Is Paul Arguing for Universal Salvation?

[the rookie]

I just went back and re-read his post 96. He lists a few scriptures, then he explains what he believes Paul is trying to get across. He lists a few more scriptures, and he explains what Paul in saying in the next set, and so forth. To me, that is exegeting the scriptures. List them, and share what you think the author is saying, and the points the author is trying to get across. He addresses the scriptures similarly to how a Matthew Henry or Adam Clarke commentary would approach the scriptures, to discuss them and expound upon them. To this point in this thread, he's the only one I've seen break out every part of Romans 11 and specifically address each section.

Commentary and exegesis are two completely different things. Often, commentary can follow exegesis. Here (on this forum), it is more common for commentary to follow concept. In regards to the above post, there is a little bit of inductive thinking, lots of conceptual thinking, and commentary attached to it that at times states the exact opposite of what Paul is saying because of certain concepts that inform their viewpoint. As I said, the earlier post on Genesis tipped me off that the poster can at times view scripture deductively, mostly thinking conceptually.

[Firefighter]

Hmmm...this seems borderline mocking in tone - can't imagine that it would be though...

Perish the thought! Can you really imagine any scenario or even parallel universe that would make that possible!?!?!

(Glad you took it as it was intended )

[RogerW]

I tend to not like it when other guys do this, but every once in a while doesn't hurt

I just appreciate the notes in the ESV Study Bible - written by a bunch of (mostly) Reformed theologians (like Piper and Packer). The Romans notes were written by a Southern Baptist Theological Seminary PHD named Thomas Schreiner. Here's his take on Romans 11:26 -

"Various interpreters have claimed that Paul is speaking of: (1) the salvation of the church of Jesus Christ, both Jews and Gentiles, throughout history; or (2) the saving of a remnant of Jews throughout history; or (3) the salvation of the end-time generation of Jewish people in the future. The first view is unlikely since throughout chs. 9-11 Israel and Gentiles are distinct ethnic entities. Furthermore, in 11:25 Israel refers to ethnic Israel, and it is difficult to see how the referent could suddenly change in v. 26. Finally, v. 28 indicates that ethnic Israel is still distinguished from Gentiles, for "they" in v. 28 clearly refers to ethnic Israel." (emphasis mine)

He goes on to say:

"'All Israel' does not necessarily refer to every single Jewish person but to a very large number, at least the majority of Jews. The Deliverer coming from Zion probably refers to Christ (cf. 1 Thess. 1:10), suggesting that the Jews will be saved near or at the Second Coming."

No one is talking about "national salvation"; just salvation by faith through grace on a large scale amongst many individuals at once. If we agree that the concept itself is not objectionable and lines up with the rest of scripture than it is a matter of what the passage itself is or isn't communicating. And I think that Schreiner is correct - the referent of v. 25 can't instantly change (grammatically or contextually) in the very next verse. That isn't logical or comprehensible to the reader, IMO.

Greetings Rookie,

In vs 25 Paul says that blindness in part has happened to "Israel", until the fulness of the Gentiles come in. Then he says this is the way/manner in which "all Israel" will be saved. But then Paul makes a very subtle change that is often overlooked, even by Schreiner.

Throughout Paul has been speaking of "Israel", but then in vs 26 Paul says the Deliverer will come out of Sion and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. Throughout Paul has said "Israel", so why doesn't Paul simply say the Deliever shall turn away ungodliness from Israel? Why "Jacob" if he is speaking of a large scale individual salvation among the nation?

We have to go all the way back to chapter 9 to understand why the sudden change from Israel to Jacob. There we find Paul speaking of two different Israelites. The one Israel is Paul's kinsmen according to the flesh. The other are not children of the flesh, but according to promise counted for the Seed (Christ). The word of promise is that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

Fast track back to chapter 11..."the Deliverer shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob"...or from those Israelites/Gentiles according to the promise, counted for the Seed. Abraham's son's by faith not nationality. When the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, this is how all Israel will be saved...the Deliverer will come out of Sion and turn away ungodliness from Jacob, the true Israel, the Israel of God (Ga 6:16), both Jew and Gentile, not according to flesh but according to the promise...i.e. by the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.

[the rookie]

I appreciate the post, but I disagree. Paul isn't making a "subtle change", he's quoting the prophet Isaiah.

[episkopos]

Greetings Rookie,

In vs 25 Paul says that blindness in part has happened to "Israel", until the fulness of the Gentiles come in. Then he says this is the way/manner in which "all Israel" will be saved. But then Paul makes a very subtle change that is often overlooked, even by Schreiner.

Throughout Paul has been speaking of "Israel", but then in vs 26 Paul says the Deliverer will come out of Sion and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. Throughout Paul has said "Israel", so why doesn't Paul simply say the Deliever shall turn away ungodliness from Israel? Why "Jacob" if he is speaking of a large scale individual salvation among the nation?

We have to go all the way back to chapter 9 to understand why the sudden change from Israel to Jacob. There we find Paul speaking of two different Israelites. The one Israel is Paul's kinsmen according to the flesh. The other are not children of the flesh, but according to promise counted for the Seed (Christ). The word of promise is that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

Fast track back to chapter 11..."the Deliverer shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob"...or from those Israelites/Gentiles according to the promise, counted for the Seed. Abraham's son's by faith not nationality. When the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, this is how all Israel will be saved...the Deliverer will come out of Sion and turn away ungodliness from Jacob, the true Israel, the Israel of God (Ga 6:16), both Jew and Gentile, not according to flesh but according to the promise...i.e. by the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Amen on that count!

[BroRog]

I appreciate the post, but I disagree. Paul isn't making a "subtle change", he's quoting the prophet Isaiah.

Agreed. Paul uses the term "Jacob" because Isaiah uses it.

[RogerW]

I appreciate the post, but I disagree. Paul isn't making a "subtle change", he's quoting the prophet Isaiah.

Agreed. Paul uses the term "Jacob" because Isaiah uses it.

It's a subtle change to the reader, not to Paul. Yes, he is quoting Isaiah! So what does Isaiah mean when he says, "And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD"...??? Is 59:20 It becomes abundantly clear in the verse following:

Isa*59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

We see then the Covenant of Redemption is not unto every son/tribe of the nation of Israel, but unto Jacob through the Seed (Christ). Not the physical seed (as many), but those of the Spiritual Seed (Christ). So "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth". The Deliverer will turn away ungodliness from Jacob, for His covenant is unto them, and He shall take away their sins. Not an ethnic people, but all the people of God, both Jew and Gentile.

[the rookie]

That's what it means to you, but it's not what it meant to Isaiah when he prophesied it - and it's not what Paul meant when he quoted it. Paul was applying a New Covenant principle (as you are) to a specific time in the future when a large number of individuals would enter into it. He was taking the prophecy of Isaiah (speaking of what would happen) to tell us when it would happen.

The principle of the New Covenant and its universal application to the Jew and the Gentile is true - but that doesn't mean that it is always applicable in every conversation. If I say that "10,000 Ugandans entered into the New Convenant yesterday" you wouldn't feel the need to reply: "God isn't a respecter of persons!" If I said that God told me 5,000 Egyptians will enter into the New Covenant in January of next year, I would hope that you'd celebrate, rather than reply "the New Covenant transcends ethnicity!"

[BroRog]

It's a subtle change to the reader, not to Paul. Yes, he is quoting Isaiah! So what does Isaiah mean when he says, "And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD"...??? Is 59:20 It becomes abundantly clear in the verse following:

Isa*59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

We see then the Covenant of Redemption is not unto every son/tribe of the nation of Israel, but unto Jacob through the Seed (Christ). Not the physical seed (as many), but those of the Spiritual Seed (Christ). So "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth". The Deliverer will turn away ungodliness from Jacob, for His covenant is unto them, and He shall take away their sins. Not an ethnic people, but all the people of God, both Jew and Gentile.

I agree with Rookie, aren't you adding the seed/Christ connection to Isaiah, not finding it there?

[RogerW]

That's what it means to you, but it's not what it meant to Isaiah when he prophesied it - and it's not what Paul meant when he quoted it. Paul was applying a New Covenant principle (as you are) to a specific time in the future when a large number of individuals would enter into it. He was taking the prophecy of Isaiah (speaking of what would happen) to tell us when it would happen.

The principle of the New Covenant and its universal application to the Jew and the Gentile is true - but that doesn't mean that it is always applicable in every conversation. If I say that "10,000 Ugandans entered into the New Convenant yesterday" you wouldn't feel the need to reply: "God isn't a respecter of persons!" If I said that God told me 5,000 Egyptians will enter into the New Covenant in January of next year, I would hope that you'd celebrate, rather than reply "the New Covenant transcends ethnicity!"

I apologize but I find no logic in what you are saying! It is not I, but Isaiah, and Paul by quoting Isaiah who tell us the Redeemer comes from Zion to turn away ungodliness from Jacob, those of his elect Seed (Christ), whether Jew or Gentile.

Isa*60:1 Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee.
Isa*60:2 For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.
Isa*60:3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.

[RogerW]

I agree with Rookie, aren't you adding the seed/Christ connection to Isaiah, not finding it there?

Continue reading Isaiah!

[BroRog]

Continue reading Isaiah!

Okay, let's put it this way. Each time we read the Bible we have interpretive choices to make. Here we have one of them:

1. Jacob = a man and the family line that came from him.
2. Jacob = people from every tribe, nation, and tongue.

Given these two choices, which one did Isaiah wish to communicate to his readers and how would his readers have understood Isaiah? I couldn't honestly say or defend choice number 2. When I read "a redeemer will come to Zion", I think of the mountain in Jerusalem. When I read, "and to those who turn from transgression in Jacob" I hear a parallelism associating a people with a location, and I hear a man and the people who come from that man. I don't hear, "people from every tribe, nation, and tongue."

[RogerW]

Okay, let's put it this way. Each time we read the Bible we have interpretive choices to make. Here we have one of them:

1. Jacob = a man and the family line that came from him.
2. Jacob = people from every tribe, nation, and tongue.

Given these two choices, which one did Isaiah wish to communicate to his readers and how would his readers have understood Isaiah? I couldn't honestly say or defend choice number 2. When I read "a redeemer will come to Zion", I think of the mountain in Jerusalem. When I read, "and to those who turn from transgression in Jacob" I hear a parallelism associating a people with a location, and I hear a man and the people who come from that man. I don't hear, "people from every tribe, nation, and tongue."

What is God here wishing to communicate to His readers? How would the reader understand this? In fact how did Adam and Eve understand this?

Ge*3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Ge*3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

We have "thy seed" and "her seed"...two different seeds representing the whole human race, one nation, or both?

[episkopos]

The use of Jacob as opposed to Israel shows God's original intention. Of course one must get with the mystery.

Abraham means father of nations. There will be a multitude of righteous nations in the next age.

Israel means prevails with God. These will rule as kings and priests over the righteous nations. The Israel of God is a people taken from a multitude of nations to become ONE holy nation. Jacob was told to be fruitful and multiply and become a nation (according to the flesh) And a congregation of (from the) nations....the kehal goyim.

Now the Jews readily admit that there are righteous among the Gentiles and these are the seed of Abraham.

But they will never use the same logic and meaning from the bible to admit that Israel is made up of both Jews AND Gentiles. Apparently even some believers have difficulty with this. So much for denying one's own inheritance among the saints! There is NO holiness OUTSIDE of Israel. There is but ONE holy nation.

[RogerW]

The use of Jacob as opposed to Israel shows God's original intention. Of course one must get with the mystery.

Abraham means father of nations. There will be a multitude of righteous nations in the next age.

Israel means prevails with God. These will rule as kings and priests over the righteous nations. The Israel of God is a people taken from a multitude of nations to become ONE holy nation. Jacob was told to be fruitful and multiply and become a nation (according to the flesh) And a congregation of (from the) nations....the kehal goyim.

Now the Jews readily admit that there are righteous among the Gentiles and these are the seed of Abraham.

But they will never use the same logic and meaning from the bible to admit that Israel is made up of both Jews AND Gentiles. Apparently even some believers have difficulty with this. So much for denying one's own inheritance among the saints! There is NO holiness OUTSIDE of Israel. There is but ONE holy nation.

Exactly! This is a great mystery to many! In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but one people (((Christians))) of God through the Holy Seed (Christ).