Red e-mailed me and asked me to post. Must....edit.....later.....
Calvinists seem to think it is the nail in the coffin of Arminianism. Arminians think ... well, a lot of things.
Well, in my opinion, this section of Paul's book supports neither side more than the other.
What i would rather not have would include one-liner assertions,
Rats!
mockery,
No mockery either?
snide remarks.
Where's the fun in that?
What i'd like to do for this thread is to have constructive conversation, where each side presents its case(s) and critiques. that'd be great!
I'm in over my head right now, so let me comment quickly and catch up and explain more at a later date. You'll see my explanation of
Romans 11:26 is the same as Wright's ("all Israel" is saved by the influx of the Gentiles, because Gentiles are co-heirs). I will have to explain Paul's reference to "Zion" later, becuase Wright, among others, really misses the point.
Paul's argument here, in chapter 9, is the same argument he is making throughout his book. In order to understand him, we need to start at chapter 1!!! (Actually, we need to start at the beginning of God's Book,
Genesis 1-3!). However, to maintain some of the traditional level of confusion, well start in the middle of the book, as has been done for hundreds of years (OK, that will be my only snide remark.)
I will show that structure of argumentation again:
I. True Nature of God's Israel
A. True desc. = not children of flesh, but children of "promise"
1. "True" are named through Isaac (a child of promise)
2. "Same with Rebecca" (who had a child of promise)
a. God's election was of "Jacob" (another of child of promise)
i. His election of Jacob does not make God unjust
ii. His election of Jacob is based upon His mercy/compassion
Compare Pharaoh (mercy/hardening)
B. Why does God blame "fleshly" Israel if He chose this "true" Israel?
1. How does "man" argue with God's choice?
2. What if God endured in order to make His glory known?
a. As Hosea says ... (Jew/Gentile issue)
b. And as Isaiah cries out ... (Jew/Gentile issue)
C. What can be said? Gentiles did obey; Israel stumbled!
1. As it was written ...
2. Paul's desire that some of them believe.
In this structure, note how the illustrations are embedded within a context-specific issue: THE ISRAEL OF GOD!
Paul's opposition argues that if Paul is right, "God's word has failed!" (9:6) What are they arguing about? Are they arguing that God's word has failed if He picked one individual person to be saved and not another? What kind of sense would that make? Certainly they must have in mind a
particular "promise" or "word"? Or are they just pulling that comment out of a hat!?
On the contrary, the Jewish opposition is arguing that a
particular promise was made. If that promise was not kept, GOD's WORD HAS FAILED! Here's the promise: that Abraham would be the father of many nations and that his seed would inherit the land.
"Now if this is right," Paul's opposition argued, "then any sane person knows that Israel has claim to the inheritance, the promise of God. Therefore, the promise is according to the flesh -- the seed -- of Abraham!" Of course, they were right. Israel DOES have the claim to the inheritance, but just WHO is God's Israel? Israel according to the flesh of Abraham, or Israel according to the promise?
Right from the start of Paul's book, he begins to make the argument that Israel according to the flesh is not the Israel of God, because they are still in the first 'adam (humanity). The true Jew, according to Paul (and to the frustration of his opposition), is the Jew or Gentile who is one inwardly -- who is in God's new work in Messiah, the Second 'Adam. One who is a Jew inwardly has received a real circumcision, which is in the heart, by the Spirit.
Elsewhere in Scripture we find the same contrasts concerning the fulfillment of God's promise to
His Israel:
"earthly Israel" vs. "God's true Israel"
"present Jerusalem" vs. "Jerusalem above"
"Mount Sinai" vs. "Mount Zion"
"copy/shadow" vs. "true"
"house built by Moses" vs. "house built by Jesus
"Joshua's rest" vs. "Jesus' rest"
"that country" vs. "a better country, that is a heavenly one"
"a blazing fire" vs. "the city of the living God"
So let's look, quickly, at how Paul opens his book:
1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an
apostle and set apart for the gospel of God--
2
the gospel he promised beforehand through
his prophets in the Holy Scriptures.
Whatever Paul's "gospel" is, it is the fulfillment of a "promise" made to someone.
Let's look at how Paul ends his book:
25Now to him who is able to establish you by
my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus
Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery
hidden for long ages past, 26but now revealed
and
made known through the prophetic writings
by the command of the eternal God,
so that
all nations might believe and obey him--
27to the only wise God be glory forever through
Jesus Christ!
Paul's "gospel" is the fulfillment of the promises (not the failure!!) made in Scripture sooooo long ago. The promise made to Abraham and his Seed (
Gal 3:16-17), repeated over and over throughout the ages, is now fulfilled in "the proclamation of Jesus Christ!" WOW!!! We'd have to pluck out our eyes to miss that!!
Of course, there are so many other verses I could reference, but I always must at least include the following from chapter 15:
5May the God who gives endurance and encouragement
give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow
Christ Jesus, 6so that with one heart and mouth you
may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you,
in order to bring praise to God. 8
For I tell you that
Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of
God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the
patriarchs 9so that the Gentiles may glorify God for
his mercy, as it is written:
"Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles;
Christ is the fulfillment of "the promises made to the patriarchs," so GOD'S WORD HAS NOT FAILED!! Jew and Gentiles, therefore, may "accept one another" and thereby bring praise to God.
Now back to
Romans 9. So how is it that God's word has not failed (as if we didn't already know!). The issue and the antithesis (9:6-8):
a. not all Israel is Israel.
b. not all of Abraham's descendants are his children (or, not all his children are his "seed" -- there is some debate on the translation).
Of course, this is a restatement of what was said in chapter 4, regarding Abraham:
So then, he is the
father of all who believe
but have not been circumcised, in order that
righteousness might be credited to them. 12And
he is also the father of the circumcised who not
only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps
of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
13
It was not through law that Abraham
and his offspring received the promise that he would
be heir of the world, but through the righteousness
that comes by faith.
Paul's point above is that the Israel of the law did not inherit the promises, but Abraham's offspring by faith do! Not all of the Israel according the flesh is God's Israel, because not all believe.
So how does this argument that "not all Israel is Israel" help Paul's argument, and how does it relate to the illustrations that follow? Because:
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. For this was how the promise was
stated: "At the appointed time I will return,
and Sarah will have a son."
The "In other words" (NIV), "That is" (NASB) or "Tout' estin" (UBS) restates his point of the Isaac account analogy. That point: that "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."
This is covenantal language. His opponents say THEY, as "natural children" ("fleshly descendants"), are the rightful heirs to God's covenantal promise. Paul says otherwise. Abraham's descendants are those who are children of the promise. What promise? To Abraham and his "Seed." Paul argues FOR the "new covenant in Messiah" against the "old covenant at Sinai." Messiah is heir, and in him we are co-heirs to that promise.
Israel through Isaac and Jacob was not according to the "natural order." It was according to the promise. Likewise, Israel through Messiah (through "faith in him") is the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham, thus uniting Jew and Gentiles in Christ.
And what of Sinaitic Israel? It was a marred pot which was reshaped for destruction. This is nothing new. It was spoken of from ages past. Scriptures
CLEARLY predicted this and described that day. Israel according to the flesh is/was destined for destruction, so all who are in it are condemned. The Israel in the Seed is destined for glory, and all in Him are saved.
We'll look a little closer at this issue in Paul's closing remarks in this section of his book
For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed
of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation,
that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until
the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and
thus all
Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER
WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS
FROM JACOB. AND THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,
WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."
Paul is speaking of that day when Messiah would come and deliver humanity from the one problem facing them: SIN. The "old" covenant order with its earthly Israel could not "deliver from sin." For if it could, then Messiah died for nothing. Rather, that "old" order was a temporary measure, holding back God's righteous judgment, until the arrival of the Deliverer. Luke-Acts takes this position in his proclamation of the arrival of the Deliverer. This great Deliverer has arrived, and has dealt the final blow to the sin/death problem.
But let us not ignore the actual wording of this Romans passage. Paul says that
"a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness
of the Gentiles has come in; and THUS all Israel will be saved."
The word I have translated "thus" is "houtos." If someone says that Paul speaks of a time AFTER the times of the Gentiles, they do so on the supposition that "houtos" is a temporal adverb. As such they must translate it as "then"
"a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness
of the Gentiles has come in; and THEN all Israel will be saved."
What such a person supposes, then, is that Paul here speaks of a sequential series of events, as you would say it, one event AFTER the other; the fullness comes in, THEN all Israel will be saved.
But "houtos" is not a temporal adverb. It is an adverb of manner. Properly translated it would read, "in this way, thus, so, like this." That is, it express the MANNER in which the clause it modifies will occur, not the TIME WHEN it will occur.
So, in view of this, properly translated the Romans passage should read,
"a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness
of the Gentiles has come in; and in this manner all Israel will
be saved."
If Paul intended to convey the idea of temporal sequence, he would have chosen from the "temporal" adverbs available to him: (haurion, nun, perusi, proi, semeron, tote).
Something other than "temporal sequence," then, is what is referred to here. As is the case with an adverb of manner, the "How" of the clause is in view. How will "all Israel be saved"? In what manner will "all Israel be saved"? The coming in of the fullness of the Gentiles is that which constitutes the "saving of all Israel."
This seems to fit my thesis very well. For Paul does not here speak of the "Israel" which has its physical descent from Jacob, but that which has its descent from Abraham and his "seed." That is, as Paul had said in his introduction to this 9-11 section of his Romans argument:
For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
neither are they all children because they are Abraham's
descendants ...
... it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God,
but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
So, too, he concludes this section of his argument with a description of what the "true" Israel would look like, that is, the Israel according to promise. It would be "delivered" in finality upon the arrival of the fullness of the "other nations."
His whole point in this argument is that physical descent from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (that all important aspect of the "old" covenant) was not a proper characterization of this "new" covenant work of God, wherein "all nations" would be FELLOW-heirs and FELLOW-members to the inheritance. And what is that inheritance? According to Moses (and the Prophets) it is restoration to the land which He had prepared for them to dwell in, the land from which His people had been exiled.
And what was it that caused the exile in the first place? SIN which lead to "death" (separation and exile from God's righteous presence). And how would God restore His people to that land? In the "seed" of Abraham, the Deliverer from ZION. Those who are in Messiah are the legitimate heirs to the inheritance, restoration to the land prepared by God for a people.
As Isaiah puts it (quoted by Paul):
And a Deliverer will come to ZION, and to those who turn from
transgression in Jacob.
And as for Me, this is My covenant with them, My Spirit which is
upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not
depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your offspring,
nor from the mouth of your offspring's offspring, from now and
forever.
Therefore through this Jacob's SIN will be forgiven; And this
will be the full price of the pardoning of his sin: When he makes
all the altar stones like pulverized chalk stones; When Asherim
and incense altars will not stand.
As our Hebrews author puts it:
For you have not come to a mountain (Sinai) that may be
touched and to a blazing fire, and to darkness and gloom and
whirlwind, and to the blast of a trumpet and the sound of words
which sound was such that those who heard begged that no
further word should be spoken to them.
And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, "I AM FULL OF
FEAR and trembling."
But you have come to Mount Zion (Abrahamic) and to the city of the
living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to
the general assembly and church of the first-born who are
enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits
of righteous men made perfect,
and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the
sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.
Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken,
let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an
acceptable service with reverence and awe.
With the arrival of the fullness of "all nations" God's work of deliverance will be complete. God's Israel will be saved in finality.
) , I think I will wait till he pulls out one his commentaries on the passage.l 
