# Rom 11:2 Elect of Israel or All?



## jwithnell (May 27, 2010)

My question hinges on the clause in Romans 11.2: "His people whom he foreknew."

John Murray contends that this refers to the nation as a whole largely because the preceding verse is talking about the whole nation as Paul reflects on his ancestors. He also shows that it is reasonable to see the elect as the whole nation because the Old Testament distinguishes between Israel and all other nations. 

Others, including Hodge, see the clause as referring to those who are among the elect from Israel. Murray concedes the strength of this viewpoint due to references such as 9:2-3 and his understanding of the kinsmen who are indeed separated from Christ.

What is your understanding, and why?


----------



## Scott1 (May 27, 2010)

> Romans 11
> 
> 1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
> 
> ...



I can't say with great certainty or conviction.

In the past, I would have been more likely to say "all Israel" would be every single one.

But on closer reflection, and looking at the context, "all" often means all sorts of, or refers to a group within a group, etc.

The context here, the seven thousand (v. 4) is a subset within ethnic Israel. Not every one who was outwardly identified that way was saved but only a remnant of seven thousand.

Another difficulty is, who is "Israel"? To have the guarantee of salvation in the future, how much Jewish ethnicity is required? Is it 100%? Is it any part at all? King David had some Gentile blood, and there has been much intermixing since that time. Many who might distinguish themselves that way, are mostly Gentile ethnically.

This is also a real problem for dispensationalism- how can people with some Jewish blood know if they qualify for the special plan of redemption that system is based on? To say, only God knows, is to say that those who would have their eternal destiny based on it cannot know from God's revealed will (Scripture).

More, and more I lean toward God doing a substantial work of redemption, on the basis of Christ, among all sorts of people, including those with some Jewish ancestry.

It seems Mr. Calvin understood it more that way as well.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 27, 2010)

I agree with my avatar on this.


----------



## Peairtach (May 27, 2010)

i subscribe to the belief that Romans 11 teaches that there will always be a number of ethnic Jews who believe and that there will be a full conversion of the nation in the future.

I would have always said that "foreknew" in Romans 11:2 refers to the savingly elect among the chosen people, the Jews.

Romans 11:1 Paul gives himself, one of the elect, as an example of an Israelite that had not been cast away.

_God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. (Rom 1:2)_

the above may imply that God has cast away, in some sense, those among the Jewish people whom He did not foreknow.

Romans 11:4. The 7,000 are the savingly elect in Israel in the time of Elijah.

Romans 11:5-6. Only the savingly elect among the Old or New Covenant peoples are elect by pure saving grace. The others have experienced the grace of being providentially placed in the visible Israel, but if they reject God's way of salvation they are blinded (11:7).


Romans 11:9-10. David in the Psalms often makes a distinction between the wicked and the righteous (just/justified) among the Covenant people.

I don't know if the word "foreknow"/"foreknew"/"foreknown" is ever used of anyone but the savingly elect.(?) The idea of "knowledge" by God in the word "foreknow" is that of a loving and intimate knowledge, as in the use of "knowledge" respecting marital relations in the Bible.


----------



## jwithnell (May 27, 2010)

> who is "Israel"? ... how much Jewish ethnicity is required? Is it 100%? Is it any part at all?



I'm not sure this is a difficulty here because of the overall context of Romans and Paul trying to get the Gentile and Jewish believers to gain a proper viewpoint of one another. I'll accept at face value that the Jews would be those identified with that ethnicity.

The guarantee of salvation is part of my original question. The elect among Israel certainly would be, salvation by ethnicity certainly would not. Hence the difficulty in understanding what is meant here.



> i subscribe to the belief that Romans 11 teaches that there will always be a number of ethnic Jews who believe and that there will be a full conversion of the nation in the future.


 The later conversion of the nation is largely what's driving my study. I've had a rather loose view of this and my pastor preached on 11:1-10 last Sunday and made me realize that my understanding may be way off. That's why I'm trying to work carefully through this passage.


----------



## Peairtach (May 27, 2010)

You may or may not want to look at this thread where I analyse O.Palmer Robertson's analysis of Romans 11 in his otherwise good book, "The Israel of God" (PandR).

Palmer Robertson teaches that there will not be a national conversion, whereas I believe that Romans 11 teaches that there will be.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/o-palmer-robertson-romans-11-a-51401/



> Another difficulty is, who is "Israel"? To have the guarantee of salvation in the future, how much Jewish ethnicity is required? Is it 100%? Is it any part at all? King David had some Gentile blood, and there has been much intermixing since that time. Many who might distinguish themselves that way, are mostly Gentile ethnically.



This is no problem for God, anymore than if He wanted to do a work among the Americans. Who are the Americans? Who are United States people?



> More, and more I lean toward God doing a substantial work of redemption, on the basis of Christ, among all sorts of people, including those with some Jewish ancestry.



I believe from Scripture that not only will the ethnic Jews turn as a nation to the Lord, but also all nations, so that although the conversion of the Jewish people is mentioned in Romans 11, it is not unique,

At some point the American people, the Chinese people, the Pakistani and Indian people, the Scots people, will turn to the Lord.

All these peoples involve admixtures of various races of some kind. It will be no problem for God, anymore than piecing together our bodies on the Last Day.

God isn't stumped by these kinds of things.



> This is also a real problem for dispensationalism- how can people with some Jewish blood know if they qualify for the special plan of redemption that system is based on? To say, only God knows, is to say that those who would have their eternal destiny based on it cannot know from God's revealed will (Scripture).



Dispensationalists have all sorts of weird ideas connected with ethnic Israel. But there have always been those who subscribe to Covenant Theology who believe in a future national conversion of Israel - maybe who tend to be postmil.

I don't know if the belief that God is finished with ethnic Israel along with a rise in amillennialism rather than postmil, is a reaction to dispensationalism which is so strong in the evangelical United States.

Also any national conversion of the Jews has been so long in coming that some postmils may have given up holding their breath, which they shouldn't do, and become amils who deny that the Jews will ever turn back to the Lord in substantial numbers.


----------



## Scott1 (May 27, 2010)

Very helpful, Richard.

A few comments, questions to try and understand this better:



Richard Tallach said:


> You may or may not want to look at this thread where I analyse O.Palmer Robertson's analysis of Romans 11 in his otherwise good book, "The Israel of God" (PandR).
> 
> Palmer Robertson teaches that there will not be a national conversion, whereas I believe that Romans 11 teaches that there will be.
> 
> ...



Isn't broad national conversion of ethnic Israel also one view within amillennialism?


----------



## Bern (May 27, 2010)

I'm A-mil and lean towards the belief that God will perform a large revival among the Jewish people. I think the beginnings of that started in 1948. Unfortunately the Dispensationalists have attached lots of unbiblical ideas to the events in Palestine in the last century, which has caused people to swing the other way and deny even the possibility of God doing a work with the Jews. If it wasn't even an issue I don't see why Paul would have included that passage in Romans.


----------



## Peairtach (May 27, 2010)

> Yes, from God's standpoint, nothing is difficult but aren't we (mankind) being given revelation to live by here that, in one interpretation, would say that a visible people group will have a complete or comprehensive redemption?
> 
> This may be a stretch, but since some of the modern day Syrians arguably at least have some ethnic Jewish blood (from remnants of the Samaritans, mixed Jew and Gentile two thousand years ago)- would this apply to them as a nation?
> 
> Apply though they do not embrace the nationality of "Israel" nor the culture, nor the religion- and are, in some respects historical enemies of all three?




Well that's up to God to decide. He's doing the promising and converting.

Notice that even those who do not believe in a future national conversion, like Palmer Robertson, believe that Romans 11 promises that there will always be some Jews who believe, something which is also not promised to other nations/people groups. So whether or not there was a future national conversion of the Jews, God must be well able to identify them.

It's up to the Jews or anyone else for that matter to believe when they here the command of the Gospel irrespective of whether they have heard of Romans 11 or what they think about it.

More later, Scott.......


----------



## N. Eshelman (May 27, 2010)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I agree with my avatar on this.


 
What a creepy statement. So futuristic.


----------



## jwithnell (May 27, 2010)

> "The Israel of God" (PandR). Palmer Robertson


 Yes I'd be interested in both the book and the thread. I respect Mr. Robertson a lot and am somewhat comforted to know that my viewpoint isn't totally out in left field. (But I still intend to investigate this carefully; to me it's critical to understanding all the mentions of Israel, remnant, God's people, etc., etc.)



> Isn't broad national conversion of ethnic Israel also one view within amillennialism?


 This might be part of my readjustment. I am shifting toward an amil view after almost 30 years of holding to a Postmil perspective. I am trying to make sure that this is really what I understand the scripture to teach before putting myself in a new camp.


----------



## Peairtach (May 27, 2010)

> So, are you saying that, in this view, there is nothing really different or unique about "Israel" being broadly converted?
> 
> That it was "special" only in that sense that it one day happen to replace broad rejection?



Well if you're a postmil, you believe that all nations are going to experience massive and national conversion sooner or later, so it's niot unique in that sense.

Paul is explaining the role of the Jews in the pattern of the New Covenant redemptive history. God isn't going to wipe them out, as we might expect if He was thoroughly finished with them, as He did with some OT nations that rebelled against Him.

There will always be a small number of Jews who believe.

There will one day be a national conversion of the Jews that will be like life from the dead for the world. i.e. when it happens the Church's prospects in the World will be at a low point, and the conversion of the Jews will somehow be vivifying under God's blessing.

In Christ their is neither Jew nor Gentile. The middle wall of partition has been broken down. Jews and Gentiles in Christ will fully know after the national conversion of the Jews, how they have been mutually important to each other in God's plan, for which Paul writes his doxology of praise.

So it will be a "special" national conversion among many, but once it happens the Jewish believers will realise that there is nothing particularly special about them compared to their Gentile brothers, because it is all of grace, and they have been brought to salvation through Gentile evangelism and the Jews are but one nation among many in the spiritual Israel of God over which Christ is King, and the Land of Palestine/Israel is only a very small part of Christ's territory.



> Are you saying that "postmill" tends to lead to a broad national conversion of ethnic "Israel" but only in the sense of that happening to every ethnic group?



I think most postmils believe that Romans 11 teaches a national conversion of Israel (leading to a renewal of the worldwide Church or not?). Apparently Lorraine Boettner was an exception. He was a postmil that didn't believe that Romans 11 taught a national Jewish conversion. I'd have to check his book on "The Millennium" to see how that worked out.



> Isn't broad national conversion of ethnic Israel also one view within amillennialism?



Yes. I believe some amils hold to this. They believe that the Bible teaches there will be a national conversion of the Jews, but not necessarily that it teaches Christianisation of every nation civilly and ecclesiastically and thoroughly, end of the Papacy and false religion including secularism and atheism, world peace and prosperity for hundreds or thousands of years before the final apostasy. Not a utopia, but a relative Silver Age.

Some amils say that the Silver Age might happen, but that they don't see it definitely in the Bible.

Some believe the Bible teaches the conversion of the Jews but definitely doesn't teach a Silver Age.


----------



## Scott1 (May 27, 2010)

> *Richard Tallach*
> So it will be a "special" national conversion among many, but once it happens the Jewish believers will realise that there is nothing particularly special about them compared to their Gentile brothers, because it is all of grace, and they have been brought to salvation through Gentile evangelism and the Jews are but one nation among many in the spiritual Israel of God over which Christ is King, and the Land of Palestine/Israel is only a very small part of Christ's territory.



So, it appears you are saying postmill would say, "yes, we believe in a future national (comprehensive) redemption for ethnic Israel," but would also say, and so for everyone else. In the end, Israel will find out it was not "special" in that regard.

Would you say this is a general view of postmillennialism?

Regarding, amillennialism:



> They believe that the Bible teaches there will be a national conversion of the Jews, but not necessarily that it teaches Christianisation of every nation civilly and ecclesiastically and thoroughly, end of the Papacy and false religion including secularism and atheism, world peace and prosperity for hundreds or thousands of years before the final apostasy. Not a utopia, but a relative Silver Age.



Do you think amillennialism generally holds to an apostasy right before the end? Does that mean a falling away in the visible church before the Lord's return?

Also, would someone who called themselves an "optimistic" amillennialist believe there was not a general apostasy of the visible church right before the Lord's return?


----------



## jwithnell (May 27, 2010)

> Do you think amillennialism generally holds to an apostasy right before the end?



From what I'm understanding (likely with a fair amount of influence from old Princeton and Westminster folks with a happy addition of the Dutch) the kingdom was ushered in with the resurrection of Christ. (A view I also held as a post mil.) But the kingdom is defined spiritually with no national boundaries, although faith has a profound effect on peoples and nations and we must bring Christ into every area of life. 

The key is the recognition of a remnant through time, hence its emphasis in the Rom 11 passage. I've heard sermons from highly respected folks who emphasize the tribulations of Revelation as the difficulties of the church _throughout_ the ages, and yet God's blessing and protection of his elect continues despite the ongoing presence of apostasy. But the number of his people will always be a remnant, just as was true of the OT believers. 

The question that's been before me is whether a special time of redemption will occur among the ethnic Jews at some now future date. I have to admit, that I have at times noticed this possibility while reading the scriptures, particularly among the prophets, but have not been faithful in trying to interpret these passages with other scripture -- I just took the easy way by telling myself that something's there but I don't know what.

Thanks for the many insights that everyone is sharing with me. I absolutely love PB at times like this!


----------



## MW (May 27, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> Also, would someone who called themselves an "optimistic" amillennialist believe there was not a general apostasy of the visible church right before the Lord's return?


 
To me amillennialism means realised millennialism, not non millennialism. As a realised millennialist I look for the fulfilment of Israel's hope in terms of the work of the Holy Spirit in gathering, endowing, and edifying the church throughout the earth. That leads to an optimistic view of the present age. As the church fulfils its commission of going into all the world to baptise and teach, the nations are discipled. Through this means God is restoring the kingdom to Israel. At last the fulness of the Gentiles will come in and all Israel shall be saved. I don't think there is anything else for us to consider in looking for the fulfilment of Israel's prophetic program. People like to bring in a whole host of ifs and buts based on what is seen, but these are irrelevant to the perspective of faith.

So far as an end time apostasy is concerned, I don't believe there is anything in Scripture which warrants the expectation of it. Apostasy has been a reality for the Christian church from day one. Like the extension of the kingdom of Christ in this world, it has been sometimes more and sometimes less evident.


----------



## Peairtach (May 28, 2010)

> So, it appears you are saying postmill would say, "yes, we believe in a future national (comprehensive) redemption for ethnic Israel," but would also say, and so for everyone else. In the end, Israel will find out it was not "special" in that regard.
> 
> Would you say this is a general view of postmillennialism?



I believe so. Though some postmils may be so heartily sick of dispensationalism and its obsession with the ethnic Jews and the State of Israel that they might take Palmer Robertson's approach to Romans 11 or even deny that ethnic Jews exist.

Also some of them may be tired of waiting for a national conversion of the Jews and so may take the above approaches.




> Do you think amillennialism generally holds to an apostasy right before the end? Does that mean a falling away in the visible church before the Lord's return?
> 
> Also, would someone who called themselves an "optimistic" amillennialist believe there was not a general apostasy of the visible church right before the Lord's return?



I can't answer for amils on that. I think some hold to an apostasy, although with amil there is no Silver Age to apostasise from. If they don't hold to a great but short apostasy at the end of the World I don't know how they explain away Revelation 20:7-10:



> And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven [fn] and consumed them, and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.



Or Ezekiel 37-39 which seems to be somewhat of an expansion of Revelation 20, having a resurrection and Gog and Magog like Revelation 20. See what Patrick Fairbairn says on this section of Ezekiel.

Presumably amils deal with the final apostasy in some idealist fashion? This apostasy at the end of the Millennium represents ongoing apostasy throughout the Millennium?

---------- Post added at 02:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 PM ----------




> J Withnell





> But the kingdom is defined spiritually with no national boundaries, although faith has a profound effect on peoples and nations and we must bring Christ into every area of life.



Christ's mediatorial New Covenant Kingdom, which He rules more "directly" as mediatorial prophet, priest and king is the invisible and visible Church. This corresponds to e.g. David-Solomon's reign over the nation of Israel. 

But remember the effect David and Solomons' reigns had on surrounding nations. And remember the effect which Christianity had on society, state and culture before the Enlightenment.

The conditions at a future point in history will be even more ideal for Christianity to impact all aspects of the world, than they have been since the time of Constantine (see Revelation 13:3).


----------



## alhembd (May 29, 2010)

Reverend Winzer,

Since you are a realised millennialist then - I believe that Ian Murray now is also - do you yet look for the national conversion of Israel, as Dr Murray does? Just curious.

Al Hembd


----------



## MW (May 30, 2010)

alhembd said:


> Since you are a realised millennialist then - I believe that Ian Murray now is also - do you yet look for the national conversion of Israel, as Dr Murray does?


 
Mr. Hembd,

That is a part of my hope and my prayer: "that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fulness of the Gentiles brought in..." (Larger Catechism, answer 191). May the Lord richly bless your labours towards this end!


----------



## Peairtach (May 31, 2010)

In a sense the Millennium was realised on the Day of Pentecost; or some would make A.D. 70 a significant First Century eschatalogical marker, when the whole world became Christ's _de iure_.

Anyway everything was in place in principle by the end of the First Century, so that we have had a realised Millennium in principle since then. But that does not mean that progress has not been made since then in a quantitative sense, and that further progress will not be made in a quantitative sense from the point we are at today.

_And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. (Luke 13:20-21, KJV) _

The moment the woman put the leaven in the meal (the eschatalogical events of the First Century), in principle you had the Millennium, but at the same time you didn't have the fulness of the Millennium.

The moment someone is converted you have a saved soul, but has he yet reached maturity in sanctification?

This is what I hold to as a postmil.


----------



## Scott1 (May 31, 2010)

> *Richard Tallach*
> 
> In a sense the Millennium was realised on the Day of Pentecost; or some would make A.D. 70 a significant First Century eschatalogical marker, when the whole world became Christ's de iure.



Isn't the concept of a millennium primarily drawn from Revelation 20?

If that is the case, how does one infer it began on Pentecost, or further yet at the destruction of the nation of Israel?


----------



## Peairtach (May 31, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> > *Richard Tallach*
> >
> > In a sense the Millennium was realised on the Day of Pentecost; or some would make A.D. 70 a significant First Century eschatalogical marker, when the whole world became Christ's de iure.
> 
> ...



Well Revelation 20 is just a starter. You've got to fill it out with the rest of Scripture. Amils and most modern postmils would make the Millennium co-extensive with Christ's mediatorial reign from Heaven over the Earth from the First Century to the Eschaton.

We know from the Gospels that the binding of Satan began in the First Century, when Jesus brought the message of the Kingdom to the people of Palestine. I would argue from Revelation 20 and elsewhere that that binding is progressive from the First Century rather than complete in the First Century, but it started then. (e.g. Mark 3:27)

Revelation 20:4:- the saints, including the martyrs, experienced spiritual resurrection and started ruling and reigning with Christ (on Earth; and also in Heaven when they go there) from the First Century on. (E.g. John 5:25; II Tim 2:12; Rev 5:10)

We, believers on Earth, are reigning on Earth; while believers in Heaven are reigning in Heaven. 

_But the fulness of this text will not be experienced until all persecuting foes of the Church (the Beast) have been defeated by the Gospel. It is taught that this will happen in history in Revelation 19 and elsewhere.

The complex of Eschatalogical events in the First Century is the beginning of the Millennium and the setting up of Christ's New Covenant Kingdom on Earth, during the period of the Roman Empire, as prophesied in Daniel 2:44and elsewhere.

Part of the message of Revelation is about that complex of First Century eschatalogical events, although I believe that it also deals with the end of Civil/Pagan/Secular persecutory powers (the Beast), the end of Antichrist (the Papacy) and antichrists (the Second Beast/False Prophet) and the end of the apostate Church (Babylon).

Revelation 11:14-19 and other passages point to the destruction of the Temple on Earth, the end of the OT Theocracy, and the opening of Christ's (He is the Ark of the Covenant) Temple in Heaven, and the establishment of Christ's mediatorial Theocracy, the visible and invisible Church, on Earth. 

From the First Century on the whole Earth is Christ's (the God-Man's) Israel, not just Israel/Palestine. But in a sense it has to be taken possession of through the preaching of the Gospel. 

Joshua and the Israelites were in an analagous typological situation when they stood on the borders of Canaan.

Christ is our Moses-Joshua and David-Solomon.

The Church of Jews and Gentiles is the Israel of God.

The whole earth is the Land of Israel.

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5) _


----------



## Scott1 (May 31, 2010)

> *Richard Tallach*
> Amils and most modern postmils would make the Millennium co-extensive with Christ's mediatorial reign from Heaven over the Earth from the First Century to the Eschaton.



So, that would be when our Lord ascended into Heaven (Acts 1)?



> We know from the Gospels that the binding of Satan began in the First Century, when Jesus brought the message of the Kingdom to the people of Palestine. I would argue from Revelation 20 and elsewhere that that binding is progressive from the First Century rather than complete in the First Century, but it started then. (e.g. Mark 3:27)



Is your understanding "amill" would say the devil was bound when? When He first began to preach, or when He was resurrected?

And do most postmills believe that as well, as opposed to the "progressive" binding you mention?



> We, believers on Earth, are reigning on Earth; while believers in Heaven are reigning in Heaven.



Would it be more correct to say that Jesus is actually the one doing the reigning, from Heaven, over His people on earth?


----------



## Peairtach (May 31, 2010)

*Quote from Scott*


> *Richard Tallach*
> Amils and most modern postmils would make the Millennium co-extensive with Christ's mediatorial reign from Heaven over the Earth from the First Century to the Eschaton.
> 
> *Scott*
> So, that would be when our Lord ascended into Heaven (Acts 1)?



Yes, but we can't put everything in redemptive history into neat boxes, in an organically developing process.

The binding of Satan began, according to the Gospel references, during our Lord's ministry. It would have made even greater advances when our Lord had all power in Heaven and in Earth by going to the Father.

The regeneration of the soul in the believer was described as a resurrection by our Lord in the Gospels. It would have made an even greater advance when He went to the Father and was able to baptise all His true people into Himself at the moment of regeneration from Pentecost onwards.



> *Richard*
> We know from the Gospels that the binding of Satan began in the First Century, when Jesus brought the message of the Kingdom to the people of Palestine. I would argue from Revelation 20 and elsewhere that that binding is progressive from the First Century rather than complete in the First Century, but it started then. (e.g. Mark 3:27)
> 
> *Scott*
> Is your understanding "amill" would say the devil was bound when? When He first began to preach, or when He was resurrected?



Once again it is difficult to put everything respecting the complex of First Century redemptive events into neat boxes.

Maybe an amil would say that the binding of Satan started during our Lord's ministry and took an advance with the resurrection and then Pentecost (?) But amils believe that it was completed in the complex of First Century redemptive events. Unlike some postmils, who believe that the binding is an ongoing process with the chain of the Gospel.

*Scott*


> And do most postmills believe that as well, as opposed to the "progressive" binding you mention?



Probably most modern-style postmils believe that the binding was complete in the First Century. In a similar way Gentry or Bahnsen style preterism has become closely associated with postmil in America and elsewhere today. Although traditionally postmils weren't necessarily preterists - or mainly preterists - but were also historicists and idealists. Many postmils, to the extent that they studied Revelation, thought that elements of Revelation 5-19 were still to be fulfilled.



> *Richard*
> We, believers on Earth, are reigning on Earth; while believers in Heaven are reigning in Heaven.
> 
> *Scott*
> Would it be more correct to say that Jesus is actually the one doing the reigning, from Heaven, over His people on earth?



Yes. He is. But the Bible also teaches that we are spiritually prophets, priests and kings under and alongside Him, even now on Earth. If you know of any good literature on the priesthood of all believers, the prophethood of all believers and the kingship of all believers, I'd be interested.


----------



## KMK (May 31, 2010)

Tom Albrecht had this to say on this older thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/who-ethnic-israel-31394/



> The only operative covenant today is the new covenant. The old covenant was decaying and ready to pass away when Hebrews was written (8:13). The final collapse happened in AD70.
> 
> Biblical (old covenant) Judaism gave way to two religions, Christianity and rabbinic Judaism. Jews operating under the terms of the new covenant are called Christians.
> 
> ...


----------



## Peairtach (May 31, 2010)

The Israel of God exists. Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ.

As regards ethnic Israel, Paul traces the ethnic Jews back to Abraham _before_ the beginning of the Old Covenant and does not indicate that they'll cease to exist as a people.

_As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.(Rom 11:28-29, ESV)_


----------



## Scott1 (May 31, 2010)

> *Richard Tallach*
> The binding of Satan began, according to the Gospel references, during our Lord's ministry. It would have made even greater advances when our Lord had all power in Heaven and in Earth by going to the Father.



Not to parse words too much, but when one thinks of "binding" one thinks of an act where something is restrained from doing something. It's hard to think of it as a process, though I'm not arguing that point.

No wonder millennial views are such a long and winding road.

It would seem that the "binding" was in the sense of the devil not being able to broadly deceive the nations, especially the Gentile nations as he had been free to do so before Jesus' earthly ministry.

It would also seem that binding was not accomplished until he ascended to the right hand of the Father, having conquered sin and death in His resurrection- and that in that act began a figurative "millennium," a long period where He actually reigns from Heaven and this will continue until He returns as judge, and then turns the Kingdom over to His Father.



> I Corinthians 15
> 
> 24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.



At least, that's how I am thinking is the only relatively clear way of understanding this.

That is "a" millennial because, in contrast to premillennialism, that period of time is realized now with Christ reigning from Heaven now, made manifest especially through His church on earth.

It would seem what is now called postmillennialism believes this as well. Premillennialism, it would seem, would have to believe in a big separation before this happens.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 1, 2010)

> *Richard Tallach*
> The binding of Satan began, according to the Gospel references, during our Lord's ministry. It would have made even greater advances when our Lord had all power in Heaven and in Earth by going to the Father.
> 
> *Scott*
> ...




You may be right. Many/most(?) postmils/amils hold to this. But it would have to be _very broadly_ not deceive the nations.

Look at the Communist Soviet Union in the twentieth century, Maoist China, Cambodia, Rwanda, Nazi Germany.

Great Britain and the United States are largely deceived as nations today, apart from an elect remnant.

Although, Satan has quite effectively deceived whole nations in the period since the First Century, and even in the Twentieth Century. But the elect have not been deceived. But the elect aren't "nations" as nations.

Another consideration is that the chain which Christ (the angel) has in Revelation 20 is the Gospel and this can be drawn tighter and tighter. Also there is a process of binding and shutting up and sealing in Revelation 20.

Are we just at an early stage in that process? The amil must deny this, because he doesn't believe that things are going to get better between now and the Eschaton.

But have things got better between the First Century and today? There are more Christians in the world, for a start.

*Quote from Scott*


> It would also seem that binding was not accomplished until he ascended to the right hand of the Father, having conquered sin and death in His resurrection- and that in that act began a figurative "millennium," a long period where He actually reigns from Heaven and this will continue until He returns as judge, and then turns the Kingdom over to His Father.
> 
> 
> I Corinthians 15
> ...



The verse indicates that Christ will have defeated all His enemies, apart from death, from His place in Heaven, before the Eschaton.

Do these enemies include persecutory civil powers (the Beast), Antichrist and antichrists (the Second Beast), the apostate Church (Babylon), Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Judaism, secular humanism, etc, etc.

Who are the enemies that Christ shall have put under His feet in I Cor 15:25? Depending on your view of that you will be amil or postmil.

Postmils believe that manifestations of false religion - e.g. Islam, Shintoism, etc -will effectively be eliminated because the leaven will have leavened the whole three measures of meal.

Christ will have defeated enemies like Islam and Shintoism, not by returning to Earth bodily, but by defeating His enemies from God's right hand by His Spirit, Word (Gospel), Providence and Church.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 1, 2010)

> *Richard Tallach*
> Are we just at an early stage in that process? The amil must deny this, because he doesn't believe that things are going to get better between now and the Eschaton.



I wonder if amillennialism might say only that good and evil will develop side-by-side until the end.
It might also say there would be an apostasy right before the Lord's return- or an "optimistic" amillennialism might not expect a general apostasy at that time.

But, at minimum, it would seem amillennialism would say Christianity will survive and grow, despite that being more and less clear at various points in history.



> But have things got better between the First Century and today? There are more Christians in the world, for a start.



That's an interesting question. For me, it shows how truly difficult it is for us to assess our own "times" let alone compare them with history.

We now have more Christians numerically and by percentage of world population than ever before. It is truly global.

Some statistics say Christianity is growing more quickly than other religion, others say certain false religions are now growing faster.

And what makes it more difficult, is that we can't help but sense a general moral decline in this generation- measured by community standards being based on God's laws, and the blessings that flow from that, anyway.

There is also a sense that while Christianity is "a thousand miles wide" in some parts of the world, it is "only one inch deep," and does not stand the testing that would prove out its authenticity.

We are, it seems, most blessed, and most dismayed by the dissemination of sin- perhaps this is a time not like any other.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 1, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> The Israel of God exists. Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ.
> 
> As regards ethnic Israel, Paul traces the ethnic Jews back to Abraham _before_ the beginning of the Old Covenant and does not indicate that they'll cease to exist as a people.
> 
> _As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.(Rom 11:28-29, ESV)_


 
Is there not a great difference between Paul's Israel and modern (rabbinic) Judaism? In what sense have the gifts and calling of God been manifest among that people for the last 2000 years other than with the remnant that has been saved? Does a post-apostolic convert to Judaism share in the original blessing to Abraham's natural seed?


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 1, 2010)

> Is there not a great difference between Paul's Israel and modern (rabbinic) Judaism? In what sense have the gifts and calling of God been manifest among that people for the last 2000 years other than with the remnant that has been saved? Does a post-apostolic convert to Judaism share in the original blessing to Abraham's natural seed?



I'd leave that with God. If God has promised that there always will be a small number of Jews who will believe, through His servant Paul, as Palmer Robertson and others say, then it is a problem for the Lord to decide who is a true Jew or not. But is anything too hard for the Lord?

If the Lord also promises through Paul in Romans 9-11 a major national conversion of the Jews, which hasn't happened yet, as Professor John Murray and others have said, then it is going to be a problem for the Lord.

If the Lord promises that there is going to be major national conversions of all nations in the future, as many contend from Scripture, then there will be similar problems for most or all nations. 

e.g. Scots blood (originally from the North of Ireland) in Scotland has been mixed with Norse, Anglo-Saxon, Welsh-British, Pictish-British, Irish, etc. So if God has promised to bring all nations to worship him, how is He going to distinguish the Scots nation?

Most of the Jews are enemies of the Gospel. They are only beloved because of being set apart by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The idea of someone being outwardly in a Covenantal relationship with God, is not understood by many on this Board, particularly Credobaptists.

But this must be the case if the Jews are beloved for the father's sakes and if Paul is teaching that there will always be a remnant of believing Jews. God still recognises the Jews, but not in the way Dispensationalists go on about.

Their true home is as equals with the Gentiles in the spiritual Israel of God. Christ is incorporating all nations into the Israel of God, Jews and Gentiles, as He is the King of Israel.

*Quote from Tom*


> Does a post-apostolic convert to Judaism share in the original blessing to Abraham's natural seed?



Even before the end of the apostolic period, the Jews were not a pure Semitic race descending from Abraham. There was always provision for others to become Jews (see Genesis 17).

Are the Jews a nation or a religion or both. Like the Church, they are both.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 1, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> If the Lord also promises through Paul in Romans 9-11 a major national conversion of the Jews, which hasn't happened yet, as Professor John Murray and others have said, then it is going to be a problem for the Lord.



I'm not sure I see a future, national conversion of Jews in Romans 9-11.



Richard Tallach said:


> *Quote from Tom*
> 
> 
> > Does a post-apostolic convert to Judaism share in the original blessing to Abraham's natural seed?
> ...


 
But during Paul's time -- that time of overlap between the old and new covenants -- it was possible for one to be a Jew according to the old covenant, since it was, at least in part, still operative. That has not been the case since the destruction of Jerusalem and the introduction of pure rabbinic Judaism almost 2000 years ago. The old covenant has passed away. There are no Jews today on terms that would have been recognizable to Paul.

The Jews today are not a nation as the Church is a nation before God. The Church stands unique in this regard, and has for the last 2000 years.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 1, 2010)

*Tom*


> I'm not sure I see a future, national conversion of Jews in Romans 9-11.


I do, along with others better able than myself. I hold to it more strongly after analysing Palmer Robertson's essay which tried to refute it in his book "The Israel of God".



> But during Paul's time -- that time of overlap between the old and new covenants -- it was possible for one to be a Jew according to the old covenant, since it was, at least in part, still operative. That has not been the case since the destruction of Jerusalem and the introduction of pure rabbinic Judaism almost 2000 years ago. The old covenant has passed away. There are no Jews today on terms that would have been recognizable to Paul.



What about the Covenant with the Fathers, the Abrahamic Covenant.

The Apostle was wasting a lot of time on a rather short section of Old/New Covenant redemptive history, for which He gave a noted doxology. 

He did not tell us that the Jews were going to cease to exist. Even scholars like Palmer Robertson don't assert that they have ceased to exist, because they say that God has always had a small number of his elect among them.

You are saying that Romans 9-11 is telling us that God will always have a small number of elect Jews between the writing of the Book of Romans and A.D. 70, at which point the Jews ceased to exist, and yet in Romans 9-11, the inspired Apostle fails to tell us that they will cease to exist?!

Are there any Reformed commentaries on Romans that hold to the view that the Apostle is only addressing the pre-A.D. 70 period in Romans 9-11?



> The Jews today are not a nation as the Church is a nation before God. The Church stands unique in this regard, and has for the last 2000 years.



I would agree that they are not like the Church. They are beloved for the Fathers' sakes but enemies for the Gospel's sake.

But we are engrafted into their stock and take on the character of "spiritual Israelites", not "spiritual Gentiles"

The Apostle says these "natural branches" can be engrafted again, but you are saying that they can't, because since A.D. 70 there are no natural branches.

*Tom*


> The only operative covenant today is the new covenant. The old covenant was decaying and ready to pass away when Hebrews was written (8:13). The final collapse happened in AD70.



The New Covenant is an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant, as was the Old Covenant.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 1, 2010)

Richard,

I think you misunderstand my position somewhat. Obviously those who call themselves "Jews" as well as gentiles have been and are being saved during the past 2000 years, since God is no respecter of persons. What I do not see in Romans 9-11 is the necessity of holding to a national regathering of Israel at some point in the future. The nation of Israel has ceased to be. That is a fact. The Abrahamic covenant, as far as national Israel is concerned, has ceased to be. Those who call themselves Jews do not live according to any form of the biblical covenant. 

I do not see a restoration of the nation of Israel any more than I see a restoration of the ancient Greek or Roman empires on the pages of the NT. 

The fact that "All Israel will be saved" does not demand a national restoration for its fulfillment, in my opinion. Our prayer is that many who call themselves Jews regardless of their ethnicity would come to Christ and be grafted into His body, The Church, the one true nation of God.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 2, 2010)

tcalbrecht said:


> Richard,
> 
> I think you misunderstand my position somewhat. Obviously those who call themselves "Jews" as well as gentiles have been and are being saved during the past 2000 years, since God is no respecter of persons. What I do not see in Romans 9-11 is the necessity of holding to a national regathering of Israel at some point in the future. The nation of Israel has ceased to be. That is a fact. The Abrahamic covenant, as far as national Israel is concerned, has ceased to be. Those who call themselves Jews do not live according to any form of the biblical covenant.
> 
> ...



I don't understand your position. Is it held by any Reformed commentaries on Romans?

The Apostle talks about the Jews being "the natural branches" and warns us against boasting against them, but you are saying that since A.D. 70 (?) the Jews and Nation of Israel no longer exist.



> since God is no respecter of persons.



The Apostle is saying that there will always be a small number of Jews, or "Jews" as you call them, who believe. He is not giving this promise about any other nation.

I don't understand your position, since you seem to be saying that the Apostle was speaking about is only relevant for a short period from the writing of Romans, until the Jews ceased to exist, and then you tell us that "Jews" as you call them, have been saved since then. Presumably what the Apostle is saying is utterly irrelevant to Jews and Gentiles being saved in our day. But he doesn't put such a limitation on his words anywhere.

Yet the Apostle tells us not to be arrogant towards the Jews. Is it arrogance to say that they don't exist?

I can understand Palmer Robertson's approach to this passage, better than yours. 

If the Jews are "Jews" Romans 11 is irrelevant. How did the Jews turn into "Jews" in A.D. 70? If God had wanted them to be completely wiped out, He could have let the Romans do it.

Is this just a severe reaction to Dispensational hoopla and an extreme preterist approach to Romans 11?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 2, 2010)

Richard,

It would be similar to any commentary that does not hold to a nationalist restoration of Israel in the future, e.g., Calvin. 



> _And so all Israel_, etc. Many understand this of the Jewish people, as though Paul had said, that religion would again be restored among them as before: but I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, according to this meaning, — “When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both; and yet in such a way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it were the first-born in God’s family.” This interpretation seems to me the most suitable, because Paul intended here to set forth the completion of the kingdom of Christ, which is by no means to be confined to the Jews, but is to include the whole world. The same manner of speaking we find in Galatians 6:16. The Israel of God is what he calls the Church, gathered alike from Jews and Gentiles; and he sets the people, thus collected from their dispersion, in opposition to the carnal children of Abraham, who had departed from his faith.



While Israel was identifiable as a nation by virtue of the old covenant, these promises held. And it is true that no small portion of Israel in that day came to faith in their Messiah, perhaps even a majority in some areas. But since the destruction of AD70 that old covenant and the claims of Israel the nation have passed away, or rather has been fully transferred to the Church. Israel the nation can never again exist. Rather Jews receive their salvation by ingrafting into the body of Christ, the Church. 

As I said, I see no requirement that Romans 9-11 be read in a nationalist sense wrt Israel.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 2, 2010)

Well I would say with your view being posited, there are three views:

(a) The view that the Jews still exist, and that there will always be a small number of these natural branches in the Olive Tree, and returned to the Olive Tree, but that at some point there will be a national ingrafting. 

(b) The view that the Jews still exist, amd that there will always be a small number of these natural branches in the Olive Tree, and returned to the Olive Tree, but thee will be no national revival.


(c) The view that the Jews, natural branches, do not exist as natural branches, and are therefore "Jews", but some are saved down through the centuries, but not according to Paul's plan in Romans 11. How could it be according to Paul's plan, since the Jews do not exist?

*Calvin*


> And so all Israel, etc. Many understand this of the Jewish people, as though Paul had said, that religion would again be restored among them as before: but I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, according to this meaning, — “When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both; and yet in such a way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it were the first-born in God’s family.” This interpretation seems to me the most suitable, because Paul intended here to set forth the completion of the kingdom of Christ, which is by no means to be confined to the Jews, but is to include the whole world. The same manner of speaking we find in Galatians 6:16. The Israel of God is what he calls the Church, gathered alike from Jews and Gentiles; and he sets the people, thus collected from their dispersion, in opposition to the carnal children of Abraham, who had departed from his faith.



I believe Calvin did believe in a national conversion of the Jews (although I may be wrong on this) although he held that "all Israel" refers to all believers.

I tend to think that "all Israel" refers to all believers myself, although I believe in a national conversion of the Jews from Romans 11.


----------

