Romans 11 - the olive tree - slow and easy

[BibleStudent]

Let

[Yahsway]

Eric, I do not believe in a pre-trib "rapture" and I do not believe in a 7 year Tribulation.

I believe that there will be a great trib, all will go thru it, and as John saw myrids come out of it from every tribe tongue and nation. I do not believe believers are appointed to Gods wrath, but I believe all saints will be persecuted by the anti-christ.

I believe that at the end of that, Yeshua returns, sets up His kingdom here on earth for 1000 years where during that time Satan is Bound up and then loosed after 1000 years for a "season", then after that a new heaven and new earth.

I also do not believe in "replacement theology" Shalom

[Guest shiloh357]

Until Shiloh can show how my treatment of scripture is based on hostility toward Jews, he should SHUT UP on anti-Semitism. My view toward Jews is that of the apostle Paul. In Christ

[BibleStudent]

Shiloh

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh

[Pilgrim7]

It is the Holy Spirit who leads into all truth!!!!

Dennis

[EricH]

My theology says that much, but you stop short of understanding that God has made promises to Israel that cannot be brushed off by the silly assertion that God was really talking to the church. 

This is probably more inflammatory than helpful as were the comments from Bible student regarding rants. Typically statements like these are resorted to when ones position is not strong. It is one thing to point out a fallacios way of arguing (i.e. to how either information is incorrect, or an unfair tactic is being used). It is another to use terms that ones knows will produce emotional responses in the hope of simply putting ones opponent on the defensive.

They don't prove anything, and in my view belittle everyone involved.

[Guest shiloh357]

My theology says that much, but you stop short of understanding that God has made promises to Israel that cannot be brushed off by the silly assertion that God was really talking to the church.

[EricH]

I guess my thought would be this:

And the Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

2 Timothy 2:24-26

[Guest shiloh357]

Romans 11, is not that difficult to understand. There is only one olive tree. The Lord and prophets and apostles are its roots and stock. Promises made to those of faith were fulfilled in Christ. No one comes to the father except through the Son to be a part of that tree. Everyone who comes to the father through the Son is part of that tree. There is no other tree and no promises left to be fulfilled. The promises were made to the seed of faith and the seed of faith has fulfilled them and will draw all who are of the seed of faith to Himself when He returns.

   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is not really issue here. What we are dealing with is whether or not it shows that God no longer has any prophetic dealings with Israel. The Bible says He does, Biblestudent says otherwise. Romans 11 is part of an entire line of thought concerning Paul's heart for the Jewish people to be saved. It in no demonstrates that God's purposes for natural Israel have ceased and it certainly does not demonstrate that God has transferred His promises made originally to Israel, over to the Church. This is what I mean about bad hermeneutics. Paul is talking about one thing, and Biblestudent (and others) are trying to use Romans 11 to prove something else. Proper exegesis allows a passage to be understood in the line of thought that is present. It is not for the purpose of creating or proving a doctrine that is foreign to the subject matter present in the passage.

The overarching subject matter of Romans 9-11 is the salvation of his kinsmen, not the redefining of who Israel is. Paul in the preceding chapters has demonstrated to his Gentile readership how their salvation was made possible. He now turns his attention to his Israelite kinsmen and demonstrates that Gentiles have an obligation, in Christ, to natural Israel to bring the gospel to them.

There is nothing in Romans 11 that can be exegeted in a competent manner, that suggests that God no longer has a plan for Israel or that He has replaced natural Israel with the Church. In fact, there is nothing in the New Testament period that even remotely suggests that kind of assertion. Replacement, or "continuance" assertions are, as far as I can see, based upon verses taken out of context, and key terms being redefined. It is based upon a baseless assertion that the New Testament has redefined Israel, as the Church, and therefore every instance where Israel is mentioned prophetically in the OT, is really a prophecy about the Church. The problem with such a theory (aside from being extremely selective in how this "replacement" is applied) is that one only needs to examine what God says to and about Israel, to see that it cannot apply to anyone except natural Israel. The circumstances, history and occasions in which these prophecies were made, and the occasions to which they speak could never reasonably be applied to the Church.

Incidentally, God has a lot of critical negative things to say about Israel in Bible prophecy, even to the point of calling Jerusalem "Sodom." He is very critical of Israel as a whole. God talks of Israel's unfaithfulness, and the reproach they have brought upon Him in the eyes of the world. He says this in the very OT passages that Biblestudent claims is supposed to really be talking about the church.

Through proper hermeneutic principles we can see that Israel is Israel, and the Church is the Church. They are two separate entities.