In an address delivered to the Confessing Church at the height of Nazi terror (16 March 1942), K. L. Schmidt appealed to Romans 9-11 as the key to faith for such perilous times. Paul’s hope for Israel in these chapters was proclaimed a light in foreboding darkness, not a twinkle of revelation but a disclosure of God’s presence. From beginning to end, Schmidt said, the divine glory rings 9-11; God is involved in the tragedy of Israel. His climactic point reads: “The God question, the future question, the Jewish question are the same question.”^[1]K. L. Schmidt, Die Judenfrage in Lichte der Kapitel 9-11 des Romer­briefes, Theologische Studien, vol. 13, 2d ed. (Zollikon-Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1942), p. 37. This statement, which sounds strange at first hearing, qualifies as a carefully-balanced summary of Romans 9-11. Indeed, when Paul contemplates the question of Jewish unbelief, his eye finally turns to future hope for the salvation of Israel. But the entire reasoning proceeds from a standpoint well within history: the present situation of hardened Israel genuinely magnifies the faithfulness of God, a faithfulness revealed in the preaching of the gospel. For Paul, the future of the Jews is ruled by the prior question of what God is now doing through the gospel.

This introductory stance assumes that 9-11 needs a new hearing. The bulk of interpreters have treated the passage as a curiosity piece, a warmhearted excursus on the Jews without serious connection to the rest of Romans. Consequently, 9-11 plays a diacritical role in relation to the history of Pauline exegesis.^[2]Ernst Kasemann, An die Romer, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, vol. 8a (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1973), p. 294. It has been dominated too long by tedious, slanted questions ranging from doubled-edged predestination to full-fledged universalism. With a hodgepodge of Zionism and dispensationalism mixed in, little wonder that many prefer to skip it when reading Romans.^[3]A typical attitude betrays itself “if when we read Romans we end it with ch. 8:39” as was Morton Scott Enslin’s “unhappy experience as a stu­dent, now fifty years ago” (Reapproaching Paul [Philadelphia: The West­minster Press, 1972], p. 156, n. 20). The present study attempts to do two things: (1) to retrieve the passage from the backwaters of Paul’s theology and put it in the main-stream of Romans, and (2) to interpret the key verses as part of a sustained, consistent argument. We hope to ease the grip of controversy that besets this portion of God’s word.

 

Crucial Issues

To get hold of the issues surrounding 9-11 we must recognize a double difficulty: “Beside the difficulty of seeing the place of this part in the total message of the letter has been the difficulty in deciding what these chapters are.”^[4]Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans, trans. Carl C. Rasmussen (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1949), p. 354. Needless to say, if one misconstrues the thrust of the passage, he can hardly expect it to cohere with the rest of the letter. So we will begin with the immediate theme and expand the argument to the overall structure of Romans.

 

The Major Interpretations

What is the primary question that Paul engages? The history of interpretation, which cautions us to avoid a ready­ made solution, leaves the matter up in the air. For the sake of brevity, we can divide the interpreters into four camps whose interests somewhat overlap but clearly approach 9-11 from a controlling viewpoint.^[5]See the history of exegesis from the patristic era up to the present in Bruce Corley, “The Significance of Romans 9-11: A Study in Pauline The­ology” (Th.D. dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1975), pp. 1-62. The best works for major periods are: (1) patristic – K. H. Schelkle, Paulus Lehrer der Viiter: Die altkirchliche Auslegung vom Rom 1-11, 2d ed. (Dusseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1959), pp. 346-421; (2) reformed – Willibald Beyschlag Die paulinsche Theodicee, Romer IX-XI: Ein Beitrag zur biblischen Theologie (Halle: Verlag von Eugen Strien, [1861]); Emil Weber, Das Problem der Heilsgeschichte nach Rom 9-11: Ein Beitrag zur historisch-theo­logischen Wurdigung der paulinischen Theodizee (Leipzig: A Deichert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1911); and (3) modern – Christian Muller, Gottes Ge­rechtigkeit und Gottes Volk: Eine Untersuchung zu Romer 9-11, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, vol. 86 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964); Ulrich Luz, Das Geschichtsvrstandnis des Paulus, Beitrage zur evangelischen Theologie, vol. 49 (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1968).

1. Eternal predestination—the question is how the eternal destiny of individuals is determined. This traditional debate is an overriding concern among the early fathers, medieval scholastics, and the reformers. The Augustinian view (infralapsarianism) wins out and informs the influential commentaries of Aquinas and Calvin. Post-reformation thinkers in this camp rally to three competing banners: (1) “God is absolutely sovereign” (predestinarian Calvinists), (2) “man is free to choose” (indeterminate Arminians), and (3) “divine sovereignty and human freedom cannot be reconciled” (mediating rationalists).^[6]Weber, Heilsgeschichte, pp. 10-36. Popular examples of these viewpoints are the commentaries of Charles Hodge (Calvinist), F.A.G. Tholuck (Ar­minian), and H.A.W. Meyer (mediating). The impasse culminates with a christological solution of 9-11 in Barth’s Church Dogmatics (II/2), penned in 1942.

2. Salvation history—the question is how the divine purpose works out in history. In reaction to pedestinarian exegesis, this group confines 9-11 to temporal history and corporate election. Without reference to eternal decrees and the fate of individuals, Paul describes the corporate roles of Israel and the Gentiles in salvation history.^[7]Beyschlag, Theodicee, pp. 24-27. In the mid-nineteenth century, the heilsqeschichtlich interpretation of 9-11 is defined by Beck and Von Hofmann. Recently, after a thorough overhaul, the weighty commentaries of Munck and Kasemann reaffirm valuable insights of salvation history.^[8]Johannes Munck, Christ and Israel: An Interpretation of Romans 9-11, trans. Ingeborg Nixon (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967). Kasemann con­nects 9-11 to the main   theme of Romans by understanding salvation history as the cosmic dimension  of God’s righteousness which stands at its center (Romer, p. 244).

3. Jewish unbelief—the question is how the church as the new people of God relates to Israel as the old people of God. As an apologetic tract, 9-11 is focused on Jewish-Christian dialogue, becoming Paul’s normative explanation of why the Jews remain in unbelief.^[9]Leonhard Goppelt, “Israel and the Church in Today’s Discussion and in Paul,” Lutheran World 10 (October 1963): 352-72. The church and Israel stand, on the one hand, in discontinuity concerning faith in Christ, yet on the other hand, in continuity concerning election as the people of God. This approach to 9-11 enlists vast literature written in response to the Nazi holocaust (the “Jewish question”), resurgent Zionism, and convocations at Evanston (1954), the Berlin Kirchentag (1961), and Vatican II.^[10]On the Judenfrage literature, see Luz, Geschichtsverstandnis, p. 23; and Ernst Gaugler, Der Romerbrief, 2 vols. (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag 1952) 2·424- 25.

4. Divine faithfulness—the question is how the gospel, having been rejected by the Jews, upholds the faithfulness of God to his promise. The fact of Jewish unbelief occasions a question, not about Israel’s fate, but about God: “Since God has so clearly given Israel a position of unique privilege, does not Israel’s defection mean that God’s intention has broken down?”^[11]C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Harper’s New Testament Commentaries (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1957), p, 180. Although philosophical overtures of theodicy are disclaimed by Nygren and Gaugler, 9-11 from this perspective is a vindication of God’s ways in dealing with men through the gospel. Notwithstanding an apparent failure with regard to Israel, God’s promise and eternal purpose still retain their force.^[12]Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Romer, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar uber das Neue Testament, vol. 4, 13th ed. (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru­precht, 1966), pp-. 221-22.

 

The Basic Theme

Without slighting important features of the other three approaches, we prefer the theme of divine faithfulness on two grounds. First, it emerges in Paul’s initial proposition: “But it is not as though the word of God has failed” (9:6a, NASE). Paul quickly denies that his introductory lament for Israel (9: 1-5) infers a lapse in the declared purpose of God. This rejoinder, which undoubtedly pinpoints Jewish opposition to Paul’s gospel, echoes a question that the apostle must have frequently heard. Does not rejection by the people entrusted with the “oracles of God” (3:2) imply that the gospel is false because it revokes Israel’s promise and nullifies the covenant faithfulness of God? Or, as Schrenk puts it, “does this [Jewish unbelief] not signify a failure of God’s word?”^[13]Gottlob Schrenk, Die Weissagung uber Israel in Neuen Testament (Zu­rich: Gottlielf Verlag, 1951 ), p. 25. This is the “crucial question,”^[14]Luz, Geschichtsverstandnis, p. 28. the one that “formulates the problem of the entire three chapters.”^[15]Kasemann, Romer, p. 249; cf. Leonhard Goppelt, Christentum und Judentum im ersten und zweiten Jahrundert, Beitrage zur Forderung christ­lichen Theologie, vol. 55 (Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann Verlag, 1954), p. 113. From this viewpoint, 9-11 is the reconciliation of the gospel doctrine laid down in chapters 1-8 to a great and pressing difficulty arising from Jewish unbelief.^[16]E. H. Gifford, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (London: John Murray, 1886), p. 38. The mainstream of English commentary develops this approach, including the works of H.C.G. Moule, James Denney, Sanday and Headlam, F. F. Bruce, and Barrett.

Second, the key concept in 9-11 is God’s mercy which again focuses on the question of divine faithfulness. The noun eleos (“mercy”) and cognate verb eleein (“to show mercy”) occur eight times in 9-11 and elsewhere in Romans only twice: “It is striking that Paul speaks of God’s eleos only in the passages in Rom. 9; 11; 15 which are concerned with the history of salvation.”^[17]Rudolf Bultmann, “Eleos,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testa­ment, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. G. W. Bromiley, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964), p. 484. See eleein-9:15, 16, 18; 11:30, 31, 32; 12:8; and eleos-9:23; 11:31; 15:9. The reference in 12:8 is human deeds of kindness; whereas the context of 15:9, divine mercy to the Gentiles, is parallel to 9-11. Among the commentators, only Barrett emphasizes this point; he calls mercy “the keynote of chs. ix-xi.”^[18]Barrett, Romans, p. 185. In Paul’s distinctive usage, eleos constitutes the saving relationship of Christ to Jew and Gentile purposed in the divine election (cf. 11:28-32). It connotes the idea of God’s unmerited favor and also God’s unswerving loyalty to his redemptive purpose. The Pauline component of divine faithfulness in eleos derives from the equivalent term in the LXX, the Hebrew substantive hesed (“steadfast love,” RSV).^[19]See Walter Zimmerli, “Charis,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Friedrich, trans. G. W. Bromiley, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), pp. 379-81; Nelson Glueck, “Hesed” in the Bible, trans. Alred Gottschalk, with an Introduction by Gerald A. Larue (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1967); and C.H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1954), p. 61. When Israel breaks the covenant, bringing wrath and judgment, divine hesed holds a promise of future restoration (cf. Is. 54:7-8; Hos. 2:19-20; Jer. 3:12).^[20]Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J. A. Baker, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), 1:238-39; cf. Norman H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament (London: The Ep­worth Press, 144), pp. 98-106. The juxtaposition of God’s electing love (8:29), prophetic grief (9:1), and Israel’s dis­obedience (9:3), so awkward to modern readers of Romans, would not have seemed strange to Isaiah, Hosea, or Jeremiah. Romans 9-11 is a prophetic scene: having abrogated the covenant, Israel stands under judgment, but God’s faithfulness has not lapsed. The over-plus of eleos prepares a new covenant in Christ for Jew and Gentile.

 

The Argument and Context

Paul’s primary thesis (9:6a) is developed by showing that God’s activity in Israel has been consistent from the very beginning.^[21]F. W. Maier, “Israel in der Heilsgeschichte nach Rom. 9-11,” Biblische Zeitfragen ser. 12, 11/12 (1929): 402. In the history of the nation, a plan of salvation has been at work (9:11); therefore, not all the physical descendants of Abraham were spiritual heirs of promise (9:8). This paragraph is the exordium, setting the parameters of the subsequent discussion. The principle elucidated here, “God’s purpose based on election” (9:11), is the theological main-spring of the entire argument.^[22]28Cf. Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 244; Michel, Romer, p. 235; Barrett, Romans, p. 182; Kasemann, Romer, pp. 251-52. Paul elaborates and defends this viewpoint of God’s saving purpose m three successive rebuttals to objections, thus forming three sequential parts in the argument.^[23]With few exceptions the commentators follow the three division, 9:6-29, 9:30-10:21, and 11:1-32 (viz., Sanday and Headlam, Lagrange, Nygen, Dodd, Schlatter, Althaus, Michel, Knox, Barrett, Munck, Bruce and Kasemann), making 9:1-5 an introduction and 11:33-36 a closing doxology.

First, the objection that God has acted unjustly: “Is God to be charged with injustice?” (9:14, NEB) The complaint infers that God’s election is arbitrary, a capricious sifting of men without purposeful end.^[24]Dupont argues that 9:14 reveals the central question, making vv.1-13 a preliminary unit (Jacques Dupont, Le probleme de la structure litteraire de l’epitre aux Romains,” Revue Biblique 62 [July 1955]: 388, n. 3 ). However, the objection at 9:14 is intelligible only as a response to 9:6-13 and the em­phatic break at 9:6a cannot be overlooked (cf. Munck, Christ and Israel, p. 43. The accusation is not allowed to stand; Paul insists on (1) the freedom of God’s mercy apart from human merit (9:14-23) and (2) the revealed goal of God’s electing purpose (9:24-29). The formula “what shall we say then?” (9:30) introduces a second objection: why has Israel failed to attain the righteousness of God?^[25]The question stands as a clear parallel to the leading thought of the preceding section at 9:14 (Michel, Romer, p. 249). The objection surfaces in the question “Why was this?” (9: 32, NEB ). The stone testimonium (9:32-33) adduces the christological aspect of God’s purpose which is developed in 10:1-21 as a righteous­ness to all who believe in Christ. From the perspective of human responsibility, the guilt of Israel is sealed by its defiance of God’s love.^[26]Corley, “Significance of Romans 9-11,” pp. 166-82. Finally, the argument reverts to the divine perspective; the third objection takes up the dialogue of chapter 9: “Has God rejected his people?” (11:1). The answer is clear; the election of God has not displaced Israel; Its rejection is partial (11:1-10) and temporary (11:11-27).^[27]Chapter 11 represents a transition from the. theme of chapter 10 and a renewal of the theme in chapter 9. Munck (Christ and Israel, pp. 105-106) notes that

“Paul returns in 11:1 to the train of thought found at the end of 9: 6-29, especially the idea of the remnant; he returns, however, to that point in such a way that he is able, by virtue of the intervening passage, 9:30- 10:21, to solve the problem posed without being misunderstood by the readers.” The divine purpose will run its full course; God has not wavered from his first intention (11:28-32).

A characteristic mode of Pauline antithesis appears in this logic. An extended chiasm pervades the whole of 9-11; a pattern that can be stated in two equivalent propositions framing an antithetical one:^[28]The antithesis is phrased in slightly different terms by Andre Feuillet, “Le plan salvifique de Dieu d’apres l’epitre aux Romains: Essai sur la struc­ ture litteraire de l’epitre et sa signification theologique,” Revue Biblique 57 July-October 1950): 491, but he develops the ABA’ pattern in his exposition of 9-11. On extended chiasm, see R.C.M. Ruijs, De Struktur van de Brief aan de Romeinen: Een stilistische, vormhistorische en thematische Analyse van Rom 1,.16-3, 23 (Utrecht-Nijmegen: Dekker & Van de Vegt, 1964), pp. 1-61.

[A] God has not revoked his promise (9:6-29)

[B] Israel has not believed the gospel (9:30-10:21)

[A’] God has not rejected his people (11:1-32)

This ABA’ scheme is similar to 1 Corinthians 12-14 where the problem of spiritual gifts (12:1-31 [A]; 14:1-40 [A’]) is settled by the antithetical appeal to love (13:1-13 [B]).^[29]Other examples include I Cor. 1:18-3:9; 8:1-11:1 cf. Dupont “Probleme,” p. 372, n. 2. By analogy, the antithetical section here (9:30-10:21) assumes crucial importance, providing the core of Paul’s argument. Indeed, the declaration that God will save all who believe, Jew and Greek (10:11-14), provides the kerygmatic, missionary key of election and eschatology.^[30]Chapter 10 is Paul’s solution. As a corollary of election the gospel mes­sage enacts the divine call (10: 14, 17); as acorollary of eschatology, mission­ary preaching is the harbinger of the end time (11: 13-14, 23). This is the strength of Munck’s exegesis (Christ and Israel, pp. 78-79).

Far from being an appendix, 9-11 should be viewed from this midpoint perspective as the apex of the doctrinal argument in Romans. In the course of chapters 1-8, there are glimpses of a third element of Paul’s theme, “to everyone who believes” (1:16), which is finally expounded in 9-11. This wideness of the gospel is qualified by a temporal and functional priority in salvation history: “to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (1:16). There is a reciprocity between the two ideas which emerges in Romans as a tension between the priority of the Jews (cf. 2:9-10; 3:1-2, 9; 9:1-4) and the availability of righteousness to all, without distinction (pas and diastole in 3:22; 10:11-13; 11:32).^[31]The priority of the Jew, to which Marcion objected [omitted proton], is asserted at the very beginning of Romans, but is held in tension with the new universalism of the gospel” (Peter Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church, Society for New Testament Studies: Monograph Series, no. 10 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969], p. 136). Cf. Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. J. R. De Witt (Grand Rapids: Wil­liam B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975), pp. 333-41. The resolution of this tension is explained in chapters 9-11: the priority assigned to Israel has resulted in salvation for the world (11:11-12).^[32]Muller, Gottes Volk, pp. 49-57. In other words, the “all who believe” of Paul’s thesis is directly dependent upon “to the Jew first,” which describes the soteriological function of Israel in God’s purpose.^[33]Michel, Romer, p. 53; Kasemann, Romer, p. 20. Since the duality of the Jew-Gentile formula interlaces the entire structure of the letter, the content of the preceding chapters is presupposed in the thrust of 9-11. The connecting links are abundant: (1) without distinction, Jew and Gentile alike under sin are justified by faith (cf. 3:3, 31 with 9:30; 10:4, 12; 11:32); (2) the divine working has not failed because of Jewish unbelief (cf. 3:3, 31 with 9:6, 14; 11:1, 29); and (3) the true children of Abraham are those who receive the promise (cf. 2:28-29; 4: 13-16 with 9:7-13; 11:5-7).^[34]Richardson correctly states that “chs. 2-4 are the theoretical basis of chs. 9-11 … Chs. 9-11 must be read in the light of chs. 2-4 to understand the grounds for Paul’s opinion about what God is doing in his work” (Apos­tolic Church, p. 143, n. 2).

These overtures of argument weigh heavily against Dodd’s opinion that the three chapters “represent a somewhat earlier piece of work, incorporated here wholesale to save a busy man’s time and trouble in writing on the subject afresh.”^[35]C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, Moffatt New Testament Commentary (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1932), p. 150. Those who follow such excursive approaches (popularized in the nineteenth century)^[36]Most regard it little more than an ‘appendix,’ an ‘excursus,’   a ‘digression,’ an ‘interlude,’ let alone those who see only an interpolation” (Stanislas Lyonnet, “Note sur de plan l’epitre aux Romains,” Recherches de science re­ ligieuse 39 [1951-52]: 301). For the nineteenth-century research, see the note of Bernhard Weiss, Brief des Paulus an die Romer, Kritisch-exegetischer Kom­mentar uber das Neue Testament, vol. 4, 7th ed. (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht’s Verlag, 1886), p. 435. must deal with the following points:

1. In the exposition of common motif 9-11 and 1-8 share significant words and phrases which–bind together the two sections. These include the rare appearances of “long-suffering” ( 2:4; 9:22 ) and “distinction” (3:22; 10:12), the interchange of “Jew” in chapters 1-8 for “Israel” in 9-11, and the immediate context of God’s “purpose” (8:28; 9: 11) and “foreknowledge” (8:29; 11:2).^[37]Corley, “Significance of Romans 9-11,” pp. 121-23.
2. Transitional dialogue which punctuates chapters 1-8 also occurs in 9-11. These objections, marked by a common stylistic convention, can be identified by the presence of rhetorical interrogation, what then?” (3:1, 5; 4:1; 6:1, 15; 7:7; 8:31; 9:14, 30; 11:7), and corresponding rejoinder “God forbid” (3:6, 31; 6:2, 15; 7:7, 13; 9:14; 11:1, 11).^[38]Joachim Jeremias, “Zur Gedankenfiuhrung in den paulinischen Briefen” Abba: Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitsgeschichte (Got­tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), p. 269.
3. Epistolary-form analysis of Romans reveals common transitional formulas that occur throughout chapters 1-11, signaling shifts in the body-middle. The principal construction are ou gar (1:16; 2:13; 3:22; 7:15, 19; 8:15; 9:6; 10:12; 11:25) and ara oun (5:18; 7:3, 21, 25; 8:1, 12; 9:16, 18; 10:17).^[39]See the analysis m John Lee White, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter: A Study of the Letter-Body in the Non-Literary Papyri and in Paul the Apostle, Dissertation Series, no. 2 (n.p.: Society of Biblical   Literature, 1972), pp. 92-97.

We can summarize the investigation to this point as follows (1) vocabulary and grammatical transitions reveal a dialogical pattern which unifies chapters 1-11 and thus the entire letter; and (2) the theological question of God’s righteousness without d1stmchon, which underlies the argument of 1-8, 1s answered and expanded in 9-11.^[40]Jew and Gentile in relationship to the righteousness of God comprises the basic structure of the doctrinal section, chapters 1-11 (cf. M.-J. Lagrange Saint Paul Epitre aux Romains, Etudies bibliques [Paris: J. Gabalda 1950], p. XXXIX).

 

Key Verses

An obvious danger lies in isolating verses from their context, especially in a closely-reasoned passage, but we will now look at the crux interpretum of 9-11. The concluding section brings the exposition to its goal in the revelation of a “mystery,” a divine secret made known to rebuke Gentile conceit (11:25 and to proclaim divine mercy (11:32). Paul turns from historical probabilities, visible to the human eye, and takes up a prophecy of salvation for Israel, based on a disclosure from God (11:25-26).^[41]Adolf Schlatter, Gottes Gerechtigkeit:   Ein Kommentar zum Romerbrief 2d ed. (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1952), pp. 326-27. The crucial factors the hardening of Israel (11:7-10) and the calling of the Gentiles (11:11-15), have already been propounded, but the new disclosure is that the “hardening” will subside after the “fullness” of the Gentiles. The mystery reveals the paradoxical way in which Israel will be saved.^[42]Ridderbos, Paul, p. 359; Luz, Geschichtsverstandnis, p. 288.

It must be emphasized that nothing in chapter 11 contests the freedom of divine election (9:6-29) or the necessity of righteousness by faith in Christ (9:30-10:21). The election theme is preserved in the remnant of Jewish Christians, a renewal of the motif from 9:27-29, who have believed in Christ (11:5). The gospel theme is represented in the Gentile reception of salvation which becomes the means of recovery for hardened Israel (11:14). Even the hope for the salvation of “all Israel” (11:26) is in the fullest sense a new covenant prophecy, standing under the condition of saving faith. It is unthinkable that Paul would contemplate the salvation of Israel by any other means than faith in Christ (11:23).^[43]The condition of faith is not to be missed; in 9-11, faith arises in the context of gospel preaching (10: 17). The question to be put to dispensation­alists is how will Israel be saved? Are we to wait for an apocalyptic miracle to happen seven years after the “fullness of the Gentiles” has been raptured out of the world? Will the Jews come by preferential treatment or through justification by faith? The former option cuts the heart out of the Pauline gospel; in spite of impassioned disclaimers, the vexing error of dispensation­alism is its inability to connect eschatological hope for Israel with the mis­sionary preaching of the cross of Christ (contra C. C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today [Chicago: Moody Press, 1965], pp. 110-31). This prophecy does not mean that warmhearted patriotism or universal optimism has the last word on the fate of Israel.^[44]When treated as solemn speculation on the part of a “warmherzigen Patrioten” (Julicher) or a “great optimist” (Dodd), 9-11 usually ends up in the theological wastebasket. Paul does not switch horses in the middle of the stream; his last word is his first word—mercy. It is the faithfulness of God to his purpose in Christ that assures a way of salvation for the Jews.

This unprecedented prophecy has three formal parts, connected in the grammatical pattern hoti . . . achris ou . . . kai houtos (11:25-26a), and a scriptural confirmation introduced by kathos (11:26b-27). The following analysis of the prophecy offers a preliminary summary which will be developed in the discussion below:^[45]Cf. the three-point summary by Theodor Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Romer, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, vol. 6, 2d ed. (Leipzig: A Deichert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1910), p. 523; followed by Michel, Romer, p. 280.

1. The judgment of God upon disobedient Israel is a limited hardening, encompassing only a part of the people
2. When the full complement of the Gentile world has received the gospel, then the hardening of Israel will disappear
3. As a consequence, the whole of Israel will be saved by believing in Jesus the Messiah

 

The Hardening of Israel

The initial proposition is that the “hardening” of Israel has distinct limitations. First, whether we read the prepositional phrase apo merous adverbially, “hardened to some extent,”^[46]If connected to gegonen, the adverbial reading would mean “partially” but would not specify in what way the hardening is limited (so Calvin, Weiss, Robertson, Michel). or adjectively, “part of Israel hardened,”^[47]It more naturally modifies porosis and indicates a quantitative limit, only a part of Israel (so Zahn, Godet, Maier, Barrett, Kasemann). The adverbial sense could bear this meaning. it clearly indicates that a portion of Israel, the “rest” (11:7), has been blinded in unbelief. Second, a temporal limit is imposed by achris ou; when joined to the aorist subjunctive eiselthe (Gentiles “come in”), it must be translated “until the time which.”^[48]Cf. Lk. 21:24; 1 Cor. 15:25; and see A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (New York: George H. Doran Company, 1914), p. 975; W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 128. The condition will remain until a crucial event in salvation history has transpired, “until the full number of the Gentiles come in.”

 

The Fullness of the Gentiles

The eschatological character of this event can be fixed by two observations: (1) the verb “come in” has a technical sense, “entering the kingdom of God” (cf. Mt. 7:13; Lk. 13:24) and therefore refers to the Gentile reception of salvation; and (2) the phrase “fullness of the Gentiles” means the full complement of converts from the Gentile world, a corporate perspective parallel to the “fullness” of Israel (11:12).^[49]Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 335. The uses of pleroma in v. 12 and v. 25 both denote coming to “full strength” of numbers in the eschatological consummation (see Gerhard Delling, “Pleroma,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Friedrich, trans. G. W. Bromiley, vol. 6 [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968], pp. 299, 305). It signifies an eschatological condition, the completion of the gospel mission among the nations of the world whose fulfillment would coincide with the lifting of blindness from Israel.^[50]This eschatological viewpoint is defended in Weiss, Romer, p. 556; Gif­ford, Romans, p. 198; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 335; Lagrange, Romains, p. 284; Schlatter, Gottes Gerechtigkeit, p. 327; Gaugler, Romerbrief, 2:200; Michel, Romer, p. 280; Barrett, Romans, p. 223; Munck, Christ and Israel, p. 134; and Kasemann, Romer, p. 300. This missionary sign means that the presage of the end time is gospel preaching to the nations, not the course of Israel in salvation history. Paul expects Israel to remain in unbelief until the end of this era; then, as a result of the gospel strategy already at work (11:11-15), the veil of spiritual blindness will be removed.

 

The Salvation of All Israel

What condition is implied in the connective kai houtos (“and so,” ll:26a)? The adverbial particle houtos is the syntactical key because it governs the primary force of the clause “all Israel shall be saved.” There are three possible views of kai houtos that fit the requirements of grammar and context: modal, correlative, and temporal.

1. In deference to the fact that Paul did not write kai tote (“and then”), the modal view stresses the logical sense of houtos and connects it to the immediately preceding clause. The sense would be: “The hardening will subside when the Gentiles are all saved, and in this manner, all Israel will be saved.” A modal rendering emphasizes that “by the whole Gentile world coming into the kingdom and thus rousing the Jews to jealousy,” the conversion of Israel becomes a reality.^[51]Sanday and Headlam, Romans,  p. 335; cf. Gord, Romans, p. 199; Lagrange, Romains, p. 284; Maier, “Heilsgeschichte”, p. 525. It should be noted that a modal translation does not exclude the temporal sequence; an appeal to grammar does not justify the radical historicizing of the passage (as Lenski, Franzmann, and Hendriksen propose).
2. The correlative view notes the common use of houtos to introduce a following statement; in this case, it corresponds to kathos. The correlative “so . . . as” would predicate the salvation of Israel upon the event described m the scriptural quotation (11:26b-27). A correlative translation would read: “In the following manner, all Israel will be saved, just as it is written, the Redeemer will come from Zion.”^[52]Cf. Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 602; Muller, Gottes Volk, p. 43, n. 88; Hans Lietzmann, An die Romer, Han buch zum Neuen Testament, vol. 8, 5th ed. (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1971 ), p. 104.
3. The temporal view understands houtos in the sense “when that has happened” (NEB), making the fullness of the Gentiles a chronological and necessary prerequisite to Israel’s salvation. Temporal houtos is a well-attested classical idiom,^[53]For the unambiguous use of kai houtos to introduce a temporal apodosis, see Xenophon Anabasis 3. 4. 8; Epictetus Dissertationes 4. 8. 13 (cf. H. G. Liddell, Robert Scott, and H. S. Jones, Greek-English Lexicon: A Supplement, ed. E. A. Barber [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968], p. 112). Peter Stumacher’s criticism of the temporal view should be reappraised in light of this evidence (“Zur Interpretation von Romer 11, 25-32,” in Probleme biblis her Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70, Geburtstag, ed. H. W. Wolff [Mumch: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971], p. 559). used in the New Testament to summarize a preceding sequence of events (Acts 17:33; 20:11).^[54]Cf. 1 Cor. 11:28; 14:25; 1 Th. 4:17. Among others, the temporal view is held by Zahn, Romer, p. 523; Michel, Romer, pp. 280-81; Bruce, Romans, p. 222; and Kasemann, Romer, p. 300. A temporal meaning is preferable because it leaves room for the other two meanings and preserves a future tension that characterizes the entire chapter.

What is the scope of the phrase pas Israel (“all Israel”)? The designation must be understood in a collective sense “Israel as a whole,” an Old Testament formula indicating the totality of the people, was when Rehoboam “forsook the law of the Lord, and all Israel with him” (2 Chr. 12:1, RSV).^[55]Cf. 1 Sam. 7:5; 1 Kg. 8:65; Dan. 9:11; 1 Esd. 1:21; Jth. 16:1 (Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 637). Gifford correctly notes that “all Israel” in the collective sense indicates “a future conversion of the Jews, so universal that the separation into an ‘elect remnant’ and ‘the rest who were hardened’ shall disappear.”^[56]Gifford, Romans, p. 199. For a list of thirty-four interpreters who hold collective viewpoint, see Corley, “Significance of Romans 9-11,” pp. 226-30. We must reject three widely-held views of pas Israel.

1. Numerical pas, meaning every Jew” -“all Israel” no more means the salvation of every Israelite than “fullness of the Gentiles” means the salvation of every Gentile.^[57]Schrenk, Weissagung, p. 35. “It should be noted that this does not imply that pantes oi Iouda oz . sothesontai; for Israel is not just the totality of its individual members; It Is the bearer of the promise and the recipient of its fulfillment” (Walter Gutbrod, “Israel,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. G. W. Bromiley vol. 3 [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965], p. 387).
2. Restrictive pas, meaning “the sum total of elect Jews who believe Christ during the gospel era” -if the eschatological dimension is removed by this reductionism, the whole chapter is tautological.^[58]Most of the fathers restrict the phrase to the elect remnant of Jews who will come in by faith (so Origen, Cyril of Alexandria Diodore Chrysostom Theodre of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret [Schelkle, Vater, pp. 400-401]). According to Irenaeus, 11:26 cannot be used as an excuse for Jewish unbelief (Adversus hereses [Migne PG 7] 4, 2, 7). Coming nearer the proper meaning, Ambrosiaster says the spiritual blindness which haunts the Jews will be removed, so that they have the possibility to believe” (Commentariorum in Epistolam ad Romanos [Migne PL 17] 160). The Lutheran and Reformed traditions espouse the restrictive view (see Lenski   Franzmann and Hendriksen). What would excite Paul about the evident fact that the present “remnant” will be saved?
3. Spiritual pas, meaning the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6: 16) which is the church of Jews and Gentiles -the sustained contrast between Israel and the Gentiles forbids this identification. It is impossible to give “Israel” a meaning here that does not belong to it throughout the rest of the chapter.^[59]Bruce, Romans, pp. 221-22. The spiritual view appears in Augustine (who was not consistent [Schelkle, Viiter, p. 402], Calvin, and Barth.

 

The Redeemer from Zion

When all Israel is saved, there may yet be unbelieving Jews, but the historical entity called Judaism will become subject to the gospel so that the church will incorporate the synagogue and Jews everywhere will be recognized as true Christians.^[60]Schlatter, Gottes Gerechtigkeit, p. 327. The deliverance that Israel will experience is described by a conflated quotation from Is. 59:20-21 and 27:9; it is a spiritual restoration in the new covenant granting forgiveness of sins (11:26b-27). The phrase “from Zion” probably refers to the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal. 4:26) and alludes to the redeeming work of Christ which will be consummated at the second advent.^[61]Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 336; against Munck, Christ and Israel, p. 137. One need not refer the quotation to either the incarnation (so Gifford, Romans, p. 199; Weiss, Romer, p. 559; and Lagrange, Romains, p. 286) or the parousia (so Gaugler, Romerbrief, 2:205; Bruce, Romans, p. 222; and Kase­rnann, Romer, p. 301) as strict alternatives. The background of 9-11 presup­poses the entire interim period associated with the preaching of the gospel. The hope of Israel resides in the covenant mercy revealed in Jesus the Messiah, “the Deliverer” whose saving work extends from the incarnation to the parousia (cf. 1 Th. 1:10). Beware of reading particularism, or dispensationalism, or universalism into this promise. Paul says nothing of a restored theocracy in the land of Palestine or the automatic salvation of every Jew, living and dead! In contrast to such blatant denials of justification by faith, he views the conversion of Israel under the sign of the cross, connecting it with the here and now of the gospel. They will come in as we have.

We are constrained to exclude all post-historical thinking (particularly millennialism) from 9-11 because an imminent expectation, an eschatological “now” (nun, 11:31), pervades the entire formulation.^[62]The significance of the “now” with regard to Israel must be that the events preceding the parousia are being fulfilled in the gospel mission (Munck, Christ and Israel, p. 124). It is this gospel era, the interim period before the parousia, that manifests the faithfulness of God to show mercy, and in a climactic episode of salvation history, that faithfulness will be demonstrated by Israel coming under God’s righteousness in Christ. It cannot be stated with precision whether this episode culminates in the parousia or merely precedes it in time; however, the time period for the fulfillment of the prophecy has its modus operandi in gospel proclamation and its terminus ad quern at the return of Christ.^[63]Since the phrases “life from the dead’; (11:15) and “all Israel” (11:26) infer a revolutionary turnabout, the contrast and future tension show that Paul anticipates a future conversion of the Jews in a proportion not presently hap­pening. Is this event “the last act of salvation history” at the parousia (Kase­ mann, Munck) or the resurrection (Sanday and Headlam, Lagrange, Lietz­ mann, Michel, Barrett)? Or, is it a spiritual renewal and worldwide revival preceding the parousia ( Calvin, Godet, Gifford, Zahn, Moule, Maier, Gaugler, Murray)? Of necessity, the event lies at the boundary of history (Ridderbos, Paul, p. 359).