Romans 11:26 - Three Views of "All Israel will be saved"

 

This controversial passage has generally been interpreted by commentators in one of three ways:
  1. The Popular View - All (or at least a large number of) ethnic Jews will saved at some future prophetic time.
  2. William Hendriksen's View - All elect Jews will be saved throughout the course of human history
  3. John Calvin's View - All true, spiritual, Israel (i.e., all of God's elect, both Jew and Gentile) will be saved throughout the course of human history.

I believe that the third view (John Calvin's view) is the best interpretation.

The Popular View - All (or at least a large number of) ethnic Jews will saved at some future prophetic time.

  1. The Greek word houtos does not mean "then" or "after that". The rendering "Then all Israel will be saved" is wrong. In none of the other occurances of this word in Romans, or anywhere else in the New Testament, does this word have that meaning. It means "so, in this manner, thus"
  2. This theory also fails to do justice to the word "all" in "all Israel". Does not "all Israel" sound very strange as a descriptionof the (comparatively) tiny fraction of Jews who will still be living on earth just before, or at the moment of Christ's return?
  3. The context clearly indicates that in writing about the salvation of Israelites and Gentiles Paul is not limiting his thoughts to what will take place in the future. He very definitiely includes what is happening now. See especially verses 30,31.
  4. The reader has not been prepared for the idea of a mass conversion of Israelites. All along Paul stresses the very opposite, namely, the salvation, in any age (past, present, future) of a remnant.

William Hendriksen's View - All elect Jews will be saved throughout the course of human history .

  1. It seems unnecessarily restrictive in the context to say that God will save only elect Jews. All that Paul says in this context would be true of all saved people, both Jew and Gentile. Particularly the texts (Isaiah 59:20-21, Jeremiah 31:33-34) which Paul quotes in support of his view would have reference to more than just elect Jews.
  2. I do not know of any instance in the New Testament where Paul uses the term "Israel" to refer only to elect Jews. It seems that in the other places where Paul uses this term spiritually (Romans 9:6, Galatians 6:16) he has in mind all of God's elect.
  3. Postulating that Paul uses a special term to differentiate elect Jews from elect Gentiles would seem to have the undesirable side effect of having two categories of Christians based on ethnic background. This seems to go against Paul's whole view that God has "made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility" (Ephesians 2:14) between Jews and Gentiles. Once a person becomes a member of the body of Christ, prior ethnic origins are of no relevance to Paul - "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galtians 3:28).

John Calvin's View - All of true, spiritual, Israel (i.e., all of God's elect, both Jew and Gentile) will be saved throughout the course of human history.

  • Alledged problems with this view - I say "alleged" problems because I believe  the objections can be satisfactorily answered! I give my answer in response to each of the objections listed below
  1. William Hendriksen in his commentary on Romans (p. 380) argues that in the preceding context the words "Israel, Israelite(s)" occur no less than eleven times. In each case the reference is clearly to Jews, never to Gentiles. Response: Of course it is true that every other place some form of the word "Israel" is used in the preceding context, it is in reference to Jews - ethnic Jews. I believe Paul deliberately uses the same word in a different sense in order to show the typological relationship between physical people of God in the Old Testament and the spiritual people of God which, in the New Testament, includes Jews and Gentiles. I believe Paul makes that same shift in Romans 9:6b where he says, ". . . not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Clearly, in order for this statement to make any sense, Paul must be using the word "Israel" in two different senses - and I believe it is the same two senses in which he uses the word "Israel" in the context surrounding Romans 11:26.
  2. Douglas Moo, in his commentary on Romans (p.721), argues that for Paul in this context to call the church "Israel" would be to fuel the the fire of the Gentiles' arrogance by giving them grounds to brag that "we are the true Israel." Response: To the contrary, Paul is not calling the elect Gentiles Israel, he is calling all of God's elect Israel. This serves to show that the Jews and Gentiles are really all in the same boat, so to speak. Paul ends up concluding in verse 32, "For God has bound all men (Jews and Gentiles) over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all (Jews and Gentiles)." Surely if Paul were worried that putting Jews and Gentiles in the same category would fuel the Gentiles arrogance, as Moo imagines, Paul wouldn't have made this statement in verse 32.