I read through Iron's article, and it don't cut the mustard for me. The arbitrary nature of, say, this paragraph is obvious to me:
Quote
But this is surely not Paul's intent. he states two things: (1) a partial hardening has happened to Israel, and (2) this partial hardening will exist until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in. What must be recognized is that these two statements are integrally related to one another. and what that relationship is is not hard to discover, for the whole of Romans 11 clearly defines it. For example, Paul tells us that "by their [viz., the Jews'] transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles" (v. 11). The point is as simple as it is unmistakable: the transgression and disobedience of the Jews, on account of which they were cut off from the covenant, is the means by which the Gentiles are being saved. Is not this also the point of verse 25b? "A partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in." In other words, God has sovereignly caused many (though not all) Israelites to be hardened and thus cut off expressly so that many Gentiles could be saved, and this hardening and cutting off will continue for as long as is necessary for the fulness of the Gentiles to be grafted in. I find it interesting that when Augustine quotes this verse he often translates acri" ou with ul: "Israel has experienced a hardening in part, that the fulness of the Gentiles might come in."6 Calvin agrees: "until does not specify the progress or order of time, but signifies the same thing, as though he has said, 'That the fulness of the Gentiles [might come in].'"7

Achri does not mean "so that," it means "until." Look up the word in a Greek lexicon. If this is not eisogesis, I don't know what is.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I was hoping someone would be willing to interact with some of the exegesis itself in the essay I posted at the first. Has anybody read it?

(Latin phrase goes here.)