David Weiner, ever the gentleman, has requested that we pick up a conversation from a while ago: link.
The salient question was, Does salvation run in families?
I argue:
click to toggleIn the OT, what percentage of the saved were from the biological line of Abraham? Probably 99.99% or higher.
In the NT era in which we live, what percentage of the saved come from a Christian lineage? Harder to say, but greater than 50%.
So now consider again your statement, “For, I can not find any rationale for God choosing anybody other than His good pleasure and glory.”
Yet, He does give a partial rationale: “I will be a God to you and your descendants.” God’s kindness to Abraham is extended to Abe’s family *for the sake of Abraham.*
If God gave no consideration to families at all, then election would be equally distributed around the globe. Empirically, that’s not the case!
David responds:
click to toggleKindness, as in to Abraham and his family, and election have to be considered synonymous for the argument to hold, it seems to me. And, Scripture does not link the two in any explicit way. So, each of us is ‘free’ to interpret loosely. Not exactly what you would accept in your science classes, I assume.
I don’t want to proof text this discussion; but, Jeremiah 7:23 makes it very clear (probably only to me!) that the idea of God being a God to Israel was not about salvation. It was about blessing. That is unless one can actually earn salvation by works and I know we agree on that one.
I read Barna reports and so I know there are lots of statistics. But, do we really know the geographical distribution of election? I think we are dealing with a lot of anecdotal data here. Certainly not double blind sort of stuff.
This led to a new question: was the covenant with Abraham a covenant of salvation, or of something else?
I argue:
click to toggleIt seems to me, then, that this forces us to conclude that belief is a requirement to properly belong to the covenant. This is made explicit in Romans [2.28ff]. If we see belief as a requirement, unstated but implied in Gen. 17, then several different features come into focus:
(1) Why did God reject so many Israelites along the way, even though they were physically descended from Abraham? Unbelief. They didn’t meet the requirement of belonging to the covenant.
(2) Why did Jesus have to die on the cross for Jews? Because justification is necessary to be a child of God — and Jews as much as Gentiles need justification. One might be tempted to separate the issue of being a child of God and being a child of Abraham, but notice how closely Paul links them in Galatians [3.6-8, 26-29] and also Ezekiel [36.18ff]. Notice how closely Ezekiel links “being righteous” with “being God’s people.” For Ezekiel, salvation is necessary in order to be God’s people.
Even the promise to the physical descendants of Abe in Romans 11 is still conditioned on faith: “And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.”
And David responds
click to toggleIt seems to me that Gen 17 describes a group of people who are called God’s people. And, God says that they will get a bunch of blessings if they only circumcise, an activity that did not require any faith. I know, a statistically invalid single data point, that when I was circumcised my parents were simply following a tradition. As I have said, they were reprobate. I don’t know how to describe what is Gen 17 other than temporal blessings in response to a ‘work.’ I simply don’t see any reference to eternal things or faith, for example. On the other hand, it seems offensive to talk about God’s people being reprobate. And, we know that Abraham’s offspring included a fair share of reprobates.
For me, the solution is to see that there are different covenants. And, the definition of ‘God’s people’ is used to identify the group in question and not to give an absolute definition. The Abrahamic Covenant is not the same as the New Covenant; the people referenced in each covenant are not the same people, although there is some overlap in a Venn diagram sense.
And this led then to a discussion of whether there are many covenants or one.
I argue that a "multiple covenants" view has to clear four hurdles to stand:
click to toggleOn the other, if we say “multiple covenants”, then we have to ask several important questions:
(MCov 1) Why does the Scripture appear to mingle the covenants so freely?
* Believers in Christ are said to be “Children of Abraham and heirs according to the promise.”
* Recipients of the Mosaic Covenant are told that they are being given the land “for the sake of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”
* The sign of the Mosaic Covenant is the same as the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant.
and so on.
(MCov 2) Why are the Gentiles, who formerly were excluded from Israel, now included into Israel:
Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (that done in the body by the hands of men)— remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. — Eph. 2.11-13
(MCov 3) What is “the promise” that Paul speaks of in multiple places?
(MCov 4) Why do we see no hint in the New Testament of separate covenants each running their course throughout history?
And David responds with regard to MCov 2:
click to toggleWhat I see here is first a description of the status of a group of people identified as gentiles. What then follows is a description of the status of the individual gentile who has received Christ. It is initially not about individuals; but, rather the group, in contrast to the group of people who were called Israelites (who were just a segment of those who came from Abraham; which is, of course, where the separation began.)
So what do we learn about the gentiles (before the cross):
1) you were at that time separate from Christ,
2) excluded from the commonwealth of Israel,
3) strangers to the covenants of promise,
4) having no hope
5) without God in the world
And these 5 items are summarized in the passage as their being “formerly far off.” Up to the cross, God had given the nation of Israel lots of promises and information (e.g., the Mosaic Law). He had not given this to all humanity equally. That does not mean that an individual gentile might not have known about the Mosaic Law or may have even tried to keep part of it. It just means that as a group, God had not given these things to them. Of course, each of the 5 items deserves about a book’s worth of explanation (particularly the word ‘covenant’ which as you can see is plural!); but, fortunately for you, I won’t subject you to that pain. (insert smiley face here) But, one thing I have to say about the description: it is not primarily about Israel. Israel is only mentioned as part of the description of the gentile’s pre-cross situation.
What does the passage say about their current status? Well, first of all it does not say anything about the status of the group. It only addresses the status of the individual saved gentile. And that is that they:
1) have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Brought near to what? What does one get when they are saved? Jesus. Not, a part of Israel, the nation. Does saved Israelites also have Jesus. Of course. That is a similarity; but, it does not erase the differences.
and again After much thought about how to address your questions here, it seems to me that starting with ‘membership’ is the best approach. So, here goes.
According to my reading of Galatians 3:16, the promises were spoken to (made to) Abraham and Jesus. Another way of saying this is that God made the AC with Abraham and Jesus. God, for example, did not make the covenant with the nation of Israel. At this point in the discussion, I don’t see how I could add clarity to the role of God, Abraham, or Jesus by adding a term like ‘membership.’
As to the content of the covenant, some applied to individuals and some to groups of people. I would say that these individuals/groups were ‘recipients’ of the promises included in the covenant. I can see how the term ‘membership’ could be applied to these recipients; but, again, I don’t see how that clarifies the term recipients (of the covenant promises).
Another term that enters the discussion is ‘covenant people’ or ‘people of the covenant.’ Again, it seems to me that discussing covenants with regard to a) the people with whom the covenant was made and b) the people who are the recipients of the covenant promises would foster more clarity.
So, how does one become a type a) or type b) person or group? Only by God specifying their role in a specific covenant. And, that He has done quite well with regard to all of the covenants which He specifically makes in Scripture. Thus, I would have to respectfully disagree with the statement that ‘membership in one covenant granted membership in another.’ That is not to in any way take away from the fact that national Israel was made promises in both the AC and the MC. However, in the AC God made the covenant with Abraham and not national Israel and in the MC God made the covenant with national Israel and not Abraham. Similarities and differences existing without any conflicts.
You asked about Ruth, I misunderstood the question, and you responded with:
“By what means?” Faith is the means of inclusion into the New Covenant, circumcision into the Abrahamic (in your understanding). So by what means was Ruth included into the Abrahamic Covenant?
Ruth became part of a group (national Israel) identified as a recipient of promises in the AC by marrying a member of the group (actually, she did this twice). She also may have been a recipient of the AC blessings promised to ‘all families’ by God giving her saving faith. (Ruth 1:16 may show this; but, I don’t see it specifically spelled out in Scripture.)
I’d also like to clear up any misunderstanding that I gave you as to how one gains inclusion in the AC. Your statement above shows that I gave the impression that it was circumcision. That would have been an error on my part; circumcision did not gain one entrance to the AC. It was simply a sign of who was included in national Israel (e.g., it was not a sign of the promises involving ‘all the families’). National Israel was, of course, one of the recipients of promises in the AC. I’d like to just point out that circumcision came many years after the institution and a few reaffirmations of the covenant itself.
Now we get to the real question:
where do we see in the Scripture a positive affirmation that the New Covenant is separate from the Abrahamic?
First, I would not say that the NC is ’separate’ from the AC. What I would say is:
a) The covenant that we call the NC is specified in Jeremiah 31:31-34. (I certainly don’ t expect any disagreement on this? I do expect disagreement with what follows. (insert sad smiley face))
b) The NC is made with national Israel. The recipients of the promises of the NC are national Israel.
c)The foundation of the NC promises is the death (blood) of the Savior. The covenant could not be instituted (even though it was described long before) until Christ died and paid for sin.
d) Sorry for what I have to say next; but, the church is not now receiving the blessings of the NC. The church is receiving the blessings of the AC (in Abraham, all the families of the earth shall be blessed).
e) To enable these blessings to flow to all people while Israel still awaits the blessings of the NC, God made a new creation, the church, Jew and Gentile in one body. This body receives those salvific blessings, because of the self same cross as was required to institute the NC, through faith in Jesus. Or, as Ephesians 3:6 says: “that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members (with the Jew) of the body (the church), and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus (AC promise to all the families of the earth [which would include the Israelites also!]) through the gospel.
So, my specific answer to your question is ‘no.’ There is no reason to expect a ’specific affirmation’ of separation. And, the reasons given above explain why that would not be required. Furthermore, the definitions of each covenant make it clear that they are not the same covenants.
The church is receiving the blessings of the AC because Jesus has paid the price of sin for ‘all the families of the earth’ and God created a new group, the church, a mystery, to receive these blessings. The new covenant only relates to Israel, although the death was also required for the enactment of that covenant. The fulfillment of the NC will have to wait for the second coming.
I’ll bet that there are just a few things in the above that you would like to point out as being not Scriptural. I am anxious to see what you have to say.
And I think this is more or less where we are: hashing through the four questions, and raising various issues in the process.
David, over to you.
JRC
Saturday, May 16, 2009
God's Covenant(s?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
465 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 465 Newer› Newest»Hi David,
Thanks for the encouraging words about my butterfly pictures. Lepidoptera are an inexplicable part of my life, and I'm thrilled to be able to share the pics, even though I don't post as frequently as I'd like.
---
I believe I understand your position. See whether this summary works:
The "New Covenant" as used in the NT refers to a "New Way" of salvation. That New Way applies to two distinct groups, Israel and the Church.
As such, the New Covenant in Jeremiah is simply a sub-feature of the New Way, applying only to Israel; by contrast, the Church, while receiving benefits from the inauguration of the New Way, does not participate in the New Covenant.
The evidence for this is as follows:
1) There is no place in Scripture that directly states that the New Covenant has been fulfilled for Israel.
2) Jeremiah is unequivocally talking about Israel and only Israel in the promise of the New Covenant.
3) The author to the Hebrews is quoting Jeremiah in order to make a point, not in order to assert New Covenant (a) membership for believers.
4) Scripture does not ever explicitly state that the Church is a party to a covenant; while she is the recipient of covenant promises, she is not a party.
5) "There was an Israel; there is an Israel; God has promised that there will always be an Israel."
Taking these five points together, it makes sense to affirm that the continuation of Israel as a nation requires a future, not present fulfillment, of the New Covenant; and therefore, a different destiny for the Church than for Israel; and therefore, the need for a distinction between the arrangement between God and Israel, over against the arrangement between God and the Church.
Is this a fair summary?
JRC
Hi Jeff,
Your summary of my understanding of the NC et al is better than I could have written. Of course there are still details like tribulation saints etc.; but, no need to muddy the waters any more right now.
SO, what is the biggest misreading of Scripture that I have made to come up with this view with which you most surely must disagree?
Hi David,
I've been chewing for a while on where we are. If I may, I'd like to challenge a couple of thoughts:
(1) As a seemingly minor point: you've present Israel and the Church as two disjoint groups.
However, "Israel" is defined in your view as "all those of Abrahamic physical descent", and "the Church" is "all those who have saving faith in Christ."
So I'm surprised that you would think of these two groups as disjoint, since you yourself are a member of both groups at once!
Which raises a question: is your destiny tied with Israel, or the Church? If a pre-trib pre-mill rapture happened today, what would happen to you?
So while this seems like a minor point, it does raise an important challenge: apparently, Israel and the Church are not disjoint, since they contain common members.
And if they are not disjoint, then how can the two groups have different destinies?
And in fact, the early Church, to whom the epistles were written, consisted of a mixture of Jews and Gentiles. What was the status of those Jewish Christians? And how is it that Paul or the other apostles do not address their membership in Israel?
I think the notion of two disjoint groups needs to be clarified in terms of the status of Jewish Christians.
(2) You have stated that nothing in Scripture specifically states that the New Covenant has been fulfilled for Israel.
And yet, Scripture does state that the New Covenant has been inaugurated through the blood of Christ. I know that you have distinguished the NT's use of "New Covenant" from Jeremiah's, but still and all -- they use the words "New Covenant" to describe what has happened.
Could it be possible that the fulfillment of the New Covenant has indeed occurred, but just doesn't look like you expected it to look?
To be specific: Suppose that the New Covenant was inaugurated with the crucifixion, but is continuing to be fulfilled and will continue to be fulfilled until the Second Coming.
In other words, suppose that Jeremiah's prophecy was not limited to a single moment in time, but to an entire process starting in Matthew and ending in Revelation.
Is there any reason that this kind of fulfillment is not possible?
And wouldn't that make more sense of the "New Covenant" language in the New Testament, instead of saying that this language means something *different* from Jeremiah?
In short, I think it's possible that you've limited your interpretation of Jeremiah to one possibility only.
(cont.)
Oops, I hit "Publish" instead of "Preview"; hope I didn't say anything crazy.
---
(3) You have placed a large weight on the concept of an abiding promise to unbelieving Jews. You argue for this in two ways: the continuance of a nation of Israel ("There was an Israel; there is an Israel; God has promised that there will always be an Israel."), and in terms of the fulfillment of the New Covenant in Jeremiah to all who are physically descended from Abraham.
In this connection, you said,
DW: My reading of what Jeremiah calls 'a new covenant with Israel' is that ALL Israel is saved under that covenant. It does not talk about a 'substantial portion.' And certainly today we don't see a substantial portion, let alone 'all,' of Israel being saved.
Well, one reasonable reaction to what I have just said is that I am just being picky. But, I think that there is a major difference between substantial portion and all. A remnant is not all unless all the others who are not part of the remnant are no longer alive. That is unless the word 'all' is just hyperbole. So, does God really mean 'all' (at that point in time) or does He mean a 'substantial portion' being brought into the Church over a period of at least 2000 years?
It's a fair question: What does God mean when He promises this through Jeremiah?
Jer 31: "Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,"
declares the LORD,
"will the descendants of Israel ever cease
to be a nation before me.
This is what the LORD says:
"Only if the heavens above can be measured
and the foundations of the earth below be searched out
will I reject all the descendants of Israel
because of all they have done,"
declares the LORD.
And yet we notice here that the language does not affirm that God will accept all of the descendants of Israel; rather, that He will not reject all of them -- that is, that some of them will be accepted.
"will not reject all" -- means "will accept some"
"will not reject any" -- would mean "will accept all"
And in fact, God did reject many unbelieving Israelites, and Jeremiah alludes to this. It is not every single Israelite who will be in the New Covenant, but those who are preserved through God's wrath: "This is what the LORD says: "The people who survive the sword will find favor in the desert; I will come to give rest to Israel." -- 31.2
The rejection of unbelieving Jews is announced by Christ (the parable of the vineyard owner, the parable of the wedding feast, the woes).
It also is taught by Paul in Romans 2, 9, and 11: unbelieving Jews are currently "broken off" from the people of God, and can and will be reattached only on the condition of faith.
In short, the "only if [impossible stuff] will I reject all..." of Jer 31 simply affirms that there will be some Israelites in the New Covenant, not all of them.
Well, what about the continuance of the nation of Israel? Here we need to remember that "nation" was not a geo-political entity, but a family, a "people." God is not affirming the continuation of a country called "Israel" (which didn't happen in any event!), but the preservation of a people. In what way? Through its remnant -- see esp. Rom 9.27.
There's more to say about the Church and covenants, and whether or not there is a single "people of God", but it's dinnertime chez Cagle.
Grace and peace,
JRC
Hi Jeff,
JC1: I think the notion of two disjoint groups needs to be clarified in terms of the status of Jewish Christians.
JC2: Which raises a question: is your destiny tied with Israel, or the Church? If a pre-trib pre-mill rapture happened today, what would happen to you?
DW: When the trumpet of God sounds, you and I will be outta here in a flash!!! (1 Thessalonians 4:16)
I think a big part of the problem we're having has to do with considering the individual vs. the group. The promises to Israel are to a group. The group is fairly well defined via descendancy, although there are also Gentiles (physical outsiders, e.g., Ruth, et al) who became part of the group and who were not from the line of Jacob. At any rate, this is the group (or nation or people) to whom the promises to the nation of Israel apply.
However, from passages like Jeremiah 31, it seems that these promises will be fulfilled at a particular time in human history. So, all the Israelites who are not then alive, will not receive these promises since the fulfillment of the promises have to do with living human beings. Thus, lots of members of this group throughout all of history (both those declared righteous and those not declared righteous) will not see the fulfillment of (share in) the promises to the nation.
Additionally, there have always been individuals (Israelite or not) who were declared righteous. This group of righteous people before the cross could be called 'old testament saints.' (Not, as I am sure you know, an original thought on my part!) It was a mixed group; not all Israelite. They too have an eternal destiny; but, they are not the Church nor are they part of the particular embodiment of the nation of Israel that will actually receive the fruits of God's promises to the nation.
Now, if a pre-trib rapture is correct, there is no problem with me having dual membership. As I said, I am outta here! I'm then with Christ and that's where I'll be for eternity. Whether Israel gets their promises or not (and they will!) doesn't seem to have much to do with my situation as a member of the Church even though I am of the line of Kohath, a Levite.
JC: (2) You have stated that nothing in Scripture specifically states that the New Covenant has been fulfilled for Israel.
DW: Well, not exactly. It is true that I can't find a place in Scripture where this is stated. But, even more important seems to be that the conditions for its fulfillment have not yet been met. Jeremiah, for one, gives lots of detail and unless it is all just meaningless filler, then I can't imagine how it could have found fulfillment in history.
JC1: In other words, suppose that Jeremiah's prophecy was not limited to a single moment in time, but to an entire process starting in Matthew and ending in Revelation.
JC2: In short, I think it's possible that you've limited your interpretation of Jeremiah to one possibility only.
DW: I'd be happy to adopt your understanding if only I could figure out why Jeremiah says:
30:7 "Alas, what a terrible time of trouble it is! There has never been any like it. It is a time of trouble for the descendants of Jacob, but some of them will be rescued out of it."
I imagine that up to that time there had been some pretty terrible massacres! Yet, something even more terrible then the worst atrocity that had happened up to that time was still to happen in the future! Has this already happened (to Israel or to the Church)?
30:8 "When the time for them to be rescued comes," says the LORD who rules over all, "I will rescue you from foreign subjugation. I will deliver you from captivity. Foreigners will then no longer subjugate them.
We (the Church) are free; we have the truth and always have had it. Has the Church ever been delivered from foreign subjugation or captivity? Is there a sense in which you look forward to this happening to the Church?
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
30:9 9 But they will be subject to the LORD their God and to the Davidic ruler whom I will raise up as king over them.
I know that Jesus is my Lord and head of His Church. But, is Jesus our king? Does Scripture ever call Him the 'king' of the Church? I know it calls Him the 'king of the Jews.'
30:13 "There is no one to plead your cause. There are no remedies for your wounds. There is no healing for you."
What??? Jesus is not our mediator/intercessor??? This can not be talking about the Church.
30:14 "All your allies have abandoned you. They no longer have any concern for you. For I have attacked you like an enemy would. I have chastened you cruelly. For your wickedness is so great and your sin is so much."
The Church has allies??? Surely you don't think God would describe the Church like this?
30:21 "One of their own people will be their leader. Their ruler will come from their own number. I will invite him to approach me, and he will do so. For no one would dare approach me on his own. I, the LORD, affirm it!"
There is only one I know of who could approach God and He does not come out of the Church as one of its people. God placed Him over the Church. Big difference. But, Jesus will reign as king over the nation of Israel when God fulfills the new covenant with them after He puts them back into their land. Alas, so many of the details have to be discarded to blend Israel and the Church.
30:22 Then you will again be my people and I will be your God.
Never, has the Church stopped being the people of God since He created it (at Pentecost!). So, how is it possible for it to AGAIN be His people? Do you really believe that the Church (saved individuals; the Bride of Christ) has ever not been God's people?
31:1 At that time I will be the God of all the clans of Israel and they will be my people. I, the LORD, affirm it!"
Is the Church made up of clans?
31:4 I will rebuild you, my dear children Israel, so that you will once again be built up. Once again you will take up the tambourine and join in the happy throng of dancers.
'my dear children Israel' - Is that how you think of your Church? Are the saved members of your Church not now happy? Do they need God to rebuild them for that to be the case?
31:8 Then I will reply, 'I will bring them back from the land of the north. . . . . A vast throng of people will come back here."
Can it be said that we are going to be brought BACK to New Jerusalem? Can it be said that the nation of Israel will be brought back to the land of Israel and the old Jerusalem? Naturally, you know I favor a 'yes' to the second question and not the first.
31:11 For the LORD will rescue the descendants of Jacob. He will secure their release from those who had overpowered them.
Who has ever over powered the Church? By the way, is being a descendant of Abraham (Galatians) the same as being a descendant of Jacob?
31:12 They will come and shout for joy on Mount Zion. They will be radiant with joy over the good things the LORD provides, the grain, the fresh wine, the olive oil, the young sheep and calves he has given to them. They will be like a well-watered garden and will not grow faint or weary any more.
We have Jesus; do we really need olive oil or any of what is listed here? Is this all just figurative language? Or, does God actually mean what He so plainly says?
31:17 Indeed, there is hope for your posterity. Your children will return to their own territory. I, the LORD, affirm it!
What is the Church's territory to which we might wish our children to RETURN?
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
31:19 For after we turned away from you we repented. After we came to our senses we beat our breasts in sorrow. We are ashamed and humiliated because of the disgraceful things we did previously.'
My little church is a mess; but, this does not describe us. Does it describe your church? Individuals maybe; but, the whole church???
31:21 I will say, 'My dear children of Israel, keep in mind the road you took when you were carried off. Mark off in your minds the landmarks. Make a mental note of telltale signs marking the way back. Return, my dear children of Israel. Return to these cities of yours.
To what place has the Church been carried off? Did we ever have cities?
31:23 The LORD God of Israel who rules over all says, "I will restore the people of Judah to their land and to their towns. When I do, they will again say of Jerusalem, 'May the LORD bless you, you holy mountain, the place where righteousness dwells.'
Does it make any sense to refer to the Church as the people of Judah?' (And, of course, I know that Jesus is of the tribe of Judah.) I know we agree on New Jerusalem. Does this at all sound like that is what God is describing?
31:27 "Indeed, a time is coming," says the LORD, "when I will cause people and animals to sprout up in the lands of Israel and Judah.
How can this be explained as a reference to us without completely spiritualizing it?
31:28 In the past I saw to it that they were uprooted and torn down, that they were destroyed and demolished. But now I will see to it that they are built up and firmly planted. I, the LORD, affirm it!"
Has there ever been a time when the Church of Jesus Christ has been destroyed and demolished?
31:33 "But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land," says the LORD. "I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.
In earlier verses God has clearly described what land He is talking about. Has the Church been planted back in that land? Because it is only after that that they will get new hearts. I have a new heart and I have not been planted back into any land. Does this describe your situation?
31:35-36 The LORD has made a promise to Israel. . . . "The descendants of Israel will not cease forever to be a nation in my sight. . ."
Are the descendants of Abraham (per Galatians) the same as the descendants of Israel? Is it reasonable to call the Church a nation?
31:38-40 "Indeed a time is coming," says the LORD, "when the city of Jerusalem will be rebuilt as my special city. It will be built from the Tower of Hananel westward to . . . as far north as the Horse Gate will be included within this city that is sacred to the LORD. The city will never again be torn down or destroyed.".
Is this talking about New Jerusalem? Has it ever been torn down or destroyed?
JC: (3) You have placed a large weight on the concept of an abiding promise to unbelieving Jews.
DW: Your statement implies to me that the idea of a promise to a group, the nation, is taken by you as one to individuals. God has not made any promises that I am aware of to unbelieving Jews. He has made a promise to a nation that will only be fulfilled to those in that group who are in fact 'believing' Jews. God has revealed to the nation, a mixture of believing and unbelieving individuals, what He plans to do for their descendants according to the flesh. Why is that not good enough? Why must the 'real' fulfillment be a surprise that the original hearers would have had no way of understanding?
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: In short, the "only if [impossible stuff] will I reject all..." of Jer 31 simply affirms that there will be some Israelites in the New Covenant, not all of them.
DW: I ABSOLUTELY AGREE. Sorry, if I have been confusing this. I really mean that. For me, it all has to do with timing. ALL the Israelites (the entire nation of Israel) will be saved; but, only ALL that happen to be alive at that particular time. Jeremiah defines that time as after a really really really bad time of wrath. Lots of them are going to be killed then. But, THEN God puts them back into their land and THEN He saves ALL of them. There may not be many; but, the NC will be fulfilled for all of them. The NC will only apply to a few of them in relation to the total number that has ever come forth from Jacob. A remnant, if you will. So, the NC does not apply to all Israel of all time or to all Israel of any other particular time in history. But, at that specific time, God will save ALL of them. Kind of unbelievable . . . OH, I forgot for a second, you don't believe this!!!! :)
I know you read it differently; but, for me this is exactly what a straightforward reading of Romans 11:26 yields.
JC: God is not affirming the continuation of a country called "Israel" (which didn't happen in any event!), but the preservation of a people.
DW: In Genesis 15 God lays out the boundaries of a land mass. Over and over again He makes it clear that this is the land that, at least He, considers the land of Israel. Indeed, a country. If by your statement, "which didn't happen in any event!," you mean that we can not yet see that defined area as a country with the name of Israel, of course, I agree with you. But, since the NC has not been fulfilled to Israel yet, I am not at all surprised. The question is do I believe that God will do what a dummy like me can clearly understand from the simple words of His statements? So, not yet; but, that doesn't mean not ever!
In addition, the people who are so closely related to this land are also promised a future. I understand your point about nation vs. people. Nevertheless, aren't the circumcised Israelites of today much more of a 'people' than we could ever consider the Church? The Church is a unified body through the Holy Spirit; but, a nation?? When He puts THEM into their land, they will indeed show themselves to have been a 'people' as well as a theocratic national entity.
One last question: When God makes a promise, who is it that ought to be able to understand it without having a PhD in theology? How do you think Abraham and Israel understood this promise of land and the continuation of a people?
JRC: Which raises a question: is your destiny tied with Israel, or the Church? If a pre-trib pre-mill rapture happened today, what would happen to you?
DW: When the trumpet of God sounds, you and I will be outta here in a flash!!! (1 Thessalonians 4:16)
I agree. Not in the timing (i.e., not pre-trib), but certainly in the effect.
Let's walk down the end of this path. What you have said is that you, and by extension all physical descendants of Abraham who believe in Christ, have separated themselves from Israel and joined the Church. This is the logically necessary conclusion of your system: in order for two groups to be disjoint, their members must belong to one or the other, not both. Your response indicates that your identity and the identity of all believing Jews is with the Church and not with Israel.
So who is left in Israel? Only unbelieving Jews.
Now: Jeremiah gives his promise in ch. 30-31. Certainly, those whom he addresses have been unfaithful. And yet also, they are described as repentant as well (31.18-19). This is not consistent with a picture of entirely unbelieving Jews.
Nor do the Scriptures affirm anywhere that Israelites can obtain the promises of God outside of faith.
Instead, Paul says that unbelieving Jews have been "broken off."
Now perhaps you envision that when Jesus returns, then at that time the Jews will repent. But Jesus presents His coming in the clouds as a time of judgment on unbelief. When He addresses a Jewish audience in Matt. 24-25, He says that when the rapture occurs, He will say to unbelievers, "Depart from me, for I do not know you!"
So the rapture is not a time for repentance; it is a time for judgment.
David, it appears to me that you have inverted what the Scripture teaches about Israel. Paul and Jesus affirm that the condition to be a part of Israel and a son of Abraham is to have the faith of Abraham. You on the other hand make the conditions to be a part of Israel to (a) be physically descended from Abraham and (b) denying his faith! (Else, that individual would be a part of the Church). This is upside down.
Paul concerning membership in Israel:
A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.
and again:
It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.
And again:
Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality."
Jesus concerning the Pharisees:
"If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the things your own father does." "We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."
Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire.
(cont.)
I overlooked this:
DW: Now, if a pre-trib rapture is correct, there is no problem with me having dual membership.
Well, there is if you want the Church and Israel to be disjoint sets. Two sets I and C are disjoint if and only if all members of I are not members of C and vice-versa.
I know it seems sort of abstract and mathematical, but it relates to my question about the rapture: if you are a member of I, you ought to receive the destiny of I; and yet, you won't. So are you really a member?
---
You asked a couple of questions:
(1) DW: Is there a sense in which you look forward to this [foreign subjugation] happening to the Church?
It's possible that this could refer to the tribulation which Jesus warned his believing disciples and apostles to watch out for.
But the general idea is not that the Church has replaced Israel, but that it has been grafted in to Israel.
That is, it might well be the case that believing Jews could be in the future located in the geographical location of Israel, in specific fulfillment of Jer 31.
Having said that, this does not preclude the New Covenant from including others. Just because God has promised the New Covenant to the remnant of Jews, does not mean that He intends to exclude others. It just means that Jeremiah did not foresee the inclusion of Gentiles, as Paul points out in Eph. 3.
This is the big conceptual hurdle to communication between dispies and covenanters, I think: Whereas dispies think in terms of Replacement (the Church has "replaced" Israel; that's ridiculous; so therefore, the Church is separate from Israel), the Reformed view is that the Church has been grafted in to true Israel and is joint heirs with it.
Nothing in Jeremiah prevents this from happening. The Church need not fulfill all of the specifics of Jer 30-31 in order to be a part and reap the benefits of the New Covenant.
(2) DW: But, is Jesus our king? Does Scripture ever call Him the 'king' of the Church?
Yes, certainly.
Rev 5: And they sang a new song:
"You are worthy to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
and with your blood you purchased men for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation.
You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
and they will reign on the earth."
Who is the king of this kingdom? Who is it that wears the crown as he rides on the white horse, conquering? Who is it that walked on the earth proclaiming, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!"?
Gotta run,
JRC
Hi Jeff,
I hope you are having a blessed Lord's Day!
I must admit that I was surprised to hear from you so soon. Also, please don't consider this a response. I will do that in a 'respectable' amount of time. However, I just had to try to clear up something that is clearly a misunderstanding between us.
You said:
"What you have said is that you, and by extension all physical descendants of Abraham who believe in Christ, have separated themselves from Israel and joined the Church. This is the logically necessary conclusion of your system: in order for two groups to be disjoint, their members must belong to one or the other, not both. Your response indicates that your identity and the identity of all believing Jews is with the Church and not with Israel.
So who is left in Israel? Only unbelieving Jews."
NO! I feel really badly that this is what I have communicated!
Every unbelieving Jew alive today is definitely an Israelite and definitely not a member of the Church. Every believing Jew today is also an Israelite even though a member of the body of Christ. There is no way I can separate myself from Israel (it's a birth thing!) nor is there any way that I can join the Church. God saved me and put me in the Church. Likewise, all the other believing Jews.
I don't know what you mean by 'my identity being with the Church.' I would say my destiny is with the Church. Any unbelieving Jew today (who dies that way before Christ returns) has a destiny in the Lake of Fire. Eternal life is an individual thing and certainly not a group grope.
Now, there is no conflict. God is not now working through the nation of Israel; He is building and working through the Church. He will take the Church out of here. I'll go with it. Then, He will once more work through the Israelites who remain alive. All of them are 'descendants of Israel.' Most of them will die in the 'tribulation.' It is at that time that He will fulfill His promises to the nation. A remnant will be saved. There is no way in which I or any other believing Jew today is caught in any sort of predicament of having to choose which group to align with.
Time is the element that solves any potential conflict. A believing Israel and a believing Church do not ever occupy planet earth (as living human beings) at the same time!
Hope this helps clarify. I just could not believe how after all this time I could have been so unclear in what I was communicating. That doesn't mean to say that it is not all hogwash. Just that it ought to be clear hogwash!!!
Hi David,
Thanks for the clarification. The word "disjoint" threw me -- it's a specific term in math. So sorry to have misunderstood.
So I think what you want is a Venn diagram that shows overlapping sets: Israel consisting of physical descendants of Abraham, and the Church consisting of those who believe in Christ.
So believing Jews are therefore in the intersection of the two sets.
Does that work?
JRC
Hi Jeff,
That works!
If you get a chance, please take a look at the graphic I sent you. The purpose of that was to head off this particular confusion. Also, the graphic tries to portray what happens over time. What you said in your last comment is only applicable to NOW.
The situations before the Church (pre-Pentecost) and after the Church is gone (post-rapture) are shown in the graphic and are different. Of course, I know you hold to a totally different interpretation. But, I value your time and critique and as such I hate to lead you to waste it by causing you respond to a view that I don't hold.
Hi David,
You're right -- your diagram did show the "faith of Abraham" Israelites (in teal) as belonging to both sets.
I'm sorry that I didn't study the diagram more closely and correlate it with our conversation. At the time, I gave it a once-over and then didn't refer back to it. I apologize for the lack of care.
JRC
OK, so now that I'm straight on the diagram, let me pose my objection from the other side of the fence.
Just as there were problems with purely disjoint sets, there are also problems with overlapping sets. Those problems can be resolved by the ingrafting model that seems to be apparent in Rom 11.
---
Here's the problem: you have placed yourself as a member of both I and C.
If that were to be fully true, then everything true about I and everything true about C, ought to be true of you.
But the most important feature of I -- that of a future New Covenant in which land will be restored, etc. -- is not true of you. You instead will be raptured.
This makes sense on one level: you can't have two different destinies, so you have to go with one or the other; and in the end, you believe that your identity in the Church trumps your identity in Israel in terms of your destiny.
But this also means that you aren't a full member of I, since the promises made to "all of I" *don't apply to you.*
It's the two destinies problem: since I has one destiny and C has another, the two sets cannot truly overlap. It is logically impossible to belong to both C and I because one must have one destiny or the other, not both.
I submit that the best way to solve the dilemma is to hold to a single destiny for all. I think this is what Romans 11 teaches.
Rather than quote the entire chapter, let me ask you to pull it up and consider the olive tree. What, precisely, does it represent?
The believing Gentiles have been grafted into something. What is that something?
* It is not "the Church", for unbelieving Jews have never been a part of the Church, and cannot therefore be broken from it.
* Nor is it "salvation", for you and I agree that one cannot be broken off of salvation truly possessed.
* So what then? The cultivated olive tree is a symbol from the Old Testament. It refers to Israel. See Is 17.4-6 and Jer 11.16.
What then have believing Gentiles been grafted into? The Israel under the Law? May it never be! Rather, they have been grafted into the Israel that believed the promise to Abraham, which he received by faith and was justified, that God would be their God.
This tree is the true Israel, the remnant in 11.7.
We know already that Paul uses the word "Israel" in two senses -- in the sense of physical descent, and in the sense of believing remnant. Rom 9.6-7 illustrate both of these uses nicely.
Rom 9.6-7a: It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children...
The same dual usage is going on here. In 11.26, Paul speaks of physical descent. But in 11.27, the "all Israel" that will be saved is the remnant.
How do we know? Because the Israel that will be saved is the remnant (11.5), is the olive tree that receives God's kindness (11.22).
When he says "so all Israel will be saved" -- he's talking about the olive tree! And both Gentiles and believing Jews belong; but not unbelieving Jews, unless they repent.
What are your thoughts about the olive tree? Does my argument make sense? Can you see why I argue that we believing Gentiles have been grafted into (true) Israel?
JRC
Hi Jeff,
For all this time I had not been able to find an RSS feed for comments on your site!!! Last week I found it and what a relief to just be able to open my e-mail and among other things see if you have responded!!! Technology is truly great.
Well, I have been working on a response and had been spending quite a bit of time in Romans 11. I think that is really the source of a lot of this difference. And, most of this comes from metaphors. So, I have been trying to discover how to show in a concrete way which view is in fact 'correct.'
Well, Your response today was unexpected. But, you have raised so many key points. So, I'll scrap what I was thinking about and deal with this response directly. And yes, the key is understanding what the figures and pronouns in Romans 11 are referencing. I have probably related my view previously; but, here it is again without any support. The root refers to the patriarchs and the AC. The tree stands for God's place of blessing (those who are 'God's People' in the non-salvific sense), and the branches stand for the people (Jew and Gentile) that make up the People of God. I'll work on the support in the response. Now, all I have to do is find an explanation that is convincing to you. ;)
Sorry; but, I can't resist asking at least one rhetorical question: We agree that salvation can not be lost. So, what is all of this breaking off and grafting in (including after having been broken off!!!) talking about?
Hi Jeff,
I'll try to address your last two responses here:
JC: When He (Jesus) addresses a Jewish audience in Matt. 24-25, He says that when the rapture occurs, He will say to unbelievers, "Depart from me, for I do not know you!" So the rapture is not a time for repentance; it is a time for judgment.
DW: As I am quite sure you know, the word 'rapture' does not appear in the Bible. So, the first question to answer is: "Is Matthew 24-25 talking about the same thing as 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18?"
I hope we agree that 1 Thessalonians 4 is talking about the 'rapture?' And, as far as I can tell, there is nothing there about judgment. That's the beginning of us all being 'with the Lord' for always. For, what Paul tells them there is supposed to be used by us to encourage one another, no?
Unwinding Matthew 24-25 is not that simple and in fact I am not sure where to begin. I am sure many volumes have been written to do just this.
Let me just say this: As you point out, he begins in Matthew 24 addressing Jews, His disciples. (According to my understanding, there is not yet a Church and surely we can agree there has not yet been a cross.) There are 3 questions that they ask relating to destruction of the temple, His coming, and the end of the age. He begins by describing how things are going to be really bad. But, the person who endures to the end will be saved.
Then He says that the 'gospel of the kingdom' will be preached in all the world and then the end will come. So, my first question is: 'what do you see as the relation between the 'gospel of the kingdom' and the gospel that Paul describes that God spoke to Abraham?
My answer is that there is no relationship. They are two completely different 'good news' stories. Let me know if you have any interest in pursuing Matthew 24-25 any more. My guess is that we have wildly different understandings that would make for an enlightening exchange.
JC: A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical.
DW: Here is another place where we see things very differently. My take: The point that Paul is making here (Romans 2:28?) is first that he is talking to Jews from v2:17 to the end of the chapter. His point is that of those who call themselves Jews because of heritage, only those who believe (are declared righteous) are real Jews. This passage has nothing to do with Gentiles. This passage does not address the saved Gentile so as to make him/her a 'real' Jew. None of the passages you reference have anything to do with a Gentile becoming a Jew, an Israelite, because of their faith. Remember being a son of Jacob/Israel may not be the same thing as being a 'son' of Abraham. Or, to put it another way, just because one is called a son of Abraham does not mean that that person is also a son of Israel. And, a real Jew is nothing if not a son of Israel.
JC: It's possible that this (foreign subjugation) could refer to the tribulation which Jesus warned his believing disciples and apostles to watch out for.
DW: Foreign subjugation has been going on for thousands of years for the Jews. It is not over yet. The passage you reference here is Jesus talking to His Jewish disciples before Pentecost. The tribulation is God's wrath unleashed on the Jews. Why would God unleash wrath on us (saved children of God) when Romans 8 so clearly states that there is now no condemnation for us???
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: But the general idea is not that the Church has replaced Israel, but that it has been grafted in to Israel.
DW: I understand the distinction you are making (at least I think I do.)
JC: Just because God has promised the New Covenant to the remnant of Jews, does not mean that He intends to exclude others. It just means that Jeremiah did not foresee the inclusion of Gentiles, as Paul points out in Eph. 3.
DW: I think the relevant passage in Ephesians that you are thinking about is: ". . . that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, . . ."
If so, then I can not see anything in here about the Gentiles being added to those to whom the NC was promised. Yes, Paul explains a mystery; but, it has nothing to do with Gentiles gaining entrance to the promises to Israel. Yes, Jew and Gentile are fellow partakers of the GOSPEL (the one spoken to Abraham about all the nations); not the NC.
JC: Whereas dispies think in terms of Replacement (the Church has "replaced" Israel; that's ridiculous;
DW: That is indeed ridiculous! Maybe I am not a dispy, after all. :)
JC: the Reformed view is that the Church has been grafted in to true Israel and is joint heirs with it.
DW: But, this is definitely not the message of Ephesians 3. They are joint heirs of
the BODY not of Israel. There is simply nothing about incorporation there. Now, Romans 11 is another story!
Sort of an aside; but, interesting . . .
I asked: "But, is Jesus our king? Does Scripture ever call Him the 'king' of the Church?"
You responded: "Yes, certainly. - Rev 5"
Well, in that verse, it is US who reign. Yes, our destiny is to rule WITH Christ, the king. Rev. 5 does not answer the question as to whether Jesus is the king of the CHURCH. He is most definitely David's son and eternal king of the Jews.
JC: But the most important feature of I -- that of a future New Covenant in which land will be restored, etc. -- is not true of you. You instead will be raptured.
DW: Timing is the key! Paul makes it clear that most of Israel has been 'hardened.' The remnant of Israel that God has saved (Praise the Lord that that includes me!!!) is NOW in the body of Christ, which has no impact on my status from birth as an Israelite. God is now not working through Israel. Most of them have been broken off from the tree (God's people). If I were with Israel right now, I'd be lost! So, is there any conflict right now? I see none.
When I am raptured (and today would be just fine with me) Israel will be in exactly the same place as it is now, broken off. AFTER the rapture, God will graft them back in and will once more work through them, beginning with wrath. There is still no conflict with me not getting the promises. I have gotten plenty and will be ruling with my Lord over these people when He returns. Why would I want to be one of them? To get some land? No way. They, on the other hand, will be thrilled to have Jesus as their king in their land with ever lasting peace. There is no conflict. We'll be there too, just not as live humans but as resurrected saints. Much much better situation for you and me.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: the promises made to "all of I" *don't apply to you.*
DW: If you are referring to Romans 11:26 then agan it is timing that is critical. This promise is to ALL Israel at that time; not now. I am here now and will not be here then, i.e., when the "fullness of the Gentiles" comes to pass. Doesn't that explain it?
JC: It is logically impossible to belong to both C and I because one must have one destiny or the other, not both.
DW: Given what I have said above, would you still say this?
JC: The believing Gentiles have been grafted into something. What is that something?
DW: 'believing Gentiles?' I'd like to test that:
a) Who were originally the branches? my answer: All Israel; no Gentiles.
b) Why were Israelites 'broken off?' my answer: They transgressed and failed (Romans 11:12), i.e., they rejected their king and crucified Him.
c) So, before the 'breaking off' there were both saved and unsaved Israelites ATTACHED TO the tree.
d) In Romans 11:21, Paul tells the Gentiles (all of them and not just the saved ones) that they can be broken off. Well, we both hold to 'once saved always saved' so the tree can not be about eternal life. Thus, there is no reason to imagine that only believing Gentiles have been grafted in? All Gentiles have been grafted in to the tree, the place of blessing. Salvation is available to all of them; only the elect will of course accept. It is no longer only the Israelites who are God's people. In fact, right now only the elect Israelites are God's people along with ALL the Gentiles. All Gentiles have now been grafted in. Clearly ALL Gentiles have not been saved.
JC: The cultivated olive tree is a symbol from the Old Testament. It refers to Israel. See Is 17.4-6 and Jer 11.16.
DW: Isaiah clearly compares Israel to an olive tree there. Actually, only to the olive tree that has already been harvested and only has a few olives left. For, this passage talks about a time of leanness for Israel. Jeremiah also compares Israel to an olive tree (and also a grape vine). In Psalms 52 David compares himself to an olive tree. In Job 15, the wicked man is compared to an olive tree. I am sure that neither of us thinks that David or a wicked man is in view in Romans 11. So, to prove that everywhere that an olive tree is mentioned that Israel is the subject is really unproven.
JC: This tree is the true Israel, the remnant in 11.7
DW: The remnant of 11:7 are those Israelites (branches) who are NOT broken off. The tree previously had branches that were broken off (unbelievers). So, before God 'pruned' the tree, there were both kinds of branches. But, they were all Israelites. By the way, these remnant branches that Paul is talking about are in the Church! So, how can the tree, the true Israel, have both believing and unbelieving branches? Wouldn't that simply make the tree (this is not my belief) Israel which is comprised of both believing and unbelieving Jews?
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: We know already that Paul uses the word "Israel" in two senses -- in the sense of physical descent, and in the sense of believing remnant.
DW: Yes; but, only when referring to the believing remnant that comes out of Israel. Not believers from the Gentiles. And, I have still not been able to find any Scripture that says that the believing Gentiles have been somehow 'blended in' with the believing remnant of Israel. Alas, I do find Scripture that says that the believing remnant of Israel and the believing Gentile of today have both EQUALLY been put into a new creation, the Church.
JC: The same dual usage is going on here. In 11.26, Paul speaks of physical descent. But in 11.27, the "all Israel" that will be saved is the remnant.
DW: Actually, I want to celebrate agreement. For, I do agree with this statement. It is the remnant of Israel that at some future time will be saved via the NC. Sadly, agreement is only on the surface. For Israel in two senses is still just Israel to me. To you, the remnant Israel also seems to include Gentiles. No longer could it be considered a remnant of Israel if a new group is added in.
JC: Because the Israel that will be saved is the remnant (11.5), is the olive tree that receives God's kindness (11.22).
The remnant of 11:5 are just that, a remnant, a small part of the original whole. At the time of Paul's writing that remnant included him, i.e., at least one saved Jew in the Church. He was a 'branch' that was left attached to the tree after the nation of Israel rejected their king. [NOTE: when Israel rejected their king, Paul was one of them!] Israel (most of it, anyway) having been broken off, the Gentiles (all of them as a people group) were grafted in. If they were all believers, then there could not have been any warning about being broken off in the future due to unbelief. Thus, they could not have all been believers. The Gentiles that were grafted in were a people group consisting of all Gentiles, believers and non-believers. Just like the branches that were there before the first 'breaking off' took place. Except that those branches were originally all Israelites.
Nevertheless, you are right in saying that the olive tree is the picture of all people who receive the blessing (not necessarily salvation) of God. The tree is the place of blessing for the 'People of God.' And, the root of that tree are the patriachs and the AC!
Let me just end this response with one question: I believe you have said that believing Gentiles were grafted in to the tree. I believe you said that salvation is not revokable. So, who are the 'you' in verse 11:22 that could be broken off? a) saved Gentiles? b) unsaved Gentiles? c) Gentiles as a people? d) none of the above?
The olive tree is really fascinating, isn't it?
DW: I believe you have said that believing Gentiles were grafted in to the tree. I believe you said that salvation is not revokable. So, who are the 'you' in verse 11:22 that could be broken off? a) saved Gentiles? b) unsaved Gentiles? c) Gentiles as a people? d) none of the above?
Paul: I am talking to you Gentiles...If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches ... they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid.
First, I'm delighted that we agree that there is a single People of God. For some reason, I thought you had questioned that earlier.
What is the olive tree? You speculate that all Gentiles have been grafted in, but Paul's warning ("If God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either") precludes this.
The condition for remaining in the tree is faith; and many of the Gentiles self-evidently do not have faith.
So how to puzzle this out? It is possible to lose one's place in the tree through unbelief, and the condition for being in the tree is faith.
Here's my take: the Tree is indeed the one People of God, viewed from an outward perspective. Just as there are branches "in the vine" that do not bear fruit and are broken off and thrown in the fire (John 15), so also there are branches "on the tree" that are broken off because of unbelief.
A person, such as Paul, looks at Israel and says, "There is the people of God." But God looks at Israel and knows the hearts of each one, the believers and the unbelievers, and He chooses to break off unbelieving branches. Specifically, He breaks off branches that appeared to men to have faith (such as the Pharisees), and so remained within the outward people of God, but did not possess the reality of faith that is the condition for remaining in the tree.
So why would I identify the tree as the "Israel" that will be saved?
Because the pruning process, which culminates in the rapture, makes the tree more pure, consisting of branches that truly believe.
In other words, the rapture is the moment when the condition of faith is fully and consistently applied, so that the tree becomes in reality what it appeared to be on the outside: the pure olive tree, the pure grapevine, the pure bride.
--
Since we got here because of a mutual interest in Federal Vision stuff, I want to draw a contrast between the view I've expressed and the FV view.
The major difference is that the FV wants to ascribe the terms "elect" and "saved" ("in some sense") to the entire tree.
I do not. Rather, I would say that the tree "appears to be elect to man" but the individual branches are known to God.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
JC: First, I'm delighted that we agree that there is a single People of God.
DW: What I have tried to convey is that while at any one point in time there is only one people of God, that at different times there have been different people that were in this blessed position.
JC: What is the olive tree? You speculate that all Gentiles have been grafted in, but Paul's warning ("If God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either") precludes this.
DW: How does this preclude? First, I hope we agree the natural branches are the ethnic Israelites, no? If 'all' Gentiles have been grafted in then that would be just like the situation the Israelites faced in the OT, no? The whole nation (the evil along with the good) were God's people. They were branches on the tree. So, that part is not precluded is it?
Now, if they as a people (again, just like the Israelites did) reject the Messiah or fail or trespass in the likeness of the Israelites, then why would their 'breaking off' also not be a possibility? If it could happen to the Israelites (and it did) why could it not happen to the Gentiles?
JC: The condition for remaining in the tree is faith; and many of the Gentiles self-evidently do not have faith.
DW: Not really. God does not shuffle people groups in and out because a few of them (in fact many of them) do not have faith. For hundreds of years the Israelites could be characterized this way and still they remained as branches. It takes a bigger problem. In the case of the Jews, it was the national rejection of their king.
You seem to see a similarity between John 15 and Romans 11. I really think that trying to align these two metaphors can only lead down the wrong path. Jesus is clearly the focus of John 15. In Romans 11 the focus is the blessing of God to a people as a group. While Jesus is the ultimate blessing; I don't believe that that is Paul's message in Romans 11. Trying to bring salvation (in the sense of eternal life) into the metaphors of Romans 11 will lead, IMHO, to error.
JC: Specifically, He breaks off branches that appeared to men to have faith (such as the Pharisees), and so remained within the outward people of God, but did not possess the reality of faith that is the condition for remaining in the tree.
DW: Lots more people than just Pharisees were broken off when He hardened the Jewish nation. Moreover, the only kind of faith of which I am aware to which God responds is saving faith. If that were the kind of faith being discussed in Romans 11 then nobody in the tree could be cut off. So, how did they get there in the first place? Does God just put people there without faith and wait to see how long it will take for them to get it. And, if they fail the time test, He breaks them off? I don't think that fits the description in Romans 11.
JC: Because the pruning process, which culminates in the rapture . . .
DW: I see nothing in Scripture that describes any pruning process as leading up to the rapture. Is there a passage that you have in mind here?
JC: The major difference is that the FV wants to ascribe the terms "elect" and "saved" ("in some sense") to the entire tree.
DW: Neither one of us finds any truth in this idea.
JC: the tree "appears to be elect to man" but the individual branches are known to God.
DW: God certainly knows all of the branches down to the number of hairs on their heads, if not even more intimately. But, now you are equating the 'people of God' to the Church. Church membership does not achieve 'grafting in' for an individual. The tree is not about the individual but about the group. It was the nation that rejected Jesus; not an individual Jew. God rejected (broke off) the nation; not individuals. In fact, Paul uses his own situation to prove just that point. God dealt nationally with Israel and now likewise with the Gentiles. Alas, this continues to be a point on which we can not seem to join hands.
How do you think we are doing?
I'm not quite sure where the specific disconnect is on Rom 11.
I will say that Paul definitely does not say that all Gentiles have been grafted in! He says, "You Gentiles" -- but he's speaking to the recipients of his letter.
JRC: ...Paul's warning precludes [the tree including all Gentiles].
DW: How does this preclude?
Well, there is a condition for remaining in the tree: continuing in God's kindness (v. 22). Since Gentiles outside of the (visible) church make no pretense even of continuing in God's kindness, they self-evidently meet the criterion for being cut off.
Furthermore, there is a characteristic of the branches: they are "holy" (v. 13). This is definitely not true of Gentiles outside of the (visible) church.
I qualify "visible" because you and I agree that if the olive tree referred to the invisible people of God, there would be no question of breaking off.
DW: Now, if they as a people...
There's the rub. On the tree, branches are not treated as a group, but as individuals. Some branches remain; others in the same group are cut off.
So the inclusion of some Gentiles does not entail the inclusion of all, because God is not treating all Gentiles as one group; nor is He treating all Jews as one group.
DW: You seem to see a similarity between John 15 and Romans 11. I really think that trying to align these two metaphors can only lead down the wrong path. Jesus is clearly the focus of John 15. In Romans 11 the focus is the blessing of God to a people as a group.
I do indeed see a similarity.
John 15: branches are attached to a central vine who makes them fruitful and clean. But if those branches fail to bear fruit, then they are cut off and thrown into the fire.
Rom 11: branches are attached to a central root who makes them holy. But if they fail to persist in faith, they are broken off.
(cont.)
Let's take a second to consider the "group" issue in Rom 11 more carefully. You're obviously more attuned to the group language than I, and I don't want to rush past this point without consideration.
Israel as a group is certainly in view. Verses 7 and 11 speak of Israel in the generic group sense.
But Israel is also used to refer to the elect, the remnant. Here, the group has been split into two subgroups: the elect and the non-elect.
Likewise, the Gentiles are referenced as a group ("Salvation has come to the Gentiles"). But that group is also sub-grouped when Paul narrows his focus to "you" in v. 13.
When we come to the olive tree, it also is a group, but ... the mystery revealed! ... it a new group that takes members from both of the old groups, composed of individuals from ethnic Israel and ethnic Gentiles.
Those individual branches stand or fall according to their faith or lack of it. Their blessing is not conferred by virtue of group membership, but according to the individual property of faith.
This interpretation is confirmed in v. 25. It is not all Gentiles who come in to the tree, but there is a "full number", a subgroup, of the Gentiles who come in.
JRC
David, I found this one point puzzling:
JRC: The condition for remaining in the tree is faith; and many of the Gentiles self-evidently do not have faith.
DW: Not really. God does not shuffle people groups in and out because a few of them (in fact many of them) do not have faith.
Now I know that you were responding to me in terms of groups, and I think I've established that the branches are really individuals.
But notice how your denial is in sharp contrast to Paul's language:
Rom 11.20 - 22: ... they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.
It seems beyond question that faith is the condition for remaining in the tree! I'm quite puzzled by your denial.
It was not the whole group of Israel who was broken off because of the rejection of their Messiah -- the believing branches remained, and the Gentiles were grafted "in among them" to "share in the nourishing sap from the root" (v. 17).
JRC
Hi Jeff,
I am going to try to support what I believe to be the message of Romans 11 as a way of responding to your points. First, I have to say the obvious. The figures of speech that Paul uses here are intended (I believe) to help us picture what he is teaching. They are not precise mathematical equations. They are certainly not new theological tenets upon which we are to build our belief system. Are we together on this?
Romans 11:
v1 - The nation of Israel are God's people and He has not rejected them completely. I, Paul, prove that.
v2 - In particular, those whom He foreknew (elect - see Romans 8:29ff) are not rejected. At any point in history, God has an elect group of Israelites.
v5 - Today's (in Paul's day) remnant (Jewish believers in the Church) prove that Israel is not completely rejected.
v7 - Those Jews other than the remnant, God hardens.
v11 - The promise of the gospel was to the Jew first (Matthew 10:5ff). They transgressed by rejecting Jesus. The gospel message was then taken to the Gentiles. Note that this does not teach that all Gentiles now have salvation. I am sure neither of us believe that.
v12 - Paul tells them to look at the blessing that has come to the Gentiles as a result of the failure of the Jews. Imagine what the result of their ultimate restoration will be!
v13-14 - This is a parenthetical passage. Romans was written to believers in Rome. Paul just makes it clear that he is here talking directly to the Gentiles among them. And, that he hopes that, as the apostle to the Gentiles, some of the Jews will also be saved through his ministry.
v16 - He sums up what he has been teaching (v1-15) with two metaphors. They do not provide new information, they simply serve to picture what he has just taught. And, that has nothing to do with Gentiles.
The first piece is a part taken out of the lump. So, if the remnant (of v5) is holy; then the lump from which it came is also holy to the Lord. The whole nation of Israel is still holy (set aside to God) even though most of them at that point in time had been rejected. His point is that if we can see the holy remnant then we know there is a holy lump somewhere.
The second picture is similar but not exactly the same. The root is the source and provider of nourishment to the plant. From it grows the plant. The plant does not support or nourish the root. So, if the root is holy, then it follows logically that the plant is likewise. What was the root of the Jewish people? Abraham. The root is the patriarchs through whom all the blessing that the Israelites received over their history (and into the future) came (will come). And, it remains so even though they look as though they have been rejected completely.
The olive tree metaphor is continued from v17. Before we start 'grafting in' I hope we can agree that the root is Abraham etc., the tree is the sphere in which the people of God reside and receive the blessings resulting from what God promised Abraham (blessing for his descendants and the world), and the branches are representative (not one for one, that would be mathematical) of Israelites. How close are we to agreement???
I was going to finish with the rest of the chapter that does in fact bring in the Gentiles. But, it occurs to me that if we are not together on the easy first part of the chapter, then there is really no hope of much clarity on the second half. So, I'll stop here to await your response.
Hi Jeff,
I am going to try to support what I believe to be the message of Romans 11 as a way of responding to your points. First, I have to say the obvious. The figures of speech that Paul uses here are intended (I believe) to help us picture what he is teaching. They are not precise mathematical equations. They are certainly not new theological tenets upon which we are to build our belief system. Are we together on this?
Romans 11:
v1 - The nation of Israel are God's people and He has not rejected them completely. I, Paul, prove that.
v2 - In particular, those whom He foreknew (elect - see Romans 8:29ff) are not rejected. At any point in history, God has an elect group of Israelites.
v5 - Today's (in Paul's day) remnant (Jewish believers in the Church) prove that Israel is not completely rejected.
v7 - Those Jews other than the remnant, God hardens.
v11 - The promise of the gospel was to the Jew first (Matthew 10:5ff). They transgressed by rejecting Jesus. The gospel message was then taken to the Gentiles. Note that this does not teach that all Gentiles now have salvation. I am sure neither of us believe that.
v12 - Paul tells them to look at the blessing that has come to the Gentiles as a result of the failure of the Jews. Imagine what the result of their ultimate restoration will be!
v13-14 - This is a parenthetical passage. Romans was written to believers in Rome. Paul just makes it clear that he is here talking directly to the Gentiles among them. And, that he hopes that, as the apostle to the Gentiles, some of the Jews will also be saved through his ministry.
v16 - He sums up what he has been teaching (v1-15) with two metaphors. They do not provide new information, they simply serve to picture what he has just taught. And, that has nothing to do with Gentiles.
The first piece is a part taken out of the lump. So, if the remnant (of v5) is holy; then the lump from which it came is also holy to the Lord. The whole nation of Israel is still holy (set aside to God) even though most of them at that point in time had been rejected. His point is that if we can see the holy remnant then we know there is a holy lump somewhere.
The second picture is similar but not exactly the same. The root is the source and provider of nourishment to the plant. From it grows the plant. The plant does not support or nourish the root. So, if the root is holy, then it follows logically that the plant is likewise. What was the root of the Jewish people? Abraham. The root is the patriarchs through whom all the blessing that the Israelites received over their history (and into the future) came (will come). And, it remains so even though they look as though they have been rejected completely.
The olive tree metaphor is continued from v17. Before we start 'grafting in' I hope we can agree that the root is Abraham etc., the tree is the sphere in which the people of God reside and receive the blessings resulting from what God promised Abraham (blessing for his descendants and the world), and the branches are representative (not one for one, that would be mathematical) of Israelites. How close are we to agreement???
I was going to finish with the rest of the chapter that does in fact bring in the Gentiles. But, it occurs to me that if we are not together on the easy first part of the chapter, then there is really no hope of much clarity on the second half. So, I'll stop here to await your response.
Hi David,
Thanks for your gracious defense. I think we have many more points of agreement than disagreement. Let me list the former first:
* v1 - The nation of Israel are God's people and He has not rejected them completely. I, Paul, prove that.
* v7 - Those Jews other than the remnant, God hardens.
* v11 - The promise of the gospel was to the Jew first (Matthew 10:5ff). They transgressed by rejecting Jesus. The gospel message was then taken to the Gentiles. Note that this does not teach that all Gentiles now have salvation.
* v12 - Paul tells them to look at the blessing that has come to the Gentiles as a result of the failure of the Jews. Imagine what the result of their ultimate restoration will be!
* v13-14 - Romans was written to believers in Rome. Paul just makes it clear that he is here talking directly to the Gentiles among them. And, that he hopes that, as the apostle to the Gentiles, some of the Jews will also be saved through his ministry.
On all of these points we are united, praise the Lord!
---
Now for the points of disagreement (with a smile on my face):
* In v. 5, you interpret the "existence of a remnant" as a proof that God has not rejected Israel as a group.
However, this interpretation does not address three textual issues:
(1) In v. 2, God is said to have not "rejected his people whom he foreknew."
But in vv. 7 - 10, Paul describes the rejection of unbelieving Israelites. In v. 15, he specifically speaks of the rejection of unbelieving Jews.
So the "people whom he foreknew" who are not rejected cannot refer to all of Israel as a group.
(2) Further, the term "foreknew" is tied in Paul to election (cf. Rom 8: "those whom God foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his son."). It is most natural to understand "his people whom he foreknew" to refer to the elect, who are contrasted with Israel in v. 7.
(3) Finally, if we say that Israel as a group has not been rejected, then what are we to make of the breaking off of unbelieving branches? Is this not a metaphor for rejection, especially in light of the rejection/acceptance language in v. 15?
In short: You have made "God has not rejected his people" to refer to all of Israel, but Paul specifically says that unbelieving Israelites have been rejected. How is it that the group as a whole has been accepted, but most of the members of that group have been rejected?
So while open to further persuasion, I disagree at this point that v. 5 serves as a proof that God has not rejected Israel as a group. After all, Paul does not shape his argument in this way, which would run like this:
"Has God rejected His people?
No, He has preserved a remnant, which shows that He continues to accept Israel as a group."
Rather, v. 5 clarifies exactly who has *not* been rejected: the remnant, whom He foreknew and elected. The argument then flows:
"Has God rejected his people?
No, he has preserved an accepted and elect remnant just like he did in Elijah's time. These are his people.
The others are broken off, but they are still beloved on account of the patriarchs, and can always be re-grafted if they repent and believe -- and many right now appear as your enemies, but they are nevertheless elect."
(cont.)
The second point of disagreement:
DW: v13-14 - This is a parenthetical passage. Romans was written to believers in Rome. Paul just makes it clear that he is here talking directly to the Gentiles among them. And, that he hopes that, as the apostle to the Gentiles, some of the Jews will also be saved through his ministry.
v16 - He sums up what he has been teaching (v1-15) with two metaphors. They do not provide new information, they simply serve to picture what he has just taught. And, that has nothing to do with Gentiles.
I went back and forth on the "parenthetical comment" reading. At first, I thought No. Then you persuaded me Yes. Then I went back and looked again and realized Definitely No.
In vv. 13 - 14, Paul does indeed clarify his audience: "You Gentiles (in Rome)" Significantly, there is a change in person at this point in the text. From here on out, Paul will speak to "you."
So far from being parenthetical, vv. 13 - 14 are a transition, and everything that follows is directly addressed to the Roman Gentiles -- including v. 16.
So what of v. 16?
Certainly, the "whole lump" and the "branches" have in view Israelites who have been "accepted" -- v. 15. As v. 17 will clarify, the branches also include Gentiles, but they are not in view in v. 16.
Paul is specifically defending his choice to magnify his ministry to the Gentiles, in hope of arousing envy in his countrymen and bringing them to repentance. Can they be accepted after their rejection? YES! It is the root that makes them holy.
So the next question is, does v. 16 refer to Jews *before* or *after* they have been accepted? Are they a holy lump and holy branches now? Or, will they be a holy lump and holy branches when they have been accepted?
The answer is ultimately found in vv. 25ff. Paul reveals the mystery: the Israelites will not always be hardened; and when their hardening ceases, they will be grafted in again, when God takes away their sin.
It is at this time that they will be "holy."
Right now, they are simply broken branches on the ground, with no connection to the root -- and therefore with no holiness, for it is the root who makes them holy.
So I would disagree that v. 16 refers to Israel as a group being "holy to the Lord" right now. It is the root that makes them holy, and they have been broken from the root.
In the future, when they repent, then the elect will have their sins taken away and will be reattached to the root. At that time, they will be "holy to the Lord" (cf. Zech. 14.20) But not before.
(cont.)
Third and last point of disagreement:
DW: So, if the root is holy, then it follows logically that the plant is likewise. What was the root of the Jewish people? Abraham. The root is the patriarchs through whom all the blessing that the Israelites received over their history (and into the future) came (will come). And, it remains so even though they look as though they have been rejected completely.
The last part first: They don't look as if they have been rejected. Paul does not say this anywhere. Rather, they have been rejected (at this time).
Their rejection is not permanent, but it is quite real.
If anything, it is the attached branches whose status is apparent, since they can be broken off.
Now, you might say that some of the broken-off branches are nevertheless elect, and their status will change (thinking of v. 28). Yes, certainly -- but the point is that their status will change: they will move from being broken off to being reattached.
---
Concerning the root:
It's a fascinating question: Who is the root? I can see the argument for Abraham being the root.
But it seems to me that if we take this path, then we end up right where you don't want me to go!
If Abraham is the root, then the tree is the people of Abraham -- that is, Israel. And behold! Unbelieving ethnic Jews have been broken off of Israel, and believing Gentiles have been grafted into Israel.
You can imagine that I would be very happy with this conclusion!!
As much as I like the conclusion, I lean a different way. I think the root is Christ Himself. Here's why:
(1) The root makes the branches holy. The parallels to John 15 here are strong.
(2) Christ is described as "the root" in Is 11 (v. 1 is confusing; v. 10 is more clear) and 53.2 and also in Revelation 22.16.
(3) There is a general theme of Jesus as the foundation throughout the NT: the Cornerstone; the Foundation (1 Cor); the Vine (John 15 again); the Rock; etc. Reading "the root" as Jesus would be consistent with all of those metaphors.
If so, then the tree represents the People of God rather than the People of Abraham -- but there's no difference between the two in my mind.
That said, I don't know whether "the root" is Abraham or Jesus. One of those two, certainly; but either one makes some sense.
JRC
Addendum: about the math: I agree with you that Paul does not write with mathematical precision. Scripture uses things like irony, ambiguity, and approximations; and it is foolhardy to expect mathematical precision from it.
Nevertheless, deductive reasoning (i.e., math!) has some value. It exposes the above and forces us to consider: do I have ambiguity because the Scripture is truly ambiguous, or because I have read it incorrectly?
I think if we want to have an ambiguity in our theology (and I have several!) then those ambiguities ought to be justified by corresponding ambiguities in Scripture.
In other words, I hold on to the math loosely, but I don't despise it or reject its conclusions out of hand.
JRC
Morning Jeff,
Just a quickie:
JC: In other words, I hold on to the math loosely, but I don't despise it or reject its conclusions out of hand.
DW: Absolutely. And, if we ignore the laws of logic then we really have a mess. So, we are completely together on this. Alas, still the problem, 'am I reading this wrong?'
I've skimmed your responses and anxiously look forward to giving them their due consideration.
Hi Jeff,
This was indeed enjoyable. We are dealing with some really 'root' issues here. ;)
JC: * In v. 5, you interpret the "existence of a remnant" as a proof that God has not rejected Israel as a group.
DW: I really can't take the credit for proving anything here. I am simply referring to Paul's rhetorical question in verse 1 regarding 'God rejecting Israel.' Paul provides the answer quite clearly - 'may it never be' Paul uses the remnant as one of his two 'witnesses' to this fact. (As a good rabbi, he almost always uses two arguments to prove his points.) His second 'witness' is 1 Kings 19. Bottom line: God may not bless Israel for quite a while; but, He will continue to save some of them. And, that is an indication that the nation has not been rejected.
JC: So the "people whom he foreknew" who are not rejected cannot refer to all of Israel as a group.
DW: First, I must apologize for incorrectly stating what verses 1 and 2 teach. In my last response, I should have said:
v1 - The nation of Israel are God's people and He has not rejected them. I, Paul, prove that.
v2 - God foreknew Israel as a group, i.e., He sovereignly selected that group for blessing.
In Romans 8 Paul is indeed talking about individuals whom God foreknew; here he is talking about the nation of Israel as a group. That is seen by the fact that 'people' is singular in both verses 1 and 2. It is the people group that He 'foreknew' and not any particular individuals or part of the people group.
JC: But in vv. 7 - 10, Paul describes the rejection of unbelieving Israelites.
DW: Yes, indeed. It is pictured as a 'breaking off.' Individuals are in view and they are rejected and removed from the olive tree. I think we agree that these 'broken off' branches represent most of Israel. At each point in history, God continues to make sure there is a believing remnant. At some point in the future, it is the remnant, then alive, after the Church has been raptured, that will actually receive what He has promised the nation.
JC: How is it that the group as a whole has been accepted, but most of the members of that group have been rejected?
DW: I don't see Romans 11:1-16 saying anything about acceptance of Israel. When Paul says that it has not been rejected, he means that it is still God's covenant people. The promises will be fulfilled to them, as a nation. However, this brings up the question of what the olive tree is. It can not be Israel. The branches are the people of Israel, no? In total, they comprise the nation. So, the tree must be something else.
When the branches are broken off, do they stop being Israelites. Of course not. So, again, the tree can not be Israel because the broken off branches remained Israelites.
The tree is the sphere or realm of blessing that comes out of the Abrahamic covenant. Connection to the tree results in blessing from that source, the root (and yes, I know you think that the root is Jesus). The broken off branches are removed from this position of blessing. But, and I repeat, the nation will still one day get its promises since it has not been rejected as a nation.
JC: From here on out, Paul will speak to "you."
DW: Yes, and not only that but 'you' is singular. So, who is the 'singular you' to whom he is referring? The saved Gentiles as a group or the gentile 'race' as a group? Given the discussion of breaking off and grafting in I just don't see how it can be the former.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: So far from being parenthetical, vv. 13 - 14 are a transition, and everything that follows is directly addressed to the Roman Gentiles -- including v. 16.
DW: No problem with that. But, note, that the subject matter does not change; just the focus of the addressees. Also, note that v12 is repeated in v15. Paul gets right back on track after his 'insertion.'
The term Gentiles first appears in chapter 11 in verse 11 (then in v12 and v13). I called verse 13-14 parenthetical. I can also see how they could be called transitional. Up until then, the terms 'their' and 'them' seem to be the people of the nation of Israel. He is writing about them but not to them. On the other hand, he is presenting his message to Gentiles and is not talking about them (yet).
The term 'you' doesn't appear until verse 13 and seems to reference Gentiles (we don't agree yet on the 'sense.') But, up until then, hadn't Paul been writing to all the Roman believers. From earlier chapters, there is reason to believe that this was a mixed group of Jew and Gentile. Yet, I speculate that most of them were Gentiles. So, Paul has been talking to Gentiles all along, no? That is, he has been addressing them right along to use your term. So, whether verses 13 and 14 are transitional or parenthetical would not seem to signal a change in his message. I say this because the Jews are still 'them' after v14. For me, the 'but' (de) of verse 17 is the change in message for Paul.
Conclusion: Roman believers (Gentiles and Jews) have been the ones to whom this chapter is addressed. Verses 13 and 14 contain a new idea which is not part of the flow of verses 1-16. That being that he is the apostle to the Gentiles (and probably most of them are Gentiles) and yet he hopes that in working with Gentiles at least some of those about whom he has been talking up to that point in the chapter (Israelites) will also be saved by his ministry.
JC: So what of v. 16?
OK, but first what about verse 15? Is 'their' referring to the gentiles? Certainly, the Gentiles are not the ones who have been rejected for the reconciliation of the 'world' (read that as mainly Gentiles). So, how can you be so sure that the part about the Jews ends with verse 13 as the transition begins?
Verse 17 starts the discussion of the gentiles with a 'but.' It is this comparison that introduces the part about the gentiles. Not that the ones addressed are changing but the subject being addressed is changing. It is the first logical break in his argument and the first introduction of 'you' as the focus of his discussion. Except, that is, for the parenthetical (v13-14). The first use of 'you' in v13 has only to do with the addressees and not the subject matter.
JC: Certainly, the "whole lump" and the "branches" have in view Israelites who have been "accepted" -- v. 15.
DW: The lump and branches in v16 talk to holiness not rejection or acceptance. These two concepts are orthogonal here.
Holiness has to do with God's act of setting aside for Himself. Paul's point in the metaphors (v16) is that Israel, whatever it's condition may be, and at that point it had been broken off from the olive tree, cast aside by God as far as working through them was concerned, is still holy. Having been broken off, it is certainly not in a state of acceptance vis-a-vis the blessing of God which requires being a connected tree branch. At v16, the nation of Israel (but not the saved elect Jews which includes Paul) had been broken off, it was not in a state of acceptance; but, Israel was still holy. That is the only point of v16, Israel is still holy. Acceptance for the Jewish nation will have to wait until the MYSTERY of v25.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: It is the root that makes them holy, and they have been broken from the root.
DW: But, that is the whole point of the first 16 verses, i.e., God has set aside (made holy) this nation and it has a future because of that. Yes, it is now removed from blessing (as a nation; not as regards individuals) and there is no conflict between holiness and acceptance. Israel is most assuredly not now being 'accepted' in any sense.
During all the centuries of rebellion they remained holy because God has chosen them and made promises to the Patriarchs. They also remained connected to the tree. It was only when they rejected the savior that God broke them off from the tree. But, that has nothing to do with their holiness. Unbelief, yes; holiness, no.
JC: At that time, they will be "holy to the Lord" (cf. Zech. 14.20) But not before.
DW: I really don't see Paul saying anything like this in this chapter. Also, Zechariah is not talking about the people being holy.
JC: They don't look as if they have been rejected. Paul does not say this anywhere. Rather, they have been rejected (at this time).
DW: Individuals (branches) have indeed been rejected. However, the nation has not been rejected according to Paul.
Why did Paul ask the question in 11:1 if it might not seem to the Roman Christians that the nation which rejected the savior might be in a little bit of trouble with God??? Paul's answer: they are still his set aside (holy) people who will have a glorious future; God has made them irrevocable promises which don't depend on their sin.
JC: Yes, certainly -- but the point is that their (Israelites) status will change: they will move from being broken off to being reattached.
DW: This metaphor says nothing that I can see about any Israelite who is broken off being reattached if he/she should believe. I really think that that is placing more weight on this metaphor than it can bear.
JC: If Abraham is the root, then the tree is the people of Abraham -- that is, Israel.
DW: The people certainly come from Abraham; but, that is not the tree. The branches are the people. The branches, most of the people group, are what are broken off. So, the tree can not represent the people.
ALL of the blessings that mankind experiences come from the Abrahamic Covenant. So, this is the root (metaphorically speaking) and the branches are the ones receiving the blessings. The tree is the realm of the people of God. This is the conduit through which the blessings of the AC flow to the people. What does a literal tree actually do? I believe the answer gives a good explanation of what the olive tree does for its branches/people.
JC: That said, I don't know whether "the root" is Abraham or Jesus.
DW: VERY GOOD points. Clearly, Jesus is the root in many really important senses. No question about that. I can't be dogmatic (even though I may sound that way!); but, I still see Abraham and/or the AC as the root. The main reason is the context of Romans 11:1-16. It is not primarily about salvation for individuals.
Hi David,
My family has had a stressful but very productive week. Seems reasonable to cap it off with a little Scripture. :)
First, I'm confused about something:
JRC: Yes, certainly -- but the point is that their (Israelites) status will change: they will move from being broken off to being reattached.
DW: This metaphor says nothing that I can see about any Israelite who is broken off being reattached if he/she should believe. I really think that that is placing more weight on this metaphor than it can bear.
I'm not understanding the criticism. The intent was to simply reaffirm what Paul says:
Rom 11.13: And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
I take this to mean that if natural branches -- referring to ethnic Jews -- do not persist in unbelief -- meaning that they come to faith -- then they can be "reattached to the tree."
What specifically do you object to about my reading?
JRC
DW: The people certainly come from Abraham; but, that is not the tree. The branches are the people. The branches, most of the people group, are what are broken off. So, the tree can not represent the people.
Interpreting metaphors is not exact, so I don't want to be dogmatic here. But at least consider this: a real, non-metaphorical tree is made up of its branches (including the main trunk), together with the root.
That is, there is not "the tree" on the one hand and "its branches" on the other; rather, the tree consists of root and branches.
So is it possible that you've made a false dichotomy by saying that the people are the branches, but not the tree?
The group v. individual issue is thorny here.
However, the prior issue of "what is the group?" may be the underlying issue.
So you take 11.1 and the argument that follows as
The nation of Israel are God's people and He has not rejected them.
Whereas I take it as
God's people have not been rejected: they are the elect remnant.
That is: you and I actually disagree about who makes up the group "his people" (and later, "all Israel" in v. 26).
For you, the non-rejected "Israel" consists of every descendant of Abraham, while I take it as "the elect."
So the question is, What evidence do we have to decide the issue one way or the other?
To my mind, Rom 9.6 and 9.27 are absolutely decisive: For Paul, it is the elect remnant who are "Israel."
In light of those, why should one think that Israel refers to the entire group of physical descendants of Abraham?
JRC: From here on out, Paul will speak to "you."
DW: Yes, and not only that but 'you' is singular. So, who is the 'singular you' to whom he is referring?
Actually, the "you" is plural:
Rom 11.13: υμιν δε λεγω τοις εθνεσιν...
"To y'all I speak, to the Gentiles...."
But even if it were singular, the larger picture is that the boundaries of the ethnic groups "Israel" and "Gentile" are not being preserved on this tree.
Ethnic Israelites are split into those who remain on the tree and those who are broken off. Meanwhile, ethnic Gentiles are split into those who are grafted into the tree and those who remain apart.
So Paul is working entirely against your paradigm. You want very strongly to preserve the boundaries of the groups; Paul is deliberately breaking them down.
Or more precisely: Paul is declaring God's intent to break those boundaries down.
JRC
DW: The lump and branches in v16 talk to holiness not rejection or acceptance. These two concepts are orthogonal here.
Holiness has to do with God's act of setting aside for Himself. Paul's point in the metaphors (v16) is that Israel, whatever it's condition may be, and at that point it had been broken off from the olive tree, cast aside by God as far as working through them was concerned, is still holy.
(1) Is holiness truly orthogonal to acceptance?
It seems to me that God is continually connecting our acceptance to our holiness. Col. 1.22 is but one example of many: "But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation."
Likewise, the act of setting something aside for oneself is an implicit acceptance of that thing: I'm setting aside a people for my own possession. (Unlike, say, the "unworthy vessels" who are set aside for destruction)
So I'm not comfortable with the notion that holiness is orthogonal to acceptance. It seems to imply that our acceptance in Christ is unrelated to our holiness.
(2) If Paul's point truly is that all of ethnic Israel is still holy, then why doesn't he come out and say that?
Yes, Paul does say that ethnic Israel has not stumbled beyond recovery; and that they are still beloved on account of the patriarchs.
But he places a condition for their rejoining the tree: that they not persist in their unbelief. He never says that, belief or no, they will receive these unconditional promises.
---
It's really an issue of definition. You have defined "Israel" to mean "all ethnic descendants of Abraham." And from this, you conclude that the unconditional promises made to Abraham and his descendants must apply to this group.
What if your definition is in error?
What if the unconditional promises made to Abraham and his descendants, apply to the "children of the promise" (a rather suggestive phrase, yes?) who are the elect? What if Paul is challenging your definition when he says, "Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children."
Could it be the case that you have (in this way, but not in many others!) adopted the error of Jesus' audience in John 6, who believed that their ethnic descent from Abraham made them "children of Abraham" and heirs to the promise?
Forgive me if I speak too strongly here.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
Looks like that is God's way -- Stress leading to maturity (hopefully). On the other hand, I personally don't relish stress. Hope all are well at chez Cagle!
JC: First, I'm confused about something:
DW: I'm sorry; I can see how I contributed noise to the discussion. Your original statement had two sentences:
"Now, you might say that some of the broken-off branches are nevertheless elect, and their status will change (thinking of v. 28). Yes, certainly -- but the point is that their status will change: they will move from being broken off to being reattached."
When I responded, I only quoted the last sentence. So, if you had forgotten your first sentence then my response would indeed seem confusing. The problem: you see individuals; I see groups. You interpret faith here as 'saving faith; I as something less. Somehow we have to get to the bottom of this group thing.
JC: I take this to mean that if natural branches -- referring to ethnic Jews -- do not persist in unbelief -- meaning that they come to faith -- then they can be "reattached to the tree."
DW: Throughout this passage (verses 1-16), the entire nation is referenced as 'it', 'they', 'their', 'them.' In this context, these pronouns don't refer to individual Israelites. So, consistent with the context (as I read it, of course :) ) is the idea of national Israel being reattached; not of individual people being reattached through personal salvation. Personal salvation attaches one to the Church without any possibility of then being broken off. Why would Paul warn the Gentiles concerning breaking off if only the elect are grafted in as you seem to hold? The tree does not seem to me to be speaking to personal salvation?
JC: So is it possible that you've made a false dichotomy by saying that the people are the branches, but not the tree?
DW: Now that is one that I can feel completely confident in answering correctly! ANS: YES.
Again, the problem may be that I only quoted a part of your statement. Let me quote more and see if that helps make sense of my response.
"If Abraham is the root, then the tree is the people of Abraham -- that is, Israel. And behold! Unbelieving ethnic Jews have been broken off of Israel, and believing Gentiles have been grafted into Israel."
Certainly at one level the olive tree includes roots, a trunk, branches, twigs, leaves, and even olives. However, let me just back up for a minute. I just wish to make sure I understand your view correctly.
You believe the tree represents "the one People of God, viewed from an outward perspective." And, tree means trunk and branches. So, before Gentiles are grafted in the tree would have been equivalent to national Israel as the people of God. Originally, then, the tree represents national Israel and it's root is (most likely?) Jesus.
Then, after national Israel (trunk plus branches) rejected Jesus, God broke off from national Israel the unbelieving Israelites described as some branches. This Leaves only believing Israelites or as Paul identified them, the remnant. Then, God grafted in believing Gentiles. So, the 'tree' still represents "the one People of God, viewed from an outward perspective" although now they really are all saved. [aside: at this point the idea of 'outward perspective' seems unnecessary? And, in fact the whole quality of the tree has changed!] And, all members of the tree (branches) are there as a result of a gracious work of God.
Are you comfortable with this description? Is there anything of importance that I have left out or misrepresented?
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Before I comment on this, I'd like to address the question of who Paul means by the 'people' of v1 and v2. I say they are only national Israel, warts and all. Here is how I arrive at my view and I would indeed appreciate it if you could point out my error(s):
1) In the last verse of chapter 10, Paul quotes Isaiah as describing national Israel as "a disobedient and obstinate people." (Clearly, they are not the remnant!)
2) Until Paul tells us otherwise, this would seem to be the people of whom he is talking as chapter 11 unfolds.
3) When we get to verses 11:1-2, national Israel must, therefore, be the people whom God foreknew and had not, at the time Paul wrote this, rejected.
4) Paul was well aware of the Church and also that there was a remnant of Israel who were in the Church.
5) Paul knew that the Church could rightly be called the people of God or His people.
6) Paul identifies himself as a member of national Israel in 11:1(Benjaminite) as part of his proof that the nation has not been rejected, i.e., they are still God's people as was so often mentioned in the OT for the nation as a whole.
7) Paul does not identify himself as a member of the Church here although I have no doubt that he would consider himself as such.
8) Paul quotes 1 Kings 19 to show that God has always provided Himself with a remnant of national Israel. So contrary to rejecting this people, He had always been keeping a remnant up until this time.
9) The remnant that is discussed here has to be referring to national Israel and not another body such as, for example, the Church.
10) Thus, when Paul uses the term Israel in this chapter (which he does four times), he means national, ethnic Israel with no mixture of Gentiles in view.
Well, rather than boring you any longer with this I'll stop here, assuming that I have convinced you ( I'm kidding ) that 'the people' is National Israel and not a generic 'God's People.'
OK, let me return to your understanding of the tree. I'll use Paul to show why I have a different view. At the time of the rejection of Christ, Paul was an unbelieving elect ethnic Israelite. If unbelieving Jews were broken off, then that ought to have included him. I know Paul is attached to the tree. To solve this problem either 1) he was not broken off because he was elect, or 2) he was reattached when he was saved, or 3) the branches do not describe individuals or their salvation status but rather the nation of Israel.
Naturally, I think it is 3 that is the correct view. And if the branches describe national Israel, the trunk must be something else and Gentiles are not grafted in to national Israel or even 'true' Israel.
1) above fails because the reason for the breaking off is given as unbelief and that clearly fits Paul pre-conversion state. The text mentions nothing about election in relation to breaking off.
2) fails because the text says nothing about individuals being reattached on an ongoing basis. The breaking off and reattaching in the text are both in the aorist tense. They are a one time happening. There is only one breaking off and one attaching and one potential reattaching in the text. And, in all of these cases a group is in view and not individuals.
Further, the Gentiles who were grafted in were in no way filtered to include only elect or believing members. The tree, after the grafting in of the Gentiles, must include more than just believing or elect members or there could not be a future breaking off for Gentiles to be concerned about.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: For you, the non-rejected "Israel" consists of every descendant of Abraham, while I take it as "the elect."
DW: I believe I understand your view. My view is not exactly as you state it. To me it is the nation as an entity; not any particular individuals. The promises were not made to all individual descendants. The promises were to be fulfilled to the nation as it will be comprised at a particular point in time. And, all of them at that time will indeed be elect and part of the then existing remnant.
JC: To my mind, Rom 9.6 and 9.27 are absolutely decisive: For Paul, it is the elect remnant who are "Israel."
DW: Not withstanding my eloquent proof above of the error of this view, ;) let me address this directly. Paul, bless his heart, uses the term Israel in a couple of ways. 9.6 clearly identifies 'true Israel' as that part of the nation of Israel who are elect. But, I can't find any place where he ever includes in 'true Israel' Gentiles who are also elect.
By the way, who is the 'us' of Romans 9:24? I say the Church. And, note that in creating it (us) he called people out of both Jewish and Gentile peoples! He did not graft Gentiles into Israel. But, I digress. ;)
Regarding 9:27, what it says to me is that God will save a part of national Israel. How does that confound what I have been saying all along? Clearly, God graciously chooses whom He saves and nowhere does He promise to save every individual who had ever lived and was a descendant of Jacob. BUT, at a particular point in time, He will do just that for those then alive. True Israel, the remnant, at any point in history, are all ethnic Israelites. Where is the conflict?
JC: In light of those, why should one think that Israel refers to the entire group of physical descendants of Abraham?
DW: Context, Context, Context. First, I am quite sure that you know that Israel never refers to the 'entire group of physical descendants of Abraham.' In Romans 10:21 Isaiah/Paul is talking about all of them who were alive at some historical point as Israel. They are not talking about a remnant. So, here Israel does indeed mean all of Jacob's children and their households and their children etc. according to the flesh.
In 9:6, the term Israel appears twice and each time it has a different meaning. The first time, Paul is talking about the 'true' Israel who are clearly a subset of all of Israel's offspring. The second time he is referring to one man, Jacob/Israel. So, again, the word Israel has to be interpreted according to the context.
In 9:27, Isaiah/Paul refer to Israel as all of them and point out that only a remnant of Israel will be saved.
Thus, I really can't see how one could support that 9:6 and 9:27 are absolutely decisive that: "For Paul, it is the elect remnant who are "Israel."
JC: Actually, the "you" is plural
DW: Indeed it is in the verse you quote. In that verse, Paul is saying 'pay attention, you Gentiles.' He is talking specifically there TO his believing Gentile readers in Rome. And, he most certainly addresses them correctly in the plural. In all the other places in Romans 11 where he mentions 'you' it is singular. In these other places he is talking ABOUT Gentiles as a group. My question was who are those in this group? My answer is all Gentiles since no filtering is mentioned and no reason for such a filtering is identified. So, how do you support that it is only believing Gentiles who are grafted in?
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: So Paul is working entirely against your paradigm. You want very strongly to preserve the boundaries of the groups; Paul is deliberately breaking them down.
DW: I couldn't disagree more. God made promises concerning a nation/people and only those who are members of that people (with all of the necessary caveats, of course) will receive the promises. God created a Church and it clearly has no boundaries concerning Jews and Gentiles. I have absolutely no desire to preserve any non-existing boundaries in the Church.
JC: Is holiness truly orthogonal to acceptance?
DW: I was only talking about verse 11:16 and I tried to indicate that by the word 'here' in my original statement. The point I was trying to make and obviously didn't was that in these metaphors Paul is talking about 'God's setting aside' of Israel and that that was not impacted by their sinfulness. He hasn't rejected them. On the other hand He hasn't accepted them either as indicated by most of them being broken-off. To see anything else in the metaphors introduces ideas not explicitly in the text and therefore potentially misleading. (Gosh, this sounds harsh; I don't mean it that way.)
JC1: If Paul's point truly is that all of ethnic Israel is still holy, then why doesn't he come out and say that?
JC2: He never says that, belief or no, they will receive these unconditional promises.
DW: Only ethnic, believing, elect, Israelites will ultimately receive the unconditional promises made to the Patriarchs. Since we (Church) are still here (on planet earth) I am positive that God has not yet saved the remnant that is to receive the promises. God is not rejecting the nation now so that at the right time there will be a remnant to save. Then, He will kill all the others, and give the promises to those remaining. No other version of ethnic Israel throughout history gets those promises. The LUMP and the BRANCHES of Romans 11:16 represent holy national Israel. The fact that most of them are 'disobedient and obstinate' has nothing to do with the nation being holy. Covenant Theology changes this by including, without any Scriptural warrant, elect Gentiles in this 'nation.'
JC: You have defined "Israel" to mean "all ethnic descendants of Abraham."
DW: Context, context, context. A while back, you did an excellent job of listing all of the various meanings that the word Israel might have. ONE of them is close to what you have said here. Actually, there are many who are descended from Abraham who are not in any of the definitions of Israel. Ishmael and Esau and their descendants are clear examples of this.
JC: What if your definition (of Israel) is in error?
DW: Aren't we both on that same slippery slope here? Scripture could not more clearly define who comprise the children of Israel. Isn't insertion of Gentiles into that group really the bolder interpretation.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: What if the unconditional promises made to Abraham and his descendants, apply to the "children of the promise" (a rather suggestive phrase, yes?) who are the elect?
DW: Whenever I see this phrase, children of promise, I see it referring to the children of Isaac in contrast to those of any of Abraham's other children. God pruned Abraham's tree twice before we get to Jacob. Moreover, a very small subset of Jacob's elect children will actually get the promises. And, yes, they are the children of promise just as all of Jacob's children are also. Most of whom won't get the promise.
JC: What if Paul is challenging your definition when he says, "Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children."
DW: Please forgive me for being dense; but, I see no conflict with my understanding of Israel and this quote. Ishmael and his children are Abraham's children or descendants. Nevertheless, in the context of your quote here, they are NOT his children. Is that really a conflict? I say no. While all of ethnic Israel are Abraham's children; only the subset of them who are elect are the ones that Paul sometimes refers to as 'true Israel.'
JC: Could it be the case that you have (in this way, but not in many others!) adopted the error of Jesus' audience in John 6, who believed that their ethnic descent from Abraham made them "children of Abraham" and heirs to the promise?
DW: In all seriousness, have I not explained my understanding in such a way as to make this question unnecessary? In any case, you are not speaking too strongly here. :)
Hi David,
You probably thought I was being obtuse concerning the singular/plural issue, but actually I was just focusing on the wrong verse. I think I understand your view now:
Since Paul has been talking to the Romans, specifically "you Gentiles", it makes sense to understand the change in person in v. 17 to refer to the same group.
And since the group is being referred to in the first person, it follows that the group is being treated as a whole.
The reason I had trouble grasping your point at first is that I take the change to the singular to mean a change in address from the group to the individuals within the group.
But clearly we need to consider this more carefully, since your reading is plausibly attractive.
(1) The first piece of evidence to consider is linguistic. Are groups referred to in the singular in Biblical Greek?
As it turns out, apparently not.
In the catalog of uses of συ, I was only able to discover two uses: genuine 2nd person singulars, and personifications.
The latter are uncommon: Bethlehem is Capernaum are both personified in Matthew. And the churches in Revelation are spoken to through their angels (or pastors, or however one interprets this). Out of over 100 uses of συ, these are the only ones that are not garden-variety singular uses, setting aside our contested Rom 11.
But nowhere are groups handled as singular entities, AFAICT. Have I overlooked any?
In fact, groups are routinely addressed in the plural.
The epistular addresses to the churches come to mind immediately. Likewise, when Paul addresses the Gentiles as a group in Eph 2, he addresses them in the plural (Eph 2.11, etc.), and again when Paul considers the Ephesians as members of one body (ch 4).
So the interpretation of συ in Rom 11 as a group is linguistically novel. Someone with a higher Greek paygrade than me might be able to confirm this, but based on what I've seen, the singular is not used in Biblical Greek to indicate that groups are being treated as a unit. Instead, groups are addressed in the plural. The singular means that individuals are being addressed.
(2) The second piece of evidence to consider is grammatical consistency.
The change in person from υμεις to συ in v. 17 and then back again in v. 25 is very odd. Paul is certainly thinking of the Gentiles as a group in v. 28, yet he uses plural here and in fact from v. 25 on.
Assuming that Paul is purposeful in his use of persons, he is oddly inconsistent, using singular for a group here and plural for a group there ... assuming your reading.
(3) The third piece of evidence is consistency in the tree metaphor.
You reading has the Gentiles, all of them, as a single branch, a wild olive branch, grafted in among the natural branches.
Who are those branches? If we are to be consistent, then the Jews would be a single natural branch also.
And yet, they are represented as multiple branches, some of whom have been broken off and others which remain on the tree.
Thus, your reading mixes up the metaphor: the Gentiles are a single branch, while the Jews are multiple branches. The Jews are being treated as a group -- yet the group is broken up, with some rejected and others not.
(cont.)
So I'd like to propose an alternative to the group reading. It appears that in vv. 17 - 24, Paul is individualizing, speaking to the individuals within the group in order to make a point.
Individualizing occurs several places in Scripture. In the sermon on the mount in Matt 5-7, Jesus is speaking to a group, but he refers to them as individuals. Likewise, earlier in Romans 1, Paul is speaking of the mass of humanity; then he switches in 2.1 to the singular.
Why? In both cases, Jesus and Paul are addressing a large number of people in the singular because their message applies to each one as an individual. For example, when Jesus says, "When you pray, go in to your closet", his advice applies to each hearer individually (not to the group as a whole -- that would require a rather large closet!!).
The best example of this occurs in Galatians 6.1:
"Brethren, even if a man is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted."
"αδελφοι εαν και προλημφθη ανθρωπος εν τινι παραπτωματι υμεις οι πνευματικοι καταρτιζετε τον τοιουτον εν πνευματι πραυτητος σκοπων σεαυτον μη και συ πειρασθης"
Paul is speaking to the entire Galatian church, but he wishes for each individual to "scope" himself lest he also be tempted.
--
I think the same thing is going on in Rom 11.17 - 25. Paul is speaking to the group of Gentiles, but now he wishes for each individual to consider that he should not be arrogant, but fearful. So he individualizes: each of them is a branch on the tree. And just as some of the natural branches, individuals within the group called Israel, were broken off through unbelief, so also some of the wild branches grafted in could well be broken off.
So the situation is not at all that the Gentiles are being treated as a group. Instead, each individual within the group must look to himself, that he not fall through unbelief.
Thoughts?
JRC
DW: You believe the tree represents "the one People of God, viewed from an outward perspective." And, tree means trunk and branches. So, before Gentiles are grafted in the tree would have been equivalent to national Israel as the people of God. Originally, then, the tree represents national Israel and it's root is (most likely?) Jesus.
Then, after national Israel (trunk plus branches) rejected Jesus, God broke off from national Israel the unbelieving Israelites described as some branches. This leaves only believing Israelites or as Paul identified them, the remnant. Then, God grafted in believing Gentiles. So, the 'tree' still represents "the one People of God, viewed from an outward perspective" although now they really are all saved. [aside: at this point the idea of 'outward perspective' seems unnecessary? And, in fact the whole quality of the tree has changed!] And, all members of the tree (branches) are there as a result of a gracious work of God.
Are you comfortable with this description?
Yes, I am. Let me clarify what the term "outward perspective" means.
Salvation can be seen from God's perspective or from man's. From God's perspective, individuals are chosen from before the foundation of the world; they come to genuine saving faith; and they persevere because of the ongoing work of God's spirit.
From man's perspective, lacking a "faith-o-meter", we see individuals who profess faith. Many are sincere; many are not.
Sincere or not, their profession of faith is the basis for their ongoing membership in the (visible) church -- the basis for their label as "saints", as Paul called them in his letters.
Scripture speaks to both perspectives. The parable of the wheat and tares warns us that the outward appearance of "being wheat" is not enough for salvation. The parable of the sower and the seed speaks of those who "have faith" and yet fall away. Clearly this parable does not speak of "having faith" from God's perspective, but of man's.
The same happens in John 15 with the "branches in Christ" who are nonetheless fruitless (meaning, not genuinely connected to the vine!), and therefore cut off.
Outwardly, these branches appear to men to be saved, but in reality, they are not. Over time, God actualizes in history their true state - they are eventually broken off visibly from their apparent salvation.
The tree in Rom 11 is the same. All in Israel made outward profession of faith -- else, they were excommunicated. But many did not actually have faith; and they were visibly broken off from the people of God, viewed outwardly.
(That said, some are nevertheless elect and can be regrafted when they believe)
Salvation in NT terms is similar. The visible is the outward administration of salvation. Without evidence, you don't question the salvation of your fellow church members. You accept their profession of faith as evidence of salvation.
But you also realize that your belief that they are saved is not absolute -- some will fall away and reveal themselves to be not genuinely saved.
Hence: the visible church, the invisible church. The logic for the church and for Israel is the same, regardless of whether we wish to call these groups separate or united.
JRC
DW: To see anything else in the metaphors introduces ideas not explicitly in the text and therefore potentially misleading. (Gosh, this sounds harsh; I don't mean it that way.)
Not at all. I feel very comfortable with our free exchange of ideas. You remain the gentleman. :)
JRC
Addendum to the comment two above this one.
DW: Then, God grafted in believing Gentiles. So, the 'tree' still represents "the one People of God, viewed from an outward perspective" although now they really are all saved.
The grafting in of Gentiles is of all those who profess faith. Remember that he is speaking to the church in Rome, and that his audience consists of those who profess the faith.
They are not necessarily all "really" saved in the sense that God knows them as His elect. They do not necessarily all have genuinely saving faith.
After all, how could Paul know whether or not they have genuine faith? He's writing to them on the basis of their profession, not their possession, of faith.
So I would strike the word "really" and replace with "apparently."
JRC
Hi Jeff,
JC: Since Paul has been talking to the Romans, specifically "you Gentiles", it makes sense to understand the change in person in v. 17 to refer to the same group.
DW: Yes, but I haven't been clear on what my point is. The change I see is not from the saved Roman Gentiles to one of their number. The change is from addressing them to talking about the class, Gentiles. The larger context is about Israel as a nation; the shift now is to point out to the Gentiles that the same thing can happen to them. NOT, that one of them can lose their salvation or be broken off (whatever that might mean for an individual).
JC: But nowhere are groups handled as singular entities, AFAICT. Have I overlooked any? In fact, groups are routinely addressed in the plural.
DW: I think it is not reasonable to reject the idea of 'you' in the singular being taken in the collective sense based on at least Robertson. In his grammar on p678 in discussing the second person pronoun he says: "As examples of the plural take εσεσθε ουν υμεις (Mt. 5:48), δοτε αυτοις υμεις φαγειν (Mk. 6:37). . . . In Jo. 4:35, ουχ υμεις λεγετε, we have the same inclusive use of the second person that we noticed in the first. In Ro. 2:3, 17, the second person singular occurs in the same representative sense that the first has also. Cf. also Ro. 9:20; 11:17, etc."
JC:The change in person from υμεις to συ in v. 17 and then back again in v. 25 is very odd.
DW: Fascinating how we can see things so differently. I would say that this is strong support for my position!!! :)
There is a change in v25. Paul has been talking ABOUT the group, Gentiles, from v 17 to this point. Now, he focuses on the Romans particularly and addresses them in the plural and as brothers. Instead of talking ABOUT Gentiles as a class, he is now speaking directly to the Gentile believers in Rome.
JC: Your reading has the Gentiles, all of them, as a single branch, a wild olive branch, grafted in among the natural branches.
DW: Not really. Again, this is a metaphor; not a mathematical equation. Nevertheless, the word Paul used means wild olive tree not branch.
JC: Thus, your reading mixes up the metaphor: the Gentiles are a single branch, while the Jews are multiple branches.
DW: My reading is that the Gentiles are not a single branch; They, the Gentile people, are compared to a wild olive tree with many branches. It as a whole is grafted in in verse 17. In verse 24 a slightly different picture of the process is given. No conflict; just a different point that Paul is making.
The word in v17 is αγριελαιος. L&N has this to say about it: αγριελαιος: wild olive tree, a tree regarded by some (though probably wrongly) as the ancestor of the domestic olive tree. συ δε αγριελαιος ων ενεκεντρισθης εν αυτοις -- and you being a wild olive have been grafted into them. Ro 11.17. This reference in Ro 11.17 is intentionally strange because the usual course of action was to graft cultivated branches into wild trees.
My take is that Paul meant exactly what he said. He of course knew it was ridiculous to talk about grafting a tree into a tree. Let alone a wild olive tree that did not produce olives into a natural producing tree. Nevertheless, that is the word he used. He certainly had others that if used would not have left this odd picture for us to ponder.
My take is that in keeping with his use of the singular 'you' to represent the entire race of Gentiles, he here used the term 'tree' to represent all of the branches. It is the entire Gentile people who are grafted in; not just a few elect Gentiles.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: So the situation is not at all that the Gentiles are being treated as a group. Instead, each individual within the group must look to himself, that he not fall through unbelief. Thoughts?
DW: This works for your understanding of the church as a mixed group with Paul writing to the group and not assuming that they are all saved. I have a different picture in view.
Question: If 'you' here is a representative individual, then how do you interpret v 17 where the individual 'you' is said to be an entire tree and not just one of many branches?
Romans 1:8 is "First of all, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world."
Now we know that every word that Paul writes it absolutely true, no? Do you really believe that he is thankful for the professing non-believers in Rome? Do you really think that he is thankful that the faith of these non-believers is proclaimed (erroneously, of course, because they don't have saving faith) throughout the whole world?
Well, I don't. I think he is only writing to the believers at Rome. (I think I may have said this a time or two before. :) ) So, Paul knows there is no chance of any of these believers falling or being cut off from the olive tree. The singular 'you' can not refer to any of them here in chapter 11.
JC: Sincere or not, their profession of faith is the basis for their ongoing membership in the (visible) church -- the basis for their label as "saints", as Paul called them in his letters.
DW: Well, this continues to be an ongoing gulf between our understandings. Take Ephesians 1:1 as an example: "From Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints [in Ephesus], the faithful in Christ Jesus." Either Paul is a politician, pandering to them, or he actually believes they are saints and have saving faith. He does not imply for one second that he is impressed by their profession. The idea of a judgment of charity isn't in the text; it has to be read into (eisegesis) all of his letters.
JC: All in Israel made outward profession of faith -- else, they were excommunicated.
DW: What Scripture do you have in mind here?
JC: But many did not actually have faith; and they were visibly broken off from the people of God, viewed outwardly.
DW: Chapter 11 talks about a single, one time occurrence of breaking off for the Jews. Not an ongoing pruning of the unbelievers in Israel throughout their long history of faithlessness.
JC: The logic for the church and for Israel is the same, regardless of whether we wish to call these groups separate or united.
DW: What can I say? Israel and the Church; night and day!
JC: The grafting in of Gentiles is of all those who profess faith.
DW: Where does the Scripture tell us this? I honestly don't see it anywhere.
JC: After all, how could Paul know whether or not they have genuine faith? He's writing to them on the basis of their profession, not their possession, of faith.
DW: Of course Paul has no way of knowing the situation, vis-a-vis salvation, of any member of any of the churches to which he wrote. But, he does know how to use the Greek language. And, he is very careful to identify his audience in those churches. He never says that he is writing to all who just happen to have membership. I have no idea how we can read those simple introductions in his letters so differently? But, alas, we do.
DW: The change I see is not from the saved Roman Gentiles to one of their number. The change is from addressing them to talking about the class, Gentiles.
This part I get. You see the switch to second person singular as a move to discussing the Gentiles as a class.
DW: Robertson: In Jo. 4:35, ουχ υμεις λεγετε, we have the same inclusive use of the second person that we noticed in the first. In Ro. 2:3, 17, the second person singular occurs in the same representative sense that the first has also. Cf. also Ro. 9:20; 11:17, etc."
This part I don't get yet. It appears to me, without fuller context, that Robertson is talking about the use of 2nd sing. to refer to an individual as a representative member of the group. As in, "Let x be a prime number..." In this usage, the "you" is a single individual who generically represents any particular member of the group.
He does not appear to be saying that the 2nd sing is used to speak to the group as a class, as in "Let x be the class of prime numbers." Here, x would be an entire set rather than an individual member of that set.
In the quote you provide, Robertson certainly does not say that 2nd sing is used in this way.
The examples you cite support my reading of Robertson. In both Rom 2 and Rom 9, Paul is speaking to an individual who is a representative member of the class. He is not speaking to the class (one cannot speak to a class in any event -- people speak to people, not classes).
Also in support of my reading is the discussion this thread, which speaks of the representative use of the singular in John 2.25
So I need more information to be persuaded of your point. The Robertson quote speaks of the first person having a representative use -- what does Robertson say concerning this use in his discussion of the first person? Can you provide fuller context from Robertson to support your idea?
Keep in mind also that you are proposing a very abstract notion: that (a) Paul would think of the Gentiles, not as a group of individuals, but as an abstract singular entity called Gentiles, and (b) that Greek grammar would allow the use of 2nd person singular to address this class, but (c) that addressing the class is not the same as addressing the members of the class. Talk about eisigesis ;)
Just kidding -- I know that we are doing our best to understand what the text is saying.
But I do think that the much simpler and "plain" reading of the text is that the 2nd singular is used to speak to a generic, individual Gentile.
JRC
JRC: Your reading has the Gentiles, all of them, as a single branch, a wild olive branch, grafted in among the natural branches.
DW: Not really. Again, this is a metaphor; not a mathematical equation. Nevertheless, the word Paul used means wild olive tree not branch.
I understand your point about αγριελαιος. But the problem is that we don't graft entire trees into entire other trees. This is likely why the major English translations (ESV, NASB, NIV) render the term as "wild olive shoot."
This doesn't have so much to do with mathematics, but just with creating a clear picture of what the metaphor is saying. On your account, we have this whole Gentile tree to an entirely different tree.
That just doesn't work.
JC: Thus, your reading mixes up the metaphor: the Gentiles are a single branch, while the Jews are multiple branches.
DW: My reading is that the Gentiles are not a single branch; They, the Gentile people, are compared to a wild olive tree with many branches.
Either way: whether the Gentiles are a single shoot or a single tree, they are still a single item, while the Jews are being represented as multiple branches. The literary parallelism is faulty.
DW: My take is that Paul meant exactly what he said. He of course knew it was ridiculous to talk about grafting a tree into a tree. Let alone a wild olive tree that did not produce olives into a natural producing tree. Nevertheless, that is the word he used. He certainly had others that if used would not have left this odd picture for us to ponder.
You're absolutely right that Paul is introducing an absurdity, grafting a wild shoot into a natural tree.
But to have the "shoot" be an actually full-grown tree with multiple branches, indeed with more branches than the original cultivated tree, would be an additional physical absurdity that would distract from the wild/cultivated point that Paul is making. Drawing a picture of your proposed tree shows what I mean.
The species absurdity (wild/cultivated) serves the larger point: that the rejected, wild Gentiles have been chosen over the Israelites who presumed themselves accepted.
The physical absurdity of having one full-grown tree stick off the side of a smaller tree (and a few *branches* were broken off to make room for it?!?!) serves no point in the metaphor, has no connection to the larger argument that Paul is making.
Rather, I think the physical absurdity involved is a strike against your reading -- which again is the likely reason that the major (modern) English translations translate "αγριελαιος" as shoot instead of tree.
One other thing to consider: have you ruled out the possibility that αγριελαιος is referring to the species and not the organism? If you asked me what my clothes-chest is made out of, I would say "Maple." Specifying the species in this way does not mean that the entire tree as a unit was involved (leaves, for instance, or root).
It may well be that αγριελαιος simply means "wild olive" without reference to which parts of the plant (or the whole plant) are in view.
I think you need to safely rule out that possibility before you can assume that Paul means the whole tree.
JRC
Paul, Romans 1:8: "First of all, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world."
DW: Now we know that every word that Paul writes it absolutely true, no?
Certainly.
DW: Do you really believe that he is thankful for the professing non-believers in Rome? Do you really think that he is thankful that the faith of these non-believers is proclaimed (erroneously, of course, because they don't have saving faith) throughout the whole world?
Well, I don't.
I don't either (rhetorical question, I know).
DW: I think he is only writing to the believers at Rome. (I think I may have said this a time or two before. :) ) So, Paul knows there is no chance of any of these believers falling or being cut off from the olive tree.
There's something not quite right about your conclusion. I'll have to chew on it to put it into words, but the obvious problem is that Paul's letter is written to the entire church at Rome and as a matter of historical fact was read out to the entire visible church in Rome. So to say that Paul was not writing to the entire visible church is simply factually false.
That said, I understand (I think) what you're getting at, and I somewhat agree with it.
We agree to these points, I think:
(1) Paul's statements such as "you have been justified through faith", "you have been buried with Christ", "you are no longer controlled by the sinful nature" -- these statements are true only for the genuinely saved.
(2) Paul's intent is that these statements apply only to the genuinely saved.
I think I've got it. On your account, Paul's statement in 1.8 can only be true if it is true for each and every individual to whom he is speaking. Therefore, it must be the case that each individual in his "addressee set" is saved, and therefore, it is not possible that any are in danger of being broken off.
But in fact, Rom 1.8 is a genuine case where Paul is speaking to a group. The name of the group is "the church in Rome." The members of that group, as recognized by Paul and everyone in Rome, were those who professed faith. Many or most of these also possessed genuine faith.
Therefore, Paul's statement is true of the group as a whole, even if not true of each individual member of that group.
That doesn't make his statement less true. It just makes his way of speaking a generalization instead of something else.
To paraphrase someone famous, "we should not press Rom 1.8 for mathematical precision."
DW: The singular 'you' can not refer to any of them here in chapter 11.
It can indeed if Paul recognizes that their profession is not the same thing as their possession.
(1) Paul is writing to the entire church in Rome.
(2) He recognizes that membership in the visible church is not the same as possessing salvation, so
(3) He warns them not to be arrogant and consider that they stand by faith, so that
(4) If any are hypocrites, they might be stimulated by his words to repent unto true faith.
This is a plausible reading -- I'm not saying it has to be the correct one -- that makes it possible that the singular 'you' is referring to representative individuals within the church.
And anyways: what's the point of (a) writing this to the Roman church, and (b) using the 2nd person instead of the 3rd person, and (c) warning them not to be arrogant, if they aren't even the people he's talking about? How is it that Paul would warn his readers that the entirety of the Gentiles could be broken off because of unbelief? What are they supposed to do with that information?!
No, the warning only makes sense if it is addressed to the people to whom he is writing.
JRC
JRC: All in Israel made outward profession of faith -- else, they were excommunicated.
DW: What Scripture do you have in mind here?
I have in mind the multiple instances in the Law where one could be "cut off from his people" for an action that was an egregious instance of unbelief. We could start with Gen. 17. A young man who was able to refuse the sign of circumcision was cut off from his people. See also Ex. 12, 31.14; Lev. 7.20, etc.
JRC: But many did not actually have faith; and they were visibly broken off from the people of God, viewed outwardly.
DW: Chapter 11 talks about a single, one time occurrence of breaking off for the Jews.
Where does it say "a single event"? I don't understand this point.
DW: And, he is very careful to identify his audience in those churches. He never says that he is writing to all who just happen to have membership.
Exactly! He specifies his audience: the church in Rome.
A huge turning point for me was having to wrestle through the fact that Paul specifies his audience as "the church in X." Not "part of the church" or "the true saints within the church", but simply "the church."
And especially in the book of 1 Cor, "the church in Corinth" included a individual who was in the church and had to be put out of the church; this individual is obviously some kind of exception to the statement in 1 Cor 6.11 about being washed and sanctified.
To those same people, Paul warns against idolatry and sexual immorality and more (1 Cor 10), holding up as an example, the Israelites. Apparently, the logic of the church and Israel extends at least that far!
And Paul delivers these warnings so that "they will not fall." (1 Cor 10.12).
How is it that he is speaking only to true believers but then has to warn them against falling? Or "being cut off from grace" in Gal. 1?
In short, the realities of apostasy and excommunication in Scripture prove beyond doubt that the church is a mixed group, as we see it. Some within the church are not elect. Else, no one would ever fall away from the faith. And else, no warnings would need to be written.
The only alternatives are (1) The FV solution: everyone within the church is a true believer "in some sense" (which we both reject), or (2) the dispie solution: that "the church in Rome" really means "the true believers within the church in Rome."
But if Paul had meant that, he would have said it and skipped the parts about falling away from grace.
What we're left with is that Paul is speaking to a group. His statements are not true of each and every member of the group, but only insofar as their outward membership matches their inward possession of the faith.
Look at it another way: when Paul says to the Corinthians in 1 Cor 5.6, "Your boasting is not good", do we categorically assume that each and every Corinthian has been boasting?
If not, then why not? Surely Paul is not speaking falsely, is he? And having determined the principle that governs 1 Cor 5.6, does this logic not apply to his other statements as well?
JRC
Hi David,
I found Robertson online here, but I couldn't find the relevant section. Am I looking at the wrong book?
Thanks,
JRC
Hi Jeff,
Unlike you, who seems to be able to just sit down and write tons of great stuff, I take much longer to generate responses. I find myself doing lots of study in between answers to particular questions. AND, I really enjoy the time in the Word. Well, I had written a response to the Robertson question which deals with your question. So, here it is.
JC: It appears to me, without fuller context, that Robertson is talking about the use of 2nd sing. to refer to an individual as a representative member of the group.
DW: Your understanding of Robertson is correct (at least I think it is!). I vacillated about whether to include my thoughts about what he was saying and decided in the interest of brevity to not do so. Of course, you immediately saw the weakness in my using Robertson. And in fact the only use I was making of his analysis was his acceptance of the singular in an inclusive, representative sense. Up to this statement, we had been at the point of only considering that the Greek used the plural for this purpose. The specific examples he gives (e.g., Romans 2 and 9) are NOT the same as I see in 11:17. In his examples there Paul is indeed talking TO the representative and in 11:17 he is talking (only in my view, of course) ABOUT the 'class.' If this were a debate, I would have done more cherry picking before including what he said. :-) So, if 'inclusive' does not help, I apologize for the rabbit trail.
Also, I decided to only include enough of his analysis to give some context. His whole discussion of pronouns is much longer. By the way, I have a free 50Meg pdf of his book in case you have any interest in it. It looks to be of much higher quality than the Google books URL you included in your comment. I don't remember where I got it; but, if neither of our e-mails blocks anything this big, then I can easily send it to you.
David
Short or long, you are still my role-model for irenic theological discussion.
I think all of my e-mail accounts would choke on a 50MB attachment.
Would it be possible to send me just the relevant pages?
Thanks,
JRC
Hi Jeff,
I have been trying to absorb your view and all of the implications. In the process, I keep running into inconsistencies (at least in my mind :) ). I'll try to explain.
true Israel
JC: the Reformed view is that the Church has been grafted in to true Israel and is joint heirs with it.
DW: First, do we agree on the following seven points?
1) Since Jacob's time there has been and continues to be an ethnic Israel.
2) Ethnic Israel comprises both believing and unbelieving Israelites.
3) The theocratic nation of Israel is not now visible.
4) Ethnic Israelite believers could be called true Israel; Paul seems to do this.
5) Since Pentecost, the visible church is made up of Israelite and Gentile individuals who profess Jesus Christ.
6) The invisible Church is made up of Israelite and Gentile individuals who actually have been given saving faith.
7) Those alive today who could rightly be called members of true Israel are all in the invisible Church.
If so, then my question is what does it mean for the Church, which includes true Israel, to be grafted in to true Israel?
the people
Paul makes the point in the first several verses of chapter 11 that there is currently and has always been a believing, living, remnant of the sons of Israel. I assume it is obvious that for there to be a remnant, there has to be a larger group to select from. If this larger group did not exist, for example, if it were rejected by God and allowed to just disintegrate, then there could not be a remnant. So, I see Paul's point as God has no intention of letting ethnic Israel leave the human scene.
Therefore, if one thought that the sons of Israel rejecting their messiah was grounds for God throwing up His hands and finally disowning them, they would be mistaken. If so, then ethnic Israel exists today and its membership could be described exactly as they would have been described 3000 years ago, putting obvious cultural differences aside. (I think I am living proof of this. I would also say that I am a member of 'true' Israel. And, further, I would say that I am a member of both the visible and the invisible Church.) Make sense so far? Do you see any conflicts in this?
Ethnic Israel is called "a disobedient and obstinate people" at the end of Romans 10. In 11:1 Paul talks about "His people." Can there be any question that this phrase refers to ethnic Israel? Is there any indication in the text that Paul is talking about some other 'people?'
Next, we get to verse 11:2. Again, it is 'His people' who are in view. Now, Paul adds that they were foreknown. Does that change who Paul is talking about? You say, if I understand correctly, that the people of verse 2 are the remnant, true Israel. What in the context tells us that Paul has changed who he means by 'His people?' As you must know, I see nothing there.
The olive tree
My current understanding of your view of the tree is:
a) it is the living people of God standing in God's kindness
a1) this includes Israel's remnant
a2) this includes professing Gentiles
a3) this includes professing Israelites
b) it is not the Church; but, the Church is part of it.
c) it's membership evolves:
c1) Jews & Gentiles are added as they make professions of faith
c2) those members who commit apostasy are broken off
c3) those members who die are broken off
d) In summary, it is true Israel with the visible church incorporated in to it
Is this accurate?
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
As I am sure you know, my view is not the same. Paul is describing God's dealing with His people via a metaphor. The olive tree is not Israel (true or unbelieving).
Ethnic Israel used to be (before the breaking off) the people who populated (branches) the trunk of the olive tree. While there are many parts that could have been discussed, only the root, trunk and branches are mentioned. The people are clearly the branches, no? If so, then the trunk is not the people. The branches are either connected to the trunk or they are removed from it. But, as the people come and go, the trunk and root remain unchanged. So, I don't see how to conclude that the true Israel is the tree (trunk and branches).
I have no idea how many branches were in the metaphorical tree initially and I have no idea how many ethnic Israelites there were. But, all of the branches represented all of the Israelites. And, the only change made to the olive tree is the removal of some branches representing the unbelieving Israelites.
Most of them were broken off when national Israel rejected Jesus as their king. The aorist tense indicates a one time, punctiliar, occurrence, no? This was not some ongoing breaking off of the unbelievers in Israel, was it? God was not (then or now) continually pruning (refining) the tree? The breaking off in this chapter is what God did to Israel after they rejected Jesus; but, it was not the end of ethnic Israel. It was the end (for a time) of their connection to the trunk and root of the olive tree.
So, whatever benefit they were deriving before the breaking off, they are not now receiving that benefit. Nevertheless, in Paul's time they still were a nation. Moreover, they will continue as a nation (people) so that God can continue to select a remnant from among them. The remnant is represented by the Israelite branches that were not broken off of the olive tree trunk. But, again, that does not make the tree equivalent to true Israel. Thoughts?
2nd singular
JC: But I do think that the much simpler and "plain" reading of the text is that the 2nd singular is used to speak to a generic, individual Gentile.
DW: OK, but, does this individual represent both saved and unsaved Gentiles at the same time? For, in this passage, there are statements that seem to make sense if he is saved and then there are other statements that don't seem to if he is saved. Likewise, there are statements that make sense if he is unsaved which exist along side statements that don't make sense if he is unsaved. My head is spinning; I'll give some examples.
1) Paul says in v13 that he is speaking to you (plural), the gentiles in the Roman church. I am quite sure we agree that this entity, visible church at Rome, most likely has saved and unsaved members. Also, we agree that physically speaking, this letter was sent to and read to the 'whole' church at Rome. However, based on what we have already discussed regarding verse 1:8, his message is only directed to the saved members of the church. Naturally, the unsaved will also hear the message and process it all the while erroneously thinking that they are saved. Thus, the you here must be a collective plural 2nd person pronoun representing the saved members of the Roman Church. Are we together so far?
2) In v17 we get to the first singular 'you.' You say this is a representative professing Gentile at the Roman church. And, that Paul's letter has been sent to 'him.' I believe this conflicts with 1) above; but, let's go with this for now. Thus, what Paul says to this generic, individual Gentile must apply to both saved and unsaved members of the church, no? And so how is one to interpret v20 (but you (singular) stand by your faith) when one possibility for this representative is that he/she is only professing and has no real saving faith?
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
One solution is to make the generic, individual Gentile saved. But, then he is not generic? He is one of the saved members addressed in verse 1:8. So, I am unclear how to resolve v20. Help?
3) Then we get to v21 where the you (singular) is told that God may not spare him or v22 where he faces being cut off. If the representative were to now be a saved Gentile, how can this be understood rightly?
One solution is to make the generic, individual Gentile unsaved. But, as before, he is no longer generic and we are back to having a problem in v20? So, I am also unclear about how to resolve v22. I really do need your help with this.
4) The grafting in and the breaking off are acts of God, no?. Doesn't your view lead to the conclusion that this generic, individual making a false profession moves God to include him/her on the tree? Or, does God graft them in to the tree and they respond with a profession? How does this work?
Likewise, the false professor who is 'broken off' has never believed at any time while he was in the grafted in state. So, what is it that moves God to possibly break him off. The sin of arrogance? It can't be the sin of unbelief (although that is what is stated) since the false professor never had saving faith. Again, this leaves me really confused.
My solution is of course to take the singular you as speaking to the class, Gentiles. Not any specific individual; not any member of the Roman Church, per se. For then, what is said makes complete sense (if only to me :) ). Not only that, but it describes the manner in which God has dealt with the nation of Israel. So, it is most reasonable that this could also happen to the class, Gentiles? But, when the you represents a generic Gentile, I can't make any sense out of the passage. Thoughts?
JC: I think I've got it. On your account, Paul's statement in 1.8 can only be true if it is true for each and every individual to whom he is speaking.
DW: I am really not saying that. Clearly, he is writing to 'the church at Rome' which is made up primarily (if not exclusively?) of professing Gentiles. I do not wish to deny this in any sense. The address written on the envelope was definitely "church of Rome." So, in that sense it was written to the entire church (all who profess Christ) at that address.
Within the letter (e.g., verse 1:8); however, Paul makes it clear (yuh, right!) that his message is specifically aimed at those who actually have 'saving faith.' Now, I assume all of those 'professors' believe that that includes them. It is only you and I who are informed enough after 2000 years to realize that only the truly saved are correct in seeing the letter as addressed to them. They are the only ones who can respond in the Spirit to Paul; the others just think they can respond. Sadly, they are deceived and lost and yes, on the church role. Sorry if you knew all this but I have tried a number of times to clarify this and I just haven't gotten the impression that I was making any sense to you.
JC: To paraphrase someone famous, "we should not press Rom 1.8 for mathematical precision."
DW: I am sorry; but, if you don't adequately reference your sources then I will just have to ignore your point. :) :) :)
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: How is it that Paul would warn his readers that the entirety of the Gentiles could be broken off because of unbelief? What are they supposed to do with that information?!
DW: Isn't that exactly what happened to the nation of Israel? At any rate, what they (and we) are supposed to do with it is be informed of what God has planned for Gentiles as well as for the nation of Israel. All any of us can do is to believe. God is sovereign and in control of what happens to the nations. Nobody in Rome had a say in what Paul told them was going to happen. The ones that were lost would stay that way unless God gave them faith; the ones that were saved were in no danger of loosing that faith or being cut off. We don't control God's breaking off or grafting in. But, you knew that.
JC: See also Ex. 12, 31.14; Lev. 7.20, etc.
DW: I asked for Scripture and you did indeed provide Scriptural references! The ones you provided seem to have to do with keeping the law and the penalties for not so doing. I would not consider this faith; rather tradition or following the public rules. Nobody could keep the law unto salvation. However, breaking certain laws would indeed lead to humans cutting off other humans. In contrast, the cutting off in Chapter 11 is something that God does.
On the other hand, I would agree with you that in the sense of outward profession, Israelites fit the description. But, the cutting off was because they received the penalty for breaking a law. And yes, they most likely also did not have faith.
JC: Where does it say "a single event"? I don't understand this point.
DW: This was your response to my unsubstantiated assertion "Chapter 11 talks about a single, one time occurrence of breaking off for the Jews." My rationale for this is that the verbs 'breaking off' and 'grafting in' are aorist.
JC: this individual is obviously some kind of exception to the statement in 1 Cor 6.11 about being washed and sanctified.
DW: I apologize up front for commenting on this as I am afraid it will open up an entirely new area of discussion and distract us from Romans 11. But, I am weak!
1 Cor 6:11 is true and this does not discredit its truth. If not for verse 5:5 I could see this person as merely one who was professing. But, if so, then there is no question of his soul being saved. No, Paul delivers him to Satan for a speedy physical death. The only way that could be and yet he receives eternal life, is that he is already saved. Nevertheless, Paul wanted him out of the church to avoid more sin by the other saved individuals. Alas, that is just how I see it.
JC: And Paul delivers these warnings so that "they will not fall." (1 Cor 10.12).
DW: WOW. I am going to resist. BUT, this would be a wonderful passage to pursue with you.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: How is it that he is speaking only to true believers but then has to warn them against falling? Or "being cut off from grace" in Gal. 1?
DW: My problem in responding to your statement is that I can't find this in Galatians 1?
JC: Scripture proves beyond doubt that the church is a mixed group, as we see it.
DW: That entity that is colloquially called 'the church' is indeed made up of saved and unsaved individuals. I do not see Paul writing to that entity, although it does share the address of the actual Church. As to the warnings, they are addressed to the believers who are fully capable of sinning egregiously. Sinning, being separated from fellowship with God, missing out on grace are entirely possible for the saved Christian. Losing one's salvation is not, because that is God's responsibility and not ours. But, again, you knew this without me having to tell you.
JC: But if Paul had meant that, he would have said it and skipped the parts about falling away from grace.
DW: I would love to analyze the warnings with you. Just not until we milk Romans 11 dry.
JC: What we're left with is that Paul is speaking to a group.
DW: I say a class, Gentiles, and not the Roman church, in particular.
JC: His statements are not true of each and every member of the group
DW: yes; but they are true for the class.
JC: but only insofar as their outward membership matches their inward possession of the faith.
DW: Does this mean 'only if they are actually saved?' For, if so, then don't these statements here simply say that Paul's statements are true for the saved in the Church? I probably have this wrong because if this is true then this is what I have been trying to say all along.
JC: And having determined the principle that governs 1 Cor 5.6, does this logic not apply to his other statements as well?
DW: This is another context thing. Surely in normal speech we sometimes say 'you . . . . ' when we really don't mean 'each and every last one of you.' But, what Paul specifically means in a particular verse has to depend on the context, no?
Good stuff, David. I see a bit of convergence. :) And, I understand a couple of things more clearly in your position.
To summarize where we are
* We agree, I think, that the 2nd sing. συ in Rom 11 refers to a representative individual. The question is whether he represents a Gentile within the Roman church specifically (my view), or represents a generic Gentile, and thus is a proxy for the whole class of Gentiles (your view).
Fair?
* We agree that it makes sense to speak of the "invisible church" and the "visible church." We differ (perhaps?) on the proper relation between the two.
A note about the aorist. I was confused about pinpointing the "have been broken off" of v. 17 to a single point in time.
Your thought is that
DW: The aorist tense indicates a one time, punctiliar, occurrence, no? This was not some ongoing breaking off of the unbelievers in Israel, was it? God was not (then or now) continually pruning (refining) the tree? The breaking off in this chapter is what God did to Israel after they rejected Jesus; but, it was not the end of ethnic Israel. It was the end (for a time) of their connection to the trunk and root of the olive tree.
Now I understand where you're coming from. Certainly, your reading is possible, but it is not required by the use of aorist here.
The aorist tense (or better, aspect) is used to consider events as a single unit without regard to time or internal details (see here). As such, it corresponds most nearly to the English "simple past tense." επεσεν is best translated, "he/she/it fell."
So the use of the aorist is a narrative device: it presents the event while ignoring the timing of the event. This is in contrast to the much less common imperfect, which brings the reader into the timeline and relives the event as it unfolds.
With the aorist, there is no unfolding. The event "happened", and it's done.
So for example: In Acts 7, Stephen walks through the history of the Israelites. In 7.36, he says, "[Moses] led them out of Egypt and did wonders and miraculous signs in Egypt, at the Red Sea and for forty years in the desert."
ουτος εξηγαγεν αυτους ποιησας τερατα και σημεια εν τη αιγυπτω και εν ερυθρα θαλασση και εν τη ερημω ετη τεσσερακοντα
Here, the aorist is used even though the process took forty years -- because Stephen is looking back at it as a single event: the forty-year wandering. (In fact, take a look at the many uses of aorist in Stephen's narrative -- v. 4, v. 15, v. 19 -- he's using the aorist for a great number of events that take place over a long period of time)
The same happens in English. Consider the sentence: "The Orioles lost to every team this year." This is the simple past, corresponding to aorist, and this sentence would translate into aorist in Greek.
The meaning is not that the Orioles suffered all of these losses at the same time! Rather, the sentence takes all of the losses and presents them as a brief, grim package.
Contrast this with the imperfect:
"The Orioles were losing to every team..."
Here, the author is preparing to walk us through the events as they took place. Though the events were in the past, we are going to relive them as they happened.
(cont.)
So when Paul uses the aorist "broken off" εξεκλασθησαν in Rom 11.17, he is neither confirming nor denying that they were broken off at the same time. He's simply presenting the fact of "off-breakage" as a single event without regard for time.
In fact, historical context suggests that Paul did not have a single point in time in mind. Recall that Romans is written somewhen in the AD 50's. At this time, his ministry to the Jews had shifted over to the Gentiles (Gal 2.7, Acts 28). But the other apostles and believers continued in their ministry to the Jews. Peter is mentioned in Gal. 2.7. But more fully, James the brother of Jesus continued to live in Jerusalem until his death in the AD 60's, according to Josephus, and served as an emissary between the church and non-believing Jews.
It is not until AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem that we can point to a single event that could plausibly be called a "breaking off" of ethnic Israel. And it is not until AD 130 with the bar-Kokhba revolt that Christians and Jews become definitely separated.
Since these events had not yet occurred at the time of the writing of Romans, it seems unlikely (but not impossible) that Paul is speaking of a particular moment in which all of the branches are broken off simultaneously. Certainly, the bare use of aorist does not provide evidence for that reading, though it would be consistent with that reading.
DW: First, do we agree on the following seven points?
1) Since Jacob's time there has been and continues to be an ethnic Israel.
Yes. This is distinct from a national Israel.
2) Ethnic Israel comprises both believing and unbelieving Israelites.
Yes.
3) The theocratic nation of Israel is not now visible.
Yes. In fact, I believe that its purpose, like the temple and sacrifices, has been superseded now that Jesus has come. But we agree at least that the current state called "Israel" is not the same as the Davidic kingdom.
4) Ethnic Israelite believers could be called true Israel; Paul seems to do this.
Yes and No. But it's a "yes and no" grounded in Scripture. :)
(A) Consider Hosea 1-3: God simultaneously says, "You are not my people" and "you are my people" at the same time.
He's not being entirely contradictory. The "not my people" is oriented more toward the present, and the "my people" toward the future.
However, there is an element of tension about it. The Israelite's current status is "Lo-Ammi", but God does not utterly abandon them even so.
(B) Paul picks up on this in Romans 9 - 11, in which he develops the idea of an elect remnant.
He posits that not *all* of Israel (that is, not all ethnic Israelites) are "Israel" -- but only those who are elect, a remnant chosen by grace.
Paul seems to reserve the notion of "real" Jewishness or "real" Israelitishness for those who are circumcised of heart, who are of the faith of Abraham, who stand by faith -- who are the elect remnant.
So: No.
At the same time, Paul acknowledges that the whole group is "beloved on account of the patriarchs."
So: Yes.
But mostly No.
DW: 5) Since Pentecost, the visible church is made up of Israelite and Gentile individuals who profess Jesus Christ.
Yes.
6) The invisible Church is made up of Israelite and Gentile individuals who actually have been given saving faith.
Yes.
7) Those alive today who could rightly be called members of true Israel are all in the invisible Church.
Yes. This goes to the point I made in response to #4.
If so, then my question is what does it mean for the Church, which includes true Israel, to be grafted in to true Israel?
Three things:
(1) I think you're asking, "How could people already on the tree be grafted in?" Since that's obviously impossible, doesn't that suggest something wrong with my argument?
The puzzle disappears when we remember that the 2nd person singular in Rom 11 refers to a representative individual, not to the whole class at once. The Church as a unit is not grafted in; the individual members are. We might speak of "the Church is grafted in", but it's just a shorthand for "Gentile members of the church are grafted in."
Thus: Israelites who were already of the faith of Abraham simply retained their place on the tree. The Gentiles whom Paul addresses, who were formerly far off, have been brought near and grafted in to the tree.
(2) The primary outcome is that the Covenant promise: "I will be your God, and you will be my people" now comes true for Jews and Gentiles alike, for as many as have the justifying faith of Abraham.
(3) The secondary outcome is that the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile has been destroyed, so that Jews and Gentiles alike can be called "sons of Abraham" and "full heirs" (Gal. 4)
DW: Ethnic Israel is called "a disobedient and obstinate people" at the end of Romans 10. In 11:1 Paul talks about "His people." Can there be any question that this phrase refers to ethnic Israel? Is there any indication in the text that Paul is talking about some other 'people?'
Next, we get to verse 11:2. Again, it is 'His people' who are in view. Now, Paul adds that they were foreknown. Does that change who Paul is talking about? You say, if I understand correctly, that the people of verse 2 are the remnant, true Israel. What in the context tells us that Paul has changed who he means by 'His people?' As you must know, I see nothing there.
Great, great question. I agree with you that there is a puzzle here.
First: what has changed? The answer is that Paul introduces the relative clause whom he foreknew.
The exegetical problem comes down to a single comma.
The NIV renders: "God has not rejected his people, whom he foreknew."
The comma makes all the difference. It causes the relative clause whom he foreknew to be non-defining (old-school term: 'non-restrictive'. See discussion here).
In this case, whom he foreknew is simply an adjectival clause that describes "his people", which would therefore have to be the same as "his people" in v. 1. This punctuation, as you can see, pretty much compels us to read 11.2 as you have: Paul is adding the fact that "His people" are "foreknown", without changing the meaning of "His people."
The alternative punctuation is without the comma. The NASB, KJV, and ESV render it thus:
"God did not reject his people whom he foreknew."
The lack of comma causes the clause to be defining ('restrictive'). The clause acts as an adjective that defines which of his people God did not reject -- namely, the ones whom he foreknew. Without the comma, the sentence reads in accordance with my interpretation: "His people" in v. 2 is more restrictive than "His people" in v. 1, limited to the "foreknown", whom I have equated with the elect.
So which punctuation is correct? As you know, the Greek text lacks punctuation. So we exegetes must rely entirely on context in order to decide whether this clause is defining or not. The punctuation in the English text is simply a reflection of the editors' opinions about the meaning of the text.
Whew! All of that just to explain the problem!
(cont.)
The context, however, deepens the puzzle!
At first, it looks like Paul has only the remnant in mind. He immediately speaks of the "remnant chosen by grace." (v. 5). He speaks of "the elect" over against "the rest" (v. 7), which means that he has in mind a subset of the Israelites who have received salvation.
So things are looking good for the "defining clause" reading. In fact, they look even better when we look back at ch 9 and 10 and realize that Paul has already made a distinction between "Israel" and "Israel" in 9.6-7. So the idea that Paul would split "His people" into two groups, one whom He foreknew and the other whom He did not, is looking good.
But then ... in vv. 11.11ff, Paul pulls the rug out from under us. Those who appear to be rejected are in fact only temporarily or potentially temporarily rejected. They are enemies for now, but they are actually elect! (v. 28).
And so this raises the possibility that Paul means that all ethnic Israelites are actually elect, especially when he mentions that "all Israel will be saved."
If this is the case, then the "non-defining clause" reading is correct.
So here's the puzzle in short: On the one hand, Paul clearly distinguishes two types of Israelites: those who sought righteousness by the law, and those who sought it by faith; those who are circumcised according to the flesh, and those who are also circumcised in heart; those who are children of the flesh only, and those who are children of the promise.
On the other, he appears to suggest, perhaps, that all Israelites are elect.
So which is it?
(cont.)
Three pieces of evidence and a logical syllogism stick out that drive us to the defining clause (no-comma) interpretation.
(1) We notice that Paul is using "all" (as he sometimes does) in a "not literally every one" sense in this passage.
11.32: "For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all."
We agree that not every single person, nor even every single Jew, will be saved. It's clear therefore that Paul is using "all" in a non-literal sense in this verse -- and we therefore are not required to read v. 26 "And so all Israel will be saved" as "each and every ethnic Israelite."
This is negative evidence, really. Turning to more positive evidence:
(2) Paul couches their re-grafting as conditional: if they do not persist in their unbelief, they will be grafted in again.
And indeed, he expressed the hope in v. 14 that his ministry to the Gentiles will serve to save "some of them." -- those, clearly, who meet the condition for regrafting.
(3) Most importantly, Paul's hope for them is always expressed in terms of individual and personal repentance, not national repentance. There is a suggestion (v. 25) that many will wait to repent until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.
(4) In terms of logic: what happens if we adopt the reading that all ethnic Israelites are foreknown by God and therefore not rejected (v. 2)?
We have to conclude that a whole lot of them lived their lives and died without ever once expressing repentance.
And since this is the case, how is it that "as far as election is concerned, they are beloved on account of the patriarchs."?
In that case, we would have them being elect and saved even though entirely devoid of faith. This seems ridiculous (I trust I'm seeing a head-nod on the other end. :) )
I conclude therefore that the set of Israelites who will repent as described here is an elect remnant, a chosen subset of all Israelites. It may be a *large* remnant, or small -- I don't know. I hope for large, personally!
And so going back to v. 2, I think the defining clause reading is best (as did 3 out of 4 major translations).
(cont.)
So why then does Paul say this?
"As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (vv. 28-29).
More than anything, these two verses provide the strongest evidence for the "non-definining clause" (with a comma) reading of v. 2. What's up with that?
I think Paul is confronting the Roman Gentiles with the problem of knowledge.
Yes: Many Jews right now are in unbelief. I (Paul) was in that same boat. But many of them are elect -- and you don't know which ones! Therefore, you should treat them all as beloved on account of the patriarchs.
It's really the whole "judgment of charity" thing, applied this time to ethnic Israel.
I hope this makes sense. I'm fading at the moment. Time for sleep.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
συ in Romans 11
Yes; you see it represents a generic Gentile in the Roman church and I see it as representing the class, Gentiles.
In previous posts, after presenting ample support and logic for your position, you summarized it as:
" I think the same thing is going on in Rom 11.17 - 25. Paul is speaking to the group of Gentiles, but now he wishes for each individual to consider that he should not be arrogant, but fearful. So he individualizes: each of them as a branch on the tree. And just as some of the natural branches, individuals within the group called Israel, were broken off through unbelief, so also some of the wild branches grafted in could well be broken off.
So the situation is not at all that the Gentiles are being treated as a group. Instead, each individual within the group must look to himself, that he not fall through unbelief."
I am sure we agree that the only Israelite branches that were broken off were living, unbelieving, Israelites, regardless of what they may or may not have professed regarding faith. So, the only Gentiles who are in danger of being broken off are likewise living unbelieving Gentiles.
1) Where, when and why did God graft them into the tree? (Doesn't this get frighteningly close to the FV view?)
2) How can their having 'fear' have anything to do with them remaining on the tree? Does this help them individually develop faith that they do not now possess?
3) The crime of the unbelieving Israelites was their 'national' rejection of Jesus as their king. How can these unbelieving professors in the Roman church reject Jesus? They have never accepted Him.
Defining the church as a body of saved and unsaved individuals (as was Israel) and that Paul is writing to this kind of church in Rome, then your summary view is quite reasonable. But, Paul is writing to believers (v1:8, for example). So, don't we have to simply ignore this verse to support this view?
My view (as if you are not sick and tired of it by now!), Paul is specifically writing to the believers in the church of Rome at that time when he uses the plural and he is writing to Gentiles of all stripes and at all times when he uses the singular. Verse 11:21 "for if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you." ought to make it clear that he is not considering the singular you to be a representative of saved members of the Roman church, no? So, the 2nd singular is a non-saved person who stands by his/her faith???
Church
yes, we need to distinguish when the visible vs. invisible church is being identified. Sadly, when we do this we come to opposite conclusions. However, I don't think we differ on the relationship between the two.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
aorist
You are completely right (if I'm not wrong :) ) in explaining the aorist. By the way, a great explanation; have you ever considered the teaching profession? :)
I overstepped in saying that the breaking off was a zero duration action. I think it was; but, I was wrong to try to show that from the aorist. A clear example of a presupposition clouding my thinking.
Because we don't see the 'tree' the same way; we don't see breaking off the same way either. You refer to historical markers to see where the breaking off occurred. I don't think there has to be any such visible calamity, such as 70 AD. To me, the breaking off is a spiritual thing; God stops (for a while) using the nation of Israel and starts to use the Church to reveal Himself to the world.
I believe all we can say about the duration of the breaking off activity is that it started with the cross and had been completed by the time Paul wrote the letter to the Romans, yes? Would you agree that this can also be said about the grafting in of the Gentiles (i.e., that it was already completed and that the text says nothing about grafting in of any Gentiles after Paul's time.)? The idea (although very reasonable) that Gentiles who profess faith (even in error!) are grafted in on an ongoing basis has to be inferred and is based on what one considers the tree or the 2nd singular to be.
true Israel
Your response to one of the 7 points regarding which I was trying to see if we had agreement is confusing to me. It was point 4 -- Ethnic Israelite believers could be called true Israel; Paul seems to do this. Your response was 'mostly NO.' I can't follow your argument.
I don't like the term 'true Israel' and was only using it to try to more closely align with your terminology. To my way of thinking, the term 'Israelite remnant' is more descriptive. Nevertheless . . .
I think I follow what you say regarding Hosea; but, I fall off the wagon regarding Romans 9-11 when you say "He posits that not *all* of Israel (that is, not all ethnic Israelites) are "Israel" -- but only those who are elect, a remnant chosen by grace."
DW: Now this seems to agree with point 4? True Israel (according to Paul) are the remnant graciously chosen from out of Israel. Your next sentence seems to reinforce this and then you end with "So: No."
I must be missing something obvious; but, I can't figure it out. Can you help?
Who's grafted in?
We were never able to resolve the 'child of Abraham' question and this gets dangerously close to repeating that discussion. I promise to try not to retrace those worn paths; at least not now. Although now the 'child of Abraham' seems to also include those who only profess but do not possess faith?
JC: We might speak of "the Church is grafted in", but it's just a shorthand for "Gentile members of the church are grafted in."
DW: I understand. Well, almost. I guess by "Gentile members of the church . . . " you mean "professing Gentile and professing Jewish members of the church . . ." Right? So, first non-believing Israelites are broken off and then if they join a church (even as false professors) God honors their lack of faith by grafting them back in. I don't think so. . . . But, you knew that already.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
The foreknown people
JC: Whew! All of that just to explain the problem!
DW: What problem? Just kidding, of course. First, I primarily use the NASB and it does not have a comma and so that had nothing to do with my reading. Nevertheless, I just can't help but think that the 'problem' only really comes up if the plain meaning of Israel, His people, has to also includes Gentiles now. This just stretches the meaning of 'in Christ' beyond its intended meaning and raises all of these apparent complications.
The word προεγνω (aorist) in 11;2, which is translated foreknew, has the following two meanings according to L&N: 1) to choose or select in advance of some other event or 2) to know about something prior to some temporal reference point, for example, to know about an event before it happens.
I think we both agree that the first meaning is in view here? If so, then what is the problem with this simply referring to the fact that God chose the people of Israel for some purpose (The purpose surely being to bring forth the Savior!). I think this is probably the reason they are so often called 'God's chosen people.' :)
Sorry, another question: If the people of Israel, those obstinate and disobedient people of verse 10:21, HAD been rejected, would you expect that God would continue to select a remnant from out of them in each time period? And, if the answer is yes, then would you tell me what you think the meaning of 'rejected' is?
Again, sorry; but, another question just came to me. Given your interpretation of 11:2 (the people are the remnant), who do you think the 'they' and 'their' and 'them' of verse 11:11-12 are? In other words, has Paul switched the meaning of 'His people' again?
JC: They are enemies for now, but they are actually elect! (v. 28).
DW: The remnant does not appear to be the enemy now; ALL Israelites appear to be enemies now. The terms 'they', 'their', 'them' in Romans 11 always means the same thing, i.e., the group of people (saved and unsaved) in the households of those males who are circumcised and descended from Jacob. And so, it is the nation, the entire group of them, the people of verses 10:21. 11:1 and 11:2 who are chosen by God as v2 has already said.
Verse 28 is really only repeating the real message of v2. The nation of Israel is a chosen (elect) people. And yes, there is also a remnant of this chosen (elect) people that is elect in the sense (a different sense) of salvation. The nation is chosen (elect) in a different sense than a particular individual within Israel may be said to be chosen (elect). Why is it so foreign to your way of thinking that Israel could be god's people even though most of them throughout history have been lost? For, that is exactly what God continually calls them.
JC: And so this raises the possibility that Paul means that all ethnic Israelites are actually elect, especially when he mentions that "all Israel will be saved."
DW: All individual ethnic Israelites are NOT elect regarding salvation. I know we agree on that. I am repeating; but, after God removes all of the individual non-elect Israelites at some time in the future (Romans 11:26), the only ones that are left are . . . well, . . . elect. At that time, and only at that time, can it rightly be said that 'all Israel will be saved.' The only way to reasonably negate this is to redefine the term Israel to also include professing Gentiles. Sorry, Scripture never does this.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: (1) We notice that Paul is using "all" (as he sometimes does) in a "not literally every one" sense in this passage.
DW: True, Paul does this; but, not here. Mercy does not equate to personal salvation. In the context, it means one 'has the gospel preached to them.' So, here 'all' means just that, every one of them. But, if mercy is seen as eternal life, then 'all' clearly does not mean all. And, as far as 'all Israel,' well that means 'all Israelites then alive on planet earth.'
JC: (2) Paul couches their re-grafting as conditional: if they do not persist in their unbelief, they will be grafted in again.
DW: Do you think that when "He (the Deliverer) will remove ungodliness from Jacob (i.e., ethnic Israelites)" there will be anybody in Israel who does not believe? So, the chance that they will persist in their unbelief is exactly nil. By the way, are you saying that the NT has given us a fuller meaning here for 'Jacob?'
JC: (3) Most importantly, Paul's hope for them is always expressed in terms of individual and personal repentance, not national repentance.
DW: I dare say Paul believed the promises to Israel in the OT. So, he would have had no doubt that at some future time there would be a remnant that would constitute the 'sons of Israel' who actually receive the promises. On the other hand, he was focused on saving those alive at that time. Isn't this the focus in the here and now of all real minister's of the Word? Seriously, is this really so unexpected?
JC: There is a suggestion (v. 25) that many will wait to repent until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.
DW: I doubt very much that any individual Israelite ever found themselves waiting to believe until the 'fullness of the Gentiles came in.' On the other hand, it is God who is waiting. When the time comes that He has defined as 'the fullness of the Gentiles' is at hand, then He will save each and every single Israelite then alive and give them their promised land etc. What is the roadblock here?
JC: (4) In terms of logic: what happens if we adopt the reading that all ethnic Israelites are foreknown by God and therefore not rejected (v. 2)? . . . . In that case, we would have them being elect and saved even though entirely devoid of faith. This seems ridiculous (I trust I'm seeing a head-nod on the other end. :) )
DW: You are indeed seeing a head-nod. However, it is the definition of 'foreknown' and 'His people' that led to the conclusion which you rightly describe as 'ridiculous.' Paul is talking about the nation. It is the nation which is foreknown in the sense of chosen.
JC: I conclude therefore that the set of Israelites who will repent as described here is an elect remnant, a chosen subset of all Israelites. It may be a *large* remnant, or small -- I don't know. I hope for large, personally!
DW: Amen!
JC: And so going back to v. 2, I think the defining clause reading is best (as did 3 out of 4 major translations).
DW: Well, I enjoyed a few seconds of agreement and then this. Fortunately, truth isn't about majority rule. The more literal translations leave out the comma (e.g., NASB and Young's literal translation); but, my guess is that that is because they are being literal and not because they are taking sides in this question. That the original text has no comma is not much information.
Hi David,
I'll just post a bit now and then more later. Thanks for continuing this conversation.
It strikes me how deep and subtle the differences run. You pointed out a couple of times, "If we take this view, then it all makes sense...", and of course I have the same reaction reading your posts. :)
DW: Defining the church as a body of saved and unsaved individuals (as was Israel) and that Paul is writing to this kind of church in Rome, then your summary view is quite reasonable. But, Paul is writing to believers (v1:8, for example). So, don't we have to simply ignore this verse to support this view?
My view ... Paul is specifically writing to the believers in the church of Rome at that time when he uses the plural and he is writing to Gentiles of all stripes and at all times when he uses the singular. Verse 11:21 "for if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you." ought to make it clear that he is not considering the singular you to be a representative of saved members of the Roman church, no? So, the 2nd singular is a non-saved person who stands by his/her faith???
First, a word in defense of my reading of συ. The entire rest of the letter is written to the church in Rome. So when Paul says, "I am writing to you Gentiles", it makes more sense to me to see "you Gentiles" as the subset of the audience he is writing to.
There's nothing in the *text* to cause us to seek a larger group than the one he has been speaking to all along, except for your concern about attached Gentiles being broken off. And if that concern can be satisfied in some other way -- perhaps, by rethinking what attachment and breaking off might mean -- then there's nothing at all to suggest that "you Gentiles" means anything other than "you Gentiles in the church of Rome."
(cont.)
The problem in responding is whether to begin by defining the church, or else to begin with Rom 11.
Suppose we start with Rom 1.8. Clearly, Paul is speaking to them as "all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints."
So already, I have a lot of sympathy for the view that the church is as you say: the company of the saints.
The problem is that this definition works for part of the Biblical data, but not all. The Pauline greetings are a great argument in favor of your definition, but things fall apart when we consider the following:
* Jesus definitely affirms that people can "have faith" but not be saved. So does his brother James. Obviously, you and I (over against the FV) would classify this as pseudo-faith. But the point is that if faith is not always faith, then the (apparently) faithful are not always faithful.
* Likewise, Jude affirms that some within the church -- leaders, in fact (v. 12) -- who are unsaved.
* And again, Jesus affirms that those who are "in him" can be broken off and thrown into the fire.
* And as I pointed out earlier, Paul uses a very similar greeting to the Corinthians in 1 Cor; yet some within the church are to be expelled.
Consider also what Paul says to Timothy:
1 Tim 1.18ff: Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.
These data must also inform our understanding of the church every bit as much as the Pauline greetings.
The way that I incorporate them is that the authors of Scripture sometimes speak of outward appearances as if they were reality. Thus, we can have someone who has the outward appearance of faith, but his falling away reveals his lack of belief.
(We note the clear distinction from the FV point of view, which is that temporary faith is genuine faith, and that membership in the church makes one a saint in actuality, albeit possibly temporarily)
It is my view that Paul sees the church invisibly as the saints. But he speaks to the church that he sees. I've come to this view as a way of incorporating the entirety of the data, both passages like Rom 1.8 and also like Rom 11.
More later,
JRC
Hi again,
Let me tackle your very good questions here.
DW: I am sure we agree that the only Israelite branches that were broken off were living, unbelieving, Israelites, regardless of what they may or may not have professed regarding faith. So, the only Gentiles who are in danger of being broken off are likewise living unbelieving Gentiles.
Yes. Notice that in so agreeing, we have tacitly agreed that the breaking off process is something that happens to individuals, NOT entire groups.
The group of Israelites contains some who remain, some who are broken off. The group of Gentiles likewise contains some who stand by faith and some who will be broken off.
This is in keeping with the use of 2nd person singular. Regardless of whether συ is a representative of all Gentiles or only of the Roman church Gentiles, the standing and breaking off is happening to this representative individual. More on this later.
DW: 1) Where, when and why did God graft them into the tree?
As you know, I view the συ as a representative of the Gentiles within the Roman church. Paul views them here outwardly, according to their profession of faith. It is on this basis of profession that he declares them "grafted in." Thus: they were grafted in when they joined the church.
Notice, interestingly, that we have some convergence here. You view the grafting as "God joining the Gentiles into a position of blessing, without necessarily saving them" (paraphrase).
I agree - but add that position of blessing is found within the church, and that it is not every Gentile who has been grafted in, but only those who have joined the community of the faithful.
So we agree, at least, that attachment to the tree is not the same thing exactly as possessing genuine salvation.
DW: (1A)(Doesn't this get frighteningly close to the FV view?)
No, the bright line drawn here is that while Paul may speak to the visible church according to their profession, he does not assign genuineness to an outward profession.
John makes the same distinction:
Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
For Paul, remaining in Christ is evidence of true, genuine faith. By contrast, for the FV, *belonging to the Church visibly* is evidence of true, genuine faith -- but potentially temporary faith.
These two ideas are only "close" in outward appearance, not in reality. :)
(cont.)
DW: 2) How can their having 'fear' have anything to do with them remaining on the tree? Does this help them individually develop faith that they do not now possess?
Let's spend some concentrated time on this, because I think this is a core objection that can be answered and that will also shed light on passages like Heb. 6.
First, we note that your question asks me to speculate on a mechanism: How does it help? Up front, I should admit that my answer is speculative.
However, the *fact* of Paul's warning is not speculative at all.
Beyond question, Paul says that
(a) They stand by faith. Notice that he speaks to them as if they have faith; his addressees are currently standing by faith.
Rom 11.20: "τη απιστια εξεκλασθησαν συ δε τη πιστει εστηκας μη υψηλα φρονει αλλα φοβου"
Lit.: "Through unfaith they were broken off, but you through faith have stood (perf. active ind. -- past action with present result); do not think arrogantly but fear."
(B) They have the potential of being broken off ("Neither will he spare you").
There it is, the puzzle in a nutshell: how is it that they could stand by faith *and* be in danger of being broken off?
This puzzle remains no matter how we understand the grafting process.
Now for the speculative answer.
Again, I see Paul speaking to the Roman Gentiles, according to their outward profession. When he gives the warning to "fear", this warning functions differently in different peoples' lives, just as Jesus' parables functioned differently in the disciples and in unbelieving Pharisees.
For those with genuine faith, Paul's warning functions very similarly to his admonition to "work out your salvation in fear and trembling."
For those who are elect but not yet truly converted, Paul's warning serves to cause them to self-examine and possibly repent.
And for those non-elect, Paul's warning simply hardens them further, moves them further down the road of self-deception.
Oops -- I clobbered my response to 3). Let's try again...
DW: 3) The crime of the unbelieving Israelites was their 'national' rejection of Jesus as their king. How can these unbelieving professors in the Roman church reject Jesus? They have never accepted Him.
This assumes that Israel as a nation committed a national crime. Where do you see that in Scripture?
Is it not rather the case that *Israelites* as individuals either accepted Jesus and thus were received as sons of the kingdom; or else, they rejected Him and were hypocrites -- professing to be children of God, but acting as children of Satan?
I think that's what Jesus is talking about in John 5.37ff and 8.31ff.
In that case, it would be unbelieving professors who stand in a false position: they claim faith, but they do not possess it. Their only ways forward are either to be broken off, or else to repent and believe. Isn't that the choice that Paul offers them?
(And wasn't that the choice that Jesus offered the Pharisees?)
JRC
Postlude to the questions:
DW: My view (as if you are not sick and tired of it by now!)
Not at all. I recognize that we are both trying to put the puzzle together.
DW: Paul is specifically writing to the believers in the church of Rome at that time when he uses the plural and he is writing to Gentiles of all stripes and at all times when he uses the singular. Verse 11:21 "for if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you." ought to make it clear that he is not considering the singular you to be a representative of saved members of the Roman church, no? So, the 2nd singular is a non-saved person who stands by his/her faith???
Well, the 2nd singular is a person who "by faith has stood."
Are you suggesting that this label applies to all Gentiles everywhere?
---
The flaw in the argument-by-contradiction is that it only works if the συ represents *saved Gentile members* of the Roman church.
What if it doesn't? What if συ represents *Gentile members* of the Roman church, without knowledge of their salvation?
In that case, the objection disappears: all of them "have stood by faith" (outwardly), but any of them might well be hypocrites.
What happened was that you applied the proof-by-contradiction to your definition of the church rather than mine. :)
JRC
Grammar stuff:
DW: I believe all we can say about the duration of the breaking off activity is that it started with the cross and had been completed by the time Paul wrote the letter to the Romans, yes? Would you agree that this can also be said about the grafting in of the Gentiles (i.e., that it was already completed and that the text says nothing about grafting in of any Gentiles after Paul's time.)?
Here's the "group" idea sneaking in again. But the aorist verbs are also singular. It is individuals whose breaking off is complete and other individuals whose grafting in is complete.
This grammatical observation is (mostly) orthogonal to the question of the scope of συ; regardless of who συ might represent, he is a single individual whose ingrafting took place in the past.
Thus, nothing is stated or implied about the fate of other branches.
It might be the case that some currently-attached branches could be broken off in the future. In fact, isn't that what v. 21 teaches?
And indeed, it might be the case that other branches could be grafted on in the future.
Because of the use of the singular, we are obligated to read these processes as applying to individuals, even if we disagree as to who these individuals might be.
More grammar stuff:
JRC: Whew! All of that just to explain the problem!
DW: What problem? Just kidding, of course. First, I primarily use the NASB and it does not have a comma and so that had nothing to do with my reading. Nevertheless, I just can't help but think that the 'problem' only really comes up if the plain meaning of Israel, His people, has to also includes Gentiles now.
No, not at all. It's a matter of a basic exegetical question: we have a relative clause, and we have to decide whether it is defining or non-defining. There is not a "default value" for relative clauses, so we can't assume "non-defining unless the context forces otherwise." Rather, we have to use the available evidence to decide each one.
So: would you be willing to summarize why you believe that the clause is non-defining?
JRC: And so going back to v. 2, I think the defining clause reading is best (as did 3 out of 4 major translations).
DW: Well, I enjoyed a few seconds of agreement and then this. Fortunately, truth isn't about majority rule.
True ... but the wisdom of many (highly qualified) counselors is important. At least, we ought to have a good reason to dispute their judgment.
That said, I agree: the comma is not a part of the inspired text, and in the end, we are free to dispute their judgments if we feel that we must. I just would like to know the basis for your dispute.
DW: The more literal translations leave out the comma (e.g., NASB and Young's literal translation); but, my guess is that that is because they are being literal and not because they are taking sides in this question. That the original text has no comma is not much information.
No, there really isn't a neutral position here: In English, either the comma is present and the clause is non-defining, or the comma is absent and the clause is defining. As I mentioned above, there's no default value.
So a literal translation will still have to decide whether the clause is defining or non-defining, and punctuate accordingly, just as they have to decide where to place all other other commas, periods, and question marks.
Of course, sloppy English writers (like me at times, or is that "like I" ... :) ) will sometimes omit a comma out of carelessness or include one out of ignorance of how to use commas. But we can safely assume that our editors probably wrote intentionally.
And commas are part of that.
DW: This just stretches the meaning of 'in Christ' beyond its intended meaning and raises all of these apparent complications.
I sympathize, but I think the apparent complications are raised by the text, like the "you have stood by faith" of v. 20.
Also: I know that Jesus is different from Paul, but why does Jesus say that "branches in me" could be broken off?
JRC
erratum:
JRC: There is a suggestion (v. 25) that many will wait to repent until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.
DW: I doubt very much that any individual Israelite ever found themselves waiting to believe until the 'fullness of the Gentiles came in.'
I was unclear: I didn't mean "wait" in the sense of "sitting around twiddling their thumbs", but simply that "their repentance will be delayed until..."
I agree with you that it is God's intention that is the causative factor here.
Sorry for the confusion.
True Israel
DW: It was point 4 -- Ethnic Israelite believers could be called true Israel; Paul seems to do this. Your response was 'mostly NO.' I can't follow your argument.
OOHHH, I misunderstood the question. I thought you were asking whether *all* ethnic Israelites could be called "true Israel"; but clearly, you attached the word "believers" to it.
So strike my comments and replace with "Yes."
Sorry!
DW: I don't like the term 'true Israel' and was only using it to try to more closely align with your terminology. To my way of thinking, the term 'Israelite remnant' is more descriptive.
I like that term also, but I've used "true Israel" because it indicates that they are truly children of Abraham (per John 5), true Israelites (as was Nathan who was under the fig tree), true Jews (per Rom 2). They "are Israel", as opposed to Israelites who "are not Israel" (Rom 9.6).
Hm. Perhaps we could agree to try to use terms interchangeably or something?
JRC
What better thing to do at 1:45 AM than ruminate on Romans? :)
I left a couple of your questions out, so allow me to remedy the deficiency now, or at least attempt to.
DW: Sorry, another question: If the people of Israel, those obstinate and disobedient people of verse 10:21, HAD been rejected, would you expect that God would continue to select a remnant from out of them in each time period? And, if the answer is yes, then would you tell me what you think the meaning of 'rejected' is?
It's a tricky question, since God's choosing of the remnant takes place before the foundation of time. So I don't know what to make of God's "continuing to choose a remnant"?
If I understand, though, you are asking "How can God reject people X, having chosen a subset of X to be elect?"
And my best guess, since Paul doesn't exactly give the details, is that we are dealing with three types of people here:
(1) Israelites who joined the church immediately, and who are to all appearances already in Christ,
(2) Israelites who did not join the church and who never will, and
(3) Israelites who did not join the church but who will at some time in the future.
The latter two groups have been rejected; group #3 has been rejected temporarily.
So I think the answer to your question is, "because rejection is not always total and not always permanent."
DW: Again, sorry; but, another question just came to me. Given your interpretation of 11:2 (the people are the remnant), who do you think the 'they' and 'their' and 'them' of verse 11:11-12 are? In other words, has Paul switched the meaning of 'His people' again?
No, I think that the pronouns, along with the hope held out, refer to the elect remnant in Israel. In fact, I see the entire passage as referring to the remnant, except for vv. 7 - 10, which refers properly to groups #2 and #3 above.
Interestingly, so do you, right? In your view, isn't it only group #3 that will be remaining to be saved? (where group #1 has been pre-raptured?)
JRC: They are enemies for now, but they are actually elect! (v. 28).
DW: The remnant does not appear to be the enemy now; ALL Israelites appear to be enemies now.
Well, not quite. Referring to the groups above, Israelites who are already in the church (group #1) are clearly not enemies.
But you're correct that groups #2 and #3 both appear to be enemies at this time.
DW: The terms 'they', 'their', 'them' in Romans 11 always means the same thing, i.e., the group of people (saved and unsaved) in the households of those males who are circumcised and descended from Jacob. And so, it is the nation, the entire group of them, the people of verses 10:21. 11:1 and 11:2 who are chosen by God as v2 has already said.
Hm. Can we agree that 9.6-9, 9.22ff, 10.17, and 11.1-6 teach that physical descendants of Abraham are divided into an elect remnant and a non-elect non-remnant?
If we can agree to that, then is it not the case that the "all Israel" that is saved in v. 28 refers only to the remnant?
And if we can agree to that, then hasn't the monolithic group called "the nation of Israel" disappeared from view, having been divided into two pieces?
What I'm getting at is that Romans 9-11 appears to be teaching the individual election of the members of the remnant, NOT the corporate election of all physical descendants of Abraham. Talk of national election is conspicuously missing in Rom 9 - 11.
The nation is divided; it has been divided before the foundation of time. "Though their numbers be as many as the sands of the sea, only the remnant will be saved."
DW: Verse 28 is really only repeating the real message of v2. The nation of Israel is a chosen (elect) people. And yes, there is also a remnant of this chosen (elect) people that is elect in the sense (a different sense) of salvation. The nation is chosen (elect) in a different sense than a particular individual within Israel may be said to be chosen (elect).
It troubles me that we are introducing two different kinds of election here. Which verse refers to this national election?
DW: Why is it so foreign to your way of thinking that Israel could be god's people even though most of them throughout history have been lost? For, that is exactly what God continually calls them.
Ah. It's not foreign to my thinking; I just treat it in a different manner.
National Israel was God's people viewed outwardly, through the lens of administration of the covenant; the remnant was God's people viewed truly -- that is, by God Himself, through the lens of salvific election.
Obviously, our sight is not the same as God's, so there is a discrepancy between the two groups. Thus: national Israel, when the nation existed, could be called "God's people" from an outward view: they had the Law of God and were morally bound to it; they had the proper forms of worship of God; they were given the promises of God.
But only the remnant truly possessed what the nation professed.
The coming of Jesus changes that. He exposes the unbelief on the part of many of the Jews, with the result that their rejection became clear. The unbelieving Jews committed sins toward Jesus that, according to Law, should have resulted in their expulsion from Israel or else their execution. They were broken off.
As a result, our outward view changes. The nation of Israel is no longer the outward administration of God's covenant. It cannot be called "God's people" any longer, even in a "man's-view" sense. Its legal code, the Law, has been fulfilled. Its forms of worship, the sacrifices, have been fulfilled. The kingdom of God has come, and the sons of the kingdom have followed their King, while the others have been cast out. The nation is done.
What remains is God's remnant, the elect among the Israelites, who are either (1) already on the tree, having stood by faith, or (2) destined to be reattached to the tree at some point in the future. These and these only have a future hope.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
While ruminating about Romans really reaps rewards; I seem to be able to resist at 2:00 am!!! I guess your allergies are at it again. Sorry.
I hate to respond piecemeal; but, I just read Jude (Thanks for the comment. It's a great little letter that I rarely get to.) and had to respond because of my confusion.
You said: "The Pauline greetings are a great argument in favor of your definition, but things fall apart when we consider the following:
* Likewise, Jude affirms that some within the church -- leaders, in fact (v. 12) -- who are unsaved."
Jude is writing to THE CHURCH; Not to the address of any particular building in which it might meet along with those who are not really 'in THE CHURCH' but are just listed on the church role. There is no issue of 'man's faulty view' vs. 'God's perfect view' in this little letter. Jude makes it eminently clear (just to me?) that he is only writing to those who share 'our common salvation.' And, of course, he acknowledges that there are those among them who are not 'in THE CHURCH.' I really don't want to seem defensive; but, how can this possibly weigh against my view?
Just in case I have not been clear:
1) There are churches everywhere that have saved and unsaved people as 'members.' This was true in Paul's time as it is in ours.
2) THE CHURCH only has saved members.
3) Paul heard about problems in various cities that real believers were having.
4) Paul wrote to the real believers in the various cities (churches, because that was an obvious way to get to the real believers) to minister to them.
5) His letters (and Jude) do not address themselves to the unsaved members, although, of course, they heard the letters and were legal recipients of the letters.
So, Jude in particular has nothing to say to unbelievers. [Please don't misunderstand. I do not mean that God can not use this letter to save an unbeliever.] I believe the same about Paul's letters; but, they are so much more complicated that that is a much harder assertion to prove. [Although, I just happened to glance at 1 Corinthians 1 and it makes it hard (thought not impossible, of course) to see that Paul is writing to any but the saved there.]
Anyway, as always, I look forward to giving your responses the detailed consideration that they so richly deserve (I mean that in all sincerity).
I think I was unclear about Jude. I agree with you that Jude is addressing "those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ."
My point was simply that these false teachers are "among them" and are even "shepherds" who "share in their love feasts."
In other words, they are a part of the church that we see. You would agree with that, right?
JRC
aarrrrg, my keyboard is locked up and won't let me type capital letters.
yes, of course, i agree with you that false teachers as well as false believers are part of the organization we call the visible church.
will you return the favor of agreeing that neither jude nor paul was writing to them - sorry, no question mark either.
That's a crazy problem! Is it a driver issue or is the shift key torched?
---
DW: Will you return the favor of agreeing that neither Jude nor Paul was writing to them?
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: It's become common to speak of the VC and the IC as if there were two churches -- the professors and the possessors of faith.
There's nothing wrong with speaking of the IC and VC, per se.
BUT
Stopping there is incomplete. Our distinction raises several important questions:
(1) What is the relationship between IC and VC? Are the sets of people involved coextensive in any way?
(2) Why does Scripture not teach two churches explicitly?
(3) Is the church leadership, elders who are shepherds of God's church, the leaders of the VC or the IC?
(4) What does excommunication mean?
(5) What does baptism mean?
Questions (4) and (5) are very interesting, because they are performed as visible signs by the VC -- but they are usually understood as having some meaning wrt the IC.
So while it is legitimate to divide up into IC and VC, the one dividing now bears the burden of explaining the relationship between the IC and VC in a way that does justice to Scripture.
My own answer to those questions has led me to view the church in a slightly different way:
There is one Church. Since the Scripture uses the word "church" (not IC or VC), we remain consistent with that language.
That one Church has a visible perspective and an invisible perspective.
The "invisible perspective" is more truly real, in the sense that its members have the legitimate right in God's eyes to belong to the Church. They are the bride whom Jesus will receive when He returns.
But the "visible perspective" is the Church that we actually interact with.
So when Paul writes to "the Church in Rome", his legitimate audience is the IC. All the things he says about their salvation are true for them and them only. Usually, Paul speaks to this invisible perspective.
The VC is who actually reads his letter. Aware of this, Paul sometimes addresses things from a more visible perspective.
One interesting example is Col. 1.21-23:
21Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel.
Obviously, vv. 21-22 are speaking to the invisible perspective. But v. 23 interjects a note of doubt. What does Paul mean, if you continue in your faith? How can someone possibly not continue in his (obviously saving!) faith?
The answer is that continuance in faith is outward, visible evidence of genuine saving faith. Paul transitions seamlessly here to the visible perspective: despite his language of 21-22, he concedes in 23 that not everyone to whom he speaks (in the VC) indeed has genuine, persevering faith.
Hence: one Church, two perspectives rather than two churches.
So is Jude speaking only to believers in the church? Yes: his words are true only for believers, and they are his target audience.
But it is more precise to say that Jude is speaking to the Church according to its invisible aspect.
One more example:
How can one ever write anything to the IC, since one never knows who belongs to it? One could write generically, of course: "to whom it may concern." Paul, however, seems to write more personally and strongly. He singles out individuals (as in Rom 16) and calls them "saints" or "brothers." How can he do this? He does not he have a salvation-o-meter or some special revelation to be able to "see" genuine faith, does he? (He never professes to have this gift, at least).
OR, Is he simply speaking to what he sees? As far as he can tell, Phoebe is a saint and is to be treated as such (16.2).
JRC
Hi Jeff,
Regarding my shift key problem; not to worry. Please feel free to skip the following as it has nothing whatsoever to do with Scripture. I use Linux and really enjoy it. BUT, I have one or two old Windows Bible study programs that I just 'can't give up.' So, I run VMware Server under Linux and Windows 98 under that. Well, VMware is great as a virtual operating system, but. . . . So, once in a blue moon I have to reboot windows 98 to get my shift key back. Now aren't you edified to have learned about that???? :)
I hope I haven't created a confusing fork in our discussion; but, this is interesting and I'd like to deal with it while I consider how to answer your very difficult last series of posts!
Regarding your questions I am not sure that they aren't rhetorical; but, here are my thoughts and I would certainly be interested in your reactions.
1) Using VENN diagrams; all people alive at a point in time form the outer circle. Completely within that circle are two other circles, one is the IC and one is the VC. The IC and VC circles partially overlap.
2) God continually renews the IC by saving people. Man makes choices (under God's sovereignty) that result in the VC as we see it. I only see God in Scripture talking to IC members. As a result of the overlap, it is possible to conclude that He is talking to the VC. (But, according to me, He isn't)
3) Very interesting. God's church (IC) has Jesus as its head. A lost person who assumes the position of elder can not possibly choose to follow the head. So, that person is not capable of "equipping the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ" Ephesians 4:11-12. Thus, that person can never shepherd the IC. However, he can definitely lead the VC. Hopefully, the IC sheep will not follow him; but, will seek God about the situation. For, that false leader is not there apart from God's sovereign choice.
4) The purpose of discipline is restoration of the believing member caught in sin and church purity. False leaders can not make the right choices here. So, if the leaders are truly led by the Spirit (and even saved leaders are quite capable of not so walking), excommunication can accomplish this purpose. If the leaders are not walking in the Spirit (false leaders can never do this, of course), then the purpose of discipline probably won't be accomplished.
5) Baptism is a public witness to an individual's salvation. It does not require a seminary trained pastor to be validly accomplished. However, it is practical to have believers present to know who may have just joined the IC with them so that he/she can be part of the believing community. And, of course, it is a blessing to the IC to have a new member. A spirit led elder who applies his discernment to the salvation of the individual, can protect his flock to a certain degree from false professors.
JC: But the "visible perspective" is the Church that we actually interact with.
DW: Yes, but whether the IC completely overlaps the VC or not, our responsibilities are exactly the same, love one another. And, I should submit myself to a truly (from my perspective) Spirit led elder. That's it. I don't have to trouble myself with this IC/VC question nor read Scripture with that concern. Now, to the extent that sin has disfigured the VC, the cause of Christ is affected. But, it is nothing that God has not already taken care of.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Colossians 1:21-23
So you ask: "How can someone possibly not continue in his (obviously saving!) faith?" And you answer: "continuance in faith is outward, visible evidence of genuine saving faith."
DW: I do hope you won't be too surprised to know that I have a different understanding of what Paul is saying here. Alas, I don't see any IC/VC tension. Paul's prayer in verses 9-11 says it all beautifully. These people need to 'be filled with the knowledge of His will' so that they can 'walk in a manner worthy' etc.
So now we get to verse 23. Read with verse 22 what it says to me is that they will be presented without blemish IF they continue 'in the faith' (not that there is any question that some of them may not) -- in a certain manner (established and firm etc.). And this goes back to Paul's prayer in v9-11.
It is how they continue in the faith that is the uncertainty; not, whether they will continue in the faith. Sorry to be so disagreeable.
JC: OR, Is he simply speaking to what he sees? As far as he can tell, Phoebe is a saint and is to be treated as such (16.2).
DW: I do believe he is rightly speaking to what he sees. From his perspective, Phoebe is a believer and he treats her as such. He is not worried that he is wrong; only that he encourage her to continue to walk the walk. All of his letters fall into the same mold, encourage and edify the believers. He is not concerned about the unbelievers; these are not evangelistic letters.
DW: DW: I do believe he is rightly speaking to what he sees. From his perspective, Phoebe is a believer and he treats her as such. He is not worried that he is wrong; only that he encourage her to continue to walk the walk.
Yea! We agree!
So to go a step further ... when he speaks to the Philippians saying
Phil 2.12-13 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.
would you agree that (1) he thinks of them as being saved, but (2) he does not claim supernatural revelation or infallible knowledge of their salvation; rather, he is speaking according to his outward knowledge of their profession and behavior?
Win 98 on VMWare, eh? Yep. I run Hermeneutika on a Win 98 box at times.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
This post gets us to 300! Alas, I have no idea if that is meaningful or not.
JC: Yea! We agree.
DW: Yes, it feels nice to find agreement. On the other hand, I don't think that I have ever disagreed with you that we should treat people as we see them and take their word as it regards their salvation. On the other hand, we use discernment too with varying degrees of success, of course.
Now, Paul is not writing to Phoebe in Romans. So whether she really is a believer or not does not change the fact that he is writing to believers in the Roman church. He is not making the decision for those at Rome as to whether they ought to be reading this letter or not. Each of the recipients does that for themselves. So, Paul does not need a salvation-o-meter in good working order. He makes it crystal clear to whom he is writing and all that he says only applies to them, as far as he is concerned. He doesn't even have to know anything about any of those who read the letter. Sorry, I am pretty sure that I am repeating myself again!
As to your questions regarding Philippians 2, yes and yes. And moreover, the issue of VC vs IC does not come up and presents no tension for Paul. He simply puts his stake in the ground as to whom he is speaking and then he does just that. Paul never seems to show concern that the wrong people will get the wrong idea from his letters. He is only concerned with believers as far as I can tell. And, he wants them to read the letters and he is not making the determination as to who they are.
Hi Jeff,
Well, you made lots of great points in your last posts and so it has taken me a quite a while to figure out how to best respond. Alas, I am sure that I did not achieve my desired end. While we agree that salvation, eternal life, is clearly an individual matter; we just can't seem to come together on the concept that God can also deal with groups as a group.
JC: So when Paul says, "I am writing to you Gentiles", it makes more sense to me to see "you Gentiles" as the subset of the audience he is writing to.
DW: This is NOT a point of disagreement. Romans is to the believers at Rome. 'YOU' here (which is plural) is addressing the Gentiles in that group as a subset of the group. The issue has been who the 2nd singular is referencing?
JC: then there's nothing at all to suggest that "you Gentiles" means anything other than "you Gentiles in the church of Rome."
DW: Well, there still is the small matter of verse 1:8. For, some of the Gentiles in the Roman church might not have been saved. Is Paul writing to (aiming his message at) them?
JC: The Pauline greetings are a great argument in favor of your definition, but things fall apart when we consider the following:
DW: Do you still think that passages like Jude to which you referred actually have this result?
JC: It is my view that Paul sees the church invisibly as the saints. But he speaks to the church that he sees.
DW: Paul says that he is writing to believers. Is he not telling the truth? Is he just being PC so as not to offend the unbelievers in the church? Just because he has no way to know who will read his letter, does that in any way change the meaning of his message? Scripture is difficult enough to unravel; why introduce complexity when Paul is so very clear about his intended audience?
JC: Yes. Notice that in so agreeing, we have tacitly agreed that the breaking off process is something that happens to individuals, NOT entire groups.
DW: Semantics, YUK. The branches represent people, Israelites actually, who are 'broken off' because of some transgression. Individual branches do not represent a group. Nevertheless, if we take all of the individuals (branches) in a group and break them off, it is quite reasonable to talk as if a group has been broken off, no?
JC: Thus: they were grafted in when they joined the church.
DW: A reasonable assumption that Scripture does not address and which leaves God blessing the sin of man. How do we know that "it is on this basis of profession" that they were grafted in? Possible; but, extremely difficult for me to grasp.
JC: You view the grafting as "God joining the Gentiles into a position of blessing, without necessarily saving them" (paraphrase).
DW: Again, very different understandings. My view is that the grafting in has nothing to do with church membership. But, yes, the grafting does not connect with salvation in any direct fashion.
JC: I agree - but add that position of blessing is found within the church, and that it is not every Gentile who has been grafted in, but only those who have joined the community of the faithful.
DW: The blessing is hearing the gospel. Thus, when the Church is doing what it is supposed to do, the gospel is heard (and seen). But, one does not have to be a member of a visible church to obtain this blessing, no?
Also, joining a Masonic Temple is no different than joining a church when one's profession is false. How can this sin be considered the entrance to blessing? And, how can one join the community of the faithful when they themselves are unfaithful and probably some others in the community of the faithful are also unfaithful?? I just can't see the sense in this view, sorry.
JC: So we agree, at least, that attachment to the tree is not the same thing exactly as possessing genuine salvation.
DW: yes, and even without the word 'exactly.'
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: No, the bright line drawn here is that while Paul may speak to the visible church according to their profession, he does not assign genuineness to an outward profession.
DW: I agree. I don't see him anywhere assigning genuineness to their profession. I don't even understand why this has to be stated. He simply and quite directly says that he is writing to the believers. It is up to them to understand who they are. And, if an unbeliever gets it wrong, then that has no impact on Paul's message to the believers.
JC: For Paul, remaining in Christ is evidence of true, genuine faith.
DW: I don't see Paul anywhere asking for nor waiting for proof of salvation by those to whom he writes. Further, Paul has no way of knowing if somebody who reads his letters remains in Christ. It's not the problem his letters address.
JC: There it is, the puzzle in a nutshell: how is it that they could stand by faith *and* be in danger of being broken off?
DW: Well, I won't bore you with more repetition. The answer is 'it's a group thing.' In no uncertain terms, the OT calls Israel God's people, even given all of its sin. Israel stood and had something that could be called faith in God. CLEARLY NOT saving faith. But, for hundreds of years, they stood attached to the tree by their national faith and God's patience in the face of their unbelief. At last, they, the group, most of the individuals, were broken off. God decided it was time. Paul is saying the exact same thing to the race of Gentiles. It could happen to you too as it did to the Jews.
We agree that he is talking to the Gentiles in Rome in this letter. I go further and say that they can not be broken off from anything; for they are saved. So, it has to be gentiles other than those to whom he is talking that are in view and not just the lost in the church of Rome. And, that would give a simple reason for the shift from the 2nd plural to the 2nd singular.
JC: And for those non-elect, Paul's warning simply hardens them further, moves them further down the road of self-deception.
DW: OK. But, is this the reason Paul wrote these warnings? I think not. He is explaining a much more significant 'mystery.'
What is it that causes God to decide that now is the right time to break off this guy who never belonged there in the first place? This still doesn't address a 'plausible' reason for God taking the action of grafting them in for a false profession???
JC: This assumes that Israel as a nation committed a national crime. Where do you see that in Scripture? . . . I think that's what Jesus is talking about in John 5.37ff and 8.31ff.
DW: On Pentecost, Peter said in Acts 2:22ff "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, . . . you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put [Him] to death."
If that is not proof, I don't know what would be. And, Peter had no idea if the specific men to whom he was speaking were at the cross. He was talking to them as representing the nation. It was the nation that was guilty.
John states in 1:11 that "He came to His own [ethnic Israel], and those who were His own [ethnic Israel] did not receive Him. Jeff, please note: the 'rejection' on the part of the nation Israel was not the personal rejection of a crucified and risen Savior as He is now rejected when the gospel is refused. It was a nation to whom a Messiah King was promised in the OT rejecting their King. They did not say, 'We will not believe on this Savior for the saving of our souls'; but they did say in effect, 'We will not have this man to reign over us.' This distinction is important since it determines the precise character of their sin.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: Their (unbelieving professors) only ways forward are either to be broken off, or else to repent and believe. Isn't that the choice that Paul offers them?
DW: What (of significance) distinguishes the unbelieving (non-elect) professor and the unbelieving (non-elect) non-professor, other than the obvious, of course? No, Paul is not here evangelizing the lost members of the Roman church. Since Adam, all people have had the choice of remaining lost or believing God. This did not change with the cross or the olive tree metaphor.
How is it that this unbelieving professing member can remain in God's kindness (verse 11:22) for even a day? If he just keeps his membership in a visible church then God agrees to keep him in His kindness??? Wow, Israel was broken off for unbelief. This member certainly qualifies on that ground. Why does he get to stay while in unbelief? How did he get attached in unbelief. This idea that false profession has some merit is really hard for me to grasp.
JC: (And wasn't that the choice that Jesus offered the Pharisees?)
DW: Interesting; but, not quite. What the pharisees were asked to believe and what a person of Paul's time was asked to believe were not the same.
JC: Well, the 2nd singular is a person who "by faith has stood."
Are you suggesting that this label applies to all Gentiles everywhere?
DW: Not really. First, this is not talking about saving faith. And, it does not apply to any Gentile individual. It applies to the class, Gentiles, just like it did previously for the Jews as a class.
The Jews that were broken off did not have saving faith. But, they, not a particular individual, stayed on the tree for quite a while. I assume they too must have 'stood by faith' while connected. Well, clearly, it was not saving faith by which they stood??
Gentiles as a race are now displaying the same kind of faith that Israel did while it was in the 'not broken off' state. Why is that so hard to accept?
JC: What if συ represents *Gentile members* of the Roman church, without knowledge of their salvation?
In that case, the objection disappears: all of them "have stood by faith" (outwardly), but any of them might well be hypocrites.
DW: Paul never guarantees the salvation of any member of the Roman church as far as I can determine. He never shows any interest in outward profession vs. inner reality. He simply address those who are saved. Further, he never says "now, you unsaved people can't read this" either. Here, with the 2nd singular he is talking about another set of people than those to whom he is writing the letter.
I guess if there is value in staying a member of the church while having no faith and then that can be considered 'standing by faith' it all makes sense? No, this is not about the church; it is about the gentile race and its relation to God after the cross.
JC: It might be the case that some currently-attached branches could be broken off in the future. In fact, isn't that what v. 21 teaches?
DW: Yes, indeed. Let me ask this: Do you find it at all odd that the 2nd singular is compared with 'the natural branches?' Individual natural branches ought to be compare with συ to be consistent with your view, no?
JC: And indeed, it might be the case that other branches could be grafted on in the future.
DW: The word 'might' surprises me. I would have thought that this was a continuous happening given your understanding of what the tree represents?
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: Because of the use of the singular, we are obligated to read these processes as applying to individuals, even if we disagree as to who these individuals might be.
DW: Even if something happens to a group it is certainly true that it actually happens to the individuals in that group. Just because it is a 2nd singular does not mean that only one person is in view if that singular represents a group member? So if this typical representative faces potential 'breaking off' isn't that also true of others like him? In fact, if many like him/her are broken off couldn't that seem like a 'group' had been broken off?
JC: So: would you be willing to summarize why you believe that the clause is non-defining?
DW: Quite simply it is the context. Paul is talking about the nation and not individual members of Israel. In chapter 10 he shows that salvation is available to all who believe. But, Israel was so sinful, maybe this does not include them?
He argues that they have not been rejected for their sin so as to not participate in salvation. He was saved, and in the past God always saved Israelites even given the sin of Israel. So, the context has to do with God still saving Israelites with the result that all the promises that He ever made to Israel (which saved Israelites will finally get, e.g., land) are still in effect.
I know you think the church participates in those promises; but, Scripture never says that. It is an inference based on a particular reading of 'sons of Abraham' which I believe is in error. I think I may have said that already? :)
A change to the remnant from the whole is significant and deserves more explanation than a comma (or lack there of) provides. Further, it is the use of the plural pronouns in the rest of the chapter. You say "No, I think that the pronouns, along with the hope held out, refer to the elect remnant in Israel. In fact, I see the entire passage as referring to the remnant"
Well, as an example, the 'they, 'their, and also 'them' in verse 11:11 can not possibly refer to the remnant. It is not the remnant who rejected Jesus. So, I don't know how to support your view on the remnant.
JC: But we can safely assume that our editors probably wrote intentionally.
DW: You're right. Their being literal translations is not the point; they made a decision and that has weight. Alas, still the question of whether the three out of four got it right or not.
JC: Also: I know that Jesus is different from Paul, but why does Jesus say that "branches in me" could be broken off?
DW: We haven't discussed John 15 and I am sure you will not see any merit to what I am about to say; but, something about fools rush in where angels fear to tread comes to my mind. :)
Jesus is talking to the disciples (not to Christians in 2009) who do not have the indwelling HS. It is before the time of the Church, his body. It is not talking about those who have been sealed by the HS; but, rather are following Him around, i.e., His disciples. He is telling them to abide in their own power! We abide because we have a helper which they are told to await. The whole situation is different than today or even Paul's day. You and I can not be cut off from the vine no matter how heinous our sin. (Of course, God can bring physical death sooner than we might desire.)
JC: I was unclear: I didn't mean "wait" in the sense of "sitting around twiddling their thumbs", but simply that "their repentance will be delayed until..."
DW: Do you think that the fullness of the Gentiles has already happened? If not (and that is my view) then all those alive at that time and for about 2000 years now are still being delayed! I don't think so.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: So I think the answer to your question is, "because rejection is not always total and not always permanent."
DW: Again, we are using different meanings for a word. Here it is the word, rejection. You are applying it to individuals; I to the nation as I have said above regarding the hearing of the gospel.
JC: If we can agree to that, then is it not the case that the "all Israel" that is saved in v. 28 refers only to the remnant?
DW: yes; but, only to the remnant alive at that time, of course. "all Israel" here does not refer to the Israelite remnant of all time. For example, it does not refer to any Israelite alive while Paul was writing Romans.
JC: Talk of national election is conspicuously missing in Rom 9 - 11.
JC: It troubles me that we are introducing two different kinds of election here. Which verse refers to this national election?
DW: You are correct that Romans 9-11 do not focus on national election. However, Romans 9:4-5 actually does hit the nail on the head.
But, as a matter of record, talk of national election was taken care of in abundant detail in the OT. All of this was accompanied with the idea of eternality. I can't find any place in Scripture where God ever changed His plan vis-a-vis Israel's election/selection/choosing. To think that God said He would do something in one place and then that He has taken that back so that He can improve on what He had previously promised because the nation of Israel 'surprised' Him with their sin is hard for me to comprehend. He does know the beginning from the end, no?
Further, I certainly hope that nothing I have said would lead to the conclusion that all of the individuals in the elect/chosen nation of Israel are part of the Israelite remnant or are to be given eternal life at any time or are to actually receive the land of Canaan? The choosing of Israel is given ample press in the OT and so there really is no need for Paul to talk about it other than as a given in these chapters.
DW: The last few paragraphs of your last post are an excellent summary of your position. I particularly like the sentence "The nation is done." You could not be more clear in stating your view.
Alas, we have verses like Jeremiah 31:36 which make it very hard for me to understand your conclusion.
JC: Its legal code, the Law, has been fulfilled.
DW: The Mosaic Law was given long after God had made all of the eternal unchanging promises to Israel. The law was not an eternal covenant with Israel but rather a conditional covenant. They broke it and failed. So what?
Hi David,
I would like to take a break from raising objections to your position and audit my own position with an eye toward your objections. The goal here is that I might be clear on the basis of my own understanding, and properly understand which beliefs are taught directly from Scripture and which are inferred. I'm doing this "out loud" so that you can chime in. :)
JRC
My understanding of Rom 11 is this:
(1) The "people" whom God has not rejected refers to the Jewish remnant who are elect unto salvation.
What warrants this view?
(1A) The example of Elijah in vv. 2 - 4 specifically divides Israel into elect remnant and others. This leads Paul into v. 5: "There is a remnant chosen by grace."
(1B) "Israel" is specifically contrasted to "the elect."; the former have not obtained (something) while the latter have (11.7).
(1B2) The (something) of 11.7 is connected in language to 9.31 - 33 and again to the remnant language in 9.27 - 29, in which the Israelites specifically do not obtain salvation.
(1C) Romans 10 exposes the desire of Paul's heart: that his fellow Israelites be saved. This in turn is connected to the language of 11 -- that "salvation has come to the Gentiles" and again that "all Israel will be saved."
To be more precise: the current "rejection" and future "acceptance" of Jews is rephrased as "life from the dead" and "all Israel will be saved."
(1D) And Paul specifically relates his ministry to the Gentiles to his hope that Israelites will be saved. He connects the language of "acceptance" and "rejection" specifically to the salvation of Jews and Gentiles in vv. 11.14-15.
From this, it seems clear that Paul's discussion of acceptance and rejection is a discussion of salvation and lack thereof.
This appears to be a direct teaching of Scripture.
What objections might one bring to this view?
(O1) DW: I don't see Romans 11:1-16 saying anything about acceptance of Israel. When Paul says that it has not been rejected, he means that it is still God's covenant people.
I respond: this objection falters on a factual basis from vv. 13-15:
I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
Here Paul's own people are both currently rejected and in the future, hopefully, to be accepted, which here is used as a synonym for "saved." So in fact, Paul *does* speak of the rejection and acceptance of Israel. And, that rejection is connected definitely to salvation.
(Note that to me, being "God's covenant people" in a genuine sense is the same as salvation, so I'm not denying Israel's place as God's covenant people, so much as affirming that rejection and acceptance language is salvific)
From this, I take the following to be synonyms:
"rejected" = "not saved"
"accepted" = "saved"
(O2) The above equations are too simplistic, since Paul speaks of temporary rejection. How can the non-elect be rejected temporarily?
I respond: election is outside of time; salvation occurs within time. One may be elect but not yet saved. Hence: temporarily rejected until the moment of salvation. Thus, the conflict disappears.
(O3) Israel's rejection is not a rejection from salvation, but a rejection from a more nebulous place of blessing as a nation.
I respond: this objection is falsified by vv. 14-15 also. Paul's hope for his fellow Israelites is for salvation, not a "place of blessing." (a notion never explicitly introduced!)
(O4) How can one be "rejected from salvation"? This would imply that one had been saved, then not saved. Instead, we must understand rejection as something lesser.
This objection falls again on vv. 14-15. But it does raise a mystery: how does one be rejected from salvation?
The objection is fails to consider all the options. True, one cannot be saved, then rejected from salvation. But one can be
(a) never saved to begin with (hence rejected from the start), or
(b) apparently saved, then clearly rejected. This was the case with Esau: rejected from God's perspective from the beginning, but saved from man's perspective until unbelief revealed otherwise. And since Esau is Paul's paradigm for understanding the hardened Israelites, this seems the best explanation:
Until the coming of Christ, Israelites were apparently in possession of salvation (Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!). The coming of Christ revealed that many were hardened. It was at this time that they were broken off.
At the same time, some (like Paul) are not permanently hardened -- hence, are not permanently rejected.
This response is moving into some speculation, so I'll need to back up and justify more. Nevertheless, it provides a plausible way in which rejection and acceptance can be in terms of salvation (which it clearly is!), and also be temporary. Hence, my response neutralizes (O4) unless it can be falsified.
(2) The "breaking off" and "grafting in" language of vv. 11.17ff are synonyms for the salvific acceptance and rejection language of vv. 13-15.
How do I know this?
(2a) vv. 1 - 32 form an inclusio, a structure that "returns to the beginning." The theme, properly begun in ch. 9, is the hardening of the Jews: how do we explain it?
The tree metaphor sits in the middle of this inclusio and therefore must function as an explanation of it. Are the Jews rejected? Not the remnant (v.5). They have been hardened (v.7), but not beyond recovery (v. 11). Instead, their hardening is temporary, awaiting the full number of the Gentiles (v. 25), at the end of which "all Israel will be saved" (v. 27) -- whatever that means!
The insertion of the tree metaphor in the middle of this structure demands that we see it as related to the hardening of the Jews, bringing in of the Gentiles, and restoration of the Jews (which, again, is salvific).
(2b) The language of breaking off and grafting in follows on the heels of the language of acceptance and rejection. This strongly suggests that Paul is reiterating his point with the metaphor, a common rhetorical practice.
(2c) The means for being grafted in is to stand "by faith." The means for being broken of is "unbelief."
In the context of Rom 9 - 11, "faith" is the means of salvation.
I don't think I stressed this point in our previous interactions, but it's true: In Rom 9 - 11, faith is used exclusively in a salvific sense. Faith is specifically what Israelites lacked as they pursued a righteousness by works (9.32). Faith is what is needed for salvation (10.9-13). And the rejection of the good news through unbelief is the reason Paul labels the Israelites as the "stubborn disobedient people" (10.16 - 17).
There is no other kind of faith in view in ch 9 - 11 (or indeed, in the whole of Romans!) other than salvific faith.
I conclude therefore that being grafted into the tree is being accepted for salvation; and being broken off of the tree is being rejected from salvation.
This is not my most comfortable reading (see obj.s below!), but the text requires it of me.
What objections can be raised?
(O1) How can a saved individual be subsequently broken off of the tree?
I respond: This objection appears fatal, since we agree that a saved individual is an elect individual (though not all elect individuals are currently saved). And since election is irrevocable -- being before the foundation of the world -- then a saved individual cannot lose his salvation.
But the objection falters if we see grafting and breaking off as apparent or outward rather than eternal.
That is, just as the rejection of Jews is apparent only, so also "your" acceptance is only my, Paul's, assessment of your status, not a pronouncement of election. You have stood by faith, to appearances; you could fall through unbelief.
The idea of inserting "to appearances" in this text is clearly an inference, an attempt at resolving several seemingly conflicting ideas (the perseverance of the saints; unconditional election; and the clear warning that status on the tree can be revoked through unbelief). I am more comfortable with this inference because
(O1a) it is consonant with the "dual perspectives" Paul uses to explain the rejection of the Jews in v. 28 ("as far as the gospel is concerned...as far as election is concerned...")
If we were to use the same language about these Gentile branches, we would say,
"As far as the gospel is concerned, you have apparently accepted it. But do not be arrogant. Instead, make your calling and election sure."
(O1b) The idea of temporary "faith" is consonant with the parable of the sower and the soils.
Just as it is generally agreed that the "faith" of the rocky and thorny soils is only apparent, (even though that word is not used in the parable itself), it makes sense that faith could be temporary and apparent here.
(O1c) The idea of "apparent believers" is taught directly in several places in Scripture: the parable of the wheat and the tares; the parable of the good tree and the bad (actually, both parables: Luke 6/Matt 21, but also Luke 13.6-9, in which a non-fruit-bearing vine is cut down, representing the nonbelieving Jews).
However, I recognize that "apparent faith" is not directly taught here, and that other solutions might be possible, or that mine could be falsified in some way.
(O2) DW: The breaking off and grafting in are corporate matters, referring not to salvation but some other state of blessing.
My main response will wait, since I wanted not so much to object to your view (here) rather than clearly examine my own.
As it relates to my view, I think the corporate notion in vv. 17 - 24 is entirely ruled out by the use of the 2nd singular. Even if the 2S is a representative of a generic Gentile, he is still not a group, but a representative individual.
Additionally, the corporate solution raises difficulties that seem insoluble to me.
In short: I don't see the "corporate breaking off" as a viable alternative to the "apparent faith" solution.
Feel free to add objections, BTW!
Hi Jeff,
A truly superb analysis! I can only hope that my response will be even close to this level of
excellence.
JC: Feel free to add objections, BTW!
DW: I don't object; I try to help. :)
JC: (1) The "people" whom God has not rejected refers to the Jewish remnant who are elect unto salvation.
DW: OK, we have a simple A/B choice. 'His people' in 11:1-2 is either A) the Jewish remnant or B) ethnic Israel. Also, I am pretty sure we agree that the members of both 'A' and 'B' were chosen before time began and are not up for renegotiation.
JC: (1A) The example of Elijah in vv. 2 - 4 specifically divides Israel into elect remnant and others. This leads Paul into v. 5: "There is a remnant chosen by grace."
DW: Surely, we agree that any group may be divided into elect and not-elect, although in any specific case, either group may be the null set? Is that what Paul is teaching here? I would answer no.
Maybe we can agree on some other teachings of this passage:
a) Who is Elijah preaching against? I say 'B'.
b) What is God's response? I have kept 'A'.
c) What is the basis for there being in 'A'? God's gracious choice.
Thus my paraphrase of 11:1-5: 'My people' (A or B?) look bad now. So bad, in fact, that there is reason to believe that God has rejected them (A or B?). That hasn't happened and my (Paul's) reasons are:
i) I (Paul) am part of 'A'
ii) God kept 'A' in Elijah's time
iii) There is now an 'A' by grace
So, if the A/B choice leads to 'A', Paul would have to be defending the doctrine of election here. That is, for him to argue that 'A' had not been rejected because there was and still is in the same way an 'A', means that God has not changed his mind about those whom He had elected in eternity past. In other words, why is Paul explaining that God had not rejected those whom He had previously chosen by grace for eternal life? I find nothing in the context that even hints at the doctrine of election being in question?
If on the other hand, the choice is 'B', we simply have Paul pointing out that God always has an 'A' (chosen before time). Therefore, 'B' must still be in the picture (in some sense not rejected) or God could not display an 'A' at a particular point in history from out of a rejected 'B'.
Let me just ask a silly question: Is God displaying a Jebusite or Hittite remnant today? I say no; for the simple reason that those people groups don't exist any longer. The Jews do and God has no trouble showing us 'A' today. The fact that 'A' today is part of the body of Christ and not a part of national Israel is simply a detail.
JC: (1B) "Israel" is specifically contrasted to "the elect."; the former have not obtained
(something) while the latter have (11.7).
DW: I absolutely agree that 'A' and 'B' are distinct but related groups. 'B' completely encloses 'A'. However, I don't see how this fact contributes to the A/B selection decision?
JC: (1B2) The (something) of 11.7 is connected in language to 9.31 - 33 and again to the remnant language in 9.27 - 29, in which the Israelites specifically do not obtain salvation.
DW: Yes. Note in verse 9:29 that Isaiah says that if God had not left us a 'posterity' Israel would have become like Sodom. Sodom is no more (rejected?). That is not the case for Israel and so 'A' can continue to exist at each point in history. And, I say again, it is only 'A' that will inherit the promises to 'B'.
I can't figure out how your 1C plays into this A/B choice, sorry for being dull.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: (1D) . . . From this, it seems clear that Paul's discussion of acceptance and rejection is a discussion of salvation and lack thereof.
DW: I believe we would agree that in verse 14, Paul is talking about salvation of individual Jews. To understand verse 15, we have to determine if the 'them' at the end of verse 14 means the same group as the 'their' at the beginning of verse 15. I think it does and the verse could be written as: . . . .and save some of 'B'. For if 'B's' rejection be the reconciliation of the world, what will 'B's' acceptance be but life from the dead (for 'B').
In particular, we have a change from talking about the individual salvation in verse 14 to talking about the group in verse 15. Just to make sure I am not adding confusion here, I want to state that the only way to rightly say that an entire group has been saved is to first recognize that all of the individuals in that group have been saved. For, a group does not have 'eternal life'.
JC: (O1) DW: I don't see Romans 11:1-16 saying anything about acceptance of Israel. When Paul says that it has not been rejected, he means that it is still God's covenant people.
DW: I think this is a little bit of apples and oranges. My response above was in response to your question: "How is it that the group as a whole has been accepted, but most of the members of that group have been rejected?
I was trying to say that 11:1-16 does not say that Israel 'HAS BEEN' accepted already. Clearly, in verse 11:15 Paul talks about their 'FUTURE' acceptance. The verb in 11:1 is aorist, so there is not a complete and final rejection; but, clearly at this time, the nation has been set aside in some sense. Yet not so as to change the 'A' group.
JC: Note that to me, being "God's covenant people" in a genuine sense is the same as salvation . . .
DW: Well, the key phrase here is 'in a genuine sense.' I don't find this phrase in Scripture. When God made the conditional Mosaic Covenant with lost and sinful Israel, they were every bit His covenant people as any people could be (i.e., He had a covenant with them, ethnic Israel). But, certainly not in a salvific sense.
Well, since they broke that covenant, they are no longer his Mosaic covenant people except in an historical sense. However, there are those other eternal covenants that He made with them, Abrahamic, Palestinian, Davidic, etc. And, so they are indeed still His covenant people. But, again, the ones who ultimately receive the promises to Israel will all be saved at the time the promises are actually fulfilled.
JC: From this, I take the following to be synonyms:
"rejected" = "not saved"
"accepted" = "saved"
DW: I can see how this works with your understanding; it does not work with my understanding. So, we have to agree on 'A' or 'B' before I can comment on this.
JC: (O2) . . . How can the non-elect be rejected temporarily?
DW: Good question to which I answer 'they can't' if 'reject' is defined properly. Your answer was 'One may be elect but not yet saved.' Yes; but your question had to do with the non-elect. Elect but not yet saved is a different matter, no? We have no indication that Scripture calls this state, 'rejected.'
JC: (O3) . . . Paul's hope for his fellow Israelites is for salvation, not a "place of blessing." (a notion never explicitly introduced!)
DW: Again, the individual vs. group problem. We both agree that Paul wants salvation for individual Israelites here and not the nation. The olive tree, in my view, is about the group and not the individual. And, yes, that means that the group has to be described as 'the branches.' And, you don't agree with that definition (yet :) ).
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: (O4) . . . (b) apparently saved, then clearly rejected. This was the case with Esau: . . . And since Esau is Paul's paradigm . . .
DW: Why would anybody think that Esau was ever saved? Just because he was Abraham's son? No, there is no Scripture that leads to this conclusion.
You see the IC vs. VC here; I don't see Paul having any interest in that issue in Romans 11.
JC: Until the coming of Christ, Israelites were apparently in possession of salvation . . .
DW: I never had this view. They were God's chosen people; not His saved people. None of the specifics in the verse you quote say anything about salvation of Israelites. Blessing indeed; salvation no.
JC: The coming of Christ revealed that many were hardened.
DW: Do we really have to wait for 'the coming of Christ' to know that a whole bunch of them were unbelieving sinners? I think not and I know that you don't either.
JC: At the same time, some (like Paul) are not permanently hardened -- hence, are not permanently rejected.
DW: We have no indication that God ever hardened Paul. We know he was an unbeliever (like we all were at one time) and then he became a believer. But, we (at least I) do not know if God ever hardened him from reading Scripture.
JC: (2) The "breaking off" and "grafting in" language of vv. 11.17ff are synonyms for the salvific acceptance and rejection language of vv. 13-15.
DW: Was all of ethnic Israel on the tree before 'some branches' were broken off? I haven't found anything in Scripture that would lead to a 'no' answer to this question. If the answer is yes, then what can we say that the 'some branches' had before they were 'broken off?' Certainly it wasn't 'salvific acceptance.' And, I don't mean what could fallen man falsely surmise that they might have had. My question is what did they actually have as God would answer?
JC: (2a) . . . Are the Jews rejected? Not the remnant (v.5). They have been hardened (v.7), but not beyond recovery (v. 11).
DW: Who do you mean by 'they' in the 3rd sentence above? If it is the remnant of verse 5 I am really confused. You think God hardens the elect remnant and not the run of the mill lost non-elect Israelite?
JC: The insertion of the tree metaphor in the middle of this structure demands that we see it as related to the hardening of the Jews, bringing in of the Gentiles, and restoration of the Jews (which, again, is salvific).
DW: How can the Jews be restored to a position of salvation when they never had it in the first place? What they had as a people was a place of blessing. Nevertheless, I do agree that Jewish hardening is clearly in view; I don't question that. But, surely it is not the remnant that is hardened nor is it the grafted in Gentiles who are all saved?
JC: (2b) . . . This strongly suggests that Paul is reiterating his point with the metaphor, a common rhetorical practice.
DW: I do agree with you that the metaphor is a reiteration of his point. Alas, we disagree on the point.
JC: (2c) The means for being grafted in is to stand "by faith." The means for being broken of is "unbelief."
DW: Yes to the second sentence. Sorry; but, no to the first. The means for being grafted in is not discussed. The means for remaining attached is 'by faith.' More importantly, however, we disagree on the 'who.' I say the class; you say the individual. And, I say this faith is not saving faith.
JC: In the context of Rom 9 - 11, "faith" is the means of salvation.
DW: I don't want to sound like a 'wise guy;' but, this is a true statement for the entire Bible. And, Paul clearly addresses this in these chapters. That does not mean that he does so in every verse or more specifically in the metaphor.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: And the rejection of the good news through unbelief is the reason Paul labels the Israelites as the "stubborn disobedient people" (10.16 - 17).
DW: Well, not the 'good news' if you mean the gospel as we know it. Go back to Romans 10:13 which is a quote from Joel 2:32. Joel 3:1ff talks about what I believe is the time when 'all Israel' will be saved. Israel has always been unbelieving of what God told them. So, yes, they are a stubborn disobedient people except for the remnant (graciously made believers). Yet, Paul knows that Joel prophesizes a time when God will change that and restore an Israel that will believe. What Joel describes has not yet happened. So, Isaiah, not Paul, calls the people stubborn and disobedient because they did not believe God. Not that they did not believe that Jesus was their Messiah.
JC: There is no other kind of faith in view in ch 9 - 11 (or indeed, in the whole of Romans!) other than salvific faith.
DW: Isn't this what we are trying to prove? I know we both hold that only saving faith leads to eternal life. But, there are all kinds and degrees of faith. For example, Mormons (not mentioned in Romans, of course) have faith in God. Alas, quite confused and erroneous; faith, nevertheless. If the tree is not about salvation (my view; not yours) then the kind of faith mentioned in connection with the tree and 'standing' may not be salvific faith but one of the other kinds?
JC: I conclude therefore that being grafted into the tree is being accepted for salvation; and being broken off of the tree is being rejected from salvation.
DW: I didn't know that this was a multi-stage process that included being 'accepted for salvation.' I though we all start out lost, separated from God, thanks to Adam. I thought the next thing that happened was that God regenerates us. In brief, we then hear and believe God and God saves us. Where does the Scripture add that we are accepted for salvation and grafted into an olive tree in that process?
Likewise, where does Scripture say anything about the rejection of lost people from salvation. A non-elect person is not rejected from salvation. They simply continue through life in a lost state. God doesn't need to do anything to them to prevent their salvation?
JC: This is not my most comfortable reading (see obj.s below!), but the text requires it of me.
DW: I really do appreciate your candor and it is what I would expect from you. And, it is part of what makes this exchange so rewarding.
Now, I may simply be dense; but, I have no such feelings about my reading of Scripture. And, I honestly do not believe that the text requires your reading. BUT, let me quickly reiterate that I may simply not be intelligent enough to appreciate your reading.
JC: (O1) . . . But the objection falters if we see grafting and breaking off as apparent or outward rather than eternal.
DW: I agree; but, have a problem. Paul says 'you stand by faith.' We say that that sentence is the Word of God. That means to me that that is not Paul speaking (of course we know Paul uttered the words which another wrote down for us). So, the declarative statement is not a statement of 'apparent' reality. Please don't take me as being arrogant or derogatory; but, doesn't that view result in a watered down Scripture?
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: (O1a) . . . If we were to use the same language about these Gentile branches, we would say,
"As far as the gospel is concerned, you have apparently accepted it. But do not be arrogant. Instead, make your calling and election sure."
DW: Again, not trying to be obnoxious; I agree that that is what WE would say. BUT, is that what God would say in His Word.
JC: (O1b) . . . it makes sense that faith could be temporary and apparent here.
DW: Sorry, I am repeating; but, faith that is temporary is not saving faith; it is some other kind of faith. God is the one who gives saving faith and seals the person for all eternity. This can not be lost as we both agree.
JC: (O1c) . . . The idea of "apparent believers" is taught directly in several places in Scripture
DW: OK. If Paul had said "I, Paul, believe you stand by faith" that would support your view. But, God says here "you stand by faith." Whoever the you are (a gentile or all gentiles) they are actually standing (whatever that might mean) by faith (of some kind other than saving faith). There is no apparent anything here.
JC: Even if the 2S is a representative of a generic Gentile, he is still not a group, but a representative individual.
DW: I am most likely guilty of having mislead you. What I should have said is that the 2nd singular is an anthropomorphism not a representative. The class gentiles is being 'talked to' as if it were a person. It clearly is not such.
JC: Additionally, the corporate solution raises difficulties that seem insoluble to me.
DW: I would really like to know what these are.
Hi David,
DW: Surely, we agree that any group may be divided into elect and not-elect, although in any specific case, either group may be the null set? Is that what Paul is teaching here? I would answer no.
I would answer yes, because he says precisely those words: "So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace." (11.5). That is, there is an elect group (and by implication, a non-elect group).
Now, we may wonder where he's going with it ... but there's no question that Paul *does* specifically divide the Jews into elect and non-elect, twice (ch. 9 and ch. 11). Can we have agreement here?
So why does he do so? My opinion is that this is part of a larger theme. You mentioned that any group can be divided into elect and non-elect.
Very true. But only ONE group, the Jews, were confused about their status. Alone of the peoples of the earth, Jews in Paul and Jesus' time believed themselves to be elect by virtue of their parentage and by virtue of circumcision.
Paul's argument in Romans, not only in 9 - 11, but starting as early as ch. 2, is to undermine their false belief (election is caused by parentage) and replace it with a true belief (election is caused by God's gracious choice).
So Paul's teaching here in 11.5 that there is an elect remnant that is a subset of ethnic Israel is not at all surprising or a non-sequitur. Quite the contrary, it is of one piece with the argument he has pursued since ch. 2 (really, since ch. 1).
DW: Thus my paraphrase of 11:1-5: 'My people' (A or B?) look bad now. So bad, in fact, that there is reason to believe that God has rejected them (A or B?). That hasn't happened and my (Paul's) reasons are:
i) I (Paul) am part of 'A'
ii) God kept 'A' in Elijah's time
iii) There is now an 'A' by grace
Now carry your logic to its conclusion: A is the subset, the remnant of B that has not been rejected. There isn't a B by grace, only an A.
Look at how this fits in with 9.27, "Though the number of Israelites be like the sands of the sea, only the remnant will be saved."
Out of the group B, it is A towards whom God shows favor, whom he has preserved, and whom He will save.
DW: So, if the A/B choice leads to 'A', Paul would have to be defending the doctrine of election here. That is, for him to argue that 'A' had not been rejected because there was and still is in the same way an 'A', means that God has not changed his mind about those whom He had elected in eternity past. In other words, why is Paul explaining that God had not rejected those whom He had previously chosen by grace for eternal life? I find nothing in the context that even hints at the doctrine of election being in question?
Yes, Paul is exactly explaining and defending the doctrine of election. He does so in chapter 9, and the outcome of that discussion is applied here to the elect remnant.
Why is Paul explaining that God has not rejected his remnant? Because the reality of election is in tension with the appearance of general Jewish unbelief. Here is Paul's summary:
"I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in."
and again,
"As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable."
My paraphrase: "They look like they are all rejected, but there is still an elect remnant among them. Do not be ignorant: appearances are different from reality. The reality is a mystery that has yet to be revealed."
DW: If on the other hand, the choice is 'B', we simply have Paul pointing out that God always has an 'A' (chosen before time). Therefore, 'B' must still be in the picture (in some sense not rejected) or God could not display an 'A' at a particular point in history from out of a rejected 'B'.
Respectful disagreement here.
First, it is not necessary that have a larger accepted group out of which to call an elect remnant. The Moabites were not accepted in either your sense nor mine; yet God called Ruth from among them. An elect remnant can be called from any group whatsoever. Thus, the syllogism is doubtful.
But even more: If our choice is "B", we end up with an incoherent reading of vv. 11.11 - 32.
That is, if ethnic Israel is the group that is "accepted" (v. 15), then it must also be the group that is "saved" (v. 27) and the group that is "beloved as far as election is concerned." But in that case, B and A would have to be the same groups. For we have already agreed that only A will be saved in v. 27.
Since this is clearly a problem, you have introduced a particular view of eschatology: that ethnic Israel will be cleansed by the tribulation until the only Jews left alive are believers (thus transforming B into A). But this view of the endtimes is not supported by any eschatological passages that I'm aware of.
Eschatology would probably be a huge conversation! But I just want to draw attention to the fact that you've created a theory about the endtimes in order to account for the fact that your reading of Rom 11 forces groups A and B to be identical (at some point in time).
That is, your reading here of "B" supports your eschatology and not the other way round.
More locally and fatally, you have to recast the meaning of "election" in v. 28 to mean "national election", when Paul has never once mentioned national election in all of Romans. You suggested that Rom 9.4-5 was a clear statement of national election, but Paul does not use that term there.
Quite the contrary, in vv. 9.22ff, Paul contrasts "those whom he has prepared in advance" and "whom he has called" -- the elect -- with the broader group of Jews (9.24)
In fact, as I mentioned earlier, Paul argues against national election, the notion that one is "God's people" by virtue of parentage.
Finally, your reading must drive a wedge between "grafted in" on the one hand and "saved" on the other.
I've demonstrated earlier (though not without objection :) -- see below) that these two words are connected. Specifically, the "grafting in" process is a metaphor for being saved. The most direct proof is the direct followup between vv. 24 and 25.
Your reading, however, has the grafting and breaking apply to B (and B', the corresponding group of Gentiles). Because of that, you must drive some daylight between "grafted in" and "saved", so that they mean entirely different things.
But what could "grafted in" mean, if not "saved"? On your account, it is "the opportunity to hear the Word."
And yet this meaning is not in the text itself; you must adduce it from the need to making ingrafting something other than salvation. That is, nothing other than your choice of "B" suggests that "grafting in" means "having the opportunity to hear the Word."
Further, in Paul's time, the Jews lacked no such opportunity. No indeed: they heard the Word, but did not combine it with faith (10.18). And indeed, that opportunity (and the lack of faith) continue to this day.
So if "breaking off" means "removal from the opportunity to hear the Word", then the Jews have never been broken off!
In short, taking Paul to refer to B, the ethnic Israelites, in vv. 11 - 32, raises (IMHO) insuperable difficulties.
I hope this critique is not too aggressive? Sometimes when I put on my "proof-checking" hat, I can come across as "know-it-all" -- that's not my hope here, but rather to raise precise objections as material for further discussion.
JRC
DW: I can't find any place in Scripture where God ever changed His plan vis-a-vis Israel's election/selection/choosing. To think that God said He would do something in one place and then that He has taken that back so that He can improve on what He had previously promised because the nation of Israel 'surprised' Him with their sin is hard for me to comprehend.
Such an argument is not in view here. Rather, the argument on my end is that the Jews had misunderstood what God had promised. Paul therefore steps in to correct these misunderstandings. God is faithful; but man is darkened in his understanding, and the Jews demonstrated amply that they believed that their parentage and circumcision were proof of God's favor towards them, proof of their status as "God's people."
The problem was not with the promises, but the understanding thereof.
JRC: There is no other kind of faith in view in ch 9 - 11 (or indeed, in the whole of Romans!) other than salvific faith.
DW: Isn't this what we are trying to prove? I know we both hold that only saving faith leads to eternal life. But, there are all kinds and degrees of faith. For example, Mormons (not mentioned in Romans, of course) have faith in God. Alas, quite confused and erroneous; faith, nevertheless. If the tree is not about salvation (my view; not yours) then the kind of faith mentioned in connection with the tree and 'standing' may not be salvific faith but one of the other kinds?
I don't know if you recall the GreenBaggins discussion about Samuel and whether "did not know the Lord" in 1 Sam 3.7 is salvific language. There, I argued that the context strongly supports a different meaning of "know the Lord" than the standard meaning -- and yet my argument was unpersuasive to many (including notables such as RF White) because "know the Lord" is used *everywhere else* to mean salvation. In the end, we disagreed amicably, but I would have never stuck to my guns unless the context were not strong support for my novel take on 3.7. (For instance, 2.26). I was on weak branch, and I had to have strong support from other limbs to even have a chance of success.
The patterns of vocabulary usage are an important part of the context, and your reading asks us to suspend that pattern. In Romans outside of this passage, Paul has never used "faith" in other than a salvific sense.
This counts as evidence against your reading. You (like I in the Sam. argument) are on a weak linguistic branch. You need strong support from other lines of argument.
JRC: I conclude therefore that being grafted into the tree is being accepted for salvation; and being broken off of the tree is being rejected from salvation.
DW: I didn't know that this was a multi-stage process that included being 'accepted for salvation.'
Ah, you didn't hear about my new version of the ordo salutis? Just kidding!
All I meant is that "grafted in" is a metaphor for being saved -- well, specifically, for being saved as far as we can see (to outward appearance). There's not a new process; there's just a different way to express the same old process.
DW: Likewise, where does Scripture say anything about the rejection of lost people from salvation?
Esau. Pharaoh. These were "hardened" -- which is being used as a synonym for "rejected" (11.7, 25).
The case of Esau is particularly on point. To outward appearances, he was a "child of Abraham" -- a recipient of the covenant promises, including "I will be your God." So much so, in fact, that Isaac wanted to give him the blessing and birthright.
But his selling of the birthright was an act that *confirmed* his non-elect status (see Heb. 12.15-17). As a result, his apparent status was brought into conformity with his real status -- and he left his family. He was broken off from the covenant community.
Clearly, I haven't yet addressed the objections to my most tenuous point, the actual meaning of the tree metaphor. So more later...
JRC
JRC: (O1) . . . But the objection falters if we see grafting and breaking off as apparent or outward rather than eternal.
DW: I agree; but, have a problem. Paul says 'you stand by faith.' We say that that sentence is the Word of God. That means to me that that is not Paul speaking (of course we know Paul uttered the words which another wrote down for us). So, the declarative statement is not a statement of 'apparent' reality. Please don't take me as being arrogant or derogatory; but, doesn't that view result in a watered down Scripture?
That's a totally fair objection. If I encountered Rom 11.20 in a vacuum, I would have to say that Paul is probably saying that each of them has saving faith.
But the passage does not occur in a vacuum, and the context must shape our understanding of what Paul means.
In so doing, we do not water down Scripture, but affirm its sole right as final authority: Scripture interprets Scripture.
So here are the facts:
(1) "They have been broken off through unbelief"
(2) "You stand (have stood) by faith."
(3) "If you do not persist in God's kindness, you too will be cut off."
(4) "If they do not persist in their unbelief, they will be grafted in again."
(cont.)
What are the hypothetically possible explanations of these facts?
(A) Paul is not speaking of salvific faith, but of some other kind of faith which could come and go.
(B) Paul is speaking of salvific faith which each of the listeners possess. That faith might come and go.
(C) Paul is speaking of salvific faith which each of the listeners apparently possesses. That faith must be persevered in or the listeners will be broken off.
(Other options?)
The most easily dispensed with is (B), on the grounds of election. The elect remnant, chosen from Jews and Gentiles, has been chosen before birth, before doing anything right or wrong. Thus, having genuine faith is a matter of God's grace (the rest are hardened), and losing that genuine faith is therefore impossible.
This reading is confirmed by Eph 1 and 2 and various passages in John (which is cited freely in the anti-Arminian Canons of the Council of Dort).
Option (A) is your favored option. I've indicated that one weakness is linguistic: that "faith" is never used non-salvifically elsewhere in Romans.
Other weaknesses are grammatical. συ is not used as an anthropomorphism for a group anywhere else to my knowledge. Additionally, the antecedent of συ is alleged to be "the entire group of Gentiles", when that group has not been mentioned at all since chapter 1. Grammatically, it is exceptional for the antecedent of a pronoun to be something other than the previous noun that agrees with it.
I'll develop this in full further along, but there's nothing in the words of the passage that would support (A).
(cont.)
So that leaves (C) standing. The major problem with (C), however, is that it introduces the idea of "apparent" or "outward" faith. Is this introduction improper, since Paul has not explicitly labeled their faith as "apparent"? Am I perhaps diluting Paul's intent here?
I argue No, on two grounds.
First, in Rom 11, there is a structural parallel between the branches broken off and the branches grafted in. The first are broken off through unbelief; the second stand through faith. The first have been rejected; the second have been accepted.
Part of the argument wrt the (remnant) branches broken off is that their status wrt election is different from their status wrt current Gospel acceptance.
From the perspective of the Gospel, they have rejected it (and thus are broken off). From the perspective of election, they will some day receive it (and thus be grafted back in).
It seems entirely proper therefore to extend the structural parallelism to the ingrafted branches.
From the perspective of the Gospel, they have accepted it (and are grafted in). But if they do not persevere, it will indicate that from the perspective of election they are in fact rejected (and will be broken off).
So the structure of the text prepares us to accept the possibility of apparent faith.
Second, outside of the text, passages like the parable of the soils prepare us to understand that "faith" is (a) not always genuine, and (b) not always clearly labeled as "external" in the Scripture.
Jesus says: "The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away."
"receiving the word" is a known synonym for "faith." This faith is temporary -- but Jesus does not give it a special designation of "apparent faith" or "false faith." Rather, he describes the falseness of the faith through its lack of perseverance.
Likewise, James 2 describes a false faith, but never labels it explicitly as "false" or "apparent" (he calls it rather "useless" and "dead")
So here in Rom 11.20, a faith that does not persevere could properly be described as "false" or "apparent" faith, without requiring a special label as such. We know that the faith is not genuine because of its behavior (lack of perseverance) rather than because of a special label.
These two lines of reasoning seem to indicate that (C) is a viable option for understanding the faith of 11.20, without distorting or diluting Paul's intent.
JRC
In the discussion about covenants and hardening, this came up:
JRC: Until the coming of Christ, Israelites were apparently in possession of salvation . . .
DW: I never had this view. They were God's chosen people; not His saved people.
In making this distinction, you are accounting for the fact that not every Israelite was saved, and also for the fact that law-keeping was not the means of salvation.
But the distinction you draw is untenable; a solution must be sought elsewhere, rather than distinguishing "chosen" from "saved."
First, consider the word "chosen." When God declares the Israelites to be "chosen", the Septuagint renders בָּחַ֣ר as εξελεξατο -- "elect."
The Israelites had been declared "elect" by God. Now think about how Paul uses this word "elect." It is universally the case that "the elect" (in Paul) are those who will be saved.
Now, we know that Paul did not consider all Jews to be elect. But that fact does not take away from the basic equivalence of "elect" and "saved"; it merely readjusts our understanding of who, exactly, was elect.
Second, consider the error of the Pharisees. They wrongly believed that their Law-keeping was a means of salvation.
*Why* was this an error? On your account, it was an error because the Mosaic Covenant had nothing to do with individual salvation; it was a national, conditional covenant that preserved the group's status of blessing.
There is much that could be said positively about this view, but the negative is this: it separates Law and salvation too widely.
Consider that Paul in his many diatribes against Law-keeping does not make your argument once, ever.
Instead, for Paul, the Law was all about salvation. It was a tutor to lead men to Christ. It was "added because of transgressions", to bring men to repentance and faith.
And most importantly, it *was necessary for Jesus to fulfill the righteous requirements of the Law in order for us to be saved.*
This last point is crucial. If the Law was only a national covenant of blessing, then Jesus did not have to die on the cross.
If on the other hand, the Law was something more than a national covenant of blessing, if it was also an individual metric of unrighteousness and of the need for justification through faith, then the thesis that "the Law had nothing to do with salvation" must be modified.
Third, consider that being "God's people" is a phrase directly associated with salvation (hence the Lo-Ammi / Ammi discussion of Hosea). Belonging to God was a synonym for being saved in the OT.
Consider for example how "being saved from trouble" and "being righteous" are intertwined in Ps. 21 - 26. For David, there was a seamless continuity between being a part of God's covenant and genuinely fearing the Lord (Ps. 25.14). Israel was God's people -- but it was also "the assembly of those who fear the Lord."
In Judges, Israel is saved physically from the Philistines, but at the same time it is rescued (at least partially) from its sin.
So being "saved" and being "God's people" went hand-in-hand.
Now, we look back in hindsight, with the benefit of the prophets, and recognize that not all of "God's people" deserved that name. Being Jewish and circumcised was not enough for genuine salvation.
So how do we express that fact?
The solution is not to place a hard wall of separation between "saved" and "God's people." The Scripture unites those two ideas, and let not man put asunder what God has joined!
Rather, the solution is to recognize that in Israel, there were those who were genuinely "God's people" -- Ammi, the remnant -- and those who were along for the ride -- Lo-Ammi.
Thus, two perspectives: to man's eye, all who were circumcised and who obeyed the forms of worship considered themselves to be God's people. To God's eye, only the truly εξελεκτουσιν who had justifying faith were saved. And only they were truly His people.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
I just got home from church and saw your latest input. I simply have to apologize for taking so long to respond to your last series. Things have been busy here (an excuse!) but I have been giving a response a lot of thought. I am wearing out Chapters 9-11 in my electronic Bible.
Nevertheless, I have been having great difficulty in finding a way to respond that is not just a repetition of what I have already said. Also, you have put so much on the table that I am resisting responding until I can cover all of it. Otherwise, some of it is going to get lost. Have I made enough excuses already? :)
I have not forgotten you nor given up trying to straighten you out!!! Alas, I will send you a comprehensive response as soon as I possibly can. In the mean time, I keep pondering all that you have said.
Your friend,
David
Hi Jeff,
OK, you have tempted me and I have fallen. So, I am going to respond to your last input before I finish my current response.
Let me just refer to two instances where my NASB OT says that God has chosen somebody. In Deuteronomy 7:6 God clearly calls Israel His chosen people. The word is as you note in your comment bachar. In none of the cases that I saw this word can I see that salvation is in view. Now, if we go to Genesis 18:19 we find God saying that He chose Abraham. This word is yada which has the meaning of know. This is talking about salvation. So, if the LXX used elected for bachar I don't know what to say. But, is the LXX Scripture?
JC: They (Pharisees) wrongly believed that their Law-keeping was a means of salvation.
DW: Law keeping WAS a means of salvation. BUT, law keeping meant keeping all of them all the time. The Pharisees thought they were doing that; they weren't; they couldn't.
JC: On your account, it was an error because the Mosaic Covenant had nothing to do with individual salvation; it was a national, conditional covenant that preserved the group's status of blessing.
DW: Clearly, I overstated. What I meant is that no human ever achieved salvation through keeping the law. Of course, Jesus did; but, He is the only one.
I do not think that the MC 'preserved the group's status of blessing.' They never kept the law to a degree that would have merited keeping them in blessing. It was pure grace on God's part that he didn't spew them out long before they rejected Jesus.
JC: Instead, for Paul, the Law was all about salvation.
DW: I really do agree with all you listed here about the law. I apologize for giving the impression that I thought there was no connection between law and salvation. That was not my intention.
JC: If the Law was only a national covenant of blessing, then Jesus did not have to die on the cross.
DW: OH MY. . . I am beginning to think that I am using English as if it is my second or third language. I would never have intended to convey that message. I am not saying I didn't say this; only that I can't find where I did.
JC: Rather, the solution is to recognize that in Israel, there were those who were genuinely "God's people" -- Ammi, the remnant -- and those who were along for the ride -- Lo-Ammi.
DW: God just says that Israel is His people. You are adding terms like 'genuine' and 'truly.' Of course there were always saved and unsaved in ethnic Israel. But, taken together, God calls them His people, except where He is talking about judging them for a while.
To whom was the Law given? Was the Law given to only the Ammi? Weren't the Lo-Ammi also supposed to follow the law? Wasn't all of ethnic Israel supposed to follow the Law? Introducing terms like 'genuine' and 'truly' are certainly correct when one wants to focus on the saved. But, God says they are all His children, even the ugly ones.
JC: Being Jewish and circumcised was not enough for genuine salvation.
DW: Most assuredly! Only blessing. I do hope I never gave you the impression that I didn't agree with this sentiment.
JC: Thus, two perspectives: to man's eye, all who were circumcised and who obeyed the forms of worship considered themselves to be God's people. To God's eye, only the truly εξελεκτουσιν who had justifying faith were saved. And only they were truly His people.
DW: So what if an Israelite thought that he/she had righteousness. Don't we have people today who think the Jesus is their Lord and Savior and they are as lost as can be?
And, sure, only the elect will ever be His people 'truly.' But, even the Lo-Ammi of Israel are still His people. Just not in the same way that a saved person is.
I am not ready to give up on Romans; but, if you read a little further in Hosea you see that he called them 'not His people' when they were under judgment. But, He also talks about a time when they will once more be His people. And to use your term, truly His people. That time is still to come.
Hi David,
I went back and looked at our interactions over the Mosaic Covenant and I think I've over-read your comments a bit. I apologize.
But also, I'm fuzzy on your thoughts about the Mosaic Covenant. So I wonder if you could lay out a couple of things to "set me straight" :) ?
Here's what you said:
DW: The Mosaic Covenant clearly spells out the 'law keeping' part of the land promise. They didn't need it in Genesis. They needed it as they were about to enter the land.
DW: Well, since they broke that covenant, they are no longer his Mosaic covenant people except in an historical sense. However, there are those other eternal covenants that He made with them, Abrahamic, Palestinian, Davidic, etc. And, so they are indeed still His covenant people.
DW: When God made the conditional Mosaic Covenant with lost and sinful Israel, they were every bit His covenant people as any people could be (i.e., He had a covenant with them, ethnic Israel). But, certainly not in a salvific sense.
DW: The Mosaic Law was given long after God had made all of the eternal unchanging promises to Israel. The law was not an eternal covenant with Israel but rather a conditional covenant. They broke it and failed.
DW: Did God ever make an Old Covenant (the Mosaic Covenant) with the Church? Of course not. He made it with the physical nation of Israel. Then how can He make a New Covenant with the Church?
Here's my view of DW's view of the Mosaic Covenant:
(1) It is independent of the other covenants in the sense that one can be a member of one covenant (say, the AC) without being a member of the other (say, the MC).
(2) It was a conditional covenant in contrast to the AC.
(3) It was a national covenant in that it was made with an entire nation.
(4) "Being God's people" under the Mosaic covenant was not "being God's people" in a salvific sense.
(5) Israel as a nation broke the Mosaic covenant at some point (when? how?).
Good so far? Can more be said? Is there *any* relationship between the AC and the MC? The MC and the NC?
Thanks,
Jeff
DW: Let me just refer to two instances where my NASB OT says that God has chosen somebody. In Deuteronomy 7:6 God clearly calls Israel His chosen people. The word is as you note in your comment bachar. In none of the cases that I saw this word can I see that salvation is in view. Now, if we go to Genesis 18:19 we find God saying that He chose Abraham. This word is yada which has the meaning of know. This is talking about salvation. So, if the LXX used elected for bachar I don't know what to say.
This is a very interesting question that deserves further examination. I'll try to do some word study on my end. What's interesting is that there is not a 1-1 mapping of "bachar" to a single word in Greek. So that raises the question, "Why?"
It's not too surprising, since Hebrew vocabulary tends to be less precise than Greek. But still and all, how is election viewed in the OT? How does that affect our view of election in the NT?
DW: But, is the LXX Scripture?
Yes, mostly. It was a translation of Scripture, so it has the same status as our NIV or NASB today. Moreover, it was the translation used most frequently by the NT authors (incl. Paul) in their quotations of the OT, so it provides important insight into the historical context of the meanings of their words.
Now, the LXX is a translation, so it gets things wrong at times.
And, the apocrypha are included in it, so that we need not believe that the entire LXX is Scripture (just as many including myself do not believe that Mark 16.9 - 20 are Scripture).
Nevertheless, because it is quoted by the NT authors so frequently, it is a very useful guide to their thoughts.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for fixing access to the comments. It is working much better now.
JC: Here's my view of DW's view of the Mosaic Covenant:
(1) It is independent of the other covenants in the sense that one can be a member of one covenant (say, the AC) without being a member of the other (say, the MC).
DW: I really do feel badly about having to ask 'what is a member?' Even after all of our discussion of this, I really don't know how to define 'member.'
Sorry to repeat myself; but, I consider those with whom the covenant was ratified/made/enacted as parties to the covenant. God, the Father, is always a party. And those who receive benefits and/or incur the obligations of the covenant as the recipients of the covenant. Of course, a party to the covenant and a recipient can be one and the same; but, this is not necessary.
So, the AC was made with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus, i.e., these four are parties to the covenant. The recipients, to varying degrees, are ALL people. The MC did not involve Abraham, for example, in any manner. National Israel is the only party to the MC and also the only recipient.
JC: (2) It was a conditional covenant in contrast to the AC.
DW: Agree
JC: (3) It was a national covenant in that it was made with an entire nation.
DW: Agree
JC: (4) "Being God's people" under the Mosaic covenant was not "being God's people" in a salvific sense.
DW: Agree
JC: (5) Israel as a nation broke the Mosaic covenant at some point (when? how?).
DW: They continually broke it. They went through periods of judgment for their breaking it and also 'second chances' to follow it. It's ultimate dissolution began with the rejection of Jesus and culminated with the destruction of the temple in 70AD.
JC: Can more be said?
DW: Always. I, of course, am no expert.
JC: Is there *any* relationship between the AC and the MC?
DW: The MC applies while the Jews are in their land. That land was given to them in the AC. Other than the fact that the nation was a direct descendant of Abraham, I can't think of any other important connections between the two covenants.
JC: The MC and the NC?
DW: Both are made with the same party, national Israel (and not 'true' Israel). Obviously, the parties are not the same living individuals since quite a bit of time separates the enactment of the two covenants. A result of the NC is that all Israel will be saved quite similarly to the way you and I understand salvation. That was most assuredly not true for the MC.
JC: But still and all, how is election viewed in the OT? How does that affect our view of election in the NT?
DW: These are really good questions. To be quite honest, I don't have a clue. But, I am going to think about it.
Finally, regarding the LXX. We are in agreement. Translations are man made. Manuscripts are just man made copies. What we have is very, very good; but, it is not exactly what God originally gave us. However, I think we have enough to follow our Lord. On the other hand, there is plenty to talk about regarding what it all means.
DW: Thanks for fixing access to the comments. It is working much better now.
Blogger fixed it somehow. I'm happy too. I had a kludge: bookmarking the *second* page of comments. But it was a pain...
JRC
I don't know whether this would pile on or help lighten your load. If the latter, go for it; if not, please disregard or postpone.
Perhaps it might be helpful if I give some specific objections to the group interpretation of Rom 11. That way, you could clarify or rebut them and so establish your position.
I've mentioned some of these already, so it's a matter of organizing into a concise form.
(O1) The group interpretation relies on συ being a personification of the entire group of Gentiles.
Yet this violates the basic method of reading pronouns, which usually requires that the pronoun refer to the antecedent.
The peculiarity here, of course, is that the antecedent ("you Gentiles" v. 13 -- which we agree is the Gentiles in the Roman church) is plural, while our pronoun in v. 17 is singular.
I have suggested, apparently along with Robertson, that the correct reading is that συ is being used as a representative of the group whom Paul is addressing: "you Gentiles."
You on the other hand wish for συ to refer to something completely different, something previously unintroduced: the group of Gentiles, personified.
What motivates this? How would the Gentile readers of Romans possibly understand, "Ah! The second person singular. This must be a personification of the entire group of Gentiles"?
Thus the antecedent objection: the entire group of Gentiles is not being addressed; hence, it cannot function as the antecedent of συ.
(O2) The group interpretation requires the entire group of Gentiles to "have stood by faith", which is not attested in Scripture.
(a) When are groups as units said to have faith in Scripture?
If the individual members have faith could this make sense. But clearly, every Gentile does not have faith.
So somehow, the whole group of Gentiles "has stood by faith" while yet the vast, vast majority of Gentiles do not possess faith.
I know of no place in Scripture that speaks in this way about any group.
(b) And more specifically, the Gentiles are nowhere said to have faith, as a group.
Thus, the group faith objection: groups cannot have faith, except in the sense that its members have faith. The group of Gentiles, in general, fail to have faith and therefore cannot be said to "have stood by faith."
(O3) Parallel structure requires the Gentiles to be treated as individuals, just as the Jews are.
The Jews as a group are broken up in this passage. Those individuals who have had faith remain on the tree. Those who did not have been broken off.
Hence, for the Jews, the group is not being treated as a group.
By parallel structure, we should expect also that the Gentiles would be treated according to their faith: attached if in faith, broken off if not (and thus argues Paul in vv. 19-22).
Thus: the parallel structure objection: Since the Jews are not being treated as a single group, neither are the Gentiles.
(cont.)
(O4) The group interpretation disconnects vv. 17 - 24 from the larger context.
Paul's discussion of the fate of Israel begins in ch. 9 with the discussion of election and the resultant faith of the elect in ch. 10.
This culminates in a discussion in ch. 11 in which Paul distinguishes between the elect and the hardened, some of whom are temporarily hardened.
What does this discussion have to do with a non-saving group-faith of the Gentiles?
Thus: The contextual objection: the group interpretation fits poorly with the larger context.
(O5) and final: The group interpretation requires the "group faith" of the Gentiles to be non-salvific, whereas "faith" in the rest of Romans is salvific faith.
This is more or less self-explanatory and is a simple matter of word usage: the πιστις group is used 50+ times in Romans. In each case, the use is obviously salvific, or likely salvific. (Note that the faith by which Abraham received the Promise is the same faith by which we are justified, suggesting that the Abrahamic Covenant is also salvific). Faith is the instrument of justification -- which indeed is the point of Romans 10: that unbelieving Israelites have failed to receive the Gospel by faith and therefore failed to be justified, and thus failed to be saved.
How is it then that here, in this one place, that Paul jumps ship and speaks of a faith that is non-salvific in nature?
Thus, the non-salvific faith objection: The group interpretation requires faith to be non-salvific, whereas faith elsewhere in Romans is salvific.
---
I hope that these objections provide a means of moving the discussion forward. I look forward to your reply.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
This is just in response to the last two posts which, by the way, only help and do not in any way add to my load. The main reason for the long delay is a problem with our home owners association and local electric utility over easements. Being in the south, all of the involved individuals are 'good Christians.' (note: I don't believe any of them are Presbyterians!) But, self serving corruption is rampant. This is one for Perry Mason and not me!
I continue to marvel at the way you can take a vast amount of data and coalesce it into a simple straightforward and extremely astute summary.
I will try not to provide any objections here. (I continue to work on your last 'big' response and that is where I will continue to joust with this windmill). In the mean time, let me just say this about your objections:
O1 is excellent.
O2 is excellent.
O3 is hard for me to accept.
O4 is a partial yes for me; but, difficulties still remain in the details.
O5 is excellent.
So, why am I still being such a pain about this? "Good question, David." :)
I'll try to answer that in my next response which I do hope will be before He returns.
Hi Jeff,
While I continue to work on a response and I could use a little (an understatement!) help!
To whom is Paul talking in chapter 11? The answer to this just keeps coming up as crucial to either of our understandings. Is there any way to put a stake in the ground on this question?
Considering verse 15, "For if their rejection be the reconciliation of the world, what will [their] acceptance be but life from the dead?"
In what manner can rejection of either 'A' or 'B' be considered 'the reconciliation of the world?' Might 'their rejection' be WHAT was rejected, i.e., Jesus, rather than WHO was rejected, i.e., 'A' or 'B'?
As I have tried to show previously, verses 12 and 15 are repetitions of one another. If so, then this same consideration would also apply to verse 12.
Finally, considering verse 18, "[remember that] it is not you who supports the root, but the root [supports] you."
Wouldn't this mean that this one individual Gentile professor might be so arrogant as to actually believe that he, all by himself, might support this whole structure (including Jesus if your view is the correct one) containing all of the Israelite and the Gentile branches???
Yes, it is the sticking point. I would say that Paul is addressing the Gentiles in the church in Rome. I would argue that v. 13 specifies the subset ("you Gentiles") of his previous audience, the church in Rome.
I agree that v. 15 repeats v. 12.
You raise the possibility that "their rejection" might mean "their rejection of Jesus" rather than "God's rejection of them."
I think the second is primarily in view, but they are not mutually exclusive. The point of being hardened is that
* God has ordained before the foundation that they not be saved (just yet), so that
* They do not receive the Gospel by faith.
So the rejection is mutual.
So are these temporarily hardened folk part of A or B?
*That's* the two perspectives I've been talking about. In actual fact (God's point of view), the ones who will be reattached are part of A. But for now, they act and seem like part of B. They are not cleanly known (by us) as part of either A or B.
("As far as the gospel is concerned ... as far as election is concerned...")
---
Why does their temporary rejection mean reconciliation of the world? Because the time during which they are temporarily rejected, the Gospel is going to the Gentiles (Rom 11.11; cf. Acts 28.25-28). So their rejection (which is mutual!) is "the reconciliation of the world" in terms of its effect.
---
V. 18 is a rhetorical flourish, like my saying to my students, "Your homework won't do itself!" No one would think so; it just makes the point.
The actual danger for the Gentiles is to become arrogant wrt the Jews: "We were smart enough to receive Jesus. Why weren't you?" This is what Paul is warning them against.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
Well, I have finished my normal point - counterpoint approach and decided that I would start off with a brief a summary of a few recurring issues.
His People
This is a reference to ethnic Israel
a) Chapter 10 ends with a direct reference to ethnic Israel as a 'disobedient and obstinate people.'
b) Paul tells us about how Elijah pleads with God against ethnic Israel.
c) God responds that He had kept a remnant of ethnic Israel.
d) Paul shows that he too is an ethnic Israelite.
e) The word reject has the meaning of no longer paying attention to.
e) Paul's argument is that the existence of a remnant shows that God continues to pay attention to ethnic Israel.
f) Israel is God's chosen people (Deut 7:6). God foreknew them. And, yes, He also foreknew each elect individual who makes up the remnant.
g) The remnant are not the ones who committed the sin leading to breaking off. It was ethnic Israel who did this.
h) The Israelite remnant are those chosen for eternal life from out of an ethnic people that was chosen for many things as a group.
i) Chapter 11 is not 'about' the remnant.
two perspectives
There are not two perspectives in Scripture.
a) The Scriptures are God's Word.
b) As such, every message is true.
c) Our perspectives are always mixed with error.
d) Scripture does not pander to this. It simply states truth.
e) The idea of apparent faith is simply to rename false faith (not faith at all) with a more pleasing term.
f) Faith does not depend on our ability to discern it.
g) Paul does not know these Romans and does not have to guess as to whether or not they have saving faith. He simply addresses the letter to the saved.
h) To read Scripture through a filter of man's perspective must lead to error.
Recipients of the letter
Paul is only writing to believers.
a) The first part of chapter 1 makes this point.
b) There is a strong indication that he is only writing to Gentile believers; but, I won't press that.
c) An interpretation of any verse which has the recipient being non-elect must be in error.
d) For example, 11:22 says "you also will be cut off" If 'you' is a person being addressed (even if only as a representative person), 'you' must represent saved people. Thus, 'you' can not be a person being addressed.
JC: . . . Paul *does* specifically divide the Jews into elect and non-elect, twice (ch. 9 and ch. 11). Can we have agreement here?
DW: Absolutely. Actually, I didn't think we had ever disagreed that individuals (Jew or Gentile) are either elect or non-elect. I know Paul says there is a remnant; but, he is answering the question 'Is 'B' rejected?' He is not teaching election or that any group can be split in two. Even if he were to be answering the question 'Is 'A' rejected?' (a non-sequitur!) he would not be teaching election.
Paul is teaching something very different here than election. That being, that God has not rejected ethnic Israel and the fact that there still is a remnant is his proof. And, oh yes, He had previously chosen them, the nation, for exceptional blessing. How can we not say that they, ethnic Israel, as a group, were indeed foreknown by God? Please note: I don't mean 'foreknown by God as all being elect for salvation.'
Certainly, Paul did not have to tell the Romans that God had not rejected the ones that He had previously elected to eternal life, 'A'. But, if there is not a 'B,' then of what is 'A' a remnant?
There can be no question that the Israelites got lots of stuff wrong. Son-of-a-gun, that almost sounds like us today!! Most of them incorrectly thought they were righteous in God's eyes. Because indeed they were a 'chosen' people. Chosen to receive many blessings and to be used of God in ways that the other nations were simply not. Take a look at Deut. 7:6. Is there a Scriptural interpretation of this verse that does not have Israel as a chosen nation?
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: Paul's argument . . . . is to undermine their ('B') false belief . . . and replace it with a true belief.
DW: It would not seem to make sense to try to straighten out the Jews by making an argument to the Roman Gentiles? Paul did deal at the beginning of the book with the fact that all (Jew and Gentile) are under condemnation. So, is this section about clarifying the Jewish or the Gentile situation?
JC: Alone of the peoples of the earth, Jews in Paul and Jesus' time believed themselves to be elect by virtue of their parentage and by virtue of circumcision.
DW: In this they were right! But, this national election did not include individual salvation nor absence of sin. At least not at that time! In the future (hopefully not too distant!), yes. We still have this study of individual election in the OT to deal with.
We agree that salvation demands that an individual possess saving faith regardless of who their parents might be. And, the only ones who would possess this saving faith were the ones among them that God had sovereignly placed in the 'A' group.
Chapter 11 starts with the rhetorical question about 'His people.' Why would anybody in Paul's audience (assuming they understood Paul) think that God had rejected those whom he had elected in eternity past? Now, if 'His people' equals sinful Israel, that is a perfectly reasonable question. Actually, aren't there a whole lot of reformed Christians today who believe that Israel has been rejected? So, I guess we really can't blame the Romans for questioning this also.
If His people equals the remnant, it makes no sense. Do you really believe that the fate of the God's elect was a problem to the Romans? On the other hand, Israel had sent the Christ to the cross. Now, their being in trouble is a very reasonable consideration.
It's all about God's gracious choice. He graciously chose Israel to be His people. The results of this are clear (9:4-5, for example); but, why does election or choice by God have to just mean salvation? It is only the elect among them that were chosen for that. Can't God choose (elect) a nation for one purpose and choose (elect) some in that nation for another purpose?
JC: Now carry your logic to its conclusion: A is the subset, the remnant of B that has not been rejected. There isn't a B by grace, only an A.
DW: 'B' absolutely exists by grace; surely, you must see this. Israel had nothing to distinguish itself or warrant the blessings of 9:4-5. They were simply a scraggly bunch of slaves when God took them out of Egypt. Not much to look at.
God chose Israel for this entirely on the basis of grace. Yet, eternal life is not in the list of 9:4-5. For it is not part of the definition of Israel as His people. That is left only for 'A,' the elect remnant. When that is all that is left of 'B' the two come together and Israel is then His people in the full sense of the term.
JC: Out of the group B, it is A towards whom God shows favor, whom he has preserved, and whom He will save.
DW: Again, the same thing. Did God not show favor to 'B' when He gave them any one of the items listed in 9:4-5?
JC: My paraphrase: "They look like they are all rejected, but there is still an elect remnant among them. Do not be ignorant: appearances are different from reality. The reality is a mystery that has yet to be revealed."
DW: Romans 11 is comparing two groups, Israelites and Gentiles. It is about the broad sweep of God's plan. It has Jew and Gentile moving in and out of His grace in a completely unreasonable manner. A plan which man could never have devised and which leads Paul to proclaim God's greatness at the end of the chapter. And, the mystery is about the timing not the remnant.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Feel free to ignore the following few paragraphs. I just can't help myself! :) I'll indicate when it is safe for you to get back into the water.
The Abrahamic Covenant is the root, the source, of all blessing for Jew and Gentile. The tree is the conduit or location of God's blessing. Romans 9:4-5 lists the blessings that ethnic Israel had already received. Individual salvation is not on the list. Israel, the branches, was connected to the tree, its tree. BUT, connection to the tree does not guarantee individual salvation.
All those who were broken off did not believe. But, what's the big deal? Israelites had done that for hundreds of years prior to the breaking off. Oh ya, they professed belief, so God kept them around. No, no, no. He kept them around because He had a plan for them as He had promised the fathers.
Furthermore, they had been branches on the tree in that state. And, of course, they never lost saving faith. So, not having saving faith, in and of itself, is not grounds for being broken off from the tree. The unbelief that Paul offers as the reason for the breaking off was not saving faith. It was rejection of their Messiah as their king.
How did they get on the tree in the first place? You would say profession, I guess. Well, the little infant got on the tree because he/she was an Israelite. The baby professed nothing. God never said that the circumcision would only hold if the parents really believed. They just had to do it. So we are back to the parents professing faith is equivalent to a person professing faith. Wow. Where do we find that in Scripture?
Israel, the nation, rejected Jesus. (Of course a nation can't do anything; the individual people are the actors.) As a result, God did something to Israel. Although they had been hardening themselves since their beginning, He brought the process to its conclusion. They were now blinded or hardened in a more definitive sense. Some of them were broken off; but, not all of them.
Now, if the parallelism is lost, the meaning is too. Gentiles, as a people, were now grafted in among the remaining Israelites. Not because they believed or professed belief; but, because of God's sovereign action. Part of Israel had been completely hardened. The rest were with the Gentiles on the tree. God's blessing would flow to all of these. But, this is not the mystery of which Paul speaks here.
Rather, the mystery is that at a point in time, all of the Gentiles that God has chosen will be in the Church. I hope you agree that there has to be such a number (and the respective individuals) in God's mind. At that time, He will even the playing field. Israel will be grafted back in to her tree along with the Gentiles. God will then begin a process of cleansing that will lead to 'all Israel' being saved. Just for the record, a lot of Gentiles will also be saved although neither of these people groups will be in the church as we know it.
OK, you can start reading again. . . . I'm through venting. :)
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Regarding the discussion of the doctrine of election you see in Chapter 9. Surprise! I see a different message there. Chapter 9 is talking about the sovereignty of God of which election is just one aspect.
JC: An elect remnant can be called from any group whatsoever.
DW: Yes; but, as you say here there needs to be a group! There are no more Hittites or Sodomites. There can be no remnant today from those groups. What I have been trying to convey is that if 'B' were rejected so as to disappear off of God's radar screen, then there could be no 'A'. Clearly, Israel's partial breaking off represented rejection in some sense; but, not so as to disappear and not be able to bring forth a remnant to ultimately receive the promises. That is the point I see Paul making. Not that the remnant has not been rejected; that ought to be obvious?
You mention Ruth as the remnant of the Moabites. Is there a Moabite remnant today? Was there a Moabite remnant in Paul's time? The Moabites were rejected. Sorry, there is no comparison there to the Israelite remnant. There has to be a 'B' for there to be an 'A'. At the time of Ruth, there was still a Moab. Not today!
JC: Since this is clearly a problem, you have introduced a particular view of eschatology: that ethnic Israel will be cleansed by the tribulation until the only Jews left alive are believers (thus transforming B into A).
DW: I only wish I could take credit for seeing this in Scripture. Alas, I too stand on the shoulders of giants. By the way, isn't the 'acceptance' of verse 15 a future happening at the time Paul wrote (actually, even today)? And, isn't the remnant of Paul's time by definition already 'accepted?' So, whomever is going to be accepted in the future they are NOT the living remnant of that time. Those people have been dead for a very long time now.
How do you understand 11:26-27? If the deliverer takes away all of their sin and removes ungodliness from Jacob, how can there be anything left but an 'A' that is equivalent to a 'B?' And, I am pretty sure that there are no Roman Gentiles in 'Jacob.'
JC: That is, your reading here of "B" supports your eschatology and not the other way round.
DW: Ahhhh, if we could be sure that we had no erroneous presuppositions influencing our current understandings. Anyway, I know we both think our view is consistent with all of Scripture. So, I won't point out the obvious. :)
JC: You suggested that Rom 9.4-5 was a clear statement of national election, but Paul does not use that term there.
DW: Absolutely true; the phrase, national election, does not appear in all of Scripture. (Please forgive this snide comment; but, as you know, the term Trinity does not show up either.)
How did God know to whom to give the Mosaic Law? Did He not have to make a choice among many different people groups? What is so offensive in saying that he 'chose' or 'elected' the Israelites as 9:4-5 so clearly says? There is no hint in this that He saved them all. He simply chose them to be the people through whom He worked.
Another thought, isn't it an amazing coincidence that the Messiah was an Israelite? Of course not! God 'chose' Israel to bring Him forth. To deny that Israel (and not just 'true' Israel) was God's chosen people is . . . . well, I guess I have said it already. :)
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: Specifically, the "grafting in" process is a metaphor for being saved. The most direct proof is the direct follow-up between vv. 24 and 25.
JC: well, specifically, for being saved as far as we can see (to outward appearance).
DW: Well, I had crafted an exquisite rebuttal to the first statement above and then came upon your amplification in the second statement further down in your response. Alas, you will never have the benefit of my first effort! :)
What exactly is the meaning of being 'saved to outward appearance?' When does this salvation end? Who is the one who says it is ended? I can't imagine how this happens when man is the 'observer' since God is the one who does the breaking off and He always knows the truth of the profession. So what triggers Him to do the breaking off? A vote of a group of church elders which may itself include false professors? I think not.
I see your view leading to the following:
a) Gentiles are represented as the branches on a wild olive tree apparently there simply by birth.
b) Israelites are represented likewise as branches on a cultivated/natural/producing olive tree there simply by birth and/or if a male then adherence to the rite of circumcision.
c) An unnatural thing was done to you, i.e., you (a Gentile branch and also a member of the Roman church), based on your profession of faith, were broken off of your tree and then grafted into the cultivated olive tree.
d) Given the difficulty involved in this, imagine how much easier it is for natural olive branches (Israelites) to once more be grafted into their own cultivated olive tree if they should profess faith in Jesus.
e) But, note that if you as an individual do not stay in God's kindness, then since you never did have saving faith, you will be broken off of the tree.
First, does that accurately capture your view?
If so then here is my problem. Paul is only writing to Gentile believers. So, even if this 2nd singular is a representative of them, it still leads to a loss of salvation. Sorry, it can't be.
JC: In short, taking Paul to refer to B, the ethnic Israelites, in vv. 11 - 32, raises (IMHO) insuperable difficulties. -- I hope this critique is not too aggressive?
DW: Of course you haven't been too aggressive; just very insightful. However, if you accuse me of driving a wedge between grafting in and salvation; may I accuse you of using 'apparent' to glue grafting in to salvation. For, that is the only way to make sense of the breaking off in your view. If the tree is the place of God's blessing, then we don't have to resort to introducing man's perspective into God's Word.
Is there any way to support the idea that Israel did not stand in God's blessing for many hundreds of years before the cross? We have Romans 9:4-5 which lists the various blessings that Israel received. Can we come up with any such list for the Gentiles during that same period of history? If not, then can we not conclude that for hundreds of years before the cross the gentile race was not in a place of blessing vis-a-vis God? (Even though I am fairly sure Gentile farms received rain during this time.)
None of this means that individual Gentiles may not have been saved during that period. Just that the Gentile race was not particularly blessed as a race. Especially in comparison to what Israel received.
Romans 11 is comparing the Jewish and the Gentile races. There was a time when the Jewish people were in the place of blessing (grafted in). The Gentiles were not; they were on their own tree. An unproductive one at that, having no fruit. Is this so hard to accept?
Well if not, then what is so hard to accept about a reversal. For Paul tells us that the Jews have been broken off, removed from the place of blessing and Gentiles have been grafted in, placed in the place of blessing along with some of the Israelites. Why can't God have turned the tables on what He had set up previously?
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: The problem was not with the promises, but the understanding thereof.
DW: Yes, the Jews were darkened in their understanding. I fully agree with you on that. I just don't think that is Paul's message here. It certainly was earlier in Romans.
JC: There, I argued that the context strongly supports a different meaning of "know the Lord" than the standard meaning
DW: I never cease to be amazed at the depth of the Scriptures. We can never plumb them completely. I remember this discussion. And, I understand your point about 'novelty' bearing a much heavier burden of proof. All I can say is that I am trying to carry that load; weak back and all. (As an aside, I have briefly looked at 1 Samuel again and find myself in the salvific language camp. Not however because that phrase is used elsewhere in a salvific manner. I know that with his parentage and present 'job' he clearly knew 'about' the Lord in verse 3:7.)
JC: The case of Esau is particularly on point.
DW: Esau was NOT a "child of Abraham" just to outward appearances. That was indeed his station in life. Isaac was definitely his father. And, Abraham was definitely Isaac's father. Nevertheless, God sovereignly chose Jacob for the line of promise. Hebrews simply confirms that Esau was a sinner. There is nothing here about 'appearances.' Scripture tells us exactly what went on and we are not left to figure it out for ourselves based on our own faulty perceptions.
JC: So here are the facts:
(1) "They have been broken off through unbelief"
(2) "You stand (have stood) by faith."
(3) "If you do not persist in God's kindness, you too will be cut off."
(4) "If they do not persist in their unbelief, they will be grafted in again."
You then offer 3 possible explanations to choose from. I don't prefer any of them. The great divide here is regarding who is being addressed. You see individuals; I see groups. Chapter 11 starts with 'My people.' Sounds like a group to me.
Earlier in Romans Paul dealt with salvation by faith as regards individuals. He is not here re-initiating any such discussion. This is about 'His people' and the 'Gentiles.' Both are groups. Until that is resolved, we are simply talking past one another.
When Paul refers to Israelites as a whole he uses the 3rd plural; when he refers to Gentile believers in Rome he uses the 2nd plural; and when he refers to the Gentiles as a whole he uses the 2nd singular.
Paul is not talking about apparent or outward anything, because the one who decides to take action (grafting / breaking) is God. He can not be driven to action by false appearances. Just one more time, being on the tree does not in any way presume salvation.
As regards the gospel and its rejection. Israel did not reject the gospel; they rejected their king. That was the 'reason' for their breaking off.
As regards 'apparent' faith. Faith is only apparent to us who have far from perfect discernment. It is never 'apparent' to God and so nothing that He does is driven by false faith. As for Paul, he is only writing to those who have saving faith.
Just because we may have to wait until one renounces their faith to be 'sure' does not mean that anything real is being influenced by this faulty understanding of who has it and who doesn't. Except of course that we think that they are part of the church. The real church has not such members.
Bottom line: Option C is not still standing.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: So are these temporarily hardened folk part of A or B?
DW: We have no indication in Scripture that the hardening of the people in Paul's time is temporary. It is only temporary when the nation of Israel across time is in view.
JC: So their rejection (which is mutual!) is "the reconciliation of the world" in terms of its effect.
DW: I know it is all about semantics; but, . . . . The rejection of Israelites in no way 'causes' the reconciliation of the world. Only Jesus going to the cross causes that. The sin of the nation of Israel led (humanly speaking) to the death of Jesus. But, rejecting Israel can have no bearing on reconciliation of the world. It is God who sovereignly chose to bring the gospel to Gentiles after the cross. He just as easily could have chosen to bring the gospel to all men (Jew and Gentile) equally.
JC: V. 18 is a rhetorical flourish
DW: Only if 'you' is a lone Gentile might this make sense. If you is 'all Gentiles' it is much less of an exaggeration.
Hi David,
Part of your response puzzled me, so I'd like to get some better understanding here.
DW: There are not two perspectives in Scripture.
a) The Scriptures are God's Word.
b) As such, every message is true.
c) Our perspectives are always mixed with error.
d) Scripture does not pander to this. It simply states truth.
e) The idea of apparent faith is simply to rename false faith (not faith at all) with a more pleasing term.
f) Faith does not depend on our ability to discern it.
g) Paul does not know these Romans and does not have to guess as to whether or not they have saving faith. He simply addresses the letter to the saved.
h) To read Scripture through a filter of man's perspective must lead to error.
Much of this was directed at something very different from my proposed "two perspectives", so I think I've probably done a bad job of explaining it.
Specifically, I'm not talking about (deliberately) reading Scripture through a filter; nor about making Scripture something other than true; nor about pandering or renaming false faith with a more pleasing sound.
Instead, I am talking about the fact that Scripture sometimes speaks according to what God sees, and sometimes, according to what we see. Often, when it does so, it alerts us to this fact.
When Scripture speaks concerning man's perspective, it is usually pejoratively. That is, man's perspective is not fully true (in comparison to God's).
Here are some concrete examples:
(1) Jesus warns his followers against false teachers: You will know them by their fruit.
God doesn't need their fruit to know them; He knows the heart. But *people* require an outside metric.
(2) The parable of the wheat and tares specifically compares what we know (plants that resemble one another, which is used as a metaphor for believers and unbelievers who cannot be distinguished from each other), to what God sees (wheat and tares).
(3) The parable of the soils contrasts what we see (plants growing in soil) to what is true about them (their roots).
(4) In our disputed passage here, Paul specifically compares how Israel (or the remnant, it matters not) looks on the outside: as enemies, to how they are seen by God: as the elect.
(And yes, Paul does speak of them in terms of "election" -- I am very puzzled by your denial that election is in view here!)
So what I've been talking about all this time is not "accommodation of error" or any such thing, but a recognition that Scripture deals with both "what we see" and "what God sees" (which is what is really true).
In this passage, regardless of what we conclude about the referents (Israel v. the remnant), it is undeniable that Paul is contrasting two perspectives on the broken-off branches.
So (e) and (f) need some special attention here.
The idea of "apparent faith" has nothing to do with renaming false faith. It has to do with contrasting what we see with what God sees, and acknowledging that what God sees is True, while what we see may not be.
When you walk into church, what you see is the visible church, consisting of people who profess faith. They all, apparently, have faith (though your level of confidence may vary about some of them!).
You, David, are limited to this perspective. Try as you might, you cannot reach into the heart and discern whether their faith is genuine.
This is "apparent faith." It may be genuine; it may not be. But it's all you get to see.
So (f) is off-point. Certainly, faith does not depend on our ability to see it. That's God's issue, and He's entirely capable of handling it.
But our issue, as church members or especially as elders, is to know how and when to exercise discernment. Specifically, we need to exercise discernment in receiving new members, in deciding cases of excommunication, in ordaining leaders.
That requires, in some way, trying to correlate our perspective with Reality -- that is, God's perspective.
We cannot avoid thinking about these two perspectives; and we cannot divorce them either.
DW: Paul is only writing to believers.
a) The first part of chapter 1 makes this point.
b) There is a strong indication that he is only writing to Gentile believers; but, I won't press that.
c) An interpretation of any verse which has the recipient being non-elect must be in error.
d) For example, 11:22 says "you also will be cut off" If 'you' is a person being addressed (even if only as a representative person), 'you' must represent saved people. Thus, 'you' can not be a person being addressed.
This is the lynch pin of your argument, but it is overly confident in its interpretation of Paul's greeting.
First, as we agreed, the letter itself was addressed to and written to and read by the visible Church in Rome. However, it also specifies its recipients as "to all who are in Rome who are loved by God and who are called to be saints..."
This creates a bit of ambiguity, since the actual addressees are the visible Church, while the qualities he mentions are true only of the invisible church.
There are at least three possible solutions here, all of whom are argued for by Biblical inerrantists:
(1) Your reading, that Paul is addressing "to whom it may concern", speaking only to the saved.
(2) That Paul is speaking generally or with a judgment of charity.
(3) That Paul is speaking to them on the basis of their profession of faith: he is speaking to "apparent faith", rather than from God's perspective.
You have asserted that (1) is the only possible reading, on the grounds that only (1) preserves the truth of Scripture.
But this is not self-evident.
Your preference for (1) needs an argument beyond "If not (1), then God is lying." For clearly, we would not hold Calvin to impute a lie to God. And yet he sees (3) as the reading (see his commentary on 11.16-21 in which he speaks of false professors as the objects of the threat).
Not that Calvin is always right; but he is certainly above the charge of imputing a lie to God, or of thinking of Scripture as less than true!
Second, the text of Rom 1 itself casts doubt on (1). Paul says in vv. 13 - 15, "I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles. I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome."
Notice that Paul does not say, "preach the gospel to your neighbors", but "preach the gospel to you." (υμιν τοις εν ρωμη ευαγγελισασθαι -- to evangelize you, the ones in Rome.)
Now how is it that "any reading that has a recipient being a non-believer must be in error", but Paul wants to evangelize his recipients? To have a harvest among them?
Don't we have to conclude that "you" includes some non-believers here in 1.15? And if there, then why are you so certain about chap. 11?
(cont.)
The problem here is that Paul's greetings are ambiguous.
On the one hand, each letter is definitely addressed to a real, physical, visible church.
On the other, they typically ascribe qualities to the recipients that are only true of the members of the invisible church.
Your solution is to have Paul addressing the invisible church within the visible, though he does not know specifically to whom he is writing. That is, his letters are written "to whom it applies", but no names are given or can be given, since Paul does not truly know to whom his words apply. Right?
Consider however the pastoral epistles. Paul is most definitely writing to Timothy and to Titus. Names are known and given!
But here Paul goes with the greetings again. He calls Timothy, "my true son in the faith" (1 Tim 1.2) and Titus too (Tit 1.4).
Even more, Paul says to Tim.
But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness. Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses. -- 1 Tim 6.11-12.
Here Paul ascribes the "calling of eternal life" to Timothy. On what basis? On the basis of his *profession* of faith. His apparent faith.
Paul has no other means than by the evidence presented to apply the labels "true son in the faith" and "man of God" and "called to eternal life."
According to your reading, this should be impossible. Paul is not supposed to use names, ever, to say things like this because he never knows whether or not his statements would be true about any given individual.
And yet there he goes ...
Somehow, we have to account for the ambiguity in Paul's greetings without trying to remove it. The bottom line is that Paul addresses real, visible people, not generic "to whom it may concern" groups.
(cont.)
One more attempt, from Romans 1:
When Paul rejoices that their faith is being proclaimed all over the world, he is rejoicing at what he has heard about what other people have seen in the Romans. He is rejoicing over apparent faith. NOT false faith, but apparent faith.
When Paul "remembers you in my prayers", he is remembering specific people by name in his prayers. Not "to whom it applies", but Alice, Bob, and Charlie.
Now, if "you" in 1.9 and 1.10 refers to specific people, then either
(a) The "you" in 1.9 is a different "you" from 1.7 and 1.8, OR
(b) Paul has somehow gained infallible knowledge of the salvation of these specific people, OR
(c) The "you" in 1.7 and 1.8 is based upon their apparent faith.
Which is it?
JRC
But it seems that he throws in a doubt as to salvation, since he reminds them to beware lest they also should not be spared. To this I answer, — that as this exhortation refers to the subduing of the flesh, which is ever insolent even in the children of God, he derogates nothing from the certainty of faith. And we must especially notice and remember what I have before said, — that Paul’s address is not so much to individuals as to the whole body of the Gentiles, among whom there might have been many, who were vainly inflated, professing rather than having faith. On account of these Paul threatens the Gentiles, not without reason, with excision, as we shall hereafter find again. Calv. Comm 11.16-21.
RE: His People
DW: The word reject has the meaning of no longer paying attention to.
That's an odd meaning. Where does it come from?
DW: Paul's argument is that the existence of a remnant shows that God continues to pay attention to ethnic Israel.
Except that he doesn't use those words.
Paul moves from
(1) Did God reject his people?
(2) No: there is a remnant.
(3) Israel did not obtain something (I think we agree salvation here, right?), but the elect did.
(4) But Israel has not fallen beyond recovery.
There's nothing in here that resembles "the remnant proves that God is still paying attention to ethnic Israel."
DW: i) Chapter 11 is not 'about' the remnant.
This requires clarification! 11.2b - 6 is most certainly about the remnant. And we have already agreed that the "all Israel that is saved" in 11.26 will be the remnant.
What do you mean?
DW: So, is this section about clarifying the Jewish or the Gentile situation?
Both. Specifically, he is speaking in 11 to the Gentiles, clarifying the Jewish situation *so that* they will be clear on their relationship to the Jews (11.19-20,28).
DW: Chapter 11 starts with the rhetorical question about 'His people.' Why would anybody in Paul's audience (assuming they understood Paul) think that God had rejected those whom he had elected in eternity past? Now, if 'His people' equals sinful Israel, that is a perfectly reasonable question.
The question doesn't get at the situation under discussion.
Pretend for a moment that I am a Roman Gentile member of the church. Your unbelieving Jewish cousin is standing before me. What do I think about him?
I might be tempted to think that "the Jews have rejected their Messiah; therefore, they have been rejected by God. Cousin Eli has been rejected by God."
Over against this, Paul says, "no, there is an elect remnant. Do not be arrogant; for if they repent, they will be reattached. You do not know but if cousin Eli is one of the elect."
So the question is not, ever, that God would reject his elect. Rather, it is whether all of the Jews have been broken off forever (except for the ones that profess faith at this time).
And the answer is No.
DW: The unbelief that Paul offers as the reason for the breaking off was not saving faith. It was rejection of their Messiah as their king.
and again,
As regards the gospel and its rejection. Israel did not reject the gospel; they rejected their king. That was the 'reason' for their breaking off.
I'm sorry, but I can't find this in the text anywhere. Quite the contrary: what they rejected was "the gospel" (10.16), and the result was that they failed to obtain what the elect obtained (11.7). Furthermore, their future reattachment is described as being "saved."
Where does this idea that "Israel rejected their king instead of the gospel" come from?
DW: ...may I accuse you of using 'apparent' to glue grafting in to salvation.
I'll accept the charge, but I'm not sure we're still connecting on what that means. You appear to read me as saying that God is fooled or impressed by appearances, which is quite the opposite of what I mean.
DW: For, that is the only way to make sense of the breaking off in your view. If the tree is the place of God's blessing, then we don't have to resort to introducing man's perspective into God's Word.
Well, no. The idea of the two perspectives is right there in the text in 11.28. I'm not "introducing man's perspective" into God's word; it's right there already.
By contrast, introducing the tree as "the place of God's blessing" is *not* there in the text. The tree is never identified in this way. Faith is never used as an instrument of standing into non-salvific blessing. And Israel's reattachment is called "being saved."
David, is it remotely possible that you've eisegeted the "place of blessing" into the tree metaphor?
I would feel a lot more comfortable with your interpretation if you could draw a straight line through the verses and say "here's where my reading stands in the text."
As it is, the various features of your reading, like συ as an anthropomorphism of the group, like the entirety of Gentiles suddenly appearing from nowhere, like "faith" being suddenly non-salvific, like Israel being a group except that different members of the group are treated differently ... all of these don't appear to be motivated by what the text *says*, but rather by a reaction against other possible readings.
Is that possible, or am I being overly pessimistic?
DW: If so then here is my problem. Paul is only writing to Gentile believers. So, even if this 2nd singular is a representative of them, it still leads to a loss of salvation. Sorry, it can't be.
It's the lynch pin again. How are we so certain that Paul's audience includes only believers as God sees them, rather than believers as Paul sees them -- those who apparently have faith?
Should it not rather be the case that the grammar of this passage requires us to seek an antecedent for the pronoun somewhere nearby?
DW: Is there any way to support the idea that Israel did not stand in God's blessing for many hundreds of years before the cross? We have Romans 9:4-5 which lists the various blessings that Israel received. Can we come up with any such list for the Gentiles during that same period of history? If not, then can we not conclude that for hundreds of years before the cross the gentile race was not in a place of blessing vis-a-vis God? (Even though I am fairly sure Gentile farms received rain during this time.)
This might surprise you, but I agree with you that Israel as a nation (family) experienced corporate blessing from God. I also agree that the Gentiles as nations did not experience the same level of corporate blessing. Those things can be true, and yet not relevant to the teaching of Rom 11.
What is Paul talking about? "Blessing"? No. Salvation. In Romans 9 - 11, the heartbreaking issue for Paul is not that Israel has lost her place of blessing, but that she has failed to receive righteousness by faith. It's *all over* these three chapters.
Meanwhile, "national blessing" is nowhere to be found, except obliquely in 9.4; but even there, those blessings are connected to salvation.
And in any event, surely you aren't saying that Israel used to have the covenants, but now the Gentiles do! That would be quite a reversal. ;)
JRC: The case of Esau is particularly on point.
DW: Esau was NOT a "child of Abraham" just to outward appearances.
Paul: In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.
At birth, Esau was regarded by his family as Abraham's offspring. That's why he received the sign of Abraham's covenant.
But *according to this passage*, Esau was *not regarded by God as the offspring of Abraham* in the sense that mattered, in the sense of being a child of the promise.
Nor was Esau an isolated exception. He is used here as Paul's example to prove that "not all are Israel who are descended from Israel" and to prove that "it is [only] the children of the promise who are Abraham's offspring."
You say that Esau was a genuine child of Abraham. Paul says otherwise.
If "apparent" bothers you as a term, perhaps you could suggest some other term we could use that would get at the fact that Esau was a child according to physical descent, but not a child according to salvation *or* the covenant?
JRC
Hi Jeff,
What better way to spend a rainy Lord's day than studying Calvin?
This is an excursus into Calvin in response to your noting his commentary in your last post. I hadn't thought to look to him (shame on me!); but, I am ever so glad that you mentioned him. The only commentary I have on Romans is one by somebody by the name of Rene A. Lopez. Usually, I find him quite helpful; but, alas, I didn't find myself in much agreement with him on chapter 11.
I don't want to be guilty of cherry picking Calvin; but, he says it much better than I have been able to so far. Also, I would rather discuss Scripture than Calvin; but, he was such a brilliant theologian. At any rate, I thought I would just point out where I see key points addressed on which we have not (yet) been able to agree. I will now continue to work on a response to your last post . . .
Romans 11:1-6
"This objection is what he anticipates in this passage, and he so modifies what he had previously said respecting the repudiation of the Jews, that no one might think that the covenant formerly made with Abraham is now abrogated, or that God had so forgotten it that the Jews were now so entirely alienated from his kingdom, as the Gentiles were before the coming of Christ."
DW: That is, the AC is still in play with the chosen line of Abraham. It is they who are not rejected. Of course, part of this line are the 'elect' among them who are the only ones who also receive eternal life.
Romans 11:7-10
"Paul labors to prove here, that not those were blinded, who so deserved by their wickedness, but who were rejected by God before the foundation of the world."
DW: That is, it is not the remnant who are blinded or hardened.
Romans 11:11-15
"You will be greatly hindered in understanding this argument, except you take notice, that the Apostle speaks sometimes of the whole nation of the Jews, and sometimes of single individuals;"
DW: Getting the 'they,' 'their,' and 'them' right is crucial to the correct understanding of this chapter (as well as all other Scripture, of course)
"he asks the question, whether the Jewish nation had so stumbled at Christ,"
DW: Right, it is not the remnant which stumbled.
"Here he justly denies that the salvation of the Jews was to be despaired of, or that they were so rejected by God, that there was to be no future restoration, or that the covenant of grace, which he had once made with them, was entirely abolished, since there had ever remained in that nation the seed of blessing."
DW: He seems to see this section being about ethnic Israel and not about the remnant stumbling so as to fall. I wish he had not included the word 'entirely' here; but, other than that it all seems to be right on.
"They then, who perversely stumbled at Christ, fell and fell into destruction; yet the nation itself had not fallen, so that he who is a Jew must necessarily perish or be alienated from God."
DW: This is a key point that I have been trying (unsuccessfully) to make. Regardless of how heinous the crime of any Israelite (or even a great many of them), God had made promises in the AC that would still be fulfilled just as He had laid them out. Ultimately, they would be His people in the fullest sense of the term and receive the promises. In the mean time, only a small portion of them (the remnant) would be His people in the full sense. In the watered down sense, all of them would continue in this role and remain a viable (though not particularly blessed) group from which to take the remnant at each point in history.
"Since then it was the Lord’s purpose that Israel should be provoked to emulation, they were not so fallen as to be precipitated into eternal ruin"
DW: Ethnic Israel is the group that is to ultimately be jealous and 'return' to the Lord. But, that has not yet happened and this jealousy does not refer to the remnant of Paul's time.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
"but that God’s blessing, despised by them (ethnic Israel), might come to the Gentiles (all of them)"
and
"that the Jews, seeing the Gentiles introduced into their place (of blessing; not salvation for each Jew), will be touched with grief for their divorce, and seek reconciliation."
DW: It is about blessing given the Jew, taken from the Jew, given to the Gentile, and ultimately given back to the Jew too. That is the grand sweep that overwhelms Paul at the end of the chapter.
"The rejection or casting away, apobolē of the Jews was the occasion of reconciliation to the world, that is, the Gentiles;"
DW: Again, he says it so much better than I did. The rejection of the Jews was not the 'cause' of the reconciliation of the world. The reconciliation came to or was offered to the world (Gentiles) or was the consequence of their rejecting Christ, leading to the cross. The cross is the reconciliation of the world.
"These two verses (11:13-14) are not necessarily connected with the Apostle’s argument; for in the following verse he resumes the subject of Romans 11:12, or rather, as his usual manner is, he states the same thing in other words and in more explicit and stronger terms."
DW: Doesn't this support (but not prove!) the idea that 13 and 14 are a parenthesis? And, that 15 repeats 12 to get him back on track? (I remember that you said in your last response that you agree that 15 repeats 12.) In other words, 13 is not the beginning of a new message.
Romans 11:16-21
"Let us remember that in this comparison man is not compared with man, but nation with nation."
DW: Nor are remnants nor professors in this comparison. It is ALL the gentiles with ALL the Jews, in general.
"Besides, the whole context refers to the first adoption of the Jewish nation, or to the covenant made with Abraham and confirmed to the patriarchs."
DW: This is not Calvin but the editor's comment. Nevertheless, the metaphors of verse 16 seem to him to be about the AC and ethnic Israel, no? Not proof; but, support. And, please don't take this as the start of an election campaign. That isn't my point.
"In the present case the rights and privileges of the covenant were transmitted, but not faith and inward holiness."
DW: Again, I have been trying to say this. The nation was chosen and holy; but, this does not mean individual righteousness or salvation for the great mass of them. Nevertheless, the promises made to the fathers will be fulfilled exactly as promised to ethnic Israel. But, only to the righteous alive at the time God has chosen for the fulfillment. They are the only ones who will ultimately be His people as you rightly understand this term.
""But all were alike holy in the sense intended here by the Apostle, as they were circumcised, and inherited the transmissible rights and privileges of the covenant. “The holiness,” says Turrettin, “of the first-fruits and of the root was no other than an external, federal, and national consecration, such as could be transferred from parents to their children."
DW: ditto
"Abraham was as it were the root of the visible Church. Ishmael was broken off, and the tree grew up in Isaac; and when Esau was broken off, it grew up in Jacob and his sons. [...] When the nation rejected the Messiah, their relation to Abraham and to God was as it were suspended."
DW: Again, what I have failed to say clearly. Alas, I find some support here for the idea that I have been putting forth that the sin of the nation was the rejection of their Messiah who had come as their king.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
"They no longer retained even the outward seal of the covenant; for circumcision lost its validity and baptism became the sign of regeneration: they were thenceforth deprived of the ordinances of God."
DW: In the interest of full disclosure I have to also include this editor's comment. Scripture never takes away circumcision; baptism is indeed the sign of death, burial, and resurrection and the individual's witness to that truth by participation in the rite.
"As unreasonable as it would be for the branches to boast against the root, so unreasonable would it have been for the Gentiles to glory against the Jews, that is, with respect to the excellency of their race; for Paul would have them ever to consider whence was the origin of their salvation."
DW: Apparently, Calvin doesn't read this as 'rhetorical flourish' either because he relates it to the race and not a particular Gentile representative.
"And we know that after Christ by his coming has pulled down the partition-wall, the whole world partook of the favor which God had previously conferred on the chosen people."
DW: Doesn't this support the idea that the Gentile race was grafted in to the AC? That is, 'in you all the nation will be blessed?'
"In the person of the Gentiles he brings forward what they might have pleaded for themselves; . . "
DW: Now we get to the dreaded '2nd singular.' Isn't Calvin saying that Paul is talking to the Gentiles as a race and not just the ones at Rome who may or may not be saved?
"And here again it appears more evident, that the discourse is addressed generally to the body of the Gentiles, for the excision, of which he speaks, could not apply to individuals, whose election is unchangeable, based on the eternal purpose of God."
DW: Again, the dreaded '2nd singular.' There are several sentences in this section of Calvin that are not so 'clear' and which could be used by each of us to 'defend' our interpretation. However, the statement of the editor on this section is quite clear indeed. On the other hand, I assume he is not a 'Calvin' and so I really don't know what weight to give to him other than I wish I could have said it this simply. Anyway, here is his statement from note [358]
"He speaks not of individuals, but of the Gentile world, not of living faith but of professed faith, not the inward change, but of outward privileges, not of the union of the soul to Christ, but of union with his Church."
Romans 11:22-24
"Paul then teaches us, that the Gentiles were admitted into the hope of eternal life on the condition, that they by their gratitude retained possession of it."
DW: This is the way I have interpreted 'salvation coming to the Gentiles' and their (the Gentile race in contrast to any individual or sub-group) standing in His kindness.
"that Paul speaks not here of the special election of individuals, but sets the Gentiles and Jews in opposition the one to the other; and that therefore the elect are not so much addressed in these words, as those who falsely gloried that they had obtained the place of the Jews: nay, he speaks to the Gentiles generally, and addresses the whole body in common, among whom there were many who were faithful, and those who were members of Christ in name only."
DW: Another summary statement. I don't think he means 'Gentile members of the Roman Church' by 'he speaks to the Gentiles generally, and addresses the whole body in common.'
"For instance, the children of the faithful are ingrafted, to whom the promise belongs according to the covenant made with the fathers;"
DW: I agree with this part; but, then he goes on to talk about Gentile ingrafting and I have a different take on how this happens.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
"We may add, that he {Paul} assumes this as an acknowledged axiom, — that God had so punished the unbelief of his people as not to forget his mercy; according to what he had done before, having often restored the Jews, after he had apparently banished them from his kingdom."
DW: My take, God is not done with ethnic Israel regardless of how things look today. In particular, His promises to them still stand as originally stated to their progenitors.
Romans 11:25-27
"And the fullness of the Gentiles is to be taken for a great number: . . . that the Gentiles would form almost the entire body of the Church.
DW: Here is where I have trouble following Calvin. The editor seems to likewise have trouble with him here. I much prefer his note on this section, number 363.
"And so all Israel, etc. Many understand this of the Jewish people, as though Paul had said, that religion would again be restored among them as before: but I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, according to this meaning,"
DW: Here is where I have to respectfully completely break with Calvin. He has no right to extend a word clearly defined in Scripture. But, that is exactly what he is doing and thus leading many astray.
"and yet in such a way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it were the first-born in God’s family."
DW: In the Church there is no hierarchy! All are equal, sinners saved by faith. The idea that the Jew would have 'first place' in the family of God is unseemly. Now, the nation of Israel will have first place among the nations on earth. But, this is quite different than what Calvin seems to say takes place in the body of Christ.
"But though in this prophecy deliverance to the spiritual people of God is promised, among whom even Gentiles are included"
DW: Sorry, very wrong. 'Jacob' can not be meant to include Gentiles; except a few proselytes, of course.
Romans 11:28-32
"For we must bear this in mind, — that he speaks not now of the election of individuals, but of the common adoption of the whole nation, which might seem for a time, according to the outward appearance, to have failed, but had not been cut up by the roots."
DW: Again, I see the chapter being about Jew in contrast to Gentile as races; not, individuals.
"he justly compares this favor with the ancient election of the Jews, which had been manifested so many ages before: and so election derives its name from antiquity; for God had in past ages of the world chosen one people for himself."
DW: Yes, even Calvin sees that ethnic Israel was a chosen people of God, sin and all. Thus, to call them 'foreknown' is not at all odd, no?
Romans 11:33-36
"To him be glory, etc. The proposition being as it were proved, he now confidently assumes it as indubitable"
DW: I don't think we can find anything to disagree on here. To Him be the glory!
Hi David,
Hope you had a good Sunday. A couple of thoughts about Calvin.
(1) He doesn't express this as clearly as he might, so I had to look carefully to see what he means by "the body of Gentiles":
....that Paul’s address is not so much to individuals as to the whole body of the Gentiles, among whom there might have been many, who were vainly inflated, professing rather than having faith. (Calv Comm Rom 11.16-21).
The word of caution is that "the whole body of the Gentiles" is for Calvin not the entirety of all Gentiles, but the Gentiles within the body of Christ.
So while Calvin is comfortable seeing groups being addressed (more of which later down), his groups are ethnic Israel over against Gentiles within the church.
(2) Calvin is agreeable that ethnic Israel has not been entirely or permanently cut off from the covenant with Abraham. So am I. But for Calvin, that covenant is *salvific*, and the blessings involved are primarily the blessing of salvation.
(Hence some of the parts that you disagreed with).
So while Calvin's language approaches yours more closely, his thoughts are not, I fear, amenable to your interpretation.
(3) So what about the groups?
As I mentioned before, the 2nd singular here is (in my view) a representative use. The individual "you" is a representative member of the group of Gentiles (in my view, within the church in Rome).
So yes, Paul is speaking to groups and of groups.
But within that group, the branches represent individuals rather than each branch representing an entire group -- and the individual branches may have different fates according as to whether or not they have faith.
So groups? Yes. Entire groups possessing or lacking faith and being broken off? No.
Thus Calvin: We may also add, that Paul wisely mitigates the severity of the case, by not saying that the whole top of the tree was cut off, but that some of the branches were broken, and also that God took some here and there from among the Gentiles, whom he set in the holy and blessed trunk.
The branches represent individuals here in Calvin's read.
Note carefully how he thinks about the breaking off for the Gentiles:
And we must especially notice and remember what I have before said, — that Paul’s address is not so much to individuals as to the whole body of the Gentiles, among whom there might have been many, who were vainly inflated, professing rather than having faith. ...
And here again it appears more evident, that the discourse is addressed generally to the body of the Gentiles, for the excision, of which he speaks, could not apply to individuals, whose election is unchangeable, based on the eternal purpose of God.
As we agreed, elect individuals cannot be broken off. Who then? The false professors (acc. to Calvin). NOT the entirety of the Gentiles.
Calvin: "The rejection or casting away, apobolē of the Jews was the occasion of reconciliation to the world, that is, the Gentiles;"
DW: Again, he says it so much better than I did. The rejection of the Jews was not the 'cause' of the reconciliation of the world.
The term "occasion" is quite suitable here, and I can agree to it. Certainly your point that the cross is the underlying cause of salvation is well taken.
Calvin: When the nation rejected the Messiah, their relation to Abraham and to God was as it were suspended."
DW: Again, what I have failed to say clearly. Alas, I find some support here for the idea that I have been putting forth that the sin of the nation was the rejection of their Messiah who had come as their king.
If you put it only that the Jews had rejected their king, I would not argue; but you are specific:
DW: Jeff, please note: the 'rejection' on the part of the nation Israel was not the personal rejection of a crucified and risen Savior as He is now rejected when the gospel is refused. It was a nation to whom a Messiah King was promised in the OT rejecting their King. They did not say, 'We will not believe on this Savior for the saving of our souls'; but they did say in effect, 'We will not have this man to reign over us.' This distinction is important since it determines the precise character of their sin.
For you, it is possible for the Jews to reject Jesus as their king but not as their Savior.
But in fact, Jesus does not present himself in separate ways to separate people. He is the King who preaches "The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the Gospel!" (Mark 1.15)
Rejecting the king *is* rejecting the Gospel; and vice-versa.
So we can agree that Israel rejected their king, if we can agree that in so doing they rejected also their Savior.
Hi again,
I'm here at school with an hour to kill before parent conferences to start.
I'm been thinking over the remarkable fact that you like Calvin's language so much even though his approach to the covenant is radically different from yours.
I think that speaks to a possible point of contact.
In any event, I wanted to explicate Calvin's view of the covenant a bit further to show in what ways his language approaches and in what ways his language diverges from yours. If you have the Commentaries, I'll be in Rom 9. The CCEL version is here, but I'll quote from the Torrance translation just to give a stereoscopic view.
Calvin:
For they are not all Israel. Paul's proposition is that the promise was given to Abraham and to his seed, but in such a way that his inheritance does not relate to all of his descendants without distinction. It will follow that the defection of some does not prevent the covenant from remaining firm and steadfast.
In order, however, that it may be more evident on what condition the Lord adopted the posterity of Abraham as a people peculiar to Himself, two points should here be considered. First, the promise of salvation, given to Abraham, belongs to all who trace their natural descent to him, because it is rightly offered to all without exception. For this reason they are rightly termed the heirs and successors of the covenant made with Abraham, or, as Scripture states, the children of the promise.
The thing to note here is that for Calvin, the covenant belongs to all (you agree) as a covenant of salvation (you do not yet agree :) ). See also the commentary on Rom 4.3.
So for Calvin, the participation of the Jews in the covenant was a participation in salvation: a special receipt of the promise of salvation.
In some ways, this imitates your interpretation of the ingrafting on the tree as a symbol for "the opportunity for salvation."
The similarity is that you and he (and I) see Paul referring to a special relationship between God and the Hebrews.
The difference is that you disconnect that special relationship from salvation, whereas Calvin does not. For you, the AC is "orthogonal to", independent of, the promise of salvation.
For Calvin, the AC was an administration of the covenant of grace; the sign of circumcision was a sign of salvation; and participation in the AC was an "external participation" (more below) in salvation.
(cont.)
Calvin: The second point to be considered is that the appellation 'children of the promise' properly belongs to those in whom its power and efficacy is found. On this account Paul here asserts that not all the children of Abraham are the children of God, although the Lord had entered into a covenant with them, because few continued firm in the faith of the covenant. God Himself, however, testifies in Ezek. 16, that they are all His children. When, in short, the whole people are called the inheritance and the peculiar people of God, what is meant is that they have been chosen by the Lord when the promise of salvation has been offered to them and confirmed by the symbol of circumcision. Since, however, many of them reject this adoption by their ingratitude, and thus in no degree enjoy its benefits, another difference arises among them with regard to the fulfilment of the promise. To prevent anyone from thinking it strange that this fulfilment of the promise was not evident in very many of the Jews, Paul therefore denies that they were included in the true election of God.
We see Calvin here drawing attention to the same ambiguity I've been pressing: on the one hand, they are rightly heirs of the covenant. On the other, they are not children of the promise? How to resolve this? By appeal to election.
I want to pause here and note the radical divergence between Calvin and yourself at this point.
Both of you have considered the seeming ambiguity: the Jews are children of Abraham, but they are not all saved along with Abraham.
Your response (understandable) is to remove the ambiguity by placing a division between being a child of Abraham and being saved.
The benefit of your approach is that the ambiguity goes away. But the cost is that you move away from the language of Scripture, introducing or qualifying language in ways that are not obvious in the text (e.g.: "children of Abraham" in Gal. 3; the thorny "su" of Rom 11).
By contrast, Calvin follows the language of Scripture more closely. This is evident in this case, where he follows Paul's language in explaining the unbelief of the Jews.
The cost, however, is that he accepts the ambiguity and explains it in terms of two perspectives: general election, and God's secret counsel.
Calvin: We may, if it is preferred, put it in a different way: 'The general election of the people of Israel does not prevent God from choosing for Himself by His secret counsel those whom He pleases.' God's condescension in making a covenant of life with a single nation is indeed a remarkable illustration of undeserved mercy, but His hidden grace is more evident in the second election, which is restricted to a part of the nation only.
When Paul says that they are not all Israel, which are of Israel, and that because they are Abraham's seed they are not all children, he is using a figure of speech known as a paronomasia. In the first clause he includes all the descendants, in the second he refers only to the true sons, who have not fallen from their position.
Hi Jeff,
OOOOPS, I just went to post this and see that you have added more concerning Calvin. Well, here are my thoughts without your new inputs:
Well, maybe some movement?
Just to clarify some points on the Calvin exchange so I can get back to your comments.
a) The branches represent individuals. Somehow I keep giving the impression that I think they represent groups and that has not been my intention. And, of course, only the elect ultimately stay in God's blessing. So, in point of fact, all Gentiles on the tree excepting the elect Gentiles have to be removed from the tree.
But, that God makes a distinction based on one level of sin vs. another seems odd indeed. One Gentile states a complete disdain for God; another professes a false faith in God; neither are elect. But, for some reason, God moves one and not the other to the 'olive tree' for a while. Just seems really odd.
b) 'the body of Gentiles' may indeed mean the professing church minus the professing Jews. If he had only said 'the Gentiles in the professing church' I would feel much better about what he actually means.
c) Somehow, I view the AC as, . . . well sort of like pregnancy. Israel either is or is not in the AC as originally stated. So, I find it hard to accept that they have 'not been entirely or permanently cut off from the covenant with Abraham.' Or that the 'remaining' blessings are 'primarily the blessing of salvation.' I find none of this in Scripture.
d) The Jews (as a nation) rejected their king. He also happens to be the only Savior I know of and so, of course, they also rejected their Savior. But, without that rejection, He would not have died and paid the price of their sin. And, without that, He isn't really their Savior, is He? But, regardless of the cross, He was their Messiah and they did reject Him too.
Mark 1:14 defines the gospel that verse 1:15 references. Ask any member of your church what the gospel is and I doubt very much that he/she would say 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand.' But, that is exactly the gospel that Mark attributes to Jesus.
The gospels before and after the cross are very different gospels.
Hi Jeff,
Hope your conferences went well.
Calvin and you are both brilliant; that is obvious even to me. On the other hand, I am just foolish enough to believe differently and am trying as hard as I can to see where I am going wrong. So, I have to ask that you not take my 'firm' statements as me saying 'this is true and you are wrong.'
JC: For you, the AC is "orthogonal to", independent of, the promise of salvation.
DW: 'In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed' is the gospel. The AC absolutely is about salvation. But, I can now see that I have to separate two terms: 1) salvation and 2) promise of salvation (can I equate this with 'offer of salvation'?).
Salvation to me means possession of eternal life. Either one has it or one does not. The elect may or may not have it yet; but, they will before they physically die.
Blessing can take on many different forms. Again, the Gentile farms have always had rain whether the farmer was elect or not. Also, not all of Abraham's descendants, even those according to promise, were elect. But, they were in a place of blessing and had special revelation that could be called a 'promise of salvation.' So, they should have known that it was by faith and not by works. But, most didn't because that is the way God wanted it to be.
JC: For Calvin, the AC was an administration of the covenant of grace; the sign of circumcision was a sign of salvation; and participation in the AC was an "external participation" (more below) in salvation.
DW: All of God's dealings with us are gracious on His part. We deserve nothing. On the other hand, I don't find a 'covenant of grace' anywhere. It is inferred. Actually, this inference, in and of itself, is really not a problem for me.
Circumcision as far as I can tell did not confer salvation on anybody. However, it did identify the ones who were in Israel. And, since Israel did have the AC and a promise of salvation, one could say that those circumcised had the promise of salvation. But to call it a 'sign of salvation' seems to imply too much and I don't see what this adds to our understanding of circumcision?
As to external participation, fine. But, again, I don't grasp how it helps us to understand the AC any better.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: I want to pause here and note the radical divergence between Calvin and yourself at this point.
DW: What an honor for you to take the time to compare anything I say to Calvin! :)
Alas, there must be a nuance that I am missing. And, I am as sincere as I can be in desiring to understand my error.
First, I have argued previously that only the saved are properly called the 'children of God.' Isn't that what Calvin says here too? Israel, the nation, the ethnic people, are called the 'people of God?' Some of them are also 'children of God;' but, not all by any means. Calvin's quote of Ezekiel is a little misleading since it is a very poetic section.
JC: Both of you have considered the seeming ambiguity: the Jews are children of Abraham, but they are not all saved along with Abraham.
DW: Probably I am just being dense; but, I don't see any ambiguity here. The AC does not promise eternal life to every physical descendant. Nor, does it even do this to every child of promise. Yes, not every descendant of Abraham is a child of Abraham according to promise. But, all in Israel are indeed children of promise; if one means the only one talked about in Scripture, i.e., Isaac's offspring. But, this promise is not the promise of eternal life.
Since the land is promised as an eternal possession, and it has not happened yet, then it has to be true that not all of Israel were in view when God made this promise. He knew that only the elect in that line were going to actually receive that promise. He didn't explicitly say that. But, is that a problem. Because, taking all of Scripture into account, it is very clear that that continues to be His plan. (At least to some of us!)
What I see here (Romans 9) is an explanation of sovereign choice. Call it secret counsel if you wish; that's fine with me.
JC: Your response (understandable) is to remove the ambiguity by placing a division between being a child of Abraham and being saved.
DW: I really don't understand this comment. Child of Abraham according to the flesh includes all of ---- well, the ones born in his line. Child of Promise are all born according to the flesh in Isaac's line. Some of each of these lines is also elect/saved. And Paul says that the elect/saved ones who also happen to be in the line of Jacob are 'true' Israel. Aren't these simply facts revealed in Scripture? Where is it that I am placing a division? By the way, I am not at all upset by what you say here (or anywhere for that matter); but, I am truly confused and need your clarity of thought to figure this out.
You quote Calvin: "We may, if it is preferred, . . . which is restricted to a part of the nation only." I can't find a single word of this with which to disagree. Yet, I think you believe that I would have trouble with it?
JC: The cost, however, is that he accepts the ambiguity and explains it in terms of two perspectives: general election, and God's secret counsel.
DW: I agree. The nation is an example of general election; I am an example of God's secret counsel and part of 'true' Israel. On the other hand, I do not see where the AC promises salvation to all who are in Abraham's line or even in the line of promise.
Hi again,
Conferences are slow here. Tomorrow they'll be even slower: five hours, one conference. I'll get lesson plans done through Christmas or something. :)
---
So clearly I haven't been reading closely enough!
DW: a) The branches represent individuals. Somehow I keep giving the impression that I think they represent groups and that has not been my intention. And, of course, only the elect ultimately stay in God's blessing. So, in point of fact, all Gentiles on the tree excepting the elect Gentiles have to be removed from the tree.
I thought your view was that the Gentiles were a single unit here, a single "tree" grafted on to the olive tree, and that "su" was an anthropomorphism for the entire group of Gentiles?
(DW: My reading is that the Gentiles are not a single branch; They, the Gentile people, are compared to a wild olive tree with many branches. -- from Oct. 14)
Ah, I get it. You are making a distinction between a whole tree and the individual branches on that tree.
But then, I thought your belief was that all of the natural branches that were broken off, were broken off at the same time? And that a similar fate awaited Gentiles: a mass breaking off at some time in the future?
So does "su" an individual representative of the group, or is it the whole group?
How does the structural parallelism work in v. 24? "You" were cut out of an olive tree and grafted in; how much more readily will "they", the natural branches, be regrafted? Doesn't that place "you" in the position of being a single branch (cut out of a wild olive tree) instead of a tree?
DW: But, that God makes a distinction based on one level of sin vs. another seems odd indeed. One Gentile states a complete disdain for God; another professes a false faith in God; neither are elect. But, for some reason, God moves one and not the other to the 'olive tree' for a while. Just seems really odd.
I hear you. But then again, the man in 1 Cor 5 was excommunicated; yet not all of the non-elect are excommunicated. Apparently, there is a level of public false faith or slandering of God's name that is cause for removal from the body (1 Cor 5.9 - 13).
DW: On the other hand, I do not see where the AC promises salvation to all who are in Abraham's line or even in the line of promise.
Let me throw this out here for "further thought" rather than as a point of dispute.
The *sign* of the covenant, circumcision, is the promise of salvation. NOT the sign that the recipient is saved, but a metaphor of what God does for us. It is a sign from God to the recipient saying "this is what salvation means."
Think about how Abraham received the covenant. By faith, he received the promise, "and it was credited to him for righteousness." Then he receives the sign in Gen. 17. What does it mean?
(1) I will be your God, you will be my people (Gen 17.7-14), AND
(2) It represents the righteousness received by faith (Rom 4.11). (An interesting article on this from a *Baptist* point of view is here).
---
So the covenant does not guarantee salvation to all its members. Instead, it holds out salvation to all its members. "What is the advantage of being a Jew? That they were entrusted with the very oracles of God." Circumcision put the meaning of salvation right there on their bodies.
So in this point, I think you and I agree that one of the blessings of belonging to Israel was that there was a special proclamation of the Gospel of justification by faith.
JRC
DW: First, I have argued previously that only the saved are properly called the 'children of God.' Isn't that what Calvin says here too? Israel, the nation, the ethnic people, are called the 'people of God?' Some of them are also 'children of God;' but, not all by any means. Calvin's quote of Ezekiel is a little misleading since it is a very poetic section.
Here we consider the possibility of making a fine distinction between two phrases:
The children of God are one thing; the people of God are something entirely different.
The former are saved; the latter are generally elected but not (necessarily) saved.
Making distinctions in this way *can* work, but it can also be misleading.
In particular, it can mislead if one latches on to a coincidence and tries to over-read some meaning into it. My concern is that you may have done so here.
On your read, children of God is used only in connection with salvation, whereas people of God is used in terms of general election.
I don't have references in front of me, so let me take as a matter of statistical fact that the specific phrase children of God is always used in association with salvation but the specific phrase people of God is used in association with general election.
What inference can we draw from this?
Unfortunately, none.
For one thing, children are people, too. :) So the two phrases are close enough to one another to cast doubt on a distinction (just as we would not admit a distinction between "wife" and "bride" -- the latter is simply a newly-married wife, or perhaps a woman on her wedding day.)
For another, God speaks of Israel as His "son." (Hos. 11.1 and again in Ex. 4.22). So the "child" metaphor is here employed about a mixed group.
And for another, the requirement of holiness, the "righteous requirements of the Law" that Jesus fulfilled in order to make salvation available, were laid upon Israel under the Law. That is, the "people of God" were required to act as if they were "children of God."
So while the statistical observation is interesting, it does not provide enough evidence to draw a hard line between the two terms. Such a hard line would need to be backed up by a definite teaching of Scripture, especially considering the evidences that blur the line.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
I hope the slow conference activity does not indicate parental apathy or misplaced priorities?
JC: I thought your view was that the Gentiles were a single unit here, a single "tree" grafted on to the olive tree, and that "su" was an anthropomorphism for the entire group of Gentiles?
DW: I just love the way 'anthropomorphism' just rolls off the tongue. :)
Try as I may to adopt your view, I keep seeing the 'su' in this manner. Mental blocks are hard to overcome. I see the 'su' being called a 'tree' in 11:17. Although I must admit that your view as to it being a reference to species and not organism is strong. However, I never wanted to give the picture of a tree being grafted into a tree. What I saw was all of the branches being removed from the wild tree and being grafted into the natural tree along with the remaining Jewish branches.
As to the timing of the breaking off: We discussed the aorist and I am now enlightened (thank you). So, while it is a completed 'breaking off' that Paul discusses and that fits my understanding of it occurring when the nation rejected Jesus, I can not put a stake in the ground here that it all happened in the blink of an eye.
Thus, I can not say much about any pending Gentile breaking off as regards duration. Although, if the classes are in view with regard to the tree (even though represented by individual branches) it would seem to take something major for a class to be broken off. Surely, we agree that it took something big for the Gentiles (as a class) to be grafted in?
JC: How does the structural parallelism work in v. 24?
DW: This is after all a metaphor. If su is a class and it can be compared to a 'tree' or to 'all the branches' of that tree then we have no problem. For, the trunk and root of the wild olive tree plays no part in any of this.
In v24, the focus is on all the branches and they are compared to 'they,' the natural branches. Isn't this more natural than concluding how easy it would be to re-graft a number of natural branches based on the grafting of a single unnatural branch?
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Regarding the excommunication in 1 Cor 5:
Let me just ask this. Considering an elect believer and all that we know about him/her, what more do we learn about her by thinking about grafting in and this entire section. I say nothing, for this is not about that believer.
The body of Christ is to be pure; sin prevents this. But, we are to keep working in that direction. I don't think that this is what the olive tree is about. So, yes, because of our fallible discernment, there is a level of sin below which we are hard pressed to act. But, we must take action for obvious, egregious sin.
Regarding your thoughts on circumcision:
I read the Piper article. Many good points and then - well some I don't align with. But, I enjoyed it, so thanks for the lead.
I take circumcision to be a sign, no question about it. When I read Scripture, I see it is the sign of what happened to Abraham; most definitely not what happens to me when I am circumcised. And, it is not a sign that I go around displaying to the world!
Now, if I am circumcised, then I and my household are identified as in the line of descendants of AC promises. Although it is quite unlikely that I, personally, am going to inherit the 'land.' But, there will be some 'like' me in the line who will. And, God will be their God, and they will be elect, and they will be Israelites, etc.
Nevertheless, I can see how one might say to themselves: 'Well, if I think about my circumcision, then I guess it is possible that I too might be considered righteous if I believed what God has told me just like Abe. OK, circumcision is a sign of salvation to me. Moreover, from my circumcision, I know that I am one of the descendants. As to my salvation, I have to got to, for example, 1 John to be sure about that.'
And, yes, we agree, Israel had advantages regarding salvation that Gentile nations lacked.
Regarding 'children' vs. 'people':
I believe that the specific words that God picks in Scripture are important (I don't mean He dictated!). That being said, I hope I don't build a theology around this particular set of words. So, I do agree with you on the wisdom of going lightly in this. But, so far, as a first level sort of indicator, it seems to be working for me.
Now, we get to degree of literalness. 'Son' is used in Hosea 11:1 ("When Israel [was] a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son. . . ") as I have said in quite a poetic manner. 'Children' is also quite 'figurative.' So, care is called for, yes. I believe there is enough in the rest of Scripture to figure out what God is conveying. Alas, we all figure it out differently!!
DW: I hope the slow conference activity does not indicate parental apathy or misplaced priorities?
No, I teach calculus and physics, which are mostly self-selecting courses.
So bear with me for one more round of the tree and its branches?
Rom 11.24a: "After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature..."
Doesn't this mean that "you" is represented by a branch rather than a whole tree? That is, we cut a *branch* off of a tree.
Further, wouldn't the whole tree from which the branch is cut be the natural symbol for the whole set of Gentiles?
So then, if the branches represent individuals (as we agreed previously), wouldn't this mean that "you" represents an individual?
That's my reasoning, only I didn't realize it explicitly until thinking it over more carefully. Sometimes I have these intuitive things going on, ya know?
JRC
What you are saying makes all the sense in the world, really.
I tried to address this 'objection' in the last post with "This is after all a metaphor. If su is a class and it can be compared to a 'tree' or to 'all the branches' of that tree then we have no problem. For, the trunk and root of the wild olive tree plays no part in any of this."
Clearly the intent is that branches are grafted in and not a tree. But, if all the branches are grafted in, . . .
The main drivers are 1) to whom is the letter written? and 2) who of the Gentiles can be broken off? The data (at least my view of it) drives me to the 'unusual' view of the 2nd singular. I truly wish I could see it your way.
OK, so now we've precisely identified the deadlock. Let me summarize where we are, and you can correct or add.
Then I'll add some thoughts to move things along, Lord willing.
Either we take the language of Rom. 1 as determinative of the audience: the letter is written only to believers; therefore, the language of Rom 11 must be interpreted in a manner consistent with this,
OR we take the language of Rom 11 as being sufficiently clear on its own; therefore, the audience of Rom 1 must be interpreted in a manner consistent with this.
For in the end, we have returned to the lynch-pin: the audience cannot be a mixed group in your view because of the way in which it is described in Rom 1 (and to be fair, such passages as Rom 5.1, etc.).
What I've tried to argue is that Rom 11 is a falsifier for this view, in that the language cannot possibly be construed to mean anything other than that individuals who "have stood by faith" are threatened with breaking off if they do not persevere.
Given that (we agree!) the elect cannot be broken off, it follows in my argument that "you Gentiles" must be a mixed group, viewed as "having stood by faith" only externally or from man's perspective.
Your response is that Rom 11 need not be speaking of individuals, but rather could be speaking of the Gentiles as a group. Thus, the passage is not a certain defeater for your view.
Actually, you've made it stronger: Rom 11 must be speaking of the Gentiles as a group, so that the passage is entirely consonant with your view.
How are we doing?
Thoughts:
From a logical point of view, either option is theoretically possible. So then the crucial question is whether the language of Rom 1 or Rom 11 admits to the flexibility required by our respective views.
So this goes to the objections O1, O2, and O5, the antecedent, group faith, and non-salvific faith objections. Do you have specific responses to those? (sorry if I missed them previously!)
For my part, I think the language of Romans 1 could admit to an "external" or "apparent" perspective reading. It's not the most obvious reading, but it seems plausible in light of
(a) Rom 1.15, "I am eager evangelize you",
(b) The attestation elsewhere in Scripture of apparent faith in contrast to genuine faith,
(c) Paul's admitted lack of a salvation-o-meter to determine the genuineness of the faith of his audience, and
(d) Paul's ascription of faith to Timothy and Titus, individuals about whom he would have had only external knowledge (rather than God's knowledge) of faith.
(a) goes directly to our passage in question; (b) - (d) establish a precedent for the category of "apparent faith" -- that is, faith as viewed from the perspective of man rather than God.
Additionally, I am encouraged in my reading by the fact that the majority read of the Protestant community has been similar to mine. Not that majority rules, but there is wisdom in many counselors.
Would you say that in light of these things that the "apparent faith" reading is impossible or merely unlikely (in your view)?
JRC
DW: The body of Christ is to be pure; sin prevents this. But, we are to keep working in that direction. I don't think that this is what the olive tree is about. So, yes, because of our fallible discernment, there is a level of sin below which we are hard pressed to act. But, we must take action for obvious, egregious sin.
Leave aside for the moment the precise relationship between 1 Cor 5 and Rom 11. I'm not sold on the equivalence between excommunication and breaking off, especially since the Jews of Jesus' day were not formally excommunicated.
The thing that interests me about this passage is the rest of what you said:
(1) The body of Christ is to be pure, but
(2) Sin prevents this [also, our lack of omniscience!], and
(3) We must take action for obvious, egregious sin.
You have just summarized one practical application of "apparent faith."
In terms of shepherding the church, we as elders must (a) treat professions of faith as genuine, but (b) act to "remove the wicked man" when obvious, egregious sin makes it unlikely (but not certain!) that the sinner fails to have faith, for the purpose of (c) reclaiming him if possible (1 Cor 5.5).
Notice how our lack of knowledge shapes the qualifications on our actions. Because we have no salvation-o-meter, our judgments about faith and unfaith are always provisional, based on evidence (think again about Timothy).
But God does not call us therefore to throw up our hands and treat "apparent faith" as nothing. Instead, we as elders treat it as something -- evidence of genuine faith, but not proof.
The core problem with insisting that the church is to be pure, and stopping there, is incompleteness.
Yes: the church is to be pure.
No: the church is not at this time pure. But that does not make it "not the church." Nor does Scripture therefore speak of "the church within the church", as if we could access God's perspective with our salvation-o-meters.
Instead, the church that we get to interact with is this (probably) mixed group, filled with those who have apparent faith, and God has called us to treat that group as "the Church", the body of Christ to whom we are united and owe the bonds of fellowship to.
In short, insisting that the Church always be pure causes us to miss the fact that we can never know the pure Church. It assumes the divine perspective on the Church without ever admitting that we cannot actually attain to that divine perspective.
Most importantly, Scripture never divides the Church into "visible" and "invisible." This is a strong argument, IMO, for us to refrain from doing the same.
Two perspectives? Yes. The Scripture attests to that, in spades. We have knowledge, but it is a poor reflection in a mirror.
Two churches? No, not really.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
You have summarized magnificently.
If we pick up Romans in chapter 11 (I know you aren't saying that we should do that) we have a problem deciding who the 'Gentiles' are. The first time we encounter them is in verse 12: "Now if their transgression be riches for the world and their failure be riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! 13 But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles."
So who are these Gentiles? My conclusion would be that they are simply Gentiles and I have no idea if they profess faith or not. Now hold on for a minute; because I am sure I know where your mind has gone. They are standing by 'faith' so they must be in the church per verse 20. Not necessarily; because we have the change from the plural to the singular you to deal with also!!!
At any rate we are left to infer who they are. If we start in chapter 1, there is no question (well, maybe there is some question :) ).
JC: the audience cannot be a mixed group in your view
DW: Sorry, a nit. The audience is most likely a mixed group. The one's to whom Paul is talking is a pure group in my view.
JC: Actually, you've made it stronger: Rom 11 must . . .
DW: I'm sure I have come across that way; but, really I wouldn't use the word 'must' here. It is the only view that makes sense to me; but, I also know that I have found NOBODY who shares this view!!!!! Talk about arrogance. Anyway, I just keep studying the chapter with prayer.
JC: So this goes to the objections O1, O2, and O5
DW: You first summarized these "O's" on 11/18. I responded on 11/19 with this cursory answer and a promise of more to follow:
" O1 is excellent.
O2 is excellent.
O3 is hard for me to accept.
O4 is a partial yes for me; but, difficulties still remain in the details.
O5 is excellent."
As far as I can tell, I still owe you a real response.
Re: Romans 1:15
If I consider verse 13, then it seems to open up the group to be evangelized to those other than the ones to whom he is speaking.
Re: apparent faith
I have no question that Scripture acknowledges apparent faith. I just don't see that one with 'apparent' faith is ever considered part of the body of Christ.
Re: Timothy
a literal translation of 1 Timothy 1:2 would seem to be:
Timothy, a true child in faith. Now, this is either Paul fallibly assessing Timothy's faith or it is God telling us the truth. What say you?
Bottom line: I wouldn't use either 'impossible' or 'unlikely' here in discussing apparent faith. I know I am on very thin ice.
JC: we as elders must (a) treat professions of faith as genuine, but (b) act to "remove the wicked man" when obvious, egregious sin makes it unlikely (but not certain!) that the sinner fails to have faith,
DW: Regarding (a): yes, if we believe it. Regarding (b): Isn't it more the case that we ought to remove the sinner for the sin and not for not believing? For we can't know the latter.
JC: Nor does Scripture therefore speak of "the church within the church", as if we could access God's perspective with our salvation-o-meters.
DW: Exactly. Scripture only (as far as I can tell) deals with the body of Christ. We, on the other hand, can only deal with the church as we encounter it. And, it is the result of our lack of omniscience under God's sovereign omniscience.
But, I really do agree with the thrust of your message on how we (not Scripture) has to deal with the church.
DW: Sorry, a nit. The audience is most likely a mixed group. The one's to whom Paul is talking is a pure group in my view.
Fair 'nuff. To be precise: "In your view, the referent of 'υμεις' in Rom 1.7 - 10 cannot be a mixed group."
Does that work?
DW: So who are these Gentiles? My conclusion would be that they are simply Gentiles and I have no idea if they profess faith or not. Now hold on for a minute; because I am sure I know where your mind has gone. They are standing by 'faith' so they must be in the church per verse 20. Not necessarily; because we have the change from the plural to the singular you to deal with also!!!
I'm tracking with you. Can we be even more precise here?
(1) The 'you Gentiles' in 11.13 should by normal grammar be the Gentile subset of the same 'you' as he has been addressing: namely, the 'you' of ch. 1, of 8.9ff., 6.11-14, etc.
I think we agree to this much, right?
(2) The change to 'συ' in 11.17ff. is a curious grammatical move. We wonder to whom it could refer, and we collect evidence concerning this.
My contention has been that the συ should be a representative member of υμιν in 11.13.
Your contention is that this reading leads to a contradiction, since we know from ch. 1 that the members of υμιν are all saved and cannot therefore be broken off, especially not for unbelief.
So a different referent for συ must be sought ... and the only one that will do is "a personification of the entirety of Gentiles."
The point in reiterating this is just to ensure that we're on the same page with (1), and on the same page in recognizing that (2) is potentially a separate question from (1).
DW: Regarding (b): Isn't it more the case that we ought to remove the sinner for the sin and not for not believing? For we can't know the latter.
Take a look at Paul's language:
1 Cor 5.9 - 13: I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother [Gr: εαν τις αδελφος ονομαζομενος -- "if a brother in name"] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
Paul indicates here that the wickedness casts doubt on the genuineness of the brother's salvation: "A brother so named."
It is interesting to now compare his language with Jesus' in evaluating false teachers and also his warning to false professors over in Matt. 7.15 - 23.
It is also imperative to consider the source of Paul's quote from Deuteronomy. If you look there, you will see that the phrase 'you must purge the evil from among you' is used in reference to those who deliberately flouted the Ten Commandments, including idolatry. Their sin was considered evidence of their unbelief; so it is also here in 1 Cor 5.
And finally, we have to consider the meaning of putting someone outside the church, which Paul describes as "handing his flesh over to Satan." In so doing, from an external point of view, we are saying that this person is, as far as we can tell, cut off from the body of Christ.
(And crucially it is important to remember the two perspectives here, since an excommunication can never be considered 'God's final word on the state of your soul')
That said, I agree that there is a dual reason for excommunication. In part, it is for the sake of Christ's name; in part, it is for the sake of reclaiming the impenitent sinner, if possible.
Both purposes are served by saying, "Your behavior and lack of repentance for it are inconsistent with your profession of faith."
DW: Re: Timothy
a literal translation of 1 Timothy 1:2 would seem to be:
Timothy, a true child in faith. Now, this is either Paul fallibly assessing Timothy's faith or it is God telling us the truth. What say you?
BOTH! *chortle*
I was thinking through this on my walk back from WaWa this morning. I'll try to express it clearly, but I may fail ... bear with me here...
The problem is that we have "God's perspective" on Scripture: we know that it is true. Thus, we can look at 1 Tim 1.2 and know that Timothy was indeed a man of God. This perspective is vital to our faith, but it is different from understanding the author's intent.
We have to ask the question, "What was Paul's authorial intent?" Did he know through the inspiration of the HS that Timothy was in fact saved? Was that his intent in writing this?
OR,
Was he speaking according to the evidence that had presented itself?
This is a bit of an open question, since he doesn't really say. But if the first, then we would have to say that he had knowingly received infallible revelation about the state of Tim's soul. At least with Tim, he really did have a salvation-o-meter.
If the second, we would have to say that Paul made a judgment according to the evidence that turned out to be true. It was coincidentally true -- as true as Paul the human could judge, which happen to coincide with God's view on the matter.
---
Now go over to Romans. We know that what Paul wrote was true. But what was Paul's authorial intent? We know that he wrote to the church in Rome. Did he intend
(1) to write that each member of the church was 'loved by God and called (elect?) to be saints'? If so, then he would had to have called upon supernatural revelation to know this.
(2) to write that the members of the church were, in his judgment, faithful and therefore showed evidence of being loved and called? In this case, his assessment of them is conditionally true -- conditioned upon their faith "in reality" (from God's view) to be as genuine as it was apparently. Or even statistically true -- true of the group on average, but not necessarily true of each individual. Or if it really was the case that every single Roman church-goer was saved, then Paul's statement was coincidentally true, as with Tim above.
(3) to write to the subset of the church that actually possessed what they professed. In this case, his statement is unconditionally true, but also generic, since the letter must be "to whom it applies", without applying to any given person by name.
---
I think we've agreed to reject (1). You've argued that (2) isn't "really true" -- but I think there is evidence that Paul thinks in this way. In addition to ch. 11, we also have
8.9 - 11: You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live
v. 9 indicates the condition ("if indeed Christ is in you"), and vv. 12 - 13 indicate that this condition is not a mere hypothetical in his mind.
So what do you think about (2)? Could it be that Paul is speaking of something that "is true if indeed their faith is what it seems to be"?
JRC
Hi Jeff,
I am working on a response to your 11/21 opus. And, I don't want to miss anything there. On the other hand, our current exchanges seem to be adding clarity (not as good as agreement; but, nice anyway.). So, 11/21 goes back on to the shelf for a short while!
JC: In your view, the referent of 'υμεις' in Rom 1.7 - 10 cannot be a mixed group.
DW: 'Cannot' is a little strong for me to say. However, it is the only reading that 'feels' right to me. So, yes.
JC: (1) The 'you Gentiles' in 11.13 should by normal grammar be the Gentile subset of the same 'you' as he has been addressing:
DW: Yes. I don't know if I would add 'subset' though? As regards the 'you' of chapter 8, I'll have more to say below.
And, as regards your following (2), we seem to have the same view of our difference regarding συ.
JC: Paul indicates here that the wickedness casts doubt on the genuineness of the brother's salvation: "A brother so named."
DW: Wow, there is always something else that is worthy of serious consideration. I can see, as do you, that Paul may be casting doubt on the person's salvation. But, are we required to go there? The fact of his sin is all that is required to take the appropriate action, no?
Given the obvious sin, we are required to remove him from the fellowship; and no longer treat him as 'one of us' until he repents. We should continue to deal with him as we would with any other non-church member. But, we can only surmise his standing vis-a-vis salvation and since he is effectively outside the body of Christ, we should treat him as lost. Until . . .
JC: "you must purge the evil from among you"
DW: This clause appears in several places. In Deut. 13:5, I think it is clearly one who is not a believer. In Deut. 21:21, it is much less clear that 'apparent faith' is an issue. Looks like it is just a bad son: "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.'" Clearly breaking one of the big 10; but, can't saved people covet?
JC: It (regarding Timothy) was coincidentally true -- as true as Paul the human could judge, which happen to coincide with God's view on the matter.
DW: Paul can do no more than be human and make human assessments. On this I fully agree with you. But, I hold that the HS would not let him tell us that as if it were true if in fact it was not. Paul had no doubts, in his humanity, that Timothy was a believer. That was a fallible assessment. But, when the HS includes that assessment in Scripture, it has to be true. If not, then we have to parse everything that Paul writes to determine who is speaking. What a mess that would be!
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
Romans 8:1ff
Please, please, please don't pull the hair out of your head for what I am about to put forward. -- the 'you' in chapter 8 is not always the same 'you' as the 'you' in chapter 1!!!
Chapter 7 is all about Paul coming to grips with the awful war between spirit and flesh that is going on in the believer. But, in 8:1 he concludes that it is nevertheless, OK.
The first 15 verses of chapter 8 are about presenting facts; not about raising doubts about his intended audience. For example, the 'you' of v2 refers to the 'those' of v1. It does not directly refer to the 'you' of chapter 1. Nevertheless, the statement of v2 is, of course, true of all believers, including those of chapter 1.
When we get to v4 we find an 'us.' This is Paul and the 'you' of 1:7-10. So, from v4, it seems a settled matter that 'us' walks according to the Spirit.
Then we get to 8:5-11. Here Paul is presenting the characteristics of two kinds of people. Yes, he uses the word 'you.' I think this is a generic 'you' that can take on either of the roles depending on the point Paul is making. It is not the 'you' to whom he is writing.
8:12 gives the conclusion: We (Paul and believers) are not slaves to the flesh. 8:13-14 then state the facts again about the two kinds of people.
8:15 then states facts with no conditions about the 'you' of chapter 1. This is the first time he gets back to his intended audience since v4. He is again associating them with himself with the 'we.'
With 8:16 he begins a new section.
Please don't hate me! No matter how it may seem, I do not set out to find ways to disagree with you, honestly!
No hair-pulling, I promise.
There's some truth to what you are saying: Paul's statements apply to more people than simply the Romans.
That said, I don't think it's wise to try to make "you" mean different things in different places. Pronouns are not that flexible.
Rather, it would be better to say that "you" is still referring to the Romans, but Paul is enunciating a general principle.
It would be as if I came to you asking, "How can I be saved?" And you responded, "If you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, you will be saved, you and your house."
The "you" is still the person standing before the speaker, but the principle is a universal one.
So it is here. The "you" is still the Romans, but what Paul is saying is universally true.
Also, it's not necessarily the case that Paul doubts their salvation. "Element of doubt" is too strong. All I mean is that he introduces the idea that what he is saying is *conditional*.
Happy Thanksgiving!
JRC
Hi Jeff,
You too have a very happy Thanksgiving (and not just today, for that matter)
Well, you said it better than I did. Yes, general principles; not specifically addressed to the Romans. But, clearly including them if they are people.
Hi Jeff,
JC: Much of this was directed at something very different from my proposed "two perspectives", so I think I've probably done a bad job of explaining it.
DW: Talk about irenic discourse! You are far out ahead of me. Thanks. I can see now that a normal person could have taken offense at my last series. Also, my explanations were far from crisp and on point. Sorry, I'll try to do better.
I really don't have any problem when the Scripture addresses man's perspective. Let me try to keep my foot out of my mouth again. When Paul says 'the church' - I say he means 'the church.' That is, the true body of Christ. You say, I believe, that since we know the church is this mixed bag, then that is what he is talking about. I just don't see Scripture ever using the word 'church' with this meaning.
Likewise when he seems to address believers, we run into the same sort of problem. If he is only presuming that they are believers (whether they are or not really doesn't change his message) then again, we can interpret his words more broadly than I believe he is intending for us to do.
It seems to boil down to the addressees. If they are the VC then interpretation is allowed more flexibility. If they are the IC there is much less room for us to insert our views.
I really do agree with you about how we have to live in the real world as we encounter it. My difficulty has to do with interpreting Scripture as if it is Paul, some fallible guy in the pew next to me, or God writing. When Paul says he is writing to believers, is it just going to those that he has discerned with human eyes are believers? Or, is it believers? Because the meaning of his message is quite different in these two cases.
MAJOR POINT:
What we are discussing is Scripture, no? Spirit breathed Scripture. Why would God send Scripture to those who are not saved (just professing) when without the Spirit of Truth (and that is their condition) the Scriptures are foolishness? Their first need is salvation; they don't need to concern themselves with whether Gentiles have or have not been grafted in to some tree. What is the point of Paul explaining deep things of God to a bunch of false professors?
JC: (2) The parable of the wheat and tares . . .
DW: I know you will think this absolutely crazy; but, . . . There is no Body of Christ when this parable is spoken. The cross is still future. This is about (I hope you are sitting down!) the Millennial Kingdom and not the Church. The Church is to be raptured; angels do not take tares out of it, Jesus takes us away from whatever is on earth called the church at that time. Anyway, in the parable the servants have no trouble identifying the tares. We (servants?), on the other hand, have trouble identifying the 'tares.'
JC: (4) In our disputed passage here, Paul specifically compares how Israel (or the remnant, it matters not) looks on the outside: as enemies, to how they are seen by God: as the elect.(And yes, Paul does speak of them in terms of "election" -- I am very puzzled by your denial that election is in view here!)
DW: A case of overstatement on my part. Sorry. Election is clearly in view; I just think that this is not the key message. Rather it is sovereignty.
Since Paul identifies himself as 'in the Church' and also as in the remnant of Israel, I doubt that the Israelites (the remnant) in the Church looked like enemies. It was the Israelites not in the church that looked like enemies, no? Those are the only ones who might look rejected to Roman Gentiles in the church. So, doesn't it 'matter' if Israel or their remnant is in view?
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: it is undeniable that Paul is contrasting two perspectives on the broken-off branches.
DW: OK. Gentiles most surely would have been rational in thinking that ethnic Israel had been rejected. Not so for the remnant; for they were fellow brothern in the chruch with these Gentiles. His response is that he is there and so rejection is not the right perspective for those like him. And, in fact not for any of them in the full sense of rejection.
JC: The idea of "apparent faith" . . . has to do with contrasting what we see with what God sees, and acknowledging that what God sees is True, while what we see may not be.
DW: Amen!
JC: We cannot avoid thinking about these two perspectives; and we cannot divorce them either.
DW: I completely agree that that is our situation. I just don't think it is the situation presented in Scripture. Even though Scripture does indeed talk about those with dead faith. It just isn't written to those with dead faith.
JC: First, as we agreed, the letter itself was addressed to and written to and read by the visible Church in Rome.
DW: Please don't take this question wrongly; but, how do we know that this is true? For, what Paul does is identify the recipients individually as 'to all who . . . .' and these are not 'the visible church.'
JC: And yet he (Calvin) sees (3) (he (Paul) is speaking to "apparent faith", rather than from God's perspective) as the reading (see his commentary on 11.16-21 in which he speaks of false professors as the objects of the threat).
DW: Calvin says that 'the discourse is addressed generally to the body of the Gentiles.' You say this means 'visible church;' I see it meaning 'all Gentiles' and find no qualifier in Calvin. So, is it possible that Calvin does not support (3)?
JC: Second, the text of Rom 1 itself casts doubt on (1) (i.e., speaking only to saved)
DW: How so? Paul wants to preach the gospel to Romans. That is, to those among the ones he is writing to who are not saved. Isn't this a perfectly reasonable reading of those verses?
JC: Notice that Paul does not say, "preach the gospel to your neighbors", but "preach the gospel to you."
DW: So, when Paul gets to Rome he only plans to preach the gospel to those in the visible church??? Or with my reading, only those who are actually saved??? No, this is not what Paul is telling them in 1:13-15.
JC: The problem here is that Paul's greetings are ambiguous.
DW: Not that it furthers agreement; but, truly I find them rather clear. Why is God saying anything to unbelievers other than believe?
JC: On the one hand, each letter is definitely addressed to a real, physical, visible church.
DW: The letter never says this. It has to be inferred. And, one must take Paul as writing as one of us instead of as God's messenger.
JC: Here Paul ascribes the "calling of eternal life" to Timothy. On what basis? On the basis of his *profession* of faith. His apparent faith.
DW: Are these only Paul's words or are these the Words of God asserting a truth? VERY serious question!
JC: When Paul "remembers you in my prayers", he is remembering specific people by name in his prayers. Not "to whom it applies", but Alice, Bob, and Charlie.
DW: How do we know this? You mean he couldn't pray for God's children in Rome and let God figure out who is specifically meant? He has to know them personally by name to pray for them???
JC: Now, if "you" in 1.9 and 1.10 refers to specific people, then either . . .
DW: The 'you' and 'your' of verses 7-10 are those who are beloved of God in Rome, called [as] saints. There is no 'apparent faith' in view. He is writing to saints and he has heard about their faith, not somebody else's faith. At least that is what he says.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: That's an odd meaning. [DW: The word reject has the meaning of no longer paying attention to.] Where does it come from?
DW: απωΘεομαι (a figurative extension of meaning - to push away, 15.46); to no longer pay attention to previous beliefs, to refuse to listen to, to reject.
Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996, c1989). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament.
JC: There's nothing in here that resembles "the remnant proves that God is still paying attention to ethnic Israel."
DW: Just for clarity, I guess you see Paul saying 'God has not rejected the remnant of ethnic Israel becasue I, an ethnic Israelite, am saved. And, like in Elijah's time, there is a remnant of ethnic Israel even today.'
So, God chose a remnant of ethnic Israel in eternity past and at any point in time (at least up to Paul's time), there is a living part of that remnant.
If that is so, then we are really quite close. For, I agree with this and simply add that if there is such a remnant, then there is a human source of it, i.e., ethnic Israel. And, if these people still exist as a people; then they are not rejected and all the promises that God made to them must still be in force.
JC: What do you mean? (DW: i) Chapter 11 is not 'about' the remnant.)
DW: A little over the top, sorry. My failed point was that that is not the main theme of the chapter. The existence of a remnant is not the reason Paul can't help but praise God at the end of the chapter.
JC: So the question is not, ever, that God would reject his elect.
DW: Of course not. Additionally, we have no way of saying: 'look; over there; that is a remnant of that people'. I keep mentioning the Hittites; I know there is no remnant today. Why? Because there are not Hittites. And, I have no trouble seeing that.
We have no way of saying if person xyz, including cousin Eli, is elect. Paul's point (to me) is that there has always been a remnant of this people. Implication being that there always will be. That is what sets this people apart. Because of God's promises to them, we can know that regardless of what we see them doing, God's plan of a remnant in the end to receive His promises stands firm.
Rejection of what? king / gospel
In 10:9 we have the gospel: "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus [as] Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved"
Now, there is no way that Israel did not believe this before they crucified the Christ. Right? What they didn't believe is in 10:11, i.e., that Jesus was the promised Messiah; their promised king.
The Jews couldn't figure it out. For the Messiah was both a suffering servant who took away sin and also a conquering king. When Jesus came to earth He did not say, I am the Savior who will die for your sins. He said 'repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand' The kingdom required a king and they rejected Him as that king. For, they didn't believe that He was who He said He was. But, when they rejected Him, He was most definitely alive. Only after the rejection was clear did Jesus start talking about His death.
Isaiah is quoted in 10:16 to underscore that they did not believe that He was who He said He was while He was alive. John also quotes this Isaiah verse in John 12:38. Earlier in that chapter we have this: 12:14 "And Jesus, finding a young donkey, sat on it; as it is written, 15 "Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your King is coming, seated on a donkey's colt." 16 These things His disciples did not understand at the first; . . ."
It was not just the lost of Israel who didn't understand. Most of them missed their king. That was their crime.
JC: You appear to read me as saying that God is fooled or impressed by appearances, which is quite the opposite of what I mean.
DW: NEVER would I read you thus.
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: The idea of the two perspectives is right there in the text in 11.28. I'm not "introducing man's perspective" into God's word; it's right there already.
DW: I must be blind to not see it. What I see is:
a) "From the standpoint of the gospel" -- if we look at what is happening regarding the gospel for a minute (certainly man is the one doing the looking here)
b) "they are enemies" -- Israelites certainly are not embracing the gospel and are even fighting against the Church (as I once did!)
c) "for your sake," -- don't be troubled; this turns out to be for your good [although from man's perspective this is not at all obvious]
d) "but from the standpoint of [God's] choice" -- but, if we change our focus to that of God's perspective
e) "they are beloved" -- I am telling you (as God's spokesperson) that God still loves them
f) "for the sake of the fathers" -- not for any inherent value in them; but, because of the promises to the fathers.
So, I simply see God's perspective as key here and while man's perspective is mentioned, that is not an important part of the message of the verse.
JC: David, is it remotely possible that you've eisegeted the "place of blessing" into the tree metaphor?
DW: Well, we both know the answer to that even without the word 'remotely' included!
I take the root to be the AC which is the source of blessing for the entire world. Not that God could not have brought Jesus into the world some other way; but,this is the people whom he chose for that purpose. And, He made them this promise in the AC. And, He promised them all sorts of earthly blessings. He also pronounced a bunch of curses on those who were their earthly enemies. Isn't that a place of blessing?
TO BE CONTINUED:
CONTINUING:
JC: Faith is never used as an instrument of standing into non-salvific blessing.
DW: Deuteronomy 28:2 "And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you will obey the Lord your God. What follows is a list of physical blessings not including salvation. What would you call it if an Israelite tried to follow the Mosaic Law? No, we know he could not do it well enough to be declared righteous. Nevertheless, was he not promised blessing for trying to do this? Wouldn't it take something like 'faith' to even just give it a try?
JC: In Romans 9 - 11, the heartbreaking issue for Paul is not that Israel has lost her place of blessing, but that she has failed to receive righteousness by faith.
DW: Yes. And, for his part he realizes that all he can do is preach the gospel to them and possibly save some. He knows that she has been broken off (lost her place of blessing, at least according to me); but, he also knows that God's promises are just as firm as ever. "I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be!"
JC: Meanwhile, "national blessing" is nowhere to be found, except obliquely in 9.4; but even there, those blessings are connected to salvation.
DW: Obliquely? Is "the giving of the Law and the [temple] service" chopped liver? Or, are these blessings connected to salvation? Did bringing an animal to the temple ever save one Israelite? I don't think so.
JC: And in any event, surely you aren't saying that Israel used to have the covenants, but now the Gentiles do! That would be quite a reversal. ;)
DW: Indeed it would. Is there any place in Scripture where God takes back His covenants from Israel? If so, I have missed it. No, every covenant still stands as originally stated unless we can find a modification somewhere.
JC: Paul: In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.
DW: True, that is Scripture. But, what is the context? For out of context it might mean just about anything. You bring this up regarding Esau. And, this verse comes right after Paul says that not all Israel is Israel. So, what is the point here. My take: God is sovereign and picks who He wants as His children and is not constrained by physical birth. Which sort of sounds like where this OUTSTANDING exchange began!
The specific referent here is in verse 9:9 "For this is a word of promise : "At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son." Isaac is the son of promise not Ishmael. Likewise, Jacob and not Esau. So, it is not that Esau was a bad guy. He was that; but, more importantly, he simply wasn't chosen. But, he most certainly was a physical child of Abraham and not just to outward appearances.
So, what 'promise' do you believe leads to the separation of Israel into a subset, true Israel, other than God's sovereign choice?
DW: When Paul says 'the church' - I say he means 'the church.' That is, the true body of Christ. You say, I believe, that since we know the church is this mixed bag, then that is what he is talking about.
Two very important points here.
(1) My view is *not* that we know that the church is a mixed bag, so therefore ...
Rather, my view is that we have several possible ways to interpret Rom 1.7. Therefore, we should look at the rest of the letter to try to decide which meaning is in view. In my view, the passages we have discussed have bearing on how we interpret 1.7, leading to a conclusion that Paul is speaking to the visible church according to their profession of faith.
So it's really important here to separate premise from conclusion. "The church as a mixed bag" is a conclusion of my argument, a result of the exegesis, NOT a presupposition that precedes it. The presupposition, I suppose, is that 1.7 has several possible meanings.
If given 1.7 in isolation, I would probably agree with you that the invisible church is the most likely meaning. It is the additional evidence that leads me away from the IC as the referent of "you."
(cont.)
2) You say that when Paul says 'the church', he means 'the church.' -- I agree.
You then pass to "that is, the true body of Christ." (that is, the invisible church).
And here, I disagree. I think he means something close to that, but not exactly that.
But it's important to note that my disagreement is *not* whether Paul means what he says. We both agree to that. The question is rather whether you (or I) have properly understood what Paul is saying.
An analogy: In 1529, the Colloquy of Marburg was convened between the German Reformed (headed by Luther) and the Swiss Reformed (headed by Zwingli) in order to hash out fifteen differences between them. All were successfully resolved except the last: the theology of Communion.
Zwingli was committed to the idea that communion was a memorial of Christ's death. Luther on the other hand firmly believed that the Lord's words, "this is my body", proved that communion was a literal partaking of Christ (not in a transubstantiation sense, but in the sense that Christ's physical body was present "around, over, and under" the communion elements). Luther's view, of course, was impossible: Jesus' human body could not partake of His divine omnipresence without confusing the two natures. Thus, Jesus could not be *physically* present at churches all through the world all at the same time. Zwingli made much of Jesus being "seated at the right hand of God the Father" as Colossians puts it.
Nevertheless, Luther pounded the table and shouted, "THIS IS MY BODY! You have a different Spirit!"
And the two parted, unable to unite because Luther was unable to consider the possibility that his "literal" interpretation was nevertheless the wrong one: Jesus did not *mean* the word "is" in an identity sense, but in a metaphorical sense. So Luther was simply incorrect about Jesus' intent.
To your great credit, you haven't been as hard-headed as Luther. But you do take the view that your read is the one reading that makes God's Word actually be true, while other readings add an element of human interpretation.
This is incorrect. The doctrine of inspiration is *not* that our particular readings of Scripture are infallible. Rather, you and I both hold that the author's intent is the meaning of the text, and that that intent is infallible.
So if Paul's language was *in fact* intended to be conditionally true, then insisting that it be unconditionally true is not upholding the truth of Scripture, but rather upholding the truth of a certain interpretation.
I want to be clear on this not because I am above my own criticism, but because I want to be clear on what I'm contending for: letting Scripture (the rest of Romans) interpret the meaning of Scripture (Rom 1.7). It has nothing to do with making God's word less true.
(All of this said in a relaxed way; I wasn't offended by anything. I just want to try to dislodge the mistaken view that one interpretation of 1.7 upholds the Word of God, while other interpretations bring in man's opinions. Fair?)
DW: I just don't see Scripture ever using the word 'church' with this meaning [of a mixed group].
It's there. Ananias and Sapphira were a part of the church in Acts 5 (start at Acts 4.32 to get the full effect). In Revelation, the churches in Sardis, Pergamum, Thyatira, and Laodicea (at least) were mixed groups -- see esp. Pergamum.
I've mentioned already the conditional language in Col 1.23. Your response focused on the *way* in which they were to continue in the faith (which I agree with!) but you glossed over the salient point: Paul introduces a condition.
And anyways, where does this language of "visible church" come from? Why is the VC called a church at all, if it does not meet the Scriptural definition of church (in your view?)
Time to play some bridge, so more later ...
Grace and peace,
JRC
JRC: There's nothing in [Rom 11] that resembles "the remnant proves that God is still paying attention to ethnic Israel."
DW: Just for clarity, I guess you see Paul saying 'God has not rejected the remnant of ethnic Israel becasue I, an ethnic Israelite, am saved. And, like in Elijah's time, there is a remnant of ethnic Israel even today.'
So, God chose a remnant of ethnic Israel in eternity past and at any point in time (at least up to Paul's time), there is a living part of that remnant.
Yes.
DW: If that is so, then we are really quite close. For, I agree with this and simply add that if there is such a remnant, then there is a human source of it, i.e., ethnic Israel.
Yes, I think we agree to this point.
DW: And, if these people still exist as a people; then they are not rejected and all the promises that God made to them must still be in force.
I don't understand how "still existing" leads to "all the promises are still in force"?
If, for example, those promises were conditioned on faith, then no promises remain to them. It's not as if God's promise had failed, but not all are children of the promise.
Interestingly, we semi-agree that the promises are conditioned on faith, in that we agree that only the faithful will inherit the land.
Further, we also agree that God's plan for ethnic Israel includes repentance from unbelief.
And still further, we also agree that "they are loved on account of the patriarchs."
JRC
DW: Is there any place in Scripture where God takes back His covenants from Israel? If so, I have missed it. No, every covenant still stands as originally stated unless we can find a modification somewhere.
I agree with the principle (assuming that we are excepting the Old Covenant, right? That's explicitly repealed or fulfilled by the death of Christ, acc. to Hebrews).
But now, is it possible that we have misunderstood the original statement of the covenant?
Is it possible, for example, that the covenant promises properly belonged only to those who received it in the same manner as Abraham: by faith?
In other words, is there any Scripture that definitely states that the covenant promises are given to every physical descendant of Abraham?
Or any Scripture that definitely states that the AC is made with Israel as a nation, rather than the descendants of Abraham collectively?
JRC
DW: The Jews couldn't figure it out. For the Messiah was both a suffering servant who took away sin and also a conquering king. When Jesus came to earth He did not say, I am the Savior who will die for your sins. He said 'repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand' The kingdom required a king and they rejected Him as that king. For, they didn't believe that He was who He said He was. But, when they rejected Him, He was most definitely alive. Only after the rejection was clear did Jesus start talking about His death.
I'm confused. I wonder how much distance there is here -- we seem to agree that Jesus was rejected by the Jews as both king and savior, right?
Somehow there seems to be a separation of those two that is important to you. Can you explain further?
Right now, it seems as if your view is that Jesus did not explain forgiveness of sins to the Jews until after they had already rejected Him as king. Am I tracking here?
JRC: The idea of the two perspectives is right there in the text in 11.28.
DW: I must be blind to not see it. What I see is:
a) "From the standpoint of the gospel" -- if we look at what is happening regarding the gospel for a minute (certainly man is the one doing the looking here)
b) "they are enemies" -- Israelites certainly are not embracing the gospel and are even fighting against the Church (as I once did!)
c) "for your sake," -- don't be troubled; this turns out to be for your good [although from man's perspective this is not at all obvious]
d) "but from the standpoint of [God's] choice" -- but, if we change our focus to that of God's perspective
e) "they are beloved" -- I am telling you (as God's spokesperson) that God still loves them
f) "for the sake of the fathers" -- not for any inherent value in them; but, because of the promises to the fathers.
That's it! You've articulated it exactly. There's what we see: "They" (whom I take to be the elect remnant who have not yet repented, but whom you take to be ethnic Israel) look one way externally, but are in fact another way in reality.
So then the idea of apparent faith is the appropriate parallelism based on vv. 11.22 - 24: God was stern, but will relent towards the elect who believe; God has been kind, but will be stern if you do not continue in his kindness (which we recognize as a synonym for unbelief, per v. 20).
They *look* externally as rejected, but if they believe, they will reveal that they are elect. You *look* externally as accepted, but if you do not continue in God's kindness, you will reveal that you are not elect.
So, I simply see God's perspective as key here and while man's perspective is mentioned, that is not an important part of the message of the verse.
Depends on what you mean by "not important." I would say, "not the true measure of what is real"; but their perspective *was* important enough to warrant Paul addressing it.
That is, he is trying to build a bridge between what they see (and might be tempted to believe) and what is actually true. So man's perspective is important in this sense: it is the starting point for Paul's explanation.
DW: Calvin says that 'the discourse is addressed generally to the body of the Gentiles.' You say this means 'visible church;' I see it meaning 'all Gentiles' and find no qualifier in Calvin. So, is it possible that Calvin does not support (3)?
In principle, yes. I agree that the phrase "body of Gentiles" is a phrase that might mean two things: the whole collection of Gentiles, or the Gentiles within his audience.
But consider that Calvin thinks that Paul is writing particularly to false professors and then ask, "Where would these be found, if not the Church?"
Then step out a bit and consider what Paul has to say about the remnant (11.1-6), the nature of the Church (Inst. 4.1, esp. 4.1.7-9), and the nature of the covenant with Abraham (e.g.: Inst. 2.10, esp. 2.10.23), and I think you'll agree that Calvin is pushing for (3).
(Which is not surprising, since modern Reformed folk do also, yes?)
Hi Jeff,
Hopefully, I can get this out before you have to play all of your trump cards! This only deals with your two 11/27 entries.
JC: In my view, the passages we have discussed have bearing on how we interpret 1.7
DW: No problem with that. Provided we are using 'clear' verses to explain less clear verses.
JC: Paul is speaking to the visible church according to their profession of faith.
DW: There is a sense in which I can agree with this. In most locations there is a group of people who consider themselves a church. And, probably, all who are there have made a profession. So, sure, Paul sends his letters to the 'church.' It is sort of like asking the crook why he robs banks. His response: "Well, duh, that is where the money is."
So, we read 1:6-7 and really have no trouble concluding that Paul intends for believers to read the letter. (Paul, of course, has no control over who actually does read his letter.) Now, you get to a passage later in the letter that indicates that Paul might also be writing to unbelievers in the Roman church. And, I'm quite sure we agree that there is a difference between writing TO and writing ABOUT.
What I have basically been trying to explain is that the non-believers can not understand or act on the spiritual guidance that Paul includes in his letters. Only the believers 'in the church' have the ability to stop their sinning and clean up the group.
I conclude that just because he tells the saved about the unsaved in their midst (and what to do about that sin) does not mean that he is writing TO the unsaved to clean up their act. Therefore, is he speaking to the non-believers seems to be the specific issue here.
JC: I think he means something close to that, but not exactly that.
DW: What is 'close' to the Body of Christ but 'not exactly' the same?
JC: To your great credit, you haven't been as hard-headed as Luther. But
DW: AHHHH, there is always a but (in my statements also, of course)
TO BE CONTINUED:
JRC: Second, the text of Rom 1 itself casts doubt on (1) (i.e., speaking only to saved)
DW: How so? Paul wants to preach the gospel to Romans. That is, to those among the ones he is writing to who are not saved. Isn't this a perfectly reasonable reading of those verses?
Exactly so. That is: the ones he is writing to include some unbelievers. The word "you" includes some who are unbelievers.
JRC: Notice that Paul does not say, "preach the gospel to your neighbors", but "preach the gospel to you."
DW: So, when Paul gets to Rome he only plans to preach the gospel to those in the visible church??? Or with my reading, only those who are actually saved??? No, this is not what Paul is telling them in 1:13-15.
I didn't say "only." I'm just saying that Paul's plans include, according to 1.13 - 15, evangelizing "you" and having a harvest among "you."
And this is only possible if Paul thinks that "you" includes some who do not believe.
JC: The problem here is that Paul's greetings are ambiguous.
DW: Not that it furthers agreement; but, truly I find them rather clear.
I agree that you have established a clear meaning for 1.7 on the basis of a plain reading of the words. And as I've mentioned, if 1.7 were the only verse, I would agree with you.
The problem is that your clarity in 1.7 leads to contradictions all down the line later on: 1.13 - 15, 8.13, 11.17 - 21.
Your resolution to those contradictions is to say that the "you" in each of those later passages refers to someone else other than the "you" from 1.7 (a broader "you" in ch. 1, a universal "you" in ch. 8, and a "entire race of Gentiles you" in ch. 11).
This troubles me greatly. I feel nervous adjusting the meanings of so many different passages on the basis of our clarity.
I would feel differently if 8.13, for example, were an unclear passage. It would make sense then to use 1.7 to help bring clarity to it.
But 8.13 is really quite clear, I think; adding in 1.7 only serves to make its meaning something *other than* what it plainly says.
DW: Why is God saying anything to unbelievers other than believe?
I agree; He isn't. In general, Paul is addressing those who profess faith on the assumption that the profession is genuine. He only introduces notes of caution in order to cause them to examine themselves to see whether they are in the faith (cf. 2 Cor 12). So the general message of Romans properly belongs to the true believers, but the warnings are for the benefit of the false professors.
And we agree on this: that the content of the warnings comes down to, "repent and believe."
Post a Comment