The precise meaning of the Salvation of "All Israel"

[comitatus1]

Hi Chris,

I have appreciated your thoughtful post.

I understand what you are trying to say here but I do not agree that Paul is affirming that the Gentiles and Jews are one people IN THIS PASSAGE, IN THIS CONTEXT!

One thing I have learned in my 31 years as a committed Christian is THE GOLDEN RULE OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION, which is namely:

1. Use a LITERAL HERMENEUTIC unless the grammar, context and background of the text clearly indicate otherwise.

2. CONTEXT - always interpret within the parameters of historical context and authorial intent.

I believe that my approach is consistent with the claims and the testimony of the scriptures themselves.

The whole theme of Romans 11 revolves around the question, HAS GOD REJECTED HIS ANCIENT PEOPLE? That is, have the ancient Covenant people forfeited their right to God's Unconditional Promises in the Old Testament?

The great Apostle Paul is at pains to unmistakedly declare "NO!" - they HAVE NOT! Please read carefully, in this connection, Romans 11:11-12. The Apostle acknowledges the TEMPORARY FALL OF ISRAEL but he also affirms their FUTURE FULLNESS (the salvation of "All Israel" as given to us in Romans 11:26-27).

The present FALL and CASTING AWAY of Israel as a nation is a great mystery, in view of God's unconditional promises to them. However, Paul clearly asserts a FUTURE SALVATION OF THE JEWISH GODLY REMNANT. This will happen at the END OF THE GREAT TRIBULATION when Christ comes again to set up His Kingdom in power and great glory!

There is absolutely nothing in the biblical text to indicate that the CHURCH IS IN VIEW HERE...IN THIS PARTICULAR PASSAGE! The Full number of the Gentiles refers to the Gentiles brought into blessing through the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom. They, of course, will be included in the FIRST RESURRECTION, that is: the Resurrection of the Just but will remain ENTIRELY DISTINCT from the JEWISH GODLY REMNANT who will enter the Millennial Blessing as the Salvation of All Israel.

This, I devoutly believe, is the position of scripture.

Cheers, In Christ Craig

I think that you should take your own advice and apply your two principles, which I agree with, to this chapter.

Rom 11:24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.

One root, one tree. There are other verses that others in this thread have so capably pointed out that prove that the basic context that anything Paul might have to say concerning those who believe in Christ is this:

There is no longer any kind of division between Jews and Gentiles. Yes, Paul does talk specifically about the Jews here in Romans 11, but that is only because in doing so he proves the main point of the Gospel, the righteousness of God, by showing that God has been, is, and will be faithful to the Jews, who, along with the Gentiles, make up His Body: The Church.

Chris

[Craig kennedy]

Craig:
Warmest greetings.

I appreciate your thoughtful response. I am aware of the scenario you envision. But again, I ask you to explain the text: look at it carefully. By your own admission, "outo" means in this manner-in this way, then Paul is saying that when the gentiles that are destined to be saved come in, in this manner "all Israel" will be saved. Paul clearly links gentiles as part of all Israel. I am not sure you have addressed this exegetical specific in your theological response.

Again, I am appreciative of the dialogue. I am somewhat surprised that you went fom Amillennialism to the extreme for of "Classical" dispensationalism. Historically, this is linked with Darby, Scofield who popularized in in his study Bible, and it was finally systematized by Lewis Sperry Chafer. Even the revisers of the New Scofield Bible (1967) made changes to the notes and relaxed the extreme two vision/plan of God leading to an earthly eternal dwelling for National Israel based on an overly literal reading of the OT, and a Heavenly eternal dwelling in Heaven for the church, made up of those baptized into the body of Christ. So you are in a very slim minority among classical dispensationalists. Most today allow for a single heavenly destiny for all the saints in all ages and have abandoned the early bifurcating position of Chafer et al., and follow the modificationsof revised dispensationalism as held by Ryrie, Walvoord, etc. popularised in the late fifties and sixties of the last century. Of course, more recently further revisions and refinements have continued leading to progressive dispensationalism. I think these latter are on the right track.

I have written a brief article, "Dispensation" in the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Nashville, 2003. You may see more of my "appreciation" for progressive dispensationalism there.

Blessings,
TZ

Hi proorismenos,

Thank you for your reply.

I do believe that I have examined the biblical text, VERY CAREFULLY. I also thought that I addressed the EXEGETICAL SPECIFIC quite pointedly.

In my exegesis of Romans 11:25-27, I have been at pains to point out that Paul NEVER LINKS saved Gentiles during the time of the Great Tribulation with the salvation of THE JEWISH GODLY REMNANT during the same period. Paul affirms precisely HOW the Salvation of All Israel will come about. Paul keeps saved Gentiles and the manner of the salvation of ALL ISRAEL entirely DISTINCT.

I do understand the sensibilities and theological motifs of Progressive Dispensationalism, although I do not embrace or espouse them.

It is important to realise that I do not hold to CLASSIC DISPENSATIONALISM because Darby or some other theologian held to it. God has enabled me, quite graciously, to develop my own style of communication and writing over the years as well as granting to me a fierce independency of thinking and approach. I only hold to this position because I believe that the scriptures teach it.

However, without "fudging" the issues for a second or compromising in any way what I have just said, I also believe that a person's precise eschatological system and schema is NEVER A TEST OF CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP. It is for these reasons, that God has also enabled me to dialogue and communicate with a variety of different types of people.

I have a genuine love and respect FOR ALL GOD'S PEOPLE irrespective of their EXACT AND PRECISE DOGMATIC SYSTEMS. You see, salvation is only by GOD'S GRACE ALONE!

I do appreciate the manner and spirit in which you write.

Cheers, In Christ Craig

[proorismenos]

Greetings, Craig.

Thanks, again for your response. I take it we have pretty much stalemated on this specific matter of "and so all Israel will be saved." I still sense you are linking this to a chronological reading, something like "and then Israel will be saved." In this manner you are saying that Israel refers to national Israelites only. As I read the specific text, what I see is that national Israelites are mentioned, Gentiles are mentioned in the certain expectation of the fulness of them coming in, "and so-in this manner All Israel (Jews and Gentiles) will be saved, that is the Church or the Israel of God.

Never mind that we cannot convince one another. I believe it is a profitable discussion. We can agree to disagree on this as with many other issues. I look forward to more discussions with you, particularly as we have had reverse pilgrimages.

Warmest regards,
Theodore

[Craig kennedy]

Greetings, Craig.

Thanks, again for your response. I take it we have pretty much stalemated on this specific matter of "and so all Israel will be saved." I still sense you are linking this to a chronological reading, something like "and then Israel will be saved." In this manner you are saying that Israel refers to national Israelites only. As I read the specific text, what I see is that national Israelites are mentioned, Gentiles are mentioned in the certain expectation of the fulness of them coming in, "and so-in this manner All Israel (Jews and Gentiles) will be saved, that is the Church or the Israel of God.

Never mind that we cannot convince one another. I believe it is a profitable discussion. We can agree to disagree on this as with many other issues. I look forward to more discussions with you, particularly as we have had reverse pilgrimages.

Warmest regards,
Theodore

Hi Theodore,

I do appreciate your kind spirit as you write.

Indeed, we can have more discussions as I certainly RECOGNISE your Christian pilgrimmage, as you do mine.

Although I believe as I do, I assure you that I do not have a NARROW or TRUNCATED SPIRIT; rather, I have a generous and gracious spirit towards all of GOD'S PEOPLE!

May God richly bless you, In Christ Craig

[Robert R. Higby]

I will get back to the 3 groups in Rom. 9-11, the 'blinded', the 'elect', and the 'hardened'. The first two groups have hope of election and salvation, the third does not.

If the Talmudic Jews are the hardened, and we try by our theology to bring reprobates into the New Covenant, we fight against the will and purposes of God. For me the issue is that clear--accepting or not accepting the sovereignty of God in the reprobation of Pharisaic Judaism. It is not complicated.

God will always pluck some children of Talmudic Jews as elect brands from the burning, just as He plucks the same from Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, or any false religion of damned people. But Talmudic Judaism is just as cursed by God forever as any of the other religions. Trying to propose that it is more blessed still and the subject of a future massive work of Grace (in contrast to the others) is a denial of the fact of God's wonderful work of hardening against the gospel.

The physical descendants of Abraham to whom the gospel originally went (those scattered away from Jerusalem) have already been gathered in through the gospel; their descendants (who now are all over the world and do not call themselves 'Jews' by religion) continue to be gathered. The Talmudic Jews (those who now call themselves 'Jews' by religion') are the hardened reprobates.

[Craig kennedy]

After several months away from this forum, I have with much DETERMINED DELIBERATION completely re-read the posts in this thread and I can see where I got terribly confused in my understanding of the meaning of 'All Israel'. I can, also, see how and why my mind became 'torn' and 'divided' in discerning aright the EXEGETICAL issues involved in correctly deciphering the NUANCES of meaning between the Amillennial and Dispensational systems of theology.

However, after a 'lay off' period the Holy Spirit Himself has shown me that the Amillennial system of interpretation is the biblical one. Furthermore, the 'Salvation of All Israel' in Romans 11:25-26 is referring to ALL GOD'S ELECT PEOPLE from among Jewish and Gentile people throughout the ages. God's ELECT PEOPLE is the Church or the "NEW ISRAEL" saved by the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant. How I could ever have entertained the possibility of dispensational. premillennialism as a viable interpretative option is now beyond me. Accordingly, I would like to RESCIND PUBLICLY my earlier comments which were sympathetic to this notion.

I was most impressed by this piece of writing by Jimmy (Forrester) when he wrote in His article entitled "Dispensational Issues":

" I am not saying that God does not have a plan for ethnic Israel, He indeed does, but the plan is not for them to be treated separately, rather, it is for those who are elect Jews to join into the body of Christ and receive salvation in the exact same way as the elect Gentiles do, through the death of Jesus Christ. Those of ethnic Israel who aren’t elect will perish in the exact same way as non-elect gentiles. This seems quite simple but most dispensational can’t grasp it (Matt 16:17)."

Amen!

I can now say, in all truth, that I am a JEW INWARDLY BY HOLY SPIRIT REGENERATION. (Romans 2:29).

In Christ, Craig

[Highlyfavored]

However, after a 'lay off' period the Holy Spirit Himself has shown me that the Amillennial system of interpretation is the biblical one.

OK, if that's the case, then who was it that showed you your previous dispensational views?

Weren't you just as convinced then that it was the Holy Spirit who had instructed you that your dispensational leaning was the correct one? How can you be sure that you are correct now?

Furthermore, the 'Salvation of All Israel' in Romans 11:25-26 is referring to ALL GOD'S ELECT PEOPLE from among Jewish and Gentile people throughout the ages. God's ELECT PEOPLE is the Church or the "NEW ISRAEL" saved by the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant.

If this is true and in light of Ephesians 1:5-11...

Ephesians 1:5: having predestined us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,
Ephesians 1:6: to the praise of the glory of His grace, in which He has made us accepted in the One having been loved.
Ephesians 1:7: In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace,
Ephesians 1:8: which He caused to abound toward us in all wisdom and understanding;
Ephesians 1:9: having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself,
Ephesians 1:10: for an administration of the fullness of times, to head up all things in Christ, both the things in Heaven, and the things on earth, even in Him,
Ephesians 1:11: in whom also we have been chosen to an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His own will,

...how could you possibly continue to hold to a four point stance if your statement and the Apostle's are both correct?

How I could ever have entertained the possibility of dispensational. premillennialism as a viable interpretative option is now beyond me.

I know how, God obviously wanted it that way.

Accordingly, I would like to RESCIND PUBLICLY my earlier comments which were sympathetic to this notion.

Craig, my suggestion to you would be, quit trying to figure out your eschatology when your soteriology is out of wack. Capisci?

[Craig kennedy]

OK, if that's the case, then who was it that showed you your previous dispensational views?

Weren't you just as convinced then that it was the Holy Spirit who had instructed you that your dispensational leaning was the correct one? How can you be sure that you are correct now?

If this is true and in light of Ephesians 1:5-11... ...how could you possibly continue to hold to a four point stance if your statement and the Apostle's are both correct?

I know how, God obviously wanted it that way. Craig, my suggestion to you would be, quit trying to figure out your eschatology when your soteriology is out of wack. Capisci?

Yes, I DO understand, actually. Thank you for your post.

I am sure now that my current position is the correct one based on more coherent and well-integrated EXEGESIS together with a better thought out BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. In the overall scheme of things I DO believe that God wanted me previously to hold to the dispensational schema whereas now I have the WITNESS of the Holy Spirit that He wants me to embrace the view I have just posited as my settled conclusion on this matter. Some people may struggle to understand this but I think you, Highly Favoured, along with others here at Pnet will readily understand what has been happening.

On the issue of soteriology I still remain a FOUR POINT CALVINIST but I am happy to revise, change or modify this if I am led to better understandings in these areas by the Holy Spirit Himself.

In Christ, Craig

[Forester07]

Craig, my suggestion to you would be, quit trying to figure out your eschatology when your soteriology is out of wack. Capisci?

I agree with Greg here. If your soteriology is messed up every other point of doctrine will be too.

On the issue of soteriology I still remain a FOUR POINT CALVINIST but I am happy to revise, change or modify this if I am led to better understandings in these areas by the Holy Spirit Himself.

You must realize that each of the five points are inter-related. To say you are a four point calvinist and reject Limited atonement (or Particular redemption) is basically a rejection of all the points. If one point is rejected, then the logical result, when taken to the logical end, will be a rejection of all the points. While there are 5 points that are mentioned as the five points of calvinism it is ultimately just explaining a single view point not 5 seperate views that can be rejected piecemeal. If you were to take the rejection of limited atonement to is final logical conclusion then you will ultimately end up rejecting all 5 points because they all stand or fall together. To many of us here it doesn't make sense to reject just a single point because ultimately it is a rejection of every point and shows that you truly don't understand any of the points. Thus, you don't really understand Christ's work of salvation for the elect. That's just the way it is.

[solegrace]

a short note on the "four point" schema: it must be understood that a conscious rejection of the intrinsic salvific worth of the death of the Son of God is the worst (and most repugnant) error, which denies the whole gospel: to assert that only some are saved in spite of the [alleged] fact that Christ dies for all is to lay another foundation of anyone's salvation that the shed blood of Christ, which is an open blasphemy - it is not, after all, Christ's cross work that makes the difference, it is something else AND God the Father then appears an arbitrary deity, which capriciously chooses not to chose some of those for whom THE MOST PERFECT OBLATION HAS BEEN MADE, and lets them perish in hell to bear eternally the sins, which allegedly have ALREADY been born by the Messiah on the accursed tree....a blasphemous scheme indeed!
A conditionally universal atonement is NO atonement, but only a potentiality of redemption by one's work of faith...There is no real, substantive difference between the full fledged Arminianism and the "Four point" deviation. Neither can base their house of salvation upon Christ's work exclusively, neither can truthfully confess: "Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation" (Revelation 5:9).

[Craig kennedy]

I agree with Greg here. If your soteriology is messed up every other point of doctrine will be too.



You must realize that each of the five points are inter-related. To say you are a four point calvinist and reject Limited atonement (or Particular redemption) is basically a rejection of all the points. If one point is rejected, then the logical result, when taken to the logical end, will be a rejection of all the points. While there are 5 points that are mentioned as the five points of calvinism it is ultimately just explaining a single view point not 5 seperate views that can be rejected piecemeal. If you were to take the rejection of limited atonement to is final logical conclusion then you will ultimately end up rejecting all 5 points because they all stand or fall together. To many of us here it doesn't make sense to reject just a single point because ultimately it is a rejection of every point and shows that you truly don't understand any of the points. Thus, you don't really understand Christ's work of salvation for the elect. That's just the way it is.

Your Post has absolutely highlighted for me, once again, the utter FOLLY of labelling. I have tried very hard not to put a "tag" on my Soteriological position because it tends to put up immediate barriers and obstacles in true dialogue and communication.

The only reason I "put up" on my profile the terminology Amyraldianism (or FOUR POINT CALVINISM as an approximation) was to provide for practical convenience an indication of where 'I am coming from' so to speak. I have no use for the terms actually and your post has been used by God to convince me FOR ALL TIME of the utter futility in labelling one's position.

I have revised my profile here at Pnet to read 'OTHER' as far as Soteriology is concerned.

I feel very strongly about this. I am SAVED BY CHRIST'S PRECIOUS BLOOD, BY HIS GLORIOUS FINISHED WORK ON THE CROSS...END OF STORY!!! It is all of Grace, with no works...I have nothing to boast about...I contributed nothing to my Salvation and cannot...I rest completely in CHRIST'S PERFECT WORK FOR ME ON THE CROSS.

I have nothing further to contribute here. This is my last post and visit here this time. Although I do NOT agree with your overall position, I have gleaned many worthwhile insights from this site and been blessed by many of the Articles. It was probably a mistake on my part to come back here this time but I had to give it one final go. Unfortunately, we have reached a stalemate on these issues and it is definitely time for me to move on.

I wish you all on this site God's very best.

In Christ, Craig

[Highlyfavored]

Craig, let me start this out by saying that in our many exchanges that have occurred since you first posted on our forum, your attitudes have conveyed one who seeks knowledge. I am glad that even in our disagreements you were never a jerk nor malicious in any way, as some have been who have had differing views than ours. For that I thank you.

I have nothing further to contribute here. This is my last post and visit here this time. Although I do NOT agree with your overall position, I have gleaned many worthwhile insights from this site and been blessed by many of the Articles. It was probably a mistake on my part to come back here this time but I had to give it one final go. Unfortunately, we have reached a stalemate on these issues and it is definitely time for me to move on.

However, another thing I have noticed is that when the pot begins to bubble a little you say; "I must go". To me this is a sad thing, because it is diversity and struggle that sharpens us.

Craig, my opinion is that the reason you keep coming back here is that God is either using this forum to open your eyes, or that he is using the truth displayed here as a judgement against you. So that you would be without excuse. A woman cannot be kind of pregnant, either she is or she is not. Either God is totally sovereign or He is not God.

[Craig kennedy]

Craig, let me start this out by saying that in our many exchanges that have occurred since you first posted on our forum, your attitudes have conveyed one who seeks knowledge. I am glad that even in our disagreements you were never a jerk nor malicious in any way, as some have been who have had differing views than ours. For that I thank you.

However, another thing I have noticed is that when the pot begins to bubble a little you say; "I must go". To me this is a sad thing, because it is diversity and struggle that sharpens us.

Craig, my opinion is that the reason you keep coming back here is that God is either using this forum to open your eyes, or that he is using the truth displayed here as a judgement against you. So that you would be without excuse. A woman cannot be kind of pregnant, either she is or she is not. Either God is totally sovereign or He is not God.

I thought I was finished with this site; but, yes, God has led me back here again! It is not because I am in full agreement with your position but I DO recognise your STRONG (and biblical stand!) on Justification by Faith without works and the ETERNAL SECURITY OF THE BELIEVER!

I also need to correct something that I said in the thread "Amillennial Futurism asserted"; in that thread I made the statement that I had embraced Amillennialism. I want to retract that statement now, after a long period away from this site. I do not expect you to agree with me but I now believe the Historic Premillennial view is the one closer to scripture.

Here is what I once said:

"I do not agree that Paul is affirming that the Gentiles and Jews are one people IN THIS PASSAGE, IN THIS CONTEXT!

One thing I have learned in my 31 years as a committed Christian is THE GOLDEN RULE OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION, which is namely:

1. Use a LITERAL HERMENEUTIC unless the grammar, context and background of the text clearly indicate otherwise.

2. CONTEXT - always interpret within the parameters of historical context and authorial intent.

I believe that my approach is consistent with the claims and the testimony of the scriptures themselves.

The whole theme of Romans 11 revolves around the question, HAS GOD REJECTED HIS ANCIENT PEOPLE? That is, have the ancient Covenant people forfeited their right to God's Unconditional Promises in the Old Testament?

The great Apostle Paul is at pains to unmistakedly declare "NO!" - they HAVE NOT! Please read carefully, in this connection, Romans 11:11-12. The Apostle acknowledges the TEMPORARY FALL OF ISRAEL but he also affirms their FUTURE FULLNESS (the salvation of "All Israel" as given to us in Romans 11:26-27).

The present FALL and CASTING AWAY of Israel as a nation is a great mystery, in view of God's unconditional promises to them. However, Paul clearly asserts a FUTURE SALVATION OF THE JEWISH GODLY REMNANT. This will happen at the END OF THE GREAT TRIBULATION when Christ comes again to set up His Kingdom in power and great glory!

There is absolutely nothing in the biblical text to indicate that the CHURCH IS IN VIEW HERE...IN THIS PARTICULAR PASSAGE! The Full number of the Gentiles refers to the Gentiles brought into blessing through the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom. They, of course, will be included in the FIRST RESURRECTION, that is: the Resurrection of the Just but will remain ENTIRELY DISTINCT from the JEWISH GODLY REMNANT who will enter the Millennial Blessing as the Salvation of All Israel.

This, I devoutly believe, is the position of scripture."

In Christ, Craig

[Brandan Kraft]

Thanks for your statement Craig...... And yeah, we disagree. Type at ya later. - B.

[Brandan Kraft]

BTW, I heard about that scary earthquake at Christchurch, NZ. Everything ok?

[Craig kennedy]

Thanks for your statement Craig...... And yeah, we disagree. Type at ya later. - B.

No problem that you disagree with me at all, Brandan; I acknowledge (and always have!) that you guys are GREAT and POWERFUL THINKERS! Therefore, I remain very humble (not thinking that I must be right here) but sincerely offer this statement to bring up -to-date where my thinking has brought me to and in the prospect that it might open up informed comment.

In Christ, Craig

[Craig kennedy]

BTW, I heard about that scary earthquake at Christchurch, NZ. Everything ok?

Thanks for asking Brandon. I appreciate it.

Yes, God delivered a significant and substantial earthquake here in Christchurch that has "wiped out" many buildings in the central city area. God in His Sovereignty sent that earthquake in the EXACT FORCE and MEASURE to accomplish what He purposed!

About 180 people died in the earthquake and many homes were destroyed. Thankfully my family and friends are all safe and well and we have suffered only relatively 'minor damage' in comparison to others.

Cheers, In Christ Craig

[trav]

I'm glad to hear that you and your family are doing good Craig.

[Craig kennedy]

I'm glad to hear that you and your family are doing good Craig.

Thank you, Trav.

God bless, In Christ Craig

[Saint Nicholas]

Hello Craig!

Good to hear from you. I'm also glad the earthquake did not affect you directly. Praise be to God.

I still am in disagreement with Historical Pre-Mil.

Are you of the persuasion of Goerge Eldon Ladd? I possess his full commentary on the book of Revelation.

Chialism is bankrupt on many grounds.

Hopefully I'll start a thread on this issue for discussion. This has been discussed before.

Nicholas