SteveGreggVideos

How misused: Gregg misinterprets 'all Israel' as referring exclusively to a spiritual Israel (the elect remnant of Jews and believing Gentiles) rather than the future eschatological salvation and corporate restoration of ethnic Israel. He denies that this verse predicts a national conversion of Jews.

Scripture's answer: The phrase 'all Israel' in Romans 11:26, within its immediate and broader context (Romans 9-11), refers to the nation of Israel as an ethnic and corporate entity. Paul contrasts 'the remnant according to God's gracious choice' (Rom 11:5) with the 'all Israel' that will be saved after 'the fullness of the Gentiles has come in' (Rom 11:25). This strongly implies a future, national salvation of the Jewish people, distinct from individual Jewish believers throughout history. The Greek 'πᾶς Ἰσραήλ' (pas Israel) in this context is best understood as 'Israel as a whole' or 'the entire nation of Israel,' especially given Paul's deep lament over Israel's rejection and his hope for their ultimate reconciliation (Rom 9:1-5, 11:11-15, 11:28-32). Denying this often leads to a diminished view of God's faithfulness to His covenant promises to Israel.

How misused: Gregg's interpretation of 'all Israel shall be saved' as spiritual rather than ethnic necessarily misconstrues 'the fullness of the Gentiles' and the 'partial hardening' as elements that do not precede a national restoration. He likely sees the hardening as primarily a judgment on unbelieving Jews of Paul's day, without seeing its eschatological purpose leading to a future Jewish national awakening.

Scripture's answer: Paul explicitly states that the hardening is 'partial' and 'to Israel' (ethnic Israel). The hardening is temporary, 'until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in,' signifying a specific eschatological period. Once this Gentile 'fullness' is complete, the divine hardening on Israel will be lifted, paving the way for the salvation of 'all Israel' as a unified nation, fulfilling God's covenant promises (e.g., Ezekiel 36-37, Jeremiah 31).

How misused: Gregg fundamentally misinterprets the overarching message of Romans 9-11 by spiritualizing the identity of Israel and ignoring the clear distinction Paul makes between the remnant and the full nation. He likely views Paul's primary concern as addressing only the contemporary situation of Jewish believers and unbelievers, rather than laying out a comprehensive theological and eschatological framework for Israel's future. This involves systematically overriding Paul's lament and hope for his 'kindred according to the flesh.'

Scripture's answer: Romans 9-11 is Paul's most extensive treatise on God's ongoing faithfulness to ethnic Israel, despite their temporary rejection of Christ. Chapter 9 affirms God's sovereign election of Israel. Chapter 10 demonstrates Israel's responsibility in rejecting the Messiah. Chapter 11 then assures that God has not rejected His people, preserving a remnant, but also promising a future national salvation for 'all Israel' after the Gentile age. To spiritualize 'Israel' throughout these chapters undermines Paul's entire argument and the integrity of God's covenant promises.

How misused: While not explicitly cited in the summary for misquote, Gregg's denial of future national salvation for ethnic Israel implicitly requires him to allegorize or spiritualize virtually all Old Testament prophecies concerning Israel's restoration to the land, their national repentance, and God's renewed covenant with them. He would likely apply these promises either to the church or to spiritual blessings for individuals, thereby nullifying their original, ethnic-national intent.

Scripture's answer: A consistent hermeneutic, especially with prophetic texts, demands a literal fulfillment unless the text itself presents clear symbolic language. Old Testament prophecies regarding Israel's future restoration, possession of the land, national repentance, and the establishment of the Davidic Kingdom are consistently depicted as literal, physical, and ethnic. To spiritualize these promises to the church or individual believers without clear New Testament warrant creates an inconsistent hermeneutic and diminishes the distinct identity and future of the Jewish people.

How misused: Though not directly cited, Gregg's position on denying a future national restoration of Israel would necessitate a misinterpretation of this passage. He would likely downplay the disciples' question about the 'kingdom to Israel' as purely carnal expectation, and Jesus' response as a definitive denial of a future earthly kingdom for ethnic Israel.

Scripture's answer: The disciples' question reveals a continued expectation, rooted in Old Testament prophecy, of a restored earthly kingdom for Israel. Jesus does not correct their understanding of *what* is being restored (the kingdom *to Israel*) but rather *when* ('It is not for you to know times or epochs'). This suggests the restoration of the kingdom to Israel is a valid expectation, simply postponed to an unspecified future time. To interpret Jesus' response as a denial of such a kingdom is eisegesis, reading replacement theology into the text.

How misused: Proponents of spiritualizing Israel often use Galatians 3:28 to argue for the complete spiritual erasure of ethnic distinction in the church, implying that national identity is irrelevant to God's plan. This is then retroactively applied to silence prophecies about ethnic Israel.

Scripture's answer: Galatians 3:28 speaks to equality of standing and access to salvation *in Christ*, not the abolition of ethnic or national identity. Paul himself, a Jew, proudly identifies as such (Romans 11:1), and later in Romans, he dedicates chapters to God's plan for ethnic Israel. The unity in Christ does not negate pre-existing distinctions or God's unique covenant plan for Israel; it transcends them for the purpose of salvation and spiritual privilege, but not their eschatological identity.

How misused: This passage, originally applied to Israel in the Old Testament (Exodus 19:6), is often cited by those with a supersessionist view to argue that the Church has fully replaced Israel and inherited all of Israel's promised blessings, spiritualizing away any remaining distinct future for Israel.

Scripture's answer: While 1 Peter 2:9 applies Israel's former covenant identity to the Church (composed of both Jews and Gentiles), it does not imply that God irrevocably abandoned His covenant with ethnic Israel. The Church partially fulfills aspects of Israel's identity as God's people *in the present age*, but it does not exhaust the prophetic promises made specifically to the nation of Israel for a future national and earthly restoration. The New Testament simultaneously affirms the Church's unique identity while preserving a distinct future for Israel (Romans 9-11).

How misused: Gregg's view would likely emphasize Jerusalem's current desolation as a permanent condition due to Israel's rejection of Christ, without acknowledging the future promise embedded in Jesus' words for their eventual national repentance and welcome of Him.

Scripture's answer: Jesus' lament concludes with a clear prophetic promise: Jerusalem will not see Him again *until* they corporate and nationally acknowledge Him as Messiah, 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!' This points to a future day of national repentance and welcoming of their Messiah by ethnic Israel, directly contradicting the idea of a permanent spiritual replacement.