Theological Consistency and Pauline Mathematics: "All Israel" in Romans 11:26

A few years back I set out to understand one of the most complicated passages in the Bible: Romans 11:25-32. In particular, I wanted to figure out what Paul meant by "all Israel" in v26. I had been taught that Paul was referring to a large group of ethnic Jews repenting and turning to their Messiah just before the 2nd coming of Jesus. For a while I accepted this and that was that, but it never really sat right with me. It just seemed to fly in the face of everything Paul had argued up to this point in Romans (and in other letters, notably Galatians and Ephesians): that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. Yet, the traditional explanation I had been given seemed to sneak an escape clause for the Jews in the back door.

I suppose there are 4 main views of "all Israel."

1. It refers to every elect Jew throughout history.

2. It refers to every individual Israelite.

3. It refers to a large number of Jews toward the end of history.

4. It refers to both Jew and Gentile believers as the people of God.

For the sake of brevity, I'll discard the first 2 options (my apologies to anyone who holds one of those). The first is so obvious (oh, you mean all elect Jews will be saved!) that it seems weird Paul would be saying that. The second has the simple problem that "all Israel" never actually means every individual Israelite (there are examples of this in Jewish literature, not to mention we frequently say things like "all Boston was there" knowing full well we don't literally mean every individual Bostonian).

The third option is the most common, at least in the world of Biblical scholarship, while the fourth is definitely in the minority (actually, in my studies I've run across 3 proponents on this view: John Calvin, N T Wright and yours truly- if you know anything about the theology of these 3 theological giants [note: sarcastic self-inclusion] you'd understand what an odd grouping we make. I suppose Romans 9-11 makes strange bedfellows).

Let me try to address the main issues briefly to give you an idea of why I take the fourth view. Let's break it down to these 3 exegetical points: the meaning of "mystery" in v25, the meaning of the Greek word houtos ("so") in v26 (I wish I could figure out a Greek font, sorry for all the Hellenists out there), and the OT quotations in vv26-27.

** First is Paul's use of the word "mystery." When I set out to study this passage I never really thought this was all that important, and most scholars barely make mention of its implications for the meaning of "all Israel." Douglas Moo states, "Usually the mystery involves an event or insight associated with Christ's coming and the preaching of the gospel, but here and in 1 Cor. 15:51 it refers to an event at the end of history" (714). As great as I think Moo's commentary is, I'm not sure I could disagree more on this point. Why make the connection between this passage and 1 Corinthians 15? It seems to me that there is a better "mystery" connection, and that is with Ephesians 3. In that chapter, as with Romans 11, Paul is dealing with the issue of Jew and Gentile relations. In Ephesians 3:6 Paul gives us the content of the "mystery" he is talking about, "that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel." The connection between Romans 11 and Ephesians 3 is obvious: in both places Paul is dealing with Jews and Gentiles becoming one people of God in Christ Jesus.

Now, the contexts of these passages are not exactly the same. However, it seems that the "mystery" is the same- only it is seen from two different angles. In Ephesians, Paul is reminding the Gentiles that they have been brought into the people of God because of Christ's work on the cross (2:16). In Romans, Paul is reminding the Gentiles that just because they were "grafted in" among the already existing brances of the "rich root of the olive tree" (Romans 11:17) does not mean they are to become arrogant as if they deserved it more than the Jews. The theology which undergirds these passages is the same- that God has brought Jew and Gentile together into "one new man" (Eph 2:15), made them fellow heirs with the Jews (Eph 3:6) and grafted them into one tree (Rom 11:17-24). However, the specific emphasis Paul lays on this theological mystery is dependent on the situation. In the church of Rome, Paul needs to emphasize the rightful place of the Jewish people within the "olive tree." On the other hand, as Peter O'Brien notes, Paul "writes Ephesians to his mainly Gentile Christian readers, for whom he has apostolic responsibilities, with the intention of informing, strengthening, and encouraging them by assuring them of their place within the gracious, saving purpose of God, and urging them to bring their lives into conformity with this divine plan of summing up all things in Christ (1:10)" (57). These different situations call for Paul to present this mystery in two different ways, but the mystery itself stays the same.

My point is this: the mystery Paul is referencing is not something that will be revealed at the end of time, but rather it is something that Christ has accomplished through His death and resurrection. He has made one people out of two. The Jewish-Gentile context in both Romans and Ephesians seems too strong to miss. For some reason, many scholars have overlooked this connection and subsequently have read something completely new in Romans 11:26, something not seen elsewhere.

** The meaning of houtos in v26 is not something that needs to be drawn out, since more and more scholars are tending to agree on its proper translation. I simply want to point out that this is not likely to be a temporal usage. In other words, Paul isn't saying "a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And then all Israel will be saved...." Instead, Paul is saying "a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And thus (or "in this way" or "in this manner") all Israel will be saved...." Most scholars, even those who disagree with my view, understand it this way. It does not necessitate the fourth option mentioned above.

The temporal aspect is important to discuss, however. Some point to the "until" in v25 as noting that Paul must be refering to Christ's second coming. In this case, the partial hardening has come upon Israel, but when the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, that hardening will be lifted and "all Israel" will be saved. But Paul doesn't talk about the lifting of the hardening, only the Gentiles coming in (which can be simultaneous with the Jews receiving mercy, see v31- I'm not sure why so many scholars miss that). Moo insists that "until" must refer to the hardening being lifted because out of the 37 temporal uses of achri ("until") "25 rather clearly denote a period of time that will come to an end and be followed by a change of those circumstances denoted" (717 n30). I have to be honest, I don't understand the logic here. Because a word denotes x roughly 2/3 of the time, it means it should here? This still leaves open 1/3 of the cases, which is no small percentage.

Anyway, my point is this: Paul is not emphasizing the end of the hardening, but rather the manner in which God's people are saved. Both Jews and Gentiles can be hardened and softened (this all throughout chapter 11). Remember that Paul is talking about a partial hardening, not a full scale hardening of the people of Israel (again, I point out v31 and 11:5, which shows that Paul didn't think a total hardening has taken place). Jews and Gentiles are not taking turns being the people of God, they have been made one and are being saved together.

** Finally, let me comment briefly on the OT quotation, which is actually a composite quotation from Isaiah 59:20-21 and 27:9 (with perhaps a little Psalm 14:7 and Jeremiah 31:33-34 thrown in for good measure). I'll make my comments brief and I'll focus mainly on Isaiah 59 (which provides the meat). Isaiah 59 is a restoration passage (actually, Isaiah 40-66 is largely restorative in nature) which Paul quotes elsewhere in Romans: in 3:15-17 he quotes Isaiah 59:7-8. This Isaiah passage talks about the sin of Israel, and Paul quotes it in a long string of such OT passages which serve as an indictment against Israel. The important thing to note is that this problem is sin that Paul sets up in Romans 3 has been solved by the sacrifice of Jesus (Rom 3:21-26). Let me stress this so we don't miss it: the problem of Israel's sin (and for that matter, the whole world) that Isaiah and others address has been answered through Jesus Christ. His life, death and resurrection have provided the atonement for these sins. So, when Paul goes back to those familiar Isaianic restoration passages here in Romans 11, he isn't talking about Christ's second coming. He's talking about the same thing he's always been talking about, that is, Jesus has defeated sin and made the way for His people to come to the Father (both Jew and Gentile, check out Galatians 3).

Surely I think Paul believes that Jesus is coming back (1 Cor 15, 1 Thess 4, etc). But here's what I think (though I need to do more research on this): Paul never quotes from the OT to refer to the second coming of Christ. The restoration promised through the Messiah has happened and still is happening. This can be misunderstood, so I hope I'm being clear. Paul's quotation must refer to Jesus' fist coming. This is consistent with his usage of restoration texts elsewhere and in Romans. This is not to deny that there is a future element to salvation, but it is to show that Paul is intending for his readers to understand that God has remained faithful to His promises. Now is the time for Israel to accept God's mercy. Indeed, they can be grafted back into God's tree precisely because of what Christ has done.

So here is my reading: Paul is telling his readers the same thing he's said all along, that there is a partial hardening on Israel (which means that some are still faithful), Gentiles are coming into the people of God, and this is how the people of God are saved. One of the criticisms against my view is that Paul must change the very definition of "Israel" within one verse, which is a legitimate observation. However, this is what Paul has been doing all along: redefining Israel. As N T Wright notes, "Paul actually began the whole section (9.6) with just such a programmatic disctinction of two 'Israels'" (250). Paul isn't talking about the salvation of one people over another, he is arguing that both are saved by God's grace through the work accomplished by Christ. Remember what he says in Romans 10:13, "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." I wonder if we could define "all Israel" in 11:26 by "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord" in 10:13 (note the parallel "will be saved" in both verses- I think I learned this from someone, but I can't recall who).

If you are still reading at this point, you have accomplished no small feat. If it makes you feel any better, I wrote a paper on this passage that was much longer and much more boring than this. I'd love some feedback, but understand that this is a short defense of my view, not a dissertation. I'm aware of holes that I have not addressed, feel free to poke at them.

Let me end with this: for Paul, 1+1=1. Jewish branches + Gentiles branches = one tree (Rom 11:17-24); believing Jews + believing Gentiles = descendents of Abraham (4:16). There is no magical escape clause or exemption for anyone, faith in Jesus is what justifies a sinner, not physical descent. The problem of changing the meaning of "Israel" abruptly is far less problematic than saying that Paul is here introducing an entirely foreign theological concept, when an explanation that fits the context is readily available.