SIMILAR PROPHECIES? (I THESSALONIANS 2:16b AND ROMANS 11:25b)

I Thessalonians 2:16b

This passage deals with those Jews who have been opposing Paul's ministry. A sampling below shows how translators render this half verse:

    NRSV: “Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God's wrath has overtaken them at last*.”          * Or completely or forever.

    JB: They never stop trying to finish off the sins they have begun, but retribution is overtaking them at last.”

    NIV: “In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.*”                                   *Or them fully.

The major question to answer in relation to this passage is the timing of God's wrath on these people. Constable mentions several possible times of fulfillment of this passage but does not commit himself to any one of them. They include the following:

    1. the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70

    2. God's turning away from the Jews and toward the Gentiles

    3. the wrath which falls on everyone who fails to believe in Jesus

    4. the future time of Tribulation

In addition, A. Smith alludes to other events when he says, “Perhaps the wrath of God is not an explicit occurrence (such as the expulsion of the Jews in 49 CE from Rome or the massacre of Jews in the Temple court in 49 CE [see Josephus, War, 2:12.1]), but simply God's justice (as in 1.10) in preventing opponents anywhere from destroying God's churches.”

Notice that some of these events were past history even as Paul was writing and and some are yet to come. The reason for this confusion in timing has been addressed by several commentators:

    “The fall of Jerusalem both expresses and symbolizes this judgment, which awaits all who thus displease God.” (Cousins)

    However, Bruce rejects the AD 70 interpretation since: “The Jews of the Dispersion were not for the most part involved in that disaster. Paul means that by their persistent opposition to the gospel they had already ensured for themselves that eschatological judgment which they might have averted by accepting it (cf. Acts 2:38ff.; 3:19ff). In Christian literature before AD 70 no clear distinction is drawn between the destruction of Jerusalem of the end-time 'birth-pangs' (Mk. 13:8), and the final judgments of the day of the Lord.”

    Malherbe: “The aorist tense of phthanein (“come”) has caused interpreters difficulties. It can be taken to refer to a past historical event, or if brought into relation with the future wrath of 1:10, the tense could be thought of as a prophetic future. It has also been considered equivalent to engiken ('has drawn near'), with an appeal to Matt 12:28.” In both I Thessalonians and Romans it affirms its arrival “while leaving it open whether people have yet received it or not.” (Stott) He thus feels that the wrath was hanging over their head with the historical events of AD 48-50 but had not yet overwhelmed them, as perhaps it did in AD 70.

    “The consequence is sure...Indeed, so sure is their punishment, that he uses the aorist tense which might be rendered 'came' upon them. The use of this tense does not refer to the imminence of the punishment. It refers rather to its certainty, for Paul is thinking of wrath in an eschatological setting.” (Morris)

    Constable himself concludes, “Perhaps Paul chose a general statement rather than a specific one because he had several things in mind. God's wrath had reached its full limit in regard to those individuals.”

    “In any case, the verb has come appears to point to an actual historical occurrence, whether already past, presently unfolding, or envisioned in the near future...Wrath is an event within history rather than exclusively an end-time phenomenon.” Wanamaker disagrees: “The apocalyptic character of the statement, however, warns against insisting that an actual event lies behind the verb.”

    Blomberg says that this verse was “probably a conscious echo of” Matthew 23:32, in which Jesus tells the scribes and Pharisees to “fill up, then, the measure of your ancestors.” Hill feels this alludes to the Jewish belief “that the final judgment will come only after men have reached the absolute peak of sinfulness.”

    Weima elaborates on this idea: “The verb anapleroo suggests the picture of a vessel or cup that is in a slow but constant process of being filled up, and once it is completely full, judgment will take place. The same verb is used in Gen. 15:16 LXX to describe the sins of the Amorites, which are said 'to not yet be filled up.' This theme...occurs also in Dan. 8:23; Wis. 19:4; 2 Macc. 6:14...The notion that humans have a fixed limit to their actions, both good and evil, is widely attested in later Jewish writings as well...”

Romans 11:25b

    NRSV: “A hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.”

    JB: “One section of Israel has become blind, but this will last only until the whole pagan world has entered*, and then after this the rest of Israel will be saved as well.”

        *Paul is still speaking of peoples, not of individuals: the Jews en mass, and the pagan world as a whole.

    NIV: “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.”

        * Or and so.

When was or will be these prophecies fulfilled? J.B. Payne points to the destruction of the Judaean state in A.D. 70 as the time of fulfillment of the I Thessalonians passage and states, “Agreement is general that the verbal tense at this point is not intended to be taken as past.” Thus, it does not have to have already taken place before the writing of this letter in ca. 50. When it comes to the Romans prophecy, Payne locates it some time before the Second Coming of Christ.

“God's plan is in two stages. The first stage is the rejection of most of the Jews in order that God may make up the full number, which only He knows, of Gentile Christians...'Saved' is to be taken in the same spiritual sense as in vv. 11,14. (The question of a political future for converted Israel does not arise here, but hangs upon the interpretation of other Scriptures.)” (L.C. Allen) Thus, he contradicts one of the key Dispensational contentions in the next section below.

Hodge suggests that “the full number of Gentiles” equals “the complement to make full the vacancy left by the rejection of the Jews” or “that which makes the Gentiles, as to number, full.” Payne says, “In line with this last proposal, the fulfillment herein suggested is that of Mk 13:10: the large, but still definite number of Gentiles that are to be converted...before the second advent of Christ.”

But not all scholars are convinced that pleroma ('fulness') in this passage refers to a certain number of people. Thus, Fitzmyer says, “Two interpretations of it are current: until the full number (or strength) of the Gentiles' has accepted the gospel, as foreseen by God's foreknowledge, or until the salvation of Gentiles occurs to its 'fullest extent.'”

And Brauch chimes in with much the same thought: “I am persuaded that the idea of a predetermined number...is not within Paul's purview here. When non-canonical Jewish apocalyptic literature speaks of a 'full number' of Israelites in relation to end events, the word used is not pleroma but arithmos...Paul's commitment to the full dissemination of the gospel to the Gentiles must provide the interpretive key to his use of pleroma in Romans.”

A Dispensational Parenthesis

As an aside, it is well to enter for a moment the quite different world of the Dispensationalist commentators and their “strictly literal interpretation” of the Word:

    Walvoord: “The use of the word until signifies not only that the period of Gentile blessing will end, but it also indicates at a future period of Israel's ingrafting will follow.”

    Witmer comments on “all Israel will be saved” as follows: “saved, that is “delivered (in the OT 'saved' often means 'delivered') from the terrible Tribulation by the Messiah, the Deliverer. To confirm this Paul quoted from Isaiah 59:20-21 and 27:9. “The statement... does not mean that every Jew living at Christ's return will be regenerated. Many of them will not be saved, as seen by the fact that the judgment of Israel, to follow soon after the Lord's return, will include the removal of Jewish rebels (Ezek. 20:34-38). Following this judgment God will then remove godlessness and sins from the nation as He establishes His New Covenant with regenerate Israel (cf. Jer. 31:33-34).”

Thus, we are told that (1) in the future God will totally withhold his spiritual blessings from the non-Jews; (2) the term New Covenant or Testament does not really refer to the era under which we now live. Instead it refers to a new covenant God will make with the Jews in the future; (3) all references to Israel in the NT refer to the Jews only; and (4) Jesus' salvation is mainly a political salvation from earthly enemies.

Regarding these various dubious contentions, (1) is totally contradicted by Romans 11:12; (2) contradicts the consistent use of “New Testament” within the NT and within the last 2,000 years of church history; (3) is patently untrue as references to the “true Jew” and the “new Israel” aver; and (4) is a throw-back to all the mistaken ideas concerning the Messiah which were current in Christ's day.

Murray further elaborates on the problems with the Dispensational contention in (1) above by referring to “the unwarranted assumption that 'the fulness of the Gentiles' is the consummation of blessings for the Gentiles and room for no further expansion of gospel blessing. 'The fulness of the Gentiles' denotes unprecedented blessing for them but does not exclude even greater blessing to follow. It is to this subsequent blessing that the restoration of Israel contributes.”

And if I were to quote from the more popular expositors from this relatively new school of theology, you could see that the sheer excess of details they are able to pull out of even more diverse OT passages supposedly relating to this future time period are truly, and literally, unbelievable.

Relation Between the Two Passages

I will admit that I may be reaching a little bit here in order to make a point, but when I re-read the I Thessalonians verse recently, I was instantly reminded of Paul's comment toward the end of Romans.

And at first when I started looking for any sort of scholarly confirmation drawing a parallel between the two verses, I could find nothing. But then, in looking a little deeper into the surrounding contexts of these two verses, I found that perhaps my initial impression was not that far off base after all.

    One obvious, but perhaps trivial, correlation between these two teachings of Paul is that they were both addressed to “brothers,” those who had already accepted the Gospel message.

    Paul's message to the Thessalonians is to assure them that the Jews who oppose them will receive their due judgment. But to the Roman church, he informs them that they are not to use that fact to boast in themselves since there will also be a time in which many of the Jews will turn back to God. Both truths are necessary aspects of the whole story.

    The “Jews” Paul is speaking of were at that time “enemies of God” who tried to prevent the Gospel from being spread.

    Both passages deal with future events which are presaged by what is currently happening or has happened to his audience.

    God's plan for the future encompasses both judgment on and salvation for the Jews.

    There is a certain “fullness” (same Greek root in each passage) necessary for each of these steps in God's plan to be carried out.

    In both cases, the actions of the Jews have resulted in or will result in (Romans 11:12) blessings to the Gentiles.

Regarding I Thess. 2:16, Hendricksen rejects it as referring either to the fall of Jerusalem or to the tribulations of the Jews under Caligula and Claudius. Instead, he proclaims, “What Paul teaches is in full harmony with Rom. 9-11. However, in Romans there is additional revelation. He there shows that though this wrath to the uttermost has reached the Jewish masses, there is, nevertheless in every period of history, 'a remnant according to the election of grace.' These remnants of all the ages, taken together, constitute 'all Israel' which 'shall be saved' (Rom. 11:26a).”

Stott asks, “How is it possible...to reconcile the horizons of I Thessalonians (which predicts even declares, God's judgment) and of Romans 11 (which affirms the continuing validity of God's covenant and the assurance of Israel's salvation)? Are not the warning of judgment and the promise of salvation equally irrevocable and therefore contradictory? Perhaps the solution to this problem is to be found in the difference of Paul's terminology between God's wrath upon 'the Jews' individually (I Thes. 2:14) and his salvation of 'Israel' collectively.”

Wanamaker starts out by saying that “the differences between [I Thessalonians] 2:15f and Romans 9-11 can be overplayed, even if Paul is not saying precisely the same thing in the two places.” He then proceeds with several additional comments on I Thessalonians to explain his view:

    “The polemical accusation that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus...is nowhere else leveled by Paul, unless Rom. 11:11f. contains an allusion to it.”

    The statement “that the Jews' filling up of their sins was according to the purpose of God [is] an idea that has parallels in Romans 11 (cf. 11:7-10,28,32). The theme of 'filling up the measure of sins' is found in several places, including Gn. 15:16; Dn. 8:23; and 2 Macc. 6:14.”

    “Unlike Romans 9-11...I Thes. 2:16 does not say what will happen to disobedient Jews. As Davies...suggests, Paul had not formulated his final understanding about the position of Israel in the divine scheme when he wrote I Thessalonians.”