tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22792751.post3333566652135758790..comments2008-06-28T22:37:14.840-07:00Michael Barberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09245959720626825944noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22792751.post-15870432587102485502008-06-28T22:37:00.000-07:002008-06-28T22:37:00.000-07:00Michael<BR/>That is exciting. I have heard the collective vs. distributive sense for "all" applied to Rom 3:23 before, but not to Rom. 11.<BR/><BR/>Is it necessary to provide scripture in order to show that Paul preaching to the Gentiles means that he is actually preaching to the Northern Tribes, or can it be assumed since the tribes had been in exile for so long that there was no way to effectively "restore Israel" without bringing the Gentiles in as well?David Coxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07326177059975202341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22792751.post-89827053971087786042008-06-28T18:42:00.000-07:002008-06-28T18:42:00.000-07:00BTW my last comment refers to the restoration beginning right where the dispersion began--Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well in Jn 4.kentuckylizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08110491371985845560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22792751.post-17255305966097828502008-06-28T18:39:00.000-07:002008-06-28T18:39:00.000-07:00Gentiles are not utterly distinct from the ten lost tribes, because the lost tribes are dispersed, intermingled, intermarried, and disappeared among the Gentiles (since the Assyrian deportation several centuries earlier). God saves the Gentiles for the sake of the lost tribes of Israel. Or as Jesus puts it, the lost sheep of the house of Israel.<BR/><BR/>This goy girl, a northern Celtic Viking barbarian, rejoices.<BR/><BR/>Ammi! Ruhama! He has taken the names of the Ba'als from my mouth!kentuckylizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08110491371985845560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22792751.post-27916743904895819112008-06-26T20:35:00.000-07:002008-06-26T20:35:00.000-07:00Thanks for the updating, Michael. Did Matthew wrench Judges 13:5 out of context?<BR/><BR/>Acts 9:15, ""Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel." The Gentiles are kept separate from the Jews. Paul is careful to maintain that Jew and Gentile distinctive in his writings (Rom 1:16 and so on).<BR/><BR/>Paul in Romans 9:6ff is only speaking of spiritual Israel within ethnic Israel. Later he goes on to speak of the Gentiles as distinctive from the Jews.<BR/><BR/>Besides, the seed of Isaac eventually would be the 12 tribes, not the Gentiles.<BR/><BR/>By the way, Who in church history has ever proposed this postion?tc robinsonhttp://newleaven.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22792751.post-34541728745913614692008-06-26T16:30:00.000-07:002008-06-26T16:30:00.000-07:00Another place besides Hosea that we see foretold that the Gentiles will bring in the lost tribes of Israel is Isaiah 66:18-21. There is no hermeneutical leap going on. Paul is simply showing a proper understanding and interpretation of the prophets!Danny Garland Jr.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00570196313847615587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22792751.post-25755728814942350392008-06-26T14:35:00.000-07:002008-06-26T14:35:00.000-07:00"Wish I had more time, but I've got to get back to the dissertation."<BR/><BR/>I wish you had more time, too! Thanks so much for these fascinating thoughts. Having been largely convinced by Brant's treatment of the lost northern tribes in terms of Jesus, when I read your post I immediately realised the potential for that in terms of Paul in Rom 9-11. Superb and exciting! <BR/><BR/>Thanks, again. I will have to ponder your suggestions for a while, and it will certainly send me back to Rom 9-11. <BR/><BR/>That was blogging at its best.Chris Tillinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03153087287030167791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22792751.post-91492712843405292892008-06-26T11:14:00.000-07:002008-06-26T11:14:00.000-07:00t.c., <BR/><BR/>I've updated the post to answer your question. <BR/><BR/>Jeremy,<BR/><BR/>In terms of the flow of the letter--wow, that's a whole new post! I do think it is significant that Paul moves from the discussion in Romans 8, which links sonship to suffering, to a discussion of the exile--the suffering of God's firstborn son, Israel (Exod 4:22). But there's much more...Michael Barberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09245959720626825944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22792751.post-71612914678078170292008-06-26T04:43:00.000-07:002008-06-26T04:43:00.000-07:00I think this "hermeneutical leap" is to be found in Paul's contextual use of Scripture, especially the quotation from Hosea in Rom. 9:25. The Northern Tribes have been scattered to the four winds and have essentially become Gentiles: "not my people." The only way to gather them together is to go to the Gentiles. <BR/>Another clue to this is in Paul's exponential increase of the word "Israel" in these three chapters. "All Israel" had become so intertwined with the nations that we speak of them as the "lost tribes." <BR/>Paul doesn't come right out and say this explicitly, but I think it's there in many places, especially in the context of quotations and allusions. A question might be asked, why doesn't he come right out and say this?Jeremy Priesthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09474886113396100056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22792751.post-48251682044490136232008-06-25T22:43:00.000-07:002008-06-25T22:43:00.000-07:00<I>Paul thus sees his Gentile mission in terms of the pan-Israelite hope. The northern tribes must be restored to fulfill the promises made by the Lord through the prophets. Where are they? Among the Gentiles. To bring Israel home means to bring in the Gentiles. This is the mystery. God allowed Israel to be exiled so that he could use them to eventually bring the nations home as well--as their relatives.<BR/><BR/>Paul's opponents accuse him of rejecting his people. Paul doesn't see it that way. By neglecting the Gentiles--where the northern tribes were sent--his opponents are the ones who have rejected Israel.</I><BR/><BR/>You have provide Scripture for all your other conclusion but not for this one. Why? This seems like quite a hermeneutical leap. Where in Paul are Gentiles understood as the lost Northern tribes?tc robinsonhttp://newleaven.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22792751.post-9645004711876376482008-06-25T22:39:00.000-07:002008-06-25T22:39:00.000-07:00Where might I obtain a copy of Dr. Hahn's paper?Jaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22792751.post-20251808263934422442008-06-25T18:46:00.000-07:002008-06-25T18:46:00.000-07:00Michael, <BR/><BR/>I'm trying to put Rom. 9-11 in the overall schema of the letter and here's what I came up with. [I posted this comment over at Chrisendom as well.] Thoughts?<BR/><BR/>I think Paul's argument in Rom. 9-11 illustrates a point he makes to the Romans in 8:39 : nothing "will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus." In context: if the Romans were having difficulty because the Jews were rejecting the Gospel (cf. their expulsion from Rome over "Chrestus" in AD 49), how much more does Paul (a Jew) have "sorrow and unceasing anguish" in his heart (9:2) because "all Israel" has not yet been gathered together. Granted, Israel had the same problems as the Jews, basing their righteousness on the law (cf. 9:31). Yet, if we've seen God overcome that for the Jews in Jesus Christ, how much more will we see God reconcile "all Israel" in Jesus' Davidic kingdom (cf. 1:3-4). <BR/><BR/>Flowing from 8:39, Paul is saying, "Don't lose heart, don't give up on the Jews--God is faithful to his word (cf. 9:6). God's love is so powerful--he's not only going to bring the Jews and Gentiles in, he's going to bring all Twelve Tribes back into the fold! Don't think you know everything (cf. 11:25, 12:3, 1:21): don't harden your heart towards the Jews, but renew your minds (cf. 12:2) because neither God's promise to you Gentiles in Christ, nor God's promises to Israel through the patriarchs will be thrwarted--God's justice/wrath and mercy (cf. 9:19-29) combine to accomplish the same goal in Christ."<BR/><BR/>On a related Twelve Tribes note:<BR/>I think Paul's branch theory (11:13-24) might point in this direction: the many Gentiles represent a single "wild olive shoot" (11:18) and they are spoken of in the second person singular throughout, while Israel is spoken of in the plural and represented by a plurality of branches that "will be grafted in" (11:23). So, we might picture the many branches as 12+1 branches on the Olive tree (cf. Acts 2:8-10).Jeremy Priesthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09474886113396100056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22792751.post-23040613319222970612008-06-25T12:39:00.000-07:002008-06-25T12:39:00.000-07:00Dimbulb,<BR/><BR/>That's only one problem with the idea of the "great parenthesis", but yes, I agree with you.Michael Barberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09245959720626825944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22792751.post-49763067347267768262008-06-25T12:35:00.000-07:002008-06-25T12:35:00.000-07:00Wouldn't this also have implications for responding to some of the theories about Israel being bandied about by the "Left Behind" crowd? I'm referring to this idea proposed by adherents to John Nelson Darby's views:<BR/><BR/><I>(T)he Church was not God's primary plan of redemption, but a parenthetical time-dubbed the "Church age"-that would eventually give way to God's PRIMARY plan: a corporeal reign of the Messiah over the Jews. Jews how came to God in the Millennium would never become a part of the Church. They would be a part of redeemed Israel, which would remain forever distinct from Christ's bride.</I> (Rapture y David Currie, pg. 15)DimBulbhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14831601901629235143noreply@blogger.com