It would be nice to see. And it's not impossible! But I'm not sure that's what Paul mainly had in mind when he wrote to the church at Rome.
Even if there does come a future moment in history when every Israeli living at the time does get saved (such as at the end of what some people think of as ‘The Great Tribulation’, or at the start of what some call ‘The Millennium’, when they look upon him whom they pierced and mourn for him, after He shows them His wounds and they ask how it happened and he answers, ‘in the house of my friends’), could we really say then that ‘all’ Israel have been—given that the Jews have had 2,000 years already of the gospel being announced to them and yet most weren’t saved?
Can it really be said that this is an example-passage that God has unconditional promises exclusively for Israel (as distinct from promises that were conditional or which really had the gospel scheme in mind), when for 2,000 years Jews were homeless and even still have repeat wars? Certainly God hasn't closed the door on Jews - but His promises pointed to the gospel, and gentiles are coheirs.
Can it really be said that this is an example-passage that God has unconditional promises exclusively for Israel (as distinct from promises that were conditional or which really had the gospel scheme in mind), when for 2,000 years Jews were homeless and even still have repeat wars? Certainly God hasn't closed the door on Jews - but His promises pointed to the gospel, and gentiles are coheirs.
Paul didn’t say, And ‘then’ all Israel shall be saved. He said, and ‘so’ “all Israel shall be saved” quoting the Old Testament verse which had said ‘all Israel’.
Not ‘and then’, but ‘and so’. Not just sequence, but also manner. After the manner he’d just finished describing. In other words he was nipping potential antisemitism in the bud in the congregation at Rome, by explaining that God Himself was still into saving Jewish people, God hadn’t slammed the door on them.
His promise hadn’t failed Israel. He’d saved the remnant. The rest had been cut off because of unbelief. But any Jews who continued not in unbelief were still being grafted in again. And this would continue to be available to Jews as well, while ever the fullness of the gentiles were still coming in. That’s the ‘gospel’ scheme which Paul had celebrated in chapters 1-8, right.
His promise hadn’t failed Israel. He’d saved the remnant. The rest had been cut off because of unbelief. But any Jews who continued not in unbelief were still being grafted in again. And this would continue to be available to Jews as well, while ever the fullness of the gentiles were still coming in. That’s the ‘gospel’ scheme which Paul had celebrated in chapters 1-8, right.
And ‘so’ (on that scheme, on that gospel interpretation of Prophecy) the prophecy about potentially all Israel being saved shall be fulfilled (and therefore on that scheme it’s still possible for Jews to be saved)—therefore the Gentile members in the church at Rome need not reflect any anti-Jewish sentiments that existed there in the capital city of the empire, but rather they should continue with God’s outreach to Gentiles and Jews alike, and model for the rest of society the one, new, unified humanity that now exists in Christ. That's likely something like what Paul was mainly getting at, I suspect.
In Paul’s letters to churches in other cities, he hardly had to address anti-semitism in the churches: he mainly had to address intimidation by the Judaizers. But the church at Rome could potentially have both problems. Claudius had previously expelled all Jews from the city, Luke said in Acts. In Romans Paul was celebrating the one new man in Christ, and he reiterated the basis for that unity, and dealt with threats to it both ways, Jews against Gentiles, and Gentiles against Jews. So Paul's statement are probably best understood in light of their place in the overall flow of Paul's letter.
When you think about it: if Paul was instead mainly issuing an eschatological forecast about Israel, and explaining that for the next 2000 years God himself would actually not be very much interested in Israel, but that he would become interested in them again in the far-off future, that wouldn’t have helped the antisemitic inclinations at Rome much, it would’ve
Seen this way, Romans 9-11 isn’t an add-on after Paul had reached his highpoint in chapter 8—rather, 9-11 follow seamlessly after 1-8, continuing to focus on the unity we have in Christ, stating its basis, and dealing with contentions about that, with the highpoint coming at the end of Romans, a celebration of God’s wisdom in all that, and added very practical family-like matters about how to live out that unity.
Grasping the wider flow of Romans, where Paul was going, helps understand the Israel passages in their intended light, and that helps understand the 'predestination' statements which are found within Paul's Israel argument.
A future nationwide revival in Israel, through the gospel, is not impossible, just as it's not impossible among all nations, given the principles Paul was explaining here. But Paul was probably not giving a future forecast exclusively, but was likely mainly explaining why the congregation at Rome had every reason to always strongly be for both Jews and Gentiles.
In Paul’s letters to churches in other cities, he hardly had to address anti-semitism in the churches: he mainly had to address intimidation by the Judaizers. But the church at Rome could potentially have both problems. Claudius had previously expelled all Jews from the city, Luke said in Acts. In Romans Paul was celebrating the one new man in Christ, and he reiterated the basis for that unity, and dealt with threats to it both ways, Jews against Gentiles, and Gentiles against Jews. So Paul's statement are probably best understood in light of their place in the overall flow of Paul's letter.
When you think about it: if Paul was instead mainly issuing an eschatological forecast about Israel, and explaining that for the next 2000 years God himself would actually not be very much interested in Israel, but that he would become interested in them again in the far-off future, that wouldn’t have helped the antisemitic inclinations at Rome much, it would’ve
Seen this way, Romans 9-11 isn’t an add-on after Paul had reached his highpoint in chapter 8—rather, 9-11 follow seamlessly after 1-8, continuing to focus on the unity we have in Christ, stating its basis, and dealing with contentions about that, with the highpoint coming at the end of Romans, a celebration of God’s wisdom in all that, and added very practical family-like matters about how to live out that unity.
Grasping the wider flow of Romans, where Paul was going, helps understand the Israel passages in their intended light, and that helps understand the 'predestination' statements which are found within Paul's Israel argument.
A future nationwide revival in Israel, through the gospel, is not impossible, just as it's not impossible among all nations, given the principles Paul was explaining here. But Paul was probably not giving a future forecast exclusively, but was likely mainly explaining why the congregation at Rome had every reason to always strongly be for both Jews and Gentiles.
No comments:
Post a Comment