Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It makes more sense than saying the word "all" means "not all".
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.
Context is King. It doesn't matter what makes more sense to a sinful mind. It matters what God says, and context determines the meaning and what God is saying.
I always liked the way Dr. Kennedy once put it: "All can often be used in a sense that doesn't denote every - in fact we use it that way all the time."
And God said "all Israel". You are bringing an interpretative framework to this verse which requires you to define "all" as "not all". It is you who is not reading the verse plainly. It has already been shown above how a change in focus (from ethnic Israel to elect Israel) is consistent with the flow of the passage. I'm not necessarily saying there aren't interpretative difficulties with the passage however one interprets it, but the fact that interpreting "all" to mean "not all" is considered the smallest difficulty- or that it isn't even a difficulty but "obvious"- illustrates that there is more than a little eisegesis going on. After all, as we were told earlier, interpreting "all" to mean "not all" is par for the course for Calvinists. Yet I'm still waiting for other uses in Scripture where "all" means "not all".
The context determines the interpretive framework. I.e. Scripture interprets Scripture. The context tells us what "all Israel" means. Do you come 2 Cor. 5:14-15 and see all and automatically must think it means "All" as in every single person? No. The context determines the meaning. This as reformed people we all know because of the doctrine of limited atonement. You can't come to Romans 11 and read "All Israel" and automatically think it means literally 'all'. You have to go to the context to determine the meaning. And the context is absolutely clear as to the meaning.
"All Israel" being saved at the end of the discourse is set in contrast to the remnant of Israel being saved at the beginning of the discourse (vv1-5). The promise of God is not nullified, first, because God is still saving a remnant of elect Jews, and, second, because he's going to graft the Jews as a body (all Israel) back in at the end.I would argue that in the passage you quote the verse itself qualifies all to mean "all that are in Christ" for those who live, for whom Christ died, live in Christ.
I don't see such a qualification here. When Paul is talking about ethnic Jews he is talking about how they (as the vessel in which the Gospel was deposited for a time) have been cut off, but in order to reassure them he says that all those who are of true Israel (a concept he has already spoken about) will be saved. He is reassuring the ethnic Jews that the promises of God still stand to those who meet the requirement: faith in the Messiah. For a period those promises and the administration of them were restricted to the nation of Israel. They have now been expanded to the Gentiles. Many of the Jews must have worried that they had, indeed, been replaced and God would not honour His promises to them (as individuals). Paul is saying this is not so: if you were of the elect before you are still of the elect because "all Israel (the elect, the church) shall be saved". Salvation is still by faith in the Messiah. There has been no replacement because the true Israel is the church, encompassing all believers throughout history. National Israel has been cut off, but the true Israel continues and shall be saved.
If we take Israel to mean ethnic Jews then it is a fact they will not all be saved but nowhere in the passage is the necessary qualification given for us to understand the word in that way.
"All Israel" being saved at the end of the discourse is set in contrast to the remnant of Israel being saved at the beginning of the discourse (vv1-5). The promise of God is not nullified, first, because God is still saving a remnant of elect Jews, and, second, because he's going to graft the Jews as a body (all Israel) back in at the end.
Are we really saying "all Israel" is only the small rump of very mixed people living in Judea at the time of Christ? I don't see that as credible.
I really understand what I presented to be the most natural reading--Israel refers the Jewish people throughout the passage. Isn't that what we usually mean when we say Israel. In your reading, the term changed from the usual meaning to the figurative or spiritual meaning at the end.I just don't see it. I think it's a tortuous use of the language. It requires us to understand terms as meaning, effectively, the opposite of what they usually mean. There is a simpler explanation which fits with a straightforward reading of the passage. I go with that.
As one who believes in the eventual triumph of Christ in all parts of the world, I don't see this as a problem.Furthermore if Israel here is only ethnic Israel what about the lost ten tribes? Do they no longer count as Israel? The promises were given to them as much as to Judah and Benjamin. Are we really saying "all Israel" is only the small rump of very mixed people living in Judea at the time of Christ? I don't see that as credible.
I really understand what I presented to be the most natural reading--Israel refers the Jewish people throughout the passage. Isn't that what we usually mean when we say Israel. In your reading, the term changed from the usual meaning to the figurative or spiritual meaning at the end.
I'm using the term "Jews" to refer to ethnic Israel. The term "Israel" maintains this natural meaning throughout the passage.Maybe by the time of Paul Israel and the Jews are synonymous but that doesn't occur until very late in the history of Israel. Really it's only the people of the kingdom of Judah who are Jews proper. The Jews are a subgroup of Israel.
I'm using the term "Jews" to refer to ethnic Israel. The term "Israel" maintains this natural meaning throughout the passage.
Romans 9-11 seem to be teaching that God still has plans for the Jewish people, but that for the time up until the Second Coming of Christ, those promises are intended and made towards the chosen elect in Christ. The hope for national Israel as in the Jewish people overall seem to be tied into the return of Jesus Christ, as I tend to see this as a premil event.Ok, I am just going to put out a statement to spur discussion and see where it goes.
It is possible to believe there is a future for ethnic Israel, which is not replaced by the Church, and still hold to Covenant Theology.
The above does not necessarily reflect the view of the poster but is meant to stir discussion.
Moderating:Romans 9-11 seem to be teaching that God still has plans for the Jewish people, but that for the time up until the Second Coming of Christ, those promises are intended and made towards the chosen elect in Christ. The hope for national Israel as in the Jewish people overall seem to be tied into the return of Jesus Christ, as I tend to see this as a premil event.
Including John Murray.It is not even a premil distinctive, as some older postmils held to it.