Justification and Law in Paul

[Andre]

To be a light to the nations, to teach the truth about the gospel is not denied (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2). Romans 2 simply makes it THEIR CLAIM they are a light to the blind, a teacher.

I have already provided a number of texts from Isaiah where God calls Israel his servant and places her in the role of being responsible to be a light to the blind.

In case you have forgotten:

From Isaiah 41:

But you, Israel, My servant,
Jacob whom I have chosen,
Descendant of Abraham My friend,
You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth,
And called from its remotest parts
And said to you, 'You are My servant,...

And then in the very next chapter:

Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold;
My chosen one in whom My (D)soul delights
..........
6"I am the LORD, I have called You in righteousness,
I will also hold You by the hand and watch over You,
And I will appoint You as a covenant to the people,
As a light to the nations, ...

This is what it is - a clear statement that God has appointed Israel as his servant and that here role is, yes, to be a light to the nations.

So it is not simply the case that the Jews claim such a role - God has given it to them.

And we can add Romans 3:2

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

To be "entrusted" with something is to be given that thing for the sake of others. When a parent dies, sometimes the inheritance is placed in a trust fund for the children. This means that that money is given to some responsible third party to be managed until the children are old enough to manage the money themselves.

It is clear beyond question, from this text in Romans 3, and from old Testament texts like the ones I have provided from Isaiah that, indeed, Israel was given a responsibility, as God's servant, to be a light to the nations.

Are you really going to deny this, Dr. W? Are you going to deny that God gives Israel a role, a responsibility, a task to be the light of the nations?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. 16Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. 17What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

Of course, I agree that Paul here refers to promises that were made to one seed - Christ. Nothing I have posted contradicts this in any way.

Wrong! the promises were not made "to" Christ but "to" Abraham that all the promises would come "THROUGH" Christ "to" the promised children. God's covenant promises made "to" Abraham came "through" his SINGULAR seed "Christ" TO all the promised children. It did not come "THROUGH" any other of his seed - not one, as the "promised children" were the objects of the promise, the recipients of the promise but the promise came THROUGH Christ alone TO the promised children and to no other Israelites.

Here is the key point: The fact that God makes promises to the Christ does not change the facts that:

1. Israel is given a job to do under her broad covenantal relationship to God;

Their job was NEVER to BE the redeemer
Their job was NEVER to BE the solution to sin except by way of a proclaimer of Christ

2. Israel plays a vital role in God's plan of redemption.

ONLY in providing the people that brings the Messiah into mankind
ONLY in providing the gospel
ONLY in providing the typology
ONLY in proclaiming and practicing of the truth
NEVER as a redeemer in and of themselves
NEVER as a redeemer in their rituals or ordinances (Heb. 10:1-4) - NEVER

 

[Andre]

However, they had no covenant obligation to SAVE THE WORLD, unless you mean, they were obligated to proclaim salvation through the Messiah that should come through them, which they antipated, expected and preached (Acts 10:43; Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12).

I suggest that this is God's plan of redemption:

1. Adam falls;

2. God now wants to rescue and save his creation;

3. He enters into a covenant relationship with the nation of Israel. What is the purpose of this covenant? To solve the Adamic sin problem and "undo" the fall. So yes, Israel is to be the means by which the world is saved.

4. However, Israel the nation will not substantially accomplish this redemption - her representative Messiah Jesus, acting as Israel, will accomplish this. This is where one needs to understand the Jewish concept of representative Messiahship. The Messiah fully represents his people - so when Jesus acts as Messiah, He is, in a very real sense, acting as the nation of Israel.

This is a little complex but let me be crystal clear: I fully assert that Jesus Christ's work, not the nation of Israel as a nation, effects the salvation of the world. But there is a very real and important sense in which He acts as Israel when He does so. Remember, God told Israel she would be a light to the nations. And, as I am prepared to argue more fully in later posts, this does not mean simply that she would "announce" the Christ, or be the people from whom the Christ emerges.

It means that she would act out the Christ pattern - being "cast away" as it were so the world could be healed through what Jesus did at the cross:

May it never be! But by their transgression (R)salvation has come to the Gentiles, to (S)make them jealous. 12Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their (T)fulfillment be!

Romans 9 to 11 is the key to understanding what God is doing with Israel: through the law, God hardens Israel, effectively accumulating the sin of the world in her so that it can then be borne by Jesus on the cross.

So Israel as a nation does indeed play a critical role in the salvation of the world, but only to "set up" the central work of Jesus on the cross.

 

[Andre]

Wrong!

No. I am quite correct. Please re-read my post. Your response shows that you have not understood my point. Here it is again:

The fact that God makes promises to the Christ does not change the facts that:

1. Israel is given a job to do under her broad covenantal relationship to God;

2. Israel plays a vital role in God's plan of redemption.

I am not denying that promises were made to Christ! And I am not denying that Paul is arguing that these promises were not made to the nation of Israel.

But I am not talking about promises. I am talking about the fact that Israel is given a job by God and that this job is vital to the plan of redemption.

Their job was NEVER to BE the redeemer
Their job was NEVER to BE the solution to sin except by way of a proclaimer of Christ

I disagree. And we each need to argue our points. Just as what you say here is simply an assertion, I, too, have some work to do to support my claims. So nothing has been decided yet - there is a lot of argument that we each need to make.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I suggest that this is God's plan of redemption:

1. Adam falls;

2. God now wants to rescue and save his creation;

3. He enters into a covenant relationship with the nation of Israel. What is the purpose of this covenant? To solve the Adamic sin problem and "undo" the fall. So yes, Israel is to be the means by which the world is saved.

Genesis 3:15 does not say "the seed of a nation" but the seed of the woman. Acts 10:43 does not say that it began with Israel but it began with the first prophet Abel (Heb. 11:4). Therefore, from the beginning God purposed redemption through the promised seed of the woman not the nation of Israel as a "nation." Revelation 13:8 says the lamb was slain "from the foundation of the world" and therefore it was God's plan from Genesis 3 not Genesis 12! This was God's plan to undo sin not the covenant with Abraham. The covenant with Abraham was to give Abraham "promised children" THROUGH the promised "seed" which is Christ NEVER to impliment another solution to undo sin by the promised children or the children of Abraham "after the flesh."

4. However, Israel the nation will not substantially accomplish this redemption - her representative Messiah Jesus, acting as Israel, will accomplish this. This is where one needs to understand the Jewish concept of representative Messiahship. The Messiah fully represents his people - so when Jesus acts as Messiah, He is, in a very real sense, acting as the nation of Israel.

Israel was NEVER given such a redemption to accomplish. The covenant with Abraham had nothing to do with Israel "after the flesh" but with the children of promise and all the promises were to be obtained and performed by the promised "seed" which is Christ.

Israel was NEVER given such a redemption to accomplish. The Mosaic covenant was NEVER given to provide eternal life or to remove sin (Heb.10:1-4; Gal. 3:19-21).

The Abrahamic covenant was not given to the nation of Israel - NEVER was given to the nation of Israel but it was given to Abraham by God's promise that God would provide "children of promise" like unto Isaac through the work and person of the promised "seed" or Christ but was NEVER given to Israel as a nation.

The Mosaic covenant was given to Israel but NEVER to obtain any kind of redemption (Heb. 10:1-4 "never") but it was "added" to reveal the knowledge of sin - period!

You have absolutely no Biblical evidence! You have misinterpreted and misapplied every statement stretching it beyond the Biblical intent and design. The explicit statements of scripture concerning both covenants cleary deny your position.

Christ never acted in behalf of Israel "after the flesh" as Israel "after the flesh" was not the object of the Abrahamic Covenant but only the "children of promise."

Romans 11 has nothing to do with Israel playing any POSITIVE role in the redemption of the Gentiles. It is their rejection of Christ as the promised savior that is the cause of their stumble and why God temporarily calls out of the Gentiles "the children of promise."

Israel "after the flesh" plays absolutely no role in God's purpose to resolve the problem of sin as they are reprobates as much as Christ rejecting gentiles.

Neither the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenant include Israel in any way as the potential or actual solution for Adam's sin - NEVER!

 

[Andre]

Neither the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenant include Israel in any way as the potential or actual solution for Adam's sin - NEVER!

Paul thinks otherwise. There are many argument for this, but for the moment, I bring you a text that I have repeatedly provided, and to which I do not believe you have responded:

But by their transgression (R)salvation has come to the Gentiles,

I suggest you need to deal with this text. Who are the "they" here? By context, they are clearly Jews that have been hardened by God.

And what it is the result of their hardening? Salvation!. Not something else, but salvation.

How is this text not a direct repudiation of your statement that "Neither the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenant include Israel in any way as the potential or actual solution for Adam's sin - NEVER!"

Isn't salvation the solution to the Adam sin problem? Isn't sin and death the things we are saved from.

What do you think Paul is telling us in this text (and Romans 11 has other equivalent statements as well).

 

[Dr. Walter]

Paul thinks otherwise. There are many argument for this, but for the moment, I bring you a text that I have repeatedly provided, and to which I do not believe you have responded:

But by their transgression (R)salvation has come to the Gentiles,

They do nothing more than the Gentiles do in Romans 11:25-32 for God to turn from the Gentiles unto Israel again and bring salvation to Israel.

It is not their preaching that brought salvation to the Gentiles

It is not their obedience that brought salvation to the Gentiles

It is not their representation that brought salvation to the gentiles

It is not ANYTHING they actually say or do that brought salvation to Gentiles

It is NOTHING they do POSITIVELY that brings salvation to the Gentiles

It is their repudiation of Jesus Christ that God responds in bringing salvation to the Gentiles JUST AS it is the repudiation of Jesus Christ by the Gentiles that God responds in bringing salvation back to the nation of Israel:


25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.

So you have NOTHING to base your theory on but only perversion of that text and failure to interpret it in keeping with the context.

 

[Andre]

It is NOTHING they do POSITIVELY that brings salvation to the Gentiles

I never suggested otherwise.

But is clear that Paul sees that the transgression of the Jew has indeed had salvific implications for the Gentile.

It is their repudiation of Jesus Christ that God responds in bringing salvation to the Gentiles JUST AS it is the repudiation of Jesus Christ by the Gentiles that God responds in bringing salvation back to the nation of Israel:

I will argue that this is not correct - or at least, it is not the whole story. The "transgression" of the Jew is not only that they reject Jesus, it goes beyond that. But, again, this transgression, whatever it turns out to be, does indeed have salvation implications for the world.

So you have NOTHING to base your theory on but only perversion of that text and failure to interpret it in keeping with the context.

Another of your rude, demeaning claims for which you have provided zero evidence.

Let's be clear - there is not one claim that I have made that you have successfully refuted.

Think I'm wrong. Well then prove it. Please make an actual case that I have anywhere stated anything at odds with the Scriptures.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Nothing rude about my conclusion - it is the truth. You have no basis to argue that Israel brings salvation to Gentiles by their rejection of Christ any more than I have a basis to argue that the Gentiles in Romans 11:25-32 bring salvation to Israel by their rejection of Christ.

The verse you base your argument upon is no more valid for you argument as Romans 11:25-32 would be valid for me to use to argue that the Gentiles are now in a convenant role with God and are God's representative and it is their vocation to bring salvation to Israel. Such an argument is rediculous!

I never suggested otherwise.

But is clear that Paul sees that the transgression of the Jew has indeed had salvific implications for the Gentile.


I will argue that this is not correct - or at least, it is not the whole story. The "transgression" of the Jew is not only that they reject Jesus, it goes beyond that. But, again, this transgression, whatever it turns out to be, does indeed have salvation implications for the world.


Another of your rude, demeaning claims for which you have provided zero evidence.

Let's be clear - there is not one claim that I have made that you have successfully refuted.

Think I'm wrong. Well then prove it. Please make an actual case that I have anywhere stated anything at odds with the Scriptures.

 

[Andre]

Nothing rude about my conclusion - it is the truth.

No, Dr. W. You are both rude in suggesting that I "pervert" the word of God and you also have made no case.

If your position was demonstrably correct, then you would be in a position to suggest that I am mistaken. But even then, you should not suggest that I pervert the Word of God.

I do not treat you that way - please treat me like I am treating you.

But in any event, I see no evidence at all that you have successfully challenged my argument at any point.

Yes - my position has not yet been fully defended.But I challenge you to make an actual case that I am substantially incorrect in any of my assertions. If I am, in fact, mistaken, you should be able to show that I am mistaken.

You have no basis to argue that Israel brings salvation to Gentiles by their rejection of Christ any more than I have a basis to argue that the Gentiles in Romans 11:25-32 bring salvation to Israel by their rejection of Christ.

This is yet another example of you either not reading what I am writing or misrepresenting me.

I have never or implied that Isreal brings salvation to Gentiles by their rejection of Christ. At best, I have suggested that this is part of the means by which the Jews "bring" salvation to Gentiles.

The verse you base your argument upon is no more valid for you argument as Romans 11:25-32 would be valid for me to use to argue that the Gentiles are now in a convenant role with God and are God's representative and it is their vocation to bring salvation to Israel. Such an argument is rediculous!

I do not base my argument solely on the one verse. I have much more to say in support of the assertion that the hardening of Israel (or at least most of Israel) is part of the covenant plan whereby God uses Israel in the plan to bring salvation to the world.

 

[Andre]

I have been asserting that God has used the nation of Israel as a central part of his plan to bring salvation to the whole world. This is, I suggest, what Romans 9 to 11 is all about. In these chapters, Paul argues that despite their sorry state of disbelief, God is actually using the "apostasy" of most Jews as part of his grand covenant plan with the nation of Israel.

This post advances this thesis by specifically arguing that the vessels of desctruction in the potter metaphor of Romans are specifically hardened Jews. (sorry about the length):

The direct and implied questions Paul raises in Romans 9 indicate that the potter metaphor (Romans 9) represents God’s treatment of Israel (and not the predestination of individuals). A doctrine of God’s predestination of individuals does not answer the actual questions raised, whereas an answer where the “vessels of destruction” are hardened Jews (and Jews only) does.

So what are these questions?

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust?

19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

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

My overall thesis is that Paul’s argument in chapter 9 is about how God has hardened most Jews (vessels of destruction) to bring the possibility of salvation to a remnant of Jews and to Gentiles (vessels of glory).

Clearly, the last of the three questions fits perfectly with such a thesis, whereas it seems distinctly incoherent with the thesis that the potter metaphor has the vessels of destruction as all pre-destined lost and the vessels of glory as all pre-destined saved, with the Israel question forgotten. If you take that line, Paul is bouncing all over the place in his argument – he starts the chapter with an Israel focus and then sets the Israel question aside to make a great statement about pre-destination without reference to ethnicity, and then returns to the Israel question in verses 30 and following – a strange way to construct an argument indeed.

But let’s look at the first two questions. I politely suggests a serious problem of method in how such questions are generally seen. I suggest that readers typically come to these questions with a prior commitment to see them as questions about the election of individuals to heaven and hell. The proper approach is to see the progression of Paul’s argument – let Paul tell us what these questions are about.

It is indeed true that the questions of verse 14 and 19 can be seen as questions about whether it is “fair” for God to pre-destine some to hell. However, unless one brings bias to these questions, there is equal possibility that they are questions about whether God has been fair in electing the nation of Israel to be hardened. So which alternative does the context support?



The chapter begins with an expression of despair about Israel. Paul laments the sad state of his Jewish kinsmen:

who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and (the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5whose are (L)the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, (O)God (P)blessed forever. Amen. 6But it is not as though the word of God has failed…

The implied question through the reference to the word of God is this: “Has God failed to live up to His promises to national Israel, given that their present rejection of Jesus places them outside the new covenant family?”. This is clearly a question about Israel - Paul is observing that despite the many promises made to the Jewish nation, they largely sit outside the covenant family.

Note that the questions of verses 14 and 19 can been seen as re-formulation of precisely this question, expressed in the context of examples about God making choices, and leading back to a conclusion about the Israel problem (remember none of the listed examples are examples of election to an eternal fate). On such a view, the basic template of what Paul is doing is this:

1. Introduce the problem – the sad state of Israel;

2. Point out that all these promises were made to Israel, literally begging the reader to ask: “Has God been unfair to Israel?”

3. Give some examples of God making choices (Jacob, Esau, Pharaoh) to illustrate that God has the right to make the choices He makes even if they do not seem fair.

4. Having established (through these examples) that God has a right to make choices, return to the Israel problem and assert, through the potter metaphor, that God has the right to do what He wants with Israel, and explaining how the hardening of Israel has benefited the world.

Now, how would a potter metaphor addressing individual election, with no Israel specificity whatsoever, be any kind of answer to the Israel problem, the problem that Paul has actually raised, even though, mysteriously, many readers seem to think the question is one of personal pre-destination (in general). On the other hand, if the vessels of destruction is unbelieving Israel, the answer can be seen to be “God can do whatever He wants with national Israel, just like the potter has the right to mold a pot as he sees fit”. In this respect, a point that is often missed is that every single Old Testament use of the potter metaphors is specifically about God’s treatment of Israel.

In conclusion, the view that the vessels of destruction are hardened Jews, and Jews only, is a perfectly coherent assertion given the questions and concerns that Paul has actually put on the table – questions and concerns about the sad state of Israel. A conclusion that the vessels are the pre-destined lost – whether Jew or Gentile – is entirely irrelevant to such questions. Unless we assume that Paul has lost control of his argument, the standard “pre-destination of individuals” interpretation of the potter metaphor is thrown into great doubt.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I do not base my argument solely on the one verse. I have much more to say in support of the assertion that the hardening of Israel (or at least most of Israel) is part of the covenant plan whereby God uses Israel in the plan to bring salvation to the world.

Quite the contrary, my post was in response to your challenge that I have never responded to this text as proof of your position.

Well, I have responded to it and it does not prove your position. In fact is says nothing more about Israel bring salvation to the Gentiles than Romans 11:25-32 says about the gentiles bringing salvation to Israel.

You have not yet provided one singel text that will stand the test of context to prove your theory - not one text.

 

[Andre]

You have not yet provided one singel text that will stand the test of context to prove your theory - not one text.

The verse I provided from Romans 11 makes the case that, indeed, the "transgression" of the Jew is causally connected to the salvation of the Gentile. So already we know that, apart from anything else, what has Israel has done -transgressed - has played a role in bringing salvation to Gentiles:

because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles ...

What remians to be shown, and will indeed be shown, is that this "transgression" of the Jew is indeed something God planned to happen to Israel in the course of her covenant relationship with God.

What has Paul said back in chapter 9?:

"Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Now look, again, at Romans 11:12:

But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!

In the Romans 11 text. "their" clearly refers to the unbelieving Jews (check the context).

Now I have been arguing that Paul intends us to understand that the unbelieving Jews are the vessels fitted for destruction (this case has been made in post 71). I suggest the Romans 11 text, rhetorically part of a single argument about Israel spanning chapters 9 to 11, strongly endorses this position. In Romans 11, we have the "transgression" of the unbelieving Jew meaning riches for the word. And in Romans 9, we have this exact same pattern: the vessels of destruction bring mercy and riches to "true Israel" (comprised of both Jew and Gentile).

Paul is not doing this by accident. Romans 9 and 11 are part of a single argument. So the "vessels fitted for destruction" must be unbelieving Jews. Otherwise the parallels between Romans 9 and 11 are a massive co-incidence and Paul is a horribly misleading and incompetent writer.

What has been established in this and my preceding arguments:

1. God told Abraham that the nation of Israel would bless the nations". This is part of the covenant that God made with the nation of Israel through Abraham (Genesis)

2. The "transgression" of the Jew has indeed had salvific implications for the Gentile world (Romans 11);

3. This transgression is something that God planned would happen Jews. (Romans 9)

The case is therefore made: God has used the nation of Israel to bless the world by hardening them so that salvation would be brought to the world. And this is part of the "covenant" plan.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The verse I provided from Romans 11 makes the case that, indeed, the "transgression" of the Jew is causally connected to the salvation of the Gentile. So already we know that, apart from anything else, what has Israel has done -transgressed - has played a role in bringing salvation to Gentiles:

because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles ...

What remians to be shown, and will indeed be shown, is that this "transgression" of the Jew is indeed something God planned to happen to Israel in the course of her covenant relationship with God.

Again, there is absolutely no basis for your use of this passage in Romans 11:12 any more than there is for Romans 11;25-32 to prove the same thing in reverse that the Gentiles were active in the salvation of Israel.

What has Paul said back in chapter 9?:

"Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Look at verse 24!! This analogy has to do with INDIVIDUAL calling of "children of promise" from out of Israel and Gentiles. Romans 9:6-7 explicitly tells you that not all of Abraham's decendents are "the children of promise" as it distinguishes between his children "after the flesh" versus "the children of promise. Salvation comes only to "the children of promise" (Rom. 4:16) and they are found within the nation of Israel as well as in the Gentile nations. From Abraham to the point in time God returns to Israel after casting them away and going to the Gentiles, God has been saving a "remnant" from both Israel and the gentile world. This "remnant" from both the nations and Israel are "the children of promise."

When God was working primarily within Israel the vast majority of "the children of promise" were being saved out of Israel (Rom. 11:1-4). However, when God rejects Israel and turns to the Gentiles the vast majority of "the children of promise" are now being saved out of the Gentile nations. But when the full number of "the children of promise" have been called out of the Gentile nations (Rom. 11:25), God will return to Israel and there will be a work of salvation that concludes God's promise to Abraham in regard to national Israel that far exceeds what God has ever done - All Israel, as a nation shall be saved (Rom.11:26-32). This consummates the salvation of all "the children of promise" with the salvation of "all Israel" at His second advent.

Now I have been arguing that Paul intends us to understand that the unbelieving Jews are the vessels fitted for destruction (this case has been made in post 71). I suggest the Romans 11 text, rhetorically part of a single argument about Israel spanning chapters 9 to 11, strongly endorses this position. In Romans 11, we have the "transgression" of the unbelieving Jew meaning riches for the word. And in Romans 9, we have this exact same pattern: the vessels of destruction bring mercy and riches to "true Israel" (comprised of both Jew and Gentile).

The context in both Romans 9 and 11 has in view ONLY the salvation of "the children of promise"

Rom. 9:6 ¶ Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed...........24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Rom. 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.......
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

The whole basis of your argument is misinterpretation of scripture. Paul's argument in both Romans 9 and 11 is that ONLY "the children of promise" out of Israel and the Nations will be saved. That not all Israelites born of Abraham are the "children of promise" but are children of the flesh and not objects of this promise to Abraham. The same is true of the Nations. God has some "children of promise" among the Nations and the rejection of Christ by National Israel is God's turning point to the Gentiles to call out "the children of promise" out of the Gentile nations:


Rom. 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?[/COLOR]

And when the "fullness of the gentiles be come in" or all "the children of promise" among the Gentiles are saved then the nations will reject Christ as did Israel. At their rejection of Christ, he returns to save the remaining "children of promise" among the Jews that is far greater than any other act of salvation in Jewish history so that "ALL ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED" at his second advent (Rom. 11:26-31).

The grafting in and breaking off have nothing to do with the "REMNANT" but with NATIONS (nation of Israel versus Gentile nations) and while there is an openess to the gospel among the Gentile Nations, God is calling out (Rom. 9:24) the promised children or the "remnant according to election" among the Gentile Nations. When Gentile nations reject Christ (all the children of promise have been called out) - Rom. 11:25 - then Christ will graft back in "again" the nation of Israel but this time "ALL ISRAEL" will be saved as "ALL ISRAEL" at the point of His return will be the final "remnant according to the election of grace" and conclude God's promise to Abraham concerning "the promised children."

The fact that they are grafted back in "AGAIN" demonstrates he is not taling about INDIVIDUALS but rather about NATIONS and in particular the nation of Israel. Those cut off are NATIONS not Individuals as the "remnant according to the election of grace" are NEVER cut off and if they were then this would teach that individuals cut off before God grafted in the gentile olive tree would live through the gentile period and be "grafted back in again" as what is cut off is grafted back "again." Romans 11:5 deals with Individual salvation where as the "trees' represent NATIONAL priviledges as God's sphere of redemptive work in calling out "the children of promise" or 'the remnant according to election of grace."

 

[Andre]

Again, there is absolutely no basis for your use of this passage in Romans 11:12 any more than there is for Romans 11;25-32 to prove the same thing in reverse that the Gentiles were active in the salvation of Israel.

Well, I happen to believe that "Israel" in Romans 11:25-32 is not a reference to the nation of Israel, but is actually a reference to the Jew + Gentile church. But that is a long, complex argument that I will not get into now. But, if I am right that Paul is not really talkinng about Israel the nation in 11:25-32, then your criticism no longer works.

Besides, the text says what it says and I suggest you are simply denying the plain implication of the text.

When Paul writes this:

Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles

....there really is no wiggle room. The transgression of the Jew is being causally connected to the salvation of the Gentile.

If you deny this, and it seems that you are, you are going down a path where I cannot follow. When a person denies the clear content of an english sentence, there is not much I can say at that point.

And if, repeat, you are denying that the transgression of the Jew is causally connected to the salvation of the Gentile, you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with Paul.

 

[Andre]

Look at verse 24!! This analogy has to do with INDIVIDUAL calling of "children of promise" from out of Israel and Gentiles.

I never posted anything that suggested otherwise. My point was that the vessels of destructions are specifically hardened Jews.

Romans 9:6-7 explicitly tells you that not all of Abraham's decendents are "the children of promise" as it distinguishes between his children "after the flesh" versus "the children of promise.

I totally agree. But again, this does no damage to my main point.

When God was working primarily within Israel the vast majority of "the children of promise" were being saved out of Israel (Rom. 11:1-4). However, when God rejects Israel and turns to the Gentiles the vast majority of "the children of promise" are now being saved out of the Gentile nations.

I will at least provisionally agree with this. But again, whether you are exactly correct in your view here is not relevant to the point that I am establishing - that God has indeed hardened Jews, that these Jews are the vessels of destruction, and that this is causally connected to the salvation of Gentiles (as well as some Jews, of course).

 

[Andre]

But when the full number of "the children of promise" have been called out of the Gentile nations (Rom. 11:25), God will return to Israel and there will be a work of salvation that concludes God's promise to Abraham in regard to national Israel that far exceeds what God has ever done - All Israel, as a nation shall be saved (Rom.11:26-32). This consummates the salvation of all "the children of promise" with the salvation of "all Israel" at His second advent.

I think you are mistaken, even though probably most people believe this.

I think that when Paul writes "all Israel shall be saved" (Romans 11:26), he is talking about the church as constituted by Jews and Gentiles and not the nation of Israel. Of course, to make this claim one first needs to make the case that Paul sees the Jew + Gentile church as a “true” Israel. Once the reality of this “true” Israel category is established, one then needs to make the further case that the “Israel” in “all Israel will be saved” is, in fact, this true Israel.

The case that Paul sees the Jew + Gentile family of faith as a “true” Israel is powerful and extensive and will only be provided here in very high level form.

Early on in Romans (chapter 4), Paul clearly identifies a "second" Israel - a people comprised of both Jews and Gentiles

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—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.

He maintains this category of "true Israel" and uses it at other times. In Romans 9, we have both Israels in tight relation - Paul laments over the state of national Israel and yet sees them as vessels fitted for destruction for the benefit of "true" Israel (the vessels of mercy). So there is no doubt that Paul has two "Israels" in his mind. This makes it at least plausible that the Israel in "all Israel shall be saved" is, in fact, not national Israel but rather "true" Israel;

The word "so" as in "so all Israel shall be saved" is misleading when read in English. We often use the word "so" to mean "then" (example: “The Red Sox won the world series and so they get a parade”). "So" can also mean "in this manner" or "thusly". Therefore it is entirely reasonable to conclude that when Paul writes this:

I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved,…

…..he really intends to communicate the following:

"In this manner - through the blinding of national Israel (or parts of it) and the ingathering of the Gentiles - true Israel (made up of Jews and Gentiles) will be saved."

And this reading of what Paul is saying meshes well with the overall argument he is mounting in Romans 9 to 11. In chapter 9, Paul describes how God, like the potter with his clay pot, has the right to mould national Israel to be a vessel of wrath for the sake of the “true” Israel, a group containing both Jew and Gentile. He continues this theme in chapter 11, hammering home the notion that the hardening of the Jew has had salvific effect.

Now I am aware that Paul is saying that although the Jews are hardened in Paul’s own time (and I agree with this), there will come a time in the future when they will all flock back in. This has some plausibility at a superficial level – what better “compensation” could there be except for God to “unharden” the nation in the future, resulting in mass salvation of Jews?

One of the problems with such a position is, of course, that it leverages the mistake of thinking that “and so all Israel will be saved” means “and then all Israel will be saved”. This is an easy error to make since, in English, “so” can have this “then” connotation as already described. But the material was not written in English, it was written in Greek. And the Greek word translated as “so” can also mean “in this way”.

And, of course, an “in this way” rendering is entirely consistent with the assertion that “all Israel” denotes the church since, as already shown, it is a short hand way of summarizing what chapters 9 through 11 have been all about – how the hardening of Jews has had salvific effect for the church. So Paul can coherently write “in this way, that is by the hardening of the Jews, the church is saved”. Of course, the “in this way” reading of “so” simply does not work with the reading where God has hardened the Jew in the time of Paul and will then save them en masse.

And apart from all this we have verse 23:

And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again

How confused of a writer would Paul have to be to make this conditional statement, clearly introducing the possibility that they won’t be grafted back in and then, only a sentence or two later, insist that they will. That would be a very confusing and misleading way of putting things. Paul is not really that kind of a writer.

 

[Andre]

The context in both Romans 9 and 11 has in view ONLY the salvation of "the children of promise"

Rom. 9:6 ¶ Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed...........24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

I have not the slightest understanding of why you think I would deny this and / or why this truth causes any trouble for my argument.

Unless, perhaps, I have been less than clear that I understand that the "children of promise" are both Jew and Gentile.

Well let me state for the record - yes they are indeed both Jew and Gentile.

The whole basis of your argument is misinterpretation of scripture.

You keep posting this kind of statement, yet you have no, in any substantive sense, demonstrated any error in my arguments. Do you not think you need to show how I have misintepreted scripture?

Paul's argument in both Romans 9 and 11 is that ONLY "the children of promise" out of Israel and the Nations will be saved.

Agree. Why is this a problem for my position and my supporting argument?

The same is true of the Nations. God has some "children of promise" among the Nations and the rejection of Christ by National Israel is God's turning point to the Gentiles to call out "the children of promise" out of the Gentile nations:

I am not sure what form of "pre-destination" you are embracing here. But unless you can explain how your view here undermines my overall argument that God has, in accordance with the covenant, hardened some Jews to bring salvation to the whole world, I am not sure it is worth getting into this.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Romans 11:12 is no more causative for salvation going to the Gentiles as Romans 11:25 is causative for salvation returning to Israel as Romans 11:23-25 is about salvation returning to that which was "cut off" or the nation of Israel.

Rom. 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

The warning in verse 25 is to GENTILES. The warning is in connection with what Paul says that God can do with Israel in verses 23-24. What God cut off was NATIONAL ISRAEL and therefore what God is able to graft in "AGAIN" is exactly what God cut off in the first place - national Israel. You cannot graft in "again" something that was never in and thus cut off beforehand. THE REMNANT IS NEVER CUT OFF - REMNANT EQUALS THE CHILDREN OF PROMISE REGARDLESS OF WHAT SPHERE OF ETHNICITY GOD IS REDEEMING THEM OUT OF - WHETHER IT IS NATIONAL ISRAEL AS IN ROMANS 11:1-4 OR GENTILE NATIONS AS IN ROMANS 11:25.

The words "in part" identify what has been cut off - Isreal as a nation but does not deny that God is still saving a remnant among the Jews even though Israel as a nation is cut off.

Rom. 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded

Election obtained the remnant children of promise while Israel as a nation is cut off TEMPORARILY


Rom. 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid:

They have only stumbled but they have not fallen out of God's plan of salvation. Their stumbling is only temporary "UNTIL" God has called out His promised children from among the Gentiles:

Rom. 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.


However, your interpretation says they have stumbled to the point of a complete fall. You agree it is Israel as a NATION that is cut off but you deny what is cut off will be grafted back "AGAIN" when the fullness of the Gentile promised children come in.

You make a disconnect between Romans 11:23-25 and Romans 11:26-32. You insert into verse 26 something that NEVER WAS CUT OFF in verses 7-25 and deny any identification in verses 26-28 of what is to be grafted back in "AGAIN."

Rom. 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.

The antecedent for the pronoun "they" in verse 28 is "all Israel" in verse 26. If "all Israel" is all the saved as you insist then how are "they" or "ALL ISRAEL" meaning "ALL THE SAVED" now "enemies for YOUR sakes"???? Your interpretation would have "YOUR" the gentile believers something different than "all the saved" or "all Israel."

However, if "all Israel" refers to that which was cut off in verses 23-24 which is to be regrafted in grafted in "again" and the time of that cutting off continues only "until" all the promised children are called out of the Gentile nations in Romans 11:25 upon which time "THEY" will be grafted in "again" so that "ALL ISRAEL" shall be saved at His return, then "THEY" are now during this present time of being cut off are enemies for "YOUR SAKES" because that is how the gospel came to the Gentiles but if they are to be grafted in again and saved, then "TOUCHING ELECTION" they are beloved for the Father's sake as their fall is only temporary.

Well, I happen to believe that "Israel" in Romans 11:25-32 is not a reference to the nation of Israel, but is actually a reference to the Jew + Gentile church. But that is a long, complex argument that I will not get into now. But, if I am right that Paul is not really talkinng about Israel the nation in 11:25-32, then your criticism no longer works.

Besides, the text says what it says and I suggest you are simply denying the plain implication of the text.

When Paul writes this:

Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles

....there really is no wiggle room. The transgression of the Jew is being causally connected to the salvation of the Gentile.

If you deny this, and it seems that you are, you are going down a path where I cannot follow. When a person denies the clear content of an english sentence, there is not much I can say at that point.

And if, repeat, you are denying that the transgression of the Jew is causally connected to the salvation of the Gentile, you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with Paul.

 

[Dr. Walter]

[/U][/B][/COLOR][/COLOR]
I have not the slightest understanding of why you think I would deny this and / or why this truth causes any trouble for my argument.

Unless, perhaps, I have been less than clear that I understand that the "children of promise" are both Jew and Gentile.

Well let me state for the record - yes they are indeed both Jew and Gentile.

Because Romans 9:20-24 is dealing with "the children of the promise" in contrast to the "children after the flesh" [lost] rather than Jews versus gentiles.

Romans 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Grammatically "even us" has for its antecedent "the vessels of mercy" who are called out of Israel and the nations. Therefore, the vessels of fitted to wrath can only refer to the LOST INDIVIDUALS from both Israel and the nations.

Hence, you are wrong about the vessels of wrath being Israel and the vessels of mercy being gentiles as verse 24 denies that interpretation as Paul demands that the vessels of mercy are the called or saved which is inclusive of both Jews and gentiles and therefore the vessels fitted to wrath must also be composed of Jews and gentiles who are LOST or "chidren after the flesh."