Well I would agree… his anguish was related to what was coming upon his brethren according to the flesh by way of national wrath as per the AD. 66-70 Roman-Jewish wars (3½yrs prophetic fulfilment).
Yes on 9-11, I agree… and yet like the “exception”, as you have it, of 9:6 there are other details furnished that don’t change the base story but simply clarify it, e.g., Paul’s rebuke at gentile arrogance, etc.
I think his anguish was that they were not involved in the glory of the kingdom - not to mention missing the wonderful love of their Messiah, and the beauty of the body of Christ- and the grace of God.
I agree that he was also anguished over the consequences(the razing of Jerusalem) that their unbelief was bringing upon them, assuming he saw it prophetically. Scholarly consensus is that Pauls epistles were written in the mid 50’s AD
Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them** is for their salvation.**
Agreed. 
I agree.
I think it is hard for us- mostly Gentile converts in 2015, to conceive of what the coming of the kingdom and advent of Messiah meant to a Jew like Paul- Hebrew of Hebrews. Remembering the zeal with which he had persecuted the church- because he thought it was a threat to the nation and an abomination against YHWH, and his dedication to the law and the temple, as he saw it to be the glory of God at that time… and then, everything he had ever learned or imagined was turned upside down and he MET THE MESSIAH! Was filled with GLORY! Recieved the whole counsel of God by SOVEREIGN REVELATION!
The idea that his ethnic brethren, set apart from all other nations to be a priesthood of God and a Lampstand to the world, having the oracles and the law and the prophets, the calling to teach the world justice, equity and mercy- as well as manifesting the nature of YHWH, the I AM, as their collective culture an expression of His glory-their being left/cut out of it grieved him severely for he loved them with all the true fervency he said he did.
They had been waiting together for Messiah nearly 2000 years, and when He came, they not only missed Him, they had Him executed.
I am in deep anguish concerning my fellow Israelites. Rom 9:1-3
My heart’s desire and prayer for them is that they may be saved, so that they can receive the awesome fulfillment of this wonderful heritage along with the continuing covenant, inheritance and the fellowship of the mystery. Rom 10:1
Thank God He has left a remnant, and Israel’s hardening is only partial, until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in…11:12 Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!
All Israel WILL be saved, God taking away their sins -and let no one boast because God has shut up all in disobedience, so that He can have mercy upon all, eventually yielding the ultimate universal house of prayer , communion and glory!
Oh how wonderful are God’s plans! Nobody can figure Him out! He is way ahead of everyone! Everything comes from Him, runs through Him and returns back to Him, Thats why He is the only one deserving of glory!
Hi Craig,
And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob” (Rom 11:26 ESV)
If Paul was wrting about national Israel, or all of the descendants of Jacob, then how does his quote here fit in?
It fits perfectly with that which Paul had been saying about the olive tree (which represents Israel). For some Israelites will be removed from that tree, or as Paul puts it here, “The Deliverer… will banish ungodliness from Jacob.” Isn’t that how He will do it? But removing the unfaithful from that olive tree?
Also, how is it possible that all of Jacob’s descendents will be saved? For Paul wrote:
And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved. (Romans 9:27 ESV)
The real Israel of God has always consisted of the remnant who TRULY followed Yahweh.
Even in the days of Moses, it seems that those who did not obey Him were being removed from the olive tree. The writer to the Hebrews wrote:
For we share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. As it is said, “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.” For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief. (Heb 3:14-19 ESV)
So as I see it, it’s a false dichotomy to speak of “national Israel” versus “spiritual Israel.” There’s no such thing as “spiritual Israel.” Those who are in the olive tree comprise the Israel of God. But together with the Israel of God many people came out of Egypt under the direction of Moses. But only the Israel of God entered God’s rest. No one who was not part of the true Israel entered the promised land. Of course, we all know that many of their descendents became rebels. The writer to the Hebrews explains that the one who enter’s God’s rest must cease from his own labours as God did from his. The early Christians understood this as ceasing from one’s labours of sin. That’s how I see it as well. Even we Gentile Christians are part of the Israel of God. The dividing wall of hostility was broken down through the Messiah, so that the two became one. (Eph 2:11-22)
Here is a passage in which Paul uses “Jew” both in the sense of “true Jew” and also in the sense of one who is a Jew because of circumcision and because he follows the rules of Judaism.
For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God. What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! (Rom 2:28-3:2)
So I see no reason why Paul might not use “Israel” in these same two ways in the Romans 11 passage.
So the Israel of God never ceased. It continued from the time God Abraham (Jacob’s grandfather) though the days of the Messiah, and to this present day. It continued without a break, but there continues to be a change in its members. Some are removed and others are added.
Some day it will be complete; the fullness of the Gentiles will come in, and all Jewish people in it will be disciples of the Messiah. In this way all Israel will be saved!
For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. (Gal 6:15,16 ESV)
Hi Paidion,
Thank you for taking the time to set out your view more fully.
Unfortunately, I don’t see where you have dealt with my main question which you quoted in the beginning. I cannot see where you have mentioned v28ff and who “they” refers to and how that relates to v25-27.
Much of what you have said I agree with.
I have no problem that Paul COULD have used “israel” in these same two ways in the Romans 11 passage, just as he did in Rom 9:6 and Rom 2 as you point out. If he had stopped at 11:27, it would be quite possible to understand him that way. But because he wrote v28ff it seems problematic to me. If he had followed v27 with something about the Israel of God (including Gentile believers) as “they”, your view would be much stronger.
I may be misunderstanding something, but I don’t see much difference between what I termed “spiritual Israel” and what you term the “Israel of God”. I think they both refer to those in the olive tree. Those in the olive tree are ”even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles” 9:25. Spiritual Israel (= the Israel of God) are different to physical Israel (= national Israel) of whom many were unbelievers.
IMO it is v28ff that present the major difficulties for your view and I would appreciate understanding better how you think about these things
1 Who the “they” refers to. Who is Paul talking about in v28ff and how does this relate to who he is talking about in v25-27.
2 How Paul’s anguish and prayers for his fellow Israelites can end with his praise in 11:33ff rather than continued sadness.
“All Israel” the ENTIRE nation, the good the bad and the ugly, was redeemed FULLY out of Egypt. However, it was only those demonstrating “faithfulness” who then went on in to enjoy the full fruit of this redemption in the Land of Promise. The lack of faithfulness shown by the rest in no negated their redemption; it did however stop them imbibing fully in all that their redemption had wrought. The same would ultimately likewise play out in Israel’s final redemption, that as I see it, which transpired through the Cross-Parousia event of their “end of the age”.
Indeed, it is not a case of “national Israel” versus “spiritual Israel” – it is a case of the faithful of Israel (Christ and those he chose) sanctifying the whole of Nation (Jn 11:48-52). ‘Many were called but few were chosen’ as “vessels of honour”. The “vessels of dishonour” became enemies of the gospel (Isaiah’s “your God reigns”) and by extension those carrying its message… as per Rom 11:28ff.
I have heard some attempt to explain away “they” of vs28 as reflecting prophetic-speak meaning the “they” are the elect but in their pre-faith state… highly unconvincing IMO and only concocted because the obvious is unpalatable to given presuppositions already brought to the text.
.
Well… go ahead and refer the the Israel of God as “spiritual Israel” if it helps your understanding. But as I see it, the Israel of God is the only Israel to whom the promises apply.
The “they” refers to the Israelites of whom Paul was speaking, his “kinsmen according to the flesh”, that is the decendants of Jacob who were together as a nation.
Paul speaks of God dealing with this broader sense of Israel, removing disobedient people, and adding in others who become disciples of the Messiah, until Israel in this broader sense is PURIFIED. Until that happens, not all Israel are saved, only a remnant of them. But AFTER the purification, all Israel, that is, every individual in Israel will be saved! In this way, all Israel will be saved. Each one will be an obedient disciple of the Messiah!
*30 Just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience,
31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy.
32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.
33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! (Rom 11 ESV)
*
As I see it, Paul is elated at the thought that Israel will be purified, and that God will mercy on ALL who follow the Messiah, both Jews and Gentiles.
I am aware that some take this passage as teaching universal salvation.
Paul dealt with five groups in those chapters. All in relation to the olive tree, whose root is Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob, then the twelve tribes of Israel. The five groups were 1)His unbelieving brethren, who were cut off of the olive tree, 2) the remnant, which is what remains of the olive tree in this age, 3)the wild olive branches, Gentiles, grafted into the olive tree, because of the death, burial and resurrection of Messiah. 4) natural branches, cut off for unbelief, that can be grafted back in at anytime, by receiving Messiah, 5) wild branches, that having been grafted in by grace, can be cut off for arrogance, boasting over the natural branches who had been cut off.
Interestingly, in Phil 2 before “every knee shall bow and every tongue confess” there is "Have in you the same attitude which was in Christ Jesus
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
Unbelieving Israel stumbled at the stumbling stone, of not “Humbling themselves under the mighty hand of God”- so it follows, “Lo how the mighty have fallen”, because God rules in the council of the mighty ones(Psalm 82). He is teaching us all His judgment(mind/wisom/reason) and that is really the core theme of Romans(imo)
The theology of heaven and hell has so skewed the understanding of salvation that is gets impossibly muddled. Paul wasnt speaking of heaven and hell.
Paul wanted his ethnic and spiritual brothers from the seed of Abraham to enjoy what had been provided for them when Messiah fulfilled all the covenants and sacrifices with His own blood, enabling new and better promises. Thats what saved meant to Paul. It meant deliverance from the fire that will burn up all the wood hay and stubble, as well as all the chaff, as well as the trees which had the axe(prophetic word) laid to their roots. That fire is the light of Day, as in Romans 1 and 2, where Paul is layng the foundation for all of this.He longs for his countrymen to see the glory, and taste it, and avoid being rendered void in their works.
2:16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
The olive tree is the same as the Vine in John 15. Branches are pruned, branches flourish, branches wither and are cut off, gathered into bundles and burned.
12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.
This is not talking about heaven and hell, this fire burns up reward and inheritance. This what happenned(imo) to the branches that were cut-off. The reward of God is participation in His glory. His rejection is “ichabod”, the glory leaving. The glory left the old covenant and passed to the new. The temple was no longer built with stones it was built of people and the bricks wer gathered from natural Israel and among the Gentiles, so, spiritual Israel, the Israel of God is now the ONE NEW MAN, because the barrier has been removed. Everyone building under the old covenant is building, wood hay and stubble.
But this does not mean that the blessings of the branches that were cut-off are totally lost, “because the gifts and callings of God are without repentance” and since “all Israel will be saved”, at some point they will be grafted back in, but for now they are cut-off, enemies for the sake of the gospel, but beloved for the sake of the forefathers. But now, the Israel of God, spiritual Israel, is the One New Man, which is the natural olive tree that extends back to Abraham, and is now composed od natural and wild grafted in branches.
Eph 3:6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Messiah Jesus.
Some other places where two Israels are detailed by Paul are 2 Cor 3:
13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read(unbelieving, old covenant Israel). It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all(new covenant Israel), who with unveiled faces contemplate[a] the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
Gal 4:
21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.
24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
Heb 12:
18 You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; 19 to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, 20 because they could not bear what was commanded: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned to death.” 21 The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, “I am trembling with fear.”
22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
Summing up the five groups Paul dealt with in regards to the olive tree- Paul rejoices that eventually “all Israel”, both those who were cut- off and those who stayed in, will be saved, because after all, “God has shut up all in disobedience that He might have mercy on all”- He is way beyond our definitions and categorizations, and He designed everything so that everything that came out of Him(creation), will pass through Him(disruption/reconciliation), and return to Him(restoration/fulness), and glory will abound for all throughout endless ages.
Man the word of God is so yummy
Craig, your perceptions (& Eaglesway’s) parallel mine. I’m without texts and unsure what Barclay, Parry, Hulgren, etc do with “houtos.” But whatever “so” signifies, 11’s immediate contextual use of “Israel” seems decisive, as a reference to Jews. “What Israel sought, it didn’t obtain, only the elect did” (7). Yet it’s precisely those “hardened” (i.e. of Israel, Jews as a whole) that can be grafted back in (8-24). Thus, saved Gentiles need to humbly see that Israel has experienced hardening until" a later point (25) when “all Israel will be saved” (26). I.e. Israel’s hardening is temporary, and as Craig says, the “they” in 28-32 continues the reference to all Jews, especially those who were presently hardened.
Paidion nicely argues that 26’s “The deliverer… will turn godlessness away from Jacob” simply repeats that he will cut Jacob’s ungodly out of salvation’s tree, such that “all Israel” here reverts to citing the minority who are ‘true’ Jews. But isn’t it precisely this excluded category of the hardened for which chapter 11 is establishing hope? Paidion agrees that “they” in 28-32 refers to Paul’s kinsmen (who can “now receive mercy”), but argues that the hope that blesses Paul here is that Israel will be purified by the removal of many of these hardened kinsmen for whom he is burdened. But 28-36’s positive hope is about this more universal class as those “loved” in an “irrevocable” context. Thus, concluding that Paul is elated that his kinsmen with God’s promises will simply be further hopelessly ‘purified,’ does not seem adequate to remedy his contextual anguish, or to conclude how rich it is that “all things” not only come “from” Him," but are to be seen as “TO Him” as well.
Thanks to all for an excellent discussion, that formats like Facebook are not apt to allow, Bob
Bob
Thanks from me too, and thanks Bob for your excellent and helpful summary of our discussion, and thanks for remembering my question about the “so” in 11:26.
Paidion
There were a couple of good questions you asked earlier that I have given some thought.
I can understand how you have explained it, but I think it can very naturally be understood as explaining how all national Israel, with particular emphasis on the hardened, unbelieving ones, will be saved. The deliver (Jesus) will banish ungodliness from national Israel. He will turn their rebellion around. He will soften their hard hearts, he will give them life and godliness. This is also paralleled in v27 as taking away their sins.
All Israel will be saved v26a = banish ungodliness from Jacob v26b = take away their sins v27.
So rather than banishing ungodliness from Jacob meaning removing the godless from the olive tree, it is removing godlessness from national Israel in joining them back onto the olive tree.
Good question. I have wondered about this myself because it does present a problem for my current view. Something that may help is that certainly this was true when Isaiah wrote about Israel, and it was certainly true as Paul applied it to Israel of his day. Only a remnant of national Israel were in the olive tree. Most of national Israel were broken off, hardened.
I am not sure that either Isaiah or Paul meant that this situation needed to last forever and ever into the future. Indeed, Paul seems to be speaking of this altering in 11:12 and15 referring to their fullness and acceptance, and in 11:25 when the hardening is spoken of “until…”
Thus “all Israel will be saved” can be seen in contrast to just a remnant and as the wonderful future expectation Paul had of the faithfulness of God, even when Israel had been so unfaithful.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this question?
As I understand it… the problem comes from not differentiating between “the remnant” and greater “Israel” and the meaning then of their respective “shall be saved”.
Salvation for “the remnant” meant deliverance from the forthcoming wrath.
Salvation for “greater Israel” meant deliverance from the ungodliness of Jacob i.e., redemption, the forgiveness of sin.
The remnant of Paul’s day are prefigured in Gideon and his band of men. They were a number whittled down from WITHIN Israel to DELIVER Israel; again, many are called few are chosen. Those of Gideon’s day who were cast off i.e., “rejected” were ONLY cut asunder in terms of NOT being elected/called/chosen for Israel’s salvific deliverance… they were STILL a part of historic Israel and benefited accordingly.
The NT “remnant” aka “the firstfruit saints” were those chosen “in Christ” for this outworking of Israel’s redemption.
Here is an excellent 14-minute audio-video in which Hank Hanegraaf interviews Steve Gregg about Israel and the relevance of it today.
I think Steve makes it clear what the true Israel is and alwalys was—that God has never had the intention of founding a “nation” called “Israel” —that there are not two “Israels” but only one.
There are currently two parts of Israel, referring to the nation formed out of the 12 tribes. The part that is currently still in the olive tree, and the part that is not. But in order to communicate the difference, Paul spoke of earthly Jerusalem and heavenly Jerusalem and the destinies of each- that which is of Sinai and Hagar, that which is of Zion and Sarah- two for the sake of distinction, in that they have been separated, one to the extent that they shall eventually be rejoined, for 'all Israel shall be saved".
On 26’s “so” (houtos), Parry agrees “in this way” is good, yet argues that since most exegetes recognize that “all Israel” in context must be ethnic Israel, the best translation would be “in the following way.” C.K. Barrett takes it similarly, and Hultgren’s new Romans’ commentary also agrees that ethnic Israel is the focus, and thus explains that 26ff refers mostly to the manner (not timing) of Israel’s salvation, which is explained in what follows." For support, he cites Cranfield, Dunn, Moo, and Sanday & Headlam.
Thus, I understand remaining alternate explanations of chapter 11 wherein the whole of Israel is not in view. But as I summarized in my last post, I don’t see answers to how they make nearly as good sense of the surrounding context and hopeful argument. So for me, the only item that even sounds adverse to the majority reading here, is Paidion’s note of 9:27’s citation of Isaiah’s observation that “only a remnant will be saved.” Note that the word “only” is not in the Greek text. Yet, historically, this was quite accurate: it was a small remnant of Israelites who survived. And this debacle nicely supports Paul’s observation that at present only a small remnant of Israelites are entering into salvation by faith in Christ.
But I see no reason to think those realities should annul the overriding argument Paul appears to develop that God has precisely allowed such debacles for the purpose of yet bringing a wider hope to this very class of hardened Jews who were not saved. Thusly, 11:5 points out that “At the present time there is (only) a remnant chosen by grace… what the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain.” But this outcome of ‘only a remnant saved,’ is immediately argued as not putting the people of Israel beyond recovery, but in fact that ultimately this will only last “until” a point at which “all Israel will be saved” in the way that “the deliverer will come…” Thus, while most evangelical exegetes reject universalists’ interpretations of most of our favorite texts. I actually think we have little reason not to welcome the majority reading of Roman’s 11. There remains the argument that the whole of Israel need not mean every individual Jew, but even some future conversion of ethnic Israel in general is a stunning hope and idea.
P.S. Have you processed Parry’s new appendix 6 on Election (in The E. U.)? It seems to me to be addressing the very confusion we may face here that Paul can use “Israel” and the elect in different ways, and tries to sort out how to make consistent sense of each reference.
Paidion
Thanks for the link.
I have listened to and appreciated some of Steve Gregg’s books and sermons in the past. I have listened to him on Rom 9-11 a while back. I hadn’t heard this one that you linked to.
I may be just a slow learner, but some of what Steve says I can “see” quite clearly while others I am not so sure about. I think both Tom Wright and Steve Gregg came from a position of thinking that in Rom 11 Paul spoke of something special in the future for national Israel (as I currently do) but they no longer think this. I have a lot of respect for Tom and Steve, and you too Paidion and I realize I could be wrong.
I can agree that true Israel, the Israel of God, the olive tree, those in Christ (the true seed), are what God was primarily talking about in His promises to Abraham. Just being born a Jew does not make one a true Jew, a true Israelite. There needs to be circumcision of the heart, whether Jew or Gentile, in order to be a true Jew.
I can see how the NT writers apply many OT passages about Israel to the church (of both Jews and Gentiles), the Israel of God. It bothers me that for my current view to be correct, Rom 11:26b may be an unusual case of applying an OT passage concerning “Jacob” to national Israel rather than to the church of both Jews and Gentiles.
It also bothers me a little that my current view is a bit more complicated than Steve Gregg’s view, because it is nicer when things are simple.
Nevertheless, there is still something that comes across to me of Paul’s concern AND future hope for national, hardened Israel in Rom 9-11. In some sense, hardened national Israel is spoken of as having the adoption as sons, the covenants, etc in 9:1-5 and loved on account of the patriarchs etc in 11:28ff. And “they” of 11:28ff would more naturally refer to the same “Jacob”, “them” and “their” of v26,27.
Reading Tom Wright, listening to Steve Gregg, and reading your own comments have not yet made as much sense to me on these issues as Robin Parry and our friends who have commented here. But I am still thinking…
Hi Bob,
Looks like I was writing my last post when you did yours.
Thanks for your further thoughts on my questions. They seem to confirm and elaborate on the way I am thinking.
I read it when it first came out. Not sure how well I have “processed” it! But I certainly agree that Paul seems to use Israel and the elect in different ways. In some sense national Israel, the descendants of Jacob seem to be elect and called Israel. In another sense the true Israel, those in the olive tree are elect and called Israel.
I just reread Robin’s section on election that you recommended Bob. I think most of it I follow and can agree with, but I will probably need to read it a few times to properly digest it and figure out what I don’t really understand.
One thing that I think is different. Robin says
Robin does not understand Paul to use the term “Israel” to ever include Jesus-believing Gentiles. I have thought of the “Israel of God” as the whole of the olive tree, including the Gentiles grafted on. Robin understands the “Israel of God” as just the Jewish part the olive tree. I am not sure how important this is in the whole scheme of things, but if Robin is correct then this would be another reason why “Israel” in 11:26 could not include Gentiles.
Any thoughts on this anyone?
For crying out loud fellas’… this is what I’ve been saying above. Yahweh chose, elected and appointed historic Israel as His kingdom priests to minister BEFORE Him and ON BEHALF OF the world, i.e., to be a light of the nations – through willful covenant disobedience they abrogated their calling and responsibility as Kingdom priests. This call was taken up by Jesus and those elect in Him (Mt 21:43). THIS was the calling Jesus as “THE firstfruit” AND his disciples as “the firstfruit saints” FULFILLED in the AD. 30-70 “this generation” “end of the world” period.
In the pattern of the OT ‘the elect’ wrought salvation ON BEHALF OF the whole. Because they in Jesus/Paul’s day were faithful THEY were called by Paul “the Israel of God” i.e., they were being true to Israel’s calling. They displayed fervent attitude of heart not dissimilar to Jesus’ exclamation of Nathanael “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit!”