All Israel Will Be Saved

["William The Baptist"]

[video=youtube_share;CEUSdo-Vp3U]http://youtu.be/CEUSdo-Vp3U[/video]

A friend posted this video today. It was interesting to me the talk of the elect and interpreting scripture with scripture. Would this be John MacArther-esque? Thoughts?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Holy Dispensationalism, Batman! Newsflash, the Bible ends with a wedding between Christ and the Church.

 

["William The Baptist"]

Holy Dispensationalism, Batman! Newsflash, the Bible ends with a wedding between Christ and the Church.

 

["William The Baptist"]

Yes. Just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on what one might say in response to his interpretation. My knee jerk reaction was to post the scripture saying not all who are of Israel are Israel.

 

[Gforce9]

Holy Dispensationalism, Batman!

I second this notion, Robin!

 

[NB3K]

Doesn't Israel = Church / Church=Israel

 

[heartoflesh]

Yes. Just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on what one might say in response to his interpretation. My knee jerk reaction was to post the scripture saying not all who are of Israel are Israel.

Yes, not all Israel are Israel is the right place to start. Actually, a discussion on hermeneutics and how it's important to interpret the Old Testament in light of the new, and not vice verse is even more fundamental but will take a lot more time!

Even with the "not all Israel are Israel" thing agreed upon it depends on what interpretation you yourself hold about who the "All Israel" are who will be saved. This is a notoriously difficult passage. I tend to lean with Hoekema (The Bible and the Future) and think Paul is describing ethnic Jews being saved throughout this entire church age. Others think Paul is describing Jews and Gentiles alike as comprising "All Israel" (Sam Waldron: "More of the End Times Made Simple").

In any case, arguing with many dispensationalists can be a futile and frustrating effort because we and they are just coming from different starting points with the fundamental hermeneutical questions. I try to have a lot of grace for dispensationalists. Ninety-nine percent of the time they're just rattling off what they've been told and are often impressed when you shed a different light on things. It doesn't do a lot of good to rush in like a bull in a china shop with "The Church is the True Israel you nincompoop!" But then again some guys, like MacArthur, really gall me because while they know the issues are complex and lie deeper in the hermeneutics, they like to feign a simplistic understanding of "the text literally says..." as if that is the end all of everything. I heard a sermon on Rev. 20 recently where MacArthur said "The 1000 years is mentioned six times in the chapter. Obviously it is meant to be taken literally!"

Really?

addendum: I should add that one need not be a dispensationalist to hold the view that the "All Israel" in view is a future conversion of ethnic jews occuring at Christ's coming. Douglas Moo lays out a plausible case for this is in his Romans commentary. I believe John Piper holds to this, as probably most historic premils?

 

[NB3K]

Here is a comment from Calvin on Romans 11:26

Romans 11:26

26.And so all Israel, etc. Many understand this of the Jewish people, as though Paul had said, that religion would again be restored among them as before: but I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, according to this meaning, — “When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both; and yet in such a way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it were the first-born in God’s family.” This interpretation seems to me the most suitable, because Paul intended here to set forth the completion of the kingdom of Christ, which is by no means to be confined to the Jews, but is to include the whole world. The same manner of speaking we find in Gal_6:16. The Israel of God is what he calls the Church, gathered alike from Jews and Gentiles; and he sets the people, thus collected from their dispersion, in opposition to the carnal children of Abraham, who had departed from his faith.
As it is written, etc. He does not confirm the whole passage by this testimony of Isaiah, (Isa_59:20,) but only one clause, — that the children of Abraham shall be partakers of redemption. But if one takes this view, — that Christ had been promised and offered to them, but that as they rejected him, they were deprived of his grace; yet the Prophet’s words express more, even this, — that there will be some remnant, who, having repented, shall enjoy the favor of deliverance.
Paul, however, does not quote what we read in Isaiah, word for word;
“come,” he says, “shall a Redeemer to Sion, and to those who shall repent of iniquity in Jacob, saith the Lord.” (Isa_59:20.)
But on this point we need not be very curious; only this is to be regarded, that the Apostles suitably apply to their purpose whatever proofs they adduce from the Old Testament; for their object was to point but passages, as it were by the finger, that readers might be directed to the fountain itself.
But though in this prophecy deliverance to the spiritual people of God is promised, among whom even Gentiles are included; yet as the Jews are the first-born, what the Prophet declares must be fulfilled, especially in them: for that Scripture calls all the people of God Israelites, is to be ascribed to the pre-eminence of that nation, whom God had preferred to all other nations. And then, from a regard to the ancient covenant, he says expressly, that a Redeemer shall come to Sion; and he adds, that he will redeem those in Jacob who shall return from their transgression. (364) By these words God distinctly claims for himself a certain seed, so that his redemption may be effectual in his elect and peculiar nation. And though fitter for his purpose would have been the expression used by the Prophet, “shall come to Sion;” yet Paul made no scruple to follow the commonly received translation, which reads, “The Redeemer shall come forth from Mount Sion.” And similar is the case as to the second part, “He shall turn away iniquities from Jacob:” for Paul thought it enough to regard this point only, — that as it is Christ’s peculiar office to reconcile to God an apostate and faithless people, some change was surely to be looked for, lest they should all perish together.

(364) There is more discrepancy in this reference than any we have met with. The Apostle follows not literally either the Hebrew or the Septuagint, though the latter more than the former. In the Hebrew, it is, “to Sion,” לציון, and in the Septuagint, “for the sake of Sion,” ἕνεκεν Σιών. Then the following clause is given verbatim from the Septuagint, and differs materially from the Hebrew, at least as translated in our version. The Syriac and Chaldee give the verb a causative meaning, so as to make the sense the same as here. But it may be regarded as an infinitive with a pargogic י, and in a transitive sense, which it sometimes has. See 1Kg_2:16; Psa_132:10. If so, the verse will agree with the Apostle’s words, and may be thus rendered, —
Come to Sion shall a deliverer,
And to turn away the ungodliness that is in Jacob.
He shall come to Sion, and shall come “to turn away,” etc.; or the ו may be rendered even, “Even to turn away,” etc. This rendering corresponds more than that of our version with the substance of the verse which follows. — Ed.

 

[Peairtach]

You don't have to be a dispensationalist to believe in a future national conversion of the Jews from this passage.

Many covenant theologians of a postmillennial bent have believed this, including Charles Hodge in his Systematic Theology, Robert L. Dabney in his Systematic Theology, John Murray in his commentary on Romans, and many of the Puritans (see Iain Murray's The Puritan Hope (BoT) )

The Larger Catechism may indicate it:

Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?

A. In the second petition, (which is, Thy kingdom come,) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever:and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.

 

[Peairtach]

Here is a comment from Calvin on Romans 11:26

Romans 11:26

26.And so all Israel, etc. Many understand this of the Jewish people, as though Paul had said, that religion would again be restored among them as before: but I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, according to this meaning, — “When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both; and yet in such a way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it were the first-born in God’s family.” This interpretation seems to me the most suitable, because Paul intended here to set forth the completion of the kingdom of Christ, which is by no means to be confined to the Jews, but is to include the whole world. The same manner of speaking we find in Gal_6:16. The Israel of God is what he calls the Church, gathered alike from Jews and Gentiles; and he sets the people, thus collected from their dispersion, in opposition to the carnal children of Abraham, who had departed from his faith.
As it is written, etc. He does not confirm the whole passage by this testimony of Isaiah, (Isa_59:20,) but only one clause, — that the children of Abraham shall be partakers of redemption. But if one takes this view, — that Christ had been promised and offered to them, but that as they rejected him, they were deprived of his grace; yet the Prophet’s words express more, even this, — that there will be some remnant, who, having repented, shall enjoy the favor of deliverance.
Paul, however, does not quote what we read in Isaiah, word for word;
“come,” he says, “shall a Redeemer to Sion, and to those who shall repent of iniquity in Jacob, saith the Lord.” (Isa_59:20.)
But on this point we need not be very curious; only this is to be regarded, that the Apostles suitably apply to their purpose whatever proofs they adduce from the Old Testament; for their object was to point but passages, as it were by the finger, that readers might be directed to the fountain itself.
But though in this prophecy deliverance to the spiritual people of God is promised, among whom even Gentiles are included; yet as the Jews are the first-born, what the Prophet declares must be fulfilled, especially in them: for that Scripture calls all the people of God Israelites, is to be ascribed to the pre-eminence of that nation, whom God had preferred to all other nations. And then, from a regard to the ancient covenant, he says expressly, that a Redeemer shall come to Sion; and he adds, that he will redeem those in Jacob who shall return from their transgression. (364) By these words God distinctly claims for himself a certain seed, so that his redemption may be effectual in his elect and peculiar nation. And though fitter for his purpose would have been the expression used by the Prophet, “shall come to Sion;” yet Paul made no scruple to follow the commonly received translation, which reads, “The Redeemer shall come forth from Mount Sion.” And similar is the case as to the second part, “He shall turn away iniquities from Jacob:” for Paul thought it enough to regard this point only, — that as it is Christ’s peculiar office to reconcile to God an apostate and faithless people, some change was surely to be looked for, lest they should all perish together.

(364) There is more discrepancy in this reference than any we have met with. The Apostle follows not literally either the Hebrew or the Septuagint, though the latter more than the former. In the Hebrew, it is, “to Sion,” לציון, and in the Septuagint, “for the sake of Sion,” ἕνεκεν Σιών. Then the following clause is given verbatim from the Septuagint, and differs materially from the Hebrew, at least as translated in our version. The Syriac and Chaldee give the verb a causative meaning, so as to make the sense the same as here. But it may be regarded as an infinitive with a pargogic י, and in a transitive sense, which it sometimes has. See 1Kg_2:16; Psa_132:10. If so, the verse will agree with the Apostle’s words, and may be thus rendered, —
Come to Sion shall a deliverer,
And to turn away the ungodliness that is in Jacob.
He shall come to Sion, and shall come “to turn away,” etc.; or the ו may be rendered even, “Even to turn away,” etc. This rendering corresponds more than that of our version with the substance of the verse which follows. — Ed.

Calvin's view reminds us that the interpretation of "all Israel" in verse 26

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

is not decisive as regards whether one believes that this passage talks of a national conversion/restoration of the Jews, as some have confusingly stated.

You can hold that "all Israel" refers to all true believers rather than to the majority or all of the Jews, and yet still believe the passage also teaches a national conversion of the Jews.

 

[NB3K]

I just think Calvin interpreted Paul correctly and in context with what Paul did with uniting both the elect descendants of Abraham according to the flesh with the elect from the gentiles in one body called "All Israel".

 

[Peairtach]

Jason

I just think Calvin interpreted Paul correctly and in context with what Paul did with uniting both the elect descendants of Abraham according to the flesh with the elect from the gentiles in one body called "All Israel".

I do so too, and as far as these somewhat difficult eschatalogical Qs can be answered, I believe in a future national reingrafting of the unbelieving Jews into the Church, which God has connected with special blessing and success for the Gospel generally, not because Jewish converts are better than Gentile converts, but because God has so ordained it.

It puts me in mind of Psalm 130:8, and no doubt there are other passages:

And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on what one might say in response to his interpretation. My knee jerk reaction was to post the scripture saying not all who are of Israel are Israel.

Leah, some points of refutation:

1st point: he is making a radical distinction between Israel and the Church, which is not valid. Israel was sifted – the chaff separated from the grain – when Peter said (reiterating Moses), “every soul which will not hear that prophet [Christ], shall be destroyed from among the people” (Acts 3:22,23; cf. Deut 18:15,18,19). In other words, all those Jews who rejected the Messiah were cut off from the nation and the right to the name Israel – even unto this day.

2nd point: he says the Book of Revelation shows the national repentance of Israel – but where is that to be seen there? The 144,000? John, in the very first verse of Revelation says that the prophecy and its images are to be interpreted symbolically. To excerpt from another post on the amil view of Revelation:

For the benefit of those lurking and wondering about some of the interpretive presuppositions of this school, a primary one has been convincingly put forth by G.K. Beale in his massive and erudite, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, and that is the contents of the Revelation are made known by means of symbolism. In the very first verse of the book (1:1) it is written,

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John” [emphasis added]​

This word signified (“communicated” NASB, “made it known” ESV, NIV) – [SIZE=+1]shmanen[/SIZE] – semaino “is part of a clear allusion [in the LXX Greek] to Dan. 2:28-30, 45. The clauses ‘revelation . . . God showed . . . what must come to pass . . . and he made known ([SIZE=+1]shmanen[/SIZE])’ occur together only in Daniel 2 and Rev 1:1.... the manner of the communication is defined by the context of the vision as symbolic communication by means of a dream vision.... The revelation is not abstract but pictorial.” Beale, pp. 50, 51. For those who don’t have his book, he explicates this further in his sermon (MP3) on Rev 11, “Two Witnesses in Revelation” (⇐ link). Dennis Johnson in Triumph of the Lamb concurs (see footnote 6, p. 7). All this to say that from the very opening of the Revelation we are told that this is a book to be understood by seeing and interpreting the symbols given, almost all of which are taken from the Old Testament, which is thus the key to their interpretation.​

3rd point: what is the “fulness of the Gentiles”? Does it mean that after the last elect Gentile is saved, the church will be raptured –and this is the “fulness etc”? Here is a post with William Hendriksen’s view, an excellent expostition: http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/future-state-israel-prophesied-wilhelmus-brakel-75620/#post963175. Hendriksen’s piece is a bit long, but it’s good – for those who want to look deeply into the matter.

4th point: Jews / “Israel” are not “deaf across the board” to hearing & heeding the Gospel; many of us have been saved by Messiah.

5th point: This view is predicated on the Rapture of the Gentiles before the Tribulation – he says, “the church and Israel do not overlap”, saying once again there is a radical distinction between them. This is really baseless surmise, as the dispensationalist version of the rapture is not shown in Scripture. What is shown is the Lord calling His suffering people up to Him at His second coming, just preceding His terrible war against the beasts, satan, and those with the mark of the beast, and the subsequent great white throne judgment.

6th point: The church is meant to “escape the judgment of God” upon the nations before the end of the age – per Nelson? The judgments will continue till the end of the age, increasing mightily, and the saints will be there till the end, awaiting His return and call to them to “Come up hither!” (Rev 11:12).

7th point: Per Nelson, “144,000 [of the Jews] begin to preach”, “All Israel comes to Messiah”, those Israelites who don’t come are cast into Hell, and the remaining Jews who receive Christ reign with Him in earthly Jerusalem 1,000 years? This kind of literalism is what John spoke against; to take John literally is to interpret Revelation symbolically! Beale goes into this in his sermon linked to above.

8th point: Evidently, according to Nelson, there are more people than saved Jews on the earth during this supposed “millennial” period – where did they come from? In Rev 19:11-21, the Lord destroys all those on the earth (the saints have just been called up to Him in the clouds); the destroyed are “all men, both free and bond, both small and great” (Rev 19:18). When it is written in 19:20 that the beast and false prophet are cast into the lake of fire, verse 21 says, “And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth”. This is all who are left on the earth after the church is called up to Christ. There are no other people left to supposedly live in the 1,000 years of the Dispensationalists’ millennium! The Dispensationalists understand Rev 19 to be Christ’s war against the antichrist & followers before His 1,000 year reign in Jerusalem. The Dispensationalists have this fiction about the “Tribulation saints” – those converted after the rapture of the church and left behind on the earth during the 1,000 years. But this is not in the Bible.

But it has an aura of excitement, and the Left Behind books (as well the earlier Late Great Planet Earth) made it seem feasible to many, even though it cannot be Scripturally sustained. There is a big industry supporting this view, but it lulls the saints with the thought they will evade the coming great tribulation that shall try us all, and that is a lie. It also wickedly gives people the idea that they may repent after the rapture. It is a wicked lie to the faithful because many will be caught unprepared, expecting to be “raptured” and instead plunged into extreme suffering (it is coming folks, equal to what we see in Syria, Nigeria, Afghanistan, North Korea etc – and worse) and resulting confusion, as this was not supposed to happen! We Reformed and Presbyterian are not much better off, ‘cause we think it is far away – far, far away – and also are not mentally and spiritually prepared. Not many can see the economy about to tank (how can one not see this?) and the resulting civil disorder? But that’s just the beginning of our troubles. I’ll be posting a thread about this shortly. Bottom line: walk close to Christ, and think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you (1 Peter 4:12).

Hopes this helps with your friend, Leah.