Partial Universalism?

[liamconnor]

Does Paul believe that every single Jew will eventually be saved, both past, future (from his perspective) and present?


26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; (Rom 11:26 ESV)

[Anomaly]

[Replying to post 57 by JehovahsWitness]
Thanks for your response JW. I notice you still haven't addressed the specific argument I made in post 38 that both the Annihilationist and eternal hell doctrines are shown in Scripture to be logically incoherent...

No I didn't. What most people referto as "eternal hell doctrines are shown in Scripture" are nothing more than people repeating the doctrines of their churches, which are mostly lies. The bible does not present "hell" as anything more than the common grave of mankind. Not a place of eternal torture, so what the bible REALLY says about "hell" in no way negates anything i have posted.

God will judge every individual according to their deeds and see that before hand they are fully informed and educated as to their choices rewarding those that choose to be faithful with everlasting life and those that refuse with everlasting non-existence. There that covers #38!

JW

This response to the above is a call to any posters who have ears to listen. God/Christ t is truth (Jn 14:6). To the degree we hate or love truth, hate or love fashions our response to God (Jn 3:19). Study Jn 8:38-47. The literal tells you there are folks who hear the truth and others who don't. We all assume we hear and love the Truth (God). But do we?

Truth we don't want to hear (unless cleansed to do so) exists primarily in the allegorical meaning of Scripture. We can tell who is of God by who embraces the truth and who is not by their resistance. [Hint: all sin and do good] The Jews of Jesus' day were mere players on a stage, paints on a canvas. Using them, God painted a picture to show us the horrible thing in our own hearts. They killed Christ specifically because He told them prescriptive or moral truths, truths their falsified spirit didn't want to hear, couldn't unite with. They crucified Him because they hated the truth.

In the same way, do we merely club one another over the head with our favorite Bible passages and "refute" their doctrines using the writings of other men? The Pharisees did. This is what the literal meaning of Scripture is primarily used for, to beat one another to death. Those literalists who believe they have fixed all tensions raised against their doctrine because they supply refutations consisting of superficial and (often) contrived arguments are not discussing truth, they're loving their doctrine and the dogma that arises from it. There's a reason atheists love to argue against Scripture using its literal sense: because the heart affixed to literalism occupies the same domain of hatred for the truth as their theistic brethren.

I believe the reason no one tackled the logical proof I supplied in post #38 because it leads to truths doctrine-defenders don't want to "hear". Darkness or light?...

That's nice for you. It's not what the bible says a soul is. I have not interest in discussing greek philosopy, hindusim and I have no interest in Catholic beliefs, so unbiblical ideas of "immortal souls" is of no interest to me.

If you are interested in the biblical view feel free to consult my earlier posts.

Those who have all the answers don't need to consider their opponents views. Just ask the Pharisees. There's no reason to consider another's concepts if you possess all truth...might as well turn out the lights and everyone go home. Darkness or light?

The allegorical interprets the truth of Scripture and tells us we are the Pharisees who killed Christ and they are us. Each of us individually and simultaneously are the one who hates truth and loves it, the enemies and the chosen of Christ, we are heading down the narrow and wide paths, possess both goats and sheep, wheat and tares within our essence/soul/spirit. The literal only hints at the truth, only the allegorical can explain it. We are all fragmentally falsified; when the false is annihilated and restored to a true state, we will be one (Jn 17:17-23). We're all Esau and Jacob in time and space, but in the end Esau will cease and only Jacob remain in each of us, the purifying fire of God will have worked its loving labor in every soul. This is what God teaches in the Bible if we'll listen to it.

[liamconnor]

Does Paul believe that every single Jew will eventually be saved, both past, future (from his perspective) and present?


26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; (Rom 11:26 ESV)

No. He explains in further letters that the natural Jews have been replaced as a special nation by the Christian congregation---all those believing in Christ.

"But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God." (Galatians 6:14-16, NASB)

He clearly designates the "Israel of God" to be those who walk by the rule of "boasting" in the cross of Christ. He goes on to say: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in union with Christ Jesus. Moreover, if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham's seed, heirs with reference to a promise." (Galatians 3:28,29) It is only the Christians who make up the Israel of God. Being a natural Jew no longer means anything. Isn't that what he says above? Of course there are many natural Jews that do believe in Jesus, from the time of Jesus to now. But it is their acceptance of Jesus that makes them God's special people.

Peter said to a group of Christians: "You are a 'chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that you should declare abroad the excellencies' of the One that called you out of darkness into His wonderful light. For you were once not a people, but are now God's people." (I Peter 2:9,10)

This is what we call "proof texting": isolating sentences to prove one's point.

How about an exegesis of the passage in question? First year students in biblical studies are taught to read a passage and not impose upon a passage.

That is what is called showing evidence from the Bible to prove one's point. What would YOU say about those verses? It looks pretty clear to me.

That is what is called showing evidence from the Bible to prove one's point. What would YOU say about those verses? It looks pretty clear to me.

I though it was obvious. In Ro 11 Paul states the following:

1) There is at present a spiritual and non-spiritual Israel.

2) Non-spiritual Israel has been hardened according to scripture (O.t.).

3) At present, the "full number of Gentiles" is the main theme of this eschatological chapter.

4) In this chapter, the church, comprised predominantly of Gentiles, with a minority of Jews, carry on the Abrahamic vocation.

5) Once the full number of Gentiles is achieved, then all the Jews will recognize Jesus as God's appointed savior.

6) After this, the general resurrection will take place.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 50 by onewithhim]

[Replying to post 48 by Anomaly]

My point has been that the other two choices besides annihilation DO NOT have supporting scriptures to back them up. That is what I keep trying to get across. And if you paid attention to the arguments that have been going on in those threads concerning "Hell," you would see that not all three ideas of man's destiny are feasible. There is only one, and I think you know which one it is.

In the interest of trying to salvage this discussion, let's assume for the moment that you are correct, that you and other Annihilationists here have adequately refuted all the standard arguments thrown at you.

The argument I make in post #38 is not a standard argument. It shows logically that neither the eternal hell or Annihilationist doctrines can be correct; only the Universalist can be correct. Your repeated parroting that you've defeated all comers is simply not true: you have not responded to my arguments, and my arguments are different than the standard Universalist arguments.

Once again, here's what neither you nor any other Annihilationist have responded to:

THE STORY
Informed by God that He was going to Sodom to investigate and, if necessary, destroy the evil city, Abraham quickly struck up a conversation with his Creator. His nephew Lot and family lived there, and Abraham doubtless had concerns about his kin being destroyed with all others in the city. Thus he began his famous conversation with God on the road to Sodom in Gen 18 by Abraham's query in v. 23, “….’Wilt Thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?’�

Beginning here and running to the end of this chapter, God establishes here not only an inviolable principle concerning the perfection of His justice, but also the first of His twofold framework of the process of salvation so fundamentally and harmoniously woven into both testaments of the Bible it’s hard to see how its significance has been overlooked. This principle is elaborated in vv. 24-25, where Abraham asks:

"Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt Thou indeed sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?"

The well known conversation then continues, ending with God’s promise to not destroy Sodom if even only a few righteous were found there.

THE ARUGMENT
It seems reasonable to claim that one supervising attribute of God governs all His others: perfection. We might properly assert that God is just, loving, merciful, faithful, etc., but if He is imperfect in any of these, He is not God as we understand Him to have revealed Himself in Scripture. Abraham, it seems, recognized this truth when he exclaimed, “Far be it from thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and wicked are treated alike….Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?� Abraham recognized that for God to destroy even an iota of good was an unthinkable abomination, a wholly illogical and improper idea—a violation of His perfection. In the exchange, then, this spiritual rule is established:

God will not destroy a whole in which some good exists.

This principle sets the stage for understanding the allegorical structure God uses in Scripture for His plan of the salvation and restoration of all. Multiple passages in the Bible are structured in this “one and many� organization. In the material realm the body is a single entity composed of an estimated 32 trillion cells. The principle elaborated in metaphor in Genesis 18 is a division not of matter, but of value. Thus, God uses the “one and many� convention to highlight a form of spiritual mechanics, reducing the value elements within individuals to good and bad, or, more technically, true and false. From this fundamental concept, goats and sheep (Mat 25), wheat and tares (Mat 13), good branches and bad (Jn 15) and similar patterns in multiple verses are all similar metaphors that build on the Genesis 18 principle.

Both the doctrines of eternal hell and Annihilationism violate God’s perfection and cannot be true.

In the concept of eternal hell God has removed from Himself for all eternity whole individuals in whom certainly some good exists. (The nature of falsity or evil logically renders the notion of a wholly false person impossible.)

Annihilationism is also incoherent as it has God allowing death of body and spirit to occur in countless humans in whom, again, some good is certainly present--violating the perfection of His promise to not destroy a whole in which good exists.

Only Universalism—in which God destroys only the false within the soul (death) while causing that destroyed value to be restored (resurrection) to a true state, thus restoring every soul to perfection—does not violate the perfection of His justice.

I see what you're saying, and Universalism is Scripture-unfriendly. If we are well-versed in Scripture, we know that the telling factor in whether or not the unrighteous are "thrown into the fire prepared for the devil" (that is, annihilation) is whether or not they treated Christ's brothers well. Certainly everyone has a speck of good in them; Hitler loved little children and pets. But how does a person feel about Christ and his representatives on the earth, and what He is doing to warn the world of the coming destruction of the evil system of things? (Matthew 25:41-46) There is no Universalism in what Jesus says there in chapter 25 of Matthew about the sheep and the goats.

Annihilating the wicked does not violate the "perfection of God's justice." It is perfectly just to eliminate evil from the universe. There is nothing perfect about allowing it to remain.

You seem to be devoid of the understanding that there are people who do not want to be "good." Is forcing a person to be good by taking away part or most of his own thinking faculties what you call just? You would promote giving these people a lobotomy so they are unable to think like they want to think? Your idea is unjust and imperfect. God lets people be what they want to be, and if they want to take advantage of others and will not stop doing so, then they must be removed from those people who truly desire to live according to God's standards. God doesn't want lobotomized automatons as friends. He wants people to live forever who WANT to be His friends.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 62 by liamconnor]

I stand by what I said in my post #34. It is solid support for spiritual Israel being God's special people, and there is no other place in the Bible that even hints that ALL of natural Israel will eventually be saved. You hang your idea on one single verse. I have presented a handful, and there are many more to substantiate my argument.

[Anomaly]

[Replying to post 50 by onewithhim]

[Replying to post 48 by Anomaly]

My point has been that the other two choices besides annihilation DO NOT have supporting scriptures to back them up. That is what I keep trying to get across. And if you paid attention to the arguments that have been going on in those threads concerning "Hell," you would see that not all three ideas of man's destiny are feasible. There is only one, and I think you know which one it is.

In the interest of trying to salvage this discussion, let's assume for the moment that you are correct, that you and other Annihilationists here have adequately refuted all the standard arguments thrown at you.

The argument I make in post #38 is not a standard argument. It shows logically that neither the eternal hell or Annihilationist doctrines can be correct; only the Universalist can be correct. Your repeated parroting that you've defeated all comers is simply not true: you have not responded to my arguments, and my arguments are different than the standard Universalist arguments.

Once again, here's what neither you nor any other Annihilationist have responded to:

THE STORY
Informed by God that He was going to Sodom to investigate and, if necessary, destroy the evil city, Abraham quickly struck up a conversation with his Creator. His nephew Lot and family lived there, and Abraham doubtless had concerns about his kin being destroyed with all others in the city. Thus he began his famous conversation with God on the road to Sodom in Gen 18 by Abraham's query in v. 23, “….’Wilt Thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?’�

Beginning here and running to the end of this chapter, God establishes here not only an inviolable principle concerning the perfection of His justice, but also the first of His twofold framework of the process of salvation so fundamentally and harmoniously woven into both testaments of the Bible it’s hard to see how its significance has been overlooked. This principle is elaborated in vv. 24-25, where Abraham asks:

"Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt Thou indeed sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?"

The well known conversation then continues, ending with God’s promise to not destroy Sodom if even only a few righteous were found there.

THE ARUGMENT
It seems reasonable to claim that one supervising attribute of God governs all His others: perfection. We might properly assert that God is just, loving, merciful, faithful, etc., but if He is imperfect in any of these, He is not God as we understand Him to have revealed Himself in Scripture. Abraham, it seems, recognized this truth when he exclaimed, “Far be it from thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and wicked are treated alike….Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?� Abraham recognized that for God to destroy even an iota of good was an unthinkable abomination, a wholly illogical and improper idea—a violation of His perfection. In the exchange, then, this spiritual rule is established:

God will not destroy a whole in which some good exists.

This principle sets the stage for understanding the allegorical structure God uses in Scripture for His plan of the salvation and restoration of all. Multiple passages in the Bible are structured in this “one and many� organization. In the material realm the body is a single entity composed of an estimated 32 trillion cells. The principle elaborated in metaphor in Genesis 18 is a division not of matter, but of value. Thus, God uses the “one and many� convention to highlight a form of spiritual mechanics, reducing the value elements within individuals to good and bad, or, more technically, true and false. From this fundamental concept, goats and sheep (Mat 25), wheat and tares (Mat 13), good branches and bad (Jn 15) and similar patterns in multiple verses are all similar metaphors that build on the Genesis 18 principle.

Both the doctrines of eternal hell and Annihilationism violate God’s perfection and cannot be true.

In the concept of eternal hell God has removed from Himself for all eternity whole individuals in whom certainly some good exists. (The nature of falsity or evil logically renders the notion of a wholly false person impossible.)

Annihilationism is also incoherent as it has God allowing death of body and spirit to occur in countless humans in whom, again, some good is certainly present--violating the perfection of His promise to not destroy a whole in which good exists.

Only Universalism—in which God destroys only the false within the soul (death) while causing that destroyed value to be restored (resurrection) to a true state, thus restoring every soul to perfection—does not violate the perfection of His justice.

I see what you're saying, and Universalism is Scripture-unfriendly. If we are well-versed in Scripture, we know that the telling factor in whether or not the unrighteous are "thrown into the fire prepared for the devil" (that is, annihilation) is whether or not they treated Christ's brothers well. Certainly everyone has a speck of good in them; Hitler loved little children and pets. But how does a person feel about Christ and his representatives on the earth, and what He is doing to warn the world of the coming destruction of the evil system of things? (Matthew 25:41-46) There is no Universalism in what Jesus says there in chapter 25 of Matthew about the sheep and the goats.

Annihilating the wicked does not violate the "perfection of God's justice." It is perfectly just to eliminate evil from the universe. There is nothing perfect about allowing it to remain.

You seem to be devoid of the understanding that there are people who do not want to be "good." Is forcing a person to be good by taking away part or most of his own thinking faculties what you call just? You would promote giving these people a lobotomy so they are unable to think like they want to think? Your idea is unjust and imperfect. God lets people be what they want to be, and if they want to take advantage of others and will not stop doing so, then they must be removed from those people who truly desire to live according to God's standards. God doesn't want lobotomized automatons as friends. He wants people to live forever who WANT to be His friends.

You know, I expect you're probably a nice person onewithin but responses like this make me wonder if I wandered into the Twilight Zone. All the same thanks for pointing out my lack of understanding of the issue at hand and God bless you in your Christian walk.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 65 by Anomaly]

I don't understand why you feel you are in the Twilight Zone as you consider my post. Care to explain why my answers are so bizarre?

If not, thanks anyway for your respectful closing.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 64 by onewithhim]

Actually, I wrote the post to provoke good conversation; not really because I was invested in it.

However, I still think that Paul's argument in Ro 11, if taken by itself, indicates that Paul thinks ALL Israel will be saved.

I do not know how else to interpret the following:

12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! (Rom 11:12 ESV)

Whose "trespass"? Surely Israel's. And what trespass? Surely disbelief in the Messiah. And if so, then what does "their full inclusion" refer to, if not their belief in the Messiah?

I suppose one can say that "their" simply means a minority or Jews who later convert. That hardly explains the term "full".

[Anomaly]

[Replying to post 65 by Anomaly]

I don't understand why you feel you are in the Twilight Zone as you consider my post. Care to explain why my answers are so bizarre?

If not, thanks anyway for your respectful closing.

If we are well-versed in Scripture, we know that the telling factor in whether or not the unrighteous are "thrown into the fire prepared for the devil" (that is, annihilation) is whether or not they treated Christ's brothers well.

But you are well-versed in literalism; I gently suggest that this isn’t necessarily the same as being well-versed in the truth.

So those who go to church regularly, profess love for Christ and brethren give freely and are quick to help fellow Christians—but pass by the drunk laying in the gutter, cheat on their taxes and spouse—get a ‘get home free’ ticket because they treated their own well? This is exactly the sort of logical trap a harshly literal explanation of Scripture leads you into. As long as you’re part of the “good old boy� club and perform certain works laid out in the Bible, you’ll get saved. And what becomes of the atheist who stopped to care for that drunk in the gutter, is faithful to his spouse and honest on his taxes, but rejects Christ? He gets thrown into the furnace and obliterated because he didn’t play the same games you did? Do you just turn a blind eye to common sense and logic in order to embrace your exclusivity? This is base Pharisaism.

Read Luke 10:30-36…some who are last will be first, and some first will be last.

Certainly everyone has a speck of good in them…But how does a person feel about Christ and his representatives on the earth, and what He is doing to warn the world of the coming destruction of the evil system of things?

This is a Twilight Zone entry. I pointed out in the argument in post #38 (and again in #51) that God establishes in Gen 18 the principle that He will not destroy a whole in which good exists. The force of this line of reasoning was demonstrated in Abraham’s speech in vv. 23-25: "Wilt Thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?...Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt Thou indeed sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?" This principle is repeated in Isa 42:3: “A bruised reed He will not break, And a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish; He will faithfully bring forth justice.�

Your acknowledgement that there is a speck of good in everyone brings on the aforementioned Twilight Zone effect as you’re apparently oblivious to the logical consequences of this admission with respect to the argument I provided. I’m guessing my Annihilationist brethren who see the truth of the argument presented are those who are wisely not responding to the thread. The Twilight Zone comes into being when you continue to parrot your doctrine with ostensibly no grasp of the claims made of the Gen 18 account or the tension to your doctrine it establishes.

There is no Universalism in what Jesus says there in chapter 25 of Matthew about the sheep and the goats. Annihilating the wicked does not violate the "perfection of God's justice." It is perfectly just to eliminate evil from the universe. There is nothing perfect about allowing it to remain.

See preceding paragraph, onewithin. I rest my case.

You seem to be devoid of the understanding that there are people who do not want to be "good." Is forcing a person to be good by taking away part or most of his own thinking faculties what you call just?...God lets people be what they want to be, and if they want to take advantage of others and will not stop doing so, then they must be removed from those people who truly desire to live according to God's standards.

God doesn't want lobotomized automatons…

This is one of the most tiring, trite arguments made against universalism. In the pride of our falsified hearts, humans naturally assign a much higher autonomy to the “freedom� of human choice than is prudent. Choice is greatly impaired on a number of levels, it’s not free. The falsification of human essence [essentially spiritual disease, leading to spiritual death] has causative effect on our cognitive abilities. There exists tension and resistance between truth and falsity, and we unite with true or false propositions mostly to the degree we falsify ourselves according to our choices. We possess prescriptive beliefs and worldviews that stand in various concurrent stages of accord and conflict to absolute truth. We stand thus to the degree our soul, spirit or essence, designed to subsist in a wholly true state, is falsified. Bad choices lead to falsification of the soul. One gradually comes to unite with [accept] false prescriptive propositions—from doctrinal beliefs to social issues like funding social programs, gun control, abortion, etc.—as essence becomes increasingly falsified. The more we accept falsehoods, the more our outlook and worldview—including religious, cultural and social beliefs—tends to swing in certain identifiable directions. We're seeing this pattern developing at an accelerated rate in the degree of social unrest in the US and around the world today.

The point is that humans are spiritually diseased. Why would a loving God who knows people are diseased annihilate them or commit them to eternal separation and punishment when it is within His power to heal? If falsity in human spirit causes hatred of God and His Truth, then the destruction of that hatred-causing falsity and its restoration to a true state destroys the tension and resistance against absolute Truth the falsified mind exists in, and establishes union with it. In other words, by annihilating those false elements in our essence that produce resistance to truth, and restoring same elements to true, God is destroying our hatred of Him and establishing conformity and concord. Truth unites with truth. God is Truth. The soul made wholly true unites [is one, see Jn 17] with Truth. This is salvation.

Also, this is how the mystery, which Paul saw and passed on to us in Rom 11 by noting that literally all Israel will be saved, unfolds in Scripture. I beg to differ onewithin; when goats and sheep in Mat 25 are removed from the literal understanding of Scripture and placed where God designed them to be—in the allegorical truth of His word—they consist of only one of multiple metaphors that teach how it can be that not only all Israel, but correspondingly all humans, will be restored to perfection and union with God in truth.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 64 by onewithhim]

Actually, I wrote the post to provoke good conversation; not really because I was invested in it.

However, I still think that Paul's argument in Ro 11, if taken by itself, indicates that Paul thinks ALL Israel will be saved.

I do not know how else to interpret the following:

12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! (Rom 11:12 ESV)

Whose "trespass"? Surely Israel's. And what trespass? Surely disbelief in the Messiah. And if so, then what does "their full inclusion" refer to, if not their belief in the Messiah?

I suppose one can say that "their" simply means a minority or Jews who later convert. That hardly explains the term "full".

This is the best way I know how to answer your question about this:

Perhaps we can agree that to be "saved" anyone would have to believe in the Messiah. So does what Paul says in Romans mean that at some point all Jews would be converted to Christianity?

No. As a nation, the natural descendants of Abraham rejected Jesus as the Messiah, and in the years after Jesus' death and resurrection, it was clear that there would be no wholesale conversion of Jews to Christianity. Still...Paul's statement that "all Israel would be saved" was true. How?

Jesus said to the religious leaders of his day, "The kingdom of God will be taken from you and be given to a nation producing its fruits." (Matthew 21:43) So, because the nation of Israel as a whole rejected Jesus, Jehovah would turn His attention to a new "nation," a spiritual one. Paul called this "nation" "the Israel of God." (Galatians 6:16) Other passages in the N.T. establish that "the Israel of God" is made up of 144,000 spirit-anointed Christians (Romans 8:15-17; Revelation 7:4). That this group would include non-Jews is confirmed by Rev.5:9,10, which shows that anointed Christians come out of "every tribe and tongue and people and nation." The members of spiritual Israel were specially selected to be "a kingdom and priests....and they are to rule as kings over the earth." Although Jehovah rejected Israel as a chosen nation, individuals could become reconciled to Him. That was the case with the Apostles and many other early Christians. Of course, such Jews, like all other humans, had to be bought with the blood of Jesus Christ (I Tim.2:5,6; Heb.2:9; I Peter 1:17-19).

The fact that the majority of fleshly Jews in the first century lost out on the opportunity to become corulers with Jesus did not thwart God's purpose. This could never be, for Jehovah stated through his prophet: "So my word that goes forth from my mouth will prove to be. It will not return to me without results, but it will certainly do that in which I have delighted, and it will have certain success in that for which I have sent it." (Isaiah 55:11) That is true with regards to God's purpose to install 144,000 co-rulers alongside His Son in heaven. The Bible makes clear that God would anoint a complete number of 144,000. Not one would be missing. (Rev.14:1-5)

Thus....when Paul wrote that "all Israel would be saved," or "their fulfillment" would be more rich.....he was not foretelling a mass conversion of Jews to Christianity. Rather, he meant that God's purpose to have 144,000 spiritual Israelites ruling with His Son, Jesus Christ, in heaven would be fulfilled. In God's due time, the complete number---"all Israel"---would be in a saved condition, eventually ruling as kings and priests in the Messianic Kingdom (Eph. 2:8).


.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 69 by onewithhim]

Why did Paul not mention the number 144,000? He simply said, ALL Israel. What Roman recipient of the letter would have concluded from this, "Clearly Paul means by ALL, a mere 144,000"?

Your theory depends on the wide dispensation of Revelation, which had not yet been written.