To whom does Paul’s second use of “Israel” refer?

Explanation:

Paul writes that not all who are descended of Israel belong to Israel. What he means is that there is a difference between the ethnic nation of Israel and the Israel that is determined by God’s promises. The Israel that is determined by God’s promises includes some ethnic Israelites, but it also includes believing Gentiles. We can detect that the true Israel includes believing Gentiles because Paul will imply this in Romans 9:24.⁴ There he explains that those God has called are not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles.

Counterargument:

This argument assumes that those who are called are those who belong to the true Israel. For this view holds that the true Israel is determined by God’s promises, which includes the Gentiles because we learn in Romans 9:24 that the Gentiles are called by God. But Paul never explicitly writes that the people of God’s promises include all those who are called. Rather, we learn from Romans 9:4 that the promises were given to the nation of Israel, so while it is true that the Gentiles are called, the people determined by God’s promises are the Israelites.

Response to counterargument:

This view overlooks the fact that Paul specifically distinguishes the children of flesh from the children of promise in Romans 9:8. There Paul explains that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise. In other words, the children of God are those determined by God’s promises, not by descent in the line of Israel. So those who receive the promises are not simply those of Israel, but could also include anyone called by God, which we know from Romans 9:24 includes believing Gentiles.

Explanation:

To understand what Paul means when he says that not all of Israel belongs to Israel, it is important to pinpoint Paul’s overall instruction in this section. He has explained that the nation of Israel was unique in that they received the commands, the worship, the promises, and so on (Romans 9:4–5). Of course, this raises a question that Paul himself poses in Romans 9:6. If Israel was God’s special people, does this mean that God’s word failed in light of the fact that not all of Israel believes the gospel? In other words, if God made promises to Israel, does this not mean that all of Israel is God’s elect? When Paul says that not all of Israel belongs to Israel he highlights the character of election. Election is not based on human descent but on the gracious call of God.⁵ That is why, although the Israelites were given the promises, some Israelites along with believing Gentiles belong to the true Israel since election is based on God’s grace and not natural descent.

Counterargument:

That Paul raises the issue of God’s word failing suggests he has ethnic Israel in mind. The question is, if Israel is God’s unique people, then does this mean the word of God failed, given that not all of the Israelites believe the gospel? Paul says No, for there has always been a remnant of Israelites, which is the true Israel, who believed God’s promises.⁶ Paul makes this clear in Romans 9:27 where he explains that a remnant of Israel will be saved.⁷ The remnant of Israel who will be saved is the true Israel, that is, those ethnic Israelites who would believe and will be saved.

Response to counterargument:

While it is true that Paul is addressing the issue of whether God’s word failed given that not all of Israel believes the gospel, his point is not that there is a remnant of Israelites who do believe. Rather, his point is that salvation is based on God’s grace, not descent. We can detect this because Paul goes on to explain in Romans 9:11 that although both Esau and Jacob were born of Rebekah, God called Jacob and not Esau, showing that election is not based on works but on him who calls. Later he addresses the question of why the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained it, by saying that it was because they accepted the gospel by faith. In other words, in his grace God calls a people to be his own, and those who respond to God’s call by faith, whether ethnic Israelites or Gentiles, are included as those people, the true Israel.

If Paul is addressing Jews in Rome, it would make sense for him to contrast Israelites by descent and the remnant of Israelites that believed. But if Paul is not addressing Jews in Rome, it is not clear why he would refer to believing Jews and Gentiles as Israel, for then he would likely refer to them as the church or the people of God.

Explanation:

In Romans 9:1–5, Paul outlines the fact that he is about to write about ethnic Israel. He says that he has great sorrow over ethnic Israel, to whom belong the covenants, worship, promises, and so on. He then explains that not all descended from Israel belong to Israel. Given that Paul has just told us about his anguish over ethnic Israel, when he says that not all descended from Israel belong to Israel, he must have in mind that not all descended from Israel belong to ethnic Israel.¹⁰

Counterargument:

The problem here is that Paul’s own statement from Romans 9:6 undercuts this view. For this view has it that when Paul says not all descended from Israel belong to Israel, he means that not all ethnic Israelites belong to ethnic Israel. But obviously such a statement entails a contradiction. For, in order to belong to ethnic Israel, one must be of Israelite descent. Of course, if one is of Israelite descendent, then one belongs to ethnic Israel. So if this view is right, and both of Paul’s uses of Israel refer to ethnic Israel, how can Paul say that not all who are descended from Israel belong to ethnic Israel, when descent is what makes one an ethnic Israelite?

Response to counterargument:

The argument here is not that Paul’s second use of Israel is identical to his first. That is, while Paul’s use of Israel in the first instance refers to all of ethnic Israel, his second use refers to a portion of ethnic Israel. Specifically, he has in mind that within ethnic Israel there is a spiritual remnant who believed God’s promises. In fact, the Old Testament testifies to the fact that God kept for himself a remnant of believers (1 Kings 19:18). So while Paul refers to ethnic Israel twice in Romans 9:6, his first use of the term includes all ethnic Israelites, while his second use refers to a spiritual remnant of ethnic Israelites who believe God’s promises.¹¹

Explanation:

After writing that not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, Paul will offer several examples to show that he has in mind that there is a remnant of ethnic Israelites who are the spiritual Israel. For he goes on to point out that not all who descended from Abraham are Abraham’s children, but only those who are the children of the promise (Romans 9:7–9). Further, although both Esau and Jacob were descended from Abraham, God loved Jacob but hated Esau (Romans 9:10–13). Thus, there is a remnant within the descendants of Abraham who are the spiritual Israel.

Counterargument:

While it is true that Paul uses examples from Israel to show that there was a remnant in Israel who were the children of promise, Paul does not exclude the Gentiles from likewise sharing in those promises. For Paul’s point here is not only that God kept for himself a remnant of Israelites who believed his promises, but that any who believes is included in the spiritual Israel, including Gentiles. For after explaining that God kept for himself a remnant in Israel, Paul specifically writes in Romans 9:24 that God also calls Gentiles to be his people. The point is that not everyone descended from Israel belongs to the spiritual Israel, which includes both Jews and Gentiles.

Response to counterargument:

While it is true that the Gentiles are included in the promises of God, Paul is specifically referring to ethnic Israel in this section. Given that Paul carefully distinguishes ethnic Israel from the Gentiles, unless he says otherwise we should assume that any reference to Israel refers to ethnic Israel. Now, it is obvious that when Paul refers to Israel in Romans 9:6 he at least has ethnic Israel in mind, for he tells us in Romans 9:1–5 that he has sorrow for ethnic Israel, and from Romans 9:7–13 he offers examples from ethnic Israel. Of course, he says nothing about the Gentiles, so we ought to take him to refer to a remnant of Israel within ethnic Israel.¹²

The weakness of this view is that if Paul distinguishes ethnic Israel from the true spiritual Israel, then it is arbitrary to exclude the Gentiles from this category. For this view implies that Paul uses the term Israel in a spiritual sense to refer to a group other than ethnic Israel, namely, spiritual Israel. Of course, the Gentiles are not ethnic Israel, but they are included in God’s promises by faith, so it is sensible to categorize Gentiles as the true spiritual Israel. Thus, this view does not give us enough reason to exclude the Gentiles from the true spiritual Israel.