Future For Israel and Covenant Theology

Status
Not open for further replies.

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
I think it is the latter. I think Paul is summarizing, and pointing to the wholistic salvation, which is eschatological Israel, ALL-ISRAEL. So, all who are (true) Israel, united to the Israel of God, the Israel of One even Jesus, will be saved--no doubt.

That makes Paul's statement a truism: all those who are going to be saved are going to be saved.
 

J. Williams

Puritan Board Freshman
Dispensationalism commences where Jews and Gentiles are rendered of separate olive trees or covenant promises, or salvation is inextricably linked to land promises.
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
That makes Paul's statement a truism: all those who are going to be saved are going to be saved.
Even if you were correct, it would still be fine for him to say so. But in fact (on my supposition) that statement says more than that. He's brought in thought of the Vine, which IS Israel (not simply branches of Jewish-stock among other stocks), he's spoken of one identity, and that's what All-Israel is in my view.

So, in 9:6 Paul says that "Israel" can't have a purely and totally (1-to-1) ethnic or religious/national meaning; but he shrinks the concept from that notion. And here at the end of the section, 9-to-11, he does the opposite (in effect) and widens the term to the equivalent of everyone in the Vine. I think Romans has here its own near parallel with Gal.6:16.

I'm still hopeful of a "noticeable" or visible embrace of the Christian faith by large numbers of religious/cultural Jewish folk all at one time (possibly not long before the End). I'm just not committed to the idea that Paul is prophesying exactly so in Rom.11. I'm not locked into that for my read to be accurate. What I see Rom.11 saying has room for such a hope, but the form of clear "national" revival isn't demanded (nation in the sense of people identity, not the geopolitical M.E. entity).
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
Even if you were correct, it would still be fine for him to say so. But in fact (on my supposition) that statement says more than that. He's brought in thought of the Vine, which IS Israel (not simply branches of Jewish-stock among other stocks), he's spoken of one identity, and that's what All-Israel is in my view.

So, in 9:6 Paul says that "Israel" can't have a purely and totally (1-to-1) ethnic or religious/national meaning; but he shrinks the concept from that notion. And here at the end of the section, 9-to-11, he does the opposite (in effect) and widens the term to the equivalent of everyone in the Vine. I think Romans has here its own near parallel with Gal.6:16.

I'm still hopeful of a "noticeable" or visible embrace of the Christian faith by large numbers of religious/cultural Jewish folk all at one time (possibly not long before the End). I'm just not committed to the idea that Paul is prophesying exactly so in Rom.11. I'm not locked into that for my read to be accurate. What I see Rom.11 saying has room for such a hope, but the form of clear "national" revival isn't demanded (nation in the sense of people identity, not the geopolitical M.E. entity).

My position isn't that Israel = all ethnic Jews. Even in the OT there was a mixed multitude. My point was that Israel in Romans 9 (actually 9-11, but I will just stick with 9) can't mean the church.
 

Wretched Man

Puritan Board Freshman
I think it is the latter. I think Paul is summarizing, and pointing to the wholistic salvation, which is eschatological Israel, ALL-ISRAEL. So, all who are (true) Israel, united to the Israel of God, the Israel of One even Jesus, will be saved--no doubt.
I just want to clarify what you mean (I think I share the same view) here. Are you asserting that ultimately, "all Israel" refers to all those (Jew & Gentile) throughout the ages (OT & NT) who have put their faith in Christ will be saved by him (i.e. 1 Corinthians 15:51-52)?

One verse in Romans which I think may have been glossed over in this thread is Romans 10:12; "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek..." How then can we assert Paul makes such a categorical claim that God's ultimate purpose will involve reinstating an ethnic Israel nation? And for what purpose? And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me... go therefore and help the ethnic Jews restore their small strip of Palestine, which is what I really care about."
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
I just want to clarify what you mean (I think I share the same view) here. Are you asserting that ultimately, "all Israel" refers to all those (Jew & Gentile) throughout the ages (OT & NT) who have put their faith in Christ will be saved by him (i.e. 1 Corinthians 15:51-52)?

One verse in Romans which I think may have been glossed over in this thread is Romans 10:12; "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek..." How then can we assert Paul makes such a categorical claim that God's ultimate purpose will involve reinstating an ethnic Israel nation? And for what purpose? And Jesus came and said to them,

"

There is also no distinction between male and female, but I also don't have female organs. "No distinction" m eans no distinction in terms of salvation benefits. It doesn't erase all difference.

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me... go therefore and help the ethnic Jews restore their small strip of Palestine, which is what I really care about."

That is a straw man. No one has ever said that. I would counter that the disciples spent 40 days with private instruction from Jesus and that's the first question they ask. I've heard sermons saying they were just stupid. I think the better reading is that they were on to something, just off about the timing.
 

Wretched Man

Puritan Board Freshman
There is also no distinction between male and female, but I also don't have female organs. "No distinction" m eans no distinction in terms of salvation benefits. It doesn't erase all difference.



That is a straw man. No one has ever said that. I would counter that the disciples spent 40 days with private instruction from Jesus and that's the first question they ask. I've heard sermons saying they were just stupid. I think the better reading is that they were on to something, just off about the timing.
It would be understandable for the Apostles to think that way. We however with a much fuller context should not. Yet many today do in essence.
 

Wretched Man

Puritan Board Freshman
We also didn't have one-on-one instruction with Jesus, nor did we write most of the New Testament.
The Apostles would have likely been raised with a faulty nationalistic Israel mindset. They marveled at the temple, apparently thinking Jesus would restore the physical kingdom to them. And yes, they no doubt received very clear revelation and rebuke (Matthew 24:2) from Christ shortly thereafter.

Yet subsequent generations persist in going back to their earlier mindset.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
Yet subsequent generations persist in going back to their earlier mindset.

I am just going back to Paul's mindset about all Israel being saved. I'm ambivalent about the modern state of Israel as fulfilling OT land promises. It does offer prima facie evidence, yet I never use that argument.
 

Wretched Man

Puritan Board Freshman
I am just going back to Paul's mindset about all Israel being saved. I'm ambivalent about the modern state of Israel as fulfilling OT land promises. It does offer prima facie evidence, yet I never use that argument.
I admit I am still very clouded on this. And suspect everyone is. In my small head, I just can’t reconcile the necessity of a future restoration of “ethnic” Jews in physical Palestine with the rest of Scripture.
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
in physical Palestine

Who is arguing that there will be a future restoration of ethnic Jews in physical Palestine? We are not dispensationalists here. No one is arguing that from what I can tell.

What is being argued from the book of Romans is that there is a future restoration of ethnic Jews.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
I admit I am still very clouded on this. And suspect everyone is. In my small head, I just can’t reconcile the necessity of a future restoration of “ethnic” Jews in physical Palestine with the rest of Scripture.

I don't see the rest of Scripture logically contradicting it, so there's that. Further, I also believe that Zechariah 14 posits a huge physical change happening to Palestine, so I am cautious about "what it will look like."
 

Wretched Man

Puritan Board Freshman
I don't see the rest of Scripture logically contradicting it, so there's that. Further, I also believe that Zechariah 14 posits a huge physical change happening to Palestine, so I am cautious about "what it will look like."
I would love to understand Zechariah (and all Scripture) better, particularly in terms of fulfillment (the tension between partial and full) and analogies.

When I read Zechariah 14, two verses jump out at me: 8 and 9.
8 On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea. It shall continue in summer as in winter.​
I can't help but connect this with Jesus' statement in John 4:10 to the woman at the well. And later upon his death, water rushing out of his side.

9 And the Lord will be king over all the earth. On that day the Lord will be one and his name one.​
Reference my aforementioned Matthew 28:18 straw man.

I can't help but wonder if those who view a future physical restoration of Israel gloss over or reject these connections. I see these and believe my king to be reigning - currently and forever - over all creation. Any fixation on an inferior kingdom runs in risk of idolatry in my view.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
I would love to understand Zechariah (and all Scripture) better, particularly in terms of fulfillment (the tension between partial and full) and analogies.

When I read Zechariah 14, two verses jump out at me: 8 and 9.
8 On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea. It shall continue in summer as in winter.​
I can't help but connect this with Jesus' statement in John 4:10 to the woman at the well. And later upon his death, water rushing out of his side.

9 And the Lord will be king over all the earth. On that day the Lord will be one and his name one.​
Reference my aforementioned Matthew 28:18 straw man.

I can't help but wonder if those who view a future physical restoration of Israel gloss over or reject these connections. I see these and believe my king to be reigning - currently and forever - over all creation. Any fixation on an inferior kingdom runs in risk of idolatry in my view.

It's an unfulfilled prophecy because Jesus hasn't returned yet and when he does return, he will split the mountain in two and provide a valley for those trapped to escape.

And God gathered the nations around Jerusalem so he could destroy them. That hasn't happened, either.
 

SGW

Puritan Board Freshman
Yes, I'm speaking about v26 which is what the OP is really about right? Of course that's what ch. 11 is about as a whole.

You bring up the olive tree that is in the passage, and it should be brought up in this as context for "all Israel" of v26.

What do we learn from this illustration:

"Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches."

We can come back to this, but necessarily the branches are tied closely to the root, as the lump is to the firstfruit. That the branches are holy, as is the root.

"Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, "

Branches can be broken off. Even those grafted in (v21-22). Which means if we interpret this as 'all the elect' is Israel - then we can lose our salvation. There is no longer perseverance/preservation of the saints. This is obviously wrong. The branches broken off are 'ethnic Jews' as is the context of the whole passage preceding this, including (9:1-5, 10:1). "His people" v1 Paul is also of them, as an Israelite. He's talking about ethnic Jews. Same v2. V5 from among the same ethnic Jews there is a remnant at the present time (in Paul's day and in our day). V7, Israel (ethnic Jews) has not obtained what it seeks. A small portion have obtained it of those God elected from among ethnic Jews. The rest were blinded by God.

"Rom 11:11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles."

They who? Ethnic Jews. They fell/transgressed in order that salvation would come to Gentiles, which by the Gentiles coming would provoke to jealousy the ethnic Jews to also come to salvation.

"Rom 11:12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!"

Whose fall? The ethnic Jews. Their fall is means for riches to the world/Gentiles. Then how much more will the fullness of the ethnic Jews coming in mean riches for the Gentiles? Even more so. He says the same thing in v15.

Who is Paul speaking to? Gentiles.

"Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
Rom 11:14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them."

Paul is speaking to the Gentiles, and he ministers to Gentiles because he desire the salvation of ethnic Jews, his fellow country men (9:1-5; 10:1). Because at the present time for Paul and us, the gospel is going to the Gentiles and this is the means to bring in the Jews (v11-15).

"Rom 11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches [ethnic Jews], He may not spare you [Gentiles] either.
Rom 11:22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell [v12 ethnic Jews], severity; but toward you [Gentiles], goodness, if you [Gentiles] continue in His goodness. Otherwise you [Gentiles] also will be cut off."

Cut off from the olive tree. That is where perhaps baptists will not get this. The olive tree is clearly the visible church on earth, just as in the illustration of the vine in John 15.

"Rom 11:23 And they [ethnic Jews] also, if they [ethnic Jews] do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them [ethnic Jews] in again.
Rom 11:24 For if you [Gentiles] were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and [Gentiles] were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these [ethnic Jews], who are natural branches, be grafted into their [ethnic Jews] own olive tree?"

Of which the root is the Patriarchs (v16, 28). The covenant promises communicated to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob of which all Jews come forth from.

"Rom 11:25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you [Gentiles] should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you [Gentiles] should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel [ethnic Jews] until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved..."

The fullness of the Gentiles is of course contrasted by ethnic Jews as it has been even since ch. 1:16 and throughout ch. 11. What is this fullness of Gentiles? It is that a great number of Gentiles coming into the Church, which brings about a great provocation of jealousy to ethnic Jews so ethnic Jews will desire the riches that the Gentiles have (v11, 14). So a partial blindness has happened to [ethnic Jews] Israel (v7). And that for a time. "Until" the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. And in that way, All Israel will be saved. Now who is Israel up until this point? Ethnic Jews. There's no other possibility unless you believe that one can lose their salvation and we rip what Paul is saying out of context (even since 9:1 and for that matter 1:16). But the fact that Paul already has taught what v26 says should convince everyone all the more. He's already said that the riches going to the Gentiles will bring about a fullness of ethnic Jews coming in (v.12, 15). That's why he's ministering to the Gentiles (v.13-14).

Then what? Paul quotes Scripture to prove what he's just said from Isaiah. That God's covennat still stand to "Jacob" - Israel.

Now what else? If you think v.26 suddenly changes from ethnic Jews to all elect Israel (to read like Gal. 6:16) then v28 will disappoint you. The context continues...

"Rom 11:28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers."

Who is "they"? The context requires that "they" be "All Israel". "All Israel" were enemies for your sake. For whose sake? Gentiles is what context requires. They were enemies to whom? God. He blinded and hardened them. He broke off their branches. All Israel can be nothing but ethnic Jews. But concerning election (v2, 16) they [ethnic Jews] are beloved for sake of the fathers. Who are the fathers? They are the firstfruit, the root --> patriarchs of whom were given the covenant promises.

We continue still.

"Rom 11:30 For as you [Gentiles] were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their [ethnic Jews] disobedience,
Rom 11:31 even so these [ethnic Jews] also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you [Gentiles v11-15] they [ethnic Jews v11, 14] also may obtain mercy."

Who are these people? The same as the beginning of ch. 11. Nothing's changed! The whole context has been ethnic Jews and (ethnic) Gentiles. Paul has from the beginning been concerned about ethnic Jews because he said,

9:1-5 "I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit,
Rom 9:2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart.
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
Rom 9:4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;
Rom 9:5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen."

and "Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved."

Paul's concern is for his brethren according to the flesh, that's never changed and so he prays for them and ministers to Gentiles so that Jews will be at some point grafted back into the visible Church on earth and be saved.

Further, Paul is pushing the Gentiles to not boast or be haughty (v16-32). So that Gentiles won't boast of their current position (v18-20). What is going to cause them to not boast? The Jews being grafted back in. If v26 "All Israel" is all the elect, guess what, that doesn't accomplish Paul's purpose of rooting out the pride of the Gentiles over the Jews. So this last thing is to show that Paul's purpose is actually ruined if "All Israel" is not ethnic Jews.

Honestly, I've recently preached on this. Everything I have to say is in the sermons. I posted this in my first post on this thread: https://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?sortby=added&keyword=cpc-kc&SourceOnly=true&subsetcat=bible&subsetitem=Romans&subsetitem2=11&AudioOnly=false
The problem with Robertson's interpretation is that it has Paul do a sudden pivot on the term Israel and he gives no warning that he is changing the meaning of the term.

Good Morning Pastor Barnes. Thank you for taking the time to put together the lengthy response, and for linking your sermon. I plan to listen to it when I have time.

I completely agree with the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. And yes, the olive tree does include the unregenerate, but only initially. These are broken off and only the elect will remain. I think most agree on this and I apologize if my initial post was imprecise and lead to misunderstanding.

I also agree that in most of the passages you site, “Israel” is referring to ethnic Jews. However, I don’t believe this is the case in verse 26. Here, I believe the word is referring to both the Jew and Gentile grafted together.

I personally don’t have a significant issue with Paul using a different definition of “Israel” in verse 26, than in most prior verses. He does this in 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”. I think Paul does this as well with the word “law”. For me, the change in definition from one verse to the next is much less problematic than the other options. For God to again single out a physical nation to bless materially or salvifically seems like a regression in redemptive history. Like returning to the days of types and shadows. This doesn’t mean that God has gone back on his promises to Israel. Paul uses himself as an example that God is faithful. To this day He continues to save Jews and Gentiles without regard to ethnicity. Rom 10:12 "For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him."

I don’t know Greek but have read respected theologians that indicate verse 26 is not describing an event that occurs subsequent to those described immediately prior. Rather, it refers to the same events. Verse 25 is describing the manner in which all Israel will be saved. I think the NIV brings this out more clearly, 25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way all Israel will be saved.

Again, I plan to listen to your sermon on this topic in hopes of learning more.

Blessings to you and your ministry.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel”.

That just means that not all ethnic Israel are elect, which was true in the OT. He isn't saying, "Not all Israel are Israel because Gentiles are Israel really."

If Israel secretly means the church, then Paul has nothing to worry about, pace all his fears in Romans 9-11.
 

SGW

Puritan Board Freshman
That just means that not all ethnic Israel are elect, which was true in the OT. He isn't saying, "Not all Israel are Israel because Gentiles are Israel really."

If Israel secretly means the church, then Paul has nothing to worry about, pace all his fears in Romans 9-11.

I don't think Paul is saying "Not all Israel are Israel because Gentiles are Israel really." And I agree Rom 9:6 is distinguishing between those in ethnic Israel who were children of the flesh vs. children of promise. My point was that the definition of the word "Israel" can change. In this case it changes within a given verse.

In the ultimate sense, Christ is the true Israel of God. He is the true seed (Gal 3:16). We are part of the Israel of God through our union with Him.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
My point was that the definition of the word "Israel" can change. In this case it changes within a given verse.

But it doesn't change in the same way. The relation in 9:6 is a part-whole relation. Still the same entity. To make it mean something radically different in 11 is going beyond the text.
 

alexandermsmith

Puritan Board Junior
Yes, I'm speaking about v26 which is what the OP is really about right? Of course that's what ch. 11 is about as a whole.

You bring up the olive tree that is in the passage, and it should be brought up in this as context for "all Israel" of v26.

What do we learn from this illustration:

"Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches."

We can come back to this, but necessarily the branches are tied closely to the root, as the lump is to the firstfruit. That the branches are holy, as is the root.

"Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, "

Branches can be broken off. Even those grafted in (v21-22). Which means if we interpret this as 'all the elect' is Israel - then we can lose our salvation. There is no longer perseverance/preservation of the saints. This is obviously wrong. The branches broken off are 'ethnic Jews' as is the context of the whole passage preceding this, including (9:1-5, 10:1). "His people" v1 Paul is also of them, as an Israelite. He's talking about ethnic Jews. Same v2. V5 from among the same ethnic Jews there is a remnant at the present time (in Paul's day and in our day). V7, Israel (ethnic Jews) has not obtained what it seeks. A small portion have obtained it of those God elected from among ethnic Jews. The rest were blinded by God.

"Rom 11:11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles."

They who? Ethnic Jews. They fell/transgressed in order that salvation would come to Gentiles, which by the Gentiles coming would provoke to jealousy the ethnic Jews to also come to salvation.

"Rom 11:12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!"

Whose fall? The ethnic Jews. Their fall is means for riches to the world/Gentiles. Then how much more will the fullness of the ethnic Jews coming in mean riches for the Gentiles? Even more so. He says the same thing in v15.

Who is Paul speaking to? Gentiles.

"Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
Rom 11:14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them."

Paul is speaking to the Gentiles, and he ministers to Gentiles because he desire the salvation of ethnic Jews, his fellow country men (9:1-5; 10:1). Because at the present time for Paul and us, the gospel is going to the Gentiles and this is the means to bring in the Jews (v11-15).

"Rom 11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches [ethnic Jews], He may not spare you [Gentiles] either.
Rom 11:22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell [v12 ethnic Jews], severity; but toward you [Gentiles], goodness, if you [Gentiles] continue in His goodness. Otherwise you [Gentiles] also will be cut off."

Cut off from the olive tree. That is where perhaps baptists will not get this. The olive tree is clearly the visible church on earth, just as in the illustration of the vine in John 15.

"Rom 11:23 And they [ethnic Jews] also, if they [ethnic Jews] do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them [ethnic Jews] in again.
Rom 11:24 For if you [Gentiles] were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and [Gentiles] were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these [ethnic Jews], who are natural branches, be grafted into their [ethnic Jews] own olive tree?"

Of which the root is the Patriarchs (v16, 28). The covenant promises communicated to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob of which all Jews come forth from.

"Rom 11:25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you [Gentiles] should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you [Gentiles] should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel [ethnic Jews] until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved..."

The fullness of the Gentiles is of course contrasted by ethnic Jews as it has been even since ch. 1:16 and throughout ch. 11. What is this fullness of Gentiles? It is that a great number of Gentiles coming into the Church, which brings about a great provocation of jealousy to ethnic Jews so ethnic Jews will desire the riches that the Gentiles have (v11, 14). So a partial blindness has happened to [ethnic Jews] Israel (v7). And that for a time. "Until" the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. And in that way, All Israel will be saved. Now who is Israel up until this point? Ethnic Jews. There's no other possibility unless you believe that one can lose their salvation and we rip what Paul is saying out of context (even since 9:1 and for that matter 1:16). But the fact that Paul already has taught what v26 says should convince everyone all the more. He's already said that the riches going to the Gentiles will bring about a fullness of ethnic Jews coming in (v.12, 15). That's why he's ministering to the Gentiles (v.13-14).

Then what? Paul quotes Scripture to prove what he's just said from Isaiah. That God's covennat still stand to "Jacob" - Israel.

Now what else? If you think v.26 suddenly changes from ethnic Jews to all elect Israel (to read like Gal. 6:16) then v28 will disappoint you. The context continues...

"Rom 11:28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers."

Who is "they"? The context requires that "they" be "All Israel". "All Israel" were enemies for your sake. For whose sake? Gentiles is what context requires. They were enemies to whom? God. He blinded and hardened them. He broke off their branches. All Israel can be nothing but ethnic Jews. But concerning election (v2, 16) they [ethnic Jews] are beloved for sake of the fathers. Who are the fathers? They are the firstfruit, the root --> patriarchs of whom were given the covenant promises.

We continue still.

"Rom 11:30 For as you [Gentiles] were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their [ethnic Jews] disobedience,
Rom 11:31 even so these [ethnic Jews] also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you [Gentiles v11-15] they [ethnic Jews v11, 14] also may obtain mercy."

Who are these people? The same as the beginning of ch. 11. Nothing's changed! The whole context has been ethnic Jews and (ethnic) Gentiles. Paul has from the beginning been concerned about ethnic Jews because he said,

9:1-5 "I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit,
Rom 9:2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart.
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
Rom 9:4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;
Rom 9:5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen."

and "Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved."

Paul's concern is for his brethren according to the flesh, that's never changed and so he prays for them and ministers to Gentiles so that Jews will be at some point grafted back into the visible Church on earth and be saved.

Further, Paul is pushing the Gentiles to not boast or be haughty (v16-32). So that Gentiles won't boast of their current position (v18-20). What is going to cause them to not boast? The Jews being grafted back in. If v26 "All Israel" is all the elect, guess what, that doesn't accomplish Paul's purpose of rooting out the pride of the Gentiles over the Jews. So this last thing is to show that Paul's purpose is actually ruined if "All Israel" is not ethnic Jews.

Honestly, I've recently preached on this. Everything I have to say is in the sermons. I posted this in my first post on this thread: https://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?sortby=added&keyword=cpc-kc&SourceOnly=true&subsetcat=bible&subsetitem=Romans&subsetitem2=11&AudioOnly=false

For me the sticking point is that it says all Israel shall be saved. The discussion (as it usually does on this issue) has been around the definition of "Israel". What about "all"? Clearly not every ethnic Jew will be saved but we know all the elect will be saved. Is the word "all" just meant to refer to "most" or "many"? Why would Paul use the world "all" if that was his meaning? If we're going to interpret "Israel" as referring to ethnic Jews then "all Israel" will not be saved. I see nothing in the text which justifies us redefining "all" to mean "not all". And when listening to people discuss this, those who believe "Israel" refers to ethnic Jews, they are then forced by their interpretation to redefine "all" but not, to me, convinciingly. It's just something which is required by their interpretation and so they do it and move on.
 
Last edited:

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
“No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for a light by day, The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, Who disturbs the sea, And its waves roar (The LORD of hosts is His name): “If those ordinances depart From before Me, says the LORD, Then the seed of Israel shall also cease From being a nation before Me forever.”” - Jeremiah‬ ‭31:34-36‬

If it is “all elect” then the theys and thems and theirs that come before and after apply to all the elect. Just look after v26. V28 for the Gentiles ‘all Israel’ are enemies for your (Gentiles) sake. It’s the same in every other reference to the theys and thems and theirs...it doesn’t make sense.
 

alexandermsmith

Puritan Board Junior
God desires "all" men to be saved.
"all" shall be made alive.

Scripture is clear: God does not desire the destruction of any person ("I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die...?"- Ezekiel 33:11) That doesn't necessitate He save every person, does it? His mercy and His justice must go hand in hand. The fact that God does not save every person does not mean, when Scripture says He desires that all men be saved, this is only referring to the elect or that Scripture does not mean all. One can desire something within one's power to perform and still not perform it because to do so would contradict some other principle. There is no contradiction here.

1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." This, again, means what it says: all that were in Adam died and all that are in Christ shall live. The word "all" does not have the same referent in both cases. All that were in Adam were all persons that shall ever live; all that are in Christ refers to the elect (not every person is in Christ) and therefore in Christ all shall live because if one is in Christ one shall live. In this verse those who have died were "in Adam" therefore those who shall live must be "in Christ". These are two distinct (though overlapping) groups of people.

In neither case does one need to interpret these verses "Calvinistically" in order to achieve the "Calvinist" position. A simple straightforward reading of the texts will suffice and will produce an answer quite in accord with Calvinism and, more importantly, with the rest of Scripture. (The latter, I'm sure, being Calvin's desire.)
 
Last edited:

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
Scripture is clear: God does not desire the destruction of any person ("I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die...?"- Ezekiel 33:11) That doesn't necessitate He save every person, does it? His mercy and His justice must go hand in hand. The fact that God does not save every person does not mean, when Scripture says He desires that all men be saved, this is only referring to the elect or that Scripture does not mean all. One can desire something within one's power to perform and still not perform it because to do so would contradict some other principle. There is no contradiction here.

1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." This, again, means what it says: all that were in Adam died and all that are in Christ shall live. The word "all" does not have the same referent in both cases. All that were in Adam were all persons that shall ever live; all that are in Christ refers to the elect (not every person is in Christ) and therefore in Christ all shall live because if one is in Christ one shall live. In this verse those who have died were "in Adam" therefore those who shall live must be "in Christ". These are two distinct (though overlapping) groups of people.

In neither case does one need to interpret these verses "Calvinistically" in order to achieve the "Calvinist" position. A simple straightforward reading of the texts will suffice and will produce an answer quite in accord with Calvinism and, more importantly, with the rest of Scripture. (The latter, I'm sure, being Calvin's desire.)

It's a lot simpler to say that all doesn't mean every person. The Pharisees say the "whole world" has gone after Jesus, but that wasn't literally true.
 

alexandermsmith

Puritan Board Junior
It's a lot simpler to say that all doesn't mean every person. The Pharisees say the "whole world" has gone after Jesus, but that wasn't literally true.

Many things can be said simpler even if wrong. But what is simpler: to explain why "all" means "all" or why "all" means "not all"?

Context is key.
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
Many things can be said simpler even if wrong. But what is simpler: to explain why "all" means "all" or why "all" means "not all"?

Context is key.

The context gives no hint in the slightest to "All Israel" being "All elect". Whether before or after the verse. To come to that conclusion is not based in the context at all. The entire time Paul talks about ethnic Jews and Gentiles. Since the beginning of Romans he'd been doing so (broader context), and ch. 11 (immediate context - before and after the verse in question).
 

alexandermsmith

Puritan Board Junior
The context gives no hint in the slightest to "All Israel" being "All elect". Whether before or after the verse. To come to that conclusion is not based in the context at all. The entire time Paul talks about ethnic Jews and Gentiles. Since the beginning of Romans he'd been doing so (broader context), and ch. 11 (immediate context - before and after the verse in question).

It makes more sense than saying the word "all" means "not all".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top