# Covenantal response to Romans 11:25



## shackleton (Sep 27, 2007)

I was listening to a series on mp3 about the church and end times and this verse was brought up as definitive proof for dispensationalism. 

The Mystery of Israel’s Salvation
Romans 11:25-36

25Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers:£ _*a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26And in this way all Israel will be saved,*_ as it is written,

£“The Deliverer will come from Zion,

he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;


27 “and this will be my covenant with them

when I take away their sins.”


28As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30Just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now£ receive mercy. 32For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

33Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!


34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord,

or who has been his counselor?”


35 “Or who has given a gift to him

that he might be repaid?”


36For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. (ESV)

I have often wondered about this verse myself, so I figured I would ask. It seems to say that God turned to the gentiles to make the Jews jealous, in the same way the Jews would turn to wood and stone to worship it, now God turns to the heathen dogs to make them jealous and in so doing it will eventually lead to their return to him. 

Also, what, if any, is the significance of the Jews return to Israel in 1948? This almost seems like OT history playing our right before our very eyes. The Jews are punished for their rejection of Christ, exiled after the destruction of the temple, then severly punished with the holocaust, then the remnant returned to their land. 

Anyway this is what I have wondered for some time so I figured I would ask. 

Thanks


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 27, 2007)

shackleton said:


> I have often wondered about this verse myself, so I figured I would ask. It seems to say that God turned to the gentiles to make the Jews jealous, in the same way the Jews would turn to wood and stone to worship it, now God turns to the heathen dogs to make them jealous and in so doing it will eventually lead to their return to him.
> 
> Also, what, if any, is the significance of the Jews return to Israel in 1948? This almost seems like OT history playing our right before our very eyes. The Jews are punished for their rejection of Christ, exiled after the destruction of the temple, then severly punished with the holocaust, then the remnant returned to their land.
> 
> ...



What's the problem? Regarding the first paragraph I am a a covenantalist but I hold to a future conversion of Israel, millennial kingdom, etc.

With regard to the second paragraph, I am reluctant to say either way. Modern day Israel hates Christ and Christianity, but they are Christ' kinsman according to the flesh (so we shouldn't nuke em).


----------



## larryjf (Sep 27, 2007)

Rom 11:31 can clarify when the gathering of Israel that Paul speaks of in Rom 11:26.

Rom 11:31 says, "so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may *now* receive mercy."

What's interesting here is the last "now" in the verse. It seems to be saying that Israel will be gathered in at the same time as the Gentiles. This also goes along with the mechanism that Paul tells us will bring the Jews in - jealousy of the Gentiles (Rom 11:11) .

It also makes sense in light of Rom 11:12, "Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!"

Since Israel is seen here as blessing the Gentiles in their "full inclusion" we should not think that the full inclusion will happen after the Gentiles are gone as some do.


----------



## shackleton (Sep 28, 2007)

Larry, ironically when you responded to this post your post count was *666*


----------



## larryjf (Sep 28, 2007)

I guess i better make another post...there it is.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 28, 2007)

I don't think "... all Israel being saved..." to view that as a wholesale return of every Jew at some future point does justice to the nature of Paul's teaching.

First, part of "all Israel" includes the ingrafted Gentiles who, although not Israel according to the flesh, are still Israel.

Second, if the equation necessitates that every physical descendant of Israel be saved then the schema fails. Why? Because there are literally two millenia of dead and buried Jews that have rejected the Gospel. The idea that "all Israel" just refers to those Jews alive during the return of Christ is not consistent with the nature of the passage.

Third, Paul's presentation is not intended primarily as an "End Times" prediction but has been introduced to buttress the surety of salvation. The question at hand is whether God has abandoned his kinsmen according to the flesh even though they are justly condemned for rejecting the Gospel. Unfortunately, as is typical of Dispensationalists, they ignore the larger meaning of the passage to focus narrowly on constructing their end times schema.

I think a more Biblically viable understanding of the "all Israel" is to understand that every Jew, through human history, that turns to the Gospel of Christ should be viewed in the light of this passage. We who are Christians and have been grafted in should not be haughty as the Gospel was brought to us by their temporary rejection. We ought to rejoice if they (a Jew) sees how God is blessing us and is jealous to return to Him in the true religion. It has immediate application and not simply a future fulfillment.

In fact, if dispensationalists weren't undermining the Gospel itself, they might be trusting in God more and praying for the salvation of current Jews and living lives transformed by the true Gospel that made Israel according to the flesh jealous to return. As it is, they wait in futile hope that "God still has a plan for Israel" that includes some fanciful scheme where everyone is converted all at once. Look around you! There are Jews that need the Gospel now! God's plan for Israel is current and not future.


----------



## shackleton (Sep 28, 2007)

Someone actually told me ( he was Jewish) that the statement, "All Israel will be saved" referred to the lost tribes of Israel. He explained this by saying that eveyone who is saved is "Jewish" and a member of one the lost tribes.


----------



## Iconoclast (Sep 29, 2007)

Building on Rich's post #6, Acts 13:

44And on the coming sabbath, almost all the city was gathered together to hear the word of God, 

45and the Jews having seen the multitudes, were filled with zeal, and did contradict the things spoken by Paul -- contradicting and speaking evil. 

46And speaking boldly, Paul and Barnabas said, `To you it was necessary that first the word of God be spoken, and seeing ye do thrust it away, and do not judge yourselves worthy of the life age-during, lo, we do turn to the nations; 

47for so hath the Lord commanded us: I have set thee for a light of nations -- for thy being for salvation unto the end of the earth.' 

All who were ordained to eternal life believed,Jew or Gentile.

Also in Eph.2-3 The eternal purpose of God,ONE NEW MAN In Christ. 

Leads many to believe that in romans 11 it is to say, so after this manner All Israel will be saved as Paul sort of sums up in romans 15:
8Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: 

9And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. 

10And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people. 

11And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people. 

12And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust. 

13Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost. 

14And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another. 

15Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God, 

16That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. 

17I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God.


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 29, 2007)

shackleton said:


> The Jews are punished for their rejection of Christ, exiled after the destruction of the temple, then severly punished with the holocaust, then the remnant returned to their land.



A very helpful book is Robertson's _Israel of God_.

For a helpful background article try this although I disagree with him 

"...it is becoming clear that there are actually three breeds of amillennialist: 

*1. *Those who, like Calvin and myself, see "all Israel" as a reference to the church. 
*2. *Those amillennialists who, like John Murray, interpret Romans 11 as a postmillennialist would regarding the future conversion of the Jews en masse, but without espousing the postmillennial hermeneutic as whole. 
*3. *And those who, like Robertson, see "all Israel" as having an ethnically restrictive denotation (i.e., to all the elect within the community of Israel) and who envision their salvation as a continual process throughout the interadvental period."​


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr (Oct 14, 2007)

*The Church is Israel*

This is an interesting post. Most of my friends--who are, for the most part amillenialist--love the study of echatology. In one event, my Friend Sean, who is also PCA, recommended that I buy Dr. Kim's treatment of the subject. I, on the other hand, find the subject dry with no vitality to the Christian virtues. However, I don't believe it is unfruitful to the believer's life. Some important men in history have written volumes on the subject; so I guess it isn't too baneful to address this topic. But more particular, I want to focus on the study of Paul's explanation of Romans 9.
In the tradition of the Reformed Presbos, I follow a belief that the church is solemnly defined as "chosen" in the New Testament. Dr. Piper, in his dissertation, wrote at lengths the arguments for the elective tenor of Paul throughout Romans (spec. chaper 9). The ultimate dilemma then is whether Paul's anticipation of complement met--that God's word hasn't failed. Paul wrote in verse 6, "But it is not as though the word of God has failed." But if it hasn't failed, why then are the children of Israel not forthcoming to the salvation made for _them_? That is explained in the next clause which defines the argument: "For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel." Piper then draws the distinction in his book by defining God's promise: Jacob (chosen) and Esau (not chosen). And these two figures in biblical history denote the will of God, i.e. election. And the purpose for the argument is that the purpose of election might stand firm (or be established). If the argument is not sound and, or true, then the word of God fails, and his justification for doing so also fails; and that is the argument Paul is defining, the faithfulness and justice of God by virtue of his word. 
In dealing with the nature of justice, Dr. Hodge (Charles) defined all the attributes of God as, "the ultimate foundation of moral obligations in the nature of God." Paul's argument has been stressed upon the nature of God from this point on. The nature of Paul's argument is based on the will of God which encapsulates His justice. And these attributes hang on the justification of Paul's thesis here: that God's word has not failed. 
Therefore, God is justified in the justification of his people ("Israel") by virtue of election, and as a result, his word still stands. The thesis is not volitile to the nation of Israel, namely because his promises still stand, albeit for the "true" nation of Israel, the Church.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 14, 2007)

*Hendricksen's Take*

Here is what Hendricksen had to say:



> God’s Mercy on “the Fulness of the Gentiles” and on “All Israel”
> “For God has locked up all in the prison of disobedience in order that he may have mercy on all”
> 11:25–32​25 For I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited, that a hardening has come upon part of Israel (and will last) until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
> “Out of Zion will come the Deliverer;
> ...


----------



## PastorTim (Oct 14, 2007)

the issue is resolved when defining Israel by God's definition. "...all that are Israel are not of Israel...". The Israel of God are the people of the promise. If it is earned by heritage it is not by grace. Dispenstaionalism is demonic in that it forces people to await the arrival of the kingdom which is already here, thus, they do not work at furthering. Just wait in fear.


----------



## Greg (Oct 14, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> A very helpful book is Robertson's _Israel of God_.



I agree. I just finished reading this book a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr (Oct 14, 2007)

*Israel and the Church*



PastorTim said:


> the issue is resolved when defining Israel by God's definition. "...all that are Israel are not of Israel...". The Israel of God are the people of the promise. If it is earned by heritage it is not by grace. Dispenstaionalism is demonic in that it forces people to await the arrival of the kingdom which is already here, thus, they do not work at furthering. Just wait in fear.



You made a good point here; however, I would be more cordial in saying that the Despensational vein is demonic. That is not to say that I don't agree with your corolary. I do agree that Despensationalism is indicative of bad thinking. My point is that though there is only one Israel, there can be no "two people" of God. There is only one "dough" which is holy (cf. Rom.11:16); which makes the lump holy; which makes the branches holy. The holiness spoken in this text is comprised in one seed, Abraham. Here is the flow of Paul's thinking in this text:

If the dough is holy then the lump, too;
If the lump is holy,then the branches are too.
Therefore the thinking here that Paul wants to make clear is that God's people come from one seed, which is holy, viz. Abraham. I would defy anyone who attempts to identify two people of God. Scripture does not know of any other "Church."


----------



## MW (Oct 14, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> "...it is becoming clear that there are actually three breeds of amillennialist:
> 
> *1. *Those who, like Calvin and myself, see "all Israel" as a reference to the church.
> *2. *Those amillennialists who, like John Murray, interpret Romans 11 as a postmillennialist would regarding the future conversion of the Jews en masse, but without espousing the postmillennial hermeneutic as whole.
> *3. *And those who, like Robertson, see "all Israel" as having an ethnically restrictive denotation (i.e., to all the elect within the community of Israel) and who envision their salvation as a continual process throughout the interadvental period."​



2 and 3 are the only viable options. The context makes it abundantly clear that the apostle is dealing with Jews and Gentiles as distinct entitities within God's covenantal purpose. It would make no sense if he suddenly identified them as one mass in verse 26. It would make even less sense, if he had identified them as one mass, to revert back to referring to national Israel as "them" in verses 28ff.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 14, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > "...it is becoming clear that there are actually three breeds of amillennialist:
> ...



Largely agreed, especially on the context. If "Israel" is the church, and Romans 9 is also part of the context, then why does Paul speak of Isreal [read church] as accursed and his kinsmen according to the flesh?


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr (Oct 25, 2007)

Paul does distinguish between the actual church and Israel. The distinction comes later, spiritually. However, this does not mean that there are two peoples of God. This is Covenant Theology 101. Basic corrolaries prove this:
How must (all) man be saved? If there is only one way, then how many people of God are there, if there is only a monotary conduit to faith?

If God saves by other means in scripture, then it should be plainly explicit. In the bible, we have only one operandi by which man must be saved, and that is the classic reformed doctrine of sola fide by grace alone. And since there is a unitary method (by faith, rom. 1:17), then there is a unitary people--the church/Israel.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 25, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > "...it is becoming clear that there are actually three breeds of amillennialist:
> ...



I prefer 3 within the context of the passage as well. The point that flows later in the text is that ethnic Jews are cut out to allow wild shoots to be grafted in and, in turn, some are provoked by jealousy to return. I think the whole passage becomes too future oriented for the present believer if one views the passage as simply a wholesale return of all Jews in the future. Ought not those in the Church today be provoking ethnic Jews to jealousy?


----------

