The New "New Testament"

Tell me how you read : (Rom. 11:25-29)

Romans 11 is very straight forward. The idea that Paul is putting forward in that section (beginning in chapter 9), is that God's promise to the Jews is being fulfilled. First of all, he makes that point that not every physical Jew is a spiritual Jew.

"But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel," (9:6)

"Israel" in this verse is used in two different senses. 1) there are the members of the physical nation of Israel, and 2) there are those who are part of the true Israel. The latter is a subset of the former.

Earlier in Romans Paul tells us:

"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." (2:28,29)

True Jews are those who are circumcised in the heart, not merely in the flesh.

Paul also speaks in Romans 9 of God sovereign choice regarding salvation. He contrasts Jacob and Esau, one whom was divinely loved and one who was not. True salvation comes by faith, not by the keeping of the law. (9:32)

So when we get to chapter 11 we see Paul speaking of the fulfillment of the promise in terms of the covenant. We must understand the phrase "all Israel" in terms of what has gone before. All Israel is the same as the spiritual circumcision of chapter 2 and the true Israel of chapter 9 verse 6. It cannot mean every physical Jew, because we know there are many Jews who have died without trusting in Christ for their salvation. "No one comes to the Father except by Me" (John 14:6). They died without hope. They may have had a zeal, but they lacked knowledge (10:2).

As God is converting a people to Himself, He takes many from among both Jews and gentile. Just as the "fullness of the gentiles" will be saved, so too will "all Israel", that is, all those who are predestined from among Israel will be saved as well.

Belief in Christ is absolutely necessary in order to see the Father, whether Jew or greek. "For the Scripture says, 'Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.' For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him." (10:11,12)

I hope this helps.

One more thing:

They may not know His Name is Y'shua.

If they do not know the Son then they do not know the Father either.

"And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe." (John 5:37,38)

If Jews do not believe in Jesus then the Word of God does not abide in them, and they are lost in their sins.

XS>Tell me how you read : (Romans 11:25-29)
I did.

24 posted on 01/25/2006 7:16:40 AM MST by topcat54

I very sorry, you talked around the topic; you addressed Romans 9; 2 ; 9 ; 10.

But you never addressed the verses: Romans 11:25-29.

If you are unfamiliar with the verses or don't wish to address the topic, I'll understand.

b'shem Y'shua

Actually, I talked about both "the fullness of the gentiles" and "all Israel" as describing the elect of God, both phrases direct from the verses in question.

So, I am quite familiar with the subject matter. Perhaps you just don't like my answer.

Let me add, just to get us back on topic, that nowhere in the passage, when understood in the light of the rest of the Bible, is there a possibly of salvation for anyone who does not name the name of Christ explicitly. The "All Israel" that is being saved are those who coming to Jesus Christ and being baptized into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19,20).

It is a false gospel that teaches otherwise.

It may not have been the main attack, but it was an attack against Christianity just the same. You realize we judge Sinai according to Christ, not vice versa.

You realize that Sinai came first and was already accepted and acknowledged to be the authentic Revelation of G-d. This means that when J*sus came along his claims had to submit to it. By accepting a latter "revelation" first and accepting a former, already accepted revelation only on the authority of a later revelation you are committing a logical fallacy known as "affirmation of the consequent." This is the same fallacy that evolutionists often commit.

The claims of J*sus are the topic in dispute. That being the case you cannot assume and invoke its authority in order to prove it.

This isn't that much different than Creationist quoting Romans to me and then saying that I now "know the truth" because I have just heard "scripture" when I don't acknowledge the "new testament as "scripture."

Okay. Nobody's going to comment on my digs at liberal Jews and their worship of the Holicaust. Maybe I posted this on the wrong forum. My apologies.

You are right I will not heed to your advice. For if you post on a religion web you better be ready to see scripture. You quote from people whom many as my self do not accept as informative, with something to prove to us.

I am informing you of the scripture so when you meet God you can not say you never heard of it.

I realize I'm wasting my time pointing this out, but if a mormon were to quote the "book of mormon" to you he would puff himself up and tell you he had just quoted "scripture" and if you didn't accept it that was your problem. Similarly a moslem could quote the qur'an and claim he had just "proved" something by quoting scripture.

It is not "self-evident" that the "new testament" is scripture. It was the Torah that was given on Mt. Sinai publicly by G-d to three million people. It is the Torah that G-d dictated to Moses letter-for-letter. Even J*sus acknowledged this. You and I agree on the authority of the Torah. We disagree on the authority of the "new testament." That being the case you have to do more than merely assert its authority as scripture and quote it to "prove" something. Otherwise you are no different than the theoretical moslem and mormon mentioned above.

I really meant this to be about liberal Jews' attitude towards the Holocaust. My apologies for posting this to the wrong forum.

You realize that Sinai came first and was already accepted and acknowledged to be the authentic Revelation of G-d.

"An" authentic reveletion, unless you wish to dispute the revelation given to Noah, Abraham, and to the prophets.

Where does it teach in the Scriptures that the Sinai revelation was the last authentic revelation of God?

BTW, Jesus does not contradict Sinai, He merely fulfills all that was spoken to Moses.

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." (Matthew 5)

"Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." (Jeremiah 31)

Christ ushered in the age of that new covenant in that He was the fulfillment, writing His law on the hearts and minds of His people.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.