A close look at Rom 11 !

You could not see a red barn if it was placed in front of your nose. To say the "mystery" here is the formation of the church is simply to ignore every verse in this chapter!

The "mystery" is God's temporary setting apart of the nation of Israel until the fullness of the gentiles be come in. That has been the theme of this context from verse:

11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

You have no clue about proper interpretation of scriptures. You pay no attention to immediate context, to terms, tenses or any other common sense principles of interpretation. You simply quote a verse jump outside the context and then create your own little doctrine.

Here are some clues that you don't know what you are talking about?

1. Can you even find the word "church" in the whole chapter??? NO!

2. Where in scriptures is the word "church" used as a synonym for "gentile"? Nowhere!

3. What has been the primary subject from Romans 9 to Romans 11:25? The "church" or NATIONS (Israel and gentiles)?

You are FORCING the term "church" into this context in order to FORCE the words "all Israel" to mean "church" but verses 25-29 will not support that FORCED intepretation.

Of course, context, grammar, tenses, terms, proper rules of hermenetics are meaningless to a seared conscience - so you will just continue forcing your false doctrine upon the scriptures.​

 

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

QUESTION: Which "part" of Israel has been in blindness since verse 7 "the REST were blinded"???? It cannot possibly refer to the "remnant" because they are saved in every generation and yet those in verse 25 are kept in blindness "UNTIL" the fullness of the gentiles be come in! Hence, what PART is left? The same "PART" that was broken off that the Gentiles should be grafted in - THE NATION OF ISRAEL!

QUESTION: What is the contextual implication of the term "UNTIL" here? Something is kept in darkness "UNTIL" something occurs. What has been kept in darkness "UNTIL" something occurs AND what is that something which occurs???

SBG has no clue how to answer these questions becuase he is as blind as a bat when it comes to the immediate context. The "remant" has not been kept in darkness "UNTIL" this something occurs! What is this something that occurs? "UNTIL the FULLNESS of the Gentiles BE COME IN" What is the "FULLNESS" of the Gentiles? It is the FULL number of the promised children among the Gentiles. What is it to "BE COME IN"? They come into God's kingdom -saved. Did that happen when Paul wrote this? No! It was still future from Paul. Has it happened in our age? No, God is still calling a people out of the Gentiles. So it is still FUTURE from us? However, did God save a "remnant" when Paul wrote this? Yes, Paul was part of it then. Has God been saving a "remnant" of Israel in every generation since Paul? Yes! Is he saving a "remant" of Israel to day? Yes. So it is not the "remnant" that is the "PART" kept in darkness "UNTIL" the last Gentile is saved.


This is so obvious, so simple, that one must intentionally close their mind, refuse to see what is plainly stated in order to miss what Paul is saying. He is saying that the greater "PART" of Israel as a nation has been kept in blindness until the last gentile is saved and then that "PART" of Israel as a nation will be saved. What is that "PART" of Israel? It is the GREATER "part" or Israel as a NATION.



EVIDENCE: that verse 25 cannot possibly refer to the "remnant" of Israel or to any gentile elect is that verses 26-27 are all in the FUTURE TENSE from the time the fullness of the Gentiles be come in, which is itself yet FUTURE from the time Paul wrote this.



26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.


So easy, so simple, so clear and yet unless God gives eyes to see they will never see even the obvious (Mt. 13:10).

 

Paul has been teaching on MORE THAN ONE mystery.

1. 1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

2. Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

3. 2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

4. 1Ti 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

5. 1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

6. Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

7. 1Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8. Ro 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved:

SBG thinks he can just arbritrarily select one of these mysteries and FORCE it into the context of Romans 9-11. The word "church" is note mentioned once in Romans 9-11 - NOT ONCE!

Romans 11:25 is not talking about the mystery of the transformation of the living at His coming.

Romans 11:25 is not talking about the mystery of the Gentiles being indwelt by Christ.

Romans 11:25 is not talking about the mystery of iniquity

Romans 11:25 is not talking about the mystery of Christ and the church

Romans 11:25 is not talking about the mystery of godliness

Romans 11:25 is not talking about the mystery of the faith once delivered

Romans 11:25 is not talking about the mystery of wisdom hidden to all but the spiritual man

Romans 11:25 is talking the mystery of the nation of Israel being kept in blindness until all gentiles are saved and after that God will save all Israel

SBG thinks he can just arbritrarily select one of these mysteries and FORCE it into Romans 11:25. The term "church" cannot be found in Romans 9-11 - NOT ONCE! Paul is talking about GENTILE NATIONS versus ISRAEL since Romans 11:7-25. Paul has been contrasting Israel as a nation with Gentiles since Romans 9:24 to Romans 11:24. That is the CONTEXT. Of course context means nothing to SBG - nothing! Grammar means nothing to SBG. Terms mean nothing to SBG. Sound hermeneutical principles mean nothing to SBG - nothing!​

 

What "part" of Israel has been in "blindness"? What does Paul mean "until the FULNESS of the gentiles be come in"? What is the "fulness" and "come in" to what?

The answer to these questions is the subject of Romans 11:7-24. It is Israel as A NATION that consists of "the rest" which has been kept in blindness while the "remnant" of Israel is the part that has been saved in every generation at least from Paul while the Gentiles are being saved.

7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded

Paul uses the present tense when he says "the election HATH obtained it" and he is referring to the present tense salvation of the "remnant" in verse 5:


5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

However, the larger "part" or "the rest" of Israel as A NATION are PRESENTLY enemies of the gospel

28 As concerning the gospel, they ARE enemies for your sakes:

However, the larger "part" or "the rest" of Israel as A NATION are PRESENTLY blinded, thus are presently "enemies of the gospel" but this PRESENT condition continues only "until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in" because as touching election they "shall be saved" when Christ returns from heaven:

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved:

Therefore note that the present election of grace is at work saving the "remnant" of Israel and the gentiles elect "until the fullness of the gentiles be come in." However, AFTER the "fullness of the gentiles be come in" the FUTURE, then, God's election of grace toward the nation of Israel begins. So PRESENTLY, they "ARE" enemies of the gospel but in regard to the FUTURE "touching election they are beloved for the father's sake" as "all Israel SHALL be saved." Hence, this PRESENT dispensation is the day of salvation for "remnant" according to the election of grace and the Gentile elect but there is coming a FUTURE dispensation when "all Israel SHALL be saved" when Christ returns from heaven and turns against the Gentile nations. Hence, there is coming a time when the Gentiles will be BROKEN OFF the tame olive tree and the nation of Israel will be grafted in "AGAIN" to their "OWN" tree.

When do the "fullness of the gentiles be come in"? Not in Paul's day as Gentiles were still coming into the kingdom of God. That is the whole concept of God grafting them into the tame olive tree. Not in our day as the gentiles are still coming in to the Kingdom of God. So when will the "fullness" be come in? It will not be until Jesus comes again:

There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Why at the second coming? Because other scriptures clearly teach that the Gentile nations will unite together to fight Jerusalem and the nation of Israel in the latter days so that Christ must intervene to prevent Israel from being completely destroyed. Where does Jesus touch down at His second advent?

Zec 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

Why does Christ come down on the Mount of Olives when he comes the Second time?

Zech. 14:2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

The "fullness of the gentiles" occurs just before "all nations" (gentiles) gather against Jerusalem and come to destroy the nation of Israel. God then turns against "all nations" and delivers "all Israel" and when he comes "all Israel" shall see him and repent:

Zech. 12:8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.
9 ¶ And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

When God pours out the Spirit of grace and supplication upon Israel then:

Rom. 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, . when I shall take away their sins.

Notice that I did not underline "when I shall take away their sins" above. Why? Because that part of the verse is not part of the quotation taken from Isaiah 59:20-21 from which Paul is quoting. Why does Paul stop in the middle of Isaiah 59:21? Because there is a change in the verse from "them" unto "thee." The Old Testament prophets many times combined the first and second coming of Christ together without distinguishing them. Paul quotes the first portion of Isaiah 59:21 because it occurs at the second coming of Christ. However, the latter part refers to the first coming of Christ and to the Person of Christ during his earthly ministry. In his earthly ministry Christ publicly ratified the everlasting covenant by his life and death and this is the basis for salvation of His covenant people. However, Isaiah 59:20-21b is about "them" whereas the rest of verse 21 is about "thee" or Christ in performing the ratification of the covenant for his people.

Isa. 59:20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.
21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

Peter did the same thing in Acts 2:16-21 when quoting Joel 2:28-32. Peter stops quoting Joel right in the middle of Joel 2:32 because the last part of Joel 2:32 refers to the Second coming of Christ when Christ stands on the Mount of Olives when he defends Israel against the nations that come up against them (Joel 2:32b-3:

Joel 2:32b for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.
1 ¶ For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem,
2 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land........16 The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the LORD will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel.

After the "fullness of the Gentiles be come in" then God will turn back to the NATION OF ISRAEL and the fullness of Israel will come in and thus the promised seed from "many nations" (gentiles) and the promised seed from Jacob [Israel] will be saved and God's work of redemption will end on earth.

Rom. 11:33 ¶ O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.​

 

QUESTION FOR SBG:

When, at what time, does the "fullness of the Gentiles be come in"? Has it already occurred before Paul wrote Romans? Did it occur after Paul wrote Romans before our time? Does the immediate context give any grammatical evidence for when it will occur?


QUESTION FOR SBG:

The word "until" in verse 25 demands that "blindness" to Israel is presently continuing and will continue "until" a certain point in time. This blindness is in "part". According to the immediate context what "part" of Israel presently continues in the state of blindness and what "part" of Israel is presently being saved according to election and presently "hath obtained it" according to election? Is it the "remnant" part of Israel or "the rest" of Israel?

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


QUESTION FOR SBG: Who are "the rest" that were blinded? Who is "Israel" that "HATH NOT obtained it"?? Who are those who "HATH obtained it" by election? Is "Israel" in verse 7 also the same as "the rest" who were blinded or is "Israel" here those who "HATH obtained it"?


QUESTION FOR SBG: Who are those who "HATH OBTAINED IT" by election in verse 7? Are they the same as "ISRAEL" in verse 7 who "HATH NOT obtained it" or "the rest" who were blinded?

QUESTION FOR SBG: Which one of these ("Israel" or "remnant") have not obtained it and will not obtain it "until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in"? Which one of these are the "part" that continues in blindness "until the fullness of the gentiles be come in"?

If I were a betting man, I would wager that SBG will not even try to attempt to answer these questions individually and directly and fully. If he answers at all, it will be a pick and choose method while ignoring most of the questions. I answer his questions and objections straight on, directly and fully but why is it he continually ignores, runs and avoids mine?​

 

Anyone can easily see that it is the "remnant" who are "at this present time" the lessor "part" of Israel that "hath obtained it" by election, while it is "Israel" as the greater "part" who "hath not obtained it" and it is "Israel" who is "the rest" or greater part which are presently blinded and will continue in that blindness "UNTIL the fullness of the gentiles be come in", and therefore, at that specific time when "the fullness" time of the gentiles "be come in" this blinded "part" of Israel "shall be saved" from this blindness that continued AS A NATION from the very beginning they became a nation until the Second Advent of Christ and then Israel as a nation "shall be saved" according to election as well. PRESENTLY "they are enemies of the gospel for your sakes" (gentiles) "but as touching election they are beloved for the father's sake" because they are the only "nation" called His "elect." Gentile nations are never called God's "elect" and therefore not one Gentile nation as a whole will be saved. Election is "to salvation" and the gifts of God cannot be repented of (Rom. 11:29).

 

You have no regard for context, for grammar, for basic rules of interpretation. You words are worthless as they do not reflect Paul's writings in the least bit.

You can't respond to the objections because it would require you to do what you have never done before - be honest with the context, grammar and basic rules of interpretation.

Any simpleton can easily see that Paul is arguing that what has been blinded as a consequence has been broken off and what has been broken off is what shall be grafted in "AGAIN." Any simpleton can easily see that Paul is arguing that the PART of Israel that has been blinded is national Israel not the remnant as the remnant has not been blinded but is being saved. Any simpleton can see that Paul is arguing that what part has been blinded is the part that remains blinded "UNTIL the fullness of the gentiles be come in" and then they will be saved. Any simpleton can easily see that Paul is denying that the "remnant" has been blinded or has been broken off.

The moderator should not allow you to continue on this forum because you do not respond to evidences placed before you. This is a debat forum not a place where you are allowed to just keep posting materials without any response to the objections placed by other members.

 

Sure, as long as you isolate Romans 11:26 from its context you can prove anything and that is precisely your approach - isolate and pervert!

 

Do you think responsible exegesis is simply going to the next verse, isolating it from the preceding and forgoing context and then reading into it external texts???????? That is not exegesis that is eisgesis.

You do not interpret each verse in connection with the verses that precede and follow it. You do not show the development of thought between verses. You do not consider the grammar.

What you do is what every cultist does when they handle the scriptures. They proceed to the next verse, but isolate from the preceding and foregoing context and then take scriptures outside that context to make it mean what they want it to mean.

I have repeatedly placed contextual and grammatical data and questions before you and you simply ignore them and go right on. If you ever determined to honestly deal with a text in its context it would expose your interpretations to be nothing but perversions of the text.

 

You quote the verse, then jump completely into entirely different books of the Bible in order to interpret it! That is not exegesis. That is making the text mean whatever you want it to mean. Exegesis deals with the text within its context, its relationship to the prevous text and proceeding text, the part it plays in the developmental argument in the whole context. You ignore all of this!

If you want to know what the "mystery" is that Paul is talking about just continue reading the text!!!

"For I would not, brethen, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery......THAT blindness in part is happened to Israel, UNTIL the fulness of the gentiles be come in"

That is Paul's definition of the mystery! It is not the "church" for many reasons.

If you want to know what "Israel" Paul is talking about just let the text define it.

1. It is the "part" of Israel that has been in "blindness" since verse 7 and as a result has been the same "part" of Israel that has been broken off and the same "part" of Israel that will continue in blindness "UNTIL" the fulness of the gentiles be come in.

2. This "part" of Israel REMAINS in blindness "UNTIL" a specific point in time, a point that absolutely forbids this "Israel" is the "remnant" as the remnant DO NOT remain in blindness "UNTIL" that specific time. This point in time also forbids this "Israel" includes gentiles because this "part" of Israel remains in darkness UNTIL a certain point in time! What point in time?

What is that specific time "Israel" will be removed from "blindness"? Just read the text:

"UNTIL the fulness of the Gentiles be come in"

What does that mean? Look at the preceding context and you will see it was this same "Israel" that fell into blindness THAT SALVATION SHOULD COME TO THE GENTILES. Hence, that specific time that this "ISRAEL" remains in blindnesss is "UNTIL" the last Gentile elect is saved.

What does that mean? It means that this "ISRAEL" cannot be and does not include GENTILES because this ISRAEL remains in BLINDNESS throughout the Gentile period when God saves Gentiles.

Hence, this ISRAEL that remains in darkeness throughout the salvation period of Gentiles and therefore cannot be either the "remnant" or the Gentile elect as they do not remain in darkness "UNTIL" this same period of time.

What happens to this "Israel" when this period of time comes, when the fulness of the gentiles be come in? What happens to this Israel? Just read the text:

"And so ALL ISRAEL shall be saved."

What "Israel" is this? The same "Israel" in verse 25 that is kept in darkness "UNTIL the fullness the gentiles be come in." If they are kept in darkness "UNTIL" that point then what happens? THEY ARE BROUGHT OUT OF THE DARKNESS that they have been kept in "UNTIL" that point! The church has not been kept in darkness "UNTIL" that point? The "remnant" has not been kept in darkness "UNTIL" that point only NATIONAL ISRAEL has been kept in darkness "UNTIL" that point and then at that precise point "Israel" is no longer kept in darkness -"And so all Israel shall be saved."

This is so contextually clear and easy to see IF you have eyes to see! In order to deny this interpretation you must willfully close your eyes to the contextual evidence and that is precisely why you simply quote the text and then jump out of the context to read into that text what you want.

I would be ashamed to even claim to be an interpreter of the Word of God if I stooped to such low dishonest handling of God's like you are guilty of.​

 

Another example of your eisgetical mindset. There was no New Testament written, no epistle by Paul to examine context. They were checking his ORAL teaching against the written scriptures. This is not what you are doing. You have a written epistle by Paul that you recognize as scripture and you are claiming to be exegeting it when in fact you are not! Instead you are simply quoting a text, ignoring its grammar, ignorings its relationship with verses before and after, ignoring its place in the contextual development of thought but making it mean what YOU WANT IT TO MEAN by going OUTSIDE its proper context and PICKING AND CHOOSING what texts YOU WANT to interpret it by. That is not exegesis that is eisgesis practiced by every cult.

You practice what I call the OPEN WINDOM method of interpretation. The old colored preaching in the south would stand in the pulpit with the windows open on both sides of the church for the breeze to blow through. He says to the congregation, I will let the Lord teach us tonight and so he holds up his bible in the open breeze and lets the breeze blow the pages until he arbritrarily stops the pages by placing his finger down on a page and he reads,

"Judas went out and hanged himself"

Lifting his finger back up the breeze again blows the pages until he arbritrarily places his finger back down on a page and reads;

"Go thou and do likewise"

Lifting his finger back up the breeze again blows the pages until he arbritrarily places his finger back down on a page and reads"

"Whatosever thou doest, do quickly."

All of these are scriptures but they are totally unrelated to each other by context but now he has arbritrarily constructed a teaching supposedly given by the Lord. THAT IS BASICALLY YOUR METHOD OF INTERPRETATION. You ignore contextual developments, grammmar, placement but just quote a text and then arbritrarily pick and choose texts outside the immediate context and fabricate a doctrine that supposedly gives the right meaning to the text you have merely quoted but never exegete by its context.


However, in my last post (post #93) I give you an example of exposition based upon text and context and I dare you to overthrow it by contextual based exegesis! You can't. The only way you can overthrow it is to violate basic principles of interpretation. Go ahead and try to overthrow it using sound principles of exegesis - I dare you!

 

You better go back and reread what I said because you plainly did not understand a single word!!! I said those at Berea had no other scriptures but the Old Testament to test the ORAL teachings of Paul and that is why they did not exegete what he said becuase there was NOTHING to exeget - IT HAD NOT YET BEEN WRITTEN.

That is not the case with YOU! You have a written inspired letter by Paul and so you are responsible to exegete NOT pick and choose texts to READ INTO IT what you want! Don't you get it? Do you understand what I am saying?????

I don't want to be unkind but I really am doubtbul of your intelligence to read and understand English! You have not provided ANYTHING in a contextual based exposition - NOTHING! Yet, you ask me to examine evidence? WHAT EVIDENCE??? You simply have isolated individual verses in Romans 11 and selected your choice of texts OUTSIDE the context and MADE the text say what you wanted it to say!

I will tell you what you are really doing. I presented a contextual based expository post on Romans 11:25-26 and challenged you to refute it by exegetical means. YOU CANNOT and therefore you make this absolutely rediculous charge that I cannot respond to your "evidence"???? That is a Joke! I have tore up every interpretative effort you have made and showed you perverted this text and you are not man enough to deal with that evidence. You do what every false teacher does when they are cornered and have no defense for their errors - they simply PRETEND they have not been exposed and proven wrong and charge their opponent with what they are really guilty of.

I have responded to your nonsense. It is post #94 It is you that have not responded to the evidence because YOU CANNOT and YOU KNOW IT!

 

Again here is my response to your so-called evidences. Now demonstrate by exegesis where I am wrong in my response??? I don't care about your personal opinions, I am not asking you about your personal opinions. I am challenging you to provided EXEGETICAL EVIDENCE that I am wrong - do it if you can. If not, you need to drop this thread and go deal with something your capable of dealing with.