Let's test our honesty before Romans chapter 11
So I ask: God hasn't rejected his people, has he? Never be! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin - Romans 11:1
Ever since the very first article dedicated to restoring pure worship published in this blog
on March 9, 2018, it was highlighted that even the religion we belonged to , which boasted of being " the truth ", was in reality illegal and self-referential exactly like all the others.
Although we understood that this article would have created "havoc" among the blog visitors... we continued on this path and we did it exclusively out of love for the Scriptures and intellectual honesty.
God had chosen Israel to have His Name dwell there forever, as well as Abraham's seed to bless all mankind - Genesis 22:18; Nehemiah 1:8, 9
Obviously this understanding has led us to clash against all those teachings that would like to eliminate Israel and the Jews from God's purpose or that would divide them as "a thing apart" just to justify the existence of their own religion - compare Jeremiah 31 : 35- 37
God's attention to the seed of Abraham and to Israel is clearly seen from the first book of the Bible to the last: failing to understand this means that the various religious organizations have done just "well" in their work of deception - see Genesis 12 :7; Revelation 21:10
We could actually take any biblical book to demonstrate that Israel and the seed of Abraham have always been in the mind and heart of God (read Acts 1:6) but in this article we will examine chapter 11 of the book of Romans because it is particularly significant.
Are we really noble-minded to the point of overturning everything we have believed in, perhaps for years, even facing ostracism or contempt from our former brothers? - Acts 17:11
If that's what we like to say…then let's challenge ourselves to an honest examination of Romans chapter 11.
 |
| Are you intellectually honest before the Word of God? |
What is the olive tree, the root, the holy firstfruits ?
In the video dedicated to the identity of Babylon the Great*, which we understood to be the adulterous and idolatrous Jerusalem in the time of the end, we also highlighted the existence of another woman who is its antithesis.
Just recognizing the identity of Babylon the Great should make us understand what its antithesis should be… a subject also present in many Jewish scriptures ( Isaiah 1:8. 9; 52:1, 2; 62:11; Micah 4 :8; Zephaniah 3:14-20 ) but let's pretend we don't understand and go straight to the Greek Scriptures.
From the first verse of this chapter we notice something that should sound strange to those who support this "substitution".
Also guiding this article, Romans 11:1 tells us… “ So I ask: God has not rejected his people, has he? Never be! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.”
How many meanings or interpretations can these words have?
Those who are convinced that God has forsaken Israel are encouraged to re-read these words: "Never be!"
If the usual reasoning of "yes... but... you have to understand that..." re - read once again "Never!" and after having started again with the usual articulated explanations ( which find comfort only in one's own religious conditioning ) ... read it once again: Never be!
Obviously the various religious ministers have specialized in playing with words to distract from even the simplest concepts.
As we have seen in various previous articles, in order to be able to teach the opposite of the evidence even in the face of simple writing, they try to confuse when speaking of a "spiritual Israel", however giving this word the meaning of " symbolic".
Those who are really interested in understanding the dirty game that is played to cut Israel out of God's purpose, simply go and look in the dictionary at the difference between the words "spiritual" and "symbolic".
However, even here, let's pretend not to understand and assume that when the Greek scriptures mention Israel it does so in a symbolic sense … .
Well… if so, why does Paul reiterate “ I am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin” ?
If there had really been this substitution he would have simply said "Although I am an Israelite it is not important ... because the only thing to understand is to accept Christ".
After categorically stating that God has not rejected His people, he adds "I am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin"... as if to say "How can one think that God abandons his people? Can't you see me? Who am I?”.
This is the same basis of the reasoning that he made to the Corinthians when the "superfine apostles" began to sow false teachings in the congregation also putting doubt on the role and authority of Paul himself.
Referring to these he said: “Are they Jews? I am too . Are they Israelites? I am too . Am I Abraham's seed? So am I ” – 2 Corinthians 11:22
If indeed being a Jew, an Israelite and a seed of Abraham made no difference within the Christian congregation, because Paul does not limit himself to disavowing them by saying precisely that "being a Jew, an Israelite or a seed of Abraham" no longer counted for anything but, on the contrary, does he round it up by simply saying "I am too"?
Would a group of believers possibly confused by these “apostles” have concluded that being a Jew really didn't matter or simply that, once they established that Paul himself was a Jew, they should have looked at the works done in the field?
Surely Paul had many more credentials than these " apostles" not because being a Jew or Abraham's seed no longer counts for anything but because he had demonstrated it with toils, prisons, beatings... - see 2 Corinthians 11 :23-27
God did not reject his people, whom he first recognized. In fact, don't you know what the Scripture says about Elijah, when he pleads with God against Israel? - Romans 11:2
Here too a very simple concept is reaffirmed.
It's not that God first chooses His people and then rejects them… it wouldn't make sense, it wouldn't be consistent.
Here Paul mentions the episode of 1 Kings 19:10 where Elijah believes he is left alone because his countrymen have left the covenant.
Obviously Elijah wasn't the only one left but even if he had been… wouldn't he have been a representation of that still faithful Israel?
But let's go ahead with this consideration because this concept will be explained better.
“ Lord , they have killed your prophets, they have pulled down your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my soul”. But what does the divine declaration tell him? “I have let seven thousand men remain for me, who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” In this way, therefore, even at the present time there has been found a remnant according to the election due to undeserved kindness - Romans 11:3-5
And lia realizes that the situation of the people is now desperate.
They had killed God's prophets, torn down His altars… and even He, apparently the last one left, was now in great danger.
However God told him that there were still 7,000 people who had not bowed to Baal… .
Elijah was not alone!
So Paul simply makes a connection with his time.
Even though the greater part of the nation from which he himself came was now gravely backslid...God had separated from it a small part, a remnant.
It not only says this but also that the remnant were chosen "according to election" .
What election is Paul referring to?
If we free ourselves from the various religious conditionings the context is clear: the election is God's choice of Abraham's seed otherwise the whole reasoning would not make sense.
If indeed God had rejected Israel then the example and story of Elijah would make no sense.
He would have said, if anything, "Israel was unfaithful so God chose another people." Stop.
By saying instead " in this way, therefore, even at the present time a remnant has been found " he is pointing out the similarities of that time: it doesn't matter if we are few or many, God has saved a remnant because this is the promise He made and doesn't change his mind.
It's a choice, an election, and it's not based on merit.
For verse 6 continues… “Now if it be by undeserved kindness, it is no longer due to works; otherwise, the undeserved kindness is no more undeserved kindness.”
At this point we have to admit that it is not necessary to continue if we really want to understand the point.
If we have a minimum of intellectual honesty we must agree that among the first Christians the concept of "abandonment of Israel" or "replacement" was absolutely foreign.
If someone had made even a hint of this doctrine, everyone would probably have laughed and it is no coincidence that the "superfine apostles" and the various apostates of the first century never tried to undermine this concept.
If anything, they tried to be confused with the true apostles, or "mandates", precisely by flaunting their Jewish origins.
This we also clearly see in the warnings given to the seven churches of Revelation.
Among the various rebukes we note that there is one in particular that does not seem to make much sense... for those who are convinced that there is no difference in authority within the congregation.
In the midst of various rebukes concerning idolatry, fornication, sectarian and divisive beliefs and everything more… Smyrna and Philadelphia are rebuked on the grounds that among them were “those who say they are Jews , and they are not but they lie ” - Revelation 2:8, 9; 3:9
Now… if we start from the principle that being a Jew or a Japanese would make no difference within the Christian congregation, what kind of rebuke or warning would be “they say they are Jews and they are not”… and why can't we find an equivalent that say “they say they are Greek and they are not”?
For those who read the scriptures without conditioning, the answer is obvious.
Falsely claiming to be Jews meant claiming to have been invested with an authority that God had not given them.
And why would God give authority to the Jews and not to "any Greek"?
It's very simple.
Authority is given to the Jews simply because He never forsaken His people and they are part of the promise - compare Romans 3:1, 2
What then? What Israel ardently seeks it has not achieved, but the elect have achieved. Others' sensibilities have become numb, as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of deep sleep, eyes not to see, and ears not to hear, down to this very day." And David says: “Let their table become to them a snare and a snare and a stumbling block and a retribution; let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and always bend their back” – Romans 11:7-10
Most of Israel did not get God's blessings because, as Paul will always say later, they tried to get them through works.
Not recognizing the Messiah, rather stumbling over Him, they missed this opportunity – compare Matthew 21:33-44
The senses went numb to many, as the prophecy said.
However, the elect chosen from among them understood and obtained the fulfillment of the promises.
Now I ask: Did they stumble to fall forever? Certainly not. But because of their fall salvation came to the pagans, to arouse their jealousy. If, therefore, their fall was the wealth of the world and their failure the wealth of the pagans, what will their total participation be! - Romans 11:11, 12
Here too Paul makes a simple reasoning but very difficult to understand for those who are deceived by religion.
The previous verse said that it was God himself who gave them a spirit of deep sleep so one should ask if God wants most of the people to die without hope.
In theory a small part of Israel has already been saved and has even formed the congregations (in fact Paul represents this election) so God's purpose would have been fulfilled regardless and His promises would not have failed.
However, would God really be "satisfied" with this minority by abandoning the majority of His people?
Obviously not.
Here too he categorically repeats “never happen” or “certainly not”!
But their temporary downfall would have been helpful!
Once they saw that the God of Israel would turn His attention to the pagans… how would they feel?
They would have felt a burning jealousy !
Would this jealousy have been an end in itself, a way to punish and humiliate them even more?
No!
This jealousy would have produced something good: it would have prompted them to seek the God of their ancestors zealously and wholeheartedly , abandoning shameful and conflicting traditions and perhaps stop taking everything for granted… - compare Deuteronomy 32:21; John 4:22, 23
Now the final words of these verses make us think further: if their fall would have brought blessings to the world, as this allowed the entrance of the Gentiles, how much more of a blessing would their return have been?
Now I speak to you who are people of the nations. Since I am, indeed, an apostle to the nations, I glorify my ministry, if I can somehow incite [those who are] my own flesh to jealousy and save some among them. For if to reject them means reconciliation to the world, what will it mean to receive them but life from the dead? Moreover, if the [portion taken as] firstfruits is holy, so is the mass; and if the root is holy, so are the branches – Romans 11:13-16
In these verses, Paul reiterates precisely that his role as an apostle of the nations could lead to jealousy of some of his fellow countrymen and therefore make them return to that chosen group.
Not having accepted the Messiah, most of his countrymen are engaged in dead works... absolutely useless for the purposes of salvation.
However, if their jealousy still pushed some to accept Christ and therefore the will of God… what would that mean for them?
Of course it would have meant salvation.
In fact, several other Jews accepted the truth even after the entry of the Romans and probably, at least in part, for their own reason .
Of course, this prophecy would be fully fulfilled in the time of the end and not in the first century…but several individuals had the opportunity to ascertain God's will even then.
Finally he says something very interesting that actually underscores what we've seen so far.
“ If the portion taken as the firstfruits is holy, so is the mass; and if the root is holy, so are the branches.”
What is he saying?
Who were the holy firstfruits?
Obviously it was them, the disciples of the Lord chosen as the remnant, all strictly Jews, certainly all those present at Pentecost 33 AD who received the Holy Spirit - Acts 2:1-4
So Paul is saying that both the Romans and his fellow infidels, the moment they clung to these holy firstfruits, they too would receive holiness.
Regardless of how many were induced to jealousy, even a huge mass of people could have become saints because it would have been the first fruits to transfer holiness to everyone.
And here again we see, for the thousandth time, that all interpretations that discredit the role of Israel's chosen remnant are simply biased, false.
Paul is speaking of them as representing Israel, elect and faithful according to the promise, and he says that others would have had to cling to them to receive holiness.
We will not dwell on Christianity's various interpretations of these words because the message is clear.
For those who want to see it, of course.
However, if some of the branches were cut off, but you, although you were a wild olive tree, were grafted together and shared the root of the fatness of the olive tree, do not rejoice over the branches. But if you rejoice over them, it is not you who carry the root, but the root [carries] you. You will therefore say: "Branches were cut off for me to be grafted on." Well! For [their] lack of faith they were cut off, but by faith you stand. Cease having lofty ideas, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you - Romans 11:17-21
Who are some of those branches that were cut off?
Obviously Paul's countrymen: those who did not recognize the Messiah were excluded from the promises; they did not seize the opportunity.
In their place wild branches are grafted, i.e. the people of the nations that at that moment are represented by the addressees of the letter, the Romans.
In fact, the first branch grafted was Cornelius and the episode is not narrated by chance.
This is a great privilege!
The wild branch participates in the fatness of the olive tree, or takes part in the promised blessings!
Was this a reason for bragging in front of faithful or unfaithful Jews?
Obviously not!
It was certainly not the branch that bore the root.
It was certainly not the merit of the Romans or the Greeks that this possibility now existed: this was only due to the undeserved kindness and wisdom of God which had enabled the nations to be grafted onto the holy firstfruits.
Were it not for this first fruits…they would never have entered the Christian congregation!
They would never have been Christians!
Can we think of anything?
Do we find any parallels with today's reality?
Is it really enough to claim to believe in Christ to be a Christian?
Is anyone a Christian who, one fine morning, decides to found a sect or religion?
Are good intentions enough to be promoted to "God's people"?
According to Paul, no.
None of them carries the root... none of them, by themselves, could ever produce fruit or enjoy the fatness of the olive tree.
None of them can save anyone else.
One cannot transfer holiness if one is not a saint.
Not only that… but Paul reminds the Christian Romans themselves, now holy as sanctified by the holy first fruits , that they could be cut off exactly like those infidel Jews.
If God did not spare the original branches … would He have made an exception for them if they became haughty or unfaithful?
See, therefore, God's kindness and severity. Severity toward those who fell, but God's mercy toward you, provided you remain in his mercy; otherwise, you will be pruned too. They too, if they do not remain in their faithlessness, will be grafted in; for God can engraft them back. Because if you were cut from the olive tree which is wild by nature and you were grafted against nature into the cultivated olive tree, all the more these which are natural will be grafted into their own olive tree! - Romans 11:22-24
God is not to be mocked.
God's kindness cannot be taken for granted.
Knowing that they are God's people because of the promise made with Abraham probably caused many to become overly self-confident.
They misbehaved to the extreme and were very carnal, materialistic.
God would not break His promise…but that would not mean He would not punish transgressors – Amos 3:2
He was rightly severe with them and finally many got what they deserved.
This severity prompted kindness to the nations… but equally the Gentiles themselves should not have made the same mistake.
Paul also says that the current condition of the Jews would not have been definitive: they could have repented at any time and returned to being grafted into the olive tree.
On the other hand, if God has grafted wild branches into the olive tree… won't he re-graft the original branches?
In fact, I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, lest you be presumptuous: the hardening of a part of Israel is in progress until all the nations have entered. Then all Israel will be saved as it is written: From Zion shall come the deliverer, he will take away the wickedness from Jacob. This will be my covenant with them when I destroy their sins .
As for the gospel, they are enemies, to your advantage; but as for the election, they are loved, because of the fathers, because the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable! - Romans 11:25-29
Paul tells us that it is only a matter of time before several original branches, currently severed, are grafted back into the olive tree.
First the fulness of nations must enter, then they will be driven to that jealousy which will cause them to return with zeal and in this way "all Israel will be saved".
Obviously it is not meant, as some believe, that every single Israelite will be saved as we know some will be unrepentant to the end - Ezekiel 20:36-38
We now understand that all representation of Israel will be saved… as we understand Ephraim's role in the end time – see Ezekiel 37:15-20
The nations are none other than the tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel, scattered among the nations 2,700 years ago.
When the "Gentiles" and Paul's countrymen are gathered, then "all Israel will be saved"!
Let us remember one thing beyond the chatter of religious ministers : God's gifts and calling are irrevocable!
And this is true for both Jews (representing the southern kingdom) and Ephraimites (representing the northern kingdom) – see Deuteronomy 30:1-5
Are God's gifts and calling irrevocable , or did He change His mind by abandoning Israel?
What has your religion taught you?
For as you were once disobedient to God, but have now been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also have now been disobedient, resulting in you mercy, that they also may now be shown mercy. For God has bound them all together in disobedience, to show them all mercy - Romans 11:30-32
Here we can understand that the sacred secret does not concern only the jealousy of Judas.
Speaking to the Romans, Paul says " you were once disobedient ".
But how could the Romans have been disobedient if they were never part of God's people?
What would they disobey?
One might think that he is referring to bad behavior in general, since God put a conscience in every human being, but that cannot be the meaning of Paul's words.
It was he who recognized that some people of the nations were acting according to conscience by demonstrating that the substance of the Law was in their hearts – Romans 2:14, 15
So in theory the Romans could have perfectly obeyed their conscience, demonstrating the substance of the Law... and even if there had been some exceptions (as indeed there were among the Jews themselves) certainly this accusation could not be directed against them as Romans .
Perhaps some had misbehaved before learning the truth, but others had not.
So why say "you were disobedient", without making distinctions, for the simple fact of being Gentiles?
Even if it was a reference to their false religion… what would they have disobeyed?
The pagan nations never received God's Law and commandments so they never had any opportunity to “disobey” .
You cannot disobey if there is no law to obey.
So how could the recipients of Paul's letter disobey if they never had anything to do with the Law of God?
Well… now we understand this sacred secret better.
They were disobedient and not simply sinful as descendants of the Jews of the northern kingdom of Israel, or the ten tribes initially dispersed by the Assyrian power in 722 BC
Paul was addressing them who were officially "heathens of the nations" but who had Ephraimite ancestry.
They were therefore descendants of those who, in their time, had really been under the Law of God.
They were the first to be disobedient… but finally in the first century they began to be shown mercy.
In Paul's time the disobedient were instead his Jewish compatriots... and therefore they too would have had the possibility, in the future, of receiving mercy.
All were disobedient but… “ God locked them all together in disobedience, to show them all mercy”.
Isn't that a wonderful understanding of God's sacred secret?
With hearts filled with joy, are we not prompted to echo the Apostle Paul's closing words?
O depth of God's riches and wisdom and knowledge! How inscrutable are his judgments and impenetrable his ways! For “who has come to know the mind of the Lord, or who has become a counselor to him?” Or: “Who first gave him, so that it should be returned to him?” For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever. Amen - Romans 11:33-36
Bottom line, then, was what your religion taught you honest?
Are you honest?
Footnote
The video dedicated to Babylon the Great can be found in this link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PJZVHJ9gIE&t=18s
You can find more biblical videos in the following channel
Comments
Post a Comment