Eoghan
Puritan Board Senior
I was listening to a respected pastor expounding this passage and suggesting that Israel was not going to undergo any turning en-mass to the Messiah.
His suggestion is that the fullness of israel is the remnant! The remnant of Israel is the fullness of Israel.
In that context I was intrigued to know what Paul was intending when he spoke of when he was speaking of being cut off and grafted in.
Rom 11:23 And they also, if they (plural) abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
Rom 11:24 For if thou (singular)wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
Am I right in saying he is referring to Israel in the plural i.e. not using a collective noun and refers to his the romans as individuals.
How strong is the Greek on this matter? Does it
His suggestion is that the fullness of israel is the remnant! The remnant of Israel is the fullness of Israel.
In that context I was intrigued to know what Paul was intending when he spoke of when he was speaking of being cut off and grafted in.
Rom 11:23 And they also, if they (plural) abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
Rom 11:24 For if thou (singular)wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
Am I right in saying he is referring to Israel in the plural i.e. not using a collective noun and refers to his the romans as individuals.
How strong is the Greek on this matter? Does it
- affirm this
- allow this interpretation
- rule this interpretation out