0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
95 vizualizări24 pagini
Ken stiles: Romans 11:26 says "all Israel will be saved" but what does it mean? he says some would say it means all of national, ethnic Israel will be regenerated. Others would deny a restoration to the promised land, he says. Stiles argues that if a nation is to be saved, it must be saved in a dispensational way.
Ken stiles: Romans 11:26 says "all Israel will be saved" but what does it mean? he says some would say it means all of national, ethnic Israel will be regenerated. Others would deny a restoration to the promised land, he says. Stiles argues that if a nation is to be saved, it must be saved in a dispensational way.
Ken stiles: Romans 11:26 says "all Israel will be saved" but what does it mean? he says some would say it means all of national, ethnic Israel will be regenerated. Others would deny a restoration to the promised land, he says. Stiles argues that if a nation is to be saved, it must be saved in a dispensational way.
Kenneth M. Stiles Box #182 TH888 Seminar in Eschatology April 21, 2010
CONTENTS Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Points of Departure ......................................................................................................... 5 Covenantal Views of Romans 11:26 ........................................................................... 5 A Dispensational View of Romans 11:2527 Assuming NT Priority ............................ 9 The Broader Context ................................................................................................... 9 The Immediate Context ............................................................................................. 11 Romans 9:2527 ....................................................................................................... 12 Pauls Use of Isaiah 59 ............................................................................................. 13 The Nature of, and Circumstances Surrounding, All Israel being Saved ..................... 15 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 18 Bibliography ................................................................................................................. 21
1 Introduction Romans 11:26 states rather plainly that all Israel will be saved. 1 What does not seem so plain, given the differing interpretations of certain theological persuasions, is what the words mean. A case could be made rather easily from the Old Testament that the phrase means that all of national, ethnic Israel will be regenerated, turn to Jesus as their Messiah, and be restored to the land promised to them. However, not a few would object that those Old Testament passages have been reinterpreted by the New Testament so that such an interpretation of Romans 11:26 could not possibly entail the salvation of national, ethnic Israel, and restoration of them to the Promised Land. Still others would admit of a salvation of national, ethnic Israel, yet deny a restoration to the Promised Land. To be sure there are others who would admit both, but deny that it is valid to put much weight on the Old Testament passages that teach this. The presupposition that lies behind the three views just mentioned is that the New Testament reinterprets the Old Testament in such a way that the theology of the New Testament must be imported into the Old Testament in order to make correct sense of it. What then becomes of historical-grammatical hermeneutics? A preliminary objection must be registered before proceeding. The presupposition that the New Testament authoritatively reinterprets the Old Testament, such that it results in the historical-grammatical hermeneutic being invalid for the Old Testament passage in question, is highly suspect. If the only authoritative interpretation of Scripture that exists (i.e., the New interpreting the Old) employs a non-historical-grammatical hermeneutic, then what justification does the Bible interpreter have for employing a historical-grammatical hermeneutic when
1 All English Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), unless otherwise noted. 2 interpreting the New Testament to begin with? Is it a valid way of proceeding to argue that the interpretation of one portion of Scripture, using the historical-grammatical hermeneutic, invalidates the use of that same hermeneutic in another portion of Scripture? The net result would ostensibly be the invalidation of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic for all of Scripture, since the application of it in one portion of Scripture would destroy its credentials for applying it to another. Given the above presupposition, the analogy of Scripture becomes nothing more than a principle that undermines the credibility of the very hermeneutic that gives rise to it in the first place. We would suggest that a better presupposition is that the New Testament interprets the Old Testament using the same historical-grammatical hermeneutic that should be employed when interpreting the New Testament. The net result here would be the same for any portion of Scripture; there is one correct interpretation and many possible applications. If the historical- grammatical hermeneutic is valid for any portion of Scripture, then understanding how the New Testament uses the Old Testament is simply a matter of using that hermeneutic on the New Testament passage in question to discover the application of the Old Testament passage that the New Testament writer is making of the one correct interpretation of the Old Testament passage; which is discovered by using the same hermeneutic on the Old Testament passage. Interestingly enough, all attempts to object to such a presupposition would have to be made while employing a similar presupposition in another sphere; otherwise, how would anyone be able to understand the objection being lodged against it? It is the above competing presuppositions that have often ended in a stalemate; neither side willing to budge. One side trumpeting the priority of the New Testament over the Old, the other demurring that the Old Testament should be interpreted as is. Despite the objection 3 registered above, we will proceed to do the unthinkable. We will budge. We shall, as my British neighbor would say, duff the cap to New Testament priority. 2 The burden of this paper is to interpret Romans 11:2527 in order to explicate the nature of, and circumstances surrounding, all Israel being saved. Secondarily, the methodology followed in this paper is intended to show that (using the above proposed understanding of the New Testament use of the Old) it might be better to demonstrate exegetically that the New Testament does not reinterpret the Old Testament, than to argue presuppositionally that the New Testament cannot reinterpret the Old Testament. It might be objected that this would simply assume what must be proved, but this objection cuts both ways. The presupposition that the New Testament reinterprets the Old Testament is liable to the same objection with the additional demerit of seemingly undermining the historical- grammatical hermeneutic altogether. The reason that the proposed method in this paper should prove a fruitful way of proceeding is that it will show that those who argue that the New Testament reinterprets the Old Testament are actually guilty of importing their theology into the New Testament to begin with, and then forcing it upon the Old Testament; while at the same time proffering a coherent understanding of the passage in question. One last point should be made before proceeding. Among those who would claim that employing the historical-grammatical hermeneutic in the New Testament yields a reinterpretation of the Old Testament in a way that renders the use of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic problematic in the Old Testament, the additional caveat mentioned by Bruce Waltke is typical,
2 The dirty little secret, of course, is that if the proposed presupposition is true (i.e., that the NT interprets the OT using the same historical-grammatical hermeneutic that should be applied when interpreting the NT) then admitting NT priority over the OT is to offer a Trojan horse rather than to surrender. 4 Is it not self-evident that unclear texts should be interpreted in the light of clear ones and not vice versa? As the Law of Moses is clearer than the dreams and visions of prophets (Num 12:68), so also the apostolic letters and epistles in plain speech, though admittedly containing some things that are hard to understand (2 Pet 3:16), are clearer than prophetic visions and the symbolic visions of apocalyptic literature that needs angels to interpret them. 3
Waltke follows up these comments with a question and admonition, Should the Christian theologian construct his theological model from the symbolic texts and distort and cut up clear ones to fit his dubious mold? Theological models should be built from the clear teachings of our Lord and his apostles and then, and only then, adorned with symbolic texts. 4
Very well, agreed. One would be at a loss to find a clearer text on the salvation of all Israel than Romans 11:2527. Since this crystal clear passage is in a straightforward didactic portion of an epistle of the apostle to the Gentiles himself; surely, by Waltkes own protestations, of all of Scripture, this is the text that should be normative for interpreting every other passage that deals with the salvation of all Israel. This paper will first discuss the various Covenantal understandings of Romans 11:26 that do not understand all Israel to be national, ethnic Israel. Then, finding those wanting, will proceed to offer an interpretation guided by the proposed hermeneutic above; while at the same time attempting to follow the Covenantal hermeneutical guideline of New Testament epistle priority over the Old Testament and less clear portions of the New Testament.
3 Bruce Waltke, Kingdom Promises as Spiritual, Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. by John S. Feinberg (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers, 1988), 265. 4 Ibid. 5 Points of Departure While there are many variations, there are four basic ways of interpreting Romans 11:25 27. The first three flow out of some species of Covenant Theology. These three hold, in some form, to the idea that there is continuity between the nation of Israel in the Old Testament and the Church in the New Testament. Sometimes this continuity takes the form of replacement, at other times fulfillment, and still other times this continuity takes the form of integration. 5 These views may be labeled Covenant Amillennialism, Covenant Postmillennialism, and Covenant Premillennialism. The fourth view has several subspecies, but may be comprehensively called Dispensational Premillenialism. It is these four theological positions that come to bear when interpreting Romans 11:2527. 6
The reason these four views serve as points of departure is because how one articulates the nature of, and circumstances surrounding the salvation of all Israel is entirely dependent upon how one identifies all Israel. Further, the two premillennial positions, while agreeing on identity, differ on the nature and circumstances. This is because of the hermeneutical differences mentioned above. For Covenantal Premillennialism the Old Testament is not allowed much of a voice in filling in the details of the salvation of all Israel. Covenantal Views of Romans 11:26 Covenant Ammillenialism generally has two ways of interpreting the passage under discussion. The first view is that all Israel in Romans 11:26 is all Jews and Gentiles that will be
5 It is true that some views that hold to a continuity between Israel and the Church would claim to be neither Covenantal nor Dispensational, but since those views would basically land in the same place as their Covenantal counterparts this paper will subsume them in the Covenantal views that follow. 6 The categories discussed in this paper come from, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology (1989; revised, Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 2001). 6 saved. Thus, all Israel is basically the Church. The idea here is that the Church in the Old Testament was predominantly, but not exclusively, Jewish. In the New Testament the Church is predominantly, but not exclusively, Gentile. The most famous exponents of this view were John Calvin and Martin Luther. Concerning all Israel, Calvin points out, Many understand this of the Jewish people, as though Paul had said, that religion would be restored among them as before. 7 Calvin did not totally reject this, but said that he would extend the word Israel to all the people of God. 8
Calvin summarizes his view, 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 of Israel of God, which must be gathered from both; and yet in such a way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it were the first-born in Gods family. 9 Calvin then relates that Israel in Romans 11:26 and Galatians 6:6 mean the same thing, The Israel of God is what [Paul] calls the Church, gathered alike from Jews and Gentiles. 10
A second Covenantal Amillennial position is that all Israel refers to the total number of the elect Israelites throughout the ages. Berkhof proclaims, All Israel is to be understood as a designation, not of the whole nation, but of the whole number of the elect out of the ancient
7 John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, vol. 19 of Calvins Commentaries, trans. and ed. by John Owen (1849; repr, Grand Rapids: Baker Books a division of Baker Book House Company, 2005), 437. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 7 covenant people. 11 Berkhof points out that Premillennialists take verse 26 to teach that after God has completed his purpose with the Gentiles, the nation of Israel will be saved. He then objects, But the apostle said at the beginning of his discussion that the promises were for the spiritual Israel; there is no evidence of a change of thought in the intervening section, so that this would come as a surprise in 11:26; and the adverb houtos cannot mean after that, but only in this manner. Berkhofs conclusion is that, With the fullness of the Gentiles the fullness of Israel will also come in. 12
Fruchtenbaum rebuts Berkhofs objection that the promises were only made to spiritual Israel with the following observation: However, spiritual Israel in Romans 911 refers not to the Church as a whole, nor to believing Gentiles, but to believing Jews. To them the promises are made; but if the whole nation is saved at some future point, then the whole physical national Israel also becomes spiritual Israel and can therefore obtain the promises. There is nothing in either the immediate context or the wider context that would negate this. Berkhofs attempt to do so is not based on exegesis but on his Covenant Theology. 13
Concerning the idea that houtos cannot mean after that, but only in this manner, this is probably the most common position currently held among Covenantal Amillennialists. Their argument about houtos in verse 26 is actually dependent on their view of achris (until) in verse 25. Robertson argues that, The phrase rendered until (achris hou) is essentially terminative. More particularly, it indicates the terminus ad quem rather than the terminus a quo. 14 Strimple
11 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (1938; repr, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 699. 12 Ibid., 699700. 13 Fruchtenbaum, Israelology, 220. 14 O. Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2000), 179. 8 claims that houtos is never used to refer to temporal sequence. 15 Concerning achris, Strimple simply approvingly quotes Robertson saying, in another book, what we have already quoted him as saying. 16 Apparently the argument does not get much better than just a simple denial that the term achris (until) can ever have any events begin after what comes before it; never mind the context. In Kenneth Gentrys response to Strimple he points out that achris often implies a change in circumstances after which something new begins. 17 Gentry then cites four examples (Lk 1:20; 17:27; Acts 1:12; 27:33). 18 The real problem though is that interpreting all Israel as the entirety of elect Israel from all time completely ignores the context of Pauls argument. For instance, the term Israel in Romans 11:25b is agreed by all to be the nation of Israel, but this interpretation demands that the same term mean all the elect of all time from the nation of Israel in the very next phrase. There are no clues whatsoever that Paul is completely switching the meaning of the term in midsentence. 19 To be sure, Paul uses the term Israel with two different meanings in 9:6, but the difference is obvious. In fact, the contrast is the point of the sentence. However, 11:2526 gives no indication that a change in meaning is to be understood. It is only
15 Robert B. Strimple, Amillennialism, Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. by Darrel L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 116. 16 Ibid., 117. 17 Kenneth L. Gentry Jr. A Postmillennial Response to Robert B. Strimple, Three Views on the Millennium and beyond, ed. by Darrel L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 138. 18 Ibid. 19 Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary of the New Testament, ed. by Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, and Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 722. 9 necessary if ones theology demands it. Even if one were to translate kai houtos as in this way there is [still a] clear chronological connection or temporal reference in mind. 20
There is simply no compelling reason to not understand Romans 11:26 as teaching a future salvation of national, ethnic Israel. Covenant Post- and Premillennialists take the passage as such and so there is no need to explore their views at this point. Their rejections of Old Testament descriptions of restored national Israel will be challenge by a positive statement of a Dispensational view of Romans 11:2527 while assuming New Testament priority. A Dispensational View of Romans 11:2527 Assuming NT Priority Rather than surveying Dispensational Premillennialist views of Romans 11:2527, the present writer will offer his own. The attempt will be made to demonstrate that even when adopting the Covenantal hermeneutical principle of allowing the clearest New Testament passage covering a particular topic to have priority over and interpret the Old Testament and less clear New Testament texts, one will still arrive at a Dispensational Premillennial understanding of Romans 11:2532; at least, insofar as one does not also read Covenant Theology into the original New Testament text to begin with. The Broader Context Most commentators would agree that Romans 911 is single section within the book. Paul begins the section by sharing his heart with his readers. He reveals the great sorrow he has in his heart over the Jewish rejection of their Messiah. Within the first four verses of chapter 9 Paul explains that his sorrow is for his brethren, his kinsmen according to the flesh, who are
20 Barry H. Horner, Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must be Challenged (Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2007), 260. 10 Israelites. It is clear that Paul is speaking of national, ethnic Israel. It is this nation that, as Paul is writing, is in a Christ rejecting state. Yet, even in this state Paul lists the following as belonging to them: the adoption as sons, the glory, the covenants, the law-giving, the (presumably) temple service, the promises, and the fathers. Paul also mentions that Jesus was an ethnic Jew. What is so astonishing is that so much belongs to this Christ rejecting people; notably, the covenants and the promises (note the plural number). This raises a huge question; if the covenants, the promises, and all the rest still belong to ethnic, national Israel (which Paul plainly says they do), then what in the world is going on? Are Gods promises worthless? Has his word failed? We must not miss the importance of this question in the context of the entire book. Paul has just got done unfolding the wonderful way in which God justifies sinful men through faith in Christ, and how he is going to preserve them all the way up to the resurrection of their bodies and renewal of the creation. That is a tall order! The question is this, can God make good on his word? That is why Pauls claim in 9:6 is of vital importance to Jews and Gentiles. If God is not keeping his covenants with, and promises to, Israel, then the Jews have no hope, and the Gentiles have no reason to trust what God is saying now, through the apostle Paul, to them. Paul begins his argument that God is keeping his covenants and promises to Israel, and is therefore trustworthy, by pointing out that not all are Israel who are from Israel. He goes on to explain that a merely physical connection to Abraham was not what made one a partaker of the promises made to Abraham and his descendants. It is the children of promise, who are themselves determined by Gods sovereign choice, who are included in the covenants and promises. This in turn raises the question of whether God is unjust in choosing some people and not others without any thought of their actions. Paul seems to be causing more problems. This is, 11 however, an important point in Pauls argument. Romans 9:1429 is Pauls argument that God is free to choose whom he pleases, and man has no right to question his Maker about it. The overarching argument through the end of the chapter is that Gods word has not failed because partaking of covenant blessings has always been according to Gods sovereign choice, and all he has chosen, Jew and Gentile, will partake of them. The end of chapter 9 and all of chapter 10 make it clear that partaking of the covenant blessings and promises is through faith in Jesus. Chapter ten especially focuses on this. There is still a question though. That is all well and good Paul, but is it just Gentiles now who have been chosen by God to be united to Christ by faith, and through him, partake of all the covenant blessings and promises? Has God completely rejected national, ethnic Israel? Pauls answer in 11:1 is an emphatic No. Paul points out that he is a physical descendant of Abraham and is through faith in Christ a partaker of the covenant blessings and promises. In fact, just as there was a remnant in the days of Elijah there was a remnant in Pauls day as well. Building off his previous arguments Paul points out that this remnant was sovereignly chosen by God. Here is where Paul ties some things together. Those among national, ethnic Israel that are chosen by God obtain the covenant blessings and promises. The rest are hardened by God and do not obtain them. The Immediate Context There is still a nagging question though. Does this mean that all those covenants and promises made to national, ethnic Israel really amount to nothing more than that there will be a few scattered ethnic Jews that, here and there, partake of them? The rest of them that were hardened, the ones that stumbled, have they stumbled for good? Will they be hardened forever? Again, Pauls answer is an emphatic No. In 11:1112 Paul argues that this was actually all part 12 of the plan. While there is always a remnant, according to Gods sovereign choice, of national, ethnic Israel, the majority has been hardened and have stumbled. Their stumbling in turn facilitated salvation going to the Gentiles, which in turn is designed to provoke them to jealousy. Included in the plan is that when the hardening is removed things get even better. Paul argues that since the Jewish rejection of Jesus as the Messiah was of great benefit to the Gentiles then their receiving Jesus as the Messiah will usher in even greater benefits to the Gentiles. Paul goes on to reveal in 11:1315 that one of his motivations in making bold in his Gentile ministry is the hope that he might provoke some of his fellow Jews to jealousy so that they might be saved. The motivation behind wanting to see his fellow Jews come to Christ is that when national, ethnic Israel turns to Christ en masse things will get really good. Paul likens it to life from the dead. In 11:1623 Paul argues that Gentiles need to be careful not to be arrogant against that hardened majority of national, ethnic Israel because God could easily do the same to arrogant, conceited Gentiles as he has done to disobedient Jews. What is more, in verse 23 Paul argues that it is possible for God to save the hardened majority of national, ethnic Israel. Paul continues building the argument in verse 24 by saying that it is in fact probable that God will save the hardened majority of national, ethnic Israel. Romans 9:2527 Not only is it possible, even probable, that God will save the hardened majority of national, ethnic Israel at some point, but Paul argues definitively in verses 2527 that God will save the hardened majority of national, ethnic Israel. The objections to this understanding of all Israel have been dealt with above and will not be rehashed here. There is really no reason to even waffle on the point of whether all means all. There is a remnant of chosen ethnic Jews in 13 the world right now, the rest are hardened. It is not the remnant that needs to be saved, or grafted back in, in Pauls argument here. It is the hardened majority. Paul argues that there is coming a time when all of the hardened majority of national, ethnic Israel will be saved. That time is pinpointed as when the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. The key to understanding the nature of, and circumstances surrounding, all Israel being saved is understanding the Old Testament foundation of Pauls argument. Paul says that this future salvation will happen just as it is written. He then references Isaiah 59:2021. It is debated whether Paul is also referring to Isaiah 27:9, but it seems better to simply understand the reference as being an application of what is found in Isaiah 59:2021. Before discussing the differences between what appears in Isaiah 59 and Romans 11, it should be noted that this is where the idea of New Testament priority becomes extremely important. Pauls Use of Isaiah 59 Paul is clearly using Isaiah 59:2021 to support his argument that all Israel will be saved after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. It has already been shown that contextually Paul is not talking about the remnant of ethnic Jews that God has always kept for himself, but a salvation of the formerly hardened portion of national, ethnic Israel. This means that even if one is to read the New Testament back into the Old Testament then Isaiah 59:2021, and the events surrounding it, are referring to a future generation of national, ethnic Israel that is saved after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. Regardless of what Paul is doing in rendering the Isaiah passage the way he does, this is ostensibly the overall argument he is making. The seeming difficulty is that Paul does not quote the text directly from either the MT or the LXX. This becomes less of a problem, however, when one keeps in mind the totality of 14 Pauls argument which began in chapter 9. Placing the passages side by side will help illustrate the contrast. Romans 11:26b27 Isaiah 59:2021 26b. 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.
20. A Redeemer will come to Zion, And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob, declares the Lord. 21. As for Me, this is My covenant with them, says the Lord: My Spirit which is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your offsprings offspring, says the Lord, from now and forever.
Which is it? Will the deliverer come from Zion and remove ungodliness from Jacob; or, will a redeemer come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent? The answer is, of course, yes. This is not an either/or matter. Paul is incorporating his argument into the Isaiah 59 passage. It might be argued that the difference in prepositions is nothing to take into account because either from or to is a permissible translation. But, the nuance should not be completely ignored. Paul has been arguing that God will save whomever he pleases, and that this salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ. For Paul to say that the redeemer who will come to Zion is the deliverer who comes from Zion seems to indicate that what is in view here is the physical second coming of Christ. When it comes to Jesus returning to the repentant in Jacob or removing ungodliness from Jacob, again, both are true. Pauls argument all along has been that those who repent and believe are those whom God has sovereignly chosen. Those whom the redeemer will return to in Jacob are those whom God has sovereignly chosen to remove ungodliness from. Now we come to the covenant. There is neither space in this paper, nor patience in the writer, to discuss all the various views of where Paul is going with this. However, if we continue to stay close to Pauls overall argument that he is mounting in Romans 911, and keep in mind that with this reference to Isaiah 59 Paul is describing all Israel being saved, some useful observations can be made. This is my covenant with them, is clearly a reference to Isaiah 15 59:21. When it comes to the next phrase When I take away their sins, some point out that the phrase is nowhere to be found, and others traipse off to Isaiah 27:9 in search of similar wording. There is no need for it though. One needs only to follow Pauls argument. There is another reason Paul incorporated his argument into his reference to Isaiah 59:20, and he is tying it all together now. The When is when the deliverer comes. The I is the deliverer. The take away is removing. The their is Jacobs, and sin is ungodliness. Paul is not saying that the covenant is when Israels sin is taken away; that makes utterly no sense. A covenant is not a when, but a what. Paul is describing when the what of the covenant will happen. The what, or contents, of the covenant is found in Isaiah 59:21. In other words, Paul is saying that when Jesus returns and removes ungodliness from Jacob (saves all of national, ethnic Israel) the covenant blessings in Isaiah 59:21 will be experienced by Israel. The Holy Spirit will be upon, and Gods word will be in the mouth of, them; their children; and their childrens children. Having discussed the meaning of Romans 11:2527 and its bearing on Isaiah 59:2021, we are now ready to begin our exercise of reading the implications of Romans 11:25 27 into the rest of the Old Testament. The Nature of, and Circumstances Surrounding, All Israel being Saved The implications of truly applying the priority of the clearest New Testament texts over the Old Testament and other less clear New Testament texts are staggering. We have already seen that part of national, ethnic Israel (which happens to be the majority of them) has been hardened so that they will not believe in Jesus as their Messiah. However, there is a remnant, according to Gods sovereign choice, that does believe in Jesus. This hardening of most of Israel is designed by God to make salvation vastly more accessible to Gentiles than it had been previously. God is very kind and loving toward Gentiles; this has been going on for two 16 thousand years. This mysterious reversal of fortunes will come to an end when the full number of Gentiles, which God has chosen from eternity past, comes into the Church. After this God will remove the hardening from national, ethnic Israel and they will all be saved. Yes, every single last one of them, beginning with that particular generation, and continuing on until the final resurrection. The last couple of statements may seem like a bit of a stretch, but this is where New Testament priority can help. Isaiah 59:21 was speaking of covenant blessings that will be enjoyed by a generation of national, ethnic Israel after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. The Holy Spirit will be upon not only them, but their children, and their childrens children. Every Jew born from this time on will be saved. There is no other way to understand Romans 11:2527 and Pauls use of Isaiah 59:2021; that is, if one is truly taking New Testament priority seriously. One problem that seems to come up though is that in Isaiah 59:20 it appears that only a portion of Israel will turn to the Messiah. The redeemer will come to those who repent in Jacob. Those who repent seem to be a subset of Jews within the nation. On the other hand, Paul is talking about all Israel being saved, and he is referring to the hardened portion that was not a part of the remnant up to this point. We will answer this difficulty, and we will use New Testament priority to do so. What follows Isaiah 59:2021 is a description of what will happened to redeemed, Spirit filled, national, ethnic Israel. In the very next verse (Isa 60:1) Israel is told to rise and shine for her light has come. What follows is a glorious description of the exaltation of the nation of Israel. Now, if we are to take New Testament priority, what has Paul established as the context of this description of the exaltation of the nation of Israel? Can it in any way be a flowery description of the Church? No, if we take New Testament priority seriously this must be a description of a 17 redeemed, Spirit filled, national, ethnic Israel after the second coming of Christ! The corollaries are just as astounding. Since Romans 11:2527 is, hands down, the clearest New Testament text we have concerning the salvation of all Israel; it must trump all other passages when it comes to this topic. Who would have thought that all of those passages in the Old Testament that gave flowery, symbolic descriptions of the Church under the image of the exaltation of national, ethnic Israel would be reinterpreted by Paul in Romans to actually refer to national, ethnic Israel? I am being facetious, of course. It turns out that to truly take New Testament priority seriously renders the same result as letting the Old Testament speak for itself. It is true that much more is revealed, and much is clarified, in the New Testament, but a radical reinterpretation of the Old Testament just does not happen. What does all this have to do with Paul not seeming to agree with Isaiah about the future salvation of all of Israel? New Testament priority shows us that the all of Paul and the part of Isaiah are one and the same. Zechariah 12:1013:1 is recounting the same episode as that of Isaiah 59:2021. If we read Romans 11:2527 back into such passages we see that the Zechariah passage is also speaking of the salvation of national, ethnic Israel. Of course, even if we do not read Romans back into Zechariah we see the same thing. In Zechariah 13:8 we see that the all Israel of Paul is actually one third of the nation. The reason this one third of the nation may be called all Israel is because the other two thirds are dead. The salvation of Israel is going to take place in extremely difficult times. This one third is the those in Jacob who repent in Isaiah 59:20. In Zechariah 12:10 another interesting fact about the nature of all Israel being saved is taught. We are told that God will pour out on Israel a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him. God will 18 initiate the repentance of Israel. God has sovereignly chosen a generation of national, ethnic Israel to save en masse and to bestow upon them all that has been promised to that nation. He will initiate it; it will be after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and it will be when Jesus returns to establish his kingdom. Conclusion After the fullness of the Gentiles has come in to the Church the stage will be set for the salvation of all Israel. There will come a point when the Jews are back in their land. 21
Jerusalem will be surrounded by a great army that was mustered from all the nations and many atrocities will be perpetrated on the nation of Israel (Zech 14:15a). Jesus will return to save the nation of Israel, both physically and spiritually (Zech 14:5b7; Isaiah 59:2021; Rom 11:2527). During the siege of Jerusalem and the return of Jesus two thirds of the nation of Israel will perish. The other one third will have had the divine hardening removed from them, the Holy Spirit poured out on them, and will have repented of their sin and turned to Christ (Isaiah 59:20 21; Zech 12:1013:1; Rom 11:2527). From this time forward every Jew born will be saved and the nation of Israel will be exalted above the other nations (Isaiah 59:2060:22; Zech 14:820; Rom 11:2527). It should be pointed out here that this is not bad news for the Gentiles. Though the fullness of the Gentiles will have come into the Church, many of the passages that speak of Israels exaltation also speak of Gentile salvation (Zech 14:1621; Zeph 3:920; Amos 9:1114). This is perfectly in keeping with Pauls statement that if Israels rejection was riches to the
21 Whether the current state of Israel is reflective of this is not that important. The Jews could be scattered and gathered ten more times over the next thousand years, yet the Scriptural account of their salvation as a nation would remain unaffected. 19 Gentiles how much greater (not much less) riches would their acceptance be (Rom 11:12). It is here that we should also be careful to heed Waltkes admonition that, Theological models should be built from the clear teachings of our Lord and his apostles and then, and only then, adorned with symbolic texts. 22 Since Waltke would presumably view the thousand years mentioned in Revelation 20:15 as symbolic; surely, he would have no problem allowing us to adorn what we have learned with this symbolic text. The millennium of Revelation 20 fits perfectly with what Paul, Isaiah, and Zechariah are communicating. The Old Testament passages that deal with the salvation and exaltation of Israel speak of a time during which of people are born, get married, have children (of which all the Jews and many of the Gentiles will be saved), and die. Revelation 20 reveals that this will go on for a thousand years. At least, that is how we should understand it if we take New Testament priority seriously. So why are Covenant Theologians led to deny certain aspects of, if not altogether, the salvation and restoration of Israel as described in the Old Testament if New Testament priority does not really demand it? Perhaps the following quote from a fair-minded Covenant Premillennialist might shed some light on their reasons: In view of Pauls clear statements here and throughout Romans 11, I cannot see how so many reformed theologians of our day reject the idea of a future time of blessing for Israel. I know why they do it. They do not like the details of prophecy that some have worked out, in which Israel seems to have a separate destiny from the church. And they do not like the implied theology. To their way of thinking, any future blessing of Israel as a nation must be a backward step, a regression in Gods plan. Spiritual realities in Christ have replaced the Jewish types that pointed to them. The church has replaced Israel. In this view the church becomes the new Israel, and the old Israel is superseded forever. But how can they affirm that, in view of Pauls teaching here? Paul is not talking about spiritual Israel in these chapters. He is talking about the Jews as a nation. And when he asks the question, Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? His answer is as
22 Waltke, Kingdom Promises as Spiritual, 265. 20 emphatic as when dealing with antinomianism or with the good purposes of Gods law (Rom 6:2, 15; 7:13). Not at all! By no means! God forbid! It was inconceivable to Paul that God would cast Israel off, because to do so would mean that God would be breaking his covenant promises, and he could not do that and remain a truth-keeping, faithful God. 23
23 James Montgomery Boice, Romans, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books a division of Baker Book House Co., 1993), 1323. 21 Bibliography Fruchtenbaum, Arnold. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. 1989; revised, Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 2001. Waltke, Bruce. Kingdom Promises as Spiritual, Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments. Edited by John S. Feinberg. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers, 1988: 26387. Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Vol. 19 of Calvins Commentaries. Translated and edited by John Owen. 1849; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Books a division of Baker Book House Company, 2005. Berkhof, Louis Systematic Theology. 1938; reprint, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996. Boice, James Montgomery. Romans. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Baker Books a division of Baker Book House Co., 1993. Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. One volume edition. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by F. F. Bruce. 1973; reprint. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968. Mounce, Robert H. Romans. NAC. Vol. 27. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995. Luther, Martin. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Trans. by J. Theodore Mueller. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1976. . Lectures on Romans. Trans. and Ed. by Wilhelm Pauk. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1961. Strimple, Robert B. Amillennialism. Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond. Ed. by Darrel L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999: 83129. Gentry, Kenneth L. Jr. A Postmillennial Response to Robert B. Strimple, Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond. Ed. by Darrel L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999: 130 142. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary of the New Testament. Ed. by Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, and Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996. Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: The Interface Between Dispensational & Non-Dispensational Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.
22 Waymeyer, Matthew William. The Identity of All Israel in Romans 11:26. ThM thesis, The Masters Seminary, 2003. Gaebelein, A. C. Hath God Cast Away His People. Toronto, Canada: Gospel Publishing House, 1905. LaRondelle, Hans K. The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles in Prophetic Interpretation. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1983. Feinberg, Charles L. Israel: At the Center of History & Revelation. Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1980. Lloyd-Jones, D. M. Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 11 to Gods Glory. 2005; reprint. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1998. Benware, Paul N. Understanding End Times Prophecy: A Comprehensive Approach. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2006. LaHaye, Tim and Thomas Ice, Eds. The End Times Controversy: The Second Coming Under Attack. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003.
Rethinking Chronology from Abraham to Solomon by Applying Unused Texts: Setting Genesis, Job, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Ruth and 1 Samuel into Old Testament Chronology