Who is Israel?

[RND]

Who is Israel?

Who is Israel, Part 1
Who is Israel, Part 2

 

[John]

VERY interesting RND :yes

 

[Poster]

May I ask for a summary of the videos?

The prison I'm in won't allow video downloads on our cell computers, thanks.

 

[mondar]

RND, do you condone all the things said in those video's?

 

[RND]

RND, do you condone all the things said in those video's?

Condone? I think the better question to ask would be do I agree with everything in the videos? Yep.

 

[RND]

May I ask for a summary of the videos?

The prison I'm in won't allow video downloads on our cell computers, thanks.

Certainly. The summary of the videos is that those that are followers of Jesus Christ are adopted members into the seed of Abraham (Jesus) and fellow citizens of the Nation of Israel.

Being that you're in prison (I'm involved in prison ministry BTW!) you might find these resources helpful:

Spiritual Israel (Written by a Jewish Christian)

Israel in Prophecy

Israel Issues (Written by a Jewish Christian)

Who is Israel? Who is the Church? - Lorraine Day, M.D.

Hope these resources are a blessing.

 

[Drew]

The summary of the videos is that those that are followers of Jesus Christ are adopted members and fellow citizens of the Nation of Israel.

I did not listen to the videos, but I believe that the above statement is essentially accurate. Paul argues extensively in Romans for the category of "true" Israel as set in distinction to "ethnic Israel". And "true" Israel is indeed constituted by those who follow Jesus - it is these people who inherit the covenant promises (that the "ethnic Israelite" might have have thought are for him alone).

 

[mondar]

The summary of the videos is that those that are followers of Jesus Christ are adopted members and fellow citizens of the Nation of Israel.

I did not listen to the videos, but I believe that the above statement is essentially accurate. Paul argues extensively in Romans for the category of "true" Israel as set in distinction to "ethnic Israel". And "true" Israel is indeed constituted by those who follow Jesus - it is these people who inherit the covenant promises (that the "ethnic Israelite" might have have thought are for him alone).

It cannot be textually substantiated that Romans 9:6 is defining Israel in a non-Genetic way. The people who are not Israel (They are not all Israel) are unbelieving Israelite's. The rest are believing Israelite's.

 

[Drew]

The summary of the videos is that those that are followers of Jesus Christ are adopted members and fellow citizens of the Nation of Israel.

I did not listen to the videos, but I believe that the above statement is essentially accurate. Paul argues extensively in Romans for the category of "true" Israel as set in distinction to "ethnic Israel". And "true" Israel is indeed constituted by those who follow Jesus - it is these people who inherit the covenant promises (that the "ethnic Israelite" might have have thought are for him alone).

It cannot be textually substantiated that Romans 9:6 is defining Israel in a non-Genetic way. The people who are not Israel (They are not all Israel) are unbelieving Israelite's. The rest are believing Israelite's.

Of course, I never said that Romans 9:6 defines Israel in a non-genetic way.

My point was what is was stated to be - in Romans, Paul has in mind the category of "true" Israel which he distinguishes from national Israel. I agree that in 9:6, Paul is distinguishing between believing Jew and non-believing Jews. But this is entirely consistent with his larger point that there is a "true" Israel whose membership is not determined by genetics.

In Romans 4, Paul establisheds that Abraham's "true" family contains both Jew and Gentile:

11and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised

It is important to understand that Paul is not merely saying that believers, Jew or Gentile, are part of the "family of faith" whose father is Israel. He is making the further claim that these people are indeed the "true" Israel.

One reason to see this is to recognize that, in Romans 4 to 8, Paul systematically hands over the covenant promises, seemingly made to national Israel, to this other group. This shows that Paul sees this "Jew + Gentile" family of faith as being "true" Israel, since it is to "Israel" that the covenant promises are made: The very promises, seemingly made to the Jews (reference Romans 9:4) are ascribed to Christ and his worldwide people:

- Sonship (Romans 8);

- Glory (Romans 5 and 8);

- Covenants (Romans 4 and 8);

- Lawgiving (Romans 7 and 8);

- Worship (Romans 5:1â€â€5 and Romans 8);

- Promises (Romans 4);

- Patriarchs (Romans 4).

The overall structure of Paul's argument is the covenant promises have been historically misread as being for the Jews and the Jews only. Instead, Paul argues in chapters 4 to 8, they are for this worldwide "Jew + Gentile" family. Hence this Jew + Gentile family is properly understood to be "true" Israel.

Now in chapters 9-11, Paul will argue, among other things, that this "Jew + Gentile" family have an obligation to national Israel. And he echoes this in 15:27

27They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews' spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings

This is yet another affirmation that Paul sees the family of believers as being the "true" Israel.

 

[RND]

It cannot be textually substantiated that Romans 9:6 is defining Israel in a non-Genetic way. The people who are not Israel (They are not all Israel) are unbelieving Israelite's. The rest are believing Israelite's.

I'd say the explanation you just offered here is one that can't be "textually substantiated." Nowhere in scriptures is salvation based on race or genetics. Abraham wasn't a Jew, Jacob wasn't a Jew, Joseph wasn't a Jew, Moses wasn't a Jew, etc., etc., etc.

Mat 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. 10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Plainly, John the Baptist tells us that God can make children out of stones and doesn't need those that "claim" to be of Abraham without the "faith" of Abraham. The promise has always been "outside" of the law. And yet, it is the "gentile" that takes a hold of the covenant of God that are considered servants of the Lord.

Isa 56:6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

Lastly, it is more than obvious that a "Jew" isn't a specific racial or ethnic designation. It refers to a culture or religion. God does not save anyone just because of their specific racial or ethnic designation. He saves people by grace through faith - regardless of skin color, heritage, economic position, education, or any other division of man that Satan has created.

 

[mondar]

Of course, I never said that Romans 9:6 defines Israel in a non-genetic way.

My point was what is was stated to be - in Romans, Paul has in mind the category of "true" Israel which he distinguishes from national Israel.

So then this concept that is not present in the text that you have to force into it? What verses to you get this "true Israel" from in the context. Where are the words or concept in Romans 9, or anywhere else for that matter?

In Romans 4, Paul establisheds that Abraham's "true" family contains both Jew and Gentile:

11and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised

It is important to understand that Paul is not merely saying that believers, Jew or Gentile, are part of the "family of faith" whose father is Israel. He is making the further claim that these people are indeed the "true" Israel.

Abraham is the Father of all who have faith. I agree with that. But there is a difference between that concept and a "True Israel." Abraham had many genetic sons. We are not decended from Israel (Jacob) but by faith. In the same way, are not all Americans descended from George Washington. George Washington is the Father of America. (Excuse the US illustration--- I remember you are from the UK). This does not mean we can give ourselves the last name Washington and blur distinctions between us and his physical descendants.

Drew, you are speaking on both sides of the fence here. On the one hand you admit that Romans 9:6 does not include Gentiles, then you suggest that the "true Israel" includes gentiles. Now had you asserted that the "true Israel" is the believing group of the genetic descendants of Abraham, then I would agree, the believing Jews are "True Israel." That would be an assertion based upon the text. [/quote]

One reason to see this is to recognize that, in Romans 4 to 8, Paul systematically hands over the covenant promises, seemingly made to national Israel, to this other group.

LOL, so the covenant promises were "seemingly" made to national Israel. So God kinds tricked us all in the OT when he said in Jeremiah 31:31 that the promises were to Israel and Judah. Well, your seemingly, possible, maybe, kinda, but very vague promises of some nice things for national Israel, that are kinda, maybe, given to some other group and then this other kinda, maybe, group gets what? A few nice things like some land in Palestine?

Paul hands over promises? I bet God appreciated Paul doing that! Then God does not have to fulfill his word to those to whom he made promises. Maybe he will do that yet again, and completely redefine Israel and the Church.

Drew, I know how you come to these conclusions. I have seen it long before. I know why you use the vague language you do and not refer to specific texts. You only look a a word here, and a phrase in a different place. You do not go sentence by sentence with an exegetical methodology and take actual meaning from the text. Then you import meaning into these phrases and words from outside the text. So far you put titles on entire chapters and think you have done some sort of exegesis to biblically demonstrate you point. I honestly dont think you know what exegesis actually is.

 

[Drew]

Of course, I never said that Romans 9:6 defines Israel in a non-genetic way.

My point was what is was stated to be - in Romans, Paul has in mind the category of "true" Israel which he distinguishes from national Israel.

So then this concept that is not present in the text that you have to force into it? What verses to you get this "true Israel" from in the context. Where are the words or concept in Romans 9, or anywhere else for that matter?

I am not forcing anything in anywhere. My previous post mounted an argument for the category of "true" Israel based on Romans 4. We'll see later what you had to say about that.

Nevertheless, there is indeed material in Romans 9 that shows clearly that Paul indeed has the "true" Israel category in mind:

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31but Israel, (BJ)pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.

If we understand how Paul uses the term "righteousness", we can see how this statement is indeed a declaration that the believing Jew and the believing Gentile together constitute the category of "true" Israel.

As perhaps best summarized in Romans 2, Paul envisions a global judgement of all mankind. At that judgement, some will receive wrath while others will be declared to righteous. Note that many translations use the phrase “will be justified†to describe the “favourable†outcome in 2:13.

However, taking due consideration of the entire corpus of Paul’s writings, we must acknowledge that the lawcourt metaphor does not exhaust Paul’s concept of justification - what it means to be declared righteous. There is a strong, though often overlooked, theme of the Abrahamic covenant running through the first four chapters of Romans (if not other chapters). In fact, Romans 4 repeatedly appeals to the covenant – Paul is wrapping up his argument that Jesus’ achievement on the cross constitutes the fulfillment of the covenant God made with Abraham.

Consider the following text from Romans 4, noting the connection to the Romans 2 material specifically through reference to the issue of being declared righteous

For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."
10How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. 13For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.

In 2:13, we have a declaration of righteousness and here in 4 we have a declaration of righteousness. Granted, the former declaration is made in the future, whereas Abraham was credited with righteousness in the present (Abraham’s present of course). These distinctions in tense will not be addressed in this post, but if challenged, I will explain. For the present purpose, note how, in Romans 4, Paul connects being declared righteous to being a member of Abraham’s covenant family.

Abraham is characterized as a father of the family of those declared righteous. That this is specifically the family covenantally promised to him is underscored by references to the “promise to Abraham†and the reference to his “heir-shipâ€Â. This is covenant language, Paul is not talking about Abraham simply as a father of those who have faith in a sense other than a covenantal one.

Paul’s emphasis on the integration of the Gentile into Abraham’s family shows that, again, it is specifically Abraham’s covenantal family which is in view here. If Paul were simply asserting Abraham’s fatherhood of all believers, without reference to the covenant, Paul would not have engaged in such a detailed treatment of the Jew-Gentile divide (he also treats this divide toward the end of chapter 3). Paul’s point here should not be glossed over – the Gentile is being included under the embrace of the covenant promises.

Paul clearly understands that being declared righteous is intimately tied to being considered a member of Abraham’s covenant family. Abraham here is not merely an example of someone who is justified by faith – Paul’s analysis demands a more covenantally nuanced reading. More specifically, Paul effectively identifies a declaration of righteousness with a declaration that one is a member of Abraham’s family.

And therefore, when Paul refers to Gentile "attaining righteousness" in Romans 9, he is making the statement that they are considered to be in the embrace of God's "true" Israel - the people who are the real heirs to the covenant promises.

 

[RND]

Good takes Drew.

Drew, I think another aspect that gets overlooked at times is the fact that Abraham was "uncircumcised" (hence a 'gentile') when He received the promises of God by the faith he displayed. I think that is an important part of the salvation picture we miss at times.

 

[Drew]

Abraham is the Father of all who have faith. I agree with that. But there is a difference between that concept and a "True Israel." Abraham had many genetic sons. We are not decended from Israel (Jacob) but by faith. In the same way, are not all Americans descended from George Washington. George Washington is the Father of America. (Excuse the US illustration--- I remember you are from the UK). This does not mean we can give ourselves the last name Washington and blur distinctions between us and his physical descendants.

This is all true but it is not an argument against my position. My argument is not at all based on the kind of reasoning you describe in the above paragraph. There are other reasons, already given, as to why we properly understand that Paul has embraced the category of "true" Israel.

Drew, you are speaking on both sides of the fence here. On the one hand you admit that Romans 9:6 does not include Gentiles, then you suggest that the "true Israel" includes gentiles.

This is a misrepresentation of what I have said. In 9:6, Paul is addressing the Jewish component of "true Israel". Later in chapter 9, Paul argues that Gentiles are also members of "true" Israel.

One reason to see this is to recognize that, in Romans 4 to 8, Paul systematically hands over the covenant promises, seemingly made to national Israel, to this other group.

LOL, so the covenant promises were "seemingly" made to national Israel. So God kinds tricked us all in the OT when he said in Jeremiah 31:31 that the promises were to Israel and Judah. Well, your seemingly, possible, maybe, kinda, but very vague promises of some nice things for national Israel, that are kinda, maybe, given to some other group and then this other kinda, maybe, group gets what? A few nice things like some land in Palestine?

Paul hands over promises? I bet God appreciated Paul doing that! Then God does not have to fulfill his word to those to whom he made promises. Maybe he will do that yet again, and completely redefine Israel and the Church.

You will have to take this objection up with Paul since it is he, not I, that comes to the perhaps surprising conclusion that the real heirs of the covenant promises are not "national Israel" , but are instead a "true" Israel constituted by Jew and Gentile alike. You are simply denying my point, not engaging the actual arguments. In my previous post, I asserted that a number of very specific covenant promises have been understood by Paul as being really intended for this "true" Israel constituted by Jew and Gentile alike. I am only following Paul's thinking here. If you want to challenge me on the specifics, please go ahead.

It is clear from Romans that Paul considers these "Jew+Gentile children of Abraham" to be specifically the heirs of the covenant promises. Any claim about Abraham being merely a "model" or "example" of justification by faith is not consistent with the following from Romans 4, where it is clear that Abraham's "Jew+Gentile" offspring are indeed the true heirs of the covenant:

13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression. 16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspringâ€â€not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

Verse 13 is a direct allusion to the covenant promise that Abraham would be the father of many nations. Here is the relevant text from Genesis 17:

4As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, And you will be the father of a multitude of nations. 5"No longer shall your name be called Abram,But your name shall be Abraham; For I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. 6"I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings will come forth from you.

Returning now to Romans 4. In verse 16, Paul is quite definitive – this same promise, this covenant promise, is given to all Abraham’s offspring, Jew and Gentile. There really is no wiggle room here – Paul is clearly presenting an understanding that what seemed to be a promise for national Israel was all along a promise for a family constituted by Jew and Gentile alike. It is this family that is the true heir of the covenant, not national Israel.

And how more clear could Paul possibly be that this "Jew+Gentile" family is in fact the true covenant family:

17As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations

This text alone neatly and clearly makes the case. Not only is Abraham a "father" to a "Jew+Gentike" family but this family is precisely the covenantally promised family. Verse 17 is a reference to the covenant – “it is writtenâ€Â.

So we see that Paul is not merely saying "Abraham is the father of the 'Jew+Gentile' church in a 'spiritual' sense". No - he is saying that this "Jew+Gentile" family of Abraham's is what was promised in the covenant.

 

[mondar]

Drew,
I think I will pass here. I doubt one more exchange on Romans will mean anything.

I do find it amazing that you can admit that Romans 9:6 is speaking about Israel (Genetic) yet turn around and make up the term "true Israel" and say that it applies to all saved. Of course when you pick a word here, and then ignore the context of a word there, and jump all over the text to get meaning. You can pretty well come up with what you want.

By the way, your previous post contextualized nothing. Anyone can make up wild titles to chapters. Actually demonstrating that the content of the chapter relates to the title is another matter.

In any case, I think everyone has read enough of me claiming that justification is by faith alone, and you saying that justification is both future and also demands human works.

Sola Fide,
Mondar

 

[RND]

I think everyone has read enough of me claiming that justification is by faith alone...

Right. Not by blood. Thus all Israel will be saved.

 

[Drew]

I do find it amazing that you can admit that Romans 9:6 is speaking about Israel (Genetic) yet turn around and make up the term "true Israel" and say that it applies to all saved. Of course when you pick a word here, and then ignore the context of a word there, and jump all over the text to get meaning. You can pretty well come up with what you want.

As usual, when presented with a detailed argument, you respond with vague and meaningless criticisms. I have provided exceedingly detailed argument and this is your response? If you do not engage my actual arguments, the reader will wonder why.

And, of course, my argument about 9:6 is perfectly legitimate:

1. In 9:6 Paul asserts that believing Jews are part of "true Israel";
2. Later in Romand 9, Paul asserts that believing Gentiles are also part of the category of "true" Israel.

By the way, your previous post contextualized nothing. Anyone can make up wild titles to chapters. Actually demonstrating that the content of the chapter relates to the title is another matter.

Again, you adopt this pattern. My arguments are detailed and clear. Why not attack the actual content instead of such fuzzy unsubstantiated criticisms.

In any case, I think everyone has read enough of me claiming that justification is by faith alone, and you saying that justification is both future and also demands human works.

Yet another outrageous and utterly false misrepresentation. I have been clear to the point of annoyance - and anyone who has followed my posts will know this - I have never claimed that justification requires human works.

 

[Drew]

Although it is perhaps a tad confusing, Paul works with two categories (at least in the book of Romans):

1. National Israel - the genetic descendents of Abraham;
2. "True" Israel - a set of people, containing both Jew and Gentile, who are marked out by one thing only - they believe the gospel of Christ;

Here are examples of Paul making statements about "national" Israel:

I speak the truth in Christâ€â€I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel

1Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.

So Paul clearly has "national" (or ethnic) Israel in mind as a distinct category.

Now here are texts which speak of "true" Israel:

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspringâ€â€not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

Those who are "of the law" are the members of national Israel - the Jews. And Paul is here stating that Abraham's offspring includes any person - Jew or Gentile - who has the faith of Abraham.

Now Paul makes it clear that these people are the "true" family of Abraham, even though he is fully aware that Abraham also has a "genetic" family. Why is Paul being so confusing? Why not simply call this "Jew+Gentile" family (that he refers to in the text above) the "true" people of God? Why does he insist of defining them to be Abraham's children, when he knows very well that the reader will be inclined to think of the Jews as Abraham's children?

It is because, as we see in Romans 5 to 8, Paul believes that covenant promises, seemingly made to Abraham in his role as father of national Israel, were in fact never made to national Israel at all, but rather made to Abraham in his role as father of "true" Israel.

Paul cannot afford to get rid of the connection to Abraham in his identification of the true people of God. If he did, he would not be able to argue, as he does in Romans 5 to 8, that promises made to Abraham are actually the inheritance of the true people of God.

And here is another reference to "true" Israel:

"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," 26and, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.'

Although Paul does not use the term "Israel" here, he is clearly saying that the "true" people of God - that is the true Israel - are a group other than those who are traditionally held to be the people of God - national Israel.

And, of course, there are Jews in both groups. One can be a member of national Israel and a member of true Israel. Paul is one example.

 

[mondar]

Although it is perhaps a tad confusing, Paul works with two categories (at least in the book of Romans):

1. National Israel - the genetic descendents of Abraham;
2. "True" Israel - a set of people, containing both Jew and Gentile, who are marked out by one thing only - they believe the gospel of Christ;

Here are examples of Paul making statements about "national" Israel:

I speak the truth in Christâ€â€I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel

1Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.

So Paul clearly has "national" (or ethnic) Israel in mind as a distinct category.

No objections.

Now here are texts which speak of "true" Israel:

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspringâ€â€not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

Those who are "of the law" are the members of national Israel - the Jews. And Paul is here stating that Abraham's offspring includes any person - Jew or Gentile - who has the faith of Abraham.

Now Paul makes it clear that these people are the "true" family of Abraham, even though he is fully aware that Abraham also has a "genetic" family. Why is Paul being so confusing? Why not simply call this "Jew+Gentile" family (that he refers to in the text above) the "true" people of God? Why does he insist of defining them to be Abraham's children, when he knows very well that the reader will be inclined to think of the Jews as Abraham's children?

First, Paul is not making an "confusing" statements. The only confusion is in your mind.

The term Israel does not even appear in the passage you cite. Since he did not even use the term "Israel" in the passage, it is painfully obvious that using Romans 4 to establish a "true Israel" is to ignore the real issue of Romans 4.

The issue of Romans 4 is obviously the imputation or crediting of righteousness to the account of those of faith. An issue you consistently ignore, and it is so painfully obviously the issue of the chapter I feel like it is axiomatic that any bible student would recognize this.

The concept of "Abraham's Children" as referring to a "true Israel" is absurd because Jews generally referred to Abraham as their Father, but to themselves as "Children of Israel," or "the sons of Jacob." In fact to assume this amazing naivety of the Jews, that the Jews were unaware that Abraham had any other sons other then Isaac it simply absurd. Certainly Jews were aware that Ishmael and also the sons of Kutarah were also children of Abraham. However, this is not the point of the term "Father" Abraham.

I really dont feel like going over and over the same information. I already mentioned that Abraham is the greatest example of faith in the OT. I think I already used the example of Washington as an example of concept of the Father of American Liberty. Of course since you did not bother to address the issue but keep making the same refuted assertions again over and over, I guess there is no real reason for me to say any more about this.

It is because, as we see in Romans 5 to 8, Paul believes that covenant promises, seemingly made to Abraham in his role as father of national Israel, were in fact never made to national Israel at all, but rather made to Abraham in his role as father of "true" Israel.

A mere assumption. Although you might consider this to be your very specific evidence.

Paul cannot afford to get rid of the connection to Abraham in his identification of the true people of God. If he did, he would not be able to argue, as he does in Romans 5 to 8, that promises made to Abraham are actually the inheritance of the true people of God.

And here is another reference to "true" Israel:

"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," 26and, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.'

Although Paul does not use the term "Israel" here, he is clearly saying that the "true" people of God - that is the true Israel - are a group other than those who are traditionally held to be the people of God - national Israel.

And, of course, there are Jews in both groups. One can be a member of national Israel and a member of true Israel. Paul is one example.

I will have to admit this is the best you have done. Instead of being so far out, there is actually several schools of thought that that passage does establish replacement theology. Some come short of replacement theology. I once read an article in BiblioThecaSacra. The author took the application of this verse have verse 24 as its antecedent, rather then 9:6. I guess I still reject this for several reasons.
* First, the rhetorical structure of ch 9 takes 9:6 as the antecedent of all 4 scriptural quotations. I mentioned before that verse 24 is the end of a sentence from verses 22 and 23. So then verse 24 the OT quotes following verse 24 are not referring to verse 24 but 9:6. Verse 24 relates to the statements in 22-23.
* Second, If the 4 OT quotations are studied as a unit, they cannot apply to a concept of Gentile salvation.
* Third, when studied as a unit, all 4 quotations can apply to a concept of regenerate genetic Israel within genetic Israel.

Well, a discussion concerning the place of those OT quotes would be interesting, but Drew, I must admit that I have not seen evidence in your writings that you have the ability to grasp the issues of such a discussion. I think we will be stuck in the low level discussions of me being to lazy to actually write a positive discussion of Romans 9, and you not being able. Feel free to continue your pulling a phrase here, and a word there, and importing meaning into the text.

 

[Drew]

Now here are texts which speak of "true" Israel:

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspringâ€â€not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

Those who are "of the law" are the members of national Israel - the Jews. And Paul is here stating that Abraham's offspring includes any person - Jew or Gentile - who has the faith of Abraham.

Now Paul makes it clear that these people are the "true" family of Abraham, even though he is fully aware that Abraham also has a "genetic" family. Why is Paul being so confusing? Why not simply call this "Jew+Gentile" family (that he refers to in the text above) the "true" people of God? Why does he insist of defining them to be Abraham's children, when he knows very well that the reader will be inclined to think of the Jews as Abraham's children?

First, Paul is not making an "confusing" statements. The only confusion is in your mind.

The term Israel does not even appear in the passage you cite. Since he did not even use the term "Israel" in the passage, it is painfully obvious that using Romans 4 to establish a "true Israel" is to ignore the real issue of Romans 4.

The argument that there is no explicit reference to Israel is like an argument that there is no Trinity since the concept is never explicitly laid out in Scripture.

That Paul has the concept of a "true" Israel in mind in Romans 4 is demonstrated by his clear case that Abraham has a family - of which he is the father - that is constituted by both Jew and Gentile. When this is combined with the obviously covenantal reference to a promise the local evidence is strong in Romans 4 that Paul sees this Jew+Gentile not merely as the "church" but specifically as that family which are the true recipients of the covenant promises - that is the "real" Israel.

That he sees this family specifically as Israel is re-inforced by what he proceeds to do in chapters 5 through 8 where he demonstrates the promises seemingly made to national Israel are in fact made to this Jew+Gentile family. You have interestingly not challenged my argument that, in 5 to 8, Paul treats the Jew+Gentile family of believers as if they get all the blessings promised to Israel. Why no counter-argument? If I am wrong, why not make the case? Because if I am right, this really amounts to the claim by Paul that the church is the "real" Israel.

Now the careful reader will know that I do not deny that Paul preserves and keeps the category of "national Israel", he also clearly has this "true" Israel concept in mind. This is also seen in Romans 9 where Paul clearly identifies this Jew + Gentile family as his true family, that is the "true" Israel:

"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," 26and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.'

How is the concept "son of God" used in the Scriptures? It is used to denote Israel:

Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I told you, "Let my son go, so he may worship me." But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.' "

They will come with weeping;
they will pray as I bring them back.
I will lead them beside streams of water
on a level path where they will not stumble,
because I am Israel's father,
and Ephraim is my firstborn son.

There are also a number of non-scriptural writings from the time that confirm what these texts say - the Jew frequently used the concept of being "sons of God" to denote Israel.

A little knowledge of the Scriptures shows the connection that Paul is making - he does not use the "sons of God" phrase in the Romans 9 texts by accident. He knows what he is doing. He is saying that it is this Jew+Gentile family who are the "true" Israel - the true sons of God. Paul's case is brillant and sophisticated.

The issue of Romans 4 is obviously the imputation or crediting of righteousness to the account of those of faith. An issue you consistently ignore, and it is so painfully obviously the issue of the chapter I feel like it is axiomatic that any bible student would recognize this.

I would never deny that "imputation of righteousness" is an issue in Romans 4. But it is demonstrably not the only issue in that chapter. Paul is clearly reflecting heavily on covenantal issues here as well, thinking about who the true family of Abraham is and under what conditions covenantal promises were made:

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. 13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression. 16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspringâ€â€not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations."[c] He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believedâ€â€the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.

The one who "painfully ignores" the content of chapter 4 is not me, but rather the one who ignores Paul painstaking efforts to make the case the circumstances of the establishment of the covenant are such as to include the Gentile in its embrace.