I was wondering how you interpret this Scripture, especially the bolded parts:

These passages are very clear that Israel (the people, not the Church) has been deliberately blinded for a time until the fullness of the Gentiles comes to pass, and that Israel had to be cut off for the Gospel to come to the Gentiles.

It also says we are not to boast against the natural branches and that they shall be grafted back in, that all Israel shall be saved. That is very clear that again it is speaking of Israel, the descendants of Jacob and not the Church.

This is just one Chapter of Scripture and there many more that speak of Israel and the Church as separate. The dual prophecies that speak of the time of Jacob's trouble are a time that has not yet come. I know you consider Revelation to be apocalyptic but it was not considered so until centuries later. And if it was apocalyptic it would not have been written about a time 20 years earlier, it would have written about the present time.

I am not trying to cause an argument but I'm trying to understand how someone doesn't take the literal meaning of these Scriptures. Can you help me out?

Y'all are free to be part of this thread but if you do I want no attitude or jumping on anyone. I am looking to understand and that's all.

This is the short version of what I get out of chapter 11 of Romans.

Romans chapter 11, Paul likened the nation of Israel to an olive tree that is linked to “YHWH'S friend,” the patriarch Abraham. (James 2:23) After that “friend” displayed his obedience, God told him: “By means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves due to the fact that you have listened to my voice.” (Genesis 22:18) Because the majority of the natural Jews did not display the faith of their forefather Abraham and obey God, those unbelieving Israelites were lopped off the symbolic olive tree that was rooted in the Greater Abraham, YHWH. Their places were taken by believing Gentiles, or non-Jews, so that the symbolic tree might have its full number of branches. Those taking the places of the natural Israelites became “Abraham’s seed” as proselytes, or Israelites by adoption on the part of God, the One greater than Abraham. (Galatians 3:26-29) They became Israelites in a spiritual sense, that is, spiritual Israelites. That is why Paul went on to say:

“I would not, brethren, have you ignorant of this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits, that a hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in; and so all Israel shall be saved: even as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer; he shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: and this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.”—Romans 11:25-27, American Standard Version.

Romans 11:5
The way was opened for the world outside the Jewish community or congregation. That is, the non-Jewish nations now had opportunity to be joined with a faithful Jewish remnant in the new covenant as God’s new nation, spiritual Israel.

11:7
Only a remnant accepted Jesus as Messiah and were saved. (Ro 11:7) These were the ones that joyfully hailed him as the “King of Israel.” (Joh 1:49; 12:12, 13) The majority, refusing to put faith in Jesus (Mt 8:10; Ro 9:31, 32), joined their religious leaders in crying out: “Take him away! Take him away! Impale him!” “We have no king but Caesar.”—Joh 19:15;

11:8-10
The spiritual eye as well as the physical eye is a gift of God. (Pr 20:12) He promises to heal spiritual eyes as well as physical ones and to remove all causes for tears. (Isa 35:5; Re 21:4) One cannot understand God’s purposes without the gift of spiritual eyesight. On the other hand, YHWH hides his truth from the eyes of those who are stubborn or rebellious, letting “their eyes become darkened.” (Ro 11:8-10; Lu 19:42) “They have [literal] eyes, but they cannot see [spiritually].”
YHWH, through his servants, spoke of the stubborn, disobedient Israelites as having ‘uncircumcised ears.’ (Jer 6:10; Ac 7:51) They are as though stopped up with something that impedes hearing. They are ears that have not been opened by YHWH, who gives ears of understanding and obedience to those who seek him but allows the spiritual hearing of the disobedient ones to become dulled. (De 29:4; Ro 11:8) The apostle Paul foretold a time when some professing to be Christians would apostatize from the true faith, not wanting to hear the truth of God’s Word, but desiring to have their ears “tickled” by things pleasing to them, and would therefore listen to false teachers. (2Ti 4:3, 4; 1Ti 4:1) Also, one’s ears may “tingle” because of hearing startling news, especially news of calamity.

11:11,12
The many statutes and requirements of the Law covenant in effect opened the way for many such trespasses because of the imperfection of those subject to it (Ro 5:20); the nation of Israel as a whole blundered as to keeping that covenant. (Ro 11:11, 12) Since all the various statutes of that Law were part of one covenant, the person making “a false step” in one point thereby became an offender and “transgressor” against the covenant as a whole and hence against all its statutes.

Thanks for the post, Cori. I believe you are spiritualizing some Scripture which is literal. When interpreting Scripture you always take it literally first where possible and this can be taken absolutely literally.

Wols, I would really like to hear what you have to say. If you don't want to discuss it that's fine but I'd like to know that. If you're busy and can't get to this, I'd like to know that too. Any acknowledgment of this thread would be appreciated.

Thank you kindly.

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel,

until

the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

.

I like this thread.

I will not jump on anybody.

Arnold Schwarznegger voice: "I will not kill anybody".

.

The "blindness" is temporary ...

.

when we can no longer help Israel against her enemies, perhaps the fulness of the Gentiles is OVER WITH, and we are useless...

we are hanging on by our fingernails right now -- a smidgeon above Sodom and Gomorrorah

All right, I will attempt to clarify, although this is another of those areas, unfortunately, in which viewpoints are so tenaciously held that it usually matters little how much explanation is offered; consensus is unattainable. Let it be clearly understood that I am not going to debate this topic, nor am I going to condemn or defend this viewpoint or anyone else's viewpoint. I have been watching the comments in other threads with a growing sense of trepidation, due to the anti-Catholic flavor they contain....one disagrees with some statement made by the Vatican, and suddenly all things Catholic and Catholics themselves are fair game for ridicule, contempt, and derision.

I mean no offense to anyone, but I have seen this happen before at least twice on this very board, which caused me to leave for a time.....the opportunity arose (the first time had to do with the Church's stance on the salvation of Muslims; the second time, a couple of new members of the fire-breathing Fundy persuasion joined, as you may recall) and in both occasions, suddenly, some rather vicious anti-Papist sentiment arose from people I never would have expected it from, and was vented upon the lone orthodox Papist, being me. I ended up being backed against a wall by a horde of hostile, mocking posters, and while I did not and was not about to abandon my views, I decided that the fight wasn't worth it, so I opted to just disengage and depart. Again, no offense to anyone, but that same senitment may be submerged, boiling just below the surface, looking for a way to express itself, and I would just as soon not deal with it, if we all don't mind. If you disagree with me or with the Vatican, that's fine, but I'd like to keep the atmosphere friendly if at all possible. If I want to get myself spiked to a cross for what I believe or for what the Church teaches, I'll go to Left Behind or Rapture Ready, okay?

Daniel stated in the other thread that what I had said was preterism and replacement theology. These are Protestant theological terms, which really don't mean much in Catholic circles, not because they aren't understood, but simply because they are summarily dismissed as irrelevant. In Catholic circles, unless you get into the "three days of darkness" camp (which is primarily a fringe element) the study of eschatology or "end times" is, for the most part, relatively unimportant. The traditional Catholic concern has always been to make hay while the sun shines, rather than spend time trying to figure out when the sun is going to stop shining. This kind of mindset is incomprehensible to, say, a Fundamentalist, for example, because their whole theological base is largely built upon dispensationalism, and that constant apocalyptic expectation is always an underlying element, if not the primary focus, in everything they believe.

However, now I'm drifting, so I will get down to the topic at hand. I am not going to attempt to go line-by-line with the Scriptures you posted, sheep; instead, I will attempt to clarify the position that I hold, and leave it at that. Upon re-reading my previous posts, I can see that what I said may have been interpreted as "replacement theology"; and while that's an honest mistake, it's also not completely accurate regarding my views on this, which are a bit more complicated.

If I may be permitted to engage in a bit of copy-cut-and-paste, here is a pretty clear explanation of my viewpoint, which I cribbed from another site:

"The traditional form of supersessionism does not on its own terms theorize a replacement; instead it argues that Israel has been superseded only in the sense that the Church has been entrusted with the fulfillment of the promises of which Jewish Israel is the trustee: Israel is forever the chosen trustee of the promises concerning the Messiah, and yet has presently rejected the Messiah; but the Church receives the promised Messiah, although it consists of Gentiles (who were not entrusted with the promises, nor bound by the obligations of Judaism), as well as Jews. On this account, supersessionists traditionally style the Christian Church as New Israel, and insist that Jesus is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life", superseding the ordinances of Judaism, which are regarded as merely types and shadows of Christ. On its own terms then, supersessionism is a fulfillment theology, as it were; but from the standpoint of adherents to Judaism, or proponents of the sufficiency of the ordinances of Judaism, it is reviled as Replacement Theology."

The Catholic Church, of course (and this is yet another sticking point which I am not going to argue, so don't bother---heated comments will merely cause me to take a vacation, so sheathe your claws, please) teaches that those who have never been exposed to the Gospel or who honestly have rejected it for some reason that they truly believe to be correct (and this would include Jews) might still be saved, if God so chooses. Ergo, the covenant God made with the Jews and the covenant He made with the Christians are both still in effect; while the Church is the New Israel, this does not obliterate the Old Israel, nor God's agreements with them. In this fashion, the two sort of overlap each other, two paths with the same ultimate goal.

So that pretty much sums that up. Now we come to yet another sticking point, which I am also not going to argue, which is the dichotomy between the Biblical Israel and the modern secular Jewish state called Israel. It is the commonly-held view among dispensationalist theologians that the small country formed on the east coast of the Mediterranean in 1948 is a fulfillment of prophecy, and therefore, all Christians must revere and support this small country because to do otherwise invites God's wrath upon both individuals and nations.

My viewpoint and that of the Church is somewhat different. Are God's promises to "Israel" still in effect? Yes. But to which "Israel"? In the Church's viewpoint, the specific "Israel" meant is the collective spiritual community of Jewish believers, those individuals who practice religious Judaism and who follow the law of Moses, expecting to obtain salvation from God through the same. It does not mean the modern State of Israel, which is a secular country made up primarily of people of Jewish descent. Certainly, many Israeli citizens are very religious Jews; but many more are merely cultural Jews, secular Jews, agnostic Jews, even atheist Jews. It is to be expected that the Old Covenant no more applies to these non-believeing Jews than the New Covenant applies to non-believing Christians (and this brings up yet another sticking point, being the doctrine of "once saved, always saved", which I am also not going to debate).

Ergo, the promises of the Old Covenant no more apply to the modern state of Israel any more than the promises of the New Covenant apply to the modern state of France, or Italy, or Russia, or any other primarily "Christian" country. The promises of both Old and New covenants apply to believing individuals within those countries ("Israel" and "the Church", if you like), people who practice their respective faiths---not the countries at large. In this manner, the modern "state of Israel" is no different than the modern state of France. There are no Biblical prophesies or promises that apply to either country, although they can and do apply to individual people within those countries.

If that's too spiritualized for your taste, that's fine, but again, I'm not going to argue. we have our varying viewpoints, and to paraphrase Rodney King, let's all just try to get along.

I hope this helps clarify what I was trying to say, and hopefully its not too opaque.

I'm glad sheep asked this as I've been wondering about it myself.

Thanks for your answer, Wols, as I understand better where you are coming from. While I don't agree with every point you made, I do agree with some of the points you made. Specifically, while I don't necessarily agree with your view on modern day Israel, I do agree the covenants are with individuals and not with "corporate" entities, whether they be countries or denominations.

And, if I made any remarks that you took to be "Catholic bashing", I apologize. I certainly didn't mean to do so.

I would hope you know how I really feel about you and how I respect what you hold near and dear.

Let's look at the end of Galatians -- the only place I know of where there is any kind of scriptural basis which could be contsrued as the basis of the RT Tripe that "the Church is the New Israel".

There is a phrase there about "the Israel of God" which I interpret Paul to mean "beleiving Jews".

Where did this cockamaime idea of the "Church is the New Israel" come from?

Methinks a gross misunderstanding of Galatians 6 and a healthy dose of anti-Semitism going all the way back to Justin Martyr.

WOls -- I hope also that it wont get into Catholic-blasting -- you do realize, I am sure, that Lutherans and most Protestant denominations buy into this "Church is the new Israel bullshit"; that in fact it is the NORM in Protestant circles and was in fact probably the one statement in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer that I coon swaller (it flat out said "the church is the new Israel"... (upchuck!) ! )

I submit that there is no valid biblical basis for calling the Church "the New Israel"; and that it is NOT a "Catholic" issue -- most prot denoms are full of Replacement Theology Tripe.

Focus on the context of "the Israel of God"

Gal 6:11 Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.


Gal 6:12 As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.


Gal 6:13 For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.


Gal 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.


Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.


Gal 6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace [be] on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.


Now the context is the outward show of circumcision, and Paul -- as we know -- had Timothy circumcised, but not Titus.

Paul had said earlier "they are not all Israel which are of Israel" and the context was clearly that an inner matter of the heart was involved.

.

The Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, and the majority of Protestant churches are -- and have been for long time -- rife with RT Tripe (Replacement Theology Tripe).

It is the official position of many denominations -- stated in so many words like I pointed out about the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.

It's wrong, but it has won the field so to speak.

A huge chunk of scripture becomes pretty much meaningless -- imo -- if Israel as Israel has no place in the future.

But wols, dont let this become a "RCC-bashing issue" -- it was just that a thread was started about the Vatican condeming Israel's military action.

As you know, the RCC's attitude towards the Jewish people in general; in official statements, is exemplary.



a non-fighting Habs for once

Thanks Wols, that explains a lot. I appreciate your position and while I don't agree with all of it I can understand it a lot better. It certainly isn't the "Replacement Theology" I see others spouting elsewhere and I am very glad I asked. Thank you for your post.

I apologize if I've said anything you might consider Catholic bashing, I try very hard not to do that since I'm sort of Catholic. It's something I don't discuss with most people simply because they can't be rational about it.

Habs, I agree with you.

7 "So then, the days are coming," declares the LORD, "when people will no longer say, 'As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the Israelites up out of Egypt,' 8 but they will say, 'As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the descendants of Israel up out of the land of the north and out of all the countries where he had banished them.' Then they will live in their own land."
Jeremiah 23:7-8

And that happened May 14, 1948.

Well, there's two ways to look at that, Daniel.

You quote Jeremiah, who prophesied in the late 500's BC; Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians in 586 BC.

In 538, the Jews returned from Babylon, Media, Persia, and the other lands in which they were scattered and rebuilt Jerusalem.....

So, the Jews did return---but in 538 BC, not in 1948 AD.

Take it for what its' worth.

Well, it wasn't until 1948 that their own land was ever a recognized nation.

While in your own post you denied preterism, you just gave us an example here, saying prophecy has already been fulfilled.

I wouldn't really say that the futurist view is a Protestant view, as most Protestant churches aren't futurist, either.

I know we're galaxies apart on this, but I just wouldn't want any dispies going astray 'cause you're such a persuasive talker - even while we're watching prophecies being fulfilled, factions in Israel stocking up locations in Petra, and Gog and Magog heading for the battle of Armageddon.



Studying Jeremiah + Daniel + Ezekiel + Zechariah + Revelation gives quite a different story than pointing to the Bablyonians in 586 BC.

Here's just one example:
12 This is the plague with which the LORD will strike all the nations that fought against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths.
Zechariah 14:12

Unless the Babylonians had nukes we didn't know about, when has this "already" happened?


PS

When they do come take me away and put me in a rubber room, I just ask it's in a ward named for one of these books:
Jeremiah + Daniel + Ezekiel + Zechariah + Revelation

were Tyre and Sidon ever destroyed never to rise or be dwelt in again?

How long after the Babylonian Exile did THAT happen?

When was the fall of Damascus as foretold by Isaiah?

You see, either one has to claim "HYPERBOLE out the anus", or one has to say:

"Maybe this has not happenned in the past -- but might happen yet"

The mainline churches -- in regards to Israel -- have their heads so far up they azzes that they prolly take NEXIUM fer a HEADACHE!!

they be clueless.

Meanwhile -- Isreal got there in 1948 and still be there.

No amount of R T Tripe can wash away the facts...

Good one!