25 speaks of "Israel" being hardened for a time that salvation would come to the Gentiles; I think it is obvious that those who are true Jews are not hardened, thus, Israel does not necessarily mean true Jew.


[Ted] One who has been "cut off" is no longer part of Israel. At the same time, one who does act on belief (cf. Exod 12:48) becomes part of Israel. The language is expressive. He shall become as one "born of the land." This literally means "born again," and is the source of Nicodemus' confusion in John 3. He was already a Jew, and the term was understood to mean that he had to become a Jew. Jesus meant that he was not a true Jew, and had to become a true member of Israel by conversion.

[Joel] Not a part of the true Israel, yes, but the physical lineage stays the same. National Israel is no longer the visible form of God's people, so they are not cut off from that because of unbelief.

[Ted replies] **If you can agree with me here, why can’t you see the point? True Israel is the point of Paul’s discussion, not ethnic Israel. He says that because unbelievers are broken out of true Israel and believers are grafted into true Israel, all of true Israel will be saved!

Then why do you admit that in verse 1 that Israelite means physical Israel? Israel in verse 2 means physical Israel, as does Israelite in verse 1. Israel in verse 7 clearly refers to physical Israel--"What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were hardened." You would be very hard pressed to prove that Israel in verse 7 refers to spiritual Israel. Israel in verse 25 clearly refers to physical Israel, and so it must also in verse 26.


[Ted] As for "partial hardness," we should note that Paul has not directly expanded the term. But it implies that some in Israel will become hardened. Those are the ones who are "broken off". This is the claim of the arrogant convert of the place for the grafting in (v. 19). But none have to be broken off to allow grafting. Note that Paul does not say that the hardening allowed the grafting, but rather that it would continue until the last Gentile who would become part of Israel did so. At that point Israel would be complete, and all Israel would be saved. All means all.

[Joel] You disregard the fact, though, that Israel in verse 25 does not mean spiritual Israel. It is talking about physical Jews, and must also mean so in verse 26.


[Ted replies] **Your assertion that Paul is speaking of physical Jews doesn’t stand up to close inspection. Your position places Paul in the position of lying, since you have not offered any proof that “all” does not mean “all.” We should consider what Paul has said. Verse 25 says, “you should not be proud, saying that others were hardened so I, a Gentile (former unbeliever) could be grafted in.” As a practical fact, Paul is saying that such a claim would be a lie! He is arguing instead for humbleness for the new convert. Also, there is no reason to suggest that he is using “Israel” in a physical sense here. It’s not necessary, since the natural conclusion (see 9:6 again) is that the word means believers, not Jews. And we must revisit the definition of Jew. You are using an unbiblical definition. We must remain within scripture.

Maybe all does mean every single one; it offers no problem to my interpretation if it does. But it could also just refer to the mass nation; either way, my view agrees with it. Israel in verse 25 clearly refers to natural Israel. Look above at my paragraph as well.

[B]
[Joel] I don't know where you stand on Calvinism, but some passages say that Christ died "for all", and yet do not refer to every single individual. All can speak of the corporate body, rather than every individual. Your definition of Israel is not consistent.


[Ted replies] **Isn’t this fun! My definition is very consistent. Christ died as the propitiation for everyone that ever lived. 2 Cor 5:14-15 makes it clear that Christ’s purpose was that everyone could be saved, just as Peter says in 2 Pet 3:8-9. The fact that the wicked do not choose to accept the gift doesn’t change the size of the payment. It was enough to save ever person that ever lived. This means that “all” in this passage does not mean the corporate body. It means every individual.

Ted[B]

Well, I disagree. I believe Christ died for the elect only, because if He died for every single person, then his death was a failure in part. If Christ took on the sins of every single person and gave them a righteous legal standing before God, then the sin of unbelief is included in that, and everybody's going to heaven. 1 Tim 2 shows that "all" does not necessarily mean every individual without exception. "All" in this passage could according to my view, but it seems more likely to be the mass nation.


Joel

[Ted]

I fail to see how my definition is outside of Scripture. Israel=those descended from Jacob.

That is only one of at least seven biblical definitions. But it is also one that you have not been consistent in using. You also said “Jews,” which is a more restrictive definition. But the point I made is that equating “Jews” and “Israel” is outside of scripture.

Forgive me for not giving specific instances; I figured you would have been familiar with what I am talking about. 1 Timothy 2 says we are to pray for "all men." I think it should be apparent that we are not supposed to pray for every individual, for that is not possible--we don't know them.

This does not negate the definition of “all” in any way. Paul is making the same essential statement (contrary to Calvinism, BTW) that Peter does in 2 Peter 3:9. God is not willing to allow any to be lost, and neither should we. The fact that many will be lost is due to the exercise of their sovereign will. “All” in this passage means “all.”

I believe Romans 11 teaches it. I saw no need to add more and more texts; I believe Romans 11 adequately proves it. I never said God forces anyone to accept him. All men are dead in sin and opposed to God. God regenerates men, giving them new hearts, so that they will accept him of their will. There is no forcing. He changes their nature.

You say that there is no forcing in a mass conversion. Yet the mechanism of conversion is God’s act in changing our will after we consent to the change. If there is a mass conversion, then it is necessarily an act of force. Scripture is quite clear that only a remnant of Israel in the physical sense will be saved. See Isaiah 10:20-22; 11:11, 16; 46:3, etc.

Verse 25 speaks of "Israel" being hardened for a time that salvation would come to the Gentiles; I think it is obvious that those who are true Jews are not hardened, thus, Israel does not necessarily mean true Jew.

But you assume that it must mean physical Jews and Gentiles, when the context fits the other definition better. And in a situation where the definition is in question, it is essential that you look at context for answers. The key context is that due to the pruning and grafting based on belief alone, “all Israel will be saved.” Therefore, only belief is in view for definition of Israel. Ethnicity is not part of the discussion.

I believe Christ died for the elect only, because if He died for every single person, then his death was a failure in part. If Christ took on the sins of every single person and gave them a righteous legal standing before God, then the sin of unbelief is included in that, and everybody's going to heaven.

This is a discussion of Calvinism, which suffers from many scriptural flaws. And it should really be discussed within a thread about Calvinism. However, your statement shows a logical error. Jesus took upon himself the sins of all men. But, in order for the atonement to be efficacious, it must be accepted. It is this combination of sacrifice and acceptance that yields justification.

Paul makes it very clear that justification comes by faith. Without faith there is no justification. The cross gives no one righteous standing. But when we accept it by faith we stand righteous. Calvinism makes the mistake of saying that faith is a work. This error leads to a serious misunderstanding of the mechanics of salvation.

Let’s stay with Romans 11 in this thread.

[joelkaki]

I fail to see how my definition is outside of Scripture. Israel=those descended from Jacob.

That is only one of at least seven biblical definitions. But it is also one that you have not been consistent in using. You also said “Jews,” which is a more restrictive definition. But the point I made is that equating “Jews” and “Israel” is outside of scripture.

Well, forgive me, I equated Jews with that. I don't see how that is outside of Scripture, but again, this really doesn't affect my view one way or the other. I think you would agree that is what "Israelite" refers to in verse 1, so I think it is reasonable to assume Israel means that throughout.


Forgive me for not giving specific instances; I figured you would have been familiar with what I am talking about. 1 Timothy 2 says we are to pray for "all men." I think it should be apparent that we are not supposed to pray for every individual, for that is not possible--we don't know them.

This does not negate the definition of “all” in any way. Paul is making the same essential statement (contrary to Calvinism, BTW) that Peter does in 2 Peter 3:9. God is not willing to allow any to be lost, and neither should we. The fact that many will be lost is due to the exercise of their sovereign will. “All” in this passage means “all.”

So you actually pray for every single man on the planet? Surely you see that that is ridiculous. If "all" means every individual there, then we are required to pray for every individual on the planet. If you notice the context of 2 Pet 3:9, you will notice that "any" does not mean every individual. The context clearly bears out that he is talking about his own elect people.


I believe Romans 11 teaches it. I saw no need to add more and more texts; I believe Romans 11 adequately proves it. I never said God forces anyone to accept him. All men are dead in sin and opposed to God. God regenerates men, giving them new hearts, so that they will accept him of their will. There is no forcing. He changes their nature.

You say that there is no forcing in a mass conversion. Yet the mechanism of conversion is God’s act in changing our will after we consent to the change. If there is a mass conversion, then it is necessarily an act of force. Scripture is quite clear that only a remnant of Israel in the physical sense will be saved. See Isaiah 10:20-22; 11:11, 16; 46:3, etc.

Men are dead in sin. Before men would "consent" to anything God does, he must first change their nature. GOD makes us alive(Eph 2:1,5) and gives us faith (Eph 2:8). But let's not debate Calvinism here. It is not by force if there is a mass conversion. It is not any more force than it is in individual cases.


Verse 25 speaks of "Israel" being hardened for a time that salvation would come to the Gentiles; I think it is obvious that those who are true Jews are not hardened, thus, Israel does not necessarily mean true Jew.

But you assume that it must mean physical Jews and Gentiles, when the context fits the other definition better. And in a situation where the definition is in question, it is essential that you look at context for answers. The key context is that due to the pruning and grafting based on belief alone, “all Israel will be saved.” Therefore, only belief is in view for definition of Israel. Ethnicity is not part of the discussion.

The context does not fit the definition of true Israel. Verse 25 tells us that they were hardened that salvation might come to the Gentiles. That most certainly does not refer to true Israel, but to natural, physical Israel. If ethnicity is not part of the discussion, then why does he mention "Israelite" in verse 1. Notice though, that there were "natural" branches. The OT has references where Israel is referred to as the olive tree. So in the OT, with Israel being the visible form of God's people, those included in physical Israel were natural branches. If they did not believe (which is what happened on a mass scale at and immediately after Christ's coming until now), they were cut off. If ethnicity was not at all part of the discussion, then there are no "natural" branches.



I believe Christ died for the elect only, because if He died for every single person, then his death was a failure in part. If Christ took on the sins of every single person and gave them a righteous legal standing before God, then the sin of unbelief is included in that, and everybody's going to heaven.

This is a discussion of Calvinism, which suffers from many scriptural flaws. And it should really be discussed within a thread about Calvinism. However, your statement shows a logical error. Jesus took upon himself the sins of all men. But, in order for the atonement to be efficacious, it must be accepted. It is this combination of sacrifice and acceptance that yields justification.

I hold to Calvinism. If Jesus took all the sins of all men without exception onto himself, taking the punishment for it, then we are left with two options: 1--All men are saved, because all are without sin before God. 2--God is unjust, because he punished Christ for their sin, and then punishes them a second time for it. If Christ took all the sins of all men without exception, then he took even the sin of unbelief, and all are saved.


Paul makes it very clear that justification comes by faith. Without faith there is no justification. The cross gives no one righteous standing. But when we accept it by faith we stand righteous. Calvinism makes the mistake of saying that faith is a work. This error leads to a serious misunderstanding of the mechanics of salvation.

Let’s stay with Romans 11 in this thread.

Faith is not a work, per se. Christ's work is efficacious, and it is applied to us when the Spirit applies it to us.

Joel

[Ted]

Joel,
I would not have realized that Calvinism impacted eschatology until I saw your post. Thank you for filling in that hole in my knowledge. However, because of that interaction, it is not possible to completely separate the two subjects into separate threads.

I fail to see how my definition is outside of Scripture. Israel=those descended from Jacob.
...
Well, forgive me, I equated Jews with that. I don't see how that is outside of Scripture, but again, this really doesn't affect my view one way or the other. I think you would agree that is what "Israelite" refers to in verse 1, so I think it is reasonable to assume Israel means that throughout.

The problem here is sloppy thinking. I don't mean to insult. Follow me through, and I think you will see the point.
1. Biblically, "Jews" ONLY means those returning from Babylonian exile and their descendants. This is extremely well attested in scripture. Therefore, "Jews" ONLY includes the tribes of Judah (from which the name comes), Benjamin, and Levi. The northern ten tribes were dispersed by the Assyrians in the 8th century BC. The few members of those tribes who were able to avoid the dispersion intermarried with non-Hebrews, and became the Samaritans. That these are not Jews is very clear in the gospels.
2. The "descendants of Jacob" includes all twelve tribes, and is distinctly different from #1.

There is a second problem with definition #2 that we have not discussed. A Jew is a Jew because his mother is a Jew. Both of the genealogies of Christ (Matt 1 & Luke 3) include Rahab and Ruth. Rahab was a Canaanite, and Ruth was a Moabite. If we accept your genetic definition of Israel, then Jesus wasn't a Jew, because the chain of "Jewish" descent was broken in two places.

The definitions are mutually contradictory, and your genetic definition leads to an impossible conclusion. The only logical and biblical conclusions are:
1. "Israel" does not equal "Jews".
2. "Israel" is not defined primarily by genetics.

Forgive me for not giving specific instances; I figured you would have been familiar with what I am talking about. 1 Timothy 2 says we are to pray for "all men." I think it should be apparent that we are not supposed to pray for every individual, for that is not possible--we don't know them.

[Ted] This does not negate the definition of “all” in any way. Paul is making the same essential statement (contrary to Calvinism, BTW) that Peter does in 2 Peter 3:9. God is not willing to allow any to be lost, and neither should we. The fact that many will be lost is due to the exercise of their sovereign will. “All” in this passage means “all.”

So you actually pray for every single man on the planet? Surely you see that that is ridiculous. If "all" means every individual there, then we are required to pray for every individual on the planet. If you notice the context of 2 Pet 3:9, you will notice that "any" does not mean every individual. The context clearly bears out that he is talking about his own elect people.

Here is where Calvinism rears its head. Paul DOES explicitly command us to pray for "all men," (1 Tim 2:1) and he means exactly that. He does not say that I am to pray individually for 6 billion people. Rather, as he points out in verse 2 that we are to pray for "kings and all that are in authority." By making an example of categories, he shows that the prayer can be general rather than individual. But his point is that no one should ever be excluded from our prayers.

The argument about "all" comes when we move to verse 4, where Paul says, as Peter does in 2 Peter 3:9, that God wishes "all men to be saved." The fact that the two passages use different Greek constructions to reach the same conclusion is especially powerful. But Calvinism would have us deny that the intent of the two passages is "all".

If that were the case, then, because the inspired writers use the same construction as 1 Timothy 2:4 to speak of God creating "all things," we can deny that God is the Creator of "all things." Rather, it would be legitimate to say that God created some things, leaving open the possibility that some other agency created a few. This is ludicrous, but a necessary conclusion of the Calvinist approach.

It is improper to treat scripture in such a manner. We must respect the fact that the gospel writers said what they meant. It is quite clear from the Greek that "all" means "all." God's divine intent is that every human would be saved. But he does not force our choices, and most will be lost. And a proper treatment of scripture in Romans 11:26 is that "all" means "all."

Men are dead in sin. Before men would "consent" to anything God does, he must first change their nature. GOD makes us alive (Eph 2:1,5) and gives us faith (Eph 2:8). But let's not debate Calvinism here. It is not by force if there is a mass conversion. It is not any more force than it is in individual cases.

The problem with not debating Calvinism here is that it allows you to say that a mass conversion is not forced. But in Calvinism, all "choices" for salvation are forced! God makes the choice of who will be saved, so the idea of choice is a non-sequitur. Calvinism denies that men can recognize their own depravity to ask for the help of conversion. But if that is true, why is the entire Bible a continuing call for men to repent? Such a call is complete nonsense if God has predetermined the outcome. Further, as a Calvinist, you cannot tell anyone that God loves them, since you do not have divine knowledge of whether that person has been destined for salvation. What a pitiable situation!

[Ted] But you assume that it must mean physical Jews and Gentiles, when the context fits the other definition better. And in a situation where the definition is in question, it is essential that you look at context for answers. The key context is that due to the pruning and grafting based on belief alone, “all Israel will be saved.” Therefore, only belief is in view for definition of Israel. Ethnicity is not part of the discussion.

The context does not fit the definition of true Israel.

We will have to differ here. Paul has clearly established the context. Every branch either pruned or grafted was pruned or grafted on the basis of belief. He then says "therefore," indicating that, as a result of pruning and grafting, "all Israel will be saved." Since belief was the sole basis of pruning and grafting, it is the sole basis of "all Israel" being saved. There is only one definition of Israel possible in this passage, and it is that of the believers.

If ethnicity was not at all part of the discussion, then there are no "natural" branches.

I'll give you a "nice try" for that one. It almost makes sense. But the problem is that the root is Jesus. The natural branches are those, not who were Jews, but who had the gospel message before Christ came. Luke 24 makes it clear that the entire gospel message was present in the OT, and we know that the keepers of the Oracles of God failed to understand what they had. Yes, they were generally Jews, but it wasn't their genetics that made them natural branches. It was the fact that they were keepers of the message. The root definition of Israel has been, from the time Jacob was given the name, believers with a missionary task.

Ted

[joelkaki]

I would not have realized that Calvinism impacted eschatology until I saw your post. Thank you for filling in that hole in my knowledge. However, because of that interaction, it is not possible to completely separate the two subjects into separate threads.

The problem here is sloppy thinking. I don't mean to insult. Follow me through, and I think you will see the point.
1. Biblically, "Jews" ONLY means those returning from Babylonian exile and their descendants. This is extremely well attested in scripture. Therefore, "Jews" ONLY includes the tribes of Judah (from which the name comes), Benjamin, and Levi. The northern ten tribes were dispersed by the Assyrians in the 8th century BC. The few members of those tribes who were able to avoid the dispersion intermarried with non-Hebrews, and became the Samaritans. That these are not Jews is very clear in the gospels.
2. The "descendants of Jacob" includes all twelve tribes, and is distinctly different from #1.

I'm not sure I agree with you on this. It seems to me that Jew is used as "descendants of Jacob."

There is a second problem with definition #2 that we have not discussed. A Jew is a Jew because his mother is a Jew. Both of the genealogies of Christ (Matt 1 & Luke 3) include Rahab and Ruth. Rahab was a Canaanite, and Ruth was a Moabite. If we accept your genetic definition of Israel, then Jesus wasn't a Jew, because the chain of "Jewish" descent was broken in two places.[/B]

A Jew is a Jew because his mother is a Jews? Proof?


The definitions are mutually contradictory, and your genetic definition leads to an impossible conclusion. The only logical and biblical conclusions are:
1. "Israel" does not equal "Jews".
2. "Israel" is not defined primarily by genetics.

Israel can refer to national, physical, ethnic Israel, but can also refer to those who have trusted in Christ. I am not sure that Israel does not equal Jews.


[Ted] This does not negate the definition of “all” in any way. Paul is making the same essential statement (contrary to Calvinism, BTW) that Peter does in 2 Peter 3:9. God is not willing to allow any to be lost, and neither should we. The fact that many will be lost is due to the exercise of their sovereign will. “All” in this passage means “all.”

You have ignored the context of 2 Peter 3:9 entirely. Why don't you go back and read it; it puts a whole new light on the verse.


Here is where Calvinism rears its head. Paul DOES explicitly command us to pray for "all men," (1 Tim 2:1) and he means exactly that. He does not say that I am to pray individually for 6 billion people. Rather, as he points out in verse 2 that we are to pray for "kings and all that are in authority." By making an example of categories, he shows that the prayer can be general rather than individual. But his point is that no one should ever be excluded from our prayers.

The point is, Paul does not mean pray for "all men without exception." He is not saying to pray for 6 billion people. That just is not possible. He is saying to pray for all men without distinction--pray for all types of men. The categories bears that out. He doesn't just want us to pray for each other as brethren; he wants us to pray for all men, for all types of men, kings. "All men" does not mean every single individual.


The argument about "all" comes when we move to verse 4, where Paul says, as Peter does in 2 Peter 3:9, that God wishes "all men to be saved." The fact that the two passages use different Greek constructions to reach the same conclusion is especially powerful. But Calvinism would have us deny that the intent of the two passages is "all".

1 Timothy 2 means all men without distinction, not all men without exception. 2 Peter 3:9--read the context, read the context, read the context, read the context--I didn't understand it for a long time till I read the context.


If that were the case, then, because the inspired writers use the same construction as 1 Timothy 2:4 to speak of God creating "all things," we can deny that God is the Creator of "all things." Rather, it would be legitimate to say that God created some things, leaving open the possibility that some other agency created a few. This is ludicrous, but a necessary conclusion of the Calvinist approach.

Not a necessary conclusion at all. "All" certainly can mean every individual. But it does not always mean so.


It is improper to treat scripture in such a manner. We must respect the fact that the gospel writers said what they meant. It is quite clear from the Greek that "all" means "all." God's divine intent is that every human would be saved. But he does not force our choices, and most will be lost. And a proper treatment of scripture in Romans 11:26 is that "all" means "all."

It is not quite clear from the Greek that "all" means every individual without exception. It is more clear the other way in the context.


The problem with not debating Calvinism here is that it allows you to say that a mass conversion is not forced. But in Calvinism, all "choices" for salvation are forced! God makes the choice of who will be saved, so the idea of choice is a non-sequitur. Calvinism denies that men can recognize their own depravity to ask for the help of conversion. But if that is true, why is the entire Bible a continuing call for men to repent? Such a call is complete nonsense if God has predetermined the outcome. Further, as a Calvinist, you cannot tell anyone that God loves them, since you do not have divine knowledge of whether that person has been destined for salvation. What a pitiable situation!

God chooses who will be saved, yes. But he does not force them to be saved against their will. He regenerates their hearts and makes them alive to the things of God so that they willingly flee to Him and rest on Him alone for salvation. The call is not nonsense. Men must repent. Man must have a knowledge of the Savior, of sin, etc, before they can be saved. That knowledge would never change their lives, did not God come in sovereignly and change their hearts and change their very nature. No, I don't make it a practice to tell people (I am not sure if they are regenerate or not) that God loves them. I don't believe that is biblical. What I do tell men is that they are called upon to repent and believe the gospel, to recognize their sin, and call on God to save them. That is as far as my work goes. The rest has nothing to do with me. It is all up to God. If He chooses to regenerate that person so that they will respond in faith and repentance to the message I preached, it is all to God's glory, none to me or none to the one believing. You make it sound as if it is a crime to not say "God loves you" to everyone I meet, but then why didn't Jesus, His disciples, or any other of the followers of Christ in the NT ever do it? I challenge you to give me one example of Christ or his disciples, while publicly proclaiming the gospel, ever saying, "God loves you." You won't find it. That was not their approach. Nor should it be ours. God hates the workers of iniquity. (PS 5:5). He doesn't just hate the sin; those who are not predestined to eternal life, the workers of iniquity, they are hated by God. That is not what I say; that is what Scripture clearly says.


But you assume that it must mean physical Jews and Gentiles, when the context fits the other definition better. And in a situation where the definition is in question, it is essential that you look at context for answers. The key context is that due to the pruning and grafting based on belief alone, “all Israel will be saved.” Therefore, only belief is in view for definition of Israel. Ethnicity is not part of the discussion.

Context does not fit the other definition better. Does not Israelite in verse one mean physical Israelite? Was it not physical Israel that was hardened in verse 25.


We will have to differ here. Paul has clearly established the context. Every branch either pruned or grafted was pruned or grafted on the basis of belief. He then says "therefore," indicating that, as a result of pruning and grafting, "all Israel will be saved." Since belief was the sole basis of pruning and grafting, it is the sole basis of "all Israel" being saved. There is only one definition of Israel possible in this passage, and it is that of the believers.

Again, I ask. Does Israelite in verse 1 mean a spiritual Israelite or a physical Israelite? Was it not physical Israel that was hardened in verse 25?


I'll give you a "nice try" for that one. It almost makes sense. But the problem is that the root is Jesus. The natural branches are those, not who were Jews, but who had the gospel message before Christ came. Luke 24 makes it clear that the entire gospel message was present in the OT, and we know that the keepers of the Oracles of God failed to understand what they had. Yes, they were generally Jews, but it wasn't their genetics that made them natural branches. It was the fact that they were keepers of the message. The root definition of Israel has been, from the time Jacob was given the name, believers with a missionary task.

Ted

I disagree that the root is Jesus. "THe olive Tree" is spoken of in the OT a number of times, and it refers to physical Israel. If natural branches means that, then what does he mean, "For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree, how much more will these, who are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery...that hardening in part has happened to Israel..." Who had the gospel message before Christ came? Physical Israel. However, now Israel, as a mass nation, has been broken off because of unbelief.

Joel

[Ted]

**[Ted] 1. Biblically, "Jews" ONLY means those returning from Babylonian exile and their descendants. This is extremely well attested in scripture. Therefore, "Jews" ONLY includes the tribes of Judah (from which the name comes), Benjamin, and Levi. The northern ten tribes were dispersed by the Assyrians in the 8th century BC. The few members of those tribes who were able to avoid the dispersion intermarried with non-Hebrews, and became the Samaritans. That these are not Jews is very clear in the gospels.
2. The "descendants of Jacob" includes all twelve tribes, and is distinctly different from #1.

[Joel] I'm not sure I agree with you on this. It seems to me that Jew is used as "descendants of Jacob."

[My reply] It’s interesting that you are unwilling to let scripture be the final authority on this. The term “Jew” is so well defined in history and scripture that it cannot be twisted in the way you are choosing to use it.


**[Ted] The definitions are mutually contradictory, and your genetic definition leads to an impossible conclusion. The only logical and biblical conclusions are:
1. "Israel" does not equal "Jews".
2. "Israel" is not defined primarily by genetics.

[Joel] Israel can refer to national, physical, ethnic Israel, but can also refer to those who have trusted in Christ. I am not sure that Israel does not equal Jews.

[My reply] At least here you allow for some of the several biblical definitions of “Israel.”


**[Joel] You have ignored the context of 2 Peter 3:9 entirely. Why don't you go back and read it; it puts a whole new light on the verse.

[My reply] Here is the section of scripture. Notice that in verse 9, God is stated as being unwilling that any should perish, but that many will be lost anyway. It’s quite clear that “all” means “all.” If Joel thinks that the context denies this, then he should enlighten us as to how the language doesn’t mean what it says here.

2 Peter 3:7-12 7 But the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. 8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. 11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!


**[Joel] The point is, Paul does not mean pray for "all men without exception." He is not saying to pray for 6 billion people. That just is not possible. He is saying to pray for all men without distinction--pray for all types of men. The categories bears that out. He doesn't just want us to pray for each other as brethren; he wants us to pray for all men, for all types of men, kings. "All men" does not mean every single individual.

[My reply] It’s quite clear that in this passage “all” still means “all.” No one is ever to be excepted from our prayers. This does not mean that we must pray individually for every person. Paul’s example makes this clear. But we are to pray for every person. The manner is not necessarily individual, but the result is universal.


**[Ted] The problem with not debating Calvinism here is that it allows you to say that a mass conversion is not forced. But in Calvinism, all "choices" for salvation are forced! God makes the choice of who will be saved, so the idea of choice is a non-sequitur. Calvinism denies that men can recognize their own depravity to ask for the help of conversion. But if that is true, why is the entire Bible a continuing call for men to repent? Such a call is complete nonsense if God has predetermined the outcome. Further, as a Calvinist, you cannot tell anyone that God loves them, since you do not have divine knowledge of whether that person has been destined for salvation. What a pitiable situation!

[Joel] God chooses who will be saved, yes. But he does not force them to be saved against their will. He regenerates their hearts and makes them alive to the things of God so that they willingly flee to Him and rest on Him alone for salvation.

[My reply] This is what is so repugnant about Calvinism. Those who, in Calvinistic thought are not chosen, are denied the possibility of salvation. This, of course, is explicitly contrary to scripture, as noted above. But further, all men have the ability to recognize their lost condition. Romans 1:19-20 is very clear on this, as are a whole host of other passages. This is contrary to the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity. But that discussion is beyond this thread. Our problem here is the idea of whether the Bible writers used words with a commonly understood meaning, or whether they applied some secret meaning that only the cognoscenti can comprehend.


**[Joel} Context does not fit the other definition better. Does not Israelite in verse one mean physical Israelite? Was it not physical Israel that was hardened in verse 25.

[My reply] “Israelite” is a very different word from “Israel.” Yes, they come from the same root, but Paul is suffering from a difficult choice of words. He could say “of the circumcision,” as he does in another place, but in this case “Israelite” is an unambiguous term that is simpler. In verse 25, the context has already been defined as the people of belief. It is not necessary to read Israel in that verse as genetic Israel. Rather, the context fits believers (i.e. the church) much better. He is referring to the idea of partial apostasy, such as he talks about in more detail in 2 Thess 2.



**[Joel] I disagree that the root is Jesus. "THe olive Tree" is spoken of in the OT a number of times, and it refers to physical Israel.

[My reply] Joel, you should do your research more carefully. “Olive tree” is used in 11 places in the OT. Only one of them (Jer 11:16) unequivocally refers to physical Israel (but even then, in context, it is referring to Israel as those originally of faith, who were charged with the mission of spreading the gospel). Curiously, that passage points out that “the branches are worthless.” But the key point is the identity of the root. The tree may be Israel in the beginning, but is true Israel (the body of believers) in the end, since all the worthless unbelieving branches are broken off. New believers are grafted in. But all are part of the body of Christ. The tree is the body of Christ in this imagery. Christ is the root, as noted in the expressions “Root of David” (Rev 5:5; 22:16) and the “Root of Jesse” (Isa 11:10). Paul’s choice of illustration appears to be designed to point out that we are rooted in Christ. There is no legitimate way to say that we are rooted in the Jews, since that would divorce us from Christ.

Ted

[joelkaki]

Ted, I will answer this last post, but that is going to be the last one most likely. I don't see this discussion going anywhere, and I have a number of other discussions going on that I feel I should spend more time on.

Joel

[John Reece]

Ted,

When Christ said “the kingdom is among you” (Matt 12:28; 21:43, Luke 10:9-11; 11:18, etc) he is saying that the power of the kingdom is among you.

You are a clear thinker.

Your thoughts are interesting to me.

Please read this thread and let me know what you think:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1608&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

John

Edited to add:

P.S.:

This is off topic on this thread, so please give your response on "The Kingdom of God is Within You" tread.

[lightninboy]

You see, loss of salvation is not an issue here. The point of the passage is to show that Israel fell "bacause of their unbelief" and the body of Christ may also be taken out of God's program to believe into the body of Christ.[quote from Acts9out]

I think that a person can be an Amillennialist without believing that a Christian can lose his salvation.