RSungenisAdmin
11/15/2025
6 min read
Will There Be a Mass Conversion of the Jews?
Is what Taylor Marshall says at the 10:00 mark about Israelites and Jews being baptized in the end truly Catholic teaching?
Yes, it is a popular teaching in Catholicism today. It is extracted from one verse in the book of Romans, 11:26, which says,
26 and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; 27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
I have thoroughly investigated the history of the interpretation of this passage and have concluded that it has been totally misconstrued for many years.
It first appeared in the interpretations of some early Fathers (Papias, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Lactantius, et al) who believed there would be a millennial kingdom set up by Christ in Jerusalem when He came back at his Second Coming. (The “1000” years appears in Apocalypse 20:1-6). After the 1000 years, the eternal state would begin.
These Fathers also believed that the 144,000 of Apocalypse 7 were Jews who would be serving Christ in that 1000-year period. They believed these Jews were converted to Christianity just before Christ returned, along with all other more common Jews, in accordance with the words of Romans 11:26 noted above, “and so all Israel shall be saved.”
This view is still held today by most evangelical Protestants and Christian and Catholic Zionists. It is known as Premillennialism. The “pre” prefix means that Christ’s Second Coming comes before the 1000 year millennium.
However, a dramatic shift in the interpretation of the Apocalypse occurred during the time of Augustine in the 5th century. Whereas the early Fathers interpreted the Apocalypse more literally since most were from the Antiochian school of hermeneutics—and thus the 1000 years of Apoc 20 was interpreted as a literal period of time—Augustine, who came from the Alexandrian school of hermeneutics, interpreted the Apocalypse symbolically, and thus the 1000 years became a symbolic period of time between the First coming of Christ to the Second coming. Augustine and his followers (which was more or less the whole Church) were called “Amillennialists,” since the prefix “A” means “no,” thus “no literal millennium,” just a symbolic one.
But whereas Augustine rejected the overall Premillennial view of the early Fathers, for some reason he held on to the idea that there would be a mass conversion of the Jews at or near the end. This mistake stemmed from his erroneous interpretation of Malachi 4:5 which prophesied the return of Elijah. Reading from the Greek Septuagint (which was not inspired but just a translation), Augustine read “Elijah the Tishbite” would return, but the actual inspired Hebrew text said “Elijah.” As such, Jesus had interpreted this “Elijah” as the coming of John the Baptist (Matthew 11:14), but for some reason Augustine insisted it was the real Elijah from Tishbi.
This becomes important because Romans 11:26 says that “the Deliverer” will come to save all Israel. Augustine posited that the Deliverer was Elijah the Tishbite who would come just before the Second Coming and save all the Jews.
Since most interpretations from Augustine were held in high esteem by the Catholic Church, his interpretation of Romans 11:26 that the real Elijah would come to save “all Israel” has held since his day. Everyone followed him, and the Council of Ephesus more or less told everyone to do so.
In my opinion, that was much too hasty a decision. Although Augustine was generally a good Catholic theologian, he was not as adept at interpreting Scripture. The sad fact is that he did not know Hebrew or Greek, which severely handicapped him. All he knew was Latin, and unfortunately, Jerome made various mistakes in his Latin Vulgate of Scripture that were never corrected. Often when Augustine had difficulty with a verse, he would spiritualize it, which would immediately remove the difficulty. He did this with Genesis 1. Becoming frustrated with his literal interpretation, he spiritualized the whole chapter, which turned the days of creation into 6 contemplations of the angels instead of literal creation days. All the other Fathers had interpreted it literally. There are many more examples that could be shown.
In retrospect, just the fact that the early Fathers had a completely different interpretation of the Apocalypse than Augustine; and that they are supposed to be the carriers of the earliest and most authentic tradition from the Apostles as opposed to a theologian like Augustine who is removed from the Apostles by 400 years, means that we are straddled with some significant contradictions in eschatology in the Catholic Church.
In regard to the mass conversion of the Jews, as noted, it stems from Augustine’s erroneous interpretation of both Malachi 4:5 and Romans 11:26 that makes Elijah the Deliverer. The fact is, Romans 11:26 is not even talking about the Second coming of Christ. It is talking about the First coming, which is why the verse talks about “the Deliverer (Christ) coming out of Zion,” and “turning ungodliness from Jacob by the covenant [the New Covenant in Christ] that forgives sins.” It is only the First coming in which Christ can do these things. The Second coming is for resurrection and judgment, not the forgiveness of sins.
It was at the cross that the New Covenant to forgive sins was established. Christ brought the forgiveness of sins to Israel right from the beginning when he said that he was “sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:6). This held to Pentecost when 3000 Jews were saved in one day; and a year or so following when about 25,000 Jews were saved from Acts 4-13. Today, any Jew can still be saved if he will bow the knee to Christ.
We can verify this interpretation by examining the passages that Paul refers to in Romans 11:26. Paul says, “all Israel shall be saved, as it is written…” If we look to see where “it is written” in the OT, we come upon Isaiah 59:20 and Jeremiah 31:31-33, and both of them are talking about the First coming of Christ, not the Second coming.
If we add these facts to the fact that there is not a single passage in the Old or New Testament that prophecies an en masse conversion of Jews at or near the end of time, we are on pretty safe ground in dismissing Augustine’s interpretation. And as humble as he was, Augustine would not object to our correction, for he said in his The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, that anyone who can produce a better interpretation, should do so.
So, to answer your question, yes, a future mass conversion of the Jews is the popular teaching today, and now you know why. It came from a mistake in biblical interpretation made about 1800 years ago that has never been corrected.
- Robert Sungenis
26 and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; 27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
I have thoroughly investigated the history of the interpretation of this passage and have concluded that it has been totally misconstrued for many years.
It first appeared in the interpretations of some early Fathers (Papias, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Lactantius, et al) who believed there would be a millennial kingdom set up by Christ in Jerusalem when He came back at his Second Coming. (The “1000” years appears in Apocalypse 20:1-6). After the 1000 years, the eternal state would begin.
These Fathers also believed that the 144,000 of Apocalypse 7 were Jews who would be serving Christ in that 1000-year period. They believed these Jews were converted to Christianity just before Christ returned, along with all other more common Jews, in accordance with the words of Romans 11:26 noted above, “and so all Israel shall be saved.”
This view is still held today by most evangelical Protestants and Christian and Catholic Zionists. It is known as Premillennialism. The “pre” prefix means that Christ’s Second Coming comes before the 1000 year millennium.
However, a dramatic shift in the interpretation of the Apocalypse occurred during the time of Augustine in the 5th century. Whereas the early Fathers interpreted the Apocalypse more literally since most were from the Antiochian school of hermeneutics—and thus the 1000 years of Apoc 20 was interpreted as a literal period of time—Augustine, who came from the Alexandrian school of hermeneutics, interpreted the Apocalypse symbolically, and thus the 1000 years became a symbolic period of time between the First coming of Christ to the Second coming. Augustine and his followers (which was more or less the whole Church) were called “Amillennialists,” since the prefix “A” means “no,” thus “no literal millennium,” just a symbolic one.
But whereas Augustine rejected the overall Premillennial view of the early Fathers, for some reason he held on to the idea that there would be a mass conversion of the Jews at or near the end. This mistake stemmed from his erroneous interpretation of Malachi 4:5 which prophesied the return of Elijah. Reading from the Greek Septuagint (which was not inspired but just a translation), Augustine read “Elijah the Tishbite” would return, but the actual inspired Hebrew text said “Elijah.” As such, Jesus had interpreted this “Elijah” as the coming of John the Baptist (Matthew 11:14), but for some reason Augustine insisted it was the real Elijah from Tishbi.
This becomes important because Romans 11:26 says that “the Deliverer” will come to save all Israel. Augustine posited that the Deliverer was Elijah the Tishbite who would come just before the Second Coming and save all the Jews.
Since most interpretations from Augustine were held in high esteem by the Catholic Church, his interpretation of Romans 11:26 that the real Elijah would come to save “all Israel” has held since his day. Everyone followed him, and the Council of Ephesus more or less told everyone to do so.
In my opinion, that was much too hasty a decision. Although Augustine was generally a good Catholic theologian, he was not as adept at interpreting Scripture. The sad fact is that he did not know Hebrew or Greek, which severely handicapped him. All he knew was Latin, and unfortunately, Jerome made various mistakes in his Latin Vulgate of Scripture that were never corrected. Often when Augustine had difficulty with a verse, he would spiritualize it, which would immediately remove the difficulty. He did this with Genesis 1. Becoming frustrated with his literal interpretation, he spiritualized the whole chapter, which turned the days of creation into 6 contemplations of the angels instead of literal creation days. All the other Fathers had interpreted it literally. There are many more examples that could be shown.
In retrospect, just the fact that the early Fathers had a completely different interpretation of the Apocalypse than Augustine; and that they are supposed to be the carriers of the earliest and most authentic tradition from the Apostles as opposed to a theologian like Augustine who is removed from the Apostles by 400 years, means that we are straddled with some significant contradictions in eschatology in the Catholic Church.
In regard to the mass conversion of the Jews, as noted, it stems from Augustine’s erroneous interpretation of both Malachi 4:5 and Romans 11:26 that makes Elijah the Deliverer. The fact is, Romans 11:26 is not even talking about the Second coming of Christ. It is talking about the First coming, which is why the verse talks about “the Deliverer (Christ) coming out of Zion,” and “turning ungodliness from Jacob by the covenant [the New Covenant in Christ] that forgives sins.” It is only the First coming in which Christ can do these things. The Second coming is for resurrection and judgment, not the forgiveness of sins.
It was at the cross that the New Covenant to forgive sins was established. Christ brought the forgiveness of sins to Israel right from the beginning when he said that he was “sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:6). This held to Pentecost when 3000 Jews were saved in one day; and a year or so following when about 25,000 Jews were saved from Acts 4-13. Today, any Jew can still be saved if he will bow the knee to Christ.
We can verify this interpretation by examining the passages that Paul refers to in Romans 11:26. Paul says, “all Israel shall be saved, as it is written…” If we look to see where “it is written” in the OT, we come upon Isaiah 59:20 and Jeremiah 31:31-33, and both of them are talking about the First coming of Christ, not the Second coming.
If we add these facts to the fact that there is not a single passage in the Old or New Testament that prophecies an en masse conversion of Jews at or near the end of time, we are on pretty safe ground in dismissing Augustine’s interpretation. And as humble as he was, Augustine would not object to our correction, for he said in his The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, that anyone who can produce a better interpretation, should do so.
So, to answer your question, yes, a future mass conversion of the Jews is the popular teaching today, and now you know why. It came from a mistake in biblical interpretation made about 1800 years ago that has never been corrected.
- Robert Sungenis
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!