JP2: St. Paul has
warned the Gentiles not to be proud ("wise in your own
estimation") of their own comparative position with the Jew.
In fact, he has just finished preparing them in verses 23 and 24
that the Jews can easily be "grafted back into the
tree". This then is the context which leads naturally into
verse 25 where the partial hardening to Israel will only last
"until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in". We
know that this "partial hardening" will stop because in
the very next verse, Paul goes on to say "and so all Israel
will be saved." (v.26) Obviously, the hardening will cease
when Israel is saved. Moreover, the identification of
"Israel" in v. 26 is the same "Israel in v.25.
RS2: First, the
passage does not say "will only last." That is merely
your interpretation. It says "until the fulness of the
Gentiles." Below I explain, and you agree, that
"until" cannot be proven to be used in the sense of
terminating the action of the verb. Hence, you DON'T know
the "hardening" will stop (because you don't know
what "until" means)...
JP2: Agreed. But
our respective positions regarding 'until' are comparable, and so
any statement by you (or me, for that matter) is simply
gratuitous unless we can establish whose context is stronger.
This is what I attempted to do. Furthermore, what is gratuitously
asserted can be gratuitously denied: "You DON'T know that
the hardening will NOT stop (because you don't know what 'until'
means...)"
RS3: Yes, but
I'm not the one making dogmatic statements that there will
be a future conversion of Israel. Until I introduced the
alternate possibility to the meaning of ACHRI HOU, you were of
the opinion that Romans 11:25-26 could only be interpreted one
way. END
JP3: No, I never
said that it could only be interpreted only one way. I simply
used the permitted grammatical range of the phrase to argue my
point. You have every right to challenge that, of course, but as
I said before, it is a neutral point. My interpretation of the
phrase has wheels when understood in the context.
RS2:...and you
haven't proven that "all Israel will be saved"
refers to some other group in the distant future as opposed to
those Jews who were saved from the time of Pentecost up to the
present.
JP2: Verse 26 says
"...and so all Israel will be saved..." Therefore, St.
Paul is not talking about individual Jews (your proposition), but
rather "Israel". This is what the text says. In Romans
11, St. Paul refers to the rebellious Jews as "Israel"
(Cf. Romans 11:2, 11:7, 11:11, 11:25, 11:26). Therefore, the
usage by St. Paul of "Israel" favours my view
considerably more than it does yours since, as you will
appreciate, my whole thesis rests on identifying the Israel in
verse 25 with the Israel of verse 26. They are the same group.
And if they are the same group, then my view stands and yours
does not.
RS3: John, your
view, if you take it to its logical conclusion, ends up saying
that EVERY LAST JEW, at some unspecified time in the future, will
be saved. No exceptions. You must have that interpretation since
you are required to be faithful to the word "all." So
if you want to argue this way, you can do so, but you only box
yourself in even more, since to claim that every last Jew of the
future will be saved has absolutely no precedent or Scriptural
evidence.
JP3: Robert, you
know as well as I do that "all" is not always
"all"
"...for
all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..."
(Romans 3:23)
Does
"all" include the Blessed Mother? Clearly not.
"For just
as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made
sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the
many will be made righteous." (Romans 5:19)
Does
"many" not mean "all" in regards to Adam's
sin? Clearly it does.
RS3: As for my
view, I'm not interested in the "individual Jews versus
a mass of Jews" argument that you are trying to force into
this discussion. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that "all
Israel" refers to ALL the Jews God will save, from the time
of Abraham to the time of the end of the world. That is why Paul
makes the distinction in Romans 9:6 that not all descended from
Israel are Israel. We have two different Israels. Those from
Israel who are saved and those who are not. But your view says,
no, there is only ONE Israel at the end of time, because God is
going to save all of them.
JP3: Robert, but
there is only ONE Israel. Now we are finally getting somewhere.
This is a critical point we must consider. Look carefully at
Romans 11:25 again:
Israel has
experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the
Gentiles has come in...(Romans 11:25)
According to you,
there are two Israels - those who are saved and those who are
not. In effect, you have a "hardened Israel" and a
"saved Israel" - two Israels, right? Yet, the above
verse suggests that there is but ONE Israel which has been only
PARTIALLY hardened, not (as you suggest) separated into a
"hardened Israel" and a "softened Israel".
Furthermore, please explain how the GENTILES are COMING INTO this
HARDENED Israel!? Why would they do that if were already the
"saved Israel?" Wouldn't they want to stay right where
they are in the "saved Israel"? As you can see, you
have a big problem here with the "two Israel" program.
On the other hand,
my view makes perfect sense and is in harmony with the whole
context of Romans 11. Israel has become partially hardened
because of their unbelief. To the remnant Jewish population of
Israel is added the fullness of the Gentiles. And once that has
been accomplished, the "partially hardened" and the
"remnant" factions of this Israel will be saved, as the
Scripture attests:
"And so all
Israel will be saved..."
RS1: As I said in
my essay, the word "until" is the Greek achri hou.
Achri hou can either terminate or continue the action. It works
just like the heos hou phrase in Mt 1:25. Catholic doctrine holds
that the heos hou clause continues the action of the verb, and
thus Mary continued her virginity even after the birth of Jesus.
Consequently, if achri hou in Romans 11:25 continues the action
of the verb, then that means Israel's blindness will continue
indefinitely, that is, right up to the end of time. If achri hou
terminates the action of the verb, then the Israel's blindness
will stop at some time, that is, at the fulness of the Gentiles.
JP1: Agreed.
"Achri hou" can mean that the action in the preceding
clause either continues or ceases to continue after
"until". There is no grammatical basis for insisting on
either meaning. But this does not help either your position or
mine. It is a neutral point. The meaning of "achri hou"
must be understood by the context of the passage.
RS2: ...Which
"context" you have not proven applies to a future group
of Israelites.
JP2: Robert, you
have been maintaining that "all Israel" in verse 26 is
basically the remnant Jews who convert. Yet, as I have pointed
out, this is not very cogent, especially considering the Israel
in verse 25 is the "partially hardened".
RS3: I fail to see
how "partially hardened" is going to help you.
"All Israel" refers to all the people from Israel that
God will save from Abraham to the end. If there are some saved,
then the rest are hardened. What is so hard to understand about
that?
JP3: If, as the
text says, "Israel will experience a hardening in part"
and then ALL of this same Israel will later be saved, then how
can you say that these hardened ones are not included in that
salvation?
JP2: Furthermore,
verse 28 says this: "From the standpoint of the gospel they
are enemies for your sake..." So you have a sandwich of the
evil Jews in verse 25 and verse 28. My approach makes the context
consistent by associating the Jews of verse 25 and 28 with 26.
Your approach forces an incoherent context by separating the
identity of Israel: first hardened (v.25), second remnant (v.26)
and then third hardened (v.28) again.
RS3: John, your
"incoherency" is contrived. Romans 11:1-7 already gave
us the back and forth shift regarding Israel. Verses 1-4 speak of
those in Israel who were false worshipers. Verse 5 speaks of a
remnant from Israel who will be saved. Verse 7 then says that
Israel did not obtain what it was seeking for. Paul is constantly
making shifts in who he is addressing. So don't begrudge me
the same opportunity in verses 25-28.
JP3: Sure I will.
The verses you mention are very clear about who St. Paul is
speaking about. But I must insist, and you have to admit, that
there is no demonstrable shift in identity between verses 25-28.
To me, that is as clear as day. Unless you can concede that this
is a difficulty for your position, I don't think this discussion
can move forward on this point.
RS1: But even
then, the "fullness of the Gentiles" could refer to the
end of time and thus Israel's blindness will remain till the end
of time.
JP1: Even if that were true, Robert, it is not the
"when" that counts but rather the "what".
What happens after the "the fullness of the Gentiles comes
in"? ---> "and so all Israel will be saved".
RS2: It does not
say "after." It says "until," and you've
already admitted you can't prove what "until"
means. Moreover, you also cannot prove that the clause "and
so all Israel will be saved" refers to a future time. The
Greek word behind "and so" is HOUTOS. It is an adverb
describing in WHAT MANNER Israel is saved, not WHEN Israel is
saved. The quote you have from Dom Orchard misses this, of
course, since he didn't know Greek.
JP2: Exactly. It's
not the "when" that counts but the "what".
"25...that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until
the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and so all Israel
will be saved; In order for your position to hold, you would have
to say that there is little fluidity between verse 25 and 26. In
addition to arbitrarily assigning a different identity to
"Israel" between the two verses (v.25 being the
"evil" Israel and v.26 being the "remnant"
Israel), you would also have to break St. Paul's quantitative
adjectives which describes Israel in both verses. There is a
"partial" hardening in v.25, just like there is a total
(i.e. "all") softening in verse 26.
RS3: But John, if
the hardening lasts till the end of time, which you can't
disprove because you don't know the meaning of ACHRI HOU,
then the contrast between a partial hardening and the all who are
saved fits perfectly well. The hardened will remained hardened,
but "all" the rest of those who were not hardened will
be saved. There's nothing difficult about this.
JP3: Just a
moment, Robert. Let's step back a moment. You said "all the
rest" will be saved. The text, however, does not say this or
even imply it. It still identifies the hardened with Israel. And
to this WHOLE AND ENTIRE Israel - hardened and softened - ALL of
it - will be saved. "And so ALL Israel will be saved."
It does not say, as you do, that "all the rest of those who
were not hardened will be saved." It says the exact
opposite!
RS1: Be that as it
may, there is nothing in the text of Romans 11, or the Romans
epistle, or the remainder of the New Testament which indicates
that Israel's blindness will be lifted. The only indication St.
Paul gives for who in Israel is saved is the "remnant,"
which he introduced in Romans 11:5.
JP1: Well, I think
it is arguable whether there is no other New Testament reference
which supports the "Jew friendly" position. We'll
address it later. But in respect to Romans 11, verse 25 does
indeed suggest that the blindness will be lifted. We know this
because the "Israel" being spoken of in verse 25 is not
the remnant of verse 5 because the v.25 "Israel" has
been "hardened" and it is this Israel which will be
saved after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
"...just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME
FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB." The final
conversion of Israel could not be known to St. Paul from any
natural source. He himself calls it a mystery, 25, cf. Matthew
13:11, 1 Cor.2:7; Eph 3:3f. Nevertheless he does not claim a
special revelation as the authority for his statement but argues
the point.
RS2: You keep
referring to some future time, but there is no such definitive
marker in the text.
JP2: But the tense
does relate to the future. There is no disagreement between us on
this point, Robert. Why do you keep bringing it up? You yourself
concede it earlier: "...as opposed to those Jews who were
saved from the time of Pentecost up to the present." In
other words, the present for you is St. Paul's future. Our
quarrel is not over what happens to "Israel" in the
future. We both agree that she will be saved. The REAL question
is: Who is this "Israel"? You are identifying
"Israel" as "those Jews who convert". But
wait a minute...am I not saying the same thing? All I am saying
is that the hardening in verse 25 is softened by verse 26 so that
"all" of the Jews will convert.
RS3: John, if
you're not careful, as I said above, you'll end up
saying that "all Israel" must refer to Jews of the
distant future of which ALL of them must be saved in order to
fulfill your interpretation of Rom 11:26. Look at it this way:
There are two possibilities: (A) "all Israel" refers to
all the Jews who will be saved from Abraham to the end of time,
and it will comprise some of those "hardened" in
Paul's time and ours who become saved, while the rest remain
hardened right up until the end. (B) "all Israel"
refers not to the Jews being saved now and until the end of time,
but only to the Jews of the distant future which, since the word
"all" is used, must mean that every last Jew of that
future time is saved. Unless I'm missing something, there
are no other possibilities. But I don't find any evidence in
the context for option B, John. There is absolutely nothing about
a massive, all-or-nothing, conversion in the future.
JP3: Robert, as I
said earlier "all" does not necessarily mean every
single last person. It has a comprehensive meaning not a
categorical one. Do you believe that Mary or Jesus Christ are
sinners because "Jews and Gentiles alike are all
under sin" (Cf. Romans 3:9)?
RS2: There are
many Greek words Paul could have used if he wanted to say 'and
THEN all Israel will saved', but he didn't. And again,
Orchard would not be able to catch this.
JP2: Not so fast,
Kimosabe. You know as well as I do that "could-a,
should-a" grammar is beaten to death as an apologetic
tactic. Remember our little tit-for-tat with Svendsen on
"adelphos" and how many alternatives there are in Greek
for near relations like "sungenis" and
"anepsios"? Are you saying that the grammatical text as
it stands now does not allow for my interpretation? No, you are
not saying that because if you were, you would have cut me down a
long time ago :)
RS3: John, the
point remains that "adelphos" has many meanings, but
"houtos" does not.
JP3: So the
could-a should-a grammar techique is out as an apologetic tactic,
right? Is that a concession, Robert :)
And regarding
"houtos", even under your understanding, my position is
still not diluted at all. True, my position would be even more
enhanced if the Greek meant "AND THEN", but as it
stands now, it is a neutral point.
RS2: Second, the
quote about the Deliverer coming from Zion is from an OT prophecy
about what would happen in the NT when Christ came. He already
came, John. That is why Jews were being saved at Pentecost and
made up the original Christian Church, because the
"Deliverer" came for them, as promised. But when He
comes again it is the end of the world, when salvation is no
longer available.
JP2: 26 and so all
Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER
WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
Robert, there is no necessity to believe that St. Paul is using
this as a prophetic utterance concerning the first coming of the
Messiah. Admittedly, this is the context of the Old Testament
passage, but the Apostle could have another emphasis concerning
its usage in this particular passage.
RS3: Well, if you
admit that the OT context is speaking of the first coming of
Christ, then the burden of proof is on you to show that it
isn't on the first coming, but some "other
emphasis." Otherwise, you are using as proof something you
haven't proven yet.
JP3: OK. Think of
this this way. St. Paul could indeed be using it in a prophetic
sense in a way that points to the completion of God's mission
with the Jews. In other words, in St. Paul's time, we know that
there were "godless" and "hardened" Jews -
even after the death and resurrection of Christ. And so what St.
Paul is doing is reminding his Gentile readers that God has not
forgotten the Jews and will return to finish the job. And what
job is that? Well, simply to "remove ungodliness from
Jacob". We know that ungodliness still resides in Jacob
because in the v.25 St. Paul admits that Israel is partially
HARDENED. Do I get a gold star for that one?
JP2: For instance,
in citing the passage, his point could be simply to emphasize
that God will complete his plan of salvation and remove the
ungodliness of the Jews. This is particularly plausible
considering the very next two verses which speak of the
"hardened" Jews as "God's choice" who are
"beloved for the sake of the fathers." Since when does
God love disobedient Jews? You have to admit that this is hardly
a final and irrevocable indictment by St. Paul against them.
RS3: I never said
it was an "irrevocable indictment." If God is still
saving Jews, and will do so till the end of time, then He has
been faithful to His promise to Abraham. Because of their
multitude of sins, God could have cut the Jews off forever,
without any possibility of salvation. But because of the
"sake of the fathers," He didn't. He still allowed
them to be grafted back into the tree. But, and this is
important, it is not a grafting that will be done universally or
automatically, but, as Rom 11:23 says, "IF they do not
continue in their unbelief will be grafted in again." Notice
that the burden of being grafted back in to the tree is on the
Jew, not on God to perform some miracle of mass conversion for
them with or without their wills accepting him.
JP3: But Robert.
Come now. Salvation is ultimately a gift of God. This is why St.
Paul says in v.32: "For God has bound all men over to
disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."
Remember positive predestination? That is a dogma of the Catholic
Church, Robert. How is it that you can effectively deny this as a
possibility to the Jews?
Let me remind you:
Yet, before
the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in
order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by
works but by him who calls..." (Romans 9:11-12)
And, since God's
purpose in election must stand because it is by He who calls,
then this call to the Jews must also stand "for God's gifts
and his call are irrevocable" (Rom. 11:29).
Also, how do you
know that St. Paul is not merely describing an event which points
to a time where the Jews will indeed come to believe and accept
Jesus as their Messiah? Why is this so difficult to believe? For
heaven's sake, the whole Old Testament is a witness to the
soap-opera marriage between God and his people. What about
Nineveh? How "likely" was it that a whole town would
convert on the preaching of Jonah?
"On the
first day, Jonah started into the city. He proclaimed:
"Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned."
The Ninevites believed God. They declared a fast, and all of
them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth."
(Jonah 3:4-5)
RS1: St. Paul is
not calling it a "mystery" in the sense that we don't
know anything about it, but a mystery in the sense that a
continual blindness on Israel is indeed a phenomenon that is hard
to understand. For example, if someone were to ask; "Why do
most Jews seem so obstinate toward Christ and the gospel?"
The answer would be: "Well that is indeed a mystery how a
people who received the covenants, the law, the promises, the
temple, the glory of God (Roman 9:4-5) could have such unbelief
in God. This was the constant plea from the prophets in the Old
Testament, that is, that God was in their very midst, they saw
his miracles, but they still rejected him. That is indeed a
"mystery." That St. Paul is not using the word
"mystery" in the sense of some unknown future
conversion is noted by his preceding remark: "I do not want
you to be UNINFORMED." If he doesn't want them to be
uninformed of the mystery, that means he wants them to be
informed of the mystery. What is the "mystery"? That
Israel will be blinded until the fulness. Hence, its not a
mystery in the sense of the unknown, because he just told them
the nature of the mystery. The mystery is Israel's continual
blindness while many of the Gentiles are coming into the Church.
JP1: With respect,
Robert, I don't think that is a very cogent answer. First of all,
the reason that St. Paul says to the Gentiles "I do not want
you to be uninformed" is to warn them that there is a
mystery at play here. They do not have the right to treat the
Jews as accursed and forever damned. This is why he says in verse
23: "And they also, if they do not continue in their
unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in
again. And then he goes on to say... "...how much more will
these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own
olive tree? For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of
this mystery..." He is trying to pin down any manufactured
arrogance that the Gentiles might have towards the Jews by
reminding them that #1 God can do anything He likes - even graft
the Jews back into the tree and #2 that He does intend to do it
"mysteriously" when "the fullness of Gentiles
comes in." And this understanding flows naturally into St.
Paul's concluding remarks at the end of the chapter: "For
just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown
mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been
disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may
now be shown mercy." (v.30-31) The reasons which he advances
are taken (1) from the Scriptures (2) from Israel's history, (3)
from the divine plan of salvation. (1) The evidence from
Scripture, 26 f., plus the concluding clause 'when I shall take
away their sins' from Isaiah 27:9. See also Jeremiah 31 (38):
31-34.
RS2: Due to the
judgments against the Jews, it was tempting for the Gentiles to
think that NO Jews were being saved. But Paul wants to impress
upon the Gentiles that God is still saving the Jews. He has not
rejected them. The whole context of Romans 11 opens up in Romans
11:1-2 with the question: "God has not rejected his people,
has he?" Paul answers this question not by appealing to some
future glory for Israel but by saying that God is saving them
RIGHT NOW, and thus he is fulfilling his promise to the ancient
fathers. They are being saved now because the
"Deliverer" has come to save them who was promised to
the fathers in the Old Testament.
JP2: If St. Paul
is saving them right now only, then why does he say: "and so
all Israel will be saved". If St. Paul meant the present
tense, "there are many Greek words Paul could have used if
he wanted to say 'the Jews are being saved right now' but he
didn't." In other words, Robert, there would be no
reason for St. Paul to point to the future in verse 26 in regards
to Israel if God were saving them RIGHT NOW. It would be
disjointed and superfluous to do so.
RS3: No, John, the
tense doesn't work that way. "Will be saved" is
used because not all the Jews who are going to be saved exist
yet. Hence, the sum total of all Jews who will be saved can only
come about at some time in the future.
JP3: Granted. This
is possible, but it does not respect the identity of
"Israel" - hardened or otherwise.
JP2: Moreover, I
must insist that you identify for me which Jew St. Paul is
speaking about? Is it the "hardened" or the
"remnant". If it's the former, I win. If it's the
latter, you win. It's that simple. The text preceding St. Paul's
"mystery introduction" in verse 25 is clearly
identifying Israel with the "hardened" camp. The
remnant can hardly be described as "continu[ing] in their
unbelief", can they? 23 And they also, if they do not
continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able
to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut off from what is
by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature
into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will those who are
the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? 25 For
I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery.
RS3: John,
you're trying to dichotomize something that does not need to
be dichotomized. "All Israel" refers to the remnant who
have already been born but became saved before they died, as well
as all those who are "hardened" now but "do not
continue in their unbelief," as well as all those of the
future who will be born and become saved.
JP3: So what you
are telling me is that the Israel in verse 25 and the Israel in
verse 26 are not the same. Is that what you are saying?
RS2: Listen to the
words of Luke 1:68-79, spoken by the Jew, Zechariah. 68
"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and
redeemed his people, 69 and has raised up a horn of salvation for
us in the house of his servant David, 70 as he spoke by the mouth
of his holy prophets from of old, 71 that we should be saved from
our enemies, and from the hand of all who hate us; 72 to perform
the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy
covenant, 73 the oath which he swore to our father Abraham, 74 to
grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies,
might serve him without fear, 75 in holiness and righteousness
before him all the days of our life. 76 And you, child, will be
called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the
Lord to prepare his ways, 77 to give knowledge of salvation to
his people in the forgiveness of their sins, 78 through the
tender mercy of our God, when the day shall dawn upon us from on
high 79 to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the
shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace."
This language is
almost identical to the language of Romans 11, especially Romans
11:25-32. Yet there is one important thing about it. It
doesn't refer to the distant future, but to the time that
Zechariah, the Jew, lived. Zechariah says that the Jews have
received their deliverance as spoken by the "mouth of the
holy prophets," and which was "promised to OUR
fathers" in the "holy covenant." They are
"delivered from...enemies," just as Romans 11:26 calls
Christ the "Deliverer" who establishes the
"covenant" that "forgives their sins." The
New Testament is just dripping with passages like this, but they
all refer to the present time.
JP2: OK. Kimosabe.
I must be missing something here. Were there not Jews subsequent
to St. Paul's Gospel who converted? Yes there were. What is to
say that a good portion of them will not one day convert also?
How do the above verses speak against this? I cannot understand
how the above verses take away from a future conversion of the
hardened Jews.
RS3: For the
simple reason that you can't have your cake and eat it too.
If you maintain that "all Israel" only refers to the
future, then you are stuck with the meaning of "all"
for that future time period. Hence, you cannot say, as you did
above, that there will only be a "good portion of them"
who will convert some day in the future. You must say that ALL of
them in that future time will convert, with no exceptions.
You've been disproven by your own words. My interpretation
has been faithful to the meaning of "all," since
I'm saying that it refers to ALL those Jews from Abraham to
Christ's coming who will be saved. But you are making
"all" into only a "good portion." Can't
do that, John.
JP3: As discussed
twice already, St. Paul's use of "all" can hardly be
considered to be technically rigid - at least from a Catholic
perspective. I have given you three verses which indicate this.
What is your answer to it?
RS2: Second, you
quoted from Romans 11:31 to try to prove your point ("so
these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy
shown to you they also may now be shown mercy.") but the
verse is in the PRESENT TENSE and refers to THAT time. There are
two usages of the word "NOW" (Greek: nun) that
emphasize the present. That is, there are Jews who are NOW being
disobedient, but because of the Gospel, they may also NOW be
shown mercy. The two NOW's are coincident, that is, they are
taking place at the same time, in the present, not somewhere in
the distant future.
JP2: I grant you
this and agree with your interpretation about the present tense.
But that does not detract from my argument. St. Paul's point in
this passage is simply to remind the Gentiles that both Jew and
Gentile as peoples need mercy: "For God has shut up all in
disobedience so that He may show mercy to all." (v.31)
Therefore, one may say that the fulfilment of God's mercy towards
the Jews begins in St. Paul's time but does not end in it.
Indeed, if there were disobedient Jews in St. Paul's time who
were being shown mercy in the first century (as you admit by the
way - see my underlining of your answer above), why would God's
mercy on the Jews cease after the first century even up to our
own time?
RS3: But I never
said it did cease. I'm sure you've heard of Jews
converting to Christianity in our day, haven't you, John?
Well, there have been Jews converting to Christianity since the
time of Pentecost, and it hasn't stopped. If you can't
find a time where God has stopped saving Jews, then your argument
simply does not hold.
JP3: Huh? How is
that relevant? All I am saying is that indeed God has been saving
the Jews since the time of Pentecost and that there is a Pauline
prophesy that this salvation will come en masse one day -
that's all.
JP1: Robert, there
is no contradiction between saying that Christ is the fulfilment
of the promise and saying that the Jews will one day experience
that fulfilment. The view proposed only seeks to highlight the
fact that the Jews will be "grafted back into the tree"
one day and only this remains to be fulfilled. No one is denying
that Christ fulfilled the promises to Abraham. The only thing
that is being proposed is that, out of God's gracious mercy, the
Jews will one day recognize Christ and join the Church.
RS2: If God is
saving Jews today despite the fact that He judged them, that is
the "grafting back" into the tree they were once part
of. How can you argue otherwise? Paul never argues that this
grafting is reserved for some future time. What good would that
do for all the millions of Jews living presently?
JP2: But could you
not ask the same thing about the Gentiles before Christ came?
RS3: Only if one
argued that Gentiles were not being saved before Christ came, but
that is certainly not the case.
JP3: Yes, agreed.
But when you asked "What good would that do for all the
millions of Jews living presently?", the answer is: not a
heck of a lot since they have refused to believe. However, what
has that got to do with the FUTURE Jews who, according to St.
Paul's prophesy, will turn to Christ? God is not obligated to
save every Jew from every generation.
RS2: He merely
makes a simple indicative statement in Romans 11:23 that "if
they do not continue in their unbelief, they will be grafted
in."
JP2: Yes, and then
he goes right into talking about the mystery as if to suggest
that it will happen. The indicative statement is followed up by a
prophetic statement. In other words, "If they do not
continue in their unbelief, they will be grafted in. So don't be
wise in your estimation because there is a mystery at play here
concerning the hardened Jews...."
RS3: Yes, but if
the other possibility was that God could have cut the Jew off
without any possibility of salvation, then there would be no more
"mystery" left, since no Jew could be saved. It remains
a "mystery" whether Jews will be grafted back in, since
God has not taken away the POSSIBILITY that they can still be
saved. But again, if they are grafted back in, it's not
going to be by some miraculous all-inclusive conversion, but only
by those who "do not continue in their unbelief."
JP3: ...which just
happens to be all Israel - the one that St. Paul says
Jesus is coming back to in order to "remove
ungodliness". And what makes you think that God is precluded
from acting in a miraculous way SO THAT the Jews do not continue
is their unbelief?
RS2: Notice that
the onus is on the JEWS who are now hardened to get themselves
out of unbelief, not on God such that he is required to give them
a future glory by divine mandate.
JP2: Who said
anything about God being "required" to do anything? St.
Paul doesn't. He speaks of the mercy of God: "For God has
shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to
all." (Romans 11:31) And last time I checked, we can't do
squat to get ourselves out of "unbelief" without God's
grace in the first place. God is in control and He does what he
likes... "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have
mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." (Romans
9:18)
RS3: Taking
lessons from Eric Svendsen and James White now, John? Of course
God has mercy on whom He will have mercy. But that doesn't
mean that man doesn't have a free will to reject God. In
fact, the very passage from which Paul quotes in Exodus 33:19 is
a context in which God issues mercy because Moses has exercised
his free will in being obedient to God, unlike his fellow
Israelites who hardened their wills against God.
JP3: And so? Your
whole presupposition, Robert, if you read your comments here and
in the first dialogue, has been to imply that my view of the
Jewish conversion would be some kind of return WITHOUT faith. But
why do you insist on this paradigm? It's ridiculous. Of course
the Jews will have to believe in Christ. Of course there will
have to be co-operation on their part. Who said there would not
be? All I am saying is that God's sovereignty and grace works
where and when it likes, and He is ultimately in control of
everything. Have you solved the intricate mystery between
predestination and free will, Robert? Are you not insisting on
favouring the free will aspect of this question while pushing
aside God's predestination? Remember, it's not an
"either/or" in Catholicism, Robert. It's a
"both".
RS2: In fact, your
view leaves little room for Jews to join the Church today, since
you pile all the promises for salvation into the distant future.
Thus, contrary to Luke 1:68-79, you make the salvation of Jews
presently as having little to do with fulfilled prophecy. But the
whole OT looked forward to the FIRST coming of Christ, and to the
Jews he would save at that time. As Jesus said of Abraham in John
8:56: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he
saw it and was glad." I don't know of one passage in
the OT that speaks of the salvation of the Jews coming at the
Second Coming of Christ. Do you know of one?
JP2: I simply do
not see how my view negates any OT prophesy concerning the Jews
and their rejection of the Messiah. Why is there a necessary
contradiction in saying that the Jews rejected Jesus at one point
in history but will not do so forever? And if it does happen
according to God's gracious mercy, how can this be understood as
rejecting any OT prophesy concerning the Jews' unbelief during
the time of Christ?
RS3: I didn't
say it negates any OT prophesy concerning the Jews and their
rejection of the Messiah., but that it ignores the OT prophecies
that speak of a salvation of Jews at the first coming of Christ
till the end of the world. Again, what passage in the Bible
speaks of a all of the Jews in the distant future as being saved?
JP3: How many do
you need? One passage is enough to settle any question of
doctrine. Purgatory has one good passage. And so does this one.
RS2: When it
looked like after the death of Christ all the Jews were doomed to
perdition, God still reached down and saved "some of
them," as Romans 11:14 specifies. God could have just given
up on all of Israel, but for the sake of the ancient fathers, he
did not give up on them. He, as Romans 11:23 says, grafted back
those who did not continue in their unbelief. It's really
very simple, and that's what Luke 1:68-79 teaches.
JP2: Robert, you
mentioned that God "did not give up on them for the sake of
the ancient fathers". Please, tell me who "them"
are? Here is the identity of "them" according to St.
Paul: "As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies
on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are
loved on account of the patriarchs..." Now, then. Is St.
Paul speaking here about the believing Jews (of whom St. Paul is
warning the Gentiles not to scorn, as you suggested above?) No,
of course not. If the believing Jews were the subject of St.
Paul's discourse here, he could hardly have described them as
"enemies" of the Gentile Christians! Rather, he is
speaking about the enemies of the Christian Gentiles who are the
hardened Jews. IT IS THESE HARDENED JEWS WHO ARE BELOVED ON
ACCOUNT OF THE PATRIARCHS AND NOT THE BELIEVING JEWS.
RS3: No argument
from me, John. It is precisely because God loves these hardened
Jews that they still have a chance to be saved, if they would
only "not continue in their unbelief" (Rom 11:23). When
they do leave their "hardness," then they become part
of "all Israel" who will be saved.
JP3: No. I don't
think so. The verse says: "Israel has experienced a
hardening in part". How can they "become part of all
Israel" when St. Paul says that they ARE ALREADY THE ONES
WHO MAKE ISRAEL HARDENED?!
RS2: You keep
arguing in circles, John. Where have you proven that
"until" means "will be saved in the future,"
and where have you proven that "and so all Israel will be
saved" means "and THEN all Israel will be saved"?
JP2: With respect,
Robert, the subject of "until" is not the subject of my
comment above. It is about the identity of the Jews in V. 26. And
for every time you gratuitously assert I have not
"proven" something, I can say the same to you. Can you
unequivocally say that the grammatical basis I have proposed is
impossible? No. So what are we left with? Context. No one is
going to be able to "prove" anything here. There are
competing contexts - neither of which is without difficulty.
That's the reality. I admit you have some legitimate points, but
there are some major difficulties with your view as well, in my
opinion. So that is why I am just hoping you will become more
temperate in your views about this topic and open up to what the
Catechism and the Pontiff are teaching about it. This could be a
legitimate doctrinal development, which never comes very easily,
let us both admit. History is littered with corpses who refuse to
accept legitimate development because they thought they were
defending "tradition".
RS3: John, what
the Catechism teaches I have already addressed, and it
doesn't teach what you are teaching about Romans 11. As for
the Pontiff, I don't know where he has addressed the
intricacies of Romans 11 in any of his teachings, except to say
that the "Old Covenant has not been revoked," which no
Pope, Council, Doctor or Saint has ever taught in the history of
the Catholic Church. Nor has any of the above ever taught that
the promises of physical land to Israel are still applicable
today (as the pope recently said to Ariel Sharon, as reported by
the Jerusalem post). I would suggest that you stop trying to turn
total reversals of our tradition with the words "doctrinal
development."
JP3: Why? Is it
not the truth? Catholicism in 2003 is hardly the same thing as
Catholicism in 33 A.D. There are PLENTY of things which the
Catholic Church teaches today that it never taught in the past --
at least explicitly. Talk to the Dominicans about the Immaculate
Conception the minute right before Pope Pius IX defined it. They
were fighting it tooth and nail. Something can be relatively
silent or buried for centuries before it comes to light. The only
thing we are guaranteed about is that the Church will never
contradict herself. Can you show me anywhere in the Church's
tradition which has made a definitive or even authoritative
ruling on this question? I don't think so.
RS3: As for your
statement "History is littered with corpses who refuse to
accept legitimate development because they thought they were
defending "tradition" please tell me what you are
referring to and then I can address it. Until then, not every
"development" is legitimate, unless of course you want
to say that the "development" that the Jews no longer
have to convert to Christianity is something legitimate, or that
telling pagans to pray to their false gods for world peace is
also a "legitimate development."
JP3: I see. And to
whom has Our Lord committed the responsibility of saying a
doctrine is legitimate or not? Stagnation is just as much as sin
as "over" development. Go and talk to the Judaisers
about that one.
RS2: Further, you
can't even prove that those who are "partially
hardened" does not refer to those who were in unbelief in
Paul's day and now have joined the Remnant.
JP2: Well, again,
I must insist that my context is superior to the one you have
proposed. The Israel of v. 25 is the same as the Israel in v. 26.
This favours my view and not yours.
RS3: Superior?
Just a few paragraphs ago you said "There are competing
contexts - neither of which is without difficulty. That's the
reality. I admit you have some legitimate points, but there are
some major difficulties with your view as well, in my
opinion." In any case, I already explained earlier how Paul
shifts from between the two Israels in Romans 11:1-7, so my take
on Romans 11:25-26 is not without precedent.
JP3: No, Robert.
You have not proven that at all. Romans 11:1-7 is pretty straight
forward. Romans 11:25-26 is as well. You are just not admitting
that you have a huge problem here. The fact that you do not
concede the difficulty does not make your view more cogent since
you are hanging on to something which just ain't there. It ain't
there.
JP2: Furthermore,
v.23, v.24, v.25, v.27, v.28, v.29, v.30, v.31 are all talking
about the hardened Jews. Why should I believe that v.26 is not?
Let's take a close look at v.25 and v.26 again: "--that a
partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of
the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just
as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE
WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB." Robert, the text above
says Israel will be hardened until the fullness of the Gentiles
"has come in." Here is my question. To whom (or to
what) are the Gentiles "coming into"? The answer is
implied in the very next verse. The Gentiles are coming into
Israel! That's why St. Paul says AND SO all Israel will be saved.
In other words, Israel is divided into two Jewish camps: the
remnant and the hardened. This is why St. Paul describes Israel
as being "partially hardened" in v. 25. He then goes on
to say that this hardening will continue up to the fullness of
the Gentiles ENTERING INTO HER. Verse 26 tells us what happens to
THIS ISRAEL (i.e. the hardened Jews, the remnant Jews, and the
believing Gentiles): "And so all Israel will be saved."
And how can this happen since there are unbelievers in THIS
Israel? St. Paul tells us in the very next verse. He quotes from
the Old Testament: it will be Jesus who will remove Israel's
ungodliness. Now clearly, Jesus is not coming to remove
"ungodliness" from the godly, is He? No. He is coming
to finish the job with "hardened Israel".
RS3: Yet another
angle, John? How many ways do you want to look at this? First,
the text does not have an object for the verb "comes
in." We don't know whether "comes in" refers
to Israel, the Church, or is just some political manifestation.
The only other time "fullness of the Gentiles" is used
in the NT (Luke 21:24) it is equally ambiguous. In any case,
you're above attempt does not prove your point. In fact, if
I were to agree that the Gentiles come into Israel, the fact is
that not all the Gentiles are saved. Only a portion of them would
come in to Israel, and thus, a portion of Gentiles and a portion
of Jews would make up "all Israel."
JP3: Robert, is
that the best you can do? To say that "we don't know whether
"comes in" refers to Israel, the Church, or is just
some political manifestation"? I guess that is the closest
thing to a concession as I am going to get, so I'll take it.
"Israel
has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of
the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be
saved..." (Romans 11:25-26)
C'mon Robert, St.
Paul is not throwing out the "Gentiles coming in" just
for the heck of it. Whether St. Paul is talking about the Church,
Israel, or identifying the Church with Israel is incidental to
the point he is trying to make. The central point is that he is
tying the Israel of v. 25 with v.26 within a SALVIFIC context,
and that's what wins me the booby prize. I think the context is
clear that the Gentiles are coming into Israel. In fact, your OWN
INTERPRETATION demands that, does it not? I mean, you've been
telling me all along that the Israel of v. 26 includes some of
the hardened Jews who convert plus the Gentile Christians, yet in
order for that to happen you must identify the object of
"the Gentile coming in" to be Israel! Checkmate.
RS2: Why? Because
Paul says already in Romans 11:14 that it is his desire to
"save SOME of them." If Paul is, at that time,
witnessing Jews leave their unbelief and be "saved,"
then obviously those Jews have gone from "hardness" to
"being saved." And here's the clincher. Notice in
Romans 11:15 that, after he "saves some," Paul says
"For....their acceptance is life from the dead." The
word "For" is giving the conclusion to Romans 11:14
that said Paul desires to "save some" at the present
time. The only way to connect these two verses is to conclude
that the PRESENT salvation of "SOME" of the Jews is
"life from the dead," wherein "dead"
represented their "hardened" or "ungrafted"
state before they become saved.
JP2: See my
comments above. St. Paul knows that most of the Jews in his time
will reject the Gospel. What has that got to do with God's plan
in the future?
RS3: You're
not dealing with the text, John. You can't slough off the
connection between verses 14 and 15 as if they do no damage to
your interpretation. The very reason I mentioned the connection
is that there are those on your side of the camp who claim that
verse 15 applies only to some future mass conversion. But the
text doesn't say that, does it? It applies the resurrection
from the dead to the present. Granted, it can also apply to
future Jews, but I never said it couldn't. All I said was
that, since it can also apply to future Jews, those future Jews
are going to be saved the same way the present Jews are saved,
that is, by "not continuing in their unbelief."
JP3: But, Robert,
please understand this. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE JEWS WILL NOT
HAVE TO BEND THE KNEE TO CHRIST! All that our side of the fence
is advocating (at least I think) is that Romans 11:25-26 is not a
prophesy of some kind of "automatic conversion without
belief and repentence". That is YOUR presupposition. Not
ours. If you would simply accept the possibility that the passage
in question is DESCRIBING what the END RESULT will be with the
Jews and not how they get there (i.e. believing in Christ), your
central objection becomes superfluous.
JP2: Well, I admit
that St. Paul speaks about "remnants" and
"some" quite a bit, but I wonder if he is not talking
about the Jews of his own day who rejected Christ. Why is this
not a possibility? In fact, come to think of it, what kind of God
would necessarily blind any ethnic group (or the majority of it)
for all eternity - especially when that population today have
been so far removed from Jesus' death? In fact, for your position
to hold (i.e. only a remnant Jewish population will be saved),
you would have to say that God wills to save only a
"remnant" Jewish population to the end of time. Is that
what you are advocating? This is not a rhetorical question, but a
genuine one.
RS3: No, that is
not what I'm advocating. It's not God's fault that
Jews don't believe. The teaching of the whole Scripture is
that Jews don't become saved because THEY refuse Gods
graces. In turn, God blinds them as a punishment. Yet even in
that blindness, there are some who can still become saved,
"if they continue not in their unbelief." The point
remains, John, that you cannot find any Scripture, besides your
question-begging interpretation of Romans 11:25-26, that teaches
a massive conversion of Jews in the distant future. Not only must
you find a massive conversion, but you must show that ALL of
those Jews of that time are saved. You've got a big task
ahead of you.
JP3: I've already
addressed both of these objections previously. "All"
does not always mean "all". And one verse with
Magisterium and Patrisitic backing is indeed enough for my view
to be at the very least permissible. And if it is indeed
permissible, then that begs the question as to the basis
for this conversion. And you know where that leads ----> OC
never being revoked.
RS1: But as I said
earlier, it goes without saying that Israel's blindness will
continue into the future. So St. Paul is not receiving some
stupendous knowledge here. But the question is that, if the
"fullness of the Gentiles" refers to the end of time,
as is implied by passages like Mt 24:14, then their
"fulness" is the terminus, not the beginning. This is
especially true since the word "thus" is not a word
used to extend time beyond a certain point, but a word that
describes the manner Israel is saved, that is, it is not those in
blindness that are saved, but the remnant he introduced in verse
5. This is reinforced in Romans 11:14 which says, "I might
move to jealousy my countrymen and save SOME of them." SOME
is a remnant. Verse 14 is the only other time the word
"save" is used in Romans 11, except in verse 11 in
reference to the Gentiles.
JP2: But Robert,
even if I granted your "terminus" interpretation, your
position still does not adequately explain why Israel (i.e.
"the hardened Jews" of v.25) are saved in v. 26 after
the terminus. For your view to hold any water, you would have to
say that the Israel of v. 26 is not the same as (or at least does
not include) the Israel of v.25. That interpretation is not very
cogent in my opinion, considering there is nothing in the
immediate context of the verses to suggest they are different
groups. As I explained previously, the context is heavily
weighted against you.
RS3: There IS
something in the immediate context – the very shifting Paul
himself uses between Romans 11:1-7, and that in Romans 9:6.
Moreover, verse 26 is a natural consequence of verse 25 in
regards to time. If the time of the Gentiles has come to an end,
a conclusion is now demanded, since the whole context has been
saying that, as opposed to the idea that no Jews can be saved,
"some" indeed can be saved "if they continue not
in unbelief." So verse 26 gives the conclusion. The
"some" that are saved fit into "all Israel,"
from the time of Abraham till the end of time.
JP3: OK. Let's see
how this works. If a conclusion is indeed demanded, for whom,
then, is it demanded? Who is the object of this conclusion? Verse
25 speaks of hardened Israel and the Gentiles. Well, then, these
are the groups which we are talking about. The conclusion is
about ALL ISRAEL. For your view to work, there must be somewhere
in these verses something which separate the "hardened"
from Israel, but it just ain't there since St. Paul says clearly
that "Israel has experienced a hardening in
part." And that, in the very next verse, ALL ISRAEL will be
saved. There is no where in this context which suggests the
hardened part of Israel is no longer Israel. Quite the contrary,
actually: "Israel has experienced a hardening".
RS2: Again, the
verse does not say "saved AFTER the terminus." You keep
putting future time ques in the passage. The passage says,
"and SO all Israel will be saved," not "and THEN
all Israel will be saved." The word "so" is a
Greek adverb pointing to the manner of salvation (the manner that
was described in the context, i.e., "some" in the
present time). How are they saved? According to Romans 11:23-24
it is by being INGRAFTED back into the tree. And who does that
"ingrafting" happen to? To the "SOME" that
Paul says he desires to save in Romans 11:14, since it's all
part of the same context. It's the same reason that Paul
says "And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win
Jews" in 1 Cor 9:20.
JP2: No Robert,
the "ingrafting" refers to neither the "some"
nor the "all". It is indefinite. It could refer to
either. St. Paul is leaving this wide open.
RS3: What other
possibilities are there besides "some" or
"all"? The only other possibility is "none,"
but then that would defeat both your and my interpretation, would
it not?
JP3: It could be
"all", for all we know, in which case it would defeat
your point. You were arguing that the ingrafting only refers to
"some". Furthermore, the "some" which St.
Paul is speaking about is ALL of the hardened.
RS2: P.S. I would
also like to add the following regarding how the Fathers looked
at Romans 11:25-27: Along with Scripture, the consensus among the
early Fathers is that there is no divinely mandated future glory
for national Israel. Divine promises made to Israel are said to
have been already fulfilled in the Old Testament. Remaining
prophecies concerning "Israel" are said to be fulfilled
in the New Testament Church, or in the eternity of the New Heaven
and New Earth. There are only a few personalities who even
address the issue of Israel in the future. Some give commentaries
on Romans 11:25-27, e.g., Origen, Theodoret, Chrysostom, Jerome,
Cyril, Augustine, Pelagius.
JP2: Well, this
only shows how mysterious it is.
RS2: Of those,
Origen admits that he does not know what "all Israel"
means. He writes: "What all Israel means or what the
fullness of the Gentiles will be only God knows..."
(Commentary on Romans, 4:304).
JP2: But, Robert,
all this does is really help support my position. If it were as
clear as you say, then there would never have been any question
as to the correct interpretation. And, if that is in fact the
case, we should afford fellow Catholics the liberty of believing
either view. I cannot see how you seek to bind what the Fathers
apparently did not.
RS3: John,
apparently you have been misunderstanding me since this whole
discussion began. I am arguing against those who think that there
is going to be, ipso facto, a future mass conversion of Israel in
the distant future, and will not accept any other possibility.
They preach their view as dogma, but they haven't even begun
to exegete these passages as you or I have done. And then they
claim to base their view on "tradition," but they are
equally ignorant of that tradition to be so dogmatic about their
one-sided view.
JP3: OK. Then
maybe we are getting somewhere with this. Are you conceding that
my view might be a possibility? If you are not, then I think you
are not being fair with the ambiguity of the text or the witness
of the Fathers or the Pope's views. If you are considering this
as a viable Catholic view, then please explain how you can escape
the issue about the OC never being revoked, and affording this
view the same latitude you would be granting on a potential
mass conversion?
RS2: But although
Jerome and Cyril look for a spiritual movement in the future,
neither of them specify or imply that such movement includes a
national and physical restoration of Israel to the land of
Palestine, and neither did any other Father. Indeed, the earlier
Fathers do not even envision a large conversion of Jews.
JP2: C'mon,
Robert. I don't know about Palestine, but Cyril and Jerome are
supporting my view about an eventual return and conversion. That
is plain as day. Why are you fighting this so much? Let it go. If
you don't, then the Church will move on without you and you will
be left holding a bag of false doctrine. Please, dear brother,
let it go. "But if from there you seek the LORD your God,
you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and
with all your soul. When you are in distress and all these things
have happened to you, then in later days you will return to the
LORD your God and obey him. For the LORD your God is a merciful
God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant
with your forefathers, which he confirmed to them by oath."
(Deut. 4:29-31)
RS3: John, stop
preaching, okay? The fact is that you simply failed to see the
distinction I was making. Cyril and Jerome may have a conversion
of the Jews in mind, but they do not envision God giving the Jews
back the land of Palestine. Even Mark Cameron understands that
distinction, and accepts it.
JP3: What's there
to preach? That's a Scriptural passage right from the heart of
the Old Covenant, and it is saying the same thing that I am
saying. Do you deny it? I don't give two flying figs about the
land of Palestine and neither do Cyril and Jerome. It didn't seem
to bother Cyril and Jerome so why should the land issue bother
me?
