What About Israel, by Bill Randles.

What About Israel, by Bill Randles.

The epistle to the Romans is often said to be the perfect rendering of the gospel, because the epistle wasn’t written to correct a specific heresy as many of the others were. I have always believed this to be true and have stated it many times, but now I have been shown that I was wrong on that point.

Romans is indeed the best and most complete rendering of the workings of the gospel that I know of in scripture. But the epistle was written to address an error that had crept into the church in Rome, and which would eventually make its way into almost all of the churches.

That error is called “Replacement Theology”, the false teaching that the church of Jesus Christ is the new Israel of God, and that other than coming into the church as individuals, God has no ultimate plan for the physical children of Israel.

See full article (the first of a series) here:

Also see my own article:

11 thoughts on “What About Israel, by Bill Randles.

  1. Oh; I didn’t see that coming… what is said just before “One heresy leads to another, for evil has a tendency to snowball and compound.” Which is indeed so true and so necessary to readily grasp.

  2. I thought some Bibles years ago (not the ones in the article) do have the word Allah in them, and there was a debate over the “son” being taken out (because the idea of “Allah” or the One god having a son/offspring was offensive). Which is worse, a different language for saying “The god” (after all, a Germanic language or English isn’t the same as Hebrew — “el” or Elohim or some other reference), that or the removal of a Bible concept?

  3. Allah is al (the) with illah (god) [but is also said to mean god (obviously, I’m choosing not to capitalise) of gods or among gods]. I would be in favor of going with something like Al illah (although I don’t know if there is capitalisation in Arabic [as I know there isn’t in Hebrew or Greek], but the space could be inserted, while I have reason to believe such a designation is also offensive because of the deconstruction into the component meaningful parts). What, too, if where the English Bible says LORD we used SYED or SAID or SAUD? Makes me prefer HaShem (including in English versions); and, along with that (including in an Arabic version), we could go with an Aramaic (which is generally respected) Elaha or Alaha [all of which although correct would be considered offensive for leaving out the specific choice of Allah]. Personally, I am not very concerned about being offensive because what I am after is what is clear and true and meaningful. At least with a choice like this there might be less irritation in going ahead and including translation of the words for God as the father and for the son (as the actual words should be passed on as also Israel should be passed on into any language).

  4. It is fine to say (where he finally lands) there is no God but Abba, but when the question is what word you use for “God” in translation, it doesn’t do to just comfort ourselves by saying the word God again. And when he quotes the “half-verse” that what couldn’t be done God did — as this is something different from Islam and from every other religion — still, what word, when we translate, is good or acceptable for when we tend to say God? I really enjoy listening to Pawson, onesimus, but this is something I’ve noticed about him before… when I went to hear him in person, too. He will seem like he has come to an answer in something, and then he won’t do it. In the case of when I heard him in person, he spent time showing and eventually saying “we should really call” Jesus Jeshua [that is Yeshua, because the j is a y sound). But he proceeded the rest of the time, after going through all that, and concluding we should say Yeshua, to say Jesus thereafter.

    Here, we are trying to figure out what to do about translating (as well as going to conferences and such in other countries apparently). And he says earlier that we are not seeking only to preserve ourselves (if you would only save your life you will lose it — DP says this). What do we do about taking the message to others? When he gets into the subject of God as father or abba, he points out that Jesus didn’t say Abba to the masses. The designation was personal and a “pearls before the swine” concern. So, in the end, the question is not really answered. He has led the people into what will save them from calling God Allah. Actually, I don’t have a problem with that even if it well tends toward the self-preservation (and certainly Allah is NOT God’s NAME; God isn’t the name either). But when we are not using English, what has been resolved here? What is to be used* for the word “god” when the Bible uses such a word? The Bible doesn’t use “God” or “god” per se.

    I must add, it is a mistake to say Jews don’t refer to God as Father (and he, DP, goes on that this would never happen because it is considered too intimate, and he compares Islam and Judaism in this). Besides the fact, first of all, that even if it were only Messianic Jews it would still be Jews, it is also quite widely known that Jews do call God Father (Avinu is a famous version). Thus, the “Our Father” is very Jewish in nature. And it is sad Pawson is so attached to the “Christian religion” like this when he has so much at his fingertips. Perhaps it has something to do with his not insignificant way of figuring something out and going on to ignore what he’s worked out. [* It’s good he backed off of “Koda” and said he doesn’t want to get in their business and tell Arabs (or missionaries with Arabs) what to do, such as to insist that a Persian word (a name again, I think) is better than an Arab one. (I think on the other hand he’s mistaken to back away from the Tetragrammaton.)]

    Al illah [I’m not a hundred percent sure, it might be better with one “l” in that] (maybe even Ha illah) or Elaha/ ElaHa (or Alaha, but that may be a little confusing) seem to me viable choices where the translating of the Bible calls for the likes of God or The God. Maybe ElaHa for God and al/Al/ha illah/Illah for the god/God (NOT for the name of God, or any name). David Pawson confirms that at least the pronunciation of Allah was correctly used to refer to the true God long before Mohammed. I don’t know, from listening, how DP would spell any such. But he illustrated how things can change over time in terms of what is understood. Nevertheless, I don’t think we should start sticking in “Father” wherever we would see God in translation; we should use words that mean what the texts say. One title here, a name there (and The Name, for which HaShem rather than Yahweh·· but surely rather than Abba, would do nicely). Father where than belongs, and the endearment of Abba as well.

    [·· And, yet, I would still hope for, in the footnotes or in the front of the Bible translation, the four letters — in both Hebrew (acknowledging Israel) and letters understandable for the sounds. I mean, we are talking about the Bible, right? Not hearkening for the days when England or Euros ruled the lands now handed over. It’s remarkable that while DP points out that the god of Islam is primarily about power (along with demanding righteousness), the God of the Bible is primarily about righteousness and dependability. But the Church, whether Roman or English has been very much about power. In the days DP sees as more missionary than today, did this righteousness come across? To some extent, probably so, but then no. History is a display of failure. At the same time, we can say Christian cultures have had a tendency toward more freedom rather than power to inflict religion. What of dominance, extraction of natural and personal resources? What happens next? Will we reap the sowing?]

  5. I should not neglect to say “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” can be considered a NAME. Now, isn’t that offensive (and biblical). Maybe reserve “Ha” (for “The” God… rather than [say of the Hittites] the god).

    That makes sense when we talk about what to do in reaction to the history/future we see developing in front of us. But this all seems kind of “unfair” to ancient believers whose Bibles rightly use Al in some way.

  6. More of Bill Randles’ post BEFORE the part I didn’t see coming should also not be missed:

    ….in 49 AD, Claudius the Emperor expelled all Jews from Rome, which would include the Messianic Jews as well as the others. The book of Acts makes mention of this as well as the Roman historian Seutonius….

    Thus the third phase of the Roman Church would be as an entirely gentile congregation. The church thrived, reaching hundreds of former pagans. Its development in those years, was Gentile. An explanation developed as to why the Jews were absented, which became the heresy.

    Five years later, the new Emperor Nero allowed for the Jews to return to Rome. This began the fourth phase of the Roman church, which by then was predominantly Gentile with a smattering of returned Jews.

    Paul had to write this letter to teach the predominantly Gentile Roman church the place of Israel in the heart of God….

    I’m not sure when in history it is appropriate (rather than anachronistic) to call the grouping a church, but the story line is highly important. And I appreciate that the blog writer has recognised the letter is like other letters from Paul, correction.

  7. For a very long time the term “church” has been recognised as a word describing a group of believers in Jesus, just as the name “God” has been recognised to describe Yahweh or the Father.

    There is a point where semantic arguments can take on a life of their own, to the extent that the actual point intended to be made becomes secondary. Taking such semantic ideas to the extreme – we would all be required to communicate only in ancient Hebrew to preserve linguistic and theological integrity.

    Yes, it is important to recognise that Paul’s letter to the Romans was written for correction, just like his other letters to various churches.
    Maybe the reason it’s corrective nature has rarely been recognised is because it was addressing a serious error that has continued to exist (increasingly) within the church – that is a belief in replacement theology.

  8. Theoretically {I mean, I haven’t read a Syriac or Arabic Bible directly}, something like “Alaha [of] Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” could be ascribed for Yahweh or the Father (by which I mean that is Who it is referring to; I am not meaning it is put in place of what is in the Bible text but that this would be Bible text). I would understand the “removal” of Israel and Jews (what the article was telling us is happening in whatever language(s) they are using) to be tampering with the “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” part, dropping it and only keeping “Alaha” there (or, if this were happening in English, keeping “God” and being done with the “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” aspect — even though it is part of the descriptive). That would be one example.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s