Israel and the Mercy of God: A Re-reading of Galatians 6.16 and Romans 9–11

Abstract

Noting the conjunction of ‘mercy’ and ‘Israel’ in Galatians 6.16 and Romans 9–11, this article argues that in both letters ‘Israel’ denotes the Jews. In Galatians 6.16, with an on-going mission to the Jews in view, Paul invokes peace on those who live according to the new creation, and mercy on unbelieving Israel. In Romans 9–11, he draws on both Scripture and his own experience of mercy to revisit the question of Israel's destiny, discerning therein a providential pattern of a divine call that is interrupted by obduracy under the law, and ultimately fulfilled in Christ.

1. Introduction

In both Galatians and Romans, Paul brings together two weighty terms, ‘mercy’ and ‘Israel’. In Galatians, each term appears only once, linked in the blessing of Gal 6.16. In Romans 9–11, the terms also are closely intertwined. Apart from Gal 6.16, the great majority of references to Israel occur in Romans 9–11, where the term refers to the Jewish people, Paul's flesh and blood kinsfolk (9.6, 27, 31; 10.19, 21; 11.2, 7, 25, 26).¹ Paul uses the terms remnant or elect (Rom 9.27, 29; 11.5, 7) to denote both Gentile and Jewish Christians, whose common denominator is faith in Christ.² He uses the term Israelite, however, to denote both Christian and non-Christian Jews, whose common denominator is Jewish ancestry (Rom 9.4; 11.1; 2 Cor 11.22; Phil 3.5).

Apart from Romans 9–11 and Gal 6.16, mercy appears very rarely elsewhere in Paul's letters. Once Paul attributes Epaphroditus's recovery from illness to God's mercy (Phil 2.27), and twice he describes his own ministry in terms of God's mercy (1 Cor 7.25; 2 Cor 4.1). But as he writes Romans, it is in his pondering of Israel's destiny within God's plan that mercy comes to the fore as a major theme, primarily in connection with citations from the LXX.³ Thus, in both Gal 6.16 and Romans 9–11, ‘Israel’—however ‘Israel’ is defined—is linked with divine mercy.⁴

This simple observation provides the starting point for my argument: The link between divine mercy and the identity of Israel is as crucial to the interpretation of Paul's blessing and prayer near the end of Galatians as it is to the interpretation of Romans 9–11. In what follows, I shall argue that in both letters Israel refers neither to Jewish Christians nor to the church as a whole, but rather to the Jewish people, whom Paul calls ‘my people’ (ἐν τῷ γένει μου) in Gal 1.14, and ‘my kinsfolk according to flesh’ (συγγενῶν μου κατὰ σάϱκα) in Rom 9.3. Further, I shall argue that Paul's ultimate vision of divine mercy for Israel reflects his own experience of the God who graced him with a ministry (διακονία) flowing from that same mercy (2 Cor 4.1), and called him in the midst of his ‘life in Judaism’ (Gal 1.13).

The argument that I shall propose here is certainly a minority view; the majority of scholars interpret ‘Israel’ as denoting different entities in Gal 6.16 and Romans 9–11. In Romans, ‘Israel’ is widely understood to refer to empirical Israel.⁵ But in Gal 6.16, Israel, qualified importantly as ‘the Israel of God’, usually is identified as the church as a whole, or as some portion thereof.⁶ The primary and consistent basis for the latter interpretation is that it appears to confirm the force and message of the entire letter, and hence that to read Gal 6.16 differently would be inconceivable. The argument is straightforward and compelling. Throughout Galatians, Paul has affirmed to his Gentile converts that through Christ they have become ‘sons of God’ (3.26; 4.5–7), Abraham's heirs (3.29), children of promise, like Isaac (4.28), and children of ‘Jerusalem above’ (4.26, 31). The attributes of Israel now accrue to both Gentile and Jewish Christians on the basis of Christ alone, with no distinction between circumcised and uncircumcised.⁷ It seems but a short step, and a powerful one, also to ascribe to Christians the name of Israel in the summarizing postscript of the letter.⁸ Thus Ulrich Luz speaks of ‘Das Fehlen Israels im Galaterbrief’ (‘the absence of Israel in the letter to the Galatians’).⁹

Furthermore, such an identification often accompanies the conviction that Galatians is concerned only with inner-church issues, not with non-Christian Jews. J. Louis Martyn, among others, rightly emphasizes that Galatians concerns matters internal to the church, and Paul's opponents in Galatia are not Jews per se, but rather other Jewish-Christian missionaries who are requiring circumcision of Paul's Gentile converts. Therefore, Judaism is not Paul's concern as he pens this passionate letter, and he in no way discusses, let alone denigrates, the practices and beliefs of non-Christian Jews. In Martyn's words, ‘No Jews are addressed in the Galatians letter, and no Jews are being spoken about in the letter… For the letter's consumptive focus on the evangelization of Gentiles means that there is no Jewish horizon in Galatians. For that we must go to Romans 9–11’.¹⁰

These are weighty arguments, and I oppose them with some trepidation. When I first began working on Gal 6.16, I followed the scholarly consensus in viewing the Israel of God as Paul's circumlocution for the church. It was only as I pondered Paul's puzzling syntax in 6.16, and in particular his uncharacteristic reference to mercy at this juncture in the letter, that my thinking began to change. The literature is oddly reticent about the function of mercy as a divine attribute in this benediction, apart from speculation about its antecedents. Yet if we attend closely to the quality of mercy as God's acts of deliverance in spite of human faithlessness, we are justified in asking whether the identity of the Israel of God must be limited to those, present or future, who already believe in Christ, or whom Paul somehow knows will be converted in the future.

Thus the following discussion begins with Paul's use of ‘mercy’ in Galatians and Romans, thence turning to the identity of ‘Israel’ in each letter. A third section will examine parallels between Paul's description of his own call in terms of mercy, and his vision of God's dealings with Israel. My conclusion will consider the theological importance of the consistent and continuing identity of ‘Israel’ as the Jewish people.

2. ‘Mercy’ in Galatians

2.1. Paul's Puzzling Syntax

Perhaps the occurrence of ‘mercy’ in Gal 6.16 receives short shrift in scholarly investigation because it is outweighed by the grammatical difficulties of the verse, as well as an operating assumption that it is part of a paired benediction of ‘peace and mercy’. Let me begin with a discussion of syntax, and then move to the question of whether mercy belongs with peace as a single benediction.¹¹ Galatians 6.16 reads:

καὶ ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν, εἰϱήνη ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς

καὶ ἔλεος καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσϱαὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ.

A word-for-word translation of this contested and difficult verse would read:

And for as many as will walk in line with this rule, peace be upon them and (even) mercy and (even) upon the Israel of God.

Or as Luther translated:

Und wie viele nach dieser Regel einhergehen, über die sei Friede und Barmherzigkeit und über das Israel Gottes.

The awkwardness of translation highlights difficult questions of interpretation.¹² There are three possibilities: (1) Paul is pronouncing a single blessing of peace and mercy on a single group of people, named both as those who walk in line with this rule and as the Israel of God. (2) He is pronouncing a unified benediction of peace and mercy on two separate groups: on the one hand, those who remain faithful to Paul's gospel, and on the other hand, the Israel of God. (3) He is pronouncing a blessing of peace on the first group, and a prayer for mercy on the second.

The primary translation issue concerns the punctuation dividing the two clauses in the sentence, which in turn affects the relationship between the attributes of peace and mercy, the translation of the third καί, and consequently, the identity of the Israel of God. The majority of interpreters opt for a comma after ἔλεος, thus reading it as paired with εἰϱήνη in a single blessing. In this case, the second καί links mercy with peace, and the third καί introduces a subordinate clause.¹³ The relationship between the clauses then hangs on the translation of the third καί. It could simply mean ‘and’ or ‘also’, indicating that ‘the Israel of God’ is a separate entity that also receives a blessing of peace and mercy.¹⁴ The NJB translates the verse thus: ‘Peace and mercy to all who follow this as their rule, and to the Israel of God’. Or the second clause could be understood as qualifying αὐτοὺς as the Israel of God, translating the καί as epexegetical or explicative, simply omitted or translated as ‘that is to say’. This is the predominant view among interpreters, reflected in the RSV as ‘Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God’.

The variation in translations indicates, however, that such an identification of Israel with the church is not clear in the text as it stands. It requires reading ‘peace and mercy’ as a single blessing, and αὐτούς as the single recipient of that paired blessing, related both to its logical antecedent, ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν, and to a postcedent, τὸν Ἰσϱαὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ, from which it is separated by καὶ ἔλεος καὶ ἐπί. As Peter Richardson observes, ‘There are no parallels for such a structure’.¹⁵ This structure depends on punctuating the sentence so that the division between clauses occurs after ἔλεος and before καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσϱαὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ. It is entirely possible, however, to place the comma after αὐτούς and before the second καί. Punctuated thus, καὶ ἔλεος καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσϱαὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ stands as an independent clause, with a distinct blessing and a distinct recipient. In parallel with the first clause, the second also begins with καί, thereby creating two separate benedictions:

And for as many as will walk in line with this rule, peace be upon them.

And mercy be even upon the Israel of God.¹⁶

Here the καί linking ἔλεος and the Israel of God is ascensive, adding emphasis to the final clause.¹⁷ Such a reading accords well with the word order in the verse by separating the difficult ‘double epi, double kai, and double attributes in reverse order’ into two independent clauses.¹⁸ Thus it also takes account of another problem, that of finding a precedent for a blessing that combines ‘peace’ and ‘mercy’, with peace preceding mercy. Furthermore, as we shall see, it fits the pattern of Paul's epistolary benedictions, and it attends to the peculiar character and proper objects of divine mercy.

2.2. ‘Peace and Mercy’?

The translation of ‘peace and mercy’ as a compound blessing has instigated considerable scholarly effort in a search for possible antecedents, but parallels are difficult to find. Whereas there are many blessings of peace upon Israel, and mercy upon Israel, they rarely occur in a combined blessing.¹⁹ Indeed, Gregory Beale states, ‘the combination of “mercy and peace” was not a typical part of formulaic benedictions in early Judaism nor a part of typical conclusions in early Hellenistic epistolary literature’.²⁰ There are exceptions to this claim: the Aaronic blessing of Num 6.24–26 (LXX), which invokes first mercy and then peace, in parallel phrases, and the occurrence of mercy and peace in proximity, in Ps 84.8–11 and Isa 54.10.²¹ Nonetheless, even in these instances the word order is the reverse of that in Gal 6.16, in which peace precedes mercy. Many proposals attribute the reversed order to the influence of the Nineteenth Benediction of the Shemoneh Esreh, which invokes ‘peace…and mercy on us and on all Israel thy people’.²² It may be the case that Paul's prayer for mercy on Israel is influenced by the Nineteenth Benediction, but dependence on such a source is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove. Indeed, the search for antecedents abundantly demonstrates both the frequency of prayers for mercy on Israel, and the lack of exact parallels for a combined benediction of ‘peace and mercy’. Furthermore, no proposed parallels prove that in Gal 6.16, Israel acquires a new denotation as the church.²³ Hence it is no surprise that Richardson comments, ‘no parallel can be found for the structure of the sentence with its double noun and double preposition’.²⁴

The difficulty in locating precedents for a blessing of ‘peace and mercy’, whether in the Pauline corpus or outside of it, should make us pause before assuming that Paul pronounces such a blessing in Gal 6.16. Rather, careful attention to the pattern of Paul's benedictions in his other letters will shed light on the unique syntax and vocabulary of Gal 6.16. One common proposal is that Paul is drawing on his usual salutation of ‘grace and peace’, but reversing the order and substituting ‘mercy’ for ‘grace’.²⁵ Yet nowhere else is mercy included in either an opening blessing or a closing benediction; nowhere else does Israel refer to anyone but Jews; and nowhere else does the phrase, the Israel of God, occur.²⁶ Rather, as in Gal 1.3, typically we find the double blessing of ‘grace and peace’ in his opening salutations (1 Thess 1.1; 1 Cor 1.3; 2 Cor 1.2; Phlm 3; Rom 1.7; Phil 1.2). In his closing benedictions, however, grace and peace appear separately and in reverse order: first Paul pronounces a conditional blessing of peace near the end of the letter, frequently applying it specifically to the situation addressed in each congregation (Rom 15.33; 16.20; 2 Cor 13.11b; 1 Thess 5.23; Phil 4.9b).²⁷ Paul's blessing of grace, on the other hand, varies very little, and always occurs as a distinct, unconditional, and final benediction: ‘the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Rom 16.20; 1 Cor 16.23; 2 Cor 13.13; 1 Thess 5.28; Phil 4.23; Phlm 25).²⁸ Indeed, he concludes Galatians itself with just such a blessing in 6.18.

These observations raise interesting points of congruence between Galatians and Paul's other letters. Grace and peace appear together in his opening salutation (1.3), but separately and in reverse order in his closing comments. Paul adapts his conditional benediction of peace to the specific concerns of the letter—peace on all who will walk in line with the rule of the new creation, in which there is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision. The final, completely characteristic invocation of grace stands apart from the conditional blessing of peace. Hence it is unnecessary and misleading to assume that peace and mercy belong together in a single benediction, as a variant of Paul's formulaic blessing of grace and peace. But if they are separate blessings, then it follows that they fall on two separate groups. In that case, what distinguishes Gal 6.16 from Paul's characteristic benedictions is neither his word order nor the presence of mercy as a substitute for grace, but rather, the addition of a prayer for mercy, and the denotation of the recipient of that mercy as the Israel of God.

2.3. ‘The quality of mercy is not strained’

Further reflection on the character of mercy will drive home the point. If mercy is paired with peace as part of a single blessing, it must partake of the limiting, conditional character conveyed by the phrasing of the first clause of the sentence: καὶ ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν, εἰϱήνη ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς.²⁹ Ὅσοι is both inclusive and exclusive: peace is not for everyone, but for all those who will walk in line with the canon of the new creation set forth in Gal 6.15.³⁰ That much is clear. But we may rightly question whether the imposition of such conditions is congruent with the peculiar character of mercy, which is God's gracious activity on behalf of disobedient humanity.³¹ It is this characteristic of mercy that is ignored in the bulk of scholarly commentary on Gal 6.16.

The assumptions that peace and mercy constitute a single blessing, and that mercy therefore is limited to those who fulfill the conditions requisite for peace, must both hold true if the Israel of God is to be equated with the new community of those who are in Christ. If they do not, then the widespread view that Paul calls the church by the name of Israel must be reappraised.

3. ‘Mercy’ in Romans 9–11

As noted above, the language of mercy is rare in Paul's letters, apart from Romans 9–11, where it occurs with great frequency. The word appears repeatedly at three key points: 9.15–26, 11.30–32, and 15.9.

3.1. Romans 9.15–26

In Rom 9.15 Paul quotes and expounds upon God's words to Moses in Exod 33.19 (LXX), where the Lord promises:

I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion (Ἐλεήσω ὃν ἂν ἐλεῶ, καὶ οἰκτιϱήσω ὃν ἂν οἰκτίϱω).

In Exodus, this divine disclosure comes at a crucial point. Following the incident of the golden calf, Moses pleads with the Lord not to withdraw the divine presence from Israel. Then he asks to see God's glory, and the Lord responds with this promise of a theophany, which indeed occurs on Mt. Sinai in the following chapter. This is the textual anchor for a theme that reverberates throughout Israel's Scripture: the revelation of God in Exod 34.6 as ‘the Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious (ὁ θεὸς οἰκτίϱμων καὶ ἐλεήμων), slow to anger and abounding in mercy and truth (μακϱόθυμος καὶ πολυέλεος καὶ ἀληθινός)’, gives hope to errant Israel.³² Cranfield describes this theophany as an ‘explicatory paraphrase’ of the revelation of the divine name in Exod 3.14.³³ Here mercy is the essential and defining characteristic of God in God's self-revelation to Israel. A people that belongs to this God is a people that lives by God's mercy. Very clearly, mercy is God's powerful deliverance for those who do not deserve it and indeed are unable to help themselves.

Within the flow of Paul's argument in Romans, the placement of this quotation from Exodus is also crucial. It is his answer to the question in 9.14, ‘Is there injustice (ἀδικία) with God?’ This question in turn arises from the preceding verses 6–13, where Paul progressively traces the history of God's word of promise (9.6, 9) through the stories of Isaac and Ishmael, and Jacob and Esau (9.7–13). At each juncture in that history, God elects ‘Israel’, the bearer of the promise, and excludes ‘non-Israel’.³⁴ God's choice appears unjust precisely because it occurs without reference to human actions, whether bad or good. Nonetheless, its very arbitrariness serves the divine purpose: ‘in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not on the basis of works but on the basis of call’ (v. 11). ‘God's purpose of election’, anchored and clarified in Exod 33.19, will thread through the rest of Romans 9–11 as the crucial point in Paul's argument. That is, because divine election is only on the basis of God's call, it is grounded purely in God's free and sovereign exercise of mercy.

Hence in Rom 9.16–18, Paul immediately expands on this idea of mercy in relationship to the purpose statement of v. 11, as we hear first Moses, and then Pharoah, addressed by the divine voice.³⁵ The two quotations and Paul's commentaries on them function as parallel, mutually enriching expositions of the central theme in v. 16: ἄϱα οὖν οὐ τοῦ θέλοντος οὐδὲ τοῦ τϱέχοντος, ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἐλεῶντος θεοῦ. Cranfield interprets the unnamed subject of this sentence as mercy itself. ‘It—that is, God's mercy—is not a matter of human willing or activity, but of God's being merciful’.³⁶ But the subject could as well be God's purpose of election, which is revealed to Moses as divine mercy (v. 15), and demonstrated through Pharaoh as divine power (ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν σοὶ τὴν δύναμίν μου) that results in the proclamation of God's name in all the earth (v. 17). Verbal cues within the verse remind us that Paul preaches the obedience of faith among the Gentiles for the sake of God's name (1.5), and that the death of Jesus was for the demonstration (ἔνδειξιν) of God's righteousness (3.25–26). We remember that just as the Gospel is the power of God for salvation (1.16), so here also God's power is not ‘unqualified power’, to use Cranfield's terms, but rather ‘saving power’; it is ‘power directed toward the deliverance of God's people’.³⁷ It is, in other words, the powerful expression of God's freedom to be merciful, regardless of human actions.

The ensuing contrast between ‘vessels of wrath’ and ‘vessels of mercy’ (9.22–23) makes the same point about God's sovereign election. It is not clear who the ‘vessels of wrath’ are. Frequently interpreted as a reference to unbelieving Israel, in contrast with the vessels of mercy called from both Jews and Greeks (9.24), the metaphor in this context more likely applies to the Gentile Pharaoh (9.17), whom God used as an ‘instrument’ of wrath in order to deliver Israel from bondage in Egypt.³⁸ But the identity of the vessels of wrath is not Paul's emphasis, which falls instead on God's patient endurance, and God's purpose of making known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy. God ‘hardens the heart of whomever he wills’, whether Gentile or Jew, but for the purpose of demonstrating his glory. The eloquent exposition of Cranfield bears repeating:

The relations between God's patient enduring of vessels of wrath, the showing of his wrath, and the manifestation of the wealth of His glory upon vessels of mercy, will be illuminated by 9.30–11.36. We shall see there that the ultimate purpose of that patience of God toward rebellious Israel which is depicted in 10.21 includes the salvation of rebellious Israel itself (chapter 11).³⁹

As Paul's argument progresses, we do indeed discover that both Israel's temporary hardening and eventual full inclusion display mercy as God's sovereign elective activity in the world.

3.2. Romans 11.30–32

Paul drives home this theme in 11.5–6. ‘So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace’. In other words, because the remnant is ‘chosen by grace’ without any recourse to its own actions, its very existence demonstrates God's freedom to ‘have mercy on whom I will have mercy’. Precisely for this reason, the remnant functions as ‘a forward-looking token of grace for the future’.⁴⁰ Furthermore, following the distinction between ‘the elect’ and ‘the rest’ in 11.7, Paul immediately makes clear that this present division is provisional. In the present, unbelieving Israel's hardening, trespass, and rejection (ἀποβολή) serve God's purposes for the reconciliation of the cosmos; in the future, its full inclusion (πλήϱωμα) and acceptance (πϱόσλημψις) will mean nothing less than life from the dead (11.7–15).

Thus at the culmination of his argument in 11.30–32, Paul returns to the theme of mercy precisely for those who are disobedient.

Just as you [Gentiles] once were disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they [Israel] have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all (συνέκλεισεν γὰϱ ὁ θεὸς τοὺς πάντας εἰς ἀπείθειαν ἵνα τοὺς πάντας ἐλεήσῃ).

Here both Jew and Gentile take turns passing through the experience of disobedience, in order that both may be the recipients of mercy. As Klaus Haacker puts it, ‘this change of roles is not to be final since—strangely enough—it had been arranged by God Himself. For what reason? In order to show mercy to all’.⁴¹ Hence it is not surprising to find Paul summing up his argument in Romans 9–11 and using it as the basis of his appeal for mutual service in 12.1, with the phrase, ‘by the compassionate mercies of God (διὰ τῶν οἰκτιϱμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ)’, echoing his citation of Exod 33.19 in Rom 9.15.⁴²

3.3. Romans 15.9

Finally, at the climax of his letter as a whole, Paul again speaks of ‘mercy’, but this time in reference to the Gentiles (15.8–9):

For I say that Christ became a servant of the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God, in order to confirm the promises of the fathers, and of the Gentiles on behalf of mercy, in order to glorify God (λέγω γὰϱ Χϱιστὸν διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι πεϱιτομῆς ὑπὲϱ ἀληθείας θεοῦ, εἰς τὸ βεβαιῶσαι τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέϱων, τὰ δὲ ἔθνη ὑπὲϱ ἐλέους δοξάσαι τὸν θεόν).⁴³

Here Gentiles, like Israel, are the recipients of divine mercy. As Wagner perceptively comments, ‘the apostle carefully constructs for the Gentiles a negative identity as outsiders with respect to God's elect people Israel. He does this both to establish their identity anew on the ground of God's mercy alone and to form in them a mindset—a way of thinking, feeling, and acting—appropriate to their new, God-determined identity’.⁴⁴ The catena of scriptural citations that follows carries forward the underlying theme of mercy extended to both Jews and Gentiles. Psalm 17 (LXX) praises God for his mercy to his anointed, to David and his seed forever (v. 51); Ps 116 (LXX) calls on the Gentiles to rejoice with God's people, because ‘his mercy has conquered us, and the truthfulness of the Lord endures forever (ὅτι ἐκϱαταιώθη τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ ἐφ᾿ ἡμᾶς καὶ ἡ ἁλήθεια τοῦ κυϱίου μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα)’.⁴⁵

Thus we can see a progressive widening of the arena of God's mercy over the course of Paul's argument in Romans 9–11, yet always consonant with the fundamental theophany of Exod 33.19 in Rom 9.15. The point throughout is God's mercy as God's sovereign action (even including shutting up all in disobedience) on behalf of those who would otherwise be excluded. As Breytenbach puts it: ‘To show “mercy” and “compassion” to whoever he chooses is God's reaction on the disobedience of both gentiles and Jews (Rom 11.30–32)’.⁴⁶

4. The Identity of ‘Israel’ in Romans

As noted above, the majority of scholars think that throughout Paul's letters, apart from Gal 6.16, the term ‘Israel’ denotes the empirical Jewish people, Paul's kinsfolk ‘according to the flesh’ (Rom 9.3). The purpose of this brief overview of Romans 9–11 is to ascertain whether this is the case. The actual term, Israel, occurs nine times in Romans 9–11 (9.6, 27, 31; 10.19, 21; 11.2, 7, 25, 26). It is the interpretation of the first and last of these verses that occasions the most controversy, but they in turn must be interpreted in their contexts.

In Rom 9.1–5, Paul abruptly turns from his celebration of the blessings that belong to all those who are in Christ, to his anguished concern for his kinsfolk according to the flesh. The ensuing argument in many ways restates and amplifies an earlier argument in the letter. In 3.1–9, Paul makes two apparently conflicting statements in response to the question, ‘What advantage has the Jew?’ (3.1). Paul's own dialectical answer makes clear that in this context, ‘Jew’ refers to the Jewish people.⁴⁷ On the one hand (3.2), the advantages of the Jew are many, because the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God (τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ). That is, the Jews are the bearers of the promises of God. On the other hand, the Jews are no better off than Gentiles because all humanity is under the power of sin (3.9). Being entrusted with the words of God does not exempt Jews from sharing in the universal human condition. All must rely on the one God of all, who rectifies both the circumcision and the uncircumcision on the basis of christologically determined ‘faith’ (3.30).⁴⁸

Romans 9.1–5 restates in amplified form both Paul's positive and negative answers to the question of 3.1. Many are the advantages of the Jews: the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, the promises, the patriarchs, and the fact that the Christ who is the fulfillment of the promises comes from the Jewish people. Yet despite this Paul is anguished, because they have not embraced that very Christ. How can this be? Paul's theological wrestling with this crisis immediately carries forward the argument in terms of God's word, echoing 3.2: The Jews were entrusted with τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ, yet do not believe in Christ; nonetheless, it is not as though the word of God (ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ) has failed (9.6a).⁴⁹ This focus on the word of God frames Paul's theologizing in terms of the character of God, who is, as Paul Meyer puts it, ‘the real subject of Romans 9–11’. ⁵⁰ In 9.8–9 we will learn that the word of God that has not failed is the word of promise (ἐπαγγελίας γὰϱ ὁ λόγος) given to Sarah and Abraham, guaranteeing their progeny through Isaac.

But first comes Paul's restatement of the basic principle of Israel's election: ‘For it is not the case that all who are from Israel are (indeed) Israel’ (9.6b). Here Paul neither redefines ‘Israel’ nor creates a temporary distinction within Israel, an ‘Israel within Israel’.⁵¹ Rather, by tracing the line of Israel through Isaac, the miracle baby, he simply restates what is thematic throughout the patriarchal literature, in which ‘[h]istorical Israel itself is determined by “promise” rather than by “flesh”’.⁵² Israel has always existed as the result of God's gracious election, not fleshly descent. This is the point of Paul's reference to the birth narratives of Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau. Israel's identity is grounded in the God who calls into existence the things that do not exist (Rom 4.17), not in human willing or working (9.16).

Paul's terminology for this distinction between divine initiative and human achievement is that of ‘promise’ and ‘flesh’.⁵³ His language should be read in conjunction with his distinction in 2.29 between ‘fleshly’ and ‘spiritual’ circumcision, which do not denote two different human endeavors, but a human endeavor contrasted with that which only God can do.⁵⁴ At stake here is not identity politics, but rather God's consistent way of dealing with all humanity, here focused precisely on Israel as the bearer of the promise. Paul's argument, as we have seen, is grounded in God's character as merciful, which is displayed in God's abiding purpose of election (9.11). That purpose of election is enacted, penultimately, in making divisions between the elect and the non-elect: Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, and Moses and Pharaoh. It is important to note that in each case, these pairs are composed of Jews and Gentiles, culminating in the quintessential Jew, Moses, and the quintessential Gentile, Pharaoh.⁵⁵ And in each case, the election of the representative Jew, that is, ‘Israel’, occurs without regard to Israel's conduct. ⁵⁶

Thus at this point in Paul's argument, ‘Israel’ consistently refers to the Jewish people, called into existence solely by God apart from any ‘fleshly’ criteria. Nothing in the text indicates a non-Jewish identity for Israel, which here is not internally divided but rather distinguished from Gentiles.⁵⁷ Furthermore, as we have seen in the discussion of mercy, it is precisely disobedient Israel who receives God's mercy at Sinai, while God hardens Pharaoh's heart (9.15–18). God's behaviour towards Abraham's wayward ‘children of promise’ is entirely consistent with the God whom Abraham trusted, the God who rectifies the ungodly (4.5).

As we trace the identity of Israel through the rest of Romans, the term remains tied to empirical Jews. Paul's argument is difficult to follow, however, for two reasons: (1) Israel trades places with the Gentiles in God's scheme of salvation. (2) The distinction between Israel and the Gentiles as elect and non-elect shifts to a distinction between ‘the remnant’ and Israel. Thus in 9.27, Israel refers to the whole of the Jewish nation as distinguished from the remnant—that is, Christ-believing Jews and Gentiles (9.24). Note that this division is still not precisely within ‘Israel’, but is rather between Israel and a separate entity called ‘the remnant’. So whereas in Isa 10.22 the remnant is part of Israel, in Paul's appropriation of this text the ‘remnant’ becomes identified with ‘even us whom he has called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles’ (9.24; cf., 9.27, 29; 11.5, 7). What distinguishes this remnant from Israel, as well as from Gentiles, is faith in Christ. Now this remnant is elected by grace (9.27, 29; 11.5, 7), in distinction from Israel (‘the rest’), which now stands in Pharaoh's place as the object of divine ‘hardening’ (11.7).⁵⁸

This is the Israel who pursues a law of righteousness as if it were based on works (9.31–32), having a zeal for God that is not according to knowledge (οὐ κατ’ ἐπίγνωσιν—10.2). In 10.16–21, this is the people who have heard the evangelistic word of faith (τὸ ῥῆμα τῆς πίστεως ὃ κηϱύσσομεν) that Paul preaches (10.8), but have not responded with faith.⁵⁹ Their ignorance and disobedience (10.19, 21) is, in one sense, an outworking of their unenlightened zeal and ignorance of the righteousness of God (10.2–3), which leads Paul to heartfelt prayer on Israel's behalf (10.1). On the other hand, behind their ‘failure to believe’ is the ‘hardening’ activity of God (11.7–10).⁶⁰ God's sovereign freedom to harden hearts as well as to have mercy is now directed at empirical Israel itself.⁶¹

This denotation of empirical Israel as ‘hardened’ (11.25), as God's enemies (11.28), and as ‘disobedient’ (11.30–31), brackets Paul's startling conviction that ‘all Israel will be saved’ (11.26), and signals that throughout this section, non-Christ-believing Jews, taken as a whole, are in view. That this same people is at the very same time ‘beloved’ is no contradiction in terms; after all, God's love is shown precisely through Christ's death ‘while we were yet sinners’ (Rom 5.8). In Rom 11.26, the citation of Isa 59.20-21a in combination with Isa 27.9 expresses a similar conviction that God's deliverer—Christ—will come on the scene in the very midst of Israel's sinful condition, and take away ungodliness from Jacob.⁶² In all Israel, therefore, Paul has in mind all his kinsfolk κατὰ σάϱκα to whom belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises, and from whom are the patriarchs and Christ κατὰ σάϱκα (9.3–5).⁶³

This brief sketch of the identity of Israel in Romans 9–11 shows that Paul consistently uses the term to refer to his Jewish relatives in the present tense. All arguments that seek to equate the Israel of God in Gal 6.16 with the church must come to terms with this pattern of Pauline usage. As E. P. Sanders delineates very carefully,

Thus, although Paul thought of the members of the church as heirs of the promises to Israel, he did not (with one exception) give them the name. The title ‘Israel of God’ would be truly appropriate only when all the physical descendents of Jacob had been accounted for, at the end, when the polar distinction ‘my people’ and ‘not my people’ would cover everyone.⁶⁴

The exception, of course, is Gal 6.16.

5. ‘The Israel of God’ in Galatians

We turn now to the identity of Israel in Galatians, beginning with the obvious question: Why does Paul introduce Israel at this point in the letter? Most interpreters point to the puzzling qualifier, ‘of God’, as identifying ‘Israel’ with some aspect of the church.⁶⁵ Nonetheless, why use the term, ‘Israel’? One influential answer is that ‘the Israel of God’ functions polemically in the Galatian context as the culmination of Paul's systematic re-signification of terminology employed by the circumcising mission. Martyn, for example, argues that the Teachers used Israel to refer to themselves and their followers, but that Paul appends of God in order to redefine Israel as ‘those who will follow the standard of God's new creation’.⁶⁶ He bases his interpretation on the premise that τοῦ θεοῦ here functions as a genitive of source or origin for a particular group of people, thus re-defining the identity of Israel in terms of those called into existence by the God of Jesus Christ, rather than in terms of law observance: ‘The God of Israel is first of all the God of Christ (3.16, 29), and it follows, for the author of Galatians, that the Israel of God is the people whom God is calling into existence in Christ (1.6, 13)’.⁶⁷

This is an appealing argument. Nonetheless, if this is what Paul wanted to say, one might expect him to write Ἰσϱαὴλ τοῦ Χϱιστοῦ, or perhaps Ἰσϱαὴλ κατ’ ἐπαγγελίαν. Then his meaning would be explicitly Christocentric. As it is, if Paul is using terminology from the Teachers to address his converts in his concluding postscript, he runs the risk of misunderstanding, potentially allowing the circumcision mission to have the last word. Why take such a risk? Does Paul, as his final word on the new identity of the Galatian Christians, borrow language from his opponents, even re-signified by the puzzling qualifier, ‘of God’? Or does the ringing cry—‘new creation!’—stand as the climax of the Galatians' new identity in Christ? If so, then the subsequent invocation of mercy on Israel could express Paul's heartfelt concern for his own people.⁶⁸

Furthermore, Israel, no less than the church, has always been a people called into existence by God to be God's own possession. Hence the genitive carries both authorial and possessive force, reminding us that throughout Scripture empirical Israel is identified as ‘God's people’ and as the inheritance of the Lord. There are very many examples of this linguistic pattern in the LXX.⁶⁹ And because Israel belongs to the God who is ‘the Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in mercy and truth’ (Exod 34.6), Paul's benediction of mercy cannot help but name that relationship. To recognize this linguistic pattern in Gal 6.16 is not to deny that God is, above all, the God known in and through Jesus Christ, nor to claim that only empirical Israel is God's possession. It is simply to say that empirical Israel also owes its existence to God and belongs to God.

At issue is the extent of God's sovereign rule: Do only some people belong to God, or does God lay claim to all humanity? Specifically, in Gal 6.16 does God's possession include only those presently in Christ, or does it also include non-Christ-believing Jews? As noted above, the first option seems to operate with an a priori assumption that Paul cannot possibly pronounce a blessing or a prayer for mercy on anyone outside the church. Yet insofar as mercy is the fundamental attribute of the God who is sovereign over all creation, surely its extent cannot be limited to one portion of humanity.

The plausibility of such a prayer for mercy is strengthened by the observation that, earlier in Galatians, Paul distinguishes between Jew and Gentile outside the Christian community. ⁷⁰ He describes a division of missionary activity into two arenas: his own mission to the uncircumcision, and that of Peter and the other Jerusalem church leaders to the circumcision (2.7–9). Hence it is not precisely correct to say that in Galatians Paul has no mission to the Jews in view; he simply names Peter and the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ as its leaders.⁷¹ Indeed, according to Paul's own preaching, such a mission is necessary precisely because Jews, as well as Gentiles, need rectification through Christ.⁷² This is not his focus, but it is assumed as an underlying conviction, as demonstrated in 2.15–16: ‘We ourselves, Jews by nature and not Gentile sinners, yet who know that a person is not rectified on the basis of works of the law but through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be rectified by the faith of Christ and not by works of the law, for by works of the law will no flesh be rectified’.

It is important to recognize the implications of this conviction for Paul in relationship to his kinsfolk. Paul's attack on the circumcising missionaries states boldly that observance of the Mosaic Law does not lead to the righteousness that is life (2.21; 3.21). This theological axiom is evident throughout the letter, and perhaps most poignantly expressed in the typology of 4.21–5.1, where Paul contrasts the destinies of those born according to the flesh—that is, through circumcision—and those born according to the Spirit—that is, through the promise.⁷³ Yes, the typology of 4.21–5.1 is not directed against Jews per se, but against those Jewish-Christian missionaries who seek to circumcise his Gentile converts. But because its logic explicitly excludes all who are not in Christ from the future promised to those born according to the Spirit, it also implicitly excludes non-Christian Jews from that destiny.⁷⁴

The pathos of this exclusion should not be lost on us. Surely Paul's personal history and ties with his Jewish kinsfolk, now painfully strained at best, play a role in his thinking. Is it possible, as he writes to his Gentile converts that ‘present Jerusalem is in slavery with her children’, that the city of his ancestors and its plight do not even cross his mind?⁷⁵ Or that, as he emphasizes his converts' inclusion in the blessing of Abraham, the exclusion of his own kin does not cause him pain? Or that, when he warns of the disinheritance of those Gentile Christians being born ‘according to the flesh’ through the circumcising mission, he does not also wonder about the apparent disinheritance of his own people? What of those Jews outside the church, Paul's kinsfolk who have rejected his message, yet whom he consistently names elsewhere as Israel? Is it possible that Paul is concerned here with the destiny of this Israel?⁷⁶

We do not need to hear Paul putting forth a theory of the Jews, or in any way answering the question, ‘What about the Jews?’ We may, however, hear him asking the question, in the form of a prayer that God have mercy on his own people, God's ‘Israel’. The commentator who best gets the pathos of this verse is Franz Mussner:

Paulus läßt sich zwar im Gal über die Heilszukunft Israels nicht aus, wohl aber im Römerbrief; doch ruft der Apostel bereits in Gal 6.16 das ‚Erbarmen’ Gottes auf sein geliebtes ‚Israel Gottes’ herab, was sicher in den Augen des Apostels mehr als eine fromme Geste ist, wie Röm 9–11 bestätigt… Weil Paulus im Gal den Weg des Gesetzes, den das Judentum noch geht, als überholt erklärt, empfiehlt er Israel dem ‚Erbarmen’ Gottes, der auch Israel ‚sola gratia’ zu retten vermag. So deutet der Apostel in Gal 6.16 schon an, was er dann in Röm 9–11 explizieren wird. Paulus hat sein Volk nie vergessen.⁷⁷

‘Paul has not forgotten his people’. This is the key point. Paul, who has not forgotten his people, cannot imagine that God has rejected his people (Rom 11.1–2). Thus at the end of this letter in which he has declared the obsolescence of the way of the law that his fellow Jews still follow, Paul prays for God's mercy on Israel, that Israel also will be saved only by grace. Even here, there is a Jewish horizon to Paul's thought.

If the interpretation proposed here is correct, it strengthens rather than undercuts the Christocentric identity that Paul so passionately proclaims to his Galatian congregations. The final word on that identity is the canon of the new creation, in which the old world distinctions between circumcised and uncircumcised have been nailed to the cross. Having modulated his opponents' preaching of descent from Abraham into his own formulation of descent from God through Christ alone, Paul maintains his focus on that identity at the end of the letter.⁷⁸ He does not introduce, even in modified form, a term from the circumcision mission to the Gentiles, thereby taking over the name of Israel for those who are in Christ. Such an identification of Israel with the church would claim a theoretical continuity with God's people, but at the cost of making Israel merely a cipher, without reference to Paul's own people who historically claimed that name.⁷⁹ To do so would remove any motivation for an ongoing mission directed specifically to the Jews, a mission that Paul names and endorses.⁸⁰

But there is such a mission named and assumed in Galatians. And so, as he draws his polemical letter to a close, Paul pronounces peace on all those who remain faithful to his vision of the gospel, which makes a new creation in which the distinction between circumcision and uncircumcision no longer matters. But then, precisely because the undoing of that distinction thoroughly shuts the door on Jewish privilege and identity markers, thereby calling Israel's destiny into question, he also prays for God's saving mercy on unbelieving Israel: ‘And peace be upon as many as walk in line with this rule, and mercy even upon the Israel of God’.⁸¹

6. Mercy and Israel in Paul's Self-Representation

In 1 Cor 7.25, Paul refers to himself as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. In 2 Cor 4.1 he again attributes his own ministry to divine mercy: Διὰ τοῦτο, ἔχοντες τὴν διακονίαν ταύτην, καθὼς ἠλεήθημεν, οὐκ ἐγκακοῦμεν. Paul's use of ‘mercy’ here is particularly striking, as it follows immediately upon an extended comparison between his own ministry and that of Moses, which in turn explicates the theophany of Exod 34.6–9 (2 Cor 3.7–18).⁸² Paul, like Israel in Rom 9.15–16, owes his own calling in grace to an undeserved act of divine mercy, grounded in the character of God as revealed in God's theophany to Moses. In this section, I suggest that the dynamic effect of this mercy is displayed in the retrospective narratives of Galatians 1 and 3, where we may discern a pattern similar to that depicted in Romans 9–11: an initial electing call and/or promise, followed by a period of misguided zeal for the law, which in turn is interrupted by the advent of Christ. According to that pattern, Paul himself was called by grace from his mother's womb (Gal 1.16), but then entered a period of zeal for his ancestral traditions, during which he violently opposed God's own church (Gal 1.13–14). Nonetheless, the God who initially called him did not abandon him; rather, God invaded his life through the apocalypse of Jesus Christ (Gal 1.16). His ‘life in Judaism’ was a temporary situation that interrupted but did not derail his calling by God. Similarly, Abraham received the gospel promise that ultimately was fulfilled in Abraham's singular seed, Christ (Gal 3.8, 15–22). The intrusion of the Mosaic Law appeared to supplant that promise, but instead it served a temporary purpose of constraining humanity until the coming of faith (Gal 3.17–23). Both Paul's ‘former way of life in Judaism’ (1.13), and the temporary constraint of the law in the history of the promise (3.23), illustrate the reality of which Paul speaks in Gal 3.22. ‘But the scripture confined (συνέκλεισεν) all things under the power of sin, in order that the promise based on the faith of Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe’.⁸³

Romans 9.4–5 states the beginning and end of this pattern in brief: in the beginning, to the Jews belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, the promises, and the patriarchs, and ultimately, from them is the Christ. Later Paul will reiterate both the initial gifts and call of God, which are irrevocable (11.29), and the promise of the deliverer who will come from Zion (11.26). In the interim, however, the majority of Israel is ‘hardened’ by God (11.7), seeking ‘righteousness based on law’ (9.31), having a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge (10.14), disobedient and contrary (10.21), and thus shut up, along with all humanity, into disobedience (11.32). The parallel between Galatians 3.22 and Rom 11.32 is often noted. What is less noted is that the narrative logic of Galatians 1 and 3 anticipates the logic of Romans 9–11: the gifts and call of God are irrevocable (11.29), but Israel passes through a period of disobedience, ignorance, and unbelief, until the advent of the Deliverer, in order that God's elective purposes may be seen as dependent solely upon divine mercy (Rom 11.32).⁸⁴

These narrative patterns suggest further that Paul sees his own experience as adumbrating the future salvation of Israel. Otfried Hofius has proposed that in Rom 11.26, Paul envisions the salvation of ‘all Israel’ in terms analogous to his own salvation, by the direct revelation of God's messiah apart from human preaching:

‘All Israel’ is thus saved in a different way than the Gentile Christians and the ‘remnant’, which already believes in Christ, namely, not through the evangelistic preaching of the church. Instead, ‘all Israel’ is saved directly by the Kyrios himself. But that means that it is not saved without Christ, not without the gospel, and not without faith in Christ. If, therefore, Israel gets the gospel through a direct encounter with Christ himself, confesses Christ as the Kyrios, and comes to faith in him unto salvation, then Israel comes to faith in the same way as Paul himself! For Paul was seeking the δικαιοσύνη ἐκ νόμου through strict observance of the Torah and for that reason had responded with a vehement ‘no’ to the gospel when he met the resurrected and exalted Kyrios and was overcome by him. So it will be with Israel too. ⁸⁵

Galatians 1.11–17 fills out the parallels between Paul's call and the ultimate salvation of Israel. Just as God ‘apocalypsed’ his son to Paul, in the midst of the apostle's misguided zeal for the law, so Christ, the deliverer from Zion, will come on the scene in the midst of Israel's misguided zeal, and ‘take away ungodliness’ from unbelieving and disobedient Israel.

If there is indeed such a link between Paul's picture of Israel's future salvation, and God's electing activity in his own life, then Paul's own identity as an Israelite (Rom 11.1) is not only a sign of the salvation of all Israel, but an adumbration of how that salvation will come to pass.⁸⁶ No less than Gal 3.22–23, Rom 11.32 reflects Paul's own experience.⁸⁷ It is important to be precise about what Paul shares particularly with Israel, and what both Paul and Israel share with all humanity. On the one hand, in the final analysis, for both Jews and Gentiles, salvation comes through the bestowal of divine mercy on the ungodly, those imprisoned in disobedience (Rom 11.32). In this sense there is no Sonderweg for Israel; rather, Israel shares in the ‘ungodliness’ of all Adamic humanity (1.18; 4.5), ‘handed over’ to the destructive powers of sin (1.24, 26, 28), and Israel shares in the merciful redemption of all humanity only through Christ.⁸⁸ On the other hand, the medium through which this redemption takes hold of both Paul and the majority of Israel differs from the humanly mediated preaching of the Gentile mission. Paul received his gospel by a direct apocalypse of Christ (Gal 1.11–12); and he prays for and anticipates a future direct revelation of Christ to all Israel (Rom 11.26).⁸⁹

In such a scenario, what happens to the mission to the circumcision that Paul mentioned in Galatians? No such mission is named in Romans; Paul speaks only of his own Gentile mission as indirectly a mission to his fellow Jews, through which he will make his fellow Jews ‘jealous’ and thereby save ‘some’ (11.14).⁹⁰ Just as Paul himself is a gracious token of the salvation of all Israel, so this partial remnant is also a ‘down-payment’ on the full redemption that God will effect apart from any human mediation.⁹¹ In my view, then, in Romans Paul no longer hopes for Israel's conversion through an on-going mission evangelizing Jews per se.⁹² Such a mission has already happened, in the global missionary activity through which the word of Christ (διὰ ῥήματος Χϱιστοῦ) has gone out to all people, both Gentile and Jew, to which the Jews have responded with ‘disobedience’ (10.21). Paul's response to this disastrous state of affairs is not finally to blame his fellow Jews for their unbelief and redefine them out of the people of God, but rather to reaffirm God's sovereignty over unbelief as well as belief (11.7–10), and God's ultimate purpose of redemption precisely at the null point of Israel's history.

Where does Paul find the resources for this hope in the face of disaster? Most obviously, he finds testimony in Israel's scriptures, the very scriptures that were ‘written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope’ (Rom 15.4 RSV).⁹³ But he also, as I have suggested here, works out his theology in conversation with his own experience, in which God interrupted his life ‘in Judaism’ with the apocalypse of Christ.

7. Conclusion

I have argued that in both Galatians and Romans, ‘Israel’ denotes the Jewish people, Paul's kinsfolk according to the flesh. In Gal 6.16, Paul pronounces a benediction of peace on all who will walk in line with the rule of the new creation, in which there is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, and a prayer for mercy on unbelieving Israel. When he pens the letter and the prayer, he does so in the knowledge that there is an on-going mission to the circumcision led by Peter and the other leaders of the Jerusalem church. It is quite likely, therefore, that his prayer includes hope for the success of that mission.

When Paul writes Romans, the mission to the Jews has not met with the success for which he hoped. In Romans 9–11, he again prays for his beloved kinsfolk (10.1), and works through the meaning of God's mercy for Israel, as well as for the Gentiles. In so doing, he draws on Israel's scripture, and he also draws on his own experience, which he earlier narrated in Galatians in parallel with the history of God's promise to Abraham. That history demonstrates a pattern encompassed by God's overarching purposes, beginning with a divine call, interrupted by human obduracy under the law, and ultimately fulfilled in Christ. In the midst of this providential pattern, Israel continues to exist in the present tense, distinct from the church, as the object of God's providence, judgment, and mercy. As such, in Gal 6.16 Israel is a sign of God's commitment to history, to flesh and blood people, beyond as well as within the confines of the church. Therefore, ‘the Jew remains until the end of times a witness to the concreteness of salvation history as well as to the impenetrability of the divine salvific leading’.⁹⁴ And just as in Paul's own life, that divine salvific leading will display God's rectification of the ungodly, without prerequisites, in the very midst of human unbelief.⁹⁵ Therefore in Romans 9–11, the salvation of disobedient Israel becomes, along with the salvation of disobedient Gentiles, a sign of God's mercy: ‘The God who acts soteriologically is always the Creator out of nothing. He always accomplishes the resurrection of the dead. He always works with what is by human judgment unserviceable material (1 Cor 1.18–31; 2 Cor 3.5f.), namely, the ungodly’.⁹⁶