# Romans 11 - All Israel will be saved (PART 2)



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 9, 2004)

What do you guys think about this passage?

Who is &quot;all Israel&quot;?

[quote:a3d4132745]25&nbsp;Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers:&nbsp;[3] a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26&nbsp;And in this way [b:a3d4132745]all Israel will be saved[/b:a3d4132745], as it is written,

"The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";
27&nbsp;"and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."

28&nbsp;As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29&nbsp;For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30&nbsp;Just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31&nbsp;so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now&nbsp;[4] receive mercy. 32&nbsp;For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.[/quote:a3d4132745]

:book:


----------



## luvroftheWord (Jul 19, 2004)

Paul,

The text says that a partial hardening has come upon Israel. The Israel being referred to is ethnic Israel But the ";;partial hardening";; does not mean, ";;The entire nation of ethnic Israel has been hardened temporarily until a time in the future when the hardening will be lifted";;. I understand the partial hardening to mean that the nation of ethnic Israel has been hardened partially, as in, part of the nation has been hardened, but not all of it. All of ethnic Israel has been hardened except for the remnant. Paul says this much in verse 7: ";;Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened.";; Paul also says in verse 5 that this remnant still exists today. ";;So too at the [i:ea91e8cdea]present time[/i:ea91e8cdea] there is a remnant, chosen by grace.";;

All of ethnic Israel is hardened EXCEPT the remnant. These elect Jews will believe the gospel in the current age as a result of being provoked to jealousy by the gospel coming to the Gentiles. This is something that will take place from now until the close of history. ";;All Israel";; will be saved when the fullness of both the Jews and the Gentiles are saved, and thus Isaiah 59:20-21 will be fully realized.

Why must it be that the Israel of verse 26 is the same as the Israel of verse 25? The verses do not say, ";;A partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. AND THEN all Israel will be saved.";; The verse says ";;AND SO all Israel will be saved";;, or the better rendering is ";;And in this way all Israel will be saved.";; There is nothing in the verse either in the Greek or the original that [i:ea91e8cdea]requires[/i:ea91e8cdea] this hardening to be a temporal hardening that will one day be lifted sometime before Christ returns, at least as I see it. I think that verses 25-26 in themselves are compatible with either of our views, which means that the meaning must be discerned from the context and the argument of the rest of the passage. This is why I agree with Robertson because I think Paul is clearly dealing with ethnic Israel's present rather than their future in Romans 11.

{test edit}


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 19, 2004)

*Thread Re-opened*

Due to some glitch, this thread was running off screen.

So I split it off and it appears to be OK now.


----------



## turmeric (Jul 19, 2004)

I liked Kim Riddlebarger's discussion of this passage in [i:dd2720bc3e]The Case for Amillenialism[/i:dd2720bc3e]


----------



## luvroftheWord (Jul 20, 2004)

Paul,

I have Murray's Romans commentary and am familiar with his argument. I just disagree that its an impossibility for Paul to speak of the true Israel in verse 26. I think that if Paul can use Israel in two different senses in the same verse (Romans 9:6) that he can certainly use it in two difference senses in Romans 11:25-26 as well. I gave my reasons for why I believe Paul switches the senses there, one of which is the nature of the Isaiah 59:20-21 prophecy that he quotes, and the other is the flow of the argument throughout the passage, which seems to me is clearly speaking of Israel's current condition and not their future. Also, the remnant from among ethnic Israel is of great importance to Paul's argument in Romans 9-11, so it's not unlikely or unusual that Paul would speak of the true Israel versus ethnic Israel.

I've been looking at this text in the Greek, and I remain unconvinced that Paul is speaking of Israel's hardening in a temporal sense, and that the phrase "and so all Israel will be saved" is speaking of a sequence of events (i.e., Israel is hardened, then the fullness of the Gentiles come in, and then the hardening is lifted). The Greek of verse 26 says: [i:fdfee63d1d]kai houtos pas Israel sothesetai[/i:fdfee63d1d]. The word [i:fdfee63d1d]houtos[/i:fdfee63d1d] is an adverb that can be translated as "so", but with the idea of "in this manner". So the verse is best translated as "And in this manner all Israel will be saved." If Paul were speaking of a sequence of events, he would have said [i:fdfee63d1d]kai ouv[/i:fdfee63d1d] (And then) [i:fdfee63d1d]pas Israel sothesetai[/i:fdfee63d1d]. The future tense of [i:fdfee63d1d]sothesetai[/i:fdfee63d1d] (will be saved) can be understood as a Gnomic future tense, which describes a generic set of events that are true to life (i.e., the true Israel will be gathered throughout this age), rather than a particular event in the future (i.e., there will one day be a mass conversion of ethnic Israel).

I don't know if any of that makes sense, but I still remain unconvinced both from the English and the Greek texts that Murray's interpretation is the one that the text requires.

And also, concerning the meaning of the word "all", on my understanding of the passage I believe that "all" does mean "all" universally because I believe Paul is speaking of the true Israel rather than ethnic Israel. But I know that not everybody who takes the other position uses "all" in the universal sense. Some believe that "all Israel" is simply referring to a mass conversion of Jews and not necessarily every single Jew, although I think there are some theologians that believe every living Jew will be saved one day.


----------



## BrianLanier (Jul 20, 2004)

[quote:bca18b72d0="luvroftheWord"]Paul,

I've been looking at this text in the Greek, and I remain unconvinced that Paul is speaking of Israel's hardening in a temporal sense, and that the phrase "and so all Israel will be saved" is speaking of a sequence of events (i.e., Israel is hardened, then the fullness of the Gentiles come in, and then the hardening is lifted). The Greek of verse 26 says: [i:bca18b72d0]kai houtos pas Israel sothesetai[/i:bca18b72d0]. The word [i:bca18b72d0]houtos[/i:bca18b72d0] is an adverb that can be translated as "so", but with the idea of "in this manner". So the verse is best translated as "And in this manner all Israel will be saved." If Paul were speaking of a sequence of events, he would have said [i:bca18b72d0]kai ouv[/i:bca18b72d0] (And then) [i:bca18b72d0]pas Israel sothesetai[/i:bca18b72d0]. The future tense of [i:bca18b72d0]sothesetai[/i:bca18b72d0] (will be saved) can be understood as a Gnomic future tense, which describes a generic set of events that are true to life (i.e., the true Israel will be gathered throughout this age), rather than a particular event in the future (i.e., there will one day be a mass conversion of ethnic Israel).[/quote:bca18b72d0]

My last post was lost too, but this is the one of the points that Hoekema makes in his book. I think it is an excellent point.


----------



## heartoflesh (Aug 4, 2004)

I believe Paul is talking about ethnic Israel in this section, his purpose to show how God's promises in election are not nullified by a "current situation of unbelief" among ethnic Israel. Their unbelief is serving a purpose, (salvation of gentiles) which is also serving a purpose (the salvation of ethnic Jews) 

Their "transgression" will someday be their "fulfillment". (v.12)

Their "rejection" will someday be their "acceptance". (v.15)

I also think it's highly unlikely that the word "Israel" would have an ethnic meaning in v. 25 and a spiritual meaning in v.26.

Just my 2 cents.

BTW...I like Douglas Moo's commentary regarding this.


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 28, 2004)

Paul quotes Isaiah 59 in Rom 11:26,27. I don't understand how anyone can read Is. 59, get to verse 20 and deny that this is a particular restoration of Israel that is being described. The same promise is made in Jer 31, again the restoration of Israel is clearly taught in Paul's gospel.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 28, 2004)

[quote:6b323b7272="Ianterrell"]Paul quotes Isaiah 59 in Rom 11:26,27. I don't understand how anyone can read Is. 59, get to verse 20 and deny that this is a particular restoration of Israel that is being described. The same promise is made in Jer 31, again the restoration of Israel is clearly taught in Paul's gospel.[/quote:6b323b7272]

A couple of people:

[quote:6b323b7272="Matthew Henry"]There shall be a more glorious salvation wrought out by the Messiah in the fulness of time, which salvation all the prophets, upon all occasions, had in view. We have here the two great promises relating to that salvation:""
(1.) That the Son of God shall come [b:6b323b7272]to us[/b:6b323b7272] to be our Redeemer (v. 20): Thy Redeemer shall come; it is applied to Christ, Rom. 9:26. There shall come the deliverer. The coming of Christ as the Redeemer is the [b:6b323b7272]summary of all the promises both of the Old and New Testament[/b:6b323b7272], and this was the redemption in Jerusalem which the believing Jews looked for, Lu. 2:38. Christ is our GoÃ"l, our next kinsman, that redeems both the person and the estate of the poor debtor. Observe, [1.] The place where this Redeemer shall appear: He shall come to Zion, for there, on that holy hill, the Lord would set him up as his King, Ps. 2:6. In Zion the chief corner-stone was to be laid, 1 Pt. 2:6. He came to his temple there, Mal. 3:1. There salvation was to be placed (ch. 46:13), for thence the law was to go forth, ch. 2:3. [b:6b323b7272]Zion was a type of the gospel church, for which the Redeemer acts in all his appearances[/b:6b323b7272]: The Redeemer shall come for the sake of Zion; so the Septuagint reads it. [2.] The persons that shall have the comfort of the Redeemer"(tm)s coming, that shall then lift up their heads, knowing that their redemption draws nigh. He shall come to those that turn from the ungodliness in Jacob, to those that are in Jacob, to the praying seed of Jacob, in answer to their prayers; yet not to all that are in Jacob, that are within the pale of the visible church, but to those only that turn from transgression, that repent, and reform, and forsake those sins which Christ came to redeem them from. The sinners in Zion will fare never the better for the Redeemer"(tm)s coming to Zion if they go on still in their trespasses.[/quote:6b323b7272]

and

[quote:6b323b7272="Calvin"]Paul quotes this passage, (Romans 11:26) in order to show that there is still some remaining hope among the Jews; although from their unconquerable obstinacy it might be inferred that they were altogether cast off and doomed to eternal death. But because God is continually mindful of his covenant, and "his gifts and calling are without repentance," (Romans 11:29) Paul justly concludes that it is impossible that there shall not at length be some remnant that come to Christ, and obtain that salvation which he has procured. Thus the Jews must at length be collected along with the Gentiles, that out of both "there may be one fold" under Christ. (John 10:16) It is of the deliverance from Babylon, however, that the Prophet treats. This is undoubtedly true; but [b:6b323b7272]we have said that he likewise includes the kingdom of Christ, and spiritual redemption, to which this prediction relates[/b:6b323b7272]. Hence we have said that Paul infers that he could not be the redeemer of the world, without belonging to some Jews, whose fathers he had chosen, and to whom this promise was directly addressed.[/quote:6b323b7272]

[quote:6b323b7272="Jamieson, Fausset & Brown"]20. to Zion""Ro 11:26 quotes it, "œout of Zion." Thus Paul, by inspiration, supplements the sense from Ps 14:7: He was, and is come to Zion, first with redemption, being sprung as man out of Zion. The Septuagint translates "œfor the sake of Zion." Paul applies this verse to the coming restoration of Israel spiritually.
them that turn from""(Ro 11:26). "œshall turn away ungodliness from Jacob"; so the Septuagint, Paul herein gives the full sense under inspiration. They turn from transgression, because He first turns them from it, and it from them (Ps 130:4; La 5:21).ï"¿
21. covenant with them "¦ thee""The covenant is with Christ, and with them only as united to Him (Heb 2:13). [b:6b323b7272]Jehovah addresses Messiah the representative and ideal Israel. The literal and spiritual Israel are His seed, to whom the promise is to be fulfilled[/b:6b323b7272] (Ps 22:30).[/quote:6b323b7272]


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 28, 2004)

Fred,

I believe that that allegory if taken to be the straightforward exposition of the text is jarring to the narrative Paul has set up, where he concludes the quote from Isaiah: as regards the gospel [b:2a34069d5e]they[/b:2a34069d5e] (ethick Jews!) are enemies of God, for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and call of God are irrevocable.

Jeremiah 31:37 Thus says the Lord: "If this fixed order departs from before me, says the LORD, then shall the descendants of Israel cease from being a nation before me for ever." Thus says the LORD: "If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth below can be explored, then I will cast off all the descendants of Israel for all that they have done, says the LORD." (lest we be tempted to allegorize this promise too lets remember the first verse of the chapter to the tenth verse: 1 "At that time, says the LORD, I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people." and the tenth "10 "Hear the word of the LORD, O nations, and declare it in the coastlands afar off; say, 'He who scattered Israel will gather him, and will keep him as a shepherd keeps his flock." Should we distinguish between the nations a far off and the scattered Jews, who were scattered by God in the captivity described earlier in Jeremiah. 

When The LORD says that the Israelis' children shall come back to their own country..how does that be spiritualized. Too many people have wrongly assumed Paul's description of an inward Jew and taken the metaphor waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay tooooooooooooooooo far. Paul was not intending that we should use it to dismantle every bible passage describing a Jew he only meant in certain contexts to highlight the abandoned partition between Jew and Gentile. We should be wary of going through the bible with spiritualized glasses on. We shouldn't abandon allegory but we must be careful not to make it our main form of tackling a text, and consequently making sense of it. There are abundant prophecies in the Old Testament that do solidly prove the restoration of Israel, and there are many in the New as well. This is a spiritual restoration of actual Jewishly born people. Making the Old Testament church into a type of the New is an error. We are not the anti-type of the people of Israel. 

The whole force of Paul's exhortation to the Gentiles is turned on its head as well because they are to keep in mind that a temporary parial hardening has fallen on Israel, as Christ spoke again and again it was NOT GIVEN TO THEM TO SEE, OR TO HEAR. The present hardness is a sobering sign to the Gentiles of God's power in election, but they are to remember that God will restore Israel and a time of the Gentiles will come to an end.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 17, 2004)

Guys;

Can I have your opinions on this (pretty long) peice?

Part1:

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/bh/bh027.htm

Part 2:

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/bh/bh028.htm

Part3:

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/bh/bh029.htm


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 18, 2004)

Guys, this article basically says that this passage can be taken preteristically. That it was speaking of the remenant within Israel before AD70.

The remenant was then the 144,000

Thoughts?

I think this makes some sense because a future conversion of the Jews when the "fullness of the Gentiles" occurs leans HEAVILY toward the dispensational teaching of eschatology, seperating the Gentile and Jew as it does.

I may be completely lost here, but I think it seems possible that the "haardening" was pre AD70 and the remenant was before the final destruction in AD70.

If I am crazy, can you please tell me why?

Paul, I am especially curious as to your thoughts.

[Edited on 18-12-2004 by houseparent]

[Edited on 18-12-2004 by houseparent]


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Guys;
> 
> Can I have your opinions on this (pretty long) peice?
> ...




Yeah. Don't waste your time with Jordan. He is not a sound source.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 18, 2004)

Really? It reads pretty well.

When anyone gets the time to tell me why I'm wrong in my preterist thinking in this passage please share.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by houseparent_
> ...



Jordan: 



> Of course, for years I have taught the futurist view of Romans 11, arguing that the Jews and all the nations of the world (though not every individual) will be converted to Christ and that this event will usher in a period of prosperity (not perfection) for Christendom. This is the "Puritan" interpretation, and I have been an advocate of it for years. Now I no longer think it is correct. I ask my fellow "Puritans" to grant me the space to set out my thoughts, and to consider these things with me.
> 
> ...
> 
> I hope that I have set my postmillennial and Puritan brethren's minds to rest by these comments.



Not hardly. I agree with Fred. Jordan is not a sound source and his errors are a thorn in the side of the Reformed church today. I am postmil and Puritannical and Jordan has opted to choose a different path.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 18, 2004)

Ok, I am still not getting what the "main" issue with Jordan is (even though I am NOT sticking up for him).

And why can't this passage be taken preteristically? I hate to sound like a nag guys, but if I am in error in this thinking I am desperate to know why.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Ok, I am still not getting what the "main" issue with Jordan is (even though I am NOT sticking up for him).
> 
> And why can't this passage be taken preteristically? I hate to sound like a nag guys, but if I am in error in this thinking I am desperate to know why.



Adam,

I don't know about the passage - I am commenting on Jordan's trustworthiness. The main issue in this context is that he has a penchant for "innovative" and frankly, crazy, exegesis of passages. His comments on the Tabernacle/temple are an example of this.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Ok, I am still not getting what the "main" issue with Jordan is (even though I am NOT sticking up for him).
> 
> And why can't this passage be taken preteristically? I hate to sound like a nag guys, but if I am in error in this thinking I am desperate to know why.



I won't go into all the issues that surround Jordan (the RPW, paedocommunion, his defense of an egregrious abuse of church discipline in which a friend of mine was excommunicated, and theonomy, for example), but on the issue of Romans 11 and the historic Puritan interpretation, I would refer you to a great book called _The Puritan Hope_ by Iain Murray. Here are some relevant passages (I apologize in advance for the long post, but it contains so much information that I think is profitable and relevant):




> "˜That God in his appointed time will bring forth the kingdom of the Lord Christ unto more glory and power than in former days, I presume you are persuaded. Whatever will be more, these six things are clearly promised:
> 
> 1. Fulness of peace unto the gospel and the professors thereof, Isa. 11.6, 7, 54.13, 33.20, 2I Rev. 21.15.
> 
> ...



[Edited on 18-12-2004 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 18, 2004)

I'll look into that Fred, thanks!

I await thoughts on the passage from anyone intrested.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 18, 2004)

Andrew,
Did you type of all of that?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Andrew,
> Did you type of all of that?



Nope, I didn't think the link was working too well, but it's online at: http://www.revival-library.org/inde...alogues/puritan/murrayi-puritanhope/title.htm


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 18, 2004)

This is what I find pretty good in the commentary.



> Paul returns to the Remnant in 11:1-10. He says that at the present time, there is still a Remnant of Israel. He is one such, he says. He points back to Elijah. The nation might have been destroyed in Elijah's day, except for the Remnant 7000.
> 
> The Remnant and its provoking work will have the effect of making the Jews "jealous." The fact that gospel has gone to the Gentiles, and they are inheriting the riches of the Old Testament promises, is not the last word. Paul reveals that the Remnant's work will bear fruit among the Israelites, so that Israel will experience a "fullness" (v. 12). When this "fullness" happens, it will be "life from the dead" -- resurrection (v. 15). We shall return to this in a moment.
> 
> ...



I still await a partial preterist (like Demar or Gentry) to release a commentary on Revelation. But I find this intresting.


----------



## Puritanhead (Dec 26, 2004)

read Galatians 3 and tell me what you think about the passage?


----------



## larryjf (Jan 2, 2005)

I believe the "who is Israel?" part can be answered by the context. Paul is telling the Gentiles where the Jews stand in relation to them.


----------

