Posted on 05/16/2012 3:48:19 PM PDT by wmfights
Romans 9:6 is a passage sometimes used by supersessionists to show that the church is explicitly called Israel.[1] This verse reads, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.” Some see in the first mention of “Israel” a concept of Israel that goes beyond ethnic boundaries. Thus, Paul is allegedly making a distinction between ethnic Israel and a spiritual Israelthat consists of all believers including Gentiles. This is the view of Ridderbos: “Even the distinction Paul makes within national Jerusalem between who is and who is not a ‘Jew,’ between ‘Israel’ and ‘those who are of Israel’ (Rom. 2:28ff.; 9:6), tends to a usage that denotes the believing gentiles as well and therefore the Christian church as such as “Israel.”[2] In reference to Rom 9:6–8 Wayne Grudem declares, “Paul here implies that the true children of Abraham, those who are in the most true sense ‘Israel,’ are not the nation of Israel by physical descent from Abraham but those who have believed in Christ.”[3] In his comments on Rom 9:6, Robertson states, “It is those who, in addition to being related to Abraham by natural descendency, also relate to him by faith, plus those Gentiles who are ingrafted by faith, that constitute the true Israel of God.”[4]
This verse, though, is not a supporting text for supersessionism as most commentators on Romans 9:6 acknowledge. As Murray has noted, Rom 9:6 is teaching that “there is an ‘Israel’ within ethnic Israel.”[5] Paul is not saying that believing Gentiles are now part of Israel. Instead, believing Jews are the true Israel. William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam make this point:
But St. Paul does not mean here to distinguish a spiritual Israel (i.e. the Christian Church) from the fleshly Israel, but to state that the promises made to Israel might be fulfilled even if some of his descendants were shut out from them. What he states is that not all the physical descendants of Jacob are necessarily inheritors of the Divine promises implied in the sacred name Israel.[6]
Thus, the true Israelite is one who is a Jew ethnically and one has believed in Jesus Christ (see Romans 2:28–29). Romans 9:6, therefore, is not a supporting text for Replacement Theology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Those who view Rom 9:6 as including believing Gentiles in the concept of “Israel” include: Ridderbos, Paul, 336, n. 30; Grudem, Systematic Theology, 861; C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans(London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1932), 155; Goppelt, Typos, 140; Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 137; and James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, WBC, vol. 38b (Dallas: Word, 1988), 540; LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy, 121; Bright, The Kingdom of God, 226–27. Commenting on Rom 9:6, Origen stated, “For if the judgment respecting the ‘Jew inwardly’ be adopted, we must understand that, as there is a ‘bodily’ race of Jews, so also is there a race of ‘Jews inwardly.’” Origen, First Principles 4.21, ANF 4:370.
[2] Ridderbos, Paul, 336, n. 30.
[3] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 861.
[4] O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R, 1980), 40.
[5] Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2:9.
[6] William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, ICC (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1923), 240. See also Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 574. About Rom 9:6, Gutbrod writes, “We are not told here that Gentile Christians are the true Israel. The distinction at R. 9:6 does not go beyond what is presupposed at Jn. 1:47. . . .” Walter Gutbrod, “’Israhl, k. t. l.,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 387.
It doesn't cancel out the promises...it fulfills them.
If you remember, the first covenant presented to Israel was conditional. Israel wasn't able to keep it.
The promise earlier given to Abraham's seed, however, is still in effect because Galatians says Christ is the seed to whom the eternal (not conditional) promise was given. Because Christ (not Israel) fulfilled the law completely He has been given an eternal kingdom forever and those who have faith in Him are included.
The first covenant made to Israel was the Abrahamic covenant and not only was that unconditional, Israel could not have broken it because God was the only One Who made the covenant. That covenant, therefore, was His responsibility only to keep.
So if God will break His promises because fallen men break His law, does that then mean that when those who know Christ as Savior break His law that His promise to save them is cancelled?
The promise earlier given to Abraham's seed, however, is still in effect because Galatians says Christ is the seed to whom the eternal (not conditional) promise was given. Because Christ (not Israel) fulfilled the law completely He has been given an eternal kingdom forever and those who have faith in Him are included.
Where, exactly, in any of the New Testament, does God say that His promises to the nation of Israel are cancelled? How does the fact that Jesus Christ died first for the Jew and then for the Gentile and the fact that He has gathered to Himself a spiritual body from among the Jews and Gentiles translate into God's promises to His covenant nation being cancelled?
Where, exactly, is that Scripture?
No, Galatians says that was to one man and his seed (Christ). It was not to the nation because they did not become a nation until 430 years after the Abrahamic covenent.
So if God will break His promises because fallen men break His law
God didn't break His promise. But men broke the law which came much later.
Where, exactly, in any of the New Testament, does God say that His promises to the nation of Israel are cancelled?
I already told you...they are fulfilled, not cancelled.
Of course I said no such thing. I wonder if you even read carefully what I have written carefully.
Here is the critical verse which will illustrate just who the Israel of God is:
For they are not all Israel which are of Israel. (Romans 9:6b)
Paul references "all Israel" and "Israel". These are two different entities. Just what is their relationship? (In lieu of some of Venn diagrams.) I believe it is one of the following: either (1) physical Israel entirely contained within "all Israel"; or (2) physical Israel partially contained within "all Israel."
Paul explains:
Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That 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." (Romans 9:7,8)
We discover (in Galatians 3:29) that if we are Christ's, then we are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. So, it is (2) above. Thus, "all Israel" consists of a saved believing remnant of physical Israel (Romans 11:5) and another group. This must be believing Gentiles. The operative word here is "believing."
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were far off (gentiles), and to them that were nigh (Jews). For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. (Ephesians 2:16-18)
I'll leave you with this Bible warning:
Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. (Philippians 3:2,3)
This was written to the church at Philippi in Macedonia who were gentile believers. We are "the circumcision" which worship God in the spirit and rejoice in Christ Jesus and have not confidence in the flesh.
Those with faith in Christ's work don't have to worry about breaking the law; it's Christ who fulfilled it all. We have faith in His accomplishment...not our own measley attempts...if we go back to our own attempts we go back to a curse as Paul says in Galatians. Better to just rest in His perfection.
The first covenant with Israel, the Abrahamic covenant, is detailed in Genesis 12:1-3 and Genesis 15:18-21. Genesis 12:1-3 says "Now the a LORD had said to Abram: Get b out of your country, From your family And from your father's house, To a land that I will show you. I will make you a great nation". The Abrahamic covenant was made with the nation that God would bring from Abraham, and, since the Abrahamic covenant has not been fully fulfilled but will be during the millennial kingdom with the nation of Israel, it is the first covenant God made with the nation of Israel.
At the time of the first covenant, Jesus would not come on the scene for a few thousand years after that covenant was made.
Here was your statement:
If you remember, the first covenant presented to Israel was conditional. Israel wasn't able to keep it.
Aside from the fact that Israel was incapable of keeping the first covenant because they weren't party to it, the fact that they have broken God's law repeatedly does not mean that God will break His promises to them any more than when Christians break God's law, Jesus will break His promise to save them.
I already told you...they are fulfilled, not cancelled.
Jesus fulfilled the law, He did not fulfill the Abrahamic covenant, nor any of the other promises that He made to the nation of Israel.
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. (Matthew 5:17)
There isn't not one mention there of the promises God made to His covenant nation, Israel. Jesus fulled the law, not any promises.
So are the promises which God made to His covenant nation Israel, a few of which have been repeatedly posted on this thread, cancelled?
You are confusing events.
Gen 12:10-3 was a command.
The covenant, however, did not take place there; it took place in Gen 15:18 when the ceremony took place.
Jesus fulfilled the law, He did not fulfill the Abrahamic covenant, nor any of the other promises that He made to the nation of Israel.
You're again going directly against Gal 3:16 which says the promises were given "to one person, meaning Christ".
Jesus fulled the law, not any promises.
You said this twice, even though it's been already been pointed out to you exactly what Galatians says.
Your statements are incorrect on many points.
My, my, my. You certainly do repeat yourself, don't you?
There's no confusion. The first covenant with the nation of Israel was the Abrahamic covenant. There's no confusion at all.
You're again going directly against Gal 3:16 which says the promises were given "to one person, meaning Christ".
And, when we keep reading to the next verse, we find:
What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
So, again, this is speaking of the law, not the land and salvation and Redeemer promises God made to the nation of Israel. God specifically states that the covenant and the promises have not been done away with.
You said this twice, even though it's been already been pointed out to you exactly what Galatians says. Your statements are incorrect on many points.
And you have yet to provide any Scripture which says that God has cancelled His promises to His nation, Israel. Jesus emphatically states that He came to fulfill the law and makes absolutely no mention of the promises that He has made to His chosen people. The Scripture you think you gave me that proves you right only serves to prove that you will spiritualize Scripture without any authorization from God that you do so and no indication in the text itself that it be spiritualized and you will do this in a lame attempt to make replacement theology work.
You have produced not one iota of Scripture where God says that He has cancelled the promises He made to the nation Israel. Your taking it upon yourself to try to change the meaning of God's word by spiritualizing it and allegorizing it when you have absolutely no authorization to do so does not make your false doctrine legitimate.
Why can't any replacement theologists on this thread answer this easy question?
Wrong. The first covenant was with Abraham. There was no nation of Israel present. Only one man.
The later Mosaic covenant was with Israel.
And, when we keep reading to the next verse
Which doesn't preclude the previous verse which states that the promise before the law was given to Christ.
you have yet to provide any Scripture which says that God has cancelled His promises to His nation
That's because as I have repeatedly said...God did not CANCEL any promise.
You have produced not one iota of Scripture where God says that He has cancelled the promises
What? You're saying this yet again? (Is there anyone on this thread who said God cancelled anything? Yet for some reason Giovanna wants to say it over and over and over... )
I'll post the verse again:
Now the a LORD had said to Abram: Get out of your country, From your family And from your father's house, To a land that I will show you. I will make you a great nation.
Since the promise was made to Abraham, and it has not been fully fulfilled, and Abraham is dead, then the promise will kept by God to the nation that God created from Abraham.
Which doesn't preclude the previous verse which states that the promise before the law was given to Christ.
And since Scripture doesn't contradict itself, and since God emphatically and specifically states that the promises He made with Israel have not been done away with, then your understanding of the previous verse is flawed.
That's because as I have repeatedly said...God did not CANCEL any promise.
Well if they're not cancelled, and if Jesus did not fulfill them, and if God emphatically and specifically states that the promises have not been made null and void, then that means that the promises still are in effect and will be kept by the God Who made them.
What? You're saying this yet again? (Is there anyone on this thread who said God cancelled anything? Yet for some reason Giovanna wants to say it over and over and over... )
Unfortunately your compatriots in the replacement theology lie still don't seem to get it and believe that God lies and deceives and breaks promises and can produce no Scripture that supports their belief that the Church has replaced Israel. Don't you wish they could all be like you and finally accept Biblical truth?
False, Giovanni and I think you know this. No one says God is a liar. Your habit of twisting things doesn't make it so.
and if Jesus did not fulfill them
Silly comment to make when everyone on this thread not to mention scripture (this is what the book of Hebrews is about) says that what came before Christ was only a foreshadow and Jesus was the fulfilment.
Since I'm a nobody I can answer, “No”. Anything else?
Here's your chance to prove me wrong. Are the following Scripture passages true or false?
Say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I will take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; 22 and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king will be king for all of them; and they will no longer be two nations and no longer be divided into two kingdoms. 23 They will no longer defile themselves with their idols, or with their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions; but I will deliver them from all their [a]dwelling places in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them. And they will be My people, and I will be their God." (Ezekiel 37:21-23)
“A Redeemer will come to Zion, and to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,” declares the LORD. 21 “As for Me, this is My covenant with them,” says the LORD: “My Spirit which is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your [a]offspring, nor from the mouth of your [b]offspring’s offspring,” says the LORD, “from now and forever.”"“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jeremiah 31:31-34)
“My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd; and they will walk in My ordinances and keep My statutes and observe them. 25 They will live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant, in which your fathers lived; and they will live on it, they, and their sons and their sons’ sons, forever; and David My servant will be their prince forever. 26 I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will [b]place them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever. 27 My dwelling place also will be with them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people. 28 And the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forever.”’” (Ezekiel 37:21-28)
Now don't panic - it's a yes or no, very simple, easy question. Are the above passages true or false, and who are they directed to?
Silly comment to make when everyone on this thread not to mention scripture (this is what the book of Hebrews is about) says that what came before Christ was only a foreshadow and Jesus was the fulfilment.
Give me the Scripture where God says that Jesus Christ fulfilled His promises to the nation of Israel. You have not done this so far. If you cannot produce the Scripture, then, again, your doctrine is a false one and, in the case of replacement theology, demonic.
So either provide the Scripture to prove your assertion that the promises God made to the nation of Israel are null and void or stand exposed as someone who believes that God lies and deceives and breaks His promises.
Your turn.
Well no, not unless you decide to post any more replacement theology garbage.
Perhaps this secret has not been told to you?
Produce the Scripture where God says that the death of Jesus Christ means that His explicit promises to Israel are no longer in effect.
Now if you can't find the Scriptures, then your belief that the fact that Jesus' death makes God's promises to Israel null and void are nothing more than man-created doctrine that is in direct contradiction to the Word of God. And whatever is in conflict with what God has said is demonic.
This shouldn't be a problem. If God agrees with your doctrine and beliefs, then the Scripture is there.
As long as you can't produce the validation from God, you have a false doctrine.
I’ll happily agree that ALL the promises to Israel are to be fulfilled and any not yet fulfilled will be. How?
If you know what that “sacred secret” is then the how would be clear also.
But to take the view that the present day city of Jerusalem and Israel is or will become the nation of God demands the question of whether it will be under the same law covenant as ancient Israel or another covenant.
Which shall it be?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.