By Alan Nairne, Easter 2004

Maturer thoughts on "All Israel will be saved"

An Addendum to the paper "Does the Nation of Israel have a Distinct and Separate Future from the N.T. Church in The Kingdom of God?"

No! There is no reason for Premillennialists to get excited! I am not about to retract my earlier position on the meaning of Romans 11:26. I am not necessarily even having to modify my position on the end time saving of Israel, for, in section 5 I wrote, "Now, undoubtedly, Paul gives us to understand that there will be a turning to God of Jews, resulting in unprecedented blessings to mankind (Rom.11:11-12)". You will see, if you refer to these verses that my conclusion came from the contrast between Israel’s "stumbling" and "transgression" with their "full inclusion"(RSV), which is, of course, correct. But I want to modify what I said concerning verse 26. I wrote, "It is totally within the sense of Scripture as we have looked at it, to believe that "all Israel" will be the totality of the elect, both Jew and Gentile, that is, the completed olive tree. I find that perfectly satisfying."

Whilst that is true, I now see that it is not the meaning of "all Israel will be saved". It is one of the traditional interpretations, but there are two more traditional explanations and I believe that the study of the context will repay us with some further useful insights, particularly into the NT use of OT Scripture, which is always rewarding.

I. THE OPTIONS

The three traditional explanations of Romans 11:26 are

• As above, the totality of the elect, both Jew and Gentile. This is based upon the concept of the salvation of the individual, but does not meet the requirement of the Scripture, as we shall see from our consideration of the context in the next section.
• The totality of the whole Jewish remnant. But neither will this do, for the salvation of a remnant (v.7), from either Jew or Gentile is no "mystery" (v.25). Paul’s concern in Rom.11:2 is for the greater proportion of "[Gods] people", whom, he says, God has hardened. This is the mystery. His reference to the "remnant" and his own salvation is illustrative of the fact that God has not rejected them, but it is against the foreground of Israel’s election (in toto) which this explanation ignores. The remnant alone is not "Israel", and while their election still stands, the "hardening" of the rest does not negate this. For was it not in a "hardened" state that Paul (Saul) himself was stopped in his tracks by the risen Christ? The relationship between "remnant" and "fullness" is that of the holy first fruits dough to the "lump", and the natural branches that were broken off to the "root". In the same way the elect remnant is the guarantee of the eschatological salvation of Jewish Israel. Moreover their "stumbling" is not permanent – it is not a fall (v.11). The "hardening" and "stumbling" are to further God’s redemptive programme both for Jew and Gentile. Interestingly, Paul’s confidence in the salvation of Israel, despite his anguish over their unbelief and hardening, has the same foundation as his confidence in the salvation of his fellow believers – the electing love of God, for both Jew and Gentile. Note that. Their "fullness" (v.12) is the eschatological totality of Jews, which we will investigate in depth in the next section.
• The eschatological fullness of ethnic Israel. A full consideration of the context indicates that nothing less than this is meant by the Apostle. But let us not jump to the conclusion that this of necessity implies the need for a State of Israel. There will probably be a State of Israel, assuming that the present nation will continue. But is it not entirely credible that the effect of Israel’s repentance and return issuing in even greater blessings throughout the Gentile world (Rom.11:12,15) will be facilitated by their continued dispersion? But whichever way, I repeat, the call will be to those Jews, upon whom God has set, and who respond to His electing love. It is because God has down the ages saved a remnant of Jews, that their "fullness" is described as eschatological. The same applies to the Gentiles. In neither case does "fullness" imply the salvation of every individual, but that of a very large number, perhaps a majority. And may I also say that, despite my use of the word "eschatological" there is nothing in the context to indicate that this Jewish "fullness" must of necessity take place at the very end of the age. Certainly, both the Gentile fullness and the resulting Jewish fullness is future – on present showings the distant future. But further blessings to the world will result from the conversion of the mass of Jews, even as the Jews themselves will respond, having been, I believe, provoked (v.11) by the blessings that are to come upon the Gentiles.

II. THE FACTORS

Clearly, what is involved is the removal by God Himself subsequent upon the "fullness of the Gentiles" having been achieved, of the "hardening" and "blindness" imposed upon Israel. This is shown by verse 26 – "Out of Zion will come the Deliverer…" (LXX). The change from the OT Hebrew "to Zion" is interesting insofar that the initiative is seen to come from the Lord, but also, having regard to the NT usage of Zion, the Gospel is the agency by which God will remove the hardening and blindness (cf.. II Cor.3:14-16). Futurist expositors see in this a reference to the Second Coming of Christ, but the implication would be that the basis upon which Israel is saved is different from that which operates today, and that would be totally contrary to Scripture – "another Gospel". Also, it seems that there will be an unprecedented era of gospel blessing following their fullness (vv.12, 15), all of which is part of an integrated process commencing from the earliest days of the preaching of the Gospel. The "now" of verse 31 is generally accepted as authentic, and this adds credence to the fullness of Israel happening as part of a continuous process which we now proceed to consider.

1. a threefold continuous process

The word "so" (houtos) indicates the continuous process by which all Israel will be saved. Moreover, without specific indication from the context that the time frame for this last clause is different from the previous three, it is nothing less than "wrest[ing of] the Scriptures" (II Tim.3:16) to insist that Israel’s salvation is the result of the second coming of Christ. But, alas, this will have little weight for Dispensationalists, for whom separating integrated Scriptures into the far off distance future without a basis in Scripture – "discontinuity" (e.g. between Daniel’s 70^th "week" which is obviously contiguous with the 69^th there is, for them, a gap which has lasted 2-1/2 millennia!) is, for them, "the name of the game" (a UK TV "game show" expression of some years ago). But can we prick their consciences with an examination of Paul’s use of the OT "Zion" and "Jerusalem"? This I will now attempt.

[I must acknowledge my indebtedness to Keith Mathison in his Postmillennialism – An Eschatology of Hope (P & R Pub. St Phillipsburg NJ 1999 pp.125-126) for the thrust of this last section.]

b) Paul’s use of "Zion"

My statement "having regard to the NT usage of Zion, the Gospel is the agency by which God will remove the hardening and blindness" needs further working out. It is so easy for futurists to say "Zion is rebuilt Jerusalem", and, for those who are not familiar with the way the inspired writers of the NT use the OT, to accept that statement without question.

It is significant that one of Isaiah’s themes concerns Jerusalem – judged (chaps. 1-39, redeemed (40-55) and glorified (56-66) - and a study of Paul’s writings shows that one of the prophets from whom he most quotes is Isaiah. For example, Isa.22:13 (I Cor.15:32), 25:8 (I Cor.15:54), 28:16 (Rom.9:33), 29:14 (I Cor.1:19), 40:13 (I Cor.2:16), 49:8 (II Cor.6:2), and 52:11 (II Cor.6:17). Several of these oracles specifically concern Jerusalem.

Looking at the last references in II Cor.6. Isaiah is twice quoted, 49:8 "At an acceptable time I have listened to you, and on a day of salvation have I helped you…"(v.2), and 52:11 "therefore come out from them…"(v.17).

"The former of these two verses in Isaiah continues in defining ‘the day of salvation’ as the time when God would ‘restore the land’; Zion would no longer be ‘forsaken’ (49:14ff), and the Gentiles would help to bring God’s people to the land (49:22ff). Similarly, Paul’s second quotation is from a passage where God tells His people to ‘depart’ from Babylon (Isa.52:11), because the exile is over and the Lord ‘has redeemed Jerusalem’ (52:9); as a result, ‘all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God’. Paul applies these prophecies without explanation to the Corinthians!

He could only do so with integrity if he believed these prophecies had now been fulfilled. This universal salvation ‘before the eyes of all nations’ (Isa.52:10) had now come to pass; Jerusalem therefore had been ‘redeemed’ – in the sense that the exile which had partly ended in the time of Isaiah had now been fully brought to an end in the work of Jesus.

In keeping with this is the section in Romans 10 where he again quoted from Isaiah 52 (v.7 in Rom.10:15), thereby identifying the Christian ‘good news’ (euangelion) with the ‘good news’ proclaimed by Isaiah of the exile’s end. In 10:13 he had also quoted from part of Joel 2:32 which in its entirety reads; ‘then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape’. In all these instances Paul was taking verses that originally had spoken of a specific work of God in and for Jerusalem and was applying them to God’s work in the Gospel. He believed that God’s act in Christ was a fulfillment of these Zion prophecies;…"

I am indebted to Peter Walker (Jesus and the Holy City) Eerdmans Grand Rapids 1996 p.139 for the content of this section.

c) the meaning of "life from the dead" (Rom.11:15)

This versed is used to suggest that the conversion of Israel takes place at the second coming of Christ, coeval with a literal resurrection from the dead. True, it was so taken by Origen and Chrysostom (so Iaian Murray in The Puritan Hope Banner of Truth London 1971 p.70) but so using it is not in conformity to the Scriptural use of the term. The phrase is consistently used to mean the acquiring of spiritual life. In the OT it is so used in Hosea 6:2 "the third day he will raise us up and we shall live in his sight" and in Ezekiel 37 where we have the picture of the valley of dry bones with Israel coming out of the grave, which is clearly a picture of spiritual renewal. In the NT we have John 5:21 where the receiving of spiritual life is likened to a raising from the dead, and concerning the prodigal son in Luke 15 we are told that his restoration was as one who "was dead and is alive again." This is totally in conformity with the sequence we saw set out in section II (a) which indicates that following the restoring of hardened, but elect Israel, there will continue an unprecedented level of further Gospel blessing for the world. For physical resurrection Paul consistently uses the expression "resurrection from the dead".

So I leave with my readers this brief examination of the phrase "and so all Israel will be saved". Obviously, it can only be brief within the compass of four pages. But I heartily recommend the books I have quoted above, together with Jesus and Israel – One Covenant or Two? By David E Holwerda (Eerdmans Grand Rapids and Apollo (IVP) Leicester England 1995). Those by Walker and Holwerda deal exhaustively, and, in my opinion definitively with their common subject.

Two final snippets. The first is that in my correspondence with Wm Chalfant (see elsewhere on this web site) he sent details of some reports by geneticists who have examined DNA samples from ethnic Jews from the Middle East. They are interesting insofar that they indicate that there is much less dilution of the Jewish genes than one might have thought. For any who are interested, the details appear in his first letter to me. But from a biblical point of view, since national and racial distinctions are abolished in Christ, and Jews therefore have no separate and independent future from the Church, the Body of Christ, this does not have any bearing on the discussion.

The second is that despite the fact that Lance Lambert’s The Uniqueness of Israel has been in print for decades, it is only recently that I was loaned the book and read it. I passed on the following reflections to the person who lent me the book …

"But, on reflection, it is not a harmless viewpoint. Firstly, the title is misleading. Israel WAS unique. Its distinction lay in its connection with the giving of the Old Covenant. With the passing of this, the NT specifically tells us that there is no separate distinction for Israel. To persist that there is, and that it awaits Christ’s coming to fulfill the Messianic promises disables us from accepting the very power of the Gospel, which is that Christ NOW exercises His Messianic Kingship reigning as the Son of David on David’s throne by resurrection (Acts 2 etc), and by the power of the promised Holy Spirit He is establishing His Kingdom NOW. To lose this emasculates the Gospel, and is the reason why so many evangelical churches are powerless - they think they can do little, and await the Second Coming to achieve what the Gospel could not. (Ken B says this in his forward). Lambert’s doctrine is a distinct barrier to the acceptance of the Apostolic teaching that the Kingdom of God has fully come in power.

I think this shows us that the challenging of the unbiblical concept that Israel has amillennial supremacy among the nations is not just dotting i’s and crossing theological t’s, but is challenging a view that undermines the power of the Gospel today. This needs to be displaced with a biblical view that will enable the Church of God to fulfil her Divine mission in this generation.

May the Lord lead us all into further biblical truth for His glory.

Alan Nairne, Easter 2004