Who are the Children of Abraham?
At last, the final installment regarding the above question…
Romans 9
4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son."
Verses 4 and 5 set up the obvious Jewish question, “if the gentiles can be saved apart from being made a physical Jew (through the ritual of circumcision) and an observant of the ceremonies and Sabbaths, then what of the promises of God to the Jews (those who are observants)?” We see here in the question assumed and the answer given by Paul that, the Jews had believed that those to whom the promises of the Mosaic Covenant were made were the Children of Abraham, thus they receive those promised blessings. That is why they asked if the promises of God had failed, because Paul was telling them that just because they were born into the Mosaic Covenant they were not necessarily going to receive the promises of God for eternal life—rest in the land. Paul’s answer is this, God has not failed because the promises made to Abraham were never made only to the ethnic Jew but have always been for the spiritual offspring of Abraham not his physical offspring.
Paul is speaking specifically of his kinsmen according to the flesh. He reminds all the members of his audience that the adoption, covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises belong to his kinsmen (the Jews) but the belonging mentioned here is not the belonging of exclusive possession, the idea he is pursuing here is that all of those things had been disclosed in history through their culture and practices. The Jews no more owned those things as their exclusive possessions than they owned Jesus Himself, but there obviously is a sense in which all those things did belong to the Israelites (because it is in the text and the NASB translates it the same). It is in fact the same sense in which Christ belongs to the Jews. So the dispensationalist might argue from verses 4 and 5 that the fulfillment of the entire collection of covenant promises that God made belong exclusively to the Jews; the physical nation of Israel, but we can see that this argument would be invalid because of the nature of Paul's use of this statement and further reasons we will now explore. Another fact to be seen here is that the “belongings” Paul mentions in verse 4 are all parts of the Old Covenant that God made with Moses on Mount Sinai. The promises that Covenant Theology says are attributed to all believers are the ones made to Abraham in that unconditional covenant.
In what I believe was a moment of clarity, one day I read through this passage again, and having the debate over dispensational and covenant theology loosely fit in my mind, I read verse 6 and heard Paul say that, though all the things mentioned in the few preceding verses belonged to the Israelites, and understanding that not all of the Israelites were “in Christ” and that they remained under the thumb of the Roman empire even after their Messiah had come, God’s word had not failed! For Paul to make such a statement we must assume that is what many mistaken Jews were thinking and even expressing in their frustration. As I read this statement for myself once again, I was struck by the absence of the obvious dispensational explanation Paul should have given at this point. Shouldn’t Paul have inserted his thoughts in Romans 11 at this point; had the manuscripts been mixed up? Certainly not! I think that if Paul had believed that God’s “primary” plan has always been with ethnic Israel and His plan with the church was just a parenthesis within this plan, then he would have finished verse 6 this way: “It is not as though God’s word has failed—He has not put away His people forever. Because you did not receive Him as your king, He has sent your Messiah to save the gentiles as well, but He has not forsaken His chosen people, He has only postponed His dealing with you and He will resume it when He is finished dealing with the church”. But Paul doesn’t do that, instead of proving God’s faithfulness by reassuring the ethnic Jews of God’s future dealing with them, he proves God’s faithfulness by telling them their physical ancestry is not the issue, it is their spiritual ancestry; not all who are physically descended from Israel are spiritually descended from Israel; not all who are physically descended from Abraham are spiritually descended from Abraham…it is not the physical nation of Israel who are the children of God, but it is the spiritual nation of Israel who are His children.
At last, the final installment regarding the above question…
Romans 9
4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son."
Verses 4 and 5 set up the obvious Jewish question, “if the gentiles can be saved apart from being made a physical Jew (through the ritual of circumcision) and an observant of the ceremonies and Sabbaths, then what of the promises of God to the Jews (those who are observants)?” We see here in the question assumed and the answer given by Paul that, the Jews had believed that those to whom the promises of the Mosaic Covenant were made were the Children of Abraham, thus they receive those promised blessings. That is why they asked if the promises of God had failed, because Paul was telling them that just because they were born into the Mosaic Covenant they were not necessarily going to receive the promises of God for eternal life—rest in the land. Paul’s answer is this, God has not failed because the promises made to Abraham were never made only to the ethnic Jew but have always been for the spiritual offspring of Abraham not his physical offspring.
Paul is speaking specifically of his kinsmen according to the flesh. He reminds all the members of his audience that the adoption, covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises belong to his kinsmen (the Jews) but the belonging mentioned here is not the belonging of exclusive possession, the idea he is pursuing here is that all of those things had been disclosed in history through their culture and practices. The Jews no more owned those things as their exclusive possessions than they owned Jesus Himself, but there obviously is a sense in which all those things did belong to the Israelites (because it is in the text and the NASB translates it the same). It is in fact the same sense in which Christ belongs to the Jews. So the dispensationalist might argue from verses 4 and 5 that the fulfillment of the entire collection of covenant promises that God made belong exclusively to the Jews; the physical nation of Israel, but we can see that this argument would be invalid because of the nature of Paul's use of this statement and further reasons we will now explore. Another fact to be seen here is that the “belongings” Paul mentions in verse 4 are all parts of the Old Covenant that God made with Moses on Mount Sinai. The promises that Covenant Theology says are attributed to all believers are the ones made to Abraham in that unconditional covenant.
In what I believe was a moment of clarity, one day I read through this passage again, and having the debate over dispensational and covenant theology loosely fit in my mind, I read verse 6 and heard Paul say that, though all the things mentioned in the few preceding verses belonged to the Israelites, and understanding that not all of the Israelites were “in Christ” and that they remained under the thumb of the Roman empire even after their Messiah had come, God’s word had not failed! For Paul to make such a statement we must assume that is what many mistaken Jews were thinking and even expressing in their frustration. As I read this statement for myself once again, I was struck by the absence of the obvious dispensational explanation Paul should have given at this point. Shouldn’t Paul have inserted his thoughts in Romans 11 at this point; had the manuscripts been mixed up? Certainly not! I think that if Paul had believed that God’s “primary” plan has always been with ethnic Israel and His plan with the church was just a parenthesis within this plan, then he would have finished verse 6 this way: “It is not as though God’s word has failed—He has not put away His people forever. Because you did not receive Him as your king, He has sent your Messiah to save the gentiles as well, but He has not forsaken His chosen people, He has only postponed His dealing with you and He will resume it when He is finished dealing with the church”. But Paul doesn’t do that, instead of proving God’s faithfulness by reassuring the ethnic Jews of God’s future dealing with them, he proves God’s faithfulness by telling them their physical ancestry is not the issue, it is their spiritual ancestry; not all who are physically descended from Israel are spiritually descended from Israel; not all who are physically descended from Abraham are spiritually descended from Abraham…it is not the physical nation of Israel who are the children of God, but it is the spiritual nation of Israel who are His children.
No comments:
Post a Comment