And So All Israel Will Be Saved

8/4/2019 And So All Israel Will Be Saved

1/24

1

And So All Israel Will Be Saved:

Romans 11 Considering William Tyndales Translation

By R Magnusson Davis, Founder & Editor of the New Matthew Bible Project

I share here what I have learned from William Tyndales New Testament.

Romans 11:26 tells us how all Israel will be saved. But some say it tells us when

this will happen, and many modern bibles have departed from the original Greek

scriptures in order to impose such a meaning upon the passage. And, furthermore,

Christians persist in putting a difference between Jew and Gentile that Paul told

the Romans no longer exists, for there is no partiality with God.

This paper discusses Romans 11:25-32 considering the translation of William

Tyndale. It looks at such issues as:

Who is all Israel?

Who is the election, loved for the fathers sakes?

If there is no partiality with God, what about Israel?

Much of what is said here simply comes from the book of Romans. The New

Mathew Bible draft of that epistle, and others as we complete them, are at our

website: www.newmatthewbible.org. Go to Topics/Scripture Index/Romans.pdf.

New Testament scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are from David

Daniells modern-spelling edition of Tyndales 1534 version. Old Testament

quotations are from the 1537/1549 Matthew Bible, with spelling and punctuation

modernized; verse numbers are added so readers can compare versions and note

the considerable differences in some places. (More information about theMatthew Bible is here: http://www.newmatthewbible.org/about.html )

RMD, September, 2011.

Further reading:

(1) G.A. Henty, For The Temple: A Tale of the Fall of Jerusalem, (Penn, USA, Preston SpeedPublications). A memorable account of the devastation and destruction of Jerusalem in 70A.D., when the Jews lost possession of Jerusalem, and when thousands lost their lives throughstarvation, crucifixion, and bloodshed.

(2) A.W. Pink, A Study of Dispensationalism. Pink wrote this paper after years of bible study

helped break down strongholds of dispensational teaching. Several websites have posted hisstudy. Here is one: http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Dispensationalism/disp_01.htm

(3) The 1537 Matthew Bible, facsimile copy available through Hendrickson Publishers. It willtake time and diligent application to learn to read the old English, and even then languageissues will pose a barrier. But the rewards are worth the effort.


2/24

2

Romans 11:25: partly blindness is happened in Israel, until the fullness of theGentiles be come in

In chapter 11 of Pauls letter to the Romans, at verse 25, he observed that in Israel someof the people had experienced blindness. This repeats what he said earlier: that aremnant in Israel had obtained grace (11:5), but the rest were blinded (11:7).

In William Tyndales 1534 New Testament1 verse 11:25 reads:

partly blindness is happened in Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in

The KJV put here:

blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in

Commentators generally agree this verse means that only a part of Israel has the sight offaith, and is saved. For example, in his commentary Presbyterian minister Matthew Henrywrote:

There is a remnant [in Israel] that see the things which belong to their peace, thoughpart, the far greater part, are in blindness.

But who is Israel? We must define what we are speaking of. Nowadays the term Israelis often used loosely in an ethnic or natural sense. Some say it means people who speakHebrew. A better suggestion is that it means persons descended from Jacobs twelvesons whoever they may be and wherever they may live now.

In this paper I use the term ethnic Israel meaning persons descended from historic Israel that nation of persons delivered from Egypt by God (Amos 3:1) by racial ties. But whilemany people still claim to be descended from Israel, and form identifiable communities,yet others have departed from Judaism, no longer speak Hebrew, and after 20 centuriesof the Diaspora have mixed with other races such that they may be more French, more

Irish, more American, than anything else. Even before the Diaspora the Jews were mixingwith others, and had strangers among them. Therefore there were always practicalproblems of identification and definition, and these increase as time goes on.

In the scriptures the term Israel is also used typologically; that is, as a type, shadow,figureor word-picturerepresenting something else, which is called the antitype. Typologymakes up much of the language of scripture. In such uses, problems of definition are notpractical, but are spiritual: problems of understanding Gods word. In its typologicalsenses, Israel teaches us about spiritual things. It may have several meanings orapplications, but these do not become any more difficult to define as time goes on.

In any case, it is generally accepted that at Romans 11:25 Paul was referring to ethnicIsrael, and was explaining that part of that nation is spiritually blind. Indeed, this had ever

been the case. It was so when Elijah lamented that he alone was left (see Ro 11:2,3; 1Ki19:10), and obviously when Paul wrote in the 1st century. Verse 25 says such partialblindness will continue until all elect non-Jews have been saved; that is, until the fullnessof the Gentiles has come into the kingdom of Christ.

1William Tyndale, Tyndales New Testament, A modern-spelling edition of the 1534 translation with

an introduction by David Daniell (Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1989). Unlessotherwise indicated, all New Testament quotations are from this version.


3/24

3

Verse 11:26(a): and so all Israel shall be saved.

There is disagreement, however, about what follows the coming in of all Gentiles, andabout the thrust of Pauls teaching in chapter 11 concerning ethnic Israel. Confusionarises in various interpretations of 11:26(a), and so all Israel will be saved. Reverend

Henry expresses the now popular understanding to the effect that this means that at somefuture time ethnic Israel will again become the object of special attention from the Lord:

The Jews shall continue in blindness, till God hath performed his whole work amongthe Gentiles, and then their turn will come next to be remembered.

2

We know that Reverend Henry was referring to ethnic Israel here because he used theterm the Jews. He was unwilling to be dogmatic about when their turn next to beremembered will come,3 but evidently believes that God still puts and will continue untilthe end of the age to put a difference between Jew and Gentile because a covenant withethnic Israel subsists in some manner.

On the other hand, another Presbyterian minister, G. I. Williamson, understands that nodistinction persists between Jew and Gentile because the middle wall of partition between

them has been abolished:The long historical period in which Jews and Gentiles were (by Gods design)separated by what Paul called the middle wall of division (Eph 2:14) was ordainedby Gods sovereign will. But so was the termination of that division that came in whatthis same Apostle calls the fullness of time(Gal 4:4). It came to an end just as Godhad planned from the beginning as a result of the sinless life, the substitutionarydeath, and bodily resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. For as Paul said, He himselfis our peace, who has made both one In all of this one thing is clear: the only hopeof either Gentile or Jew is to be born again from above in order to see and enter theKingdom There is no reason to think that there will ever be a time when all Jewswill become Christians (emphasis original)

4

According to Mr. Williamson, with whom I agree on this point, the covenant with Israel has

been abolished, and all races and all flesh and all nations are as one in the eyes of Godunder the everlasting Abrahamic covenant:

It was always Gods intention to terminate the middle wall of partition, and to extendthe blessings of the Abrahamic covenant to all nations. This is not something thatwas added later on. No, it was clearly implied in Gods promise to Abraham from thebeginning. In other words it was always Gods intention to terminate the historicalperiod in which the Jews, in a certain sense, had exclusive possession of the meansof grace.

5

2Rev Henrys commentaries on the entire bible were published in the early 1700s. I quote from a

1983 edition revised and corrected.3

Rev Henry suggests that the time might already be past, but his undermines his own explanationof verse 26(a), since Gods whole work among the Gentiles is obviously not yet performed. Iwas truly surprised by the level of incoherence and confusion in his commentary on this passage.4

Williamson, G. I., A Study of Biblical Eschatology, http://www.nethtc.net/~giwopc/index.html , pp1617. I like how Mr. Williamson clarifies matters concerning Gods covenant with Israel, but needto say that I do not agree with the eschatological views he goes on to explain in this lengthy paper.He has obviously put a great deal of thought and work into it, and is a good writer whose teaching Ihave appreciated on other matters, but for integritys sake I give this caveat.5

Williamson, Eschatology, p 16.


4/24

4

A right understanding of verse 26, and who is intended by the term all Israel, is crucial tounderstanding Gods dealings with all mankind. Truly, much flows from this.

Verse 26 needs, of course, to be read and understood in context. Below are the originalverses from Tyndales 1534 New Testament, taken from David Daniells modern spelling

edition. I also provide the KJVs more familiar rendering:

Romans 11:25-32:

William Tyndale, 1534. The King James Version, 1611

I would not that this secret should be hidfrom you my brethren (lest ye should bewise in your own conceits) that partlyblindness is happened in Israel, until thefullness of the Gentiles be come in: and soall Israel shall be saved. As it is written:There shall come out of Sion he that doth

deliver, and shall turn away the ungodlinessof Jacob. And this is my covenant untothem, when I shall take away their sins. Asconcerning the gospel, they are enemies foryour sakes: but as touching the election,they are loved for the fathers' sakes.

For verily the gifts and calling of God aresuch, that it cannot repent him of them: forlook*, as ye in time passed have notbelieved God, yet have now obtained mercythrough their unbelief, even so now havethey not believed the mercy which ishappened unto you, that they also mayobtain mercy. God hath wrapped all nationsin unbelief, that he might have mercy on all.

*Daniell had like, a typographical error.

25For I would not, brethren, that ye shouldbe ignorant of this mystery, lest ye shouldbe wise in your own conceits; thatblindnessin part is happened to Israel, until thefullness of the Gentiles be come in. 26Andso all Israel shall be saved: as it iswritten, There shall come out of Sion the

Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodlinessfrom Jacob: 27For this is my covenant untothem, when I shall take away their sins.28As concerning the gospel, they areenemies for your sakes: but as touching theelection, they are beloved for the fatherssakes. 29For the gifts and calling of God arewithout repentance. 30For as ye in timespast have not believed God, yet have nowobtained mercy through their unbelief:31even so have these also now notbelieved, that through your mercy they also

may obtain mercy.32

For God hathconcluded them all in unbelief, that hemight have mercy upon all.

So is an adverb of manner, not time. It tells us how.

I begin with brief comments on grammar, because rules of grammar influence how weunderstand things in ways we are often not aware of.

In verse 26, so is an adverb translating the Greek houto(s). James Strong defineshouto(s) in his Greek dictionary as meaning in this way, referring to what precedes or

what follows.

6

In other words, it denotes how something is done by referring usbackwards or forwards in the context to words that give more information.

The English soalso meant in this way, and it also referred us backward or forward in thecontext. Thus it was a faithful and accurate translation. However as positioned here, it is

6See Strongs Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the work of lawyer James Strong, first

published in 1890,under the relevant entry: #3779 in the Greek dictionary.


5/24

5

now grammatically obsolete. In older English the adverb so was often put in initialposition in a clause or sentence, but now English speakers usually reserve the initialposition for the conjunction so.7Note the different nuances of meaning that arise fromdifferent placements: (1) And Israel will sobe saved (= yes she will!); (2) And Israel will besaved so(= will be saved in this way); (3) And so Israel will be saved (= And therefore

Israel will be saved). If so is at the beginning of a clause, we usually take it to meantherefore, as in The rain is falling hard, and sothe river may flood its banks.

Nowadays it is the 2nd placement that best reflects the sense at verse 26, though it wouldbe more natural to use different words (eg: And this wayall Israel will be saved).

The KJV followed Tyndale, putting soin clause-initial position. But this needs updating.Some recent versions have updated:

Todays EnglishVersion 1971

New WorldTranslation 1984

Beck 1976 NASB 1973

26And this is how allIsrael will be saved.

26

and in this mannerall Israel will besaved.

26And in this way allIsrael will be saved

26And thus all Israelwill be saved

The NIV (1973) and New King James Version (1988) did not update Romans 11:26, butretain the old grammar with and so all Israel will be saved. However in my view theresult is that modern English speakers stumble here, because the natural reading doesnot make sense: And thereforeall Israel will be saved is a non-sequitur in this context.

But the NIV did update in other verses where houto(s) occurred. See the difference itmakes:

Romans 5:12:

KJV: Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so(houtos) death passed upon all men

NIV: and in this way death came to all men

In the above example, houto(s)/sorefers back to the description of how sin entered theworld (by one man) and tells us that in the same way (by one man) death passed upon all.

1 Corinthians 9:24:

KJV: So (houtos) run, that ye may obtain.

NIV: Run in such a way as to obtain the prize.

In the example from 1st Corinthians, the adverb houto(s)/so refers forward to thedescription of how we should run; that is, to obtain the prize.

7There are exceptions to this rule, such as when so is used co-relatively, but I dont want to be

tedious with grammar. Also, both houto(s) and so may in some contexts, or in conjunction withother words, suggest consequence, and thus be appropriate in an initial position. An example isRomans 11:5: Even so at this time is there a remnant left through the election of grace. Also, inPartly blindness has happened, the adverb partlyis positioned in a grammatically obsolete way,such that we would now take it as a sentence adverb, not limited to modifying the verb. Thereforeit also needs to be repositioned (eg: Blindness has partly happened ).


6/24

6

So then at Romans 11:26 we may also ask, is there anything in the immediate contextthat houto(s)/socould be referring to?

In 11:26(a), what does so refer to that tells us how all Israel will be saved?

Here again is Tyndales translation:25

I would not that this secret should be hid from you my brethren (lest ye should bewise in your own conceits) that partly blindness is happened in Israel, until thefullness of the Gentiles be come in:

26and so all Israel shall be saved. As it is

written: There shall come out of Sion he that doth deliver, and shall turn away theungodliness of Jacob.

It is possible to take houto(s)/so as referring both backwards and forwards in thispassage, though the connections are not as clear as in other examples above.

It can be understood to refer back to the statement that part of Israel will remain blindwhile the Gentiles are coming in.8 If only part of Israel continues blind, it is evident thatthere will also be another part not blind. These are the elect Jews, who will continue to be

saved until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in to join them, and in that way allIsrael will be saved. Obviously in this application I understand all Israel to mean theelect from all nations spiritual Israel.

I note that in Tyndales 1534 version, as rendered by Daniell, verses 25 and 26(a) formone sentence, suggesting perhaps, though not necessarily, that 26(a) refers back to 25.9

It is also possible that sorefers forward to As it is written: There shall come out of Sionhe that doth deliver, and shall turn away the ungodliness of Jacob. The Deliverer (theMessiah, of course) will turn away the ungodliness of repentant Jews, here figured underthe type Jacob, and they will be saved along with the elect Gentiles and thus allspiritual, or true, Israel will be saved. Perhaps the KJV authors favoured thisinterpretation, because they made verses 26 and 27 into one sentence.

8The Greek achri, Strongs #891, also means while.

9Someone may well ask, what was the punctuation in the original Greek epistle? This we cannot

say since, of course, no original exists for us to check. It seems probable it contained nopunctuation. According to M. B. Parkes, in ancient times authors works and letters were dictated,not written, and their scribes or amanuenses confined themselves to reproducing as faithfully aspossible what had been transmitted to them without further interpretation; hence they did notsupply punctuation to a text. (M.B. Parkes, Pause and Effect: Punctuation in the West (AshgatePublishing, Hampshire, England, 1992), p. 9.) We do know Paul dictated his letters. In any case,now we have only various compilations of various copied and edited manuscripts to work with,which have been variously punctuated by various persons down the centuries. Tyndale worked

with Erasmus 3

rd

version of his compilation (Received Text). However in the 16

th

century, it wasoften the printers who determined how a test would be pointed (punctuated), and it is impossible toknow how much input Tyndale had. I have compared Daniells 1534 edition with a facsimile ofTyndales 1526 New Testament, and they are inconsistent; in fact, there is an error in the 1526edition that leaves us wondering if verse 26 was meant to stand alone or be incorporated in verse27 as the KJV has it. In any case, at the end of the day it may any combination of a compilers,translators, scribes, editors, and printers readings of a text that go to determine how it is pointed.And this will be more or less in accordance with the custom of the time and/or of the individualpointer, which things vary. And there are always errors and oversights to compound difficulties.


7/24

7

Israel the Jews, or Israel Jews and Gentiles?

Again, the scriptures make abundant use of types or shadows which may be capable ofmultiple applications. Israel is one such. In one of the most obvious applications, hertemporal salvation from Egypt and miraculous crossing of the Red Sea, with powerful

Pharaoh in pursuit, typifies the salvation of the elect from bondage to the world, the flesh,and the power of Satan. And so ethnic Israel, chosen for deliverance from Egypt, standsas a type of those chosen for spiritual salvation in Christ Jesus, who are logically referredto as spiritual Israel. See Pauls reference to Israel that walks carnally, or after theflesh, at 1 Corinthians 10:18. This presupposes and is in contradistinction to the Israel thatwalks spiritually.

When reading the bible it is always necessary to distinguish between immediate andtypological references to Israel. In the Old Testament the prophets spoke immediately(though not solely, since there were strangers among them) to ethnic Israel. But they werealso speaking typologically, and their words, warnings, and prophecies have beenpreserved in the scriptures for us. Paul explained that what happened to and with and inIsrael happened by way of example for us we upon whom the ends of the ages have

come (1 Cor 10:11). We are to learn about ourselves, and about spiritual things, bystudying and understanding what happened with Israel.

In reading Paul it becomes clear that references to Israel, and similar references such asto the Jews, Abrahams seed, etc., must often be understood typologically. Sometimesthey include both Gentiles and Jews. See how Paul mixes types and figures, in someinstances including the Gentiles as a Jew, Abrahams seed, and Israelites:

Romans 2:28: For he is not a Jew, which is a Jew outward But he is a Jew whichis hid within.

Galatians 3:26-29: Now there is no Jew neither Gentile: there is neither bond norfree: there is neither man nor woman: but ye are all one thing in Christ Jesus. If ye beChrists, then are ye Abrahams seed.

Romans 9:6-8: For they are not all Israelites which came of Israel: neither are they allchildren straightway, because they are the seed of Abraham. But in Isaac shall thyseed be called: that is to say, they which are the children of the flesh, are not thechildren of God. But the children of promise are counted the seed.

The NIV put at Romans 9:6 Not all who descend from Israel are Israel, which makes itclear. What Paul is saying is that not all ethnic Israelites make up the Israel of God; thatis, not all natural descendents are spiritual Israel. The heirs are not counted by race, butpromise.

Consider also 1 Corinthians 12:2 where Paul tells the Corinthians that they were onceGentiles. Of course, after the flesh they remained Gentiles. He meant that spiritually theyhad become Jews: in them, promises of mercy to Israelhad been spiritually fulfilled.After

coming to faith, non-Jews therefore join Israel in the biblical sense.

So then, sometimes the words Israeland Israelitesmean something other than naturalJewish people. Saint Augustine showed how scripture used Israelite typology meaning theGentiles alone, as a separate group.10 Israelmay also refer to any people group that

10St. Augustine wrote concerning typological prophecy that the sons of Israel may in context

mean the Gentiles alone. I must give the passage at length for it to be appreciated: Hosea


8/24

8

receives the word of God thus any nation, or all who live in a land. As the word goesforth to the whole world, the whole world then becomes an antitype.

In some applications Israel also prefigures the greater Church, including its spiritual andcarnal members. For the Church has received Gods word and, as a community that

professes allegiance and fidelity to it before angels and before the world, has an especialresponsibility to it. But, like Israel, she also has her share of false prophets and repeatedlyfalls away from it for there is no difference, Jew or Gentile (Ro 3:22, 10:12). Or, are webetter than they (3:9)? However there remains within the Church the spiritual remnant, asin Israel, which has obtained what the rest sought but could not obtain (Ro 11:7). And asTyndale said, As it went under the Old [Covenant], so will it go under the New.11

It is worthy of repeating that typological references to Israelnever become more difficultof definition. They never change their meaning, and never lose their significance. Theycontinue to teach us about ourselves and about the course of Gods word in the hands ofmen. As a matter of fact, as time passes the lessons become clearer. It is clearer nowthan it ever was that there is no difference, Jew or Gentile, for we have the benefit ofcenturies of hindsight under the New Covenant. We look at the history of Israel, and we

look at the history of the Church, and we see the same course taken and repeated: truthgiven, apostasy, an increase of sin, fresh revelation of truth (as in the Reformation), and afurther turning away. We are all Jacob.

I ask the reader to consider if it is not part of Gods great design that while the truth aboutwho we are becomes more clear, who the ethnic Israelites are becomes less so? It is nowdifficult, if not impossible, to accurately identify the Israel that was the beneficiary of theOld Covenant. This makes sense if God terminated the Old Covenant an event that wasmarked by the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and by the fulfilment of so manydire Old Testament prophecies that were made immediately to ethnic Israel.

I trust that in the end some will agree that at Romans 11:26 all Israel means thegathering of the elect. If so, then we need to understand that when Paul used Israelto

mean both ethnic and spiritual Israel in the same sentence, he was mixing type andantitype. This may be a source of confusion if we read with unspiritual eyes, but it isvaluable for learning if God by his Spirit opens our understanding. Types and shadowsilluminate Gods deeper mysteries with great effect and economy.

certainly has profound things to say, but his message is difficult of penetration in proportion to itsprofundity. But we must select some part of his work And it will happen, he says, that in theplace where they were told: You are not my people, they, even they, will be called sons of theliving God. The apostles also understood this as a prophetic testimony to the calling of the peopleof the Gentile nations, who did not previously belong to God. And because the people of theGentile nations themselves are spiritually among the children of Abraham and for that reason are

correctly called Israel, he therefore goes on to say, And the sons of Judah and the sons of Israelwill be assembled in the same place, and they will appoint for themselves one head and they shallascend from the earth. If we were to attempt to explain this saying here and now, the flavour of itsprophetic eloquence would be diluted. Nevertheless, let us call to mind that cornerstone and thetwo walks, one made up of Jews, the other of Gentiles; and let us recognize them as ascendingform the earth, the former under the name of sons of Judah the latter [that is, the Gentiles] underthat of sons of Israel St. Augustine, Concerning the City of God, A New Translation by HenryBettenson, (Penguin Books, London, 1

stpublished 1467, Bettensons translation 1972),p. 795.

11See his note at 1 Corinthians, chapter 10, in Daniells version of Tyndales 1534 New Testament.


9/24

9

The New Matthew Bible vs. the Living Bible

How then could these important verses in chapter 11 of Pauls letter to the Romans beexpressed? Following is our draft of verses 11:25-32 for the New Matthew Bible.12 Besideis the paraphrase of the Living Bible. See what the Living Bible, whose authors put a

carnal interpretation on Israel, did with houto(s) at verse 26:

New Matthew Bible, October 2012 draft The Living Bible 1971

25I would not want this secret to be hid fromyou my brethren (lest you should be wise inyour own opinions), that blindness haspartly happened in Israel until the fullnessof the Gentiles has come in, 26and in thisway all Israel* will be saved.

As it is written: There will come out of

Zion he who delivers, and who will turnaway ungodliness from Jacob; 27and: Thisis my covenant to them, when I take awaytheir sins. 28Concerning the gospel they areenemies for your sakes; but as for thechosen ones, these are loved for thefathers sakes. 29For indeed the gifts andcalling of God are such that he cannotchange his mind about them.

30For look, just as you in time past didnot believe God and yet have now obtainedmercy through their unbelief, 31in the same

way now they have not believed the mercythat has come to you, so that they also mayobtain mercy. 32God has wrapped allnations in unbelief in order that he mayhave mercy on all.

25I want you to know about this truth fromGod, dear brothers, so that you will not feelproud and start bragging. Yes, it is true thatsome of the Jews have set themselvesagainst the gospel now, but this will lastonly until all of you Gentiles have come toChrist those of you who will. 26And thenall Israel will be saved.

Do you remember what the prophets saidabout this? There shall come out of Zion aDeliverer, and he shall turn the Jews fromall ungodliness. 27At that time I will takeaway their sins, just as I promised.

28Now many of the Jews are enemies of thegospel. They hate it. But this has been abenefit to you, for it has resulted in Godsgiving his gifts to you Gentiles. Yet theJews are still beloved of God because ofhis promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.29For Gods gifts and his call can never bewithdrawn; he will never go back on hispromises. 30Once you were rebels againstGod, but when the Jews refused his giftsGod was merciful to you in stead. 31Andnow the Jews are the rebels, but some daythey, too, will share in Gods mercy uponyou. 32For God has given them all up to sinso that he could have mercy upon all alike.

In the Living Bible the adverb thendenotes a time whenall Israel is going to be saved,which is not in accordance with the Greek. It might be possible to construe then

12More information about the New Matthew Bible, our work to update the precious 1549 Matthew

Bible, is at www.newmatthewbible.org The Matthew Bible, which formed the basis of the KingJames Bible, was the work of three men: William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, and John Rogers.Tyndale and Rogers gave their lives for this work: both were burned at the stake by religiousauthorities.


10/24

10

consequently here, in the sense and then all Israel will have been saved, which is trueenough. But verse 31 in the Living Bible shows that this was not the revisers intent.

And thenall Israel will be saved?

In the original Greek, in verses 11:25-32 the word Israeloccurs two times, and Tyndaleduly used it two times. But the Living Bible only puts Israel once, at verse 26, afterchanging it to the Jewsat verse 25. The original actually makes no reference to the Jewsat all, but the Living Bible inserted the Jewsgratuitously four more times; this obviouslyreinforces a carnal understanding of who Israel is. In addition, the original referred toJacobat verse 26, which Tyndale faithfully repeated, but which the Living Bible changedto the Jews. In doing these things the Living Bible translators have killed any opportunityof teaching by typology indeed, the language of the Spirit is laid low. This is no LivingBible; it is, in this sense at least, a Dead Bible.

The Living Bible changes the word of God to reflect a teaching that is popular in manybranches of Christendom, where it is believed that a covenant with ethnic Israel subsists.John F. MacArthur, though seemingly orthodox in other areas, explains:

Scripture indicates that during Daniels seventieth week, national Israel, not thechurch, will be the focus of Gods earthly program. The whole Tribulation period is aprelude to the national redemption spoken of in Romans 11:26, when all Israel willbe saved, as it is written: the Deliverer will come out of Zion, and he will turn awayungodliness from Jacob. The Rapture the removal of the Church signifies thatthe fullness of the Gentiles has come in (v. 25). And the onset of the Tribulationmarks the start of the painful process by which national Israel will be grafted backinto the olive tree. (cf.v.24)

13

This doctrine, or I should say collection of doctrines, has been propagated by translatorswho are not in fact translating, but are changing scripture to reflect their beliefs. Some ofthe most insidious change are at verse 26. Compare the following examples (it deservesto be noted that the New Jerusalem Bible corrected the former corruption):

NEB 1970 Phillips 1972 Moffat 1954

And when that hashappened, the whole ofIsrael will be saved

Once this has happened, allIsrael will be saved

This done, all Israel will besaved

Jerusalem Bible 1968 New Jerusalem 1985 The Message 1994 (?)

And then after this therest of Israel will be saved

as well

And this is how all Israel willbe saved

Before its all over, there willbe a full house.

But if verse 26 is not saying whenall Israel will be saved and it is not, despite whatthese people did with it what is it saying?

13John F. MacArthur, The Second Coming: Signs of Christs Return and the End of the Age

(Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 1999), p 87.


11/24

11

Exposition of Romans 11:25-32

I offer fuller comments for the readers judgment, considering Tyndales translation:

Tyndales version My comments25I would not that this secretshould be hid from you mybrethren (lest ye should bewise in your own conceits)

I agree with the majority that Paul was discouragingethnic pride or prejudice. (Conceits means thoughts oropinions, an obsolete sense of the word.)

that partly blindness ishappened in Israel, until thefullness of the Gentiles become in:

All men are by nature spiritually blind. So how didblindness happen in Israel? These words must bespoken here of ethnic Israel, who had been given Godstruth and word, but apostatized. To receive the light ofthe word and then fall away is worse than to never havereceived it (Mt 12:43-45; Lu 11:24-27; 2Pe 2:20-22).

Ethnic Israel had been delivered from Egypt, but wasunfaithful to the God who delivered her. He led her withcords of friendship (Ho 11:4), but she departed fromhim. He defended her, but she turned away. He sent thepromised Messiah, but she crucified him. All this showsblindness of a different nature than that of people whohave never received such favour or light in the firstplace: it is the blindness of apostasy. Blindness hadtherefore happened in the nation of Israel in a way thatit had not yet happened in other people groups.

26(a)and so all Israel shall be

saved.

Here all Israel, as discussed above, means spiritualIsrael: the company of all saints both Jew and Gentile,

the Jews hid within (Ro 2:29).26(b)-27As it is written: Thereshall come out of Sion he thatdoth deliver, and shall turnaway the ungodliness ofJacob.And this is my covenantunto them, when I shall takeaway their sins.

Here Paul loosely paraphrases the prophecy at Isaiah59:20,21 (given more fully below). I understand him tobe applying it here to ethnic Israel. The Deliverer will turnaway the ungodliness of the elect in apostate Israel.

28(a)As concerning the gospelthey are enemies, for yoursakes:

The Jews enmity to the gospel was for the Romanssakes because it was necessary for Christ to suffer, dieat the hands of sinners, and rise again for their salvation.

28(b)but as touching theelection, they are loved for thefathers' sakes.

As for the chosen Jews, they are loved for the fatherssakes. (Further discussed below)

29For verily the gifts and callingof God are such, that it cannotrepent him of them:

The chosen people were named before the world wasmade (Eph 1:4, etc.). God will not turn from any that heforeknew, Jew or Gentile.


12/24

12

30for look, as ye in time passedhave not believed God, yethave now obtained mercythrough their unbelief,

The Romans previously walked in unbelief, not believingGod. But through the misdeeds of unbelieving Jews,salvation came to them.

31 even so now have they notbelieved the mercy which ishappened unto you, that theyalso may obtain mercy.

The Jews now walk not believing the mercy that hascome to others. But they also may obtain mercy fromtheir unbelief even from apostasy.

32God hath wrapped allnations in unbelief, that hemight have mercy on all.

God desires to show mercy to all, that is, to the elect ofall nations, by saving them from their unbelief.

Verses 26(b) 27: As it is written: There shall come out of Sion he that dothdeliver, and shall turn away the ungodliness of Jacob. And this is my covenantunto them, when I shall take away their sins.

The prophecy paraphrased by Paul is from Isaiah 59:20-21. He loosely gives its sense; itis not a precise quotation. Here are the actual Old Testament verses, with context, fromthe Matthew Bible:

Behold, the Lords hand is not so shortened that it cannot help, neither is his ear sostopped that it may not hear. But your misdeeds have separated you from your God,and your sins hide his face from you, that he hears you not But unto Sion thereshall come a redeemer, and unto them in Jacob that turn from wickedness, saith theLord. I will make this covenant with them (saith the Lord): My spirit is come uponthee, and the words which I have put in thy mouth, shall never go out of thy mouth,nor out the mouth of thy childrens children, from the time forth forevermore.

This promise is for them in Jacob that turn from wickedness. Paul must be applying this

to ethnic Israel because in the next verse he uses they in such a way that she is thelogical antecedent, since her members were the enemies of the gospel.

Verse 28: (a)As concerning the gospel, theyare enemies for your sakes: (b)butas touching the election, theyare loved for the fathers' sakes.

Confusion arises from the repetition of the pronoun theyat 28 (a) and (b). Some say bothpronouns refer to ethnic Israel. However as I read it, only the 1st could do so.

A pronoun must (except in certain special uses) refer to a nounor substantive that it isreplacing. Grammarians call this noun or substantive the antecedent. For exampleMatthew 20:24 reads, And when the tenheard this, theydisdained at the two brethren.Here they refers back to the ten. Therefore the noun phrase the ten is the antecedentfor they. Using a pronoun avoids repeating the noun (And when the tenheard this, thetendisdained at the two brethren). Therefore when we see a pronoun we should ask,what noun or substantive does it replace? What does it refer to? In clear writing, theanswer will be obvious. But sometimes difficulty results from a proliferation ofantecedents14, or from some other factor that obscures the antecedent. This has

14This is often the case in scripture. An example is 1 Cor 15:24-28, requiring careful reading.


13/24

13

happened at verse 28(b), where theyrefers to an antecedent which, due to changes inthe language, is not immediately apparent: the noun election:

28(b): but as touching theelection, theyare loved for the fathers' sakes.

Upon careful analysis, there can be no doubt that theyrefers here to the election, and

the meaning is:

as touching theelection,the electionare loved for the fathers' sakes.

Election translates the Greek noun ekloge, defined by Strong as meaning (divine)selection, abstract or concrete.15 Note the distinction abstract/concrete. It is important. Itis the key to unlock the meaning of verse 28(b). For in an abstract sense, eklogedenotesthe action of choosing. But in a concrete sense it means the chosen specifically, thechosen people of God.16 Now this provides us with a logical antecedent for the 2ndthey.And it is consistent with the English: our noun electionused to take the same concretesense, a sense that the Oxford English Dictionary gives as now obsolete:

Election: Concrete: The body of the elect.17

Verse 28 is not the only occurrence of election in the concrete sense meaning chosenpeople. At Romans 11:7 Paul put the election hath obtained it (= Gods chosen oneshave obtained it).

The difficulty, therefore, lies in that election retains only its abstract sense. It has lost itsconcrete sense. As a result, we understand it only as referring to the actionof choosing.The average reader would not naturally think it referred to a group of people. Thus it hasbecome a faux friendas used in Romans: we think we know what it means, but we dont,because we understand it the abstract sense.

Election: a faux friend

So then, if we construe the electionin the modern sense, it cannot be an antecedent for

they because it cannot mean people. This leaves us with only one, misleadingpossibility: theyat verse 28(b) must be referring to ethnic Israel, the people portrayed asJacob earlier:

Verses 26(b)-28: As it is written: There shall come out of Sion he that doth deliver,and shall turn away the ungodliness of Jacob. And this is my covenant unto them,when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies foryour sakes: but as touching the election, they are loved for the fathers' sakes.

But this ought to confuse anyone. For, how can this be? It cannot be. We cannot do suchviolence to the scriptures as to say the Pharisees, scribes, and elders who plotted andarranged Jesus death, and whom he said were a generation of serpents and vipers whowould not escape the damnation of hell (Matthew 23:33), but would in fact receive the

15Strongs # 1589 in the Greek concordance.

16Tyndale also translated eklogewith the more familiar, though still highly specialized, term elect,

which can mean either (1) chosen, or (2) of the chosen people as at 1 Thessalonians 1:4: weknow brethren beloved of God, how that ye are elect. My 1936 OED shows the 2nd sense asobsolete, but my impression is that good bible students understand it.17

The OED shows the last written use of electionin the concrete sense as occurring in the 1611King James Bible.


14/24

14

greater damnation (Mt 23:14), and whom he identified as the children of hell (Mt 23:15)and sons of the devil (John 8:44), were loved for the fathers sakes. Nor may we suggestthat those who repent are enemies of the gospel. We cannot say both of these thingsabout the same people.

The only sensible way to understand verse 28 is that it is referring to two different groupsof people: on one hand, the enemies of the gospel, and on the other, the body of electJews who will turn from their wickedness and are loved for the fathers sakes. They arethe beneficiaries of the covenant of mercy. Here are the verses again with a clearantecedent for the second they:

As it is written: There shall come out of Sion he that doth deliver, and shall turn awaythe ungodliness of Jacob. And this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take awaytheir sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but astouching the chosen ones, they are loved for the fathers' sakes.

This makes sense, and the text now flows.

Given the difficulties and the distorted teaching that have developed around this verse,

which smother its meaning contrary to all good sense, we are justified in supplying newlanguage to bring clarity. We propose for the New Matthew Bible:

Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sakes; but as for the chosen ones,these are loved for the fathers' sakes.

Verse 28 in modern versions

It seems that later revisers construed our faux friendincorrectly.18 But even if they say theGreek was intended in an abstract sense, they may have a problem: the Greek includedthe definite article the, which they have dropped. Compare:

Tyndale and the KJV RSV 1971 NIV 1973

As concerning the gospel,they are enemies for yoursakes: but as touching theelection, they are loved(KJV beloved) for thefathers' sakes.

As regards the gospel theyare enemies of God, foryour sake; but as regardselection they are belovedfor the sake of theirforefathers.

As far as the gospel isconcerned, they areenemies on your account;but as far as election isconcerned, they are lovedon account of the patriarchs.

Providing the definite article in this context at least allowed the reader to understandelection as a concrete noun, which is not possible without it. Admittedly, the use ofarticles is governed by rules that are unique to each language. Therefore it is notnecessarily correct to translate an article exactly as it appears in the source language; in

18I realize that this comment implies the translators worked from an English bible. After years of

comparing bible versions this often seems the case: bible revisers looked more to, say, the KJV,commentaries, popular doctrine, and maybe Strongs brief definitions, than to the Greek, toproduce their paraphrases. For example, they copied English bibles, not the Greek, when theytranslated martys by martyr (See http://www.newmatthewbible.org/martyr.html ) My few studieshere also show how they turned away from the Greek. Has blindness happened in Israel?


15/24

15

fact, it might be a mistake. However here Tyndale did so, and it was not a mistake. In fact,it was crucial to a right understanding. How significant even one little article can be.

How have modern commentators attempted to explain what election means here? JohnMacArthur again, from his study bible (my edition is actually based on the NKJV which

said the election, but he construes it abstractly):From the perspective of Gods eternal choice, Israel will always be his covenantpeople.

The context shows that MacArthur is has in mind ethnic Israel, not spiritual Israel. He issaying that God will always distinguish Jew from Gentile: it is an eternal choice. But isthat what Paul keeps saying in the book of Romans? That there is no difference Jew orGentile and the Jews will always be his covenant people? God is not partial and he haschosen ethnic Jews?? This is blatant contradiction. No, the interpretation given by PastorMacArthur arises from misunderstanding the typological language of the scriptures. It is,in fact, exactly the error that Paul labours so greatly to warn us against. It is a carnalinterpretation of Old Testament prophecies. For the real Jew, the real beneficiary of Godseternal choice, is not the ethnic Jew, but is the Jew hid within (Ro 2:28,29).

The fact is that modern teaching has so obscured the real meaning of the scriptures thatwe are robbed of a right understanding. Biblical truth is suppressed. And see how theZondervan NIV commentary perpetuates the error:

Even though the condition of the Israelites is presently considered by God as thosewho are enemies for the sake of the Gentiles, yet all the time, when viewed from thestandpoint of their national election, they are loved by God for the sake of thefathers.

19

Among other problems, these commentators fail to put the needed difference between theenemies of the gospel in Israel and Gods elect, lumping them all in the same group that issupposedly loved for the fathers sakes. But Isaiah makes clear how God considers hisenemies; they are not, as we are told in the Zondervan commentary, all the time, whenviewed from the standpoint of their national electionloved. Can such sentiment betaken from these words of Isaiah?

Come hither therefore ye charmers children, ye sons of the adulterer and the whore:wherein take ye your pleasure? Upon whom gape ye with your mouth, and blear outyour tongue? Are ye not children of adultery, and a seed of dissimulation? Ye takeyour pleasure under the oaks, and under all green trees, the child being slain in thevalleys and dens of stone. Thy part shall be with the stony rocks by the river: yea,even these shall be thy part (Isa 57:3-6,spelling updated).

However, Isaiah distinguishes the elect remnant:

Nevertheless, they that put their trust in me, shall inherit the land, and have my holyhill in possession (Isa 57:13).

The distinction here is between the reprobate and the elect. And this is how we shoulddivide all men, Jew or Gentile. Therefore reprobate Jews are not loved for the fatherssakes, but only those whose ungodliness is turned away.

19Kenneth L. Barker and John R. Kohlenberger III, Consulting Editors, Zondervan NIV Bible

Commentary, Volume 2: New Testament (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan,1994), p.581.


16/24

16

Other modern versions corrupt v. 28, though the New Jerusalemagain makes correction:

NEB 1970 Phillips 1972 Moffat 1954

In the spreading of thegospel, they are treatedas Gods enemies foryour sake; but Godschoice stands, and theyare his friends for thesake of the patriarchs.

As far as the gospel goes,they are at present Godsenemies which is to youradvantage. But as far asGods purpose in choosingis concerned, they are stillbeloved for their fatherssakes.

So far as the gospel goes,they are enemies of God which is to your advantage;but so far as election goes,they are beloved for theirfathers sake.

Jerusalem Bible 1968 New Jerusalem 1985 The Message 1994

The Jews are enemies of

God only with regard tothe Good News, andenemies only for yoursake; but as the chosenpeople, they are stillloved by God, loved forthe sake of theirancestors.

As regards the gospel, they

are enemies, but for yoursake; but as regards thosewho are Gods choice, theyare still well loved for thesake of their ancestors.

From your point of view as

you hear and embrace thegood news of the Message, itlooks like the Jews are Godsenemies. But looked at fromthe long-range perspectiveof Gods overall purpose,they remain Gods oldestfriends.

Rightly dividing the world of men

Phillips and Moffat, in their versions, changed verse 28 to speak of the Jews enmity to the

gospel as an advantage to the Romans rather than as being for their sakes as Tyndaleand the KJV had it. Now what do they mean? They mean that because the Israelitesrejected the gospel, God has turned from them to the Gentiles. This is considered anadvantage for the Gentiles. But, they say, God will later return to show special favour tothe Jews in distinction from the Gentiles.

But Paul considered that he had proven from the scriptures that the Jews and Gentileswere alike (3:10). God does not favour one race over another, but, as Paul endeavours toexplain in his letter to the Romans, favours the chosen people over the reprobate. If this isso, how can commentators, even those who profess to accept the doctrine of election, notperceive the distinction the bible makes between the elect and the non-elect, but persistrather in dividing the world into Jews and Gentiles? Paul said:

Now is there no Jew neither Gentile: there is neither bond nor free: there is neitherman nor woman: but ye are all one thing in Christ Jesus. If ye be Christ's, then are yeAbraham's seed, and heirs by promise (Galatians 3:28,29).

Gods promise of mercy is to the seed of the covenant in all nations, to all races and alltongues without distinction:

From the very beginning of Gods prophetic revelation he made it clear that greatthings were going to happen for the benefit of the whole human race. It may well bethat many perhaps even most of the people of Israel tended to forget this. It may


17/24

17

also be that they concocted their own ideas of just how this great future would comeabout. It seems clear from the New Testament that the very Apostles themselves stillclung, to a great extent, to wrong ideas about the future. Even after Jesus had risenfrom the dead, and had commanded them to go into all the world to make disciples ofall the nations, they still asked, Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to

Israel? (Acts 1:6). This sounds very much as if they were still thinking that fulfillmentof Gods promise to Abraham had to be a kind of triumphant political supremacy forthe Jewish nation Yet we know from the parables of our Lord that this sort of thingwas a mistaken expectation. Did our Lord not say, himself, my Kingdom is not of thisworld? (John 18:36).

20

The fact is that modern interpretations of prophecy heralding a future salvation of ethnicIsrael startlingly echo the same carnal error that was widespread in Jesus time. Peoplethen looked for the Messiah to come to ethnic Israel in a worldly fulfilment of prophecy.And now, twenty centuries later, people are still looking for salvation for ethnic Israel.

Whats more, the events occasioned by the Jews enmity to the gospel the suffering anddeath of the lamb of God at Calvary were and are far more and far greater than anadvantage to non-Jews. Whoever says this is teaching a racially-based and distorted

gospel. The truth is that the Jews enmity to the gospel brought salvation, not advantage,and brought it for all people and races and nations, without partiality.

So then, the real and everlasting division the scriptures put between people is spiritual. Itis between the repentant and the unrepentant, the righteous sinner and the unrighteoussinner, the elect and the reprobate. It is not between Jew or Gentile, man or woman, slaveor free. In the Old Testament this teaching was heavily typological,21 but the mystery hasbeen unveiled and made clear by revelation from the apostles as recorded in the NewTestament, and in the straightforward explanations given therein. Paul explained to theCorinthians: For in one spirit we are all baptised to make one body, whether we be Jewsor Gentiles (I Co 12:12).

The enmity of IsraelA word on the enmity of Israel in Pauls day, which must be rightly understood or we againrun the risk of putting a false distinction between the Jews and us, as if there is aparticular enmity to the gospel that is Jewish by nature.

The generation of Jews that Jesus came to preach to in about 30 AD had an ingrained,long-enduring hostility, or enmity, to Gods word and truth which had grown, or increased,until their cup of apostasy was full. To that generation came the Messiah, with a full cup ofmercy. The law been given and sin had increased, but in the face of the same there wouldbe more generosity of grace, by the death of the Lamb. Paul explained:

20Williamson, Eschatology, p 14.

21This topic is worthy of greater exploration. Consider the distinction the Lord put between the

Levites and Israel: how many times did he say the inheritance of the Levites was the Lord, andtheir inheritance was not with Israel? This tells us the covenant with Israel was not everlasting oneand that Israels inheritance was not with the Lord. What could be a clearer type of the remnant ofthe elect in Israel? The Levites, who were few in number, stand evidently as types of the chosenones who know the Lord among the majority who dont. They received no land allotment, whichsignifies an inheritance that is not of this world.


18/24

18

the lawentered in, that sin should increase. Neverthelater where abundance of sinwas, there was more plenteousness [generosity] of grace. That as sin had reignedunto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life, by thehelp of Jesus Christ (Ro 5:20-21).

Thus the enmity of that generation in Israel was what we might call a realizedenmity, theenmity of apostates. It had developed over the centuries that the Jews had the law. Itshould be distinguished from the potentialenmity that is natural to us all. Tyndale explainsin part how people who turn from truth they have received wax worse and worse (a thingalso true for nations as a whole):

Hereto pertaineth the parable of the talents (Matt. 25). The Lord commandeth thetalent to be taken away from the evil and slothful servant and to bind him hand andfoot and to cast him into utter darkness, and to give the talent unto him that had ten,saying: to all that have, more shall be given. But from him that hath not, that he hathshall be taken from him. That is to say, he that hath a good heart toward the word ofGod, and a set purpose to fashion his deeds thereafter and to garnish it with godlyliving and to testify it to other, the same shall increase more and more daily in thegrace of Christ. But he that loveth it not, to live thereafter and to edify other, the same

shall lose the grace of true knowledge and be blinded again and every day wax worseand worse and blinder and blinder, till he be an utter enemy of the word of God, andhis heart so hardened, that it shall be impossible to convert him.

22

The enmity that was in ethnic Israel when Paul was writing was therefore a full measure,for this was the generation that crucified Messiah. But it was not a uniquely Jewishmeasure of enmity, or apostasy. These things happened to them by way of example, sothat from them we could learn about ourselves; and so that we may be warned, as Paultold the Corinthians (1Cor 10:11). We have no less potential for such evil (Ro 3). Indeed, itis now the Gentiles turn to fill full their own cup of apostasy. For we have been given thegospel of mercy and the last word of God, and we turn from it, and our sin increases.

Thus we see in ethnic Israel the example of what the course of Gods word will be among

the Gentiles and in all the world. Israels story stands to the end of the age as a warning tothose who turn away from, and teach falsely, and even persecute, the truth that they havebeen given. Indeed, seeing we have now not only what the Jews had together with theirexample, but also a fuller revelation in the New Testament and the covenant of gracepoured out and expounded, and Jesus crucified for all to see, are we not all the moreevidently unbelievers and apostates when we turn away?

What about the promises to Israel in the Old Testament?

First, a commentary on the Hebrew that is contained in the Matthew Bible is important tobear in mind when considering forever promises to Israel. Note (b) to Genesis 13:15explains that forever in the Hebrew language may mean not only a time without end, but,also, a long season without his end appointed. Thus the word needs to be understood

according to context and application. It may in some cases denote simply a long time inthe future, with no end in sight. This explanation clears up many apparent contradictionsbetween the promises to ethnic Israel and what eventually befell her, and it enablespromises to Israel and others to be understood as either everlasting or of long duration, asthe context or application may require.

22Tyndales notice to readers in his 1534 New Testament, Daniells edition, pp 5,6.


19/24

19

In the Old Testament we see time and again prophecies of destruction for Israel followedby promises of mercy to Israel. But these are complicated by interspersions of threats,promises, and prophecies for others: Jacob, Judah, Zion, Jerusalem, etc., or for virginIsrael, the house of Israel, the remnant of Joseph, the children of Isaac, the mother,and others. There are also prophecies regarding Edom, Moab, Esau, etc. Perhaps this

plethora illustrates how references may be typological, or may be variously fulfilled orapplied. Consider these verses randomly selected from Amos:

Thus saith the Lord: for three and four wickednesses of Judah I will not spare him Hear and bear record in the house of Jacob The virgin Israel shall fall and neverrise up again Then said the Lord: Behold, I will lay the trowel among my peopleIsrael, and will no more oversee them; but the high chapels of Isaac must be laidwaste, and the churches of Israel be made desolate The Lord hath sworn againstthe pride of Jacob; these works of theirs will I never forget (Am 2:4; 3:13; 5:2;7:8,9; 8:7;) Hate the evil and love the good, set up right again in the port, and nodoubt the Lord God of hosts shall be merciful unto the remnant of Joseph Nevertheless I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob I will build again thetabernacle of David and they may possess the remnant of Edom, yea, and all

such people as call upon my name with them, saith the Lord which does these things(5:14,5; 9:8,11,12).

How do we explain the dual prophecies of destruction and of mercy for Israel, which areso frequent and often seem contradictory? God cannot contradict himself. There must bea way to explain them that is consistent with his veracity. There are two possibleapproaches we can take to these scriptures:

(1) Assume that they are given immediately to ethnic Israel. Therefore they must bedestined to be fulfilled at different times in that same group, and the promises of mercywill be fulfilled last of all.

(2) Assume that they are given both immediately and/or typologically. The Old Testamentscriptures thus mix immediate and typological references just like Paul did in his New

Testament epistles. Some prophecies and promises will indeed be fulfilled in ethnic Israel,but also in other peoples. There may be other natural or spiritual applications. Promises ofmercy have fulfillment in every age in a spiritual people from all nations.

The first option, though widely believed, must be rejected for the simple reason thatbiblical prophesies of the destruction of Israeldo not permit it. They are too final andabsolute. All the people will certainly not be destroyed, because promises subsist for aremnant, as in other nations. But Israelas a kingdom nation, as a preferred people group,will be cut off. A small selection of prophecies that I randomly chose from Hosea (literallythe first page I opened my bible to) shows this surprisingly well. First, it shows the finalityof prophecies of destruction. Yet they are straightaway followed by a promise of mercythat could not rationally be understood to be for the same people:

Destruction (Hosea 1:4-5), prophecy given on the birth of a son: Call his nameJezreel, for I will shortly avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and willbring the kingdom of the house of Israel to an end. Then will I break the bow of Israelin the valley of Jezreel.

Destruction (1:6), prophecy given on the birth of a daughter: Call her name Lo-Ruhamah (that is) not obtaining mercy, for I will have no pity upon the house ofIsrael, but forget them and put them clean out of remembrance.


20/24

20

Mercy (1:7): Yet I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and will save them eventhrough the Lord their God. But I will not deliver them through any bow, sword, battle,horses, or horsemen.

The prophecies are that the kingdom of the house of Israel will be brought to an end.Need I say that an end is not an interim thing, but a final thing? Further, to put them cleanout of remembrance absolutely precludes national remembrance at some future time asReverend Henry said (above, page 3).

It appears therefore that prophecies of destruction given immediately to ethnic Israel werefulfilled when Jerusalem was demolished, thousands of Jews lost their lives, and theremnant were dispersed in 70 AD. This event horribly and unmistakably marked the endof Old Covenant the promise of the worldly kingdom for the nation of the Jews. Indeed,twenty centuries later their temple still lies waste underneath an Islamic holy site.23

But if not ethnic Israel, who then is the Judah who receives the promise of mercy atHosea 1:7? Perhaps the shift to Judah from Israel is to alert us to a shift to typologicalreference. In any case, this could not be a reference to ethnic Judah, whose loss offavour and casting away is foretold elsewhere (eg Amos 2:4,5). Note that the deliverance,or salvation, of the Judah of Hosea 1:7 is not by bow, sword, or battle; in other words, itis not of this world. It is different than the Old Covenant with ethnic Israel, which promisedconquest by bow and battle which covenant has now been put to an end, and the bowof Israel broken as promised. This promise to Judah thus takes a spiritual fulfilment, andis of course the covenant of a spiritual kingdom to be given to spiritual Judah.

Some promises to Israel refer to the latter days (eg, Hosea 3:5). This has beeninterpreted by some as meaning later in this age. But the latter days are here and now,since Pentecost; we are now in the time the scriptures call the ends of the ages (1 Cor10:11). It would not surprise me if more Jews have been saved since Pentecost than everwere under the Old Covenant, so that in this way promises to Israelites regarding thelatter days are being fulfilled in the remnant. How many were among the 3,000 who were

saved in one day alone, pricked to the heart when Peter preached of the crucifiedMessiah (Acts 2)? So great, therefore, is the Lords mercy to Jacob!

I note that Paul also discusses Hoseas prophecy of mercy at 2:23 typologically atRomans 9:23-26. He explains that this promise is for chosen vessels of mercy from theJews and the Gentiles that is, it is spiritually fulfilled and then he goes on to lament thefate of most in ethnic Israel. I refer the reader to the 9 th chapter of Romans. (The NewMatthew Bible draft is available at http://www.newmatthewbible.org/Romans.pdf )

The everlasting covenant

The Abrahamic Covenant is the covenant that makes one people of many, and is theeverlasting covenant of mercy. God promised Abraham that he would be the father to a

people of faith from all nations. Paul explains this at Romans chapter 4:

23Perhaps Daniel 9:27 (quite a different prophecy in the Matthew Bible) confirms that this wasting

will endure till the end of days, thus denying any carnal hope for a rebuilding of the temple: And inthe temple there shall be an abominable desolation, until it have destroyed all. And it is concluded,that this wasting shall continue unto the end (Daniel 9:27).


21/24

21

13For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not given to Abraham or

to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness which comes by faith.14

For if those who are of the law are the heirs, then faith is but vain and the promiseof no effect,

15because the law causes wrath. But where there is no law, there is no

transgression.16

Therefore it is by faith that the inheritance is given, so that it can

come by favour and so the promise can be sure to all the seed

not only to thosewho are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is thefather of us all.

17As it is written: I have made you a father to many nations, before

God whom you have believed who gives life to the dead, and calls those thingswhich are not as if they were (Ro 4:13-17, New Matthew Bible).

Gods workings have always been with all nations, though Israel for a while had preferredpossession of the word and means of grace. G.I. Williamson notes the followingundeniable facts as proving that the covenant with the elect was never based on merefleshly descent:

(1) When Abraham was given circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant itwas also given to several hundred men (Gen. 14:14) in his household none of thembeing descendants of Abraham according to the flesh except for one, Ishmael,

who turned out to be an unbeliever (Gen. 17:23).

(2) Throughout Old Testament history there were some Gentiles who wereassimilated into the Jewish nation, in other words they became Jews (think of Rahab,Ruth, and the Rechabites (also note Ex. 12:43-49).

(3) Old Testament history also shows that significant numbers of those who wereborn Jews (even ten of the twelve tribes) were cut out of the covenant nation (2 Chr.11:13-17, 2 Kings 17:6).

From the beginning having Abrahamic blood in ones veins was not required for fullmembership with the covenant people [see Ex. 12:43-49], nor was it a guarantee ofcontinuance in it.

24

If there is no partiality with God, how do we explain his choice of Israel?

Paul explains that Gods work with Israel was (among other things) to teach us byexample. He speaks of these things in the past, with no hint of future restoration:

Brethren, I would not want you to be ignorant of this: that our fathers were all under acloud, and all passed through the sea,

2and were all baptized under Moses in the

cloud and in the sea,3and did all eat of one spiritual food,

4and did all drink of one

manner of spiritual drink. And they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them,which rock was Christ.

5But in many of them, God had no delight. For they were

overthrown in the wilderness.

6These are examples for us, so that we would not set our desires on evil things

like they did11

All these things happened upon them for examples, and were writtento put us in remembrance we whom the ends of the world have come upon. (1Cor

10:1-5,6,11, New Matthew Bible, emphasis added)

One of the lessons we can take from the example of Israel is about apostasy. For we toodrink of one spiritual food and drink, and of that rock that follows us, which rock is Christ.But we too are at risk of setting our hearts on evil things.

24Williamson, Eschatology, pp 9,10.


22/24

22

Other lessons we may take from Gods choice of ethnic Israel include what the people ofspiritual Israel may look like: few, weak, and little regarded in the world (Deut 7:7; 1 Cor1:26-29); and also how great the kingdom of what William Wilberforce called culturalChristianity would become (Mt 13:31,32). Indeed, many, and varied, and deep, are thelessons to be had from the choice and example of Israel and Gods working with her.

Tyndales teaching

What is notable in Tyndales discussion of Romans 11, in his prologue to that book, is theabsence of any reference to a final hour of salvation for ethnic Israel. He simply considersthis chapter to be teaching of predestination, together with the two preceding chapters:

In the 9th

, 10th

, and 11th

chapters [Paul] treateth of Gods predestination, whence itcometh altogether whether we will believe or not believe, be released from sin or notbe released. By such predestination our justifying and salvation are clean taken outof our hands, and put in the hands of God only, which thing is most necessary of all.

25

Therefore we need to study Romans to learn about election, and that the beneficiaries ofgrace, Jew or Gentile, owe their salvation utterly to God. We do not to try to glean from

what Paul wrote that there remains a distinction between Jew and Gentile, but quite thereverse. Salvation and the favour of God depend not on kindred or race, but upon Godschoice and predestination. Tyndale acknowledges this is a hard teaching, and encouragesus to be patient as we grow in Christ, until we come to better understand it:

For every learning hath her time, measure, and age, and in Christ there is a certainchildhood, in which a man must be content with milk for a season, until he wax strongand grow up unto a perfect man in Christ, and be able to eat of more strong meat.

26

On the relation between ethnic Israel and the Abrahamic covenant, Tyndale expoundsPauls teaching:

Gods mercy in promising and truth in fulfilling his promises saveth us, and not weourselves. And therefore all laud, praise and glory is to be given to Godand not to

us for our merits and deservings. After that, Paul extends and relates his example toall other good works of the law, and concludeth that the Jews cannot be Abrahamsheirs because of blood and kindred only, and much less by the works of the law, butmust inherit Abrahams faith, if they will be the right heirs of Abraham

27

It is faith, then, that earns the favour of God, not race or ethnicity; and faith is, of course,the gift of God. And those who are of faith, regardless of race or kindred, tongue ornationality, partake of the promises of the Abrahamic covenant and are his true children.

Conclusion: When the fullness of the Gentiles has come in

When the fullness of the Gentiles has come into the kingdom, great things will be at hand Christs return, the general resurrection, Judgment Day, the eternal kingdom. But no

man knows when these things will be (Acts 1:7, Mt 24:36ff, I Tim 5:1). In the meantimethere is no unique plan for any race or nation, for there is no partiality with God:

25Tyndales New Testament, Daniell, Prologue to the Romans, p. 221.

26Ibid.

27Ibid, p. 216. Somewhat updated.


23/24

23

unto them that are rebellious and disobey the truth, yet follow iniquity, shall comeindignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon the soul of every man that dothevil: of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile. To every man that doth good, shall comepraise, honour, and peace, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile. For there is nopartiality with God. (Romans 2:8-11)

No partiality with God, no difference Jew or Gentile (Ro 2:11, 3:22, 10:12). For he is not aJew who is a Jew outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh, but heis a Jew who is hid within (2:28,29). And: Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not alsothe God of the Gentiles? Yes, even of the Gentiles also (3:29). And not all who descendfrom Israel are Israel, nor are they all children just because they are the seed of Abraham,but in Isaac the seed are called (9:6,7). Again, the children of the flesh are not the childrenof God, but the children of promise are counted the seed (9:8). Behold, to the GalatiansPaul wrote, Now there is no Jew neither Gentilebut ye are all one thing in Christ Jesus.If ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs by promise. (Galatians 3:28-29).

And so if my understanding is correct, the coming in of the fullness of the Gentiles willmark not the beginning of salvation for ethnic Israel, but the opposite: the end of the Jews

or of any persons coming into the kingdom of the Lord, because all Israel will have beensaved.

But though ethnic Israelites are no longer Gods special people, yet upon the Mount Zion,a remnant shall escape; these shall be holy (Obadiah 17). These, together with aremnant of holy ones from other nations, are being gathered from all corners of the earth,and brought into the promised land of the New Covenant through faith in the Lord whobought them by his holy blood. These are heirs of the kingdom that is not of this world,and are the true Israelites: inhabiters of the heavenly Jerusalem that will never bedestroyed.

~~~

SCRIPTURES to ponder, from the Matthew Bible, 1549

Malachi 3:18, on the right difference to put between men:

Turn you therefore, and consider what difference is betwixt the righteous and ungodly:betwixt him that serveth God, and him that serveth him not.

Malachi 2:3-5, to the priests of Israel, and of the separate covenant with Levi tobe understood in the typological language of the Holy Spirit:

I shall corrupt your seed, and cast dung in your faces: even the dung of your solemnfeasts, and it shall cleave fast upon you. And ye shall know that I have sent thiscommandment to you: that my covenant which I made with Levi might stand, saith the

Lord of hosts. I made a covenant of life and peace with him: this I gave him, that he mightstand in awe of me: and so he did fear me, and had my name in reverence.

Deuteronomy 10:8,9 , on the typological covenant with Levi:

And the same season the Lord separated the tribe of Levi to bear the ark of theappointment of the Lord and to stand before the Lord, and to minister unto him and to


24/24

bless in his name unto this day. Wherefore the Levites have no part nor inheritance withtheir brethren. The Lord, he is their inheritance, as the Lord thy God hath promised them.

Deuteronomy 18:1,2: It is repeated here that tiny tribe of Levi has the Lord for itsinheritance. Its inheritance is not with Israel:

The priests the Levites, all the tribe of Levi shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel.The offerings of the Lord and his inheritance they shall eat, but shall have no inheritanceamong their brethren: the Lord, he is their inheritance, as he has said unto them.

To reinforce this image for us, the tribe of Levi received no land when Israelwent out to conquer with might and bow, for theirs is not a worldly inheritancewith Israel that walks carnally:

Joshua 13:14: Only unto the tribe of Levi he gave none inheritance, for the offering of theLord God of Israel is their inheritance, as he said unto them.

The Levites were separated out: a type of believers in greater Christendom

that is, a type of spiritual Israel within the greater body?:

Numbers 8:14: And thou shalt separate the Levites from among the children of Israel, thatthey be mine.

R Magnusson Davis, www.newmatthewbible.org

First posted September 2011. Minimally revised, and updated with revised draftscriptures, October 2012. Minor revisions again, December 2012.

Documents

And So All Israel Will Be Saved