In their continuing 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.
JP2: 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...)"
RS3: Yes, but I’m not the one making dogmatic statements that there will be a future conversion of Israel. Until I introduced the alternate possibility to the meaning of ACHRI HOU, you were of the opinion that Romans 11:25-26 could only be interpreted one way. END
JP3: No, I never said that it could only be interpreted only one way. I simply used the permitted grammatical range of the phrase to argue my point. You have every right to challenge that, of course, but as I said before, it is a neutral point. My interpretation of the phrase has wheels when understood in the context.
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.
RS3: John, your view, if you take it to its logical conclusion, ends up saying that EVERY LAST JEW, at some unspecified time in the future, will be saved. No exceptions. You must have that interpretation since you are required to be faithful to the word “all.” So if you want to argue this way, you can do so, but you only box yourself in even more, since to claim that every last Jew of the future will be saved has absolutely no precedent or Scriptural evidence.
JP3: Robert, you know as well as I do that "all" is not always "all"
"...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." (Romans 3:23)
Does "all" include the Blessed Mother? Clearly not.
"For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." (Romans 5:19)
Does "many" not mean "all" in regards to Adam's sin? Clearly it does.
RS3: As for my view, I’m not interested in the “individual Jews versus a mass of Jews” argument that you are trying to force into this discussion. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that “all Israel” refers to ALL the Jews God will save, from the time of Abraham to the time of the end of the world. That is why Paul makes the distinction in Romans 9:6 that not all descended from Israel are Israel. We have two different Israels. Those from Israel who are saved and those who are not. But your view says, no, there is only ONE Israel at the end of time, because God is going to save all of them.
JP3: Robert, but there is only ONE Israel. Now we are finally getting somewhere. This is a critical point we must consider. Look carefully at Romans 11:25 again:
Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in...(Romans 11:25)
According to you, there are two Israels - those who are saved and those who are not. In effect, you have a "hardened Israel" and a "saved Israel" - two Israels, right? Yet, the above verse suggests that there is but ONE Israel which has been only PARTIALLY hardened, not (as you suggest) separated into a "hardened Israel" and a "softened Israel". Furthermore, please explain how the GENTILES are COMING INTO this HARDENED Israel!? Why would they do that if were already the "saved Israel?" Wouldn't they want to stay right where they are in the "saved Israel"? As you can see, you have a big problem here with the "two Israel" program.
On the other hand, my view makes perfect sense and is in harmony with the whole context of Romans 11. Israel has become partially hardened because of their unbelief. To the remnant Jewish population of Israel is added the fullness of the Gentiles. And once that has been accomplished, the "partially hardened" and the "remnant" factions of this Israel will be saved, as the Scripture attests:
"And so all Israel will be saved..."
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".
RS3: I fail to see how “partially hardened” is going to help you. “All Israel” refers to all the people from Israel that God will save from Abraham to the end. If there are some saved, then the rest are hardened. What is so hard to understand about that?
JP3: If, as the text says, "Israel will experience a hardening in part" and then ALL of this same Israel will later be saved, then how can you say that these hardened ones are not included in that salvation?
JP2: 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 by 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.
RS3: John, your “incoherency” is contrived. Romans 11:1-7 already gave us the back and forth shift regarding Israel. Verses 1-4 speak of those in Israel who were false worshipers. Verse 5 speaks of a remnant from Israel who will be saved. Verse 7 then says that Israel did not obtain what it was seeking for. Paul is constantly making shifts in who he is addressing. So don’t begrudge me the same opportunity in verses 25-28.
JP3: Sure I will. The verses you mention are very clear about who St. Paul is speaking about. But I must insist, and you have to admit, that there is no demonstrable shift in identity between verses 25-28. To me, that is as clear as day. Unless you can concede that this is a difficulty for your position, I don't think this discussion can move forward on this point.
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.
RS3: But John, if the hardening lasts till the end of time, which you can’t disprove because you don’t know the meaning of ACHRI HOU, then the contrast between a partial hardening and the all who are saved fits perfectly well. The hardened will remained hardened, but “all” the rest of those who were not hardened will be saved. There’s nothing difficult about this.
JP3: Just a moment, Robert. Let's step back a moment. You said "all the rest" will be saved. The text, however, does not say this or even imply it. It still identifies the hardened with Israel. And to this WHOLE AND ENTIRE Israel - hardened and softened - ALL of it - will be saved. "And so ALL Israel will be saved." It does not say, as you do, that "all the rest of those who were not hardened will be saved." It says the exact opposite!
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.
RS3: John, if you’re not careful, as I said above, you’ll end up saying that “all Israel” must refer to Jews of the distant future of which ALL of them must be saved in order to fulfill your interpretation of Rom 11:26. Look at it this way: There are two possibilities: (A) “all Israel” refers to all the Jews who will be saved from Abraham to the end of time, and it will comprise some of those “hardened” in Paul’s time and ours who become saved, while the rest remain hardened right up until the end. (B) “all Israel” refers not to the Jews being saved now and until the end of time, but only to the Jews of the distant future which, since the word “all” is used, must mean that every last Jew of that future time is saved. Unless I’m missing something, there are no other possibilities. But I don’t find any evidence in the context for option B, John. There is absolutely nothing about a massive, all-or-nothing, conversion in the future.
JP3: Robert, as I said earlier "all" does not necessarily mean every single last person. It has a comprehensive meaning not a categorical one. Do you believe that Mary or Jesus Christ are sinners because "Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin" (Cf. Romans 3:9)?
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 :)
RS3: John, the point remains that “adelphos” has many meanings, but “houtos” does not.
JP3: So the could-a should-a grammar techique is out as an apologetic tactic, right? Is that a concession, Robert :)
And regarding "houtos", even under your understanding, my position is still not diluted at all. True, my position would be even more enhanced if the Greek meant "AND THEN", but as it stands now, it is a neutral point.
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.
RS3: Well, if you admit that the OT context is speaking of the first coming of Christ, then the burden of proof is on you to show that it isn’t on the first coming, but some “other emphasis.” Otherwise, you are using as proof something you haven’t proven yet.
JP3: OK. Think of this this way. St. Paul could indeed be using it in a prophetic sense in a way that points to the completion of God's mission with the Jews. In other words, in St. Paul's time, we know that there were "godless" and "hardened" Jews - even after the death and resurrection of Christ. And so what St. Paul is doing is reminding his Gentile readers that God has not forgotten the Jews and will return to finish the job. And what job is that? Well, simply to "remove ungodliness from Jacob". We know that ungodliness still resides in Jacob because in the v.25 St. Paul admits that Israel is partially HARDENED. Do I get a gold star for that one?
JP2: 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.
RS3: I never said it was an “irrevocable indictment.” If God is still saving Jews, and will do so till the end of time, then He has been faithful to His promise to Abraham. Because of their multitude of sins, God could have cut the Jews off forever, without any possibility of salvation. But because of the “sake of the fathers,” He didn’t. He still allowed them to be grafted back into the tree. But, and this is important, it is not a grafting that will be done universally or automatically, but, as Rom 11:23 says, “IF they do not continue in their unbelief will be grafted in again.” Notice that the burden of being grafted back in to the tree is on the Jew, not on God to perform some miracle of mass conversion for them with or without their wills accepting him.
JP3: But Robert. Come now. Salvation is ultimately a gift of God. This is why St. Paul says in v.32: "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." Remember positive predestination? That is a dogma of the Catholic Church, Robert. How is it that you can effectively deny this as a possibility to the Jews?
Let me remind you:
Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls..." (Romans 9:11-12)
And, since God's purpose in election must stand because it is by He who calls, then this call to the Jews must also stand "for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable" (Rom. 11:29).
Also, how do you know that St. Paul is not merely describing an event which points to a time where the Jews will indeed come to believe and accept Jesus as their Messiah? Why is this so difficult to believe? For heaven's sake, the whole Old Testament is a witness to the soap-opera marriage between God and his people. What about Nineveh? How "likely" was it that a whole town would convert on the preaching of Jonah?
"On the first day, Jonah started into the city. He proclaimed: "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned." The Ninevites believed God. They declared a fast, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth." (Jonah 3:4-5)
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.
RS3: No, John, the tense doesn’t work that way. “Will be saved” is used because not all the Jews who are going to be saved exist yet. Hence, the sum total of all Jews who will be saved can only come about at some time in the future.
JP3: Granted. This is possible, but it does not respect the identity of "Israel" - hardened or otherwise.
JP2: 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.
RS3: John, you’re trying to dichotomize something that does not need to be dichotomized. “All Israel” refers to the remnant who have already been born but became saved before they died, as well as all those who are “hardened” now but “do not continue in their unbelief,” as well as all those of the future who will be born and become saved.
JP3: So what you are telling me is that the Israel in verse 25 and the Israel in verse 26 are not the same. Is that what you are saying?
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.
RS3: For the simple reason that you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you maintain that “all Israel” only refers to the future, then you are stuck with the meaning of “all” for that future time period. Hence, you cannot say, as you did above, that there will only be a “good portion of them” who will convert some day in the future. You must say that ALL of them in that future time will convert, with no exceptions. You’ve been disproven by your own words. My interpretation has been faithful to the meaning of “all,” since I’m saying that it refers to ALL those Jews from Abraham to Christ’s coming who will be saved. But you are making “all” into only a “good portion.” Can’t do that, John.
JP3: As discussed twice already, St. Paul's use of "all" can hardly be considered to be technically rigid - at least from a Catholic perspective. I have given you three verses which indicate this. What is your answer to it?
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?
RS3: But I never said it did cease. I’m sure you’ve heard of Jews converting to Christianity in our day, haven’t you, John? Well, there have been Jews converting to Christianity since the time of Pentecost, and it hasn’t stopped. If you can’t find a time where God has stopped saving Jews, then your argument simply does not hold.
JP3: Huh? How is that relevant? All I am saying is that indeed God has been saving the Jews since the time of Pentecost and that there is a Pauline prophesy that this salvation will come en masse one day - that's all.
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?
RS3: Only if one argued that Gentiles were not being saved before Christ came, but that is certainly not the case.
JP3: Yes, agreed. But when you asked "What good would that do for all the millions of Jews living presently?", the answer is: not a heck of a lot since they have refused to believe. However, what has that got to do with the FUTURE Jews who, according to St. Paul's prophesy, will turn to Christ? God is not obligated to save every Jew from every generation.
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...."
RS3: Yes, but if the other possibility was that God could have cut the Jew off without any possibility of salvation, then there would be no more “mystery” left, since no Jew could be saved. It remains a “mystery” whether Jews will be grafted back in, since God has not taken away the POSSIBILITY that they can still be saved. But again, if they are grafted back in, it’s not going to be by some miraculous all-inclusive conversion, but only by those who “do not continue in their unbelief.”
JP3: ...which just happens to be all Israel - the one that St. Paul says Jesus is coming back to in order to "remove ungodliness". And what makes you think that God is precluded from acting in a miraculous way SO THAT the Jews do not continue is their unbelief?
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: "For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all." (Romans 11:31) 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)
RS3: Taking lessons from Eric Svendsen and James White now, John? Of course God has mercy on whom He will have mercy. But that doesn’t mean that man doesn’t have a free will to reject God. In fact, the very passage from which Paul quotes in Exodus 33:19 is a context in which God issues mercy because Moses has exercised his free will in being obedient to God, unlike his fellow Israelites who hardened their wills against God.
JP3: And so? Your whole presupposition, Robert, if you read your comments here and in the first dialogue, has been to imply that my view of the Jewish conversion would be some kind of return WITHOUT faith. But why do you insist on this paradigm? It's ridiculous. Of course the Jews will have to believe in Christ. Of course there will have to be co-operation on their part. Who said there would not be? All I am saying is that God's sovereignty and grace works where and when it likes, and He is ultimately in control of everything. Have you solved the intricate mystery between predestination and free will, Robert? Are you not insisting on favouring the free will aspect of this question while pushing aside God's predestination? Remember, it's not an "either/or" in Catholicism, Robert. It's a "both".
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?
RS3: I didn’t say it negates any OT prophesy concerning the Jews and their rejection of the Messiah., but that it ignores the OT prophecies that speak of a salvation of Jews at the first coming of Christ till the end of the world. Again, what passage in the Bible speaks of a all of the Jews in the distant future as being saved?
JP3: How many do you need? One passage is enough to settle any question of doctrine. Purgatory has one good passage. And so does this one.
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 the 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.
RS3: No argument from me, John. It is precisely because God loves these hardened Jews that they still have a chance to be saved, if they would only “not continue in their unbelief” (Rom 11:23). When they do leave their “hardness,” then they become part of “all Israel” who will be saved.
JP3: No. I don't think so. The verse says: "Israel has experienced a hardening in part". How can they "become part of all Israel" when St. Paul says that they ARE ALREADY THE ONES WHO MAKE ISRAEL HARDENED?!
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".
RS3: John, what the Catechism teaches I have already addressed, and it doesn’t teach what you are teaching about Romans 11. As for the Pontiff, I don’t know where he has addressed the intricacies of Romans 11 in any of his teachings, except to say that the “Old Covenant has not been revoked,” which no Pope, Council, Doctor or Saint has ever taught in the history of the Catholic Church. Nor has any of the above ever taught that the promises of physical land to Israel are still applicable today (as the pope recently said to Ariel Sharon, as reported by the Jerusalem post). I would suggest that you stop trying to turn total reversals of our tradition with the words “doctrinal development.”
JP3: Why? Is it not the truth? Catholicism in 2003 is hardly the same thing as Catholicism in 33 A.D. There are PLENTY of things which the Catholic Church teaches today that it never taught in the past -- at least explicitly. Talk to the Dominicans about the Immaculate Conception the minute right before Pope Pius IX defined it. They were fighting it tooth and nail. Something can be relatively silent or buried for centuries before it comes to light. The only thing we are guaranteed about is that the Church will never contradict herself. Can you show me anywhere in the Church's tradition which has made a definitive or even authoritative ruling on this question? I don't think so.
RS3: As for your statement “History is littered with corpses who refuse to accept legitimate development because they thought they were defending "tradition” please tell me what you are referring to and then I can address it. Until then, not every “development” is legitimate, unless of course you want to say that the “development” that the Jews no longer have to convert to Christianity is something legitimate, or that telling pagans to pray to their false gods for world peace is also a “legitimate development.”
JP3: I see. And to whom has Our Lord committed the responsibility of saying a doctrine is legitimate or not? Stagnation is just as much as sin as "over" development. Go and talk to the Judaisers about that one.
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.
RS3: Superior? Just a few paragraphs ago you said “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.” In any case, I already explained earlier how Paul shifts from between the two Israels in Romans 11:1-7, so my take on Romans 11:25-26 is not without precedent.
JP3: No, Robert. You have not proven that at all. Romans 11:1-7 is pretty straight forward. Romans 11:25-26 is as well. You are just not admitting that you have a huge problem here. The fact that you do not concede the difficulty does not make your view more cogent since you are hanging on to something which just ain't there. It ain't there.
JP2: 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".
RS3: Yet another angle, John? How many ways do you want to look at this? First, the text does not have an object for the verb “comes in.” We don’t know whether “comes in” refers to Israel, the Church, or is just some political manifestation. The only other time “fullness of the Gentiles” is used in the NT (Luke 21:24) it is equally ambiguous. In any case, you’re above attempt does not prove your point. In fact, if I were to agree that the Gentiles come into Israel, the fact is that not all the Gentiles are saved. Only a portion of them would come in to Israel, and thus, a portion of Gentiles and a portion of Jews would make up “all Israel.”
JP3: Robert, is that the best you can do? To say that "we don't know whether "comes in" refers to Israel, the Church, or is just some political manifestation"? I guess that is the closest thing to a concession as I am going to get, so I'll take it.
"Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved..." (Romans 11:25-26)
C'mon Robert, St. Paul is not throwing out the "Gentiles coming in" just for the heck of it. Whether St. Paul is talking about the Church, Israel, or identifying the Church with Israel is incidental to the point he is trying to make. The central point is that he is tying the Israel of v. 25 with v.26 within a SALVIFIC context, and that's what wins me the booby prize. I think the context is clear that the Gentiles are coming into Israel. In fact, your OWN INTERPRETATION demands that, does it not? I mean, you've been telling me all along that the Israel of v. 26 includes some of the hardened Jews who convert plus the Gentile Christians, yet in order for that to happen you must identify the object of "the Gentile coming in" to be Israel! Checkmate.
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?
RS3: You’re not dealing with the text, John. You can’t slough off the connection between verses 14 and 15 as if they do no damage to your interpretation. The very reason I mentioned the connection is that there are those on your side of the camp who claim that verse 15 applies only to some future mass conversion. But the text doesn’t say that, does it? It applies the resurrection from the dead to the present. Granted, it can also apply to future Jews, but I never said it couldn’t. All I said was that, since it can also apply to future Jews, those future Jews are going to be saved the same way the present Jews are saved, that is, by “not continuing in their unbelief.”
JP3: But, Robert, please understand this. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE JEWS WILL NOT HAVE TO BEND THE KNEE TO CHRIST! All that our side of the fence is advocating (at least I think) is that Romans 11:25-26 is not a prophesy of some kind of "automatic conversion without belief and repentence". That is YOUR presupposition. Not ours. If you would simply accept the possibility that the passage in question is DESCRIBING what the END RESULT will be with the Jews and not how they get there (i.e. believing in Christ), your central objection becomes superfluous.
JP2: 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.
RS3: No, that is not what I’m advocating. It’s not God’s fault that Jews don’t believe. The teaching of the whole Scripture is that Jews don’t become saved because THEY refuse Gods graces. In turn, God blinds them as a punishment. Yet even in that blindness, there are some who can still become saved, “if they continue not in their unbelief.” The point remains, John, that you cannot find any Scripture, besides your question-begging interpretation of Romans 11:25-26, that teaches a massive conversion of Jews in the distant future. Not only must you find a massive conversion, but you must show that ALL of those Jews of that time are saved. You’ve got a big task ahead of you.
JP3: I've already addressed both of these objections previously. "All" does not always mean "all". And one verse with Magisterium and Patrisitic backing is indeed enough for my view to be at the very least permissible. And if it is indeed permissible, then that begs the question as to the basis for this conversion. And you know where that leads ----> OC never being revoked.
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.
RS3: There IS something in the immediate context – the very shifting Paul himself uses between Romans 11:1-7, and that in Romans 9:6. Moreover, verse 26 is a natural consequence of verse 25 in regards to time. If the time of the Gentiles has come to an end, a conclusion is now demanded, since the whole context has been saying that, as opposed to the idea that no Jews can be saved, “some” indeed can be saved “if they continue not in unbelief.” So verse 26 gives the conclusion. The “some” that are saved fit into “all Israel,” from the time of Abraham till the end of time.
JP3: OK. Let's see how this works. If a conclusion is indeed demanded, for whom, then, is it demanded? Who is the object of this conclusion? Verse 25 speaks of hardened Israel and the Gentiles. Well, then, these are the groups which we are talking about. The conclusion is about ALL ISRAEL. For your view to work, there must be somewhere in these verses something which separate the "hardened" from Israel, but it just ain't there since St. Paul says clearly that "Israel has experienced a hardening in part." And that, in the very next verse, ALL ISRAEL will be saved. There is no where in this context which suggests the hardened part of Israel is no longer Israel. Quite the contrary, actually: "Israel has experienced a hardening".
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.
RS3: What other possibilities are there besides “some” or “all”? The only other possibility is “none,” but then that would defeat both your and my interpretation, would it not?
JP3: It could be "all", for all we know, in which case it would defeat your point. You were arguing that the ingrafting only refers to "some". Furthermore, the "some" which St. Paul is speaking about is ALL of the hardened.
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.
RS3: John, apparently you have been misunderstanding me since this whole discussion began. I am arguing against those who think that there is going to be, ipso facto, a future mass conversion of Israel in the distant future, and will not accept any other possibility. They preach their view as dogma, but they haven’t even begun to exegete these passages as you or I have done. And then they claim to base their view on “tradition,” but they are equally ignorant of that tradition to be so dogmatic about their one-sided view.
JP3: OK. Then maybe we are getting somewhere with this. Are you conceding that my view might be a possibility? If you are not, then I think you are not being fair with the ambiguity of the text or the witness of the Fathers or the Pope's views. If you are considering this as a viable Catholic view, then please explain how you can escape the issue about the OC never being revoked, and affording this view the same latitude you would be granting on a potential mass conversion?
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)
RS3: John, stop preaching, okay? The fact is that you simply failed to see the distinction I was making. Cyril and Jerome may have a conversion of the Jews in mind, but they do not envision God giving the Jews back the land of Palestine. Even Mark Cameron understands that distinction, and accepts it.
JP3: What's there to preach? That's a Scriptural passage right from the heart of the Old Covenant, and it is saying the same thing that I am saying. Do you deny it? I don't give two flying figs about the land of Palestine and neither do Cyril and Jerome. It didn't seem to bother Cyril and Jerome so why should the land issue bother me?
John Pacheco
The Catholic Legate
April 21, 2003