The interpretative key that unlocks Romans 11:25,26
Nov 17, 2014 11:21:10 GMT
Post by Colossians on Nov 17, 2014 11:21:10 GMT
This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.
Preface
The understanding this work presents was received by way of direct revelation from the Lord one Saturday morning in 1989. It has steered the earlier two works presented on this subject: “Expounding Romans 9:6-9, the 'gateway' to Romans 9-11”, and “Expounding Romans 11:25,26, the 'target' of Romans 9:6-9”, which works are self-substantive and need no additional work to prove them; however the key to their enunciation was kept back from public eyes for reasons intimate.
In this work today, we finally share with you that key. To our mind, this understanding has not been presented anywhere in the world to date.
God bless.
Colossians, November 17, 2014.
Background knowledge
In order to get the most out of this work, the reader is requested to either read for the first time, or re-read, the following two works, in the order given, before proceeding with this work.
“Expounding Romans 9:6-9, the ‘gateway’ to Romans 9–11”.
“Expounding Romans 11:25,26, the 'target' of Romans 9:6-9”.
General
References to Jewishness and Israel of the flesh are presented as synonymous. That is, we shall be using the term “Jew” in its broader sense to refer to any members of the 13 tribes of Israel of the flesh, rather than confining the term to those of the tribe of Judah. It is important that the reader keep this in mind.
_______________________________________________________
THE INTERPRETATIVE KEY THAT UNLOCKS ROMANS 11:25,26
Articulating the key
We shall start by revealing the key up front, and then proceed to explain things, as it were, ‘after the fact’.
Here is the (specific) passage under consideration.
“blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved” Rom 11:25,26.
Here is the key:
“And [Jacob] … loved … Rachel more than Leah … And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, He opened her womb: but Rachel was barren. And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the LORD hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me. And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the LORD hath heard that I was hated, He hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon. And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Now this time will my husband be joined unto me, because I have born him three sons: therefore was his name called Levi. And she conceived again, and bare a son: and she said, Now will I praise the LORD: therefore she called his name Judah; and left bearing. And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die” Genesis 29:30-35, 30:1.
Here is the interpretation of Romans 11:25,26 which the key unlocks:
“blindness is happened to Rachel, until the fulness of Leah be come in. And so both Rachel and Leah shall be saved”.
This is the conceptual template in Paul’s mind as he wrote Romans 9-11, and in particular, Romans 11:25,26. It is this template which constrains his whole discourse on “Israel” and (its) associated machinations.
The law of first mention
There is in theology an informal ‘rule’ referred to as the law of first (or primary) mention. That is, and with regard to the issue at hand, when we wish to understand “Israel” in Paul’s writings, we must needs go back to the first instance of Israel in scripture, the man Israel himself, the man Jacob. (See Gen 32:28.)
However we must needs also incorporate in our picture, ‘Mrs. Israel’, for the husband and wife are one flesh, and cannot be divided.
And so because we are now back in Old Testament times, we must needs incorporate in our picture not one wife, but two, for the man Israel had two wives. And so and in accord with the law of first mention, we shall say:
“Israel” = Jacob + Rachel + Leah.
The reader is therefore at this point asked to imagine a lecture being illustrated via an overhead projector, and in particular a lecture on God’s spiritual scheme of things as regards the world. Firstly then the reader is asked to imagine a transparency being laid upon the projector glass which depicts a summary – a timeline if you will – of the history of the world. (It will depict creation, various empires, various industrial and technological ages, and of course and most importantly, the advent of Jesus Christ.)
The reader is then further asked to imagine a second transparency depicting the (proto-nuclear) “Israel” – Jacob + Rachel + Leah – being laid on top of the first transparency, so that the three persons are superimposed over the history of the world.
That is, God’s sovereignty is exhaustively taken up with the constitution of “Israel”.
Who Rachel and Leah are
Commensurate with there not being much talk in the OT about eternity or the afterlife, the ‘salvation’ of the Jew was couched in terms of his ability to propagate his household; and so we hear from Rachel: “give me children, or else I die” (Gen 30:1). This “all Israel shall be saved” then in our head passage is in fact typed in the success of the complete complement of the man Israel – in particular the both of his wives – at having children.
Given then that the man Israel together with his two wives and progeny also and necessarily stood as type for what Paul refers to at Galatians 6:16 as “the Israel of God”, we see that this “all Israel” which shall be saved is in fact none other than that very same “the Israel of God”.
.....................Type..................................................................Substance
Propagation of the household of Israel........................“all Israel shall be saved” (Rom 11:25,26)
Israel and his two wives and progeny.........................“the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16)
(Because the two type instances on the left hand side refer to the same (physical) Israel, the two (corresponding) anti-type instances on the right hand side necessarily refer to the same (spiritual) Israel.)
___
Further and commensurately, in that the type was/is only one of many family lines on the earth, we understand the Israel of God to in similar fashion consist only of the elect of God and no-one else besides.
___
Finally, in that scripture divides humanity into two parts – the Jews and the Gentiles – we understand the (ethnically-indiscriminate) Israel of God to be divided into the same two parts. And so given that the type that stood for the Israel of God was also divided into two parts – Rachel and Leah – we understand that one of these women stands as type for those of the Israel of God of Jewish extraction, and the other for those of the Israel of God of Gentile extraction.
In that Rachel was she who was first loved, we understand that she stands as type for those of the Israel of God of Jewish extraction. Note then that when Herod had all the males of 2 years old and under “in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof” killed, Matthew tells us that such was the fulfilment of the prophecy at Jeremiah 31:15 – that there would be heard a voice in Ramah weeping for her children, and that it would therefore be the voice of Rachel, for Ramah was in (the land of) Benjamin and Benjamin was born of Rachel.
But Bethlehem, where the killings were centred, was not in Benjamin but in Judah, which is of Leah. That is, Leah and Rachel as Jews were both together represented (according to the flesh) by Rachel alone.
By default then if nothing else, Leah stands as type for those of the Israel of God of Gentile extraction. For we are also reminded by Matthew of the prophecy of Isaiah that the Gentiles would trust in Christ.(See Is 11:10, Mt 12:17-21.)
And so also:
“And the Gentiles shall come to thy light” Is 60:3.
But there is in fact far more proof of Leah’s representation of the Gentile elect, than mere default. Note the following from Paul:
“As He saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God” Rom 9:25,26
: Leah being (initially) held in relative disregard in comparison to Rachel, but in the end loved just as much as she, indeed stood as type for the Gentiles – more specially, the elect thereof.
The fulness of Leah
Note again our interpretative key:
“And [Jacob] … loved … Rachel more than Leah … And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren. And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the LORD hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me. And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the LORD hath heard that I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon. And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Now this time will my husband be joined unto me, because I have born him three sons: therefore was his name called Levi. And she conceived again, and bare a son: and she said, Now will I praise the LORD: therefore she called his name Judah; and left bearing. And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die” Genesis 29:30-35, 30:1.
Note the progression to Leah’s fulness:
1. “Reuben”: “see ye a son”
2. “Simeon”: “hearing”
3. “Levi”: ....“attached/joined”
4. “Judah”: ..“celebrated”
The progression stands as type for the salvation of every individual who is ever saved, whether Jew or Gentile:
1. A Son is given to us: we are told to look unto Him. (See Is 9:6, 45:22.)
2. Faith comes by hearing Him.
3. We are joined to Him who is our priest, as one spirit. (See 1 Cor 6:17.)
4. We are brought to praise Him, which is our fulness.
For He whom we celebrate, proceeded out of him whose name spoke to such: Christ came out of the loins of Judah and it was upon the birth of Judah that Leah praised the Lord and (therefore) (for the time being) left bearing.
And so the paradox is that, although Leah, being an elect Jew (for she was not only one flesh with Jacob but she also knew the Lord), was according to the flesh represented in God’s scheme of things by Rachel, with specific regard to salvation it was in fact the other way around: it was Rachel who was represented by Leah. For are we not all, whether Jew or Gentile, saved by grace? And did not Leah’s life speak more to grace than Rachel’s? For was she not smuggled into the marriage tent by her father, ahead of her more beautiful sister?
And so we praise God for Leah. What fear of rejection must have possessed her as she waited for him who had made love to her in the dark, to wake in the morning to find her beside him instead of Rachel!
But in the end her husband also, with death looming, charged his sons that they would bury him “in the cave that is in the field of Machpe-lah … there I buried Leah” (Gen 49:31): his life also would conclude in reference to the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
The jealousy of Rachel
The type:
“And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die” Gen 30:1.
The substance:
“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.
: Paul ministering as Leah, provoking Rachel to jealousy.
The fulness of Rachel
The type:
“And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called [the name of the very last son of Israel] Ben-oni: but his father called him Benjamin” Gen 35:18.
The substance:
“For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?” Rom 11:15.
And thus the fulness of Rachel was of a very different nature to the fulness of Leah. For if Jacob (Israel) was to be buried with her who spoke to grace, she who was formerly primary should expire ahead of her less beautiful sister. For of a truth Rachel represented the elect Jews, but at another level she also represented vanity and thus that which must be displaced by Christ.1
And so she died giving birth to him whom she called “Benoni” – “son of my sorrow” – for vanity is aligned with the flesh and Christ was crucified in the flesh – but whom Jacob immediately renamed “Benjamin” – “son of the right hand” – for Christ is risen from the dead and seated at the right hand of the Father.
1 Commensurately, inasmuch as she (Rachel) represented the elect Jews as distinct from the elect Gentiles, at the prima facie level she also necessarily represented Israel of the flesh and thus the law. And so in Rachel the two meanings of vanity – “I am beautiful” and “uselessness” – are seen to come together. (See also our work: “Understanding Christ’s fulfilment of the law”.)
Enumerating “Israel”
Just as Jacob and Rachel and Leah were individual people, so the saving of all Israel as per our head passage is in reference to the individuals across the ages, at a very individual level, who make up that which is known as “the Israel of God”.
Just as Jacob and Rachel and Leah – more particularly the nation which proceeded out of them – were a corporate entity, so the saving of all Israel as per our head passage is in reference to the corporate entity considered as a whole and known as “the Israel of God”.
That is, the two aspects, the several and the corporate, are together as one, for the Body is one, which is corporate, but made up of many, which is several.
And so a perpetuity is produced across the ages: ‘Rachel’(s) are continually being brought into the world (‘unnaturally’) blind to the light of the Lord, ‘Leah’(s) continually coming into the light of the Lord as ostensible replacements for the ‘Rachel’(s), and the (same) ‘Rachel’(s) then subsequently made to see by reason of the fact that if God has shown mercy to the ‘Leah’(s), He has necessarily also to show it to the ‘Rachel’(s).
The fulness of the Gentiles then is not, as many bible versions errantly declare, in reference to a (dispensationalist) “full number” of Gentiles, but the fulness of each and every one of them on a personal level – the salvation of them – whenever in history they might live.
Grammar
Note our head passage again:
“blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved” Rom 11:25,26.
Note particularly the verb phrase “be come in”. If indeed “fulness” should read “full number”, then given that such full number would of necessity be a predetermined quantity (else it could never be said that the full number had ever arrived), (subjunctive) “be” should be replaced with (indicative) “is”: “until the full number of the Gentiles is2 come in”.
But the subjunctive is used here because, although in a Christian framework it (nevertheless) continues to relate contingency, it is in such case a contingency subsumed under the irrepressible hope that we have in Christ Jesus, with the result that what is referred to by the grammarian as “the mood of doubt” is in fact transformed to what we might call “the mood of grace”. That is, and with particular reference to the passage at hand, although the things of God are sure and certain to come to pass, they nevertheless do not herald themselves presumptuously: “until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in” makes tacit appeal to the grace required to bring such fulness about, “until the fulness of the Gentiles is come in” does not, but is even arrogant.
Given then that “the full number of the Gentiles” had required such “is come in” verb phrase in order to complete its proper sense, we see that, according to the grammar, the rendering cannot possibly be “full number”, but only “fulness”.
2 More modern: “has come in”.
Summary
The conceptual framework which interprets Romans 11:25,26 is the story of Jacob, Rachel and Leah.
The (resulting) (unlocked) ‘transcription’:
“blindness is happened to Rachel, until the fulness of Leah be come in. And so both Rachel and Leah shall be saved”,
is to be applied as a perpetuity across the ages, Rachel representing those of the Israel of God of Jewish extraction, and Leah those of the Israel of God of Gentile extraction.
Amen.
(See also addendum below.)
______________________________________________
ADDENDUM: MORE ON WHO RACHEL AND LEAH ARE
In which the old speaks to the new
Compare the following OT and NT passages, in which the correlation we have taught in this work should be manifest:
“Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand” Ez 37:16,17.
“But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:” Eph 2:13-16.
: Judah and Joseph – Leah and Rachel – the Gentile elect and the Jewish elect – made one indivisible Body in Christ Jesus.
In which “Israel” augments itself
“Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth. Before Ephraim and Benjamin and Manasseh stir up thy strength, and come and save us” Ps 80:1,2.
In that this psalm is at the prima facie level in respect to Israel of the flesh in its entirety, then given that Joseph and Benjamin are seen here to exhaust such entire Israel of the flesh, Rachel is necessarily also seen to exhaust it, for Joseph and Benjamin were of Rachel. At the prima facie level then Rachel is seen here to represent Israel of the flesh in its entirety, and if Israel of the flesh in its entirety, then contrary to what we have earlier outlined in this work, the entire Israel of God, for Israel of the flesh in its entirety necessarily stands as type for the (entire) Israel of God.
However and this time in line with what we have earlier outlined in this work, given that it is simply inappropriate to define Israel in abstraction from the (more numerous) sons of Leah (Judah being the primary), Rachel (together with the Israel she seemingly exhausts) will in fact not represent Israel of the flesh in its entirety at all, but only a subset thereof and therefore only those of the Israel of God who are of Jewish extraction.
A problem has therefore arisen: we have ascribed to Rachel two contradictory representations simultaneously, and with apparent equal validity.
But rather, at this point we must needs remind ourselves that before Leah had come into her fulness, although according to covenant the situation was:
“Israel” = Jacob + Leah + Rachel,
according to experience the situation was merely:
“Israel” = Jacob + Rachel.
For Rachel was loved, but Leah ‘hated’.
That is, in that (initially) Rachel was effectively the only wife according to experience, she indeed (at that stage) represented the entire Israel of the flesh and therefore the entire Israel of God.
But in that Leah subsequently came to be equal with Rachel, Rachel’s portion was necessarily transformed to only a subset of Israel of the flesh and therefore that which represented only a subset – those in fact of Jewish extraction – of the Israel of God.
And so although “Israel” was from the outset settled according to covenant:
“Israel” = Jacob + Leah + Rachel,
it was self-augmenting with regard to experience:
“Israel” = Jacob + Rachel (initial)
“Israel” = “Israel” + Leah (augmentation)
For the experience must needs match (i.e. catch up to) the covenant that facilitates it.
Such two experiential stages for Leah then – the initial and the augmentation – stand respectively as type for the following two (contiguous) passages in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians concerning Gentiles who have come to be born again:
“That at that time ye ([Gentiles]) were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:” Eph 2:12.
“But now in Christ Jesus ye ([Gentiles]) who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between [the Jews and us]; Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain ([i.e. Jews and Gentiles]) one new man, so making peace; And that He might reconcile both ([i.e. Jews and Gentiles]) unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:” Eph 2:13-16.
And so when we read elsewhere:
“to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile” Rom 2:10,
we understand such to in fact be saying:
“to the Jew first, and also firstly to the Gentile”.
For as we have seen, Rachel was first, but Leah made to also be first.
Preface
The understanding this work presents was received by way of direct revelation from the Lord one Saturday morning in 1989. It has steered the earlier two works presented on this subject: “Expounding Romans 9:6-9, the 'gateway' to Romans 9-11”, and “Expounding Romans 11:25,26, the 'target' of Romans 9:6-9”, which works are self-substantive and need no additional work to prove them; however the key to their enunciation was kept back from public eyes for reasons intimate.
In this work today, we finally share with you that key. To our mind, this understanding has not been presented anywhere in the world to date.
God bless.
Colossians, November 17, 2014.
Background knowledge
In order to get the most out of this work, the reader is requested to either read for the first time, or re-read, the following two works, in the order given, before proceeding with this work.
“Expounding Romans 9:6-9, the ‘gateway’ to Romans 9–11”.
“Expounding Romans 11:25,26, the 'target' of Romans 9:6-9”.
General
References to Jewishness and Israel of the flesh are presented as synonymous. That is, we shall be using the term “Jew” in its broader sense to refer to any members of the 13 tribes of Israel of the flesh, rather than confining the term to those of the tribe of Judah. It is important that the reader keep this in mind.
_______________________________________________________
THE INTERPRETATIVE KEY THAT UNLOCKS ROMANS 11:25,26
Articulating the key
We shall start by revealing the key up front, and then proceed to explain things, as it were, ‘after the fact’.
Here is the (specific) passage under consideration.
“blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved” Rom 11:25,26.
Here is the key:
“And [Jacob] … loved … Rachel more than Leah … And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, He opened her womb: but Rachel was barren. And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the LORD hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me. And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the LORD hath heard that I was hated, He hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon. And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Now this time will my husband be joined unto me, because I have born him three sons: therefore was his name called Levi. And she conceived again, and bare a son: and she said, Now will I praise the LORD: therefore she called his name Judah; and left bearing. And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die” Genesis 29:30-35, 30:1.
Here is the interpretation of Romans 11:25,26 which the key unlocks:
“blindness is happened to Rachel, until the fulness of Leah be come in. And so both Rachel and Leah shall be saved”.
This is the conceptual template in Paul’s mind as he wrote Romans 9-11, and in particular, Romans 11:25,26. It is this template which constrains his whole discourse on “Israel” and (its) associated machinations.
The law of first mention
There is in theology an informal ‘rule’ referred to as the law of first (or primary) mention. That is, and with regard to the issue at hand, when we wish to understand “Israel” in Paul’s writings, we must needs go back to the first instance of Israel in scripture, the man Israel himself, the man Jacob. (See Gen 32:28.)
However we must needs also incorporate in our picture, ‘Mrs. Israel’, for the husband and wife are one flesh, and cannot be divided.
And so because we are now back in Old Testament times, we must needs incorporate in our picture not one wife, but two, for the man Israel had two wives. And so and in accord with the law of first mention, we shall say:
“Israel” = Jacob + Rachel + Leah.
The reader is therefore at this point asked to imagine a lecture being illustrated via an overhead projector, and in particular a lecture on God’s spiritual scheme of things as regards the world. Firstly then the reader is asked to imagine a transparency being laid upon the projector glass which depicts a summary – a timeline if you will – of the history of the world. (It will depict creation, various empires, various industrial and technological ages, and of course and most importantly, the advent of Jesus Christ.)
The reader is then further asked to imagine a second transparency depicting the (proto-nuclear) “Israel” – Jacob + Rachel + Leah – being laid on top of the first transparency, so that the three persons are superimposed over the history of the world.
That is, God’s sovereignty is exhaustively taken up with the constitution of “Israel”.
Who Rachel and Leah are
Commensurate with there not being much talk in the OT about eternity or the afterlife, the ‘salvation’ of the Jew was couched in terms of his ability to propagate his household; and so we hear from Rachel: “give me children, or else I die” (Gen 30:1). This “all Israel shall be saved” then in our head passage is in fact typed in the success of the complete complement of the man Israel – in particular the both of his wives – at having children.
Given then that the man Israel together with his two wives and progeny also and necessarily stood as type for what Paul refers to at Galatians 6:16 as “the Israel of God”, we see that this “all Israel” which shall be saved is in fact none other than that very same “the Israel of God”.
.....................Type..................................................................Substance
Propagation of the household of Israel........................“all Israel shall be saved” (Rom 11:25,26)
Israel and his two wives and progeny.........................“the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16)
(Because the two type instances on the left hand side refer to the same (physical) Israel, the two (corresponding) anti-type instances on the right hand side necessarily refer to the same (spiritual) Israel.)
___
Further and commensurately, in that the type was/is only one of many family lines on the earth, we understand the Israel of God to in similar fashion consist only of the elect of God and no-one else besides.
___
Finally, in that scripture divides humanity into two parts – the Jews and the Gentiles – we understand the (ethnically-indiscriminate) Israel of God to be divided into the same two parts. And so given that the type that stood for the Israel of God was also divided into two parts – Rachel and Leah – we understand that one of these women stands as type for those of the Israel of God of Jewish extraction, and the other for those of the Israel of God of Gentile extraction.
In that Rachel was she who was first loved, we understand that she stands as type for those of the Israel of God of Jewish extraction. Note then that when Herod had all the males of 2 years old and under “in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof” killed, Matthew tells us that such was the fulfilment of the prophecy at Jeremiah 31:15 – that there would be heard a voice in Ramah weeping for her children, and that it would therefore be the voice of Rachel, for Ramah was in (the land of) Benjamin and Benjamin was born of Rachel.
But Bethlehem, where the killings were centred, was not in Benjamin but in Judah, which is of Leah. That is, Leah and Rachel as Jews were both together represented (according to the flesh) by Rachel alone.
By default then if nothing else, Leah stands as type for those of the Israel of God of Gentile extraction. For we are also reminded by Matthew of the prophecy of Isaiah that the Gentiles would trust in Christ.(See Is 11:10, Mt 12:17-21.)
And so also:
“And the Gentiles shall come to thy light” Is 60:3.
But there is in fact far more proof of Leah’s representation of the Gentile elect, than mere default. Note the following from Paul:
“As He saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God” Rom 9:25,26
: Leah being (initially) held in relative disregard in comparison to Rachel, but in the end loved just as much as she, indeed stood as type for the Gentiles – more specially, the elect thereof.
The fulness of Leah
Note again our interpretative key:
“And [Jacob] … loved … Rachel more than Leah … And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren. And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the LORD hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me. And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the LORD hath heard that I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon. And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Now this time will my husband be joined unto me, because I have born him three sons: therefore was his name called Levi. And she conceived again, and bare a son: and she said, Now will I praise the LORD: therefore she called his name Judah; and left bearing. And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die” Genesis 29:30-35, 30:1.
Note the progression to Leah’s fulness:
1. “Reuben”: “see ye a son”
2. “Simeon”: “hearing”
3. “Levi”: ....“attached/joined”
4. “Judah”: ..“celebrated”
The progression stands as type for the salvation of every individual who is ever saved, whether Jew or Gentile:
1. A Son is given to us: we are told to look unto Him. (See Is 9:6, 45:22.)
2. Faith comes by hearing Him.
3. We are joined to Him who is our priest, as one spirit. (See 1 Cor 6:17.)
4. We are brought to praise Him, which is our fulness.
For He whom we celebrate, proceeded out of him whose name spoke to such: Christ came out of the loins of Judah and it was upon the birth of Judah that Leah praised the Lord and (therefore) (for the time being) left bearing.
And so the paradox is that, although Leah, being an elect Jew (for she was not only one flesh with Jacob but she also knew the Lord), was according to the flesh represented in God’s scheme of things by Rachel, with specific regard to salvation it was in fact the other way around: it was Rachel who was represented by Leah. For are we not all, whether Jew or Gentile, saved by grace? And did not Leah’s life speak more to grace than Rachel’s? For was she not smuggled into the marriage tent by her father, ahead of her more beautiful sister?
And so we praise God for Leah. What fear of rejection must have possessed her as she waited for him who had made love to her in the dark, to wake in the morning to find her beside him instead of Rachel!
But in the end her husband also, with death looming, charged his sons that they would bury him “in the cave that is in the field of Machpe-lah … there I buried Leah” (Gen 49:31): his life also would conclude in reference to the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
The jealousy of Rachel
The type:
“And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die” Gen 30:1.
The substance:
“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.
: Paul ministering as Leah, provoking Rachel to jealousy.
The fulness of Rachel
The type:
“And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called [the name of the very last son of Israel] Ben-oni: but his father called him Benjamin” Gen 35:18.
The substance:
“For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?” Rom 11:15.
And thus the fulness of Rachel was of a very different nature to the fulness of Leah. For if Jacob (Israel) was to be buried with her who spoke to grace, she who was formerly primary should expire ahead of her less beautiful sister. For of a truth Rachel represented the elect Jews, but at another level she also represented vanity and thus that which must be displaced by Christ.1
And so she died giving birth to him whom she called “Benoni” – “son of my sorrow” – for vanity is aligned with the flesh and Christ was crucified in the flesh – but whom Jacob immediately renamed “Benjamin” – “son of the right hand” – for Christ is risen from the dead and seated at the right hand of the Father.
1 Commensurately, inasmuch as she (Rachel) represented the elect Jews as distinct from the elect Gentiles, at the prima facie level she also necessarily represented Israel of the flesh and thus the law. And so in Rachel the two meanings of vanity – “I am beautiful” and “uselessness” – are seen to come together. (See also our work: “Understanding Christ’s fulfilment of the law”.)
Enumerating “Israel”
Just as Jacob and Rachel and Leah were individual people, so the saving of all Israel as per our head passage is in reference to the individuals across the ages, at a very individual level, who make up that which is known as “the Israel of God”.
Just as Jacob and Rachel and Leah – more particularly the nation which proceeded out of them – were a corporate entity, so the saving of all Israel as per our head passage is in reference to the corporate entity considered as a whole and known as “the Israel of God”.
That is, the two aspects, the several and the corporate, are together as one, for the Body is one, which is corporate, but made up of many, which is several.
And so a perpetuity is produced across the ages: ‘Rachel’(s) are continually being brought into the world (‘unnaturally’) blind to the light of the Lord, ‘Leah’(s) continually coming into the light of the Lord as ostensible replacements for the ‘Rachel’(s), and the (same) ‘Rachel’(s) then subsequently made to see by reason of the fact that if God has shown mercy to the ‘Leah’(s), He has necessarily also to show it to the ‘Rachel’(s).
The fulness of the Gentiles then is not, as many bible versions errantly declare, in reference to a (dispensationalist) “full number” of Gentiles, but the fulness of each and every one of them on a personal level – the salvation of them – whenever in history they might live.
Grammar
Note our head passage again:
“blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved” Rom 11:25,26.
Note particularly the verb phrase “be come in”. If indeed “fulness” should read “full number”, then given that such full number would of necessity be a predetermined quantity (else it could never be said that the full number had ever arrived), (subjunctive) “be” should be replaced with (indicative) “is”: “until the full number of the Gentiles is2 come in”.
But the subjunctive is used here because, although in a Christian framework it (nevertheless) continues to relate contingency, it is in such case a contingency subsumed under the irrepressible hope that we have in Christ Jesus, with the result that what is referred to by the grammarian as “the mood of doubt” is in fact transformed to what we might call “the mood of grace”. That is, and with particular reference to the passage at hand, although the things of God are sure and certain to come to pass, they nevertheless do not herald themselves presumptuously: “until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in” makes tacit appeal to the grace required to bring such fulness about, “until the fulness of the Gentiles is come in” does not, but is even arrogant.
Given then that “the full number of the Gentiles” had required such “is come in” verb phrase in order to complete its proper sense, we see that, according to the grammar, the rendering cannot possibly be “full number”, but only “fulness”.
2 More modern: “has come in”.
Summary
The conceptual framework which interprets Romans 11:25,26 is the story of Jacob, Rachel and Leah.
The (resulting) (unlocked) ‘transcription’:
“blindness is happened to Rachel, until the fulness of Leah be come in. And so both Rachel and Leah shall be saved”,
is to be applied as a perpetuity across the ages, Rachel representing those of the Israel of God of Jewish extraction, and Leah those of the Israel of God of Gentile extraction.
Amen.
(See also addendum below.)
______________________________________________
ADDENDUM: MORE ON WHO RACHEL AND LEAH ARE
In which the old speaks to the new
Compare the following OT and NT passages, in which the correlation we have taught in this work should be manifest:
“Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand” Ez 37:16,17.
“But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:” Eph 2:13-16.
: Judah and Joseph – Leah and Rachel – the Gentile elect and the Jewish elect – made one indivisible Body in Christ Jesus.
In which “Israel” augments itself
“Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth. Before Ephraim and Benjamin and Manasseh stir up thy strength, and come and save us” Ps 80:1,2.
In that this psalm is at the prima facie level in respect to Israel of the flesh in its entirety, then given that Joseph and Benjamin are seen here to exhaust such entire Israel of the flesh, Rachel is necessarily also seen to exhaust it, for Joseph and Benjamin were of Rachel. At the prima facie level then Rachel is seen here to represent Israel of the flesh in its entirety, and if Israel of the flesh in its entirety, then contrary to what we have earlier outlined in this work, the entire Israel of God, for Israel of the flesh in its entirety necessarily stands as type for the (entire) Israel of God.
However and this time in line with what we have earlier outlined in this work, given that it is simply inappropriate to define Israel in abstraction from the (more numerous) sons of Leah (Judah being the primary), Rachel (together with the Israel she seemingly exhausts) will in fact not represent Israel of the flesh in its entirety at all, but only a subset thereof and therefore only those of the Israel of God who are of Jewish extraction.
A problem has therefore arisen: we have ascribed to Rachel two contradictory representations simultaneously, and with apparent equal validity.
But rather, at this point we must needs remind ourselves that before Leah had come into her fulness, although according to covenant the situation was:
“Israel” = Jacob + Leah + Rachel,
according to experience the situation was merely:
“Israel” = Jacob + Rachel.
For Rachel was loved, but Leah ‘hated’.
That is, in that (initially) Rachel was effectively the only wife according to experience, she indeed (at that stage) represented the entire Israel of the flesh and therefore the entire Israel of God.
But in that Leah subsequently came to be equal with Rachel, Rachel’s portion was necessarily transformed to only a subset of Israel of the flesh and therefore that which represented only a subset – those in fact of Jewish extraction – of the Israel of God.
And so although “Israel” was from the outset settled according to covenant:
“Israel” = Jacob + Leah + Rachel,
it was self-augmenting with regard to experience:
“Israel” = Jacob + Rachel (initial)
“Israel” = “Israel” + Leah (augmentation)
For the experience must needs match (i.e. catch up to) the covenant that facilitates it.
Such two experiential stages for Leah then – the initial and the augmentation – stand respectively as type for the following two (contiguous) passages in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians concerning Gentiles who have come to be born again:
“That at that time ye ([Gentiles]) were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:” Eph 2:12.
“But now in Christ Jesus ye ([Gentiles]) who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between [the Jews and us]; Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain ([i.e. Jews and Gentiles]) one new man, so making peace; And that He might reconcile both ([i.e. Jews and Gentiles]) unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:” Eph 2:13-16.
And so when we read elsewhere:
“to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile” Rom 2:10,
we understand such to in fact be saying:
“to the Jew first, and also firstly to the Gentile”.
For as we have seen, Rachel was first, but Leah made to also be first.