The 'All Israel' of Romans 11:26

One of the more controversial texts in the New Testament, at least as far as the range of interpretations it has generated, is Romans 11:26. The verse reads: 'And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come from Zion, and he will remove ungodliness from Jacob".'

The disputed interpretation concerns the meaning of 'all Israel' in the verse.

There are essentially three interpretations as follows:

1. The first and most common interpretation is that 'all Israel' means that ethnic Israel as a whole (or the vast majority of the Jewish people) will be saved at some point in the future. This view envisages a future conversion of the mass of Jewish people. There is a minority view within this position that the Jews as a nation will be saved in the future, irrespective of turning and accepting Jesus as the Messiah. Yet most people who hold to this position believe in a future conversion of the Jewish people to faith in Christ. This view is common among premillennialists and postmillenialists and was the majority view of the Puritans and also of many commentators on Romans such as Charles Hodge, John Murray, and John Stott.

2. Another view,  held by William Hendriksen, Louis Berkhof, Antony Hoekema, R. C. H. Lenski, O. Palmer Robertson and others, agrees that there is no 'future conversion' of the Jewish nation in view, but rather 'All Israel' means all elect Jews—the sum of all the believing remnants down through history. This view points to the fact that there has always been a believing remnant within ethnic Israel and believes this will continue all through time. 'All Israel' is therefore the sum total of all the believing remnants both in New Testament times and right through to the end of time. This view seems most common among Dutch Reformed theologians and commentators.

3. A third view agrees with the second view in part, in that it agrees the passage does not point to a future mass conversion of the Jewish ethnic nation, but differs from the second view in that it sees in Romans 9-11 a Pauline redefinition of  'Israel' so that 'all Israel' means all the elect, both Jew and Gentile together. The third view therefore sees 'all Israel' as a reference to all of God's elect people, consisting both of Jews and Gentiles, throughout the ages. This view has been held historically by figures such as St Augustine and John Calvin, and in our day by the Pauline scholar, N. T. Wright.

For a number of reasons, my own view is that the third option is the correct interpretation, although it is definitely a minority view.

For a full discussion and argument why 'All Israel' means all the elect, both Jew and Gentile, I thoroughly recommend the commentaries by Calvin and N. T. Wright on this verse and passage. In addition, I recommend an essay by Lee Irons, "Paul’s Theology of Israel’s Future: A Non-Millennial Interpretation of Romans 11" which can be found here.

Calvin's comments on this verse are worth quoting: 

Many understand this of the Jewish people, as though Paul had said, that religion would be restored among them as before: but I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, according to this meaning, - "When all 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 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 God's family." This interpretation seems to me the most suitable, because Paul intended here to set forth the completion of the kingdom of Christ, which is by no means to be confined to the Jews, but is to include the whole world. The same manner of speaking we find in Gal. vi. 16. The Israel of God is what he calls the Church, gathered alike from Jews and Gentiles." (John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (translated and edited by John Owen; Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1955), p. 437.

My reasons for accepting Calvin's view (and N. T. Wright's) can be summarised as follows:

1. The verse says all Israel will be saved in this way. It does not say and then all Israel will be saved. The future national conversion view requires the verse to mean "and then" but this is not what the Greek means. There is nothing in this verse that points to this as being a future prophecy. The arguments of those who take the second interpretation such as Hendriksen and Robertson also support this, as do the arguments of Calvin and Wright.

2. If the verse does mean that all Israel will be saved in this way this must refer back to what verse 25 says - that a partial hardening has come upon Israel until the full number of the Gentiles comes in. The 'until' here should be viewed as a terminus ad quem and not a terminus a quo. Just as in Psalm 110:1 where we read that Christ must reign 'until' he has put all his enemies under his feet, this does not imply that Christ will cease to reign at that point, so here 'until' does not imply that the hardening will cease when the full number of Gentiles comes in, but rather that the hardening will continue right through to when Christ returns and this world ends.

3. Throughout the Bible, God only has one covenant people. In the Old Testament the covenant people are usually called Israel; in the New Testament the covenant people are usually called the Church, but they are one people - Israel is the Church and the Church is the true Israel. Paul makes this point throughout his writings.

4. Paul's argument in Romans 11 is that believing Jews and believing Gentiles are both branches - natural and grafted - into the ONE olive tree - which is a symbol of Israel or the covenant people. Verse 25 says this process will go on until the full number of Gentiles come into the covenant people and IN THIS WAY all (the true) Israel will be saved. This is entirely in line with Paul's arguments throughout Romans (and similarly in passages such as Ephesians 2:11-20). This view is also in line with Paul's key verse in Romans 9:6 where he begins to flesh out what he has already hinted at in Romans 2, that there is a "true Israel" of which not all ethnic Jews are a part: "For not all those who are descended from Israel truly belong to Israel."

5. One of the main arguments against this view that 'all Israel' means both the Jewish and Gentile elect is that it is hard to believe Paul could use 'Israel' meaning 'ethnic Israel' in verse 25, but in a different way in verse 26. However, this objection does not stand up to scrutiny. Paul clearly uses Israel in two different ways in Romans 9.6 which literally says 'not all Israel are Israel' meaning 'ethnic Israelites' in the first use and 'God's covenant people' in the second use.

These points are made more fully for those who want to probe deeper into these issues in the writings of Hendriksen, Robertson, Hoekema, Calvin, Wright and Irons' essay. Although not all of these scholars agree that 'all Israel' means all elect Jews and Gentiles, they do give reasons to reject the first view that the verse means 'and then [at some future point] all [ethnic] Israel will be saved'. Of the two remaining views, I think it makes most sense in Paul's argument - particularly since he describes this as a mystery - that he is not merely describing the salvation of all elect Jews throughout time - but that in God's purpose both Jews and Gentiles are brought together into God's covenant people (Israel) to bring about the salvation of both.

Advent

Today is Advent Sunday. The beginning of a new Christian year and the period when many Christians focus their thoughts on the future "coming" of the Lord ("coming" is what "advent" means).

This takes place in a twofold sense. First, of waiting and looking forward to Christmas and perhaps placing our selves in the position of the nation of Israel waiting for the Messiah to come and then celebrating that coming at Christmas. But secondly, of waiting and looking forward to Jesus the Messiah coming again at the end of time, to judge the world, save his people, and usher in the new heavens and the new earth that is the Christian hope - not so much "life after death", but life after life after death as Tom Wright memorably puts it.

It is this hope and expectation that Paul says the whole of creation, not just God's people, is longing for (see Romans 8:18-30).

This advent, I look forward to singing the great advent hymn "O come, O come, Emmanuel" looking back to the preparation for Christmas and waiting for the Messiah's birth, but the words also help us look forward to Christ's second coming in triumph and glory, when he will make all things new and finally "close the path to misery" as the hymn puts it, once and for all.

Surprised by Hope

Surprised by Hope
Tom Wright
SPCK 2007

Surprised by Hope is the second in what is currently a loose trilogy of popular level books on Christianity that began with Simply Christian and continued in Virtue Reborn, and I don't think it's too strong to say that this is one of those books that I think is going to profoundly affect my Christian thinking for years to come. I think this book is Wright at his best. Quite simply, it is magnificent, covering so much ground that everything from the second coming to church practices at Easter and through to global politics is touched on at some point within the book.

The first section of the book called "Setting the Scene" deals with what Wright perceives as a weakness in (at least the Western) Church's focus since the Enlightenment on "life after death" as disembodied souls in heaven. Wright is emphatic that this is not the Christian hope according to the New Testament. Actually such a view, which Wright points out is prevalent in a lot of our hymns dating from the 19th century in particular, owes more to Greek philosophy than it does to the teachings of Jesus or his apostles. Wright then gives the orthodox Christian view of Christ's bodily resurrection, which was a revolutionary belief since Jews had previously only thought that there would be a resurrection at the end of times involving everyone, not the resurrection of one man in the middle of human history.

The second section of the book deals with what would normally be considered eschatology or the theology of the end times. There is so much in this rich section of the book that would challenge, encourage, possibly persuade and sometimes disappoint (but at least cause to better think through the issues) any thinking Christian. He is clear that the Christian hope is bodily existence in a future renewed heaven and earth and goes through some of the key passages that teach this in the New Testament.

His view of hell may raise a few eyebrows however since Wright appears to steer a course midway between annihilationism (that the wicked simply cease to exist after the final judgment) and the traditional view that they suffer unending torment in hell. Though the section is not argued in much detail and remains sketchy, Wright seems to argue that the wicked will continue to exist in hell forever, but what remains of them will no longer be "human" in any meaningful sense. I thought this was a strange view that doesn't seem to be shared by anyone else. On the other hand, Wright is firm on his view that purgatory does not exist.

The third section of the book deals with putting resurrection into practice. Wright's argument is convincing that if we are Jesus people, people of the resurrection, and the church is the first fruits of the new heaven and earth to come, then this must affect how we live now. Some of this section is quite political. For Wright there is a strong connection between faith and doing good - including in the political realm. This is an outworking of the doctrine that Jesus is Lord (and hence not Caesar and all his representatives today). I was especially impressed by Wright's argument that every good work we do now somehow is a foretaste of "heaven" (i.e. the new world that will come when earth and heaven come together again forever), and somehow will find a place in the world to come. A key text in this respect is 1 Corinthians 15:58 - "Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labour in the Lord is not in vain."

The book concludes with a section on how Wright's fresh look at the resurrection should affect the worship and mission of our churches.

Although some of us would criticise Wright's focus on sin in corporate (in both senses!) and political terms (and not on personal sins against God), it is possible to argue that this is merely because this is a focus the church needs to hear and not necessarily because Wright seeks to downplay personal sins. In fact I think Wright can be given the benefit of the doubt in this case. There is so much good stuff in this book, I recommend it warmly to every Christian. I cannot see how any of us would read this book and not come away with a fresh sense of purpose to live out our resurrection hope in this world. Highly recommended.

Postmillennialism

Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope
by Keith A. Mathison
P & R Publishing

Most of the books I have read on eschatology have been written from the Reformed amillennial perspective that I agree with. It made a refreshing change to read a book from a different perspective. Postmillennialism by Keith A. Mathison is a well-written, clear and winsome defence of historic, evangelical postmillennialism.

The book is written in six parts. Firstly, Mathison deals with the key question of hermeneutics and establishes a few ground rules, including his conservative, Reformed and covenant theology credentials. Secondly, there is a historical review to show that postmillennialism has long been a respectable choice among Christian theologians. The third and fourth parts are the heart of book and deal in turn with a number of Old and New Testament passages. The discussion of the Psalms, Old Testament prophecies, gospel discourses and the Book of Revelation are essential reading, even if only to disagree with Mathison's exegesis. The fifth part tackles eschatology from a theological standpoint and includes criticisms of both premillennialism and amillennialism. The sixth and final part seeks to answer a number of objections that have been raised against postmillennialism.

Mathison defines postmillennialism not so much with regard to the literalism of the 1000 year period mentioned in Revelation 20. Although his approach allows for this, his position seems to favour the view that the 1000 years represent the whole of the church age from Christ's ascension till his second coming.

You might then ask, isn't that what amillennialists believe? And you would be right. So, what's the difference between Mathison's brand of postmillennialism and amillennialism? The answer is that, according to Mathison, postmillennialism is optimistic and amillennialism is pessimistic about the success of the gospel and Christ's reign on earth between now and the second coming.

Postmillennialists think that most or almost all the world will be Christians by the time Christ comes and it will be a golden age of peace and prosperity. Amillennialists think that though the number of Christians will continue to grow and Christ's kingdom will advance, there is no expectation that it will be as extensive as the postmillennialists claim. We also see in a number of biblical passages that there will also be increased opposition to Christ's kingdom and persecution of Christ's people.

The postmillennialist case hinges really on a system of biblical interpretation known as preterism. Preterism is the teaching that most or all the "negative" prophecies such as Matthew 24 that talk about apostasy, persecution and suffering for God's people relate to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in AD 70 when Christ is said to have returned to earth in judgment on Israel. Such prophecies were future when written, but happened in our past. Mathison follows this approach consistently throughout the book.

This is a very handy hermeneutic. If a passage doesn't fit with postmillennialisms rosy picture of the future, it is simply dumped in a file labelled "fulfilled in AD 70". The book of Revelation is itself dated by postmillennialists as earlier than AD 70, to accommodate the preterist view, though this view is hotly debated by New Testament scholars.

It must be understood that Mathison is not an extreme preterist. He does understand there still to be some prophecies with a future fulfilment to come, especially Christ's triumphant return to earth.

Amillennialists interpret Scripture differently. We tend to see the persecution and apostasy prophecies as being yet future and the joyful prophecies of peace, prosperity and Christ's reign are either interpreted spiritually, as applying to the Church and Christ's people, or are regarded as prophecies to be fulfilled in the new heaven and earth to come after Christ returns.

Mathison's argument essentially stands or falls with preterism. If you accept that, then postmillennialism is a viable option. If you don't, then there are just too many prophecies at odds with it. For myself, I remain unconvinced.

I also reject the pessimistic label. Our objection to the postmillennialist vision of a golden age of peace prior to the end of this world is not based on lack of faith that God could bring this about, but upon loyalty to Scripture and what God has said will happen in this age. We are not only optimistic, we are certain that the gospel will triumph, indeed is triumphing now, and Christ will reign and does reign now, as king of the world and God's Messiah. We know God's purpose is being fulfilled perfectly in time to achieve his appointed ends. I see no reason for pessimism about any of that!

In the end, this is a good book defending a position I disagree with. That never makes it comfortable reading, but it is not enough to outweigh the arguments in favour of amillennialism. I cannot disagree with the Second Helvetic Confession's view in Chapter XI:

We further condemn Jewish dreams that there will be a golden age on earth before the Day of Judgment, and that the pious, having subdued all their godless enemies, will possess all the kingdoms of the earth. For evangelical truth in Matt., chs. 24 and 25, and Luke, ch. 18, and apostolic teaching in II Thess., ch. 2, and II Tim., chs. 3 and 4, present something quite different.

Indeed they do and I cannot accept the preterist view that all those chapters were fulfilled in AD 70.

Last Things First

Last Things First
by John V. Fesko
Mentor Books

John V. Fesko appears to be a new, young(ish) up-and-coming Reformed theologian and although I have seen his name before through a few articles found on the internet, this is the first book by him that I have read.

The book takes an interesting look at interpreting the three foundational opening chapters of the Book of Genesis using not only Christ as the key to understanding them, but in particular the Christ of eschatology. When viewed through these lenses, I was struck by just how many of the great themes of the Old and New Testaments are present there - often in embryonic form - in the first three chapters of Genesis.

Some of what Fesko argues in this book was new to me and refreshing to read. I thought it was fascinating the way he draws the parallels between the First Adam and the Second Adam (Jesus) in the Bible. I had also not really thought of Adam's role being prophet, priest and king rather than farmer when created, nor had I thought much about the Garden of Eden being a temple. The idea that our God-given work being essentially spiritual and religious rather than agricultural in subduing and dominating the world was so interesting and at once quite convincing. How much sense does it make of the rest of the Bible if Adam's task wasn't to be a gardener, but to extend the Garden of Eden - where God's presence was found in a special way on earth - to cover the whole earth and every person on the earth (Adam's descendants). This ties in beautifully with Christ's work and the consummation of all things under him when once again God will dwell with his people in a new heaven and earth, dominated by a holy city where God and people live in the closest bond of love forever!

Although the author is not explicit here regarding what view he takes of Genesis One, I got the impression he has sympathy for the framework interpretation. Having said that, nothing in the book is in any way contra the literal 24-hour view (or indeed any of the major views of Genesis One).

If the author's goal was to make us read Genesis 1-3 afresh and glean far more from it than how it relates to science and the length of the days, and if his goal is to help us to see "Christ in all the scriptures" then for this reviewer, he certainly succeeded.