In connection with their discussion on the Old Covenant's status, Robert Sungenis and John Pacheco discuss whether Romans 11 reveals a mass conversion of the Jews at some point in the future of salvation history.
Citations from A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, Gen. Ed. Orchard, 1953, will be purple. My comments are in blue. Robert Sungenis' comments are in red. Commentary by others will be in black.
"I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? "Lord, THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE." But what is the divine response to him?" I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL." In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.
What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; just as it is written, GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR, EYES TO SEE NOT AND EARS TO HEAR NOT, DOWN TO THIS VERY DAY." And David says, "LET THEIR TABLE BECOME A SNARE AND A TRAP, AND A STUMBLING BLOCK AND A RETRIBUTION TO THEM. "LET THEIR EYES BE DARKENED TO SEE NOT, AND BEND THEIR BACKS FOREVER." I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfilment be! But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles.
Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?
25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;
26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
27 "THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."
28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;
29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy.
31 For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.
33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? 35 Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? 36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen."
Romans 11: 25-32 The Present Exclusion of Israel from the Salvation of the Messias must not be regarded as final. From the present, 1-24, St. Paul turns his attention to the future. The time will come when the present problem of Israel's exclusion from the salvation of the Messias will cease to exist because of her conversion, which will follow upon the conversion of the Gentiles.
RS1: On what basis? There is nothing in the text that explicitly points to the future. Verse 25 merely says that the hardening will continue INTO the future. But that goes without saying, since all things that continue do their continuing into the future. The mistake most people make with this is assuming that "until" refers to some future time after the fulness of the Gentiles, but that cannot be proven at all.
JP1: Well, I would say that the "future" is clearly implied in the passage. We know this because of the context surrounding the passage. St. Paul has warned the Gentiles not to be proud ("wise in your own estimation") of their own comparative position with the Jew. In fact, he has just finished preparing them in verses 23 and 24 that the Jews can easily be "grafted back into the tree". This then is the context which leads naturally into verse 25 where the partial hardening to Israel will only last "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in". We know that this "partial hardening" will stop because in the very next verse, Paul goes on to say "and so all Israel will be saved." (v.26) Obviously, the hardening will cease when Israel is saved. Moreover, the identification of "Israel" in v. 26 is the same "Israel in v.25.
RS2: First, the passage does not say “will only last.” That is merely your interpretation. It says “until the fulness of the Gentiles.” Below I explain, and you agree, that “until” cannot be proven to be used in the sense of terminating the action of the verb. Hence, you DON’T know the “hardening” will stop (because you don’t know what “until” means)...
JP2: Agreed. But our respective positions regarding 'until' are comparable, and so any statement by you (or me, for that matter) is simply gratuitous unless we can establish whose context is stronger. This is what I attempted to do. Furthermore, what is gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied: "You DON'T know that the hardening will NOT stop (because you don't know what 'until' means...)"
RS2:...and you haven’t proven that “all Israel will be saved” refers to some other group in the distant future as opposed to those Jews who were saved from the time of Pentecost up to the present.
JP2: Verse 26 says "...and so all Israel will be saved..." Therefore, St. Paul is not talking about individual Jews (your proposition), but rather "Israel". This is what the text says. In Romans 11, St. Paul refers to the rebellious Jews as "Israel" (Cf. Romans 11:2, 11:7, 11:11, 11:25, 11:26). Therefore, the usage by St. Paul of "Israel" favours my view considerably more than it does yours since, as you will appreciate, my whole thesis rests on identifying the Israel in verse 25 with the Israel of verse 26. They are the same group. And if they are the same group, then my view stands and yours does not.
RS1: As I said in my essay, the word "until" is the Greek achri hou. Achri hou can either terminate or continue the action. It works just like the heos hou phrase in Mt 1:25. Catholic doctrine holds that the heos hou clause continues the action of the verb, and thus Mary continued her virginity even after the birth of Jesus. Consequently, if achri hou in Romans 11:25 continues the action of the verb, then that means Israel's blindness will continue indefinitely, that is, right up to the end of time. If achri hou terminates the action of the verb, then the Israel's blindness will stop at some time, that is, at the fulness of the Gentiles.
JP1: Agreed. "Achri hou" can mean that the action in the preceding clause either continues or ceases to continue after "until". There is no grammatical basis for insisting on either meaning. But this does not help either your position or mine. It is a neutral point. The meaning of "achri hou" must be understood by the context of the passage.
RS2: ...Which “context” you have not proven applies to a future group of Israelites.
JP2: Robert, you have been maintaining that "all Israel" in verse 26 is basically the remnant Jews who convert. Yet, as I have pointed out, this is not very cogent, especially considering the Israel in verse 25 is the "partially hardened". Furthermore, verse 28 says this: "From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake..." So you have a sandwich of the evil Jews in verse 25 and verse 28. My approach makes the context consistent my associating the Jews of verse 25 and 28 with 26. Your approach forces an incoherent context by separating the identity of Israel: first hardened (v.25), second remnant (v.26) and then third hardened (v.28) again.
RS1: But even then, the "fullness of the Gentiles" could refer to the end of time and thus Israel's blindness will remain till the end of time.
JP1: Even if that were true, Robert, it is not the "when" that counts but rather the "what". What happens after the "the fullness of the Gentiles comes in"? ---> "and so all Israel will be saved".
RS2: It does not say “after.” It says “until,” and you’ve already admitted you can’t prove what “until” means. Moreover, you also cannot prove that the clause “and so all Israel will be saved” refers to a future time. The Greek word behind “and so” is HOUTOS. It is an adverb describing in WHAT MANNER Israel is saved, not WHEN Israel is saved. The quote you have from Dom Orchard misses this, of course, since he didn’t know Greek.
JP2: Exactly. It's not the "when" that counts but the "what".
"25...that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and so all Israel will be saved;
In order for your position to hold, you would have to say that there is little fluidity between verse 25 and 26. In addition to arbitrarily assigning a different identity to "Israel" between the two verses (v.25 being the "evil" Israel and v.26 being the "remnant" Israel), you would also have to break St. Paul's quantitative adjectives which describes Israel in both verses. There is a "partial" hardening in v.25, just like there is a total (i.e. "all") softening in verse 26.
RS1: Be that as it may, there is nothing in the text of Romans 11, or the Romans epistle, or the remainder of the New Testament which indicates that Israel's blindness will be lifted. The only indication St. Paul gives for who in Israel is saved is the "remnant," which he introduced in Romans 11:5.
JP1: Well, I think it is arguable whether there is no other New Testament reference which supports the "Jew friendly" position. We'll address it later. But in respect to Romans 11, verse 25 does indeed suggest that the blindness will be lifted. We know this because the "Israel" being spoken of in verse 25 is not the remnant of verse 5 because the v.25 "Israel" has been "hardened" and it is this Israel which will be saved after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
"...just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
The final conversion of Israel could not be known to St. Paul from any natural source. He himself calls it a mystery, 25, cf. Matthew 13:11, 1 Cor.2:7; Eph 3:3f. Nevertheless he does not claim a special revelation as the authority for his statement but argues the point.
RS2: You keep referring to some future time, but there is no such definitive marker in the text.
JP2: But the tense does relate to the future. There is no disagreement between us on this point, Robert. Why do you keep bringing it up? You yourself concede it earlier:
"...as opposed to those Jews who were saved from the time of Pentecost up to the present."
In other words, the present for you is St. Paul's future. Our quarrel is not over what happens to "Israel" in the future. We both agree that she will be saved. The REAL question is: Who is this "Israel"? You are identifying "Israel" as "those Jews who convert". But wait a minute...am I not saying the same thing? All I am saying is that the hardening in verse 25 is softened by verse 26 so that "all" of the Jews will convert.
RS2: There are many Greek words Paul could have used if he wanted to say 'and THEN all Israel will saved', but he didn’t. And again, Orchard would not be able to catch this.
JP2: Not so fast, Kimosabe. You know as well as I do that "could-a, should-a" grammar is beaten to death as an apologetic tactic. Remember our little tit-for-tat with Svendsen on "adelphos" and how many alternatives there are in Greek for near relations like "sungenis" and "anepsios"? Are you saying that the grammatical text as it stands now does not allow for my interpretation? No, you are not saying that because if you were, you would have cut me down a long time ago :)
RS2: Second, the quote about the Deliverer coming from Zion is from an OT prophecy about what would happen in the NT when Christ came. He already came, John. That is why Jews were being saved at Pentecost and made up the original Christian Church, because the “Deliverer” came for them, as promised. But when He comes again it is the end of the world, when salvation is no longer available.
JP2:
26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
Robert, there is no necessity to believe that St. Paul is using this as a prophetic utterance concerning the first coming of the Messiah. Admittedly, this is the context of the Old Testament passage, but the Apostle could have another emphasis concerning its usage in this particular passage. For instance, in citing the passage, his point could be simply to emphasize that God will complete his plan of salvation and remove the ungodliness of the Jews. This is particularly plausible considering the very next two verses which speak of the "hardened" Jews as "God's choice" who are "beloved for the sake of the fathers." Since when does God love disobedient Jews? You have to admit that this is hardly a final and irrevocable indictment by St. Paul against them.
RS1: St. Paul is not calling it a "mystery" in the sense that we don't know anything about it, but a mystery in the sense that a continual blindness on Israel is indeed a phenomenon that is hard to understand. For example, if someone were to ask; "Why do most Jews seem so obstinate toward Christ and the gospel?" The answer would be: "Well that is indeed a mystery how a people who received the covenants, the law, the promises, the temple, the glory of God (Roman 9:4-5) could have such unbelief in God. This was the constant plea from the prophets in the Old Testament, that is, that God was in their very midst, they saw his miracles, but they still rejected him. That is indeed a "mystery."
That St. Paul is not using the word "mystery" in the sense of some unknown future conversion is noted by his preceding remark: "I do not want you to be UNINFORMED." If he doesn't want them to be uninformed of the mystery, that means he wants them to be informed of the mystery. What is the "mystery"? That Israel will be blinded until the fulness. Hence, its not a mystery in the sense of the unknown, because he just told them the nature of the mystery. The mystery is Israel's continual blindness while many of the Gentiles are coming into the Church.
JP1: With respect, Robert, I don't think that is a very cogent answer. First of all, the reason that St. Paul says to the Gentiles "I do not want you to be uninformed" is to warn them that there is a mystery at play here. They do not have the right to treat the Jews as accursed and forever damned. This is why he says in verse 23:
"And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
And then he goes on to say...
"...how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery..."
He is trying to pin down any manufactured arrogance that the Gentiles might have towards the Jews by reminding them that #1 God can do anything He likes - even graft the Jews back into the tree and #2 that He does intend to do it "mysteriously" when "the fullness of Gentiles comes in." And this understanding flows naturally into St. Paul's concluding remarks at the end of the chapter:
"For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy." (v.30-31)
The reasons which he advances are taken (1) from the Scriptures (2) from Israel's history, (3) from the divine plan of salvation.
(1) The evidence from Scripture, 26 f., plus the concluding clause 'when I shall take away their sins' from Isaiah 27:9. See also Jeremiah 31 (38): 31-34.
RS2: Due to the judgments against the Jews, it was tempting for the Gentiles to think that NO Jews were being saved. But Paul wants to impress upon the Gentiles that God is still saving the Jews. He has not rejected them. The whole context of Romans 11 opens up in Romans 11:1-2 with the question: “God has not rejected his people, has he?” Paul answers this question not by appealing to some future glory for Israel but by saying that God is saving them RIGHT NOW, and thus he is fulfilling his promise to the ancient fathers. They are being saved now because the “Deliverer” has come to save them who was promised to the fathers in the Old Testament.
JP2: If St. Paul is saving them right now only, then why does he say: "and so all Israel will be saved". If St. Paul meant the present tense, "there are many Greek words Paul could have used if he wanted to say 'the Jews are being saved right now' but he didn’t." In other words, Robert, there would be no reason for St. Paul to point to the future in verse 26 in regards to Israel if God were saving them RIGHT NOW. It would be disjointed and superfluous to do so.
Moreover, I must insist that you identify for me which Jew St. Paul is speaking about? Is it the "hardened" or the "remnant". If it's the former, I win. If it's the latter, you win. It's that simple. The text preceding St. Paul's "mystery introduction" in verse 25 is clearly identifying Israel with the "hardened" camp. The remnant can hardly be described as "continu[ing] in their unbelief", can they?
23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will those who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? 25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery.
RS2: Listen to the words of Luke 1:68-79, spoken by the Jew, Zechariah.
68 "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people, 69 and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, 70 as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old, 71 that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all who hate us; 72 to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant, 73 the oath which he swore to our father Abraham, 74 to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, 75 in holiness and righteousness before him all the days of our life. 76 And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways, 77 to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins, 78 through the tender mercy of our God, when the day shall dawn upon us from on high 79 to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace."
This language is almost identical to the language of Romans 11, especially Romans 11:25-32. Yet there is one important thing about it. It doesn’t refer to the distant future, but to the time that Zechariah, the Jew, lived. Zechariah says that the Jews have received their deliverance as spoken by the “mouth of the holy prophets,” and which was “promised to OUR fathers” in the “holy covenant.” They are “delivered from...enemies,” just as Romans 11:26 calls Christ the “Deliverer” who establishes the “covenant” that “forgives their sins.” The New Testament is just dripping with passages like this, but they all refer to the present time.
JP2: OK. Kimosabe. I must be missing something here. Were there not Jews subsequent to St. Paul's Gospel who converted? Yes there were. What is to say that a good portion of them will not one day convert also? How do the above verses speak against this? I cannot understand how the above verses take away from a future conversion of the hardened Jews.
RS2: Second, you quoted from Romans 11:31 to try to prove your point ("so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy.") but the verse is in the PRESENT TENSE and refers to THAT time. There are two usages of the word “NOW” (Greek: nun) that emphasize the present. That is, there are Jews who are NOW being disobedient, but because of the Gospel, they may also NOW be shown mercy. The two NOW’s are coincident, that is, they are taking place at the same time, in the present, not somewhere in the distant future.
JP2: I grant you this and agree with your interpretation about the present tense. But that does not detract from my argument. St. Paul's point in this passage is simply to remind the Gentiles that both Jew and Gentile as peoples need mercy:
"For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all." (v.31)
Therefore, one may say that the fulfilment of God's mercy towards the Jews begins in St. Paul's time but does not end in it. Indeed, if there were disobedient Jews in St. Paul's time who were being shown mercy in the first century (as you admit by the way - see my underlining of your answer above), why would God's mercy on the Jews cease after the first century even up to our own time?
RS1: Yes, but those passages point to the First Coming of Christ. Hebrews 8:10-12 and 10:16-18 quote Jeremiah 31 regarding the New Covenant, stating that Jeremiah's prophecy was fulfilled with the First Coming of Christ.
JP1: Taking your suggestion above, Robert, who is to say that these passages cannot be spoken of in the Second Coming of Christ? In fact, that would be a nice little way to end salvation history, wouldn't you say?
RS2: They can’t be speaking of the Second Coming of Christ because the salvation program is OVER at the Second Coming. Jeremiah 31 is a prophecy about becoming saved, according to Hebrew 8-10, not about heaven. Look at the contexts of Hebrew 8, 10. They are referring to the forgiveness of sins through the blood of Christ during this PRESENT TIME, the same thing that Zechariah said in Luke 1:77 (“salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins”).
JP2: Agreed. I overstepped there.
(2)The reason from Israel's history, 28 f., is the election of the Patriarchs. This is a dogmatic-historical fact which cannot be undone. The promises made to the Patriarchs must one day be fulfilled in every respect, because God is unchangeable (Cf. Deut. 4:31).
RS1: But the New Testament says it was already fulfilled. Acts 2 quotes from Joel, the Psalms, and other prophets. Acts 15:16 quotes from Amos regarding the "rebuilding of David's tabernacle," which James applies to the Jews and Gentiles in the Church. Galatians 2-3 say that the promises to Abraham were fulfilled in Christ, his seed, and those who are Christ's are Abraham's seed. The book of Acts and the Epistles are just dripping with references to the promises of the Old Testament that were fulfilled at the First Coming of Christ. Because of the First Coming, God is still giving his "gifts and calling" to the Jews, which is why the "remnant" can be saved "even at this present time."
JP1: Robert, there is no contradiction between saying that Christ is the fulfilment of the promise and saying that the Jews will one day experience that fulfilment. The view proposed only seeks to highlight the fact that the Jews will be "grafted back into the tree" one day and only this remains to be fulfilled. No one is denying that Christ fulfilled the promises to Abraham. The only thing that is being proposed is that, out of God's gracious mercy, the Jews will one day recognize Christ and join the Church.
RS2: If God is saving Jews today despite the fact that He judged them, that is the “grafting back” into the tree they were once part of. How can you argue otherwise? Paul never argues that this grafting is reserved for some future time. What good would that do for all the millions of Jews living presently?
JP2: But could you not ask the same thing about the Gentiles before Christ came?
RS2: He merely makes a simple indicative statement in Romans 11:23 that “if they do not continue in their unbelief, they will be grafted in.”
JP2: Yes, and then he goes right into talking about the mystery as if to suggest that it will happen. The indicative statement is followed up by a prophetic statement. In other words, "If they do not continue in their unbelief, they will be grafted in. So don't be wise in your estimation because there is a mystery at play here concerning the hardened Jews...."
RS2: Notice that the onus is on the JEWS who are now hardened to get themselves out of unbelief, not on God such that he is required to give them a future glory by divine mandate.
JP2: Who said anything about God being "required" to do anything? St. Paul doesn't. He speaks of the mercy of God:
31 For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.
And last time I checked, we can't do squat to get ourselves out of "unbelief" without God's grace in the first place. God is in control and He does what he likes...
"Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." (Romans 9:18)
RS2: In fact, your view leaves little room for Jews to join the Church today, since you pile all the promises for salvation into the distant future. Thus, contrary to Luke 1:68-79, you make the salvation of Jews presently as having little to do with fulfilled prophecy. But the whole OT looked forward to the FIRST coming of Christ, and to the Jews he would save at that time. As Jesus said of Abraham in John 8:56: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.” I don’t know of one passage in the OT that speaks of the salvation of the Jews coming at the Second Coming of Christ. Do you know of one?
JP2: I simply do not see how my view negates any OT prophesy concerning the Jews and their rejection of the Messiah. Why is there a necessary contradiction in saying that the Jews rejected Jesus at one point in history but will not do so forever? And if it does happen according to God's gracious mercy, how can this be understood as rejecting any OT prophesy concerning the Jews' unbelief during the time of Christ?
(3)The reason from the divine plan of redemption, 30-32, is taken from the doctrine so often repeated in Romans that salvation is the gift of God's mercy (=grace =pardon) after man's failure to obtain 'justness (=holiness) by his own efforts. In this divine plan, therefore man's failure becomes Mercy's opportunity. So it has been in the case of the Gentile Christians to whom Paul is speaking, so it will be in the case of the now disobedient (= unbelieving) Israelites. 'God abandoned all to their rebellion = (disobedience = unbelief) only to include them all in his pardon.
JP1: As I alluded to before, this is precisely my point. Verses 30-32 virtually cement the "Jew friendly" view, in my opinion. God's sovereignty and mercy are both manifested in the Divine Plan which St. Paul reveals.
RS2: My interpretation is just as “Jew-friendly” as yours purports to be. (And, I really don’t appreciate the way you put that, implying that my interpretation is anti-semitic).
JP2: Robert, I was not implying you were anti-semitic.
RS2: When it looked like after the death of Christ all the Jews were doomed to perdition, God still reached down and saved “some of them,” as Romans 11:14 specifies. God could have just given up on all of Israel, but for the sake of the ancient fathers, he did not give up on them. He, as Romans 11:23 says, grafted back those who did not continue in their unbelief. It’s really very simple, and that’s what Luke 1:68-79 teaches.
JP2: Robert, you mentioned that God "did not give up on them for the sake of the ancient fathers". Please, tell me who "them" are? Here is the identity of "them" according to St. Paul:
"As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs..."
Now, then. Is St. Paul speaking here about the believing Jews (of whom St. Paul is warning the Gentiles not to scorn, as you suggested above?) No, of course not. If the believing Jews were subject of St. Paul's discourse here, he could hardly have described them as "enemies" of the Gentile Christians! Rather, he is speaking about the enemies of the Christian Gentiles who are the hardened Jews. IT IS THESE HARDENED JEWS WHO ARE BELOVED ON ACCOUNT OF THE PATRIARCHS AND NOT THE BELIEVING JEWS.
JP1: Furthermore, returning to the identity of "Israel, if we look closely at v.26 and 27. They reference Isaiah 45:17 and 59:20. In respect of Isaiah, the context there, I think, is for ALL of Israel not just the remnant.
Israel has been saved by the LORD With an everlasting salvation; You will not be put to shame or humiliated to all eternity. (Isaiah 45:17)
RS1: The word "all" is not used in Isaiah 45 with reference to Israel, except in judgment (Is 45:16). Moreover, Is 45:22 says "all the ends of the earth will be saved." That is much more than Israel, no? Then in Is 45:25 he says, "In the Lord all the offspring of Israel will be justified." Why mix "all the ends of the earth" with "all the offspring of Israel will be justified"? Because in the New Testament, when this is fulfilled, the Jews and Gentiles who make up the Church are understood as the new Israel of God (Gal 6:16; Acts 15:16-17; Eph 2:12-14; Rom 9:24-26). It is they who receive the covenant of Jeremiah 31, as Hebrew 8-10 says. In addition, as early as Isaiah 46:3 Israel is called "the remnant of the house of Israel." (Cf., Is 11:16; 28:5; 37:31-32; Jer 23:3). In fact, in the very chapter where Orchard cites the covenant, Jeremiah 31, verse 7 of that chapter says: "save your people, the remnant of Israel."
JP1: Well, as I said previously, if you want to argue about the identify of Israel in v.25 and v.26 as not being all of Israel, I think you are going to have a difficult time doing so. Was the remnant "partially hardened"? No. That would not make any sense. So if the remnant were not partially hardened in v.25 then that Israel are the Jews who rejected Christ. And it is precisely that Israel who is the object of salvation in the very next verse. Furthermore, notice, for instance, the "humiliation" of Israel in the Isaiah text which I cited above. That humiliation cannot apply to the remnant, but only to the faithless Jews in St. Paul's time. If it applies to them, then "all Israel" must be understood in the broad sense, no?
RS2: You keep arguing in circles, John. Where have you proven that “until” means “will be saved in the future,” and where have you proven that “and so all Israel will be saved” means “and THEN all Israel will be saved”?
JP2: With respect, Robert, the subject of "until" is not the subject of my comment above. It is about the identity of the Jews in V. 26. And for every time you gratuitously assert I have not "proven" something, I can say the same to you. Can you unequivocally say that the grammatical basis I have proposed is impossible? No. So what are we left with? Context. No one is going to be able to "prove" anything here. There are competing contexts - neither of which is without difficulty. That's the reality. I admit you have some legitimate points, but there are some major difficulties with your view as well, in my opinion. So that is why I am just hoping you will become more temperate in your views about this topic and open up to what the Catechism and the Pontiff are teaching about it. This could be a legitimate doctrinal development, which never comes very easily, let us both admit. History is littered with corpses who refuse to accept legitimate development because they thought they were defending "tradition".
RS2: Further, you can’t even prove that those who are “partially hardened” does not refer to those who were in unbelief in Paul’s day and now have joined the Remnant.
JP2: Well, again, I must insist that my context is superior to the one you have proposed. The Israel of v. 25 is the same as the Israel in v. 26. This favours my view and not yours. Furthermore, v.23, v.24, v.25, v.27, v.28, v.29, v.30, v.31 are all talking about the hardened Jews. Why should I believe that v.26 is not?
Let's take a close look at v.25 and v.26 again:
"--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
Robert, the text above says Israel will be hardened until the fullness of the Gentiles "has come in." Here is my question. To whom (or to what) are the Gentiles "coming into"? The answer is implied in the very next verse. The Gentiles are coming into Israel! That's why St. Paul says AND SO all Israel will be saved. In other words, Israel is divided into two Jewish camps: the remnant and the hardened. This is why St. Paul describes Israel as being "partially hardened" in v. 25. He then goes on to say that this hardening will continue up to the fullness of the Gentiles ENTERING INTO HER. Verse 26 tells us what happens to THIS ISRAEL (i.e. the hardened Jews, the remnant Jews, and the believing Gentiles): "And so all Israel will be saved." And how can this happen since there are unbelievers in THIS Israel? St. Paul tells us in the very next verse. He quotes from the Old Testament: it will be Jesus who will remove Israel's ungodliness. Now clearly, Jesus is not coming to remove "ungodliness" from the godly, is He? No. He is coming to finish the job with "hardened Israel".
RS2: Why? Because Paul says already in Romans 11:14 that it is his desire to “save SOME of them.” If Paul is, at that time, witnessing Jews leave their unbelief and be “saved,” then obviously those Jews have gone from “hardness” to “being saved.” And here’s the clincher. Notice in Romans 11:15 that, after he “saves some,” Paul says “For....their acceptance is life from the dead.” The word “For” is giving the conclusion to Romans 11:14 that said Paul desires to “save some” at the present time. The only way to connect these two verses is to conclude that the PRESENT salvation of “SOME” of the Jews is “life from the dead,” wherein “dead” represented their “hardened” or “ungrafted” state before they become saved.
JP2: See my comments above. St. Paul knows that most of the Jews in his time will reject the Gospel. What has that got to do with God's plan in the future?
JP1: OK. Let's revisit the earlier verses of Romans 11:
"And David says, "LET THEIR TABLE BECOME A SNARE AND A TRAP, AND A STUMBLING BLOCK AND A RETRIBUTION TO THEM. "LET THEIR EYES BE DARKENED TO SEE NOT, AND BEND THEIR BACKS FOREVER." I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfilment be! But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles." (v.9-13)
Notice how St. Paul is setting up the "humiliation" of the Jews in the above passage. The Gospel is a "stumbling block and retribution to them"; their eyes have been "darkened"; and as a final humiliating measure God gives salvation to the Gentiles to, as St. Paul says, "make them jealous". This seems to fit right in line with Isaiah's prophesy concerning this humiliation not lasting forever. Furthermore, there is one more curious comment St. Paul makes. Why does St. Paul say that the Jews stumbled but did not fall? He seems to make this statement to suggest that there is something yet unfulfilled about the Jews. And indeed, in the very next sentence, he confirms this understanding when he implies that Israel's return will be glorious. Because of Israel's disobedience, riches have flowed to the Gentiles. "How much more" then "will their [Israel's] fulfilment be" when they return to obedience.
RS1: John, you skipped right over the most important part of Romans 11:14 – the part that says it is Paul’s desire to save “SOME of them,” in this PRESENT time. If, as your argument purports, there is some glorious return planned for ALL Israel, then why does Paul conclude Romans 11:8-13 by saying that he wants to convert “SOME,” which is the same as a remnant? If your argument were correct, Paul would be concluding that God’s plan is to save ALL and not merely SOME, and it would be exclusively in the future, not the PRESENT. Paul’s intent is to make the Jews of HIS DAY “jealous” so that he can “save some.” As it stands, your interpretation of Romans 11:25-26 is in direct conflict with the plain facts of Romans 11:9-14.
JP1: I don't see how v.9-14 impacts a future return of Israel. In St. Paul's time, he saw the hardening of the Jews and only some would be saved back then. That has nothing to do with a possible future softening which he calls a "mystery" which he proceeds to back up with sentiments like this:
"From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers..."
God is totally sovereign. He can save the Jews in part or in whole in His good time:
"What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy." (Romans 9:14-16)
RS1: Unlike you, Paul does not have any grand illusions about a future return of national Israel. In fact, Paul NEVER makes such prophecies in the New Testament about Israel. He speaks only of “remnants” and “some,” right in the context of the fulfilment of OT prophecy and the grafting in to the olive tree. If you think otherwise, show me one place in the context (without using as proof something you haven’t proven yet) where Paul envisions a massive conversion of Jews in the future. If you can’t find it in Romans 11, name one place in the rest of the NT that backs up your interpretation. I can tell you this: you will not be able to find any. But I can find plenty that speak of a remnant being saved in the present time.
JP1: Well, I admit that St. Paul speaks about "remnants" and "some" quite a bit, but I wonder if he is not talking about the Jews of his own day who rejected Christ. Why is this not a possibility? In fact, come to think of it, what kind of God would necessarily blind any ethnic group (or the majority of it) for all eternity - especially when that population today have been so far removed from Jesus' death? In fact, for your position to hold (i.e. only a remnant Jewish population will be saved), you would have to say that God wills to save only a "remnant" Jewish population to the end of time. Is that what you are advocating? This is not a rhetorical question, but a genuine one.
JP1: Another point that we should consider again is "the fullness of Gentiles" which St. Paul speaks about. Have all the Gentiles come in yet? I don't think so. It certainly had not yet come in during St. Paul's time. That means his view is IN THE FUTURE (as the above Pre-V2 commentary says). Hence v. 26 and 27 apply to a future event.
RS2: Again, John, you’re using as proof an issue you haven’t proven yet. You haven’t proven that “until” means that the hardness will terminate in the future. You haven’t even proven what “fullness of the Gentiles” means.
JP2: I would think it means when the majority of Gentiles have entered Israel.
RS1: But as I said earlier, it goes without saying that Israel's blindness will continue into the future. So St. Paul is not receiving some stupendous knowledge here. But the question is that, if the "fullness of the Gentiles" refers to the end of time, as is implied by passages like Mt 24:14, then their "fulness" is the terminus, not the beginning. This is especially true since the word "thus" is not a word used to extend time beyond a certain point, but a word that describes the manner Israel is saved, that is, it is not those in blindness that are saved, but the remnant he introduced in verse 5. This is reinforced in Romans 11:14 which says, "I might move to jealousy my countrymen and save SOME of them." SOME is a remnant. Verse 14 is the only other time the word "save" is used in Romans 11, except in verse 11 in reference to the Gentiles.
JP2: But Robert, even if I granted your "terminus" interpretation, your position still does not adequately explain why Israel (i.e. "the hardened Jews" of v.25) are saved in v. 26 after the terminus. For your view to hold any water, you would have to say that the Israel of v. 26 is not the same as (or at least does not include) the Israel of v.25. That interpretation is not very cogent in my opinion, considering there is nothing in the immediate context of the verses to suggest they are different groups. As I explained previously, the context is heavily weighted against you.
RS2: Again, the verse does not say “saved AFTER the terminus.” You keep putting future time ques in the passage. The passage says, “and SO all Israel will be saved,” not “and THEN all Israel will be saved.” The word “so” is a Greek adverb pointing to the manner of salvation (the manner that was described in the context, i.e., “some” in the present time). How are they saved? According to Romans 11:23-24 it is by being INGRAFTED back into the tree. And who does that “ingrafting” happen to? To the “SOME” that Paul says he desires to save in Romans 11:14, since it’s all part of the same context. It’s the same reason that Paul says “And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews” in 1 Cor 9:20.
JP2: No Robert, the "ingrafting" refers to neither the "some" nor the "all". It is indefinite. It could refer to either. St. Paul is leaving this wide open.
JP1: Furthermore, the fact that St. Paul uses "all Israel" in v. 26 again supports my view. In this chapter, St. Paul contrasts two groups: the "remnant" in v.5 against the "hardened" in v.7. Therefore, when he uses "all Israel" in v.26, the natural assumption is that he is not making a distinction any more but including both groups as one nation. If he were making such a distinction, he would have been bound to use "remnant" in v. 6, especially considering his use of the "hardened Israel" in v. 5, one verse previously!
RS2: As I said in a previous paragraph, right in the midst of the context to which you appealed, Paul said that he wanted to save “SOME” of the hardened ones. That is why he says “AND SO” in Romans 11:26, and not “AND THEN?”
JP2: No further comment.
RS2:
P.S. I would also like to add the following regarding how the Fathers looked at Romans 11:25-27:
Along with Scripture, the consensus among the early Fathers is that there is no divinely mandated future glory for national Israel. Divine promises made to Israel are said to have been already fulfilled in the Old Testament. Remaining prophecies concerning “Israel” are said to be fulfilled in the New Testament Church, or in the eternity of the New Heaven and New Earth. There are only a few personalities who even address the issue of Israel in the future. Some give commentaries on Romans 11:25-27, e.g., Origen, Theodoret, Chrysostom, Jerome, Cyril, Augustine, Pelagius.
JP2: Well, this only shows how mysterious it is.
RS2: Of those, Origen admits that he does not know what “all Israel” means. He writes: "What all Israel means or what the fullness of the Gentiles will be only God knows...” (Commentary on Romans, 4:304).
JP2: But, Robert, all this does is really help support my position. If it were as clear as you say, then there would never have been any question as to the correct interpretation. And, if that is in fact the case, we should afford fellow Catholics the liberty of believing either view. I cannot see how you seek to bind what the Fathers apparently did not.
RS2: Chrysostom refers only to a spiritual restoration, but does not apply it to some distant event in the future: “God’s covenant will be fulfilled not when they are circumcised...but when they obtain the forgiveness of sins...it will certainly come to pass” (Homily on Romans, 11:26-27; NPNF 1, 11:493).
JP2: Huh? If it's a spiritual restoration, then how does this not support my view? Moreover, Chrysostom does indeed seem to suggest a future since it "will be fulfilled" not that it has already been fulfilled as you have argued above.
RS2: Augustine states that Romans 11:26 applies only to the remnant of Israel, and spiritually to the Church: “Not all the Jews were blind; some of them recognized Christ. But the fullness of the Gentiles comes in among those who have been called according to the plan, and there arises a truer Israel of God...the elect from both the Jews and the Gentiles” (Letters 149; FC 20:253).
JP2: This does not speak against a restoration of Israel, any more than his use of Matthew 16:18 speaks against the primacy of St. Peter.
RS2: Theodoret takes the same track as Augustine: “All Israel means all those who believe, whether they are Jews, who have a natural relationship to Israel, or Gentiles, who are related to Israel by faith” (Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans, Migne PG 82, col 180).
JP2: Same comment as above. I don't discount that these two witnesses have your view in mind, but there is nothing definitive which you have provided. Moreover, their views are hardly "binding", especially considering that there are other Fathers who support my view (as you present below).
RS2: Pelagius challenges those who interpret Romans 11:25-27 as applying to the future, stating that if it does, what does that leave for those Jews in the present: “Some interpreters regard all these events as future. To them one must reply...what will become of those who are now perishing as unbelievers” (Commentary on Romans; PCR 12930).
JP2: The interesting thing I find here, Robert, is the very EXISTENCE of Pelagius' opponents who were suggesting what I am suggesting. Who were they? Were they Catholics? Maybe they were. Pelagius was not - at least for a time. What it does show, at the very least, is that the view which I am proposing is hardly "novel". Don't you think it is ironic that the guy who rejected God's sovereign grace is the guy tooting your horn?
RS2: Only two Fathers hold out for any future large restoration of faith in Israel. Jerome states: “...because when the Jews receive the faith at the end of the world, they will find themselves in dazzling light, as if Our Lord were returning to them from Egypt” (Commentary on St. Matthew, Ch 2).
JP2: OK. Thank you for your honesty. Firstly, please note that this affirmation by Jerome is much stronger than the passages you have put up as "denials" above. Secondly, my view is hardly "novel". Thirdly, we should show tolerance where there is a split of opinion among Catholics over debatable points. Fourthly, if anything, the Church is starting to lean against YOUR opinion as it starts to tackle this issue more definitively, and so, if anything, it is you, and not me, who should be requesting tolerance. Fifthly, you have provided two Fathers supporting my view, and two Heretics and two Fathers who support your view. Therefore, on a numerical basis alone (and not even probing further into the weaknesses of the passages you offer in support of your view), it seems to me that you have no claim to a "Traditional teaching" on the subject at all. In fact, Mark Cameron seems to have undermined your views on Theodoret and Augustine as well.
RS2: Cyril of Alexandria says: “Yes, one day, after the conversion of the Gentiles, Israel will be converted, and the Jews will be astonished at the treasure they will find in Christ” (Commentary on Genesis, Bk 5).
JP2: Thanks. :)
RS2: But although Jerome and Cyril look for a spiritual movement in the future, neither of them specify or imply that such movement includes a national and physical restoration of Israel to the land of Palestine, and neither did any other Father. Indeed, the earlier Fathers do not even envision a large conversion of Jews.
JP2: C'mon, Robert. I don't know about Palestine, but Cyril and Jerome are supporting my view about an eventual return and conversion. That is plain as day. Why are you fighting this so much? Let it go. If you don't, then the Church will move on without you and you will be left holding a bag of false doctrine. Please, dear brother, let it go.
"But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul. When you are in distress and all these things have happened to you, then in later days you will return to the LORD your God and obey him. For the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your forefathers, which he confirmed to them by oath." (Deut. 4:29-31)
John Pacheco
The Catholic Legate
April 5, 2003