I meant to say, “This (His FIRST advent / the cross) is the basis for all Israel (both parts, not just the one part) being saved.”

Jim

Your interpretation of Romans 11:26 redefines Israel from being what it is stated to be in 11:25 to being something else in 11:26. In 11:25, all Israel is both parts, not just the one part. Therefore, in 11:26, all Israel must be both parts, not just the one part. There is nothing in the text itself that legitimizes your redefinition of Israel.

Israel in 11:25 is analogized as the cultivated olive tree in 11:16-24. Paul says in 11:16-24 / 11:25 that part of the tree / Israel does not believe in Christ until the Gentiles enter the part of the tree / Israel that believes in Him, and that the part of the tree / Israel that had not believed in Him will then believe in Him and will then likewise enter into the part of the tree / Israel that believes in Him. This establishes the sequence in which all Israel (both parts: the believing part, into which the Gentile are now entering as fellow saints and fellow citizens and fellow heirs and fellow partakers of the promise, and the now-unbelieving part, which will subsequently enter [as the no-longer-unbelieving part] into the believing part) will be saved (will come to believe in Christ), and thus the sequence in which all Israel (both parts) will transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.

That’s why Paul says in 11:26 that it is in this manner that all Israel (both parts) will be saved.

Then Paul cites in 11:26 Isaiah 59:20 as the basis for this salvation of all Israel (both parts). It is not a reference to Christ’s second advent, but to his first advent. Paul changes the preposition to say that the Deliver comes OUT OF (ek) ZION. That’s Christ’s first advent, in which He goes to the cross to remove sin, which is where and when Christ “turns away ungodlinesses from Jacob.” In Romans 1:3, Christ comes OUT OF the seed of David, and in 9:5, He comes OUT OF the Israelites, and in 11:26, He comes OUT OF Zion. That’s His first advent, not His second advent. This (His second advent / the cross) is the basis for all Israel (both parts, not just the one part) being saved.

These two parts of Israel (the now-believing part [the saints, both Greek and Jew] and the now-unbelieving part [the Jews (non-saints)]) in 11:25 are the two Israels that Paul differentiates in 9:6-8 (believing [New Covenant] Israel / the saints, both Greek and Jew) and in 9:31-33 and 11:7-11 (unbelieving [Old Covenant] Israel / the Jews [non-saints]).

The Israel in 9:6-8 (9:6), which is stated to be the children of the promise / the children of God (9:8), who are identified in 4:13-18 and 8:14-18 as the saints, both Greek and Jew, are the Israel in Galatians 6:15-16 (6:16) and in Ephesians 2:11-21 (2:12). The citizens of this Israel are the saints, both Greek and Jew.

Literally everything that Paul says in all of these passages cited above refutes your misinterpretation or Romans 11:26.

Jim

Regards.

Much of what you mention is beyond the scope of this post, or of the other articles Matt put up this week. But if you are interested, we did discuss these things at length last March.

You can find those articles at the following links:

Let’s Start at the End

End Times Q&A (Part 1)

End Times Q&A (Part 2)

End Times Q&A (Part 3)

Why Premillennialism?

Be sure to read the comments under each article. There was a lot of interaction on the topic.

Hope that helps.
NB

Now the question again — if we take all these prophetic passages and interpret them literally, we are going to come up with some strange teaching. In Isaiah, which Dispensationalists interpret to be in the 1000 year millennium on earth: “If you die at 100 years, you will be accursed,” or “The Lion will lie down with the Lamb,” etc. These are simply figurative descriptions of when the Messiah comes and the changing of our lives with Regeneration. How many people believe that in the millennium that literally the “trees are going to clap their hands with joy?” or God owns “cattle on a thousand hills,” He would be poor in today’s economy LOL. Literal when possible! This is the only hermeneutic that works or you will have all the prophetic madness being paraded around as sound Bible teaching. This Israel business with the land and all the promises, still to be in the future, disturbs me because it assumes that a national Jew is more valuable to God than those both Jews and Gentiles who have been regenerated by God through faith in Jesus Christ. The promise was made to Abraham and his “seed” not “seeds” — the seed being Christ. The true Church is the Israel of God, which in the Old Covenant was the Elect from Israel, and in the New Covenant are both Jews and Gentiles in the Church (The Israel of God). This is the whole point of Galatians, isn’t it? We are all one in Christ? We are not saved by works like Circumcision and being “Judaized,” but by believing in Jesus Christ. If a person is outside of Christ, he is an enemy and alienated from God — dead in their trespasses and sin — if this is true for all humankind, then why would we assume God is going to play favorites with National Israel? It’s the Elect of Israel that will be saved!

Start with the New Testament and when the doctrines are clear like in Hebrews where it says that Christ put an end to the Animal Sacrifices because they could not put away sin — obviously the animal sacrifices and Ezekiel’s Temple are figurative and not literal. Why would you need Sin offerings in a literal millennial reign? Why would people be having children (and sex and hope for some of us in the next life LOL) in a millennium? Apparently some will have glorified bodies and others will live long and still die. I say this is ridiculous! If we can only realize that God is building one Holy Catholic Church made up of all races, nations in one Body.

My point to all this is that there is an extreme literalism to these prophetic passages and if we hammer them we have created a rotten system. Yes, I believe Jews will be saved, but I can’t swallow all this other eschatology that goes along with this thinking.

Thanks for your response. I appreciate the point-by-point rebuttal, but felt that you did not respond to the substance of my points.

You did not respond to the point that the use of pās in contrast with apo merous, plērōma here in contrast with plērōma in verse 12 argues for the Jewish people as a whole.

You did not give any substantive reason why Paul would use of “all Israel” in a way inconsistent with its standard use in the LXX.

You did not respond to the verb tense of sozo which as a future passive indicative is best understood as something that is future (rather than ongoing in the present).

You did not give an answer to the fact that achri, when used as a conjunction in the New Testament, always implies a future change to the status quo.

You have assumed that Zion refers to heaven. But this cannot be maintained based on Isaiah’s own use of the term (which refers to the earthly city of Jerusalem). Perhaps you are reading Hebrews 12:22 into Romans 11? Or perhaps you believe Zion refers to the New Jerusalem? Are there any exegetical indicators in either Isaiah or Romans that would lead you to interpret Zion as “heaven” in the sense of Christ’s preincarnate dwelling place?

You make the point that Paul’s focus in Romans 11:26 is on the spiritual salvation of Israel, not on their political restoration. And that this future salvation in keeping with the new covenant of Jeremiah 31. I would not necessarily disagree with you here. Paul’s emphasis here is spiritual, not political. But it is an argument from silence to say that Paul rejected the political and geographical implications of the New Covenant (note Jeremiah 31:35–40 for instance), especially when Paul states in verse 29 that God does not change His mind about His gifts and calling.

You did not respond to the fact that the salvation and covenants promised in Isaiah and Jeremiah were made with the nation of Israel. The term “Jacob” refers to national Israel (both in the context of Isaiah 59 and in the context of Paul’s use in Romans 11).

As to the evidence from church history, see tomorrow’s post.

I believe I have presented compelling contextual, lexical, grammatical, and historical data to substantiate the belief that Romans 11:26 refers to a future time and not an ongoing process. I would be interested to see what substantive evidence you can provide to the contrary.

Thanks,
NB