Books · When Christ Returns — Complete Table of Contents
Who belongs to restored Israel, how Gentile inclusion serves God’s promises, and what Paul means by “in this way.”
If Gentiles are grafted into Israel’s olive tree, who is “all Israel”—and what changes when Gentile fullness comes?
Paul writes:
“and in this way all Israel will be saved”
—Romans 11:26, ESV, excerpt
Almost every word matters. Who does Israel include? What does all add? Does in this way describe a process already underway, a future event, or a process reaching a future completion?
These questions affect more than one verse. They shape how we understand the church, the nations, Israel’s restoration, and the people who will share in the promised kingdom.
We need to distinguish three questions from the beginning: Who belongs to God’s redeemed people? Whom does Paul call “all Israel” here? Does their salvation require a distinct future turning to Christ?
Romans includes Jewish and Gentile believers within one saving fellowship. Whether the particular expression in Romans 11:26 names that entire fellowship is disputed. Identifying its referent also does not, by itself, settle when or how its promised completeness is reached.
The argument that God restores Israel through incorporating the nations deserves a full hearing. So does the argument that Paul promises further mercy to the historical people whose unbelief troubles him. We will follow the restoration Scriptures and Paul’s immediate argument, then consider early Christian interpretation and the witnesses’ possible role in conversion before weighing those conclusions.
ESV remains our primary reading text. The longer quotations below use the public-domain Berean Standard Bible (BSB), with their translation identified, so the decisive context can remain visible. Scripture links also provide the surrounding passages.
1. Restoration begins with covenant faithfulness and a changed heart
Romans 11 addresses a question already raised by Israel’s Scriptures: after covenant failure and judgment, will God abandon His people?
Leviticus 26:40–45 describes confession, humbled hearts, and God remembering His covenant:
“then I will remember my covenant with Jacob”
—Leviticus 26:42, ESV, excerpt
The verse also names Isaac, Abraham, and the land. Exile does not make God forget His promises. Yet restoration is inseparable from the passage’s concern with sin, repentance, and covenant relationship. Leviticus 26:40–45.
Deuteronomy 30:1–6 similarly joins return to God, regathering, possession of the ancestral land, and inward renewal. God:
“will circumcise your heart”
—Deuteronomy 30:6, ESV, excerpt
This concerns renewed love for God, extending to Israel’s descendants. A restored address without restored faithfulness would not exhaust the promise. Deuteronomy 30:1–6.
These passages first address Israel within the covenant’s blessings and curses. Historical exile and return remain part of their meaning. Neither supplies an independent date for Romans 11 or the Millennium.
Paul nevertheless brings this scriptural world into his argument. Romans 10:6–8 uses Deuteronomy 30’s language about the near word in relation to Christ and proclaimed faith. Romans 10:19 draws on Deuteronomy 32:21 to introduce the jealousy theme developed in chapter 11.
Restoration must therefore be considered through the Messiah and the gospel, including the unexpected place of the Gentiles within God’s faithfulness.
2. “Israel” is not a word with only one possible scope
In Scripture, Israel can name Jacob, the people descended from him, the northern kingdom distinguished from Judah, or the people considered in relation to God’s promise and restoration.
Context determines which sense is active.
Hosea can distinguish Israel from Judah because he addresses the divided kingdoms. Jeremiah 30:3 names both Israel and Judah in a promise of restoration. Ezekiel 37:15–28 joins Judah and Joseph/Ephraim under one ruler. In those settings, restoring Israel means more than restoring Judah alone.
This gives weight to the question raised by Michael Heiser and Jason Staples: Could Paul’s “all Israel” concern the restoration of the whole people, reaching beyond the Jewish community then visibly identifiable?
But we should not turn that question into a rigid dictionary rule. Jew and Israelite are not mutually exclusive categories. Nor does calling someone a Jew establish descent only from the tribe of Judah.
Paul identifies himself as an Israelite, descended from Abraham and belonging to Benjamin, in Romans 11:1. Historical ancestry plainly matters in that sentence. Elsewhere he can describe himself as a Jew. His vocabulary accommodates overlapping identities. Benjamin also shows why Jewish identity cannot be reduced to Judah alone, although this observation does not settle the whole twelve-tribe restoration question. Romans 11:1; Galatians 2:15.
Paul’s earlier discussion of circumcision makes the identity question more demanding. Romans 2:25–27 asks whether an uncircumcised person who keeps the law’s requirements will be regarded as circumcised. He then writes:
“A man is not a Jew because he is one outwardly, nor is circumcision only outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew because he is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise does not come from men, but from God.”
—Romans 2:28–29, BSB
The concern with inward renewal recalls the heart-circumcision promise already encountered in Deuteronomy 30. Outward covenant identification cannot substitute for the response God requires. Romans 2:25–29.
On the incorporation reading, Spirit-renewed Gentiles receive the inward qualification that makes them full members of the restored people. Staples explicitly appeals to this heart-circumcision argument in explaining how genuine Gentiles can acquire Israelite standing without discovering Israelite ancestry or undergoing physical circumcision. Staples, explanation of his 2011 article and author replies.
A narrower reading understands Paul primarily to distinguish outward Jewish identity from the inward faithfulness that ought to accompany it. The scope of the uncircumcised lawkeeper and the inward Jew must therefore be argued from the passage; the language should not be reduced to a slogan.
The next verses also matter. Romans 3:1–4 asks what advantage the Jew possesses, answers that the advantage is substantial, and denies that human unfaithfulness nullifies God’s faithfulness. Paul can challenge confidence in outward status while continuing to recognize the historical people and their privileges. Romans 3:1–4.
Romans 2 gives the incorporation case important positive evidence. Romans 3 prevents us from treating that evidence as if Paul had simply stopped distinguishing Jews and Gentiles. Their relationship to the particular expression all Israel still requires the argument of Romans 9–11.
Romans 9:6 introduces a further distinction within Israel: physical descent does not by itself guarantee participation in the promise. That distinguishes ancestry from saving belonging. It does not, without further argument, prove that every later occurrence of Israel includes Gentile believers.
We must follow Paul’s usage through the argument rather than settle the verse through a slogan about what Israel must always mean.
3. Romans 9–11 asks whether God’s word has failed
Paul begins with grief for his fellow Israelites. He names their adoption, covenants, worship, promises, patriarchs, and the Messiah’s human ancestry. Their widespread unbelief presents the problem. Has God’s promise failed? Romans 9:1–6.
His answer develops through several connected claims.
God has always carried His promise forward through His own gracious calling. Ancestry never entitled every descendant to salvation. Nevertheless, historical Israel remains the people whose situation has prompted Paul’s anguish.
Romans 10 emphasizes faith and proclamation. Paul prays for Israel’s salvation. Jews and Gentiles call on the same Lord, and both need the message concerning Jesus. A future restoration cannot bypass the gospel being proclaimed now.
Romans 11 then denies that God has rejected His people. Paul himself is evidence. The remnant in Elijah’s time illustrates how present unbelief can coexist with God’s preservation of a people by grace.
The chapter proceeds from the remnant to the significance of Israel’s stumbling for the nations. Paul’s Gentile ministry also aims to move some of his own people toward salvation. Jewish conversion is already happening; it has not been suspended until an end-time appointment.
Paul’s wording makes the movement toward restoration worth seeing directly:
“I ask then, did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Certainly not! However, because of their trespass, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel jealous. But if their trespass means riches for the world, and their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!”
—Romans 11:11–12, BSB
The BSB’s beyond recovery makes explicit its understanding of the question; the Greek asks whether they stumbled in order to fall. Paul rejects that outcome and immediately describes salvation reaching the nations in a way intended to serve Israel’s good. Verses 13–14 connect this purpose with his present effort to save some of his own people. Then he asks:
“For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?”
—Romans 11:15, BSB
Stumbling and fullness, rejection and acceptance: Paul places the present problem within a larger movement of mercy. These comparisons give a future-restoration reading positive evidence to explain. They also leave questions about the extent of the fullness and the meaning of life from the dead. We must weigh those questions alongside the present conversions Paul is already seeking. Romans 11:11–15.
The closing movement concerns partial hardening, Gentile fullness, Israel’s salvation, covenant forgiveness, and mercy reaching both groups.
Paul’s own life brings that movement of mercy into focus. An Israelite who had opposed Christ’s people received mercy and became an apostle to the Gentiles. His Gentile ministry, in turn, sought to draw fellow Israelites toward salvation. The relationship between Israel and the nations is already visible in the person making the argument.
First Timothy makes the exemplary significance of his conversion explicit:
“But for this very reason I was shown mercy, so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display His perfect patience as an example to those who would believe in Him for eternal life.”
—1 Timothy 1:16, BSB
The pattern concerns Christ’s mercy toward future believers. It is not restricted to a final generation of Israel, but it gives substantial reason to resist treating present opposition as proof that further mercy is impossible. 1 Timothy 1:12–16.
Could we describe Paul as grafted in? His movement from unbelief to faith can illustrate the natural-branch regrafting described in Romans 11:23–24. He was already an Israelite, however, not a Gentile wild branch. Nor does Paul call his appointment “grafting into the apostles.” Saving participation and apostolic commission are distinguishable, even though both belong to the grace Christ showed him.
Galatians 1:1 identifies Christ as the source of his apostleship. In 1:13–16, Paul moves from his persecution of the church to God’s gracious revelation of His Son and commission to preach among the Gentiles. He also describes God as having set him apart from his mother’s womb. God’s prior purpose for Paul and Paul’s subsequent believing response are therefore distinguishable. Prior appointment does not, by itself, establish someone’s present faith. Galatians 1:1, 13–16.
First Corinthians 15:8 adds the description of Paul as one of untimely birth. The Greek ektrōma evokes an abnormal or abortive birth; its precise metaphorical force is debated. The following verses emphasize his persecution, unworthiness, and God’s grace. The word does not independently establish that Paul’s conversion was a premature instance of a future national conversion. His experience may illustrate Christ’s ability to bring an opponent to faith, while the timing and scope of any later turning still require their own evidence. 1 Corinthians 15:8–10; ektrōma, lexical entries.
Any interpretation must explain that whole movement. The remnant, the nations, and the people presently disobedient all belong within Paul’s answer.
4. One olive tree establishes shared belonging
Paul addresses Gentile believers through the image of a wild olive shoot:
“Now if some branches have been broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others to share in the nourishment of the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, remember this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.”
—Romans 11:17–18, BSB
Only some natural branches have been removed. Others remain. Gentiles join them in an existing tree and share its nourishment. The patriarchs and their promises provide a strong contextual explanation of the root, especially in light of verse 28, although Paul does not exhaustively define every feature of his image.
Verse 16 has already described the first portion of dough and the root as holy, with consequences for the batch and branches. In this setting, holiness marks a relationship to God and His covenant purposes. It cannot mean that every natural branch is already saved regardless of faith, because Paul immediately explains the removal of branches through unbelief.
He then explains the decisive condition:
“They were broken off because of unbelief, but you stand by faith.”
—Romans 11:20, BSB, excerpt
And concerning the broken branches:
“And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.”
—Romans 11:23, BSB
Paul follows that condition with a comparison:
“For if you were cut from a wild olive tree, and contrary to nature were grafted into one that is cultivated, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!”
—Romans 11:24, BSB
The words how much more give the regrafting argument positive force. The God who has brought Gentiles into the tree can restore its natural branches. Paul’s future wording deserves its full weight, while verse 23 keeps faith and unbelief central. Verse 24 does not independently tell us how many Israelites will believe, whether their turning occurs together, or where it belongs in an end-time sequence.
The image gives us continuity, inclusion, and the possibility of restoration. It preserves distinguishable histories without creating separate sources of saving life. Gentiles do not replace every natural branch, and natural branches do not enjoy salvation while remaining in unbelief.
The warning to Gentiles in verse 22 must also retain its force. They must continue in God’s kindness. The metaphor does not independently resolve every debate about regeneration and final perseverance. Romans 11:16–24.
Ephesians 2:11–22 describes Gentiles formerly outside Israel’s commonwealth and the covenants of promise being brought near through Christ. Both groups are reconciled to God through the cross and belong to one household. Galatians 3:26–29 identifies those belonging to Christ as Abraham’s offspring and heirs.
These passages establish genuine covenant participation. They also sharpen our question: does Romans 11:26 name the complete tree, or does it promise the restoration of the natural branches within that shared tree?
5. Hosea gives the restoration interpretation substantial weight
Hosea’s original audience matters. His judgment names announce the northern kingdom’s loss of mercy and covenant standing. Yet rejection will be reversed, and Israel and Judah will be gathered together under one head. Hosea 1:6–11; 2:23.
Paul brings this language into Romans immediately after describing God’s calling:
“including us, whom He has called not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles?”
—Romans 9:24, BSB
He then quotes Hosea:
“I will call them ‘My People’ who are not My people, and I will call her ‘My Beloved’ who is not My beloved”
—Romans 9:25, BSB, excerpt
Verse 26 continues with the rejected people being called God’s children. Paul follows this with Isaiah’s testimony about Israel’s remnant. The arrangement brings Gentile calling and Israel’s scriptural restoration language into close contact. Romans 9:24–29.
There are at least two serious ways to understand that contact.
An extension through analogy and fulfillment. God’s restoration of people formerly rejected supplies a scriptural pattern for His calling of Gentiles. Paul extends the promise’s reach through Christ without thereby identifying every Gentile as Israel in every context.
Israel’s restoration through incorporation of the nations. The restoration language applies because Gentile incorporation is itself part of how God reconstitutes His people. On this reconstruction, the northern kingdom’s scattering and extensive assimilation among the nations give Gentile inclusion a particular place within the restoration story.
The second explanation deserves more than a passing mention. It asks why Paul chose a promise originally concerning Israel when explaining the calling of Gentiles. Saying that Israel and Gentiles are distinguishable elsewhere does not answer that question.
The historical reconstruction nevertheless needs qualification. Luke identifies Anna with Asher, and Acts records Paul speaking of the hope of the twelve tribes. Northern tribal identity had not simply vanished in every case. These witnesses do not disprove extensive assimilation or establish that restoration was complete; they prevent us from treating the disappearance of all northern identity as a biblical premise. Romans 11 itself does not narrate that proposed assimilation process. Luke 2:36; Acts 26:6–8.
Staples’s published clarification makes his proposal especially important to state accurately. He does not argue that Christian Gentiles are disguised Israelites whose forgotten biological ancestry must be discovered. He argues that Israel’s restoration involves genuine Gentiles becoming members of the restored people through the Spirit’s transforming work. His distinction between Jews and the larger category of Israel also allows Jews to be Israelites. Staples, “Ethnic Transformation and Israel’s Resurrection in the Pauline Epistles and Beyond”.
Heiser’s 2016 discussion develops the restoration approach using Staples’s 2011 article and his own reading of Hosea and Romans. He understands the Gentiles’ inclusion as contributing to the salvation of the whole restored people. That discussion should not be represented as a review of Staples’s later book. Heiser, Naked Bible 102, official transcript.
Staples’s own explanation of his earlier argument places the restoration of the whole people, extending beyond Judah, at the center of the question. The case therefore needs to be tested as an account of restored covenant identity, rather than answered only by rejecting a claim about everyone’s ancestry. Staples, explanation of his 2011 article.
Hosea makes that argument plausible. Whether it determines the scope of all Israel in Romans 11:26 still requires examination of that chapter.
6. Edom and the nations belong inside the restoration discussion
Amos 9:11–15 promises the restoration of David’s fallen house, fruitful land, rebuilt cities, and lasting planting. Its international dimension appears within the promise itself.
The Hebrew and Greek forms of verse 12 differ in an important way.
The Hebrew text speaks of possessing the remnant of Edom and the nations bearing God’s name.
The Greek text speaks of the remnant of humanity and the nations bearing God’s name seeking. In Acts 15, the quotation explicitly identifies the Lord as the one sought.
Both forms include the nations. The difference is therefore more than a contrast between an exclusively Israelite Hebrew promise and an inclusive Greek replacement. Nor should the difference be reduced confidently to a change of vowels alone. The surviving forms differ in their wording and action. Amos 9:11–12; Greek Amos 9.
At the Jerusalem council, James uses wording closely corresponding to Greek Amos to explain why the prophets agree with God’s reception of Gentiles. The issue is whether Gentile believers must undergo circumcision and the demanded Mosaic observance. James supports their reception without imposing that requirement. Acts 15:1–21.
This gives us strong apostolic evidence that Davidic restoration and the present Gentile mission belong together. The nations are not merely watching Israel’s restoration from outside.
Heiser’s separate treatment of Obadiah and Amos develops this connection through the inclusion of peoples formerly portrayed as enemies. He also cautions that Gentile inclusion does not itself disprove a further role for historical Israel. Heiser, Naked Bible 107, official transcript.
The relevant inference is substantial but bounded: Israel’s restoration promises can embrace Gentiles through the Messiah’s rule. Acts 15 does not quote Romans 11:26 or directly settle the referent of that expression. It also does not declare every territorial and agricultural feature of Amos exhausted.
Edom therefore strengthens the restoration-through-incorporation case. It does not make the remaining Pauline argument unnecessary.
7. The prophets allow incorporation without erasing every distinction
Ezekiel makes the inclusion of outsiders remarkably concrete:
“You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the foreigners who dwell among you and who have children. You are to treat them as native-born Israelites; along with you, they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel.”
—Ezekiel 47:22, BSB
Verse 23 assigns a foreigner’s inheritance within the tribe where that person resides. This is more than permission to live nearby. Foreigners receive an inheritance within the tribal arrangement itself. Ezekiel 47:21–23.
The vision therefore prevents us from assuming that restored tribal Israel must be closed to everyone without Israelite ancestry. Yet it still distinguishes Israel’s tribes and the foreigners incorporated among them.
Zechariah 2:11 similarly anticipates many nations joining themselves to the Lord and becoming His people, while the surrounding passage continues to speak of Judah and Jerusalem.
Isaiah 19:23–25 portrays Egypt, Assyria, and Israel sharing divine blessing. Egypt and Assyria receive striking descriptions of belonging to God, yet their names remain distinguishable from Israel’s. Zechariah 2:10–12; Isaiah 19:23–25.
Zechariah 8:20–23 develops the connection through peoples and powerful nations seeking the Lord in Jerusalem. Ten men from the nations grasp the robe of a Jew because they have heard that God is with his people. The picture joins international worship to recognition of God’s presence with Israel. The ten men are not presented as a calculation of future conversion numbers. Zechariah 8:20–23.
Zephaniah 3:9–13 places purified speech and common service to the Lord alongside the preservation of a humble people and a remnant of Israel that abandons wrongdoing and deceit. Renewed worship among the peoples and renewal within Israel belong together in the prophetic vision. Zephaniah 3:9–13.
Isaiah 49 joins these purposes within the Servant’s calling. The Servant is commissioned to bring Jacob back and gather Israel to God. Yet that restoration belongs within a mission reaching farther:
“It is not enough for You to be My Servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the protected ones of Israel. I will also make You a light for the nations, to bring My salvation to the ends of the earth.”
—Isaiah 49:6, BSB, excerpt
Restoration of Israel and salvation reaching the nations belong together in the same commission. The nations’ blessing is part of God’s announced purpose through His Servant. Isaiah 49:5–6.
In Acts 13:46–47, Paul and Barnabas apply the promise of light reaching the nations to their own proclamation. They carry forward the Servant’s outward mission by announcing the salvation accomplished through Jesus. Earlier in the same address, Paul identifies Jesus as the Savior God brought to Israel according to His promise. The mission’s extension to Gentiles therefore belongs within the fulfillment of that saving purpose. Acts 13:23, 46–48.
The opposition in that scene must also be described carefully. Verse 43 has already recorded Jewish adherents to Paul and Barnabas’s message. The rejection by other hearers does not mean every Jew rejected the gospel, and the turn toward Gentiles does not establish the permanent abandonment of Jewish mission. Isaiah’s commission and its apostolic use connect Israel’s restoration with present Gentile salvation while leaving the scope of Paul’s particular expression all Israel to be argued.
These passages strengthen the restoration setting without independently defining Paul’s all Israel, promising every individual’s salvation, or fixing a conversion date. Part XVII will examine their descriptions of restored life more fully.
Together these passages establish something essential: shared belonging to God and continuing distinctions between peoples can coexist.
Consequently, Gentile participation in Israel’s restoration does not require every passage to use Israel as a name for all Gentiles who believe. Conversely, distinguishing Israel from the nations does not require their exclusion from covenant inheritance.
Paul brings these themes together later in the same letter:
“For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the circumcised on behalf of God’s truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs, so that the Gentiles may glorify God for His mercy.”
—Romans 15:8–9, BSB, excerpt
His supporting quotations culminate in Isaiah’s root of Jesse, in whom the nations hope. God’s fidelity to the patriarchal promises and mercy to the Gentiles belong within the same messianic work. Romans 15:8–12 gives this connection direct support from Paul himself. It does not independently define all Israel or date a further turning, but it makes an account of Israel’s restoration that sidelines Gentile inclusion difficult to sustain. Romans 15:8–12.
8. Ephraim and the “fullness of the Gentiles”
Genesis 48:19 deserves consideration because Jacob’s blessing concerns Ephraim’s descendants becoming a multitude of nations.
The Hebrew expression is melōʾ haggôyim. The Greek form examined here uses eis plēthos ethnōn. Romans 11:25 uses to plērōma tōn ethnōn.
There is a conceptual resemblance, but the Greek phrases are not identical. Paul does not introduce Genesis 48 as a quotation. An intentional echo is possible; a demonstrated verbatim quotation is not what we possess. Genesis 48:19, Hebrew; Genesis 48, Greek.
The proposed connection can contribute to a cumulative restoration argument. It cannot carry the entire interpretation by itself.
Ezekiel’s two sticks supply firmer, explicit evidence for the reunion of Judah and Joseph/Ephraim. But Ezekiel 37 does not directly identify every Gentile Christian as a hidden Ephraimite. Its promises about people, land, Davidic rule, and divine presence must be considered together; Part XVII examines them more fully.
Paul’s plērōma can express fullness or completeness. In Romans 11:25, a completed Gentile ingathering and a full number of Gentile believers are serious, overlapping possibilities. The BSB makes the numerical sense explicit; the ESV retains fullness.
The context concerns salvation, faith, mercy, and incorporation. Identifying this fullness primarily as the expiration of Gentile political power requires an additional argument. Paul gives no total to calculate and no method of recognizing the final Gentile convert.
9. What does “all” add, and how do the readings differ?
The question is the completeness of which people or company. All should not quietly become an undefined percentage. Yet a corporate expression also needs its context before we can identify every individual included.
First Kings 12:1 says that all Israel assembled to make Rehoboam king. As the chapter describes the ensuing division, the expression operates within the developing distinction between the northern kingdom and those remaining with David’s house. Corporate language can name a people acting as a whole while its precise scope depends on context. That example helps us ask the right question; it does not determine the extent of Paul’s salvation promise. 1 Kings 12:1, 16–20.
Some interpreters understand a complete company gathered across history. Others understand a people restored corporately at a climactic point, or every member of a specified final company or generation. Still others include believing Gentiles within the restored whole. Paul gives us no conversion percentage with which to settle the issue.
Four principal readings deserve comparison. They overlap in some respects, but their explanations differ.
Historical Israel corporately, with a future widespread turning to Christ.
Here Paul anticipates a reversal of the condition of the people presently hardened in part. The believing remnant already belongs, but Israel’s story will not end with its present pattern of widespread unbelief. The contrast between stumbling and fullness, rejection and acceptance, supports a larger corporate restoration.
This reading must explain what corporate completeness means without promising automatic salvation to every descendant. It must also explain why the Gentiles’ inclusion is part of the manner of Israel’s salvation, rather than merely a waiting period before it.
The complete company of saved Israelites across history.
Here all Israel describes the final total of believing Israelites. God preserves a remnant and continues saving Israelites throughout the gospel’s advance. No distinct climactic national conversion is required.
This takes seriously the present remnant and Paul’s hope of saving some of his contemporaries. Its difficulty is whether the chapter’s movement toward fullness and acceptance promises more than the accumulation of individual conversions. A final corporate turning could also complete this company, so the two readings are not wholly incompatible.
Related remnant proposals also differ over the time span involved. In the published abstract of his study, Ramez J. Habash frames the question around Paul’s concern for genealogical Israelites in his own time. He understands all Israel as the believing remnant together with the portion of hardened Israelites who eventually believe, and he disputes the incorporation of Gentile believers into Israel’s identity. Habash, “The Salvation of All Israel in Romans 11.26: A New Exegetical Perspective,” abstract.
A proposal focused on Paul’s contemporaries raises a different question from a company accumulated across the entire messianic age. The relevant people, the extent of their salvation, and the time span must each be explained. Habash’s stricter genealogical boundary also remains an argument to assess alongside the incorporation evidence.
The whole redeemed people, Jewish and Gentile believers together.
Here all Israel names the complete people united to Christ. One tree, shared inheritance, and the distinction between ancestry and promise support the reading.
Its challenge is demonstrating that Paul includes the incoming Gentiles within the name all Israel here, after distinguishing Israel from the Gentiles in verse 25. The unity of the saved people is clear within the argument; whether this particular expression names that entire people requires another step.
Restored Israel brought to completeness through Gentile incorporation.
This is the more historically developed restoration reading associated with the discussion above. Its case rests on exile and reunion promises, Hosea’s use in Romans, and the nations’ participation in Israel’s restoration. It may reach a membership conclusion similar to the preceding reading, but it offers a more specific account of why Paul would use Israel’s name.
Its strength is explaining why Gentile fullness belongs directly beside Israel’s salvation. On this account, the same covenant people reaches restored completeness through receiving new members. A change in membership need not constitute an arbitrary change in the word’s meaning.
Its challenge is showing that this enlargement best explains the expression in a paragraph still concerned with the historically identifiable people whose unbelief, patriarchal relationship, and need for mercy occupy Romans 11. The incorporation reading can include further salvation for those Israelites; it does not have to deny their continuing place.
An adequate comparison must weigh both the restoration background and Paul’s immediate argument. Neither can simply cancel the other.
10. What exactly is “in this way”?
Paul’s decisive paragraph reads:
“I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not be conceited: A hardening in part has come to Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
‘The Deliverer will come from Zion; He will remove godlessness from Jacob.
And this is My covenant with them when I take away their sins.’”
—Romans 11:25–27, BSB
The ESV’s and in this way translates kai houtōs. Manner or result is a strong reading: and thus, or and in this manner. Interpreters dispute its precise force and temporal implications, and a process can also reach a future completion. The phrase does not automatically mean and then, but neither does it eliminate chronological development. The wider argument must do that work. Romans 11:26, Greek; NET translation note.
The most natural starting point is the process Paul has just described. Israel’s stumbling becomes an occasion for salvation to reach Gentiles. Gentile mercy is intended to provoke Israel toward faith. Jewish people who cease persisting in unbelief can be grafted into their own tree. God brings His saving purpose to completion through these interconnected acts of mercy.
Paul continues:
“Just as you who formerly disobeyed God have now received mercy through their disobedience, so they too have now disobeyed, in order that they too may now receive mercy through the mercy shown to you.”
—Romans 11:30–31, BSB
The process is reciprocal. Gentile salvation serves Israel’s good; Israel’s restoration magnifies the grace already reaching Gentiles. Paul is explaining how mercy works across the apparent division. The final now in verse 31 is textually disputed, as the note at the end explains. Where included, it reinforces the present availability of mercy; Jewish salvation is already part of Paul’s ministry.
Jealousy does not itself save anyone. God acts through the gospel to bring people to faith, and the quoted Deliverer removes ungodliness. In this way concerns God’s interconnected work of mercy through Christ, not an automatic social reaction to Gentile success.
The competing readings differ over what this process finally constitutes.
On the historical-Israel reading, Gentile inclusion contributes to the restoration of the people presently hardened in part. On the cumulative-remnant reading, this is how the complete company of believing Israelites is saved. On the incorporation reading, Gentile ingathering is also constitutive: the restored people reaches completeness by receiving those brought in from the nations.
The phrase in this way favors taking the described process seriously. Its grammar alone does not choose among those definitions of “all Israel.”
Nor does it establish a rigid arrangement in which God saves only Gentiles now and only Jews later. Paul himself is an Israelite believer, and he is already seeking other Israelites’ salvation while serving as apostle to the Gentiles.
The hardening’s extent and duration also need to be distinguished. It is partial, as the remnant demonstrates. Until introduces a temporal boundary associated with Gentile fullness. The word alone does not explain every condition afterward; the expectation of reversal depends on the surrounding argument.
The Gentiles’ completed ingathering also does not mean that they leave the tree when natural branches return. The same tree continues to nourish its members.
One grammatical distinction helps keep the chronology honest. The comparisons in Romans 11:12 and 15 contain no explicit future-tense verb corresponding to some English translations’ supplied will. Their expectation of fullness or acceptance must be interpreted from context. By contrast, will be saved in verse 26 is an actual future verb. It promises salvation while leaving its precise relation to the present process and any distinct climactic event to be argued. Greek Romans 11:12; 11:15.
Verse 24 supplies another actual future: the natural branches will be grafted in. Verse 23 also uses future wording within its explicit condition concerning unbelief. We should therefore give the future language its due throughout the argument, rather than leave the impression that only verse 26 looks forward. Nevertheless, a future verb does not by itself distinguish ongoing conversions from a final widespread turning. The “how much more” comparison, the condition of faith, and the movement toward fullness must be interpreted together. Greek Romans 11:24.
11. Paul’s Deliverer quotation supplies his own scriptural support
Paul does not leave the salvation promise unsupported. His as it is written brings together Isaiah 59:20–21 and 27:9: deliverance, covenant, and the removal of sins.
The wording deserves close attention.
The Hebrew form of Isaiah 59:20 describes the Redeemer coming to Zion and to those in Jacob who turn from transgression. The BSB reflects that form. Isaiah 59:20–21.
The Greek form of Isaiah 59:20 describes the Deliverer coming for Zion’s sake and removing ungodliness from Jacob. The emphasis falls directly on the Deliverer’s action against sin. Greek Isaiah 59.
Paul’s wording in Romans 11:26 describes the Deliverer coming from Zion and removing ungodliness from Jacob. Verse 27 joins covenant language with God’s taking away sins, drawing on Isaiah 59:21 and 27:9. Romans 11:26–27; Isaiah 27:9.
These brief italicized expressions identify differences between the texts; they are not interchangeable renderings of one identical phrase. Paul’s quotation cannot simply be reduced to a geographical prediction that Jesus will arrive in earthly Jerusalem at a particular future moment. Its explicit saving content is the removal of ungodliness and sins.
There are several ways to relate that deliverance to Christ’s work. A first-advent reading emphasizes the salvation inaugurated through Jesus and presently proclaimed in the gospel. A future-climax reading emphasizes the promised reversal of Israel’s unbelief. An inauguration-and-completion reading sees the same saving work beginning with Christ’s first coming and reaching its intended fullness later.
Christopher Bruno argues for first-advent inauguration and Gentile inclusion. He also proposes an echo of Isaiah 2:3 behind from Zion, relating the wording to God’s word going out from Zion. That is a scholarly explanation to weigh, not a demonstrated third quotation. Bruno, “The Deliverer from Zion,” 2008.
The Psalms supply another relevant background:
“Oh, that the salvation of Israel would come from Zion! When the LORD restores His captive people, let Jacob rejoice, let Israel be glad!”
—Psalm 14:7, BSB
Psalm 53:6 repeats this connection between salvation from Zion and Jacob/Israel’s restoration. These passages bring together the place, people, and saving hope at issue in Romans. Psalm 14:7; Psalm 53:6.
Bruno acknowledges alternative scriptural backgrounds in his footnote 15 before arguing for Isaiah 2. The Psalms therefore deserve consideration alongside his proposal. They show that from Zion belongs within a wider scriptural language of Israel’s salvation. An intentional Pauline echo remains possible, while the identifiable quotation draws directly on Isaiah 59 and 27. These parallels do not independently decide whether Paul emphasizes inauguration, a later culmination, or both.
The future language in an inherited prophecy does not, by itself, identify Christ’s second coming as the event Paul intends. Conversely, locating the saving work’s foundation in the first coming does not exclude a future application or culmination for historical Israel.
What the quotation establishes most directly is the character and source of salvation: the Deliverer acts, ungodliness is removed, and God forgives sins in faithfulness to His covenant. The reference to Jacob supports the restoration setting. Whether restored Jacob here includes incorporated Gentiles remains part of the identity dispute; simply repeating Jacob’s name does not settle it.
Jeremiah’s new-covenant promise provides a related connection:
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.”
—Jeremiah 31:31, BSB
The following verses promise God’s law written inwardly, knowledge of Him, and forgiveness. The named people and the changed relationship belong together. This is restoration through God’s renewal of covenant life. Jeremiah 31:31–34.
Hebrews 8:6–13 quotes Jeremiah while explaining the covenant Jesus already mediates. Hebrews 10:14–18 returns to the promise that God will write His laws within His people and remember their sins no more, grounding forgiveness in Christ’s sufficient sacrifice. Present participation in the promised covenant is therefore part of the New Testament’s own account of fulfillment. Hebrews 8:6–13; 10:14–18.
Paul gives that participation a concrete expression when he passes on Jesus’ words to the Corinthians:
“This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
—1 Corinthians 11:25, BSB, excerpt
Second Corinthians 3:3–6 similarly connects Paul’s ministry among them with the Spirit’s writing on human hearts and describes his commission as ministry of a new covenant. These Pauline passages place the covenant’s blessings within the church’s present life, including the Gentile believers whose shared belonging we have already examined. 1 Corinthians 11:23–26; 2 Corinthians 3:3–6.
Jeremiah also places a strong assurance immediately after the new-covenant promise. In 31:35–37, the stability of the created order illustrates God’s commitment to Israel’s descendants: their sins will not cause Him to reject them altogether. That assurance gives the continuity of the people genuine weight. It must be considered together with the covenant’s fulfillment in Christ, the inclusion of Gentiles, and the continuing necessity of faith.
These connections do not establish that Jeremiah 31 is a direct source of Paul’s quotation in Romans 11:27. They clarify its wider covenant setting. Nor do they independently define every restored member, guarantee every individual’s salvation, or date a future turning. Part XVII will examine the promises’ corporate and territorial dimensions more fully. Here the connection reinforces the question before us: how does God’s present welcome of the nations relate to His faithfulness toward the people originally named in the promise?
12. What can the early church fathers help us understand?
Early Christian interpretation matters because it shows how readers closer to the ancient setting understood these promises. Its weight increases when a writer addresses the actual passage and explains his reasoning. Age, language, and connections with earlier teachers are relevant; none makes an interpretation identical to apostolic teaching.
John Chrysostom: a direct interpretation of Romans 11.
In Homily 19 on Romans, Chrysostom understands Paul to promise salvation for the Jewish people whose unbelief is under discussion. He recognizes that many have already believed, while expecting further belief. He takes the Deliverer quotation as evidence of a promised removal of sins still awaiting fulfillment for those remaining unbelieving.
Earlier in the same homily, he explicitly associates Israel’s salvation with Christ’s second coming and the end of the world. His expectation concerns faith and forgiveness, not salvation through ancestry while unbelief continues. Chrysostom, Homily 19 on Romans.
His Homily 57 on Matthew adds a possible means: Elijah’s ministry before the second advent persuading Jewish people to believe in Christ. His phrase “the Jews that are then in being” concerns the people alive at that time; it is not a statement that every Jewish person throughout history is automatically saved. Chrysostom, Homily 57 on Matthew.
This is significant historical support for a future Jewish turning. Chrysostom is a late-fourth-century Greek interpreter, however, not a firsthand transmitter of Paul’s explanation. Nor does an English translation’s use of then settle the force of Paul’s houtōs.
Augustine: future Jewish faith without a future earthly Millennium.
In The City of God 20.29, Augustine expects Jewish people to believe in Christ through Elijah’s exposition of Scripture before the final judgment. He describes this expectation as familiar among Christians. That is evidence of a recognized expectation, not proof of unanimous agreement.
This chapter interprets Malachi rather than supplying a detailed exposition of Romans 11:26. Meanwhile, in 20.7–9, Augustine understands the thousand-year reign in relation to the church’s present life. His combination matters: expecting a future Jewish conversion does not require expecting a future earthly millennial kingdom. Augustine, The City of God, Book 20.
Irenaeus: an earlier quotation with a more limited conclusion.
In Against Heresies 4.2.8, Irenaeus actually quotes Romans 11:26 after discussing Israelites and Samaritans who believed in Christ. His argument defends the law’s proper role in directing people toward Christ; their unbelief cannot simply be blamed on the law.
The passage does not clearly define the extent of all Israel or describe a final-generation mass conversion. Its early date gives the testimony historical value, but we should not supply an explanation that Irenaeus does not provide. The apostolic connections examined in Part XV cannot fill that gap. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.2.8.
Justin Martyr: a broad Christian use of Israel’s identity.
In Dialogue with Trypho 123, Justin applies Israel’s identity and promises to people belonging to Christ, including believers from the nations. This shows that an inclusive Christian use of Israel language also has early roots.
Justin is not directly expounding Romans 11:26 here, and his argument should not be equated with Staples’s detailed reconstruction. Nevertheless, a fair account of early interpretation must include this evidence alongside future-conversion expectations. Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 123.
These witnesses help us assess the history and plausibility of our readings. Chrysostom provides particularly clear support for understanding the promise in relation to historical Jewish people and future faith. Justin prevents us from portraying broader Christian uses of Israel as merely modern inventions. Irenaeus requires restraint about what an early quotation proves. Augustine separates future conversion from a particular millennial scheme.
They strengthen the investigation without replacing Paul’s argument as its controlling evidence.
13. Could the two witnesses participate in Israel’s turning?
If God intends further mercy toward Israel, could the witnesses of Revelation 11 be among the means through which people come to faith?
That is a reasonable possibility to examine. We need to distinguish the witnesses’ identity, their audience, the response to their testimony, and the proposed connection with Romans 11. Evidence for one does not automatically establish the others.
Lampstands, olive trees, and the possibility of two Jewish witnesses.
Revelation 1:20 identifies its seven lampstands as the seven churches. Revelation 11 applies both lampstand and olive-tree imagery to the same two witnesses:
“These witnesses are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth.”
—Revelation 11:4, BSB
The lampstands connect their ministry with the vocation of bearing God’s light and testimony. That connection supports a corporate reading, but it does not require every lampstand to mean an entire church. Two individual prophets could also embody the witnessing vocation of God’s people. Symbolic description and individual persons are compatible. Revelation 1:20; 11:3–4.
Could the olive trees add something more specific—an indication that these witnesses are Jewish?
There is a biblical basis for considering that possibility. Jeremiah 11:16–17 portrays God’s covenant people as a flourishing olive tree and expressly names the houses of Israel and Judah. Olive imagery can therefore carry an Israelite association. Jeremiah 11:16–17.
The most direct background to Revelation’s particular combination, however, is Zechariah 4. That vision contains one lampstand with seven lamps and two olive trees. When Zechariah asks about the trees and their branches, the angel explains:
“These are the two anointed ones who are standing beside the Lord of all the earth.”
—Zechariah 4:14, BSB, excerpt
Verse 6 emphasizes God accomplishing His work through His Spirit. Read within that setting, the olive trees point most directly to servants appointed and sustained by God. Revelation adapts the vision’s imagery, describing its witnesses as both two olive trees and two lampstands. Zechariah 4.
Joshua the high priest and Zerubbabel the governor are strong contextual candidates for Zechariah’s two anointed figures. Chapter 3 focuses on Joshua, chapter 4 addresses Zerubbabel, and Haggai identifies them together in the work of restoring the temple. Zechariah 4:14 does not expressly name them, so that identification remains an interpretation of the surrounding context. It nevertheless supplies a meaningful precedent involving two leaders within Israel’s restoration. Zechariah 3; Haggai 1:1, 12–14.
Taken together, these connections give a Jewish identification real plausibility within a reading of the witnesses as two individual prophets. Their Moses-and-Elijah-like powers and the Jerusalem connection in Revelation 11:6–8 strengthen that possibility. Their proposed ancestry would not, however, make their audience exclusively Jewish.
Paul’s olive-tree image supplies a necessary qualification. Romans 11 includes Gentile believers within its imagery and distinguishes their origins through natural and wild branches. Revelation 11 does not make that distinction. Paul’s one tree explains shared nourishment, faith, unbelief, and regrafting; John’s two trees directly recall Zechariah’s commissioned servants. We cannot identify their referents solely because both passages use olive imagery. Romans 11:17–24.
The lampstands plausibly emphasize their testimony, while the olive trees emphasize divine appointment and provision within Israel’s prophetic restoration tradition. Two Jewish witnesses fit that background well, but their ancestry remains an inference rather than an explicit identification. This adds weight to a possible Jewish identity without settling their names, the individual-or-corporate question, or the identity of everyone who responds to their ministry.
A Jerusalem setting could bring Jewish hearers directly within their ministry.
Revelation 11:8 identifies the place of their exposed bodies with the city where their Lord was crucified. That is a strong pointer toward Jerusalem. The same verse gives the city symbolic names, Sodom and Egypt, and wider symbolic readings of the city remain part of the debate.
On a future Jerusalem reading, Jewish people present there could naturally encounter the witnesses and their testimony. Yet the chapter also includes Gentile trampling, observers from many peoples, and an international reaction to their deaths. Their influence is not presented as exclusively Jewish. Revelation 11:2, 8–10.
The strongest conversion evidence comes from the survivors’ response.
After the witnesses are killed, raised, and summoned upward, an earthquake strikes the city. John describes the survivors:
“the rest were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.”
—Revelation 11:13, BSB, excerpt
Elsewhere in Revelation, fearing God and giving Him glory belongs to the response urged alongside the proclamation of the eternal gospel. By contrast, those struck by another judgment refuse to repent and give Him glory. Revelation 14:6–7; 16:9.
Part XII also examined a nearby contrast in the trumpet account:
“Now the rest of mankind who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the works of their hands.”
—Revelation 9:20, BSB, excerpt
Revelation 9:20–21 describes survivors persisting in idolatry and other sins. After the witnesses’ vindication and the earthquake, Revelation 11:13 describes survivors giving glory to God. The different responses strengthen the possibility that God uses this testimony, public vindication, and judgment to bring hearers to repentance. Revelation 9:20–21.
The comparison does not establish that these are precisely the same people or that everyone who celebrated the witnesses’ deaths now believes. Each scene must retain its own audience and response.
Those parallels give a repentant reading of Revelation 11:13 substantial support. The scene may portray testimony, apparent defeat, divine vindication, and judgment leading survivors to acknowledge God in a genuinely changed response. The witnesses’ ministry would then have a saving significance beyond its confrontation with the beast.
Nevertheless, fear and acknowledgment under judgment do not invariably supply a complete account of saving faith. Joshua 7:19, for example, uses giving glory to God in connection with confession under judgment. That comparison prevents us from treating the phrase as an automatic formula. Within Revelation itself, however, the positive parallels make repentance a strong possibility, not an idea supported only by imagination.
Even if the survivors repent, John does not call them all Israel, identify every survivor as Jewish, or describe the conversion of the entire Jewish people worldwide. A local response cannot become a worldwide demographic claim without further evidence.
Could their testimony continue to bear fruit after their ministry ends? That is a reasonable possibility. Hearers might initially resist and later respond in light of the witnesses’ vindication or subsequent events. The response John actually describes follows their ascent and the earthquake; other delayed responses remain possible rather than narrated.
This allows us to consider earlier testimony contributing to later faith, including faith after a proposed gathering. It does not establish that sequence. John does not identify these converts as the 144,000, and he does not expressly date their conversion relative to the gathering of all believers. Whether such converts could remain mortal belongs with the conversion-and-transformation questions considered below and more fully in Part XVIII.
Elijah and early interpretation give the proposed connection historical depth.
Malachi 4:5–6 connects Elijah with turning hearts before the Day of the Lord. Luke 1:16–17 explicitly describes John the Baptist turning many Israelites to God in Elijah’s spirit and power. Matthew 17:10–13 identifies John with the Elijah expectation. Those fulfillments must receive their full weight before we argue for a further Elijah ministry. Revelation does not name either witness. Malachi 4; Luke 1:16–17; Matthew 17:10–13.
Hippolytus, in On Christ and Antichrist 43, identifies the witnesses as Enoch and Elijah and describes them as “proclaiming repentance to the people and to all the nations.” Sections 46–47 connect their ministry, signs, and Revelation 11 with preparation for Christ’s appearing. This is early evidence for a repentance-oriented and international reading of their mission. The proposed names and timetable remain Hippolytus’s interpretation, not details expressly supplied by Revelation. Hippolytus, On Christ and Antichrist 43, 46–47.
Because Enoch predates Abraham and Israel, Hippolytus’s particular identification does not support the proposal that both witnesses are Jewish. His testimony is relevant here to their repentance ministry; it does not establish their ancestry. Genesis 5:18–24.
Worldwide attention is possible without making technology part of the prophecy.
Television and the internet could make events in Jerusalem widely visible if the scene describes future individual witnesses. That is a possible means of communication, not something John explicitly predicts.
Revelation 11:9 speaks of observers from peoples, tribes, languages, and nations. The Greek includes from, reflected in the ESV’s “some from the peoples and tribes and languages and nations.” It does not require every human being to watch simultaneously. International observers and the spread of reports already make the statement intelligible without a specified technology. Revelation 11:9, Greek; ESV.
The appropriate conclusion is therefore meaningful but limited: the witnesses could participate in bringing Jewish people, and others, to repentance. Revelation 11:13 gives that proposal a textual basis. Identifying their ministry as the event through which Paul’s “all Israel” is saved remains a further, unproven connection.
God saves through Christ; witnesses serve His saving work. Romans 11 explains the connected movement of mercy without naming these prophets. Revelation describes their testimony without explicitly identifying it as the completion of Romans 11. Part XII owns the fuller investigation of their identity, audience, and local sequence. Here their possible role belongs among the means worth considering, not among the facts required to define all Israel.
14. What does “all Israel” most likely mean here?
The restoration-through-incorporation case has substantial weight. Hosea, Amos, the prophetic welcome of foreigners, and Romans 15 show why Gentile salvation belongs within Israel’s scriptural hope. Gentile inclusion is integral to God’s faithfulness.
The immediate argument nevertheless keeps returning to a particular people: Paul’s Israelite kinsmen in Romans 9:3–5; the remnant and the hardened in 11:1–7; and the natural branches in 11:17–24. These are the people whose unbelief has prompted the question about God’s promises.
In verses 11–15, their stumbling benefits the nations, and their fullness and acceptance promise still greater blessing. In verses 23–24, branches removed through unbelief can return to their own tree. In verse 25, Israel is hardened in part while Gentiles come in. The Deliverer quotation then promises forgiveness to Jacob.
Paul continues:
“Regarding the gospel, they are enemies on your account; but regarding election, they are loved on account of the patriarchs. For God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable.”
—Romans 11:28–29, BSB
He is still discussing people whose present response to the gospel differs from that of the Gentile believers he addresses. Verse 31 places their disobedience within God’s purpose of mercy.
The strongest incorporation reply is that this can remain the same covenant people while its restored membership expands. Unbelieving Israelites can receive mercy within a people also being completed through Gentile incorporation. That account explains why Israel’s name need not acquire an unrelated meaning in verse 26. The continued concern for historical Israelites in verses 28–31 is compatible with it.
Consequently, continuity of concern does not decisively disprove an inclusive referent. The question is which account better explains Paul’s repeated movement between Israel’s condition and the mercy reaching the Gentiles.
Lionel Windsor raises a closely related question in his review of Staples’s Paul and the Resurrection of Israel: should Gentile believers’ participation be understood as incorporation into Israel itself or as incorporation into God’s promises to Israel? He favors the latter while recognizing the force of Staples’s challenge. That distinction helps identify the remaining disagreement. Shared participation is established; the precise identity language used to describe it still requires interpretation. Windsor’s question is his own critical assessment, while Staples’s position should be understood from Staples’s own argument. Windsor, review of Paul and the Resurrection of Israel.
This study finds that contextual continuity somewhat more persuasive for understanding “all Israel” as historical Israel brought corporately into salvation through Christ. The preference is cautious. It identifies the people Paul has been discussing without claiming that every member’s identity, number, or conversion time has been specified.
There is then a separate question: does this corporate salvation require a distinct future, widespread turning? The movement from stumbling to fullness and from rejection to acceptance suggests a reversal beyond the present pattern of a believing remnant amid widespread unbelief. This study tentatively expects such a culmination. That expectation is less secure than the conclusion that historical Israel remains the object of Paul’s concern. The cumulative-remnant reading can also claim the future completion of the saved company, and the incorporation reading can combine Gentile fullness with further Jewish salvation. Chrysostom’s direct interpretation and Augustine’s expectation add historical support for a future turning. Revelation’s witnesses offer a possible means of conversion. Neither addition establishes the scope or timing that Paul leaves disputed.
In plain language: on the preferred reading, “all Israel” is Israel—the historical people whose unbelief troubles Paul—brought into salvation as a restored whole through Jesus. Believing Gentiles fully share the same saving fellowship. A future widespread turning of Jewish people is a further, tentative explanation of how that restoration may reach completion.
Corporate describes a people considered together; it does not translate all as a particular percentage. The exact completeness intended remains a real interpretive difficulty. We should neither make all mean merely some nor assume it guarantees salvation to every Israelite who ever lived. An account of a specified final company, a cumulative saved remnant, and a restored people including Gentiles must each explain its boundaries from Paul’s argument.
The twelve-tribe objection also remains relevant. Jewish identity in Paul’s day was wider than Judah, as his own Benjaminite ancestry illustrates. But that observation alone does not explain every aspect of Israel-and-Judah reunion or settle the place of Gentiles in that restoration. The Hosea and incorporation evidence must remain part of the conclusion’s test.
Nothing in this reading identifies all Israel with a modern government or makes ancestry a saving condition. Faith, forgiveness, and the regrafting of those who cease persisting in unbelief govern the promise. No second route around Christ appears.
The agreement with Heiser and Staples is therefore substantial: the Gentile mission belongs within Israel’s restoration. The remaining difference concerns whether their account best defines this particular expression. Their stronger incorporation case remains a serious alternative to the preference expressed here.
One argument in Heiser’s presentation needs qualification. Paul’s choice of Israel cannot be settled by saying he would otherwise have written Jews, or that Israel has no ethnic sense for him. Romans 11:1 prevents that simplification. This objection does not refute Staples’s more careful account of overlapping identities or the wider restoration argument.
The strongest alternatives deserve continuing consideration. The study’s conclusion must remain answerable to their evidence.
15. One salvation does not settle every kingdom question
A wider covenant identity and a future turning of Jewish people need not be mutually exclusive. One interpretation can affirm both Gentile incorporation into restored Israel and further mercy toward historical Israel. The debate over the phrase’s scope should not manufacture a choice between those two expectations.
Theological labels are also inadequate substitutes for the argument.
Covenantal interpreters often emphasize one people in Christ; some also expect a widespread future Jewish conversion. Dispensational interpreters commonly affirm salvation through Christ while distinguishing Israel’s national promises. Progressive dispensational accounts emphasize present participation in messianic blessing together with a future for Israel.
These are families of interpretation with internal differences. They must be evaluated by how they explain shared salvation, continuing distinctions, present fulfillment, and whatever fulfillment remains.
Four questions must remain distinguishable: the membership of the redeemed people; the referent of all Israel; whether historical Israel experiences a climactic turning; and whether the prophets and Revelation establish an intermediate kingdom with mortal inhabitants.
A conclusion on the first three does not automatically answer the fourth. This distinction will govern Parts XVII–XVIII and later discussions of the kingdom.
16. Three “until” statements illuminate different questions
Three passages deserve to be read beside one another without assuming that they name the same boundary.
Jerusalem’s subjection. Luke describes Gentile trampling continuing:
“until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.”
—Luke 21:24, ESV, excerpt
Israel’s partial hardening. Paul describes its relationship to Gentile ingathering:
“until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.”
—Romans 11:25, ESV, excerpt
Jerusalem’s response to Jesus. After lamenting over the city, Jesus says they will not see Him again:
“until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”
—Matthew 23:39, ESV, excerpt
Luke addresses the city’s subjection; Paul addresses hardening and salvation; Matthew connects future sight of Jesus with an acknowledgment drawn from Psalm 118.
These themes could converge within the consummation. But no passage explicitly identifies the three limits as one date. The similarity of Gentiles and until is insufficient to make their subjects interchangeable.
Matthew’s statement can be understood as anticipating a believing welcome. Another reading emphasizes acknowledgment when Jesus appears in judgment. The saying does not independently provide every element of a corporate conversion account.
Matthew has already narrated the same acclamation at the triumphal entry in 21:9. That earlier event cannot simply exhaust the subsequent expectation expressed in 23:39. How the expectation relates to Romans 11 remains a question of synthesis. Luke 21; Matthew 23.
17. AD 70 matters, but it does not begin Gentile inclusion
Luke 21 describes Jerusalem surrounded by armies, flight from Judea, violent death, and captivity. Jerusalem’s Roman destruction in AD 70 fits that historical setting directly.
Whether the discourse also reaches the final appearing requires examination of the language that follows. Historical readings emphasize prophetic judgment and vindication; futurist readings emphasize the Son of Man’s appearing and the completion of redemption.
Luke 21:32 presents a significant difficulty for a distant future horizon: Jesus associates the predicted fulfillment with the generation He identifies. A reading extending beyond the first century must explain that statement. It cannot silently change completion into the mere beginning of the predicted events.
This study favors a real first-century judgment together with a future consummation. Continued trampling can connect the horizons, but the passage does not measure the interval, and the generation statement remains a serious interpretive question.
Revelation 11:2 describes forty-two months of trampling. The shared imagery does not prove that Luke’s entire Gentile period lasts forty-two months or that every feature of AD 70 must happen again.
One boundary is clear: Gentile inclusion was already occurring before Jerusalem’s destruction. Cornelius, Paul and Barnabas’s mission, the Jerusalem council, and Romans itself demonstrate that sequence. Acts 10; 13; 15.
Neither 1948 nor 1967 is identified in these passages. A modern political event cannot define the completion of Gentile fullness simply because it affects Jerusalem. Romans 11 concerns saving mercy and the removal of sins.
18. The nations give the interval a purpose
Genesis places Abraham’s call after Babel and promises blessing through him to the families of the earth. Reading that sequence as a response to scattering is a compelling canonical connection, though Genesis does not explicitly label it a reversal of Babel. Galatians 3:8, 14, and 29 connects Abraham’s promise with Gentile blessing in Christ.
At Pentecost, Jews and proselytes from many regions hear God’s works in their own languages. The message crosses linguistic boundaries while diversity remains. A Babel connection is a theological reading of that pattern. Acts 2:5–11.
Luke’s seventy or seventy-two commissioned disciples may similarly evoke the nations associated with Genesis 10. Both numbers occur in the manuscript tradition. Luke does not explain the symbolism, and that mission should not be described as the completion of evangelism to every nation. Luke 10:1, 17.
Acts then shows actual Gentile households receiving the Spirit. The Jerusalem council recognizes their place in God’s people. Romans explains Gentile mercy as connected to Israel’s salvation. Together these passages make the international mission integral to the story’s movement.
Ephesians gives this shared inheritance a further dimension:
“This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are fellow heirs, fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus.”
—Ephesians 3:6, BSB
Paul then describes God’s purpose:
“His purpose was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,”
—Ephesians 3:10, BSB
Verse 11 connects that purpose with Christ. The emphasis on now matters: Gentile inclusion and the church’s shared life already display God’s wisdom before heavenly powers. We do not have to wait until a future kingdom for the nations’ reception to have this significance. Ephesians 3:6–11.
This provides a direct Pauline connection with the reclamation-of-the-nations theme explored through Heiser’s work in Part XV. The wider connection among Babel, Deuteronomy 32, Psalm 82, and the gospel is a synthesis across passages; Ephesians itself expressly joins Gentile co-inheritance and God’s wisdom being made known in the heavenly realm.
The verse does not identify every heavenly ruler as rebellious, say that glorified people replace the entire divine council, or locate the gathering within Revelation’s judgments. Parts XX and XXIII will develop the powers and shared-rule questions. Here its force is to show why the present mission matters: the inclusion of the nations belongs to God’s purpose in Christ and makes His wisdom known beyond its human recipients.
Heiser’s The Unseen Realm supplies a broader account of this supernatural setting. His Reversing Hermon develops related questions through Genesis 6, the Watchers, and Enochic traditions concerning evil and the Messiah’s mission. Those traditions can illuminate the ancient setting while remaining distinct from Scripture’s own claims. The Watchers material and Babel’s scattering are connected within Heiser’s synthesis, but they should retain their distinct narratives and arguments. Neither framework independently determines who Paul calls all Israel. The fuller investigation of the powers and Watchers belongs with the later chapters; here the direct Pauline connection between Gentile inheritance and God’s heavenly purpose is sufficient to establish the mission’s significance. Heiser, The Unseen Realm; Reversing Hermon, authorized preview.
Matthew 24:14 also places worldwide gospel testimony before the end. Its historical and final horizons require interpretation; it provides no modern checklist from which to calculate the return of Christ.
Second Peter 3:8–15 explains the apparent delay through divine patience and opportunity for repentance. Its comparison between a day and a thousand years works in both directions. It corrects assumptions about God’s timing without supplying a universal prophetic conversion formula.
Hosea 6:1–3 concerns healing and restoration, while the following verses expose fleeting loyalty. Turning its two days into precisely two thousand years exceeds what the passage states. Ancient schemes of six thousand years followed by a millennial Sabbath also remain interpretations rather than revealed calendars.
How did the six-thousand-year interpretation arise? Some readers treated creation’s six days of work and seventh-day rest as a pattern for the whole course of history. The day-and-thousand-year comparison in Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 supplied a numerical connection. Christian interpreters could then relate the seventh millennium to Revelation 20’s thousand-year reign. Six millennia of history would culminate in a millennial Sabbath.
The work known as the Epistle of Barnabas, chapter 15, explicitly interprets the six days as six thousand years. It associates the subsequent rest with the Son’s coming and judgment, then looks beyond it to an eighth-day horizon of a new world. Irenaeus likewise makes the six-days/six-thousand-years calculation in Against Heresies 5.28.3. These are actual ancient interpretations, not a scheme invented by modern prophecy charts. Epistle of Barnabas 15; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.28.3.
A related Jewish scheme appears in Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 97a, where a thousand-year cessation or desolation is related to Sabbath imagery. Its later compilation does not establish that Barnabas borrowed from that completed text. Within Christian interpretation, Augustine records the millennial-Sabbath expectation, acknowledges having once held a form of it, and develops a different reading of the thousand years. Antiquity therefore does not establish unanimity. Sanhedrin 97a; Augustine, The City of God 20.7.
The theological attraction is clear: creation’s movement toward rest becomes a pattern for history’s movement toward restoration. But Genesis does not expressly assign the world a six-thousand-year lifespan, and Revelation does not expressly place its millennium after six thousand years. Peter’s concern with divine patience must govern our use of his comparison. The pattern deserves historical attention without becoming a countdown to Christ’s return. 2 Peter 3:8–15.
Romans gives us a saving purpose to participate in and a fullness to await. It gives no date to calculate.
19. Israel’s salvation and the resurrection must be related carefully
Romans 11:15 associates Israel’s acceptance with life from the dead. Bodily resurrection is a serious possible reference, particularly within Paul’s larger theology. Another reading understands a vivid description of the blessing accompanying restoration.
Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones gives the restoration reading a concrete scriptural comparison. God explains the vision:
“Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. Look, they are saying, ‘Our bones are dried up, and our hope has perished; we are cut off.’”
—Ezekiel 37:11, BSB, excerpt
The people’s despair is answered by God’s promise to open their graves, bring them out, and restore them to Israel’s land. He continues:
“I will put My Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I, the LORD, have spoken, and I will do it, declares the LORD.”
—Ezekiel 37:14, BSB
The vision itself identifies the corporate people and their restoration. Its imagery gives life to a people who regard their hope as dead, and the two sticks that follow portray reunion under one ruler. Spirit, restored life, and the people’s renewal belong together. Ezekiel 37:11–28.
This provides a reason to consider restoration language when reading Romans 11:15. It does not prove that Paul directly quotes Ezekiel or that life from the dead must be metaphorical. Paul asks what Israel’s acceptance will mean within a comparison involving reconciliation of the world; Ezekiel’s explanation alone does not identify everyone receiving the resulting life or blessing. Bodily resurrection remains a serious possibility within Paul’s wider teaching.
The comparison therefore strengthens an alternative already present in the discussion without supplying a timetable. Part XVII examines Ezekiel’s corporate restoration more fully; here it cautions us against treating the imagery by itself as a precise chronological marker.
The phrase does not independently place Israel’s conversion before, during, or after the resurrection and gathering examined in Part XV.
Nor does Romans 11 explicitly announce that all grafting ends at a specified rapture moment. The chapter gives no complete schedule of later conversions or kingdom entrants.
One constraint must nevertheless remain firm: Jewish believers share the transformation promised to those who belong to Christ. Their ethnicity does not exempt them from Paul’s account of living believers being changed. 1 Corinthians 15:22–23, 51–53; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18.
That promise identifies the hope of Christ’s people. It does not, by itself, state that every other human being immediately dies or that no one can subsequently come to faith. Those are additional claims requiring evidence from the judgment passages and their relationship to the gathering. The transformation of believers must not quietly become a complete census of everyone who remains. Likewise, an unresolved account of possible mortal entrants is not a demonstrated absence of such people.
A proposed future turning of Israel cannot therefore be used as an automatic supply of believing mortals for the Millennium. Nor do the survivors of Revelation 11:13 supply that population merely because their response may be repentance. Their conversion’s relationship to the gathering and subsequent judgments would still need to be established. The 144,000’s identity or sealing does not supply those missing steps by itself.
Could people first believe after the gathering?
Within a future-millennium reading, people who first come to faith after a completed gathering, survive the subsequent judgments, and enter the kingdom could provide a mortal population. Their mortality would not require an exception for those already belonging to Christ when the living believers are transformed.
Mortality itself does not imply unbelief. Paul addresses people indwelt by the Spirit who still await the redemption of their bodies. Inward renewal and bodily glorification are distinguishable within the Christian hope. Romans 8:9–11, 23.
The difficulty is therefore not whether a believer can possess saving faith while remaining mortal. The difficulty is locating any proposed later believers in relation to the transformation at Christ’s coming. Their continuing mortality would require an argued sequence; it cannot be explained by excluding already-believing Jews from the promise or by inventing another gathering merely to complete the population account.
That is a coherent proposed sequence, but each step requires support. An interval that would help explain the population is not itself evidence that the interval exists. Paul associates the resurrection of Christ’s people with His coming; an account extending the events of that coming over an interval must explain where its later converts belong. The word Parousia does not supply the duration or arrangement. 1 Corinthians 15:23.
Could witnessing Christ’s intervention itself contribute to someone’s coming to faith? Matthew 24:30–31 describes people seeing the Son of Man and the gathering of His elect. The possibility that some respond to what they witness, including events associated with the resurrection and gathering, deserves examination. The passage does not narrate those conversions or specify that every observer watches every individual resurrection. We should neither supply that scene as an established event nor exclude a believing response merely because its timing is not narrated. Matthew 24:30–31.
Recognition of divine power, saving faith, physical survival, admission to the kingdom, and bodily glorification remain distinct questions. An account must explain their relationship rather than treating one as proof of all the others. The witnesses’ vindication in Section 13 offers a relevant comparison for a possible changed response; it does not establish the timetable or population of the general gathering.
The witnesses’ earlier testimony could be one means leading people to later faith. If their hearers believe before the gathering, however, they fall within the transformation promise. If some first believe afterward but are then killed, their resurrection must follow their deaths; they cannot supply surviving mortal entrants merely because they converted later. Revelation 20:4–6 makes the fate of those killed for their testimony part of the investigation. Revelation 20:4–6.
No promise that every remaining unbeliever receives another opportunity follows. Second Thessalonians 2:10–12 warns of delusion and condemnation associated with rejecting the truth, while Revelation 14:9–11 warns against allegiance to the beast. These passages must remain within any account of later conversion. 2 Thessalonians 2:10–12; Revelation 14:9–11.
Nor does avoiding persecution of Christians, or lacking the beast’s mark, automatically establish someone’s faith, survival, or admission. Revelation 13:8 broadly describes beast worship among those absent from the Lamb’s Book of Life; verses 15–17 describe coercion and economic exclusion. Any proposal involving people who have not yet believed but have avoided beast allegiance must address that language. Assuming remote communities escape every aspect of the crisis does not supply the missing evidence. The passage gives no modern geographical refuge or individual conversion timetable. Revelation 13:7–17.
Could the 144,000 be sealed before their conversion?
The proposal has a developed argument behind it. Alan Kurschner understands the 144,000 as an Israelite remnant sealed for protection before coming to faith later. In his Pre-Wrath reconstruction, their preservation on earth differs from the gathering of the multitude into heaven. Their later conversion then contributes to his account of Israel’s salvation.
The apparent difficulty is the language used when they are sealed:
“Do not harm the land or sea or trees until we have placed a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.”
—Revelation 7:3, BSB
Kurschner answers by treating servants as a designation anticipating their future role. He cites Robert Gundry’s discussion of Isaiah 42:18–25, where Israel is called God’s servant while remaining blind and disobedient, followed by restoration promises in Isaiah 43. On this argument, designation for God’s purpose need not mean that the designated people already believe. Kurschner, “Why Aren’t the Innumerable Multitude in Revelation 7:9–17 Sealed as Are the 144,000?”, citing Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, p. 82.
Isaiah’s usage gives that reply a real biblical basis. The word servant alone cannot serve as an infallible test of present faithfulness. Paul’s earlier account of being set apart before his conversion likewise shows why divine purpose and the timing of someone’s believing response must be distinguished. Isaiah 42:18–25; Galatians 1:13–16.
Could this include devout Jews who have not yet recognized Jesus as Messiah? That possibility needs more precise language than calling them faithful without explaining what is meant. Romans 10:1–4 acknowledges Israel’s zeal for God while praying for its salvation and directing attention to righteousness through Christ. Religious devotion and saving faith in Jesus are distinguishable. Sincerity or ancestry does not create a separate way of salvation. Romans 10:1–4.
Romans 11 supplies the complementary point. People presently opposed concerning the gospel remain loved on account of the patriarchs, and those who do not persist in unbelief can be grafted in again. God’s continuing covenant purpose and their present response to Christ must therefore be considered together. These passages give us a biblical framework for discussing devotion before recognition of the Messiah; they do not identify the 144,000 as people in that condition or date their subsequent faith. Romans 11:23–29.
Revelation’s setting must decide how the designation functions here. Servant status in chapter 7 and the redeemed followers of the Lamb in chapter 14 naturally suggest present allegiance to Him. An anticipatory designation remains possible to argue, but neither scene narrates conversion, and chapter order does not independently date it. An Israelite identification also does not equate this company with Paul’s “all Israel”; the symbolic whole-people reading considered in Part X still deserves a hearing.
Revelation 9:4 protects the sealed from a particular torment. It does not establish exemption from transformation, immunity from every danger, or a reproductive role. Firstfruits language and Mount Zion do not supply those missing steps. Part XVIII, Section 8 examines the complete population argument; preservation, conversion, and continuing mortality must remain distinct.
The witnesses’ placement presents a related test. Revelation 11 connects their death, revival, ascent, and the survivors’ response with the passing of the second woe before the seventh trumpet. A chronology placing the gathering before the trumpet judgments must explain how the witnesses’ entire ministry could end before that gathering. Alternatively, leaving already-believing mortal witnesses ministering afterward requires explaining their relation to the transformation promise. Part XII examines these relationships; neither prophetic office nor ancestry supplies an automatic exception. Revelation 11:7–15.
These questions keep the broader model comparison open. A possible account of later conversion can help a Pre-Wrath reconstruction explain its population, but it does not independently establish the gathering’s placement or rule out a protected Post-Tribulation account with an argued sequence of its own. An earlier gathering offers a proposed interval; the availability of time does not prove the conversions, survival, or admission assigned to it. A gathering nearer the beast’s defeat allows a narrower proposed transition; that difference does not, by itself, exclude a believing response to Christ’s intervention.
Both accounts must explain who believes when, which judgments they survive, and how their bodily condition relates to Paul’s promise. Neither receives an established founding population merely by being possible. Conversely, uncertainty about those founders does not itself disprove a future intermediate reign. Part XV’s qualified comparison remains, while Part XVIII weighs the positive survivor passages and brings conversion, transformation, judgment, and kingdom entry together. Part XXVI will examine the full resurrection and consummation comparison; Part XXVII will draw the series’ conclusions together.
The identity question matters profoundly. It does not remove the population question that remains ahead.
20. Mercy governs both the conclusion and its consequences
Micah closes with a celebration of forgiveness toward the remnant of God’s inheritance:
“He will again have compassion on us; He will vanquish our iniquities. You will cast out all our sins into the depths of the sea. You will show faithfulness to Jacob and loving devotion to Abraham, as You swore to our fathers from the days of old.”
—Micah 7:19–20, BSB
Its preceding verse identifies the remnant and celebrates God’s delight in mercy. The patriarchal promises remain joined to forgiveness and covenant faithfulness. Micah strengthens the setting of our inquiry without independently defining Paul’s all Israel or dating its salvation. Micah 7:18–20.
Paul likewise brings his argument to mercy and worship. Gentile believers have no ground for boasting over Israel. Israel’s hope rests on the grace of the same God who has welcomed the nations.
His concluding statement gathers both groups within the need for mercy:
“For God has consigned everyone to disobedience so that He may have mercy on everyone.”
—Romans 11:32, BSB
Neither group can claim salvation as its achievement or entitlement. The statement must also remain connected to Paul’s account of faith, unbelief, and regrafting. A claim that every individual will inevitably be saved requires more argument than quoting this sentence apart from that context.
Paul then turns from the depth of God’s wisdom and the unsearchability of His judgments to praise:
“For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever! Amen.”
—Romans 11:36, BSB
The investigation ends in gratitude to the God whose mercy sustains both peoples. That posture should govern how we state conclusions that remain contested. Romans 11:32–36.
Jewish and Gentile believers already share one saving life in Christ. Gentile inclusion belongs within Israel’s restoration story. This study cautiously understands the particular expression all Israel as historical Israel’s corporate salvation. It more tentatively expects that salvation to culminate in a widespread turning beyond the present remnant. Restoration through incorporation and the cumulative-remnant reading remain substantial alternatives.
In this way points to God’s connected work of mercy through Christ and the gospel. Gentiles receive mercy, their inclusion serves Israel’s good, and unbelieving Israelites are called to faith. The process is already underway; its precise relation to a future corporate completion remains disputed.
Early Christian expectations show that future Jewish faith is an ancient reading, while other early testimony applies Israel’s identity broadly to believers in Christ. The witnesses of Revelation 11 may participate in bringing Jewish and Gentile hearers to repentance. These observations enrich the inquiry without identifying the witnesses’ converts as “all Israel” or supplying an established timetable.
Later chapters must carry these distinctions forward. They must examine each prophetic promise’s people, setting, and apostolic use before assigning it to a future kingdom. They must recognize present fulfillment through Christ and the nations without assuming that every promise is exhausted. They must also establish any further historical restoration or mortal population from the relevant passages rather than importing it from a disputed reading of Romans 11.
The same care applies when excluding possibilities. The transformation of Christ’s people does not independently establish the immediate death of everyone else, and an incomplete account of the kingdom’s possible mortal founders is not proof that none can exist. Devotion, covenant calling, faith, preservation, and glorification must retain their distinctions. Romans 11 gives substantial grounds for hope in God’s mercy; it does not supply every step of a millennial population timetable.
The practical response is humility, prayer, witness, gratitude, and confidence in God’s faithfulness. Believing Gentiles are fully included. Unbelieving Israelites are not beyond the reach of mercy. Neither ancestry nor exclusion from that ancestry makes the gospel unnecessary.
Paul’s argument invites confidence in the God who keeps His word and brings the formerly estranged into shared life.
The next question concerns the life promised under the King:
What restored life did Israel’s prophets promise for Israel and the nations together?
Next: Part XVII — Israel and the Nations in the Promised Kingdom.
Scripture and source notes
1. One olive tree and shared saving life. Romans 11:17–24 ties participation to faith and regrafting to the abandonment of unbelief. The shared tree establishes the inclusion of believing Jews and Gentiles; it does not by itself decide whether “all Israel” in verse 26 names the whole tree or historical Israel restored within it.
2. Restoration and Gentile inclusion. Hosea 1:10–11 promises renewed belonging and Israel–Judah reunion. Romans 9:24–29 brings Hosea’s restoration language into the discussion of Jewish and Gentile calling. Acts 15:13–19 likewise uses Amos to support Gentiles already turning to God. These connections give the incorporation reading substantial weight without independently settling Romans 11:26’s referent.
3. “In this way” and chronology. The NET translation note on Romans 11:26 explains that manner and temporal implications need not exclude each other. A process already underway can reach a future completion. The phrase kai houtōs alone does not determine whether Paul promises a distinct climactic turning; the chapter’s connected movement of mercy must govern that judgment.
4. The Deliverer quotation. Romans 11:26–27 draws on Isaiah 59:20–21 and 27:9. Hebrew Isaiah describes coming to Zion, Greek Isaiah for Zion’s sake, and Paul from Zion. See the textual comparison in Christopher Bruno’s “The Deliverer from Zion”. The quotation emphasizes covenant forgiveness; the preposition alone does not date Israel’s salvation or establish the second coming as its exclusive fulfillment.
5. Witnesses, sealing, and mortal entrants. Revelation 11:13 may portray repentance, but does not identify the survivors as “all Israel.” Revelation 7:3–8 and 14:1–5 do not narrate the 144,000’s conversion date. A proposed mortal population must also account for 1 Corinthians 15:23, 51–54: ethnicity or special protection supplies no stated exemption from the transformation of Christ’s people.
Textual note on Romans 11:31: The final now, included in the BSB quotation, appears in significant manuscripts and is omitted in others; a few read later. The NET note slightly prefers its inclusion while acknowledging the difficulty. Present mercy deserves full weight where the word is read, but neither its inclusion nor omission settles whether a later corporate culmination follows. NET textual note.
Sources and further reading: Heiser develops his Romans 11 interpretation in Naked Bible 102 (2016), with a separate treatment of Edom and Amos in episode 107. Staples’s own explanation of his 2011 argument and his published 2024 clarification provide the account of his position discussed above. Bruno’s 2008 study examines Paul’s Deliverer quotation and the proposed Isaiah 2 connection. Windsor’s review and Habash’s published abstract illustrate further distinctions within the contemporary debate. The broader supernatural setting appears in Heiser’s The Unseen Realm and Reversing Hermon. The chapter also revisits the author’s earlier “All Israel Will Be Saved” study at Romans321; its argument here is presented without assuming familiarity with that earlier study.
Early Christian sources: The discussion uses the specific works and sections linked in Sections 12–13 and 18. Direct exposition of Romans 11 is distinguished from broader Israel language and expectations drawn from Malachi or Revelation. These passages establish what their authors wrote; they do not establish unanimous ancient agreement or prove that a proposed interpretation was received directly from an apostle.
Scripture quotations marked ESV: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®, copyright © 2001 by Crossway. Quotations marked BSB: Berean Standard Bible, dedicated to the public domain. All excerpts and translation comparisons are identified.