Posted on 02/08/2010 10:46:45 AM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
1. Ethnic Israel and True Israel
First, in verse 6b he says, "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel." In other words, Paul’s argument is that the promises of God always hold true for the true Israel, the spiritual Israel, but not all ethnic Israel is true Israel. That’s his first statement of the argument: "They are not all Israel who are descended from Israel." The assumption is: there is a true Israel; God’s saving promises are made to them; and these promises have never failed.
2. All Descendants of Abraham and the Children of Abraham
Second, in verse 7a he says it a little differently, but makes the same point: " Nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants." In other words, he is distinguishing here between two kinds of "children" - there are all of Abraham’s descendants, and there is a narrower group in that number whom he calls here "the children," or we could say, "the true children" since the others are physical children also. The assumption is that the promises of God hold true for the true children of Abraham but not for all the descendants of Abraham. So in verse 6 he says that not all Israel is Israel, and in verse 7 he says that not all the children of Abraham are children. There is a true Israel and there are true children. The word of God has not failed, because it was meant for the true Israel, the true children, and it has never failed any of them.
(Excerpt) Read more at desiringgod.org ...
When Paul distinguishes "children of the flesh" and "children of God" he means that not all physical Israelites are "children of God." And that means that the term "children of God" is not a mere ethnic or physical or historical term. It has its full saving meaning just like it does in Romans 8:16, 21, and Philippians 2:15 (cf. Hosea 1:10). And when he then says that these "children of God" are "children of promise," he means that they have their spiritual position not because of their physical connections, but because of God’s effective promise. The promise produced the position.
Good points. Genetically, the man Jacob/Israel had 12 sons and then Joseph’s inheritance was a double portion to Ephraim and Manasseh. Many peoples that are descended from these lines do not even know their heritage. Those ‘tribes’ migrated and spread all over the world. When Jesus/Immanuel (God with us) laid down His life as a perfect sacrifice He rent the veil and opened up salvation and God’s promises to ‘whosoever believeth in Him’ of any genetic race. Some tribes have lost the promises on a national level, but Jesus opened up salvation and the promises to each of us individually based on our willingness to believeth in Him, regardless of nationality or race.
According to St. Paul, there is no more Jew and Gentile. The true Jews are those not of the circumcision of the flesh, but of the heart. The true children of Abraham are Christians, not those of biological descent. The Church is the New Israel. I am pro-Israel, not because of religious reasons, but strictly political ones.
Well said Nosterrex!
I love it when an article appears when I am looking for information on a topic
Our Sunday school is studying all the various eschatology’s
Thanks
me too! :) I don’t know if I’ll ever form a solid opinion on eschatology, but I just know I’m not a pre-tribulational rapture/dispensationalist.
I find myself leaning towards classical (non-dispensational) premillenialism and amillenialism.
Thats where I think I am too.. but the Pastor is doing a great job of being neutral in presenting all the different eschatological position .
Before you conclude that God is done with Israel look at Jeremiah 23:5-6 and Romans 11:25-28. Also, consider Rev 19:13-14. The imagery of fine white linen on white horses doesn't sound like an army of angels being led by Jesus, but Christians. How did they get there? Finally, consider who is being judged and by what at the Great White Throne in Rev. 20:12. Do you want to be judged based on your works? I know I will come up really short.
I had the hardest time trying to figure out the end times until I realized the Tribulation is not for Christians. It's to bring the Jews to Jesus.
Spurgeon said he who would take a strong stand on eschatology had feet in sand. I agree. I do follow it, though, for the entertainment value. The date-setting, headline chasing futurists are better than a Ludlam novel. If Hal Linday comes one, I'm hooked for the whole show. And 10 minutes later I'll forget I ever saw it. Eschatology is the sports section of the theological newspaper.
He did however object to the Darby rapture stuff.
Spurgeon to counter with “there is a certain troublesome sect abroad nowadays, to whom the one thing needful is a perpetual speculation upon prophecy…They plume themselves upon an expected secret rapture , and I know not what vain imaginings beside”
"In short, Spurgeon said Darby’s new teachings were “unscriptural.” And, further stated “If the author would write in plain English, his readers would probably discover that there is nothing very valuable in his remarks.”
http://modelsofeschatology.com/week-7-beginnings-of-dispensational-premillennialism/
Sounds to me like Spurgeon had Darby spot on. I’m pretty sure Spurgeon subscribed to the same reformed covenant theology which Piper was lecturing on in the original article.
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.