Debate: Church/Israel

[postpre]

I have never argued against the use of the word "until" in verse 25. What I am saying is that there is nothing indicating what will happen after the "until." There is no corresponding "after that...".... To predict any change in Israel's callousness after that point requires the opening of a new discussion, which Paul never opens... If you had followed Paul's line of argument from chapter nine up to this climax of his discussion (and especially in the immediate preceding context), you would have no trouble seeing that "all Israel" means "the whole olive tree"—which includes the believing Jews and Gentiles (as Paul has just finished explaining.

I'm sorry Steve, I'm not buying it. Your interpretation is forced, IMO. It would require Paul to be advocating the following:

blindness in part has happened to Israel (ethnic Jews) until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel (Jews and Gentiles) will be saved

IMO, this is the fundamental error that you are making. There is no dispute that the olive tree represents Jewish believers (both before and after Christ), and that the church consists of the remnant of Jews and Gentiles alike. However, you are making an unwarranted leap that Israel should now be properly rendered "the church" or the whole olive tree with the Gentiles grafted in. Nothing in the text suggests such. Gentiles "partake of the root and fatness of the olive tree", that is, we now also partake in the "covenants of promise to the fathers." But, we are still Gentiles. Israel is still Israel. Both of us comprise us church, yes, but there is still an inherent distinction between us.

Since Paul has already, in the same discussion, affirmed that only a remnant of Israel (not the whole nation) will be saved (9:27), it would be strange for him to directly contradict himself two chapters later, in 11:26, in saying that all Jewish people will be saved!

There's is no contradiction in Paul's thought. Paul clarifies what he means by "all Israel" in the next verse when he cites Isaiah 59. He is speaking of Israel's restoration (albeit a remnant according to Zech) at the second coming. The passage in Isaiah is replete with second coming language: "According to their deeds, accordingly He will repay, Fury to His adversaries, Recompense to His enemies; The coastlands He will fully repay." It is at this time that he will turn away ungodliness from Jacob. Language like this serves the pre-mill camp well.

Brian

[steve]

I see nothing resembling an argument here. Only subjective assertions that my position is "forced." If it is indeed forced, then can you possibly show that it is also not correct?

[postpre]

Steve,

This is a response to one of the posts that linked to a previous discussion.

It is Paul's purpose to discuss the manner in which the promises of God have been fulfilled to the true Israel, which he does by showing that not all Jews are really part of that "Israel"(Romans 9:6)...

My interpretation of Romans 9:6 is much different than yours, and one in which, IMO, fits the context better. In the first five verses of Romans 9 Paul laments over his countrymen who had the priviledged status of being recipients of the promises, covenants, etc... His thoughts continue:

But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

Here, Paul responds to the objection that the word of God has failed. If Israel (at large) had not obtained what it seeks then God's promise to the fathers must be defunct. But, this is not the case. It was never the intention that one could participate in the blessings of the Abrahamic promise apart from personal faith. From the beginning, the Abrahamic covenant was passed on through the the believing remnant (represented by Isaac and Jacob, and the NT Jewish believers- the children of promise) but bypassed the unbelieving majority (represented by Ishmael and Esau, and the NT Jewish unbelievers- the children of flesh). This was Paul's point earlier in the book as well.

28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

Brian

[steve]

I agree with this interpretation. Where are you seeing a difference between that and my view?

I would point out that the expression "children on the promise" includes Gentile believers as well as Jewish believers, according to Galatians 4:28. Thus, this too identifies the church with Israel.

[Suzana]

I for one am relieved to hear that. I had the impression that Brian's post above was making Steve's point, & was confused, puzzling over what I may have missed.

[Sean]

IMO, this is the fundamental error that you are making. There is no dispute that the olive tree represents Jewish believers (both before and after Christ), and that the church consists of the remnant of Jews and Gentiles alike. However, you are making an unwarranted leap that Israel should now be properly rendered "the church" or the whole olive tree with the Gentiles grafted in. Nothing in the text suggests such.

I guess it depends on how you define "Israel". When Paul said all Israel will be saved do you think he meant the saved Jews would consist of both believing and unbelieving Jews? Or just Jewish believers?

However, you are making an unwarranted leap that Israel should now be properly rendered "the church" or the whole olive tree with the Gentiles grafted in. Nothing in the text suggests such.

Then why does Paul call believing Israel & believing Gentiles the church in Ephesians 2?

Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

"You Gentiles" were once aliens from the commonwealth of Israel.

14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation,

He made both one. All you need to do is ask, both who?

19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God

I'm no longer a stranger or a foreigner of what? I'm now a fellow citizen of what? It's stated in verse 12. Are you denying this?

And just so we are clear, since being technical matters. That "one body" is the church:

Eph 2:16 that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross

Eph 1:22 And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

Col 1:18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

The church is the body. The one new man, the one body is the combination of believing Israel and believing Gentiles. Do you see it a different way?

Gentiles "partake of the root and fatness of the olive tree", that is, we now also partake in the "covenants of promise to the fathers." But, we are still Gentiles. Israel is still Israel. Both of us comprise us church, yes, but there is still an inherent distinction between us.

Brian,
I'm not sure I understand your concluding remarks. What exactly is the "inherent distinction between us"? And what difference does it make?

[Sean]

I agree with this interpretation. Where are you seeing a difference between that and my view?

I would point out that the expression "children on the promise" includes Gentile believers as well as Jewish believers, according to Galatians 4:28. Thus, this too identifies the church with Israel.

I for one am relieved to hear that. I had the impression that Brian's post above was making Steve's point, & was confused, puzzling over what I may have missed.

I think he's responding to Steve's comment about "true Israel" and saying that Paul is only speaking about Jews. Suggesting that the right interpretation of what Israel is excludes Gentiles. But I'm not exactly sure.

[postpre]

Sorry, Steve. I didn't quote your thought in its entirety.

It is Paul's purpose to discuss the manner in which the promises of God have been fulfilled to the true Israel, which he does by showing that not all Jews are really part of that "Israel"(Romans 9:6) and that some Gentiles are (Rom.9:23-24).

You have said that, in order to understand Romans 11, one must understand the context of chapters 9-11. I wholeheartedy agree. IMO, you start off your interpretation of chapter 9 on the wrong foot, and this intepretation drives your exegesis through chapter 11. When Paul states, in chapter 9, "But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect," he is speaking of God's previous promises to Abraham, and specifically why it is that the Abrahamic promises could still be viable even if many of Abraham's descendants, in Paul's day, were being severed from those promises due to unbelief. Israel, in Paul's day, thought that mere physical lineage from Abraham automatically included them in the promises. They were wrong. Paul needed to clear up this misunderstanding regarding the Abrahamic covenant.

Since those promises to Abraham were initially given, it was only those of faith who benifited from them. Paul explains this by pointing to the past with the examples of Isaac and Jacob (through whom the promises continued) and Ishmael and Esau (who represented the unbelieving majority and through whom the promises did not extend to). Likewise, in Paul's day, Israel was divided into two camps (believing minority and disbelieving majority). Paul having to explain why the Abrahamic promises are not defunct even though many of Abraham's descendants would not be inheriting them is the major them that opens up Romans 9. When Pauls says, they are not all Israel who are of Israel, he is in effect saying this, they are not all Israel (a true Jew in God's sight following the faith of Abraham) who are of Israel (those who are of the physical lineage of Jacob). Gentiles are not in view here. Paul opens up chapter 9 with this Jewish disputation on his mind (and how he can clear up what should have been understood).

Brian

[steve]

Brian,

I don't disagree with a word you posted in the above clarification, so far as it goes. As near as I can tell, your thesis seems to be as follows (correct me if I am wrong, because I do not find it easy to extract your precise beliefs from your arguments):

Paul identifies the true Israel with the faithful remnant of Jews, but he does not include (in his statement in 9:6) any believing Gentiles. Therefore, believing Gentiles are not part of the true Israel.

It seems that the only difference you are seeing between my explanation of Romans 9-11 and yours is suggested in the reference to the Gentiles in the last two sentences of your post:

Gentiles are not in view here. Paul opens up chapter 9 with this Jewish disputation on his mind (and how he can clear up what should have been understood).

I don't disagree even with those sentences, as they stand. I agree that Paul has not introduced the idea of Gentile inclusion in those opening verses. However, when he does introduce that idea in the unfolding discussion, he has not changed subjects, but is developing the same theme.

After pointing out that the true Israel does not include every ethnic Israelite, he certainly does go on to mention that this entity now also includes grafted-in Gentiles. I don't know how one can acknowledge the first part of Paul's argument, and then totally ignore or misunderstand its further development—even in the same chapter. For example, Paul quotes four passages from the Old Testament, in Romans 9:25-29. Two of them (the second couplet) make the point that you and I have both observed, and two (the first couplet) make the point that you are denying. He introduces these quotations with the theme he intends to defend by appeal to these verses: " even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles" (v.24). After the four quotations, he summarizes the point (in case it could have been missed by an inattentive reader): "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness" (vv.30f). Remember, to Paul, the possession of the righteousness of faith is what makes a person one of Abraham's children (i.e., true Israel):

"...just as Abraham 'believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.' Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham." (Gal.6-7).

Paul returns to the subject of Gentile inclusion in Romans 10:19-21—where he again cites Old Testament passages for his support—two about Gentile inclusion, and one about the apostasy of the majority in Israel.

In Romans 11, Paul continues the same two-pronged theme: 1) Only a remnant of Israelites are included in God's salvation of Israel (11:1-10), and 2) the inclusion of the Gentiles (11:11-26).

The fact that the Gentiles are not specifically mentioned in the earliest verses of chapter nine, where Paul is ramping up his argument by making his first point, does not justify our ignoring the corresponding part of his argument in the remainder of the discussion.

Tell me which part of the following syllogism do you object to:

1. The olive tree is an image representing Israel (according to Jeremiah 11:16, and the context of Romans 11);

2. The olive tree, consisting of believing Jews and believing Gentiles, is nothing other than the Body of Christ—which is the Church;

Therefore—

3. Paul identifies the Body of Christ, or the Church with Israel.

If you can honestly find fault with any of these three statements, we can continue the discussion. If you cannot, then the disparity in our respective abilities to make logical inferences from a rather transparent argument must preclude the possibility of fruitful debate.

[postpre]

Steve,

I appreciate the time you've taken to dissect my argument. I disagree with the conlusion of your syllogism, which I will get to momentarily.

The fact that the Gentiles are not specifically mentioned in the earliest verses of chapter nine, where Paul is ramping up his argument by making his first point, does not justify our ignoring the corresponding part of his argument in the remainder of the discussion.

Taken alone, I see Israel and Gentiles as distinct ethnic entities throughout Romans 9-11. IMO, to argue that the church is Israel one would need to point to other texts outside of these chapters (even these are suspect, IMO). When Gentile inclusion is first mentioned in Romans 9:24 (even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?), it merely says that in addition to the Jews the Gentiles have also been called. God had "prepared beforehand for glory" both Jew Gentile. After all, that is why Abram's name was later changed to Abraham, signifying that he would be a father of many nations (not the Jews alone). Paul could tell the Thessalonian church with confidence:

But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I see nothing here indicating that Israel should be considered the entire body of Christ. Israel is made up of believers and unbelievers. Those believers are part of the church, but the enitity "Israel" does not make up the entire church. In the first century, Israel (at large) stumbled over that stumbling stone. Paul could say in chapter 11 "God has given them a spirit of stupor, Eyes that they should not see And ears that they should not hear, To this very day." In the same chapter, Paul also quoted David who said "that their eyes were darkened so that they could not see." Israel had not obtained what it sought, as verse 7 spells out. This assessement of Israel's condition follows after Paul made the assertion that "at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace."

If this remnant was all that the prophets foretold, why all the discouragement from Paul? Why all the negativity? Why isn't Paul rejoicing over the remnant of Israel being saved during his lifetime? Because there's more to it, IMO. Paul continues: "I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! ... 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? This is very strong language that there is much more to the spiritual condition of Israel (perhaps in the future? than what Paul experienced first hand and what they would continue to experience during their "partial blindness."

We've discussed the following verses already, but I think they are still germane to the discussion:

25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27 For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins." 28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.

As I said previously, I believe that "Israel" of verse 26 is also ethnic Israel in verse 25. (Since Jew and Gentile have been ethnically distinct throughout Romans 9-11, I see no warrant to refer to "Israel" of verse 26 as the body of Christ.) IMO, this passage is saying that many Jews will be saved at the coming of Christ. And notice Paul's continuation here: concerning the gospel they (the Jews) are enemies (true), but concerning the election they (the Jews) are beloved for the sake of the fathers. Paul is still drawing an ethnic distinction between Jew and Gentile.

I disagree with the conclusion of your syllogism which states that "Paul identifies the Body of Christ, or the Church with Israel." The olive tree indeed represents Israel, and the Gentile believers, acccording to Paul are now "partakers of the root and fatness of the olive tree". Elsewhere Paul states that Gentiles were "strangers from the covenants of promise" and through the blood of Christ were "brought near" to Israel, that is, they are now the benefactors of all the promises given to the patriarchs (they partake in the root and fatness of the olive tree). We (Gentile believers) have been grafted in to share in all the blessings that were promised to Israel through the patriarchs, but we do not become Israel (see comments above)

Let me know if I've met your expectations.

Brian