Rom. 9:6 and "all Israel" in Rom. 11:26

[chuckd]

Rom. 9:6: "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel."

Rom. 11:25-26: "Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written..."

I've done some searching and found some threads on amillennialism, postmillennialism, and such, but I need to understand something. Or clarification.

From what I've read on amillennialism, the all Israel in 11:26 refers to national Israel, meaning the natural born descendants of Abraham, Ishmael and Esau included. Not the Israel consisting of the remnant of those natural born citizens and the Gentiles. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

In 9:6, Paul answers an objection "Has the word of God failed?" - "No, not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel."

My question is: Why didn't he respond with 11:26 - "because they will all be saved sometime in the future"? Or is 9:6 - 11:36 his response in total?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I usually identify myself as an a-millennialist (or "realized" millennialist); and I'm inclined to the view that 11:26 is more probably an inclusive use of the name (all the elect, Jew and Gentile).

My opinion isn't a reason to adopt or reject a view. I'm simply pointing out that there are various interpretations associated with that verse, and one doesn't need to have a specific millennial view and be tied to a particular interpretation elsewhere.

As for your final question--there is little to be gained from speculations as to "why didn't so-and-so do this-or-that differently?

Paul wrote what he wrote, and folks need to figure out what he meant by the words he DID use. Perhaps his meaning goes along with your "restatement," and he just chose to express himself that way. Or maybe he didn't mean it that way, and that's why he wrote something else. But it is pointless to ask why he didn't write in a way that someone might find "clearer," assuming we're being patient enough to grasp his proposal.

 

[Tirian]

I actually think these verses interpret themselves.

Not al those descended from Israel (physical nation) belong to Israel (the true Israel made up of the elect). v11:26 builds on that to clarify that to make it clear that not one of God's elect in 9:26 will be lost - but not because of their descent. The grafting in of the Gentiles to the true Israel (invisible church throughout all history) was happening and all true elect, Jew or Gentile will absolutely be saved - all of them.

 

[chuckd]

As for your final question--there is little to be gained from speculations as to "why didn't so-and-so do this-or-that differently?

Thanks. I guess my question is, for those who interpret the "all Israel" to mean all those naturally descending from Abraham, is 9:6 - 11:36 his response in total to the question "has the word of God failed?" To me, it seems "not all of naturally descending Israel are the elect" (9:6) and "all of naturally descending Israel will be saved" (11:26) are conflicting responses. Either naturally descending Israel is elect or they are not.

For those who take "all Israel" to be the same Jew/Gentile elect from 9:6, what is the flow of thought from the "remnant/partial" language in 11:1-10,25 in contrast to the "all" in 26? Is it just understood that he changes the "Israel" in 26 to "the elect" even though for the entire chapter it has been "naturally descending from Abraham?"
5: "there is a remnant"
7: "...the rest were hardened..."
25: "...partial hardening...until the Gentiles..."
26: "...in this way all Israel will be saved..."
28: "As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers."

 

[chuckd]

Also, I've seen John Murray's commentary on Rom. 11 referenced several times with regards to this topic. Does anybody know of an online copy?

 

[Cymro]

Chuck-- If you want an excellent treatment of your question, I refer you to Rev C.D. Alexander on Romans 11 and the Two Israel's. I
believe there is a website set up by a Canadian with his writings, I have the original. To my mind he is the best expositor I have
heard over 50 years. He was a Minister in Liverpool, and amazingly accomplished in many abilities. A former Editor of the Bootle
Express newspaper, he taught himself sufficient Hebrew and Greek whilst travelling to work on the bus. He was well versed in the early church fathers,
but his favourite biblical exegete was Hengstenberg, who with Warfield he considered to be the great interpreter of Scripture.
You may not agree with this, but he maintained that one should not read biblical works that were not over a hundred years old!
Such was his estimation of the decline in theology and preaching! Hope you can find it.

 

[chuckd]

Thanks. I'll look it up. I'm wondering if there were any more thoughts on my questions from post #4.