Tags
According to Romans 9:6 "… not all who are descended from Israel are Israel."
The question arises: Who does Paul mean by the first "Israel" and who does Paul mean by the second "Israel"?
It is evident from the passage that "all who are descended from Israel" are all of Jacob’s physical descendants or as Romans 9:8 puts it "the natural children". So then the verse becomes "… not all who are the physical descendants of Jacob are Israel." Romans 9:8 contrasts "natural children" with "children of the promise" but equates "God’s children" with "Abraham’s offspring".
Since we have already stated that "natural children" is the same as the physical descendants of Jacob, we can say that the second Israel of Romans 9:6 are God’s children and Abraham’s offspring [both Jews and Gentiles].
According to Galatians 3:29, "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." Here we see that "seed" means "Christian". Similarly, John 1:12,13 teaches that "to those who believed in his name, he [Christ] gave the right to become children of God” ”children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God."
Note again the contrast of "natural descent" with "children of God" and "born of God". It is clear, then, that the second Israel of Romans 9:6 means those who belong to Christ, that is, the church [from the time of Adam forward - Jews and Gentiles].
- Andrew Wheatley (slightly modified)
The condition of Israel this day: They have no Temple; they have no high priest; they have lost the urim and thummim; they have no ephod; no way of communicating with God. Since they reject Christ, the only means of communication, they are shut off.
- B.H. Carroll
Paul was apparently afraid that the statement with respect to his great sorrow and unceasing anguish might be interpreted as if he meant that God’s word—his promise regarding Israel—had failed, his purpose frustrated. So the apostle explains that although a marvelous promise had indeed been made to Israel (as has been indicated; see p. 313), that promise was never meant to be realized in the entire nation but only in the true Israel.
The thought expressed here is essentially the same as that found in Rom_2:28-29. Not in all the descendants of Abraham or of Israel was the covenant promise destined to be fulfilled but only in the hearts and lives of those who by God’s grace would repose their trust in him and strive to obey his will out of gratitude. See Gen_15:6; Gen_17:1-2, Gen_17:9; Deu_30:2-3, Deu_30:9-10; 1Ki_8:47-50; Jer_18:5-10.
Moreover, in harmony with all this, the line of the covenant would run through Isaac. It was he who would be counted as Abraham’s seed, in whom the covenant promise would be fulfilled. The true seed was Isaac, not Ishmael. Similarly, it was Jacob, not Esau (Rom_9:13). Cf. Gal_3:9, Gal_3:29.
It is important to point out that although the statement “For not all who are of Israel are Israel” is cast in a negative mold, the positive implication is, “There is, indeed, a true Israel. God’s rejection of Israel is not total or complete.” His word has not failed and never will fail. The remnant will be saved (verse Rom_9:27). He who puts his faith in Christ will not be put to shame (verse Rom_9:33).
God’s people are here called “the children of the promise,” a strikingly beautiful designation! Their spiritual birth was due not to anything residing in them but entirely to God’s covenant promise. It was the promise that gave them birth! They “were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (Joh_1:13), a fact exemplified clearly in the story of the birth of Isaac, to which reference is made.
- William Hendriksen
Whooooaaahhh! I think before you make those statements you should read Romans 11. In Chapter 9, the geneology question is addressed. It is no different for Jews than it is for those who were brought up in “the Church”. No one is grandfathered in, so to speak. If you study the Old Testament, all the prophets tell of a time in the future when Israel will be restored, as in Jer. 31:31. I do believe it says Israel in that passage.
Oh, well, I guess you will not see until God shows you. You might read Gen.17:7-8, and understand that that is an everlasting covenant. I could go on but I know what this blog thinks about dispensationalism. Unfortunately, the meaning of dispensationalism is distorted here. The Bible really makes sense if you study it in context and not spiritualize every thing just to match up with your theology. The Book of Revelation is the time of Jacob’s trouble. That pretty much refers to a specific group of people but some theologies would have the Body of Christ (the church) go thru that time period when Scripture clearly states that the wrath of God is not for the believer and why would it be.
I hope that some will read this and think about these things and decide for themselves.
I’m certain if people use the Bible instead of forcing beliefs into it, their eyes will be opened. I pray that will be the case.
According to Scripture, all those outside of Christ when He returns shall be damned forever. That includes what today is called ‘natural’ Israel. If they do not repent and come to Christ, they will perish in their sins, forever. No second chances for anyone. Today is the day of salvation. – JT
JT,
You and I are homies and all that but I have to agree with Pam on this one. I fail to see how anyone gets “replacement theology” from Romans 9. Also, I see my reformed homeboys forcing beliefs into what scripture says just like you see us D people doing it. Curious, huh.
I agree with you at least partially however so maybe there is hope for me yet
. I agree that natural Israel or unsaved Israel is in peril. I do not see God forcing special rules into this matter. I see God’s mercy resulting in the salvation of His elect. I cannot begin to tell anyone exactly how or when this will happen(en mass or individually only)…nor can anyone else.
Anyway, thanks for this food for thought. We are all being sharpened by the pouring over scripture that we do trying to be correct in our understanding of God’s revelation.
Your brother from a different mother,
Truthy
Brother, I do not believe in replacement theology, at all.
JT,
I’m not sure what you are driving at here. I myself have to agree with Pam and Truthy.
Might I offer a suggestion for a more foundational perspective? It occurs to me that the major difference between the covenant and dispenstionalist camps is one of hermeneutics. The covenant theology folks stress ecclesiology and sovereign grace, while dispensational theology stresses eschatology and free will. I know these are generalizations that wall paper over a host of details, but I feel the crux of this observation is valid. The final ecclesiologial/eshatological dispositon of the Old Testament people of God very naturally lies at the crux of the different perspective of these two hermeneutics.
The covenant folks accuse the dispensationalists of dividing the people of God, while they themselves they baptize infants by the score. The dispensationalist undermine the soverignty of God’s grace and the unity of His kingdom, while they themselves they posit a Christ dressed in Old Testament High Priest’s garb, offering up animal sacrifices in a reconstituted Davidic kingdom. Heaven help us.
What say we each abandon for once and for all our commitment to our hermeneutical priorities? What say we abandon our loyalty to interpreting Scripture through a hermeneutic of strictly covenant or strictly dispensational theology? Instead, what say we adopt soteriology as our primary hermeneutic? Unless you are willing to embrace the Pelagian heresy (sorry Truthinator for labeling something as heresy), man is a fallen creature, dead in tresspasses and sins, who must be born again by the Holy Spirit before he can ever exercise saving faith, or make one motion acceptable to God.
From that starting point – of Holy Spirit regeneration applying the finished work of Christ to those in every generation whom God elected from before the foundation of the world – strive to fashion an ecclesiological and eshatological hermeneutic that is consistent. Helpful hint – there is one Spirit, one faith, one baptism, one body (Eph. 4:4-6)
Harpie,
I would agree that Pelagianism is heresey but not dispensationalism as I called you on before and why, I presume, you mentioned my name here. I will also say that all dispensationalists are not legitimate theologians nor are all who adhere to dispensational teachings even necessarily Christian since some may just be members of a social organization called a church… and so forth. This will also apply to reformed and any other school of thought since tares are inside every wheat field.
I personally believe that we who enter the Kingdom via God’s grace (Eph 2:8-9) will be somewhat surprized when we sit down in the orientation class of Heaven and find out how much we messed up via our interpretation. Thank God that He chose us sovereignly!
Oh know!!!! I am sovereign grace and dispensational!!!! Is that ok????
Me , too!!, Pastor Harold. Ever listen to Pastor Jim McClarty? He is awesome. By the way, harpieslayer has it wrong. I do not believe in free will at all. Well, God’s free will, of course. I am a Calvinist as far as soteriology goes, but the Reformers just didn’t reform far enough in eschatology. Probably because most of them came out of the Roman Catholic church.
For the admin., I do not think that all of natural Israel will be saved just because they are Israel. You just can’t say that the church is the new Israel. God still has a plan for the believing remnant of national Israel. The land promises of the Abrahamic covenant are yet to be fulfilled and will be at the Second Coming. In the Millineum, Israel will do what they were chosen to do in the beginning and be a blessing to the rest of the world.
Thanks to Truthy, as well for your comments.
Wish Jt would join us.
Pam,
I appreciate your input, really I do. However….
1) I’m not a ‘Reformer’, I’m Baptist. Baptists didn’t come out of the Protestant Reformation, there was no need. Neither we, nor Baptist doctrine, derived from the Roman Catholic cult.
2) I’ve never said that the church is the ‘new Israel’, not once. I do not believe in ‘replacement theology’ as you so wrongly presume.
3) God’s only plan for anyone is two fold. be regenerated and thus believe in Jesus Christ, His Son, alone, for salvation, or forever be damned and suffer under the white hot fury and wrath of Almighty God forever…and that includes your precious, unregenerate Christ-hating natural Israel. Would to God that they all would repent and know life eternal.
4) Millennialism is a lie from Hell itself, and has been proven false so many times….
5) The only blessing to the world is the lives and presence of the righteous, specifically, the Church, the body of Christ, the only true Israel of God.
Sola Deo Gloria
Joel
Dear Pam,
When Joshua proclaimed that “Not a word failed of any good thing which the LORD had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass.” Josh 21:45, that
“You know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one thing has failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spoke concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one word of them has failed.” Josh 23:14
Exactly how are we supposed to know that the land promises of the Abrahamic covenant are excluded?
In those passages in Joshua, God is dealing with them on the basis of His covenants. For Israel, it was if you do this, I(God) will do that. See verse 23:16. God had done for Israel exactly what He promised. But they were scattered do to their idolatry and failure to obey what God told them. That has been their problem all along. But has God forsaken them because of their disobedience? Well, if He judges anyone on that basis ,then, what hope would anyone have.
As far as the land covenant part of the Abrahamic covenant, it has partially been fulfilled but its completion has to do with the kingdom no longer being divided and that, we know has still not occured. Also the boundaries set in Gen 15 are far larger than the Israel that we know today. So does God lie, Heavens no!!!. Those boundaries will be fulfilled in the future because the covenant was forever and everlasting. Go to Ezekiel37:15-28 and you will see that. When the 10 northern tribes are back in Israel, which only the Judahites are there today, and the two sticks become one, then it will be complete. Remember that this covenant is for Israel and reads as plain as day. All of the promises mentioned in that passage have not been completed but that does not mean that God is not going to do what He says.
Hope this helps. It sure made Scripture clear for me.
Gee whiz, Joel, you don’t have to be so mean. What if you are wrong. The Jews would have to be in the land in unbelief when Jesus returns. Read Romans 11:32. Anyway, God is sovreign and those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of LIfe from before the foundation of the world will believe, so no problem. Jesus Christ is the only way. I would be careful what I say in describing Israel, the apple of God’s eye. God promised Israel that He would curse those who curse you and bless those who bless you.
Your statement about the Mill. is untrue. Read Rev. 20. There is a time designation about what happens when the Mill. begins and when it ends. Two resurrections. If you would study the Book of Rev. from a Jewish perspective, you would begin to understand what it is saying.
As far as the blessing to the world, I would not be looking at the church but to Jesus Christ. The Body of Christ is not and never will be the new Israel. By the way, if that is so, you might want to realize that not only the blessings come with that name, but also the cursings.
Calvin and Luther came out of the Roman Catholic church and were not reformed on their eschaetology, but God is. Don’t build your theology on anything but what the Scripture says.
Baptist means nothing to me. I am a Bible believing, God loving, Christ follower and the denominations won’t mean a thing.
Peace to all who love our Lord Jesus Christ.
Thanks Pam. I wish you would have read my comment regarding being ‘reformed’. You would have seen I do not base anything on Calvin or Luther, nor do I believe in what is called replacement theology. There has always been a remnant according to grace (the Church) as the Apostle Paul says, from Genesis to Revelation. I would recommend reading the post again, this time with bible open, and take a look at the passages being referenced carefully.
God bless
When I first read the post, and I may be wrong here, the quotes from W. Hendrikson were not there.
I am glad that we are in agreement as to the Reformers and that you do not believe in replacement theology. I know that we both love and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as our salvation, no question. I think that with closer study of the Book of Revelation you might see that the Millenium is a future event. Why is it so hard to believe that Our Lord Jesus will sit, literally, on His throne on earth and rule for a thousand years, the kingdom which He came to establish at the first coming, which was literal. What glory that will bring to Him when he takes His rightful place as King. We know that He is ruler over all but seeing it will confirm that God keeps His promises and means what He says. After a thousand year rule as Rev.20 says, then He will release Satan, who has been confined to the pit and the last battle will be fought and won. and then the eternal state begins.
Oh, well, I know one day we will be in total agreement.
The quotes by Carroll and Hendriksen were an afterthought.
A couple of quick comments:
You said: Why is it so hard to believe that Our Lord Jesus will sit, literally, on His throne on earth and rule for a thousand years, the kingdom which He came to establish at the first coming, which was literal.?
The implication seems to be that the Lord of Glory came to accomplish something, and either changed His mind…or failed! Hmm. Also, I simply cannot accept any teaching that would limit our Lord’s reign to a mere thousand years. Then what?
The Word of God declares Him to be King now, ruling from on high at the right hand of the Father. Jesus is, right now, the Only Sovereign, King of kings and Lord of lords.
Thanks again for the input
SDG, JT
God knew all of the events that would transpire. Nothing was a surprise or change of mind. The reign will not last for 1000years but for eternity. Satan is bound for that 1000 years and man is still in the flesh during the earthly rule and after it is over, the Lord deals with the rebellious, proving that even when Christ is reigning on earth, visibly, that man’s heart remains unchanged. Then His eternal rule continues without Satan or sin forever.
Also, you didn’t comment on the mark of the beast ….but then again you failed to post my comment on that.
Why don’t you post my last comment and let others decide for themselves.
Pam,
As far as I know, I’ve posted all of your comments. I’ll check into it, possible oversight on my part.
However, you seem to be contradicting yourself in this regard. Here, you claim Christ will rule for 1000 years, literally (your words).
Now, in this comment, you are denying that, saying His rule will be eternal, and NOT a literal 1000 years, rather the 1000 years is only regarding the loosing of Satan.
Your words: “The reign will not last for 1000 years but for eternity. Satan is bound for that 1000 years…”
Which is it?
I have to agree with Pam, she sees scripture “literally” and so do I. (accept for her not being a Baptist, and that leaves room for sanctification)
I also see Scripture literally, in the sense that it means what it says and is interpreted by the New Testament.
So what does the Book of Revelation in the New Testament interpret in the Old Testament? You avoid our discussion, Joel, on the verses in Rev.20 and also on the mark of the beast, in which I made the point in the previous post that was not posted, that there has never been a time in the history of the world where the people were marked with a visible sign that allowed them to buy or sell. Also, I tried to make the point about Rev.13 and the 144,000 specific people (Israel) sealed during a specific time period yet future.
A very prominent professor of New Testament Theology, who just recently was working thru the Book of Rev. had to come to the conclusion that the 1000 years is a literal time period and he was an amill.
I hope that you can find my previous post. If not I tried.
Also, there was no contradiction in my post on Christ ruling and reigning for 1000 years. See Rev20:6. After the 1000 years, there will be a New Heaven and a New Earth. The New Jerusalem comes down from Heaven and resides on earth. The mill. Temple will also have passed away, which is told about in Ezek.40. No temple like that has ever existed. So it must be future. Read thru Daniel and Ezekiel and you will see that sacrifices will be made during the Mill. not for salvation but in remembrance of what Christ did. A memorial so to speak.
Also, how do you explain the time of the Gentiles coming to an end, meaning the dominance of the Gentiles over the Jews? There are just so many things that you cannot just spiritualize.
I am just a humble nobody that is amazed at God’s Word and thank Him for all that He has been to gracious to show me.
If none of this makes sense, then please tell me what would cause Christ to return for a second time?
Even the Book of Revelation interprets the Old Testament..no exception. From Genesis to Revelation, a remnant will be saved, one way of salvation, by faith in Christ Jesus, a faith that comes after being regenerated by the Holy Spirit.
Pam, if you love ‘natural israel’ more than Christ, something is wrong with your soul.
Jesus Christ IS the true Israel of God. Those in Him are Israel to whom the prophecies speak.
SDG, JT
Sorry, in my haste I said Rev.13 on the 144,000 but meant Rev.6.
Now what you just said is crazy. I will leave you with your theology because that is an ultimate insult. You might want to read what the Bible says once in a while.
Thanks for the forum.