Consider this post an addendum to the series I just completed.

In my last post I explained how in light of the meta-narrative of the scriptures, God’s purpose and plan of Israel was to be the people of God – Jews and Gentiles. Thus I hold to two distinct ways in which the phrase “Israel” is employed throughout Paul’s writings. For example, in Romans 9-11 I believe that Paul has both Israel’s in mind, a nation of Israel which has been hardened (11:25) for the sake of the Gentiles, the second being shorthand for “Israelites” as in, individual Jews (11:1) or as in Jews and Gentiles together (cf. Galatians 6:16). So naturally I understand “in this way all Israel will be saved” (11:26) as being a reference to Jews and Gentiles since the phrase “in this way” points to the phrase directly before it, “Until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in”. But then I come to the verses immediately after verse 26 and 27 and I read this phrase:

“As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.”

The “they” seems to point to the “Israel” of verse 26 who will all be saved, and seems to distinguish them from the Gentiles which – if this reading is correct – would throw an ugly monkey wrench into the hypothesis that “Israel” in vs. 26 is referring to Jews and Gentiles.

So naturally when I read verses 28 and 29 it sounds like it is speaking of a salvific privilege not based on the gospel, but based on election and on the irrevocable calling of God. But what if this reading is slightly off center? Close, but off center. What if verses 28-29 refer back to verse 25 rather than 26? When read together (vss. 25-32) it seems to me that the flow of the passage centers on the “Israel” of verse 25 that has been hardened with the continued question (which Paul is answering throughout Romans 11) being, “will any more Israelites be saved or has the church become a Gentile institute?”[1] If that is true than verse 26 partially answers that question by placing Gentiles within “Israel” (“this is how “Israel” will be saved, when all of the Gentiles have been grafted in”) rather than placing Gentiles into a separate category. This reminds the Gentiles that there is no salvation outside of Israel.

And so if that is the case than vss. 28-32 build on that answer. The “they” is a reference to the nation of Israel, but not in a way that looks back to vs. 26 and imagines an ingathering of the nation at the end times. It is rather a reference to the nation of Israel (vs. 25) – or rather, to all Israelites who hailed from their forefathers as a result of the election of Abraham – that the offer of salvation stands for them too. It is not an offer in the future, but an offer in the present (vs. 31b, “they also may now receive mercy”).

To paraphrase the entire section in my own words the main thrusts from verses 25-32 reads (and here is the paradigm shift I suggest, which makes better sense in my opinion with the whole of Romans):

“Hey you Gentiles don’t be conceited in thinking that from here on out only Gentiles will be saved. Keep in mind that a part of Israel has been hardened for your sake, (to hold off judgment) until the fullness of the Gentiles have been grafted into the vine (with believing Jews). (Keep in mind that together you two make up the Israel of God), and so this is how all Israel will be saved. Remember that when the Gospel came – that is, the Messiah – that they rejected Him (thus resulting in their hardening) and became enemies of God. But don’t forget that God still loves them and will continue to call them to salvation (throughout this present age even now) because of God’s election of their forefathers. Because of their rejection of the Messiah judgment has been postponed allowing time for you Gentiles to be shown mercy. For this same reason – the reason being that they corporately rejected the Messiah – they too, individually as they put aside the law and accept the Messiah in this present age even now, will receive mercy. For God has handed everyone over to the law (that is, that they are all disobedient because all have fallen short of the glory of God), so that He may have mercy on all (who accept the Messiah.)”

If this understanding of Romans 11 is correct than I see no more major objections (within myself) as to who Paul is referring to in Romans 11:26. Not everyone will be convinced by this series, I suspect that if I came at this passage from the other perspective I too would tend to resist this (or any) paradigm shift, and so with respect I simply agree to disagree with them. Some may be convinced; at least enough to entertain this paradigm shift, to tease it out and work out its implications and in time it may be that they may change their mind. In any case, we each grow at a different pace. For my own part, I have been extremely blessed by this study of Romans 11 and am appreciative of Mike Birds series where he brings this subject up, albeit from the other perspective.

When I first began to read the scriptures different from how I was used to, in what I would later discover to be “Covenantal” theology, one of the earliest books to have a major impact on my understanding of “Israel” in the scriptures was by a Jewish Christian named Steve Wohlberg whose book was titled End Time Delusions.[1]

It was there that I learned that “Israel” had two designations throughout the scriptures; a national designation referring to the ethnic-people group and a spiritual designation referring to people who were faithful to God and his covenant of love. Ideally both designations referred to the same group of people, unfortunately we discover early on in their history that this ideal was not to be met. There was the broader national people-group whom God continued to try and draw back to himself so that they would fulfill their mission of first actually being His people and second of being the light to the world. Then there were the remnant, a select group of individuals who remained faithful to God. We might refer to this dynamic as an “Israel within Israel” and although the phrase was not yet in use, it seems clear that the concept was very much present that “not all Israel were Israel”.

Eventually I would dive into the writings of N.T. Wright who brought “filler” to this basic outline of the Biblical narrative. Soon it made no sense to me to speak of the nation of Israel as having a salvific privilege solely based on their national-ethnic identity, not even in terms of their ethnic relation to Abraham.[2] Having this radical shift in how I read the scriptures resulted in many familiar texts taking on fresh meaning and sometimes without having engaged a particular text to any great extent, I would take them for granted as we all do when we read and assume a passage from our bias. Romans 11:26 was one of those texts I came to understand had to refer to all the people of God, because to interpret it as being a reference to the nation of Israel seemed to break with the meta-narrative of scripture. If I am correct in the story I believe the scriptures to be telling – and of course I think I am – than it would be a mistake to think that Paul is making a prophetic statement about a future ingathering of the nation of Israel.

This study I’ve engaged with has caused me to take a closer look at Romans 11:26 with surprising results. I am less dogmatic about the text to some extent, now understanding the force of the arguments in favor of reading it in terms of national Israel. In fact after reading many of the arguments put forth for that perspective I truly did wonder if maybe there was room here to reconsider my position. After all, how could so many – almost all the works I consulted – interpret this passage in terms of Israel the nation and still be wrong? But then when reconsidering the arguments from the other perspective I was taken aback by how strong they were. So strong in fact, that I feel compelled to remain true to my first understanding that Romans 11:26 is a reference to the people of God total, and not to any special ethnic people group. And yet, to recapitulate what I said in conclusion of my last post, there remain some exegetical questions to the contrary, so while believing as I do I also acknowledge that more study needs to be done.

The arguments put forth in favor of interpreting “Israel” in Romans 11:26 as having a national ethnic fulfillment are quite compelling. What possible serious arguments could be mustered to the contrary? As I looked into these other arguments I discovered that there remains good reason to suppose that Paul had “all the people of God” in mind when he wrote Romans 11:26.

Here are what I believe to be the five most compelling reasons to interpret Romans 11:26 as meaning “all the people of God”.

Argument #1: “Until” and “And so” means “Up to” and “In this way”

The phrase “and so” (of verse 26) does not mean, “And then”. It is not a temporal designation. Rather it means, “And in this way”[1] or “and in this manner”. And the word “until” (in verse 25)

“brings matters “up to” a certain point or “until” a certain goal is reached. It does not itself determine the state of affairs after the termination.”[2]

So the passage should be understood as reading thus: “a hardening has come upon part of Israel,[3] until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way[4]all Israel will be saved”. A couple of points need to be observed here:

1. A hardening has happened to “part” of Israel. When read as suggested above nothing in the text suggests that “part” of Israel will be unhardened.[5] Only that a hardening of part of Israel will remain “until” the end when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.[6]
2. In what manner does “in this manner” refer? It refers to the full number of the Gentiles coming in. To paraphrase, “this is how all of Israel will be saved: when the full number of the Gentiles have been grafted into the vine we can speak of “all Israel” being completely saved.”[7]

Argument #2: A program of two Israel’s

It is not true that when Paul speaks of Israel in Romans 9-11 he has in mind specifically the nation of Israel as an ethnic people group consistently as R.C. Sproul and others have suggested.[8] In fact in response an observation made in the last post where I observed, “It seems unfathomable that Paul would change his use of “Israel” without warning in the span of only two verses”, N.T. Wright rebuttles,

“it is impermissible to argue that ‘Israel’ cannot change its referent within the space of two verses, so that ‘Israel’ in v.25 must mean the same as ‘Israel’ in v.26: Paul actually began the whole section (9.6) with just such 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.”[9]

Argument #3: Be cautious with a lone passage

Craig Keener is being generous when he writes that “this is one of the few New Testament passages that [Paul] had occasion to address [the national restoration of Israel].”[10] Paul had strong hopes for the salvation of his kin[11] and it seems to me that given the subject matter of Galatians-Romans, if Paul truly believed that in the end there would be a great ingathering of the nation of Israel, he had many occasions to make that claim. Yet this is the only verse in Paul’s writings where Paul supposedly says as much. Would not a wiser approach be to take everything else Paul has said on the subject of Israel and the Church and then apply it to this passage rather than to suppose that here alone Paul is saying something else, especially since the passage clearly reads that “the way” all Israel is saved is by the full inclusion of the Gentiles being grafted in? (See argument #1 above)

Argument #4: Paul assumes the covenant throughout

While it’s true that Paul only uses the word “covenant” twice in Romans (and amazingly only ten times total in all of his writings), Larry Helyer observes,

“This should not, however, lead to the inference that the idea of a new covenant community is of little or no importance to him. On the contrary, there are numerous indications that Paul’s theology assumes this concept as a fundamental substructure.”[12]

The covenants are so foundational to Paul’s thinking that when he uses terms like “blessing”, “cursing”, “Abraham”, “Seed”, “law”, “faith” and so on, he is explicitly working within a covenantal construct. James Dunn points out the Paul’s use of “covenant” in relation to Israel is not to speak of two covenants – one for Christians and one for the nation of Israel – but to affirm the one covenant given to “Israel” of which believers, “Jew first but also Gentile, [are] being given share in the covenant relationship of God with Israel”.[13]

Argument #5: “All” means “all”, not “most”

Every scholar I consulted who comes from a covenantal perspective and yet interprets Romans 11:26 to be a referent to national ethnic Israel have said that “all” does not mean all, but rather “all” means most.[14] In Romans 9:26 I don’t see any exegetical reason to think that “all” means “most” and good exegetical reason to suppose that “all” means all.

In v.25, rather than saying that “Israel” has been blinded Paul uses the adjective that only “part” of Israel has been blinded. He does this because many Israelites are being saved – using himself as an example – he does not want to give his readers the impression that no Jews are being saved. Now if “most” of Israel will be saved in the end, shouldn’t we suppose that Paul would for the precise same reason specify that “most” of Israel will be saved? I think that you have to conclude either a) that every last Jew living at the end times will be saved or b) “all Israel” is a reference to all the people of God. It does not seem that c) – that “all” means “most” – is an exegetical option for the reason just given.[15]

Now the point is often made to back up the statement that “all” means “most” by citing first century Jewish literature where it was commonly held among the various Jewish sects that “Israel” is typically qualified to not include every single Jew. For example, the Qumran community believed that they were true “Israel” and in the rabbinic tradition someone was not true Israelite if they did not believe in the resurrection from the dead. But this argument actually works to my favor because in Paul we see that a true Israelite is qualified as someone who believed in Jesus the Messiah, i.e. the ecclesia made up of Jews and Gentiles, the “Israel of God”. It follows then that when Paul says that “all Israel will be saved” he has a qualified understanding of “Israel” in mind to mean “those who are in the Messiah”. In this way he thus say “all Israel will be saved” while holding to his conviction that “not all Israel are Israel” (Romans 9:6).

Conclusions: I’m honestly taken back by some of these arguments because they are stronger than I first supposed. Still there are other arguments in favor of the view that “all Israel” means national Israel which are lingering in the back of my mind, and other arguments still in favor of the view that “all Israel” means “all the people of God”. I’m going to have to let this one linger for a while as I weigh the arguments, and not be overly dogmatic about it one way or another, but in the next post I’m just going to conclude with a few thoughts about what I have learned through this study.

The more I look into Romans 11:26 the more I realize that I am like a fish swimming upstream. It is with a great deal of charity that Michael Bird writes, “several scholars try to take Rom 11:26… as referring to the consummated salvation of Jews and Gentiles.” citing only N.T. Wright, who happens to be one of my primary sources.[1] Furthermore, the arguments in favor of the view that Romans 11:26 is a reference to a great ingathering of Israel at the end times are very strong.

The following are five of what I believe to be the more compelling reasons to interpret “Israel” in Romans 11:26 as a reference to the nation.

Argument #1: Isn’t it obvious?

Michael Bird who just concluded a series very similar to this one waves off the view that Romans 11:26 could mean anything other than a reference to national Israel:

“It seems fairly clear from the wider context of Romans 9-11 (Rom 9:4, 6, 27, 31; 10:19, 21; 11:2, 11, 25), that Paul is looking ahead to the eschatological salvation of national Israel in the future.”

So just from reading the passage of Romans 9-11 it seems quite obvious that Paul believes in the national restoration of Israel in the future.

Argument #2: Collective apostasy requires collective recovery

Romans 11:11-12 speaks of Israel’s collective stumbling so that salvation may come to Gentiles. Verse 12 concludes with the statement, “how much more will their full inclusion mean!” It only makes sense that if a collective stumbling is in view then a collective recover of verse 26 must also be in view.[2]

Argument #3: Paul begins to us the word “covenant” in 9-11

James Dunn points out that the word “covenant” is not found anywhere in Romans 1-8, but appears (only twice) in Romans 9-11 in connection with “Israel”, and both times in reference to O.T. prophecies regarding their restoration.[3]

Argument #4: Romans 9-11 consistently uses “Israel” in the national sense

In Romans 11:25 Paul speaks of a hardening that has “in part happened to Israel” (NKJV)[4]. This is an obvious reference to “Israel” the nation. It seems unfathomable that Paul would change his use of “Israel” without warning in the span of only two verses. Furthermore, R. C. Sproul makes the point that when Paul uses the term “Israel” in this portion of Romans, that he consistently had the nation in mind.[5]

Argument #5: The O.T. promises Israel’s restoration

The Old Testament promises the restoration of Israel as a whole (Deut 4:25-31; 30:1-6) at which point God would usher in the age to come (e.g., Hosea 14:1-7; Joel 2:12-3:2). Paul seems to have shared this presupposition[6] and assumes it here in Romans 11:26.

Conclusion: As I consider the weight of some of these arguments I feel their force and understand why someone who otherwise holds to a covenantal approach to the scriptures might still see a future ingathering of the national ethnic people of Israel. It is important to observe that almost none of the scholars I have consulted take “all Israel” to mean “every last individual Israelite”,[7] neither have many of them commented on the mechanism of Israel’s salvation,[8] though they unanimously seem to agree that there is only one covenant, not two.

While these arguments are persuasive, they do not say all there is to say on the question of Israel in Romans 11:26. Some highly esteemed scholars have taken this passage to mean “all the people of God”. Next we’ll look at some of their main arguments before offering my concluding thoughts.

Anti-Semitism has a long and ugly history within Christianity. It is a terrible and repulsive thing to hate any people-group for any reason. It may be an overstatement to say that the Apostolic church fought against anti-Semitic tendencies within its ranks,[1] but it certainly seems clear that a certain amount of tribalism soon developed between the Jews and the Gentiles, especially in Rome.

Before we go on in our study of Romans 11:26, it is important to lay some preliminary ground work:

1. It is crazy – in my opinion – to suggest that God has abandoned Israel, for that would amount to God abandoning the apostle Paul: “I say then, has God cast away His people [Israel]? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite” (Romans 11:1). This is an important point to make because many suppose that Covenantal theology amounts to Replacement theology.[2] We need to be able to affirm with the scriptures that there is now no difference between Jew and Gentile (Galatians 3:28) without supposing that this somehow amounts to a disparity toward the Jewish people.

2. Paul, a Jew, is writing to a predominantly gentile church which had recently received an influx of returning Jewish Christians from exile.[3] Tensions were high. The program for the book of Romans is set in Romans 1:16-17, with particular emphasis on the phrase “for the Jew first and also for the Gentile” and “righteousness of God… from faith to faith”. The question the book of Romans seeks to address (in my opinion) is the question, “how can God be faithful to his covenant promise to Abraham if he has abandoned Abraham’s children, Israel?” In other words, God’s righteousness seems to be on trial, to which the answer Paul points to is that a true Israelite is one who has the faith of Abraham.[4] So right away the program has been set to see two concepts of “Israel”; one of ethnic decent, and one of faith (which, it is imperative to note, may just as well include a Jew as much as a gentile.)

3. One of the striking features I see throughout the New Testament, especially in the gospels, is a judgment and call to repentance of Israel for what has been termed their “meta-sin”: national or ethnic zeal, supposing that by being a descendent of Abraham they were automatically “the people of God”.[5] The result is that Israel looked inward and consequentially they failed in their mission and purpose of existence, which was to be a light to the world.[6] (In many ways this problem persisted within the early Church.[7])

To summarize: on the right is the erroneous idea that “Israel” has been replaced by the “Church”. To the left is the erroneous idea that “Israel” holds a place of distinct privilege apart from gentiles, a privilege that is based on their nationalistic ethnocentric standing. And in the center stands Paul, wrestling – especially throughout Romans and Galatians – to counteract the lopsidedness of each. To suggest that “all Israel” in Romans 11:26 is a reference to all the people of God, Jew and gentile alike, no more hints at a hatred toward Jews as it would a hatred toward gentiles. The ground is even at the foot of the cross (which also happens to be the only way to a resurrected body).

To speak anachronistically, on the right is supersessionism, on the left is some form of dispensationalism. In the center is Paul’s covenant theology.

Next I’ll offer the exegetical arguments put forth in favour of interpreting “Israel” in Romans 11:26 as being a reference to the national ethnic people-group, after which I’ll look at the counter-arguments and then offer some concluding thoughts.

Christians have long debated the nature of “Israel” in Biblical and historical theology. Those who interpret the scriptures through the lens of the covenants often take “Israel” to denote the spiritual people of God[1] whereas those who interpret the scriptures through the lens of dispensations often take “Israel” to mean the physical descendents of Abraham making up a national, ethnic people-group.[2]

Amidst the debate sooner or later Romans 11:26 is brought up and many covenantalists who insist on maintaining no distinction between “Israel” and “the church” everywhere else, will abandon this basic covenantal tenant by affirming a core dispensational belief that in the end “all Israel [i.e. national, ethnic Israel] will be saved”. Three examples should suffice.

Geerhardus Vos, who near as I can tell is a Covenantal Premillennialist,[3] writes,

“[a study of Romans 11:11-12] leave[s] no doubt that the general, national apostasy of Israel is referred to, and consequently the recovery from this must bear the same collective interpretation [for Romans 11:26].”[4]

Amillennialist Kim Riddlebarger writes,

“Once the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, God will bring the vast majority of ethnic Jews to faith in Christ. And this is the harbinger of the end of the age.”[5]

And finally Keith Mathison, a Postmillennialist, writes:

“By bringing salvation to the Gentiles, God will stir the hearts of Israel and they will one day recognize their Messiah.”[6]

These three examples, each from one of the three branches of Covenantal Theology, should suffice to make my point. That these theologians who insist on one people of God – contra Dispensationalism – turn from a covenantal reading of scripture at its very core in their interpretation of Romans 11:26. The whole covenantal narrative of scripture and the redemptive story depends upon the philosophical interpretation of “Israel” as being a reference to the spiritual people of God and of there only being one people, not two. While two “Israel’s” are conceived of in the New Testament,[7] the point of the distinction is to emphasize that God shows no ethnocentric favoritism. The covenantal meta-narrative depends on this distinction, and here’s why.

The story of the scriptures, of Creation-Fall-Redemption, is a story of a God who has chosen to make things right through covenants. He has chosen Abraham and established an unconditional covenant with him (Gen 15) in which God in essence says, “if what I promise does not come to pass, may what happened to these slaughtered animals happen to me”. But only two chapters’ later (Gen 17) conditions[8] are added to the covenant so that while God will unconditionally keep his promise to Abraham and his descendents the question becomes, who are Abrahams descendents? And as Paul would later put it, “not all Israel are Israel” (Rom 9); because Abraham’s descendents prove to be unfaithful and end up exiled from the presence of God (cf. Adam’s exile from the garden). What is God to do? He must find a “true Israelite indeed” whom he can keep his unconditional promise with. This is the principle of representation:[9] enters the Messiah. The Messiah is the true Israelite whose mission embodies the role of Israel[10] so that through his faithfulness God fulfills his part of the covenant.[11] The question again becomes, who is “in” Israel or who are the children of Abraham? The answer is: those who are of faith and are in the Messiah. (Michael Bird has recently summarized this narrative superbly in part 3 of his recent series “Church and Israel”; unfortunately, in part 2 of the series he concludes with this statement: “[Paul] still looks forward to the salvation of national Israel in the eschatological future (Rom 11:26).” How he reconciles his interpretation of this verse with the meta-narrative he outlines – which is in agreement with N.T. Wright in “Climax of the Covenant” – I do not know.)

So then to come to Romans 11:26 and all of a sudden suppose that Paul retracts everything else he has said about Israel not only throughout Romans but also in Galatians, Thessalonians and elsewhere, and suddenly begins to speak – and apparently only here and nowhere else – of a privileged people as a result of their special ethnic standing, despite the narrative the Apostle just outlined throughout the rest of Romans leading up to (perhaps climaxing with) Romans 11:26, seems irretrievably inconsistent to me.

So for the next few posts we’ll explore Romans 11:26 by presenting the exegetical arguments put forth for interpreting “Israel” in terms of an unprecedented ingathering of the national, ethnic people-group at the end times. We’ll then offer the exegetical counter-arguments put forth for interpreting “Israel” in terms of all the people of God, both Jews and Gentiles. Then I’ll offer some concluding remarks.