Tag: olive tree

A Critical Analysis of Paul’s use of ‘All Israel’ in Romans 11:26

INTRODUCTION

Having completed three missionary journeys to the East the Apostle Paul began to turn his attention towards the West (Romans 15:24, 28), thus necessitating a change of base from Antioch to Rome. Since he had not founded the Roman church he wrote and sent a letter introducing himself and mentioning his forthcoming visit. Wishing to enlist their prayerful support for his planned trip to Spain (15:24-30) he outlined his theological position (1:16-11:36). It seems that Paul was aware of disunity in the church at Rome caused by Gentile arrogance towards the Jewish believers so in the letter he also addressed some of the practical issues in the Roman congregations.

BACKGROUND

In the first eight chapters Paul set out God’s plan of redemption in Jesus Christ. In the early days of the church it seemed as though Jewish people were very responsive to the gospel about Jesus Christ (Acts 2:41, 4:4) but their leaders opposed the message and before long persecution of the church began, with many believers scattering across the Roman Empire (Acts 8:1-4). Gentiles began to convert to Christianity while the Jews were opposed to it. Although Jesus was a Jew, his own people had generally rejected him as saviour. The Christians at Rome must have wondered what would happen to the promises God had made to Israel. Would God go back on his word? Would Israel be rejected forever in favour of a church composed largely of Gentiles? Could God’s redemptive plan be complete without Israel?
This problem of Jewish hostility had much more at stake than just what would happen to the promises to Israel. In question was the reliability of God’s word and his ability to bring his plans to fruition. Dunn (2006, p.501) observes:

‘What was at stake was nothing less than God’s own integrity, the faithfulness of God. How could Paul offer God’s covenant righteousness so freely to Gentiles without calling in question God’s covenant with Israel? And if God’s purpose for Israel had been so frustrated, what assurance did that give to Christian believers?’

Munck (1967, p.34) similarly assesses the significance of the problem:

‘The unbelief of the Jews is not merely a missionary problem that concerned the earliest mission to the Jews, but a fundamental problem for all Christian thought in the earliest church. Israel’s difficulty is a difficulty for all Christians, both Jewish and Gentile. If God has not fulfilled his promises made to Israel, then what basis has the Jewish-Gentile church for believing that the promises will be fulfilled for them?’

Paul sets out to address these issues, and to insist on the integrity of God’s dealings with Israel, in Romans 9-11. Thus these chapters are not a parenthesis in the letter but their content is central to Paul’s argument. Paul defends the righteousness of God in his dealings with Israel, arguing that God has spared the nation in the past (chapter 9), has provided salvation for it in the present (chapter 10) and will work out his plans for it in the future (chapter 11).

BACKGROUND TO ROMANS 11:26

Hunter (1955, p.99) says of chapter 11:

‘We now reach the third stage in Paul’s ‘theodicy’. In chapter 9 he argues: ‘God is sovereign and elects whom he wills.’ In chapter 10 he says: ‘This is not the whole truth. God’s judgement on Israel is not arbitrary, for in fact the Jews’ own disobedience led to their downfall.’ But he cannot rest in this sad conclusion, and therefore in chapter 11 he goes on to say, ‘This is not God’s last word. Israel is not doomed to final rejection. Her temporary lapse forms part of God’s great plan. Through Israel’s lapse the Gentiles have found salvation. And Gentile acceptance of the gospel is meant to so move the Jews to jealousy (at seeing their own promised blessings in Gentile hands) that they will ultimately accept what they now reject. And so all Israel will be saved.’

Paul raises the issue of the rejection of Israel in 11:1 and denies such a suggestion. In verses 2-6 he mentions the concept of a remnant and in verses 7-10 speaks of ‘the rest’ of Israel which has been ‘hardened’ (11:7). He (vv.2-6) refers to the OT story of Elijah and sees in this a pledge of what is to happen at ‘the present time’, thus indicating the existence of a contemporary remnant, proving that God had not totally rejected his people. He contrasts faith and works (11:6), concluding that salvation is by grace and not by human effort. In vv. 7-10 the spiritually insensitive bulk of Israel, ‘the rest’, are said to be ‘hardened’, a state which Paul attributes to an act of God. As ‘proof’ that that was God’s intention for Israel Paul combines and modifies two OT quotations (Deut. 29:4, Psalm 69:22-23) which contain the phrase ‘eyes that they could not see’ (11:8,10). These he presents as evidence of an intentional ‘hardening’ by God, deliberately punishing the Jews for persistent unbelief. At this stage such a pessimistic note would seem to confirm the suggestion raised in verse one that God has rejected his people.

Despite painting this bleak picture of the Jews’ situation Paul strikes a note of optimism. They had indeed stumbled, but he insists that they had not fallen beyond recovery. Verse 11a identifies the key issue: ‘Is Israel’s rejection final? Having already said (11:1-10) that Israel’s rejection is not total, he now argues that Israel’s rejection is not final (11:11-24) and that restoration is a certainty (11:25-32). Paul has strong words of warning for Gentile believers at Rome who seemed proud that they had received salvation while the Israelites, with the spiritual advantage of the covenants and the promises, had rejected it. Wright (1991, p.247) conjectures as to the reasons for this Gentile attitude and Paul’s annoyance:

‘It is at this point, I believe, that Paul addresses one of the key issues of the entire letter. His mission, he has emphasized from the outset, is ‘to the Jew first and also to the Greek’. He suspects that the Roman church … is only too eager to declare itself a basically gentile organisation perhaps, (and this can only be speculation, but it may be near the mark) in order to clear itself of local suspicion in relation to the capital’s Jewish population, recently expelled and more recently returned. But a church with a theology like that would not provide him with the base that he needs for his continuing mission, in Rome itself and beyond. It would result, as Paul sees only too clearly in light of his Eastern Mediterranean experience, in a drastically split church, with Jewish and Gentile Christians pursuing their separate paths in mutual hostility and recrimination. Instead, in this section and in vv.17-24 he argues with great force that Jews can still be saved, and indeed that it is in the interests of a largely gentile church not to forget the fact.’

Paul must have thought that the Gentile believers at Rome were wondering why the apostle to the Gentiles was devoting such attention to a discussion of the Jews. He tells them (11:13) that he sees his mission to the Gentiles as important for the salvation of Jews. He wanted to ‘exalt’ (11:13) his ministry to the Gentiles in order to move some of his own people to jealousy and bring about their conversion. He warns them against spiritual pride, telling them that the rejection of the gospel by the Jews meant ‘riches for the world’ and that their acceptance would mean ‘life from the dead’.

Employing a metaphor of an olive tree to represent the Jews Paul imagined cultivated branches being broken off (unbelieving Jews) and wild olive branches (Gentiles) being grafted in. He warns the Gentiles that they had not replaced the branches that were broken off and suggests that by trusting in their own efforts they likewise could be broken off. Paul is optimistic (v23) stating that if the Jews believe, they could be grafted back into their own olive tree.

Still addressing Gentile believers, he (11:25-32) describes God’s dealing with Israel as a ‘mystery’ which includes the fact that a ‘hardening’ has come on the unbelieving Israelites. This hardening would end with the completion of the Gentile mission (v25), ‘and so all Israel will be saved’ (v26).

The purpose of this paper is to present a critical analysis of the salvation of ‘all Israel’ in Romans 11:26.Various interpretations have been posed for ‘all Israel’ but most are found, upon analysis, to be variations of one of the following three: the church, the nation or the remnant.

MAJOR ISSUES

Two major interpretative issues relating to verse 26 immediately present themselves. The first is the meaning of ‘all Israel’. Does it refer to ethnic Jews or to the Church (all believers both Jew and Gentile)? The second is the time and manner of Israel’s salvation. Is it a long term process in tandem with the salvation of Gentiles in this era or an eschatological event that will occur in the future and only after the full number of Gentiles has come in? If the latter, will it inaugurate the eternal state or will it usher in the Millennial Kingdom? The disagreement on these issues over the years has led Moo (1996, p.719) to describe the opening words of v.26 as ‘the storm center in the interpretation of Romans 9-11 and of the NT teaching about the Jews and their future.’ The fundamental question is whether Israel has a place in God’s future plans or has instead been replaced by the Church. This paper will therefore seek to examine the three main views on the subject in an attempt to ascertain the identity of ‘all Israel’, the time of all Israel’s salvation and the way in which it is achieved.

‘ALL ISRAEL’ AS THE CHURCH

Some theologians understand ‘all Israel’ in Romans 11:26 to be the Church, which they view as the new spiritual Israel composed of Jews and Gentiles. This treats the phrase as a metaphor and was the view expressed by Calvin (1836, p.475) who maintained:

‘I extend the sense of the word Israel to the whole people of God, and thus interpret it:- When the gentiles shall have entered into the Church, and the Jews, at the same time, shall betake themselves to the obedience of faith…the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be collected from both, will thus be completed.’

More recently this is the position held by Barth (1968) and also by Wright (1991, p.250) who asserts:

‘What Paul is saying is this. God’s method of saving ‘all Israel’ is to harden ethnic Israel (cp.9.14 ff.), i.e., not to judge her at once, so as to create a period of time during which the gentile mission could be undertaken, during the course of which it remains God’s will that the present ‘remnant’ of believing Jews might be enlarged by the process of ‘jealousy’, and consequent faith, described above. This whole process is God’s way of saving his whole people.’

Both Calvin (‘the whole people of God’) and Wright (‘his whole people’) make a valid point that fits with the occasional nature of the Roman epistle. The Roman church was divided and part of Paul’s purpose in writing the letter was to call for unity; a unity that would doubtless serve his own short-term goals but that would also advance the mission of the whole Christian church. Bruce (2000, p.389) comments:

‘Paul was certainly aware of differences in attitude and practice which might set up tensions if brotherly consideration were not exercised; that is why he urges all the groups so earnestly to give one another the same welcome as they had all received from Christ, “for the glory of God”. Thus a sense of spiritual unity would be fostered.’

The readership/audience would have noticed the verbal marker (‘I do not want you to be ignorant…, brothers,’ 11:25)) that introduced the statement ‘all Israel will be saved’ and would have thought back to the opening greeting (‘I do not want you to be unaware, brothers’ 1:13). This formula in Romans 1:13 precedes comments on the salvation of Jew and Gentile alike. Might not its use in Romans 11:25 do likewise?

That it might do is borne out by a glance at some of the OT occurrences of ‘all Israel’. Exodus 18:25 says:

‘He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.’

That all Israel here included Gentiles may be inferred from Exodus 12:38 (‘Many other people went up with them,’). Gentiles were also included in the ‘all Israel’ of Deut 31:11-12:

When all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place he will choose, you shall read this law before them in their hearing. Assemble the people— men, women and children, and the aliens living in your towns — so that they can listen and learn to fear the LORD your God and follow carefully all the words of this law.’

In Deut 29:2 the ‘all Israel’ that was established as ‘his people’ (v.13) included ‘the aliens living in your camps’ (v.11).

It is significant that in Romans 11:1 Paul asks; ‘Did God reject his people?’ It may be that ‘his people’ in 1:11 equates to ‘all Israel’ (11:26a) and to ‘Jacob’ (11:26b).

This thought is further suggested by the use of ‘all’ in the Roman letter. The apostle seems to emphasize the togetherness of Jews and Gentiles throughout and stresses this both negatively, as united under sin (1:18; 2:1; 3:4, 9, 19, 20, 23; 5:12,18; 8:22; 11:32; 14:10), and positively, as united in belief (1:16; 2:10; 3:22; 4:11, 16; 5:18; 9:5; 10:4, 11,12,13; 11:26, 32).

In addition Paul goes on to speak of the ‘strong’ and ‘the weak’ and in that context (15:5-12) to encourage the unity of both Jew and Gentile in the worship of God; using a series of OT quotations (15:9, 10, 11, 12) to back up his point. The unity is stressed even as the letter ends with the two uses of ‘all’ relating to Jew and Gentile in the greetings of chapter 16: ‘all the churches of the Gentiles’ (16:4) and ‘all the churches of Christ’ (16:16).
In the expression ‘And so all Israel will be saved’ Paul may not be thinking nationally or even eschatologically but simply stressing the unity of the people of God in salvation with a view to seeing that unity restored in the Christian community at Rome.

Although interesting and thought-provoking it is difficult to concur with the view that ‘all Israel’ refers to the whole people of God given that it assigns to ‘Israel’ a meaning which is unsupported elsewhere in Romans, or indeed in the New Testament, with the possible but unlikely exception of Galatians 6:16. The term usually refers to Israel as a whole, or is sometimes narrowed down to refer to a part of Israel. It is never widened to include Gentiles. ‘Israel’ is used eleven times in Romans 9-11 (9:6, 27, 31; 10:1, 19, 21; 11: 2, 7, 25) before 11:26 and in each of these occurrences it refers to either ethnic Israel or a part of it, set in contrast with the Gentiles (there is no such contrast in Galatians 6). Having consistently maintained a distinction between ethnic Israel and Gentiles throughout Romans 9-11 and having used it ethnically in the first part of the sentence in v.25 it is unlikely that Paul would make such a fundamental shift in meaning (Jews and Gentiles) in the second part of the sentence in v.26a.

‘ALL ISRAEL’ AS THE NATION

The majority viewpoint is that ‘all Israel’ refers to ethnic Israel as a whole, but not necessarily every individual. Dunn (1988, p.681) offers an interesting definition: ‘a people whose corporate identity and wholeness would not be lost even if in the event there were some (or indeed many) individual exceptions.’

According to this scenario ‘all Israel’ points to the majority of Jews alive on earth just before the Second Coming of Christ who, after the full number of Gentiles has been saved, turn to faith in Christ in a worldwide, large-scale, mass conversion. Cranfield (1985, p.282) sees the salvation of ‘all Israel’ in ‘three successive stages in the divine plan of salvation’; the unbelief of Israel, the completion of the coming in of the Gentiles and the salvation of Israel. He explains (p.282):

‘With regard to this last clause three things must be mentioned. First, ‘thus’ is emphatic; it will be in the circumstances obtaining when the first two stages have been fulfilled, and only so and then, that ‘all Israel shall be saved’. Secondly, the most likely explanation of ‘all Israel’ is that it means the nation of Israel as a whole, though not necessarily including every individual member. Thirdly, we understand ‘shall be saved’ to refer to a restoration of the nation of Israel to God at the end of history, an eschatological event in the strict sense.’

Those supporting this viewpoint point out that Romans 11 begins with Paul’s’ question ‘I ask then: Did God reject his people?’, with the ‘then’ referring back to what has just been stated in 10:19-21 about national disobedience. ‘His people’ is therefore understood as the nation of Israel. Paul’s answer to his own question (‘I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.’) might suggest this as he does not speak in terms of faith in Christ but in terms of his own physical Jewish descent, indicating that he is thinking in national terms.

Paul goes on to speak of the remnant and of the rest who have been hardened. The fact that there is a remnant is seen as a positive sign for the nation of Israel. Moo (1996, p.677) comments: ‘For God’s preservation of a remnant is not only evidence of his present faithfulness to Israel; it is also a pledge of hope for the future of the people.’ The metaphor of the Olive tree (11:16-20) is also seen as pointing to a restoration of national Israel as it emphasizes the corporate nature of Israel’s election in the picture of the root, representing Abraham and the patriarchs, which imparts its character to the branches (as does the lump of dough in 11:16). That God loves Israel because of the patriarchs is explicitly stated in 11:28.

In addition Paul proclaims (11:12) that Israel’s present ‘loss’ will at some future point become ‘fullness’. Whether one interprets these words as quantitative (‘loss’ and ‘full number’) as does Moo (1996, p.688), or qualitative (‘diminishing’ and ‘completion’), the net result is that what is currently defeat will one day become a victory; with added benefits for the world, thus pointing forward to v.26. In v.15 the ‘rejection’ of Israel is contrasted with their future ‘acceptance’, a change of status which will result in ‘life from the dead’ (happy life after resurrection or a time of great spiritual quickening). According to Moo (1996, p.695) ‘These descriptions suggest that “life from the dead” must be an event distinct from Israel’s restoration, involving the whole world, and occurring at the very end of history.’ That the world is a benefactor suggests a future time of blessing, a worldwide spiritual revival, following the conversion of Israel. This requires an extension of history (i.e. an earthly Millennial Kingdom) rather than the Eternal State.

Paul backs up his declaration of the salvation of ‘all Israel’ by a proof text (‘the deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins’) which consists of Isaiah 59:21a linked with Isaiah 27:9. This composite quotation assures the forgiveness of Jacob’s sins and mentions the covenant, which was national.

Assuming that ‘Jacob’ is a synonym for Israel as a nation then the ‘Jacob’ of v.26b must equate to the ‘all Israel’ of v26a. Paul is thus pointing to Israel’s national forgiveness as an indication of national restoration and expressing an eschatological expectation that, following a period of rejection as a result of Israel’s sin, the nation would become the focus of divine action once again.

According to this viewpoint Israel’s national salvation will follow the coming in of the Gentiles (11:25-26a). Proponents usually proceed to construct a timetable for God’s dealings with Israel as a nation and with the Gentile world. The details are not within the remit of this paper but the main elements perhaps deserve a mention in that they relate to the perceived timing of the salvation of ‘all Israel’.

Following the era when the Gentiles are saved (Acts 15:14) the fortunes of Israel will be restored. The nation will have perpetual existence (Jer. 31:38-40) and Jerusalem will be fully controlled by Israelites (Luke 21:24). The latter is closely associated with the Second Coming (Luke 21:24-28) which, the suggestion is, can only occur subsequent to Israel’s conversion (Joel 2:28-32; Acts 3:19-21; Matt.23:39). Zechariah 13:9, when a third of the people will be saved, is set in the Great Tribulation, just before the Lord’s Coming (Zech.14:4) and just before the setting up of the Millennial Kingdom (Zech. 14:9-21). It would therefore appear that the salvation of ‘all Israel’ will occur during the Great Tribulation, just before the Second Coming.

This interpretation, which views Israel’s rejection as partial and temporary, is misleading as the point Paul is emphasizing throughout is that God has not rejected Israel. In spite of ongoing hostility and disobedience and the loss resulting from divine hardening Israel has not been rejected by God.

This viewpoint is also misleading as it suggests a difference between physical Israel and the Church in the matter of salvation and stresses a literal fulfilment of prophecy about Israel. It suggests that there are two distinct people groups belonging to God, Israel and the Church, each with different destinies and posits that all OT prophecies about Israel are for the literal Israel. This view that ‘all Israel ‘ is the nation is problematic for those who believe that the Church is the culmination of God’s saving plan and that it is trans-national and trans-ethnic.

‘ALL ISRAEL’ AS THE REMNANT (ACCUMULATED ELECT OF ISRAEL)

According to this view ‘all Israel’ refers to the elect of ethnic Israel throughout history. Israel will experience a partial hardening to the end of time (‘until the full number of the Gentiles has come in’) but God will always save a remnant of Jews. This view also allows for a large number of Jews turning to Christ at the end of the age but without a national or territorial restoration. The ‘mystery’ in 11:25 is not the fact of the remnant’s salvation but the manner in which they are saved. ‘And so’ (11:26a) means ‘in this manner’ and refers back to the arousal of Jews to envy so that some might turn to Christ for salvation (11:11-13).

This viewpoint is in harmony with the context of Romans 9-11 which, scholars acknowledge, form a unit in Romans. In chapter 9 Paul maintains that God is faithful to his promises in spite of Israel’s rejection of the Messiah Jesus and in v.6 states ‘For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel’ thus showing that God’s promise was not to save Abraham’s descendants on the basis of national identity. The true Israel consists of children of the promise, rather than ethnic Jews. In 10:2 Paul further writes ‘For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,’ again showing that, as regards salvation, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile.

A separate plan of salvation for Israel would run contrary to this assertion. God’s promises are not fulfilled in the nation but in the spiritual remnant. Wright (1991, p.236) highlights the problem of integration:

‘Put simply, the issue is this: if Paul rejects the possibility of a status of special privilege for Jews in chs. 9 and 10, how does he manage, apparently, to reinstate such a position in ch.11? It is this apparent inconsistency that has led many to suggest that the section contains a fundamental self-contradiction, which is then explained either as a resurgence of patriotic sentiment (Dodd) or the vagaries of apocalyptic fantasy (Bultmann). As we have already hinted, the real crux of the issue lies not so much in 11 as a whole, but in 11.25-27; the regular interpretation of that passage as predicting a large-scale last-minute salvation of ‘Israel’, worked out in terms of the chapter as a whole, leads to this charge.’

In the immediate context of ‘all Israel will be saved’ the apostle asked two questions; ‘I ask then: Did God reject his people?’ (11:1) and ‘Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery?’ (11:11). He is not asking if God has dispensed with ethnic Israel as regards a special plan for the future but is asking if the Jews have totally forfeited their past privileges and if there is now any hope that God will continue to save Jews. In answer to the question in v.1 Paul presents his own salvation as proof that God was still saving Jews. His answer relates to the present, not the future.

Paul’s thinking is focussed on the present, not on the long-range future. The contemporary nature of Romans 11 is striking. V5 speaks of ‘the present time’, in which there is a ‘remnant’ (vv2-4) and also those who were ‘hardened’ vv.8-10. Paul ‘exalts’ his ministry (v.13) in order to save people in his own day (v.14). The Gentiles whom he was addressing were his contemporaries and it was the salvation of contemporary Gentiles that he hoped would provoke Jewish contemporaries to jealousy and salvation. His ministry was not to provoke the Jews to jealousy in order to bring about a future mass conversion of ethnic Israel. The branches broken off are contemporary Israelites and the engrafted Gentiles are contemporary. This is explicitly confirmed by the threefold ‘now’ in Paul’s comments in vv. 30-31. It is ‘now’ (in Paul’s day), that Israel is receiving mercy. Das (2003, p.118) maintains that:

‘Paul views Israel’s impending restoration as potentially imminent: “Just as you were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their [Israel’s] disobedience, so they have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you , they too may now receive mercy” (Romans 11:30-31). “Now” is the day of Israel’s salvation. Paul speaks of Israel’s present obtaining of mercy. He hopes, by his own missionary activity to the Gentiles, to bring about the salvation of the Jews (11:14). Perhaps this may explain why he wanted to travel to Spain, the western end of the known (Gentile) world (15:22-24). He may have viewed the creation of a Gentile Christian community in Spain as the final step in completing the “fullness” of Gentile salvation, thereby triggering all Israel’s salvation. By reaching the entire Gentile world, Paul believes he will see the day when God’s plan for Israel will be finally and fully realized.’

Some object to this view on the grounds that ‘Israel’ in v.26 ought to have the same meaning as ‘Israel’ in v.25 which clearly refers to ethnic Israel (the remnant plus the hardened). This, however, appears to be Paul’s pattern of expression as in Romans he has already used ‘Israel’ to refer to both the nation and the elect within the nation (‘For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel’) in 9:6, in one sentence. Wright (1991, p.250) agrees that:

‘It is impermissible to argue that ‘Israel’ cannot change its referent within the space of two verses, so that ‘Israel’ in v. 25 must mean the same as ‘Israel’ in v. 26: Paul actually began the whole section (9.6) with just such a programmatic distinction of two ‘Israels’, and throughout the letter (e.g. 2.25–9) … he has systematically transferred the privileges and attributes of ‘Israel’ to the Messiah and his people.’

CONCLUSION

In Romans 9-11 Paul discussed the failure of Israel to respond to the Christian gospel and addressed the issue of the place of Jews in God’s purposes. The climax of his discussion is reached in 11:26a with the assertion ‘And so all Israel will be saved.’
Paul insisted that Israel’s failure to believe was no indicator of a failure on God’s part to keep his promises. He warned his Gentile readers against arrogance toward Israel and described God’s manner of saving Israel by using saved Gentiles to cause jealousy among remnant Jews, driving them to faith in the Messiah.

Thus a remnant from ethnic Israel will be continue to be saved until the Lord returns, in tandem with believing Gentiles. When the full number of Gentiles has come in so too ‘all Israel’ (the full number of remnant Jews) will have been saved.

Paul’s strange, and some might say absurd (see Käsemann, 1994, p.304), optimism in the face of disappointed hope and his confidence in God’s sovereignty ought to be an encouragement to Christians today. Western society is materialistic and secular. It would appear that the gospel has become powerless. The same anxiety that Paul experienced over this apparent failure remains with us today. Batey (1966, p.228) wisely observes:

‘It is in just such a situation that one finds himself sharing Paul’s basic concern and challenged by his decision for faith. In spite of the evidence around him, the Christian is challenged to affirm with the Apostle that God is and shall be sovereign over the destiny of man. As long as there is disbelief the man of faith seeks through the foolishness of preaching to effect reconciliation. Paul was not naïve, but he looked at defeat and saw final victory.’

There is confidence and optimism to be drawn from this expression of hope by Paul for the salvation of his fellow countrymen through faith in Jesus Christ: ‘and so all Israel will be saved.’

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barth, K. 1968, The Epistle to the Romans, Oxford University Press US

Bateman, H. W. 1999, Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan

Bell, R. H. 1994, Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin & Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9-11, Coronet Books Inc., Philadelphia

Bloomfield, P. 2009, What the Bible Teaches about the Future, Evangelical Press, Carlisle

Borchert, G. L. & Mohrlang, R. 2007, Romans, Galatians (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary), Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Illinois

Brauch, M. T. 1989, Hard Sayings of Paul, Inter-Varsity Press, Nottingham

Bruce, F.F. 2000, Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan

Bryan, C. 2000, A Preface to Romans: Notes on the Epistle in its Literary and Cultural Setting, Oxford University Press US, New York

Byrne, B. 1996, Romans, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota

Calvin, J. 1834, Commentary of the Epistle to the Romans, (trans. by Sibson. F), L. B. Seeley and Sons, London

Cranfield, C.E.B. 1985, Romans, a Shorter Commentary, W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan

Dahl, N. A. 1977, Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission, Augsburg Press, Minneapolis

Das, A. A. 2004, Paul and the Jews, Hendrickson Publishers, Massachusetts

Diprose, R. E. 2000, Israel and the Church – The Origin and Effects of Replacement Theology, Paternoster, Milton Keynes

Donaldson, T.L. 1997, Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World, Fortress Press, Minneapolis

Donfried, K.P. 2002, The Romans Debate, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts

Dunn, J. D.G. 1988, Romans 9-16, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, TN

Dunn, J. D.G. 2006, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids

Edwards, J.R. 1992, Romans, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts

Ellis, P. F. 1982, Seven Pauline Letters, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota

Ellison, H. L. 1976, The Mystery of Israel, Paternoster Press, Exeter

Gadenz, P. T. 2009, Called from the Jews & from the Gentiles: Pauline Ecclesiology in Romans 9-11, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

Harrington, D. J. 2001, The Church according to the New Testament: what the Wisdom and Witness of Early Christianity Teach us Today, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD

Hendriksen, W. 1981, Romans: 9-16, Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh

Hoeksema, H. 2002, Righteous By Faith Alone, Reformed Free Publishing Association, Michigan

Horner, B. E. 2007, Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged, B&H Academic, Nashville

Hunter, A. M. 1955, The Epistle to the Romans, SCM Press, London

Käsemann, E. 1994, Commentary on Romans, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids

Kreloff, S. A. 2006, God’s Plan For Israel – A Study of Romans 9-11, Kress Christian Publications

Lloyd-Jones, D. M. 1999, Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 11 To God’s Glory, Banner of Truth, Edinburgh

Moo, D. 1996, Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary on the New Testament Series, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids

Morris, L. 1988, The Epistle to the Romans, Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids

Munck, J. 1967, Christ & Israel: an Interpretation of Romans 9-11, Fortress Press, Minneapolis

Nanos, M. D. 1996, The Mystery of Romans: the Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter, Fortress Press, Minneapolis

Philip, J. 1987, The Power of God – An Exposition of Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Nicholas Gray Publishing, Glasgow

Robertson, O. P. 2000, The Israel of God – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, P & R Publishing, New Jersey

Sanders, E.P. 1977, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: a Comparison of Patterns of Religion, Fortress Press, Minneapolis

Schnabel, E .J. 2008, Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods, Intervarsity Press, Nottingham

Schreiner, T. 1998, Romans, Baker Books, Grand Rapids

Scott, J.M. 2001, Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives, BRILL, Leiden

Shedd, W. G. T. 1978, Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on Romans, Klock & Klock, Minneapolis

Smith, C. L. 2009, The Jews, Modern Israel and the New Supercessionism- Resources for Christians, King’s Divinity Press, Lampeter, UK

Stendahl, K. 1976, Paul among Jews and Gentiles, and Other Essays, Fortress Press, Minneapolis

Stuhlmacher, P. 1994, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: a Commentary, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky

Thielman, F. 1989, From Plight to Solution: a Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul’s View of the Law in Galatians and Romans, Brill Archive, Leiden

Walters, J.C. 1993, Ethnic Issues in Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Changing Self-definitions in Earliest Roman Christianity, Trinity Press International, Harrisburg Pennsylvania

Witherington III, B. 1998, The Paul Quest: the Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus, Inter-Varsity Press, Westmont, Illinois

Witherington III, B. 2004, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: a Socio-rhetorical Commentary, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids

Wright, N. T. 1991, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology, T & T Clark, Edinburgh

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Aus, R.D. 1979, Paul’s Travel Plans to Spain and the “Full Number of the Gentiles” of Rom. XI 25, Novum Testamentum, Vol.21, pp. 232-262

Batey, R. 1966, So all Israel will be saved: an interpretation of Romans 11:25-32, Interpretation, Vol. 20, pp.218-228

Baxter, A. G. & Ziesler J. A. 1985, Paul and Arboriculture: Romans 11:25-32, Journal For the Study of The New Testament, Vol. 24, pp. 95-123

Cook, M. J. 2006, Paul’s Argument in Romans 9-11, Review and Expositor, Vol. 103, pp. 91-111

Cooper, C. 1978, Romans 11:23, 26, Restoration Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 84-94

Cosgrove, C. H. 1996, Rhetorical Suspense in Romans 9-11: A Study in Polyvalence and Hermeneutical Election, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 115, No. 2, pp. 271-287

Dinkler, E. 1956, The Historical and the Eschatological Israel in Romans Chapters 9-11: A Contribution to the Problem of Pre-Destination and Individual Responsibility, The Journal of Religion, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 109-127

Esler, P. F. 2003, Ancient Oleiculture and Ethnic Differentiation: The Meaning of the Olive Tree Image in Romans 11, Journal For the Study of The New Testament, Vol. 26, pp. 103-124

Getty, M. A. 1988, Paul and the Salvation of Israel: A Perspective on Romans 9-11, CBQ, Vol. 50, pp. 456-469

Glancy, J. 1991, Israel Vs. Israel in Romans 11:25-32, Union Seminary Quarterly Review, Vol. 54, pp.191-203

Johnson, D G. 1984, The Structure and Meaning of Romans 11, CBQ, Vol. 46, pp.91-103

Litwak, K. 2006, One or Two Views of Judaism: Paul in Acts 28 and Romans 11 on Jewish Unbelief, Tyndale Bulletin, Vol. 57, pp. 229-249

Longenecker, B. W. 1989, Different Answers to Different Issues: Israel, The Gentiles and Salvation History in Romans 9-11, Journal For the Study of The New Testament, Vol. 36, pp. 95-123

Merkle, B. L. 2000, Romans 11 and the Future of Ethnic Israel, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. 43, pp. 709-721

Sanders, E. P. 1978, Paul’s Attitude Toward the Jewish People, Union Seminary Quarterly Review, Vol. XXXIII, pp.175-187

Spencer, F.S. 2006, Metaphor, Mystery and the Salvation of Israel in Romans 9-11: Paul’s Appeal to Humility and Doxology, Review and Expositor, Vol. 103, pp. 113-138

Van der Horst, P. W. 2000, “Only then will All Israel be Saved”: A Short Note on the Meaning of kai and οuτως in Romans 11:26, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 119, No. 3, pp. 521-525

Vanlaningham, M.G. 1992, Romans 11:25-27 and the Future of Israel in Paul’s Thought, The Master’s Seminary Journal, Vol.3, pp.141-174

Waymeyer, M. 2005, The Dual Status of Israel in Romans 11:28, The Master’s Seminary Journal, Vol.16, pp.57-71

Zoccali, C. 2008, ‘And so all Israel will be saved’: Competing Interpretations of Romans 11:26 in Pauline Scholarship, Journal For the Study of The New Testament, Vol. 30, pp. 289-318

Ziglar, T. 2003, Understanding Romans 11:26: Baptist Perspectives, Baptist History and Heritage, Vol. Spring 2003, pp. 38-51