The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Romans 9-11

Hi Cindy,

This passage is the one I am asking most about at the moment. I agree with everything you say here, but my question is about how discussing who are not the true Israel establishes that God’s word has not failed. Any thoughts?

Edited to add.
Some say that this passage has nothing to do with salvation. Dondi mentioned this was his understanding. I find this difficult to grasp because he talks about being God’s children as distinct from the natural children in v8. So I’m wondering if the election Paul is talking about here may include salvation, but in Paul’s mind election (and salvation) is not like the Calvinist version. As you say, it is to be a blessing to others. Rom 11 seems to also indicate it is not fixed - the elect can become unelect through unbelief and the unelect can become elect through faith.
So Ishmael, Esau, and the hardened Israelites could join the olive tree by faith and become elect and likewise Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the remnant could potentially have left the olive tree by unbelief.

Hi Craig,

I must be missing something, because I thought the reference was very self-explanatory. Paul is saying, as I understand it, that the original promise was given to and for the elect of Israel; not to the entire nation. The promise has been fulfilled because it always was to the elect. The same in the church today. Not all Christians are Christians. The promise of faith is to the elect of God.

Titus 1:1 -
“Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness…”

2 Timothy 2:10 -
“Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

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

Luke 18:7 -
“And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?”

Romans 11:5 -
“Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”

2 Peter 1:10 -
“Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall…”

The same principals that existed for the nation of Israel are exactly the same principals that apply to the gentiles. Just because we call ourselves christians does not mean we are saved - just as a remnant of Israel was saved, and these ones were called the children of promise, or the elect. This is not the elect of Augustine’s or Calvin’s imagination. This elect is made sure by repentance and obedience. Everything else is just religious paraphernalia. This passage is also explained simply in The Message:

If I am missing something in your question, please expain further what you grapple with.

Steve

Hi Stefcul,
Thanks for your reply.

The more I am thinking about it, the more I think you may be correct, but I am not sure at the moment.

I think you are saying that my old understanding is correct in thinking that the promises only applied to the elect of Israel, the remnant, and not the entire nation. I read Bonda recently and got confused. I think he would disagree with this but I may be misunderstanding him.
On p141 he outlines what he considers to be the WRONG interpretation:

The interpretation he was saying was wrong, seemed to be the way I had understood it!

On p 143 he discusses his better interpretation but I am not sure that I understand it or agree with it.

If the covenant promises are for the elect of Israel, and not for the entire nation, why do you think Paul says in 9:4 (where he seems to be speaking of the entire nation), “Theirs is ….the covenants, …., and the promises”?

G’day Craig… just to muddy the waters I’ll throw my 2cents worth in as well. :slight_smile:

As I understand it… the “promises” were indeed made and belonged to historic Israel, BUT only the obedient [children of God] would realise them. Like Jesus [Mt 24], Paul had an understanding of the forth coming wrath [Ad70] and was pained that his brethren according to “the flesh” i.e., natural [disobedient] Israel would suffer greatly and wanted to spare or “save some of them”.

In the bigger picture “all Israel” being “saved” refers to Israel’s promised redemption, i.e., ‘the forgiveness of sins’ and applied to all biblical Israel. With Israel’s redemption came the reconciliation of the rest of humanity.

The “elect” were those chosen as followers of Christ being the first fruits in the outworking of this redemption. Thus election had NOTHING to do with ‘eternal destinies’ BUT everything to do with who was called to serve in God’s redemptive programme ON BEHALF OF all else.

Hi Craig. Sorry I’m late to this thread but the most clear explanation of Romans which I have found, and one which deals with ALL seemingly contradictory statements is that it is written as a diatribe. The following explains what I mean and is put forward by the eminent scholar Douglas A. Campbell. (If I remember correctly our own Richard Beck wrote a review on this matter:

From this page:
afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/08/01 … tribalist/

As you read down the page you will see an example of how Romans 1:18 to 3:20 should be read (according to Campbell)

God bless

Hi Craig,

I see now why the confusion. I agree with how you understood it. Bonda appears to be wrong IMO.

Again, I think he is wrong. Firstly, the covenant was made on the provision of their faithfulness. Secondly, the bible consistently mixes metaphors, and literal and figurative language. In one sentence you can get a mixture of several different grades of communication. Joel says: “And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the LORD Will be delivered; For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem There will be those who escape, As the LORD has said, Even among the survivors whom the LORD calls.” We know that this was true only within a context of understanding. Paul gave the same assurance to Christians: “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Again, this is only within a context. It is not fairy dust or a magic incantation. Not all christians are christians; and not all Israel are Israel. The promise is for those who walk in the name of the Lord, and not those who just “call out” the name as some superstitious protection against vampires or demons.

I go along with your first assessment.

Paul doesn’t say that all national Israel shall be saved. Indeed he quotes Isaiah as follows:

All throughout the Old Testament days, there was a remnant of Israel who were true Israelites, and who were obedient to Yahweh.

In the days of Jesus, the remnant consisted of His disciples (not the 12 only, but all of them). The remnant has always been “the Israel of God.”

In Romans 11, Paul uses the figure of an Olive Tree to represent the true Israel. Those who were not disciples of the Messiah whom God had sent to Israel, were cut off from the Olive Tree and branches from wild olive trees (the Gentiles who became Jesus’ disciples) were grafted into the Olive Tree, the Israel of God. The Israel of God has never ceased to be, but has continued with some branches having been cut off, and others grafted in.

And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will banish ungodliness from Jacob”. (vs 26, ESV)

Not “as so all Israel shall be saved” but “In this way, all Israel shall be saved,” the Israel of God will have those who don’t truly belong to it cut off, and those who have never belonged to it (the Gentiles) but who have become disciples of the Messiah, brought in. Thus everyone, all of the true Israel, shall be saved.

Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.”[That’s some of the Gentiles]. But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.” I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. (Rom 10:20,21, 11:1-5 ESV)

So God has never rejected Israel. For there has always been a remnant who were faithful to Him and who were the true Israel. The 7000 who did not bow to Baal were the remnant in the days of Isaiah. They were the true Israel at the time. But in Paul’s day “at the present time” the remant were the disciples of Christ, chosen by grace. That included both ethnic Jews and Gentiles who followed the Messiah of God.

I suggest reading Philip Mauro’s The Hope of Israel. Though Mauro seems to have been a preterist, whereas I am a historic premillenialist, I believe Mauro had the correct understanding of Israel, and Romans 9-11.

preteristarchive.com/Books/1922_mauro_hope-israel.htm

Hi Davo,

This could be important in understanding this passage.

Many promises in scripture sound unconditional but are really conditioned on a proper response.
If this is the case, then all of national Israel would have received the promises 9:4, but the promises have not failed 9:6a because the promises were conditional upon them being true Israel, and not all physical Israel are true Israel 9:6b.
Have I understood you correctly? I think this is also what Stefcul is saying? So hopefully I am on the right track.

Yes, you explained that well.

Stefcui

I am a bit concerned in case I have been unfair in what I have said about Jan Bonda’s book (p141-143) from my possible misunderstandings. If anyone thinks I have been, please feel free to speak up in his defence and clarify what he has said. Thank you.

Hi Paidion,
It sounds like you don’t believe the scriptures teach anything regarding a future salvation of national Israel.
I have understood Robin Parry to teach this.
On p96 of The Evangelical Universalist he says that “All Israel” (in Rom 9:26) “means the nation of Israel as a whole”.
My understanding is that Bonda and Talbott also teach this.

Parry says on p95 that Calvin and N.T. Wright believe that “all Israel” refers to “the church as the spiritual Israel of God”. Your view sounds like this one - am I correct?

Thanks for the suggestion of Philip Mauro’s book.

:smiley:

This is a fantastic book. Like you Paidion, I do not subscribe to Mauro’s ‘millennium’ view, but he is such a captivating author, and worthy of reading. I have several of his books. I don’t believe in the “national restoration” of Israel either; although the future gospel (IMO) will be preached primarily by Israelites when the “time of the gentiles” are fulfilled. That is how “all Israel will be saved”. The ministry of the gospel started with, and will finish with, Israelites. This will be during the Great Tribulation. Most of the churches will be closed down during this time, as per Daniel chapter 11.

That sounds interesting, John. I’ve clicked on the link but not looked at it yet. Paul does write this way in at least 1 Corinthians, presumably quoting a letter (or letters) that he’s responding to, so it would fit his M.O.

Craig, it’s been a while since I read Bonda’s book, but I think you may be right. It seems to me he did have some all-encompassing ideas about Israel beyond only their national salvation. I hate to say more without searching through it, and I’m not sure where I put it. :blush: However if I’m remembering right, he may have put forth the idea that none of natural Israel will be left out of the special election. (Again, not talking about salvation, which is to all, but the special calling of the election.)

The way I personally (fwiw) understand it is this: As demonstrated by God’s choice of Isaac/not Ishmael, Jacob/not Essau, there are certain of the descendents of Abraham who are chosen for the election (that is, those who are spiritual Israel – who are part of the ones chosen to be a blessing to the nations) and physical Israel (which is to say, Abraham’s natural descendents). Spiritual Israel may at present day include anyone, whether Jew or Gentile, who has either remained in, been grafted in, or been grafted back in after having been pruned out of the Olive Tree. There IS an elect people: the Ekklesia – and a non-elect people (or at least not part of the election Paul is writing about) who are the rest of the world.

I hope this at least presents my own pov adequately. I’m not set in stone about this. It’s just the way I understand it.

Love, Cindy

Not quite. But those who believe the promises are to national Israel see us as believing that Israel was replaced by the Church.

What we believe is that the true Israel was there since the beginning of God chose Jacob and his offspring. Yet there was also a nation of Israel. But the Israel of God was an Israel within Israel the nation. It was the remnant which truly followed God. It was not a “spiritual Israel” in the sense of not being true Israel. All though history God preserved true Israel as His covenant people. But the rebels often died.

Now with whom was He angry forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose corpses fell in the wilderness? (Heb.3:17)

The rebels kept getting cut off, one way or another. But true Israel never ceased to exist. It’s not that the Church has replaced Israel. Rather, the true Israel came to be pure, that is contained none but true Israelites, both Jews and Gentiles who followed the Jewish Messiah. So that today’s “true Israel” is tantamount to the true Assembly of Jesus Christ, consisting all of those who are disciples of the Anointed One, the Messiah of Israel.

We do not see the present nation of Israel as being a prophetic fulfillment of the purposes of God. Religious non-Christian Jews see Jesus not as the Messiah, but as an imposter. There are true Israelites of course within the present nation of Israel.

Hi Paidion,
How do you understand passages like Rom 9:4,5

So Craig I missed your reply.

Actually historic Israel did receive the promises, they were in fact the only ones along with any gentiles joined to Israel who did, but through constant disobedience they weren’t living in the FULL benefits of said promises as God’s light to the world. This however is what Jesus and the firstfruit saints rectified as true Israel aka Paul’s “Israel of God”.

Yes. Thanks Davo. I think you and Stefcul are saying the same thing and I think I am agreeing with you when I said

Yes I’m thinking probably close enough. :slight_smile:

Rom 11:25-31