Romans 11: What Did Paul Mean When He Said, “All Israel Will be Saved”?

11 Comments
  • Troy
    Posted at 17:59h, 16 February

    Great message Joel. I have a question for you from Romans 11.

    In Isaiah 59:20 “and a Redeemer will come TO Zion” and when Paul quotes it “The Deliverer will come FROM Zion”
    See where before the crucifixion it was TO Zion… and after the crucifixion it says FROM Zion. I think this means that Jesus is sitting on His throne AS KING now… as the kingdom is being ushered in without visible signs….as in Luke 17:20. Key word “ushered” in

    I am wondering about your thoughts on this shift in language from the old to the new. testament.

  • Joel
    Posted at 18:16h, 16 February

    Hi Troy,

    Paul is simply quoting from the Septuagint.

  • Troy Geddes
    Posted at 05:06h, 17 February

    So for clarity. You are saying that the words are not to be different. They should both read To Zion? I read this originally when reading a book on Progressive Dispensationalism by Craig A. Blaising, Darrell L. Bock. That is why I ask.

    Thanks..

    Troy

  • Joel
    Posted at 08:41h, 17 February

    It not an either/or, but a both/and. At least that is my understanding.

  • Constance mitchell
    Posted at 18:40h, 24 February

    Joel…will all OT jews be risen to enter the
    millenium along with the Trib. Jews and be saved. This passage is confusing. BECAUSE Ezekiel 36.12 talks abt bringing them fr their graves. ..etc. for God’s Spirit to be . Poured out on them.
    thank u.

  • Joel
    Posted at 00:00h, 25 February

    Constance,

    Old Testament saints will be resurrected along with present day Christians / Messianic Jews. Those who were unfaithful will not be resurrected until the resurrection of the unrighteous unto judgment

  • Lavern Winters
    Posted at 13:22h, 26 February

    I found you because you said in a message that the YouTube channel is not you. So here I am. A number of years ago I was given understanding about the salvation of all of Israel. I also find it interesting that in 2 Peter 3:16 Peter seems to recognize that the letters of Paul are scripture by implication when he says they twist Pauls words just as they do the rest of Scriptures.

  • Timothy Willett
    Posted at 18:10h, 28 February

    Great message. When you read Deuteronomy 30-32, and Isaiah 59-60 in their context, it’s pretty hard to justify replacement theology from Romans 9-11. Not to mention that Paul also likely had Ezekial 36-38 in mind when he said ‘what would their inclusion mean except life from the dead.’

  • chuck steinhaus
    Posted at 23:22h, 04 March

    That was a great insight for me about the first verse beong a reference to the passage. Thanks joel.

  • BJ & Alisa
    Posted at 06:21h, 14 March

    Joel , I realize this is a subject that can’t be thoroughly covered in the comment section. However I’m thankful that you have no problem teaching from the Old Testament and you haven’t removed The Law. Jesus did not remove The Law , He paid the penalty for The Law. The Law was created to expose our sin.
    It was the blood sacrifices that was removed, Remember when Jesus cleanses the temple? He turned over the tables of the money changers, drove out all the cattle, sheep, doves and any merchandise used for the blood sacrifices. Mark 11:16 says Jesus would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. The teachers of the law asked Him by what authority are you doing these things? The reason Jesus was disrupting their sacrifical system was because He was about to become our atoning sacrifice. Thanks for all you do Joel,
    BJ & Alisa

  • Joel
    Posted at 06:43h, 14 March

    Absolutely.

Post A Comment