Romans;- The mystery of the Jews

Once Paul had finished explaining the gospel, he was expressing his grief that the bulk of his fellow-Jews were not heeding the gospel message.
He spent a couple of chapters dismissing the argument that God was at fault in some way, and the overall conclusion was that the Jews could blame nobody except themselves.

But did this really mean that God had rejected this people, the descendants of Abraham and Jacob? (ch11 v1)

By no means. Paul has exactly the same inheritance, which in itself disproves the “total rejection” theory, and also makes him unwilling to believe it.
Surely God has not rejected his people “whom he foreknew” (v2).
We should notice, incidentally, that what God “foreknew” in this verse is the existence of a community dedicated to himself.
In the same way, the prophet’s parable of the two baskets of good and bad figs (Jeremiah ch24) speaks of the preference and rejection of two different communities. Perhaps we should give the same interpretation to Paul’s own parable of the two vessels (ch9 v21).

The first answer to the “total rejection” theory is that God has kept back a faithful remnant within that people, just as he did in the times of Elijah. There are many Jews, including Paul himself, who have accepted the gospel.
They are “chosen by grace… no longer on the basis of works.”
But Paul’s usual alternative to “by works” is “by faith”.
If Paul can identify the human faith-choice with being chosen by God, then the relationship between those two sides of the question may be more complex than human logic can grasp.

So the outcome is that Israel as a whole failed to obtain what it sought.
That is, the “elect” portion obtained it, but the remainder were “hardened”, as the Psalmist says about evildoers; “Let their eyes be darkened, so that the cannot see.”
However, one way of understanding “hardening” is that God allowed them to persist in, and finally confirmed them in, the choice they had made for themselves.

The second and third answers to the “total rejection” theory are offered in v11.
“Through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles.”
“So as to make Israel jealous”.
That is, their apparent failure has a purpose in God’s plan, and may not be permanent.

The first point can be inferred from the effect of recent events. Jerusalem’s hostility to the church drove the Christians out into the wider world. The refusal of the synagogues to listen to Paul forced him to turn to the proselytes and others. The outcome was the conversion of the Gentiles.

The second point may be based on the clue which Paul has already quoted from Moses;
“I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation, I will make you angry” (ch10 v19).
This would be an exciting prospect. If the world had a wealth of benefit from the inclusion of the Gentiles, it will be enriched even further by the re-adoption (or “full inclusion”) of the original community.
So Paul is now addressing his Gentile readers and urging them not to be jealous, in their turn, of this possibility.
The Jews are the “first-fruits of the dough”; if they are holy, then the whole lump is holy.
They are the root of the tree; if the root is holy to God, then all the branches are holy.

There follows the allegory of the cultivated olive tree, which is a traditional image for Israel.
Some of the branches, the unbelieving Jews, have been broken off.
The Gentile branches, cut from a wild olive tree, have been grafted in to take their place.
But the Gentiles should not be triumphant over the Jews.
In the first place, the Gentiles themselves are only part of the tree by being attached to the original root.
In the second place, it remains possible that they might be cut out again, and the original branches grafted back in.
The exchange is explained in terms of faith.
Their faith enables the Gentiles to stand fast, and and they will lose God’s kindness of they don’t persist in their faith.
Conversely, the Jews were cut off by unbelief, and they may be grafted back if they don’t persist in their unbelief.

Modern critics remark that Paul obviously doesn’t understand how grafting works. I don’t understand how grafting works either, so I can’t comment. It was hard enough trying to grasp how pruning works, for the sake of understanding “I am the vine”.
But it is very typical of Paul that his metaphors should work in a clumsy way, so I’m not surprised.

So Paul looks into the future and he sees a great “mystery”, a paradox in the way God works (v25).
A “hardening” has taken place on part of Israel, but the effect is only temporary.
It will last until the intended number of Gentiles have been brought into God’s people.
Then, as Isaiah promises, God will “banish ungodliness from Jacob” and take away their sins as well.

In other words, they are currently enemies of God, in their reaction to the gospel, in a way which gives the Gentiles a chance to receive the gospel.
But they are beloved by God, for the sake of their forefathers, in terms of their election.
The fact that they are “elect”, and that the gifts and call of God are irrevocable, appears to apply to their existence as a group, which helps to explain how they can be “hardened” at the same time.

Then the paradox is re-stated in terms of mercy and disobedience.
The Gentiles used to be disobedient.
When the Jews became disobedient, that made it possible for the Gentiles to receive mercy.
But the long-term effect of the disobedience of the Jews is that they will ne able to receive mercy through the mercy which the Gentiles have already received (vv30-31).

Contemplating this conclusion, Paul can only marvel at the “depth of the riches and wisdom of knowledge of God”.
“For from him and through him and to him are all things”
Only the Creator God could do these things.

Yep, one of 6 mysteries shown to Paul.....He said he did not get them from man....from before time was.....a new branch would graft in. A Mystery that allows all....salvation.

It is interesting to witness the writing or *recreation* by Paul a false anthropological history of an entire group of people using religious hyperbole; for instance: The Jews were never slaves of Egyptian domination. They (Hibiru) actually stole knowledge from them. The Egyptians were a 6th dimensional insert from Sirius and willingly gave information sustenance and comfort to anyone in need.

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Yep, one of 6 mysteries shown to Paul.....He said he did not get them from man....from before time was.....a new branch would graft in. A Mystery that allows all....salvation.

Who showed those to Paul? Who is Paul's most immediate sycophant? What is his agenda other than a power/corruption/lies grab by Someone.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

nice, never knew this.
but of course the official story is a scam lol.
i will go do the research, read more about this!
thanks

a reply to: dantanna
False narratives..the possession and transport of the container or 'Ark of the Covenant' was just a metaphor for a misunderstood and misguided stealing of radioactive material taken from the Egyptians.

Well, shouldnt the Jewish folk, more or less come from Babylon at the time of the story of their exodus, which went through two or three cultural shifts apparently. Nothing in the O.T mentions them, cept for the Daniel which is much later. I dont take the story to seriously, I mean it the pre exodus I like.

They were supposedly semitic, but I did read something about the story of Moses actually being symbolic to a royal feud of sorts in Egypt.

And while I am at it, why the does Elijah sound like a Pyromancer.

a reply to: vethumanbeing
Paul does not discuss the Egyptian episode here, so that is not part of the topic of this thread. In any case, he did not create the traditions; he inherited them from the same documents we can read for ourselves.
Pleasae remember for future reference, the topic of a thread is determined by the opening post, not by the title alone. You are supposed to read the opening post.

a reply to: Specimen88
This is all thread drift. The topic of a thread is determined by the opening post, which you haven't read.

a reply to: DISRAELI

That a good chunk of Jewish people didnt want to believe Paul, and that the holy land didnt belong to outsiders. All the while Jesus an later Paul, then Tome talk about just getting along and open borders?

originally posted by: Specimen88
That a good chunk of Jewish people didnt want to believe Paul,

Not just Paul. They were rejecting the testimony of many Christian speakers, going back to Stephen ,who was stoned to death.

and that the holy land didnt belong to outsiders.

The holy land doesn't come into it. The question is about having a direct relationship with the God of Abraham. Have the Jews abandoned their God? Has their God abandoned them? Those are the issues.

All the while Jesus an later Paul, then Tome talk about just getting along and open borders?

Again, open borders are not an issue, because he is not talking about the holy land. The question is whether God intends to bring back the Jews into a close relationship, so that Gentiles and Jews may be recognised as part of the same God-respecting community.

a reply to: DISRAELI

In the second place, it remains possible that they might be cut out again, and the original branches grafted back in.

Well taught DISRAELI,

You are correct in that Israel does have a great awakening in the last days. Revelation 21:12 shows that Israel does have a great honor bestowed upon them in the new kingdom and also the 144,000 who are sealed and honored in Revelation 7:4-8.

a reply to: Specimen88

Sure it wasn't about the Holy Land since it is prime location for trading and the beach?

Which God we talking about? Jesus who claims to be all three, or the one they that said the kid was not his son.

It alot like the Torah vs the Talmud here. Ones easier wash their hand with apparently.

a reply to: Specimen88
The eleventh chapter of Romans, which is the topic of this thread, is not about the holy land. Do please try to get your head round the concept of "on topic", which works effectively enough on every other forum of ATS.

a reply to: Seede
Hmm. I have my own understanding of the Revelation references (I think you joined the site too late to see my old Revelation series). However, that doesn't prevent our agreement on Paul's meaning.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: vethumanbeing
Paul does not discuss the Egyptian episode here, so that is not part of the topic of this thread. In any case, he did not create the traditions; he inherited them from the same documents we can read for ourselves.
Pleasae remember for future reference, the topic of a thread is determined by the opening post, not by the title alone. You are supposed to read the opening post.

I have a problem with your tunnel vision regarding Paul is all. His interpretation and implementation (doctrinization) of Jesus's teachings is so desperate/permanent and unlike what the Master would have envisioned for his message. Secular singular points of view (religions) cause war.

a reply to: DISRAELI

But alas, chapter 11 all about the holy land, and who should rightfully step unto it for they are free from sin right?

For some one who says they seen the light, you sure are blinded by it.

O well, gonna leave you alone.

a reply to: Specimen88
You speak falsehood. There is not one single word in Romans ch11 that refers to the holy land. Read through the chapter yourself and show me one. His comments about stubborn ignorance are in the previous chapter.

a reply to: DISRAELI

At least I can admit I'm stupid.

Is it in your power to forgive me?

a reply to: Specimen88
I will look for signs of sincerity first.