Have you ever noticed how medieval artists painted Bible characters? They often depicted Abraham, Moses, David, and even Yeshua wearing medieval clothing rather than the garments of the ancient Near East. Yet I wonder whether we sometimes make similar mistakes. We may not repaint the Bible in medieval clothing, but we sometimes clothe its message in our own assumptions before we have understood what it originally meant.
We ask some questions: First, where was Paul trained? How did he learn to think? What shaped his approach to the Scriptures and the way he developed his arguments? Fortunately, Paul himself answers these questions. In Acts 22:3, he declares: “I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, that is Jerusalem – educated at the feet of Gamaliel according to the strictness of the Law of our fathers.”
Paul was trained under Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, one of the most respected rabbis of the first century. He was the grandson of Hillel and a teacher whose name appears repeatedly in both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds. When it came to the Hebrew Scriptures, Paul was immersed in the detailed methods of rabbinic interpretation and debate. Every word Paul wrote in Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yet inspiration did not erase his background; rather, God used it.
What is especially fascinating is that throughout these three chapters of Romans 9-10-11, Paul consistently follows a three-step rabbinic argument pattern. Once we recognize this pattern, his messages become much easier to follow, and we begin to appreciate the remarkable skill with which he builds his case from the Hebrew Scriptures.
The first method Paul uses is to establish his argument with ra’ayot (ראיות), that is, Scriptural proofs or evidence. Rather than asking his readers to accept his opinion, he repeatedly appeals to the Hebrew Scriptures to make his case. This is exactly what Paul does throughout Romans 9. Here, he quotes or alludes to about ten passages from the Hebrew Scriptures. He cites passages from Genesis to Exodus, then from Hosea, Isaiah, and Malachi, allowing the Scriptures themselves to make his case. He presents ra’ayah after ra’ayah, proof after proof, from the Hebrew Scriptures, until the weight of the evidence becomes overwhelming.
The second mode of argumentation is called ma’aseh (מעשה), relating to an event or an incident. In rabbinic literature, a ma’aseh is an actual historical event that serves as a binding theological precedent. Rather than arguing only from theory, the rabbi says, “Look what actually happened in biblical history.”
Paul repeatedly uses this method. Rather than merely saying, “God has always chosen according to His purpose,” he points to historical examples: Isaac instead of Ishmael and Jacob instead of Esau. In fact, before the twins were even born, God made a divine choice, precluding election based on lineage or individual merit. Another example is the Lord’s choice to harden Pharaoh’s heart at a specific time to reveal His own Glory. Each is a ma’aseh, a real event from Israel’s history that illustrates the theological point.
The third method is binyan Av (בנין אב), literally, “building from a father.” It involves deriving a general principle from one or more biblical examples. This is similar to the second method mentioned. While ma’aseh focuses on the story and the individual, binyan Av focuses on the general principle. In other words, first observe a historical case. Second, discover the principle behind it. Third, apply that principle elsewhere. For example, Paul discusses Isaac and concludes, “It is not the children of the flesh who are children of God…” He has moved from the historical event of Ishmael and Isaac’s birth to the general theological principle that it is not the children of the flesh (lineage/blood line) who are necessarily the children of God. That is essentially binyan Av.
In Romans 9:6, Paul makes one of the most misunderstood statements in the entire New Testament, a statement that has fueled antisemitism for the past 2000 years and continues to do so today. “For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.” Paul uses that same method to draw a theological conclusion: not all physical Israel is Israel.
What did Paul mean here? Is he referring to the church, which has now become the New Israel, or to the distinction between believing and unbelieving Israel? What do you think?
Let us consider the first one: that the New Israel is the church. But how could the same Paul, who has just spent five verses defending Israel’s unique place in God’s plan, suddenly erase Israel with one sentence and give the name of Israel to others? Remarkably, this has been the majority interpretation for the past 2000 years.
The name Israel is not a title; you cannot simply take this name and apply it to another people. The name Israel is deeply associated with a people’s history: Jacob’s struggle to receive that covenant name, the Exodus, Moses, the prophets, the Temple, and the kings. It is not merely a title, like a deed handed over to someone else. It is a name, and a people, seeded and rooted in God’s prophetic plan. In the Old Testament alone, God has called Israel “my people” over 220 times (i.e., they shall be My people and I shall be their God). God made over 30 promises to this specific nation and people, called Israel.
When Paul says: “For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel”, he is making a distinction within Israel itself; between those who truly believe and those who do not. He is not saying that God has replaced Israel with another people. He is about to prove it.
From this point forward, Paul will support his argument with example after example from Israel’s history, along with quotations and allusions from the Hebrew Scriptures. What Paul introduces here is one of the great themes of the Hebrew Scriptures: The Doctrine of the Remnant. The Hebrew word is שְׁאֵרִית, and it simply means “that which remains” or “those who remain.” It is one of the most important themes in the Bible, yet one of the least preached. Why? Because it goes against our natural way of thinking. It also goes against the claim of many Christian and Jewish denominations who say that if you are part of this group, you are automatically saved.
We are often inclined to believe that if the majority believes something, it must be right. Yet throughout Scripture, God repeatedly works through a faithful remnant rather than the majority. That there is a remnant within the nation of Israel is not a new doctrine; what Paul says here is the consistent testimony of the prophets and exactly what Jesus Himself taught. See John 1:47, where Yeshua sees Nathanael and says, “Here is a true Israelite in whom there is no deceit.” The Messiah is pointing to a believing remnant within Israel.
Throughout Israel’s history there have always been two groups within the nation: those who believed in God and those who did not. To teach that God changed His mind about Israel is to introduce another Paul.
Even more striking is that the principle that not all from Israel are “Israel” also applies to the Church today. One can say: Not everyone who calls himself a Christian truly belongs to the Messiah. Jesus Himself said: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 7:21
One does not enter biblical Christianity because their parents are Christians or because they belong to a Christian denomination; they are not saved because they are members of a church.
The principle is the same in both cases: God’s election and His saving blessings are never bestowed indiscriminately. They are received by those who truly believe Him.
The Remnant is that group of men and women who remain faithful to God when others turn away. They are those who repent of their sins, trust the Lord, and remain devoted to Him even when they stand almost alone.
Go to the video – Romans 9-11- Part 3 – The Remnant of Jacob