Romans 11 and The Future of The Nation o

ROMANS 11 AND THE
FUTURE OF THE NATION

OF ISRAEL
William E. Wenstrom Jr.

WILLIAM WENSTROM BIBLE MINISTRIES INC.
Marion, Iowa
ã 2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries
Romans 11 and the Future of the Nation of Israel
Introduction
Beginning in Romans 11, the apostle Paul teaches the Roman church about the
future salvation of the nation of Israel. The single basic theme throughout Romans
chapter eleven is stated at the beginning of the chapter, namely that God has not
rejected the nation of Israel. If this is the case, then God is surely not employing
the church to replace Israel.
Romans chapter eleven completes the fifth major section in the book of
Romans, which began with chapter nine. This section is a defense of God’s
righteousness in His dealings with the nation of Israel since the question arises that
if God is for the elect and that nothing can separate them from God’s love as Paul
says in chapter 8, then why has He set aside His chosen people, the Jews, the
nation of Israel.
In this section, Paul attempts to explain God’s dealings with the Jews as a
vindication of His righteousness. Paul does it by demonstrating through the Old
Testament Scriptures that Israel’s rejection is related to the spiritual pride of the
Jews (9,10), that Israel’s rejection is not complete because some are being saved
(11), and that Israel’s rejection is not final because it will be reversed before the
coming of the Lord (the end of chapter 11). Therefore, in Romans 9-11, the apostle
defends the righteousness of God in His dealings with the nation of Israel in the
past (9), present (10) and future (11). It appears that these chapters are an
interruption or a parenthesis but rather they are a continuation of Paul’s argument
for justification by faith. In Romans 1-8, Paul presents the great spiritual truths or
doctrines of the Christian faith and then in Romans 9-11, he demonstrates how
these doctrines or spiritual truths apply to God’s dealings with Israel in the past,
present and future.
In Romans 11, he instructs his readers that all God’s promises to the patriarchs
of Israel and the nation itself will be fulfilled. This chapter makes clear that even
though the nation of Israel has rejected Jesus Christ as Savior, God is not through
with the nation since He has set aside a remnant of believers in the nation in the
future. That God has not rejected the nation of Israel altogether is also due to
God’s faithfulness in fulfilling the four unconditional covenants that He made to
the patriarchs of Israel and the nation itself. Thus, Paul makes clear that God has
not totally abandoned the nation of Israel and that in the future she will be restored.
The four great unconditional covenants to Israel: (1) Abrahamic deals with the
race of Israel (Genesis 12:1-3; 13:16; 22:15-18). (2) Palestinian is the promise of
land to Israel (Gn. 13:15; Numbers 34:1-12). (3) Davidic deals with the aristocracy
ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 1

of Israel (2 Samuel 7:8-17) (4) New deals with the future restoration of Israel
during the millennium (Jeremiah 31:31-34).
The following is an outline of the chapter: (1) 11:1: God has not rejected Israel
forever. (2) 11:2-6: God has set aside a remnant based upon His sovereign grace
and not works. (3) 11:7-10: Israel’s failure fulfilled God’s sovereign will. (4)
11:11-12: Gentiles are blessed with salvation because of Israel’s failure. (5) 11:13-
16: Paul explains his ministry to the Gentiles in relation to Israel. (6) 11:17-24:
Warning to Gentiles to learn from Israel’s failure. (7) 11:25: The mystery of
Israel’s partial hardening until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. (8) 11:26-
27: All Israel will be saved. (9) 11:28-32: Israel’s future restoration based upon
God’s mercy. (10) 11:33-36: Praise of God’s wisdom, knowledge and
unsearchable judgments and unfathomable ways.
Chapter One: Jewish Remnant Based Upon God’s Sovereign Grace
Romans 11:1
In Romans 11:1, Paul poses a rhetorical question that is the result of an

inference that could be implied from his teaching in Romans chapters nine and ten,
namely that God has rejected Israel. He emphatically rejects this idea and then
presents himself as living proof that this is not the case.
Romans 11:1 Therefore, I ask, God the Father has not rejected His people,
has He? Absolutely not! Because I myself also am an Israelite, a biological
descendant of Abraham, descended from the tribe of Benjamin. (Author’s
translation)
The apostle Paul’s statements in this verse is the result of an inference that
could be implied from his teaching in Romans 9-10. That the inference is from a
possible implication from Paul’s teaching in Romans 9-10 is indicated by the fact
that in these chapters he is discussing Israel’s rejection of Jesus Christ as their
Messiah.
Now, in Romans 11:1, Paul addresses the possible implication of this rejection
by posing the rhetorical question, “God the Father has not rejected His people,
has He?” This question is a logical one since Paul’s teaching in Romans 9-10
makes clear that Israel has no excuses in rejecting Christ as Savior since she was
evangelized and heard and understood the gospel message but refused to believe in
Christ. Thus, in Romans 11:1, Paul is anticipating this possible implication from
his teaching in Romans 9-10.
Benjamin means “son of the right hand” or “son of the South.” The right hand
in the ancient world denoted power or a man’s strength. He was the youngest son
of Jacob by Rachel, who died in childbirth. He was the last son of Jacob to be born.
The twelve sons of Jacob in the order of their birth: (1) Reuben (Gen. 29:32) (2)
Simeon (Gen. 29:33) (3) Levi (Gen. 29:34) (4) Judah (Gen. 29:35) (5) Dan (Gen.
30:6) (6) Naphtali (Gen. 30:8) (7) Gad (Gen. 30:11) (8) Asher (Gen. 30:13) (9)
Issachar (Gen. 30:18) (10) Zebulon (Gen. 30:20) (11) Joseph (Gen. 30:24) (12)
Benjamin (Gen. 35:18).
One of the reasons why Paul mentions in Romans 11:1 that he is a member of
the tribe of Benjamin is due to the fact that it did produce the first king of Israel (1
Sm. 9; Acts 13:21). The apostle Paul thought more highly of the fact that Benjamin
was the only son of Israel to be born in the land of promise, and born to Israel’s
favorite wife Rachel as she died (Gn. 35:16-20). The blessing of Moses describes
Benjamin as the beloved of the Lord (Dt. 33:12). The first of the judges (dictators)
that emerged in Israel after the Canaan Invasion was Ehud of the tribe of
Benjamin, who fought the Moabites. The tribe of Benjamin participated in various
battles such as that under Deborah and Barak against Sisera (Jdg. 5:14). The
Benjamites were men of war and famous slingers (Gen. 49:27; Jdg. 3:15; 1 Ch.
8:40; 12:2).
We may mention, among the events of note, that they assisted Deborah (Judg.
5:14); they were invaded by the Ammonites (10:9); that they were almost
exterminated by the other tribes because they refused to give up the miscreants of
Gibeah (chaps. 19-20); that the remaining six hundred were furnished with wives
at Jabesh-gilead and Shiloh (chap. 21).
The first of the judges (dictators) that emerged in Israel after the Canaan
Invasion was Ehud of the tribe of Benjamin, who fought the Moabites. If we trace
in the genealogical lists the names that reflect place names, it appears that during
this period Benjamin expanded northward and southward, and later also to the west
when the tribe of Dan left its previous territory.
The Benjamites were men of war and famous slingers (Gen. 49:27; Jdg. 3:15; 1
Ch. 8:40; 12:2). The story of the atrocity committed by the Benjamites and the
terrible punishment they suffered for it illustrate certain features of life in those
lawless times when there was no king in Israel and no positive volition towards the
Word of God (Jdg. 19-21).
The refusal of the men of Jabesh-Gilead (of the tribe of Manasseh) to take part
in the battle of requital against Benjamin provides the background for the special
relationship between the Benjamites and the inhabitants of that city. It explains
why Saul and the Benjamites came to their aid when Jabesh-Gilead was attacked
by the Ammonites (1 S. 11:1-3).
Benjamin was also the first tribe to oppose the Philistines. The tribe of
Benjamin participated in various battles such as that under Deborah and Barak
against Sisera (Jdg. 5:14). To Benjamin belongs the distinction of giving the first
king to the Jews, Saul being a Benjamite (1 Sam. 9:1-2; 10:20-21).
After the death of Saul they declared themselves for Ish-bosheth (2 Sam. 2:15;
1 Chr. 12:29). They returned to David (2 Sam. 3:19-20; 19:16-17). David having at
last expelled the Jebusites from Zion, making it his own residence, the close
alliance between Benjamin and Judah (Judg. 1:8) was cemented by the
circumstance that while Jerusalem actually belonged to the district of Benjamin,
that of Judah was immediately contiguous to it.
After the death of Solomon, Benjamin espoused the cause of Judah, and the two
formed a kingdom by themselves. After the Exile, also, these two tribes constituted
the flower of the new Jewish colony (cf. Ezra 4:1; 10:9).
The prediction of Jacob regarding Benjamin's future lot, or the development of
his personal character in his tribe, is brief: “Benjamin is a ravenous wolf; In the
morning he devours the prey, And in the evening he divides the spoil” (Gen.
49:27). The events of history cast light on that prediction, for the ravening of the
wolf is seen in the exploits of Ehud the Benjamite (Judg. 3), in Saul's career, and
especially in the whole matter of Gibeah, so carefully recorded in (Judg. 20). And
again, the fierce wolf is seen in the fight in (2 Sam. 2:15-16), at Gibeon, and in the
character of Shimei. Some find much of the wolf of Benjamin in Saul of Tarsus,
“ravaging the church.”
Other Benjamites of distinction were the prophet Jeremiah (1:1), Esther and
Mordecai (Est. 2:5), and of course the apostle Paul (Rm. 11:1; Phlp. 3:5).
Romans 11:2
Then, in Romans 11:2a, he emphatically declares that God has by no means

rejected the nation of Israel whom He foreknew. In Romans 11:2b, Paul poses a
question in order to introduce the subject of God setting aside a remnant for
Himself in Israel in the days of Elijah.
Romans 11:2 God the Father has by no means rejected His people whom
He knew in advance. Or, have you totally forgotten what the Scripture says
about Elijah, how he repeatedly pleaded with God the Father against Israel?
(Author’s translation)
In Romans 11:1, Paul poses a rhetorical question that is the result of an
inference that could be implied from his teaching in Romans chapters nine and ten,
namely that God has rejected Israel. He emphatically rejects this idea and then
presents himself as living proof that this is not the case.
The apostle in the first statement that appears in Romans 11:2 emphatically
declares that God has not rejected the nation of Israel whom He foreknew.
“He knew in advance” is the verb proginosko which is used with God the
Father as the subject and refers to the Father’s “foreknowledge” of the nation of

Israel in the sense that the Father “knew in advance” in eternity past there would be
a remnant in the nation of Israel that would in the future accept Christ as Savior.
God’s foreknowledge is related to His attribute of omniscience and the divine
decree. The “decree” of God is His eternal, holy, wise and sovereign purpose,
comprehending at once all things that ever were or will be in their causes, courses,
conditions, successions, and relations and determining their certain futurition (i.e.,
that they will certainly take place).
When I say comprehending I mean that the omniscience of God is the source of
the divine decrees. When I say determining I mean that the sovereignty of God
chose before anything has existed which things would actually become historical
events.
The decree of God is His eternal and immutable will, regarding the future
existence of events, which will happen in time and regarding the precise order and
manner of their occurrence. It is the chosen and adopted plan of all God’s works.
The decree of God is His eternal purpose according to the counsels of His own
will, whereby for His own glory He has foreordained whatever comes to pass. It is
the sovereign choice of the divine will (His attribute of sovereignty) and mentality
(His omniscience) by which all things are brought into being and controlled, made
subject to His pleasure, and producing His glorification (Isa. 46:10; Eph. 1:9).
The will of God in common usage refers to what God desires of an individual or
group in a particular situation. In relation to the divine decree the will of God
refers to the decision God made in eternity past, from His attribute of sovereignty,
which established that certain things would actually come into being while other
things would not. The will of God is His sovereign choice as to what will take
place in time. It refers here to His sovereign decision as to what would come into
existence; in other words, the divine decrees.
This will and purpose of God originated within Himself long before any
creature of any kind existed. His will is always consistent with His perfect essence.
The will and purpose of God-that is, the divine decree-was objectively designed for
His own glory, pleasure, and satisfaction.
God’s decree rendered all things as certain to occur and He decided that they
would exist. The divine decree took place in eternity past before anything was ever
created and is God’s eternal and immutable will.
The “providence” of God is the divine outworking of the divine decree, the
object being the final manifestation of God’s glory and expresses the fact that the
world and our lives are not ruled by chance or fate but by God.
In the divine decree, the sovereignty of God and the free will of man co-exist in
human history.
No one can stop God’s plans from being accomplished since His divine decree
or eternal plan has taken into consideration both positive and negative decisions by
His creatures and decreed that His sovereign will, will co-exist with the volition of
men and angels.
God in eternity past decreed that angels and human beings would have volition
and would be allowed to make decisions contrary to His sovereign will and without
compromising His justice.
In giving angels and men volition, God decreed that their decisions, whatever
they might be, would certainly take place-even those that are contrary to His
desires.
Being omniscient, God had the good sense to know ahead of time what men and
angels would decide. He not only decreed that those decisions would exist but He
also decreed the exact manner, consistent with His integrity, in which He would
handle their decisions.
Now, God has three kinds of knowledge: (1) Self-knowledge (2) Omniscience
(3) Foreknowledge.
Foreknowledge acknowledges only what is in the decree of God and so
chronologically speaking, foreknowledge follows the divine decree since nothing
can be foreknown until it is first decreed.
There is a distinction between God’s foreknowledge and His omniscience. With
His omniscience God knows perfectly and eternally all that is knowable whether it
is the actual or the possible or in other words the reality and the alternatives to that
reality. However, God’s foreknowledge only deals with reality.
Foreknowledge acknowledges what is in the divine decree. It merely
acknowledges what is certain to take place in time. Foreknowledge refers only to
those things, which God did decree or adopt as the plan of God-those things related
to the believer only.
Only the decree establishes certainty or reality; only reality can be foreknown;
nothing can be foreknown until first decreed. God’s decree never originated from
His foreknowledge. Although all three exist simultaneously in the mind of God,
omniscience, the decree, and foreknowledge must be separated into a logical
sequence for us to understand them.
First we have God’s omniscience, then the decree, which is based on His
omniscience and then lastly, we have God’s foreknowledge, which is based on the
decree. Election is declared through God’s foreknowledge and is God’s complete
agreement with His own foreknowledge.
Now, in Romans 11:2, the question arises, is the verb proginosko referring to
the remnant of believers in Israel whom God foreknew or is it referring to the
national election of the nation of Israel?

Leon Morris contends that the verb is used in Romans 11:2 of the latter stating
that Paul is referring to “the people God foreknew” and not “those of His people
whom He foreknew.”1
Douglas Moo concurs with Morris, contending that “the context demands that
Paul here be speaking of God’s election of the people as a whole. For it is this
national entity whose status is called into question by what Paul said in 9:30-10:21
and about whom Paul then asks in verse 1. Furthermore verse 28, which appears to
reassert the point Paul makes here in verse 2, ascribes the election to Israel as a
nation also. Paul, then, uses the verb ‘foreknow’ to indicate God’s election, the
purpose of that election being determined by the context.”2
The problem with both Morris’s and Moo’s interpretation is that they don’t pay
attention to the immediate context, namely, Romans 11:2-5, which clearly
indicates that Paul is speaking of a remnant of believers within the nation of Israel,
which is a manifestation of the national election of Israel.
Paul cites 1 Kings 19:10 in Romans 11:3 and 1 Kings 19:18 in Romans 11:4 to
support his argument in Romans 11:1-2a that God has not rejected Israel. These
verses make clear that in Elijah’s day God has set aside for Himself a remnant of
believers. Paul uses this as support for his argument that God has not rejected
Israel. Thus, he is teaching that God has not rejected the nation of Israel in that just
as He set aside for Himself in Elijah’s day a remnant of believers so in Paul’s day
God was doing the same and would also do in the future. Therefore, in Romans
11:2, Paul uses the verb proginosko of God the Father in eternity past having
foreknowledge of a remnant of believers in the nation of Israel. This remnant’s
faith in Christ as Savior is the object of the Father’s foreknowledge.
This verb proginosko in Romans 11:2 denotes that in His foreknowledge, which
is based upon His omniscience, God knew in eternity past a remnant of Israelites
whom He would create and would accept His Son Jesus Christ as Savior in time.
The nation of Israel would be completely rejected by God if there wasn’t a
remnant of believers and would have become like Sodom and Gomorrah as Paul
states in Romans 9:29. But the fact that there is a remnant in Israel and will always
be the case is why the nation still exists according to Romans 9:27-29.
In Romans 9:27, Paul cites Isaiah 10:22 to teach that only a remnant of Jews
throughout history will be saved, which supports his premise in Romans 9:6 that
not all racial Israel is considered by God to be spiritual Israel, children of the
promise and spiritual descendants of Abraham. Then, in Romans 9:28, Paul quotes
from Isaiah 10:23 to warn unregenerate Israel of eternal condemnation in that the
Lord Jesus Christ will execute this judgment thoroughly and decisively. In Romans
1
Leon Morris, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, The Epistle to the Romans, page William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids,
Michigan/Cambridge, U.K., 1996
2
Douglas J. Moo, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, The Epistle to the Romans, pages 674-675; William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, U.K., 1988

9:29, Paul quotes Isaiah 1:9 to teach that if the Lord had not been merciful by
leaving a remnant in Israel that it would have become like Sodom and would have
been make like Gomorrah in that not only would the nation have been destroyed
but all its citizens would have suffered eternal condemnation as well.
It would be ridiculous of God to elect the nation of Israel if He did not set aside
a remnant of believers since the national election of Israel only makes sense if God
has set aside a remnant of believers throughout human history. Therefore, the
national election of Israel is based on the fact that God, in His foreknowledge,
which is based on His omniscience, knew in eternity past a remnant of Israelites
whom He would create in time and would in time accept His Son Jesus Christ as
Savior. Consequently, this is the reason why God has by no means rejected Israel
completely.
If God had not set aside a remnant of believers in Israel, God would have
rejected that nation. Moo is right when he says of Israel in this passage, that “it is
this national entity whose status is called into question by what Paul said in 9:30-
10:21 and about whom Paul then asks in verse 1.” However, what Moo fails to see
is that this national entity status is maintained because God has set aside a remnant
of believers in the nation as he illustrates in Romans 11:2b-5 with God’s response
to Elijah’s prayer against Israel. Otherwise, as Paul teaches in Romans 9:29, Israel
would be non-existent as a nation, just as Sodom and Gomorrah.
Paul teaches in Romans 9:6 that not all racial Israel is considered by God to be
His covenant people but only those who have trusted in His Son Jesus Christ as
Savior. In Romans 2:28-29, Paul teaches that a true Israelite in God’s eyes has
faith in His Son Jesus Christ. These two passages make clear that God makes a
distinction between Israelites and accepts those who accept His Son by faith and
rejects those who reject His Son. The nation of Israel whom God foreknew is the
remnant of believers because God considers a true Israelite to be one who has faith
in His Son Jesus Christ.
In Romans 11:2 refers to the account of God dealing with Elijah in which the
prophet prayed to God against Israel because Jezebel sought to assassinate him.
The Lord’s response was to reveal to Elijah that He had set aside for Himself seven
thousand men who had not bowed the knee to Baal. This substantiates Paul’s
teaching in Romans 9:27-29 that God always set aside a remnant of believers in
Israel throughout her history. This question in Romans 11:2 implies that Paul’s
readers would not be unaware of the story of Elijah pleading with God against
Israel since they would have learned this by their Christian instruction in the Old
Testament.
Paul employs the Old Testament Scriptures, quoting 1 Kings 19:10 and 18 in
order to validate his teaching that God has by no means rejected the nation of
Israel. These Old Testament passages support Paul’s remnant doctrine that he
taught in Romans 9:27-29. This doctrine supports Paul’s argument that God has by
no means rejected Israel and these Old Testament passages support it.
In Romans 11:2, Paul refers to Elijah pleading with God against Israel since 1
King 19:10 makes clear that this is exactly what the prophet did. It is not an
intercessory prayer since this type of prayer is for the benefit of someone. Elijah
offered a personal petition to the Father to destroy Israel as a result of Jezebel’s
threat against him even though, he makes Israel’s unfaithfulness the motivation for
the prayer. The prophet made this petition when he was involved in self-pity and
the Lord’s answer reveals that his petition was not according to His will.
Romans 11:3
Next, in Romans 11:3, he cites 1 Kings 19:10 to demonstrate that God has not
rejected Israel. In this passage, Elijah pleaded with the Father against Israel when
he was the lone surviving prophet in Israel who was alone in the desert because he
was fleeing Jezebel who sought to murder him.
Romans 11:3 Lord, they have murdered Your prophets. They have
destroyed Your altars. I myself alone am left. Also, they are making it a top
priority to diligently, earnestly and tenaciously seek my life, sparing no
expense to do so because it is of great value to them! (Author’s translation)
Paul is citing 1 Kings 19:10 and Elijah’s prayer that is recorded in this passage
is repeated by him in 1 Kings 19:14. In context, Elijah offered this prayer to the
Father after two great victories. The first is recorded in 1 Kings 18:1-40 where he
defeated the prophets of Baal with the power of the Lord. The second is found in 1
Kings 18:41-46 where he prayed for rain to fall in Israel and it did.
After these two great victories, Jezebel, Ahab’s wife got wind of Elijah’s
victory over the prophets of Baal and his execution of them and sends a threatening
letter to the prophet and seeks to assassinate him. Elijah in turn, out of despair for
his life, flees to the desert and prays to God against Israel but God responds by
telling Elijah that He has set aside for Himself a remnant of believers who will not
bow to Baal.
Romans 11:4
In Romans 11:4, Paul presents the Father’s response to Elijah’s complaint

against Israel by citing 1 Kings 19:18,which records God telling him that He had
set aside a remnant composed of seven thousand men in Israel that had not bowed
the knee to Baal.
Romans 11:4 However, in direct contrast, what does the divine response
say to him? “I have reserved for the benefit of Myself seven thousand men,
who are indeed of such character and of a particular class of individuals that
have never bowed a knee to Baal.” (Author’s translation)
Paul states in Romans 11:5 that in the same way that God set aside a remnant
for Himself in a Elijah’s day so He had done so in Paul’s day in the mid first
century. Therefore, Romans 11:1-5 teaches that God has not rejected Israel because
He has set aside a remnant of believers at the present time.
Paul is quoting from 1 Kings 19:18, which records the Lord’s response to
Elijah’s prayer. 1 Kings 18:1-40 records Elijah’s courageous victory in standing up
Ahab and the prophets of Baal. On the heels of this great victory, Elijah achieves
another one by praying to God persistently in accordance with His will to bring
rain to Israel. However, after these two great victories that the Lord gave Elijah,
Jezebel, Ahab’s wife got wind of Elijah’s victory over the prophets of Baal and his
execution of them. She sends a threatening letter to the prophet and seeks to
assassinate him. Elijah in turn out of despair for his life, prays to God against Israel
but God responds by telling Elijah that He has set aside for Himself a remnant of
believers who will not bow to Baal.
Paul only quotes the first statement that appears in 1 Kings 19:10 since it is the
only part of the text that is relevant to the point he is making in Romans 11:4. He is
not quoting the Septuagint translation exactly and appears to be closer to the MT
(Masoretic text). He adds the reflexive pronoun emautou, “for Myself” to
emphasize his point and changes the tenses of the initial verb from future to aorist
because he is of course speaking from his own perspective.
The seven thousand is taken by some as a symbolic number as is often the case
in the Scriptures with the number seven and its multiples. However, it is better to
take it as a literal number since in context, the seven thousand mentioned by the
Lord to Elijah in 1 Kings 19:18 appear in 1 Kings 20:15 who accompanied Ahab,
the king of Israel in defeating the king of Aram (Syria), Ben-hadad.
Notice, that the Lord does not mention women as part of this remnant, thus the
number of this remnant in Israel in the days of Elijah was significantly higher than
seven thousand.
In Romans 11:4, Paul is not saying that there was a remnant of seven thousand
in Israel in his day but rather, he is simply quoting from 1 Kings 19:18 to support
his teaching that God has not rejected Israel altogether. Paul is saying that just as in
the days of Elijah when God had reserved for Himself a remnant of at least 7000
believers so in his day in the first century, God had reserved a remnant of believers
in Israel, thus demonstrating that He had not rejected Israel altogether.
The apostle Paul is the only New Testament writer that makes a reference to the
ancient Canaanite god, Baal who is sometimes identified with Hadad. Baal was the
storm god worshipped throughout the ancient Near East. The original Semitic
name had a consonant between the two vowels that does not occur in Greek or
English. The word itself means “lord,” or “master” or “owner” and should never be
confused with kurios, “Lord.” Baal was considered to be the grandson of El and
controlled rain, wind and clouds and was considered as responsible for fertility.
This forms the basis for the sexual orgies that constituted part of the worship of
this deity. He was depicted by artists as a man with a thunderbolt in his left hand, a
club in the other and a helmet with the horns of a bull. Depending on the location
in which he was worshipped, he was called by various names such as Baal-gad,
Baal-hamon, Baal-hermon and Baal-Peor. The idols of this god as a group were the
Baalim, which is the masculine form of Baal.
Baal first appears in the Old Testament in Numbers 24:21. The Israelites were
wandering in the wilderness and arrived in Moab and there many in Israel got
involved in licentious worship. This Canaanite deity continued to plague Israel for
approximately 800 years from the time of their sojourn in Moab through the period
of the judges (Judges 2, 6, 8, 10), the monarchy (1 Samuel 12:10) and the divided
kingdom (1 Kings 16, 18, 22) until the time of the Babylonian captivity of Judah.
The most famous incident in the Old Testament associated with Baal worship
occurred when Elijah challenged Jezebel’s 450 Baal prophets to a contest on
Mount Carmel and defeated them, causing Jezebel to take a contract out on the
prophet.
In Romans 11:4, the word is used with reference to the worship of this
Canaanite deity in Elijah’s day where in response to Elijah’s prayer against Israel,
the Father declared to the prophet that He had reserved for Himself a remnant of
seven thousand believers who never bowed the knee to this deity.
Therefore, in Romans 11:4, Paul presents the Father’s response to Elijah’s
complaint against Israel by citing 1 Kings 19:18,which records God telling him
that He had set aside a remnant composed of seven thousand men in Israel that had
not bowed the knee in worship to the Canaanite deity, Baal. This passage supports
Paul’s statement in Romans 11:2 that God has not rejected the nation of Israel
altogether.
Romans 11:5
Then, in Romans 11:5, the apostle teaches that in the same way that God set
aside a remnant for Himself in a Elijah’s day so He had done so in Paul’s day in
the mid first century according to His sovereign grace.
Romans 11:5 Therefore, in the same way also, there is in existence at this
particular moment in history, a remnant in accordance with election by
means of grace. (Author’s translation)
“A remnant” is the noun leimma, which appears in Romans 9:27 is related to
the noun leimma, “remnant,” which in turn is related to the verb leipo, “to leave”
and speaks of “that which is left, remnant.” In Romans 9:27, Paul cites Isaiah
10:22 to teach that only a remnant of Jews throughout history will be saved.
Romans 9:27 However, Isaiah cries out over Israel, “Though the number
which is the posterity descended from Israel is like the sand, which is by the
sea only the remnant will be delivered.” (Author’s translation)
In Romans 9:27, hupoleimma speaks of those Jews in Paul’s day who had
trusted in Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah in contrast to the majority of Jews who did
not. The Septuagint translation of Isaiah 10:22 uses the noun kataleimma,
“remnant.” This is insignificant since they are synonymous terms (Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament volume 4, page 195).
In the Old Testament, in relation to the nation of Israel, a “remnant” referred to
a small percentage of the population of the nation of Israel who survived divine
judgment in the form of the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions and deportations.
The concept has its roots in Deuteronomy 4:27-31; 28:62-68; 30:1-10.
In these passages, Moses warns Israel that they would be dispersed throughout
the nations for their disobedience but would be brought back to the land based
upon God’s grace and covenantal faithfulness. The prophets subsequent to Moses
continued this doctrine when teaching the nation of Israel during the time each
lived.
The Septuagint uses the noun leimma of a remnant in Israel during the days of
King Hezekiah when Sennacherib invaded Israel and threatened to destroy
Jerusalem (2 Kings 18:13-2 Kings 19:37). The prophet Jeremiah uses the word
often of the remnant in his day (Jeremiah 40:11, 15; 41:10, 16; 42:2, 15, 19; 43:5;
44:7, 12, 14, 28; 44:28; 47:4, 5; 50:20). In Jeremiah 42:2 and 50:20 the remnant
refers to those Israelites returning from the Babylonian captivity. Jeremiah uses the
remnant of those Israelites who will experience the millennial reign of Christ
(Jeremiah 23:3; 31:7).
Zechariah also speaks of a remnant of Israelites during the millennial reign of
Christ (Zechariah 8:6, 11, 12). The prophet Micah also speaks of a future remnant
of Israelites during the millennium (Micah 2:12; 4:7; 5:7-8; 7:18) and so does
Zephaniah (3:13).
The remnant doctrine appears in the writings of Isaiah (Isaiah 10:20-22; 11:11,
16; 15:9; 16:14; 17:3; 28:5; 37:4, 31, 32; 46:3). It is used in Nehemiah (1:3) and in
the writings of Ezra of the returning Israelites from Babylon (Ezra 9:8, 13, 14, 15).
Haggai speaks of this remnant that returned from Babylon (1:12, 14; 2:2).
The noun leimma appears only once in the Greek New Testament, Romans
11:5, where it refers to the “remnant” of believers in Israel in Paul’s day, in the
first century. Paul first mentions this remnant doctrine in Romans 9:6 and then
develops it further in Romans 9:27-29.

Paul teaches in Romans 11:5 that the election of this remnant of born-again
Israelites in Paul’s day was by means of God’s grace policy. Grace ensures the fact
that God will never totally and completely reject Israel since He deals with that
nation according to His grace policy, which excludes all human merit and
overcomes human failure. It ensures the fact that God will never totally and
completely reject Israel since He does not deal with Israel according to her
faithfulness or lack thereof but rather in accordance with His character and
integrity and faithfulness. There would never be a remnant in Israel and the nation
would be totally destroyed if they were elected by God based on their own merit.
That this remnant was elected by God based on His grace or unmerited favor,
ensures the fact that God will never totally and completely destroy Israel since
God’s grace excludes human merit.
Romans 11:6
Paul in Romans 11:6 argues with his readers that if you agree with me that God
had set aside for Himself a remnant in Israel on the basis of grace, then it follows
logically that this election of the remnant is never at any time on the basis of
meritorious actions otherwise grace never at any time exists as grace.
Romans 11:6 For you see if and let us assume that it is true for the sake of
argument that it is, as an eternal spiritual truth on the basis of grace. And we
agree that it is true! Then, it is never at any time on the basis of meritorious
actions as constituting its source, otherwise grace never at any time exists as
grace. (Author’s translation)
Paul teaches in this verse that in the same way God set aside a remnant for
Himself in Elijah’s day so He had done so in Paul’s day in the mid first century
according to His sovereign grace. Now, in Romans 11:6, Paul provides additional
information with regards to the election by grace of the remnant in Israel. In this
passage, the additional information is that because the remnant in Israel was
elected by grace, then this would exclude their selection by God on the basis of
meritorious actions otherwise grace no longer exists as grace. Romans 11:6 is
therefore giving us additional information with regards to the remnant’s election by
means of grace. It tells us what it does not mean, namely that the remnant was
never selected by God on the basis of meritorious actions. The passage is
explaining more about the election of the remnant by grace, namely that it excludes
meritorious actions.
The statement in Romans 11:6 is a first class condition that indicates the
assumption of truth for the sake of argument. It is designed to encourage Paul’s
audience to respond and come to the conclusion of the apodosis since they already

agreed with him on the protasis. Therefore, Paul is employing the first class
condition as a tool of persuasion with his audience.
Paul’s audience would respond to his protasis and acknowledge that this
election of the remnant is based on God’s grace policy. Thus, this is a “responsive”
condition. The response to Paul’s protasis by his Christian readership would be
obvious. Of course they believe that the remnant’s election was by means of grace!
They would agree emphatically with his protasis.
Here the protasis is “if and let assume that it is true for the sake argument the
remnant’s election is on the basis of grace.” The responsive condition would say:
“Of course we agree that it is true.”
Paul’s readers would agree that the election of the remnant in Israel was by
means of grace because election takes place in eternity past before this remnant
could do anything good or bad. They would also know this for certain based upon
what he has taught about salvation in the first ten chapters that justification and
salvation of sinners is based upon God’s grace policy and received through faith
alone in Christ alone totally excluding human merit.
The apodosis is “(then) the election of the remnant in Israel is never at any time
on the basis of meritorious actions as the source of this election otherwise grace
never at any time exists as grace.”
Paul is not attempting to prove that his protasis is true rather he is saying with
the first class condition that we agree that this doctrine is true that the election of
the remnant in Israel is on the basis of grace. The first class condition would then
persuade them to respond to the conclusion that this election by grace would
exclude meritorious actions as the basis and source for their election. Therefore,
Paul’s audience would have to come to his conclusion if they submit to this line of
argumentation.
He wants them to come to his line of argumentation because he is teaching
them about the mechanics of salvation. Therefore, it is essential that they agree
with him on this point since it will also help them to understand how God deals
with Israel and all men. He also wants them to understand God’s grace policy and
that God’s grace and human merit are mutually exclusive.
The basic relation that the protasis has to the apodosis is “evidence-inference.”
The “evidence” is that the remnant’s election is on the basis of grace. The
“inference” is that this would exclude meritorious actions as the basis for this
election.
“On the basis of grace” refers to God’s grace policy towards the remnant of
Israelite believers in Paul’s day in the sense that God imparted to this remnant who
are sinners, unmerited benefits, both temporal and spiritual, as a result of making
the non-meritorious decision to trust in Jesus Christ as their Savior. It indicates that
the election of the remnant in Israel in Paul’s day is on the basis of God’s grace
policy. In Romans 11:5, he taught that it was by means of grace but now in verse 6,
he teaches that it is also on the basis of grace.
Therefore, Paul is saying in the protasis of the first class condition in Romans
11:6 that the election of this remnant of born-again Israelites in Paul’s day was “on
the basis of” God’s grace policy. Grace ensures the fact that God will never totally
and completely reject Israel since He deals with that nation according to His grace
policy, which excludes all human merit and overcomes human failure. It ensures
the fact that God will never totally and completely reject Israel since He does not
deal with Israel according to her faithfulness or lack thereof but rather in
accordance with His character and integrity and faithfulness.
There would never be a remnant in Israel and the nation would be totally
destroyed if they were elected by God based on their own merit since all have
sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and there is none righteous. That this
remnant was elected by God based on His grace or unmerited favor, ensures the
fact that God will never totally and completely destroy Israel since God’s grace
excludes human merit.
Grace means that this remnant did not earn or deserve the unmerited blessings
of salvation but received them based on the merits of Jesus Christ and His
substitutionary spiritual and physical deaths on the cross. They received salvation
based on their faith in Christ, which is compatible with grace since both give the
sinner not credit and God all the credit.
Romans 11:7
In Romans 11:7, we have the second paragraph in the chapter and in this verse,
Paul poses a question that is the result of an inference from his teaching in Romans
9:6-11:6.
Romans 11:7 What shall we conclude then? That which Israel has in the
past diligently sought after and continues to do so up to the present moment,
this they never obtained. However, the elect obtained it but the rest were
hardened. (Author’s translation)
His statement in Romans 11:7 teaches that Israel never obtained the
righteousness that they diligently sought after in the past and continued to do so up
to the time he wrote this epistle. He then says that in contrast with this group that
sought after righteousness through obedience to the Law, the elect remnant
obtained righteousness through faith in Christ and the majority were hardened by
God for their unbelief.
Romans 11:7 teaches that the majority of Israelites sought after righteousness
but never obtained it but the elect remnant did through faith but the majority of
Israelites were hardened because of unbelief in Christ.
Some like Cranfield believe the inference is from Romans 11:1-6 and some like
Moo contend the inference is from Romans 11:2b-6. However, Paul’s statement in
verse 7 makes clear that the inference is from his teaching in Romans 9:6-11:6
since his statement in this verse gathers up everything he has taught in Romans
9:6-11:6. His statement in Romans 11:7 supports his major premise in Romans 9:6
that not all Israelites are considered by God to be His covenant people Israel since
he states in Romans 11:7 that the elect obtain righteousness and the rest in Israel
did not. He also speaks in Romans 11:7 of God hardening the majority in Israel,
which goes right back to his teaching in Romans 9:6-29.
Furthermore, in this verse, Paul speaks of the elect obtaining righteousness,
which echoes Romans 9:6-29, which speaks of election. In Romans 11:7, he speaks
of Israel not obtaining righteousness, which they were seeking, which echoes his
teaching in Romans 9:30-10:21. Therefore, Paul’s statement in Romans 11:7
summarizes his teaching from Romans 9:6-11:6 in that he is summing up the
situation in Israel in his day. This verse makes clear that God draws a distinction
between Israelites, those who are elect have exercised faith in Christ whereas the
non-elect are hardened by God for not exercising faith in Christ.
The majority in Israel in Paul’s day were non-elect and therefore hardened by
God as a result of not exercising faith in Christ. The minority in Israel was the
remnant who were elected by God as manifested by the fact that they had faith in
Christ.
“Israel” refers to the unsaved citizens of the nation of Israel who are
descendants racially of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whose name was changed by
the Lord to Israel. This is indicated in that Paul in Romans 11:7 speaks of Israel not
obtaining the righteousness they were seeking, which echoes Paul’s statements in
Romans 9:30-10:3.
The majority in Israel attempted to obtain righteousness by being justified
through obedience to the Law rather than receive the gift divine righteousness
through faith alone in Christ alone.
“The elect” is the noun ekloge, which appeared in Romans 9:11 and 11:5. It is a
compound word composed of the preposition ek, “out from” and the verb lego, “to
select, choose,” thus the word literally means, “to choose out from” something.
In classical Greek, the term is used for the simple act of choosing and as it
developed in use from military to political vocabulary it came to be used
exclusively for “the process of electing, selecting or a choice.” The word does not
appear in the canonical portion in the Septuagint and appears only seven times in
the Greek New Testament (Acts 9:15; Romans 9:11; 11:5, 7, 28; 1 Thessalonians
1:14; 2 Peter 1:10). It is always used of believers and never unbelievers in the
Greek New Testament.

Election is never used in Scripture in relation to the unbeliever since 1 Timothy
2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 teach that God desires all men to be saved. In Acts 9:15, the
word is attributed to the Lord Jesus Christ when speaking to Ananias in describing
the apostle Paul at His conversion as being “chosen” by Him. Ekloge is used with
reference to the church age believers’ election in 1 Thessalonians 1:4 and 2 Peter
1:10.
In Romans 9:11, 11:5, 7 and 28, the word is used by Paul in relation to the
election of those racial, descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who exercised
faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior and help to compose “spiritual” Israel (Romans
9:6) and the remnant in that nation (Romans 9:27-29).
Ekloge in these verses describes this remnant of born-again Israelites in Paul’s
day as those who were “chosen’ or “elected” to the privilege, responsibilities and
blessings related to the four unconditional covenants to Israel. They were also
“chosen” and “elected” to possess an eternal relationship and fellowship with the
Trinity and service to the Father through faith in Jesus Christ.
God elected or chose the remnant in Paul’s day before the foundation of the
world in the sense that God, in His foreknowledge, which is based upon His
omniscience, knew before anything was ever created, that they would believe in
His Son in time. God elected or chose them before the foundation of the world
since He knew beforehand that they would accept Jesus Christ as Savior in time
and therefore elected them to privilege.
“Were hardened” is the verb poroo which is related to the noun poros, which
denotes either a stone or a thickened skin, i.e. a hardening.
In classical Greek and in the Septuagint the verb’s primary is literal meaning is
“harden, petrify.” It appears only five times in the Greek New Testament (Mark
6:52; 8:17; John 12:40; 11:7; 2 Corinthians 3:14). In each of these instances it is
always used in a figurative sense and never in a literal sense.
In Romans 11:7, the verb poroo is used in a figurative sense of the hearts of the
majority of unsaved Israelites in Paul’s day, which were “hardened” in the sense
that they were unwilling to accept the gospel message by exercising faith in Jesus
Christ as Savior. This is not the same verb that Paul used in Romans 9:18.
In Romans 9:18, “harden” is the present active indicative form of the verb
skleruno, which is used in respect to God referring to His action in rendering the
sinner insensitive to His word for rejecting His word and that if not reversed results
in eternal condemnation.
Nowhere in Scripture is God said to harden anyone who had not first harden
themselves.3 The greatest example in Scripture of this hardening is that of Pharaoh
3
Leon Morris, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, The Epistle to the Romans, page 361; William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand
Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, U.K., 1996

of Egypt who refused to obey the command of the Lord through Moses and Aaron
to release the nation of Israel from her bondage in Egypt.
The Scriptures teach that God hardened Pharaoh (Exodus 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27;
11:10; 14:8). There were prophecies that God would do this to Pharaoh (Exodus
4:21; 7:3). However, the Scriptures also teach that Pharaoh would harden himself
(Exodus 7:13, 14, 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, 34, 35). God’s hardening of Pharaoh is the
result of Pharaoh first hardening himself in the sense of rejecting over and again
God’s command to release the nation of Israel from her bondage to him in Egypt.
God permitted Pharaoh to exercise his volition repeatedly to reject His
command to release the nation of Israel from her bondage in Egypt. Pharaoh was
responsible for his evil actions. God’s hardening was His response to Pharaoh’s
hardening or in other words, it was in response to Pharaoh’s repeatedly rejecting
His command to release the nation of Israel from her bondage in Egypt. Thus,
God’s hardening is a manifestation of His wrath, i.e. righteous indignation towards
sin and is an expression of His holiness.
God used Pharaoh’s evil actions and negative volition to glorify Himself in the
sense that through Pharaoh’s disobedience to His commands, God manifested His
omnipotence in delivering Israel from her bondage to Pharaoh’s Egypt.
Repeated sinning as in Pharaoh’s case hardens the conscience so that it
becomes “seared” like scar tissue (1 Timothy 4:2). To continually reject God’s
truth as Pharaoh did causes the conscience to become progressively calloused,
hardened and less sensitive to sin, as if covered with layers of unspiritual scar
tissue.
In Romans 9:18, Paul uses this example of God hardening Pharaoh because in
context in Romans 9-11 he is speaking of the nation of Israel’s rejection of Jesus of
Nazareth as their Messiah in his day and is defending God’s righteousness in
rejecting the nation for rejecting Jesus Christ. In Paul’s day God had hardened
unregenerate Israel for her rejection of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, as their
Messiah just as He hardened Pharaoh’s heart for Pharaoh rejecting His revelation
of Himself and command to release the nation of Israel.
So in Romans 11:7, the verb poroo is used of unregenerate Israel in Paul’s day
and means “harden” and refers to the Father’s judicial decision of rejecting
unsaved Israel for their unwillingness to accept the gospel so as to be declared
justified.
Poroo in Romans 11:7, like skleruno in Romans 9:18 does not refer to God
electing or predestinating unsaved Israelites to eternal condemnation since God
desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). God desires all men to be
saved but does not determine who is saved.

Human beings determine their eternal destiny since they are commanded to
trust in Christ as Savior to receive eternal life and failure to do so results in eternal
condemnation (John 3:16-18, 36).
In John 3, the Lord’s encounter with Nicodemus an unsaved Jew at the time,
clearly teaches that this is the case. However, though God has given man a choice
to make, God is the one who initiates the salvation of men and seeks out sinful
mankind since they have no capacity whatsoever to seek out God because they are
spiritually dead. Thus, God remains sovereign even though men have to choose to
accept or reject His Son since He initiates salvation.
In His omniscience, God can see if a person is going to accept His Son or reject
Him. In the case of Pharaoh, He could see that Pharaoh would reject Him, thus His
response to Pharaoh’s rejection of Himself was to harden Pharaoh or in other
words, give Pharaoh over to his own negative decisions in judgment.
In the case of Israel in Paul’s day, He could that the majority of Israelites would
reject His Son as Savior, thus His response to this rejection was to harden them or
in other words, give them over to the consequences of their own negative decision.
This is just what Paul in relation to unregenerate Gentiles in Romans 1:18-32.
God always had Pharaoh’s best intentions in mind. However He permitted
Pharaoh to exercise his volition against Him when throughout His entire encounter
with Pharaoh, He desired that Pharaoh get saved and come to the knowledge of the
truth as He desires for all men. In the same way, God always had Israel’s best
intentions in mind. However, He permitted Israel to exercise their volition against
Him when throughout Israel’s history, He desired that every Israelite born would
get saved and come to the knowledge of the truth as He desires for all men. He
desires all men to be saved because He loves all men.
The problem with those contend that God elects some to salvation and others to
eternal condemnation is that they fail to see through a comparison of Scripture with
Scripture that the sovereign will of God co-exists with the volition of men and
angels as per the divine decree. They misunderstand the sovereignty of God in
relation to the volition of men and angels and fail to take into consideration that
God is omniscient and that He can see before a person is born what decisions that
they will make during the course of their lifetime. They fail to take into account
that the Scriptures teach that Israel like Pharaoh God only hardened them after they
first harden themselves towards Him. They fail to see the relationship between
God’s decision and Israel’s and that when God hardens Israel it means that He was
looking down the corridors of time and saw that Israel would first reject Him.
To say that when God hardened Israel that this manifested the fact that God had
elected these Israelites to eternal condemnation is to reject the Scripture and to
attack the integrity of God since God desires all men to be saved because He loves
all men. Those who experience eternal condemnation are those sinners who choose
to experience it since God’s desires was that they be saved and live with Him
forever. Thus, Israel like Pharaoh will experience eternal condemnation because
they chose to reject Christ as Savior and NOT because God elected them to eternal
condemnation.
So in Romans 11:7, the verb poroo is used of unregenerate Israel in Paul’s day
and means “harden” and refers to the Father’s judicial decision of rejecting
unsaved Israel in Paul’s day for their rejection of His Son Jesus Christ as Savior. It
refers to God giving Israel over to the consequences of their rejection of Christ,
namely eternal condemnation. This word refers back to Paul’s teaching in Romans
9:6-29, which viewed Israel’s rejection of Jesus Christ as Savior from God’s
perspective whereas Romans 9:30-10:21 viewed this rejection from Israel’s
perspective in that they were culpable.
Therefore, in Romans 11:7, Paul poses a question that is the result of an
inference from his teaching in Romans 9:6-11:6. His statement in Romans 11:7
teaches that Israel never obtained the righteousness that they diligently sought after
in the past and continued to do so up to the time he wrote this epistle. He then says
that in contrast with this group that sought after righteousness through obedience to
the Law, the elect remnant obtained righteousness through faith in Christ and the
majority were hardened by God for their unbelief.
Chapter Two: Israel’s Failure Fulfilled God’s Sovereign Will
Romans 11:8
In Romans 11:8, Paul quotes Deuteronomy 29:4 and Isaiah 29:10 to support his
contention that Israel was hardened because of unbelief.
Romans 11:8 As it stands written for all of eternity, “God the Father
caused them to experience an insensitive attitude, eyes that never see as well
as ears that never hear up to and during this very day and period of history.”
In this passage, he teaches that as a result of their rejection of Christ, the Father
caused unregenerate Israel to experience an insensitive attitude towards spiritual
truth. He then explains this by pointing out that unregenerate Israel did not have
the capacity to receive and understand spiritual truth as a result of their rejection of
Christ. He also teaches that this was continuing to take place up to and during the
very day when Paul wrote this epistle.
Romans 11:8 presents a comparison between Paul’s statement at the end of
Romans 11:7 that the majority of Israelites were hardened by God because of their
rejection of Jesus Christ and the quotations from Deuteronomy 29:4 and Isaiah
29:10 that appear after this statement.
The apostle uses these Old Testament passages to support his argument that
God hardened the majority of Israelites in his day because of their rejection of
Jesus Christ. So to validate his assertion that the majority of Israelites were
hardened by God because of their rejection of Jesus Christ, Paul quotes from
Deuteronomy 29:4 and Isaiah 29:10.
In Romans 11:8, Paul combines the words that appear in the Septuagint
translation of Deuteronomy 29:4 (in the Septuagint, it is 29:3) and Isaiah 29:10. He
uses primarily the words from Deuteronomy 29:4 and a phrase from Isaiah 29:10,
which appears to be Paul’s own creation under the inspiration of the Spirit. Paul is
using the wording and basic structure of Deuteronomy 29:4.
Deuteronomy 29:4 is one of the final exhortations that Moses gave to Israel
before they crossed the Jordan to take possession of the land of Canaan. Moses
reminds Israel of the great acts that God has performed for them on their behalf but
he recognizes that they can’t fully appreciate this as indicated by his statement in
Deuteronomy 29:4.
Now, Paul changes the original negative statement of Moses, namely “the Lord
has not given” to a positive one “God has given.” He does this since it better suits
the purpose for which he cites this verse because he is attempting to support his
teaching in Romans 11:7 that God hardened the majority in Israel for their
rejection of Christ. The change from negative to positive and the modification of
words does not altar the sense.
Isaiah 29:10 speaks of the spiritual insensitivity in the prophet Isaiah’s day,
which was in itself a judgment from God. The fact that the prophets and seers in
Isaiah’s day did not see and understand clearly was part of God’s judgment. They
did not understand God’s revelation about His judgment on the Assyrians that
Isaiah recorded in Isaiah 29:11-12. No one, either people who could read or those
who couldn’t, could understand this truth. In Romans 11:8, Paul cites Isaiah 29:10
to describe God’s judgment upon Israel in the prophet Isaiah’s day since this is
exactly what God was doing in Paul’s day.
So in Romans 11:8, Paul quotes Deuteronomy 29:4 and Isaiah 29:10 to support
his contention that Israel was hardened because of unbelief. In this passage, he
teaches that as a result of their rejection of Christ, the Father caused unregenerate
Israel to experience an insensitive attitude towards spiritual truth.
He then explains this by pointing out that unregenerate Israel did not have the
capacity to receive and understand spiritual truth as a result of their rejection of
Christ. He also teaches that this was continuing to take place up to and during the
very day when Paul wrote this epistle. The Lord Jesus Christ used the same
language when denouncing Israel’s rejection of His teaching in Matthew 13:1-17
and John 12:27-43.

Romans 11:9
Then, in Romans 11:9, the apostle quotes Psalm 69:22 as further support for his
contention that Israel was hardened because of their rejection of Jesus Christ.
Romans 11:9 Also, David says, “May their table become as a snare and as a
trap and as a bait stick of a trap and as a retribution against them.” (Author’s
translation)
In this passage, Paul quotes Psalm 69:22 as further support for his contention
that Israel was hardened because of their rejection of Jesus Christ. He also teaches
that the righteousness produced by unsaved Israel in his day through obedience to
the Law in an attempt to be justified would be equivalent to judgment (snare),
prepare them for judgment (trap), trigger judgment upon them (stumbling block)
and retribution.
Paul presents an additional witness from the Old Testament Scriptures, namely,
David who in addition to Moses and Isaiah also predicted that unsaved Israel in his
day would be judged for their rejection of Christ.
“David” is the proper name Dabid, whose name in the Hebrew means,
“beloved.” God called David a man after his own heart according to Acts 13:22.
David was the second and greatest King of Israel whose reign over Israel 40
years, seven in Hebron and thirty-three in Jerusalem, and whose dynasty ruled in
Judah for over four hundred years (2 Samuel 5:5; 1 Kings 2:11). He was born in
the town of Bethlehem (House of Bread) (1 Samuel 16:1; 17:12; Luke 2:4). David
was the youngest of seven sons of Jesse (1 Samuel 16:10; 1 Chronicles 2:13-15)
and has two sisters (1 Chronicles 2:16; 2 Samuel 17:25). He was from the tribe of
Judah (Ruth 4:18-22).
David was a direct descendant of Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab,
Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz (the husband of Ruth), Obed, (the son of Boaz and Ruth)
and Jesse his father (1 Chronicles 2:5-16; Matthew 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). He was a
shepherd by trade before being anointed king of Israel by the prophet Samuel (1
Samuel 16:1-13). David was an outstanding military commander, a masterful
statesman and administrator, a skilled musician witnessed by the fact that he
organized the temple music and wrote many of the Psalms (See 1 Samuel 16:17-
18). He made his debut in Israelite history when he killed the Philistine champion
Goliath which resulted in the rout of the Philistine armies (See 1 Samuel 17).
Consequently, King Saul adopted David into his court (1 Samuel 17:55-18:2).
David struck up a great friendship with Saul’s son Jonathan and it lasted till
Jonathan’s death on the battlefield with his father (1 Samuel 18:1-4). Saul
persecuted David out of jealousy for David’s great talents and his tremendous
popularity among the citizens of Israel and even attempted to assassinate David (1
Samuel 16:14-23; 1 Samuel 18:5-9).
The next several years of David’s life were as a fugitive and an outlaw as a
result of Saul’s repeated attempts to assassinate him. During his years of exile, he
became an ally with the Philistines (1 Samuel 27). His years of exile ended with
the death of Saul and his son Jonathan (1 Samuel 28:1-2; 1 Chronicles 12:19-22).
David was anointed king over the house of Judah at Hebron and reigned 7 and a
half years over that tribe (2 Samuel 2:1-11). The long civil war between the house
of David and the house of Saul eventuated in the extermination of the house of
Saul and David being anointed king over all Israel (2 Samuel 2:8-5:5).
As king over Israel, David defeated the Philistines (2 Samuel 5:17-25; 1
Chronicles 18:1; 2 Samuel 21:15-22). He conquered the Moabites, Aramaeans,
Ammonites, Edomites and Amalekites (2 Samuel 8:10; 12:26-31). David built up a
substantial empire for his son Solomon, which reached from Ezion-geber on the
gulf of Aqabah in the south to the region of Hums bordering on the city-state of
Hamath in the north.4 He demonstrated his great administrative talents by the
extensive kingdom he left behind and the preservation of accounts of efficient
organization (1 Chronicles 22:17-27:34).
David also reestablished Levitical cities and cities of refuge. He captured
Jerusalem from the Jebusites and established his capital there (2 Samuel 5:6-8; 1
Chronicles 11:4-8). He brought back the Ark of the Covenant (2 Samuel 6:12-15)
but only after several failed attempts (2 Samuel 6:11-15; 1 Chronicles 15:13). He
was responsible for the organization of the temple music and made plans for the
rebuilding of the temple, which he was not allow to do by the Lord who assigned
David’s son Solomon with the task (2 Samuel 7; 1 Chronicles 17:1).
David received the tremendous promise from God that his throne would be
established forever (2 Sam. 7:16), namely that the Messiah would descend from
him. This promise is called the “Davidic” covenant, which was given to David
through the prophet Nathan and was an unconditional covenant, which was based
upon the faithfulness of God rather than the faithfulness of Israel.
The “Davidic” covenant deals with the dynasty that will rule the nation of Israel
as indicated in 2 Samuel 7:16 where God promised David that a descendant of his
would sit on his throne forever.
The Davidic covenant is also confirmed in the following passages: Isa. 9:6-7;
Jer. 23:5-6; 30:8-9; 33:14-17, 20-21; Ezek. 37:24-25; Dan. 7:13-14; Hos. 3:4-5;
Amos 9:11; Zech. 14:4, 9.
The Davidic Covenant contains four promises: (1) A Davidic House: Posterity
of David will never be destroyed. (2) A Davidic Throne: Kingdom of David shall
never be destroyed. (3) A Davidic Kingdom: David’s Son (Christ) will have an
earthly sphere of rule. (4) It Shall Be Unending. The “sign” of the Davidic
Covenant is a Son (Lord Jesus Christ).
4
See W.F. Albright, page 131

Provisions of the Davidic Covenant: (1) David is to have a child, yet to be born,
who will succeed him and establish his kingdom (2) This son (Solomon), instead
of David, will build the temple. (3) The throne of his kingdom will be established
forever. (4) The throne will not be taken away from him (Solomon) even though
his sins justify God’s discipline. (5) David’s house, throne and kingdom will be
established forever.
The essential features of the Davidic Covenant are found in three words in 2
Samuel 7:16: (1) House (physical descendants): A line stemming from David
would continue indefinitely and would be the divinely recognized royal line. (2)
Kingdom (political body): the political body that David would rule and over which
David’s descendants would successively reign. (3) Throne (right to rule): refers to
the authority as king vested in him.
Just as important as these three terms is the word “forever,” which refers to any
time during which the descendants of Abraham would exist. Even though there
might be temporary interruptions in the exercise of royal authority because of
divine discipline, the authority would never transfer to another line.
As in the case of the Abrahamic covenant, this covenant with David is restated
and reconfirmed elsewhere in Scripture. One of the royal titles that the Lord Jesus
Christ possesses is that of the “Son of David,” which denotes His rulership over the
nation of Israel (Matt. 1:1; 20:30; Mark 10:47-48; Luke 1:32; 2 Tim. 2:8; Rev. 3:7;
5:5; 22:16).
The Bible anticipates a future literal fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant. The
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of David, will literally fulfill this covenant during His
millennial reign.
The prophetic implications of the Davidic Covenant: (1) Israel must be
preserved as a nation. (2) Israel must have a national existence and be brought back
into the land of her inheritance. (3) David’s descendant, the Lord Jesus Christ,
must return to the earth, bodily and literally, in order to reign over David’s
covenanted kingdom. (4) A literal earthly kingdom must exist over which the
returned Messiah will reign. (5) This kingdom must become an eternal kingdom.
The Lord Jesus Christ’s humanity descended from the line of David (Luke 3:31;
Revelation 5:5; 22:16) as a result of the Davidic covenant. There was no one like
David since Moses and yet he failed terribly at the pinnacle of his success.
During his life, David was guilty of breaking the Law in that he not only
committed adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of one of his most loyal soldiers but
he also got her pregnant. To cover this up, he attempted to get Uriah drunk so that
he might have sex with Bathsheba but he was such a man of integrity, that he
refused citing that his fellow soldiers could not be with their wives.
Finally, David had his military commander put Uriah in the thick of a battle so
that he might easily be killed. This terrible failure of David is recorded in 2 Samuel
11. God ordered the prophet Nathan to confront the king as recorded in 2 Samuel
12. Not only did Nathan rebuke David and announce to him that he would be
disciplined by the Lord but he also informed David that his sins were forgiven.
David speaks of this forgiveness in Psalm 32:1, which Paul quotes in Romans
4:7-8. Even though David committed these terrible sins of murder and adultery,
“he died in a ripe old age, full of days, riches and honor; and his son Solomon
reigned in his place” according to 1 Chronicles 29:28.
In Romans 11:9, Paul is quoting from Psalm 69:22 (LXX 68:23) and in Romans
11:10 he quotes from Psalm 69:23 (LXX 68:24). In Romans 11:9-10, though Paul
is quoting from Psalm 69:22 (LXX 68:23) and in Romans 11:10 he quotes from
Psalm 69:23 (LXX 68:24), he does change the wording a bit.
So Paul is following closely the Septuagint, which follows the Masoretic text
closely except in the last clause, which Dunn believes indicates that Paul is
following the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew (ibid. 642).
Psalm 69 was used quite a bit in the New Testament where it is either quoted or
alluded to in Mark 3:21; 15:23 parallels; Luke 13:35; John 2:17; Acts 1:20;
Romans 15:3; Philippians 4:3; Revelation 3:5; 16:1. This Psalm is used quite bit in
relation to the suffering of Christ. It was considered to be Messianic (cf. John
15:25).
The Psalm itself expresses the Psalmist’s troubles with his enemies where he
was persecuted by his own people. Psalm 69:22-23 expresses David’s desire in
prayer that the table of his enemies would become something that they would
stumble over. The enemies of king David were his own people. They became the
Lord’s enemies since David was anointed by Him to be king over Israel. In Paul’s
day, Israel had rejected the Christ, the Lord’s Anointed One, the king of Israel and
so Paul applies Psalm 69:22-23 to Israel in his day.
Now, as we noted Paul is quoting Psalm 69:22 and this expression “let their
table become a snare” and is applying it to unregenerate Israel in his day. It is
clear that Paul does not intend to apply the details in this quotation to the Jews of
his own day. Paul is not saying that this flap was literally a snare to his fellow
unsaved Jews in his day but rather he is simply taking the principle from the text.
Therefore, it appears that as he did in Romans 10:18 when he quoted Psalm 19:4
by way of analogy, so here in Romans 11:9, Paul is quoting Psalm 69:22 and the
expression “let their table become a snare” by way of analogy.
But what is the table itself analogous to? We know that Paul is applying this
table to unsaved Israel in his day. But what did unsaved Israel possess that would
become a snare to them, i.e. result in sudden judgment from God? Many expositors
believe that the table is analogous to blessings. However, it is difficult to see how
the blessings or privileges of the Jews received becoming a snare to them.

The presence of the intensive personal pronoun autos, “their” functioning as a
possessive pronoun is emphasizing that this table is a personal possession of Israel.
Therefore, it appears based upon what Paul has been teaching about the Jews in
Romans chapters 9-11 that their own self-righteousness produced by obedience to
the Law is what he has in mind.
Now, in Psalm 69:22, David was praying that divine judgment would come
upon his enemies, so Paul saw this prayer as being fulfilled in his day with his own
unregenerate Jewish countrymen rejecting Christ. By quoting Psalm 69:22 by way
of analogy, Paul is saying that in the same way that David’s Jewish persecutors
were judged by God for attacking him, the Lord’s anointed so in the same way
God was judging Paul’s unsaved Jewish countrymen in the first century as a result
of rejecting the Father’s Anointed, Jesus Christ. So the table here is analogous to
unsaved Israel’s self-righteousness produced by their own obedience to the Law,
which does not measure up to Christ’s perfect righteousness and will serve to
condemn them at the Great White Throne Judgment according to Revelation
20:11-15.
“Snare” is the noun pagis, which is used by way of analogy for judgment upon
unregenerate Israel for rejecting Christ. The unsaved Jews self-righteousness
produced by obedience to the Law would be tantamount to or equivalent to divine
judgment for them since their righteousness does not measure up to the perfect
righteousness of Christ.
“Trap” is the noun thera, which appears in the Greek New Testament only
once, namely Romans 11:9. Now the table was analogous to the self-righteousness
produced by the Jews attempt to be justified by obedience to the Law. Thus, the
noun thera refers to unsaved Israel being prepared for judgment as a result of their
self-righteousness. Paul is saying that the unsaved Jews self-righteousness
produced by attempting to be justified by obedience to the Law would prepare
them for divine judgment.
“A bait stick of a trap” is the noun skandalon, which does not appear in
classical Greek, though its derivative skandelthron does. It doesn’t appear in Philo,
or Josephus or Hellenistic Jewish literature. The noun skandalon is from a root,
which means, “jump up, snap shut,” and was originally the piece of wood that kept
open a trap for animals.
The English word “scandal” is derived from the noun via the Latin scandalum.
The word frequently appears in both the Septuagint and Greek New Testament. It
is used to translate the Hebrew moqesh, “snare,” which appears in Josh. 23:13;
Judges 2:3; Psalm 106:36.
The noun skandalon is used to also translate the noun mikhshol, “stumbling
block,” which appears in Leviticus 19:14. The primary meaning of the term in the
Septuagint is simply “cause of ruin.”
The noun skandalon appears 15 times in the Greek New Testament where the
word’s meaning in the New Testament follows the use of the word in the
Septuagint. In Matthew 13:41, 16:23, 18:7, and Luke 17:1 the word means a
temptation to sin or an enticement to sin. In Romans 14:13, the word is used in
relation to the law of agape, “divine-love” where mature believers are not to let
their words or actions be a cause of stumbling to their fellow believer who is
immature and weak in his knowledge of the Word of God.
Skandalon is used in Romans 16:17 of those who cause “hindrances” or
“obstacles” to the communication of the Word of God. The word is used by our
Lord in Revelation 2:14 where He is addressing the churches in Pergamum. In this
passage the Lord states that in this city there were some believers who held to the
teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to “put a stumbling block” before the
sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality.
Skandalon is employed by the apostle John in 1 John 2:10 of believers. John
states that the believer who obeys the Lord’s command in John 13:34 to love his
fellow believer as Christ loved all men is abiding in the light and furthermore there
is no “cause of stumbling” in him meaning that there is no cause of sin in him since
obeying this command is the fulfillment of the Law (cf. Rm. 13:8-10).
In Romans 9:33, 1 Corinthians 1:23, Galatians 5:11 and 1 Peter 2:8, the noun
skandalon is used figuratively of that which gives offense or causes revulsion, that
which arouses opposition, an object of anger or disapproval.”
The noun skandalon means the bait stick of a trap or the stick, which triggers
the trapping mechanism the moment a bird or animal makes contact with it. Paul
uses the word in Romans 11:9 in a figurative sense to denote that unsaved Israel’s
righteousness produced by obedience to the Law in order to be justified would
serve like the bait stick of a trap in that it would trigger divine judgment upon
them.
“A retribution” is the noun antapodoma, which is applied here to unsaved
Israel in Paul’s day and denotes that at the Great White Throne Judgment they will
receive retribution for their righteousness produced by obedience to the Law to be
justified rather than having faith in Christ to be justified. Unsaved Israel’s self-
righteousness produced by their own obedience to the Law, which does not
measure up to Christ’s perfect righteousness, will serve to condemn them at the
Great White Throne Judgment according to Revelation 20:11-15.
So Paul in Romans 11:9 quotes Psalm 69:22 as further support for his
contention that Israel was hardened because of their rejection of Jesus Christ. In
this passage, he teaches that the righteousness produced by unsaved Israel in his
day through obedience to the Law in an attempt to be justified would be equivalent
to judgment (snare), prepare them for judgment (trap), trigger judgment upon them
(stumbling block) and retribution.
Romans 11:10
In Romans 11:10, Paul quotes from Psalm 69:23 to again further support for his
contention that Israel was hardened because of their rejection of Jesus Christ.
Romans 11:10 “May their eyes be darkened so that they never see. Also,
bend their back forever.” (Author’s translation)
“May their eyes be darkened so that they never see” is used of unregenerate
Israel in the sense of preventing unsaved Israel to have the capacity to understand
spiritual truth as a result of their rejection of the truth, Jesus Christ. The word
speaks of judgment from God for rejection of Christ.
David is addressing the Father in prayer making a request to judge his enemies
since he is His anointed. Paul applies this to Israel in the sense that they will be
judged by God for their rejection of the “Anointed One,” Jesus Christ.
“Bend their back forever” is presenting a picture of one who is carrying a
heavy load, which is an accurate picture of the unsaved Jew in Paul’s day who
sought to be justified by keeping the Law, which demanded perfection and was
thus was impossible for the Jew to accomplish. It paints a picture in our context of
the unsaved Jew under the burden of the Law, which demanded perfection and the
Jew was unable to meet its demands. This is why the Lord Jesus Christ made the
following appeal to the Jews:
Matthew 11:28 “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I
will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am
gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR
SOULS. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” (NASB95)
Some expositors contend that the translation “forever” is incorrect but rather
should be translated “continually” meaning that is long as Israel is under this
judgment, it is to be continuous and sustained. This would indicate that this
judgment upon Israel would not last indefinitely. They use as support Paul’s
statement in Romans 11:26 that all Israel will be saved. However, in context,
David is prophetically speaking of unsaved Israel in his day. This judgment is
directed towards the unsaved. It is true that the nation of Israel is not rejected by
God and that all Israel will be saved but in context in Romans 11:10, Paul is
describing the judgment upon those in Israel in Paul’s day who rejected Christ. In
fact, in Romans 11:8-10, Paul is supporting his statement at the end of Romans
11:7 that the majority in Israel was hardened by God for their rejection of Christ.
In verses 8-10, Paul is describing this judgment upon unsaved Israel. Therefore, the
prepositional phrase does mean “forever” since the unsaved will receive eternal
condemnation, thus God will bend their backs forever this is a part of the judgment
of the unsaved in Israel.
Chapter Three: Gentiles Are Blessed With Salvation Because Of Israel’s Failure
Romans 11:11
Romans 11:11 begins the third paragraph in the chapter and in this passage Paul
argues that Israel’s fall as a nation is by no means final but was to save the Gentiles
so as to make them jealous.
Romans 11:11 Therefore, I ask, did they stumble so as to fall down in
complete in ruin? Absolutely not! On the contrary because of their
transgression salvation is experienced by the Gentiles in order to provoke
them to jealousy. (Author’s translation)
The rhetorical question that in Romans 11:11 is the result of an inference that
could be implied from Paul’s teaching in Romans 11:8-10, namely that Israel’s
rejection of Christ as a nation is the end of her as a national entity.
“May it never be!” is the strongest negative Greek expression emphatically
denying any possibility or thought of the nation of Israel being in complete ruin as
a result of rejecting Christ.
The statement “On the contrary because of their transgression salvation is
experienced by the Gentiles in order to provoke them to jealousy” stands in
direct contrast with the idea that Israel stumbled by rejecting Christ so as to fall in
complete ruin as a nation. It indicates that salvation is experienced by the Gentiles
because of Israel’s transgression in rejecting Christ in order to provoke Israel to
jealousy.
Paul is saying in Romans 11:11 that even though the majority in Israel had
rejected Christ as Savior and only a remnant have believed. This does not imply
that God is through with Israel as a national entity. He is teaching in Romans 11:11
among other things that God is not through with Israel as a nation even though the
majority of Israelites have rejected their Messiah and only a remnant has believed
in the Savior. So in this verse he is making clear in emphatic terms that Israel as a
nation has a future despite the fact that the majority has rejected Christ and only a
remnant has believed. The unsaved Israelites are lost forever but God still has a
plan for the nation as a whole despite the fact that the majority of Israelites will
suffer eternal condemnation for their rejection of Christ.
“Did they stumble” is composed of the negative particle me, “not,” which is
negating the verb ptaio, “they did stumble.” The verb ptaio in classical Greek
meant “to stumble against something” or “to cause someone to stumble.” The idea
of making a mistake or committing an error is expressed by this word. It is used in
a figurative sense of “suffering misfortune or ruin.” In Romans 11:11, the verb
ptaio is used in an intransitive and figurative sense meaning “to stumble” in the
sense of committing a sin and is used to describe the nation of Israel’s rejection of
Jesus Christ as Messiah. In Romans 9:32, Paul used the verb proskopto, which
meant “stumbling” and was used in a metaphorical sense of the “spiritual
stumbling” of the nation of Israel.
The verb proskopto is composed of the preposition pros, “toward, against” and
the verb kopto, “to strike, beat,” thus the word literally means “to strike against”
while on the other hand, the verb ptaio also means “to stumble” over an obstacle.
The difference between ptaio and proskopto is that the latter is of a violent nature
of striking against an object whereas the former does not have that sense.
Proskopto was used in the Septuagint of military defeat and striking a foot
against a stone and of a defeated nation. It is used in Romans 9:32 to convey the
violent nature of Israel’s spiritual stumbling in that they not only rejected Christ
but were violent towards Him in that they crucified Him. The verb ptaio does not
have a violent connotation attached to it at all but simply presents the image of a
person stumbling over an obstacle much like when walking into a dark room and
tripping over a child’s toy. In Romans 11:11, ptaio is used in a figurative sense of
Israel stumbling in the sense of committing the sin or failing to believe in Christ as
Savior. Therefore, proskopto in Romans 9:32 describes the violent nature of
Israel’s rejection of Christ whereas ptaio in Romans 11:11 views Israel’s rejection
of Christ from the perspective of it being a moral failure or sin on their part. The
meaning of the verb ptaio in Romans 11:11 is negated by the negative particle me,
which denies any idea of Israel as a nation never being able to recover from their
rejection of Christ.
“By their transgression” refers to the majority of Jews in Israel who rejected
Christ. The Father’s intention for saving those Gentiles who trusted in His Son as
Savior was so that Israel might respond in faith as well to the gospel. God saved
the Gentile so that He might save the Jew. Thus, God had not rejected the Jews
altogether but still had them in mind by turning to the Gentiles.
By God turning from the Jews for their rejection of the gospel of Jesus Christ
and turning to the Gentiles and offering salvation to them indicates that Israel did
in fact understand the gospel since the Gentiles who the Jews thought they were
superior to, understood the gospel and obeyed it!
Also, just as God used other Gentile nations as His instruments to execute
judgment upon Israel so He also uses Gentile nations as His instruments to provoke
Israel to jealousy so that they would turn to Christ and have faith in Him so as to
be saved.
So Romans 11:11 Paul is teaching that the Father was attempting to provoke
Israel to jealousy by offering salvation to the Gentiles and saving them so that the
Jews would respond in faith to the offer as well.

Romans 11:12
In Romans 11:12, the apostle Paul argues that if Israel’s transgression and
failure meant riches for the Gentiles, how much more then will Israel’s full
restoration bring to the Gentiles.
Romans 11:12 But, if, and let us assume that it is true for the sake of
argument that their transgression, as an eternal spiritual truth does mean
infinite wealth possessed by the world’s inhabitants. Specifically, their failure,
as an eternal spiritual truth does mean infinite wealth possessed by the
Gentiles. And of course, we agree that this is a fact of history! Then how much
more will their full restoration bring? (Author’s translation)
In Romans 11:12, Paul is contrasting the infinite spiritual benefits that the
Gentiles received through Israel’s rejection of Christ with that of the infinite
spiritual benefits they will receive in the future when the nation of Israel is fully
restored at the Second Advent of Christ and His subsequent millennial reign.
This passage is a first class conditional statement. The protasis expresses the
fact that Paul and his readers would agree that this is a fact of history that salvation
has come to the world’s inhabitants, the Gentiles because of Israel’s rejection of
Christ. It would persuade his reader to agree with his apodosis that Israel’s
restoration in the future at the Second Advent of Christ will result in greater
blessings for the world’s inhabitants, the Gentiles.
Now remember Paul statement “their failure, as an eternal spiritual truth
does mean infinite wealth possessed by the Gentiles” “explains” in specific
terms the previous statement that Israel’s transgression meant infinite wealth
possessed by the world’s inhabitants.
In both statements, Paul is speaking of the same individuals, the Gentiles even
though identifies them in the previous clause with the noun kosmos, which is a
reference to the world’s inhabitants. This is indicated in that the noun paraptoma,
“transgression” in the previous statement and the noun hettema, “failure” both
refer to Israel’s sin in rejecting Jesus Christ.
Paul again is writing rhetorically in that he is using parallelism meaning that
paraptoma and hettema are both speaking of Israel’s rejection of Christ but from
different perspectives. It is further indicated in that both statements use the noun
ploutos to describe what was received by these individuals because Israel’s
rejection of Christ.
This question “Then how much more will their full restoration bring?”
emphasizes that Israel’s full restoration at Christ’s Second Advent and subsequent
millennial reign will bring even greater blessings to the Gentiles than when Israel
rejected Christ. It emphasizes the certainty that if Israel’s rejection of Christ meant
infinite spiritual wealthy possessed by the Gentiles, how much more will blessing
will come to the Gentile when Israel is fully restored in the future at Christ’s
Second Advent and subsequent millennial reign.
Therefore, Paul’s statement in Romans 11:15 explains his statement in Romans
11:12 in that it provides additional information with regards to the latter. His
statement in Romans 11:12 that Israel’s transgression in rejecting Christ meant
infinite wealth (unmerited blessings) for the Gentiles is explained from in Romans
11:15 as God rejecting Israel.
The infinite wealth (unmerited blessings from salvation) for the Gentiles is
explained as the Gentiles being reconciled to God. Paul’s reference to the
restoration of Israel at the Second Advent of Christ in Romans 11:12 is further
explained as a national regeneration. That Romans 11:15 is explaining Romans
11:12 is indicated also by the fact that Paul is writing once again rhetorically,
which is indicated by the parallelism.
Chapter Four: Paul Explains His Ministry To The Gentiles In Relation To Israel
Romans 11:13-14
Now, in Romans 11:13, Paul addresses his Gentile Christian readers in Rome
specifically and expresses the fact that he takes great pride in his ministry as an
apostle to the Gentiles.
Romans 11:13 Now, I am at this particular time speaking to and for the
benefit of all of you Gentiles. Contrary to what you might be inclined to
conclude, to the very extent that I myself am sent to the Gentiles, I take pride
in my ministry. (Author’s translation)
Romans 11:13-14 forms a parenthesis that explains how Paul’s ministry
indirectly impacted the nation of Israel. In this parenthesis, Paul corrects any
possible misunderstanding among his Gentile Christian readers regarding the
implications for Israel when he is an apostle to the Gentiles. He doesn’t want his
readers to erroneously conclude that because his ministry is mainly directed
towards the Gentiles that he himself is through with the Jews.
Paul teaches his Gentile Christian readers in verses 13-14 that even though I am
indeed an apostle to the Gentiles and serve them by proclaiming the gospel to
them, I perform this service in the hopes that this ministry to you might provoke
my fellow Jewish countrymen to jealousy so as to save some of them. All of this
was to protect his Gentile Christian readers from racial prejudice towards the Jews.
He wants them to have the same attitude that he and God Himself has towards the
Jews, a desire to see Jews saved.
In Romans 11:14, Paul completes the thought that he began in Romans 11:13
by relating to his Gentile Christian readers in Rome that he takes great pride in this
ministry to the Gentiles because he hopes that it would perhaps provoke his fellow
Jews to jealousy so as to save some of them.
Romans 11:14 If, and let us assume that it is true for the sake of argument
that I take pride in my ministry and of course I do because I already told you
that, then perhaps (by this ministry) I will provoke to jealousy my nation and
thus deliver some from among them. (Author’s translation)
The protasis in this verse reiterates the fact that Paul established from his
statement in Romans 11:13 that he took pride in his ministry to the Gentiles. The
protasis would then persuade them to respond to the apodosis that perhaps by his
ministry to the Gentiles he hopes to provoke his fellow Jewish countrymen to
jealousy so as to save some of them.
Here the protasis is “if and let assume that it is true for the sake argument I take
pride in my ministry to the Gentiles.” The responsive condition would say: “Of
course I do because I just told you that in the previous sentence.” The apodosis is
“then perhaps (by honoring my ministry to the Gentiles) I might provoke my
fellow Jews to jealousy so as to save some of them.”
the first class condition that this is a fact I already established from the previous
statement in Romans 11:13 that I take pride in my ministry to the Gentiles. His
work with the Gentiles was well-known and so of course they would agree with
Paul’s protasis.
The first class condition would then persuade them to respond to the conclusion
that perhaps by his ministry to the Gentiles he hopes to provoke his fellow Jewish
countrymen to jealousy so as to save some of them. Therefore, Paul’s audience
would have to come to his conclusion if they submit to this line of argumentation.
He wants them to come to his line of argumentation because he does not want them
to have a bad attitude towards the Jews because of their rejection of Christ. He
wants them to follow his example of proclaiming the gospel to the Gentiles so as to
provoke the Jews to jealousy so as to save some of them. Therefore, it is essential
that they agree with him on this point since it will help them to have the proper
attitude towards the Jews as well as understand that Israel has a future in the plan
of God and that God has not rejected her as a national entity.
The “evidence” is that Paul takes great pride in his ministry to the Gentiles. The
“inference” is that he honors his ministry to the Gentiles so that perhaps it would
provoke his fellow Jews to jealousy so as to save some of them.
Here in Romans 11:14, the enclitic (no accent of its own and is thus pronounced
as part of the word preceding it) particle pos should be translated “perhaps” rather
than “by any means” or “somehow.” This is indicated in that the means by which
Paul hopes to provoke his Jewish countrymen so as to save of them is already
implied in the protasis, which is omitted but supplied from Romans 11:13 with the
statement “I take pride in my ministry.” Therefore, the word does not refer to an
unspecified means of provoking the Jews to jealousy so as to save some of them
but rather it is expressing an expectation or possibility.
So Paul is saying the following with pos: “If and let us assume that it is true of
the sake of argument that I take pride in my ministry and of course I do because I
already told you that-then ‘perhaps’ (by honoring my ministry to the Gentiles) I
might provoke my fellow Jews to jealousy so as to save some of them.” Therefore,
as we can see pos is actually in the apodosis rather than the protasis of the first
class condition.
The apostle Paul is imitating God the Father and carrying out His purpose to
provoke Israel to jealousy by offering salvation to the Gentiles.
Romans 11:15
In Romans 11:15, Paul employed a first class conditional statement that

explains his statements in Romans 11:12-14.
Romans 11:15 For you see, if, and let us assume that it is true for the sake
of argument that their rejection reconciled the world’s inhabitants and of
course, we agree that this is a fact of history, then what will their acceptance
bring about but life out from the spiritually dead ones. (Author’s translation)
Paul’s statement in Romans 11:15 explains his statement in Romans 11:12 in
the sense that Israel’s transgression in rejecting Christ meant infinite wealth for the
Gentiles is explained as God rejecting Israel and the infinite wealth for the Gentiles
is explained as the Gentiles being reconciled to God. The statement in Romans
11:15 explains Paul’s statements in Romans 11:13-14 in the sense that his desire to
provoke his fellow unsaved Jews to jealousy through the function of his ministry to
the Gentiles so as to save some of them has reconciled the Gentiles to God. The
inference from this protasis teaches that if God’s rejection of Israel for their
rejection of His Son reconciled the Gentiles to Himself, then how much more will
result from God accepting Israel when they have faith in His Son at His Second
Advent.
The protasis in Romans 11:15 reiterates and explains further his statement in
Romans 11:12 by establishing the historical fact that God’s rejection of Israel
because of their rejection of Christ reconciled those Gentiles who trusted in Christ.
From this protasis, Paul infers in the apodosis assuring his readers that when God
accepts the nation of Israel for having faith in His Son at His Second Advent there
will be a national regeneration. Therefore, Paul is teaching that if God rejected the
nation of Israel for rejecting His Son Jesus Christ during His First Advent, there

will certainly be a national regeneration of the nation of Israel when they have faith
in Christ at His Second Advent.
Here the protasis is “if and let assume that it is true for the sake argument God’s
rejection of Israel because of their rejection of Christ reconciled the world’s
inhabitants, i.e. the Gentiles.” The responsive condition would say: “Of course we
agree that this is an historical fact.” Paul’s readers would agree that Israel’s
transgression is riches for the world’s inhabitants and their failure to accept by
faith Jesus Christ is riches for the Gentiles since they would know this first hand
since many were born-again Gentiles. The apodosis is “(then) how much more will
God’s acceptance of Israel at Christ’s Second Advent bring about when the nation
trusts in Christ but a national regeneration.”
the first class condition that we agree that this is a fact of history that the Gentiles
have been reconciled to God because of Israel’s rejection of Christ. The first class
condition would then persuade them to respond to the conclusion that Israel’s
restoration in the future at the Second Advent of Christ will result in a national
regeneration of Israel. Therefore, Paul’s audience would have to come to his
conclusion if they submit to this line of argumentation. He wants them to come to
his line of argumentation because he does not want them to be prejudiced against
the Jews because of their rejection of Christ.
Therefore, it is essential that they agree with him on this point since it will help
them to understand that God has a future with the nation of Israel and has not
rejected her as a national entity.
The “evidence” is that Israel’s rejection of Christ resulted in reconciling the
Gentiles to God. The “inference” is that how much more will Israel be accepted by
God when they trust in His Son at His Son’s Second Advent, namely, there will be
a national regeneration of Israel.
“Their rejection” does not refer to Israel’s rejection of Christ but rather it
refers to God’s rejection of unsaved Israel as a result of their rejection of His Son
Jesus Christ. This is indicated by the context in that this phrase stands in direct
antithesis “acceptance,” which refers to God accepting Israel for accepting His
Son at His Second Advent. Furthermore in Romans 11:16-24, Paul issues a
warning to the Gentiles to learn from Israel’s failure since they too can be rejected
by God like Israel by failing to exercise faith in Christ as Savior.
“Reconciled” is the noun katallage, which is used of the doctrine of
reconciliation. The question that arises from the use of this word here in Romans
11:15 is whether it refers to reconciliation in an objective sense meaning that God
offered reconciliation to the entire world through the gospel or does it refer to
Christ’s death reconciling Jew and Gentile as Paul refers to in Ephesians 2:11-22?
Or does the word refer exclusively to those Gentiles who responded to the offer of
reconciliation that was presented in the gospel by exercising faith in Christ?
The context indicates that katallage in Romans 11:15 is a reference to those
Gentiles who exercised faith in Christ and experienced reconciliation with God
since the statement “their rejection is the reconciliation of the world” parallels
the statement in Romans 11:12 that “their transgression is riches for the
Gentiles.” The latter statement in verse 12 is an obvious reference to saved
Gentiles since the noun ploutos, “riches” refers to the infinite unmerited spiritual
benefits that were received by the Gentiles through faith alone in Christ alone.
Remember that the protasis in Romans 11:15 explains Paul’s statement in Romans
11:12 in the sense that the riches that the Gentiles received through faith in Christ
is explained in Romans 11:15 as being reconciled to God. Furthermore, in Romans
11:16-24, Paul teaches that saved Gentiles are analogous to a wild olive tree that
has been grafted into the olive tree, which is a reference to Israel. Lastly, in
Romans 11:11, Paul acknowledges that the Gentiles are experiencing salvation
because of Israel’s rejection of Christ.
Reconciliation is God’s peace treaty with the entire human race and is
appropriated by making the non-meritorious decision to believe in the Lord Jesus
Christ for salvation.
“Their acceptance” is referring to God accepting Israel when she trusts in
Jesus Christ at His Second Advent since it stands in antithesis to “their rejection,”
which refers to God rejecting Israel for rejecting His Son Jesus Christ.
Therefore, Paul is teaching that if God rejected the nation of Israel for rejecting
His Son Jesus Christ during His First Advent, there will certainly be a national
regeneration of the nation of Israel when they have faith in Christ at His Second
Advent.
Romans 11:16
The apostle Paul in Romans 11:16 employs two metaphors to illustrate his
assertion in Romans 11:2 that God has by no means rejected Israel forever and his
assertion in Romans 11:11-15 that there will be a future national regeneration of
Israel.
Romans 11:16 Now, if, and let us assume that it is true for the sake of
argument that the first portion is, as an eternal spiritual truth holy and of
course, we agree it is because it is taught in the Scriptures, then the lump is, as
an eternal spiritual truth also. Furthermore, if, and let us assume that it is
true for the sake of argument that the root is, as an eternal spiritual truth holy
and of course, we agree it is because it is taught in the Scriptures, then the
branches are, as an eternal spiritual truth, also. (Author’s translation)
This passage contains two metaphors to further illustrate Paul’s assertion in
Romans 11:2-6 that God has by no means rejected the nation of Israel forever and
his assertion in Romans 11:11-15 that Israel’s rejection by God is not final but
there will be a future regeneration and restoration of the nation.
The first metaphor, the first piece of dough and the lump is taken from Numbers
15:17-21. The first piece of dough is analogous to the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob who were the progenitors of the nation of Israel because they accepted
by faith the promises that God made to them.
The second metaphor, the root and the branches parallels the first. The root
parallels the first piece of dough in that it is analogous to the patriarchs whereas the
branches are analogous to the lump in that they are analogous to the saved
biological descendants of Abraham, Israel.
Let’s take a look at the first metaphor, which is taken from Numbers 15:17-21.
Numbers 15:17 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 18 “Speak to the
sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When you enter the land where I bring you, 19
then it shall be, that when you eat of the food of the land, you shall lift up an
offering to the LORD. 20 Of the first of your dough you shall lift up a cake as
an offering; as the offering of the threshing floor, so you shall lift it up. 21
From the first of your dough you shall give to the LORD an offering
throughout your generations.’” (NASB95)
In this passage, the Lord instructs Moses to instruct Israel to take a cake from
the first of their ground meal and present it as an offering to Him after they entered
the land of Canaan and reaped their first wheat harvest and this was to be repeated
every year. The cake made from the first ground meal of the wheat harvest was
sanctified or set apart for God by being offered to God. So the first part of the
dough was to be offered up to God as a symbol that the entire lump belonged to
Him.
Numbers 15:17-21 implicitly teaches the principle that what is considered first
contributes its character to what is related to it. 5 In other words, as Wiersbe states,
“when God accepts the part He sanctifies the whole.”6
Numbers 15:17-21 does not explicitly state that the first piece of dough offered
to the Lord sanctified the rest of the lump. However, it does imply this since the
Lord explicitly tells Israel when they eat of the food of the land that they shall
present the offering of the first of their dough to the Lord, which implies that the
food of the land they eat is sanctified by that first piece of dough they offered to
the Lord.
In Romans 11:16, Paul takes the principle taught in Numbers 15:17-25 to teach
that if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are holy, then their descendants who compose the
5
The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament; page 484; Walvoord and Zuck Victor Books; SP Publications, 1985
6
Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, volume 1, page 551; Victor Books, SP Publications, 1989

nation of Israel and had faith in the Lord like Abraham are sanctified as well. If
God had accepted the progenitors of the nation of Israel, especially, Abraham, He
has then sanctified or set apart those descendants of his who had faith in the Lord
like him.
The first piece of dough and the root parallel each other and are analogous to
the patriarchs and in particular Abraham. The lump and the branches also parallel
each other and are analogous to the saved biological descendants of Abraham
through Sarah.
In the protasis of the first metaphor, Paul’s readers would agree that the first
piece of dough is holy because this principle is implicitly taught in Numbers 15:17-
21. Paul takes the principle implicitly taught in Numbers 15:17-21 and applies it to
Israel in the sense that if God had accepted the progenitors of the nation of Israel,
especially, Abraham, He has then sanctified or set apart his saved descendants as
well. He is not attempting to prove that his protasis is true rather he is saying with
the first class condition that we agree that it is taught in the Old Testament
Scriptures that the first piece of dough is holy. The first class condition would then
persuade them to respond to the conclusion that the whole lump of dough is as
well. Therefore, Paul’s audience would have to come to his conclusion if they
submit to this line of argumentation.
“The branches” (klados) refer to the biological descendants of Abraham who
like Abraham had faith in the Lord. This is indicated in that they are on the olive
tree in contrast to the “branches broken off” in Romans 11:17, which refers to the
unsaved biological descendants of Abraham. This is indicated by the statement in
Romans 11:20 “they were broken off for their unbelief.”
In Romans 11:17-24, “the branches” are connected to an “olive tree,” which in
the Old Testament was a figure for the nation of Israel (See Jeremiah 11:16-17;
Hosea 14:4-6). Thus, “the branches” of the “olive tree” is a reference to born-
again Jews since the latter is used in Jeremiah 11:16-17 and Hosea 14:4-6 as a
figure for Israel and unbelieving Jews are broken off.
Now we know that the Jews originated from Abraham and that branches
originate from the root of a tree. Therefore, “the branches” are analogous to born-
again Jews and since they come from “the root,” then aparche, “the first
portion,” which parallels rhiza, “root” must refer to Abraham as well.
Furthermore, in Romans 11:16, Paul is arguing that the beginning of the nation
of Israel guarantees that Israel has a future. Paul is taking from the principle
implicitly taught in Numbers 15:17-21 that when God accepts the first part, He
sanctifies the whole.
Further indicating that rhiza, “the root” is a reference to Abraham is Paul’s
statement in Romans 4:16 where he teaches that the patriarch is the spiritual

“father” or “progenitor” of both Jews and Gentiles who have trusted in Jesus Christ
as their Savior.
Now, the remnant of believers in Israel does not constitute the first part or the
beginning of the nation of Israel and neither does Christ Himself but rather
Abraham is the progenitor of Israel. Therefore, in Romans 11:16, Paul uses this
first portion/lump metaphor to teach that if God had accepted the progenitors of the
nation of Israel, especially, Abraham, He has then sanctified those of his
descendants who had faith like him. He sanctified these biological descendants of
Abraham because they like Abraham had faith Him.
In the protasis of the second first class condition, Paul’s readers would agree
that it is taught in the Scriptures that the root, which is analogous to Abraham, is
holy. Again, the first class condition would then persuade them to respond to the
conclusion in the apodosis that the branches, which are analogous to saved
Israelites, are as well. Therefore, Paul’s audience would have to come to his
conclusion if they submit to this line of argumentation.
In both of these first class conditional statements, Paul wants his readers to
come to his line of argumentation because he does not want them to be prejudice
against the Jews because of their rejection of Christ and to think that they are
superior to the Jews. Therefore, it is essential that they agree with him on this point
since it will help them to understand that God has a future planned for the nation of
Israel and has not rejected her as a national entity. He is also attempting to build
unity between Jew and Gentile Christians.
Chapter Five: Warning To Gentiles To Learn From Israel’s Failure
Romans 11:17
In Romans 11:17, Paul presents the protasis of a first class conditional

statement. In this protasis, he reminds his Gentile Christian readers that branches
were broken off, i.e. unsaved Israelites and they as a wild olive tree have been
grafted in among the branches, i.e. born-again Israelites. He also reminds them in
this protasis that they have become partakers of the rich root of the olive tree,
Abraham and in particular the divine promises given to him contained in the
“Abrahamic covenant.”
Romans 11:17 However, if, and let us assume that it is true for the sake of
argument that some, which are a part of the branches were broken off but
because you are a wild olive, you were grafted in among them so that you
became joint-partakers of the olive tree’s root, which produces abundant oil
and of course, we agree that this is a fact of history. (Author’s translation)

Gentile Christians are joint-partakers with regenerate Israel of these divine
blessings because they are his spiritual descendants and they are his spiritual
descendants because like Abraham they exercised faith in the Lord. The protasis in
Romans 11:17: “If and let assume that it is true for the sake argument some
branches were broken off (unsaved Israelites) and you (Gentile Christians), being a
wild olive tree were grafted in among them (saved Jews) and became partaker with
them (saved Israel) of the rich root (Abraham) of the olive tree (Israel).” The
responsive condition would say: “Of course we agree that this is an historical fact.”
Paul’s readers would agree that some branches were broken off because it was a
historical fact the majority of Jews rejected Jesus Christ. His readers would also
agree that they have been grafted in among Jewish Christians and had become
partakers with them of the promises to Abraham who is the progenitor of the
nation of Israel because he taught in Romans 4:16 that Abraham is the spiritual
father of their faith.
“Were broken off” is the third person plural aorist passive indicative form of
the verb ekklao, which is a compound word composed of the preposition ek, “out
from” and the verb klao, “to break off,” thus the word literally means “to break off
from.”
The verb appears only three times in the Greek New Testament, namely
Romans 11:17, 19 and 20. In each instance, it is used to describe God’s rejection of
those Jews who rejected His Son Jesus Christ as their Savior by not exercising
faith in Him. Paul’s statement in Romans 11:20 makes clear that these branches
were rejected by God because of their unbelief and no other reason.
“You” is the nominative second person singular personal pronoun su, which
refers to Gentiles who trusted in Christ but with emphasis upon their racial
background as indicated by the statement to follow, “being a wild olive (tree)
were grafted in among them and became a partaker with them of the rich root
of the olive tree.”
“A wild olive” is the nominative feminine singular form of the noun agrielaios,
which is related to the adjective agrios, “wild” and elaion, “olive” and denotes the
wild shoot of the wild olive tree.
As a rule the wild olive is but a shrub, with small leaves, a stem more or less
prickly, and a small, hard drupe with but little or no oil. The wild olive tree was
very unproductive and actually a shoot or slip of a cultivated tree was inserted into
a wild one in order to produce fruit. The varieties of olive are grafted on to
seedlings of the wild olive. Paul uses the noun agrielaios in a metaphorical sense
for the Gentiles in contrast to the “olive tree,” which in the Old Testament was
used metaphorically of Israel (Jeremiah 11:16-17; Hosea 14:4-6).

“Were grafted in” is the second person singular aorist passive indicative form
of the verb enkentrizo, which means “to cause (a shoot or bud: scion) to unite with
the stock of a growing plant, graft of trees.”
In Romans 11:17, the verb is used in a metaphorical sense of Paul’s Gentile
Christian readers being united with Jewish Christians.
Now the usual procedure was to insert a shoot or slip of a cultivated tree into a
wild one. However, in Romans 11:24 Paul makes clear that the metaphor he is
using is “contrary to nature” of grafting a wild olive branch (a Gentile) into a
cultivated olive tree.
Such a procedure was unnatural and would be unfruitful, which is precisely
Paul’s point with his Gentile Christian readers. He wishes to underscore the
miraculous nature of their new relationship with God and other Jewish Christians.
The normal procedure was to take a shoot from an olive tree that bears good
fruit and graft it onto a wild olive stock whose fruit is poor. The result is a tree with
vigorous growth, which bears good olives. However, Paul reverses the procedure
and speaks of grafting a wild olive onto the stock of a good olive and then later he
speaks of grafting back some of the good olive branches that have been cut out.
So a procedure of grafting a wild olive onto a good olive was not the normal
process, which is why Paul reverses the normal procedure in order to humble those
Gentile Christians who might become arrogant towards Jewish Christians and
unsaved Jews. He rebukes those Gentile Christians who might be arrogant towards
the Jews, saved and unsaved because their spiritual heritage is from the Jews,
salvation is of the Jews (John 4:23).
The second person singular form of the verb enkentrizo refers to Paul’s Gentile
Christian readers.
“Among them” is composed of the preposition en, “among” and the dative
third person masculine plural form of the intensive personal pronoun autos,
“them.”
The intensive personal pronoun autos refers to Jewish Christians since Paul is
reminding his Gentile Christian readers that they were grafted onto the olive tree
with the other branches, who are Jewish Christians since they are in contrast to
those branches, which were broken off because of their unbelief. Paul is saying that
the Gentile Christians, “wild olive” were united with Jewish Christians who unlike
the Jewish Christians were related to the root, Abraham by race or in a biological
sense.
The preposition en is used in a distributive sense with respect to persons
indicating that the “wild olive” (Gentile Christians) was grafted in “among” the
Jewish Christians. Gentile Christians like Jewish Christians are a part of the olive
tree, which is a symbol of Israel.

Now, Paul is not saying in Romans 11:17-24 that saved Gentiles are members
of the nation of Israel but rather the olive tree metaphor simply illustrates the
importance of Israel in relation to God’s plan of salvation. It also demonstrates to
Paul’s Gentile Christian readers that they owe much to the Jews since salvation is
of the Jews. With this passage, Paul is attempting to illustrate to his Gentile
Christian readers that they owe their spiritual heritage to the nation of Israel. He is
not teaching that Gentiles are now members of the nation of Israel along with
Jewish believers. Rather, he is attempting to illustrate how Gentile Christians are
related to Jewish Christians through Abraham, the progenitor of the Jews and all
believers so as to produce unity in the churches between both groups and to
prevent anti-Jewish sentiment creeping in among the Gentile believers.
“Partaker” is the nominative masculine singular form of the noun sunkoinonos,
which is a compound word composed of the preposition sun, “with” and the noun
koinonia, “partnership,” thus the word literally means “joint-partners.” The word
refers to one who shares jointly with someone else in a possession or relationship,
with emphasis upon that which is in common.” 7 The noun denotes that Gentile
Christians are “joint-partakers” with Jewish Christians of the divine promises that
God made to Abraham. This word excludes the idea that Gentile Christians are
now members of the nation of Israel since they maintain their racial character and
saved Jews do so as well. Israel is a racial descendant of Abraham who trusts in
Jesus Christ as Savior.
Gentile and Jewish Christians share jointly in a relationship with the Trinity and
possess through faith the divine promises that God made to Abraham, who is “the
root” and. Paul speaks of this Ephesians 3:6. The mystery is not that the Gentiles
would be saved since this was prophesied in the Old Testament (Isaiah 11:10;
60:3). Rather, the mystery concerning the Gentiles is that they would become
fellow heirs with Jewish believers, fellow members with Jewish believers in the
body of Christ and fellow partakers of the covenant promises to Israel.
The content of this mystery is three-fold: (1) The Gentile believers are fellow
heirs with Jewish believers in the sense that they share in the spiritual riches God
gave them because of His covenant with Abraham. (2) Gentile believers in Christ
are fellow members of the body of Christ with Jewish believers. (3) Gentile
believers in Christ are fellow partakers of the four unconditional covenants of
promise to Israel.
Although, the four unconditional covenants of promise to Israel were
specifically given to Israel (Romans 9:1-6), the church will still and does benefit
from them since they are in union with Christ who is the ruler of Israel.
7
Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, volume 2, page 559; United Bible Societies, New
York, 1988, 1989

“Of the rich root” is the articular genitive feminine singular form of the noun
rhiza, “the root” and the articular genitive feminine singular form of the noun
piotes, “rich.”
The noun rhiza as we noted in our study of Romans 11:16 refers to Abraham as
indicated by Paul’s statements in Romans 11:17-24.
As we noted earlier in our study of the “first portion” in this passage, “the
branches” (klados) refer to the biological descendants of Abraham who like
Abraham had faith in the Lord. This is indicated in that they are on the olive tree in
contrast to the “branches broken off” in Romans 11:17, which refers to the
unsaved biological descendants of Abraham. This is indicated by the statement in
Romans 11:20 “they were broken off for their unbelief.”
In Romans 11:17-24, “the branches” are connected to an “olive tree,” which in
the Old Testament was a figure for the nation of Israel (See Jeremiah 11:16-17;
Hosea 14:4-6). Thus, “the branches” of the “olive tree” is a reference to born-
again Jews since the latter is used in Jeremiah 11:16-17 and Hosea 14:4-6 as a
figure for Israel and unbelieving Jews are broken off.
Now we know that the Jews originated from Abraham and that branches
originate from the root of a tree. Therefore, “the branches” are analogous to born-
again Jews and since they come from “the root,” then rhiza, “root,” which
parallels aparche, “the first portion” must refer to Abraham as well.
Further indicating that rhiza, “the root” is a reference to Abraham is Paul’s
statement in Romans 4:16 where he teaches that the patriarch is the spiritual
“father” or “progenitor” of both Jews and Gentiles who have trusted in Jesus Christ
as their Savior.
The noun piotes in classical literature means “fattiness” and is often used
metaphorically to mean “wealth” or “prosperity”.8 The word appears only once in
the Greek New Testament, namely, here in Romans 11:17 and refers to the state of
oiliness and denotes the sap produced by the root.9
The noun piotes functions as a genitive of product meaning that the word is the
“product” of the noun to which it stands related, which in our context is the noun
rhiza, “root.” This indicates that the root produces the olive tree’s abundant sap or
oil that extends to the branches of the tree and their leaves.
Paul is saying then that the Gentile Christians are joint-participants of the root,
i.e. Abraham, which produces the olive tree’s abundant oil, which is analogous to
the abundant blessings of the Abrahamic covenant. He teaches the Galatians this in
Galatians 3.
8
Liddell-Scott, page 1406
9
Danker, Frederick William, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature; page 814; Third Edition;
University of Chicago Press; Chicago and London

Romans 11:18
The apodosis of this first class condition appears in Romans 11:18, which infers
from the protasis a warning, namely his Gentile Christian readers were not to be
arrogant towards either saved Jews or unsaved Jews.
Romans 11:18 Do not assume arrogant superiority over the branches.
However, if, and let us assume that it is true for the sake of argument that you
are assuming arrogant superiority then remember that you, as an eternal
spiritual truth, by no means sustain the root. But rather on the contrary, the
root, as an eternal spiritual truth, sustains you. (Author’s translation)
This passage not only contains the apodosis from the first class condition in
Romans 11:17 but also a first class condition, which presents a contrast. The
contrast is between Paul’s Gentile Christian readers obeying his prohibition in the
apodosis of the previous first class condition with that of disobeying the
prohibition, which is assumed for the sake of argument in the protasis of the next
first class condition in Romans 11:18.
The protasis presents a hypothetical situation for the sake of argument. In it
Paul says that “if and let assume that it is true for the sake argument some of you
do assume arrogant superiority over the branches.” The apodosis of the first class
condition is “Remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root
supports you.”
The first class condition is indicating the assumption of truth for the sake of
argument. The force of the indicative has the idea of the presentation of reality and
in the first class condition the conditional particle turns such a presentation into a
supposition. However, this does not mean that the condition is true. It does mean
that as far as the portrayal is concerned, the point of the argument is based on the
assumption of reality. The context does not indicate that Paul is affirming the truth
of the protasis that Paul’s Gentile Christians were arrogant towards the Jews.
Rather Paul is using the first class condition in Romans 11:18 in a rhetorical sense,
which has the idea of a polite command, couched in indirect language.
There is nothing in Romans 11:1-17 or Romans 11:19-24, which indicates that
Paul’s Gentile readers were assuming arrogant superiority over the Jews. This first
class condition is preventive maintenance or as a simple reminder to supplement
the teaching they were already receiving from their pastors. This passage and the
fact that Paul had not yet met face to face the Christians in Rome makes it more
likely that the Gentile Christians in Rome were not assuming arrogant superiority
over the Jews and that Paul was only attempting to remind them of what they had
already been taught. Thus, the first class condition in Romans 11:18 indicates that
Paul is speaking of a hypothetical situation that could possibly take place among
the Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome.
In contrast with the apodosis, Paul teaches his Gentile Christian readers in
Rome that they by no means sustain in a spiritual sense Abraham. But rather on the
contrary, Abraham sustains them since God established a covenant with Abraham,
which provided salvation for Gentiles through Abraham and his descendants, the
Jews and in particular his greatest descendant, Jesus Christ. So the apodosis of this
first class condition appears in Romans 11:18, which infers from the protasis a
warning, namely his Gentile Christian readers were not to be arrogant towards
either saved Jews or unsaved Jews.
The prohibition “Do not assume arrogant superiority over the branches” is
addressing the Gentile Christians’ attitude towards both saved and unsaved Jews.
This is indicated in that he reminds his readers in the apodosis of the first class
condition in Romans 11:18, that the root, Abraham supports them, implying that
these branches are referring to saved Jews since saved Jews are on the olive tree
due to their faith in Christ and are thus connected to the root.
That this prohibition is also to prevent arrogance towards unsaved Jews is
indicated by Paul’s statements in Romans 11:19-20 where he reminds his readers
that these branches were broken off because of their unbelief and that his Gentile
Christians are grafted in because of their faith in Christ.
The reason why Paul does not want his Gentile Christian readers to assume
arrogant superiority over the saved Jews is that they are on equal footing with the
saved Jews since both are on the olive tree and connected to the root because of
their faith, which is non-meritorious.
They are both in union with Christ because of the grace of God and the merits
of Jesus Christ and His substitutionary spiritual and physical deaths. Thus, with
regards to salvation there are no racial distinctions (Galatians 3:26-28). So this
prohibition is designed to maintain and build unity among Jew and Gentile
Christians in Rome.
The reason why Paul does not want his Gentile Christian readers to assume
arrogant superiority over the unsaved Jews is so that they might continue to
evangelize the unsaved Jew so as to save some of them. Furthermore, salvation is
of the Jews, thus the Gentile Christians owe much to the Jews.
The Gentile Christians are joint-partakers of the divine promises given to
Abraham and the Savior Jesus Christ is a Jew. The Old Testament Scriptures were
given to the Jews. Therefore, Paul is reminding his Gentile Christian readers in
Rome that they owe much to the Jews and that there is no place for anti-Jewish
sentiment in the Christian way of life.
“However, if, and let us assume that it is true for the sake of argument that
you are assuming arrogant superiority” stands in contrast with Paul’s Gentile
Christian readers obeying his prohibition in the apodosis of the previous first class

condition and denotes a hypothetical situation in which they disobey the
prohibition.
The first class condition is indicating the assumption of truth for the sake of
argument. The context does not indicate that Paul is affirming the truth of the
protasis that Paul’s Gentile Christians were arrogant towards the Jews. Rather Paul
is using the first class condition in Romans 11:18 in a rhetorical sense, which has
the idea of a polite command, couched in indirect language. Thus, he is simply
issuing a friendly warning and performing preventive maintenance in Romans
11:18 by issuing this prohibition. The first class condition in Romans 11:18
indicates that Paul is speaking of a hypothetical situation that could possibly take
place among the Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome.
“Then remember that you, as an eternal spiritual truth, by no means
sustain the root. But rather on the contrary, the root, as an eternal spiritual
truth, sustains you” contains the apodosis and is a reminder to Paul’s Gentile
Christian readers in Rome that they by no means sustain the root, Abraham but
rather Abraham sustains them. He sustains them in the sense that through your
faith in Christ you have become joint-partakers with Jewish Christians of the
promises, blessings, privileges and responsibilities of the Abrahamic covenant.
The Abrahamic covenant reveals that God planned to save Gentiles through
Abraham’s descendants, the Jews and in particular his greatest descendant, Jesus
Christ. Therefore, there is no place Paul says for Gentile Christians to assume
arrogant superiority over the Jews whether saved or unsaved.
Romans 11:19
Next, in Romans 11:19, Paul once again employs a diatribe style by presenting
an argument of a hypothetical Gentile Christian who seeks to justify assuming
arrogant superiority over both saved and unsaved Jews.
Romans 11:19 Therefore, you will contend, Branches were broken off in
order that I myself could be grafted in.” (Author’s translation)
In this passage, Paul is assuming the position of a hypothetical Gentile Christian
who seeks to justify assuming arrogant superiority over both saved and unsaved
Jews. The statement that appears in Romans 11:19 is the result of an inference that
could be implied from Paul’s teaching in Romans 11:17. Paul taught in Romans
11:17 that branches (Jews) were broken off (rejected by God) and Gentiles (wild
olive) were grafted into the olive tree in their place.
“Branches were broken off” describes God’s rejection of those Jews who
rejected His Son Jesus Christ as their Savior by not exercising faith in Him.
“So that I might be grafted in” refers to the perspective of a hypothetical
Gentile Christian and emphasizes that they arrogantly assume that God’s purpose
in rejecting the Jews was to graft Gentiles in, with the implication that God prefers
the Gentiles to the Jews, which is false.
In Romans 11:19-21, Paul is seeking to prevent what took place among his
fellow Jews, namely, they erroneously and presumptuously believed that they
merited being the covenant people of God, and inheriting the promises made to the
patriarchs.
They erroneously and presumptuously thought that they merited receiving the
Temple service, the Shekinah glory, the giving of the Law, the adoption as sons,
the covenants, Old Testament Scriptures and being descendants of the patriarchs.
They erroneously and presumptuously thought that they merited the fact that the
Messiah would be like them, Jewish.
Therefore, Paul in Romans 11:19-21 is seeking to prevent this type of arrogance
that was in the Jew from taking place among Gentile Christians. Paul does not
want his Gentile Christians to assume arrogant superiority over the Jews just as the
Jews assumed arrogant superiority over the Gentiles because of their many
privileges bestowed upon them. He also does not want to the Gentile Christians to
have a racial prejudice towards the Jews just as the Jews had towards the Gentiles.
In Romans 11:19-21, Paul is also emphasizing with his Gentile Christian
readers in Rome that they do not merit their salvation and thus there is no room for
arrogance to the either unsaved r saved Jews since they were saved based on the
merits of Christ!
Also, Paul does not want his Gentile Christian readers in Rome to erroneously
assume that they merit their salvation since God’s faithfulness to the promises of
the Abrahamic covenant made it possible for them to get saved in the first place.
Romans 11:20
In Romans 11:20, Paul answers the argument of his hypothetical Gentile

Christian by first acknowledging the fact that unsaved Jews were rejected by God
for their unbelief in His Son Jesus Christ. However, he then reminds his
hypothetical Gentile Christian that he stands by his faith in Christ.
Also, in this passage, Paul issues a prohibition to those Gentile Christians who
might think they are superior to the Jews to stop thinking arrogantly about
themselves but to have reverence for God.
Romans 11:20 Absolutely! They were broken off because of their unbelief
but you are inserted because of your faith. Do not think arrogantly but rather
make it a habit to reverence God the Father. (Author’s translation)
In this passage, Paul is affirming the statement by his hypothetical Gentile
Christian in Romans 11:19 that “branches were broken off,” which refers to
God’s rejection of those Jews who rejected His Son Jesus Christ as Savior. He does
not affirm that these branches were broken off in order to graft Gentile Christians
in but only that branches were broken off. This implies that Paul’s hypothetical
Gentile Christian was correct in saying that branches were broken off because this
is an historical fact but they were incorrect and arrogant to say that they were
broken off in order to graft them in.
Paul corrects them in verse 20 by stating that they were broken off “because of
their unbelief” and not in order to graft Gentiles in. He reminds his Gentile
Christian readers who might hold this presumptuous and erroneous viewpoint. His
Gentile Christian readers stand by their faith not because they merited their
salvation. They stand by their faith in the sense that they are accepted by God
based on the merits of His Son Jesus Christ and His death on the cross.
“They were broken off because of their unbelief” indicates that the nation of
Israel was rejected by God because of unbelief or in other words failure to accept
by faith Jesus Christ as their Savior.
“But you are inserted because of your faith” presents a contrast between the
Jews rejection by God because of their unbelief and the Gentiles’ acceptance by
God because of their faith in Christ and indicates that Gentile Christians were
accepted by God because of their faith in Jesus Christ. Their faith in Christ is non-
meritorious, thus they have no business thinking themselves better than the Jews.
“Do not think arrogantly” prohibits Paul’s Gentile Christian readers in Rome
of thinking arrogantly by thinking that they merited their salvation or that God
thought that they merited their salvation more than the Jews.
In this command “But rather make it a habit to reverence God the Father”
Paul is saying instead of thinking yourself superior to the Jews I command you to
have reverence and respect for God so that you worship Him for saving you
through faith in His Son!
Romans 11:21
Next, the apostle teaches in Romans 11:21 that the reason why Gentile
Christians should never think arrogantly but rather reverence God is that God did
not spare the natural branches, unsaved Jews because of their unbelief and He will
not spare unsaved Gentiles either for their unbelief.
Romans 11:21 Because, if, and let us assume that it is true for the sake of
argument that God the Father by no means spared some of the natural
branches and of course, we agree that He didn’t, then, neither will He spare
you. (Author’s translation)
This passage teaches Paul’s Gentile Christian readers in Rome that the reason
why they should never think that they are superior to the Jews as a race but rather
reverence God is that God did not spare the unsaved Jews because of their unbelief
and He will not spare unsaved Gentiles either for their unbelief. Thus, Paul is
instructing his readers that you are not saved based upon the fact that your race has
more merit with God than the Jewish race because God will not spare Gentiles who
reject His Son like He did not spare Jews who rejected His Son. He is saying to his
Gentile Christian readers in Rome in Romans 11:20-21 that you are saved based
upon your faith in Christ and not because your race has more merit than the Jewish
race.
In Romans 11:21, we must address a textual problem. After the protasis and
before the adverb oude some manuscripts contain the negative particle me, which
is followed by the enclitic particle of indefinite manner pos and together they mean
“perhaps.” Both the NIV and NASB Updated Version do not translate the word.
However, the NET Bible does. The following witnesses do not contain this
expression: a A B C P 6 81 365 630 1506 1739 1881 pc lat co. These witnesses
indicate that the omission of the expression has very strong support in the
Alexandrian textual family (the primary uncials a and B, the secondary MSS C, 81
and 1739). The following witnesses do contain the clause: P46 D F G Ψ 33,
Majority Text, latt syr; Irlat. We can see also that there is widespread textual
support for including this expression in the text. The 27th edition of Nestle-Aland’s
Novum Testamentum Graece puts the preposition in brackets to indicate the
conjecture with regard to this word.
If we include the expression me pos, then Paul is saying, “If and let assume that
it is true for the sake of argument that God did not spare the natural branches and
we agree that He didn’t, then perhaps He will not spare you (Gentiles) either.”
This would indicate some doubt as to whether or not God will not spare Gentiles. It
would indicate that God did not spare the Jews who rejected His Son and He
“might not” spare the Gentiles or “He might” spare the Gentiles. However, Paul is
not teaching that God might or might not reject the Gentiles when He did not spare
the Jews who rejected His Son since when he is speaking of the Gentiles he is
referring to those Gentiles who reject His Son. Thus he is saying God did not spare
those Jews who rejected His Son and He will not spare Gentiles as well who reject
His Son. If we omit the expression me pos, then Paul is saying “If and let us
assume for the sake of argument God did not spare the natural branches, i.e. those
Jews who rejected His Son Jesus Christ and we agree that He didn’t, then, He will
certainly not spare the Gentiles who do so as well.” He is paralleling the Jews who
rejected His Son with those Gentiles who do the same.
The personal pronoun su, “you” is not referring to saved Gentiles since God
does not judge those whom He justifies through faith in His Son Jesus Christ. It
refers to Gentiles who do not have faith in Christ.
The expression me pos appears to have been added by some copyists because
they were confused about whether Paul is speaking of saved or unsaved Gentiles or
both when he uses the personal pronoun su, “you.” Or more than likely, many
copyists added the expression because they interpreted Paul used it to convey that
maybe some of his Gentile readers would not be spared by God because of
unbelief and maybe some would because they had faith in Christ. This can be
rejected because he is addressing Gentile Christians in Rome regarding Gentiles
who reject Christ like most of the Jews did. That Paul is addressing Gentile
Christians is indicated in that in Romans 11:20 he reminded his readers that they
should never think that they are superior to the Jews because they were never
accepted by God on their own merits but because of their faith in Christ. That he is
addressing Gentile Christians about Gentiles who reject Christ is indicated in that
in Romans 11:21 Paul is teaching that God did not spare those Jews who rejected
His Son and He will not spare Gentiles who do the same. He is paralleling unsaved
Jews with unsaved Gentiles in Romans 11:21.
Romans 11:22
In Romans 11:22, Paul commands his Gentile Christian readers in Rome to

consider God’s kindness and uncompromising justice. In this passage, he teaches
that those Jews who rejected Christ experience God’s uncompromising justice but
those Gentiles who had faith in Christ experience God’s kindness. He also warns
them that the Gentiles will continue to experience God’s kindness if they continue
to respond to His kindness as expressed in the gospel by exercising faith in Christ
but if they don’t, God will reject them just as He rejected those Jews who rejected
Christ.
Romans 11:22 Therefore, I solemnly charge you now to consider God’s
kindness and uncompromising justice! On the one hand towards those who
fell into complete ruin-uncompromising justice while on the other hand
towards you-God’s kindness, if you continue to respond to His kindness
otherwise you too will be cut off. (Author’s translation)
The command in Romans 11:22 is the result of an inference from Paul’s
argument recorded in Romans 11:17-21. He commands his Gentile Christian
readers in Rome to consider God’s kindness and uncompromising justice. In the
correlative clause he contrasts unsaved Jews with saved Gentiles and teaches that
those Jews who rejected Christ experience God’s uncompromising justice whereas
those Gentiles who had faith in Christ experience His kindness. In the third class
condition, he also warns his Gentile readers that Gentiles will continue to
experience God’s kindness if they continue to respond to God’s kindness as
expressed in the gospel by exercising faith in Christ. In the causal clause he
presents the reason why they must continue to respond to the gospel by exercising

faith in Christ, namely they too like the unsaved Jews will be rejected forever by
God.
“Will be cut off” is the verb ekkopto, which means “to cut off” and is used in a
figurative sense of God rejecting the Gentiles if they do not continue to respond to
the gospel by exercising faith in Christ. With this word, Paul is saying that if the
Gentiles do not continue to respond to the gospel, then they too will be rejected by
God just as He rejected those Jews who rejected the gospel.
Does Paul mean cut off from the olive tree? No. He is not saying that Gentile
believers can lose their salvation if they do not continue to walk by faith since
Gentile Christians are engrafted onto olive tree as a result of faith in Christ and a
result have eternal security. The moment a Gentile exercises faith in Christ, they
received as a gift through imputation the righteousness of God and as a result God
declared them justified (Romans 3:21-30; 4:1-6). Thus, Paul teaches in Romans 8:1
that there is never any condemnation whatsoever for those in Christ Jesus. Nor, is
he saying that Gentile unbelievers will be cut off the olive tree since Gentiles
whose race is depicted in the analogy as a wild olive tree are not connected by race
to the nation of Israel whose race is depicted by the olive tree.
The Jews on the other hand who were broken off the olive tree were on the
olive tree from the beginning to denote the fact that unsaved Jews belong racially
to saved Israel, which is depicted by the olive tree and cultivated olive tree.
However, the Gentiles were not, of course related to the nation of Israel by race as
expressed in depicting the Gentiles as a wild olive. Therefore, when Paul says in
Romans 11:22 that the Gentiles were cut off he cannot possible mean that they are
cut off the olive tree since Gentiles are not related by race to the nation of Israel
and Gentile believers have eternal security.
Some contend that Paul is speaking of the Gentiles in a corporate sense as being
cut off but this is not correct. First of all, “the branches” in Romans 11:16-18 refer
to individual Jews. Those broken off are those Jewish individuals who rejected
Christ. The “wild olive” in Romans 11:17 does not speak of the Gentiles as a
corporate unit but rather individual Gentiles since the noun agrielaios, “wild olive”
does not speak of wild olive tree but rather a branch from a wild olive tree. The
wild olive tree would be the Gentile race as a whole whereas the wild olive
branches speak of individual Gentiles who are not connected to the nation of Israel
by race. The olive tree speaks of regenerate Israel, i.e. true spiritual Israel (See
Romans 2:28-29; 9:6, 27-29). “The branches” would speak of individual Jews
who are connected to the nation of Israel of course by race. “The branches”
broken off refers to unsaved Jews. Those branches on the olive tree are on it
because of their faith in Christ, which is the same reason why the Gentile believers
are engrafted in.

In Romans 11:17, Paul uses the verb ekklao, “were broken off” to denote
God’s rejection of those Jews who reject His Son Jesus Christ, thus preventing
these Jewish unbelievers from experiencing the blessings of the Abrahamic
covenant. However, Paul does not use this verb in Romans 11:22 when discussing
Gentile unbelief but rather he uses ekkopto. This is significant. The implication is
that Paul in Romans 11:22 could not be speaking of individual Gentile unbelievers
who were at one time on the olive tree since we would expect Paul to use ekklao,
which he does with reference to Jewish unbelievers. The other implication is that
he could not be speaking of the Gentiles as a corporate unit since he could have
used ekklao as he did with reference to the Jews but he didn’t. The reason he
doesn’t use the word ekklao but rather ekkopto is that the Gentiles who are
depicted by Paul as a “wild olive” are not connected by race to the nation of Israel,
which is depicted as the “olive tree.”
The implication of all this is that ekkopto in Romans 11:22 could not possibly
be referring to individual Gentile unbelievers, or Gentile believers losing their
salvation or the Gentiles as a corporate unit being cut off from the olive tree for
unbelief. The reason is that the olive tree depicts the race of the nation of Israel and
Gentiles whose race is depicted as a wild olive tree in the analogy are not
connected to the nation of Israel by race.
So when Paul teaches in Romans 11:22 that if the Gentiles don’t respond to the
gospel by rejecting Christ as Savior and as a result will be cut off he means that
they will suffer eternal condemnation and will be separated forever from the
covenant blessings and promises that saved Jews and Gentiles are experiencing and
will experience forever.
The verb ekkopto in Romans 11:22 therefore, does not refer to Gentiles being
cut off “from the olive” after being engrafted onto it through faith in Christ but
rather it speaks of unsaved Gentiles being cut off from experiencing the blessings
of the Abrahamic covenant depicted by Paul in Romans 11:17 as the “rich root of
the olive tree.” The cutting off does not imply that these Gentiles were formerly
on the olive tree after being engrafted in. Rather, it speaks of being cut off from
experiencing the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant.
Therefore, ekkopto in Romans 11:22 does not speak of the Gentiles being cut
off in a corporate sense from the olive tree since Gentiles are not connected to the
nation of Israel by race. Nor does it refer to individual Gentiles believers being cut
off the olive tree since Gentiles believers were engrafted onto to the olive tree by
faith in Christ and Paul teaches in Romans 8:1 that there is no condemnation for
those in Christ. They have eternal security and could never be broken off. Rather
ekkopto refers to those Gentiles who reject Christ as being cut off from
experiencing the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant, which Jew and Gentile
believers in Christ will experience forever.
Romans 11:23
In Romans 11:23, Paul teaches his Gentile Christians readers in Rome that the
Jews will be accepted by God if they do not continue in their unbelief.
Romans 11:23 However, if they also, as an eternal spiritual truth, do not
continue in the sphere of unbelief then they will be grafted in because God the
Father is, as an eternal spiritual truth able to graft them in again. (Author’s
translation)
In this passage, Paul presents a contrast between God rejecting Gentiles for
rejecting His Son Jesus Christ with His accepting Jews if they have faith in His
Son. Paul teaches his Gentile Christian readers that if the Jews do not continue in
unbelief by having faith in Christ, then God will unite them with born-again Jews
and Gentiles. He also instructs them that God can do this because He is
omnipotent.
All of this is to instill humility in Paul’s Gentile readers in the sense of
understanding that they are accepted by God because of the merits of the object of
their faith, His Son Jesus Christ and not based upon the fact that they have more
merit than the Jews. This is to protect them being anti-Jewish and to motivate them
to evangelize the Jews along with their fellow Gentiles. This statement is also
designed to build unity among Jewish and Gentile believers in Rome and the
churches throughout the Roman Empire.
Now, many expositors of this passage stumble over the fact that Paul uses an
unlikely bit of horticulture by stating that God can engraft the branches broken
back onto the olive tree. However, they fail to recognize that Paul is not talking
about orchardists but rather He is instructing His readers regarding the power of
God. The engrafting of the Jews back onto the olive tree because of their faith in
Christ is nothing more than an illustration that speaks of the power and grace of
God.
In Romans 11:17, Paul teaches his Gentile Christian readers in Rome that they
were analogous to a wild olive shoot of a wild olive tree that has been engrafted
onto a cultivated olive tree, which is analogous to born-again Israel.
Now the usual procedure was to insert a shoot or slip of a cultivated tree into a
wild one. However, in Romans 11:24 Paul makes clear that the metaphor he is
using is “contrary to nature” of grafting a wild olive branch (a Gentile) into a
cultivated olive tree.
The normal procedure was to take a shoot from an olive tree that bears good
fruit and graft it onto a wild olive stock whose fruit is poor. The result is a tree with
vigorous growth, which bears good olives. However, Paul reverses the procedure
and speaks of grafting a wild olive onto the stock of a good olive and then later he
speaks of grafting back some of the good olive branches that have been cut out.
Such a procedure was unnatural and would be unfruitful, which is precisely Paul’s
point with his Gentile Christian readers. He wishes to underscore the miraculous
nature of their new relationship with God and other Jewish Christians.
Now here in Romans 11:23, Paul again uses a horticultural analogy, which
again speaks of an unlikely procedure of regrafting a branch that has been broken
off to illustrate that God will accept those Jews who do not persist in unbelief by
exercising faith in Christ. What the orchardist would never do, namely regrafting a
broken off branch, God, with respect to salvation can and will do, namely accept
those Jews who do not persist in unbelief by exercising faith in Christ.
Romans 11:24
Next, in Romans 11:24, the apostle Paul teaches his Gentile Christians readers
in Rome that if they were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree and
grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, then how much more will the
natural branches will be grafted into their own olive tree. This illustration
emphasizes with Paul’s Gentile Christian readers in Rome that if God accepted
Gentiles who had faith in His Son who did not belong to born-again Israel (olive
tree) then He will certainly accept those Jews who were broken off the olive tree
because of their unbelief if they have faith in Jesus Christ.
Romans 11:24 Because if, and let us assume that it is true for the sake of
argument that you were cut off from that which is by nature a wild olive tree
and in addition were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree
and of course, we agree that this is true then how much more will these which
are natural be grafted into their own olive tree? (Author’s translation)
Romans 11:24 presents the reason why God will accept unsaved Jews if they
repent in believe in His Son Jesus Christ. This passage is composed of a first class
conditional statement. In the protasis, Paul establishes by way of analogy the fact
with his Gentile Christian readers that God accepted them through faith in His Son
Jesus Christ even though they were not racially related to regenerate Israel, which
is depicted by him as an olive tree. In the apodosis, he employs the logical
argument of a fortiori to emphasize with his Gentile Christian readers that God
will certainly accept Jews who are biologically related to regenerate Israel if they
repent and believe in Christ.
The logical argument of a fortiori in the apodosis of Romans 11:24 argues that
if God can do the greater and accept Gentiles through faith in Christ, then He
certainly can do the lesser and accept Jews who do so as well. If God accepted
Gentiles with whom He never established an unconditional covenant with like He
did the Jews with the patriarchs, then certainly He will accept the Jews if they have
faith in Christ. If God can save Gentiles with whom He is not in covenant relation
with, then certainly He will save Jews who are in covenant relation with. If God
can graft branches (Gentiles) into the cultivated olive tree (saved Israel) that do not
naturally belong to the cultivated olive tree by nature, then certainly God can graft
branches (Jews) into the cultivated olive tree which belong by nature to it.
Paul uses the a fortiori argument to emphasize with his Gentile Christian
readers that they are not superior to the Jews. This first class condition is to
promote unity in the churches between Jewish and Gentile Christians. He also
wants to protect his Gentile Christian readers from getting arrogant towards
unsaved Israel because of their rejection of Christ. He wants them to continue to
evangelize the Jews.
Now, Paul is not saying in Romans 11:17-24 that saved Gentiles are members
of the nation of Israel but rather the olive tree metaphor simply illustrates the
importance of Israel in relation to God’s plan of salvation. It also demonstrates to
Paul’s Gentile Christian readers that they owe much to the Jews since salvation is
of the Jews.
With this passage, Paul is attempting to illustrate to his Gentile Christian
readers that they owe their spiritual heritage to the nation of Israel. He is not
teaching that Gentiles are now members of the nation of Israel along with Jewish
believers. Rather, he is attempting to illustrate how Gentile Christians are related to
Jewish Christians through Abraham, the progenitor of the Jews and all believers so
as to produce unity in the churches between both groups and to prevent anti-Jewish
sentiment creeping in among the Gentile believers.
Chapter Six: The Mystery Of Israel’s Partial Hardening
Romans 11:25
The apostle Paul in Romans 11:25 attempts to protect his Gentile Christian
readers from arrogance by revealing to them the mystery that a partial hardening
has occurred in Israel until the full number of Gentiles who will be saved has come
to pass.
Romans 11:25 In fact, I by no means want each and every one of you
spiritual brothers and sisters to be ignorant of this mystery in order that you
will not be arrogant concerning yourselves, namely that a partial hardness is
taking place in Israel until and during which time the full number of Gentiles
has come into existence. (Author’s translation)
Paul’s statement in this verse confirms and advances upon his statements in
Romans 11:11-24 and intensifies them. It not only summarizes what he has taught
in Romans 11:11-24 but also advances upon these statements and goes beyond that
which he has said in these statements. In this passage, Paul is attempting to protect
his Gentile Christian readers from arrogance by revealing to them a mystery,
namely that a partial hardening has taken place in Israel until the full number of
Gentiles who will be saved has into existence.
The expression “the fullness of the Gentiles” or “the full number of
Gentiles” is not the same as the expression used by our Lord in Luke 21:24,
namely, “the times of the Gentiles.”
“The times of the Gentiles” refers to an extended period of time when the
Gentiles are the dominant world powers and Israel is subject to those powers and
extends from the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar (586
B.C.) and continues through the Tribulation (Revelation 11:2). This period of
history includes the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the church age and the
Tribulation period.
This phrase does not rule out temporary Jewish control of Jerusalem as has
occurred in the past during the Maccabean era (164-63 B.C), the first Jewish revolt
against Rome (A.D. 66-70), the second Jewish revolt (A.D. 132-135) and now
since 1967 and the Six-Day War. However, this control is only temporary because
Revelation 11:1-2 predicts at least another three-and-one-half years of Gentile
domination during the last half of Daniel’s Seventieth Week, also known as the
Tribulation.
Therefore, any Jewish takeover of the city of David before the Second Advent
of Christ must be therefore viewed as a temporary one and does not mean that “the
times of the Gentiles” has ended since it can only end with the Second Advent of
Jesus Christ, which will forever stop Gentile powers waging war against Israel.
“The times of the Gentiles” is prophesied in Daniel 2:31-45 and Daniel 7 and
refers to an extended period of time when the Gentiles are the dominant world
powers and Israel is subject to those powers and extends from the Babylonian
capture of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar (586 B.C.) and continues through the
Tribulation (Revelation 11:2).
So “the fullness of the Gentiles” in Romans 11:25 and the “times of the
Gentiles” in Luke 21:24 both end with the Second Advent of Christ. However, the
former deals with the number of Gentiles who will be saved whereas as the latter is
political dealing with the political control of Jerusalem.
Romans 11:26
The apostle Paul in Romans 11:26 cites Isaiah 59:20 to support his assertion
that there will be a national regeneration of Israel and to teach that it will take
place at Christ’s Second Advent.

Romans 11:26 And then, in the following way, all Israel will be delivered
just as it stands written for all of eternity, “The Deliverer will arrive out from
Zion. He will remove totally and completely the godless ones from Jacob.”
Romans 11:26 teaches that at the Second Advent of Christ and immediately
after the full number of Gentiles that have been elected by the Father in eternity
past have been saved there will be a national regeneration of Israel.
“So” is the adverb of manner houtos, which refers to the quotation from Isaiah
59:20-21 and 27:9 indicating that the manner in which there will be a national
regeneration of Israel is through Christ’s Second Advent since this quotation refers
to the Second Advent.
“All” is the nominative masculine singular form of the adjective pas, which is
modifying the proper name Israel and is not referring to each and every citizen of
the nation of Israel but rather it refers to nation as a whole. It is used to denote a
large and representative number from a group and refers to the majority of the
citizens of the nation of Israel at the time of Christ’s Second Christ who will trust
in Him as their Savior. So pas is referring to the national regeneration of Israel at
the Second Advent of Christ in which at that time the majority of Jews in Israel
will exercise faith in Christ so as to be saved in contrast to His First Advent when
the majority of Jews rejected and only a remnant believed.
We know that some in Israel at that time will reject Christ since the Scriptures
teach that the Lord will judge Israel immediately after His Second Advent and will
have His elect angels remove every unbeliever from the nation (Ezekiel 20:37-38;
Zechariah 13:8-9; Malachi 3:2-3, 5; Matthew 25:1-30). So Paul is using pas here in
Romans 11:26 much like we would say in America that “the whole country
watched the events of 911 transpire on television!” Of course not each and every
person would have done so but the idea behind the statement is that a good
majority in the country did watch the events of 911.
“Israel” refers to the nation of Israel as a corporate entity at the time of Christ’s
Second Advent without reference to spiritual status whether saved or unsaved,
which is denoted by the adjective pas, “all.”
“Will be delivered” is the third person singular future passive indicative form
of the verb sozo, which is used with reference to those Jews in Israel at the time of
Christ’s Second Advent who will trust in Jesus of Nazareth, the incarnate Son of
God as Messiah. It speaks of these Jews being delivered not only in a temporal
sense from Satan, Antichrist and the Tribulational armies but more importantly
being delivered in a spiritual sense from eternal condemnation as well as personal
sin, the sin nature as well as Satan and his cosmic system. The verb is used here
with reference to the national regeneration of Israel that will take place at the

Second Advent of Christ, which is indicated by the quotation that follows that is
from Isaiah 59:20-21 and 27:9, which is a reference to the Second Advent.
This prophecy in Romans 11:26 that there will be a national regeneration of
Israel at Christ’s Second Advent is taught throughout the Old Testament.
Zechariah 12:10-14 records that at the Second Advent the nation of Israel will
mourn as a nation over their rejection of Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah and
will acknowledge as such and will turn to Him for deliverance from Antichrist and
the Tribulational armies. On the Day of Atonement, at the Second Advent of
Christ, Israel will as a nation trust in Jesus Christ as Savior (Ezekiel 37; Zechariah
12:10; 14:9-21).
In order to be the subjects of the Lord Jesus Christ during His millennial reign,
Israel will be made righteous (Isaiah 1:25; 2:4; 44:22-24; 45:17-25; 48:17; 55:7;
57:18-19; 63:16; Jeremiah 31:11; 33:8 50:20; 34; Ezekiel 36:25-26 Hosea 14:4;
Joel 3:21; Micah 7:18-19; Zechariah 13:9; Malachi 3:2-3).
Paul’s statement in Romans 11:26a that “all Israel will be saved,” which refers
to the national regeneration of Israel at Christ’s Second Advent is echoing Paul’s
previous statements in Romans 11:12 and 15.
“Just as it is written” introduces an Old Testament passage, namely, Isaiah
59:20, which supports Paul’s statement in Romans 11:26a that “all Israel will be
saved.”
In Romans 11:27, Paul cites a combination of Isaiah 59:21 and 27:9 as further
support for his prediction in Romans 11:26 that there will be a national
regeneration of Israel. So in Romans 11:26b-27 to validate his assertion in Romans
11:26a that there will be a national regeneration of Israel and to teach that this will
take place at Christ’s Second Advent, Paul quotes Isaiah 59:20-21 and 27:9.
“The Deliverer” is a title referring to the Lord Jesus Christ. In Luke 21:25-28,
the Lord Jesus in His Olivet Discourse replying to a question as to the time of His
return to deliver Israel teaches that He will deliver Israel at His Second Advent.
Revelation 19:11-20:3 teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ will deliver Israel at His
Second Advent in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (Deuteronomy 30:3;
Psalm 2:1-9; 24:7-10; 96:10-13; 110; Isaiah 9:6-7; 63:1-6; Jeremiah 23:1-8; Daniel
2:44-45; 7:18-27; Zechariah 12; 14). Paul teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ will
deliver Israel at His Second Advent (2 Thessalonians 1:1-10; 2:1-8).
“Will arrive out” is the third person singular future active indicative form of
the verb heko, which means “to arrive” and refers to the Lord Jesus Christ’s arrival
on planet earth at the Mount of Olives at His Second Advent from the third heaven
at the right hand of the Father.
“Out from Zion” is composed of the preposition ek, “IN” and the genitive
feminine singular form of the noun Sion, “ZION.”

“Zion” refers to heavenly Jerusalem located in the third heaven since the
Scriptures teach that Christ will descend on the Mount of Olives on planet earth at
His Second Advent to deliver Israel from Satan, Antichrist and the Tribulational
armies prompting a national regeneration in Israel at that time.
“He will remove totally and completely the godless ones from Jacob” refers
to the Lord Jesus Christ removing the unsaved from the nation of Israel when He
judges the nation subsequent to His Second Advent. This judgment is prophesied
in Ezekiel 20:33-38.
“The godless ones” refers to those Jews in Israel at the time of Christ’s Second
Advent and describes them as having a lack of reverence for God as manifested in
their thinking, speaking and acting in a manner contrary or against the laws of God
or His character and nature. The word is not speaking of godless acts but godless
individuals since the way the Lord will remove godless acts is to remove the
unbelievers whose behavior is ungodly as indicated by the prophesy in Ezekiel
20:33-38.
“From Jacob” indicates that the immediately after His Second Advent when
He judges Israel, the Lord Jesus Christ will “totally and completely separate from”
the unbelievers in Israel from those who are saved in the nation.
So in Romans 11:26, the apostle Paul cites Isaiah 59:20 to support his assertion
that immediately after the full number of Gentiles that have been elected by the
Father in eternity past have been saved there will be a national regeneration of
Israel at Christ’s Second Advent.
Chapter Seven: All Israel Will Be Saved
Romans 11:27
In Romans 11:27, Paul cites Isaiah 59:21 and 27:9 to support his assertion that
there will be a national regeneration of Israel, which will take place at Christ’s
Second Advent.
Romans 11:27 “Furthermore, this is, as an eternal spiritual truth, the
covenant established by Me for their benefit when I act on My promise and
remove their sins.” (Author’s translation)
Paul cites a combination of Isaiah 59:21 and 27:9 as further support for his
prediction in Romans 11:26 that there will be a national regeneration of Israel.
These quotations are alluding to the New Covenant recorded in Jeremiah 31:31-34,
which refers to this national regeneration of Israel at Christ’s Second Advent. Paul
in Romans 11:27 quotes Isaiah 59:21 and 27:9 to teach that this national
regeneration of Israel will involve the Lord fulfilling one of His promises in this

covenant, namely removing the sins from those Jews who have faith in His Son
Jesus Christ.
“The covenant established by Me” is composed of the preposition para and
the genitive first personal singular form of the personal pronoun ego, “by Me” and
the articular nominative feminine singular form of the noun diatheke, “the
covenant established.”
In Romans 11:27, the noun diatheke, “covenant” refers to specifically to the
New Covenant since in context Paul is speaking of the future national regeneration
of the nation of Israel at Christ’s Second Advent, which the New Covenant speaks
of. Also, he is presenting the provision of the forgiveness of sins, which appears in
the New Covenant. The New Covenant is unconditional meaning that it is based
upon the faithfulness of God rather than the faithfulness of Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-
37).
The New covenant is related to the restoration of the nation during the Second
Advent and His subsequent millennial reign. The blessings the nation of Israel will
receive are based on the New Covenant (Isaiah 61:8-9; Hos. 2:18-20). The greatest
blessing in this covenant is that of being brought in close relationship with God
(Jeremiah 30:22; 31:33; 32:38-41; Ezek. 11:20; 34:25-27; 37:27).
The New Covenant with Israel was based upon the voluntary substitutionary
spiritual and physical deaths of the impeccable humanity of Christ in hypostatic
union (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25). The Lord Jesus Christ is the mediator of
this New Covenant to Israel.
Hebrews 12:24a, “and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant.”
Therefore, in Romans 11:27, the noun diatheke refers to the New Covenant,
which the Lord Jesus Christ will establish with Israel at His Second Advent and
subsequent judgment of Israel and millennial reign.
“For their benefit” refers to the regenerate citizens of the nation of Israel since
they receive the forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus Christ.
“When” is the temporal conjunction hotan, which is employed with the
subjunctive mood of the verb aphaireo, “I TAKE AWAY” in order to denote that
“whenever” those Jews who placed their faith in Jesus Christ at His Second Advent
and as a result receive the forgiveness of sins this will be a manifestation of the
New Covenant.
“I act on My promise and remove” is the first person singular aorist middle
subjunctive form of the verb aphaireo, which means “to remove” and is used with
the Lord Jesus Christ as its subject and its object are the sins of those Jews who
trusted in Him as Savior at His Second Advent. This indicates that the
manifestation of the New Covenant will be that the Lord Jesus Christ will remove
the sins of those Jews who trusted in Him as Savior at His Second Advent in the
sense that through their faith in Christ they will appropriate the forgiveness of sins.
So as we can see from our study of Romans 11:27, Paul cites a combination of
Isaiah 59:21 and 27:9 as further support for his prediction in Romans 11:26 that
there will be a national regeneration of Israel. These quotations are alluding to the
New Covenant recorded in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which refers to this national
regeneration of Israel at Christ’s Second Advent. Paul in Romans 11:27 quotes
Isaiah 59:21 and 27:9 to teach that this national regeneration of Israel will involve
the Lord fulfilling one of His promises in this covenant, namely removing the sins
from those Jews who have faith in His Son Jesus Christ.
Chapter Eight: Israel’s Future Restoration Based Upon God’s Mercy
Romans 11:28
Romans 11:28 summarizes God’s dealings with the nation of Israel and the
Gentiles. The first part of the verse teaches that from the standpoint of the gospel,
the nation of Israel corporately is God’s enemy for the sake of evangelizing the
Gentiles. The second half of the verse teaches that from the standpoint of God
electing them in a national sense, the nation of Israel is the object of God’s love
because of unconditional promises to the patriarchs.
Romans 11:28 On the one hand, from the perspective of the gospel, they
are, as an eternal spiritual truth, enemies on behalf of all of you while on the
other hand from the perspective of their election, they are, as an eternal
spiritual truth, divinely loved because of the promises to the fathers. (Author’s
translation)
This passage is a correlative clause. The declarative statement in this correlative
clause teaches that the Gentiles benefited from the fact that the nation of Israel at
the present time is God’s enemy. However, the adversative clause teaches that
from the standpoint of God electing them as a nation, Israel is the object of God’s
love because of His unconditional promises He made to the patriarchs.
Romans 11:28 is composed of the correlative clause that is composed of the
particle of affirmation men, which is not translated and combined with the
adversative use of the conjunction de. This clause contrasts the nation of Israel’s
relationship to God from two different perspectives.
The first perspective is their present relationship to the gospel in which they are
presently enemies of God, which has led to the evangelization and subsequent
salvation of innumerable Gentiles. The second is their past relationship with God
in the sense of His electing them in a national sense and are the objects of God’s
unconditional love for the sake of His promises to the patriarchs. The latter
provides irrefutable evidence that God has by no means rejected the nation of
Israel forever for the sake of His unconditional promises to the patriarchs of Israel,
which guarantee a future for the nation. It presents further evidence and support
that in the future there will be a national regeneration and restoration of the nation
of Israel.
The particle of affirmation men sets up a contrast presenting a concept, which
Paul seeks to contrast. The word presents Israel’s present relationship to God in
which they are His enemies, which God used to evangelize the Gentiles. On the
other hand, de introduces a statement that presents Israel’s past relationship with
God in which they were elected in a national sense by God and are the objects of
His unconditional love for the sake of the promises He made to the patriarchs.
Therefore, this correlative clause teaches that on one hand with respect to the
gospel, Israel corporately is God’s enemy for the sake of evangelizing the Gentiles.
While on the other hand, they were elected in a national sense making them the
objects of God’s unconditional love for the sake of the unconditional promises God
made to the patriarchs of the nation with the obvious implication that God has not
rejected Israel forever but rather that she has a future in the plan of God.
“From the perspective of the gospel” is composed of the preposition kata and
the articular accusative neuter singular form of the noun euangelion which means
“good news” and refers to the gospel in relation to the unsaved since Paul is
speaking in the context of the nation of Israel’s rejection of Jesus of Nazareth as
Messiah. It refers to the gospel in the sense of the good news message to sinners
that they can receive divine righteousness as a gift through imputation as a result of
faith alone in Christ alone, which in turn results in the Father declaring them
justified.
The noun is in the accusative case and functions as the object of the preposition
kata, which itself functions as a marker of a specific element bearing a relation to
something else. Here the preposition denotes the relationship between the nation of
Israel and the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The articular construction of the euangelion indicates that the noun is in a class
by itself, thus indicating that the Christian gospel was the only gospel worth
mentioning.
“Enemies” is the nominative masculine plural form of the adjective echthros,
which is used in the passive sense to describe unregenerate Israel as being regarded
by God as His enemy. This is indicated by the fact that the word stands in contrast
with the adjective agapetos, “beloved,” which refers to Israel being the objects of
God’s unconditional love for the sake of His unconditional promises to the
patriarchs. Further indicating the passive sense is that Paul is speaking of Israel’s
relationship to the gospel. Therefore, the adjective echthros is used to describe
unsaved Israel as being God’s enemies because they rejected His Son Jesus Christ
as Savior.

“On behalf of all of you” is composed of the preposition dia and the accusative
second person plural form of the personal pronoun humeis which is a reference to
Paul’s Gentile Christian readers because in Romans 11:11 Paul teaches that the
Gentiles are experiencing salvation because of Israel’s rejection of Christ, which
made Israel God’s enemy. This is further indicated in that in Romans 11:12 Paul
argues that if Israel’s transgression and failure meant riches for the Gentiles, how
much more then will Israel’s full restoration bring to the Gentiles. Lastly, in
Romans 11:25 Paul attempts to protect his Gentile Christian readers from
arrogance by revealing to them the mystery that a partial hardening has occurred in
Israel until the full number of Gentiles who will be saved has come to pass, which
further indicates that humeis in Romans 11:28 is referring to Gentile Christians.
The personal pronoun humeis functions as the object of the preposition dia,
which itself functions as a marker of a participant who is benefited by an event or
for whom an event occurs. This indicates the Gentiles benefited from the fact that
the nation of Israel was the enemy of God because of their rejection of His Son
Jesus Christ.
Therefore, the declarative statement in this correlative clause that constitutes
Romans 11:28 teaches that Gentile Christians benefited from the fact that the
nation of Israel at the present time is God’s enemy because the majority of Jews in
Israel rejected His Son Jesus Christ as Savior.
“From the perspective of their election” is composed of the preposition kata
and the articular accusative feminine singular form of the noun ekloge which does
not refer to the election of individual Jews who trust in Christ as Savior but rather
it refers to the “national” election of the nation of Israel. This is indicated in that in
Romans 11:26-27, Paul quotes Old Testament Scripture to support his assertion
that there will be national regeneration and restoration of the nation of Israel at
Christ’s Second Advent. This “national” election is referred to in Romans 9:4 with
the term huiothesia, “adoption as sons.”
The term “adoption” refers to the Old Testament teaching concerning the nation
of Israel that they were “God’s son” in a “national” sense meaning that God had set
apart Israel from all the nations of the earth for blessing and service (Ex. 4:22-23;
Deut. 14:1-2; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1).
In Romans 11:28, the noun ekloge is in the accusative case and functions as the
object of the preposition kata, which itself functions as a marker of a specific
element bearing a relation to something else. Here the preposition denotes the
relationship between the nation of Israel and God electing them in a national sense.
“Divinely loved” is the adjective agapetos, which is used in the New Testament
to also describe church age believers with emphasis upon election (Rom. 1:7; Heb.
6:9). It is used quite often to describe certain individuals who are singled out for
their extraordinary service to the body of Christ and their efforts in the
advancement of the communication of bible doctrine (Acts 15:25; Rom. 16:5, 8,
9, 12; 1 Cor. 4:17; Eph. 6:21; Col. 1:7; 4:7, 9, 14; 2 Tim. 1:2; Phlm. 1:1-2,
16; 3 John 1:1). The word is also employed often in the plural as a term of direct
address indicating a close relationship between the writer and his readers (1 Cor.
10:14; 15:58; 2 Cor. 7:1; 12:19; Phil. 2:12; 4:1 twice; Heb. 6:9; James 1:16,
19; 2:5; 1 Pet. 2:11; 4:12; 2 Pet. 3:1, 8, 14-15, 17; 1 John 2:7; 3:2, 21; 4:1,
7, 11; 3 John 1:2, 5, 11; Jude 1:3, 17, 20).
In Romans 11:28, the adjective agapetos employed here as a substantive and is
used with God as its subject and the nation of Israel as its object and means
“divinely loved” describing the fact that from the perspective of God electing the
nation of Israel in a national sense they are the object of the triune God’s love.
“Because of the promises to the fathers” is composed of the preposition dia
and the articular accusative masculine plural form of the noun pater which
contains the figure of metonymy meaning that the noun is put for God’s
faithfulness to the promises that He made to the patriarchs. The noun does not
simply refer to the patriarchs themselves. Paul is not saying with this noun that
because of the merits of the patriarchs themselves that the nation of Israel is the
object of God’s unconditional love. Rather, he is saying that because of God’s
faithfulness to His unconditional promises He made to the patriarchs, the nation of
Israel is the object of God’s unconditional love.
Therefore, Paul is saying with this word pater that from the perspective of God
electing them in a national sense, the nation of Israel is the object of God’s love
because of His faithfulness to the promises that He made to the patriarchs. Or we
could say that from the perspective of God electing them in a national sense, the
nation of Israel is the object of God’s love because of the unconditional promises
He made to the patriarchs.
The word functions as the object of the preposition dia, which itself functions
as a marker of cause indicating that from the perspective of God electing them in a
national sense, the nation of Israel is the object of God’s unconditional love
“because of” His faithfulness to the promises He made to the patriarchs.
Therefore, as we can see from our study of Romans 11:28, this passage is a
correlative clause. The declarative statement in this correlative clause teaches that
the Gentiles benefited from the fact that the nation of Israel at the present time is
God’s enemy. However, the adversative clause teaches that from the standpoint of
God electing them as a nation, Israel is the object of God’s love because of His
unconditional promises He made to the patriarchs.
Romans 11:29-32

Paul in Romans 11:29 then presents the reason why the nation of Israel can be
both God’s enemy and the object of His unconditional love.
Romans 11:29 Because the gracious privileges, especially, God the Father’s
invitation to privilege is, as an eternal spiritual truth, irrevocable. (Author’s
translation)
The apostle Paul teaches in this passage that Israel is both the enemy of God
and the object of His unconditional love because the eight gracious privileges that
God bestowed upon the nation of Israel that are listed in Romans 9:4-5 and
especially the invitation to privilege that He extended to that nation are irrevocable.
Paul is teaching the reason why Israel can be both God’s enemy and the object
of His unconditional love. This statement in Romans 11:29 is explaining the
paradox presented in Romans 11:28. Therefore, Paul is saying in Romans 11:29
that Israel can be both the enemy of God and the object of His unconditional love
“because” the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. He is saying that Israel
can be both the enemy of God because of their rejection of the gospel and the elect
nation of God “because” the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. The
national election of the nation of Israel by God, which was addressed by Paul in
Romans 9:6-29, was not based upon the negative or positive responses of the
individual citizens of the nation of Israel with regards to Jesus Christ. Rather, it
was based upon God’s grace policy, which itself is based upon the character and
nature of God. Therefore, the nation of Israel can still be the elect nation of God
and the object of His love even though the majority of Jews in Israel from the first
and second advents of Christ have rejected His Son Jesus Christ.
“The gracious privileges” is the noun charisma, which is related to the verb
charizomai, “to show favor.” The term is rare in classical Greek and appears late in
Greek antiquity. It does not appear in the canonical writings of the Septuagint.
The word appears 17 times in the Greek New Testament where except for one
instance in 1 Peter 4:10, is exclusively a part of the Pauline vocabulary. In Romans
12:6, 1 Corinthians 12:4, 9, 28, 30, 31, 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6, and 1 Peter
4:10, the word is used of the various spiritual gifts that the Holy Spirit gives to
those who trust in Jesus Christ as their Savior in the church age.
In Romans 11:29 the noun charisma is used with reference to the nation of
Israel and in the plural form referring to the “gracious privileges” or “gracious
unmerited spiritual benefits” that the Father bestowed upon that nation according
to His grace policy and are listed in Romans 9:4-5.
The eight privileges listed by Paul in Romans 9:4-5 are as follows: (1) “To
whom belongs the adoptions as sons” (2) “The glory” (3) “The covenants” (4)
“The giving of the Law” (5) “The service” (6) “The promises” (7) “The fathers”
(8) “From them, the Christ with respect to human racial descent”.

The term “Israelites” serves to identify who are Paul’s fellow countrymen with
respect to racial descent and as a heading for the list of eight privileges that
identify Paul and his fellow countrymen.
“Especially” is the “emphatic” use of the conjunction kai, which introduces an
action performed by God that led to Israel experiencing the eight gracious
privileges that God bestowed upon the nation of Israel that are listed in Romans
9:4-5. With this word Paul is saying that the gracious privileges “especially” the
calling of God, are irrevocable. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the
noun klesis means “invitation to privilege” indicating that the eight privileges listed
in Romans 9:4-5 were experienced by Israel because of this act by God of inviting
the nation of Israel to privilege. In other words, klesis denotes God the Father’s
invitation to privilege led to Israel experiencing the eight privileges listed in
Romans 9:4-5. These eight privileges could not have been experienced by Israel if
God the Father had not invited this nation to experience them.
“God the Father’s invitation to privilege” is composed of the nominative
feminine singular form of the noun klesis and the articular genitive masculine
singular form of the noun theos.
The noun klesis means “invitation to privilege” indicating that the eight
privileges that were bestowed upon Israel by God and are listed in Romans 9:4-5
are the direct result of the Father inviting the nation to experience them.
The noun theos refers to the Father since the articular construction of this noun
in the New Testament commonly signifies the first member of the Trinity. The
word functions as a subjective genitive meaning that it functions semantically as
the subject of the verbal idea implicit in the head noun klesis, “the invitation to
privilege.”
“Irrevocable” is the adjective ametameletos, which is emphasizing the
faithfulness of God in fulfilling His promises to the patriarchs. This is indicated in
that in Romans 11:28 Paul taught that from the perspective of her national election,
Israel is the object of God’s unconditional love because of His unconditional
promises to the patriarchs. Faithfulness is one of the attributes of God as related to
moral beings (Deut. 7:9; 1 Cor. 1:9; 10:13; 1 Thess. 5:23; 2 Thess. 3:3; 1 John 1:9).
It is one of the relative attributes of God meaning that it is related to God’s
relationship to men.
The ametameletos in Romans 11:29 emphasizes the point Paul made in Romans
9:6.
Romans 9:6 Now, this does not by any means imply that the word
originating from God is nullified because each and every person who
descended from Israel, these are, as an eternal spiritual truth, by no means,
Israel. (Author’s translation)

This passage teaches that Israel’s present rejection of Jesus Christ does not
imply that God’s promises to the nation of Israel have been nullified because those
who descended in a racial sense from Israel, aka Jacob are never considered by
God to be spiritual Israel. Paul’s statement in Romans 9:6 with regards to the
faithfulness of God is defensive in the sense that just because Israel has presently
rejected Christ, this does not imply that God is unfaithful. Whereas his statement in
Romans 11:29 is positive in the sense that Israel is by no means rejected forever by
God because He is faithful.
In Romans 11:30-31 Paul employs a correlative clause that compares God
giving grace to the formerly disobedient Gentiles because of Israel’s unbelief with
extending grace to the presently disobedient Jews because of the grace obtained by
the Gentiles.
Romans 11:30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have
been shown mercy 31 because of their disobedience, so these also now have
been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now
be shown mercy. (Author’s translation)
In Romans 11:30, Paul taught his Gentile Christian readers in Rome that they
who were once unbelieving in God have now been obtained grace because of
Israel’s unbelief.
“For” is the “explanatory” use of the conjunction gar, which is introducing a
comparative clause that appears in Romans 11:30-31 and provides an explanation
of Paul’s statement in Romans 11:29, which explains the paradox or antinomy
presented in Romans 11:28 which summarizes God’s dealings with the nation of
Israel and the Gentiles.
Now, in Romans 11:30, Paul employs the conjunction gar to introduce a
comparative clause that appears in Romans 11:30-31 and explains his statement in
verse 29. Thus, Romans 11:30-31 explains how the irrevocable invitation to
privilege that God extended to the nation of Israel is manifested. It is manifested by
God extending grace to Israel and saving them when the majority of Jews in Israel
will no longer be disobedient to the gospel but will instead exercise faith in Christ
at His Second Advent.
“Just as” is the adverb of manner hosper, which is used to introduce the
protasis of a comparison meaning that to which the main idea is being compared.
The protasis appears in Romans 11:30: For just as you once were disobedient
to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience.
The apodosis appears in Romans 11:31: So these also now have been
disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be
shown mercy.
Hosper is employed with the adverb of manner houtos, “so” that appears in
Romans 11:31 in order to form a comparative clause. This clause is comparing
God’s gracious dealings with the formerly disobedient Gentile race and His
gracious dealings with the presently unbelieving Jewish race. It compares the
formerly disobedient Gentile race obtaining grace through faith in Christ because
of the Jewish race’s unbelief with the presently disobedient Jewish race obtaining
grace through faith in Christ because of the grace obtained by the Gentiles.
“You” is the nominative second person plural personal pronoun humeis, which
refers to Paul’s Gentile Christian readers but with emphasis upon their race as
Gentiles in a corporate sense in contrast to the Jews. The word emphasizes a
comparative contrast between the former disobedience of the Gentile race with
their present obedience to the gospel. It speaks of the Gentiles, as a corporate unit,
who in contrast to the Jews as a corporate unit, have typically responded in faith to
the gospel.
The majority of Jews in Israel during the church age have rejected Christ and
only a remnant has believed in Him (Romans 9:27-29). However, the Gentiles in
comparison have responded in great numbers to the gospel during the church age.
This is not to say that the majority of Gentiles have been saved. The majority has
not. Rather, in comparison with the nation of Israel there is a significant greater
positive response to the gospel by the Gentiles than the Jews during the church age.
“Were disobedient” is the verb apeitheo, which is used to describe the former
corporate unbelief of the Gentile race in contrast to their present faith in the gospel
as a corporate unit.
“Have been shown mercy” is the verb eleeo which means, “to obtain grace”
and refers to God’s grace being appropriated by those Gentile sinners who
exercised faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior. It is used with God the Father as the
subject and Gentile Christians as its object since only those who trust in Jesus
Christ as Savior appropriate God’s grace.
As was the case in Romans chapter, here in Romans 11:30, this grace is in the
form of the forgiveness of sins and being entered into an eternal relationship and
fellowship with God. It also involves being a joint-partner with Jewish Christians
in experiencing the abundant blessings of the Abrahamic covenant according to
Paul’s statement in Romans 11:17, Galatians 3 and Ephesians 3:1-6.
“Because of their disobedience” is composed of the noun apeitheia and the
demonstrative pronoun houtos.
The noun apeitheia is the cognate of the apeitheo, which appeared earlier in
Romans 11:30 where it meant “were unbelieving.” It means “unbelief” for the
reasons mentioned in our study of the verb apeitheo that appears earlier in Romans
11:30 to which the noun apeitheia stands related.
In Romans 11:30, the noun apeitheia is used with reference to the majority of
Jews in Israel who rejected Jesus Christ as Savior. This is indicated by the
demonstrative pronoun houtos, “their,” which is used of the majority of Jews in
Israel who rejected Christ as Savior in contrast with Gentile Christians who are
denoted by the second person plural form of the verb eleeo, “all of you have
obtained grace.” The Jews unbelief was expressed or manifested by their
disobedience to the gospel command to trust in Jesus Christ as Savior.
Apeitheia functions as a dative of cause indicating the cause or the basis for the
Gentiles obtaining grace through faith in Jesus Christ. This indicates that the
Gentile Christians obtained grace through faith in Christ “on the basis of” or
“because” the majority of Jews in Israel did not exercise faith in Jesus Christ. This
echoes what Paul taught in Romans 11:11.
Therefore, in Romans 11:30, apeitheia functions as a dative of cause indicating
that the Gentile Christians obtained grace through faith in Christ “on the basis of”
or “because” the majority of Jews in Israel did not exercise faith in Jesus Christ. It
is answering the question as to why the Gentiles obtained grace and not
emphasizing the means by which they obtained grace since that is only through
faith alone in Christ alone.
In Romans 11:30, the demonstrative pronoun houtos refers to the noun
apeitheia, which means “unbelief” and is used in contrast to the Gentiles positive
response to the gospel. Therefore, houtos is referring to the unbelief of the majority
of Jews in Israel during the church age.
So from our study of Romans 11:30 we can see that this passage along with
Romans 11:31 explains how the irrevocable invitation to privilege that God
extended to the nation of Israel is manifested. It is manifested by God extending
grace to Israel and saving them when at Christ’s Second Advent the majority of
Jews in Israel will no longer be disobedient to the gospel but will instead exercise
faith in Christ.
Romans 11:30 teaches that the Gentiles who were once unbelieving in God
have now been obtained grace because of Israel’s unbelief. Romans 11:31
completes the correlative clause and teaches that because Paul’s Gentile Christian
readers in Rome obtained grace through faith in Christ because of Israel’s rejection
of Christ, Israel as a nation who has been unbelieving will also obtain grace as well
through faith in Christ because of the grace the Gentiles obtained.
Romans 11:31 teaches that God’s purpose for the present state of unbelief in
Israel during the church age was in order that because of the grace obtained by the
Gentiles through faith in Christ, the Jews might also obtain grace through faith in
Christ. Therefore we can see from our studies of this comparative clause that
appears in Romans 11:30-31 that there is similarity between the Jews and Gentiles
experience in that both have been unbelieving, the Gentiles prior to the church age
and the Jews during the church age.
There is however differences in that the Gentiles obtained grace and salvation
because of the nation of Israel rejected Christ. However, the nation of Israel will
obtain grace and salvation because of the grace that the Gentiles obtained since
Paul teaches in Romans 11:25-27 that the nation of Israel will not repent and trust
in Christ until the full number of Gentiles to be saved, have in fact been saved.
When the full number of Gentiles, have been saved between the first and
second advents of Christ, then the Second Advent will take place when the
majority of Jews in Israel will have faith in Christ in contrast to the majority in
Israel who reject Him during the church age.
In Romans 11:31, “they” is the demonstrative pronoun houtos, which refers to
the Jews who presently reject the gospel here in the church age. This is indicated in
that it agrees in gender (masculine) and number (plural) with the demonstrative
pronoun houtos that appears at the end of Romans 11:30. Houtos in Romans 11:30
refers to the noun apeitheia, which means “unbelief” and is used in contrast to the
Gentiles positive response to the gospel. Therefore, houtos in Romans 11:31 is
referring to the unbelief of the majority of Jews in Israel during the church age.
Here in Romans 11:31, the demonstrative force of houtos is diminished and acts as
a third person personal pronoun and should be translated “they.”
“Now” is the adverb of time nun, which is employed with the aorist tense of the
verb apeitheo, “have been disobedient” in order to emphasize the present state of
unbelief of the majority of Jews in Israel during the church age.
“Have been disobedient” is the verb apeitheo, which retains the same meaning
that it had in Romans 11:30 where the word meant “were unbelieving” describing
the former corporate unbelief of the Gentile race prior to the church age in contrast
to their present faith in the gospel as a corporate unit during the church age. Here
in Romans 11:31, the word is used to describe the present state of unbelief among
the majority of Jews in Israel during the church age.
“Because of mercy shown to you” is composed of the noun eleos and the
adjective humeteros. The verb eleeo means, “to obtain grace” and refers to God’s
grace being appropriated by those Gentile sinners who exercised faith in Jesus
Christ as their Savior. It speaks of God’s grace from the perspective that it is
obtained or appropriated by the Gentiles through faith in Christ.
Eleos functions as a dative of cause indicating the cause or the basis for the
Jews obtaining grace through faith in Jesus Christ. This indicates that “on the basis
of” or “because of” the grace that the Gentiles received or appropriated through
faith in Christ, the Jews will also obtain through faith in Christ. Therefore, in
Romans 11:31, eleos functions as a dative of cause indicating that “on the basis of”
or “because of” the grace that the Gentiles obtained or appropriated through faith
in Christ, the nation of Israel will also obtain grace at Christ’s Second Advent. It is
answering the question as to why the Jews will obtain grace and is not emphasizing
the means by which they obtained grace since that is only through faith alone in
Christ alone.
The adjective humeteros is in the attributive position, dependent on the noun
eleos, which is articular and agrees with it in gender (neuter) and number
(singular). We have the first attributive position where we have the article-
adjective-noun and in this construction the adjective receives greater emphasis than
the noun.10 We will translate the expression to humeteros eleei, “because of the
grace you obtained” in order to convey that emphasis of the adjective in the first
attributive position.
There is a difference of opinion among exegetes as to if this expression to
humeteros eleei, “because of the grace you obtained” is connected with the verb
apeitheo that precedes it or with the verb eleeo that appears in the hina clause that
follows. If with the verb apeitheo, the sentence would read: “so in the same way,
they also have now been unbelieving because of the grace you obtained in order
that they also might now obtain grace.” If with the verb eleeo, the sentence would
read: “so in the same way, they also have now been unbelieving in order that they
too might obtain grace because of the grace you obtained.”
Cranfield suggests the second and his primary reasoning is that this rendering is
in accord with the parallelism that Paul uses throughout the chapter. For an
exhaustive treatment of the various alternatives to rendering this passage see
Cranfield.11
In support of this interpretation is the KJV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, NJB and NIV.
Moo objects citing that the most natural reading of the syntax is to have the
expression to humeteros eleei with the verb apeitheo. However, even as Moo
points out “words to be construed with a verb dependent on hina do sometimes
precede the hina (Cranfield cites, in the NT, Acts 19:4; 2 Cor. 2:4; Gal. 2:10; Col.
4;16; and cf. LSJ).”12
Dunn agrees, citing “the clear inner chiasmus within the overall chiastic
structure of verses 30-31, which is most naturally understood as making
synonymous assertions.13
The rendering of verses 30-31 that Dunn and Moo suggests would be as
follows:
Romans 11:30 For you see, just as all of you were formerly unbelieving in
God the Father, but now all of you have obtained grace because of their
unbelief.
10
Robertson, Grammar, 776
11
International Critical Commentary, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, volume 2, pages 582-586; T and T
Clark, A Continuum imprint, London, New York, 1975
12
The New International Commentary on the New Testament, The Epistle to the Romans, page 735; William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand
13
Word Biblical Commentary, volume 38a, Romans 1-8 and 38b, Romans 9-16; Thomas Nelson, 1988

Romans 11:31 So in the same way, they also have now been unbelieving
because of the grace you obtained in order that they also might now obtain
grace.
The problem with this translation is that it is saying that the Jews have been
unbelieving because of the Gentiles receiving grace, which is not what Paul has
been teaching in chapter eleven, namely that because the Jews were unbelieving
the gospel was proclaimed to the Gentiles and great numbers believed in Christ.
The rendering of verses 30-31 that Cranfield suggests would be as follows (we
take the dative as causal, Cranfield interprets it as instrumental):
Romans 11:30 For you see, just as all of you were formerly unbelieving in
God the Father, but now all of you have obtained grace because of their
unbelief.
Romans 11:31 So in the same way, they also have now been unbelieving in
order that they too might obtain grace because of the grace you obtained.
Or we could translate it literally as:
Romans 11:31 So in the same way, they also have now been unbelieving in
order that because of the grace you obtained they too might obtain grace.
As we can see, this translation fits what Paul has been teaching in chapter
eleven while maintaining the parallelism that he has been using throughout the
chapter. This rendering says that the Jews have been unbelieving in order that
because of the grace obtained by the Gentiles they too might obtain grace.
Paul puts the expression to humeteros eleei, “because of the grace you
obtained” before the conjunction hina in order to emphasize it. He is emphasizing
that the very grace that God gave to the Gentiles through faith in Christ would also
be given to the Jews when they turn from their unbelief and believe in Christ at His
Second Advent.
Paul reveals a mystery in Romans 11:25 that a partial hardening has taken place
in Israel between the first and second advents of Christ until the full number of
Gentiles who are to be saved has come into existence. At the Second Advent there
will be a national regeneration and restoration of the nation of Israel according to
Romans 11:26-27.
Since both Jew and Gentiles have no merit with God and grace is for sinners
and the undeserving and those who have no merit with God, the Jews like the
Gentiles are qualified for receiving grace through faith in Christ. Their present
disobedience qualifies them for grace, which they will appropriate at the Second
Advent when the majority in Israel will have faith in Christ.
“May be shown mercy” is the verb eleeo which refers to God’s grace that will
be appropriated by the majority of Jews in Israel at the Second Advent of Christ
once the full number of Gentiles to be saved has come into existence. This grace is
in the form of the forgiveness of sins and being entered into an eternal relationship
and fellowship with God and being made joint-partakers with Gentile Christians of
the abundant blessings of the Abrahamic covenant.
Now we complete our study of Romans 11:31 by noting a textual problem.
Some manuscripts have the adverb of time nun, “now” appearing between autos
and the verb eleeo whereas some don’t.
Bruce M. Metzger commenting on this textual problem, writes, “Once again
external evidence and internal considerations are rather evenly balanced. A
preponderance of early and diverse witnesses favors the shorter reading. On the
other hand, the difficulty in meaning that the second occurrence of nun seems to
introduce may have prompted either its deletion or its replacement by the
superficially more appropriate ὕστερον.” In view of such conflicting considerations
it seemed best to retain nun in the text but to enclose it within square brackets.”14
Moo commenting on the problem writes, “NA 27 and UBS4 tentatively adopt
nun, ‘now,’ following the potent combination of the primary Alexandrian uncials a
and B and a part of the western tradition (the original hand and third corrector of
D). In this they are followed by most of the commentators (Käseman 316,
Cranfield, 2.585; Michel, 358; S-H, 338; Fitzmeyer, 628; Schlier, 343; Morris,
425; Barrett, 226). Other commentators (e.g. Godet, 415; Meyer, 1.198; Wilckens,
2.261-62) prefer to omit the word, a variant with equally strong support; the early
papyrus P46, the Alexandrian MSS A, 81, and 1739, the first corrector of D, the
secondary western uncials F and G, Ψ, and the majority text. (Receiving little
modern support is the reading ὕστερον, found only in a number of miniscules.) The
former reading has strong early attestation, fits neatly into Paul’s balanced
sentence and is-at least superficially-the “most difficult.” On the other hand, the
balanced structure achieved when the word appears may have been precisely the
reason why a scribe added it. On the whole, however, the arguments in favor of
inclusion slightly outweigh those for omitting it.15
The NET Bible has the following note on this problem, they write, “Some
important Alexandrian and Western mss (‫ א‬B D*,c 1506 pc bo) read νῦν (nun,
“now”) here. A few other mss (33 365 pc sa) have ὕστερον (Justeron, “finally”).
Mss that lack the word are Ì46 A D2 F G Ψ 1739 1881 Ï latt. External evidence
slightly favors omission with good representatives from the major texttypes, and
because of the alliance of Alexandrian and Byzantine mss (with the Byzantine
going against its normal tendency to embrace the longer reading). Internally,
scribes could have added νῦν here to give balance to the preceding clause (οὗτοι
νῦν ἠπείθησαν…αὐτοὶ νῦν ἐλεηθῶσιν [|outoi nun hpeiqhsan…autoi nun elehqwsin;
“they have now been disobedient…they may now receive mercy”]). However, it
14
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament; second edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: 1994, page 465
15
The New International Commentary on the New Testament, The Epistle to the Romans, page 711; William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand

seems much more likely that they would have deleted it because of its seeming
inappropriateness in this context. That some witnesses have ὕστερον presupposes
the presence of νῦν in their ancestors. A decision is difficult, but νῦν is slightly
preferred, since it is the more difficult reading and is adequately represented in the
mss.
We favor in the inclusion of nun in verse 31 for the reasons stated by both the
NET Bible and Moo. The adverb of time nun is employed with the aorist tense of
the verb eleeo in order to emphasize the immanency of the nation of Israel
obtaining the grace of God through faith in Christ at His Second Advent. It speaks
of the fact that the nation of Israel is “now” in a position because of her
unbelieving state, to obtain grace through faith in Christ.
Therefore we can see from our studies of this comparative clause that appears in
Romans 11:30-31 that there is similarity between the Jews and Gentiles experience
in that both have been unbelieving, the Gentiles prior to the church age and the
Jews during the church age. There is however differences in that the Gentiles
obtained grace and salvation because of the nation of Israel rejected Christ.
However, the nation of Israel will obtain grace and salvation because of the grace
that the Gentiles obtained since Paul teaches in Romans 11:25-27 that the nation of
Israel will not repent and trust in Christ until the full number of Gentiles to be
saved, have in fact been saved. When the full number of Gentiles, have been saved
between the first and second advents of Christ, then the Second Advent will take
place when the majority of Jews in Israel will have faith in Christ in contrast to the
majority in Israel who reject Him during the church age.
Romans 11:31 teaches that God’s purpose for the present state of unbelief in
Israel during the church age was in order that because of the grace obtained by the
Gentiles through faith in Christ, the Jews might also obtain grace through faith in
Christ. The Gentiles obtained grace through faith in Christ because the majority of
Jews in Israel rejected Christ. However, this purpose clause teaches that the nation
of Israel will obtain grace because of the grace that the Gentiles obtained. This
again reiterates what Paul taught in Romans 11:25-27 with the mystery of Israel’s
partial hardening until the full number of Gentiles has come into existence. This
means that once the full number of Gentiles to be saved during the first and second
advents of Christ, have in fact been saved, then Israel will turn to Christ at His
Second Advent and exercise faith in Him and as a result appropriate the grace of
God in the form of the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit.
Then, in Romans 11:32, Paul draws an inference from his teaching in Romans
11:30-31, which states God has confined the entire human race to unbelief in order
that He might extend the offer of grace to the entire human race.

Romans 11:32 Therefore, God the Father has confined the entire human
race to unbelief in order that He may extend the offer of grace to the entire
human race. (Author’s translation)
This passage refers to a judicial decision that the Father rendered the moment
that Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden when He condemned the entire human
race along with Adam in order that He might extend the offer of grace to Adam
and his posterity.
“Therefore” is the “inferential” use of the post-positive conjunction gar, which
introduces a statement that draws an inference from Romans 11:30-31. The
statement in Romans 11:32 infers a spiritual truth that is based upon the teaching in
Romans 11:30-31.
“Has confined” is the verb sunkleio, which literally means “to shut together
with” since it is composed of the preposition sun, “with” and the verb kleio, “to
shut, close,” thus the word literally means, “to shut together with.”
This verb in classical literature meant “close up” or “enclose.” 16 It was used in
military contexts where it referred to the “closing up” of the ranks. Polybius used
the word to indicate the imprisonment or the “locking up” of people. 17 All of these
meanings appear in the papyri as well.18
The verb sunkleio appears in the Septuagint where it is usually translating the
Hebrew verb saghar, “encircle, enclose, imprison” (1 Kings 11:27 [LXX 3 Kings
11:27]; 1 Samuel 1:6 [1 Kings 1:6]). Sometimes the verb has the idea of
“delivering up” for imprisonment or capture (Joshua 20:5). This is illustrated in
Psalm 78:61-62 (LXX 77:61-62) where sunkleio parallels paradidiomi, “to turn
over or deliver.”
Sunkleio appears only four times in the Greek New Testament (Luke 5:6;
Romans 11:32; Galatians 3:22-23). In Luke 5:6, the verb is used with reference to
Peter’s catch of fish in the sense that the fish were captured in the fishing net. Paul
uses it in Galatians 3:22 of the Father “imprisoning” or “confining” all men under
the sin nature and the Law.
In Romans 11:32, the verb sunkleio has the same idea of the Father rendering a
judicial decision of “imprisoning” or “confining” the entire human race to unbelief.
This word is a reference to the imputation of Adam’s original sin in the Garden of
Eden at the moment of physical birth. All of these judicial actions of the Father
depicted by this verb in Galatians 3:22 and Romans 11:32 are related to the fall of
Adam since Romans 5:12-21 teaches us that the Father imputed Adam’s original
sin in the Garden of Eden to every person at the moment of physical birth. Thus,
16
Liddell-Scott, page 1665
17
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament volume 7, page 744
18
Moulton-Milligan, page 609

making every member of the human race without exception physically alive and
spiritually dead as well as a sinner by nature but qualified for grace.
Therefore, in Romans 11:32, the verb sunkleio refers to the Father’s judicial
decision of “imprisoning” or “confining” the entire human race to the state of
unbelief the moment Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden.
At the moment of physical birth every person in the human race without
exception receives the imputation of Adam’s original sin in the Garden of Eden
thus rendering them physically alive but spiritually dead but qualified for grace.
The Father’s judicial decision of condemning the entire human race the moment
Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden resulted in the entire human race existing in
the state of not only being spiritually dead and possessing a sin nature but also
being in the state of unbelief. Unbelief manifests itself in disobedience to the
commands and prohibitions of God. So Paul is saying in Romans 11:32 that
confinement or imprisonment to unbelief is a manifestation of the Father’s judicial
decision of condemning the entire human race through the imputation of Adam’s
original sin in the Garden of Eden at the moment of physical birth.
“The entire human race” is the articular form of the adjective pas, which
refers to the entire human race without exception, both Jew and Gentiles. This is
indicated by the fact that Paul’s statement in Romans 11:32 is an inference from
his teaching in Romans 11:30-31, which compares God giving grace to the
formerly disobedient Gentiles because of Israel’s unbelief with extending grace to
the presently disobedient Jews because of the grace obtained by the Gentiles. This
is also indicated by Paul’s teaching in Romans 5:12-21 as well.
“To unbelief” is composed of the preposition eis and the accusative feminine
singular form of the noun apeitheia which describes an unwillingness or refusal to
comply with the demands of some authority. The stem of this word, has the basic
meaning of “trust.” This stem is also the basis of the formation with pist-, the root
of pisteou, “to have confidence in, to trust in, and to have faith in.” Trust can refer
to a statement, so that it has the meaning to put faith in, to let oneself be convinced,
or to a demand, so that it gets the meaning of obey, be persuaded.
The original intransitive active meaning of peitho was “to trust,” which later
became transitive meaning “to convince, persuade.” The active meaning,
“convince, persuade” is especially characteristic of Greek thought where it was
regarded as a goddess.
Peitho came to mean to have faith in another such as God. The verb’s versatility
was carried over into the Septuagint (LXX) where the translators used it to render
10 different Hebrew words. The Greek idea of persuading was foreign to Semitic
thought and thus is virtually non-existent in the LXX, which is the Greek
translation of the Hebrew Bible. The verb peitho is consistently used in the LXX to
translate batach, “to trust, put confidence in, inspire trust” (2 Kin. 18:19; Job
39:11; Prov. 11:28). Peitho is the term selected by the translators of the LXX to
describe “putting one’s confidence in” God (Ps. 2:12; Prov. 16:20; 28:25; 29:25).
Therefore, in the Greek New Testament, the verb apeitheo, its cognate noun
apeitheia and cognate adjective apeithes do not stand in contrast with the Greek
words for “obedience” but rather they stand in contrast with the words that denote
faith. Faith is demonstrated by obedience to God’s commands whereas unbelief
demonstrates one’s disobedience to God’s commands.
A survey of the verb’s usage in the Greek New Testament indicates that it was
connected to unbelief, which demonstrated itself in disobedience to the command
found in the gospel of Jesus Christ to believe on Him for eternal salvation.
In John 3:36, the word refers to the rejection of Jesus Christ as one’s Savior.
The verb is used this way in Acts 14:2, where it is attributed to the Jews who
rejected the presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ by the apostle Paul and his
entourage. Again, in Acts 19:9, the verb is used of those who rejected Paul’s
presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The word apeitheo appears in Hebrews
3:18 in relation to the Exodus generation, who as believers died the sin unto death
for their habitual lack of faith in the word of the Lord, which manifested itself in
disobedience. In Hebrews 11:31, the verb describes the unbelief of heathen in the
land of Canaan and which unbelief manifested itself in disobedience to God’s
revelation of Himself in creation and disobedience to their conscience.
In 1 Peter 2:7-8, the verb apeitheo refers to the unbelief of the nation of Israel,
which manifested itself in rejecting the gospel message that Jesus Christ is their
Savior. In 1 Peter 3:2, the word is used of the unregenerate husbands of Christian
wives who had not obeyed the gospel message of Jesus Christ to place their faith in
Him as their Savior. The word is used by Peter in 1 Peter 3:20 of the fallen angels
of Genesis 6:1-2 who attempted to prevent the incarnation of the Son of God by
having sex with human women, which was in disobedience to God’s commands. In
1 Peter 4:17, the verb apeitheo is used again for the unbeliever who has disobeyed
the gospel message to believe on Jesus Christ in order to receive eternal life and
the forgiveness of sins.
In Romans 2:8, the verb apeitheo refers to the unbelief in the gospel message of
Jesus Christ, which manifests itself in disobedience to the command to believe on
the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved. In Romans 10:21, apeitheo is used to
describe the unbelief of unregenerate Israel, which manifested itself in rejecting
their Messiah, Jesus Christ. Again, the word in Romans 15:31 is used to describe
the unbelief of the Jews in Israel in the first century, and which unbelief manifested
itself in the rejection of Jesus Christ as their Messiah.
The noun apeitheia is the cognate of the apeitheo, which appeared earlier in
Romans 11:30 where it meant “were unbelieving.” In Romans 11:30, the noun
apeitheia is used with reference to the majority of Jews in Israel who rejected Jesus
Christ as Savior. In Romans 11:30, Paul uses the verb apeitheo to describe the
former corporate unbelief of the Gentile race in contrast to their present faith in the
gospel as a corporate unit. Here in Romans 11:31, the noun apeitheia again means
“unbelief” and is used with reference to the unbelief of the entire human race as
indicated by the articular form of the adjective pas, “the entire human race.”
The entire human race was confined or imprisoned together in the state of
unbelief as a result of the imputation of Adam’s original sin in the Garden of Eden
at the moment of physical birth. The entire human race manifests its unbelief by its
disobedience to the commands and prohibitions of God (See Romans 1:18-3:19).
The noun apeitheia functions as the object of the preposition eis, which
functions as a marker of entrance into a state of being. It indicates that through the
imputation of Adam’s original sin in the Garden of Eden at the moment of physical
birth, every member of the human race without exception “entered into the state of
being” confined to or imprisoned in unbelief.
“In order that” is the conjunction hina, which is employed with the
subjunctive mood of the verb eleeo in order to form a purpose-result clause. The
conjunction hina can introduce a purpose and a result clause. The former
emphasizes the “intention” of the action of the main verb whereas the latter
emphasizes the consequence of the verbal action that is “not intended.” Now
sometimes the word can introduce a clause that indicates both purpose and result
meaning that it indicates both “the intention and its sure accomplishment.”
Commenting on this, Moule writes, “the Semitic mind was notoriously unwilling
to draw a sharp dividing-line between purpose and consequence. 19 When used with
reference to God, the “purpose-result” clause denotes that God will fully execute
that which He purposes or intends to do.
In Romans 11:32, this purpose-result clause introduces a divine purpose and
since that purpose never fails of fulfillment, it points us to the result as well. This
indicates that the Father’s judicial decision of confining the entire human race to
unbelief when Adam sinned accomplishes what He intended by this decision in
that it would allow Him to extend the offer of grace to the entire human race.
“He may extend the offer of grace” is the verb eleeo, which means “to extend
grace.” It refers to God the Father offering grace to the entire human race through
the communication of the gospel of Jesus Christ and is appropriated only through
faith alone in Christ alone. This grace is in the form of the forgiveness of sins and
being entered into an eternal relationship and fellowship with God and being made
a partaker of the abundant blessings of the Abrahamic covenant.
“To the entire human race” is the plural form of the adjective pas, which once
again refers to the entire human race without exception, both Jew and Gentiles as it
did earlier in the verse. This is indicated by the fact that Paul’s statement in
19
Idiom Book, page 142

Romans 11:32 is an inference from his teaching in Romans 11:30-31, which
compares God giving grace to the formerly disobedient Gentiles because of Israel’s
unbelief with extending grace to the presently disobedient Jews because of the
grace obtained by the Gentiles. This is also indicated by Paul’s teaching in Romans
5:12-21 as well.
So in Romans 11:32, Paul draws an inference from his teaching in Romans
11:30-31, which states God has confined the entire human race to unbelief in order
that He might extend the offer of grace to the entire human race. This passage
refers to a judicial decision that the Father rendered the moment that Adam sinned
in the Garden of Eden when He condemned the entire human race along with
Adam in order that He might extend the offer of grace to Adam and his posterity.
Romans 11:32 also teaches that God does not make distinctions and considers
all men to be sinners and in need of the grace and righteousness of God and refutes
the false doctrines of double-predestination and the limited atonement. Paul
teaches in Romans 11:32, God condemned the entire human race and also extends
of the offer of grace to them as well, which refers to the doctrine of the unlimited
atonement. This doctrine states that the perfect humanity of Christ died for every
sin committed by every single member of the human race-past, present and future
(John 1:29; Rom. 5:6-8; 1 Tim. 4:10; Titus 2:11; 1 John 2:2).
The “limited” atonement doctrine contends that Christ died for only the elect or
in other words, believers whereas the “unlimited” atonement contends that Christ
died for “all” men, all-inclusive, without exception and thus “without racial, sexual
or social distinction.”
The Bible emphatically states that God desires for all men to be saved and that
Christ died for all people. The apostle Paul taught the Roman believers that Christ
died for the ungodly, which refers to unbelievers and reconciled us meaning
believers, while we were God’s enemies. Therefore, if Christ reconciled the
believer to God while he was an enemy of God, then Christ died for unbelievers as
well (Romans 5:6-10). Thus, in order for God’s desire for all men to be saved to
ever have any chance of becoming a reality, He would have to send His Son into
the world to die for all men. Therefore, Christ’s death on the Cross was the
propitiation for the sins of both believers and unbelievers. Of course, all men will
not be saved because many will reject Jesus Christ as Savior.
The “limited” atonement doctrine contends that Christ died for only the elect or
in other words, believers whereas the “unlimited” atonement contends that Christ
died for “all” men, all-inclusive, without exception and thus “without racial, sexual
or social distinction.”
The Bible emphatically states that God desires for all men to be saved and that
Christ died for all people. The apostle Paul taught the Roman believers that Christ
died for the ungodly, which refers to unbelievers and reconciled us meaning
believers, while we were God’s enemies. Therefore, if Christ reconciled the
believer to God while he was an enemy of God, then Christ died for unbelievers as
well (Romans 5:6-10). Thus, in order for God’s desire for all men to be saved to
ever have any chance of becoming a reality, He would have to send His Son into
the world to die for all men. Therefore, Christ’s death on the Cross was the
propitiation for the sins of both believers and unbelievers. Of course, all men will
not be saved because many will reject Jesus Christ as Savior.
Christ had to die for everyone otherwise if He did not then unregenerate men
could accuse God at the Great White Throne Judgment of wrongdoing by stating
that they never were given a chance since their sins were never atoned for. Thus,
the fact that Christ did die for everyone gives no one an excuse at the Great White
Throne Judgment. They will go to the Lake of Fire forever because they chose to
and not because God wanted them to.
Romans 5:12-21 teaches that God condemned the entire human race the
moment Adam sinned. Christ had to die for everyone otherwise if He did not then
unregenerate men could accuse God at the Great White Throne Judgment of
wrongdoing by stating that they never were given a chance since their sins were
never atoned for. Thus, the fact that Christ did die for everyone gives no one an
excuse at the Great White Throne Judgment. They will go to the Lake of Fire
forever because they chose to and not because God wanted them to.
The problem of those who adhere to the “limited” atonement doctrine is that not
only do they reject major passages of Scripture, which clearly teach “unlimited”
atonement but also they failed to understand the doctrine of the imputation of
Adam’s sin to every person born into this world.
Romans 5:12-19 clearly indicates that every person in human history received
the imputation of Adam’s sin in the garden, thus making every person who comes
into the world physically but spiritually dead and qualified for grace. Therefore, if
God imputed Adam’s sin in the garden to every person born into this world, it
would be unjust for God not to send His Son into the world to die for all men. This
imputation obligated God to send His Son to the cross for all people.
In Romans 1:16, Paul teaches that the gospel is the power of God for salvation
to “everyone” who believes.
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of
God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the
Greek. (NASB95)
Therefore, the expression “who believes” refers to making the non-meritorious
decision to trust or place one’s complete confidence in the Person of Jesus Christ
for salvation. Then the apostle Paul notes the universal nature of salvation by faith
in Jesus Christ with the phrase “to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” This

phrase demonstrates that God desires all men to be saved and that Christ died for
all men.
The expression “to the Jew first and also to the Greek” does “not” mean that
every Jew must be evangelized before the gospel can be presented to the Gentiles
but rather means that the Jews were elected by God as noted by Paul in Romans 9-
11. Also, this expression “to the Jew first and also to the Greek” places the Jew
on equal footing with the Gentile with respect to the need for salvation.
In Romans 1:16, the apostle Paul reveals three principles: (1) The effect of the
gospel is salvation. (2) The extent of the gospel is that it is for all men. (3) The
condition attached to the gospel is faith in Christ.
The entire human race is born spiritually dead because of Adam’s sin.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man [Adam] sin entered into
the world, and spiritual death spread through sin, and so spiritual death
spread to all men, because all sinned when Adam sinned. (Author’s
translation)
Therefore, God the Father sent His Son to the cross for everyone because He
made everyone a sinner at physical birth through the imputation of Adam’s sin.
Now, the fact that every member of the human race possesses a sin nature does
mean that the entire human race is qualified for grace, which is all that God is free
to do in imparting unmerited blessings to anyone who trusts in Jesus Christ as his
or her Savior (cf. Galatians 3:22; Romans 11:32).Nevertheless, despite God’s grace
in offering everyone salvation, not everyone will be saved because God, in His
perfect integrity, also provided everyone with a free will, or volition. Therefore,
unbelievers must make the decision to believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior; God
cannot make the decision for them.
People go to the Lake of Fire because they make the decision to go there. God
doesn’t want anyone in the Lake of Fire. He wants them all in heaven. But, we are
not robots. We are human beings with volition to choose—to choose Christ and be
saved or to choose Satan and succumb to the Lake of Fire (John 3:36).
There is only one way to be saved and that is through faith alone in Christ
alone. There is no other person through whom you can attain salvation. Our ticket
to heaven is through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Peter made this extraordinarily
clear in Acts 4:10-12.
The “unlimited” atonement doctrine was taught by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:4.
1 Timothy 2:1 Therefore, based upon my previous statements, I first of all
urgently request specific detailed requests, reverential prayers, intercessory
prayers, thanksgivings be regularly offered up on behalf of each and every
member of the human race, 2 on behalf of kings as well as each and every one
of those individuals who are in authority in order that we may continue to live
a peaceful and tranquil life with absolute godliness as well as dignity. 3 This is,
as an eternal spiritual truth noble as well as pleasingly acceptable in the
judgment of God the Father, our Savior 4 who, as an eternal spiritual truth
desires each and every member of the human race to be saved as well as to
enter into knowing experientially the truth. (Author’s translation)
“Who, as an eternal spiritual truth desires each and every member of the
human raced to be saved” is a relative pronoun clause that is connected to verse
3, which itself is connected to verse 1. It reveals that the reason why intercessory
prayer for each and every member of the human race is noble and pleasingly
acceptable to the Father is that He desires each and every member of the human
race to be saved.
The expression πάντας ἀνθρώπους, “each and every member of the human
race” in verse 4 is picked up from verse 1 where it mean the same thing. Thus, as
noted in verse 1 Paul taught that it is the Father’s will that the Ephesians intercede
in prayer for all people or each and every member of the human race. Now in verse
4 he teaches that the Father wants the Ephesians to do this because it is His will
that each and every member of the human race be saved and to come to an
experiential knowledge of the truth. This expression refers to “common” or
“universal grace.” God the Holy Spirit, in common or universal grace, makes the
Gospel understandable to unbelievers, so that they may make a decision to either
accept or reject Jesus Christ as Savior.
When Paul says that the Father desires each and every member of the human
race to be saved does not imply that all will be saved automatically. Rather, he is
simply teaching that the Father desires this to be the case and made it possible by
making salvation possible for everyone through the gospel of His Son Jesus Christ.
The offer salvation is made possible to every member of the human race because
the Father’s Son Jesus Christ died on the cross for each and every member of the
human race. The fact that the sinner has to make a volitional decision in relation to
this offer is clearly taught by Paul in Romans 3:21-5:1 and many other passages
such as Ephesians 2:8-9, Galatians 2:16 and John 3:16-17 just to name a few.
“To be saved” speaks of the act of the Father delivering each and every
member of the human race without exception from personal sin, the sin nature,
Satan, his cosmic system, condemnation from the Law, spiritual and physical death
and eternal condemnation through faith in His Son Jesus Christ.
This statement in 1 Timothy 2:4 teaches the “unlimited” atonement and refutes
those who adhere to a “limited” atonement. The latter is a false doctrine that is
actually an attack instigated by Satan upon the integrity of God. The “limited”
atonement doctrine contends that Christ died for only the elect or in other words,
believers whereas the “unlimited” atonement contends that Christ died for “all”
men, all-inclusive, without exception and thus “without racial, sexual or social
distinction.” This doctrine states that Jesus Christ died for every sin committed by
every single member of the human race-past, present and future (John 1:29; Rom.
5:6-8; 1 Tim. 4:10; Titus 2:11; 1 John 2:2).
1 Timothy 4:10 In fact, for this express purpose we continue to make it our
habit of working hard. Specifically, we ourselves continue to make it our habit
of making every effort (to experience eternal life) because we possess a
confident expectation of rewards because of the living God, who is, as an
eternal spiritual truth the Savior of each and every member of the human
race without exception, especially of believers. (Author’s translation)
“Who is, as an eternal spiritual truth the Savior of each and every member
of the human race without exception, especially of believers” is a relative
pronoun clause that emphasizes that the Father is the member of the Trinity who
initiated salvation and is its source. He is the Savior or Deliverer of the human race
in a seven-fold sense: (1) Deliverer or Savior from personal sins. (2) Deliverer or
Savior from old sin nature (3) Deliverer or Savior from Satan and his cosmic
system. (4) Deliverer or Savior from spiritual and physical death (5) Deliverer or
Savior from eternal condemnation. (6) Deliverer or Savior from self. (7) Deliverer
or Savior from condemnation from the Law.
This relative pronoun clause teaches that teaches the “unlimited” atonement and
refutes those who adhere to a “limited” atonement. The latter is a false doctrine
that is actually an attack instigated by Satan upon the integrity of God.
When Paul says that the Father is the Savior of each and every member of the
human race, this does not imply that all will be saved automatically. Rather, he is
simply teaching that the Father has provided salvation for each and every member
of the human race through His Son Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection. The offer
salvation is made possible to every member of the human race because the Father’s
Son Jesus Christ died on the cross for each and every member of the human race.
The fact that the sinner has to make a volitional decision in relation to this offer is
clearly taught by Paul in Romans 3:21-5:1 and many other passages such as
Ephesians 2:8-9, Galatians 2:16 and John 3:16-17 just to name a few.
This relative pronoun clause not only refers to the “unlimited” atonement but
also refers to “common” or “universal grace.” God the Holy Spirit, in common or
universal grace, makes the Gospel understandable to unbelievers, so that they may
make a decision to either accept or reject Jesus Christ as Savior.
“Common” or “universal grace” is grace that the entire human race receives
when God the Holy Spirit makes the Gospel message, which is a spiritual
language, understandable to the spiritually dead unbeliever. It is given to everyone
in the human race, so that all men may have the same privilege and opportunity to
be saved.
“Especially of believers” singles out those who have exercised faith in Jesus
Christ as Savior in contrast to the unsaved or do not. It is singling out those who
appropriate salvation provided by the Father through His Son Jesus Christ through
faith alone in Christ alone in contrast to those who don’t appropriate this salvation
through unbelief.
The expression σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων, “the Savior of each and every
member of the human race without exception” teaches that teaches the
“unlimited” atonement and refutes those who adhere to a “limited” atonement. The
latter is a false doctrine that is actually an attack instigated by Satan upon the
integrity of God.
When Paul says that the Father is the Savior of each and every member of the
human race, this does not imply that all will be saved automatically. Rather, he is
simply teaching that the Father has provided salvation for each and every member
of the human race through His Son Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection. The offer
salvation is made possible to every member of the human race because the Father’s
Son Jesus Christ died on the cross for each and every member of the human race.
The fact that the sinner has to make a volitional decision in relation to this offer is
clearly taught by Paul in Romans 3:21-5:1 and many other passages such as
Ephesians 2:8-9, Galatians 2:16 and John 3:16-17 just to name a few.
Chapter Nine: Paul’s Doxology
Romans 11:33-36
In Romans 11:33, Paul praises the Father for His infinite wealth, wisdom and
knowledge as well as His unsearchable decrees and incomprehensible ways.
Romans 11:33 Oh, God’s infinite wealth and wisdom and knowledge! How
unsearchable, as an eternal spiritual truth, are His decrees and in addition,
how incomprehensible, as an eternal spiritual truth, are His ways! (Author’s
translation)
Then, in Romans 11:34, Paul cites the two rhetorical questions that demand a
negative response that appear in Isaiah 40:13 to support his exclamation in Romans
11:33.
Romans 11:34 Indeed, who has fully comprehended the Lord’s mind or
who became His advisor? (Author’s translation)
This quotation is related to Paul’s praise of the Father’s infinite wisdom and
knowledge and unsearchable decrees and incomprehensible ways. This rhetorical
question brings out the implication of Paul’s doxology in Romans 11:33, which is
that God is sovereign over His creatures and is transcendent of His creatures and
self-sufficient unlike His creatures. The two rhetorical questions in Romans 11:34
deals with the believer’s knowledge of God’s eternal plan of salvation for
mankind, both Jew and Gentile.
Lastly, in Romans 11:35, Paul cites the rhetorical question that demands a
negative response that appears in Job 41:11 to support his praise of the Father in
Romans 11:33. Paul teaches that the Father will receive praise and thanksgiving
throughout eternity because all things exist from Him and through Him and for
Him.
Romans 11:36 Because each and every thing, as an eternal spiritual truth,
exists because of Him as their source and through Him and for Him. Glory (in
the sense of adoring praise and worshipful thanksgiving) will be directed
towards Him throughout eternity. Amen! (Author’s translation)
This quotation relates to Paul’s praise of the Father’s infinite wealth. This
rhetorical question in Romans 11:35 deals with the way in which the believer
experiencing God’s eternal plan of salvation for mankind. The quotations from
Isaiah 40:13 and Job 41:11 that appear in Romans 11:34-35 serve to “confirm”
Paul’s doxology or praise of the Father in Romans 11:33.
Chapter Ten: The Destruction of Replacement Theology
It is the prayer of this author that this study of Romans chapter 11 will
contribute to the discussion regarding whether or not the church has replaced Israel
or not. This author’s interpretation makes clear that Israel does have a future in the
plan of God and that the church has in no way replaced Israel permanently. The
teaching that the church has replaced Israel is called “replacement theology” or
“supersessionism.”
Walter Kaiser writes, “Replacement theology…declared that the Church,
Abraham’s spiritual seed, had replaced national Israel in that it has transcended and
fulfilled the terms of the covenant given to Israel, which covenant Israel had lost
because of disobedience.”20
Bruce K. Waltke writes that the New Testament teaches the “hard fact that
national Israel and its law have been permanently replaced by the church and the
New Covenant.”21
Replacement theology or a some call it “supersessionism” is based on two
major premises: (1) the nation of Israel has somehow completed or forfeited its
status as the people of God and will never again possess a unique role or function
apart from the church; and (2) the church is now the true Israel that has
permanently replaced or superseded national Israel as the people of God.
Michael J. Vlach writes, “Supersessionism, then, in the context of Israel and the
church, is the view that the New Testament church is the new and/or true Israel
that has forever superseded the nation Israel as the people of God. The result is that
20
Michael J. Vlach; The Master’s Seminary Journal, volume 20, number 1, page 59
21
Michael J. Vlach; The Master’s Seminary Journal, volume 20, number 1, page 59

the church has become the sole inheritor of God’s covenant blessings originally
promised to national Israel in the OT. This rules out a future restoration of the
nation Israel with a unique identity, role, and purpose that is distinct in any way
from the Christian church.”22
Vlach lists several variations of supersessionism, i.e. replacement theology: (1)
punitive or retributive: This emphasizes that God has rejected Israel for her
disobedience and punishment by God as the reason for its displacement as the
people of God. (2) economic: This view teaches that Israel is replaced by the
church because her role in the history of redemption expired with the coming of
Jesus and the establishment of the church. (3) structural: This view is a
hermeneutical approach and refers to the narrative logic of the standard model
whereby it renders the Hebrew Scriptures largely indecisive for shaping Christian
convictions about how God’s works as Consummator and as Redeemer engage
humankind in universal and enduring ways and thus ignores or removes the
Hebrew Scriptures of the OT from having a voice.23
Therefore, replacement theology or supersessionism contends that the nation of
Israel has absolutely no future whatsoever in the plan of God. Now, those who
adhere to this view believe there will be a future “salvation” of Israel, but this
salvation does not mean a “restoration” of Israel. The difference between a
salvation of Israel and a restoration of that nation is that salvation means simply
that many Jews will believe in Christ and be saved while on the other hand
restoration involves Israel being replanted in Palestine and given a role and
mission to the nations. A restoration of Israel means that the nation will have a role
and a place of prominence that is not shared with any other group including the
church.
Dispensationalists accept both concepts and believe Israel as a nation will be
saved and they also believe Israel will be restored to a place of prominence among
the nations. Now, some supersessionists do not believe in either a salvation or
restoration of Israel while some believe in a salvation of Israel but do not believe in
a restoration of that nation. No supersessionists believe in a restoration of Israel
and is the major factor that distinguishes them from dispensationalists.
Conclusion
As we can see from our study of Romans chapter 11, the apostle Paul makes
clear that God has not totally abandoned the nation of Israel and that in the future
she will as a nation accept Jesus Christ as Savior and thus experience a national
regeneration and restoration to the land promised to her by God centuries ago. This
22
The Master’s Seminary Journal, volume 20, number 1, page 60
23
The Master’s Seminary Journal, volume 20, number 1, pages 59-64

regeneration and restoration of the nation of Israel will fulfill the four
unconditional covenants to Israel. These four are the Abrahamic, Palestinian,
Davidic and New covenants which mentioned briefly in our introduction.
There are seven great features that are distinct in each of these four
unconditional covenants to Israel: (1) Israel will be a nation forever. (2) Israel will
possess a significant portion of land forever. (3) Israel will have a King rule over
her forever. (4) Israel will have a throne from which Christ will ruler, forever. (5)
Israel will have a kingdom forever.
The entire expectation of Old Testament Israel is involved with its earthly
kingdom, the glory of Israel and the promised Messiah seated in Jerusalem as ruler
of the nations. Since the Lord Jesus Christ literally fulfilled prophecy during His
First Advent, then it follows that He will certainly literally fulfill the prophecies
related to the millennium at His Second Advent.
The Abrahamic Covenant
The Abrahamic covenant was originally established with Abraham when he left
Haran and is recorded in Genesis 12:1-3. In His covenant promises to Abraham,
the Lord emphasized to Abraham that he would not only be a progenitor
biologically but also one spiritually.
Genesis 12:1 Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go forth from your country,
and from your relatives and from your father's house, to the land which I will
show you. 2 And I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and
make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing. 3 And I will bless those
who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the
families of the earth will be blessed.” (NASB95)
The Abrahamic covenant contained three categories of promises: (1) Personal
(2) National (3) Universal and Spiritual.
(1) Personal: “I will bless you and make your name great” (Gen. 12:2), which
refers to the fact that the Lord would make Abraham a famous character with a
great reputation among men and before God. This fame and reputation is expressed
in that Abraham is called a “father of a multitude” in Genesis 17:5, a prince of
God in Genesis 23:6, the man in God’s confidence in Genesis 18:17-19, a prophet
in Genesis 20:7, the servant of God in Psalm 105:6 and the friend of God in 2
Chronicles 20:7 and James 2:23.
(2) National: “I will make you into a great nation” (Gen. 12:2), which refers
to the nation of Israel.
(3) Spiritual and Universal: “And all the peoples on earth will be blessed
through you” (Gen. 12:3) refers to the fact that through Jesus Christ, Abraham
would be a blessing to all mankind (Deut. 28:8-14; Is. 60:3-5, 11, 16) since it is
only through Jesus Christ that one becomes Abraham’s seed and heirs of the
promise (Gal. 3:29; Eph. 2:13, 19).
The phrase “and you shall be a blessing” is “not” a promise since the verb
hayah, “you shall be” is in the “imperative” mood expressing a command and
literally means, “so become a blessing” indicating that Abraham had a
responsibility to walk by faith, which is expressed by obedience to the Lord’s
commands.
The promises “I will bless them that bless you and the one who curses you I
will curse” refers to the fact that the Lord is identifying Himself with the cause of
Abraham and guaranteeing protection for Abraham and his descendants.
“Bless” is the verb barakh, which appears five times in Genesis 12:1-3 and
means, “to endue with power for success, prosperity, fecundity, longevity, etc.”
Therefore, the verb barakh indicates that Abraham and his descendants were
endued with power by the Lord for success, prosperity, fecundity (offspring in
great numbers) and longevity.”
The Lord blessed Abram in the sense that the Lord multiplied his descendants
so that his posterity was great in number both, racially and spiritually. Also, the
Lord blessed Abram in the sense that the Lord multiplied his possessions and
livestock and prospered him financially. The Lord blessed anyone who was
associated with Abraham.
The phrase “I will bless you” was fulfilled “temporally” according to Genesis
13:14-18; 15:18-21; 24:34-35 and it has been fulfilled “spiritually” according to
Genesis 15:6 and John 8:56.
The promise “I will make your name great” refers to the fact that the Lord
would make Abraham a famous character with a great reputation among men and
before God. This fame and reputation is expressed throughout Scripture in that
Abraham is called a “father of a multitude” in Genesis 17:5, a prince of God in
Genesis 23:6, the man in God’s confidence in Genesis 18:17-19, a prophet in
Genesis 20:7, the servant of God in Psalm 105:6 and the friend of God in 2
Chronicles 20:7 and James 2:23.
Again, the phrase “and you shall be a blessing” is “not” a promise since the
verb hayah, “you shall be” is in the “imperative” mood expressing a command
and literally means, “so become a blessing” indicating that Abraham had a
responsibility to walk by faith, which is expressed by obedience to the Lord’s
commands. The imperative mood of the verb hayah indicates that others would be
blessed when Abraham walked by faith and was obedient to the Lord. Therefore,
the imperative mood of hayah teaches us that the Lord wants us to be a blessing to
others and this is accomplished by obedience to the Lord, which expresses our
faith in the Lord.

will curse” identifies the Lord with the cause of Abraham. Therefore, blessing
Abraham would be equivalent to doing it to God whereas those who curse
Abraham would be cursing God.
will curse” refers to the fact that the Lord would bless those who bless Abraham
and curse those who curse him.
The promise “in you all the families of the earth will be blessed” refers to the
fact that through Jesus Christ, the Promised Seed of Genesis 3:15, Abraham would
be a blessing to all mankind (Dt. 28:8-14; Is. 60:3-5, 11, 16) since it is only
through the Lord Jesus Christ that one becomes Abraham’s seed and heirs of the
promise (Gal. 3:29; Eph. 2:13, 19). This promise was the Gospel of salvation
proclaimed to Abraham (Gal. 3:8) and reaches back to the divided “families”
(10:5, 20, 31) of the earth at the Tower of Babel who were alienated from God due
to sin and rebellion and the deception of Satan but who would be blessed through
faith alone in Christ alone.
Galatians 3 teaches that Gentiles and Jews who believe in Jesus Christ as their
Savior become the “spiritual” posterity of Abraham and heirs according to the
promise made to Abraham in relation to the nations.
The promise “in you all the families of the earth will be blessed” gives us
further information regarding the Promised “Seed” of Genesis 3:15 who would
destroy the works of the devil and would deliver Adam and Eve’s descendants
from sin and Satan and indicates that the human nature of Jesus Christ would
originate from the line of Abraham.
Up to this point in Genesis, the human nature of Jesus Christ is identified as
coming from the line of Seth (Luke 3:38) and Shem (Gen. 9:24-27; Luke 3:36) and
now Genesis 12:3 states that Jesus Christ would be a descendant of Abraham.
The promise “in you all the families of the earth will be blessed” refers to
God’s plan to reverse the curse of Genesis 3 and all the effects of the Fall of Adam
and is God’s promise of salvation to the human race and is repeated five times in
the Book of Genesis (Gen. 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant with
Abraham was reaffirmed and confirmed after Abraham’s faith was tested (Gen.
22:15-18) and was confined to the Jews who are the racial descendants of Abraham
(Gen. 17:1-14).
The “Abrahamic” covenant serves as the foundation for the message delivered
to the nation of Israel by the Old Testament prophets and writers. The
“Abrahamic” covenant marked the “patriarchal” dispensation, which ended with
Exodus of Israel and the giving of the Law at Sinai. The “Abrahamic” covenant is
declared to be eternal or everlasting in Genesis 17:7, 13, 19; 1 Chronicles 16:17
and Psalm 105:10 and is confirmed repeatedly by reiteration and enlargement.
The “Abrahamic” covenant was solemnized by a divinely ordered ritual
symbolizing the shedding of blood and passing between the parts of the sacrifice
(Gen. 15:7-21; Jer. 34:18). This ceremony assured Abraham that his seed would
inherit the land in the exact boundaries given to him in Genesis 15:18-21.
The Lord gave circumcision to Abraham and his descendants to distinguish
those who would inherit the promises as individuals through faith from those who
were only physical seed of Abraham (Gen. 17:9-14).
The “Abrahamic” covenant was confirmed by the birth of Isaac and Jacob who
also received the promises repeated in their original form (Gen. 17:10; 28:12-13).
A comparison of Hebrews 6:13-18 and Genesis 15:8-21 records that the
“Abrahamic” covenant was immutable and was not only promised but solemnly
confirmed by an oath from God.
Genesis 12:6-9 records Abraham’s journey through the land of Canaan, which
the Lord had promised to Abraham and his descendants.
Genesis 12:6 Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem,
to the oak of Moreh. Now the Canaanite was then in the land. 7 The LORD
appeared to Abram and said, “To your descendants I will give this land.” So
he built an altar there to the LORD who had appeared to him.” (NASB95)
The Lord identifies the land of Canaan as the land that was promised to
Abraham in Genesis 12:1.
Now, remember, this promise was not yet fulfilled since the Canaanites were
still occupying the land, thus Abram had to continue to trust the Lord to deliver on
His promise. Many times the promise often seems long and delayed and the
believer must simply continue trusting the Lord day by day and trusting that His
timing is always perfect.
Throughout his lifetime, Abraham had to rest in the promise that the Lord made
to him that he and his descendants would posses the land of Canaan and he had to
trust the Lord to fulfill this promise in His perfect timing.
Genesis 12:8 Then he proceeded from there to the mountain on the east of
Bethel, and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east; and
there he built an altar to the LORD and called upon the name of the LORD. 9
Abram journeyed on, continuing toward the Negev. (NASB95)
Genesis 13:14-18 records the Lord promising land to Abram and is called in
theology, the “Palestinian” covenant, which is the sixth covenant in history God
has made with men. The “Palestinian” covenant is in fact an extension of the
“Abrahamic” covenant, which is recorded in Genesis 12:1-3.
Like the “Abrahamic” covenant, the “Palestinian” covenant that the Lord
established with Abram denoted the Lord’s gracious undertaking for the benefit of
Abram and his descendants. Like the “Abrahamic” covenant, the “Palestinian”
covenant was “unconditional” meaning that its fulfillment was totally and
completely dependent upon the Lord’s faithfulness. We will note this covenant in
detail in the next section.
Genesis 13:14 The LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from
him, “Now lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are,
northward and southward and eastward and westward 15 for all the land
which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever. 16 I will
make your descendants as the dust of the earth, so that if anyone can number
the dust of the earth, then your descendants can also be numbered. 17 Arise,
walk about the land through its length and breadth; for I will give it to you.”
(NASB95)
Genesis 15:7 records the Lord reconfirming His promise to Abram to give him
the land of Canaan.
Genesis 15:7 And He said to him, “I am the LORD who brought you out of
Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to possess it.” (NASB95)
Genesis 15:7 records the Lord reiterating and confirming His original promises
to Abram recorded in Genesis 12:7 and Genesis 13:14-17 to give him and his
descendants the land of Canaan. The northern border of the land of the Canaanites
went as far as Sidon, which is 120 miles north of Jerusalem and the southern
border extended to Gerar, which is about 11 miles south-southeast of Gaza, which
was on the coast 50 miles southeast of Jerusalem. In Genesis 15:7, the promise by
the Lord to Abram to give him the land of Canaan is a reference again to the
“Palestinian” covenant.
In Genesis 15:9-21, the Lord gives Abram quite a few details surrounding the
specific means by which the Lord would bring about Abram possessing the land of
Canaan. The specific means by which the Lord will give Abram the land of Canaan
would be through the unconditional covenant that the Lord initially made with
Abram in Genesis 12:1-3 and 13:14-17, which would be enlarged and amplified
and confirmed as demonstrated in the covenant ceremony recorded in Genesis
15:9-21.
Also, the specific means by which the Lord will give Abram the land of Canaan
would be through suffering as indicated by the Lord’s prophecy in Genesis 15:13-
16 that Abram’s descendants, specifically, the nation of Israel would suffer in
Egypt for four hundred years before they would finally leave Egypt and then enter
the land of Canaan to possess it.
Also, although not specifically mentioned but it is implied, is that it would be
through resurrection from the dead that Abram would personally enter into
possessing the land of Canaan, which will take place during the millennial reign of
Christ.
Genesis 22:15-18 records the Lord reconfirming the promises of this covenant
and then enlarges upon them. Every time Abraham made a sacrifice for God the
Lord responded by giving Abraham more: (1) God commanded Abraham to leave
his hometown and as a result God rewarded him with a new one (Gen. 12:1; Heb.
11:8). (2) Abraham offered the best of the land to Lot and separated from Lot and
as a result God rewarded him by giving him more land (Gen. 13:5-18). (3)
Abraham gave up the King of Sodom's reward (Gen. 14:17-24) and God gave
Abraham more wealth (Gen. 15:1-6). (4) God commanded Abraham to sacrifice
Isaac after he waited so long for him to be born (Genesis 22:1-19; Hebrews 11:17-
19) and as a result the Lord rewards Abraham by enlarging upon the previously
made covenant (Gen. 22:15-18). In each case, where Abraham was obedient to
God, God rewarded Abraham with a deeper and more intimate fellowship with
Himself.
Genesis 22:15 Then the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second
time from heaven 16 and said, “By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD,
because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only
son.” (NASB95)
“Your seed” refers to not only Isaac but also those who like Abraham exercise
faith alone in Christ alone, which would include the church and regenerate Israel
and regenerate Gentiles who lived in dispensations outside of the church age and
ultimately it refers to Jesus Christ.
Therefore, the Scriptures teach that the “seed” of Abraham is four-fold: (1)
Abraham’s biological or racial descendants, which would include: (a) The
Ishmaelites through Hagar (Gen. 17:20; 21:13; 25:12-18) (b) The Midianites and
others through Keturah (Gen. 25:1-4) (c) The Edomites through Isaac and Rebekah
(Gen. 25:23; 36:1-43). (2) Abraham’s biological or racial descendants the Israelites
of Jews through Sarah and Isaac and Rebekah and Jacob (Genesis 12:2, 7; 18:18;
Rom. 9:6-9). (3) Abraham’s spiritual descendants, which would include those
individuals, both Jew and Gentile racially, who exercised faith alone in Christ
alone (Gal. 3:6-29). (4) The Lord Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:16).
“Your seed” is a reference to the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Lord statement that “in your seed (Christ) all the nations of the earth
will be blessed” echoes the Lord’s promise in Genesis 18:18 and is an enlargement
upon the Lord’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:3 that in Abraham “all the
families of the earth will be blessed.” Galatians 3:8-14 reveals that the promise in
Genesis 18:18 that “in (Abraham) all the nations of the earth will be blessed”
and the promise in Genesis 22:19 that “in your Seed (Christ) all the nations of
the earth shall be blessed” are references to the fact that Abraham’s descendent,
Jesus Christ, would bring salvation to the Gentile nations through faith in Him.
Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having
become a curse for us -- for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO
HANGS ON A TREE” 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of
Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of
the Spirit through faith.” (NASB95)
Genesis 22:19 So Abraham returned to his young men, and they arose and
went together to Beersheba; and Abraham lived at Beersheba. (NASB95)
Abraham returned with Isaac as he believed he would since according to
Hebrews 11:17-19, he reasoned that God would raise Isaac from the dead.
Genesis 28:13-15 records Jacob receiving from the Lord reconfirmation of the
promises of the Abrahamic Covenant and reassurance that the Lord would protect
and prosper him in exile in Paddan Aram.
In Genesis 26:3-4, Isaac received reconfirmation of the promises of the
Abrahamic Covenant by means of a theophany. In Genesis 26:23-25, the Lord
appeared in a theophany to Isaac at Beersheba and gave him reassurance by
reconfirming to him the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant. In Genesis 28:3-4,
the blessing that Isaac bestowed upon Jacob before he left home echoes the
promises of the Abrahamic covenant. In Genesis 28:14-15, God’s reiteration of the
promises to Abraham and Isaac assures Jacob of God’s faithfulness.
Genesis 35:9-13 records the preincarnate Christ appearing to Jacob and
reconfirming the change of his name to “Israel” and reconfirming the promises of
the Abrahamic Covenant.
Genesis 35:12 “The land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac, I will give it
to you, and I will give the land to your descendants after you.” (NASB95)
The promise of “land” is a reference to the “Palestinian Covenant.”
“Your descendants” refers to Jacob’s “biological” descendants, which would
be the nation of Israel and it refers to his “spiritual” descendants, which would be
anyone, Jew or Gentile who believes in Jesus Christ as their Savior.
In a “near” sense “Your descendants” refers to the nation of Israel (saved and
unsaved) and in a “far” sense it refers to saved Israel during the millennial reign of
Christ. By means of His Word, the Lord would fulfill His sixth and final promise
to Jacob and endue him and his descendants (spiritual and biological) with power
to possess the land of Canaan (See Genesis 35:12).
Though Jacob was still a resident alien in the land of Canaan, it was really his
according to God’s promise and would be possessed by him and his descendants
through faith in Christ during the millennial reign of Christ.
The Palestinian Covenant
As we noted in the previous section, the “Palestinian” covenant is in fact an

extension of the “Abrahamic” covenant, which is recorded in Genesis 12:1-3. Like
the “Abrahamic” covenant, the “Palestinian” covenant that the Lord established
with Abram denoted the Lord’s gracious undertaking for the benefit of Abram and

his descendants. Like the “Abrahamic” covenant, the “Palestinian” covenant was
“unconditional” meaning that its fulfillment was totally and completely dependent
upon the Lord’s faithfulness.
The Lord’s promise of land to Abram and his descendants in Genesis 13:14-17
is an “extension” upon His promise to Abram in Genesis 12:1 and is thus related to
the “Abrahamic” covenant. The “Palestinian” covenant was a confirmation and
enlargement of the original “Abrahamic” covenant and amplified the land features
of the “Abrahamic” covenant (Gen. 13:14-15; 15:18).
The “Palestinian” covenant was confirmed to Isaac (Gen. 26:3-4) and Jacob
(Gen. 35:12), reiterated to Moses (Ex. 6:2-8) who described the geographical
boundaries of the land in Numbers 34:1-12 and who prophesied the fulfillment of
this covenant during the millennium in Deuteronomy 30:1-9.
The land grant under the “Palestinian” covenant: (1) Most of the land in Turkey
(2) Most of East Africa (3) Saudi Arabia (4) Yemen (5) Oman and Red Sea (6)
Syria (7) Iraq (8) Jordan.
The land grant has boundaries on the Mediterranean, on Aegean Sea, on
Euphrates River and the Nile River.
Deuteronomy 30:1-10 describes seven features of the “Palestinian” covenant:
(1) The nation will be plucked off the land for its unfaithfulness (Deut. 28:63-68;
30:1-3). (2) There will be a future repentance of Israel (Deut. 28:63-68; 30:1-3).
(3) Israel’s Messiah will return (Deut. 30:3-6). (4) Israel will be restored to the
land (Deut. 30:5). (5) Israel will be converted as a nation (Deut. 30:4-8; cf. Rm.
11:26-27). (6) Israel’s enemies will be judged (Deut. 30:7). (7) The nation will
then receive her full blessing (Deut. 30:9).
The Lord promises that this land would be given to Abram’s descendants and
this promise was fulfilled to a certain extent by Israel under Joshua (Josh. 21:43-
45; cf. 13:1-7) and David and Solomon (1 Kgs. 4:20-25; Neh. 9:8).
The prophets of Israel prophesied of the “Palestinian” covenant’s literal and
ultimate fulfillment during the millennial reign of Christ (Isa. 11:11-12; Jer. 16:14-
16; 23:3-8; 31:8, 31-37; Ezek. 11:17-21; 20:33-38; 34:11-16; 39:25-29; Hos. 1:10-
11; Joel 3:17-21; Amos 9:11-15; Micah 4:6-7; Zeph. 3:14-20; Zech. 8:4-8).
During the millennial reign of Christ, the northern boundary of Israel will
extend from the Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates River (47:15-17),
incorporating much of modern Lebanon and Syria. The eastern border will extend
south from the Euphrates River, incorporating the Golan Heights and portions of
Syria almost up to Damascus, and continue south to where the Jordan River leaves
the Sea of Galilee. The river will be the eastern border to the Dead Sea’s southern
end (47:18). From there the southern border will go westward, incorporating the
Negev and parts of Sinai all the way along the Brook of Egypt (the modern Wadi-
el-Arish) to the point where it reaches the Mediterranean Sea (47:19), the western
border (47:20). Although the land will have twelve tribal divisions, these
subdivisions will differ form those in the Book of Joshua.
Ezekiel 48:1-7 describes the northern subdivisions for seven of the twelve
tribes. From the north to the south they will be: (1) Dan (48:1) (2) Asher (48:2) (3)
Naphtali (48:3) (4) Manasseh (48:4) (5) Ephraim (48:5) (6) Reuben (48:6) (7)
Judah (48:7).
Ezekiel 48:8-22 describes the holy mountain, which will be south of Judah and
north of Benjamin, separating the northern and the southern tribes.
Ezekiel 48:23-29 describes the subdivisions of the remaining five tribes in the
south. From north to south, they will be: (1) Benjamin (48:23) (2) Simeon (48:24)
(3) Issachar (48:25) (4) Zebulun (48:26) (5) Gad (48:27) next to the southern
border.
The Davidic Covenant
The millennial reign of Christ will also literally fulfill the Davidic covenant.
God called David a man after his own heart (Acts 13:22). The Lord Jesus Christ
will sit upon the Davidic throne in truth.
Isaiah 16:5 A throne will even be established in lovingkindness, and a
judge will sit on it in faithfulness in the tent of David; Moreover, he will seek
justice and be prompt in righteousness. (NASB95)
Jeremiah 23:5 Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I
will raise up for David a righteous Branch; And He will reign as king and act
wisely and do justice and righteousness in the land. (NASB95)
The “Davidic” covenant deals with the dynasty that will rule the nation of Israel
as indicated in 2 Samuel 7:16 where God promised David that a descendant of his
would sit on his throne forever.
The Davidic covenant is also confirmed in the following passages: Isa. 9:6-7;
Jer. 23:5-6; 30:8-9; 33:14-17, 20-21; Ezek. 37:24-25; Dan. 7:13-14; Hos. 3:4-5;
Amos 9:11; Zech. 14:4, 9.
The Davidic covenant contains four promises: (1) A Davidic House: Posterity
of David will never be destroyed. (2) A Davidic Throne: Kingdom of David shall
never be destroyed. (3) A Davidic Kingdom: David’s Son (Christ) will have an
earthly sphere of rule. (4) It Shall Be Unending. The “sign” of the Davidic
Covenant is a Son (Lord Jesus Christ).
Provisions of the Davidic covenant: (1) David is to have a child, yet to be born,
who will succeed him and establish his kingdom (2) This son (Solomon), instead
of David, will build the temple. (3) The throne of his kingdom will be established
forever. (4) The throne will not be taken away from him (Solomon) even though

his sins justify God’s discipline. (5) David’s house, throne and kingdom will be
established forever.
The essential features of the Davidic covenant are found in three words in 2
Samuel 7:16: (1) House (physical descendants): A line stemming from David
would continue indefinitely and would be the divinely recognized royal line. (2)
Kingdom (political body): the political body that David would rule and over which
David’s descendants would successively reign. (3) Throne (right to rule): refers to
the authority as king vested in him.
Just as important as these three terms is the word “forever,” which refers to any
time during which the descendants of Abraham would exist. Even though there
might be temporary interruptions in the exercise of royal authority because of
divine discipline, the authority would never transfer to another line.
As in the case of the Abrahamic covenant, this covenant with David is restated
and reconfirmed elsewhere in Scripture. One of the royal titles that the Lord Jesus
Christ possesses is that of the “Son of David,” which denotes His rulership over the
nation of Israel (Matt. 1:1; 20:30; Mark 10:47-48; Luke 1:32; 2 Tim. 2:8; Rev. 3:7;
5:5; 22:16).
The Bible anticipates a future literal fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. The
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of David, will literally fulfill this covenant during His
millennial reign.
The prophetic implications of the Davidic covenant: (1) Israel must be
preserved as a nation. (2) Israel must have a national existence and be brought back
into the land of her inheritance. (3) David’s descendant, the Lord Jesus Christ,
must return to the earth, bodily and literally, in order to reign over David’s
covenanted kingdom. (4) A literal earthly kingdom must exist over which the
returned Messiah will reign. (5) This kingdom must become an eternal kingdom.
The New Covenant
During the millennial reign of Christ, regenerate (born-again) Old Testament

Israel will be resurrected and will enjoy the millennial blessings that were
promised to them (Ezek. 37:1-14). This will be in fulfillment of the New Covenant
to Israel made in Jeremiah 31:31-34.
The New covenant is also an unconditional meaning that its fulfillment is based
upon the faithfulness of God rather than the faithfulness of Israel (Jer. 31:31-37).
The New covenant is related to the restoration of the nation during the Second
Advent and subsequent millennial reign of Christ. There were additional blessings
added to the unconditional Abrahamic covenant. Before the covenant nation could
enjoy the covenanted blessings it must walk in obedience to the laws of God. The
obedience required was outlined for the nation in the Mosaic Law, which was

given alongside the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 17:19) to define what God
expected as a prerequisite for blessing.
The nation of Israel was unable to fulfill the obedience the Law required. The
nation of Israel was characterized by God as being stiff-necked (Jer. 17:23). They
were hardened and obstinate (Ezek. 3:7). Therefore, if the nation was to experience
the blessings of the covenant they would need forgiveness for their sins, they
would need to be regenerated (born-again), a new heart characterized by
obedience, and empowerment from the Holy Spirit. A covenant that guarantees
Israel these divine provisions is given in Jeremiah 31:31-34.
Within the original Abrahamic covenant were promises concerning the
following: (1) Land: Palestinian covenant developed the land promises to Israel.
(2) Seed: Davidic covenant developed the seed promises to Israel. (3) Blessings:
New covenant developed the blessing promises of the original Abrahamic
covenant.
The prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel have a great deal to say about these
blessings that will flow from the New Covenant, which they speak of often. In
spite of the disobedience of the nation, this covenant necessitates the continuation
of the nation. Even continued disobedience cannot remove Israel from her
covenanted position (Jer. 31:34-35; Rom. 11).
Further the nation is promised a restoration to the land (Jer. 32:37; 33:11; Ezek.
11:17; 36:28-35; 37:21-22, 25). The prophets speak of the rebuilding of Jerusalem
(Jer. 31:38-40). The temple will be rebuilt (Ezek. 37:27-28). The blessings the
nation of Israel will receive are based on the New covenant (Isa. 61:8-9; Hos. 2:18-
20). The greatest blessing in this covenant is that of being brought in close
relationship with God (Jer. 30:22; 31:33; 32:38-41; Ezek. 11:20; 34:25-27; 37:27).
The New covenant with Israel was based upon the voluntary substitutionary
spiritual deaths of the impeccable humanity of Christ in hypostatic union (Luke
22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25).
The Lord Jesus Christ is the mediator of this New Covenant to Israel.
Hebrews 12:24a and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant. (NASB95)
These four unconditional covenants (Abrahamic, Palestinian, Davidic and New)
are all related to Israel and not the church. The nation of Israel was “directly
given” the covenants according to Romans 9:1-5. However, the church and
regenerate Gentiles who live outside the church age participate in the blessings of
these covenants since she is the bride of Jesus Christ, the king of Israel (See
Galatians 3).
Ephesians 3:1-13 teaches that it was a mystery that the Gentiles through faith in
Christ would become fellow heirs with Jewish believers, fellow members of the
body of Christ and fellow partakers of the four unconditional covenants of promise
to Israel.
“Mystery” is the noun musterion, which refers to doctrines that centered upon
the Person of Christ and members of His body and were doctrines never revealed
to Old Testament saints.
The mystery is not that the Gentiles would be saved since this was prophesied
in the Old Testament (Isa. 11:10; 60:3). Rather, the mystery concerning the
Gentiles is that they would become fellow heirs with Jewish believers, fellow
members with Jewish believers in the body of Christ and fellow partakers of the
covenant promises to Israel.
The content of this mystery is three-fold: (1) The Gentile believers are fellow
heirs with Jewish believers in the sense that they share in the spiritual riches God
gave them because of His covenant with Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29). (2) Gentile
believers in Christ are fellow members of the body of Christ with Jewish believers.
There is one body, the body of Christ (Eph. 4:4), which has no racial distinctions
(1 Cor. 12:13) and has the Lord Jesus Christ as its head (Eph. 5:23). Each
individual member of the body of Christ shares in the ministry (Eph. 4:15-16). (3)
Gentile believers in Christ are fellow partakers of the four unconditional covenants
of promise to Israel. Although, the four unconditional covenants of promise to
Israel were specifically given to Israel (Rom. 9:1-6), the church will still and does
benefit from them since they are in union with Christ who is the ruler of Israel.

Romans 11 and The Future of The Nation o

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Romans 11 and The Future of The Nation o

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROMANS 11 AND THE

FUTURE OF THE NATION

William E. Wenstrom Jr.

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 1

Chapter One: Jewish Remnant Based Upon God’s Sovereign Grace

In Romans 11:1, Paul poses a rhetorical question that is the result of an

Then, in Romans 11:2a, he emphatically declares that God has by no means

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 4

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 6

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 7

In Romans 11:4, Paul presents the Father’s response to Elijah’s complaint

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 12

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 13

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 16

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 17

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 18

Chapter Two: Israel’s Failure Fulfilled God’s Sovereign Will

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 21

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 23

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 25

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 30

In Romans 11:15, Paul employed a first class conditional statement that

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 34

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 37

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 38

Chapter Five: Warning To Gentiles To Learn From Israel’s Failure

In Romans 11:17, Paul presents the protasis of a first class conditional

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 39

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 40

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 41

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 42

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 43

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 45

In Romans 11:20, Paul answers the argument of his hypothetical Gentile

In Romans 11:22, Paul commands his Gentile Christian readers in Rome to

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 50

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 51

Chapter Six: The Mystery Of Israel’s Partial Hardening

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 56

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 57

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 58

Chapter Seven: All Israel Will Be Saved

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 59

Chapter Eight: Israel’s Future Restoration Based Upon God’s Mercy

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 62

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 64

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 65

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 66

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 71

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 73

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 74

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 75

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 78

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 80

Chapter Nine: Paul’s Doxology

Chapter Ten: The Destruction of Replacement Theology

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 85

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 86

The Abrahamic Covenant

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 88

The Palestinian Covenant

As we noted in the previous section, the “Palestinian” covenant is in fact an

ã2015 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 93