Paul envisioned that “all Israel” would be saved under circumstances of national disaster and divine intervention. According to Romans 11:25-27, Israel’s partial hardening persists until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, after which a deliverer will turn away impiety from Jacob, fulfilling God’s covenant. Paul also saw the influx of Gentiles provoking Israel to jealousy, referencing Moses’ prophecy in Deuteronomy 32:19-23, which describes divine jealousy and wrath leading to Israel’s destruction by foreign nations. Thus, salvation comes through severe judgment and purification of the nation, leaving a remnant of faithful Israelites.
Under what circumstances did Paul imagine that “all Israel” would be saved? How did he think it would come about? I want to look at two passages here that point to national disaster as the circumstances and means by which such a reversal might happen. The second is the obvious one:
For I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning this mystery—that you may not be wise in yourselves—that hardness in part has come upon Israel until the fulness of the nations should come in. And in this way all Israel shall be saved, as it has been written: “The deliverer will come from Zion, he will turn away impiety from Jacob; and this to them is the covenant from me,” whenever “I may take away their sins.” (Rom. 11:25-27*)
But we begin with Paul’s earlier argument that the influx of gentiles into the redeemed community can be understood in light of Moses’ words: “I will make you jealous of a non-nation, with a foolish nation I will make you angry” (Rom. 10:19*). He is determined to maximise his ministry in order to “make jealous my flesh and save some from them” (Rom. 11:13-14*).
The words of Moses quoted come from this passage:
And the Lord saw it and was jealous, and he was provoked on account of the wrath of his sons and daughters. And he said: I will turn away my face from them, and I will show what will happen to them at the end, for it is a perverse generation, sons who have no faithfulness in them. They made me jealous with what is no god, provoked me with their idols. So I will make them jealous with what is no nation, provoke them with a nation lacking understanding. For a fire has lit up from my anger and will burn as far as Hades below; it will devour earth and its produce and will light up foundations of mountains. I will gather evils against them…. (Deut. 32:19-23 LXX)
This is a prediction of what would happen at an end time to a “perverse generation” of Israelites in whom there is no “faithfulness” (pistis). It’s the sort of thing Jesus might have said (cf. Mk. 8:38; 9:19; 13:30; and parallels).
It is important to note that YHWH becomes “jealous,” is provoked, and made angry by Israel’s idolatry with the result that Israel also is made jealous, provoked to anger with a non-nation, a nation without understanding.
Jealousy or zeal is a ferocious reaction, and it rather suggests that Israel will then act recklessly or violently. In any case, a devastating outcome is envisaged: they will be wasted by famine and disease, cut down by the sword, their bodies will be scavenged by wild creatures, they will be scattered among the nations, preserved from annihilation only out of concern that the invader would brag about the victory (Deut. 32:23-27).
So when Israel is made jealous or provoked to anger by a foreign nation, it is a measure not of their salvation but of their destruction—and by that the eradication of the “abominations” committed by this particular perverse generation.
The deliverer will come from Zion
The quotation about a deliverer coming from Zion to turn away impiety and remove sins from Jacob comes from two passages in Isaiah:
And he saw, and there was no man, and he took notice, and there was none who helped; so he defended them with his own arm, and with his compassion he upheld them. And he put on righteousness like a breastplate and placed a helmet of salvation on his head, and he clothed himself with a garment of vengeance and with his cloak, as one about to render retribution, reproach to his adversaries. And those from the west shall fear the name of the Lord, and those from the rising of the sun, his glorious name, for anger will come from the Lord like a rushing river— it will come with wrath. And the one who delivers will come for Sion’s sake, and he will turn away (apostrepsei) impiety from Jacob. And this is the covenant to them from me, said the Lord, my spirit that is upon you and my words that I have put in your mouth shall not fail out of your mouth or out of the mouth of your offspring, for the Lord has said it, from now on and forever. (Is. 59:16-21 LXX)
Because of this the lawlessness of Jacob will be removed (aphairethēsetai). And this is his blessing, when I remove (aphelōmai) his sin, when they make all the stones of the altars broken pieces like fine dust, and their trees will not remain, and their idols will be cut down like a forest far away. (Is. 27:9 LXX)
We would normally read “I will take away their sins” as a statement about forgiveness, presumably on the basis of Jesus’ atoning death, but the Old Testament background may suggest that this is not what Paul had in mind. Both the Isaiah passages quoted and other texts just the sort of narrative that emerged from the other quotation.
- The deliverer who comes to “turn away impiety from Jacob” is God, who has put on a “garment of vengeance”; he comes to “render retribution” and to save the victims of injustice from the wicked in Israel (Is. 59:17-20 LXX). This is judgment, not forgiveness.
- The removal of Jacob’s lawlessness or sin (Is. 27:9 LXX) may evoke the language of atonement: “by this the guilt of Jacob will be atoned for” (Is. 27:9 ESV). But the sin was removed by exile, “fighting and reviling”; sacred sites were demolished, idols were destroyed; habitations were left deserted. Atonement is a metaphor for the suffering of the people; the concrete means of renewal is war and destruction.
- If God takes away (aphairōn) “acts of lawlessness and of injustice and sins,” it is by not acquitting the guilty person, by “bringing lawless acts of fathers upon children and upon children of children” (Exod. 34:7 LXX).
- God is long-suffering and compassionate and will remove (aphairōn) “acts of lawlessness and injustice and sin,” but not by cleansing the guilty; rather he repays “sins of fathers upon children” (Num. 14:18 LXX). Subsequent generations will suffer for the sins of an egregiously wicked generation. This is not YHWH being vindictive and arbitrary; it is a realistic expectation when “punishment” comes in the form of invasion and exile.
Punishment of the unrighteous in Israel is not the only way that sin is removed: the angel places a burning coal on Isaiah’s lips which takes away (aphelei) his lawlessness and purifies his sins—though even here there is an implied violence. But the critical interpretive context for Romans 11:26-27 is provided by the Isaiah passages, in which the thought is of a severe disciplining of the nation on account of its acts of lawlessness and injustice and sins.
All roads lead to Rome…
It is unclear whether Paul shared Jesus’ premonition of a devastating war against Rome as the judgment of God against a wicked and perverse generation of Jews; and it is difficult to know how the ripple effect of such a catastrophe for Jews of the diaspora would have been imagined.
But the extrapolation is not difficult to make. Paul has already catalogued the sins of his people in the language of the Psalms and Isaiah—including this statement from Isaiah 59: “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known” (Rom. 3:15-17; cf. Is. 59:7-8). The chapter tells Paul’s story for him: there is no justice in Israel, the righteous poor are trampled under foot; therefore, there can be no complaint if God dresses for war and comes in person to banish wickedness from Zion.
God does not regret the choice of Israel—the “gifts and calling”—but the demonstration of mercy towards his people cannot be separated from the punishment of disobedience (Rom. 11:28-32). We may not like the sound of that, but it is a thoroughly biblical idea, and it is how history played out, up to a point.
By this stage, within enough gentiles having come in (Rom. 11:25), Israel has missed the opportunity to be saved by repentance and forgiveness. But if the deliverer comes, whether to or from Zion, and banishes impiety, violently removes the sin of Jacob, then a cleansed nation is left, in that restricted sense having received mercy.
In this way, “all Israel” is saved, not by the inclusion of all but by the exclusion of many, who are cast into the outer darkness, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, as Jesus put it.
But the Roman-Judeo war doesn’t end with the Jews converting, and starting to believe in Jesus. And I don’t think they got jealous to the point of converting either? Did Paul get this one terribly wrong?
His answer to the question in 11:11 sounds very odd (if his expectation of an impending doom upon Jerusalem is real). The Jews do seem like, yes, they stumbled (not believing in Jesus) in order that they might fall (destroyed by God’s judgement at the hand of the Romans). Then the other part in this verse is also odd. What does “salvation” here mean when he says “Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous”?
Also, what is the “fullness of Gentiles”? I used to think that the book by Jason Staples, “Paul and the Resurrection of Israel,” gave the best answer, but in pages 319-320 he seems to be stating the opposite of this blog post, that the quote from Isaiah isn’t about a coming disastrous destruction:
By changing the wording to “from Zion,” Paul is able to connect Isaiah’s promise of the removal of Jacob’s impiety (cf. Rom 1:18-32) to the promise of restoration from captivity and “confirms his contention that God has fulfilled his promises to Israel by extending a gospel of faith to those Gentiles who were always meant to be part of Israel in its final form.” Also, whereas the MT and other ancient versions of Isa 59:20 say the redeemer will come “to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,” Paul’s citation agrees with the LXX, in which the redeemer turns away Jacob’s impiety, reinforcing the emphasis of Rom 10 that the redeemer brings justification rather than repentance bringing the redeemer. Jacob’s impiety – that is, Israel’s persistent violation of the first command to love YHWH – has now been solved by the redeemer (Deut 30:6).
Given the context of the Isaiah passage that you illustrated, that’s a big issue to his thesis.
@Alfred:
Thanks, Alfred. These are useful thoughts.
Paul didn’t get it wrong, I think; he just didn’t know. It is contingent upon Israel repenting and changing its mind about Jesus: “if they do not continue in their unbelief” (Rom. 11:23). Historically speaking, he hoped that his people would confess Jesus as Lord either before or after wrath against the Jews. As it turned out, the Jews didn’t change their mind, but he didn’t live to find out.
I would say that verse 11 expresses his deep concern that his people would not fall, not his certainty that they would not fall. If we translate mē genoito as “let it not be!,” this does not absolutely exclude the possibility of their failure to repent.
I take the salvation of the gentiles to mean that they are saved from the dereliction of the classical order that is passing away to be part of a religious movement that anticipates the conversion of the Greek-Roman world. They are saved from wrath against the Greek to participate in a people that has been saved from wrath against the Jew.
The quotation from Staples merits closer consideration, but my first reaction is that it doesn’t do justice either to the immediate connection to the olive tree allegory or to the prominence of the theme of wrath against the Jew in the letter. And why does he reference 1:18-32 when he is talking about the “removal of Jacob’s impiety”?
Also, I don’t agree with his understanding of turning away impiety. In Isaiah 59, the means of turning away impiety is God coming to destroy his enemies.
But not having the wider context, I may have misjudged the quoted section.
@Andrew Perriman:
If we translate mē genoito as “let it not be!,” this does not absolutely exclude the possibility of their failure to repent.
This seems like a better translation. Thanks.
I take the salvation of the gentiles to mean that they are saved from the dereliction of the classical order that is passing away to be part of a religious movement that anticipates the conversion of the Greek-Roman world. They are saved from wrath against the Greek to participate in a people that has been saved from wrath against the Jew.
But couldn’t the Gentiles have been saved without being grafted into “Israel”? Isn’t this the classic Jewish view of the new age where Jerusalem/Zion will be vindicated, and made supreme to other nations? So even if other nations exist, they do not participate in the new world in the same way as Israel does. Even Jesus doesn’t seem to hint at any inclusion of the Gentiles, but it happens late in Acts with Peter’s vision, without giving much explanation, it just happens.
The quotation from Staples merits closer consideration, but my first reaction is that it doesn’t do justice either to the immediate connection to the olive tree allegory or to the prominence of the theme of wrath against the Jew in the letter. And why does he reference 1:18-32 when he is talking about the “removal of Jacob’s impiety”?
Staples offers a new interpretation of the “mystery of Israel’s salvation.” I agree with you that he doesn’t do justice to the theme of imminent wrath against the Jewish nation, but the importance of his work is that it tries to explain topics that you might have overlooked:
- the problem of including the Gentiles into God’s people mentioned earlier in my comment;
- the other point is that Staples does think that “all Israel” was saved, but this was rather done in a mysterious way. You, on the other hand, seem to believe that “all Israel” wasn’t saved, but most of Israel perished, so there is really no mystery to explain, Paul was just hoping for a mysterious jealousy/repentance to happen (if I understood you correctly);
- another issue is how Paul feels OK with applying passages directed at Israel to Gentiles (like his Hosea quote in chapter 9);
- an explanation for the “fullness of Gentiles.”
I think you’d be interested in reading his new idea. I will try to summarize it here if you’re interested, otherwise, I’m sorry for the long post.
According to Staples, interpreters neglected an important distinction between Judah, and Ephraim/Manasseh/Jacob/Israel. Southern Kingdom (Judah, Benjamin, Levi), and Northern Kingdom. This would make “all Israel” mean all the 12 tribes of Israel, not just Judah. He believes that Judah was justified in looking at the Samaritans with suspicion, and that books like Hosea describe Israel (the Northern Kingdom) as if it were “gentilized,” in some real sense, due to their idolatry and mixing with the nations. So to restore “all Israel” (all the 12 tribes, not just the ones in Judah) an inclusion of the Gentiles was necessary. It’s why Staples references the opening of Romans when talking about Jacob (supposedly a way to talk about the Northern Kingdom, similar to “Judah”). He tries to cite other lists of sins to show the similarities between them and the ones in Romans 1. The sin of Ephraim made them no different than Gentiles, which makes salvation kinda mean weird, colorful way of speech, rather than the more direct, and material meaning of yours (to be saved from a coming judgement). This would then justify Paul in applying Hosea to Gentiles. God is restoring his lost people, by calling them back from the Gentile nations. This scheme fulfills the prophecy in Genesis 48:19, Ephraim became the fullness of nations.
His paper is way more succinct than his book, and it lays out pretty much the same idea.
Also, I don’t agree with his understanding of turning away impiety. In Isaiah 59, the means of turning away impiety is God coming to destroy his enemies.
Yes, it is a problem. He totally ignores this part. But maybe your two views can be mixed together in some way since both the Gentiles (or in his case Ephraim/Jacob), and Judah were about to go through God’s judgement through the risen Jesus? Here’s the part prior to the quote I included in my previous reply:
Here Paul returns to the mechanism of Israel’s salvation [I don’t know what Staples really means by salvation]: justification through the new covenant, provided by the redeemer who came from Zion to redeem the whole people of Jacob. All those who have the “Torah written on the heart” (Jew or gentile) become part of the renewed, eschatological ekklēsia of Israel. Notably, Paul’s quotation of Isa 59:20 diverges from all extant ancient versions, which say the “deliverer will come to Zion” or “for Zion’s sake” rather than “from Zion.” Although some have argued that this alteration should be understood as referring to “Christ’s parousia from the heavenly Zion,” it is more likely that Paul (or the version from which he is quoting) has assimilated Isa 59:20 with psalmic passages proclaiming deliverance for the people of Israel scattered among the nations. For example: Who will give the salvation of Israel from Zion? When the Lord turns back (ἐπιστρέφω) the captivity (αἰχμαλοσία) of his people, let Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad. (Ps 14:7 [13:7 LXX]; par. 53:7 [52:7 LXX])
@Alfred:
But couldn’t the Gentiles have been saved without being grafted into “Israel”?
Yes. I think that Paul makes a distinction between Gentiles who become part of the covenant community through faith in Jesus and reception of the Spirit and Gentiles who are simply found to be righteous on the day of God’s wrath against the Greek world.
Believing gentiles are included in the covenant people which therefore becomes an intentional sign of, or witness to, the future confession of Jesus as Lord by the nations, but wrath against the Greek is fundamentally a judgment of an idolatrous and morally corrupt culture, and Paul allows that some gentiles will secure a place in this new future on the grounds that they do not sin in the manner outlined in Romans 1:18-32.
Arguably, then, the “church” was expected to function in the righteous monotheistic age to come in an extended sense as Zion or the temple or as YHWH’s priesthood for the nations, their “Lord” being acknowledged as supreme above all other political-religious and spiritual powers.
I’ll see if I can have a look at Staples’ article and deal with it separately. My immediate thought is that there is nothing in Paul’s letters elsewhere or in Luke’s account of his conversion and mission that suggests that the distinction between Israel and Judah was of such importance to him. At multiple points, he expressly addresses tensions between Jews and gentiles, but where does he expressly make the necessary distinction between gentiles and gentilized Jews? Why is there no thought that the branches grafted in from a wild olive tree were actually once an organic part of the tree?
@Alfred:
I read Staples’ JBL article. Here are my reflections on it. Thanks for pointing me to it.
Recent comments