You are hereHow 'All' Israel Will Be Saved

How 'All' Israel Will Be Saved

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By Virgil - Posted on 26 June 2008

Chris Tilling has a post up on the meaning of "all" in Romans in which he shows that "all" does not always mean "all". Of course, a key passage is Romans 11:25-26: Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, 26 and so all Israel [πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ] will be saved... The key question here is whether Paul believed every single Israelite would be saved.I do not have the time to write an extensive essay on this--I've got to get back to finishing my dissertation. In fact, Scott Hahn presented a paper at the International Meeting of SBL a few years ago which looks at this passage in great detail--and let me tell you, to fully treat this subject would take another dissertation! Nonetheless, I want to piggy-back off Tilling's post and say a few things about this passage.

The key here is identifying how "all Israel" [πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ] is used in the Old Testament and non-canonical Jewish literature. For that I recommend an excellent article by James M. Scott [“All Israel Will Be Saved,” in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish & Christian Perspectives (ed. J. M. Scott; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 489-526]. Scott shows that the phrase is typically used to describe all twelve tribes. In other words, the term is typically used to identify the inclusion of the northern tribes.

Click to read the entire posting

chrisliv's picture

Gee,

This article may have missed the point.

The point began at the beginning of the so-called chapter (11), where Paul quotes Isaiah, and indicates for us from the Old Testament that God never considered "all of Genetic Israel" to be "Israel" at all.

The quote states that only a "Remnant" of Genetic Israel were considered to be "Israel" at that time, which numbered only 7000, due to their refusal to commit idolatry.

Paul goes on to say in Chapter 11:

13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

You see, Paul wanted to help save "some" from among Genetic Israel Stock who would prove themselves to be the "Remnant" and "Israel" by their Faith in Christ at the preaching of the Gospel, not because they had a Jewish DNA strand.

So, who were the "all Israel" who were only an actual "Remnant" of the Genetic Jews around the time of Christ's ministry?

It was the 11 disciples, Anna the prophetess (Luke 2:36), Simeon (Luke 2:25), Zaccheaus (Luke 19:8), etc.

It certainly wasn't the Genetic Jewish Stock known as the Pharisees, who Christ condemned and told them that their whole House (nation) would be left desolate.

Of course, we Preterists know that in 70 AD, much of what could be called "all Israel" was not "saved" at all, but rather was slaughtered by the Romans or cannabalized each other during the long Siege.

So, this is just another place where a Bible writer informs us that True Israel has nothing at all to do with Jewish or Israelite DNA, and that among Genetic Israel their was always and only a small percentage, or a Remnant, that was Israel (through Faith in the Promise, and not supposed Jewish Specialness).

Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone

amie's picture

I disagree, I think that Paul clarifies that all Israel (by blood) was not Israel (by faith) and that only faithful Israel would act as the "Seed". The function of the "Seed" was to bruise the head of the serpent and to bring blessing to all of the families of the earth (IE Acts 3:25, Gen 22:18).

The called Gentiles would also be grafted in to that inheritance, acting as the corporate "body of Christ" along with faithful Israel.

The inheritance of the first century church was not for themselves else they were just a repackaged version of ancient Israel - hiding their "lamp".

All Israel (both faithful and not) would be saved as prophesied. As for how that would happen, this article is helpful imo: http://www.presence.tv/cms/allisrael.php

Amie

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at, change.

[url=www.bugsinheaven.com]www.bugsinheaven.com[/url]

Ransom's picture

Amie,

I have to agree with Barber (in the article linked to above) when he says, Thus, "all Israel" means "all the tribes" of Israel--even the so-called "lost tribes".
"All Israel" refers to the range of those saved (i.e. not just Judah) and does not have individuals in view. As Scott Hahn (again from the main article) says based on his survey of the OT usage of "all Israel",
"Although the term 'all Israel' can be used to denote a representative selection from the full complement of the tribes, it is never used to refer specifically to all individuals within the nation."

amie's picture

Ransom,

If "all Israel" were saved, then every individual of Jacob's lineage would be in view. I know that in the Old Testament sometimes the terminology is used in reference to a "representative". I think it important to keep the meaning of the word "representative" in view as what was true for those representatives was true for those that they represented.. else they wouldn't be "representatives" or "representations" - and I wouldn't be able to use that word so often :-D

Amie

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at, change.

[url=www.bugsinheaven.com]www.bugsinheaven.com[/url]

RiversOfEden4's picture

I also agree with Barber and Ransom. The term "all Israel" is used because Israel consisted of numerous tribes and smaller nations (i.e. the 12 tribes). Those families were called "Israel" because all of the people were directly descended from the 12 sons of Jacob/Israel.

The term "gentiles" is also used here because God also called the Abraham's descendants "gentiles" in many OT prophecies (e.g. Genesis 17:1-8; 48:19-20, etc). Since the term "Jew" later became a more specific religious designation for the "house of Judah", Paul used the more generic term "gentiles" to include all of the other non-Jewish tribes of Israel as well.

Also, there's no reason that "representation" is any issue at all in Romans 11:25-27. All of the Israelites of Paul's own generation were descended from other Israelites who lived before them. Hence, they are all of the same blood and seed.

amie's picture

I'm wondering why you are addressing me at all ROE, I am just a woman :-).

Amie

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at, change.

[url=www.bugsinheaven.com]www.bugsinheaven.com[/url]

chrisliv's picture

Well, Amie,

You say you disagree with me, but you then state some of my own position as a counter argument.

So, I'll pick out those parts I don't like.

You should know that this is no real dichotomy or schizophrenia with God between "the corporate 'body of Christ' along with faithful Israel." You may be pushing the tree grafting analogy too far there.

You apparently want to believe that anyone with a Jewish DNA strand and the ones that Christ condemned (at Mat. 24) were all saved, ultimately.

And, do you also see Christ-rejecting people today, who have a Jewish DNA strand, as being considered by God to be True Israel and as being guaranteed salvation on the basis of their genetics?

Is that what they're teaching you over at PresenceTV?

Do you think God is superficial and covets Jewish DNA above all others?

Or, was God aiming for something else?

Christ is not a Smiling Buddha.

You would do well to re-read Romans 9-11, which is the full context of what the article is talking about, and where Apostle Paul laments for those three chapters because of the lost and cut-off condition of his ethnic countrymen.

Don't you know that the "Seed" was not "Jewish Descendency"?

Of course, the most of ancient Jews mistakenly thought they were God's gift to mankind.

Apostle Paul, again, clears that up for you at Romans 9:

6 ¶ Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy Seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the Seed.

See Galatians 3, also:

16 Now to Abraham and his Seed [singular] were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds [not plural, not Jewish Descendency], as of many; but as of one, And to thy Seed, which is Christ.

Christ was the Seed who would do the crushing of the Serpent, not the Jews as a People. All the Promises were in Christ, not the Jewish People.

Again, Paul informs you at Galatians 3, about how Jewish Genetics and Israeli Ultra-Nationalism are not what the Bible was talking about:

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s Seed [in the plural sense], and heirs according to the promise.

You see, there never was a "prophecy" that Jewish DNA or Israelite citizenship, in the carnal sense, could "save" anyone.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

amie's picture

Chris,

Why do you believe that I'm being "taught" by anyone rather than seeing me as their peer as they see me?

It appears that what I said has been utterly misunderstood - or utterly miscommunicated on my part - by your response.

God promised Jacob's lineage that they would be saved, and God kept his promise. I never asserted, nor would, that that salvation was "because" of their DNA.

Amie

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at, change.

[url=www.bugsinheaven.com]www.bugsinheaven.com[/url]

chrisliv's picture

Amie,

Can't you see that your last two sentences contradict each other?

"God promised Jacob's lineage that they would be saved, and God kept his promise. I never asserted, nor would, that that salvation was "because" of their DNA."

It's interesting that you're asking me to see you through someone else's eyes, and that you would want to represent yourself as being at the peer-level with the PresenceTV people, rather than at the student-level.

I've visited their website a couple of times within the past two or three years, and I notice that they seem to mostly want to sell pricey little videos, if I remember correctly. So, I really don't know where you really fit into their schema.

If you say what you don't mean, or mean what you don't say, misunderstandings will certainly follow.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

amie's picture

Chris,

Rewording for clarity: They see me as a peer of theirs. I see me as a peer of theirs. Why do you see me as otherwise?

No, I don't think my two sentences contradict each other. Jacob's lineage were not the only folks saved and they were saved because of Jesus (not their DNA) wholly and completely.

Amie

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at, change.

[url=www.bugsinheaven.com]www.bugsinheaven.com[/url]

chrisliv's picture

Well,

Like I said, I don't know the PresenceTV people, so I can't really gauge how much of a peer you are to them, comparatively speaking.

So, it is not reasonable for you to want me to see you through their eyes. Although I believe you when you say they see you as their peer. Good for you!

I see a clear contradiction between your last two sentences:

"God promised Jacob's lineage that they would be saved, and God kept his promise. I never asserted, nor would, that that salvation was "because" of their DNA."

So, if you want to disagree with me, that's fine.

I was commenting on the article itself.

Do you have any direct comments on the article itself?

I mean, the source of the article is from a couple of Roman Catholic theologians, who are Futurists, too, I believe, since they titled it, How All Israel "Will" Be Saved.

And for them to then suggest that Romans 11 might have something to do with a portion of supposedly lost 10 northern tribes of Israel is silly, I think.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

amie's picture

Chris,

I'm SO not asking you to see through anyone's eyes, lol!! I'm just asking why you assume that I am not their peer since those of us actually in the relationship (them and me) don't see it any other way.

So, why, IN YOUR EYES, are you not seeing me as a peer of theirs?

It's true that I interacted with your interaction on the article and so my comment on the article was indirect. Why do you ask?

I missed your point in the statement about the author writing from a futurist point of view. Are you implying something that I'm overlooking?

You're right about the 10 tribes thing - I don't know why I even kept typing 10, when there were clearly 12 tribes of Israel.

I realize that my perspective is different than theirs since I see things as being in the past, but I don't discount their ability to be insightful because of that.

Amie

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at, change.

[url=www.bugsinheaven.com]www.bugsinheaven.com[/url]

chrisliv's picture

Amie,

You were the one who brought up and mentioned PresenceTV as some sort of a reference point or authoritative source, even though it seemed to have nothing to do with the article or my comments about the article.

So, in my eyes, figuratively speaking, I intuitively sensed that you were some kind of a student of that group or ministry.

Of course, I really don't care what your true status is in relationship to the staff or others there. And, as I already told you, I have no way of observing how you might rank amongst those that you claim are your peers.

Who knows, Amie, you might be their superior. Again, I don't care. And, I can't rightly validate you or your status, so lets drop this ongoing loop about how I see you.

Amie, if you can't understand the clear statement from my last post about the implied or explicit Futurism within the title of the article, then you are doing something more than just overlooking what I wrote as a reply to you.

Amie, when you say, "You're right about the 10 tribes thing - I don't know why I even kept typing 10, when there were clearly 12 tribes of Israel," I'm not sure you're even getting what my simple point about the Northern 10 Tribes was, and how silly of an explanation it seems from the article.

Honestly, Amie, I don't think you can rightly claim that your 'perspective" is your problem in these areas. I think it has more to do with your ability to communicate.

Of course, I don't think any less of you as a person for that reason, but it does make interaction with you a little frustrating.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

amie's picture

Chris,

I did want to understand why you saw me as a student - and I appreciate your straightforwardness. Often I am assumed to be in an inferior position, but usually the reasons for it are, I'll just say "typical".

I haven't put forth a lot of effort, I'll be honest; not because of inability, but because I wanted to understand the answer to that question before I even entertained further conversation.

Now, I've lost the drive on this particular subject, lol! I'll thank you again for your honesty and be on my way :-)

Thanks (and I mean that sincerely),

Amie

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at, change.

[url=www.bugsinheaven.com]www.bugsinheaven.com[/url]

chrisliv's picture

Sure,

Maybe there will be some new topic or article that we can start a fresh dialog on.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

Ransom's picture

Beg pardon, it wasn't Scott Hahn but James Scott who said that.

mazuur's picture

I agree with half of you proposition, which I think you misunderstood half of what King was presenting.

King first stated:

"Who Comprises the "All Israel" in 11:26?
There has been much discussion about the meaning of "all Israel" in this verse. But the context shows that Paul uses ‘Israel’ here the same way he uses it throughout chapters 9-11, as a reference to Jacob’s physical lineage. Changing here to a ‘spiritual’ usage to include Gentile believers (as some hold) would counter the point Paul makes. Paul was not replacing Israel with the church. He was not attempting to prove the supposed ‘spiritual identities’ of Jew and Gentile in 11:26. Instead, he was establishing for his Gentile audience that God had not cast away Israel and that "all Israel" will be saved.

Our task, then, is to see the connection between the coming in of the fullness of the Gentiles and the salvation of not just part of Israel, but of "all Israel.”"

Here King definitely is limiting "all Isrel" to the physical linage of Jacob(Israel). This is also the way many futurist scholars see it. Thus, one or many reasons that drives and futurist eschatology.

King then states:

"Historically speaking, Christ came in the flesh to the house of Judah—the tribes of Judah and Benjamin in Judea. But where was the house of Israel? We know the answer to that. The ten tribes of the northern kingdom fell to the Assyrians in 721 BC, never to be restored to their former tribal "people of God" status in Palestine. The few who were left in Samaria intermarried with non-Jews who were imported to occupy the vacated land and cities of Israel. Out of this amalgamation grew the Samaritan people despised by Second Temple Jews. Apparently a few managed to join with Judah either before Judah’s Babylonian captivity or at the time of her return and the restoration of Jerusalem. As for the rest of the captives who were scattered among the nations, nothing is recorded about what became of them.

But this much we do know. God’s casting away of Israel was not His last word concerning the ten tribes. The prophets foretold that in the days of the Messiah, Ephraim/Israel/the ten tribes would be gathered or assembled with Judah and become one nation. God instructed Jeremiah, "Write in a book for yourself all the words that I have spoken to you. ‘For behold, the days are coming,’ says the Lord, ‘that I will bring back from captivity My people Israel and Judah,’ says the Lord" (Jeremiah 30:2-3). And again, "I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be My people ... He who scattered Israel will gather him, And keep him as a shepherd does his flock" (Jer. 31:1, 10)."

And

"The clearest, most graphic prophecy of Israel’s recovery and reunion with Judah is recorded in Ezekiel, chapters 36-37. In chapter 37 Ezekiel saw a valley of dry bones. He was told that these bones were "the whole house of Israel." They depict Israel’s condition in captivity saying, “Our bones are dry, our hope is lost, and we ourselves are cut off!" (37:11). Then God spoke to them saying, "Behold, O My people, I will open your graves and cause you to come up from your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. Then you shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O My people, and brought you up from your graves" (37:12-13).

Next, Ezekiel was instructed to take a stick and write on it, “‘For Judah and for the children of Israel, his companions.’ Then take another stick and write on it, ‘For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel, his companions.’ Then join them one to another for yourself into one stick, and they will become one in your hand” (37:15-17). Ezekiel is told that this means that Judah and Ephraim (the ten northern tribes) will become one in God’s hand. "Then say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God: Surely I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, wherever they have gone ... and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountain of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all; they shall no longer be two nations, nor shall they ever be divided into two kingdoms again" (37:21-22)."

i think it is clear that the "all Israel" is the joining of the two houses.

Thus, one could say "all" in reference to two groups being brought back together, and in no way refers to all individuals.

The Gentiles were, as you pointed out, merely brought into Israel's blessings (partake of "Israel's spiritual things")

"Yes, they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things." Romans 15:27

-Rich

-Rich

mazuur's picture

Amie,

I meant to point out this in reference to your statement "All Israel (both faithful and not) would be saved as prophesied."

King, as I should from his article, does not support this.

-Rich

-Rich

amie's picture

Thank you for your clarification Rich, it looks as though I voiced my confusion prematurely, lol!

It is true that the "Seed" who would receive the inheritance was those of Israel by blood and faith in conjunction with the called Gentiles.

It was through their fulfilling their role that the rest of the harvest was declared accepted.

Davo's comment below is well put as a whole I think and I agree with his summary:

"Thus it was the reuniting and redemption of Israel, "all Israel" that wrought the reconciliation of the wider world of man – this was always God's plan [Gen 12:3 et al]. "

The lost "ten tribes" were of that "wider world".

"God’s casting away of Israel was not His last word concerning the ten tribes."

Amie

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at, change.

[url=www.bugsinheaven.com]www.bugsinheaven.com[/url]

amie's picture

Rich,

While we are talking, if we only keep Jacob's then present lineage in view (excluding the scattered ten tribes), would you agree that apostate Israel served God like Pharaoh did?

Amie

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at, change.

[url=www.bugsinheaven.com]www.bugsinheaven.com[/url]

mazuur's picture

Oh for sure.

-Rich

-Rich

mazuur's picture

Amie,

Thinking further about the question you ask.

Are you asking whether or not God hardened Israel the same way God hardened Pharaoh, then yes.

Paul refers to this as a "partial hardening" until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. Thus, once the fullness comes in, they would be added to those of the remnant. Thus, "all Israel" (the remnant and those who come to faith from the partial hardened group) would be saved. Thus, "Israel" as an entity (a body) would continue to exist, except now it is a transformed Israel, a new spiritual Israel, made up of those in Christ. This does include Gentiles. They are include by extension for sure, but Paul is not concerned primarily with them in Romans 11. His point is the working out of the physical descendants, which is what God promised the "fathers". The Gentiles are brought into Israel's spiritual things.

Now, what I just stated in not what King was saying in the article you referenced, but it is what he presents in his book "Cross and Parousia", which is what I agree with.

Concerning the article you referenced, I agree with King that God did bring the two houses back together (as the prophets foretold), it's just not what Paul was referring to in Romans 11.

-Rich

-Rich

amie's picture

Rich,

I guess I shouldn't have dragged Max into this because we can just get side tracked arguing over what we think Max meant. I do not agree that there was a "new spiritual Israel". The Gentiles did not magically become Israelites just because they shared (were "brought into" as you say and I agree) in the inheritance.

The "two houses" came under one stick - and the scattered ten tribes were not excluded.

Pre-Jesus, Israel's function was to be a light to the world. They were hiding their proverbial lamps under bushels though so they barely functioned. They were as "dry bones" in need of full resurrection.

I would not agree that resurrection would mean the replacement of one poorly functioning system with another poorly functioning system. The fact that many see the new system as spiritual doesn't detract from its' poor function. Rather this was Jesus making it work (past tense - it already worked).

When Paul said that not all Israel was Israel he was simply stating that not all Israelites had faith in Jesus's saving ability. They called themselves faithful, but they were not. They were of the synagogue of satan - blah blah blah. However, they served to bring light to the world as well - just as Pharaoh did.

Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very thing I raised you up, so that I might display My power in you, and so that My name might be publicized in all the earth." Ex. 9:16

The entire nation was risen, though not all were risen to life. Those who functioned as a source of Glory who put their faith in the old system to save them, would be brought to dust.

Amie

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at, change.

[url=www.bugsinheaven.com]www.bugsinheaven.com[/url]

mazuur's picture

Amie,

I think we are stating the exact same thing.

Concerning my term "spiritual Israel". There was an Israel "according to the flesh" (Old Covenant Jews) that had to die with their Messiah and then be raised "according to the spirit". When Israel went with Jesus through the cross and was raised they came out on the other side as Israel "according to the spirit", thus a "spiritual Israel". I am not using "spiritual Israel" in the same sense other may use it. Israel "according to the spirit" was comprised of Jews who were raised through faith in Christ.

Romans 11 is entirely about the physical Jews living in Paul's day. There was the remnant (believing Jews), and those that were hardened (unbelieving Jews). Paul's entire point through chapter 11 of Romans is God was not going to cast Israel away (the hardened ones).

Just look at the summary Paul's end with:

Romans 11:28-32
"28 From the standpoint of the gospel they(the hardened unbelieving Jews) are enemies for your (Gentiles) sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they (hardened unbelieving Jews) are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable (God promised to save Israel). 30 For just as you (Gentiles) once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy (saved through faith in Christ) because of their (hardened unbelieving Jews) disobedience, 31 so these (hardened unbelieving Jews) also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you (Gentiles) they (hardened unbelieving Jews) also may now be shown mercy. 32 For God has shut up all(both the Jew and the Gentile) in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. "

"The Gentiles did not magically become Israelites just because they shared (were "brought into" as you say and I agree) in the inheritance."

I agree 100%

"When Paul said that not all Israel was Israel he was simply stating that not all Israelites had faith in Jesus's saving ability.

I agree. The context is physical Israel, period. This passage has nothing to do with Gentiles. His point is to contrast those Jews who were trusting in the law, verse those who were placing faith in Christ. Those who had faith were the real Israelites. Those who were trusting in the mere fact that they were of the physical lineage (and had the law) were not.

So much to say and cover. I think I just need to write an article of my take on Romans 9-11. Of course it is exactly as King presents it in his book CP.

Concerning King. I only brought him up because his position in that article is different than his position in his book. While, I agree with his position in his article, I merely disagree that the joining of the two sticks is what Paul is referring to in Romans as "all Israel". All Israel in Romans has to do with the Remnant (believing Jews in Paul's day) and unbelieving Jews (the hardened ones that were persecuting Christians and Paul) in Paul's day.

-Rich

-Rich

amie's picture

Rich,

Wow, we do agree on a lot, lol! I'm so glad that you clarified.

It is so very beneficial to clarify our terminology - terms like "spiritual Israel" have connotations in my mind that have nothing to do with your own view. AND, I appreciate the patience that you have extended me as I stumbled in allowing for that.

Like I said to ChrisL, I have no idea why I keep typing "10" tribes in reference to Israel's "12" tribes! I think that "all Israel" is constituted of those that you named as well as those who were scattered.

That was a problem I think, as "all Israel" were "blinded in part/portion" via the law. Israelites began falling away due to disbelief long before Jesus's birth.

But that's where I'm at right now mind you. I'll watch for your article.

Amie

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at, change.

[url=www.bugsinheaven.com]www.bugsinheaven.com[/url]

amie's picture

Rich,

I don't understand what it is that you think I don't understand?

Amie

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at, change.

[url=www.bugsinheaven.com]www.bugsinheaven.com[/url]

mazuur's picture

Amie,

You stated, "All Israel (both faithful and not) would be saved as prophesied."

King is not saying that at all.

-Rich

-Rich

mazuur's picture

Chris,

"You see, Paul wanted to help save "some" from among Genetic Israel Stock who would prove themselves to be the "Remnant" and "Israel" by their Faith in Christ at the preaching of the Gospel, not because they had a Jewish DNA strand."

You are in error here. Paul wanted to save some of those who were rejecting Christ, not those of the remnant. The remnant were Jewish believers. All the way through chapter 11 Paul is dealing with what is going to happened to the "partial hardened" group of physical DNA Jews. He stated this was the mystery. There was to be a partial hardening until the fullness of the Gentiles (which is contrasted with who, the physical Jew) had come in.

-Rich

-Rich

Ransom's picture

Virgil, did Barber's post make you think of Battlestar Galactica (the new one)? Pretty cool...

davo's picture

Paul thus sees his Gentile mission in terms of the pan-Israelite hope. The northern tribes must be restored to fulfill the promises made by the Lord through the prophets. Where are they? Among the Gentiles. To bring Israel home means to bring in the Gentiles. This is the mystery. God allowed Israel to be exiled so that he could use them to eventually bring the nations home as well--as their relatives.Paul's fidelity to the promises of Scripture concerning Israel "after the flesh" is without dispute:

Rom 10:1-3 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved [from the coming AD 66-70 wrath 1Thess 1:10, 5:9]. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.

Rom 11:1-3 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, “LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life”?

It was that Israel's prophetic promises would find fulfillment and thus come to fruition via Israel after the Spirit i.e., "the Israel of God" – those called to minister redemption [the forgiveness of sins] ON BEHALF OF the rest; this being the mission of Christ THE first-fruit, and then in obedient service, His first-fruit saints. This co-working with God aspect of the first-fruit saints is all too often not taken into account:

Col 1:24 I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church…

2Cor 1:20 For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us [first-fruit saints].

The outworking of God's restorative flow was CHRIST >> APOSTLES/PAUL >> FIRST-FRUITS/CHURCH >> ISRAEL >> WORLD. "The Church" ONLY replaced Israel in as far as being the one's to finally administer God's redeeming and reconciling purpose to Israel and the world. To seek to read Paul's "all Israel" as to mean "the church only" plainly ignores the historic Israel context made clear throughout these chapters, and in particular the 28th verse:

Rom 11:28 Concerning the gospel they [hardened Israel] are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they [hardened Israel] are beloved for the sake of the fathers.

When Paul and others spoke in terms of NOT ALL Israel being "Israel", "Jews" or "God's children" [Rom 2:28-29; 9:6, 8; Rev 3:9] they were delineating the fact that historic hardened Israel was not, and had not for some time, lived in accordance with her holy convocation and calling as Yahweh's priests to the world, i.e., being Yahweh's light to the Gentiles, as was their mandate and charter as kingdom priests [Ex 19:5-6; Isa 42:1, 6; 43:10; 49:3-6; Zech 3:8]. It was THIS kingdom mandate of having the authority as witnesses to and on behalf of Yahweh that was stripped from hardened historic Israel [Mt 21:43-45] and given through Christ to the "nation" producing its fruits [1Pet 2:8b-10] i.e., new covenant [true] Israel, also known as "the Israel of God" Gal 6:16 – none other than the 'Body of Christ' – the branches of the Vine. Hardened Israel through her self-centred and self-righteous exclusiveness abdicated her God-given role as God's redemptive handiwork in the world – it was THIS mandate and this role that those "this generation" first-fruit saints of faith inherited, i.e., they received and entered into the inheritance and reward of kingdom rule and life [Rom 5:17].

Thus it was the reuniting and redemption of Israel, "all Israel" that wrought the reconciliation of the wider world of man – this was always God's plan [Gen 12:3 et al].

davo

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43