Awhile back I pointed out that both Habakkuk and Romans show God responding to sin with worse sin and providing as his justification that this would bring about a “righteous result.”
It is worth also pointing out that in both cases that result is worldwide salvation. First from Habakkuk:
Woe to him who builds a town with blood
and founds a city on iniquity!
Behold, is it not from the Lord of hosts
that peoples labor merely for fire,
and nations weary themselves for nothing?
For the earth will be filled
with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea.
And one of several from Romans:
For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.
Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
“For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?”
“Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?”For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.
Have you abandoned JBJ’s reading of Rom 11?
Sorry, poor choice of words. I don’t mean to cast aspersions on the intelligence of his view (though arguments like yours and Tim Gallants persuade me it is incorrect).
Right, but you quoted from Romans 11 above…?
Could you expand on the first thought in your most recent comment? Do you think it’s theologically impossible that Israel-according-to-the-flesh could continue to exist without temple or land in their possession?
No. But with Romans 5 the point is spreading salvation to the ends of the earth, the obedience of faith among the nations.
I have a real problem speaking of “Israel” without Temple or Land or promise of return (and nothing in Romans hints that the present secular Israeli nation has anything to do with a future conversion.
On the other hand, I’m fine that nothing I’ve said is incompatible with the traditional view. The issues involved are not settled in Romans itself.
I do have an emotional problem with assuming that Israel must remain unbelieving for millennia until the other nations have been converted. That seems almost as bad as saying they must go through “the tributlation.”
I mean Romans 11 is meant to be further elaboration on the promise of Romans 5. Paul may believe the conversion of Israel is imminent but it would be the beginning, not the end, of worldwide salvation.