Interplanner
Well-known member
It is precisely because I'm familiar with them that I think you have used the handles wrong. I see second guessing (look for the interruption here, and over there) all through them.
The main thing is to get away from Israel vs Gentiles. It was always both, but Israel was stuffed up with self-preoccupation. so some things Paul says to it are said to counter that even though the structures were untrue to start with; he still speaks to it as though he has entered their reality.
This is why there is no going back to Israel in Rom 11:25+. "Saved" is not a future visit. Saved is what saved is in Isaiah: the taking away of sins, and the Isaiah passage is quoted historically, as happening now. It is not in the land of Israel. it will not be there. It is fulfilled now. 28-30 mean that God does not deal with ethnos groups, but that's because he never did. It was a misconception of Israel that he did, which Paul addressed in Gal 3:17. So the Israel he means there is not the ethnos, even though the ethnos is as hardened now as ever. There is another Israel mentioned since 9:6, the spermas not the sarkos, and 9:24 says he means all people who have faith. And the olive trees analogy says it means all who have faith.
There is nothing interrupted about going to the nations. It was the plan since Gen 3 and 12. It is mentioned in Acts 2 and 13 as being how the ancient promise would be fulfilled. Paul has stepped out of the Israel-centeredness and you have missed it. Everything went as planned about the Gospel events. He knew it was his cup to drink all along.
The main thing is to get away from Israel vs Gentiles. It was always both, but Israel was stuffed up with self-preoccupation. so some things Paul says to it are said to counter that even though the structures were untrue to start with; he still speaks to it as though he has entered their reality.
This is why there is no going back to Israel in Rom 11:25+. "Saved" is not a future visit. Saved is what saved is in Isaiah: the taking away of sins, and the Isaiah passage is quoted historically, as happening now. It is not in the land of Israel. it will not be there. It is fulfilled now. 28-30 mean that God does not deal with ethnos groups, but that's because he never did. It was a misconception of Israel that he did, which Paul addressed in Gal 3:17. So the Israel he means there is not the ethnos, even though the ethnos is as hardened now as ever. There is another Israel mentioned since 9:6, the spermas not the sarkos, and 9:24 says he means all people who have faith. And the olive trees analogy says it means all who have faith.
There is nothing interrupted about going to the nations. It was the plan since Gen 3 and 12. It is mentioned in Acts 2 and 13 as being how the ancient promise would be fulfilled. Paul has stepped out of the Israel-centeredness and you have missed it. Everything went as planned about the Gospel events. He knew it was his cup to drink all along.