A close look at Rom 11 !

You explained the texts not by any kind of exegesis but by going OUTSIDE the text and context and selecting scriptures from other parts of the Bible to explain the text.

I demonstrated that your EXTERNAL interpretations do not fit the context. I gave proof from the context. You made no attempt to respond to my EXEGETICAL statements - you simply ignored them.

Perhaps you did not understand what I said. If so, let me cut to the chase and just tell you. The term "Israel" in Romans 11:25-26 cannot possibly refer to either the "remnant" elect or the Gentile elect or the church as you FORCE the text to mean by your EXTERNAL abritrary chosen texts.

Why? Because the "Israel" in verse 25 remains in blindness "UNTIL" the final gentile elect is saved. That this "Israel" cannot include gentiles because this "Israel" remains in blindness through the gentile period of salvation.

Why? Because the "Israel" in verse 25 remains in blindness "UNTIL" the final gentile is saved "be come in" and therefore this "Israel" cannot include the "remnant" elect because they do not remain in blindness "UNTIL" the final gentiles are saved but are being saved all along!

YOUR INTERPETATION IS IMPOSSIBLE to harmonize with the context.

 

No response! That means you cannot honestly deal with the contextual problems that expose your eisgetical methods as perversions of this text and context.

Note, you approach Romans 11:26 just as you have every other verse in this context. You first quote it - tell us what you want it to mean - then jump out of the context and find texts elsewhere in order to make it man what you told us it meant - YOUR RASH HANDS PERVERT God's Word.

A. You quote the text

B. You tell us what you want us to believe it means

C. You jump out of the context, provide no exegetical basis from the context but go OUTSIDE the context and then read back into the text other scriptures to make it mean what you want.

Your analysis will not fit the context of Romans 11:25-27 for several contextual clear reasons.

1. Your interpretation of verse 26 contradicts the time element in verse 25 which is future from the cross not BEFORE the cross. The word "until" defines how long "Israel" will be in blindness and demands the blindness is removed at that future point in time explicitly described when "the fullness of the gentiles be come in." That point in time has not yet arrived.

2. The word "And" in verse 26 is the continuation of the previous phrase "until the times of the gentiles be fulfilled AND" which defines what happens at the termination point when the final gentile "come in" which is yet future not something in the past at the cross.

3. As I have proven by the immediate context, the term "Israel" as used in verse 25 EXCLUDES all gentile believers as it is that "ISRAEL" in verse 25 which is in blindness "UNTIL" the last gentile believer "be come in." Hence, it is not possible that this "ISRAEL" includes gentile elect.

4. Paul's change of words from "to Zion" to "from out of Zion" teach the very reverse of what you are saying. Isaiah, like most prophets in the Old Testament when predicting the coming of the Messiah often made no distinction between the first and second comings. Paul intentionally changed the words because both comings were run together in Isaiah's statement and Paul wanted his readers to understand that this statement by Isaiah also referred to the Second advent and not merely the first advent.

At the first advent, the Messiah came "to" Zion but in the second advent he will come "out of zion" where He now abides. When Paul wrote Romans 11:26 Jesus was no longer on earth but in HEAVENLY ZION! When he comes back he will come out of heavenly zion.

YOU CANNOT HONESTLY DEAL WITH THESE CONTEXTUAL FACTORS! Indeed, you have a track record of simply ignoring contextual evidences that expose your interpretations as rash perversions of the context.

 

There is no response in post 103 to the connective word "and" with verse 25 and the time word "until".

You simply ignored it in post 103 so don't give me that line of garbage that you responded to it becuase you did not!

 

Here is what you said in post 102:

My method is expository teaching. Do you know what that means ? A passage does not demand exegesis. In fact, the passage is written expositorily.

Exposition serves the purpose well, you have not been able to refute anything, to exegete would be a waste of time and effort, because the results would be the same. If you or anyone else wants more critical explanation, do it yourself and present it as an refutation of my exposition, if you are capable and not scared. Your demanding exegesis is a smoke screen of your incompetence to refute what I have plainly explained..

There is no such thing as a passage being "written expositorily"!!!! Exposition has to do with the style of teaching a passage not with how a passage is written. Exposition that is not based upon exegesis is WORTHLESS!

You simply do not know what you are talking about and your exposition is as flawed as your explanations of expository and exegesis.

You need to go purchase a book on basic hermeneutics and learn the basics before you start teaching others what you obviously know nothing about.

 

Here is post 88:

It is no secret that the larger part of the Nation of Israel has been blinded, and only a small remnant in her shall be saved [ Rom 9:27] which remnant is the Israel which the promises were made unto, but this blinding would continue until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in [ which completes the Israel of God, the gentile portion of Abraham's Seed],.

Your problem is that it is the "Israel" that is blinded which is the subject of verse 25 not the "remnant". Paul makes a clear distinction between the words "remnant" and "Israel" and never confuses or mixes them in this context as YOU DO! He clearly denies the "remnant" are that part which is "blinded" but the "Israel" in verse 25 is explicitly stated to be held in blindness "UNTIL" a certain point in time and that certain point in time is as you confess is when the last gentile elect "be come in."

Indeed you contradict the very words of Paul in verse 25 when you go on to say:

So National Israel's blindness will never be ended, but it will remain in part [ practically the whole nation] all the way up to the fulness of the gentiles, and that will usher in the end; hence, for those of you who are expecting the Nation of Israel will be converted and bear fruit, you are greatly deceived see Matt 21:19

However, Paul claims that the very part of "ISRAEL" that was blinded remains blinded "UNTIL" a certain point, the very point you admit is the point when the last gentile elect comes in.

What you are trying to do is make the term "Israel" in verse 25 mean two different things at once! However, Paul denies that kind of duplicity by the word "part" which eliminates the possibility that Paul is including the "remnant" in the word "Israel" in verse 25. Moreover, inclusion of the "remnant" would be self-contraditory as this "Israel" remains in blindness "UNTIL" the last Gentile elect is saved and that cannot possibly be true of "remnant" Israel!

Furthermore, the fact that it is the "Israel" that has been blinded and which remains blinded "UNTIL" the last gentile elect is saved forbids that this "Israel" includes any gentile elect either.

However, your interpretation is completely based upon defiing "Israel" in verse 25 as the remnant, the nation and the gentile elect as that is the definition you place on the very next use of "Israel" in verse 26.

You have explained nothing except that you do not know a thing about proper exposition or exegeting scriptures.

 

That very definition denies the other part is blinded! Furthermore, you are ignoring the EXTENT of this blindness explicitly stated in the same text by the word "UNTIL"! The continued extent of this blindness has a TERMINATION date and the TERMINATION date is when the last gentile elect be come in! That is not possible for "remnant" Israel as they are being saved PRESENTLY (v. 5) as are the gentile elect. Hence, that excludes both the remnant and gentile elect from this "Israel" which is further defined as the major "part" continuing in blindness "until" the last gentile elect come in BEFORE that blindness is terminated or else the the term "until" is meaningless.

Another glaring error is that you disregard the term "remnant"! That is not an "individual" term but a CORPORATE term that sees the other "part" as a WHOLE not as "individuals" as you attempt to force upon it. Paul never confuses the term "Israel" with "remnant" as you do! You attempt to make "Israel" in Romans 11 inclusive of "remnant" and Paul NEVER does this but distinguishes the "remnant" from the term "Israel." The term "Israel" is used in Romans 11exclusively by Paul for the NATION AS A WHOLE while the term "remnant" is used exclusively for Jews being presently saved in every generation prior to the second coming of Christ.

The remnant Jews are saved exactly as the Gentile elect - same Christ, same gospel, same salvation. The nation of Israel at the Lord's return will be saved exactly the same as the remnant Jews had been saved during the times of the Gentiles - same Christ, same gospel, same salvation irrespective of ethnicity and salvation as a NATION!

Your problem is that you cannot discern between God's PRESENT redemptive sphere of work and God's FUTURE redemptive sphere of work. You want to pit one against the other. Romans 11:25-26 is IMPOSSIBLE to fit in your plan IF the langauge of the text is honestly dealt with. The SAME "Israel" that REMAINS in blindness "UNTIL" the last gentile elect come in (v. 25) is the SAME "Israel" that is saved when that time expires (v. 26). By virture of the very TERMINATIONAL EXTENT and POINT that "Israel" cannot include the remnant or the gentile elect as neither are extended in blindness until that TERMINAL point and that is exactly the problem you face with your misintepretation of scriptures.

 

No! The very language used by Paul demands no inclusion of the remnant. First, the term "until" with the clearly defined TERMINATION point "be come in" denies the remnant is included as the remnant are not kept in darkness "until" the last gentile be "come in."

Second, the very term "part" as further descriptive of the term "Israel" denies that the remnant are inclusive as this is a direct reference to verse 7 which excludes the remnant found in verse 5. Verses 7-24 reinforce this "darkness" is a continuing state for Israel as a nature during the whole period of calling in the elect gentiles, thus again denying either the elect Jewish remnant or Gentile elect are included in the term "Israel" in verses 25 or verse 26 as it is the same "Israel" in verse 25 that is found in verse 26.

Look at your inappropriate use of words - "the nation AS A WHOLE" has been used between us to exclude the "remnant" but refer to the nation of Isael that has been given to blindness! Are you changing defintions in mid-stream of this debate????????

Playing word games is exactly what you are forced to do in teaching your HALF truth. The "nation of Israel AS A WHOLE" is the very intent of Paul's word's in verse 24 as he is referring to the major "part" which has been given to blindness during this present Gentile era. However, the word "until" places a time limit or a termination point to that blindness and it is not NOW when the "remnant" is being saved but continues "until" the last gentile is saved and THEN "all Israel" as a nation shall be saved as described in verses 26-27 in keeping with their election to salvation THEN (v. 28b) while continuing NOW in blindness now as "enemies of the gospel FOR YOUR SAKES" (v. 28a).

 

Paul does not use the term "individuals" but He uses the "remnant" which is a GROUP term not a term for "individuals" and he distinguishes the term "remnant" from the term "Israel" which is another GROUP term. Likewise the term "part" is definitive of a GROUP not "individuals." You are forced to depart from inspired terms in order to transform Paul's doctrine into your heresy.

As I have repeatedly said, the GROUP term "Israel" of verse 25 further defined with another GROUP term "part" is retained in blindness and that blindness of that defined GROUP is TERMINATED at the specific point designated by the time term "UNTIL" at which point the BLINDNESS is terminated and salvation occurs. The SAME "Israel" in blindness in verse 25 is the same "Israel" redeemed from that blindness in verse 26 or otherwise the descriptive terminating term "until" is meaningless. It is meaningless to the "remnant" because their salvation is PRESENT rather than extended "UNTIL" a certain point in the future AFTER the last Gentile elect "be come in."

Your position is wrong. You are forced to reject and redefine Pauline langauge.

 

Either the term represents a goup or an individual not both! That is your problem! You want to define a GROUP term as a INDIVIDUAL term and it cannot be both.

To argue that a "church" is a group of individuals does not change the definition of "church" from a GROUP to a INDIVIDUAL because by the very nature of the term it denies it is an INDIVIDUAL or ISOLATED individuals.

Likewise, the term "remnant" denies it is an "individual" or ISOLATED individuals. HOwever, that is exactly the redefinition you must give a GROUP term to fit your interpretations. That is impossible as no "church" is an "individual" or isolated "individuals" but is comprehensive of individuals ONLY AS A GROUP so also, the terms "remnant" and "Israel."