Romans 11:26

‘And in this way all Israel will be saved.'

He had made clear in Romans 11:6 that the elect of Israel had, from God's point of view, been guaranteed salvation. Now he indicates that once the number of the Gentile elect have been made up, it completes the make up of the true Israel. Thus all Israel will have been saved, including the elect Jews of Romans 11:5, and the elect Gentiles of Romans 11:16. Together with the elect Jews, the elect Gentiles will form the true Israel, the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16; compare 1 Peter 2:9). It is this Israel which is following the Messiah, and which is now seen as true Israel in God's eyes. The unbelievers are cut off from Israel (even though for convenience sake having the term Israel applied to them by men). It is noteworthy that in the context of chapter 11 the idea of salvation has previously been specifically applied to the Gentiles (Romans 11:11), with an added hope that some Jews will be saved (Romans 11:14). In Romans 10:10 whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. When the idea of salvation is applied to the Jews it is only a remnant who will be saved (Romans 9:27; Romans 11:14). This would serve to confirm that in mind here are a large number of Gentiles combined with a sizeable remnant of the Jews.

The fact that all Israel being saved occurs at the point at which the full number of the Gentiles have ‘come in', that is, have entered into the olive tree and have thus been saved (Romans 11:11), in itself makes us recognise that this event of the conversion of the last Gentile must be included in the reference to ‘all Israel'. It is difficult to see how the salvation of large numbers of Jews can be seen as following the salvation of the final Gentile. And if they, were how could they be ‘life from the dead' to the Gentiles (Romans 11:15)? The resurrection surely follows almost immediately on the conversion of the last Gentile. On the other hand, if ‘all Israel' includes the believing Gentiles then everything fits perfectly. And we would expect this to be so precisely because believing Gentiles have, by believing, become a part of Israel. They have been engrafted into the olive tree.

Thus as we see from our discussion above this sentence signifies that all the redeemed of both Jews and Gentiles, that is all who truly believe in the Messiah, will at this point, at the final consummation, have been saved and will form what is Israel in God's eyes. God's work of grace will have been completed. The full number of the elect will have been made up. All that will now remain is the rapture of the saints, the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment (1 Thessalonians 4:14; 1 Corinthians 15:52).

It makes little difference from this point of view whether we translate the opening houtos as ‘and then' or ‘and so' or ‘and in consequence of this process' or ‘and in this manner'. All would result in the same conclusion. ‘In this manner' is the most likely for grammatical reasons, and Romans 11:25 would then be seen as indicating, ‘the fullness of the Gentiles will come in, and in this manner all Israel will be saved' which confirms what is said above, that the coming in of the fullness of the Gentiles results in all Israel having finally been saved. But we would not want to labour this translation

Romans 11:26; Romans 11:26; Romans 11:26; Romans 11:26; Romans 11:26 ‘Even as it is written, “There will come out of Zion the Deliverer (Redeemer). He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob. And this is my covenant to them, when I shall take away their sins.”

‘Even as it is written.' Paul now cites Scripture to support his case. The first question here is as to whether this citation is intended by Paul simply to refer to ‘all Israel will be saved', or whether he sees it as referring to, ‘until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and in this manner all Israel will be saved', thus patently including the believing Gentiles. It seems most probable that he intends to cover by the quotation the totality of what has gone before, otherwise why does he not give a citation supporting the fullness of the Gentiles coming in, something which he has always done previously (Romans 9:25; Romans 10:18; Romans 10:20)? Had the verses not been divided up as they have been, this would be more obvious to the casual reader.

The quotation is taken from a slightly altered Isaiah 59:20 a LXX supplemented by Isaiah 27:9 LXX. Isaiah 59:20 a LXX reads, ‘And the deliverer will come for Sion's sake (MT ‘to Zion': Paul ‘out of Zion'), and will turn away ungodliness from Jacob, and this will be my covenant with them ---' (Isaiah 59:20 a LXX). Note the replacement of ‘for Zion's sake' by ‘out of'. We do not know where Paul obtained ‘out of' from (unless it was Psalms 14:7), but if he is applying the verse to the Gentiles we can see the reason for the change. The Redeemer has to come ‘out of' Jerusalem in order to reach the Gentiles. Isaiah 27:9 LXX reads ‘Therefore will the iniquity of Jacob be taken away; and this is his blessing,  when I shall have taken away his sin  (Isaiah 27:9 LXX). It will be noted that it is the last part that is cited by Paul, but that the first part mainly parallels the idea in Isaiah 59:20, ‘and will turn away ungodliness from Jacob', thus being apposite.

The point is that as a result of God's covenant the Deliverer will come ‘out of Zion' (He being related to Zion in one way or another in all the texts), and will turn away ungodliness from Jacob, forgiving their sins. Thus as a consequence ‘Jacob' will be saved. But as we have seen in Romans 11:17, and will see in the excursus, ‘Jacob' includes both believing Jews and believing Gentiles, for the believing Gentiles have been engrafted into Israel/Jacob (Romans 11:17). Thus God's covenant with Israel holds good, and it is finally fulfilled for all of the true Israel as recognised by God, who, whether Jew or Gentile, have responded to their Redeemer, the Messiah (Romans 3:24). This interpretation is confirmed by the verses that follow where the final intention is claimed to be that God ‘will have mercy on all', both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 11:30).

The advantage of the interpretation that we have given is that it takes the ‘all' in Romans 11:26 as literally meaning ‘all. But is this what Paul is saying? This question will be dealt with in an Excursus.

EXCURSUS. Who Does The ‘All Israel' Represent In 11:26?

Interpretation of Romans 11:25 initially raises the question as to what ‘all Israel' means. There are four possibilities:

1) That it means all the elect of Israel, including co-joined elect Gentiles who are ingrafted, as explained above.

2) That it means all the elect of Israel as interpreted by the principle in Romans 11:5, that is, the elect from among the Jews. This would include Gentiles who had been circumcised and had submitted to the Law, thus becoming proselyte Jews, who were part of the elect.

3) That it means literally all Jews alive at the time. Some scholars benevolently go for this option, usually because they believe in universal salvation, but it hardly ties in with the remainder of Scripture. There is no precedent anywhere in Scripture for such an ‘all without exception' when dealing with large numbers. Nor, in our view, can we seriously contemplate every Jew in every part of the world, without exception, responding to the Messiah over a short period. It would go contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture. And that is so even if we leave it to God to determine who should be called a Jew. Indeed even the optimistic Jews do not see ‘all Israel' in a context like this as literally meaning ‘all Israel'. Thus the Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin Romans 10:1 says ‘all Israel has a portion in the age to come' and then goes on to list Israelites who are excluded.

4) That it means simply a large number of the Jews alive at the time, who would then become part of the elect. This possibility arises because pas does not always mean ‘all'. It can rather mean ‘a good many' especially when applied to a noun signifying people. Consider the use of pas (‘all, a good many') in Matthew 2:3; Matthew 3:5; Matthew 21:10; Mark 1:5; Mark 11:18; Luke 21:38; Luke 24:19; John 8:2; Acts 3:11; Acts 5:34; Acts 19:27; Acts 21:27; etc. where in each case it clearly means simply ‘a good number of'. The hope taken from this interpretation is that it would signify a worldwide revival. It would be nice if it was true, but we must not base our interpretation on wishful thinking.

As will be noted the first three interpretations take pas to literally mean ‘all', which it often does. The last takes an equally valid translation of pas as signifying ‘a good number'. So the question is, which of the four possibilities are in mind in Paul's statement that ‘in this way (manner) all Israel will be saved'. Again we must list the possibilities, and then expand on them. They will be dealt with in reverse order.

It is considered possible:

1) That he means  all of ‘the Israel within Israel' of Romans 9:6 plus a large proportion of Israel who are alive in the end times, as a consequence of a spiritual revival which brings them to believe in Jesus as the Messiah, the latter then, of course, becoming a part of the ‘Israel within Israel'. In other words it means the vast majority of the Jews alive at the time.

It is argued that strongly in favour of this interpretation is the mention of Israel in Romans 11:25 where it is clear that the whole of Israel is in mind, a part of which is already hardened. It has even been said that ‘it is impossible to entertain an exegesis which takes Israel in Romans 11:26 in a different sense from Israel in Romans 11:25 '. But is this correct? For such a statement ignores the fact that Paul has already distinguished two Israels in Romans 9:6, which indicates that when speaking theologically we can distinguish between elect Israel and physical Israel, and while Romans 11:25 is possibly referring to physical Israel there can be little doubt that Romans 11:26 is referring to Israel as seen theologically in terms of salvation (as in Romans 9:6). That being so the comment can be seen as invalidated. Paul had no problem with such a distinction in Romans 9:6. Why should he have one here? It is precisely the situation where such a distinction would be maintained.

Besides the Israel in Romans 11:25 is the whole of Israel without exception, whilst few scholars would actually claim that every single Israelite is seen as being saved in Romans 11:26. Indeed, even the Rabbis did not believe that. There were some Jews whom even they could not see as being included. Thus whatever view we take the two Israel are not the same. They would only be the same if Paul was indicating that literally every acknowledged Israelite would be saved, and that would be to go contrary to all that we know of God's revealed ways. The only ones who would accept this are universalists, those who believe that all men will be saved, something which is contrary to the teaching of Scripture.

But if it is true that we can differentiate ‘Israel' when used simply to denote the nation historically, from Israel when it is used theologically of those who are acceptable to God, as Romans 9:6 demonstrates, then there is no reason why Paul should not do so when speaking in a context of salvation, a context in which the reader would expect the distinction to be made. It must therefore be considered likely that when speaking of the final number of the saved the reader would immediately expect such a distinction. He would have remembered that, ‘They are not all Israel who are of Israel.' The former is the whole of Israel, the latter is the true Israel of God. And in the end it is only the true Israel of God who can be saved. Thus ‘all Israel being saved' would immediately alert the Christian reader to the distinction (he would know that it did not include unbelievers). But we have only to translate as ‘a large number' to remove the problem altogether.

Furthermore, another reason why Romans 11:26 cannot mean that all, or even the vast majority of physical Israel, would be saved, is because the idea that  all  Israel would be saved, signifying physical Israel, would go contrary to what Paul has said earlier. It is contrary to the impression given in Romans 9:27 where ‘it is the remnant that will be saved'; to that in Romans 9:29 where it says, ‘except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed'; and to that in Romans 10:21 where it says, ‘all the day long did I spread out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people', which gives the impression of a situation which will continue. For it will be noted that Paul never seeks to modify the picture given by saying, ‘but don't worry, all will change at the end'. Rather he is explaining why it is that by only a remnant being saved God's purpose and promises as contained in Scripture are fulfilled.

It is true that the case for this interpretation might be seen as strengthened if we see the statement in Romans 11:28 that, ‘as touching the Gospel they are enemies for your sakes, but as touching the election they are beloved for the fathers' sakes, for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance', in the way that some scholars do. It can then be argued that the ‘they', in each case, refers to unbelieving Israel, and that those hardened as enemies of the Gospel most naturally refers back to the quotation in Romans 11:26. The quotation in Romans 11:26 is supporting the fact that there would be a widespread spiritual response to the Deliverer, and a widespread turning away from ‘ungodliness', (a term which must include rejection of the Messiah). These verses would then support the idea of a good many of Israel being saved. But they would not support the idea that every Israelite would be saved.

However, it should be noted that there is no connecting word connecting Romans 11:28 with what has gone before (something more important in Greek than in English). Thus it is more likely that Romans 11:28 refers back to the Israel in Romans 11:25 where all Israel is literally included, an Israel which includes both believing and unbelieving (hardened) Israel. The first part of Romans 11:28 could then be seen as referring to ‘the hardened' and the second part to ‘the elect', with it making no claim about salvation for the whole of Israel. And besides, the favour spoken of in Romans 11:28 is not necessarily seen as resulting in salvation. It merely indicates God's continued interest in them. So Romans 11:28 does not really give the support that is looked for.

But in view of Paul's clear view of Israel as including both believing Jews and believing Gentiles there are really no ground for excluding believing Gentiles from the ‘many of Israel' who would be saved. The only grounds for such an exclusion would be the contrast between Romans 11:25 b and 26a. But closer examination reveals that that is not a contrast but a declaration that the full number of Gentiles would have come in, resulting in ‘a large part of Israel' (or even ‘all Israel' if we see it as referring to the elect) being saved. Thus we can translate, ‘until the full number of Gentiles has come in, in this way a large number of Israel will be saved.'

2) That he means all of ‘the Israel within Israel' (Romans 9:6), in other words all of the elect of Israel. This would certainly, on the face of it, tie in with the whole of Chapter s 9-11. It would also be supported by the fact that in Romans 9:6 the term Israel is used theologically (meaning ‘in God's eyes') in order to denote the elect of Israel, while its use in Romans 11:26 is also theological (meaning ‘in God's eyes'), and needing to be defined, unlike all the other references to Israel. In other words the idea would be that ‘all Israel' theologically, i.e. as seen in God's eyes, has in mind the elect of Israel. And this can further be supported by Romans 9:27 where it is clearly stated from Scripture that only the remnant of Israel will be saved. (How can we have only a remnant saved and yet all Israel literally be saved?) This would then mean that the ‘all Israel' who will be saved is the remnant who are the true Israel, the elect. But this would be to ignore the fact that the believing Gentiles have become a part of Israel.

3) That he means all the elect of God both Jew and Gentile, because all are branches of the olive tree. This case can be seen as supported by a number of arguments. Firstly on the grounds already stated that we must distinguish Israel as theologically stated as ‘the Israel within Israel' from the use of ‘Israel' simply as the best way of referring back to the Israel of the past. Most of the references to Israel are in the latter category, and it is difficult to see what other term Paul could have used in order to get over his point (in view of Romans 2:28 the use of ‘the Jews' would have been uncertain). But in both Romans 9:6 and Romans 11:26 the essence of Israel is in mind theologically, with the latter being expanded in terms of the fact that believing Gentiles have been incorporated into Israel in accordance with Romans 11:17.

Secondly by the statement in Romans 9:27 that ‘only the remnant will be saved', signifying that the ‘all Israel' of Romans 11:26, if it simply means Jews, includes only the remnant of Israel.

Thirdly because Paul tells us in Galatians that ‘if you are Christ's then are you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise' (Galatians 3:29). Being of the seed of Abraham and belonging to the Messiah surely signifies being members of the true Israel. Thus this verse indicates that all believing Gentiles are members of the true Israel. Furthermore Paul says in Romans that ‘the promise is sure to all the seed, not to that only which is of the Law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, a father of many nations have I made you' (Romans 4:16). This is the promise of salvation which is made to all men who believe whether Jew or Gentile, and their being ‘of the faith of Abraham' indicates that they are a part of the true Israel.

Fourthly because in the context Paul emphasises that the elect of Israel having been saved (Romans 11:7), the Gentiles also need to be gathered in, so as to make one olive tree, that is, one Israel. In other words the reason why the fullness of the Gentiles needs to ‘come in', is so that all Israel, both Jew and Gentile, might be saved together (Romans 11:12). Indeed this salvation of the Gentiles by being joined with Israel (the olive tree) is the main theme of the passage (see commentary on Romans 11:11), which means that we would expect the two together to be the climax.

We would expect from this emphasis that the climax of the age would therefore centre, not on physical Israel all being saved (as distinct from the Gentiles), or even on elect Israel being saved, but on both the elect Jews and the elect Gentiles being saved together. However, the only way that this can be read out of Romans 11:26 is if ‘all Israel' being saved includes the Gentiles. It was because of this that the Gentiles were not to become conceited, but must continue their efforts to win over even more of the Jews. They must do it because God intended them all to be grafted into the one tree so that ‘all Israel (both Jew and proselyte) might be saved'.

Fifthly because in accordance with the illustration of the olive tree the fullness of the Gentiles, along with the elect of Israel, ARE Israel. This is the consistent message of the New Testament (Galatians 6:16; Ephesians 2:11; 1Pe 1:1; 1 Peter 2:9; James 1:1; etc). All believing Gentiles are incorporated into Israel and  become  Israel (they do not replace Israel). For more detail on this see the excursus at the end of the chapter.

Sixthly, because the hardness of a part of Israel is to last until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, at which point ‘all Israel will be saved'. Can we really see Paul as saying that once the last Gentile has been converted a work will begin that will result in huge numbers of Jews being converted, without any more Gentiles being converted? But if the conversion of the last Gentile makes up the total number of ‘all Israel as he/she is engrafted into the olive tree then the whole makes sense..

Seventhly, because it is difficult to see Paul as deliberately distinguishing in the worldwide church between ‘the fullness of the Gentiles' on the one hand, and ‘all Israel' (signifying all believing Jews) on the other. This would appear to be holding the two elements of the early church in tension and therefore as going totally contrary to Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:10 where Paul emphatically declares that there is no longer ‘Jew and/or Greek' as far as believers are concerned. Can we really believe, in view of this, that Paul does make precisely that distinction here in the context of final salvation, demonstrating that the church is divided into two? All other comparisons in Romans between Jew and Greek have in mind their position before they became Christians (Romans 1:16; Romans 9:24; Romans 10:12). They are Jew and Greek before they are converted, at which point they become ‘Christians' or ‘believers', i.e. the true Israel, with no distinction being made. So for Paul to suggest a scenario which splits the church into two like this might be thought to be totally inconsistent. It would go against all that he believed. We could surely only hold such an opinion if there were absolutely incontrovertible reasons for doing so, and that is not the case here. This in our view rules out both 1). and 2).

It is no argument against this that Paul differentiates the Gentile part of the Roman church from the Jewish part, for that arises out of the failure of some to recognise that all are one in Christ Jesus. It is the failing of the church that causes it not Paul's theology. And it is something which Paul strives to put right. Bit it would be quite another matter to say that God makes such distinctions, when Paul has elsewhere made clear that He does not.

Eighthly on the grounds that to Paul, as to the early church, ‘Israel' very much included the whole church. For we should recognise that the only reason why we exclude the believing Gentiles from the term Israel is because in our day the church is so clearly distinct from what we see as Israel.

It is, of course, true that unbelieving Israel would not have recognised the believing Gentiles as being a part of Israel, even though they did in general accept Gentile proselytes as part of Israel, and would have recognised any Gentile joining Israel in the ‘orthodox manner' at that time as part of Israel. So the reason for the rejection was not that the believing Gentiles were Gentiles, but that the believing Gentiles had not come into Israel in the approved manner, through circumcision and instruction in the Law. And we moderns inaccurately take the same view as them, because we see Israel as separate from the church (as using modern terminology it mainly is).

But that was not so when these words were written. When the Apostles initially went out to proclaim the Gospel they were seeking to bring Israel to recognise its Messiah. Their concern was the establishment of the true Israel on the basis of faith in the Messiah. Paul continued that emphasis. He too went first to the Jews. He too was seeking to establish the true Israel. And in both cases Gentile believers were incorporated because God demonstrated that it was His will. But we should recognise that the incorporation of believing Gentiles was not in itself something new. It had always been a policy of Israel.

In the same way the Jewish church also saw itself as very much part of Israel, indeed as the elect part of Israel, the true Israel, in the midst of a wider Israel. And there can be no doubt, as we note from Galatians 3:29; Galatians 6:16; Ephesians 2:11, that Paul would have included believing Gentiles in with them as part of Israel for the reasons that he has just explained in Romans 11:16, as indeed would most Jewish Christians. After all elsewhere Paul could describe them as ‘the Israel of God' (Galatians 6:16). Indeed it was because the early church saw Gentile believers as becoming part of Israel that the question of circumcision arose. That was why there was such a storm about whether Gentiles being converted should be circumcised. The question was, could they become a part of Israel without being circumcised. Paul replies, ‘yes, because circumcision has been replaced by the circumcision of Christ' (being crucified with Christ). But if the converted Gentiles were seen by Paul as having become part of Israel, that means that Israel in Romans 11:25 is also made up of Jews and believing Gentiles. This would then favour Romans 11:26 as having the same meaning to the early church.

Thus any supposed distinction arises because of the situation raised by our minds looking from our modern view point. That, however, is irrelevant to what Paul is saying. What matters is how Paul saw it. We totally distinguish Christians from Jews, although we accept that there are Jewish Christians. Christian Jews in the early church on the other hand would have seen themselves as ‘Israel', and as including believing Gentiles who had been incorporated into Israel, just as they saw themselves as part of Israel. It would have been second nature to them. That being so ‘Israel' spoken of in a salvation context would have been seen as automatically including all believers in the Messiah, whether former-Jew or former-Gentile.

In our view then ‘all Israel' is inclusive of both believing ex-Jews and believing ex-Gentiles, the former being branches of the olive tree by its very nature, the latter being engrafted into the olive tree in order to become a part of it. And it is this body which IS the true Israel. It is a triumphant declaration that God's purposes for His elect have been fulfilled (compare Romans 9:24). As a consequence unbelieving Israel are then not Israel in God's eyes, however men see them. Paul had merely spoken of them as Israel previously because he has no other term that he could use to indicate their identification with the Israel of the Old Testament. So he uses ‘Israel' in two senses. Firstly to indicate the elect (Romans 9:6), and secondly in order to indicate historical Israel. If this argument is accepted then it is clear that ‘all Israel' includes ‘the full number of believing Gentiles' as well as the elect of Israel, both together forming the true Israel (the true Vine; see excursus at the end of the chapter). This is not to deny that there are various indications elsewhere that there will be an increase in Jewish conversions to the Messiah in the end days by their becoming part of the Israel within Israel through faith in the Messiah, although it is regularly depicted as a remnant. It is only to deny that it is specifically in mind here.

End of Excursus.