The discussion of God’s hardening of Pharaoh and then of Israel is of course a difficult one. Fortunately for us, we don’t need to deal with the Pharaoh example, but we do need to deal with what Paul says about God hardening Israel due to their unbelief. On p. 1225 Tom helpfully points us to the parallel passage in 2 Cor. 3 where the hardening of the mind is related to the metaphor of a veil over the human heart. But as the text says this condition of the hardening of the spiritual arteries need not be permanent. It can be taken away through the work of the Spirit who sets a person free so they can ‘see’ once more and see in particular the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus. The long and short of it is that whenever anyone turns to the Lord, this sort of transformation, by grace through faith in Jesus, seeing him as he really is, can happen. The further references in Romans 2 and 9 also do not suggest a permanent condition that is without remedy. This is why I have usually characterized this as God confirming a person in the path they have freely chosen, or as Rom. 1 puts it— God has turned them over to their own chosen passions and paths. As Tom says on p. 1227 God’s patience with hard-heartedness is meant to lead people to repentance. Hardening happens to those who persist in holding God’s saving activities and purposes at bay.
The metaphorical way of speaking is continued by Paul talking about a remnant being saved, and ‘the rest’ being hardened (cf. 9.24; 11.1-6) and then asks ‘Have they stumbled so as to fall?’ A rhetorical question to which Paul answers with an emphatic NO WAY. Tom, p. 1228 takes this all to indicate that “if Paul had wanted to say that the condition of ‘the rest’ was not really that bad, that they could stay like that for a while and all would nevertheless be well in the end, that this was a temporary situation which would all come right eventually, he has gone about it in a strange way.” Well, first off, most would say that the arguments in Rom. 9-11 are complex on any showing and have many surprising twists and turns. And Paul does in fact indicate that the hardening is pro tempore, until the full number of Gentiles come in. This is precisely why is can contrast the temporary breaking off on the unbelieving branches with the grafting in of the Gentile ones, and then still go on to say— but God can graft the broken off ones back in. And so, I would ask Tom to take more seriously what he finally admits at the bottom of p. 1228— namely “Of course the Biblical quotations…hint that the condition of ‘the rest’ is by no means necessarily permanent.” Exactly. This is not about God picking some for eternal salvation and others for eternal damnation. It’s about a salvation history plan that is the reverse of what early Jews expected, which was the streaming of Diaspora Jews to Zion and the Gentiles coming in on their coattails, which surprisingly Tom never mentions in this whole portion of the discussion (and see below). Paul is suggesting that this whole view of things has been turned on its head by the Christ event, and his future return. Now the full number of Gentiles are coming in first, and all Israel will be coming in later. This is indeed a novum— a new idea, not found elsewhere in early Judaism, and as such it does qualify as an apocalyptic secret, despite Tom’s attempt to suggest that perhaps that is not what Paul means by musterion in Rom. 11. More on this in a minute.
On pp. 1229-30 we have a very helpful summary of ‘the argument thus far about Rom. 11.1-24’,that Tom is making.
Finally, on p. 1231 we get to the argument about Rom. 11.25-27, and notice on this page Tom admits that the majority of exegetes, including yours truly, disagree with his interpretation of this key passage. I must say I find some of Tom’s points puzzling. I do think Paul uses the term musterion to refer to a secret the audience in Rome will not previously have been aware of. It’s an idea new to the audience, but that doesn’t mean its a left turn in the argument, for Paul has indeed been hinting at this right along, especially in Rom. 10-11. I agree that sometimes musterion can mean a penetrating insight previously overlooked into pre-existing Scriptures, but in this case, that is not what is happening, as no Scripture talks about ‘fullness of Gentiles coming in’ in the way Paul does, nor does any Scripture talk about ‘all Israel being saved’ either as part of that incoming, or as an event subsequent to it. The issue is the salvation of both Gentiles and Jews, not one or the other. Paul even says and Tom even translates him as saying ” a hardening has come for a time upon on Israel”. Exactly. And Paul is not talking about a hardening on current Jewish Christians. So the natural question is— when is the time up??? Apparently not when Paul was writing this very letter! Actually the better translation is ‘a hardening has come upon a part of Israel (or a partial hardening has come upon Israel) UNTIL the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and in like manner, all Israel will be saved” (Tom translates the last phrase ‘and that is how all Israel will be saved— i.e. by the full number of Gentiles coming in!!!!!) The ‘achris’ here suggests a time limit. Notice the clear distinction between Israel and Gentiles in this verse. Israel is one thing, the nations another.
I certainly agree with Tom that Rom. 11.25-25 is not a volte face, not a sudden reversal of all that has been said before, nor is it a shocking additional fact in no way presaged by what has been said before. I think the conclusion in 11.25-26 has been hinted at previously, its just that Tom’s reading of what went before in Rom. 9-11 obscures that fact. The problem is particularly that Tom’s reading of the whole flow of Rom. 9-11 and what Paul means by Israel is wrong. Lots of good exegetical points along the way, but at the end of day he’s got Paul’s notion of election, eschatology, salvation, wrong so far as it involves a reading of Rom. 9-11 and the future of Israel. I regard to the musterion issue, I would say that in 1 Cor. 15.51 Paul is also breaking some new eschatological ground for his audience that they will not have heard about before. This doesn’t mean necessarily that the source of the musterion was a bolt out of the blue to Paul. It may have come as part of deep meditation on pre-existing Scripture in the main. But in the case of Romans 11 that is not likely the case if the majority reading of the end of Rom. 11 is correct.
I certainly agree with Tom when he says on p. 1236 that Rom. 11.23, 10.1-13; 1.16-17; 3.21-4.25 simply rule out the view of Gager, Gaston and others that suggest a salvation for the ‘rest’ apart from faith in Christ. That is the furthest thing from Paul’s mind here. He in fact is praying for the opposite, a lot of Jews coming to faith in Jesus.
The point about unhardening made on p. 1237 is unnecessary— nobody that I know of is arguing that somehow Jews will automatically discover they are Christians without faith in Christ, just because Jesus has come back. It is worthwhile pointing out, since Tom rightly makes a lot of Romans 10 pronouncement that one must confess with ones lips Jesus is Lord, that Phil. 2.5-11 ends with a bang talking about a time when ‘every knee shall bow and every tongue confess Jesus is Lord’. The rest of Philippians makes clear Paul is not suggesting this means the conversion of everyone, much less the automatic conversion of all Jews, and we should not read Romans 11.25-26 that way. For one thing, the phrase ‘all Israel will be saved’ is a known Jewish phrase, which for example in the Mishnah (Mish. 10.1-3) is followed by a long list of exceptions! There is no reason to doubt, in light of the rest of the content even just of Rom. 9-11 that Paul thought about the matter rather like the author of the Mishnah. He simply means there will be a lot of Jews who recognize their Messiah when he returns. Tom in fact admits, in a footnote (p. 1240 n. 673) that numerous examples in the OT as well where ‘all Israel’ is the phrase used does not mean every last one. As he says, this regularly refer in the OT to a great bulk of people, a large number without meaning precisely all (see Ex. 18.25; Dt. 1.1; 5.1… and the rest of the examples Tom cites in the reference above).
I must say I find pp. 1238-40 puzzling. Tom says first that all the wailing and gnashing of teeth and misery of Paul over unconverted Israel in Rom. 9 makes so sense if he thought all would be well in the end automatically (he keeps using that term). This overlooks several factors: 1) Paul believes they are missing out on the koinonia and blessings of the Spirit, and the benefits of salvation here and now, and that is truly a sad thing considering Jesus is Israel’s Messiah! Think of it in terms of family. Who would not want more of their family members to honor Christ in the present, and not just wait for a death bed conversion? But this is not all: 2) Paul once again, is thinking about corporate Israel in Rom. 11.25-26, not every last Israelite, and he believes they do each one indeed have to come to repentance and faith whether now or later. In regard to individual Jews, each one has to respond to get the benefit. Paul has received a revelation which suggests many will do so. But what if Paul is thinking about say, some former family members or friends of his who were adamantly anti-Jesus? Why wouldn’t he be anxious and praying that they would be ‘in that number’ of all Israel when the saints go marching in? Of course he would; 3) Paul doesn’t think salvation is an ironclad thing in this life. He warns against apostasy again and again, in this very passage! That is, some of those presently in Christ, could end up out, and vice versa. In this sort of situation of course Paul, as a Jew would be anxious about the future of Jews, including for instance the agitators in Galatia! The circumcision party, some of whom may have wanted Paul’s head. In other words, there are plenty of explanations for the anxiety of Romans 9 without drawing the conclusions Tom does about Romans 11.25-26.
As for p. 1240, I agree with Tom that Paul is not talking about a different mode of salvation for Jews in the future than he has already discussed in these chapters. Why would that be necessarily entailed in the phrase ‘in like manner, all Israel will be saved’? I would argue in fact that one must take seriously here the ‘kai houtos’ which most certainly can mean, ‘and in like manner’ and indeed is far more likely to mean that than to mean ‘and this is how…’ If you do your grammar home work you discover that the very first meaning of ‘houtos’ as an adverb is ‘thus’ or ‘in the same way’ which is likely the meaning here or ‘in this way’. It can also mean ‘like this’ or less likely ‘as follows’. But Paul has not previously described here ‘how’ Israel would be saved in these verses. It is far more likely then that ‘houtos’ provides the clue by suggesting that they will be coming in the same way the full number of Gentiles did. Let me be clear. It is not necessary to give houtos a temporal sense, such as ‘then’ to come to the conclusion just mentioned. That would seem to be a rare sense of the word, as Tom says. But it certainly can and does regularly mean ‘and in like manner’ or ‘in this same way’. So once again, an objection to a temporal sense of the word is not an objection to a regular meaning of this word.
On p. 1242 Tom allows that there are at least seven places in these chapters where Israel simply means Jews– 9.27 twice, 9.31; 10.19,21; 11.2,7. In other words, in all three chapters there are clear references to there being exactly one Israel, not two, even if there are subsets of Israel, namely a righteous remnant, they are still all Jews. So Tom has to positive that along side these normal non-polemicial uses of the term there is also a polemical redefinition of the word Israel. Besides being bad rhetoric and terribly confusing (since in all three chapters there are normal references to the term), I can only call this a move of desperation in order to have your reading of Paul’s view of election and eschatology be right. Paul certainly does talk about inner circumcision, and those who are true Jews or true Israelites (the latter two referring to Jewish Christians), but he does not use these terms to refer to Gentiles, and certainly not to Christians in general whether Jew or Gentile. Tom’s argument about Romans 2 is special pleading, and is not the normal way that chapter is read, not even in the case of Rom. 2.25-29. Yes, Paul does use the term circumcision spiritually of Christians to talk about the circumcision of the heart (see Phil. 3.3ff.), but he doesn’t go on to call them Jews or Israel. 1 Cor. 10.18 does present us with the phrase ‘Israel according to the flesh’ but there he means non-Christian Jews. Israel according to the Spirit, the righteous remnant would be Christian Jews, not all Christians, remembering again that Paul is not reading Gentiles into the OT stories. He is drawing a typological analogy betweeen OT Israel and their ‘sacraments’ and what is the case with the church. It’s just an analogy, not an identity statement.
The argument on pp. 1244-45 can only be called a tour de force argument, which eventually runs out of persuasive force. First Tom allows that Israel in 11.25 may well refer to ethnic Israel, then he turns around and says maybe not maybe “Israel in verse 25 consists of the whole people of God, within which many Jews are presently hardened but into which many gentiles are being incorporated so all Israel in vs. 26 must reflect that double existence”. Whew! Is he really saying that hardened Jews, elsewhere said to be broken off from the people of God are still ‘within’ Israel or the people of God? Really? He allows that his reading of this is cryptic, or in fact he calls Paul’s use of the terms cryptic… but is it really? It does become clear that one has to read one of the key phrase as ‘a hardening has come on part of Israel’ rather than ‘a partial hardening has come on Israel’ for Tom’s argument to complete work. The Greek however is literally ‘hardening in part to Israel’ Were Paul meaning hardening came on a part of Israel we would have expected a different placement of the phrase ‘in part’ especially since the combination is ‘in part TO Israel’. There are better ways to say ‘some of Israel was hardened’ if that is what was meant. In other words, Tom must take a minority view even on the particulars of the exegetical details here to make his view work.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In