Alright, Romans chapter 9. Romans chapter 9. It's not going to be fun. sermon, but hopefully it will be beneficial. Now, if you've been paying attention, we have two different studies going on right now that are, in some ways, extremely different, but there's a little bit of overlap. Okay? So, for the Bible Study Exercise podcast that we do, where we do the Bible Study Exercise, where we spend one week usually looking at one passage of Scripture, we've decided to dedicate eight weeks to which passage of Scripture? Matthew chapter 24. And Matthew chapter 24 is a passage that everyone rips out of context pretty much anytime anything happens in the news. They're like, look, it's a sign that Jesus is going to come back. And what we've been working and working and working and working on is that a good portion of Matthew 24, first of all, the context is about what? The destruction of the temple, which occurred when? 70 AD. By whom? Titus, okay, very good. Alright, make sure everybody understands that, right? So, that's clearly what he's talking about because he walks out of the temple and they're like, hey, do you see all of these buildings? Hey, and... And he's like, yeah, I see all these buildings, but they're all going to be destroyed. And they're like, wait, what? When is this going to happen? What are you talking about? And then he begins to give them the signs. People rip those signs out of context and apply them to something happening with the second coming, when he was referring to what was going to happen in 70 AD. So we've been working through there. And we found, at times, it can be extremely difficult, because we have to try to determine, was that actually fulfilled before 70 AD? Verse 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, and 13, we can all pretty much say, yeah, clearly that applies to 70 A.D. But some believe that somewhere it jumps from 70 A.D. to what? End Times, Second Coming. Others, those who are preterists or hold to preterism, believe the entire Olivet Discourse was fulfilled when? 70 AD, which raises lots of questions. So we've tried to be fair. We've tried to go back and forth and tried to figure this out. It requires a lot of dedication and work and it also requires us to be willing to hear what? Different perspectives. So what have we been doing on Matthew 24? We've been looking at it from which perspective? A preterist perspective. Now why would we do that? Because if all you ever do is consider it from your perspective, you'll always think that you're right. Isn't that amazing how that works, right? And we live in a culture where everyone does this, yes? Right? We're like, OK, I'm not going to listen to anybody who disagrees with me. I will block them. I'll silence them. I'm only going to listen to news that gives me news from my perspective. And so we put ourselves in these little echo chambers where all we hear is what we already think. And you can never grow. You can never be challenged. And you never can realize that maybe you have actually been Wrong! Alright? So we're looking at it from a prejudice perspective. Does it mean that we're going to end up agreeing with it? No! But what are we doing? Challenging ourselves, yes? Okay, so, we've been working on that, which requires looking at it from a lot of different perspectives and there's lots of controversy. While that is going on, we made it to Romans chapter 9. And Romans 9, 10, and 11 introduces what subject to a discussion about election and salvation and justification. What is introduced in 9, 10, and 11? Israel. And the first question is, why? Why three chapters dedicated to Israel in a book that's about justification? Makes no sense! Agreed? And then we immediately had to acknowledge what? That throughout church history, there are really two very different perspectives. And we've broken them down into different ways. But basically it goes like this. There are those who believe when it comes to national Israel, from a biblical Christian perspective, how should we view them? They're just done away with, they're done, and they have been replaced by whom? The church. And they will refer to the church as what? Spiritual Israel. Right? So, promises, prophecies, everything. Whatever they were supposed to get, we get. We don't get it in a literal way, we get it in a spiritual way or a figurative way. But God is done with Israel. Which is really weird, if He's done with Israel, that we have three chapters in the middle of Romans dedicated to Israel. Seems kind of odd. Why even bring them up? Does that make sense? The other view is what? God is not done with Israel and they are distinct from Israel. Now if we were to add, if we were to place theological terminology to these positions, right? We can refer to the position that God is basically done with Israel and been replaced by spiritual Israel. What are some names we could use to call this? We could add covenant theology into this. What else? Starts with an A. Ah, Millennialism! Very good. Some may refer to it as replacement theology. Everybody knows this? Over here? Dispensational. Oh, that bad word. I can't say it. It's a sin. Dispensationalism. Now, I understand there's lots of criticism, especially in the reformed world, right? Typically, if you hold to any form of dispensationalism, many reformed people will say you can't be truly reformed, and you're not really reformed. So don't call yourself reformed, because if you're going to be reformed, you're going to believe everything we believe. And then everybody gets to define what they, OK, whatever. But what is my view about these terms or these camps? Well, my thing is I could care less about the names. Right? I don't care amillennialists. I don't care dispensationalists. I don't care about the names in this sense. Because if we're not careful, they almost become like if you're in a gang, you have certain colors, and you have to wear your colors, and you've got to defend your side. I don't care about defending my side or wearing colors. What I care is trying to figure out what does the text say by the words that are used, yes? And if that offends the amillennialist, I don't care. If you want to kick me out of the reform world, I don't care. If I don't say the right words and I make the dispensationalist mad and they want to kick me out of the dispensational gang, I don't care. I don't care about your team. I don't care about your gang. I don't care about any of that nonsense. That's just childish. What we should be worried about is what? What does this say? And what do we learn sometimes when we pursue truth? Have you ever learned, in this church where we do this all the time, what have we kind of learned at this point? Truth sometimes doesn't quite fit nicely into a particular camp. Have you ever noticed that? Like 78, trying to figure out Matthew 24. Before we're done, we're going to make everyone mad. In Matthew 24, you have the Futurist who basically looks like the whole chapter applies to the Second Coming. We're going to make them mad because we've already thrown out verses 4 to 13. There are others, the Preterists, I guarantee we're going to make them mad because they believe the entire thing applies to the past. We're going to be somewhere in the middle, which you typically then get shot by both sides. But you either care about truth or you care about a side. I don't care about sides. I just hate that. Right? I got no problem with philological terminology to identify sides. We need that. We need that. But I don't care. I'm not beholden to. I'm not committed to that. Now, I say all of that because what do we have to try to figure out in Matthew 9? We've got to figure out, so what do we need to do with Israel? So what did we spend, what, a month doing? We looked at all the promises to the nation of Israel, and what did we determine dogmatically, nobody can debate, nobody can dispute? Promises were made that have not been fulfilled, and they seem impossible to say they're being fulfilled in the church. That is what we're sure of. Now the reason I did this, is go ahead and open up to Romans 9, is because now today, all the problems begin. All right, are you ready? OK. And there were plenty of people listening online who couldn't, they were waiting for this day. They couldn't wait for this to happen because they thought, this is where they're going to prove us wrong. Maybe they will, but we're going to find out. Are you ready? Romans chapter nine, verse one. Paul, all of a sudden, in the middle of this discussion about that nothing can separate us from the love of God, that we're more than conquerors, all of these absolutely amazing things at the end of chapter eight, yes, right? And chapter eight, we've talked about election, predestination, all of these amazing things, all of this amazing stuff in eight, and then for some weird reason, it almost seems completely out of character. Paul just interrupts everything and goes, hey guys, I say the truth in Christ, I lie not. my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost." And you're like, Paul, what just happened? Right? It's like, hey, you're more than conquerors. Nothing can separate you from the love of God. Hey, I'm not lying! I'm telling you the truth! Okay, Paul, what just happened? Right? It's almost like, look, what just changed? And what is he so upset about or bothered about? That I have great Heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. He is upset. He's bothered. He's emotional. I want you to see the emotion in this. He's emotional. You're like, Paul, why would he be so emotional after just telling everyone that nothing can separate us from the love of God and that we're more than conquerors? Why would he be so emotional? Next verse. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen, according to the flesh. He's upset because he's worried about whom? His fellow Jews or fellow Israelites or fellow Hebrews. He's upset because his people who are not believers are obviously in danger of in eternity separated from God. And he's so bothered by it that he wishes he could do what? He would be accursed for them. In other words, hey, let me go to hell for them. That's some strong emotion, is it not? And then what does he say about them in verse four? Who are Israelites? Making sure there's no confusion in who we're referring to, right? So therefore no one can accuse me of adding Israel into this, right? To whom pertaineth? Now, he talks about Israel and he says some wonderful things about them. What pertains to Israel? Number one, adoption. Number two, glory. Number three, covenants. Number four, The giving of the law. Number five, the service of God, probably meaning temple worship, the tabernacle, that kind of thing. And the promises. Now we've looked at all the promises, yes? When we say adoption, in the sense that God did what? He chose them, He adopted them, yes? The glory that was given to them, God's glory dwelt in the midst of them, yes? The covenants, we know about all the covenants, yes? The giving of the law, everybody knows that Israel was given the law, yes? The service of God, we know about Leviticus and the high priest and the priest and Aaron and all of that, yes? Sacrifices and all of that, yes? And the promises, we just spent a month looking at all the promises. "...whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God bless forever, Amen." They are also the ones from which Christ came from. That's an amazing thing, yes? All of that is amazing, all of that is awesome. You're like, man, Israel's been given a lot! So Paul's very upset that people have been given so much, Many of them, or what, have not believed. He's bothered by that. So what's the next thing that he brings up here? Verse six. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. What is he concerned with? Or what is he at least mentions here? That someone could call into question God's word. Why? He made promises. He made promises to Israel that has not been fulfilled. So you start thinking, well then maybe God's word cannot be trusted. Now why is this critical to the entire book? Because chapters 1 to 8 has told us and given us the promises of God as regards to what? Our salvation. Now if you bring in Israel, And you look at them, you could be like, well, so much for God's promises. That's why He's going to use 9, 10, and 11 to talk about Israel. And I think that would mean, and the way the book is designed, that 9, 10, and 11 is going to have to somehow show me that God keeps His promises to Israel, and that He's not done with them. Because if He's done with them, that would go against His entire argument, and it would seem to show that God's Word is of No effect. So I think we can see why the next three chapters are about Israel. He's going to make a point. Your salvation is secure. God is not done with Israel. But then he makes this statement which leads to all of the theological disputes in the minds of many people. What does he say? Not as though the word of God have taken none effect, for they are not all Israel which are of Israel. I want you to write that phrase down. They are not all of Israel, who are of Israel. That is the riddle, that is the mystery, which we have to resolve today, or we're gonna work on, okay? And we're gonna rely on one commentary heavily. We're gonna read that. I got another one over here, so maybe the next couple of weeks we're gonna rely on two different commentaries, probably with two radically different perspectives, okay? Imagine that. But, before we do anything else, I want you to think. Thinking caps on, everybody ready? All right, I'm gonna put you on the spot. You know how I love to do this, okay? I don't like you just to sit and listen to me. Everybody ready? When you read that phrase, not all Israel is Israel. What are your immediate thoughts when it comes to that verse? Or let me state it this way. Many feel that this is immediately doing what? changing what Israel is or what Israel isn't. So let's say, what are our options? Like if we were to take all of our options here with this verse, what are our possible options or possible ways of handling it? I'm just going to throw out, I was going to put you on the spot, but I won't do that. We'll just, I'll throw out a couple. You ready? Okay. One possible option is this. Okay, not all Israel is Israel. Therefore, Israel now is no longer national Israel, it's spiritual Israel. That's possible. Some people are going to try to make that kind of... See, not all Israel is Israel. So, Israel is not Israel. Israel is now something different. It doesn't say Israel's not. I know. Not all Israel's Israel. I know. We can get into a lot of debating on how the language is used. But just say some would come along and say, say not all Israel's Israel. So, Israel has been replaced by a new Israel. And that new Israel is spiritual Israel, which happens to be what? The church made up of Jew and Gentile. That's Israel. The only problem with that is what? a month of looking at promises to Israel that you can't say is fulfilled in spiritual Israel because it doesn't make any sense. So that's the problem with that one. What's another way of looking at it? You have Israel. General. Right? The nation. But not all of those who are in that nation are really Israel. You're still staying with Israel, but you're making a distinguishing mark between those a part of the entire nation and a separate group within that nation. But you're still dealing with Israel. That makes a little bit more sense, right? Not all Israel. It's Israel, okay? So you have a, it's dealing with a smaller portion within Israel. Now what does that mean to those who are not part of that smaller group? Do they not get the promises? Are they thrown out? Now, even if you throw out the larger group of Israel, the smaller group of Israel is still Israel, and it's not the church. So you could still draw a distinction here. Is that what's being said? It's just so weird that this is just thrown out the way it is. Don't you agree? You're just kind of like, wait, where did this come from? What's going on here? Is there another... I'm sorry? I don't know if I like that one, but we'll at least possibly consider it. For those who didn't hear, Stephen said, is it possible that he's saying that all that were past Israel will not be a part of future Israel? In other words, distinguishing... So could we say this? You're drawing a distinction between the Israel who did not receive the promises versus the Israel who will. OK. That's interesting. OK. That's good. That's good. We got to throw out ideas. Is it possible? Is it possible? And I'm just throwing this out there. We live in Texas, right? And Texans have some issues, right? Sometimes. Texans are people from other countries or other states that kind of like, what's the deal with the state flag everywhere? What's your issue? Many Texans want the state flag above the flag of the country. It's like, we're Texans, and here's our flag. And they're like, calm down. Calm down. Calm down. It's OK. It's OK. Just calm down. But Texans are really proud that they're from Texas. Okay? Sometimes you'll see those bumper stickers. I wasn't born here, but I got here as fast as I could. Right? Others would say, I was born there and I got out as fast as I could. Depending on your perspective. Okay? But, Texans are very much like, if you are a Texan, then there are certain identifiers that make you a true Texan. And if you don't think this way, act this way, dress this way, walk this way, then you're not really A Texan. Agreed? Is that not a common thing? Are you sure you're from Texas? I get that all the time. Are you sure you're from Texas? I'm like, look, I'm more Texan than anybody else, OK? I was born in Texas on Texas Independence Day, for crying out loud, OK? Remember the Alamo, OK? Right? Well, they were in the Alamo and the Texas Independence. OK, we all know Texas history, right? That's the only history we learn in Texas, right? We don't learn American history, right? I went to school. I didn't even know America existed. I thought America was Texas, right? That's the only history we studied. Texas, Texas. And I think every year it was the Alamo, the Alamo, the Alamo, the Alamo. That's all we ever learned. I don't even know if we learned anything else about Texas. But Texas. And so you would quickly hear that, wait a minute, because there are a lot of things I think that people are like, are you sure you're from Texas? Are you sure you're from Texas? Because that's not how Texans think. So, in other words, that phrase could be simply a phrase to say what? That if you're an Israelite, if you're someone truly from Israel, there's a certain way you should think and a certain way you should believe, but not all those who are Israel are really Israel because they don't think the right way, believe the right way, or act the right way. Could it just be a very generic way of saying, hey, look, Are you sure you're an Israelite? Because you don't think and act that way. Could it be a generic term? I'm not saying that works. I just want to throw out that idea. Because we're used to using that idea, yes? Right? I mean, I'm a pastor in a Baptist church. There's many Baptist pastors who, because I will not drink coffee, absolutely despise coffee, don't even think it's an actual real drink, OK? They'll say, are you sure you're a Baptist pastor? Because you don't drink. coffee, right? There's lots of things like, we've all heard those phrases used in so many different ways, yes? Could it be that? I'm not saying it works, but what I'm trying to demonstrate, there's a lot of other ways of looking at this than simply immediately coming to Romans 9 and going, boom, Israel's not Israel, therefore it's been replaced by the church. That's a major assumption. So how can we handle this? What do you think is actually being said? Are you ready? Our goal is just to see how one commentary tries to answer it. Now, how do I view commentaries? They're fun to read. Because why they're so fun is you read one and they sound so dogmatic and so sure, but you can read ten others who will completely disagree with the one that you just read. But I like to read them just because I am not bound by what? I'm not bound by it, but it's fun to do so. Now, many pastors will just read the commentary, take those notes, put them in the notes, preach it as if it's dogmatic. And what they're really preaching is not their study. They're preaching what they got in a commentary. They just don't do what to the church? Let everyone know the commentary which they got it from, which used to drive me crazy. I used to bring stacks of books to church with me, right? And when the pastor's preaching, I'd just be looking over going, well, why don't we use this commentary this week? And I'm just like, why? So what do I always do? I just bring it and hold it up where everybody knows. Why try to pretend that you came up with the idea when it's not your idea? And you should know where the idea comes from. So here I'm going to give us the idea and then what do we do? We all work together to say whether we what? Agree or disagree because what do we know about commentaries? They're not infallible. Okay? I know, depending on the name on the commentary, some Christians act like they're infallible, but they're not. So let's just see how they handle this. You ready? Alright. And they, um... Okay, you see how we want to do this. They start, actually, this in verse... I'm going to just read this. Paul gives four basic reasons. why the gospel of Jesus Christ is not blasphemous heresy and in particular why its rejection by most individual Jews and by Israel as a nation does not call into question God's righteousness or his character does not in any way go against the revelation given in the Jewish scriptures. It does not alter the means of salvation and does not relinquish the place of Israel and its ultimate plan of redemption. Okay? He's going to give us reasons why Israel's rejection does not basically relinquish or remove Israel. That's good. We don't believe it did. We wanna see what his arguments are, because maybe his arguments are not very good, or maybe by the time we get done with his arguments, we're convinced that we're wrong. So let's go through this. Everybody ready? First, Paul declares that the unbelief of Israel is consistent. Hang on, I'm gonna do this. I'm gonna go back. Because they wanna jump ahead. Well, no, we'll stay here. I feel like they're jumping a little too fast, but that's okay. We'll just pick it up here instead of going back and trying to put it all together. First, Paul declares that the unbelief of Israel is consistent with God's promises. You may want to write that down. His first argument is that the unbelief of Israel is consistent with God's promises. That seems odd, does it not? Did God make a lot of promises to Israel? So how could their unbelief be consistent with said promises? How is that even possible? Everybody find that kind of an interesting claim? We'll have to see, alright? Everybody got that? Second, that it is consistent with his person. Not only is their unbelief consistent with his promises, they are consistent with God's person, who he is. That's an interesting thought. We'll have to see if we agree with these. Third, That it is consistent with God's prophetic revelation. That their unbelief is consistent with God's prophetic revelation. And fourth, it is consistent with God's prerequisite of salvation by faith. Alright, let's see if you have these down. Everybody ready? What was number one? The unbelief of Israel is consistent with what? God's promises. Number two? His person. Number three? His prophetic revelation. And number four? His prerequisite of salvation by faith. The prerequisite is how is someone saved? By faith. So he's saying their unbelief is consistent with this concept. I think I know where he's going there, but that's interesting, yes? Those are four arguments. Now why does this commentary feel that they have to spend some time developing these four arguments? Because clearly, Israel's unbelief is weird in a book about justification, yes? Right? Anybody need me to repeat one? I see Sarah the Pope back there showing people her notes, going, here is the official record. Here is the official dogma from the Council of Sarah. OK. All right. Are we good? Fourth one? OK. All right. The fourth one. I knew someone was going to need one. All right. The fourth one is that it's consistent with God's prerequisite of salvation by faith. Or you could say it's consistent with the idea of salvation by faith, if you want to not throw out the word prerequisite. Yes. All right? Everybody got those? Now, again, why? I'm going to ask again, because I want you to follow. Remember, whenever we're dealing with a book, this is so important, whenever we're dealing with a, we're studying a book of the Bible, each part must be understood in its broader, the whole context of the book. So it's, again, everyone acknowledges that 9, 10, and 11 seem weird chapters in a book about justification, because it's all about Israel. And the thing about Israel that is confusing here is that Israel has what? Not believed. Israel has rejected. Israel has denied. They wanted Christ crucified. They seem completely out of place. So you can see almost why Paul brings this up. Because he's trying to teach us that we're saved by what? Faith not by works. Well, here's a nation that has completely rejected God. Right? But he made promises to them. So then, how does this all work out? That's why he's going to deal with it. Because Paul seems to think that by the time he's done talking about Israel, we're going to find out it's not inconsistent. Their unbelief is not inconsistent. It's not inconsistent for what? Number one? God's promises. Number two? His person. Number three? His prophetic revelation in number four? Salvation by faith. He's going to show that it's not inconsistent. Now, we may not agree with that, we may come to a conclusion that we disagree, but I think you can see why this is very important. So what's the first one? It's consistent with his promises. Here's what they say, all right? In fact, let's just do this to have a little bit of fun here. Everybody got Romans chapter 9 open? Let's start in verse 6, and let's read down to 13. Everybody ready? Okay. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect, for they're not all Israel, which are of Israel. Neither, because they are of the seed of Abraham, are they all children, but in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, at this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac. For the children, being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. It was said under her, The elder shall serve the younger, and then that verse that not a lot of people like, as it is written, Jacob I have loved, but Esau have I hated. Now what do you see here in these verses? What kind of jumps out at you that can make you go, well, what exactly is going on here? Is a distinction being made? What's the distinction being made? Okay, not the children of what? The flesh? The children of God or the children of the promise? So he's drawing a distinction between those of Abraham who are, can we say this, of Abraham and those who are Abraham who are not of Abraham. Okay, not of the promise. What seems to be the distinction? We can go Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau. Seeing a distinction is being made? The word election is used. So we can say the distinguishing mark is election. Not of works. Faith. There's a distinguishing mark here, right? Let's make sure. From Abraham. We have two sons that we always talk about, right? Who are they? Isaac and Ishmael. Ishmael is rejected. Isaac isn't. Then we have Jacob and Esau. Esau, rejected. Jacob is not. There's a distinguishing mark. So what makes the difference between them? Someone was throwing out some different things. Someone said election. Someone said promise, and I said faith. Is that the distinguishing mark? So not all Israel are Israel. What makes someone of Israel? Those who are of the promise, those elect, and those who have faith. Is that what is being referred to here? Well, what does that do for God's promises? Well, clearly those verses are giving us some kind of idea of where this is going, yes? But what are they not doing? They're not just throwing out Israel and saying the church replaced it. They're not doing that. They're drawing a distinguishing mark between whom? Those who are in Israel. So let's see how the commentary handles it. As discussed in the previous chapter, Paul begins his correction of Jewish false belief about the gospel of Jesus Christ by declaring his own love for unbelieving Israel. Do we not see that in Romans 9, 1-5? Does Paul not demonstrate his love for Israel? So we can all agree there. He calls the Holy Spirit as a witness. He declared that because of his unceasing grief over the external alienation from God, he would gladly sacrifice his own salvation if doing so could redeem his fellow Jews for his brethren, his kinsmen, according to the flesh. Apart from Jesus' own statement during His incarnation, no greater human testimony of compassion and willing to sacrifice for the sake of others is recorded in all the scripture. I agree. That's a pretty amazing statement. I wish I could just give up my salvation for them. That's an amazing statement. The apostle could not, of course, accomplish such a thing. But he was compelled to assure unbelieving Jews of his great love for them and his desire for their salvation before he declared to them the more than unwelcome news that all of their gracious and unique God-given advantages and blessings were of no avail before him if they rejected his own Son and Savior." So, he reminds them first of his great love for them, and then he says, hey, you've been given all of these promises, but then he's going to say those promises are of no avail to you if, well, there isn't faith, as far as salvation is concerned. Does that make sense? Now, let's just take a second just to get very practical here. Alright? Remember, so many times when we deal with unbelievers, we deal with the ungodly, we deal with the world, we have a tendency to view them as an enemy instead of viewing them as people who need redemption. We see them as someone we need to defeat versus someone who needs to be saved. Right? The church tends to view our enemies now as political enemies that must be defeated. We need to stop seeing them as political enemies that need to be defeated, and we need to see them as human beings created in the image of God, who has an eternal soul, who will either be in heaven or separated from God for all eternity. We keep reducing people to an enemy that must be defeated. That's not the way to look at it. Does that connect with what we talked about this morning in Sunday School? Yes. So the question is always do we truly have that kind of love for those who we disagree with or don't like or we don't like their policy or we don't like whatever. Do we truly love them? Sometimes there's no love. We just want defeat. You could be very upset at this point in redemption history at the Jews, could you not? The Messiah had come to them, right? And they rejected Him. They yelled, give us Barabbas. What did they say for Jesus? Crucify him. You could be like, you rejected the Messiah. You're my enemy. But he says, I love you so much I'm willing to give my own salvation up for you. A lot of Christians don't have that kind of compassion and love for the people we disagree with. Right? So there's a sermon right there to be preached. Okay? But I want us to try to understand exactly what is going on. That's an amazing statement. Can we all agree that's a powerful statement? All right, so by implication, he was saying that in rejecting Jesus Christ, Israel rejected God and lost her status as God's favored, divinely blessed nation. Now stop right here. Now that sounds bad, right? That because of their rejection, they've lost their place, their status. Now what's the immediate question you should raise? The promises. So, if they've lost it, does that not then call into question God's promises? Now remember, he says that it's not inconsistent with those promises. So how is it not inconsistent with those promises? That's what we're going to have to try to figure out here, hopefully, before we leave, alright? Everybody good with that? She would no longer be the apple of God's eye, no longer be the people upon whom God would pour out his great blessings of care and protection. The question is, doesn't this rejection of God constitute a violation of his promises and thereby sacrificing his integrity? That's a good question. Since Israel is in a sense being set aside, no longer the special nation who's going to be getting all of these wonderful things, well then does that call into question God's promises? And everybody should say, yeah, we feel like it could possibly do so, right? So what's the answer? Well, let's see what he says here. Everybody ready? The question is, doesn't the rejection of God constitute a violation of his promises and thereby sacrifice his integrity? It was on the basis of such reasoning that Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah and felt justified in that rejection because they concluded it was based on a sound defense of the character of God and they reasoned such almost unanimous rejection had to prove Jesus was not the Messiah. In other words, they could argue that the Jews used the same kind of argument that, we're defending God this Jesus can't be a part of God we're doing the right thing so they would have argued their rejection was they were defending God so it's possible that somehow this rejection fits into the whole plan but how does it fit in let's see do we have a good argument All right, the first of the reasons mentioned above that Paul gives for contradicting this Jewish idea that Israel's rejection of Jesus proved he could not have been the true Messiah is that Israel's unbelief as a nation was perfectly consistent with God's ancient promises. All right, he keeps saying that, but what are we waiting for? I need proof, how? All right, here we go. It begins by declaring, look at Romans chapter nine, I believe it's verse six. He starts by saying, it's not as though the word of God has none effect, or it could be translated this way, it is not as though God, though the word of God has failed or has fallen. Paul was referring to Israel's adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants, giving of the law and the temple services and the promises back in verse 4. Everybody see verse 4? Everybody agree he mentioned all of those things? Well, guess what? It's not as if all of that has failed. Now you're like, wait a minute. How has all of that not failed if they've now rejected and they've in a sense been set aside? That doesn't seem like it makes any sense. Why not? All right, here we go. The Lord had not in any way invalidated the ultimate fulfillment of his unconditional promises to the Jews. In no way, shape, or form has he ultimately forgotten them. In the short term, it looks bad, does it not? In the short term, it doesn't look good, but not ultimately. He goes on to say, Through Jeremiah, he had long ago assured his people that, just as I brought you all the great disaster on this people, so I'm going to bring on them all the good that I'm promising them. Now let's verify this. Remember, whenever a commentary makes a reference to a scripture, what do we always have to do? Look it up, because what have we discovered? Sometimes it's not as accurate as it appears to be. So go to Jeremiah 32. Jeremiah 32, 42. Everybody, let's look here. Let's see what we find. Let's see what we find. Jeremiah 32. Is there anything interesting about its place here? What happens in 31? The New Covenant. That's interesting, right? Then chapter 32, we have chapter 32, and they want us to look at verse 40. If you look at verse 36, let's start in verse 36. Everybody there? 32, 36. And now therefore, thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, concerning the city whereof you say, it shall be delivered unto the hand of the king of Babylon by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence. Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whether I have driven them, in my anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath, and I will bring them again into this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely. And they shall be My people, and I will be their God, and I will give them one heart, one way, that they may fear Me forever, for the good of them, and of their children after them. And I will make an... What kind of a covenant? an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them to do them good, but I will put my fear in their hearts, and they shall not depart from me. Yea, I will rejoice over them to do them good. I will plant them in this land assuredly with my whole heart and with my whole soul. That sounds like a promise that has not been completely fulfilled. Would you agree? They're never going to turn away? Now what happens in the next verse? For thus saith the Lord, like I have brought all the great evil upon thee, so will I bring upon them all the good that I have promised them. So through Jeremiah, he long ago assured his people that just as though he brought all great disaster, he's going to bring them all the good. And then look at Isaiah 55.1, which everyone usually quotes way out of context. Isaiah 55, 1. Alright, everybody there? Okay. Now, I'm just going to read all the way down. We're going to try to get down to, I believe, verse 11, but I just want you to see everything in its context, alright? Does that make sense? Here we go. Everyone that thirsteth, come, yet to the waters, and he that hath no money, come ye, buy and eat, yea, come buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do you spend money for that which is not bread, and you labor for that which satisfieth not, hearken diligently unto me, and eat that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. And cline your ear and come unto me, here and your soul shall live, and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and a commander to the people. Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not and nations knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the Lord thy God and for the Holy One of Israel for he hath glorified thee. In other words, they're going to be placed in a position that other nations are going to do what? Come running to them because they're going to be glorified. These are all major promises that we can say, wait, when did this happen? Verse 6, Seek ye the Lord while he may be found. Call ye upon him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts. Let him return unto the Lord and he will have mercy upon him and to our God for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not Your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. Now first and foremost in context here, he's dealing with Israel and that his thoughts are different than their thoughts. His ways are different than their ways. That's the primary focus here. We always rip it out of its context, yes. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and bringeth forth in bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater. Now look at what he says in verse 11. So shall my word go forth out of my mouth. It shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. Now people rip this out of context all the time. and say, hey, God's word will not return void, and just rip it out of context. What's this in reference to? Israel. God's word is not going to return void. Now that's good news when you're in Romans chapter nine, is it not? What did Paul just say about God's word? Yeah, but what does he say in Romans 9.6? Is it 9.6 or 9.5? About God's Word not failing? What is the exact words? I want everybody to say the exact words. Not as though God's Word has taken on effect. Hey guys, it's not that as if God's Word is returning void. It's not as if God's Word has failed. Because even all the way back in Isaiah, His Word is not going to return void. So if He made promises to Israel, guess what? They're going to have to be fulfilled. But that still has us called into question, well wait a minute, what happened to Israel? But what he wants us to understand is that these promises are there. Now listen, even God's cutting off unbelieving Israel was perfectly consistent with his covenant promises to them. Chastening and punishing are elements of divine faithfulness. Integrity and love are not to be questioned. Did everyone hear that? Chastening and punishment are elements of divine faithfulness. His integrity and love are not to be questioned. Was Israel set aside? Yes. Have they been judged? Yes. Are God's promises of no effect? No. Is God not faithful to His promises? No. Did God give the promises to someone else? No. All right? Now he goes on. Our own day has witnessed irrefutable proof that although God had punished the nation for its unbelief, he has not allowed the many trials and dispersions of this people, the deportation of Jews from Israel, first by Assyria in 722 BC, by Babylon in 586 BC, subsequently by Rome in 70 AD and all but entirely in 132 to obliterate Israel as a distinct people. After nearly 2,000 years Around 1948, the Lord re-established her in her own land and she was recognized by the world community as an independent and sovereign state. God bringing Israel back into her own land, however, does not prove that as a nation she is once again pleasing in His eyes. Can we all agree with that? And, as already mentioned, mere physical descent from Abraham has never made an individual Jew a member of God's holy family. But as we will see, her salvation will come along with the kingdom that God promised. So let's stop right here. I want everyone to draw a distinction here. Everybody ready? Everybody ready? The nation. Individuals. I want you to draw a distinction there. Promises are made to the nation. Yes? We would say those promises involve what things to the nation? Land? Restoration? Revival? Could we say salvation? Yeah, I think we could say salvation. To the nation. So there's the promise to the nation. Until that promise is fulfilled, that nation is made up of what? Individuals. And individual salvation, until those promises are fulfilled, individual salvation is dependent upon what? Faith. Individual faith. Whatever the promise is to the nation, until that promise is fulfilled, individual salvation is dependent upon what? Faith. Individual faith. Yes? So the promise to the nation, whatever that promise is to the nation, to be restored, the kingdom, salvation, all of that, that has yet to be fulfilled. Can everyone say Amen? So to the individual Jew, they must do what in the meantime? Believe as an individual. Do you see that distinction? What people do is like, wait a minute, all Israel's not saved, so therefore Israel can't be Israel. No! All Israel is not saved, therefore not all Israel is Israel, because there's some Israelites who refuse to do what? Believe. So in the meantime, they are not acting and are not a part of the promise of Israel in the meantime, because they've rejected it. Not until God does what? Save the nation. Do you see the distinction? Right? Does everyone see that distinction? Nation, individual. Sure everyone understands that. Because that's the key to understanding this entire thing. Let's read that again, alright? Mere physical descent from Abraham has never made an individual Jew a member of God's holy family. Just because you're from Abraham doesn't make you a part of God's holy family. Makes you a part of what? The nation. Not God's holy family. Not salvation. But as we will see, her salvation, the nation, will come along with the promise of the kingdom. As Paul continues to explain how the Jewish belief does not discredit God's word, he writes, "...they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel, neither are they all children, because they are Abraham's descendants. But through Isaac your descendants will be named. That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants." But even being in the line of Isaac through Jacob, who became Israel, did not make a person a true child of God. Does everyone understand that? Even though if you were in the line of Isaac, even if you were in the line of Jacob, didn't immediately make you what? A child of God. Because what was required to become a child of God? Faith. Faith. That does not negate the promise made to the nation as a whole. But until that is fulfilled, what does the individual have to do? Believe. You can't just look to your family line or who you descended from. Does that make sense? I hope everyone understands this because this is very important. They are not all Israel who are descendants from Israel. Not all physical Israelites are true heirs of the promise. Because Jews were so familiar with them, Paul chose familiar Old Testament text to support his point. The first male descendant of Abraham was... Who was the first? Ishmael, thank you, very good. Ishmael, look at that, someone's paying attention. Who he had by Hagar, the Egyptian maid of his wife Sarah. Disbelieving God's promise that Abram would have another heir through her, the baron Sarah gave Hagar to Abram as another wife and insisted that her husband would father a male through her. As soon as Hagar became pregnant, Sarah became resentful and jealous. In due time, Ishmael was born, and had he been Abraham's only son, he would have become the only heir. Sarah soon demanded Hagar and her newly weaned son be driven out of the household. Although Ishmael was a son of Abram, and although Sarah was past the age of normal childbearing, it was through her Abram's true wife that God gave assurance that the true son of his promise would be born Sarah your wife will bear a son you shall call his name Isaac, and I will establish my what? covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him my covenant i will establish with isaac whom sarah will bear you at the season next year it was to that specific passage that paul referred to when he reminded his readers of god's declaration to abraham that through isaac your descendants will be named as abraham's son Ishmael would receive his own blessing from God, but he was not and never could have been the heir of God's promise. After Sarah died, Abram had six other sons, a new wife, Keturah, but like Ishmael, none of these could have been the heir of promise. Not only could the descendants of these sons not be children of God's promise, but even the privileged descendants of Sarah through Isaac could not become fully heirs of the promise merely by their physical lineage. God has always known that Jews would be spiritually dead and cut off from the promise and from salvation. Neither are all children, because they are Abraham's descendants." States the same truth. Because some Jews reject Jesus, does not prove he is not Messiah, nor does it destroy the integrity of God. He knew there would be an unbelieving Jews throughout all of Israel's history. So, to make it very simple, I'm going to run out of time. To make it very simple, it's this. I want to make sure we just draw this distinction. God made promises. To whom? Those promises are very much national promises, yes? Right? Those promises have not been fulfilled. Agreed? In the meantime, individual Jews have always been required to do what? To believe. And if they do not believe, what are they not? Saved. Saved. As a nation, they did what? Reject Jesus. And over and over they rejected God. I mean, over and over and over as a nation. There's always been individual Jews who believed, yes? But no matter how much they disbelieved, those promises have never been thrown out. So, in the meantime, not all Israel are Israel, because what he's saying is the true Israelite would be someone who does what? Believes! So in the meantime, individual Jews are called to faith. But that does not negate the future promises that have yet been fulfilled. That's the way to understand. Therefore, their current predicament does not destroy what? God's promises. Does that make sense? Yes? Your only other option is to do what? Throw out Israel. and bring us in. But that would destroy God's promises, call into God's character, and that would destroy Paul's argument, because what does he want you to know about your salvation? Nothing can separate you from God, no matter what you do, because your salvation is by faith. Right? Your actions do not throw you out of God's promises. Is that good to know? Right? Does that make sense? Israel's the best example of it. Right? Israel, those promises are still going to come true. Right? Now, in the meantime, just like for always, individual faith is required. Does that make sense? Right? Hopefully, that makes sense. Would I prefer that Romans 9 was written a little different? Sure. Because it gets a little weird. Like, okay, so they're not all Israel who are Israel, because the descendants of this... It gets confusing, I agree. But when you all summarize it, what is it trying to say? Believe! That's what you need to do, but God's promises are still in effect. We may not see this right here in the first part of Romans 9, where do we have to get to see it? Chapter 11, when he says all Israel will be That's where we have to get to. In the meantime, he's just trying to show you that just because someone was a physical descendant did not mean that they were automatically right with God. Does that make sense? And that there were distinctions even then between Isaac and Ishmael, between Jacob and Esau. All right, there we go. All right, we'll have to stop there. Man, that's, you wish you could just end in some dramatic way, but there's no dramatic conclusion other than going, okay, we have to stop. So, all right, let's end. Well, God, we come before you this afternoon. These are difficult concepts. We could sit here and pretend that we have it all figured out, but we do not. But this is what we can leave here this afternoon knowing. You made promises. You keep those promises. But in the meantime, not just for Israel, for all of us, each individual in this room, must believe on their own, because without faith, there is no salvation. That has always been true and always will be true. But we believe that you made a promise that at some point the nation of Israel will be brought to faith and to salvation. And we're grateful for that promise for them, because we know that we can trust the promises you've made to us. We thank you for that. We ask this in the precious name of Jesus and God's people said.