Who is Israel?

[DeBPrpht]

Greetings Ya'll,

You two should go to the "one on one debate area",...........many other posts, including mine have tried to steer the topic back to what RND originally posted >>> "Who is Israel?"

This incessant & repetitive dwelling on Rom. 9: & then your "long winded & empty" debate over just Rom. 9:,.............has completely bored me. :D

There are more than fifty prophecies in the Old & the New Testaments which fully explain who Israel is,...............yet the two of you >>> Drew & Mondar ramble on like two old senile men.Hopefully the two of you do not consider yourselves capable of being able to Teach The Truth to any new Christians who are thirsting to go from "The Milk of The Word, to the Meat of The Word".

Shalom

 

[Drew]

Greetings Ya'll,

You two should go to the "one on one debate area",...........many other posts, including mine have tried to steer the topic back to what RND originally posted >>> "Who is Israel?"

Both mondar's and my posts have extensively addressed this very topic. We do not agree, but out posts are relevant to the question "who is Israel"

This incessant & repetitive dwelling on Rom. 9: & then your "long winded & empty" debate over just Rom. 9:,.............has completely bored me. :D

Such discussions are not everyone's cup of tea.

There are more than fifty prophecies in the Old & the New Testaments which fully explain who Israel is,...............yet the two of you >>> Drew & Mondar ramble on like two old senile men.

Hopefully the two of you do not consider yourselves capable of being able to Teach The Truth to any new Christians who are thirsting to go from "The Milk of The Word, to the Meat of The Word".

Perhaps you would care to enlighten us, then. Perhaps you can counter-argue my position and teach a "senile old man" a thing or two.

My position is the following: While Paul obviously accepts the valdity and reality of "genetic" Israel, he also has a "true" Israel category in mind. And this "true" Israel is made up of all believers, Jew or Gentile.

 

[Drew]

This is the first in a series of posts that will argue that in Romans 9, Paul is not making an argument about an elect within ethnic Israel, but is rather treating a "true" Israel which Paul sees as constituted by both Jews and Gentiles.

In Romans 9, Paul opens with a statement of despair over the state of his fellow Jews and then makes this somewhat cryptic statement:

6But it is not as though the word of God has failed For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

I have underlined the first reference to Israel so that the reader will know that is this “Israel†that I denote by the term Israel. I will argue that Paul understands Israel to be the Jew + Gentile family of faith.

At the risk of stating the obvious, Paul here identifies two groups. The composition of one of these groups is not controversial – those who are descended from Israel (Jacob). These are obviously the genetic descendents of Jacob. Furthermore, Paul is saying that only a subset of Jacob’s descendents are in the other group – Israel.

Can we simply assume that the only members of Israel are the other descendents of Jacob – those who have been not been excluded from membership in Israel by Paul’s statement of 9:6?

No, we cannot. We know from other usages that Paul sometimes uses “Israel†to denote a group that contains both Jews and Gentiles. One of these is this text from Galatians:

Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.

A reader familiar with Galatians would be shocked indeed if Paul here is making a reference to the nation of Israel or to any sub-set thereof. Because my claim here is actually not vital to my argument, I will, for the sake of brevity, merely assert that this is a reference to a Jew + Gentile group.

I will also claim that Paul uses the term “Israel†to denote the Jew + Gentile family of faith in the (Romans 11:26) statement “and so all Israel will be savedâ€Â. The argument for this is lengthy and not necessary, so it will not be provided here.

Even without consideration of such usages, the assertion that Israel of 9:6 denotes a subset of national Israel is highly improbable, as will be shown in subsequent posts.

 

[Drew]

This is the second in a series of posts that will argue that in Romans 9, Paul is not making an argument about an elect within ethnic Israel, but is rather treating a "true" Israel which Paul sees as constituted by both Jews and Gentiles.

Here are verses 7 through 9 of Romans 9:

7nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." 8That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9For this is the word of promise: "(W)AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON."

I will be arguing that these verses have implications that make it unlikely that Israel (from verse 6) is a subset of national Israel (such as an “elect†within national Israel). To complement such an argument, I will later argue that material from the second half of chapter 9 supports a “Jew + Gentile†composition of Israel while being inconsistent with an “elect within Israel†composition.

I will start by granting that, on a superficial reading, it appears that Paul is indeed elaborating an argument that is about an Israel within national Israel. After all, after moving the argument to the Abraham level in verse 7, Paul identifies the “Isaac over Ishmael†choice, and then the “Jacob over Esau†choice. These are presented as examples of members of Israel selected from within Abraham’s genetic descendents. So why do I claim that, in fact, the category Israel is not a subset of national Israel, that it contains Gentiles with absolutely no connection to Abraham? There are a number of reasons, as elaborated following:

Verses 7 to 9 of Romans 9 have a relation to material in Romans 4 and Romans 8. I will argue that if one is committed to the principle that Paul is consistent, the Romans 4 / 8 connection makes it very probable that Paul intends us to understand that Israel must contain Gentiles.

The connections at issue involve the deployment of the concept of “Abraham’s (true) descendents†and the related concept of “children of promiseâ€Â. I trust that no one will dispute that “Abraham’s ‘true’ children†and the “children of promise†of 9:7-9 are one and the same group and that they indeed make up the members of Israel. I am fairly certain that those who think Israel is an elect sub-group of national Israel indeed accept this.

Because there is a certain degree of complexity in my argument, I will first give a skeletal overview:

• The structure of 9:6-9 makes it clear that Israel is a category populated by Abraham’s “true†descendents;

• In Romans 9, Paul asserts that Abraham’s “true†descendents have the status of being children of God;

• The category children of God has just been used in Romans 8 to describe the Jew + Gentile family of God – this suggests that Israel contains Gentiles.

• In Romans 9, Paul asserts that Abraham’s “true†descendents have the status of being children of promise;

• In Romans 4, Paul describes a promise made to Abraham and his Jew + Gentile descendents;

• Even in the absence of a Romans 8 connection, the fact that Romans 9 asserts that Israel is constituted by Abraham’s “true†descendents who are also children of promise, resonates with Romans 4 where Abraham’s Jew + Gentile family are likewise characterised as children of promise and “true “descendents. This affirms that Israel contains Gentiles.

So the general character of the argument is that, in Romans 9;6-9, Paul uses certain “concepts†– Abraham’s true descendents, the children of God, the children of promise – the very same concepts which he has used elsewhere to describe the Jew plus Gentile family of faith. So unless Paul is being careless or intentionally obscure, we have evidence from 9:6-9 that Israel includes Gentiles as well as Jews.

Follow-on post to come....

 

[Drew]

This is the third in a series of posts that will argue that in Romans 9, Paul is not making an argument about an elect within ethnic Israel, but is rather treating a "true" Israel which Paul sees as constituted by both Jews and Gentiles.

The reader is referred to the 6 bullets of my previous post (post 2).

I will expand on bullets 3, 5, and 6. I consider the other bullets to be self-evidently true. If someone wants to challenge me on this, I will address them in more detail.

Bullet 3: Consider this text from Romans 8, just a few sentences back:

For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
15For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"
16The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,

I take it as self-evident from the context of Romans 8 that these sons / children of God are the Jew + Gentile family of faith.

In 9:8 Paul uses the category “children of God†to characterize the members of Israel. If Paul really held that Israel was a subset of national Israel, we would have to assume that the “children of God†– and hence the “descendents†– both from 9:8, are both categories populated solely by Jews. But Paul has just used (in Romans 8) the “children of God†concept to denote the Jew plus Gentile church.

One might counter that, in Romans 9:6-9, Paul is making an argument specifically about the Jewish component of this Jew + Gentile “children of God†category. That might work if Paul was making a statement of the general form “This elect set of Jews are members of the category “children of Godâ€Â. But this is not what Paul is doing – he is making a statement about the criteria that mark out the “children of God†- “it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendantsâ€Â. Imagine someone making an argument about the criteria for being considered a “good citizen†and intending the reader to understand that only male citizens are in view – no competent writer would do this.

In order for the “elect within national Israel†position to work, Paul has to be using the same â€Åchildren of God†concept in entirely different ways in chapters 8 and 9, just a handful of sentences apart. Possible, but quite unlikely.

Follow-on post to come......

 

[Drew]

This is the fourth in a series of posts that will argue that in Romans 9, Paul is not making an argument about an elect within ethnic Israel, but is rather treating a "true" Israel which Paul sees as constituted by both Jews and Gentiles.

The reader is referred to the 6 bullets of my post number 2.

Bullet 5: Here is what Paul has written in Romans 4:

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. 14For (R)if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; 15for (S)the Law brings about wrath, but (T)where there is no law, there also is no violation. 16For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with (U)grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to (V)all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to (W)those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is (X)the father of us all,…

Paul is asserting that a certain promise, made to Abraham (and thereby to his descendents) was made to Abraham not in his capacity as father of national Israel, but in his capacity of the father of the Jew + Gentile family of faith. I will now substantiate this claim.

In verse 13, Paul refers to a promise made to Abraham in Genesis 17. He writes that this promise was made not through Law (or Torah). This is a cryptic way to say that the promise was not made to Abraham and his Jewish descendents. Paul is less cryptic in verse 16 where it is clear that the promise is really for Abraham and his “family of faith descendents, whether Jew or Gentile.

Bullet 6: Now lets go back to Romans 9:6-9. In these verses, Paul alludes to promises, made to Abraham, extracted from God’s dealing with Abraham in Genesis. Furthermore, the very nature of the referenced Genesis promises tells us that Paul, here in Romans 9, is making a commitment as to who Abrahams “real†descendents are. From the structure of Romans 9:6-9, it is clear that Paul considers these “reckoned via Isaac†descendents of Abraham to be the members of Israel.

The similarities between Paul’s view of the Romans 4 and Romans 9 promises are these:

• They are both made to Abraham;
• They both make commitments about who Abraham’s descendents are;
• They both characterize these descendents as being “children of promiseâ€Â.

We know the descendents (heirs to the promise) from Romans 4 include Gentiles. Should we therefore conclude that Paul intends us to understand “those named through Isaac†(in Romans 9) include Gentiles?

Yes we should, despite the fact that in the Genesis 21 promise (alluded to in Romans 9:8), Gentiles are nowhere in sight.

Since the heirs of the Romans 4 promise (the one about inheriting the world) are inarguably the Jew + Gentile family of faith, what would Paul have to believe in order that those “named through Isaac†be Jews only? He would need to believe that Abraham can be characterized as having two distinct sets of “true†descendents – the Jew plus Gentile descendents that inherit the Romans 4 promise and the “Jew only descendents†marked out by the Romans 9 promise.

This might initially seem plausible – it is entirely coherent that Abraham could be seen as the father of “all believersâ€Â, on the one hand, and as the father of an elect within Israel, on the other. If this distinction can be sustained, then indeed Paul could be making an argument about an elect Israel within national Israel in Romans 9:6-9, precisely because it could be argued that while the Romans 4 promise is (obviously) for Jews and Gentiles, we need not assume the same in respect to Romans 9, where Paul could be talking about promises made to Abraham in specific respect to his fatherhood of the Jews.

However the plausibility that Paul sees Abraham as having “family of faithââ¬Â descendents as well as elect descendents within national Israel fades in the light of several important considerations - to be addressed in subsequent posts.

Follow-on posts to come......

 

[Drew]

This is the fifth in a series of posts that will argue that in Romans 9, Paul is not making an argument about an elect within ethnic Israel, but is rather treating a "true" Israel which Paul sees as constituted by both Jews and Gentiles.

The reader is referred to the 6 bullets of my post number 2.

This post continues the argument of bullet 6 from the last post - post number 4 - by detailing the reasons why we should understand the Abrahamic family of Romans 4 to be the same as the Israel of Romans 9:6.

The plausibility that Paul sees Abraham as having “family of faith†descendents as well as elect descendents within national Israel fades in the light of several important considerations.

First, Paul’s characterization of Abraham’s fatherhood of the Jew + Gentile family of faith (in Romans 4) has so many features that suggest a covenantal focus that it becomes very difficult to argue that Paul simply sees Abraham here as a “father†of a Jew + Gentile family of believers in a sense that is conceptually distinct from his fatherhood of the covenant family of Israel. And the argument that Paul, in Romans 9:6-9 is writing about an elect subset within Israel depends critically on maintaining such a distinction.

Romans 4 is obviously an extended treatment of covenantal promises made in Genesis 15 and 17. It would be quite odd for Paul to reflect (throughout Romans 4) on the covenant, making a detailed case about who Abraham’s descendents and heirs are in respect to a certain covenant promise, and yet expect the reader to not conclude that these descendents are the true covenant family of Abraham - the “true†Israel. It is so obvious that Romans alludes to covenant promises at multiple points, that I will only provide the details if challenged.

Second, it is a priori unlikely that a writer as competent as Paul would contrast Abraham’s genetic descendents with two entirely different “families†– the Jew plus Gentile family of faith in chapter 4 and a subset of national Israel in chapter 9 – and yet use the very same “children of promise†concept to characterize these two families. This is by no means a slam-dunk argument in and of itself – Paul could be seen as talking about two different kinds of promises, one to Abraham as father of believers (Romans 4) and another to Abraham as father of elect Jews (Romans 9)

However, this possibility slips in unlikelihood when we examine the context from which the two promises were delivered.

The Romans 4 promise comes from Genesis 17:4-6, while the Romans 9 promises are given in Genesis 18 and 21. Notice that in Gen 21, Moses identifies who Abraham’s offspring are (through Isaac) whereas in Gen 17:4-6, Moses tells us about a specific promise made to Abraham. Notice (from Romans 4) what Paul believes about this promise – he believes that it is made to Abraham and to his descendents. It would very odd indeed for Paul to believe that God has made the promise of Genesis 17:4-6 to Abraham’s offspring, and yet believe that this is an entirely different set of offspring than those identified in the Genesis 18 and 21 promises alluded to in Romans 9. There is absolutely nothing at all in the Genesis story to countenance such a distinction.

Yet it is precisely this distinction - one between “Abraham as father of an elect within Israel†and “Abraham as the father of the family of faith†that is needed to sustain any kind of argument that in Romans 9:6-9, Paul is making a case about an elect within Israel.

So we have to conclude that, in Romans 9, Paul is making a statement about how the Jew plus Gentile family of faith is reckoned through Isaac. This may seem incoherent to those who choose to think of Isaac must be seen as only Jewish. I trust that it is clear that such an objection begs the very question at issue.

This is the last of this sequence of posts (I think).

 

[RND]

Now that the thread has a "You Tube" button to classify videos (which is a great addition BTW - thanks staff!) I decided to place the videos again:

Part 1

[youtube:o5mrpxe3]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-8ddC37iL0[/youtube:o5mrpxe3]

Part 2

[youtube:o5mrpxe3]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa8PF5JGIG0[/youtube:o5mrpxe3]

 

[Adullam]

The things which are seen are temporal, the things which are unseen are eternal.

The Israel of God is both the remnant of Judah and the remnant of Joseph as two sticks joined into One in the hand of God. It is all those who are born from above by the will of God, both Jews and those who are redeemed from among the nations. Israel is the One New Man.

 

[Cornelius]

The things which are seen are temporal, the things which are unseen are eternal.

The Israel of God is both the remnant of Judah and the remnant of Joseph as two sticks joined into One in the hand of God. It is all those who are born from above by the will of God, both Jews and those who are redeemed from among the nations. Israel is the One New Man.

Yep, simple : All Israel = all believers in Christ. (New Testament language )

"ALL Israel" = Body of Christ

Rom 11:26 and so all Israel shall be saved:Rom 9:6 .....For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel: (Obviously not, because not all of physical Israel today are saved. Not everybody in physical Israel are part of ALL ISRAEL (the Body of Christ)

 

[Adullam]

Also, before Israel was seen as a temporal nation....it was the name of one man..Jacob. A man who encountered God and received a blessing. A tamim man who went on to experience shalem after finding favour with God. So the true Israel is like the true descendants of Abraham....it is by being as they were and experiencing as they have. Funny there is no country called "Abraham." Imagine the confusion! ;)