Hath God cast away his people

[Insight]

but he had to because the Messiah had to be born through Abraham's decedents as prophesied and as promised to Abraham. The seed had to be a decendent of King David and of the tribe of Judah. But that did not mean that the messiah would be tarnished because during all of Isreals history, there have always been individual Jews who have remained faithful and loyal to God.

While this is true Yahweh still chose a nation knowing they would reject Him. The point is this "How can we suggest that He has now rejected and finished with natural Israel when we know through His foreknowledge he choose them" This point is becoming louder as Paul speaks dogmatically toward us in Rom 11:1,2.

I dont think its that God disposed of them...i think they had disposed of God when they rejected their Messiah and for that reason, God 'turned his attention to the nations to take out a people for his name' Acts 15:14

Exactly right Pegg. How can any of us say that God has disposed and finished working with Natrual Israel. This would mean that He has failed to achieve His end...as we shall see.

im not sure of that, there may be individual jews who have come to accept Christ and thus been joined to God through their faith, but as a whole, no. The nation of isreal have not accepted Christ, so i dont think we can say that they are being collected today as a nation.

Again, we must for the moment leave Jesus out of this discussion only if that Paul has not introduced Christ yet in Rom 11:1,2 - Agian I stress Paul has only made reference to NATURAL ISRAEL.

I will keep saying that we musnt jump ahead or we "may" miss important detail in his argument.

As we move forward into Romans 11:2 the below observations will be highlighted about how God works with individuals, peoples and nations.

God selected Jacob, recognising the weaknesses that he would reveal through his life, but understanding also that through suffering Jacob would rise to faithfulness before Him (See Rom. 9:10,11,12,13).

Have we seen this type of transformation from Natural Israel to date? Other than people like the Apostle Paul who stand as examples of what is to come. Rom 11:1,2

I am really enjoying this study thank you Pegg & Vengle

 

[Insight]

"God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew" Rom 11:2

Wuest translates this most assertively: “I say then, God did not repudiate His people”…of whom He took note at the first.

This is an allusion to Psa. 94:14

For the LORD will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance.

This shows Paul's adversaries that he was not repudiating this divine principle!

And further proves his point from the psalm "For Yahweh will not cast off His people", noticing how he adds the significant words: "which He foreknew".

Paul has now twice (2 times) used the expression "His people" (Rom 11:1, 2) which is proof of God's foreknowledge.

Yahweh's choice, as with His foreknowledge, must always be right; even though on so many occasions their rebellion caused Him to become angry with them, so that He punished them accordingly. "You only have I known of all the families of the earth" (Amos 3:2).

Yet, could Yahweh have been surprised at their rebellion and disbelief? His foreknowledge provides the answer to the question:

By no means!

 

[Vengle]

It is important not to draw to conclusions that may or may not be there.

"God HATH NOT cast away His people which He foreknew" (Rom 11:2)

Did God foreknow that natural Israel would turn from Him?

Yes of no?

Then why do draw the conclusion that it was "that nation" instead of "his people", as it says?

 

[Vengle]

If you consider the Greek "fall" & "stumble" you can glean a deeper understanding of this verse.

Did Israel completely and utterly fall? or a momentary stumble?

Quick summary so far with natural Israel highlighted in blue

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? Rom 11:1,2

So thus far we can determine that Paul's mind is centered on the Natrual state of Israel.

As you yourself said, "It is important not to draw to conclusions that may or may not be there."

Yet you are doing that right here when you say, "or a momentary stumble?":

Not only that, but you seem to have no realization at all how that contradicts what Jesus and other of the Bible writers have told us.

Explain these words of Jesus to us Insight:

Matthew 8:11-12 "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Was Jesus talking to Jews when he said that? Or, to a Gentile about Jews?

What did Jesus say there that would make you think that was a momentary event?

 

[Insight]

As you yourself said, "It is important not to draw to conclusions that may or may not be there."

Yet you are doing that right here when you say, "or a momentary stumble?":

Not only that, but you seem to have no realization at all how that contradicts what Jesus and other of the Bible writers have told us.

Vengle,

I appreciate how Rom 11:1,2 has challenged you in terms of Pauls adamant assertive dogmatic response to his adversaries question “has God cast off His people”.

So far I have stayed within the context of the passage and am yet to move away from it. The evidence in Rom 11:1,2 has clearly been stated and cannot be refuted by you or I.

The facts are what they are.

Now that’s not to say Paul’s argument may or may not change, we shall see. But for now we are seeing his premise is one of defending natural Israel while upholding the righteousness of God.

Hope this helps.

Insight

Then why do draw the conclusion that it was "that nation" instead of "his people", as it says?

Because Paul is building upon the premise of Rom 11:1 being that he himself is one member of "His People" i.e a natural Jew.

We cannot introduce another premise can we?

Insight

 

[Vengle]

Vengle,

I appreciate how Rom 11:1,2 has challenged you in terms of Pauls adamant assertive dogmatic response to his adversaries question “has God cast off His people”.

So far I have stayed within the context of the passage and am yet to move away from it. The evidence in Rom 11:1,2 has clearly been stated and cannot be refuted by you or I.

The facts are what they are.

Now that’s not to say Paul’s argument may or may not change, we shall see. But for now we are seeing his premise is one of defending natural Israel while upholding the righteousness of God.

Hope this helps.

Insight



Because Paul is building upon the premise of Rom 11:1 being that he himself is one member of "His People" i.e a natural Jew.

We cannot introduce another premise can we?

Insight

You have a powerful imagination.

Every conclusion we have presented is drawn not from our own ideas but from the context surrounding the verse itself.

So there is no sweat for us. We are just stating what is there.

What are you really doing?

 

[Vengle]

What i find interesting about Paul's being of the tribe of Benjamin is that it means "son of the right hand".

Benjamin was the youngest child of Jacob after Joseph was sold to slavery and so Jacob was particularly fond and protective of him.

In the tribe of Benjamin's history, early on they became a bit defiant of the other tribes over an issue if i recall right had something to do with false idols. That resulted in a sort of civil war between the tribes and Benjamin became nearly non-existent. I think they had something like only 600 men left.

But by king Davids time they had recouped to where they were the primary force of David's army. Their tenacity and zeal was without equal when it came to being the lion of Judah. They were highly skilled in their use of slings and other weapons of that time as their dedication to serving Judah's army was fierce.

And this is what really fascinates me about Paul being of that tribe of Benjamin. He told of his zeal for the traditions of Judaism at Galatians 1:13-14 which are indeed true to the zeal of a Benjamite. That zeal caused him to severely fight against heavenly Jerusalem at first as he was so extremely dedicated to defending that fleshly Jerusalem

But we see that same zeal in the way he took to serving the heavenly Jerusalem and defending her causes.after his conversion on the roadway to Damascus. (Compare: Galatians 4:21-31)

That is the beauty, but that beauty is beside the point he was making at Romans 11:1-2.

 

[Insight]

You have a powerful imagination.

Every conclusion we have presented is drawn not from our own ideas but from the context surrounding the verse itself.

So there is no sweat for us. We are just stating what is there.

What are you really doing?

Good question.

I am stating what is presented so far having dealt with Rom 11:1,2

Natural Israel highlighted in blue

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? Rom 11:1,2

So thus far we can determine that Paul's mind is centered on the Natrual state of Israel.

What i find interesting about Paul's being of the tribe of Benjamin is that it means "son of the right hand".

Benjamin was the youngest child of Jacob after Joseph was sold to slavery and so Jacob was particularly fond and protective of him.

In the tribe of Benjamin's history, early on they became a bit defiant of the other tribes over an issue if i recall right had something to do with false idols. That resulted in a sort of civil war between the tribes and Benjamin became nearly non-existent. I think they had something like only 600 men left.

But by king Davids time they had recouped to where they were the primary force of David's army. Their tenacity and zeal was without equal when it came to being the lion of Judah. They were highly skilled in their use of slings and other weapons of that time as their dedication to serving Judah's army was fierce.

And this is what really fascinates me about Paul being of that tribe of Benjamin. He told of his zeal for the traditions of Judaism at Galatians 1:13-14 which are indeed true to the zeal of a Benjamite. That zeal caused him to severely fight against heavenly Jerusalem at first as he was so extremely dedicated to defending that fleshly Jerusalem

But we see that same zeal in the way he took to serving the heavenly Jerusalem and defending her causes.after his conversion on the roadway to Damascus. (Compare: Galatians 4:21-31)

That is the beauty, but that beauty is beside the point he was making at Romans 11:1-2.

Yes, Paul stating he is from the tribe of Benjamin is the third piece of evidence he is speaking to natural Israel.

He treats with this fact more fully in Phil 3:5, acknowledging his association with that tribe. From Benjamin came the first king (Saul 1 Sam. 9:21). And it was the only tribe, outside of Judah, to remain loyal to the royal house of David (as you rightly say).

In looking at this threefold declaration of being a member of the natural house of Israel, this must form the foundation of our reasoning going forward.

Anything else is to abondened his premise.

Insight

____________________________________________________________________________

“Wot ye not” Rom 11:2KJV

In other words - - the reason I make this claim is this!

If some here would endeavour to argue that Paul is trying to state God has "cast away" His people Israel, then they must also ignore the evidence of history!

Both going back into her history and now during Paul’s time it is true the entire nation appears to have given itself over to apostasy; but this proved not to be the case, for a remnant still remained faithful.

Like they "refused to follow a multitude to do evil" (Exod. 23:2).

Not only was this a matter of historical fact, it was recorded in the inspired Word of God as Pauls draws on its infallibility.

Hence Paul states:

"Do you know what the Scripture says in the case of Elijah?"

It may become more apparent now why it’s essential we understand and approach Rom 11:1 correctly.

Insight

 

[Vengle]

I appreciate what you are saying Insight but there is a difference between God rejecting his people and God choosing not to use that natural nation's structure any longer.

Jesus pointed out that difference in the parable of the old cloth verses the new cloth and the old wine skins verses the new wine skins.

Galatians 4:24 "Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children."

Paul is talking there about what was portrayed for us pictorially in Abraham.

That Jerusalem we see on this earth is the old garment that Jesus referenced, she is the old wine skin that Jesus referenced.

She is also this bondwoman:

Galatians 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. (Compare Matthew 8:11-12)

The spiritual Jerusalem above is now where the law of God comes forth from: Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

And just as this is all a spiritual picture in which the fleshly systems we see are done away with like old cloth and old wine skins, so also the only Israel of God that will ever be again exists spiritually and has existed since the New Covenant began.

Who do you say the son of the free woman is?

 

[Insight]

"What the scripture saith of Elias?" Rom 11:2KJV

The word "of” is the Greek en, meaning in. Its like Paul is asking us to go back into the history of Elijah to see how his point is being proved.

In saying "in Elijah", notice how Paul refers to a section of scripture that speaks to the circumstances of Elijah's ministry in Israel?

Like Paul, it was a period of gross apostasy, when the nation deserted the true worship of Yahweh and slaughtered His true prophets See 1 Kings. 19:10, 14.

An important lesson here Vengle and Pegg!

The lesson Paul is teaching is exactly the same as God taught Elijah i.e Yahweh can see further (foreknew) than he could; Elijah believed that he alone remained faithful in such times of wickedness:

"I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life to take it away" (1 Kings 19: 10).

Yet, even under such extreme apostasy, God had protected some who refused to follow the majority who practised great evil.

In other words “Yahweh hid the presence of a faithful minority from Elijah at that time:

"I have left Me (preserved to Me) seven thousand in Israel" (1 Kings 19:18).

Conclusion thus far:

Though many may think God has cast off natural Israel and the evidence may appear to be so, Yahweh is working to bring about a reformation such as is portrayed in the prophets.

Failure to understand why Paul used Elijah as an example will see the lesson of the future reformation lost to you.

I will not go into the future fulfilment of Mal. 4:4,5,6 right here and now but will address this prophecy separately.

Needless to say the world will be subject to the witnessing of natural Israel once more upon and after the Lord Jesus Christ returns.

Paul understood this when referring to Elijah.

Insight

P.S There is another secondary reason why Paul quotes from Elijah’s ministry? Can you think of why this may be?...its rather profound when one grasps it depth!

 

[Vengle]

Preserved 7,000 who dd not do what?

Take it all in, rather than only part of it.

 

[Insight]

I appreciate what you are saying Insight but there is a difference between God rejecting his people and God choosing not to use that natural nation's structure any longer.

You are doing what Pegg did last night, in that by taking a spiritual view you neglect to see the natural state of affairs as Paul is presenting them.

For instance where in Rom 11:1,2 is the new covenant mentioned (the New Wine Skins?

Nowhere!

So why would you run off with an idea (be it a very spiritual one) that is yet to be introduced into the record?

Careful Bible study is integral if truth is to be revealed.

You below quotes have no contextual bearing on Pauls argument so far, as I say it once more – Paul is only speaking about natural Israel and if you are not in hism mind and thought pattern then it is likely you will miss the lesson hidden there.

Jesus pointed out that difference in the parable of the old cloth verses the new cloth and the old wine skins verses the new wine skins.

Galatians 4:24 "Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children."

Paul is talking there about what was portrayed for us pictorially in Abraham.

That Jerusalem we see on this earth is the old garment that Jesus referenced, she is the old wine skin that Jesus referenced.

She is also this bondwoman:

Galatians 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. (Compare Matthew 8:11-12)
The spiritual Jerusalem above is now where the law of God comes forth from: Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

And just as this is all a spiritual picture in which the fleshly systems we see are done away with like old cloth and old wine skins, so also the only Israel of God that will ever be again exists spiritually and has existed since the New Covenant began.

Who do you say the son of the free woman is?

While your thoughts are no doubt valid. Your question to date is not because this is not what Paul is teaching here in Rom 11:1,2

Try to enter his arguments - It’s about entering the Word and allowing it to speak to us.

But I sure love your eagerness to fly high !

Insight

Preserved 7,000 who dd not do what?

Take it all in, rather than only part of it.

I am taking it in Vengle and we will get to the remnant!

You can count on that! :)

 

[Vengle]

Do I seem to be speaking in riddles?


Fleshly Jerusalem corresponds to the old cloth and old wine skins as she is the fleshy container wherein God deposited his Law in her charge to be dispensed in Israel.

You probably recognize that the old cloth and the old wine skins is the Old covenant. And you probably recognize that Jesus' point was that God was in no way trying to patch up that Old covenant system which was made weak by the flesh, nor trying to pour new life into it.

I would hope you do.

Micah 4:2 "And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem."

Hebrews 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:
26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.
27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.
28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:
29 For our God is a consuming fire.


Where in that is a return to the old?

 

[Insight]

Do I seem to be speaking in riddles?


Fleshly Jerusalem corresponds to the old cloth and old wine skins as she is the fleshy container wherein God deposited his Law in her charge to be dispensed in Israel.

You probably recognize that the old cloth and the old wine skins is the Old covenant. And you probably recognize that Jesus' point was that God was in no way trying to patch up that Old covenant system which was made weak by the flesh, nor trying to pour new life into it.

I would hope you do.

Micah 4:2 "And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem."

Hebrews 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:
26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.
27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.
28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:
29 For our God is a consuming fire.


Where in that is a return to the old?

I agree with all you are saying with no objections.

Go back over my posts and show me where I said the Old Covenant is returning?

Once again we are jumping to conclusions without the Word being our source of truth.

Insight

 

[Vengle]

I agree with all you are saying with no objections.

Go back over my posts and show me where I said the Old Covenant is returning?

Once again we are jumping to conclusions without the Word being our source of truth.

Insight

There are so many variations to the beliefs of those that believe the flesh and blood Israel and Jerusalem is to be restored that I hope you will forgive my error then.

So then, are you simply saying that there will be nations marking nationalities and there will be a restored fleshly Israel where a restored fleshly Jerusalem on earth is located?

I see what appear to me to be problems with that idea but I will withhold speaking of those problems until you clarify to me exactly what you are saying is to be.

 

[Insight]

"What the scripture saith of Elias?" Rom 11:2KJV

The word "of” is the Greek en, meaning in. Its like Paul is asking us to go back into the history of Elijah to see how his point is being proved.

In saying "in Elijah", notice how Paul refers to a section of scripture that speaks to the circumstances of Elijah's ministry in Israel?

Like Paul, it was a period of gross apostasy, when the nation deserted the true worship of Yahweh and slaughtered His true prophets See 1 Kings. 19:10, 14.

An important lesson here Vengle and Pegg!

The lesson Paul is teaching is exactly the same as God taught Elijah i.e Yahweh can see further (foreknew) than he could; Elijah believed that he alone remained faithful in such times of wickedness:

"I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life to take it away" (1 Kings 19: 10).

Yet, even under such extreme apostasy, God had protected some who refused to follow the majority who practised great evil.

In other words “Yahweh hid the presence of a faithful minority from Elijah at that time:

"I have left Me (preserved to Me) seven thousand in Israel" (1 Kings 19:18).

Conclusion thus far:

Though many may think God has cast off natural Israel and the evidence may appear to be so, Yahweh is working to bring about a reformation such as is portrayed in the prophets.

Failure to understand why Paul used Elijah as an example will see the lesson of the future reformation lost to you.

I will not go into the future fulfilment of Mal. 4:4,5,6 right here and now but will address this prophecy separately.

Needless to say the world will be subject to the witnessing of natural Israel once more upon and after the Lord Jesus Christ returns.

Paul understood this when referring to Elijah.

Insight

P.S There is another secondary reason why Paul quotes from Elijah’s ministry? Can you think of why this may be?...its rather profound when one grasps it depth!

Cont….

The other reason Paul takes us to the days of Elijah is because it was a disgraceful period of apostasy in the Israel’s history.

I believe Paul is providing a parallel between Elijah's time and his in AD 55/56 (not dogmatic on date)

The type of wickedness in Elijah days was manifested in the rejection of Christ and Pegg has earlier mentioned.

But check out how beautiful these two periods come together.

When they rejected Elijah we find terrible judgments came upon Israel at the hands of Hazael and Jehu.

And

For similar reasons, but much worse Yahweh bought divine judgment upon his people as it was not long before Roman armies destroyed the proud and arrogant (in their rejection and putting to death of Christ) Jews some 14 year later in AD70.

To me personally this reveals the mighty hand of God revealed through Paul here in Rom 11:1,2

 

[Insight]

God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

We still must recall that Paul is still speaking of natural Israel.

 

[Vengle]

I am not saying that you don't have some good thoughts there and it is certainly not my desire to offend you, but you are way out there in the middle of nowhere with that theory.

You are making it far too hard on yourself by refusing to allow the context to have the say as to what Paul meant.

I could have told you, "I don't disagree with all that you say."

You could have then understood me to mean that I did not find anything you said that I disagree with. But you have a greater context of what I have been thinking in all our posts so that idea would seem silly to you. Because you have that context you would be sure of what I actually meant. You would have known I meant only that I agree with some of the things you say.

The way you are approaching Romans chapter 11 you are losing that advantage. Your approach to it is leading you out into never never land.

Why not give yourself a break and put away what you believe just long enough to consider really consider the full context of chapters 9-11?

What is there to be afraid to do that? Try letting Paul himself tell you what he means by letting the context of his writings be your primary guide. Use that context as a tool so that the spirit can have it available to it in you to help you.

The way it is right now you do not really hear much of what myself or Pegg has told you. Your mind and heart simply is not in it.

 

[Insight]

[sup]2[/sup]God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

[sup]3[/sup]Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

The words "maketh intercession" (Gr entugchano) it means to to come to another's aid; to discharge the office of an advocate, to plead one's cause in a court of law.
http://www.bluelette...ngs=G1793&t=KJV

In this context its application is the oppssite. Elijah here is prosecuting Israel. He was accusing the Jewish people before God, charging them with the crime of murder and insurrection against the prophets of God.

The word "against" is the Gr. Kata down, is like Elijah was pressuring God to judge Israel through his eyes.

"Saying" — quotes 1 Kings 19:10. "Lord, they have killed Thy prophets, and digged down Thine altars"

Now it appears some here in this forum would very quickly take Elijahs stand by writing off Israel?

Is this right?

Ah…but this is the case Paul is presenting!

It’s still all about God foreknowledge with Israel and whether or not he is finished with His People.

So far Paul is strongly stating God is NOT finish at all with natural Israel.

It’s an abhorrent attitude to possess such a view; one which Jesus would vehemently rebuke!

consider:

When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” 55But He turned and rebuked them, [and said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; 56for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.”] And they went on to another village.

I liken it to the Jesus in his condemnation of the ecclesia/church in Thyatira, Christians are not immune See Rev. 2:20); and yet in that church there were some (remnant) who had remained separate the apostasy:

"But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine... " (Rev 2:24)

Clearly we would all agree this small group of faithful disciples parallel the "seven thousand" of Elijah’s day.

Insight

 

[Insight]

Paul answered his own question quite well if you are willing to see it:

Romans 11:5 "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace."

Speaking of those blinded beyond that remnant of elect., Paul said: Romans 10:1 "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

Who can blame him for desiring to see that.

But in saying "might be" he told us plainly he was not saying that they will be.

Did Paul entertain hopes of that whole nation being saved as so many preach today? Romans 11:14 "If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them."

Romans 9:1 "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart."

Romans 9:33 "For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:"

accursed = <G0331> anathema -- pronounced: an-ath'-em-ah

from 394; a (religious) ban or (concretely) excommunicated (thing or person): KJV -- accused, anathema, curse, X great.

Now it appears we have come to your above post.

What is in our hearts concerning natural Israel today?

Do we bring fire from heaven upon them? Write them off? Or as you say Rom 11:14 as above? By grace?

Does God have future plans for Natural Israel and what are they...

Maybe you and Pegg can extrapolate their hope?

Paul answered his own question quite well if you are willing to see it:

Romans 11:5 "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace."

Speaking of those blinded beyond that remnant of elect., Paul said: Romans 10:1 "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

Who can blame him for desiring to see that.

But in saying "might be" he told us plainly he was not saying that they will be.

Did Paul entertain hopes of that whole nation being saved as so many preach today? Romans 11:14 "If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them."

Romans 9:1 "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart."

Romans 9:33 "For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:"

accursed = <G0331> anathema -- pronounced: an-ath'-em-ah

from 394; a (religious) ban or (concretely) excommunicated (thing or person): KJV -- accused, anathema, curse, X great.

What is in our hearts concerning natural Israel today?

Do we bring fire from heaven upon them? Write them off? Or as you say Rom 11:14 as above? By grace?

Does God have future plans for Natural Israel and what are they...

Maybe you and Pegg can extrapolate their hope?