How Should We View Israel?
Part 4.
Having considered the implications of the new covenant as it pertains to the land of ancient Israel, we concluded in our last post that the Jewish people do not possess a biblical right to it since there is no longer any sacred land in this stage of redemptive history. Furthermore, ethnic Israel no longer has a unique, continuing covenantal status.
This makes some people angry because they think of the horrors of the Holocaust and ask, “Where were all the survivors supposed to go? After one third of the world’s Jewish population was killed, they needed a place to call their own.” I understand and appreciate that sentiment, but the circumstances and challenges facing Jewry after World War II is not germane to the question of whether Scripturally one can lay claim to the land. Though the modern state of Israel lacks a biblical right, I believe they have a political right to govern their territory and safeguard their borders like any other nation.
As we previously noted, for good or ill, land has changed hands continually throughout human history. While some claim Israel assumed authority over the land illegitimately — even with U.N. support displacing hundreds of thousands of Muslim and Christian Arabs — could not a similar charge could be laid against the United States if we are being consistent? And yet I have never met anyone in this country who thinks Israel should cede land who is actually prepared to sacrifice their own to Native Americans. Again, how far back does one go to determine who owns a piece of land and by what standard do you make such a determination? These are complex matters beyond the scope of our topic.
Despite the conclusions we have come to thus far in this series, some within the Reformed community believe ethnic Israel still holds a role in the future based on a particular clause in Romans 11. Toward the end of chapter 11 Paul writes, “Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved...” (vv. 25, 26a).
Biblical scholars differ as to the meaning of the clause, “and in this way all Israel will be saved.” There are three main interpretations. We will only address one in this post. Many believe that immediately prior to or in conjunction with Jesus’s return, the nation of Israel as a whole — not necessarily every individual — will be saved. They claim this will occur after all elect Gentiles have entered the Kingdom of God. Variations of this view exist between historic premillennialists and dispensationalists.
There are still others belonging to neither camp that expect a future large-scale turning of Israel to Christ. These include some notable Reformed thinkers and writers such as Charles Hodge, Geerhardus Vos, John Murray, and R.C. Sproul. This is the majority report in Evangelicalism, but not within the Reformed tradition. Those views will be explored next time.
Before I comment further on the first interpretation let me provide some context. In order to understand chapter 11, we must begin with chapter 9. In Romans chapters 9-11 we have Paul’s answer to the thorny problem of Israel’s widespread rejection of the gospel. In these three chapters Paul provides us with a Christian view of history, explaining how both Jews and Gentiles fit within the scope of God’s great plan for His elect. Paul argues that the Lord’s sovereign choice, as illustrated in the past, helps us to understand what He is doing in the present.
Given Israel was in covenant with God and thereby blessed with distinctive advantages, how could so many miss His promised redemption in the Messiah? While Paul is sorrowful over the state of his kinsmen he makes it clear the fault does not lie with God:
“But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.’ This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.” (Romans 9:6-8).
Does God break His promises? Never. The real question is who constitutes the Israel to whom God’s promises of salvation were given? It is national Israel or spiritual Israel? If it’s national Israel, then God’s word failed because not all Jews believe. His word did not fail, however, for there is a remnant chosen by grace (Romans 11:5). Salvation has never been based on ethnic lineage but rather on electing grace. This is essential to understanding Paul’s argument.
The apostle goes on to explain that with respect to the one olive tree (not two trees as if there were two separate plans for Jews and Gentiles), some branches have been broken off (unbelieving Jews) and others have been grafted in (believing Gentiles).
There is a divinely ordered interplay between Jews and Gentiles: “through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous” (Romans 11:11). As elect Gentiles come to salvation and are grafted in, Jews chosen by grace are provoked to jealousy leading these “natural branches” to be grafted back in (see 11:17-24).
So is there hope for Paul’s kinsmen? Yes. He writes, “I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them” (11:14). This dynamic continues throughout history and through faith in Christ former branches broken off are grafted back in “for God has the power to graft them in again” (11:23).
Many Jews came to faith during the early years of the church, and over the centuries the Lord has continued to add more individuals of Jewish descent to His body. As Paul notes, “Israel has experienced a hardening in part” (11:25). God has neither rejected all Jews nor saved all Jews. The fact that Israel has only experienced a partial hardening underscores His mercy in saving the rest, although we have no idea of the number.
The first view under consideration contends that there will be a corporate turning of Israel near the consummation of history. According to these interpreters, the partial hardening will be reversed prior to the Second Coming when God will bring many Jews to faith. They see the clause “all Israel will be saved” as something future close to or concurrent with Christ’s return.
Is there justification to read verse 26 as being exclusively fulfilled at the end of time? Not in my mind. Actually, I changed my mind because I used to hold this view. After studying the matter more closely I was compelled to adopt a different position. The language Paul uses indicates he is dealing with the present and what is true of every age, not an end time scenario. Let me offer some examples:
- The apostle does not point to a future time of acceptance for Israel to answer the question, “Did God reject His people?” but offers himself as an example: “I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin” (11:1). This is reinforced in 11:5, “So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.”
- He states his ministry is being used to save Jews in his own day: “Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them” (11:13-14).
- Notice Paul’s concern for the present response of Israel: “so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy” (11:31).
- Romans 11:25 is often misinterpreted. It reads: “a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” Many take this as “a partial hardening of Israel will cease after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” This is projecting something on the word “until” that isn’t there. According to O. Palmer Robertson the phrase rendered “until” (achris hou) is to be understood as “up to a certain point” and not something subsequent to a point of termination. Thus, Israel’s partial hardening will continue up to the full ingathering of the Gentiles. The phrase does not suggest anything to follow.
- The ESV rightly translates 11:26 as, “And in this way all Israel will be saved.” Like many others, I formerly read this verse as if it were saying, “And then all Israel will be saved.” Of the approximately 77 times Paul uses the word houtos it never has a temporal meaning. Moreover, all 205 occurrences in the entire New Testament are nontemporal. This is a significant point; one I could not overlook. The word means “in this manner” or “in this way.” Reading verses 25 and 26 again: “Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved…”
Paul does not want Gentile believers to be puffed up about their inclusion into the people of God. The Lord has not totally rejected Israel even if they for the most part have rejected Him. The mystery (something that was once hidden but now revealed) is that some Jews will be hardened and others saved all the way up to the full ingathering of the Gentiles.
Paul’s point is that God saves both Jews and Gentiles through a connected process: Israel’s rejection brings salvation to the Gentiles, and the Gentiles' faith leads Israel back to God. Thus, “all Israel” is saved throughout history, not only at the end of time. This is the process God has ordained to gather in both Jews and Gentiles chosen by grace.
For the reasons stated I cannot ascribe to this first view. While I respect those in our tradition who hold this view — like the men I referenced — they are in the minority. Next week I’ll comment on the more common interpretations among Reformed theologians and commentators.
If you wish to read more on this particular subject, let me recommend two resources: The Israel of God by O. Palmer Robertson (particularly chapter 6) and The Bible and the Future by Anthony A. Hoekema (pp. 137-147).