27
Mar
2010
Q & A on Israel and the Church
Since it has somehow become uncool to use the word catechism, and cool to call it Q & A, I will direct you to Ryan McGraw’s Q & A on Israel and the church. This is a very helpful way to understand the Bible’s teaching on this difficult, but important subject. By the way, Q & A times are great ways to teach your kids about Christ. You can find it here.
About Post Author
Thanks for pointing the article out. Love it. Very helpful. I’ve already forwarded it on to a couple of my kids and a good friend.
Do you think in Romans 11:26 when it says: “And so all Israel shall be saved.” this is referring to the full number of the elect both Jews and Gentiles – the Spiritual Israel. Or do you think this refers back to the full number of elect ethnic Jews, or something else?
Scott,
I have held to the O. Palmer Robertson position that it is the full number of the true spiritual Israel–elect Jews and Gentiles, but have recently changed my mind. I think it is a summary of what Paul is saying in Romans 9:6 that it is the full number of elect ethnic Jews. I think this would be William Hendriksen’s position. What do you think?
I think it is referring to the full number of the elect both Jews and Gentiles. But I’m trying to weigh it carefully. Thank you for answering my question – Plus identifying Robertson and Hendricksen. I have held that it was elect ethnic Jews but at that time more from a Dispensational point of view. It appears, if understood the commentary correctly Calvin held to the full number of the elect. But John Gill to full number of ethnic Jews.
I couldn’t discern from the Katekomen article you referenced which view of Rom 11:26 the author held.
Thanks again.
I am not sure what position Ryan holds either. It was interesting that most of the guys at Greenville Seminary disagreed on this issue. I was very strongly in favor of the “true Israel-Jew and Gentile in Christ” position. I am on the fence now. But, I am sure that it does not mean ethnic Jews in a revivalistic,Pre- or Postmillennial sence. That would totally defeat Paul’s argument from Romans 9:6 on. Interestingly, John Murray takes it to be a mass conversion of ethnic Jews. His argument rests on his conclusion that Paul never uses the word “Israel” in the same context in two different ways. The problem with that is that Paul absolutely does in 9:6. Murray also says that it is unthinkable that God would reverse the theocratic blessing laid on ethnic Israel. This is to miss what our Lord says when He tells the Jews in Matthew 21, “The Kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruit of it.” How is that not a rejection of the theocratic blessing. The Jews apostatized and the new Israel emerged in the days of Christ and the apostles.
When you say most of the guys at Greenville Seminary disagreed on this issue, did you mean with each other? Or with the idea that Rom 11:26 is referring to elect ethnic Jews? Or the other way around that Rom 11:26 is referring to all elect?
It is a difficult passage for me: I want to view Rom 9:6 as speaking of spiritual Israel as both Jews and Gentiles when saying “they are not all Israel” but then also “which are of Israel.” as being ethnic Jews. Some would say instead something like this: “of the ethnic Jews not all are elect ethnic Jews.” I want to see Israel used there with two different meanings and one of them not confined to ethnic Jews only.
So that also in Rom 9:8 the “children of promise” are the elect both Jews and Gentiles.
So because in Rom 11:25 when it says “blindness in part is happened to Israel” this refers to ethnic Israel. And then because of this blindness to ethnic Israel there will be a fulness of Gentiles coming in which will results in “all Israel” being saved elect from the foundation of the world consisting of both Jews and Gentiles.
You are obviously well aware of that understanding since you were pretty persuaded of it before – what did you see as the biggest problem with this understanding? Was it because it requires too much juggling of the word Israel? I think that is one reason why I keep weighing my position on this verse. Plus the verses following v26 where it refers to “my covenant with THEM” and then labeling “them” as enemies for your sake and beloved as touching election.
I still see Rom 11:26 as all spiritual Israel but examining with fear wanting to be faithful to the word and not to my bias. Thanks for your interaction as I try to carefully reexamine my own position.
Despite the common belief today that the Church has taken over the role of Israel in God’s plan for mankind, the Bible shows that the Church and Israel occupy two different roles in God’s plan for mankind.
In order to get a clear understanding of the subject, it is necessary to summarize what the Bible is about. The book called “Has the Church replaced Israel†shows the Biblical account of the roles of the Church and the nation of Israel. It is available for free download from SCRIBD at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29127681/Israel-and-the-Church
Hopefully it will clarify the issues for many of the correspondents and maybe stimulate some debate