The discussion in pp. 1245ff. is a good example of how a scholar can be right as rain about what he rejects, but wrong about what he affirms. It will be remembered that Tom’s view of Romans 11 is that “the saving of all Israel may refer here as in 11.14 and surrounding verses to actual concrete ‘turnings’ in which more and more of Paul’s fellow kinfolk will no longer remain in ‘unbelief’ (11.23)” (p. 1245). He quotes Ed Sanders to good effect as far as rejecting the two covenant approach of Gaston et al. But note that Sanders says “but at the ESCHATON God’s entire plan will be fulfilled”. In other words, Sanders does not take the view of Wright as we have quoted him above. Rather, he takes the same view as I have been suggesting in these posts! And furthermore, the test of a particular exegesis has to be— has it been falsified yet? And in the case of Tom’s view, IT HAS. Where is the evidence in the last 2,000 years for the conversion of some large number of Jews at one point or another in the long checkered, and increasingly anti-Semitic history of the church? Did this happen in the second century A.D. not long after Paul’s death? No, in fact after the Bar Kokbha revolt Jews hunkered down, focused on Torah, and even eventually gave up on the LXX because it became the church’s OT in many quarters. There is no historical evidence of the ‘fullness’ or ‘all’ Jews being converted somewhere along the line in the last 2,000 years. None. So if you’re going to take the view that Paul means something short of an eschatological change of heart, then you just have to say— Paul was wrong. It was wishful thinking. Fortunately, we don’t have to go there.
And on a happier note, on p. 1246-47 Tom points very fruitfully to the Isaianic background to Rom. 11.26-27. This bears some real exploring. Tom admits that Isaiah 26.19 refers to ‘the resurrection of Israel’ but it says a lot more of relevance to our discussion and so here is a longer quote– Israel admits by way of confession “we have not brought salvation to the earth, and the people of the world have not been reborn (vs. 18), and then “But your dead will live, Lord; their bodies will rise, let those who dwell in the dust wake up and shout for joy, your dew is like the dew of morning, you will make it fall on the spirits of the dead (vs. 19). So then Isaiah has God say “Go my people, enter your rooms and shut your doors behind you;hide yourself for a little while until the wrath has passed by, see the Lord is coming out of his dwelling, to punish the people of the earth for their sins. The earth will disclose the bloodshed on it…” and then along with the coming day of God’s judgment on the earth we hear in Isaiah 27 about “In days to come Jacob will take root, Israel will bud and blossom and fill the world with fruit.” Isaiah goes on to recount how God punished Israel by sending her into exile, and that this would then atone for Jacob’s guilt, but at the very end of Is. 27 we hear this “In that day the Lord will thresh from the flowing Euphrates to the Wadi of Egypt and you Israel will be gathered up one by one. And in that day a great trumpet will sound. Those who are perishing in Assyrian and those who were exiled in Egypt will come and worship the Lord on the holy mountain in Jerusalem.”
Alas, Tom does not take fully into account what Isaiah is saying. First of all Israel in Isaiah 26-27 means simply Jews. Secondly, we have the full admission that Israel failed in its mission to the world, nor did it save the world. Then we have this sequence: 1) a reference to God raising Israel from literal death by means of resurrection (see Rom. 11.15), but as the sequence goes on it seems clear Isaiah means resurrection after the punishing judgment of exile and then return to Zion. This comports with the sequence in Rom. 11.15– if their rejection brought…. what will their acceptance mean??
Then Tom on p. 1248 refers to Jerm. 31.31-34, but what does it say? It says that the new covenant God will make with his people will be NOT like the Mosaic covenant he made with them when they came forth from Egypt! This will be a covenant written not on stone tablets, but on human hearts by God’s Spirit. Just so, and this means that when Paul talks about covenants plural in Romans 9 and Galatians 4, he is not kidding. As far as Paul is concerned, the new covenant is not a renewal of the Mosaic covenant, and Jeremiah did not say it would be. It is rather a fulfillment of the promises made in the Abrahamic covenant. In other words, the passage in Isaiah 26-27 points to an eschatological blessing of Israel after its resurrection and after the day of Yahweh’s judgment on the earth, and it refers to a return to Zion by Jews, while the passage in Jerm. 31 far from confirming Tom’s view about covenant renewal, says something quite different. So I agree with Tom’s conclusion on p. 1248 that Paul is alluding to these texts, but they do not make his point. They make the point of the view I have been stressing all along, especially when it comes to Rom. 11.25-27!
Then, again to good effect, Tom points to Is. 59.20 and its context. The verse in question reads “And the Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins”. Again, the idea is of Yahweh judging the earth, and coming from heaven to vindicate his people, particularly Jews that repent. Tom is right, on p. 1249 that Paul is assuming that some Jews who are now hardened, under judgment, are envisioned as later repenting, and turning back to God. But when will this happen? According to Isaiah it happens at or after the resurrection, and more importantly on the Yom Yahweh, the day of the Lord, and one more time, it happens to Jews. Israel means Jews in all these Isaianic texts Paul is quoting, alluding to, or citing.
Tom is right that Paul has transformed the allusion to Is. 59 which speaks about the Redeemer coming to Zion, to the Redeemer coming ‘out of’ Zion (ek Zion). Tom however takes this to mean not heavenly Zion, as it clearly means in Gal. 4.26, but rather earthly Zion!! And so Tom sees this as a reference to the Gospel of salvation going forth from earthly Jerusalem to the world. Unfortunately for this view, the word ‘Redeemer’ stands foresquare against such an interpretation, as frankly does the reference to the turning of the impiety of Jacob, which can mean nothing other than Israel. Paul has already admitted in Rom. 9-11 that the mission to Jews during his ministry has been largely unsuccessful. No large scale fullness of Jews, much less so large a conversion that it could be called all Israel has happened. No, Paul is not here talking about the effect of the spread of the Gospel from Jerusalem to the world on Jews during the first century A.D., or even centuries thereafter. Not so. He is talking about what will happen when the Redeemer comes forth from heavenly Zion at the end of all things.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In