1) “All Israel” in Romans 11:26 is not the same as in v. 25
This “all Israel” is probably the most debated issue between the FR and HR. It is common among the proponents of the FR view to say that since Israel in v.25 is observed by almost everyone to be the ethnic people of Israel, it would then follow that the Israel in v. 26 would be the same. Why would Paul change the definition of Israel in one verse to the next without letting his readers know he is doing so?
My answer is two-fold. First, I don’t think that Paul necessarily has to explicitly let his audience know that his definition of Israel has changed from one verse to the next. We see this very fact in the beginning of this whole question regarding Israel and the church in Romans 9:6. “But it is not as though the word of God has failed, for not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” Now it may be argued that it is so obvious within the context that there needs no explanation. This may be true. But couldn’t the same be argued about Romans 11:25, 26. The context of Romans 11 certainly does encourage this reading. But even if the context does encourage a redefinition of “Israel,” this argument alone is not strong enough, hence the indication of “all” in v. 26, which qualifies Paul’s redefinition. This brings me to my second answer.
Advocates of the FR say that “Israel” in v. 25 has to mean the same in v. 26 because there are no qualifiers. But there is a qualifier. The word “all” in v. 26 makes the “Israel” in v. 26 unique in definition. But it may be noted now the inconsistency of the FR view regarding Israel in v. 25 & 26.
Those who hold the FR have a more difficult problem when arguing that Israel in both verses means the same. The “Israel” in v. 25 cannot be exactly the same in v. 26 unless you believe that every Israelite who has been, “hardened” (v.25) will then “be saved” (v.26). The “Israel” in v. 25 are a different group of people than the “Israel” in v. 26. The common FR advocate must concede this point to some degree. The “Israel” who was hardened in v. 25 are reprobate and the “Israel” who are living in the last days are “elect.” In light of this, it could be understood by the FR view that Paul makes a slight redefinition of “Israel” between these two verses no matter how you slice the pie. My understanding, however, doesn’t want to redefine Israel in eschatological terms, but rather in view of redemptive history.
I believe that he does redefine Israel, not by implication, but by explication in the word “all.” The two Israel’s are different, and thus grammatically marked differently. This is one of those instances where I would say, “Let ‘all’ be ‘all.’” If Paul really wanted the reader to understand “Israel” in v. 26 in terms of ethnicity, why did he even insert the word “all” at all? Wouldn’t it make better sense, if he was thinking FR, to just leave it at, “A partial hardening has come on Israel…and in this way Israel will be saved?” It doesn’t make sense that he insert the word “all”, unless he wanted to redefine “Israel.”
Therefore, in light of these two points, in addition to the small inconsistency with Israel meaning the exact same in v. 25 and 26, inclines me to believe that “all Israel” is being redefined significantly, namely it is not referring to ethnic Israel, but rather the elect. 1) Israel can be redefined by Paul within the same verse (Rom. 9:6) without any indication that he will do so. 2) There is an indication that he does so by qualifying the second “Israel” with the word “all.” 3) Unless you adhere to a certain form of universalism, Israel in v. 25 cannot be the exact same as Israel in v. 26.
Big picture, I believe Paul is beginning to conclude this three-chapter section in the same manner he began it in Romans 9, and thus he uses the same phraseology in ch.11. Paul has said, “Not everyone who is born of Abraham is considered part of the elect, or true Israel (9:6)…don’t you know that God has elected those outside of ethnic Israel to be apart of His covenant family (9:24). And you should know Gentiles that once every Gentile is grafted into the root of Israel (11:17), then it shall be the case that all of true Israel will be saved at that point (11:26).”
23 November 2007
5 Reasons for the Historic Remnant from Romans 9-11: Reason 1 All Israel
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
finally! Aaron and i sorta agree on something!
Did I just read a comment by a "frenchdaddy?"
Uh, I'm not convinced. One of the biggest weaknesses I see in this argument is the assertion that Paul means to include the Gentiles and ethnic Israel in the "Israel" of v26. Aaron, you say that you don't think Paul necessarily needs to let his audience know that his definition of Israel is changing from one verse to the next. But this seems un-Paul-like. He says in 2 Cor 4.2 that he doesn't use "deception," rather he sets forth the truth of God plainly. The HR view of v26 does not seem very plain to me.
Furthermore, there is no precedent in Romans before this verse to understand "Israel" as including the Gentiles. Maybe if Paul had already shown that the term "Israel" can function to include the Gentiles, maybe then I could adopt the HR view.
The HR view is actually quite appealing to me, but I think it is too much of an exegetical stretch, especially at verse 26.
Shane,
I go back and forth on whether Gentiles are included in "all Israel" in v. 26, but I don't think that you have to decide either way in order to be HR. In fact, at this point, I think that all Israel refers to all ethnic Jews throughout history who will be saved. I simply find no evidence for a Future Restoration in Romans 11. So if the only hangup is Gentiles included in all Israel, then come on over to the Dark Side. We have more fun over here :)
This is Andy writing.
I have to differ with my brother Aaron (and Joey and "frenchdaddy") on his understanding of Romans 11 and so thought I would join the blog-debate. As a brief sentence of introduction, let me say that it is my conviction that the teaching of future restoration ( i.e. there will be a future point when ethnic Israel will cooperately--meaning in vast majority--turn in faith to Messiah Jesus and be saved.) is clearly and plainly taught by Paul in Romans 11. There is much I can (and Lord-willing will) write in defense of this, but let me take this first opportunity to respond to Aaron's thoughts.
First of all, it is my opinion that while "and in this way all Israel will be saved" is certainly a climax of this chapter, it is nonetheless NOT what future restoration hangs on. Rather, the clear line of Paul's argument throughout the chapter is where I rest my understanding. Nonetheless, I will make a case for why I disagree with Aaron's arguments regarding "Israel" in verse 26.
Aaron's first point is that Israel can be redefined by Paul in a single verse. This is of course true as he shows in Romans 9:6. He points out, however, that a counter-argument is that the redefinition is obvious in 9:6. I am following Aaron's thoughts to this point, but do not follow his next assertion that likewise "The context of Romans 11 certainly does encourage this reading [that Israel is redefined as believers in verse 26]." Why is this certain? Or even encouraged? I do not and have not ever felt like I am going against context in understanding "Israel" in verse 26 as the ethnic people group. In fact, in my opinion it is the context itself that gives strength this this interpretation. (I will explain why I think this in a future post, Lord-willing.)
Aaron's second point is that BOTH interpretations, not just historic remnant but also future restoration, require a redefinition of "Israel" from verse 25 to verse 26 unless you believe that Jews are saved apart from Jesus. This, of course, none of us believe. I do disagree with Aaron's point here, though, and DO NOT think that "Israel" is redefined between these two verses. Let me explain.
If I were to say, "the 2006 Colts won the Superbowl" and then, "the 2006 Colts will be doing a benefit dinner next May"--I would clearly be talking about the same group representing the same individuals. However, I could also say, "the Colts were terrible their first year in the NFL" and then, "the Colts won the Superbowl last year"--in this case, I would be talking about a completely different set of individuals, and yet I have NOT redefined the word; I am still referring to the same group.
Likewise, Paul can say (and I believe is saying), "Israel has been partially hardened" and "all Israel will be saved," without redefining Israel, and yet meaning a completely different set of individuals. This is the case simply because one is speaking of the past and the other the future. Thus, in holding to the teaching of future restoration, you are NOT redefining "Israel" between verses 25 and 26, where as with historic remnant you of course are. [Look at Paul's use of "Gentiles" in this chapter. For example, Paul means the individual non-Jews alive today in verse 13 while he means non-Jews including individuals yet to be born in verse 25. This is not the same set of individuals, and yet no one would say he is redefining the word.]
Aaron's final point is over the word "all." In his understanding, he sees no reason for it if Paul is teaching future restoration. I completely disagree. Paul has been talking much in this chapter (and the two previous) of how much of ethnic Israel has to this point rejected Jesus and shown themselves to not be among the elect. And thus if he is going to now explicitly reveal that there will be a day when this is no longer the case, would he not want to do so with excitement and clarity and a big word like "all"?! "Think of it Romans...there will be a day when not just a remnant are saved, but ALL Israel!"
So all this has been defense mode, countering Aaron's arguments. It is much more helpful, I think, to begin hitting up all the many arguments FOR future restoration. I hope to do this soon.
Love you brothers!!
Post a Comment