Will there be a massive harvest of Jews before Jesus Returns?

[Roldan]

I've been a part of this board for years. Those who know me know my desire to be gracious, though I do at times fail. I find great pleasure in interacting here and striving to sharpen one another in our love for, knowledge of and efforts to exemplify Christ. But, there comes a time when statements made reek of pride and arrogance to the point that frankness and bluntness seem to be appropriate. In this, I will not depart from attempting to display the love of Christ. But neither will I shirk from calling a spade a spade.

There is an ever present ebb and flow of elitism on this board, as can easily happen when men are purveyors of the truth of God. These ebbs and flows usually involve either baptism or dispensationalism bashing. And, sadly, here we have another thread with overt Dispensational bashing elitism. The broad brush and straw man doesn't make one right because of philosophical brashness and proof-texting. Whether I'm a Dispensational or not, all who perceive a future for ethnic Israel have been labeled as, or as teaching, "heresy", "no sound understanding of the gospel" (in other words - lost/hell bound - post 21) and "horribly dangerous and confounding" (38).

First, we must see past and realize that authoritarianistic reasoning pervades many of these posts, as if a truth exists simply by forceful assertion. Who says Jews have to keep track of their lineage to be Jews? Did God say that? God can keep track of all men, with no effort whatsoever. In fact, He does. Furthermore, Jews always included proselytes as they blended into their lineage. On top of this, one's genealogy was generally through the male lineage, so as long as there were male heirs then the lineage was perpetuated. This is just one example of drawing lines where God does not, and is not meant to prove anything else.

Second, the dichotomy forced on the perspective that Israel as a distinct people have a future is false. It is not two gospels, as some old classic dispensationalists taught. It is not necessary in dispensationalism, or any understanding of a future for ethnic Israel. This straw man has been forced on this perception and is a type of ad hom. attack and effort at shaming any who disagree. It's an irresponsible manner of taking a position with no respect or charity given to any who disagree. It's akin to the college professor who opens the first day of class with the statement, "Please raise your hand if you're stupid enough to believe the Bible."

Finally, It is the height of ignorance and arrogance to boast of any knowledge, period. If you boast, boast in Christ. If you fly the flag of covenantalism first, then you are a covenantalist first and can have your baggage. If you fly the flag of the reformation first, then fine, be reformed and known as reformed - only. If you fly the flag of Calvin first, you can have that too. We are to boast in Christ and fly His banner. It is GOD who works in man to will and to do, and He is the giver of all knowledge. What foolish ignorance in boasting of knowledge, and looking down one's nose at those who don't have the same understanding, whether one is right or not. Quite frankly, the elitism that reeks from this thread is an abomination and should bring about great repentance. We must all be careful that we do not win one proselyte, and when he is won, make him twice as much a son of hell as ourselves. I beseech you, is this the love of Christ?

-----Added 3/10/2009 at 12:46:22 EST-----

There is too much that has been said to attempt to address it all. Simply put, the discussion is overweighted and has taken on so much baggage that sorting through is too much effort. But, Tim, your observation is very fair though, and I say this with no disrespect, misguided.

Quite frankly, the elitism that reeks from this thread is an abomination and should bring about great repentance.

Joe, elitism is the whole point of this thread. That is, elitism is bad. If you think Jews are either more or less special than the rest of us, that is elitism. In the one case, Jews are some sort of chosen race. In the second, they are second class citizens. The simple fact is that there is now no difference.

What happens here is that one's understanding is imposed on another. First of all, even when God chose Israel, He made it clear that He chose them to make them what He wanted them to be, not because they had something to offer. They were not special because they were Jews. He made them Jews. He built Israel from nothing.

In regard to salvation, there is no difference. Those who are saved are of the church. The spiritual significance of the Abrahamic covenant is found in Christ, for all people.

The simple distinction is an eschatological significance for ethnic Israel, nothing more. Does that make them special? Sure, in a sense. But it also adds responsibility to them, for which they will answer. Furthermore, it does not mean that they are special because they are Jews. It is simply that God chooses whom He wills for the purposes He has for them. He loved Jacob and hated Esau. It wasn't because Jacob was special in and of himself. I certainly would have chosen Esau. Jacob was special only because God loved him. Furthermore, if one understands the principle of "race," then that is not an issue (race is an evolutionary concept - we all are of Adam's race). They are a people drawn out of others and made a nation by God himself. Why would this bother anyone?

What many fail to realize is that this is all that is inherent in dispensationalism. All the other baggage often comes along for the ride, but is not necessary.

It's really as simple as that Tim. It doesn't need to be made more complicated. I don't expect everyone to agree on a discussion board such as the PB. But there is room for mutual understanding and respect.

Don, regardless of what you claim, you did attack people. You attacked all who hold to a certain position. That's why I quoted you.

Whether I'm a Dispensational or not, all who perceive a future for ethnic Israel have been labeled as, or as teaching, "heresy", "no sound understanding of the gospel" (in other words - lost/hell bound - post 21) and "horribly dangerous and confounding" (38).

These are your words, not imposed upon you. And you engineered your response with condescension.

I am sorry if that offends you or if you fear others will be offended to know there is truth and right and wrong.
Lets stop being children and crying to the teacher, Billy stuck his tongue out at me?

I have no desire to go back and forth on this. Simply put, your comments lacked grace. Regardless of your heart, they demonstrated pride whether you meant to or not. It's not even a matter of who's right and wrong. It's a matter of the character of Christ. Let us pursue Christ together and discuss our differences with charity. And, Mark, that's not rhetoric.

 

[historyb]

Off topic to point out the arrogance or the know more than anyone else pervasive with some?

 

[Roldan]

Off topic to point out the arrogance or the know more than anyone else pervasive with some?

Ummm no...i think you need to check yourself. I was just saying that its off topic of which it is....start another thread if you want to use ad hominems, and again do you adhere to WCF when it speaks of covenant theology?

 

[historyb]

I answered you and it was you all that started the attacks as if you all that recently joined are more knowledgeable than us that have been here for along while.

 

[Pergamum]

How would you teach about Romans 11 to your children?

 

[DonP]

I think another helpful pair of verses which I don’t think was mentioned yet is Gal 3:16 and 3:29

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

These verses seem to say that even at very beginning, God never meant to extend his spiritual promises to the physical descendants to Abraham. The promises were always meant to be to Jesus Christ, and Christians (i.e. those who are Christ’s - v 29) of any descent.

-----Added 3/9/2009 at 09:23:24 EST-----

Just to avoid being misunderstood, I want to express agreement with what Tim said above. It is not, or should not, be about putting down anyone or any race. It is about saying there is no race that currently has some sort of special favour from God above the others.

Satz I agree, this is another good passage where Paul tries to help the Jews understand this.
The seed of promise was Christ. He is our Adam, federal head of His people. The promises was not to seeds, the ethnic jews, it was to SEED, who is Christ and only those who are in that SEED are who the promises were intended.

Awesome!!
And again he adds these are Abraham's seed and heirs of promise it was never the ethnic jews as the Jews incorrectly thought.
-----------========

Joe you added to my words. I did not say going to hell?
"no sound understanding of the gospel" (in other words - lost/hell bound - post 21) and "horribly dangerous and confounding" (38).

No wonder you felt it was offensive.

Not "in other words", those are your words Joe, you judged me to mean this and added to my words.
I would ask you privately but I ask you to apologize now because you posted this publicly here.

What would you say about someone who added these words to scripture? It would at least be a violation of the 9th commandment.

I do not think the thief on the cross had a clear understanding of the gospel either. Nor do many who are saved. I did not say a person who sees a future for Israel is devoid of sufficient saving knowledge of the gospel.

And I do not know the rules of this board well yet but I do think they would expect people to think dispensationalism is horrible and confounding.

And I do think that if one was in a healthy Confessional Presbyterian Church that was not weak on discipline as many are today, and a pastor taught this he would be guilty of error or heresy, and told to recant and no longer teach it or be defrocked but not excommunicated.

So I do not mean by heresy such that would bar one from the kingdom either; I mean error of significant import.

Not everyone may have gotten an idea for some sort of future for Israel from dispensationalism, but it is an integral part of the common errant teaching they have so prevalent today. I think many of us have been influenced by it, Scofield, and other sources so that many are affected by it and it colors their interpretation. But maybe not all.
-------------

The point is I am not even so much arguing against there not being a future for Israel as I am that we not base it on the fact there was a history for ethnic jews.

Joe that is my main point. Not the future. I don't know what will happen and don't speculate on it.

I want to make sure people are clear on what Paul taught that the promises were never for ethnic Israel. This is why God could cut off so many Jews and only a remnant be elect and He is still faithful even in shutting down the nation of Israel and no longer having any dealings with the nation.
Because the promises were never to the ethnic Jews. Israel after the flesh.

This was a Jewish misunderstanding and Paul explained not only are we not saved by the works of the law or by being a jew, but further that the promises were never to the jews. so much so that he had to explain well what profit was there even being a Jew. Only being in the covenant and having the prophets and signs, etc.

So much so that he had to say well god has not cast off every individual ethnic jew such that there is no hope for the to ever be saved.
They can be grft in to Israel as much as a Gentile and no special way, not special time, but now they can in the same way be converted.

There is no Jew anymore. No Greek in God, no partiality. Only elect or non-elect.

The promises were never to ethnic Jews. Not the land, not the messiah, nothing. It was all promised to the elect.

So God never saw them as a special people. He saw them as covenant breakers going to hell or elect.

So a sensible question is why would He and how could He
"again" do something with an ethnic people He never had any dealings with.

God had no more to do with a non-elect Jew than He does with a non-elect person in a church pew today?
They are both in the visible body, church , covenant whatever word works for you, by man's fleshly judgment, but they are not in the invisible covenant of Grace.

So Doug I hope you see you misunderstood too. I never said replacement.

I said the ethnic Jew never was in, so they didn't need to be replaced. Believers today are added in to Israel the elect. They are not added in with unbelieving ethnic Jews. They don't replace ethnic Jews. Ethnic Jews were never in. Never had promises to them. God hated their sacrifices.

He finally stopped dealing with them altogether as a nation and as Jews. Now he deals with them only as humans as all people. No distinction. There is no more jew or Greek. Not now, now will be later, there is no more Jew in god eyes. Don't you see it would be a violation of His word to all of a sudden deal with an ethnic people? There are only saved and unsaved. Not even male or female. No more distinctions based in ethnicity or sex as far as promises and salvation and that is one reason women now get the sign of being in the covenant.

Rom 10:11-12
11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame." 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, NKJV
The gospel was preached to the ethnic jew 1st, then to the Greek, but there is neither now and no preferential treatment or benefit or special opportunity now or later.

Gal 3:22-24
that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. NKJV
"We and our", are ethnic Jews who were or are now true believers. The promise was to them and not ethnic Jews who aren't believers or elect. The promise was by faith, not by ethnic descent as they thought. And the promise was in the SEED, not in seeds of Abraham. Only those in the SEED were ever promised anything. therefore all that was in ethnic judaism., the law, was to bring the elect to faith in Christ. It was all for us, believers, not for the ethnic jews, so God didn't fail or let any jews down.

The 1st verses of Rom 9 tell us what the ethnic Jews got an no promise is mentioned, just the external covenant opportunities to hear that the heathen did not get. Which ends up being a curse to them who did not respond. Then he says
Rom 9:6-8
But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed NKJV
They are not all of ethnic Israel who are of Spiritual Israel because they are of all nations all over the world who are Israel. So definitely absolutely the church is here called Israel.
Spiritual Israel not the nation Israel.


I hope this is clearer. I really do not mean to insult anyone or feel like I am better than. Its just this is such and important doctrine to understand and I remember how hard it was for me to see also.

I wish someone had taken the time and understood this enough earlier to help me see this. So I am excited to give others an opportunity.

thanks for bearing with my exuberance and overly dramatic emotional expression for this great mystery!
I will seek to contain myself more, but it blows me away how I was blind to this and now i am permitted to see it, by God's grace, and it is so glorious. But I am probably more of a sinner and less spiritual than you others and certainly no better even if I am correct on this doctrine. Understanding some scripture doesn't make us better; living it and living like Christ, knowing Him and being transformed to Him is our goal and He is the only one we compare ourselves to, not each other.
In his Service,

 

[Wannabee]

Simply put, Roldan, you're wrong. It is always on topic to pursue the character of Christ. And it's not ad hominem. You need to use your terms correctly (which, actually, were off topic). I didn't discredit what anyone said in regard to their position on Israel according to their personality or character. I pointed out that the manner in which the discussion had been pursued was ungodly. This is always on topic when Christians discuss theology.

Tim, I attempted to address your question as clearly as I could. I'm not sure how to make it more simple.

Ken, actually someone did make such an assertion earlier in the thread. And, like I said, my comments weren't so much to clear up that issue as to point out that assertions were being made from an authoritarian stance, rather than objective reasoning.

Don, you said, "no sound understanding of the gospel" and "heresy." This points to someone who is lost. My inserted words (in parentheses) were an honest interpretation of what you wrote with an effort to show you the implication. If your intent was any different then it was not apparent in your words. I do appreciate the clarification. Thank you.

Hopefully this brings us to a point where we can more fully engage the topic at hand. First, Don, you've posted so much that I can't even begin to work through it all. But let me point out that you consistently say that the promises of the Abrahamic covenant were not for ethnic Israel. I admit that I may be misunderstanding you, but the land promises inherent in God's promises to Abraham are repeated to Isaac and Jacob. How can these not be physical promises to a physical people?

For greater understanding, I don't see a disagreement in the spiritual aspect of the covenant. Though there are obviously spiritual implications, I am speaking of the physical nature of the covenant.

Understanding some scripture doesn't make us better; living it and living like Christ, knowing Him and being transformed to Him is our goal and He is the only one we compare ourselves to, not each other.

 

[Roldan]

I answered you and it was you all that started the attacks as if you all that recently joined are more knowledgeable than us that have been here for along while.

ooooook

-----Added 3/10/2009 at 01:54:09 EST-----

Simply put, Roldan, you're wrong. It is always on topic to pursue the character of Christ. And it's not ad hominem. You need to use your terms correctly (which, actually, were off topic). I didn't discredit what anyone said in regard to their position on Israel according to their personality or character. I pointed out that the manner in which the discussion had been pursued was ungodly. This is always on topic when Christians discuss theology.

Tim, I attempted to address your question as clearly as I could. I'm not sure how to make it more simple.

Ken, actually someone did make such an assertion earlier in the thread. And, like I said, my comments weren't so much to clear up that issue as to point out that assertions were being made from an authoritarian stance, rather than objective reasoning.

Don, you said, "no sound understanding of the gospel" and "heresy." This points to someone who is lost. My inserted words (in parentheses) were an honest interpretation of what you wrote with an effort to show you the implication. If your intent was any different then it was not apparent in your words. I do appreciate the clarification. Thank you.

Hopefully this brings us to a point where we can more fully engage the topic at hand. First, Don, you've posted so much that I can't even begin to work through it all. But let me point out that you consistently say that the promises of the Abrahamic covenant were not for ethnic Israel. I admit that I may be misunderstanding you, but the land promises inherent in God's promises to Abraham are repeated to Isaac and Jacob. How can these not be physical promises to a physical people?

For greater understanding, I don't see a disagreement in the spiritual aspect of the covenant. Though there are obviously spiritual implications, I am speaking of the physical nature of the covenant.

Understanding some scripture doesn't make us better; living it and living like Christ, knowing Him and being transformed to Him is our goal and He is the only one we compare ourselves to, not each other.

And you are entitled to your opinion but please base them on scripture not emotions, thats all I ask. And some respect to for I am also your brother in Christ.

 

[historyb]

How would you teach about Romans 11 to your children?

If I had children I would tell them we are grafted in (joined to) and that God still has a plan for His original chosen people

 

[Wannabee]

And you are entitled to your opinion but please base them on scripture not emotions, thats all I ask. And some respect to for I am also your brother in Christ.

Emotions??? That's an imposition, brother. My focus was, from the beginning, to foster more humble and Christ honoring communication.


Pergy, read this. Though I might not take it in full, it should give you a decent idea of how I'd teach Rom 11.

 

[Roldan]

And you are entitled to your opinion but please base them on scripture not emotions, thats all I ask. And some respect to for I am also your brother in Christ.

Emotions??? That's an imposition, brother. My focus was, from the beginning, to foster more humble and Christ honoring communication.


Pergy, read this. Though I might not take it in full, it should give you a decent idea of how I'd teach Rom 11.

I thought the thread was very humble and going very well actually (or maybe its just me) until you came in and accused individuals of "elitism" and "arrogance" just because we actually have a stance on a subject. Now back to the subject at hand........

-----Added 3/10/2009 at 02:30:40 EST-----

Wannabee, are you a progressive dispensationist? I was wondering why all the hostility then I went to your church website and read this in reference to the end times............

We believe and teach that Jesus Christ will rapture (take up to meet Him) His Church from this earth before the seven year tribulation (1 Thessalonians 4.16—17; Titus 2.13; John 14.1—3; 1 Corinthians 15.51—53; 1 Thessalonians 4.15—5: 11).

Now it all makes sense, I apologize if you are offended by Covenant Theology but I can only speak what I believe, but truly I didn't mean to offend. My sincere apologies brother. I apologize for making some strong statements which are sensitive to our progressive dispensationalist and or dispensationalist but I don't apologize for what I believe.

 

[Wannabee]

Wannabee, are you a progressive dispensationist? I was wondering why all the hostility then I went to your church website and read this in reference to the end times............

We believe and teach that Jesus Christ will rapture (take up to meet Him) His Church from this earth before the seven year tribulation (1 Thessalonians 4.16—17; Titus 2.13; John 14.1—3; 1 Corinthians 15.51—53; 1 Thessalonians 4.15—5: 11).

Now it all makes sense, I apologize if you are offended by Covenant Theology but I can only speak what I believe, but truly I didn't mean to offend. My sincere apologies brother.

Ha, now that's an interesting turn. That is no longer our statement. We are premil, but leave the tribulation alone. Our new statement of faith, drafted and approved last fall, is much more comprehensive, clearly reformed in soteriology, premil, baptistic, but takes no stand on the tribulation.

I am not offended by covenant theology in the least. In fact, I am quite influenced by it. And, I really don't know if I'm progressive, NCT, or what. It depends who I'm reading and what he says is what when it comes to theological systems. I simply don't fit any mold, as many who have interacted with me on this board may attest. And, honestly, I don't care. I desire truth, and appreciate how much of it I gain from interaction on this board.

What's interesting, Roldan, is that I never was angry, emotional, upset, hostile, etc., in my posting here. What I saw in many posts I pointed out as arrogant. It would have been proper even if I agreed. As iron sharpens iron, regardless of what the other brother's motive is, we must help one another see when we display character that does not exemplify our Savior. I confronted what appeared to be sin. Graciousness and humility go a long way in persuasion and lead to a deeper understanding. If you'll read my first post in this light perhaps you'll see that I was not so reactionary as you perceived, but seeking the godliness of my brothers in Christ, as any Christian brother should do.

 

[Manuel]

I think the Bible is very clear when it says that the wall of partition that made the distinction between Jews and Gentiles has been torn down and we are now one people. We, as Gentiles were alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, but now through Christ, have become part of the true Israel.

Eph 2:12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility

Also it is very clear in Romans 9, 10 and 11 that God's future plan with Israel according to the flesh is to save a remnant elected by grace so they can also be made part of God's people. The book of Revelation calls the Jews who don't obey the Gospel "a synagogue of Satan". We must pray for them that God brings them to repentance.

 

[Dearly Bought]

I'm predisposed to take the view of a massive conversion of ethnic Jews. I think I would stand in good Reformed company in doing so.

Something has been hidden in the mind and counsel of God, but no longer is it a “mystery” (Rom. 11;25). The partial hardening of Israel has taken place until “the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.” Here Paul is not referring to a remnant of believers among the Gentiles, for the word “fullness” stands over against the concept of a remnant (cf. v. 12). Besides, a remnant elect among the Gentiles was at that very time (in Paul’s day) coming into the kingdom, and thus Paul’s statement that Israel is partially hardened “until” such a remnant (=”fullness”) comes would be senseless. He must mean by “fullness” the mass of the Gentiles. Until this large portion of the Gentiles comes into the kingdom of God, a part of Israel will remain hardened against the gospel. With the mass conversion of the Gentile populace, Israel’s hardening will cease then. Provoked to jealousy (cf. vv. 11, 14). Israel will turn to the Messiah for salvation. And “thus” – in this manner – “all Israel shall be saved” (v. 26). By this declaration Paul must have meant by “Israel” what he has meant by the term throughout the chapter: namely, ethnic Jews (his brothers “according to the flesh”). To maintain, as some do, that Paul was simply stating that “all the elect among the Jews and Gentiles” (that is, “all true Israel”) will be saved is to overlook how irrelevant, obvious, unmysterious and anticlimatic Paul’s declaration would be made. Paul is showing the mysterious wisdom of God, how He marvelously uses the hardening of the Jews to save the mass of the Gentiles, which in turn provokes the Jews to save the mass of the Gentiles, which in turn provokes the Jews to seek in mass the salvation enjoyed by the Gentiles. This mutual interaction cannot be suppressed in interpreting Paul here.
(Gospel Prosperity and the Future of Israel, Greg Bahnsen)

"The interpretation by which "all Israel" is taken to mean the elect of Israel, the true Israel in contrast with Israel after the flesh, in accord with the distinction drawn in 9:6, is not tenable for several reasons. (1) While it is true that all the elect of Israel, the true Israel will be saved, this is so necessary and patent a truth that to assert the same here would have no particular relevance to what is the apostle's governing interest in this section of the epistle. Furthermore, while true that the fact of election with the certainty of its saving issue is a truth of revelation, it is not in the category that would require the special kind of revelation intimated in the words "this mystery" (vs. 25). And since verse 26 is so closely related to verse 25, the assurance that "all Israel shall be saved" is simply another way of stating what is expressly called "this mystery" in verse 25 or, at least, a way of drawing out its implications. That all the elect will be saved does not have the particularity that "mystery" in this instance involves. (2) The salvation of all the elect of Israel affirms or implies no more than the salvation of a remnant of Israel in all generations. But verse 26 brings to a climax a sustained argument that goes far beyond that doctrine. Paul is concerned with the unfolding of God's plan of salvation in history and with the climactic developments for Jew and Gentile that will ensue. It is in terms of this historical perspective that the clause in question is to be understood. (3) Verse 26 is in close sequence with verse 25. The main thesis of verse 25 is that the hardening of Israel is to terminate and that Israel is to be restored. This but another way of affirming what has been called Israel's "fulness" in verse 12, the "receiving" in verse 15, and the grafting in again in verses 23, 24. To regard the climactic statement, "all Israel shall be saved", as having reference to anything else than this precise datum would be exegetical violence.
If we keep in mind the theme of this chapter and the sustained emphasis on the restoration of Israel, there is no other alternative than to conclude that the proposition, "all Israel shall be saved", is to be interpreted in terms of the fulness, the receiving, the ingrafting of Israel as a people, the restoration of Israel to gospel favour and blessing and the correlative turning of Israel from unbelief to faith and repentance."
(The Epistle to the Romans, John Murray, pp. 97-98)

 

[KMK]

Ken, actually someone did make such an assertion earlier in the thread. And, like I said, my comments weren't so much to clear up that issue as to point out that assertions were being made from an authoritarian stance, rather than objective reasoning.

This thread is going in too many directions for me to keep up, but...

Speaking for myself, I am not making an assertion. I am asking a question. When you and many other godly men refer to 'ethnic Jews'. What does that mean?

Also, accusing certain posts as being arrogant is like shooting fish in a barrel on PB. You could pretty much make that accusation on any thread in any forum except the Prayer Forum. I think you need to be more specific. Are you saying that anyone who disagrees with the position that there is a future for 'ethnic Israel' is arrogant?

 

[Wannabee]

Also, accusing certain posts as being arrogant is like shooting fish in a barrel on PB. You could pretty much make that accusation on any thread in any forum except the Prayer Forum. I think you need to be more specific. Are you saying that anyone who disagrees with the position that there is a future for 'ethnic Israel' is arrogant?

Ken, thanks for asking. Point taken. But I was very specific, with quotes and post numbers. I'm not sure what more you could want. Perhaps you could be specific in regard to my vagueness... And, yes, we can often come across as arrogant in our assertion of truth. But the quotes I presented went beyond charitable and responsible debate. However, as Don has explained, it appears that his intent was not as forceful as his impassioned words may have first appeared.

Speaking for myself, I am not making an assertion. I am asking a question. When you and many other godly men refer to 'ethnic Jews'. What does that mean?

Jews by physical descent.

 

[TimV]

Jews by physical descent.

Modern Jews can tell a three quarter Jew he's not a Jew because of a Gentile mother. And obviously the reverse it true, that a one quarter Jew gets automatic citizenship in Israel if his mom is a Jew.

How would you define a Jew?

 

[Dearly Bought]

Charles Hodge also understood Romans 11 to speak of a massive conversion of ethnic Jews in the future, going so far to call it a "national restoration."

See his commentary on Romans for more.

 

[Wannabee]

God defines a Jew, regardless of modern technology. Scripture doesn't tell us how He does it. This isn't about contemporary Jewish law or practice. It's about what God, the One who established/made/built the Jews, has said He will do. I don't see any fruit, or even the possibility of a conclusion, in attempting to draw these lines within the boundaries of what passes for a "legal" Jew today. This is often done by some dispensationalists. And even more often it's imposed as necessary by many who disagree with any future for ethnic Israel. But it just isn't a necessary component of those who see a future for Israel any more than paedo communion is a necessary component of covenantalism.

 

[KMK]

Physical descent from whom? Abraham? Isaac? Jacob?

How does a person living in the 21st century know if they are a physical descendant?

 

[KMK]

There is an ever present ebb and flow of elitism on this board, as can easily happen when men are purveyors of the truth of God. These ebbs and flows usually involve either baptism or dispensationalism bashing. And, sadly, here we have another thread with overt Dispensational bashing elitism. The broad brush and straw man doesn't make one right because of philosophical brashness and proof-texting. Whether I'm a Dispensational or not, all who perceive a future for ethnic Israel have been labeled as, or as teaching, "heresy", "no sound understanding of the gospel" (in other words - lost/hell bound - post 21) and "horribly dangerous and confounding" (38).

Sorry, I missed this. That clears up my question.

 

[Wannabee]

Physical descent from whom? Abraham? Isaac? Jacob?

How does a person living in the 21st century know if they are a physical descendant?

See my previous post. Also, who says that they must know if they are a physical descendant? I don't have a clue about the intricacies of this, Ken. I don't know how God is going to do what He's going to do any more than the Jews knew that the Messiah was going to free them from the oppression of sin, rather than that of Rome. Scripture simply makes promises that have to do with a people He has chosen for His purposes. Other than that, I wait and see.

On the other hand, what does one do with the land promises handed down to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

 

[KMK]

Physical descent from whom? Abraham? Isaac? Jacob?

How does a person living in the 21st century know if they are a physical descendant?

See my previous post. Also, who says that they must know if they are a physical descendant? I don't have a clue about the intricacies of this, Ken. I don't know how God is going to do what He's going to do any more than the Jews knew that the Messiah was going to free them from the oppression of sin, rather than that of Rome. Scripture simply makes promises that have to do with a people He has chosen for His purposes. Other than that, I wait and see.

Your post assumes that this harvest of 'ethnic Jews' is still future. But since only God knows who 'ethnic Jews' are, is it possible that it has already happened? Could it have happened during the Welsh or the Azusa St revivals, for example? Could it have happened during the Reformation?

 

[Wannabee]

It doesn't "assume" so much as submit. I'll defer to the OP on this one.

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,[g] 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.”

This has been addressed in the thread already, however. No sense in reinventing the wheel.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/wil...t-jews-before-Jesus-returns-44922/#post565785
http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/wil...t-jews-before-Jesus-returns-44922/#post565856
http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/wil...t-jews-before-Jesus-returns-44922/#post566245
http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/wil...re-Jesus-returns-44922/index2.html#post567441
http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/wil...re-Jesus-returns-44922/index2.html#post567598

 

[charliejunfan]

I just read Romans11 again and it does seem that a big amount of national Israelites will be brought in.
I used to interpret all Israel being saved to mean all those in Christ, however now it seems that he is talking about national Israelites.
HMMMMMM......
By no means does this mean one is a dispensationalist, like many have said on here, this belief was believed by many Puritans and the like.

 

[KMK]

It doesn't "assume" so much as submit. I'll defer to the OP on this one.

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,[g] 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.”

This has been addressed in the thread already, however. No sense in reinventing the wheel.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/wil...t-jews-before-Jesus-returns-44922/#post565785
http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/wil...t-jews-before-Jesus-returns-44922/#post565856
http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/wil...t-jews-before-Jesus-returns-44922/#post566245
http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/wil...re-Jesus-returns-44922/index2.html#post567441
http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/wil...re-Jesus-returns-44922/index2.html#post567598

I guess those do address my question if one assumes that this harvest of 'ethnic Jews' does not occur until the precise moment that the fullness of the Gentiles is brought in and that hasn't happened yet. This opens a whole other

Thank you for your attempts to answer my questions. I do not desire to be a pest.

 

[Roldan]

I just read Romans11 again and it does seem that a big amount of national Israelites will be brought in.
I used to interpret all Israel being saved to mean all those in Christ, however now it seems that he is talking about national Israelites.
HMMMMMM......
By no means does this mean one is a dispensationalist, like many have said on here, this belief was believed by many Puritans and the like.

How did you come up with that conclusion? You said it "seems" twice.....I can as easily say that it seems to me that to read Rom. 11 and come to the conclusion that ethnic or national Israel will be saved seems very unlikely considering the whole context of chp 9,10. The more I read the context the more unlikely interpreting 11:26 as speaking to some ethnic Jewish future conversion. And again, yes, it begs the question as to what Jews.....There is none, except for the True Jew as described by the Apostle Paul.

Please explain

 

[OPC'n]

On the other hand, what does one do with the land promises handed down to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

Buddy! I thought I had cleared this one up for you!

 

[Wannabee]

I guess those do address my question if one assumes that this harvest of 'ethnic Jews' does not occur until the precise moment that the fullness of the Gentiles is brought in and that hasn't happened yet. This opens a whole other

Thank you for your attempts to answer my questions. I do not desire to be a pest.

You're not a pest at all Ken. Good questions. And this is a logical route for the discussion to take. So, what is the fullness of the Gentiles? Some would claim that it's the inauguration of the church. But that makes little sense since Paul is writing after this and clearly pointing to a future date.

It's not "assuming" to claim that the blindness won't be lifted until this time. That's what the text says. And in doing so it clearly maintains a separation between Jew and Gentile. So, what is the fullness of the Gentiles?

 

[Roldan]

You're not a pest at all Ken. Good questions. And this is a logical route for the discussion to take. So, what is the fullness of the Gentiles? Some would claim that it's the inauguration of the church. But that makes little sense since Paul is writing after this and clearly pointing to a future date.

It's not "assuming" to claim that the blindness won't be lifted until this time. That's what the text says. And in doing so it clearly maintains a separation between Jew and Gentile. So, what is the fullness of the Gentiles?

The fullness of the Gentiles are all those who are unbelieving and uncircumcised of the heart, in keeping with Pauls whole context.

Lets remember that I am not denying that national Israel will be saved, but that a remnant of national Israel WAS saved in the past therefore the Remnant of Israel+grafted in Gentiles=ALL ISRAEL. Was ALL Israel hardended and blinded when Paul was writing afterall Paul was a chief Jew not to mention all the Jews that was saved prior to 70 AD.

What does Paul mean when he states that Israel is experiencing a "hardening in part"?The noun...("hardening") corresponds to the verb ("were hardened") in verse 7 where Paul contrasts the "elect" with the "rest."As in verse 7, in verse 25 Paul is speaking quantitatively ("in part") and not temporally ("for a while"). The verse should not be understood as meaning "for a while hardening has happened to Israel" but "a partial hardening (or 'a hardening in part') has happened to Israel." Also, by a "hardening in part" Paul does not mean that all of Israel is only partially hardened, but that some are fully hardened while the elect remnant is being saved. In no way does the phrase suggest that God intends to initiate a special salvation era for Israel in the future.

Again this is in harmony with Paul's teaching of not "ALL Israel is Israel" and "there is a REMNANT WITHIN Israel"

So what is a Gentile according to scripture? a non-Jew.

what was a samaritan according to scripture? a Mixed Jew(worse than a Gentile).

So what are our mixed of Jewish descent brothers today? Gentiles

And what do you say to the Jews for Jesus Movement today about their unblindness and recieving of the Gospel?

Do we tell them "hey your are supposed to be blind still until the future mass re-exodus"

How does one who believes in a future mass salvation of Jews explain their conversion?

And if you are going to use the "blindness in PART" argument then it is obvious that you are conceeding to the fact that God has maintained a remnant and then the future ALL Israel as a nation is gone out the window.

Please help me out....I am really open to being corrected this is just what keeps me at bay in my position.