"And so all Israel will be saved": Alongside Rom. 11:26

Today I started teaching a summer New Testament survey. Sometimes I'm afraid I'm becoming a tape recorder. All you have to do is press the button, "OK Schenck, first day of class." Then I cue "the story behind the story."

But actually that's not true. Almost no matter how much structure I have planned (quiz, group activity, preplanned "this will be on the quiz" comments), some tangent inevitably presents itself... unless I have Bell's Palsy at the time. Those must have been about the best classes with me ever. No tangents, out early after I had covered the essentials.

Any number of semi-controversial to controversial tangents today, including one point where I sat down because "the opinions of Schenck do not necessarily represent those of Indiana Wesleyan University." The topic was whether or not the election of Israel was still in place and, in particular, what Paul might have meant by Romans 11:26: "and so all Israel will be saved."

There are several interpretations, three of which are found in Bud Bence's Romans commentary. Off the top of my head, I think the three he mentions are 1) that Israel here means true Israel, namely, Jews and Gentiles who accept Christ, 2) ethnic Israel, meaning that eventually disbelievers in Israel will accept Christ, and 3) ethnic Jewish believers.

As a slight tangent, I would not assume that biblical authors like Paul always meant "all" literally--I'm not trying to get out of anything or insinuating dishonesty, the meaning of words and phrases is in their use, and many, many "all" statements that people make are not really meant to withstand the insane questioning of some hypothetical philosophy teacher.

Ok, here's a typical unexpected tangent. I get frustrated when language is assumed to function only on a literal and declarative level. I've heard sermons where the preacher condemns the insincerity of someone who says, "How are you?" and then walks on before waiting to hear the answer. Some expressions are "performative" not declarative. And this statement often is simply meant to play a "cohesive," social function rather than a cognitive one. It can be a bit like shaking hands with words. Perhaps the most enlightening book I've read on this subject is G. B. Caird's The Language and Imagery of the Bible.

Anyway, I think Paul must be referring significantly in context to those in ethnic Israel who have not accepted Christ. The reason is that the verse right before is talking about how "a hardening has come on part of Israel until the full number of the Gentiles come in." In other words, he is talking about the part of Israel that has not "received our report." Because of election, they will be saved (11:28), because God's call is irrevocable (11:29). I see no other possible interpretation in context: Paul is prophesying that all (generally speaking--at least the part that was currently hardened) Israel will eventually stop being hardened in their heart toward Christ. He did not mean "true Israel" by Israel in this verse. After all, he would then be saying almost nothing: "all the saved will be saved."

So we have some sense of the original meaning. Now we sit alongside the text with our theology, experience, the Spirit, the church, our knowledge of history and current events. What will we do with this text?

On the one hand, Paul was not thinking about Israel 2000 years later. The Israel he had in mind stood right before him. Surely the Romans must have wondered if Paul was a false prophet after Jerusalem was destroyed (this surely applies to 2 Thessalonians as well)!

Was the Spirit really speaking about modern Israel through Paul, even though Paul didn't know it? On the one hand, it hasn't happened yet. Modern Israel has not yet accepted Christ. The last statistic I heard was that 85% of those in modern Israel aren't even practicing Jews, let alone Christians. It's actually illegal to try to proselytize. That's the ironic thing--as far as I can tell there are more Palestinian Christians than Israeli Christians. At least until the post-Iraq period (I hope it's still true), places like Bethlehem and Nazareth were both primarily Palestinian and Christian.

Nazareth is Palestinian but in Israel. Bethlehem is in the West Bank. Both have historically been more Christian than Muslim. My impression is that the Iraq war has facilitated changes toward Islam in these places.

So here's where I sit down. It seems to me that a nation like Israel does not get a "pass" of any kind just because they are Israel. I'm not presuming here that Israel is unrighteous. I'm not debating here their assasinations or retaliatory strikes or the wall. Has there been unrighteous violence toward Palestinians? I've already noted that there will always be--even when a violent act is "justified" for a greater good, violence begets violence and evil acts will take place by all sides in consequence.

On the other hand, my impression is that most Israelis would gladly give the Palestinians a state, including eastern Jerusalem as the capital, if they'd just stop blowing things up. But the US should expect the same standard of behavior from Israel as anyone else--just as the world should expect it of us. God certainly didn't let them off the hook because "this is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord" (Jer. 7:4). And God won't let us off either.

By the way, anyone else amused that some of the same people who saw 9-11 as God's judgment on America's sin are also some of those who staunchly argue that America is a Christian nation?

Anyway, it just seems deeply ironic that so many conservative American Christians funnel money to the Zionist cause. When I was in Israel, the orthodox Jews at the wailing wall could spot Americans like me a mile off and came a running for donations to the cause. I bet these individuals say something like "Sucker" to themselves after Americans cough up the dough for them. They probably think Christianity laughable--they certainly don't believe Jesus was the Messiah. And here these stupid American Christians are giving them money! What fools!

Meanwhile, there is a Baptist Bible college run by Palestinians in Bethlehem. Perhaps we shouldn't be sending finances to anyone. But it seems to me that if we sent them to anyone, we should send them to the Christians of the Holy Land, whether Israeli or Palestinian. But why would we send them to the fundamentalist Jews?

I do not know God's plans for ethnic Israel. I pray for its peace. I honor Jews as the people of God to whom God gave the oracles (Rom. 3:2). But politically, they are no more our friend than any ally, and we should expect of them and ourselves the same standards of action as any other nation. God may have political plans for them as a Christian nation. But it hasn't happened yet. For all we know, they might be destroyed and not become Christian for a 1000 years!

P.S. I didn't say all this this morning.