Shalom

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?

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!

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.

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.