'And so all Israel shall be saved' Rom 11.26

We should remind ourselves that our title text comes from the 'letter-essay' written by the apostle Paul to the Roman church around AD 55-57 from Corinth. 

This consideration needs to be emphasised; we too quickly imagine that Paul was writing to us when it is more accurate to say that Paul was writing to his contemporaries in the first century AD in the capital city of the Roman Empire. He was not writing to¹ 21st century disciples.



When we comprehend this principle which is somewhat obvious but is frequently not remembered as it should be, we may view many scriptures in different² ways. We should always ask, to whom was this scripture written and/or spoken, we are considering, and how does that affect how it applies to the church today?

Romans 9-11

The section, Romans 9-11, deals with the grave issue of the failure of Israel to respond in faith to manifestation of the Messiah (Rm 9.1-5; 10.1-4). How is it possible that Israel to whom so much was given has failed to receive the promises by faith?

And Paul's astonishing simple answer to this knotty problem is that God elected Israel to receive the promises but not all Israelites are of Israel (Rm 9.6b). That is, not all physical Israelites are part of the 'remnant according to the election of grace' (Rm 11.5). Paul illustrates the principle with the examples of Isaac and Jacob who were preferred over Ishmael and Esau respectively.

We also know that Israel continually resisted the prophets throughout the OT (Acts 7), then rejected John's baptism of repentance, and Jesus' preaching of the Kingdom of God in the NT (Lk 7.24-35). Jesus also said in the face of the Jewish leaders' continued antagonism, through parables that 'the kingdom' would be taken from them and 'given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof' (Matt 21.33-46).

Moreover, second, Paul argues that the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles is God's way of provoking Israel to jealousy (Rm 11.11).

Romans 11

One important thing that dispensationalism has a hard job explaining from Romans 11 is the undoubted emphasis on the oneness of the people of God!

With thanks to F. Jenkins 2010

Interestingly, some in the classical dispensational tradition such as Darby and Scofield gave this passage a wide berth. And no wonder! The reason for that is Paul's interest in the one, 'good' Olive Tree and the grafting in of the Gentiles (Rm 11.17). This idea doesn't comport with dispensationalism's idea of two congregations of God, Israel and the Church.

That distinction between two peoples of God doesn't appear in this passage. One good Olive Tree with both Jewish and Gentile members is revealed and those outside are either branches broken off or Gentiles who haven't responded to the gospel.

Additionally, to assemble an earthly Israel one needs land but Paul says nothing about land anywhere in Romans 11. His focus on Israel concerns its salvation (Rm 10.1; 11.11).

'And so all Israel shall be saved'

This text in Romans is sometimes cited by dispensationalists³ to support the idea that God still has plans to save cultural Israel in a future millennium.

Rm 11:25-32  For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 26  And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, 'There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob': 27  'For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.' 28  As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. 29  For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. 

30  For as ye [Gentiles] in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their [Israel's] unbelief: 31  Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they [Israel] also may obtain mercy. 32  For God hath concluded them all [all people] in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all [people].

The general dispensational sequence is that (i) blindness has from the first century AD happened to Israel; (ii) until the fulness of the Gentiles are saved; and (iii) then the salvation of Israel will take place. Point (iii) is supported by vv 26b-29 which is a melding of various OT texts. We should note that no sequential 'then', understood as a further action, can be found in the text.

A non-dispensationalist might view the passage viz., (i) blindness has happened to Israel; (ii) until the fulness of the Gentiles are saved; (iii) 'and so','by this means' 'all Israel shall be saved' [italicised words inferred from text].

Acts 15.14-18

This interpretation does not appear to be 'natural' to many exegetes; but we can find a parallel in Acts 15.14-18 where a text from the OT (Amos 9.11-12) that seemingly had no application to any New Testament congregation when written is applied by James the apostle and leader of the Jerusalem church to the entry of the Gentiles into the church⁴.

In Acts 15, the situation involved the vexed issue of whether Gentiles who were coming to believe in Jesus as the Christ should become circumcised. After hearing convincing testimony about the authentic work of God among the Gentiles from Peter, and then Barnabas and Paul before circumcision, James summarises his opinion and uses Amos to show that this development among the Gentiles has been foretold in the prophets: 

Act 15:16 After this I [the Lord] will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

In this instance the Lord 'returns' to rebuild the 'tabernacle [tent] of David'. This rebuilding is done with Jewish membership initially (on the day of Pentecost) -after all, the Jerusalem Church is a Jewish Church- and then follows verse 17 which, different translations render the 'and-the-Gentiles' phrase as 'even-the Gentiles' or 'including-the-Gentiles'. Reading the passage using either of these renderings gives good sense.

By the way, the Acts passage is just another pericope showing the amazing unity between the people of God in the OT and the New which in these verses picture in terms of the One Tabernacle.


1. I am not of course suggesting that Paul's writings are not FOR our time. Undoubtedly they are and rightly are applied to our time by giving us holy 'examples' (1 Cor 10.6-11) for one thing. That's what the Puritan preachers used to describe in their sermons as 'application'. They would structure their sermons (here) and the application phase would bring home the message of the text to the assembled hearers.
2. For example, in Matt 5.39, we find Jesus' words: 'But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.' To whom were these words directed in the above text? Clearly Jesus is giving instruction to the disciples (Matt 5.1) and moreover, he is giving this instruction to his Jewish disciples in 1st century Judæa. Some Reformers refused to serve in the military, most notably the Anabaptists, on the basis of this text.
3. Most premillennialists and many classic postmillennialists would also hold such a belief while varying as to the timing and the character of God's dealing with cultural Israel.
4. Note that the Tabernacle of David is another image -not a physical building- for the united New Era of believers in Christ Jesus.

The Seed of Abraham

Gal 3.16

In the above verse, the apostle Paul says,

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made.

He [God] saith not, And to 'seeds', as of many; but as of one, 'And to thy seed', which is Christ.

The verse is crucial because it clearly shows that Jesus Christ is the Seed of Abraham. Paul points out that the promises were made to Abraham and to a single offspring or descendant or 'seed' (the Christ).


Importantly for those who believe in Christ, they are said to be 'the children of Abraham' (Gal 3.7, 9, 26, 27, 29): through their faith in Christ, they are the 'seed' or descendants of Abraham.

And Abraham, as we know, was not considered righteous ('rightwised') because of anything he did; he was 'rightwised' (=made right) because he believed God's promises¹ (Rom 4.22; Gen 15.6). 

Romans also says that God is God of both Jew and Gentile on the basis of faith (Rom 3.29-30). That is, not on the basis of religion, culture or race. For the true people of God are 'the children of the promise' not those 'who are the children of the flesh' (Rom 9.6-8).

The Children of the Flesh

Galatians 4.21-31 introduces a basic contrast between the two sons of Abraham: the first born according to the flesh, the second born by promise. The apostle says that these two sons represent two covenants: the first represents Sinai and leads to bondage; the second is 'heavenly' and 'above', and is 'free'.

To follow God in the spirit of Sinai is to deny the Messiahship of Jesus Christ. A comprehensive rejection of Jesus as Christ is what the Jewish leadership orchestrated during the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth and in doing that, they² revealed the depth of their own faithfulness towards the God of Israel. 
 
In each of the gospel accounts and then in The Acts of the Apostles the spiritual character of the Jewish leadership at the time of Christ is revealed as apostate. They put themselves forward as exceptional because of their Abrahamic ancestry. However, they reveal themselves to be prideful, hardhearted, rageful, blind, stubborn and  murderous³ when faced with Jesus and the apostles' signs, wonders and words (e.g., Matt 15.12-14; 23.1-36, 37-39; Mk 3.6; 10.2-5; Lk 11.39-54; Jn 8.37-59; Acts 2.23b; 2.36b; 3.13-15; 7.51-58; 1 Thess 2.13-16).

Both Jesus (Matt 23.37-39) and Paul (Rom 9.2-3; 10.1) lament over the apostasy of Israel and desire its repentance. However, they both also realise that without 'circumcision of the heart' (Jn 3.3, 5; Rom 2.28-29) stemming from faith in the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, Israel will reap what it has sown which occurs in the terrible judgements of AD 68-70 and AD 135. 

1. The promises of land, seed and blessing.
2. Thankfully, not all 'despised and rejected' Isa 53.3 him but a majority did (Jn 1.11-12).
3. Although, some have sought to represent these descriptions as 'antisemitic' and even responsible for the 'holocaust' of the mid-20th C, this neglects the fact that Moses, the Judges, and the OT prophets sound a similar note re the intransigence of Israel in the OT towards the Word of God.  

Progressive Dispensationalism

The revising of dispensationalism we talked about in the last post in turn gave way to a third form of dispensationalism which began in the 1980s called progressive dispensationalism (PD). 

One of the major features of this new dispensationalism was that its adherents began to subject one of C. C. Ryrie's defining criteria -literal interpretation- to closer examination and found it wanting.

At the same time, dialogue took place between some dispensationalists and nondispensational¹ theologians which brought about more understanding and greater unity between the two opposing groups.

The PD group believes that God has one plan of salvation. That plan is being unfolded through a series of different administrations (dispensations) but they emphasise the unity of the dispensations. 

However, the PD group still holds to the main dispensational tenet that Israel and the Church are distinct; nevertheless, they also hold that both receive blessings through the Abrahamic, the Davidic, and the New Covenants.

Interpretation

This subject is a large one and highly vexed with strong differences of opinion. 

But as an example I had always believed that Gentiles could claim to be beneficiaries of the New Covenant set out in Jeremiah 31.31-34 (even though I was brought up as a dispensationalist without even knowing it). This fact seemed to be clear from Jesus' words to his disciples at the Last Supper (1 Cor 11.25; Luke 22.20²). We also have in The Letter to the Hebrews where the New Covenant is specifically mentioned as making the Old covenant obsolete (Heb 8.8-12³). 

But some consistent dispensationalists don't believe that the New Covenant benefits the Gentiles. They believe that the New Covenant is for Israel alone. They reason this way on the basis that Jeremiah's words address, 'the house of Israel [Northern Kingdom] and the house of Judah [Southern Kingdom]' (Jer 31.31) and say nothing about the Gentiles.

Such exegetes would argue that all they are doing is being faithful to the 'literal' meaning of the words of Jeremiah 31.31. Hence, differences are apparent even within the classical⁴ dispensational school and require that we look further at the subject of interpretation which will be examined in future posts.

1. I've used this category to designate premillennialists who are nondispensational, as well as amillennialists (those who don't believe in a millennium on earth). It would also included preterism (that most prophecy has already been fulfilled) of all types.
2. Modern translations omit 'new' because of their use of a variant text. However, the Gospel accounts are clearly describing a covenantal Meal.
3. Of course, it can also be said that Hebrews is not addressed to Gentiles but to Hebrew Christians who were in danger of going back into Judaism once again.
4. Another issue that dispensationalists are divided on is the time the Church actually began. Some hold to an Acts 2 beginning; others to Acts 13 with the beginning of Paul's ministry; others to an Acts 28: 25-31.

Dispensationalism Revised

Before we outline a development in the classical dispensationalism of Darby, Scofield and others, I invite readers to look at Charles C Ryrie (b.1925) in a 7-minute You Tube interview explaining dispensationalism. 

Ryrie's teaching in the video is clear and easy to follow even if basic; and importantly, his work in 1965 led to a revised dispensationalism taking form.

Ryrie (1965, 1995) laid down three essential characteristics unique to dispensationalism¹ in his printed work: first, a consistent difference being maintained between the Church and Israel; second, the adherence to 'literalism' or a 'plain' reading of scripture (as opposed to allegorical or 'spiritual' readings); and third, more controversially¹, the belief that God's primary intention in creation was His own glory (as opposed to man's salvation). 

But in this process some notable differences between the Darby-Scofield view and mid-20th century views emerged. For whereas in traditional dispensationalism, a sharp dualism was believed to exist between the Church ('heavenly' destination and rewards) and Israel ('earthly', land of Palestine, ruling on earth, material prosperity), in 'revised' dispensationalism, this radical difference became an 'earthly' difference.

That is to say, the differences between the Church and Israel though still marked and basic were not as radical and far-reaching as they had been in traditional dispensationalism.

1. I should repeat a good point that Ryrie makes on You Tube that: all Bible students acknowledge various 'dispensations' to some extent. Just to recognise that living under the Mosaic Law for Israel is different from living in New Testament times is to do that. Hence, dispensationalism is greatly focussed on change and variety in God's administration across history while those opposed focus more on the continuity and unity found across the whole of scriptural revelation.

2. My reason for saying that this criterion is more controversial is that surely Ryrie was clearly misinformed to have thought that only dispensationalists hold firmly to such a belief. Famed Calvinist Jonathan Edwards taught this understanding which, in our time, has been taken over by John Piper.

An Introduction

The People of God as One People

These posts in this series are an attempt to deal with some of the complicated issues surrounding the identity of the people of God as the one people of God.

They examine how the Church and cultural Israel are related within the broader scope of the several types of eschatology (end-time study). For the complexity of the issues has led to a multiplicity of differing viewpoints that can be confusing without some road map: using some type of classification of views is one way to create order in an otherwise tangled scene.  



First the question of whether the Church superseded the earthly Jewish nation and its religious practices is a major issue. Some use the language of 'replacement' although 'fulfilment' is currently thought to be a better term within this framework.

Others, of course, believe that God has a plan with cultural Israel as well as with the Church; that He postponed his work with Israel only until the 'time of the Gentiles' would be fulfilled. Then his work with Israel will be taken up again.

These Christians believe that cultural Israelites because of their race will receive grace to believe in the future: these Christians will reject any suggestion that God has abandoned Israel as a nation. Other Christians, just as fervently believe contradictorily, that the Jews have no special place in the economy of salvation but must come by way of the Cross of Christ as do all who would be saved in this age of opportunity. 

Some believe that present-day national Israel is part of a fulfilment of God's 'unconditional' promises to it of greatness, land, and many descendants. Others believe that all such promises to Israel were fulfilled in Joshua's time or that elements of the promises have 'spiritual' fulfilment.

These Differences Have Consequences

The questions raised about Israel above raise individual and even nation-changing consequences. For example, the present US government supports the State of Israel to the tune of 6 million dollars per day (8 billion dollars per year) at present. 

At least some of this support can be explained in terms of Christians who believe that Israel is entitled to the 'Holy Land' because of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Hence the question arises, should the Church or Christians support the present Israeli government in its conflict with the Palestinians on the basis that God has promised the 'Holy Land' to the Jews?

Not An Easy Topic In General

In the reading I've done so far in preparation for blogging I've discovered that this field of inquiry is by no means simple. Many earnest Christians hold widely differing opinions and appear to have solid biblical reasons for so doing. 

Hence, my aim is to approach the area with some caution even though I have already developed what I think is a general sense of the place of the Church vis a vis Israel. (That doesn't of course mean it is correct in all respects and I realise I have much to learn!) Nevertheless, my quest is to acquaint myself more fully with some of the extensive discourse on this theme and hopefully learn much so that my views become better founded.    

What is the Gospel (3)

Of course, I'm wondering with all this whether Scott McKnight has got it right. Certainly a few others think the same way. See here and here for examples. 

Not to say that McKnight isn't a writer to be read and listened to. I think he says some valuable things which the evangelical churches and mainline churches need to hear.

But just a few points that I noticed that I would need more detail about are:

• His distinction between gospel and salvation

I'm not sure that this distinction can be so easily sustained. I appreciate what McKnight is wanting to say: the message of the gospel is not the same as its effects (salvation); gospel doesn't equal salvation because God is more concerned about gospel than salvation it seems. For a theologian who is a theoretician by training distinctions are always important. However, when one gets into church ministry settings I wonder whether such issues have much moment.

Why did Jesus come? Jesus at his coming, 'abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel' (2Tim 1.10, emphasis mine).

In Ephesians, the gospel is called, 'the gospel of your salvation' (Eph1.13) which at least suggests that the link between the two is very close. 

Or further, it might suggest that the gospel is the message of salvation through Jesus the Messiah! Jesus we remember was called 'Jesus' because he was to save the people from their sins (Matt1.21)! Jesus came to seek and to save those who are lost (Luk19.10).

I also wonder whether all the preachers and teachers beginning with the Reformation have been failing to preach the gospel simply because they are concerned about the salvation of their hearers. I don't think so. Rather I believe that when preachers focus on the salvation of the unsaved, they will also preach Jesus as the Messiah, the Saviour of the world.

• Is Jesus always to be preached as the fulfiller of the story of Israel?

We know that Paul didn't always do this type of preaching because of his ministries at Lystra and at the Areopagus. Paul adapts his message [the gospel] to his audience. These two audiences were mainly pagan. However, McKnight still wants to see Israel's story implied in Acts 13. Well I think that's a stretch! And I think it's a stretch to find this suggestion of Israel's history in the Acts 17 passage as well. Paul appeals to Genesis 1 and 2 and to the idolatry subsequent to the Fall but any direct reference to Israel's story is absent. 

It can't be argued that because Paul preached Jesus and the resurrection (Acts 17) that this means he preached about the Story of Israel: that line of argument is clearly begging the question! That's the point McKnight is trying to establish so he can't assume it proven as part of his argument in Acts 17.

I think it better to say that the gospel is adapted to the audience. When hearers know nothing about Israel's story one can then appeal to the God of creation who is also the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Would the preaching of Jesus as the completion of Israel's story be of benefit to those outside the church today? I hardly think that too many within the church would understand the point much less those outside.

• The relevance of the ecumenical creeds

McKnight, it appears, has discovered the Ecumenical Creeds: the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene believing them to support his case. However, even a cursory look at these two creeds shows that McKnight is battling to argue that the creeds solely confess the gospel--as he understands it.

The Nicene says, 'For us and for our salvation/ he came down from heaven'. The creed is saying--just as the scriptures do--that Christ's coming was about sinful humanity; it was for our salvation, our rescue from the power and penalty of sin. And the Apostles' Creed (perhaps formulated originally to be used at baptism hence the use of the first person pronoun) finshes with 'I believe in the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. AMEN'. These are distinctly present and future salvific terms. The Trinity and their work of salvation are confessed as an integral whole.

• 'Story'

This point is more a quibble than anything else but we do have to keep in mind that in talking about 'story' and narrative, we are leaving out the majority of the bible! When we talk about the Bible's story we are talking about a humanly created storyline that theologians have developed about the Bible's content.  Nothing wrong with that in itself. We are all in the same boat. Most of us wish to have some over-reaching theme that covers the Bible's content.

The Bible's text is made up of many different genres: saga, genaealogy, law and ordinance, prophecy, parable, psalm, narrative, epistle, and apocalyptic. Without doubt, a movement from beginning(s) to final consummation exists from Genesis to Revelation. Interestingly, this sweep of history used to be known as 'salvation history', 'covenant history' or 'redemptive history' and all of these terms do give insight into the nature of this history.

It's all right to call it a story or a drama but then we are left with the question as to what is the subject of the dramatic history. What is it about?

As you would expect various answers are given. Redemption, Jesus Christ and covenant are often mentioned. Another favourite is the Kingdom of God.

My point is that just talking about the drama or story of the bible is inadequate because it doesn't furnish us with a theme for the dramatic story.

Let me finish with a summary quote from the last link above proposing the Kingdom of God as the unifying theme/story of the Bible:

Like redemption, the covenant is definitely a unifying theme of the Bible, but it also seems to be inadequate to bring together the full range of Biblical revelation. By itself, the notion of covenant tends to be abstract and difficult to define. What we need is a theme that is broad enough to embrace every major Biblical idea, a theme that includes redemption, gives proper honor to Christ as the Creator and Savior, and also does justice to the centrality of the covenant.

Such a theme is the kingdom of God. In the kingdom of God, all of the other suggested major themes are included and given proper place. In addition, the kingdom of God includes other themes important for our understanding of the Bible, such as creation, the Biblical teaching about angels and demons, the doctrine of final judgment and everlasting punishment. Christ Himself remains a central theme of the Bible because as the King, He is the center of the kingdom, its very essence. Redemption as a central theme is the unfolding drama of God’s restoring the kingdom to its original purpose (p. 5).