The Remnant of Rom 9:27

[mikewhitney]

Consider the following controversial writing of Paul...

In Romans 9:27 Paul mentions about the remnant being saved. Paul then seemed to be quoting from Isaiah 10:22.

Also in Romans 11:5 he said that the remnant was present. This would be an indication that prophecies about a remnant were currently in the process of being fulfilled, that the events related to that remnant then would occur while the remnant was still living.

Therefore Paul was saying that the prophecies of Isaiah 10:22 and maybe the surrounding verses were being fulfilled.

Did Isaiah 10:22 and surrounding verses have a past fulfillment? Or was "Assyria" (Isa 10:25) spoken figuratively as being all nations (or it could have been included among several nations/races) that rose up in battle in the first century?

Or does Paul's reference to Isaiah 10:22 reveal a secondary fulfillment of such passage from Isaiah?

[Ted]

Isaiah 10:22 is clearly a Day of the Lord context. Paul uses the same context in Romans 9, but doesn't try to limit his conversation to that context.

If we limit our view to the moment of the DOL in end times, then Paul's comments in Romans don't work very well, since he is discussing the inclusion of Gentiles in the body of Christ. If we limit ourselves to the DOL in Isaiah, we find the return of Judah is local, but the destruction in verse 23 is global.

It would seem that we should be seeing typological elements here. There were local judgments discussed by the prophets, but global and ultimate elements thrown into the language to help us see that more was to come. Also, due to the way Paul speaks of the inclusion of Gentiles, we should see his focus as progressive with an ultimate end-time result.

Ted

[mikewhitney]

Hi Ted,

Thanks for responding. I realized two things after making the OP. First was that this question was asking about specialized knowledge (down to a specific verse in Isaiah0 and second that I really should have looked at the passage in Isaiah first.

I consider Isaiah a hard book to investigate. But in looking a little at the context and at some commentaries it seemed evident that there was no event before Christ where Israel defeated Assyria. (And it seems that chapter 10 wasn't as difficult as I expected.) Hence, either a fulfillment in Christ Jesus had to occur or the passage remains future.

Interestingly enough Isa 10:12 says God will destroy the fruit of the king of Assyria. It is significant that the verse says "fruit" and not "seed" as might be expected. And since the Assyrian Empire came before the empires of Daniel, scripture shows that the empires in Daniel were the fruit, of like kind, derived from the design, of the Assyrian Empire.

Therefore, whatever was done in response to the empires in Daniel also was applied to the Assyrian empire.

I would have to disagree with the idea that Paul misapplied Isaiah 10. If Paul couldn't be trusted or Romans couldn't be trusted, then we students are left in a precarious situation.

Also, it should be observed that Rom 9 mostly is discussing the salvation of Jews. The transition to the Gentiles occurs for two apparent reasons: to include Gentiles' interest in the discussion by showing where they are included, and to form a basis for mentioning later that the Gentiles were being saved in order to make Jews jealous so they would realize that God said this would happen. (These ideas can reasonably be explained and defended. )

I see there is much eschatological difference between us. So it would be difficult to argue toward common understanding, but it was nice to have someone contribute on this discussion.

Blessings in Christ,

Mike Whitney