It is patently unfair when dispensationalists are attacked for making a distinction between the Church and Israel when theologians outside the dispensationalist camp have made a similar distinction. Indeed Paul doesn’t shy away from making the distinction when he points out that the Messiah came from the Jews.
Category: romans
Some have taken the fact that Gentiles have been grafted into Israel’s natural olive tree to mean that Gentiles are now actually Jews. They might try to argue the point by highlighting several verses in Romans (for instance in Romans 2 where Paul points out uncircumcised Gentiles living circumcised lives proving themselves to be more circumcised than Jews).
“The Olive Tree and Israel’s Identity (Part 3 of 4) Romans 11”
How anyone can read Paul and see no future for the literal Israel perplexes me to no end. Why would Paul compare a Gentile Branch to an Israel Branch if there is no future for a literal Israel? And if Israel’s Future is just to be part of the Church why would Paul make a big deal about God potentially removing the Gentile Branch?
As I took up Paul’s main thought in regards to Israel’s salvation I intentionally glossed over a major section–with no manipulative intent. I wanted to look at the problem of Israel’s unbelief without going into an odd theological place: namely the breaking off the Israel branch from the tree.
It would not be inconceivable to think that Paul is using the illustration of the potter and clay in a completely new way, or at the very least, a way unimagined by the readers of the Prophets. After all, many have argued that that is exactly what Matthew did (cf. {{Isa 7:14}}; {{Matt 1:23}}—young maiden vs. virgin). But I don’t think that fits in with what Paul is doing.
While establishing the righteousness of God in the Gospel he makes a repeated effort in showing how the revelation of this righteousness is completely consistent with God’s previous revelation of righteousness.