All Israel Shall be Saved

[Guest shiloh357]

What are we being told here?

Romans 9:6 "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel"

The issue Paul is raising is very similar to what was dealt with in Romans 2: 28-29, but is now being dealt with in a more thorough manner. In Romans 2:28-29, Paul explained what it means to be a Jew. Paul was not redefining a "Jew" to mean anyone who is born again. The context in which vv. 28 and 29 will not allow for that understanding. Paul was telling an imaginary Jewish audience who felt their pedigree offered them some sort of advantage, that the Gentiles were not necessarily at a disadvantage, and that their boasting in their Torah observance was worthless if their hearts were not right before God. That is why Paul uses a play on words when he said that Jewishness is really about being a praise to the Lord. The word "Jew" comes from the name "Y'hudah" (Judah) and is a Hebrew word for "praise."

In Romans 9, the issue is dealt with in more a corporate sense. In Romans two, the issue was what does it mean to be a Jew; here the issue is what does it mean to be "Israel." Just as Paul was not redefining "Jew" to mean "all believers" in chapter two, Paul is not redefining "Israel" to mean, "Church" in chapter nine. If God intended to create a "new Israel" then there would be no point to grafting believers into Israel. Replacement Theology has to redefine the olive tree and ignore Paul's metaphor to get around the literal truth that Paul was teaching. But I digress.

In Romans 9, Paul first states that He is sorrowful on a continual basis for His people, Israel. He calls them his brethren after the flesh, and would be genuinely willing to be accursed by God if that would bring salvation to Israel. This sets the context for the line of thought that continues to the end of chapter 11. In the world of hermeneutics, we call this the law of "first mention." The way a term or concept is introduced to a particular discussion generally determines how the word is to be understood for the duration of said discussion. There is no place in these three chapters (9-11) where the term "Israel" is ever applied to all believers. Paul goes on in vv. 4 & 5 to explain his sorrow. Paul's sorrow is especially burdening for the Jewish people because their failure to receive the Messiah as a nation is all the more tragic given the fact that it was to them that the Torah was entrusted, theirs was the Covenants, the service of God in the Temple, the promises of redemption and salvation, the adoption and are of the same ethnic stock of the Messiah, Himself.

In verse 6, Paul makes the point that the Word of God has not failed, and this is the heart of the argument Paul wants to make in these three chapters; the Word of God has not failed where Israel is concerned. Israel is not cast off, set aside, nor is anything promised to them been taken away from them. This is because not everyone who is a physical Israelite is of Israel. This is not a repudiation of ethnic Israel. When Paul says they are not all Israel who are of Israel, he means to be understood that the true

[Larry 2]

What are we being told here?

Romans 9:6 "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel"

The issue Paul is raising is very similar to what was dealt with in Romans 2: 28-29, but is now being dealt with in a more thorough manner. In Romans 2:28-29, Paul explained what it means to be a Jew. Paul was not redefining a "Jew" to mean anyone who is born again. The context in which vv. 28 and 29 will not allow for that understanding. Paul was telling an imaginary Jewish audience who felt their pedigree offered them some sort of advantage, that the Gentiles were not necessarily at a disadvantage, and that their boasting in their Torah observance was worthless if their hearts were not right before God. That is why Paul uses a play on words when he said that Jewishness is really about being a praise to the Lord. The word "Jew" comes from the name "Y'hudah" (Judah) and is a Hebrew word for "praise."

In Romans 9, the issue is dealt with in more a corporate sense. In Romans two, the issue was what does it mean to be a Jew; here the issue is what does it mean to be "Israel." Just as Paul was not redefining "Jew" to mean "all believers" in chapter two, Paul is not redefining "Israel" to mean, "Church" in chapter nine. If God intended to create a "new Israel" then there would be no point to grafting believers into Israel. Replacement Theology has to redefine the olive tree and ignore Paul's metaphor to get around the literal truth that Paul was teaching. But I digress.

In Romans 9, Paul first states that He is sorrowful on a continual basis for His people, Israel. He calls them his brethren after the flesh, and would be genuinely willing to be accursed by God if that would bring salvation to Israel. This sets the context for the line of thought that continues to the end of chapter 11. In the world of hermeneutics, we call this the law of "first mention." The way a term or concept is introduced to a particular discussion generally determines how the word is to be understood for the duration of said discussion. There is no place in these three chapters (9-11) where the term "Israel" is ever applied to all believers. Paul goes on in vv. 4 & 5 to explain his sorrow. Paul's sorrow is especially burdening for the Jewish people because their failure to receive the Messiah as a nation is all the more tragic given the fact that it was to them that the Torah was entrusted, theirs was the Covenants, the service of God in the Temple, the promises of redemption and salvation, the adoption and are of the same ethnic stock of the Messiah, Himself.

In verse 6, Paul makes the point that the Word of God has not failed, and this is the heart of the argument Paul wants to make in these three chapters; the Word of God has not failed where Israel is concerned. Israel is not cast off, set aside, nor is anything promised to them been taken away from them. This is because not everyone who is a physical Israelite is of Israel. This is not a repudiation of ethnic Israel. When Paul says they are not all Israel who are of Israel, he means to be understood that the true

[Guest yod]

I think the "true Israel" is all of God's true believers, meaning of true Christians after Jesus and all true God-fearing Jews before Jesus started his ministry

Larry I apologize if I've misread your intent. The post I just quoted is an example of how much misunderstanding there is about what a "true Jew" or who "true Israel" is

Some of the verses you quoted have been used by every anti-semitic christian (and non-christian) since the so called "church fathers" and it makes my defense shields fly up when I see them. If you are sincerely asking an honest question then I apologize for assuming that you were rehashing the same fights that used to occur here constantly.

you would be the first person I can remember to use those specific verses without an agenda against jewish people but as EricH has said...I will assume the best of you instead of projecting past squabbles onto you.

Again...I'm sorry.

[Larry 2]

I think the "true Israel" is all of God's true believers, meaning of true Christians after Jesus and all true God-fearing Jews before Jesus started his ministry

Larry I apologize if I've misread your intent. The post I just quoted is an example of how much misunderstanding there is about what a "true Jew" or who "true Israel" is

Some of the verses you quoted have been used by every anti-semitic christian (and non-christian) since the so called "church fathers" and it makes my defense shields fly up when I see them. If you are sincerely asking an honest question then I apologize for assuming that you were rehashing the same fights that used to occur here constantly.

you would be the first person I can remember to use those specific verses without an agenda against jewish people but as EricH has said...I will assume the best of you instead of projecting past squabbles onto you.

Again...I'm sorry.

Brother Yod, thank you for that and I'm sorry if I said something wrong to you also. Hopefully my questions are always without prejustice and in Christian love for all people. I will debate you on doctrine but never based on an agenda to personally debase anyone who is my brother in Christ.

[EricH]

Well done, Saints