I have decided to write this after my latest post about the Israel/Palestinian conflict led to a conversation that probably needs me to fill out some of my theological/biblical studies thoughts a little more. This is a very long article (over 4500 words) so feel free to not bother reading it if this stuff doesn’t interest you. If it is something you are interested in, happy reading.
The purpose of the Humanitarian Chronicle is not to have long drawn out discussions based in biblical studies and theology, but clearly the conversation was heading in that direction so I refrained from offering too many thoughts on the issues that were presenting themselves.
I have decided to respond accordingly because I’m sure this will raise itself each time the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is discussed wherever there is a Christian audience. I will not be entering a lengthy discussion following this post. This has been written so others can simply read my position and understand one of the layers of thinking that exist when I approach the issues in the conflict and so if questions about my thoughts on the theological, biblical matters relating to Israel are raised in future, there will be a place to point people.
In the discussion in the last article there was a comment quoting Romans 11:23-25 and 11:29-32
23 And if they (the Jewish people) do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
24 After all, if you (the Gentiles) were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!
25 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.
————
29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.
30 Just as you (the Gentiles) who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience,
31 so they (the Jewish people) too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you.
32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
There is a significant verse that has been left out in that quotation, one that many commentators believe to be the climax of the argument Paul begins in Chapter 9 of the letter and closes off at the end of chapter 11 – an argument that of course also serves the wider purpose of the letter.
The verse in question is verse 26. I find it strange that it has been left out as at first glance it is seemingly the strongest part of the passage in regards to serving the point the commenter was trying to make. Verse 26a states “and so (or more accurately – “and in this way”) all Israel will be saved.”
The point of the commenter was as follows:
As clearly stated, God has allowed a partial, temporary hardening of Israel until God’s non-Jewish people have been brought to Him. Paul does not say that the tree was replaced, nor even that the branches that were broken off were replaced by wild ones. And even if one might consider it that way, Paul says: “All right, but do not be arrogant!” For just as God has brought you to himself by grace, God can and will bring the Jewish people back to himself by grace at the appointed time. For all who believe in Him, Jews or non-Jews, Jesus stated: “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit– fruit that will last” (John 15:16) Let us not forget that God clearly chose the Jewish people first. For Jews above all, “God’s gifts and calling are irrevocable.” (Romans 11:29)
Which was then followed by a criticism of my thoughts and this:
The Jews will return from the four corners (north, south, east west) of the earth in two phases: the first phase is the return in unbelief. The second phase is the return as believers. The first return has only taken place since the twentieth century. The full restoration of Israel to its land with full peace and security will require the return of the Messiah.
The comment amounts to a short concise summation of the dispensational position that lends uncritical support to the modern state of Israel. It sees the forming of the nation state of Israel (via blood) in the late 40′s as this initial “return in unbelief” and awaits a future mass conversion of Israel upon the return of Jesus sometime in the future – a future event they often believe to be close because of the current tensions in the Middle East and the hostilities that exist towards the modern state of Israel, a people group they believe to be God’s chosen.
For the record, it’s a view I used to hold, funnily enough until I actually spent some time digging into Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11; a passage that I had never really given much time and part of which has been used here to rebut my position. Obviously I feel a certain sense of irony in it.
I must say from the outset that I see the position held that there will be a mass conversion of ethnic Israel (I’ll explain why I use the qualifier “ethnic” soon) upon the return of the Messiah as a contradiction of Paul’s main argument – that salvation is found through the saving act of Christ that at the time of his writing, had already occurred. To argue for a second salvific event contradicts Paul’s high view of the cross and resurrection.
One of the comments that I made related to my view that what we see in the Old Testament in terms of nation, temple, priesthood, sacrifice etc were shadows of larger realities. This led to some questions about what I meant. Allow me to delve into that and in so doing, offer an explanation of how I view the passage quoted from Romans and the idea that “all Israel will be saved.”
To the atheists who read here, I know this will seem like a bunch of nonsense to you (and I’m fine with that), but you may be interested in it from the angle of examining the thoughts of one of the most influential thinkers in history, Paul and how he integrated his Jewish context and the surrounding understandings into a much wider thought. It’s interesting whether you are a “believer” or not.
In Romans 9-11, Paul shows his masterful approach to redefining, or more accurately, highlighting the wider reality of concepts unique to Jewish thought in such a way that all of the pillars of Jewish monotheistic belief were no longer only relevant to the ethnic Jew, but to the whole world through the lens of Christ. In Romans 9-11 he draws on the prophetic tradition of the Old Testament to do so.
In this regard, in Romans 9-11 he brilliantly paints a wider reality to the identity of Israel itself and its citizens, taking it well beyond a matter of ethnicity.
It is worth noting that the same thing happens in the New Testament in relation to Jerusalem, the Temple, the sacrificial system and the priesthood. What were limited concepts in the Old Testament take on a much bigger reality in the New, but a reality that does not discard or “replace” the foundation.
Paul introduces us to a bigger reality in regards to the nation and citizenship of Israel very early on in the letter to the church in Rome:
For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart-it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person recieves praise not from others but from God. Romans 2:28-29
It then continues in Chapter 3, reminding us of the faithfulness of God in relation to ethnic Jews (remember, this is a letter to Gentiles/non-Jews), a tension that Paul deals with in the argument of chapters 9-11 to ward off any boasting or ill sentiment towards ethnic Jews on the part of Gentile believers.
What we’re seeing right through Romans is the argument for the breadth of God’s salvation, something that goes well beyond ethnicity and includes all. This is clearly evidenced in chapter 3. Paul is laying out the argument that there is no favouritism in God’s eyes.
In chapter 4, Paul continues his argument, widening the citizenship of the holy nation by linking all back to Abraham. He argues that Abraham’s descendants are not simply defined by ethnicity and their bloodline, but through the commonality of faith.
To further our specific discussion (and to try and hold this back from turning into a small book) we then follow the theme of Abraham, citizenship and the nation of Israel to Romans 9 where we meet Paul’s tension head-on. He lives in a tension because he sees his kinsfolk, those believed to be chosen by God, rejecting what he believes to be the central figure of God’s salvation, the Messiah, Jesus. In the face of that, he knows that God is patient, but he has also built an argument that does not allow for favouritism and boasting. Two problems are in play here if there is no explanation, God has failed or been unfaithful or there must be another act of salvation, an idea contrary to the centrality of the cross and resurrection in Paul’s thought. For Paul to remain consistent, there has to be something else to his thought… and there is.
He begins in 9:4-5:
They are Israelites and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh (ethnicity/bloodlines) come the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever, Amen.
He then carries on in a way that widens the reality of Israel in one sense and narrows it in another. His next bit deals with the tension in his discussion:
9:6-8
It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all Israelites (ethnically) truly belong to Israel, and not all of Abraham’s children (ethnically) are his true descendants; but “It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants.
Later in chapter 9, Paul draws on the words of Hosea to further his argument – “those who are not my people I will call ‘my people,…”
The idea of a larger Israel with a broader citizenship that does not include some ethnic Israelites whom Paul defines as not being truly of Israel, but does include all those who are defined as Jews inwardly (Rom 2:28-29) is seen again in another of his letters – Galatians 6:16 – where he reflects the discussion of circumcision prior to this verse and ends with “Peace be upon them, and mercy and upon the Israel of God.”
With this in mind we are clearly faced with Paul interchanging the use of the term ‘Israel’ between two different groups. He used the term to describe that which most people recognize as being Israel – the ethnic nation, but his greater point is the larger Israel, that which he traces back to Abraham and carries through to both Jew and Gentile – “the Israel of God”. In Paul’s argument, the ethnic Israel contains a remnant of “true” Israelites that make up part of the Israel of God and it always will, but the Israel of God contains people from all ethnic nations – that Israel is the culmination of the covenant made to Abraham in Genesis 17. Paul has widened the scope of the covenant beyond the way it was traditionally interpreted and by talking of circumcision, heirs of Abraham etc etc, he has taken it beyond the traditional understanding of ethnicity and made it much much bigger.
It’s not a replacement where the Church has replaced Israel (as defined in Replacement Theology and that is why I could not rightly be described as affirming Replacement thought), instead it is a widening of the understanding of the covenant made to Abraham and those who are descendants of that covenant. It is Paul showing that there is no room for boasting amongst either ethnic Jew or Gentile because the ethnic Jew must recognize the Gentile’s place in the Israel of God and the Gentile must recognize the ethnic Jews place as the foundation of that line, the line that ethnically produced the Messiah.
From this, we then come to the climax of Paul’s argument in Romans 11:25-26 with the 5 words that have spawned some very large ideas indeed, including the two stage return of ethnic Israel to the land – “All Israel will be saved”. I wonder if Paul had any inkling of the controversy those 5 words would create or the way they would be extrapolated out and the scenarios that would be postulated according to some interpretations (those of dispensationalism) in the latter half of the 19th century, throughout the 20th and into the 21st.
Did he have any idea when he wrote those words that 2000 years later people would use them to justify, support and help formulate a Zionist movement that spawned a secular military state in a place that was once his homeland? Did he have any idea that such a secular, military state would arrest and treat forcefully Jesus followers who protested against their actions? When he wrote those 5 words, did he know that they would be used to help support the shedding of blood that enabled the formation of the modern state of Israel? When he wrote those 5 words, did he know that many Christians would shout down any prophetic voice that seeks to criticize that military state and would sometimes use those words to do so? Did he envisage the conflict that would occur between Arab and Ethnic Jew for the last 60 years of our lifetime, a conflict that would spill out into the rest of the world and did he ever imagine that those 5 words would be used by Christians as the reason to support, uncritically, one side of that conflict whilst doing their utmost to lay the blame for the violence solely at the feet of the other? I think not.
In Romans 11:25 I have no doubt that Paul was talking of ethnic Israel, the Israel that included his own kinsfolk in his time who by his earlier definitions, were not counted as being truly of Israel, the Israel of God:
So that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers and sisters (he is speaking to Gentiles), I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.
Before we delve any further (into verse 26 and those 5 words) allow me to say that on this verse I concur with Bishop N.T Wright in his commentary on Romans in the New Interpreter’s Bible commentary series.i He notes that Paul is reflecting on what he has already said in 11:7, that some of ethnic Israel have hardened. He then draws on Romans 2:1-11 to describe what is happening and how such a hardening occurs. He points out that it is seen as something that happens through the forbearance of God, to those who do not accept the gospel. This would be affirmed by Romans 1:24 and 2:5 – it is something that is brought on by the choices of the person/people themselves, not by God effectively pushing people away as some intepretations suggest.
Wright sees the hardening, according to the Jewish tradition as a time when “otherwise immediate judgment is witheld but people do not avail themselves of the chance to repent and believe.” During the time when judgment is postponed either the person comes to their senses and repents; or, according to Wright, they are fitted more fully for the judgment that would ensue.
This understanding seems consistent with the mentions of “hardening” in Romans. This is also consistent with the timeframe offered in Romans 11:25. Part of ethnic Israel has hardened and this will take place until the fullness of the Gentiles and then judgment will occur. What is being offered is a not a sequential series of events that will lead to the complete salvation of whatever group of ethnic Israelites are alive at a certain point in the future as is offered as the understanding by dispensational thought.
Romans 11:26 then acts as the climax of Paul’s whole argument.
For 11:26 the NRSV and NIV the opening of the verse is “And so”. This translation has led many people to read it as a continuation of a sequence of events. Dispensationalism offers the idea that verse 25 shows us a limited time period where ethnic Israel is hardened and in this time Gentile’s are given a chance to come to belief then they would point to verse 26 and say that once this is over, then all of ethnic Israel will be saved.
The translation “And so” can most certainly lead to this misunderstanding, but reading the beginning of verse 26 as adding a sequential event is not accurate. Most commentators point to the verse as most accurately saying “and in this way, all Israel will be saved.” The Complete Jewish Bible reflect it well with the words “and it is in this way that all Israel will be saved.”
Now there is a problem present if we take Paul to be talking about ethnic Israel in verse 26. If this is a special salvation of the whole of ethnic Israel at some special moment in the future, then his whole argument leading up to this point is meaningless and he severely contradicts himself. He has made the argument that God does not play favourites and that salvation is only available through the work achieved by Christ already, not by some special, future salvation event, including the return of the Messiah. He has also clearly demonstrated that not all of ethnic Israel truly is part of the Israel of God, not all are truly descendants of the promises made to Abraham, not all will be saved.
It is my understanding, which is reflected in the commentary of Bishop Wright, that verse 26 is the climax of Paul’s whole argument thus far. He has demonstrated that Jew and Gentile alike are a part of the Israel of God, that all can find salvation through the work of Christ. He has painstakingly made this point, built it, woven it together and dealt with all the tensions present in the discussion and then we hit verse 26. After the whole intricate discussion he emphatically states – “and in this way, all Israel will be saved.” It is my sincere belief that the Israel of verse 26 is the Israel of Galatians 6:16, the Israel that includes both Jew and Gentile. It is a beautiful climax of everything he has said thus far and the juxtaposition between the Israel of verse 25 and the Israel of verse 26 is brilliant.
He is not discounting ethnic Israel, for he has pointed out a remnant from among them, but he has widened the citizenship of God’s kingdom completely.
He drives the breadth of verse 26a home with the rest of the verse and into verse 27 by quoting seamlessly from Isaiah 59:20-21, 27:9, connecting the salvation of God’s Israel to the work of Christ already done on the cross where he bore the sins of the world – not a future event, but the one already undertaken.
Mercy is being shown to all and Paul repeats this through Romans 11:28-32. Through chapter 11 he has shown why the Gentile readers have no room for boasting, because as stated in verse 25 and connecting to verse 26, the salvation of all of the Israel of God is somehow connected to the fact that some ethnic Jews in Paul’s time had rejected the good news.
With all this in mind, I agree with Bishop Wright when he states in his reflections on the chapter:
The second obvious and necessary point is that Paul nowhere gives the slightest indication that ethnic Israel will one day return to their land and set up an independent state, which will in due course become the vehicle of God’s blessing to the world. Of course, in his day kinsfolk were still living in the land and worshiping in the Temple. Most Jews were already in the Diaspora, but many were living in the holy land, and had been for centuries. There was no thought of that awful second exile, of the desolations of 70ce and 135ce, of the banishment to which, in the eyes of many, the creation of the modern state of Israel has provided the answer. But even if there had been, there is nothing in Romans or elsewhere in Paul to give any theological support to the latter notion. The roots of the return-to-the-land theology that has become so extraordinarily popular among some churches in our own day are to be sought in the dispensationalist speculations of the nineteenth century, not in the apostolic writings of the first. As far as Paul is concerned, the promise to Abraham and has family was that they would inherit the world (Rom 4:13), the world would share in the freedom of the glory of God’s children (8:18-27). Any attempt to give a Christian gloss to the Middle Eastern political events of 1947 and thereafter is without exegetical foundation.ii
Further on the issue of the land, it is significant to note that no New Testament writer mentions the promise relating to the land of Canaan/Palestine specifically. It doesn’t seem to register in their thinking. The only way people have drawn any conclusions about the land from the New Testament and been able to relate it to the modern state of Israel is by assuming things and reading things into other vague concepts. Any discussion of things that could be connected to the land are mcuh broader in the New Testament. Why rest with Palestine when the world can be your inheritance instead? That seems to be exactly the direction the writers head in.
A perfect example of this is one of the Beatitudes – Matthew 5:5 “Blessed are the meek for they will inherit the earth.” This is a quotation from Psalm 37:9,11. In the original quotation this is a reference to the geographic location of Palestine/Israel. This is how it would have been understood by any devout Jew, but in the New Testament it becomes a much bigger reality, it has “become an eschatological metaphor for participation in the renewed earth.”iii
Now, since the crux of this discussion was to note what I believe to be the larger reality of Israel being pointed towards in Paul’s argument, allow me to point out some other places where similar things are done to other “pillars” of the Old Testament, but before I do, allow me to note that there are other places where language and phrases once used towards ethnic Israel are often used to refer to the entire body of believers in Christ. To a first century reader this would have been of utmost significance and to the deeply Jewish religious follower who did not believe Jesus to be who these writers were saying he was, it would have been entirely insulting as they would have read such shifts in the use of these phrases as reference to the body of believers being Israel.
In the following verses, which I will only note rather than explain as it would take a thesis to draw this out properly, some key pillars of the Old Testament are taken beyond their temporal existence and painted as much bigger than their physicality:
Jerusalem (the holy city)
Gal 4:25
Heb 12:22
Rev 21 (note the metaphor of a bride being used in this verse to denote the New Jerusalem. For readers familiar with the symbolism used to describe the Church it is worth pondering whether the same metaphor being used is simply an accident or deliberate and if deliberate, what was John trying to convey? Is the city a metaphor pointing towards the body of believers or is it about something else? Either way, it is clearly not about a physical city restored in a physical place by human hands)
Temple (the dwelling place of God)
John 2:21 (the temple is Jesus himself)
1 Cor 3:16 (The temple is the body of believers)
Eph 2:21 (the body of believers is being built into a temple, the dwelling place of God)
Rev 21:22 (the temple for the new Jerusalem will be God himself, not a physical building)
Priesthood
1 Peter 2:5 (all believers are part of the priesthood. This was an idea once designated to ethnic Israel, now given to the Israel of God. This would have been highly insulting to the devout Jew and it is significant to note that is is Peter saying it)
Rev 20:6 (Martyrs)
We can also list countless verses that refer to Jesus becoming the High Priest and being the sacrificial lamb who takes on the sins of the world. Hebrews acts as a good commentary on these. Hebrews also discusses the covenant shifts and in Hebrews 8:13 points to covenants being made obsolete and something new being put in place.
With all this in mind, it is my emphatic belief that there is no reason for any Christian to unquestioningly support the modern, secular, military state of Israel for any theological reasons that may place undue significance on the current people group or the land.
It should be our aim, as it should with any people group or state, to offer honest critique where necessary and support where necessary. We should always seek “to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with our God.” (Micah 6:8) We should uphold and seek the good for all who are hurt by the current tragedy that is the Israel/Palestinian conflict, a conflict that has raged for the last 60 years and left many people striken by the consequences of that conflict. As Paul threw the gates of God’s grace and mercy open to people of all ethnicity, so should we.
i. N.T Wright, The New Interpreters Bible – Volume X – Romans (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995) p687-691
ii. N.T Wright, The New Interpreters Bible – Volume X – Romans (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995) p698
iii. M. Eugene Boring, The New Interpreters Bible – Volume VIII – Matthew (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995) p179
Related posts:
Thanks for taking the time and effort to write this Frank. It frightens me that many Christians really do believe that the violence between Israel and Palestine is somehow sanctioned by God and have to say I was surprised you used to hold that view. Although in saying that I am also afraid of how easily my own understandings can/could/have been swayed when bible interpretations are presented as facts endorsed by God, religious leaders and the majority.
I think it depends whether people interpret the bible with Jesus’ teachings as a firm, unchangeable God-given base or whether they came at it seeking to justify some action of mankinds.
Nice. In terms of Romans being a word on point for its original hearers, the whole span of 1-11 lays the foundation for the more pragmatic assertions from Paul as to how the Roman Christians are to live. In a sense, setting the foundation for answering the question: how, do Torah-observant Christian Jews and nonobservant Gentiles get along together as the one people of God?” For sure it gives Paul the chance to traverse/rehearse some magnificent themes theologicially, but ultimately Paul is doing that to address some fundamental differences in approaching daily life in pagan Rome. So he is in need of a foundation which says in essence, neither group is superior to the other – the Jews are not superior to the Gentiles because they are the chosen people and the Gentiles are not superior to the Jews because they at least have accepted the gospel. Just affirming that the last chunk of Romans supports your comments on the middle chunk!
Hi Frank
Thank you very much for the above. I appreciate your time in putting this forward and I am happy to say that I agree with a large proportion of what you have stated. Could you explain a bit more about this statement:-
“I must say from the outset that I see the position held that there will be a mass conversion of ethnic Israel (I’ll explain why I use the qualifier “ethnic” soon) upon the return of the Messiah as a contradiction of Paul’s main argument – that salvation is found through the saving act of Christ that at the time of his writing, had already occurred. To argue for a second salvific event contradicts Paul’s high view of the cross and resurrection.”
I did not understand that bit.
Peter,
Thank you for your gracious response. I will do my utmost to do you the courtesy of offering a decent reply next week to explain my thoughts. This evening I will be doing my best to relax and tomorrow’s work day will be full, then I am off to Soul Survivor Festival tomorrow evening to deliver a radio show from there on Friday afternoon and a seminar on Saturday morning. Next week will be much easier to have a chat about that paragraph.
I hope that’s ok.
Frank
You sound a very busy person, and I appreciate your time.
Do you see yourself as being grafted into believing Israel? If so, could you also in your reply put abit about what you see the benefits are in this ingrafting.
Thanks
Peter,
I’ll take some time now to offer some quick answers to your questions.
So firstly, the bit you didn’t understand. I apologize if I did not make myself clear enough.
Focusing on the latter part of Romans 11, from what I understand, the Dispensationalist position holds that Romans 1:25-27 offers a chronological series of events that amounts to the salvation of ethnic Israel (there seem to be some disagreements as to whether this means all Israelites throughout time or just a specific people group alive at some point in the future – that in itself presents some issues).
The series of events seems to amount to:
1) A hardening of ethnic Israel
2) The salvation of a determined amount of Gentiles
3) The return of Christ
4) The salvation of “all” of ethnic Israel (whatever “all” means if referring to ethnic Israel).
If we are to understand the passage in this manner, then we have to read verse 26b and verse 27 as being a future event rather than as a reference to the work already done by Christ through the cross and resurrection.
There is a problem with doing that from the way I see it. Verse 27 contains an act of salvation signaled in the words “when I take away their sins” that is connected to Christ (the deliverer).
The problem we have is that if Paul, by quoting Isaiah, is not referring to the work already done, then he is introducing a second event of salvation necessary for the perceived future salvation of ethnic Israel. My assertion is that this would contradict his all encompassing view of the cross and resurrection.
In response to your second question, I think citizenship of God’s kingdom has been thrown wide open to all ethnic groups and the benefits are – to put it most concisely – “everything”.
Hopefully that helps a little. I don’t have time for much more, though I can imagine you have a lot more questions.
During the holidays, I managed to catch-up with some much overdue reading.
One of the books I got through, was ‘Have a Nice Doomsday’ by Nicholas Guyatt.
What an interesting & provocative read it was too.
University of York Professor Nicholas Guyatt investigates why American fundamentalist Christians are obsessed with the end of the world bull, by interviewing the key authors who make millions peddling ‘rapture in your lifetime’.
His synopsis throws light on why the U.S ‘bible-belt’ throws it’s support behind Israel, a subject of current significance given the developments in Palestine.
Rather than their support originating as part of some benevolence towards the Jewish people fighting the greater evil of Islam, there is another darker more basic tenant.
That is: a Biblically inspired ‘good versus evil’ apocalypse can only occur whilst Israel is in existence.
Of course every American evangelical prophesier of doom, have their own spin on how this end of times will unfold, but there is one common thread.
Israel is the key in the events, that are about to happen.
Gods literalist script as revealed in the passages of Revelation and Ezekiel are unfolding, and there’s nothing wrong nudging them to their inevitable conclusion – even if it means the extermination of 75 per cent of the planets population in the process.
These key-figures peddling doom and redemption, propose such things as:
- Demolishing the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, Islam’s third holiest site, and rebuilding on it’s site the original Jewish temple.
- Joint U.S and Israeli pre-emptive nuclear strike on Tehran.
- Environmental issues are a sure positive sign the end is near.
They believe all Jews are ‘expendable’ and will be converted to Christianity or perish in the apocalyptos.
Only those who are Christians (past and present) will be spirited away.
Perturbing of all for those who share the planet with these powerful fundamentalists and their allies in The White House, is the fact there’s around 50 million of them, and from their perspective a ‘war to end all wars’ is something to welcome, and a reassurance their faith will triumph at the expense of everyone else.
It’s a bloody worry.
Give it a read.
Cheers.
Paul.
PART ONE
Frank,
I will begin by addressing assumptions made regarding my views as being dispensationlist.
1.I do not lend “…uncritical support to the modern state of Israel” – It would be foolish to take the view that modern Israel can do no wrong, after all Israel sinned in biblical times.
2.I do not await “…a mass conversion of Israel…” – It is the Gentiles that are grafted in.
3.I certainly do not “…argue for a second salvific event…” – Only by faith in the atoning blood of the Messiah will Jews and Gentiles gain salvation.
I do not believe that any of my comments so far in this debate supports these specific statements, so I will thankfully not be defending dispensationlism. In saying this, I also understand how my comments have been interpreted in this way.
It is important to remember that before theology is built, scriptural text must be approached by way of Bibical exegesis. “Biblical exegesis is a critical explanation or interpretation of the Bible. The goal of Biblical exegesis is to find the meaning of the text which then leads to discovering its significance or relevance. The critical aspects in doing exegesis covers a wide range of disciplines. Textual criticism is the investigation into the history and origins of the text. In addition there is an examination of the historical and cultural backgrounds for the author, the text, and original audience. Then there is a classification of the types of literary genre present in the text, and an analysis of grammatical and syntactical features in the text itself.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis. Otherwise, scriptural text can be interpeted with a specific theology in mind and lend itself to that perspective solely.
In regards to your interpretation of Romans, preceding Chapter 11. It is understandable that there is confusion surrounding the use of the term ‘Israel’. As you have pointed out, the term ‘Israel’ can be associated with the meaning of a ‘new Israel’ or ‘spiritual Israel’, seen to be the combination of the Jewish and Gentile believers. Indeed much of early Christian literature (although not before A.D.160 – Peter Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church, p. 83, n. 2.) uses the term Israel in this way, but what of the use of the term in the New Testament? It is mentioned 68 times and always means, national, physical, ethnic and historical Israel. However there are four places in which the term Israel is disputed, the most disputed being Romans 11:26.
You have stated that Paul “…brilliantly paints a wider reality to the identity of Israel itself and its citizens, taking it well beyond a matter of ethnicity.” This statement is misleading, to suggest that the identity of Israel is defined only by ethnicity. Israel’s nationhood comprises of five dimensions;
1.Religious – a covenantal relationship with God.
2.Historical – the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.
3.Cultural – The covenantal relationship Israel has with God shaped Israel’s culture.
4.Geographical – Israel was entrusted with a land by God.
5.Ethnic – a physical bloodline through Abraham, Issac and Jacob, the Hebrew people.
The ethnic dimension of Israel was to be distinctly Hewbrew although this did not exclude outsiders (aliens) from joining Israel. The outsider received full rights and benefits provided they met various requirements and in God’s eyes there was to be no difference between the outsider and Israelite. Israel praticed what is known as an ‘integrationist’ rather than a ‘multicultral’ model of existance. During New Testament times the nation exhibts these same dimensions and both religious and ethnic dimensions are strongly evident. Paul has a great deal to say about Israel. We know at times he lived and observed Israelite religious traditions (Acts 24:17, 26:4). He states there is no difference between those Jews and Gentiles who are already in Messiah Jesus, but Paul regularly differentiates between Jew and Gentile, whether stating (and demonstrating) that the Gospel is to be taken to the Jew first ( Romans 1:16), declaring that the Jew will suffer tribulation first (Romans 2:9), and even wishing it were possible for him to be cut off from the Messiah for the sake of his Jewish kinsmen (Romans 9:1-3). He also says there is neither male nor female, nor slave nor free man in Messiah. Would he then deny sexual differences within the church? Or the social differences in Paul’s day? It is plain that Paul is not speaking of national or ethnic differences in Messiah, but of spiritual status. In that sense there is no difference in Messiah.
PART TWO
Once again you state that “Paul introduces us to a bigger reality in regards to the nation and citizenship of Israel very early on in the letter to the church in Rome…” and you then quote Romans 2:28-29 to support that statement. This also is misleading in the sense that Paul does not introduce us to a bigger reality. Rather, Paul confirms to us the reality in regards to the nation and citizenship of Israel. As you are probably aware the ‘circumsicion of the heart’ concept (faith) was foundational to righteousness with God before Moses time.
Then ADONAI your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your children, so that you will love ADONAI your God with all your heart and all your being, and thus you will live.
Deuteronomy 30:6 (The Complete Jewish Bible)
The ‘Circumsicion of the heart’ concept is also mentioned in Deuteronomy 10:16 and Jeremiah 4:4.
The relationship between Jews and Gentiles is a major issue. Apparently there were some serious racial tensions in the Romans church, and these tensions appear to go both ways: The Jews saw themselves as superior to the Gentiles and treated them with contempt. This in turn, incited the Gentiles to persecute them. This was a major threat to the church’s testimony, unity and effectiveness, and to Paul’s potential support. Therefore, Paul not only writes against the Jewish belivers insistence on strict observance of the Torah (the Law or ‘Teaching’), but also against Gentile believers arrogance and indifference toward the Jewish minority. Paul was highlighting the basic issues separating Jews and gentile believers, in order to help Gentiles understand the roots of their faith. The Gentiles would also have had a great personal interest in these matters, since the Roman church most probably began in the synagogue, therefore the first Gentile believers would have been “God-fearing” synagogue goers. These people would be greatly interested in how the gospel related to their understanding of circumcision and the Torah. Paul had a profound appreciation for Torah and Torah observance. The advent of Christ for Paul was a way for gentiles to come to know the God of Israel, and that Messiah’s coming never meant that Jews should stop practicing Judaism (defined here, inclusive of the fulfillment of Judaism – the Messiah Jesus). It just meant that gentiles were now given a way to worship God (through belief in Messiah) and thereby to be recognized by God, without having to ‘convert’ to Judaism.
There are no significant errors with your comments relating to Romans 3-4 that I will address.
In the first five verses of Romans 9, Paul appeals to the religious, historical, cultural, and ethnic dimensions of Israelite nationhood discussed above, and then in Romans 9:6-8 you claim that “He then carries on in a way that widens the reality of Israel in one sense and narrows it in another.”.
But the present condition of Isra’el does not mean that the Word of God has failed. For not everyone from Isra’el is truly part of Isra’el; indeed, not all the descendants are seed of Avraham (Abraham); rather, “What is to be called your ‘seed’ will be in Yitz’chak (Isaac).” In other words, it is not the physical children who are children of God, but the children the promise refers to who are considered seed.
Romans 9:6 (TCJB) (emphasis added)
There are two possibilites about how we intrepet this particular verse. If you argue that Israel (in bold) refers to a church of Jews and Gentiles believers together then what your saying is, not all who are descended from Israel belong to this new Israel and the inferance is therefore that Paul is speaking about a new people group and it widens the meaning to the term Israel (in bold) by including a group of Gentiles as well. On the other hand you could argue that the second Israel narrows, not widens, but narrows the meaning of Israel to just a spiritual remnant. So in practice either you say this; For not all who descend from Israel – belong to the church of Jews and Gentiles, Israel. Or, for not all who descend from Israel – belong to the spiritual remnant, Israel. Exegetically it is unlikley that the first option is true. The second option fits the context better, the following verses (Romans 9:7-13) focuses on God’s winowing process, He is selecting a remnant gradually downwards. Paul is here speaking only of a division within ethnic Israel. Some of them are believers and thus truly Israel (a spiritual remnant), whereas others, though ethnically Israelites, are not truly Israel, since they are not elect and believing. No Gentiles are found in the statement at all. It makes much better sense to argue that the second Israel refers to a smaller group within Israel itself.
PART THREE
Concerning your reference to Galatians 6:16 you say:
“The idea of a larger Israel with a broader citizenship that does not include some ethnic Israelites whom Paul defines as not being truly of Israel, but does include all those who are defined as Jews inwardly (Rom 2:28-29) is seen again in another of his letters – Galatians 6:16 – where he reflects the discussion of circumcision prior to this verse and ends with “Peace be upon them, and mercy and upon the Israel of God.”
English bibles are split pretty much 50/50 on how this verse is translated.Whether you want Israel in this verse to refer to the Church of Jews and Gentiles or national ethnic Israel depends on how you will translate it from the Greek, specifically the word ‘kai’,which normally means ‘and’.
May peace be on all those who follow this standard, and mercy also be on the Israel of God!
Galatians 6:16 (Holman Christian Standard Bible) (emphasis added)
So what Paul is saying here is, may peace be upon all those Jews and Gentiles that are in the church who follow this standard and mercy be upon another group – the Israel of God. Or peace be upon all those Jews and Gentiles who have become followers of Messiah Jesus but mercy upon the unbelieving Jews. That is when Israel is refered to national ethnic Israel, now here is another translation,
May God’s peace and mercy be upon all who live by this principle; they are the new people of God.
Galatians 6:16 (New Living Translation)
Here the term Israel has been translated to mean all those who live by this principle which includes contextually the Jews and the Gentiles, the ‘new Israel’. So then which of these two are correct? how do we choose between these two translations? The question is how you deal with the word ‘kai’. If you translate that word as ‘and’, you will have the first option (HCSB), the first part of the verse refers to all those who follow a particular standard of teaching and upon the Israel of God in the second part of the verse. Linguistically both cases can be argued. In a recent work, Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, former professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis at Dallas Theological Seminary, has done a detailed study of Galatians 6:16. Johnson concludes:
If there is an interpretation that totters on a tenuous foundation, it is the view that Paul equates the term “the Israel of God” with the believing church of Jews and Gentiles. To support it, the general usage of the term Israel is Paul, in the New Testament, and in the Scriptures as a whole is ignored. The grammatical and syntactical usage of the conjunction kai is strained and distorted–and the rare and uncommon sense accepted when the usual sense is unsatisfactory–only because it does not harmonize with the presuppositions of the exegete. And to compound matters, in the special context of Galatians and the general context of the Pauline teaching, especially as highlighted in Romans 11, Paul’s primary passages on God’s dealings with Israel and the Gentiles, are downplayed. . . . the doctrine that the church of Gentile and Jews is the Israel of God rests on an illusion. It is a classic case of tendentious exegesis.
[Toussaint and Dyer, Pentecost Essays, “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study” by S.Lewis Johnson, p. 195].
Tendentious – Having a tendency: Written or spoken with a partisan, biased or prejudiced purpose.
Granted that there are still disagreements, but arguabley the grammer, syntax, context and usage supports that Israel in 6:16 remains ethnic Israel.
PART FOUR
Concerning your concurance with Bishop Wright’s interpretation of Romans 11:25-26.
For, brothers, I want you to understand this truth which God formerly concealed but has now revealed, so that you won’t imagine you know more than you actually do. It is that stoniness, to a degree, has come upon Isra’el, until the Gentile world enters in its fullness; and that it is in this way that all Isra’el will be saved. As the Tanakh (Jewish scriptures) says,
“Out of Tziyon (Zion) will come the Redeemer;
he will turn away ungodliness from Ya’akov (Jacob)
Romans 11:25-26 (The Complete Jewish Bible)
Many translations begin verse 25 under a new heading, in a new paragraph and the words – I do not want you to be…which could be described as a big mistake, the reason why is not easily apparent in the English. In the Greek verse 25 begins, Ou gar qelw umav agnoein,… the word ‘gar’ (means ‘for’ in English) is a conjunction so it logically connects verse 25 with the preceding section. In Romans 11:11-24 is the metaphor of the wild and the cultivated olive tree, the natural branches of Israel being grafted back in and the wild gentile branches being connected, this section is evidently about the difference between national, ethnic Israel and the wild gentiles. Therefore, as you would agree, Israel in verse 25 is undoubtedly referring to the national, ethnic Israel especially when right next to it Paul speaks of the fullness of the Gentiles. The question is what would we do with verse 26,
“It is my sincere belief that the Israel of verse 26 is the Israel of Galatians 6:16, the Israel that includes both Jew and Gentile.”
Is that likely? No, as you have pointed out the verse continues, “and in this way,”, which is a clear connection again to verse 25. If we look at verse 25 and 26 together we can see three distinct clauses:
1.A partial hardening has come upon Israel
2.until the fullness of the Gentiles have come in
3.and in this manner all Israel will be saved
If you took verse 26 by itself you could say, “how does my theology interpret this verse and what do I think Israel means”, but we need to look at verse 26 exegetically. Israel cannot have a different meaning in verse 26 in comparison to verse 25. Paul would not change his meaning in verse 26 having established his meaning in verse 25 that Israel refers to ethnic, national Israel. It is remarkable that today we have people that still hold to the idea that Israel in verse 26 refers to a ‘new Israel’ of Jews and Gentiles. If you look at the verse in context, what did it means in verse 25, is there any evidence that Paul has changed his mind in verse 26? The answer is very clear that both Israels refer to the same thing, especially with a conjunction “and in this way,”, between the two.
“It should be apparent from both the proximate and less proximate contexts in this portion of the epistle that it is exegetically impossible to give to ‘Israel’ in this verse any other denotation that that which belongs to the term throughout this chapter. There is the sustained contrast between Israel and the Gentiles, as has been demonstrated in the exposition preceding. What other denotation could be given to Israel in the preceding verse? It is of ethnic Israel Paul is speaking and Israel could not possibly include Gentiles. In that event the preceding verse would be reduced to absurdity and since verse 26 is a parallel or correlative statement the denotation of ‘Israel’ must be the same as in verse 25”
John Murray (The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965], 2:96).
This being the case you may ask, what then does the term ‘all Israel’ refer to? There are four options:
1.Your own and Bishop Wright’s interpretation of the ‘Israel of God’, “that includes both Jew and Gentile.”.
2.Jewish Christians.
3.Every individual Israelite.
4.The ethnic nation of Israel as a whole.
It is not the first option, as that has been discussed. The second option is unlikely as it would make the statement completely redundant, it would be a purposeless truism, if Paul were to say, ‘all Jewish believers will be saved’, it would be like saying ‘all people saved will be saved’. It would be true but purposeless. The third option remains a linguistic possibility although it doesn’t sound right that every individual person that has ever been born from a particular group would be saved. That leaves us with option four. Remember that Paul was writing here in the Greek, and the bible that he probably would have used was a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, at least he would have used that some of the time, perhaps most of the time. That Greek translation is called the Septuagint, and in fact this term ‘all Israel’ appears in the Greek 136 times, so Paul didn’t invent this term he took it straight out from the Old Testament. We can look at the times when it has been used and find that every single time it refers to ethnic physical Israel, which is what we expect, and Israel as a whole. For example:
All Isra’el around them fled at their shrieks, shouting, “The earth might swallow us too!”
Numbers 16:34 (TCJB)
This is after Korah’s rebellion where the earth swallowed them up, but this doesn’t mean every single Israelite, it just means a great mass of people, a representative, corporate Israel fled.
Y’hoshua (Joshua) said, “Why have you brought trouble on us? Today ADONAI will bring trouble on you!” Then all Isra’el stoned him to death; they burned them to ashes and stoned them.
Joshua 7:25 (TCJB)
This is when Achan sinned and he was found out and stoned. This doesn’t mean every man, child, woman and baby stoned Achan with stones. It just means corporately the nation as a whole decided to stone him.
So they set up a tent for Avshalom (Absalom) on the roof of the palace; and Avshalom went in to sleep with his father’s concubines in the sight of all Isra’el.
2Samuel 16:22 (TCJB)
This is when Absalom upsurped David his father’s throne in Jerusalem, entered the city and took his fathers concubines, again it is not in the sight of every single Israelite, it is just Israel as a whole. Therefore it is very likely that when Paul said that “all Israel will be saved.” he is not talking about every individual Israelite that has ever been born or to be around at the time, he is talking of Israel generally. So in summary when Paul says “all Israel will be saved” firstly, he refers to ethnic Israel and secondly, when he says “all Israel will be saved” he is talking about ethnic Israel as a whole and not necessarily every individual.
PART FIVE
We should be praying and working towards Jesus’ reign of peace, as the Jewish Messiah reigning in righteousness from Jerusalem.
I have posted watchmen on your walls, Yerushalayim (Jerusalem); they will never fall silent, neither by day nor by night. You who call on ADONAI, give yourselves no rest; and give him no rest till he restores Yerushalayim and makes it a praise on earth.
Isaiah 62:6-7 (TCJB)
The apostle Paul explained how we Gentiles are grafted like wild olive shoots, into God’s cultivated olive tree of Israel and draw our nourishment from that root. Chuck Cohen said, “Much of the church has acted, and still acts, as though it has been grafted into a Christmas Tree – flashing its attractive lights and decorations, but unconcerned about its loss of roots and wondering why it is spiritually drying up and dying.”
I would like to suggest some further reading that I have just come across:
THE IDENTITY OF “ALL ISRAEL” IN ROMANS 11:26 by Matthew William Waymeyer
Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements
For the degree of Master of Theology in
New Testament
The Master’s Seminary
Sun Valley, California
May 2003
http://www.tms.edu/articles/weymeyer.pdf
Much of this response has come from Kings Evangelical Divinity School specifically Andy Cheung.
http://www.midbible.ac.uk/
Hi David,
I must offer my deep and sincere thanks and appreciation for your comments. I understand how much time that must have taken.
The whole thing was a great pleasure to read. It was well thought out, clear and concise.
Thank you for clarifying your position where, in places, I may have misunderstood you.
I also appreciated the use of quote from The Complete Jewish Bible. It is a text that I have and appreciate being able to use and reference.
I must offer my apologies here for the fact that I will not be offering a response. To truly engage the complexity of what you have said and do it the justice and respect it deserves without minimizing any of it would take an enormous amount of time that I do not have and I am more than happy to leave your thorough response simply as it is, as the whole discussion thus far provides a great resource for any searching the internet on the topic.
Once again, thank you.
Thank you for answering my questions.
One or two of your comment surprised me a little:-
“Further on the issue of the land, it is significant to note that no New Testament writer mentions the promise relating to the land of Canaan/Palestine specifically”
The Old Testament prophets and other writers made it quite clear as to what was going to happen. Paul’s main concern was to accommodate the gentile believers into the Israel of God. Jews and Gentiles did not mix in any way. Jesus even referred to the Canaanite woman as a dog, His mission was to Israel first. To have gentile people believing in the God of Israel was one thing, but to receive the blessings through the Holy Spirit was a huge shock, after all they were gentiles.
Israel from the patriarchs onwards has always consisted of those who had faith that was credited to them as righteousness and those who didn’t, in others words those who believed and those who didn’t. It was always a mixture and still is.
Your discussion on “all Israel will be saved” is interesting. The term “all Israel” occurrs in several other places in scripture too, for example Joshua 7:25:
“Joshua said, “Why have you atroubled us? The LORD will trouble you this day.” And all Israel stoned 1them with stones; and they burned them with fire 2after they had stoned them with stones.”
And again in 1 Chronicles 13:8:
“And David and all Israel played before God with all their might, and with singingc, and with harps, and with psalteries, and with timbrels, and with cymbals, and with trumpets.”
What do you make of these quotes?
How do you view verses like Deut 28:64
“And the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other, and there you shall serve other gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known.”
And then when we come to Romans 11 it is interesting to note that:-
1 in verse 1 God has not rejected His people
2 in verse 20 it says that they were broken off because of unbelief, unbelief in what? Unbelief in God and Jesus His Messiah presumably
3 in verse 19 and following it states that gentiles can be grafted in but with a warning against arrogance, arrogance towards what? As seeing ourselves superior to the Jews, anti-Semitism?
It seems to me that as Gentile believers we have no idea what these verses mean at all. In Romans 9:4-5 it explains the benefits, and as we are grafted in these are benefits must be for us too:
“and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh come the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever, Amen.”
We could ask what glory? Surely not the Mosaic covenant? What law, we are under grace! Worship? What promises?
I don’t think it’s clear in our thinking who the tree even is, what is the sap etc? If you disagree with this go outside and look at a tree, take a pair of secateurs and cut a branch as if you were going to graft it in, then look at the relationship between the tree and the branch. Note the branch becomes totally reliant on the tree.
If we are grafted into Israel and share the same sap, and the inheritance etc, then should not gentile believers have a greater appreciation and understanding of the Jewish people and their faith, after all it would appear in Acts 15 that the ruling in the Council of Jerusalem was to follow simple commandments, converts were also expected to hear the teaching of Moses each week. Where was that going to occur, at home meetings and in the Synagogue.
Jesus is the Jewish Messiah as well as ours. Should we not follow and understand the festivals of Israel, should we not understand and read and follow the whole teaching of God to His people (i.e. Israel and the Gentiles)? It would seem Jesus thought so. If we recall the man who asked what was the greatest commandment? Jesus’ reply was the Shema quoting Deuteronomy 6:4 and following. If the teaching of God was life for Israel (i.e. not just idle words, Deut 32:46-47) should it not be life for us too? Are we as gentiles exempt from all of this? According to the Church, yes, we are under grace, don’t you think they were too in the Old Testament? It seems to be an us and them, this is not being grafted into anything. Are we grafted in or not, yes or no, which is it? The answer is clearly no, definitely not. Christendom has not only been responsible for anti-Semitism throughout the centuries towards the Jewish people more than any other and in the name of the Christ too, but has chosen to cut itself off from believing Israel, the very thing Pauls warns against. What a history to be proud of.
Unfortunately we pick and choose what we like. Israel as it stands today consists of those who are non-believers but also those who do believe. Most Christians have no appreciation as to the inheritance they have received because of in-grafting or any other benefit for that matter. We forget we are grafted into them, we share with them, we are there because of them. They don’t need us, we need them. We are extremely arrogant and the view of most of the church is that we don’t need Israel in any shape or form or anything to do with them.
One day we shall see Jesus and guess what, He is not only the Messiah but He is still a Jew!
Thanks for your comment Peter. You’re right, our Christian heritage in relation to horrible acts committed against the Jewish people is a shameful one and it is that shameful past that largely led to the desire for a Jewish homeland and thus the situation of 1948. The current climate in the Middle East can be argued to be a direct result of the activities of Christian Europe.
Paul is clearly dealing with any sense of arrogance amongst Gentiles that would lead to disunity and a disregard for the Jews, just as words are offered in scripture that warn the Jewish people of the time not to be arrogant in their approach to the Gentiles. It is something that needs to be heeded on both sides even now…. if not more so now.
Obviously there is going to be stuff in your comment that I disagree with, but I am not going to pursue that.
There seems to be a very personal element in this for you. I admire your passion. Do you have any personal connections to the Jewish community that bring this discussion close to home?
The personal connection is my Messiah is a Jew and I believe I’m grafted into Israel according to scripture.
Shalom
Good answer