Original Meaning
“All Israel Will Be Saved” (11:25–27)
THOUGH NOT TRANSLATED in the NIV, verse 25 begins with gar, “for,” which links this new paragraph with verse 24: Paul is hopeful that Israel will be grafted back into the olive tree again, because a mystery has been revealed to him. But since verse 24 itself restates a key idea in verses 11–24, verses 25–32 ultimately connect to all of the previous section.
Mystery (Gk. mysterion) is a technical term in Paul’s vocabulary (see also Rom. 16:25; 1 Cor. 2:1, 7; 4:1; 15:51; Eph. 1:9; 3:3, 4, 9; 6:19; Col. 1:26, 27; 2:2; 4:3; 1 Tim. 3:9, 16). It refers to a truth that has been “hidden” from God’s people in the past but has now been disclosed in the gospel.1 What is the mystery disclosed to Paul here? He unfolds it in three clauses:
Israel has experienced a hardening in part
until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.
And so all Israel will be saved.
Scholars debate about which part of this sequence is the focal point of the mystery. Israel’s hardening? The partial and temporary nature of Israel’s hardening?2 The salvation of all Israel?3 Each of these is part of the picture, of course. But what stands out at the real emphasis in these clauses is the manner, or sequence, in which God consummates his plan to save his people.4 The Old Testament predicted that Gentiles would join Jews in worshiping the Lord in the last days. But wholly novel was the idea that the bulk of Israel would have to wait to enjoy the blessings of the kingdom until the set number of Gentiles had come in.
Paul has described Israel’s “hardening” (porosis) earlier (11:7; cf. 9:18). As the existence of a remnant has already implied, this hardening is only “in part”; that is, it affects only part of Israel. But not only is the hardening partial, it is also temporary. It lasts, Paul implies, only “until the full number of Gentiles has come in.” The object we must supply for “come in” is clearly the “kingdom” or some such concept (see Matt. 7:13; Luke 13:24; 23:13). “Full number” (pleroma), as most commentators recognize, has a numerical reference (see comments on 11:12). In other words, God has determined the number of Gentiles to be saved. Once that number is reached, Israel’s hardening comes to an end (see Luke 21:23–24 for a partial parallel).
The first clause of verse 26 is the storm center in the interpretation of Romans 9–11 and of the New Testament teaching about Israel in general. Four exegetical issues need to be decided.
(1) What does the transitional phrase kai houtōs at the beginning of the verse mean? The NIV translates “and so,” suggesting the idea of consequence or conclusion.5 Others think the word may link up with the Old Testament quotation at the end of the verse: “It is in this way that all Israel will be saved, namely, just as it is written….”6 Some interpreters and many casual readers of Romans take the phrase as temporal: “and then all Israel will be saved.”7 But the normal nuance of houtōs is to express manner, and this works well here: “and in this manner all Israel will be saved.”8 Nevertheless, the temporal idea comes sneaking in the back door, for the manner in which all Israel is saved involves a process that unfolds in temporal stages.
(2) What does Paul mean by “all Israel”? The heat of the debate over this verse has resulted in many options, but three stand out as worthy of consideration. (a) An interpretation popular among many of the Reformers and revived by several scholars recently is to take “all Israel” as referring to the entire church. As we have argued, there is precedent in Paul for using “Israel” to refer to the church (Gal. 6:16; see comments on 9:6), and the addition of “all” may suggest that Paul is now speaking not of national Israel or a part of Israel but of “the whole” of spiritual Israel.9 It is through the removal of the hardening on Israel and the coming in of Gentiles that all the elect of God, the entire Israel, will be saved.
This option is attractive in many ways, but it founders on two points. First, Paul has used “Israel” ten times in Romans 9–11 so far, each one referring to ethnic Israel. There is no hint here of a shift to a religious category. Moreover, Paul’s purpose throughout this section is to stifle Gentile pride. For him suddenly to include Gentiles in “Israel” would fuel their pride by encouraging them to assume that they have “replaced” Israel.
(b) Another possibility is that “all Israel” refers to “spiritual” Israel, the elect Jews from within national Israel. Some interpreters who understand the phrase this way argue that Paul is referring to the way that all the elect Jews will come to salvation over the course of salvation history. There is precedent for this meaning of “Israel” in Romans 9–11, since 9:6 speaks of the “Israel within Israel.”10 But this is not the way Paul has used the word in the immediate context, and it is something of a truism to say that the elect will be saved.
(c) Therefore, in agreement with most commentators, we think “all Israel” refers to the totality of national Israel. This does not mean that every single Jew will be saved. The phrase “all Israel” occurs over a hundred times in the Old Testament, with a range of meanings. But often it refers to some Israelites as a representative whole. Note, for instance, 2 Samuel 16:22: “So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof, and he lay with his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.”11 Furthermore, the phrase almost always refers to Israelites living at a certain point in time rather than to Israelites in every generation of the nation’s history.
(3) The third exegetical issue has already been decided by our conclusions about “all Israel.” If the reference is to a single generation of Israel, Paul can hardly mean anything but the Israel as it exists in the end times. This conclusion is borne out by 11:15, where, we argued, Paul connects Israel’s “acceptance” by God to the resurrection of the dead. The Old Testament quotation that follows in the present passage (11:26b–27) points in the same direction, for “the deliverer” is almost certainly Christ, and his coming refers to his second coming in glory.
We conclude, then, that Paul here predicts the salvation of a significant number of Jews at the time of Christ’s return in glory. The present “remnant” of Israel will be expanded to include a much larger number of Jews who will enter the eternal kingdom along with converted Gentiles.
(4) The last exegetical issue is the means of Israel’s salvation. We need to raise the matter because some recent interpreters have suggested that Paul attributes this future salvation of Israel not to faith in Christ but to fidelity to the Torah. Paul says nothing here about Christ, so they argue. Israel is saved, Paul hints in verse 28, through the covenant God established with Israel. If this is so, then Paul ultimately teaches two ways of salvation: through the “Christ covenant” for Gentiles and through the “Torah covenant” for Jews.12
We have mentioned this approach earlier in the commentary (see Contemporary Significance section on 9:1–5) and will say more about it in the Contemporary Significance section that follows. Here we note that Paul gives no indication whatsoever that he has revoked the understanding of salvation clearly enunciated in 10:13: “Everyone [in the context both Jew and Gentile] who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Paul backs up his prediction of a significant turning to Christ for salvation among Jews in the last day by citing Isaiah 59:20–21 along with a phrase from Isaiah 27:9 (Rom. 11:26b–27). As we already suggested, Paul most likely identifies “the deliverer” in this text with Christ (see the parallel in 1 Thess. 1:10). When Christ comes back, he will “turn godlessness away from Jacob” and confirm his covenantal promises to Israel by taking away their sins.
For those who have checked Paul’s quotation against the original text of Isaiah (as I hope my pleas earlier in this commentary have encouraged many to do!), one striking difference is immediately apparent. Isaiah predicts that the deliverer will come “to” Zion, while Paul quotes the text as saying that the deliverer will come “from” Zion. Numerous explanations for Paul’s change of wording have surfaced over the years, but none is really convincing. Perhaps best is the suggestion that Paul alludes to the tradition of the risen Christ resident in “heavenly Zion” (see Heb. 12:22). His change therefore draws attention to the Parousia of Christ.13
Bridging Contexts
THE DELIVERER FROM ZION. Paul’s use of the Old Testament to buttress his interpretation of salvation history is a matter of controversy again in this text. He quotes selectively from two different passages in Isaiah and makes a significant change to one of them. We should be particularly interested in such differences between the Old Testament text and the form in which it is quoted in the New. These differences can sometimes furnish an important clue to the New Testament author’s exact purpose. A side-by-side comparison will give us a good basis to analyze the situation and see what we can learn from it:
Isaiah 59:20–21 | Romans 11:26b–27 |
“The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins,” declares the LORD. | The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. |
“As for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the LORD. “My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever,” says the LORD. | And this is my covenant with them |
Isaiah 27:9 | when I take away their sins. |
By this, then, will Jacob’s guilt be atoned for, and this will be the full fruitage of the removal of his sin [LXX: when I take away his sin]: When he makes all the altar stones to be like chalk stones crushed to pieces, no Asherah poles or incense altars will be left standing. |
We first note that Paul here, as he usually does, is probably dependent on the LXX for his wording. This is particularly clear in the reference to Isaiah 27:9, since Paul’s wording is almost identical to the LXX, which in turn differs from the Hebrew text. Paul’s only change is the substitution of “their” for “his” in order to match the third person plural “them” in the previous line. The reader of the English text will often not be aware of these textual issues in the background. But many of the differences between the wording of the Old Testament text and its citation in the New Testament can be accounted for by these different text forms.
But by no means are all the differences a matter of text. Paul and the other New Testament authors also adapt the wording of the text to suit their application. Most of these changes are minor and do not affect the sense in any significant way. A good example is the change just noted of the third person singular “his” of Isaiah 27:9 to the third person plural “their.” But other changes carry more significance. Note, for instance, that in the second line of the quotation Paul changes the focus from Israel’s repentance to God’s forgiveness. This change obviously suits his emphasis on God’s sovereignty in bringing salvation history to its climax.
But the most striking change, as noted in the Original Meaning section, is the “from Zion” wording in Paul. The Hebrew text here uses the preposition le, probably in a local sense: “The deliverer will come to Zion.” The LXX translates with heneken, “on behalf of.” But neither of these readings explains how Paul can quote the text as saying that the deliverer will come “from” (ek) Zion.
Some scholars speculate that Paul may be quoting from a Greek text we no longer have.21 This is always possible, since we know there were texts of the Old Testament in the first century that have not survived to our day. Another possibility is that Paul has assimilated the wording of this text to others in the Old Testament that claim Israel’s deliverance will come “from Zion” (e.g., Ps. 14:7; 53:6; 110:2; Isa. 2:3).22 Since Paul has already stitched together language from two different places in Isaiah, we must consider this a real possibility.
But the question still remains: Why has Paul introduced language from these other texts into Isaiah 59:20? Scholars speculate that he may have wanted to emphasize to conceited Gentile Christians (see Rom. 11:25) that the Redeemer will come from the Jewish people (see 9:5).23 Or perhaps he is claiming that the final salvation of Israel will come by means of the return of Christ from heaven at his Parousia.24 This latter interpretation makes the best sense. The New Testament suggests that “Zion” can refer to the “heavenly Jerusalem” (Heb. 12:22; note also “the Jerusalem that is above” in Gal. 4:26). Paul does not deny what Isaiah predicts: The deliverer is indeed coming “to” Zion, that is, to the Jewish people. But he wants to expand the idea by emphasizing that Israel’s final redemption comes from heaven, not from earth.
Such an emphasis was needed because so many Jews in Paul’s day were looking to political movements or military force as the means of their deliverance from Gentile oppression. The kingdom of God would be established, they thought, through violence (see Matt. 11:12). But Paul, in light of God’s revelation of the “mystery” of salvation history in Christ, now understands that Israel’s redemption will come through the intervention of Christ himself when he returns in glory. If this is correct, Paul adds the phrase “from Zion” in order to stress that it is God’s intervention from heaven at the end of history that brings final salvation to his people Israel.
Contemporary Significance
ISRAEL AND ESCHATOLOGY. What does the Bible teach about the future of Israel? How should that teaching affect our view of the present-day nation of Israel? Our text obviously has something to say about these matters. It is precisely for this reason that there has been so much debate about the passage. Evangelical Christians are divided over eschatology, and the future of Israel is one of the key sticking points.
The Reformed tradition in theology, with its roots in the teaching of Calvin, Zwingli, and Bucer, has generally emphasized the idea of a single covenant in Scripture, spanning Old and New Testaments. There has always been only one way of salvation (faith in God) and one people of God. That means that Old Testament prophecies about “Israel” must find their fulfillment in the church, for the church is the name of the people of God in the New Testament era. That in turn means that there is little or no room for any real future for Israel as a nation or ethnic group. All people are now on the same footing; Jews as well as Gentiles can be saved, and on the same basis. Any national privileges for Israel have been revoked.
Contemporary theologians who work within this tradition usually interpret Romans 11:11–32 in terms of a continuing historical process. God hardens part of Israel so that Gentiles stream into the kingdom; and the Gentiles stimulate Jews to envy, causing some of them to embrace Christ. This process continues right up until the last day, whereupon “all Israel [has been] saved”—that is, all the Jews elect by God will have been brought to salvation. Christ will then return and the era of salvation will be ended. No special future for Israel is envisaged.
Challenging this reading of Israel in the Bible were, interestingly, a number of Puritan thinkers, who insisted that there would be a future for national Israel. But particularly well known for advocating a future for Israel is dispensationalism. This movement arose in the nineteenth century and became popular in evangelical circles through the Scofield Reference Bible, prophecy conferences, and the influence of Dallas Theological Seminary. A hallmark of dispensationalism (some would say the hallmark) is a distinction between Israel and the church. The people of God in this era form the church, and, of course, Jews can join, becoming part of the church. But the church has not replaced Israel in God’s plan. He still has a distinctive future for Israel as an ethnic group. The Old Testament prophecies about Israel must be fulfilled in Israel, and Romans 11 teaches that God has a plan for Israel in distinction from the church.
The theological climate of the last few decades has made for some strange bedfellows. The emphasis on a future for the nation of Israel, a view that might be considered typical of conservative evangelicals, is now embraced by a wide spectrum of liberal theologians as well. The horror of the Holocaust has awakened many Christian thinkers to what they consider “anti-Semitic” thinking in the church; as a reaction, a concerted effort is being made to grant Israel a continuing role in God’s salvation plan. Quite apart from these influences, it is fair to say that the vast majority of interpreters of Romans, from every conceivable theological perspective, now agree that Paul predicts a future salvation of Israel in chapter 11. Exactly how and when it will happen and what other events this salvation may entail continue to be debated. But let me sketch the situation as I see it and draw some conclusions.
My colleague Paul Feinberg claims that I am a dispensationalist because I maintain a future for ethnic Israel. I am flattered that he wants to include me, but I am not so sure I deserve the honor. For while I believe that Romans 11 does teach that a significant number of Jews will come to salvation in the last day, I do not draw the inferences that many dispensationalists do. I think the conversion of these Jews will take place as they believe the gospel, not through some kind of “special way,” or Sonderweg (as German theologians call it). I think that those Jews who are converted will, like any other believers, become integrated into the church—although perhaps a church on its way to heaven, if the conversion happens at the time of Jesus’ Parousia.
Nor do I think that Romans 11 entails any kind of geographic or political future for Israel. What Paul predicts in this chapter is a spiritual revivification of the Jewish people. He says nothing here, or anywhere else in his teaching, about the return of Israel to Palestine or about its political reconstitution. Any belief that God has promised Israel a political presence in the end times must come from other passages in Scripture. The key will be our hermeneutics of Old Testament prophetic interpretation: Can those prophecies be fulfilled “spiritually” in the church, or must they find a literal fulfillment in a reconstituted Israelite nation?
However we answer this specific question, we can draw a couple of practical conclusions from the theology of Israel in Romans 11. As we have already made clear, Paul’s overriding concern is to stifle undue Gentile pride. In our day, as in Paul’s, the church is largely a Gentile institution. Our natural tendency to prefer people like us and to think ourselves superior to people different from us is exacerbated by a “replacement” theology that often teaches that Gentiles have now taken the place of Jews in God’s plan (see Contemporary Significance section of 11:11–24). A deprecatory and even hostile attitude toward Jewish Christians and Jews alike is the result.
Anti-Semitism is a powerful force in society. As I write this section, I am horrified by the news that a white supremacist walked into a Jewish day-care center and shot both adults and children. There is no room for any such hostility in the church, where Jew and Gentile have been reconciled together in Christ. We must welcome Jewish Christians into our worship and, indeed, honor them as representatives of that “root” from which we all are spiritually nourished (11:17–18). But a respect for Jewish people does not entail undue deference to Israel as a nation.
I taught for some years with a colleague who was Arab in background. He could never understand why American evangelicals consistently took the side of Israel in every Middle East dispute. The Arab side was never considered; Israel, whatever it did, was always in the right. Even if we believe that God has promised to give Israel their land again and make them a nation, we have no right to accord Israel such blind allegiance. For one thing, we have no way of knowing if the present Israel is the Israel in which God will fulfill his promises. More important, God calls us to love all people and to treat all people with respect. We have no right to overlook injustice when it occurs, whether in Israel or anywhere else. Moreover, we certainly have no right to ignore the legitimate rights and aspirations of the Arab people.
A “special way” for Israel and universalism. Our text brings together two tenets that we have already touched on in this commentary: salvation for Israel apart from Christ, and the belief that all people will be saved. Both, as we have noted, are views amenable to our culture. The Holocaust has created an environment in which people are sensitive to any hint of anti-Semitism. Many think it is anti-Semitic to insist that Christ is the only means of salvation. In addition, our pluralistic culture tends to break down the distinctions between the world’s religions, fostering the idea that any religion can be a means of salvation. What does Romans 11:25–32 say to these issues?
Some interpreters insist that 11:26 stands as a watershed in New Testament soteriology. Other authors (Matthew, John) and even the early Paul (see 1 Thess. 2:16) take a hostile view toward Israel. But now, through the revelation of a mystery, Paul comes to understand that Israel will be saved—apart from Christ. Israel has a “special way” (German Sonderweg) to salvation, based on God’s unbreakable covenant with Israel as a people. As we argued above, this view cannot be supported in the text. Paul has spent most of Romans describing his gospel, through which salvation is offered to both Jew and Gentile (e.g., 1:16; 10:10–13). But the heart of that gospel is Christ (1:3–4), and especially his death on the cross for all human beings (3:21–26). No one can be saved apart from the good news and apart from faith in Christ.25
Indeed, as a number of interpreters have pointed out, the Sonderweg approach is itself anti-Semitic. It effectively denies that the good news needs to be preached to Jews. Jews are then singled out from among all people as the only ones not given the opportunity to hear and respond to the offer of salvation in Christ.26 Moreover, as N. T. Wright points out, the Sonderweg view is but an ultimately unstable “halfway house” on the road to full-blown religious pluralism.27 For once we accord Jews a special position, it will be difficult to refrain from treating Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus, and so forth in the same way. Many today, it is true, have no problem with such pluralism. Indeed, they think Paul teaches it in verse 32—that the scope of God’s mercy is as wide as the scope of sin. As God has shut all up under sin, so he has mercy on all as well.
Universalism has a long history in the church. The third-century theologian Origen taught it, and it has been sporadically advocated ever since. But the pluralism of our day has given it new momentum, and many people in our churches harbor such views. Some are forthright, raising objections to the idea that sincere adherents of other religions cannot be saved. They are sympathetic to the line of thinking represented in the last of C. S. Lewis’s Narnia books, The Last Battle, in which a sincere worshiper of the god “Tash” is saved because his conduct showed he must have been unconsciously worshiping the true God, Aslan, all along. This idea of the “unconscious” believer is becoming popular in both Roman Catholic and Protestant circles.
But even Christians who reject this line of thinking as unbiblical—as we must—can fall prey to insidious universalism. What happens is that the tolerance preached everywhere in our culture subtly breaks down our conviction about the exclusivity of the gospel. We don’t say that our neighbor or work associate can be saved because he or she is a sincere Jew or Moslem. But there is part of us that is, indeed, thinking this way. Thus, we do not have the passion to share the gospel that we should have. Implicit universalism, I think, is one of great challenges that Christians will face in the next years. The only solution is to commit ourselves to a program of indoctrination—to let our minds be so formed by the biblical worldview that we are protected from the inroads of the culture into our thinking.
Original Meaning
The Wrap-Up (11:28–32)
IN VERSES 28–32, Paul both provides further evidence for his claim that “all Israel will be saved” (11:26a) and wraps up chapters 9–11 by reminding us once more of some of the basic points of his argument. Verse 28 reiterates the key tension that has driven the entire discussion: “As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs.” “They,” as the context makes clear, are Israelites generally. As Paul makes clear in the opening verses of chapter 9, Israel’s failure to respond to the gospel has cut her off from God’s salvation. From this standpoint, therefore, they are “enemies” of God. The enmity referred to may be from Israel toward God14 or from God toward Israel.15 It is best to take it both ways: hostility exists between God and his people Israel because of their refusal to submit to God’s righteousness in Christ (see 10:3).16
Nevertheless, as Paul has hinted in 9:4–5 by listing the blessings God bestowed on Israel, the refusal of Israel to believe does not mean God has relegated Israel to the rubbish heap of history. How could he do so, since he has elected Israel (cf. 11:2), and “God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable” (v. 29)? Not then for their own sake, but because of God’s pledged word to the patriarchs, he will not annul Israel’s election. In chapter 11, Paul has explained the significance of that continuing election: God is now saving some Jews (the remnant, vv. 1–10), and he will save a significant number of Jews at the time of Christ’s return (vv. 11–27, esp. v. 26).
Paul explains just how God will manifest his grace to Israel in verses 30–31. One last time we hear again the salvation-historical sequence that dominates the latter part of chapter 11. Paul is especially concerned to emphasize the “equal treatment” that both Israel and the Gentiles receive. Note the formal parallelism:
verse 30 | verse 31 |
Just as | so … too |
you | they |
at one time | now |
were … disobedient to God | have … become disobedient |
now | now |
have … received mercy | in order that they too may … receive mercy |
as a result of their disobedience | as a result of God’s mercy to you |
As in verse 28, the “they” of verse 31 refers to Israelites, while, in keeping with Paul’s focus throughout this paragraph, “you” denotes Gentile Christians. Verse 30 is clear enough as a summary of the sequence we have seen so often in the chapter: Jewish disobedience has resulted in the Gentiles receiving God’s mercy. Verse 31, then, describes the third step in the process, Jewish inclusion.
But two points in verse 31 are not so clear. (1) Why does Paul say that the Jews have “now” received mercy? Has he not just predicted that God’s bestowal of mercy on Israel will come at the time of the Parousia? Some early scribes took care of the difficulty by omitting the “now” (cf. NIV note), but the word should probably be included as the “more difficult reading.”17 The best explanation is that Paul wants to emphasize the imminence of Israel’s salvation. As the next item on the agenda of God’s plan, the return of Christ and conversion of Israel can take place at any time.
(2) The other problem is the phrase translated in NIV “as a result of God’s mercy to you.” The NIV takes this phrase to express the cause of God’s mercy to the Jews. This translation is one possible rendering of the Greek and makes good sense, expressing Paul’s teaching that the extension of God’s grace to the Gentiles makes Israel “envious” and spurs their final salvation (see vv. 11, 14).18 But the phrase in the Greek text comes immediately after the verb “have become disobedient” earlier in the verse. Moreover, the form of the phrase (a dative) may express the idea of “advantage” rather than cause.
Another way of rendering verse 31, therefore, is “so they too have now become disobedient for the sake of God’s mercy to you in order that they too may now receive mercy.” This way of putting the matter also fits well with what Paul teaches earlier in the chapter about God’s using Israel’s hardening to bring salvation to the Gentiles. Since it follows the more natural word order of the Greek, it should probably be adopted.19
Paul’s concern to put Jew and Gentile on equal footing is reinforced by the solemn conclusion in verse 32: “God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.” God’s act of “enclosing” people (Paul includes women and men) reminds us of his handing people over to the consequences of the sin they have chosen (1:24, 26, 28). God has sentenced all people to condemnation. But his purpose is ultimately a positive one: He wants to “have mercy on all.” Interpreters of this verse err when they wrest it from its context and use it to prove universalism, that all people will eventually be saved. The Greek allows and the context strongly suggests that Paul has a different purpose: to show that God has both “shut up under sin” and shown mercy to all “kinds” of people20—especially, in this context, Jews and Gentiles.
Bridging Contexts
THE DELIVERER FROM ZION. Paul’s use of the Old Testament to buttress his interpretation of salvation history is a matter of controversy again in this text. He quotes selectively from two different passages in Isaiah and makes a significant change to one of them. We should be particularly interested in such differences between the Old Testament text and the form in which it is quoted in the New. These differences can sometimes furnish an important clue to the New Testament author’s exact purpose. A side-by-side comparison will give us a good basis to analyze the situation and see what we can learn from it:
Isaiah 59:20–21 | Romans 11:26b–27 |
“The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins,” declares the LORD. | The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. |
“As for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the LORD. “My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever,” says the LORD. | And this is my covenant with them |
Isaiah 27:9 | when I take away their sins. |
By this, then, will Jacob’s guilt be atoned for, and this will be the full fruitage of the removal of his sin [LXX: when I take away his sin]: When he makes all the altar stones to be like chalk stones crushed to pieces, no Asherah poles or incense altars will be left standing. |
We first note that Paul here, as he usually does, is probably dependent on the LXX for his wording. This is particularly clear in the reference to Isaiah 27:9, since Paul’s wording is almost identical to the LXX, which in turn differs from the Hebrew text. Paul’s only change is the substitution of “their” for “his” in order to match the third person plural “them” in the previous line. The reader of the English text will often not be aware of these textual issues in the background. But many of the differences between the wording of the Old Testament text and its citation in the New Testament can be accounted for by these different text forms.
But by no means are all the differences a matter of text. Paul and the other New Testament authors also adapt the wording of the text to suit their application. Most of these changes are minor and do not affect the sense in any significant way. A good example is the change just noted of the third person singular “his” of Isaiah 27:9 to the third person plural “their.” But other changes carry more significance. Note, for instance, that in the second line of the quotation Paul changes the focus from Israel’s repentance to God’s forgiveness. This change obviously suits his emphasis on God’s sovereignty in bringing salvation history to its climax.
But the most striking change, as noted in the Original Meaning section, is the “from Zion” wording in Paul. The Hebrew text here uses the preposition le, probably in a local sense: “The deliverer will come to Zion.” The LXX translates with heneken, “on behalf of.” But neither of these readings explains how Paul can quote the text as saying that the deliverer will come “from” (ek) Zion.
Some scholars speculate that Paul may be quoting from a Greek text we no longer have.21 This is always possible, since we know there were texts of the Old Testament in the first century that have not survived to our day. Another possibility is that Paul has assimilated the wording of this text to others in the Old Testament that claim Israel’s deliverance will come “from Zion” (e.g., Ps. 14:7; 53:6; 110:2; Isa. 2:3).22 Since Paul has already stitched together language from two different places in Isaiah, we must consider this a real possibility.
But the question still remains: Why has Paul introduced language from these other texts into Isaiah 59:20? Scholars speculate that he may have wanted to emphasize to conceited Gentile Christians (see Rom. 11:25) that the Redeemer will come from the Jewish people (see 9:5).23 Or perhaps he is claiming that the final salvation of Israel will come by means of the return of Christ from heaven at his Parousia.24 This latter interpretation makes the best sense. The New Testament suggests that “Zion” can refer to the “heavenly Jerusalem” (Heb. 12:22; note also “the Jerusalem that is above” in Gal. 4:26). Paul does not deny what Isaiah predicts: The deliverer is indeed coming “to” Zion, that is, to the Jewish people. But he wants to expand the idea by emphasizing that Israel’s final redemption comes from heaven, not from earth.
Such an emphasis was needed because so many Jews in Paul’s day were looking to political movements or military force as the means of their deliverance from Gentile oppression. The kingdom of God would be established, they thought, through violence (see Matt. 11:12). But Paul, in light of God’s revelation of the “mystery” of salvation history in Christ, now understands that Israel’s redemption will come through the intervention of Christ himself when he returns in glory. If this is correct, Paul adds the phrase “from Zion” in order to stress that it is God’s intervention from heaven at the end of history that brings final salvation to his people Israel.
Contemporary Significance
ISRAEL AND ESCHATOLOGY. What does the Bible teach about the future of Israel? How should that teaching affect our view of the present-day nation of Israel? Our text obviously has something to say about these matters. It is precisely for this reason that there has been so much debate about the passage. Evangelical Christians are divided over eschatology, and the future of Israel is one of the key sticking points.
The Reformed tradition in theology, with its roots in the teaching of Calvin, Zwingli, and Bucer, has generally emphasized the idea of a single covenant in Scripture, spanning Old and New Testaments. There has always been only one way of salvation (faith in God) and one people of God. That means that Old Testament prophecies about “Israel” must find their fulfillment in the church, for the church is the name of the people of God in the New Testament era. That in turn means that there is little or no room for any real future for Israel as a nation or ethnic group. All people are now on the same footing; Jews as well as Gentiles can be saved, and on the same basis. Any national privileges for Israel have been revoked.
Contemporary theologians who work within this tradition usually interpret Romans 11:11–32 in terms of a continuing historical process. God hardens part of Israel so that Gentiles stream into the kingdom; and the Gentiles stimulate Jews to envy, causing some of them to embrace Christ. This process continues right up until the last day, whereupon “all Israel [has been] saved”—that is, all the Jews elect by God will have been brought to salvation. Christ will then return and the era of salvation will be ended. No special future for Israel is envisaged.
Challenging this reading of Israel in the Bible were, interestingly, a number of Puritan thinkers, who insisted that there would be a future for national Israel. But particularly well known for advocating a future for Israel is dispensationalism. This movement arose in the nineteenth century and became popular in evangelical circles through the Scofield Reference Bible, prophecy conferences, and the influence of Dallas Theological Seminary. A hallmark of dispensationalism (some would say the hallmark) is a distinction between Israel and the church. The people of God in this era form the church, and, of course, Jews can join, becoming part of the church. But the church has not replaced Israel in God’s plan. He still has a distinctive future for Israel as an ethnic group. The Old Testament prophecies about Israel must be fulfilled in Israel, and Romans 11 teaches that God has a plan for Israel in distinction from the church.
The theological climate of the last few decades has made for some strange bedfellows. The emphasis on a future for the nation of Israel, a view that might be considered typical of conservative evangelicals, is now embraced by a wide spectrum of liberal theologians as well. The horror of the Holocaust has awakened many Christian thinkers to what they consider “anti-Semitic” thinking in the church; as a reaction, a concerted effort is being made to grant Israel a continuing role in God’s salvation plan. Quite apart from these influences, it is fair to say that the vast majority of interpreters of Romans, from every conceivable theological perspective, now agree that Paul predicts a future salvation of Israel in chapter 11. Exactly how and when it will happen and what other events this salvation may entail continue to be debated. But let me sketch the situation as I see it and draw some conclusions.
My colleague Paul Feinberg claims that I am a dispensationalist because I maintain a future for ethnic Israel. I am flattered that he wants to include me, but I am not so sure I deserve the honor. For while I believe that Romans 11 does teach that a significant number of Jews will come to salvation in the last day, I do not draw the inferences that many dispensationalists do. I think the conversion of these Jews will take place as they believe the gospel, not through some kind of “special way,” or Sonderweg (as German theologians call it). I think that those Jews who are converted will, like any other believers, become integrated into the church—although perhaps a church on its way to heaven, if the conversion happens at the time of Jesus’ Parousia.
Nor do I think that Romans 11 entails any kind of geographic or political future for Israel. What Paul predicts in this chapter is a spiritual revivification of the Jewish people. He says nothing here, or anywhere else in his teaching, about the return of Israel to Palestine or about its political reconstitution. Any belief that God has promised Israel a political presence in the end times must come from other passages in Scripture. The key will be our hermeneutics of Old Testament prophetic interpretation: Can those prophecies be fulfilled “spiritually” in the church, or must they find a literal fulfillment in a reconstituted Israelite nation?
However we answer this specific question, we can draw a couple of practical conclusions from the theology of Israel in Romans 11. As we have already made clear, Paul’s overriding concern is to stifle undue Gentile pride. In our day, as in Paul’s, the church is largely a Gentile institution. Our natural tendency to prefer people like us and to think ourselves superior to people different from us is exacerbated by a “replacement” theology that often teaches that Gentiles have now taken the place of Jews in God’s plan (see Contemporary Significance section of 11:11–24). A deprecatory and even hostile attitude toward Jewish Christians and Jews alike is the result.
Anti-Semitism is a powerful force in society. As I write this section, I am horrified by the news that a white supremacist walked into a Jewish day-care center and shot both adults and children. There is no room for any such hostility in the church, where Jew and Gentile have been reconciled together in Christ. We must welcome Jewish Christians into our worship and, indeed, honor them as representatives of that “root” from which we all are spiritually nourished (11:17–18). But a respect for Jewish people does not entail undue deference to Israel as a nation.
I taught for some years with a colleague who was Arab in background. He could never understand why American evangelicals consistently took the side of Israel in every Middle East dispute. The Arab side was never considered; Israel, whatever it did, was always in the right. Even if we believe that God has promised to give Israel their land again and make them a nation, we have no right to accord Israel such blind allegiance. For one thing, we have no way of knowing if the present Israel is the Israel in which God will fulfill his promises. More important, God calls us to love all people and to treat all people with respect. We have no right to overlook injustice when it occurs, whether in Israel or anywhere else. Moreover, we certainly have no right to ignore the legitimate rights and aspirations of the Arab people.
A “special way” for Israel and universalism. Our text brings together two tenets that we have already touched on in this commentary: salvation for Israel apart from Christ, and the belief that all people will be saved. Both, as we have noted, are views amenable to our culture. The Holocaust has created an environment in which people are sensitive to any hint of anti-Semitism. Many think it is anti-Semitic to insist that Christ is the only means of salvation. In addition, our pluralistic culture tends to break down the distinctions between the world’s religions, fostering the idea that any religion can be a means of salvation. What does Romans 11:25–32 say to these issues?
Some interpreters insist that 11:26 stands as a watershed in New Testament soteriology. Other authors (Matthew, John) and even the early Paul (see 1 Thess. 2:16) take a hostile view toward Israel. But now, through the revelation of a mystery, Paul comes to understand that Israel will be saved—apart from Christ. Israel has a “special way” (German Sonderweg) to salvation, based on God’s unbreakable covenant with Israel as a people. As we argued above, this view cannot be supported in the text. Paul has spent most of Romans describing his gospel, through which salvation is offered to both Jew and Gentile (e.g., 1:16; 10:10–13). But the heart of that gospel is Christ (1:3–4), and especially his death on the cross for all human beings (3:21–26). No one can be saved apart from the good news and apart from faith in Christ.25
Indeed, as a number of interpreters have pointed out, the Sonderweg approach is itself anti-Semitic. It effectively denies that the good news needs to be preached to Jews. Jews are then singled out from among all people as the only ones not given the opportunity to hear and respond to the offer of salvation in Christ.26 Moreover, as N. T. Wright points out, the Sonderweg view is but an ultimately unstable “halfway house” on the road to full-blown religious pluralism.27 For once we accord Jews a special position, it will be difficult to refrain from treating Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus, and so forth in the same way. Many today, it is true, have no problem with such pluralism. Indeed, they think Paul teaches it in verse 32—that the scope of God’s mercy is as wide as the scope of sin. As God has shut all up under sin, so he has mercy on all as well.
Universalism has a long history in the church. The third-century theologian Origen taught it, and it has been sporadically advocated ever since. But the pluralism of our day has given it new momentum, and many people in our churches harbor such views. Some are forthright, raising objections to the idea that sincere adherents of other religions cannot be saved. They are sympathetic to the line of thinking represented in the last of C. S. Lewis’s Narnia books, The Last Battle, in which a sincere worshiper of the god “Tash” is saved because his conduct showed he must have been unconsciously worshiping the true God, Aslan, all along. This idea of the “unconscious” believer is becoming popular in both Roman Catholic and Protestant circles.
But even Christians who reject this line of thinking as unbiblical—as we must—can fall prey to insidious universalism. What happens is that the tolerance preached everywhere in our culture subtly breaks down our conviction about the exclusivity of the gospel. We don’t say that our neighbor or work associate can be saved because he or she is a sincere Jew or Moslem. But there is part of us that is, indeed, thinking this way. Thus, we do not have the passion to share the gospel that we should have. Implicit universalism, I think, is one of great challenges that Christians will face in the next years. The only solution is to commit ourselves to a program of indoctrination—to let our minds be so formed by the biblical worldview that we are protected from the inroads of the culture into our thinking.