ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED:

THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE

SALVATION MENTIONED IN ROMANS 11:2527













Kenneth M. Stiles
Box #182
TH888 Seminar in Eschatology
April 21, 2010

CONTENTS
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
Points of Departure ......................................................................................................... 5
Covenantal Views of Romans 11:26 ........................................................................... 5
A Dispensational View of Romans 11:2527 Assuming NT Priority ............................ 9
The Broader Context ................................................................................................... 9
The Immediate Context ............................................................................................. 11
Romans 9:2527 ....................................................................................................... 12
Pauls Use of Isaiah 59 ............................................................................................. 13
The Nature of, and Circumstances Surrounding, All Israel being Saved ..................... 15
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 18
Bibliography ................................................................................................................. 21

1
Introduction
Romans 11:26 states rather plainly that all Israel will be saved.
1
What does not seem so
plain, given the differing interpretations of certain theological persuasions, is what the words
mean. A case could be made rather easily from the Old Testament that the phrase means that all
of national, ethnic Israel will be regenerated, turn to Jesus as their Messiah, and be restored to the
land promised to them. However, not a few would object that those Old Testament passages have
been reinterpreted by the New Testament so that such an interpretation of Romans 11:26 could
not possibly entail the salvation of national, ethnic Israel, and restoration of them to the Promised
Land. Still others would admit of a salvation of national, ethnic Israel, yet deny a restoration to
the Promised Land. To be sure there are others who would admit both, but deny that it is valid to
put much weight on the Old Testament passages that teach this. The presupposition that lies
behind the three views just mentioned is that the New Testament reinterprets the Old Testament
in such a way that the theology of the New Testament must be imported into the Old Testament
in order to make correct sense of it. What then becomes of historical-grammatical hermeneutics?
A preliminary objection must be registered before proceeding. The presupposition that
the New Testament authoritatively reinterprets the Old Testament, such that it results in the
historical-grammatical hermeneutic being invalid for the Old Testament passage in question, is
highly suspect. If the only authoritative interpretation of Scripture that exists (i.e., the New
interpreting the Old) employs a non-historical-grammatical hermeneutic, then what justification
does the Bible interpreter have for employing a historical-grammatical hermeneutic when

1
All English Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update (LaHabra,
CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), unless otherwise noted.
2
interpreting the New Testament to begin with? Is it a valid way of proceeding to argue that the
interpretation of one portion of Scripture, using the historical-grammatical hermeneutic,
invalidates the use of that same hermeneutic in another portion of Scripture? The net result
would ostensibly be the invalidation of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic for all of
Scripture, since the application of it in one portion of Scripture would destroy its credentials for
applying it to another.
Given the above presupposition, the analogy of Scripture becomes nothing more than a
principle that undermines the credibility of the very hermeneutic that gives rise to it in the first
place. We would suggest that a better presupposition is that the New Testament interprets the
Old Testament using the same historical-grammatical hermeneutic that should be employed
when interpreting the New Testament. The net result here would be the same for any portion of
Scripture; there is one correct interpretation and many possible applications. If the historical-
grammatical hermeneutic is valid for any portion of Scripture, then understanding how the New
Testament uses the Old Testament is simply a matter of using that hermeneutic on the New
Testament passage in question to discover the application of the Old Testament passage that the
New Testament writer is making of the one correct interpretation of the Old Testament passage;
which is discovered by using the same hermeneutic on the Old Testament passage. Interestingly
enough, all attempts to object to such a presupposition would have to be made while employing a
similar presupposition in another sphere; otherwise, how would anyone be able to understand the
objection being lodged against it?
It is the above competing presuppositions that have often ended in a stalemate; neither
side willing to budge. One side trumpeting the priority of the New Testament over the Old, the
other demurring that the Old Testament should be interpreted as is. Despite the objection
3
registered above, we will proceed to do the unthinkable. We will budge. We shall, as my British
neighbor would say, duff the cap to New Testament priority.
2
The burden of this paper is to
interpret Romans 11:2527 in order to explicate the nature of, and circumstances surrounding, all
Israel being saved. Secondarily, the methodology followed in this paper is intended to show that
(using the above proposed understanding of the New Testament use of the Old) it might be better
to demonstrate exegetically that the New Testament does not reinterpret the Old Testament, than
to argue presuppositionally that the New Testament cannot reinterpret the Old Testament. It
might be objected that this would simply assume what must be proved, but this objection cuts
both ways. The presupposition that the New Testament reinterprets the Old Testament is liable to
the same objection with the additional demerit of seemingly undermining the historical-
grammatical hermeneutic altogether. The reason that the proposed method in this paper should
prove a fruitful way of proceeding is that it will show that those who argue that the New
Testament reinterprets the Old Testament are actually guilty of importing their theology into the
New Testament to begin with, and then forcing it upon the Old Testament; while at the same
time proffering a coherent understanding of the passage in question.
One last point should be made before proceeding. Among those who would claim that
employing the historical-grammatical hermeneutic in the New Testament yields a
reinterpretation of the Old Testament in a way that renders the use of the historical-grammatical
hermeneutic problematic in the Old Testament, the additional caveat mentioned by Bruce Waltke
is typical,

2
The dirty little secret, of course, is that if the proposed presupposition is true (i.e., that the NT interprets
the OT using the same historical-grammatical hermeneutic that should be applied when interpreting the NT) then
admitting NT priority over the OT is to offer a Trojan horse rather than to surrender.
4
Is it not self-evident that unclear texts should be interpreted in the light of clear ones and
not vice versa? As the Law of Moses is clearer than the dreams and visions of prophets
(Num 12:68), so also the apostolic letters and epistles in plain speech, though admittedly
containing some things that are hard to understand (2 Pet 3:16), are clearer than
prophetic visions and the symbolic visions of apocalyptic literature that needs angels to
interpret them.
3

Waltke follows up these comments with a question and admonition, Should the
Christian theologian construct his theological model from the symbolic texts and distort and cut
up clear ones to fit his dubious mold? Theological models should be built from the clear
teachings of our Lord and his apostles and then, and only then, adorned with symbolic texts.
4

Very well, agreed. One would be at a loss to find a clearer text on the salvation of all Israel than
Romans 11:2527. Since this crystal clear passage is in a straightforward didactic portion of an
epistle of the apostle to the Gentiles himself; surely, by Waltkes own protestations, of all of
Scripture, this is the text that should be normative for interpreting every other passage that deals
with the salvation of all Israel.
This paper will first discuss the various Covenantal understandings of Romans 11:26 that
do not understand all Israel to be national, ethnic Israel. Then, finding those wanting, will
proceed to offer an interpretation guided by the proposed hermeneutic above; while at the same
time attempting to follow the Covenantal hermeneutical guideline of New Testament epistle
priority over the Old Testament and less clear portions of the New Testament.

3
Bruce Waltke, Kingdom Promises as Spiritual, Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the
Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. by John S. Feinberg (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books a
publishing ministry of Good News Publishers, 1988), 265.
4
Ibid.
5
Points of Departure
While there are many variations, there are four basic ways of interpreting Romans 11:25
27. The first three flow out of some species of Covenant Theology. These three hold, in some
form, to the idea that there is continuity between the nation of Israel in the Old Testament and
the Church in the New Testament. Sometimes this continuity takes the form of replacement, at
other times fulfillment, and still other times this continuity takes the form of integration.
5
These
views may be labeled Covenant Amillennialism, Covenant Postmillennialism, and Covenant
Premillennialism. The fourth view has several subspecies, but may be comprehensively called
Dispensational Premillenialism. It is these four theological positions that come to bear when
interpreting Romans 11:2527.
6

The reason these four views serve as points of departure is because how one articulates
the nature of, and circumstances surrounding the salvation of all Israel is entirely dependent
upon how one identifies all Israel. Further, the two premillennial positions, while agreeing on
identity, differ on the nature and circumstances. This is because of the hermeneutical differences
mentioned above. For Covenantal Premillennialism the Old Testament is not allowed much of a
voice in filling in the details of the salvation of all Israel.
Covenantal Views of Romans 11:26
Covenant Ammillenialism generally has two ways of interpreting the passage under
discussion. The first view is that all Israel in Romans 11:26 is all Jews and Gentiles that will be

5
It is true that some views that hold to a continuity between Israel and the Church would claim to be
neither Covenantal nor Dispensational, but since those views would basically land in the same place as their
Covenantal counterparts this paper will subsume them in the Covenantal views that follow.
6
The categories discussed in this paper come from, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link
in Systematic Theology (1989; revised, Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 2001).
6
saved. Thus, all Israel is basically the Church. The idea here is that the Church in the Old
Testament was predominantly, but not exclusively, Jewish. In the New Testament the Church is
predominantly, but not exclusively, Gentile. The most famous exponents of this view were John
Calvin and Martin Luther.
Concerning all Israel, Calvin points out, Many understand this of the Jewish people, as
though Paul had said, that religion would be restored among them as before.
7
Calvin did not
totally reject this, but said that he would extend the word Israel to all the people of God.
8

Calvin summarizes his view, 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
of 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 Gods family.
9
Calvin then relates that
Israel in Romans 11:26 and Galatians 6:6 mean the same thing, The Israel of God is what
[Paul] calls the Church, gathered alike from Jews and Gentiles.
10

A second Covenantal Amillennial position is that all Israel refers to the total number of
the elect Israelites throughout the ages. Berkhof proclaims, All Israel is to be understood as a
designation, not of the whole nation, but of the whole number of the elect out of the ancient

7
John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, vol. 19 of Calvins
Commentaries, trans. and ed. by John Owen (1849; repr, Grand Rapids: Baker Books a division of Baker Book
House Company, 2005), 437.
8
Ibid.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
7
covenant people.
11
Berkhof points out that Premillennialists take verse 26 to teach that after
God has completed his purpose with the Gentiles, the nation of Israel will be saved. He then
objects, But the apostle said at the beginning of his discussion that the promises were for the
spiritual Israel; there is no evidence of a change of thought in the intervening section, so that this
would come as a surprise in 11:26; and the adverb houtos cannot mean after that, but only in
this manner. Berkhofs conclusion is that, With the fullness of the Gentiles the fullness of
Israel will also come in.
12

Fruchtenbaum rebuts Berkhofs objection that the promises were only made to spiritual
Israel with the following observation:
However, spiritual Israel in Romans 911 refers not to the Church as a whole, nor to
believing Gentiles, but to believing Jews. To them the promises are made; but if the
whole nation is saved at some future point, then the whole physical national Israel also
becomes spiritual Israel and can therefore obtain the promises. There is nothing in either
the immediate context or the wider context that would negate this. Berkhofs attempt to
do so is not based on exegesis but on his Covenant Theology.
13

Concerning the idea that houtos cannot mean after that, but only in this manner, this is
probably the most common position currently held among Covenantal Amillennialists. Their
argument about houtos in verse 26 is actually dependent on their view of achris (until) in verse
25. Robertson argues that, The phrase rendered until (achris hou) is essentially terminative.
More particularly, it indicates the terminus ad quem rather than the terminus a quo.
14
Strimple

11
Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (1938; repr, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1996), 699.
12
Ibid., 699700.
13
Fruchtenbaum, Israelology, 220.
14
O. Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R
Publishing, 2000), 179.
8
claims that houtos is never used to refer to temporal sequence.
15
Concerning achris, Strimple
simply approvingly quotes Robertson saying, in another book, what we have already quoted him
as saying.
16
Apparently the argument does not get much better than just a simple denial that the
term achris (until) can ever have any events begin after what comes before it; never mind the
context.
In Kenneth Gentrys response to Strimple he points out that achris often implies a
change in circumstances after which something new begins.
17
Gentry then cites four examples
(Lk 1:20; 17:27; Acts 1:12; 27:33).
18
The real problem though is that interpreting all Israel as
the entirety of elect Israel from all time completely ignores the context of Pauls argument. For
instance, the term Israel in Romans 11:25b is agreed by all to be the nation of Israel, but this
interpretation demands that the same term mean all the elect of all time from the nation of Israel
in the very next phrase. There are no clues whatsoever that Paul is completely switching the
meaning of the term in midsentence.
19
To be sure, Paul uses the term Israel with two different
meanings in 9:6, but the difference is obvious. In fact, the contrast is the point of the sentence.
However, 11:2526 gives no indication that a change in meaning is to be understood. It is only

15
Robert B. Strimple, Amillennialism, Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. by Darrel L.
Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 116.
16
Ibid., 117.
17
Kenneth L. Gentry Jr. A Postmillennial Response to Robert B. Strimple, Three Views on the
Millennium and beyond, ed. by Darrel L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 138.
18
Ibid.
19
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary of the New Testament, ed.
by Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, and Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996),
722.
9
necessary if ones theology demands it. Even if one were to translate kai houtos as in this way
there is [still a] clear chronological connection or temporal reference in mind.
20

There is simply no compelling reason to not understand Romans 11:26 as teaching a
future salvation of national, ethnic Israel. Covenant Post- and Premillennialists take the passage
as such and so there is no need to explore their views at this point. Their rejections of Old
Testament descriptions of restored national Israel will be challenge by a positive statement of a
Dispensational view of Romans 11:2527 while assuming New Testament priority.
A Dispensational View of Romans 11:2527 Assuming NT Priority
Rather than surveying Dispensational Premillennialist views of Romans 11:2527, the
present writer will offer his own. The attempt will be made to demonstrate that even when
adopting the Covenantal hermeneutical principle of allowing the clearest New Testament
passage covering a particular topic to have priority over and interpret the Old Testament and less
clear New Testament texts, one will still arrive at a Dispensational Premillennial understanding
of Romans 11:2532; at least, insofar as one does not also read Covenant Theology into the
original New Testament text to begin with.
The Broader Context
Most commentators would agree that Romans 911 is single section within the book.
Paul begins the section by sharing his heart with his readers. He reveals the great sorrow he has
in his heart over the Jewish rejection of their Messiah. Within the first four verses of chapter 9
Paul explains that his sorrow is for his brethren, his kinsmen according to the flesh, who are

20
Barry H. Horner, Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must be Challenged (Nashville, TN: B & H
Academic, 2007), 260.
10
Israelites. It is clear that Paul is speaking of national, ethnic Israel. It is this nation that, as Paul is
writing, is in a Christ rejecting state. Yet, even in this state Paul lists the following as belonging
to them: the adoption as sons, the glory, the covenants, the law-giving, the (presumably) temple
service, the promises, and the fathers. Paul also mentions that Jesus was an ethnic Jew. What is
so astonishing is that so much belongs to this Christ rejecting people; notably, the covenants and
the promises (note the plural number). This raises a huge question; if the covenants, the
promises, and all the rest still belong to ethnic, national Israel (which Paul plainly says they do),
then what in the world is going on?
Are Gods promises worthless? Has his word failed? We must not miss the importance of
this question in the context of the entire book. Paul has just got done unfolding the wonderful
way in which God justifies sinful men through faith in Christ, and how he is going to preserve
them all the way up to the resurrection of their bodies and renewal of the creation. That is a tall
order! The question is this, can God make good on his word? That is why Pauls claim in 9:6 is
of vital importance to Jews and Gentiles. If God is not keeping his covenants with, and promises
to, Israel, then the Jews have no hope, and the Gentiles have no reason to trust what God is
saying now, through the apostle Paul, to them.
Paul begins his argument that God is keeping his covenants and promises to Israel, and is
therefore trustworthy, by pointing out that not all are Israel who are from Israel. He goes on to
explain that a merely physical connection to Abraham was not what made one a partaker of the
promises made to Abraham and his descendants. It is the children of promise, who are
themselves determined by Gods sovereign choice, who are included in the covenants and
promises. This in turn raises the question of whether God is unjust in choosing some people and
not others without any thought of their actions. Paul seems to be causing more problems. This is,
11
however, an important point in Pauls argument. Romans 9:1429 is Pauls argument that God is
free to choose whom he pleases, and man has no right to question his Maker about it. The
overarching argument through the end of the chapter is that Gods word has not failed because
partaking of covenant blessings has always been according to Gods sovereign choice, and all he
has chosen, Jew and Gentile, will partake of them.
The end of chapter 9 and all of chapter 10 make it clear that partaking of the covenant
blessings and promises is through faith in Jesus. Chapter ten especially focuses on this. There is
still a question though. That is all well and good Paul, but is it just Gentiles now who have been
chosen by God to be united to Christ by faith, and through him, partake of all the covenant
blessings and promises? Has God completely rejected national, ethnic Israel? Pauls answer in
11:1 is an emphatic No.
Paul points out that he is a physical descendant of Abraham and is through faith in Christ
a partaker of the covenant blessings and promises. In fact, just as there was a remnant in the days
of Elijah there was a remnant in Pauls day as well. Building off his previous arguments Paul
points out that this remnant was sovereignly chosen by God. Here is where Paul ties some things
together. Those among national, ethnic Israel that are chosen by God obtain the covenant
blessings and promises. The rest are hardened by God and do not obtain them.
The Immediate Context
There is still a nagging question though. Does this mean that all those covenants and
promises made to national, ethnic Israel really amount to nothing more than that there will be a
few scattered ethnic Jews that, here and there, partake of them? The rest of them that were
hardened, the ones that stumbled, have they stumbled for good? Will they be hardened forever?
Again, Pauls answer is an emphatic No. In 11:1112 Paul argues that this was actually all part
12
of the plan. While there is always a remnant, according to Gods sovereign choice, of national,
ethnic Israel, the majority has been hardened and have stumbled. Their stumbling in turn
facilitated salvation going to the Gentiles, which in turn is designed to provoke them to jealousy.
Included in the plan is that when the hardening is removed things get even better. Paul
argues that since the Jewish rejection of Jesus as the Messiah was of great benefit to the Gentiles
then their receiving Jesus as the Messiah will usher in even greater benefits to the Gentiles. Paul
goes on to reveal in 11:1315 that one of his motivations in making bold in his Gentile ministry
is the hope that he might provoke some of his fellow Jews to jealousy so that they might be
saved. The motivation behind wanting to see his fellow Jews come to Christ is that when
national, ethnic Israel turns to Christ en masse things will get really good. Paul likens it to life
from the dead.
In 11:1623 Paul argues that Gentiles need to be careful not to be arrogant against that
hardened majority of national, ethnic Israel because God could easily do the same to arrogant,
conceited Gentiles as he has done to disobedient Jews. What is more, in verse 23 Paul argues that
it is possible for God to save the hardened majority of national, ethnic Israel. Paul continues
building the argument in verse 24 by saying that it is in fact probable that God will save the
hardened majority of national, ethnic Israel.
Romans 9:2527
Not only is it possible, even probable, that God will save the hardened majority of
national, ethnic Israel at some point, but Paul argues definitively in verses 2527 that God will
save the hardened majority of national, ethnic Israel. The objections to this understanding of all
Israel have been dealt with above and will not be rehashed here. There is really no reason to
even waffle on the point of whether all means all. There is a remnant of chosen ethnic Jews in
13
the world right now, the rest are hardened. It is not the remnant that needs to be saved, or grafted
back in, in Pauls argument here. It is the hardened majority. Paul argues that there is coming a
time when all of the hardened majority of national, ethnic Israel will be saved. That time is
pinpointed as when the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.
The key to understanding the nature of, and circumstances surrounding, all Israel being
saved is understanding the Old Testament foundation of Pauls argument. Paul says that this
future salvation will happen just as it is written. He then references Isaiah 59:2021. It is
debated whether Paul is also referring to Isaiah 27:9, but it seems better to simply understand the
reference as being an application of what is found in Isaiah 59:2021. Before discussing the
differences between what appears in Isaiah 59 and Romans 11, it should be noted that this is
where the idea of New Testament priority becomes extremely important.
Pauls Use of Isaiah 59
Paul is clearly using Isaiah 59:2021 to support his argument that all Israel will be saved
after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. It has already been shown that contextually Paul is
not talking about the remnant of ethnic Jews that God has always kept for himself, but a
salvation of the formerly hardened portion of national, ethnic Israel. This means that even if one
is to read the New Testament back into the Old Testament then Isaiah 59:2021, and the events
surrounding it, are referring to a future generation of national, ethnic Israel that is saved after the
fullness of the Gentiles has come in. Regardless of what Paul is doing in rendering the Isaiah
passage the way he does, this is ostensibly the overall argument he is making.
The seeming difficulty is that Paul does not quote the text directly from either the MT or
the LXX. This becomes less of a problem, however, when one keeps in mind the totality of
14
Pauls argument which began in chapter 9. Placing the passages side by side will help illustrate
the contrast.
Romans 11:26b27 Isaiah 59:2021
26b. The Deliverer will come from Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.
27. This is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.

20. A Redeemer will come to Zion, And to those who turn
from transgression in Jacob, declares the Lord.
21. As for Me, this is My covenant with them, says the
Lord: My Spirit which is upon you, and My words which I
have put in your mouth shall not depart from your mouth,
nor from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of
your offsprings offspring, says the Lord, from now and
forever.

Which is it? Will the deliverer come from Zion and remove ungodliness from Jacob; or,
will a redeemer come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent? The answer is, of course, yes. This
is not an either/or matter. Paul is incorporating his argument into the Isaiah 59 passage. It might
be argued that the difference in prepositions is nothing to take into account because either from
or to is a permissible translation. But, the nuance should not be completely ignored. Paul has
been arguing that God will save whomever he pleases, and that this salvation is through faith in
Jesus Christ. For Paul to say that the redeemer who will come to Zion is the deliverer who comes
from Zion seems to indicate that what is in view here is the physical second coming of Christ.
When it comes to Jesus returning to the repentant in Jacob or removing ungodliness from Jacob,
again, both are true. Pauls argument all along has been that those who repent and believe are
those whom God has sovereignly chosen. Those whom the redeemer will return to in Jacob are
those whom God has sovereignly chosen to remove ungodliness from.
Now we come to the covenant. There is neither space in this paper, nor patience in the
writer, to discuss all the various views of where Paul is going with this. However, if we continue
to stay close to Pauls overall argument that he is mounting in Romans 911, and keep in mind
that with this reference to Isaiah 59 Paul is describing all Israel being saved, some useful
observations can be made. This is my covenant with them, is clearly a reference to Isaiah
15
59:21. When it comes to the next phrase When I take away their sins, some point out that the
phrase is nowhere to be found, and others traipse off to Isaiah 27:9 in search of similar wording.
There is no need for it though. One needs only to follow Pauls argument. There is another
reason Paul incorporated his argument into his reference to Isaiah 59:20, and he is tying it all
together now. The When is when the deliverer comes. The I is the deliverer. The take away is
removing. The their is Jacobs, and sin is ungodliness.
Paul is not saying that the covenant is when Israels sin is taken away; that makes utterly
no sense. A covenant is not a when, but a what. Paul is describing when the what of the covenant
will happen. The what, or contents, of the covenant is found in Isaiah 59:21. In other words, Paul
is saying that when Jesus returns and removes ungodliness from Jacob (saves all of national,
ethnic Israel) the covenant blessings in Isaiah 59:21 will be experienced by Israel. The Holy
Spirit will be upon, and Gods word will be in the mouth of, them; their children; and their
childrens children. Having discussed the meaning of Romans 11:2527 and its bearing on Isaiah
59:2021, we are now ready to begin our exercise of reading the implications of Romans 11:25
27 into the rest of the Old Testament.
The Nature of, and Circumstances Surrounding, All Israel being Saved
The implications of truly applying the priority of the clearest New Testament texts over
the Old Testament and other less clear New Testament texts are staggering. We have already
seen that part of national, ethnic Israel (which happens to be the majority of them) has been
hardened so that they will not believe in Jesus as their Messiah. However, there is a remnant,
according to Gods sovereign choice, that does believe in Jesus. This hardening of most of Israel
is designed by God to make salvation vastly more accessible to Gentiles than it had been
previously. God is very kind and loving toward Gentiles; this has been going on for two
16
thousand years. This mysterious reversal of fortunes will come to an end when the full number of
Gentiles, which God has chosen from eternity past, comes into the Church. After this God will
remove the hardening from national, ethnic Israel and they will all be saved. Yes, every single
last one of them, beginning with that particular generation, and continuing on until the final
resurrection.
The last couple of statements may seem like a bit of a stretch, but this is where New
Testament priority can help. Isaiah 59:21 was speaking of covenant blessings that will be
enjoyed by a generation of national, ethnic Israel after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
The Holy Spirit will be upon not only them, but their children, and their childrens children.
Every Jew born from this time on will be saved. There is no other way to understand Romans
11:2527 and Pauls use of Isaiah 59:2021; that is, if one is truly taking New Testament priority
seriously. One problem that seems to come up though is that in Isaiah 59:20 it appears that only a
portion of Israel will turn to the Messiah. The redeemer will come to those who repent in Jacob.
Those who repent seem to be a subset of Jews within the nation. On the other hand, Paul is
talking about all Israel being saved, and he is referring to the hardened portion that was not a part
of the remnant up to this point. We will answer this difficulty, and we will use New Testament
priority to do so.
What follows Isaiah 59:2021 is a description of what will happened to redeemed, Spirit
filled, national, ethnic Israel. In the very next verse (Isa 60:1) Israel is told to rise and shine for
her light has come. What follows is a glorious description of the exaltation of the nation of Israel.
Now, if we are to take New Testament priority, what has Paul established as the context of this
description of the exaltation of the nation of Israel? Can it in any way be a flowery description of
the Church? No, if we take New Testament priority seriously this must be a description of a
17
redeemed, Spirit filled, national, ethnic Israel after the second coming of Christ! The corollaries
are just as astounding. Since Romans 11:2527 is, hands down, the clearest New Testament text
we have concerning the salvation of all Israel; it must trump all other passages when it comes to
this topic. Who would have thought that all of those passages in the Old Testament that gave
flowery, symbolic descriptions of the Church under the image of the exaltation of national,
ethnic Israel would be reinterpreted by Paul in Romans to actually refer to national, ethnic
Israel? I am being facetious, of course. It turns out that to truly take New Testament priority
seriously renders the same result as letting the Old Testament speak for itself. It is true that much
more is revealed, and much is clarified, in the New Testament, but a radical reinterpretation of
the Old Testament just does not happen.
What does all this have to do with Paul not seeming to agree with Isaiah about the future
salvation of all of Israel? New Testament priority shows us that the all of Paul and the part of
Isaiah are one and the same. Zechariah 12:1013:1 is recounting the same episode as that of
Isaiah 59:2021. If we read Romans 11:2527 back into such passages we see that the Zechariah
passage is also speaking of the salvation of national, ethnic Israel. Of course, even if we do not
read Romans back into Zechariah we see the same thing. In Zechariah 13:8 we see that the all
Israel of Paul is actually one third of the nation. The reason this one third of the nation may be
called all Israel is because the other two thirds are dead. The salvation of Israel is going to take
place in extremely difficult times. This one third is the those in Jacob who repent in Isaiah
59:20.
In Zechariah 12:10 another interesting fact about the nature of all Israel being saved is
taught. We are told that God will pour out on Israel a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that,
when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him. God will
18
initiate the repentance of Israel. God has sovereignly chosen a generation of national, ethnic
Israel to save en masse and to bestow upon them all that has been promised to that nation. He
will initiate it; it will be after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and it will be when Jesus
returns to establish his kingdom.
Conclusion
After the fullness of the Gentiles has come in to the Church the stage will be set for the
salvation of all Israel. There will come a point when the Jews are back in their land.
21

Jerusalem will be surrounded by a great army that was mustered from all the nations and many
atrocities will be perpetrated on the nation of Israel (Zech 14:15a). Jesus will return to save the
nation of Israel, both physically and spiritually (Zech 14:5b7; Isaiah 59:2021; Rom 11:2527).
During the siege of Jerusalem and the return of Jesus two thirds of the nation of Israel will
perish. The other one third will have had the divine hardening removed from them, the Holy
Spirit poured out on them, and will have repented of their sin and turned to Christ (Isaiah 59:20
21; Zech 12:1013:1; Rom 11:2527). From this time forward every Jew born will be saved and
the nation of Israel will be exalted above the other nations (Isaiah 59:2060:22; Zech 14:820;
Rom 11:2527).
It should be pointed out here that this is not bad news for the Gentiles. Though the
fullness of the Gentiles will have come into the Church, many of the passages that speak of
Israels exaltation also speak of Gentile salvation (Zech 14:1621; Zeph 3:920; Amos 9:1114).
This is perfectly in keeping with Pauls statement that if Israels rejection was riches to the

21
Whether the current state of Israel is reflective of this is not that important. The Jews could be scattered
and gathered ten more times over the next thousand years, yet the Scriptural account of their salvation as a nation
would remain unaffected.
19
Gentiles how much greater (not much less) riches would their acceptance be (Rom 11:12). It is
here that we should also be careful to heed Waltkes admonition that, Theological models
should be built from the clear teachings of our Lord and his apostles and then, and only then,
adorned with symbolic texts.
22
Since Waltke would presumably view the thousand years
mentioned in Revelation 20:15 as symbolic; surely, he would have no problem allowing us to
adorn what we have learned with this symbolic text. The millennium of Revelation 20 fits
perfectly with what Paul, Isaiah, and Zechariah are communicating. The Old Testament passages
that deal with the salvation and exaltation of Israel speak of a time during which of people are
born, get married, have children (of which all the Jews and many of the Gentiles will be saved),
and die. Revelation 20 reveals that this will go on for a thousand years. At least, that is how we
should understand it if we take New Testament priority seriously.
So why are Covenant Theologians led to deny certain aspects of, if not altogether, the
salvation and restoration of Israel as described in the Old Testament if New Testament priority
does not really demand it? Perhaps the following quote from a fair-minded Covenant
Premillennialist might shed some light on their reasons:
In view of Pauls clear statements here and throughout Romans 11, I cannot see how so
many reformed theologians of our day reject the idea of a future time of blessing for
Israel. I know why they do it. They do not like the details of prophecy that some have
worked out, in which Israel seems to have a separate destiny from the church. And they
do not like the implied theology. To their way of thinking, any future blessing of Israel as
a nation must be a backward step, a regression in Gods plan. Spiritual realities in Christ
have replaced the Jewish types that pointed to them. The church has replaced Israel. In
this view the church becomes the new Israel, and the old Israel is superseded forever.
But how can they affirm that, in view of Pauls teaching here? Paul is not talking about
spiritual Israel in these chapters. He is talking about the Jews as a nation. And when he
asks the question, Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? His answer is as

22
Waltke, Kingdom Promises as Spiritual, 265.
20
emphatic as when dealing with antinomianism or with the good purposes of Gods law
(Rom 6:2, 15; 7:13). Not at all! By no means! God forbid! It was inconceivable to Paul
that God would cast Israel off, because to do so would mean that God would be breaking
his covenant promises, and he could not do that and remain a truth-keeping, faithful
God.
23

23
James Montgomery Boice, Romans, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books a division of Baker Book House
Co., 1993), 1323.
21
Bibliography
Fruchtenbaum, Arnold. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. 1989; revised,
Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 2001.
Waltke, Bruce. Kingdom Promises as Spiritual, Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on
the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments. Edited by John S. Feinberg.
Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers, 1988:
26387.
Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Vol. 19 of
Calvins Commentaries. Translated and edited by John Owen. 1849; reprint, Grand
Rapids: Baker Books a division of Baker Book House Company, 2005.
Berkhof, Louis Systematic Theology. 1938; reprint, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1996.
Boice, James Montgomery. Romans. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Baker Books a division of Baker
Book House Co., 1993.
Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. One volume edition. The New International
Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by F. F. Bruce. 1973; reprint. Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968.
Mounce, Robert H. Romans. NAC. Vol. 27. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers,
1995.
Luther, Martin. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Trans. by J. Theodore Mueller. Grand
Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1976.
. Lectures on Romans. Trans. and Ed. by Wilhelm Pauk. Philadelphia, PA: The
Westminster Press, 1961.
Strimple, Robert B. Amillennialism. Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond. Ed. by
Darrel L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999: 83129.
Gentry, Kenneth L. Jr. A Postmillennial Response to Robert B. Strimple, Three Views on the
Millennium and Beyond. Ed. by Darrel L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999: 130
142.
Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary of the New
Testament. Ed. by Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, and Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996.
Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: The Interface Between
Dispensational & Non-Dispensational Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.

22
Waymeyer, Matthew William. The Identity of All Israel in Romans 11:26. ThM thesis, The
Masters Seminary, 2003.
Gaebelein, A. C. Hath God Cast Away His People. Toronto, Canada: Gospel Publishing House,
1905.
LaRondelle, Hans K. The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles in Prophetic Interpretation.
Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1983.
Feinberg, Charles L. Israel: At the Center of History & Revelation. Portland, OR: Multnomah
Press, 1980.
Lloyd-Jones, D. M. Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 11 to Gods Glory. 2005; reprint.
Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1998.
Benware, Paul N. Understanding End Times Prophecy: A Comprehensive Approach. Chicago:
Moody Publishers, 2006.
LaHaye, Tim and Thomas Ice, Eds. The End Times Controversy: The Second Coming Under
Attack. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003.