Hi AquaBuddha
In reference to your copy and paste about Romans 11.
It makes for interesting reading... but it also uses several straw man arguments:
National Israel will continue to be spiritually blind, except for a remnant chosen by grace, as long as there is one Gentile, or non-Jew, anywhere in the world, who is still to be saved.
What? Paul does not make that argument. He says "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in". The author's assertion here is a dogmatic statement, but not necessarily what Paul meant.
In our generation, Israel has been a nation for over 50 years, and they are as adamant about their opposition to Christ as the Messiah as they were at any time in their history
So what? 50 years is nothing in terms of their history. Besides, Paul himself makes the same point, and yet "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable":
"As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (11:28,29)
There has been no change, and there will be no change. God says that their condition will remain the same until the last person who is of the elect of God becomes saved. When the last Gentile has become saved, it will be the end of the world.
There's a whole bunch of FAIL in this statement. If the apostle Paul taught the same thing, he wouldn't have even bothered talking about the fullness of the nations coming in... why not just say that they became blinded!
No, Paul's statement comes with it the implication that Israel's blindness is TEMPORARY. Neither does Paul talks about the "end of the world" here, so obviously there's lots of overlap with the author's beliefs.
God does not have a future plan for national Israel; that idea is not found anywhere in the Bible.
It's funny how one can be blinded to scriptures, when one is pre-disposed to see them in certain ways. There are plenty of scriptures that can ONLY be fulfilled upon a future PHYSICAL Israel or Jerusalem... but they have been theologically explained away.
The Bible indicates that we are in the last days; we are headed right toward the end of time. When the last Gentile has become saved, that will be the end of the Gospel era. It will be the end of the world.
Why are we in the last days? Based on what?
Now, I am not necessarily disputing this. Perhaps we are. I am familiar with the concept... but then, those same scriptures that seem to suggest this, also talk about captivity to the nations and Jerusalem being trampled.
So I'm curious to know how this author reconciles those scriptures with the statement that "God does not have a future plan for national Israel".
Incidentally, I'm pretty up with this idea, because I used to believe it. But then I had my eyes opened to the scriptures which suggest the exact opposite, i.e. that God still has plans for Israel and the physical city of Jerusalem.
OK, onto your comments...
Beside the side discussion we are having about eschatology here (your interpretation makes no sense to the 4000 years of Jews who already existed and died),
What do they have to do with it? They will get a resurrection, and will probably be in a
great position to accept Jesus as the Messiah. Of course, that will also be true of most Gentiles, too. Paul taught the resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous.
But I don't think that's the main thrust of the purpose of restoring Israel. He does it for His holy name, as He repeatedly states in Ezekiel 36 onwards. Israel goes into exile... Israel returns from exile.
The nations then attack Israel (Ezekiel 38,39), the people who are gathered back to their land, and only THEN do they know God. Attempts to suggest this is the "Israel of God" do not work, because the prophecy explicitly tells us it's the same Israel that went INTO exile.
This is the whole point of saying UNTIL. It implies a limited duration.
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it... // ...See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again,
until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" (Matt 23:36,37)
"Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles,
until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." (Luke 21:24)
"A partial hardening has come upon Israel,
until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in..." (Romans 11:25)
Jesus did not teach that Jerusalem would be eternally destroyed, and neither did Paul teach that God had totally abandoned physical Israel.
The word UNTIL makes all the difference.
you are clearly conceding that God does interfere with man's will through hardening and softening. Which is my entire point, and something you now concede.
God hardens and softens, and He does it based on His good pleasure and will, not ours.
Sure, I have always conceded that point. I argue for certain individual special cases (i.e. Paul, Pharaoh) and collective "category" cases, i.e. pre-ordained outcomes for categories / groups.
In Paul's example in Romans 11, he is talking about a collective hardening of unbelieving Israel. My point has always been that, within Israel, individuals had the free choice, for the most part, to believe or not.
In reality, it seems that people's hearts lead them to their choice, i.e. it was the scribes and Pharisees who primarily called for and plotted Jesus' death, a reflection of their heart... and the people themselves were described as "a wicked and adulterous generation".
So I think their "hardening" and "blindness" really stemmed from their own sinful desires. God placed them in the position of having to make a choice... for Jesus, or against him.