Arland J. Hultgren, Pauls Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011.

Chapter Five

But what of Israel? Thats the central issue in chapter 9-11 of Romans and thats the central issue in this chapter of Hultgrens commentary. Hultrgen first divides the 3 chapter of the letter into 7 segments. The central assertion of this portion of the book is that God has not failed, nor have his promises failed. If many Gentiles accept the gospel, and only a few Jews do, that is no surprise (p. 363). But why exactly is this the case? Pauls immediate response in 9:30-10:4 is that Israel has not pursued the righteousness that comes from God through faith, which is revealed in the gospel, but has sought to establish righteousness through the law (p. 377). That sentiment on the part of Hultgren will raise an eyebrow or two I imagine. But a raised eyebrow does not disproof provide. Paul, it seems to me, clearly and obviously believed that his contemporaries were striving to achieve salvation through works. This isnt the case just because thats how Augustine or Luther understand Paul; but rather, they understand Paul that way because thats what Paul thought! Hultgren is simply reading the text and letting it speak for itself. And he proves his case in 15 densely packed pages of argumentation. So, does Paul believe that God has rejected Israel? Not so, Hultgren argues. Instead, he shows that [Paul] resorts to finding a way of speaking of the present situation by referring to the remnant concept in the OT (p. 399). Israel remains the people of God and the Gentiles should stand in awed amazement of the fact that they are grafted in at all! One thing is for certain: Hultgren cant properly be accused of supercessionism! All Israel will be saved (11:26a) has mystified commentators for as long as commentaries have been written on Romans. Hultgren offers three basic interpretations. First, Israel should be taken in a spiritual sense meaning believing Jews and Christians. H. dismisses that interpretation in a few sentences. Second,

Paul envisions the conversion of the Jewish people through their acceptance of the Gospel (p. 418). He dismisses that notion as well. Finally, the third that Israel will be saved whether or not Jews convert to Christianity at all. But that too seems unlikely and inappropriate to H. His solution? means the people of Israel as a corporate entity. It need not mean every individual any more than similar expressions of modern times, such as the whole country is celebrating today. Nevertheless, the expression all Israel has to be taken for what it is, and that is that it refers to the people of Israel, the Jewish people, who have not accepted the Gospel (p. 420). Confused? Me too. In the first instance Hultgren seems right to see all Israel as a collective term which need not refer literally to every Jew. But he seems to take it back in the sentence which shortly follows where he seems, clearly, to suggest that in fact the Jewish people as a whole will be saved (whether they want to be or not?). Perhaps his ambiguity reflects Pauls who, at the opening of 9-11 speaks of a spiritual seed of Abraham and those believing alone being entitled to consider themselves his descendents, whereas in 11 all Israel does seem to suggest a collective. In any event H. doesnt solve the problem raised by this verse. The chapter closes with an explanation of the doxology of Paul which shows, according to H., that Pauls sorrow as described in 9:1 is gone.

Jim West Quartz Hill School of Theology