Paul indicates that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in and follows that with "and so all Israel will be saved." Does this verse indicate a future for ethnic Israel due to the time frame reference of the word "until?" Dr. Sproul discusses the similarity of the phrases fullness of the Gentiles and times of the Gentiles.

Today, we will continue with our study of the eleventh chapter of Romans. As I said when we began this chapter, this is one of the most difficult portions of the epistle. It is also one of the most controversial. We now come up against the most difficult and controversial part of the chapter. So, forewarned is forearmed. I will be reading Romans 11:25–26, and we’ll see if I am able to cover those verses in our time together. I ask the congregation to stand for the reading of the Word of God:

For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written.

I remind you, dear friends, that this is nothing less than the Word of God Himself. Please be seated. Let us pray.

Father, even now, as we contemplate this mystery that is set forth by Your Apostle, we pray that we may not be wise in our own opinions, but that we may listen carefully to what is revealed to us with respect to that mystery. For we ask it in Jesus’ name. Amen.

Attention on Israel’s Future

Some people may remember vividly what took place in Israel and in Jerusalem in the year 1967. There was a war that lasted only a few days and culminated in Israeli troops coming into the old city of Jerusalem. There was television coverage from when the soldiers reached the temple’s Wailing Wall—what was left standing of it. Even though firefights were happening, the soldiers threw down their weapons, rushed to the Wailing Wall, and began to pray. It was an astonishing moment in the history of civilization.

Many serious scholars both then and now believe that what happened in 1948 with the return of the Jews to the Holy Land and the earlier Balfour Declaration has absolutely no significance for redemptive history. Likewise, they believe that the recapturing of the Holy City of Jerusalem, at least to the extent in which it was recovered in 1967, has absolutely no redemptive-historical significance.

That represents one particular school of thought of that subdivision of systematic theology that we call eschatology. Eschatology is the study of the last times, the last things, the final consummation of the kingdom of Christ at His return and triumph in clouds of glory.

Others have believed that what happened in 1948, and again in 1967 with the Six-Day War, has everything to do with redemptive history. It has so much to do with redemptive history in their eyes that they are looking any moment for the rebuilding of the temple and the reinstitution of the sacrificial system in Jerusalem, all as harbingers of the imminent return of Jesus.

I do not think there has ever been a period in church history where more frenzy or attention has been focused on the expectation of Jesus’ return than the last few decades. This is largely because of those events I have just mentioned in Israel and Jerusalem.

I remember that day in 1967. I was watching the proceedings on television, and I was on my porch in my home in Massachusetts. When these events unfolded before my eyes, I got in my car and drove to the house of a friend of mine, who was one of the most distinguished Old Testament scholars in the world. He was one of those scholars who believed that what is going on in history has no significance with respect to the future kingdom of God. I went to see my friend. I am not going to tell you his name, because many of you who are students of theology and Old Testament studies would recognize it. I went to see him, and I said, “What do you think now?” I had the newspaper in front of me. He said, “You know, I’m going to have to think about this.” I mention that because even someone who was steeped in knowledge, an expert, was stricken by the sensational events that were unfolding at that time.

The question is: Is there a future for ethnic Israel? Is God going to work again in history with the people who are Jewish kata sarka, according to the flesh? In chapter 11, Paul has been laboring the point about his kinsmen according to the flesh, Israel. He talks about how, in the course of redemptive history, the fall of the ethnic Jews has led to the gentiles being incorporated into the family of God as wild olive branches that are grafted into the root.

Paul says that if the fall of the Jewish people redounds to the blessedness of the nations, how much more their restoration? We have to pay close attention to what Paul says in this text. There are a couple of items that I find particularly fascinating in the two verses that I read to you. I may be guilty of reading too much into what the Apostle says in those couple of verses, but I am going to spend some time trying to unravel them.

The Fullness of the Gentiles

As Paul introduces the subject in verse 25, he talks about a mystery. In Paul’s vocabulary, a mystery does not mean a problem that detectives seek to unravel, or the subject of a novel. Rather, he speaks about that language through which what was once hidden from view is now made manifest by God as He reveals these things to us.

Paul says, “I do not want you to be ignorant.” This is a concern the Apostle has in every epistle that he writes. He knows how destructive ignorance is to godliness. God has given us this massive volume that we call the Bible so that we might become mature in our understanding of those things He has set forth and that we not seek comfort or bliss in ignorance. Paul is saying: “I don’t want you to be without knowledge. I want you to be knowledgeable people, and so I’m setting these things before you lest you be wise in your own conceit and rest upon your own opinions rather than the revelation of God.”

Then Paul says, “That blindness,” which we have already examined, “in part has happened to Israel”—now here is the phrase that piques my curiosity—“until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.”

Beloved, the word used here in the text is a word that we refer to as a timeframe reference. The word translated by the English “until” means “up to a certain point in time.” It has a terminal dimension to it. Beyond that point, something changes. This word refers to a definite moment, a definite intervention in the chronology of history. When Paul says that something has happened to ethnic Israel, he is referring to a blindness with respect to the new covenant. But this blindness is not forever.

We saw at the beginning of chapter 11 that the problem with the Jews in their sinful apostasy was neither full nor final. Paul reminds us that he himself is of Jewish ancestry, so not all of the ethnic Jews had fallen away from the covenant. It was not full. Here he is pointing out the second dimension: The fall of Israel is not final. It is not the end of the story. This blindness that has come upon Israel has a historical limit. Let us understand that point. The blindness that has happened to Israel will last until something happens in space and time.

What is it that is the “until” here in the text? Paul says, “Until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” The Latin refers to the “plentitude” of the gentiles. The Greek word is plērōma. Both words refer to something that has reached its point of saturation. There is presumably a point in history where God’s “roundup,” the extension of His salvific call to the gentile nations, will reach its saturation point. After this point, God’s relationship to ethnic Israel changes.

I would like to pursue this idea further by looking at a parallel text that, while not exactly the same expression the Apostle uses in Romans, is so parallel that virtually every New Testament scholar notices its significance. There is a connection between Paul’s language in Romans and the language used by his co-missionary, Luke, in chapter 21 of Luke’s gospel. Let me set the context for you.

The Destruction of Jerusalem

In the twenty-first chapter of Luke’s gospel, we have Luke’s account of one of the most important prophetic discourses given by Jesus during His earthly ministry. This takes place very close to the end of His life. Jesus comes to Jerusalem and predicts that the temple will be destroyed and that not one stone will be left upon another. He talks about the destruction of the city of Jerusalem.

We know a couple of things with respect to church history. We know that the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. We know that the city of Jerusalem was destroyed. Both were destroyed after Jesus died, rose again, and ascended into heaven. We know that Jesus’ forecast of the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem took place several decades—about forty years—before the actual events took place in the year AD 70.

If there is any moment in church history outside the New Testament record that is of utmost importance to understanding the Christian faith, it is the event in AD 70 when the temple was destroyed and the city of Jerusalem burned to the ground by Roman invaders.

Here is where it gets difficult. Luke’s version of this discussion Jesus has with His disciples is popularly called the Olivet Discourse because it took place on the Mount of Olives. It is recorded in all three of the Synoptic Gospels. We read Matthew’s account of it in Matthew 24, Mark’s more brief account of it Mark 13, and Luke’s account in Luke 21. I have my Bible opened to Luke 21 now, and I see the text of Scripture. Then I see the subheadings for the chapters in bold print, which were not in the original text. Luke did not highlight every few verses with subheadings. These are added by the translators, who give us these helps to locate sections of Scripture.

At the top of page 1646 of the New Geneva Study Bible, the New King James Version, it says, “Jesus Predicts the Destruction of the Temple.” This does no harm to the text because that is exactly what happens. Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple.

The next heading is a little more curious. It says, “The Signs of the Times and the End of the Age.” You will look in vain in Luke 21 to find language about the end of the age. However, if you go to Matthew’s version of the Olivet Discourse, you see that language specifically in the text. The disciples are asking Jesus about this event He has forecast. He responds to them about the destruction of the temple and talks about the signs of the times and the end of the age.

What do we think of almost every time we hear that language about the end of the age? What is the end of the age? The question we have to ask is: What age? The age of the Enlightenment? The age of reason? The age of empiricism? The Cenozoic era? The Ice Age? The Iron Age? The Bronze Age? What age is the passage referring to with respect to its end?

Ninety-nine out of one hundred people approach the text of the New Testament with the assumption that the phrase “the end of the age” must be referring to the end of time as we know it, such that the end of the age corresponds with the consummation of the kingdom of God. Maybe that is what the end of the age refers to. I do not think so, but I am a voice crying in the wilderness, a very small minority. You need to know that so you can balance what I am teaching with what other people teach about this text. As I said, this text in Luke stands out to me regarding the fullness of the gentiles.

The Times of the Gentiles

Let us go to Luke 21:24: “And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles . . .” I’ll stop right here. Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple. He gives the signs of the times that you hear about: wars, rumors of wars, signs in the sky, and so forth. In this text, the Bible says that Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the gentiles.

I did not finish the verse on purpose. Our Lord predicted that Jerusalem would be trampled underfoot by gentiles, which is exactly what happened in AD 70. But here we see the Greek word achri again, which means “until” or “up to a certain point but not beyond that point.” Listen to what Luke says. “And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” Do you hear that? “Until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.”

Here is my question: What does Luke mean by the “times of the Gentiles”? And what does Paul mean when he uses the language of “the fullness of the Gentiles” being fulfilled? Do you see how close those two ideas are regarding the times of the gentiles being fulfilled and the fullness of the gentiles being fulfilled?

Here is what is difficult: This detail about the times of the gentiles—this terminal point for the destruction of Jerusalem, its captivity, and its being trodden underfoot by the gentiles—is a detail found in Luke’s gospel that is not found in Matthew or Mark. It was this verse that I took my Old Testament scholar friend and said, “Explain this to me.”

Let me ask a simple question: What are the times of the gentiles? Does that phrase “the times of the Gentiles” suggest anything to your mind? There are times in redemptive history, and one of those times—one specific period in redemptive history—the Bible describes as the “times of the Gentiles.” What can that phrase refer to if not a distinction between this time and some other time? What would be the only other time that would make any sense here, as opposed to the “times of the Gentiles”? What do we always see in contrast to gentiles in the Bible? The Jews. In redemptive history, you have the times of the Jews and the times of the gentiles.

Here is what Paul is saying: There is a time in redemptive history when the focus of God’s redeeming grace is on the Jews, and there is a time when the focus of God’s development of His redemptive people is on the gentiles.

We know that in AD 70 the temple was destroyed, sacrifices ceased, and the Jewish nation was scattered throughout the world. Their identity with Jerusalem was broken, except for their wistful future hope that someday they would be restored. In the meantime, a major change in understanding took place in the world.

Before AD 70, most people in the world saw the Christian church as a subdivision of Judaism. That changed once and for all in AD 70, when the judgment of God came with a vengeance on Israel. Her temple was removed block by block, and her holy city was devastated and given over to the control of the gentiles. But according to Luke 21 and Romans 11, this is not forever. There is still a future for ethnic Israel. There still is a future for the city of Jerusalem, if I am reading this text clearly.

Jesus’ Prediction

It is at this point that my position gets hotly contested. I think that Jesus’ prediction of the future destruction of the temple and Jerusalem is the clearest proof in recorded literature of Jesus’ being, at the very least, a prophet sent from God. He predicts things that take place in the future that no one could possibly predict with such uncanny accuracy.

This prophecy, which compellingly proves the truth claims of Jesus, should be one of the most important proof texts in Scripture for the authenticity of the New Testament and of Jesus Himself. The irony is that higher critics use this text more than any other text in the New Testament to argue against the inspiration of the Bible and the infallibility of Jesus’ prophecies.

I made mention a couple of weeks ago of Bertrand Russell’s book, Why I Am Not a Christian. In that book, along with other objections to Christ and to Christianity, he mentions that the Olivet Discourse, found in Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13, is the clearest proof that Jesus was a false prophet. But why? The temple was destroyed, just like Jesus said. The city was destroyed, just like He said. Why, then, is this text used as the compelling proof against Christianity? It is simply because of the timeframe references Jesus used in the Olivet Discourse.

When Jesus said to His disciples, pointing to the temple, “Not one stone will be left upon another,” and He said that the temple would be destroyed, that Jerusalem would be trodden underfoot by the gentiles, and so on—the question burning in the minds of his disciples was this: “When will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?” (Luke 21:7). I believe they were asking about the end of the Jewish age. They asked a straightforward question: “When are these things going to happen?”

Jesus is not the least bit oblique in His response. He is straightforward and direct in what He says: “This generation will by no means pass away till all things take place” (Luke 21:32). This includes, presumably, His coming in judgment on Israel. He talks about the wars, the rumors of wars, the signs of the times, and all the signs of His coming. Many people think Jesus was talking about His final consummate return at the end of time. I do not think so. The “all things” of which Jesus speaks specifically refer to the temple, to Jerusalem, and to some kind of coming of Jesus. The New Testament broadly speaks of this event as a visitation of God’s wrath against His people, which of course fell with fury in AD 70.

Jesus said, “This generation will not pass away.” What is the plain meaning of that? To the Jew, a generation means an age group of people. A generation was counted to include approximately forty years. Elsewhere Jesus said: “There are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (Matt. 16:28). “You will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes” (Matt. 10:23).

If you are listening to Jesus and you ask Him when something is going to happen, and He says to you and those around you, “This generation is not going to pass away until all of these things take place,” what would you understand Him to mean? Would you think that it is going to be two thousand years before His prediction comes to pass? I do not think so.

As every liberal critic understands, the clear meaning of the text is that Jesus is saying this event is going to happen in the future. He essentially says: “It will not happen tomorrow or next week. I don’t know the exact day or the exact hour, but I can tell you this. It’s going to be within the next forty years, before some of you die.” The plain meaning of the text is that Jesus gave a timeframe for the fulfillment of these future prophecies.

Within Forty Years

How do people respond to the skepticism of higher criticism? When I was in seminary, in the midst of a stronghold of higher critical theory, I had my nose rubbed in this text every day. It was used as an attack against the inspiration of the Bible. I would say: “What if Jesus wasn’t wrong? What if everything that He said would take place within forty years did take place within forty years? What if the signs of the times that Jesus was talking about were the signs leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem?”

Jesus warned the people: “When you see these things happen, don’t go to the city. Flee to the mountains.” That was the exact opposite of what would typically take place in the ancient world when an army was approaching a walled city. When the Roman soldiers were marching through Israel, the normal response would be for people to leave their homes and villages and flock to the city with the greatest walls. The greatest impenetrable fortress in Israel was Jerusalem. At the time of its destruction, Josephus tells us that 1.1 million Jews were slaughtered because they went to the city. But Jesus told His disciples: “Don’t go there. Go to the hills.” The Christians were spared from the destruction that took place within forty years.

Today, we have The Late Great Planet Earth. We have Left Behind. We have people who tell you all these things and say: “There are earthquakes going on, and there are wars, and rumors of wars. Now, we are on the brink of the return of Jesus.” I do not think any of those things have anything to do with the final consummate return of Jesus, because I think they already took place. I do not think that because I like some scholar’s theory. I think that because that is what the text says was going to happen. Jesus said it would take place.

You may say, “The moon has not turned to dripping blood, and the heavens have not rolled up like a scroll.” That is right. You find two kinds of terminology in the Olivet Discourse. You have simple, didactic, normal language. You also have what is called apocalyptic language, which uses catastrophic imagery to describe God’s visitation of wrath and destruction. If you use the basic hermeneutic of interpreting Scripture by Scripture, and you look at the language of destruction as it is used by the Old Testament prophets, such as the heavens “rolling up” and so on, that kind of language was used in the Old Testament to describe the actual destruction of cities like Tyre and Sidon. It is appropriate, when you have highly imaginative language, to allow for an imaginative interpretation. But when you have simple, declarative, indicative statements, you must treat them as declarative, indicative statements.

The point is that when Jesus gives the timeframes, He does not use imaginative language. He uses straightforward, indicative words to His disciples: “You want to know when it is? Some of you are going to live to see it.” Was Jesus wrong? That is what is at stake here: the trustworthiness of Jesus and the trustworthiness of the Bible.

What do evangelicals do about this? They say, “When Jesus said this generation will pass away, He means ‘this kind of person’—that is, unbelievers. They won’t pass away until all of these things are fulfilled.” That would not answer the disciples’ question. That would be a pure evasion. They asked Him a straightforward question: “When?” He gave them a straightforward answer.

We see the same thing in the book of Revelation. If you look at the timeframe references in the first nineteen chapters of Revelation, the language of the text suggests that these events are about to happen. It is not something that will take place three or four thousand years from now.

The End of the Jewish Age

Do not take my view to be that of the preterists. They believe that all the future prophecies about the return of Jesus and the fulfillment of the kingdom of God have already taken place, and that everything was fulfilled in AD 70. I do not believe that.

Something of dramatic significance took place in AD 70. It was the end of the Jewish age as they knew it. It was the end of the temple. It was the end of Jerusalem, but not the end of God’s economy of redemption for His people. Now I sound like a premillennial, because I believe that what Paul is saying here is that God is not finished with the Jews. He has been saying it throughout Romans 11. Paul says in Romans 11:25, “That blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.”

Here is what has concerned me since 1967. It may be that in the economy of redemption, God has five thousand more years where He will bring gentiles into His house. But when I see what is happening in Jerusalem, I do not think so. We may, in redemptive history—though I am not going to make a prediction—be on the very cusp of the last round up of gentiles. We may be close to the next step of redemptive history where God is working with ethnic Israel. I do not know of any time since AD 70 where we have seen such a concentrated focus on evangelism to ethnic Jews as we have seen in our own day. Neither have I seen anything in church history that reflects the vast numbers of converts to Christianity from Judaism. Do not make any mistake: I do not believe that God has two agendas, one for the Jew and one for the gentile. There is one agenda that incorporates both the Jew and the gentile into His kingdom.

Will All Israel Be Saved?

One final question arises when Paul says in verse 26, “And so all Israel will be saved.” What does he mean? Does he mean all spiritual Israel? I think that would be departing from the way Paul uses the term Israel throughout the whole chapter. In fact, if we go back to chapters 8, 9, and 10, he is talking about ethnic Israel throughout. Now Paul says, “And so all Israel will be saved.” Does that mean each and every individual?

When the word all is used in Scripture, it does not function the same way we use it to mean “each and every.” Does Paul mean to say that every ethnic Jew in the world is going to be saved? I do not believe so. But I do believe that the full complement of God’s elect from Israel will be saved. This will take place in a new redemptive-historical visitation by God the Holy Spirit, following the fullness of the gentiles “until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Luke 21:24).

To summarize, I am interested in the use of Luke’s term “the times of the Gentiles being fulfilled” and its parallel usage here in Romans 11, “the fullness of the Gentiles.” The Apostle does not want us to grope in the darkness or to be left in mystery. He is telling us about the future of the kingdom of God. I think we should take this with great earnestness, joy, and consolation. I do not mean to suggest to you that everything God is going to do was finished in 70 AD. I do believe that our Lord told nothing but the truth. When He said, “This generation will not pass away,” He meant exactly what He said. That generation did not pass away until the temple was destroyed, the Jewish age came to an end, Jerusalem was destroyed, and the Lord visited His people in a time of wrath. Let us pray.

Our Father and God, we struggle so often with those things that You teach us about the future because they have not happened yet. We pray that we may not miss those things You have told us that have taken place, for in the fulfillment of that Word our souls are comforted by the utter trustworthiness of Your Word and of the teaching of our Lord Jesus. We thank You for this in His name. Amen.

This transcript has been lightly edited for readability.