WILL ALL ISRAEL BE SAVED? (ROMANS 11:25-27)

These verses, especially v. 26b, are highly controversial verses as witnessed by the following:

Seifrid calls v. 26 a “contested utterance.”

Brauch: “Romans 11:26 has been at the heart of much Christian reflection about eschatology...”

Fitzmyer: The interpretation of “all Israel” “has been the subject of much debate over the centuries.”

Since Paul's words here appear to reveal details about the last days, it is fair to first inquire into the source of his ideas. Several possibilities come to mind, some of which we can find scriptural evidence for elsewhere in Paul's life and writings. However, we should probably reject out of hand Plag's contention that these verses were added by a hand other than Paul's at some later date:

    1. It should be taken, not as a prophecy, but as Paul's personal wish concerning his fellow Jews. Thus, Paul is “hoping that the success of the gospel among the Gentiles would 'provoke to jealous zeal' the Jews, leading to their salvation.” (Beale and Gladd) Wagner also invokes the word “hope” in regard to Paul's words here.

    2. It only reflects Paul's personal feelings on the subject at the time of writing. (as in I Corinthians 7:12,25) Thus, Kreitzer feels that Paul's thoughts are still in the middle of a dilemma regarding the future fate of his fellow Jews. Wagner goes even further and says that Paul changed his mind on that subject from his earlier negative words toward them in I Thessalonians 2:14-16 and Galatians 4:21-31. It is the factual course of history witnessed by Paul which “forces Paul to revise the Jewish expectation.” Wagner brings up the possibility that Paul might have viewed the situation differently if he had later historical realities to factor in such as the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Barclay appears to take this approach throughout his discussion on these verses. Witness the following:

“Somehow he [Paul] has had to find an explanation of the fact that God's people rejected God's Son..”

In many cases the 'proofs' he brings forward may seem quite unconvincing. And some times our minds and hearts may even shudder in repulsion at some of the things he says...”

“Paul had battled with a heart-breaking problem with every resource which his great mind possessed.”

“He does not say that he has solved it, but he does say that, having done his best, he is content to leave it to the love and power of God.”

    3. It is based on a solid interpretation of OT prophetic passages. “Paul read Deuteronomy 27-32 [especially Deut 32:21] as broadly prophesying Israel's disobedience, hardening and judgment, [etc.] finally leading to Israel's redemption.” (Beale and Gladd)   Brauch says that the “mystery” is not a specific revelation that Paul had, but he is referring simply to the basic plan of salvation available to all, Jew and Gentile.

    4. It is based on a special revelation Paul was given when he was translated up to the “third heaven.” (as in II Corinthians 12:2-4)

    5. It is based on traditional words of Jesus not recorded elsewhere in the NT. (see Acts 20:35 as an example)

    6. It is based on revelations given Paul by Christ or NT prophets. (see Acts 11:27-30; 16:6-7; 21:10-11; I Corinthians 11:23)

    7. Paul received this insight through a night vision. (as in Acts 16:8-10)

    8. The Holy Spirit gave him a direct revelation of this future event. Thus, Ladd has this to say about the source of Paul's thought in these verses: “...the Spirit can add to the tradition by granting through the apostles and prophets an unfolding and outworking of the redemptive purposes of God that is already implicit in the redemptive work of Christ.” This general thought could also apply to possibility #6 above. Leon Morris adds, “Paul has a revelation which assures him of its truth.”

I personally feel that this last possibility is the most reasonable position to take. Beale and Gladd summarize this belief quite well when that state that “the human authors were aware that they were writing under divine inspiration and that God would certainly have a more exhaustive understanding of their intentions.”

Turning now to the text at hand, a consideration of the elements in v. 26a (which reads “And so all Israel shall be saved”) will serve as a guide to discussing the various opinions for interpretation of vv. 25-27.

    “And so” (kai houtos)

The Greek phrase has also been translated as “and so/thus” (KJV, RSV, NRSV, NASB), “once this has happened” (J.B. Phillips), “when that has happened” (NEB), “and then” (Living Bible), “and this is how” (TEV), “and in this way” (NIV), and “and then after this” (JB). You can see that there are two different ways of understanding these words: as indicating either when it will happen or in what manner it will happen. This same disagreement is found between various commentators on the subject.

Thus, commentators such as the amillennialist Hoekema criticize the pre-tribulation premillennialists for mistakenly understanding the phrase as a temporal indicator. Leon Morris does recognize that the phrase can have either meaning, but he feels that “in this manner” better fits the context here.

Fitzmyer and Wagner both say that the temporal meaning “and then” is based strictly on an appeal to a mistaken interpretation of Romans 11:15 (“life from the dead”) as referring to the resurrection of the dead at Christ's Second Coming. But he argues that “and then” cannot be a correct translation “because a temporal meaning of houtos is not otherwise found in the Greek.” And there is another perfectly good way in the Greek to express “and then” (i.e. kai tote).

Kaiser tries to counter the objections by Hoekema and Morris by pointing out that the language does not totally rule out a specific future time from in which most of the “fullness” of the Jews will take place.

   “all Israel”

Here is where the commentators really begin to diverge from one another in opinion. Leon Morris puts it this way: “This expression has caused unending disputation among expositors.” However, amazingly, the main bone of contention is not with the word “all” but with the proper definition of “Israel.” Thus, scholars coming from diverse theological backgrounds are united in saying that “all” cannot mean every single Jew, either of all time or of a specific future time period.

Seifrid: “'All Israel' does not signify every descendant of Abraham for all time.” He points out that if Paul felt that every Jew would be saved, his willingness to suffer condemnation himself for Israel's sake (see Romans 9:3) would be pointless.

Allen: “All Israel means the Jews as a collective whole, not the arithmetical sum of all individual Jews.”

Witmer: “The statement...does not mean that every Jew living at Christ's return will be regenerated.”

Guhrt: “...the [covenant] promise will be fulfilled with regard to the remnant of Israel.”

Hoekema: In his objections to the dispensational view, he states, “'All Israel' does not do justice to the word 'all' if it only applies to Jews saved during the last days.”

Fitzmyer count the number of times “all Israel” appears in the OT and comes up with 148 occurrences, always referring to ethnic Israel, usually denoting the generations current at the time of writing, but in Malachi 3:22 meaning Jews of all generations.

Commentators such as Davidson and Martin point out that the exact phrase “all Israel” was utilized by rabbis in Paul's day to refer to “the totality of Israel without necessarily implying every single individual. It means 'all—except those not included.'” Specifically, both Brauch and Marshall quote from a portion of the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 10:1) in which “all Israel” purposely excludes Sadducees, heretics, magicians, etc. Thus, Brauch concludes that “the salvation of Israel is comprehensive, but not all-inclusive.” One can also see this same concept from the instances of “full(ness)” in Romans 10:12 and 10:25.

Payne concurs that it does not necessarily include each individual Israelite, but refers to the nation as a whole.

Murray states that the numerical aspect of “fullness” cannot be excluded. But in the present context, it means 'the mass.'” He adds the reasonable conclusion that “the salvation of Israel must be conceived of on a scale that is commensurate with their trespass...”

Beale and Gladd: “Paul's incisive point in Romans 9:6 that not all Israelites are part of true Israel sharpens and clarifies Romans 11...We understand 'all Israel' in Rom 11:26 as a reference to all elect ethnic Jews who are converted beginning from the first century to Christ's second coming.”

In addition, one need only consider the immediate context of the phrase. The second usage of “all” in v. 32 certainly does not prove the universal salvation of all sinful mankind; it just offers the possibility to all who wish to take it. And if “all” is equivalent to the “fullness” or “full number,” then in analogy to v. 25, no more will all Jews be saved than will the fullness of Gentiles. Finally, there is the caveat in v. 23 that this promise is predicated on a drastic change in attitude among Israel.

Brauch discusses Paul's use of pleroma (“fullness”) It is not a predetermined number in mind, for then he would have used the word arithmos. His use of the root word elsewhere refers to completing his own evangelistic outreach to the Gentiles.

The above would appear to demonstrate a remarkable, and unusual, unanimity among Bible scholars if it were not for one fact. All of them felt the obvious need to avoid any implication that every Jew, whether at the Second Coming (as per the dispensationalists) or of all time would be saved. And all of them feel that “Israel” must refer to ethnic Israelites. But the amillennialists and others understand the word “Israel” in a completely different way, and offer persuasive, if not decisive, arguments to bolster up this alternative interpretation.

Williamson notes the overwhelming emphasis in Romans “to encourage unity in the church by demonstrating how God had been faithful to his covenant promises to Abraham.” Thus, “all Israel” refers to “all Abraham's seed, whether Jew or Gentile...united to Abraham primarily through faith in Jesus Christ.”

Similarly, de Lacy feels that “all Israel” must refer to believing Jews and Gentiles as in Galatians 3:7,28-29.

Brauch points out how Paul has earlier explained in Galatians 3:7, 6:16; Romans 2:28-29 that there is an Israel of the flesh and one of the promise. Faith in Christ is the only criterion for being “of the seed of Abraham (Romans 2:20, 9:6-8).

Elliott on Romans 9:6-8: “Paul means not to restrict the number of those who are 'truly Israel,' but to insist that being Abraham's children (v. 7) has never been a matter of physical descent (v. 8).”

The “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 very probably refers to the church. Similarly, “Israel after the flesh” in I Corinthians 10:18 implies an “Israel after the spirit.”

Ellul: “All-Israel” means both Jewish and Gentile believers “for that is the indisputable meaning.”

In rebuttal to this understanding, Allen and others point out that the word “Israel” appears eleven times in Romans 9-11, and ten of these indisputably have the meaning of ethnic Jews. Thus, John Murray states, “It should be apparent from both the proximate and less proximate contexts in this portion of the epistle that it is exegetically impossible to give to “Israel” in this verse any other denotation than that which belongs to the term throughout this chapter.”

Walvoord states categorically, “The evidence has been examined and found to produce nothing indicating that the term Israel is ever used of Gentiles. Rather it is used of the godly remnant in all ages, Christian Jews, and the future national entity anticipated through the Scriptures.”

As a counter-argument to Walvoord, one need only consider the following NT passages:

“We are the circumcised, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.” (Philippians 3:2)

“You are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's possession, etc.” (I Peter 2:9) Clowney comments on this passage by saying, “This statement of the nature and calling of the church is a composite of three Old Testament passages [that] draw together the sweep of Old Testament about the people of God and proclaim their fulfillment in the New Testament church.”

“Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,'” quoting Hosea 1:9-10, 2:23.

The Gentiles are now “members of God's household.” (Ephesians 2:19)

They are “fellow heirs, members of the same body.” (Ephesians 3:6)

Dunn points to Galatians 8:27-33 in which the Galatians are called by terms such as “first born” and “God's elect,” designations earlier applied to Jews only.

    “will be saved”

This phrase brings up three questions: the when, how, and what of salvation. As mentioned above, some scholars connect this event with a particular interpretation of the phrase “life from the dead” in v. 15. Thus, they argue that this can mean nothing less that bodily resurrection, which will only occur at Christ's Second Coming.

Brauch says, “There is no indication anywhere in these chapters of Romans that Paul has in view the conversion of Israel as a nation-state, located on a particular piece of real estate.”And Wagner adds, “The hope Paul cherishes for Israel is not a national-nationalistic blessing in terms of an earthly possession.”

Ladd expresses the general stance of historical premillennialism that 11:26 does refer to ethnic Jews but “Paul does not speculate when or how the salvation of the Jews will take place, but it is probably an eschatological event to occur at the end of the age...It is impossible that Israel should be saved in any way but by faith in Jesus as her Messiah.” Wagner concurs and says that this verse must be read in conjunction with 11:23. “This sentence contains the whole dialectic of divine and human action. The Jews will believe, and God will graft them in again!” Thus, all Israel will be saved by grace.

Leon Morris explains that even those scholars applying the term “all Israel” to ethnic Jews only are still divided into two basic camps: (a) those who see a future time period in which the Jews, as a nation, will turn to Christ and (b) a reference to the true people of God and thus to elect Jews in all generations including the last. He notes that neither side has been able to convince the other with a decisive argument.

Blomberg says that this verse “apparently describes an outpouring of faith in Jesus among Jews at the end of the church age.”

Kreitzer worries that here Paul “appears to come close to what might be described as a national universalism. It is difficult to reconcile such teaching with the theme of justification by faith so strongly emphasized elsewhere in his writing.”

Regarding the timing of this event, Ellul feels that this will happen when the full number of Gentiles comes in rather than when the Jews turn to Christ. And Fitzmyer states that “reference to the parousia is nowhere made in chap. 9-11.

Finally, Brauch warns against “the precarious nature of all eschatological theories which tie particular biblical texts to very specific historical events. It also reveals the difficulty of understanding the precise meaning of Paul's words “all Israel will be saved.”

Two commentators attempt to lay out the various interpretive options concerning Romans 11:26. Hoekema divides them into three different camps, some with several variations:

    1. “The nation of Israel as a totality (though not necessarily including every single member of that nation) will be converted.”

        a. As part of a detailed scheme of future events (dispensational view)

        b. Future conversion of Israel as a nation (historical premillennial view)

    2. Israel refers to all the elect, Jew and Gentile in all history (some amillenialists)

    3. All Israel refers not the nation of Israel but to the elect Jews throughout history (others from these three basic camps)

Hoekema personally opts for the third view for the following reasons:

    a. Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel (Romans 9:6).

    b. Those Israelites who are lost are responsible for their own rejection (Romans 10:3).

    c. Romans 10:12 seems to rule out specific time frames in which there are different future time periods and different ways in which either the Jews or Gentiles are saved.

Fitzmyer's categories are somewhat similar but bear repeating anyway because of the different way he expresses them:

    1. God Himself will deliver the Jews “independently of any acceptance of Jesus as Messiah or of a mass conversion to the Christian gospel.” This view is only expressed by some from the dispensational camp. Their belief is in a two-covenant system of theology in which “the 'covenant' (v. 27) would then be the everlasting covenant between Yahweh and Israel...” Their argument in favor of this understanding is strictly one based on silence. In other words, Christ has not been specifically mentioned in Romans since 10:17.

   2. “The salvation of Israel will come about through Christ, who will be the 'deliverer' (v 26b).”

        a. This will happen at the Second Coming when “all Israel” will have its sins taken away without conversion to the gospel. Against this view is the whole thrust of Romans – the fact that the justification of all human beings is dependent on faith in Christ Jesus (See 1:16; 4:25-26; 10:9-10; 11:14-15, etc.).

        b. “The only way to enter the body of those who will be saved is by faith in Christ.” And this is not limited to the time of the Second Coming. “The latter form of the christological interpretation seems to be the only one tenable, for it is difficult to see how Paul would envisage two different kinds of salvation, one brought about by God apart from Christ for Jews, and one by Christ and believing Jews.”

As for my personal view on the subject: As sympathetic as I am to the amillennialists who stress that “all Israel” applies to both Jews and Gentiles, it appears that most recent commentators of varying theologies are leaning more toward the understanding that it applies to Jews only in this particular passage. The deciding factor seems to be the way “Israel” is obviously understood in the rest of Romans 9-11. However, I would have to firmly reject the detailed scheme of the future laid out by the dispensationalists based primarily on a particular literal understanding of OT prophecy that leads to a dual path to salvation, one for the Jews and the other for the Gentiles. Thus, my current stance is that Fitzmyer's category 2b above best fits the immediate context of Romans 11:25-27 as well as the overall teachings throughout the rest of the NT.