By Angus Harley

“For not all of Israel are Israel”

The subject of the nation of Israel has always been a hot-potato in Christendom. And Romans 9-11 has itself been a bone of contention within the theological world. Combine these hot issues together and you get some highly inflammable material. Only recently, we heard Ambassador Huckabee doubling-down on Israel as God’s special people. America has gone to war in alliance with Israel. I have read posts on Facebook defending and excoriating Israel in the war with Iran, based on Romans 9. I read, “Supporting a war in Iran is being a sellout to the synagogue of satan, aka modern day “Israel”. Romans 9:6 is very clear on this.” Another post, by contrast, declares, “Romans 9:4-5  The people of Israel are God’s chosen children. God’s own children are theirs, and the covenant of God is theirs. God gave his law to them and promised them lovely things.” You can see that Christians are taking to Romans 9 to defend or destroy the nation of Israel.

I’m not going to defend or destroy the nation of Israel in this article. But I am going to tackle the very hot issue of the meaning of Romans 9:6b, “for not all of Israel are Israel.” I will argue against the view that Paul is focusing upon ‘Israel within Israel’, elect, ethnic Israelites within the nation of Israel. I am defending the position that the second use of “Israel” refers to the assembly, comprising both Gentiles and Jews of faith.

Having said this, I will present my argument in three articles because of the need to cover a lot of ground. The first- this article- argues against the second Israel (“are Israel”) being a group within ethnic Israel, the Israel within Israel model. The second article will pursue the ‘Israel and Assembly’ interpretation of Romans 9:6b, and will delve more in depth into the text of Romans 9 and its surrounding context. The third article will then respond to arguments against my own reading of Romans 9:6b given in the second article.

I will begin my critique of the Israel within Israel model of Romans 9:6b by looking at the Greek text. The results of this analysis help to shape my exegetical conclusions.

The Greek text of Romans 9:6b

In this section, I argue that the translation “For not all of Israel are Israel” is accurate. The relevance of this translation will not be immediately obvious to readers, but as the article proceeds, I will show its value.

Two clauses

We’re concentrating only on Romans 9:6b and are splitting it into two clauses: v6bi and v6bii. I’m going to place underneath each Greek word its English equivalent.

  v6bi ou  gar pantes hoi  ex            Israēl

               Not for   all      the  of            Israel

v6bii houtoi Israēl

          these   Israel

More literal interpretation

At this initial stage, a literal reading of the Greek text results in, “For not all the of Israel these Israel”.

In v6bi, the literal phrase “the of Israel” (hoi ex Israēl) is a noun-phrase, for the definite article “the” (hoi) functions to create a noun-phrase in this case, “the ones of Israel”. This noun-phrase includes within itself the genitive phrase ex Israēl that preserves the genitive force, and to stress that we can stay with “of”, “For not all the ones of Israel”. For interpretation’s sake, something like “those” will do just as well for “the ones”: “For not all those of Israel”.

As to v6bii, the term “these” (houtoi) is a resumptive demonstrative pronoun, meaning that “these” refers back to a group already mentioned, namely, to “not all those of Israel” of v6bi. However, “these” is not normally translated in v6bii because it is considered redundant, for Paul has already identified that group as “not all those of Israel”. We must then add “are” to the second clause for interpretation’s sake to give something like, “For not all those of Israel are Israel”. The Berean Literal Bible translates, “For not all who are of Israel, are these Israel”.

Piper’s rendition

A challenge to the above interpretation is that by John Piper. He argues for the reading, “for all those from Israel, these are not Israel.”[1] Many commentators follow Piper’s lead.

He makes the argument that “not” (ou) qualifies “these” (houtoi), entailing in interpretive terms the shift of “not” from the first clause (v6bi) to the second clause (v6bii). He argues it “does not work” to say that the demonstrative pronoun in the second clause “these” refers back to “not all”, for “all” is indefinite. Why would the definite pronoun (“these”) refer back to an indefinite adjective (“all”)?[2] If I may illustrate Piper’s view, the literal reading is grammatically tantamount to saying something like, “Not all from the club, these are the club”, a rather bizarre interpretation. A second argument is taken from Romans 7:15. Piper maintains that in that verse the word “not” in Greek is in the first section of the verse, but clearly is to be interpreted as belonging to the second clause.[3]

Response to Piper

I do accept that there appears to our eyes a certain awkwardness in the literal reading of Romans 9:6b. It is also true that oftentimes in Greek, words that are grammatically placed in one clause, interpretively belong to another. In addition, Piper presents a cogent defense of his reading of Romans 7:15.

Even so, in this case, I see no compelling reason to change around the order of the text as Piper does. It would seem that the vast majority of bible translations think the same way, as they preserve “not all”. Also, I am not aware that there is some grammatical rule in Greek that says a definitive term cannot refer back to an indefinite one. Surely the indefinite nature of the first clause is rendered clear by the definitive nature of the second: “not all” is rendered clear by “these”. Thirdly, although Piper’s argument is persuasive for Romans 7:15, it is exclusively about the term “not” (ou) and is not concerned with the phrase “not all” (ou pantes). 

Which brings us to “not all” specifically. It is evident that it is used contextually to differentiate one group from another. To paraphrase, “Not all those belonging to Israel are Israel, but some from Israel are Israel”, “For not all of Israel- but only some- are Israel.” Paul utilizes ou pas[4] here in Romans 9:6 to, of first importance, stress that some do not belong to a certain group, and, secondarily, to imply that some do belong. 

Similar examples of the phrase ou pas are found in the NT:

  • Matthew 7:21, “Not all who say to me ‘Lord, Lord'” implies some do say ‘Lord, Lord’ and do enter the kingdom.
  • Matthew 19:11 explicitly states both groups, “But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.” ” Not all can accept the statement; nonetheless, some can and do: to those whom it has been given.
  • John 13:11, “Not all of you are clean” entails some are.
  • Romans 10:16 says, “However, they did not all heed the good news”, yet, as the previous context showed, some did.

In conclusion, the close proximity of ou and pas encourages reading them as a unit. Grammarian A. T. Robertson confidently asserts that ou and pas as used together require “little in the way of explanation”. To Robertson, ou simply “negatives” pas to give the translation, “not everyone”.[5] BDAG reaches exactly the same conclusion.[6]

Relevance 

As we move forward in the article, the translation, “For not all those of Israel are Israel” retains three key elements that must be observed at all times:


1. There are two distinct Israels referred to, one for each clause.

2. That in the first clause (v6bi) there is implied two groups in the first Israel, “For not all those belonging to Israel” implies a distinction made between most of Israel and some of Israel. To paraphrase, “For not all- but some of- those belonging to Israel”. Again I say, this clause all by itself implies two groups within the one Israel.

3. Leaving us with the conclusion that, it is only some of the first Israel who are part of the “Israel” of the second clause.

The distinct relevance of these three factors will be apparent by the end of the article.

Other interpretations

There are various other readings and translations that switch around phrases and terms in interpreting Romans 9:6b, but I think they are unnecessary. For example, the Darby Translation states, “…for not all [are] Israel which [are] of Israel”. [parentheses are Darby’s] The genitive phrase “of Israel” belongs to the first clause, as we saw, and not the second. Just as “[are] Israel” of the second clause is incorrectly placed by Darby into the first clause. One problem with those types of interpretive modifications is that sometimes they obscure the three key elements just referred to.

The ‘One Israel’ model

Standard commentaries on Romans 9:6b tell us that two Israels are in view: Israel the nation as to the flesh (v6bi); and Israel of faith (v6bii). Commentators then split as to who particularly is denoted by the second Israel of v6bii, “are Israel”. Some say it is just Jews of faith; others argue that it is the NT assembly as the spiritual ‘Israel’ of God- Jews and Gentiles of faith. 

Rhetorical 

Yet, there is a third position, one that is not found within the Greek grammar, nor is it a variation of one of the above two exegetical views of “are Israel”. It is what I call a rhetorical model, for its entire argument is founded on rhetoric or verbal claims about the theology and content of the text. 

Examples

There are various theologians, commentators, and teachers who, in explaining Paul’s theology in Romans 9:6b, strongly argue for a ‘one Israel’ meaning. It is very common indeed to hear or read premillers say something like what John F. Walvoord writes about Romans 9:6, “Accordingly it is not simply dispensational theology that dictates that Israel always means Israel. Correct exegesis also supports the same concept.”[7] Or there is John MacArthur’s (premill) comment, “ “Israel always means Israel, never means anything but Israel. Seventy three New Testament uses of Israel always mean Israel.” ”[8]  There are not two Israels in MacArthur’s particular manner of expressing things, only one Israel.

Distinction

We must distinguish between the purely rhetorical (sweeping statements) and the exegetical, for all of those holding to a rhetorical, One Israel, model also uphold on the exegetical level the belief that the text refers to two Israels. Which is to say that, these scholars are not aware that they are holding two opposing views in tension.

Meaningless

It is mildly surprising to read MacArthur asserting, “Israel always means Israel”, for MacArthur is a Calvinist and he has experienced over and over, no doubt, the Arminian argument that, ‘world always means world’. I am fairly certain that MacArthur would volley that Arminian statement into the heavens, as it is meaningless and redundant. How so? It does not define what the ‘world’ is; it merely repeats the term ‘world’. Christianity is not Buddhism: Buddhism repeats words over and over to generate meaning. However, by merely repeating ‘world’ no meaning is created, only meaningless repetition. It is tantamount to mindlessly saying, ‘Drivel always means drivel’, ‘Chocolate always means chocolate’. By the same token, to claim that “Israel always means Israel” is an equally empty concept, for ‘Israel’ is not defined. In a debate over the very meaning of the word ‘Israel’, the one thing above all that is called for is a precise definition!

Words in context

MacArthur is aware that words gain meaning in context. For example, the term ‘world’ can mean different things in John’s Gospel, contrary to what is zealously asserted by Arminians. If the ‘world’ is ‘every single person on earth’, as Arminianism claims, why does Jesus contrast his disciples to the world and say they do not belong to it (John 17:14-16)? Did the Pharisees literally mean that every person on earth really ran after Jesus, or were they speaking hyperbolically (John 12:19)? Similarly, it is not harsh or without warrant to say that, anyone reading the bible can see that ‘Israel’ sometimes denotes merely the land of Israel (1 Sam.13:19; 2 Kg.5:2; Matt.2:20, 21; etc.). Anyone can see, therefore, that ‘Israel’ does not convey the same idea each and every time.

Overzealous

It is somewhat understandable that after centuries of Romans 9-11 being understood to refer only to ethnic Israel that ‘Israel always means Israel’ exists as a theological dictum. Nevertheless, it is a meaningless phrase and must be rejected. Zeal can drive many a comment on Romans 9:6b. We saw an example of this in the introduction, and this failure applies to all theological groups and to theologians in general as well. It has been my experience when interacting online that some premillers are inclined to get defensive in their exegesis of Romans 9:6b, so that their zeal for the premill model sometimes resorts to sweeping and excessive statements that cannot be borne exegetically or logically. Kim Riddlebarger expressed a similar experience in regard to John MacArthur.[9]

The ‘Only Jews’ reading

A variation of the rhetorical, One Israel model is found in the words of Grant. R. Osborne. He writes of the context of Romans 9:6, “…for the entire context narrows this to the Jewish people rather than the church”.[10] The Only Jews reading differs from the One Israel model in that, the former focuses upon whom Romans 9 is about, and the latter is making a more pointed theological contention concerning the term ‘Israel’. Yet, both are rhetorically sweeping in nature.

We must say that Osborne is a brilliant exegete, and is certainly not speaking hastily here. Yet, he is unduly influenced by his premillennial theological tradition, for the idea that the entirety of Romans 9 is about only Jewish people and not also about the assembly cannot be sustained from Romans 9. Please bear in mind in what will unfold that, I am not critiquing Osborne’s exegetical viewpoint of Romans 9:6b (which is the Israel within Israel model), but I am interacting with his rhetorical, sweeping statement about whom Paul is concerned with in Romans 9. What follows is deliberately a cursory look at the text of Romans 9.

Vv1-5

Although Paul is referencing his own Jewishness, he is doing so as a believer in Christ Jesus, as a Christian, “I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit“. He is not, in other words, speaking merely as a Jew about Jews, nor even predominantly as a Christian/Messianic Jew. He is a Christian who is also a Jew, an apostle to the Gentiles (11:13; Acts 9:15; see Rom.1:1), who is bemoaning Israel’s- his own kinsmen’s- rejection of the Christ, who himself was a Jew. Therefore, in this opening setting, Osbourne’s sweeping claim is already under siege, since Paul is not merely ‘a Jew’; he is a Jewish Christian who is bemoaning his own kinsmen’s rejection of Jesus Christ.

Nor is Paul leaving any indication that his audience has switched from that of Romans 8: it is still the Jews and Gentiles of faith of Romans 8 that are addressed in Romans 9. Certainly, Paul was capable of speaking to mere Jews (Rom.2), to Jewish Christians (Rom.7:1), and to Gentile Christian (Rom.11:13). The reader will see that the groups addressed are readily demarcated in those verses. In Romans 9, however, he is addressing the assembly– Jew and Gentile- as the entire context reveals. Thus, we read in v24, “even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.”[11]

Vv6-13

As I will argue in the next article, v6bii, “are Israel”, is a reference to Jews and Gentiles of faith. It is not, in other words, just about Jews. Contrary to the assumed position, Abraham and Isaac were not Jews. This is a pretty big deal! Jews of the flesh came from them in terms of origins, but by the nature of the case, they were not Jews or Israelites. Let us not conflate Abraham and Isaac as fathers of Israel with them being Israelites of the flesh! ‘Israel’ the nation is named after one father: Jacob.

Nor is this an exegetical deflection. Romans 4 tells us in black and white terms that the true children of Abraham are Jews and Gentiles of faith, according to the promises. It also says, in the same chapter, that Abraham was their “father”. This spiritual paternity is contrasted, in the context of Romans 4, to Abraham considered from a purely fleshly perspective: he found as to his flesh that no man can be justified- Jew or Gentile (Rom.4:1). So, the ground for this theology in Romans 9:7ff. has already been laid down earlier by Paul in the same epistle.

Following on from this, in vv7-13, two persons are implicated as being merely of the flesh: Abraham’s son Ishmael is not cited, but is implied, because Isaac as to the promise is cited; then, Esau is contrasted to Jacob. Another two non-Israelites, two non-Jews. This time, these non-Israelites, non-Jews, are unbelievers, whereas Abraham and Isaac were believers. Of course, there is Jacob the father of Jews as to the flesh.

Vv14-18 

Moses, a believing Jew, is contrasted to whom? A Gentile and a pagan- Pharaoh. Thus, there are two verses about an unbelieving Gentile (not just ‘a Gentile’) over against a believing Jew (not just ‘a Jew’) (vv14-15).

More to the point, in vv14-18 as a whole, Paul is concerned not with Jew vs Gentile in any form but with “man”, “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (v16). It is “man” that God has mercy on; it is “man” that he does not have mercy on. Thus, the contrast between Pharaoh and Moses is paralleled to God’s power as proclaimed and demonstrated “throughout the whole earth”, for it is the realm of mankind.

One is reminded in this of Paul’s theology in Romans 1:18-3:20 and 5:12-21 in which mankind as a whole is indicted by God, both Jew and Gentile. Notice, also, in Romans 5:12-21, that Paul is lumping in unbelieving Jews and Gentiles into one group under the ultimate grand-patriarch, Adam; by contrast, he places in union with Christ both believing Jews and Gentiles. See how the difference between Christ and Adam is identified as the contrast between two men (Rom.5:12, 15-19). In addition, sandwiched in-between is Romans 3:21-5:11 that is about true sons of Abraham, those who believe in Jesus Christ.

Vv19-23

Paul continues his worldwide perspective about man, bringing matters down to God’s sovereignty over the ‘clay’ of man to do with man as he pleases. God selects some men and not others for noble purposes, and has mercy on some men and hardens others. No reference, in these verses, to Jew and Gentile.

Vv24-29

It is only then, in vv24ff., that Paul returns to the theme of Jews and Gentiles, as they are considered the two ethnic groups that make up mankind. More pointedly, it is unbelieving Jews contrasted to a remnant of believing Jews and to believing Gentiles.[12]

Multitude of groups

The clear implication of this deliberately cursory reading of Romans 9 is that we see, with minimal effort, without pursuing an interpretive model, that Paul is not speaking about only Jews, nor is he unconcerned to speak to, and about, the assembly. Consider the groups that were referred to: the Jewish and Christian apostle, Israel the nation, believing Jews, unbelieving Jews, believing Gentiles, unbelieving Gentiles, man, selected man, non-selected man, and a spiritual people, the assembly, a spiritual Israel, comprising Jews and Gentiles of faith.

The rhetorical, One Israel model clearly does not work. Which brings us to the two Israel’s argument that takes the form of ‘Israel within Israel’.

The ‘Israel within Israel’ model

As I said before, scholars believe that, exegetically, Romans 9:6b indicates two Israels. However, the rub is what scholars mean by this. We just saw that this belief in two Israels, exegetically speaking, is actually for some expressed rhetorically as one Israel. For most scholars, what they have in mind as to two Israels is the ‘Israel within Israel’ model: there is ethnic or national Israel, and within this Israel is the Israel of faith, aka, the elect-remnant within Israel, spiritual Israel of faith. In distinction to this model, there is the view that is customarily called the ‘two Israels’ model: there is ethnic Israel the nation, and then there is the assembly (church) that is called ‘Israel’. Two distinct Israels. For the sake of avoiding confusion, I will call the majority view the ‘Israel within Israel’ model, and the second the ‘Israel and Assembly’ model.

Examples of Israel within Israel

Most scholars opt for the Israel within Israel model, and that includes premill, postmill, and amill writers. C. I. Scofield (premill) comments:

“The distinction is between Israel after the flesh, the mere natural posterity of Abraham, and Israelites who, through faith, are also Abraham’s spiritual children. Gentiles who believe are also of Abraham’s spiritual seed; but here the apostle is not considering them, but only the two kinds of Israelites, the natural and the spiritual Israel.”[13]

William Hendriksen (amill) states:

“The thought expressed here is essentially the same as that found in Rom. 2:28, 29. Not in all the descendants of Abraham or of Israel was the covenant promise destined to be fulfilled but only in the hearts and lives of those who by God’s grace would repose their trust in him and strive to obey his will out of gratitude. See Gen. 15:6; 17:1, 2, 9; Deut. 30:2, 3, 9, 10; I Kings 8:47–50; Jer. 18:5–10.”[14]

Does this definition meet the standard of two Israels?

An immediate question arises as to whether the ‘Israel within Israel’ model actually meets the standard of creating two Israels.

Let me begin by conceding that it is true that not one of the adherents to the Israel within Israel model accepts the following translation:

“Not all from ethnic Israel are ethnic Israel”.

Why not? For it is plain to all that there are two Israels spoken of in Romans 9:6b and not one. We all agree on this.

Notwithstanding, the Israel within Israel model is tantamount to the above paraphrase, giving to us, effectively, only one Israel, namely, ethnic Israel. Let me unfold this claim. We know that the first Israel of 9:6bi is definitively ethnic Israel. Now we have to define the second Israel, or spiritual Israel, of 9:6bii. I am going to give a paraphrase/extended translation of each version of the Israel within Israel model. Here goes:

“Not all who belong to (ethnic) Israel are

an elect-remnant within (ethnic) Israel”

or

“Not all who belong to (ethnic) Israel are those of faith within (ethnic) Israel”

or

“Not all who belong to (ethnic) Israel

are spiritual ones within (ethnic) Israel”

or

“Not all who belong to (ethnic) Israel are true Israelites of (ethnic) Israel”

or

“Not all who belong to (ethnic) Israel are

elect Israelites of/within (ethnic) Israel”

No matter the phrasing, the Israel within Israel model reduces both uses of ‘Israel’ only to one actual Israel- ethnic Israel.

Two groups in ‘Israel’

The result is that we are left with two groups within the one (ethnic) Israel. Darby expressed this opinion, “only the two kinds of Israelites, the natural and the spiritual Israel”. Michael Bird (premill) writes:

“Paul asserts that God’s election does not guarantee the immediate salvation of all Israelites- rather only selected persons within Israel– and it is to this narrower band of Israel-within-Israel for whom God’s word remains effective….In other words, tucked away within ethnic Israel is a “true” Israel. Paul doesn’t use the precise term “true Israel,” but his reference to a subset of persons within ethnic Israel being identified as “God’s children,” “children of promise,” and “Abraham’s offspring” (9:8) certainly works to the same effect.”[15] [Bold text is my emphasis]

Some in explaining the Israel within Israel model lean more heavily on the quantitative factor within ethnic Israel. For example, Douglas Moo (premill) writes, “But what he wants to say here is that most of Israel hasn’t responded but some of Israel has; remember, there are Jewish Christians.”[16] [bold text emphasis is mine]

‘What’s the big deal?’

Many will be scratching their heads at why I am pursuing this line of criticism, and think I am artificially delimiting the second Israel, for what is the problem with calling some within the nation of Israel a spiritual ‘Israel’?

The reason why this is an important issue is because there has been such a lack of clear definition of ‘Israel’ in this debate. We have seen, with our own eyes, that some theologians can assert, rhetorically, a One Israel model, to then defend a version of two Israels, as in ‘Israel within Israel’, yet when that latter model is broken down, we are left with only one Israel. This, dear friend, is why parsing these things out is so important, and why it matters!

Paul’s understanding of the remnant of Israel

There is another massive factor related to the above, namely, how Paul refers to the remnant within Romans 9-11. In Romans 9 itself, the remnant theology is one which refers to a remnant group within the one, ethnic Israel; the remnant group itself does not constitute a second Israel.

  • In Romans 9:1-5, Paul is a follower of the Christ who also identifies as a Jew within the one, fleshly, Israel.
  • 9:27, “Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the sons of Israel be like the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved”.
  • We read in 9:29, “ “Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left to us a posterity, We would have become like Sodom, and would have resembled Gomorrah.” ”
  • Romans 11:1-5, “I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, [a]a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?4 But what is the divine response to him? “I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice.”
  • “What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened” (11:7).
  • “Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!” (11:12).
  • “14 if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?” (11:14-15).
  • “But if some of the branches were broken off” (11:17).
  • “that a partial hardening has happened to Israel” (11:26).
  • “From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers” (11:28).

It is evident from the above statements that the remnant itself does not constitute a new, that is, distinct, Israel; rather, the remnant, which is of faith, is invariably, and only, described as part of Israel, within Romans 9-11.

Returning to the Greek text

The dilemma stated

Without having commenced to defend the Israel and Assembly model itself, we are seeing that there are big issues related to the dominant position of Israel within Israel. We are now positioned to connect these issues to the Greek text itself and the three components we spoke of before:

1. There are two distinct Israels referred to, one for each clause.

2. That in the first clause (v6bi) there are two groups implied within Israel, “For not all those belonging to Israel” implies a distinction made between most of Israel and some of Israel. To paraphrase, “For not all- but some of- those belonging to Israel”. 

3. Leaving us with the conclusion that, it is only some of the first Israel who “are Israel” of the second clause.

Does the reader not see the problem that the Israel within Israel model faces?

The Israel within Israel model exhausts the meaning of the entirety of v6b by differentiating between two groups in ethnic Israel. However, the verse demands two distinct Israels, not two groups within the one Israel. Secondly, and most importantly for our purposes, it is only in the first clause (9:6bi) that there is a distinction made within ethnic Israel, a creating of two different groups within fleshly Israel. All of this implies that the Israel of the second clause (9:6bii) has yet to be defined. What we do know about the second Israel is that only some of Israel of the flesh belong to it, but all do not.

Moo’s dilemma

Although not for exactly the same reasons, Douglas Moo (premill) expresses his own translational dilemma in exegeting Romans 9:6b:

“Deciding between these options is difficult. However, considering the evidence supporting both views, it might be preferable to opt for a third, somewhat mediating option. Paul may be using “Israel” in its second occurrence in this verse as a formal category that he has not yet defined. His point here is simply to claim that spiritual Israel is not the same as biological Israel. Just who “populates” that spiritual Israel is not yet revealed and will become evident as Paul’s argument unfolds.”[17]

The options Moo refers to is the two standard models of Romans 9:6b: the Israel within Israel model, or the Israel and Assembly one. Moo, exegetically, opts for a third exegetical option: the text up to that point does not tell us who the second Israel is.

Why I disagree

I disagree with Moo. The text up to that point does, indeed, imply who the second Israel are. There is the mountain of evidence derived from Romans 1-8 itself that precedes Romans 9 that refers to Abraham’s children as the assembly. However, we’ll leave that body of evidence out for this argument. Paul has already stood up in principle for his Christian identity as an apostle of the assembly in 9:1. Yes, he is speaking about his own Jewish kinsmen, but at the same time does so as a brother in the Lord addressing the assembly of Christ, both Jew and Gentile. Furthermore, the whole point of Romans 9:1-5 is to show up the Jews in a negative light for rejecting the blessings of God and for not coming to faith in the Christ. In addition to this, the second Israel of 9:6bii is not ethnic Israel, as we saw, for that interpretation leads us back to the One Israel rhetorical model; and the one major take away from Romans 9:6b was that there were two distinct Israels. It makes sense, then, that Romans 9:6bii’s second Israel is not ethnic Israel, but is the assembly, comprising Jews and Gentiles of faith.

Closing comments

I’m going to leave matters at this unfinished juncture due to the length of the article. The second part will come at another time, and in it I will argue exclusively for the Israel and Assembly model of Romans 9:6b.

[1] John Piper, The Justification of God, 2nd ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1993), Kindle: 3.222.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Pantes is a form of pas; both mean “all”.

[5] A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th ed., (New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1934), 752.

[6] A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 4th ed., rev. and ed. by F. W. Danker, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2021), 651.

[7] John F. Walvoord, “The Argument from Galatians 6:15-16”, John F. Walvoord, accessed February 23, 2026, https://walvoord.com/article/143.

[8] Quoted from “Riddlebarger Responds to MacArthur on Amillennialism and Calvinism”, by Kim Riddlebarger, Thirdmill, accessed February 23, 2026, https://thirdmill.org/magazine/article.asp/link/kim_riddlebarger%5Ekim_riddlebarger.BugMacAttaack.html/at/Riddlebarger%20Responds%20to%20MacArthur%20on%20%20Amillennialism%20and%20Calvinism.

[9] Riddlebarger, “Riddlebarger Responds to MacArthur”.

[10] Grant R. Osborne, Romans (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 242.

[11] See Romans 10:1 where Paul addresses his “Brethren”, namely, the assembly in Rome (see 1:13; 8:12, 29; 11:25; 12:1; 14:10, 13, 15, 21; 15:14, 30; 16:14, 17, 23), not Jewish brethren as in 7:1, 4; and 9:3.

[12] In v24, in the Greek phrase ous kai ekalesen hēmas, the term kai is used adjunctively, and the preferable rendition is “even”. Thus, the NET renders the relative clause, “even us, whom he has called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?” In other words, Paul sees v24 as extending the thought of v23.

[13] C. I. Scofield, Scofield’s Reference Notes, Romans 9:6, studylight.org, accessed February 25, 2026, https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/srn/romans-9.html.

[14] William Hedrkison, Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1981), Kindle: Romans 9:6-8.

[15] Michael F. Bird, Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016), 325.

[16] Douglas Moo, “Romans- Lesson 39”, BiblicalTraining.org, accessed March 6, 2026, https://www.biblicaltraining.org/learn/institute/nt620-romans/nt620-39-romans-9-6-29.

[17] Douglas J. Moo, The Letter to the Romans, 2nd ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2018): Kindle. Moo eventually opts for the Israel within Israel model. What he is doing here is delimiting his own comments to the precise context of Romans 9:1-6, and to how it enlightens the meaning over v6.