John Calvin’s interpretation of Romans 11:26 (“and so all Israel will be saved”)—understanding “all Israel as the complete people of God (the spiritual Israel comprising believing Jews and Gentiles throughout history, forming the church)—was highly influential in early Reformed theology. He extended “Israel” to encompass the whole elect body gathered from both groups which he believe was grounded in his understanding of Galatians 6:16.
Let’s first take a look at what Calvin wrote:
26. And so all Israel, etc. Many understand this of the Jewish people, as though Paul had said, that religion would again be restored among them as before: but I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, according to this meaning, — “When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both; and yet in such a way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it were the first-born in God’s family.” This interpretation seems to me the most suitable, because Paul intended here to set forth the completion of the kingdom of Christ, which is by no means to be confined to the Jews, but is to include the whole world. The same manner of speaking we find in Galatians 6:16. The Israel of God is what he calls the Church, gathered alike from Jews and Gentiles; and he sets the people, thus collected from their dispersion, in opposition to the carnal children of Abraham, who had departed from his faith.1
What intrigues me about Calvin’s interpretation, is that it actually falls out of line from the many who understand this of the Jewish people; which is the natural, contextual, and grammatical reading of the text. However, Calvin’s view is no longer the unchallenged gold standard in the contemporary reformed evangelical community. There has been a clear diversification and, in many quarters, a noticeable shift toward interpretations that affirm a future, significant (often described as large-scale or “fullness”) conversion of ethnic Israel (Jews as a people group), provoked to faith by Gentile inclusion and occurring in connection with the “fullness of the Gentiles” coming in (Romans 11:25).
Nathaniel Parker notes this transition:
“A positive theological interest concerning Israel was introduced into theological discussions around the 1580s-1590s. Protestants began rethinking the Augustinian teachings of the medieval church that equated the church with Israel. Theodore Beza (1519-1605) was a reformed (Calvinist) theologian who interpreted Israel in Rom 11 as referring to literal Jews, not the church. This position was reflected in the notes of later editions of the Geneva Bible. By the middle of the seventeenth century, the belief that a mass evangelization of Jews would occur in fulfilling Rom 11:26 (that “all Israel shall be saved”) became popular, especially among Puritans. Donald Lewis (1950-2021) argued that Puritanism’s popular interpretation of Israel as literal Jews “resonated with the idea of the divine ‘election’ of the Jews” and further advanced the necessity of Jewish evangelism. Within the writings of Anglicanism, John Foxe’s (1516-1587) Book of Martyrs (1563), while critiquing the religion of Judaism throughout the work, taught the validity of God’s covenant with the nation of Israel. John Bale’s (1495-1563) The Image of Both Churches (1570), while a work from a supersessionist view, advocated evangelizing the Jewish diaspora and taught an eschatological role for the Jewish people.
The belief that following their mass evangelization, the Jews would also return to the land of Israel became popular between 1585 and 1640. This belief (like the belief in the mass evangelization of the Jews) became popular among Puritans. Britain was considered a chosen nation to lead the Christian world of the present age while protecting and restoring God’s Old Testament chosen nation as God’s first nation, Israel. Within the writings of Anglicanism, Thomas Draxe’s (?-1618) The Worldes Resurrection (1618) advocated for the restoration of a Jewish nation in and the return of the Jews to the land of Israel, rebuked the church’s treatment of the Jews throughout history, and argued that God had providentially preserved the Jewish diaspora. Two later works that reinforced the theological discussion advocating for a restoration of a Jewish nation in the land of Israel were Thomas Scott’s (1747-1821) Commentary on the Bible (1804) and Thomas Newton’s (1704-1782) Dissertations on the Prophecies (1825).
In addition to interpreting Israel as referring to literal Jews, a popular theological shift from postmillennialism to premillennialism occurred during the 1820s among many Anglicans who later became involved in Christian restorationism. Prior to this shift, many Anglicans involved in Jewish evangelism were postmillennialists. The popular shift to premillennialism began in post-Reformation Christianity through a renaissance of a literal reading of a future millennial kingdom in Rev 20. The medieval church’s failure to fulfill its role of ushering in the kingdom of God (a position held by some Reformers) opened the door for premillennialism to return as a popular position. The deterioration of international affairs (such as the French Revolution) also caused some Anglicans to reexamine their eschatological position in line with a premillennial interpretation of Rev 20 and believe an imminent, literal return of Christ would occur. As some Anglicans began to accept a premillennial eschatology, a greater appreciation of the prophetic role concerning the nation of Israel, the Jewish people, and the importance of advocating for a restoration of a future Jewish nation in the land of Israel became popular in theological discussions.
By reexamining the teachings of the medieval church that the church is Israel with the alternative position that Israel in Rom 11 is the Jewish people, coupled with the popular theological shift from postmillennialism to premillennialism, some Anglicans began accepting a positive theological interest in Israel and the Jewish people. Two theological positions further built upon this interest. The first was a position of Christian restorationism that later developed into Christian Zionism. The second was dispensationalism (which shared some aspects of Christian restorationism, such as a literal future for the nation of Israel).”2
The intent for this blog post is to simply document the numerous theologians that have pushed back against Calvin’s erroneous interpretation and to demonstrate a dramatic shift toward understanding—at minimum—a future salvation for Ethnic Israel and a possible restoration of Israel.
Non-Dispensationalists Who Reject Calvin’s Interpretation of Romans 11:26
“And so all Israel shall be saved,…. Meaning not the mystical spiritual Israel of God, consisting both of Jews and Gentiles, who shall appear to be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation, when all God’s elect among the latter are gathered in, which is the sense many give into; but the people of the Jews, the generality of them, the body of that nation, called “the fulness” of them, Romans 11:12, and relates to the latter day, when a nation of them shall be born again at once; when, their number being as the sand of the sea, they shall come up out of the lands where they are dispersed, and appoint them one head, Christ, and great shall be the day of Jezreel; when they as a body, even the far greater part of them that shall be in being, shall return and seek the Lord their God, and David their King; shall acknowledge Jesus to be the true Messiah, and shall look to him, believe on him, and be saved by him from wrath to come. There is a common saying among them c, כל ישראל יש להם חלק לעולם הבא, “all Israel shall have a part”, or “portion in the world to come”; and in support of this they usually produce the passage in Isaiah 60:21: “thy people also shall be all righteous”: yea, they even go so far as to say d,”
━━ Gill, John. “Commentary on Romans 11:26”. “Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible”. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/romans-11.html
“Indeed, to posit that the term “Israel” includes believing Gentiles in verse 26 requires that Paul lurches to a new meaning for the term “Israel” in verse 26. For verse 25 says that a partial hardening has come upon “Israel” while the full number of “Gentiles” stream into the church. It is obvious in verse 25 that the term “Israel” refers to ethnic Israel in contradistinction to the Gentiles. Thus it is extremely unlikely that the term “Israel” would have a different meaning in verse 26 than it did in verse 25.[9] This is confirmed by verse 28, for the contrast with Gentiles in that verse (ethnic Israel are “enemies for the sake of the Gentiles” and yet “beloved because of the fathers”) demonstrates that ethnic Israel must be in view in verse 26 (so Hafemann 1988: 53). I agree, therefore, with most commentators that the mystery refers to ethnic Israel.”
━━ Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (BECNT) Epub., (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 593.
“For a small sampling see Origen (per Gorday 1983: 80–82); Sanday and Headlam 1902: 335; Murray 1965: 96–97; Cranfield 1979: 576; Hafemann 1988: 53; Hofius 1989: 194–95; Hvalvik 1990: 101; Fitzmyer 1993c: 624; Stott 1994: 303; Bell 1994: 137–39; Byrne 1996: 354; Moo 1996: 720–21. For an effective refutation of the idea that both Jews and Gentiles are included see Kümmel’s (1977: 206–7) trenchant criticisms of Jeremias’s view.“
━━ Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (BECNT) Epub., (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 593, f.n., 1115.
“Pauline usage makes it possible to define “Israel” as (1) the community of the elect, including both Jews and Gentiles; (2) the nation of Israel; or (3) the elect within Israel. The first of these options received some support in the very early church and became especially widespread in the post-Reformation period but has received less support in the modern period. Moreover, this lack of support seems to be justified. Paul has used the term “Israel” ten times so far in Rom. 9-11, and each refers to ethnic Israel. This clearly is the meaning of the term in v. 25b, and a shift from this ethnic denotation to a purely religious one in v. 26a — despite the “all” — is unlikely. But another factor is even more damaging to the idea that Paul uses Israel in v. 26a to refer to the church generally: the hortatory purpose of Rom. 11:11-32. Paul’s view of the continuity of salvation history certainly allows him to transfer the OT title of the people of God to the NT people of God, as Gal. 6:16 probably indicates (cf. also Phil. 3:3). And this same theology surfaces in Romans itself, as Paul argues that Abraham’s “seed” consists of faithful Jews and Gentiles (4:13-18). But the difference in purpose between Rom. 11 and these other texts makes it unlikely that Paul would make the semantic move of using Israel to denote the church here. In both Galatians and Rom. 4 Paul is arguing that Gentiles, as Gentiles, can become recipients of the blessings promised to Abraham and full members of the people of God. Paul’s application to Gentiles of OT people-of-God language is perfectly appropriate in such contexts. But Paul’s purpose in Rom. 11 is almost the opposite. Here, he counters a tendency for Gentiles to appropriate for themselves exclusively the rights and titles of “God’s people.” For Paul in this context to call the church “Israel” would be to fuel the fire of the Gentiles’ arrogance by giving them grounds to brag that “we are the true Israel.” The choice between the other two options is more difficult to make. Paul uses “Israel” in Rom. 9-11 of both the nation generally and of the elect from within Israel, as 9:6b succinctly reveals: “not all who are from Israel [the nation] are Israel [the elect].” If Paul uses “Israel” here in the latter sense, he would be affirming that all elect Jews would be saved. Some have dismissed this interpretation because it would turn Paul’s prediction into a purposeless truism: after all, by definition those who are elect will be saved. But this objection is not decisive. As we have seen, Paul’s focus is not so much on the fact that all Israel will be saved as on the manner in which it will be saved. A more serious objection to this interpretation is that it requires a shift in the meaning of “Israel” from v. 25b to v. 26a since the Israel that has been partially hardened is clearly national Israel. For this reason, and also because of the usual meaning of the phrase “all Israel” (see below), I incline slightly to the view that Israel in v. 26a refers to the nation generally.”
━━ Douglas J. Moo, Romans: The New International Commentary on the New Testament (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 720-722.
“VERSE 26. And so all Israel shall be saved, as it is written. Israel, here, from the context, must mean the Jewish people, and all Israel, the whole nation. The Jews, as a people, are now rejected; as a people, they are to be restored. As their rejection, although national, did not include the rejection of every individual; so their restoration, although in like manner national, need not be assumed to include the salvation of every in-dividual Jew. Πᾶς ᾿Ισραήλ is not therefore to be here understood to mean, all the true people of God, as Augustin, Calvin, and many others explain it; nor all the elect Jews, ie, all that part of the nation which constitute “the remnant according to the election of grace;” but the whole nation, as a nation.”
━━ Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Eighth Printing: 1965), 374.
“So all Israel will be saved (v. 26a). If Paul is referring to spiritual Israel, he is departing from the way he uses the term Israel here and in the preceding three chapters. Since chapter 8 Paul has been talking about ethnic Israel. Does he mean each and every Jew? The word all in Scripture does not function the way we characteristically use it to indicate each and every. I believe Paul to be saying that the full complement of God’s elect from Israel will be saved and that this will come in a new redemptive-historical visitation by the Holy Spirit when the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled.”
━━ R.C. Sproul, Romans: St. Andrews Expositional Commentary, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2009), 387.
“VER. 26. οὕτως] i. e, after the fulness of the Gentiles has entered into the church. πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ] 1. the spiritual Israel, composed of elect Jews and Gentiles together, as in Rom. ix. 6; Gal. vi. 6 (Aug., Theodoret, Luther, Calvin). The connection is against this: for, the apostle having spoken of the “fulness” of the Gentiles, is now describing the “ful-ness” of the Jews, in contrast with it. 2. the elect Jews, but constituting only a small number brought into the church from time to time: the ὑπόλειμμα of ix. 27; xi. 5 (Bengel, Olshausen, Philippi). According to this view, the nation as a whole is not to be restored. 3. the great mass or body of the nation, who are to be converted after the evangelization of the Gentile world (Beza, Rückert, Fritzsche, Tholuck, De Wette, Meyer, Hodge). The last is the correct view, be-cause was is the opposite of ἀπὸ μέρους. Prior to the entrance of the fulness of the Gentiles into the church, the Jews “in part” (xi. 25; οἱ λοιποι, χί. 7; τινες, xi. 17) are blinded. Only a remnant of them are among the spiritually elect. The nation as a whole is reprobate. But when the fulness of the Gentiles shall have come into the church, this state of things will be reversed. The nation as a whole (πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ) will then be spiritually elect and “saved,” and only a fraction (τὸ μέρος) spiritually rejected, γέγραπται] the citation is given freely from the Septuagint of Isa. lix. 20. The apostle does not obtain his knowledge of the future of the church from this passage, but from his own inspiration. He confirms his own prediction by the language of Isaiah. ἐκ Σιών] the Re-deemer shall come from the people of Israel, whose capital is Zion. The Septuagint reads ἕνεκεν Σιών, “for Zion,” which agrees with the Hebrew, ὁ ῥυόμενος] is the Septuagint ren-dering of bia, the Messiah. ἀποστρέψει] denotes the con-verting power of Christ. Compare Luke i. 16, 17. St. Paul follows the Septuagint. In the Hebrew, the whole passage reads as follows: “A redeemer shall come to (or, for) Zion, and to (or, for) the converts from transgression, in Jacob,” The apostle teaches, that the deliverance alluded to by the prophet, is not confined to the “remnant,” or small fraction that has been spoken of, but refers to the future conversion of the nation as a whole.”
━━ William G.T. Shedd, A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (Minneapolis: Klock & Klock Christian Publishing, 1978 reprint), 348-349.
“The contents of the mystery are declared in the end of this verse and the first words of the following hardness is happened.” Paul had already pointed out this, ver. 7; but he adds: in part, από μέρους. This word a hardened,” and by the term some, ver. 17. Hence it follows that we must explained, as it seems to me, by the expression of vero lows the rest were here give the word in part a numerical sense. Judgment has not fallon on the totality of Israel, but on a part part only only such is the meaning to which we are led by the antithesis of the all Israel of ver. 26; comp. Cor. ii. 5. It is a mistake in Calvin to apply this word to the degree of the hardening which according to him still left room for partial blessings, and in Hofmann, in a more forced way still, to to apply it to the restricted time during which it is to last. But even this judgment, which has overtaken one entire portion of the nation, will have an end to make it cease, God waits till the totality of the Gentile nations shall have made their entry into the kingdom of God. This is the people which should have introduced all the other peoples into it; and for their punishment the opposite is what will take place, as Jesus had declared: “The first shall be last.” It is almost incredible how our Reformers could have have held out obstinately, as they have done, against a thought so clearly expressed. But they showed themselves in general rather indifferent about points of eschatology, and they dreaded in particular everything that appeared to favor the expectation of the thousand years’ reign which had been so much abused in their time. Calvin has attempted to give to the conj. άχρις οἱ, until that, the impossible meaning of in order that; which in sense amounted simply to the idea of vv. 11 and 12. Others gave to this conjunction the meaning of as long as, to get this idea that while the Gentiles are entering successively into the church, a part of the Jews undoubtedly remain hardened, but yet a certain number of individuals are converted, from which it will follow that in the end the totality of God’s people, Jews and Gentiles (all Jarael, ver. 20), will be made up. This explanation was only only an an expedient to get rid of the idea of the final conversion of the Jewish people. It is of course untenable -1st. From the grammatical point of view the conj. άχρις οὗ could only signify as long as, if the verb were a present indicative. With the verb in the aor. subjunctive the only possible meaning is: until. 2d. Viewed in connection with the context, the word Israel has only one possible mean-ing, its strict meaning: for throughout the whole chapter the subject in question is the future of the Israelitish nation. 3d. How could the apostle announce in a manner so particular, and as a fact of revelation, the perfectly simple idea that at the same time as the preaching of the gospel shall sound in the ears of the Gentiles, some individual Jews will also be converted? Comp. Hodge. The expression: the fulness of the Gentiles, denotes the totality of the Gentile nations passing successively into the church through the preaching of the gospel. Thi 1. This same whole epoch of the conversion of the Gentile world is that which Jesus designates, epochuke xxi. 24, by the remarkable expression: καιροῖ ἐθνῶν, the times of the Gentiles, which he tacitly contrasts with the theocratic epoch: the times of the Jeres (xix. 42, 44). Jesus adds, absolutely in the same sense as Paul, “that Jerusalem shall be trodden down until those times of the Gentiles be ful-filled;” which evidently signifies that after those times had elapsed, Je-rusalem shall be delivered and restored. In this discourse of Jesus, as reported by Matthew (xxiv. 14) and Mark (xiii. 10), it is said: “The gos pel of the kingdom shall be preached unto the Gentiles throughout all the earth; and then shall the end come.” This end includes the final salvation of the Jewish people. Olshausen and Philippi suppose that the complement of the word πλήρωμα, fulness, is: “of the kingdom of God,” and that the genitive έθνών, of the Gentiles, is only a complement of apposition: Until the full number of Gentiles necessary to fill up the void in the kingdom of God, made by the loss of Israel, be complete.” This is to torture at will the words of the apostle; their meaning is elear: Till the accomplishment of the conversion of the Gentiles, there will be among the Jews only individual conversions; but this goal reached, their conversion en maase will take place.
Ver. 26a. Καὶ ούτως cannot be translated “and then;” the natural mean-ing is: and thus; and it is quite suitable. Thus, that is to say, by means of the entrance of the Gentiles into the church, comp. ver. 31. When Israel shall see the promises of the O. T., which ascribe to the Messiah the conversion of the Gentiles to the God of Abraham, fulfilled throughout the whole world by Jesus Christ, and the Gentiles through His mediation loaded with the blessings which they themselves covet, they will be forced to own that Jesus is the Messiah; for if the latter were to be a different personage, what would this other have to do, Jesus having already done all that is expected of the Messiah 3-Πας ᾿Ισραήλ, all Israel, evidently signifies Israel taken in its entirety. It seems, it is true, that the Greek expression in this sense is not correct, and that it should be Ἰσραὴλ όλος, But the term wᾶς, all (every), denotes here, as it often does, every element of which the totality of the object is composed (comp. 2 Chron. xii. 1: τῆς Ἰσραὴλ μετ’ αὐτοῦ, all Israel was with him); Acts. ii. 36; Eph. ii. 21. We have already said that there can be no question here of applying the term Israel to the spiritual Israel in the sense of Gal. vi. 16. It is no less impossible to limit its application, with Bengel and Olshausen, to the elect portion of Israel, which would lead to a tautology with the verb shall be saved, and would suppose, besides, the resurrection of all the Israelites who had died before. And what would there be worthy of the term mystery (ver. 25) in the idea of the salvation of all the elect Israelites!-Paul, in expressing himself as he does, does not mean to suppress individual liberty in the Israelites who shall live at that epoch. He speaks of a collective movement which shall take hold of the nation in general, and bring them as such to the feet of their Messiah. Individual resistance remains possible. Compare the admirable delineation of this period in the prophet Zechariah (xii. 10-14). Two prophetic sayings are alleged as containing the revelation of this mystery.”
━━ F. Godet, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Publishers, 1883), 410-411.
“All Israel shall be saved” is the proposition thus involved. 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. There is the sustained contrast between Israel and the Gentiles, as has been demonstrated in the exposition preceding. What other denotation could be given to Israel in the preceding verse? It is of ethnic Israel Paul is speaking and Israel could not possibly include Gentiles. In that event the preceding verse would be reduced to absurdity and since verse 26 is a parallel or correlative statement the denotation of “Israel” must be the same as in verse 25.”
━━ John Murray, Epistle to the Romans: The New International Commentary on the New Testament, Vol II: Romans 9-16 (Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965), 96.
“If we keep in mind the theme of this chapter and the sustained emphasis on the restoration of Israel, there is no other alternative than to conclude that the proposition, “all Israel shall be saved, ”is to be interpreted in terms of the fulness, the receiving, the in- grafting of Israel as a people, the restoration of Israel to gospel favour and blessing and the correlative turning of Israel from unbelief to faith and repentance.”
━━ John Murray, Epistle to the Romans: The New International Commentary on the New Testament, Vol II: Romans 9-16, (Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965), 98.
“While Paul can use the language of “Israel” and apply it to the whole church, including Gentile Christians as members of the people God, that does not seem to be the focus of his argument in these chapters, especially the second half of chapter 11. In the verses both before Romans 11:26 (Rom. 11:11–25) and after it (Rom. 11:28–32), Paul is clear and careful to distinguish between Jews and Gentiles (see Table 2 below). In fact, this first view’s identification of “all Israel” as including both Jews and Gentiles would actually undermine the point the Apostle is seeking to make… Calling the Gentiles, along with the Jews, “all Israel” in this immediate context would seemingly subvert Paul’s purpose in these verses by “fuel[ing] the fire of the Gentiles’ arrogance.””
━━ Richard Lucas, How Will “All Israel” Be Saved in Romans 11:26? (Part 1). https://christoverall.com/article/concise/how-will-all-israel-be-saved-in-romans-1126-part-1/#post-12337-footnote-4.
“All Israel shall be saved: From the earlier discussion of the literary context to this expression, it has become clear that, within the broad framework of Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11, Israel is used consistently in an ethnic sense. He is speaking of those who are Jews by race and children of Abraham by descent.“
━━ Stephen Voorwinde, Rethinking Israel: An Exposition of Romans 11:25-27, 38. https://rtc.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/Rethinkling-Israel-An-Exposition-of-Romans-11-25-27-SV-68-2003.pdf
“As early as 1560, four years before Calvin’s death, the English and Scots refugee Protestant leaders who produced the Geneva Bible, express this belief in their marginal notes on Romans chapter 11, verses 15 and 26. On the latter verse they comment, `He sheweth that the time shall come that the whole nation of the jews, though not everyone particularly, shall be joined to the church of Christ.’“
━━ Phil Layton, Noted Theologians in History Who Believed in a Future Conversion of National/Ethnic Israel. https://www.monergism.com/noted-theologians-history-who-believed-future-conversion-nationalethnic-israel?fbclid=IwY2xjawOamRVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEejNSmzNjOwUe8_TFctiQyklShPWXT-4SaTixnrD7TR1VWMpaa9CsGHSjH8Bw_aem_-7H5cwrFTGT9TCIpUvZWEg
“… [Reformed] Expositors who endorse Parr’s interpretation are Charles Hodge, Robert Haldane, John Brown of Edinburgh, H G C Moule, Frederic Godet, W G T Shedd, Prof John Murray, Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, C E B Cranfield, James Dunn and Thomas R Shreiner [sic] in his recently published commentary on Romans. [also James Montgomery Boice, and Premillennial scholars in Puritan tradition, such as Jeremiah Burroughs, Joseph Mede, Horatius Bonar, Thomas Goodwin, John Gill, etc.]”
━━ Phil Layton, Noted Theologians in History Who Believed in a Future Conversion of National/Ethnic Israel. https://www.monergism.com/noted-theologians-history-who-believed-future-conversion-nationalethnic-israel?fbclid=IwY2xjawOamRVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEejNSmzNjOwUe8_TFctiQyklShPWXT-4SaTixnrD7TR1VWMpaa9CsGHSjH8Bw_aem_-7H5cwrFTGT9TCIpUvZWEg
“. . . for virtually all Dutch theologians of the seventeenth century, ‘the whole of Israel’ indicated the fullness of the people of Israel ‘according to the flesh’: in other words, the fullness of the Jewish people. This meant that there was a basis for an expectation of a future conversion of the Jews-an expectation which was shared by a large majority of Dutch theologians.”
━━ J. Van Den Berg, “Eschatological Expectations Concerning the Conversion of the Jews in the Netherlands During the Seventeenth Century,” Puritan Eschatology: 1600 To 1660, ed. Peter Toon (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1970), 140.
“He is showing how God will, in the future, bring such widespread salvation to the Jewish people that, in an obvious general sense, it can be said that “all Israel will be saved” (v. 26) … some form of this last view seems most likely for the following reasons. First, hints of it seem to appear already in vv. 11, 12, 15, 16, 24. Second, v. 25 suggests that an end to the partial hardening of Israel is in view. Third, “Israel” in v. 26 is not naturally interpreted as signifying a different entity from the Israel in view in vv. 1–24 and vv. 28–31, where national Israel (not spiritual Israel) is in view. Fourth, “mystery” in v. 25 would seem inappropriate and exaggerated if Paul’s teaching were simply that all elect Jews will be saved. Finally, this view accords well with the quotations in vv. 26, 27 from Is. 59:20, 21; 27:9; Jer. 31:33, 34, which appear to speak of a comprehensive banishment of that sin that has been the cause of Israel’s alienation from God.”
━━ Reformation Study Bible, https://www.monergism.com/noted-theologians-history-who-believed-future-conversion-nationalethnic-israel?fbclid=IwY2xjawOamRVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEejNSmzNjOwUe8_TFctiQyklShPWXT-4SaTixnrD7TR1VWMpaa9CsGHSjH8Bw_aem_-7H5cwrFTGT9TCIpUvZWEg
“It means Israel as a whole. Paul is thinking of the historical people, as the contrast with Gentiles shows, but he is not thinking of them one by one. Israel a Christian nation, Israel as a nation a part of the Messianic kingdom, is the content of his thought. To make πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ refer to a “spiritual” Israel, or to the elect, is to miss the mark: it foretells a “conversion of the Jews so universal that the separation into an ‘ elect remnant ’ and ‘ the rest who were hardened ’ shall disappear” (Gifford).”
━━ James Denney, “Commentary on Romans 11”. The Expositor’s Greek Testament. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/egt/romans-11.html.
“When this ingathering of the Gentiles is complete, then the turn of Israel will come round again, and the prophecies of their conversion will be fulfilled.“
━━ Ellicott, Charles John. “Commentary on Romans 11”. “Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers”. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/ebc/romans-11.html.
“26. ] And thus (when this condition shall have been fulfilled) all Israel shall be saved ( Israel as a nation , see above: not individuals, nor is there the slightest ground for the notion of the ἀποκατάστασις )… The Reformers for the most part, in their zeal to impugn the millenarian superstitions then current, denied the future general conversion of the Jews, and would not recognize it even in this passage: Luther did so [recognize it], at one time, but towards the end of his life spoke most characteristically and strongly of what he conceived to be the impossibility of such national conversion (see extract in Tholuck’s note, p. 616).“
━━ Alford, Henry. “Commentary on Romans 11”. Alford’s Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/hac/romans-11.html.
“On the crucial verse 26: And so all Israel shall be saved Parr refutes the idea that in this phrase Israel stands for all the elect. Parr writes: ‘That all the elect shall be saved? Who ever doubted that? But of the calling of the Jews there is doubt. He calls their salvation a secret or mystery but there is nothing mysterious about all the elect being saved. He shows that there is an unbroken reference to Israel/Jacob, that is, ethnic Israel.’ From verses 25-28 Parr concludes, ‘Before the end of the world the Jews in regard to their multitude will be called.’ In this he is followed by Matthew Poole and Matthew Henry.”
━━ Erroll Hulse, The Puritans and the Promises. 2000. https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2000/the-puritans-and-the-promises/
“all Israel shall be saved. By Israel is not meant the whole church of God, consisting of Jews and Gentiles; so that word is used, Galatians 6:16, and elsewhere; for then, what he spake would have been no mystery at all: but by Israel here (as in the precedent verse) you must understand, the nation and people of the Jews. And by all Israel is not meant every individual Israelite, but many, or (it may be) the greatest part of them. So all is to be taken in Scripture: see John 6:45; 1 Timothy 2:6, and elsewhere. Look, as when he speaks of the conversion of the Gentiles, and the coming in of their fulness, there are many (too many of them) still unconverted; so, notwithstanding the general calling of the Jews, a great many of them may remain uncalled.”
━━ Poole, Matthew, “Commentary on Romans 11”. Poole’s English Annotations on the Holy Bible. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/mpc/romans-11.html.
“26, 27. And so all Israel shall be saved—To understand this great statement, as some still do, merely of such a gradual inbringing of individual Jews, that there shall at length remain none in unbelief, is to do manifest violence both to it and to the whole context. It can only mean the ultimate ingathering of Israel as a nation, in contrast with the present “remnant.” (So Tholuck, Meyer, De Wette, Philippi, Alford, Hodge).”
━━ Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/11-26.htm
“26. And so all Israel shall be saved] Several interpretations of these words are in themselves legitimate. They may refer (A) to the natural Israel, the Jews; or (B) to the “Israel of God,” the true Church of Christ. Again, if the reference (A) is adopted, the prophecy may mean (a) that then all the elect of Israel shall at length be gathered in—the long process shall at length be complete; or (b) that every individual of the then generation of Jews shall be brought to Messiah’s grace; or (c) that “all” bears a less exact reference here, as so often in Scripture, and means “in general;”—“Israel in general, the Jews of that day as a great aggregate, on a scale unknown before, shall be saved.”
Of these various possibilities we prefer on the whole (A. c,) as the most in accord with the context, and with the analogy of Scripture. The explanation (B) is in itself entirely true: the final glory and triumph of the Gospel will surely be, not specially the salvation of the Jews, but that of the Universal Church—the immortal Bride of the King Eternal. And it is extremely important to remember the full recognition in Scripture of all its true members as the “seed of Abraham” (Galatians 3:29). But this is not the truth exactly in point here, where St Paul is dealing with the special prospect of a time when “blindness in part” will no longer characterize Jews as Jews. And the “Israel” of Romans 11:25 is probably the Israel of Romans 11:26, as no distinction is suggested in the interval.—Again, the reference marked (A. a), though perfectly true in itself, is less likely here because in Romans 11:15; Romans 11:25, we have had already a prediction of a restoration of Jews, en masse, to grace; whereas the process of gathering in the elect of all ages is continuous, and thus, on the whole, gradual.—Again, the reference marked (A. b), though the Divine Plan may, of course, intend no less, is far from analogous to the main teaching of Scripture as to the developements [sic] (even the largest) of grace in this world.—On the whole, then, we adopt the interpretation which explains the sentence as predicting the conversion of some generation or generations of Jews, a conversion so real and so vastly extensive that unbelief shall be the small exception at the most, and that Jews as such shall everywhere be recognized as true Christians, lights in the world, and salt on the earth.”
━━ Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/11-26.htm
“(2) πᾶς must be taken in the proper meaning of the word: ‘Israel as a whole, Israel as a nation,’ and not as necessarily including every individual Israelite. Cf. 1 Kings 12:1 καὶ εἶπε Σαμουὴλ πρὸς πάντα Ἰσραήλ: 2 Chronicles 12:1 ἐγκατελιπε τὰς ἐντολὰς Κυρίου καὶ πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ μετʼ αὐτοῦ: Daniel 9:11 καὶ πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ παρέβησαν τόν νουον σου καὶ ἐξέκλιναν τοῦ μὴ ἀκοῦσαι τῆς φωνῆς σου.”
━━ ICC New Testament Commentary. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/icc/romans/11.htm
“We Gentiles must not forget that at the end of the present dispensation all will be reversed, and that we shall be in danger of playing the part of the elder brother, and shall do so if we grudge at the largeness of the grace bestowed upon the Jew, who is now feeding upon the husks, far away from his Father’s house.“
━━ R. C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1948), 152.
“And in this way, all Israel will be saved” (v. 26). The controversy that surrounds this verse is closely related to systems of eschatology that have espoused three main perspectives. (1) “Israel” here refers to the redeemed of the NT era who constitute the church, whether converted Jews of Gentiles. Thus the Christian church has become the new Israel that has replaced the former OT nation. This view of Calvin has diminished in support because of obvious exegetical weaknesses. (2) “Israel” here refers to the accumulation over many centuries of the saved remnant of national Israel (11:5). While it is comprised of Jewish Christians, it merges with the church which is the new Israel. Both of the above views can admit to a larger number of Jews being converted at the end of this age, though with out there being any national or territorial significance with regard to the future. Such an increase, again, merges with the church. This view is especially supported by English, Dutch, and Reformed scholars. (3) “Israel” here refers to a future national conversion of Israel, the larger unbelieving segment in particular, that results in Israel serving under Christ in the promised land with restored glory. This view, with variations, is most widely held today within evangelical Christendom, as N. T. Wright acknowledges. It is the obvious meaning that is also in full harmony with a Judeo-centric eschatology.
The National Salvation of All Israel (v. 26). There is clear chronological connection or “temporal reference,” as Moo describes it, between vv. 25 and 26. This is the case even when we translate, “in this way all Israel [the same national Israel of v. 25, inclusive of the remnant of v. 5) will be saved.” The agent of this salvation is “the Liberator… from Zion. Paul’s flexible use of Isa 59:20 and Jer 31:33-34 probably incorporates Ps 14:7 53:6 as well. The future tense here suggests the return of Jesus Christ, having come from the heavenly Zion and his throne of intercession (Heb 12:22-24) for the purpose of coming to earthly Zion in its present ungodly state; it complements the other future aspects of vv. 24,26. This is further indicated since this Liberator “will turn away (future tense) godlessness from Jacob” (see Isa 27:9; also vv. 6,12-13, which, according to Paul’s reference here, must transcend the return from Babylon).”
━━ Barry E. Horner, Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged, NAC Studies in Bible & Theology (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2007), 260-261.
References
- https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.xv.vi.html ↩︎
- Nathaniel Parker, So All Israel Shall Be Saved: Donald Robinson and Biblical Theology at Moore Theological College, (Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2025), 16-19. ↩︎
