Tag: all Israel

Ethnic or faith

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

Israel is both bigger than we might suppose ‘Israel’ to be and also smaller! The name Israel is used for the covenant people because of the patriarch ‘Jacob’ whose name was changed to ‘Israel’. [Israel has three applications: the land of Israel; the whole 12 tribes; and the northern ‘10 tribes’ sometimes also called ‘Ephraim’. Jews, as we will see, are part of Israel, but are not ‘Israel’. They are those who are of the tribe of Judah (and Benjamin is included, along with some of Levi who were originally distributed throughout the land).] They are the covenant people who come from the line of ‘Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’. The twelve tribes we might assume are descended from the 12 sons of Jacob / Israel but that is only approximately true. Joseph’s two sons (Ephraim and Manasseh) are described either as two tribes or as half-tribes with the two together making up the tribe of Joseph. The bigger point though is one of ethnicity. The sons of Joseph are born in Egypt to the daughter of the priest of On; Asenath, Joseph’s Egyptian wife, gave birth to two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim. They are not only included but give identity as tribes so much so that in later history ‘Ephraim’ can be given as an umbrella name for the 10 northern kingdom tribes. Ethnicity is not in view! 

[There are various lists of the tribes; for example ‘Joseph’ is included in the blessing of Jacob over his sons prior to his death (Gen. 49: 3-27); in the census of the tribes (Num. 1:20-43) Ephraim and Manasseh are included (Joseph nor Levi are listed); and in Revelation 7:5-8 the list includes Manasseh, Levi and Joseph but drops Dan and Ephraim.]

At the time of the Exodus we read that not only those descended from Jacob’s immediate family exit the land but that an ‘alien’ who joined themselves to those of ‘Israel’ were to be considered as ‘natives of the land’ and as a result a ‘mixed multitude’ left Egypt (Exod. 12: 36-38). Those who enter the land are not all descended from Abraham. They are considered to be part of Israel though they are not ethnically descended from the patriarchs.

As they enter the land we read of Rahab and her household being added to the covenant people and later of Ruth (a Moabite) who becomes an ancestor of David. In the Rahab story Achan and his household (Israelites) are cut off from the people while she and her household are incorporated. Matthew in his Gospel that is very ‘Jewish’ lists both those women as part of the genealogy of Jesus.

Caleb (a great hero) was a Kennizite as was Othniel, the judge. The Kennizites were either a tribe in Canaan or descended from Kenaz, a grandson of Esau.At that level ‘Israel’ is not confined to those whose genealogies are ethnically off ‘Israel’, but includes a larger group whose allegiance is to the God of Israel,

[Y]our people shall be my people and your God my God (Ruth 1:16).

We can further add the challenges from the New Testament, such as John the Baptist’s statement that confronted the claim to ethnicity as the marker,

We have Abraham as our ancestor,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham (Matt. 3:8).

Or Paul’s pushback on ‘external’ factors as defining who is a ‘Jew’,

For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not the written code. Such a person receives praise not from humans (Rom. 2:28,29).

In those passages we have both a widening of those who are of Israel and also a narrowing. Either way faith seems to take precedence over ethnicity.

‘Israel’ being smaller than ‘Israel’ is summed up in Paul’s words,

It is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all those descended from Israel are Israelites, and not all of Abraham’s children are his descendants (Rom. 9:6,7).

This was not unique to Paul, for within Judaism (Judaisms?) this ‘narrowing’ view is what fuelled the diverse sects. The stricter the sect the more they saw themselves as truly Israel and others as not being faithful to the ways of God. The ‘sinners’ we read about in the Gospels were those considered not to be part of the covenant people, even though ethnically they might have been pure. 

‘Being cut off from this people’ meant in spite of ethnicity a failure to keep the covenant required those people to be excluded (Lev. 7:27, 18:29, 23:29); Peter uses the same understanding (now provocatively as he centres everything in on Jesus) with his entreaty to his audience to,

Save yourselves from this corrupt generation. (Acts 2:40)

Ethnicity is further challenged by Jesus in Matthew 21:43,

Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces its fruits.

The complexity of Israel being both larger and smaller than ‘Israel’ means we cannot simply draw (for example) a straight line from the Israel of the Bible to the state of Israel today.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

And (all) Israel?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I am reading, not just some history, but material around the terms ‘Israel’ and ‘Jew’, hopefully ending up with around 10,000 words that I can put out as a pdf and then when I get back to Spain will look to host an open Zoom around the material. I thought in the process of writing as I get some material ready I will post it here and also hope that any comments will provoke me further. The final pdf might not follow the posts exactly…

All Israel will be saved (Ro. 11:26)

The verse is toward the end of Paul’s discourse that had begun in Ro. 9 and is a fitting conclusion to his statement in 9:6

It is not as though the word of God has failed.

In these chapters he is concerned to show his understanding of how God has been faithful to his promises to Israel, ending then with the fuller statement ‘And in this way all Israel will be saved’. He is focused primarily on how (‘this way’) not on a time-table (translating or reading καὶ οὕτως (kai houtōs) wrongly as ‘and then’).

In eschatology there is often a focus on the land of ‘Israel’ and events that can indicate what the time is on ‘God’s clock’. There are accusations of ‘replacement theology’ (church has replaced Israel) on the one side and of ‘Christian Zionism’ on the other, with the extreme being of two ways of ‘salvation’. This paper will suggest that we need to distinguish between two central descriptions, that of ‘Israel’ and of ‘Jews’. The central verse of Romans 11:26 (‘and all Israel will be saved’) has been taken as a statement about the future and understood to mean that in the ‘end-times’ or at the parousia there will be a wholesale turning to Jesus as Messiah. There are many difficulties with such a reading:

  • It does not use a temporal clause, such as ‘and then’ or ‘after this’.
  • It does not say ‘all Jews’ but ‘all Israel’.
  • With such a reading that proposes a future event, what about all those from Israel or all Jews who had lived prior to this future event – would this Scripture be limited to those alive at this future event? If it extends beyond this we would expect somehow that anyone ethnically of Abraham’s seed would have been ‘saved’ all along – something hard to align with the preaching in Acts (calling the audience to a response and at first the audience is only a Jewish one) or to the ‘conversion’ of Paul.

We will explore this Pauline statement, but for now I note that there is no temporal statement in this verse and to translate it as a ‘and then’ clause is simply in error. ‘In this way’ is the only valid way to translate καὶ οὕτως (kai houtōs) as it is not a temporal clause, but indicates an outcome or a result.

A second factor to consider is how the term ‘all Israel’ was used here by Paul. He has already stated that,

For not all those descended from Israel are Israelites, and not all of Abraham’s children are his descendants, but “it is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.” (Rom. 9:6,7).

We thus enter an interesting scenario: not all those descended from Abraham are considered to be ‘Israel’, and as we will explore, ‘Israel’ is bigger than those who are called ‘Jews’! (Smaller and larger!)

One final Scripture to add in this introduction is that of Paul’s statement before Agrippa,

And now I stand here on trial on account of my hope in the promise made by God to our ancestors, a promise that our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship day and night (Acts 26:6,7).

I get ahead of myself, but simply wanted to flag up one key direction that I will be taking, and that is the difference between the term ‘Jew’ and the bigger definition of Israel, or as Paul uses here the ‘twelve tribes’.

There are a number of aspects we need to keep in focus as we progress.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

Jew to Gentile to Gentile to Israel

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

OK still working on all of this (Rom. 9-11) and why Paul uses the term ‘Jew’ in most of his writings but then seldom uses ‘Jew’ (but uses Israel) in those chapters in Romans… leaning heavily on Jason Staples’ writings and hopefully will get a pdf out before we leave Sicily. In popular understanding ‘Jew ‘ and ‘Israel’ are synonymous and used simply for variation… however it does seem to stack up in ‘second temple’ writings nor in the NT. (This is my little break in the days from concentrating on the land here…) A lot to cover yet but before I get too deep into it all two Scriptures are with me ‘Are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel‘ (not to us Jews) and then one of my ‘central’ verses from the Pauline writings,

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith (Gal 3: 12,14).

I think Paul does not go to penal substitution at any point in his writings and also we have to work with a Jew / Gentile progression (so common in Romans ‘to the Jew first then the Greeks). In these verses in Gal. 3 he presents the cross as the answer to a Jewish problem (and I use ‘Jew’ here not ‘Israel’ as his language in the previous chapter has been Jew / Gentile and then he follows in this chapter with ‘neither Jew nor Greek’. This is not to suggest that the cross is not universal in scope – it certainly is and has also to be coupled to the resurrection. Greek / Gentile I do think are more or less synonymous – the Graeco-Roman empire. Outside of the Roman world are the Barbarians, Scythians and the like!).

The curse is the curse of the law so Paul is tightly focused on the Jewish problem – he became a curse for us (usually in his tight arguments ‘us’ is us ‘Jews’. The redeeming nation is under a curse. Far from being blessed as Abraham’s seed and hence a blessing to the nations, thus they are unable to fulfil being who they were called to be for the ‘world’ / nations. Hence no hope for the world until deliverance is brought to the ‘chosen’ nation. Jesus is Israel’s Messiah. Hence it follows if ‘in Messiah’ they are the descendants of Abraham. ‘All’ who are in Messiah! Jews are not alone at being descendants of Abraham – we have to think ‘Israel’ (12 tribes, not 1), hence the change of language in Rom. 9-11.

‘Redeemed us’ so that Abraham’s blessings might not be locked up but flow to the gentiles (language ‘us’ and ‘gentiles / nations’). And then comes something that I have missed in the past as it seems to be even more tightly put… so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit (through faith). The ‘we’ language is used again. I understood that to be an inclusive ‘we’ (= ‘all’) but am being pushed to understand that Paul has in mind the promised Holy Spirit who will write the torah on the heart (OT hope particularly in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, with new covenant language applied to both the house of Israel and the house of Judah). This is for all the ‘us’ – wider than Jews but defined by who are descendants of Israel. indeed to ‘us’ (those of the house of Israel). I think this is what is expanded in Rom. 9-11.

Galatians ch. 4 (written to Gentiles, or if not exclusively to them, for them) is where Paul pulls together who are the children / descendants of Abraham. Beginning with the last verse of ch. 3: And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise. He then continues in ch. 4,

And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” (Gal. 4:6).
Now you, my brothers and sisters, are children of the promise, like Isaac (Gal.4:28).

Remove the curse, the blessings can flow beyond any former boundary, for within that flow the promise to Israel can be fulfilled. There is a sequence: death in Jerusalem to unlock / break the curse open resulting in (Abrahamic) blessings to the nations and within that flow Israel also receives all that was promised – not because of ethnicity, but through faith. Far from there being some ‘end-time’ timetable, the cross is the end and the beginning, and thus (to jump to where I will eventually get to when I write) in that way all Israel will be saved. A process has been under way since that first Easter as the invitation has gone out to respond in faith to Messiah. For there is no other name under heaven by which salvation comes. No patriarch, no other god – covering both ‘to the Jew first, also to the Greek’.

I appreciate this has been a little tight with a lot of ‘what on earth do you mean by / what about this Scripture etc’… I am in process but wanted to get some of this perspective in this form ere too long.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

When? Or just get on with it?

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Biblical Observations

So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?” He replied, “It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” When he had said this, as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. While he was going and they were gazing up toward heaven, suddenly two men in white robes stood by them. They said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up toward heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven” (emphases added).

Such a disputed passage with regard to interpretation… the restoration of Israel or the replacement of Israel by the church… or something in between? And of course on this blog we only deal with the one and only valid perspective – mine! Anyway been thinking about these verses so here is a take on them.

(I am aware that what I am writing here in a post is shorthand for what should really be part of a fuller article so feel free to skim the contents… or read and fill in the gaps in what I write.)

  • Jesus spends many days with the disciples talking about the kingdom of God so I think we can assume they are not totally ignorant – though like us all they have not grasped everything. The central theme though, based on their Scriptures, has been the kingdom of God.
  • The disciples’ question is a straightforward time question – is this the time (chronos).
  • Jesus resists the time answer (and does not respond simply with chronos but with chronos and kairos). Then he picks up with clear allusions to Isaianic passages / Isaianic theme:

In response to the question Jesus highlights that the outpouring of the Spirit is necessary and as a result this small representation of Israel (12 disciples / sons of the true ‘Israel’) will be witnesses to the ends of the earth so that the tribes of Jacob will be restored. [In what follows I will quote the core Isaianic passages but it is the overarching themes from Isaiah that are important, and I also am distinguishing ‘Israel / tribes of Jacob’ from the term ‘Jew’ – this needs a separate post to follow that theme.]

The Isaianic passages

  • [Desolation]… until a spirit from on high is poured out on us (Is. 32:15, and other references to the outpoured Spirit bringing about restoration and a new day).
  • You are my witnesses, says the Lord,
    and my servant whom I have chosen,
    so that you may know and believe me
    and understand that I am he.
    Before me no god was formed,
    nor shall there be any after me (Is. 43:10, in reference to Israel / a remnant as ‘servant’.)
  • It is too light a thing that you should be my servant
    to raise up the tribes of Jacob
    and to restore the survivors of Israel;
    I will give you as a light to the nations,
    that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth (Is. 49:6).

So the time question is sidelined but the calling is centralised. Time is not relevant – an eschatological perspective, for the task is central; it is the task that determines the timing… and in a strange (to us) way the task seems to answer the ‘restore to Israel’ question. That last Isaianic quote where salvation reaches the end(s) of the earth does two things – it restores the ‘tribes / survivors of Israel’ (not ‘Jews’, nor those ‘of Israel who live in the land’) and light is finally displayed in the nations. OK, hang on…

In Romans 11:28 we read ‘And in this way all Israel will be saved’ (not a time phrase but a phrase indicating a process), and follows this up with a quote from Isaiah,

And he will come to Zion as Redeemer, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression, says the Lord (Is. 59:20).

A quote other than Paul changes it to

Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; he will banish ungodliness from Jacob’ (Rom. 11:29).

Will God restore the kingdom to Israel? Yes. In Jerusalem now? No. How – from Zion a redeemer will go to the ends of the earth gathering all up who respond, and in this way all Israel will be saved (‘all’ never meant each and every person for when the salvation of Israel was discussed in Rabbinic literature, there were always those who were by ethnicity ‘Israel’ but were excluded / cut off from Israel (‘this people’) – such as ‘not all Israel are Israel’).

The kingdom is restored to Israel, but not as excluding Gentiles for there is only one ‘olive tree’. Indeed by including Gentiles Israel is included! (Formerly the purpose was to include the seed of Abraham (Israel) so that ultimately Gentiles (all the families of the earth) could be included. Now if Gentiles are not included Israel will be excluded!) There is nothing exclusive in salvation; It is not about a great awesome future in the Middle East but an awesome future in and for the entire planet. Not only is there a change in direction (from ‘to Zion’ to ‘from Zion’) but the time is dependent on the job to be done, the witnessing to the entire world (and witness is much bigger term than the reductive term that has been colonised, the term ‘evangelising’). It is not an event in Jerusalem, it is a global vision. It is not about salvation in Israel but the promises of God that Paul contends for in his letter to the Romans is that God has to be faithful to his promises to Israel – including all the dispersed throughout the earth of the ’10 lost tribes’… as he says to King Aggripa:

And now I stand here on trial on account of my hope in the promise made by God to our ancestors, a promise that our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship day and night. It is for this hope, Your Excellency, that I am accused by Jews! (Acts 26:6,7. Emphases added – twelve tribes are bigger than the term ‘Jews’).

Where are those 12 tribes? Throughout the earth… Dispersed. Two tribes were in the land (Judah and Benjamin), but the majority of the others were not. It is not about the kingdom being restored in a place (which we call Israel) nor to a subset of Israel (Jews) but to the entire world (which includes Israel). In this way so we had better get on board with ‘this way’ rather than ask ‘when’.

So my take?

  • Time is not a relevant question.
  • Methodology through fulfilling purpose is central.
  • And the methodology that focuses on the global will be the means by which ‘all Israel’ (the fullness, pleroma: Rom.11:12) and the fullness (pleroma: Rom. 11:25) of the Gentiles come in, thus the kingdom will be restored to our world (and therefore in this way to Israel).
  • God’s calling has always been universal… and Acts sets this out – with the final word ‘unhindered’ (akōlutōs)… from Jerusalem to Samaria (with Philip) to the Ethiopian eunuch who asked what now ‘hinders’ (kōluō) him from being baptised… to Paul in Rome to Martin (and a bunch of similar ‘leaners’ who ask our irrelevant questions) in…
  • So Jesus’ reply is a both ‘yes’ and ‘not as you think’ answer.

Thus endeth the only authentic take on the passage in Acts.

Postscript: the Ethiopian eunuch is probably more central to Luke than might appear. He is reading from the prophet Isaiah and the catalyst ‘chapter’ is Is. 53… but keep reading (as I am sure Philip and the Ethiopian did) and then we might understand the question ‘what hinders me being baptised’ for he has been in Jerusalem but excluded from Israel’s core temple worship on two counts: a foreigner and a eunuch. Here is more of Isaiah:

Do not let the foreigner joined to the Lord say,
“The Lord will surely separate me from his people,”
and do not let the eunuch say,
“I am just a dry tree.”
For thus says the Lord:
To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant,
I will give, in my house and within my walls,
a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that shall not be cut off.
And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,
to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord,
and to be his servants… (Is. 56:3-6).

Samaria to one foreigner and a eunuch. Something has broken with the next chapter in Acts being the calling of the ‘apostle to the Gentiles’.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink

All Israel is not all Jews

Posted on
by Martin Scott
Posted in Theology

I have been in recent weeks tracking with Jason Staples who studied under Bart Ehrman. Bart was a full on evangelical then abandoned that position (surprise I don’t follow him) and over the years has come up with many exaggerated claims of the inerrancies within Scripture, with the physical resurrection of Jesus getting ‘nil points’! However I was quite impressed that he gave / gives Staples support in his pursuit of studies. I hope in cobbling together my own perspective with that of Staples I am not butchering the whole thing, and at some point I would love to do a longer blog / article on Rom. 9-11.

Here then is (as I understand him) Staples holds that the use of the term ‘Jew’ and the term ‘Israel’ are not two different ways of speaking about the same thing. Israel is used of the northern kingdoms when in contrast to Judah, and as a term when including the 12 tribes, includes both the northern and the southern kingdoms. The term ‘Jew’ is used consistently of that Southern kingdom – the only tribes that were not exiled to Assyria (722BC). Only those from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin returned and it is those that are termed ‘Jew’. The ‘lost 10 tribes’ were dispersed, many intermarrying as history unfolded. This distinction brings about a nuanced understanding of ‘And so all Israel will be saved’.

A few sideways aspects first that challenge the hyper-pro-Israel approach:

  • Not all who were physically descended from Abraham are (literally) Abraham’s seed (Rom. 9:7).
  • This lies behind John the Baptist’s rebuke to those coming to get baptised ( ‘We have Abraham as our ancestor,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham – Matt. 3:9).
  • I also see this behind the consistent provocation in a Jerusalem context to separate from this corrupt generation, for there is salvation in no other name (not one of the patriarchs).
  • Faith triumphs over race in Scripture. Ruth saying your God will be my God earns her a place in the genealogy of Jesus, and in that genealogy we meet Rahab (a Canannite) and Bathsheba (her husband being a ‘Hittite’ and she probably was too).
  • Joseph was given ‘Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, as his wife’ (Gen. 41:45). They had two sons – Ephraim and Mannaseh – children of mixed race (and I hope the false god worship / soul-tie was cut off!!!!) who become tribes of Israel in their own right.

There is more we could add but all of that is pushing in a direction where there is no ‘Jew nor Greek’. There are though a few interesting passages that I have been re-thinking of late. I now note that Paul was ‘on trial on account of my hope in the promise made by God to our ancestors, a promise that our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship day and night’ (Acts 26:6, 7). He uses the term ‘twelve tribes‘ and in the next verse speaks of the opposition to him by the Jews.

I think there is a new way to understand the question to Jesus if he was at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:7) – maybe I will get there or leave that to another post. The reply of Jesus deeply echoes Isaianic passages with the latter phrase (‘ends of the earth’) drawing from Isaiah 49:5, 6:

To bring Jacob back to him,
    and that Israel might be gathered to him,
for I am honored in the sight of the Lord,
    and my God has become my strength—
6 he says,
“It is too light a thing that you should be my servant
    to raise up the tribes of Jacob
    and to restore the survivors of Israel;
I will give you as a light to the nations,
    that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.

The restoration of Israel, the tribes of Jacob… not I think a question about the land that we call Israel today… so back to Rom 9:25, 26:

a hardening has come upon part of Israel until the full number of the gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved

It is often read as a temporal clause ‘and then all Israel will be saved’ but it is NOT and cannot be translated with a temporal sense, it is as the NRSVUE has it an explanation of a process – and thus, by this means all Israel will be saved.

It is not about replacement nor is it about a separate path for Jews, with some end-time mass conversion. It is the restoration of the whole of Israel, those from all 12 tribes (does not mean every individual) and it is taking place as the Gospel goes forth to the nations (Gentiles). Within the nations are found those who are descended from the tribes of Israel. The fullness is not consisting of Gentiles and Jew but of Gentile and Israel, thus answering Paul’s question ‘I ask, then, has God rejected his people?’

Acts 1:8 is not a ‘no, but in the future I will restore the kingdom’ but a response of this is how the restorative work of God will be achieved, and in that restorative work it is bigger than that of restoring the kingdom to Israel, but Israel, those from all 12 tribes will be brought in as the Gentiles come to living faith.

I hope I have not made the above too complex but for me Staples’ work has given me a wider perspective on Rom. 9-11.

SHARE ON:
Post PermaLink
Perspectives