Text -- Romans 11:1-27 (NET)

Israel’s Rejection not Complete nor Final

11:1 So I ask, God has not rejected his people, has he? Absolutely not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 11:2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew! Do you not know what the scripture says about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? 11:3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars; I alone am left and they are seeking my life!” 11:4 But what was the divine response to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand people who have not bent the knee to Baal.” 11:5 So in the same way at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 11:6 And if it is by grace, it is no longer by works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace. 11:7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was diligently seeking, but the elect obtained it. The rest were hardened, 11:8 as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, to this very day.” 11:9 And David says, “Let their table become a snare and trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them; 11:10 let their eyes be darkened so that they may not see, and make their backs bend continually.” 11:11 I ask then, they did not stumble into an irrevocable fall, did they? Absolutely not! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make Israel jealous. 11:12 Now if their transgression means riches for the world and their defeat means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full restoration bring? 11:13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Seeing that I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 11:14 if somehow I could provoke my people to jealousy and save some of them. 11:15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 11:16 If the first portion of the dough offered is holy, then the whole batch is holy, and if the root is holy, so too are the branches. 11:17 Now if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among them and participated in the richness of the olive root, 11:18 do not boast over the branches. But if you boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. 11:19 Then you will say, “The branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 11:20 Granted! They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, arrogant, but fear! 11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you. 11:22 Notice therefore the kindness and harshness of God– harshness toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 11:23 And even they– if they do not continue in their unbelief– will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 11:24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree? 11:25 For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: A partial hardening has happened to Israel until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion; he will remove ungodliness from Jacob. 11:27 And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.”

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Rom 11:1

I say then ( legō oun ).

As in Rom 11:11. Oun looks back to 9:16-33 and Rom 10:19-21.

Robertson: Rom 11:1

Did God cast off? ( mē apōsato ho theoṡ ).

An indignant negative answer is called for by mē and emphasized by mē genoito (God forbid). Paul refers to the promise in the O.T. made three times: 1Sa 12:22; Psa 94:14 (Psalms 93:14, lxx); Psa 94:4. First aorist middle indicative (without augment) of apōtheō , to push away, to repel, middle, to push away from one as in Act 7:27.

Robertson: Rom 11:1

For I also ( kai gar egō ).

Proof that not all the Jews have rejected Christ. See note on Phi 3:5 for more of Paul’ s pedigree.

Robertson: Rom 11:2

Whom he foreknew ( hon proegnō ).

The same form and sense as in Rom 8:29, which see. Probably the Hebrew sense of choice beforehand. The nation of Israel was God’ s chosen people and so all the individuals in it could not be cast off.

Robertson: Rom 11:2

Wot ye not? ( ouk oidatė ).

"Know ye not?"Why keep the old English "wot"?

Robertson: Rom 11:2

Of Elijah ( en Eleiāi ).

"In the case of Elijah."Cf. "in the bush"(Mar 12:26).

Robertson: Rom 11:2

He pleadeth ( entugchanei ).

See Rom 8:27. Entugchanō means to happen on one and so to converse with (Act 25:24), to plead for (Rom 8:27, Rom 8:34), to plead against as here with kata , but the "against"is in kata .

Robertson: Rom 11:3

They have digged down ( kateskapsan ).

First aorist active indicative of kataskaptō , to dig under or down. Old verb, here only in N.T. (critical text). lxx has katheilan "pulled down."Paul has reversed the order of the lxx of 1 Kings 19:10, 14, 18.

Robertson: Rom 11:3

Altars ( thusiastēria ).

Late word (lxx, Philo, Josephus, N.T. eccl. writers) from thusiazō , to sacrifice. See note on Act 17:23.

Robertson: Rom 11:3

And I am left alone ( kagō hupeleiphthēn monos ).

First aorist passive indicative of hupoleipō , old word, to leave under or behind, here only in N.T. Elijah’ s mood was that of utter dejection in his flight from Jezebel.

Robertson: Rom 11:3

Life ( psuchēn ).

It is not possible to draw a clear distinction between psuchē (soul) and pneuma (spirit). Psuchē is from psuchō , to breathe or blow, pneuma from pneō , to blow. Both are used for the personality and for the immortal part of man. Paul is usually dichotomous in his language, but sometimes trichotomous in a popular sense. We cannot hold Paul’ s terms to our modern psychological distinctions.

Robertson: Rom 11:4

The answer of God ( ho chrēmatismos ).

An old word in various senses like chrēmatizō , only here in N.T. See this use of the verb in Mat 2:12, Mat 2:22; Luk 2:26; Act 10:22.

Robertson: Rom 11:4

To Baal ( tēi Baal ).

Feminine article. In the lxx the name Baal is either masculine or feminine. The explanation is that the Jews put Bosheth (aischunē , shame) for Baal and in the lxx the feminine article occurs because aischunē is so, though here the lxx has the masculine tōi .

Robertson: Rom 11:5

Remnant ( limma ).

Old word, but only here in N.T., but in papyri also and with this spelling rather than leimma . From leipō , to leave.

Robertson: Rom 11:5

According to the election of grace ( kat' eklogēn charitos ).

As in Rom 9:6-13. The election is all of God. Rom 11:6 explains it further.

Robertson: Rom 11:6

Otherwise ( epei ).

Ellipse after epei (since), "since, in that case."

Robertson: Rom 11:6

Is no more ( ouketi ginetai ).

"No longer becomes"grace, loses its character as grace. Augustine: Gratia nisi gratis sit gratia non est .

Robertson: Rom 11:7

What then? ( ti ouṅ ).

Since God did not push Israel away (Rom 11:1), what is true?

Robertson: Rom 11:7

The election ( hē eklogē ).

Abstract for concrete (the elect).

Robertson: Rom 11:7

Obtained ( epetuchen ).

Second aorist active indicative of epitugchanō , old verb, to hit upon, only here in Paul. See Rom 9:30-33 for the failure of the Jews.

Robertson: Rom 11:7

Were hardened ( epōrōthēsan ).

First aorist passive indicative of pōroō , late verb, to cover with thick skin (pōros ). See note on 2Co 3:14 and note on Mar 3:5.

Robertson: Rom 11:8

A spirit of stupor ( pneuma katanuxeōs ).

The quotation is a combination of Deu 19:4; Isa 29:10; Isa 6:9. This phrase is from Isa 29:10. Katanuxis is a late and rare word from katanussō , to prick or stick (Act 2:37), in lxx, here only in N.T., one example in Pelagia-Legende . The torpor seems the result of too much sensation, dulled by incitement into apathy.

Robertson: Rom 11:8

That they should not see ( tou mē blepein ).

Genitive articular infinitive of negative purpose.

Robertson: Rom 11:8

That they should not hear ( tou mē akouein ).

So here also. See Stephen’ s speech (Act 7:51.).

Robertson: Rom 11:9

David says ( Daueid legei ).

From Psa 69:23; (68:23f, lxx); Psa 34:8; Psa 28:4 (combined quotation).

Robertson: Rom 11:9

Table ( trapeza ).

For what is on the table, "a feast."

Robertson: Rom 11:9

A snare ( eis pagida ).

From pēgnumi , to make fast, old word for snares for birds and beasts. See Luk 21:35. Eis in predicate with ginomai is a translation-Hebraism.

Robertson: Rom 11:9

A trap ( eis thēran ).

Old word for hunting of wild beasts, then a trap. Only here in N.T.

Robertson: Rom 11:9

A stumbling-block ( eis skandalon ).

A third word for trap, snare, trap-stick or trigger over which they fall. See note on 1Co 1:23; Rom 9:33.

Robertson: Rom 11:9

A recompense ( eis antapodoma ).

Late word from double compound verb antapodidōmi , to repay (both anti and apo ). Ancient Greeks used antapodosis . In lxx and Didache. In N.T. only here (bad sense) and Luk 14:12 (good sense).

Robertson: Rom 11:10

Let their eyes be darkened ( skotisthētōsan hoi ophthalmoi autōn ).

First aorist passive imperative of skotizō , to darken. A terrible imprecation.

Robertson: Rom 11:10

That they may not see ( tou mē blepein ).

Repeated from Rom 11:8.

Robertson: Rom 11:10

Bow down ( sunkampson ).

First aorist active imperative of sunkamptō , old verb, to bend together as of captives whose backs (nōton , another old word, only here in N.T.) were bent under burdens. Only here in N.T.

Robertson: Rom 11:11

Did they stumble that they might fall? ( mē eptaisan hina pesōsiṅ ).

Negative answer expected by mē as in Rom 11:1. First aorist active indicative of ptaiō , old verb, to stumble, only here in Paul (see note on Jam 3:2), suggested perhaps by skandalon in Rom 11:9. If hina is final, then we must add "merely"to the idea, "merely that they might fall"or make a sharp distinction between ptaiō , to stumble, and piptō , to fall, and take pesōsin as effective aorist active subjunctive to fall completely and for good. Hina , as we know, can be either final, sub-final, or even result. See note on 1Th 5:4; 1Co 7:29; Gal 5:17. Paul rejects this query in Rom 11:11 as vehemently as he did that in Rom 11:1.

Robertson: Rom 11:11

By their fall ( tōi autōn paraptōmati ).

Instrumental case. For the word, a falling aside or a false step from parapiptō , see note on Rom 5:15-20.

Robertson: Rom 11:11

Is come.

No verb in the Greek, but ginetai or gegonen is understood.

Robertson: Rom 11:11

For to provoke them to jealousy ( eis to parazēlōsai ).

Purpose expressed by eis and the articular infinitive, first aorist active, of parazēloō , for which verb see note on 1Co 10:22. As an historical fact Paul turned to the Gentiles when the Jews rejected his message (Act 13:45.; Act 28:28, etc.).

Robertson: Rom 11:11

The riches of the world ( ploutos kosmou ).

See note on Rom 10:12.

Robertson: Rom 11:11

Their loss ( to hēttēma autōn ).

So perhaps in 1Co 6:7, but in Isa 31:8 defeat is the idea. Perhaps so here.

Robertson: Rom 11:11

Fulness ( plērōma ).

Perhaps "completion,"though the word from plēroō , to fill, has a variety of senses, that with which anything is filled (1Co 10:26, 1Co 10:28), that which is filled (Eph 1:23).

Robertson: Rom 11:11

How much more? ( posōi mallon ).

Argument a fortiori as in Rom 11:24. Rom 11:25 illustrates the point.

Robertson: Rom 11:13

To you that are Gentiles ( humin tois ethnesin ).

"To you the Gentiles."He has a serious word to say to them.

Robertson: Rom 11:13

Inasmuch then ( Ephesians' hoson men oun ).

Not temporal, quamdiu , "so long as"(Mat 9:15), but qualitative quatenus "in so far then as"(Mat 25:40).

Robertson: Rom 11:13

I glorify my ministry ( tēn diakonian mou doxazō ).

As apostle to the Gentiles (ethnōn apostolos , objective genitive). Would that every minister of Christ glorified his ministry.

Robertson: Rom 11:14

If by any means ( ei pōs ).

This use of ei with purpose or aim is a kind of indirect discourse.

Robertson: Rom 11:14

I may provoke ( parazēlōsō ).

Either future active indicative or first aorist active subjunctive, see same uncertainty in Phi 3:10 katantēsō , but in Phi 3:11 katalabō after ei is subjunctive. The future indicative is clear in Rom 1:10 and the optative in Act 27:12. Doubtful whether future indicative or aorist subjunctive also in sōsō (save).

Robertson: Rom 11:15

The casting away of them ( hē apobolē autōn ).

Objective genitive (autōn ) with apobolē , old word from apoballō , to throw off (Mar 10:50), in N.T. only here and Act 27:22.

Robertson: Rom 11:15

The reconciling of the world ( katallagē kosmou ).

See note on Rom 5:10. for katallagē (reconciling). It explains Rom 11:12.

Robertson: Rom 11:15

The receiving ( hē proslēmpsis ).

Old word from proslambanō , to take to oneself, only here in N.T.

Robertson: Rom 11:15

Life from the dead ( zōē ek nekrōn ).

Already the conversion of Jews had become so difficult. It is like a miracle of grace today, though it does happen. Many think that Paul means that the general resurrection and the end will come when the Jews are converted. Possibly so, but it is by no means certain. His language may be merely figurative.

Robertson: Rom 11:16

First fruit ( aparchē ).

See note on 1Co 15:20, 1Co 15:23. The metaphor is from Num 15:19. The lxx has aparchēn phuramatos , first of the dough as a heave offering.

Robertson: Rom 11:16

The lump ( to phurama ).

From which the first fruit came. See note on Rom 9:21. Apparently the patriarchs are the first fruit.

Robertson: Rom 11:16

The root ( hē riza ).

Perhaps Abraham singly here. The metaphor is changed, but the idea is the same. Israel is looked on as a tree. But one must recall and keep in mind the double sense of Israel in Rom 9:6. (the natural and the spiritual).

Robertson: Rom 11:17

Branches ( kladōn ).

From klaō , to break.

Robertson: Rom 11:17

Were broken off ( exeklasthēsan ).

First aorist passive indicative of ekklaō . Play on the word klados (branch) and ekklaō , to break off. Condition of first class, assumed as true. Some of the individual Jews (natural Israel) were broken off the stock of the tree (spiritual Israel).

Robertson: Rom 11:17

And thou ( kai su ).

An individual Gentile.

Robertson: Rom 11:17

Being a wild olive ( agrielaios ōn ).

This word, used by Aristotle, occurs in an inscription. Ramsay ( Pauline Studies , pp. 219ff.) shows that the ancients used the wild-olive graft upon an old olive tree to reinvigorate the tree precisely as Paul uses the figure here and that both the olive tree and the graft were influenced by each other, though the wild olive graft did not produce as good olives as the original stock. But it should be noted that in Rom 11:24 Paul expressly states that the grafting of Gentiles on to the stock of the spiritual Israel was "contrary to nature"(para phusin ).

Robertson: Rom 11:17

Wast grafted in ( enekentristhēs ).

First aorist passive indicative of enkentrizō , to cut in, to graft, used by Aristotle. Belongs "to the higher Koiné[28928]š "(literary Koiné[28928]š ) according to Milligan.

Robertson: Rom 11:17

Partaker ( sunKoinéōnos ).

Corinthians-partner.

Robertson: Rom 11:17

Fatness ( piotētos ).

Old word from piōn (fat), only here in N.T. Note three genitives here "of the root of the fatness of the olive."

Robertson: Rom 11:18

Glory not over the branches ( mē katakauchō tōn kladōn ).

Genitive case after kata . Present middle imperative second person singular of katakauchaomai with negative mē , "stop glorying"or "do not have the habit of glorying over the branches."The conclusion of the preceding condition.

Robertson: Rom 11:18

Gloriest ( katakauchāsai ).

Late form ̇aesai retaining s .

Robertson: Rom 11:18

Not thou ( ou su ).

Very emphatic position. The graft was upon the stock and root, though each affected the other.

Robertson: Rom 11:19

Thou wilt say then ( ereis oun ).

A presumptuous Gentile speaks.

Robertson: Rom 11:19

That I might be grafted in ( hina egō enkentristhō ).

Purpose clause with hina and first aorist passive subjunctive. He shows contempt for the cast-off Jews.

Robertson: Rom 11:20

Well ( kalōs ).

Perhaps ironical, though Paul may simply admit the statement (cf. Mar 12:32) and show the Gentile his real situation.

Robertson: Rom 11:20

By unbelief ( tēi apistiāi )

- by faith (pistei ). Instrumental case with both contrasted words (by unbelief, by belief).

Robertson: Rom 11:21

Be not highminded ( mē hupsēla phronei ).

"Stop thinking high (proud) thoughts."

Robertson: Rom 11:21

Of God spared not ( ei gar ho theos ouk epheisato ).

It is not ei mē (unless), but the ouk negatives the verb epheisato (first aorist middle indicative of pheidomai , to spare. Condition of first class.

Robertson: Rom 11:22

The goodness and the severity of God ( chrēstotēta kai apotomian theou ).

See Rom 2:2 for chrēstotēs , kindness of God. Apotomia (here alone in the N.T.) is from apotomos , cut off, abrupt, and this adjective from apotemnō , to cut off. This late word occurs several times in the papyri.

Robertson: Rom 11:22

If thou continue ( ean epimenēis ).

Third class condition, ean and present active subjunctive.

Robertson: Rom 11:22

Otherwise ( epei ).

Ellipse after epei , "since if thou dost not continue."

Robertson: Rom 11:22

Thou also ( kai su ).

Precisely as the Jewish branches of Rom 11:17 were.

Robertson: Rom 11:22

Shalt be cut off ( ekkopēsēi ).

Second future passive of ekkoptō , to cut out.

Robertson: Rom 11:23

If they continue not in their unbelief ( ean mē epimenōsi tēi apistiāi ).

Third class condition with the same verb used in Rom 11:22 of the Gentile. Locative case of apistiāi here (same form as the instrumental in Rom 11:20).

Robertson: Rom 11:23

For God is able ( dunatos gar estin ho theos ).

See this use of dunatos estin in Rom 4:21 rather than dunatai . This is the crux of the whole matter. God is able.

Robertson: Rom 11:24

Contrary to nature ( para phusin ).

This is the gist of the argument, the power of God to do what is contrary to natural processes. He put the wild olive (Gentile) into the good olive tree (the spiritual Israel) and made the wild olive (contrary to nature) become the good olive (kallielaios , the garden olive, kallos and elaia in Aristotle and a papyrus).

Robertson: Rom 11:24

Into their own olive tree ( tēi idiāi elaiāi ).

Dative case. Another argument a fortiori , "how much more"(pollōi mallon ). God can graft the natural Israel back upon the spiritual Israel, if they become willing.

Robertson: Rom 11:25

This mystery ( to mustērion touto ).

Not in the pagan sense of an esoteric doctrine for the initiated (from mueō , to blink, to wink), unknown secrets (2Th 2:7), or like the mystery religions of the time, but the revealed will of God now made known to all (1Co 2:1, 1Co 2:7; 1Co 4:1) which includes Gentiles also (Rom 16:25; Col 1:26.; Eph 3:3.) and so far superior to man’ s wisdom (Col 2:2; Col 4:13; Eph 3:9; Eph 5:32; Eph 6:19; Mat 13:11; Mar 4:11). Paul has covered every point of difficulty concerning the failure of the Jews to accept Jesus as the Messiah and has shown how God has overruled it for the blessing of the Gentiles with a ray of hope still held out for the Jews. "In early ecclesiastical Latin mustērion was rendered by sacramentum , which in classical Latin means the military oath. The explanation of the word sacrament , which is so often founded on this etymology, is therefore mistaken, since the meaning of sacrament belongs to mustērion and not to sacramentum in the classical sense"(Vincent).

Robertson: Rom 11:25

Wise in your own conceits ( en heautois phronimoi ).

"Wise in yourselves."Some MSS. read par' heautois (by yourselves). Negative purpose here (hina mē ēte ), to prevent self-conceit on the part of the Gentiles who have believed. They had no merit in themselves

Robertson: Rom 11:25

A hardening ( pōrōsis ).

Late word from pōroō (Rom 11:7). Occurs in Hippocrates as a medical term, only here in N.T. save Mar 3:5; Eph 4:18. It means obtuseness of intellectual discernment, mental dulness.

Robertson: Rom 11:25

In part ( apo merous ).

Goes with the verb gegonen (has happened in part). For apo merous , see note on 2Co 1:14; 2Co 2:5; Rom 15:24; for ana meros , see note on 1Co 14:27; for ek merous , see note on 1Co 12:27; 1Co 13:9; for kata meros , see note on Heb 9:5; for meros ti (adverbial accusative) partly see note on 1Co 11:18. Paul refuses to believe that no more Jews will be saved.

Robertson: Rom 11:25

Until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in ( achri hou to plērōma tōn ethnōn eiselthēi ).

Temporal clause with achri hou (until which time) and the second aorist active subjunctive of eiserchomai , to come in (Mat 7:13, Mat 7:21).

Robertson: Rom 11:25

For fulness of the Gentiles ( to plērōma tōn ethnōn )

seeRom 11:12, the complement of the Gentiles.

Robertson: Rom 11:26

And so ( kai houtōs ).

By the complement of the Gentiles stirring up the complement of the Jews (Rom 11:11.).

Robertson: Rom 11:26

All Israel ( pās Israēl ).

What does Paul mean? The immediate context (use of pās in contrast with apo merous , plērōma here in contrast with plērōma in Rom 11:12) argues for the Jewish people "as a whole."But the spiritual Israel (both Jews and Gentiles) may be his idea in accord with Rom 9:6 (Gal 6:16) as the climax of the argument. At any rate we should strive for and pray for the conversion of Jews as a whole. Paul here quotes from Isa 59:20.; Isa 27:9.

Robertson: Rom 11:26

The Deliverer ( ho ruomenos ).

Present middle articular participle of ruomai , to rescue, to deliver. See note on 1Th 1:10; 2Co 1:10. The Hebrew Goel , the Avenger, the Messiah, the Redeemer (Deu 25:5-10; Job 19:25; Rth 3:12.). Paul interprets it of Jesus as Messiah.

Robertson: Rom 11:27

My covenant ( hē par' emou diathēkē ).

"The from me covenant,""my side of the covenant I have made with them"(Sanday and Headlam). Cf. Jer 31:31. Not a political deliverance, but a religious and ethical one.

Robertson: Rom 11:27

When I shall take away ( hotan aphelōmai ).

Second aorist middle subjunctive of aphaireō , old and common verb, to take away.

Vincent: Rom 11:1

I say then ( λέγω οὖν )

Then introduces the question as an inference from the whole previous discussion, especially Rom 11:19-21.

Vincent: Rom 11:1

Hath God cast away ( μὴ ἀπώσατο ὁ Θεὸς )

A negative answer required. " Surely God has not, has He?" The aorist tense points to a definite act. Hence Rev., better, did God cast off . The verb means literally to thrust or shove . Thus Homer, of Sisyphus pushing his stone before him (" Odyssey," xi., 596). Oedipus says: " I charge you that no one shelter or speak to that murderer, but that all thrust him (ὠθεῖν ) from their homes" (" Oedipus Tyrannus," 241).

Vincent: Rom 11:1

People ( λαὸν )

See on 1Pe 2:9; see on Act 13:17.

Vincent: Rom 11:1

An Israelite, etc.

See on Phi 3:5. Paul adduces his own case first, to show that God has not rejected His people en masse . An Israelite of pure descent, he is, nevertheless a true believer.

Vincent: Rom 11:2

Foreknew

See on Rom 8:29.

Vincent: Rom 11:2

Or ( ἢ )

Compare Rom 6:3; Rom 7:1. Confirming what precedes by presenting the only alternative in the cave. Or is omitted in the A.V.

Vincent: Rom 11:2

Wot ye not ( οὐκ οἴδατε )

Why should the Revisers have retained the obsolete wot here, when they have rendered elsewhere, know ye not? See Rom 6:16; 1Co 3:16; 1Co 5:6, 1Co 6:2, etc. The phrase indicates that this cannot be thought of as true.

Vincent: Rom 11:2

Of Elias ( ἐν Ἡλίᾳ )

Wrong; though Rev. has retained it: of Elijah , with in in margin; probably in order to avoid the awkward circumlocution in the passage treating of Elijah , or the ambiguous in Elijah . See on in the bush , Mar 12:26. Thucydides (i. 9) says: " Homer, in 'The handing down of the sceptre,' said," etc.; i.e., in the passage describing the transmission of the sceptre in the second book of the Iliad. A common form of quotation in the rabbinical writings. The passage cited is 1Ki 19:10, 1Ki 19:14.

Vincent: Rom 11:2

He maketh intercession ( ἐντυγχάνει )

See on Rom 8:26. Rev., pleadeth .

Vincent: Rom 11:3

They have killed thy prophets - and digged, etc.

Paul gives the first two clauses in reverse order from both Septuagint and Hebrew.

Vincent: Rom 11:3

Digged down ( κατέσκαψαν )

Sept., καθεῖλαν pulled down . The verb occurs only here and Act 15:16. Compare on Mat 6:19.

Vincent: Rom 11:3

Altars ( θυσιαστήρια )

See on Act 17:23.

Vincent: Rom 11:3

Alone ( μόνος )

Sept. has the superlative μονώτατος utterly alone .

Vincent: Rom 11:3

Life ( ψυχήν )

From ψύχω to breathe or blow . In classical usage it signifies life in the distinctness of individual existence, especially of man, occasionally of brutes. Hence, generally, the life of the individual . In the further development of the idea it becomes, instead of the body, the seat of the will, dispositions, desires, passions; and, combined with the σῶμα body , denotes the constituent parts of humanity. Hence the morally endowed individuality of man which continues after death .

Scripture. In the Old Testament, answering to nephesh , primarily life , breath ; therefore life in its distinct individuality ; life as such , distinguished from other men and from inanimate nature. Not the principle of life, but that which bears in itself and manifests the life-principle. Hence spirit ( ruach , πνεῦμα ) in the Old Testament never signifies the individual . Soul (ψυχή ), of itself, does not constitute personality, but only when it is the soul of a human being. Human personality is derived from spirit (πνεῦμα ), and finds expression in soul or life (ψυχή ).

The New-Testament usage follows the Old, in denoting all individuals from the point of view of individual life . Thus the phrase πᾶσα ψυχή every soul , i.e., every person (Rom 2:9; Rom 13:1), marking them off from inanimate nature. So Rom 11:3; Rom 16:4; 2Co 1:23; 2Co 12:15; Phi 2:30; 1Th 2:8, illustrate an Old-Testament usage whereby the soul is the seat of personality, and is employed instead of the personal pronoun, with a collateral notion of value as individual personality.

These and other passages are opposed to the view which limits the term to a mere animal life-principle. See Eph 6:6; Col 3:23; the compounds σύμψυχοι with one soul ; ἰσοψύχον like-minded (Phi 1:27; Phi 2:20), where personal interest and accord of feeling are indicated, and not lower elements of personality. See, especially 1Th 5:23.

As to the distinction between ψυχή soul and πνεῦμα spirit , it is to be said:

1. That there are cases where the meanings approach very closely, if they are not practically synonymous; especially where the individual life is referred to. See Luk 1:47; Joh 11:33, and Joh 12:27; Mat 11:29, and 1Co 16:18.

2. That the distinction is to be rejected which rests on the restriction of ψυχή to the principle of animal life. This cannot be maintained in the face of 1Co 15:45; 1Co 2:14, in which latter the kindred adjective ψυχικός natural has reference to the faculty of discerning spiritual truth. In both cases the antithesis is πνεῦμα spirit in the ethical sense, requiring an enlargement of the conception of ψυχικός natural beyond that of σαρκικός fleshly .

3. That ψυχή soul must not be distinguished from πνεῦμα ; spirit as being alone subject to the dominion of sin, since the πνεῦμα is described as being subject to such dominion. See 2Co 7:1. So 1Th 5:23; 1Co 7:34, imply that the spirit needs sanctification. Compare Eph 4:23.

4. Ψυχή soul is never used of God like πνεῦμα spirit . It is used of Christ, but always with reference to His humanity.

Whatever distinction there is, therefore, is not between a higher and a lower element in man. It is rather between two sides of the one immaterial nature which stands in contrast with the body. Spirit expresses the conception of that nature more generally, being used both of the earthly and of the non-earthly spirit, while soul designates it on the side of the creature. In this view ψυχή soul is akin to σάρξ , flesh , " not as respects the notion conveyed by them, but as respects their value as they both stand at the same stage of creatureliness in contradistinction to God." Hence the distinction follows that of the Old Testament between soul and spirit as viewed from two different points: the soul regarded as an individual possession, distinguishing the holder from other men and from inanimate nature; the spirit regarded as coming directly from God and returning to Him. " The former indicates the life-principle simply as subsistent , the latter marks its relation to God." Spirit and not soul is the point of contact with the regenerating forces of the Holy Spirit; the point from which the whole personality is moved round so as to face God.

Ψυχή soul is thus:

1. The individual life, the seat of the personality.

2. The subject of the life, the person in which it dwells.

3. The mind as the sentient principle, the seat of sensation and desire.

Vincent: Rom 11:4

Answer ( χρηματισμός )

Only here in the New Testament. For the kindred verb χρηματίζω warn , see on Mat 2:12; see on Luk 2:26; see on Act 10:22. Compare Rom 8:3. The word means an oracular answer . In the New Testament the verb is commonly rendered warn .

Vincent: Rom 11:4

I have reserved ( κατέλιπον )

Varying from both Septuagint and Hebrew. Heb., I will reserve ; Sept., thou wilt leave .

Vincent: Rom 11:4

To Baal ( τῇ Βάαλ )

The feminine article is used with the name instead of the masculine (as in Septuagint in this passage). It occurs, however, in the Septuagint with both the masculine and the feminine article. Various reasons are given for the use of the feminine, some supposing an ellipsis, the image of Baal; others that the deity was conceived as bisexual; others that the feminine article represents the feminine noun ἡ αἰσχύνη shame Heb., bosheth , which was used as a substitute for Baal when this name became odious to the Israelites.

Vincent: Rom 11:6

Otherwise ( ἐπεὶ )

Lit., since . Since, in that case.

Vincent: Rom 11:6

Grace is no more, etc. ( γίνεται )

Lit., becomes . No longer comes into manifestation as what it really is. " It gives up its specific character" (Meyer).

Vincent: Rom 11:6

But if of works, etc.

The best texts omit to the end of the verse.

Vincent: Rom 11:7

Obtained ( ἐπετυχεν )

The simple verb τυγχάνω means originally to hit the mark ; hence to fall in with , light upon , attain .

Vincent: Rom 11:7

The election ( ἡ ἐκλογὴ )

Abstract for concrete. Those elected; like ἡ περιτομή the circumcision for those uncircumcised (Eph 2:11. Compare τὴν κατατομήν the concision , Phi 3:3).

Vincent: Rom 11:7

Were blinded ( ἐπωρώθησαν )

Rev., correctly, hardened , though the word is used of blindness when applied to the eyes, as Job 17:7, Sept. See on hardness , Mar 3:5. Compare σκληρύνει hardeneth , Rom 9:18.

Vincent: Rom 11:8

It is written

Three quotations follow, two of which we blended in this verse: Isa 29:10; Deu 29:3 (4).

Vincent: Rom 11:8

Hath given ( ὄδωκεν )

Heb., poured out . Sept., given to drink .

Vincent: Rom 11:8

Slumber ( κατανύξεως )

Heb., deep sleep . Only here in the New Testament. Lit., pricking or piercing , compunction . Compare the kindred verb κατενύγησαν were pricked , Act 2:37. Rev. renders stupor , the secondary meaning; properly the stupefaction following a wound or blow .

Vincent: Rom 11:9

David saith

Psa 69:23, Psa 69:24. It is doubtful whether David was the author. Some high authorities are inclined to ascribe it to Jeremiah. David here may mean nothing more than the book of Psalm.

Vincent: Rom 11:9

Table

Representing material prosperity: feasting in wicked security. Some explain of the Jews' presumptuous confidence in the law.

Vincent: Rom 11:9

Snare ( παγίδα )

From πήγνυμι to make fast . The anchor is called παγὶς the maker-fast of the ships .

Vincent: Rom 11:9

Trap ( θήραν )

Lit., a hunting . Only here in the New Testament, and neither in the Hebrew nor Septuagint. Many render net , following Psa 35:8, where the word is used for the Hebrew resheth net . No kind of snare will be wanting. Their presumptuous security will become to them a snare , a hunting , a stumbling-block .

Vincent: Rom 11:9

A recompense ( ἀνταπόδομα )

Substituted by the Septuagint for the Hebrew, to them at ease . It carries the idea of a just retribution .

Vincent: Rom 11:10

Bow down ( σύγκαμψον )

Lit., bend together . Hebrew, shake the loins .

Vincent: Rom 11:12

Diminishing ( ἥττημα )

The literal translation. Rev. renders loss . Referring apparently to the diminution in numbers of the Jewish people. Other explanations are defeat , impoverishment , injury , minority .

Vincent: Rom 11:12

Fullness ( πλήρωμα )

See on Joh 1:16. The word may mean that with which anything is filled (1Co 10:26, 1Co 10:28; Mat 9:16; Mar 6:43); that which is filled (Eph 1:23); possibly the act of filling (Rom 13:10), though this is doubtful. Here in the first sense: the fullness of their number contrasted with the diminution . They will belong as an integral whole to the people of God.

Vincent: Rom 11:13

For I speak

The best texts read δὲ but instead of γάρ for . The sentence does not state the reason for the prominence of the Gentiles asserted in Rom 11:12, but makes a transition from the statement of the divine plan to the statement of Paul's own course of working on the line of that plan. He labors the more earnestly for the Gentiles with a view to the salvation of his own race.

Vincent: Rom 11:13

Inasmuch as I am

The best texts insert οὖν then . So Rev.; thus disconnecting the clause from the preceding, and connecting it with what follows.

Vincent: Rom 11:13

I magnify mine office ( τὴν διακονίαν μου δοξάζω )

Lit., I glorify my ministry , as Rev. Not I praise , but I honor by the faithful discharge of its duties . He implies, however, that the office is a glorious one. The verb, which occurs about sixty times in the New Testament, most frequently in John, is used, with very few exceptions, of glorifying God or Christ. In Rom 8:30, of God's elect. In 1Co 12:26, of the members of the body. In Rev 18:7, of Babylon. For ministry , see on minister , Mat 20:26.

Vincent: Rom 11:14

Some of them

A modest expression which recalls Paul's limited success among his own countrymen.

Vincent: Rom 11:15

The casting away ( ἡ ἀποβολὴ )

In contrast with receiving . Only here and Act 27:22, where it means loss . Here exclusion from God's people.

Vincent: Rom 11:15

Reconciling of the world ( καταλλαγὴ κόσμου )

See on Rom 5:10, Rom 5:11. Defining the phrase riches of the world in Rom 11:12.

Vincent: Rom 11:15

Life from the dead

The exact meaning cannot be determined. Some refer it to the resurrection to follow the conversion of Israel, including the new life which the resurrection will inaugurate. Others, a new spiritual life. Others combine the two views.

Vincent: Rom 11:16

For ( δὲ )

Better but , or now . A new paragraph begins.

Vincent: Rom 11:16

The first-fruit - holy

See on Jam 1:18, see on Act 26:10. Referring to the patriarchs.

Vincent: Rom 11:16

Lump

See on Rom 9:21. The whole body of the people. The apparent confusion of metaphor, first-fruit , lump , is resolved by the fact that first-fruit does not apply exclusively to harvest, but is the general term for the first portion of every thing which was offered to God. The reference here is to Num 15:18-21; according to which the Israelites were to set apart a portion of the dough of each baking of bread for a cake for the priests. This was called ἀπαρχή , first-fruits .

Vincent: Rom 11:16

Root - branches

The same thought under another figure. The second figure is more comprehensive, since it admits an application to the conversion of the Gentiles. The thought of both figures centres in holy . Both the first-fruits and the root represent the patriarchs (or Abraham singly, compare Rom 11:28). The holiness by call and destination of the nation as represented by its fathers (first-fruits, root) implies their future restoration, the holiness of the lump and branches.

Vincent: Rom 11:17

Branches were broken off ( κλάδων ἐξεκλάσθησαν )

See on Mat 24:32; see on Mar 11:8. The derivation of κλάδων branches , from κλάω to break , is exhibited in the word-play between the noun and the verb: kladon , exeklasthesan .

Vincent: Rom 11:17

A wild olive-tree ( ἀγριέλαιος )

To be taken as an adjective, belonging to the wild olive . Hence Rev., correctly, rejects tree , since the Gentiles are addressed not as a whole but as individuals. Meyer says: " The ingrafting of the Gentiles took place at first only partially and in single instances; while the thou addressed cannot represent heathendom as a whole, and is also not appropriate to the figure itself; because, in fact, not whole trees, not even quite young ones are ingrafted, either with the stem or as to all their branches. Besides, Rom 11:24 contradicts this view."

Vincent: Rom 11:17

Wert graffed in among them ( ἐνεκεντρίσθης ἐν αὐτοῖς )

The verb occurs only in this chapter. From κέντπον a sting , a goad . See on Rev 9:9. Thus, in the verb to graft the incision is emphasized. Some render in their place , instead of among them ; but the latter agrees better with partakest . Hence the reference is not to some of the broken off branches in whose place the Gentiles were grafted, but to the branches in general.

Vincent: Rom 11:17

With them partakest ( συγκοινωνὸς ἐγένου )

Lit., as Rev., didst become partaker with them . See on Rev 1:9; and see on partners , Luk 5:10. With them , the natural branches.

Vincent: Rom 11:17

Of the root and fatness ( τῆς ῥίζης καὶ τῆς πιότητος )

The best texts omit καὶ and , and render of the root of the fatness: the root as the source of the fatness.

Paul's figure is: The Jewish nation is a tree from which some branches have been cut, but which remains living because the root (and therefore all the branches connected with it) is still alive. Into this living tree the wild branch, the Gentile, is grafted among the living branches, and thus draws life from the root. The insertion of the wild branches takes place in connection with the cutting off of the natural branches (the bringing in of the Gentiles in connection with the rejection of the Jews). But the grafted branches should not glory over the natural branches because of the cutting off of some of the latter, since they derive their life from the common root. " The life-force and the blessing are received by the Gentile through the Jew, and not by the Jew through the Gentile. The spiritual plan moves from the Abrahamic covenant downward, and from the Israelitish nation outward" (Dwight).

The figure is challenged on the ground that the process of grafting is the insertion of the good into the inferior stock, while here the case is reversed. It has been suggested in explanation that Paul took the figure merely at the point of inserting one piece into another; that he was ignorant of the agricultural process; that he was emphasizing the process of grace as contrary to that of nature. References to a custom of grafting wild upon good trees are not sufficiently decisive to warrant the belief that the practice was common. Dr. Thomson says: " In the kingdom of nature generally, certainly in the case of the olive, the process referred to by the apostle never succeeds. Graft the good upon the wild, and, as the Arabs say, 'it will conquer the wild;' but you cannot reverse the process with success.... It is only in the kingdom of grace that a process thus contrary to nature can be successful; and it is this circumstance which the apostle has seized upon to magnify the mercy shown to the Gentiles by grafting them, a wild race, contrary to the nature of such operations, into the good olive tree of the church, and causing them to flourish there and bring forth fruit unto eternal life. The apostle lived in the land of the olive, and was in no danger of falling into a blunder in founding his argument upon such a circumstance in its cultivation" (" Land and Book, Lebanon, Damascus and Beyond Jordan," p. 35). Meyer says: " The subject-matter did not require the figure of the ordinary grafting, but the converse - the grafting of the wild scion and its ennoblement thereby. The Gentile scion was to receive, not to impart, fertility."

Vincent: Rom 11:18

The branches

Of the olive-tree generally, Jewish Christians and unbelieving Jews. Not those that are broken off, who are specially indicated in Rom 11:19.

Vincent: Rom 11:20

Well ( καλῶς )

Admitting the fact. Thou art right. Compare Mar 12:32. Some take it as ironical.

Vincent: Rom 11:22

Goodness and severity ( χρηστότητα καὶ ἀποτομίαν )

For goodness , see on Rom 3:12. Ἁποτομία severity , only here in the New Testament. The kindred adverb, ἀποτόμως sharply , occurs 2Co 13:10; Tit 1:13. From ἀποτέμνω to cut off . Hence that which is abrupt , sharp .

Vincent: Rom 11:22

Thou shalt be cut off ( ἐκκοπήσῃ )

Lit., cut out . See on Luk 13:7.

Vincent: Rom 11:23

Able ( δυνατὸς )

See on Rom 4:21.

Vincent: Rom 11:24

Contrary to nature

See remarks on Rom 11:17.

Vincent: Rom 11:25

Mystery ( μυστήριον )

In the Septuagint only in Daniel. See Dan 2:18, Dan 2:19, Dan 2:27, Dan 2:28, Dan 2:30, of the king's secret. It occurs frequently in the apocryphal books, mostly of secrets of state, or plans kept by a king in his own mind. This meaning illustrates the use of the word in passages like Mat 13:11, " mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" - secret purposes or counsels which God intends to carry into effect in His kingdom. So here; Rom 16:25; Eph 1:9; Eph 3:9; Col 1:26, Col 1:27; Col 2:2; Col 4:3; Rev 10:7. In Justin Martyr (second century) it is commonly used in connection with σύμβολον symbol , τύπος type , παραβολή parable , and so is evidently closely related in meaning to these words. Compare Rev 1:20; Rev 17:7, This meaning may possibly throw light on Eph 5:32. In early ecclesiastical Latin μυστήριον was rendered by sacramentum , which in classical Latin means the military oath . The explanation of the word sacrament , which is so often founded on this etymology, is therefore mistaken, since the meaning of sacrament belongs to μυστήριον and not to sacramentum in the classical sense. In Eph 3:3-6, Paul uses the word as here, of the admission of the Gentiles.

Vincent: Rom 11:25

Wise ( φρόνιμοι )

See on the kindred noun φρόνησις wisdom , Luk 1:17. Mostly in the New Testament of practical wisdom, prudence ; thus distinguished from σοφία which is mental excellence in its highest and fullest sense; and from σύνεσις intelligence , which is combinative wisdom; wisdom in its critical applications. See Col 1:9, and compare Eph 1:8.

Vincent: Rom 11:25

Blindness ( πώρωσις )

See on Rom 11:7. Rev., hardening .

Vincent: Rom 11:25

In part ( ἀπὸ μέρους )

Μέρος part is never used adverbially in the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation. In the Epistles it is rarely used in any other way. The only exceptions are 2Co 3:10; 2Co 9:3; Eph 4:9, Eph 4:16. Paul employs it in several combinations. With ἀπό from (1Co 1:14; 1Co 2:5), and ἐκ out of (1Co 12:27; 1Co 13:9, 1Co 13:10, 1Co 13:12), in which a thing is conceived as looked at from the part, either (ἀπὸ ) as a simple point of view, or (ἐκ ) as a standard according to which the whole is estimated. Thus 1Co 12:27, " members ἐκ μέρους severally , i.e., members from a part of the whole point of view. Also with ἐν in , as Col 2:16, with respect to , literally, in the matter of. With ἀνά up , the idea being of a series or column of parts reckoned upward, part by part . Μέρος τι with regard to some part , partly , occurs 1Co 11:18; and κατὰ μέρος , reckoning part by part downward ; according to part , particularly , Heb 9:5.

Construe here with hath happened : has partially befallen. Not partial hardening, but hardening extending over a part.

Vincent: Rom 11:26

The deliverer ( ὁ ῥυόμενος )

The Hebrew is goel redeemer , avenger . The nearest relative of a murdered person, on whom devolved the duty of avenger, was called goel haddam avenger of blood . So the goel was the nearest kinsman of a childless widow, and was required to marry her (Deu 25:5-10). It is the word used by Job in the celebrated passage Job 19:25. See, also, Rth 3:12, Rth 3:13; Rth 4:1-10.

Wesley: Rom 11:1

All Israel? In no wise. Now there is "a remnant" who believe, Rom 11:5; and hereafter "all Israel will be saved," Rom 11:26.

Wesley: Rom 11:2

Speaking after the manner of men. For, in fact, knowing and foreknowing are the same thing with God, who knows or sees all things at once, from everlasting to everlasting.

Wesley: Rom 11:2

That in a parallel case, amidst a general apostasy, when Elijah thought the whole nation was fallen into idolatry, God "knew" there was "a remnant" of true worshippers.

Wesley: Rom 11:3

1Ki 19:10.

Wesley: Rom 11:4

Nor to the golden calves.

Wesley: Rom 11:5

According to that gracious purpose of God, "He that believeth shall be saved."

Wesley: Rom 11:6

Whether ceremonial or moral.

Wesley: Rom 11:6

The very nature of grace is lost. And if it be of works, then it is no more grace: else work is no longer work - But the very nature of it is destroyed. There is something so absolutely inconsistent between the being justified by grace, and the being justified by works, that, if you suppose either, you of necessity exclude the other. For what is given to works is the payment of a debt; whereas grace implies an unmerited favour. So that the same benefit cannot, in the very nature of things, be derived from both.

Wesley: Rom 11:7

What is the conclusion from the whole? It is this: that Israel in general hath not obtained justification; but those of them only who believe.

Wesley: Rom 11:7

By their own wilful prejudice.

Wesley: Rom 11:8

God hath at length withdrawn his Spirit, and so given them up to a spirit of slumber; which is fulfilled unto this day. Isa 29:10

Wesley: Rom 11:9

In that prophetic imprecation, which is applicable to them, as well as to Judas.

Wesley: Rom 11:9

Of their preceding wickedness. So sin is punished by sin; and thus the gospel, which should have fed and strengthened their souls, is become a means of destroying them. Psa 69:22-23

Wesley: Rom 11:11

Totally and finally? No But by their fall - Or slip: it is a very soft word in the original.

Wesley: Rom 11:11

See an instance of this, Act 13:46.

Wesley: Rom 11:11

The Jews themselves, to jealousy.

Wesley: Rom 11:12

The first part of this verse is treated of, Rom 11:13, &c; the latter, How much more their fulness, (that is, their full conversion,) Rom 11:23, &c.

So many prophecies refer to this grand event, that it is surprising any Christian can doubt of it. And these are greatly confirmed by the wonderful preservation of the Jews as a distinct people to this day. When it is accomplished, it will be so strong a demonstration, both of the Old and New Testament revelation, as will doubtless convince many thousand Deists, in countries nominally Christian; of whom there will, of course, be increasing multitudes among merely nominal Christians. And this will be a means of swiftly propagating the gospel among Mahometans and Pagans; who would probably have received it long ago, had they conversed only with real Christians.

Wesley: Rom 11:13

Far from being ashamed of ministering to the gentiles, I glory therein; the rather, as it may be a means of provoking my brethren to jealousy.

Wesley: Rom 11:14

My kinsmen.

Wesley: Rom 11:15

Overflowing life to the world, which was dead.

Wesley: Rom 11:16

And this will surely come to pass. For if the first fruits be holy, so is the lump - The consecration of them was esteemed the consecration of all and so the conversion of a few Jews is an earnest of the conversion of all the rest.

Wesley: Rom 11:16

The patriarchs from whom they spring, surely God will at length make their descendants also holy.

Wesley: Rom 11:17

O gentile.

Wesley: Rom 11:17

Had the graft been nobler than the stock, yet its dependance on it for life and nourishment would leave it no room to boast against it. How much less, when, contrary to what is practised among men, the wild olive tree is engrafted on the good!

Wesley: Rom 11:18

Do not they do this who despise the Jews? or deny their future conversion?

Wesley: Rom 11:20

Both conditionally, not absolutely: if absolutely, there might have been room to boast.

Wesley: Rom 11:20

The free gift of God, which therefore ought to humble thee.

Wesley: Rom 11:21

We may observe, this fear is not opposed to trust, but to pride and security.

Wesley: Rom 11:22

Also, who now "standest by faith," be both totally and finally cut off.

Wesley: Rom 11:24

For according to nature, we graft the fruitful branch into the wild stock; but here the wild branch is grafted into the fruitful stock.

Wesley: Rom 11:25

St. Paul calls any truth known but to a few, a mystery. Such had been the calling of the gentiles: such was now the conversion of the Jews.

Wesley: Rom 11:25

Puffed up with your present advantages; dreaming that ye are the only church; or that the church of Rome cannot fail. Hardness in part is happened to Israel, till - Israel therefore is neither totally nor finally rejected.

Wesley: Rom 11:25

Till there be a vast harvest amongst the heathens.

Wesley: Rom 11:26

Being convinced by the coming of the gentiles. But there will be a still larger harvest among the gentiles, when all Israel is come in.

Wesley: Rom 11:26

Yea, the deliverer is come; but not the full fruit of his coming. Isa 59:20

JFB: Rom 11:1

"Did"

JFB: Rom 11:1

Our Lord did indeed announce that "the kingdom of God should be taken from Israel" (Mat 21:41); and when asked by the Eleven, after His resurrection, if He would at that time "restore the kingdom to Israel," His reply is a virtual admission that Israel was in some sense already out of covenant (Act 1:9). Yet here the apostle teaches that, in two respects, Israel was not "cast away"; First, Not totally; Second, Not finally. FIRST, Israel is not wholly cast away.

JFB: Rom 11:1

See Phi 3:5, and so a living witness to the contrary.

JFB: Rom 11:1

Of pure descent from the father of the faithful.

JFB: Rom 11:1

(Phi 3:5), that tribe which, on the revolt of the ten tribes, constituted, with Judah, the one faithful kingdom of God (1Ki 12:21), and after the captivity was, along with Judah, the kernel of the Jewish nation (Ezr 4:1; Ezr 10:9).

JFB: Rom 11:2-4

"did"

JFB: Rom 11:2-4

That is, wholly

JFB: Rom 11:2-4

On the word "foreknew," see on Rom 8:29.

JFB: Rom 11:2-4

That is, "Know"

JFB: Rom 11:2-4

Literally, "in," that is, in the section which relates to

JFB: Rom 11:2-4

"pleadeth"

JFB: Rom 11:2-4

(The word "saying," which follows, as also the particle "and" before "digged down," should be omitted, as without manuscript authority).

JFB: Rom 11:3

"I only am left."

JFB: Rom 11:4

Not "the image of Baal," according to the supplement of our version.

JFB: Rom 11:5

"in this present season"; this period of Israel's rejection. (See Act 1:7, Greek).

JFB: Rom 11:5

"there obtains," or "hath remained"

JFB: Rom 11:5

"As in Elijah's time the apostasy of Israel was not so universal as it seemed to be, and as he in his despondency concluded it to be, so now, the rejection of Christ by Israel is not so appalling in extent as one would be apt to think: There is now, as there was then, a faithful remnant; not however of persons naturally better than the unbelieving mass, but of persons graciously chosen to salvation." (See 1Co 4:7; 2Th 2:13). This establishes our view of the argument on Election in Rom. 9:1-29, as not being an election of Gentiles in the place of Jews, and merely to religious advantages, but a sovereign choice of some of Israel itself, from among others, to believe and be saved. (See on Rom 9:6.)

JFB: Rom 11:6

Better, "Now if it (the election) be by grace, it is no more of works; for [then] grace becomes no more grace: but if it be of works," &c. (The authority of ancient manuscripts against this latter clause, as superfluous and not originally in the text, though strong, is not sufficient, we think, to justify its exclusion. Such seeming redundancies are not unusual with our apostle). The general position here laid down is of vital importance: That there are but two possible sources of salvation--men's works, and God's grace; and that these are so essentially distinct and opposite, that salvation cannot be of any combination or mixture of both, but must be wholly either of the one or of the other. (See on Rom 4:3, Note 3.)

JFB: Rom 11:7-10

How stands the fact?

JFB: Rom 11:7-10

Better, "What Israel is in search of (that is, Justification, or acceptance with God--see on Rom 9:31); this he found not; but the election (the elect remnant of Israel) found it, and the rest were hardened," or judicially given over to the "hardness of their own hearts."

JFB: Rom 11:8

(Isa 29:10; Deu 29:4).

JFB: Rom 11:8

"gave"

JFB: Rom 11:8

"stupor"

JFB: Rom 11:8

"this present day."

JFB: Rom 11:9

(Psa 69:23), which in such a Messianic psalm must be meant of the rejecters of Christ.

JFB: Rom 11:9

That is, Let their very blessings prove a curse to them, and their enjoyments only sting and take vengeance on them.

JFB: Rom 11:10

Expressive either of the decrepitude, or of the servile condition, to come on the nation through the just judgment of God. The apostle's object in making these quotations is to show that what he had been compelled to say of the then condition and prospects of his nation was more than borne out by their own Scriptures. But, SECONDLY, God has not cast away His people finally. The illustration of this point extends, Rom. 11:11-31.

JFB: Rom 11:11

"Did they stumble"

JFB: Rom 11:11

The supplement "rather" is better omitted.

JFB: Rom 11:11

Literally, "trespass," but here best rendered "false step" [DE WETTE]; not "fall," as in our version.

JFB: Rom 11:11

Here, as also in Rom 10:19 (quoted from Deu 32:21), we see that emulation is a legitimate stimulus to what is good.

JFB: Rom 11:12

"But if their trespass," or "false step"

JFB: Rom 11:12

Gentile

JFB: Rom 11:12

As being the occasion of their accession to Christ.

JFB: Rom 11:12

That is, the reduction of the true Israel to so small a remnant.

JFB: Rom 11:12

That is, their full recovery (see on Rom 11:26); that is, "If an event so untoward as Israel's fall was the occasion of such unspeakable good to the Gentile world, of how much greater good may we expect an event so blessed as their full recovery to be productive?"

JFB: Rom 11:13-14

"am speaking"

JFB: Rom 11:13-14

Another proof that this Epistle was addressed to Gentile believers. (See on Rom 1:13).

JFB: Rom 11:13-14

"glorify"

JFB: Rom 11:13-14

The clause beginning with "inasmuch" should be read as a parenthesis.

JFB: Rom 11:14

If . . . I may provoke, &c. (See on Rom 11:11.)

JFB: Rom 11:14

Compare Isa 58:7.

JFB: Rom 11:15

The apostle had denied that they were east away (Rom 11:1); here he affirms it. But both are true; they were cast away, though neither totally nor finally, and it is of this partial and temporary rejection that the apostle here speaks.

JFB: Rom 11:15

Gentile

JFB: Rom 11:15

The reception of the whole family of Israel, scattered as they are among all nations under heaven, and the most inveterate enemies of the Lord Jesus, will be such a stupendous manifestation of the power of God upon the spirits of men, and of His glorious presence with the heralds of the Cross, as will not only kindle devout astonishment far and wide, but so change the dominant mode of thinking and feeling on all spiritual things as to seem like a resurrection from the dead.

JFB: Rom 11:16

"But"

JFB: Rom 11:16

The Israelites were required to offer to God the first-fruits of the earth--both in their raw state, in a sheaf of newly reaped grain (Lev 23:10-11), and in their prepared state, made into cakes of dough (Num 15:19-21) --by which the whole produce of that season was regarded as hallowed. It is probable that the latter of these offerings is here intended, as to it the word "lump" best applies; and the argument of the apostle is, that as the separation unto God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, from the rest of mankind, as the parent stem of their race, was as real an offering of first-fruits as that which hallowed the produce of the earth, so, in the divine estimation, it was as real a separation of the mass or "lump" of that nation in all time to God. The figure of the "root" and its "branches" is of like import--the consecration of the one of them extending to the other.

JFB: Rom 11:17-18

Rather, "But if"; that is, "If notwithstanding this consecration of Abraham's race to God.

JFB: Rom 11:17-18

The mass of the unbelieving and rejected Israelites are here called "some," not, as before, to meet Jewish prejudice (see on Rom 3:3, and on "not all" in Rom 10:16), but with the opposite view of checking Gentile pride.

JFB: Rom 11:17-18

"wast"

JFB: Rom 11:17-18

Though it is more usual to graft the superior cutting upon the inferior stem, the opposite method, which is intended here, is not without example.

JFB: Rom 11:17-18

"wast made partaker," along with the branches left, the believing remnant.

JFB: Rom 11:17-18

The rich grace secured by covenant to the true seed of Abraham.

JFB: Rom 11:18

Rejected

JFB: Rom 11:18

"do"

JFB: Rom 11:18

Remember that

JFB: Rom 11:18

"it is not thou that bearest"

JFB: Rom 11:18

"If the branches may not boast over the root that bears them, then may not the Gentile boast over the seed of Abraham; for what is thy standing, O Gentile, in relation to Israel, but that of a branch in relation to the root? From Israel hath come all that thou art and hast in the family of God; for "salvation is of the Jews" (Joh 4:22).

JFB: Rom 11:19-21

As a plea for boasting.

The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.

JFB: Rom 11:20

"Be it so, but remember that"

JFB: Rom 11:20

Not as a Gentile, but solely

JFB: Rom 11:20

But as faith cannot live in those "whose soul is lifted up" (Hab 2:4).

JFB: Rom 11:20

(Pro 28:14; Phi 2:12):

JFB: Rom 11:21

Sprung from the parent stem.

JFB: Rom 11:21

A mere wild graft. The former might, beforehand, have been thought very improbable; but, after that, no one can wonder at the latter.

JFB: Rom 11:22-23

In rejecting the chosen seed.

JFB: Rom 11:22-23

"God's goodness" is the true reading, that is, His sovereign goodness in admitting thee to a covenant standing who before wert a "stranger to the covenants of promise" (Eph 2:12-20).

JFB: Rom 11:22-23

In believing dependence on that pure goodness which made thee what thou art.

JFB: Rom 11:23

"Yea, and they"

JFB: Rom 11:23

This appeal to the power of God to effect the recovery of His ancient people implies the vast difficulty of it--which all who have ever labored for the conversion of the Jews are made depressingly to feel. That intelligent expositors should think that this was meant of individual Jews, reintroduced from time to time into the family of God on their believing on the Lord Jesus, is surprising; and yet those who deny the national recovery of Israel must and do so interpret the apostle. But this is to confound the two things which the apostle carefully distinguishes. Individual Jews have been at all times admissible, and have been admitted, to the Church through the gate of faith in the Lord Jesus. This is the "remnant, even at this present time, according to the election of grace," of which the apostle, in the first part of the chapter, had cited himself as one. But here he manifestly speaks of something not then existing, but to be looked forward to as a great future event in the economy of God, the reingrafting of the nation as such, when they "abide not in unbelief." And though this is here spoken of merely as a supposition (if their unbelief shall cease)--in order to set it over against the other supposition, of what will happen to the Gentiles if they shall not abide in the faith--the supposition is turned into an explicit prediction in the verses following.

JFB: Rom 11:24

"wert cut off"

JFB: Rom 11:24

This is just the converse of Rom 11:21 : "As the excision of the merely engrafted Gentiles through unbelief is a thing much more to be expected than was the excision of the natural Israel, before it happened; so the restoration of Israel, when they shall be brought to believe in Jesus, is a thing far more in the line of what we should expect, than the admission of the Gentiles to a standing which they never before enjoyed."

JFB: Rom 11:25

The word "mystery," so often used by our apostle, does not mean (as with us) something incomprehensible, but "something before kept secret, either wholly or for the most part, and now only fully disclosed" (compare Rom 16:25; 1Co 2:7-10; Eph 1:9-10; Eph 3:3-6, Eph 3:9-10).

JFB: Rom 11:25

As if ye alone were in all time coming to be the family of God.

JFB: Rom 11:25

"hardness"

JFB: Rom 11:25

"hath come upon"

JFB: Rom 11:25

That is, hath come partially, or upon a portion of Israel.

JFB: Rom 11:25

"have"

JFB: Rom 11:25

That is, not the general conversion of the world to Christ, as many take it; for this would seem to contradict the latter part of this chapter, and throw the national recovery of Israel too far into the future: besides, in Rom 11:15, the apostle seems to speak of the receiving of Israel, not as following, but as contributing largely to bring about the general conversion of the world--but, "until the Gentiles have had their full time of the visible Church all to themselves while the Jews are out, which the Jews had till the Gentiles were brought in." (See Luk 21:24).

JFB: Rom 11:26-27

To understand this great statement, as some still do, merely of such a gradual inbringing of individual Jews, that there shall at length remain none in unbelief, is to do manifest violence both to it and to the whole context. It can only mean the ultimate ingathering of Israel as a nation, in contrast with the present "remnant." (So THOLUCK, MEYER, DE WETTE, PHILIPPI, ALFORD, HODGE). Three confirmations of this now follow: two from the prophets, and a third from the Abrahamic covenant itself. First, as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and

JFB: Rom 11:26-27

Or, according to what seems the true reading, without the "and"--"He shall"

JFB: Rom 11:26-27

The apostle, having drawn his illustrations of man's sinfulness chiefly from Psa 14:1-7 and Isa. 59:1-21, now seems to combine the language of the same two places regarding Israel's salvation from it [BENGEL]. In the one place the Psalmist longs to see the "salvation of Israel coming out of Zion" (Psa 14:7); in the other, the prophet announces that "the Redeemer (or, 'Deliverer') shall come to (or 'for') Zion" (Isa 59:20). But as all the glorious manifestations of Israel's God were regarded as issuing out of Zion, as the seat of His manifested glory (Psa 20:2; Psa 110:2; Isa 31:9), the turn which the apostle gives to the words merely adds to them that familiar idea. And whereas the prophet announces that He "shall come to (or, 'for') them that turn from transgression in Jacob," while the apostle makes Him say that He shall come "to turn away ungodliness from Jacob," this is taken from the Septuagint version, and seems to indicate a different reading of the original text. The sense, however, is substantially the same in both. Second,

JFB: Rom 11:27

Rather, "and" (again); introducing a new quotation.

JFB: Rom 11:27

Literally, "this is the covenant from me unto them."

JFB: Rom 11:27

This, we believe, is rather a brief summary of Jer 31:31-34 than the express words of any prediction, Those who believe that there are no predictions regarding the literal Israel in the Old Testament, that stretch beyond the end of the Jewish economy, are obliged to view these quotations by the apostle as mere adaptations of Old Testament language to express his own predictions [ALEXANDER on Isaiah, &c.]. But how forced this is, we shall presently see.

Clarke: Rom 11:1

I say then, hath God cast away his people? - Has he utterly and finally rejected them? for this is necessarily the apostle’ s meaning, and is the import of the Greek word απωσατο, which signifies to thrust or drive away, from απο, from, and ωθεω, to thrust or drive; has he thrust them off, and driven them eternally from him? God forbid - by no means. This rejection is neither universal nor final. For I also am an Israelite - I am a regular descendant from Abraham, through Israel or Jacob, and by his son Benjamin. And I stand in the Church of God, and in the peculiar covenant; for the rejection is only of the obstinate and disobedient; for those who believe on Christ, as I have done, are continued in the Church.

Clarke: Rom 11:2

God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew - God has not finally and irrecoverably rejected a people whom he has loved (or approved) so long, ὁν προεγνω, for this is evidently the meaning of the word in this place, as we have already seen, Rom 8:29, and is a very general meaning of the original verb ידע yada in Hebrew and γινωσκω in Greek; as I have had often occasion to notice in different parts of this work, and what none will deny who consults the original. See Schleusner, Parkhust, etc

Clarke: Rom 11:2

Wot ye not what the Scripture saith - Ουκ οιδατε, Do ye not know what the Scripture saith? The reference is to 1Ki 19:10, 1Ki 19:14. And the apostle’ s answer to the objecting Jew is to the following effect: God hath not universally thrust away his people, for whom in the promise to Abraham he intended, and to whom decreed, to grant his special favor and blessing; but the case is now much as it was in the days of Elijah: that prophet, in his addresses to God, made his complaint against Israel thus: -

Clarke: Rom 11:3

Lord, they have killed thy prophets - They will not permit any person to speak unto them in thy name; and they murder those who are faithful to the commission which they have received from thee

Clarke: Rom 11:3

Digged down thine altars - They are profligate and profane beyond example, and retain not the slightest form of religion

Clarke: Rom 11:3

I am left alone - There is no prophet besides myself left, and they seek to destroy me.

Clarke: Rom 11:4

But what saith the answer of God - The answer which God made assured him that there were seven thousand, that is, several or many thousands; for so we must understand the word seven, a certain for an uncertain number. These had continued faithful to God; but, because of Jezebel’ s persecution, they were obliged to conceal their attachment to the true religion; and God, in his providence, preserved them from her sanguinary rage

Clarke: Rom 11:4

Who have not bowed the knee - Baal was the god of Jezebel; or, in other words, his worship was then the worship of the state; but there were several thousands of pious Israelites who had not acknowledged this idol, and did not partake in the idolatrous worship.

Clarke: Rom 11:5

Even so then at this present time - As in the present day the irreligion of the Jews is very great; yet there is a remnant, a considerable number, who have accepted of the grace of the Gospel

Clarke: Rom 11:5

According to the election of grace - And these are saved just as God has saved all believers from the beginning; they are chosen by his grace, not on account of any worth or excellence in themselves, but through his goodness are they chosen to have a place in his Church, and continue to be his people, entitled to all the privileges of the new covenant. The election of grace simply signifies God’ s gracious design in sending the Christian system into the world, and saving under it all those who believe in Christ Jesus, and none else. Thus the believers in Christ are chosen to inherit the blessings of the Gospel, while those who seek justification by the works of the law are rejected.

Clarke: Rom 11:6

And if by grace - And let this very remnant of pious Jews, who have believed in Christ Jesus, know that they are brought in, precisely in the same way as God has brought in the Gentiles; the one having no more worthiness to plead than the other; both being brought in, and continued in by God’ s free grace, and not by any observance of the Mosaic law

And this is done according to the election of grace, or the rule of choosing any persons to be the people of God upon the footing of grace; which takes in all that believe in his Son Jesus Christ: some of the Jewish people did so believe; therefore those believing Jews are a remnant according to the election of grace. They are saved in that way in which alone God will save mankind

Clarke: Rom 11:6

And if by grace - Then let these very persons remember, that their election and interest in the covenant of God has no connection with their old Jewish works; for were it of works, grace would lose its proper nature, and cease to be what it is - a free undeserved gift

Clarke: Rom 11:6

But if it be of works - On the other hand, could it be made to appear that they are invested in these privileges of the kingdom of Christ only by the observance of the law of Moses, then Grace would be quite set aside; and if it were not, work, or the merit of obedience, would lose its proper nature, which excludes favor and free gift. But it is not, and cannot be, of Works; for those very Jews who now believe, and are happy in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, are so according to the election of grace, which does not mean a particular act of God’ s sovereignty, which has singled out some of the Jews who deserved to have been cast off as well as the rest; but it is that general scheme of grace, according to which God purposed to take into his Church and kingdom any, among either Jews or Gentiles, who should believe on Christ. And the remnant here mentioned were not selected from their countrymen by such a sovereign act of God’ s grace as might have taken in the whole if it had so pleased; but they were admitted into and received the privileges of the Messiah’ s kingdom, because they believed on the Lord Jesus, and received him as their only Savior; and thus came into that scheme of election which God had appointed. And we may observe, farther, that out of this election they as well as the others would have been excluded, had they like the rest remained in unbelief; and into this election of grace all the Jews, to a man, notwithstanding they were all sinners, would have been taken, had they believed in Christ Jesus. This is the true notion of the election of grace. See Taylor.

Clarke: Rom 11:7

What then? - What is the real state of the case before us? Israel - the body of the Jewish people, have not obtained that which they so earnestly desire, i.e. to be continued, as they have been hitherto, the peculiar people of God; but the election hath obtained it - as many of them as have believed in Jesus Christ, and accepted salvation through him: this is the grand scheme of the election by grace; God chooses to make those his peculiar people who believe in his Son, and none other shall enjoy the blessings of his kingdom. Those who would not receive him are blinded; they have shut their eyes against the light, and are in the very circumstances of those mentioned by the Prophet Isaiah, Isa 29:10.

Clarke: Rom 11:8

God hath given them the spirit of slumber - As they had wilfully closed their eyes against the light, so God has, in judgment, given them up to the spirit of slumber. The very word and revelation of God, which should have awakened their consciences, and opened their eyes and ears, have had a very different effect; and because they did not receive the truth in the love thereof, that which would otherwise have been the savour of life unto life, has become the savour of death unto death; and this continues to the present day.

Clarke: Rom 11:9

And David saith, Let their table, etc. - And from their present disposition it is reasonable to conclude that the same evils will fall upon them as fell upon the disobedient in former times, as predicted by David, Psa 69:22, Psa 69:23, that their very blessings should become curses to them, and their temporal mercies be their only recompense; and yet even these earthly blessings, by not being enjoyed in the Lord, should be a stumbling block over which they should fall, and, instead of being a blessing, should be the means of their punishment. They would have a worldly Messiah, and therefore they rejected him whose kingdom was not of this world.

Clarke: Rom 11:10

Let their eyes be darkened - All these words are declarative, and not imprecatory. God declares what will be the case of such obstinate unbelievers; their table, their common providential blessings, will become a snare, a trap, a stumbling block, and the means of their punishment. Their eyes will be more and more darkened as they persist in their unbelief, and their back shall be bowed down always; far from becoming a great and powerful nation, they shall continue ever in a state of abject slavery and oppression, till they acknowledge Jesus as the promised Messiah, and submit to receive redemption in his blood.

Clarke: Rom 11:11

Have they stumbled that they should fall? - Have the Jews, now for their disobedience and unbelief rejected, so sinned against God as to be for ever put out of the reach of his mercy? By no means. Are they, as a nation, utterly irrecoverable? This is the sense of the place, and here the prophecy of the restoration of the Jewish nation commences

Clarke: Rom 11:11

But rather through their fall salvation is come - The Church of God cannot fail; if the Jews have broken the everlasting covenant, Isa 24:5, the Gentiles shall be taken into it; and this very circumstance shall be ultimately the means of exciting them to seek and claim a share in the blessings of the new covenant; and this is what the apostle terms provoking them to jealousy, i.e. exciting them to emulation, for so the word should be understood. We should observe here, that the fall of the Jews was not in itself the cause or reason of the calling of the Gentiles; for whether the Jews had stood or fallen, whether they had embraced or rejected the Gospel, it was the original purpose of God to take the Gentiles into the Church; for this was absolutely implied in the covenant made with Abraham: and it was in virtue of that covenant that the Gentiles were now called, and not Because of the unbelief of the Jews. And hence we see that their fall was not the necessary means of the salvation of the Gentiles; for certainly the unbelief of the Jews could never produce faith in the Gentiles. The simple state of the case is: the Jews, in the most obstinate and unprincipled manner, rejected Jesus Christ and the salvation offered them in his name; then the apostles turned to the Gentiles, and they heard and believed. The Jews themselves perceived that the Gentiles were to be put in possession of similar privileges to those which they, as the peculiar people of God, had enjoyed; and this they could not bear, and put forth all their strength in opposition and persecution. The calling of the Gentiles, which existed in the original purpose of God, became in a certain way accelerated by the unbelief of the Jews, through which they forfeited all their privileges, and fell from that state of glory and dignity in which they had been long placed as the peculiar people of God. See Taylor.

Clarke: Rom 11:12

Now if the fall of them - The English reader may imagine that, because fall is used in both these verses, the original word is the same. But their fall, and the fall of them, is παραπτωμα, the same word which we render offense, Rom 5:15, Rom 5:17, Rom 5:18, and might be rendered lapse. Whereas that they should fall (Rom 11:11) is, ινα πεσωσι . Now, πιπτω, to fall, is used in a sense so very emphatical as to signify being slain. So Homer, Il. viii., ver. 475

Ηματι τῳ, οτ ’ αν οἱ μεν επι πρυμνησι μαχωνται,

Στεινει εν αινοτατῳ, περι Πατροκλοιο πεσοντος

Ὡς γαρ θεσφατον εστι.

And for Patroclus slain, the crowded hosts

In narrow space, shall at the ships contend

Such the divine decree

And again, Il. xi., ver. 84

Οφρα μεν ηως ην και αεξετο ἱερον ημαρ

Τοφρα μαλ ’ αμφοτερων βελε ’ ἡπτετο, πιπτε δε λαος.

While morning lasted, and the light of da

Increased, so long the weapons on both side

Flew in thick vollies; and the people fell

Cowper

It is well known, that to fall in battle means to be killed. It is in such a sense as this that St. Paul used the word fall, when he says, Have they stumbled that they should Fall? He means a fall quite destructive and ruinous; whereas by their fall, and the fall of them, he means no more than such a lapse as was recoverable; as in the case of Adam’ s offense. See Dr. Taylor

Clarke: Rom 11:12

The riches of the world - If, in consequence of their unbelief, the riches of God’ s grace and goodness be poured out on the whole Gentile world, how much more shall that dispensation of grace and mercy enrich and aggrandize the Gentiles, which shall bring the whole body of the Jews to the faith of the Gospel! Here the apostle supposes, or rather predicts, that such a dispensation shall take place; and that, therefore, the Jews have not so stumbled as to be finally irrecoverable.

Clarke: Rom 11:13

I magnify mine office - This is a very improper translation of την διακονιαν μου δοξαζω, which is, literally, I honor this my ministry. Dr. Taylor has justly observed that magnify, except when applied to the most High, carries with it, in our language, the idea of stretching beyond the bounds of truth; whereas the apostle simply means that he does justice to his ministry, by stating the glorious things which he was commissioned to preach among the Gentiles: blessings which the Jews by their obstinacy had forfeited.

Clarke: Rom 11:14

Might save some of them - And yet all these were among the reprobate, or rejected; however, the apostle supposed that none of them were irrecoverably shut out from the Divine favor; and that some of them, by his preaching, might be disposed to receive salvation by Christ Jesus.

Clarke: Rom 11:15

But life from the dead - If the rejection of the Jews became the occasion of our receiving the Gospel, so that we can even glory in our tribulations, though they themselves became chief instruments of our sufferings; yet so far must we feel from exulting over them that we should esteem their full conversion to God as great and choice a favor as we would the restoration of a most intimate friend to life, who had been at the gates of death

The restoration of the Jews to a state of favor with God to which the apostle refers, and which is too plainly intimated by the spirit of prophecy to admit of a doubt, will be a most striking event. Their being preserved as a distinct people is certainly a strong collateral proof that they shall once more be brought into the Church of God: and their conversion to Christianity will be an incontestable proof of the truth of Divine revelation; and doubtless will become the means of converting multitudes of deists, who will see the prophecies of God, which had been delivered so long before, so strikingly fulfilled in this great event. We need not wonder, if a whole nation should then be born as in a day.

Clarke: Rom 11:16

For if the first fruit be holy - As the consecrating the first fruits to God was the means of drawing down his blessing upon the rest, so the conversion of Abraham to the true faith, and the several Jews who have now embraced Christianity, are pledges that God will, in process of time, admit the whole Jewish nation into his favor again, so that they shall constitute a part of the visible Church of Christ

Clarke: Rom 11:16

If the root be holy, so are the branches - The word holy in this verse is to be taken in that sense which it has so frequently in the Old and New Testaments, viz. consecrated, set apart to sacred uses. It must not be forgotten that the first converts to Christ were from among the Jews; these formed the root of the Christian Church: these were holy, ἁγιοι, consecrated to God, and those who among the Gentiles were converted by their means were also ἁγιοι, consecrated; but the chief reference is to the ancestors of the Jewish people, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and, as these were devoted to God and received into his covenant, all their posterity, the branches which proceeded from this root, became entitled to the same privileges: and as the root still remains, and the branches also, the descendants from that root still remain: they still have a certain title to the blessings of the covenant; though, because of their obstinate unbelief, these blessings are suspended, as they cannot, even on the ground of the old covenant, enjoy these blessings but through faith: for it was when Abraham believed God that it was accounted to him for righteousness; and thus he became an heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Clarke: Rom 11:17

And if some of the branches, etc. - If the present nation of the Jews, because of their unbelief, are cut off from the blessings of the Church of God, and the high honor and dignity of being his peculiar people; and thou, being a wild olive - ye Gentiles, being without the knowledge of the true God, and consequently bringing forth no fruits of righteousness, wert grafted in among them - are now inserted in the original stock, having been made partakers of the faith of Abraham, and consequently of his blessings; and enjoy, as the people did who sprang from him, the fatness of the olive tree - the promises made to the patriarchs, and the spiritual privileges of the Jewish Church: -

Clarke: Rom 11:18

Boast not against the branches - While you are ready to acknowledge that you were included in the covenant made with Abraham, and are now partakers of the same blessings with him, do not exult over, much less insult, the branches, his present descendants, whose place you now fill up, according to the election of grace: for remember, ye are not the root, nor do ye bear the root, but the root bears you. You have not been the means of deriving any blessing on the Jewish people; but through that very people, which you may be tempted to despise, all the blessing and excellencies which you enjoy have been communicated to you.

Clarke: Rom 11:19

Thou wilt say then, etc. - You may think that you have reason to exult over them; because it is a fact that God has been displeased with them, and therefore has broken them off; has cast them out of the Church, and taken you into it in their place.

Clarke: Rom 11:20

Well; because of unbelief, etc. - This statement is all true; but then, consider, why is it that they were cast out? Was it not because of their unbelief? And you stand by faith: you were made partakers of these blessings by faith; be not high-minded; let this humble, not exalt you in your own estimation; for if the blessings were received by faith, consequently not by works; and if not by works, you have no merit; and what you have received is through the mere mercy of God. They once stood by faith; they gave place to unbelief, and fell: you stand now by faith; but it is as possible for you to be unfaithful as it was for them, and consequently you may fall under the Divine displeasure, as they have done; be not high-minded, but fear; watch over yourselves with godly jealousy.

Clarke: Rom 11:21

For if God spared not the natural branches - If He, in his infinite justice and holiness, could not tolerate sin in the people whom he foreknew, whom he had so long loved, cherished, miraculously preserved and blessed; take heed lest he also spare not thee. Be convinced that the same righteous principle in him will cause him to act towards you as he has acted towards them, if you sin after the similitude of their transgression; and to this, self-sufficiency and self-confidence will soon lead you. Remember, therefore, the rock whence you were hewn, and the hole of the pit whence ye were digged. Depend incessantly on God’ s free grace, that ye may abide in his favor.

Clarke: Rom 11:22

Behold therefore the goodness - The exclamation, Behold the goodness of God! is frequent among the Jewish writers, when they wish to call the attention of men to particular displays of God’ s mercy, especially towards those who are singularly unworthy. See several instances in Schoettgen

Clarke: Rom 11:22

And severity of God - As χρηστοτης, goodness, signifies the essential quality of the Divine nature, the fountain of all good to men and angels, so αποτομια, severity, as it is here translated, signifies that particular exercise of his goodness and holiness which leads him to sever from his mystical body whatsoever would injure, corrupt, or destroy it. The apostle in these verses uses a metaphor taken from engrafting, εγκεντρισις, from the verb εγκεντριζω, from εν, in, and κεντριζω, to puncture, because engrafting was frequently done by making a puncture in the bark of a tree, and then inserting a bud taken from another. This was the practice in the Roman agriculture, as we learn from Virgil, Georg. ii, ver. 73: -

Nam qua se medio trudunt de cortice gemmae

Et tenues rumpunt tunicas, angustus in ips

Fit nodo sinus: huc aliena ex arbore germe

Includunt, udoque docent inolescere libro

For where the tender rinds of trees disclos

Their shooting gems, a swelling knot there grows

Just in that space a narrow slit we make

Then other buds from bearing trees we take

Inserted thus, the wounded rind we close

In whose moist womb the admitted infant grows

Dryden

In all countries the principle is the same, though the mode is various

The apostle, having adopted this metaphor as the best he could find to express that act of God’ s justice and mercy by which the Jews were rejected, and the Gentiles elected in their stead, and, in order to show that though the Jewish tree was cut down, or its branches lopped off, yet it was not rooted up, he informs the Gentile believers that, as it is customary to insert a good scion in a bad or useless stock, they who were bad, contrary to the custom in such cases, were grafted in a good stock, and their growth and fruitfulness proclaimed the excellence and vegetative life of the stock in which they were inserted. This was the goodness of the heavenly gardener to them; but it was severity, αποτομια, an act of excision to the Jews

The reader will observe that this term belongs to engrafting: often, in this operation, a part of a branch is cut off; in that part which remains in connection with the tree a little slit is made, and then a small twig or branch taken from another tree is, at its lower end, shaved thin, wedge-like, and then inserted in the cleft, after which the whole is tied together, clayed round, etc., and the bark unites to bark; and the stock and the scion become thus one tree, the juices of the whole stock circulating through the tubes of the newly-inserted twig; and thus both live, though the branch inserted bears a very different fruit from that which the parent stock bore. I have often performed this operation, and in this very way, with success: and I cannot conceive that the apostle could have chosen a more apt or more elegant metaphor. The Jewish tree does not bring forth proper fruit; but it will answer well to ingraft a proper fruit-bearing tree on. The Gentiles are a wild olive, which is a tree that bears no fruit; but it may be made to bear if grafted on the Jewish stock. Some of the branches were cut off, that the branches of this wild olive might be inserted: the act by which this insertion is made is termed αποτομια, goodness, benignity: the act by which the branches of the original stock are broken off is termed αποτομια, excision; from απο, from, and τεμνω, I cut, still keeping the metaphor taken from engrafting in view. Now, let the apostle’ s mode of reasoning be observed: the tree is cut down, or its branches lopped off; but the tree is not rooted up. The Jews have stumbled, but not so as to fall irrecoverably; for if they abide not still in unbelief, they shall be grafted in, Rom 11:23. The Gentiles which are grafted in on these cut-off branches, like the scion inserted into another stock, partake of the root, which absorbs from the earth the nutritious juices, and the fatness of the Jewish tree, the blessings and privileges which that people have long enjoyed, in consequence of the Abrahamic covenant, Rom 11:17; the root, the Jewish covenant, bears them: not they the root, Rom 11:18. As, therefore, the continuance of the Gentiles as the Church and people of God depends upon their interest in the Abrahamic covenant, the blessings of which they derive through the medium of the Jews, they should be grateful to God, and tolerant to those through whom they have received such blessings. And as, in the case of grafting, the prosperity of the engrafted scion depends on the existence of the parent stock, so the continuance of the Gentiles in this state of favor, (following the metaphor), in a certain way depends on the continuance of the Jewish people: and they are preserved, as so many scions which are in process of time to be engrafted on the Gentiles; and thus the Gentiles shall become the means of salvation to the Jews, as the Jews have been the means of salvation to the Gentiles. Following, therefore, the metaphor a little farther, which seems to have been so well chosen in all its parts, the continued existence of the Jews as a distinct people, together with the acknowledgment of the Gentiles, that they have derived their salvation and state of blessedness through them - of which Jesus Christ, born of the stock of David, is the author; and the Jewish Scriptures, which the Gentiles receive as inspired by God, are the evidence - then, the restoration of the Jews to the favor of God is a necessary consequence, and indeed seems to be the principal end in reference to which the apostle reasons. The Gentiles, however, are to take care that the restoration of the Jews be not at their expense; as their calling and election were at the expense of the Jews: the latter being cut off, that the former might be grafted in, Rom 11:19. Of this there is no kind of necessity, for the original stock, the Abrahamic covenant, is sufficient to receive them all; and so Jews and Gentiles become one eternal flock, under one Bishop and Shepherd of all their souls.

Clarke: Rom 11:23

If they abide not in unbelief - So, we find that their rejection took place in consequence of their wilful obstinacy: and, that they may return into the fold, the door of which still stands open

Clarke: Rom 11:23

For God is able to graft them in again - Fallen as they are and degraded, God can, in the course of his providence and mercy, restore them to all their forfeited privileges; and this will take place if they abide not in unbelief: which intimates that God has furnished them with all the power and means necessary for faith, and that they may believe on the Lord Jesus whenever they will. The veil now continues on their heart; but it is not a veil which God has spread there, but a veil occasioned by their own voluntary and obstinate unbelief: and, when they shall turn to the Lord, (Jesus), the veil shall be taken away. See what the apostle has said, 2Co 3:6-18.

Clarke: Rom 11:24

The olive tree, which is wild by nature - Which is κατα φυσιν, naturally, wild and barren; for that the wild olive bore no fruit is sufficiently evident from the testimony of the authors who have written on the subject; hence the proverb, Ακαρποτερος αγριππου· more unfruitful than the wild olive. Λακωνες γαρ αγριαν ελαιαν αγιππον καλουσι· for the Lacedemonians term the wild olive αγριππον . See Suidas. And hence Hesychius interprets αγριελαιος, the wild olive, (the word used here by St. Paul), by ακαρπος, unfruitful: and the reason given in Diogen. Proverb. Cent. ii. n. 63, is φυτον γαρ εστιν ὁ αγριππος ακαρπον· for the wild olive is an unfruitful tree. On this account the apostle very properly says: Thou wert cut, εκ της κατα φυσιν αγριελαιου, out of that olive which is uncultivated, because it is barren: the κατα φυσιν does not refer here to its being naturally barren; but to its being commonly or customarily permitted to remain so. And that this is the import of the phrase here is evident from the next clause of the verse

Clarke: Rom 11:24

And wert grafted contrary to nature - Παρα φυσιν, contrary to all custom; for a scion taken from a barren or useless tree is scarcely ever known to be grafted into a good stock; but here the Gentiles, a fruitless and sinful race, are grafted on the ancient patriarchal stock. Now, if it was possible to effect such a change in the state and disposition of the Gentiles, who were αθεοι εν τῳ κοσμῳ, Eph 2:12, without God, Atheists, in the world; how much more possible is it, speaking after the manner of men, to bring about a similar change in the Jews, who acknowledge the one, only, and true God, and receive the law and the prophets as a revelation from him. This seems to be the drift of the apostle’ s argument.

Clarke: Rom 11:25

I would not - that ye should be ignorant of this mystery - Mystery, μυστηριον, signifies any thing that is hidden or covered, or not fully made manifest. The Greek word seems to have been borrowed from the Hebrew מסתר mistar , from the root סתר sathar , to hide, conceal, etc.; though some derive it from μυεισθαι, to be initiated into sacred rites, from μυειν, to shut up. In the New Testament it signifies, generally, any thing or doctrine that has not, in former times, been fully known to men: or, something that has not been heard of, or which is so deep, profound, and difficult of comprehension, that it cannot be apprehended without special direction and instruction: here it signifies the doctrine of the future restoration of the Jews, not fully known in itself, and not at all known as to the time in which it will take place. In Rom 16:25 it means the Christian religion, not known till the advent of Christ. The apostle wished the Romans not to be ignorant of this mystery, viz. that such a thing was intended; and, in order to give them as much instruction as possible on this subject, he gives them some characteristic or sign of the times when it was to take place

Clarke: Rom 11:25

Lest ye should be wise in your own conceits - It seems from this, and from other expressions in this epistle, that the converted Gentiles had not behaved toward the Jews with that decorum and propriety which the relation they bore to them required. In this chapter the apostle strongly guards them against giving way to such a disposition

Clarke: Rom 11:25

Blindness in part is happened to Israel - Partial blindness, or blindness to a part of them; for they were not all unbelievers: several thousands of them had been converted to the Christian faith; though the body of the nation, and especially its rulers, civil and spiritual, continued opposed to Christ and his doctrine

Clarke: Rom 11:25

Until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in - And this blindness will continue till the Church of the Gentiles be fully completed - till the Gospel be preached through all the nations of the earth, and multitudes of heathens every where embrace the faith. The words πληρωμα των εθνων may be borrowed from the מלא הגוים melo haggoyim , a multitude of nations, which the Septuagint translate by πληθος εθνων . By the πληρωμα, or fullness, a great multitude may be intended, which should be so dilated on every hand as to fill various regions. In this sense the words were understood by Solomon ben Melec, ארצות הגוים שימלאו מהם . The nations of the Gentiles shall be filled with them: the apostle, therefore, seems to give this sense of the mystery - that the Jews will continue in a state of blindness till such time as a multitude of nations, or Gentiles, shall be converted to the Christian faith; and the Jews, hearing of this, shall be excited, by a spirit of emulation, to examine and acknowledge the validity of the proofs of Christianity, and embrace the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ

We should not restrict the meaning of these words too much, by imagining

1.    That the fullness must necessarily mean all the nations of the universe, and all the individuals of those nations: probably, no more than a general spread of Christianity over many nations which are now under the influence of Pagan or Mohammedan superstition may be what is intended

2.    We must not suppose that the coming in here mentioned necessarily means, what most religious persons understand by conversion, a thorough change of the whole heart and the whole life: the acknowledgment of the Divine mission of our Lord, and a cordial embracing of the Christian religion, will sufficiently fulfill the apostle’ s words. If we wait for the conversion of the Jews till such a time as every Gentile and Mohammedan soul shall be, in this especial sense, converted to God, then - we shall wait for ever.

Clarke: Rom 11:26

And so all Israel shall be saved - Shall be brought into the way of salvation, by acknowledging the Messiah; for the word certainly does not mean eternal glory; for no man can conceive that a time will ever come in which every Jew then living, shall be taken to the kingdom of glory. The term saved, as applied to the Israelites in different parts of the Scripture, signifies no more than their being gathered out of the nations of the world, separated to God, and possessed of the high privilege of being his peculiar people. And we know that this is the meaning of the term, by finding it applied to the body of the Israelites when this alone was the sum of their state. See the Preface, Part II

Clarke: Rom 11:26

As it is written - The apostle supports what he advances on this head by a quotation from Scripture, which, in the main, is taken from Isa 59:20 : The Deliverer shall come out of Zion, and turn away ungodliness from Jacob. Now this cannot be understood of the manifestation of Christ among the Jews; or of the multitudes which were converted before, at, and for some time after, the day of pentecost; for these times were all past when the apostle wrote this epistle, which was probably about the 57th or 58th year of our Lord; and, as no remarkable conversion of that people has since taken place, therefore the fulfillment of this prophecy is yet to take place. In what manner Christ is to come out of Zion, and in what way or by what means he is to turn away transgression from Jacob, we cannot tell; and to attempt to conjecture, when the time, occasion, means, etc., are all in mystery, would be more than reprehensible.

Clarke: Rom 11:27

For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins - The reader on referring to Isa 59:20, Isa 59:21, will find that the words of the original are here greatly abridged. They are the following: -

And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord, My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’ s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever

For the manner in which St. Paul makes his quotation from Scripture, see the observations at the end of the preceding chapter, (Rom 10:21 (note), Part I.). The whole of these two verses should be read in a parenthesis, as I have marked them in the text; for it is evident that the 25th verse should be immediately connected with the 28th

It may not be amiss to subjoin here a collection of those texts in the Old Testament that seem to point out a restoration of the Jewish commonwealth to a higher degree of excellence than it has yet attained. Isa 2:2-5; Isa 19:24, Isa 19:25; Isa 25:6, etc.; Isa 30:18, Isa 30:19, Isa 30:26; Isaiah 60:1-22; Isa 65:17-25; Jer 31:10-12; Jer 46:27, Jer 46:28; Eze 20:34, Eze 20:40, etc.; Eze 28:25, Eze 28:26; Eze 34:20, etc.; Eze 36:8-16; Eze 37:21-28; Eze 39:25, etc.; Joe 3:1, Joe 3:2, Joe 3:17, Joe 3:20, Joe 3:21; Amo 9:9-15; Oba 1:17, Oba 1:21; Mic 4:3-7; Mic 7:18-20; Zep 3:19, Zep 3:20.

Calvin: Rom 11:1

1.I say then, etc What he has hitherto said of the blindness and obstinacy of the Jews, might seem to import that Christ at his coming had transferred elsewhere the promises of God, and deprived the Jews of every hope of salvation. This objection is what he anticipates in this passage, and he so modifies what he had previously said respecting the repudiation of the Jews, that no one might think that the covenant formerly made with Abraham is now abrogated, or that God had so forgotten it that the Jews were now so entirely alienated from his kingdom, as the Gentiles were before the coming of Christ. All this he denies, and he will presently show that it is altogether false. But the question is not whether God had justly or unjustly rejected the people; for it was proved in the last chapter that when the people, through false zeal, had rejected the righteousness of God, they suffered a just punishment for their presumption, were deservedly blinded, and were at last cut off from the covenant.

The reason then for their rejection is not now under consideration; but the dispute is concerning another thing, which is this, That though they deserved such a punishment from God, whether yet the covenant which God made formerly with the fathers was abolished. That it should fail through any perfidiousness of men, was wholly unreasonable; for Paul holds this as a fixed principle, that since adoption is gratuitous and based on God alone and not on men, it stands firm and inviolable, howsoever great the unfaithfulness of men may be, which may tend to abolish it. It was necessary that this knot should be untied, lest the truth and election of God should be thought to be dependent on the worthiness of men.

For I am also an Israelite, etc Before he proceeds to the subject, he proves, in passing, by his own example, how unreasonable it was to think that the nation was utterly forsaken by God; for he himself was in his origin an Israelite, not a proselyte, or one lately introduced into the commonwealth of Israel. As then he was justly deemed to be one of God’s special servants, it was an evidence that God’s favor rested on Israel. He then assumes the conclusion as proved, which yet he will hereafter explain in a satisfactory manner.

That in addition to the title of an Israelite, he called himself the seed of Abraham, and mentioned also his own tribe; this he did that he might be counted a genuine Israelite, and he did the same in his Epistle to the Philippians, Phi 3:4. But what some think, that it was done to commend God’s mercy, inasmuch as Paul sprung from that tribe which had been almost destroyed, seems forced and far-fetched.

Calvin: Rom 11:2

2.God has not cast away, etc This is a negative answer, accompanied with a qualifying clause; for had the Apostle unreservedly denied that the people were rejected, he would have been inconsistent with himself; but by adding a modification, he shows it to be such a rejection, as that God’s promise is not thereby made void. So the answer may be divided into two parts, — that God has by no means cast away the whole race of Abraham, contrary to the tenor of his own covenant, — and that yet the fruit of adoption does not exist in all the children of the flesh, for secret election precedes. Thus general rejection could not have caused that no seed should be saved; for the visible body of the people was in such a manner rejected, that no member of the spiritual body of Christ was cut off.

If any one asks, “Was not circumcision a common symbol of God’s favor to all the Jews, so that they ought to have been all counted his people?” To this the obvious answer is, — That as outward calling is of itself ineffectual without faith, the honor which the unbelieving refuse when offered, is justly taken from them. Thus a special people remain, in whom God exhibits an evidence of his faithfulness; and Paul derives the origin of constancy from secret election. For it is not said here that God regards faith, but that he stands to his own purpose, so as not to reject the people whom he has foreknown.

And here again must be noticed what I have before reminded you of, — that by the verb foreknow, is not to be understood a foresight, I know not what, by which God foresees what sort of being any one will be, but that good pleasure, according to which he has chosen those as sons to himself, who, being not yet born, could not have procured for themselves his favor. ³³⁹ So he says to the Galatians, that they had been known by God, (Gal 4:9); for he had anticipated them with his favor, so as to call them to the knowledge of Christ. We now perceive, that though universal calling may not bring forth fruit, yet the faithfulness of God does not fail, inasmuch as he always preserves a Church, as long as there are elect remaining; for though God invites all people indiscriminately to himself, yet he does not inwardly draw any but those whom he knows to be his people, and whom he has given to his Son, and of whom also he will be the faithful keeper to the end.

Know ye not, etc As there were so few of the Jews who had believed in Christ, hardly another conclusion could have been drawn from this small number, but that the whole race of Abraham had been rejected; and creep in might this thought, — that in so vast a ruin no sign of God’s favor appeared: for since adoption was the sacred bond by which the children of Abraham were kept collected under the protection of God, it was by no means probable, unless that had ceased, that the people should be miserably and wretchedly dispersed. To remove this offense, Paul adopts a most suitable example; for he relates, that in the time of Elias there was such a desolation, that there remained no appearance of a Church, and yet, that when no vestige of God’s favor appeared, the Church of God was, as it were, hid in the grave, and was thus wonderfully preserved.

It hence follows, that they egregiously mistake who form an opinion of the Church according to their own perceptions. And surely if that celebrated Prophet, who was endued with so enlightened a mind, was so deceived, when he attempted by his own judgment to form an estimate of God’s people, what shall be the case with us, whose highest perspicuity, when compared with his, is mere dullness? Let us not then determine any thing rashly on this point; but rather let this truth remain fixed in our hearts — that the Church, though it may not appear to our eyes, is sustained by the secret providence of God. Let it also be remembered by us, that they are foolish and presumptuous who calculate the number of the elect according to the extent of their own perception: for God has a way, easy to himself, hidden from us, by which he wonderfully preserves his elect, even when all things seem to us past all remedy.

And let readers observe this, — that Paul distinctly compares here, and elsewhere, the state of things in his time with the ancient condition of the Church, and that it serves in no small degree to confirm our faith, when we bear in mind, that nothing happens to us, at this day, which the holy Fathers had not formerly experienced: for novelty, we know, is a grievous engine to torment weak minds.

As to the words, In Elias, I have retained the expression of Paul; for it may mean either in the history or in the business of Elias; though it seems to me more probable, that Paul has followed the Hebrew mode of speaking; for ב , beth, which is rendered in the Greek by ἐν, in, is often taken in Hebrew for of

How he appeals to God, etc ³⁴⁰ It was certainly a proof how much Elias honored the Lord, that for the glory of his name he hesitated not to make himself an enemy to his own nation, and to pray for their utter ruin, because he thought that the religion and worship of God had perished among them: but he was mistaken in charging the whole nation, himself alone excepted, with that impiety, for which he wished them to be severely visited. There is however in this passage, which Paul quotes, no imprecation, but a complaint only: but as he complains in such a way as to despair of the whole people, there is no doubt but that he gave them up to destruction. Let us then especially notice what is said of Elias, which was this, — that when impiety had everywhere prevailed, and overspread almost the whole land, he thought that he was left alone.

I have reserved for myself seven thousand, etc Though you may take this finite for an indefinite number, it was yet the Lord’s design to specify a large multitude. Since then the grace of God prevails so much in an extreme state of things, let us not lightly give over to the devil all those whose piety does not openly appear to us. It also ought to be fully imprinted on our minds, — that however impiety may everywhere prevail, and dreadful confusion spread on every side, yet the salvation of many remains secured under the seal of God. ³⁴¹ But that no one may under this error indulge his own sloth, as many seek hiding-places for their vices in the hidden providences of God, it is right to observe again, — that they only are said to be saved who continue sound and unpolluted in the faith of God. This circumstance in the case ought also to be noticed, — that those only remained safe who did not prostitute their body, no, not even by an external act of dissimulation, to the worship of idols; for he not only ascribes to them a purity of mind, but that they had also kept their body from being polluted by any filthiness of superstition. ³⁴²

So then also at this time, etc He applies the example to his own age; and to make all things alike, he calls God’s people a remnant, that is, in comparison with the vast number in whom impiety prevailed: and alluding at the same time to the prophecy he had quoted from Isaiah, he shows, that in the midst of a miserable and confused desolation the faithfulness of God yet shone forth, for there was still some remnant: and in order more fully to confirm this, he expressly calls them a remnant that survived through the grace of God: and thus he bore witness that God’s election is unchangeable, according to what the Lord said to Elias, — that where the whole people had fallen away to idolatry, he had reserved for himself seven thousand: and hence we conclude, that through his kindness they were delivered from destruction. Nor does he simply speak of grace; but he now calls our attention also to election, that we may learn reverently to rely on the hidden purpose of God.

One thing then that is laid down is, — that few are saved in comparison with the vast number of those who assume the name of being God’s people; the other is, — that those are saved by God’s power whom he has chosen with no regard to any merit. The election of grace is a Hebrew idiom for gratuitous election.

Calvin: Rom 11:6

6.If through grace, it is no more by works, etc This amplification is derived from a comparison between things of an opposite character; for such is the case between God’s grace and the merit of works, that he who establishes the one overturns the other.

But if no regard to works can be admitted in election, without obscuring the gratuitous goodness of God, which he designed thereby to be so much commended to us, what answer can be given to Paul by those infatuated persons, ( phrenetici — insane,) who make the cause of election to be that worthiness in us which God has foreseen? For whether you introduce works future or past, this declaration of Paul opposes you; for he says, that grace leaves nothing to works. Paul speaks not here of our reconciliation with God, nor of the means, nor of the proximate causes of our salvation; but he ascends higher, even to this, — why God, before the foundation of the world, chose only some and passed by others: and he declares, that God was led to make this difference by nothing else, but by his own good pleasure; for if any place is given to works, so much, he maintains, is taken away from grace.

It hence follows, that it is absurd to blend foreknowledge of works with election. For if God chooses some and rejects others, as he has foreseen them to be worthy or unworthy of salvation, then the grace of God, the reward of works being established, cannot reign alone, but must be only in part the cause of our election. For as Paul has reasoned before concerning the justification of Abraham, that where reward is paid, there grace is not freely bestowed; so now he draws his argument from the same fountain, — that if works come to the account, when God adopts a certain number of men unto salvation, reward is a matter of debt, and that therefore it is not a free gift. ³⁴³

Now, though he speaks here of election, yet as it is a general reasoning which Paul adopts, it ought to be applied to the whole of our salvation; so that we may understand, that whenever it is declared that there are no merits of works, our salvation is ascribed to the grace of God, or rather, that we may believe that the righteousness of works is annihilated, whenever grace is mentioned.

Calvin: Rom 11:7

7.What then? What Israel seeks, etc As he is here engaged on a difficult subject, he asks a question, as though he was in doubt. He intended, however, by expressing this doubt, to render the answer, which immediately follows, more evident; for he intimates, that no other can be given; and the answer is, — that Israel in vain labored to seek salvation, because his attempt was absurd. Though he mentions here no cause, yet as he had expressed it before, he certainly meant it to be understood in this place. For his words are the same, as though he had said, — that it ought not to seem strange, that Israel gained nothing in striving after righteousness. And hence is proved what he presently subjoins concerning election, — For if Israel has obtained nothing by merit, what have others obtained whose case or condition was not better? Whence has come so much difference between equals? Who does not here see that it is election alone which makes the difference?

Now the meaning of the word election here is doubtful; for to some it seems that it ought to be taken in a collective sense, for the elect themselves, that there may be a correspondence between the two clauses. Of this opinion I do not disapprove, provided it be allowed that there is something more in the word than if he had said, the elect, even this, that he intimates that there was no other reason for obtaining their election, as though he said, — “They are not those who strive by relying on merits, but those whose salvation depends on the gratuitous election of God.” For he distinctly compares with the whole of Israel, or body of the people, the remnant which was to be saved by God’s grace. It hence follows, that the cause of salvation exists not in men, but depends on the good pleasure of God alone.

And the rest have been blinded ³⁴⁵ As the elect alone are delivered by God’s grace from destruction, so all who are not elected must necessarily remain blinded. For what Paul means with regard to the reprobate is, — that the beginning of their ruin and condemnation is from this — that they are forsaken by God.

The quotations which he adduces, collected from various parts of Scripture, and not taken from one passage, do seem, all of them, to be foreign to his purpose, when you closely examine them according to their contexts; for you will find that in every passage, blindness and hardening are mentioned as scourges, by which God punished crimes already committed by the ungodly; but Paul labors to prove here, that not those were blinded, who so deserved by their wickedness, but who were rejected by God before the foundation of the world.

You may thus briefly untie this knot, — that the origin of the impiety which provokes God’s displeasure, is the perversity of nature when forsaken by God. Paul therefore, while speaking of eternal reprobation, has not without reason referred to those things which proceed from it, as fruit from the tree or river from the fountain. The ungodly are indeed, for their sins, visited by God’s judgment with blindness; but if we seek for the source of their ruin, we must come to this, — that being accursed by God, they cannot by all their deeds, sayings, and purposes, get and obtain any thing but a curse. Yet the cause of eternal reprobation is so hidden from us, that nothing remains for us but to wonder at the incomprehensible purpose of God, as we shall at length see by the conclusion. But they reason absurdly who, whenever a word is said of the proximate causes, strive, by bringing forward these, to cover the first, which is hid from our view; as though God had not, before the fall of Adam, freely determined to do what seemed good to him with respect to the whole human race on this account, — because he condemns his corrupt and depraved seed, and also, because he repays to individuals the reward which their sins have deserved. ³⁴⁶

Calvin: Rom 11:8

8.Given them has God, etc There is no doubt, I think, but that the passage quoted here from Isaiah is that which Luke refers to in Act 28:26, as quoted from him, only the words are somewhat altered. Nor does he record here what we find in the Prophet, but only collects from him this sentiment, — that they were imbued from above with the spirit of maliciousness, so that they continued dull in seeing and hearing. The Prophet was indeed bidden to harden the heart of the people: but Paul penetrates to the very fountain, — that brutal stupor seizes on all the senses of men, after they are given up to this madness, so that they excite themselves by virulent stimulants against the truth. For he does not call it the spirit of giddiness, but of compunction, when the bitterness of gall shows itself; yea, when there is also a fury in rejecting the truth. And he declares, that by the secret judgment of God the reprobate are so demented, that being stupified, they are incapable of forming a judgment; for when it is said, that by seeing they see nothing, the dullness of their senses is thereby intimated. ³⁴⁷

Then Paul himself adds, to this very day, lest any one should object and say, that this prophecy had been formerly fulfilled, and that it was therefore absurd to apply it to the time of the gospel: this objection he anticipates, by subjoining, that it was not only a blindness of one day, which is described, but that it had continued, together with the unhealable obstinacy of the people, to the coming of Christ. ³⁴⁸

Calvin: Rom 11:9

9.And David says, etc In this testimony of David there is also made some change in the words, but it is not what changes the meaning. For he thus speaks, “Let their table before them become a snare, and their peaceful things a trap;” there is no mention of retribution. As to the main point there is sufficient agreement. The Prophet prays, that whatever is desirable and happy in life might turn out to the ruin and destruction of the ungodly; and this is what he means by table and peaceful things. ³⁴⁹ He then gives them up to blindness of spirit and weakening of strength; the one of which he expresses by the darkening of the eyes, and the other by the incurvation of the back. But that this should be extended almost to the whole nation, is not to be wondered at; for we know, that not only the chief men were incensed against David, but that the common people were also opposed to him. It appears plain, that what is read in that passage was not applied to a few, but to a large number; yea, when we consider of whom David was a type, there appears to be a spiritual import in the opposite clause. ³⁵⁰

Seeing then that this imprecation remains for all the adversaries of Christ, — that their meat shall be converted into poison, (as we see that the gospel is to be the savor of death unto death,) let us embrace with humility and trembling the grace of God. We may add, that since David speaks of the Israelites, who descended according to the flesh from Abraham, Paul fitly applies his testimony to the subject in hand, that the blindness of the majority of the people might not appear new or unusual.

Calvin: Rom 11:11

11.Have they stumbled, etc You will be greatly hindered in understanding this argument, except you take notice, that the Apostle speaks sometimes of the whole nation of the Jews, and sometimes of single individuals; for hence arises the diversity, that onewhile he speaks of the Jews as being banished from the kingdom of God, cut off from the tree and precipitated by God’s judgment into destruction, and that at another he denies that they had fallen from grace, but that on the contrary they continued in the possession of the covenant, and had a place in the Church of God.

It is then in conformity with this difference that he now speaks; for since the Jews for the most part rejected Christ, so that perverseness had taken hold almost on the whole nation, and few among them seemed to be of a sane mind, he asks the question, whether the Jewish nation had so stumbled at Christ, that it was all over with them universally, and that no hope of repentance remained. Here he justly denies that the salvation of the Jews was to be despaired of, or that they were so rejected by God, that there was to be no future restoration, or that the covenant of grace, which he had once made with them, was entirely abolished, since there had ever remained in that nation the seed of blessing. That we are so to understand his meaning is evident from this, — that having before connected a sure ruin with blindness, he now gives a hope of rising again; which two things are wholly different. They then, who perversely stumbled at Christ, fell and fell into destruction; yet the nation itself had not fallen, so that he who is a Jew must necessarily perish or be alienated from God.

But by their fall salvation has come to the Gentiles, etc The Apostle asserts two things in this place, — that the fall of the Jews had turned out for salvation to the Gentiles; but to this end — that they might be kindled by a sort of jealousy, and be thus led to repentance. He no doubt had an eye to the testimony of Moses, which he had already quoted, where the Lord threatened Israel, — that as he had been provoked by them to emulation through their false gods; so he also, according to the law of retaliation, would provoke them by a foolish nation.

The word here used denotes the feeling of emulation or jealousy with which we are excited, when we see another preferred before us. Since then it was the Lord’s purpose that Israel should be provoked to emulation, they were not so fallen as to be precipitated into eternal ruin; but that God’s blessing, despised by them, might come to the Gentiles, in order that they might at length be also stirred up to seek the Lord, from whom they had fallen away.

But there is no reason for readers to weary themselves much as to the application of this testimony: for Paul does not dwell on the strict meaning of the word, but alludes only to a common and well-known practice. For as emulation stimulates a wife, who for her fault has been rejected by her husband, so that she strives to be reconciled again; so it may be now, he says, that the Jews, seeing the Gentiles introduced into their place, will be touched with grief for their divorce, and seek reconciliation.

Calvin: Rom 11:12

12.And if their fall, etc As he had taught us that after the Jews were repudiated, the Gentiles were introduced in their place, that he might not make the salvation of the Jews to be disliked by the Gentiles, as though their salvation depended on the ruin of the Jews, he anticipates this false notion, and lays down a sentiment of an opposite kind, that nothing would conduce more to advance the salvation of the Gentiles, than that the grace of God should flourish and abound among the Jews. To prove this, he derives an argument from the less, — “If their fall had raised the Gentiles, and their diminution had enriched them, how much more their fullness?” for the first was done contrary to nature, and the last will be done according to a natural order of things. And it is no objection to this reasoning, that the word of God had flowed to the Gentiles, after the Jews had rejected, and, as it were, cast it from them; for if they had received it, their faith would have brought forth much more fruit than their unbelief had occasioned; for the truth of God would have been thereby confirmed by being accomplished in them, and they also themselves would have led many by their teaching, whom they, on the contrary, by their perverseness, had turned aside.

Now he would have spoken more strictly correct, if, to the fall, he had opposed rising: ³⁵¹ of this I remind you, that no one may expect here an adorned language, and may not be offended with this simple mode of speaking; for these things were written to mold the heart and not the tongue.

Calvin: Rom 11:13

13.For to you Gentiles I speak, etc He confirms by a strong reason, that nothing shall be lost by the Gentiles, were the Jews to return again to favor with God; for he shows, that the salvation of both is so connected, that it can by the same means be promoted. For he thus addresses the Gentiles, — “Though I am peculiarly destined to be your Apostle, and ought therefore with special care to seek your salvation, with which I am charged, and to omit as it were all other things, and to labor for that only, I shall yet be faithfully discharging my office, by gaining to Christ any of my own nation; and this will be for the glory of my ministry, and so for your good.” ³⁵² For whatever served to render Paul’s ministry illustrious, was advantageous to the Gentiles, whose salvation was its object.

And here also he uses the verb παραζηλῶσαι, to provoke to emulation, and for this purpose, that the Gentiles might seek the accomplishment of Moses’ prophecy, such as he describes, when they understood that it would be for their benefit.

Calvin: Rom 11:14

14.And save, etc Observe here that the minister of the word is said in some way to save those whom he leads to the obedience of faith. So conducted indeed ought to be the ministry of our salvation, as that we may feel that the whole power and efficacy of it depends on God, and that we may give him his due praise: we ought at the same time to understand that preaching is an instrument for effecting the salvation of the faithful, and though it can do nothing without the Spirit of God, yet through his inward operation it produces the most powerful effects.

Calvin: Rom 11:15

15.For if their rejections, etc This passage, which many deem obscure, and some awfully pervert, ought, in my view, to be understood as another argument, derived from a comparison of the less with the greater, according to this import, “Since the rejection of the Jews has availed so much as to occasion the reconciling of the Gentiles, how much more effectual will be their resumption? Will it not be to raise them even from the dead?” For Paul ever insists on this, that the Gentiles have no cause for envy, as though the restoration of the Jews to favor were to render their condition worse. Since then God has wonderfully drawn forth life from death and light from darkness, how much more ought we to hope, he reasons, that the resurrection of a people, as it were, wholly dead, will bring life to the Gentiles. ³⁵³ It is no objection what some allege, that reconciliation differs not from resurrection, as we do indeed understand resurrection in the present instance, that is, to be that by which we are translated from the kingdom of death to the kingdom of life, for though the thing is the same, yet there is more force in the expression, and this a sufficient answer.

Calvin: Rom 11:16

16.For if the first-fruits, etc By comparing the worthiness of the Jews and of the Gentiles, he now takes away pride from the one and pacifies the other, as far as he could; for he shows that the Gentiles, if they pretended any prerogative of honor of their own, did in no respect excel the Jews, nay, that if they came to a contest, they should be left far behind. Let us remember that in this comparison man is not compared with man, but nation with nation. If then a comparison be made between them, they shall be found equal in this respect, that they are both equally the children of Adam; the only difference is that the Jews had been separated from the Gentiles, that they might be a peculiar people to the Lord. ³⁵⁴

They were then sanctified by the holy covenant, and adorned with peculiar honor, with which God had not at that time favored the Gentiles; but as the efficacy of the covenant appeared then but small, he bids us to look back to Abraham and the patriarchs, in whom the blessing of God was not indeed either empty or void. He hence concludes, that from them an heredity holiness had passed to all their posterity. But this conclusion would not have been right had he spoken of persons, or rather had he not regarded the promise; for when the father is just, he cannot yet transmit his own uprightness to his son: but as the Lord had sanctified Abraham for himself for this end, that his seed might also be holy, and as he thus conferred holiness not only on his person but also on his whole race, the Apostle does not unsuitably draw this conclusion, that all the Jews were sanctified in their father Abraham. ³⁵⁵

Then to confirm this view, he adduces two similitudes: the one taken from the ceremonies of the law, and the other borrowed from nature. The first-fruits which were offered sanctified the whole lump, in like manner the goodness of the juice diffuses itself from the root to the branches; and posterity hold the same connection with their parents from whom they proceed as the lump has with the first-fruits, and the branches with the tree. It is not then a strange thing that the Jews were sanctified in their father. There is here no difficulty if you understand by holiness the spiritual nobility of the nation, and that indeed not belonging to nature, but what proceeded from the covenant. It may be truly said, I allow, that the Jews were naturally holy, for their adoption was hereditary; but I now speak of our first nature, according to which we are all, as we know, accursed in Adam. Therefore the dignity of an elect people, to speak correctly, is a supernatural privilege.

Calvin: Rom 11:17

17.And if some of the branches, etc He now refers to the present dignity of the Gentiles, which is no other than to be of the branches; which, being taken from another, are set in some noble tree: for the origin of the Gentiles was as it were from some wild and unfruitful olive, as nothing but a curse was to be found in their whole race. Whatever glory then they had was from their new insition, not from their old stock. There was then no reason for the Gentiles to glory in their own dignity in comparison with the Jews. We may also add, that Paul wisely mitigates the severity of the case, by not saying that the whole top of the tree was cut off, but that some of the branches were broken, and also that God took some here and there from among the Gentiles, whom he set in the holy and blessed trunk. ³⁵⁶

Calvin: Rom 11:18

18.But if thou gloriest, thou bearest not the root, etc The Gentiles could not contend with the Jews respecting the excellency of their race without contending with Abraham himself; which would have been extremely unbecoming, since he was like a root by which they were borne and nourished. As unreasonable as it would be for the branches to boast against the root, so unreasonable would it have been for the Gentiles to glory against the Jews, that is, with respect to the excellency of their race; for Paul would have them ever to consider whence was the origin of their salvation. And we know that after Christ by his coming has pulled down the partition-wall, the whole world partook of the favor which God had previously conferred on the chosen people. It hence follows, that the calling of the Gentiles was like an ingrafting, and that they did not otherwise grow up as God’s people than as they were grafted in the stock of Abraham.

Calvin: Rom 11:19

19.Thou wilt then say, etc In the person of the Gentiles he brings forward what they might have pleaded for themselves; but that was of such a nature as ought not to have filled them with pride, but, on the contrary, to have made them humble. For if the cutting off of the Jews was through unbelief, and if the ingrafting of the Gentiles was by faith, what was their duty but to acknowledge the favor of God, and also to cherish modesty and humbleness of mind? For it is the nature of faith, and what properly belongs to it, to generate humility and fear. ³⁵⁷ But by fear understand that which is in no way inconsistent with the assurance of faith; for Paul would not have our faith to vacillate or to alternate with doubt, much less would he have us to be frightened or to quake with fear. ³⁵⁸

Of what kind then is this fear? As the Lord bids us to take into our consideration two things, so two kinds of feeling must thereby be produced. For he would have us ever to bear in mind the miserable condition of our nature; and this can produce nothing but dread, weariness, anxiety, and despair; and it is indeed expedient that we should thus be thoroughly laid prostrate and broken down, that we may at length groan to him; but this dread, derived from the knowledge of ourselves, keeps not our minds while relying on his goodness, from continuing calm; this weariness hinders us not from enjoying full consolation in him; this anxiety, this despair, does not prevent us from obtaining in him real joy and hope. Hence the fear, of which he speaks, is set up as an antidote to proud contempt; for as every one claims for himself more than what is right, and becomes too secure and at length insolent towards others, we ought then so far to fear, that our heart may not swell with pride and elate itself.

But it seems that he throws in a doubt as to salvation, since he reminds them to beware lest they also should not be spared. To this I answer, — that as this exhortation refers to the subduing of the flesh, which is ever insolent even in the children of God, he derogates nothing from the certainty of faith. And we must especially notice and remember what I have before said, — that Paul’s address is not so much to individuals as to the whole body of the Gentiles, among whom there might have been many, who were vainly inflated, professing rather than having faith. On account of these Paul threatens the Gentiles, not without reason, with excision, as we shall hereafter find again.

Calvin: Rom 11:21

21.For if God has not spared the natural branches, etc This is a most powerful reason to beat down all self-confidence: for the rejection of the Jews should never come across our minds without striking and shaking us with dread. For what ruined them, but that through supine dependence on the dignity which they had obtained, they despised what God had appointed? They were not spared, though they were natural branches; what then shall be done to us, who are the wild olive and aliens, if we become beyond measure arrogant? But this thought, as it leads us to distrust ourselves, so it tends to make us to cleave more firmly and steadfastly to the goodness of God.

And here again it appears more evident, that the discourse is addressed generally to the body of the Gentiles, for the excision, of which he speaks, could not apply to individuals, whose election is unchangeable, based on the eternal purpose of God. Paul therefore declares to the Gentiles, that if they exulted over the Jews, a reward for their pride would be prepared for them; for God will again reconcile to himself the first people whom he has divorced.

Calvin: Rom 11:22

22.See then, etc By laying the case before their eyes he more clearly and fully confirms the fact, — that the Gentiles had no reason to be proud. They saw in the Jews an example of God’s severity, which ought to have terrified them; while in themselves they had an evidence of his grace and goodness, by which they ought to have been stimulated to thankfulness only, and to exalt the Lord and not themselves. The words import the same, as though he had said, — “If thou exultest over their calamity, think first what thou hast been; for the same severity of God would have impended over thee, hadst thou not been delivered by his gratuitous favor: then consider what thou art even now; for salvation shall not continue to thee, except thou humbly recognisest the mercy of God; for if thou forgettest thyself and arrogantly exultest, the ruin, into which they have fallen, awaits thee: it is not indeed enough for thee to have once embraced the favor of God, except thou followest his call through the whole course of thy life.” They indeed who have been illuminated by the Lord ought always to think of perseverance; for they continue not in the goodness of God, who having for a time responded to the call of God, do at length begin to loathe the kingdom of heaven, and thus by their ingratitude justly deserve to be blinded again.

But he addresses not each of the godly apart, as we have already said, but he makes a comparison between the Gentiles and the Jews. It is indeed true that each individual among the Jews received the reward due to his own unbelief, when they were banished from the kingdom of God, and that all who front among the Gentiles were called, were vessels of God’s mercy; but yet the particular design of Paul must be borne in mind. For he would have the Gentiles to depend on the eternal covenant of God, so as to connect their own with the salvation of the elect people, and then, lest the rejection of the Jews should produce offense, as though their ancient adoption were void, he would have them to be terrified by this example of punishment, so as reverently to regard the judgment of God. For whence comes so great licentiousness on curious questions, except that we almost neglect to consider those things which ought to have duly taught us humility?

But as he speaks not of the elect individually, but of the whole body, a condition is added, If they continued in his kindness I indeed allow, that as soon as any one abuses God’s goodness, he deserves to be deprived of the offered favor; but it would be improper to say of any one of the godly particularly, that God had mercy on him, when he chose him, provided he would continue in his mercy; for the perseverance of faith, which completes in us the effect of God’s grace, flows from election itself. Paul then teaches us, that the Gentiles were admitted into the hope of eternal life on the condition, that they by their gratitude retained possession of it. And dreadful indeed was the defection of the whole world, which afterwards happened; and this dearly proves, that this exhortation was not superfluous; for when God had almost in a moment watered it with his grace, so that religion flourished everywhere, soon after the truth of the gospel vanished, and the treasure of salvation was taken away. And whence came so sudden a change, except that the Gentiles had fallen away from their calling?

Otherwise thou also shalt be cut off, etc We now understand in what sense Paul threatens them with excision, whom he has already allowed to have been grafted into the hope of life through God’s election. For, first, though this cannot happen to the elect, they have yet need of such warning, in order to subdue the pride of the flesh; which being really opposed to their salvation, ought justly to be terrified with the dread of perdition. As far then as Christians are illuminated by faith, they hear, for their assurance, that the calling of God is without repentance; but as far as they carry about them the flesh, which wantonly resists the grace of God, they are taught humility by this warning, “Take heed lest thou be cut off.” Secondly, we must bear in mind the solution which I have before mentioned, — that Paul speaks not here of the special election of individuals, but sets the Gentiles and Jews in opposition the one to the other; and that therefore the elect are not so much addressed in these words, as those who falsely gloried that they had obtained the place of the Jews: nay, he speaks to the Gentiles generally, and addresses the whole body in common, among whom there were many who were faithful, and those who were members of Christ in name only.

But if it be asked respecting individuals, “How any one could be cut off from the grafting, and how, after excision, he could be grafted again,” — bear in mind, that there are three modes of insition, and two modes of excision. For instance, the children of the faithful are ingrafted, to whom the promise belongs according to the covenant made with the fathers; ingrafted are also they who indeed receive the seed of the gospel, but it strikes no root, or it is choked before it brings any fruit; and thirdly, the elect are ingrafted, who are illuminated unto eternal life according to the immutable purpose of God. The first are cut off, when they refuse the promise given to their fathers, or do not receive it on account of their ingratitude; the second are cut off, when the seed is withered and destroyed; and as the danger of this impends over all, with regard to their own nature, it must be allowed that this warning which Paul gives belongs in a certain way to the faithful, lest they indulge themselves in the sloth of the flesh. But with regard to the present passage, it is enough for us to know, that the vengeance which God had executed on the Jews, is pronounced on the Gentiles, in case they become like them.

Calvin: Rom 11:23

23.For God is able, etc. Frigid would this argument be to the profane; for however they may concede power to God, yet as they view it at a distance, shut up as it were in heaven, they do for the most part rob it of its effect. But as the faithful, whenever they hear God’s power named, look on it as in present operation, he thought that this reason was sufficient to strike their minds. We may add, that he assumes this as an acknowledged axiom, — that God had so punished the unbelief of his people as not to forget his mercy; according to what he had done before, having often restored the Jews, after he had apparently banished them from his kingdom. And he shows at the same time by the comparison, how much more easy it would be to reverse the present state of things than to have introduced it; that is, how much easier it would be for the natural branches, if they were again put in the place from which they had been cut off, to draw substance from their own root, than for the wild and the unfruitful, from a foreign stock: for such is the comparison made between the Jews and the Gentiles.

Calvin: Rom 11:25

25.I would not, etc Here he rouses his hearers to a greater attention, while he avows that he is going to declare something that was secret. Nor did he do this without reason; for he wished to conclude, by a brief or plain sentence, a very perplexed question; and yet he declares what no one could have expected. But the words, Lest ye should be proud in yourselves, ³⁶¹ show what was his designed object; and that was, to check the arrogance of the Gentiles, lest they should exult over the Jews. This admonition was also necessary, lest the defection of that people should immoderately disturb the minds of the weak, as though the salvation of them all was to be forever despaired of. The same is still not less useful to us at this day, so that we may know, that the salvation of the remnant, whom the Lord will at length gather to himself, is hid, sealed as it were by his signet. And whenever a long delay tempts us to despair, let us remember this word mystery; by which Paul clearly reminds us, that the mode of their conversion will neither be common nor usual; and hence they act absurdly who attempt to measure it by their own judgment; for what can be more unreasonable than to regard that as incredible which is far removed from our view? It is called a mystery, because it will be incomprehensible until the time of its revelation. ³⁶² It is, however, made known to us, as it was to the Romans, that our faith may be content with the word, and support us with hope, until the event itself come to light.

That blindness in part, etc “In part,” I think, refers not simply to time, nor to the number, but means, in a manner, or in a measure; by which expression he intended, as it seems to me, only to qualify a declaration which in itself was severe. Until does not specify the progress or order of time, but signifies the same thing, as though he had said, “That the fullness of the Gentiles,” etc. The meaning then is, — That God had in a manner so blinded Israel, that while they refused the light of the gospel, it might be transferred to the Gentiles, and that these might occupy, as it were, the vacated possession. And so this blindness served the providence of God in furthering the salvation of the Gentiles, which he had designed. And the fullness of the Gentiles is to be taken for a great number: for it was not to be, as before, when a few proselytes connected themselves with the Jews; but such was to be the change, that the Gentiles would form almost the entire body of the Church. ³⁶³

Calvin: Rom 11:26

26.And so all Israel, etc Many understand this of the Jewish people, as though Paul had said, that religion would again be restored among them as before: but I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, according to this meaning, — “When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both; and yet in such a way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it were the first-born in God’s family.” This interpretation seems to me the most suitable, because Paul intended here to set forth the completion of the kingdom of Christ, which is by no means to be confined to the Jews, but is to include the whole world. The same manner of speaking we find in Gal 6:16. The Israel of God is what he calls the Church, gathered alike from Jews and Gentiles; and he sets the people, thus collected from their dispersion, in opposition to the carnal children of Abraham, who had departed from his faith.

As it is written, etc He does not confirm the whole passage by this testimony of Isaiah, (Isa 59:20,) but only one clause, — that the children of Abraham shall be partakers of redemption. But if one takes this view, — that Christ had been promised and offered to them, but that as they rejected him, they were deprived of his grace; yet the Prophet’s words express more, even this, — that there will be some remnant, who, having repented, shall enjoy the favor of deliverance.

Paul, however, does not quote what we read in Isaiah, word for word;

“come,” he says, “shall a Redeemer to Sion, and to those who shall repent of iniquity in Jacob, saith the Lord.” (Isa 59:20.)

But on this point we need not be very curious; only this is to be regarded, that the Apostles suitably apply to their purpose whatever proofs they adduce from the Old Testament; for their object was to point but passages, as it were by the finger, that readers might be directed to the fountain itself.

But though in this prophecy deliverance to the spiritual people of God is promised, among whom even Gentiles are included; yet as the Jews are the first-born, what the Prophet declares must be fulfilled, especially in them: for that Scripture calls all the people of God Israelites, is to be ascribed to the pre-eminence of that nation, whom God had preferred to all other nations. And then, from a regard to the ancient covenant, he says expressly, that a Redeemer shall come to Sion; and he adds, that he will redeem those in Jacob who shall return from their transgression. ³⁶⁴ By these words God distinctly claims for himself a certain seed, so that his redemption may be effectual in his elect and peculiar nation. And though fitter for his purpose would have been the expression used by the Prophet, “shall come to Sion;” yet Paul made no scruple to follow the commonly received translation, which reads, “The Redeemer shall come forth from Mount Sion.” And similar is the case as to the second part, “He shall turn away iniquities from Jacob:” for Paul thought it enough to regard this point only, — that as it is Christ’s peculiar office to reconcile to God an apostate and faithless people, some change was surely to be looked for, lest they should all perish together.

Calvin: Rom 11:27

27.And, this is my covenant with them, etc Though Paul, by the last prophecy of Isaiah, briefly touched on the office of the Messiah, in order to remind the Jews what was to be expected especially from him, he further adds these few words from Jeremiah, expressly for the same purpose; for what is added is not found in the former passage. ³⁶⁵ This also tends to confirm the subject in hand; for what he said of the conversion of a people who were so stubborn and obstinate, might have appeared incredible: he therefore removes this stumblingblock, by declaring that the covenant included a gratuitous remission of sins. For we may gather from the words of the Prophet, — that God would have no more to do with his apostate people, until he should remit the crime of perfidy, as well as their other sins.

Defender: Rom 11:2

God's "foreknowledge," as is evident from His calling of Israel long before Israel was a nation, involves not just pre-knowledge but pre-planning.

Defender: Rom 11:2

Rom 11:2-4 gives Paul's application of Elijah's experience to the doctrine of Israel's remnant of believers during the age of the church (1Ki 19:8-19). They constitute the true Israel, even while Jewish and Gentile Christians serve together in the church."

Defender: Rom 11:8

This is a rather free translation and paraphrase of both Isa 29:10, Isa 29:13, and Deu 29:3, Deu 29:4, noting that Israel as a nation has been judicially blinded and deafened as a result of its volitional refusal to see or hear the true revelation and will of God."

Defender: Rom 11:9

Quoting from Psa 69:22, which is a Messianic psalm, the context indicates the implication of the Jews in the sufferings of Christ."

Defender: Rom 11:12

The setting aside of Israel while the Gentiles are receiving divine favor is not final, as some theologians allege, but is only for the present age. After "the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (Rom 11:25), then the "fulness" of restored Israel will be even more rich (see note on Rom 11:15). Only "some of the branches" have been "broken off," (Rom 11:17) not all of them, even in this age."

Defender: Rom 11:15

The reconciling of Israel back to God is, indeed, associated with the resurrection of Israel as a nation (Eze 37:11-14), and also with the bodily resurrection of all who have died in faith (Isa 26:19; Hos 6:1-3; Rev 20:4-6)."

Defender: Rom 11:22

God's "severity" is a subject studiously avoided by many modern scholars who prefer to believe in a God who will take everyone to heaven. The Scriptures clearly reveal otherwise. Jesus said only a few are on the road that "leadeth unto life" (Mat 7:14), while many are on the broad "way, that leadeth to destruction" (Mat 7:13). All those that "know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ ... shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord" (2Th 1:8, 2Th 1:9). Sadly also, many who profess to know the Lord will be dismayed at the judgment to hear Him say: "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Mat 7:23). God can be severe."

Defender: Rom 11:25

Israel has been judicially blinded (Rom 11:7, Rom 11:8) but only "in part." Only "some of the branches be broken off" (Rom 11:17). Through every year in this age of the church, there has been "a remnant according to the election of grace" (Rom 11:5). Many Christian leaders, beginning with the apostles, have been Jews.

Defender: Rom 11:25

God is now "[visiting] the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name" (Act 15:14). When the full number (known only to God) has been reached, then "the times of the Gentiles" will end (Luk 21:24), and God will begin again to deal with Israel as His elect nation."

Defender: Rom 11:26

The complete restoration of Israel will climax the purging trials of "the time of Jacob's trouble" (Jer 30:7). Paul refers here to Isa 59:20. This will take place when Christ returns to earth to establish His millennial kingdom centered in Jerusalem (Zec 12:8-10; Zec 13:1; Zec 14:9), following the great tribulation period (Mat 24:29-31). The surviving and resurrected Jews will all acknowledge Jesus Christ as their Messiah and Savior in that day."

TSK: Rom 11:1

Hath God : 1Sa 12:22; 2Ki 23:27; Psa 77:7, Psa 89:31-37, Psa 94:14; Jer 31:36, Jer 31:37; Jer 33:24-26; Hos 9:17; Amo 9:8, Amo 9:9

God forbid : Rom 3:4

For I also : Rom 9:3; Act 22:3, Act 26:4; 2Co 11:22; Phi 3:5

TSK: Rom 11:2

which he foreknew : Rom 8:29, Rom 8:30, Rom 9:6, Rom 9:23; Act 13:48, Act 15:18; 1Pe 1:2

Wot : Gen 44:15; Exo 32:1; Act 3:17, Act 7:40; Phi 1:22

of Elias : Gr. in Elias, Or, by Elias; εν [Strong’ s G1722], corresponding to the Hebrew ב , not infrequently having this signification. Neh 9:30; Luk 4:1; 1Co 6:2; Heb 1:1

how he maketh : Or ""how he addresses God respecting Israel;"" κατα [Strong’ s G2596] having frequently this meaning. (See 1Co 15:15.) Num 16:15; Jer 18:19-23; Joh 4:1-3, Joh 4:11

TSK: Rom 11:3

Lord : 1Ki 18:4, 1Ki 18:13, 1Ki 19:10-18; Neh 9:26; Jer 2:30

digged : 1Ki 18:30,1Ki 18:31

TSK: Rom 11:4

I have reserved : 1Ki 19:18

Baal : Num 25:3; Deu 4:3; Jdg 2:13; 1Ki 16:31; 2Ki 10:19, 2Ki 10:20; Jer 19:5; Hos 2:8; Hos 13:1; Zep 1:4

TSK: Rom 11:5

at this present : Rom 11:6, Rom 11:7, Rom 9:27

election of grace : The election which proceeds from the mercy and goodness of God. Rom 11:28, Rom 9:11; Eph 1:5, Eph 1:6

TSK: Rom 11:6

And if : Rom 3:27, Rom 3:28, Rom 4:4, Rom 4:5, Rom 5:20,Rom 5:21; Deu 9:4-6; 1Co 15:10; Gal 2:21, Gal 5:4; Eph 2:4-9; 2Ti 1:9; Tit 3:5

otherwise work : That is, it loses its character, or nature - that of claiming reward as a matter of right.

TSK: Rom 11:7

What then : Rom 3:9, Rom 6:15; 1Co 10:19; Phi 1:18

Israel : Rom 9:31, Rom 9:32, Rom 10:3; Pro 1:28; Luk 13:24; Heb 12:17

but the election : That is, the elect, the abstract being used for the concrete. So the Jews or the circumcised people, are called Israel, or the circumcision. Rom 11:5, Rom 8:28-30, Rom 9:23; Eph 1:4; 2Th 2:13, 2Th 2:14; 1Pe 1:2

and the rest : Isa 6:10, Isa 44:18; Mat 13:14, Mat 13:15; Joh 12:40; 2Co 3:14, 2Co 4:4; 2Th 2:10-12

blinded : or, hardened, Rom 9:18

TSK: Rom 11:8

God : Isa 29:10

slumber : or, remorse

eyes : Deu 29:4; Isa 6:9; Jer 5:21; Eze 12:2; Mar 4:11, Mar 4:12; Luk 8:10; Act 28:26

unto this day : 2Ki 17:34, 2Ki 17:41; 2Co 3:14, 2Co 3:15

TSK: Rom 11:9

David saith : Psa 69:22, Psa 69:23

their table : Deu 6:10-12, Deu 32:13-15; 1Sa 25:36-38; Job 20:20-23; Pro 1:32; Isa 8:13, Isa 8:14; Luk 12:20, Luk 16:19-25; 1Ti 6:17-19

a recompense : Deu 32:35; Psa 28:4; Isa 59:18, Isa 66:9; Heb 2:2

TSK: Rom 11:10

their eyes : Rom 11:8, Rom 1:21; Psa 69:23; Zec 11:17; Eph 4:18; 2Pe 2:4, 2Pe 2:17; Jud 1:6, Jud 1:13

and bow : Deu 28:64-68; Isa 51:23, Isa 65:12

TSK: Rom 11:11

Have they stumbled : Eze 18:23, Eze 18:32, Eze 33:11

but rather : Rom 11:12, Rom 11:31; Act 13:42, Act 13:46-48, Act 18:6, Act 22:18-21, Act 28:24-28

for : Rom 11:14, Rom 10:19

to provoke them to jealousy : Rather ""to provoke (or excite) them to emulation,"" παραζηλωσαι [Strong’ s G3863], as it is rendered. Rom 11:14

TSK: Rom 11:12

the world : Rom 11:15, Rom 11:33, Rom 9:23; Eph 3:8; Col 1:27

diminishing : decay, or, loss

their : Rom 11:25; Isa 11:11-16, Isa 12:1-6, 60:1-22, Isa 66:8-20; Mic 4:1, Mic 4:2, Mic 5:7; Zec 2:11; Zec 8:20-23; Rev 11:15-19

TSK: Rom 11:13

the apostle : Rom 15:16-19; Act 9:15, Act 13:2, Act 22:21, Act 26:17, Act 26:18; Gal 1:16, Gal 2:2, Gal 2:7-9; Eph 3:8; 1Ti 2:7; 2Ti 1:11, 2Ti 1:12; I magnify mine office. Rather, ""I honour my ministry,"" την διακονιαν [Strong’ s G1248], μου [Strong’ s G3450], δοξαζω [Strong’ s G1392].

TSK: Rom 11:14

by : 1Co 7:16, 1Co 9:20-22; 2Ti 2:10

provoke : Rom 11:11

my : Rom 9:3; Phm 1:12

might : 1Co 7:16; 1Ti 4:16; Jam 5:20

TSK: Rom 11:15

the casting : Rom 11:1, Rom 11:2, Rom 11:11, Rom 11:12

the reconciling : Rom 5:10; Dan 9:24; 2Co 5:18-20; Eph 1:10; Col 1:20,Col 1:21

but : Eze 37:1-14; Rev 11:11, Rev 20:4-6

TSK: Rom 11:16

if the firstfruit : Exo 22:29, Exo 23:16, Exo 23:19; Lev 23:10; Num 15:17-21; Deu 18:4, Deu 26:10; Neh 10:35-37; Pro 3:9; Eze 44:30; Jam 1:18; Rev 14:4

and if : Rom 11:17; Gen 17:7; Jer 2:21; 1Co 7:14

TSK: Rom 11:17

some : Psa 80:11-16; Isa 6:13, Isa 27:11; Jer 11:16; Eze 15:6-8; Mat 8:11, Mat 8:12; Mat 21:43; Joh 15:6

being : Act 2:39; Gal 2:15; Eph 2:11-13, Eph 3:6; Col 2:13

among them : or, for them

and with : Deu 8:8; Jdg 9:8, Jdg 9:9; Psa 52:8; Zec 4:3; Jon 1:16; Rev 11:4

TSK: Rom 11:18

Boast not : Rom 11:20, Rom 3:27; 1Ki 20:11; Pro 16:18; Mat 26:33; Luk 18:9-11; 1Co 10:12

thou bearest : Rom 4:16; Zec 8:20-23; Joh 10:16; Gal 3:29; Eph 2:19, Eph 2:20

TSK: Rom 11:19

that : Rom 11:11, Rom 11:12, Rom 11:17, Rom 11:23, Rom 11:24

TSK: Rom 11:20

Well : Joh 4:17, Joh 4:18; Jam 2:19

because : Rom 3:3; Act 13:46, Act 13:47, Act 18:6; Heb 3:12, Heb 3:19, Heb 4:6, Heb 4:11

and : Rom 5:1, Rom 5:2; 2Ch 20:20; Isa 7:9; 1Co 16:13; 2Co 1:24; Col 2:7; 1Pe 5:9, 1Pe 5:12

Be : Rom 11:18, Rom 12:16; Psa 138:6; Pro 28:26; Isa 2:11, Isa 2:17; Hab 2:4; Zep 3:11; Luk 18:14; 2Co 10:5; 2Th 2:4; 2Ti 3:3-5; Jam 4:6; 1Pe 5:5, 1Pe 5:6; Rev 3:17; Rev 18:7

but : Pro 28:14; Isa 66:2; 1Co 10:12; Phi 2:12; Heb 4:1; 1Pe 1:17

TSK: Rom 11:21

if God : Rom 11:17, Rom 11:19, Rom 8:32; Jer 25:29, Jer 49:12; 1Co 10:1-12; 2Pe 2:4-9; Jud 1:5

TSK: Rom 11:22

therefore : Rom 2:4, Rom 2:5, Rom 9:22, Rom 9:23; Num 14:18-22; Deu 32:39-43; Jos 23:15, Jos 23:16; Psa 58:10,Psa 58:11; Psa 78:49-52, Psa 136:15-22; Isa 66:14

severity : The term severity αποτομια [Strong’ s G663], from απο [Strong’ s G575], from, and τεμνω , to cut off, properly denotes excision, cutting off, as the gardener cuts off, with a pruning knife, dead boughs, or luxuriant stems.

if thou : Rom 2:7; Luk 8:15; Joh 8:31, Joh 15:4-10; Act 11:23, Act 14:22; 1Co 15:2; Gal 6:9; 1Th 3:5, 1Th 3:8; Heb 3:6, Heb 3:14, Heb 10:23, Heb 10:35-39; 1Jo 2:19; Jud 1:20,Jud 1:21

otherwise : Eze 3:20, Eze 18:24, Eze 33:17-19; Mat 3:9, Mat 3:10; Joh 15:2; Rev 2:5

TSK: Rom 11:23

Zec 12:10; Mat 23:39; 2Co 3:16

TSK: Rom 11:24

Rom 11:17, Rom 11:18, Rom 11:30

TSK: Rom 11:25

I would : Psa 107:43; Hos 14:9; 1Co 10:1, 1Co 12:1; 2Pe 3:8

this : Rom 16:25; Eph 3:3, Eph 3:4, Eph 3:9; Rev 10:7

lest : Rom 12:16; Pro 3:5-7, Pro 26:12, Pro 26:16; Isa 5:21

blindness : or, hardness, Rom 11:7, Rom 11:8; 2Co 3:14-16

until : Psa 22:27, Psa 72:8-14, Psa 72:17, Psa 127:1; Isa 2:1-8, 60:1-22, Isa 66:18-23; Mic 4:1, Mic 4:2; Zec 8:20-23, Zec 14:9-21; Luk 21:24; Rev 7:9, Rev 11:15, Rev 20:2-4

TSK: Rom 11:26

all : Isa 11:11-16, Isa 45:17, Isa 54:6-10; Jer 3:17-23, Jer 30:17-22, Jer 31:31-37; Jer 32:37-41, Jer 33:24-26; Eze 34:22-31, Eze 37:21-28, Eze 39:25-29; Ezek. 40:1-48:35; Hos 3:5; Joe 3:16-21; Amo 9:14, Amo 9:15; Mic 7:15-20; Zep 3:12-20; Zec 10:6-12

There : Psa 14:7, Psa 106:47; Isa 59:20

and shall : Mat 1:21; Act 3:26; Tit 2:14

TSK: Rom 11:27

this : Isa 55:3, Isa 59:21; Jer 31:31-34, Jer 32:38-40; Heb 8:8-12, Heb 10:16

when : Isa 27:9, Isa 43:25; Jer 50:20; Eze 36:25-29; Hos 14:2; Joh 1:29

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Rom 11:1

I say then - This expression is to be regarded as conveying the sense of an objection. Paul, in the previous chapters, had declared the doctrine that all the Jews were to be rejected. To this a Jew might naturally reply, Is it to be believed, that God would cast off his people whom he had once chosen; to whom pertained the adoption, and the promises, and the covenant, and the numerous blessings conferred on a favorite people? It was natural for a Jew to make such objections. And it was important for the apostle to show that his doctrine was consistent with all the promises which God had made to his people. The objection, as will be seen by the answer which Paul makes, is formed on the supposition that God had rejected "all his people,"or "cast them off entirely."This objection he answers by showing,

(1)    That God had saved him, a Jew, and therefore that he could not mean that God had east off all Jews Rom 11:1;

(2)    That now, as in former times of great declension, God had reserved a remnant Rom 11:2-5;

(3)    That it accorded with the Scriptures that a part should be hardened Rom 11:6-10;

(4)    That the design of the rejection was not final, but was to admit the Gentiles to the privileges of Christianity Rom 11:11-24;

(5)    That the Jews should yet return to God, and be reinstated in his favor: so that it could not be objected that God had finally and totally cast off his people, or that he had violated his promises.

At the same time, however, the doctrine which Paul had maintained was true, that God had taken away their exclusive and special privileges, and had rejected a large part of the nation.

Cast away - Rejected, or put off. Has God so renounced them that they cannot be any longer his people.

His people - Those who have been long in the covenant relation to him: that is, the Jews.

God forbid - Literally, it may not or cannot be. This is an expression strongly denying that this could take place; and means that Paul did not intend to advance such a doctrine; Luk 20:16; Rom 3:4, Rom 3:6,Rom 3:31; Rom 6:2, Rom 6:15; Rom 7:7, Rom 7:13.

For I am also an Israelite - To show them that he did not mean to affirm that all Jews must of necessity be cast off, he adduces his own case. He was a Jew; and yet he looked for the favor of God, and for eternal life. That favor he hoped now to obtain by being a Christian; and if he might obtain it, others might also. "If I should say that all Jews must be excluded from the favor of God, then I also must be without hope of salvation, for I am a Jew."

Of the seed of Abraham - Descended from Abraham. The apostle mentions this to show that he was a Jew in every respect; that he had a title to all the privileges of a Jew, and must be exposed to all their liabilities and dangers. If the seed of Abraham must of necessity be cut off, he must be himself rejected. The Jews valued themselves much on having been descended from so illustrious an ancestor as Abraham Mat 3:9; and Paul shows them that he was entitled to all the privileges of such a descent; compare Phi 3:4-5.

Of the tribe of Benjamin - This tribe was one that was originally located near Jerusalem. The temple was built on the line that divided the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. It is not improbable that it was regarded as a special honor to have belonged to one of those tribes. Paul mentions it here in accordance with their custom; for they regarded it as of great importance to preserve their genealogy, and to be able to state not only that they were Jews, but to designate the tribe and family to which they belonged.

Barnes: Rom 11:2

God hath set cast away - This is an explicit denial of the objection.

Which he foreknew - The word "foreknew"is expressive not merely of foreseeing a thing, but implies in this place a previous purpose or plan; see the note at Rom 8:29. The meaning of the passage is simply, God has not cast off those whom he had before purposed or designed to be his people. It is the declaration of a great principle of divine government that God is not changeable: and that he would not reject those whom he had purposed should be his people. Though the mass of the nation, therefore, should be cast off, yet it would not follow that God had violated any promise or compact; or that he had rejected any whom he had foreknown as his true people. God makes no covenant of salvation with those who are in their sins; and if the unbelieving and the wicked, however many external privileges they may have enjoyed, are rejected, it does not follow that he has been unfaithful to one whom he had foreknown or designated as an heir of salvation. It follows from this, also, that it is one principle of the divine government that God will not reject those who are foreknown or designated as his friends. It is a part of the plan, therefore, that those who are truly renewed shall persevere, and obtain eternal life.

Wot ye not - Know ye not.

What the Scripture saith? - The passage here quoted is found in 1Ki 19:10-18.

Of Elias - Of Elijah. Greek, "Elijah" ἐν Ἡλιᾳ en Hēlia . This does not mean that it was said about Elijah, or concerning him; but the reference is to the usual manner of quoting the Scriptures among the Jews. The division into chapters and verses was to them unknown. (See the Introduction to the notes on Matthew.) Hence, the Old Testament was divided into portions designated by subjects. Thus, Luk 20:37; Mar 12:26, "At the bush,"means the passage which contains the account of the burning bush; (see the notes on those places.) Here it means, in that passage or portion of Scripture which gives an account of Elijah.

He maketh intercession to God against Israel - The word translated "maketh intercession" ἐντυγχάνει entungchanei means properly to come to the aid of anyone; to transact the business of anyone; especially to discharge the function of an advocate, or to plead one’ s cause in a court of justice. In a sense similar to this it is applied to Christ in his function of making intercession for us in heaven; Heb 7:25; Isa 53:12. In the English language, the word is constantly used in a good sense, to plead for one; never, to plead against one; but the Greek word may imply either. It expresses the function of one who manages the business of another; and hence, one who manages the business of the state against a criminal; and when followed by the preposition for, means to intercede or plead for a person; when followed by against κατά kata , it means to accuse or arraign. This is its meaning here. He accuses or arraigns the nation of the Jews before God; he charges them with crime; the crime is specified immediately.

Barnes: Rom 11:3

Lord, they have killed ... - This is taken from 1Ki 19:10. The quotation is not literally made, but the sense is preserved. This was a charge which Elijah brought against the whole nation; and the act of killing the prophets he regarded as expressive of the character of the people, or that they were universally given to wickedness. The fact was true that they had killed the prophets, etc.; 1Ki 18:4, 1Ki 18:13; but the inference which Elijah seems to have drawn from it, that there were no pious people in the nation, was not well founded.

And digged down - Altars, by the Law of Moses, were required to be made of earth or unhewn stones; Exo 20:24-25. Hence, the expression to dig them down means completely to demolish or destroy them.

Thine altars - There was one great altar in the front of the tabernacle and the temple, on which the daily sacrifices of the Jews were to be made. But they were not forbidden to make altars also elsewhere; Exo 20:25. And hence they are mentioned as existing in other places; 1Sa 7:17; 1Sa 16:2-3; 1Ki 18:30, 1Ki 18:32. These were the altars of which Elijah complained as having been thrown down by the Jews; an act which was regarded as expressive of signal impiety.

I am left alone - I am the only prophet which is left alive. We are told that when Jezebel cut off the prophets of the Lord, Obadiah took a hundred of them and hid them in a cave; 1Ki 18:4. But it is not improbable that they had been discovered and put to death by Ahab. The account which Obadiah gave Elijah when he met him 1Ki 18:13 seems to favor such a supposition.

Seek my life - That is, Ahab and Jezebel seek to kill me. This they did because he had overcome and slain the prophets of Baal; 1Ki 19:1-2. There could scarcely be conceived a time of greater distress and declension in religion than this. It has not often happened that so many things that were disheartening have occurred to the church at the same period of time. The prophets of God were slain; but one lonely man appeared to have zeal for true religion; the nation was running to idolatry; the civil rulers were criminally wicked, and were the leaders in the universal apostasy; and all the influences of wealth and power were setting in against the true religion to destroy it. It was natural that the solitary man of God should feel disheartened and lonely in this universal guilt; and should realize that he had no power to resist this tide of crime and calamities.

Barnes: Rom 11:4

The answer of God - ὁ χρηματισμός ho chrēmatismos . This word is used no where else in the New Testament. It means an oracle, a divine response. It does not indicate the manner in which it was done, but implies only that it was an oracle, or answer made to his complaint by God. Such an answer, at such a time, would be full of comfort, and silence every complaint. The way in which this answer was in fact given, was not in a storm, or an earthquake, but in a still, small voice; 1Ki 19:11-12.

I have reserved - The Hebrew is, "I have caused to remain,"or to be reserved. This shows that it was of God that this was done. Amidst the general corruption and idolatry he had restrained a part, though it was a remnant. The honor of having done it he claims for himself, and does not trace it to any goodness or virtue in them. So in the case of all those who are saved from sin and ruin, the honor belongs not to man, but to God.

To myself - For my own service and glory. I have kept them steadfast in my worship, and have not suffered them to become idolaters.

Seven thousand men - Seven is often used in the Scriptures to denote an indefinite or round number. Perhaps it may be so here, to intimate that there was a considerable number remaining. This should lead us to hope that even in the darkest times in the church, there may be many more friends of God than we suppose. Elijah supposed he was alone; and yet at that moment there were thousands who were the true friends of God; a small number, indeed, compared with the multitude of idolaters; but large when compared with what was supposed to be remaining by the dejected and disheartened prophet.

Who have not bowed the knee - To bow or bend the knee is an expression denoting worship; Phi 2:10; Eph 3:14; Isa 45:23.

To Baal - The word "Baal"in Hebrew means Lord, or Master. This was the name of an idol of the Phenicians and Canaanites, and was worshipped also by the Assyrians and Babylonians under the name of Bel; (compare the Book of Bel in the Apocrypha.) This god was represented under the image of a bull, or a calf; the one denoting the Sun, the other the Moon. The prevalent worship in the time of Elijah was that of this idol.

Barnes: Rom 11:5

At this present time - In the time when the apostle wrote. Though the mass of the nation was to be rejected, yet it did not follow that all were to be excluded from the favor of God. As in the time of Elijah, when all appeared to be dark, and all the nation, except one, seemed to have become apostate, yet there was a considerable number of the true friends of God; so in the time of Paul, though the nation had rejected their Messiah, though, as a consequence, they were to be rejected as a people: and though they were eminently wicked and corrupt, yet it did not follow that all were cast off, or that any were excluded on whom God had purposed to bestow salvation.

A remnant - That which is left or reserved; Rom 9:27. He refers here doubtless, to that part of the nation which was truly pious, or which had embraced the Messiah.

According to the election of grace - By a gracious or merciful choosing, or election; and not by any merit of their own. As in the tinge of Elijah, it was because God had reserved them unto himself that any were saved from idolatry, so now it was by the same gracious sovereignty that any were saved from the prevalent unbelief. The apostle here does not specify the number, but there can be no doubt that a multitude of Jews had been saved by becoming Christians, though compared with the nation - the multitude who rejected the Messiah it was but a remnant. The apostle thus shows that neither all the ancient people of God were cast way, nor that any whom he foreknew were rejected. And though he had proved that a large part of the Jews were to be rejected and though infidelity was prevalent, yet still there were some who had been Jews who were truly pious, and entitled to the favor of God. Nor should they deem this state of things remarkable, for a parallel case was recorded in their own Scriptures. We may learn from this narrative,

(1) That it is no unparalleled thing for the love of many to wax cold, and for iniquity to abound.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 he tendency of this is to produce deep feeling and solicitude among the true friends of God. Thus, David says, "Rivers of waters run down mine eyes because they keep not thy law;"Psa 119:136; compare Jer 9:1; Luk 19:41.

\caps1 (3) t\caps0 hat in these darkest times we should not be discouraged. There may be much more true piety in the world than in our despondency we may suppose. We should take courage in God, and believe that he will not forsake any that are his true friends, or on whom he has purposed to bestow eternal life.

\caps1 (4) i\caps0 t is of God that all are not corrupt and lost. It is owing only to the election of grace, to his merciful choosing, that any are saved. And as in the darkest times he has reserved a people to himself, so we should believe that he will still meet abounding evil, and save those whom he has chosen from eternal death.

Barnes: Rom 11:6

And if grace ... - If the fact that any are reserved be by grace, or favor, then it cannot be as a reward of merit. Paul thus takes occasion incidentally to combat a favorite notion of the Jews, that we are justified by obedience to the Law. He reminds them that in the time of Elijah it was because God had reserved them; that the same was the case now; and therefore their doctrine of merit could not be true; see Rom 4:4-5; Gal 5:4; Eph 2:8-9.

Otherwise grace ... - If people are justified by their works, it could not be a matter of favor, but was a debt. If it could be that the doctrine of justification by grace could be held and yet at the same time that the Jewish doctrine of merit was true, then it would follow that grace had changed its nature, or was a different thing from what the word properly signified. The idea of being saved by merit contradicts the very idea of grace. If a man owes me a debt, and pays it, it cannot be said to be done by favor, or by grace. I have a claim on him for it, and there is no favor in his paying his just dues.

But if it be of works ... - "Works"here mean conformity to the Law; and to be saved by works would be to be saved by such conformity as the meritorious cause. Of course there could be no grace or favor in giving what was due: if there was favor, or grace, then works would lose their essential characteristic, and cease to be the meritorious cause of procuring the blessings. What is paid as a debt is not conferred as a favor.

And from this it follows that salvation cannot be partly by grace and partly by works. It is not because people can advance any claims to the favor of God; but from his mere unmerited grace. He that is not willing to obtain eternal life in that way, cannot obtain it at all. The doctrines of election, and of salvation by mere grace, cannot be more explicitly stated than they are in this passage.

Barnes: Rom 11:7

What then? - What is the proper conclusion from this argument? "Israel hath not obtained."That is, the Jews as a people have not obtained what they sought. They sought the favor of God by their own merit; and as it was impossible to obtain it in that manner, they have, as a people, failed of obtaining his favor at all, and will be rejected.

That which he seeketh for - To wit, salvation by their own obedience to the Law.

The election hath - The purpose of choosing on the part of God has obtained, or secured, what the seeking on the part of the Jews could not secure. Or the abstract here may be put for the concrete, and the word "election"may mean the same as the elect. The elect, the reserved, the chosen part of the people, have obtained the favor of God.

Hath obtained it - That is, the favor, or mercy, of God.

The rest - The great mass of the people who remained in unbelief, and had rejected the Messiah.

Were blinded - The word in the original means also were hardened ἐπωρώθησαν epōrōthēsan . It comes from a word which signifies properly to become hard, as bones do which are broken and are then united; or as the joints sometimes do when they become callous or stiff. It was probably applied also to the formation of a hard substance in the eye, a cataract; and then means the same as to be blinded. Hence, applied to the mind, it means what is "hard, obdurate, insensible, stupid."Thus, it is applied to the Jews, and means that they were blind and obstinate; see Mar 6:52, "Their heart was hardened;"Mar 8:17; Joh 12:40. The word does not occur in any other place in the New Testament. This verse affirms simply that "the rest were hardened,"but it does not affirm anything about the mode by which it was done. In regard to "the election,"it is affirmed that it was of God; Rom 11:4. Of the remainder, the fact of their blindness is simply mentioned, without affirming anything of the cause; see Rom 11:8.

Barnes: Rom 11:8

According as it is written - That is, they are blinded in accordance with what is written. The fact and the manner accord with the ancient declaration. This is recorded in Isa 29:10, and in Deu 29:4. The same sentiment is found also substantially in Isa 6:9-10. The principal place referred to here, however, is doubtless Isa 29:10, "For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes; the prophets and your rulers hath he covered."The quotation is not however literally made either from the Hebrew or the Septuagint; but the sense is preserved. The phrase "according as"means upon the same principle, or in the same manner.

God hath given - Expressions like this are common in the Scriptures, where God is represented as having an agency in producing the wickedness and stupidity of sinners; see Rom 9:17-18; see the Mat 13:15 note; Mar 4:11-12 note; see also 2Th 2:11. This quotation is not made literally. The Hebrew in Isaiah is, God has poured upon them the spirit of slumber. The sense, however, is retained.

The spirit of slumber - The spirit of slumber is not different from slumber itself. The word "spirit"is often used thus. The word "slumber"here is a literal translation of the Hebrew. The Greek word, however κατανύξεως katanuxeōs , implies also the notion of compunction, and hence in the margin it is rendered "remorse."It means any emotion, or any influence whatever, that shall benumb the faculties, and make them insensible. Hence, it here means simply insensibility.

Eyes that they should not see ... - This expression is not taken literally from any single place in the Old Testament; but expresses the general sense of several passages; Isa 6:10; Deu 29:4. It denotes a state of mind not different from a spirit of slumber. When we sleep, the eyes are insensible to surrounding objects, and the ear to sounds. Though in themselves the organs may be perfect, yet the mind is as though they were not; and we have eyes which then do not see, and ears which do not hear. Thus, with the Jews. Though they had all the proper faculties for understanding and receiving the gospel, yet they rejected it. They were stupid and insensible to its claims and its truths.

Unto this day - Until the day that Paul wrote. The characteristic of the Jews that existed in the time of Isaiah. existed also in the time of Paul. It was a trait of the people; and their insensibility to the demands of the gospel developed nothing new in them.

Barnes: Rom 11:9-10

And David saith ... - This quotation is made from Psa 69:22-23. This Psalm is repeatedly quoted as having reference to the events recorded in the New Testament. (See the note at Act 1:2.) This quotation is introduced immediately after one that undoubtedly refers to the Lord Jesus. Psa 69:21, "they gave me also gall for my meat, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink."The passage here quoted immediately follows as an imprecation of vengeance for their sins. "Let their table,"etc. The quotation is not made, however, either literally from the Hebrew or from the Septuagint, but the sense only is retained. The Hebrew is, "Let their table before them be for a snare, and for those at peace, let it be for a gin."The Septuagint is, "Let their table before them be for a snare, and for a stumbling-block, and for an offence."The ancient Targum is, "Let their table which they had prepared before me be for a snare, and their sacrifices be for an offence."

The meaning is this. The word "table"denotes food. In this they expected pleasure and support. David prays that even this, where they expected joy and refreshment, might prove to them the means of punishment and righteous retribution. A snare is that by which birds or wild beasts were taken. They are decoyed into it, or walk or fly carelessly into it, and it is sprung suddenly on them. So of the Jews. The petition is, that while they were seeking refreshment and joy, and anticipating at their table no danger, it might be made the means of their ruin. The only way in which this could be done would be, that their temporal enjoyments would lead them away from God, and produce stupidity and indifference to their spiritual interests. This is often the result of the pleasures of the table, or of seeking sensual gratifications. The apostle does not say whether this prayer was right or wrong. The use which he seems to make of it is this, that David’ s imprecation was to be regarded in the light of a prophecy; that what he prayed for would come to pass; and that this had actually occurred in the time of the apostle; that their very enjoyments, their national and private privileges, had been the means of alienating them from God; had been a snare to them; and was the cause of their blindness and infidelity. This also is introduced in the psalm as a punishment for giving him vinegar to drink; and their treatment of the Messiah was the immediate cause why all this blindness had come upon the Jews.

A trap - This properly means anything by which wild beasts are taken in hunting. The word "snare"more properly refers to birds.

And a stumbling-block - Anything over which one stumbles or falls. Hence, anything which occasions us to sin, or to ruin ourselves.

And a recompense - The Hebrew word translated "what should have been for their welfare,"is capable of this meaning, and may denote their recompense, or what is appropriately rendered to them. It means here that their ordinary comforts and enjoyments, instead of promoting their permanent welfare, may be the occasion of their guilt and ruin. This is often the effect of earthly comforts. They might lead us to God, and should excite our gratitude and praise; but they are often abused to our spiritual slumber and guilt, and made the occasion of our ruin. The rich are thus often most forgetful of God; and the very abundance of their blessings made the means of darkness of mind, ingratitude, prayerlessness, and ruin. Satisfied with them, they forget the Giver; and while they enjoy many earthly blessings, God sends barrenness into their souls. This was the guilt of Sodom, "pride, and fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness,"Eze 16:49; and against this Moses solemnly warned the Jews; Deu 6:11-12; Deu 8:10-12. This same caution might be extended to the people of this land, and especially to those who are rich, and are blessed with all that their hearts have wished. From the use which the apostle makes of this passage in the Psalms, it is clear that he regarded it rather as a prophetic denunciation for their sins - a prediction of what would be - than as a prayer. In his time it had been fulfilled; and the very national privileges of the Jews, on which they so much prided themselves, and which might have been so great blessings, were the occasion of their greater sin in rejecting the Messiah, and of their greater condemnation. Thus, their table was made a trap, etc.

Rom 11:10

Let their eyes be darkened - This is taken literally from the psalm, and was evidently the main part of the passage which the apostle had in his eye. This was fulfilled in the insensibility and blindness of the Jews. And the apostle shows them that it was long ago predicted, or invoked, as a punishment on them for giving the Messiah vinegar to drink; Psa 69:21, Psa 69:23.

And bow down their back alway - The Hebrew Psa 69:23 is, "Let their loins totter or shake,"that is, as one does when he has on him a heavy burden. The apostle has retained this sense. It means, let them be called to bear heavy and oppressive burdens; let them be subjected to toil or servitude, as a reward for their sins. That this had come upon the Jews in the time of Paul is clear; and it is further clear that it came upon them, as it was implied in the psalm, in consequence of their treatment of the Messiah. Much difficulty has been felt in reconciling the petitions in the psalms for calamities on enemies, with the spirit of the New Testament. Perhaps they cannot all be thus reconciled; and it is not at all improbable that many of those imprecations were wrong. David was not a perfect man; and the Spirit of inspiration is not responsible for his imperfections. Every doctrine delivered by the sacred writers is true; every fact recorded is recorded as it was.

But it does not follow that all the men who wrote, or about whom a narrative was given, were perfect. The reverse is the fact. And it does not militate against the inspiration of the Scriptures that we have a record of the failings and imperfections of those men. When they uttered improper sentiments, when they manifested improper feelings, when they performed wicked actions, it is no argument against the inspiration of the Scriptures that they were recorded. All that is done in such a case, and all that inspiration demands, is that they be recorded as they are. We wish to see human nature as it is; and one design of making the record of such failings is to show what man is, even under the influence of religion; not as a perfect being, for that would not be true; but as he actually exists mingled with imperfection. Thus, many of the wishes of the ancient saints, imperfect as they were, are condemned as sinful by the spirit of the Christian religion.

They were never commended or approved, but they are recorded just to show us what was in fact the character of man, even partially under the influence of religion. Of this nature probably, were many of the petitions in the Psalms; and the Spirit of God is no more answerable for the feeling because it is recorded, than he is for the feelings of the Edomites when they said, "Rase it, rase it to the foundation"Psa 137:7. Many of those prayers, however, were imprecations on his enemies as a public man, as the magistrate of the land. As it is right and desirable that the robber and the pirate should be detected and punished; as all good people seek it, and it is indispensable for the welfare of the community, where is the impropriety of praying that it may be done? Is it not right to pray that the laws may be executed; that justice may be maintained; and that restraint should be imposed on the guilty? Assuredly this may be done with a very different spirit from that of revenge. It may be the prayer of the magistrate that God will help him in what he is appointed to do, and in what ought to be done. Besides, many of these imprecations were regarded as simply predictions of what would be the effect of sin; or of what God would do to the guilty. Such was the case we are now considering, as understood by the apostle. But in a prediction there can be nothing wrong.

Barnes: Rom 11:11

Have they stumbled that they should fall? - This is to be regarded as an objection, which the apostle proceeds to answer. The meaning is, is it the design of God that the Jews should totally and irrecoverably be cast off? Even admitting that they are now unbelieving, that they have rejected the Messiah, that they have stumbled, is it the purpose of God finally to exclude them from mercy? The expression to stumble is introduced because he had just mentioned a stumbling-stone. It does not mean to fall down to the ground, or to fall so that a man may not recover himself; but to strike the foot against an obstacle, to be arrested in going, and to be in danger of falling. Hence, it means to err, to sin, to be in danger. To fall expresses the state when a man pitches over an obstacle so that he cannot recover himself, but falls to the ground. Hence, to err, to sin, or to be cast off irrecoverably. The apostle shows that this last was not the way in which the Jews had fallen that they were not to be cast off forever, but that occasion was taken by their fall to introduce the Gentiles to the privileges of the gospel, and then they should be restored.

God forbid - By no means; see Rom 11:1.

But rather through their fall - By means of their fall. The word "fall"here refers to all their conduct and doom at the coming of the Messiah, and in the breaking up of their establishment as a nation. Their rejection of the Messiah; the destruction of their city and temple; the ceasing of their ceremonial rites; and the rejection and dispersion of their nation by the Romans, all enter into the meaning of the word "fall"here, and were all the occasion of introducing salvation to the Gentiles.

Salvation - The Christian religion, with all its saving benefits. It does not mean that all the Gentiles were to be saved, but that the way was open; they might have access to God, and obtain his favor through the Messiah.

The Gentiles - All the world that were not Jews. The rejection and fall of the Jews contributed to the introduction of the Gentiles in the following manner:

(1) It broke down the harrier which had long subsisted between them.

\caps1 (2) i\caps0 t made it consistent and proper, as they had rejected the Messiah, to send the knowledge of him to others.

\caps1 (3) i\caps0 t was connected with the destruction of the temple, and the rites of the Mosaic Law; and taught them, and all others, that the worship of God was not to be confined to any single place.

\caps1 (4) t\caps0 he calamities that came upon the Jewish nation scattered the inhabitants of Judea, and with the Jews also those who had become Christians, and thus the gospel was carried to other lands.

\caps1 (5) t\caps0 hese calamities, and the conduct of the Jews, and the close of the Jewish economy, were the means of giving to apostles and other Christians right views of the true design of the Mosaic institutions. If the temple had remained; if the nation had continued to flourish; it would have been long before they would have been effectually detached from those rites. Experience showed even as it was, that they were slow in learning that the Jewish ceremonies were to cease. Some of the most agitating questions in the early church pertained to this; and if the temple had not been destroyed, the contest would have been much longer and more difficult.

For to provoke them to jealousy - According to the prediction of Moses; Deu 32:21; see Rom 10:19.

Barnes: Rom 11:12

If the fall of them - If their lapse, or falling. If their temporal rejection and being cast off for a time has already accomplished so much.

Be the riches of the world - The word "riches"means wealth, abundance of property; more than is necessary to the supply of our needs. Hence, it means also anything that may promote our comfort or happiness, as wealth is the means of securing our welfare. The gospel is called riches, as it is the means of our highest enjoyment, and eternal welfare. It is the means of conferring numberless spiritual blessings on the Gentile world; and as this was done by the fall of the Jews, so it could be said that their fall was the riches of the world. It was the occasion or means without which the blessings of the gospel could not be conferred on the world.

The diminishing of them - Margin, "Decay.""Loss" ἥττημα hēttēma . This word means diminution, defect, what is lacked or missing. Hence, also judgment, condemnation. Here it means their degradation; the withdrawing of their special privileges; their rejection. It stands opposed to "their fulness."

The riches of the Gentiles - The means of conferring important blessings on the Gentiles.

How much more their fulness - The word "fulness" πλήρωμα plērōma means what fills up, or completes anything. Thus, it is applied to what fills a vessel or cup; also to the piece of cloth which is put in to fill up the rent in a garment; Mat 9:16. To the fragments which were left when Christ had fed the five thousand; Mar 8:20; Rom 13:10. "Love is the fulfilling of the law,"that is, it is the filling up of the law, or what renders the obedience complete; see Gal 5:14. Here it stands opposed to their fall, and their diminution, and evidently means their complete restoration to the favor of God; their recovery from unbelief and apostasy. That there will be such a recovery, the apostle proceeds to show. The sentiment of the passage then is, If their rejection and punishment; their being cut off from the favor of God, an event apparently so unlikely to promote the spread of true religion, if their being withrawn from all active influence in spreading the true knowledge of God, be yet the occasion of so many blessings to mankind as have attended the spread of the gospel in consequence of it; how much more shall we expect when they shall be restored; when the energy and zeal of the Jewish nation shall unite with the efforts of others in spreading the knowledge of the true Messiah. In what way, or when, this shall be, we know not. But it is easy to see, that if the Jewish people should be converted to the Christian faith, they would have facilities for spreading the truth, which the church has never had without them.

\caps1 (1) t\caps0 hey are scattered in all nations, and have access to all people.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 heir conversion, after so long unbelief, would have all the power and influence of a miracle performed in view of all nations. It would be seen why they had been preserved, and their conversion would be a most striking fulfillment of the prophecies.

\caps1 (3) t\caps0 hey are familiar with the languages of the world, and their conversion would at once establish many Christian missionaries in the heart of all the kingdoms of the world. It would be kindling at once a thousand lights in all the dark parts of the earth.

\caps1 (4) t\caps0 he Jews have shown that they are eminently suited to spread the true religion. It was by Jews converted to Christianity, that the gospel was first spread. Each of the apostles was a Jew; and they have lost none of the ardor, enterprise, and zeal that always characterized their nation. Their conversion would be, therefore, to give to the church a host of missionaries prepared for their work, familiar with all customs, languages, and climes, and already in the heart of all kingdoms, and with facilities for their work in advance, which others must gain only by the slow toil of many years.

Barnes: Rom 11:13

For I speak to you Gentiles - What I am saying respecting the Jews, I say with reference to you who are Gentiles, to show you in what manner you have been admitted to the privileges of the people of God; to excite your gratitude; to warn you against abusing those mercies. etc. As Paul also was appointed to preach to them, he had a right to speak to them with authority.

I am the apostle of the Gentiles - The apostle of the Gentiles, not because other apostles did not preach to Gentiles, for they all did, except perhaps James; nor because Paul did not himself preach occasionally among the Jews; but because he was especially called to carry the gospel to the Gentiles, and that this was his original commission Act 9:15; because he was principally employed in collecting and organizing churches in pagan lands; and because the charge of the Gentile churches was especially intrusted to him, while that of the Jewish churches was especially intrusted to Peter; see Gal 1:16; Eph 3:8; Gal 2:7-8. As Paul was especially appointed to this function, he claimed special authority to address those who were gathered into the Christian church from pagan lands.

I magnify mine office - I honor δοξάζω doxazō my ministry. I esteem it of great importance; and by thus showing that the gospel is to be preached to the Gentiles, that the barrier between them and the Jews is to be broken down, that the gospel may be preached to all people, I show that the office which proclaims this is one of signal honor. A minister may not magnify himself, but he may magnify his office. He may esteem himself as less than the least of all saints, and unworthy to be called a servant of God Eph 3:8, yet he may feel that he is an ambassador of Christ, intrusted with a message of salvation, entitled to the respect due to an ambassador, and to the honor which is appropriate to a messenger of God To unite these two things constitutes the dignity of the Christian ministry.

Barnes: Rom 11:14

If by any means - If even by stating unpleasant truths, if by bringing out all the counsel of God, even what threatens their destruction, I may arrest their attention, and save them.

I may provoke to emulation - I may awaken up to zeal, or to an earnest desire to obtain the like blessings. This was in accordance with the prediction of Moses, that the calling in of the Gentiles would excite their attention, and provoke them to deep feeling; Note, Rom 10:19. The apostle expected to do this by calling their attention to the ancient prophecies; by alarming their fears about their own danger; and by showing them the great privileges which Gentiles might enjoy under the gospel; thus appealing to them by every principle of benevolence, by all their regard for God and man, to excite them to seek the same blessings.

My flesh - My countrymen. My kinsmen, Those belonging to the same family or nation; Rom 9:3; Gen 29:14; Jdg 9:2; 2Sa 5:1; Isa 58:7.

And save some of them - This desire the apostle often expressed; (see Rom 9:2-3; Rom 10:1-2.) We may see here:

(1) That it is the earnest wish of the ministry to save the souls of men.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 hat they should urge every argument and appeal with reference to this.

\caps1 (3) t\caps0 hat even the most awful and humbling truths may have this tendency. No truth could be more likely to irritate and offend than that the Jews would be cast off; and yet the apostle used this so faithfully, and yet so tenderly, that he expected and desired it might be the means of saving the souls of his countrymen. Truth often irritates, enrages, and thus excites the attention. Thought or inquiry, however it may be excited, may result in conversion. And thus, even restlessness, and vexation, and anger, may be the means of leading a sinner to Jesus Christ. It should be no part of a minister’ s object, however, to produce anger. It is a bad emotion; in itself it is evil; and if people can be won to embrace the Saviour without anger, it is better. No wise man would excite a storm and tempest that might require infinite power to subdue, when the same object could be gained with comparative peace, and under the mild influence of love.

\caps1 (4) i\caps0 t is right to use all the means in our power, not absolutely wicked, to save people. Paul was full of devices; and much of the success of the ministry will depend on a wise use of plans, that may, by the divine blessing, arrest and save the souls of people.

Barnes: Rom 11:15

For if the casting away of them - If their rejection as the special people of God - their exclusion from their national privileges, on account of their unbelief. It is the same as "the fall of them;"Rom 11:12.

Be the reconciling of the world - The word "reconciliation" καταλλαγή katallagē denotes commonly a pacification of contending parties; a removing the occasion of difference, so as again to be united; 1Co 7:11, "Let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband."It is commonly applied to the reconciliation, or pacification, produced between man and God by the gospel. They are brought to union, to friendship, to peace, by the intervention of the Lord Jesus Christ; Rom 5:10; 2Co 5:18-19,"God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself."Hence, the ministry is called the "ministry of reconciliation;"2Co 5:18. And hence, this word is used to express the atonement; Rom 5:11, "By whom we have now received the atonement"(the reconciliation). In this place it means that many of the Gentiles - the world - had become reconciled to God as the result of the casting off of the Jews. By their unbelief, the way had been opened to preach the gospel to the Gentiles; it was the occasion by which God sent it to the nations of the earth; compare Act 13:46.

The receiving of them - The same as was denoted Rom 11:12 by their fulness. If the casting them off, an event so little likely, apparently, to produce any good effect, was nevertheless overruled so as to produce important benefits in the spread of the gospel, how much more may we expect will be accomplished by their conversion and return; an event suited in itself to produce an important influence on mankind. One would have supposed that their rejection of the Messiah would have been an important obstacle in the way of the gospel. It was overruled, however, to promote its increase. Their return will have a direct tendency to spread it. How much more, therefore, may we expect to be accomplished by that?

But life from the dead - This is an instance of the special, glowing, and vigorous manner of the apostle Paul. His mind catches at the thought of what may be produced by the recovery of the Jews, and no ordinary language would convey his idea. He had already exhausted the usual forms of speech by saying that even their rejection had reconciled the world, and that it was the riches of the Gentiles. To say that their recovery - a striking and momentous event; an event so much better suited to produce important results - would be attended by the conversion of the world, would be insipid and tame. He uses, therefore, a most bold and striking figure. The resurrection of the dead was an image of the most vast and wonderful event that could take place. This image, therefore, in the apostle’ s mind, was a striking illustration of the great change and reformation which should take place when the Jews should be restored, and the effect should be felt in the conversion also of the Gentile world.

Some have supposed that the apostle here refers to a literal resurrection of the dead, as the conversion of the Jews. But there is not the slightest evidence of this. He refers to the recovery of the nations from the death of sin which shall take place when the Jews shall be converted to the Christian faith. The prophet Ezekiel Eze 37:1-14 has also used the same image of the resurrection of the dead to denote a great moral change among a people. It is clear here that the apostle fixed his eye on a future conversion of the Jews to the gospel, and expected that their conversion would precede the universal conversion of the Gentiles to the Christian faith, There could be no event that would make so immediate and decided an impression on the pagan world as the conversion of the Jews. They are scattered everywhere; they have access to all people; they understand all languages; and their conversion would be like kindling up thousands of lights at once in the darkness of the pagan world.

Barnes: Rom 11:16

For if the first-fruit be holy - The word "first-fruit" ἀπαρχή aparchē used here denotes the firstling of fruit or grain which was separated from the mass and presented as an offering to God. The Jews were required to present such a portion of their harvest to God, as an expression of gratitude and of their sense of dependence; Num 15:19-21. Until this was done, it was not lawful to partake of the harvest. The offering of this was regarded as rendering the mass holy, that is, it was lawful then to partake of it. The first-fruits were regarded as among the best portions of the harvest; and it was their duty to devote to God that which would be the best expression of their thanksgiving. This was the general practice in relation to all that the land produced. The expression here, however, has reference to the small portion of dough or kneaded meal that was offered to God; and then the mass or lump φύραμα phurama was left for the use of him who made the offering; Num 15:20.

Be holy - Be set apart, or consecrated to God, as he commanded.

The lump - The mass. It refers here properly to the dough of which a part had been offered. The same was true also in relation to the harvest, after the waive-sheaf had been offered; of the flock, after the first male had been offered, etc.

Is also holy - It is lawful then for the owner to partake of it. The offering of a part has consecrated the whole. By this illustration Paul doubtless means to say that the Jewish nation, as a people, were set apart to the service of God, and were so regarded by him. Some have supposed that by the first-fruit here the apostle intends to refer to the early converts, made to the Christian faith in the first preaching of the gospel. But it is more probable that he refers to the patriarchs, the pious people of old, as the first-fruits of the Jewish nation; see Rom 11:28. By their piety the nation was, in a manner, sanctified, or set apart to the service of God; implying that yet the great mass of them would be reclaimed and saved.

If the root be holy - This figure expresses the same thing as is denoted in the first part of the verse. The root of a tree is the source of nutritious juices necessary for its growth, and gives its character to the tree. If that be sound, pure, vigorous, we expect the same of the branches. A root bears a similar relation to the tree that the first-fruit does to the mass of bread. Perhaps there is allusion here to Jer 11:16, where the Jewish nation is represented under the image of "a green olivetree, fair, and of goodly fruit."In this place the reference is doubtless to Abraham and the patriarchs, as the root or founders of the Jewish nation. If they were holy, it is to be expected that the distant branches, or descendants, would also be so regarded. The mention of the root and branches of a tree gives the apostle occasion for an illustration of the relation at that time of the Jews and Gentiles to the church of Christ.

Barnes: Rom 11:17

If some of the branches - The illustration here is taken from the practice of those who ingraft trees. The useless branches, or those which bear poor fruit, are cut off, and a better kind inserted. "If some of the natural descendants of Abraham, the holy root, are cast off because they are unfruitful, that is, because of unbelief and sin."

And thou - The word "thou"here is used to denote the Gentile, whom Paul was then particularly addressing.

Being a wild olive-tree - From this passage it would seem that the olive-tree was sometimes cultivated, and that cultivation was necessary in order to render it fruitful. The cultivated olive-tree is "of the a moderate height, its trunk knotty, its bark smooth and ash-colored, its wood is solid and yellowish, the leaves are oblong, and almost like those of the willow, of a green color, etc. The wild olive is smaller in all its parts."(Calmet.) The wild olive was unfruitful, or its fruit very imperfect and useless. The ancient writers explain this word by "unfruitful, barren."(Sehleusner.) This was used, therefore, as the emblem of unfruitfulness and barrenness, while the cultivated olive produced much fruit. The meaning here is, that the Gentiles had been like the wild olive, unfruitful in holiness; that they had been uncultivated by the institutions of the true religion, and consequently had grown up in the wildness and sin of nature. The Jews had been like a cultivated olive, long under the training and blessing of God.

Wert grafted in - The process of grafting consists in inserting a scion or a young shoot into another tree. To do this, a useless limb is removed; and the ingrafted limb produces fruit according to its new nature or kind, and not according to the tree in which it is inserted. In this way a tree which bears no fruit, or whose branches are decaying, may be recovered, and become valuable. The figure of the apostle is a very vivid and beautiful one. The ancient root or stock, that of Abraham, etc. was good. The branches - the Jews in the time of the apostle - had become decayed and unfruitful, and broken off. The Gentiles had been grafted into this stock, and had restored the decayed vigor of the ancient people of God; and a fruitless church had become vigorous and flourishing. But the apostle soon proceeds to keep the Gentiles from exaltation on account of this.

Among them - Among the branches, so as to partake with them of the juices of the root.

Partakest of the root - The ingrafted limb would derive nourishment from the root as much as though it were a natural branch of the tree. The Gentiles derived now the benefit of Abraham’ s faith and holy labors, and of the promises made to him and to his seed.

Fatness of the olive-tree - The word "fatness"here means "fertility, fruitfulness"- the rich juices of the olive producing fruit; see Jdg 9:9.

Barnes: Rom 11:18

Boast not ... - The tendency of people is to triumph over one that is fallen and rejected. The danger of pride and boasting on account of privileges is not less in the church than elsewhere. Paul saw that some of the Gentiles might be in danger of exultation over the fallen Jews, and therefore cautions them against it. The ingrafted shoot, deriving all its vigor and fruitfulness from the stock of another tree, ought not to boast against the branches.

But if thou boast - If thou art so inconsiderate and wicked, so devoid of humility, and lifted up with pride, as to boast, yet know that there is no occasion for it. If there were occasion for boasting, it would rather be in the root or stock which sustains the branches; least of all can it be in those which were grafted in, having been before wholly unfruitful.

Thou bearest not the root - The source of all your blessings is in the ancient stock. It is clear from this, that the apostle regarded the church as one; and that the Christian economy was only a prolongation of the ancient dispensation. The tree, even with a part of the branches removed. and others ingrafted, retains its identity, and is never regarded as a different tree.

Barnes: Rom 11:19

Thou wilt say then - Thou who art a Gentile.

The branches were broken off ... - The Jews were rejected in order that the gospel might be preached to the Gentiles. This would seem to follow from what the apostle had said in Rom 11:11-12. Perhaps it might be said that there was some ground of exultation from the fact that God had rejected his ancient people for the sake of making a way open to admit the Gentiles to the church. The objection is, that the branches were broken off in order that others might be grafted in. To this Paul replies in the next verse, that this was not the reason why they were rejected, but their unbelief was the cause.

Barnes: Rom 11:20

Well - True. It is true they were broken off; but in order to show that there was no occasion for boasting, he adds that they were not rejected in order to admit others, but because of their unbelief, and that their fate should have a salutary impression on those who had no occasion for boasting, but who might be rejected for the same cause. This is an instance of remarkable tact and delicacy in an argument, admitting the main force of the remark, but giving it a slight change in accordance with the truth, so as to parry its force, and give it a practical bearing on the very point which he wished to enforce.

Thou standest by faith - The continuance of these mercies to you depends on your fidelity. If you are faithful, they will be preserved; if, like the Jews, you become unbelieving and unfruitful, like them you will be also rejected. This fact should repress boasting, and excite to anxiety and caution.

Be not high-minded - Do not be elated in the conception of your privileges, so as to produce vain self-confidence and boasting.

But fear - This fear stands opposed to the spirit of boasting and self-confidence, against which he was exhorting them. It does not mean terror or horror, but it denotes humility, watchfulness, and solicitude to abide in the faith. Do not be haughty and high-minded against the Jew, who has been cast off, but "demean yourself as a humble believer, and one who has need to be continually on his guard, and to fear lest he may fall through unbelief, and be cast off."(Stuart.) We may here learn,

(1)    That there is danger lest those who are raised to eminent privileges should become unduly exalted in their own estimation, and despise others.

(2)\caps1     t\caps0 he tendency of faith is to promote humility and a sense of our dependence on God.

(3)\caps1     t\caps0 he system of salvation by faith produces that solicitude, and careful guarding, and watchfulness, which is necessary to preserve us from apostasy and ruin.

Barnes: Rom 11:21

For if God ... - If God did not refrain from rejecting the Jews who became unbelievers, assuredly he will not refrain from rejecting you in the same circumstances. It may be supposed that he will be quite as ready to reject the ingrafted branches, as to cast off those which belonged to the parent stock. The situation of the Gentiles is not such as to give them any security over the condition of the rejected Jew.

Barnes: Rom 11:22

Behold, therefore ... - Regard, or contemplate, for purposes of your own improvement and benefit, the dealings of God. We should look on all his dispensations of judgment or of mercy, and derive lessons from all to promote our own steadfast adherence to the faith of the gospel.

The goodness - The benevolence or mercy of God toward you in admitting you to his favor. This calls for gratitude, love, confidence. It demands expressions of thanksgiving. It should be highly prized, in order that it may excite to diligence to secure its continuance.

The severity of God - That is, toward the Jews. The word "severity"now suggests sometimes the idea of harshness, or even of cruelty. (Webster.) But nothing of this kind is conveyed in the original word here. It properly denotes "cutting off," ἀποτομίαν apotomian from ἀποτέμνω apotemnō , to cut off; and is commonly applied to the act of the gardener or vine-dresser in trimming trees or vines, and cutting off the decayed or useless branches. Here it refers to the act of God in cutting off or rejecting the Jews as useless branches; and conveys no idea of injustice, cruelty, or harshness. It was a just act, and consistent with all the perfections of God. It indicated a purpose to do what was right, though the inflictions might seem to be severe, and though they must involve them in many heavy calamities.

On them which fell, severity - On the Jews, who had been rejected because of their unbelief.

But towards thee, goodness - Toward the Gentile world, benevolence. The word "goodness"properly denotes benignity or benevolence. Here it signifies the kindness of God in bestowing these favors on the Gentiles.

If thou continue in his goodness - The word "his"is not in the original. And the word "goodness"may denote integrity, probity, uprightness, as well as favor; Rom 3:12, "There is none that doeth good."The Septuagint often thus uses the word; Psa 13:1, Psa 13:3, etc. This is probably the meaning here; though it may mean "if thou dost continue in a state of favor;"that is, if your faith and good conduct shall be such as to make it proper for God to continue his kindness toward you. Christians do not merit the favor of God by their faith and good works; but their obedience is an indispensable condition on which that favor is to be continued. It is thus that the grace of God is magnified, at the same time that the highest good is done to man himself.

Otherwise thou also shalt be cut off - Compare Joh 15:2. The word "thou"refers here to the Gentile churches. In relation to them the favor of God was dependent on their fidelity. If they became disobedient and unbelieving, then the same principle which led him to withdraw his mercy from the Jewish people would lead also to their rejection and exclusion. And on this principle, God has acted in numberless cases. Thus, his favor was withdrawn from the seven churches of Asia Rev. 1\endash 3, from Corinth, from Antioch, from Philippi, and even from Rome itself.

Barnes: Rom 11:23

And they also - The Jews.

If they bide not ... - If they do not continue in willful obstinacy and rejection of the Messiah. As their unbelief was the sole cause of their rejection, so if that be removed, they may be again restored to the divine favor.

For God is able ... - He has,

(1)    Power to restore them, to bring them back and replace them in his favor.

(2)\caps1     h\caps0 e has not bound himself utterly to reject them, and forever to exclude them.

In this way the apostle reaches his purpose, which was to show them that God had not cast away his people or finally rejected the Jewish nation; Rom 11:1-2. That God has this power, the apostle proceeds to show in the next verse.

Barnes: Rom 11:24

For if thou - If you who are Gentiles.

Wert cut out of - Or, if thou wert of the cutting of the wild olive-tree.

Which is wild by nature - Which is uncultivated and unfruitful. That is, if you were introduced into a state of favor with God from a condition which was one of enmity and hostility to him. The argument here is, that it was in itself as difficult a thing to reclaim them, and change them from opposition to God to friendship, as it would seem difficult or impossible to reclaim and make fruitful the wild olive-tree.

And were graffed contrary to nature - Contrary to your natural habits, thoughts, and practices. There was among the Gentiles no inclination or tendency toward God. This does not mean that they were physically depraved, or that their disposition was literally like the wild olive; but it is used, for the sake of illustration, to show that their moral character and habits were unlike those of the friends of God.

How much more ... - The meaning of this whole verse may be thus expressed; "If God had mercy on the Gentiles, who were outcasts from his favor, shall he not much rather on those who were so long his people, to whom had been given the promises, and the covenants, and the Law, whose ancestors had been so many of them his friends, and among whom the Messiah was born?"In some respects, there are facilities among the Jews for their conversion, which had not existed among the Gentiles. They worship one God; they admit the authority of revelation; they have the Scriptures of the Old Testament; they expect a Messiah; and they have a habit of professed reverence for the will of God.

Barnes: Rom 11:25

Ignorant of this mystery - The word "mystery"means properly what is "concealed, hidden, or unknown."And it especially refers, in the New Testament, to the truths or doctrines which God had reserved to himself, or had not before communicated. It does not mean, as with us often, that there was anything unintelligible or inscrutible in the nature of the doctrine itself, for it was commonly perfectly plain when it was made known. Thus, the doctrine, that the division between the Jews and the Gentiles was to be broken down, is called a mystery, because it had been, to the times of the apostles, concealed, and was then revealed fully for the first time; Rom 16:25; Col 1:26-27; compare 1Co 15:51; Mar 4:11; Eph 1:9; Eph 3:3. Thus, the doctrine which the apostle was stating was one that until then had been concealed, or had not been made known. It does not mean that there was anything unintelligible or incomprehensive in it, but until then it had not been made known.

Lest ye should be wise in your own conceits - Paul communicated the truth in regard to this, lest they should attempt to inquire into it; should speculate about the reason why God had rejected the Jews; and should he elated with the belief that they had, by their own skill and genius, ascertained the cause. Rather than leave them to vain speculations and self-gratulation, he chose to cut short all inquiry, by stating the truth about; their present and future state.

Blindness - Or hardness; see Rom 11:7.

In part - Not totally, or entirely. They are not absolutely or completely blinded. This is a qualifying expression; but it does not denote what part or portion, or for what time it is to continue. It means that the blindness in respect to the whole nation was only partial. Some were then enlightened, and had become Christians; and many more would he.

To Israel - To the Jews.

Until the fulness of the Gentiles ... - The word "fulness"in relation to the Jews is used in Rom 11:12. It means until the abundance or the great multitude of the Gentiles shall be converted. The word is not used elsewhere in respect to the Gentiles; and it is difficult to fix its meaning definitely. It doubtless refers to the future spread of the Gospel among the nations; to the time when it may be said that the great mass, the abundance of the nations, shall be converted to God. At present, they are, as they were in the times of the apostle, idolators, so that the mass of mankind are far from God. But the Scriptures have spoken of a time when the gospel shall spread and prevail among the nations of the earth; and to this the apostle refers. He does not say, however, that the Jews may not be converted until all the Gentiles become Christians; for he expressly supposes Rom 11:12-15 that the conversion of the Jews will have an important influence in extending the gospel among the Gentiles. Probably the meaning is, that this blindness is to continue until great numbers of the Gentiles shall be converted; until the gospel shall be extensively spread; and then the conversion of the Jews will be a part of the rapid spread of the gospel, and will be among the most efficient and important aids in completing the work. If this is the case, then Christians may labor still for their conversion. They may seek that in connection with the effort to convert the pagan; and they may toil with the expectation that the conversion of the Jews and Gentiles will not be separate, independent, and distinct events; but will be inter-mingled, and will be perhaps simultaneous. The word "fulness"may denote such a general turning to God, without affirming that each individual shall be thus converted to the Christian faith.

Barnes: Rom 11:26

And so - That is, in this manner; or when the great abundance of the Gentiles shall be converted, then all Israel shall be saved.

All Israel - All the Jews. It was a maxim among the Jews that "every Israelite should have part in the future age."(Grotius.) The apostle applies that maxim to his own purpose; and declares the sense in which it would be true. He does not mean to say that every Jew of every age would be saved; for he had proved that a large portion of them would be, in his time, rejected and lost. But the time would come when, as a people, they would be recovered; when the nation would turn to God; and when it could be said of them that, as a nation, they were restored to the divine favor. It is not clear that he means that even then every individual of them would be saved, but the body of them; the great mass of the nation would be. Nor is it said when this would be. This is one of the things which "the Father hath put in his own power;"Act 1:7. He has given us the assurance that it shall be done to encourage us in our efforts to save them; and he has concealed the time when it shall be, lest we should relax our efforts, or feel that no exertions were needed to accomplish what must take place at a fixed time.

Shall be saved - Shall be recovered from their rejection; be restored to the divine favor; become followers of the Messiah, and thus be saved as all other Christians are.

As it is written - Isa 59:20. The quotation is not literally made, but the sense of the passage is preserved. The Hebrew is, "There shall come to Zion a Redeemer, and for those who turn from ungodliness in Jacob."There can be no doubt that Isaiah refers here to the times of the gospel.

Out of Zion - Zion was one of the bills of Jerusalem. On this was built the city of David. It came thus to denote, in general, the church, or people of God. And when it is said that the Redeemer should come out of Zion, it means that he should arise among that people, be descended from themselves, or should not be a foreigner. The Septuagint, however render it, "the Redeemer shall come on account of Zion."So the Chaldee paraphrase, and the Latin Vulgate.

And shall turn away ... - The Hebrew is, "to those forsaking un godliness in Jacob."The Septuagint has rendered it in the same manner as the apostle.

Barnes: Rom 11:27

For this is my covenant ... - This expression is found immediately following the other in Isa 59:21. But the apostle connects with it a part of another promise taken from Jer 31:33-34; or rather he abridges that promise, and expresses its substance, by adding "when I shall take away their sins."It is clear that he intended to express the general sense of the promises, as they were well known to the Jews, and as it was a point concerning which he did not need to argue or reason with them, that God had made a covenant with them, and intended to restore them if they were cast off, and should then repent and turn to him. The time and manner in which this shall be, is not revealed. It may be remarked, however, that that passage does not mean that the Redeemer shall come personally and preach to them, or re-appear for the purpose of recalling them to himself; nor does it mean that they will be restored to the land of their fathers. Neither of these ideas is contained in the passage. God will doubtless convert the Jews, as he does the Gentiles, by human means, and in connection with the prayers of his people; so that the Gentiles shall yet repay the toil and care of the ancient Jews in preserving the Scriptures, and preparing the way for the Messiah; and both shall rejoice that they were made helps in spreading the knowledge of the Messiah.

Poole: Rom 11:1

Rom 11:1-6 God hath not so far cast off all Israel, but that a

remnant is saved by grace, not by works. Rom 11:7-10 The judicial blindness of the rest is prophesied of

in Scripture. Rom 11:11-16 The consequence both of their fall and conversion

with regard to the Gentile world. Rom 11:17-22 The Gentiles are cautioned not to insult the Jews,

but to make a proper use of the example both of God’ s goodness and severity.

Rom 11:23-32 The Jews may, and shall in time, believe and be saved. Rom 11:33-36 God’ s judgments and ways are unsearchable.

The apostle having shown, in the end of the foregoing chapter, that the Jews were for their obstinacy rejected, and the Gentiles called, he here prevents or answers an objection. Some might be ready to say: If this be so, then God hath cast away his covenant people, which he hath promised not to do; see Psa 94:14 . To this he answers, first, by his accustomed form of denial: God forbid; and then he proceeds to show, that the rejection of the Jews was neither total nor final. That it was not total, he proves, first, by a particular instance in the following words.

I also am an Israelite i.e. I am a Jew by descent, of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, and yet am not cast off by God.

Of the tribe of Benjamin: some think this is added to intimate, that he was born of an honourable tribe, out of which king Saul sprang, 1Sa 9:1 , and Esther the queen, Est 2:5 . Others think this is added for a contrary reason; lest his calling should be ascribed to the dignity of his tribe, he says, he was of Benjamin, the last and least of all the tribes. And others rather think, that this particular recital of his genealogy is only to show, that he was a Jew by nature and nation, and not a proselyte converted to the faith: see Phi 3:5 .

Poole: Rom 11:2

God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew: here he makes a further answer to the forementioned objection: by way of distinction, he distinguishs the people of God into such as are foreknown, and such as are not foreknown: and as for the former of these, he says, they are not rejected of God. By such as are foreknown of God, he means those that are elected and predestinated to eternal life, Rom 8:29 : a foreknowledge with approbation is implied and intended, Joh 10:14 2Ti 2:19 .

Wot ye not what the Scripture saith of Elias? Here is a third answer to the objection in Rom 11:1 , and it is taken from an instance in Elias, which the Jews were well acquainted with. He cites or brings a book case for it. And he the rather brings this instance, lest the Jews should accuse him of insolency, for that he had spoken before only of himself; and therefore he gives them to understand, that there were many other believing Israelites, as well as himself, though possibly they were unknown to them. You know (saith he) what the Scripture saith of Elias, 1Ki 19:1-21 .

How he maketh intercession to God against Israel i.e. against the ten tribes, who were generally revolted from God, and fallen to idolatry: against those he complained, or those he impeached, ripping up their impieties, as in the following words.

Poole: Rom 11:3

See 1Ki 19:10,14 .

Digged down thine altars: these were not the altars of the high places, for they are commended that cast them down; nor the altars in the temple at Jerusalem, for they were out of the reach of the ten tribes, against whom Elias complains: but such altars (say some) as the godly of the ten tribes did build to serve God with, when they were not permitted to go up to Jerusalem; in which case the building of private altars (as some learned Jews have affirmed) was allowed. Or else by

altars you may understand such altars as Elias himself, by the special commandment of God, had erected. Others, by digging down God’ s altars, do understand their corrupting and destroying the true worship of God; and the words are to be taken synecdochically, or metonomically, the sign being put for the thing signified.

I am left alone so it was, for aught he knew; for few, if any, did publicly own the true worship of God: so general was the defection of the ten tribes in those days.

Poole: Rom 11:4

The answer of God the word properly signifieth the oracle, or answer of God given in the tabernacle from the mercy-seat; but it is generally taken for any Divine answer, or direction received from God: see Mat 2:12 Heb 11:7 , where the same word is used. The apostle doth not repeat the whole answer of God, as it is recorded in 1Ki 19:15-18 , but so much only as was pertinent to his purpose.

I have reserved to myself he saith not: They have reserved themselves, but, I have reserved them: q.d. Of my own free grace I have kept them from idolatry and apostacy.

Seven thousand men a certain number for an uncertain. There were doubtless women amongst them; but they are noted by the more worthy sex.

Who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal the word image is not in the Greek; but the article being of the feminine gender, it was necessarily understood.

Poole: Rom 11:5

q.d. As it was in the times of Elias, so it is now;

there is a remnant of the Jews, which God hath graciously elected; therefore their rejection is not total, which was the thing to be proved. Though those that believe are few in respect of those that believe not, as a remnant is but little in respect of the whole piece, yet there are many thousands of them, as James said to Paul, Act 21:20 : Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe.

Poole: Rom 11:6

This verse depends upon the former; and though it doth not seem to appertain to the argument the apostle had in hand, yet, by the direction of the Spirit, he takes the little occasion that is offered, to show, that election and vocation are only by grace, and not by works. This he had spoken to before, Rom 4:4,5 9:11 ; but he toucheth upon it again: and here he delivers a truth, which the Jews of old either could not, or would not, understand; i.e. that there is no mixing of the merit of good works and the free grace of God, but one of these doth exclude and destroy the nature of the other; for if election and calling were both of grace and works, (as some that call themselves Christians, as well as the Jews, affirm), then grace is no grace, and works are no works. For whatsoever proceedeth of grace, that cometh freely, and not of debt; but what cometh by merit of works, that cometh by debt; but now debt and no debt, or that which is free, and by desert, are quite contrary things. Therefore to say, that men are elected and called, partly of grace and partly of the merit of foreseen works, that were to put things together that cannot agree, to make debt no debt, merit no merit, works no works, grace no grace; and so, to affirm and deny one and the same thing.

Poole: Rom 11:7

What then? q. d. My discourse comes to this, or this is the sum of it.

Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for i.e. the body of the Jewish nation, seeking righteousness and life by the works of the law, have not obtained it, or they have not hit the mark; they aimed at it, but they shot wide; they took a great deal of pains to little or no purpose: see Rom 9:31 .

The election i.e. the elect; the abstract for the concrete: so before, circumcision for the circumcised.

The rest were blinded i.e. those who are not elected; they are left, by God’ s just judgment, to their own ignorance and obdurateness; as also to Satan, who doth increase it in them, 2Co 4:4 . The antithesis requires that he should have said: The rest have not obtained; but he speaks this of purpose to show the cause of their not obtaining, i.e. their own blindness of mind and hardness of heart.

Poole: Rom 11:8

It is written viz. in Isa 6:9 29:10 .

The spirit of slumber the word signifieth, such a dead sleep, as those have, who are pricked or stung with venomous beasts, out of which they hardly or never awake.

Unto this day: q.d. So it was of old, and so it is still. Or else these words (the former being included in a parenthesis) may be joined with the last words of the foregoing verse, thus, the rest were blinded unto this day.

Poole: Rom 11:9-10

Ver. 9,10. David saith viz. in Psa 69:22,23 . The apostle tieth not himself to the very words of the psalmist, but being guided by the same Spirit by which David wrote, he adds and alters some words, without diminishing the sense.

Let their table be made a snare, &c.: some take these words for a prayer; others, a prophecy. David, in the person of Christ, (of whom he was a type), doth complain and prophesy of the extreme injuries and oppressions wherewith the Jews (his own people) should vex him; as that they should give him gall for meat, and in his thirst, give him vinegar to drink, Rom 11:21 . Therefore, by way of imprecation, he prayeth down the wrath of God upon them: particularly, he prophesies or prays, that all their most pleasant things might be turned to their destruction; that their understandings might be darkened, so as they shall discern nothing of heavenly things; that they might savour nothing but earthly things, and be unable to lift up their heads and hearts to God, and to his gospel. Now David having, by the Spirit of prophecy, prayed down such miseries upon the Jews, they must be fulfilled; therefore the general unbelief and hardness of heart that is amongst that people is not to be wondered at.

Poole: Rom 11:11

Hitherto he hath showed that the rejection of the Jews is not total. Now he comes to prove that it is not final; that before the end of the world they shall be generally called and converted; that they, together with the Gentiles that believe, shall make one sheepfold, and one flock under one Shepherd, the Lord Jesus Christ. And for the proving of this, divers arguments are brought by the apostle, (who alone plainly handles this secret), on which he insisteth the longer, for the comfort of the poor Jews, as also for the administration and information of the Gentiles.

Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: here is another prolepsis or anticipation. The Jews might say: If the case be thus, that these holy prophets, Isaiah and David, have foretold our blindness and stumbling, then we are in a hopeless condition, and that for ever. To this he answers, that they have not so stumbled as that they should finally fall, so as never to rise again; far be it from me to affirm any such things: God hath revealed the contrary to me; that he will one day call the Jews again, and restore them to his favour.

Through they fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles: q. d. Out of the forementioned evil there ariseth this good, that the gospel (being rejected by the Jews) is preached to the Gentiles, and they are thereby called and brought to salvation: see Act 13:42,46 . Because now at first a few Jews only, and a multitude of Gentiles, are converted, it hath so fallen out, that the ceremonial law is the more easily abrogated, and the doctrine of the gospel and the grace of God is the better established.

To provoke them to jealousy; i.e. the Jews who embrace not the gospel: q. d. This grace that God hath bestowed upon the Gentiles, he will make use of in his appointed time, as a prick of holy jealousy to the Jews; he will by means thereof stir them up to a holy indignation and emulation, to see themselves so far outstripped by those whom they contemned, and thereupon to embrace the gospel, and become the people of God again. Thus, as God hath ordered that the casting away of the Jews should be an occasion of the calling of the Gentiles; so again, on the other hand, the calling of the Gentiles shall be an occasion of the restoring of the Jews.

Poole: Rom 11:12

Another anticipation. The apostle having showed, that the falling away of the Jews was an occasion of the coming in of the Gentiles, it might be objected, that the conversion of the Jews might likewise be an occasion of the falling away of the Gentiles. To this he answers negatively, and confirms his answer by an argument from the less to the greater; that if their fall and diminution were the riches of the Gentiles, their calling again would be so much more: q.d. If God hath made use of the fall and rejection of the Jews, for an occasion of pouring out the riches or abundance of his grace upon the nations; and if the number of believing Jews, being so very small, (which is meant by their diminishing ), hath occasioned the conversion of such a multitude of Gentiles; then how much more will their fulness have the effect!

How much more their fulness! i.e. their general conversion, the coming in of the Jews, shall so fill the world with wonder, and the gospel with lustre, that a much further accession will be made even to the number of the believing Gentiles.

Poole: Rom 11:13

i.e. I speak to you of being rich in the faith above the Jews, because I challenge a special interest in you, inasmuch as

I am appointed to be the apostle of the Gentiles and am sent chiefly unto them: see Rom 15:16 Act 9:15 13:2 22:21 26:17 Gal 1:16 2:7 Eph 3:8 2Ti 1:11 . And therefore, in thus setting forth your privileges and blessings:

I magnify mine office

Poole: Rom 11:14

q.d. And I thus extol God’ s favour and mercy to you, that it may be a means (if God please) to provoke the Jews, that are my own flesh and blood, to a holy emulation or jealousy, see Rom 11:11when they shall see the Gentiles possess what was promised to them.

Question. How doth he say, that he may save some of them? Is not God the author of salvation?

Answer. Yes; but he hath given his ministers to be instruments therein, and called them fellow workers with himself, 1Co 6:1 : see 1Ti 4:16 .

Poole: Rom 11:15

This verse contains an argument to prove the calling of the Jews; not a new one, but that repeated which you had before, Rom 11:12 ; the substance is the same, only the terms differ: there he spake of the fall and diminishing of the Jews, here, of their casting away; there it was the riches, here it is the reconciling of the world: q.d. If the rejection of the Jews brought great profit to the Gentiles, their reception and restoration will bring abundantly more.

Be the reconciling of the world i.e. an occasion of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, by means of which they were reconciled to God. The gospel is the ministry of reconciliation, 2Co 5:18-20 .

The receiving of them, into the favour of God and the bosom of the church.

Life from the dead a proverbial speech, to signify a great change for the better. The conversion of that people and nation, will strengthen the things that are languishing and like to die in the Christian church. It will confirm the faith of the Gentiles, and reconcile all their differences in religion, and occasion a more thorough reformation amongst them: there will be a much more happy and flourishing estate of the church, even such as shall be in the end of the world, at the resurrection of the dead.

Poole: Rom 11:16

Here is another argument to prove the Jews are not finally rejected, because of the covenant made with their fathers.

If the first-fruit be holy: some make a difference between the first-fruit, and the root, in the latter part of the verse. By the first-fruit they understand the apostles and other godly Jews, that were at first converted to the Christian faith; and by the root they understand Abraham and the patriarchs. Others take them for the same, and understand Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with the rest of the patriarchs, to be both the first-fruit and the root.

The lump is also holy by lump, and branches, he means the people of the Jews that descended of these holy patriarchs, and spring from them, as branches from a root. The great question is, In what sense they are said to be holy? Or of what holiness doth he speak? It is not meant of inherent, but of federal, or covenant holiness; all in all outward and visible covenant with God, were called holy: see Exo 9:6 Dan 8:24 . Many common things are called holy in Scripture, because dedicated to God and to his service; yea, Jerusalem, though a place of great wickedness, is called a holy city, Mat 27:53 . In such a sense as this, the Jews are still a holy people; they have an hereditary kind of dedication to God; they have a federal holiness, and relation to God, as being for ever separated to him, in the loins of their progenitors; this can never be wholly forfeited, as being granted to all the posterity of the holy patriarchs: therefore they are called the children of the covenant, which God made with their fathers, Act 3:25 : see Act 2:39 . So then God will remember in his own time, his covenant with the Jews, the posterity of Abraham, &c., who are beloved for the fathers’ sakes, Rom 11:28 . Therefore, in the mean time, they should not look on themselves with desperation; nor should the Gentiles look on them with disdain, as it follows in the next words.

Poole: Rom 11:17

In this, and some following verses, the apostle digresses a little, and takes occasion to prevent the insulting of the Gentiles over the Jews; as also to persuade them to take warning by their example.

If some of the branches be broken off the unbelieving Jews.

And thou a believing Gentile: though he speaks as to a particular person, yet he means the whole body of the believing Gentiles.

Being a wild olive tree a scion taken from a wild olive tree; i.e. from the heathenish and unbelieving world.

Wert graffed in among them the believing Jews. Some read, for them, or in the place of the branches that are broken off.

And with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree: by the root he means Abraham, &c. as before: by the olive tree he means the church of Christ; by the root, or sap of the root, and by the

fatness of the olive tree he means, all the promises and privileges, the graces and ordinances, the spiritual blessings and benefits, which belonged to Abraham and his seed, or to the true church of God.

Poole: Rom 11:18

Boast not against the branches i.e. against the Jews, who, because of their unbelief, are broken off; as if by nature thou wert better than they, or more worthy of that grace which is bestowed on thee. The word signifies: Throw not up thy neck, do not carry thyself scornfully and insultingly.

But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee: q.d. If any will needs be so insolent, let them know and consider, that as the root is not beholden to the branches, but the branches to the root; so the good things that the Gentiles have, they received from the Jews, and not the Jews from them: the Gentile church is incorporated into the Jewish, and not the Jewish into the Gentile. Or else the meaning is: Despise not the Jews, for they are the natural branches of the root that bears them. If thou insultest over the branches, thou dost in a manner lift up thyself against the root, that once bore them, and now bears thee; even Abraham, who is the father of all them that believe. Abraham is not the root, simply and absolutely, but relatively, or by way of relation to his posterity and offspring.

Poole: Rom 11:19-20

Ver. 19,20. Here he brings in the Gentiles, alleging a reason for their insulting over the Jews; because the Jews were broken off, that they might give place, or make way, for them; and the less worthy do always give place to the more worthy. To this he answers, first, by way of concession: Well, (saith he), it is true, and I do not deny it, that the Jews

were broken off that the Gentiles might be grafted in. But then he further adds, by way of correction or negation, that the worthiness of the Gentiles was not the cause why the Jews were broken off; but it was because of their own unbelief; they would not accept of Christ, Joh 1:11 ; they went about to establish their own righteousness, and would not submit themselves to the righteousness of God, as it is in Rom 10:3 . Therefore, if you Gentiles shall reason after this manner, you plainly put a fallacy upon yourselves, and take that for a cause which is none: you do not distinguish between the cause and the event; it fell out, indeed, that the Jews, being cast off, the Gentiles were received in, but this was not the cause of that.

And thou standest by faith: q.d. Neither is thy worthiness the cause of thy present standing in the room of the Jews, or of having thy station in the church of Christ; but it is thy believing in that Christ whom the Jews rejected. By faith thou wast first ingrafted, and still continuest in the good olive tree.

Be not high-minded, but fear: q.d. Be advised, and take heed of being self-conceited and secure; if thou fall into their fault, thou mayst expect the same fate. Therefore stand in awe, and sin not; thou art subject to unbelief and apostacy, as well as they.

Poole: Rom 11:21

This verse is a reason of the forementioned admonition: q.d. If God proceeded with so much severity against his ancient people the Jews, you Gentiles may in reason expect as great severity, if you take not heed to yourselves, and to your standing.

Poole: Rom 11:22

In this verse, he further persuades the Gentiles to humility and godly fear, and suggesteth several reasons for it. The first is taken from the example of God’ s

severity to the Jews; they falling into apostacy and unbelief, are generally cut off and cast away. A second reason is taken from the free grace and undeserved goodness of God to the poor Gentiles, who were mercifully planted or grafted in the room of the Jews. A third reason is taken from the condition of their present standing, which is, if they

continue in his goodness i.e. if they continue in that state wherein his goodness hath set them. Some think the cause is here put for the effect, the goodness of God for faith, which was wrought in them by the goodness or grace of God. The antithesis, in the next verse, shows this to be the sense; for there he speaks of the Jews not continuing or abiding still in unbelief. A fourth reason is from the danger that would follow; if, through pride and security, they should fall and miscarry, they would be cut off, as the Jews, the natural branches, are. Some observe the change of the word; the Jews are said to be broken off, but the Gentiles would be cut off; they would, as it were, be stocked up by the roots: but that seems too critical and curious.

Poole: Rom 11:23

Here he adds another argument, to repress the arrogance and insulting of the Gentiles; and it is taken from the hope of the Jews’ restoration. Though for the present they seem to be in a desperate and forlorn condition, yet the restoring and re-ingrafting of them into the church is not impossible. The great obstacle is their unbelief, which God is able to remove. The same God that rejected them is able to restore them; to him all things are possible, he can cause dead and dry bones to live. An argument from the power of God (and that in the very words of this text) is frequently made use of in Scripture, to excite hope and assurance. Rom 4:21 14:4 2Co 9:8 2Ti 1:12 Heb 2:18 11:19 .

Poole: Rom 11:24

He here shows the probability, as well as possibility, of the Jews’ conversion, because God hath done that which is more unlikely: q.d. If the Gentiles, which were a kind of wild olive branches, were grafted into a good olive tree, the church of God, which is contrary to nature, seeing men use to graft a good scion into a wild stock, (as an apple into a crab), and not a wild scion into a good stock; how much more shall the Jews, which are the natural branches, yea, branches of that olive tree into which the Gentiles are now ingrafted, be grafted into their own olive tree, to which formerly they did belong! According to the custom of grafting which was common amongst them, to graft one tree upon another of the same kind; and grounded on Lev 19:19 .

Poole: Rom 11:25

Here he shows there is not only a possibility and probability, but a certainty of the Jews’ conversion and calling. This he calleth a

mystery or a secret; though it was revealed in the Scripture, (as you will hear), yet it was not understood; nay, the manner, the number, and the time of their conversion, is still concealed and hid from us. The calling of the Gentiles was a mystery, and a great secret; see Eph 3:3 ; and so is the calling and restoration of the Jews. There are three particulars of this mystery, which he makes known to the Gentiles (and he doth it the rather, lest they should swell with a high conceit of themselves, and proudly despise the Jews): two of them are in this verse; and the first is,

that blindness is happened to Israel in part only; i.e. they were not all blinded or hardened; or this blindness should not last always, but for a time. The latter sense agrees best with the word mystery; for it was no secret that some of the Jews believed; this was told them before, Rom 11:2,5,7 . Secondly, another part of this mystery was, that this blindness of the Jews should continue till

the fulness of the Gentiles came in By fulness here, (as in Rom 11:12 ), understand a great number or multitude of the Gentiles; greater, by far, than was in the apostles’ days. There is another exposition of this clause, which I submit to consideration: by the Gentiles, here, you may understand the Romans, or the Roman monarchy and power; see Act 4:27 21:11and by the coming in of their fulness may be understood, the full time of their reign and continuance; after which their ruin follows. And so here is foretold the time of the calling of the Jews, which will be soon after the destruction of antichrist and the Roman monarchy.

Query: Whether this doth not agree with the prediction of our Saviour? Luk 21:24 .

Poole: Rom 11:26

Here is a third and chief part of the aforementioned mystery, that in the end,

all Israel shall be saved By Israel is not meant the whole church of God, consisting of Jews and Gentiles; so that word is used, Gal 6:16 , and elsewhere; for then, what he spake would have been no mystery at all: but by Israel here (as in the precedent verse) you must understand, the nation and people of the Jews. And by

all Israel is not meant every individual Israelite, but many, or (it may be) the greatest part of them. So all is to be taken in Scripture: see Joh 6:45 1Ti 2:6 , and elsewhere. Look, as when he speaks of the conversion of the Gentiles, and the coming in of their fulness, there are many (too many of them) still unconverted; so, notwithstanding the general calling of the Jews, a great many of them may remain uncalled.

As it is written the apostle had this by revelation, but he proves it also by Scripture. All are not agreed from whence these testimonies are taken; the former is found (with some little variation) in Isa 59:20 : as for the latter, some think it is taken from Jer 31:33 . Others think, that he joineth two places in Isaiah together, (as he did before, Rom 11:8 ), and the last words are taken out of Isa 27:9 . The Seventy have the very words used by the apostle. These prophecies and promises, though they were in part fulfilled when Christ came in the flesh, see Act 3:26yet there will be a more full and complete accomplishment thereof upon the Jewish nation and people towards the end of the world.

Poole: Rom 11:27-28

Ver. 27,28. Here an objection is obviated: the Gentiles might object and say, The Jews can never return and be saved, forasmuch as they have rejected the gospel, and are therefore hated of God. To this he answers by way of concession, that it was true indeed, they had rejected the gospel, and for this they were rejected and hated of God; but this happened well to the Gentiles, and was to their advantage. for the Jews’ refusal of the gospel brought it sooner to them: see Rom 11:11 . Or else the meaning is: They are enemies of God, and of his gospel; and the rather reject it, because you Gentiles embrace it; they think the worse of the gospel because you believe and profess it. Then he adds by way of correction, that they were not yet in such desperate circumstances; but in regard of

election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes By election he means, either God’ s choosing them to eternal life; or rather, his choosing that nation and people, above all other nations and people of the world, to be his peculiar people: see Deu 7:6 Psa 135:4 Act 13:46 . And by God’ s love to them, he means his love of good will which he had to that people still, for their fathers’ sakes: not because of the merit of their fathers, but because of the covenant made with their fathers; because they are descended of those fathers, to whom God had promised, that he would be their God, and the God of their seed after them; aye, and of their seed’ s seed for ever; which promises of God, the infidelity of many of them cannot wholly frustrate.

PBC: Rom 11:7

See Philpot: THE CHANNEL OF GOSPEL BLESSINGS

PBC: Rom 11:21

I thought about God’s people among the Jewish Nation who had the very oracles of God committed unto them. Yet, in spite of this " light of truth" given them by their God, because of their unbelief, they rejected this light of knowledge, rejecting the very Lord of Glory as the true Messiah, and went about establishing their own righteousness and refused to submit themselves unto the righteousness of God. For this very reason, they invited the divine judgment of God upon themselves. So, " God blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." Joh 12:40

Then, with great conviction of heart and soul, I turned my eyes inward to personal self, looked in the mirror of my own heart, trembled greatly, and then seriously pondered the very beauty and preciousness of God’s revealed truth as the glorious Gospel reveals the righteousness of God from the body of God’s revealed faith to the faith He sovereignly put in my heart in regeneration. It is only by this given faith of God to which I am debtor and obligated to live a sanctified life of righteousness, glory, and honor to Jehovah God, my Glorious Redeemer. His precious, inspired, preserved, and revealed word is not a toy with which we can play, turn, twist, and wrestle to suit our own preconceived ideas and notions over which to contest and war in a rash political manner just for personal prestige.

32

Let us compare the above with Ga 5:15.

496

PBC: Rom 11:26

" And so all Israel shall be saved." {Ro 11:26}

Then Moses sang at the Red Sea, it was his joy to know that all Israel were safe. Not a drop of spray fell from that solid wall until the last of God’s Israel had safely planted his foot on the other side the flood. That done, immediately the floods dissolved into their proper place again, but not till then. Part of that song was, " Thou in thy mercy hast led forth the people which thou hast redeemed." In the last time, when the elect shall sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and of the Lamb, it shall be the boast of Jesus, " Of all whom thou hast given me, I have lost none." In heaven there shall not be a vacant throne.

For all the chosen race Shall meet around the throne, Shall bless the conduct of his grace, And make his glories known.

As many as God hath chosen, as many as Christ hath redeemed, as many as the Spirit hath called, as many as believe in Jesus, shall safely cross the dividing sea. We are not all safely landed yet:

Part of the host have crossed the flood, And part are crossing now.

The vanguard of the army has already reached the shore. We are marching through the depths; we are at this day following hard after our Leader into the heart of the sea. Let us be of good cheer: the rearguard shall soon be where the vanguard already is; the last of the chosen ones shall soon have crossed the sea, and then shall be heard the song of triumph, when all are secure. But O! if one were absent- oh! if one of his chosen family should be cast away- it would make an everlasting discord in the song of the redeemed, and cut the strings of the harps of paradise, so that music could never be extorted from them.  C. H. Spurgeon

And so all Israel shall be saved—This is the real, elect, spared nation of the future, —" those written unto life." {Da 12:1; Isa 4:3, margin} The mystery comprehends this fact (as we have said above, and as the apostle amplifies in Ro 11:31) for the salvation of national Israel was impossible, except on purely grace lines. God had given them the Law: that was necessary to reveal sin. But they utterly failed. Now comes in the fulness of the Gentiles—by grace: and so, after that, and on the same grace line as were the Gentiles, all Israel shall be saved! Most of that earthly nation will perish under Divine judgments, and the Antichrist: but the Remnant will be " accounted as a generation." Our Lord told His disciples that this present unbelieving generation of Israel would not pass away till all the terrible judgments He foretold would be fulfilled. But that that generation— " Israel after the flesh" will pass away we know; and a believing generation take their place. See Ps 22:30; 102:18. Jehovah at last " arises, and has pity on her, —for the set time has come!" So we read the Psalmist’s words: " This shall be written for the generation to come; And a people which shall be created shall praise Jehovah." This is the real Israel of God, of whom it is written, " All Israel shall be saved."  William Newell

Haydock: Rom 11:1

St. Paul in this chapter endeavours to comfort the Jews, though the greatest part of them were rejected for their blindness; and to admonish the Gentiles, not to boast for being called and converted, but to persevere with humility, and the fear of God. ---

God hath not cast away his people. That is, not all of them, nor hath he cast off those whom he foreknew, and decreed to save. ---

The Scripture saith of Elias. He brings the example of Elias living among the ten tribes of Israel, when all the people were forbidden to go and adore in the temple of Jerusalem, when the altars of the true God were destroyed, and almost all in these tribes were fallen into idolatry, and worshipped Baal: he complains as if he were left alone in the worship of the true God. But the divine answer shewed him his mistake. I have reserved to myself seven thousand man, &c. Some take notice that seven is divers times put for a great number, as three and a half for a small number: however, besides these seven thousand, all in the kingdom of Juda remained firm in the worship of the true God. In like manner, a remnant is now saved by the election of grace, by God's free and liberal gift of divine grace. Some pretended reformers of the faith of the Church bring this as an argument, that the Church of God may fail, and fall into errors. It is sufficient to answer, that there is a wide difference betwixt the Jewish synagogue, which brought nothing to perfection, and the Church of Christ, which he built upon a rock, with which he has promised to be to the end of the world, and guide them by the Spirit of Truth. (Witham) ---

This is very ill alleged by some against the perpetual visibility of the Church of Christ: the more, because however the number of the faithful might be abridged by the persecution of Jezebel in the kingdom of the ten tribes; the Church was at the same time in a most flourishing condition (under Asa and Josaphat) in the kingdom of Juda. (Challoner) -- Our separated brethren add to this text, as in Acts xix. 35. the word image. They also cite it in proof of an invisible Church; but with no just grounds: for in Jerusalem the faith and worship were public to the whole world. Besides, the Christian Church rests on better promises than the synagogue. (Bristow) ---

The Jews obtain not the justice they sought after, because they did not seek it as they ought; they expected to obtain it by their works, whereas it can only be had from grace. (Estius)

Haydock: Rom 11:6

It is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace. The election of God, and the first grace at least, are always without any merits on our part; but if we speak of works done in a state of grace, and by the assistance of God's grace, we co-operate with the graces given, and by thus co-operating, we deserve and merit a reward in heaven. (Witham) ---

If salvation were to come by works, done by nature, without faith and grace, salvation would not be a grace or favour, but a debt; but such dead works are indeed of no value in the sight of God towards salvation. It is not the same with regard to works done with and by God's grace; for to such works as these he has promised eternal salvation. (Challoner)

Haydock: Rom 11:8

God hath given them, &c. Not by his working, or acting in them; but by his permission, and by withdrawing his grace in punishment of their obstinacy. (Challoner) ---

Permitted them (says St. John Chrysostom) to fall into the spirit of insensibility. Literally, the spirit of [1] compunction. Compunction is not here taken, as in some spiritual writers, for a great sorrow for sins. In the Latin Vulgate (Isaias vi. 9.) it is called the spirit of slumber, as in the Protestant translation. We cannot have a better judge of the sense of the word than St. John Chrysostom, who tells us, that it signifies a habit of the soul, firmly fixed in evil, and an insensible disposition: as, saith he, persons under a pious compunction are not to be removed from their good resolutions; so the wicked, under a hardened compunction, are nailed, as it were, to vice. And that here this is the true sense, appears by the following words out of Isaias: he hath given them eyes that they should not see, &c. And also out of David, (Psalm lxviii. 23.) let their table be made a snare, &c. We may understand the spiritual food of the word of God, and of the Scriptures; which by the blindness of this people, have served to their great condemnation. ---

And a recompense, that is, for a just punishment of their obstinacy. ---

And bow down their back always, a metaphor to represent the condition of such, as are under heavy oppressions. (Witham) ---

Although by bending their back is literally understood the yoke of servitude and captivity, with which the Jews were oppressed at the destruction of Jerusalem; yet it seems more conformable to the apostle's meaning, when considered in a spiritual sense, and then it will signify the insensibility of the Jews, as to heavenly things, and their anxious solicitude for the things of the earth. This their avaricious and carnal disposition was so manifest, that the poet said of them--- O curvæ in terram animæ et cœlestium inanes.--- (Estius)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Spiritum compunctionis; Greek: pneuma katanuxeos. In the Latin Vulgate, Isaias xxix. 10, the same Greek words are translated, spiritum soporis; the spirit of slumber. See Mr. Legh, Crit. Sacr. on the word Greek: katanusso. St. John Chrysostom, Greek: om ith. p. 163. Greek: katanuxin, entautha ten peri to cheiron exin tes psuches, &c. See Corn. a Lap. S. Chrys. in the same place; Greek: katanugenai gar ouden eteron esti to empagenai, kai proselosthai.

Haydock: Rom 11:11-15

Have they so stumbled, that they should fall? God forbid. That is, their fall is not irreparable, or so as never to rise again: but by their offending, salvation (through the liberal mercy of God) is come to the Gentiles, that they, the Jews, may be emulous of the Gentiles, and of their happiness, and so may be converted. (Witham) ---

The nation of the Jews is not absolutely and without remedy cast off for ever; but in part only (many thousands of them having been at first converted) and for a time: which fall of theirs God has been pleased to turn to the good of the Gentiles. (Challoner) ---

How much more the fulness of them? As if he should say, if the obstinacy of so many Jews seem to be an occasion upon which God, whose mercy calls whom he pleaseth, hath bestowed the riches of his grace on other nations; and while the glory of the Jews, the elect people of God, has been diminished, the Gentiles have been made happy: how much more glorious will be the fulness of them? that is, according to the common interpretation, will be the re-establishment and conversion of the Jews hereafter, before the end of the world? See St. John Chrysostom, Greek: om. ith. p. 164; St. Hilary, in Ps. lviii; St. Jerome, in chap. iii. Osee. Habacuc iii.; St. Augustine, lib. xx. de Civ. Dei. chap. xxix. ---

Then (ver. 15.) the receiving of them into the Church, and their conversion to Christ, shall be like life from the dead, when the Jewish nation in general, shall rise from the death of sin, and their hardened infidelity, to the life of faith and grace. These things I speak to you, Gentiles, to honour and comply with my ministry of being your apostle: yet endeavouring at the same time, if by a pious emulation, or by any other way, I may be able to bring any of my flesh, or of my brethren, the Jews, to be saved by the faith of Christ. (Witham)

Haydock: Rom 11:16

If the first-fruit (see the Greek word) be holy, so also is the mass; so also the rest, the product that follows. He alludes to the offering made by the law of the first-fruit, which was to acknowledge that all good things were from God, and to bring a blessing upon the rest. ---

If the root be holy, so are the branches. By the root, says St. John Chrysostom, he understands Abraham, and the patriarchs, from whom all the Jewish nation proceeded, as branches from that root: and these branches are to be esteemed holy, not only because of the root they proceeded from, but also because they worshipped the true God. And if some, or a great part of these branches, have been broken, they may, as it is said, (ver. 23.) be ingrafted again. And you, Gentiles, ought to remember that, you were of yourselves a wild olive-tree: and it is only by the merciful call of God, that you have the happiness to be ingrafted upon the same root of the patriarchs; and so, by imitating the faith of Abraham, are become his spiritual children, and heirs of the promises, and by that means have been made partakers of the root, and of the sap, and fatness of the sweet olive-tree. Remember that you bear not the root, nor were you the root that was holy; but the root beareth you; and that being branches of a wild olive, you ought naturally still to bear bad fruit, though ingrafted on the root of a sweet olive. It is only by the mercies of God, if you bring forth good fruit. Do not then be high-minded, nor boast, but fear, and endeavour to continue in goodness; lest God also spare not you, but cut you off, as unprofitable branches. And let me tell you, as to the Jews, if they abide not still in unbelief, God is able to ingraft them again into their own olive-tree; and it seems more easy, that they, who are naturally branches of the sweet olive-tree, should bring forth good fruit, when they shall be ingrafted in their own olive-tree, being of the race of Abraham, to whom the promises were made. (Witham) ---

We see here, that he who standeth by faith, may fall from it; and therefore must live in fear, and not in the vain presumption and security of modern sectaries. (Challoner) ---

The apostle here exhorts the converted Gentiles, to fear lest they fall, and bring upon themselves a punishment similar to that of the Jews. The Jews were his chosen people, the children of the alliance; they have now been stripped of all; the same may also happen to you. You may fall into presumption and incredulity; if you remain firm, it is not by you own merits or works, but by faith, the pure gift of God. Neither faith, nor vocation, nor grace, are inadmissible. You may lose all; and therefore ought always to fear and live in humility. If God has not spared the natural branches, fear, lest he should not spare you. (ver. 21.) (Calmet) ---

The Gentiles are here admonished not to be proud, nor to glory over the Jews; but to take occasion rather from their fall to fear and to be humble, lest they be cast off. Not that the whole Church of Christ can ever fall from him; having been secured by so many divine promises in holy writ; but that each one in particular may fall; and therefore all in general are to be admonished to beware of that, which may happen to any one in particular. (Challoner)

Haydock: Rom 11:25-26

I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, this hidden truth of God's justice and mercy, that blindness in part hath happened in Israel, or to part of them, until the fulness of the Gentiles should come in, by the conversion of all nations: and then all Israel should be saved, when they shall submit to the faith of Christ: as it is written by the prophet Isaias, (lix. 20.) there shall come out of Sion he that shall deliver; that is, their Redeemer, Christ Jesus, who is indeed come already, but who shall then come to them by his powerful grace. This is my covenant with them. (Witham)

Gill: Rom 11:1

I say then, hath God cast away his people?.... The Alexandrian, copy adds here, "whom he foreknew", as in Rom 11:2, upon the citation of the above passages out of Moses and Isaiah, relating to the calling of the Gentiles, and the rejection of the Jews, the apostle saw an objection would arise, which he here takes up from the mouth of an adversary, and proposes it; in which is suggested, that God has cast away all his people the Jews, according to this count; and if so, where is his covenant with Abraham? what is become of his promises? and how is his faithfulness to be accounted for? and what hope can any Israelite have of ever obtaining salvation? than which, nothing can be thought more injurious to God, and absurd in itself. This was an old prejudice of the Jewish nation, and still continues, that God never would, nor has he cast them away, even in their present condition; it is one of the articles of their creed, received by the Karaites ^o, a sect among them, that

"the blessed God לא מאס לאנשי הגלות, "hath not cast away the men of the captivity", though they are under the chastisements of God; but it is fit that they should every day obtain salvation by the hands of Messiah, the Son of David.''

Now to this objection the apostle makes answer; "first", in his usual way,

God forbid, when anything was objected which was displeasing to him, abhorred by him, which was not agreeable to the perfections of God, to the truth of his word, and promises, and could by no means be admitted of; and next by observing his own case, which was a standing instance to the contrary; for God had chosen him unto eternal salvation, Christ had redeemed him by his blood, and he was effectually called by grace; and as to his eternal state, he had no doubt or scruple about it; and besides, the Lord had made him a minister of the Gospel, had greatly qualified him for that work, had raised him to the high office of an apostle, and had made him very useful to the souls of many, both Jews and Gentiles; and yet he was one of the nation of the Jews, and therefore God had not cast them all away, as the objection insinuates:

for I also am an Israelite; according to the flesh, by lineal descent from Jacob or Israel; see 2Co 11:22; as well as in a spiritual sense:

of the seed of Abraham; "the grandfather of Israel"; the head of the Jewish nation he was, both of his natural and of his spiritual seed, who is the father of us all:

of the tribe of Benjamin; a very little tribe, which in the time of the Judges was near being destroyed, and, upon the return from the captivity of Babylon, was very small, as it was at this time; and yet God had not cast away this, much less all the tribes of Israel.

Gill: Rom 11:2

God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew,.... The apostle goes on with his answer to the objection, by distinguishing and explaining who he meant by the people God had not cast away, namely, which were "foreknown" by him; for all mankind are in a sense his people, being made, maintained, and supported in their beings by him, yet they are not all foreknown; for were they, they would be all predestinated, called, conformed to the image of Christ, justified and glorified; but some of them will be cast away, being bad and wicked, and will be sent into everlasting punishment: and though the people of the Jews in general were the people of God, being in a sense chose, known, and distinguished by him from the rest of the world, yet they were not all a "foreknown" people, in the sense the apostle uses the word; wherefore a great number of them were cast away, of which afterwards the apostle speaks largely in this chapter: but then there were a people among them, that were the people of God in a more special sense; they were chosen by him from everlasting to be his people; they were taken into the covenant of his grace as such; they were given to Christ as his people, and were redeemed and saved by him on that account; and were, or were to be called, with an holy calling, when they are openly declared to be the people of God, whom he foreknew: he not merely knew them before, by his general prescience and foreknowledge, which extends to all persons and things; or foresaw their faith, holiness, and good works, and so chose them for himself; for faith, holiness, and good works, are fruits and effects of electing grace; but he so knew them before, even from all eternity, as that he approved of them, liked them, loved them, and took delight and complacency in them: now these his people he never did, nor never will cast away. Their numbers may be but very small in some periods of time, yet none of them are cast away; God may not immediately arise to their help and assistance in time of distress, or so soon as they desire and expect; he may withdraw his presence, hide himself, and stand at a distance from them; he may afflict them in a fatherly way, when they may think he has cast them off, or cast them away; whereas he never casts any of them away, nor out of his heart's love, nor out of his sight, nor out of the covenant of his grace, nor out of the hands of his Son, nor out of his family, or so as that any of them shall perish eternally; so far from it, that he takes the utmost delight in them, grants them the greatest nearness to himself, bears the strongest affection for them, and takes the most diligent care of them; whoever casts them out of their affection and company, he will not; the reasons are, because his love to them is unchangeable, his purpose concerning their salvation stands firm and sure, his word and oath are unalterable, his gifts and calling are without repentance; and they are his jewels, portion, and inheritance; they are as the apple of his eye, and continually held by his right hand. The apostle next replies to this objection, by putting them in mind of the case and state of the church of God, in the times of Elijah; and what judgment that prophet formed of it, and in which he appeared to be mistaken:

wot ye not what the Scripture saith of Elias? do ye not know? ye cannot be ignorant who have, and read the Scripture, what it says of Elias, or "in Elias"; that is, as the Arabic version renders it, "in the history of Elias"; in the account it gives of his life and times:

how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying: that is, how he spoke to God in prayer concerning Israel; and instead of praying for them, as the prophets were wont to do, he was obliged to bring a complaint against them for their idolatry, contempt of the worship of God, and violent persecution of his true followers. The apostle chose to mention this instance because there was some likeness between his case and Elijah's; and the state of the people of Israel at the then present time, and as in the times of Elijah; for as the Jews in his time killed and persecuted the prophets of the Lord, so in the present time they had killed the Lord Jesus Christ, and persecuted his apostles; and as Elijah, though one of their own prophets, was obliged to make intercession against them, so the apostle, though one of their own countrymen, could not but speak against them, and of their just rejection by God: and this he observes, to soften their resentments against him, when so great a prophet had done so before him: and this the Jews themselves own ^p, for they say that Elijah מדבר קטיגורייא על ישראל, "brought an accusation against Israel": and it is observed by another ^q that

"coals are said of Isaiah and Elijah, because they delivered an accusation against Israel: one called them a people of unclean lips, and the other said, for they have forsaken thy covenant:''

which is the apostle's sense.

Gill: Rom 11:3

Lord, they have killed thy prophets,.... By the order of Jezebel, wife of Ahab king of Israel, 1Ki 18:4. This sin of slaying the prophets of the Lord is charged upon the Jews by Christ, Mat 23:31, and by the apostle, 1Th 2:15. In the text in 1Ki 19:14, it is added, "with the sword": which expresses the manner of death they were put to; and this clause is there put after the following, according to a rule of transposition among the Jews; See Gill on Mat 27:10.

And digged down thine altars; either the altars which the patriarchs had formerly built, and were still in being; and though not used, yet were kept and had in great veneration; wherefore the pulling of them down was done in contempt of them, and of the worship of God, which had been formerly performed there; or else such altars, which the religious among the ten tribes built, since the times of Jeroboam, who forbad them to go up to Jerusalem, but ordered them to go to Dan or Bethel; which they not choosing to do erected altars in different places for divine service, and which the Jews ^r say were allowed; for from that time, the prohibition of altars at other places than at Jerusalem ceased:

and I am left alone: meaning either as a prophet, not knowing that Obadiah had hid an hundred prophets by fifty in a cave, 1Ki 18:4; or else as a worshipper of the true God, imagining that he was the only person in Israel, that had a true zeal for the Lord of hosts:

and they seek my life; lay in wait for it, Jezebel by her emissaries being in quest of him; it is added in 1Ki 19:14, "to take it away"; for she had swore by her gods, that by the morrow about that time, his life should be as the life of one of the prophets of Baal he had slain; and in one copy it is added here.

Gill: Rom 11:4

But what saith the answer of God unto him?.... The divine response, or oracle, the בת קול, "Bath Kol", or voice from heaven; the still small voice of the Lord, which Elijah heard, 1Ki 19:12,

I have reserved to myself; for his worship and service, to be partakers of his grace, inheritors of his kingdom, to show forth his praise, and for his name's sake, for his honour and glory: these he reserved in eternal election, in the council and covenant of peace; separated them in time from others by his grace, and preserved them from the general defection and apostasy: even

seven thousand men: meaning either that precise and exact number, which was but small in comparison of the very large multitude of persons that were in the ten tribes, or else a certain number for an uncertain:

who have not bowed the knee; a sign of reverence and adoration:

to the image of Baal; Jezebel's god, the god of the Zidonians; a name common to many of the "deities" of the Gentiles, and signifies "lord", or "master"; we read of "Baalim" in the plural number, for there were "lords many" of this name: in the Greek text the article is of the feminine gender, wherefore our translators have supplied the word image. This word has, in the Septuagint version, sometimes a feminine article as here; see 2Ki 21:3; but in 1Ki 19:18, from whence this passage is taken, the article is masculine, as it is also in Jdg 2:11, and in other places. This deity being either of both sexes, or of no distinguished sex; or it may be, the reason it has so often a feminine article is, because it was a young heifer, or in the form of one; so in the history of Tobias 1:5, it is said, that "all the tribes which apostatized together sacrificed", τη βααλ τη δαμαλει, "to Baal the heifer". The apostle's view in mentioning this instance is to show, that when the church and cause of God are at the lowest, God has always some true worshippers of him; and that he never casts away his foreknown people, whose numbers are generally more than they are thought to be by the saints themselves; good men, as Elijah, may be mistaken in this matter; all which he accommodates to the then present state of God's people, in Rom 11:5.

Gill: Rom 11:5

Even so then at this present time also,.... In which the apostle lived, the time of preaching the Gospel, the accepted time, the day of salvation, which then was, and also now is; at that time when the Gospel was sent unto the Gentiles, and God took out of them a people for his name; when multitudes of them were converted, and embraced the faith of Christ; and when the Jews in general had rejected the Messiah, killed the Lord Jesus, persecuted his apostles, and contradicted and blasphemed the Gospel; yet still God had made a reserve of some among them, for himself:

there is a remnant; alluding either to Isa 10:21, or to the oracle delivered to Elijah, saying, "I have reserved", or "left", &c. 1Ki 19:18, that as God had reserved for himself, in Elijah's time, a number of persons, who had not gone into the idolatrous worship of Baal, when the greater part of the Israelites did, so he had taken care to make a like reserve in the apostle's time, when the bulk of the Jewish nation had refused the Messiah, and despised his Gospel. This is a further proof, that God had not cast away all the people of the Jews; and that as Elijah was not the only worshipper of the true God in his time, so the apostle was not the only instance of grace among that people now; there was a number of them; the number of the disciples after our Lord's ascension, was an hundred and twenty; upon the first sermon preached by Peter, three thousand were converted, and added to them; after that, they are said to be about five thousand, and still multitudes were added, both of men and women, and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith; so that before the dispersion of the church at Jerusalem by a persecution, there might be at least such a number called by grace, as God had reserved in Elijah's time; though these, when compared with the generality of the nation, which remained in unbelief, were but a few, and therefore called a "remnant", or a "reserve", as the word may be rendered; for these were a set of men, whom God had reserved and preserved in his Son, and in the covenant of his grace, from everlasting; and had kept a watchful eye over them in time, reserved them in his providence, and saved them to be called; and by calling them, had reserved them by his grace, and preserved them by his power, from the general unbelief, impenitence, blindness, and ignorance, which prevailed over the people of the Jews; which reserve was not owing to their superior goodness, they being in no wise, with respect to nature, birth, and privileges, better than those who were not reserved; nor to the disposition of their minds and wills, their minds and consciences being defiled, and their wills naturally as obstinate and perverse as others; nor to any good works done by them, since works before calling are not properly good, and those after are the fruits of that grace: but this reverse was made,

according to the election of grace; God's choice of these persons before the world was, which is the source and spring of all the blessings of grace, both in time eternity: hence these persons were put into the hands of Christ, secured in an everlasting covenant, took special care of by divine Providence, were called by grace, justified, sanctified, and at last glorified: and this choice is owing to grace, for not men's choice of God's grace, but God's choice, owing to his, own grace, is here meant. The Pelagians would have it, that this election is the choice which man makes of the grace of God: whereas such is the enmity of mans nature, and will against God and his grace, that he would never make choice of that, if the grace of God did not first make choice of him, and lay hold upon him: grace here, does not design the object of the choice, but the cause, spring, and motive of it, which is not any habit or quality in men, as faith and holiness, for these are fruits and effects of electing grace, and so not causes, motives, or conditions of it, but the free love and favour of God in his own heart; and shows the sovereignty and freeness of election, which is no ways depending on the will and works of men, but upon the sovereign good will and pleasure of God.

Gill: Rom 11:6

And if by grace, then is it no more of works,.... Upon election, being called "the election of grace", the apostle forms an argument, showing the contrariety and inconsistency of grace, and works, in that affair; proving, that it must be by the one or the other: and if by the one, then not by the other; and that these two cannot be mixed and blended together in this matter. If election is "by grace", as it certainly is; for no other reason can be given why God has chose one, and not another, but his own sovereign pleasure, or that free favour and unmerited love, with which he loves one and not another; and not because they are better, or had done or would do better things than others; "then it is no more", or not at all, for it never was "of works", was not influenced by them, does not arise from them, for it passed before ever any were done; and those that are done aright spring from it, and therefore could never be the rule and measure, causes, motives, and conditions of it;

otherwise grace is no more grace; for

"grace (as Austin has long ago observed) is not grace, unless it is altogether freed;''

it will lose its nature, and ought to change its name, and be no more called or reckoned grace, but a due debt; and a choice of persons to salvation should be thought, not to be what God is free to make or not, but what he is obliged to, as a reward of debt to men's works:

but if it be of works, then it is no more grace; if election springs from, and depends upon the works of men, let no man ascribe it to the grace of God; for there is nothing of grace in it, if this be the case:

otherwise work is no more work; that will free gift: but these things are contrary to one another; and so unalienable and unalterable in their natures, that the one cannot pass into the other, or the one be joined with the other, in this or any other part of man's salvation; for what is here said of election, holds true of justification, pardon of sin, and the whole of salvation. The Ethiopic version applies it to justification.

Gill: Rom 11:7

What then?.... What can be said to the point the apostle is upon? it is as clear as the sun, out of all question, that God has not cast away all the people of the Jews, nor any whom he foreknew, any age or period of time; neither in the time Elijah, nor in the apostle's, he always having a reserve of some for himself; which reserve is owing to a previous choice of them, and that previous choice to ascribed not to any works of theirs, but to his free grace and sovereign pleasure. Indeed

Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; that is, carnal Israel, the body and bulk of that people; who sought for life and righteousness by their obedience to the law, and which they in general were in quest of, and pursuit after, but did not obtain, though, some of them might imagine they did; for the thing was impracticable and impossible, no life nor righteousness are ever to be had by the law of works; they did not obtain life and righteousness, because they sought them in a wrong place and in a wrong way; they sought them not by faith in Christ Jesus, where they are only to be had, but by their own works, which fall abundantly short of procuring them for them:

but the election hath obtained it. The apostle divides Israel into two parts, "the election and the rest": by "the election" he means, elect men, the remnant among them, whom God had reserved for himself; just as "circumcision" designs circumcised persons, and "uncircumcision" uncircumcised persons, and "calling" called ones, and "righteousness" righteous men and women; see Rom 3:30 2Pe 3:13. Now these chosen ones obtained mercy, grace, life, and righteousness in Christ, as the apostle himself did, who was one of them; and that by virtue, and in consequence of their election, for which reason the word is here used; hence mercy was shown them, grace was bestowed upon them, the righteousness of Christ was imputed to them, faith was given them, holiness was wrought in them, and they entitled to, and made meet for eternal life: these among Israel then obtained such favours and blessings; and so God's elect, in all ages and nations, obtain the same things, and will obtain; for the purpose of God according to election stands sure, his word and oath are immutable, his covenant inviolable, his grace inalienable, and his power omnipotent:

and the rest were blinded: the non-elect, or those who were not chosen and reserved, to whom Christ was "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence"; and who "stumbled at the word" of the Gospel, "being disobedient" to the divine revelation, "whereunto they were appointed", 1Pe 2:8; hence they obtained no mercy, grace, faith, life, righteousness, and eternal salvation, but were "blinded"; left in that native blindness and ignorance, in which they were born and brought up; were blinded by themselves wilfully more and more; as they knew not the Messiah, so neither would they understand; they sinned wilfully against light knowledge; they shut their eyes against all that evidence and demonstration given, of Jesus of Nazareth being the Messiah, by his doctrines and miracles; and they were blinded by Satan, the god of this world, by whom they were led captive; who wrought effectually in them, and stirred up the malice and enmity of their minds against Christ and his Gospel; for they were of their father the devil, and his lusts they would do; and they were also blinded by God himself, so that they could not believe; for after all this, it was but just with God to give them up to judicial blindness and hardness of heart.

Gill: Rom 11:8

According as it is written,.... In Isa 29:10 which passages the apostle seems to refer to, though it is not exactly word for word as here, yet the sense is the same:

God hath given them the spirit of slumber; or of stupidity and insensibility, so that they were as persons in a deep sleep; their senses locked up, without any knowledge of, or concern about, the danger they were in; having no sense of sin, or of the need of a Saviour; or of their being upon the borders of eternal ruin and damnation, or of any ways and means to escape it; but careless and secure, as persons fast asleep in the midst of the sea, or upon the top of a mast, who, when stricken and beaten, feel it not; but if by jogging are awaked at all, immediately return to sleep again, and so sleep the sleep of eternal death:

eyes that they should not see; which being closed by the deep sleep and stupidity of mind they were judicially given up to, could see no beauty in Christ, wherefore they should desire him; none of the glories and excellencies of his person, blood, righteousness, and sacrifice; noticing amiable and agreeable in his Gospel, and the truths of it; nor had they any light in the prophets of the Old Testament, which were so remarkably fulfilled in him; their minds were blinded, a vail was upon their hearts, and which remains to this day:

and ears that they should not hear; for persons in a sleep, as their eyes are closed that they cannot see, so their ears are stopped that they cannot hear: and thus it was with these Jews, the awful judgment being upon them; they were uncircumcised in heart and ears; they were like the deaf adder, stopping their ears to the charming voice of Christ in the Gospel; and being given up in a judicial way, could neither understand his speech, nor hear his word: and this spirit of stupidity and insensibility, as it appeared in the times of Isaiah, so it continued

unto this day; the then present time, in which the apostle lived; and has continued ever since, at least in part, and will until the fulness of the Gentiles is brought in. These passages, with some others following, are produced by the apostle out of their own prophets, to take off their resentment against him; and lest, he should be thought to be severe upon them, when he said no more of them, but what had been prophesied long before concerning them. So Jarchi on Isa 29:10; says, that Isaiah prophesies על פושעי ישראל, "concerning the transgressors of Israel".

Gill: Rom 11:9

And David saith,.... That is, Christ by the mouth of David, or David in the person of Christ; for the psalm out of which the following words are taken is a prophecy of the Messiah, as appears from some passages cited out of it in the New Testament, and applied to Christ; compare Rom 11:4 with Joh 15:25, and Rom 11:9 with Joh 2:17, and Rom 11:21 with Joh 19:28; and what are here cited are not so much imprecations, as predictions of what should befall the Jews, by way of recompense for their ill usage of the Messiah, in giving him gall for meat, and vinegar for drink, Mat 27:34,

let their table be made a snare, and a trap and a stumbling block. By their "table" may be meant, the altar; see Mal 1:7; and the sacrifices offered up upon it, their meat offerings and drink offerings, and all others; likewise the laws concerning the difference of meats, and indeed the whole ceremonial law may be intended, which lay in meats and drinks, and such like things: now the Jews placing their justifying righteousness before God, in the observance of these rites and ceremonies, and imagining that by these sacrifices their sins were really expiated and atoned for, they neglected and submitted not to the righteousness of Christ, but went about to establish their own; so that that which should have led them to Christ, became an handwriting of ordinances against them, and rendered Christ of no effect to them: moreover, the sacred writings, which are full of spiritual food and divine refreshment, the prophecies of the Old Testament, which clearly pointed out Christ, not being understood, but misapplied by them, proved a trap, a snare, and a stumbling block to them; so that they rejected the true Messiah, which issued in their utter ruin and destruction: yea, the preaching of the Gospel, the salutary truths and wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ, were a stumbling block to the Jews, nay, even the savour of death unto death. Though these words may be literally understood of their table mercies, the necessary provisions of life, their common food and drink, of which they had great scarcity in their last wars; so that they not only by wicked methods stole it from one another, but ate what was forbidden by their law, and what was abhorrent to nature, as one is said to eat her own child; nor is it to be overlooked what is suggested by some, that the passover may be meant by their "table"; which was their grand yearly feast, and which they were eating ^s when they were surrounded and taken by the Roman army, like birds in a net, or beasts in a trap: and all this as

a recompense to them; a just judgment upon them, by way of retaliation for their ill treatment of Christ when on the cross, giving him gall and vinegar for his meat and drink.

Gill: Rom 11:10

Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see,.... Which is to be understood not literally of their being struck with blindness, as the men of Sodom were by the angels, and as Elymas the sorcerer was by the Apostle Paul; but mystically, of the eyes of their understandings being darkened, as they were by themselves and by Satan, and judicially by God; so that they could not see into the true same of the prophecies and promises concerning Christ; and how all the characters of the Messiah met in Jesus of Nazareth; their eyes were so blinded, that they could see no beauty nor comeliness in him; no excellency in his person, nothing wonderful in his works, nor amiable in his doctrine; nay, not only spiritual things, the things of the Gospel, were hid from the most wise and prudent among them, from their doctors and Rabbins, but also the things which regarded their temporal peace and happiness were hid from their eyes; their eyes were not only darkened with respect to things spiritual and evangelical, but even with regard to things natural and civil: never did a people act more imprudently for their temporal safety and welfare, or appear so infatuated in all their conduct, as they did, as the history of their wars does abundantly declare:

and bow down their back alway; which may denote their subjection and bondage to the Romans, when taken and carried captive by them; who laid very heavy burdens on them, which bowed down their backs indeed, multitudes of them being condemned to the mines; or this may design the general disposition of the minds of these people, which are bowed to the earth, for they mind nothing but earth and earthly things; the acquiring of which they are bent upon at any rate, and are infamous for their earthly mindedness, covetousness, extortion, usury, tricking, and over reaching: or this phrase may be expressive of that trembling, distress, horror, and despair, which shall seize them; especially when the son of man comes in the clouds of heaven, and they that have pierced him shall behold him, and wail because of trim; for in the Psalms the words are, "make their loins continually to shake", Psa 69:23.

Gill: Rom 11:11

I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall?.... This is an objection, which the apostle takes from the mouth of an adversary; and the purport of it is, you say that the people of the Jews being blind, have stumbled at Christ and his Gospel, as was prophesied of them, and to which they were appointed; pray what were God's view and end in this? was it that they should fall and perish eternally? if it be so, is not this doing himself, what he forbids others, namely, "to put a stumblingblock before the blind?" Lev 19:14, and can he be excused from cruelty, and rejoicing at the misery of others? or is their stumbling permitted, that they should "all" fall through unbelief, and be cast away? and so it is an objection of the same kind with Rom 11:1; or since they have stumbled, and have thereby fell into a forlorn and miserable condition, are they always to continue in it, as the last clause in the above cited passage suggests? To which the apostle answers,

God forbid; neither of these are to be admitted of. The end which God had in view, in suffering the Jews to stumble and fall, was not their destruction, but rather the salvation of the Gentiles; and especially not the destruction of "all" of them, blindness had only happened "in part" to them; for there was a remnant among them according to the election of grace, which should be saved; a chosen number, which obtained life and righteousness by Christ; yea, a fulness of them, how small soever their number might be now, which should be brought in; and still less that they should always continue in this sad condition, their unbelief had brought them into; for the time would come, when there would be a receiving of them as life from the dead, when all Israel should be saved. And at present there appeared nothing ill in view,

but rather through their fall, salvation is come unto the Gentiles. That is, the Gospel; which is sometimes called salvation, the Gospel of our salvation, the word of "salvation"; because it is a declaration of salvation by Christ, and is the power of God unto it; or a means made effectual by the power of God to convince persons, both of their need, and of the worth of it, and also a means of the application of it to them, by the Spirit of God: now this came to the Gentiles by the ministry of the apostles, according to the orders and command of Christ; and that through the fall of the Jews, their unbelief and rejection of the Messiah; for the Gospel was first preached to them, but they contradicting and blaspheming it, the apostles turned to the Gentiles, and preached it to them, as the Lord had commanded them: and thus they came to be acquainted with the doctrine of salvation by a crucified Christ, and to have it powerfully applied to their souls by the Spirit of God; when salvation might be said to "come" to them, in such sense as our Lord says it did to Zacchaeus and his house, Luk 19:9, and another end is to be answered hereby; which is

for to provoke them to jealousy: that is, to provoke the Jews to jealousy; not in an ill sense, as in Rom 10:19, and as they were provoked upon the first sending of the Gospel to the Gentiles, and the calling of them, when they discovered a great deal of envy, wrath, and bitterness; but in a good sense, as will appear in the latter day, when being convinced of their sin in rejecting the Messiah, and observing the many advantages the Gentiles have received by embracing him, and they have lost by their contempt of him, will be provoked to an holy emulation of them, and be stirred up through their means to seek the Lord their God, and David their King; and thus things will wind about in Providence. The fall of the Jews makes way for the Gospel among the Gentiles; and this having had its effects with them, will be a means of putting the Jews upon serious thoughts about, and a studious inquiry after, the true Messiah, and salvation by him; all which is a full answer to the question, and the objection contained in it.

Gill: Rom 11:12

Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world,.... By "the world", as is clear from the next clause, is meant the Gentiles; who were frequently called so by the Jews, who reckoned themselves to be "the church", and all the nations round about them, "the world"; which observation may serve to illustrate other passages of Scripture; see Joh 3:16; now the fall of the Jews, which was a lessening of them, was the riches of the Gentiles;

and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; the number of the true believers in Christ among them were very few, the generality of them received him not, but stumbled at him, and fell through unbelief; but the few that did believe were the means of carrying and spreading the Gospel, which is, "the unsearchable riches of Christ", Eph 3:8, in the Gentile world: thus at first a persecution being raised against the church at Jerusalem, the ministers of the Gospel were scattered abroad, and went everywhere preaching the word; and afterwards the Jews behaving in a very indecent manner towards the apostles of Christ, they turned in a manner wholly to the Gentiles; and thus by the means of a few, a diminutive company, of which the Apostle Paul was one, the Gospel, the pearl of great price, treasure hid in a field, and put into earthen vessels, was carried into the Heathen world, and by it they were enriched. This handful of men that went out of Judea, were the means of converting vast numbers, large multitudes of souls among the Gentiles, which may be also designed by "riches": this word sometimes signifying plenty, see Rom 2:4; and also of enriching them with the gifts and graces of the Spirit, and of directing them to Christ, who has durable riches, treasures of wisdom and knowledge, riches of grace, and riches of glory. Now the apostle argues, that if such a small number of the Jews who embraced Christ, were of so much advantage to the Gentiles,

how much more their fulness? when converts to Christ among them will be as the sand of the sea, a nation of them shall be born again at once, and all Israel be saved. This will be a great accession to the Gentile church, bring much glory to it, contribute greatly to its welfare, and be a means of establishing their faith, and of putting fresh life and vigour into them, and of inspiring them with more zeal for Christ, and for his honour and glory.

Gill: Rom 11:13

For I speak to you Gentiles,.... The church at Rome, as the primitive churches for the most part did, consisted of Jews and Gentiles; hence the apostle sometimes addresses the one, as in Rom 2:17, and sometimes the other, as here; and this he does to observe unto them the grace and goodness of God, in enriching them with the Gospel of salvation; and that they might not despise the Jews, from whom it first came out, and through whose fall it came to them, and was preached among them by some of that nation:

in as much as I am the apostle of the Gentiles. He was ordained and set apart by God, in his eternal purposes, to be a teacher of the Gentiles; he was sent immediately by Christ to bear his name among them, though not among them only, to the exclusion of the people of Israel; he chiefly preached the Gospel to them, though sometimes to the Jews also; and the success of his ministry was mostly among the uncircumcision, though he sought by all ways and means to gain both Jews and Gentiles: hence he addresses the Gentiles with greater freedom and boldness, because he was their apostle, and had been so useful among them; and is a reason why we Gentiles should have a special regard to his writings; for though every word of God is pure, and all Scripture is divinely inspired, and is profitable on one account or other; nor is any part of it to be slighted and neglected; yet as Paul's epistles are written chiefly to the Gentile churches, excepting that to the Hebrews, and which some question whether it is his, they ought especially to be attended to by us; though, alas, of all the inspired writings they are had in the least esteem:

I magnify mine office: not himself, for he was not of a self-exalting spirit, but humble and lowly minded, ready at all times to own himself to be less than the least of saints and the chief of sinners; but his office, which he had received from Christ, as an instance of his grace and favour. This was magnified partly by the miracles, signs, and wonders done by him, in proof, and for the confirmation of his apostleship; and partly by his constant, diligent, and faithful preaching of the Gospel: as also by the unwearied pains he took to spread it far and near; and likewise by the numbers of souls he was the means of bringing to the knowledge of Christ; and it was no small accession of glory to his office, as an apostle of the Gentiles, that he was an instrument of the conversion of many among the Jews.

Gill: Rom 11:14

If by any means I may provoke to emulation,.... What he had in view, even in discharging his office among the Gentiles with so much labour, assiduity, and indefatigableness, was, that if possible he might stir up the Jews to emulate and imitate the Gentiles, in seeking after Christ; for these he means when he says,

them which are my flesh; they being his brethren and kinsmen according to the flesh, for it was common with the eastern nations to call such persons their flesh; see Gen 29:14; and carries in it a reason why he was so solicitous for their welfare, because of the relation of them to him, and the natural affection he bore towards them; and his hope was, that they seeing the nations of the earth blessed in the promised seed, through his preaching the Gospel to them, great gatherings of the people to Shiloh, and the Gentiles seeking to the root of Jesse, set up for an ensign to the people, might be provoked to an emulation of them; and likewise seek the Lord their God, and David their King, and thereby have his end he so much wished for and desired:

and might save some of them; he says "some", not all, for he knew the bulk of the people was rejected, only a seed was left among them, a remnant according to the election of grace that should be saved, and which did obtain righteousness and life, while the rest were blinded. The ministers of the Gospel may be said to save souls, not efficiently, for the author or efficient cause of salvation is God only; the Father has chose unto it, the Son has effected it, and the Spirit applies it; but instrumentally, as the word preached by them is the means of regeneration, faith, and conversion, with which salvation is connected: and as they show unto men the way of salvation, and encourage souls to believe in Christ, in whom alone it is. Now the apostle argues from his office, and the usefulness of it, to some among the Jews, to saving purposes, to prove that their rejection was not total.

Gill: Rom 11:15

For if the casting away of them,.... This argument, as before, in Rom 11:12, is from the lesser to the greater, showing that as the Gentiles received present advantage through the rejection of the Jews, they would receive far greater at their future recovery, and which proves that their rejection is not final; for by "the casting away of them", is meant the rejection of the Jews, and refers to God's writing a "Lo-ammi", Hos 1:9, upon them, and his taking away the Gospel from them, and which were the occasion of

the reconciling of the world, the Gentiles; not of God's drawing the scheme of their reconciliation in his Son; nor of the actual reconciliation of them by his sufferings and death; but of the Gospel, the word of reconciliation being carried among them upon the Jews' disbelief and contempt of it, which was made effectual by the power of divine grace, to the reconciling of them to God, to the, way of salvation by Christ; to be willing to serve him, and be saved by him; to, lay down their arms, surrender to his victorious grace, and become obedient to him both by word and deed; and if this was the case then, as it was, he asks

what shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead? By the receiving of them is meant the conversion of the Jews in the latter day, when they will be received by Christ, on whom they will look with an eye of faith, and mourn in an evangelical manner for their sins against him; who casts out none that come unto him, but receives them into his arms in the most kind and tender manner; and when they will be also openly received into the house and family of God, into the visible church of Christ; and as the apostle afterwards says, "be grafted into their own olive tree", Rom 11:24; and this their restoration will be as "life from the dead"; which regards not so much the quickening of the Jews themselves, though their conversion will be, as the conversion of every sinner is, a resurrection from the death of sin to a life of grace, and is so represented in Eze 37:1, but rather the reviving the work of God among the Gentile churches, who having lain long in a dead, lifeless, lukewarm, and indifferent frame of spirit, will be aroused and quickened, at this wonderful work of grace upon the Jews; and besides it will be as unexpected by them, and as surprising to them, as a person's being raised from the dead would be; yea as joyful, and as welcome to them, as if a man received his nearest relation and friend from the dead; add to this, and which some of the ancients make to be the sense of the place, quickly after the conversion of the Jews, the fulness of the Gentiles being brought in, and nothing more to be done in a way of grace, the first resurrection from the dead will follow, and happy is he that will have part in it.

Gill: Rom 11:16

For if the firstfruit be holy,.... Some by "the firstfruit" and "root" understand Christ, who is sometimes called, "the firstfruits of them that slept", 1Co 15:20, and "the root of Jesse and David", Isa 11:10, and indeed of all the righteous; and certain it is, that since he is holy, has all the holiness of his people in him, and is sanctification unto them, they shall be holy likewise; have it imparted to them in this life, and perfected in them in another: but this does not seem to agree with the apostle's argument. Others think that by them are meant the Jewish ancestors, and particularly Abraham, and dream of a holiness derived from him to his natural seed; but if no such holiness was derived from him to his immediate offspring, Ishmael, it can hardly be thought any should be communicated by him to his remote posterity; and to these here designed, at the distance of four or five thousand years from him: but by them are intended the first converts among the Jews, under the Gospel dispensation; it being usual with the apostle to call those persons, that were first converted in any place, the firstfruits of it; see Rom 16:5; These were they who received the firstfruits of the Spirit in Judea, and who first among the Jews hoped and believed in Christ; these were but few in number, as the "firstfruit" is but small in comparison of "the lump", and mean, abject, and despicable, as the "root" under, and in a dry ground is; but yet were pledges and presages of a larger number of souls among that people, to be converted in the latter day: now the apostle's argument is, "if the firstfruit be holy",

the lump is also holy, and if the root be holy, so are the branches; that is, that whereas those persons who were converted among the Jews, however few in number, and despicable in appearance they might be, yet were truly sanctified by the Spirit of God; and as they were, so should the whole body of that people be in the last days, "when holiness shall be upon the horses' bells, and every pot in Judah and Jerusalem shall be holiness unto the Lord of hosts", Zec 14:20, by which metaphorical expressions is meant, that holiness should be common to the whole nation, and all the inhabitants of it, of which the call of some few among them was a pledge and presage. The allusion in the former clause is to the holy offerings of firstfruits to the Lord, the two wave loaves, Lev 23:14, whereby the whole lump was sanctified, for after use throughout the year following; and that in the latter clause, to the holiness of trees; that is, to trees devoted to sacred use or that were planted in a field appropriated thereunto: hence we read ^t, that the men of Jericho permitted, or as other exemplars read it, cut down גמזיות של הקדש, "branches of holiness", or "holy branches"; and eat fallen fruit on the sabbath day. ^u Bartenora explains these branches, of such that grow upon a tree devoted to holy uses; and Maimonides ^w, observes, that they thought it lawful to eat what grew in a holy field.

Gill: Rom 11:17

And if some of the branches be broken,.... This is to be understood, not of the exclusion of the Jews from their national church; for the persons designed by the "branches", were the principal members of it, as the civil and ecclesiastical rulers, the priests, Scribes, and Pharisees, and the far greater part of the people; and on the other hand, the apostles and followers of Christ were put out of their synagogues, and deemed by them heretics and apostates: nor of the destruction of the Jewish nation, city, and temple; for as yet they existed as a nation, their city of Jerusalem was in being, and their temple standing: but of their being left out of the Gospel church, gathered among them, they not believing in the Messiah, but rejected and crucified him; and though afterwards the Gospel was preached to them, they despise it, contradicted, and blasphemed it; so that it pleased God to take it wholly away from them, when they might be truly said to be, "as branches broken off"; which phrase seems to be borrowed from Jer 11:16; they were withered, lifeless, and hopeless, being cast off by God, and neglected by his ministers, the Gospel being removed from them, and they without the means of grace and salvation: and this was the case of the generality of the people; for though the apostle only says "some", making the best of it in their favour against the Gentiles, and speaking in the softest terms; yet they were only a few, a seed, a remnant, that were taken into the Gospel church, and the rest were blinded, hardened, rejected, and left out for their unbelief:

and thou being a wild olive tree: speaking to the Gentiles, to some, not to all of them; for not a whole tree, but a part of one, what is cut out of it, a scion from it is grafted into another; and so they were a certain number which God took out from among the Gentiles, to be a people for his name and glory, and who before conversion were comparable to a wild olive tree; for though they might have some show of morality, religion, and worship, yet lived in gross ignorance, superstition, idolatry, and profaneness were destitute of a divine revelation, of all spiritual light and knowledge, of true righteousness and the grace of God; were barren and unfruitful in good works, were without hope, God and Christ in the world. This metaphor rather regards their character, case, and manners, than their original; in respect of which they and the Jews were on a level, being by nature equally corrupt, and children of wrath; and yet though a wild olive tree, were

grafted amongst them; meaning either the broken branches, in whose stead they were grafted; the Syriac version favours this sense, reading it בדוכתיהון, "in their place"; as also in Rom 11:19; and so the Ethiopic version: or rather the believing Jews, of whom the first Gospel church and churches consisted; for the Jews first trusted in Christ, received the firstfruits of the Spirit, and were first incorporated into a Gospel church state; and then the Gentiles which believed were received among them. The first coalition of Jews and Gentiles, or the ingrafting of the Gentiles in among the Jews that believed, was at Antioch, when dropping their distinctive names of Jews and Gentiles, they took the common name of Christians, Act 11:19. So that this is not to be understood of an ingrafting into Christ unless by a visible profession, but of being received into a Gospel church state; which is signified by the "olive tree" in the next clause:

and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; the Gospel church is so called for its excellency the olive tree being a choice tree, as they were a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; for its fruitfulness, bringing forth berries that are wholesome, delightful, and useful, so the saints are filled with the fruits of grace, and good works, which are by Christ to the praise and glory of God; for its beauty when laden with fruit, so a Gospel church is beautiful maintaining the purity of Gospel doctrine, discipline, worship and conversation; "his beauty shall be as the olive tree", Hos 14:6; see Jer 11:16; and for its verdure and durableness, and growing on the mountains, all which may denote the continuance and firmness of the church of Christ. Now the Gentiles being grafted into a Gospel church state with the believing Jews, partook of the same root and fatness as they did, being built upon the same "foundation of the apostles prophets", Eph 2:20; rooted, grounded, and built up in the same church state they enjoyed the same privileges, had the doctrines of Christ and his apostles preached to them, communicated with them in the ordinances of the Gospel, and were satisfied with the goodness and fatness of the house of God; for they became "fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel", Eph 3:6, the apostle speaks according to the nature of the olive tree, which is unctuous, from whence an oil is taken, which makes the face of man to shine, the fruit of which fattens those that are lean; and hence it loses not its leaves, δια το θερμον και λιπαρον, "because of its heat and fatness", as Plutarch ^x says.

Gill: Rom 11:18

Boast not against the branches,.... Those that were broken off: the apostle would not have them vaunt it over them, despise them, and trample upon them; but pity them, and pray for and be abundantly thankful and humbled before God, under a sense of Ida sovereign and distinguishing grace, who had settled them in a Gospel church state, who were before comparable to a wild olive tree; and much less should they glory over the believing Jews, among whom they were, there being no difference between them, for they were all one in Christ Jesus:

but if thou boast; but if such a vain temper of mind should prevail, he suggests they would do well to sit down and consider what little reason they had on their side to glory; and if such glorying and boasting, one against another was lawful, the Jews had the greatest reason for it; for, adds the apostle,

thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. The Jews received no advantages from the Gentiles, but on the contrary the Gentiles from the Jews, to whom were committed the oracles of God, and by whom they were faithfully kept and transmitted to the Gentiles; the Gospel itself came out first from among them; the first preachers of it were Jews, who carried it into the Gentile world, where it was greatly succeeded to the conversion of many, who by this means were brought into a Gospel church state, and so enjoyed all the privileges they did: yea, Christ himself, according to the flesh, came of them, was sent unto them, was the minister of them, lived and died among them, and wrought out the great salvation for his people; hence "salvation" itself is said to be "of the Jews", Joh 4:22, so that the root and foundation of all their enjoyments were from the Jews, and not those of the Jews from them; hence there was no room, nor reason, for boasting against them, and vaunting it over them.

Gill: Rom 11:19

Thou wilt say then,.... This is an objection which the apostle foresaw the Gentiles would make against what he had said, and in favour of their boasting;

the branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. The sense of which is, that the Jews were rejected and left out of the Gospel church, on purpose to make way for the Gentiles, that they might be put in their room; and consequently the Jews must be more vile and unworthy, and the Gentiles more deserving of such favours and privileges, or God would never have taken such a step, to leave out one to make room for the other.

Gill: Rom 11:20

Well,.... To this the apostle answers, by approving and granting in, part what was said, that the unbelieving Jews were broken off and rejected, and that the Gentiles that believed in Christ were grafted in among the Jews that professed his name; but then he tacitly denies that it was for their sakes, and their account, they were broken off, but for their own incredulity:

because of unbelief they were broken off; because of their unbelief and contempt of the Messiah, they were rejected of God, and died in their sins; that which excluded their forefathers from the land of Canaan, shut them out of the Gospel church state, and the kingdom of heaven:

and thou standest by faith; which is not of a man's self, but the gift of God; so that it was not by their merits, and better deservings, but by the grace of God that they were in the situation they were; they were blessed with faith in Christ, and having made a profession of it were admitted to Gospel ordinances, and into a Gospel church; and being helped hitherto to hold the profession of their faith in a becoming manner they stood their ground, and continued in their church relation; and therefore ought not to give way to a vain boasting spirit, but to be humble, modest, and dependent; wherefore he gives them this proper pertinent, and wholesome advice,

be not highminded, but fear. The apostle would have them not be elated with their gifts, privileges, and enjoyments, and look over others, or down upon them with contempt and disdain, considering that all they had and enjoyed were owing to the goodness of God, and not to any deserts of theirs; and therefore should fear the Lord and his goodness; for not a fear of hell and damnation, or a distrust of the grace of God, is here meant; but a fear of offending him, and that not from a dread of punishment, but from a sense of his grace and goodness; and also designs humility of soul, in opposition to pride, haughtiness, and elation of mind, a lowly carriage and behaviour to others, and an humble dependence on grace and strength from above, to enable to persevere and hold out to the end; for "let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall" into sin, 1Co 10:12; so as to dishonour God and Christ grieve the Holy Spirit, wound his own conscience, and bring himself under the censure of the church, and to be cut off from the good olive tree, the root and fatness of which he now partakes.

Gill: Rom 11:21

For if God spared not the natural branches,.... That is, executed his righteous judgments, inflicted due punishment upon the Jews, unchurched them, and stripped them of those privileges they enjoyed in a church state; who were the natural descendants of Abraham; were naturally, and as born into the world, in a national church state and in that national covenant God made with that people; to whom belonged a national adoption, in which sense they were the sons of God, his firstborn; they were chosen by him as a special and peculiar people, to very great favours and privileges; they were Christ's own, he came of them according to the flesh, and was particularly sent unto them, and ministered among them; wherefore, if, at last, God did not spare this people, though he had for a long time done it, but stirred up all his wrath against them, they disbelieving his Son, rejecting and despising the Messiah, and salvation by him, this should awaken the fear, care, and caution of the Gentiles in a church state, lest if they behave not well, he should deal in like manner with them:

take heed lest he also spare not thee; for whatever was done to the Jews in former or latter times, are written for the instruction and admonition of Gentiles; and the use they are to make thereof is, to be careful and cautious, lest by imbibing principles derogatory from the grace of God and glory of Christ, or by an unbecoming walk and conversation they provoke the Lord to unchurch them as he has done the Jews before them; and which they may the rather fear, since the Jews were the natural branches, and they formerly strangers and aliens.

Gill: Rom 11:22

Behold therefore the goodness, and severity of God,.... The consideration of both the grace and kindness of God to some, and his severity or strict justice towards others, is recommended by the apostle as very proper to abate pride, vain glory, and haughtiness of spirit; and to engage to humility, fear, care, and caution;

on them which fell, severity: the Jews who stumbled at Christ and his Gospel, and fell by unbelief, God in strict justice and righteous judgment not only destroyed, as afterwards their nation, city, and temple, and scattered them abroad in the world to be a reproach, a proverb, a taunt, and a curse in all places; but cast them off as his people, broke his covenant with them, took away his Gospel from them, left them out of a Gospel church state, except a few, and gave up the generality of them to blindness and hardness of heart; so that wrath is come upon them to the uttermost, both with respect to things civil and religious, and they continue as living standing monuments of God's severity and justice, to be beheld by us Gentiles with pity and concern, and to excite in us the fear of God, and caution as to our conduct and behaviour in the world, and in the church:

but towards thee, goodness; the Gentiles, who not only share in the goodness and grace of God, displayed in the election of many of them to eternal life, in their redemption by Christ, and the effectual calling of them by the grace of God; but in their church state, they being made fellow citizens with the saints, fellow heirs, and of the same body, and having a place and a name in God's house, better than that of sons and daughters; and therefore under great obligation to fear the Lord, and his goodness, and to walk worthy of the calling wherein they are called, in all humility and lowliness of mind:

if thou continue in his goodness; meaning not the love, grace, and free favour of God, or the grace of the Spirit, a continuance in which no "if" is to be put upon; for such who are interested in the love of God always continue in it, and nothing can separate them from it; and such as have the graces of the Spirit implanted in them, as faith, hope, and love, can never lose them; these always remain in them, and they in the possession of them, though not always in the exercise of them; but the goodness of God in a church state is here meant, as the means of grace and comfort, the ministration of the word and ordinances; and the sense is, if thou dost not despise the riches of divine goodness in a church relation, if thou dost not abuse it, or walk unworthy of it, if thou abidest by it, and retainest a value for it, thou wilt still share the advantages of it:

otherwise thou also shall be cut off; from the good olive tree, the Gospel church state, into which the Gentiles were taken; and which, with respect to particular persons, may intend the act of excommunication by the church, expressed in Scripture by purging the old leaven, putting away the wicked person, withdrawing from such that are disorderly, and rejecting heretics, that is, from the communion of the church; and with respect to whole bodies and societies, an entire unchurching of them by removing the Gospel, and the ordinances of it; which threatening has been awfully fulfilled in many Gentile churches, in Asia, Africa, and Europe; and therefore may serve to awaken our fear, care, and caution, lest we should be treated in like manner.

Gill: Rom 11:23

And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief,.... The apostle suggests that the Jews also might be recovered and brought into a Gospel church state, provided they did not continue in infidelity; but inasmuch as they seem to lie under invincible ignorance, obstinacy, and unbelief, and were such bitter enemies to the Gospel, and abhorrers of Gospel ordinances, and a Gospel church state; yea, that they must and will abide in unbelief, unless the Spirit of God convinces them of it, and it is given to them to believe in Christ, and they are powerfully drawn by the Father to come to the Son, there is no possibility or likelihood that they

shall be grafted in, or taken into a Gospel church state; to which the apostle answers, and argues for their ingrafting, and the possibility of it from the power of God:

for God is able to graft them in again; as many of them were in the times of the apostles, and some since, for nothing is impossible with God; he can remove their unbelief, knock off the shackles and fetters in which they are held, and bring, them out of the prison of infidelity, in which they are shut up; he is able to take away the blindness of their minds, and the hardness of their hearts, the veil that is over them, and turn them to the Lord; he can by his mighty power work faith in them, and cause them to look on him whom they have pierced, and mourn in an evangelical manner; he can bring them to Christ, and into his churches, and among his people, and fold them with the rest of his sheep; so that there one fold of Jew and Gentile, under one shepherd, Jesus Christ.

Gill: Rom 11:24

For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree,.... As the apostle argues the possibility of bringing the Jews into a Gospel church state, from the power of God; so here the probability of it, or the easiness and likelihood of its being performed, from the ingrafting of the Gentiles; who were originally like an olive tree,

which is wild by nature, grows in the field, bears no fruit, and is useless and unprofitable; so they by nature were sinners of the Gentiles, children of wrath, full of unrighteousness, without any fruit of holiness; being not within the pale of the Jewish church and commonwealth; but in the wide field of the world, worthless, and of no account; and yet many were "cut out of" this wild olive tree; were, through the ministration of the Gospel, by the power of divine grace separated from the rest of the world; were effectually called and brought into a Gospel church state; God took out from among them a people for his name. This their being cut out of the wild olive, as it expresses the power and grace of God towards them, it might teach them humility, as it led them to observe their original state and condition:

and wert grafted, contrary to nature, into a good olive tree: for an olive tree being full of fatness, will not admit of ingrafting; nor was it ever usual to ingraft upon olive; hence the Jews say ^y זתים אין בהן הרכבח, "there is no ingrafting on olives": besides, it is contrary to nature, use, and custom, to ingraft wild scions, or grafts of any sort into a good stock; but always good scions or grafts into a wild stock, for in wild hungry stocks, grafts grow best: but in the ingrafting of the Gentiles into a Gospel church state, just such a method was taken, as if a wild graft were let into a good stock; so that this ingrafting was not of nature, it was contrary to it; but of pure grace, and, sovereign good will and pleasure; and the apostle's argument is this, that if the Gentiles, who were originally as a wild olive tree; if some as grafts were taken out from among them, and, quite contrary to their own nature, and the nature of things, were, by the goodness and grace of God, grafted into a good olive, the Gospel church state;

how much more shall these which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? that there is a greater likelihood, and more easily may it be, according to all appearance of things, that the Jews, the natural branches or descendants of Abraham, should be brought into a Gospel church state, which first began among them, and which at first only consisted of some of their nation. The Gospel church is called "their own olive tree", in allusion to Israel, or the Jewish church, which is often so called in their writings.

"Says ^z R. Joshua ben Levi, to what are the Israelites like? לזית, "to an olive tree"; to teach them that as the leaves of an olive tree do not fall, neither on sunshine days, nor on rainy days; so the Israelites will never cease, neither in this world, nor in the world to come; and says R. Jochanan, to what are the Israelites like? "to an olive"; to teach thee that as an olive does not send forth its oil, but by the means of pressing, so the Israelites do not return to do good, but by the means of chastisement:''

and says another ^a of their writers,

"as oil ascendeth above all liquids, and is not mixed with them; so the Israelites ascend above all nations, and are not mixed with them; and there is an intimation that they are even like לזית, "to an olive", that is pressed or squeezed; for so the Israelites are bruised and afflicted, and yet, notwithstanding all this, they ascend by virtue of the law, which is called "oil olive".''

It is easy to see from whence this simile is borrowed.

Gill: Rom 11:25

For I would not, brethren,.... The apostle in order to raise the attention of the Gentiles to what he was about to deliver to them, not only styles them "brethren", expressing his affection for them, and their relation to him and other believing Jews, and to one another, being all one in Christ Jesus, partakers of the same grace, and heirs of the same glory; but also tells them, that what he had to acquaint them with was a "mystery", a thing secret and hidden, which had not been heard of and known, at least not so fully and clearly as he was about to reveal it; and because of his great respect for them, he was unwilling, as he says,

that ye should be ignorant of this mystery; he was desirous that they should abound and improve in all spiritual knowledge and judgment, and, among the rest, be better informed of this particular article, the call of the Jews: and his view in apprizing them of it is expressed in the following clause,

lest ye should be wise in your own conceits: lest they should imagine that they were the only wise and knowing persons, and be elated in their minds with their knowledge and understanding, and look with contempt upon the poor, blind, ignorant Jews, as if they were always to remain in such a state of darkness and infidelity. The thing he had to inform them of is,

that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in; by Israel is meant the Jews, the descendants of Jacob, whose name was Israel. Philo the Jew observes ^b, that this name signifies ορασιν θεου, "the vision of God"; indeed, Jacob had it given him when he wrestled with the angel, and saw God face to face, though it does not seem to be for that reason; however, blindness had now befallen the Jews, who had been favoured with a divine revelation, with the knowledge of God, his will and worship; and none were more blind than those who were called the servants and messengers of the Lord of hosts, as the Scribes and Pharisees, the priests and princes of the Jewish world. This "blindness" designs their unbelief, the hardness of their hearts, and darkness of their understandings with respect to God himself, whom they knew not in Christ; not as the Father of Christ; nor even the perfections of his nature, particularly his righteousness; which was the reason of their setting up their own righteousness, and of their non-submission to the righteousness of Christ: they were blind as to the Messiah; they knew him not, when he came; they saw no beauty and comeliness in him; could not discern the characters of him in Jesus, though they were so manifest; and rejected him notwithstanding the clear evidence of his ministry and miracles. They were in the dark about the sense of the prophecies of the Old Testament; a vail was upon their hearts when they read them, so that they understood them not, and could not see their accomplishment in Christ; they were even ignorant of the law, the spiritual nature, true use, and right end and scope of it; and it is no wonder that the Gospel should be hidden from them. This blindness "happened" to them not by chance, but befell them by the decree, and according to the will of God, who hardens whom he pleases; and according to various predictions in the Old Testament, cited in Mat 13:14; and in righteous judgment, for since they liked not to retain God and his Christ in their knowledge, it was but just in God to give them up to reprobate minds, to judicial blindness, and hardness of heart: but then this blindness only happened to them "in part"; not that it was only in some measure or some degree, for it was total, they were darkness itself, and had no spiritual and evangelic light at all on whom it fell; but that this blindness was not general with respect to persons, there were some few, a seed, a remnant, that were delivered from it, though the far greater part of the nation were involved in it, and continue in it to this day; and will do, "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in": that is, till the whole number of God's elect among them, be called and brought into the Gospel church state, which in the latter day will be very great; when the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea; when the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ; and the abundance of the sea shall be converted, and the forces of the Gentiles shall come to the church, and multitudes of them shall flock thither, as doves to their windows: and since the blindness of the Jews is not yet removed, it seems plain that the full number of God's chosen ones among the Gentiles is not yet completed in regeneration; for as soon as ever they are all called and brought in, the vail will be taken away from the Jews, and they will be turned unto the Lord.

Gill: Rom 11:26

And so all Israel shall be saved,.... Meaning not the mystical spiritual Israel of God, consisting both of Jews and Gentiles, who shall appear to be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation, when all God's elect among the latter are gathered in, which is the sense many give into; but the people of the Jews, the generality of them, the body of that nation, called "the fulness" of them, Rom 11:12, and relates to the latter day, when a nation of them shall be born again at once; when, their number being as the sand of the sea, they shall come up out of the lands where they are dispersed, and appoint them one head, Christ, and great shall be the day of Jezreel; when they as a body, even the far greater part of them that shall be in being, shall return and seek the Lord their God, and David their King; shall acknowledge Jesus to be the true Messiah, and shall look to him, believe on him, and be saved by him from wrath to come. There is a common saying among them ^c, כל ישראל יש להם חלק לעולם הבא, "all Israel shall have a part", or "portion in the world to come"; and in support of this they usually produce the passage in Isa 60:21, "thy people also shall be all righteous": yea, they even go so far as to say ^d,

"that hell fire will have no power over the transgressors of Israel;''

fancying, that every individual person of their nation will be saved; though they sometimes except such who deny the resurrection of the dead, and that the law is from heaven, or is an epicure, and he that reads foreign books, or is an enchanter, or pronounces the ineffable name: but the apostle is not to be understood with such a latitude; he refers to the last times, and to a very general conversion of them to the Messiah:

as it is written, Isa 59:20,

there shall come out of Zion the Deliverer: the words of the prophet are, "and the Redeemer shall come to Zion": by the Redeemer, or Deliverer, words of the same signification, is meant the Messiah, as the Jews ^e themselves own, and apply this passage to him; who is the "Goel", or near kinsman of his people, to whom the right of their redemption belongs as man; and who as God was able to effect it, and, as God-man and Mediator, was every way qualified for it, and has obtained it for them: and whereas, in the prophet Isaiah, he is said to "come to", and by the apostle, "out of Zion", this may be reconciled by observing, that the servile letter ל sometimes signifies "from", as well as to, when it is put in the room of מ; of which instances may be given, as Exo 16:1 compared with 2Ch 11:4. Besides, the Messiah was to come out of Zion, as well as to come to it, according to Psa 14:7; so that the apostle fitly expresses the faith and expectation of the old Jewish church in this citation:

and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob; in the prophet it is, "and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob", Isa 59:20. The apostle follows the translation of the Septuagint, and which is favoured by the Chaldee paraphrase, which runs thus; "the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and to turn the rebellious ones of the house of Jacob to the law"; so that the Jew ^f has no reason to charge the apostle with a perversion of the prophet's words, when they are cited so agreeably to their own Targumist: and the sense of them relates not to what Christ did on the cross, when the iniquities of his people were laid on him, and he bore them, and removed them all in one day from them; but to what he will do to the Jews in the latter day, in consequence thereof; he will convince them of their ungodliness, give them repentance for it and remission of it.

Gill: Rom 11:27

For this is my covenant unto them,.... This is what God has promised to them in covenant, and he will be as good as his word; his covenant will never be broken, it will always remain sure and inviolable; so that there is not only a possibility, and a probability, but even a certainty, of the call and conversion of the Jews; which promise and covenant will have their accomplishment,

when I, saith the Lord,

shall take away their sins: some think that the apostle alludes to Jer 31:34; others, that he takes this passage out of Isa 27:9; where in the Septuagint version the selfsame phrase is used; though it may be no citation, or reference, but the apostle's own words, explaining what is meant by "turning away ungodliness from Jacob", Rom 11:26; and as before; regards not the taking away of their sins by the sacrifice of Christ, which is done already, and is what the blood of bulls and goats could not do; but of the removing of their sins from themselves, from their consciences, by the application of the blood of Christ, and the imputation of his righteousness.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Rom 11:3

¹ sn A quotation from 1 Kgs 19:10, 14.

NET Notes: Rom 11:4

¹ tn Grk “the revelation,” “the oracle.”

² tn The Greek term here is ἀνήρ (anhr), which only exceptionally is used in a generic sense of both males and females. In this context, it appears to be a generic usage (“people”) since when Paul speaks of a remnant of faithful Israelites (“the elect,” v. 7), he is not referring to males only. It can also be argued, however, that it refers only to adult males here (“men”), perhaps as representative of all the faithful left in Israel.

³ sn A quotation from 1 Kgs 19:18.

NET Notes: Rom 11:7

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has not been translated because of differences between Greek and English style.

NET Notes: Rom 11:8

¹ sn A quotation from Deut 29:4; Isa 29:10.

NET Notes: Rom 11:10

¹ sn A quotation from Ps 69:22-23.

NET Notes: Rom 11:11

¹ tn Grk “that they might fall.”

² tn Grk “them”; the referent (Israel, cf. 11:7) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

NET Notes: Rom 11:12

¹ tn Or “full inclusion”; Grk “their fullness.”

NET Notes: Rom 11:16

¹ tn Grk “firstfruits,” a term for the first part of something that has been set aside and offered to God before the remainder can be used.

² sn Most interpreters see Paul as making use of a long-standing metaphor of the olive tree (the root…the branches) as a symbol for Israel. See, in this regard, Jer 11:16, 19. A. T. Hanson, Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology, 121-24, cites rabbinic use of the figure of the olive tree, and goes so far as to argue that Rom 11:17-24 is a midrash on Jer 11:16-19.

NET Notes: Rom 11:17

¹ tn Grk “became a participant of.”

NET Notes: Rom 11:20

¹ tn Grk “well!”, an adverb used to affirm a statement. It means “very well,” “you are correct.”

NET Notes: Rom 11:22

¹ tn Greek emphasizes the contrast between these two clauses more than can be easily expressed in English.

² tn Grk “if you continue in (the) kindness.”

NET Notes: Rom 11:25

¹ tn Grk “brothers.” See note on the phrase “brothers and sisters” in 1:13.

² tn Or “Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.”

³ tn Grk “fullness.”

NET Notes: Rom 11:26

¹ tn It is not clear whether the phrase καὶ οὕτως (kai Joutws, “and so”) is to be understood in a modal sense (“and in this way”) or in a temporal sense (“and in the end”). Neither interpretation is conclusive from a grammatical standpoint, and in fact the two may not be mutually exclusive. Some, like H. Hübner, who argue strongly against the temporal reading, nevertheless continue to give the phrase a temporal significance, saying that God will save all Israel in the end (Gottes Ich und Israel [FRLANT], 118).

NET Notes: Rom 11:27

¹ sn A quotation from Isa 59:20-21.

² sn A quotation from Isa 27:9; Jer 31:33-34.

Geneva Bible: Rom 11:1

I say then, ^{( 1 )} Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For ^{( 2 )} I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin.

^{( 1 )} Now the apostle shows how this doctrine is to be applied to others, remaining still in his propounded cause. Therefore he teaches us that all the Jews in particular are not cast away, and therefore we ought not to pronounce rashly of individual persons, whether they are of the number of the elect or not. ^{( 2 )} The first proof: I am a Jew, and yet elected, therefore we may and ought fully to be sure of our election, as has been said before: but of another man's we cannot be so certainly sure, and yet ours may cause us to hope well of others.

Geneva Bible: Rom 11:2

^{( 3 )} God hath not cast away his people which he ^{( a )} foreknew. ^{( 4 )} Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

^{( 3 )} The second proof: because God is faithful in his league or covenant, even though men are unfaithful: so then, seeing that God has said that he will be the God of his own to a thousand generations, we must take heed that we do not think that the whole race and offspring is cast off, by reason of the unbelief of a few, but rather that we hope well of every member of the Church.

^{( a )} Whom he loved and chose from eternity past. ^{( 4 )} The third proof taken from the answer that was made to Elijah: even then also, when there appeared openly to the face of the world no elect, yet God knew his elect and chosen, and also that they were a great amount and number. Whereupon this also is concluded, that we ought not rashly to pronounce of any that he is a reprobate, seeing that the Church is often brought to that state, that even the most watchful and sharp-sighted pastors, think that it is completely extinct and put out.

Geneva Bible: Rom 11:4

But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have ^{( b )} reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to [the image of] ^{( c )} Baal.

^{( b )} He speaks of remnants and reserved people who were chosen from everlasting, and not of remnants that should be chosen afterwards: for they are not chosen, because they were not idolaters: but rather they were not idolaters, because they were chosen and elect.

^{( c )} "Baal" signifies as much as "master" or "patron", or one in whose power another is, which name the idolaters in this day give their idols, naming them "patrons", and "patronesses" or "ladies".

Geneva Bible: Rom 11:5

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the ^{( d )} election of grace.

^{( d )} The election of grace is not that by which men chose grace, but by which God chose us of his grace and goodness.

Geneva Bible: Rom 11:6

^{( 5 )} And if by grace, then [is it] ^{( e )} no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

^{( 5 )} Even though all are not elect and chosen, yet let those that are elected remember that they are freely chosen: and let those that stubbornly refuse the grace and free mercy of God impute it to themselves.

^{( e )} This saying demolishes the doctrine of all kinds and manner of works, by which our justifiers of themselves teach that works are either wholly or partly the cause of our justification.

Geneva Bible: Rom 11:7

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were ^{( f )} blinded

^{( f )} See (Mar 3:5).

Geneva Bible: Rom 11:8

^{( 6 )} (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of ^{( g )} slumber, eyes that they ^{( h )} should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

^{( 6 )} And yet this hardness of heart does not come except by God's just decree and judgment, and yet without fault, when he so punishes the unthankful by taking from them all sense and perseverance and by doubling their darkness, that the benefits of God which are offered to them, do result in their just destruction.

^{( g )} A very sound sleep, which takes away all sense.

^{( h )} That is, eyes unfit to see.

Geneva Bible: Rom 11:9

And David saith, ^{( i )} Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:

^{( i )} As unhappy birds are enticed by that which is their sustenance, and then killed, and so did that thing turn to the Jew's destruction, out of which they sought life, that is, the law of God, for the preposterous zeal of which they refused the Gospel.

Geneva Bible: Rom 11:11

^{( 7 )} I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

^{( 7 )} God appointed this casting off of the Jews, that it might be an occasion to call the Gentiles: and again might turn this calling of the Gentiles, to be an occasion to restore the Jews, that is, that they being inflamed and provoked by jealousy of the Gentiles, then might themselves at length embrace the Gospel. And by this we may learn that the severity of God serves for the setting forth of his glory as well as his mercy does, and also that God prepares himself a way to show mercy by his severity: so that we ought not rashly to despair of any man, nor proudly triumph over other men, but rather provoke them to a holy jealousy, that God may be glorified in them also.

Geneva Bible: Rom 11:12

Now if the fall of them [be] the ^{( k )} riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their ^{( l )} fulness?

^{( k )} By "riches" he means the knowledge of the Gospel to everlasting life: and by the "world", all nations dispersed throughout the whole world.

^{( l )} Of the Jews, when the whole nation without exception will come to Christ.

Geneva Bible: Rom 11:13

^{( 8 )} For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, ^{( m )} I magnify mine office:

^{( 8 )} He witnesses by his own example, that he goes before all others in this regard.

^{( m )} I make noble and famous.

Geneva Bible: Rom 11:15

For if the casting away of them [be] the reconciling of the world, what [shall] the receiving [of them be], ^{( n )} but life from the dead?

^{( n )} It will come to pass that when the Jews come to the Gospel, the world will as it were come to life again, and rise up from death to life.

Geneva Bible: Rom 11:16

^{( 9 )} For if the ^{( o )} firstfruit [be] holy, the lump [is] also [holy]: and if the root ^{( p )} [be] holy, so [are] the branches.

^{( 9 )} The nation of the Jews being considered in their head and root, that is, in Abraham, is holy, although many of the branches are cut off. Therefore in judging of our brethren, we must not dwell on their unworthiness, to think that they are at once all cast off, but we ought to consider the root of the covenant, and rather go back to their ancestors who were faithful, that we may know that the blessing of the covenant rests in some of their posterity, as we also find proof here in ourselves.

^{( o )} He alludes to the first fruits of those loaves, by the offering of which the whole crop of corn was sanctified, and they might use the rest of the crop for that year with good conscience.

^{( p )} Abraham.

Geneva Bible: Rom 11:17

^{( 10 )} And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in ^{( q )} among them, and with them ^{( r )} partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

^{( 10 )} There is no reason why the Gentiles who have obtained mercy, should triumph over the Jews who condemn the grace of God, seeing they are grafted in place of the Jews. But let them rather take heed, that also in them is not found that which is worthily condemned in the Jews. And from this also the general doctrine may be gathered and taken, that we ought to be zealous for God's glory, even in regards to our neighbours: and we should be very far from bragging and glorying because we are preferred before others by a singular grace.

^{( q )} In place of those branches which are broken off.

^{( r )} It is against the common manner of farming, that the barren juice of the young shoot is changed with the juice of the good tree.

Geneva Bible: Rom 11:18

^{( s )} Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

^{( s )} We may rejoice in the Lord, but in such a way that we do not despise the Jews, whom we ought rather to encourage to join in the good battle with us.

Geneva Bible: Rom 11:20

Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but ^{( t )} fear:

^{( t )} See that you stand in awe of God modestly, and carefully.

Geneva Bible: Rom 11:21

For if God spared not the ^{( u )} natural branches, [take heed] lest he also spare not thee.

^{( u )} He calls them natural, not because they had any holiness by nature, but because they were born of those whom the Lord set apart for himself from other nations, by his league and covenant which he freely made with them.

Geneva Bible: Rom 11:22

^{( 11 )} Behold therefore the ^{( x )} goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in [his] ^{( y )} goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

^{( 11 )} Seeing that the matter itself declares that election comes not by inheritance (although the fault is in men, and not in God, why the blessing of God is not perpetual) we must take good heed that those things are not found in ourselves, which we think blameworthy in others, for the election is sure, but those that are truly elect and ingrafted, are not proud in themselves with contempt of others, but with due reverence to God, and love towards their neighbour, run to the mark which is set before them.

^{( x )} The tender and loving heart.

^{( y )} In that state which God's bountifulness has advanced you to: and we must mark here that he is not speaking of the election of every individual man, which remains steadfast forever, but of the election of the whole nation.

Geneva Bible: Rom 11:23

^{( 12 )} And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

^{( 12 )} Many are now for a season cut off, that is, are without the root, who in their time will be grafted in: and again there are a great number who after a certain manner, and with regard to the outward show seem to be ingrafted, who nonetheless through their own fault afterwards are cut off, and completely cast away: which thing is especially to be considered in nations and peoples, as in the Gentiles and Jews.

Geneva Bible: Rom 11:24

For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by ^{( z )} nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a ^{( a )} good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural [branches], be graffed into their own olive tree?

^{( z )} Understand nature, not as it was first made, but as it was corrupted in Adam, and so passed on from him to his posterity.

^{( a )} Into the people of the Jews, whom God had sanctified only by his grace: and he speaks of the whole nation, not of any one part.

Geneva Bible: Rom 11:25

^{( 13 )} For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your ^{( b )} own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be ^{( c )} come in.

^{( 13 )} The blindness of the Jews is neither so universal that the Lord has no elect in that nation, neither will it be continual: for there will be a time in which they also (as the prophets have foretold) will effectually embrace that which they now so stubbornly for the most part reject and refuse.

^{( b )} That you are not proud within yourselves.

^{( c )} Into the Church.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Rom 11:1-36

1 God has not cast off all Israel.

7 Some were elected, though the rest were hardened.

16 There is hope of their conversion.

18 The Gentiles may not exult over them;

26 for there is a promise of their salvation.

33 God's judgments are unsearchable.

MHCC: Rom 11:1-10

There was a chosen remnant of believing Jews, who had righteousness and life by faith in Jesus Christ. These were kept according to the election of grace. If then this election was of grace, it could not be of works, either performed or foreseen. Every truly good disposition in a fallen creature must be the effect, therefore it cannot be the cause, of the grace of God bestowed on him. Salvation from the first to the last must be either of grace or of debt. These things are so directly contrary to each other that they cannot be blended together. God glorifies his grace by changing the hearts and tempers of the rebellious. How then should they wonder and praise him! The Jewish nation were as in a deep sleep, without knowledge of their danger, or concern about it; having no sense of their need of the Saviour, or of their being upon the borders of eternal ruin. David, having by the Spirit foretold the sufferings of Christ from his own people, the Jews, foretells the dreadful judgments of God upon them for it, Psalms 69. This teaches us how to understand other prayers of David against his enemies; they are prophecies of the judgments of God, not expressions of his own anger. Divine curses will work long; and we have our eyes darkened, if we are bowed down in worldly-mindedness.

MHCC: Rom 11:11-21

The gospel is the greatest riches of every place where it is. As therefore the righteous rejection of the unbelieving Jews, was the occasion of so large a multitude of the Gentiles being reconciled to God, and at peace with him; the future receiving of the Jews into the church would be such a change, as would resemble a general resurrection of the dead in sin to a life of righteousness. Abraham was as the root of the church. The Jews continued branches of this tree till, as a nation, they rejected the Messiah; after that, their relation to Abraham and to God was, as it were, cut off. The Gentiles were grafted into this tree in their room; being admitted into the church of God. Multitudes were made heirs of Abraham's faith, holiness and blessedness. It is the natural state of every one of us, to be wild by nature. Conversion is as the grafting in of wild branches into the good olive. The wild olive was often ingrafted into the fruitful one when it began to decay, and this not only brought forth fruit, but caused the decaying olive to revive and flourish. The Gentiles, of free grace, had been grafted in to share advantages. They ought therefore to beware of self-confidence, and every kind of pride or ambition; lest, having only a dead faith, and an empty profession, they should turn from God, and forfeit their privileges. If we stand at all, it is by faith; we are guilty and helpless in ourselves, and are to be humble, watchful, afraid of self-deception, or of being overcome by temptation. Not only are we at first justified by faith, but kept to the end in that justified state by faith only; yet, by a faith which is not alone, but which worketh by love to God and man.

MHCC: Rom 11:22-32

Of all judgments, spiritual judgments are the sorest; of these the apostle is here speaking. The restoration of the Jews is, in the course of things, far less improbable than the call of the Gentiles to be the children of Abraham; and though others now possess these privileges, it will not hinder their being admitted again. By rejecting the gospel, and by their indignation at its being preached to the Gentiles, the Jews were become enemies to God; yet they are still to be favoured for the sake of their pious fathers. Though at present they are enemies to the gospel, for their hatred to the Gentiles; yet, when God's time is come, that will no longer exist, and God's love to their fathers will be remembered. True grace seeks not to confine God's favour. Those who find mercy themselves, should endeavour that through their mercy others also may obtain mercy. Not that the Jews will be restored to have their priesthood, and temple, and ceremonies again; an end is put to all these; but they are to be brought to believe in Christ, the true Messaih whom they crucified, and become one sheep-fold with the Gentiles, under Christ the Great Shepherd. The captivities of Israel, their dispersion, and their being shut out from the church, are emblems of the believer's corrections for doing wrong; and the continued care of the Lord towards that people, and the final mercy and blessed restoration intended for them, show the patience and love of God.

Matthew Henry: Rom 11:1-32

The apostle proposes here a plausible objection, which might be urged against the divine conduct in casting off the Jewish nation (Rom 11:1): " Hath God cast away his people? Is the rejection total and final? Are they all abandoned to wrath and ruin, and that eternal? Is the extent of the sentence so large as to be without reserve, or the continuance of it so long as to be without repeal? Will he have no more a peculiar people to himself?"In opposition to this, he shows that there was a great deal of goodness and mercy expressed along with this seeming severity, particularly he insists upon three things: - 1. That, though some of the Jews were cast off, yet they were not all so. 2. That, though the body of the Jews were cast off, yet the Gentiles were taken in. And, 3. That, though the Jews were cast off at present, yet in God's due time they should be taken into his church again.

I. The Jews, it is true, were many of them cast off, but not all. The supposition of this he introduces with a God forbid. He will by no means endure such a suggestions. God had made a distinction between some of them and others.

1. There was a chosen remnant of believing Jews, that obtained righteousness and life by faith in Jesus Christ, Rom 11:1-7. These are said to be such as he foreknew (Rom 11:2), that is, had thoughts of love to, before the world was; for whom he thus foreknew he did predestinate. her lies the ground of the difference. They are called the election (Rom 11:7), that is, the elect, God's chosen ones, whom he calls the election, because that which first distinguished them from the dignified them above others was God's electing love. Believers are the election, all those and those only whom God hath chosen. Now,

(1.) He shows that he himself was one of them: For I also am an Israelite; as if he had said, "Should I say that all the Jews are rejected, I should cut off my own claims, and see myself abandoned."Paul was a chosen vessel (Act 9:15), and yet he was of the seed of Abraham, and particularly of the tribe of Benjamin, the least and youngest of all the tribes of Israel.

(2.) He suggests that as in Elias's time, so now, this chosen remnant was really more and greater than one would think it was, which intimates likewise that it is no new nor unusual thing for God's grace and favour to Israel to be limited and confined to a remnant of that people; for so it was in Elijah's time. The scripture saith it of Elias, en Hēlia - in the story of Elias, the great reformer of the Old Testament. Observe, [1.] His mistake concerning Israel; as if their apostasy in the days of Ahab was so general that he himself was the only faithful servant God had in the world. He refers to 1Ki 19:14, where (it is here said) he maketh intercession to God against Israel. A strange kind of intercession: entunchanei tō Theō kata tou Israēl - He deals with God against Israel; so it may be read; so entunchanō is translated, Act 25:24. The Jews enetuchon moi - have dealt with me. In prayer we deal with God, commune with him, discourse with him: it is said of Elijah (Jam 5:17) that he prayed in praying. We are then likely to pray in praying, to make a business of that duty, when we pray as those that are dealing with God in the duty. Now Elijah in this prayer spoke as if there were one left faithful in Israel but himself. See to what a low ebb the profession of religion may sometimes be brought, and how much the face of it may be eclipsed, that the most wise and observing men may give it up for gone. So it was in Elijah's time. That which makes the show of a nation is the powers and the multitude. The powers of Israel were then persecuting powers: They have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars, and they seek my life. The multitude of Israel were then idolatrous: I am left alone. Thus those few that were faithful to God were not only lost in the crowd of idolaters, but crushed and driven into corners by the rage of persecutors. When the wicked rise, a man is hidden, Pro 28:12. - Digged down thine altars; not only neglected them, and let them go out of repair, but digged them down. When altars were set up for Baal, it is no wonder if God's altars were pulled down; they could not endure that standing testimony against their idolatry. This was his intercession against Israel; as if he had said, "Lord, is not this a people ripe for ruin, worthy to be cast off? What else canst thou do for thy great name?"It is a very sad thing for any person or people to have the prayers of God's people against them, especially of God's prophets, for God espouses, and sooner or later will visibly own, the cause of his praying people. [2.] The rectifying of this mistake by the answer of God (Rom 11:4): I have reserved. Note, First, Things are often much better with the church of God than wise and good men think they are. They are ready to conclude hardly, and to give up all for gone, when it is not so. Secondly, In times of general apostasy, there is usually a remnant that keep their integrity - some, though but a few; all do not go one way. Thirdly, That when there is a remnant who keep their integrity in times of general apostasy it is God that reserves to himself that remnant. If he had left them to themselves, they had gone down the stream with the rest. It is his free and almighty grace that makes the difference between them and others. - Seven thousand: a competent number to bear their testimony against the idolatry of Israel, and yet, compared with the many thousands of Israel, a very small number, one of a city, and two of a tribe, like the grape-gleanings of the vintage. Christ's flock is but a little flock; and yet, when they come all together at last, they will be a great and innumerable multitude, Rev 7:9. Now the description of this remnant is that they had not bowed the knee to the image of Baal, which was then the reigning sin of Israel. In court, city, and country, Baal had the ascendant; and the generality of people, more or less, paid their respect to Baal. The best evidence of integrity is a freedom from the present prevailing corruptions of the times and places that we live in, to swim against the stream when it is strong. Those God will own for his faithful witnesses that are bold in bearing their testimony to the present truth, 2Pe 1:12. This is thank-worthy, not to bow to Baal when every body bows. Sober singularity is commonly the badge of true sincerity. [3.] The application of this instance to the case in hand: Even so at this present time, Rom 11:5-7. God's methods of dispensation towards his church are as they used to be. As it has been, so it is. In Elijah's time there was a remnant, and so there is now. If then there was a remnant left under the Old Testament, when the displays of grace were less clear and the pourings out of the Spirit less plentiful, much more now under the gospel, when the grace of God, which bringeth salvation, appears more illustrious. - A remnant, a few of many, a remnant of believing Jews when the rest were obstinate in their unbelief. This is called a remnant according to the election of grace; they are such as were chosen from eternity in the counsels of divine love to be vessels of grace and glory. Whom he did predestinate those he called. If the difference between them and others be made purely by the grace of God, as certainly it is ( I have reserved them, saith he, to myself ), then it must needs be according to the election; for we are sure that whatever God does he does it according to the counsel of his own will. Now concerning this remnant we may observe, First, Whence it takes its rise, from the free grace of God (Rom 11:6), that grace which excludes works. The eternal election, in which the difference between some and others is first founded, is purely of grace, free grace; not for the sake of works done or foreseen; if so, it would not be grace. Gratia non est ullo modo gratia, si non sit omni modo gratuita - It is not grace, properly so called, if it be not perfectly free. Election is purely according to the good pleasure of his will, Eph 1:5. Paul's heart was so full of the freeness of God's grace that in the midst of his discourse he turns aside, as it were, to make this remark, If of grace, then not of works. And some observe that faith itself, which in the matter of justification if opposed to works, is here included in them; for faith has a peculiar fitness to receive the free grace of God for our justification, but not to receive that grace for our election. Secondly, What it obtains: that which Israel, that is, the body of that people, in van sought for (Rom 11:7): Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for, that is, justification, and acceptance with God (see Rom 9:31), but the election have obtained it. In them the promise of God has its accomplishment, and God's ancient kindness for that people is remembered. He calls the remnant of believers, not the elect, but the election, to show that the sole foundation of all their hopes and happiness is laid in election. They were the persons whom God had in his eye in the counsels of his love; they are the election; they are God's choice. Such was the favour of God to the chosen remnant. But,

2. The rest were blinded, Rom 11:7. Some are chosen and called, and the call is made effectual. But others are left to perish in their unbelief; nay, they are made worse by that which should have made them better. The gospel, which to those that believed was the savour of life unto life, to the unbelieving was the savour of death unto death. The same sun softens wax and hardens clay. Good old Simeon foresaw that the child Jesus was set for the fall, as well as for the rising again, of many in Israel, Luk 2:34. - Were blinded; epōrōthēsan - they were hardened; so some. They were seared, and made brawny and insensible. They could neither see the light, nor feel the touch, of gospel grace. Blindness and hardness are expressive of the same senselessness and stupidity of spirit. They shut their eyes, and would not see; this was their sin: and then God, in a way of righteous judgment, blinded their eyes, that they could not see; this was their punishment. This seemed harsh doctrine: to qualify it, therefore, he vouches two witnesses out of the Old Testament, who speak of such a thing.

(1.) Isaiah, who spoke of such a judgment in his day, Isa 29:10; Isa 6:9. The spirit of slumber, that is, an indisposedness to mind either their duty or interest. They are under the power of a prevailing unconcernedness, like people that are slumbering and sleeping; not affected with any thing that is said or done. They were resolved to continue as they were, and would not stir. The following words explain what is meant by the spirit of slumber: Eyes, that they should not see, and ears, that they should not hear. They had the faculties, but in the things that belonged to their peace they had not the use of those faculties; they were quite infatuated, they saw Christ, but they did not believe in him; they heard his word, but they did not receive it; and so both their hearing and their seeing were in vain. It was all one as if they had neither seen nor heard. Of all judgments spiritual judgments are the sorest, and most to be dreaded, though they make the least noise. - Unto this day. Ever since Esaias prophesied, this hardening work has been in the doing; some among them have been blind and senseless. Or, rather, ever since the first preaching of the gospel: though they have had the most convincing evidences that could be of the truth of it, the most powerful preaching, the fairest offers, the clearest calls from Christ himself, and from his apostles, yet to this day they are blinded. It is still true concerning multitudes of them, even to this day in which we live; they are hardened and blinded, the obstinacy and unbelief go by succession from generation to generation, according to their own fearful imprecation, which entailed the curse: His blood be upon us and upon our children.

(2.) David (Rom 11:9, Rom 11:10), quoted from Psa 69:22, Psa 69:23, where David having in the Spirit foretold the sufferings of Christ from his own people the Jews, particularly that of their giving him vinegar to drink (Rom 11:21, which was literally fulfilled, Mat 27:48), an expression of the greatest contempt and malice that could be, in the next words, under the form of an imprecation, he foretels the dreadful judgments of God upon them for it: Let their table become a snare, which the apostle here applies to the present blindness of the Jews, and the offence they took at the gospel, which increased their hardness. This teaches us how to understand other prayers of David against his enemies; they are to be looked upon as prophetic of the judgments of God upon the public and obstinate enemies of Christ and his kingdom. His prayer that it might be so was a prophecy that it should be so, and not the private expression of his own angry resentments. It was likewise intended to justify God, and to clear his righteousness in such judgments. He speaks here, [1.] Of the ruin of their comforts: Let their table be made a snare, that is, as the psalmist explains it, Let that which should be for their welfare be a trap to them. The curse of God will turn meat into poison. It is a threatening like that in Mal 2:2, I will curse your blessings. Their table a snare, that is, an occasion of sin and an occasion of misery. Their very food, that should nourish them, shall choke them. [2.] Of the ruin of their powers and faculties (Rom 11:10), their eyes darkened, their backs bowed down, that they can neither find the right way, nor, if they could, are they able to walk in it. The Jews, after their national rejection of Christ and his gospel, became infatuated in their politics, so that their very counsels turned against them, and hastened their ruin by the Romans. They looked like a people designed for slavery and contempt, their backs bowed down, to be ridden and trampled upon by all the nations about them. Or, it may be understood spiritually; their backs are bowed down in carnality and worldly-mindedness. Curvae in terris animae - They mind earthly things. This is an exact description of the state and temper of the present remainder of that people, than whom, if the accounts we have of them be true, there is not a more worldly, wilful, blind, selfish, ill-natured, people in the world. They are manifestly to this day under the power of this curse. Divine curses will work long. It is a sign we have our eyes darkened if we are bowed down in worldly-mindedness.

II. Another thing which qualified this doctrine of the rejection of the Jews was that though they were cast off and unchurched, yet the Gentiles were taken in (Rom 11:11-14), which he applies by way of caution to the Gentiles, Rom 11:17-22.

1. The rejection of the Jews made room for the reception of the Gentiles. The Jews' leavings were a feast for the poor Gentiles (Rom 11:11): " Have they stumbled that they should fall? Had God no other end in forsaking and rejecting them than their destruction?"He startles at this, rejecting the thought with abhorrence, as usually he does when any thing is suggested which seems to reflect upon the wisdom, or righteousness, or goodness of God: God forbid! no, through their fall salvation is come to the Gentiles. Not but that salvation might have come to the Gentiles if they had stood; but by the divine appointment it was so ordered that the gospel should be preached to the Gentiles upon the Jews' refusal of it. Thus in the parable (Mat 22:8, Mat 22:9), Those that were first bidden were not worthy - Go ye therefore into the highways, Luk 14:21. And so it was in the history (Act 13:46): It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you; but, seeing you put it from you, lo, we turn to the Gentiles; so Act 18:6. God will have a church in the world, will have the wedding furnished with guests; and, if one will not come, another will, or why was the offer made? The Jews had the refusal, and so the tender came to the Gentiles. See how Infinite Wisdom brings light out of darkness, good out of evil, meat out of the eater, and sweetness out of the strong. To the same purport he says (Rom 11:12), The fall of them was the riches of the world, that is, it hastened the gospel so much the sooner into the Gentile world. The gospel is the greatest riches of the place where it is; it is better than thousands of gold and silver. Or, The riches of the Gentiles was the multitude of converts among them. True believers are God's jewels. To the same purport (Rom 11:15): The casting away of them is the reconciling of the world. God's displeasure towards them made way for his favour towards the Gentiles. God was in Christ reconciling the world, 2Co 5:19. And therefore he took occasion from the unbelief of the Jews openly to disavow and disown them, though they had been his peculiar favourites, to show that in dispensing his favours he would now no longer act in such a way of peculiarity and restriction, but that in every nation he that feared God and wrought righteousness should be accepted of him, Act 10:34, Act 10:35.

2. The use that the apostle makes of this doctrine concerning the substitution of the Gentiles in the room of the Jews.

(1.) As a kinsman to the Jews, here is a word of excitement and exhortation to them, to stir them up to receive and embrace the gospel-offer. This God intended in his favour to the Gentiles, to provoke the Jews to jealousy (Rom 11:11), and Paul endeavours to enforce it accordingly (Rom 11:14): If by any means I might provoke to emulation those who are my flesh. "Shall the despised Gentiles run away with all the comforts and privileges of the gospel, and shall not we repent of our refusal, and now at last put in for a share? Shall not we believe and obey, and be pardoned and saved, as well as the Gentiles?"See an instance of such an emulation in Esau, Gen 28:6-9. There is a commendable emulation in the affairs of our souls: why should not we be as holy and happy as any of our neighbours? In this emulation there needs no suspicion, undermining or countermining; for the church has room enough, and the new covenant grace and comfort enough, for us all. The blessings are not lessened by the multitudes of the sharers. - And might save some of them. See what was Paul's business, to save souls; and yet the utmost he promises himself is but to save some. Though he was such a powerful preacher, spoke and wrote with such evidence and demonstration of the Spirit, yet of the many he dealt with he could but save some. Ministers must think their pains well bestowed if they can but be instrumental to save some.

(2.) As an apostle to the Gentiles, here is a word of caution for them: " I speak to you Gentiles. You believing Romans, you hear what riches of salvation are come to you by the fall of the Jews, but take heed lest you do any thing to forfeit it."Paul takes this, as other occasions, to apply his discourse to the Gentiles, because he was the apostle of the Gentiles, appointed for the service of their faith, to plant and water churches in the Gentile nations. This was the purport of his extraordinary mission, Act 22:21, I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles; compare Act 9:15. It was likewise the intention of his ordination, Gal 2:9. Compare Act 13:2. It ought to be our great and special care to do good to those that are under our charge: we must particularly mind that which is our own work. It was an instance of God's great love to the poor Gentiles that he appointed Paul, who in gifts and graces excelled all the apostles, to be the apostle of the Gentiles. The Gentile world was a wider province; and the work to be done in it required a very able, skilful, zealous, courageous workman: such a one was Paul. God calls those to special work whom he either sees or makes fit for it. - I magnify my office. There were those that vilified it, and him because of it. It was because he was the apostle of the Gentiles that the Jews were so outrageous against him (Act 22:21, Act 22:22), and yet he thought never the worse of it, though it set him up as the butt of all the Jewish rage and malice. It is a sign of true love to Jesus Christ to reckon that service and work for him truly honourable which the world looks upon with scorn, as mean and contemptible. The office of the ministry is an office to be magnified. Ministers are ambassadors for Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God, and for their work's sake are to be esteemed highly in love. - My office; tēn diakonian mou - my ministry, my service, not my lordship and dominion. It was not the dignity and power, but the duty and work, of an apostle, that Paul was so much in love with. Now two things he exhorts the Gentiles to, with reference to the rejected Jews: -

[1.] To have a respect for the Jews, notwithstanding, and to desire their conversion. This is intimated in the prospect he gives them of the advantage that would accrue to the church by their conversion, Rom 11:12, Rom 11:15. It would be as life from the dead; and therefore they must not insult and triumph over those poor Jews, but rather pity them, and desire their welfare, and long for the receiving of them in again.

[2.] To take heed to themselves, lest they should stumble and fall, as they Jews had done, Rom 11:17-22. Here observe,

First, The privilege which the Gentiles had by being taken into the church. They were grafted in (Rom 11:17), as a branch of a wild olive into a good olive, which is contrary to the way and custom of the husbandman, who grafts the good olive into the bad; but those that God grafts into the church he finds wild and barren, and good for nothing. Men graft to mend the tree; but God grafts to mend the branch. 1. The church of God is an olive-tree, flourishing and fruitful as an olive (Psa 52:8; Hos 14:6), the fruit useful for the honour both of God and man, Jdg 9:9. 2. Those that are out of the church are as wild olive-trees, not only useless, but what they do produce is sour and unsavoury: Wild by nature, Rom 11:24. This was the state of the poor Gentiles, that wanted church privileges, and in respect of real sanctification; and it is the natural state of every one of us, to be wild by nature. 3. Conversion is the grafting in of wild branches into the good olive. We must be cut off from the old stock, and be brought into union with a new root. 4. Those that are grafted into the good olive-tree partake of the root and fatness of the olive. It is applicable to a saving union with Christ; all that are by a lively faith grafted into Christ partake of him as the branches of the root - receive from his fulness. But it is here spoken of a visible church-membership, from which the Jews were as branches broken off; and so the Gentiles were grafted in, autois - among those that continued, or in the room of those that were broken off. The Gentiles, being grafted into the church, partake of the same privileges that the Jews did, the root and fatness. The olive-tree is the visible church (called so Jer 11:16); the root of this tree was Abraham, not the root of communication, so Christ only is the root, but the root of administration, he being the first with whom the covenant was so solemnly made. Now the believing Gentiles partake of this root: he also is a son of Abraham (Luk 19:9), the blessing of Abraham comes upon the Gentiles (Gal 3:14), the same fatness of the olive-tree, the same for substance, special protection, lively oracles, means of salvation, a standing ministry, instituted ordinances; and, among the rest, the visible church-membership of their infant seed, which was part of the fatness of the olive-tree that the Jews had, and cannot be imagined to be denied to the Gentiles.

Secondly, A caution not to abuse these privileges. 1. "Be not proud (Rom 11:18): Boast not against the branches. Do not therefore trample upon the Jews as a reprobate people, nor insult over those that are broken off, much less over those that do continue."Grace is given, not to make us proud, but to make us thankful. The law of faith excludes all boasting either of ourselves or against others. "Do not say (Rom 11:19): They were broken off that I might be grafted in; that is, do not think that thou didst merit more at the hand of God than they, or didst stand higher in his favour.""But remember, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Though thou art grafted in, thou art still but a branch borne by the root; nay, and an engrafted branch, brought into the good olive contrary to nature (Rom 11:24), not free-born, but by an act of grace enfranchised and naturalized. Abraham, the root of the Jewish church, is not beholden to thee; but thou art greatly obliged to him, as the trustee of the covenant and the father of many nations. Therefore, if thou boast, know (this word must be supplied to clear the sense) thou bearest not the root but the root thee. "2. "Be not secure (Rom 11:20): Be not high-minded, but fear. Be not too confident of your own strength and standing."A holy fear is an excellent preservative against high-mindedness: happy is the man that thus feareth always. We need not fear but God will be true to his word; all the danger is lest we be false to ours. Let us therefore fear, Heb 4:1. The church of Rome now boasts of a patent of perpetual preservation; but the apostle here, in his epistle to that church when she was in her infancy and integrity, enters an express caveat against that boast, and all claims of that kind. - Fear what? "Why fear lest thou commit a forfeiture as they have done, lest thou lose the privileges thou now enjoyest, as they have lost theirs."The evils that befall others should be warnings to us. Go (saith God to Jerusalem Jer 7:12), and see what I did to Shiloh; so now, let all the churches of God go and see what he did to Jerusalem, and what is become of the day of their visitation, that we may hear and fear, and take heed of Jerusalem's sin. The patent which churches have of their privileges is not for a certain term, nor entailed upon them and their heirs; but it runs as long as they carry themselves well, and no longer. Consider, (1.) "How they were broken off. It was not undeservedly, by an act of absolute sovereignty and prerogative, but because of unbelief. "It seems, then, it is possible for churches that have long stood by faith to fall into such a state of infidelity as may be their ruin. Their unbelief did not only provoke God to cut them off, but they did by this cut themselves off; it was not only the meritorious, but the formal cause of their separation. "Now, thou art liable to the same infirmity and corruption that they fell by."Further observe, They were natural branches (Rom 11:21), not only interested in Abraham's covenant, but descending from Abraham's loins, and so born upon the premises, and thence had a kind of tenant-right: yet, when they sunk into unbelief, God did not spare them. Prescription, long usage, the faithfulness of their ancestors, would not secure them. It was in vain to plead, though they insisted much upon it, that they were Abraham's seed, Mat 3:9; Joh 8:33. It is true they were the husbandmen to whom the vineyard was first let out; but, when they forfeited it, it was justly taken from them, Mat 21:41, Mat 21:43. This is called here severity, Rom 11:22. God laid righteousness to the line and judgment to the plummet, and dealt with them according to their sins. Severity is a word that sounds harshly; and I do not remember that it is any where else in scripture ascribed to God; and it is here applied to the unchurching of the Jews. God is most severe towards those that have been in profession nearest to him, if they rebel against him, Amo 3:2. Patience and privileges abused turn to the greatest wrath. Of all judgments, spiritual judgments are the sorest; for of these he is here speaking, Rom 11:8. (2.) "How thou standest, thou that art engrafted in."He speaks to the Gentile churches in general, though perhaps tacitly reflecting on some particular person, who might have expressed some such pride and triumph in the Jews' rejection. "Consider then,"[1.] "By what means thou standest: By faith, which is a depending grace, and fetches in strength from heaven. Thou dost not stand in any strength of thy own, of which thou mightest be confident: thou art no more than the free grace of God makes thee, and his grace is his own, which he gives or withholds at pleasure. That which ruined them was unbelief, and by faith thou standest; therefore thou hast no faster hold than they had, thou standest on no firmer foundation than they did."[2.] "On what terms (Rom 11:22): Towards thee goodness, if thou continue in his goodness, that is, continue in a dependence upon and compliance with the free grace of God, the want of which it was that ruined the Jews - if thou be careful to keep up thine interest in the divine favour, by being continually careful to please God and fearful of offending him."The sum of our duty, the condition of our happiness, is to keep ourselves in the love of God. Fear the Lord and his goodness. Hos 3:5.

III. Another thing that qualified this doctrine of the Jews' rejection is that, though for the present they are cast off, yet the rejection is not final; but, when the fulness of time is come, they will be taken in again. They are not cast off for ever, but mercy is remembered in the midst of wrath. Let us observe,

1. How this conversion of the Jews is here described. (1.) It is said to be their fulness (Rom 11:12), that is, the addition of them to the church, the filling up again of that place which became vacant by their rejection. This would be the enriching of the world (that is, the church in the world) with a great deal of light and strength and beauty. (2.) It is called the receiving of them. The conversion of a soul is the receiving of that soul, so the conversion of a nation. They shall be received into favour, into the church, into the love of Christ, whose arms are stretched out for the receiving of all those that will come to him. And this will be as life from the dead - so strange and surprising, and yet withal so welcome and acceptable. The conversion of the Jews will bring great joy to the church. See Luk 15:32, He was dead, and is alive; and therefore it was meet we should make merry and be glad. (3.) It is called the grafting of them in again (Rom 11:23), into the church, from which they had been broken off. That which is grafted in receives sap and virtue from the root; so does a soul that is truly grafted into the church receive life, and strength, and grace from Christ the quickening root. They shall be grafted into their own olive-tree (Rom 11:24); that is, into the church of which they had formerly been the most eminent and conspicuous members, to retrieve those privileges of visible church-membership which they had so long enjoyed, but have now sinned away and forfeited by their unbelief. (4.) It is called the saving of all Israel, Rom 11:26. True conversion may well be called salvation; it is salvation begun. See Act 2:47. The adding of them to the church is the saving of them: tous sōzōmenous , in the present tense, are saved. When conversion-work goes on, salvation-work goes on.

2. What it is grounded upon, and what reason we have to look for it.

(1.) Because of the holiness of the first-fruits and the root, Rom 11:16. Some by the first-fruits understand those of the Jews that were already converted to the faith of Christ and received into the church, who were as the first-fruits dedicated to God, as earnests of a more plentiful and sanctified harvest. A good beginning promises a good ending. Why may we not suppose that others may be savingly wrought upon as well as those who are already brought in? Others by the first-fruits understand the same with the root, namely, the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, from whom the Jews descended, and with whom, as the prime trustees, the covenant was deposited: and so they were the root of the Jews, not only as a people, but as a church. Now, if they were holy, which is not meant so much of inherent as of federal holiness - if they were in the church and in the covenant - then we have reason to conclude that God hath a kindness for the lump - the body of that people; and for the branches - the particular members of it. The Jews are in a sense a holy nation (Exo 19:6), being descended from holy parents. Now it cannot be imagined that such a holy nation should be totally and finally cast off. This proves that the seed of believers, as such, are within the pale of the visible church, and within the verge of the covenant, till they do, by their unbelief, throw themselves out; for, if the root be holy, so are the branches. Though real qualifications are not propagated, yet relative privileges are. Though a wise man does not beget a wise man, yet a free man begets a free man. Though grace does not run in the blood, yet external privileges do (till they are forfeited), even to a thousand generations. Look how they will answer it another day that cut off the entail, by turning the seed of the faithful out of the church, and so not allowing the blessing of Abraham to come upon the Gentiles. The Jewish branches are reckoned holy, because the root was so. This is expressed more plainly (Rom 11:28): They are beloved for the fathers' sakes. In this love to the fathers the first foundation of their church-state was laid (Deu 4:37): Because he loved they fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them. And the same love would revive their privileges, for still the ancient loving-kindness is remembered; they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. It is God's usual method of grace. Kindness to the children for the father's sake is therefore called the kindness of God, 2Sa 9:3, 2Sa 9:7. Though, as concerning the gospel (namely, in the present dispensation of it), they are enemies to it for your sakes, that is, for the sake of the Gentiles, against whom they have such an antipathy; yet, when God's time shall come, this will wear off, and God's love to their fathers will be remembered. See a promise that points at this, Lev 26:42. The iniquity of the fathers is visited but to the third and fourth generation; but there is mercy kept for thousands. Many fare the better for the sake of their godly ancestors. It is upon this account that the church is called their own olive-tree. Long it had been their own peculiar, which is some encouragement to us to hope that there may be room for them in it again, for old acquaintance-sake. That which hath been may be again. Though particular persons and generations wear off in unbelief, yet there having been a national church-membership, though for the present suspended, we may expect that it will be revived.

(2.) Because of the power of God (Rom 11:23): God is able to graft them in again. The conversion of souls is a work of almighty power; and when they seem most hardened, and blinded, and obstinate, our comfort is that God is able to work a change, able to graft those in that have been long cast out and withered. When the house is kept by the strong man armed, with all his force, yet God is stronger than he, and is able to dispossess him. The condition of their restoration is faith: If they abide not still in unbelief. So that nothing is to be done but to remove that unbelief that is the great obstacle; and God is able to take that away, though nothing less than an almighty power will do it, the same power that raised up Christ from the dead, Eph 1:19, Eph 1:20. Otherwise, can these dry bones live?

(3.) Because of the grace of God manifested to the Gentiles. Those that have themselves experienced the grace of God, preventing, distinguishing grace, may thence take encouragement to hope well concerning others. This is his argument (Rom 11:24): "If thou wast grafted into a good olive, that was wild by nature, much more shall these that were the natural branches, and may therefore be presumed somewhat nearer to the divine acceptance."This is a suggestion very proper to check the insolence of those Gentile Christians that looked with disdain and triumph upon the condition of the rejected Jews, and trampled upon them; as if he had said, "Their condition, bad as it is, is not so bad as yours was before your conversion; and therefore why may it not be made as good as yours is?"This is his argument (Rom 11:30, Rom 11:31): As you in times past have not, etc. It is good for those that have found mercy with God to be often thinking what they were in time past, and how they obtained that mercy. This would help to soften our censures of those that still continue in unbelief, and quicken our prayers for them. He argues further from the occasion of the Gentiles' call, that is, the unbelief of the Jews; thence it took rise: " You have obtained mercy through their unbelief; much more shall they obtain mercy through your mercy. If the putting out of their candle was the lighting of yours, by that power of God which brings good out of evil, much more shall the continued light of your candle, when God's time shall come, be a means of lighting theirs again."" That through your mercy they might obtain mercy, that is, that they may be beholden to you, as you have been to them."He takes it for granted that the believing Gentiles would do their utmost endeavour to work upon the Jews - that, when God had persuaded Japhet, Japhet would be labouring to persuade Shem. True grace hates monopolies. Those that have found mercy themselves should endeavour that through their mercy others also may obtain mercy.

(4.) Because of the promises and prophecies of the Old Testament, which point at this. He quotes a very remarkable one, Rom 11:26, from Isa 59:20, Isa 59:21. Where we may observe, [1.] The coming of Christ promised: There shall come out of Zion the deliverer. Jesus Christ is the great deliverer, which supposes mankind in a state of misery and danger. In Isaiah it is, the Redeemer shall come to Zion. There he is called the Redeemer; here the deliverer; he delivers in a way of redemption, by a price. There he is said to come to Zion, because when the prophet prophesied he was yet to come into the world, and Zion was his first head-quarters. Thither he came, there he took up his residence: but, when the apostle wrote this, he had come, he had been in Zion; and he is speaking of the fruits of his appearing, which shall come out of Zion; thence, as from the spring, issued forth those streams of living water which in the everlasting gospel watered the nations. Out of Zion went forth the law, Isa 2:3. Compare Luk 24:47. [2.] The end and purpose of this coming: He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. Christ's errand into the world was to turn away ungodliness, to turn away the guilt by the purchase of pardoning mercy, and to turn away the power by the pouring out of renewing grace, to save his people from their sins (Mat 1:21), to separate between us and our sins, that iniquity might not be our ruin, and that it might not be our ruler. Especially to turn it away from Jacob, which is that for the sake of which he quotes the text, as a proof of the great kindness God intended for the seed of Jacob. What greater kindness could he do them than to turn away ungodliness from them, to take away that which comes between them and all happiness, take away sin, and then make way for all good? This is the blessing that Christ was sent to bestow upon the world, and to tender it to the Jews in the first place (Act 3:26), to turn people from their iniquities. In Isaiah it is, The Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto those that turn from transgression in Jacob, which shown who in Zion were to have a share in and to reap benefit by the deliverance promised, those and those only that leave their sins and turn to God; to them Christ comes as a Redeemer, but as an avenger to those that persist in impenitence. See Deu 30:2, Deu 30:3. Those that turn from sin will be owned as the true citizens of Zion (Eph 2:19), the right Jacob, Psa 24:4, Psa 24:6. Putting both these readings together, we learn that none have an interest in Christ but those that turn from their sins, nor can any turn from their sins but by the strength of the grace of Christ. - For this is my covenant with them - this, that the deliverer shall come to them - this, that my Spirit shall not depart from them, as it follows, Isa 59:21. God's gracious intentions concerning Israel were made the matter of a covenant, which the God that cannot lie could not but be true and faithful to. They were the children of the covenant, Act 3:25. The apostle adds, When I shall take away their sins, which some think refers to Isa 27:9, or only to the foregoing words, to turn away ungodliness. Pardon of sin is laid as the foundation of all the blessings of the new covenant (Heb 8:12): For I will be merciful. Now from all this he infers that certainly God had great mercy in store for that people, something answerable to the extent of these rich promises: and he proves his inference (Rom 11:29) by this truth: For the gifts and callings of God are without repentance. Repentance is sometimes taken for a change of mind, and so God never repents, for he is in one mind and who can turn him? Sometimes for a change of way, and that is here understood, intimating the constancy and unchangeableness of that love of God which is founded in election. Those gifts and callings are immutable; whom he so loves, he loves to the end. We find God repenting that he had given man a being (Gen 6:6, It repented the Lord that he had made man ), and repenting that he had given a man honour and power (1Sa 15:11, It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king ); but we never find God repenting that he had given a man grace, or effectually called him; those gifts and callings are without repentance.

Barclay: Rom 11:1-12

There was a question now to be asked which any Jew was bound to ask. Does all this mean that God has repudiated his people? That is a question that Paul's heart cannot bear. After all, he himself is a member of that people. So he falls back on an idea which runs through much of the Old Testament. In the days of Elijah, Elijah was in despair (1Ki 19:10-18). He had come to the conclusion that he alone was left to be true to God. But God told him that, in fact, there were still seven thousand in Israel who had not bowed the knee to Baal. So into Jewish thought came the idea of The Remnant.

The prophets began to see that there never was a time, and never would be, when the whole nation was true to God; nevertheless, always within the nation a remnant was left who had never forsaken their loyalty or compromised their faith. Prophet after prophet came to see this. Amos (Amo 9:8-10) thought of God sifting men as corn is in a sieve until only the good are left. Micah (Mic 2:12; Mic 5:3) had a vision of God gathering the remnant of Israel. Zephaniah (Zep 3:12-13) had the same idea. Jeremiah foresaw the remnant being gathered from all the countries throughout which they had been scattered (Jer 23:3). Ezekiel, the individualist, was convinced that a man could not be saved by either a national or an inherited righteousness; the righteous would deliver their own souls by their righteousness (Eze 14:14, Eze 14:20, Eze 14:22). Above all, this idea dominated the thought of Isaiah. He called his son Shear-Jashub, which means The Salvation of the Remnant. Again and again he returns to this idea of the faithful remnant who will be saved by God (Isa 7:3; Isa 8:2; Isa 8:18; Isa 9:12; Isa 6:9-13).

There is a tremendous truth beginning to dawn here. As one great scholar put it: "No Church or nation is saved en masse." The idea of a Chosen People will not hold water for this basic reason. The relationship with God is an individual relationship. A man must give his own heart and surrender his own life to God. God does not call men in crowds; he has "His own secret stairway into every heart." A man is not saved because he is a member of a nation or of a family, or because he has inherited righteousness and salvation from his ancestors; he is saved because he has made a personal decision for God. It is not now the whole nation who are lumped together as the Chosen People. It is those individual men and women who have given their hearts to God, of whom the remnant is composed.

Paul's argument is that the Jewish nation has not been rejected; but it is not the nation as a whole, but the faithful remnant within it who are the true Jews.

What of the others? It is here that Paul has a terrible thought. He has the idea of God sending a kind of torpor upon them, a drowsy sleep in which they cannot and will not hear. He puts together the thought of a series of Old Testament passages to prove this (Deu 29:4; Isa 6:9-10; Isa 29:10). He quotes Psa 69:22-23. "Let their table become a snare." The idea is that men are sitting feasting comfortably at their banquet; and their very sense of safety has become their ruin. They are so secure in their fancied safety that the enemy can come upon them all unaware. That is what the Jews were like. They were so secure, so self-satisfied, so at ease in their confidence of being the Chosen People, that that very idea had become the thing that ruined them.

The day will come when they cannot see at all, and when they will grope with bent backs like men stumbling blindly in the dark. In Rom 11:7the King James Version says, "they have been blinded." More correctly, it should be, "they have been hardened." The verb is poroun (4456). The noun porosis (4457) will give us the meaning better. It is a medical word, and it means a callus. It was specially used for the callus which forms round the fracture when a bone is broken, the hard bone formation which helps to mend the break. When a callus grows on any part of the body that part loses feeling. It becomes insensitive. The minds of the mass of the people have become insensitive; they can no longer hear and feel the appeal of God.

It can happen to any man. If a man takes his own way long enough, he will in the end become insensitive to the appeal of God. If he goes on sinning, he will in the end become insensitive to the horror of sin and the fascination of goodness. If a man lives long enough in ugly conditions he will in the end become insensitive to them. As Burns wrote:

"I waive the quantum of the sin,

The hazard of concealing;

But och! it hardens a' within,

And petrifies the feeling!"

Just as a callus can grow on the hand, a callus can grow on the heart. That is what had happened to the mass of Israel. God save us from that!

But Paul has more to say. That is tragedy, but out of it God has brought good, because that very insensitiveness of Israel opened the way to the Gentiles to come in. Because Israel did not want the message of the good news, it went out to people who were ready to welcome it. Israel's refusal has enriched the world.

Then Paul touches on the dream which is behind it all. If the refusal of Israel has enriched the world by opening a door to the Gentiles, what will the riches be like at the end of the day, when God's plan is fully completed and Israel comes in, too?

So, in the end, after tragedy comes the hope. Israel became insensitive, the nation with the callus on her heart; the Gentiles came by faith and trust into the love of God; but a day will come when the love of God will act like a solvent, even on the callus of the heart, and both Gentile and Jew will be gathered in. It is Paul's conviction that nothing in the end can defeat the love of God.

Barclay: Rom 11:13-24

It is to the Jews that Paul has been talking up to this time, and now he turns to the Gentiles. He is the apostle to the Gentiles, but he cannot ever forget his own people. In fact he goes the length of saving that one of his main objects is to move the Jews to envy when they see what Christianity has done for the Gentiles. One of the surest ways to make a man desire Christianity is to make him see in actual life what it can do.

There was a soldier who was wounded in battle. The padre crept out and did what he could for him. He stayed with him when the remainder of the troops retreated. In the heat of the day he gave him water from his own waterbottle, while he himself remained parched with thirst. In the night, when the chill frost came down, he covered the wounded man with his own coat, and finally wrapped him up in even more of his clothes to save him from the cold. In the end the wounded man looked up at the padre. "Padre," he said, "you're a Christian?" "I try to be," said the padre. "Then," said the wounded man, "if Christianity makes a man do for another man what you have done for me, tell me about it, because I want it." Christianity in action moved him to envy a faith which could produce a life like that.

It was Paul's hope and prayer and ambition that some day the Jews would see what Christianity had done for the Gentiles and be moved to desire it.

To Paul it would be paradise if the Jews came in. If the rejection of the Jews had done so much, if, through it, the Gentile world had been reconciled to God, what superlative glory must come when the Jews came in. If the tragedy of rejection has had results so wonderful, what will the happy ending be like, when the tragedy of rejection has changed to the glory of reception? Paul can only say that it will be like life from the dead.

Then Paul uses two pictures to show that the Jews can never be finally rejected. All food, before it was eaten, had to be offered to God. So the law laid it down (Num 15:19-20) that, if dough was being prepared, the first part of it must be offered to God; when that was done, the whole lump of dough became sacred. It was not necessary, as it were, to offer every separate mouthful to God. The offering of the first part sanctified the whole. It was a common thing to plant sacred trees in places sacred to the gods. When the sapling was planted, it was dedicated to God; and thereafter every branch that came from it was sacred to God.

What Paul deduces from that is this--the patriarchs were sacred to God; they had in a special way heard God's voice and obeyed God's word; in a special way they had been chosen and consecrated by God. From them the whole nation sprang; and just as the first consecrated handful of dough made the whole lump sacred and the dedication of the sapling made the whole tree sacred, so the special consecration of its founders made the whole nation sacred in a special way to God. There is truth here. The remnant in Israel did not make themselves what they were; they inherited faith from their forefathers before them. Every one of us lives to some extent on the spiritual capital of the past. None of us is self-made. We are what godly parents and ancestors have made us; and, even if we strayed far away and shamed our heritage, we cannot totally part ourselves from the goodness and fidelity that made us what we are.

Paul goes on to use a long allegory. More than once the prophets had pictured the nation of Israel as the olive tree of God. That was natural, because the olive tree was the common est and most useful tree in the Mediterranean world. "The Lord once called you a green olive tree, fair with goodly fruit" (Jer 11:16). "His shoots shall spread out; his beauty shall be like the olive" (Hos 14:6). So Paul thinks of the Gentiles as branches of wild olive engrafted into the garden olive tree which was Israel. From the point of view of horticulture Paul's picture is impossible. In horticulture it is the good olive that is grafted into the stock of the wild olive so that a fruit-bearing olive may result. The process that Paul pictures was never used in actual practice, because it would have served no useful purpose. But the point Paul wishes to make is quite clear. The Gentiles had been out in the deserts and the wildernesses and among the wild briars; and now, by the act of God's grace, they are engrafted into the richness and fertility of the garden olive tree.

Out of this picture Paul has two words to speak.

(i) The first is a word of warning. It would have been easy for the Gentiles to develop an attitude of contempt. Had not the Jews been rejected that they might enter in? In a world where the Jews were universally hated such an attitude would have been all too easy. Paul's warning is still necessary. In effect, he says there would have been no such thing as Christianity unless there had been Judaism first. It will be a bad day when the Christian Church forgets its debt to the root from which it sprang. It has a debt to Judaism which it can never pay by any other means than by bringing Christianity to the Jews. So Paul warns the Gentiles against contempt. Grimly, he says that if the true branches were lopped off because of their unbelief, still more can that happen to the branches which were only grafted on.

(ii) The second is a word of hope. The Gentiles have experienced God's kindness; and the Jews his severity. If the Gentiles remain in faith they will remain in that kindness; but, if the Jews come out of their unbelief and enter into belief, once again they, too, will be engrafted in; for, says Paul, if it was possible for a wild olive to be engrafted into the garden olive tree, how much more is it possible that the olive tree's own natural branches can be grafted in again? Once again Paul is dreaming of the day when the Jews will come in.

Much in this passage is hard to understand. It thinks in pictures which are out of our world altogether; but one thing is crystal clear--the connection between Judaism and Christianity, between the old and the new. Here is the answer to those who wish to discard the Old Testament as merely a Jewish book which is irrelevant for Christianity. He is a foolish man who kicks away the ladder which raised him to the height which he has reached. It would be a foolish branch which cut itself off from its stem. The Jewish faith is the root from which Christianity grew. The consummation will come only when the wild olive and the garden olive are one, and when there are no branches at all left unengrafted on the parent stem.

Barclay: Rom 11:25-32

Paul is coming to the end of his argument. He has faced a bewildering, and, for a Jew, a heartbreaking situation. Somehow he has had to find an explanation of the fact that God's people rejected his Son when he came into the world. Paul never shut his eyes to that tragic fact, but he found a way in which the whole tragic situation could be fitted into the plan of God. It is true that the Jews rejected Christ; but. as Paul saw it, that rejection happened in order that Christ might be offered to the Gentiles. To maintain the sovereignty of God's purpose, Paul even went the length of saying that it was he himself who hardened the hearts of the Jews in order to open a way to the Gentiles; but, even then, however contradictory it might sound, he still insisted on the personal responsibility of the Jews for their failure to accept God's offer. Paul held fast at one and the same time to divine sovereignty and human responsibility. But now comes the note of hope. His argument is a little complicated, and it will make it easier if we try to separate the various strands in it.

(i) Paul was sure that this hardening of the hearts of the Jews was neither total nor permanent. It was to serve a purpose, and when that purpose had been achieved, it would be taken away.

(ii) Paul sets out the paradox of the Jewish place in the plan of God. In order that the Gentiles might come in and that the universal purpose of the gospel might be fulfilled, the Jews had arrived at a situation where they were the enemies of God. The word that Paul uses is echthroi (2190). It is difficult to translate, because it has both an active and a passive meaning. It can mean either hating or hated. It may well be that in this passage it has to be read in the two meanings at the one time. The Jews were hostile to God and had refused his offer, and therefore they were under his displeasure. That was the present fact about the Jews. But there was another fact about them. Nothing could alter the fact that they were God's chosen people and had a special place in his plan. No matter what they did, God could never go back upon his word. His promise had been made to the fathers, and it must be fulfilled. It was therefore clear to Paul, and he quotes Isa 59:20-21to prove it, that God's rejection of the Jews could not be permanent; they, too, in the end must come in.

(iii) Then Paul has a strange thought. "God," he says, "shut up all men to disobedience that he may have mercy upon all." The one thing Paul cannot conceive of is that any man of any nation could merit his own salvation. Now, if the Jews had observed complete obedience to God's will, they might well have reckoned that they had earned the salvation of God as a right. So Paul is saying that God involved the Jews in disobedience in order that when his salvation did come to them it might be unmistakably an act of his mercy and due in no way to their merit. Neither Jew nor Gentile could ever be saved apart from the mercy of God.

In many ways Paul's argument may seem strange to us and the "proofs" he brings forward unconvincing. Our minds and hearts may even shudder at some of the things he says. But the argument is not irrelevant, for the tremendous thing at the back of it is a philosophy of history. To Paul, God was in control. Nothing moved with aimless feet. Not even the most heartbreaking event was outside the purpose of God. Events could never run amok. The purposes of God could never be frustrated.

It is told that once a child stood at the window on a night when the gale was terrifying in its savage velocity. "God," she said, "must have lost grip of his winds tonight." To Paul, that was precisely what never happened. Nothing was ever out of God's control; everything was serving his purpose.

To that Paul would have added another tremendous conviction. He would have insisted that in it and through it all, Gods purpose was a purpose of salvation and not of destruction. It may well be that Paul would even have gone the length of saying that God's arranging of things was designed to save men even against their will. In the last analysis it was not the wrath of God which was pursuing men, but the love of God which was tracking them down.

The situation of Israel was exactly that which Francis Thompson so movingly portrayed in The Hound of Heaven.

"I fled him down the nights and down the days;

I fled him down the arches of the years;

I fled him down the labyrinthine ways

Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears

I hid from him, and under running laughter.

But with unhurrying chase,

And unperturbed pace,

Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,

They beat--and a Voice beat

More instant than the feet--

All things betray thee, who betrayest me.' "

Then comes the time when the fugitive is beaten.

"Naked I wait thy love's uplifted stroke!

My harness piece by piece thou hast hewn from me,

And smitten to my knee,

I am defenceless utterly."

Then comes the end:

"Halts by me that footfall;

Is my gloom. after all,

Shade of his hand, outstretched caressingly?

'Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,

I am he whom thou seekest!

Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest me!' "

That was exactly Israel's situation. They fought their long battle against God; they are still fighting it. But God's pursuing love is ever after them. Whatever else Rom 9-11 may sometimes read like, it is in the last analysis the story of the still uncompleted pursuit of love.

Constable: Rom 9:1--11:36

V. THE VINDICATION OF GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS chs. 9--11

A major problem concerning God's righteousness arises out of what Paul just claimed for God. It is this. If God is for His elect and will never remove His love from them, why has He set aside His chosen people, the Jews? It certainly looks as though something separated them from His love. If God has turned away from Israel, are Christians really that secure? The problem focuses on God's righteous dealings with humankind and therefore was one that Paul needed to deal with in this epistle.

In chapters 9-11 the apostle defended the righteousness of God in His dealings with Israel. Having explained how God justifies sinners Paul now found it necessary to justify God Himself, to prove and declare Him righteous.²⁸⁸ The apostle to the Gentiles proceeded to show that God had not removed His love from the Jews. Nothing had separated them from His love. God's present dealings with Israel do not indicate that He has abandoned them but need viewing in the light of His future plans for the nation. In the future God will also glorify Israel.

In chapter 9 Paul dealt primarily with God's dealings with Israel in the past, in chapter 10 with their present situation, and in chapter 11 with His future plans for the nation.

We note in these chapters that God's dealings with Israel as a nation are similar to His dealings with individual Christians whom Paul had been speaking of in recent chapters. God elected both Israel and each Christian.²⁸⁹ Unsaved Israel, as many unsaved individuals, tried to establish its own righteousness by obeying the law instead of by believing God's promise. A mass conversion of Israel will occur in the future (11:25-32). It is similar to the grand picture of the climax of salvation that we have in chapter 8. God will prove faithful to Israel as well as to individual Christians. The whole section dealing with Israel culminates in rapturous praise to God (11:33-36) as the section dealing with individual salvation did (8:31-39). While these parallels do exist, Paul did not stress them.

Constable: Rom 11:1-36

C. Israel's future salvation ch. 11

In chapter 9 Paul glorified God's past grace in sovereignly electing Israel as a vessel that would honor Him in a special way in time and space. In chapter 10 he spoke of Israel's present refusal to respond to His provision of Jesus Christ. In chapter 11 he revealed God's future plans for the nation that, when unfolded, will fully vindicate His righteousness.

This chapter proves that God has a future for ethnic Israel, the racial descendants of Jacob. That future is distinct from the future of the church that true believers of both Jewish and Gentile races living now compose. Romans 11 not only vindicates God but dispensational theology. Covenant theology on the other hand argues that God will fulfill the promises concerning future blessing that He gave Israel in the church.³²⁵

"This chapter from the historical point of view is logically necessary. The Old Testament clearly promises Israel headship or leadership in the world's worship . . . Israel as a separate people is to be restored and to realize the promises made to them in the Old Testament."³²⁶

"The great historian Arnold Toynbee classified Israel as a fossil civilization' and did not know what to do with it. For some reason, the nation did not fit into his historical theories."³²⁷

Constable: Rom 11:1-10

1. Israel's rejection not total 11:1-10

The first pericope gives hope for the future by showing that even now some Jews believe.

11:1 The opening question carries on the rhetorical style of 10:18 and 19. God has not rejected the Israelites because they have, on the whole, rejected Him. The proof of this is that Paul himself was a member of the believing remnant, a Christian Jew. Paul even came from the small and sometimes despised tribe of Benjamin (cf. Judg. 19-21) yet God had saved him.

11:2 The faith of Paul and other believing Jews, though few, proves that God has not completely rejected the people whom He had elected (foreknew, cf. 8:29).

In Elijah's day Israel's departure from God was widespread.

11:3-4 Elijah concluded that he was the only Israelite who had remained faithful to the Lord. God assured him that He had preserved other Israelites who constituted a believing remnant within the unfaithful nation.

"The very fact of God's choice excludes the possibility of his desertion of his own."³²⁸

11:5 Likewise in Paul's day and today there are believing Jews who constitute a remnant among the physical descendants of Jacob. By referring to God's gracious choice Paul focused on the real reason for the presence of a remnant.

11:6 The apostle elaborated the final thought of verse 5 here. It is the grace of God, not the works of the remnant that is the real cause of their condition. Believing Jews are not superior, just greatly blessed.

11:7 Verses 7-10 summarize the argument (v. 7) with supporting Old Testament quotations (vv. 8-10). Verse 7 ties back to 10:3.

The Greek word translated "hardened" (eporothesan) is not the same one Paul used in 9:18 (sklerunei). The one he used in 9:18 simply pictures a hardening. The one he used here describes hardening with the result that the hardness renders the person more difficult to get through to from then on. It is as though a callus built up over the Israelites that made them less sensitive to God.³²⁹

". . . God's hardening permanently binds people in the sin that they have chosen for themselves."³³⁰

"This postponement in Israelite history is not so much an interruption of redemption as an extension of predicted hardening (Rom. 11:7-10). The Exile, which was a punishment for national disobedience, has therefore been prolonged during the present age until the appointed time for Israel's national (and spiritual) restoration (Acts 1:7; 3:21; Rom. 11:25-27)."³³¹

11:8 The quotation in this verse is a combination of Deuteronomy 29:4 and Isaiah 29:10. Paul used these passages to prove the following point. The Israelites did not follow God faithfully even though they saw God's miraculous deliverance from Egypt, experienced His preservation in the wilderness, and heard the warnings of the prophets. God gave them a spirit of stupor because they failed to respond to the numerous blessings that He bestowed on them.³³² A similar example would be a person losing his appetite for steak because he eats steak every day. This was apparently an instance of God giving them over to the natural consequences of their actions (1:24, 26, 28).

11:9-10 The Jews regarded Psalm 69 as Messianic in Paul's day (cf. John 15:25). The quotation from this psalm (vv. 22-23) records David's desire. He wished that his enemies' table (i.e., blessings) would become something that they would stumble over. The enemies in view were the Lord's enemies as well as the king's since he was the Lord's anointed. This is really what had happened to the Israelites who had set themselves against God by rejecting His Son. Inability to see clearly and bondage to the Law had resulted (cf. Act. 15:10). The Greek phrase dia pantos usually means "continually." It probably means that here rather than "forever."³³³ Paul would explain that Israel's obstinacy and bondage would not last indefinitely (v. 26). Paul explained that God had brought upon the Jews what David had prayed would happen to his persecutors.

Even though as a whole Israel had reaped the fruit of her own stubborn rebellion against God, God had called a remnant within the nation for salvation. The presence of this remnant shows that God has not cast off His chosen people completely or been unfaithful to His promises to them.

Constable: Rom 11:11-24

2. Israel's rejection not final 11:11-24

Now Paul put the remnant aside and dealt with Israel as a whole. Even while Israel resists God's plan centered in Messiah, the Lord is at work bringing Gentiles to salvation. Gentile salvation really depends on Israel's covenant relationship with God, as Paul illustrated with the olive tree. The salvation of Gentiles in the present age not only magnifies the grace of God, but it will also provoke Israel to jealousy and lead her ultimately to return to the Lord.

11:11 Another rhetorical question marks another advance in the movement of Paul's thought. The stumbling of Israel did not result in a hopeless fall (cf. 9:32-33; 11:9). God now deals with Gentiles on the same basis as Jews regarding their salvation because Israel as a whole rejected Jesus Christ. One reason God chose to do this was to make Israel jealous of the Gentiles as the recipients of God's blessings so Israel would turn back to God.

11:12 Paul here anticipated the national repentance of Israel that he articulated later (v. 26). God promised to bless the world through Israel (Gen. 12:1-3). How much more blessing will come to the world when Israel turns back to God than is coming to the world now while she is in rebellion against God!

"While pleroma probably has a qualitative denotation--'fullness'--the context and the parallel with v. 25 suggest that this fullness' is attained through a numerical process. Paul would then be suggesting that the present defeat' of Israel, in which Israel is numerically reduced to a small remnant, will be reversed by the addition of far greater numbers of true believers: this will be Israel's destined fullness.'"³³⁴

11:13-14 Here Paul applied what he had said earlier to his own ministry. By evangelizing Gentiles Paul was causing more Jews to become jealous of God's blessings on Gentile converts. He was thereby playing a part in bringing some Jews to faith.

"The Gentiles are not saved merely for their own sake, but for the sake of God's election of Israel."³³⁵

"However strange it may sound, the way to salvation of Israel is by the mission to the Gentiles."³³⁶

11:15 When Israel returns to God and He accepts her, the results for all humankind are comparable to life from the dead (cf. Ezek. 37). God's blessings on humanity now will pale by comparison with what the world will experience then (i.e., during the Millennium).

11:16 The first piece of dough (firstfruits) describes the believing remnant in Israel now. The "lump" or "batch" refers to the whole nation. God has consecrated both groups to Himself.

The root and branches must refer to the Abrahamic Covenant and the believing and unbelieving Gentiles and Jews in view of how Paul proceeded to develop this illustration in verses 17-24.³³⁷

11:17 The cultivated olive tree was a symbol of the nation of Israel in the Old Testament (Jer. 11:16-17; Hos. 14:4-6). The wild olive tree represents the Gentiles. The rich root of the cultivated tree corresponds to the Abrahamic Covenant from which all God's blessings and the very life of the nation sprang. We might add to the illustration by saying that the roots derive their nourishment from God Himself.

Note that Paul said that God grafted the Gentiles in among the Jews. They became partakers with the Jews of the blessings that come through the roots. Paul did not say that the Gentiles became part of Israel, only that they partake with Israel of the blessings of the root. This is a very important point. The olive tree is not the church in which God has united Jewish and Gentile believers in one body (Eph. 3:6). The wild olive branches retain their own identity as wild branches even though they benefit from blessings that come through Israel (e.g., the Messiah, the Scriptures, etc.).

11:18 Gentile believers should not feel superior to Jewish unbelievers, the branches that God has broken off (vv. 17, 19). Gentile believers might conclude that their salvation is what was responsible for the continuing existence of Israel (cf. v. 14). Really it is God's faithfulness in honoring the Abrahamic Covenant that is responsible for that.

11:19-20 It is true that one of the reasons Gentiles have become partakers of the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant is that many of the Jews have not believed. However the Gentile believer who may feel superior to the unbelieving Jew needs to remember that the only reason he is where he is is because he has simply believed God. He is not there because he has done some meritorious work that would be a ground for boasting (cf. 5:2).

11:21 Throughout this whole discussion Paul was viewing Gentile believers and Jewish unbelievers as two groups. This fact is clear from his use of the singular "you" in the Greek text (su, vv. 17-24). If he had been speaking of individual believers, we might conclude that this verse provides some basis for believing that a believer can lose his salvation. Paul's point was, if God set aside Israel temporarily because of unbelief, He could do the same with Gentiles because of boasting.

11:22 "Those who fell" are the unbelieving Jews, and "you" are the believing Gentiles. The positions are reversible. Gentiles can become objects of God's sternness, and Israel can become the object of His kindness. This depends on their responses to God. Their response determines whether God will spare them (v. 21) or cut them off (v. 22).

11:23 Belief is what resulted in God grafting in the Gentiles (v. 17), and belief could result in Him grafting in formerly unbelieving Israel. In the illustration the whole trunk of the cultivated olive tree represents Israel and the natural branches are the believing and unbelieving segments of it.

11:24 Here is another of Paul's "much more" comparisons (5:9, 19, 15, 17; cf. Luke 11:13). If God did the difficult thing, namely grafting wild branches onto cultivated stock, it should not be hard to believe that He will do the easier thing. The easier thing is restoring the pruned branches of the cultivated tree to their former position.

"The restoration of converted Jews to the Patriarchal communion must from the nature of the case be more natural than the conversion of the heathen."³³⁸

Obviously the branches broken off do not represent the same individuals as those grafted in in the future. They are Israelites who in the former case did not believe and in the latter case did. The grafting in of Israel will not involve the breaking off of Gentile believers in the future.

Constable: Rom 11:25-32

3. Israel's restoration assured 11:25-32

Paul previously laid the groundwork for this section. His point so far was that God is able to restore Israel. Now we learn that He is not only able to do it, but He will do it. This section is the climax of everything that Paul wrote in chapters 9-11.

"The same mercy that has overtaken the Gentiles who were formerly disobedient will finally overtake the now disobedient Israel."³³⁹

11:25 A "mystery" in the New Testament refers to a truth previously unknown but now revealed. That revelation in this case was that Israel's hardening is only temporary.

God's plan to put Israel aside temporarily should not make Gentile believers think too highly of themselves. God designed this plan to display His own glory.

The "fullness of the Gentiles" (NASB) refers to the "full number of the Gentiles" (NIV; cf. v. 12; Luke 21:23-24; Acts 15:14). When all the Gentiles whom God has chosen for salvation during the present age of Israel's rejection have experienced salvation, God will precipitate a revival of faith within Israel.

11:26 "The first clause of v. 26 is the storm center in the interpretation of Rom. 9-11 and of NT teaching about the Jews and their future."³⁴⁰

"All Israel" means Israel as a whole in contrast to the believing remnant. The context makes this clear. This conclusion does not require that every individual Israelite living will be saved. It only requires the salvation of the bulk of the nation (cf. Zech. 12-13). Whenever the name "Israel" appears in the New Testament it refers either to the whole nation of Jacob's racial descendants (ethnic Jews) or to the believing remnant within that group. It does not include the church.³⁴¹ "All Israel" does not refer to all Jews who have been believers throughout history either. If that was what Paul meant, this statement would be irrelevant to his argument.³⁴²

"Thus" or "so" means "when that has happened" (NEB) or "then after this" (JB). It may also mean "in this manner," namely the way that Paul described in verses 11-24.³⁴³

The quotation from Jeremiah 59:20-21 not only confirmed Paul's assertion but also hinted at the time this revival will take place. It will happen when Messiah will come out of the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22). This will be at His second coming (Zech. 12:10).

11:27 Isaiah 27:9 also predicted a great removal of Israel's sins and connected it with the bestowal of the New Covenant blessings on Israel (cf. Jer. 31:31-34).

". . . the history of God's dealings with ethnic Israel as set out in Romans 11:1-10, the logic of Israel's reversal of fortune in verses 11-15, supported by the illustration of the olive tree and the regrafting of the natural branches of ethnic Israel into it again' in verses 16-24, and the prophecy of the salvation of all Israel' in verses 25-27 combine to establish the future of ethnic Israel as a glorious hope of both Israel and the church."³⁴⁴

11:28 Under the present economy God views Israel's physical descendants as a whole as His enemies because of their unbelief. They are "enemies" of His, however, for the sake of the Gentiles to whom He extends grace in this period of Jewish unbelief. However from the standpoint of their national election for a special purpose, they are the objects of His love because of the patriarchs.

11:29 The special privileges that God gave Israel are probably what Paul intended by his reference to God's gifts (cf. 9:4-5). They have intimate connection with God's calling of Israel for a special purpose. God will not withdraw these from Israel. He did not choose Israel for her goodness, and He will not abandon her for her badness.

11:30-31 These verses are a warning to Gentile believers. We should beware of becoming critical of God for planning to bless Israel in the future. We should also beware of becoming proud because we are presently the special objects of God's favor. We need to remember that God chose Israel so we Gentiles could enjoy salvation (Gen. 12:1-3).

11:32 The conclusion of the matter is this. As everyone has been disobedient, Gentiles and Jews alike, so God will show mercy to all as well (cf. 3:9; Gal. 3:22). This is a great ground of assurance.

"A critical frame of reference in Paul's treatment of Israel's salvation is a distinction between corporate and individual election."³⁴⁵

This concludes the argument of chapters 9-11.

"Ethnic Israel has a future, because God will accomplish salvation for Israel according to his new-covenant promise. This awaits the fullness of the Gentiles, when Israel's hardening will be removed and when Gentile provocation will have taken its course. All Israel will be saved in such a way that God's mercy will be evident to all."³⁴⁶

"Perhaps the view most commonly held among evangelical non-dispensationalists is that Israel's future is simply an incorporation of that people into the church. Hoekema speaks for many when he writes, . . . the future of believing Israelites is not to be separated from the future of believing Gentiles.' He states that Israel has no particular place in God's future salvation economy: Israel's hope for the future is exactly the same as that of believing Gentiles: salvation and ultimate glorification through faith in Christ.'"³⁴⁷

Nothing remains but to praise God for His righteousness in dealing with Israel as He has and as He will.

College: Rom 11:1-36

IV. THE SALVATION OF

GOD'S TRUE ISRAEL (11:1-32)

Thus far in chs. 9-10 Paul has painted a very dark picture of Israel. He has implied that they are "cursed" (9:3). He has spoken of them as "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (9:22, NASB). They have pursued righteousness, but have not found it (9:31-32) because of their willful ignorance of what true righteousness is (10:3). Indeed, Israel is "a disobedient and obstinate people" (10:21).

At the same time Paul has stressed the fact that God is welcoming the Gentiles as "the objects of his mercy" (9:23-24), according to prophecy (9:25-26). The Gentiles found the very righteousness the Jews were seeking (9:30), again according to God's plan (10:19-20).

Such teaching naturally raises the question, "Did God reject his people?" (11:1). Has he simply given up on Israel, and turned his attention solely to the Gentiles? Romans 11 addresses this question and answers it with an emphatic No! God's desire and intention are still to save as many Jews as possible, even to the point when ultimately "all Israel will be saved" (11:26).

This chapter discusses not just the fact of Israel's salvation, but also the means by which God is accomplishing it. This involves intricate interrelationships between the Jews and the Gentiles, which God uses for the salvation of both. Even as Paul writes about this, he is overwhelmed with awe and amazement at the wisdom and mercy of God, and most appropriately closes out the chapter and the entire section with a hymn of praise to the Creator and Redeemer (11:33-36).

It is important to see that the question addressed here is different from that in ch. 9, which focuses on God's covenant faithfulness to ethnic Israel, i.e., how he kept his promises to them and how they fulfilled their purpose in God's plan. In ch. 11 the focus is not on the Old Covenant purpose for Israel as fulfilled in Jesus Christ (9:4-5), but on God's intended place for Jews as individuals under the New Covenant, in terms of salvation and eternal destiny. Throughout this chapter, the issue is salvation . What is God's plan for Israel with regard to salvation in this New Covenant age?

In this connection a major issue of interpretation is the place of Israel as a nation in this NT era. One main view is that God is still under obligation to save, restore, and preserve national Israel because of the covenant promises he made to the patriarchs. MacArthur states this position: "God cannot be finished with the nation of Israel - for the obvious reason that all of His promises to her have not yet been fulfilled" (2:92). "Because of God's promise to Abraham and to his descendants through Isaac . . . , the nation of Israel has always been and always will be divinely preserved. . . . God's character and integrity, His trustworthiness and faithfulness depend on His continued preservation of Israel" (2:93). "God's unqualified promises to Israel included the assurance that He would never completely forsake her." Even the Jews' initial rejection of their Messiah "could not abrogate the ultimate fulfillment of His promises to them. It is that glorious truth that Paul explains and clarifies in Romans 11" (2:95).

Another main view is the one defended here, i.e., that only the Old Covenant was made with Israel as a nation, that the essence of this covenant for Israel was service and not salvation, and finally that all God's covenant obligations to national Israel were fulfilled when Christ came into the world the first time. Under the New Covenant God is dealing with the Jews as individuals, not as a nation. He is now gathering together the remnant, the new Israel, the true spiritual Israel, from among both Gentiles and Jews. Those who believe the gospel and accept Jesus as their Messiah are added to this remnant. See Lard, 345; McGuiggan, 319-320.

The following exposition will show that Paul's teaching in Rom 11 is more consistent with the latter view.

A. GOD'S TRUE ISRAEL IS THE REMNANT

CHOSEN BY GRACE (11:1-6)

Has God rejected Israel? The answer to this question is already obvious in chs. 9-10. In the first place, God has not rejected them; they have rejected him . "All day long I have held out my hands" to invite them to myself, God says (10:21), but "they did not submit" (10:3). See Matt 23:37.

In the second place, even if there is a sense in which God has "rejected" Israel, he has not rejected them all. Some Jews are still among "the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory" (9:23-24). These are "the remnant" of whom Isaiah spoke (9:27-29); they are the Jews who accepted God's righteousness on God's terms (10:1-17). They are still "his people," Israelites in the truest sense of the word.

Near the beginning of this main section (9:6b) Paul declares that "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." This means in effect that there are two Israels. One is the physical nation descended from Jacob (renamed Israel, Gen 32:28), which was called as a group into covenant relationship with God to serve his redemptive purposes. The other is the remnant, the relatively small part of the nation who as individuals put their heartfelt trust in God's promises as the basis of their personal salvation. This remnant is "his people" in a double sense, both ethnically and spiritually.

The remnant is the subject of this paragraph. Paul's point is that God can never be accused of rejecting "his people," because there has always been a remnant from among the Jews who have accepted his way of grace and are thus in personal fellowship with him. Thus no matter what happens to the nation as a whole, "Israel" will never perish, because "the real Israel has always been less than the nation" (McGuiggan, 317).

1. God Has Not Rejected His People (11:1-2a)

11:1 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! The word "then" (ou , oun , "therefore") indicates that this question might naturally arise from the preceding chapters. Paul simply anticipates it and responds to it. The word for "reject" is ajpwqevw (apôtheô - here in the middle voice). It means "to push away, cast away, or thrust away (from oneself); to repel; to spurn; to reject; to disown; to repudiate."

To be rejected or cast away by God is a terrible prospect for anyone, but for the Jews it was an absolutely unthinkable idea, given the facts that God had chosen them through Abraham (Gen 12:1-3), had established his covenant only with them at Sinai (Exod 19:5-6; see Deut 14:2), and thus had regarded them as his unique people for some 2,000 years. God described them as "my people, my chosen, the people I formed for myself" (Isa 43:20b-21a). "I will be your God and you will be my people," he promised them (Jer 7:23; see Lev 26:12).

But in view of 9:6b, we may ask, to which Israel does "his people" refer? Some think it refers only to the remnant, since "from Abraham onward only believing Israelites were 'his people'" (Lenski, 680). Others say it refers to "the nation as a whole" (Godet, 391; see MacArthur, 2:99). Strictly speaking neither view is correct. Contra Lenski, at this point "his people" is not spiritual but physical, as Paul's self-identification in v. 1b shows. But neither is it a reference to physical Israel as a whole, as if such a question ("Has God rejected the nation of Israel as such?") could be answered yes or no. Rather, Paul is thinking of ethnic Jews, but he is thinking of them as individuals . Has God rejected all of them?

The answer depends upon what is meant by "rejected." Does this "rejection" relate to Israel's role of service in God's redemptive plan, or does it relate to their personal, individual, eternal salvation? It cannot refer to the former, because such a question is irrelevant and meaningless. There is no sense in which God has ever rejected or will ever reject his nation Israel, either as a whole or as individuals, in reference to their role as the covenant people who prepared for the Messiah's coming into the world. God cannot reject them in reference to this role, because every purpose for which he thus chose them has already been fulfilled (9:4-5). Because of this it is true, to be sure, that there is no longer any rationale for Israel's continuing existence as a nation, or as Jews as distinct from Gentiles. Their existence as God's special, unique physical nation has thus come to an end (10:12; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11). But this is not the same as being "rejected." We may say, rather, that in full accordance with God's plan Israel as a nation has been honorably retired from service.

"Rejected" in this context must then refer to the question of personal salvation. Has God excluded his own people, the Jews, from salvation? Has he shut them out of heaven? Is the gospel invitation closed to Jews? Such a question does not (indeed, cannot) apply to Israel as a nation, but it does apply to all Israelites as individuals.

"Did God reject his people?" The question itself contains a Greek particle (mhv , mç ) which shows that a negative answer is intended. The question could thus be worded, "God has not rejected his people, has he?" Paul's answer is an emphatic and resounding NO! (mhΙ gevnoito , mç genoito ; see 3:4; JC, 1:228). The very idea is unthinkable, and the evidence shows that it is not in fact the case.

The first bit of evidence that God has not rejected his people, the Jews, is Paul himself: I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. Here Paul emphasizes his physical Jewishness. He is an "Israelite," which at the very least is equivalent to "Jew" (see 9:4). He is also "of the seed of Abraham" in the literal, physical sense (see 2 Cor 11:22), specifically of "the tribe of Benjamin," which along with Judah was one of the only two original tribes to be restored to their homeland following captivity and to remain intact into NT times. Thus "Paul shows that he is as firmly located within Judaism as anyone can be" (Dunn, 2:635).

Why does Paul make a big deal of his Jewish credentials? Some think he does so in order to make it clear that he is expressing "an authentically Jewish viewpoint" (Dunn, 2:635; see Fitzmyer, 603). I.e., he is showing that he, as a Jew, realizes just how repugnant is the whole idea that the Jews - the Jews, of all people! - could be rejected by God. He would thus be explaining why he recoils so vehemently from this suggestion (see Murray, 2:66). To paraphrase him, "I, too, am an Israelite, to whom the very idea of God's rejection of His people is an impious and incredible idea, to be repelled with horror" (Denney, 675).

This answer is possible, but more likely Paul thoroughly identifies himself as a Jew in order to give "living evidence" that God has not rejected "his people" (Moo, 673). "How do I know that God has not excluded Jews from salvation? Because I, Paul am the most Jewish of Jews, and I am saved!" Thus Paul himself is "proof that God had not abandoned Israel" (Bruce, 211), proof that a remnant does exist. As Brunner says, Paul "himself is the strongest evidence for the fact that saving grace can even subdue a fanatical advocate of the righteousness of the law" (93).

11:2a God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Again Paul emphatically denies that God has rejected his people. The wording here (as in 11:1a) seems to be taken from 1 Sam 12:22 and Ps 94:14, which use the future tense to assert God's promise: "The LORD will not reject his people." Paul changes it to past tense and thus states it as a fact; God has kept his promise!

Why does Paul add the qualifier, "whom he foreknew"? This again raises the crucial question as to the essential meaning of proginwvskw (proginôskô ; see 8:29; JC, 1:505-511). Many, especially Calvinists, declare that it refers to an act of distinguishing, choosing love, and is thus the same as election or predestination. Those who take "his people" as referring only to spiritual Israel (the remnant) usually accept this meaning of "foreknew" here. Thus they take this passage as another reference to the unconditional salvific predestination of the elect remnant, especially among the Jews, similar to the Calvinist interpretations of 8:29 and 9:6-29. In this context it becomes another reason why God has not rejected his people. How could he reject the very ones whom he has chosen ("foreknown") from all eternity for salvation? Thus "the 'foreknowing' is the guarantee that God has not cast off his people" (Murray, 2:67). "Foreknowledge and rejection are mutually incompatible" (Stott, 292).

Many of those who equate foreknowledge with predestination do not think it refers to the eternal salvation of the elect in this verse, however. This is because they take "his people" as referring to the Jewish nation as such. I.e., God cannot reject the nation of Israel, because he unconditionally chose it and set it apart with his electing love (i.e., his "foreknowledge"). Cranfield (2:545) takes this view: "We take it then that the relative clause refers to the general election of the people as a whole, and indicates a further ground for denying that God has cast off His people. The fact that God foreknew them (i.e., deliberately joined them to Himself in faithful love) excludes the possibility of His casting them off." Denney says, "Israel stood before God's eyes from eternity as His people, and in the immutableness of the sovereign love with which He made it His lies the impossibility of its rejection" (676). "Israel is the only nation God has foreknown and predetermined to be His people," says MacArthur. Because he has done so, "He can never totally reject them" (2:100). This is not a choosing of all Israel for salvation, though; it has to do only with the nation's irrevocable historical role as God's special people (see Moo, 674-675; Morris, 399).

The problem with each of the above views is its erroneous understanding of foreknowledge as such. As I have shown earlier (JC, 1:505-511), foreknowledge means just that: knowing beforehand, in the sense of prior cognitive or mental awareness. "Foreknew" here could then mean the same as in 8:29, i.e., God did not reject those from among his people whom he foreknew would accept his grace through faith. The effect then would be to narrow the meaning of "his people" from the nation in general to the remnant. I.e., has God rejected his people? No, he has not rejected all of them. To be more specific, he has not rejected the ones foreknown to become believers, who by their very faith are the only ones who are truly "his people."

I do not think this is the point, however. I take "his people" in v. 2a to be the same as in v. 1a, i.e., it refers to all ethnic Israelites and thus to the nation of Israel; but it refers to them as individuals and not as a national unit. To say that God "foreknew" his people Israel means that even before he singled them out for a central role in his redemptive plan, he knew in advance the kind of people they would be all along the historical path to the Messiah and beyond. Nothing about them - their weaknesses, their failures, their unbelief, their idolatries - took him by surprise. He foreknew all these things and chose them anyway, because he also foreknew that there would always be a faithful remnant who would turn to him with believing hearts, who would keep the messianic hope alive, and who would turn to the Messiah when he came.

Thus God's foreknowledge of his people included a foreknowledge of their persistent rebellion (JC, 1:509), as well as a foreknowledge of a continuing, faithful remnant. The latter is the main point, as vv. 2b-5 show. Because he foreknew there would always be an abiding remnant who is the true spiritual Israel, he did not abandon his ethnic people, even though he foreknew that most of them would never respond to his gracious invitation (10:21).

2. God Had a Remnant of Believers in the OT (11:2b-4)

11:2b-3 Don't you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah - how he appealed to God against Israel: "Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me"? In v. 1 Paul cited himself as evidence that God has not rejected his people; now he refers to a familiar incident from the OT as a further, more general proof (Godet, 392; Hendriksen, 2:361). In so doing he explicitly affirms the remnant concept introduced in 9:27-29.

"Don't you know" implies a positive answer: "You surely know, don't you?" "In the passage about Elijah" refers to 1 Kgs 17:1 through 2 Kgs 2:11. Students of Scripture in Paul's day would have known where to find this, even though they did not have chapter-and-verse divisions as we do today.

Paul refers to the specific place in the Elijah section where "he appealed to God against Israel." This is an unusual prayer, since most "appeals" to God regarding other people are intercessory, "a positive plea on behalf of someone," which is the way this same word is used in 8:27, 34. But here Elijah is pictured as pleading with God against someone, in fact, against the people of his own nation (Moo, 675, n. 23).

Elijah's prayer grows out of his frustration and despair over Ahab's and Jezebel's success in introducing Baal-worship into Israel (1 Kgs 16:31-32). Despite the Lord's great victory over Baal and his prophets at Mt. Carmel (1 Kgs 18:16-40), Elijah was cowed by Jezebel and went into hiding in a cave at Mt. Horeb (1 Kgs 19:1-9). Here he was confronted by God, who twice asked him, "What are you doing here, Elijah?" (1 Kgs 19:9,13). Both times, Elijah answered (1 Kgs 19:10,14) with the complaint selectively paraphrased by Paul here in v. 3.

Elijah's words sum up his perception of the religious crisis facing Israel at that time. God's prophets were certainly being killed on Jezebel's orders (1 Kgs 18:4), and the altars were being demolished (1 Kgs 18:30-32). Elijah's lament that he was "the only one left," even if it refers to prophets and not just true believers in general, is surely an exaggeration reflecting more his mood of despair than the facts as he knew them (see 1 Kgs 18:13,22).

The term translated "left" ("I am the only one left") is important because it ties in with several other words that represent the remnant concept. The word is the passive form of uJpoleivpw (hypoleipô - used only here in the NT), and means "to be left behind." Two other one-time words from this same family used in this context are leivmma ( leimma , 11:5) and uJpovleimma ( hypoleimma , 9:27). Both mean "the ones left behind," i.e., the remnant. In v. 4 a more common word meaning "to leave" kataleivpw (kataleipô ) is used. Thus when Elijah complained, "I am the only one left ," he was to the point of thinking he alone constituted the remnant of true believers (or at least true prophets).

11:4 And what was God's answer to him? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal." In order to shake Elijah out of his black mood, God gave him a demonstration of his solemn majesty (1 Kgs 19:11-13) and some concrete instructions (1 Kgs 19:15-17). He added the firm yet gentle reminder that Elijah was not alone; there were seven thousand other true worshipers of Yahweh in Israel (1 Kgs 19:18).

Many think the number "seven thousand" is not meant to be literal, but (since it involves the perfect number 7) is symbolic for the complete and perfect number of believers among Israel (see Cranfield, 2:547; Dunn, 2:638). Paul follows the LXX and adds the word ajnhvr (ançr , "male") after "seven thousand," i.e., "seven thousand men ." For a parallel see Acts 4:4. (The NIV translates ançr ["men"] in Acts 4:4, but leaves it out here.) If the number itself is symbolic and not literal, this is irrelevant. If not, then the total number of believers in Elijah's day were even greater than seven thousand, including women and youth (see Matt 14:21).

God's statement, "I have reserved for myself," uses the verb kataleivpw (kataleipô ), another "remnant" term (see v. 3). Its usual meaning is "to leave." Those with Calvinist leanings see an oblique reference to unconditional predestination in this word. "Emphasis is placed on God's action; he had reserved these" through his "efficacious grace and differentiation," says Murray (2:69). The term refers to "the divine decision," says Cranfield (2:546).

But this is not the point. Certainly this is an act of God regarding these men, but God's act is conditioned on the fact that they "have not bowed the knee to Baal." God is telling Elijah, "There are more than just you who have remained faithful. Indeed, I have identified and singled out from the great majority of Israelites a group of seven thousand true worshipers. I have separated them from the rest; in my sight they are a different group, a remnant. These are the ones I have kept in my saving grace and in close fellowship with myself."

They are the ones, God says, "I have reserved for myself ." They are "his people" in a special, spiritual sense. In this spiritual sense only these seven thousand belonged to God; the rest were Baal's. This remnant alone was the true Israel of 9:6b (McGuiggan, 319). "The seven thousand are Israel to Him" (Denney, 676). Thus God did not reject his people Israel. Though most rejected him, he still counted as his own those who sought him in faith. Though most abandoned him, these are still enough - a remnant to be sure - to constitute "his people."

3. Those under Grace Are God's New Covenant Israel (11:5-6)

11:5 Paul's reference to the Elijah incident is a good example of the remnant reality in OT times, but his main point is that this is an analogy of the Jewish situation in his own day. So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. Paul uses three words to connect this verse with the preceding one: "so therefore also." He does not want us to miss the parallel, i.e., there is no difference between Elijah's day and "the present time."

What is the nature of the parallel? The main point is the very existence of a remnant from among the people of Israel. God is no more rejecting his people in this gospel era than he was in Elijah's day. In the earlier time of national apostasy at least seven thousand remained true to God, "and so in Paul's day there was a faithful minority who had not rejected the gospel" (Bruce, 211). The existence of this remnant is sufficient to prove that God has not rejected his people, and thus that he is still faithful to his word and to his promises.

Many OT passages speak of the remnant concept. The immediate reference for most of them is the temporal deliverance of a remnant of survivors from the hands of oppressive enemies such as Assyria and Babylon (e.g., Ezra 9:8; Isa 1:9 [Rom 9:29]; Isa 10:20-22 [Rom 9:27]; Isa 11:11,16; Isa 37:4,32; Jer 6:9; Jer 23:3; Jer 31:7; Ezek 9:8; Ezek 11:13; Joel 2:32; Amos 5:15; Mic 2:12; Mic 4:6-7; Mic 7:18; Zeph 3:13). Many refer to the end of the Babylonian captivity and the restoration of the remaining Israelites to their homeland. Because this event in itself is typological of spiritual deliverance from sin, many of these remnant references have clear messianic import. Thus it is appropriate that the remnant concept be used by Paul in a spiritual sense to represent those Jews delivered by the power of Christ from their bondage to sin. They are the true Israel, in contrast with the rest who still languish in such bondage.

The second part of the parallel has to do with the means by which the remnant of Israel is distinguished from the nation as a whole, i.e., the remnant is "chosen by grace." Literally Paul says that in this present time a remnant "has come into existence according to an election [or choice] of grace." Even though this was not stressed in the OT itself, by virtue of the parallel being drawn here we must conclude that the Old Covenant remnant, such as the seven thousand in Elijah's day, were also established according to an election or choice of grace.

Paul says that the New Covenant remnant has "come into existence" or has "come to be" (NASB). The word is givnomai ( ginomai - a word the NIV completely ignores), which basically means "come to be, become, originate" (AG, 157). The perfect tense of the verb may be referring to a single past historical event that brought the New Covenant remnant into existence, i.e., the establishment of the NT church (Acts 2).

Paul's statement that the remnant has come into existence "according to a choice of grace" is often interpreted as an affirmation of Calvinist unconditional election. It shows, says Murray, that the distinction between the nation as a whole and the remnant is due solely to "God's gracious election," i.e., to "the sovereign will of God" and not to "any determination proceeding from the will of man" (2:70). As such it is often equated with the election of 9:7-18 as interpreted by Calvinists (e.g., Moo, 677).

I reject this meaning for Paul's statement. For one thing, this election is not the same as that in ch. 9. The subject here is election to salvation; in ch. 9 it was election to service. Also, we have already seen in our discussion of 8:29 that election to salvation is based upon divine foreknowledge (precognition) of human choices. The remnant is a group chosen by God, but chosen according to his foreknowledge.

What does it mean to say that the remnant has come into existence according to a choice of grace? We must keep in mind that Paul is here explaining how the remnant is different from the nation as a whole, and I believe that he does intend for us to understand this by comparing it with the election in 9:7-13. In that passage Paul emphasizes that being chosen as an instrument for God's use in carrying out his redemptive purpose was not a matter of natural right based on natural birth, but was a matter of God's sovereign choice. It was "God's purpose in election" (9:11) that led him to select Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau. None of these sons had an inherent claim to the privilege.

Likewise, being part of the saved remnant (spiritual Israel) is not a matter of physical birth as a Jew; no ethnic Israelite has an inherent claim to salvation. Being a part of the remnant is a matter of God's choice, and he has the sovereign right to establish the basis or criterion by which he chooses some Israelites rather than others. Thus the remnant is according to choice, not birth. Here the election of 9:11 and that of 11:5 are similar.

But there is an important difference between these two elections. Since 9:11 was not election to salvation, it was not described as an "election of grace." But in 11:5 the issue is salvation. The remnant consists of those within the nation of Israel who are saved, and the only way for sinners to be saved is by receiving God's gift of his own righteousness through faith (9:30-10:13) - in other words, by grace. This speaks to another main difference between the mass of ethnic Israel and the remnant. The former sought salvation by works or by their own righteousness (9:32; 10:3), while the latter sought it by faith in the righteousness of God. Thus to say that the remnant has come into existence according to an election of grace means that God chooses to save those Jews (and Gentiles, 9:30) who themselves choose his way of grace rather than the futile way of law. "God chose to elect all those who would choose to accept the grace extended through his son" (DeWelt, 176).

We must not lose sight of Paul's purpose for even mentioning the remnant here. His point is to show that God has not rejected his people; the existence of the remnant is evidence that he has not. The fact that he is willing to constitute this remnant according to the terms of grace rather than law shows how faithful he is, and just how determined he is to preserve "his people" in spite of their sin.

11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. This verse sums up some of the main conclusions concerning law and grace as ways of salvation that were discussed in chs. 1-5 (see also 9:30-10:4). It also reinforces the point made under 11:5 above, that the main difference between ethnic Israel and remnant Israel is the latter's choice of grace instead of law as the only way to a saving relationship with God.

The first part of v. 6 has no stated subject in the Greek; translators usually supply "it." We may conclude from v. 5 that "being included in the remnant" is the understood subject.

The term "no longer" is used here in a logical sense, not temporal. I.e., Paul is not saying that in earlier times remnant membership was by works, but is so no longer. Rather, he is saying that once one sees that remnant membership is by grace, then he can no longer consider it to be by works.

Dunn notes that this is the first time Paul "brings 'works' and 'grace' into direct antithesis" (2:647). This is true of the terms themselves, but not of the concepts. The whole point of chs. 1-5 was the antithesis between law (works) and grace (faith) as ways of salvation. Since faith is a key element in the grace system, sometimes "faith" or "by faith" is simply shorthand for the system as a whole. Likewise, since works are a key element in the law system, sometimes "by works" or "from works" is just shorthand for the law system as a whole - which is the case here. In 10:5-6 Paul contrasts "righteousness by law" and "righteousness by faith"; this is exactly the same contrast as that between "by grace" and "by works" in 11:6.

It is crucial that we correctly understand the meaning of "works," which is the same as "works of law" in 3:28. As explained there (JC, 1:268-271), "works" includes any response to the laws or commandments of the Creator given to human beings as creatures, without restriction as to dispensation (Old Covenant or New Covenant), form (written or innate), and motives (good or bad). Thus it is wrong to limit "works" to obedience to the Law of Moses. It is also wrong to expand the term to include "anything that human beings do" (contra Moo, 678; see 250), since it does not refer to the Redeemer's instructions on how to be saved, i.e., the conditions for receiving salvation. These are not a part of the Creator's law, and are not works in the Pauline sense. See JC, 1:270; MP, 449.

Those who wrongly expand the concept of works to include "anything a person does" usually then proceed to use v. 6 to support their Calvinist interpretation of v. 5. If "works" means anything a person does, this must include not only repentance, confession, and baptism, but even faith itself, insofar as it is a decision of man's will. Thus to Calvinists, even faith, regarded as something a person does as a result of his own choice, is a grace-canceling work. As Murray says, "If grace is conditioned in any way by human performance or by the will of man impelling to action, then grace ceases to be grace" (2:70). Grace cannot be conditioned on anything a person does, says Moo, for then grace would not be free: "For grace demands that God be perfectly free to bestow his favor on whomever he chooses. But if God's election were based on what human beings do, his freedom would be violated and he would no longer be acting in grace" (678). Moo acknowledges that Paul distinguishes works from faith, but declares nevertheless that "Paul's conception of God's grace . . . would seem to rule out anything outside God's own free will as a basis for his actions. To make election ultimately dependent on the human decision to believe violates Paul's notion of the grace of God. . . . God's grace is the efficient cause of salvation, human faith being not its basis but its result" (679, n. 43).

Using the same too-broad definition of works, Morris says 11:6 "rules out the idea that God foreknows what people will do and chooses the elect on the basis of this foreknowledge of their works" (402; emphasis added).

This whole approach to grace is a serious error, since it includes more in the category of works than Paul intends (as discussed above). Also, it is a false concept of the freedom that is inherently involved in grace. That grace is conditioned on certain human acts is not a violation of God's freedom in the bestowal of grace, since he himself is the one who freely chose to do it this way and the one who freely chose what the conditions shall be. Besides, the conditions he has chosen are completely consistent with the essence of grace.

Also, election according to foreknowledge does not contradict grace because the crucial object of God's foreknowledge is not the presence or absence of human works but the acceptance or rejection of God's free offer of grace in accord with the gracious conditions which he himself has laid down.

Paul's point in this verse is simply to sum up the main message of Romans, that the only way for a sinner to be saved is by grace through faith, not by the system of law. The two systems are mutually exclusive; one must choose either God's righteousness (grace) or personal righteousness (works) as the basis for his salvation. One must rely either upon himself or upon Jesus Christ; he cannot do both. Any trust in the worthiness of one's own achievements or the merit of one's own accomplishments is simply incompatible with grace. Trying to get to heaven by being "good enough" nullifies the way of grace.

As applied to remnant Jews, this means that they belong to the remnant not because they are essentially better than the rest, i.e., less sinful or more law-abiding, but because they have submitted to God's way of righteousness (10:3), which is grace. If everyone were to be accepted or rejected on the basis of his works, there would be no remnant. By its very nature the remnant is a grace entity. Though Paul is making this point specifically regarding the remnant of the Jews, it applies equally to the Gentiles, and thus to the church as a whole.

B. UNBELIEVING ISRAEL HAS BEEN HARDENED (11:7-10)

If only a remnant of Israel is saved, what has happened to the rest? Are they totally abandoned and forgotten by God? Having served their covenant purposes as a means of bringing Christ into the world, and paradoxically having refused to accept him as their Messiah, are they now to be completely ignored? Paul's answer is No, but exactly how they continue to be the object of God's attention is somewhat surprising. This is Paul's subject in this paragraph.

11:7 What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, . . . The first part of this verse is a transitional statement that sums up the preceding thoughts in terms of a contrast between "the elect" on the one hand, and "Israel" ("the others") on the other hand.

Paul does not use the usual word for "the elect" (ejklektov" , eklektos ; see 8:33), but carries over the noun used in 11:5 (ejkloghv , eklogç , "choice, election"). In this context it is synonymous with "the remnant." The term "Israel" here refers to the physical nation in general, or "Israel as a corporate whole," as Moo says (679). But strictly speaking, Paul is referring not to the totality of physical Israel, but only to unbelieving Jews, "the others" in contrast to the elect.

What was Israel "so earnestly" seeking? The answer can be found in 9:30-10:3; they were pursuing righteousness , a right standing before God (Denney, 677; Morris, 402; Moo, 680). In 9:30-31 Paul says the Gentiles found such righteousness though they were not seeking it, while Israel was pursuing it but did not find it. The reason they did not find it, he says (9:32; 10:3), was that they were seeking it in their own works and not in God's gift.

The NIV translates the verb as past tense ("sought"), which is consistent with the past tense of the verbs in 9:31-32; 10:3. But here the Greek is present tense ("that which Israel is seeking for," NASB), which implies that the Israelites in general were still seeking for this righteous standing before God.

The emphasis, though, is not on the action of seeking, but on the result of the search. The good news is that the elect remnant did obtain the sought-for righteousness. The bad news is that the vast majority, Israel as a whole, did not (see 9:30). These are simply called "the others," or "the rest" (NASB), i.e., the rest of the Jews (not the rest of mankind in general, contra Morris, 403).

At this point Paul introduces a new and surprising thought: "the others," the unbelieving Jews, were hardened . This theme is a prominent part of the argument in the rest of this chapter, either implicitly or explicitly. Thus it is crucial that we understand it aright. The following facts concerning this hardening will emerge in the course of Paul's argument, but may profitably be summed up before we go any further. (1) Whatever the nature of this hardening, it is not the cause of anyone's unbelief. The only ones hardened are those who have already rejected God's righteousness in Christ. (2) Whatever the nature of the hardening, it is not irrevocable and final. Those hardened are still able to come to faith, as the next point indicates. (3) God's purpose for this hardening is to use it as a means of converting many Gentiles, which in turn will be a means of converting many of the hardened Jews themselves. Thus paradoxically the ultimate goal and result of the hardening is the salvation of those who are hardened! The sequence of events is as follows: the bulk of the Jews reject the gospel; they are hardened; as a consequence Gentiles are saved; as a consequence of this, many of the hardened Jews are made jealous and are saved; and as a consequence of this, even more Gentiles are saved!

The word for "hardened" is pwrovw (pôroô ), the noun form of which (pwvrwsi" , pôrôsis ) is used in 11:25. (The meaning is the same as the verb used in 9:18, sklhruvnw [sklçrynô ].) The verb pôroô "is a medical term used in Hippocrates and elsewhere of a bone or hard substance growing when bones are fractured, or of a stone forming in the bladder" (SH, 314). Hence it means "to harden, to petrify"; in the NT it is used in the figurative sense: "to make dull, obdurate, insensitive." It refers to "the heart becoming hardened or callous," i.e., to a state in which "a covering has grown over the heart, making men incapable of receiving any new teaching however good, and making them oblivious of the wrong they are doing" (SH, 314).

In this verse the verb is passive, and the agent of the hardening is not identified. Some declare that the Jews hardened themselves. The hardening came about "through their own rejection, choosing rather to obey Satan . . . than the grace of God" (DeWelt, 176). Such self-hardening is certainly a biblically-attested reality (Exod 8:15,32; Heb 3:8,15; 4:7). Some identify Satan as the agent of the hardening, by God's permission (Lard, 351; MP, 451; Godet, 398). Others say the agent of the hardening is "intentionally left vague" and indefinite (Denney, 677; Morris, 403).

There is some truth in each of these views, but the context requires us to identify God himself as the main agent in the hardening of the Jews (see 9:18; 11:8; see Murray, 2:72; Moo, 680; Stott, 293). How he did so is not explained. It is very possible that he hardened them by allowing Satan a free hand to blind their eyes. Citing 1 Kgs 22:19-23, the book of Job, and 2 Cor 4:4, Godet says that "God proves or punishes by leaving Satan to act" (398). It is also possible that God hardened the Jews simply by diminishing or withdrawing his own positive influences toward them, as he did with the Gentiles when he "gave them over" to the destructiveness of their own sinful desires (1:24,26,28; JC, 1:149-150).

In any case there is general agreement that the Jews had already hardened themselves into a state of unbelief before God performed this act of hardening upon them. Thus the divine hardening is not the cause of their rejection of the gospel, but a punishment for it. They were hardened because they deserved it; it was retribution (v. 9) for their sin. It was "a judicial penalty for refusal to heed the Word of God" (Bruce, 215; see Lenski, 686). "God has judicially blinded those of His chosen people who willfully blind themselves to Him," says MacArthur (2:101). "God hardens only those hearts who, in rejecting His gracious offer of righteousness, harden themselves to His grace" (ibid., 103; see Hendriksen, 2:365; Morris, 403). Brunner says it well: "Hardening is being able no longer to say anything but No. God permits them to become entangled in their own No." As with the Gentiles in ch. 1, "so he has now hardened the Jews after they have said their No. The hardening is not the original cause but God's punishment for their unbelief" (94).

What is the result of this hardening? Some interpret it as a final sealing of these Jews in a state of unbelief, and equate it with the eternal decree of reprobation that (in Calvinist thinking) predestines some to hell, just as the eternal decree of election unconditionally predestines others to heaven (Calvin, 417; Murray, 2:72). We may conclude, says Moo, "that God's hardening permanently binds people in the sin that they have chosen for themselves" (681).

This view is a serious error, however, and must be vigorously rejected. Not even all Calvinists agree with it. Hendriksen (2:365) says, "To include Rom. 11:7 . . . in a list of passages proving reprobation is an error," because "even for the hardened ones there is hope," as the following context shows. Cranfield agrees: "The divine hardening is not God's last word for His rebellious people" (2:550). So whatever result this hardening has, it is something done only to unbelievers, and it does not ultimately prevent them from becoming believers. It is neither absolute nor irreversible. Hence it does not contradict the principle that God does not violate any individual's free will to choose his own eternal destiny.

The result of the hardening is Paul's subject in vv. 8-10. It certainly involves an insensitivity toward God's word, blinding one's spiritual eyes and deafening one's spiritual ears toward God's truth. In the act of hardening God takes away "from the heart the faculty of being touched by what is good or divine," and he takes away "from the understanding, the faculty of discerning between the true and the false, the good and the bad" (Godet, 395). In so doing God is simply confirming what is already present in the unbeliever's heart.

Why has God so hardened the Jews? As noted above, it is in the first place a judicial act, a recompense for unbelief. But there is an even deeper reason, a positive one that flows from the deepest and wisest recesses of God's loving heart. God has used many people, including the Jews as a nation, to carry out his redemptive purposes. Sometimes this can be done only by a limited and temporary hardening, as in the case of Pharaoh (9:18). So it is here, that by hardening "the rest" of the Jews, he can use them "as an instrument of his good pleasure" in bringing many people to salvation (see McGuiggan, 322). As Paul goes on to explain in 11:11ff., the hardening of the Jews is intended as a means by which the Gentiles may be saved, which in turn is a means by which the hardened Jews themselves may be brought to faith in their Messiah.

11:8 [A]s it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day." In this and the next two verses Paul draws from three OT passages to reinforce his assertion about the hardening of Israel. These texts are not treated as prophecies but as precedents. In v. 8 two passages are used. "God gave them a spirit of stupor" is from Isa 29:10a, "For the LORD has poured over you a spirit of deep sleep" (NASB). The last part of v. 8 is from Deut 29:4.

The words from Isa 29:10 make it clear that God is the one who is responsible for the hardening in 11:7. The word for "stupor" suggests not so much a deep sleep as a state of numbness, of being bewildered and stunned. The word is katavnuxi" ( katanyxis ), and probably comes from katanuvssw (katanyssô ), which means "to strike violently, to stun" (Earle, 208). Sometimes a person who has been struck on the head may seem to be fully conscious but is mentally confused and unaware of his surroundings. Just so, says Paul (as did Isaiah before him), God has enveloped Israel in a state of spiritual numbness, in "an attitude of deadness towards spiritual things" (Morris, 403), in a "mental and moral dulness [sic] or apathy" (Hendriksen, 2:364).

The word "spirit" probably means an attitude or a state of mind, but it is possible that it refers to a demonic spirit whom God permits to inflict Israel with this spiritual blindness. See 1 Sam 18:10 and 1 Kgs 22:20-23 for precedents. Whether this be the case or not, the result is God's intention: a "punitive hardening which follows after self-hardening has fully set in" (Lenski, 687). "The eyes of their souls are shut; they see nothing rightly" (Lard, 351).

So that there may be no mistake, the "spirit of stupor" is explained with the reference to Deut 29:4, "eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear." Again, Paul says God gave to Israel these nonseeing eyes and nonhearing ears. The mass of Israel seemed to be spiritually conscious and God-fearing; indeed they had "a zeal for God," but it was "not in accordance with knowledge" (10:2, NASB). God reinforced their own willful ignorance by covering their spiritual eyes and stopping up their spiritual ears.

"To this very day" is part of the quotation from Deut 29:4. Moses' point was that after forty years of wilderness wandering the Israelites still had not come to understand and appreciate what God had done for them in delivering them from Egypt and giving them their own land, even on the very eve of their possession of that land. Paul seems to be saying that the Jews of his day were still laboring under the same spiritual blindness that caused them to crucify their Messiah (1 Thess 2:14-15), and that this blindness had not yet been lifted or counteracted as 11:11-32 suggests will some day happen.

11:9-10 And David says, "May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them. May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever." These two verses are taken from Ps 69:22-23. This is appropriate because Ps 69 is widely recognized as Messianic and is cited or alluded to frequently in the NT (e.g., Mark 15:23, 36 [Ps 69:21]; John 2:17 [Ps 69:9]; John 15:25 [Ps 69:4]; Acts 1:20 [Ps 69:25]; Rom 15:3 [Ps 69:9]; see Dunn, 2:642). As David wrote the Psalm, it was his prayer for God to deliver him from his enemies and to give those enemies the punishment they deserved. As Paul applies it to his time, he suggests that "what David prayed would happen to his persecutors, . . . God has brought upon those Jews who have resisted the gospel" (Moo, 683). "Paul takes it for granted that the doom invoked in these words has come upon the Jews," says Denney (678).

Paul's main point in citing these imprecations seems to be to reinforce the idea that the hardening affirmed in v. 7 is actually deserved by the unbelieving Jews. David's prayer was for three curses to come upon his enemies. The first is that "their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block." Here "table" may be an allusion to the OT law in general, and especially to its sacrificial system, which involved an altar and a table for eating the sacrificial meal (Denney, 678; Dunn, 2:642-643, 650). Or it may simply be a household table representing the food and fellowship of ordinary mealtime and earthly prosperity in general (Lenski, 689; Murray, 2:74).

In either case the prayer is "a wish that even the good things which these enemies enjoy may prove to be a cause of disaster to them" (Cranfield, 2:551). "Their table . . . is that in which they delight, and it is this which is to prove their ruin" (Denney, 678).

The second curse is that "their eyes be darkened so they cannot see." This clearly ties in with the "spirit of stupor" in v. 8 and the hardening in v. 7, and indicates that Israel as a whole was blinded toward the truth of the gospel.

The third curse is that "their backs be bent forever." It is difficult to tell exactly what calamity this is supposed to represent. It may be a figure for the hard labor of slavery, the heaviness of a burden, a state of weakness, or the overwhelming effects of grief or fear. Any of these could apply to first-century Judaism. Paul may be saying, "May their backs be always weak and feeble under the burden that they bear because of their rejection of the gospel" (Fitzmyer, 607). Or he may be referring to "the state of slavish fear in which the Jews shall be held as long as this judgment of hardening which keeps them outside of the gospel shall last" (Godet, 397).

The main point, though, is expressed in v. 9b, where the wish is that their table may become "a retribution for them." The sense of this term is that of being repaid or paid back in kind. The implication is that all these curses are a recompense or retribution, a deserved penalty upon the Jews "rightly demanded by their wickedness" (Lenski, 690). It declares that "the evil which came upon the Jews was caused by their own fault and sin" (MP, 452); it "confirms the judicial character of their hardening" (Murray, 2:74).

C. THE HARDENING OF UNBELIEVING ISRAEL

BECOMES A BLESSING FOR BOTH THE GENTILES

AND THE JEWS (11:11-16)

In this paragraph Paul is still developing his answer to the question in 11:1, "Did God reject his people?" He has supported his emphatic negative answer by pointing to the existence of the "remnant chosen by grace" (vv. 1-6). But what about the mass of unbelieving Jews not included in the remnant? They "were hardened" (11:7-10).

This leads to the question of the ultimate fate of hardened Israel. Are they simply and finally lost? Is there no place for them in the kingdom? Are they totally excluded from God's mercy and God's plan? "What about the sinning majority? Are they lost forever?" (Morris, 405).

Paul's answer is another emphatic No! It is true that this majority rejected their Messiah, and that God hardened them. But this is not the final word; it is not the whole story. In this section the Apostle shows how even hardened Israel is part of the larger picture of God's mercy, or "how Israel's failure fits into the salvific plan of God" (Fitzmyer, 608). God can use this unbelieving nation for his own redemptive purpose, and even his hardening of them furthers this purpose.

In essence, Paul explains that God's hardening of Israel (especially the withdrawing of direct evangelistic efforts to win them) is intended to start a chain reaction that leads back to the conversion of Jews by indirect means. In summary, the hardening of unbelieving Israel "is the occasion for the coming in of the Gentiles, which, in its turn, is to have the effect of awakening the unbelieving Jews to a realization of what they are missing and so to lead to their repentance" (Cranfield, 2:553). Thus "even the hardening of Israel serves the purposes of mercy" (Achtemeier, 181). As Hendriksen remarks, God's "purpose is ultimately one of grace, and this for the benefit of both Gentile and Jews" (2:366).

Nearly everyone agrees that this section shows that Israel's fall and hardening are not meant to be final. Just as vv. 1-10 show that her rejection is only partial, these verses show that it is intended to be only temporary. "God's punitive action against the majority" is "not his last word concerning Israel" (Dunn, 2:666). The Jews can be saved.

Unfortunately, many interpreters take Paul's basic message of hope for Israel and expand it into a veritable philosophy of history. They see in this paragraph the seeds of a complicated eschatology involving a renewed special role for the Jews as a nation. I.e., they take Paul's statements about Israel's salvation as referring to a large-scale future conversion of the Jews en masse , and a restoration of the nation as such to their original status as the people of God. Many regard this as the key precursor to the end of this age and the final resurrection (v. 15). This theory will receive some attention in the following discussion.

11:11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Of whom is Paul speaking? Not Israel as a whole, as a corporate nation (contra Moo, 686), but only the individual Jews who rejected their Messiah and were subsequently hardened, i.e., "the others" of v. 7 (Cranfield, 2:554; Denney, 678).

The first verb, "stumble" (ptaivw , ptaiô , "to stumble, to trip") is used in a figurative or moral sense, "to make a mistake, go astray, sin" (AG, 734; see Jas 2:10; 3:2; 2 Pet 1:10). The second verb, pivptw (piptô ), has a straightforward meaning: "to fall, to fall down, to collapse." In a moral sense it means "to fall into sin, to go astray," and may have an even stronger sense: to "fall from a state of grace, be completely ruined, perish" (AG, 665).

There is no question that hardened Israel stumbled (9:32-33), but did they fall ? Despite Paul's emphatic No! (mhΙ gevnoito , mç genoito ; see 3:4), the answer to this question is not as simple as it seems. The main reason is that v. 22 refers to these same Jews as "those who fell," and uses the same word as in v. 11 (piptô ).

So what does Paul mean in v. 11? The most common approach is to give piptô an exceptionally strong meaning here, as in the NIV: "to fall beyond recovery." It means to be "finally lost" in the sense of "a complete and irrevocable fall," say Sanday and Headlam (320-321). It refers to a "fall without remedy" (Lard, 354), involving "irretrievable spiritual ruin" (Moo, 687). Paul does imply that falling is more serious than merely stumbling, so this interpretation seems to fit. As Fitzmyer summarizes it, "Israel has stumbled over Christ, but it has not fallen down completely so that it cannot regain its footing" (611).

Is this interpretation acceptable? Yes. It surely fits the context, since one of Paul's main points is that fallen Israel can indeed be saved. A serious problem, though, is that it does not seem consistent with v. 22.

Thus out of concern for v. 22, some have suggested another understanding of v. 11. The point of the question, they say, is this: did Israel stumble "merely for the purpose that they might fall" (Murray, 2:76)? Paul's No! is not intended to deny that they have fallen; it simply means that there is more to the story than this. They have not stumbled just for the purpose of falling, or with the simple result that they are now fallen and that's that. No, Paul's whole point is that God has incorporated Israel's stumbling and falling into a much larger and more glorious plan.

Is this interpretation acceptable? Yes, and in my opinion it is preferable. If anything, it fits the immediate context even better than the more common view, and it takes full account of v. 22. The main problem is that the concept of "merely" must be read into the question.

Another issue is the meaning of the word i{na ( hina ), which connects the two verbs ("so as," NIV). This word can imply either purpose or result. If Paul intends the former, he is asking whether hardened Israel stumbled "in order that they might fall" or "for the purpose of falling." If we read it in this sense, then Paul would be implying that God caused Israel to stumble (to reject their Messiah), and that he had a purpose for causing them to stumble. The issue then would be to identify that purpose, that "divinely intended outcome" (Dunn, 2:652). This of course assumes a Calvinist view of sovereignty and free will, as is the case with Murray, who speaks of "the overriding and overruling design of God in the stumbling and fall of Israel" (2:76).

Most interpreters, however (even among Calvinists), take hina as stating result rather than purpose. That is, has hardened Israel stumbled "with the result that" they have fallen ? This meaning "makes excellent sense," says Dunn (2:653); and this is so however one understands the concept of "falling."

The bottom line is that most Jews have indeed stumbled, i.e., have rejected Jesus and his grace, and consequently have fallen into a state of lostness and spiritual ruin. But that is not the whole picture; that is not the end of the story. The drama of Israel does not end on such a negative note. Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.

Paul refers here to "their transgression" (singular). Is this different from the stumbling and falling in v. 11a? It may be useful to bring together and analyze the variety of terms Paul uses to describe Israel's downfall. It seems that he distinguishes three steps in the process, the first two of which are attributable to the sinner's will and the last of which is an act of God. The first step is the sin of rejecting God's way of grace, most significantly the initial sin of rejecting Jesus as the only Savior. The second step is falling out of a saving relationship with God and into a state of lostness. The third step is God's placing those who have so fallen under his wrath and curse.

The first of these steps is what Paul means by "their transgression." It is the word paravptwma (paraptô ma ), which is "frequently used by Paul to denote 'trespass', 'sin' (in the sense of a particular sinful deed)," as Cranfield says (2:555). It is the same as the stumbling in v. 11a, i.e., their stumbling over Christ (9:32-33), their rejection of Christ as the Messiah. It is called "unbelief" in vv. 20,23, and "disobedience" in v. 30.

The second step is the Jews' "fall" in v. 11a (see v. 22), also called their "loss" in v. 12. This is not so much an act of the sinner as the natural result of the first step (the unbelief).

The third step is God's act of hardening (vv. 7, 25), which is his punitive response to the first two steps. This is also called his "rejection" of the Jews (v. 15), and his act of breaking off or cutting off the unbelieving branches (vv. 17,19-20,22).

In reference to the Jews' downfall, these three steps always go together; even when only one is mentioned, the other two are assumed to be a part of the total picture. Thus here when Paul says "because of their transgression," he does not mean the transgression alone, as distinct from the fall and the hardening. Rather, because of the transgression along with the consequent fall and the divine hardening, salvation has come to the Gentiles.

Herein lies the first element in God's plan that evokes Paul's extreme sense of awe and wonder at his wisdom (11:33-36), namely, that God has determined to use the Jews' unbelief and fall (along with his own act of hardening) as a means of bringing salvation to the Gentiles! I.e., "Israel's stumbling was the occasion for redemption to be opened to the gentiles" (Achtemeier, 180). Out of sin, salvation comes! Out of wrath, mercy comes!

This could refer to the fact that by delivering Jesus over to the Romans for crucifixion, the Jews were inadvertently helping to bring about the one great act of redemption that is the source of salvation for all. More likely, though, it refers to the ordinary process of evangelism reflected in the book of Acts. I.e., once Gentile evangelism finally began (Acts 10), the missionary strategy was still to preach to the Jews first. But when the Jews typically rejected the gospel message, attention was turned to the Gentiles. As Moo says, "Paul probably had in mind the way in which he and other preachers of the gospel would turn to the Gentiles after being spurned by the Jews" (687; see Cranfield, 2:556; Bruce, 212). See Acts 13:44-52; 18:1-6; 19:8-10; 28:23-28.

But even this is not the whole story. If it were, hardened Israel would still be abandoned in their lostness. But this is not God's plan. The other element in the divine strategy that evokes Paul's reverent amazement is that God intends the conversion of the Gentiles to arouse the hardened Jews to jealousy (or envy) and thereby cause them to turn at last to their Messiah (see v. 14). The language Paul uses here does indicate a "divine intention" (Cranfield, 2:556). I.e., "the salvation of the Gentiles was intended in the divine providence to arouse in Israel a passionate desire for the same good gift" (Morris, 407). "Thus that hardening of which v. 7 spoke has for its ultimate purpose the salvation of those who are hardened" (Cranfield, 2:556).

Paul has already introduced this theme of "provoking to envy" in 10:19, where he cites Deut 32:21. Some may be concerned that God can speak of envy or jealousy as a motivation for accepting the gospel. Because they think of jealousy as always being sinful, it sounds to them like an "end justifies means" scheme. Some try to avoid this by using the word "emulation" instead (Lard, 355; MP, 454). But this misses the point. Emulation cannot be substituted for jealousy, since it is the effect of which jealousy is supposed to be the cause.

In the Bible jealousy is always the point of this word, but it is not always an evil attitude. God himself is often described as a "jealous God" (see GC, 409-416). Stott well says that "not all envy is tainted with selfishness, because it is not always a grudging discontent or a sinful covetousness." The essence of envy, he says, is the desire to have for oneself what is possessed by another. It is good envy or evil envy depending on the nature of what is desired and on whether one has a right to it (297). Surely in this case the salvation possessed by the Gentiles is something good and something God wants the Jews to have anyway, and the Jews' desire to have it will in no way diminish the Gentiles' possession of it. Thus it is not at all an unworthy motive for accepting the gospel.

In this verse three things are linked in a cause-and-effect chain: the Jews' transgression (their initial negative response to the gospel), Gentile salvation, and Jewish envy. It is significant that in the latter part of the verse there are no verbs, and thus no tenses (past, present, future). We know the first step has already occurred; we assume the second has at least begun ("salvation has come ," NIV, NASB). Many assume the last step (Jewish envy) is still in the future, but our conclusion on this point must be based on the following verses.

11:12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring! Most of the content of this verse, rightly understood, has already been either affirmed or implied in v. 11 (Lard, 356; MP, 456-457). I.e., if the Jews' transgression (stumbling, unbelief) results in riches (salvation) for the world (the Gentiles), and if their loss (fall) similarly results in riches (salvation) for the Gentiles, then how much more likely it is that the fullness (salvation) of the Jews will result in spiritual riches for all.

We should note that in the Greek there are no verbs (and thus no tenses) in this entire verse; thus we should be cautious about assigning to any one of these three clauses an entirely past or entirely future enactment.

The first two clauses seem to be restating the link between the Jews' downfall and the Gentiles' salvation taught in v. 11. "Their transgression" is the same word used in v. 11 and has the same meaning, i.e., their stumbling over and rejecting their Messiah in unbelief. "Their loss" is equivalent to the "fall" in v. 11.

The word translated "loss" (h{tthma , hçttçma ) is seldom used and is quite difficult. Some give it a numerical connotation ("diminishing, fewness, diminutiveness, reduction to a small number"), mainly based on the assumption that the corresponding word in the next clause ("fullness") is also numerical. But this is wrong, especially since "fullness" itself should not be understood numerically. Also, it does not fit the context. The subject here is not Israel per se but the hardened portion of Israel, which in comparison with the remnant is not few but many.

The basic meaning of hçttçma seems to be "defeat" (Isa 31:8, LXX; 1 Cor 6:7), but the emphasis here seems to be more on the loss (e.g., of possessions, of freedom) that results from an actual defeat. "Loss" is thus a good translation. As a result of their rejection of their Messiah, the Jews suffered the loss of their relationship with God and of the spiritual riches of Christ's kingdom. Thus they exist in "a state of missed blessings" (McGuiggan, 324). This contrasts well with "riches." See Lard, 356; Murray, 2:78; McGuiggan, 323-324.

The point is that the Jews' trespass, along with their consequent loss, is a means of bringing spiritual riches upon the Gentiles, as pointed out in v. 11. "Riches" refers to the spiritual riches of salvation and is equivalent to "salvation" in v. 11. See Eph 1:18, which refers to "the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints" (See also 2:4; 9:23; 11:33; Eph 1:7; 2:7; 3:6, 8; Phil 4:19).

The last clause in this verse is extremely difficult. Literally it is very succinct: "by how much more their fullness" (no verb). How does this fit into the overall structure of the verse? The phrase "by how much more" (povsw/ ma'llon , posô mallon ) shows that some kind of comparison is being made between the first two clauses and this final clause. The common assumption is that "riches" is being compared with "more riches," i.e., if the Jews' transgression and loss bring riches to the Gentiles, their fullness will bring even greater riches .

I believe this misses the point, however. In six of its eight NT occurrences, the phrase posô mallon means "how much more likely it is that," and is usually part of an argument from the lesser to the greater. This meaning fits very well here. Thus the clause is not an argument from riches to more riches, but this: "If the Jews' transgression and loss mean riches for the Gentiles, how much more likely it is that the Jews' fullness [means riches for the Gentiles]."

This conclusion will affect not only how we interpret v. 12, but also v. 15, where "life from the dead" is often identified with the alleged "greater riches" in v. 12. (E.g., see Moo, 689; DeWelt, 182.) Speculation then abounds. I.e., if the riches brought to the Gentiles by the Jews' sin is (rightly) understood as their salvation (v. 11), then the greater riches ("life from the dead") must be something even more significant than personal salvation; indeed, it must be something spectacular, such as a great future universal revival or the final general resurrection at the end-time. E.g., Denney posits some future "unimaginable blessing" (679), and Murray speaks of "unprecedented enrichment" (2:79).

But when we see that posô mallon is not really talking about "greater riches," the basis for such speculation is gone; and when we realize also that there is no verb (and thus no future tense) in this clause, the assumption that this word refers to some great eschatological event is also weakened.

This brings us to the difficult question, what is the nature of the Jews' "fullness" (plhvrwma , plçrôma )? There are two basic views. One is that this is a quantitative fullness, and refers to the ultimate conversion of the "full number" of Jews; the other is that the fullness is qualitative and refers to the Jews' participation in the fullness of salvation.

The former view, that plçrôma means "full and completed number," is, as Cranfield notes, "widely accepted"; and in his opinion it "seems very much more likely" than any other view (2:558). It refers to "the entrance of the full complement of the nation into the Messianic kingdom," say Sanday and Headlam (322). The TEV translates it "complete number." This is often paralleled with a numeric interpretation of hçttçma in the previous clause; see the NEB: "If their falling-off [hçttçma ] means the enrichment of the Gentiles, how much more their coming to full strength!"

To what, then, would this refer? The most common idea is that it refers to a future large-scale conversion of Jews, in contrast with the present "remnant" situation. Israel's "diminishing to a small number," says Godet, will be reversed by a "national conversion" of "the totality of the then living members of the people of Israel" (400-401). "Paul cannot rest content in the thought of only a remnant saved," says Dunn (2:655). We must assume that the Apostle is referring to a future "conversion on a large scale," in line with 11:25, says Lard (357). See also Stott, 296; Moo, 689-690.

Some expand this idea to include the restoration of the Jews to their original status as God's chosen people. The word "fullness" means "a mass restoration of Israel is in view," says Murray. "Nothing else than a restoration of Israel as a people to faith, privilege, and blessing can satisfy the terms of this passage" (2:79, 80). This is often linked with the establishment of a millennial kingdom in the premillennial sense (e.g., MacArthur, 2:110-111).

Others agree that "fullness" means "full number," but interpret this (in a Calvinist sense) to mean the full number of elect Jews as they are gradually converted over the full course of Christian history. This is Hendriksen's view: "The salvation of the full number of Israelites who had been predestined to be saved (cf. 9:6) - hence, not just the salvation of a remnant at any one particular time (see 11:5) - would progressively bring an abundance of blessings to the entire world" (2:367).

The meaning of v. 12 would then be, in Cranfield's words, as follows: "If the present unbelief of the majority of Israel actually means the enrichment of the Gentiles, how much more wonderfully enriching must the situation resulting from the provoking to jealousy of this majority of Israel be!" (2:557-558).

The other view, and in my opinion the correct one, is that the plçrôma of the Jews is meant in a qualitative sense and refers to spiritual fullness, or being filled with all the abundance of salvation. The word itself as used elsewhere in the NT does not refer to "full number" but to "completeness, abundance." See, e.g., John 1:16, "the fullness of his grace"; Rom 15:29, "the full measure of the blessing of Christ"; Eph 1:23, "the fullness of him [Christ]"; Eph 3:19, "that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God"; Eph 4:13, "attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." (Compare the way the verb plhrovw [plçroô ] is used in Rom 15:13-14; Eph 3:19; 5:18; Phil 1:11; Col 2:10.)

This meaning also fits the context. In v. 12 itself, "fullness" is in contrast with both "transgression" and "loss," words that sum up the lost state as opposed to salvation. This is an especially appropriate contrast with "loss," which as we have seen does not have a numerical connotation; the point is simply the lost state as compared with the saved state.

Also regarding context, this meaning is better in view of the connection between v. 11 and v. 12. Verse 11 describes a cause-and-effect chain: the Jews' transgression leads to Gentile salvation which leads to Jewish envy. The reference to Jewish envy implies Jewish salvation, since this is its intended result (see v. 14). As noted above, v. 12 is giving further reflection on the relations among these three items, especially the idea that the Jews' transgression results in riches (salvation) for the Gentiles. The one thought added in v. 12 is that the Jewish envy (and thus salvation) produced by the Gentiles' conversion would in turn lead to even more Gentiles being saved. Thus it is natural to take "fullness" in v. 12 as referring to the Jews' salvation, which in context corresponds to (since in fact it grows out of) their envy in v. 11.

As another contextual note, we shall see later that this meaning best corresponds to the meaning of plçrôma in v. 25.

Thus I agree with McGuiggan when he says that the Jews' fullness is the "rich blessedness" they receive when they abandon their unbelief and accept their Messiah's salvation. "Israel by unbelief lost blessings, Israel by faith would be fully blessed." McGuiggan rightly says, "There is no ground in the text whatever for supposing that 'fulness' is somewhat equivalent to a conversion of Jews 'on a national scale' or 'on a scale commensurate with their rejection' (numerically speaking)." In fact, in v. 12 "there is no allusion to the number of Jews lost and (therefore, in the antithesis) there is no mention of the number of Jews (to be) saved. . . . 'Fullness' speaks of a rich state of blessedness as opposed to 'loss'" (324). See Lenski, 695.

We must also emphasize that the text does not project this conversion of the Jews to some distant future date; it does not preclude that it could already be happening at that very time. (Remember: the verse has no verbs and no tenses.) In fact, in vv. 13-14 Paul implies that his own ministry is already producing this result.

We must remember that the main point of v. 12 is not about the Jews but about the Gentiles, i.e., what will happen to the Gentiles as a result of the Jews' unbelief as well as their belief. If some Gentiles are saved as the result of the Jews' rejection of the gospel, then we have even more reason to expect Gentiles to be saved as the result of the Jews' envy-induced acceptance of the gospel.

11:13-14 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. Many think v. 13a shows that the Gentiles were in the majority in the church at Rome (e.g., Dunn, 2:655, 669; Moo, 691, n. 39), but Cranfield is right that such a conclusion cannot be drawn from this verse (2:559). Paul is simply saying that he wants the Gentiles among his readers to pay special attention to what he is saying, not just in what follows but in the preceding verses as well.

This is true for two reasons. One, in this whole main section, Israel has been the focus of attention; the Gentiles have entered the discussion only marginally. Thus the latter group "may well have been reasoning that all this about the Jews had little to do with them. They may have wondered why the apostle to the Gentiles should be spending so much time worrying about the Jews" (Morris, 408). Thus Paul stops to reassure the Gentiles that he has not forgotten the main focus of his ministry. He wants them to see "that this argument has an application to Gentiles as well as Jews." He is saying, in effect, "Do not think that what I am saying has nothing to do with you Gentiles. It makes me even more zealous in my work for you" (SH, 323-324). What he is showing them is that the welfare of the Jews and the Gentiles is entertwined.

Paul's other reason for addressing the Gentiles specifically is the possibility that what he teaches about Gentile salvation in vv. 11-12 may lead some to develop an attitude of arrogance toward the Jews (see v. 20). He does not want them to conclude that the Jews are merely a means to an end, that end being the salvation and exaltation of the Gentiles. Paul assures them of his own genuine concern for the Jews' salvation, and in the next section he shows them how much they owe to the Jews (vv. 17-24). He declares that even as God's Apostle to the Gentiles, his work in that capacity has "an Israel-ward significance" (Cranfield, 2:559).

Paul says, "I make much of my ministry." It is possible that diakoniva ( diakonia , "ministry") here means "office" (KJV) in a special technical sense (see, e.g., Acts 1:25; 2 Cor 4:1; Col 4:17). More likely it means simply "ministry" or "area of service" or "mission," i.e., his specific assignment to be the apostle to the Gentiles. "Make much of" is doxavzw (doxazô ), which means "to honor, to praise, to glorify." It is usually used of giving glory to God, and is rarely used of men or anything human (see 8:30; 1 Cor 12:26; negatively, see Matt 6:2). Paul does not say that he honors or glorifies himself, but he glorifies his ministry as a task given to him by God. Thus he honors it not because of its fulfillment in himself but because of its origin in God.

Paul's point is that he has the highest respect for his calling, and approaches it with the utmost seriousness and diligence. "He honours and reverences his ministry to the Gentiles, and so fulfils it with all might and devotion" (Cranfield, 2:560).

To what end does Paul honor his ministry? It is taken for granted that he does so in order to win converts from among the Gentiles, but in view of the divine plan spelled out in v. 11, he knows that his ministry is also an indirect means of bringing his own kinsmen to faith in Christ. "My own people" is literally "my flesh" (see 9:3), i.e., the Jews, "Israel according to the flesh" (1 Cor 10:18, lit.). The relation between their envy and their salvation has already been implied in vv. 11-12 (see the explanation of "fullness" in v. 12 above). Thus he glorifies his ministry, because "the more Gentiles Paul converts, the more of this jealousy he creates, . . . which results in conversions of the Jews" (Lenski, 697).

Paul understands that this process will not be automatic and will not convert every Jew. He pursues his apostleship to the Gentiles "in the hope that" some Jews may be saved thereby. "In the hope that I may somehow" translates ei[ pw" (ei pôs ) plus the subjunctive case of the verb. This is "an expression of expectation," says Dunn (2:656), but as Moo says, it is a "hesitant expectation" (692, n. 46).

Why does Paul say "some of them"? Some interpreters think he says this because he knows that the number of Jews who will be saved through his own ministry will be few in comparison with the great ingathering and restoration of the Jewish people in the future. Thus his converts "are a precious foretoken of the salvation referred to in v. 26" (Cranfield, 2:561), or of the "fullness" in v. 12. As Moo says, "Paul does not see himself . . . as the figure whom God will use to bring Israel to its destined 'fullness'" (692).

I believe this misses the point, especially since the whole idea of a future large-scale conversion of Jews is far from certain. We must look elsewhere for the reasons why Paul says "some of them." First, he refers here only to the results of his own ministry, and he knew that Jews were being won to Christ by other evangelists and would continue to be won by others in later generations. Second, Paul knew from experience that the salvation of every individual Jew was too much to hope for. He knew that the unbelieving Jews of his own generation were hardened and strongly resistant to the gospel. But at the same time he knew that they still had the free will to believe, and that arousing them to envy was a means to this end. Thus by fulfilling his ministry to the Gentiles, he expected "some" of his ethnic brothers to be saved, but not all.

11:15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? "For" indicates this verse is explaining something or giving a reason for something in the preceding context. Some take vv. 13-14 as a parenthesis, with v. 15 going back and picking up especially on v. 12 and repeating it in more specific terms (e.g., Fitzmyer, 612). Others see v. 15 as explaining the last clause in v. 14, i.e., as explaining why Paul is so enthusiastic about his ministry to the Gentiles (e.g., Lard, 358; Cranfield, 2:561-562).

I think it is best to see v. 15 as reaching back into both v. 12 and vv. 13-14, accomplishing both of the purposes named above at the same time (SH, 325). The key thought linking the end of v. 12 and the end of v. 14 with v. 15 is the salvation (fullness, acceptance) of some of the hardened Jews. In v. 15 Paul is stating why he wants to see as many as possible from this group come to salvation, because that is nothing less than "life from the dead."

We cannot ignore the fact that the form of this verse is very close to that of v. 12: if A leads to B, then surely C leads to D. "Their transgression" and "their loss" in v. 12 correspond to "their rejection" in v. 15. In both cases "their" refers to the unbelieving, hardened Jews. In v. 12 their transgression and loss refer to their unbelief and subsequent lost state. But what is the meaning of "rejection" in v. 15?

The word translated "rejection" is ajpobolhv (apobolç ), which comes from the verb ajpobavllw (apoballô ), which means "to throw away, to reject, to remove, to lose." Dunn is correct (2:657) that the contrast with "acceptance" in v. 15b means that apobolç refers to the deliberate act of throwing away or rejecting something, rather than the passive act of losing something. But the question is, who is rejecting whom?

Some say it is the Jews' rejection of Christ and the gospel of his grace. Thus it would be equivalent to "transgression" in vv. 11-12. Fitzmyer prefers this view since 11:1 specifically affirms that God has not rejected his people (612). However, in spite of v. 1, most take v. 15 to mean God's rejection of the Jews, "their temporary casting away by God" (Cranfield, 2:562; see Moo, 692-693). This is equivalent to God's hardening of Israel (v. 7), and his breaking off of some of the branches (vv. 17-20). It is "God's response to Jewish unbelief" (McGuiggan, 327).

But in v. 1 did not Paul emphatically deny that God has rejected his people? How then can he say here that they have been rejected? The Greek words are different, but the concepts seem to be the same. Is there a contradiction, then? The answer is No, and the reason for this is very important. In v. 1 the issue is whether God has rejected the Jews as such, just because they are Jews. I.e., has he rejected every one of "his people"? The answer is obviously No, because there is a remnant of true believers who have not been rejected. But in v. 15 Paul is talking only about the nonremnant Jews, the unbelieving Jews who rejected the gospel and whom God hardened. After their initial refusal to accept their Messiah, God rejected them (hardened them, broke them off the tree).

It is important to understand this so that we do not interpret v. 15 as referring to Israel as a nation . This verse says nothing about God's relationship with the nation as a whole. It refers only to those individual Jews who spurned the gospel and were consequently rejected by God, and to those individual Jews from among this group who later respond to the gospel and are consequently accepted by God - as individuals, on an individual basis. When we try to interpret v. 15 as referring to the Jews in general, or to the Jews as a corporate group, then we place it in conflict with v. 1.

God's rejection of the unbelieving Jews leads to the "reconciliation of the world." Here "world" must be taken in light of v. 12, where it refers especially to the Gentiles (Murray, 2:81; Lenski, 699-700). Thus the point is exactly the same as in the first two clauses of v. 12. "Riches for the world" (v. 12) and "the reconciliation of the world" (v. 15) both refer to the salvation of the Gentiles, with "reconciliation" being a specific aspect of that salvation (see 5:10; JC, 1:326-327). Reconciliation basically means the removal of hostility and the restoration of peace and friendship between two estranged parties. Some think this possibly refers to "the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile in one new people of God" (Barrett, 215; see Stott, 298). Others think it refers to the objective reconciliation of the whole world to God through Christ's propitiatory sacrifice, even if it is not accepted by all and applied to all (see 5:10-11; 2 Cor 5:19). This is Cranfield's view (2:562). Most probably, though, it refers to the actual subjective reconciliation of the believer to God, which is one aspect of individual salvation and the conversion process (see Lenski, 699; Moo, 693, n. 58). This reinforces the point made in the last paragraph, that Paul is thinking here of individuals rather than groups.

We now turn our attention to the second part of the verse, which is similar to the last clause in v. 12, both in its meaning and in its relation to the rest of the verse. I.e., if the assertion in the first part of the verse is true, then that gives us all the more reason to believe the second part.

"What will their acceptance be" is literally "what the acceptance." There is no verb, and no possessive pronoun ("their"). The latter should probably be understood, in view of the similarity to v. 12; but the insertion of the future tense ("will be") is based as much (if not more) on doctrinal presuppositions as on exegetical considerations. The word for "acceptance" is used only here in the NT, but the uses of its verb form support the translation "acceptance." Other possibilities are "reception," "taking to oneself," "acquisition" (Dunn, 2:657), and "the act of welcoming" (Godet, 403).

As with v. 15a we must ask the question, who is accepting whom? Some take it as referring to the Jews' "acceptance or welcoming of the gospel" (Fitzmyer, 612), but most take it to mean God's acceptance of repentant Jews back into a saving relationship with himself (Moo, 693). God has rejected them because of their unbelief (15a), but he is just as eager to receive them back to himself if they will but turn to him.

What is this acceptance? Since it is the grammatical equivalent of "fullness" in v. 12, and since many interpret that fullness to mean a dramatic, large-scale, end-time conversion of the Jewish people, this is a common interpretation of "acceptance" as well. It is "God's final acceptance of what is now unbelieving Israel," says Cranfield (2:562). "Here again we supply will be , and make the Apostle assert the future conversion of the Jews," says Lard (358). It refers, says Murray, to "the reception of Israel again into the favour and blessing of God," i.e., "Israel as a whole," or "the mass of Israel" (2:81).

There is no reason other than a dogmatic one to interpret the acceptance thus, however. We have seen that "fullness" in v. 12 need not have this meaning, and more likely refers to the salvation of individual Jews, something that was already occurring even as Paul wrote. Also, the "rejection" in v. 15a refers to the unbelieving Jews as individuals, not to the Jews as a nation; the same must be true of their "acceptance." We must also remember that there is no future-tense verb in the original text. Thus it is altogether appropriate to interpret this acceptance of the Jews as referring to the ongoing conversion of individual Jews, something that was already happening in Paul's day (Lenski, 700).

What happens when hardened Jews are converted? Well, says Paul, if God's casting away of the Jews results in the reconciliation of Gentiles to God, what can we expect as a result of their return and reception except "life from the dead"? This leads to our discussion of one of the most controversial expressions in this chapter, "life from the dead." Only v. 26 has "sparked more disagreement," says Moo (694).

What does it mean? Stott has identified three main answers: the literal, figurative, and spiritual views (298). Now, giving life to the dead in any sense is a marvelous event (see 4:17), but defenders of the first two of these views believe that in this case it must refer to some future, worldwide, awesome resurrection of unprecedented magnitude. This approach is based on their perception of Paul's lesser-to-greater arguments in both v. 12 and v. 15.

The common assumption is that in v. 12, the lesser element of the argument includes "riches," so the corresponding greater element must be "greater riches." Likewise it is assumed that in v. 15 the lesser includes "reconciliation," so the corresponding greater must be "life from the dead." In both verses what is perceived as the lesser element is identified with the individual's present experience of salvation. Therefore the "greater riches" and "life from the dead" must be something greater than present salvation. Therefore since regeneration is part of this present salvation, then "life from the dead" cannot be regeneration but must refer to something of much greater magnitude. As Stott says, " Much greater riches demands to be understood as something new, even spectacular. To refer it to the new life in Christ which we already enjoy would be an anticlimax" (298). Cranfield agrees, declaring that "life from the dead" "must clearly denote something surpassing everything signified" by "salvation" in v. 11, by the "riches" in v. 12, and by "reconciliation" in v. 15. Therefore "it cannot denote the spiritual blessings already being enjoyed by the believing Gentiles" (2:562). Dunn agrees that it must be "something more wonderful" (2:658), as does Moo: "The logic of the verse shows that it must refer to a blessing even greater or more climactic than the extension of reconciliation to the Gentiles." Why? Because "Paul argues from the lesser to the greater" (694).

What, then, is this greater "life from the dead"? The literal view says it refers to the final bodily resurrection of all the dead at the Second Coming of Christ, as preceded and signaled by the mass conversion of the Jews. This is Cranfield's view (2:563). It is clearly an eschatological event, says Dunn, i.e., "the final resurrection at the end of the age" (2:658). Moo agrees and gives a helpful listing of those holding to or sympathetic with this approach (694, n. 61). He also gives three main arguments for the view (695-696), citing the frequency with which the phrase "from the dead" is used of the final resurrection in the NT, the relation of this event to other parts of the total process described in ch. 11, and Paul's general apocalyptic tendencies.

The second view agrees that "life from the dead" must refer to some sort of sensational, unparalleled event, but interprets it in a figurative sense. It says that the Jews' fullness and reception will trigger some sort of "world-wide blessing which will so far surpass anything before experienced that it can only be likened to new life out of death" (Stott, 298). This will be "a great spiritual movement" (Morris, 411), "an unprecedented, semi-miraculous revival" (MP, 458), "an unprecedented quickening for the world in the expansion and success of the gospel" (Murray, 2:84), "a vast and intense revival of true religion from a state which, by comparison, was religious death" (Moule, 193). Since this is something triggered by the mass conversion of Jews, it must be a mass conversion of the Gentiles (Godet, 404), a "great spiritual harvest" from among the Gentiles (Lard, 359).

The final view, the spiritual view, is that "life from the dead" refers to an element of the individual's present salvation experience, namely, regeneration (see 6:4,11; 8:10; Eph 2:1-5; Col 12:12-13). Thus it is part of the "salvation" and the "riches" mentioned in vv. 11-12, and is in the same category as the "reconciliation" named in v. 15a. This, I believe, is the correct view.

But what about the common assumption that "life from the dead" must be something much different from and greater than this, in view of the fact that Paul is arguing from the lesser to the greater? In my judgment this is a major error based on a faulty understanding of the lesser-to-greater argument as Paul uses it here. As explained above in v. 12, the whole concept of "greater riches" misses Paul's point. There he is not arguing that if a lesser cause produces a significant effect ("riches"), then a greater cause will produce an even more significant effect ("greater riches"). Rather, he argues that if the lesser cause produces a significant effect, we have even greater reason to expect a greater cause to produce a similar effect. No greater effect is mentioned in the verse. The point is that the first two views above are based mainly on the assumption of an equivalence with the argument in v. 12, which itself is misinterpreted.

But what about v. 15? Indeed, there is a lesser-to-greater argument here, but the language is different from v. 12 and the logical force is weaker (Lenski, 701). But it is equivalent to v. 12 in the sense that the lesser-to-greater element in v. 15 (as in v. 12) lies only in the comparative causes in the two clauses, not in the effects. I.e., if the lesser cause (rejection of the Jews) produces a significant effect, then surely a greater cause (acceptance of the Jews) can be expected to produce a similarly significant effect. Thus the argument that "the logic of the verse" rules out the spiritual view is without foundation in fact.

Other considerations should be kept in mind. For example, we must remember that there are no verbs in this verse, and therefore no grammatical reason to think that "life from the dead" refers to some event that is only future. Also, the argument that the terminology "from the dead" refers only to the future bodily resurrection is offset by other linguistic data spelled out in detail by Murray (2:82-83). Also, apart from unfounded speculation regarding the meaning of "fullness" (vv. 12,25) the whole theme of eschatology simply does not appear in this context. The subject of personal salvation is dominant.

Thus we must see "life from the dead" as referring to the spiritual experience of regeneration, of passing over from the state of spiritual death to the state of spiritual life (John 5:24; Col 2:12-13). Paul may be including the Gentiles within the scope of this statement, but its main application is to the Jews themselves. I.e., if the Jews' rejection results in reconciliation for the Gentiles, then the Jews' reception results in their own resurrection to new life in Christ. See Lenski, 701-702; Hendriksen, 2:369. As McGuiggan says, "The Jewish 'received' state is called 'life from the dead'. It is the return of the prodigal in Luke 15. The boy had been lost and was therefore miserably unblessed; he had been 'dead' and was now 'alive from the dead'" (327). Referring to 4:17, Wright says that "the natural meaning of 11.15" is this: 'When a Gentile comes into the family of Christ, it is as it were a creatio ex nihilo , but when a Jew comes in it is like a resurrection'" ( Climax , 248).

When we understand it this way, we see that v. 15 is just summing up what Paul has said thus far in this paragraph. Verse 15a focuses on the spiritual riches enjoyed by the Gentiles, brought about by the Jews' unbelief and rejection (vv. 11-12); and v. 15b focuses on the salvation of the Jews themselves, brought about by their own envy of the Gentiles (vv. 13-14).

11:16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches. Though many take this verse as starting the next paragraph, I agree with the NIV that it concludes the thought begun at v. 11. The general subject is still that there is hope for the salvation of the hardened portion of Israel. The main point is that God still has a special place in his heart for "his people," even those who have rejected their Messiah. This does not mean that they receive special treatment with reference to salvation (see 2:1-3:20), but it does mean that God still loves them and will make every possible effort to save them.

This verse uses two metaphors. The first is based on the fact of the divine ownership of all things. To reinforce this fact in the minds of the Jews, God required that the first portion of any product be set apart (made holy) to him in a special way. Paul is here alluding to one example of this general practice, i.e., presenting as an offering to God a portion of bread made from the meal ground from the first-harvested grain (Num 15:17-21). Though Num 15 does not specifically state this, based on the general practice it is assumed that the offering of the firstfruits "thereby consecrated to the Lord the entire grain harvest" (Hendriksen, 2:369), or all the flour and dough made from it.

The second metaphor is the relation of a tree's root to its branches. Since the root is the beginning of the pipeline through which the rest of a tree is watered and nourished, the condition of the root naturally affects the status of the branches as well. I.e., "if the root is holy, so are the branches."

The question is, what do these metaphors represent? In answering this question, two cautions must be observed. First, we should not assume that they are identical in meaning. Second, we should not assume that the point of the root-branches metaphor in v. 16 is the same as the point of the extended root-branches metaphor in vv. 17-24.

Some do take the metaphors to be parallel. For example, some have understood the firstfruits and the root to refer to Jesus Christ. In view of the context, though, it is more probable that they refer somehow to the Jews. The most common view is that the firstfruits and root refer to the patriarchs, especially Abraham, while the "whole batch" or entire "lump" (KJV, NASB), as well as the branches, refer to all the Jews who have descended from them. According to most who hold this view, the Jews as a nation will always be treated in a special way because of their relation to "the patriarchs" (v. 28). Moo says, "Both of the metaphors in v. 16, then, assert that the 'holiness' of the patriarchs conveys to all of Israel a similar holiness" (700). See MP, 463; SH, 326.

What, then, would be the nature of this shared holiness? In a generic sense, to be holy means to be separated or set apart from all the rest; in a religious generic sense it means to be set apart for God or consecrated to God in a way that is special but does not necessarily involve salvation. Some interpret v. 16 thus, as God's promise that the nation of Israel will always be a distinct and special people, just as the patriarchs were set apart in the beginning. Many tie this in with the idea that God will one day restore the Jewish nation to its "original pre-eminence as leaders in the worship of Jehovah" (MP, 464). This does not assert "the salvation of every Israelite but the continuing 'special' identity of the people of Israel in the eyes of the Lord" (Moo, 701). As such this verse gives "support for the ultimate recovery of Israel," says Murray (2:85). Here Paul gives "the grounds of his confidence in the future of Israel" (SH, 326).

Some do interpret "holiness" in a salvific sense, however, and see this verse as a promise that all Israel will one day be saved (see v. 26). To some this means spiritual Israel only, i.e., "all the spiritual descendants" of the patriarchs (Lenski, 703). To others it is a promise that one day all (or a great majority of) ethnic Jews will be saved. In this verse, says Morris, "Paul proceeds to bring out the certainty that Israel will in due course enter salvation" (411; see MacArthur, 2:114).

I disagree with all of the above views. A key point is that the two metaphors are not parallel in their meaning, as if the firstfruits and the root refer to the same thing, and the lump and the branches refer to the same thing. What do they mean, then? In other texts Paul uses the term "firstfruits" (ajparchv , aparchç ) to refer to the first converts in a particular context (16:5; 1 Cor 16:15). That is the point of the first metaphor here. The firstfruits are the early Jewish converts, the Jewish Christian remnant; the "batch" is the Jews as a whole, especially the unbelieving and hardened ones.

Also, "holy" here does have the connotation of salvation. This does not imply, though, that just as the first converts have been saved, so ultimately all Jews will be saved. It means this, rather: if some Jews can be saved, then all Jews can be saved. Lard says it right: "If the first Jewish christians were accepted of God, the whole nation is capable of being accepted. They are not irrevocably rejected" (360; see DeWelt, 183). It is the same hope that Paul holds out in this paragraph when he refers to the "fullness" and "acceptance" of the Jews (vv. 12,15).

The second metaphor is slightly different. The root includes the patriarchs but not them alone; it refers to the entire OT Israelite nation considered as a whole. The branches are all ethnic Jews living in the NT era, considered as individuals. Here the primary connotation of "holy" is the generic concept of "set apart" or "consecrated" to God, but its ultimate reference is still to salvation. The point is this: under the Old Covenant God chose the nation of Israel to be the instrument by which he worked his redemptive purpose in the world (9:6-29). Even though he no longer has a special purpose for Israel as a nation, nevertheless the love and concern he had for "his people" in OT times carries forward into the gospel era. Every branch, i.e., every individual Jew, is just as personally precious and special to him today as was the root, the nation of old. Thus the door of salvation is still open even to the hardened, unbelieving Jews. God is waiting to add them to the remnant.

The point of the verse, then, is not to promise that Israel as a nation will be restored to its OT prominence, nor to guarantee that all Jews actually will be saved. Rather, it is to stress the fact that any and all Jews can be saved (v. 16a), and that God wants them to be saved (v. 16b). Following up on this, the point of the next paragraph is to show exactly how they can be saved.

D. THE OLIVE TREE: A METAPHOR OF JUDGMENT

AND HOPE (11:17-24)

Introduction

In this paragraph Paul stays with the metaphor of the olive tree, but he expands it considerably and uses it for different purposes. In brief, he uses it to show how the NT church is related to OT Israel, and how Jews and Gentiles are related to the church. The main point of vv. 17-22 is a double warning to Gentile Christians. They are warned not to have an attitude of self-righteous superiority toward unbelieving Jews, and not to presume that they are any more immune to falling away than the Jews who fell. The main point of vv. 23-24, on the other hand, is an explanation of how the fallen and hardened Jews can be saved.

Why has Paul used the olive tree as a basis for making these points? For one thing, the OT compares God's people with an olive tree (Jer 11:16; Hos 14:6). Also, it was something his initial readers would have been very familiar with. Dunn notes that "the olive tree was the most widely cultivated fruit tree in the Mediterranean area" (2:660-661). Also, the common practice of grafting branches from one olive tree to another was a perfect illustration of the points he wanted to make.

Since Paul has just used the root-branches metaphor in v. 16, we would expect these two elements to have the same basic meaning in this new paragraph; and most agree that this is so. E.g., those who identified the root with the patriarchs in v. 16 do the same here. I agree that this is the best approach. Thus, as in v. 16, I identify the root with OT Israel as a national unit, and I identify the branches as (in part) including (some) individual Jews who live in this NT era.

In vv. 17-24, however, Paul has expanded the metaphor in at least three ways. First, the concept of the tree as a whole is important here. Whereas v. 16 was about the relationship between generic roots and branches, here a particular tree is in view. How the roots and branches of this tree are related is still important, but it is also important that we understand the character of the tree as a whole. Second, the branches are not limited to individual Jews, but refer also to individual Gentiles. Finally, the grafting of branches is a central element of the metaphor in this paragraph.

The rest of this introduction will explain, first, the concept of the olive tree as a whole, and second, the imagery of the pruning and grafting of the branches.

The Meaning of the Olive Tree as a Whole

Exactly what does this olive tree stand for? It represents the people of God in a general sense, including both OT Israel and the NT church, the latter including both Jews and Gentiles (see Moo, 698). This tree cannot be limited to ethnic Israel alone, as some think (see Fitzmyer, 610, for examples).

In one sense the nation of Israel as it existed in the OT era was a kind of prototree, and was a precursor of Paul's olive tree. This is suggested by the references to the breaking off of some of the Jewish branches (vv. 17-21). If they were broken off, then they were already attached to something. Also, Paul calls his tree the Jews' "own olive tree" (v. 24). In this sense pre-Christian Israel was itself a tree, but this is not Paul's main point. Also, it is important to remember that the OT tree had no implications regarding the salvation of the individual Jews attached thereto as branches. The tree as a whole was an instrument by which God was working out his salvation purposes; some of the individual branches were saved and some were not.

Whatever the nature of this prototree which led to the existence of Paul's olive tree, we must recognize that it underwent a radical transformation in character and purpose with the coming of the NT era. In Paul's metaphor OT Israel is not identified with the tree as a whole, but only with its root. His focus is on the individual branches as they relate to this root. These branches themselves constitute an entirely new group: the NT people of God, the church. Most importantly, unlike the OT prototree, Paul's olive tree is a soteric metaphor. Its branches as a whole are the aggregate of all saved individuals in this new era.

We may now look more closely at the composition of the olive tree. As in v. 16, the root stands for OT Israel as a whole. Thus it includes but is not limited to the patriarchs. It represents the entire nation throughout its entire history from the patriarchs forward, not as the aggregate of saved individuals (the remnant), but as God's covenant servant. It represents Israel in its role of fulfilling God's redemptive purposes, culminating in the coming of the Messiah. Thus the root includes all blessings enumerated in 9:4-5: the patriarchs, the covenants, the promises, and in a sense even the Messiah himself.

The branches of the tree, which are the focal point of the metaphor, are the saved individuals of the NT era. As such they are the new Israel. The olive tree as a whole represents the two Israels to which v. 9:6b alludes, "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." The root is OT ethnic Israel; the branches are NT spiritual Israel. When the Messiah came and the OT prototree was transformed into the olive tree, this transformation was a moment of crisis for all Jews. Prior to this time all individual Jews - unbelievers as well as believers - were part of the prototree as an instrument of service to God. But with the coming of Christ and the transformation of the tree, all unbelieving Jews as individual branches of the old tree were broken off. There are no unbelievers on the olive tree; its branches consist of believers only.

The olive tree metaphor teaches us that there is a definite discontinuity between OT Israel and the NT church. Paul's tree is not the same as the OT prototree. The latter was transformed at Pentecost (see MP, 464-465) into something different. What once was an entire tree is now just the root of a new tree. The church is as different from Israel as a tree's branches are different from its root.

But this fact in itself implies a continuity between OT Israel and the NT church. The old tree was not simply cut down and replaced with a completely new one. The church by itself is not the entire tree, but only the branches that are growing from a root that is part of that same tree. The two parts of this one tree have never existed simultaneously but are sequential in time. I.e., the root and the branches represent two interconnected stages in salvation history. Though the root itself no longer exists, its prior existence was an essential preparation for the present reality of the branches. Herein lies the basis for one of Paul's main points in this section: the relationship of dependence between the two Israels. I.e., the church as the new Israel is dependent upon what was accomplished by old Israel. The NT branches would have no existence apart from their OT root, and they constantly reap the rich benefits of what God has done through the latter (vv. 17-18). This is one reason why Paul warns the Gentile Christians not to boast over the fallen Jews (v. 18a).

The Imagery of the Pruning and Grafting of the Branches

While the meaning of the olive tree as a whole tells us something about the relation between OT Israel and the NT church, the imagery of the pruning and grafting of individual branches tells us something about the salvation of Jews and Gentiles in the NT era. Unlike the root-branches illustration in v. 16, which dealt exclusively with Jews, the branches in the extended metaphor include both Jews and Gentiles. While Jewish Christians are described as belonging naturally to the "cultivated" olive tree, Gentile Christians are pictured as belonging by nature to a "wild" olive tree and being grafted into the cultivated one (v. 24).

Paul's discussion of Jews and Gentiles in this paragraph is in terms of God's pruning some branches from the tree and grafting others into it. A crucial point is that, when the OT prototree was transformed into the present olive tree, some of the original branches (Jews) that were attached to the former were broken off, which is an indication of their lost state. Before the transformation some of these attached branches were already lost, since the prototree did not have a soteric significance. But when Christ came and the tree was changed, all Jews who refused to accept him as their Savior were removed from the tree. We have every reason to assume that this included some Jews who were previously in a saved state because of their faith in Yahweh as he was known through OT revelation, but who rejected Jesus as the promised Messiah. On the other hand, all Jews who did believe in Jesus remained as branches on the new tree.

At the same time, all Gentiles who accepted Jesus as their Savior were taken from the wild olive tree (the pagan world) and were grafted into the cultivated and transformed olive tree, alongside the believing Jews, in the community of salvation.

Some have raised questions about the accuracy of Paul's knowledge of the olive industry. It seems that the usual procedure for grafting olive branches is to take a shoot from a cultivated but depleted tree and graft it into a wild but vigorous tree, but here it is just the opposite. Some have concluded that Paul as a naïve city boy was just showing his ignorance. Others point to a few ancient sources which show that wild-to-tame grafts were sometimes made, just as Paul describes. Still others say that Paul knew wild-to-tame grafts were not a natural procedure, but he reversed the process in order to show that grace deliberately contravenes nature (v. 24). Either of the last two explanations is acceptable. The details of grafting as an agricultural practice are not crucial to Paul's point. He simply incorporates the general concept into his metaphor and adapts it for his own purposes; one does not have to be an olive tree expert to understand what he is saying.

Paul uses the practice of grafting to make two main points. One is that the Gentile Christians, as wild olive branches grafted into a cultivated tree, have absolutely no room for boasting or considering themselves superior to the Jewish branches that were broken off the tree (vv. 17-22). One reason is that they are dependent upon the Jewish root of the tree for their very salvation and sustenance (v. 18b). The other reason is that their being grafted into the tree is due to their faith in what Christ has done, not to some boastworthy achievement accomplished by their own hands. If they ever reach a point where they no longer believe in Jesus, they too will be broken off just as the unbelieving Jews were (vv. 20-21).

Paul's other point is a continuation of his theme in vv. 11-16, that the lopped-off Jews are not irrevocably lost but can still be saved, even though they are now in an unbelieving and hardened state. Here he is not just declaring that they can be saved, but showing how they can be saved, namely, by being grafted again into their own (transformed) olive tree, the church (vv. 23-24). This regrafting is done branch by branch, as individual Jews come to believe in their Messiah. It has absolutely nothing to do with a supposed "future restoration" of the Jewish nation (contra Godet, 404), or a time when "the natural descendants of Abraham will . . . once again be the Lord's chosen people of blessing" (contra MacArthur, 2:118). It is a possibility that is open to all Jews, any time, anywhere. The stated requirement is simply that they "not persist in unbelief" (v. 23). If they do not, then they will become branches on the tree, i.e., members of the church of Jesus Christ. This is the one hope of Gentiles and Jews alike; this is how "all Israel will be saved" (v. 26).

We should note Paul's emphasis on faith or the lack of it as the key to whether one is part of the olive tree or not. This is consistent with the main theme of Romans, that sinners are saved by grace through faith, and not by works of law (3:28), and consistent with his emphasis on faith in the previous main section (9:30-10:21).

1. Words of Warning to Gentile Christians (11:17-22)

The first part of this paragraph is a specific warning to Gentile Christians not to think of themselves as somehow superior to the Jewish branches that were broken off the tree. This may reflect some tension within the Roman church between Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians, and it may reflect a general cultural anti-Semitism carried over into the church by converted Gentiles. But these are matters of speculation and need not concern us, since the arrogant attitude of which Paul speaks could have been readily aroused just by unsound reflection upon Israel's history and the early decades of church history.

11:17-18a If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. This is an "if-then" sentence in which the if-clause (the protasis, v. 17) is assumed to be true, with the then-clause (the apodosis, v. 18a) naturally following.

Paul keeps the root-branches metaphor introduced in v. 16 and begins to apply it to the way individual Jews and Gentiles are saved. He refers first to the Jews, who are compared with branches on a tree, some of which have been "broken off." This refers to the Jews who refused to accept Christ as their Messiah, and to God's punitive act of hardening and rejecting them (vv. 7, 15). That Paul says only "some" branches were broken off is a deliberate understatement reminiscent of 3:3. Actually the majority of Jews were in this category.

Next Paul refers to the Gentile Christians, whom he is addressing (v. 13). He uses the singular "you" to put his admonitions on a more personal level. This "you" is the typical Gentile Christian representing the whole group (Dunn, 2:673). Paul addressed the Jews in a similar way in 2:1ff.

The Gentile Christian is here described as "a wild olive shoot" (a branch cut from a wild or uncultivated olive tree) that has been grafted into the cultivated olive tree "among the others." The branches of this cultivated tree represent the NT church, and "the others" are the Jews who were the first converts to Christ and thus the first branches on the tree. That the wild branches were grafted in "among" them (beginning in Acts 10) means that they were placed alongside the Jewish Christians who had already been there from Acts 2 and following.

The last part of the protasis also speaks of Gentile Christians. It describes the result of their being grafted into the olive tree alongside the believing Jews. When this happened, says Paul, the Gentile Christians immediately became "fellow partakers" or "sharers together" (i.e., along with the Jewish Christians) of "the nourishing sap from the olive root." As seen in the introduction above, this root is OT Israel as it fulfilled its covenant purpose of bringing the Messiah into the world. In this sense OT Israel is the indispensable source of all the spiritual benefits that are absorbed by the branches, i.e., by each individual member of the church.

The Greek text for "the nourishing sap" is somewhat uncertain (see Moo, 696-697, n. 1). The best reading literally says "of the root of the fatness." This can be translated "in the root, that is to say, in the fatness (of the root)" (Cranfield, 2:567). The NIV follows this option, using "nourishing sap" to translate the word for "fatness" or "richness." The phrase can also be rendered "the rich root" (Moo, 702, n. 28; see the NASB). Either way the main point is that when a Gentile becomes a Christian, he immediately begins to draw upon all the spiritual blessings made possible by two millennia of Jewish history - blessings which are a natural inheritance for Jews who accept their Messiah. The Gentile Christian becomes a partaker in "the blessing of Abraham" (Gal 3:14, NASB); whether he realizes it or not, his "salvation is from the Jews" (John 4:22). See v. 18b.

In v. 18a Paul draws his conclusion from v. 17: "Do not boast over those branches." This is in the form of an exhortation, but its logical force is "you have no reason" to boast over them. Paul still addresses Gentile Christians (in the person of their typical representative); "those branches" are the Jews. Do these Jewish branches include both Jewish Christians ("the others") and the broken-off branches, or do they include only the branches that were broken off? I agree with Murray (2:86) that the latter is probably the case, in view of v. 19.

Thus in this exhortation Paul warns Gentile Christians not to brag or boast over against the Jews who were broken off the tree, as if becoming a Christian were the result of some kind of competition between the two groups, with the Gentiles being the winners. You have no reason to boast, he says, as if being grafted into the tree were a sign of your superiority over those rejected Jews.

11:18b If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. This is not an implicit permission to go ahead and boast. Rather, Paul is saying, "If you are still inclined to boast, or if you still have a boastful spirit, please remember this . . . ."

What Paul asks them to remember is very close in meaning to v. 17c, but here he is more forceful: " You [emphatic] do not support the root, but [emphatic] the root supports you." It is important to see that the root is not just the patriarchs, as many believe, and especially not just "the covenant of salvation that God made with Abraham," but the entire scope of the Jews' covenant service from Abraham to Christ. Paul is thus asking the Gentile Christians, "What, historically, do the Jews owe to you? Which of their glorious blessings (9:4-5) came through you? Obviously, none; so your boasting is vain. The relationship of dependence is actually the other way around." In Denney's words, "You owe all you are proud of to an (artificially formed) relation to the race you would despise" (680). "Any merit, any virtue, any hope of salvation that the Gentiles may have arises entirely from the fact that they are grafted in a stock" that is fully Jewish (SH, 329). How can they ignore their Jewish heritage? "It is that very heritage upon which the Gentile Christians themselves depend for their own spiritual standing" (Moo, 704).

Moo notes that Paul uses present tense: this OT root "continues to be the source of spiritual nourishment that believers require" (704). "A church which is not drawing upon the sustenance of its Jewish heritage . . . would be a contradiction in terms for Paul" (Dunn, 2:662).

11:19 Wanting to drive this point home further, Paul puts a question in the mouth of the proud Gentile Christian: You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." The way Paul words the question highlights the egotism that he wants to turn aside: "Branches were broken off so that I, even I , could be grafted in!" The implication is that this person thinks God excluded some Jews from the church just to make a place for Gentile believers. "That surely involves some superiority in me," is the implied conclusion (Denney, 680). "I am surely better than those unbelieving Jews!" (Bruce, 218).

11:20a Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Paul's opening word, "Granted" (kalw'" , kalôs ), can be taken as "qualified agreement" (Moo, 705); it is "a form of partial and often ironical assent" (MP, 467). In other words, "There is some truth in what you are saying." Here Paul is probably referring to the point made in vv. 11-16, that "because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles" (v. 11), and "their rejection is the reconciliation of the world" (v. 15).

Paul's next statement can be paraphrased thus: "But this is not the whole story, and it is not even the most important part of the story. It's true that many Jews were broken off, and it's true that you, a Gentile, were grafted in. But this is not a neat, self-contained cause-and-effect sequence, as if there were some sort of intrinsic connection between these two events. No, the important fact is this: the Jews were broken off because of their unbelief ! They refused to believe in Jesus! Those who believed in him were not broken off; would that this had been true for all of them! And you: why have you been grafted into the tree? Not because the Jews were broken off, but only because you have put your faith in Jesus. Even if every Jew had believed, you would still have been grafted into the tree by virtue of your faith."

The implied conclusion, again, is that the circumstances of the Jews' rejection and the Gentiles' acceptance gave the latter absolutely no room for boasting against the former. This warning is reinforced by the reminder that the Gentiles stand, i.e., are saved, only by faith - a way of salvation that insistently excludes any reason for boasting (3:27; Eph 2:8-9).

11:20b-21 Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Here Paul tells the Gentile Christians the proper attitude to develop in place of arrogance: the fear of God. "Do not be arrogant" is literally "do not have high-minded thoughts" (see 12:16; 1 Tim 6:17), i.e., do not think so highly of yourselves. Instead, you should "fear" (NASB), or "be afraid" (NIV).

Either of these translations may be a proper rendering of the Greek fobevw (phobeô ), but they do not necessarily have the same connotation. The fear of God takes two different forms. One is the healthy, reverential awe of the creature before his Creator. The other is the terror and dread of the sinner in the presence of the holy Lawgiver and Judge.

To which of these kinds of fear is Paul referring? Certainly to the first, which is always a main element of holy living. Also, there is no better antidote to arrogance, nothing more conducive to humility, than to come to a full realization of our creatureliness before God Almighty. But what about the second, being afraid of the Judgment? Certainly when it is truly felt, this kind of fear likewise cancels out arrogance as fire consumes tissue paper. As a rule, such fear is inappropriate for Christians, since we are free from condemnation thanks to justification by faith in the blood of Christ. But there is one context in which the fear of terror is still necessary even for Christians, namely, when we stand on the brink of apostasy or falling away. In such a situation, how can we not call to mind that "it is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb 10:31)? In view of Paul's warning to the Gentile Christians in v. 21, I think he probably also has this kind of fear in mind in v. 20b, i.e., terror at the prospect of being cut off.

We should make no mistake: in v. 21 Paul holds before us all the real possibility of falling from grace and losing our salvation. This is another reason why Gentile Christians, and Jewish Christians as well, should realize the folly of arrogance regarding their salvation status. Here Paul uses an argument from the greater to the lesser. The "natural branches" are the Jews, who in view of their natal association with the root are inherently suitable for being attached as branches to the tree. But even so, when some refused to believe in Jesus, God did not spare them. I.e., he rejected them and broke them off the tree. This was true even if they were in a saved state before being confronted with the gospel. If they refused to convert their faith in Yahweh to a Trinitarian faith, they were broken off, and given no place in the transformed olive tree. And if God did not spare even these, he will certainly not spare the wild olive branches - Gentile Christians - that have no natural connection with the tree, if they return to their unbelief.

11:22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: . . . This refers to what are rightly called "the two sides of the Divine character" (SH, 329). "Kindness" (crhstovth" , chrçstotçs ; see 2:4) is an attitude of goodwill and generosity toward others, a goodness of heart or "kindly disposition" (SH, 55) that desires the happiness of others and especially their salvation. "Sternness" (ajpotomiva , apotomia ; "severity," NASB) is an attitude of relentless and vigorous commitment to justice, including retributive justice; a strict upholding of the requirements of the law; an "inflexible hardness and severity" in judging (see Köster, "tevmnw ," 107-108). Obviously, then, "the kindness and sternness of God" are "a fascinating contrast of attitudes, held simultaneously," as Morris says (416).

These two attributes are generally equivalent to God's love and God's holiness, which I believe are the two most basic and equally-ultimate moral attributes of God. God's love is his basic goodwill toward other moral beings. Other attributes within the sphere of his love are mercy, patience, grace, and kindness. God's holiness, on the other hand, is his perfect moral character, which is the basis of his work as Lawgiver and Judge. It embraces other attributes such as wrath and vengeance. See GRe, 238-239, 255-257.

Because these two sides of God's nature are equally ultimate, it is a serious misconception to think that they are just two different ways of expressing the same divine attribute. An example of this error is Cranfield's assertion that both kindness and sternness "are the expression of God's holy and faithful love" (2:569-570). There is probably no more widespread false doctrine in Christendom than this, and few with more serious consequences. See GRe , 303-314.

At the same time I will agree with Dunn's contention that these two aspects of God's nature are not of "equal weight," since in Scripture the "stronger emphasis is on grace and mercy" (2:665). This makes his holiness and wrath no less real, no less distinct, and no less ultimate, however. See GRe, 372-375.

Why does Paul admonish the representative Gentile Christian (and us) to "consider" or "observe" the kindness and sternness of God? Because these are the two basic attributes that God expresses toward sinners, depending on their response to the grace of his Son, Jesus Christ. In this context they are the attributes that lie behind the breaking off of the unbelieving Jewish branches and the grafting in of the believing Gentile branches: sternness to those who fell, i.e., the Jews who rejected Christ (v. 11), but kindness to you as a Gentile who has accepted Christ.

In v. 20 Paul stressed that the reason the Gentile Christians were grafted into the tree was their faith in the Messiah, not some merit on their part. Here he shows that God's willingness to accept someone on the simple basis of faith in Christ is a matter of his gracious kindness. There is no merit in faith itself.

Paul says all these things to set up his final warning to Gentile Christians, which also applies to all branches on the olive tree (all members of his church) in all times and places. I.e., the very fact that you are on the tree (and by implication saved) means that you have received the kindness of God. But be warned: you will remain on the tree as a recipient of God's kindness provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.

"Provided that you continue" is ejavn ( ean ) with the subjunctive, a form that expresses a contingency that may or may not be the case in the future. (For the same form see 13:4; 14:8.) God will continue to bestow his kindness upon you, if and only if you "continue in his kindness." To "continue in" God's kindness means to continue to trust his kindness and grace as embodied in the saving work of Jesus. What will happen if you do not continue to trust God's grace? Paul's answer is very clear: "you also," like the Jews who refused to believe, "will be cut off." You will lose your salvation.

This verse brings into sharp focus the issue of whether or not salvation is conditional, which includes the issue of "once saved, always saved." In general Calvinists believe that God's grace is sovereignly bestowed and maintained in an unconditional way, and non-Calvinists believe that it is conditional. But even some non-Calvinists hold that once a person believes by his own free choice, he will unconditionally continue to believe from that point on. This is the essence of the "once saved, always saved" doctrine.

In my judgment this verse unequivocally supports the view that salvation is conditional. Just as becoming saved is conditioned upon faith, staying saved is conditioned upon continuing to believe. You will remain as a branch on the olive tree "if you continue" (NASB) in God's kindness. (See Col 1:23 for the very same point.) More specifically this verse shows that falling from a saved state and thus losing one's salvation is possible. Dunn rightly says, "The possibility of believers 'falling away' . . . , apostatizing, is one which Paul certainly did not exclude." He adds, "Perseverance is a Christian responsibility rather than an unconditional promise" (2:664-665).

How do Calvinists handle this text? One may be surprised to see the strong Calvinist William Hendriksen conclude from this verse that God's kindness is "not unconditional. It requires genuine faith on man's part" (2:375). At the same time this verse does not imply "that those who truly belong to him will ever be rejected," as Stott explains (301).

But how could anyone believe that salvation is truly conditional, and at the same time deny the possibility of falling away? The answer, for the Calvinist, is as follows. First, God does require sinners to have faith in Jesus as a condition for being saved. Therefore, technically, salvation is conditional. But at the same time God sovereignly determines who will have faith and who will not. To those whom God has unconditionally chosen for eternal life, he unconditionally gives the gift of faith. Once the faith has been given, of course, it is the person who believes, and not God. Thus the person is fulfilling the condition for salvation. Hendriksen (2:375) says of 11:22 that it

must not be understood in the sense that God will supply the kindness, man the faith. Salvation is ever God's gift. It is never a 50-50 affair. From start to finish it is the work of God. But this does not remove human responsibility. God does not exercise faith for man or in his place. It is and remains man who reposes his trust in God, but it is God who both imparts this faith to him and enables him to use it.

This, says Hendriksen, is the "sound, biblical sense . . . in which we can speak about salvation as being conditional ."

I sincerely believe that this and other such explanations are nothing but theological double-talk. To say that this is a "sound, biblical sense" in which salvation is conditional, and that such a system "does not remove human responsibility," is a sham. It is not enough just to say that God sets conditions for salvation. The Calvinist may begin with this premise, but then he declares that God unconditionally decides who will meet the conditions, and then unilaterally causes them to meet these conditions. In such a scenario there are no conditionality and human responsibility in any normal sense of these terms.

If persevering faith is a sovereign gift of God, what is the purpose of warnings in the Bible, such as the one in 11:22? Moule (197) grants that such passages imply " contingency in man's continuance in the mercy of God," but they are nevertheless in harmony with "sovereign and prevailing Divine grace." This is true because God both gives and preserves faith in the elect. The chosen will without fail persevere in faith, because God will infallibly enable them to do so. As Moule says, "Grace imparts perseverance by imparting and maintaining faith." And how does grace maintain faith? Among other things, "faith is properly animated and energized" through these warnings themselves.

In my opinion all such attempts to harmonize the "if" in 11:22 (or elsewhere) with Calvinism, or with any "once saved, always saved" belief, amount to more double-talk and reduce Paul's warning to a travesty. Unless there is a genuine possibility that this warning may be disregarded by a genuine believer, then it is not a warning at all, and its very presence in the Bible is deceptive.

Moo's attempt (707, n. 57) to reconcile 11:22 with a denial of the possibility of falling away is a little different but just as untenable. His view is that not every branch on the tree is a true believer in the first place. This must be true, he says, because the unbelieving Jews who were cut off the tree in reality were never part of the tree at all. It is only for the sake of his metaphor that "Paul presents them as if they had been. In the same way, then, those Gentiles within the church . . . who appear to be part of God's people, yet do not continue in faith, may never have been part of that tree at all."

This explanation fails for three reasons. One, it is an unwarranted assumption that all the Jews who were originally cut off from the tree were never truly saved to begin with. As I have already stated, it is quite likely that many Jews who had a faith adequate to save them in light of the limitations of the OT revelation refused to elevate their faith to the NT level when first confronted with the gospel. (Paul himself may have been in this category.) These would be among the branches that were broken off.

Second, Moo's explanation does not take account of the difference between the OT prototree and the olive tree as it has existed under the New Covenant dispensation. All Jews were branches on the former, but this had no soteric implications. The latter is occupied solely by those who are saved, Jews and Gentiles. Is this not the point of the breaking off of the unbelieving Jewish branches in the first place?

Third, the speculation that the Gentiles who do not continue in the faith may never have been part of the tree at all goes against everything Paul says in this paragraph. "You stand by faith," he says to the Gentile representative in v. 20. If the addressee is not saved - not truly part of the tree, then everything about this statement is false. God's kindness has been given to you, Paul says in v. 22, in contrast with the fallen Jews who received God's sternness. There is no way to reconcile this affirmation with a mere appearance of salvation.

The focus in vv. 23-24 will shift to the fallen Jews, but at this point we may note that the conditional promise about Jewish unbelievers in v. 23a is parallel in every way to the conditional warning about Gentile believers in v. 22b. If we cannot take the warning seriously, why should we take the promise seriously? If we say that v. 22 does not imply that an actual falling away can take place, must we not assume that v. 23 does not mean that any fallen Jews will actually be saved? But no one would ever consider the latter. Here is a statement by Stott (301): "After this warning to Gentile believers against pride and presumption, Paul is ready with his promise to Jewish unbelievers. His argument is that if those grafted in could be cut off, then those cut off could be grafted in again." Just so! But the "once saved, always saved" doctrine completely destroys the symmetry between the two conditions and leaves the latter open to doubt. Indeed, Stott himself says of the warning in v. 22, "Not that those who truly belong to him will ever be rejected . . ."! However, I have yet to see him or anyone else say of v. 23, "Not that those Jews who truly rejected him will ever be accepted . . . ."

2. Words of Hope for Hardened Jews (11:23-24)

In these last two verses about the olive tree, Paul returns to the main theme of the chapter, that God has not completely rejected the Jews. It is true that only a remnant accepted the Messiah in the beginning, and that the rest were hardened, rejected, and broken off the tree. But since v. 11 Paul has held forth the possibility and the hope that individuals in this latter group may still return to God. Here he reaffirms that hope as he shows how the rejected Jews may be saved.

11:23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, . . . The parallelism between v. 22b and v. 23a is obvious when we slightly reword 22b while keeping the same thought:

If you [believing Gentiles] do not continue in God's kindness, you will be cut off the tree.

If you [unbelieving Jews] do not continue in unbelief, you will be grafted back into the tree.

The subject here is obviously "those who fell" (v. 22), the Jewish unbelievers. Literally Paul says, "And those also," or, "Yes, and they too" (SH, 330). The verb translated "persist" is the same one translated "continue" in v. 22; and the conditional form is the same, ean with the subjunctive. The then-clause is just the simple future tense of ejgkentrivzw (enkentrizô , used in vv. 17,19), "they will be grafted in." To be grafted into the tree is the equivalent of "life from the dead" in v. 15.

This is a clear indication that God has not abandoned the Jewish people but is ready and willing to receive them back to himself at any time. "The door of opportunity for the entrance of Jews - even for initially hardened Jews - is standing open" (Hendriksen, 2:375).

It is also clear in this verse that the Jews' return to and acceptance by God is conditional . It is conditioned upon their change of heart concerning Jesus. They will be grafted into the tree if they do not continue in unbelief, but turn to Jesus in full faith and surrender. The promise that they will be grafted in is a promise that they will be saved.

In spite of the clear and obvious conditional nature of this promise, some interpreters completely ignore the stated condition and take Paul's statement as an absolute promise that the Jews - all of them - will one day be saved. One writer says that Paul is here speaking of Israel's "glad future" when the whole nation ("all Israel") "shall be grafted in" and restored to "all their original privileges and rights." Even if vv. 23-24 reveal it only as a possibility, it is "established fully as a decreed event in the next section" (MP, 468). Another says of v. 23, "In the end, Israel will accept God's act for her in Christ and will return to her natural place within God's chosen people" (Achtemeier, 184). Commenting on vv. 23-24, MacArthur says, "The destiny of Israel can and will be reversed. Her return to the Lord not only is possible but certain" (2:122). Even though this promise is given here with a condition, "God had long beforehand assured His people that the condition would be met" (2:118).

What is happening here? Just as in reference to v. 22b, we are witnessing an inability - or an unwillingness - to take seriously the significance of Paul's "if." In v. 22, in the interest of preserving the "once saved, always saved" doctrine, some declare that the if-clause is something that will not happen, period. Here in v. 23, in the interest of supporting a particular view of the end-times, some declare that the if-clause is something that will happen, period. Paul might just as well have omitted the "if" in both cases.

We must take Paul at his word. He does not say "when"; he says "if." Hendriksen rightly reminds us that "the apostle does not say or imply that one day all unbelieving Jews are going to be grafted back into their own olive tree" (2:376). Or as Murray puts it, "No assurance is given in this verse that Israel will desist from unbelief" (2:89). Contrary to Fitzmyer, who says "Paul expects unbelieving Israel to be grafted once again" into the tree (616), McGuiggan rightly says that the tone of the verse suggests that he was not predicting "a national scale conversion of the Jews" (331).

We cannot say, of course, that this will never happen. But whether few or many Jews do come to faith in Christ, this verse shows how they will be saved and restored to God, namely, by being grafted into the olive tree, which is the church. There is absolutely nothing here about a restoration of the nation of Israel to its role as a separate and special people of God. The only thing Paul promises the Jews here, conditioned upon faith in Christ, is that they will be grafted into the olive tree. But this is not the same tree from which they were broken off in the first place. This is a transformed tree, only the root of which is OT national Israel. The branches are the new Israel, the church, and they consist of both believing Jews and believing Gentiles. To be joined to the tree is to be united with the Gentiles, not set apart from them again. To expect a national restoration to an OT-like special role is to go against the very essence of the olive-tree metaphor.

We must not allow such false hopes to blind us to the very real possibility Paul sets forth here. The Jews can become a part of the tree, for God is able to graft them in again. The promise does not depend on what was possible with regard to literal grafting practices; it depends on the supernatural power of God: "God is able." Denney says, "Even in the most hardened rejector of the Gospel we are not to limit either the resources of God's power or the possibilities of change in a self-conscious, self-determining creature" (681).

We should note that God's grafting the Jews into the tree is not the same as causing them to believe. The first part of this verse makes it clear that there is a difference between the believing and the grafting-in. God can and will graft them in, i.e., will add them to his church, but they must first meet the stated condition of not persisting in unbelief.

11:24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree! This verse does not add anything new; it simply reinforces the last statement in v. 23, that God is able to graft the fallen Jewish branches back into the tree. It is an argument from the greater to the lesser. Paul says it is a lot easier to graft a broken-off branch back into its own olive tree than to graft wild and alien branches into that tree. Since God has already done the latter (in saving the Gentiles), we can be sure that the former (saving the Jews) will be no problem for him.

Using the singular, Paul still addresses the typical representative of all Gentile Christians. The first part of the verse sums up the Gentiles' situation in terms of the olive tree. The phrase "by nature" probably does not modify the wild olive tree itself (contra the NIV), but rather the branch that was cut out of it (see Cranfield, 2:571; Moo, 708, n. 63). I.e., it should read, "If you, who by nature belong to a wild olive tree, were cut off from that tree and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree . . . ."

This means that the Gentiles by nature belonged to the pagan world. This is where they were born and reared; this is where they learned and lived by the antibiblical worldview. This is where they were "at home," i.e., on the wild olive tree. But when they came to Christ they were cut off from this tree and grafted into the "cultivated olive tree," which is described as "cultivated" because of its Jewish root. The cultivation process includes all of God's dealings with the Jews from Abraham up to the first coming of Christ. Because of this background the earliest Jewish Christians - the first branches of the transformed olive tree - in a sense grew naturally out of this root. But when Gentiles were pried loose from their paganism and united with this OT root (Lenski, 712), this was definitely "contrary to nature," i.e., against everything they had thus far stood for.

On the other hand, v. 24b says that when unbelieving Jews ("these") are converted, this is like grafting broken-off branches back "into their own olive tree." Because of its Jewish root, even unbelieving, broken-off Jews have a natural affinity with the olive tree. Indeed, it is called "their own tree" for this very reason. OT ethnic Israel is not the tree as such, but it is the root of the tree. Thus when a Jew is converted to Christ he is being attached to his true roots; he is taking his natural place among the branches (the church) that were the divinely intended goal of the Israelite nation all along. What could be more natural than this?

Verse 24b is sometimes taken as an unqualified promise that the natural branches will be grafted in again, i.e., that they will be saved. E.g., Denney (682) says the future tense ("will be grafted in") refers to the "actual restoration of the Jews." In view of the "if-then" form of the verse, however, it is more reasonable to take this as a logical future. I.e., Paul is simply stating a greater-to-lesser argument: if A is true, then it is even more likely that B will also be true. Also, the condition in v. 23 must be carried over into v. 24; "will be grafted in" must be qualified with "if they do not persist in unbelief."

The main point is to show that from God's side, there is absolutely no obstacle to the Jews' salvation. Their hardening (v. 7) and their rejection (v. 15) need not be the final word concerning their eternal destiny. God is ready and willing to receive them back, if they will believe in their Redeemer. He has already added repentant, believing Gentiles to the church; and if he has done this, how much more likely is it that believing Jews will also be added? The key expression is povsw/ ma'llon (posô mallon , "by how much more"), the same phrase used in v. 12 in a similar kind of argument. The purpose of the present argument is to give us confidence in God's power to save even fallen Jews.

Two implications from this olive tree metaphor must be emphasized. First, there is in this New Covenant age only one olive tree, only one chosen people, only one way of salvation. Any Jews who are saved will be saved by being grafted into this one tree. The Jewish branches and the Gentile branches are joined together into one aggregate of saved persons (the church), where the Jew-Gentile distinction is irrelevant. As Moo says, "Basic to the whole metaphor is the unity of God's people." There is only one olive tree, "whose branches include both Jews and Gentiles" (709). Hendriksen says (2:376), "For Jew and Gentile salvation is the same. . . . Remember: ONE OLIVE TREE ."

A second implication is that, contrary to a common misconception, it is possible for someone who has fallen from grace to be restored to full fellowship with God. Heb 6:4-6 is often misinterpreted as teaching the opposite, that it is impossible for a once-saved but now-fallen person to be brought back to a saved state. Some translations perpetuate this error by the way they translate Heb 6:6 (e.g., the word "because" in the NIV, and "since" in the NASB).

The olive-tree metaphor, however, shows that this interpretation of Heb 6 is false. This is true because we must assume that some of the Jews who were broken off the tree (v. 17) were believers in Yahweh as they knew him from the OT revelation and were thus in a saved state until they heard the gospel of Jesus and initially refused to accept it. E.g., Acts 2:41 says about 3,000 persons were baptized and added to the church on the day of Pentecost, when the church began. Unless this number includes the entire Pentecost audience, or unless it constitutes one hundred per cent of the pre-Christian Jewish believers who were present, then we must assume that some believing Jews who were present at Pentecost "fell away" by not accepting Christ on that day. Since both of these possibilities are highly unlikely, we can assume that some of the "natural branches" being grafted back into the tree are fallen-away believers who are being restored to salvation. This means the alternative translation of Heb 6:6 given in the NIV and NASB margins ("while," i.e., "as long as") is the correct one.

In other words, Paul's teaching about the olive tree refutes both the "once saved, always saved" error, and the "once fallen, always fallen" error. Both are equally unbiblical.

E. GOD'S PLAN FOR ISRAEL'S SALVATION (11:25-32)

In this paragraph all eyes are usually focused on v. 26a, "And so all Israel will be saved." This is "the center of this paragraph," says Moo (712); the NIV makes this statement the heading for the entire section. What it means, though, is notoriously difficult, and is the subject of endless discussion. Every part of it is controversial. How extensive is the word "all"? Does "Israel" refer to ethnic or spiritual Israel? To what status is Israel "saved"?

One of the more common conclusions based on this text is that at some time in the future, at or near the end of this age, most living Jews will turn to Christ and be restored as a nation to a place of preeminence in God's kingdom. As Moule says, in this text Paul "now, in plain terms, reveals and predicts a great future Restoration" (197).

I cannot accept this interpretation, for reasons that will be made clear in the following exposition. At this point I will simply say that in v. 26a, emphasis is usually placed on the wrong word, namely, "all," with the verse being read thus: "And so all Israel will be saved." In my judgment the emphasis should be on the word "so," taken in the sense of "thus, in this manner." Thus we should read it: "And in this way all Israel will be saved." I.e., regarding Israel's salvation Paul's point is "How?" and not "How many?"

This does not mean that there is a question whether Israel's salvation will be by some means other than faith in Jesus. That issue has already been settled, especially in ch. 10. Rather, the question has to do with the interrelationship between Israel and the Gentiles, continuing the discussion begun in v. 11. Paul has already emphasized that Israel's sin and rejection have been used by God as a means to save the Gentiles; here he is emphasizing that the salvation of the Gentiles is God's means of bringing salvation to Israel.

This becomes clear when we view this paragraph in the perspective of ch. 11 as a whole. The discussion is still controlled by the question in 11:1, "Did God reject his people?" The answer is an emphatic No, for two reasons. First, there existed in the past, and there continues to exist "at the present time . . . a remnant chosen by grace" (11:5). What about "the others"? They were hardened (7b-10). Second, even those who are presently and hereafter hardened may still turn to Christ and be saved, because God has worked out a complex plan for showing mercy upon both Jews and Gentiles. This plan is spelled out in 11:11-32.

In the first step of his plan God uses the sin and hardening of Israel as a means of bringing the riches of salvation to the Gentiles. Paul emphasizes this in 11:11-16, while at the same time revealing that the salvation of the Gentiles will in turn be used to bring salvation to the Jews. The olive tree metaphor is an interlude meant to preclude Gentile Christian arrogance, especially by showing that the underlying reasons for being lost or saved are unbelief and belief respectively, for both Gentiles and Jews (11:17-24).

This leads to the present paragraph, where the main emphasis is on the climactic second step of God's plan, namely, that God will use the salvation of the Gentiles as a means of bringing salvation to the Jews. This is the way in which "all Israel will be saved." In v. 26a the word all is meant to be contrasted with the remnant saved "at the present time" (v. 5). I.e., in v. 5 Paul affirms that a saved remnant existed at the time of his writing. But what about "the others" - the mass of unsaved Jews, both present and future? They can be saved, too; and the burden of vv. 11-32 (vv. 25-32 in particular) is to show how this is done. I.e., all Israel, not just the presently-existing remnant, will be saved. But how will they be saved? In this way: by the fullness of the Gentiles (v. 25), if they put their faith in Jesus Christ . (v. 23).

These two main aspects of God's complex plan for showing mercy upon all are summed up in vv. 30-31: because of the Jews' disobedience the Gentiles have received mercy (v. 30; see vv. 11-16); and likewise because the Gentiles have received mercy, Israel will also receive mercy (v. 31; see vv. 25-32)!

What, then, is the purpose of this paragraph? Some think it is to reveal the mystery of Israel's future. For example, Dunn's heading for this section is "The Final Mystery Revealed" (2:675). Fitzmyer's heading is "The Mystery of Israel: It Will All Be Saved" (618). This can hardly be the purpose, however, since there is nothing in this paragraph that has not been stated or implied earlier.

Moo suggests that the purpose of vv. 25-32 is to resolve the tension present throughout chs. 9-11, i.e., the tension between "Israel's current hostile relationship with God" and "God's expressed and irrevocable promises to Israel" (712-713). But this issue as such was resolved in ch. 9, where Paul indicates that God's election of and promises to ethnic Israel related to their service and not to their salvation.

It is best to view this paragraph as presenting no new data, but as simply summing up the main points of ch. 11 with the main emphasis being on the way God uses the salvation of the Gentiles to bring mercy upon Israel. This serves as a fitting climax to chs. 9-11 as a whole, in that God is shown to be not just fair and faithful in his relationship with the Jews, but much more than fair in that he offers them his undeserved grace and mercy.

1. The Mystery of Israel's Salvation (11:25-27)

First of all Paul declares the mystery of Israel's salvation: its reality, its means, and its nature. He begins with a word not translated in the NIV: gavr ( gar , "for, because"). This word links vv. 25ff. with the olive tree illustration. Especially, the imagery of grafting the broken-off natural branches back into the tree helps us to understand how Israel will be saved.

11:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: . . . "I do not want you to be ignorant" is a formula Paul sometimes uses to call attention to an important point (see on 1:13; JC, 1:96-97). "Brothers" is part of the formula. It indicates he is addressing the entire church, but the context shows he has Gentiles mainly in mind (see 11:13). In 11:17 he began using second person singular, addressing a typical representative Gentile Christian; but here he switches to second person plural. In this paragraph "you" and "they" still refer to Gentiles and Jews respectively.

Specifically, Paul does not want the Gentile Christians to be ignorant of "this mystery." The word "mystery" does not mean something that is and forever will be mysterious and incomprehensible. In the biblical context it refers to a truth once hidden in the mind of God and undiscoverable by human reason, but now made known by divine revelation and fully open to human understanding. Thus Paul is claiming that what he is teaching here is a revelation from God. We need not assume that it was revealed to Paul himself, though it probably was, nor that it was revealed only to him (see Eph 3:3-5). Nor should we assume that this was something revealed to him only at the moment he was writing these words (see Gal 1:11-18).

The reason Paul wants Gentile Christians to understand the mystery is "so that you may not be conceited," or "lest you be wise in your own estimation," as the NASB literally translates it. In vv. 18-20 Paul has already warned Gentile Christians against arrogant boasting in view of the fact that they were being gathered into the church while only relatively few Jews were being saved. Here he warns them again not to be "puffed up with self-importance" (Cranfield, 2:575), i.e., not to assume that God had permanently abandoned Israel and was now focusing his attention exclusively on them (see Morris, 419).

Exactly what is the content of the mystery that will nullify the Gentiles' pride? In the NT the word musthvrion (mystçrion ) is often used in a general way for revelation concerning Christ and his church. A mystery that was of special importance to Paul, though, was the revelation that God had always intended to include Jews and Gentiles together in the church of Jesus Christ (Eph 3:3, 4, 9; see 2:11-3:11). In Eph 3 the emphasis is on the fact that God is bringing the Gentiles into the church; here in 11:25 the emphasis is on the fact that unbelieving Jews may still be brought into the church.

More specifically, in 11:25 the mystery focuses on "interdependence between the salvation of the Gentiles and that of Jews" (Hendriksen, 2:378). I.e., not only are the Jews and Gentiles united together in the one church, but in accordance with God's plan each group in part owes its inclusion to the other. This is spelled out in the rest of this verse and the beginning of v. 26 in three clauses: (1) "Israel has experienced a hardening in part"; (2) "until the full number of the Gentiles has come in"; (3) "and so all Israel will be saved." This is the mystery, once hidden and now revealed. Moo rightly points out that the mystery is not just the fact that "all Israel will be saved," but rather the way Israel will be saved, as expressed in v. 25b (716-717; see also Murray, 2:92; Stott, 302). Actually, vv. 25b-26a are a kind of summary of what has already been taught in vv. 11-24; thus we should not assume that "this mystery" refers only to what follows. It includes the content of the preceding verses as well.

The first element of the mystery is that Israel has experienced a hardening in part . . . . Paul has already referred to this hardening in v. 7. As we saw there, it is God's response to Israel's initial rejection of Jesus as their Messiah. In essence it is "a judicial process by which he hands people over to their own stubbornness" (Stott, 302).

Paul says that Israel's hardening was only "in part" (ajpoΙ mevrou" , apo merous ). Most seem to understand this phrase in a numerical sense, i.e., only a part of Israel were hardened. The NRSV translates it, "A hardening has come upon part of Israel"; see Murray, 2:92; Cranfield, 2:575. If this is the meaning, it is certainly not a new thought, in view of the clear distinction made in v. 7 between the elect remnant and "the others."

In my judgment, though, this is not what Paul means. The sentence says literally that "hardness from a part has happened to Israel," not "hardness has happened to part of Israel." The word "part" is not the object of the verb, nor does the phrase "from a part" modify Israel. It is possible that it modifies "hardness" itself, but more likely it modifies the verb, as it does in its other four NT occurrences. Either way it means that even though Israel was hardened, the hardening was only partial; the unbelieving Jews were not completely hardened so as to preclude the possibility of repentance. The NIV ("a hardening in part") reflects this view, as does the NASB ("a partial hardening").

Is this a new point, not made known until v. 25? Not really. That the hardening is only partial is clearly implied in the earlier references to Israel's salvation (vv. 12,14-15,23-24). Thus it would seem that there is nothing new in this statement in v. 25 about Israel's hardening. This part of the "mystery" has already been set forth.

The heart of the mystery is in the next clause, i.e., that the hardening will last until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. Combined with the preceding clause, and read in the light of vv. 11-12,15,18, this implies that the hardening of Israel has something to do with the coming of the full number or fullness of the Gentiles. At the same time, taken with the following clause (26a), and read in the light of vv. 11,13-14, it implies that the fullness of the Gentiles has something to do with the salvation of "all Israel." As said earlier, the "mystery" thus is how salvation of Jews and Gentiles is interrelated. It is important for the Gentile Christians to see this, in order to avoid thinking too highly of themselves.

The key question is the meaning of the expression "the full number of the Gentiles." The word translated "full number" (plhvrwma , plçrôma ) is the same word the NIV translates as "fullness" in v. 12, where it refers to the fullness of the Jews. It seems that most interpreters favor the numerical connotation of the word, both here and in v. 12. It is said that Paul is referring to the "full destined number" of the Gentiles (Moule, 199); "the full completed number, the complement of the Gentiles, i.e., the Gentile world as a whole" (SH, 335); "the full number, totality, of the Gentiles" (Denney, 683); "numerical completion" (Moo, 719); "the full number of the saved Gentiles" (Lenski, 727). For some this refers to the total number of Gentiles saved over the whole course of church history up to the very end (e.g., Hendriksen, 2:378-379; Hoekema, Bible , 144). For others it refers to an unprecedented mass conversion of Gentiles near or at the end, "a greatly increased influx of Gentiles into God's kingdom" (Murray, 2:95; see Dunn, 2:680).

As was the case in v. 12, I cannot accept a numerical connotation for plçrôma . Hence (contra the NIV) I do not see this as referring to the "full number" of Gentiles, but rather to the fullness of salvation as it was proclaimed to and accepted by the Gentiles, beginning in Acts 10. (See on v. 12 above.) The NT nowhere else uses plçrôma in a numerical sense, but does use it for the fullness of salvation. See John 1:16; Rom 15:29; Eph 3:19. See also Col 2:10, which uses the verb form of the word: "you have been given fullness in Christ" (NIV). Thus the "fullness of the Gentiles" is the "spiritual wealth with which God will make the Gentiles full" (McGuiggan, 332, quoting Beet), "the abundant nature of the blessings in Christ's gospel" (ibid., 333). Thus Paul is not saying anything basically different from v. 11: "Because of [the Jews'] transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles"; or from v. 12: "Their loss means riches for the Gentiles"; or from v. 15: "Their rejection is the reconciliation of the world."

In what sense does this full salvation of the Gentiles "come in"? This is eijsevrcomai ( eiserchomai ), the common word for "go in, enter." In the NT it is occasionally used for people entering the kingdom (e.g., Matt 5:20; 7:21; John 3:5) or entering eternal life (Mark 9:43,45). Thus many take it in v. 25 as referring to the full number of Gentiles entering the kingdom or the church. But on some occasions the word means simply to come or to appear (see Luke 1:28; Acts 10:3; 19:30). I take it in a similar sense here, i.e., "until the salvation of the Gentiles has appeared or arrived or come into the picture." Compare 5:12, where Paul uses this word to declare that sin entered or came into the world. Here he uses it to affirm that salvation came into the Gentile world.

The point is that the hardening of the Jews was the occasion for the commencement of the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles. Thus the Gentile Christians should not gloat over the Jews' lost state; in one sense they owe their very salvation to it.

The other side of this coin is that the partial hardening of Israel has happened (and by implication will persist) until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. This places a limit on the hardening of Israel. Once the Gentiles' participation in the blessings of salvation has become fully established, the period of Israel's hardening will be over.

Those who interpret "fullness" as referring to a final ingathering of Gentiles at or near the second coming must naturally see this hardening as still present and as continuing up to or near the end. However, if we see the "fullness" as referring to the initial ingathering of Gentiles into the church, then the time of Israel's hardening was relatively brief and perhaps was coming to an end in Paul's own day. This is why he can say in v. 31 that the Jews "may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you [Gentiles]."

Paul implies that the Gentiles' experience of the fullness of salvation in some way leads to the cessation of Israel's hardness (see the references to arousing the Jews' envy in vv. 11, 13-14). The further implication is that Gentile Christians, rather than feeling conceited because they are saved and most Jews are not, should instead be actively preaching the gospel to the Jewish community.

We may note again that what Paul affirms here in v. 25 has already been either stated or implied in vv. 11-24; hence this verse is not revealing anything new but is summarizing the "mystery" already set forth.

11:26a The last element in the mystery is this: And so all Israel will be saved, . . . This is the conclusion drawn from the first two parts of the mystery, and in fact from 11:1-25 as a whole. Has God rejected his people? It is true that most of them were hardened. But in God's plan this hardening is instrumental in bringing the fullness of salvation to the Gentiles. Once the Gentiles have experienced this fullness, the Jews will be moved to envy and will be ready to receive God's mercy. Thus the hardening will last only until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. After this they may be grafted back into the olive tree, if they accept the mercy offered to them through the gospel. And in this way, all Israel will be saved. So how can anyone say that God has rejected his people?

As we discuss this verse, three questions must be kept in mind at the same time. First, what does "Israel" mean? Also, how extensive is the "all"? Finally, what kind of salvation is Paul talking about? The key issue, of course is this: does this verse predict and thus guarantee the salvation of a large mass of Jews at some point in the future, or does Paul have something else in mind?

Before we examine the phrase "all Israel," it is important to have a proper understanding of the first two words in the verse, "and so." The word "and" clearly ties this sentence to the last two clauses, but the word "so" (ou{tw" , houtôs ) does so in an even clearer and more crucial way. Some take this word as indicating a temporal sequence between v. 25b and v. 26a: Israel has experienced a partial hardening until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and "when this is done" all Israel will be saved. Bruce refers to the "well attested use" if houtôs "in a temporal sense" (222). But such a use is hardly well attested. Indeed, Fitzmyer argues that a temporal meaning is not found elsewhere in Greek (622), and Moo agrees with him (719-720). It is best to reject this meaning for the word.

Rather, houtôs here should be given its common meaning of "in this manner, thus, so" (AG, 602). The point is not when all Israel will be saved, but how . Cranfield says the word is emphatic: "It will be in this way, and only in this way," that all Israel will be saved (2:576). And what is this way? Here the term points us not to what follows but to what precedes. I.e., Israel will be saved by the coming of salvation to the Gentiles (v. 26b), which will arouse jealousy in the Jews themselves (vv. 11,13-14). Thus, "under the influence of the jealousy so excited - under the impression produced on the Jews by the sight of the Gentiles in their fulness peopling the kingdom - all Israel shall be saved" (Denney, 683). So also Godet (411), Dunn (2:681), and Moo (720).

But exactly what is meant by "all Israel"? The following discussion will seek to answer this question in two steps. First, the three major views will be explained. Second, the main arguments for and against these views will be presented, and one of the three will be identified as the best approach.

Of the three major views, the one most commonly held is that "all Israel" refers to ethnic Israel as a whole . (We shall call this view A.) The basic idea is that at some point in the future, once the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, there will be a mass conversion of Jews. This does not mean that every individual Jew will be saved, but it does mean that most Jews living at that time will become Christians. It is pointed out that the OT occasionally uses "all Israel" in this sense, e.g., 1 Sam 25:1; 1 Kgs 12:1; 2 Chr 12:1; Dan 9:11. Thus all Israel, and not just the present remnant (v. 5), will be saved. This view enjoys a "strong consensus," says Dunn (2:681).

This view has two versions, eschatological and noneschatological. The former says the future conversion of all Israel will be associated with Christ's Second Coming. Cranfield says it is probable "that Paul was thinking of a restoration of the nation of Israel as a whole to God at the end , an eschatological event in the strict sense" (2:577). It is clear, says Moo, "that Paul places this event at the end of time"; it will be "a large-scale conversion of Jewish people at the end of this age" (723-724). It will be "the climax of salvation-history," says Dunn (2:692). For some this will involve the restoration of Israel as a national entity, along with its repossession of the original promised land. This is a common feature in the dispensational premillennial view of end-time events. "All Israel," says MacArthur, means "the entire nation that survives God's judgment during the Great Tribulation" and thus prepares the way for the millennium (2:128-129; see Pentecost, Things , 504-507).

The noneschatological version of this view says there will be a future mass conversion of Jews, but not necessarily associated with the end-times and not involving a nationalistic restoration. "All Israel" will be saved by becoming a part of the church, alongside Gentile Christians. As Moule puts it, Paul is "predicting the conversion of some generation or generations of Jews, a conversion so real and so vastly extensive that unbelief shall be the small exception at the most, and that Jews as such shall everywhere be recognized as true Christians" (199). Murray strongly defends this view (2:96-100), as does Stott, who says Paul promises that "the great mass of the Jewish people" will one day experience "salvation from sin through faith in Christ," but does not promise "a return to the land" as a "political entity" (303-304). See also Lard (370-371) and SH (335-336).

The second major view is that "all Israel" means the remnant portion of ethnic Israel , or all believing Jews in all generations. (We shall call this view B.) Here the term "Israel" is taken in a slightly different sense in v. 26 as compared with v. 25 and elsewhere. I.e., it may be true that the mass of Israel has been hardened (v. 25), but all of true spiritual Israel will be saved (v. 26). They will be saved not in a single mass conversion but in the normal process of evangelism, being brought to faith in Christ and added to his church over the whole course of church history.

Hendriksen, a Calvinist, defends this view, saying that "all Israel" means " the total number of elect Jews ." It means that on the Judgment Day "not a single elect Israelite will be lacking" (2:381). Hoekema likewise says that v. 26a describes "the bringing to salvation throughout history of the total number of the elect from among the Jews" ( Bible , 140). These are "the true Israelites," he says (141). What Paul means, says Lenski, is that "all God's true Israel, all of it that really deserves the name, will be saved" (719). This includes all true Israel "from the patriarchs onward until time ends" (724). As McGuiggan puts it, "Believing Jews are the real Israel. They are the Israel within Israel," of whom Paul speaks in 9:6 (335). Thus "all Israel" means " every Jew who is truly an Israelite" (336).

The third main view of "all Israel" is that it refers to the whole of spiritual Israel , including both believing Jews and believing Gentiles. (We shall call this view C.) In other words, it is God's new Israel, the church, which is identified in Gal 3:29 as "Abraham's seed," in Gal 6:16 as "the Israel of God," and in Phil 3:3 as "the circumcision." This view was common among the early church fathers (see Fitzmyer, 623-624), and was espoused by Calvin, who says, "I extend the word Israel to all the people of God" as gathered from among both Jews and Gentiles (437). See also Wright, Climax (250); and Smith (2:43).

We turn now to the second step of our discussion of "all Israel," which is to set forth and evaluate various arguments for and against these views. We shall begin by examining the main arguments for A, that "all Israel" means ethnic Israel as a whole. The best argument for this view is that it is consistent with the way the term "Israel" is used elsewhere in Romans, and especially in this context. In 9:1-11:25 the words "Israel" and "Israelite" occur eleven or twelve times (allowing for textual variations), and "in each case the reference is clearly to Jews, never to Gentiles" (Hendriksen, 2:380). Thus, it is asked, how can we possibly expect Paul, abruptly and without qualification, to use this same term in v. 26 with an entirely different meaning? Murray declares "that it is exegetically impossible to give to 'Israel' in this verse any other denotation than that which belongs to the term throughout this chapter. . . . It is of ethnic Israel Paul is speaking and Israel could not possibly include Gentiles" (2:96). Especially, since "Israel" in v. 25 undoubtedly means the whole nation, it is impossible that he would use it in a different sense in v. 26 (Bruce, 221-222). Thus, says Cranfield, that "all Israel" here "does not include Gentiles is virtually certain" (2:576).

A second argument for A is that it seems most consistent with the overall context of 9-11. I.e., one of the main issues in this whole section is the fate of the nation of Israel (Godet, 410). "The whole context shows clearly that it is the actual Israel of history that is referred to" (SH, 336). Thus, says Hughes, "there is no way 'Israel' here can be spiritualized, considering the context of chapters 9-11. It clearly refers to ethnic Israel, the Jewish people" (199).

A third argument for A is that the salvation of all ethnic Israel has already been affirmed several times in this chapter, especially in the reference to Israel's "fullness" in v. 12, her "acceptance" in v. 15, and her "grafting in" in vv. 23-24. Thus it is likely that v. 26 refers to the same thing, "because in vv. 15,25, we have had already a prediction of a restoration of Jews, en masse , to grace" (Moule, 199). It would be anticlimactic to refer v. 26 to anything less; indeed it would be "exegetical violence" (Murray, 2:97).

A final argument is that if "all Israel" is anything less than the whole nation of Israel, then this statement does not deserve to be called a "mystery" (v. 25) in the sense explained above. To say that all true/elect/spiritual Israel will be saved, whether in the sense of B or C, is called a truism or a tautology (Godet, 411), i.e., something true by definition. Only "the whole of ethnic Israel" does justice to the term "mystery" (Cranfield, 2:576-577; Morris, 421).

Do these four arguments rule out B and C, and establish A? The first argument is the strongest, and in my judgment makes C unlikely. I do not believe it rules out B, however, as will be seen below. The second argument likewise has merit and weakens the case for C, but again it does not rule out B. The third argument is altogether invalid because it is based on a false understanding of vv. 12,15, and 24-25. These verses do not refer to a future mass conversion of Israel. (See my explanation of them above.) Indeed, Hendriksen says that prior to v. 26 "the reader has not been prepared for the idea of a mass conversion of Israelites. All along Paul stresses the very opposite, namely, the salvation, in any age (past, present, future) of a remnant" (2:379). The fourth argument might have some merit if the emphasis in v. 26a were on the word "all." But since the emphasis is actually on the word "so," i.e., "in this way," the argument misses the point completely. The how of all Israel's salvation is surely worthy to be called a mystery. See Moo, 722.

The conclusion is that the arguments for A and against B and C are not as strong as one might expect, given the widespread acceptance of this view. The last two arguments are invalid in themselves; and the first two arguments, while making C unlikely, by no means rule out B. The issue then turns on whether a good case can be made for B.

Before turning to B we shall briefly consider C, the view that "all Israel" means all spiritual Israel in general (the church), including both believing Jews and believing Gentiles. I have already indicated that I believe the use of the term "Israel" in 9-11 makes this view unlikely. One cannot appeal to 9:6 to support this meaning for "Israel" in v. 26a, since the "spiritual Israel" in 9:6 includes only Jewish believers and not Gentile believers. Thus I agree that it is unwarranted to say that "Israel" in v. 26a means "spiritual Israel" in the broadest sense of that term, the church.

The argument that the context as a whole militates against this view is not as strong, since the salvation of Jews and Gentiles together certainly has been considered in this main section (9:24; 10:12), and even in the immediate context (the olive tree). Moo makes a good point, though, when he says that this view would weaken "the hortatory purpose of Rom. 11:11-32," which is to counter the Gentiles' tendency to hold themselves above the Jews. In fact, "for Paul in this context to call the church 'Israel' would be to fuel the fire of the Gentiles' arrogance by giving them grounds to brag that ' we are the true Israel'" (721).

While I do not accept this view (C) and believe that a good case cannot be made for it, I do not consider it to be an oddity or to be totally out of the question. As Wright ( Climax , 250) points out, "Israel" is used in two different senses in a single verse (9:6) without warning or explanation. Can we rule out a similar tactic here? Also, in 9:24-29 Paul does speak of Jews and Gentiles together in the context of the remnant. In 10:12-13 he declares that no distinction can be made between Jews and Gentiles with regard to salvation. In 11:17-24 the olive tree contains both Jews and Gentiles, and even v. 25 refers to the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles, at least by implication.

This leads to our examination of the arguments for B, which I consider to be the correct view. When Paul says that "all Israel will be saved," he is speaking of all ethnic Jews who also belong to the true spiritual Israel. The first argument for this view is that it is consistent with the way Paul uses the term "Israel" in 9-11, and thus belies the criticism that A is the only view that interprets the term consistent with the context. To say that Paul uses this term elsewhere in this section only for ethnic Jews may be true; but that does not affect B, which agrees that v. 26a refers to ethnic Jews. The only issue is whether Paul uses the term only in the sense of the nation as a whole , and 9:6 shows that he does not. In 9:6 Paul uses the term "Israel" twice, first referring to the nation as a whole and then referring only to spiritual Israel, the remnant. In the Greek text of 9:6 these two uses are almost consecutive, being separated by only one Greek word. Thus 9:6 is more than enough justification for regarding "Israel" in 11:26a as referring to spiritual Israel, even though the same term in 11:25 refers to Israel as a whole.

The second argument for B is that it is totally consistent with the context in general. Proponents of A say that v. 26a must be talking about the nation as a whole, because the status of the nation as a whole is exactly what 9-11 is all about: How can we reconcile Israel's lostness with God's faithfulness? But this is not the whole picture. It is true that in 9-11 the unbelief of Israel in general is the problem , but it is also true that the existence of a remnant who believe is part of the answer to the problem. Hence the remnant concept is a prominent theme in the context as a whole. See especially 9:6,23-29; 11:1-7a.

Third, this view (B) is also consistent with the line of thought Paul is developing in ch. 11 specifically. Has God rejected his people? No. Though most are hardened, he has a remnant. But is there any hope for those who are hardened? Yes. Especially now that salvation has come to the Gentiles, all hardened Jews may believe in Jesus and become a part of the remnant . Paul has just declared that God can and will graft the broken-off branches back into the olive tree, conditioned upon their abandoning their unbelief (v. 23). In v. 24 Paul assures us that God will graft these natural branches back into the tree, but the condition of faith is obviously meant to be carried over from v. 23. The same is undoubtedly true in v. 26. When Paul says "All Israel will be saved," in view of v. 23 we must understand it as "all Israelites who believe in Jesus Christ - i.e., the remnant - will be saved." This shows the importance of translating houtôs as "thus, in this way." When Paul says "in this way" all Israel will be saved, he is referring not just to the summary statement in v. 25, but to the more complete explanation in vv. 11-24, including the emphasis on conditionality in vv. 23-24.

A fourth argument for B is that it does justice to the word "all" in "all Israel." One of the most serious flaws of A is that it really does not take the word "all" seriously. In practically every version of it, the only Jews who are saved are those who happen to be living at and possibly after a point of time still in the future, and for many it is only that final generation of Jews who are saved. Most individual Jews in the scores of generations preceding that time are actually not saved. Thus the saved "will be just a fragment of the total number of Jews who have lived on the earth. How can such a fragment properly be called 'all Israel'?" (Hoekema, Bible , 144). Also, as McGuiggan points out, if the issue here is God's faithfulness to his promises to the Jews, how is the saving of just one generation evidence of such faithfulness? "Did he make these promises only to a coming generation of Jews? Did he not make them to past generations of Jews? . . . In what way does the salvation of a coming mass of Jews vindicate God's faithfulness?" (335-336; see Hendriksen, 2:379). But if "all Israel" means "the entire remnant of Jews," then this refers to every believing Israelite in every generation. All who meet the condition of v. 23 will be saved.

A fifth argument for B is that it is consistent with Paul's teaching in the following verses that "all Israel" is being saved now . As we shall soon see, the OT texts cited as confirmation of v. 26a refer to the first coming of Jesus and to the present salvation from sin by God's grace. They do not refer to the Second Coming and to some future national restoration (Hendriksen, 2:380). Especially, in v. 31 Paul says it is God's plan that the Jews "may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you [Gentiles]." View A does not do justice to this "now," but B does. See Hoekema, Bible , 145-146.

Finally we may point out that Moo's criticism that C is not consistent with Paul's exhortations to the Gentile Christians (to not consider themselves better than the Jews) does not apply to B, since the remnant of which B speaks is from among the Jews only. In fact, though Moo accepts A, he declares that B "deserves consideration as a serious alternative" (723).

A final question in reference to "all Israel will be saved" is the meaning of "saved." At stake is whether this salvation includes something special for the Jews, or whether Paul is referring simply to the ordinary salvation from sin enjoyed by Gentile believers as well. Those who hold to the eschatological version of A usually take the former approach, saying that this salvation includes the restoration of Israel as a political entity to its original Palestinian homeland as a preparation for the millennium (see MacArthur, 2:128-129; Cranfield, 2:577-578). Almost everyone else, though, in view of vv. 26b-27, understands "saved" to mean the ordinary way of salvation which Paul has been expounding throughout Romans. As Stott says, it is "salvation from sin through faith in Christ. It is not a national salvation, for nothing is said about either a political entity or a return to the land" (304). Moo agrees that there is no evidence in Rom 11 that salvation includes restoration to the land (724, n. 59).

If this is the case, how does the salvation of all remnant Israel depend on the fullness of the Gentiles? The main thing is that the latter is an occasion for envy on the part of the Jews (11:12,13-14), but DeWelt reminds us also that it must involve "nothing short of the faithful preaching of the gospel by the Gentiles to the Jews" (188).

11:26b-27 . . . as it is written, "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins." This is a brief OT confirmation that God is now saving "all Israel" through the gospel of Jesus Christ. These lines are taken from the LXX version of Isaiah. Verse 26b is basically the same as Isa 59:20; v. 27a is from Isa 59:21a; v. 27b is from Isa 27:9. In the last citation Paul changes "his sin" to "their sins." The phrase "from Zion" also represents a change. The Hebrew text here reads " to Zion"; the LXX has " for the sake of Zion"; but Paul says " from Zion." The fact that salvation comes "from Zion" is specifically mentioned in Ps 14:7; 53:6; 110:2. Paul chooses to incorporate this thought into his OT citation in order to make his point more clearly. (See Moo, 727-728.)

The word for "deliverer" is a participial form of the verb ruvomai ( ryomai ), which means "to save, to rescue, to deliver." The Hebrew text has lag ( go'el ), "Redeemer" (see GRe, 15-20). This originally would have been applied to Yahweh, but Paul's use of it here shows it is definitely a messianic prophecy. The "deliverer" is Jesus Christ. See 1 Thess 1:10.

"Jacob" of course was the original name of Isaac's favored son before it was changed to Israel. OT poetic and prophetic literature often used it as a synonym for Israel when referring to the Jewish people. That is its meaning here. It simply means "Israel" or "the Jews."

"Zion" was one of the hills on which Jerusalem was built. It was used in the OT as a poetic name for Jerusalem itself (e.g., Ps 48:2, 11-12; 51:18; 69:35), and often symbolically for the whole of Israel and the people of Israel (e.g., Ps 74:2; 78:68; 146:10; Isa 1:27; 46:13). Sometimes the nuance was Zion (Jerusalem) as the location of the temple and thus the dwelling place of God (e.g., Ps 76:2; 132:13; Isa 8:18; 18:7; 24:23; Jer 2:19; Joel 3:17,21). In this way "Zion" came to represent heaven itself as God's dwelling place (e.g., Ps 9:11; 14:7; 20:2; 50:2; 53:6; 110:2; 134:3).

In the New Covenant era "Zion" represents the new temple, the new people of God, the church. Messianic prophecies about Zion, such as Ps 2:6 and Isa 28:16 (see also Isa 2:3 and Micah 4:2) could be referring to the fact that the church was established in the earthly city of Jerusalem (Acts 2), from which the gospel then was taken into all the earth. But these texts could also be referring to the church itself, which seems more likely in view of Rom 9:33; Heb 12:22-23; and 1 Pet 2:6. See also Gal 4:26.

How does Paul intend for us to understand "from Zion" in this quote from Isa 59:20? Possibly it just means "Israel," i.e., Christ came forth from the people of Israel. Or it may mean "Jerusalem" in the sense that this is where the church and the preaching of the gospel originated. Most likely, though, it means Zion as God's heavenly dwelling place, i.e., God the Redeemer will come forth from heaven itself.

It makes a considerable difference whether this refers to the Messiah's first coming or his second coming. If it is the latter, this would give support to the eschatological version of view A above. Paul would be saying that all Israel will be saved when the Messiah returns from heaven. Cranfield explains it exactly this way, then observes that this confirms that Paul is speaking of an eschatological salvation for the Jews (2:578). See also Bruce (222), Dunn (2:682, 692), and Moo (727-728).

I believe, on the contrary, that this refers to the first coming of Christ. It is in future tense ("will come") from Isaiah's standpoint, not Paul's. Christ's first coming was just as much from the heavenly Zion as the second will be. The strongest reason for taking it to be the first coming is the specific stated purpose for which the Redeemer comes from Zion. The redemptive acts mentioned by Isaiah and recited by Paul refer not to a political restoration of the Jewish nation but to the personal salvation of individuals. This is why Jesus came the first time: to die for the sins of his people, and thereby to establish a new covenant with them, a covenant to take away their sins.

Specifically the deliverer has come to "turn godlessness away from Jacob" (v. 26b) and to "take away their sins" (v. 27b). This is the saving grace of forgiveness (justification), regeneration, and sanctification. It is a spiritual restoration, not a political one (Godet, 413; Denney, 684). This is the very thing Peter preached to the Jews in his second sermon in Acts: "When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways" (3:26). This taking away of sins, says Isaiah, is the purpose and result of God's "covenant with them."

Of which covenant is Isaiah speaking? Some assume it is the covenant God made with Abraham and his physical seed, the Jewish nation (e.g., Moo, 728-729). From this they conclude that God has promised salvation to the Jews as a nation (e.g., Fitzmyer, 625), and that for this covenant to be fulfilled God must ultimately bring about "the future restoration of Israel" (Murray, 2:100; see Moo, 729). This is completely off the mark, however. The covenant with Abraham was with the nation of Israel as a whole, but its promises were principally temporal blessings relating to Israel's role of bringing the Messiah into the world (9:4-5), not the spiritual blessings of salvation as such. I.e., the Abrahamic covenant did not guarantee salvation to every Jew living under it. Also, the Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled with the first coming of Christ.

The covenant to which Isaiah's messianic prophecy refers is thus not the Abrahamic covenant, but the New Covenant prophesied in Jer 31:31-34, and established through the death and shed blood of Christ (Luke 22:20; Heb 8:7-12; 10:15-17). The central promise of the New Covenant, as stated in Jer 31:34, is this: "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." This is exactly what Paul is emphasizing in his quote from Isaiah: God covenants to take away the sins of "all Israel" through the blood of Christ if they will but trust in him. This covenant is conditional (11:23), and God gathers Jews into it one by one over the whole course of church history. This is how all true Israel will be saved.

2. God's Continuing Love for Israel (11:28-29)

11:28 Speaking of the Jews, Paul continues to address the Gentiles, explaining the reason why God's salvation is offered to "all Israel." As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, . . . This verse reflects the tension within God's nature that sums up God's relation to all sin and all sinners, i.e., the tension between his holiness and his love. This is seen in a special way in his attitude toward the Jews; they are at the same time his enemies and his beloved, the objects of both his hatred and his love.

The word ejcqrov" ( echthros ) is usually translated "enemy" in the NT; it speaks of an attitude of enmity and hostility and hatred. The main point here is not the sinner's hatred of God, but God's hatred of the sinner, in contrast with his love for the sinner in v. 28b (Morris, 422). To be hated by God is to be under his wrath, rejected by him, and shut off from him (SH, 337; Cranfield, 2:580). This divine hostility is not directed toward all Jews, but only toward those who have rejected the gospel. They are God's enemies "as far as the gospel is concerned," i.e., because they have refused to accept the gospel and to believe in Jesus as their Messiah (9:30-10:21).

Paul never ceases to remind the Gentile Christians, however, that God's enmity toward the Jews has been the occasion for bringing the gospel to them. The Jews are enemies, yes; but they are enemies "on your account," for your sake, "in order to open His kingdom wide to you" (Moule, 201). See vv. 11,12,15.

But this is only part of the picture, and the lesser part at that. Even though the hardened Jews have chosen to become God's enemies by rejecting the gospel, God still loves them because of the original relationship he established with them through the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). Thus he cannot forget them; he cannot pretend that this relationship never existed. Even if they no longer have a special role in God's ongoing plan, they still occupy a special place in his heart.

"As far as election is concerned" has been taken two ways. In vv. 5,7 Paul uses this same term (ejkloghv , eklogç , "election, choice") for the elect remnant; some interpret it this way here, saying that v. 28b refers only to the remnant within Israel, and thus limiting God's love to the elect alone. Others (correctly) interpret "election" here as referring to God's original choice of Abraham and through him of the entire nation of Israel. This is not an election of individuals to salvation, but the election of the Jews as a corporate body to covenant service, as in 9:11.

Thus, whereas v. 28a reflects the reality of ch. 10 above, v. 28b reflects the reality of ch. 9. God chose Israel as a nation to serve his special redemptive purposes, and poured out upon them his special covenant blessings. Even though this relationship did not automatically guarantee salvation to every individual Jew, God cannot help but regard every natural descendent of Abraham with a special affection. Thus for the Jews perhaps more than others, God is "not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance" (2 Pet 3:9, NASB). That is why he wants to include them in his new covenant, the covenant of salvation (v. 27). God's enmity to the hardened Jews is real (v. 28a), but it does not cancel out his love for them.

That all Israel is loved by God "on account of the fathers" does not mean that the patriarchs did anything to merit or deserve this continuing love for their descendants. Nor does it mean that God still has unfulfilled covenant obligations toward the fathers. This latter view is quite common, especially among those who believe there is just one covenant of salvation, beginning with Abraham and continuing through the NT era. According to this view, this is why God still loves the Jews and must save them, i.e., "for His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is sovereign and unchangeable" (Moule, 201; see Stott, 306; Dunn, 2:694). "When the Lord elected . . . the nation of Israel to be His own people, He bound Himself by His own promises to bring the Jews to salvation and be forever His beloved and holy people," says MacArthur (2:131). Murray says, "God has not suspended or rescinded his relation to Israel as his chosen people in terms of the covenants made with the fathers," and this is why he will save and restore them (2 @ :101).

This view errs in thinking that the covenant with the patriarchs is the same as the covenant of salvation Jesus established on the cross. Thus it errs in thinking that the patriarchal covenant promised salvation to Jews as Jews in perpetuity. The truth is that every promise to Israel as a nation through the patriarchs was completely fulfilled when Jesus came into the world the first time (9:4-5; Acts 13:32-34).

11:29 This is not contradicted by what Paul says in the next verse: for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. This refers still to God's original general election of the nation of Israel. The "gifts" are not the gifts of salvation (contra Moule, 201; Hendriksen, 2:384; MacArthur, 2 @ :131). They are the benefits described in 9:4-5, which, though glorious in every respect, are still temporal and nonsalvific in themselves. The "call" likewise is not the salvific call to which only the elect respond, as in 8:30 (contra Denney, 684; Hendriksen, 2:384; MacArthur, 2 @ :132; Lenski, 734). It refers to the original call to Abraham and thus the call to Israel as a nation "to be His special people, to stand in a special relation to Himself, and to fulfil a special function in history" (Cranfield, 2:581).

These gifts and this call are "irrevocable," Paul says. This is the first word in the verse in the Greek text and therefore is in a place of emphasis. What does it mean? It comes from metamevlomai ( metamelomai¯ ), which means "to regret, to repent, to change one's mind." Here, with the negating alpha, the word is ajmetamevlhto" (ametamelçtos , "not to be regretted, not to be repented of." (See 2 Cor 7:10.) "Irrevocable" is not the best translation. The point is not that God must save the Jews because he has made an irrevocable promise to Abraham et al . to do so. Rather, it is that God does not regret his choice of Israel as the nation through whom he brought the Christ into the world. Despite the centuries of their heartbreaking unfaithfulness and idolatry in OT times, and despite their current rejection of the gospel, God does not regret all he did for them and through them to carry out his purposes.

This is why they are still beloved to him. Paul begins this thought with gavr ( gar ), "for, because." The Jews are still beloved because of the patriarchs (v. 28b), because God has never regretted this Old Covenant relationship he established with them in the first place. As Lard says, "Their fathers were chosen and loved, and on their account their rejected descendants are still loved" (373).

3. God's Ultimate Purpose Is Mercy (11:30-32)

In describing God's dealings with the Jews and Gentiles, this chapter has strongly emphasized both sides of God's nature: his sternness and his kindness (v. 22), his enmity and his love (v. 28). It has not attempted to soften or disguise the wrath of God against the unbelieving Jews (vv. 7-10,19-22,28a). But this is not the main point of the chapter. The main point is that, in spite of the unbelief and disobedience of Gentiles and Jews alike, God wants the gracious side of his nature to prevail. His ultimate goal and purpose are mercy , not wrath. And the most marvelous thing of all is that God can use the universal disobedience of mankind as a part of his plan to show mercy unto all. By explaining how this is so, this paragraph is a striking example of 8:28.

11:30-31 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. The parts of these two verses are so carefully composed and so deliberately parallel that both must be printed together here. Dunn says this sentence is "the most contrived or carefully constructed formulation which Paul ever produced in such tight epigrammatic form, with so many balancing elements" (2:687). It may be diagrammed thus:

For just as YOU GENTILES

then were disobedient to God, but

now have received mercy

by the JEWS' disobedience;

So also THESE JEWS

now have become disobedient, so that

now they also may receive mercy

by the mercy shown to you GENTILES.

In a real sense this sentence sums up everything Paul has said in this chapter. As Godet puts it, "Ver. 30 describes the rebellion of the Gentiles, then their salvation determined by the rebellion of the Jews; and ver. 31, the rebellion of the Jews, then their salvation arising from the salvation of the Gentiles" (414).

The word pote ( pote, "then, at one time") in v. 30a refers to the pre-Christian era when the Gentiles were limited to general revelation and were given over to the sinful excesses of their rebellion against God (1:18-32). The word nu'n ( nyn, "now") in v. 30b refers to the New Covenant era when Christ has commanded that the gospel be taken to all nations. Morris (424-425) points out that the contrast is not between disobedience and obedience, as if one could make up for his sins by beginning to obey the commandments of the law. As in 3:21-5:21, the only remedy for disobedience is the mercy and grace of God.

To say that the Gentiles have received mercy "as a result of their [the Jews'] disobedience" is simply to repeat vv. 11,12,15. God takes the Jews' rebellion against the gospel of Christ as an occasion for sending that gospel to the Gentiles.

These verses continue to undermine Gentile smugness in relation to the Jews. Paul reminds the Gentiles (1) that they too were once in a state of disobedience; (2) that in one sense they owe their present state of grace to the Jews' disobedience; and (3) that God's plan is for the Jews to ultimately receive the same mercy now enjoyed by the Gentiles, even though they will arrive at it by a slightly different route.

To say that the Jews "have now become disobedient" refers to their initial rejection of the gospel at the beginning of the New Covenant era.

The word translated "in order that" is i{na ( hina ). It usually denotes purpose, as the NIV chooses to translate it here. But if that is what it means here, this would suggest that somehow God caused the Jews to be disobedient, so that he might accomplish the stated purpose. Thus it is important to know two things about hina . First, it can denote simple result rather than purpose (AG, 378). Also, "contrary to regular usage" hina sometimes "is placed elsewhere than at the beginning of its clause, in order to emphasize the words that come before it" (AG, 379). I believe both of these points are in evidence here in v. 31b. We should especially note that, for emphasis, "by your [the Gentiles'] mercy" is placed at the very beginning of this clause, even before the word hina . Taken thus it reads quite naturally as follows: "The Jews have now become disobedient, with the result that, by means of the mercy shown to you Gentiles , they too may now obtain mercy."

This shows that God's ultimate goal, even for the hardened Jews, is that they may receive his mercy and be saved. It also emphasizes again that the salvation of the Gentiles is an instrument by which God will bring this about. This recalls the point about the Jews' being moved to envy by seeing the Gentiles enjoying the fruit of their own covenant service (vv. 11,13-14). It is also an incentive for Gentile Christians to evangelize the Jews. As Lard says, "The Gentiles have now to preach the gospel to the Jews, and induce them to obey it" (374).

The inclusion of the word "now" in v. 31b is very significant. It shows that the statement, "And so all Israel will be saved" in v. 26a does not refer to a mass conversion of ethnic Jews at some far distant point in the future (relative to the time of Paul's writing), but that it refers to the ongoing conversion of remnant Jews beginning even "now," in the first century (Hendriksen, 2:385). Those who take the former view give "now" some other meaning, such as "at any time" (Moo, 735), or "the eschatological now" (Cranfield, 2:586), i.e., sometime during this final messianic age, even if it is toward the end of it (Morris, 425). But the parallel with the "now" in v. 30b shows that Paul is thinking of the "now" in which he was living. Thus as Wright says, it indicates "a steady flow of Jews into the church, by grace through faith," from that very time ( Climax , 249).

11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. In this final verse of the present section Paul emphasizes once again that God's goal and purpose are to bring mercy to all. The "all" in both clauses probably is not intended to refer to every individual as such, but to all in the sense of both groups , i.e., both Gentiles and Jews. To say God has bound all over to disobedience reflects Paul's emphasis in 3:9, that "Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin" (see 3:9-20). The reference to God's "mercy on them all" does not teach universal salvation, but refers to the fact that he has poured out his mercy on Jews and Gentiles alike (10:12).

As a matter of fact, though, all individuals in both groups are bound over to sin (3:23). Also, there is a sense in which God has mercy on all individuals, in that his mercy is intended for all and is offered to all. It is not the case, though, that all will in fact accept it. "Whether the mercy will ever be actually realized or not, depends on belief in Christ" (Lard, 375).

The word translated "bound over" literally means "to enclose, to confine, to shut up, to imprison." How did God imprison the Gentiles in disobedience? This does not mean that he caused them to sin, or made it impossible for them not to sin. It refers to 1:18-32, and to God's decision to "give them over" to the sinful desires of their hearts (vv. 24,26,28). How did he imprison the Jews in disobedience? Again this does not mean he caused them to sin. It refers rather to 2:1-29, and to the conclusion that the law, in which the Jews trusted, has but one verdict for sinners: condemnation. It refers also to 11:7 and the hardening of Jewish unbelievers. All in all, as Moo says, this statement refers to "God's decision to 'confine' people in the state that they have chosen for themselves" (736).

From another standpoint, to say that God shuts up all men in their sin refers to the divine pronouncement that all have in fact sinned (3:23) and have become trapped in the consequences of their sin with no hope of escaping through any deeds or schemes of their own. "By the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight" (3:20, NASB). For sinners this is what it means to be "under law" (6:14,15). For sinners the testimony of the law is a word of wrath. This word of wrath is like cords that bind sinners and leave them shut up in the dungeon of death, in the very vestibule of hell.

But this is not the last word, because God has provided a way of escape from this dungeon, this prison of sin. It is the way of mercy, the way of grace (3:21-5:21); and it is the only way. This is the whole point of Romans: "a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law" (3:28, NASB). "We are not under law but under grace" (6:15). This is the point to which all of ch. 11 has been leading: that God can and will provide this mercy to all, Jews and Gentiles alike. "As they have been together in the prison of their disobedience, so they will be together in the freedom of God's mercy" (Stott, 307).

V. DOXOLOGY: GOD'S WAY IS RIGHT (11:33-36)

Godet rightly remarks regarding this paragraph, "Like a traveller who has reached the summit of an Alpine ascent, the apostle turns and contemplates. . . . The plan of God in the government of mankind spreads out before him," and his heart is filled with admiration and gratitude (416). His response to God's work is nothing less than a doxology (see 1:25; JC, 1:154), a hymn of highest praise to the one who is Creator, Ruler, and Redeemer of all the earth. Awe, wonder, and adoration fill his soul as he pens this "hymnic composition, a poem to the inscrutable wisdom of God" (Fitzmyer, 632). The very writing of it is an act of worship.

How does this doxology tie in with what precedes it? In a sense we may see it as "the conclusion to the whole of the doctrinal section of Romans (1:16-11:36)," as Fitzmyer says (633). It is more appropriate, though, to take it as the capstone for chapters 9-11, where the overall subject is God's faithfulness in his dealings with Israel. The question has been, Does the combination of God's original covenant with the patriarchs and Israel's present lostness mean that God has been unfaithful and untrue to his word? In answer to this question, under divine inspiration, Paul has set forth a theodicy: God's way is right, especially his way with Israel. He has shown that the first covenant dealt with Israel's service as a nation , and that God has faithfully kept every promise he made to them under this covenant (ch. 9). He has also shown that the reason for Israel's lostness is not unfaithfulness on God's part but Israel's own unbelief (ch. 10). Finally he has shown that under the New Covenant God's redemptive plan incorporates Israel's unbelief in a way that leads ultimately back to her salvation (ch. 11).

These are the mysteries that fill Paul with wonder, and elicit from him this "hymn of admiration in honor of the divine plan" (Godet, 419), his "awesome plan" (Moo, 739). Paul no doubt has ch. 11 especially in mind, and particularly the summary statement in vv. 30-32, which emphasizes the mercy of God. Thus he marvels that God has vindicated his faithfulness in the face of Israel's unbelief in a way that glorifies both his holiness and his mercy.

A major theme of this doxology is the inscrutability of God's ways with mankind. Some say that Paul's purpose here is "to glorify God's incomprehensibility" (MacArthur, 2:134). As Morris puts it, this hymn "is prompted by what we do not know about God . . . rather than by what we do know" (427). But this is misleading. Paul certainly emphasizes God's transcendent unsearchableness. But his wonder is evoked not by divine incomprehensibility as such, nor by things still hidden within its depths, but rather by the things that God has revealed to us and which are now open to us. To be sure, we could never have discerned on our own God's awesome plan for saving his people; but God has shown it to us, and that is why we are overwhelmed by the wisdom and mercy of it.

Godet long ago set us straight on this point. Against those who dwell on the divine incomprehensibility as if it were the last word, he rightly observes that Paul's hymn is evoked "not by the obscurity of God's plans, but . . . by their dazzling clearness." They are indeed unfathomable until revealed, but revealing them is exactly what Paul has been doing. "It is therefore in view of the unveiled mystery that the exclamation is raised" (417). Moo also makes this point (740), as does Murray (2:104): "What constrains the doxology is the revealed counsel."

11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! There is disagreement over how this exclamation was intended to be structured. Some take "the depth of the riches" as a single idea, with "wisdom and knowledge" being its double object. See the NIV and NASB. Calvin says it refers to the "deep riches of wisdom and knowledge" (444; see Lenski, 739-740). According to this interpretation, the main emphasis of the whole section would be on God's wisdom and knowledge.

Others take the three nouns, "riches and wisdom and knowledge," as three parallel objects of "depth." In my judgment this view is preferable (contra the NIV), since "the depth of the riches" as a single idea is redundant. According to this view, then, the doxology is emphasizing not just God's wisdom and knowledge, but his riches as well. (The phrase "of God" goes with all three nouns.)

The word "depth" is "a common Greek expression for inexhaustible fullness or superabundance" (MP, 479). The idea is that God is a bottomless, infinite resource of riches, wisdom, and knowledge.

Paul marvels first at the depth of God's riches . This word can mean material wealth (Matt 13:22; 1 Tim 6:17), but usually Paul uses it for spiritual riches, the riches of salvation (e.g., Eph 1:7,18; 3:8; Phil 4:19). This is the way he has used it thus far in Romans; see especially 11:12, where it stands alone without a modifier as it does here in v. 33. The abundant references to God's superabundant mercy in vv. 30-32 are probably foremost in Paul's mind when he praises God for the depth of his riches (see Eph 2:4).

Paul refers next to the depth of God's wisdom , which is a common OT theme (see Dunn, 2:699). Generally speaking, wisdom "is the ability to choose the best possible end, and to choose the best possible means of achieving that end. It is not the same as knowledge, but is rather the ability to put one's knowledge to practical use" (GRu, 285; see 285-289). Here Paul has in mind the specific wisdom God has demonstrated in the way he has worked out the salvation of mankind (see 1 Cor 1:17-2:16), and especially in the way he has used the Jews and Gentiles to help each bring salvation to the other (ch. 11). As Godet puts it, wisdom is "the admirable skill with which God weaves into His plan the free actions of man, and transforms them into as many means for the accomplishment of the excellent end which He set originally before Him" (417).

Finally Paul extols the depth of God's knowledge . God's knowledge is his constant, comprehensive, immediate consciousness or awareness of all facts - past, present, and future. This certainly refers to his omniscience, or his general knowledge of all things; and this includes his foreknowledge of man's free choices, of which he takes account and which he incorporates into his own plan of salvation. Few truths about God are more awe-inspiring than his foreknowledge of man's future free-will choices. It does not behoove us to reject the reality of such foreknowledge just because we do not understand how it is possible. Paul does not question the depth of God's knowledge; he simply bows before it.

How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! This basically says the same thing as v. 33a in different words. "Unsearchable" and "beyond tracing out" correspond to "depth," and are similar in meaning and implication. They convey the idea of "unfathomable, inscrutable, incomprehensible." I.e., the thoughts and ways of God are beyond our unaided ability to seek out and discover. The second word is especially vivid. It "literally refers to footprints that are untrackable" (MacArthur, 2:135). Thus Paul is saying that "even when God has gone and has done things we cannot discover the tracks and track his course" (Lenski, 741). We could never have seen in advance where he was going, nor understood how he would be able to accomplish his redemptive purposes. But he has done so, to his eternal glory!

This applies to both God's judgments and his paths. Stott rightly says that God's judgments are "what he thinks and decides," and his paths are "what he does and where he goes" (310). The word for "judgments" is krivma ( krima ), which often refers to a judicial decision to punish wrongdoers (e.g., 2:2-3; 3:8; 5:16). Here it probably is inclusive of all God's decisions as to how he will deal with mankind, and especially "his 'executive' decisions about the direction of salvation history" (Moo, 742; see Lard, 376). The word for "paths" is oJdov" ( hodos ), the common word for "road, way." A better translation here would be "ways" (NASB). The ways of God are simply his works or deeds, "the paths along which God moves in executing his plans and purposes" (Lard, 376). See Ps 95:10; Isa 55:8-9.

These two statements are a confession that the wisdom and the ways of God that work out our salvation surpass our knowledge and are beyond anything we can ask or imagine (Eph 3:19-20). Once they are explained to us, we may understand what God has done, but how he can do it and why he should even want to do it we will never fully comprehend. As finite creatures and sinners saved by grace, we can only do what Paul did and utter heartfelt expressions of praise.

11:34-35 "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?" These three questions are based on texts from the OT (thus the NIV quotation marks). The first two (v. 34) are adapted from Isa 40:13, "Who has understood the [Spirit] of the LORD, or instructed him as his counselor?" The last (v. 35) is based on the Hebrew text of Job 41:11 (see 1 Chr 29:14; Job 35:7). The fact that Paul does not say "It is written" or "Isaiah says" indicates that he, under inspiration, is adapting these texts for his own purposes.

It is very likely that the three questions correspond, in reverse order, to the three elements in v. 33a. "Who has known the mind of the Lord?" refers to the depths of God's knowledge . God alone has access to the content of his own mind, but he graciously chooses to reveal some of this content to us through his inspired prophets and apostles (1 Cor 2:9-16). "Or who has been his counselor?" refers to the depths of God's wisdom . A counselor is one who gives advice on how to live and how to act, i.e., how to discern the best ends and the best means to achieve them. God needs no such advice; he does not need to ask anyone for help in devising his plan of salvation and in carrying it out.

The third question, "Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?" corresponds to the depths of God's riches . The point is that we give nothing to God prior to his bestowing his riches upon us; therefore God's gifts to us are truly gifts and not just a repayment of something he owes to us. As the New Jerusalem Bible translates it, "Who has given anything to him, so that his presents come only as a debt returned?" It is impossible for us to perform some service for God that puts him in our debt. God is sovereign and thus free from any obligation, "except those He places on Himself" (MacArthur, 2:136).

This applies of course to the specific subject of God's dealings with the Jews. God placed himself under obligation to them when he entered into the covenant with their father Abraham. But the covenant itself was a gift and not an obligation; his promises both as made and as fulfilled were his free gift to them. And since those promises have now been fulfilled (9:4-5), the Jews can lay no claim upon God whatsoever, not even one based on the truth of his own word.

This also applies to the whole subject of salvation as a matter of grace rather than works. Only when salvation is by grace can it be a gift and not wages due (see 4:4). This is how God saves any sinner, Gentile or Jew. As far as salvation is concerned, "God is debtor to none, his favour is never compensation, merit places no constraints upon his mercy" (Murray, 2:107).

The answer to each question, of course, is "No one!" As finite sinners we all stand on equal footing before God; we are all helpless beggars who can only hold out empty hands to receive the gifts he earnestly desires to give us.

11:36 This verse first tells us why God is free from any obligation under which someone might try to place him: For from him and through him and to him are all things . In three succinct prepositional phrases the sovereign freedom and glorious supremacy of God are declared. He is related to all things as their source , originator, or Creator: "from him." He is related to all things as the means by which they came into existence and remain in existence: "through him." He is related to all things as the goal or purpose for which they exist: "to him," i.e., unto his glory and for his good pleasure. See Eph 4:6; Heb 2:10.

One should not take these three phrases as referring respectively to the three persons of the Trinity, as some ancient writers did. The Bible makes similar statements concerning Jesus Christ, God the Son (1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16), but that is not the point here. Each phrase applies to all three persons of the Trinity.

To say that all things are "from God" does not mean that he makes them out of his own essence, a concept that would be equivalent to the false worldview called pantheism. This phrase refers rather to the act of creation ex nihilo , by which God in the beginning brought all things into existence out of nothing. See on 4:17 (JC, 1:300-301); see GC, 97-117.

The expression "all things" should not be limited. The statement is a general truth that applies to the whole of creation, even if the immediate application is to the establishment of the new creation through the work of redemption. We should not be surprised to find such a reference to God as Creator in this final verse of the theological portion of Romans. "In an argument which began with man's rebellion against God as creator (1:18-25), what could be more appropriate than a final acclamation of God the creator?" (Dunn, 2:704).

A final word of doxology closes this part of Romans: To him be the glory forever! Amen. The glory of God is his infinite and total greatness as it is manifested and as it shines forth for all to see (see GC, 446-452); it is "the reflection of all His perfections in all that exists" (Godet, 419). To ascribe glory to God ("to him be the glory") is not to give him anything or add anything to his nature, but simply to acknowledge and confess that he is glorious, and to call upon others to acknowledge this glory as well. Adding the word "forever" (lit., "unto the ages") intensifies the praise even further. On this and on "Amen," see 1:25 (JC, 1:154).

This brings us to the end of what may properly be called the theological section of Romans, namely, chs. 1-11. It is only fitting that it should end on a worshipful note, since, as Stott says, theology and worship should never be separated. He comments (311-312),

. . . On the one hand, there can be no doxology without theology. It is not possible to worship an unknown god. All true worship is a response to the self-revelation of God in Christ and Scripture, and arises from our reflection on who he is and what he has done. It was the tremendous truths of Romans 1-11 which provoked Paul's outburst of praise. . . .

On the other hand, there should be no theology without doxology. There is something fundamentally flawed about a purely academic interest in God. God is not an appropriate object for cool, critical, detached, scientific observation and evaluation. No, the true knowledge of God will always lead us to worship, as it did Paul. Our place is on our faces before him in adoration.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Rom 11:1

[In the tenth chapter Paul's argument for gospel universality only required him to show by Scripture that the Gentiles were to be received independently; i. e., without first becoming Jews. But the Scripture which best established this fact also proved a larger, greater fact; viz., that the reception of the Gentiles would so move the Jews to anger and jealousy that they would, as a people, reject the gospel, and thereby cease to be a covenant people, and become a cast-off, rejected nation. This fact is so clearly and emphatically proved that it might be thought that, as Tholuck puts it, "the whole nation, conjointly and severally, had, by some special judgment of God, been shut out from the Messiah's kingdom." The denial of this false inference is the burden of the section now before us. In this section he will show that the casting off of Israel is not total, but partial: in the next section he will show that it is not final, but temporary.] XI. I say then Again, as in [verses 18 and 19 of the previous chapter, Paul, for the benefit of the Jewish objector, draws a false inference from what has been said, that he may face it and correct it], Did God cast off his people? [Apparently, yes; but really, no. He had only rejected the unbelieving who first rejected him. True, these constituted almost the entire nation; but it was not God's act that rejected them; it was what they themselves did in rejecting God in the person of his Son that fixed their fate. Israel as believing was as welcome and acceptable as ever. So God has not rejected them. "The very title his people," says Bengel, "contains the reason for denying it." Comp. 1Sa 12:22) God had promised not to forsake his people (Psa 94:14). He kept the promise with those who did not utterly forsake him, but as to the rest, the majority, Jesus foretold that the kingdom should be taken from them (Mat 21:41-43). Comp. Mat 22:7 ; Luk 21:24] God forbid . [A formal denial to be followed by double proof.] For I also am an Israelite [De Wette, Meyer and Gifford construe this as equal to: I am too good a Jew, too patriotic, to say such a thing. As if Scripture were warped and twisted to suit the whims and to avoid offending the political prejudices of its writers! If Paul was governed by his personal feelings, he ceased to be a true prophet. Had he followed his feelings, instead of revealed truth, he would have avoided the necessity for writing the sad lines at Rom 9:1-3 . The true meaning is this: God has not cast away en masse, and without discrimination or distinction, the totality of his ancient people, for I myself am a living denial of such a conclusion; or, as Eubank interprets it, such a concession would exclude the writer himself (as to whose Christianity no Jew has ever had any doubts). "Had it been," says Chrysostom, "God's intention to reject that nation, he never would have selected from it the individual [Paul] to whom he was about to entrust [had already entrusted] the entire work of preaching and the concerns of the whole globe, and all the mysteries and the whole economy of the church"], of the seed of Abraham ["A Jew by nurture and nation" (Burkitt). Not a proselyte, nor the son of a proselyte, but a lineal descendant from Abraham. Compare his words at Act 22:28], of the tribe of Benjamin . [Comp. Phi 3:5 . Though the apostle had reason to be proud of his tribe as furnishing the first king in Saul (1Sa 9:16) and the last Biblical queen in Esther (Est 2:17), yet that is not the reason for mentioning Benjamin here. He is showing that God had not cast off the Theocracy, and he mentions himself as of Benjamin, which was second only to Judah in theocratic honor. On the revolt of the ten tribes it constituted with Judah the surviving Theocracy (1Ki 12:21), and after the captivity it returned with Judah and again helped to form the core or kernel of the Jewish nation (Ezr 4:1 ; Ezr 10:9). The apostle was no Jew by mere family tradition (Ezr 2:61-63 ; Neh 7:63-65), nor was he of the ten tribes of outcasts, but he was duly registered as of the inner circle, and therefore his acceptance proved the point desired.]

McGarvey: Rom 11:2

God did not cast off his people which he foreknew . [Here is the second proof that God did not cast off his people. It is in the nature of an axiom, a statement which is so palpably true that it needs no corroboration. God's foreknowledge can not fail, therefore that nation which in the eternity before the world he knew to be his own nation, can not ultimately fail to become his nation. "Of all the peoples of the earth," says Godet, "one only was [published and openly designated as] chosen and known beforehand, by an act of divine foreknowledge and love, as the people whose history would be identified with the realization of salvation. In all others salvation is the affair of individuals, but here the notion of salvation is attached to the nation itself; not that the liberty of individuals is in the least compromised by the collective designation. The Israelites contemporary with Jesus might reject him; an indefinite series of generations may for ages perpetuate this fact of national unbelief. God is under no pressure; time can stretch out as long as he pleases. He will add, if need be, ages to ages, until there come at length the generation disposed to open their eyes and freely welcome their Messiah. God foreknew this nation as believing and saved, and sooner or later they can not fail to be both." Comp. Act 15:15-18 ; Isa 45:17 ; Isa 59:20 ; Jer 31:31 ; Jer 31:34 ; Eze 34:22 ; Eze 37:23 ; Eze 39:25 ; Rom 11:26] Or know ye not what the scripture saith of Elijah? [Literally, in Elijah. Anciently Scripture and other writings were not divided into chapters and verses, but into sections. These among the Jews were called Parashah. Instead of being numbered, they had titles to them, describing the contents. Thus it came to pass that any one wishing to refer to a passage of Scripture would quote enough of the Parashah's title to identify it. So Paul here quotes words found "in [the Parashah about] Elijah"; viz., 1Ki 19:10-18 . Comp. Mar 12:26 ; Luk 20:37] how he pleadeth with God against Israel :

McGarvey: Rom 11:3

Lord, they have killed thy prophets, they have digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life . [Against these two proofs adduced by the apostle it might be objected that if God was not rejecting his people he must be receiving them, but you, Paul, practically admit that this is not the case, for, were it so, why can you point only to your single self as accepted? Surely your very proofs are against you. To this objection Paul presents a third proof -- i. e., the case of Elijah -- and his argument, paraphrased, runs thus: You err in supposing that I alone am accepted, and this I will prove by the case of Elijah, who, prophet of prophets though he was, erred in so judging by appearances as to think that he alone remained acceptable. The law required that the nation use the one altar which stood in front of the sanctuary in Jerusalem (Lev 17:8-9 ; Deu 12:1-14). But the Rabbins say (see Lightfoot and Whitby ad h. l.) that when the ten tribes revolted, and their kings forbade them to go up to Jerusalem to worship, then this law ceased as to them, and the Lord permitted them to build other altars and sacrifice on them as at the beginning (Gen 12:7-8 ; Gen 13:4 ; Gen 13:18 ; Gen 22:9 ; Gen 26:25 ; Gen 33:20 ; Gen 35:1-7 ; Gen 46:1), and as they did before worship was centered at Jerusalem (1Sa 7:9 ; 1Sa 7:17 ; 1Sa 9:13 ; 1Sa 11:15 ; 1Sa 16:2-3). That this is so is proved by the conduct of Elijah, who reconstructed the Lord's altar on Mt. Carmel (which these apostates of whom he speaks had thrown down) and offered sacrifice thereon, and the Lord publicly sanctioned and approved the altar by sending fire from heaven (1Ki 18:30-39). The altars were to be made of earth and unhewn stone (Exo 20:24-25), hence it was proper to speak of digging them down.]

McGarvey: Rom 11:4

But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have left for myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to Baal . [Jezebel and Ahab, in their zeal for the Phoenician god, Baal, had apparently exterminated the worship of the true God. At least, Elijah was deceived into so thinking. But the answer of God corrected his mistake. Paul inserts the words "for myself." "I. e.," says Meyer, "to myself as my property, and for my service, in contrast to the idolatrous abomination," or service of idols. The feminine article te is inserted before Baal, and this has greatly puzzled expositors, for the LXX. have the masculine article. It has been explained in various ways; Erasmus and others by supposing a feminine noun such as eikoni (image) to be understood; Estius, etc., by supposing stele (statue) to be supplied, or, as Lightfoot and Alford think, damalei (calf); or, according to Reiche, that there was a female Baal; or, as Wetstein and Olshausen, that Baal was androgynous (an hermaphrodite); or, as Gesenius and Tholuck, that the feminine was used of idols in contempt; or, as Fritsche, Ewald and Barmby, that Paul may have happened upon a copy of the LXX. which gave the feminine instead of the masculine. Of the above we prefer to supply damalei, calf, following the reasoning of Lightfoot. Baal was both a specific name for the Phoenician god, and also a common name for idols, hence the plural, Baalim. Of idols it the time referred to, Israel had two of great prominence: 1. The idol to the Phoenician god Baal, whose image was a bull. 2. The golden calves set up by Jeroboam, at Bethel and Dan. Now, it would avail nothing if Israel rejected one of these idols, yet worshipped the other, as in the case of Jehu, who rooted out the Phoenician, but accepted the calf of Jeroboam. But calf Baal would be an inclusive expression, striking at both forms of idolatry. (Comp. also 1Ki 19:18 with Hos 13:2) Moreover, the Phoenician worship was but recently re-established and had received a terrific blow at the hand of Elijah, while Jeroboam's calves were old and popular, hence we find in Tobit the expression, "And all the tribes that revolted together, sacrificed to the calf Baal" (literally. te Baal, te damalei; to Baal, to the calf -- Tob. 1:5). Here we have an instance where the word damalei is actually supplied, and that by a Hebrew writer, and "where," as Alford adds, "the golden calves of the ten tribes seem to be identified with Baal, and were a curious addition in [the manuscript] Aleph refers expressly to their establishment by Jeroboam.]

McGarvey: Rom 11:5

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace . [Resuming, the argument. "As at the time of the great deflection in Elijah's day there seemed to him to be but one, yet God had reserved to himself seven thousand, so now in this time of falling away, you who judge by outward appearance will judge just as poorly. You may think derisively that I am the sole representative of the election of which I speak, but, scattered and dispersed as they are, there are vastly more than you dream (comp. Act 21:20); for the unchangeable God always reserves to himself a remnant, whom he has chosen as his own." "One thing indeed," says Godet, "follows from the election of grace applied to the whole of Israel; not the salvation of such or such individuals, but the indestructible existence of a believing remnant at all periods of their history, even in the most disastrous crises of unbelief, as at the time of the ministry of Elijah, or of the coming of Jesus Christ. The idea contained in the words, 'according to the election of grace,' is therefore this: In virtue of the election of Israel as the salvation-people, God has not left them in our day without a faithful remnant, any more than he did in the kingdom of the ten tribes at the period when a far grosser heathenism was triumphant." In the eternal purpose of God the election of the salvation-class preceded any human act, but it does not therefore follow that it preceded a presumptive, suppositious act. The same wisdom which foresaw the election also foresaw the compliance of the elect individual with the terms and conditions of election. This must be so, for in the outworking of the eternal purpose in the realms of the actual, man must first comply with the conditions of election before he becomes one of the elect; for, as Lard wisely says, "election or choosing, in the case of the redeemed, does not precede obedience, and therefore is neither the cause of it nor reason for it. On the contrary, obedience precedes election, and is both the condition of it and reason for it. Obedience is man's own free act, to which he is never moved by any prior election of God. Choosing, on the other hand, is God's free act, prompted by favor and conditioned on obedience. This obedience, it is true, he seeks to elicit by the proper motives; but to this he is led solely by love of man, and never by previous choice. True Scriptural election, therefore, is a simple, intelligible thing, when suffered to remain unperplexed by the subtleties of schoolmen." As the open reference to Elijah contains a covert one to Ahab and his Israel, Chrysostom bids us "reflect on the apostle's skill, and how, in proving the proposition before him, he secretly augments the charge against the Jews. For the object he had in view, in bringing forward the whole of that testimony, was to manifest their ingratitude, and to show that of old they had been what they were now."]

McGarvey: Rom 11:6

But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace . [With these words, Paul explains the last clause of the preceding verse -- viz., "the election of grace" -- and thereby shows that he means them in their full sense, and abides by that meaning. Alford paraphrases his meaning thus: "And let us remember, when we say an election of grace, how much those words imply; viz., nothing short of the entire exclusion of all human work from the question. Let these two terms [grace and work] be regarded as and kept distinct from one another, and do not let us attempt to mix them and so destroy the meaning of each." He means that grace and works are absolutely antithetical and mutually exclusive. Paul is talking about works of the law, not about the gospel terms or conditions of salvation. These terms are faith, repentance and baptism, and complying with them made, and still makes, anybody one of the elect. But does this compliance fulfill any part, parcel or portion of the Mosaic law? Assuredly not. On the contrary, it is seeking salvation by another way. Moreover, the one complying with these conditions is immediately one of the elect. Has he, then, in any way merited election, or is it wholly of grace?" Even granting that there is some work in complying with these conditions, could any one so lack brains as to be confused into thinking that the work weighs anything as a meritorious basis on which to demand election to that unspeakable gift, eternal life? But do not the works of a Christian life count as merit toward election? Assuredly not; for they are wrought after the election has taken place. In short, almost like Jacob, we are elected at the moment of our birth from the water, when we are spiritual babes in Christ (Joh 3:5 ; Tit 3:5), "neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God," etc. (Rom 9:11). Complying with the gospel conditions of election is mere spiritual birth, and what merit hath an infant though its struggles aid in its parturition? We are by the process of conversion brought no further than the condition of babes in Christ (1Co 3:1-3 ; Heb 5:11-14 ; 1Pe 2:2), and our birth-throes are without merit, though essential to our further continuance in life. There is, therefore, nothing in the gospel conditions which conflict with the doctrine of election by grace, nor do they mix works with grace.]

McGarvey: Rom 11:7

What then? [What results from the facts just stated? If God only acknowledges covenant relations with a remnant, and with them only by grace, surely you expect me to make some statement as to the status of the bulk of Israel. My statement is this:] That which Israel [the bulk or main body of the nation] seeketh for, that he obtained not; but the election obtained it, and the rest were hardened [The search spoken of is that with which we are already familiar; viz., the endeavor to obtain justification before God. All Israel sought this treasure. Those seeking it by the works of the law (the vast majority of the nation) failed to find it, but the remnant, seeking it by faith in Christ, found themselves chosen of God or elected to it. "The Jew, he says, fights against himself. Although seeking righteousness, he does not choose to accept it" (Chrysostom). If he could not find it by his own impossible road of self-righteousness and self-sufficiency, he would have none of it, though the apostle showed how easily it might be obtained by pointing out those who made it theirs by receiving it as a free gift from God through faith in Christ. But for those despising this rich gift, God had another gift, even that of hardening, which means the depriving of any organ of its natural sensibility. The calloused finger loses the sense of touch; the cataractous eye no longer sees clearly; the hardened mind loses its discernment between things good and bad, and readily believes a specious lie (2Th 2:9-12); the hardened heart becomes obdurate like that of Pharaoh's, and is not touched or softened by appeals to pity, mercy, etc. We have seen, in the case of Pharaoh, that the hardness was the joint act of God and Pharaoh. The same is shown to be the case of the Jews, for Paul here attributes it to God, while it is elsewhere charged against the Jews themselves (Mat 13:14-15). Of course God's part is always merely permissive, and Satan is the active agent. "God," says Lard, "never yet hardened any man to keep him from doing right, or in order to lead him to do wrong. He is not the author of sin. He may permit other agencies, as Satan and the wickedness of men, to harden them, but he himself never does it"]:

McGarvey: Rom 11:8

according as it is written [Isa 29:10 ; Eze 12:2 ; Deu 29:4], God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, unto this very day . [As the passage quoted is a combination of Isaiah and Deuteronomy, and is found in part also in Ezekiel, it suggests that the spirit of stupor, deafness and blindness characterized the course of Israel from beginning to end; and it was therefore to be guarded against as a chronic sin. Katanuxis (stupor) may be derived from katanussoo (Fritsche, Meyer), which means to prick or sting, and hence, as in bites of reptiles, etc., to cause stupefaction; or it may come from katanuzoo (Volkmar), which means to bend the head in order to sleep, to fall asleep. It is used in Psa 60:3 ; where it is translated "wine of staggering," though Hammond contends that the passage refers to the stupefying wine given to them who were to be put to death. It means, then, that condition of stupor, or intellectual numbness, which is almost wholly insensate; for the term "spirit" means a pervading tendency. "Such expressions," says Gifford, "as 'the spirit of heaviness' (Isa 61:3), 'a spirit of meekness' (1Co 4:21), 'the spirit of bondage' (Rom 8:15), show that 'spirit' is used for the pervading tendency and tone of mind, the special character of which is denoted by the genitive which follows."]

McGarvey: Rom 11:9

And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, And a stumblingblock, and a recompense unto them [Psa 69:22-23 . the word "trap" is added from Psa 35:8 . Theodoret says that Psalm 69 "is a prediction of the sufferings of Christ, and the final destruction of the Jews on that account." That which is presented in the form of a wish is, therefore, really a prophecy. Let the food on their table be as the bait to the snare and the trap, and the stumbling-block over which the tempted creature falls to lame itself. Let that which they think a source of pleasure and life become an enticement to pain and death. Dropping the figure, the words mean that the very religion of the Old Dispensation, to which the Jew looked for spiritual joy and sustenance, should become to him a sorrow and a fatal famine, so that this very blessing became to him a curse. The word "recompense" denotes a punishment for an evil deed; its presence here shows that the evil which came upon the Jews was caused by their own fault and sin, and not by absolute decree]:

McGarvey: Rom 11:10

Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, And bow thou down their back always . [This verse is usually construed to picture the political servitude and spiritual bondage of Israel after the fall of Jerusalem. No doubt it has reference to conditions ushered in by that event, but it pictures the dimness and decrepitude of old age -- a blind eye, and a back beyond straightening. The Jews were to partake of the nature of the old, worn-out dispensation to which they clung (Mat 9:16-17 ; Heb 8:13). God's people can not grow old, they renew their youth like the eagle's (Psa 103:5), but a people which ceases to be his, falls into decay. J. A. Alexander's comment on Psa 69:22 deserves note. He says: "The imprecations in this verse, and those following it, are revolting only when considered as the expressions of malignant selfishness. If uttered by God, they shock no reader's sensibilities; nor should they when considered as the language of an ideal person, representing the whole class of righteous sufferers, and particularly Him who, though he prayed for his murderers while dying (Luk 23:34), had before applied the words of this very passage to the unbelieving Jews (Mat 23:38), as Paul did afterward."]

McGarvey: Rom 11:11

I say then, Did they stumble that they might fall? [Fall (piptoo) is a much stronger word than stumble, and the contrast between the two words makes the former emphatic. To fall means to be killed, and is in Greek, as in English applied to those slain in battle. (Homer, II. 8:475; 11:84.) As emphasized, then, it means to become "utterly irrevocable" (Clark): "irrevocable ruin, in opposition to that which is temporary" (Hodge): "to fall forever, finally" (Pool); "perish forever" (Meyer); "so as utterly to fall" (Stuart). Paul is arguing as to God's intention. Therefore, according to his established custom, he asks a question that he may guard against a false conclusion, and the form of the question, as usual, demands a negative answer, for the false conclusion is to be denied. From the foreseen "stumbling" of Israel (Rom 9:33 ; Rom 11:9), and from the "hardening" (Rom 11:7), it might be concluded that God sent a stumbling-block Saviour, a Messiah in an unwelcome form, and an unpalatable gospel-salvation with the intent and purpose of working Israel's downfall and ruin -- his final, irrevocable fall. Did God bring about or cause a stumbling of the Jews of Christ's day, that all future generations might fall, or be cast off forever? Such is the question, and the answer is] God forbid [This general denial is followed by a threefold explanation: (1) The fall of Israel was permitted because spiritually profitable to the Gentiles (11); (2) the rising again of Israel will be for the greater spiritual profit to the Gentiles (12-15); (3) the fall of Israel is only temporary -- they shall rise again -- 26]: but [introducing the real purpose or design of Israel's fall] by their fall [paraptoma, from the verb parapiptoo, which means to sideslip, to fall away, to fall. Hence paraptoma means fall, trespass (Alford), lapse (Stuart), slip (Green), false step (Godet), offence (Gifford), fault, sin. It is best translated here by the word "offence"] salvation is come unto the Gentiles, to provoke them to jealousy . [Emulation is a better translation than jealousy. Their offence was their unbelief, which caused God to put them away, and this putting away greatly facilitated the success of the gospel among the Gentiles. So great was the pride and exclusiveness of the Jews, and such was their blind loyalty to their race, ritual, temple, law, etc., that even the most thoroughly converted and indoctrinated Christians among them, such as the very apostles themselves (Paul alone excepted), never manifested any enthusiasm in preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. It took a miracle to constrain Peter to do such a thing (Acts 10), and, after having done so, his Christian brethren demanded an explanation and apology for his intercourse with Gentiles (Acts 11), and later, instead of yielding to his apostolic leadership, they were so stubborn in their aversion to the free admission of Gentiles into the church, that the fear of them triumphed and caused Peter to conform to their views (Gal 2:11-14 ; for further evidence of their bigotry, see Act 15:1-2 ; Act 21:17-24). Their opposition to Paul only ceased with his life. With such a spirit among Jewish Christians, two things were sure to happen if they retained their pre-eminence in the church, and continued to dominate its policy. (1) There would be but little preaching supplied to the Gentiles, since pride and enmity made the Jews unwilling to serve them (1Th 2:15-16); (2) such gospel as was preached to the Gentiles would be woefully corrupted and perverted by Judaistic teaching and practice (Gal 1:6-9 ; Gal 3:1-3 ; Gal 6:12-14), for "Israel," as Lange observes, "did not desire the Gentiles, under the most favorable circumstances, to participate in the Messianic salvation, except as proselytes of the Jews," since they took more pride and joy in converting men to Moses than in winning them to Christ. Thus by their zeal for the law they would imperil the Gentiles' liberty in Christ (Gal 4:9 ; Gal 4:21-31 - Gal 5:1), so that Christianity could scarce escape becoming merely a new patch on an old garment, even as the Master forewarned (Mat 9:16), in which secondary capacity it could never so save the Gentile as to convert the world. Hence to save the wine Jesus cast aside the old Jewish bottle, and stored the gracious gospel fluid in the new Gentile wine-skin (Mat 9:17). And he not only cast off the Jewish people as unworthy of that pre-eminence in the church which was naturally theirs, but he even stood aside the eleven apostles as too hopelessly narrow-minded for Gentile evangelism, and committed the whole of this colossal ministry to the one man, Paul (Act 9:15 ; Act 22:21 ; Act 26:17-18 ; Rom 1:5 ; Rom 11:13 ; Rom 15:16 ; Gal 1:15-16 ; Eph 3:7-8 ; 1Ti 2:7 ; 2Ti 1:11 ; especially Gal 2:7-9). And even in his case we note how the prompt "offence," or unbelief, of the Jews enabled him to preach "to the Jew first," yet speedily left him free and unfettered to push the work among the Gentiles (Act 13:45-48 ; Act 28:28). So the "offence" and consequent casting off of Israel did facilitate the conversion of the Gentiles. Israel, as a reluctant, sluggish, half-converted hindrance, was thrust from the doorway, that the Gentiles might enter freely and fully into the kingdom (Luk 11:52 ; Mat 23:13). Salvation of the Gentiles was the proximate purpose accomplished, and still being accomplished, by the rejection of the Jews: the salvation of the Jews themselves was the remote purpose of the rejection, and it is largely future, even yet. It is to be brought about by a spirit of emulation. "Seeing," says Godet, "all the blessings of the kingdom, pardon, justification, the Holy Spirit, adoption, shed down abundantly on the Gentile nations through faith in Him whom they had rejected, how can they help saying at length: These things are ours? And how can they help opening their eyes and recognizing that Jesus is the Messiah, since in him the works predicted of the Messiah are accomplished? How shall the elder son, seeing his younger brother seated and celebrating the feast at his father's table, fail to ask that he may re-enter the paternal home and come to sit down side by side with his brother, after throwing himself into the arms of the common father?" A blessed result indeed, but long delayed by the carnal, half-converted state of the Gentile church, as witnessed by the Roman Catholicism which is Sardis (Rev 3:1) and Protestantism which is sectarianism (1Co 3:1-5), a Philadelphia church lapsing into Laodicean indifference -- Rev 3:14-19]

McGarvey: Rom 11:12

Now if their fall [paraptoma] is the riches of the world, and their loss [hettema, that loss or diminution which an army suffers by defeat, also moral loss, impoverishment, to be defeated, to be reduced, or made inferior. "A reduction in one aspect to a race of scattered exiles, in another to a mere remnant of 'Israelites indeed'" -- Moule] the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? [Pleroma, the full number, the whole body, the totality. To emphasize the situation and impress it upon his readers, Paul makes use of the Hebrew parallelism, presenting two clauses which express substantially the same thing. If there be any difference, we would say that "world" indicates sinners, and "Gentiles" the uncovenanted races. If paraphrased thus, it would read, Now, if the sin or offence of godly Israel enriched the ungodly, sinful world, and if the loss or spiritual impoverishment and numerical diminution of the covenanted people enriched and multiplied the covenanted among the hitherto uncovenanted people, how much more would both the sinful world and its uncovenanted inhabitants have been blessed every way, had Israel been of the right spirit, so as to have received enrichment instead of being cast off and diminished. Because Israel had a proud, narrow, inimical spirit (1Th 2:15-16), its depletion worked blessing to the world and the Gentiles; but if Israel had yielded to Christ so as to be transformed like that persecuting Saul who became Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, who can measure the fullness of blessing which would have come to the inhabitants of the earth by the enlargement, enrichment and full spiritual endowment of every son of Abraham dispersed through the world! With millions of Pauls in all lands throughout all generations, we should have measured our heavenward progress by milestones instead of inches. "Goodness," says Thomas Aquinas, "is more capable of bearing blessing than is evil; but the evil of the Jews brought great blessing to the Gentiles; therefore much more should their goodness bring greater blessing to the world."]

McGarvey: Rom 11:13

But [A note of correction. At Rom 7:1 ; Rom 7:4 Paul began to address the Jews, and all that he has said since then has had specific reference to that people. Since verse 11, however, the thought has gradually passed to the Gentiles and now Paul openly notes that he is speaking to them, lest any should think he was still speaking to Jews about Jews] I speak to you that are Gentiles . [Much that the apostle has said might be misconstrued by the Gentiles so as to minister to their pride. The apostle therefore addresses them personally, and prepares the way for an admonition against vainglory in themselves and a contemptuous spirit against the Jews.] Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I glorify my ministry ;

McGarvey: Rom 11:14

if by any means I may provoke to jealousy them that are my flesh [my kindred: the Jews], and may save [do the human part of saving] some of them . [Finding myself set apart by Christ to minister to Gentiles instead of Jews, I perform my task with a double zest, for (I not only rejoice to save Gentiles, but) it is a means (also) of saving some of Israel by provoking them to an honorable and generous emulation even now; since the mass of them will be won that way in the end, as indicated above. And, moreover, I do this in fullest love and goodwill to you Gentiles, for I foresee what incalculable blessings the conversion of the Jews will bring to you.]

McGarvey: Rom 11:15

For if the casting away of them is the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? [Again we have a passage wherein "the apostle," as Meyer expresses it, "argues from the happy effect of the worse cause, to the happier effect of the better cause." If a curse, so to speak, brought a blessing, what would not a blessing bring? If the casting away of Israel in Paul's day resulted in the beginning of the times of the Gentiles, and the turning of them from idols and imaginary deities to seek after the true God as part of a theocratic family wherein converted Jew and Gentile are reconciled to each other and to God (see Eph 2:11-22 for a full description of this double reconciliation), what would the receiving again of the vast body of unconverted Jews at the end of the times of the Gentiles (Rom 11:25-26) be but a veritable life from the dead, an unprecedented, semi-miraculous revival? Theophylact, Augustine, Melanchthon, Calvin, Beza, Bucer, Turretin, Philippi, Bengel, Auberlen, Clark, Macknight, Plumer, Brown, Lard, Gifford, Moule, Riddle, etc., view this as a great spiritual resurrection, a revival of grace accompanying the conversion of the whole world. Others, as Origen, Chrysostom, the earlier commentators generally, Ruckert, Meyer, De Wette, etc., look upon it as a literal, bodily resurrection, while Olshausen, Lange and Alford consider it as a combination of spiritual and bodily resurrections. The first of these positions is most tenable. "This," says Barnes, "is an instance of the peculiar, glowing and vigorous manner of the apostle Paul. His mind catches at the thought of what may be produced by the recovery of the Jews, and no ordinary language would convey his idea. He had already exhausted the usual forms of speech by saying that even their rejection had reconciled the world, and that it was the riches of the Gentiles. To say that their recovery -- a striking and momentous event; an event so much better fitted to produce important results -- would be attended by the conversion of the world, would be insipid and tame. He uses, therefore, a most bold and striking figure. The resurrection of the dead was an image of the most vast and wonderful event that could take place." Some of those who view this as a literal resurrection, do so from a lack of clear conception as to the order of the dispensations. They look upon the conversion of the Jews as taking place at the very end of the world, and hence synchronous with the final resurrection. They do not know that the Jewish dispensation, or age, gave place to the present one, which is called "the times of the Gentiles" (Luk 21:24), and that this dispensation will give place to a third, known as the millennium or age of a thousand years (Rev 20:1-6). The Jewish dispensation ended with the death of Christ, and the Gentile dispensation will end when the gospel is preached unto all nations (Mat 24:14). Its end, as Paul shows us at verses 25 and 26, will also be synchronous with the conversion of the Jews. Failure to grasp these important facts has led to much general confusion, and to gross mistakes in the interpretation and application of prophecies, for many Biblical references to the end of the Gentile dispensation, or age, have been erroneously referred to the end of the world, or end of the ages. The last age, or millennium, will be the triumph of the kingdom of God, the thousand-year reign of the saints on earth, and it will begin with the conversion of the world under the leadership of the Jews, and this is the event which Paul fittingly describes as "life from the dead." The millennium will be as a resurrection to the Jews (Eze 37), for they will return to their own land (Eze 37:11-14 ; Eze 37:21 ; Eze 37:25) and revive their national life as a united people (Eze 37:22). It will be as a resurrection of primitive, apostolic Christianity to the Gentiles, for the deadness of the "last days" of their dispensation (2Ti 3:1-9 ; 2Ti 4:3-4), with its Catholic Sardis and its Protestant Laodicea (Rev 3:1-6 ; Rev 3:14-22), will give place to the new life of the new age, wherein the "first love" of the Ephesian, or first, church will be revived (Rev 2:4-5), and the martyr spirit of Smyrna, its successor, will again come forth (Rev 2:10), and the devil will be chained and the saints will reign (Rev 20:1-6). This spiritual resurrection of the last age is called the "first resurrection," for it is like, and it is followed by, the real or literal resurrection which winds it up, and begins the heavenly age, or eternity with God. Ezekiel tells what the last age will do to the Jews, Paul what it will be to the Gentiles, and John what it will mean to them both. As to Paul's description Pool thus writes: "The conversion of the Jewish people and nation will strengthen the things that are languishing and like to die in the Christian church. It will confirm the faith of the Gentiles, and reconcile their differences in religion, and occasion a more thorough reformation amongst them: there will be a much more happy and flourishing estate of the church, even such as shall be in the end of the world, at the resurrection of the dead." All this, as Paul boldly asserts, will result from the blessed power of Jewish leadership, as in the beginning. "The light," says Godet. "which converted Jews bring to the church, and the power of life which they have sometimes awakened in it, are the pledge of that spiritual renovation which will be produced in Gentile Christendom by their entrance en masse. Do we not feel that in our present condition there is something, and that much, wanting to us that the promises of the gospel may be realized in all their fullness; that there is, as it were, a mysterious hindrance to the efficacy of preaching, a debility inherent in our spiritual life, a lack of joy and force which contrasts strangely with the joyful outbursts of prophets and psalmists; that, in fine, the feast in the father's house is not complete . . . why? because it can not be so, so long as the family is not entirely reconstituted by the return of the elder son. Then shall come the Pentecost of the last times, the latter rain." Against the above view that Paul speaks of a spiritual resurrection it is weakly urged that it assumes a future falling away of the Gentiles, and a lapse on their part into spiritual death, and that the apostle gives no intimation of such a declension by them. But it is right to assume such a declension, for Paul most clearly intimates it; for (1) all the remainder of this section is a discussion of how the Jews brought their dispensation to an end, and a warning to the Gentiles not to follow their example and have their dispensation end in a like manner. (2) In verse 25 he speaks of the fullness or completeness of the Gentiles. But, according to the divine method, this dispensation of the Gentiles could not reach completeness and be done away with until it became corrupt and worthless. God does not cast off till iniquity is full and failure complete (Gen 6:13 ; Gen 15:16 ; Mat 23:29-33). Moreover, some five years before this, in the second Epistle that ever came from his pen, Paul had foretold this declension in the church, and had described it as even then "working," though restrained (2Th 2:3-12). The assumption on which this view of a spiritual resurrection rests is both contextual and natural. Finally, as to this being a literal body resurrection, we must of course admit that an all-powerful God can begin the millennium that way if he chooses, but to suppose that the literally resurrected dead shall mingle and dwell with the rest of humanity for a thousand years, or throughout an entire dispensation, savors of fanaticism. Even Jesus kept aloof during his forty days of waiting before his ascension. A healthy mind can not long retain such an idea, nor can we think that Paul would introduce so marvelous and abnormal a social condition without in some measure elaborating it. As against a literal, physical resurrection Hodge argues strongly. We give a sentence or two: "Not only in Scriptures, but also in profane literature, the transition from a state of depression and misery, to one of prosperity, is expressed by the natural figure of passing from death to life. The Old Testament prophets represented the glorious condition of the Theocracy, consequent on the coming of Christ, in contrast with its previous condition, as a rising from the dead. . . . Nowhere else in Scripture is the literal resurrection expressed by the words 'life from the dead.' Had Paul intended a reference to the resurrection, no reason can be assigned why he did not employ the established and familiar words 'resurrection from the dead.' If he meant the resurrection, why did he not say so? Why use a general phrase, which is elsewhere used to express another idea? Besides this, it is not according to the analogy of scripture, that the resurrection of the dead, and the change of those who shall then be alive (1Co 15:51 ; 1Th 4:14-18), are to be immediate, consequent on the conversion of the Jews. The resurrection is not to occur until 'the end.' A new state of things, a new mode of existence, is to be then introduced. Flesh and blood -- i. e., our bodies as now organized -- can not inherit the kingdom of God." For a full discussion of the spiritual nature of the resurrection, from the pen of A. Campbell, see his articles on the second coming of the Lord, in the Millennial Harbinger. We shall never know how dead our liquor-licensing, sectarian, wealth-worshipping, stock-gambling, religio-fad-loving, political, war-waging Christendom has been until the spirit of the early church rises from the dead to form the new age; then it will be at once apparent to all what Paul meant by this bold figure, "life from the dead." But the glorious prospect here presented rests on the supposition that the Jews en masse shall be converted. As that is a supposition which many expositors even in our day regard with doubt, the apostle first shows its Scriptural and natural reasonableness, and then plainly and unequivocally predicts it. He presents its reasonableness thus]

McGarvey: Rom 11:16

And if the firstfruit is holy, so is the lump: and if the root is holy, so are the branches . [Another parallelism. The apostle demonstrates the same truth, first, from the standpoint of the law of God in the Bible (firstfruit and lump); second, from the law of God in nature (root and tree). As the harvest or raw material of the Jew was regarded as unclean, or ceremonially unholy, and not to be eaten till it was cleansed by the waving of a first-portion, or firstfruit, of it as a heave-offering before the Lord (Lev 23:9-14 ; Exo 34:26); so the meal or prepared material was likewise prescribed until a portion of the first dough was offered as a heave-offering. This offered "firstfruit," or, better, "first-portion" (aparche), made the whole lump (phurama) from which it was taken holy, and thus sanctified all the future meal, of which it was the representative or symbol, so that it could now be used by the owner (Num 15:19-21 ; Neh 10:37). The apostle, then, means that as the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (called fathers in verse 28), the firstfruit by the revealed law, and the root by the natural law, were holy, so all their descendants as lump and tree were likewise holy. But holiness has two distinct meanings: (1) Purity, moral and spiritual perfection, absolute righteousness -- a holiness unto salvation; (2) that which is consecrated or set apart for divine use -- a holiness short of salvation. The second meaning is the one intended here. The Jews, being out of Christ, are certainly not holy or righteous unto salvation, Paul being witness; but they have what Gifford styles "this legal and relative holiness of that which has been consecrated to God." In this respect they are still "the holy people" (Dan 12:7), "the chosen people" (Dan 11:15), preserved from fusion with the Gentiles, and ultimately to be restored to their original pre-eminence as leaders in the worship of Jehovah. In short, then, there is no divinely erected barrier rendering them irrevocably unholy, and preventing their conversion. On the contrary, they are pre-eminently susceptible to conversion both by law divine and natural, and only their persistent unbelief prevents their Christianization.]

McGarvey: Rom 11:17

But if some of the branches were broken off, and thou [O Gentile believer], being a wild olive, wast grafted in among them, and didst become partaker with them of the root of the fatness of the olive tree [Some commentators, recognizing that Christianity is a distinct thing from Judaism, have been unduly frightened at the manner in which the apostle here blends them as one tree. This has led them to forsake the obvious meaning of the apostle's words, in an endeavor to contort them so as to keep distinct the Christian and Jewish bodies. Some of these, therefore, regard Christ as the tree, and others regard it as representing the Christian church. But such exegesis violates the text, for the Jewish unbelievers are pictured as branches "broken off." Now, they could neither be broken off from Christ nor the church, for they were never joined to either. The tree is the Theocracy (Jer 11:16 ; Hos 14:6 ; Eze 17:3 ; Zec 11:2). In a sense it is one continuous tree, for it bears to God the continuous relation of being his peculiar people, but in another sense it is, as the apostle here presents it, an entirely different tree, for all the branches which were formerly accepted on the basis of natural Abrahamic descent were broken off, and all the branches, whether Jew or Gentile, which had the new requirement of faith in Christ, were grafted in. Surely, then, the tree is distinct enough as presented in its two conditions. Yet is it the same Theocracy, with the same patriarchal root and developed from the same basic covenants and promises (Heb 11:39-40 ; Eph 2:11-22). Christianity is not Judaism, and no pen ever taught this truth more clearly than Paul's. Yet Christianity is a development of the old Theocracy, and is still a Theocracy, a kingdom of God, and this is plainly taught; for the Christian, be he Jew or Gentile, is still a spiritual son of Abraham (Rom 4:16 ; Gal 3:7 ; Gal 3:29 ; Gal 4:28), a member of the true Israel; the true Jew. Now, the Christian Jew, having already an organic connection with the Theocracy, is viewed by Paul as simply remaining in it. And here is the point where the confusion arises. If he became regenerate (Joh 3:1-6), and, dropping the carnal tie of the old, received the spiritual tie of the new (Joh 8:37-44), he indeed remained in the theocratic tree, but in it as transport at Pentecost. If the Jew did not undergo this chance, he was broken off and cast aside (Mat 8:11-12). Thus the apostle makes it clear that the Jew, as a Jew, and without spiritual change through faith in Christ, did not remain in any divinely accepted Theocracy. But as God originally contemplated the tree, every Jew was to develop into a Christian, in which case the tree would have been indeed continuous. Jewish unbelief frustrated the divine harmony and made it necessary for the apostle himself to here and elsewhere emphasize the difference between the old and new Theocracies. "The Gentiles are called a wild olive because God had not cultivated them as he did the Jews, who, on that account, are called (Rom 11:24) the good or garden olives. . . . The juice of the olive is called 'fatness,' because from its fruit, which is formed by that juice, oil is expressed" (Macknight). "The oleaster, or wild olive," says Parens, "has the same form as the olive, but lacks its generous sap and fruits."];

McGarvey: Rom 11:18

glory not over the branches: but if thou gloriest [remember], it is not thou that bearest the root, but the root thee . ["Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall" (Pro 16:18). Religious pride had proved the undoing of the Jews. It made them despise and reject an unregal Messiah; it caused them to spurn a gospel preached to the poor; it moved them to reject a salvation in which the unclean Gentile might freely share. As Paul opens before his Gentile readers the high estate into which they had come, he anticipates the religious pride which the contemplation of their good fortune was so soon to beget in them, hence he at once sounds the timely note of warning. As to the Jew they had no reason to boast, for they were debtor to him, not he to them, for "salvation is from the Jew" (Joh 4:22). As to themselves they could not speak proudly, for the depression of the Jew was due to God's severity, and the exaltation of the Gentile was due to his goodness, The Gentile church was incorporated into a previously existing Jewish church, and their new Theocracy had its root in the old, so that in neither case were these privileges original, but wholly secondary and derived from the Jews. Moreover, "such presumption toward the branches," says Tholuck, "could not be without presumption toward the root." Would that the Gentiles, who to-day boast of their Christianity and despise the Jew from whence it was derived, could comprehend the folly of their course. How great is the sin of Christendom! "In its pride," says Godet, "it tramples underfoot the very nation of that grace which has made it what it is. It moves on, therefore, to a judgment of rejection like that of Israel, but which shall not have to soften it a promise [of final restoration] like that which accompanied the fall of the Jews."]

McGarvey: Rom 11:19

Thou wilt say then, Branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in . [The apostle here puts in the mouth of a representative Gentile the cause or justification of the pride. Was it not ground for self-esteem and self-gratulation when God cast off his covenanted people to receive strangers? -- Eph 2:19]

McGarvey: Rom 11:20

Well [A form of partial and often ironical assent: equal to, very true, grant it, etc. It was not strictly true that God had cast off the Jew to make room for the Gentile, for there was room for both. The marriage supper shows the truth very clearly. The refusal of the Jew was the reason why he was cast off, not because there was lack of room, or partial favor on God's part, or superior merit on the part of the Gentiles -- Luk 14:15-24]; by their unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by thy faith [not merit]. Be not highminded, but fear :

McGarvey: Rom 11:21

for if God spared not the natural branches, neither will he spare thee . [Faith justified no boast, yet faith constituted the only divinely recognized distinction in the Gentiles' favor, in estimating between the Gentile Christian and the cast-off Jew. All the past history of the Jew stood in his favor; therefore the Gentile has vastly more reason to fear than had the Jew; for if natural branches fell through false pride which induced unbelief, how much more likely the adopted branches were to be cut off. Again, he had more reason for fear than for pride; for being on trial as the Jews had been, he was succumbing to the same sin of self-righteous pride, and more liable to suffer the same rejection. Paul now presents the even-balanced equality of Jew and Gentile if weighed in the scales of merit instead of the new scales of grace-toward-faith.]

McGarvey: Rom 11:22

Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them [the Jews] that fell, severity [for lack of faith, not want of merit]; but toward thee [O Gentile], God's goodness [kindness not won by thy merit, else it were justice, not goodness; but goodness toward thee by reason of thy faith: a goodness which will be continued to thee], if thou continue [by faith, and the works thereof, to keep thyself] in his goodness: otherwise thou also [even as was the Jew for like reasons before thee] shalt be cut off . [From the theocratic tree. Severity and goodness, as used here, are merely relative. They do not express the true condition, but merely the state of affairs as viewed by those who still clung to the idea of legal justification and salvation by merit. To those holding such views it seemed severe indeed that the better man should be cut off for lack of faith, and a strange act of goodness that the worse should be received by reason of it and given opportunity to become fruitful; but the seeming severity vanishes and only the goodness remains when we reflect that according to the righteous judgment of God it was impossible that either of them should be received any other way. The apostle's next purpose is to present a further argument against Gentile pride; viz., the final restoration of the Jewish people and the restitution of all their original privileges and rights. This prophetic fact is revealed as a possibility in the next two verses, and established fully as a decreed event in the next section.]

McGarvey: Rom 11:23

And they [the unbelieving mass of Israel] also [together with you], if they continue not in their unbelief [for it is not a question of any comparative lack of legal merit on their part], shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again . [There is no insuperable reason why they can not be grafted in, and that blessed event will take place whenever the unbelief which has caused their severance shall cease. In Paul's day individual Jews were being grafted in (the "some" of verse 14); but in the glad future of which the apostle here speaks, the nation (or the "all Israel" of verse 26) shall be grafted in. However, the word "able" suggests the extreme difficulty of overcoming the obdurate unbelief of Israel. It is a task for God's almightiness, but, though difficult, yet, as verse 24 shows, most natural, after all.]

McGarvey: Rom 11:24

For if thou wast cut out of that which is by nature a wild olive tree, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how much more shall these, which are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? [Here we are referred to nature for the point emphasized in the apostle's lesson, that we may see that the present system of grace, as operating under the terms of conversion established as the basis of theocratic life in the New Testament, operates in double contradiction to nature. For (1) grafting is unnatural; (2) grafting bad to good is unnatural; for in nature the engraft always changes the juice of the stalk to its own nature, so as to still bear its own fruit. Hence the superior is always grafted into the inferior. But in grace this rule is so changed and operated so "contrary to nature," that the sap, passing into the tame, natural, superior Jewish branches, yielded corrupt fruit, so that they had to be severed; while the same sap, passing into the wild, grafted, inferior Gentile branches, communicated its fatness to them, so that they yielded good fruit. But as it is an accepted axiomatic premise that even God works more readily, regularly and satisfactorily along the lines of the natural than he does along those of the supernatural and miraculous, so it is unquestionably reasonable to suppose that if the Jew will consent to be grafted in by belief, the sap of his own tree will work more readily for him than it did in Paul's day for the Gentiles, or wild olive branches which were not of the tree save by the grafting, or union, of belief. "For," says Chrysostom, "if faith can achieve that which is contrary to nature, much more can it achieve what is according to it." By age-long, hereditary and educational qualifications the Jew has acquired a natural affinity for, and a pre-established harmony with, all that has come to the world through the promises to Abraham, and in fulfillment of the words of the prophets. In short, the conversion of the Jew of our day is a vastly more reasonable expectation than the conversion of the Gentiles which actually took place in Paul's day. Let no man, therefore, doubt Paul's prediction of the ultimate conversion of the Jews. "If God," says Stuart, "had mercy on the Gentiles, who were outcasts from his favor and strangers to the covenant of his promise, shall he not have mercy on the people whom he has always distinguished as being peculiarly his own, by the bestowment of many important privileges and advantages upon them?"]

McGarvey: Rom 11:25

["The future conversion of Israel," says Gifford, "having been proved to be both possible and probable, is now shown to be the subject of direct revelation."] For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant [This form of expression is used by the apostle to indicate a most important communication to which he wishes his readers to give special attention, as something strange and contrary to their expectation (Rom 1:3 ; 1Co 10:1 ; 1Co 12:1 ; 2Co 1:8 ; 1Th 4:13) -- in this case, a revelation from God] of this mystery [The word musterion is used twenty-seven times in the New Testament. As digested and classified by Tholuck, it has three meanings; thus: 1. Such matters of fact as are inaccessible to human reason, and can only be known through revelation (Rom 16:25 ; 1Co 2:7-10 ; Eph 1:9 ; Eph 3:4 ; Eph 6:19 ; Col 1:26 ; etc.). 2. Such matters as are patent facts, but the process of which can not be entirely taken in by the reason (1Co 14:2 ; 1Co 13:2 ; Eph 5:32 ; 1Ti 3:9 ; 1 Tim 16). 3. That which is no mystery in itself, but by its figurative import (Mat 13:11 ; Rev 1:20 ; Rev 17:5 ; 2Th 2:7). The first is the meaning here. Paul is about to communicate a revelation which was given of God, and could never have been divined by any process of the human intellect. As the conversion of the Gentiles was so unthinkable that it had to be made known to the Jew by revelation (Eph 3:1-6 ; Act 10:11), so here the conversion of the Jew was so unbelievable that it also had to be made known to the Gentile by revelation], lest ye be wise in your own conceits [This revelation of the conversion and ultimate elevation of Israel to his former position of leadership comes to Paul, and is imparted by him to the Gentiles, to prevent them from following their own vain and mistaken opinions as to the relative theocratic positions of Jews and Gentiles, by which they would flatteringly deceive themselves into thinking too well of themselves as occupying permanently Israel's ancient post of honor, and too ill of Israel as thrust out and cast off forever. The reversal of the Jews and Gentiles in fortune and honor was but a temporary affair. It is significant that this publication of a revelation, and accompanying rebuke of the opposing self-conceit of human opinion and judgment, should be addressed to the Church of Rome! The more one ponders it, the more portentous it becomes], that a hardening in part hath befallen Israel [Here is the first term of the threefold revelation. Calvin and others connect "in part" with "hardening," so that the meaning is that a partial hardening has befallen Israel. But hardening, as mentioned at Rom 9:18 or Rom 11:7 ; is not qualified as partial. "In part" is properly connected with "Israel." A portion of Israel is hardened. This agrees with the entire context, which tells of a remnant saved (Rom 11:5), and the rest or larger portion fallen (Rom 11:12), cast away (Rom 11:15), and hardened. So "in part" stands for "the rest" of Rom 11:7 , and in contrast to the "some" of Rom 11:17 . The bulk of the Jewish nation, persistently and rebelliously refusing to believe in Christ, had, as their punishment, a dulling of their perceptions and a deadening of their sensibilities sent upon them. We can understand this punishment better if we compare it with its counterpart which befell the Gentiles. As they dishonored the form or body of God by presuming to make degrading, beast-shaped images of it, so God gave them up to degrade their own bodies (Rom 1:23-24). As they preferred lies to truth in things pertaining to God, he gave them up to prefer lying, deceptive, unnatural uses of themselves, to the true and natural uses (Rom 1:25-27). As they refused to have a right mind about God, he gave them up to a reprobate mind (Rom 1:28-32). So here, in his parallel treatment of the Jew, he found them steeling their hearts against his love (Joh 3:16) and against the drawing power of the cross (Joh 8:28 ; Joh 12:32), and he gave them up to the hardness which they chose and desired. Now follows the second term of the revelation which makes known how long this hardness should endure; viz.], until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in [The hardness of the Jews shall cease, and the veil which blinds their eyes shall fall (1Co 3:14-15), when the number of saved which God has allotted to be gathered during the Gentile dispensation (or "times of the Gentiles" -- Luk 21:24) has been made complete, and has "come in," to the theocratic olive-tree. In other words, as the Gentiles were "given up" (Rom 1:23 ; Rom 1:25 ; Rom 1:28) during the entire period of the Jewish dispensation, so the Jews are to be "hardened" during the entire period of the Gentile dispensation. The millennium, or final dispensation, which is to follow this present Gentile dispensation, will be given into the hands of Jew and Gentile jointly, and will be as life from the dead to both parties, because of the glorious season of revival which shall characterize it almost to its end. "Fulness of the Gentiles" is, therefore, "not the general conversion of the world to Christ, as many take it," says Brown; "for this would seem to contradict the latter part of this chapter, and throw the national recovery of Israel too far into the future: besides, in verse 15, the apostle seems to speak of the receiving of Israel, not as following, but as contributing largely to bring about, the general conversion of the world -- but, until the Gentiles have had their full time [as possessors] of the visible church all to themselves while the Jews are out, which the Jews had till the Gentiles were brought in. See Luk 21:24 ." And this brings us to the conditions, or developments, which succeed the hardening, or the third term of the mystery or revelation which Paul is here making known; viz.];

McGarvey: Rom 11:26

and so [that is, in this way; namely, by abiding till this determinate time] all Israel [the national totality, the portion hardened; a round-number expression, allowing liberty to any small remnant which may possibly still persist in unbelief] shall be saved [Shall be Christianized by overcoming their unbelief. And this revelation, fully detailed by Paul, had already been adumbrated or partially published in the prophets, as follows]: even as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer; He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob [Isa 59:20]:

McGarvey: Rom 11:27

And this is my covenant [lit. the covenant from me] unto them, When I shall take away their sins . [Isa 27:9 . (Comp. Jer 31:31-34) Verse 26 is quoted from the LXX., but Paul changes "come in favor of Zion" to read, "come out of Zion," following a phrase found at Psa 14:7 . None can say why he made this change, but it prevents confusion as to the first and second advent. Christ's second advent will be out of heaven, not out of Zion. Bengel calls attention to the fact that as Paul in Romans 3 combines Isaiah 59 and Psalm 14, to prove the sinfulness of mankind, especially of the Jews, so he here seems to combine the same two parts of Scripture to prove the salvation of Israel from sin. Moreover, as in chapter 9 he lets Isaiah describe Israel as reduced to a remnant (Rom 9:27-29), so he here appeals to the same inspired penman as the foreteller of the salvation of all Israel. Christ the Deliverer had already come, so that part of the prophecy had been fulfilled, but the future effects of the gospel were yet to accomplish the salvation of the Jews as a nation in two ways: (1) By turning them from their ungodly infidelity; (2) by forgiving their sins. Jewish unbelief will not be removed by any change in the gospel: it is complete and unalterable. The changes which will work upon the Jews will be those wrought in the world by the gospel. "And this is the covenant from me," etc., signifies, My covenant unto them shall be executed and completed on my part when I forgive their sins. To the Jews, therefore, there was, on God's part, in Paul's day, a present attitude of rejection manifesting itself in hardening, and a future attitude of acceptance sometime to manifest itself in forgiveness, and these attitudes are thus described]

Commentary -- Other

Critics Ask: Rom 11:26

ROMANS 11:26-27 —How can there be a future for the nation of Israel since they rejected the Messiah?

PROBLEM: The nation of Israel clearly rejected Christ as their Messiah ( Romans 9-10 ; cf. John 1:10-11 ). And the Bible says that the promises of Abraham go to his spiritual seed, not his descendants according to the flesh ( Rom. 4 ; Gal. 3 ). Why then does Romans 11 speak of a future for the nation of Israel?

SOLUTION: Abraham has both a spiritual seed (descendants) and literal descendants. Anyone who believes in Christ can become a spiritual heir of the promise for justification ( Rom. 4 ; cf. Gen. 15 ), because Christ came of the seed of Abraham ( Gal. 3:16 ).

However, there are also promises to Abraham’s literal descendants, the Jews, that have never yet been completely fulfilled. For example, God unconditionally promised that Abraham’s literal descendants would inherit the land of Palestine forever ( Gen. 12:1-3 ; 13:15-17 ; 15:7-21 ; 17:8 ). Only one short time in Israel’s history did they inherit this land ( Josh. 11:23 ), but God gave it to them by an unconditional oath (cf. Gen. 15:7-21 ) “forever” ( Gen. 13:15 ), as an “everlasting possession” ( 17:8 ). Since God cannot break an unconditional promise ( Heb. 6:17-18 ; 2 Tim 2:13 ), this promise is yet to be fulfilled for the nation of Israel.

Paul is speaking of the literal descendants of Abraham, the children of Israel in Romans 9-11 . He calls them “my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites” ( Rom. 9:3-4 ) and “Israel” ( Rom. 10:1 ). This same national group (Israel) that was temporarily cut off will be grafted in again into the tree, and “all Israel will be saved” ( Rom. 11:26 ). Jesus spoke of this time in Acts 1 when asked by His disciples, “Will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” ( Acts 1:6 ) His answer was not a stern rebuke for misunderstanding the Scriptures, but an assurance that only the Father knows the “times or seasons” in which this will occur (v. 7 ). Earlier Jesus spoke of “the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, [and] you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” ( Matt. 19:28 ). Indeed, in the final book of the Bible, the Apostle John spoke of God redeeming out of the tribulation “one hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel” ( Rev. 7:4 ). So there is every reason to believe that God will honor His unconditional covenant to Israel to give them the land of Palestine forever.   

Critics Ask: Rom 11:27

ROMANS 11:26-27 —How can there be a future for the nation of Israel since they rejected the Messiah?

PROBLEM: The nation of Israel clearly rejected Christ as their Messiah ( Romans 9-10 ; cf. John 1:10-11 ). And the Bible says that the promises of Abraham go to his spiritual seed, not his descendants according to the flesh ( Rom. 4 ; Gal. 3 ). Why then does Romans 11 speak of a future for the nation of Israel?

SOLUTION: Abraham has both a spiritual seed (descendants) and literal descendants. Anyone who believes in Christ can become a spiritual heir of the promise for justification ( Rom. 4 ; cf. Gen. 15 ), because Christ came of the seed of Abraham ( Gal. 3:16 ).

However, there are also promises to Abraham’s literal descendants, the Jews, that have never yet been completely fulfilled. For example, God unconditionally promised that Abraham’s literal descendants would inherit the land of Palestine forever ( Gen. 12:1-3 ; 13:15-17 ; 15:7-21 ; 17:8 ). Only one short time in Israel’s history did they inherit this land ( Josh. 11:23 ), but God gave it to them by an unconditional oath (cf. Gen. 15:7-21 ) “forever” ( Gen. 13:15 ), as an “everlasting possession” ( 17:8 ). Since God cannot break an unconditional promise ( Heb. 6:17-18 ; 2 Tim 2:13 ), this promise is yet to be fulfilled for the nation of Israel.

Paul is speaking of the literal descendants of Abraham, the children of Israel in Romans 9-11 . He calls them “my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites” ( Rom. 9:3-4 ) and “Israel” ( Rom. 10:1 ). This same national group (Israel) that was temporarily cut off will be grafted in again into the tree, and “all Israel will be saved” ( Rom. 11:26 ). Jesus spoke of this time in Acts 1 when asked by His disciples, “Will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” ( Acts 1:6 ) His answer was not a stern rebuke for misunderstanding the Scriptures, but an assurance that only the Father knows the “times or seasons” in which this will occur (v. 7 ). Earlier Jesus spoke of “the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, [and] you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” ( Matt. 19:28 ). Indeed, in the final book of the Bible, the Apostle John spoke of God redeeming out of the tribulation “one hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel” ( Rev. 7:4 ). So there is every reason to believe that God will honor His unconditional covenant to Israel to give them the land of Palestine forever.   

Evidence: Rom 11:20

God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours. DAVID LIVINGSTONE

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Romans (Book Introduction)

The Epistle to the Romans

Spring of a.d. 57

By Way of Introduction

Integrity of the Epistle

The genuineness of the Epistle is so generally admitted by scholars that it is unnecessary to prove it here, for Loman, Steck, and the Dutch scholars (Van Manen, etc.) who deny it as Pauline are no longer taken seriously. He wrote it from Corinth because he sent it to Rome by Phoebe of Cenchreae (Rom_16:2) if chapter 16 is acknowledged to be a part of the Epistle. Chapter 16 is held by some to be really a short epistle to Ephesus because of the long list of names in it, because of Paul’s long stay in Ephesus, because he had not yet been to Rome, and because, in particular, Aquila and Priscilla are named (Rom_16:3-5) who had been with Paul in Ephesus. But they had come from Rome before going to Corinth and there is no reason for thinking that they did not return to Rome. It was quite possible for Paul to have many friends in Rome whom he had met elsewhere. People naturally drifted to Rome from all over the empire. The old MSS. (Aleph A B C D) give chapter 16 as an integral part of the Epistle. Marcion rejected it and chapter 15 also for reasons of his own. Renan’s theory that Romans was a circular letter like Ephesians sent in different forms to different churches (Rome, Ephesus, Thessalonica, etc.) has appealed to some scholars as explaining the several doxologies in the Epistle, but they cause no real difficulty since Paul interjected them in his other epistles according to his moods (2Co_1:20, for instance). That theory raises more problems than it solves as, for example, Paul’s remarks about going to Rome (Rom_1:9-16) which apply to Rome. Lightfoot suggests the possibility that Paul added Rom_16:25-27 some years after the original date so as to turn it into a circular letter. But the MSS. do not support that theory and that leaves Rom_15:22-33 in the Epistle quite unsuitable to a circular letter. Modern knowledge leaves the Epistle intact with occasional variations in the MSS. on particular points as is true of all the N.T.

The Time and Place

The place is settled if we accept Rom_16:1. The time of the year is in the spring if we combine statements in the Acts and the Epistle. He says: " I am now going to Jerusalem ministering to the saints" (Rom_15:25). In Act_20:3 we read that Paul spent three months in Corinth. In II Corinthians we have a full account of the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem. The account of the journey from Corinth to Jerusalem is given in Acts 20:3-21:17. It was in the spring between passover at Philippi (Act_20:6) and pentecost in Jerusalem (Act_20:16; Act_21:17). The precise year is not quite so certain, but we may suggest a.d. 57 or 58 with reasonable confidence.

The Purpose

Paul tells this himself. He had long cherished a desire to come to Rome (Act_19:21) and had often made his plans to do so (Rom_1:13) which were interrupted (Rom_15:22), but now he definitely plans to go from Jerusalem, after taking the contribution there (Rom_15:26), to Rome and then on to Spain (Rom_15:24, Rom_15:28). Meanwhile he sends this Epistle that the Romans may know what Paul’s gospel really is (Rom_1:15; Rom_2:16). He is full of the issues raised by the Judaizing controversy as set forth in the Epistles to Corinth and to Galatia. So in a calmer mood and more at length he presents his conception of the Righteousness demanded by God (Rom_1:17) of both Gentile (Rom_1:18-32) and Jew (Romans 2:1-3:20) and only to be obtained by faith in Christ who by his atoning death (justification) has made it possible (Romans 3:21-5:21). This new life of faith in Christ should lead to holiness of life (sanctification, chapters Romans 6-8). This is Paul’s gospel and the remaining chapters deal with corollaries growing out of the doctrine of grace as applied to practical matters. It is a cause for gratitude that Paul did write out so full a statement of his message. He had a message for the whole world and was anxious to win the Roman Empire to Christ. It was important that he go to Rome for it was the centre of the world’s life. Nowhere does Paul’s Christian statesmanship show to better advantage than in this greatest of his Epistles. It is not a book of formal theology though Paul is the greatest of theologians. Here Paul is seen in the plenitude of his powers with all the wealth of his knowledge of Christ and his rich experience in mission work. The church in Rome is plainly composed of both Jews and Greeks, though who started the work there we have no way of knowing. Paul’s ambition was to preach where no one else had been (Rom_15:20), but he has no hesitation in going on to Rome.

JFB: Romans (Book Introduction)

THE GENUINENESS of the Epistle to the Romans has never been questioned. It has the unbroken testimony of all antiquity, up to CLEMENT OF ROME, the apostle's "fellow laborer in the Gospel, whose name was in the Book of Life" (Phi 4:3), and who quotes from it in his undoubted Epistle to the Corinthians, written before the close of the first century. The most searching investigations of modern criticism have left it untouched.

WHEN and WHERE this Epistle was written we have the means of determining with great precision, from the Epistle itself compared with the Acts of the Apostles. Up to the date of it the apostle had never been at Rome (Rom 1:11, Rom 1:13, Rom 1:15). He was then on the eve of visiting Jerusalem with a pecuniary contribution for its Christian poor from the churches of Macedonia and Achaia, after which his purpose was to pay a visit to Rome on his way to Spain (Rom 15:23-28). Now this contribution we know that he carried with him from Corinth, at the close of his third visit to that city, which lasted three months (Act 20:2-3; Act 24:17). On this occasion there accompanied him from Corinth certain persons whose names are given by the historian of the Acts (Act 20:4), and four of these are expressly mentioned in our Epistle as being with the apostle when he wrote it--Timotheus, Sosipater, Gaius, and Erastus (Rom 16:21, Rom 16:23). Of these four, the third, Gaius, was an inhabitant of Corinth (1Co 1:14), and the fourth, Erastus, was "chamberlain of the city" (Rom 16:23), which can hardly be supposed to be other than Corinth. Finally, Phœbebe, the bearer, as appears, of this Epistle, was a deaconess of the Church at Cenchrea, the eastern port of Corinth (Rom 16:1). Putting these facts together, it is impossible to resist the conviction, in which all critics agree, that Corinth was the place from which the Epistle was written, and that it was despatched about the close of the visit above mentioned, probably in the early spring of the year 58.FOUNDER of this celebrated church is unknown. That it owed its origin to the apostle Peter, and that he was its first bishop, though an ancient tradition and taught in the Church of Rome as a fact not to be doubted, is refuted by the clearest evidence, and is given up even by candid Romanists. On that supposition, how are we to account for so important a circumstance being passed by in silence by the historian of the Acts, not only in the narrative of Peter's labors, but in that of Paul's approach to the metropolis, of the deputations of Roman "brethren" that came as far as Appii Forum and the Three Taverns to meet him, and of his two years' labors there (Act 28:15, Act 28:30)? And how, consistently with his declared principle--not to build on another man's foundation (Rom 15:20) --could he express his anxious desire to come to them that he might have some fruit among them also, even as among other Gentiles (Rom 1:13), if all the while he knew that they had the apostle of the circumcision for their spiritual father? And how, if so, is there no salutation to Peter among the many in this Epistle? or, if it may be thought that he was known to be elsewhere at that particular time, how does there occur in all the Epistles which our apostle afterwards wrote from Rome not one allusion to such an origin of the church at Rome? The same considerations would seem to prove that this church owed its origin to no prominent Christian laborer; and this brings us to the much-litigated question.

For WHAT CLASS of Christians was this Epistle principally designed--Jewish or Gentile? That a large number of Jews and Jewish proselytes resided at this time at Rome is known to all who are familiar with the classical and Jewish writers of that and the immediately subsequent periods; and that those of them who were at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (Act 2:10), and formed probably part of the three thousand converts of that day, would on their return to Rome carry the glad tidings with them, there can be no doubt. Nor are indications wanting that some of those embraced in the salutations of this Epistle were Christians already of long standing, if not among the earliest converts to the Christian faith. Others of them who had made the apostle's acquaintance elsewhere, and who, if not indebted to him for their first knowledge of Christ, probably owed much to his ministrations, seemed to have charged themselves with the duty of cherishing and consolidating the work of the Lord in the capital. And thus it is not improbable that up to the time of the apostle's arrival the Christian community at Rome had been dependent upon subordinate agency for the increase of its numbers, aided by occasional visits of stated preachers from the provinces; and perhaps it may be gathered from the salutations of the last chapter that it was up to that time in a less organized, though far from less flourishing state, than some other churches to whom the apostle had already addressed Epistles. Certain it is, that the apostle writes to them expressly as a Gentile Church (Rom 1:13, Rom 1:15; Rom 15:15-16); and though it is plain that there were Jewish Christians among them, and the whole argument presupposes an intimate acquaintance on the part of his readers with the leading principles of the Old Testament, this will be sufficiently explained by supposing that the bulk of them, having before they knew the Lord been Gentile proselytes to the Jewish faith, had entered the pale of the Christian Church through the gate of the ancient economy.

It remains only to speak briefly of the PLAN and CHARACTER Of this Epistle. Of all the undoubted Epistles of our apostle, this is the most elaborate, and at the same time the most glowing. It has just as much in common with a theological treatise as is consistent with the freedom and warmth of a real letter. Referring to the headings which we have prefixed to its successive sections, as best exhibiting the progress of the argument and the connection of its points, we here merely note that its first great topic is what may be termed the legal relation of man to God as a violator of His holy law, whether as merely written on the heart, as in the case of the heathen, or, as in the case of the Chosen People, as further known by external revelation; that it next treats of that legal relation as wholly reversed through believing connection with the Lord Jesus Christ; and that its third and last great topic is the new life which accompanies this change of relation, embracing at once a blessedness and a consecration to God which, rudimentally complete already, will open, in the future world, into the bliss of immediate and stainless fellowship with God. The bearing of these wonderful truths upon the condition and destiny of the Chosen People, to which the apostle next comes, though it seem but the practical application of them to his kinsmen according to the flesh, is in some respects the deepest and most difficult part of the whole Epistle, carrying us directly to the eternal springs of Grace to the guilty in the sovereign love and inscrutable purposes of God; after which, however, we are brought back to the historical platform of the visible Church, in the calling of the Gentiles, the preservation of a faithful Israelitish remnant amidst the general unbelief and fall of the nation, and the ultimate recovery of all Israel to constitute, with the Gentiles in the latter day, one catholic Church of God upon earth. The remainder of the Epistle is devoted to sundry practical topics, winding up with salutations and outpourings of heart delightfully suggestive.

JFB: Romans (Outline)

• INTRODUCTION. (Rom. 1:1-17)
• THE JEW UNDER LIKE CONDEMNATION WITH THE GENTILE. (Rom. 2:1-29)
• JEWISH OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. (Rom 3:1-8)
• THAT THE JEW IS SHUT UP UNDER LIKE CONDEMNATION WITH THE GENTILE IS PROVED BY HIS OWN SCRIPTURE. (Rom 3:9-20)
• GOD'S JUSTIFYING RIGHTEOUSNESS THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, ALIKE ADAPTED TO OUR NECESSITIES AND WORTHY OF HIMSELF. (Rom 3:21-26)
• INFERENCES FROM THE FOREGOING DOCTRINES AND AN OBJECTION ANSWERED. (Rom 3:27-31)
• THE FOREGOING DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ILLUSTRATED FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. (Rom. 4:1-25)
• THE BLESSED EFFECTS OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. (Rom 5:1-11)
• COMPARISON AND CONTRAST BETWEEN ADAM AND CHRIST IN THEIR RELATION TO THE HUMAN FAMILY. (Rom 5:12-21)
• THE BEARING OF JUSTIFICATION BY GRACE UPON A HOLY LIFE. (Rom 6:1-11)
• WHAT PRACTICAL USE BELIEVERS SHOULD MAKE OF THEIR DEATH TO SIN AND LIFE TO GOD THROUGH UNION TO THE CRUCIFIED SAVIOUR. (Rom 6:12-23)
• SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. (Rom. 7:1-25)
• CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE ARGUMENT--THE GLORIOUS COMPLETENESS OF THEM THAT ARE IN CHRIST JESUS. (Rom. 8:1-39)
• THE BEARING OF THE FOREGOING TRUTHS UPON THE CONDITION AND DESTINY OF THE CHOSEN PEOPLE--ELECTION--THE CALLING OF THE GENTILES. (Rom. 9:1-33)
• SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED--HOW ISRAEL CAME TO MISS SALVATION, AND THE GENTILES TO FIND IT. (Rom. 10:1-21)
• SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED AND CONCLUDED--THE ULTIMATE INBRINGING OF ALL ISRAEL, TO BE, WITH THE GENTILES, ONE KINGDOM OF GOD ON THE EARTH. (Rom. 11:1-36)
• DUTIES OF BELIEVERS, GENERAL AND PARTICULAR. (Rom. 12:1-21)
• SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED--POLITICAL AND SOCIAL RELATIONS--MOTIVES. (Rom 13:1-14)
• SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED--CHRISTIAN FORBEARANCE. (Rom. 14:1-23)
• SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED AND CONCLUDED. (Rom 15:1-13)
• CONCLUSION: IN WHICH THE APOSTLE APOLOGIZES FOR THUS WRITING TO THE ROMAN CHRISTIANS, EXPLAINS WHY HE HAD NOT YET VISITED THEM, ANNOUNCES HIS FUTURE PLANS, AND ASKS THEIR PRAYERS FOR THE COMPLETION OF THEM. (Rom. 15:14-33)
• CONCLUSION, EMBRACING SUNDRY SALUTATIONS AND DIRECTIONS, AND A CLOSING PRAYER. (Rom. 16:1-27)
• WHY THIS DIVINELY PROVIDED RIGHTEOUSNESS IS NEEDED BY ALL MEN. (Rom 1:18)
• THIS WRATH OF GOD, REVEALED AGAINST ALL INIQUITY, OVERHANGS THE WHOLE HEATHEN WORLD. (Rom 1:18-32)

TSK: Romans (Book Introduction)

The Epistle to the Romans is " a writing," says Dr. Macknight, " which, for sublimity and truth of sentiment, for brevity and strength of expression, for regularity in its structure, but above all, for the unspeakable importance of the discoveries which it contains, stands unrivalled by any mere human composition, and as far exceeds the most celebrated productions of the learned Greeks and Romans, as the shining of the sun exceeds the twinkling of the stars." " The plan of it is very extensive; and it is surprising to see what a spacious field of knowledge is comprised, and how many various designs, arguments, explications, instructions, and exhortations, are executed in so small a compass....The whole Epistle is to be taken in connection, or considered as one continued discourse; and the sense of every part must be taken from the drift of the whole. Every sentence, or verse, is not to be regarded as a distinct mathematical proposition, or theorem, or as a sentence in the book of Proverbs, whose sense is absolute, and independent of what goes before, or comes after, but we must remember, that every sentence, especially in the argumentative part, bears relation to, and is dependent upon, the whole discourse, and cannot be rightly understood unless we understand the scope and drift of the whole; and therefore, the whole Epistle, or at least the eleven first chapters of it, ought to be read over at once, without stopping. As to the use and excellency of this Epistle, I shall leave it to speak for itself, when the reader has studied and well digested its contents....This Epistle will not be difficult to understand, if our minds are unprejudiced, and at liberty to attend to the subject, and to the current scriptural sense of the words used. Great care is taken to guard and explain every part of the subject; no part of it is left unexplained or unguarded. Sometimes notes are written upon a sentence, liable to exception and wanting explanation, as Rom 2:12-16. Here Rom 2:13 and Rom 2:15 are a comment upon the former part of it. Sometimes are found comments upon a single word; as Rom 10:11-13. Rom 10:12 and Rom 10:13 are a comment upon πας [Strong’s 3956]

TSK: Romans 11 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Rom 11:1, God has not cast off all Israel; Rom 11:7, Some were elected, though the rest were hardened; Rom 11:16, There is hope of their conversion; Rom 11:18, The Gentiles may not exult over them; Rom 11:26, for there is a promise of their salvation; Rom 11:33, God’s judgments are unsearchable.

Poole: Romans 11 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 11

MHCC: Romans (Book Introduction)

The scope or design of the apostle in writing to the Romans appears to have been, to answer the unbelieving, and to teach the believing Jew; to confirm the Christian and to convert the idolatrous Gentile; and to show the Gentile convert as equal with the Jewish, in respect of his religious condition, and his rank in the Divine favour. These several designs are brought into on view, by opposing or arguing with the infidel or unbelieving Jew, in favour of the Christian or believing Gentile. The way of a sinner's acceptance with God, or justification in his sight, merely by grace, through faith in the righteousness of Christ, without distinction of nations, is plainly stated. This doctrine is cleared from the objections raised by Judaizing Christians, who were for making terms of acceptance with God by a mixture of the law and the gospel, and for shutting out the Gentiles from any share in the blessings of salvation brought in by the Messiah. In the conclusion, holiness is further enforced by practical exhortations.

MHCC: Romans 11 (Chapter Introduction)

(Rom 11:1-10) The rejection of the Jews is not universal.

(Rom 11:11-21) God overruled their unbelief for making the Gentiles partakers of gospel privileges.

(Rom 11:22-32) The Gentiles cautioned against pride and unbelief, The Jews shall be called as a nation, and brought into God's visible covenant again.

(Rom 11:33-36) A solemn adoring of the wisdom, goodness, and justice of God.

Matthew Henry: Romans (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans

If we may compare scripture with scripture, and take the opinion of some devout and pious persons, in the Old Testament David's Psalms, and in the New Testament Paul's Epistles, are stars of the first magnitude, that differ from the other stars in glory. The whole scripture is indeed an epistle from heaven to earth: but in it we have upon record several particular epistles, more of Paul's than of any other, for he was the chief of the apostles, and laboured more abundantly than they all. His natural parts, I doubt not, were very pregnant; his apprehension was quick and piercing; his expressions were fluent and copious; his affections, wherever he took, very warm and zealous, and his resolutions no less bold and daring: this made him, before his conversion, a very keen and bitter persecutor; but when the strong man armed was dispossessed, and the stronger than he came to divide the spoil and to sanctify these qualifications, he became the most skilful zealous preacher; never any better fitted to win souls, nor more successful. Fourteen of his epistles we have in the canon of scripture; many more, it is probable, he wrote in the course of his ministry, which might be profitable enough for doctrine, for reproof, etc., but, not being given by inspiration of God, they were not received as canonical scripture, nor handed down to us. Six epistles, said to be Paul's, written to Seneca, and eight of Seneca's to him, are spoken of by some of the ancients [ Sixt. Senens. Biblioth. Sanct. lib. 2] and are extant; but, upon the first view, they appear spurious and counterfeit.

This epistle to the Romans is placed first, not because of the priority of its date, but because of the superlative excellency of the epistle, it being one of the longest and fullest of all, and perhaps because of the dignity of the place to which it is written. Chrysostom would have this epistle read over to him twice a week. It is gathered from some passages in the epistle that it was written Anno Christi 56, from Corinth, while Paul made a short stay there in his way to Troas, Act 20:5, Act 20:6. He commendeth to the Romans Phebe, a servant of the church at Cenchrea (ch. 16), which was a place belonging to Corinth. He calls Gaius his host, or the man with whom he lodged (Rom 16:23), and he was a Corinthian, not the same with Gaius of Derbe, mentioned Acts 20. Paul was now going up to Jerusalem, with the money that was given to the poor saints there; and of that he speaks, Rom 15:26. The great mysteries treated of in this epistle must needs produce in this, as in other writings of Paul, many things dark and hard to be understood, 2Pe 3:16. The method of this (as of several other of the epistles) is observable; the former part of it doctrinal, in the first eleven chapters; the latter part practical, in the last five: to inform the judgment and to reform the life. And the best way to understand the truths explained in the former part is to abide and abound in the practice of the duties prescribed in the latter part; for, if any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, Joh 7:17.

I. The doctrinal part of the epistles instructs us,

1. Concerning the way of salvation (1.) The foundation of it laid in justification, and that not by the Gentiles' works of nature (ch. 1), nor by the Jews' works of the law (ch. 2, 3), for both Jews and Gentiles were liable to the curse; but only by faith in Jesus Christ, Rom 3:21, etc.; ch. 4. (2.) The steps of this salvation are, [1.] Peace with God, ch. 5. [2.] Sanctification, ch. 6, 7. [3.] Glorification, ch. 8.

2. Concerning the persons saved, such as belong to the election of grace (ch. 9), Gentiles and Jews, ch. 10, 11. By this is appears that the subject he discourses of were such as were then the present truths, as the apostle speaks, 2Pe 1:12. Two things the Jews then stumbled at - justification by faith without the works of the law, and the admission of the Gentiles into the church; and therefore both these he studied to clear and vindicate.

II. The practical part follows, wherein we find, 1. Several general exhortations proper for all Christians, ch. 12. 2. Directions for our behaviour, as members of civil society, Rom 13:1-14. 3. Rules for the conduct of Christians to one another, as members of the Christian church, ch. 14 and Rom 15:1-14.

III. As he draws towards a conclusion, he makes an apology for writing to them (Rom 15:14-16), gives them an account of himself and his own affairs (Rom 15:17-21), promises them a visit (Rom 15:22-29), begs their prayers (Rom 15:30-32), sends particular salutations to many friends there (ch. 16:1-16), warns them against those who caused divisions (Rom 16:17-20), adds the salutations of his friends with him (Rom 16:21-23), and ends with a benediction to them and a doxology to God (Rom 16:24-27).

Matthew Henry: Romans 11 (Chapter Introduction)

The apostle, having reconciled that great truth of the rejection of the Jews with the promise made unto the fathers, is, in this chapter, further labouring to mollify the harshness of it, and to reconcile it to the divine goodness in general. It might be said, " Hath God then cast away his people?" The apostles therefore sets himself, in this chapter, to make a reply to this objection, and that two ways: - I. He shows at large what the mercy is that is mixed with this wrath (v. 1-32). II. He infers thence the infinite wisdom and sovereignty of God, with the adoration of which he concludes this chapter and subject (Rom 11:33-36).

Barclay: Romans (Book Introduction)

A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS OF PAUL

The Letters Of Paul

There is no more interesting body of documents in the New Testament than the letters of Paul. That is because of all forms of literature a letter is most personal. Demetrius, one of the old Greek literary critics, once wrote, "Every one reveals his own soul in his letters. In every other form of composition it is possible to discern the writercharacter, but in none so clearly as the epistolary." (Demetrius, On Style, 227.) It is just because he left us so many letters that we feel we know Paul so well. In them he opened his mind and heart to the folk he loved so much; and, in them, to this day, we can see that great mind grappling with the problems of the early church and feel that great heart throbbing with love for men, even when they were misguided and mistaken.

The Difficulty Of Letters

At the same time there is often nothing so difficult to understand as a letter. Demetrius (On Style, 223) quotes a saying of Artemon, who edited the letters of Aristotle. Artemon said that a letter ought to be written in the same manner as a dialogue, because it was one of the two sides of a dialogue. In other words, to read a letter is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. So when we read the letters of Paul we are often in a difficulty. We do not possess the letter which he was answering; we do not fully know the circumstances with which he was dealing; it is only from the letter itself that we can deduce the situation which prompted it. Before we can hope to understand fully any letter Paul wrote, we must try to reconstruct the situation which produced it.

The Ancient Letters

It is a great pity that Paulletters were ever called epistles. They are in the most literal sense letters. One of the great lights shed on the interpretation of the New Testament has been the discovery and the publication of the papyri. In the ancient world, papyrus was the substance on which most documents were written. It was composed of strips of the pith of a certain bulrush that grew on the banks of the Nile. These strips were laid one on top of the other to form a substance very like brown paper. The sands of the Egyptian desert were ideal for preservation, for papyrus, although very brittle, will last for ever so long as moisture does not get at it. As a result, from the Egyptian rubbish heaps, archaeologists have rescued hundreds of documents, marriage contracts, legal agreements, government forms, and, most interesting of all, private letters. When we read these private letters we find that there was a pattern to which nearly all conformed; and we find that Paulletters reproduce exactly that pattern. Here is one of these ancient letters. It is from a soldier, called Apion, to his father Epimachus. He is writing from Misenum to tell his father that he has arrived safely after a stormy passage.

"Apion sends heartiest greetings to his father and lord Epimachus.

I pray above all that you are well and fit; and that things are

going well with you and my sister and her daughter and my

brother. I thank my Lord Serapis [his god] that he kept me safe

when I was in peril on the sea. As soon as I got to Misenum I got

my journey money from Caesar--three gold pieces. And things

are going fine with me. So I beg you, my dear father, send me a

line, first to let me know how you are, and then about my

brothers, and thirdly, that I may kiss your hand, because you

brought me up well, and because of that I hope, God willing, soon

to be promoted. Give Capito my heartiest greetings, and my

brothers and Serenilla and my friends. I sent you a little picture

of myself painted by Euctemon. My military name is Antonius

Maximus. I pray for your good health. Serenus sends good

wishes, Agathos Daimonboy, and Turbo, Galloniuson."

(G. Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri, 36.)

Little did Apion think that we would be reading his letter to his father 1800 years after he had written it. It shows how little human nature changes. The lad is hoping for promotion quickly. Who will Serenilla be but the girl he left behind him? He sends the ancient equivalent of a photograph to the folk at home. Now that letter falls into certain sections. (i) There is a greeting. (ii) There is a prayer for the health of the recipients. (iii) There is a thanksgiving to the gods. (iv) There are the special contents. (v) Finally, there are the special salutations and the personal greetings. Practically every one of Paulletters shows exactly the same sections, as we now demonstrate.

(i) The Greeting: Rom_1:1 ; 1Co_1:1 ; 2Co_1:1 ; Gal_1:1 ; Eph_1:1 ; Phi_1:1 ; Col_1:1-2 ; 1Th_1:1 ; 2Th_1:1 .

(ii) The Prayer: in every case Paul prays for the grace of God on the people to whom he writes: Rom_1:7 ; 1Co_1:3 ; 2Co_1:2 ; Gal_1:3 ; Eph_1:2 ; Phi_1:3 ; Col_1:2 ; 1Th_1:1 ; 2Th_1:2 .

(iii) The Thanksgiving: Rom_1:8 ; 1Co_1:4 ; 2Co_1:3 ; Eph_1:3 ; Phi_1:3 ; 1Th_1:3 ; 2Th_1:3 .

(iv) The Special Contents: the main body of the letters.

(v) Special Salutations and Personal Greetings: Rom 16 ; 1Co_16:19 ; 2Co_13:13 ; Phi_4:21-22 ; Col_4:12-15 ; 1Th_5:26 .

When Paul wrote letters, he wrote them on the pattern which everyone used. Deissmann says of them, "They differ from the messages of the homely papyrus leaves of Egypt, not as letters but only as the letters of Paul." When we read Paulletters we are not reading things which were meant to be academic exercises and theological treatises, but human documents written by a friend to his friends.

The Immediate Situation

With a very few exceptions, all Paulletters were written to meet an immediate situation and not treatises which he sat down to write in the peace and silence of his study. There was some threatening situation in Corinth, or Galatia, or Philippi, or Thessalonica, and he wrote a letter to meet it. He was not in the least thinking of us when he wrote, but solely of the people to whom he was writing. Deissmann writes, "Paul had no thought of adding a few fresh compositions to the already extant Jewish epistles; still less of enriching the sacred literature of his nation. He had no presentiment of the place his words would occupy in universal history; not so much that they would be in existence in the next generation, far less that one day people would look at them as Holy Scripture." We must always remember that a thing need not be transient because it was written to meet an immediate situation. All the great love songs of the world were written for one person, but they live on for the whole of mankind. It is just because Paulletters were written to meet a threatening danger or a clamant need that they still throb with life. And it is because human need and the human situation do not change that God speaks to us through them today.

The Spoken Word

One other thing we must note about these letters. Paul did what most people did in his day. He did not normally pen his own letters but dictated them to a secretary, and then added his own authenticating signature. (We actually know the name of one of the people who did the writing for him. In Rom_16:22 Tertius, the secretary, slips in his own greeting before the letter draws to an end.) In 1Co_16:21 Paul says, "This is my own signature, my autograph, so that you can be sure this letter comes from me" (compare Col_4:18 ; 2Th_3:17 ).

This explains a great deal. Sometimes Paul is hard to understand, because his sentences begin and never finish; his grammar breaks down and the construction becomes involved. We must not think of him sitting quietly at a desk, carefully polishing each sentence as he writes. We must think of him striding up and down some little room, pouring out a torrent of words, while his secretary races to get them down. When Paul composed his letters, he had in his mindeye a vision of the folk to whom he was writing, and he was pouring out his heart to them in words that fell over each other in his eagerness to help.

INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

The Epistle That Is Different

There is an obvious difference between PaulLetter to the Romans and any other of his letters. Anyone coming from, say, a reading of the Letters to the Corinthians, will immediately feel that difference, both of atmosphere and of method. A very great part of it is due to one basic fact--when Paul wrote to the Church at Rome he was writing to a Church with whose founding he had had nothing whatever to do and with which he had had no personal contact at all. That explains why in Romans there are so few of the details of practical problems which fill the other letters. That is why Romans, at first sight, seems so much more impersonal. As Dibelius put it, "It is of all Paulletters the least conditioned by the momentary situation."

We may put that in another way. Romans, of all Paulletters, comes nearest to being a theological treatise. In almost all his other letters he is dealing with some immediate trouble, some pressing situation, some current error, some threatening danger, which was menacing the Church to which he was writing. Romans is the nearest approach to a systematic exposition of Paulown theological position, independent of any immediate set of circumstances.

Testamentary And Prophylactic

Because of that, two great scholars have applied two very illuminating adjectives to Romans. Sanday called Romans "testamentary." It is as if Paul was writing his theological last will and testament, as if into Romans he was distilling the very essence of his faith and belief. Rome was the greatest city in the world, the capital of the greatest Empire the world had ever seen. Paul had never been there, and he did not know if he ever would be there. But, in writing to such a Church in such a city, it was fitting that he should set down the very centre and core of his belief. Burton called Romans "prophylactic." A prophylactic is something which guards against infection. Paul had seen too often what harm and trouble could be caused by wrong ideas, twisted notions, misguided conceptions of Christian faith and belief. He therefore wished to send to the Church in the city which was the centre of the world a letter which would so build up the structure of their faith that, if infections should ever come to them, they might have in the true word of Christian doctrine a powerful and effective defence. He felt that the best protection against the infection of false teaching was the antiseptic of the truth.

The Occasion Of PaulWriting To Rome

All his life Paul had been haunted by the thought of Rome. It had always been one of his dreams to preach there. When he is in Ephesus, he is planning to go through Achaea and Macedonia again, and then comes a sentence obviously dropped straight from the heart, "After I have been there, I must also see Rome" (Act_19:21 ). When he was up against things in Jerusalem, and the situation looked threatening and the end seemed near, he had one of those visions which always lifted up his heart. In that vision the Lord stood by him and said, "Take courage, Paul. For as you have testified about me at Jerusalem, so you must bear witness also at Rome" (Act_23:11 ). In the very first chapter of this letter Pauldesire to see Rome breathes out. "I long to see you that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you" (Rom_1:11 ). "So, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome" (Rom_1:15 ). It might well be said that the name Rome was written on Paulheart.

When he actually wrote the Letter to the Romans, the date was sometime in the year A.D. 58, and he was in Corinth. He was just about to bring to its completion a scheme that was very dear to his heart. The Church at Jerusalem was the mother Church of them all, but it was poor, and Paul had organized a collection throughout the younger churches for it (1Co_16:1 ; 2Co_9:1 ). That collection was two things. It was an opportunity for his younger converts to put Christian charity into Christian action, and it was a most practical way of impressing on all Christians the unity of the Christian Church, of teaching them that they were not members of isolated and independent congregations, but of one great Church, each part of which had a responsibility to all the rest. When Paul wrote Romans he was just about to set out with that gift for the Jerusalem Church. "At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem with aid for the saints" (Rom_15:25 ).

The Object Of PaulWriting

Why, then, at such a moment should he write?

(a) Paul knew that the journey to Jerusalem was not without its peril. He knew that he had enemies there, and that to go to Jerusalem was to take his life and liberty in his hands. He desired the prayers of the Roman Church before he set out on this expedition. "Now I appeal to you brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf, that I may be delivered from the unbelievers in Judaea" (Rom_15:30-31 ). He was mobilizing the prayers of the Church before he embarked on this perilous undertaking.

(b) Paul had great schemes simmering in his mind. It has been said of him that he was "always haunted by the regions beyond." He never saw a ship at anchor but he wished to board her and to carry the good news to men across the sea. He never saw a range of mountains, blue in the distance, but he wished to cross them, and to bring the story of the Cross to men who had never heard it. At this time Paul was haunted by the thought of Spain. "I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain" (Rom_15:24 ). "When I have completed this [that is, when he had delivered the collection to the Church in Jerusalem] I shall go on by way of you to Spain" (Rom_15:28 ).

Why this great desire to go to Spain? Rome had opened up that land. Some of the great Roman roads and buildings still stand there to this day. And it so happened that, just at this time, there was a blaze of greatness in Spain. Many of the great figures who were writing their names on Roman history and literature were Spaniards. There was Martial, the master of the epigram. There was Lucan, the epic poet. There were Columella and Pomponius Mela, great figures in Roman literature. There was Quintilian, the master of Roman oratory. And, above all, there was Seneca, the greatest of the Roman Stoic philosophers, the tutor of the Emperor Nero, and the Prime Minister of the Roman Empire. It was most natural that Paulthoughts should go out to this land which was producing such a scintillating galaxy of greatness. What might happen if men like that could be touched for Christ? As far as we know Paul never got to Spain. On that visit to Jerusalem he was arrested and he was never freed again. But, when he was writing Romans, that was his dream.

Paul was a master strategist. He had an eye for the layout of territory like a great commander. He felt that by this time he could move on from Asia Minor and for the time being leave Greece behind. He saw the whole west lying in front of him, virgin territory to be won for Christ. But, if he was to launch a campaign in the west, he needed a base of operations. There was only one such base possible--and that was Rome.

That was why Paul wrote this letter to Rome. He had this great dream in his heart and this great plan in his mind. He needed Rome for a base for this new campaign. He was aware that the Church in Rome must know his name. But he was also aware, for he was a realist, that the reports which reached Rome would be mixed. His opponents were not above spreading slanders and false accusation against him. So he wrote this letter to set out for the Church at Rome an account of the very essence of his belief, in order that, when the time came for action, he might find in Rome a sympathetic Church from which the lines of communication might go out to Spain and the west. It was with such a plan and such an intention, that in A.D. 58 Paul sat down in Corinth to write his letter to the Church at Rome.

The Layout Of The Letter

Romans is at once a very complicated and a very carefully constructed letter. It will therefore help us to find our way through it, if we have in our minds an idea of its framework. It falls into four definite divisions.

(i) Rom 1-8, which deal with the problem of righteousness.

(ii) Rom 9-11, which deal with problem of the Jews, the chosen

people.

(iii) Rom 12-15, which deal with practical questions of life and

living.

(iv) Rom 16 , which is a letter of introduction for Phoebe,

and a list of final personal greetings.

(i) When Paul uses the word "righteousness," he means a right relationship with God The man who is righteous is the man who is in a right relationship with God, and whose life shows it.

Paul begins with a survey of the Gentile world. We have only to look at its decadence and corruption to know that it had not solved the problem of righteousness. He looks at the Jewish world. The Jews had sought to solve the problem of righteousness by meticulous obedience to the law. Paul had tried that way himself, and it had issued in frustration and defeat, because no man on earth can ever fully obey the law, and, therefore, every man must have the continual consciousness of being in debt to God and under his condemnation.

So Paul finds the way to righteousness in the way of utter trust and utter yieldedness. The only way to a right relationship with God is to take him at his word, and to cast oneself, just as one is, on his mercy and love. It is the way of faith. It is to know that the important thing is, not what we can do for God, but what he has done for us. For Paul the centre of the Christian faith was that we can never earn or deserve the favour of God, nor do we need to. The whole matter is one of grace, and all that we can do is to accept in wondering love and gratitude and trust what God has done for us.

That does not free us, however, from obligations or entitle us to do as we like; it means that for ever and for ever we must try to be worthy of the love which does so much for us. But we are no longer trying to fulfil the demands of stern and austere and condemnatory law; we are no longer like criminals before a judge; we are lovers who have given all life in love to the one who first loved us.

(ii) The problem of the Jews was a torturing one. In a real sense they were Godchosen people, and yet, when his Son had come into the world, they had rejected him. What possible explanation could there be for this heart-breaking fact?

The only one Paul could find was that, in the end, it was all Goddoing. Somehow the hearts of the Jews had been hardened; but it was not all failure, for there had always been a faithful remnant. Nor was it for nothing, for the very fact that the Jews had rejected Christ opened the door so the Gentiles would bring in the Jews and all men would be saved.

Paul goes further. The Jew had always claimed that he was a member of the chosen people in virtue of the fact that he was a Jew. It was solely a matter of pure racial descent from Abraham. But Paul insists that the real Jew is not the man whose flesh and blood descent can be traced to Abraham. He is the man who has made the same decision of utter yieldedness to God in loving faith which Abraham made. Therefore, Paul argues, there are many pure-blooded Jews who are not Jews in the real sense of the term at all; and there are many people of other nations who are really Jews in the true meaning of that word. The new Israel was not a racial thing at all; it was composed of those who had the same faith as Abraham had had.

(iii) Rom 12 is so great an ethical statement that it must always be set alongside the Sermon on the Mount. In it Paul lays down the ethical character of the Christian faith. The fourteenth and fifteenth chapters deal with an ever-recurring problem. In the Church there was a narrower party who believed that they must abstain from certain foods and drinks, and who counted special days and ceremonies as of great importance. Paul thinks of them as the weaker brethren because their faith was dependent on these external things. There was a more liberal party, who had liberated themselves from these external rules and observances. He thinks of them as the brethren who are stronger in the faith. He makes it quite clear that his sympathies are with the more liberal party; but he lays down the great principle that no man must ever do anything to hurt the conscience of a weaker brother or to put a stumbling block in his way. His whole point of view is that we must never do anything which makes it harder for someone else to be a Christian; and that that may well mean the giving up of something, which is right and safe for us, for the sake of the weaker brother. Christian liberty must never be used in such a way that it injures anotherlife or conscience.

(iv) The fourth section is a recommendation on behalf of Phoebe, a member of the Church at Cenchreae, who is coming to Rome. The letter ends with a list of greetings and a final benediction.

Two Problems

Rom 16 has always presented scholars with a problem. Many have felt that it does not really form part of the Letter to the Romans at all; and that it is really a letter to some other Church which became attached to Romans when Paulletters were collected. What are their grounds? First and foremost, in this chapter Paul sends greetings to twenty-six different people, twenty-four of whom he mentions by name and all of whom he seems to know very intimately. He can, for instance, say that the mother of Rufus has also been a mother to him. Is it likely that Paul knew intimately twenty-six people in a Church which he had never visited? He, in fact, greets far more people in this chapter than he does in any other letter, and yet he had never set foot in Rome. Here is something that needs explanation.

If Rom 16 was not written to Rome, what was its original destination? It is here that Prisca and Aquila come into the argument. We know that they left Rome in A.D. 52 when Claudius issued his edict banishing the Jews (Act_18:2 ). We know that they went with Paul to Ephesus (Act_18:18 ). We know that they were in Ephesus when Paul wrote his letter to Corinth, less than two years before he wrote Romans (1Co_16:19 ). And we know that they were still in Ephesus when the Pastoral Epistles were written (2Ti_4:19 ). It is certain that if we had come across a letter sending greeting to Prisca and Aquila we should have assumed that it was sent to Ephesus, if no other address was given.

Is there any other evidence to make us think that chapter sixteen may have been sent to Ephesus in the first place? There is the perfectly general reason that Paul spent longer in Ephesus than anywhere else, and it would be very natural for him to send greetings to many people there. Paul speaks of Epaenetus, the first-fruits of Asia. Ephesus is in Asia, and such a reference, too, would be very natural in a letter to Ephesus, but not so natural in a letter to Rome. Rom_16:17 speaks about difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught, which sounds as if Paul was speaking about possible disobedience to his own teaching, and he had never taught in Rome.

It can be argued that the sixteenth chapter was originally addressed to Ephesus, but the argument is not so strong as it looks. For one thing, there is no evidence that the chapter was ever attached anywhere except to the Letter to the Romans. For another thing, the odd fact is that Paul does not send personal greetings to churches which he knew well. There are no personal greetings in Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians, all of them letters to churches he knew well; whereas there are personal greetings in Colossians, although Paul had never set foot in Colosse.

The reason is really quite simple. If Paul had sent personal greetings to churches he knew well, jealousies might well have arisen; on the other hand, when he was writing to churches he had never visited, he liked to establish as many personal links as possible. The very fact that Paul had never been in Rome makes it likely that he would try to establish as many personal connections as possible. Again, it is to be remembered that Prisca and Aquila were banished by edict from Rome. What is more likely than that, after the trouble was over, six or seven years later, they would return to Rome and pick up the threads of their business after their stay in other towns? And is it not most likely that many of the other names are names of people who shared in this banishment, who took up temporary residence in other cities, who met Paul there, and who, when the coast was clear, returned to Rome and their old homes? Paul would be delighted to have so many personal contacts in Rome and to seize hold of them.

Further, as we shall see, when we come to study chapter 16 in detail, many of the names--the households of Aristobulus and Narcissus, Amplias, Nereus and others--well suit Rome. In spite of the arguments for Ephesus, we may take it that there is no necessity to detach chapter sixteen from the Letter to the Romans.

But there is a more interesting, and a much more important, problem. The early manuscripts show some very curious things with regard to Rom 14-16. The only natural place for a doxology is at the very end. Rom_16:25-27 is a doxology, and in most good manuscripts it comes at the end. But in a number of manuscripts it comes at the end of Rom 14 ; two good manuscripts have it in both places; one ancient manuscript has it at the end of Rom 15 ; two manuscripts have it in neither place, but leave an empty space for it. One ancient Latin manuscript has a series of section summaries. The last two are as follows:

50: On the peril of him who grieves his brother by meat.

That is obviously Rom_14:15-23 .

51: On the mystery of the Lord, kept secret before his passion

but after his passion revealed.

That is equally clearly Rom_16:25-27 , the doxology. Clearly, these summaries were made from a manuscript which did not contain chapters fifteen and sixteen. Now there is one thing which sheds a flood of light on this. In one manuscript the mention of Rome in Rom_1:7 and Rom_1:15 is entirely omitted. There is no mention of any destination.

All this goes to show that Romans circulated in two forms--one form as we have it with sixteen chapters, and one with fourteen chapters; and perhaps also one with fifteen chapters. The explanation must be this. As Paul wrote it to Rome, it had sixteen chapters; but Rom 15-16 are private and personal to Rome. Now no other letter gives such a compendium of Pauldoctrine. What must have happened was that Romans began to circulate among all the churches, with the last two local chapters omitted, except for the doxology. It must have been felt that Romans was too fundamental to stop at Rome and so the purely local references were removed and it was sent out to the Church at large. From very early times the Church felt that Romans was so great an expression of the mind of Paul that it must become the possession not of one congregation, but of the whole Church. We must remember, as we study it, that men have always looked on Romans as the quintessence of Paulgospel.

FURTHER READING

Romans

C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (MC; E)

A. M. Hunter, The Epistle to the Romans: The Law of Love (Tch; E)

W. Sanday and A.C. Headlam, Romans (Sixth edition, in two volumes, revised by C. E. B. Cranfield) (ICC; G)

Abbreviations

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC : Moffatt Commentary

Tch: Torch Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: Romans 11 (Chapter Introduction)

The Callus On The Heart (Rom_11:1-12)

The Wild Olive--Privilege And Warning (Rom_11:13-24)

That All May Be Of Mercy (Rom_11:25-32)

The Cry Of The Adoring Heart (Rom_11:33-36)

Constable: Romans (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Historical Background

Throughout the history of the church, from postapostolic times to the present, Christians have regarded Romans as having been one of the Apostle Paul's epistles.¹ Not only does the letter claim that he wrote it (1:1), but it develops many of the same ideas and uses the same terminology that appear in Paul's earlier writings (e.g., Gal. 2; 1 Cor. 12; 2 Cor. 8-9).

Following his conversion on the Damascus Road (34 A.D.), Paul preached in Damascus, spent some time in Arabia, and then returned to Damascus. Next he travelled to Jerusalem where he met briefly with Peter and James. He then moved on to Tarsus, which was evidently his base of operations and from which he ministered for about six years (37-43 A.D.). In response to an invitation from Barnabas he moved to Antioch of Syria where he served for about five years (43-48 A.D.). He and Barnabas then set out on their so-called first missionary journey into Asia Minor (48-49 A.D.). Returning to Antioch Paul wrote the Epistle to the Galatians to strengthen the churches that he and Barnabas had just planted in Asia Minor (49 A.D.). After the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), Paul took Silas and began his second missionary journey (50-52 A.D.) through Asia Minor and on westward into the Roman provinces of Macedonia and Achaia. From Corinth, Paul wrote 1 and 2 Thessalonians (51 A.D.). He proceeded to Ephesus by ship and then on to Syrian Antioch. From there he set out on his third missionary journey (53-57 A.D.). Passing through Asia Minor he arrived in Ephesus where he labored for three years (53-56 A.D.). During this time he wrote 1 Corinthians (56 A.D.). Finally Paul left Ephesus and travelled by land to Macedonia where he wrote 2 Corinthians (56 A.D.). He continued south and spent the winter of 56-57 A.D. in Corinth. There he wrote the Epistle to the Romans and sent it by Phoebe (16:1-2) to the Roman church.

The apostle then proceeded from Corinth by land clockwise around the Aegean Sea back to Troas in Asia where he boarded a ship and eventually reached Jerusalem. In Jerusalem, the Jews arrested Paul and imprisoned him (57 A.D.). He arrived in Rome as a prisoner and ministered there for two years (60-62 A.D.). During this time he wrote the Prison Epistles (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon). The Romans freed Paul, and he returned to the Aegean area. There he wrote 1 Timothy and Titus, experienced arrest again, suffered imprisonment in Rome a second time, wrote 2 Timothy, and died as a martyr under Nero in A.D. 68.²

We know very little about the founding of the church in Rome. According to Ambrosiaster, a church father who lived in the fourth century, an apostle did not found it (thus discrediting the Roman Catholic claim that Peter founded the church). A group of Jewish Christians did.³ It is possible that these Jews became believers in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) or at some other time quite early in the church's history. By the time Paul wrote Romans the church in Rome was famous throughout the Roman Empire for its faith (1:18).

Purpose

Paul wrote this epistle under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for several reasons.⁴ He wanted to prepare the way for his intended visit to the church (15:22-24). He evidently hoped that Rome would become a base of operations and support for his pioneer missionary work in Spain and the western portions of the empire that he had not yet evangelized. His full exposition of the gospel in this letter would have provided a solid foundation for their participation in this mission.

As Paul looked forward to returning to Jerusalem between his departure from Corinth and his arrival in Rome, he was aware of the danger he faced (15:31). He may have written the exhaustive exposition of the gospel that we have in Romans to set forth his teaching in case he did not reach Rome. From Rome his doctrine could then go out to the rest of the empire as others preached it. Paul may have viewed Romans as his legacy to the church, his last will and testament.

Another reason for writing Romans was undoubtedly Paul's desire to minister to the spiritual needs of the Christians in Rome even though they were in good spiritual condition (15:14-16). The common problems of all the early churches were dangers to the Roman church as well. These difficulties included internal conflicts, mainly between Jewish and Gentile believers, and external threats from false teachers. Paul gave both of these potential problems attention in this epistle (15:1-8; 16:17-20).

Paul also wrote Romans as he did because he was at a transition point in his ministry, as he mentioned at the end of chapter 15. His ministry in the Aegean region was solid enough that he planned to leave it and move farther west into new virgin missionary territory. Before he did that, he planned to visit Jerusalem where he realized he would be in danger. Probably therefore Paul wrote Romans as he did to leave a full exposition of the gospel in good hands if his ministry ended prematurely in Jerusalem.

"The peculiar position of the apostle at the time of writing, as he reviews the past and anticipates the future, enables us to understand the absence of controversy in this epistle, the conciliatory attitude, and the didactic and apologetic elements which are all found combined herein."⁵

The great contribution of this letter to the body of New Testament inspired revelation is its reasoned explanation of how God's righteousness can become man's possession.

The Book of Romans is distinctive among Paul's inspired writings in several respects. It was one of the few letters he wrote to churches with which he had had no personal dealings. The only other epistle of this kind was Colossians. It is also a formal treatise within a personal letter.⁶ Paul expounded on the gospel in this treatise. He probably did so in this epistle rather than in another because the church in Rome was at the heart of the Roman Empire. As such it was able to exert great influence in the dissemination of the gospel. For these two reasons Romans is more formal and less personal than most of Paul's other epistles.

The Epistle to the Romans is, by popular consent, the greatest of Paul's writings. William Tyndale, the great English reformer and translator, referred to Romans as "the principle and most excellent part of the New Testament." He went on to say the following in his prologue to Romans that he wrote in the 1534 edition of his English New Testament.

"No man verily can read it too oft or study it too well; for the more it is studied the easier it is, the more it is chewed the pleasanter it is, and the more groundly [sic] it is searched the preciouser [sic] things are found in it, so great treasures of spiritual things lieth hid therein."⁷

Martin Luther wrote the following commendation of this epistle.

"[Romans] is worthy not only that every Christian should know it word for word, by heart, but occupy himself with it every day, as the daily bread of the soul. It can never be read or pondered too much, and the more it is dealt with the more precious it becomes, and the better it tastes."⁸

Message⁹

Throughout the history of the church Christians have recognized this epistle as the most important book in the New Testament. The reason for this conviction is that it is an exposition of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Luther called Romans "the chief part of the New Testament and the perfect gospel." Coleridge, the English poet, declared it to be "the most profound work in existence." Frederick Godet, the French commentator, described it as "the cathedral of the Christian faith."¹⁰

To appreciate the message of this book it will be helpful first to consider Paul's presuppositions. He based these, of course, on Old Testament revelation concerning cosmology and history.

First, Paul assumed the God of the Old Testament. He assumed God's existence and full deity. He believed that God is holy and just. He also held that God is the creator, sustainer, and sovereign ruler of the universe.

Second, Paul's view of man is that he is subject to God's government of the universe. Man has received a measure of freedom from God, so he can choose to pursue sin. However, if he does so, he is still in the sovereign hand of God. God can allow the consequences of his sins to have their effects on him both now and forever. Man is also in authority over the rest of the material creation (Gen. 1:28). What man has experienced, the material creation also has experienced and reflects as a result of man's action.

Third, Paul's view of history was that of Old Testament revelation. The important historical events for Paul were those in his Scriptures.

Adam was the first man. He rebelled against God's authority. The result was threefold: the practical dethronement of God in the minds of Adam's descendents, the degradation of humanity, and the defilement of creation. This is a very different view of history from what evolutionists and humanists take. Man has lost his scepter because he rebelled against God's scepter.

Two other individuals were specially significant in history for Paul as we see in Romans: Abraham and Jesus Christ. God called Abraham to be a channel of blessing to the world. Christ is the greatest blessing. Through Him people and creation can experience restoration to God's original intention for them.

These are Paul's basic presuppositions on which all his reasoning in Romans rests. Romans is not the best book to put in the hands of an unsaved person to lead him or her to salvation. John is better for that purpose. However, Romans is the best book to put in the hands of a saved person to lead him or her to understand and appreciate our salvation.

We turn now to the major revelations in this book. These are its central teachings, the emphases that distinguish Romans from other books of the Bible.

First, Romans reveals the tragic helplessness of the human race. No other book of the Bible looks so fearlessly into the abysmal degradation that has resulted from human sin. If you read only 1:18-3:20, you will become depressed by its pessimism. If you keep reading, you will conclude from 3:21 on that we have the best, most optimistic news you have ever heard. This book is all about ruin and redemption. Its first great revelation is the absolute ruin and helplessness of the human race.

Paul divides the ruined race into two parts. The first of these is the Gentiles who have the light of nature. God has given everyone, Gentiles and Jews, the opportunity of observing and concluding two things about Himself: His wisdom and power. The average person as well as the scientist concludes that Someone wise must have put the natural world together, and He must be very powerful. Nevertheless having come to that conclusion he turns from God to vain reasonings, vile passions, unrighteous behavior, envy, murder, strife, deceit, insolence, pride, and perverted conduct. Just read today's newspaper and you will find confirmation of Paul's analysis of the human race.

The other part of the ruined race is the Jews who, in addition to the light of nature, also had the light of Scripture. Paul observed that in spite of his greater revelation and privilege the Jew behaves the same way as the Gentile. Yet he is a worse sinner. Having professed devotion to God and having claimed to be a teacher of the Gentiles because of his greater light he disobeys God and causes the Gentiles to blaspheme His name. Paul concluded, "There is none righteous, no, not one" (3:10). "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (3:23).

The second major revelation of Romans is the magnificence of the divine plan of salvation. This plan centers on Jesus Christ whom Paul introduced on the very first page of his letter (1:3-4). God declared to everyone that the Jesus of the Gospels is His Son by resurrecting Him.

Two words describe Christ's relation to the divine plan of salvation: manifestation and propitiation. The righteousness manifested in Him is available to people through His propitiation. God's righteousness is available to everyone because Jesus died as the perfect offering for sin. The righteousness we see in Jesus in the Gospel records is available to those who believe that His sacrifice satisfied God (3:21, 25).

We can also describe God's relation to the plan of salvation with two words: holiness and love. The plan of salvation that Romans expounds resulted from a holy God reaching out to sinful humanity lovingly (3:22, 24). This plan vindicates the holiness of God as it unveils God's gracious love (chs. 9-11).

Man's relation to the plan of salvation is threefold. It involves justification, the imputation of God's righteousness to the believing sinner. It also involves sanctification, the impartation of God's righteousness to the redeemed sinner. Third, it involves glorification, the perfection of God's righteousness in the sanctified sinner. In justification God lifts the sinner into a relationship with Himself that is more intimate than we would have enjoyed if we had never sinned. In sanctification God progressively transforms the sinner into the Savior's image by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. In glorification God finally restores the sinner to the place God intended for us to occupy in creation.

The creation's relation to the plan of salvation is twofold. God restores creation's king, man, to his intended position. Second, creation realizes all of its intended possibilities that sin has denied it.

Let us note next some of the lessons of this book. What did God want us to learn from it?

First, Romans calls us to measure ourselves by divine rather than human standards. We sometimes evaluate ourselves and one another by using the criteria that our age sets or that we set. However to know our true condition we must use the criteria that God sets. This standard reveals that we are all guilty before God. This is one of the great lessons that Romans teaches us.

Second, Romans calls us to live by faith rather than by sight. God did not come any closer to mankind in the incarnation of Christ than He ever had been. Yet in the incarnation the nearness of God became more obvious to people. In the resurrection the Son of God became observable as the Son of God to human beings. All the glories of salvation come to us as we believe God. Romans contrasts the folly of trying to obtain salvation by working for it with trusting God, simply believing what He has revealed as true.

Third, Romans calls us to dedicate ourselves to God rather than living self-centered lives (12:1). This is the reasonable response to having received salvation. We should give ourselves to God. God's grace puts us in His debt. Paul did not say that if we fail to dedicate ourselves to God we are unsaved. Rather he appeals to us as saved people to do for God what He has done for us, namely giving ourselves out of love. When we do this, we show that we truly appreciate what God has done for us.

On the basis of these observations I would summarize the message of Romans in these words. Since God has lovingly provided salvation for helpless sinners through His Son, we should accept that sacrifice by faith and express our gratitude to God by dedicating our lives to Him.

In conclusion let me suggest an application of the message of Romans.

In view of the greatness of the salvation that God has provided as Romans reveals, we, as Paul, have a duty to communicate this good news to the world (1:14-17; Matt. 28:19). We do this both by lip and life, by explanation and by example (8:29). Our living example will reflect death to self as well as life to God (6:13).

Constable: Romans (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction 1:1-17

A. Salutation 1:1-7

1. The writer 1:1

2. The subject of the epistle 1:2-5

3. The original recipients 1:6-7

B. Purpose 1:8-15

C. Theme 1:16-17

II. The need for God's righteousness 1:18-3:20

A. The need of all people 1:18-32

1. The reason for human guilt 1:18

2. The ungodliness of mankind 1:19-27

3. The wickedness of mankind 1:28-32

B. The need of good people 2:1-3:8

1. God's principles of judgment 2:1-16

2. The guilt of the Jews 2:17-29

3. Answers to objections 3:1-8

C. The guilt of all humanity 3:9-20

III. The imputation of God's righteousness 3:21-5:21

A. The description of justification 3:21-26

B. The defense of justification by faith alone 3:27-31

C. The proof of justification by faith from the law ch. 4

1. Abraham's justification by faith 4:1-5

2. David's testimony to justification by faith 4:6-8

3. The priority of faith to circumcision 4:9-12

4. The priority of faith to the promise concerning headship of many nations 4:13-17

5. The exemplary value of Abraham's faith 4:18-22

6. Conclusions from Abraham's example 4:23-25

D. The benefits of justification 5:1-11

E. The universal applicability of justification 5:12-21

IV. The impartation of God's righteousness chs. 6-8

A. The believer's relationship to sin ch. 6

1. Freedom from sin 6:1-14

2. Slavery to righteousness 6:15-23

B. The believer's relationship to the law ch. 7

1. The law's authority 7:1-6

2. The law's activity 7:7-12

3. The law's inability 7:13-25

C. The believer's relationship to God ch. 8

1. Our deliverance from the flesh by the power of the Spirit 8:1-11

2. Our new relationship to God 8:12-17

3. Our present sufferings and future glory 8:18-25

4. Our place in God's sovereign plan 8:26-30

5. Our eternal security 8:31-39

V. The vindication of God's righteousness chs. 9-11

A. Israel's past election ch. 9

1. God's blessings on Israel 9:1-5

2. God's election of Israel 9:6-13

3. God's freedom to elect 9:14-18

4. God's mercy toward Israel 9:19-29

5. God's mercy toward the Gentiles 9:30-33

B. Israel's present rejection ch. 10

1. The reason God has set Israel aside 10:1-7

2. The remedy for rejection 10:8-15

3. The continuing unbelief of Israel 10:16-21

C. Israel's future salvation ch. 11

1. Israel's rejection not total 11:1-10

2. Israel's rejection not final 11:11-24

3. Israel's restoration assured 11:25-32

4. Praise for God's wise plans 11:33-36

VI. The practice of God's righteousness 12:1-15:13

A. Dedication to God 12:1-2

B. Conduct within the church 12:3-21

1. The diversity of gifts 12:3-8

2. The necessity of love 12:9-21

C. Conduct within the state ch. 13

1. Conduct towards the government 13:1-7

2. Conduct toward unbelievers 13:8-10

3. Conduct in view of our hope 13:11-14

D. Conduct within Christian liberty 14:1-15:13

1. The folly of judging one another 14:1-12

2. The evil of offending one another 14:13-23

3. The importance of pleasing one another 15:1-6

4. the importance of accepting one another 15:7-13

VII. Conclusion 15:14-16:27

A. Paul's ministry 15:14-33

1. Past labors 15:14-21

2. Present program 15:22-29

3. Future plans 15:30-33

B. Personal matters ch. 16

1. A commendation 16:1-2

2. Various greetings to Christians in Rome 16:3-16

3. A warning 16:17-20

4. Greetings from Paul's companions 16:21-24

5. A doxology 16:25-27

Constable: Romans

Romans

Bibliography

Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. 4 vols. New ed. Cambridge: Rivingtons, 1881.

Allen, Kenneth W. "Justification by Faith." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:538 (April-June 1978):109-16.

Auden, W. H. For the Time Being. London: Faber and Faber, 1958.

Baker, Bruce A. "Romans 1:18-21 and Presuppositional Apologetics." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:619 (July-September 1998):280-98.

Barclay, William. The Letter to the Romans. Daily Study Bible series. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1957.

Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Harper's New Testament Commentary series. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1957.

Battle, John A., Jr. "Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:25-26." Grace Theological Journal 2 (1981):115-29.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1965.

Baylis, Robert H. Romans: a letter to non-conformists. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1972.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. Baptism in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Blauvelt, Livingston, Jr. "Does the Bible Teach Lordship Salvation?" Bibliotheca Sacra 143:569 (January-March 1986):37-45.

Blue, J. Ronald. "Untold Billions: Are They Really Lost?" Bibliotheca Sacra 138:552 (October-December 1981):338-50.

Bock, Darrell L. "The Reign of the Lord Christ." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 37-67. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Bruce, Frederick F. The Letter of Paul to the Romans. Tyndale New Testament Commentary series. Revised ed. Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

Burns, J. Lanier. "The Future of Ethnic Israel in Romans 11." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 188-229. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Calvin, John. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians. Translated by Ross Mackenzie. Edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1961.

_____. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Library of Christian Classics series. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Reprint ed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. "For Whom Did Christ Die?" Bibliotheca Sacra 137:548 (October-December 1980):310-26. Reprinted from January 1948 issue.

_____. Grace. 1922. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, n. d.

_____. Salvation. Philadelphia: Sunday School Times, 1926.

_____. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948.

Coates, C. A. An Outline of the Epistle to the Romans. Kingston-on-Thames: Stow Hill Bible and Tract Depot, n. d..

Cole, Sherwood A. "Biology, Homosexuality, and Moral Culpability." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:615 (July-September 1997):355-66.

Cook, W. Robert. "Biblical Light on the Christian's Civil Responsibility." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:505 (January-March 1970):44-57.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament." Paper submitted for course 686 Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1968.

_____. "The Doctrine of Prayer." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1969.

_____. "The Gospel Message." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 201-17. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. Talking to God: What the Bible Teaches about Prayer. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995.

Conybeare, W. J. and Howson, J. S. The Life and Epistles of St. Paul. New ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964.

Crain, C. Readings on the Epistle to the Romans. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, n. d.

Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. International Critical Commentary series. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975, 1998.

Culver, Robert Duncan. "Apostles and the Apostolate in the New Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 134:534 (April-June 1977):131-43.

Daane, James. The Freedom of God. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973.

Dalman, G. The Words of Jesus. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Daube, David. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: Athlone Press, 1956.

Denney, James. "St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans." In The Acts of the Apostles--St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians. Vol. 2 of The Expositor's Greek Testament. 5 vols. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Fourth ed. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1912.

Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Edited by James Hastings. 1915 ed. S. v. "Romans, Epistle to the," by C. W. Emmet.

Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings, 1902 ed. S. v. "Romans, Epistle to the," by Archibald Robertson.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dunn, J. D. G. Romans. Word Biblical Commentary series. 2 vols. Dallas: Word, 1988.

Dunnett, Walter M. The Secret of Life, Victory and Service. Moody Manna series. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1961.

English, E. Schuyler. "Was St. Peter Ever in Rome?" Bibliotheca Sacra 124:496 (October-December 1967):314-20.

Fort, John. God's Salvation. New ed. revised. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, n.d.

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. "Israel and the Church." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 113-30. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1970.

Geisler, Norman L. "A Premillennial View of Law and Government." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:567 (July-September 1985):250-66.

_____. "The Significance of Christ's Physical Resurrection." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:582 (April-June 1989):148-70.

Glenny, W. Edward. "The Israel Imagery of 1 Peter 2." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 156-87. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

_____. "The People of God' in Romans 9:25-26." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:605 (January-March 1995):42-59.

Godet, Frederick L. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Translated by A. Cusin. Revised and edited by Talbot W. Chambers. Classic Commentary Library series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1956.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised, and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Gromacki, Robert Glenn. Salvation is Forever. Chicago: Moody Press, 1973.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 3 vols. Second ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1966.

Hannah, John D. "The Doctrine of Original Sin in Postrevolutionary America." Bibliotheca Sacra 134:535 (July-September 1977):238-56.

_____. "The Meaning of Saving Faith: Luther's Interpretation of Romans 3:28." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:560 (October-December 1983):322-34.

Harrison, Everett F. "Romans." In Romans-Galatians. Vol. 10 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

Henry, Carl F. H. "Justification: A Doctrine in Crisis." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:1 (March 1995):57-65.

Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Edited by Leslie F. Church. 1 vol. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. "Presentation and Transformation: An Exposition of Romans 12:1-2." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:603 (July-September 1994):309-24.

_____. "Romans 8:28-29 and the Assurance of the Believer." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):170-83.

Hodges, Zane C. Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. Dallas: Redencion Viva, and Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1989.

_____. "The Death/Life Option." Grace Evangelical Society News 6:11 (November 1991):

_____. The Hungry Inherit. Chicago: Moody Press, 1972.

Hoekema, Anthony. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Hook, H. Phillip. "A Biblical Definition of Faith." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:482 (April-June 1964):133-40.

Hopkins, Evan H. The Law of Liberty in the Spiritual Life. Revised ed. Philadelphia: Sunday School Times, 1952.

Howe, Frederic R. "A Review of Birthright, by David C. Needham." Bibliotheca Sacra 141:561 (January-March 1984):68-78.

Howell, Don N., Jr. "The Center of Pauline Theology." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):50-70.

Hunter, A. M. The Epistle to the Romans. Torch Bible Commentaries series. London: SCM, 1955.

International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. Edited by James Orr. 1957 ed. S. v. "Romans, Epistle to the," by Handley Dunelm.

Ironside, Harry A. Sailing With Paul. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1946.

Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A. R.; and Brown, David. Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Central Message of the New Testament. New York: Scribners, 1965.

Johnson, John E. "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.

Johnson, S. Lewis, Jr. "Behold the Lamb: The Gospel and Substitutionary Atonement." In The Coming Evangelical Crisis, pp. 119-38. Edited by John H. Armstrong. Chicago: Moody Press, 1996.

_____. "Evidence from Romans 9-11." In A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, pp. 199-223. Edited by Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

_____. "G. C. Berkouwer and the Doctrine of Original Sin." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:528 (October-December 1975):316-26.

_____. "Studies in Romans." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:510 (April-June 1971):120-34; 512 (October-December 1971):327-40; 129:513 (January-March 1972):61-74; 514 (April-June 1972):124-33; 130:517 (January-March 1973):24-34; 518 (April-June 1973):151-63; 519 (July-September 1973):235-49; 520 (October-December 1973):329-37; 131:522 (April-June 1974):163-72.

Kasemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980.

Kaye, B. The Argument of Romans with Special Reference to Chapter 6. Austin: Scholars Press, 1979.

Ketcham, Robert T. God's Provision for Normal Christian Living. Chicago: Moody Press, 1960.

Kitchens, Ted G. "Perimeters of Corrective Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):201-13.

Klein, W. W. "Paul's Use of Kalein: A Proposal." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27 (1984):53-64.

Knight, George W., III. "The Scriptures Were Written for Our Instruction." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:1 (March 1996):3-13.

Lamp, Jeffrey S. "Paul, the Law, Jews, and Gentiles: A Contextual and Exegetical Reading of Romans 2:12-16." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:1 (March 1999):37-51.

Lampe, P. "The Roman Christians in Romans 16." In The Romans Debate, pp. 216-230. Revised and expanded ed. Edited by Karl P. Donfried. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 10: Romans-Corinthians, by J. P. Lange, F. R. Fry, and C. F. Kling. Translated by J. F. Hurst, Daniel W. Poor, and Conway P. Wing.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1958.

Li, Ping-Kuen Eric. "The Relationship of the Christian to the Law as Expressed in Romans 10:4." Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1991.

Liddon, Henry Parry. Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. 4th ed. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1899.

Lightfoot, J. B. Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul. Reprint ed. Winona Lake: Alpha Publications, n. d..

Longacre, Robert E., and Wallis, Wilber B. "Soteriology and Eschatology in Romans." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:3 (September 1998):367-82.

Lowe, Chuck. "There Is No Condemnation' (Romans 8:1): But Why Not?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:2 (June 1999):231-50.

Lowery, David K. "Christ, the End of the Law in Romans 10:4." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 230-47. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

_____. "A Theology of Paul's Missionary Epistles." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 243-97. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Lyall, Francis. "Roman Law in the Writings of Paul--Adoption." Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (December 1969):458-66.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.

MacDonald, William. The Epistle to the Romans. Oak Park, Il: Emmaus Bible School, 1953.

Malick, David E. "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:599 (July-September 1993):327-40.

Matzat, Don. Christ-Esteem. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 1990.

Maurier, Henri. The Other Covenant. New York: Newman Press, 1968.

McBeth, J. P. Exegetical and Practical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1937.

McClain, Alva J. Romans: The Gospel of God's Grace. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1973.

McGee, J. Vernon. Reasoning through Romans. 2 vols. Los Angeles: Church of the Open Door, n. d..

Mickelsen, A. Berkeley. "The Epistle to the Romans." In Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1179-1226. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Mitchell, Curtis C. "The Holy Spirit's Intercessory Ministry." Bibliotheca Sacra 139:555 (July-September 1982):230-42.

Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996.

_____. Romans 1-8. Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988.

Mounce, Robert H. Romans. The New American Commentary series. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995.

Munck, Johannes. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind. Translated by Frank Clarke. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1959.

Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. 2 vols. in 1. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968.

Nee, Watchman. The Normal Christian Life. Second British ed. London: Witness and Testimony Publishers, 1958.

Needham, David C. Birthright. Portland: Multnomah Press, 1979.

Newell, William R. Romans Verse by Verse. 1938. Chicago: Moody Press, 1970.

Packer, J. I. "The Way of Salvation." Bibliotheca Sacra 129:515 (July-September 1972):195-205; 516 (October-December 1972):291-306; 130:517 (January-March 1973):3-11; 518 (April-June 1973):110-16.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Pattern for Maturity. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966.

_____. "The Purpose of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:511 (July-September 1971):227-33.

_____. Things to Come. Findlay, Oh: Dunham Publishing Co., 1958.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1990.

Peterson, Eugene H. The Message: The New Testament in Contemporary English. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993.

Phillips, J. B. The New Testament in Modern English. New York: Macmillan Co., 1958.

Pierce, C. A. Conscience in the New Testament. London: SCM Press, 1955.

Price, J. Randall. "Prophetic Postponement in Daniel 9 and Other Texts." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 133-65. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Pyne, Robert A. "Antinomianism and Dispensationalism." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:610 (April-June 1996):141-54.

_____. "Dependence and Duty: The Spiritual Life in Galatians 5 and Romans 6." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 144-56. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. "The Role of the Holy Spirit in Conversion." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:598 (April-June 1993):203-18.

_____. "The Seed,' the Spirit, and the Blessing of Abraham." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):211-22.

Radmacher, Earl. "First Response to Faith According to the Apostle James' by John F. MacArthur, Jr." Journal of the Evangelical Society 33:1 (March 1990):35-41.

Ramsay, William M. St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960.

Ramm, Bernard. The Witness of the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1959.

Reid, Marty L. "A Consideration of the Function of Rom 1:8-15 in Light of Greco-Roman Rhetoric." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:2 (June 1995):181-91.

Richard, Ramesh P. "Soteriological Inclusivism and Dispensationalism." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):85-108.

Ridderbos, H. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Ridenour, Fritz. How To Be a Christian Without Being Religious. Glendale: Gospel Light Publications, Regal Books, 1967.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.

Rogers, Cleon L., Jr. "The Davidic Covenant in Acts-Revelation." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March):71-84.

Russell, Walter B., III. "An Alternative Suggestion for the Purpose of Romans." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:578 (April-June 1988):174-84.

_____. "Insights from Postmodernism's Emphasis on Interpretive Communities in the Interpretation of Romans 7." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:4 (December 1994):511-27.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Balancing the Christian Life. Chicago: Moody Press, 1969.

_____. Basic Theology. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1986.

_____. "The Christian and Civil Disobedience." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:506 (April-June 1970):153-62.

_____. "Contrasting Views on Sanctification." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 189-200. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. "The End of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):239-47.

_____. The Grace of God. Chicago: Moody Press, 1963.

_____. So Great Salvation. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1989.

_____. What You Should Know about Social Responsibility. Current Christian Issues series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. You Mean the Bible Teaches That . . . Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Sanday, William, and Headlam, Arthur, C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. International Critical Commentary series. 5th ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902.

Sarles, Ken. L. "An Appraisal of the Signs and Wonders Movement." Bibliotheca Sacra 145-577 (January-March 1988):57-82.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

_____. "The Presence of the Kingdom and the Life of the Church." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:577 (January-March 1988):30-46.

_____. "Sinners' Who Are Forgiven or Saints' Who Sin?" Bibliotheca Sacra 152:608 (October-December 1995):400-12.

Schaeffer, Francis A. Death in the City. Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1969.

Schreiner, Thomas R. "The Church as the New Israel and the Future of Ethnic Israel." Studia Biblica et Theologica 13:1 (April 1983):17-38.

_____. "Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election unto Salvation? Some Exegetical and Theological Reflections." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:1 (March 1993):25-40.

Stifler, James M. The Epistle to the Romans. Chicago: Moody Press, 1960.

Stott, John R. W. Men Made New: An Exposition of Romans 5-8. London: InterVarsity Press, 1966.

Strickland, Wayne G. "Preunderstanding and Daniel Fuller's Law-Gospel Continuum." Bibliotheca Sacra 144:574 (April-June 1987):181-93.

Swindoll, Charles R. "Is the Holy Spirit Transforming You?" Kindred Spirit 18:1 (January-April 1994):4-7.

Taylor, Clyde W. "Christian Citizens." Bibliotheca Sacra 122:487 (July-September 1965):200-14.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. S. v. "opsonion," by Hans Wolfgang Heidland, 5 (1967):591-92.

_____. S. v. "soma," by Edward Schweizer, 7 (1971):1024-94.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith, Grace and Power. Reprint ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.

_____. St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946.

Toussaint, Stanley D. "The Contrast Between the Spiritual Conflict in Romans 7 and Galatians 5." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1966):310-14.

Towns, Elmer L. "Martin Luther on Sanctification." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:502 (April-June 1969):115-22.

Tozer, A. W. "Total Commitment." Decision 4:8 (August 1963):4.

Trench, Richard C. Synonyms of the New Testament. Ninth ed. London: James Clarke & Co., 1961.

Ukleja, P. Michael. "Homosexuality in the New Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:560 (October-December 1983):350-58.

Van den Doel, Anthonie. "Submission in the New Testament." Brethren Life and Thought 31:2 (Spring 1986):121-25.

Vine, W. E. The Epistle to the Romans. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957.

Vos, Gerhardus. The Pauline Eschatology. Princeton: By the author, 1930.

Wall, Joe L. Going for the Gold. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Walvoord, John F. The Millennial Kingdom. Revised ed. Findlay, Oh.: Dunham Publishing Co., 1963.

Warfield, Benjamin B. The Plan of Salvation. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n. d..

Way, Arthur S. The Letters of St. Paul and Hebrews. Reprint. ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1950.

Wedderburn, A. J. M. "Some Observations on Paul's Use of the Phrases In Christ' and With Christ'." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25 (October 1985):83-97.

Wenham, John. "The Identification of Luke." Evangelical Quarterly 63:1 (1991):3-44.

Wiersbe, Warren W. The Bible Exposition Commentary. 2 vols. Wheaton, Il.: Victor Books, Scripture Press, 1989.

Wilkin, Robert N. "Assurance by Inner Witness?" Grace Evangelical Society News 8:2 (March-April 1993):2-3.

_____. "Obedience to the Faith: Romans 1:5." Grace in Focus 10:6 (November-December 1995):2-4.

Williams, Philip R. "Paul's Purpose in Writing Romans." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:509 (January-March 1971):62-67.

Witmer, John A. "The Man with Two Countries." Bibliotheca Sacra 133:532 (October-December 1976):338-49.

_____. "Romans." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 435-503. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Wood, Leon. The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

Wright, N. T. The Climax of the Covenant. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991.

Wuest, Kenneth S. Romans in the Greek New Testament for the English Reader. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955.

_____. Word Studies in the Greek New Testament. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966.

Zuck, Roy B. "Cheap Grace?" Kindred Spirit 13:2 (Summer 1989):4-7.

_____. "The Doctrine of Conscience." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):329-40.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Romans (Book Introduction)

THE

EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL, THE APOSTLE,

TO THE ROMANS.

INTRODUCTION.

After the Gospels, which contain the history of Christ, and the Acts of the Apostles, which contain the history of the infant Church, we have the Epistles of the Apostles. Of these fourteen have been penned on particular occasions, and addressed to particular persons, by St. Paul; the others of St. James, St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude, are called Catholic Epistles, because they are addressed to all Christians in general, if we except the two latter short epistles of St. John. --- The epistles of St. Paul contain admirable advice, and explain fully several tenets of Christianity: but an humble and teachable mind and heart are essentially requisite to draw good from this inexhaustible source. If we prepare our minds by prayer, and go to these sacred oracles with proper dispositions, as to Jesus Christ himself, not preferring our own weak judgment to that of the Catholic Church divinely inspired, and which he has commanded us to hear, and which he has promised to lead in all truth unto the end of the world, we shall improve both our mind and heart by a frequent and pious perusal. We shall learn there that faith is essentially necessary to please God; that this faith is but one, as God is but one; and that faith which shews itself not by good works, is dead. Hence, when St. Paul speaks of works that are incapable of justifying us, he speaks not of the works of moral righteousness, but of the ceremonial works of the Mosaic law, on which the Jews laid such great stress as necessary to salvation. --- St. Peter (in his 2nd Epistle, chap. iii.) assures us that there were some in his time, as there are found some now in our days, who misconstrue St. Paul's epistles, as if he required no good works any more after baptism than before baptism, and maintaining that faith alone would justify and save a man. Hence the other apostles wrote their epistles, as St. Augustine remarks in these words; "therefore because this opinion, that faith only was necessary to salvation, was started, the other apostolical epistles do most pointedly refute it, forcibly contending that faith without works profiteth nothing." Indeed St. Paul himself, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, (Chap. xiii. 2.) positively asserts: if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. --- This epistle, like most of the following, is divided into two parts: the first treats of points of doctrine, and extends to the eleventh chapter inclusively; the second treats of morality, and is contained in the last five chapters: but to be able to understand the former, and to practise the latter, humble prayer and a firm adherence to the Catholic Church, which St. Paul (1 Timothy chap. iii.) styles, the pillar and ground of truth, are undoubtedly necessary. Nor should we ever forget what St. Peter affirms, that in St. Paul's epistles there are some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and the unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter chap. iii. ver. 16.) (Haydock) --- St. Paul had not been at Rome when he wrote this epistle, which was in the year fifty-seven or fifty-eight, when he was preparing to go to Jerusalem with the charitable contributions and alms, collected in Achaia and Macedonia, for the benefit and relief of the poor Christians in Judea, and at Jerusalem; and after he had preached in almost all places from Jerusalem even to Illyris, Illyrium, or Illyricum. See this Epistle, chap. xv. It was written in Greek. It is not the first in order of time, though placed first, either because of the dignity of the chief Christian Church, or of its sublime contents. --- The apostle's chief design was not only to unite all the new Christian converts, whether they had been Gentiles or Jews, in the same faith, but also to bring them to a union in charity, love, and peace; to put an end to those disputes and contentions among them, which were particularly occasioned by those zealous Jewish converts, who were for obliging all Christians to the observance of the Mosaic precepts and ceremonies. They who had been Jews, boasted that they were the elect people of God, preferred before all other nations, to whom he had given this written law, precepts, and ceremonies by Moses, to whom he had sent his prophets, and had performed so many miracles in their favour, while the Gentiles were left in their ignorance and idolatry. The Gentiles, now converted, were apt to brag of the learning of their great philosophers, and that sciences had flourished among them: they reproached the Jews with the disobedience of their forefathers to God, and the laws he had given them; that they had frequently returned to idolatry; that they had persecuted and put to death the prophets, and even their Messias, the true Son of God. St. Paul shews that neither the Jew nor the Gentile had reason to boast, but to humble themselves under the hand of God, the author of their salvation. He puts the Jews in mind, that they could not expect to be justified and saved merely by the ceremonies and works of their law, thought good in themselves; that the Gentiles, as well as they, were now called by the pure mercy of God: that they were all to be saved by believing in Christ, and complying with his doctrine; that sanctification and salvation can only be had by the Christian faith. He does not mean by faith only, as it is one particular virtue, different from charity, hope, and other Christian virtues; but he means by faith, the Christian religion, and worship, taken in opposition to the law of Moses and to the moral virtues of heathens. The design of the Epistle to the Galatians is much the same. From the 12th chapter he exhorts them to the practice of Christian virtues. (Witham)

====================

Gill: Romans (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO ROMANS

Though this epistle is in order placed the first of the epistles, yet it was not first written: there were several epistles written before it, as the two epistles to the Thessalonians, the two to the Corinthians, the first epistle to Timothy, and that to Titus: the reason why this epistle stands first, is either the excellency of it, of which Chrysostom had so great an esteem that he caused it to be read over to him twice a week; or else the dignity of the place, where the persons lived to whom it is written, being Rome, the imperial city: so the books of the prophets are not placed in the same order in which they were written: Hosea prophesied as early as Isaiah, if not earlier; and before Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and yet stands after them. This epistle was written from Corinth, as the subscription of it testifies; and which may be confirmed from the apostle's commendation of Phoebe, by whom he sent it, who was of Cenchrea, a place near Corinth; by his calling Erastus, the chamberlain of the city, who abode at Corinth, 2Ti 4:20, and Gaius his host, who was a Corinthian, Rom 16:23, 1Co 1:14, though at what time it was written from hence, is not so evident: some think it was written in the time of his three months' travel through Greece, Act 20:2, a little before the death of the Emperor Claudius, in the year of Christ 55; others, that it was written by him in the short stay he made at Corinth, when he came thither, as is supposed, from Philippi, in his way to Troas, where some of his company went before, and had been there five days before him: and this is placed in the second year of Nero, and in the year of Christ 56; however, it was not written by him during his long stay at Corinth, when he was first there, but afterwards, even after he had preached from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum: and when he was about to go to Jerusalem, with the contributions of the churches of Macedonia and Achaia, to the poor saints there, Rom 15:19. The persons to whom this epistle was sent were Roman saints, both Jews and Gentiles, inhabiting the city of Rome; of which city and church; See Gill on Act 28:14; Act 28:15; by whom the Gospel was first preached at Rome, and who were the means of forming the church there, is not very evident Irenaeus, an ancient writer, says ^a, that Peter and Paul preached the Gospel at Rome, and founded the church; and Gaius, an ecclesiastical man, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome, asserts the same; and Dionysius; bishop of the Corinthians, calls the Romans the plantation of Peter and Paul ^b: whether Peter was ever at Rome is not a clear point with many; and certain it is, that the Apostle Paul had not been at Rome when he wrote this epistle, at least it seems very probable he had not, by several expressions in Rom 1:10; and yet here was a church to which he writes, and had been a considerable time; for their faith was spoken of throughout the world, Rom 1:8; and when the apostle was on the road to this city, the brethren in it met him, Act 28:15. The chief design of this epistle is to set in a clear light the doctrine of justification: showing against the Gentiles, that it is not by the light of nature, and works done in obedience to that, and against the Jews, that it was not by the law of Moses, and the deeds of that; which he clearly evinces, by observing the sinful and wretched estate both of Jews and Gentiles: but that it is by the righteousness of Christ imputed through the grace of God, and received by faith; the effects of which are peace and joy in the soul, and holiness in the life and conversation: he gives an account of the justified ones, as that they are not without sin, which he illustrates by his own experience and case; and yet are possessed of various privileges, as freedom from condemnation, the blessing of adoption, and a right to the heavenly inheritance; he treats in it concerning predestination, the calling of the Gentiles, and the rejection of the Jews; and exhorts to the various duties incumbent on the saints, with respect to one another, and to the world, to duties of a moral and civil nature, and the use of things indifferent; and closes it with the salutations of divers persons.

Gill: Romans 11 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO ROMANS 11

The apostle having spoken of the calling of the Gentiles, and given a hint of the perverseness of the Jews in slighting the Gospel, proceeds in this chapter to treat of their rejection; in which he shows, that it was not universal, though of the greater part in his time; and which he confirms by some passages out of the Old Testament, and then points at the end and design of God in the casting them off; and exhorts the Gentiles not to insult them, but to learn to be humble and cautious by what was done to them; and foretells the conversion of the Jews in the latter day, which will be general, so that their rejection is not final; and resolves the whole dispensation of God, both with respect to Jews and Gentiles, into the unsearchable wisdom and sovereign will of God: he begins with an objection he saw would be made upon what he had said, concerning the calling of the Gentiles, and the unbelief of the Jews, that then God had wholly cast off his people, Rom 11:1, to which he answers with a "God forbid", by way of detestation; and by instancing in himself, who was of the people of the Jews, and yet was called; and by distinguishing between some and others among them: there were some who were foreknown, loved, and chosen of God from everlasting: these were not cast off, but others who were not foreknown, Rom 11:2, and then he illustrates the present case of the Jews by observing how it was with them in the times of Elias; who though he complained of their apostasy and cruelty, and imagined that there were none left but himself that worshipped the true God, yet there were then seven thousand, which were preserved from the idolatry of Baal, Rom 11:2, and so the apostle observes it was now, Rom 11:5, there was a small number whom God of his free grace had chosen, and reserved for himself, and so were not all cast away, as the objection suggested; and having called this choice an election of grace, he argues the contrariety and inconsistency of grace and works in this affair, Rom 11:6, and since it appeared that there were two sorts of people among them, one that were chosen and the other not, hence it was, that though Israel did not obtain the righteousness they sought for, yet they that were chosen obtained it, and so were not cast away, when the rest were, Rom 11:7, and that so it should be, or that this should be the case of the greater part of the Jews, that they should be given up to blindness and hardness of heart, the apostle proves by some testimonies of Isaiah and David, which he produces, Rom 11:8, hence follows an objection, that if this be the case, then God had appointed them to stumble, that they might fall even all of them, and always continue fallen; to which the apostle answers with a "God forbid", as usual, when anything is objected which is abhorred; and by observing the view, event, and order of things; showing, that the fall of the Jews issued in the salvation of the Gentiles; and the salvation of the Gentiles was to provoke the Jews to seek the same mercy, Rom 11:11, and then follows an improvement and illustration of this end, or event of their fall, Rom 11:12, that if the fall and lessening of the Jews were the means of enriching the Gentiles with the riches of Christ and his grace, what a glory must be brought to them, when they should all of them be converted and join them! and that the rejection of the Jews was neither total nor final, the apostle argues from his office, even as an apostle of the Gentiles, whom he addresses as such, Rom 11:13, and from his view and end in executing that office, which was to provoke the Jews to emulate the Gentiles, and so save some of them, Rom 11:14, and then he repeats in other words, Rom 11:15, the argument he had used in Rom 11:12, and proves the future conversion of the Jews, from the instances of conversion and sanctification, which had been, and were then among them; which were as the firstfruits to the lump, and the root to the branches; and were pledges and tokens of a general conversion and sanctification of them hereafter, Rom 11:16, and by occasion of the metaphor of the root and branches before used, he expresses the rejection of the Jews, by the breaking off some of the branches, and the reception of the Gentiles by their ingrafting into a Gospel church state among the converted Jews, enjoying the same privileges with them, Rom 11:17, and since they were originally of a wild olive tree, and merely of grace partook of the root and fatness of the good olive of the Gospel church state, as consisting first of the Jews, they ought not to be haughty and insolent, and boast and brag over the Jews, since they were beholden to them, and not the Jews to them, Rom 11:18, and whereas an objection might be made, that the Jews were cast out, to make room for the Gentiles, Rom 11:19, and therefore the one must be more deserving than the other; the apostle replies to it, Rom 11:20 by granting, that the one were broken off, or rejected, that the other might be ingrafted, or taken in but then as it was owing to unbelief in the Jews that they were cast off, in which the Gentiles were before conversion as well as they, so it was by faith they stood in their church relation, which was the gift of God, and owing to his grace; so that their ingrafting and continuance in a Gospel church state were not the effect of merit in them; wherefore he gives them this good advice, not to be proud and lifted up with their privileges, as though they were of their own deserving, but to fear the Lord and his goodness, from whence they sprung; and suggests, that they should be so far from making such an use of the rejection of the Jews, that it ought rather to engage them to caution, care, and fear; for they were the natural branches in the olive tree, and if these were not spared when behaving disagreeably, they must not expect to fare otherwise, who were originally of the wild olive tree, should they act unworthy of the privileges they enjoyed, Rom 11:21, wherefore the apostle recommends to their serious consideration the severity of God in the casting off of the Jews, and his goodness in taking in them, the Gentiles; and threatens them with cutting off, should they slight, neglect, or misuse the goodness of God to them in his house and ordinances, Rom 11:22, and on the other hand, an intimation is given, that the Jews, though broken off shall be grafted in again, should their unbelief discontinue, and faith in Christ be given them, which was not impossible with God; he is able both to remove their unbelief, give them faith, and reinstate them in a church relation, Rom 11:23, and as it is without doubt he can do it, it looks very likely that he will; which may be argued from the ingrafting of the Gentiles, who were like the olive tree, wild by nature; were cut out from thence, and, contrary to nature, grafted into the good olive tree; wherefore by an argument from the lesser to the greater, much more may it be thought, that the Jews, the natural branches, will, in God's own time, be grafted in their former church state, some of their ancestors were in, Rom 11:24, yea, the apostle argues the certainty of their conversion, and reinstatement into the Gospel church, from the design of Providence in suffering blindness in part to happen to them; which was not intended always to continue, only until all the elect of God are gathered in among the Gentiles; and this mystery of Providence and grace, he thought fit to acquaint the Gentiles with, lest they should be conceited of themselves, as if they only shared the favour of God, and were deserving of it, to the contempt of the Jews, Rom 11:25, Moreover, the apostle affirms that all Israel shall be saved, Rom 11:26, which is consequentially deduced from what he had said, and which he proves by a passage, out of Isa 59:20, and by its being a principal part of the covenant, which God has made with them, which he will not break, but shall be fulfilled; when he shall make them sensible of their sins, and take them away by the application of his pardoning grace, Rom 11:27, and whereas the implacable enmity of the Jews to Christ and his Gospel might be objected to such a gracious procedure of God towards them, the apostle removes the objection, by granting that they were enemies to the Gospel on account of the Gentiles, to whom it was preached; but then there was a chosen people among them, who were beloved of God; which would be made manifest, because of the oath and promise made unto their their fathers, Rom 11:28, wherefore as the purposes, promises, and covenant of God are immutable, so the gifts of his grace, and the calling of his people included in them, are things certain and irrevocable, Rom 11:29, and so the calling of the Jews, and the gifts of his grace designed for them, which is another proof of their calling and conversion; and which is further argued, and made both more probable and certain, by comparing the case of the Jews and Gentiles together; as for the Gentiles, they were formerly infidels and obtained mercy, through the unbelief of the Jews, Rom 11:30, wherefore arguing from the less probable to that which is more so, the Jews, though for the present unbelievers, yet it may be thought, that through the mercy the Gentiles had received, they would some time or other be provoked to seek for, and so obtain the same mercy, Rom 11:31, and the rather this may be given into and received, not only because they both have been in a state of unbelief, but the end and design of God in concluding them in it, were to have mercy on each of them, Rom 11:32, which dispensation of God both to one and to the other by turns, in different ways, was so amazing and unaccountable to the apostle, that he breaks out into admiration at the wisdom and knowledge of God: which were so abundant, that they could not be searched out, conceived of, and expressed, Rom 11:33, the reasons of which lay in his own breast, and are only known to himself no one having known his mind, or been his counsellor, Rom 11:34, nor is he obliged to give an account of his matters, and the reasons of his proceedings, to any of his creatures; he is not indebted to them for anything, nor does he any injustice to any of them, by whatsoever steps he takes in Providence and grace; let that appear, and recompense will be made, Rom 11:35, everything must be resolved into his sovereign will and pleasure, and so this of choosing some, and leaving others, of rejecting the Jews, and receiving the Gentiles, and also that of calling the Jews again; as it is reasonable everything should, since all things are from him, through him, and to him, Rom 11:36, and so all glory is due unto him, and here ends the doctrinal part of this epistle.

College: Romans (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION

I. ROMANS: ITS INFLUENCE AND IMPORTANCE

God's Word is a lamp to our feet and a light for our path (Ps 119:105), and no part of it shines more brilliantly than the book of Romans. The truth of God's Word sets us free (John 8:32), and Romans teaches us the most liberating of all truths. God's Word is sharp and piercing like a sword (Heb 4:12), and no blade penetrates more deeply into our hearts than Romans. Overall the book of Romans may be the most read and most influential book of the Bible, but sometimes it is the most neglected and most misunderstood book. The Restoration Movement has tended to concentrate especially on the book of Acts, which is truly foundational and indispensable. But Romans is to Acts what meat is to milk. We need to mature; we need to graduate from Acts to Romans.

In 1 Cor 15:3-4 Paul sums up the gospel as these three truths: Christ died for our sins, was buried, and was raised up again on the third day. The reality of the historical facts of the Savior's death and resurrection is stressed over and over in the book of Acts. Romans, however, is an exposition of the meaning of these facts. In the language of 1 Cor 15:3, Romans focuses not on "Christ died," but on the next three words: " for our sins ." Acts explains what salvation consists of and how we may receive it. Romans does the same, but carries the explanation to heights and depths that thrill and satisfy the soul, providing it with an experience that is at the same time intellectual, spiritual, and esthetic.

The unparalleled ability of Romans to convict sinners and to motivate Christians is well attested. The comment of Sanday and Headlam (v) has often been noted: "If it is a historical fact that the spiritual revivals of Christendom have been usually associated with closer study of the Bible, this would be true in an eminent degree of the Epistle to the Romans." Leon Morris (1) concurs: "It is commonly agreed that the Epistle to the Romans is one of the greatest Christian writings. Its power has been demonstrated again and again at critical points in the history of the Christian church."

The role of Romans in Augustine's conversion is well known. In his Confessions he tells how a discussion of Christian commitment with two of his friends brought him under strong conviction, filling him with remorse for his sins of sexual immorality and a sense of helplessness to overcome them. Later he and his friend Alypius went into the garden, taking along a copy of Paul's writings. Augustine went off by himself to weep over his sins. While doing so, he reports, "I heard the voice as of a boy or girl, I know not which, coming from a neighbouring house, chanting, and oft repeating, 'Take up and read; take up and read.'" He took this as a sign from God to open the book of Paul's writings and read the first passage that met his eyes. He quickly returned to where Alypius was sitting and the book was lying. When he opened it, the first words he saw were these from Rom 13:13-14: "Not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature." This experience and these words gave him what he needed to turn completely to Christ. He says, "No further would I read, nor did I need; for instantly, as the sentence ended, - by a light, as it were, of security infused into my heart, - all the gloom of doubt vanished away."

Godet (1) declares that "the Reformation was undoubtedly the work of the Epistle to the Romans." Morris (1) agrees: "The Reformation may be regarded as the unleashing of new spiritual life as a result of a renewed understanding of the teaching of Romans."

Insofar as the Reformation depends on the work of Martin Luther, this is surely the case. Luther confesses how in 1519 he had an ardent desire to understand the epistle to the Romans. His problem was the way he had been taught to understand the expression "the righteousness of God" in Rom 1:17. To him it meant the divine justice and wrath by which God punishes sin, which did not sound very much like gospel . "Nevertheless," he says, "I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted." Finally, by the mercy of God, he began to understand this expression in a totally different way, i.e., as the righteousness of Christ that God bestows upon the sinner and on the basis of which the sinner is justified. The effect on Luther was electrifying: "I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates." This new understanding of this one verse - Rom 1:17 - changed everything; it became in a real sense the doorway to the Reformation. "Thus that place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise," says Luther ("Latin Writings," 336-337).

Luther's regard for Romans is clearly seen in this well-known paragraph from his famous preface to this epistle:

This epistle is really the chief part of the New Testament, and is truly the purest gospel. It is worthy not only that every Christian should know it word for word, by heart, but also that he should occupy himself with it every day, as the daily bread of the soul. We can never read it or ponder over it too much; for the more we deal with it, the more precious it becomes and the better it tastes ("Preface," 365).

These words, first published in 1522, were echoed almost verbatim by the English reformer William Tyndale, in his prologue to his 1534 English translation of the New Testament. He says, "This epistle is the principal and most excellent part of the New Testament, and most pure . . . gospel, and also a light and a way in unto the whole Scripture." He also recommends learning it by heart and studying it daily, because "so great treasure of spiritual things lieth hid therein."

The Swiss reformer John Calvin echoes some of Tyndale's thoughts in his own commentary on Romans (xxix): "When any one gains a knowledge of this Epistle, he has an entrance opened to him to all the most hidden treasures of Scripture."

Working indirectly through Luther's preface, the book of Romans had an effect on John Wesley similar to the way it influenced Augustine and Luther. In his journal Wesley recounts his own search for personal victory over sin and assurance of salvation based on trust in the blood of Christ alone. He tells what happened to him on May 24, 1738:

In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther's preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation: And an assurace was given me, that he had taken away my sins, even mine , and saved me from the law of sin and death ( Works , I:103).

Modern scholars and expositors seem unable to praise the letter to the Romans highly enough. Philip Schaff has said, "The Epistle to the Romans is the Epistle of the Epistles, as the Gospel of John is the Gospel of the Gospels" ("Preface," v). "This is in every sense the greatest of the Epistles of Paul, if not the greatest book in the New Testament," declares Thiessen ( Introduction , 219). Newell (375) says Romans is "probably the greatest book in the Bible." "If the apostle Paul had written nothing else, he would still be recognized as one of the outstanding Christian thinkers of all time on the basis of this letter alone," say Newman and Nida (1). This familiar praise comes from Godet (x):

The pious Sailer used to say, "O Christianity, had thy one work been to produce a St. Paul, that alone would have rendered thee dear to the coldest reason." May we not be permitted to add: And thou, O St. Paul, had thy one work been to compose an Epistle to the Romans, that alone would have rendered thee dear to every sound reason.

Godet adds, "The Epistle to the Romans is the cathedral of the Christian faith" (1).

Others add even higher praise. Batey (7) says, "Paul's epistle to the Romans stands among the most important pieces of literature in the intellectual history of Western man." "It is safe to say that Romans is probably the most powerful human document ever written," declares Stedman. Some might think this honor should go to the U.S. Constitution or to the Declaration of Independence. "But even they cannot hold a candle to the impact the Epistle to the Romans has had upon human history" (I:1-2). Boice avows: "Christianity has been the most powerful, transforming force in human history - and the book of Romans is the most basic, most comprehensive statement of true Christianity" (I:13).

Commentators often quote this statement from Coleridge: "I think St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans the most profound work in existence" ( Table Talk , 245). Many will certainly agree, but to Coleridge such profundity was not altogether a virtue. For him it meant that Romans "undoubtedly . . . is, and must be, very obscure to ordinary readers" (ibid., 245-246). Indeed, some think that the Apostle Peter may have been referring to Romans in 2 Pet 3:16. But at the same time, perhaps paradoxically, Newell is correct when he says (vii), "There is no more simple book in the Bible than Romans, when one comes to know the book, its contents, its message, its power."

Scholars praise Romans as the clearest statement of the gospel of salvation. As noted above, Luther called it "the purest gospel." Nygren agrees (3): "What the gospel is, what the content of the Christian faith is, one learns to know in the Epistle to the Romans as in no other place in the New Testament." Cranfield says Romans is "the most systematic and complete exposition of the gospel that the NT contains" (I:31). The Restoration scholar Moses Lard (xx) concurs: "It is the whole gospel compressed into the short space of a single letter - a generalization of Christianity up to the hight [sic] of the marvelous, and a detail down to exhaustion." In Stott's words (19), Romans is "the fullest, plainest and grandest statement of the gospel in the New Testament."

Scholars also praise Romans for its unparalleled presentation of the essence of Christian doctrine . In his preface to Romans (380) Luther says that in Romans we "find most abundantly the things that a Christian ought to know, namely, what is law, gospel, sin, punishment, grace, faith, righteousness, Christ, God, good works, love, hope, and the cross; and also how we are to conduct ourselves toward everyone." Thus it seems that Paul "wanted in this one epistle to sum up briefly the whole Christian and evangelical doctrine." Schaff declares it to be "the heart of the doctrinal portion of the New Testament. It presents in systematic order the fundamental truths of Christianity in their primitive purity, inexhaustible depth, all-conquering force, and never-failing comfort. It is the bulwark of the evangelical doctrines of sin and grace" ("Preface," v).

Modern writers agree. "The truth laid down in Romans forms the Gibraltar basis of doctrine, teaching, and confession in the true evangelical church," says Lenski (8). Moo says the Puritan writer Thomas Draxe described Romans as "the quintessence and perfection of saving doctrine." Moo agrees: "When we think of Romans, we think of doctrine" (I:1). Lard (xx) calls Romans Paul's "great doctrinal chart for the future." Newman and Nida (1) declare that "above all else, the appeal of Romans is its theology ."

Concerning its doctrinal content, MacArthur lists 49 significant questions about God and man that are answered by Romans, e.g., How can a person who has never heard the gospel be held spiritually responsible? How can a sinner be forgiven and justified by God? How are God's grace and God's law related? Why is there suffering? MacArthur points out that these key words are used repeatedly in the epistle: God (154 times), law (77), Christ (66), sin (45), Lord (44), and faith (40).

Which of these assessments is correct? Is Romans the crowning presentation of the Christian gospel ? Or is it the grandest statement of Christian doctrine ? Actually, it is both. Romans is the theology of the New Testament; it is also the definitive statement of the gospel. In this epistle doctrine and gospel merge, and the result is a spiritual feast for Christians.

Boice (I:10) advises that "it is time to rediscover Romans." Actually, it is always time to "rediscover" Romans, and down through the history of Christianity individuals have been doing just this. The results have been earth-shaking. It can and does happen over and over, in the lives of individuals, in congregations, in the Church at large. F.F. Bruce (60) has well said, "There is no telling what may happen when people begin to study the Epistle to the Romans."

II. THE AUTHOR OF ROMANS

The epistle to the Romans was written by the Apostle Paul (1:1). In the past a few critics challenged this, but without any real basis in fact. Today, as Cranfield says, "no responsible criticism disputes its Pauline origin" (I:2). Romans was quoted by the earliest Christian writers (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin), and was attributed to Paul by name by Marcion in the mid-second century. Since the time of Irenaeus (late second century) writers have explicitly and regularly viewed it as Pauline.

Though composed and dictated by Paul, the letter was actually written down by a Christian scribe named Tertius, who inserted his own greeting in 16:22.

A. PAUL'S JEWISH BACKGROUND

It is not necessary to go into the details of Paul's life, except for a few facts that are important in view of the content of the epistle, which relates especially to the distinction between law and grace. One relevant fact is Paul's Jewish background, which he proudly avowed: "I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin," a "Hebrew of Hebrews" (11:1; Phil 3:5; 2 Cor 11:22). Though born in Tarsus, he was reared in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3), the capital of Judaism.

Paul's education included strict and thorough religious training in the contents of the Old Testament - especially the Law (Torah) - at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Gamaliel was one of the most famous and most revered of all rabbis. His knowledge of the Law was so great that he was practically identified with it, being given the title "the Beauty of the Law." A saying recorded in the Talmud declares, "Since Rabban Gamaliel died the glory of the Law has ceased." "Under Gamaliel," says Paul, "I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers" (Acts 22:3). "Thoroughly" translates kataÉ ajkrivbeian ( kata akribeian ), "according to exactness, strictness, precision."

Paul's zeal for God and commitment to his Law was total (Acts 22:3; Gal 1:14). He was a Pharisee (Acts 23:6; Phil 3:5), which he properly identified as "the strictest sect of our religion" (Acts 26:5). The glory of the Pharisees was the Law; they were devoted to akribeia in its interpretation and observance (Dunn, I:xl). Thus Paul not only knew the Law but also devoted himself to scrupulous obedience to its commandments (Acts 26:4-5; Phil 3:6).

This probably means that he was a legalist in the proper sense of that word, i.e., one who sought acceptance by God on the basis of his obedience to the Law. This is implied in the way he contrasted his pre-Christian life (Phil 3:6) and his Christian life (Phil 3:9). This is also the way Pharisees are generally pictured in the Gospels.

Paul's zeal for the Law was expressed perhaps most vehemently in his fanatical persecution of the earliest Christians, all converted Jews whom he no doubt regarded as traitors to God and his Law (Phil 3:6). See Acts 7:58; 8:3; 9:1-2; 22:4-5; 26:9-11; Gal 1:13; 1 Tim 1:13.

B. PAUL'S CONVERSION TO CHRISTIANITY

The second relevant fact about the Apostle Paul is his conversion. The details need not be recounted here. What is important is that the one who converted him to Christianity was no human preacher, but was Jesus himself (Gal 1:15-16). Also, the gospel he preached was not taught to him by a human teacher; he received it by direct revelation from Jesus (Gal 1:11-12). The result was that Paul's conversion, his change, his turnaround, was complete. Whereas before he was totally committed to the Mosaic Law as a way of life and salvation, once converted he was just as totally committed to the gospel of grace.

As a Christian Paul set himself in complete opposition to everything he had stood for as a Pharisee. He now understood the way of law to be futile (10:3). He saw that his former legalistic approach to salvation was, as Murray says, "the antithesis of grace and of justification by faith" (I:xiii). Thus when Paul presents the classic contrast between law and grace in Romans, he speaks as one who knew both sides of the issue from personal experience and from the best teachers available. As Murray says, he is describing "the contrast between the two periods in his own life history, periods divided by the experience of the Damascus road" (I:xiv).

It is no surprise that Paul's preaching of the gospel and his condemnation of law-righteousness turned the Jews completely against him, even to the point that they tried to kill him (Acts 9:29; 13:45; 14:2, 19; 17:5-8; 18:12; 2 Cor 11:24-26). His opponents included "false brothers" (2 Cor 11:26), the Judaizers, or Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah but still clung to the Law of Moses.

In spite of all of this upheaval, Paul did not turn against the Jews as such. He still regarded them as his beloved brothers according to the flesh (9:1-3; 10:1), and as blessed by God in an incomparable way (3:1-2; 9:4-5). In fact, a major aspect of the teaching in Romans is an explanation and a defense of God's purpose for his Old Covenant people, the Jews (see especially chs. 9-11).

C. PAUL'S COMMISSION AS

THE APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

The last detail about Paul's life that is relevant here is his call and commission to be the Apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 26:17). His appointment as an apostle (1:1) invested him with the full authority of Jesus Christ and with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so that his teachings are truly the Word of God (1 Cor 2:6-13; 1 Thess 2:13). When we read the book of Romans, we must understand it to be nothing less than this.

Also, Paul's appointment as the apostle to the Gentiles (1:5) completely governed his thoughts and deeds from that point on. As a Jew and a Pharisee, he had no doubt shared the typical Hebrew aversion to anything Gentile; and he had no doubt gloried in the Jews' exclusive position as God's chosen people. Thus when God revealed to him the mystery of the Gentiles - that it had been his plan all along to include Gentiles in the people of the Messiah (Eph 3:1-10), Paul was overwhelmed with awe and joy. He unhesitatingly opened his heart to the very people he had once despised. This was another complete turnaround in his life, and he devoted himself totally to his new mission.

Paul's role as apostle to the Gentiles had a direct bearing on his relationship with the Roman church and his letter to them. Paul tells us that he had often desired to visit Rome, in order to preach the gospel and have some converts there, "just as I have had among the other Gentiles" (1:13). But since there was already a church in Rome, God's Spirit directed him into other Gentile areas in Asia Minor and the Greek peninsula first (15:17-22). But now he has covered this territory with three lengthy tours of missionary service (15:19). Thus he is ready to launch out into a totally new area, namely, Spain; and his journey there will take him through Rome, as he announces in this epistle (15:23-24).

Throughout the epistle to the Romans, Paul writes with the full conciousness of his mission to the Gentiles and of the Gentiles in his audience. One point that he clarifies in the letter is the relation of the Gentiles to the Jews with respect to salvation.

III. TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING

Immediately after his baptism Paul began to preach Christ in Damascus (Acts 9:19-20), but soon went away into Arabia (Gal 1:17), which may have been the time he received his revelation from Jesus Christ (Gal 1:12). He went from there back to Damascus, then to Jerusalem (Gal 1:17-18) and elsewhere, and ultimately to Antioch (Acts 11:25-26).

From Antioch Paul launched his first missionary trip among the Gentiles (Acts 13:1-3), which was followed by two more. While in Ephesus on his third journey, "Paul decided to go to Jerusalem, passing through Macedonia and Achaia. 'After I have been there,' he said, 'I must visit Rome also'" (Acts 19:21). He shortly departed for Achaia (Greece) and arrived in Corinth, where he stayed for three months (Acts 20:1-3). This was approximately twenty years after his conversion, and ten years after the beginning of his first journey.

Corinth was the farthest point of his third trip, whence he retraced his steps back toward Ephesus. He stopped at Miletus instead, and traveled from there on to Jerusalem, with the goal of arriving by Pentecost (Acts 20:16-17). One main reason for the trip to Jerusalem was to deliver the money he had collected from the (mostly Gentile) churches in Galatia, Macedonia, and Greece, to help the poor (mostly Jewish) saints in Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:1-4; Rom 15:25-26). Though "compelled by the Spirit" to go to Jerusalem, he was apprehensive about what might happen to him there (Acts 20:22-23).

It was in the midst of this final journey, during the three months Paul spent at Corinth, that he most likely wrote the letter to the Romans. He was apparently staying at the house of Gaius (16:23), one of his converts at Corinth (1 Cor 1:14). The letter was carried to Rome by Phoebe, a Christian from the church in nearby Cenchrea (16:1).

The exact date of the writing of Romans is calculated in relation to the overall chronology of Paul's life and work. There is no unanimity on this chronology, though the differences of opinion are minor. Everyone agrees that the Apostle's stay in Corinth must have been in late winter and/or early spring, since he planned to set out from there and arrive in Jerusalem by Pentecost. Most agree also that this would have been in the middle or late 50s. Thus Romans was probably written early in A.D. 56, 57, or 58.

IV. RECIPIENTS OF ROMANS:

THE CHURCH IN ROME

Rome was the largest and most important city in the Roman Empire in Paul's day. Its population was probably over one million. Of this number, it is estimated that forty to fifty thousand were Jews, with as many as fifteen identifiable synagogues (Dunn, I:xlvi; Edwards, 9).

How the church in Rome originated is not known. There is no real evidence that Peter founded it, contrary to a common tradition. Some say that Rom 15:20 shows this could not have been the case. Here Paul says that he does not intend to "be building on someone else's foundation." The fact that he did plan to visit Rome and work there implies that no apostle had been there yet (MacArthur, I:xviii; Moo, I:4).

One very common speculation is that the Roman church was probably started by Jews and proselytes from Rome who were in the audience that heard Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:10), and who were among the converts baptized that day. Upon returning to Rome, they would have established the church there. If so, and this seems very likely, then the first Christians in Rome were converts from Judaism.

Another likely speculation is that Christians from other churches, perhaps some of Paul's own converts from his earlier work in Tarsus and Antioch and Asia Minor, were among those who started the Roman church and helped it to grow. Perhaps some of Paul's acquaintances named in Romans 16 were among this group. Such a scenario is highly probable, given the importance of Rome and the constant travel to and from that city.

Thus the church in Rome would have begun not as the result of some formal missionary effort, but by residents converted while traveling (e.g., Acts 2:10) and by Christians moving there from other places. Their own evangelistic efforts would certainly have focused on the synagogues of Rome, following the pattern of evangelism reflected in the book of Acts. This would have resulted in converts not only from Judaism but also from among Gentile "God-fearers" who were commonly attached to the synagogues (Dunn, I:xlvii-xlviii).

The epistle to the Romans is addressed "to all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints" (1:7). The main question about these saints is the relative number of Jews and Gentiles among them. In answering this question, scholars usually begin with one solid historical fact, and then draw conclusions based on inferences and a bit of speculation. This has led to the following scenario, for which there is considerable consensus among commentators today.

The one fact is that the Roman emperor Claudius issued a decree that expelled all Jews from Rome. This is recorded in Acts 18:2, and is also mentioned by the Roman historian Suetonius. The exact date of the decree is somewhat unclear, but the best calculation is A.D. 49. The reason for the decree is stated thus by Suetonius: "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, (Emperor Claudius) expelled them from the city" (cited in Fiensy, Introduction , 224). Though we cannot be certain about this, most scholars agree that "Chrestus" is just a mistaken spelling of "Christus," and that the decree had to do with Jesus Christ.

In what way would Christ be instigating disturbances among the Jews in Rome? It is inferred that this refers to conflicts among the Jews stemming from Christian evangelism in the various synagogues. Because there was a wide diversity among the Jews and synagogues in Rome, it is concluded that some were more receptive to Christianity than others, and that this must have led to disputes among them. The resulting unrest was apparently unpleasant enough for Claudius to order all Jews to leave the city. It is also assumed that his decree did not make a distinction between unbelieving and believing Jews; thus even the Jewish Christians had to leave, e.g., Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2). After the decree the Roman church thus would be composed almost entirely of Gentiles. (See Donfried, "Presuppositions," 104-105.)

When Claudius died around A.D. 54, the decree was no longer enforced, and Jews and Jewish Christians were free to return to Rome. Some think, however, that they were still forbidden to assemble publicly (Wiefel, "Community," 92-94). The results for the church would have been twofold. First, the problem with public assembly may have forced the Christians to set up a number of "house churches," a possibility that seems to be confirmed in Rom 16:5, 14, 15. Second, the returning Jewish Christians would find the Roman church dominated by the Gentile Christians, if not in number then certainly in power and influence (Wiefel, "Community," 94-96).

Thus the saints in Rome, to whom the letter is addressed, were almost certainly a mixture of Jewish and Gentile Christians, though there is no way to tell which group had the larger number. If the circumstances outlined in the above scenario are correct, however, it is safe to assume that there was tension if not conflict among the two groups. Wiefel refers to "quarrels about status" ("Community," 96). Bruce says, "It is implied in Romans 11:13-24 that the Gentile Christians tended to look down on their Jewish brethren as poor relations" ("Debate," 180). Dunn speaks of "at least some friction between Gentile and Jew" within the house churches, with the Jews being in a minority and feeling themselves vulnerable (I:liii).

What is obvious is that in the epistle Paul addresses both groups, with some passages being specifically directed toward the Jewish Christians and some toward the Gentile Christians (see Moo, I:10-11; Murray, I:xviii-xix). Some say the letter as a whole is directed mainly to the Jewish saints; others say it was mainly intended for the Gentiles.

Hendriksen is surely right, though, when he says that regarding the main point of Romans this whole question is really irrelevant, since it applies equally to both groups (I:23). All are sinners (3:9, 23), no one will be saved by law (3:19-20), and all are equal recipients of the grace that is in Christ Jesus (3:24; 4:11-12). Hendriksen stresses Rom 10:12-13, "For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'"

V. THE OCCASION OF THE WRITING

What were the circumstances that prompted Paul to write his epistle to the Romans? We have already noted that he wrote the letter during his three-month stay in Corinth on his final mission trip. What sorts of things were going through his mind that led him to write it at that particular time?

We are fortunate that Paul reveals his mind to us in certain statements of his desires and plans in chapters 1 and 15. These statements show us what occasioned the writing of Romans.

One main consideration was Paul's immediate travel plans, as they related to his all-determining calling as apostle to the Gentiles (15:15-24). He refers to his "priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God" (15:16). For twenty years he had been preaching in the eastern and northeastern sections of the Mediterranean area, and had covered it well. "So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum," he says, "I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ"; so now "there is no more place for me to work in these regions" (15:19, 23). Thus he decided to change his focus to the northwestern section, Spain in particular (15:24, 28). In his mind he was already planning his trip to Spain.

But first he had to go to Jerusalem (15:25-31). His purpose for doing this was to deliver the funds he had been collecting from the Gentile churches "for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem" (15:26). He wanted to do this personally, to make sure that the funds were properly received (15:28). To this end he asked the Roman Christians to offer two specific prayers for him (15:30-31).

First, he knew that he still had many enemies in Jerusalem among the Jews especially. He knew that some of these enemies had already tried to kill him. Thus he really was not sure what dangers he might be facing in Jerusalem. Nevertheless he was determined to go (Acts 20:22-23), so he requested that the Roman Christians "pray that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea" (15:31). He was not afraid of losing his life; he just did not want his newly-formed missionary plans to be aborted (Acts 20:24; Rom 15:32).

Second, Paul was not really sure how the offering from the Gentile churches would be received by the Jewish saints in Jerusalem. There were still a lot of suspicions and misunderstandings between the two groups, mostly about the relation between the Old and New Covenants and the role of the Mosaic Law in the life of the Christian. Thus the money he was bringing to the poor in Jerusalem was not just an act of charity, but was also a symbol of unity between the two main factions in the church. Thus Paul was anxious that it might be received in the proper spirit, so he asked the Romans to pray "that my service in Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints there" (15:31).

Thus Paul was ultimately bound for Spain, after an initial trip to Jerusalem. But there was a third item in his itinerary: an intermediate stop in Rome itself (Acts 19:21; 23:11), a place he had never been. So he announced to the Christians in Rome that on his way to Spain he would stop and visit them (15:23, 24, 28). This was something he had longed to do for many years and had even made plans to do (1:11, 13; 15:23), but had "often been hindered from coming to you" (15:22; cf. 1:13).

Paul had many reasons for wanting to visit the church in Rome. For one thing, he wanted to enlist their help for his mission to Spain. "I hope to visit you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there," he says (15:24). But he had other reasons that predated his plans for Spain. For example, he seems simply to have desired to visit with the Christians there: to have fellowship with them, to enjoy their company, to be spiritually refreshed by them (15:24, 32), and to be encouraged by them (1:12). After all, he knew quite a few of them personally (16:3-15).

Paul's principal longstanding reason for wanting to visit Rome, though, was his desire to preach the gospel there. "I am obligated," he says, "both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome" (1:14-15). By this means or by some accompanying means he would be able to "impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong" (1:11). This would also enable him to "have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles" (1:13).

No wonder that Paul says he was praying "that now at last by God's will the way may be opened for me to come to you" (1:10).

These are the immediate circumstances that prompted Paul to write the epistle to the Romans. But a simple presentation of these facts does not in itself answer the question of exactly why he wrote the letter. What was his purpose for writing? What did he hope to accomplish by writing this particular letter? This is the subject of the next section.

VI. THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

The question of Paul's purpose for writing the epistle to the Romans is very controversial; there is much disagreement about it. Everyone agrees on the facts described above relating to the occasion for the writing. The problem is that these facts have to be assessed in view of the contents of the main body of the letter, 1:18-15:13. The question is not just why he wrote a letter to the Roman church, but why he wrote this specific letter with this particular content. Why does he write "such a lengthy and involved discussion to a largely unknown congregation"? (Dunn, I:lv).

There are two basic approaches to this question. The older and more traditional approach is that the historical circumstances as described in the previous section were not particularly relevant with regard to Paul's decision to write the letter. Neither Paul's own plans nor the state of the Roman church presented him with a pressing need or occasion that required him to write. Thus unlike his other letters, Romans is more or less non-occasional. It is regarded rather as a kind of timeless theological essay on the essence of Christianity. As Sanday and Headlam describe this view, "the main object of the Epistle is doctrinal; it is rather a theological treatise than a letter; its purpose is to instruct the Roman Church in central principles of the faith, and has but little reference to the circumstances of the moment" (xl).

The more recent approaches to the purpose of Romans take the opposite view, that it is "a situational letter rather than a doctrinal treatise" (Jewett, "Argument," 265). Paul was not simply writing an essay detached from his circumstances, but was specifically addressing a particular situation that needed his attention at that time. Thus Romans is just as much an occasional letter as 1 Corinthians or Galatians.

Those who take the latter approach usually go in one of two directions. Some emphasize that Paul wrote the letter to fulfill certain needs of his own, relating to his trip either to Jerusalem or to Spain. Others say that Paul wrote mainly to meet the needs of the Roman church at that particular time.

It is possible, of course, that Paul had more than one purpose for writing Romans, as Cranfield says: "It is surely quite clear that Paul did not have just one single purpose in mind but rather a complex of purposes and hopes" (II:815). Dunn (I:lx) and Moo (I:20) agree.

A. ROMANS IS A DOCTRINAL ESSAY

Now we shall go into a bit more detail concerning the possibilities outlined above. The first view is that Paul was not addressing a specific situation but was writing a timeless doctrinal essay. In its most extreme form this view says that Romans is a complete systematic theology, a compendium of Christian doctrine. Shedd (viii) calls it " an inspired system of theology , . . . a complete statement of religious truth." Romans is so "encyclopædic in its structure" that one "need not go outside of this Epistle, in order to know all religious truth."

More recently Bornkamm has taken a similar view, describing Romans as Paul's "last will and testament" - "a summary of his theology in light of the impending danger in Jerusalem" (Donfried, "Presuppositions," 103). Bornkamm says ("Letter," 27-28), "This great document . . . summarizes and develops the most important themes and thoughts of the Pauline message and theology and . . . elevates his theology above the moment of definite situations and conflicts into the sphere of the eternally and universally valid."

Many writers agree that Romans was not occasioned by some immediate need or crisis but was a kind of doctrinal essay. Nygren says (4), "The characteristic and peculiar thing about Romans, differentiating it from the rest of Paul's epistles, is just the fact that it was not, or was only in slight degree aimed at circumstances within a certain congregation." Lenski (10-12) agrees.

Most who take this non-occasional view, however, say that it is an exaggeration to call Romans a full-blown systematic theology. "If Romans is a compendium of theology," says Morris (8), "there are some curious gaps." (See also Moo, I:1; Hendriksen, I:25; W. Williams, 19-20.) It is a doctrinal essay, to be sure, but one that is more focused and limited in its scope.

Just what is the focus of this doctrinal essay? The most common view is that it has to do with the doctrines of salvation, i.e., that Romans is a summary or synopsis of Paul's gospel . Morris says that Paul probably thought his three-month, pressure-free sojourn in Corinth was a good time to bring together the timeless teachings that had crystallized in his thinking during his twenty years as a preacher. Thus he sets forth "a summary of the gospel and its consequences as he understood them" (pp. 18-19). Cranfield likewise says it is likely that Paul "was conscious of having reached a certain maturity of experience, reflection and understanding, which made the time ripe for him to attempt, with God's help, such an orderly presentation of the gospel" (II:817).

Vincent summarizes this whole approach quite well when he says that Romans "is distinguished among the epistles by its systematic character. Its object is to present a comprehensive statement of the doctrine of salvation through Christ, not a complete system of christian doctrine" ( Word Studies , III:x). As Hendriksen says (I:25), "Romans is not really 'a complete compendium of Christian Doctrine.' If it had been Paul's intention to draw up such a document, he would surely have included far more material." The specific doctrine he deals with is one needed not just in Rome but by all people in all times: " the manner in which sinners are saved ." (See Edwards, 3.)

The idea that Romans is a kind of doctrinal essay focusing on the general doctrine of salvation is correct, in my opinion. However, I do not think it is wise to separate it too sharply from the occasion or circumstances discussed in the last section. I question W. Williams' approach, for example, when he says (19), "The Epistle to the Romans is a discussion of the relation of the Gentile world to God's plan of salvation," and in the next sentence says, "This discussion was incidental to the apostle's circumstances." In my opinion this is a false choice. It is an essay on salvation, but its purpose was definitely related to the circumstances at that time, as we shall see below.

B. ROMANS WAS OCCASIONED

BY PAUL'S IMMEDIATE NEEDS

The second major approach to the purpose of Romans is that it was occasioned by the various circumstances relating to Paul's immediate plans in relation to his mission. In other words, it was designed to meet needs that Paul felt in his own life at the time. As Jervell says, "Its raison d'être does not stem from the situation of the Roman congregation, but is to be found in Paul himself at the time of writing" ("Letter," 54).

The main idea here resembles the modern practice of churches requesting that prospective ministers send a tape recording of one of their sermons. In this case Paul takes the initiative and sets forth in writing a "sermon" or a lengthy presentation of his gospel. He does this because he needs to introduce himself to people who are not familiar with him or with what he preaches. Or, he does this because his enemies are spreading false rumors about what he preaches, and are misrepresenting his gospel especially as to what he says about Jew-Gentile relations. Thus Romans is not just a presentation but also a defense of Paul's gospel.

This is how Moo explains the purpose of Romans. The various circumstances that he faced "forced Paul to write a letter in which he carefully rehearsed his understanding of the gospel, especially as it related to the salvation-historical questions of Jew and Gentile and the continuity of the plan of salvation" (I:20). Bruce agrees that it was "expedient that Paul should communicate to the Roman Christians an outline of the message which he proclaimed. Misrepresentations of his preaching and his apostolic procedure were current and must have found their way to Rome" ("Debate," 182). (See Stuhlmacher, "Purpose," 236.)

Why was it crucial for Paul at this particular time to write such a presentation and defense of his gospel? The answer is that it was necessary in order to facilitate his immediate plans. For one thing, he was on his way to Jerusalem with the offering for the poor saints, and was apprehensive about how this would turn out. Thus some contend that in this letter Paul was rehearsing what he was going to say in Jerusalem in defense of himself and in an effort to seal Jew-Gentile unity. He sent the product to the Roman church in a letter, asking them to pray for him and the upcoming Jerusalem episode (15:30-32). Thus, says Jervell, Romans is Paul's "'collection speech,' or more precisely, the defense which Paul plans to give before the church in Jerusalem." He sends it to Rome "to ask the Roman congregation for solidarity, support, and intercession on his behalf" ("Letter," 56). Dunn calls this Paul's "apologetic purpose" (I:lvi; see I:xlii-xliii).

Though this is a fairly common view today, some object to it or at least doubt that it could be the only purpose for Romans (Moo, I:18). Thus other aspects of Paul's immediate plans must have elicited the letter. One of the most obvious is Paul's plan to visit Rome itself. Though he knew some of the Roman Christians, he had never been in Rome and would not know most of the people there. It must have seemed expedient, then, for him to write a kind of "letter of introduction" to himself, especially in view of the false rumors that were probably afoot.

This is how Morris understands it (16-17). Paul used his three-month interlude in Corinth "to write to the Roman Christians to let them know of his plan to visit them and to set down in order something of what the gospel meant." He wanted to give them "a clear but profound statement of the essential message of Christianity as he proclaimed it. This will show the Romans where he stands." MacArthur's view is similar: "Paul's letter to the church at Rome was, among other things, an introduction to himself as an apostle. He clearly set forth the gospel he preached and taught, so that believers in Rome would have complete confidence in his authority" (I:xix). (See also Stott, 34.)

Those who hold this view usually take it a step further, and say that Paul laid out and defended his gospel to the Romans as a means of enlisting their support for his Spanish mission. In a real sense Rome was just a means to an end, both in Paul's itinerary and in his missionary strategy. He needed them as a kind of "base of operations" for what he hoped to accomplish in Spain (Stott, 33). Thus "if Rome was to be his base, the Romans would need to be assured of his message and theological position" (Morris, 17). This is what Dunn calls Paul's "missionary purpose" for Romans (I:lv). This is a fairly common view. (See Cranfield, II:817-818; Jewett, "Argument," 266, 277.)

C. ROMANS WAS OCCASIONED BY NEEDS AT ROME ITSELF

As we have just seen, those who believe the writing of Romans was motivated by the immediate circumstances sometimes locate those circumstances in Paul's own personal needs. Others who take the occasional approach, however, believe that the situation in Rome itself is what Paul is specifically addressing in this epistle. Though he had not been there, he still would have been acquainted with the state of the Roman church. It was, after all, a famous church (1:8). Besides, Paul's Roman friends, such as Aquila and Priscilla (16:3), would probably have kept him informed especially of any problems that existed there (Sanday and Headlam, xl-xli).

Whatever the nature of those problems or needs, Paul wrote to resolve them. Since all of Paul's other letters were "addressed to the specific situations of the churches or persons involved," says Donfried, we must begin with the assumption that Romans "was written by Paul to deal with a concrete situation in Rome" ("Presuppositions," 103). This is what Dunn calls Paul's "pastoral purpose" (I:lvi-lviii).

1. The Need for Jew-Gentile Unity

What sorts of needs existed at Rome that would call forth from Paul's pen the most magnificent gospel tract ever written? Several possibilities are suggested, but the one most commonly held begins with the assumption that there was considerable tension in the Roman church between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. Thus the purpose of Paul's letter was to resolve this tension.

This view usually grows out of the speculations (discussed above) concerning the development of the Roman church following Claudius' decree expelling the Jews from Rome. With Jewish Christians being forced to leave Rome, the Gentile Christians became the dominant force; and this situation prevailed even after the former returned to Rome. This led to conflict between the two factions. This scenario is supported by the various references to Jews and Gentiles (Greeks) in Romans, by the discussion of the weak (Jews?) and the strong (Gentiles?) in 14:1-15:13, and by several references to unity and division within the church (12:16; 15:5; 16:17-18). Such texts seem to be evidence of a "basic division existing between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians at Rome" (P. Williams, "Purpose," 64).

This view has been argued by Marxsen and more recently by Wiefel, who concludes that Romans "was written to assist the Gentile Christian majority, who are the primary addressees of the letter, to live together with the Jewish Christians in one congregation, thereby putting an end to their quarrels about status" ("Community," 96). Here is Edwards' summary (15-16):

Romans is addressed to the problems which inevitably resulted when Jewish Christians began returning to Rome following the edict of Claudius. We can imagine their trials of readjusting to churches which had become increasingly Gentile in their absence. Would Gentile believers who had established their supremacy during the Jewish absence, and for whom the law was now largely irrelevant, continue to find a place within their fellowship for a Jewish Christian minority which still embraced the law? Paul cannot have been unaware of such concerns.

In Dunn's words, "Paul wrote to counter (potential) divisions within Rome among the Christian house churches, particularly the danger of gentile believers despising less liberated Jewish believers" (I:lvii). (See also Stott, 34-36.)

2. The Need for an Apostolic Foundation

Another possible need being addressed by Paul is related to the circumstances of the origin of the church in Rome. It is inferred from 15:20 that no apostle was involved in its founding, nor as yet had even visited Rome. Thus Paul was concerned that the church did not have a solid apostolic foundation (see Eph 2:20), and he writes this epistle in order to provide that foundation. This is the view of Günter Klein ("Purpose," 39, 42), but Morris (11-12) gives reasons for doubting it.

3. The Need for Paul's Gospel

Another possibility (to which I subscribe) is that Paul did indeed recognize the need of the Roman church to hear his apostolic preaching and teaching, but not necessarily in a foundational sense. This view begins with Paul's sense of duty, based upon his special calling, to preach the gospel to everyone in the Gentile world (1:14), including those in Rome: "That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome" (1:15).

But these people are already Christians. Why would Paul want to "preach the gospel" to believers ? Here is a point that is often missed: the gospel is more than just the initial evangelistic witness given to unbelievers with a view to their conversion. It also includes the deeper meaning and implications of the basic facts of salvation, which are things about which even mature believers can never hear enough. That Paul wanted to preach the gospel to the Christians in Rome means that he wanted to go deeper into the meaning of Christ's saving work "for our sins," unfolding for them the full power of the gospel in the Christian life and at the same time clearing up common misunderstandings that may arise through incomplete knowledge.

Paul's desire, of course, was to do this in person, and he had often planned to travel to Rome for this very reason. Up to this point, however, God's providence had prevented it (1:13; 15:22). Now he is once again planning to go to Rome, after his trip to Jerusalem with the offering. But based on his past experience and the uncertainty about what would happen to him in Jerusalem (Acts 20:22-24), at this point he could not be certain that he would ever reach Rome in person.

This led Paul to the conclusion that if he was ever going to preach the gospel in Rome, perhaps the only way he would be able to do so was in writing . Thus he takes the time, while staying in Corinth just before traveling to Jerusalem, to prepare a well-thought-out essay on the gospel as every Christian needs to hear it; and he sends it on to Rome in advance of his intended trip there. Thus it seems likely, says Campbell, that "the letter is the written equivalent of the oral presentation which Paul would have delivered to the congregation had he himself been present" ("Key," 258).

According to this view, then, Romans is not just a basic presentation of the gospel, written in order to provide the Roman Christians with a missing apostolic foundation. And as Nygren (7) rightly notes, "it is a misunderstanding of Romans to see in it a typical example of Paul's missionary preaching." This is contrary to those who think Paul was just introducing himself to the Roman church, hoping to win their support for his mission to Spain by rehearsing the gospel as he usually preached it. Stuhlmacher rightly notes that how Paul "preached and taught as a missionary cannot be simply inferred from the outline of Romans" ("Purpose," 242).

According to this view, then, the primary purpose for Romans is not related to some need within Paul himself (e.g., his concern for defending himself; his missionary plans); nor is it related to some negative situation in the Roman church (e.g., Jew-Gentile disunity). It is motivated rather by Paul's loving concern for his fellow-Christians at Rome, and his desire to bless their hearts and lives with this written version of the deeper aspects of the gospel of grace. This point is brought out very well by Hendriksen (I:24):

Paul, being an intensely warm and loving person, desires to go to Rome in order to be a blessing to his friends (Rom. 1:10, 11) and to be refreshed by them (15:32). Moreover, it is for this same reason that he, now that it is impossible for him to go to Rome immediately , communicates with the Roman church by means of this letter. He writes to the Romans because he loves them. They are his friends "in Christ," and by means of this letter he imparts his love to them . . . .

It is strange that this deeply personal reason . . . , a reason clearly brought out by the apostle himself, is often overlooked. At times the emphasis is placed entirely on theological motivation or on mission incentive: Paul wants to correct errors of the antinomians and/or wants to make Rome the headquarters for the evangelization of Spain. To be sure, these matters are important, but we should begin with the reason first stated by Paul himself in this very epistle.

D. CONCLUSION

We have surveyed the main reasons why Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans. It should be obvious that some of these reasons may overlap or be combined; so we need not focus narrowly upon just one of them. Jewett, for example, says the immediate reason was to resolve the Jew-Gentile tensions, but this was sought in order to gain a strong and unified backing for the mission to Spain ("Argument," 266). After summarizing the missionary, apologetic, and pastoral purposes, Dunn concludes that "all three of these main emphases and purposes hang together and indeed reinforce each other when taken as a whole" (I:lviii).

In my opinion, though, the dominant reason is the last one discussed above: Paul's desire to preach the gospel to the Romans, and his decision to do so in the form of an epistle. This is the factor that Paul stresses in the introductory section of the letter, where we would expect him to say what is closest to his heart. It seems inappropriate to give priority to ch. 15 on this matter, and to pass over what Paul himself chooses to mention first of all. Just because he tells the Romans about his plans in ch. 15 is no reason to assume that his purpose for writing to Rome is specifically or directly related to these plans.

We may conclude, then, that Romans is indeed an occasional letter, that it was occasioned by the need of the Roman Christians to hear Paul's gospel and by the circumstances that made it expedient for him to send it to them in written form at this particular time. Thus Romans is by design a clear presentation of the deeper implications of the gospel, written not for Paul's sake but for the sake of the church at Rome. The references to Paul's own plans and needs in ch. 15 are secondary.

At the same time, just because of the nature of the situation that caused Paul to write this epistle, the purpose for Romans includes the first view discussed above, namely, that it was intended to be a kind of doctrinal essay focusing on the meaning of salvation through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. As noted above, it is a systematic presentation of the gospel : not necessarily the gospel as proclaimed in an evangelistic situation, but the gospel as unfolded to mature Christians.

When this point is understood, we can see that the epistle to the Romans is intended not just for the saints in Rome in the middle of the first century A.D., but for all Christians in all ages. It is relevant for all since it deals with salvation from sin through God's grace. As Moo rightly says (I:21),

That Paul was dealing in Romans with immediate concerns in the early church we do not doubt. But, especially in Romans, these issues are ultimately the issues of the church - and the world - of all ages: the continuity of God's plan of salvation, the sin and need of human beings, God's provision for our sin problem in Christ, the means to a life of holiness, security in the face of suffering and death.

The circumstances contributing to the writing of this letter were far broader than the immediate situation in Rome and Paul's own immediate travel plans. They included Paul's own pre-Christian life as a Jew who sought acceptance with God on the basis of his own righteousness. They included Paul's twenty years of preaching to sinners of all types, Jews and Gentiles. They included his dealings with new Christians and new churches with all their weaknesses and problems. His experience and knowledge of human nature and human need were personal and comprehensive; thus the gospel of Romans is generic and timeless.

In most of the discussions of the purpose of Romans, a forgotten factor is the role of the Holy Spirit in the inspiration of Scripture. It is Paul himself who tells us that "all Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16). Whatever circumstances led Paul to compose his letter to the Romans, the choice to write and the message he wrote were not his alone. The Holy Spirit worked through Paul to produce this letter (see 2 Pet 1:20-21), and the Holy Spirit knows more than any man what is needed by every sinner and by every Christian seeking peace and power. In the final analysis it is the Spirit of God, and not just the Apostle Paul, who speaks to our hearts in the epistle to the Romans.

VII. THE THEME OF ROMANS

Almost everyone today rejects the idea that Romans is a compendium or summary of Christian theology as such. It is nevertheless generally recognized that the content of the epistle is doctrinal in nature. Its main body is an essay or treatise with a strong doctrinal emphasis and seems to be built around a particular theme. The question now is, exactly what is the theme of Romans? Several answers have been proposed.

A. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH

The Reformation established a way of looking at Romans that still has considerable support among Protestants, namely, that the main theme of the epistle is stated in 1:16-17. It can be summed up in the familiar phrase, "justification by faith," i.e., justification or righteousness before God comes through faith alone. John Calvin (xxix) states succinctly that "the main subject of the whole Epistle" is "justification by faith."

Boers says this is the theme that "currently almost universally controls the interpretation of the letter" ( Justification , 77). This is surely an exaggeration, but the justification view is still very popular. Concerning the principal content of Romans, Nygren says (16), "From the beginning evangelical Christianity has spoken clearly on that point: justification by faith. That answer is correct." Defining "theme" as "central topic" rather than as exclusive topic, Hendriksen agrees that justification by faith, "spread out into 'justification by grace through faith'. . . , is clearly the theme of Romans" (I:29). Edwards (3) says that "the driving concern throughout is salvation - that righteousness comes as a free gift of God and is received by faith alone." Stott (35) says two themes are woven together in the epistle. "The first is the justification of guilty sinners by God's grace alone in Christ alone through faith alone, irrespective of either status or works."

Many scholars today have rejected this traditional approach. Though justification by faith is a main topic in Romans, says Boers (88), it "never becomes thematic." Too much of its subject matter simply does not relate to this subject, he says (78). Moo agrees (I:26-27). (See Stott, 24-31.)

B. THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD

Those who are not satisfied with justification by faith as the theme for Romans sometimes opt for one that is very similar, namely, the righteousness of God (1:17). Beker says this is "the key term for the letter as a whole" ("Faithfulness," 331). Jewett says the thesis of Romans is that the gospel is "the 'power of God' to achieve the triumph of divine righteousness (Rom. 1:16-17)" ("Argument," 266).

Since the righteousness of God is integrally related to justification by faith, the two themes are sometimes confused. This is because one aspect of the theme of divine righteousness is that the righteousness of God is the basis for the personal justification of individual sinners. This is the sense in which Nygren says that the righteousness of God - in the sense of righteousness from God - is "the fundamental concept" and "the very foundation thought" of the epistle (9, 14-15), even though he says the "principal content" of the letter is justification by faith (16).

But most of those today who say that the righteousness of God is the theme of Romans are using the expression in a broader, more comprehensive sense. For them it includes the idea of the divine righteousness as the basis for individual justification, to be sure. For example, Stuhlmacher says the theme of Romans is "the gospel of the divine righteousness in Christ for those who believe from among the Jews and Gentiles" ("Theme," 334, 337). But in Romans, they say, the theme is more inclusive than this. It includes God's righteousness as the basis not only of his dealings with individual believers, but also of his dealings with mankind in general and especially with the Jewish nation in the context of redemptive history.

The question raised by the indiscriminate offer of justification by faith to both Jews and Gentiles is whether God is being fair with the Jews, in view of all the special treatment he has already bestowed upon them and the special promises he has given them. Does the gospel's "no partiality" principle bring God's justice or righteousness into question? "What is at stake is nothing less than the faithfulness of God," says Beker ("Faithfulness," 330); and this is what Paul is dealing with especially in Rom 9-11. Stuhlmacher explains that the "righteousness of God" refers to "the entire redemptive activity of God in Christ from creation to redemption" ("Theme," 341).

Thus according to this view the theme of Romans is not just the salvation of man but the defense of God, with perhaps the greater emphasis falling on the latter. As Fiensy says (227), "Romans is then a theodicy or defense of God in light of the Jewish-Gentile problem in the church." Gaertner says that the kinds of questions Paul raises in Romans (e.g., 3:3; 3:5; 3:29; 9:14) inquire into the nature of God's dealings with sinners, especially with his fairness and faithfulness. Thus Gaertner labels Romans "the gospel of God's fairness" ("Fairness," 1:14).

C. THE EQUALITY OF JEWS AND GENTILES

A third view is that the theme of Romans is the equality of Jews and Gentiles in God's plan of salvation. This is currently a popular view. It stems mainly from the reconstruction of the origin and development of the Roman church as described earlier in this introduction. It goes hand in hand with the idea that the letter is intended to deal with certain specific circumstances existing in Rome, especially the apparent disunity between Jewish and Gentile Christians. It recognizes that "the entire letter to the Romans is . . . permeated with Jew-Gentile issues" (Fiensy, Introduction , 230).

In its most general form this view says that the main emphasis of Romans is the universality of the gospel: there is just one way of salvation for Jews and Gentiles alike. The transcendent gospel goes beyond the Jew-Gentile distinction. God's salvation is given to both groups equally, favoring neither and offering favor to both.

Boers is an example of this view. He says the consistent theme of the main body of Romans is "salvation of Jews and gentiles, and the relationship between them" ( Justification , 80). This theme is stated in Rom 1:16, "that the gospel is the power of God for all who believe, to the Jews first, and to the Hellenes" (80). That salvation is offered to the Jews first is important, but so is the idea that "there is no difference between Jews and gentiles" (81-82).

Dunn says, "It is precisely the tension between 'Jew first but also Greek' (1:16), which . . . provides an integrating motif for the whole letter." Paul's "repeated emphasis on 'all'" underscores the theme of universality. Even the emphasis on the righteousness of God "is primarily an exposition of the same Jew/Gentile theme," i.e., it is Paul's way of arguing that Gentiles are full recipients of the saving grace of God as much as Jews are (I:lxii-lxiii).

As noted earlier, Stott says two themes are woven together in Romans, the first being justification by faith. But since this applies equally to all people, it is the "fundamental basis of Christian unity." This provides the second theme of Romans, that "'there is no difference' now between Jews and Gentiles. . . . Indeed, 'the single most important theme of Romans is the equality of Jews and Gentiles'" (35-36).

Interpreters differ as to the nature of the circumstances that led Paul to emphasize the theme of equality. Some say the Gentile Christians at Rome did not want to fully accept the Jewish Christians, so Romans is basically defending the right of the latter to full status in the Kingdom of God. This is how Boers understands the "Jews first" theme, as noted above. Jewett says, "Nowhere else in Paul's writings are the concerns of Jewish Christians taken up in so systematic and friendly a manner, thus counterbalancing the prejudices of the Gentile majority of Roman Christians" ("Argument," 276). The development of this theme in Rom 9-11 "is relevant to the situation in Rome," says Bruce. Here Paul "warns the Gentiles among his readers not to despise the Jews, . . . because God has not written them off" ("Debate," 183-184).

On the other hand, some say the problem in Rome was the status of the Gentile Christians. W. Williams says (19-20), "The Epistle to the Romans is a discussion of the relation of the Gentile world to God's plan of salvation." More specifically, Romans is Paul's "defense of the rights of the Gentiles against the Jewish assumption that excluded them from the Church, and from the chance of salvation." Thus "the sole intent of the apostle was to maintain the equality of the Gentiles against the assumption of the Jews." Stendahl agrees that Paul's concern is the salvation of the Gentiles. Even the subject of justification serves the purpose of "defending the rights of Gentile converts to be full and genuine heirs to the promises of God to Israel" ( Paul , 2-4).

Either way the subject is approached, the main point is the same: the principal theme of Romans is to demonstrate the equality of Jews and Gentiles with regard to the saving grace of God.

D. SINNERS ARE SAVED BY GRACE, NOT LAW

All of the themes discussed above are certainly present in Romans, and all are important. All of them contribute significantly to the main theme. But I believe none of them as such is the main point Paul is communicating to us in the epistle. Rather than seeing 1:16-17 as the thesis statement for Paul's treatise, I see it more or less as the starting point leading up to the thesis, which is 3:28: "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law."

In the most general sense Paul's thesis relates to the gospel , since his desire to preach the gospel in Rome (1:15) is what led him to compose the epistle as a written version of his gospel. In this sense Moo is correct: "What, then, is the theme of the letter? If we have to choose one - and perhaps it would be better not to - we would choose 'the gospel.'" Romans is simply "Paul's statement of 'his' gospel" (I:28).

But since the gospel is the good news about salvation, also in a general sense the theme of Romans is salvation . As Harrison says (7), "Salvation is the basic theme of Romans (cf. 1:16) - a salvation presented in terms of the righteousness of God, which, when received by faith, issues in life (1:17)." Or as Hendriksen says, the basic doctrine at stake (especially in 1:16-8:39) is " the manner in which sinners are saved" (I:25). And the manner in which sinners are saved, whether Jews or Gentiles, is the same: justification by faith.

But the theme of Romans is more precise than this. Yes, sinners are justified by faith, but this means they are not justified by works of law, which is the only alternative. It is just as important to include the negative statement in the theme as the positive one.

In actuality, then, the basic theme of Romans is the contrast between law and grace as ways of salvation. This contrast is seen especially in 3:28, which (literally translated) says, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law." The contrast is stated succinctly in 6:14, "You are not under law, but under grace." This is the gospel, the good news of salvation. Certainly it is good news to know that God justifies us by faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ. But in a real sense it is also good news to know that we are not justified by law-keeping: a way of salvation which is not only futile but which sinners in their hearts know is futile, and which thus leads only to self-deception or to despair.

Commenting on Romans, Grubbs says, "The Gospel versus the Law is the one theme of which he [Paul] never loses sight in the elaboration of the details of this wonderful production" (9). Though this is a very common way of speaking - "gospel versus law" - it is not altogether accurate. The real contrast is grace versus law, and this message as a whole is the gospel.

Thus Paul's theme is indeed that we are saved by grace, not by law. Law is not a viable option as a means of salvation; the only way for sinners to be counted righteous before God is by grace. Yes, we are justified by faith, but not by works of law. Yes, the righteousness of God figures prominently in our justification, but in contrast to the righteousness of man. Yes, Romans does emphasize full equality regarding this way of salvation; Jews and Gentiles are saved the same way. Both are saved by grace and justified by faith as provided by the righteousness of God, but in contrast with every false way.

This contrast between law and grace as competing ways of salvation is not a matter of OT versus NT nor Old Covenant versus New Covenant, as if law were the way to be saved prior to Christ and grace is the way to be saved now that Christ has come. Also, the contrast between law and grace - THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT - is not simply the Law of Moses versus the grace of Jesus Christ. No sinner has ever been saved nor can be saved by the law that applies to him, whether it be the Law of Moses for Jews under the Old Covenant, or some other comparable set of God's commandments for anyone else in any other time. Every sinner who has been saved since the time of Adam has been saved by grace and not by law, and this will always be the case.

The problem that Paul addresses in the book of Romans is not one that confronts Jews only, nor Gentiles only. It is not a problem faced only by those who are under the Mosaic Law, nor only by those to whom the Mosaic Law does not apply. The problem being addressed is this: As a sinner, how can I be saved? It is a problem faced by Jews and Gentiles alike, and the solution is the same for both.

Perhaps even more significantly, the problem addressed in Romans is not one confronted only by unbelieving sinners. It is a problem that believers often wrestle with as well (e.g., the Judaizers). When we state the problem thus - "As a sinner, how can I be saved?" - we can break it down into two separate problems. First is the unbeliever's problem: "How can I become saved?" The answer is: by grace through faith, not by works of law. Second is the believer's continuing problem: "How can I stay saved?" And the answer is: by grace through faith, not by works of law.

This is why the epistle to the Romans has always been and always will be in a class by itself with regard to its impact on individuals and upon the church as a whole. Its basic theme is one that is always needed and always applicable, and one that will result in the highest praise to God the Redeemer once it is understood.

PREFACE TO VOLUME 2

The introductory issues regarding the book of Romans have been discussed in Vol. 1 of this work (pp. 21-55). Also, the outline for chs. 1-8 of Romans is included in that volume (pp. 55-58).

References to passages in the book of Romans itself are usually limited to chapter and verse data only. For my policy regarding quotations from other sources, see the note at the beginning of the bibliography.

I wish to express my thanks to my wife, Barbara, for her patience in accepting my writing schedule while this work has been in production. My thanks go also to College Press for inaugurating this project, and especially to College Press editor John Hunter for adjusting to a writer who suffers from incurable prolixity. Another special word of thanks is due to my employers at the Cincinnati Bible College and Seminary who encourage my writing in many ways, especially through their regular sabbatical policy.

Above all, thanks be to God for his saving grace, for his Holy Word, and especially for the letter to the Romans with its incomparable beauty and power.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following bibliography includes commentaries, books, and articles cited in the text and footnotes of this work. Citations include a minimum of information; the reader must use this list for full titles and bibliographical data.

When commentaries are cited, only the author's name and page number are given. When other sources are cited, usually just the author's name and an abbreviated title (in bold print below) are given.

I. COMMENTARIES

Barclay, William. The Letter to the Romans , 2 ed. The Daily Study Bible. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1957.

Barrett, C.K. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . Harper's New Testament Commentaries. New York: Harper & Row, 1957; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987.

Bartlett, C. Norman. Right in Romans: Studies in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans . Chicago: Moody Press, 1953.

Batey, Richard A. The Letter of Paul to the Romans . Austin: R.B. Sweet, 1969.

Black, Matthew. Romans , 2 ed. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

Boice, James Montgomery. Romans , 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991ff.

Brokke, Harold J. Saved by His Life . Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1964.

Bruce, F.F. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans . Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans . Tr. by John Owen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947 reprint.

Cranfield, C.E.B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . 2 vols. The International Critical Commentary, new series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975 (1990 corrected printing).

DeWelt, Don. Romans Realized . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1959.

Dodd, C.H. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans . New York: Harper & Brothers, 1932.

Dunn, James D.G. Romans. 2 vols. Volume 38 in Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, 1988.

Edwards, James R. Romans . New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992.

Erdman, Charles R. The Epistle to the Romans: An Exposition . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1925.

Godet, Frederic L. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . Tr. by A. Cusin. Ed. by Talbot W. Chambers. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956 reprint of 1883 ed.

Greathouse, William M. Romans . Vol. 6 of Beacon Bible Expositions. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 1975.

Grubbs, Isaiah Boone. An Exegetical and Analytical Commentary on Paul's Epistle to the Romans . Ed. by George A. Kingman. 6th ed. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, n.d.

Harrison, Everett F. "Romans." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary . Volume 10. Ed. by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976. Pp. 1-171.

Hendriksen, William. Exposition of Paul's Epistle to the Romans . 2 vols. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980-1981.

Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans . Tr. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

Lard, Moses E. Commentary on Paul's Letter to Romans . Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, n.d.

Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans . Columbus, OH: Wartburg Press, 1945.

Lipscomb, David. Romans . Vol. I in A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles. 2nd ed. Ed. by J. W. Shepherd. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1965.

Lloyd-Jones, D.M. Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 3.20-4.25-Atonement and Justification . London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1970.

. Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 6-The New Man . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973.

. Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 7.1-8.4-The Law: Its Functions and Limits . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973.

Luther, Martin. Luther: Lectures on Romans . Ed. & tr. by Wilhelm Pauck. The Library of Christian Classics. Vol. XV. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961.

MacArthur, John, Jr. Romans . 2 vols. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1991, 1994.

McGarvey, J.W., and Philip Y. Pendleton. Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans . Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, n.d.

McClain, Alva J. Romans: The Gospel of God's Grace . Ed. by Herman A. Hoyt. Chicago: Moody Press, 1973.

Mitchell, John G., with Dick Bohrer. Right with God: A Devotional Study of the Epistle to the Romans . Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1990.

Moo, Douglas. Romans . 2 vols. The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1991.

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Moser, K.C. The Gist of Romans , revised ed. Delight, AR: Gospel Light Publishing Company, 1958.

Moule, H.C.G. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans . The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: The University Press, 1918.

Mounce, Robert H. Romans . Vol. 27 in The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995.

Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans . 2 vols. New International Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965.

Newell, William R. Lessons on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans . No publisher given, 1925.

Newman, Barclay M., and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator's Handbook on Paul's Letter to the Romans . London: United Bible Societies, 1973.

Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans . Tr. by Carl C. Rasmussen. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1949.

Reese, Gareth L. New Testament Epistles: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Paul's Epistle to the Romans . Moberly, MO: Scripture Exposition Press, 1987.

Robertson, A.T. The Epistles of Paul . Vol. IV in Word Pictures in the New Testament. Nashville: Broadman, 1931.

Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . 2nd ed. The International Critical Commentary, old series. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, n.d.

Schlatter, Adolf. Romans: The Righteousness of God . Tr. by Siegfried Schatzmann. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995.

Shedd, William G.T. A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967 reprint of 1879 edition.

Shields, Bruce. Romans . Standard Bible Studies. Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1988.

Smith, Sherwood. Thirteen Lessons on Romans . Vol. 1 (1979); and Thirteen Lessons on Romans . Vol. 2 (1981). Joplin, MO: College Press.

Stedman, Ray C. From Guilt to Glory, Volume I: Romans 1-8 . Waco: Word Books, 1978.

Stott, John. Romans: God's Good News for the World . Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994.

Williams, William G. An Exposition of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans . Cincinnati: Jennings and Pye, 1902.

Wuest, Kenneth S. Romans in the Greek New Testament for the English Reader . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955.

II. MISCELLANEOUS BOOKS AND ARTICLES

Arndt, William F., and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

Augustine, The Confessions of St. Augustine . Vol. XIV in The Works of Aurelius Augustine. Ed. by Marcus Dods. Tr. by J.G. Pilkington. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1876.

Balz, Horst. "ajpokaradokiva." Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament . Ed. by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. I:132-133.

Bartchy, S. Scott. MALLON CHRESAI: First Century Slavery and the Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:21 . Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, #11. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1973.

Beker, J.C. "The Faithfulness of God and the Priority of Israel in Paul's Letter to the Romans." RomDeb , 327-332.

Boers, Hendrikus. The Justification of the Gentiles: Paul's Letters to the Galatians and Romans . Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Bornkamm, Günther. "The Letter to the Romans as Paul's Last Will and Testament." RomDeb , 16-28.

Boswell, John. Christianity , Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.

Bruce, F.F. "The Romans Debate -Continued." RomDeb , 177-194.

Campbell, William S. "Romans III as a Key to the Structure and Thought of the Letter." RomDeb , 251-264.

Carson, D.A. Exegetical Fallacies . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. The Table Talk and Omniana of Samuel Taylor Coleridge . London: Oxford University Press, 1917.

Cooper, John W. Body , Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989.

Corson, John. " Faith Alone Involves Obedience, Too!" Christian Standard . (10/2/77), pp. 5-6.

Cottrell, Jack. Baptism : A Biblical Study . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1989.

. "Baptism According to the Reformed Tradition ." In Baptism and the Remission of Sins . Ed. by David W. Fletcher. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1990. Pp. 39-81.

. "The Biblical Consensus : Historical Backgrounds to Reformed Theology." In Baptism and the Remission of Sins . Ed. by David W. Fletcher. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1990. Pp. 17-38.

. " Covenant and Baptism in the Theology of Huldreich Zwingli." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Theological Seminary, 1971.

. " Faith , History, and the Resurrection Body of Jesus," The Seminary Review (Dec. 1982): 28:143-160.

. Faith's Fundamentals : Seven Essentials of Christian Belief . Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1995.

. Gender Roles and the Bible: Creation, the Fall, and Redemption . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1994.

. His Truth . 2nd ed. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1989.

. Thirteen Lessons on Grace . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1988.

. What the Bible Says about God the Creator . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1984.

. What the Bible Says about God the Redeemer . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1987.

. What the Bible Says about God the Ruler . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1984.

Delling, G. "lambavnw, etc." TDNT, IV:5-15.

DeYoung, James B. "The Meaning of 'Nature' in Romans 1." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society , 31 (December 1988): 429-441.

Donfried, Karl P. "False Presuppositions in the Study of Romans." RomDeb , 102-125.

, ed. The Romans Debate . Revised & expanded edition. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.

. "A Short Note on Romans 16." RomDeb , 44-52.

Erickson, Millard J. The Evangelical Mind and Heart . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.

Fiensy, David A. New Testament Introduction . The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1994.

Foerster, Werner. "swvzw, etc." TDNT, VII:965-1024.

Friedrich, Gerhard. "eujaggelivzomai, etc." TDNT, II:707-737.

Fuller, Daniel P. The Unity of the Bible: Unfolding God's Plan for Humanity . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Gaertner, Dennis. "Romans: Gospel of God's Fairness ." Christian Standard , part 1 (12/20/87), pp. 14-16; and part 2 (12/27/87), pp. 4-6.

Graber, Friedrich. "All, Many." The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology . Ed. by Colin Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975. I:94-97.

Gromacki, Robert. The Virgin Birth : Doctrine of Deity . Nashville: Nelson, 1974.

Gundry, Robert H. Sôma in Biblical Theology: With Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987.

Harris, M.J. " Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament." Appendix. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology . Ed. by Colin Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978. III:1171-1213.

Hobbs, A. I. " Conversion : What Is It, and How Produced?" In The Old Faith Restated . Ed. by J.H. Garrison. St. Louis: Christian Publishing Company, 1891. Pp. 254-274.

Hodges, Zane C. Absolutely Free . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.

Jervell, Jacob. "The Letter to Jerusalem." RomDeb , 53-64.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Central Message of the New Testament . London: SCM Press, 1965.

Jewett, Robert. "Following the Argument of Romans." RomDeb , 265-277.

Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament . Tr. & ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, 1964-1976.

Klein, Günter. "Paul's Purpose in Writing the Epistle to the Romans." RomDeb , 29-43.

Lamar, J.S. "The Ground of Man's Need of Salvation." In The Old Faith Restated . Ed. by J.H. Garrison. St. Louis: Christian Publishing Company, 1891. Pp. 98-119.

Lewis, C.S. The Abolition of Man . New York: Macmillan, 1947.

Luther, Martin. "Preface to the Complete Edition of Luther's Latin Writings ." In Vol. 34: Career of the Reformer IV . Luther's Works (American Edition). Ed. by Lewis W. Spitz and Helmut T. Lehmann. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960. Pp. 327-338.

. " Preface to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans." In Vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I . Luther's Works (American Edition). Ed. by E. Theodore Bachmann and Helmut T. Lehmann. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960. Pp. 365-380.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus: What Does Jesus Mean When He Says, "Follow Me"? Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Maurer, Christian. " ." TDNT, VIII:557-558.

. "pravssw, etc." TDNT, VI:632-644.

Milligan, Robert. Exposition and Defense of the Scheme of Redemption . St. Louis: Bethany Press, n.d.

Moreland, J.P., and David Ciocchi, eds. Christian Perspectives on Being Human: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Integration . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.

Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross . 3 ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

Murray, John. The Imputation of Adam's Sin . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959.

Nash, Donald A. "A Critique of the New International Version of the New Testament." Cincinnati: Christian Restoration Association, n.d.

Oepke, Albrecht. "kaqivsthmi, etc." TDNT, III:444-447.

Reese, Gareth L. New Testament History: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Acts . 2nd ed. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1976.

Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich. "dou'lo", etc." TDNT, II:261-280.

Ridderbos, Herman. Paul : An Outline of His Theology . Tr. by John R. de Witt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

Rueda, Enrique. The Homosexual Network : Private Lives and Public Policy . Old Greenwich, CT: Devin Adair, 1982.

Ryrie, Charles C. So Great Salvation : What It Means to Believe in Jesus Christ . Wheaton: Scripture Press/Victor Books, 1989.

Sanders, E.P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism . London: SCM, 1977.

Schaff, Philip. " Preface ." In John Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Romans . Tr. by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids: Zondervan reprint, n.d.

Schneider, Johannes. "parabaivnw, paravbasi", etc." TDNT, V:736-744.

Schrenk, Gottlob. "iJerov", etc." TDNT, III:221-283.

Spicq, Ceslas. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament . Tr. by James D. Ernest. 3 volumes. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Stendahl, Krister. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays . Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

Stuhlmacher, Peter. "The Purpose of Romans." RomDeb , 231-242.

. "The Theme of Romans." RomDeb , 333-345.

Thielman, Frank. Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach . Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994.

Thiessen, Henry. Introduction to the New Testament . 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1944.

Trench, Richard Chenevix. Synonyms of the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958.

Tyndale, William. "A Prologe to the Epistle of Paule to the Romayns." In The New Testament, Translated by William Tyndale, 1534 . Ed. by N. Hardy Wallis. Cambridge: University Press, 1938. Pp. 293-318.

Unger, Merrill F. Unger's Bible Dictionary . 3rd ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966.

Vincent, Marvin R. The Epistles of Paul . Vol. III in Word Studies in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973 reprint of 1887 edition.

Watson, Francis. "The Two Roman Congregations : Romans 14:1-15:13." RomDeb , 203-215.

Wesley, John. Journal from October 14, 1735, to November 29, 1745 . Vol. I in The Works of John Wesley. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, reprint of 1872 ed.

Wedderburn, A.J.M. "The Purpose and Occasion of Romans Again," RomDeb , 195-202.

Wiefel, Wolfgang. "The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity." RomDeb , 85-101.

Wiens, Delbert. "An Exegesis of Romans 5:12-21." Journal of Church and Society (Fall 1969): 5:42-54.

Williams, Philip R. "Paul's Purpose in Writing Romans." Bibliotheca Sacra (January-March 1971): 128:62-67.

Young, Richard. Intermediate N.T. Greek : A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach . Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY TO VOLUME 2

The following bibliography includes commentaries, books, and articles cited in the text and footnotes of this work. Citations include a minimum of information; the reader must use this list for full titles and bibliographical data.

When commentaries are cited, only the author's name and page number are given. When other sources are cited, usually just the author's name and an abbreviated title (in bold print below) are given. Some sources are cited with an even more abbreviated reference (see list of abbreviations).

I. COMMENTARIES

Achtemeier, Paul J. Romans . Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985.

Barrett, C.K. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . Harper's New Testament Commentaries. New York: Harper & Row, 1957; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987.

Black, Matthew. Romans . 2nd ed. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

Bruce, F.F. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans . Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.

Brunner, Emil. The Letter to the Romans: A Commentary . Trans. H.A. Kennedy. London: Lutterworth Press, 1959.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans . Trans. John Owen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947 reprint.

Cottrell, Jack. Romans , Vol. 1. The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996.

Cranfield, C.E.B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . 2 vols. The International Critical Commentary, n.s. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975 (1990 corrected printing).

Denney, James. "St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans." In The Expositor's Greek Testament , ed. W. Robertson Nicoll, II:555-725. New York: George H. Doran, n.d.

DeWelt, Don. Romans Realized . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1959.

Dodd, C.H. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans . New York: Harper & Brothers, 1932.

Dunn, James D.G. Romans . 2 vols. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, 1988.

Earle, Ralph. Romans . Vol. 3 of Word Meanings in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Edwards, James R. Romans . New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary . The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

Godet, Frederic L. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . Trans. A. Cusin. Ed. Talbot W. Chambers. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956 reprint of 1883 ed.

Griffith Thomas, W.H. Romans: A Devotional Commentary . 3 vols. London: Religious Tract Society, n.d.

Haldane, Robert. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans . MacDill AFB: MacDonald Publishing, 1958.

Harrison, Everett F. "Romans." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary , Volume 10, pp. 1-171. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.

Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Paul's Epistle to the Romans . 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980-1981.

Hughes, R. Kent. Romans: Righteousness from Heaven . Preaching the Word. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991.

Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans . Trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

Lard, Moses E. Commentary on Paul's Letter to Romans . Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, n.d.

Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans . Columbus, OH: Wartburg Press, 1945.

Lloyd-Jones, D.M. Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 9 - God's Sovereign Purpose . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.

Luther, Martin. Luther: Lectures on Romans . Ed. & Trans. Wilhelm Pauck. Vol. XV of The Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961.

MacArthur, John, Jr. Romans . 2 vols. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1991, 1994.

McGarvey, J.W., and Philip Y. Pendleton. Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans . Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, n.d.

McGuiggan, Jim. The Book of Romans . Lubbock, TX: Montex Publishing Company, 1982.

Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans . The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Moule, H.C.G. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans . The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: The University Press, 1918.

Mounce, Robert H. Romans . Vol. 27 of The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995.

Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans . 2 vols. New International Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965.

Newman, Barclay M., and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator's Handbook on Paul's Letter to the Romans . London: United Bible Societies, 1973.

Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans . Trans. Carl C. Rasmussen. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1949.

Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . 2nd ed. The International Critical Commentary, o.s. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, n.d.

Shedd, William G.T. A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967 reprint of 1879 edition.

Smith, Sherwood. Thirteen Lessons on Romans . Vol. 1 (1979). Thirteen Lessons on Romans . Vol. 2 (1981). Joplin, MO: College Press.

Stott, John. Romans: God's Good News for the World . Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994.

Vanderlip, George. Paul and Romans . Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1967.

Wuest, Kenneth S. Romans in the Greek New Testament for the English Reader . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955.

II. MISCELLANEOUS BOOKS AND ARTICLES

Arndt, William F., and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

Bilezikian, Gilbert. Beyond Sex Roles . 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990.

Büchsel, Friedrich. "krivnw [etc.]." TDNT . III:921-954.

Cottrell, Jack. Baptism : A Biblical Study . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1989.

. "Baptism According to the Reformed Tradition ." In Baptism and the Remission of Sins , ed. David W. Fletcher, pp. 39-81. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1990.

. "The Biblical Consensus : Historical Backgrounds to Reformed Theology." In Baptism and the Remission of Sins , ed. David W. Fletcher, pp. 17-38. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1990.

. Faith's Fundamentals : Seven Essentials of Christian Belief . Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1995.

. Feminism and the Bible: An Introduction to Feminism for Christians . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1992.

. " 1 Timothy 2:12 and the Role of Women." Four parts. Christian Standard , January 10, 1993, pp. 4-6; January 17, 1993, pp. 4-6; January 24, 1993, pp. 4-6; January 31, 1993, pp. 4-6.

. " Priscilla , Phoebe, and Company." Christian Standard , December 12, 1993, pp. 4-5.

. " Response to My Critics." Three parts. Christian Standard , November 21, 1993, pp. 5-6; November 28, 1993, pp. 4-6; December 5, 1993, pp. 4-6.

. Tough Questions , Biblical Answers. Part Two. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1986.

. What the Bible Says about God the Creator . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1983.

. What the Bible Says about God the Redeemer . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1987.

. What the Bible Says about God the Ruler . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1984.

Delling, Gerhard. " , ." TDNT . VIII:523-524.

. "tavssw [etc.]." TDNT . VIII:27-32.

Donfried, Karl P., ed. The Romans Debate , revised & expanded edition. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.

. "A Short Note on Romans 16." RomDeb , 44-52.

Forster, Roger T., and V. Paul Marston. God's Strategy in Human History . Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1974.

Fürst, Dieter. " Confess ." In The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology , ed. Colin Brown, I:344-348. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

Gaertner, Dennis. Acts . The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993.

Hoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and the Future . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Hübner, Hans. "a[timo"." In Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testamen t, ed. Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider, I:177. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch. The Pentateuch . Trans. by James Martin. Vol. 1 of Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.

Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament . Trans. & ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-1976.

Köster, Helmut. "tevmnw [etc.]." TDNT . VIII:106-112.

Lampe, Peter. "The Roman Christians of Romans 16 ." RomDeb , 216-230.

Lewis, C.S. The Four Loves . London: Geoffrey Bles, 1960.

Michaelis, W. "mavcaira." TDNT . IV:524-527.

Nash, Donald A. "A Critique of the New International Version of the New Testament." Cincinnati: Christian Restoration Association, n.d.

Oepke, Albrecht. "zevw, zestov"." TDNT . II:875-877.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things To Come . Findlay, OH: Dunham, 1958.

Pinnock, Clark H. "From Augustine to Arminius: A Pilgrimage in Theology." In The Grace of God, the Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism , ed. Clark H. Pinnock, pp. 15-30. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.

Piper, John. The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23 . 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.

Reicke, Bo. "proi?sthmi." TDNT . VI:700-703.

Schreiner, Thomas R. "Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election unto Salvation?" In vol. 1 of The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will , ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware, pp. 89-106. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.

Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins . New York: Crossroad, 1987.

Shank, Robert. Elect in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Election . Springfield, MO: Westcott Publishers, 1970.

Sherlock, William. A Discourse Concerning the Divine Providence . Pittsburgh: J.L. Read, 1848.

Spencer, Aida B. Beyond the Curse : Women Called to Ministry . Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985.

Spicq, Ceslas. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament . 3 vol. Trans. James D. Ernest. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Stählin, Gustav. " [etc.]." TDNT . IX:113-171.

. "skavndalon, skandalivzw." TDNT . VII:339-358.

Stendahl, Krister. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays . Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

Trench, Richard Chenevix. Synonyms of the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958.

Walters, James. "' Phoebe ' and 'Junia(s)' - Rom. 16:1-2, 7." In Vol. 1 of Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity , ed. Carroll D. Osburn, pp. 167-190. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993.

Weiss, K. "fevrw [etc.]." TDNT . IX:56-87.

Wright, N.T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology . Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

. "The Messiah and the People of God." Oxford University: D.Phil. dissertation, 1980.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

AG Arndt and Gingrich, Greek lexicon

ASV American Standard Version

GC God the Creator, by Jack Cottrell

GRe God the Redeemer, by Jack Cottrell

GRu God the Ruler, by Jack Cottrell

KJV King James Version

LB Living Bible

LXX Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT)

MP McGarvey-Pendleton Romans commentary

NAB New American Bible

NASB New American Standard Bible

NEB New English Bible

NIV New International Version

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NT New Testament

OT Old Testament

RomDeb The Romans Debate, by Karl Donfried

RSV Revised Standard Version

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the NT, ed. Kittel

TEV Today's English Version

For fuller titles and publishing information on books, see the Bibliography.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Romans (Outline)

VIII. OUTLINE

PROLOGUE - 1:1-17

I. EPISTOLARY GREETING - 1:1-7

A. The Author Introduces Himself - 1:1

1. A Slave of Christ Jesus

2. Called to Be an Apostle

3. Set Apart for the Gospel of God

B. The Gospel and the Old Testament - 1:2

C. The Subject of the Gospel Is Jesus - 1:3-4

1. The Two Natures of Jesus

2. The Incarnation

3. Messiahship

4. The Two States of Jesus

5. The Resurrection of Jesus

6. The Son's Full Identity

D. Paul's Apostleship - 1:5

1. The Origin of Paul's Apostleship

2. The Character of Paul's Apostleship

3. The Focus of Paul's Apostleship

4. The Purpose of Paul's Apostleship

5. The Goal of Paul's Apostleship

E. The Recipients of Paul's Letter - 1:6-7a

F. The Blessing - 1:7b

II. PERSONAL REMARKS - 1:8-15

A. Paul's Prayers for the Romans - 1:8-10

B. Paul's Desires Regarding Rome - 1:11-13

C. Paul's Debt to the Romans - 1:14-15

III. TRANSITIONAL STATEMENT - 1:16-17

A. The Glory of the Gospel - 1:16a

B. The Power of the Gospel - 1:16b

C. The Scope of the Gospel - 1:16c

D. Faith and the Gospel - 1:16c

1. Faith Is a Condition for Salvation

2. Faith Is Not the Only Condition

E. The Heart of the Gospel - 1:17a

F. The Golden Text of the Gospel - 1:17b

PART ONE:

THE IMPOTENCE OF LAW AS A WAY OF SALVATION - 1:18-3:20

I. THE SINFULNESS OF THE GENTILES - 1:18-32

A. Universal Knowledge of God and His Law - 1:18-20

B. Universal Rejection of the True God - 1:21-25

C. The Utter Depths of Gentile Depravity - 1:26-32

II. THE SINFULNESS OF THE JEWS - 2:1-3:8

A. Jews Are Under the Wrath of God, No Less Than the Gentiles - 2:1-5

B. God Will Be Partial to No One in the Judgment - 2:6-11

C. Under Law, the Criterion of Judgment Is Obedience Alone- 2:12-16

D. Jews Who Look to the Law for Salvation Are Condemned by Their Own Disobedience - 2:17-24

E. True Jewishness Is Identified Not by Circumcision but by the Inward State of the Heart - 2:25-29

F. Such Equal Treatment of Jews and Gentiles Does Not Nullify But Rather Magnifies God's Righteousness - 3:1-8

III. UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS AND HOPELESSNESS UNDER LAW - 3:9-20

PART TWO:

THE ALL-SUFFICIENCY OF GRACE AS A WAY OF SALVATION - 3:21-5:21

I. GRACE AS JUSTIFICATION BY CHRIST'S BLOOD THROUGH FAITH - 3:21-31

A. Righteousness Through Faith Is Now Fully Revealed - 3:21-23

B. Sinners Are Justified by the Blood of Christ - 3:24-26

C. Sinners Are Justified by Faith Apart from Works of Law - 3:27-28

D. The Way of Grace Is Available to All - 3:29-30

E. Grace Lets Law Do Its Proper Work - 3:31

II. ABRAHAM: PARADIGM OF GRACE - 4:1-25

A. Abraham Was Justified by Faith Apart from Works - 4:1-5

B. David Explains and Confirms Justification by Faith Apart from Works - 4:6-8

C. Membership in Abraham's Family Is by Faith, Not by Circumcision - 4:9-12

D. The Inheritance Promised to Abraham Comes by Faith, Not by Law - 4:13-17a

E. Faith Means Giving Glory to God and Believing His Promises - 4:17b-22

F. Those Who Believe Like Abraham Are Justified Like Abraham - 4:23-25

III. GRACE AND ASSURANCE - 5:1-21

A. Assurance of Personal Salvation - 5:1-11

1. Justification by Faith Is the Key to Assurance - 5:1-2

2. Tribulations of Believers Do Not Nullify Assurance - 5:3-5

3. Christ Died for Us While We Were Still Sinners - 5:6-8

4. Our Hope Is Even More Secure Now That We Are His Friends - 5:9-11

B. The All-Sufficiency of the Death of Christ - 5:12-21

1. One Sin of One Man (Adam) Brought Sin and Death to All - 5:12-14

2. Christ and His Sacrifice Are Greater Than Adam and His Sin - 5:15-17

3. Christ's Cross Completely Cancels the Results of Adam's Sin - 5:18-19

4. Grace Triumphs over Sin and Death - 5:20-21

PART THREE:

THE ALL-SUFFICIENCY OF GRACE GIVES VICTORY OVER SIN - 6:1-8:39

I. OBJECTIONS TO GRACE BASED ON A FEAR OF ANTINOMIANISM - 6:1-7:13

A. Does Grace Make Sin Irrelevant? NO! - 6:1-14

B. Does Freedom from Law Mean We Are Free to Sin? NO!- 6:15-7:6

1. We Are Slaves to God - 6:15-23

2. We Obey God from Our Hearts - 7:1-6

C. Does Grace Mean That Law Is Bad? NO! - 7:7-13

II. GRACE GIVES VICTORY OVER SIN - 7:14-8:13

A. The Christian Continues to Struggle Against Sin - 7:14-25

1. The Nature of the Struggle - 7:14-20

2. The Source of the Struggle - 7:21-25

B. Victory over Sin Comes Through the Holy Spirit - 8:1-13

1. God Frees Us from Sin's Penalty and Power - 8:1-4

2. Sin and Death Are Defeated in Us Through the Holy Spirit - 8:5-13

III. THE ASSURANCE OF FINAL AND TOTAL VICTORY OVER THE FALLEN WORLD - 8:14-39

A. The Holy Spirit Marks Us as Sons and Heirs - 8:14-17

B. The Redeemed Cosmos Is Our Inheritance - 8:18-25

C. God Promises to Bring His Family Through Earthly Trials - 8:26-30

D. God's Gracious Love Gives Us Unshakable Assurance - 8:31-39

PART FOUR:

THE FAITHFULNESS OF GOD

IN HIS DEALINGS WITH THE JEWS - 9:1-11:36

I. THE PROBLEM OF ISRAEL: THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY OF THE JEWISH NATION - 9:1-5

A. Israel's Agony: They Are Accursed - 9:1-3

B. Israel's Ecstasy: They Are Recipients of Unspeakably Glorious Privileges - 9:4-5

II. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ETHNIC AND SPIRITUAL ISRAEL - 9:6-29

A. Israel's Situation and God's Faithfulness - 9:6-13

1. God's Word Concerning Israel Has Not Failed - 9:6a

2. The Key to the Puzzle: the Existence of Two Israels - 9:6b

3. Ethnic Israel Exists by God's Sovereign Choice - 9:7-13

a. The Choice of Isaac - 9:7-9

b. The Choice of Jacob - 9:10-13

B. God's Right to Choose and Use People without Saving Them - 9:14-18

1. God's Righteousness Is Challenged - 9:14

2. God's Sovereignty in Election for Service - 9:15-16

3. God's Purposes Can Be Served by the Unsaved - 9:17-18

C. God Used Ethnic Israel to Produce Spiritual Israel - 9:19-29

1. The Objection - 9:19

2. Paul's Initial Rebuke of the Objector's Attitude - 9:20-21

3. Beyond Ethnic Israel to Spiritual Israel - 9:22-24

a. The Calvinist View

b. Seeing Paul Through Non-Calvinist Eyes

4. Prophetic Confirmation of God's Purpose - 9:25-29

III. ISRAEL'S CHOICE OF LAW RATHER THAN GRACE 9:30-10:21

A. Personal Righteousness Versus the Righteousness of God- 9:30-10:3

1. The Reason for the Gentiles' Acceptance - 9:30

2. The Reason for the Jews' Lostness - 9:31-33

3. The Jews' Rejection of God's Righteousness - 10:1-3

B. Christ Alone Is the Source of Saving Righteousness - 10:4-13

1. An Either-Or Choice: Works-Righteousness, or Faith in Christ - 10:4

2. The Futility of Law-Righteousness - 10:5

3. Saving Righteousness Comes through Trusting Christ's Works, Not Our Own - 10:6-10

4. God's Righteousness Is Available Equally to Jews and Gentiles - 10:11-13

C. The Jews Have Not Believed in Christ, and Their Unbelief Is Inexcusable - 10:14-21

1. The Necessary Prerequisites to Saving Faith - 10:14-15

2. Most Jews Have Not Believed the Gospel Message - 10:16

3. The Jews' Problem Is Not Ignorance but Stubbornness of Will - 10:17-21

IV. THE SALVATION OF GOD'S TRUE ISRAEL - 11:1-32

A. God's True Israel Is the Remnant Chosen by Grace - 11:1-6

1. God Has Not Rejected His People - 11:1-2a

2. God Had a Remnant of Believers in the OT - 11:2b-4

3. Those under Grace Are God's New Covenant Israel - 11:5-6

B. Unbelieving Israel Has Been Hardened - 11:7-10

C. The Hardening of Unbelieving Israel Becomes a Blessing

for Both the Gentiles and the Jews - 11:11-16

D. The Olive Tree: A Metaphor of Judgment and Hope - 11:17-24

1. Words of Warning to Gentile Christians - 11:17-22

2. Words of Hope for Hardened Jews - 11:23-24

E. God's Plan for Israel's Salvation - 11:25-32

1. The Mystery of Israel's Salvation - 11:25-27

2. God's Continuing Love for Israel - 11:28-29

3. God's Ultimate Purpose Is Mercy - 11:30-32

V. DOXOLOGY: GOD'S WAY IS RIGHT - 11:33-36

PART FIVE:

LIVING THE SANCTIFIED LIFE - 12:1-15:13

I. A CATALOGUE OF VIRTUES - 12:1-13:14

A. Grace Demands a Transformed Life - 12:1-2

B. Using the Gifts of Grace for Unselfish Service - 12:3-8

C. Miscellaneous Moral Teaching - 12:9-16

D. Personal Vengeance Is Forbidden - 12:17-21

E. The Relation between Citizens and Government - 13:1-7

F. The Relation between Love and Law - 13:8-10

G. Walking in the Light - 13:11-14

II. CHRISTIAN LIBERTY IN MATTERS OF OPINION - 14:1-15:13

A. Do Not Judge Others in Matters of Opinion - 14:1-12

1. We Should Accept All Whom God Has Accepted - 14:1-3

2. We Answer to Our Lord and Not to Each Other - 14:4-9

3. Each of Us Will Be Judged by God - 14:10-12

B. The Stewardship of Christian Liberty 14:13-23

1. We Must Sacrifice Our Liberty for the Sake of the Weak - 14:13-15

2. Do Not Allow What You Consider Good to Be Spoken of as Evil - 14:16-18

3. We Must Do Only Those Things Which Build Others Up - 14:19-21

4. Each Christian Must Be True to His Own Convictions - 14:22-23

C. Living in Unity and Hope - 15:1-13

1. Selfless Service Produces a Unified Witness - 15:1-6

2. Through Christ's Selfless Service, Jews and Gentiles Glorify God Together - 15:7-12

3. A Prayer That All Believers May Abound in Hope - 15:13

PART SIX:

PERSONAL MESSAGES FROM PAUL - 15:14-16:27

I. PAUL'S MINISTRY AS THE APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES - 15:14-33

A. Reflections on His Past Service - 15:14-22

B. His Plans for the Future - 15:23-29

C. His Request for Prayer - 15:30-33

II. PAUL AND HIS FELLOW WORKERS - 16:1-24

A. Commendation of Phoebe - 16:1-2

B. Greetings to Individual Acquaintances - 16:3-16

C. Warnings against False Teachers - 16:17-20

D. Greetings from Paul's Companions - 16:21-24

III. CONCLUDING DOXOLOGY - 16:25-27

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV