Questioning a Future Restoration of Israel

Questioning a Future Restoration of Israel

Pastor Ostella

9-10-00

Introduction

Romans 11 is a challenging passage to interpret and to apply in pastoral ministry. It seems to present us with the prospect of a great future conversion of Israel. This prospect is especially evident in the two uses that Paul makes of the a fortiori argument form in verses 12 and 15.

Let's consider Paul's a fortiori argument and then objections to a future restoration of Israel.

1A. Paul's a fortiori argument

1) Because of Israel's transgression "salvation has come to the Gentiles" and this in turn is used of God to provoke Israel to jealousy (v. 11) and the salvation of some (v. 14) in the remnant of the present time (v. 5). Building on what has come in her transgression, Paul argues from the lessor to the greater: if her transgression and loss has brought riches to the Gentiles, imagine how much greater riches will be brought by Israel's fullness (v. 12). We have two things in parallel.

Israel's loss (and remnant status) brings riches to the Gentiles.

Israel's fullness (and what status?) brings greater riches to the Gentiles.

What status for Israel contrasts with the remnant? Surely it is reasonable to take this as a part to the whole, from some to all (from the salvation of some, v. 14 to the salvation of all, v. 26).

2) What is added by verse 15? The language shifts from their transgression and loss to their rejection and acceptance. We might think of this as their rejection and acceptance of God but it is better to take it as their rejection and acceptance by God because of the force of the term reconciliation here (so Murray, II, 81). Rejection literally means being cast away and out of God's favor which is given to another-to the Gentiles. So the parallel's look like this:

Israel's present status in disfavor before God brings favor to the Gentiles.

Israel's future status in favor (and fullness) brings life to the world.

There is further difficulty determining the exact meaning of "life from the dead." But it describes the greater riches and greater reconciliation that will come to the Gentiles.

As for Israel, is their rejection by God permanent? Is this state of partial hardening where only a remnant is saved permanent? It seems that we can only make sense of the a fortiori argument if we see it built on the contrast between Israel's present and future (remnant to whole, some to all). This directs us to think of the present as a national (en mass) hardening of Israel and of the future as a national (en masse) blessing of Israel. This is a matter of salvation for this people, as a people, in history.

But this interpretation is not acceptable to many good reformed writers.

2A. Objections to a future restoration of Israel

A good example writer is Ridderbos, a Dutch-reformed thinker whose specialty is the study of the history of redemption. In a book on Israel, he states that he used to hold to the majority view of a future conversion of Israel but now rejects it because of some "decisive" and "insuperable" objections. Let's consider these in order (from an informal translation by Gaffin of a section on Rom. 11).

1B. The objections of Ridderbos stated

1) First, he thinks it is strange that such a major future event would be disclosed by Paul in only five words (the Greek of "and in this manner, all Israel shall be saved"). It is discussed nowhere else in Paul's writings. Here it is incidental to the apostle's concern with Israel in the present.

2) Second, a future conversion of Israel does not fit any future scheme. None of the scholars who hold this view agree as to how to fit this into a framework of future events. Especially difficult is the fact that this conversion of Israel comes after the fullness of the Gentiles (vs. 25-26). How can there be time and place for Israel to be converted "after the entrance of the gentiles into the glorified reality of God" (p. 3). The fullness of each (Israelites and Gentiles) coincide.

3) Third, the text does not say "and then all Israel will be saved" but "only then will all Israel be saved" ("and so" in the NIV and KJV). Nothing is said of a conversion of Jews after the fullness of the Gentiles. It is better, says Ridderbos, to take it that Israel "can enter the blessedness promised to it only then when the gentiles also have found a place in Israel's inheritance, when they share with Israel in the salvation of the Lord" (p. 3).

4) Fourth, the blessing stressed in Romans 9-11 concerns Israel in the present time (v. 5). By gospel preaching, Israelites are now being saved (vs. 1, 5, 14, and the "nows" of vs. 30-32).

5) Fifth, "the whole notion of a national conversion if Israel in the end makes the overall thrust of Romans 9-11 nonsensical and completely strange" (p. 4). He finds it strange to speak of national Israel-of-the-last-days as the people of Israel and saving them as the saving of all Israel. How can we maintain that God is keeping His covenant to Israel if the salvation of "all Israel" is limited to a national restoration of "that part of the Jewish nation that will still be found to exist at the end of the days?

6) Sixth, a national conversion of Israel is in conflict with Paul's declaration "that not all are Israel who are descended from Israel" (p. 4). The nation is not equivalent to the elect. Paul's "entire argument is directed toward demonstrating that the true Israel is hidden in the national Israel as the kernel in the shell, that one may not identify the one with the other, and that so too, although national Israel has not accepted Christ, nevertheless Israel is not rejected as the people of God. It would certainly be very strange if the apostle would subsequently reconsider this view and would present the matter as if God's promise to Israel will only be fulfilled, when what is left of the nation at the end of the days will repent and be saved in its entirety (p. 4).

His conclusion then is that "all Israel" (Rom. 11:26) must refer to "those in Israel who will repent and will be brought to the Lord at the preaching of the gospel in history, that is, the elect part…of Romans 11:7, now already visible, besides those who will repent from the hardening that has come upon Israel and will come to faith in Christ. "All Israel" is quantitatively equal to the fullness of Israel (v. 12). "All Israel, therefore, is the full number of those who in the course of history, in conformity and together with the true Israel of the old day, have repented before God" (p. 4). "It is just the remnant that the Lord will save in his grace and in his severity, 9:28, 29" (p. 5). The future contains the revelation of Israel "in its true character and destiny, namely, as the people of the promises (p. 5). That is the day of salvation that will dawn for Israel instead of the saving of "the last generation of Israel…en bloc" (p. 6). Thus, "this same Israel that is God's enemy is still God's beloved also, that from of old God has bound himself to this nation, and that therefore the people of God will nevertheless be preserved out of this rebellious people and will emerge at the last day as the true Israel, the seed of Abraham, the Israel of the promises" (p. 6).

Gaffin adds a note of Ridderbos in his commentary on Romans that looks back to this discussion in his book on Israel where he maintains these insuperable objections but tries to give "more emphasis" to "the apostle's expectation of a much more extensive and adequate representation of Israel than can be brought to expression by the qualification "remnant" (p. 6).

2B. The objections of Ridderbos evaluated

I will give the gist of each argument and a response.

1) First, he thinks it is strange that such a major future event would be disclosed by Paul in only five words. It is discussed nowhere else in Paul's writings.

But, in reply, where else does Paul deal with the question of God's word to the people of Israel and the possibility of covenant unfaithfulness to them? This broader question is not treated anywhere else either. Many things are treated in a singular fashion (according to the occasion with Paul "on the run"). That does not make Paul's disclosures strange but brief and purposeful according to the need of the moment. What we have is what is needed however little or much. Also, Paul works within a larger framework of Scripture especially the OT which fills out the picture.

The counter argument is that the wave of blessing that returns to Israel involves even greater blessing to the nations. The pattern is Israel then the nations followed by a return to Israel and even greater riches to the nations (it is not, as Ridderbos has it, that Gentile fullness-riches is the end of the Gentile story; if Gentile fullness equates with Gentile riches, then the fullness refers to the present time and a greater fullness will follow).

Here it seems that Ridderbos misses the point of the contrast between the remnant of Israel and her fullness as it bears on her future. How can we not take her rejection en mass as contrasting with her acceptance en mass? If the loss is en mass how can we avoid taking the fullness as en mass as well? Furthermore, Romans 11:26 can be taken in a cumulative sense: the way that all Israel will be saved is via the remnant now (in the present time) with saving blessings to the Gentiles now and via fullness in the future (beyond the time of the remnant) with even greater saving blessings to the Gentiles in the future.

4) Fourth, the blessing stressed in Romans 9-11 concerns Israel in the present time (v. 5). By gospel preaching, Israelites are now being saved (vs. 1, 5, 14, and the "nows" of vs. 30-32).

But surely the "nows" of the present time relate to the remnant and reflect a very modest perspective: that I may save some (v. 14). Again, saving some in the present is only part of Paul's argument. We have a contrast between the present time of the remnant and of Israel's rejection en mass and a future time of Israel's acceptance en mass.

Again in reply to Ridderbos, Romans 11:26 can be taken in a cumulative sense: the way that all Israel will be saved is via the remnant now (in the present time) with saving blessings to the Gentiles now and via fullness in the future (beyond the time of the remnant) with even greater saving blessings to the Gentiles in the future. Therefore, it is too narrow to exclude the remnant from the process by which all Israel will be saved. It is not nonsensical to view the salvation of Israel as having a now and a not yet to it (now: remnant; not yet: en mass blessing).

Romans 11:26 can be taken in a cumulative sense: the way that all Israel will be saved is via the remnant now (in the present time) with saving blessings to the Gentiles now and via fullness in the future (beyond the time of the remnant) with even greater saving blessings to the Gentiles in the future.

In reply we note the following. a) An en mass salvation in the future is still an Israel within Israel viewed across history, b) Add the remnant to the en mass salvation of the future and you still have an Israel within Israel where which particular Israelites will make up the true Israel is determined by God's election of grace. c) An en mass salvation in the future does not mean that every single Israelite of that time will be saved, the circle of the elect is still smaller than the nation. d) It begs the question to say that Paul's entire argument concerns the present.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, we have to say that Ridderbos, in all these "insuperable" objections, fails to do justice to what is presupposed in the a fortiori argument of Paul. Namely, the contrast between the remnant and the fullness of Israel's salvation that brings riches (and fullness) to the Gentiles in the present and greater riches with greater fullness to the Gentiles in the future.

As Vos puts it, "It can only lead to confusion not to distinguish between the single conversions spoken of in such statements and this comprehensive eschatological recovering of the unbelieving Jews….the general, national apostasy of Israel is referred to, and consequently the recovery from this must bear the same collective interpretation" (Pauline Eschatology, 89). The present conversions are "sporadic examples" that are "at bottom expressive of a divine principle intended to work itself out on the largest of scales at the predetermined point in the future" (p. 88).

Looking to the future with this hope is but hope in the God of the covenant who is faithful as sovereign Lord over history past, present and future. To Him be the glory, Amen.