Comprehensively disannulling the regeneration-of-Israel idea
Dec 26, 2013 4:55:15 GMT
Post by Colossians on Dec 26, 2013 4:55:15 GMT
This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.
__________________________________________________________________
COMPREHENSIVELY DISANNULLING THE REGENERATION-OF-ISRAEL IDEA
On the Source of Cults
The exclusive brethren are based on the false rendering of the following NT verse:
“Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity 2 Ti 2:19”.
They think this to mean that we are to separate ourselves from the unsaved. Paul of course tells us that in order to achieve such, we would have to leave the earth.
And so rather, the verse simply means that we are to not be engaged in iniquity ourselves.
___
The SDAs and MJs are based on the false rendering of John 14:15:
”If ye love me keep my commandments”.
They render this to be speaking of the decalogue, when in fact it speaks of the love of Christ.
___
Likewise, those who hold to the notion that God will ‘regenerate’ Israel - that God will save those of Israel’s bloodline, and specifically, what are supposedly the 10 tribes of Israel dispersed amongst the Gentiles, and then reconstitute them as a nation - base their belief on an errant understanding of Hosea 1:10.
Below we show why.
Understanding Hosea 1:10
[9] “Then said God, Call his name Lo-ammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.”
Here at v9 God simply says that Israel of the flesh did not qualify as the people of God, they having gone after other gods.
And although the issue here is primarily Israel rather than Judah, we of the NT era understand Judah to be retrospectively implicated along with Israel by virtue of the fact that they (and Benjamin), being those who followed the law more than the other 10 tribes referred to as “Israel”, would necessarily more readily crucify Him who would walk by faith.
For “the law is not of faith” (Gal 3:12).
[10]“Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.”
This is the crux of things here – this is where the regeneration-of-Israel camp go astray.
Their rendering is as follows:
“Nevertheless despite the fact that I (God) declare Israel of the flesh to be not my people and therefore not the recipients of my blessing, their number in foreign lands shall be as the sand of the sea, and it shall come to pass that these individuals shall turn to God and so be called the sons of God.”
The correct rendering is however:
“And yet (the true) Israel (“the Israel of God”) shall be blessed by being made to be in number as the sand of the sea, and shall include people who are fundamentally characterised by lands other than Israel."
___
The error of the regeneration-of-Israel camp is two-fold :
1. They fail to give full value to the “Yet” which begins v10, which, if the “Israel” in this verse were a reference to the same (physical) Israel of v9, would introduce the contradiction that God’s disdain for them was of no account, they being able to greatly multiply themselves without His help anyway, in foreign lands.
Which would indeed be great contradiction, for the OT overwhelmingly couches the notion of blessing in terms of the ability to produce progeny.
And so we understand at this point that a play on the word “Israel” has been introduced, and that accordingly this “Israel” of v10 is in fact not the same creature as that of v9, but is in fact “the Israel of God” declared in the New Testament.
2. They then add to this error of (1), by rendering the pronoun “them” (“in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people ...”) to be referring to “Israel”, when in fact it is actually acting as a stand-alone indefinite pronoun which obtains its definition by pragmatic context rather than from any noun going before it.
That is, this “them” is used in similar fashion to our “whom” of “to whom it may concern”: it means not “those of Israel in places abroad”, but “anyone in places abroad”: it is a reference to peoples who are fundamentally characterised by lands other than Israel.
___
So what is occurring here in these 2 verses is the same as that which Paul explains at Rom 11:15-23: Israel of the flesh (and we have mentioned that Judah is ultimately implicated also) is cut off so that the Gentiles - they who are fundamentally characterised by lands other than Israel - might be grafted in.
That is, it has nothing whatsoever to do with a reinstatement of Israelites living abroad to the status of “my people”, but rather a brand new constitution of a brand new Israel of the Spirit, which necessarily pays no regard to one’s background.
Two Ways of Counting Sand
Now note the following of Isaiah:
“Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:” Rom 9:27
and how it apparently contradicts the following from Hosea:
“Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea” Hos 1:10.
The contradiction of course is that Isaiah relates that Israel’s being in number as the sand of the sea is neither here nor there, the focus being instead on the small number within it (“a remnant”) who will be saved; whereas Hosea relates (by virtue of his “Yet” which begins the clause) that being in number as the sand of the sea is of itself a blessing from God, therefore implying that all their number shall be saved.
The contradiction, as we have indicated above, is resolved by understanding that the remnant to whom Isaiah refers, forms part of the Israel to whom Hosea refers, and that therefore the Israel to whom Hosea refers is the “Israel of God” to which the New Testament refers.
Thus Isaiah relates what Paul introduces us to at the early part of Romans 9:
“not all are [(the)] Israel [(of God)] who are of Israel [(of the flesh)]”,
and again at Romans 11:
“Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded”.
Whereas Hosea relates what the same apostle tells us as he rounds up his discourse on the matter:
“all [(the)] Israel [(of God)] shall be saved” Rom 11:26.
Mapping the Types
Our hermeneutic
Names and titles such as “Israel”, “the children of Israel”, “Judah” etc, shall be understood according to their pragmatic context in the light of New Testament principles.
Accordingly, these Proper Nouns shall be understood as (dynamic/flexible) variables which are continually redefined by context, rather than (static/inflexible) ‘hard-coded’ constants.
So then, when we read at Hosea 1:9 about an Israel which is not God’s people, we apply our New Testament ‘cheat sheet’ and understand this to be speaking of that part of Israel which is not the remnant of which Paul speaks, but the larger part of Israel that is discarded.
And when we read at v10 about an Israel whose members shall be called the Sons of God, we understand this to be speaking of the entire Body of Christ, for “the” Sons of God entails all the Sons of God.
And when we read at v11:
“Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head ...”
which would seem to be continuing on with the same Israel as that of v10, we understand this Israel to in fact be not quite the same Israel as that of v10, but a contracted form of it, and that by virtue of its now-contracted scope: it has to join with Judah in order to achieve the same scope as the Israel of v10. Thus we understand this Israel of v11 to in fact be the part of the Body of Christ consisting only of the physical seed of Abraham, which combines with Judah (the part of the Body of Christ which does not contain the physical seed of Abraham - see next heading below) to form the Israel of v10.
So:
v9 Israel is discarded by God
v10 Israel = Entire Body of Christ = v11 Judah + v11 Israel
So v11 backtracks to show the bi-partisan composition of v10 Israel.
With specific regard to Judah
We will be reminded that Judah proceeded from Leah who was not at first loved, thus representing the elect who are not of the physical seed of Abraham.
And that Benjamin proceeded from Rachel who was loved from the outset, thus representing the elect who are of the physical seed of Abraham.
And we will accordingly be reminded that although Judah combined with Benjamin after the splitting of the kingdom, when Moses much earlier directed the configuration of the 12 tribes around the tabernacle of the congregation, Judah was placed to the east along with Zebulun and Isachaar who were also of Leah, and Benjamin to the West along with Manasseh and Ephraim who were also of Rachel, thus signifying that their later combining into one under the name “Judah” was not at the expense of their distinctness with regard to God’s scheme of salvation in which mercy would be shown to them whom Judah represented in order to provoke to jealousy them whom Benjamin represented.
For Leah did indeed provoke Rachel to jealousy.
General mapping summary
1. Judah on its own represents members of the Body of Christ who are not of the physical seed of Abraham.
2. Benjamin represents the “remnant” of Israel (members of the Body of Christ who are of the physical seed of Abraham).
3. Judah + Benjamin (usually referred to simply as “Judah”) represents the entire Body of Christ which is called “the Israel of God” in the New Testament.
4. When Judah is said to combine with Israel under one head, this Israel is the equivalent of Benjamin, being the remnant within the physical seed of Abraham which happily joins with the members of the Body of Christ who are not of the physical seed of Abraham.
Where Israel is contrasted negatively with Judah:
5. Israel represents all the physical seed of Abraham (the physical seed of Abraham in all 13 literal tribes of Israel, necessarily including the tribes of Judah and Benjamin) who will not attain to salvation. (So it excludes the “remnant” which we have said above is represented by Benjamin as per (2) or by Israel as per (4).)
Why the 10 tribes are not primarily the “Gentiles”, but Jews
Although the 10 tribes were not technically Jews, their biblical characterisation is nevertheless linked to the ideal appointed them by God, and not their end state or location.
Thus Peter at Acts 8 had no problem laying hands on those of Samaria which originated from the 10 tribes, but until God told him that nothing was to be thought of as unclean with regard to candidacy for His Kingdom, great problem with the idea of evangelising Cornelius who was of Rome (Acts 10).
And so we note that it was not declared that the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles until He had fallen on the household of Cornelius the Roman. So:
“And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost” Acts 10:45.
This is not to say that any of the physical seed of the 13 tribes who no longer follow the Torah are not, with regard to evangelism, Gentiles (they are indeed Gentiles with regard to evangelism), but simply that none of Israel (and specifically here we refer to the 10 Northern Tribes) can be declared to properly represent the Gentiles where a distinction between the Jew and the Gentile or Israel and the Gentile is made in scripture.
Accordingly, Paul on two occasions in his letter to the Romans replaces “Gentile” with “Greek”, thus driving home the fact that with regard to the distinction between the natural and unnatural branches, from a fundamental viewpoint he includes the 10 tribes in the natural branches, and the rest of the world, whose origins are fundamentally characterised by lands other than Israel (such as Greece), as the unnatural branches.
And so we read from Paul:
“For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them” Rom 11:13,14
where it is clear that all those of Israel with whom he was concerned, were not considered part of the Gentiles to whom he was writing.
And so when he speaks of “the Jew” at Romans 3:1, he declares them to be they to whom the oracles of God were “committed”, the point here being that although from the time of the split of the kingdom Judah and Benjamin became the defacto delineators of “Israel” by virtue of their greater continuance in the law, the 10 Northern Tribes were nevertheless still theoretically included in Paul’s meaning of “Jew” by virtue of their having been every bit as present at Sinai as Judah and Benjamin when the oracles were given out.
And thus in describing the plight of those of the law (of which Judah and Benjamin were the chief followers), Paul refers to the story of Elijah where God said that He had reserved for Himself 7,000 men who had not bowed the knee to Baal, the vital point here being that the 7,000 were not of Judah or Benjamin, but of the 10-tribes under Ahab, thus confirming his (Paul’s) consideration of the Northern and Southern kingdoms as together they which constituted the Jews by virtue of the fact that it was the Northern kingdom and not the Southern kingdom which provided the type which would point to the salvation of the either of them.
Commensurately and conversely, many who were in the full (Southern-kingdom sense) “Jews”, were hypocrites (as Paul points out at Romans 2), and whether one to whom the law was given doesn’t keep it because he is slack (the 10 tribes in the main), or says he keeps it but doesn’t (the 2 tribes in the end), makes no difference to God: both are adulterers.
And so throughout his letter to the Romans Paul uses the terms “Jew”, “Israel” “circumcision”, “they which are of the law”, “seed of Abraham”, and “kinsmen according to the flesh” seamlessly, and this by virtue of the fact that those of Judah/Benjamin and those of the 10 other tribes were all genealogically in Abraham, which was in parallel to his teaching on the spiritual level that the Christian is the true Jew not because of any idea that he might be a true child of Judah, but a true child of Abraham.
That is, it is by virtue of Paul’s manifest concern for the entire seed without division, his “kinsmen according to the flesh”, that we understand that he uses the term “Jew” as a general delineator of the ideal (whole of) Israel, and not to divide those who passed the bar exam from those who failed it.
Accordingly when he deliberately plays the fool in comparing himself to certain false apostles who might have beguiled the church at Corinth, he does not point to the credential of having been (previously) a Jew, but the credential of being a Hebrew and an Israelite of the seed of Abraham (2 Cor 11:22).
Affirming our identity criterion for the remnant
We have said that the remnant are those designated members of the Body of Christ who are also of the physical seed of Abraham, and that they are represented in Benjamin’s being joined to Judah (see “Mapping the Types” above).
We now show why such is indeed the case, and why such ones are not simply members of the Body of Christ who were formerly Jews determined by no other criteria than circumcision and law-keeping (which would necessarily include proselytes such as Chinese Jews).
Now Paul tells us:
“As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes” Rom 11:28.
And we point out that the fathers for whose sakes this remnant are considered beloved by God, were men who walked by faith with God, Abraham being chief.
We also point out that because this remnant are elected to salvation by grace alone, their peculiar belovedness can only be ascribed unto them retrospectively: it plays no part in their being elected unto salvation, but is simply realised after the fact of it.
Well then, looking back from the salvation of one of them hypothetically, if such a one’s belovedness were by virtue of his having formerly been in the law, then God is found to be holding a peculiar affection for him by virtue of his having formerly walked by that which his father Abraham did not walk. Wherein then the belovedness?
But if such a one’s belovedness derives from a respect God would rightly have had for the body of Abraham, in that it was in such body that Abraham suffered for Christ, then God is found to be consistent in honouring the members of Christ.
For we read from Paul:
“Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?” 1 Cor 6:15.
And so we understand that Paul identifies the “remnant” solely by way of physical descent from Abraham and specifically as those who would proceed physically out of all the 12 sons of Jacob.
Identifying the remnant today
From what we have outlined in the previous section, we understand that a large portion of the “remnant” who come to Christ will never be identified as such simply by virtue of the fact that their family trees are now too obscured by the intervening centuries.
This is not to say that God does not recognise them as being the remnant of Israel, for otherwise they were not ascribed with the peculiar belovedness of which Paul speaks, but simply that for the most part, we will not know who they are, and for the main part will along with them, consider them Gentiles without distinction.
Which is the way it should be, for Christ and Christ alone must be our focus.
Indeed, the fact that the seed is only counted for the seed via the line of the male, means that in all likelihood there exists hardly any of them left, for as soon as one of them fails to produce a male child, his contribution to the continuation of the remnant is ceased.
This is not to say that there are hardly any Jews: all proselytes are Jews to the full extent - but simply that there are not now many, if any, of the remnant left.
Accordingly we note Paul’s use of words on the matter:
“Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace” Rom 11:5,
with pragmatic implication that such a situation would most likely diminish over time.
And so when one who is apparently a Jew by religion, is converted to Christ, he might possibly be one of the remnant, but will more likely be one who has thought that he is of the physical seed of Abraham when he is in fact of the line of a proselyte.
And when one who seems to be simply a Gentile, is converted to Christ, he might in fact be of the very few left of the remnant without being aware of it, or he may simply be as he appears to be: a bona fide Gentile.
If he is in fact of the remnant, then he is beloved in the eyes of God for the sake of Abraham in Christ.
If he is of the line of a proselyte, or simply a bona fide Gentile, he is beloved for the sake of Christ.
Regardless then of which case it is, it is in the end all of Christ, lest any man should boast.
Amen.
__________________________________________________________________
COMPREHENSIVELY DISANNULLING THE REGENERATION-OF-ISRAEL IDEA
On the Source of Cults
The exclusive brethren are based on the false rendering of the following NT verse:
“Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity 2 Ti 2:19”.
They think this to mean that we are to separate ourselves from the unsaved. Paul of course tells us that in order to achieve such, we would have to leave the earth.
And so rather, the verse simply means that we are to not be engaged in iniquity ourselves.
___
The SDAs and MJs are based on the false rendering of John 14:15:
”If ye love me keep my commandments”.
They render this to be speaking of the decalogue, when in fact it speaks of the love of Christ.
___
Likewise, those who hold to the notion that God will ‘regenerate’ Israel - that God will save those of Israel’s bloodline, and specifically, what are supposedly the 10 tribes of Israel dispersed amongst the Gentiles, and then reconstitute them as a nation - base their belief on an errant understanding of Hosea 1:10.
Below we show why.
Understanding Hosea 1:10
[9] “Then said God, Call his name Lo-ammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.”
Here at v9 God simply says that Israel of the flesh did not qualify as the people of God, they having gone after other gods.
And although the issue here is primarily Israel rather than Judah, we of the NT era understand Judah to be retrospectively implicated along with Israel by virtue of the fact that they (and Benjamin), being those who followed the law more than the other 10 tribes referred to as “Israel”, would necessarily more readily crucify Him who would walk by faith.
For “the law is not of faith” (Gal 3:12).
[10]“Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.”
This is the crux of things here – this is where the regeneration-of-Israel camp go astray.
Their rendering is as follows:
“Nevertheless despite the fact that I (God) declare Israel of the flesh to be not my people and therefore not the recipients of my blessing, their number in foreign lands shall be as the sand of the sea, and it shall come to pass that these individuals shall turn to God and so be called the sons of God.”
The correct rendering is however:
“And yet (the true) Israel (“the Israel of God”) shall be blessed by being made to be in number as the sand of the sea, and shall include people who are fundamentally characterised by lands other than Israel."
___
The error of the regeneration-of-Israel camp is two-fold :
1. They fail to give full value to the “Yet” which begins v10, which, if the “Israel” in this verse were a reference to the same (physical) Israel of v9, would introduce the contradiction that God’s disdain for them was of no account, they being able to greatly multiply themselves without His help anyway, in foreign lands.
Which would indeed be great contradiction, for the OT overwhelmingly couches the notion of blessing in terms of the ability to produce progeny.
And so we understand at this point that a play on the word “Israel” has been introduced, and that accordingly this “Israel” of v10 is in fact not the same creature as that of v9, but is in fact “the Israel of God” declared in the New Testament.
2. They then add to this error of (1), by rendering the pronoun “them” (“in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people ...”) to be referring to “Israel”, when in fact it is actually acting as a stand-alone indefinite pronoun which obtains its definition by pragmatic context rather than from any noun going before it.
That is, this “them” is used in similar fashion to our “whom” of “to whom it may concern”: it means not “those of Israel in places abroad”, but “anyone in places abroad”: it is a reference to peoples who are fundamentally characterised by lands other than Israel.
___
So what is occurring here in these 2 verses is the same as that which Paul explains at Rom 11:15-23: Israel of the flesh (and we have mentioned that Judah is ultimately implicated also) is cut off so that the Gentiles - they who are fundamentally characterised by lands other than Israel - might be grafted in.
That is, it has nothing whatsoever to do with a reinstatement of Israelites living abroad to the status of “my people”, but rather a brand new constitution of a brand new Israel of the Spirit, which necessarily pays no regard to one’s background.
Two Ways of Counting Sand
Now note the following of Isaiah:
“Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:” Rom 9:27
and how it apparently contradicts the following from Hosea:
“Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea” Hos 1:10.
The contradiction of course is that Isaiah relates that Israel’s being in number as the sand of the sea is neither here nor there, the focus being instead on the small number within it (“a remnant”) who will be saved; whereas Hosea relates (by virtue of his “Yet” which begins the clause) that being in number as the sand of the sea is of itself a blessing from God, therefore implying that all their number shall be saved.
The contradiction, as we have indicated above, is resolved by understanding that the remnant to whom Isaiah refers, forms part of the Israel to whom Hosea refers, and that therefore the Israel to whom Hosea refers is the “Israel of God” to which the New Testament refers.
Thus Isaiah relates what Paul introduces us to at the early part of Romans 9:
“not all are [(the)] Israel [(of God)] who are of Israel [(of the flesh)]”,
and again at Romans 11:
“Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded”.
Whereas Hosea relates what the same apostle tells us as he rounds up his discourse on the matter:
“all [(the)] Israel [(of God)] shall be saved” Rom 11:26.
Mapping the Types
Our hermeneutic
Names and titles such as “Israel”, “the children of Israel”, “Judah” etc, shall be understood according to their pragmatic context in the light of New Testament principles.
Accordingly, these Proper Nouns shall be understood as (dynamic/flexible) variables which are continually redefined by context, rather than (static/inflexible) ‘hard-coded’ constants.
So then, when we read at Hosea 1:9 about an Israel which is not God’s people, we apply our New Testament ‘cheat sheet’ and understand this to be speaking of that part of Israel which is not the remnant of which Paul speaks, but the larger part of Israel that is discarded.
And when we read at v10 about an Israel whose members shall be called the Sons of God, we understand this to be speaking of the entire Body of Christ, for “the” Sons of God entails all the Sons of God.
And when we read at v11:
“Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head ...”
which would seem to be continuing on with the same Israel as that of v10, we understand this Israel to in fact be not quite the same Israel as that of v10, but a contracted form of it, and that by virtue of its now-contracted scope: it has to join with Judah in order to achieve the same scope as the Israel of v10. Thus we understand this Israel of v11 to in fact be the part of the Body of Christ consisting only of the physical seed of Abraham, which combines with Judah (the part of the Body of Christ which does not contain the physical seed of Abraham - see next heading below) to form the Israel of v10.
So:
v9 Israel is discarded by God
v10 Israel = Entire Body of Christ = v11 Judah + v11 Israel
So v11 backtracks to show the bi-partisan composition of v10 Israel.
With specific regard to Judah
We will be reminded that Judah proceeded from Leah who was not at first loved, thus representing the elect who are not of the physical seed of Abraham.
And that Benjamin proceeded from Rachel who was loved from the outset, thus representing the elect who are of the physical seed of Abraham.
And we will accordingly be reminded that although Judah combined with Benjamin after the splitting of the kingdom, when Moses much earlier directed the configuration of the 12 tribes around the tabernacle of the congregation, Judah was placed to the east along with Zebulun and Isachaar who were also of Leah, and Benjamin to the West along with Manasseh and Ephraim who were also of Rachel, thus signifying that their later combining into one under the name “Judah” was not at the expense of their distinctness with regard to God’s scheme of salvation in which mercy would be shown to them whom Judah represented in order to provoke to jealousy them whom Benjamin represented.
For Leah did indeed provoke Rachel to jealousy.
General mapping summary
1. Judah on its own represents members of the Body of Christ who are not of the physical seed of Abraham.
2. Benjamin represents the “remnant” of Israel (members of the Body of Christ who are of the physical seed of Abraham).
3. Judah + Benjamin (usually referred to simply as “Judah”) represents the entire Body of Christ which is called “the Israel of God” in the New Testament.
4. When Judah is said to combine with Israel under one head, this Israel is the equivalent of Benjamin, being the remnant within the physical seed of Abraham which happily joins with the members of the Body of Christ who are not of the physical seed of Abraham.
Where Israel is contrasted negatively with Judah:
5. Israel represents all the physical seed of Abraham (the physical seed of Abraham in all 13 literal tribes of Israel, necessarily including the tribes of Judah and Benjamin) who will not attain to salvation. (So it excludes the “remnant” which we have said above is represented by Benjamin as per (2) or by Israel as per (4).)
Why the 10 tribes are not primarily the “Gentiles”, but Jews
Although the 10 tribes were not technically Jews, their biblical characterisation is nevertheless linked to the ideal appointed them by God, and not their end state or location.
Thus Peter at Acts 8 had no problem laying hands on those of Samaria which originated from the 10 tribes, but until God told him that nothing was to be thought of as unclean with regard to candidacy for His Kingdom, great problem with the idea of evangelising Cornelius who was of Rome (Acts 10).
And so we note that it was not declared that the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles until He had fallen on the household of Cornelius the Roman. So:
“And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost” Acts 10:45.
This is not to say that any of the physical seed of the 13 tribes who no longer follow the Torah are not, with regard to evangelism, Gentiles (they are indeed Gentiles with regard to evangelism), but simply that none of Israel (and specifically here we refer to the 10 Northern Tribes) can be declared to properly represent the Gentiles where a distinction between the Jew and the Gentile or Israel and the Gentile is made in scripture.
Accordingly, Paul on two occasions in his letter to the Romans replaces “Gentile” with “Greek”, thus driving home the fact that with regard to the distinction between the natural and unnatural branches, from a fundamental viewpoint he includes the 10 tribes in the natural branches, and the rest of the world, whose origins are fundamentally characterised by lands other than Israel (such as Greece), as the unnatural branches.
And so we read from Paul:
“For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them” Rom 11:13,14
where it is clear that all those of Israel with whom he was concerned, were not considered part of the Gentiles to whom he was writing.
And so when he speaks of “the Jew” at Romans 3:1, he declares them to be they to whom the oracles of God were “committed”, the point here being that although from the time of the split of the kingdom Judah and Benjamin became the defacto delineators of “Israel” by virtue of their greater continuance in the law, the 10 Northern Tribes were nevertheless still theoretically included in Paul’s meaning of “Jew” by virtue of their having been every bit as present at Sinai as Judah and Benjamin when the oracles were given out.
And thus in describing the plight of those of the law (of which Judah and Benjamin were the chief followers), Paul refers to the story of Elijah where God said that He had reserved for Himself 7,000 men who had not bowed the knee to Baal, the vital point here being that the 7,000 were not of Judah or Benjamin, but of the 10-tribes under Ahab, thus confirming his (Paul’s) consideration of the Northern and Southern kingdoms as together they which constituted the Jews by virtue of the fact that it was the Northern kingdom and not the Southern kingdom which provided the type which would point to the salvation of the either of them.
Commensurately and conversely, many who were in the full (Southern-kingdom sense) “Jews”, were hypocrites (as Paul points out at Romans 2), and whether one to whom the law was given doesn’t keep it because he is slack (the 10 tribes in the main), or says he keeps it but doesn’t (the 2 tribes in the end), makes no difference to God: both are adulterers.
And so throughout his letter to the Romans Paul uses the terms “Jew”, “Israel” “circumcision”, “they which are of the law”, “seed of Abraham”, and “kinsmen according to the flesh” seamlessly, and this by virtue of the fact that those of Judah/Benjamin and those of the 10 other tribes were all genealogically in Abraham, which was in parallel to his teaching on the spiritual level that the Christian is the true Jew not because of any idea that he might be a true child of Judah, but a true child of Abraham.
That is, it is by virtue of Paul’s manifest concern for the entire seed without division, his “kinsmen according to the flesh”, that we understand that he uses the term “Jew” as a general delineator of the ideal (whole of) Israel, and not to divide those who passed the bar exam from those who failed it.
Accordingly when he deliberately plays the fool in comparing himself to certain false apostles who might have beguiled the church at Corinth, he does not point to the credential of having been (previously) a Jew, but the credential of being a Hebrew and an Israelite of the seed of Abraham (2 Cor 11:22).
Affirming our identity criterion for the remnant
We have said that the remnant are those designated members of the Body of Christ who are also of the physical seed of Abraham, and that they are represented in Benjamin’s being joined to Judah (see “Mapping the Types” above).
We now show why such is indeed the case, and why such ones are not simply members of the Body of Christ who were formerly Jews determined by no other criteria than circumcision and law-keeping (which would necessarily include proselytes such as Chinese Jews).
Now Paul tells us:
“As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes” Rom 11:28.
And we point out that the fathers for whose sakes this remnant are considered beloved by God, were men who walked by faith with God, Abraham being chief.
We also point out that because this remnant are elected to salvation by grace alone, their peculiar belovedness can only be ascribed unto them retrospectively: it plays no part in their being elected unto salvation, but is simply realised after the fact of it.
Well then, looking back from the salvation of one of them hypothetically, if such a one’s belovedness were by virtue of his having formerly been in the law, then God is found to be holding a peculiar affection for him by virtue of his having formerly walked by that which his father Abraham did not walk. Wherein then the belovedness?
But if such a one’s belovedness derives from a respect God would rightly have had for the body of Abraham, in that it was in such body that Abraham suffered for Christ, then God is found to be consistent in honouring the members of Christ.
For we read from Paul:
“Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?” 1 Cor 6:15.
And so we understand that Paul identifies the “remnant” solely by way of physical descent from Abraham and specifically as those who would proceed physically out of all the 12 sons of Jacob.
Identifying the remnant today
From what we have outlined in the previous section, we understand that a large portion of the “remnant” who come to Christ will never be identified as such simply by virtue of the fact that their family trees are now too obscured by the intervening centuries.
This is not to say that God does not recognise them as being the remnant of Israel, for otherwise they were not ascribed with the peculiar belovedness of which Paul speaks, but simply that for the most part, we will not know who they are, and for the main part will along with them, consider them Gentiles without distinction.
Which is the way it should be, for Christ and Christ alone must be our focus.
Indeed, the fact that the seed is only counted for the seed via the line of the male, means that in all likelihood there exists hardly any of them left, for as soon as one of them fails to produce a male child, his contribution to the continuation of the remnant is ceased.
This is not to say that there are hardly any Jews: all proselytes are Jews to the full extent - but simply that there are not now many, if any, of the remnant left.
Accordingly we note Paul’s use of words on the matter:
“Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace” Rom 11:5,
with pragmatic implication that such a situation would most likely diminish over time.
And so when one who is apparently a Jew by religion, is converted to Christ, he might possibly be one of the remnant, but will more likely be one who has thought that he is of the physical seed of Abraham when he is in fact of the line of a proselyte.
And when one who seems to be simply a Gentile, is converted to Christ, he might in fact be of the very few left of the remnant without being aware of it, or he may simply be as he appears to be: a bona fide Gentile.
If he is in fact of the remnant, then he is beloved in the eyes of God for the sake of Abraham in Christ.
If he is of the line of a proselyte, or simply a bona fide Gentile, he is beloved for the sake of Christ.
Regardless then of which case it is, it is in the end all of Christ, lest any man should boast.
Amen.