N. T. Wright Is Wrong on Israel!
Last week, N. T. Wright spoke at a conference where he made controversial comments about Romans 11. He dismissed the idea that v. 26 points to an awakening among ethnic Jews as “just a modern-day fantasy.” Romans 11:26 says that “all Israel will be saved,” but Wright argues that Paul is referring to the Church, made up of believing Jews and Gentiles.
Ian Giatti of The Christian Post summarizes the renowned New Testament scholar’s message:
Wright took exception to a familiar argument that Romans 11 points to a future, all-inclusive salvation event for the entirety of the biblical people of Israel. He said there’s “no sign” in this passage of such an event.
Before I continue, let me clarify something: I do not know any scholar who interprets Romans 11:26 in the way Wright claims it is being used, as an “all-inclusive salvation event” for all Jews of all time. (Unfortunately, I have to take Mr. Giatti’s word for what Wright said, as the message is not available online.) Many scholars believe the passage points to an end-time awakening among the Jewish people, but not the salvation of every Jew who has ever lived. Rather, they expect a significant portion of the Jewish people living at the end of the age to come to faith.
This includes non-dispensational scholars such as Douglas Moo, who writes, “at the end of history … God in His grace is going to reach out to save a significant number of Jewish people.” And Thomas Schreiner says, “I think that there will be an end generation of Israel; a great majority of Jews will turn to Christ and be saved.” Moo is also clear that “Israel” in Romans 11:26 refers to the Jewish nation, not the Church.[1]
Wright continues:
There is no sign at any point in Romans 9 to 11 that Paul envisages a large-scale, last-minute salvation of all ethnic Judeans… Nor is there a sign that Paul imagines God gathering great numbers of Judeans back into the Middle East, so that some great event may happen that would sweep them all into favor.
Regarding an end-time ingathering of Jews back to Israel, he has also said:
There are several strands, particularly in America, which have contributed towards what I think is a totally unbiblical idea, namely that the present modern-day state of Israel is somehow a fulfillment of prophecy. This is simply unwarranted and is the result of all sorts of odd strands of teaching, particularly, but not only, Dispensationalism in the 19th century.
To suggest that Paul could not envision the Jewish people being regathered to the land of Israel as so many prophets foretold (see Ezek. 36:24; Jer. 31:10), raises a serious problem. It comes close to dismissing a substantial portion of the Hebrew Bible. Unless Paul explicitly rejects these prophecies, we should not assume that he believed they would never be fulfilled. Wright calls the belief that modern Israel is a fulfillment of prophecy “unbiblical,” when the idea comes solely from the Bible!
Ezekiel prophesies: “For I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land.” If one claims that it refers solely to Babylon, notice he says, “nations.” Susan Michael writes:
This second return was to be from every nation where they had been dispersed (Jeremiah 16:14–15; 23:3, 7–8; 29:14; 31:7–8), not just Babylon. Over the past 120 years or so, more than 3.5 million Jews have immigrated to the Land of Israel from all over the world—from the north, south, east, and west—in literal fulfillment of God’s promises (Isaiah 43:5–6).
Paul’s talk of Israel in the last days seems consistent with a future regathering, since Israel in his time was not a nation but was called Judea and Galilee. When Simeon, Zechariah, and Mary speak of “Israel” in the birth narratives (see below), they refer to the historic covenant people descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Is Israel Israel, or Is Israel the Church?
Let’s focus on the issue from Wright’s message that caused an uproar. When Paul says that “all Israel will be saved,” whom does he mean? Wright seems to regard “all” as the decisive word in the sentence. He argues that elsewhere in Romans, Paul uses “all” to emphasize the unity of Jews and Gentiles in Messiah.
When he repeats the word “all” in the sense of Judean and Gentile together, that makes a certain point. It’s hard to suppose that in such a carefully crafted letter, Paul would allow himself to say that over and over and over again only to undermine it with one line [in this passage].
The Greek word for “all” is pas, as in “all Israel.” Indeed, Paul uses forms of this word several times when referring to “all who believe.” But “all” is a common, general word. Suppose I were writing a letter to my fellow Virginians and used “all” ten times to describe everyone living in Virginia. Then, because I also live in Israel, I used “all” once to refer to everyone living there. That would not be confusing. The decisive word would not be “all,” but “Virginia” or “Israel.” What would be confusing is if I suddenly used the word Virginia and meant it to mean Israel!
The Key Word: Israel
Surely the key word in Romans 11:26 is not “all,” but “Israel.” We should ask how Paul uses “Israel” in the surrounding verses, where he is discussing the same subject. The argument begins in Romans 11:1, where Paul asks whether God has rejected His people. His answer makes it clear that he is speaking about ethnic Jews—or, as Wright calls them, Judeans.
I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.
Does anyone, including Dr. Wright, really think Paul means, “I am a member of the Church”? That makes no sense. Paul identifies himself as an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, and a member of the tribe of Benjamin. Now look at verses 13–14 and pay particular attention to the phrase “my own people.”
I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.
Clearly, when Paul says “my own people,” he is speaking about the Jewish people, in contrast to the Gentiles he is addressing.
Why did Paul even write Romans?
A little background helps here. Paul is writing to the Roman believers in the aftermath of the expulsion of Jews from Rome under Claudius in AD 49 (see Acts 18:1). Jewish believers who returned would have faced tensions as they reentered the community. Paul makes the case that God is not finished with ethnic Israel. He will soon call this a “mystery” (v. 25) and warn Gentile believers about the consequences of arrogance toward the Jewish people (vv. 18–22).
Throughout Romans 11, Israel and the Jewish people are referred to roughly 36 times, either directly or through pronouns. Yet only one reference—verse 26—is treated as controversial. Wright emphasizes Paul’s care in composing “such a carefully crafted letter.” But if Wright is correct that Paul changes the meaning of “Israel” at this pivotal point, without clearly signaling the shift, that would hardly be careful wording, but remarkably confusing.
But Paul is not confused. His argument is clear. To understand why “Israel” means Israel here, we need only read the whole chapter.
1. Paul begins by explaining that God has not rejected the people of Israel. (vv. 1-2)
2. Even in Paul’s day, a believing remnant remained. (v. 5)
3. Because of Israel’s disobedience, salvation has come to the nations—not to replace Israel, but to provoke her to jealousy (v. 11).
4. When the Jewish people receive the gospel, their acceptance will mean “greater riches” (v. 12) and “life from the dead” (v. 15).
5. Between those verses, Paul reminds the Gentiles in Rome that, although he is called to the nations, he continually seeks to win his own Jewish people. (vv. 13-14)
6. Paul compares God’s people to an olive tree, rooted in the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Some natural branches have been broken off, while wild branches—the Gentile believers in Rome—have been grafted into Israel’s tree. (vv. 17-24)
7. Paul warns the Roman Gentiles not to treat Israel’s present unbelief as an excuse to judge the Jewish people. He explains that Israel’s hardening has served the Gentiles. The issue is not that the Jewish people are less intelligent; God has permitted this hardening for a time. If the Gentiles respond with arrogance, they too could be cut off (vv. 21–22).
8. God can graft the natural branches in again. Paul explains that it is more natural to graft those branches back into their own cultivated tree than to graft in wild branches. His point is that Gentile believers should not judge, mock, or persecute the Jewish people. They should long for Israel’s restoration. (vv. 23-24)
9. All of this leads to the key declaration in verses 25–26: “all Israel will be saved.”
10. To show he is speaking about ethnic Israel, he quotes a prophecy regarding the sins of the Jewish people being forgiven in v. 27: “And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” If he’s not talking about ethnic Israel, then he is utterly confusing.
11. And finally, in vv. 28-29, he says Israel is still loved despite her rejection of the gospel (at that time) and still has a unique calling.
From Hardening to Salvation
Now let’s read verses 25 and 26 before unpacking them. Ask yourself: if no one had told you that “Israel” in verse 26 means something different from “Israel” in verse 25, would you naturally reach that conclusion? I don’t want to answer for you, but I think the answer is obvious.
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, and in this way all Israel will be saved. (Romans 11:25–26)
These verses summarize the chapter. Remember, Paul is issuing a serious warning. He is concerned that Gentile believers in Rome might look down on Jewish people, including Jewish believers. In chapter 9, Paul pours out his heart and says that, if it were possible, he would surrender his own salvation for the sake of his people. He wants Gentile believers to appreciate the pain of Israel’s hardening and understand that this hardening has worked to their benefit. Their response should be humility, not arrogance.
Let’s break down these two verses:
Paul is concerned about ignorance.
He speaks of a mystery—something made known to him through divine revelation.
Failing to understand this mystery could lead to pride.
The mystery concerns Israel’s partial hardening, which has benefited the Gentiles.
This hardening lasts until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. Alternatively, this could mean that the gospel reaches every nation in some fashion.
As the fullness of the Gentiles comes in and Israel’s hardening is removed, it will lead to the salvation of “all Israel.”
This is not difficult to follow. Yet Wright calls this straightforward reading a “modern fantasy.” What seems far less plausible to me is the claim that in verse 25, “Israel” Israel means Israel, but just a few words later, in verse 26, the very same word means the Church. Friends, that makes no sense.
Theological Bias
My concern is that Dr. Wright approaches this passage with a prior conviction that God’s covenant promises to Israel are now fulfilled in the Church. Wright does not consider the modern regathering of Jewish people to the land of Israel a fulfillment of the many prophecies that speak of such a return. Consequently, he does not see Romans 11 as predicting an end-time awakening among a regathered Jewish people. On his reading, the existence of a modern nation called Israel does not carry the covenantal significance I believe Scripture assigns to it.
In this Way
Wright also argues that using “In this way,” as the NIV does for kai houtōs, at the beginning of v. 26 somehow changes the understanding of the verse toward his view. Actually, I think it enhances what theologians like Shriner and Moo argue. “In this way” – what way? The Jews received the gospel, shared it with the Gentiles, experienced hardening, yet will be grafted back into the olive tree after the full number of Gentiles come in. What Wright does not address is the more severe theological contradiction: Paul’s alleged change in the meaning of “Israel” from verse 25 to 26, without any explanation.
But Wait, There’s More
What about all the references to Israel surrounding the birth of Jesus?
The Jewish people who anticipated the coming of Jesus understood it as good news for Israel, not the announcement that God was replacing them with another people.
Gabriel declared that John the Baptist would “turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God” (Luke 1:16), and that Jesus would “reign over the house of Jacob forever” (Luke 1:33).
Mary rejoiced that God had “helped his servant Israel” and remembered His promise “to Abraham and to his offspring forever” (Luke 1:54–55).
Zechariah praised “the Lord God of Israel” because “he has visited and redeemed his people,” remembering “the oath that he swore to our father Abraham” (Luke 1:68–73).
Simeon was “waiting for the consolation of Israel” (Luke 2:25), and when he held the infant Jesus, he proclaimed Him “a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel” (Luke 2:32).
He also prophesied that this child was appointed “for the fall and rising of many in Israel” (Luke 2:34).
Anna, from the tribe of Asher, celebrated His arrival with those “waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem” (Luke 2:36–38).
Even the prophecy cited by Matthew declared that the Messiah would “shepherd my people Israel” (Matthew 2:6).
Not one of these faithful Jewish believers celebrated the Messiah’s coming because they believed God was about to reject Israel and replace the Jewish people with the Church. Quite the opposite! They celebrated because God was keeping His promises to their ancestors. The coming of Jesus meant salvation, restoration, mercy, and glory for Israel, with the wonderful additional revelation that the Gentiles would share in those blessings. Being replaced is not good news. Being redeemed is.
Imagine one of the angels announcing to them: “Guess what? Good news! You’re about to be replaced. All that talk about the land of Israel was really referring to this new thing that God is going to do, called the Church. They’re in, and you’re out.” I doubt they would have been celebrating. But that’s not what the angels declared—they declared good news that will cause great joy for all the people (of Israel)” (Luke 2:10).
This helps explain why Paul speaks of a mystery. Tens of thousands of Jewish people in and around Jerusalem professed faith in Jesus (Acts 21:20), yet many of the leaders rejected Him, and that rejection influenced others. The mystery was that Israel’s rejection would lead to the salvation of the nations. And then the eyes of the Jewish people would be opened.
When Paul meets with Jewish leaders in Rome, he speaks of Jesus in connection with “the hope of Israel” (Acts 28:20). Wright might suggest that he meant the hope of the Church, but that makes little sense in a conversation with Jewish leaders who did not identify themselves as members of the Church.
In fact, I do not see a place in the New Testament where “Israel” clearly refers to the Church. The one passage often debated is Galatians 6:16, where scholars disagree over whether the phrase refers to the whole Church or specifically to Jewish believers.
Will the true “fantasy” please stand up
The interpretation Wright calls a modern fantasy is embraced not only by dispensationalists,[2] but also by evangelicals from other traditions. John Murray, born in the 1800s, wrote, “In a word, it is the salvation of the mass of Israel that the apostle affirms.”[3] Reformed theologian John Stott taught, “Then ‘all Israel’ must mean the great mass of the Jewish people, comprising both the previously hardened majority and the believing minority.”[4]
Anglican pastor Charles Simeon was born in the 1700s. A friend once asked him, knowing Simeon’s deep concern for the salvation of the Jewish people, “Six million Jews and six hundred million Gentiles – which is the most important?” Simeon reportedly replied without hesitation, alluding to Romans 11:15: “If the salvation of the six is to be life from the dead to six hundred, what then?”[5]
So no, this is not a modern fantasy.
Perhaps the most striking evidence is that Israel has become a nation again against extraordinary odds. No comparable example exists of a people remaining identifiable after being separated from their ancestral homeland for so many generations, then returning home to reestablish a nation. For Israel, that separation lasted roughly 50 generations.
And we are already seeing signs of this revival. Surveys suggest that nearly one million believers today have a Jewish background.[6] For the first time since the fourth century, large numbers of congregations of openly Jewish believers meet on the biblical Sabbath, celebrate the biblical feasts as the first believers did, and continue to live as Jews. In Israel, over 300 Messianic congregations exist.
No fantasy. Reality.
I would argue that Wright’s interpretation, rather than the expectation of Israel’s future restoration, risks becoming a fantasy of Replacement Theology[7] that does not exist in the Bible. The facts on the ground should at least challenge theologians to reconsider whether Paul was speaking of a future revival among the Jewish people at the end of the age—and whether that revival has already begun.
[2] A dispensationalism divided biblical history into distinct periods, or dispensations, in God's administration of His purposes, generally maintaining a distinction between Israel and the Church age. Dispensationalists believe that only after the church is removed through the rapture will God’s Spirit be poured out upon Israel. However, many historic premillennialists and other non-dispensational theologians also affirm Israel’s future restoration based on Romans 11.
[3] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, Volume 2 (Eerdmans, 1965), 98.
[4] John Stott, The Message of Romans: God's Good News for the World (InterVarsity Press, 1994), 298.
[5] W. T. Gidney, The Jews and Their Evangelisation (London, 1899), 273.
[7] I understand that N. T. Wright rejects the label of replacement theologian. But theological positions must be evaluated by what they actually teach, not merely by the labels their proponents accept or reject. If God repeatedly promised through the Hebrew prophets to regather the Jewish people to the land He gave their ancestors, and we now insist that those promises have been fulfilled in the Church rather than in the restoration of ethnic Israel, what have we done? We have effectively transferred promises made to the Jewish people to another entity. Wright may reject the terminology, but I would argue that the theological consequence remains the same. Calling it something other than replacement theology does not resolve the problem.
Comments