Amil can only be proved to be true if Amils accept all of the following terms and convincingly satisfy these terms.

[Rich R]

And in This Way, All Israel Will Be Saved: The Meaning of Romans 11.26
Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved. Romans 11.25-26

Paul wants the reader to understand the mystery of the partial hardening of Israel and the hope that all Israel will be saved. Unfortunately, although Paul was intending to make the mystery clear to the reader, that sentence has proved to be most puzzling for those who are trying to understand who is the Israel Paul refers to. There are several ways to interpret the meaning of Romans 11:26:

The Elect. Both Jew and Gentile; the Church of individual Christian believers"
In the context of all Paul’s teachings: all Israel of Romans 11.26 refers to all of the elect, both Jew and Gentile. In other words, the church has become the Israel of God. Indeed, Paul redefined basic terms of Judaism several times in his writings. In Galatians 6.16, Paul described those in Christ as the Israel of God. He redefined circumcision, Philippians 3.3, Colossians 2.11-12, and what it means to be a descendant of Abraham.

In Romans 9-11, he wrote that not all who descended from Israel belong to Israel, Romans 9.6 and that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved, with no distinction between Jew and Greek. Galatians 3:29

Beginning with Romans 11.13, Paul warned the Gentiles not to be arrogant towards the branches, meaning that the Gentile believers were not to think of themselves as more loved by God since most Jews have rejected the Messiah. After all, Gentiles were only grafted in by God’s grace and mercy. But non-ethnic people ARE grafted into the Israel of God, by reason of their belief in God and their faith in Him.

Ethnic Israel. The Jewish people, plus the 10 tribes still scattered among the nations:
Another way that some have understood the “all Israel” of Romans 11.26 is that Paul was writing of the ethnic Jewish nation of Israel . In other words, Paul meant that at some point in time in the future, after the fullness of the Gentiles had come into the Kingdom of God, the ethnic descendants of Jacob would be saved. It is hardly likely that: all Israel means every descendant of Jacob that had ever lived or those Israelites who will be alive at the time when the fullness of the Gentiles becomes complete. Regardless, the basic tenet of this view is that after the full number of the elect Gentiles had come to faith in Christ, there would be a mass conversion of Israel to faith in Christ. Most think that this would happen just prior to or at the moment of Christ’s Return, when: the Deliverer will come from Zion. At this point, the Messiah would banish ungodliness from Jacob, which some take to mean that God would remove the hardening upon Israel. Romans 11.25

There are two major difficulties with this view. The first problem deals with the proper interpretation of two small Greek words. The first word of interest is the Greek word ούτώς in Romans 11.26. The basic meaning of the word is in this manner (Thayer’s Greek Definitions) and usually has a modal sense: dealing with the manner of Israel’s salvation, and never a temporal sense: dealing with the timing of Israel’s salvation.

The NIV interprets Romans 11.26 to read, And so, all Israel will be saved, which could be read: and after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, then all Israel will be saved, but this is not the best interpretation of the text. The ESV captures it better by reading: And in this way, all Israel will be saved. The “in this way” has already been clearly explained by Paul in Romans 10:8-17… faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ and there is no distinction between Jew and Greek as to the manner of salvation.

The second Greek word of interest is άχρι in Romans 11.25. The basic meaning is “until” and is essentially terminative in its significance, implying the end of something. But the context alone determines whether the emphasis is upon what happens after the end of something or upon the end itself. For example, in 1 Corinthians 11.26, Paul instructed the church about the Lord’s Supper saying: For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

The emphasis was not that the church would cease to celebrate the Supper after the Lord’s return but that the Lord’s Return would terminate the celebration of the Supper. Another example is 1 Corinthians 15.25 where Paul wrote that Christ must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The point was not that there would come a time when Christ would no longer reign but that He would continue to reign until the last enemy was conquered.
It seems that the entire idea of a future mass conversion of Israel at some point in history’s future at the return of Christ depends upon these two words being interpreted in a way that is contrary to the context.

But the second major difficulty is that it seems to imply, or at least many who hold to this interpretation insist upon, that the way unto salvation for Israel will be different than the way of salvation for the Gentiles. Some have suggested that the conversion of all of Israel will happen through a direct revelation of Christ prior to the Second Coming, much like what happened to Paul on the road to Damascus. But this seems to contradict the point of Romans 10-11, that there is no distinction between Jew and Greek and that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of the Gospel. It would seem that Romans 10:6 would be rendered meaningless, too.

Others have suggested that there is a two track way to salvation, one for the Gentiles and one for the Jews. In other words, while the Gentiles are being saved by grace through faith, the Jews will be saved by their faithfulness to the Sinai covenant. But this contradicts the entire teaching of the book of Romans. How could Paul write: by works of the law no human being will be justified in His sight. Romans 3.20, and then imply that the Jews will be saved if they return to being faithful to the law? Furthermore, if there are two ways to enter the Kingdom of God, then Paul’s analogy of the olive tree, makes no sense.

Others have suggested that the future mass conversion of the Jewish people will indeed be the mystery that Paul wrote about. At some point in the future, the hardening will be removed and the Jews, as a whole but not necessarily every single Jewish person, will believe in Jesus and confess Him as Savior and Lord. While this is a wonderful thought, and would indeed be a mystery, it does not fit the plain reading of the text.

Despite the interpretation of “until” and “so” of Romans 11.25-26 that was mentioned above, it should be noted that Paul has been speaking in the present tense throughout Romans 11. He wrote of the remnant chosen by grace at this present time. Romans 11.5 He was hopeful that his ministry might make his fellow Jews jealous in order to save some of them, Romans 11.13-14 He also was hopeful that that those who were disobedient may “now” receive mercy. Romans 11.30-31

It seems that Paul was in anguish for his kinsmen according to the flesh to be saved, to confess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord. If he were confident that at some point in the future “all Israel would be saved,” then why be in anguish? Indeed, he knew that not all obeyed the gospel. Romans 10.16

In addition, if Paul did write about a future conversion of all of Israel, then this would be the only place in the New Testament where this last days idea is introduced. Jesus did not speak of it in Matthew 24, nor did Paul write of it in 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16 where he wrote of God’s wrath coming upon the disbelieving Jews until the end. It is missing from the vision given to John in the book of Revelation.

There has always been, and continues to be, a remnant chosen by grace among the Jews who believe that Jesus is the Christ, that God raised Him from the dead, and who confess Him as Lord. But they are only a small portion of the entire Christian Israel of God.

Therefore it is as Revelation 5:9-10 says: people from every tribe, race, nation and language are made unto God His rulers and priests, His overcomers on earth, the Israelites of God. ALL the faithful Christian people.

First of all, I will speak to what I think you are saying. I want to acknowledge that I may misunderstand some of what you said. If so, let me know.

If that is all true about the church being spiritual Israel, then God made it nigh to impossible for 99% of Christians to see that the church is Israel.

I would think that if that's what God meant then He'd have said something like, "...And in this way all Israel who have now become the the spiritual Israel, that is the church. will be saved" instead of "...And in this way all Israel will be saved."

While I can appreciate your knowledge of Greek grammar (mine is mid level at best), I don't think God wrote the scriptures in such a way that only advanced students of Greek could understand them. That's may have been what several early church fathers were pedaling (Augustine comes to mind), but that's not how God rolls. I think He writes to us at about an 8th grade reading level.

 

[WPM]

It just means all Israel, not part of it.

I know I just quoted one verse, but it would really help you to read the whole chapter to get the context.

There is only one body, one people of God, one Gospel and one salvation. You are trying to make two. You are making a race salvation and a spiritual salvation, a Jewish people and a Gentile people. The New Testament makes clear; there is only one elect people. There is only one good olive tree, not two; one body, not two; one bride, not two; one spiritual temple, not two; one people of God, not two; one household of faith, not two; one fold, not two; one man, not “twain,” and one elect of God throughout time.

The reality is: either man is found in Christ, and are therefore heirs of God according to the promise, or else he belongs to the devil and is damned. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile; all who believe in Him are one. The Israel of God is not therefore restricted to the physical earthly nation of Israel or any other physical nation, as of the flesh, but rather to the spiritual seed of Abraham – the spiritual Israel that is born from above.

We see an explanation and identification of who the children of Abraham actually are throughout the New Testament. Paul the Apostles informed the largely Gentile church in Rome, in Romans 4:13-15, “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law (natural Israelites) be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.”

Paul keeps pressing home this point in his writings that the true seed of Abraham is not physical, but spiritual. These are a redeemed people of all nations that have entered into the household of faith. The fundamental thrust of the Abrahamic promise is continually shown not to be directed toward a physical people through keeping the law or a set of religious rules or rituals but rather a spiritual people of faith. This covenant was made with a faithful believing people (irrespective of circumcision or uncircumcision) who were in a right standing with God. God’s chosen people (the elect) were (and always will be) the Lord’s redeemed saints.

Paul also shows the scope of divine favor moving from a small area in the Middle East to include the whole world. Jews and Gentiles who believe in Jesus Christ are said to be heirs with Abraham and will inherit “the world.” Being an “heir” normally relates to land and inheritance. In the case of Abraham, it referred to the expanse of the geographical globe – “heir of the world.” This shows us the worldwide nature and scope of the promised land. This is a monumental shift in the area being possessed by the people of God. Clearly there is a geographical expansion on the land inheritance in the New Testament. No longer is the territory in view or the inheritance promised limited to a small parcel of land in the Middle East. Through faith in Christ the area of inheritance expands to include the whole earth.

In the light of the introduction of the new covenant, and within a New Testament context, Paul takes time to examine the whole dynamic between national Israel and God’s righteous remnant. Romans 11:25-29 tells us: “For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.”

There are many inconsistencies in the dispensationalist hermeneutical system. While they passionately insist that the phrase “all Israel shall be saved” (Romans 11:26) relates to the whole nation of national Israel at a future time, they quickly paper-over a similar statement leading to the Gentiles, which says, “the fulness of the Gentiles come in” as having no wholesale meaning.

This is a passage above that has confused many Christians over the years. The reason for this seems to revolve around the phrase “all Israel shall be saved.” There are many that deduce corporate salvation for natural Israel from this. But is Paul contradicting himself in his Romans 9-11 discourse? In one breath in Romans 9:27 he is saying “a remnant shall be saved” (future, passive, indicative), in the next, in Romans 11:26, he is saying “all Israel shall be saved” (future, passive, indicative).

Let us be absolutely assured: Paul is definitely not opposing himself, neither is the Holy Spirit, who inspired him to pen this, confused. He is in no way teaching corporate salvation in Romans 11:25-29, as some would suggest, or else he would be reversing everything he has just taught in the preceding verses and chapters of this book (and his other Epistles) in regard to an elect remnant. Salvation was never secured on the grounds of race; it was always by grace through faith. Moreover, the Gospel opportunity in the New Testament is always shown to be open to all nationalities equally; this includes natural Israel.

Romans 9:6-13 explains how God’s people and the seed of promise are not a natural but a spiritual seed. In his thesis on the promised seed, we find Jacob and us the believing Gentiles. He asserts: “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”

The whole of Paul’s teaching in this New Testament passage is establishing who “the children of God” really were/are. We see that Abraham had a natural lineage and also a spiritual lineage. Significantly, it was only the spiritual seed that carried any spiritual credentials. Paul distinguished here between biological Israel and faithful Israel. He shows that these are two different diverse peoples. In doing this he is attempting to illustrate the impotence of the natural and the potency of the spiritual.

Just because they belonged to Israel (or the natural seed of Abraham) did not signify that they were God’s chosen people. He shows how “the children of the flesh” are not “the children of God;” it is rather “the children of the promise” – faithful believing Israel. How can Dispensationalists get around this? No one should miss the distinction between the true spiritual seed of Abraham and the mere natural seed. Plainly: “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children” (Romans 9:6). Paul demonstrates that it is “the children of the promise” that “are counted for the seed.” This spiritual company are the ones that really matter.

 

[covenantee]

Let's take a look at the verse:

Rom 11:26,

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:​

Does it say Israel will be saved through Faith in Christ Alone? Not the way I read it. To me it says, "There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:" Where do you see anything about faith in Christ?

Now I do see other places that talk about Christians being saved by grace through faith, but that's not what Romans 11:26 says.

I see that we are grafted into Israel by faith in verse 20 which is talking about Christians. In fact, Romans 10:9-10 and many other places says anyone can be saved by faith. Any Jew of Gentile can do that and become Christians. Obviously many choose not to do that. So what does God do for them?

Well, God will save all of Israel (specifically those who did not confess Jesus when they had the chance), when the new covenant of Isaiah 31:31 comes to pass. Note that nowhere in that chapter does it mention anything about faith. It just that He'll save all of Israel. Now just because that goes against one's personal opinion or doctrine, there is no justification for second guessing what it clearly says. Better to change one's opinion or doctrine to conform to the scriptures than the other way around.

As far as the Gentiles that choose not to believe Jesus, Revelation 20 says they will be judged by their works.

Christians are Christians and Jews are Jews, and Gentiles are Gentiles. God does have different plans for each. Mix them up and the whole story gets mixed up and the truth goes up in smoke.

If you have trouble thinking about God saving a sinful nation (which Israel obviously was), just think about how He saved you. He didn't wait until you cleaned up your previous sinful life before saving you. He accepted you while you were still dead in trespasses and sins. Do you think your previous life was any better than that of the average Jew? There are no degrees of dead in trespasses and sins. There's no such thing as being a little dead or a being a little sinful. Dead is dead and sin is sin. If God can save you by grace, why can't He do the same for every Jew?

Rom 9:20,

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?​

Have you read posts 351 and 362?

Paul's declarations are diametrically opposed to yours.

Either Paul is wrong, or you are wrong.

I'll let you decide.

 

[WPM]

Have you read post 351?

Paul's declarations are diametrically opposed to yours.

Either Paul is wrong, or you are wrong.

I'll let you decide.

Rich is wrong!

 

[covenantee]

Try to image you were sitting at the table with Jesus when he uttered those words. Furthermore, try to imagine you were intimately familiar with Jeremiah (any good Jew would know Jeremiah). When Jesus mentioned a "new covenant", where do think your mind may have gone? Maybe Jeremiah 31? After all, Jeremiah was the only verse in the entire Hebrew scriptures that mentioned a "new covenant." You'd have known nothing about the church since it was still a secret hidden with God at that time. And yet you could see with your own eyes that the things talked about in Jeremiah 31 were not happening. So how would you take Jesus' words?

Do you think that Jesus was unaware of what Jeremiah had prophesied?

I would take Jesus' Words the same way that I have no doubt His disciples took them.

With receptivity, conviction, and gratitude for the New Covenant in His Blood.

 

[Rich R]

There is only one body, one people of God, one Gospel and one salvation. You are trying to make two. You are making a race salvation and a spiritual salvation, a Jewish people and a Gentile people. The New Testament makes clear; there is only one elect people. There is only one good olive tree, not two; one body, not two; one bride, not two; one spiritual temple, not two; one people of God, not two; one household of faith, not two; one fold, not two; one man, not “twain,” and one elect of God throughout time.

The reality is: either man is found in Christ, and are therefore heirs of God according to the promise, or else he belongs to the devil and is damned. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile; all who believe in Him are one. The Israel of God is not therefore restricted to the physical earthly nation of Israel or any other physical nation, as of the flesh, but rather to the spiritual seed of Abraham – the spiritual Israel that is born from above.

We see an explanation and identification of who the children of Abraham actually are throughout the New Testament. Paul the Apostles informed the largely Gentile church in Rome, in Romans 4:13-15, “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law (natural Israelites) be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.”

Paul keeps pressing home this point in his writings that the true seed of Abraham is not physical, but spiritual. These are a redeemed people of all nations that have entered into the household of faith. The fundamental thrust of the Abrahamic promise is continually shown not to be directed toward a physical people through keeping the law or a set of religious rules or rituals but rather a spiritual people of faith. This covenant was made with a faithful believing people (irrespective of circumcision or uncircumcision) who were in a right standing with God. God’s chosen people (the elect) were (and always will be) the Lord’s redeemed saints.

Paul also shows the scope of divine favor moving from a small area in the Middle East to include the whole world. Jews and Gentiles who believe in Jesus Christ are said to be heirs with Abraham and will inherit “the world.” Being an “heir” normally relates to land and inheritance. In the case of Abraham, it referred to the expanse of the geographical globe – “heir of the world.” This shows us the worldwide nature and scope of the promised land. This is a monumental shift in the area being possessed by the people of God. Clearly there is a geographical expansion on the land inheritance in the New Testament. No longer is the territory in view or the inheritance promised limited to a small parcel of land in the Middle East. Through faith in Christ the area of inheritance expands to include the whole earth.

In the light of the introduction of the new covenant, and within a New Testament context, Paul takes time to examine the whole dynamic between national Israel and God’s righteous remnant. Romans 11:25-29 tells us: “For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.”

There are many inconsistencies in the dispensationalist hermeneutical system. While they passionately insist that the phrase “all Israel shall be saved” (Romans 11:26) relates to the whole nation of national Israel at a future time, they quickly paper-over a similar statement leading to the Gentiles, which says, “the fulness of the Gentiles come in” as having no wholesale meaning.

This is a passage above that has confused many Christians over the years. The reason for this seems to revolve around the phrase “all Israel shall be saved.” There are many that deduce corporate salvation for natural Israel from this. But is Paul contradicting himself in his Romans 9-11 discourse? In one breath in Romans 9:27 he is saying “a remnant shall be saved” (future, passive, indicative), in the next, in Romans 11:26, he is saying “all Israel shall be saved” (future, passive, indicative).

Let us be absolutely assured: Paul is definitely not opposing himself, neither is the Holy Spirit, who inspired him to pen this, confused. He is in no way teaching corporate salvation in Romans 11:25-29, as some would suggest, or else he would be reversing everything he has just taught in the preceding verses and chapters of this book (and his other Epistles) in regard to an elect remnant. Salvation was never secured on the grounds of race; it was always by grace through faith. Moreover, the Gospel opportunity in the New Testament is always shown to be open to all nationalities equally; this includes natural Israel.

Romans 9:6-13 explains how God’s people and the seed of promise are not a natural but a spiritual seed. In his thesis on the promised seed, we find Jacob and us the believing Gentiles. He asserts: “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”

The whole of Paul’s teaching in this New Testament passage is establishing who “the children of God” really were/are. We see that Abraham had a natural lineage and also a spiritual lineage. Significantly, it was only the spiritual seed that carried any spiritual credentials. Paul distinguished here between biological Israel and faithful Israel. He shows that these are two different diverse peoples. In doing this he is attempting to illustrate the impotence of the natural and the potency of the spiritual.

Just because they belonged to Israel (or the natural seed of Abraham) did not signify that they were God’s chosen people. He shows how “the children of the flesh” are not “the children of God;” it is rather “the children of the promise” – faithful believing Israel. How can Dispensationalists get around this? No one should miss the distinction between the true spiritual seed of Abraham and the mere natural seed. Plainly: “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children” (Romans 9:6). Paul demonstrates that it is “the children of the promise” that “are counted for the seed.” This spiritual company are the ones that really matter.

Romans 9 and Romans 11 have different contexts. And Romans 11 has different contexts within itself.

Rom 11:7,

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded​

​

Here we see two different people:

1. the election, the remnant, who have obtained salvation (by faith as you say)
2. The rest who were blinded

The previous verses in the context have shown what will happen to the elect i.e. the remnant. They're saved. From 11:7 God tells what will happen to the rest, the ones who were blinded. That continues through the rest of chapter 11, including verse 26.

Rom 11:26,

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:​

So now we see both the remnant and the rest of Israel saved. In other words, "all Israel shall be saved"

 

[Rich R]

Have you read post 351?

Paul's declarations are diametrically opposed to yours.

Either Paul is wrong, or you are wrong.

I'll let you decide.

I'll defer and let you make the decision.

 

[Rich R]

Rich is wrong!

Wait a second there! It's not your decision. Covenantee said it was mine to make and I deferred to him. :)

 

[Rich R]

Do you think that Jesus was unaware of what Jeremiah had prophesied?

I would take Jesus' Words the same way that I have no doubt His disciples took them.

With receptivity, conviction, and gratitude for the New Covenant in His Blood.

Yes, but which New Covenant? The one in Jeremiah 31:31 that was promised to Israel and which they would have read and anticipated, or one that was supposedly promised to a future church about which they would have had absolutely no knowledge?

 

[covenantee]

Yes, but which New Covenant? The one in Jeremiah 31:31 that was promised to Israel and which they would have read and anticipated, or one that was supposedly promised to a future church about which they would have had absolutely no knowledge?

You keep relapsing to "future".

Where in Matthew 26:28 is "future"?

 

[covenantee]

Yes, but which New Covenant? The one in Jeremiah 31:31 that was promised to Israel and which they would have read and anticipated, or one that was supposedly promised to a future church about which they would have had absolutely no knowledge?

Cite any Scripture declaring that there are two New Covenants in His Blood.

 

[WPM]

Romans 9 and Romans 11 have different contexts. And Romans 11 has different contexts within itself.

Rom 11:7,

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded​

​

Here we see two different people:

1. the election, the remnant, who have obtained salvation (by faith as you say)
2. The rest who were blinded

The previous verses in the context have shown what will happen to the elect i.e. the remnant. They're saved. From 11:7 God tells what will happen to the rest, the ones who were blinded. That continues through the rest of chapter 11, including verse 26.

Rom 11:26,

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:​

So now we see both the remnant and the rest of Israel saved. In other words, "all Israel shall be saved"

Paul shows throughout his teaching that there are two groups within Israel: one faithful and true, the other unfaithful and merely professing. One is known as “the election” (or “the elect”) and the other as the “blinded” or ‘hardened ones’. One is a friend of God, the other is an enemy of His. God shows Himself bound to one, and strongly against the other. Sadly, Dispensationalists back the wrong Israel in their teachings. They choose natural Christ-rejecting apostate Israel, above the elect spiritual remnant in order to justify their false doctrine. In doing so, they miss the whole development of faithful Israel into the New Testament Church.

We see the whole dichotomy between true Israel and false Israel throughout Romans 9-11. Romans 11:7-10 corresponds, “What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded [Gr. poroo – hardened]. (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumbling block, and a recompence unto them: Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.”

This is actually saying the opposite to what many Premillennialists argue. In fact, it is actually saying what is says: “Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for.” In short, salvation or favor with God has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity. It is not about being an Israelite; it is nothing to do with racial status or nationality; it is all to do with being chosen – namely being one of God’s elect remnant. This is the only means of favor with God. This spiritual family are the true Israel and the only accepted people of God. To be of the “election” one has to have a real personal intimate relationship with Jesus Christ.

To paraphrase this passage and its meaning in common language, ‘it is not the sum-total of natural Israel that has obtained the salvation it wishes, but only they who have entered into the election of grace by faith; the remaining Israelis that depend upon their own pitiful religious efforts are blind’. God has only partially set Israel aside. A distinguished faithful remnant remains committed to Yahweh through faith in Christ. This indeed is “a remnant according to the election of grace.” Israel is hence split into two camps. Israel, like any other nation, had two distinct peoples, one saved and the other lost. The saved are God’ elect and have been saved by His wondrous grace. The lost foolishly depend upon their own works and are accordingly damned because of it.

The New King James Version is slightly clearer, “What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.”

Paul’s very statement “the rest were blinded” and his detailed description of the awful plight of such foolish Jews, supports the view that there are two distinct companies of Israeli in view – one being a band of “blinded” Israelis, the other a band of enlightened “elect” Israelis. This passage again reinforces Paul’s thought that the whole nation is not blinded, rather “blindness in part is happened to Israel” or ‘part of Israel is blind’. Whilst a large section of the nation has manifestly rejected Christ since the cross, and are therefore spiritually deceived by the devil (2 Corinthians 4:4), there is a small chosen assembly of Israelis throughout history that have eyes to see and ears to hear, who belong to the good olive tree. These believers are the faithful Israeli congregation (ekklesia) in both testatments that are transformed through faith in Messiah, and are the redeemed of God.

Those who voice their disagreement with divine election need to see that the issue is not God electing for Him a people and leaving others hardened. After all, grace entails undeserved favor. It is the fact that God carries sovereign authority to save who He wishes. Paul states in Romans 9:18-21: “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”

The blindness of Israelis in the New Testament was because of the hardness of their own hearts. God sovereignly chose to leave them in their stubborn rebellion. It is the same for all unbelievers – Jew or Gentile. Only a remnant was elected and received a new heart; and because it is by faith, so all Israel will be saved, the true children of Abraham. It is they who will receive all the promises which Christ obtained for them.

The “election” (the elect) mentioned in Romans is simply another term for those who know God. The “blinded” on the other hand are those who are separated from God. The same reality is played out throughout the nations of this world. Notwithstanding, Paul’s main interest in Romans 10-11 is his own kinsmen. So, despite the overwhelming number of Israeli nationals rejecting Christ, the apostle shows that God was still faithful to His chosen people Israel (the elect).

Paul employs the Old Testament, and specifically Isaiah 29, to underpin his thesis, saying, “God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.” This is extraordinary language! It is also a very solemn and damning sentence. But, who is Paul, talking about? He is speaking about those Israelites who reject Jesus Christ, and thus reject the grace of God. In Romans 11:7-10 we see a lucid description of the opposing company of the chosen remnant in Israel.

Again, these are they that refuse God’s grace and reject Christ as Savior and Lord. They are shown to be hardened, and that by God. It is this non-elect company of Israelites that are damned by their own rebellion. Paul then quotes David, in Psalm 69, saying, “Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumbling block, and a recompence unto them: Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.” Paul is telling us that the overwhelming unbelieving part of Israel is rejected by God because of their own stubborn rebellion. They are definitely not His people.

 

[WPM]

Cite any Scripture declaring that there are two New Covenants in His Blood.

This is the biggest load of baloney that you will ever hear advocated on this forum. It is absolute nonsense!

 

[Rich R]

Cite any Scripture declaring that there are two New Covenants in His Blood.

There aren't two new covenants. That's my point. But it seems you may be saying there are two new covenants, one made to Israel in Jeremiah and some other new covenant Jesus was making at the last supper that now was being made with the church. So one to Israel (clearly declared in Jeremiah), one to the church (not clearly laid out anywhere) makes two covenants. That's why I asked you which one you thought Jesus was talking about. Since I think there is only one new covenant, the one in Jeremiah made with Israel, I would have to conclude that is where the minds of the apostles went. At the time of the last supper the church was still a mystery hidden in God. Jesus was not spilling the beans to them. God would have been quite upset. He was saving it for Paul to reveal.

 

[WPM]

There aren't two new covenants. That's my point. But it seems you may be saying there are two new covenants, one made to Israel in Jeremiah and some other new covenant Jesus was making at the last supper that now was being made with the church. So one to Israel (clearly declared in Jeremiah), one to the church (not clearly laid out anywhere) makes two covenants. That's why I asked you which one you thought Jesus was talking about. Since I think there is only one new covenant, the one in Jeremiah made with Israel, I would have to conclude that is where the minds of the apostles went. At the time of the last supper the church was still a mystery hidden in God. Jesus was not spilling the beans to them. God would have been quite upset. He was saving it for Paul to reveal.

So, what covenant was made in Christ’s blood at Calvary?

 

[Rich R]

So, what covenant was made in Christ’s blood at Calvary?

There was no covenant made at Calvary.

Calvary was the beginning of the fulfillment of the covenant that was made several hundred years before, the New Covenant which God made with Israel in Jeremiah.

 

[WPM]

At the time of the last supper the church was still a mystery hidden in God.

The Church itself was not a mystery (or secret) prior to Paul, neither was God's great eternal plan of redemption, neither was the ingathering of the Gentiles. Passage after passage in the Old Testament predicted these events. What was a mystery was the Gentiles being “fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.”

 

[Rich R]

This is the biggest load of baloney that you will ever hear advocated on this forum. It is absolute nonsense!

I would have to agree. It is a bunch of baloney to suggest I thought there was two covenants.

Such an idea could only have come from inferring something that really wasn't there. Kind of like inferring there is such a thing as a spiritual Israel when there is no such thing in the actual scriptures.

 

[WPM]

There was no covenant made at Calvary.

Calvary was the beginning of the fulfillment of the covenant that was made several hundred years before, the New Covenant which God made with Israel in Jeremiah.

Romans 3:24-25: “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation (hilasmos or atonement) through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.”

1 John 2:1-2: “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation (hilasterion or atonement) for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

1 John 4:9-10: “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation (hilasterion or atonement) for our sins.”

The word propitiation here in 1 John 2:1-2 and 1 John 4:9-10 is the Greek word hilasmos (Strong’s 2434) meaning atonement, i.e. (concretely) an expiator. In Romans 3:24-25 (Strong’s 2434) it is hilasterion, which refers to an expiatory (place or thing), i.e. (concretely) an atoning victim, or (specially) the lid of the Ark (in the temple) – the mercy seat.

At Calvary the guilt of our sins was transferred or imputed to Christ. Our penalty was laid upon Him. He was condemned on our behalf in order that we could be free.

Do you participate in the Lord's Supper?

You are denying a pivotal doctrine of Scripture.

When Jesus instituted the Lord’s supper in Matthew 26:28, which represented His shed blood for the remission of our sins, He declared: “For this is my blood of the new testament [diathēkē], which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

Jesus was here speaking here about His death! The Greek word here “testament” is diathēkē meaning covenant or testament. The shedding of His blood, which expressly secured “the remission of sins” for His elect, constituted “the new covenant.”

Mark 14:24 parallels: “he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.”

Luke 22:19-20 agrees: “And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”

Some seem content to partake in what they deny.

1 Corinthians 11:24-26: “And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament [diathēkē or covenant] in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.”

Believers are asked to remember the Lord's death – which is “the new testament [diathēkē or covenant] in [His] blood” – until He returns. “The new covenant” is here identified with “the Lord's death.” There is no way around it.

This is an ongoing demand.

Colossians 1:20-21 says “And having made peace through the blood of his cross by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him… And you, that were sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.”

When a man or woman comes to Christ he is reconciled onto God, whereupon the power of sin is broke. Christ became our substitute at the cross even though He was sinless. He was condemned on our behalf for the purpose that we would be eternally free. He took our sin, our guilt, our past, our weaknesses, our sorrows upon Himself – in full. Calvary was a finished work.

Hebrews 13:20: “Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant.”

2 Corinthians 3:5-8 tells us that God: “our sufficiency is of God; Who hath made us (present tense) able ministers of the new testament [diathēkē or covenant]; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?”

This is an ongoing reality.

Hebrews 8:6-13 declares: “now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant [diathēkē or covenant], which was (present tense) established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord." For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth worn out, decayed, declared obsolete) and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”

Hello! “After” what “days”? After the “days” of “that first covenant” that he just mentioned. This is not rocket science. Can you not take Scripture in its context and let it speak for itself? Are you so besotted with the old covenant and so captivated with promoting futile animal sacrifices that you cannot see and embrace the beauty, fulfillment and finality of the new covenant?

This is an ongoing reality.

Christ came to save sinners and He completed that perfectly, in that He secured eternal redemption for his elect through His death (Hebrews 5:8-9). He now sits at the right hand of majesty interceding for His elect.

 

[Rich R]

The Church itself was not a mystery (or secret) prior to Paul, neither was God's great eternal plan of redemption, neither was the ingathering of the Gentiles. Passage after passage in the Old Testament predicted these events. What was a mystery was the Gentiles being “fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.”

Col 1:26,

[Even] the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:​

​

"Now" was not when Jesus spoke at the last supper. "Now" came several years later.

Eph 3:3,

How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,​

​

God had to tell Paul about the mystery by revelation. Why? Because nobody knew about it before it was revealed to Paul. The twelve apostles at the last supper didn't know about it. Otherwise God would not have had to reveal it to Paul. Peter could have told him about it. But Peter (or any of the other 11) didn't know about it unitl Paul told them.