The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Romans 9-11

Yes. Thanks Davo. I think you and Stefcul are saying the same thing and I think I am agreeing with you when I said

Yes I’m thinking probably close enough. :slight_smile:

Rom 11:25-31

Thanks Paidion. This seems to agree with Davo and Stefcul and it seems the best way to understand it to me now also. Thankyou.

Next question. :slight_smile:

We agree that Paul is distinguishing between those who are truly Israel and those who are merely physical descendants of Abraham. This would seem to me to be a difference between those who are truly children of God and thus saved, and those who are not saved (at least while they remain merely physical descendants). Yet many commentaries say that Paul is not dealing with issues of salvation in these verses - I think this is to avoid Calvinistic implications. I don’t understand how people say that Paul is not dealing with issues about salvation here. Do we all agree that Paul is speaking of salvation issues in Rom 9?

I think Paul’s main theme in Rom. 9 is twofold:

  1. There is a remnant within biological Israel, who are the true Israel.
  2. There are people outside of biological Israel, that is Gentiles, who also part of the true Israel.

This theme continues throughout chapters 10 and 11.

I’m not sure what you mean by “salvation issues.” I suppose one could say that since the true Israel of which he speaks are the people of God, the saved people, that this theme addresses “salvation issues.”

I think chapters 1-8 were written so that Paul could write ch 9-11. 1-8 do not form a ‘standalone’ unit; like 1-8 are all about personal salvation, which is the “important stuff” and then 9-11 are another topic. Rather, the whole theme seems to be “the righteousness of God” and by that Paul most often means God’s faithfulness to his covenant promises.
So I think ch 9-11 are the central part of the whole letter. Two big concerns are addressed - what about unbelieving Israel, and what about God’s faithfulness? Gentile christians in Rome may have been saying that God had cast aside Israel, and therefore been unfaithful to them. Paul goes through a lot of pains, re-capping God’s work thru Israel, then to the gentiles, all leading up to the messiah, the whole point of the show.

I think Paul showed in ch 11 that He intended all along to save ethnic Jews along with the gentiles.

For an extended treatment you might really enjoy this: ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Romans_Theology_Paul.pdf

I agree

I agree

I agree

Sorry if I wasn’t clear what I meant about “salvation issues”.
A few days ago Dondi wrote

I have heard others say that this passage is not speaking of personal salvation but corporate election of Israel. This seems to be how many Arminians deal with the passage.
I asked this question

Another way of asking the question is whether Isaac and Jacob and the remnant were selected to be part of the true Israel, and thus selected to be saved, and if so how does that relate to the issue of Calvinism and Universalism. I have come from a Calvinist background and am trying to sort out my thinking.

One Universalist response that I have heard is that yes, Isaac, Jacob and the remnant were chosen for salvation, but they are the first fruits with the purpose of reaching others with the gospel.

In all of this I am just thinking and questioning out loud and looking for input from others who may have thought through these issues a lot more than I have. Thanks :slight_smile:

Thanks Dave for the N.T Wright reference. I have Tom Wright’s commentary on Romans and have found it quite interesting. You have given a good summary from what I remember.

I think I agree with you. How do you understand “all Israel” in 11:26?

Just the first half of that verse has caused books to be written! Entire eschatologies proliferated!
At the least - the only part I’m sure of - the verse is part of the pointed argument that if Israel (whether by that you mean ethnic Israel or the subsection of ‘believing’ Israel) is to be saved, they will be saved like everyone else.
What shred of wisdom I have is telling me to stop there!! :smiley:

Craig, I would like to share my thoughts on the matter.

Unfortunately, some translations read, “And so all Israel will be saved” as if this were thrown in as an after-thought.
But the word “ουτος” does not mean “so”. It means “thus” or as most translations have it “in this way”:

“And in this way all Israel will be saved…”(ESV) In what way is that? When God purifies Israel (depicted by an olive tree) when He breaks off the branches that do not belong and grafts in those from the “wild olive tree” (Gentiles who are disciples of the Messiah).

Indeed, if we read the rest of the verse and the following verse we will see that Paul himself explains it:

… as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob; and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”(ESV)

That is, when the Deliverer purifies Israel by removing those who are not disciples of the Messiah whom God had sent to them, and adds even Gentiles when they become disciples, then ALL Israel, all those who are true Israelites, disciples of God’s Messiah, will be saved.

That’s pretty much where I’m at Craig. It should be noted however that although Israel was initially ethnic orientated THAT was not there strength. At the core of Israel’s identity was NOT race but “covenant” – they were elect of God to reflect Him to the world beyond and the OT is replete with Gentiles joining themselves in covenant to Yahweh via becoming a part of historic Israel.

So, when you really think about it and considering the likes of David’s gentile heritage, this also gives another nifty twist to Paul’s… “they are not all Israel who are of Israel”. :astonished:

PS: if you haven’t read them already I have some other thoughts on “Israel” in this thread over HERE.

On the expression “all Israel,” Wright is famous for arguing a minority position that this refers to all who will become Christian believers. Dr. John Barclay, N.T. prof at Durham, earned his doctorate under Wright, and has sympathy with much of his approach. But in discussing this with him, he told me about a large conference of N.T. scholars that met with Wright in Australia and pressed him about 11:26. Barclay said that not one scholar sided with Wright’s interpretation. For the dominating interpretation was that in the surrounding context Paul is using ‘Israel’ to refer to ethnic Jews, and this was his way of speaking about his burden for his kinsmen by race. I think this interpretation is shared by both Talbott and Parry. Thus, while my interpretations are profoundly influenced by Wright’s penetrating interpretations of both Jesus and Paul, my bias is that the burden concerning 11:26 is on those who would argue that the context supports a reference to non-Jews here.

…couldn’t agree more Bob.

Thanks everyone for this helpful interaction. :slight_smile:

I can certainly understand where you are coming from Paidion but I do at this stage lean toward the idea that in v26 Paul is speaking of his fellow Jews, those of his own race - as Davo and Bob have put forward. This seems to fit better with the following verses. I can see how v26,27 could fit in with your interpretation as you have described but I cannot see how vs 28-31 can fit in well with it. If you have any comments on how you understand v28-31 in relation to v26 I would be interested in hearing them.

For Bob and Davo or any others who understand “Israel” in v26 to be referring to ethnic Jews - some more questions if I may.

1 If “Israel” refers to ethnic Jews, what does Paul mean by “All Israel”?

2 After discussing 11:26 Talbott says on p72 “There is simply no way, as far as I can tell, to escape the universalistic implication here.” Do you agree with him? How does your understanding of this verse relate to your understanding of Universal Reconciliation?

3 How do you relate what Paul says in 9:27 “Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved” with 11:26 “All Israel will be saved”? These statements sound contradictory.

Thanks again everyone.

Good questions, Craig! I think the major debate on “all” here has been whether it is a hyperbolic way of speaking of a lot Jewish converts (perhaps responding to the time of the the second coming) versus a more universalistic salvation of Jews. The context of angst over unbelieving fellow Jews and the doxology that follows 11:26’s affirmation makes it plausible to interpret it as all Jews (Paul’s apparently satisfied joy here seems strange if he thinks that the reality is that Most Jews will be damned). Of course, this is short of proving universalism that encompasses non-Jews (which relies more on other texts). But it’s not inconsistent with universalism, and 11:12 encourages that when Israel’s “full inclusion” happens, it will lead to even greater riches experienced among Gentiles. My own sense if that if we see Paul affirming that God’s irrevocable promises to Jews means that ultimately they all will experience salvation, it would seem strange to believe that God’s grace would not be equally generous to all of those created in his image.

9:27 does sound contradictory. But Isaiah was referring to the historical reality that the survivors of exile amounted to only a small remnant (in a context where there may have been no dealings expected beyond death). Similarly, at some points such as here, Paul seems to address the historical reality that only a small remnant of Israel has believed. But this is in a wider context of arguing that God is not finished yet, and that they are not beyond recovery. Rather, it is that hope that allows one to affirm that God’s promises concerning Jews still stand. This allows the climax of 11:26 to then refer to an ultimate universalistic outcome. Have you seen Parry’s new section on Romans 9-11 in the revised Evangelical Universalist? I recall that it focuses on this very tension. He argues in detail that Paul uses “Israel” in two different senses in this passage, and that at some points Paul speaks of God’s dealings with Israel as conditional and thus only being observed to be fulfilled in a remnant, yet at other places Paul seems to affirm a more unconditional and ultimately universal hope for “Israel.”

Thank you for bringing that up, Craig. I will attempt to exegete verses 28-32. I know they can be interpreted from the point of view that God intends to save all national Israel and fulfill the promises made to ancient Israel by restoring them in the promised land, reinstating the Mosaic law, etc. But this does not jive with the rest of Paul’s teachings concerning the Old Covenant passing away and being replaced by the New. He illustrated this by saying that when a man dies, his wife is free to marry another. (Rom 7:1-3).

Paul is doubtless speaking of his “brethren according to the flesh” for whom he had “great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart” and wished that “he himself were accursed and cut off from Christ” for their sake. (Rom 9:1-3). He states that with regards to their calling they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. He doesn’t say by whom they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. Some claim they are beloved by God for their forefather’s sake. But does that make sense? Did Jesus honour the Pharisees for the sake of their forefathers? He uttered some very harsh words in their direction, calling them names such as “hypocrites” and “white-washed tombs” (Matt 23:27). He also said to them,

Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. (Matt 21:43).

That doesn’t sound like Jesus was promising their restoration in the promised land. What was the “nation” to which the Kingdom would be given? Was it not the nation that were subjects to the King, the Messiah that was sent to them?—that is, the Messianic nation (or “Christian” nation).

I think in vs 28, Paul is indicating here that he himself loves his “brethren according to the flesh” for the sake of their forefathers. That is why he would be willing to be cut off from Christ, if they could only be saved.

Wow! If this is what this sentence says, I would have to concede that I was wrong in my understanding. For many in the other camp (those who believe this is all about Christ restoring national Israel, and the Mosaic law, and setting up His headquarters in Jerusalem), this is their prime proof text. God’s calling of Israel is irrevocable, and so He WILL restore them as a nation under His rule, and save them all.

But unfortunately for that interpretation the word “μεταμελητος” does NOT mean “irrevocable”. Rendering it as such, I think, is based on the paradigm of translators from the other camp due to their understanding (or misunderstanding) of the passage. There is one other verse in the NT which uses this Greek word. Let’s see how the NKJV of that passage would look if the word were translated as “irrevocable”, as they had translated it in Rom 11:29:

For Godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, irrevocable; but the sorrow of the world produces death. (2Cor 7:10)

Does this make sense? But fortunately, the NKJV translates the word correctly in this case:

For Godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death. (2Cor 7:10)

And this is exactly how Rotherham translated the word in Rom 11:29

For, not to be regretted, are the gifts and the calling of God. (Rom 11:29 Rotherham)

In Greek, the prefix is placed before a word to express its negation. Thus “μεταμελητος” means “not μεταμελητος”.
The word “μεταμελητος” occurs several timesin the NT, and I assure you it does NOT mean “revocable”. No translation renders it as such.

The NKJV renders the word 3 times in these verses as “do regret”, “did regret” or “regretted”, twice as “will relent” and once as “was remorseful”"

Mt 21:29 "He answered and said, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he regretted it and went.
Mt 21:32 "For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him; but tax collectors and harlots believed him; and when you saw it, you did not afterward relent and believe him.
Mt 27:3 Then Judas, His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was remorseful and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
2Co 7:8 For even if I made you sorry with my letter, I do not regret it; though I did regret it. For I perceive that the same epistle made you sorry, though only for a while.
Heb 7:21 (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: “The LORD has sworn And will not relent, ‘You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek’”)

Thus, as I see it, this verse is saying that God does not regret the fact that He called ancient Israel, and gave gifts to her.

Paul seems to be saying that the Gentiles in the Roman church used to be disobedient, but now the gospel went out to them because the disobedient Jews would not receive it, and so God had mercy on the Gentiles who responded to the gospel. Likewise, now that the Gentiles have accepted the gospel, the Jews can now receive mercy if they respond to the message given to them by the Gentiles.

God has not intervened to prevent the disobedience of either the Jews or the Gentiles. But He sent His Son, and through the apostles the gospel, so that He might have mercy on all.

Having written all these marvels, Paul is overwhelmed by the wisdom, knowledge, and judgments of God! We cannot understand the logistics, but neveretheless, by means of these characteristics and actions, He carries out His divine purposes of restoration to Himself!

From my perspective….

On #1) “ALL” speaks of historic Israel of ages past and present up to Christ’s Ad70 Parousia where all vestiges the OC age closed in finality.

On #2) Much of Paul’s “universalism” is specifically Israel-centric; it did however in divine consequence have a broader intended purpose and reach, as per…

Rom 11:12, 15 Now if their [Israel’s] fall is riches for the world [humanity], and their [Israel’s] failure riches for the Gentiles [firstfruit saints [b]Act 13:48; 15:14, 17], how much more their [Israel’s] fullness! … For if their [Israel] being cast away [by God] is the reconciling of the world [humanity], what will their [Israel’s] acceptance [by God] be but life [redemptive resurrection]* from the dead?*.

On #3) Given various contexts the terms ‘saved/salvation’ and have differing applications. As for Rom 11:26 it speaks to historic Israel’s national or corporate redemption i.e., the forgiveness of sins – specifically described as “the ungodliness of Jacob” as per verses 27 & 28. Rom 9:27 however alludes to part of the process by which this came became a reality, mainly Israel’s elect firstfruit saints and the deliverance i.e., “salvation” out of the soon coming ‘great tribulation’ of Ad66-70.

And by way of clarification… what I’m advocating with regards to the restoration of historic Israel is NOT the same as Paidion is saying with regards to a return and resumption of OC realities, THAT is however what dispensational futurism teaches and I agree with Paidion as this couldn’t have been further from Paul’s mind. What I’m saying, happened in the past and should be left in the past being part of Christ’s “this generation” where redemption and reconciliation were secured, period, for time immemorial.

Remember, the restoration of Israel was not about fleshly ordinances but all about covenant renewal and that came and was fulfilled in Christ 2Cor 1:20].

Thanks Paidion for your exegesis of 11:28ff. There is much here that sounds very good and some new information for me to think on.

The main weakness to me seems to be in this:
Paul says he is talking to the Gentiles in v13. So the “you” in the following verses refers to the Gentiles.
“They” seems to refer to ethnic Israel throughout the chapter and “Israel” refers to ethnic Israel throughout the chapter (with the possible one exception of v26)
You have agreed that “they” in verse 28 refers to ethnic Israel - “Paul’s brethren according to the flesh”. Wouldn’t “they” in v28 most naturally refer back to and be the same group of people as “Israel” in v26?
In other words, if Israel in v26 is the “true Israel” consisting of both believing Gentiles and Jews, then wouldn’t it be most natural to think that “they” in verse 28 would also refer to the “true Israel” - but you have agreed that it refers to ethnic Israel.

I realise that Paul can often be confusing to read, but if Paul used Israel in v26 to mean “true Israel” without clearly saying, and then followed it with “they” meaning ethnic Israel, this would be very confusing indeed!
Do you have any thoughts on this problem?

Thanks Bob very much for your helpful post. You asked

I have read it in the past, but just read it again and am still digesting it. My impression is that he is trying well to gather together a number of seemingly contradictory and confusing things, but in a way that tries to do justice to all of the material. I feel positive toward his view at the moment. It is in Appendix 6 under “The election of Israel” for anyone interested in reading it.
I will need to think more about it and see if I still have some more questions.

Paidion, some of your problems with understanding “Israel” as ethnic Israel in v26 seem to be related to an opposition to dispensationalism, reinstating the Mosaic law, restoring Israel to the promised land etc. I may be wrong because I am a bit ignorant about dispensationalism, but I don’t think it is necessary to hold to a literal fulfilment concerning the land, the sacrifices, the temple, the Mosaic law etc to believe that God still has plans for the conversion of all ethnic Israel. Davo seems to be saying this as well.
I was wondering if you have read Robin Parry’s section on Rom 9-11 or can see problems with his view that I am missing at this stage and should look into further. Thank you.

Thanks Davo for your post. I agree with much of what you say. I will need to look into your preterist leanings more at some time in the future.