They are not all Israel (Romans 9:6)

[humbled]

I dont' know if this is the right place to post this, so move this to an appropriate section, mods

Romans 9:6-8

9 But it is not as though the word of God has failed For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED."

8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

I've been learning and pondering what this means and have reached the conclusion that Paul was speaking of not only the new covenant but the old as well.

In the OT, does the term "Israel" mean the true believers when speaking of spiritual salvation?

And in the NT, when Jesus says "I have come only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel", when speaking to the gentile "dog" (Matt 15:22-28), it is my understanding (with this concept in mind) that He was making a point to His audience by saying this and helping the gentile woman anyway, that she WAS of the house if Israel ... spiritual Israel, since she demonstrated that she had faith.

Is this consistent?

Anyone else have this same view?

Thanks

 

[AV1611]

The point that St. Paul is making here is that the true seed are those who like Isaac were are children of the promise i.e. those who are spiritual.

Suggest you have a read:
1. http://www.prca.org/articles/predestination/predestination_2.html
2. http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/childrenofthepromise.htm

 

[Contra_Mundum]

In the context, here's what Paul is saying:

"They (speaking of Paul's brethren after the flesh, the Jews)
are not all (or all them are not)
Israel (the real thing)
who are descended from Israel" (or as the older translations "who are of Israel")

A literal translation of the verse:
"For it is not the case that all-they-of-Israel (are) these Israel"

Not every Jew is a true Israelite. And the following verse confirms this, teaching that just because someone descended from Abraham does not make him a true Israelite.

v.8 What makes one an Israelite is sharing the faith of Abraham. So the elect, not the children of the body are reckoned the descendants/heirs/etc. of the promise.

Any Gentile (like Naaman the Syrian) who trusts in the God of Israel will "sit down at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," while the children of the kingdom are cast out (Mt. 8:11-12).

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Gentlemen,

I did a logical analysis of this verse in reponse to claims made by Derek Prince. If interested you can find it here: A Logical Analysis of Romans 9:6.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Brian,
Thank you for your link/blog series. I thought you did a very good job explaining Paul's train of thought there, and showing what was and was not necessitated from what he said. Clearly, the D.P. who asserted a necessary conclusion, failed to make the case.

The only place I would disagree with you is in your discussion of logizomai. The word does mean "impute/count/reckon." When you write: "This means that the way someone is counted as the seed of Abraham is the same way we are made righteous," your parallelism doesn't line-up (so to speak). We are "reckoned" Abraham's seed, and we are "reckoned" as righteous. Insterting "the way" doesn't clarify, and stating that we are "made righteous" is definitely the wrong terminology, stating as it does quite the reverse of "reckoned righteous." You could drop this discussion, and still have a flawless logical presentation. For "we are the circumcision." (Phil. 3:3)

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Bruce,

Great observations! I stand corrected. Would you mind commenting on this at my blog? I think it would be beneficial.

Sincerely,

Brian
P.S. Thank you for reading the series.

 

[humbled]

Thanks for the great feedback everyone.

Does anyone have an opinion regarding my take on Matthew 15:22-28? This is where Jesus explicitly says He came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but helps the Canaanite woman just the same.

I was speaking with someone who said that Jesus came for the natural Israelites in His earthly mission, but sent the apostles (mainly Paul) out to reach "spiritual" Israel, but I believe differently.

Thanks again for the replies so far.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

By assisting the Sidonian woman, Jesus clearly shows that he is the Savior of every person who has faith in him. You have to believe in the Israelite Messiah, because there isn't any other. He is the Savior for the whole world (Jn. 3:16). And no one who Jesus claims is properly called a "dog" or an outsider any more.

Jn. 14:12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father."

Jesus here promises that through his disciples he will do even greater deeds. Their success (which is God's--Father's, Son's, and Spirit's) will be the visible vindication of his mission.

Jesus ministry did, on occasion, foreshadow the worldwide extension of the Kingdom by the power of the Spirit outpoured. Nevertheless, he kept his work focused on the "lost sheep" of the 12 Tribes. But, as he said: "I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd" (Jn. 10:16). They are all sheep, and they are all one flock, ONE people of God--Israel (as Paul says, Gal. 6:16).

So who is bringing these alien sheep into the ONE fold? Jesus himself. Sure, he uses Paul and others, but that doesn't allow one to say that Jesus isn't doing the bringing. And as you point out from Mt. 15 (but also recall the trips into Samaria, Jn. 4; the region of the Gadarenes, Mt. 8:28-34), there are instances of Jesus in the flesh "drawing all men to himself" even before he is "lifted up" on the cross (Jn. 12:32).

So we can say that Jesus had the widest possible vision for his work--in the long run. But to begin with, Israel is made the special focus of the work. It must be, for to them God had made the promises, and had promised to bless the rest of the world through them. So naturally Israel is the place for him to go first. He sends the disciples initially "not into the way of the Gentiles" nor Samaritans, "but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt. 10:6).

But they must do greater things. They must bring in the whole lost world. Bring IN to where? To Israel.

 

[humbled]

By assisting the Sidonian woman, Jesus clearly shows that he is the Savior of every person who has faith in him. You have to believe in the Israelite Messiah, because there isn't any other. He is the Savior for the whole world (Jn. 3:16). And no one who Jesus claims is properly called a "dog" or an outsider any more.

Jn. 14:12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father."

Jesus here promises that through his disciples he will do even greater deeds. Their success (which is God's--Father's, Son's, and Spirit's) will be the visible vindication of his mission.

Jesus ministry did, on occasion, foreshadow the worldwide extension of the Kingdom by the power of the Spirit outpoured. Nevertheless, he kept his work focused on the "lost sheep" of the 12 Tribes. But, as he said: "I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd" (Jn. 10:16). They are all sheep, and they are all one flock, ONE people of God--Israel (as Paul says, Gal. 6:16).

So who is bringing these alien sheep into the ONE fold? Jesus himself. Sure, he uses Paul and others, but that doesn't allow one to say that Jesus isn't doing the bringing. And as you point out from Mt. 15 (but also recall the trips into Samaria, Jn. 4; the region of the Gadarenes, Mt. 8:28-34), there are instances of Jesus in the flesh "drawing all men to himself" even before he is "lifted up" on the cross (Jn. 12:32).

So we can say that Jesus had the widest possible vision for his work--in the long run. But to begin with, Israel is made the special focus of the work. It must be, for to them God had made the promises, and had promised to bless the rest of the world through them. So naturally Israel is the place for him to go first. He sends the disciples initially "not into the way of the Gentiles" nor Samaritans, "but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt. 10:6).

But they must do greater things. They must bring in the whole lost world. Bring IN to where? To Israel.

Thank you for the reply, but I'm still a bit confused.

On one hand we have "I have come only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel" which it appears you are asserting that He is speaking of the literal 12 tribes (unless I misunderstand you), and on the other hand we have Paul saying "not all are Israel that are descended from Israel" ... so if we put the two together, do we get Jesus saying "I came for the house of spiritual Israel -- or literal Israel"?

Sorry if I'm persistent, or if you already answered this .. but I just wanted a bit of clarity.

Grace and peace

 

[BertMulder]

The whole context here shows that Paul is here speaking of both the Old and New Testament. He is here discussing election and reprobation. By Israel is signified the church. He makes a transition. Also, remember he is speaking to the church at Rome. The gentiles. In chapter 8 he is speaking of the chain of salvation. Then he starts of chapter 9 lamenting of the state of his kinsmen. Then in the verses below he enters the transition, showing that the church (Israel) is not determined by bloodlines.

6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Also important to note this passage from Galatians. We always have to look at Scripture as a unity:

16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

18For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

20Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

21Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

In the context (see Mt. 10:6 as well), Jesus makes mention of a distinction--Israel and the Gentiles--that currently exists, but soon will disappear. He is speaking of an outward identity at that place.

I think your question turns on the fact that "sheep" is an equivocal term. When Jesus says "lost sheep" he can be referring to the nation as a whole--a whole externally identified people who are largely faithless. Or, he can use the term to speak of the lost sheep that he finds, the ones who are his sheep from within the nation. That last idea is what Paul expresses in Rom. 9:6--that only some within the literal nation are Israel in truth. Now that idea does not restrict "Israel in truth" to being a subset of the literal nation. Paul doesn't say that ONLY the national spiritual remnant is Israel in truth. There could be others (like a certain S-P woman?) who deserve the name.

Jesus affects the ordinary Jewish disdain for the unprivileged Gentiles, but he does so in order to draw the woman's faith to the surface--to show everyone that she has greater faith than thousands of Israel's lost sheep. The inference that you can draw is that this Gentile is actually one of Jesus' sheep. But it takes time, I think, into the apostolic age, for all the implications to be clearly seen; for them to all be taught and recorded in the apostolic writings.

I would put it this way: the doctrine that all Jesus people are true Israel is buried in what Jesus says to the Syrophonecian woman, but it isn't perhaps as blatant as if Jesus were declaring the full truth in so many words. The story of Acts is the story of the church growing up into the fullness of this awareness. But I do think that what Jesus says is compatible with the realization that this woman (from beyond the literal flock) was one of Jesus sheep, and belonged to the true, spiritual flock. When we realize that Jesus IS Israel fulfilled, then ALL his people bear HIS name Israel.

Hope that clarifies a little.

 

[humbled]

I think your question turns on the fact that "sheep" is an equivocal term. When Jesus says "lost sheep" he can be referring to the nation as a whole--a whole externally identified people who are largely faithless. Or, he can use the term to speak of the lost sheep that he finds, the ones who are his sheep from within the nation.

I am now curious, and this may go a bit off topic, but do you believe that there are sheep out there that are NOT Jesus' sheep? Or ... do you believe that one becomes a sheep?

I believe Scripture teaches that a sheep is a sheep and that ALL sheep are Christ's sheep. And also a non-sheep always is and always will be a non-sheep (ie, goat/wolf)

This would be a good discussion in and of itself, but I just thought it could be an interesting question.

Thanks for your time, my brother.

John

 

[humbled]

The whole context here shows that Paul is here speaking of both the Old and New Testament. He is here discussing election and reprobation. By Israel is signified the church. He makes a transition. Also, remember he is speaking to the church at Rome. The gentiles. In chapter 8 he is speaking of the chain of salvation. Then he starts of chapter 9 lamenting of the state of his kinsmen. Then in the verses below he enters the transition, showing that the church (Israel) is not determined by bloodlines.



Also important to note this passage from Galatians. We always have to look at Scripture as a unity:

Oh, thank you Bert, for your reply.

I believe you are saying what I am ... only with more eloquence and prose

 

[BertMulder]

I believe you are saying what I am ... only with more eloquence and prose

You are making me blush.

No one ever said that to me before, not even my dear wife.

 

[humbled]

You are making me blush.

No one ever said that to me before, not even my dear wife.

Maybe you should write your dear wife some poetry, then?

That'll get you in good with her!

Write a good poem and put it in her stocking for Christmas morning .. then maybe she'll realize what she's been missing all these years

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The term "sheep" is often used indiscriminately for the church:
2 Sam. 24:17 (1 Chr. 21:17)
1 Ki. 22:17 (2 Chr. 18:16)
Ps. 44:11, 22
Ps. 74:1
Ps. 78:52
Ps. 79:13
Ps. 95:7
Ps. 100:3
Ps. 119:176
Is. 53:6
Jer. 12:3
Jer. 23:1
Jer. 50:6, 17

But this is the clearest passage:
Ezek. 34 (whole chapter) but note beginning in verse 17

[17]"As for you, My flock, thus says the Lord God, 'Behold, I will judge between one sheep and another, between the rams and the male goats. [18] 'Is it too slight a thing for you that you should feed in the good pasture, that you must tread down with your feet the rest of your pastures? Or that you should drink of the clear waters, that you must foul the rest with your feet? [19] 'As for My flock, they must eat what you tread down with your feet and drink what you foul with your feet!' "
[20] Therefore, thus says the Lord God to them, "Behold, I, even I, will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. [21] "Because you push with side and with shoulder, and thrust at all the weak with your horns until you have scattered them abroad, [22] therefore, I will deliver My flock, and they will no longer be a prey; and I will judge between one sheep and another."

See, God himself separates between which sheep (church members) receive his care and compassion:

Matthew Henry:

The prophet has no more to say to the shepherds, but he has now a message to deliver to the flock. God had ordered him to speak tenderly to them, and to assure them of the mercy he had in store for them. But here he is ordered to make a difference between some and others of them, to separate between the precious and the vile, and then to give them a promise of the Messiah, by whom this distinction should be effectually made, partly at his first coming,... but completely at his second coming.

 

[humbled]

The term "sheep" is often used indiscriminately for the church:
2 Sam. 24:17 (1 Chr. 21:17)
1 Ki. 22:17 (2 Chr. 18:16)
Ps. 44:11, 22
Ps. 74:1
Ps. 78:52
Ps. 79:13
Ps. 95:7
Ps. 100:3
Ps. 119:176
Is. 53:6
Jer. 12:3
Jer. 23:1
Jer. 50:6, 17

But this is the clearest passage:
Ezek. 34 (whole chapter) but note beginning in verse 17See, God himself separates between which sheep (church members) receive his care and compassion:

Matthew Henry:

Hmmm...

This is something new to me. I never even considered that Christ indeed makes mention of "His" flock and "His" sheep ... I had always just jumped to the conclusion that ONLY Christ had a flock of sheep ... perhaps there are other flocks that are not His?

Although this would lead to the possible conclusion that a sheep in let's say satan's flock could eventually become a member of Christ's flock ... which might open the door for the reverse. I'm not sure about this, but I will give this some more thought and take a look at the verses you've supplied.

Thanks a lot for the feeback