In Part 1 of this essay, I examined three possible interpretations of “all Israel” in the phrase from Romans 11:26, “all Israel will be saved.” I argued that the third view is most persuasive: that “all Israel will be saved” refers to a future mass conversion of ethnic Jews into the church, which is prompted by their jealousy of Gentile inclusion in the people of God. Although I find this third view most compelling, the first and second positions surveyed are plausible and consistent with a progressive covenantal hermeneutic. Here in Part 2 I will describe and critique a fourth view of “all Israel,” which is the dispensational understanding (see Table 1 for a summary of all four views). As I will argue, this position varies significantly from the other three both theologically and hermenutically, and it should ultimately be rejected.[1]
1. Portions of this article have been adapted from Richard J. Lucas, “The Dispensational Appeal to Romans 11 and the Nature of Israel’s Future Salvation” in Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course Between Dispensational and Covenantal Theologies (B&H, 2016), 235–53. Used with permission.
View #4: All National Israel
Dispensational interpreters assume many of the same exegetical details of view #3, namely that there will be a future mass conversion of ethnic Jews at the end of the current age. But they argue for something more than that. In addition to a salvation for ethnic Jews, they also argue for a future restoration of the nation of Israel. Romans 11:26, in their view, refers to the future salvation and restoration of “all national Israel.” Michael Vlach elaborates on this distinction between salvation and restoration in writing:
The concept of “restoration” certainly includes the idea of salvation, but it goes beyond that. “Restoration” involves the idea of Israel being reinstalled as a nation, in her land, with a specific identity and role of service to the nations. In other words, in a literal, earthly kingdom—a millennium—the nation Israel will serve a functional role of service to the nations. This point is something all dispensationalists affirm while all nondispensationalists deny.[2]
This restored nation-state of ethnic Israel maintains a distinct identity from the Gentile nations even after the church age. The second coming of Christ is the climactic event that initiates this national restoration, but it continues after the return of Christ as Israel’s restoration also leads to a restoration of Gentile nations. In the dispensational conception, Israel, as a distinct ethnic nation, continues to mediate blessings to these other (Gentile) nations during the millennial age.
2. Michael Vlach, “What is Dispensationalism?” in Christ’s Prophetic Plans: A Futuristic Premillennial Primer, ed. John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2012), 33. Elsewhere he writes, “The concepts of salvation and restoration concerning Israel are closely related, but they are not the same. Affirming that a mass of believing Israel will be saved in the future is not the same as grasping that Israel as a whole is headed for a national restoration as a political entity with a role to other nations when Jesus returns to rule the nations of the earth.” See Michael J. Vlach, “Response to Zaspel and Hamilton,” in Three Views on Israel and the Church: Perspectives on Romans 9-11, ed. Jared Compton and Andrew David Naselli (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2018), 144, emphasis original.
Dispensationalists generally recognize the three-step salvation-historical pattern during the church age (Israel’s rejection → Gentile salvation → Israel’s salvation). However, as Robert Saucy states, “The present salvation of the Gentiles before that of Israel is not in harmony with the basic Old Testament picture.”[3] As discussed previously, the established salvation-historical order from the Old Testament is “Israel first, then Gentiles,” which is reaffirmed in both the beginning and end of Romans (Rom. 1:16; 15:8–9). In Romans 11, Paul appears to be arguing for the opposite sequence of “Gentiles first, then Israel.” The reconciliation of this apparent discrepancy goes to the heart of my disagreement with view #4.
The dispensational solution to this dilemma is to posit a fourth step in the salvation-historical sequence after the church age (during the millennial kingdom),[4] which would leave “time for the Old Testament picture of the blessings of Gentiles subsequent to and mediated through a restored Israel.”[5] Just like Israel experiences something “more” than mere salvation (i.e., restoration), so also do the Gentiles. The present salvation of the Gentiles during the church age is merely the first stage of their two-stage salvation/restoration experience.[6] The restored nation of Israel will also bring about a subsequent Gentile restoration after the return of Christ in the millenium, which is the fourth step in this overall divine plan (see Diagram D).[7]
3. Robert Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: The Interface Between Dispensational and Non-Dispensational Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 259.
4. This fourth sequential step (which he calls “greater world blessings”) is explicit in Michael J. Vlach, “A Non-Typological Future-Mass-Conversion View” in Three Views on Israel and the Church: Perspectives on Romans 9–11, ed. Jared Compton and Andrew David Naselli (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2018), 44.
5. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 259, emphasis original.
6. Vlach, “A Non-Typological Future-Mass-Conversion View,” 72.
7. In reference to Romans 11:12, Michael Vlach writes, “The nations of the world as a whole also appear headed for some form of restoration.” See his Has the Church Replaced Israel?: A Theological Evaluation (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010), 172.
In this view, Paul argues in Romans 11:12–15 from the lesser to the greater and continues the interaction between Israel and the Gentiles by pointing to something greater in the future for the Gentiles (beyond their present salvation). The coming “fullness” (11:12) and “acceptance” (11:15) of Israel is their future salvation and restoration at the end of the current church age, which leads to a Gentile restoration afterwards. In reference to verse 12, Michael Vanlaningham writes that Paul’s “words are best accounted for if Israel is present in its own land and the blessings for the world flow from the nation under God’s governance in accordance with Old Testament expectations.”[8] In reference to the “life from the dead” which follows Israel’s salvation and restoration in verse 15, Vanlaningham suggests that “it probably refers to spiritual revivification rather than the general resurrection, so that what Paul foresees is a time when the Gentile world erupts with spiritual life following Israel’s restoration.”[9] Saucy maintains that “even if it means the resurrection, we need not take that to be the final general resurrection that issues immediately into the eternal state . . . Thus time is provided for the blessing of the world through restored Israel before the eternal state.”[10]
The key issue for the dispensational argument from this text is not the specificity of what that future stage will be like, but that a future time is implied to fulfill the remaining promises directed to the nations through the restored nation of Israel. Therefore, dispensationalists believe the implications drawn from Romans 11:12 and 15 provide textual evidence for their distinctive theological claims. They attempt to correlate the Old Testament expectation of “Jew first, then Gentiles” by positing a blessing for the Gentiles (that is apparently different/greater than their present salvation in the church) that is mediated through a restored ethnic nation of Israel subsequent to the church age.
8. Michael G. Vanlaningham, “The Jewish People According to the Book of Romans,” in The People, the Land, and the Future of Israel: Israel and the Jewish People in the Plan of God, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2014), 122–23.
9. Ibid., 122.
10. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 260.
Response to the Dispensational Argument from Romans 11.
Dispensationalists downplay what it means for “the fullness of the Gentiles” to come in during the church age in order to accommodate the demands of their theological system. Saucy writes, “The benefits for the Gentiles that Paul sees resulting from Israel’s conversion rules out the ‘full number’ as the culmination of all gentile salvation in the divine program. There must yet be some time following the coming in of this ‘fullness’ that permits the even greater blessing of the world to take place.”[11] The future “fullness” (πλήρωμα) Israel expects to experience according to Romans 11:12 is more than just spiritual salvation in the dispensational conception; it is also national restoration. Nevertheless, when the “fullness” (πλήρωμα) of the Gentiles is spoken of in Romans 11:25, it only includes their present salvation—not their future restoration. In this way, dispensationalists are presenting two different understandings of “fullness” in Romans 11. In reference to Israel, fullness means a complete national restoration; but in reference to the Gentiles fullness is only spiritual salvation that is incomplete in some way and still requires some sort of future, mediated, restoration blessings through Israel.
11. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 261.
Dispensationalism also downplays the climactic conclusion to salvation-history ushered in at Christ’s second coming by looking for additional saving/restoring work after his return. Once the salvation of the “fullness” of the Gentiles (Rom. 11:25) and the “fullness” of Israel (Rom. 11:12) takes place, the end of salvation-history will have been reached. The climax of this age is the resurrection following Christ’s return and is, therefore, the likely reference for the phrase “life from the dead” in Romans 11:15.[12] Tom Schreiner is right to conclude, “If the fullness of the Gentiles are saved before Israel exercises faith, it is inconceivable that there will be a great ingathering among the gentiles after this event.”[13]
12. Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, BECNT, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018), 582–83.
13. Schreiner, Romans, 583, emphasis original.
Dispensationalists are not necessarily wrong for positing a fourth step in the salvation-historical pattern, but it should be placed before the sequence spelled out in Romans 11, not after it. Greg Beale and Benjamin Gladd explain how the New Testament actually fulfills both patterns of salvation for Jews and Gentiles. They write, “It is likely that those Jews first hearing and accepting the gospel at Pentecost and shortly thereafter in Jerusalem (Acts 2–7) represent the beginning fulfillment of the order ‘Jew first, then Greek.’”[14] The first group of believers in the church were all Israelites. The massive numbers of Jews embracing Jesus as Messiah and repenting of their sin was certainly a revival and part of the “restoration” of Israel (Acts 3:19–21, cf. 1:6).[15] “Three thousand souls” were added on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41), and then not many days later another five thousand men, and presumably many of their wives and perhaps some of their children, heard the word and believed (Acts 4:4). Even at the end of Acts 3, right before Luke records this second large embrace of the gospel, he quotes Peter’s words concerning the Abrahamic covenant. This covenant included both that all the families of the earth will be blessed (i.e., Gentile salvation), and that God sent the Messiah to Israel first (Acts 3:25–26). So, the salvation-historical priority is not undone; it just becomes clear to Paul later that the final eschatological restoration of Israel will not be complete “until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in” (Rom 11:25).
14. G. K. Beale and Benjamin L. Gladd, Hidden But Now Revealed: A Biblical Theology of Mystery (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2014), 88.
15. The “restoration” process referenced in these verses is not exclusively future. It reaches a climax with the return of Jesus at the second coming, but it is already presently taking place beginning in these early chapters of Acts with the preaching of the gospel and the pouring out of the Spirit. See David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 109–10, 182–83; and Eckhard J. Schnabel, Acts, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 75–78, 214–17.
The four steps spelled out would then look like this (see Diagram E): (1) initial Jewish salvation, then (2) the rest of Israel is hardened, which resulted in (3) the inclusion of the Gentiles, which in turn will provoke the Jews to jealous emulation resulting in (4) the final Jewish salvation (Rom 11:26). Therefore, there is an initial Jewish salvation at Christ’s first coming, and a final Jewish salvation at his second coming. This two-stage fulfillment of Israel’s salvation into the church is in contrast to the dispensational solution which argues for an initial Gentile salvation during the church age and a final Gentile restoration during the millennial kingdom following Christ’s return.
Why does Paul not mention this initial Jewish salvation in Romans 11? Continuing the story in the book of Acts provides context. After focusing on Jewish salvation in the beginning of Acts, Luke recounts a major turning point in the progression of the gospel in Acts 13. At Pisidian Antioch, in response to the jealous Jews (Acts 13:45), Paul and Barnabas reaffirm the necessity of the gospel going to the Jews first (Acts 13:46). Then, because of the rejection by the Jews, they declare that they are turning to the Gentiles and even cite Isaiah 49:6 as support (Acts 13:46–47). Isaiah 49:6 is a key passage in the Old Testament establishing the expectation for the Gentiles’ salvation to follow Israel’s salvation. Paul appeals to this text in justification for turning to the Gentile mission, but only after the initial revival of Jews into the church, and also the Jewish rejection of his message. Paul’s use of this passage here signals that he understands its fulfillment to be occurring in his time, not after Christ’s return. The subsequent focus on Gentile salvation only comes after the first two stages in this salvation-historical process. Throughout the rest of the narrative in Acts, the majority of those saved are no longer Jews but Gentiles.
Paul writes Romans 11 from this post-Acts 13 vantage point. He is addressing a situation in which the majority of the church is now composed of Gentiles. This reality, however, does not mean that God has rejected his people. To the contrary, God will use the inclusion of the Gentiles to provoke the Jews to jealousy, who will then turn and embrace Christ (the last two stages in the salvation-historical process). For the remainder of the present age, the salvation-historical pattern is now “Gentiles first, then Jews.” Therefore, as Beale and Gladd explain:
According to the New Testament, the way redemption is actually accomplished fulfills both patterns: the majority of the first Christians were converts from Judaism, which sparked off initial Gentile salvation, as the pattern in Acts reveals. Yet as Acts unfolds, the Gentiles predominately compose the church with only a minority of Jews, which Paul interprets in Romans 11 as the pattern of “Gentile first, then Jew provoked to jealousy and salvation.” It is only the actual fulfillment that shows how this mystery of the order of salvation is unraveled.[16]
16. Beale and Gladd, Hidden But Now Revealed, 98. The authors understand the Jewish salvation flowing from the Gentile inclusion to be the elect remnant throughout the church age, instead of a future mass conversion. Yet, as they admit, this understanding for “all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26) “does not significantly affect the present discussion” (88n3).
Dispensationalists are not sufficiently allowing the New Testament to inform how the Old Testament promises are actually realized. Just as the Messiah’s two advents were not completely clear in the Old Testament, neither was the salvation-historical twist with the two-stage salvation of Israel revolving around each of Christ’s respective advents. The initial Jewish salvation came on the heels of Christ’s first coming and the final Jewish salvation will come immediately before his second coming. Paul’s use of “mystery” should signal to the reader that this two-stage Israelite salvation (with the intervening rejection of Israel and inclusion of the Gentiles) was generally hidden in the Old Testament, so we need the fuller revelation of the New Testament to make sense of it. New Testament fulfillment is not changing or transforming the Old Testament promises, but it is adding complexity which we were not intended to fully comprehend without this later revelation. Dispensationalists are right to attempt to reconcile Romans 11 with Old Testament prophetic expectations; but their reading fails to account for the significance of Israel’s initial salvation following Christ’s first coming, and it underappreciates the climactic end of salvation-history ushered in by Christ’s second coming.
Conclusion
The dispensational conception of different identities and roles for redeemed Israel and the Gentiles (even persisting to the eternal state) misses the point of Paul’s argument. Just as the Jews do not have an exclusive claim to the Messiah because of their ethnic heritage, neither are believing Gentiles less than full participants in Christ’s kingdom. All who are saved are saved by God’s mercy and through faith in Christ. But God consigned all (Jew and Gentile) to disobedience, so that he could show mercy on all (Rom. 11:32). The different stages of salvation history were necessary, not to draw attention to Israel, but to put the focus clearly on God. Schreiner captures this well in writing,
God has designed salvation history in such a way that the extension of his saving grace surprises those who are its recipients. Gentiles were elected to salvation when the Jews were expecting to be the special objects of God’s favor, and the Jews will be grafted in again at a time in which gentiles will be tempted to believe that they are superior to ethnic Israel. By constructing history in such a way, God makes it evident that he deserves praise for the inclusion of any into his saving promises.[17]
17. Schreiner, Romans, 605–606.
God’s mysterious wisdom worked out his saving plan in successive stages throughout this inter-advental age, but when Christ returns for his bride, the church, it will be composed of both Jews and Gentiles.
In summary, this is how “all Israel” will be saved (Rom. 11:26), namely through two stages corresponding to the first and second comings of Christ, which bracket the hardening of Israel and the salvation of the Gentiles. It’s that hardening of Israel which will lead to the gospel going out to the Gentiles, and then it’s the Gentiles’ salvation which will finally provoke the Jews to jealousy. These jealous Jews will emulate the faith of the believing Gentiles and trust in Jesus as their Messiah and join the same “nourishing root” of God’s promises fulfilled in Christ (Rom. 11:17). Nothing less than such an amazing plan of salvation could provoke the Apostle’s glorious words of doxological praise (Rom. 11:33-36).
