"All Israel" bibliography and endnotes
Select Bibliography
Achtemeier, Paul J. Romans. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985.
Barrett, C. K. The Epistle to the Romans. Black's New Testament Commentaries. Henry Chadwick, Gen. Ed. Peabody, MS: Hendrickson, 1991 (1957).
Beale, G. K. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
Beker, J. C. "The Faithfulness of God and the Priority of Israel in Paul's Letter to the Romans." Harvard Theological Review, 79:1-3:10-16 (Jan.-July 1986).
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996 (1938).
Bray, Gerald, Ed. Romans. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament, Vol. 6. Thomas C. Oden, Gen. Ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998.
Briscoe, D. Stuart. Romans. The Communicator's Commentary, Vol. 6. Lloyd J. Ogilvie, Gen. Ed. Waco, TX: Word, 1982.
Bruce, F. F. 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 45. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, Gen. Eds.; Ralph P. Martin, N.T. Ed. Waco, TX: Word, 1982.
__________. The Letter of Paul to the Romans (Revised Edition). Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Leon Morris, Gen. Ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
Calvin, John. "Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans," Calvin's Commentaries, Vol. 19. John Owen, trans. and ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979 (1849).
Campbell, W. S. "The Freedom and Faithfulness of God in Relation to Israel." Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 13:27-45 (Oct. 1981).
Chilton, David. Paradise Restored: A Biblical Theology of Dominion. Fort Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1985.
Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Vol. 2. J. A. Emerton and C. E. B. Cranfield, Gen. Eds. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979.
Denney, James. "St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans," The Expositor's Greek Testament, Vol. 2. W. Robertson Nicoll, ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990 (n.d.).
Godet, F. Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Vol. 2. A. Cusin, Trans. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, n.d.
Haldane, Robert. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans. Mac Dill AFB, FL: MacDonald Publishing, 1958.
Harrison, Everett F. Romans. The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 10. Frank Gaebelein, Gen. Ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.
Hendriksen, William. "And So All Israel Shall Be Saved." (Booklet) Grand Rapids: Baker, 1945.
__________. Exposition of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Vol. 2 (Chapters 9-16). New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981.
Hodge, Charles. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993 (1886).
Hoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.
Hofius, Otfried. "'All Israel Will Be Saved': Divine Salvation and Israel's Deliverance in Romans 9-11." The Princeton Seminary Bulletin, Supplementary Issue # 1 (1990), 19-39.
Horne, Charles M. "The Meaning of the Phrase 'And Thus All Israel Will Be Saved' (Romans 11:26)." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 21:4:329-334 (Dec. 1978).
Hvalvik, Reidar. "A 'Sonderweg' for Israel: A Critical Examination of a Current Interpretation of Romans 11:25-27." Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 38:87-107 (Feb. 1990).
Johnson, Dan G. "The Structure and Meaning of Romans 11." The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 46:91-103 (Jan. 1984).
Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Trans. and Ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Columbus, OH: Wartburg Press, 1945.
Longenecker, Bruce W. "Different Answers to Different Issues: Israel, the Gentiles and Salvation History in Romans 9-11." Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 36:95-123 (June 1989).
Luther, Martin. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. J. Theodore Mueller, Trans. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1976.
Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the Romans. John C. Moore and Edwin Johnson, Trans. William P. Dickson, Trans. and Ed. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1889.
Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Gordon D. Fee, Gen. Ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans, Vol. 2 (Chapters 9 to 16). The New International Commentary on the New Testament. F. F. Bruce, Gen. Ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990 (1965).
Robertson, O. Palmer. "Is There a Distinctive Future for Ethnic Israel in Romans 11?" Perspectives on Evangelical Theology. Kenneth S. Kantzer and Stanley N. Gundry, Eds. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979.
Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Moisés Silva, ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.
Stott, John. Romans: God's Good News for the World. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994.
Thielman, Frank. "Unexpected Mercy: Echoes of a Biblical Motif in Romans 9-11." Scottish Journal of Theology, 47:2:169-181 (1994).
Vanlaningham, Michael G. "Romans 11:25-27 and the Future of Israel in Paul's Thought." The Master's Seminary Journal, 3:141-174 (Fall 1992).
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Endnotes
1 Representatives: Calvin. Horne (331) also cites Luther, Augustine, Archer, and Barth for this position.
2 Representatives: Hoekema, Berkhof, Hendriksen, Lenski.
3 Representatives: Hodge, Murray, Bruce, and a great number of Puritans. The head-for-head variation is adopted by Meyer.
4 A fourth opinion, which we will not deal with extensively here, clearly falls outside the Reformed camp: "all Israel" is taken to refer to all Jews throughout history. Representatives include Sanday and Headlam and others.
5 It must be noted that the author to Hebrews makes use of these same texts (Is. 59:20 and Jer. 31:34) with reference to the Church (Heb. 10:16-17; cf. 8:10). If Romans 11 and Hebrews have differing (but both legitimate) applications of these prophecies, we are confronted with a more complex hermeneutical situation than would be the case otherwise.
6 Two questions that are not pertinent to the issue: whether there is more than one way of salvation (one for Gentiles and another for Jews); and whether Israel will be reconstituted as a theocratic kingdom. None of the three positions we will discuss here necessitate either of these (illicit) notions.
7 It should be noted that in Luther's commentary on Romans itself, he accedes to the position that "the Jews who are now fallen, will be converted and saved. . . . They will not remain outside forever, but in their own time they will be converted" (161-162). Nonetheless, the position adopted at the point of writing his commentary was not the legacy left on this issue, as Luther's translator, Mueller, notes following the above quotation.
8 Citations from Romans 11 are my own translation.
9 Moo 721.
10 Calvin 437; emphasis mine. This notion of a future recovery is reiterated throughout his exposition of the chapter.
11 Calvin 438.
12 Hendriksen Exposition 359.
13 Ibid. 381.
14 Horne 330; cf. Lenski 679.
15 Robertson 214-215; Hendriksen Exposition 366-368; Lenski 695, 700.
16 Hendriksen Exposition 385.
17 Ibid. 368.
18 Ibid. 381.
19 Cf. Murray 75: "'I say then', as in verse 1, is Paul's way of introducing a question intended to obviate a conclusion which might seem to follow from what precedes." If Paul merely intended to posit a true Israel, set over against the hardened mass, his purpose would have been accomplished. But the fact that he continues beyond verse 10 indicates another intention.
20 Robertson 213.
21 Moo 674.
22 Note the present tense verbs and participles. It is important to underscore the fact that throughout the Old Testament, God repeatedly refers to the nation as "His people." E.g. Ex. 3:7, 10; 1 Sam. 9:16-17; Hos. 4:6; Am. 9:10. Particularly pertinent is Is. 1:3, where "My people" refers to those who "do not understand," subsequently described as a "sinful nation" which has "abandoned the LORD" (1:4). Even as in Paul's day, there was a hardened mass - and God identified it as "My people."
23 This is why Robertson's statement of the questions is problematic. While eschatology is definitely involved, what underlies that eschatology is the covenant promises that belong to Israel. Paul's purpose is to show that those gifts of 9:4-5 are irrevocable (11:29). The eschatology per se is not the point: the issue is the faithfulness of God to His promises.
24 One of the most blatant examples of equivocation with regard to the identity of who is involved in 11:11ff. can be found in Horne (330): "God has not cast off his people; his purpose regarding spiritual Israel (Israel of the promise) is yet to be fulfilled. In the present their stumbling has meant salvation for the Gentiles (11:11)." But Paul's point has been, not that spiritual Israel has stumbled, but that the nation has. "Spiritual Israel" has obtained what Israel was seeking - but the rest were hardened (11:7).
25 On the function of the remnant, see Johnson, passim.
26 Haldane 525.
27 Johnson 92.
28 See, e.g., Beale 160, esp. footnote 39. Beale cites Dodd and Hays as offering trenchant arguments concerning the need to respect the Old Testament context when dealing with New Testament allusions and citations.
29 Sic. Should be 29:4.
30 Schreiner 587-588.
31 Schreiner 628; cf. Moo 735. Cranfield 586, writes: "Paul sees the time which begins with the gospel events and extends to the Parousia as a unity. It is all the eschatological now."
32 If the heart of Paul's argument were temporal rather than logical, he could have used the present tense indicative, rather than an aorist subjunctive.
33 Note the language of v. 7: the mass is termed Israel, as over against the remnant: "That which Israel seeks, this it has not obtained - but the election has obtained [it]."
34 As has been done, e.g. by Murray 93-96. Postmillennialists, of course, are eager to parallel plhrwma in verse 25 to the same word in verse 12, since for them, such clearly denotes the widespread success of the gospel in converting both Jews (11:12) and Gentiles (11:25). Amillennialists, naturally, are a little more hesitant to make such a parallel.
35 I do admit, however, that my opponents could plead that the aorist here is culminative. But I would suggest that the aorist here is closely related conceptually to the aorist in verse 31, which refers to the showing of mercy to Israel (a verb which is certainly not culminative, since the culminative idea is not intrinsic to its lexical meaning, cf. Wallace 559).
36 Although there are other objections (and responses) on Hendriksen's list, I find only these two particularly compelling and thus worth following up on.
37 Hendriksen Exposition 382.
38 9:6 is not damaging to my case, because in that verse Paul is explicitly making a play on words between the nation and the elect, in a way that could not be misinterpreted. Such is not the case here.
39 See Ibid. 380.
40 Ibid. 382. In And So 35, Hendriksen articulates the mystery this way: "the very rejection of the mass of Israelites, instead of making void the promise of God would be a link in the fulfilment of that promise."
41 This list is not exhaustive, but I think that these particular evidences are the least answerable. Indeed, I believe that almost every verse in the chapter supports this position. I consider the presence of the remnant in 11:1-7 as itself evidence, but as we have already seen, many interpreters quickly overlook or dispute the significance of that.
42 It will be noted that, unlike many commentators, I take the hina here to be one of purpose, not of result. For the fact is that Israel did fall (v. 22), and reading the clause as one of result forces some sort of addition, such as "fall irretrievably." Although I believe that the logic works out to equal a denial of an irretrievable fall, that is not what the sentence precisely denotes. Rather, Paul is advancing the question of 11:1. So also Murray 75; contra Morris 406.
43 Johnson 99. See Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:15.
44 Hodge 368.
45 Does this last fact support the idea that the root could refer to the Jewish remnant, after all? On the other hand, the word "some" (tines) in verse 17 probably weakens such an argument.
46 There are related interpretive options that also support our position. Some split the metaphors, with the first-fruits referring to the remnant, and the root referring to the patriarchs (Harrison 121; Bruce Romans 205-206; Stott 299; Cranfield 564). But most commentators think it more natural to see a more precise parallelism between the metaphors (Schreiner 601 points out that Paul uses such parallelism in 1 Cor. 3:9ff.). Barrett 200 adopts another interesting option: while root in v. 16 refers to the remnant, "the connection [with the following verses] is verbal rather than substantial"; i.e. in 17-24, there is a switch and the root now refers to the patriarchs.
47 Lenski 703. Notice also Hendriksen 369-370, where in commenting on 11:16, he is unable to articulate any significant movement in Paul's argument. Essentially, all he can say is that the elect are set apart for sacred use.
48 We are speaking here, as is verse 16, of holiness in terms of God's election setting someone apart, and not in terms of ethical distinctiveness as such.
49 Granted, this is a conditional sentence - but the condition is factual, not hypothetical.
50 In Vanlaningham's helpful study, he essentially comes to the conclusion that "all Israel" has a meaning no more technical than "the Jews" (163). More precise numerical meaning would have to be drawn from the context.
51 Lenski 732.
52 Hendriksen 384.
53 Notice here that I am turning Lenski's own argument on vv. 12 and 15 against him!
54 Käsemann 311.
55 The opening of Paul's quotation also indicates an allusion to Ps. 14:7: "Oh, that the salvation of Israel would come out of Zion! When the Lord restores His captive people, Jacob will rejoice, Israel will be glad." On the quotations in 11:26-27, Calvin 438 writes, "By these words God distinctly claims for himself a certain seed, so that his redemption may be effectual in his elect and peculiar nation."
56 Although, as we indicated at the opening, we do not have time to go into hermeneutical issues in a paper of this length, one is forced to wonder whether an overreaction against dispensationalism (and, to a lesser degree, premillennialism in general) has placed many Reformed interpreters within too narrow strictures with regard to the interpretation of Old Testament prophecy.
57 Objections 2-7 are drawn from Hendriksen Exposition 379-380; the first is drawn from his comments at 11:25. I have passed over Hendriksen's third listed objection, that the context is dealing with the present and not merely the future, since we have already treated this at length above. The remaining objections are drawn from various passages in Horne, Hendriksen, Lenski and Robertson.
58 Robertson 219-220.
59 Hodge 372-373; Cranfield 575; Murray 92. See the helpful discussion in Vanlaningham 150-152. We would add that the only examples provided by Robertson that are at all convincing are in the indicative. Hoekema's interpretation of Rev. 20:5 requires an understanding of acri (which there also precedes a subjunctive) that is durative (in that passage, however, acri is followed immediately by the verb; the full construction acri hou does not appear, so that we do not have a full parallel here). See Hoekema 236. It should be noted that adopting Hoekema's interpretation is not necessary to a non-premillennial understanding of Rev. 20; indeed, the amillennialist Beale 1015-1016 appeals to similar grammatical considerations in rejecting what is essentially Hoekema's position.
60 Godet 254.
61 Morris 419: "Evidently some Gentile believers were tempted to think that there was no future for Israel. She had rejected the gospel and it had now passed to the Gentiles; Israel was finished, rejected, cast off. God had chosen them instead. It is this kind of pride that Paul is opposing." It is true that the apo merouV implies that there was also a part of Israel which was not hardened, and it could be argued that it is this which is intended to deflate the Gentiles' boasting. But again, is the mere assertion of a permanent remnant really the mystery, accessible only via special revelation? Moreover, the present existence of a Jewish remnant had not forestalled Gentile boasting; why then would an assertion of its permanence do so?
62 Cf. Hvalvik 97.
63 Cf. Harrison 124: "The 'so' (v. 26) is apparently intended to correlate with 'until' (v. 25), thereby acquiring temporal force."
64 Moo 720. Schreiner 621 writes: "Paul denotes the manner or way in which Israel would be saved, and in this context what is distinctive about the manner is the time frame in which Israel would be saved: all Israel is only saved after the fullness of the Gentiles enters in." Another reasonable option for `outwV would be to translate it "in the same way" (cf. 1 Cor. 2:11) and see it as comparative with the previous clause: i.e. even as the fullness of the Gentiles will come in, in the same way all Israel shall be saved. This reintroduces the parallelism between the grafting of Gentiles and the re-grafting of Jews as outlined in verses 17-24. This perhaps places the temporal idea a little further in the background (but recall the presence of acri in the previous verse), but in no way compromises the position being defended here. But I judge that the transition between verses 25-26 is more natural with the more usual translation "thus" or "so."
65 Moo 723. The citation of "all Israel" in Sanhedrin, x. 1 (cited in Barrett 206) is clearly diachronic (i.e. referring to the people of the nation throughout time, rather than in a particular period). That passage states that "all Israel" has a share in the world to come (and then proceeds to exclude Sadducees, heretics, magicians, the licentious, and a number of others).
66 For more on "All Israel," I refer you to point 6 under Argument, above: "The Usage of All Israel Elsewhere."
67 Bruce Thessalonians 48.
68 Schreiner 623.
69 Bruce Romans 210.
70 Robertson 218.
71 Indeed, Jer. 31:34 would seem to disallow such a notion.
72 It should be noted that I am speaking here in a purely spiritual, rather than political sense.
73 Verse 28 reads: "According to the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but according to the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers."
74 Hendriksen And So 31; echoed by Horne 333.
75 Such an objection is, of course, completely punchless with regard to postmillennialism, since it envisions a mass conversion of both Israel and the whole Gentile world.
76 Although Hendriksen Exposition 378 mentions the fact that the Gentiles were in danger of self-conceit, in my opinion his exposition of verse 25 is punchless, which I find unsurprising in light of his view of the content of the mystery. He simply does not provide the text's basis for deflating Gentile arrogance