Fullness of the Gentiles (Romans 11:25)

[darinhouston]

Reading through Romans, I am struggling with Romans 11:25.

Every commentary (including Steve) I can find sees this as eschatological in some way even if they disagree on the future meaning. But, as I read Romans 9-11, I see Paul talking mostly about the past and reality of his present - explaining and responding as an apologetic to critics that have problems with what has been revealed about God's views of Israel, treatment of the Jews, role of the gospel as to the "rest of the world" (Gentiles). This is a pivot to Paul then talking about the future of his people, hoping that they be saved, but I wonder if this is eschatological at all. He seems deeply concerned about the Jews as he saw them then and I don't see a thought towards anything like a concern for today's nation of Israel with thousands of years of mixed breeding and so forth of a nation that had walked away largely not only from their culture and traditions and ethnicity but also of God.

The term "pleroma" does not necessarily (or even primarily) mean "full number" but seems to me that it could refer to that time period where their "time" had fully come - in Jesus and in the gospel. And that the hardening in part referred to those Jewish leaders and others who the gospels spend a great deal of time describing their foolish and irrational misunderstandings of things leading up to the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus. Is it possible that he's saying that this was up to then and going forward, then, all are on equal footing and can come to God without hardening? In that way, all can be saved through Christ - not skipping over millions of Jews who have no excuse due to their hardening over thousands of years. It's almost as if he's saying -- look, if all the Jews had recognized Jesus as the Messiah (which they might have done if their leaders accepted him), then there would have been no saving of the world but only a fulfillment of the Messianic expectation within the nation of Israel. It would never have gone to the gentile world.

I hope Steve sees this and can provide a considered response - there may something that precludes this but it always makes me nervous when I see zero (and I mean zero) commentators or scholars even consider this being anything other than eschatological.

[darinhouston]

I do note that the verb tense for the phrase "has come in" is a combination of a subjunctive and an aorist but not really a future.

[mikew]

It is odd how no scholars (to my knowledge) have came to the same conclusion as Steve. Kudos to Steve for recognizing this was first-century stuff.

When Paul says "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" -- the idea of "in this way" refers to the argument beginning in Rom 9:6. Paul showed God's faithfulness to his promises to Israel, but this was through the remnant -- that there always was a narrowing to those of the promise. The remnant of Rom 9:27-29 again was a promise (i.e., to preserve a remnant instead of destroying all of Israel as per Isa 10:20-22). Romans 10 functions as part of that argument in that God was sending out the gospel among the Israel people.

I wonder if Luke's mention of the times of the Gentiles speaks of the same point.
Luke 21:24 (ESV) They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

The fullness would be concerning the trampling of Jerusalem, of its destruction. The end of the trampling and fullness would be limited to the duration of the Roman Empire, as having conquered the territory.

Reading through Romans, I am struggling with Romans 11:25.

Every commentary (including Steve) I can find sees this as eschatological in some way even if they disagree on the future meaning. But, as I read Romans 9-11, I see Paul talking mostly about the past and reality of his present - explaining and responding as an apologetic to critics that have problems with what has been revealed about God's views of Israel, treatment of the Jews, role of the gospel as to the "rest of the world" (Gentiles). This is a pivot to Paul then talking about the future of his people, hoping that they be saved, but I wonder if this is eschatological at all. He seems deeply concerned about the Jews as he saw them then and I don't see a thought towards anything like a concern for today's nation of Israel with thousands of years of mixed breeding and so forth of a nation that had walked away largely not only from their culture and traditions and ethnicity but also of God.

The term "pleroma" does not necessarily (or even primarily) mean "full number" but seems to me that it could refer to that time period where their "time" had fully come - in Jesus and in the gospel. And that the hardening in part referred to those Jewish leaders and others who the gospels spend a great deal of time describing their foolish and irrational misunderstandings of things leading up to the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus. Is it possible that he's saying that this was up to then and going forward, then, all are on equal footing and can come to God without hardening? In that way, all can be saved through Christ - not skipping over millions of Jews who have no excuse due to their hardening over thousands of years. It's almost as if he's saying -- look, if all the Jews had recognized Jesus as the Messiah (which they might have done if their leaders accepted him), then there would have been no saving of the world but only a fulfillment of the Messianic expectation within the nation of Israel. It would never have gone to the gentile world.

I hope Steve sees this and can provide a considered response - there may something that precludes this but it always makes me nervous when I see zero (and I mean zero) commentators or scholars even consider this being anything other than eschatological.

[mikew]

I have the same issue with assuming a future where all Israel is saved. I agree that the delay of 2000 or more years is an absurd duration of hardening all those hearts. But the situation of the Israel people was better than most other nations at that time. The Israel people were first to hear of Christ and were first to respond to the gospel. So it was good news for those people, even for all else that happened.

[mikew]

Reading through Romans, I am struggling with Romans 11:25.

Every commentary (including Steve) I can find sees this as eschatological in some way even if they disagree on the future meaning. But, as I read Romans 9-11, I see Paul talking mostly about the past and reality of his present...

I hope Steve sees this and can provide a considered response - there may something that precludes this but it always makes me nervous when I see zero (and I mean zero) commentators or scholars even consider this being anything other than eschatological.

What part of this makes you nervous? Is the concern how so many could miss the sense about the first-century application of this? Or is the issue in the opposite sense -- of whether it is plausible to be true since so few have found this understanding before?

[darinhouston]

Reading through Romans, I am struggling with Romans 11:25.

Every commentary (including Steve) I can find sees this as eschatological in some way even if they disagree on the future meaning. But, as I read Romans 9-11, I see Paul talking mostly about the past and reality of his present...

I hope Steve sees this and can provide a considered response - there may something that precludes this but it always makes me nervous when I see zero (and I mean zero) commentators or scholars even consider this being anything other than eschatological.

What part of this makes you nervous? Is the concern how so many could miss the sense about the first-century application of this? Or is the issue in the opposite sense -- of whether it is plausible to be true since so few have found this understanding before?

Well, both, frankly. I don't mind being in a minority (by witness of my numerous views here) but I do worry if I'm out on a limb all by myself. It makes me think I might be missing something. If I know I'm right, I have no problem being alone, but it does give one pause.

[mikew]

did you come to this understanding after hearing Steve or did you come by totally independently?

I'm constantly out on a limb but I always am glad to find where someone like Steve or a commentary confirms the same thing. When I figured out that Romans was written to a gentile-only audience back in 2007, I was curious who else found that. Just a handful did. That gave me confidence that I could be figuring stuff out decently.

[PR]

How about verse 32? Doesn't that summarize Paul's entire Romans thesis concerning Jews and Gentiles for all time?

All Israel Will Be Saved

25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way[e] all Israel will be saved. As it is written:

“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is[f] my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”[g]

28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. - NET Bible

Thanks, God bless everyone on this Holy week,

PR

[darinhouston]

did you come to this understanding after hearing Steve or did you come by totally independently?

I'm constantly out on a limb but I always am glad to find where someone like Steve or a commentary confirms the same thing. When I figured out that Romans was written to a gentile-only audience back in 2007, I was curious who else found that. Just a handful did. That gave me confidence that I could be figuring stuff out decently.

I'm not sure I'd call it an understanding - just a consideration. Steve seems to have a fairly conventional (yet not dispensational) eschatological view of this passage. I haven't found anyone even hint at this sort of position.

[dizerner]

All Israel probably doesn't literally mean every single Jew.