It’s been a few weeks–sorry about that. I’m going to recap, to refresh our memories.

You posted this comment, and I said you were right that Paul actually wasn’t drawing on the idea of the remnant (yet) in verse 7. That comes later in the chapter. But I also thought you were reading something into verse 7 yourself, so I said this:

It think it will help us if we take a moment to clarify something for both of our sake’s: Which ideas are we getting from which parts of the chapter? What’s introduced in the early part, versus how it’s fleshed out later?

So I started with verses 6-7, and we agreed on the following:

Verse 6 means, “Not everyone who’s a Jew is part of true Israel.”

Verse 7 says almost exactly the same thing, but with “children of Abraham” instead of Israel. It means, “Not everyone who’s an offspring of Abraham is truly Abraham’s child–just look at what happened with Isaac.”

Both verse 6 and verse 7 distinguish between physical and “true”. (Between physical Israel and true Israel, and between physical seed of Abraham and true children of Abraham.) If we’ve just seen those two verses, all we know is that there is such a thing as “true Israel”–he hasn’t said that true Israel is the remnant of faithful Jews, and he hasn’t said that true Israel is all faithful people.

I said that when I came back, I would talk about Rom. 9:24-26. (They’re important verses, because they’re the first time in the chapter that Paul starts to talk about Gentile inclusion. So the question is, “Inclusion in what?” In God’s people, or “Israel”?)

So, let me recap just a little more.

Earlier, I said this:

Walk forward through the passage, and find the first place where you think Gentiles are called “Israel”. (And if it’s v. 24-26, please look again at what I said a moment ago.)

When you responded, you first pointed to v. 7. But then we agreed that in v. 6-7, “all we know is that there is such a thing as ‘true Israel’–he hasn’t said that true Israel is the remnant of faithful Jews, and he hasn’t said that true Israel is all faithful people.”

The other place you pointed was v. 24-27. And I had said, if you think that’s the place, then please look again at what I said here:

In fact, v. 24-26 talk about the Gentiles–but then v. 27 goes back to talking about Israel and the remnant. We do have Paul talking about Gentile inclusion, but not yet saying anything about inclusion in “Israel”, as opposed to “the people of God”. He could have said that here, but he hasn’t, yet.

I know you disagree about the connection between v. 24-26 and v. 27. But bear with me.

Paul starts talking about the Gentiles in v. 24-26. He says that they are called His people, beloved, and sons of the living God.

Question 1: In v. 24-26, do you think Paul has now called Gentiles “Israel”?

My answer would be, no–he hasn’t used that label yet. You would have to assume that if God calls someone “His people,” “beloved,” and “sons of the living God”, that this means He’ll also use the word “Israel”. And that’s exactly what you’re trying to demonstrate, not assume.

If not that, maybe you’re getting it from v. 27.

v. 27 “And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: ‘Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved.’”

Question 2: When Paul goes on with v. 27, and talks about Israel, why do you think he’s saying here that Gentiles are in true Israel? He talks in terms of the remnant, which is already generally understood as “the subset/remnant of physical Israel who actually follows God”. If Paul is clarifying the concept of “remnant” to mean “all believers”, what specifically does he say to do that? He has explained that “God’s people” includes more than just Jews–please point to him explaining that “the remnant” is more than just believing Jews.

The only thing I can figure is that you’re reading 27 as the parallel of 25-26. Paul did some Gentile-inclusion in 25-26, so he must be continuing that exact thought in 27. He must be doing more Gentile-inclusion.

Why would you read it as continuing the same thought, instead of picking up the contrast from verse 24?

Paul had just said that God called us from Jews but also from Gentiles. Then he quotes Hosea about calling Gentiles, and he quotes Isaiah about calling Jews. He quotes Hosea about naming Gentiles as His people, and he quotes Isaiah about saving only a remnant of the “sons of Israel” (who are as numerous as sand!–but only a remnant will be saved).

I think a couple diagrams might help. I’m seeing things like the first diagram, and you’re seeing them like the second. But I can’t find anything in Romans 9 that points toward anything more than the first. Verses 6-7 didn’t, and I can’t see how verses 24-27 do, either.

In fact, from what I can tell, you wouldn’t see a problem if it turned out like this:

And at that point, you’ve turned “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved” into “none of the sons of Israel will be saved”. Or you’ve turned “the sons of Israel” here into “true Israel”–but then what’s the remnant?

I can tell you what part of it will be, though–pointing back to what I already said about 24-26.

It think it will help us if we take a moment to clarify something for both of our sake’s:  Which ideas are we getting from which parts of the chapter?  What’s introduced in the early part, versus how it’s fleshed out later?

I think we can manage to agree on the meaning of v. 6-7, and then move on from there.

Let’s approach it this way:

“6But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”” (ESV)

Verse 6 means, “Not everyone who’s a Jew is part of true Israel.”

Verse 7 says almost exactly the same thing, but with “children of Abraham” instead of Israel.  It means, “Not everyone who’s an offspring of Abraham is truly Abraham’s child–just look at what happened with Isaac.”

Both verse 6 and verse 7 distinguish between physical and “true”.  (Between physical Israel and true Israel, and between physical seed of Abraham and true children of Abraham.)  If we’ve just seen those two verses, all we know is that there is such a thing as “true Israel”–he hasn’t said that true Israel is the remnant of faithful Jews, and he hasn’t said that true Israel is all faithful people.

Do we agree on that much? If so, we can start there, and I’ll reply to what you said about v. 24-26.

In fact, verse 7 is worse for your view than verse 6.  Because verse 7 finishes with, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”  Isaac only, not Ishmael; Paul is still talking about the remnant.

Through verse 13, Paul is talking about the Patriarchs as examples of the remnant idea–God had made a promise about the seed of Abraham, but not all Abraham’s descendants received that promise.  God chose a smaller part to carry on the line of the promise.  That’s all he’s said so far in chapter 9.

Sure, v. 1 is preparing for the later verses.  But that’s because Paul is setting up the question he’s dealing with: The explanation of why the promises of God have not failed, even though many Jews have not found Christ and are cut off from the promises of God.  And the start of his answer is, “It always worked that way.  God chose a remnant.”

Paul doesn’t start talking about Gentile inclusion until verse 24-26.  That’s the first place that comes close to what you’re saying.  But even then, he says “my people” and “beloved” and “the sons of the living God”, but he doesn’t call us “Israel”.  Then verses 27-29 go back to talking about Israel & the remnant.

By the way, I’d like to say clearly what I agree with you on, about what Romans 9-11 says:

1.) Paul distinguishes between physical Israel and true Israel.
2.) Being part of the bloodline isn’t enough.
3.) God brought in the Gentiles to be his people.  We’re included as part of God’s people.  (Not necessarily as part of “Israel”, but at least as part of God’s people.)
4.) Verses 1-5 are at least partly intended to counteract antisemitism & pride toward the Jews.
5.) We Gentiles receive salvation & righteousness & inheritance as God’s children.

All that is explicitly in Rom 9-11. Elsewhere in the Bible, I agree that we’re called children of Abraham, even though we’re Gentiles.  I don’t know about “Israel”, but we’re at least called children of Abraham.

I’m not sure how this matters in Paul’s overall point.

Well, hang on.  You said that Paul was emphasizing this, but it turns out that wasn’t what he said. Again, it was easy to misunderstand in the NASB–I’m not trying to say, “Haha, you misunderstood something.”  But in light of that misunderstanding, I’m asking you to step back, reread chapter 9, and walk through Paul’s logic with fresh eyes.  (Could you also go back to reread my summary from the previous post, and my comments in the post above?  It’ll help explain what I’m seeing in the chapter.)

You said in your first comment,

“since Paul begins his case with this point I think Paul is really emphasizing it.”

But he didn’t begin his case with that point. (Sidenote: If Paul had said that in 9:6, I would probably agree with you about the whole thing here.  It would have been a really clear way to say what you’re saying.)

I absolutely agree that 9:6 is being emphasized, and that it’s the start of his case.  But he’s not starting it the way that you thought he was.  So it’s really important to step back and look at this with fresh eyes.

When someone wondered whether the promise of God had failed (because so many Jews had rejected Christ, and were not receiving salvation), Paul did not start by redefining Israel.  He started by pointing back to the way things always were–that there was always both the entire bloodline on the one hand, and the smaller, faithful remnant who carried on the promises on the other hand.

You said 9:6 was being emphasized; this is what 9:6 says.  This is what v. 7 says, and v. 8, and 9, and 10, and 11, and 12, and 13.  The first part of Paul’s argument is spent talking about the history of the bloodline of Abraham, and how God always chose a smaller part of the bloodline to carry on the promises.  So if that happens again, with many of the nation of Israel rejecting Christ, how can anyone claim that the promises of God have failed?

Notice: Paul doesn’t say anything about Gentiles being included as “my people” and “beloved” and “the sons of the living God” until v. 24-26.  (Also notice: He did say that we’re included as the people of God, but he hasn’t yet said that we are Israel.  Not in Rom. 9.  In fact, v. 24-26 talk about the Gentiles–but then v. 27 goes back to talking about Israel and the remnant.  We do have Paul talking about Gentile inclusion, but not yet saying anything about inclusion in “Israel”, as opposed to “the people of God”.  He could have said that here, but he hasn’t, yet. That doesn’t prove that the Church is distinct from Israel, but so far, Rom 9 is consistent with that.)

Another point:  In your first comment, when I talked about the remnant, you said,

I wouldn’t say Paul makes a “big point” of this. Rather it is to further answer the smaller, secondary question He poses in 11:1, “has God cast away His people”.

But Paul didn’t introduce the remnant in 11:1.  He introduced it in 9:6, and talked about it for seven more verses, and again in v. 27.  If you agree about what 9:6 means, then you should agree that Paul did make a big point of it–because you already said 9:6 was being emphasized.

So, what I’m asking you to do is step back and reread the passage in light of what 9:6 says about not all Jews being of Israel.  Walk forward through the passage, and find the first place where you think Gentiles are called “Israel”.  (And if it’s v. 24-26, please look again at what I said a moment ago.)