HomeBasic BibleRomans 11:26 “And so all Israel shall be saved” Explained in Context

Comments

Romans 11:26 “And so all Israel shall be saved” Explained in Context — 5 Comments

  1. Thank you for this very stimulating post, James. Its always a pleasure to follow along even when we may not agree, for we remain friends in Christ!

    The idea that this verse culminates at a future time is not of dispensational origin. For instance,

    John Gill on Rom. 11.26
    “much more may it be thought, that the Jews, the natural branches, will, in God’s own time, be grafted in their former church state, some of their ancestors were in, Romans 11:24, yea, the apostle argues the certainty of their conversion, and reinstatement into the Gospel church, from the design of Providence in suffering blindness in part to happen to them; which was not intended always to continue, only until all the elect of God are gathered in among the Gentiles;”

    Matthew Henry
    “The Jews shall continue in blindness,till God has performed his whole work among the Gentiles, and then their turn will come next to be remembered.

    Albert Barnes reads this passage in similar fashion, as does Robert Haldane among others.

    So I guess I want to say that it is not necessarily a dispensational bias to read this passage as referring to a future time, when the pleroma, the fullness of the number of the elect Gentiles has come in to the body of Christ, after which God will turn his full attention to the nation (ethnos) of the Jews and call a great many in to the body of Christ.

    As far as the phrase, “and so all Israel may be saved,” Paul may perhaps be referring to spiritual Israel, and not fleshly Israel. He uses “Israel both ways in close proximity elsewhere:

    “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” Rom. 9.6

    • Ron, I knew what the Bible commentators teach about Israel and Romans 11, but the fact is Romans 11 is the main chapter and verse 26 is the main verse Christian Zionists stand on in their support of Israel. I think Chuck Baldwin came out with a view such as yours. Maybe it’s better. The main thing I want to refute in the article is Christian Zionism which is a part of Dispensationalism.

      It’s hard for me to think a literal “all” Israel shall be saved when 2000 years have passed during which most people who have called themselves Jews have gone to a Christ-less grave. And I do not believe the modern restoration of the nation of Israel in 1948 was a fulfillment of Bible prophecy.

  2. James, this study was a good presentation set up in an easy-to-follow manner. Right from the very beginning of Romans 11:26 “And so…”, these first two words can be seen as a hint that there is previous content verses that needs to be understood in order to know the context of Romans 11:26. Without knowing the context, one can easily go the path of futurists and dispensationalists.Then you cite Romans 11:11 …”to provoke them (the people of Israel) to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.” Romans 11:25 explains what God caused to happen – “blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” This blindness is mentioned also in verses 7, 8, and 10.
    Once all this content of Romans Ch.11 is studied and understood, it can be seen that Romans 11:26 refers to “all Israel” as being all those who are believers and followers that “the Deliverer (Jesus Christ) will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob (Israel).” And the remaining verses of Romans Ch.11 further explain what Paul was saying. Of course we know that most of the inhabitants of Israel today ARE NOT believers of Jesus Christ as their long-awaited Messiah. This is their ages-old failure which still can be remedied. If I am off the rails anywhere here, please tell me.
    Thank you James. Your study brought up some details I had obviously lost track of. This is a very timely article for today!

    • Thank you Jackie for your encouraging comments! The dispensational interpretation of Romans 11 is what Christian Zionists base their support of Israel on. I felt compelled to address it. “And so” does indeed point back to the previous verses! Too often an entire doctrine has been formulated from a single Scripture without taking the other verses in context.
      We are suffered the last 24 hours power outages and lack of Internet due to a typhoon. This delayed the completion of my last post, American Christian Zionism History, Theology and Implications.

  3. Hi James, I think Jackie is right when she writes,”it can be seen that Romans 11:26 refers to “’all Israel’ as being all those who are believers.” I also believe this is referring to all those, both Jews and Gentiles, who are in Christ. The real context is that the hardness or blindness of the Jews is only in part, so that there is a remnant being saved throughout the church age.

    However, I think that when the full number of the Gentiles has been gathered in, the hardness or blindness of the Jewish nation will be done away with and whoever is alive among their number at the end of the age will turn to Christ. This has nothing to do with the modern nation state of Israel. I also “do not believe the modern restoration of the nation of Israel in 1948 was a fulfillment of Bible prophecy.”

    I am inclined to think this modern state is presently on a very destructive path and may be coming to an ignominious end. That doesn’t mean that the nation (in the NT sense) won’t continue to exist.

    The New Testament use of the term ‘nation’ of Israel is not connected to it being on the land in Palestine. All those Jews in the diaspora scattered throughout the Roman Empire considered themselves as part of the nation of Israel. It has to do with ethnicity and not a governmental entity.

    In addition, I find Ryan Rufus’ presentation to be very confusing. First he says verse 26 is worded in the future tense, but then he claims it must be interpreted as being in the past tense because of the context. This does not seem logical.

    And again, I take issue with the whole fabric of his theology which is poisoned (I believe) by his eschatology. I don’t think he is even aware of the Historicist viewpoint. He knows Preterism and he knows Futurism and that is all he considers; and he chooses the Futurist point of view as his own.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

James Japan