Partial Hardening & The Remnant (Romans 9-11)

[ERK]

Is it possible that the partial hardening refers to the non-elect Israelites, and the remnant refers to the elect Israelites at the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD?

Romans 11:25–27

[25] Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. [26] And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
[27] “and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.” (ESV)

It seems to me that "if" Romans 11:26-27 refers to Israel and not the church, then the banishing of the ungodly and restoration of those who "turn from transgression", and those who in Jeremiah 31 "found grace in the wilderness" are the repentant Israelites who are brought back into the family of God after the destruction of Jerusalem.

This of course is assuming that the "fullness of the Gentiles" in Romans 11:25 is referring to the judgment of Jerusalem in some way.

Could it be that those who fled to the wilderness were the "remnant chosen by grace" "at the present time" in Romans 11:5?

If it is definitely referring to national Israel then the only other option would be to assume that it belongs at the end of age, yes?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I'm trying to get a handle on the thrust of your inquiry.

It's taken me a bit of thought to follow you here, and I'm not sure I quite get it. I hear you offering some unique (?) interpretations I'm not familiar with. So, for example, I've never heard of "the fullness of the Gentiles" being taken in any sense as referring to the fall of Jerusalem. Is there some tie-in to Lk.21:24, and the trampling of Jerusalem "until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled?"

Another instance is the specific reference alleged for Jer.31:2, that it speaks very definitely concerning Jews turning to Christ after the Old Covenant has been permanently swept away (after the terminal generation, ending in A.D.70). This is a quite specific read of that OT passage, and not one I think would have resonated in the hearts of those to whom it was first given.

Is the reference to "those who fled to the wilderness" another allusion (in this interpretation) to Lk.21 (poss. v21)?

To my way of thinking this line of interpretation lacks coherence, even as it seems to draw together various apocalyptic texts.

I personally lean away from the view that v26 is a specifically ethno-religious referent, and toward the view that "Israel" at that point describes the one stock of the redeemed, in which Gentiles have been grafted (Rom.11:17) alongside the Jewish remnant. I tend to regard Paul's treatment as oriented to the end of the world. I think this is also the general opinion of most who take "all Israel" in v26 to be specifically ethno-religious.

 

[ERK]

I am trying to understand the possible implications of reading Romans 11:26-27 as referring to national Israel. I have heard elsewhere that an argument could be made that those verses are referring to a kind of judgment brought on Jerusalem in AD70. That there is some some typological support for Israel being judged through desolation and exile. Then the destroying nation is judged as well.

The line of thought goes something like this...

Daniel 9 speaks of the destruction of Israel. Daniel mentions Jeremiah when perceiving the "number of years". Jeremiah mentions 70 years under the oppression of Babylon (Jeremiah 25) which leads to a similar outcome of daniel 9. Then a list of nations drink the cup of wrath ending with Babylon. So somehow that is speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem followed by the judgments on the nations who do not repent. After the destruction in 70AD, the remnant is restored back to God along with the believing Gentiles.

I don't know if that explanation is that much more coherent. But yes the fulness of the gentiles would have to be referring to the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Gentiles. Luke 21:24, yes.

If this definitely isn't a plausible interpretation of "fulness of gentiles" then the other option is a future time at the end of the ingathering of the gentiles where either all Israel or elect Israel is saved.

Or as you said... It could be referring to the "Israel of God" (which is my default interpretation anyways).

I have a Dispensational friend who insists Israel is always Israel. Just wanting to consider his presuppositions fairly.

 

[Unique Name]

Is it possible that the partial hardening refers to the non-elect Israelites, and the remnant refers to the elect Israelites at the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD?

Romans 11:25–27

[25] Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. [26] And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
[27] “and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.” (ESV)

It seems to me that "if" Romans 11:26-27 refers to Israel and not the church, then the banishing of the ungodly and restoration of those who "turn from transgression", and those who in Jeremiah 31 "found grace in the wilderness" are the repentant Israelites who are brought back into the family of God after the destruction of Jerusalem.

This of course is assuming that the "fullness of the Gentiles" in Romans 11:25 is referring to the judgment of Jerusalem in some way.

Could it be that those who fled to the wilderness were the "remnant chosen by grace" "at the present time" in Romans 11:5?

If it is definitely referring to national Israel then the only other option would be to assume that it belongs at the end of age, yes?

I'm going to distract from your question, but you seem like the right person to talk to about this (and anyone else willing to chime in). First, I do think your understanding of 9-11 is reasonable. It seems like the best approach is to contextualize it as much as possible. E.g., Jerusalem was still existing as the typological "City of God" on some level when that letter was written, so it makes sense for Paul to use dichotomous categories of "Jew" and "Gentile" given that the national identity at that time was the result of a biblical history, unlike the man-made organism of today (I know that will make some mad, but I'm sorry, I don't see mans project in the Middle East as divinely sanctioned).

That said, here is my distraction from your original question: many people do think Rom. 11 applies to national or ethnic (?) Israel today. I am not totally opposed to the idea, but it would seem like God is partial, then, when He elects His chosen. In other words, if Romans 9-11 is an argument about a present and ongoing phenomena of election, then it's not entirely true that God is impartial (or is that not even a problem for Protestantism?). So, the way I see it, If Romans 11 pertains to ethnic Israel throughout history, then I see it as this analogy: there is a bag of green and red balls representing Jew and Gentile; God is not ignoring the color of the balls when choosing each ball. It's not as if God is putting His hand in the bag and choosing indiscriminately, according to this view. He definitely considers the color of the balls when He chooses. So, He is Partial. What's more, what does this say about the individual being elected? There is something inhering in the individual that motivates election, namely ethnic group. Again, it's not an indiscriminate choice of God's, it is a choice based upon ethnicity or national identity.

Does anyone else see this issue? Am I totally off the rails in thinking this way?

P.s. I don't mean to hijack your post. I just thought it is relevant enough.

 

[ERK]

Are you using “election” as those whom He will save? Or as the physical people group he chooses to deal with?

If it’s the first sense then I just want to clarify and make sure I understand your question. Gods election of individuals to salvation according to His eternal will is technically discriminate right? He chooses some that He will later show mercy to and he passes over others. I realize He shows no partiality but in this case it’s according to His will and not according to something in the human to be partial towards.

But I guess the text in question would be this one:

28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.
29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. - Romans 11:28-29

Is the idea that he will grant repentance to some or all of ethnic Israel at the end of the age? Or that He will continue to show mercy to the elect within Israel as he always has?

In what sense are they beloved for the sake of their forefathers? Well it says as regards election. So is that election unto salvation? That there will still be elect Jews? Or is it that they are elect with regard to their mission in redemptive history? To bring the word and to bless the nations? Well it says they are enemies regarding the gospel for our sake. Sooo that doesn’t seem likely.

Seems to me that it means there are still elect Jews at Paul’s time and even still now according to Gods mercy and His will. And that they are in the same boat as any other elect people out of any other nation. They aren’t completely cut off as an ethnic group so as to never see an elect person come from them again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Unique Name]

Are you using “election” as those whom He will save? Or as the physical people group he chooses to deal with?

If it’s the first sense then I just want to clarify and make sure I understand your question. Gods election of individuals to salvation according to His eternal will is technically discriminate right? He chooses some that He will later show mercy to and he passes over others. I realize He shows no partiality but in this case it’s according to His will and not according to something in the human to be partial towards.

But I guess the text in question would be this one:

28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.
29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. - Romans 11:28-29

Is the idea that he will grant repentance to some or all of ethnic Israel at the end of the age? Or that He will continue to show mercy to the elect within Israel as he always has?

In what sense are they beloved for the sake of their forefathers? Well it says as regards election. So is that election unto salvation? That there will still be elect Jews? Or is it that they are elect with regard to their mission in redemptive history? To bring the word and to bless the nations? Well it says they are enemies regarding the gospel for our sake. Sooo that doesn’t seem likely.

Seems to me that it means there are still elect Jews at Paul’s time and even still now according to Gods mercy and His will. And that they are in the same boat as any other elect people out of any other nation. They aren’t completely cut off as an ethnic group so as to never see an elect person come from them again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To answer your first question, that's what I am trying to understand myself, so I don't know. However, my argument is mostly poking at the latter option I suppose; the "physical people group" sense of election. In any case, it seems like Rom. 9-11 is definitely using the term Israel to refer to an ethnic group in some (not all) areas of the three chapters. So, if theologians take these chapters to essentially mean that Israel as a people or ethnicity will continue to be chosen by God as a matter of necessity, then I am somewhat confused about the nature of God and election.

Using my analogy again, I want to give a response to your point about God's "discriminate" election. The way I have understood grace and election has always been like this: I am a single ball among many in a bag waiting to get tossed into the flames. There is nothing in me that God see's as a reason for election. (I take that point perhaps too radically than others and that is why Rom. 9-11, as an argument about the present election of ethnic remnant Israel, is confusing for me). So, lets say that I happen to be one of many green balls, call it gentile, and the rest are red balls, call it Jew. I have always understood both of these predicates to be meaningless to God when He chooses balls out of the bag destined for hell. Indeed, I have always understood any predicate we attach to our being as something God does not consider when He chooses us. But it seems like that is not the case after all, because it seems like (according to most theologians), Rom. 9-11 shows us that the predicate Red (Jew), is a factor of election! It's not merely a ball chosen from the bag by grace, it is a Red ball chosen by grace! Again, the choice was discriminate, not based on the reality that we are all balls in the bag, but that we are different colors, and the color matters (according to my analogy).

 

[ERK]

Trying to better understand your analogy. (I do agree that it would be confusing if there was a sort of favoritism based on ethnicity with regard to election). But I wanted to ask if you believe that election is something that happens in space and time, or if you’re simply just saying that it seems to be that way in romans 9-11 - contrary to how the reformed understand election.

I know analogies often fall short, but if I were to borrow yours and add a component to it to make it more inline with the biblical view of election then it’d go something like this.

God knows which balls are his. He knows what color they will be and everything else about them. Then he creates the balls. Then according to his knowledge and will he reaches in the bag and pulls out all of those that he knew were to be saved before they were created. He never fails to pick all the ones he knew. And it just so happens (from our perspective) that lots of the first ones were Jews and lots of the later ones were gentiles and perhaps there will be many more that are Jews later?

(To clarify, this isn’t toss in the fire election. It’s choosing for the sake of saving a people the way I typed this out).

But I understand, I think, If what you are saying is that it’s strange that God would favor an ethnic group with regards to election to eternal life.

But one could simply say that God planned it that way from the beginning. Not that he would show favoritism, but that there would be no more elect gentiles to save. So then he would have a portion of Jews reserved for the time afterwards to save. All according to his will.

Am I understanding what you’re saying?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Unique Name]

iscriminate choice of God's,

Trying to better understand your analogy. (I do agree that it would be confusing if there was a sort of favoritism based on ethnicity with regard to election). But I wanted to ask if you believe that election is something that happens in space and time, or if you’re simply just saying that it seems to be that way in romans 9-11 - contrary to how the reformed understand election.

I know analogies often fall short, but if I were to borrow yours and add a component to it to make it more inline with the biblical view of election then it’d go something like this.

God knows which balls are his. He knows what color they will be and everything else about them. Then he creates the balls. Then according to his knowledge and will he reaches in the bag and pulls out all of those that he knew were to be saved before they were created. He never fails to pick all the ones he knew. And it just so happens (from our perspective) that lots of the first ones were Jews and lots of the later ones were gentiles and perhaps there will be many more that are Jews later?

(To clarify, this isn’t toss in the fire election. It’s choosing for the sake of saving a people the way I typed this out).

But I understand, I think, If what you are saying is that it’s strange that God would favor an ethnic group with regards to election to eternal life.

But one could simply say that God planned it that way from the beginning. Not that he would show favoritism, but that there would be no more elect gentiles to save. So then he would have a portion of Jews reserved for the time afterwards to save. All according to his will.

Am I understanding what you’re saying?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think once you throw in timelessness or foreknowledge (whatever the technical term is), I agree, it seems like less of an issue. It might be that I'm overthinking it or there isn't an answer and that's fine of course. To your point about the first bulk of Gods elect being Jews: I view that not as an elect ethnicity but an elect seed preserved inside a nation until the seed - Christ - would come. So, I'm not even sure I am on the same page as most people when they talk about the categories of Jew and Gentile as something that is theologically relevant today. I think your initial post is pointing in that direction also? I get that it is all pretty complicated.

However, given that most do take Rom. 9-11 to be about ethnic election, let me try one last stab at explaining why I'm confused. Regarding my analogy, I think if we reduced the numbers of balls down to two - one green and and one red - it might make what I'm saying more clear.

You said: "But one could simply say that God planned it that way from the beginning. Not that he would show favoritism, but that there would be no more elect gentiles to save. So then he would have a portion of Jews reserved for the time afterwards to save. All according to his will." I think even if God does the electing before time, we still have the bag full of balls haha. So, lets say that He has done all His electing outside of time and in one decree, all are simultaneously elected. The choice is not arbitrary, it is prudent with regards to history. As you say, "but that there would be no more elect gentiles to save. So then he would have a portion of Jews reserved for the time afterwards to save". So, I'm not sure it's completely impartial. He looks down the tunnel of time and chooses according to genetic makeup. And when He gets to the last two balls in the bag, it becomes most obvious how partial the electing actually is, because according to the ethnic argument or "remnant" theory, the only necessary election is a preserved ethnic remnant in order for God to remain "faithful" to His promise. So, the obvious choice would be the red (Jewish) ball. I hope that makes sense. Writing this, I'm convinced I just need to stick with the Gospel of John for a little while haha.

Feel free to call me bonkers. And thanks for engaging.

 

[ERK]

Trust me I feel just as bonkers! But man I’d really love to just understand Paul and put the whole thing to rest.

The election issue is tough here. I’ve heard people make the distinction between corporate and individual election. You see it as an elect lineage so to speak, but even so there would need to be elect individuals that were chosen before the foundation of the world. They would just so happen to pan out in a line as we see them. Like you said about timelessness and foreknowledge, if God got it all squared away before things began then He is perfectly justified in calling some here and there as he planned it.

But if we are talking about a corporate election in the sense that God chose Israel in order to bring about His redemptive purposes then it’s hard to escape the idea that Paul is saying God has something special for them on the basis of them being a special people to him apart from the gentiles.

I think more support for this idea would be that Israel and the forefathers are a specific group. We aren’t talking about Adam or Noah or any others before Abraham that were “elect” in the individual sense.

But even though we are talking about Israel, we could still qualify it and say “not all Israel are Israel” so then we fine tune it back to individual election right?

So it could just be that God has more elect Israelites either then, now, or later within Israel and Paul makes the point just to say that God didn’t throw them away completely so as to give the gentiles reason to think they’d never see a believing Israelite ever again. Proof being Paul himself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk