Will All Israel Be Saved? Rom 11:25-27 vs Jer 31:34; Isaiah 54:13; John 6:45

[brandonadams]

Certainly this is a well-worn topic, but I suggest a few pertinent texts are often overlooked in the discussion: Jer 31:34; Isaiah 54:13; John 6:45. As Paul is quoting Jer 31 (among other texts), one's interpretation of that passage should be consistent with their interpretation of Rom 11:26 "And in this way, all Israel will be saved."

I elaborate in this post

All Israel will be saved? (Rom 11:26)

25 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. 26&n…

contrast2.wordpress.com

As well as this class

 

[Eric 1647]

Hello Mr. Adams,

Respectfully, I have read your blog post, however do not find your view very convincing. I understand you are advocating for view #1 as per the chart provided that “All Israel” means “Spiritual Israel” as opposed to the view I find to be most faithful to the text, view #3 that “All Israel” means, well, “All Israel”, ethnic Israelites, gloriously converted in the last day. (The view of Calvin, Henry, Edwards, Gill and others).

My primary concern is that your view, if it were an algebraic X (Spiritual Israel), doesn’t fit anywhere else in the whole of the argument of Romans 11.

I believe your position miscarries the argument of the chapter, since all verses leading up to the “For” of V25 clearly speak of ethnic Israel, for example:

“Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it”.

“(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, unto this day”.

“Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?”

“If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.”

“Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.”

The “They/Them” can only be ethnic Israel, that much is undeniable, the question is, is this the same “they/them” of V25 onward?

I believe the answer to a resounding and hope filled ”Yea doubtless”.

“What do we pray for in the second petition of the Lord's prayer?

Answer: We pray that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, and the fullness of the Gentiles brought in.” - WLC #191

In the Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God we are directed to pray for:

“The propagation of the gospel and the kingdom of Christ to all nations; for the conversion of the Jews, the fullness of the Gentiles, the fall of antichrist, and the hastening of the second coming of our Lord”.

I wish to encourage you with this short article:
https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/publica...mercy-and-the-jews-future-rev-j-l-goldby-585/

Kind regards,

Eric

 

[brandonadams]

Thanks for your feedback Eric. Since Paul's discourse on this point starts in Romans 9 with an argument that there are two different Israels (9:6), it is no surprise to find him stating the same thing in his conclusion.

 

[Eric 1647]

Thanks for your feedback Eric. Since Paul's discourse on this point starts in Romans 9 with an argument that there are two different Israels (9:6), it is no surprise to find him stating the same thing in his conclusion.

There are certainly two Israel’s in scripture, yes, Israel according to the flesh and the true Israel of God, however I believe you have missed my point.

The point I wish to make is not that there aren’t two Israel’s, but that your position makes the “therefore” of V25 and onward rather anticlimactic.

There is a great build up concerning ethnic Israel, how they are blinded and cursed and prideful and cut-off, just to supposedly conclude with “and they will stay this way, no significant change to be expected”.

What grounds would one have to argue that the “they” of V23 “And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again” isn’t they same “them/they” as V27-31 “For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God arewithout repentance. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.”

I trust you see the rather large inconsistency? Not only is this they same “they”, but this “they” must be ethnic Israel as how could I possibly have received any benefit as an elect gentile from the unbelief of my not yet regenerated gentile brethren? (If this is Spiritual Israel is made up of regenerate Jews and Gentiles).

“Yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief”

The only possible interpretation is that the Jewish people have been cast aside, that you and I might be graft in, thus provoking them (the Jewish people) to jealousy as part of their glorious grafting in again by the Most High’s glorious redemptive plan.

If I may leave you with the eminent Baptist, Mr. Gill:

“Ver. 26. And so all Israel shall be saved,.... Meaning not the mystical spiritual Israel of God, consisting both of Jews and Gentiles, who shall appear to be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation, when all God's elect among the latter are gathered in, which is the sense many give into; but the people of the Jews, the generality of them, the body of that nation, called "the fulness" of them, Ro 11:12, and relates to the latter day, when a nation of them shall be born again at once; when, their number being as the sand of the sea, they shall come up out of the lands where they are dispersed, and appoint them one head, Christ, and great shall be the day of Jezreel; when they as a body, even the far greater part of them that shall be in being, shall return and seek the Lord their God, and David their King; shall acknowledge Jesus to be the true Messiah, and shall look to him, believe on him, and be saved by him from wrath to come. … he refers to the last times, and to a very general conversion of them to the Messiah”

 

[brandonadams]

Claiming that it's "anticlimactic" is a very subjective argument. It's an opinion I do not share. It is climactic because it resolves Rom 9:5.

X (Spiritual Israel), doesn’t fit anywhere else in the whole of the argument of Romans 11.

You've missed the point, as the argument starts in Romans 9.

There is a great build up concerning ethnic Israel, how they are blinded and cursed and prideful and cut-off, just to supposedly conclude with “and they will stay this way, no significant change to be expected”.

You're looking at the entire thing through a collective, national lens, while Paul does not. He offers himself (an individual) as proof that God has not rejected his people. Furthermore, this demonstrates his concern was for his present day, not some day thousands of years in the future. Give this a read https://upper-register.com/papers/Rom1126.pdf

What grounds would one have to argue that the “they” of V23 “And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again” isn’t they same “them/they” as V27-31

The grounds given in my post. The totality of Paul's argument 9-11, his interpretation of OT prophecy throughout his writings, and his citation of them in 27.

The only possible interpretation is that the Jewish people have been cast aside, that you and I might be graft in, thus provoking them (the Jewish people) to jealousy as part of their glorious grafting in again by the Most High’s glorious redemptive plan.

Correct, but again, your misreading this through a collective, national lens. Paul is referring to individuals being saved, even in his own day, not some majority collective thousands of years in the future.

Gill is mistaken for the reasons I've already stated in the post. Please note you have not engaged with the main point of the post: OT prophecy and its interpretation by Paul. You're narrowly focused on what you think Paul is saying through Rom 11.

Thanks for your thoughts.