Center for Biblical Theology and Eschatology
Paul's Theology Of Israel's Future:
A Non-millennial Interpretation of Romans 11
by Lee Irons
Lee Irons, B.A., M.Div.
The interpretation of Romans 11 is, of course, a highly controversial
subject. Two of the major millennial positions - premillennialism
and postmillennialism - go to this text, among others, to find
biblical justification for their respective eschatologies. Although
they differ as to the timing and character of the glorious, external,
earthly phase of Christ's kingdom, both the premillennial and
postmillennial form of chiliasm agree that Romans 11 holds out
the hope of a mass conversion of Jews and Gentiles during a long
era of righteousness and peace upon the earth. Amillennialists,
however, neither expect such a hope nor find it in Romans 11.
They - and I would include myself among them - take the view that
this text does not promise such a massive eschatological
harvest of Jews and Gentiles. O. Palmer Robertson, in his important
paper "Is There a Distinctive Future for Ethnic Israel in
Romans 11?", says, "The eye of man cannot tell whether
this number is few or many. But the eye of faith is confident
that the 'full number' is being realized. For this reason, it
is neither necessary nor appropriate to posit some future date
in which the 'remnant' principle will be superseded by a newly-introduced
'fulness' principle." [1]
This is what I am calling the non-millennial interpretation of
Romans 11. I call it non-millennial rather than amillennial (though
it is certainly that) in order to accent the fact that this interpretation
sees neither pre- nor postmillennialism in this passage. Paul
does not address the millennial question. The question is not
even remotely in the background of his thought (though the passage
may contain teaching that would logically imply an answer to that
question). Thus, I have called my paper a non-millennial interpretation
of Romans 11.
But this is not to say that my paper is going to be an exclusively
negative attack on views I would regard as being unbiblical. On
the contrary, I have a positive thesis to offer, as well as what
I believe to be compelling arguments in its support. My thesis
is that the reference in v. 26 to "all Israel" should
be interpreted as a Pauline redefinition of the concept "Israel"
in light of the great mystery that has been revealed in the person
and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. According to this view, Paul's
statements in this passage regarding Israel are not prophetic
in the usual sense of the term. Romans 11 is not a pre-written
history of end-times events. Admittedly, Paul does raise the question
of Israel's future, as one can readily see in v. 1: "Has
God cast off his people?" However, the question is not answered
by a futuristic prediction of what is yet to occur but by a redemptive-historical
reinterpretation of what Israel itself is in the present.
Surprising as it may at first appear, I believe that a careful
exegesis of the Greek words and syntax of vv. 25-26 leads objectively
to the conclusion that Paul has literally redefined the term "Israel"
to refer to the New Testament church by arguing that God's irrevocable
promises to Israel are fulfilled by means of the salvation of
both Jew and Gentile in the church age.
If the time constraint inherent in this forum were eliminated,
it would be possible to examine the entire text of Romans 11 carefully,
verse by verse. However, I must limit myself to what I regard
as the key question for unlocking the correct interpretation of
Romans 11 - namely, the question of what is meant by "and
so all Israel shall be saved." A few unanswered questions
regarding other portions of Romans 11 will remain (e.g., the interpretation
of vv. 12 and 15) - questions I have attempted to answer at length
in a larger paper. However, I have included an appendix at the
end of this paper to tie up these loose ends as briefly as possible.
Three principal options for the meaning of "all Israel"
in v. 26 have been proposed in the history of interpretation.
The first is that advocated in this paper - that "all Israel"
refers to the entire people of God, Jew and Gentile alike. John
Calvin, in his comments on Romans 11:26, ably summarizes the view
maintained here:
And so all Israel, etc.
Many understand this of the Jewish people, as though Paul had
said, that religion would again be restored among them as before:
but I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, according
to this meaning - "When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews
also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith;
and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel
of God, which must be gathered from both ...." The same manner
of speaking we find in Gal. vi.16. The Israel of God is what he
calls the Church, gathered alike from Jews and Gentiles. [2]
This paper will seek present further exegetical and theological
evidence to provide further corroboration of Calvin's instincts.
The second option is that taken by a majority of commentators
and interpreters and is found in all three millennial camps. James
D. G. Dunn is a good representative of this view. He states that
"there is now a strong consensus that pas Israel ['all
Israel'] must mean Israel as a whole, as a people whose corporate
identity and wholeness would not be lost even if in the event
there were some (or indeed many) individual exceptions."
[3] This interpretation is obviously congenial to both pre- and
postmillennialism, but it is also accepted by that breed of amillennialism
(typified by John Murray) which anticipates a mass revival of
the majority of Israelites alive just prior to the return of Christ.
The third option is that taken by the other breed of amillennialist
(as typified by Herman Ridderbos, O. Palmer Robertson, Anthony
Hoekema and Robert Strimple of WTS/CA). This position argues that
"all Israel" has reference to "all of the elect
within the community of Israel" (Robertson, p. 226). Thus,
the statement that "all Israel shall be saved" means
that throughout the church age all elect Jews will come to Christ
and be saved.
Although I take issue with both the second and the third positions,
my paper is structured primarily as a response to the third option.
Many of my arguments will be aimed at Robertson in particular,
as he has written the most detailed defense of that position.
Just as an aside. If you have been processing what I have said
so far, it is becoming clear that there are actually three breeds
of amillennialist:
- Those who, like Calvin and myself, see "all Israel" as a reference to the church.
- Those amillennialists who, like John Murray, interpret Romans 11 as a postmillennialist would regarding the future conversion of the Jews en masse, but without espousing the postmillennial hermeneutic as whole.
- And those who, like Robertson, see "all Israel" as having an ethnically restrictive denotation (i.e., to all the elect within the community of Israel) and who envision their salvation as a continual process throughout the interadvental period.
I mention this simply to avoid confusion.
Now, don't misunderstand my attack on the third camp as an attack
on every aspect of their position. In fact, my paper is heavily
dependent on Robertson's answer to the premillennial interpretation
of this passage. Robertson cogently, and I think correctly, argues
that throughout the interadvental period both Jews and Gentiles
will flock into the kingdom of God by putting their faith in Jesus
Christ. In the end, the two pleromata (fulnesses), that
of the Gentiles and that of the Jews, will be completed by means
of the gradual addition of elect Jews and Gentiles to the one
olive tree of the covenant of grace. A mass conversion of the
last generation of Jews alive just prior to the return of Christ
is not to be expected. Rather, the entire passage focuses on God's
present dealings with ethnic Israel.
Before developing the exegesis of my distinctive thesis, it would
be well to examine briefly Roberton's argument for an exclusively
present concern in this chapter. While rejecting his interpretation
of "all Israel" I believe that Robertson adduces compelling
evidence that would suggest that Romans 11 is miscontrued at a
fundamental level if it is read as a predictive prophecy concerned
with end-times events. He provides four arguments indicating that
the scope of Paul's concerns is present rather than future:
(1) The first clue is found in verse 1: "I say then, God
has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too
am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin."
Note well how Paul answers his own question, "God has not
rejected his people, has he?" He does not answer, "May
it never be! For do you not know that in the millennium God will
restore Israel to her former glory?" But this is not what
the text says. Robertson comments: "In answer to the question,
'Has God cast off his people?' Paul identifies himself as current
proof that God's purposes for Israel are being realized in the
present era..." (p. 210). Paul is an Israelite, and Paul
is saved. Therefore, he reasons, it cannot be the case that God
has entirely rejected Israel.
(2) The second piece of evidence that Romans 11 focuses on God's
present intentions for Israel is found in verse 5: "In the
same way then, there has also come to be at the present time
a remnant according to God's gracious choice." Notice particularly
the phrase "at the present time" (en to nun kairo).
"These two references [vv. 1 and 5] orient this first paragraph
of Romans 11 (vv 1-10) to the question of God's dealing with Israel
in the present hour" (p. 211).
(3) But this concern with Israel's present salvation continues
into the next section, which provides the third clue. Verses 13
and 14 read: "But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles.
Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save
some of them." Is it not clear that Paul's fervent aspiration
is that by his present ministry among the Gentiles he might see
the salvation of his kinsmen according to the flesh? "By
his current ministry he expects to see Jews moved to jealousy
when they see Gentile believers sharing in the blessings of the
messianic kingdom" (Roberston, p. 211).
(4) Fourth, the concluding paragraph (verses 30-32) reiterates
the fact that the entire chapter is oriented not toward a future
hope but a present expectation. "For just as you once were
disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because
of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient,
in order that because of the mercy shown to you they also may
now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience
that He might show mercy to all." "The threefold 'now'
... of these concluding verses indicates that Paul's emphasis
on the present responsiveness of Israel continues to be his central
concern" (Robertson, p. 212).
Thus, we have four pieces of evidence, distributed pervasively
throughout the entire chapter, from its initial statement in verse
1 to its concluding finale in verse 32, which, taken together
have the cumulative effect of demonstrating that Romans 11 is
not concerned with a predictive prophecy regarding Israel's future
as such but with something entirely different. The reception or
acceptance of Israel mentioned in verse 15, or their ingrafting
(as it is called in verses 17-24), is not a future eschatological
hope but an imminently anticipated consequence of Paul's present
evangelistic efforts among the Gentiles.
Now, of course, it is possible that Paul has both
questions in mind: what is Israel's present status? and what is
her future hope? Whatever else Paul may have had in mind, a prima
facie reading of vv. 25-26 might lead one to think that here
at least Paul makes a prophetic utterance regarding Israel's future.
Premillennialists would want to say that, in fact, these verses
provide us with a clear, literal, apostolic prediction of Israel's
future restoration. "What more could you ask for?" they
ask.
It is on these verses then that we will focus our attention for
the rest of this paper. Let me begin by citing them in the New
American Standard Bible. "For I do not want you, brethren,
to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own
estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until
the fulness of the Gentiles has come in; and thus all Israel will
be saved; just as it is written, 'The Deliverer will come from
Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.'"
The key question that I wish to address is the meaning of "all
Israel" in verse 26. As I have already stated, I contend
that "all Israel" refers not merely to all the elect
of the nation Israel but to all the elect from both the Jews and
the Gentiles. If this thesis is correct, I believe we will have
a better grasp both of the apostle's eschatology and of his hermeneutic.
Most importantly, we will see the radical nature of his Christologically-transformed
definition of Israel. And this in turn will confirm that Paul's
concerns, even in vv. 25-26, are present and theological rather
than future and prophetic.
There are five lines of reasoning supportive of my view that "all
Israel" refers to the church.
It is commonly asserted that the word "Israel" must
have the same force and reference that it has in all eleven occurrences
in Romans 9-11. For example, Cranfield writes, "It is not
feasible to understand Israel in v. 26 in a different sense
from that which it has in v. 25, especially in view of the sustained
contrast between Israel and the Gentiles throughout vv. 11-32.
That pas Israel here does not include Gentiles is virtually
certain." [4] But this is an assertion without proof. Why
can't the same word be used with more than one nuance? Robertson
says, "The fact that the term Israel is used in two different
senses in two consecutive verses … should not be disturbing.
When Paul says in Rom. 9:6 that 'they are not all Israel that
are of Israel,' he undoubtedly is using the term Israel in two
different ways within the scope of a single phrase" (p. 226
n 9).
A prima facie case for my position can be made by simply noting
that we should not be too hasty in assuming that "Israel"
must have the same meaning in v. 26 that it has in v. 25 for the
simple reason that in v. 26 we have "all Israel" whereas
in v. 25 we have "Israel" without modification. A similar
use of "all" to expand the referent of a term originally
limited to ethnic Israel may be found in Romans 4:13 and 16. We
read as follows:
For the promise made to Abraham or his seed
that he would be heir of the world was not [fulfilled] through
law but through the righteousness of faith .... Therefore, it
is by faith, so that it may be by grace, that the promise may
be guaranteed to all the seed - not only to those who are
of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham,
who is the father of us all.
Most commentators agree that "those who are of the law"
refers to Jewish Christians, while "those who are of the
faith of Abraham" refers to Gentile Christians. Thus Paul
is arguing that the promise originally made to Abraham and his
genetic seed was based on the principle of justification by faith
so that the Gentiles could be included as well. When he wants
to refer to the genetic seed of Abraham, he uses the simple "his
seed," but when he wants to expand the reference to include
the true spiritual offspring of Abraham, he uses "all the
seed." If such a technique was employed earlier in Romans,
why not here in chapter eleven?
In fact, this is quite likely, since in v. 32 where "all"
is employed again with an ethnically universal connotation, as
occurs so often in Paul's epistles: "For God has bound all
over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on all."
It should be unnecessary to point out that "all" here
cannot be taken to refer to all men without exception, for this
would spell rank universalism. And indeed, the immediately preceding
verses expound the content of "all" for us: "Just
as you were at one time disobedient to God but have now received
mercy by means of their disobedience, so they too have now become
disobedient for your mercy in order that they too may now receive
mercy" (vv. 30-31). Dunn comments on v. 32 thus: "The
pas ['all'], so insistent a feature of Paul's expression
of the gospel (see particularly 1:5, 16, 18; 2:9-10; 3:9, 19-20,
22-23; 4:11, 16; 5:12, 18; 10:4, 11-13) now provides a fitting
element in the final concluding statement: the 'all' includes
both parties in the preceding verses (you Gentiles, and Israel)."
[5]
Not only v. 32 but an earlier reference to the ethnically universal
sin of man and the equally universal scope of the gospel adds
credibility to taking "all Israel" as inclusive of Jews
and Gentiles: "What shall we conclude then? Are we any better?
Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles
alike are all under sin.... But now apart from law a righteousness
from God is manifested, to which the Law and the Prophets testify,
a righteousness from God that comes through faith in Jesus Christ
to all who believe, for there is no difference [cp. Rom.
10:12], for all have sinned and fall short of the glory
of God" (Rom. 3:9, 21-23). My point is not simply that whenever
we read the word "all" in Romans we must think "both
Jews and Gentiles." Nevertheless, it is true that "all"
regularly carries this connotation in contexts dealing with the
relationship of Jew and Gentile in the gospel. That "all"
probably carries this connotation in Romans 11:26 can be demonstrated
from two considerations: the context addresses the Jew-Gentile
issue, and "all" is unquestionably used with this meaning
a mere six verses later in a verse that clearly serves as a concluding
summary (v. 32).
So far, I have shown that my thesis is plausible at best, but
I have yet to adduce decisive argumentation demonstrating that
it is correct. Consider, therefore, the language of v. 25 as a
whole: "Brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant of this
mystery, lest you be conceited, that a partial hardening has befallen
Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in." Is
it merely incidental that Paul identifies the terminus ad quem
of Israel's partial hardening as the point when "the full
number of the Gentiles has come in"? On the view advocated
by Ridderbos and Robertson, Paul could just as well have said,
"a partial hardening has befallen Israel for the entire interadvental
period, and in this way all Israel will be saved." But it
seems that the very mention of "the fulness of the Gentiles"
indicates that it bears some relevance to the manner in which
"all Israel" is to be saved. Or are we to imagine that
houtos has reference exclusively to the "partial hardening"
(if the hardening is partial, then some are not hardened but believe
and are saved)? If that were the case, why did Paul even bother
to mention that the partial hardening would have a terminus at
all, much less that the terminus would be coincident with the
bringing in of the fulness of the Gentiles? If Robertson's exegesis
is correct, then Paul should have written, "a partial hardening
has befallen Israel, and it is precisely because the hardening
is merely partial that all Israel will be saved." But even
this is surely a backwards way of saying it. Should he not have
written, "not all Israelites have been hardened, but a remnant
remains, and in this way all Israel will be saved"?
But this is surely not Paul's intent. He states two things: (1)
a partial hardening has befallen Israel, and (2) this partial
hardening will exist until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in.
What must be recognized is that these two statements are integrally
related to one another. And what that relationship is is not hard
to discover, for the whole of Romans 11 clearly defines it. For
example, Paul tells us that "by their [viz. the Jews'] transgression,
salvation has come to the Gentiles" (v. 11). The point is
as simple as it is unmistakable: the transgression and disobedience
of the Jews, on account of which they were cut off from the covenant,
is the means by which the Gentiles are being saved. Is not this
also the point of v. 25b? "A partial hardening has befallen
Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in." In
other words, God has sovereignly caused many (though not all)
Israelites to be hardened and thus cut off expressly so that
many Gentiles could be saved, and this hardening and cutting off
will continue for as long as is necessary for the fulness of the
Gentiles to be grafted in. I find it interesting that when Augustine
quotes this verse he often translates achris hou with ut:
"Israel has experienced a hardening in part, that
the fulness of the Gentiles might come in." [6] Calvin agrees:
"Until does not specify the progress or order of time, but
signifies the same thing, as though he had said, 'That
the fulness of the Gentiles [might come in].'" [7]
Paul could not have used more simple and straightforward language.
It is precisely by means of Israel's own partial hardening that
Israel is saved. The intermediate link is that by means of Israel's
partial hardening, the Gentiles are grafted into the covenant
tree in the place of those branches which were cut off. Paradoxically,
it is in this way that the covenant tree (=all Israel) is made
complete. "All Israel" refers not merely to one part
of the covenant tree (elect Jews) but to the whole tree, which
includes all the elect, both Jews and Gentiles. Although God could
have secured the inclusion of the Gentiles apart from the failure
of the Jews, in his mysterious wisdom he has made a way of salvation
for the Gentiles that involves them in the very mechanism of God's
faithfulness to his covenant tree. God has hardened some Jews
in order to save some Gentiles. "And so all Israel will be
saved." [8]
That such is the case is confirmed by the mention of the Gentiles
"entering in" (eiselthein). Entering into what?
The covenant tree, "the commonwealth of Israel" (Eph.
2:12). It serves as a near functional equivalent to the ingrafting
imagery of vv. 17-24. Commentators commonly mention that this
verb is used rarely in Paul (actually one other time, Rom. 5:12),
and, therefore, its meaning is sought by examining its use in
other parts of the New Testament. When this is done, the verdict
reached is that because Jesus frequently used the verb in reference
to "entering the kingdom of God," the same thought should
be understood here. Although this would not produce an inaccurate
meaning theologically, it serves to distract our minds from the
precise point Paul is making in this particular context. Surely,
the ingrafting analogy he has so carefully belabored in the preceding
verses should take priority over Jesus' usage in the establishment
of the precise force of eiselthein here. It is no objection
that this would constitute a change of metaphor (from ingrafting
to entering), for Paul has already demonstrated the flexibility
of the ingrafting analogy in v. 20 where he says, "They were
cut out because of unbelief, but you stand by faith."
Thus Paul's point is that a partial hardening has befallen Israel
for as long a period of time as it takes for the full number of
the Gentiles to be ingrafted in the place of those who are hardened
and cut out of the covenant tree.
Perhaps one might think that the language "in the place of"
is too strong. However, it is interesting that when the hypothetical
Gentile argues (v. 19), "Branches were broken off so that
I might be grafted in," Paul does not answer, "God forbid;
you are not grafted in to replace them but beside them."
Rather he says, "Granted (kalos, v. 20), but don't
forget two things: one, that you stand by faith; and two, the
patriarchal promises support you and not the other way around."
This language makes it clear that the danger of Gentile hubris
that Paul seeks to warn against is not the supposed arrogance
of the Gentiles' believing that by their salvation they take the
place of Israelites who were broken off because of unbelief. Rather,
Paul is concerned that the Gentiles not conclude from this state
of affairs that they can now presume upon divine favoritism toward
them regardless of the presence or absence of living faith (as
the Israelites did), and further that they not forget that their
salvation depends on God's faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant.
So, then, when Paul says that he does not want the Gentiles "to
be ignorant of this mystery, lest you become conceited,"
and then goes on to describe the fulness of Israel's salvation
in terms of the combined Jew and Gentile mission, he means for
them to understand that their salvation is not a new election
in place of the election of the Jews but rather a subordinate
(though necessary) element in the grand redemption of "all
Israel." [9]
A third piece of evidence for my thesis is Paul's use of the term
"mystery" here in this context. Where is the mystery,
it seems legitimate to ask Robertson, in the idea that all elect
Jews will be saved? John Murray makes the same point, albeit in
the service of a different conclusion, when he states, "while
[it is] true that the fact of election with the certainty of its
saving issue is a truth of revelation, it is not in the category
that would require the special kind of revelation intimated in
the words 'this mystery' (vs. 25)." [10] On the other hand,
the revelation that "all Israel" is to be saved by means
of the salvation of the Gentiles, is definitely a revelation fittingly
denominated a mystery.
And this is only what we would expect. Paul frequently describes
the gospel and its manifold implications as "the mystery."
Not least of these implications is the truth of the equality of
Jew and Gentile as "co-heirs" and "co-partakers"
(sugkleronoma ... summetocha) of the gospel:
For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus
for the sake of you Gentiles - Surely you have heard about the
administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, that
is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already
written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand
my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known
to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the
Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that
through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel,
members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise
in Christ Jesus (Eph. 3:1-6 NIV).
It is true that for Paul the mystery involves more than the status
of the Gentiles in the covenant of grace. For example, in Colossians
1:27 Paul defines the mystery as "Christ in you, the hope
of glory." But even there the inclusion of the Gentiles in
the plan of salvation is in view ("this mystery among
the Gentiles, which is Christ in you …"). Still,
it would be reductionistic to narrowly define "the mystery"
in Paul's usage as nothing more than the Gentile mission.
Nor would it be sound exegetical method to read into Romans 11:25
the specific content of "the mystery" in Ephesians 3:6.
On the other hand, when we notice the obvious parallels between
these two passages the likelihood that they both employ "mystery"
in approximately the same sense is increased. In both Paul is
addressing Gentiles. In both he defines his ministry as peculiarly
and uniquely that of "the apostle of the Gentiles" (Rom.
11:13). In both he is specifically dealing with the Jew-Gentile
problem. In both he emphasizes that the Gentiles are on an equal
par with Jews as legitimate heirs of the covenant promises. Since
these texts bear such significant parallels, it would seem reasonable
to assume that the mysteries they each describe are also parallel
in content. Therefore, I conclude that the characterization of
the amazing pronouncement in vv. 25-26 as "this mystery"
adds weight to my contention that "all Israel" includes
both Jewish and Gentile Christians.
The fourth line of reasoning is the context of Romans as a whole.
It would take much more time than is available here to do this
properly, but I believe I can show that one of the over-arching
themes of the epistle to the Romans is to attack a Jewish misunderstanding
prevalent in the first century. This misunderstanding was that
all Israelites (i.e., the circumcised) would be saved, except
perhaps those that had fallen into outright apostasy. A Mishnaic
tractate states: "All Israelites have a share in the world
to come" (Sanhedrin 10:1). It goes on to make the
following exceptions: those who deny the resurrection of the dead,
who reject the Torah, or who are Epicureans (i.e., given over
to immorality and pleasure). Paul's polemic against this arrogant
presumption begins in chapter 2, where he openly attacks the favoritism
implicit in such a view: "There will be tribulation and distress
for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also
of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to every man who does
good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no
partiality with God" (vv. 9-11). Partiality can also
be translated favoritism. The Jews believed (falsely) that
they could live however they pleased in the carnal security that
their circumcision would guarantee salvation at the final day
(as long as they didn't fall into one of the extremes mentioned
in the Mishnah). In essence, the Jews were hoping that God would
give them a break at the day of judgment, that he would show partiality
to them. Of course the Gentiles could expect no such mercy. Thus,
when Paul states that "there will be tribulation and distress
for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and
also of the Greek," he is making an almost unthinkable assertion.
Now part of Paul's refutation of this sadly mistaken assurance
involves a redefinition of the value of circumcision. He
states, at the end of chapter two: "He is not a Jew who is
one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in
the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision
is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter."
In fact, Paul waxes so bold as to ask a most radical question:
"If therefore the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements
of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be reckoned as circumcision?"
(v. 26).
Do you see what Paul is doing here? He is upsetting traditional
Jewish theology by asserting that it is not circumcision or membership
in the community of Israel that determines salvation but law-keeping.
"Not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the
doers of the Law shall be justified" (v. 12). If so, then
it is theoretically possible that many Jews will be condemned
and many Gentiles saved. A new criterion is being introduced to
define those who are the legitimate heirs of the Abrahamic promises.
A new definition of Israel is emerging.
At this point in the argument of Romans, Paul is merely laying
a foundation. He has not yet formally introduced the doctrine
of justification by faith alone on account of Christ alone. Therefore
it would be unwarranted to read into Paul's statements at this
early stage a redefined concept of Israel broad enough to include
Gentiles. But the ground-work is being laid. Thus, it is absolutely
essential that we take note when Paul picks up on this theme again
in chapter nine. Just as in chapter two, Paul attacks the idea
that all circumcised descendants of Abraham are automatically
saved. He does so by enlisting two counterexamples that wreak
havoc upon the traditional Jewish view that "all Israelites
have a share in the world to come." They are Ishmael and
Esau (9:6-13), both of whom were circumcised and yet were rejected
as children of the promise. Just as Paul redefined circumcision
in chapter two by saying, in effect, "Not all who are circumcised
are circumcised," so he redefines Israel in verse six, when
he says, "Not all who are of Israel are Israel." Admittedly,
the immediate context warrants only a division within the
community of Israel: some Jews are elect, others are not. It would
be to go beyond the text to take the dictum of 9:6 as proof of
the idea that Paul is redefining Israel to include anything other
than circumcised Jews.
However, later in the same chapter (9:24-26) we find the first
explicit reference to Gentiles as equal members with Jews as the
people of God. This is evident from two considerations. First,
the argument begins at v. 6 and continues right down to v. 24.
Paul has been affirming the sovereignty of God to choose an Isaac
and to reject an Esau, to make from the same lump of clay various
vessels, some for honor and some for common use. On the face of
it, the discussion of unconditional election, up until v. 24,
has been focused only on an election within Israel. But at v.
24 Paul widens the scope of his discussion to include the Gentiles.
Everything he has just said about the absolutely unconditional
nature of God's sovereign election of certain Israelites unto
eternal life applies with equal validity to "us, whom He
has called, not from among the Jews only, but also from among
the Gentiles" (v. 24).
The second consideration is Paul's citation of Hosea 2:23 and
1:10 in vv. 25-26. In the original context, Hosea says nothing
about Gentiles. The epithet "Not my people" is applied
by Hosea with reference to adulterous Israel who is being threatened
with covenantal divorce on account of her idolatry. Yet Paul applies
the term to the Gentiles. "I will call those who are not
my people, 'My people,' and her who was not beloved, 'Beloved.'
And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, 'You
are not my people,' there they shall be called sons of the living
God." It is undeniably clear that Paul has finally made explicit
an idea that was already implicit back in chapter two. If there
is an election within an election, an Israel within Israel, then
it follows inexorably that the criterion of membership in "God's
people" has little to do with circumcision or ethnic relation
to Abraham. If being an Israelite doesn't necessarily make one
a true Israelite, then one need not be an Israelite
to be a true Israelite. The door has now been opened to allow
for Gentiles to be reckoned as true Israelites.
Recall that in 2:13 Paul tells us what the criterion for being
a true Israelite is: one must be a doer of the law to be counted
as righteous. In the course of his argument, Paul explains how
it is that sinners can be justified (counted as righteous) by
law-keeping: by trusting in Christ, the representative doer of
the law. "For Christ is the telos of the law that
righteousness may be given to all who believe" (10:4), "for
there is no distinction between Jew and Greek" (10:12). It
is no longer circumcision or being a member of the community of
Israel after the flesh that constitutes one a true Israelite,
a righteous man. Now that Christ has come as the final consummation
of all that the law signified and required (i.e., its telos),
the only criterion that defines "Israel" is faith in
Christ. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither circumcised
nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but
Christ is all and in all" (Col. 3:11).
Thus, it seems quite clear that in Romans Paul has been building
a case, one step at a time, gradually leading to a Christological
transformation of the concept "Israel" in such a way
that Gentiles may now be included. Paul intentionally established
the radical distinction between two Israels, two elections, and
two circumcisions for the very purpose of preparing the way for
this climactic conclusion (11:26).
N. T. Wright argues that
Paul actually began the whole section (9.6) with
… a programmatic distinction of two "Israels",
and throughout the letter (e.g. 2.25-9) as well as elsewhere (e.g.
Philippians 3.2-11) he has systematically transferred the privileges
and attributes of "Israel" to the Messiah and his people.
It is therefore greatly preferable to take "all Israel"
in v.26 as a typically Pauline polemical redefinition,
as in Galatians 6.16 … and in line also with Philippians
3.2ff., where the church is described as "the circumcision."
[11]
Therefore, to take "all Israel" as a reference to the
church is not only natural (since the reader has been primed for
it ever since chapter two) but necessary in order to achieve
a satisfying resolution to the issues that have been raised throughout
the course of Paul's extended argument. This interpretation has
the great advantage of unifying the first eleven chapters of Romans
and bringing the whole to a climactic crescendo of redemptive-historical
insight. "And in this manner all Israel shall be saved."
The fifth and final argument for taking "all Israel"
as a Pauline polemical redefinition of Israel is that it provides
a satisfying answer to the burning question: "Has God cast
off His people?" (11:1). According to Robertson and those
amillennialists of his stripe, Paul's answer is, "No, because
elect Jews are being brought to Christ throughout the church age."
But isn't this a rather banal conclusion? If this were in fact
his solution to the apparent failure of God's promises to his
ancient people, why did he have to sweat in an extended theological
work-out for an entire chapter? If that's all there is to it,
why didn't Paul just close the chapter at v. 5? "In the same
way then [as God had reserved 7,000 men who had not bowed the
knee to Baal], there has also come to be at the present time a
remnant according to the election of grace." The reason is
that this doesn't really answer the question, "How is God
going to come through on his irrevocable promises to Israel?"
Now, according to postmillennialists and those amillennialists who take "all Israel" to refer to the last generation of Jews, God finally comes through on his promises by sovereignly converting a vast multitude of Jews at once at the end of the age. But isn't this too a bit of a let-down? Why should such a mass revival of only a small portion of all Jews that have ever lived constitute the ultimate fulfillment of God's irrevocable promises to Israel? Surely the premillennialists have a tremendous advantage at this point, since they do not resolve the problem of God's faithfulness merely by positing Jewish conversions on a large scale. They have an earthly millennial kingdom into which they can load as much fulfillment freight as their hearts desire.
Others have ably demonstrated that the premillennial exegesis
of Revelation 20 is not a viable exegetical option. [12] However,
to those who are postmillennialists or one of the other two breeds
of amillennialist, I make the following appeal:
We have no choice but to presuppose that "the gifts and calling
of God" with respect to Israel "are irrevocable"
(11:29), and that "God has not rejected His people
whom He foreknew" (11:2). We must believe this not only because
of the texts cited but for other pertinent theological considerations
as well (e.g., God's faithfulness to his promises; the immutability
of divine election, etc.). And we must presuppose that this "calling"
and "foreknowledge" of Israel pertains to the relationship
between God and Israel as a covenantal or corporate entity. God
has foreknown Israel, that is, he chose Israel out of all the
nations of the earth to be his peculiar people, a kingdom of priests
and a holy nation (Deut. 7:6-8; Ex. 19:5-6). Clearly, what we
have here is the idea of national election (which is not to be
identified with individual election, as the examples of Ishmael
and Esau prove).
Now, then, the question we must confront head-on (and that Paul
is addressing in Romans 11) is this: how is it that the vast majority
of post-pentecost Jews have rejected Jesus as the Messiah and
are therefore lost? Given this undeniable datum, how are we going
to justify theologically the non-negotiable truth that God's promises
to Israel as a people, a corporate identity, cannot
be broken?
I posit that if we reject the premillennial option, we have no
choice but to affirm (with Paul and the uniform witness of the
New Testament) that the church is the continuation, in fact, the
consummation of God's promises to Israel. Individual branches
may be removed from the covenant olive tree, but the faithfulness
of God guarantees that the olive tree itself will endure, even
if that means that new branches must be found to replace the old.
God's faithfulness to the promises made to the patriarchs finds
expression, not in the salvation of the remnant of elect Jews
merely, much less in a future national conversion, but in the
entrance of Gentiles into the covenant fold, along with the concomitant
jealousy which provokes elect Jews to faith in Christ throughout
the church age. It is in this manner that "all Israel"
will be saved.
What, then, is Paul's theology of Israel's future? In a word,
the church.
What about verses 12 and 15? Don't these two verses clearly support
the hope of an as-yet future revival of the Jewish nation? Contrary
to the apparent import of these verses in English translations,
I believe that they do not. A surface-reading of the text without
consulting the Greek would lead one to believe that Paul has in
view a four step process:
- First, the Jews commit the transgression of rejecting Christ.
- Second, the failure of the Jews leads to the salvation of the Gentiles.
- Third, this makes the Jews jealous, thus causing them to return in faith.
- Fourth, this in turn triggers an even greater revival among
the Gentiles.
Let me draw your attention to two exegetical points which I think
significantly undermine such a construction:
First, this view requires the interpreter to assume, without warrant,
that there is an ellipsis at the end of each verse. Thus, verse
12 would be translated: "Now if their transgression be riches
for the world and their failure be riches for the Gentiles, how
much more will their fulness be riches for the Gentiles."
That last clause is not found in the text, but must be supplied.
But there is no warrant for supplying "riches for the Gentiles"
instead of "riches for Israel herself".
Second, there are two genitive constructions in verse 12 that
are incorrectly translated "riches for the world"
and "riches for the Gentiles." These genitival
phrases should be translated "the wealth of the world"
and "the wealth of the Gentiles." When that is
done, it becomes impossible not to notice that this is a phrase
that occurs frequently in the Septuagint text of Isaiah. In fact,
it occurs in the self-same context of the passage from
which Paul quotes later in v. 26 (Isa. 59:20-60:22). In Isaiah
the genitive is most likely epexegetical: "the wealth which
consists of the Gentiles" (Isa. 60:11; cp. Rev. 21:24-26;
Zech. 14:16-19).
Thus, a better translation of verse 12 would read as follows:
"Now if their transgression is the wealth of the world and
their loss is the wealth of the Gentiles, how much more will their
fulness be?" To paraphrase: "If Israel's failure resulted
in a wealth of Gentiles flowing into the kingdom, how much more
will Israel's fulness be characterized by great wealth?"
It is not until we get to v. 26 that we understand more precisely
Paul's conception of the nature of this great wealth (i.e., the
glory of Christ's church composed of both Jews and Gentiles).
1 O. Palmer Robertson, "Is There a Distinctive
Future for Ethnic Israel in Romans 11?", chapter 16 in Perspectives
on Evangelical Theology, ed. Kenneth S. Kantzer and Stanley
N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), p. 216. Robertson
depends heavily on Herman N. Ridderbos. Ridderbos, "Israel
in het Nieuwe Testament, in het bijzonder volgens Rom. 9-11,"
in Israel (Den Haag: Van Keulen, 1955), pp. 57-64, translated
by R. B. Gaffin, Jr.
2 John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, trans. and ed. John Owen (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprinted 1993), p. 437.
3 James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9-16, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 38B (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), p. 681.
4 C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979), p. 576.
5 Dunn, Romans 9-16, p. 689.
6 Enarrationes in Psalmos, VII.1 (ML 36,97f); IX.1 (ML 36,117); XIX.5 (ML 36,164); LXXIII.13 (ML 36,937)).
7 Calvin, p. 436. Martin Woudstra paraphrases the verse quite well: "As the fulness of the Gentiles is brought in and 'until' this is finished, so, in this manner, 'all Israel' will be saved." Woudstra, "Israel and the Church: A Case for Continuity," in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship between the Old and New Testament, ed. John S. Feinberg (Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1988), p. 236. He also states, "Gentiles now fill up the ranks of all Israel."
8 "During this period of time, the Gentiles
are to come in to the people of God: and that is how God
is saving 'all Israel' ... What Paul is saying is this. God's
method of saving 'all Israel' is to harden ethnic Israel (cp.
9.14ff.), i.e., not to judge her at once, so as to create a period
of time during which the gentile mission could be undertaken,
during the course of which it remains God's will that the
present 'remnant' of believing Jews might be enlarged by the process
of 'jealousy', and consequent faith, described above. This whole
process is God's way of saving his whole people: that is the meaning
of 'and so all Israel shall be saved.'" N. T. Wright, "Christ,
the Law and the People of God: Romans 9-11," in The Climax
of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 249-50.
9 Markus Barth writes, "The indestructible co-inherence
of the salvation of the Jews with the salvation of the newcomers
from the Gentile nations is most strikingly formulated in Rom.
11:25-26: 'A hardening has come upon part of Israel until the
full number of the Gentiles comes in [to Zion], and so the whole
of Israel will be saved.'" The People of God (Sheffield:
JSOT, 1983), p. 33.
10 John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans,
vol. II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), p. 97.
11 Wright, p. 250.
12 Meredith G. Kline, "The First Resurrection," WTJ 37 (1975) 366-75. Cf. also William Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967).
| Used by permission. Lee Irons is a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary in California, a brilliant and consistent protege of Meredith Kline, and the Pastor of Redeemer Orthodox Presbyterian Church of Van Nuys. |