We will begin our examination of the thesis as stated in the title at Romans chapter 9 verse 6 where Paul writes, “[οὐ] εκπέπτωκεν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ~ the word of God has [not] fallen” (i.e., that God has kept His word), which I take to be the infallible word of God as revealed by the Holy Spirit and spoken through His prophets. In fact, according to a footnote on this verse in the United Bible Societies’ Koine Greek Bible, Paul is basing his argument regarding God’s faithfulness as revealed through His Word on Numbers 23:19, the context of which is important. A gentile diviner, Balaam, had been hired by Balak, the king of the Moabites, to pronounce a curse on the Israelites. But the cotext [Comment: tucked into chapters 22-24 of the book of Numbers, one of the strangest and most confusing portions of scripture, but also one of the most powerful and consequential concerning Israel’s future] surrounding the verse under consideration tells us that Balaam, whose communications with Yahwah Elohim were ‘yay and nay’ regarding whether or not he should accompany Balak’s men, was prevented by the Angel of the Lord from carrying out the Moabite king’s wish.

Having alerted us in Romans 9:6 to what he considers to be the integral nature of the activity of the Word as pertains to Israel’s future, Paul furthers his exegesis, beginning in Romans 9:9, with the introductory statement “ἐπαγγελίας γὰρ ὁ λόγος οὗτος,” Κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον ἐλεύσομαι καὶ ἔσται τῇ Σάρρᾳ υἱός. ^{Genesis 18:10, 14} For this [is] the word of promise, “About this time, I will come and there will be a son to Sara.” Paul’s introductory phrase prior to the quote is not as inconsequential as it may seem if read quickly or merely based on background knowledge regarding the event to which Paul was referring. As with so much of Scripture, a deeper contextual application can almost always be found by relying on Scripture to interpret itself.

Paul again addresses the Word in Romans 9:28 by quoting, in amended fashion, Isaiah 10:23, λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν και συντέμνων ποιήσει κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. For the Lord will execute [His] word/decree completely and speedily. כִי כָלָה וּנֶחֱרָצָ֑ה אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה צְבָא֔וֹת עֹשֶׂה בְּקֶרֶב כָּל־הָאָרֶץ׃ For the Lord Yahwah of Hosts [is] the One Who executes determined destruction OR the destruction He has determined/decreed within all the land/earth. ^{Isaiah 10:23} (my translations) Paul may have added “completely and speedily” based on Joel 3:4, where Yahwah, through the prophet Joel, describes the complete destruction of Israel’s enemies: “And also, what will you with Me, Tyre and Sidon and all the regions of the Philistines? [Will] you perform retribution against Me? And if you perform retribution against Me, I will swiftly and quickly requite/pay back your retribution upon your head.”וְ֠גַם מָה־אַתֶּ֥ם לִי צֹר וְצִיד֔וֹן וְכֹל גְְּלִיל֣וֹת פְּלָ֑שֶׁת הַגְּמ֗וּל אַתֶּם מְשַׁלְּמִ֣ים עָלָ֔י וְאִם־גֹּמְלִים אַתֶּם֨ עָלַ֔י קַ֣ל מְהֵרָ֔ה אָשִׁ֥יב גְּמֻלְכֶ֭ם בְּרֹאשְׁכֶם׃ Paul’s translation of Isaiah 10:23 is a combination of the Hebrew text and the Septuagint’s (LXX).

It would seem that Paul was exercising the literary convention of excising a previous narrative and fitting it into a new scenario. But not arbitrarily. As a called apostle of Christ Jesus ^{Romans 1:1; I Corinthians 1:1} (haMoshiach Yeshua), it was his prerogative to do so. Aware that the Holy Spirit (Ruach haKodesh) was speaking through him, his letters to the various congregations (ekklesiai) were to be considered equal to the writings of the Old Testament, to which he referred and which he was, in many instances, as here, rearranging and reinterpreting.  

The text ^{Numbers 22:6-7} regarding Balaam’s being called by Balak to curse Israel establishes Balaam’s bonafides, at least as perceived by Balak, as a reliable diviner, with Balak observing that “the one whom you bless, is blessed, and the one whom you curse, is cursed;” and, elders of Moab and elders of Midian came to him, “divinations in their hand” [Comment: This phrase most certainly means that the respective elders carried with them ~ b^eyahdhahm/בְיָדָם payments ~ q^esahmi’m/קְסָמִים for the services of divination expected to be performed by Balaam, not that they carried in their hands ‘models of the organs of sacrificial animals’ (cf. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/balaam-part-one/#end1 ) for Balaam to examine, as, according to this reference, was the practice at that time.]

I could not help but note what appears to be a congruence in the narrative of the persons of Yahwah, Elohim, and the Malach Yahwah (Angel of the LORD), in other words, they are treated as one and the same. This first occurs in Numbers 22:12-13, where the narrator, Moses, informs, “Elohim answered Balaam…,” whereas Balaam, when passing this message on to Balak, says, “Yahwah will not permit me to go with you.” Then, after Balak, through his emissaries, has attempted to twist Balaam’s arm with promises of greatness, Balaam replies, “I cannot transgress the command of Yahwah Elohaⁱ ~ the LORD my GOD.” [Comment: According to my reading of chapters 22-24 in Hebrew, the narrator uses only ‘Elohim’; and Balaam, only ‘Yahwah,’ with some exceptions, of course. This congruence is most readily seen in Balaam’s encounter with the Angel of the LORD. Running from verse 20 through verse 35 of chapter 22, the narrator, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gives us choice movie theater seating to watch as this encounter, consisting of a three-way exchange between Balaam, the Angel of the LORD, and a talking donkey, unfolds, as follows:]

Elohim allows Balaam to go with Balak’s emissaries, but he is “only to do what I will tell you.” Notwithstanding that Elohim had given Balaam the go-ahead, He becomes angry that Balaam did, in fact, set off with them, so that the Malak Yahwah blocks his way. Balaam angrily beats the donkey for its attempts to avoid the Angel of the LORD, unseen to Balaam. Then we are told that Yahwah enabled the donkey to engage Balaam in human language, after which the Angel of the LORD opened Balaam’s eyes to perceive Him. In the end, Balaam repents [Comment: probably for the superficial sin of beating his donkey, but, as well – and what became evident to him through the intervention of the Angel of the LORD – the root sin of his willingness to execute Balak’s command out of a love of money] and is willing to turn back. The Angel of the LORD permits Balaam to proceed, but he is “only to say what I will tell you.” [Comment: What I am proposing is that Balaam entertained an audience with, and later was confronted by, the pre-incarnate Word, Ο Λογος (O Logos), Who, according to John the Apostle, was God ~ kai Theos een O Logos/και Θεος ην Ο Λογος ^{John 1 v1} and through Whom everything that is came into being. John is specific on the point that the man Yeshua is O Logos, Whose relationship with God ~ Elohim was so inextricably interwoven as to be inseparable (only begotten from the side of ~ para/παρα of the Father^v14…no one has ever seen God/Theos ~ Elohim; {the} Only Begotten God/Theos ~ Elohim, the One being in the bosom of the Father, That One has declared/unfolded”^v18 {Him to us}.]

I would suggest that the linchpin of Paul’s argument that, although it would appear to be otherwise, God will keep His promises regarding Israel – based as they are on His word – is grounded on The Word, Whom we identified above.

It is at this point that Balaam testifies to Yahwah’s character as a promise-keeping God/El (pronounced ‘ale’ or ‘ail’): ^{23:8, 19} “How will I curse [whom] El has not cursed and how will I show indignation [upon whom] Yahwah has not?…El is not a man and will not lie/deceive nor a son of man and will not repent. Has He said and will He not act or spoken and will He not raise it up/cause it (fem.) to stand ~ יְקִימֶנָּה? [Comment: I am assuming that the feminine accusative pronoun ה refers to ‘imrah’ (אִמְרָה) ~ word, saying, discourse |OR| ‘divra[h]’ (דִִּבְרָה/ דִִּבְרָא) ~ word; cause, reason ~ O Logos in the New Testament. Delitzsch, in his Hebrew translation of the NT, uses the masculine noun ‘dahvahr’ (דָבָר); but, given the meaning that O Logos carries in John 1, ‘dahvahr’ can easily, and perhaps should be, replaced by ‘divra[h]’.] ^v20 Behold, I received to bless [Comment: Balaam is most likely relaying to Balak the message that Yahwah imparted to him when he left Balak to go meet with Yahwah ^vv15-16]; He has blessed [Israel] [Comment: Here I understand that Balaam is referring to the original covenant that Yahwah made with Abra(ha)m as recorded in Genesis 12:1-3 ~ ^vv2-3“And I will make you a great nation and I will bless you and will make great your name and to be a blessing. And I will bless those who bless you, but those who curse you I will curse and in you will all the families/nations of the earth be blessed.”] and I will not [presume to] revoke it (אֲשִׁיבֶנָּה).” [Comment: Here I am assuming that the feminine accusative pronoun ה ~ it refers to ‘b^erakah’ ((בְרָכָה ~blessing.]

What I would like to draw your attention to is that the Holy Spirit used Balaam to witness to Balak regarding ‘El’ – the primary meaning of which is ‘power,’ ‘strength’ – which the latter may have worshipped as a pagan deity ^{The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Koehler & Baumgartner} and the negative ramifications his determination to inflict harm on Israel held for him. First identifying El as a promise-keeper^v19, Balaam works his way toward his punch line by noting that Yahwah is Israel’s God ~ Elohim^v21, then intimates in a straightforward way, why Balak will fail in his plan – because “El, i.e., Yahwah Elohim, is the One Who brought [them, i.e., Israel] out of Egypt[!]”^v22

Before we remove ourselves too far from the crux of Paul’s argument in Romans 9:6 – “…not that the word of God has fallen” – that God has not forgotten His people, Israel, i.e., that His blessing remains on them through His Word, I suggest that applying Isaiah 55:11 is apropos: “So will My Word be that goes out from My mouth; [it] will not return to Me without effect, but do that which I willingly desire and accomplish successfully that for which I sent it out.” (כֵּן יִהְיֶ֚ה דְבָרִי אֲשֶׁ֣ר יֵצֵ֣א מִפִּי לֹא־יָשׁוּב אֵלַי רֵיקָ֑ם כִּ֚י אִם־עָשָׂה֙ אֶת־אֲשֶׁ֣ר חָפַ֔צְתִּי וְהִצְלִיחַ אֲשֶׁר שְׁלַחְתִּיו׃ | οὕτως ἒσται τὸ ῥῆμα μου, ὃ ἐὰν ἐξέλθῃ ἐκ τοῦ στόματός μου…) [Comment: Cf. https://thedragonisslain.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=2662&action=edit Flint aka Rocky and the Rock: Peter and Yeshua] As I suggest in the Flint aka Rocky post, I see the same relationship between The Word as O Logos, The First Cause, and The Word as To Rhema, The Active Word that effects the outworking of The First Cause, in what I perceive to be companion verses, Romans 9:6 and Isaiah 55:11. It is the pre-incarnate Second Person of the Trinity, O Logos, Who covenanted with The Father to become the incarnate Yeshua ~ salvation/deliverance of His people, Whom The Father sent as The Rhema to effect the eventual salvation of all of Abraham’s seed, both Jew and Gentile. This Word would not return to Elohim, The Father, without having “accomplish[ed] successfully that for which [He] sent it out.” This salvation is the ultimate purpose for The Word’s having been sent into the world. [Comment: The Hebrew language does not have a neuter gender; all nouns, pronouns, and adjectives carry either a masculine or feminine marker. Therefore, in Isaiah 55:11, although in Hebrew the morpheme denoted by {word} carries a masculine marker, in English, while there are no masculine, feminine, or neuter markers per se, pronouns are distinguished based on a particular noun’s perceived gender. In the case of ‘word,’ it is viewed as neuter, thus it is rendered in English translation with the neuter pronoun ‘it.’ In other words, the denotation drives the overt connotation; however, in certain contexts, an underlying connotation may be intended which departs substantially from that which is commonly understood.

Consider: Since the term for ‘word’ in German is ‘Wort,’ indicated to be neuter by the preceding article ‘das,’ what did Martin Luther intrinsically understand when he translated “My word” from Hebrew into German? Such is also the case in Russian, with the term for ‘word’ (slovo ~ слово) being neuter. On the other hand, Turkic languages are genderless, so how does a Turk understand the Hebrew word in Turkish translation, since (s)he has no intrinsic understanding of gender (Turkish term for ‘word,’ soz ~ söz, carries no gender marker.) Then again, we have Greek, which has devolved from an extremely complex language into one which is much less so. While it is not unusual for words to undergo denotational changes (think, ‘bad’ means ‘good’!), in Koine Greek, in which both the Septuagint (the circa 300 B.C. Greek translation of the Old Testament) and the New Testament were written, there were two terms for ‘word’ – ‘o logos’ ~ ο λογος (masculine) and ‘to rhema’ ~ το ρημα (neuter) – the connotations of which I have discussed above. What is of interest is that in modern (demotic) Greek, ‘o logos’ denotes ‘word,’ while ‘to rhema’ means ‘verb.’ So, the question arises, how does a Greek intrinsically understand Isaiah 55:11, when there are two denotationally different words in a Greek translation, with the Septuagint translating the Hebrew ‘davar’ as ‘to rhema,’ whereas in demotic Greek, it is ‘o logos’?]

In the Isaiah 55:11 passage, we are told that this Word proceeds from the mouth of [God]. The ultimate illustration of To Rhema being employed by O Logos is found in the account of The Rider on the White Horse*^{This title per the United Bible Societies heading starting with v11}* in Revelation 19:13+. Called O Logos tou Theou ~ The Word of God, John describes in graphic terms the battle that ensues between O Logos – Whom John refers to as The Rider ^{literally, “the One sitting on the horse”} – and the Beast. It is in the context of this battle that we come to understand this dual identity of the Second Person of the Trinity, Whom John also observes to be “King of kings and Lord of lords,” as O Logos fights the Beast by means of [To Rhema], which is depicted as a longsword proceeding from His mouth.

How dare we, as the Gentile Ekklesia, be so hubristic as to attribute Yahwah Elohim’s plan of salvation to be solely intended for the ‘Church,’ which, itself, is an arbitrary designation that in its very essence misdirects and negates the true meaning of God’s chosen race. Peter, in his first epistle, based on a literal, straightforward reading of the introduction, is addressing a Jewish diaspora of believers in Yeshua, reminding them of Yahwah’s promise as prophesied by Hosea^2:23 – which He has now fulfilled – that they who were ‘no people are now people of God.’^{1Peter 1:1, 2:9-10}? On the other hand, Paul, in Romans 9:24-27, applies this same prophecy to Gentiles that while it is true that [we] who were no people are now “people of [God],” not to be excluded is that a remnant of Israel will be saved.

In fact, it is in this context that Paul obliquely appeals to the case of Balaam as he builds his argument that God has not abandoned His people, Israel; rather, that an elect remnant remains. [Comment: This line of interpretation is based on, and developed further from, a footnote in the United Bible Societies (UBS) Koine Greek New Testament, which refers to Numbers 23:19 as a cross-reference  for Romans 9:6, the title of this section being God’s Election of Israel] Paul draws his conclusion by juxtaposing the salvation of Israel through an elect remnant with the salvation of the Gentiles, using, I offer, Balaam’s fourth oracle of blessing on Israel as the key to unlocking the ‘mystery’ of the Restoration of Israel ^{UBS title for Romans 11:25-36}. Further, if I may be so bold, I also suggest that Balaam is the proto-Gentile believer in Yahwah, the “from everlasting to everlasting” ^{Psalm 90:2} eternal I AM, Whom he variously recognizes to be El – “the One Who brought [Israel] out of Egypt;” Shaddai – The Almighty; and Elyon – the Supreme, Most High. And, we are told, “upon him the Spirit of God fell” ^{Numbers 24:2} as he continued to bless Israel.

Paul realized that God had used Balaam in a special way to solidify and to perpetuate His promise to Abraham to bless those who bless [Israel], but that the one who curses [Israel] is cursed. ^{Numbers 24:9} [Comment: Clearly, God’s promise extends beyond being focused singularly on the person of Abra(ha)m, given Balaam’s reference to Jacob, i.e., Israel, and that it was “them that El brought out of Egypt.] But beyond that, it was Balaam who prophesied the Davidic covenant and the coming of the Messiah. [Comment: I am indebted to the footnoted online version of the New English Translation (NET) for its commentary on Numbers 24:17b ^{“A star* will march forth out of Jacob, and a scepter** will rise out of Israel.”}, edited to read as follows:

*This is a figure for a king not only in the Bible but in the ancient Near Eastern literature as a whole. The immediate reference of the prophecy seems to be to David, but the eschatological theme goes beyond him. There is to be a connection made between this passage and the sighting of a star in its ascendancy by the magi, who then traveled to Bethlehem to see the one born King of the Jews (Matt 2:2). **The “scepter” is (also the symbol) for a king who will rise to power. (End of NET commentary)

The scepter (sheyvet ~ שֵׁבֶט) mentioned by Balaam brings to mind Psalm 2, which points to the rule of the Messiah, Who will rule with an “iron scepter.” ^{Psalms 2:9}

Given the above, it seems plausible that Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles was partially initiated by his understanding from Numbers 22-24 that there was a place in Yeshua’s Qahal for the Gentiles, given that it was through the Gentile, Balaam, that the coming of the Messiah was prophesied.]

I would go so far as to suggest that these two different perspectives of the Hosea passage – the one by Peter, the other by Paul – bring my proposed interpretation of the way in which “all Israel shall be saved” full circle that God’s redemptive plan has always been Israel-centric, meaning that once the full number of the Gentiles has been brought into the Ekklesia, Yahwah Yeshua will restore Israel, using the remnant as it proclaims Him to be the Great God and Savior Jesus Christ ^{~ Elohim HaGadol wu Moshianu Yeshua haMoshiach Titus 2:13}. I would also suggest that it is in this way, as the Ekklesia of Gentile believers is grafted into the Qahal of Jewish believers, that together they will become the ‘quintessential’ Qahal.

Addendum: I prefer to call Jesus by His Hebrew name, Yeshua, because it is directly related to the Hebrew verb ‘to save’ ~ ‘yahsha.’ The verse, “And you shall call His name Jesus, because He will save His people from their sins” only makes sense when applying the Hebrew. The English transliteration of the Latin ‘J[Y]esu-’ has no relationship to the relevant Latin verb ‘to save’ ~ ‘salv-,’ from which derives our English translation. Nor does the New Testament Greek give a clearer meaning, since it reads, “Iisous…sosi ~ Ιησους…σωσει.” ^{Matthew 1:21} This differentiation is of critical importance because it directly impacts the covenantal relationship of O Logos to God the Father ~ Θεος ο Πατηρ/Elohim haAv ~ אֱלֹהִים הָאָב, which is best expressed, again by the Apostle John, in John 3:16-18:

¹⁶For God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, so that all, the one who believes [Comment: a generic collective plurality which is defined by a narrowing to specific individuals] in Him should not perish but have life eternal. ¹⁷For God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. ¹⁸The one believing in Him is not condemned; [however,] the one who does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.

¹⁶Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ᾥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἳνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον. 17 οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἵνα κρίνῃ τὸν κόσμον, ἀλλ’ ἵνα σωθῇ ὁ κόσμος δι’ αὐτοῦ. 18 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ κρίνεται; ὁ [δὲ] μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται, ὅτι μὴ πεπίστευκεν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ.

 ¹⁶ כִּי כֹּה אָהַב אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָעוֹלָם עַד כִּי נָתַן אֶת בְּנוֹ יְחִידוֹ לְמַעַן לֹא יֹאבַד כָּל הַמַּאֲמִין בּוֹ, אֶלָּא יִנְחַל חַיֵּי עוֹלָם. ¹⁷הֵן הֵֵֵֵָאֱלֹהִים לֹא שָׁלַח אֶת בְּנוֹ אֶל הָעוֹלָם לִשְׁפֹּט אֶת הָעוֹלָם, אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּוָּשַׁע הָעוֹלָם עַל־יָדָיו. ¹⁸הַמַּאֲמִין בּוֹ אֵינֶנּוּ נִדּוֹן. מִי שֶׁאֵינֶנּוּ מַאֲמִין כְּבָר נִדּוֹן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הֶאֱמִין בְּשֵׁם בֶּן־הָאֱלֹהִים הַיָּחִיד.

The clear message of John, whose anonymity is conspicuous when referring to himself in his Gospel and thus almost certainly making him the disciple whom Yeshua loved and who himself had leaned on Yeshua while eating the Last Supper ^{John 13:23}, is that God, in the form of the Son, came into the world to save it, i.e., that segment of humanity who would believe this to be true, who, in other scriptures, are those whom the Father promised to the Son in eternity past. [Comment: Please cf. https://the-dragon-is-slain.com/2024/12/03/the-roar-of-war-the-roar-of-death-and-the-roar-of-victory-the-eternal-sons-roar-was-heard-once-and-will-be-heard-once-more-are-you-ready/].

Paul expands on the nature of this relationship, expounded above by John, in Titus 2:13, when, by exclaiming, “[we, who are] anticipating the blessed hope and appearance of the glory of the Great God and our Savior Jesus Christ (του μεγαλου Θεου και σωτηρος ημων Ιησου Χριστου/ הָאֵל הַגָּדוֹל וּמוֹשִׁיעֵנוּ יֵשׁוּעַ הַמָּשִׁיחַ) he is claiming that Yeshua is Elohim, Who, as we have seen above, is Yahwah, and thus, by extrapolation, Yeshua is Yahwah, the ever-existent One. To Him be all the glory!