Thoughts on Romans 11

Romans 11 was Paul's answer to a specific question or issue. In order to understand his answer, it helps to be clear about what the question was. Like, if you hear me answer the phone and I say to someone on the other end, "No, the red one goes there...Yep, and the black one goes there," it makes all the difference in the world if you're mistaken about what question I was actually answering. Red and black could be about jumper leads, or it could be about tomato sauce and pepper. So you won't know what my answer really meant if you're not clear what the question was. You could completely misapply the intent of my statements! It's the same with Romans. All the way through the Epistle to the Romans, Paul both explains a truth, and then he mentions a misconception or question about that truth, and deals with it. For example, after explaining that salvation is by faith without the works of the Law, he then mentions and deals with the question or misconception that the Gospel somehow implied that a person could continue in sin that grace may abound. He answered that the Spirit of God actually empowers us to live right. Next, he dealt with the question or misconception that the Gospel means God's promises to Israel had failed. The promises hadn't failed, he answered - they were being experienced fully by those who believed. Now, in chapter 11, he deals with the question or misconception that the Gospel meant God was completely over with Jewish people. Paul wasn't in chapter 11 introducing a new teaching - such as predestination; nor was he saying that God has a special way of saving Israel in future aside from through the Gospel. He was addressing the misconception that God pretty-much just wasn't into saving Jews anymore at all. Everything in chapter 11 is meant to be understood as an answer to that issue - nothing else. Paul's answer was as follows: that God, rather than being completely and forever finished with any Jewish individuals, was still more than willing to save any Jew, all they had to do was start believing. Paul himself was an example of this possibility, being Jewish himself, and having been converted from unbelief to faith. Paul explained that although the entire nation of the Jews had not believed and been saved, still many had believed and been saved. It was just that the rest of them had tripped and fallen (due to their unbelief) - but it didn't mean a Jew couldn't get up again, he said. The fact that the Gospel was going into all the earth despite the Jews' fall, was not evidence that God wasn't into saving Jews anymore. Rather, God was using that situation to hopefully win back some of the unbelieving Jews - by provoking them to spiritual hunger when they see Gentiles being saved and blessed. It was just that they'd become blind and hard. (Some people use those terms to assert the Calvinistic ideas of predestination. But if you read the wording of these verses carefully, and look at their source-texts which Paul was quoting from in the Old Testament, it's clear that the blindness and hardness which had prevented many Jews from getting saved, came as a consequence of their unbelief - not as the cause of it. Plus the rest of the chapter shows that the situation was rectifiable in anyone's life simply by believing, which is opposite to the Calvinistic idea.) All the way though the chapter Paul talks about the possibility of Jews still being saved. Now's here is an important observation: Paul deals with this subject (the subject of Jews being saved, and about the mechanism by which it could happen) in terms of it being a present-possibility in his own time - in the Roman church's own time - and at any time. He wasn't introducing the idea that there is coming a different, special way, exclusively in a future time, by which all Jews will be saved. He was discussing first-century possibilities. Realities which were to exist throughout the entire Gospel-era. Jews can still be saved if they believe. We know Paul was discussing something that was already a possibility in his own time rather than something that's been postponed until the future - because Paul explained that he was trying to achieve the desired outcome in the lives of as many Jews as possible by means of his own ministry, which was in the first century (verses 13,14). Paul explained that it was only fitting and natural that a Jew could still be saved, if he believed. His objective was to prevent Gentile Christians from being proud and conceited and from misconceiving the Gospel. Any Jew could still be saved. The congregation at Rome was made up of a mixture of Jews and Gentiles. Paul didn't want them boasting one over the other. He wanted unity, and a proper understanding of his Gospel-message. In order to procure this proper understanding and unity, Paul explained that although lots of Jews hadn't been saved, it wasn't because God's prophecies had failed nor because God was finished with Jews - it was simply because many of them had become spiritually blind as a consequence of their unbelief, and at the same time all those who believed were being saved. Meanwhile lots of Gentiles were getting saved - which also fulfilled prophecy. Paul explained that this is how it was foreseen, and this is how it was (verse 25). Now we come to this statement: "And so [not, and then] all Israel will be saved..." (verse 26). In other words, "And this is how Jews can still be saved..." I don't think it necessarily means there will come a day when there won't be any unsaved left in Israel - because Paul was addressing a first-century issue in chapter 11, not introducing new teaching. And also because Jesus spoke about persecutions from Jews in Israel right up until His coming: He certainly didn't seem to portray a picture of nationwide salvation at the time of His coming. Also, it can hardly be said that all Israel got justified, if just one generation of Jews - the final generation - get justified, while centuries of Jews were lost. Yet the Prophet said, "All Israel will be justified, and shall glory..." What does it mean? If it does mean a nationwide salvation, it can happen only through the Gospel, not through a revived Judaism or any other scheme. God isn't interested in anyone reverting back to the shadow (sacrifices, feasts etc) now that the substance is here. Therefore any prophecy which mentions a restoration of those Mosaic practices, must have been already fulfilled in Israel at a time when the Old Covenant was still in force. This truth in itself adjusts many popular ideas about the nature of Israel's future and about the so-called Millennium. God isn't planning on reverting back to the Old Covenant - anywhere, ever. So I think it most likely means this: the Old Testament Prophets prophesied that salvation would come to all Israel. All Israel would be justified. In what sense? Salvation and justification did come to all Israel - but only the believers received it - which was an outcome which the same Prophets had also foreseen for Israel. So "all Israel" didn't literally mean all Israel would be saved and justified. It just meant many of them would be saved and it meant it would be offered to all potentially. We see the word "all" used in this way regarding salvation elsewhere in Scripture too. Like I Tim.4:10 says Jesus is the Saviour of all men, especially of those who believe. He is the Saviour - potentially of all, but not literally of all - only experientially of those who believe. So Paul is explaining that God hadn't shut the door to salvation to Jews, rather Jews could be saved by believing, in accordance with his promise of procuring salvation potentially for all Jews. Then Paul says that things were turning out that way - happening according to that scheme - in fulfilment of...then he quoted "There shall come out of Sion the deliverer" which was actually a prophecy about Christ's first coming, it doesn't await His future, second coming. The promise of the deliverer, and the taking away of ungodliness and sin, and the new covenant (verses 26,27) were all fulfilled for Israel's sake, by the first coming of Christ - by the Gospel. It wasn't postponed until the future second coming. It's just that only believers experienced it. And Gentiles also experienced it. If Paul was making an end-times prediction by saying "all Israel will be saved", he wouldn't have quoted a prophecy which was about the first coming of Christ. Then Paul summarises his whole answer by saying that Jews and Gentiles alike can each be saved according to his Gospel - according to the scheme of things he'd just presented. In modern Israel we see evidence that God still wishes for the best for Israel. He still is into saving Jews. It could get better and better! Maybe we will see a nationwide salvation. I don't know. But I don't think a nationwide salvation of every individual is required in order to fulfil bible- prophecy. And I certainly don't think Jews can be saved after the second coming after they've seen Jesus, because salvation is by faith alone, and faith that is already seen is no more faith. I also don't believe God will expect Jews or anyone to revert back to Old Covenant feasts and sacrifices at anytime in the future. It's not required in order to fulfil prophecy. Paul's objective in the Epistle was to present his Gospel-message, and while doing so, he also dealt with certain misconceptions about his message. His overall message was basically this: that both Jews and Gentiles were in need of salvation, and the promised-salvation can be experienced by grace through faith, without the works of the Law, and regardless of ethnicity.