The Evangelical Universalist Forum

A question from "The Evangelical Universalist"

Studies Books
#41

I just reread Robin’s section on election that you recommended Bob. I think most of it I follow and can agree with, but I will probably need to read it a few times to properly digest it and figure out what I don’t really understand.

One thing that I think is different. Robin says

Robin does not understand Paul to use the term “Israel” to ever include Jesus-believing Gentiles. I have thought of the “Israel of God” as the whole of the olive tree, including the Gentiles grafted on. Robin understands the “Israel of God” as just the Jewish part the olive tree. I am not sure how important this is in the whole scheme of things, but if Robin is correct then this would be another reason why “Israel” in 11:26 could not include Gentiles.

Any thoughts on this anyone?

#42

For crying out loud fellas’… :slight_smile: this is what I’ve been saying above. Yahweh chose, elected and appointed historic Israel as His kingdom priests to minister BEFORE Him and ON BEHALF OF the world, i.e., to be a light of the nations – through willful covenant disobedience they abrogated their calling and responsibility as Kingdom priests. This call was taken up by Jesus and those elect in Him (Mt 21:43). THIS was the calling Jesus as “THE firstfruit” AND his disciples as “the firstfruit saints” FULFILLED in the AD. 30-70 “this generation” “end of the world” period.

In the pattern of the OT ‘the elect’ wrought salvation ON BEHALF OF the whole. Because they in Jesus/Paul’s day were faithful THEY were called by Paul “the Israel of God” i.e., they were being true to Israel’s calling. They displayed fervent attitude of heart not dissimilar to Jesus’ exclamation of Nathanael “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit!”

#43

Paul’s reference to “the Israel of God” seems unclear and thus debated. I’m not so sure Robin is correct that it is never used of the church. And I certainly agree that God uses the faithful and true Israel (especially Christ) to fulfill his promises concerning the wider people of God who become the seed of Abraham. But it seems most decisive to me that much of Romans 9-11 is focused on explaining how the hardening of most of Israel can be consistent with God’s irrevocable promises to Israel as a whole that thus offers hope even concerning the majority of ethnic Israel that is presently cut off from redeemed Israel. Being trained in the reformed view under Dan Fuller that Romans 9 describes a final separation of saved and unsaved ‘Israel,’ it was Parry and especially Talbott’s explanation that Romans 11 clarifies that God was not finished yet with cut off Israel, that opened the door for me to consider a wider hope. Thus when Barclay exclaimed that Piper’s book on Romans 9 was conspicuously defective for not addressing how Romans 10,11 fits (and similarly that Wright did not follow Paul’s argument in the way most NT scholars do), it sounded correct to me. Thus, I’m curious how seeing the “all saved” in 11:26 as limited regarding Jews to a small remnant, could be consistent with a U.R. outlook, or does it deny such a conclusion?

#44

16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

17 For** we being many are one bread, and one body:** for we are all partakers of that one bread.

18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

If there is an Israel after the flesh it follows that there is an Israel after the Spirit

15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

16 And** as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.**

It looks to me like the Israel of God is “in Christ”.

11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past** Gentiles in the flesh,** who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Those of us who were “Gentiles in the flesh” were aliens but now we heve been brought near, included in the commonwealth and the promises. The reconciliation is to Christ, and through Him into the olive tree, which is the Israel of God. Those wild branches who are grafted in are one with the natural branches. One bread. One body.

18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.19 Now therefore **ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;**Eph

This again speaks of grafting in, in a sense. “Gentiles in the flesh” are now in “Israel in the spirit” through reconciliation into the one new man. In Zechariah Israel is the Lampstand. The plan of God in Israel continues in the “ecclesia”, which is not Israel grafted into the Gentile believers, but is the “Gentiles in the flesh” grafted into the olive tree, to form a new creation, that is an extension of the original purpose of Israel, through Messiah Yashuah, a Jew of the lineage of David, the Root.

Christ first, the Root, then the remnant, the olive tree, the stump from which the new creature is formed by grafting in wild branches, becoming the ecclesia, which is the assembly detailed in Hebrews 12.

In my opinion this is the Israel of God.

Heb 12:22

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

All Israel will be saved because the cut-off branches will be grafted back into the new creation, the Israel of God, the olive tree.

Or something like that :laughing: .02

#45

I try to remain somewhat agnostic on this… I do find it interesting all that is happening in Israel the nation… It sure seems like the world is pointing their guns at them… But, I also react to people who are obsessed with Israel. So I try and remain agnostic on these matters.

#46

Sounds like you guys are cool with the idea that the “Israel of God” could equate with the olive tree and could therefore include the Jesus-believing Gentiles.

Sorry Davo if I was a bit slow on the uptake concerning things you said. Things often have to run passed me a few times before they stick.

I appreciate all the feedback you have all given in helping me think through Rom 9-11. It has all been very helpful.
If any of you are still OK for some more, I still have some more things I wouldn’t mind a bit of feedback on. (I lead a home group bible study each Thursday night - guess where we are up to in Romans :slight_smile: )

Does anyone have any thoughts on how 9:6a

relates to 9:6b

if Robin Parry’s view of Rom 9-11 is correct?

Paul is in anguish over hardened, unbelieving Israel. The sad state of Israel raises questions - have God’s promises to Abraham and the children of Israel failed? Has God been unfaithful to his promises? Without even stating these obvious questions, Paul says

Now, if I I understand Tom Wright/Steve Gregg/Paidion and Co correctly, they would say that 6b gives the reason why Paul could say that God’s word has not failed. For not all who are the physical descendants of Israel are true Israel, and the promises were only ever intended for the true Israel of God, the faithful ones in the olive tree (both Jew and Gentile). The promises were only ever going to include a remnant of the descendants of Jacob. The whole nation of Israel was never in view. So even if most of Israel remained hardened in unbelief, God’s promises would still be fulfilled in however many were in the olive tree.

This explanation is inadequate if Robin’s view is correct. As Bob says

So, if Robin’s view is correct, 6b seems more of a restatement of the problem of 6a. (i.e. If not all who are descended from Israel are Israel, then it seems like God’s promises have failed, because his promises really are about all who are descended from Israel.)
If Tom Wright’s view is correct, 6b seems the solution to 6a.(i.e. If not all who are descended from Israel are Israel, then God’s promises have not failed, because his promises only concern true Israel.)

I hope all that makes sense of what I am wondering.
I was wondering if any who hold to Robin’s view have any thoughts on how 6b is connected to 6a. Thanks.
Just wondering aloud, perhaps 6b could be the beginning of the solution which extends to the end of Ch 11, rather than the solution in and of itself??

#47

Craig, Off the top of my head, I may not be engaging the challenge here. But I’ve just assumed that 9b is a partially sufficient answer to 9a. I.e. we ought to recognize that it’s not like Scripture’s forecasts concerning Israel have failed everything it discloses. For it early on shows us the existence and purpose of an instrumental remnant amid wider Israel. But that encouraging note of Scripture’s validity needn’t mean that your second characterization does not also fit. At the same time, an end result of a bare remnant does not seem to adequately satisfy texts that lead one to be hopeful that God has also made irrevocably hopeful promises toward the wider ethnic Israel. So then, after developing the hopeful note that a not unprecedented strategy was being worked out in only a present remnant being saved, we can see Paul go on as he gets to chapter 11, to confirm that such hardening of the huge non-remnant is not inconsistent with God’s ultimate hope and love for the wider group that have been involved in his plan for salvation? Does it have to be either/or?

#48

Perhaps something like this?

God has given promises to Israel.
The promises are not being lived out/ fulfilled/ claimed/ acted upon by much of Israel.

Has God’s word failed?
No.
Firstly, because the promises only really apply to the faithful/ those who are truly Israel/ the seed - Christ - and all in Him/ the vessels of mercy.
Secondly, because God is at work throughout history so that all ethnic Israel will become true Israel/ vessels of mercy/ in Christ/ faithful, along with all Gentiles.

So God’s promises to Abraham are being fulfilled.

#49

Although Abraham’s descendants were to be many (another promise) “THE promise” to bless the world was to be realised through the line/call of Isaac, as per 9:7-8. It was THROUGH these that the promise would find fruition… BUT, and this is where it seems to grow awry IMO – what is all too easily missed is that the “IF the firstfruit is holy, the lump ALSO is holy” (11:16). THIS WAS the function and ministry of the “vessels of honour”, to make ACCEPTABLE the whole i.e., the bulk who at that time being hardened IN PART constituted “the vessels of dishonour” – again, ALL “from the same lump”.

What God was going to do for the wider world He was doing first for/in Israel… it’s the same pattern.

Jer 2:3a Israel was holy to the Lord, the firstfruits of his harvest.

Israel was the means or vehicle whereby God would bless and thus harvest humanity. This IS what I contend to be Paul’s point, as per…

Rom 11:12, 15 Now if their [Israel’s] fall is riches for the world [humanity], and their [Israel’s] failure riches for the Gentiles [firstfruit saints Acts 13:48; 15:14, 17], how much more their [Israel’s] fullness! … For if their [Israel] being cast away [by God] is the reconciling of the world [humanity], what will their [Israel’s] acceptance [by God] be but life [covenant renewal/resurrection] from the dead?.

Israel’s covenant renewal/resurrection was the whole purpose and point of Christ’s sacrifice, and those called in Him, ON BEHALF OF the whole; thus with Israel redeemed the world was reconciled. This is a past reality with an ever-present benefit. God is NOT STILL to do something… He’s done it! Jesus set in train this reality when He exclaimed “***It is finished!***” :slight_smile:

To reiterate… as I understand it, “the Root” was Abraham, to whom was given the promise/s “in (by means of)* you ALL the families of the earth shall be blessed.*” Covenant participation was the means whereby this was out-worked. Abraham’s “seed” (Christ) according to the promise (and those in Him) fulfilled this means.

The primary reading of Rom 9:6 fits the reality that there was (as always) only a remnant prepared to be faithful to the national call of covenant fidelity to Yahweh… hence Paul’s laments of the rest “they are not all…”. However, a secondary meaning could also be inferred in terms of Gentile inclusion, i.e., “they are not all Israel…” meaning – within the greater story of Israel many a covenant member was in fact of gentile stock e.g., Ruth & Co, or the mixed multitude joined to Israel in the exodus, (Isa 56:3-8 et al) etc. They BECAME Israel though NOT originally of Israel.

#50

Bob,

You asked

Those who are persuaded of that position may answer your question differently than I would, but it is one I have thought about in considering Tom Wright/Steve Gregg’s view.
Interestingly, Steve Gregg still considers UR a strong possibility from what I have heard in interviews regarding his book on hell.

I personally don’t think one’s view on Rom 11:26 is critical to one’s view on UR.
Many who believe in UR still believe that many are not “saved” before death. They will be judged, condemned, experience hell for a season, perish, “burn” in the lake of fire etc until they are brought to repentance and become a vessel of mercy AFTER death.
So even if only a remnant were to be saved in this life, UR could still be true.

#51

Thanks, Craig. As I’d said, seeing Rom. 9-11’s logic as that hardening can be consistent with later mercy on the very ones now cut off was pivotal in my own ability to see Scripture’s separation theme differently. But I’d agree 11:26 isn’t essential for UR. Other texts could argue it. And I’d especially agree with that, if it refers as you seem to assume, to who is saved in this life. I guess that I assumed its’ inclusiveness had a more ultimate eschatological conclusion in mind (perhaps even encompassing lost Israelites long since dead). That’s why it sounded puzzling for UR if we were suggesting a la Wright, that God’s commitment to salvation for Jews was limited to a small subset.

#52

I hope I dont open a can of worms here, because I know there are different interpretations of Ephesians 4:8 and 1 Peter 3:18

1 Pet 3:19After being made alive,d he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

Eph 4:8Therefore he says, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

But I think Romans 11:26-36 fits in this context, as a view towards the “mystery”… an administration effected through the fulfillment of time, the gathering together into one of all things in Christ whether things in heaven or things on earth (or under the earth Phil 2:9-11, Rev 5:13)

Eph 1:8… in all wisdom and prudence, 9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who works all things after the counsel of his own will:

Eph 2:6And has raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are you saved through faith…

11Therefore remember, that you being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;That at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off are made near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of partition between us; (reconciled together in Him)

Eph 3:2If you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me toward you: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote before in few words, By which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

For me as Bob said, a more eschatological conclusion is expressed in all these refences to the ages to come, our purpose in them within His purpose, and the integration of all that aspects of the one mystery, accomplished in the ages to come, and even, eventually outside the well of time(in the all in all), exemplified by Christ having(imo, not citing Bob :slight_smile:) intervened under the earth in His descent and leading a captive host “in His train”(KJV). I see, in ages to come, His redeeming all(each in his own order) and the one new man participating in that- to fuifill all the promises to Israel once the “fulness of the Gentiles comes in” in ways that we only see now through a glass darkly.

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

I see the inheritance of the one body(olive tree, Jew and Gentile) as… “That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus”… being the ministry of reconciliation, eventually gathering all, in the ages to come, into “the Father of spirits from whom every family in heaven and earth(including Israel) derives its name”- sharing as sons the priesthood of Christ the great high priest, and “Captain of our salvation”.

#53

Sorry if I have confused you Bob as to my own thinking. I don’t assume 11:26 only refers to those saved in this life. I am more inclined to agree with Robin and you, and disagree with Tom Wright, but I am still thinking how it all best fits together and try and see things from other viewpoints in trying to evaluate what is most likely.
Thanks for all your help in this process.

#54

I would be grateful if I can just be greedy with one more question before we get to your “can of worms” please Eaglesway. I am leading a bible study on Rom 9-11 in a few hours time and would appreciate any quick responses.

I have come from a Calvinist background. I can now see that the Calvinist understanding of Isaac and Jacob as infallibly and unconditionally elected to heaven and Ishmael and Esau as passed over or elected to eternal hell is ridiculous in the light of the rest of Rom 9-11 as we have discussed. It is also a terrible view of God that I am glad to have moved on from.
Nevertheless, Paul seems to say that Isaac and Jacob are children of the promise and God’s children, whereas Ishmael and Esau are not. Is Paul using them as “types” or representatives like he does in Gal 4? Is he meaning that they are the chosen lineage for Christ?
Why does Paul refer to Isaac and Jacob as “children of the promise” and how does he do this without implying that they are God’s children in a “true Israel” sense whereas Ishmael and Esau are not?

#55

Quite simply this Craig… “the elect” (Abraham-Isaac-Jacob-David-Christ) were chosen to secure Israel’s redemption. And so, quite contrary to the evangelical notion of “heaven” or “hell” ELECTION had naught to do with postmortem destiny but everything to do with antemortem function and purpose.

IMO… the whole “elected to heaven” or “elected to eternal hell” doctrine is false and has done incalculable and irreparable damage to the gospel and humanity to whom it was sent.

#56

Thanks Davo for your helpful and timely thoughts.

I agree.

#57

I wouldn’t say the Calv notion of election and non-election as done “irreparable” damage to the gospel mission – that’s seems more like Arminian loss of salvation. :wink:

But I agree, being children of the promise connects to Christ, not to a lack of salvation for those who aren’t children of the promise. Otherwise it would be impossible for those outside the vine to be grafted in, and those stumbling over the stumbling stone (which broadly speaking is everyone who sins) could never be saved at all.

Worth noting: the figure of Hagar and Ishmael in Gal 4, ends up applying to a situation they were never involved in, namely the Sinai covenant! Paul specifically says we (or at least rebel Israel, maybe not the Gentiles as such, though I expect it still applies to the Gentiles by means of Romans 2 and the Holy Spirit creating a torah in the conscience of those who don’t know the Law) are saved from being children of slavery (to the Law) into being children of Sarah and thus children of the promise.

In theory (other things being equal, which of course they aren’t :wink: ), some of the children of wrath/Hagar/slavery/etc. could still be Calvinistic non-elect; but the common Calv tactic of appealing to the categories as though their mere existence counts as evidence for their notion of non-election, is super-faulty in itself.

Moreover, the ‘promise’ wasn’t primarily to Abraham about his descendants (though the way things worked out, the promise can be talked about as that, too). Paul and the Hebraist say the promise was made between the Father and the Son (the Son being the seed of Abraham, standing in for Abraham in making the covenant), which is why the covenant of the promise can never be broken by the sin of any descendant of Abraham (unlike the covenant of the Torah made at Sinai): the Son dies to keep the covenant in effect, paying the cost for all those within the covenant who sin.

(Which since the Creator Himself of all rational creatures came as the seed of Abraham, all rational creatures as many as the sands of the sea and the stars in the sky are included in the promise between the Father and the Son to bring all the sons of Abraham out of rebellion into righteousness. This has a lot of bearing on what Paul is talking about in Romans 1-11, too.)

#58

Point taken, Jason. “Irreparable” is too strong a word. But I think it has turned people away and did certainly badly affect my own relationship with God for many years.

I can see how those who are not children of the promise, or not elect, or not part of the olive tree can become children of the promise, elect and be grafted into the olive tree. This has been wonderful to see from Rom 11 and a big change from my former Calvinistic thinking. I can see God’s purposes to have mercy on all and believe he is capable of bringing that about eschatologically somehow.

Sorry if my brain is a bit slow, but I am still struggling a bit to properly follow Paul’s line of thought in Rom 9:6-13 and would appreciate any thoughts on these questions.
How do you understand “children of the promise”?
Is Christ the child of the promise and thus all those “in him” are children of the promise?
Are the children of promise those in the olive tree (11:17-24), the true Israel (9:6), the true descendants of Abraham (9:7), and God’s children (9:8)?
Do these terms refer to real relationship with God, circumcision of the heart?
Does Paul say that Isaac and Jacob themselves were children of the promise?
Were Isaac and Jacob somehow chosen to be children of the promise, to have a real relationship with God, in a way that Ishmael and Esau were not?

#59

My train of thought when I used the word “irreparable” with regards to “the gospel” was primarily in terms of Dante’s “Hell-ism” – which of course since then has been taken to its Calvinistic extremes.

I believe in biblical election, just not according the Calvinist’ scenario that assumes it has a mortgage on what “election” and “sovereignty” means etc.

#60

I am just glad that the mystery has been made known, that in the administration suitable to the fulness of times, all things will be gathered into one in Christ, whether things in heaven or things on earth, in Him. :smiley: