This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
“All Israel” in that passage does not mean something like “literally every proclaimed Israelite”. In Romans 9 you find:
These are instrumental to understanding what Paul says in Romans 11, preceding it in the same epistle (an epistle without original delineations nonetheless). Israel != flesh, and Israel = a saved remnant. If not all who are descended from Israel are Israel, then when we read in 11 that “all Israel will be saved”, we must take this to mean the aforementioned real Israel rather than descended Israel by flesh (otherwise there would be no point in making the distinction beforehand).
This is why there’s a theme of a remnant Israel and a “broken off” Israel. Consider how pointless Paul’s effort would be to “save some” of his brothers by preaching if, at the end of the day, literally all of them are saved regardless of his preaching.
This may come off as mere miscellany to any non-Abrahamist readers but the consequences are serious for keeping the gospel stable. If every Jew is saved at the end of days, then there is no reason to convert to Christianity as a Jew or to preach to Jews (which the original apostles did). And Jesus’ threats of hell make no sense. It destroys the integrity of the Gospel in the same way that someone saying “you don’t have to follow the mitzvahs to be rewarded and saved” would destroy the integrity of Judaism.
When Paul says "all Israel will be saved" he is referring to ethnic Israel, since in the sentence immediately preceding he explicitly contrasts "Israel" with "the gentiles." This does not necessarily mean every single Jew but it does mean corporate Israel, not just a small remnant. Paul doesn't seem to think that God has voided his contract with the Jews, but that he is including gentiles in the promises to Abraham, which is different from creating a new covenant where the distinction between Jew and gentile is entirely obviated. Paul obviously doesn't think this since he states that when/if Israel is "grafted back in" it will be much easier for them who are "natural" branches than for the gentiles who are not. The mission to the gentiles is framed largely in reference to God's dealings with the Jews, "Just as you were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their disobedience, so also they have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, [the Jews] may receive mercy."
"What's the point of evangelism if God already knows who will and who won't be saved" is a general problem for the coherence of Christianity, not just in this particular instance.
The mass conversion of the Jews at the end of days is an ancient Christian eschatological belief that endures to this day.
We can read until that sentence starting with 11:20
Who are the natural branches that are not spared, which causes gentiles to be afraid lest they share the same fate? If all are spared, then there are no natural branches who are not spared. The phraseology explains that the verdict on Israel is more severe, hence “fear, for if God did not spare natural branches he will not spare you”, but your reading has it that Israel’s verdict is less severe. If gentiles fear a loss of salvation, and Israel’s verdict is more severe, but all of Israel is saved… this is a very silly interpretation which is all over the place.
Just continuing the reading, gentiles must fear God’s severity toward those who have fallen.
This supports my view given the conditional if. We are now back to talking about the grafted in Israel, the Israel by faith, which was defined two chapters ago. If Paul believes that they will all be saved, why is it if and not when? Why is it “God has the power” rather than “God will”?
Finally we have
The key to understanding the above is clearly the sentence that makes zero sense in your theology: “It is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel”. This makes no sense in your theology because it necessarily implies that not all of born-Israel are saved. There are (A) those descended from Israel, who (B) are not Israel, (C) which is important to know for the purposes of salvation, and we know (D) all of Israel will be saved. Your theology requires something that conflicts with (B) because you allege that all descended from Israel are Israel, whereas Paul specifically denies this. (C) is also a stumbling block to your theology because Paul specifically mentions (A+B) in the context of salvation and in the context of understanding the prophecy of saved Jews. An additional point (E) is that Paul writes “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved”, which against conflicts with an all-inclusive salvation. If all are predestined to be saved then never can there be only a remnant saved.
That’s just saying that the natural branches would have an easier time fitting into Christianity than a Pagan Greek, given the monotheism and the shared scriptures which they are familiar with
So which ones aren’t?
Then why does he specifically mention a remnant?
They are not spared insofar as they are currently severed from the "tree," which doesn't necessarily indicate their eternal separation.
I'm not sure it indicates the verdict on Israel is more severe. It's the same verdict, separation, it's just that God presumably has a higher threshold for "cutting off" his chosen people than he does for cutting off gentiles.
It doesn't make any sense for the Israel onto which the gentiles are grafted to be the "Israel of faith." There has to be a preexisting tree for a branch to be grafted into, but the "Israel of faith" did not even exist prior to the birth of the Gentile church, so the Israel onto which they are being grafted is by necessity the only Israel that did exist prior, the ethnic Israel. Hence it is not the voiding of the old covenant and the creation of the new, but the inclusion of gentiles in the old covenant, so they are now counted as children of Abraham.
A corporate salvation of Israel at the end of time is not unique to Paul. It is a very common belief among "traditional" Christians, both Catholic and Protestant. It's even part of the catechism (CCC 674) It does not does not imply the salvation of literally every single Jew, but it does indicate that the Jews still have some special role to play in God's plan, and that all distinction between Jew and gentile has not been obliterated to make Jews just another ethnic group like any other. After all nobody is talking about the corporate conversion of the Afghans or the Japanese.
This first result on google from "catholic.com" seems a satisfactory explanation elucidation:
I have no idea if Paul had in mind 100%, 99%, 95%, 90%...
Those are the Jews who believe in Christ during this parentheses God has opened in which he has blinded Israel as a whole to make time for the gentiles. Paul believed it would be a very brief parentheses, but it's lasted quite a while.
The problem is that the sequence of thought in Paul goes against your idea of remnant + corporate salvation. Paul begins the topic in Romans 9:3 introducing unsaved Israel. “I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people […] It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” (1A) Occam’s razor is that when explaining why God’s promises still apply, we should provide the most inclusive reason. If corporate Israel is predestined to convert, that is the most inclusive reason for why God’s promises weren’t reneged but still apply (“Did God void his promise to Israel? No, they will one day convert as a nation, and some of us already converted”). Paul mentioning the small remnant would only be a minor part of the explanation which has nothing to do with most of God’s promise and most of Israel. But the remnant is the only thing talked about when asked “did God’s word fail?”. Again, in Romans 9:24 we have the perfect time to talk about some predestined corporate salvation, but this point is not brought up.
When Isaiah is quoted, Paul includes the words that speaks of completion and finality, which he did not need to include but which are included for a reason. “Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality.” Those who are not of the remnant have a final sentence, being foremade as “vessels of destruction” which Paul speaks about. When Paul specifically answers the question, “did God reject his people” in Romans 11, he again speaks in terms of a remnant, rather than something like ”God will save all his people in the end”. He quotes Elijah, where God says he has kept 7000 only of Israel to save.
The root is God, or even Christ who is preexistent (hence “the vine”). Ethnic Israel cannot be both roots and “broken branches” as branches cannot be a root.
I recall a certain person who called the the Pharisees who believed they were children of Abraham “children of Satan”. There is indeed a predestined children of Abraham, but there are also those who claim to be but are not.
It is not found in the church fathers. Read what Melito or Origen have to say. Hence, it is not found in traditional or historic Christianity, per my post.
Another thing that must be understood is the corporate theory relies on a passage which is predicated on a mystery. When Paul speaks about mysteries they always defy a literal understanding, for instance —
“Mysteries” require us to think more about things. The “mystery” that Paul introduces should not be taken in its most literal, unthinking form.
Augustine talks about the corporate conversion of Israel at the end of the age. I don't think it gets much more Church father than Augustine.
I'm not sure how the following defies a literal understanding. He's just talking about the resurrection and the transformation of believers when Christ returns. It's a "mystery" because it's strange and incomprehensible to the pagans of the time.
Augustine says
And there’s 200 years from Melito to Augustine where there is never mention of corporate salvation
Well he says:
(There is a list at that link of various church authorities over the centuries who have spoken of a corporate conversion of the Jews at the end of time, including Origen.)
Tertullian says,
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I love this subthread because it shows how absurd it is to read the New Testament as a consistent (much less inerrant) theological tome. Romans isn't "the gospel according to Paul", it's a pledge drive. He is asking for money, both for himself, and the Jewish Christians in Judea.
Once you view Romans in this light, all the little oddities about Israel start to make sense. Paul wasn't particularly popular with Jewish Christians at the time. He was trying to regain his street cred.
Many, if not most, Christian theological and doctrinal disputes are easily resolved as soon as one accepts the Bible was written by dozens (at the very least) of people over thousands of years who very often have wildly different and even flatly contradictory conceptions of faith, God, and just about everything else. When you try to force it all to cohere is when you run into trouble.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link