25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;
26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
“ The Deliverer will come from Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”
27 “ This is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”
27 “ This is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”
28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;
29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience,
31 so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy.
32 For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.
The primary difficulty in this passage which divides Evangelical interpreters is to discern the meaning of v. 26: "and so all Israel will be saved." In this post I'm going to briefly sketch out four possible Evangelical interpretations of this phrase.
Interpretation #1: "All Israel" = Israel as a National Entity
The view that God will one day restore the nation of Israel to her former glory, including the restoration of the land of Palestine, the rebuilding of the physical Temple in Jerusalem and the reinstitution of commemorative animal sacrifice during the Millennial Kingdom, is the interpretation that has been embraced by Dispensationists and the majority of messianic Jewish congregations. It has probably been the most popular eschatological position among North American Evangelicals since the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy in the 1920s when Fundamentalists embraced en masse a very pessimistic premillenial eschatology in opposition to the Liberals who adpated postmillenial optimism to the social gospel. The rapid growth of Dispensational Premillenialism in the past century, in my opinion, was a knee jerk reaction to Liberal Protestantism. At the heart of the Dispensationalist system of theology is the distinction between Israel and the Church into two entities. Jesus' offer of the Kingdom to the Jewish nation was rejected by Jews living in first century Palestine (Plan A) and so He turned to the Gentiles by establishing the New Testament Church (Plan B). For Dispensationalists, the Church, which includes both Jews and Gentiles is a 'parenthesis' in God's redemptive plan. For the present 'dispensation', Jews are saved, added to the Church (which is a mixture of Jews and Gentiles), and will be taken up in the so called 'secret rapture', but once the Church is raptured God will resume Plan A with the Jewish nation here on earth. Dispensationalist interpreters see Paul's teaching about the salvation of 'all Israel' in Rom 11 as further evidence of a Jewish Millenium where God will fulfill all of his promises to ethnic Jews in a very physical, literalistic way. Dispensationalism commits the same error as the apostles did in Acts 1:6 when they interpreted the Kingdom of God almost exclusively with respect to the Jewish nation.
Interpretation #2: "All Israel" = Spiritual Israel (Church)
Much support can be garnered for this view, popular among Amillenialists and some Historic Premillenialists which sees Paul's reference to Israel in v. 26 as a reference to the New Testament Church. In other words, this view interprets Paul as saying that all of God's elect people, whether Jew or Gentile, will be saved and gathered into the Church before the conclusion of the present age - it is a reference to the "Israel of God" spoken of by Paul in the closing verses of Galatians.
The support for this view comes from the way Paul and the apostles speak about the Church throughout the New Testament. For example, Peter calls his Gentile audience a "spiritual house" and a "holy priesthood" in 1 Peter 2:4-5. The author to the Hebrews applies the promise of the New Covenant (cf. Jer 31) to the Gentile Church (Heb 8). Paul calls the Gentile believers in Gal 3:29 "Abraham's offspring" and "heirs according to the promise." Paul and the other NT authors also frequently apply OT texts given in their original context to national Israel to Gentile followers of Jesus (cf. 2 Cor 6:14-18). So, there is clear and irrefutable Biblical evidence to suggest that the Church is indeed Spiritual Israel. This is not an anti-semetic way to intepret the NT as is sometimes alleged by Dispensationalists, nor is it 'replacement theology' (a curse word frequently used to slander and malign the reputation of Reformed theologians) - it is good, sound Biblical theology. If Reformed theologians are guilty of 'spiritualizing' the OT references to Israel, then the same accusation must be leveled against Paul and the apostles. A fair assessment of the NT Scripture must acknowlege that Paul uses the term 'Israel' in different senses depending on the context. Sometimes, Paul is speaking about the Jewish nation (ethnic Jews), sometimes he is speaking about the believing remnant within ethnic Israel and sometimes he is 'spiritualizing' the term in order to speak about the New Testament Church (Gentiles and Jews together). In other words, Paul is not enslaved in his hermeneutics to the grammatical-historcial meaning of the text at all points - he is open to the sensus plenior (the fuller meaning) and so should we be today in our interpretation of Scripture!
In spite of my sympathy for this position, I cannot believe that Paul is speaking about Spiritual Israel here in Rom 11. The very fact that he is consistently using the term 'Israel' in the immediate context (chapters 9-10) to refer to his Jewish 'kinsmen according to the flesh', it is almost inconceivable to conclude that he suddenly switches the meaning of this term in 11:26 to refer to the Church without giving any clear indication to his audience. I am convinced that Paul is indeed referring to ethnic Jews in this particular passage.
Interpretation #3: "All Israel" = Believing Remnant within National/ Ethnic Israel
This interpretation has much contextual support to commend it, and I am extremely sympathetic to those Evangelical expositors who hold this position. I am actually torn between this position and the next one which I currently think is the better interpretation.
This view is a good exegetical option which takes into account an extremely important distinction made by Paul in Rom 9:6 - "For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel." Unfortunately this distinction between Israel as a nation and the elect members of the nation who were justified by faith alone in the Messiah to come, is all too frequently lost on Dispensationalist interpreters. God has always had an elect people which was not equivalent to the nation of Israel as a whole - the Israel within Israel! To fail to make such a distinction, and to teach that Jewish people were saved by following the Mosaic Law and sacrificing animals as a rote religious ritual of a former dispensation of law, is to totally misunderstand the role of Israel in God's Redemptive plan. God elected the Jewish nation for a purpose - to bring forth Messiah as a blessing to the families of the earth! The purpose of Israel's election as a nation has been fulfilled in the flow of Redemptive history when Jesus was born, lived a perfect life and died a substitutionary death in accordance with the OT Prophecies concerning Messiah (cf.Is 52-53). Many Israelites who sacrificed animals and took the sign of circumcision will be in hell for all of eternity right alongside the many professing Christians who go to church every week and have been baptized. Simply going through a religious exercise, be it Jewish, Christian or otherwise never saved anyone and never will: "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." (Heb 10:3). So the Dispensationalist teaching about a restored Millennial Temple in which animal sacrifice will be restored is at best a serious misunderstanding of the flow of Redemptive History, and at worst a blasphemous heresy which denies and tramples upon the once for all character of Christ's redemptive work on the cross and mistakes the 'shadows' and 'types' of the Old Coveenant for the reality in the New Covenant.
Nevertheless, I'm not confident that this is what Paul is talking about here in Rom 11, although I may be easily persuaded. If Paul is talking here about all of the elect Jewish people coming to faith during the entire present age I see two problems. First of all, the word translated "until" in v. 25 seems to imply chronology. That is to say, I think the salvation of "all Israel" here is probably a reference to a future salvation of a large number of Jews, even though Paul himself uses his own conversion as evidence that God is not finished with the Jewish people yet in 11:1-2. Paul's conversion seems to me, to be a harbinger of a much larger revival among ethnic Jews which will occur at some point in the future - probably right before the return of the Lord. The second problem with this view has to do with the doxology at the end of chapter 11. To state that all of the elect Jews throughout redemptive history will come to faith before the end of the age, is to state a truism. Of course the elect Jews will come to faith!!! And so it is difficult to see why this would issue in such a glorious doxology from the Apostle at the end of the chapter. It seems to me that something more is going on here.....
Interpretation #4: "All Israel" = Large Number of Ethnic Jews who will be Converted and Added to the Church in the Future
The subtitle pretty much says it all, and this is the view which I currently think is the best understanding of Rom 11. The conclusion that Paul is speaking of ethnic Jews is difficult to avoid if we are allowing this text to speak for itself. For Paul to switch suddenly from a discussion of Ethnic Jews in the previous two chapters to a discussion of Spiritual Israel in 11:26, is not a natural way to understand the text. It also seems fairly difficult to avoid the conclusion that Paul is speaking here about something that will happen in the future. According to this text, the salvation of the Jews will not occur "until" (a key word!!) the "fullness of the Gentiles has come in." Without jumping through fancy exegetical hoops to make the text mean what it does not appear to say - I think it is fair to say that Paul is speaking of a future event that has not yet occurred but will occur shortly before the return of Christ - perhaps even simultaneously with his return!
And so, I agree with Dispensationalists insofar as Paul is talking about a future conversion of Ethnic Jews, but I disagree with them that this conversion has anything to do with national blessings or the fulfillement of Old Covenant land promises. I expect that many Jews will be converted when Christ returns and that this will be one of the signs that precede His second coming. I certainly don't think every single individual will be saved as some contend ('all' does not always mean every single individual in the NT!!)
On a side note, my views on the Seventieth Week of Daniel and on the future conversion of ethnic Jews alleviate two major problems with Historic Premillenialism (The eschatological position to which I currently subscribe). First of all, the denial of a seven year tribulation in the future allows me to affirm the possibility that Christ could return at any moment. For post-trib Historic Premillenialists like Doug Moo who take a futurist interpretation of Daniel 9, the return of Christ must be at least 7 years away! Secondly, the conversion of the Jews before the return of Christ gives an plausible explanation to the difficult problem of the origin of evil in the Millennium. I think that the Jewish people will be saved when they see Christ coming at his glorious return to earth. The Church is raptured at that point and the enemies of Christ are destroyed, but these converted Jews live on into the Millenium and some of their children and grandchildren eventually rebel against the Lord as we read in Rev 20. To be sure, there are other significant theological problems with a Premillenial view, but until I become convinced that Rev 20 does not follow Rev 19 chronologically, I must remain a Historic Premillenialist who is extremely sympathetic to Amillenialism!
No comments:
Post a Comment