Someone wrote to me, " In Romans Chapter 9, we see that Paul is in sorrow for the Israelites because he knew that their rejection of Christ has left them in blindness and without a Deliverer. And because of the promises that God had made concerning Israel, it would appear to some that those promises have been abrogated in the light of this dire judgment upon them. Paul is addressing the obvious question, 'if both the Jew and the Gentile have salvation by faith alone, and the majority of Jews have come under God's judgment, how then can God be seen as the Savior of Israel?'
We begin this study in Romans chapter 9 where the Apostle Paul deals with this very question of 'The Promises made to Israel' and why Israel is still under judgment.
Romans 9:6 "Not as though the Word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel."
In making this distinction, God is unambiguously illustrating that the identifying characteristic of the Israel of God 'not' in the flesh judaism, but in the Spirit, and is found in the sovereign electing work of God, not in genealogical descent. Thus we see that the covenantal promises of God were not to Israel after the flesh, but to the true spiritual Israel who are all those in Christ."
Phil responds. "Reader, I will take one issue at a time. Lets talk about,
Romans 9:6 "Not as though the Word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel."
This is an interesting combination of words. Lets see if we can unfold this verse, which has ties to the promises of God made to Abraham; a promise having its fulfillment in Christ alone.
Do I have this straight? Your saying, when Paul uses the term Israel in Romans 9, he is inferring that these are NOT literal Jews, but represent the church, called by some, "spiritual Israel?"
The first problem I have with this reasoning is; youre implying that from the hundreds of times the name "Israel" is mentioned in the Bible, EVERY time it refers to the 12 tribes, this verse is the exception?
If what you say is correct, what part of the Christian church represents Reuban, or Juda, or Aser, or Manasses, or any other tribe? I don't see how any one who speaks of a spiritual Israel (the church) can answer that question. Why, because there is no answer!
And if they did answer the question, based on what Biblical evidence would they have made this assessment, except by speculation? This form of thinking or theory goes against the whole teaching of who and what Israel represents throughout the Scriptures.
The problem: If someone can change the meaning here of an established term (Israel) then where does it stop? What would prevent others from doing the same concerning other doctrines of the Bible? In my estimation, this is a bad precedence to set.
Word changes not supported by a correct interpretation of the language can put a spin on every doctrine in the Scriptures. Again, the conclusive proof and evidence to the established fact that according to the Greek and Hebrew language when speaking of Israel and the Israelites, the language refers to literal people. As in,
The children of Israel, the house of Israel, the men of Israel, the descendant of Israel, and Jacob's posterity. There is no other definition attached to this particular word.
Phil LaSpino
We begin this study in Romans chapter 9 where the Apostle Paul deals with this very question of 'The Promises made to Israel' and why Israel is still under judgment.
Romans 9:6 "Not as though the Word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel."
In making this distinction, God is unambiguously illustrating that the identifying characteristic of the Israel of God 'not' in the flesh judaism, but in the Spirit, and is found in the sovereign electing work of God, not in genealogical descent. Thus we see that the covenantal promises of God were not to Israel after the flesh, but to the true spiritual Israel who are all those in Christ."
Phil responds. "Reader, I will take one issue at a time. Lets talk about,
Romans 9:6 "Not as though the Word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel."
This is an interesting combination of words. Lets see if we can unfold this verse, which has ties to the promises of God made to Abraham; a promise having its fulfillment in Christ alone.
Do I have this straight? Your saying, when Paul uses the term Israel in Romans 9, he is inferring that these are NOT literal Jews, but represent the church, called by some, "spiritual Israel?"
The first problem I have with this reasoning is; youre implying that from the hundreds of times the name "Israel" is mentioned in the Bible, EVERY time it refers to the 12 tribes, this verse is the exception?
If what you say is correct, what part of the Christian church represents Reuban, or Juda, or Aser, or Manasses, or any other tribe? I don't see how any one who speaks of a spiritual Israel (the church) can answer that question. Why, because there is no answer!
And if they did answer the question, based on what Biblical evidence would they have made this assessment, except by speculation? This form of thinking or theory goes against the whole teaching of who and what Israel represents throughout the Scriptures.
The problem: If someone can change the meaning here of an established term (Israel) then where does it stop? What would prevent others from doing the same concerning other doctrines of the Bible? In my estimation, this is a bad precedence to set.
Word changes not supported by a correct interpretation of the language can put a spin on every doctrine in the Scriptures. Again, the conclusive proof and evidence to the established fact that according to the Greek and Hebrew language when speaking of Israel and the Israelites, the language refers to literal people. As in,
The children of Israel, the house of Israel, the men of Israel, the descendant of Israel, and Jacob's posterity. There is no other definition attached to this particular word.
Phil LaSpino
