The Evangelical Universalist Forum

A question from "The Evangelical Universalist"

Studies Books
#1

Robin Parry has some very good thoughts on Rom 9-11 in his excellent book “the Evangelical Universalist”. But one small comment seems wrong to me or I may be misunderstanding him somehow. I was wondering if someone may be able to help to clarify the issue.

In discussing what Paul means by “all Israel” in 11:26, Robin says “every other use of the term Israel in Rom 9-11 clearly refers to national Israel”. Robin says this to counter the view of Tom Wright and Calvin that “all Israel” refers to the “israel of God”.
Wouldn’t most people agree that Rom 9:6 “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” uses Israel in two different ways - one of them to spiritual Israel rather that to national Israel? Tom Wright uses Rom 9:6 to support his view.

Is this a mistake in the book or am I missing something?

Sorry I don’t know a page number in my Kindle but it is in the section “The Future Salvation of All Israel”.

#2

[tag]Gregory MacDonald[/tag]

I’ve tagged Robin if he’ll address the question.

I think you’re technically correct on the criticism – Robin overreached or forgot the distinction made by St. Paul when writing that particular rationale – though I think he’s right that “all Israel” in context of Romans 11 (and Paul’s concern over Israel-still-stumbling who can’t be spiritual Israel yet) must mean those currently stumbling as well as spiritual Israel.

#3

I think Paul does use Israel both ways in verse 6. Nevrtheless, I think in the whole of chapters 9-11 he is speaking of national Israel, their origin, their everlasting relationship to YHWH, their purpose, their error and their destiny. So in verse 31, I think he is speaking in context with the whole of the previous three chapters including the olive tree and its original branches, specifically those A: of faithful Israel(of the original nation) and those who are B: of the hereditary nation but not spiritually, (having rejected Messiah) and who therefore are yet in need of salvation.

A+B= C C= All Israel.

To me this is an unavoidable conclusion, as He speaks of branches cut-off for unbelief, and then grafted back in, and the undying love of God for them expressed in irrevocable covenants.

2 cents

#4

Thanks Jason and Eaglesway. If this is an oversight concerning 9:6, I agree that it does not affect Robin’s overall argument from the context of 11:26. 11:25,28,29 seem to be talking about national Israel to me.

Does anyone have any thoughts concerning the “so” all Israel will be saved? Robin seems to understand the “so” as meaning “then” (although in footnote 34 he says “and so it follows that” is better than “then” - I am not sure how this is different).
I think understanding “so” as “then” is necessary if Robin’s view is correct. Is “then” all Israel will be saved (as Robin understands it) rather than “in this way” all Israel will be saved (as Tom Wright understands it) a reasonable way of understanding Paul’s meaning from the Greek? Tom Wright argues that the Greek “houtos” does not mean “then”, but regularly means “thus, in this way, after this fashion, by this means - it describes the manner in which, rather than the time at which, something happens”.

How strong do you think this argument concerning “so” is, against Robin’s view?

#5

Hi Craig…

My understanding is that Paul’s “not all Israel” references unfaithful Israel, i.e., those who in Paul’s day, where Israel’s national redemption was being outworked (AD. 30-70), were those being “hardened in part”; this then in comparison to “the firstfruit saints” i.e., faithful Israel who were “the elect”, and yet as always, the elect ON BEHALF OF the rest, as in “all Israel” – Paul later uses the phrase “even the Israel of God” Gal 6:16 in describing such faithful ones; he himself being a vital part thereof.

The issue then of “salvation” and or “election” in Rom 9-11 was NEVER about “who gets to heaven” (or who doesn’t) after death, no… “salvation” was “redemption, the forgiveness of sins” Col 1:14 – Israel’s sin/s (Rom 11:26b-27), and subsequently WHO was CALLED of God into this ministry of SERVICE (priesthood), again ON BEHALF OF the rest i.e., Paul’s “my brethren” national Israel (Rom 9:3) to spread this warning of judgement, and for those who found it, comforting mercy in “this present evil age” Gal 1:4 of the Old Covenant and its subsequent demise, as per 2Cor 3:7-11; Heb 8:13; 1Cor 2:6, 7:31; 1Jn 2:8.

A key understanding in this is to appreciate that said “salvation” was also linked in terms of physical deliverance (salvation) from this forthcoming “wrath” associated with the coming Roman-Jewish wars AD. 66-70… the 3½ yr period prophesied by Jesus in Mt 24 / Mk 13 / Lk 17; 21.

#6

The Greek word is ὁυτως (houtōs), and it means “thus” or “in this way.” The English Standard Version has it right:

And in this way all Israel will be saved…(Romans 11:26)

The translation “so” is all right if it is so understood (in this way understood).

It always helps to understand a Greek word to check other instances in which it is used. Here are a few others:

1.* Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows (in this way) (Matthew 1:18 NKJV—parenthetical expression mine)*

It would have been perfect English to translate the word as “so” in the above verse:

*Now the birth of Jesus Christ was so…

  1. So they said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet. (Matthew 2:5 NKJV)*

Again, notice we could have used “so”:

So they said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet.

Please note that the word “so” is used in TWO DIFFERENT senses in the sentence above.
The first “so” means something like “then.” But the second one cannot mean “then.” It means more like “in this way.”

In our verse in question, the word ὁυτως, in being translates as “so” is usually taken to mean “then.” but it doesn’t it means “in this way.”
The translators who so render it, remove the ambiguity (The translators who, in this way, render it, remove the ambiguity).

3. Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? (Matthew 6:30 NKJV)

If God in this way clothes the grass of the field…

In the verse in question, the context makes it clear:

17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree,
The olive tree represents Israel. Even under the Old Covenant, there was but a remnant of the nation who were true Israel. The rest of the “branches” were broken off the tree. Those who didn’t really follow God and obey Him, were not recognized as belonging to the holy nation which He had establised. And Paul indicates that the Gentiles who followed Messiah were grafted into this “olive tree,” that is, they became part of this true Israel.
18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you.
19 Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”
20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe.
21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.
The “natural” branches were ethnic Israel who, after being removed, were no longer part of the Israel of God. Those Gentiles who were grafted in, can also be removed, unless they continue to be faithful.
22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.
23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.
24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.
25 Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
26 And in this way all Israel will be saved…

What is this way in which all Israel will be saved? By this process of God who takes out those who don’t belong, and by bringing in others who do (Gentiles). When this process is completed, when all who were in the “olive tree” (Israel) become disciples of Christ, and all Gentiles who were outside it become disciples, thev will become part of the olive tree. Thus they all will be saved. (In this way they all will be saved).

Thus Israel was not “replaced by the Church.” Rather Israel continued without a break. By taking out the false members, and adding other true members, it continues to be purified—saved from sin—not just a part of it, but ALL of it.

#7

I agree that is was not about “who gets to heaven”… I think it is about the eventual inclusion of all Israel in the kingdom of God- of whom many were unable to enter because of unbelief- as Paul says.

I get you are referencing that this was something different- the judgment of Israel concluded in 70AD. I just don’t see that Pauls words were that limited.

#8

I think they were indeed limited or better said, specific to Israel, and purposely so; and yet their intended end always inclusive of broader humanity, in toto. IOW… Israel, and in particular her redemption, was God’s means whereby mankind was to be reconciled to the Creator. This is precisely what I see Paul saying right here…

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 Acts 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 [covenant renewal/resurrection] from the dead?.

Or to paraphrase Paul: Now if Israel’s fall is riches for humanity, and Israel’s failure riches for the Gentile firstfruit saints, how much more Israel’s redemptive fullness! … For if Israel being cast away by God is the reconciling of humanity, what will Israel’s acceptance by God be but redemptive resurrection, that is, life from the dead?

Paul’s “this age” was all about covenant transition… Old to New – “this world” = Old Covenant/creation and “world to come” = New Covenant/creation. Hence…

Heb 8:13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Notice the words “becoming” “growing” “ready” – there was a process in train at that point in time where that which was glorious (OC) was now by way of the faithfulness and fullness of Christ fading away. 2Cor 3:7-11

#9

Thanks Paidion for this helpful post on the Greek confirming what Tom Wright has said.

It seems to me that if Paul had stopped writing at 11:26, then the meaning of the Greek word "so” (in this way), would lead naturally to the meaning you have given to “all Israel” in 11:26 and it would all make reasonable sense.

The difficulty I have with this view, is that 11:25 mentions Israel as a nation, 11:28-30 mentions “they” several times referring to Israel as a nation. It would be extremely confusing if Paul was referring to spiritual Israel in v26,27 and then switched over to talk about national Israel as “they” in the following verses. It seems more likely to me that national Israel is referred to all the way through. Robin Parry seems to feel that the weight of this difficulty favours his view over against Tom Wright.

So at the moment, in my mind, the Greek of “so” favours Tom Wright and what you have said Paidion, whereas other factors of context favour Robin’s view. Both views I think can be worked in with the overall argument of Rom 9-11, but with different conclusions. I like Robin’s view because it seems to have a happier ending :slight_smile: . It is all a bit confusing :confused: .

A thought I wondered, and maybe what Robin was getting at, perhaps the “so” could mean "in this way that i will now discuss in the next few verses” rather than “in this way that I just discussed in the previous verses”? I think this would be similar Paidion to your first example of houtos in Matt 1:18.

Any thoughts?

#10

I agree that the entire three chapters is to specific Israel, and that the issue is a covenant transition. Rom 9:6 is the exception, making a statement about those of Israel who rejected Messiah, are not faithful. The limitation I was speaking of is the time period- 30AD to 70AD, of which there is no scriptural affirmation(imo). When Paul speaks the words, “All Israel shall be saved”, he is speaking of specific(unbelieving) Israel, and their restoration to the olive tree, something that will eventually occur as a part of “the administration suitable to the dispensation of the fulness of times, the gathering together into one of all things in Christ”…hence,** “so all Israel shall be saved”,** inclusive of that believing part which is already saved and those who have not believed and will be reconciled in times to come(as I see it ).

#11

FWIW, I agree that Craig’s references to immediate context strongly argues that Paul has in mind his burden for his presently unsaved ethnic kinsmen. In a Regent Galatians class, Dr. John Barclay of Durham (who received his N.T. Ph.D under NTW) told me Wright has few followers in his contention that all “Israel” will be saved simply refers tautologically to all of any race who will believe. He claimed that Wright presented his interpretation on this at a conference of N.T. scholars in Australia, and everyone thought it was unconvincing.

#12

That’s very interesting, Bob.

#13

That is indeed interesting.

I am always suspect of any interpretation that renders a verse into a shallow tautology: all who will be saved will be saved. Come on! Paul was smarter than that! Why would he waste ink on something so ridiculous? He might as well have wiled away his time writing that all Greeks are Greeks, that all women are women, all the sick are sick, etc.

#14

I’m not sure HOW you see this as “the exception” just because it highlights the unfaithful, i.e., such is still pertinent to historic Israel, just specifically more targeted, aka the unfaithful – and certainly as a national people they had form in this area… hence the many trials and tribulations of their 40yr sojourn from bondage to bliss, aka Egypt to Canaan.

You already “agree” “…that the issue is a covenant transition.” The scriptural evidence is seen in understanding how the ministry of the firstfruit saints, aka Paul’s “the Body of Christ”, was like Israel of old, replicating the 40yr period of trial and tribulation AD. 30-70 where as per our agreed “covenant transition” such deliverance was outworking ON BEHALF OF greater Israel BECAUSE OF their faithfulness to the call. And like Israel of old certain Gentiles became part of this divine story, only NOW to a greater and more pertinent degree and end.

My position views the Cross (AD. 30) and the Coming (AD. 70) of Christ as being God’s single salvific EVENT in human history where Israel’s redemption is the catalyst for mankind’s reconciliation (as per Rom 11:12, 15 above), and thus can collectively be understood as “salvation” in its most broad sense.

The Cross was God’s DECISIVE EVENT –– the Parousia was God’s CULMINATING EVENT. IOW… both the Cross & Parousia of Christ are seen as BOOKENDS to God’s final one-time intervention in history in terms of establishing restorative peace with His creation. Thus… it is not pie in the sky, it is stake on the plate!

Understood this way i.e., it is all PAST and all FULFILLED takes the endless guesswork and crazy interpretations so often imposed on what is commonly known as “the already/not yet”. This ‘already not yet’ FITS and makes perfect sense when viewed in Jesus’ “this generation” of which Paul and Co. were vital cogs.

WHILE THE TEMPLE STOOD “the Law” though stripped by the Cross of any redemptive value was still in vogue. Though it operated with diminishing effect it STILL carried clout and power…

Heb 9:8-10 …the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience— concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.

Jesus’ “this generation” and Hebrews’ “the present time” equates with “the time of reformation” and Luke’s “times of restoration” of “these days” as per Acts 5:21, 24. THIS was all happening in fulfillment to THEM “upon whom the ends of the ages HAVE come.” 1Cor 10:11

Absolutely YES… all I’m indicating from scripture is that what you’re saying above HAS indeed already occurred, it is not STILL future it is past… ALL historic Israel WAS saved (redeemed) in fulfilment of ALL the OC promises AND as a consequence HUMANITY in toto has been reconciled.

2Cor 1:20 For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us.

Note the “through us” – who was the “us” through whom these promises found such glorious traction? It was the firstfruit saints of the “this generation” aka “the Body of Christ” “the Bride”. These were they of whom Jesus said… “greater works shall ye do” – not in degree (raise the dead others did that) but in scope – Jesus was one his Body was many. In the same vein this explains Paul’s… I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church.” Paul was NOT saying Christ’s sacrifice was in any way inefficacious, but rather, as part of “the body” Paul was playing his part in the outworking to perfection (fullness) of Israel’s redemption.

The work of the firstfruits was ALWAYS to sanctify the whole. Jesus was THE firstfruit of his following firstfruits sanctified Israel. With Israel redeemed the world is reconciled. Jesus as “true Israel” (Jn 15:1; Isa 5:7) fulfilled the mandate of historic Israel as Yahweh’s firstfruit, making the harvest of humanity acceptable (holy) to Him…

Jer 2:3a *Israel was holy to the Lord, the firstfruits of his harvest. *

#15

Romans 9:6 is an exception in that it distinguishing faithful sons of Abraham from unfaithful ones, whereas in the rest of the three chapters the general language is towards the whole nation and their being cut out(as a national entity) of the covenant, now transferred to the one new man made up of Jews and Gentiles, the body of Christ- the new nation of priests. I see Romans 9:6 as almost an aside to the genral discourse of those thre chapters(9-11)

“I can raise up sons of Abraham from these stones.”

#16

Hi Geoffrey

I think Tom Wright’s line of thinking here is also hard for me to accept because Paul’s thinking concerning the Jews in Rom 9-11 would then go something like this:

I am in deep anguish concerning my fellow Israelites. Rom 9:1-3
My heart’s desire and prayer for them is that they may be saved. Rom 10:1
All Israel WILL be saved, God taking away their sins - but this really only means some of my fellow Israelites, (along with some Gentiles), for many Israelites will in fact remain hardened. Rom 11:25-27
Oh how wonderful are God’s plans! Rom 11:33ff

I think something more than Wright’s view would be needed to get Paul excited about God’s wisdom and judgements.

#17

Thanks for mentioning this Bob.

Do you or any others know how scholars who are not convinced by Wright handle the Greek concerning the meaning of “so” in 11:26 that Tom Wright and Paidion put forward in favour of their understanding? ( i.e. that “so” means “in this way” rather than “then”.)

#18

Especially since on NTW’s Arminianistic view, God must have failed in His goal to save all Israel after all!

I can at least understand the Calv attempt as being some kind of consolation: God doesn’t fail to save anyone He intends to save. (So Paul, on this theory, talks himself into believing God never intended to save those people, and so Paul works hard to get on board with that against his unceasing grief for those people God sure as hell isn’t grieving over. :unamused: )

#19

Incidentally, Robin did tag me last night in regard to a thread, but then deleted it afterward so I don’t know what it was about or whether it was even about this thread. My speculative guess from the fine discussion afterward is that he decided the discussion covered everything he had meant to talk about already. :slight_smile: But that’s only a guess.

#20

Davo, I was agreeing that Romans 9-11 was about transition of covenant- I just dont agree about the transition period as 30-70 AD, altho I can see how it manifested upon the nation during those years. I believe the covenant transitioned with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. New high priest. New priesthood. New covenant written in blood that speaks bettr than Abels blood.

In one aspect, i can agree that from the heavenly view, “It is finished”, and all are saved, but I dont like to go round and round that circle. No disrespect but - been there done that agree to disagree :slight_smile:

Paul is not anguished about his unbelieving brothers because they have already been saved, as I see it.

Romans 9:1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

The opening salvo of Paul’s discourse in ch 9-11 defines the ground of it right in the first 3 verses.

Throughout, Paul is speaking of his “unsaved countrymen”- their historic election, their failure, their interdiction and their eventual restoration.