Is puritan eschatology a depart from protestant and reformed eschatology?

[Angelo Neves]

Can you find a single classically Reformed theologian that denies the calling of the Jews? Calvin affirms it.

"When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both; and yet in such a way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it were the first-born in God's family." - Commentary on Romans 11:26

I think I had misunderstood the last time that I read this Calvin Commentary, but his commentary only put All Israel as The Entire Church (Gentile and Jew) and he saw a salvation from the Jews, but it does not appear to be the same that to see a future and complete Israel Restoration for Religion and Restoration to the land

26. And so all Israel, etc. Many understand this of the Jewish people, as though Paul had said, that religion would again be restored among them as before: but I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, according to this meaning, — “When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both; and yet in such a way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it were the first-born in God’s family.” This interpretation seems to me the most suitable, because Paul intended here to set forth the completion of the kingdom of Christ, which is by no means to be confined to the Jews, but is to include the whole world. The same manner of speaking we find in Galatians 6:16. The Israel of God is what he calls the Church, gathered alike from Jews and Gentiles; and he sets the people, thus collected from their dispersion, in opposition to the carnal children of Abraham, who had departed from his faith.
John Calvin Commentary on Romans 11.26

 

[Angelo Neves]

Can you find a single classically Reformed theologian that denies the calling of the Jews? Calvin affirms it.

"When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both; and yet in such a way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it were the first-born in God's family." - Commentary on Romans 11:26

Quest. 27. Whether toward the end of the world the whole nation of the Iewes shall be converted, Andrew Willet
1. One opinion is, that by all Israel, where the Apostle inferreth, v. 26. and so all Israel shall be saved, we are to vnderstand, totum populum Dei, all the people of God, consisting as well of the conuerted Gentiles as Iewes: and that the Apostles meaning onely is, that euen vnto the ende of the world, subinde aliqui ex Iudaeis convertuntur, continually some of the Iewes should be conuerted: thus Melancthon, Calvin, Hyperius, Osiander: and that all Is∣rael is to be taken in that sense, both for the company of beleeving Gentiles, and Iewes, as the Apostle vnderstandeth it, Galath. 6.16. Peace be vpon you, and mercie, and vpon the Is∣rael of God: Theodoret is of opinion, and so also Augustine epist. 59.

2. Pererius produceth Chrysostome and Thomas to be of opinion, that generally all the Iewes should be called in the ende of the world: as Chrysostome, vpon the 12. verse of this chapter, shewing what the fulnes and plenitude of the Iewes saith, vniuersi ad fidem acces∣suri sunt, all vniuersally shall come vnto the faith: and Thomas also consenteth, non particu∣lariter aliqut tantum salvabuntur, &c. sed vniversaliter omnes, not onely some particular men shall be called as now, but vniuersally all: to this opinion Scotus and Caietan, seeme to encline in their commentaries here: But Pererius seemeth to mistake Chrysostomes opinion which was not that the vniuersall nation of the Iewes should be called: for he saith here no otherwise, but thus, & nunc multi crediderunt, multi{que} rur sus credituri sunt, both many haue beleeved alreadie, and many againe shall beleeue, &c. there shall be a more frequent calling of the Iewes, and greater number, then before: but that none of the Iewes should remaine vncalled, it cannot be thought: like as when the fulnes of the Gentiles came in, yet many a∣mong them continued still in their vnbeleefe.

3. Some doe thinke that in the end of the world many of the Iewes shall be conuerted by the preaching of Henoch and Elias: Gregor. hom. 12. in Ezech. Theodoret, Lyranus vp∣on this place: Hyppolitus addeth further, in that oration of the ende and consummation of the world, which goeth vnder his name, that the Iewes at the first shall be most addicted to Antichrist, Gens Hebraeorum potissimum chara erit Antichristo, the nation of the Hebrews shall be most deare vnto Antichrist: but these are but humane fansies, that Henoch and Eli∣as should come in their owne persons to preach in the ende of the world to the Iewes; that prophecie of the comming of Elias before the Messiah, was fulfilled in the preaching of S. Iohn Baptist; as our Blessed Sauiour expoundeth, Matth. 11. and if the Iewes should be so much addicted to Antichrist, expecting him for their Messiah their conuersion should be thereby so much the more hindered: it is also vnlike that the Iewes, which are no ido∣laters to this day should cleaue vnto Antichrist, that shall be, and now is a manifest idolater.

4. Wherefore leauing these vncertaine conceits, the truth is this, that toward the ende of the world, before the comming of Christ, the nation of the Iewes shall be called, though not euerie one of that nation in particular; the reasons of which opinion are these.
Hexapla, that is, A six-fold commentarie vpon the most diuine Epistle of the holy apostle S. Paul to the Romanes wherein according to the authors former method, sixe things are obserued in euery chapter ... : wherein are handled the greatest points of Christian religion ... : diuided into two bookes ... (umich.edu)

 

[Angelo Neves]

Obs: I agree that I've much more issues and commentaries to research

 

[TylerRay]

Melanchthon, Hyperius, and Osiander are Lutheran, not Reformed. As for Calvin we've already agreed that he held that the Jews as a whole will be converted, though he doesn't explicitly specify a time. I don't think Willet's reading of Calvin is sufficiently nuanced.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Why focus only on Rom.11:26? I previously pointed you to Rom.11:15. Here is Calvin earlier in Romans ch.11:

v11. ...since the Jews for the most part rejected Christ, so that perverseness had taken hold almost on the whole nation, and few among them seemed to be of a sane mind, he asks the question, whether the Jewish nation had so stumbled at Christ, that it was all over with them universally, and that no hope of repentance remained. Here he justly denies that the salvation of the Jews was to be despaired of, or that they were so rejected by God, that there was to be no future restoration, or that the covenant of grace, which he had once made with them, was entirely abolished, since there had ever remained in that nation the seed of blessing. That we are so to understand his meaning is evident from this, -- that having before connected a sure ruin with blindness, he now gives a hope of rising again; which two things are wholly different. They then, who perversely stumbled at Christ, fell and fell into destruction; yet the nation itself had not fallen, so that he who is a Jew must necessarily perish or be alienated from God.

v12. ...nothing would conduce more to advance the salvation of the Gentiles, than that the grace of God should flourish and abound among the Jews. To prove this, he derives an argument from the less, -- "If their fall had raised the Gentiles, and their diminution had enriched them, how much more their fullness?" for the first was done contrary to nature, and the last will be done according to a natural order of things."

v15. For if their rejections, etc. This passage, which many deem obscure, and some awfully pervert, ought, in my view, to be understood as another argument, derived from a comparison of the less with the greater, according to this import, "Since the rejection of the Jews has availed so much as to occasion the reconciling of the Gentiles, how much more effectual will be their resumption? Will it not be to raise them even from the dead?" For Paul ever insists on this, that the Gentiles have no cause for envy, as though the restoration of the Jews to favor were to render their condition worse. Since then God has wonderfully drawn forth life from death and light from darkness, how much more ought we to hope, he reasons, that the resurrection of a people, as it were, wholly dead, will bring life to the Gentiles. It is no objection what some allege, that reconciliation differs not from resurrection, as we do indeed understand resurrection in the present instance, that is, to be that by which we are translated from the kingdom of death to the kingdom of life, for though the thing is the same, yet there is more force in the expression, and this a sufficient answer.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thanks
I think after the Great Tribulation there is no more curse upon Israel, because the Old Covenant with them was finished, after it, the specific hardening in their hearts from the Jews was removed, and they become a normal people.

Hello Angelo,

It sounds like you are influenced by Dispensational views, or possibly Historic Premil, or even more possibly a jumble of views. What, in your view, is "a normal people"?

"Hardening of the heart" is a further divine judicial hardening upon an already natural hardening of unbelief and rebellion.

When I say I am Amillennial – which term signifies "not a literal 1,000-year millennial period" – it means rather a symbolic period of time covering the complete New Testament church age. Contemporary Amillennialism is what is called "modified" or "eclectic" idealism, per Greg Beale's (and others) terminology. "Pure" idealism (per William Milligan of the 1800s) has in it no historical referents at all in Revelation, save the Second Coming of our Lord. "Modified idealism" has some few historical referents, which not all amils are agreed upon.

"Normal people" are all the children of Adam who walk in the darkness of the Edenic Fall, and will remain so unless they are these elect:

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved" (Ephesians 1:3,4,5,6) [emphases added]​

You might check out these Eschatology posts to gain more familiarity with the language and the concepts.

 

[Angelo Neves]

Thanks for your answer.
But I think I was not influenced by dispensationalism.
I have a amillennial Preterist View as Jay Adams had and Sproul (I think he was Amil, not postmil).

Normal people = A Non specific Group receiving specific blessings as Israel was in OT time.
So Jews exist today as gentiles

I think Israel had a specific hardening different from Total Depravation, but build upon it. And Now Israel was made a normal people as the gentile people.