The Evangelical Universalist Forum

All Israel shall be Saved and Romans 9:27

Evangelical Universalism
#1

St. Paul in Rom 9:25-26 (immediately before v.27) is directly referencing Hosea 1:10, where YHWH has declared of rebel Israel “you are not My people and I am not yours” (v.9).

“Yet”, continues YHWH, quoted by St. Paul, “the number of the sons of Israel will be like the sand of the sea which cannot be measured or numbered; and it will come about that, in the place where it is said to them, ‘You are not My people’, it will be said to them, ‘You are the sons of the living God’. And the sons of Judah and the sons of Israel will be gathered together, and they will appoint for themselves one leader, and they will go up from the land: for great will be the day of Jezreel.”

Much of the point of Hosea is that God is very angry at His rebel and adulterous bride but, after punishing her, she will repent and God will restore her even better than before. Paul quotes that promise of restoration elsewhere in 1 Cor 15 as being a promise of resurrection, with the famous “O death, where are your thorns? O Sheol, where is your sting?” (which in Hosea 13:14 is actually calling upon death and hell to punish rebel Israel–but in the subsequent chapter the result is that they repent and are restored because even in His wrath God actually loves them.)

The context of Rom 9:25-27, consequently, points directly to all Israel, even rebel Israel, being eventually saved. (This can be argued from Paul’s referential citations earlier in the chapter, too.) The comparison is that rebel Israel has become like the Gentiles, but God calls the Gentiles to salvation as well as loyal Israel–so we’re all in the same boat in the final reckoning of things. (This has very obvious connections to chapter 11 later, too, with people being grafted in and out of the vine of the promises to Israel, including people being grafted back in after being grafted out!)

This concept is overlaid by St. Paul with a citation from Isaiah 10:20-23, where survivors of the coming destruction will repent. This is not the same thing as rebel Israel being resurrected, and probably refers to a different coming event, but the themes are similar. As shall happen with the survivors, so shall happen with those who didn’t survive but shall live again: they may have stumbled, but not so as to fall.

#2

Jason, what do you think Paul’s point was when saying that only a remnant was actually Israel (I can remember what he said, but close to this).

#3

In context of Romans 9-11, I expect he means that only a remnant remain grafted into the vine.

I think pretty much all commentators agree on this, although they’d disagree about further details. Pretty much all commentators also agree (I think) that a main purpose of Paul’s explanations is to account for why it shouldn’t be a surprise that only a remnant would remain.

As to what I myself think Paul was saying about the remnant: those who are connected to the vine are the true Israel, regardless of whether they were born in connection to the vine or not, and regardless of how small a fraction of the population they may be at any time–if they’re grafted in, they’re grafted into the identity and into the promises. But those grafted in should not disdain those currently outside, including anyone having been taken out by God, because if God is able to graft in those born outside the vine He is even more able to graft back in those who by nature were born into the vine!–and if God does not spare those natural to the vine from being grafted out, how much less will He spare those who were foreign to the vine from being taken back out!

So Christians should not disdain each other for being Jews or Greeks, and we should not disdain non-Christians for being Jews or Greeks, including Jews currently stumbling over the stumbling stone (a Pauline rabbinic pun for the Son): they haven’t stumbled so as to fall, and if we (among the current remnant) insist that they cannot be grafted back in, or that anyone else currently outside cannot be grafted in (as many of us once were), we’re the ones God will be grafting back out again! (Even though not hopelessly so.)

It’s still proper for us, out of true love, to be unceasingly grieving for those who are currently stumbling. But it’s also proper for us to praise God in rejoicing that He has imprisoned all into disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. :slight_smile: Those who are stumbling have not stumbled so that they will fall: "MAY IT NEVER BE!!!"

#4

Within the vale of restless mind
I sought on mountain and in mede.
True love I quested for to find:
upon a hill, I then took heed;
a voice I heard, quite near indeed,
in great dolour complaining tho:
“See, dear soul! My side does bleed!
Quia amore langueo!” [For I in love am suffering.]

Upon this mount I found a tree;
beneath this tree a man sitting;
from head to foot wounded was he,
his heart’s own blood I saw bleeding.
A seemly man, to be a king;
a gracious face, whose tears did flow.
I asked from where his pain did spring.
“Quia amore langueo.”

I am love that false was never;
my sister (he said) I loved her thus.
Because I would not desert her–ever!–
I left my kingdom glorious.
I paid for her a place precious.
She fled. I followed. I loved her so,
I suffered these woundings piteous!
Quia amore langueo.

Ah! My love and my lady bright!
I saved her from treason; she hath me betrayed.
I clothed her in grace and in heavenly light;
this bloody surcoat she hath on me laid.
For longing of love I shall not be dismayed;
I have loved her as ever I promised her so.
These wounds are full precious to me, though I’m flayed!
Quia amore langueo.

I crowned her with bliss; she crowned me with thorn.
I led her to bower. She led me to die.
I brought her to worship. She brought me to scorn.
I reverenced her. She spat in my eye.
To love that does love, it is no wonder why (that)
her hatred has never made my love her foe.
So ask me no more why my love does not die!!
…but quia amore langueo.

Look unto my hands here, man!
These gloves I was given, when her love I sought;
they be not white, but red and wan,
embroidered with blood–my spouse them bought.
I could take them off–but I leave them not!
With these I do woo her wherever she goes.
These hands full friendly for her have fought!!!
Quia amore langueo.

Marvel not, man, that I sit here still;
my love hath sure shod me with wonderous deed.
She buckled my feet, as was her will,
with bright sharpened nails! Observe and take heed:
I let her, though surely she had not a need.
I love her so deeply, I would give also
my body and blood for her own heart to feed!
Quia amore langueo.

Into my side I have made her a nest;
look you and see! How wide a wound here!
This is her chamber. In here she can rest,
and safe in my heart she can sleep free from fear.
Here she may wash away any filth clear;
here there is succor for all of her woe;
come, if she will, and she shall have cheer!
Quia amore langueo!

I will abide, until she is ready.
I will send love to her, though she say nay.
If she is reckless, I will be steady.
If she is haughty, I will her pray.
But if she does weep, then shall I here stay!?
My arms are full spread for to clasp her here, so!
Cry only “Come!”, and I shall not delay!
Quia amore langueo!

I sit on this hill, that I may see far.
I look to the vale. My spouse I do see.
Now she comes nearer; now she runs wayward.
Yet from my clear eyesight she never will be.
Some wait to slay her, and on her to feed!
I charge as a lion to chastise her foe!!!
Ah, my dear soul, won’t you come back to me?
Quia amore langueo!

My sweet beloved spouse, shall we go out to play?
Within my bright garden are ripening vines.
I shall bring clothing of fairest array!
Your meat shall be cold milk and honey and wine!
Now my dear soul; let us go dine!
I have for your pleasure the quick and the slow!
Tarry not dearest, oh lovéd spouse mine!
Quia amore langueo!

If you have come foul, I shall clean you fair.
If you have come sickened then I shall you heal.
If you ought to mourn, your tears I will share.
O why, my dear spouse, will you not with me deal!?
What love do you seek that could be so more real!?
Tell me, I beg you: what shall I do more!?
Against your own hatred, I make the appeal!
Quia amore langueo!

What more shall I do for you, oh my dear spouse?..
I will abide here in deepest address.
If you would but look up from out of your house
built of selfish desire, and of uncleanliness.
Your bed I have made, and your bower blooms bliss,
and your chambers are chosen–oh, look up dear soul!
I would share all I have! I would give you my best!!
Quia amore langueo!

Although your desires might be ever so high,
my love is more deep than your dreaming can be.
Your joy and your sorrow I share sitting by,
yet how I do wish you would look here to me!
How long shall you feed your self only on thee?
Till you starve without meat? Oh my love, be not so!
I say to you with the utmost sureity:
Quia amore langueo.

My spouse is in chamber…! Hold you your peace!
Make not a noise; but let her sleep.
My love shall suffer no more disease.
And if ever the tears from her eyes she weeps,
I shall share with her strength from my heart to keep.
No wonder it is, that I tend her so;
this hole in my side has been never so deep,
but quia amore langueo.

Do not be weary, my own dear wife!
Find strength in our love, for our work can begin.
Together against tribulation and strife,
we shall stand and give life unto others again.
Let me lift you up high, so you fly in the wind,
to give hope and give love wheresoever you go.
And your home shall be deep
in the stars of heaven,
in bliss…
quia amore langueo.

#5

“they haven’t stumbled so as to fall”- what does this mean? What does it mean to “fall” here?

#6

Based on the context, the ones who have stumbled (or at least some of them) are:

1.) sinning;

2.) grafted out of the promises and so are not part of the remnant.

So “falling” can’t be either of those two things. (Because Paul doesn’t say that some of the ones who have stumbled will not fall, but is talking inclusively about all who have stumbled over the stone of offense. His point wouldn’t tally up if he was only talking about some of the ones who have stumbled.)

The only thing that makes sense to me that would be worse than stumbling out of relation to the vine (i.e. not only stumbling out of relation of the vine but stumbling so as to fall) would be to never be grafted back in again. But Paul expressly says that God can graft back in the ones He has taken out.

I think that’s what fits the meaning of stumbling but not so as to fall.

Paralleling the metaphors then:

stumbling ---------------------- so as to fall -------------------------------- not so as to fall

grafted out of the vine ------ can’t or won’t be grafted back in --------- can and will be grafted back in

#7

Interesting. Have you ever heard anyone else make that point? Is Paul possibly answering ET proponents from your perspective?

#8

“quia amore langueo” <-beautiful

did they truly have an ET doctrine at that time? that’s something that’s been difficult to answer, i think…but if they didn’t, then Paul might not be answering it as such.

“may it never be”…is this suggesting it’s possible, or is this an expression something like “God forbid?” which isn’t quite so suggestive…

#9

I’ve heard some other universalists make that point before; don’t recall any Arms or Calvs making it.

Whether Paul was answering ET proponents or not, I think he was addressing a concern that the promises of God would be voided if some of Israel was finally lost. And I’m pretty sure most or all commentators agree he was concerned with this from at least chapters 9 through 11: he starts with unceasing anguish over his fellow Israelites and ends with praising the unexpected awesomeness of God, so one way or another he has to be getting from point A(nguish) to point P(raise) so to speak. :slight_smile:

What theologians have duels over is how and why he gets there. Is it because God’s promises don’t really count for some Israelites because not everyone Israel by nature is Israel by spirit? That’s the standard non-universalistic approach (whether the result is ECT or anni), and Paul’s vine-grafting kolasis metaphor (note that this is exactly the horticultural situation behind the punishment term {kolasis}) does involve something of this sort, so they aren’t pulling that interpretation out of the nether. :wink: (Besides he says as much elsewhere, that not all those who are Israel by flesh are Israel by spirit, or vice versa!)

What I notice is that such an explanation doesn’t fit Paul’s strong insistence that God’s promises do still count, and not only for loyalists still in the vine of Christ (though obviously for them, too): in fact none of us, whether native to the vine or not, remain in the vine. All have sinned and have fallen short (or more literally and quite appropriately are wanting) the glory of God. This is love, not that we have first loved God, but that while we were yet helpless and sinners, God sent His Son to die for our sake.

#10

No, it’s just a colloquial expression like “God forbid”. It could be used more literally to mean “that might happen I suppose but I pray it never does”, but generally the person exclaiming this expects God to ensure it never happens. For example: “The God Who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous is He? May it never be! For otherwise how will God judge the world?!” (3:5-6)

Or for that matter verse 3 of the same chapter: “So what if some * disbelieve?! Their unbelief will not be nullilfying the faith of God, will it? May it never be!–let God be true though every man a liar!!”

This is one main reason why I absolutely have to interpret chps 9-11 later in such a way that the unbelief of those who stumble over the stumbling stone does not nullify the faith and the promises of God: God will be faithful to those who stumble, for the sake of the fathers (i.e. to the promises God made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), even if those who stumble are not faithful to God.

But, neither does that mean people can just sin and it doesn’t matter, much less that we ought to sin so that grace will increase (which Paul says some people have been slanderously charging he teaches). Those who sin get grafted out of the vine (for some brisk cleaning, if other NT punishment contexts are remembered, not even counting the contexts of the OT verses Paul constantly cites!); but that can hardly be considered hopeless since we all are grafted out of the vine at some point.*

#11

That’s a 15th century Christian mystical poem of anonymous authorship; I was poking around in a bookstore and found an old book collecting Christian mystical poetry, and bought it precisely for the sake of copying that one down (and upgrading the language a bit to more modern English.)

There are nods to it in my Penitent Empress trilogy eventually, too, especially in Book 3. (Which was another main reason I bought it: the imagery was similar to some things I was planning. Now those things look a little more like this. :slight_smile: )

Cry of Justice (in my sig link) is the first book of that trilogy, btw; the other books aren’t released yet.