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

[KMK]

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?

Sorry my reply has been delayed.

I do not know what the fullness of the Gentiles will look like. I think it is an invisible event. And if the 'ethnic Jews' that are called are descendants of Jacob, then I can't help but think that it is also an invisible event. As you have pointed out, only God knows who the true descendants of Jacob are.

 

[Wannabee]

Perhaps Robert Haldane is helpful here.

Verse 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 fullness of the Gentiles be come in.
Having in the two preceding verses exhibited first the possibility, and next the probability, of the restoration of the Jews, according to the order of God’s providence, the Apostle, in this and the following verses, down to verse 28, goes on to prove the certainty of the future conversion and restoration of Israel. He here addresses the Gentiles as his brethren, thus expressing his affection for them, and stimulates their attention, by declaring that he was about to reveal to them a mystery—a thing hitherto hidden or unknown. The restoration of the Jews is called a mystery, for though declared in the Scriptures, it was not understood. And in this mystery there were two parts, both of which are here unfolded,—first, that blindness is happened to Israel in part only; and, secondly, that this blindness should continue till the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. This mystery was opened to prevent the Gentiles from being wise in their own conceits, that is, from being puffed up on account of the preference they now enjoyed. Ignorance of the Scriptures is the cause of high–mindedness in Christians. They are often arrogant and contemptuous through want of knowledge. In the absence of real knowledge, they often suppose that they have a true understanding of things with which they are still unacquainted, and are thus vain and conceited.
Blindness in part is happened to Israel.—This does not mean that their blindness was only partial, and limited in degree, for it was total and complete; but that it did not extend to all Israel, but only to a part, though indeed the far greater part. It is a consolation that the Jews are under no exclusion that forbids the preaching of the Gospel to them, and using every effort for their conversion. Though the national rejection will continue till the appointed time, yet individuals from among them may at any period be brought to the knowledge of God. This fact is of great importance. They are excluded only through unbelief, and this unbelief is not affirmed of all, but only of a part.
Until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.—Here is the clearest attestation that the blindness of the Jews will yet cease, not only as to individuals, but as to the body. It is not stated at what time this will happen, but it is connected with the fullness of the Gentiles. The fullness of the Gentiles is the accession of the Gentiles to the body of Christ. Here we have another glorious truth presented for our consolation. The world has hitherto groaned under heathen and antichristian idolatry, but the time will come when the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ; and this will be closely connected with the recovery of the Jews from their unbelief. This declaration of the Apostle coincides with that remarkable prediction of our blessed Lord: “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”
Robert Haldane, An Exposition of Romans, (Simpsonville SC: Christian Classics Foundation, 1996), 548.

I'm really not very familiar with James Dunn. But his words here may be helpful as well.

ἄχρι οὗ τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν εἰσέθῃ, “until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.” ἄχρι οὗ certainly suggests a temporal sequence (“until the time when”), implying that once the full number of the Gentiles has come in Israel’s blindness will cease. It does not follow, however, that Paul had a clear perception of the final events as happening in strict sequence or of how the Parousia of Christ was related to Israel’s final conversion (vv 26–27). His conviction is simply of a mounting climax with the incoming of the Gentiles as the trigger for the final end in which Israel’s conversion, Christ’s Parousia, and the final resurrection (v 15) would all be involved. The thought once again is characteristically apocalyptic, expressive of the certainty that events on earth are following a schedule predetermined by God (e.g., Dan 11:36; Jub. 1.29; 2 Apoc. Bar. 48.2–3, 6; see further Russell, Apocalyptic, 230–34). In particular, the idea of the number of the elect as planned by God and awaiting completion was one which came strongly to the surface in the second half of the first century a.d. (see particularly 2 Apoc. Bar. 23.4; 30.2; 75.6; 4 Ezra 4.36–37; Apoc. Abr. 29.17; Rev 6:11; 7:4; 14:1; 1 Clem 2.4; 59.2; 4 Ezra 2.40–41; Stuhlmann, chap. 3). That such an emphasis need not and should not serve as any excuse for human indolence and passivity is sufficiently indicated by the example of Paul himself (11:13–14; 15:14–15; 16:25–26).
For πλήρωμα see further on 11:12. By using the same word Paul presumably intended to indicate that the incoming of the Gentiles would be equivalent to that of Israel (cf. particularly Murray). This is not necessarily an exact numerical equivalence—no attempt is made to specify what “the full number” might amount to (cf. Munck, Christ, 133–35; though, as Barrett notes, “ ‘the number intended by God’ might be identical with the ‘total number’ ”; in Revelation the figure 144,000 is, of course, symbolical)—but sufficiently equivalent (as many, or as few) for ethnic origins (Jew or Gentile) to be unimportant (see also Stuhlmann, 173–78). For Jewish expectation of an eschatological conversion and pilgrimage of the nations to Zion, see on 9:26; it is certainly possible that Paul had in mind as part of the Christian variation of this Jewish hope his forthcoming journey to Jerusalem with the collection (so particularly Aus, 242; Hübner, Israel, 112–13; see also on 11:12).
The frequency of the verb εἰσέρχομαι in the Jesus tradition in talk of entering into the “kingdom” or into “life” (Mark 9:43, 45, 47 par.; 10:15, 23–25 pars.; Matt 5:20; 7:21; 19:17; John 3:5), its distinctiveness as one of Jesus’ characteristic idioms (Jeremias, Theology, 32–33), and its infrequency in Paul (only three times elsewhere) make it likely that Paul is drawing here on pre-Pauline tradition which stems from Jesus (Michel, Käsemann, Schlier, Wilckens; but see also Munck, Christ, 132; Aus, 251–52; Schmitt, 110, Räisänen, “Römer 9–11, ” 2922—εἰσέρχομαι from the motif of the incoming of Gentiles to Zion [though none of the passages cited under 9:26 use εἰσέρχομαι]; a continuation of the metaphor of grafting, as Fitzmyer, is less natural). If that is the case, however, it is a tradition charismatically reshaped (see further on 12:14) as part of the revelatory answer given to Paul (see above on μυστήριον); cf. Käsemann (with bibliography). Moreover, Paul has used the spatial imagery of Jesus’ formulation to transform the traditional Jewish expectation that the final acceptance of the Gentiles would be a physical pilgrimage to Jerusalem. What marks out Paul’s view from that of his fellow Jews (and Jewish Christians?) is that for him the gentile “incoming” would not establish Jewish superiority (on Israel’s terms in effect), but rather the character of God’s election, so that in an important sense Israel’s restoration is on Gentiles’ terms (that is, in terms of grace alone). It is in this way that Paul resolves what Davies rightly calls “Paul’s quandary …: how to do justice to the historical role of his own people without thereby, ipso facto, elevating their ethnic character to a position of special privilege” (“Israel,” 147).
James D. G. Dunn, vol. 38B, Word Biblical Commentary : Romans 9-16, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 679.

 

[Roldan]

Wannabee, we can go back and forth with commentaries but the questions remains...who is this remnant that God has preserved unto Himself? And Why are "jews" saved by the thousands today at the same time while gentiles continue to come in? Granting your position of course.

This cannot be ignored........

 

[Wannabee]

I'm not ignoring you Ricky. I thought Haldane particularly helpful in light of the lack of dispensational influence in his day. And this next quote answers your question to a degree. I had gathered it before I saw your post. Bear with me, my time today is short. I'll post this and then have to return tomorrow. While I don't necessarily buy into the tribulation and all that MacArthur teaches in regard to end times, some of his observations here deserve consideration.

For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in; and thus all Israel will be saved; (11:25–26a)
Paul had just warned Gentile believers about becoming proud and conceited because unbelieving Israel was cut off from blessing in order that it might be offered to Gentiles, explaining that “if God did not spare the natural branches [Israel], neither will He spare you [the Gentile church]” (Rom. 11:20–21). If in His sovereign grace He is now granting salvation to believing Gentiles, “how much more” will He bring His covenant nation Israel back to Himself in belief and for blessing and cut off the apostate Gentile church (vv. 24). God is not finished with His ancient chosen people, and even during this time when Jews as a nation are severed from God’s special blessing because of unbelief, anti-Semitism in any form is anathema to the Lord. Whoever harms God’s chosen people “touches the apple [pupil] of His eye” (Zech. 2:8).
Doubtless with great joy and expectation, Paul tells believing Jews and Gentiles alike that he does not want them to be uninformed of a marvelous mystery. At the end of the epistle Paul defines mystery as being a revelation “which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God” (Rom. 16:26; cf. Eph. 3:5–7).
Before Paul identifies and explains the particular mystery of which he is speaking here, he once again cautions Gentiles against pride, warning them to avoid construing the truths of that mystery as reasons for being wise in their own estimation.
The first component of this mystery is that a partial spiritual hardening has happened to Israel. Partial does not modify mystery but Israel. That is, those who are hardened—the great majority—are totally hardened, but not every Jew has been or will be hardened. As always through the ages of redemptive history, God sovereignly has preserved for Himself a believing remnant. That is the gracious truth Paul emphasizes in the first part of this chapter (11:1–10).
The second component of this mystery is that the hardening will remain only until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in. Until refers to time, fulness indicates completion, and together those terms denote impermanence. The hardening will last only for God’s divinely-determined duration. It began when Israel rejected Jesus as her Messiah and Savior, and it will end when the fulness of the Gentiles has come in.
Has come in is from eiserchomai, a verb Jesus frequently used. He used it of entering the kingdom of heaven/God (Matt. 5:20; Mark 9:47; John 3:5; cf. Acts 14:22) and of entering eternal life (Mark 9:43, 45), both of which refer to receiving salvation. Israel’s unbelief will last only until the complete number of the Gentiles chosen by God have come to salvation. Paul’s special calling was “to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, that my offering of the Gentiles might become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 15:16). In his letter to Titus, Paul refers to himself as “an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God” (1:1). The mystery ends when the gathering of the elect is complete.
That, of course, is also the calling of the church. Although many Jews have been saved through the church’s witness, the vast majority of converts have been, and will continue to be, Gentiles—until their number is complete. That will signal the beginning of events that lead to Israel’s redemption, when all Israel will be saved—a truth that must have filled Paul’s heart with great joy (cf. Rom. 9:1–3; 10:1).
All Israel must be taken to mean just that—the entire nation that survives God’s judgment during the Great Tribulation. The common amillennial view that all Israel refers only to a remnant redeemed during the church age does injustice to the text. Paul’s declaration about all Israel is set in clear contrast to what he has already said about the believing Jewish remnant which the Lord has always preserved for Himself. The fact, for instance, that only some of the branches (unbelieving Jews) were broken off (v. 17), plainly indicates that a remnant of believing Jews—those not broken off—will continually exist while the fulness of the Gentiles is being completed. These are Jews being redeemed who are not part of the spiritual hardening that has come upon Israel because of her rejection of her Messiah (v. 25).
Before all Israel is saved, its unbelieving, ungodly members will be separated out by God’s inerrant hand of judgment. Ezekiel makes that truth vividly clear:
“As I live,” declares the Lord God, “surely with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm and with wrath poured out, I shall be king over you. And I shall bring you out from the peoples and gather you from the lands where you are scattered, with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm and with wrath poured out; and I shall bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I shall enter into judgment with you face to face. As I entered into judgment with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will enter into judgment with you,” declares the Lord God. “And I shall make you pass under the rod, and I shall bring you into the bond of the covenant; and I shall purge from you the rebels and those who transgress against Me; I shall bring them out of the land where they sojourn, but they will not enter the land of Israel. Thus you will know that I am the Lord.” (Ezek. 20:33–38, emphasis added; cf. Dan. 12:10; Zech. 13:8–9)
Those who hear the preaching of the 144,000 (Rev. 7:1–8; 14:1–5), of other converts (7:9), of the two witnesses (11:3–13), and of the angel (14:6), and thus safely pass under God’s rod of judgment will then comprise all Israel, which—in fulfillment of God’s sovereign and irrevocable promise—will be completely a nation of believers who are ready for the kingdom of the Messiah Jesus.
“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jer. 31:31–34; cf. 32:38)
God’s control of history is irrefutable evidence of His sovereignty. And as surely as He cut off unbelieving Israel from His tree of salvation, just as surely will He graft believing Israel back in—a nation completely restored and completely saved.
It is helpful to note an additional truth that Paul does not mention at this point—namely, that, just as the fulness of the Gentiles will initiate the salvation of Israel, so the salvation of Israel will initiate the millennial kingdom of Jesus Christ.
That three-stage plan of God was predicted in the Old Testament and proclaimed in the New. In about a.d. 50, a council of “the apostles and the elders came together” in Jerusalem to discuss whether or not Gentiles had to submit to the Mosaic law, including circumcision, in order to be saved (Acts 15:1–6). After considerable debate, including statements by Peter, Paul, and Barnabas,
James answered, saying, “Brethren, listen to me. Simeon [Peter] has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, ‘After these things I will return, and I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen, and I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, in order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old’ ” (vv. 12–18).
John MacArthur, Romans (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996, c1991, c1994), 127.

 

[Roldan]

Blindness in part is happened to Israel.—This does not mean that their blindness was only partial, and limited in degree, for it was total and complete; but that it did not extend to all Israel, but only to a part, though indeed the far greater part. It is a consolation that the Jews are under no exclusion that forbids the preaching of the Gospel to them, and using every effort for their conversion. Though the national rejection will continue till the appointed time, yet individuals from among them may at any period be brought to the knowledge of God. This fact is of great importance. They are excluded only through unbelief, and this unbelief is not affirmed of all, but only of a part.

So he agrees with me that "in part" is not to be taken as to only partial blindness of Jews but of Complete blindness to Some Jews hence God preserving His remnant.

Also, this commentator runs in circles. So whats the point of National Israel conversion if they are as of right now getting saved?

A conversion of National Israel is the remnant of Dispensational thought.

Dispensationalism has done more to our theology than we would like to admit.

-----Added 3/11/2009 at 04:00:05 EST-----

I'm not ignoring you Ricky. I thought Haldane particularly helpful in light of the lack of dispensational influence in his day. And this next quote answers your question to a degree. I had gathered it before I saw your post. Bear with me, my time today is short. I'll post this and then have to return tomorrow. While I don't necessarily buy into the tribulation and all that MacArthur teaches in regard to end times, some of his observations here deserve consideration.

For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in; and thus all Israel will be saved; (11:25–26a)
Paul had just warned Gentile believers about becoming proud and conceited because unbelieving Israel was cut off from blessing in order that it might be offered to Gentiles, explaining that “if God did not spare the natural branches [Israel], neither will He spare you [the Gentile church]” (Rom. 11:20–21). If in His sovereign grace He is now granting salvation to believing Gentiles, “how much more” will He bring His covenant nation Israel back to Himself in belief and for blessing and cut off the apostate Gentile church (vv. 24). God is not finished with His ancient chosen people, and even during this time when Jews as a nation are severed from God’s special blessing because of unbelief, anti-Semitism in any form is anathema to the Lord. Whoever harms God’s chosen people “touches the apple [pupil] of His eye” (Zech. 2:8).
Doubtless with great joy and expectation, Paul tells believing Jews and Gentiles alike that he does not want them to be uninformed of a marvelous mystery. At the end of the epistle Paul defines mystery as being a revelation “which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God” (Rom. 16:26; cf. Eph. 3:5–7).
Before Paul identifies and explains the particular mystery of which he is speaking here, he once again cautions Gentiles against pride, warning them to avoid construing the truths of that mystery as reasons for being wise in their own estimation.
The first component of this mystery is that a partial spiritual hardening has happened to Israel. Partial does not modify mystery but Israel. That is, those who are hardened—the great majority—are totally hardened, but not every Jew has been or will be hardened. As always through the ages of redemptive history, God sovereignly has preserved for Himself a believing remnant. That is the gracious truth Paul emphasizes in the first part of this chapter (11:1–10).
The second component of this mystery is that the hardening will remain only until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in. Until refers to time, fulness indicates completion, and together those terms denote impermanence. The hardening will last only for God’s divinely-determined duration. It began when Israel rejected Jesus as her Messiah and Savior, and it will end when the fulness of the Gentiles has come in.
Has come in is from eiserchomai, a verb Jesus frequently used. He used it of entering the kingdom of heaven/God (Matt. 5:20; Mark 9:47; John 3:5; cf. Acts 14:22) and of entering eternal life (Mark 9:43, 45), both of which refer to receiving salvation. Israel’s unbelief will last only until the complete number of the Gentiles chosen by God have come to salvation. Paul’s special calling was “to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, that my offering of the Gentiles might become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 15:16). In his letter to Titus, Paul refers to himself as “an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God” (1:1). The mystery ends when the gathering of the elect is complete.
That, of course, is also the calling of the church. Although many Jews have been saved through the church’s witness, the vast majority of converts have been, and will continue to be, Gentiles—until their number is complete. That will signal the beginning of events that lead to Israel’s redemption, when all Israel will be saved—a truth that must have filled Paul’s heart with great joy (cf. Rom. 9:1–3; 10:1).
All Israel must be taken to mean just that—the entire nation that survives God’s judgment during the Great Tribulation. The common amillennial view that all Israel refers only to a remnant redeemed during the church age does injustice to the text. Paul’s declaration about all Israel is set in clear contrast to what he has already said about the believing Jewish remnant which the Lord has always preserved for Himself. The fact, for instance, that only some of the branches (unbelieving Jews) were broken off (v. 17), plainly indicates that a remnant of believing Jews—those not broken off—will continually exist while the fulness of the Gentiles is being completed. These are Jews being redeemed who are not part of the spiritual hardening that has come upon Israel because of her rejection of her Messiah (v. 25).
Before all Israel is saved, its unbelieving, ungodly members will be separated out by God’s inerrant hand of judgment. Ezekiel makes that truth vividly clear:
“As I live,” declares the Lord God, “surely with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm and with wrath poured out, I shall be king over you. And I shall bring you out from the peoples and gather you from the lands where you are scattered, with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm and with wrath poured out; and I shall bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I shall enter into judgment with you face to face. As I entered into judgment with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will enter into judgment with you,” declares the Lord God. “And I shall make you pass under the rod, and I shall bring you into the bond of the covenant; and I shall purge from you the rebels and those who transgress against Me; I shall bring them out of the land where they sojourn, but they will not enter the land of Israel. Thus you will know that I am the Lord.” (Ezek. 20:33–38, emphasis added; cf. Dan. 12:10; Zech. 13:8–9)
Those who hear the preaching of the 144,000 (Rev. 7:1–8; 14:1–5), of other converts (7:9), of the two witnesses (11:3–13), and of the angel (14:6), and thus safely pass under God’s rod of judgment will then comprise all Israel, which—in fulfillment of God’s sovereign and irrevocable promise—will be completely a nation of believers who are ready for the kingdom of the Messiah Jesus.
“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jer. 31:31–34; cf. 32:38)
God’s control of history is irrefutable evidence of His sovereignty. And as surely as He cut off unbelieving Israel from His tree of salvation, just as surely will He graft believing Israel back in—a nation completely restored and completely saved.
It is helpful to note an additional truth that Paul does not mention at this point—namely, that, just as the fulness of the Gentiles will initiate the salvation of Israel, so the salvation of Israel will initiate the millennial kingdom of Jesus Christ.
That three-stage plan of God was predicted in the Old Testament and proclaimed in the New. In about a.d. 50, a council of “the apostles and the elders came together” in Jerusalem to discuss whether or not Gentiles had to submit to the Mosaic law, including circumcision, in order to be saved (Acts 15:1–6). After considerable debate, including statements by Peter, Paul, and Barnabas,
James answered, saying, “Brethren, listen to me. Simeon [Peter] has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, ‘After these things I will return, and I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen, and I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, in order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old’ ” (vv. 12–18).
John MacArthur, Romans (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996, c1991, c1994), 127.

I would expect that from JohnnyMac since he is a progressive Dispensational.

The first component of this mystery is that a partial spiritual hardening has happened to Israel. Partial does not modify mystery but Israel. That is, those who are hardened—the great majority—are totally hardened, but not every Jew has been or will be hardened. As always through the ages of redemptive history, God sovereignly has preserved for Himself a believing remnant. That is the gracious truth Paul emphasizes in the first part of this chapter (11:1–10).

Again, contradicting. How can ALL Israel be saved if they are being saved already? Is there some special couple hundred thousand Jews that are specifically special to God after the Gentiles have come in?

I don't get it

 

[Dearly Bought]

A conversion of National Israel is the remnant of Dispensational thought.

Dispensationalism has done more to our theology than we would like to admit.

I don't know if I'm going to have the time today to respond in detail regarding the exposition of these verses, but I want to make one comment. Your repeated allegations that the national conversion interpretation is a remnant of Dispensational thought are not helpful or accurate. As I've pointed out, more recent Reformed scholars such as Charles Hodge, John Murray, Greg Bahnsen, and Kim Riddlebarger have held this position. These are not men influenced by Dispensationalism, except perhaps to run far, far away. The national conversion interpretation existed long before Dispensationalism was a twinkle in Darby's eye. Check out the Geneva Bible's note for Romans 11:25. See Ian Murray's The Puritan Hope for discussion of the great number of English Puritans who took such a view.

This is not a Reformed vs. Dispensationalist issue.

 

[Jon 316]

This is not a Reformed vs. Dispensationalist issue.

good point.

 

[Roldan]

A conversion of National Israel is the remnant of Dispensational thought.

Dispensationalism has done more to our theology than we would like to admit.

I don't know if I'm going to have the time today to respond in detail regarding the exposition of these verses, but I want to make one comment. Your repeated allegations that the national conversion interpretation is a remnant of Dispensational thought are not helpful or accurate. As I've pointed out, more recent Reformed scholars such as Charles Hodge, John Murray, Greg Bahnsen, and Kim Riddlebarger have held this position. These are not men influenced by Dispensationalism, except perhaps to run far, far away. The national conversion interpretation existed long before Dispensationalism was a twinkle in Darby's eye. Check out the Geneva Bible's note for Romans 11:25. See Ian Murray's The Puritan Hope for discussion of the great number of English Puritans who took such a view.

This is not a Reformed vs. Dispensationalist issue.

I didn't say it was full blown Dispensational. And I would thoroughly disagree with the men you mentioned above and would say that they unconsciously make God a respecter of persons and can just as easily quote other reformed men who would hold to the view we who disagree have presented so thats neither here nor there actually. I know that you are just making the point that these men agree with you and are Reformed and Dispensational, point well taken, but yes some of them were influenced by Dispensationalism like Riddleman and Bahnsen(if I'm not mistaken). But again that does nothing for this issue but try to get as many theologians we can who agree with our points as if to justify a view. I don't think that works quite honestly though it helps to persuad lol

Also there would be no twinkle in Darby's eye if it wasn't for this seperation of Jew and Gentile that Paul clearly joins together.

ANd I know its not a Reformed vs Dispensational issue but it is a hermeneutical issue and I believe that no matter how many puritans or reformers or whoever held to that view, it is ultimately the proper exegesis of the text that matters, sure I know we are influenced by Church History and all that but they don't always get everything right. Semper Reformanda

Again please deal with my questions to continue the topic.

 

[KMK]

The idea that the Jews shall be called is not Dispensational vs. Reformed. However, the idea that we look to this little nation in Palestine for the fulfillment might be.

The Reformers did not look to 'national Israel' for the fulfillment because 'national Israel' as we know it today did not exist. But Dispensationalists as well as some who claim not to be Dispensationalists still look toward that little nation in Palestine for fulfillment.

My point is, if we do not know who the descendants of Jacob are, then we cannot look toward that little nation in Palestine for the fulfillment. Does anyone really believe that there are more descendants of Jacob in that little nation in Palestine than there are in the rest of the world? It seems to me that if every descendant of Jacob in the US or in Russia were to suddenly repent and believe it would just as likely be the fulfillment than a revival in that little nation in Palestine.

 

[Roldan]

The idea that the Jews shall be called is not Dispensational vs. Reformed. However, the idea that we look to this little nation in Palestine for the fulfillment might be.

Exactley

 

[Dearly Bought]

The idea that the Jews shall be called is not Dispensational vs. Reformed. However, the idea that we look to this little nation in Palestine for the fulfillment might be.

The Reformers did not look to 'national Israel' for the fulfillment because 'national Israel' as we know it today did not exist. But Dispensationalists as well as some who claim not to be Dispensationalists still look toward that little nation in Palestine for fulfillment.

My point is, if we do not know who the descendants of Jacob are, then we cannot look toward that little nation in Palestine for the fulfillment. Does anyone really believe that there are more descendants of Jacob in that little nation in Palestine than there are in the rest of the world? It seems to me that if every descendant of Jacob in the US or in Russia were to suddenly repent and believe it would just as likely be the fulfillment than a revival in that little nation in Palestine.

Yes, insistence on the modern nation-state of Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy might well be interpreted as a remnant of dispensationalism. I wasn't aware that anyone on this thread was advocating such a view.

-----Added 3/11/2009 at 06:29:47 EST-----

I didn't say it was full blown Dispensational. And I would thoroughly disagree with the men you mentioned above and would say that they unconsciously make God a respecter of persons and can just as easily quote other reformed men who would hold to the view we who disagree have presented so thats neither here nor there actually. I know that you are just making the point that these men agree with you and are Reformed and Dispensational, point well taken, but yes some of them were influenced by Dispensationalism like Riddleman and Bahnsen(if I'm not mistaken). But again that does nothing for this issue but try to get as many theologians we can who agree with our points as if to justify a view. I don't think that works quite honestly though it helps to persuad lol

Also there would be no twinkle in Darby's eye if it wasn't for this seperation of Jew and Gentile that Paul clearly joins together.

ANd I know its not a Reformed vs Dispensational issue but it is a hermeneutical issue and I believe that no matter how many puritans or reformers or whoever held to that view, it is ultimately the proper exegesis of the text that matters, sure I know we are influenced by Church History and all that but they don't always get everything right. Semper Reformanda

Again please deal with my questions to continue the topic.

Kim Riddlebarger has written and taught very forcefully against Dispensationalist eschatology (cf. his A Case for Amillennialism and The Man of Sin). If there was one thing that Bahnsen adamantly was not, it was Dispensationalist (cf. his House Divided: The Break-Up of Dispensational Theology). I think it is relevant that the national conversion interpretation has a strong history within the Reformed tradition.

I will try and address the exposition of the text shortly.

 

[KMK]

Yes, insistence on the modern nation-state of Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy might well be interpreted as a remnant of dispensationalism. I wasn't aware that anyone on this thread was advocating such a view.

I think it is relevant that the national conversion interpretation has a strong history within the Reformed tradition.

You say that no one is advocating a 'national' conversion of Israel, yet you state there is a strong history in the Reformed tradition of the 'national' conversion interpretation.

How can there be a strong tradition of the 'national' conversion interpretation if there was no nation-state of Israel at the time of the Reformation? What the Reformed confessions state is that the Jews will be called. I don't think they believed that the nation of Israel would be called. How could they?

 

[Dearly Bought]

Yes, insistence on the modern nation-state of Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy might well be interpreted as a remnant of dispensationalism. I wasn't aware that anyone on this thread was advocating such a view.

I think it is relevant that the national conversion interpretation has a strong history within the Reformed tradition.

You say that no one is advocating a 'national' conversion of Israel, yet you state there is a strong history in the Reformed tradition of the 'national' conversion interpretation.

How can there be a strong tradition of the 'national' conversion interpretation if there was no nation-state of Israel at the time of the Reformation? What the Reformed confessions state is that the Jews will be called. I don't think they believed that the nation of Israel would be called. How could they?

I am using 'national' as a reference to a body of people, not a political unit.

 

[Roldan]

Kim Riddlebarger has written and taught very forcefully against Dispensationalist eschatology (cf. his A Case for Amillennialism and The Man of Sin). If there was one thing that Bahnsen adamantly was not, it was Dispensationalist

I know I have the books and they are two of my favorites especially Riddleman.

And I don't mean to sound like a jerk or "elitist" LOL but you are just making statements and are not dealing with my post and its points directly, not that you have to but if you strongly disagree please show me why at least lol and I mean that with the utmost respect, sometimes we can get the wrong impression on message boards when we read people wrong, know what I mean

 

[Dearly Bought]

My understanding of Romans 11 is that the pleroma (fullness) of ethnic Israel (v. 12) must be subsequent to the pleroma of the Gentiles (v. 25), due to the partial hardening of ethnic Israel. The akris ou (until which) in verse 25 is the justification for this order.

 

[historyb]

Yes, insistence on the modern nation-state of Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy might well be interpreted as a remnant of dispensationalism. I wasn't aware that anyone on this thread was advocating such a view.

I think the modern nation-state of Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy might be, but still I am on the fence about it myself.

 

[Dearly Bought]

To add to my commentary above...

Two separate verses in this chapter emphasis a direct parallel between the rejection and restoration of ethnic Israel:

"Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!"
(Romans 11:12, ESV)

"For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?"
(Romans 11:15, ESV)

It seems natural to me to read both the rejection and restoration as corporate in nature. There is no reason that I see in the text to interpret the first as a rejection of the nation, but the latter as an inclusion of individuals only.

 

[KMK]

Yes, insistence on the modern nation-state of Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy might well be interpreted as a remnant of dispensationalism. I wasn't aware that anyone on this thread was advocating such a view.

I think it is relevant that the national conversion interpretation has a strong history within the Reformed tradition.

You say that no one is advocating a 'national' conversion of Israel, yet you state there is a strong history in the Reformed tradition of the 'national' conversion interpretation.

How can there be a strong tradition of the 'national' conversion interpretation if there was no nation-state of Israel at the time of the Reformation? What the Reformed confessions state is that the Jews will be called. I don't think they believed that the nation of Israel would be called. How could they?

I am using 'national' as a reference to a body of people, not a political unit.

What does 'body of people' mean. That is the first time someone has used that phrase in this thread.

 

[Wannabee]

Again, contradicting. How can ALL Israel be saved if they are being saved already? Is there some special couple hundred thousand Jews that are specifically special to God after the Gentiles have come in?

I don't get it

He actually dealt with this. And it doesn't require the tribulation in order for this to make sense. It's MacArthur's understanding. But the point that these things will take place before the millennium is well taken.

All Israel must be taken to mean just that—the entire nation that survives God’s judgment during the Great Tribulation. The common amillennial view that all Israel refers only to a remnant redeemed during the church age does injustice to the text. Paul’s declaration about all Israel is set in clear contrast to what he has already said about the believing Jewish remnant which the Lord has always preserved for Himself. The fact, for instance, that only some of the branches (unbelieving Jews) were broken off (v. 17), plainly indicates that a remnant of believing Jews—those not broken off—will continually exist while the fulness of the Gentiles is being completed. These are Jews being redeemed who are not part of the spiritual hardening that has come upon Israel because of her rejection of her Messiah (v. 25).
Before all Israel is saved, its unbelieving, ungodly members will be separated out by God’s inerrant hand of judgment. Ezekiel makes that truth vividly clear:
“As I live,” declares the Lord God, “surely with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm and with wrath poured out, I shall be king over you. And I shall bring you out from the peoples and gather you from the lands where you are scattered, with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm and with wrath poured out; and I shall bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I shall enter into judgment with you face to face. As I entered into judgment with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will enter into judgment with you,” declares the Lord God. “And I shall make you pass under the rod, and I shall bring you into the bond of the covenant; and I shall purge from you the rebels and those who transgress against Me; I shall bring them out of the land where they sojourn, but they will not enter the land of Israel. Thus you will know that I am the Lord.” (Ezek. 20:33–38, emphasis added; cf. Dan. 12:10; Zech. 13:8–9)
Those who hear the preaching of the 144,000 (Rev. 7:1–8; 14:1–5), of other converts (7:9), of the two witnesses (11:3–13), and of the angel (14:6), and thus safely pass under God’s rod of judgment will then comprise all Israel, which—in fulfillment of God’s sovereign and irrevocable promise—will be completely a nation of believers who are ready for the kingdom of the Messiah Jesus.
“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jer. 31:31–34; cf. 32:38)
God’s control of history is irrefutable evidence of His sovereignty. And as surely as He cut off unbelieving Israel from His tree of salvation, just as surely will He graft believing Israel back in—a nation completely restored and completely saved.
It is helpful to note an additional truth that Paul does not mention at this point—namely, that, just as the fulness of the Gentiles will initiate the salvation of Israel, so the salvation of Israel will initiate the millennial kingdom of Jesus Christ.

I don't expect to persuade here, though I hope to. But I do think this answers the question. And this answer should be framed in the context of Ken's response, which was excellent.

The idea that the Jews shall be called is not Dispensational vs. Reformed. However, the idea that we look to this little nation in Palestine for the fulfillment might be.

The Reformers did not look to 'national Israel' for the fulfillment because 'national Israel' as we know it today did not exist. But Dispensationalists as well as some who claim not to be Dispensationalists still look toward that little nation in Palestine for fulfillment.

My point is, if we do not know who the descendants of Jacob are, then we cannot look toward that little nation in Palestine for the fulfillment. Does anyone really believe that there are more descendants of Jacob in that little nation in Palestine than there are in the rest of the world? It seems to me that if every descendant of Jacob in the US or in Russia were to suddenly repent and believe it would just as likely be the fulfillment than a revival in that little nation in Palestine.

I made this point earlier. The contemporary understanding of Israel only has basis if God has ordained it. But we cannot know if this is the case. Yes, may dispensationalists rely on this. But they are relying upon a perception that is not spelled out in Scripture. If Israel as we know it disappears this weekend, it will not shake my understanding of eschatology on bit, because I am not dependent upon the current "nation" of Israel. I am dependent upon God making good on His promises to save all Israel according to His place and time.

What does 'body of people' mean. That is the first time someone has used that phrase in this thread.

I don't want to speak for Bryan, but I think I understand what he's saying. Consider this in light of what I've shared here (and previously in this thread). By "body of people" I think he's referring to those of Israeli descent. This, however, does not necessitate being any part of what passes for national Israel today. This understanding needs to be divorced from the discussion. To put it simply and as clearly as I know how, the nation of Israel as we know it today may or may not have any eschatological significance. There is nothing happening in the middle east today to indicate to me that prophecy is currently being fulfilled there. I won't claim that there is, nor will I deny that it's possible. As far as I'm concerned it's unknowable because God hasn't given us enough information. Therefore, if the current nation of Israel were to disappear from the face of the earth then my eschatological perception would not change on iota (or yod ). I would grieve, for I appreciate the culture, history and character of the people, and it would be tragic. But I would not see it as tragic on an eschatological level, other than the possible loss of biblical treasures that we enjoy because of their presence today. I don't know if I can make that any clearer.

 

[Dearly Bought]

You say that no one is advocating a 'national' conversion of Israel, yet you state there is a strong history in the Reformed tradition of the 'national' conversion interpretation.

How can there be a strong tradition of the 'national' conversion interpretation if there was no nation-state of Israel at the time of the Reformation? What the Reformed confessions state is that the Jews will be called. I don't think they believed that the nation of Israel would be called. How could they?

I am using 'national' as a reference to a body of people, not a political unit.

What does 'body of people' mean. That is the first time someone has used that phrase in this thread.

In contemporary discourse, we tend to use the terms "nation" and "state" interchangeably. However, a nation specifically refers to a socio-cultural community, whereas a state is a political organization. In terms of our conversation, I think the exile of Israel in Babylon is a good example. In that situation, Israel existed as a nation without the existence of the theocratic state.

This is how Charles Hodge can speak of a "national restoration" without in any way envisioning a reestablishment of the Mosaic theocracy.

 

[Beoga]

I am pretty new to this discussion, so please forgive me if this is an ignorant question:
Concerning the land promises, aren't there some promises that say some like Israel possessing the Land forever (Isaiah 60:21)? If the land that is promised to Israel concerns literal land on this earth, how does that work if God is going to destroy this earth and make a new Heaven and a new Earth? Are we supposed to understand "land" and "Israel" literally but not "forever?"
If this has been addressed in this thread, my apologies.

 

[KMK]

The idea that the Jews shall be called is not Dispensational vs. Reformed. However, the idea that we look to this little nation in Palestine for the fulfillment might be.

The Reformers did not look to 'national Israel' for the fulfillment because 'national Israel' as we know it today did not exist. But Dispensationalists as well as some who claim not to be Dispensationalists still look toward that little nation in Palestine for fulfillment.

My point is, if we do not know who the descendants of Jacob are, then we cannot look toward that little nation in Palestine for the fulfillment. Does anyone really believe that there are more descendants of Jacob in that little nation in Palestine than there are in the rest of the world? It seems to me that if every descendant of Jacob in the US or in Russia were to suddenly repent and believe it would just as likely be the fulfillment than a revival in that little nation in Palestine.

I made this point earlier. The contemporary understanding of Israel only has basis if God has ordained it. But we cannot know if this is the case. Yes, may dispensationalists rely on this. But they are relying upon a perception that is not spelled out in Scripture. If Israel as we know it disappears this weekend, it will not shake my understanding of eschatology on bit, because I am not dependent upon the current "nation" of Israel. I am dependent upon God making good on His promises to save all Israel according to His place and time.

What does 'body of people' mean. That is the first time someone has used that phrase in this thread.

I don't want to speak for Bryan, but I think I understand what he's saying. Consider this in light of what I've shared here (and previously in this thread). By "body of people" I think he's referring to those of Israeli descent. This, however, does not necessitate being any part of what passes for national Israel today. This understanding needs to be divorced from the discussion. To put it simply and as clearly as I know how, the nation of Israel as we know it today may or may not have any eschatological significance. There is nothing happening in the middle east today to indicate to me that prophecy is currently being fulfilled there. I won't claim that there is, nor will I deny that it's possible. As far as I'm concerned it's unknowable because God hasn't given us enough information. Therefore, if the current nation of Israel were to disappear from the face of the earth then my eschatological perception would not change on iota (or yod ).

At last, in spite of my density, we are on the same page! But I don't think you are a 'run of the mill' premiller. (Quote not intended) Most premillers I talk to, even thought they don't claim to be dispensational, still look to Palestine for the fulfillment of Paul's prophecy. Would you agree, or am I just talkin' to a strange bunch?

 

[Wannabee]

Some historical examples

Leroy Edwin From: The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, I, 207: "The early church was distinctly premillennialist in her cherished expectations of Christ´s second advent. His coming and Kingdom were her constant hope. The Apostolic Fathers anticipated a future Kingdom in connection with the Redeemer´s Advent."

Here's a rather remarkable list of dispensationalists.

a. Papias (d. 155)
According to Eusebius, Church History, Fragments of Papias, in ANF, I, 154:

"Amongst these he [Papias] says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth."​

b. Justin Martyr (100-165)
Dialogue with Trypho, in ANF, I, 239:

"But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare."​

First Apology, 52 ANF 1:180

"And what the people of the Jews shall say and do, when they see Him coming in glory, has been thus predicted by Zechariah the prophet: “I will command the four winds to gather the scattered children; I will command the north wind to bring them, and the south wind, that it keep not back. And then in Jerusalem there shall be great lamentation, not the lamentation of mouths or of lips, but the lamentation of the heart; and they shall rend not their garments, but their hearts. Tribe by tribe they shall mourn, and then they shall look on Him whom they have pierced; and they shall say, Why, O Lord, hast Thou made us to err from Thy way? The glory which our fathers blessed, has for us been turned into shame."​

In regard to this comment by Justin, Hauser states, “Justin also links the Jews with the second advent of Christ. It will be at this time that Christ will gather the nation Israel and the Jews shall look on him and repent tribe by tribe.” Charles August Hauser, Jr., “The Eschatology of the Church Fathers” (Ph.D. diss., Grace Theological Seminary, 1961), 112.

c. Tertullian (160-c. 230)
Against Marcion, in ANG, 3, 343:

"But we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us on earth. . . . inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem "˜let down from heaven. . . .´"​

Against Marcion, 5.9 ANF 3:448

“He [God] will favour with His acceptance and blessing the circumcision also, even the race of Abraham, which by and by is to acknowledge Him.”​

On Modesty, 8 ANF 4:82

He also urged Christians to eagerly anticipate and rejoice over the coming restoration of Israel: “. . . for it will be fitting for the Christian to rejoice, and not to grieve, at the restoration of Israel, if it be true, (as it is), that the whole of our hope is intimately united with the remaining expectation of Israel.”​

d. Hippolytus (d. 236)
Concentrated on the Book of Daniel.
Premillennial interpretation of the image, and the animal passage.
Excellent interpretation of the days, seeing them as days, not years.
Even a good start on the interpretation of the 70 weeks.
Separated the 70th week from the 69th.
From, 278:

"Hippolytus is believed to be the first to have projected such a theory, making the sixty-nine weeks reach from the first year of Darius the Mede to Christ´s first coming, and the seventieth to begin separately after a gap, just before Christ´s second coming."​

e. Origen
The Song of Songs, in Ancient Christian Writers, eds. Johannes Quasten and Joseph C. Plumpe (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1957), 26:252.

“But when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, then will all Israel, having been called again, be saved.”​

f. John Chrysostom (349–407)
The Gospel of Matthew, 57 NPNF¹ 10:352

"To show therefore that [Elijah] the Tishbite comes before that other [second] advent . . . He said this. . . . And what is this reason? That when He is come, He may persuade the Jews to believe in Christ, and that they may not all utterly perish at His coming. Wherefore He too, guiding them on to that remembrance, saith, “And he shall restore all things;” that is, shall correct the unbelief of the Jews that are then in being."​

The Epistle to the Romans, 19 NPNF¹, 11:493
In reference to Romans 11:27 and the statement, “For this is my covenant with them, when I will take away their sins,” Chrysostom declared, “If then this hath been promised, but has never yet happened in their case, nor have they ever enjoyed the remission of sins by baptism, certainly it will come to pass.”

g. Augustine (interestingly, the "father of amillennialism" saw the future salvation of the Jewish people)
The City of God, 29 NPNF¹, 2:448

"It is a familiar theme in the conversation and heart of the faithful, that in the last days before the judgment the Jews shall believe in the true Christ, that is, our Christ, by means of this great and admirable prophet Elias who shall expound the law to them. . . . When, therefore, he is come, he shall give a spiritual explanation of the law which the Jews at present understand carnally, and shall thus “turn the heart of the father to the son,” that is, the heart of the fathers to the children."​

The City of God, 20.30, NPNF¹, 2:450

“And they shall look upon me because they have insulted me, and they shall mourn for Him as if for one very dear (or beloved”, and shall be in bitterness for Him as for an only-begotten.” For in that day the Jews—those of them, at least, who shall receive the spirit of grace and mercy—when they see Him coming in His majesty, and recognize that it its He whom they, in the person of their parents, insulted when He came before in His humiliation, shall repent of insulting Him in His passion.​

The City of God, 20.30, NPNF¹, 2:451

"And at or in connection with that judgment the following events shall come to pass, as we have learned: Elias the Tishbite shall come; the Jews shall believe; Antichrist shall persecute; Christ shall judge; the dead shall rise; the good and the wicked shall be separated; the world shall be burned and renewed."​

Sermons on New-Testament Lessons, Sermon 72, NPNF¹, 6:472

"What! have we supplanted the Jews? No, but we are said to be their supplanters, for that for our sakes they were supplanted. If they had not been blinded, Christ would not have been crucified; His precious Blood would not be shed; if that Blood had not been shed, the world would not have been redeemed. Because then their blindness hath profited us, therefore hath the elder brother been supplanted by the younger, and the younger is called the Supplanter. But how long shall this be?... The time will come, the end of the world will come, and all Israel shall believe; not they who now are, but their children who shall then be.”​

h. Jerome (347–420)
Commentary on St. Matthew, ch. 2, quoted in Dennis Fahey, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation (Kimmage, Dublin: Holy Ghost Missionary College, 1953), 108

“[W]hen the Jews receive the faith at the end of the world, they will find themselves in dazzling light, as if Our Lord were returning to them from Egypt.”​

i. St. Prosper of Aquitaine (c. 390–455)
The Call of All Nations, 1.21, ACW 14:69. Italics in original.

"As we have already said above, it is not given to any human study or genius to explore the decree and design according to which God . . .hath concluded all in unbelief, that He may have mercy on all . . . He delayed for centuries, while He was educating Israel, to enlighten the countless peoples of infidels; and now He allows that same Israel to go blind till the universality of the Gentiles enter the fold. He allows so many thousands of this people to be born and die to be lost, when only those whom the end of the world will find alive will attain salvation."​

The Call of All Nations, 1.21, ACW 14:103.

"But He has shown His mercy for all men in a far more extraordinary manner when the Son of God became the Son of man . . . . Since then the glory of the race of Israel shines not in one people only . . . The promised heritage falls no longer to the sons of the flesh, but to the sons of the promise. The great parsimony in bestowing grace which in the past ages befell all other nations, is now the lot of the Jewish people. Yet, when the fulness of the Gentiles will have come in, then a flood of the same waters of grace is promised for their dry hearts . . . . When the Apostle Paul stopped in his knowledge and discussion of this problem and gave way to utter astonishment, who would be so presumptuous as to believe that he could try and explain it rather than admire it in silence?"​

j. Theodoret of Cyrus (393-457)
Interpretatio in xiv epistulas sancti Pauli in Patrologia graeca, ed. J.P. Minge 162 vols., 82:180. Translation by Joel A. Weaver, Theodoret of Cyrus on Romans 11:26: Recovering and Early Christian Redivivus Tradition (New York: Peter Lang, 2007), 15

"And he [Paul] urges them not to despair of the salvation of the other Jews; for when the Gentiles have received the message, even they, the Jews, will believe, when the excellent Elijah comes, bringing to them the doctrine of faith. For even the Lord said this in the sacred gospels: ‘Elijah is coming, and he will restore all things.’"​

k. St. Cyril of Alexandria (378-444)
Explanation of the Letter to the Romans, in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, ed. Gerald Bray (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 6.298-99

“Although it was rejected, Israel will also be saved eventually, a hope which Paul confirms . . . . For indeed, Israel will be saved in its own time and will be called at the end, after the calling of the Gentiles.”​

l. Others: Cyprian (200-258); Lactantius (250-330); Athanasius (297-373) and other Nicene Council participants; Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315–386); Ambrose (c. 340–397); Cassiodorus (c. 485–585).​

Much of this was from Patristic Era / Israel

 

[KMK]

I am pretty new to this discussion, so please forgive me if this is an ignorant question:
Concerning the land promises, aren't there some promises that say some like Israel possessing the Land forever (Isaiah 60:21)? If the land that is promised to Israel concerns literal land on this earth, how does that work if God is going to destroy this earth and make a new Heaven and a new Earth? Are we supposed to understand "land" and "Israel" literally but not "forever?"
If this has been addressed in this thread, my apologies.

This would be an excellent question...for another thread. Why don't you start a new one. It would prove very fruitful, I'm sure.

 

[Wannabee]

I am pretty new to this discussion, so please forgive me if this is an ignorant question:
Concerning the land promises, aren't there some promises that say some like Israel possessing the Land forever (Isaiah 60:21)? If the land that is promised to Israel concerns literal land on this earth, how does that work if God is going to destroy this earth and make a new Heaven and a new Earth? Are we supposed to understand "land" and "Israel" literally but not "forever?"
If this has been addressed in this thread, my apologies.

This is a little bit off the path, but I think I remember this correctly. For a premil time as we know it ends at the end of the millennium. If the earth is destroyed then what is the significance of time. Therefore, "forever," being a referent of time, ends when the millennium is over. "Eternal," however, supersedes time. I might have missed the boat on this, so if my quick answer is off-base, I'll step aside for correction.

At last, in spite of my density, we are on the same page! But I don't think you are a 'run of the mill' premiller. (Quote not intended) Most premillers I talk to, even thought they don't claim to be dispensational, still look to Palestine for the fulfillment of Paul's prophecy. Would you agree, or am I just talkin' to a strange bunch?

That's a tough call, Ken. I know that the most visible premillers are the eschatological sensationalists. But I don't know if they're visible because they write fiction and make movies, or because they're a majority. In my circles I don't run across this often. And MacArthur made it a point a couple of years ago to teach that present day Israel is not to be taken as a fulfillment of prophecy. Apparently he saw a need to straighten this out at Grace. Off the cuff, I'd say that the majority of premil Dispensationalists probably see prophetical significance in today's Israel. But I don't know if that can be said about non-Dispensationalists. In our church there appears to be a propensity toward seeing such significance, if I understand correctly. But I don't see this as something I need to address at this time. We have enough irons in the fire, and I'm slowly taking them in the direction of a more historical premil position. Even then, I really don't know how long it will be before I teach on eschatology. Where does it first come up in Luke?

-----Added 3/12/2009 at 01:14:11 EST-----

Sorry Ken, I was writing when you posted. Ixnay on the oreverfay erspectivepay.

 

[KMK]

Thanks for the thoughtful interchange, Joe.

I am leaning, at this point, toward looking at the calling of the Jews to refer to the conversion, perhaps past or future, of many of those who practice Judaism...not those who are descended in some physical way from Jacob. I am leaning this way for a couple of reasons:

1) Paul goes out of his way to teach the flesh profiteth nothing.
2) Physical descent from Jacob is 'invisible'.
3) The practice of Judaism is visible and it continues even today.
4) Those who were blinded were not blinded because of their ancestry but because of their rejection of Christ in favor of Judaism.

I am very much open to criticism, however.

 

[Wannabee]

Thanks Ken. It was a good exchange. I don't think we'd gain much ground at this point. There are differing hermeneutics at play that are hard to overcome. Nevertheless, consider yourself criticized, for good measure.

 

[KMK]

Thanks Ken. It was a good exchange. I don't think we'd gain much ground at this point. There are differing hermeneutics at play that are hard to overcome. Nevertheless, consider yourself criticized, for good measure.

Thanks for critiquing me publicly rather than loving me secretly!

 

[Marno]

Quite a journey for me. I used to be a Dispensational, blah blah, yada, yada, until I became Reformed. Then I studied under O. Palmer Robertson, Robert Reymond, etc., for several years and came to be thoroughly convinced the Romans passage referred to "spiritual" Israel, "in this way" all Israel -- spiritual Israel -- will be saved. Preached it, I was a conference speaker on it.

Then I preached a verse-by-verse series on Romans a few years later (2001- 2007). More in-depth study led me to change my mind. I do not change my mind easily. Nevertheless, I am now convinced beyond a doubt that Paul's text teaches there will be a massive influx to faith in Christ by national Israel near or at the end of the age. In fact I think it is pretty much the point of chapters 9 - 11.

 

[Wannabee]

Thank you Mike.
I've heard this from several men. One brother had an experience much like yours, but his was in a class on Romans. In his exegesis of those very chapters he had to change his view.

Blessings,