Romans is a piece of rhetoric. It's not literature with rigidly logical use of terms across the whole work. That's why context and nuance is important. Some interpreters have made similar attempts with the word "law" (nomos) and tried to make Paul use that word in a single sense--not only in one letter, but across his whole corpus. In a word: That's not how people regularly communicate.
"I" don't have too many "Israels." Paul uses "Israel" in more than one sense. He uses it in two different senses in ONE verse, v6, where he makes an assertion that could--on the surface--appear to contradict his terms in vv3-5. Except he fleshes out his meaning in vv7ff, where he explains that Israel as pertains to the definition he offered in vv4-5 lacks the element of election.
As far as I'm concerned, you have created a false "framework" for Paul's argument when you write: "But Paul's argumentation throughout the book of Romans relies on a contrast between your X and your Z." Sorry, I don't agree; nor am I aware of respected exegetes who would concur. Doesn't mean I'm right, or that I'm sufficiently well informed.
Rom.2:28-29 (I think this is your intend) is not a thesis; doesn't mean it's not a significant declaration, but it's part of a much longer major section of the letter 1:18-3:20, and the end of shorter 2:17-29; and it's refuting a particular claim by a certain population (there are three distinct "populations" in chs.1-2). There's no detour at chs.5-8. Rom.9-11 handles one objection (or a collection of related objections) brought on by Paul's lengthy argument; in fact, objections and their treatment are arguably the tandem "engine" to the gospel-proclamation engine that is driving the whole letter forward.
Rom.4:16 is 5chs removed from the immediate discussion in 9:6. Context makes a difference.
I'm interpreting the text in a linear-literary fashion. That means, at minimum, if a term is defined (and who can doubt it is?) in the immediate preceding sentence, that definition is prioritized over others. "Israel" is a term that is susceptible of multiple definitions. Thence, it follows responsible exegetes have to determine how a word is being used in one or another context.
Moreover, in v7, he makes a parallel statement for clarification, even using the language of 4:16, seed of Abraham, saying, "they are not all his children just because they are the seed of Abraham!" He uses the term "seed of Abraham" there in a way that reverts to a mode of speech after the flesh. The proof is in the text to which he appeals, Gen.21:12: Isaac to the exclusion of Ishmael. From two natural sons, he limits the whole to one meaningful descendant. This limit imposes definite limitation on what Paul might mean in v6.
When I reckon with the uncertainty v6 introduces by qualifying "Israel" in some sense, I appeal to Paul himself setting forth a new element (election, unfolding his own meaning in the vvff), while he does not take away from the prior definition. He adds to it, which means a narrowing from the whole.
If that's not persuasive, my main point isn't to get you to change your mind. It is to help others reject the idea that 9:6 contains a studied ambiguity from the author. The name "Israel' has not been introduced at any time in the whole letter, prior to 9:4. Whatever inference you draw about "Abraham's children" from earlier portions, you are not free to assign (for the purpose of rendering Paul's thought) a wider definition to "Israel" until Paul does that himself. And he does not get there until 11:26; and even then there are wise exegetes who do not agree with me! They doubt very much that Paul does so shift his definition, despite the "ingrafting" discussion just prior.
You move to "children" in 9:7-8, as if Paul had some other language he might have used to describe a natural child, so as not to "contradict" himself from back in 4:16. This kind of appeal to artificial fixity of words is irresponsible exegesis. Words have "semantic domain," they cover an area of meaning, which is contextually determined. The near context is more significant than a sentence or paragraph many pages back; particularly when no definition is given elsewhere, nor even the use of some term.
I'm going to skip entirely treating the section on "typological interpretation." All other considerations beside, discussion of "non-soteriological blessings" (assuming there is any such thing) is entirely foreign to the text.
9:24 is an explicit statement. Notice, he doesn't employ the term "Israel" in that context; he hasn't used it since 9:6. Unless you've already decided on some other basis that "Israel" is not defined by vv3-5, then further qualified by vv7-11, the inclusive designation of Israel isn't even part of the discussion. He uses "us," then says "Jews and Gentiles." This is a step (I would argue) toward a new and expansive definition of "Israel," but not one that he has explicitly argued for, nor set up by employment of a studied ambiguity at 9:6.
The following vv use OT passages to argue for 1) a supernatural call of (some) Gentiles into the designation "My people" (still no explication or use of the name, Israel); 2) Remnant-theology (that's another limiting term) as opposed to national-theology for the salvation of those previously named "Israel," i.e. Isaiah plainly teaches election within the chosen People. Again, unless one is already in possession of something Paul has yet to express, there's no reason to presume a reinterpretation of "Israel," v27, in Isaiah's text or intention at Is.10:22-23. It is the nation, but a remnant not the whole; Paul is being quite faithful to authorial (Isaiah's) intent.
You are arguing against a reading that takes seriously Paul's employment of an actual definition of a term, and reading a preferred definition into expressions and vv where the term itself is not used. You are doing so on the basis of a theological a priori. Theological a prioris are not illegitimate for the purpose of theological expression and systematization. However, you are using this one as an interpretive shoehorn into this text.
It is following the grafting-discussion in 11:15-24 that I suppose Paul gives "Israel" a new and wider definition. In other words, it is a conclusion--really an inference or byproduct--of a sustained argument about how divine election cuts off presumption of inclusion. Elect Gentiles become members in true-Israel (as they always had) by ingrafting/adoption; and in the future, Jewish-elect will be regrafted into that Vine by the same rule; "And so ALL Israel will be saved." On my reading, Paul has set up his reader/hearer by use of preexisting horticultural imagery (see Is.5 and Jn.15) to now accept a trans-national-elect definition of "Israel." A Jew-Gentile definition for Israel all along is not an assumption or axiom (or ambiguity) built into a different argument.
I guess, at the end of this look-through, we discover a bias (?) against an internal/external distinction for "covenant" by means of denying the designation "Israel" is ever so explicitly divided by Paul. A divided sense seems to me like the logical follow-through of this passage, especially as combined with the "Jew inwardly, not outwardly true" declaration of 2:29. Personally, I'm not familiar with the use of Rom.9 as a major prooftext for covenant-theology. v4 uses the word "covenant," but in an historical, not strictly theological sense; it comes in again at 11:27; so the terminology "bookends," as it were, the passage; but these vv do not give the passage special utility for the exposition of an explicitly covenant-theology.
Your presentation may be your polemic against such an appeal. But to this observer, it seems like beating the air. Who are you arguing against? And perhaps more germane: who (of Baptist worthies) argues for the meaning of 9:6 as you do?
Bruce, I appreciate your interaction, though I think you are putting way too much weight on a concept you yourself admit you don't derive from Romans 9:1-5. As you say, we must turn to Romans 9:7ff to define Romans 9:6. Any attempt to declare what 'Israel' (Y) must include in Romans 9:6 on the basis of the definition of 'Israelite' in Romans 9:4-5 must be subject to correction by Romans 9:7ff. Seeing as you define 'Israel' (Y) as an elect remnant of the 'descendants of Israel' (X), we must turn to Romans 9:7ff to see if this is what we find.
Isaac a remnant?
You declare that just as Y is 'everything that defines X+election', so Isaac is 'everything that defines Ishmael+election.' Then we are to understand Isaac as a remnant, as if there was some sort of corporate promises to Abraham's two immediate children which were then narrowed down to Isaac. But this is demonstrably false. The promises made to Abraham about his descendants were never made to both of his immediate children. They were always made solely to Isaac (Gen. 12:2-3, understood by all of Christ, and thus necessarily cannot be a promise to multiple immediate male sons of Abraham); Gen. 15:4 (note it says
one will be his heir, there is no sense of corporate promise to the class of Abraham's children); Gen. 17:15-19). This was true prior to Isaac or Ishmael even being conceived, and thus Gen. 22:12 is not a proclamation of who will be a remnant of a corporately-granted set of blessings, but rather a re-statement of what has been said from the beginning: Isaac is the heir. In like manner, Ishmael (from conception!) received his own set of distinct promises which Isaac was never entitled to (Gen. 16:10ff; Gen. 17:20; Gen. 21:17-21). The immediate children of Abraham never share
any promises. From the beginning, each one is given a distinct promise. They are not a corporate class. Same goes for Jacob and Esau. From conception, God promises one one thing and the other another (Gen. 25:23, notice that the children are
two nations, not one nation from which a subset will be selected). Further statements of promise to each one simply elaborate on this already made distinction (Jacob: Gen. 27:27-29; Esau: Gen. 27:39-40). If Isaac is a remnant, he is a remnant of a class of 1, same goes for Jacob. Paul's point here is not that God has always chosen remnants of corporate classes, but that God has always assigned blessings without respect to persons or their works. In other words, he is establishing God' prerogative to create one circle of the Venn diagram without any regards to the other circle.
Pharaoh externally in Covenant?
If Paul is elaborating a concept of God choosing a remnant from a corporate body to be vessels of mercy (Romans 9:6-13, 23), and choosing the remainder of the outer circle to be a vessel of wrath (Romans 9:22), one must wonder why Paul chooses Pharaoh to elaborate this point (Romans 9:14-18), seeing as he is in neither of the concentric circles. Surely a more consistent example of the principle of God reprobating the outer circle could be found in some Jewish figure who fell from grace? But instead, according to your argument, Paul spends some time elaborating the prerogative to elect a remnant from a corporate group (Romans 9:6-13), and then completely abandons this remnant concept to speak of a general example of reprobation that has nothing to do with the external/internal model he has spent the last couple verses proving (Romans 9:14-18), before presumably returning again to his remnant model, and then suddenly switching to a Venn diagram (Romans 9:24), much to everyone's surprise. By contrast, I will simply argue that Paul has been proving the prerogative of God to bless one circle on the Venn diagram without respect to persons (Romans 9:7-13), and now is demonstrating God's prerogative to reprobate the other circle on the Venn diagram as the sovereign potter (Romans 9:14-24). Paul is being consistent throughout the passage, as I said before, you are making this passage too complicated by insisting that 'Israel'
must be restricted to a specific class of 'descendants from Israel.'
Your putting Paul's cart before his horse.
You are repeatedly stating that I cannot read the term 'Israel' in Venn diagram form because Paul hasn't established that yet, but that instead I must read it as remnant because Paul has established that concept. But there is a fatal flaw in this argument. Paul doesn't establish the concept of a remnant until Romans 9:24ff. By contrast, Paul has already established a Venn diagram for the terms circumcision & Jew (Romans 2:25-29), child of Abraham (Romans 4:11-12), and descendant of Abraham (Romans 4:16-18). He has also labored to establish Gentiles being co-beneficiaries with Jews in the Gospel (Romans 1:16), and justification (Romans 3:29-30). All of this
must inform a reading of Romans 9:6, and cannot be waved off as irrelevant to Paul's argument. He has already told us how to view the relationship of those 'descended from Israel' to the 'spiritual circumcision, the true Jew, the true child of Abraham, and his
promised descendants, the heirs,' several of which terms conspicuously appear in Romans 9:7-8. Paul has established a Venn diagram. His remnant theology is derived from his Venn diagram. He only begins discussing the remnant of Jews as a class distinct from the broader group of 'true Children of Abraham, true Jews, spiritual circumcision, promised descendants, the heirs" in Romans 9:24ff. He never once refers to this distinct class, the remnant, as 'Israel.' Paul only knows two Israels, just as he knows two descendants of Abraham, two circumcisions, and two Jews. Thus there is no warrant to assume that 'Israel' in Romans 9:6 is restricted to the class of remnant, rather than fully inclusive of Gentiles and Jews. Certainly one could insist that 'Israel' is not the focus of Romans 9:6, rather the reprobation of the 'descendants of Israel' by their exclusion from 'Israel' is, but that doesn't necessitate us restricting 'Israel' to the Jewish elect to understand this focus.
What is Paul denying in Romans 9:24?
In Romans 9:6, Paul states that God never had elected all of the 'descendants from Israel,' and thus "it is not as though the word of God has failed," even though the vast majority are condemned. Paul is denying that the Jews were ever corporately elected to salvation. He then proceeds to establish God's prerogative to make vessels of wrath to the end that he might make known the riches of his glory upon the vessels of mercy, 'Israel.' To cap off his argument, in Romans 9:24, he repeats the denial of Romans 9:6, that the 'descendants of Israel' were ever corporately elected to salvation, by denying that the vessels of mercy, 'Israel,' are composed solely of Jews, with the intention of proving that God did not create 'Israel' with any regard whatsoever to the 'descendants of Israel.' To affirm that Paul has been teaching a doctrine of God choosing remnants from a corporately elect class this whole time (Romans 9:1-24), is to say that the 'descendants of Israel' were right to believe that 'Israel' was made with respect to them as 'descendants of Israel,' which utterly disarms Paul's argument, and frankly, suggests that the word of God indeed has failed. Paul actually doesn't turn to discuss the remnant as such (Romans 9:27-29) until he has already discussed the called Gentiles (Romans 9:25-26). That is to say, as I've already stated, Paul's remnant theology is derived from his Venn diagram. He doesn't begin thinking about the remnant of the Jews (Romans 9:27-33), the overlap, until he has well established the two circles (Romans 9:6-26; see prior citations of preceding chapters in Romans).
Remnants: distinctly a Mosaic issue.
Part of the problem here is seeing remnants where there are none. The idea of a remnant necessitates some sort of corporate body from which only a limited number are selected. As we saw above, this is really inappropriate as a way to think of the relationships between Isaac & Ishmael, or Jacob & Esau. In fact, the incorporation of a body of descendants from Abraham really only occurs in the Mosaic Covenant (even Jacob's sons have distinct privileges, though it could be conceded that as his 12 sons give birth to the 12 tribes, they are a corporate body, see Gen. 35:1-17; Gen. 48:15ff; Gen. 49). From this group, remnants may be drawn. One of course can invent a class, for instance, Reformed Baptists, and then derive a remnant of elect from there logically speaking, but Paul only talks about a remnant in regards to the people constituted as such by the Mosaic covenant.
Concentric Circles: A recipe for abuse
More pertinently, Westminster Larger Catechism Question 61 uses Romans 9:6 as a way of understanding the invisible / visible church distinction. The problem is that Romans 9:6 has nothing to do with whether the elect are visible or not. It has everything to do with the fact that not all of the Jews were in the church, something quite obvious to the naked eye. Paul was confronting an incredibly visible issue to his readers: that most Jews were not in the church, and loads of Gentiles were. Even on your definition of Romans 9:6, it must be granted that Paul is stating that most of his kinsmen aren't part of the church.
He is not lamenting the fact that so many Jews are visibly in the church but won't be saved. And frankly, the same is easily affirmable about the rest of the examples: Isaac was always visibly the heir, and Ishmael always visibly was not. Same goes for Jacob and Esau. Same goes for Pharaoh. Why does the WLC see this as a proof for the visible/invisible church distinction? Because the WLC falsely builds the visible/invisible church distinction
not on the difference between God and man's perspectives of a
singular church, but rather on the idea that there is an external / internal covenant founding the church which will have only a remnant be saved from within it, a church within a church as it were. So much for removing "ungodliness from Jacob" (Romans 11:26). This mishap would not even be thinkable on a Venn diagram model of the verse. And while those holding to a concentric circles model may avoid stumbling into it, they do so only by multiplying Israels until they have 3, 4, or possibly more.
