Gentiles – Written Exposition

‘ALL ISRAEL’: THE CHURCH, THE NATION OR THE REMNANT?

Posted on 23rd Feb 202118th Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

A Critical Analysis of Paul’s use of ‘All Israel’ in Romans 11:26

INTRODUCTION

Having completed three missionary journeys to the East the Apostle Paul began to turn his attention towards the West (Romans 15:24, 28), thus necessitating a change of base from Antioch to Rome. Since he had not founded the Roman church he wrote and sent a letter introducing himself and mentioning his forthcoming visit. Wishing to enlist their prayerful support for his planned trip to Spain (15:24-30) he outlined his theological position (1:16-11:36). It seems that Paul was aware of disunity in the church at Rome caused by Gentile arrogance towards the Jewish believers so in the letter he also addressed some of the practical issues in the Roman congregations.

BACKGROUND

In the first eight chapters Paul set out God’s plan of redemption in Jesus Christ. In the early days of the church it seemed as though Jewish people were very responsive to the gospel about Jesus Christ (Acts 2:41, 4:4) but their leaders opposed the message and before long persecution of the church began, with many believers scattering across the Roman Empire (Acts 8:1-4). Gentiles began to convert to Christianity while the Jews were opposed to it. Although Jesus was a Jew, his own people had generally rejected him as saviour. The Christians at Rome must have wondered what would happen to the promises God had made to Israel. Would God go back on his word? Would Israel be rejected forever in favour of a church composed largely of Gentiles? Could God’s redemptive plan be complete without Israel?
This problem of Jewish hostility had much more at stake than just what would happen to the promises to Israel. In question was the reliability of God’s word and his ability to bring his plans to fruition. Dunn (2006, p.501) observes:

‘What was at stake was nothing less than God’s own integrity, the faithfulness of God. How could Paul offer God’s covenant righteousness so freely to Gentiles without calling in question God’s covenant with Israel? And if God’s purpose for Israel had been so frustrated, what assurance did that give to Christian believers?’

Munck (1967, p.34) similarly assesses the significance of the problem:

‘The unbelief of the Jews is not merely a missionary problem that concerned the earliest mission to the Jews, but a fundamental problem for all Christian thought in the earliest church. Israel’s difficulty is a difficulty for all Christians, both Jewish and Gentile. If God has not fulfilled his promises made to Israel, then what basis has the Jewish-Gentile church for believing that the promises will be fulfilled for them?’

Paul sets out to address these issues, and to insist on the integrity of God’s dealings with Israel, in Romans 9-11. Thus these chapters are not a parenthesis in the letter but their content is central to Paul’s argument. Paul defends the righteousness of God in his dealings with Israel, arguing that God has spared the nation in the past (chapter 9), has provided salvation for it in the present (chapter 10) and will work out his plans for it in the future (chapter 11).

BACKGROUND TO ROMANS 11:26

Hunter (1955, p.99) says of chapter 11:

‘We now reach the third stage in Paul’s ‘theodicy’. In chapter 9 he argues: ‘God is sovereign and elects whom he wills.’ In chapter 10 he says: ‘This is not the whole truth. God’s judgement on Israel is not arbitrary, for in fact the Jews’ own disobedience led to their downfall.’ But he cannot rest in this sad conclusion, and therefore in chapter 11 he goes on to say, ‘This is not God’s last word. Israel is not doomed to final rejection. Her temporary lapse forms part of God’s great plan. Through Israel’s lapse the Gentiles have found salvation. And Gentile acceptance of the gospel is meant to so move the Jews to jealousy (at seeing their own promised blessings in Gentile hands) that they will ultimately accept what they now reject. And so all Israel will be saved.’

Paul raises the issue of the rejection of Israel in 11:1 and denies such a suggestion. In verses 2-6 he mentions the concept of a remnant and in verses 7-10 speaks of ‘the rest’ of Israel which has been ‘hardened’ (11:7). He (vv.2-6) refers to the OT story of Elijah and sees in this a pledge of what is to happen at ‘the present time’, thus indicating the existence of a contemporary remnant, proving that God had not totally rejected his people. He contrasts faith and works (11:6), concluding that salvation is by grace and not by human effort. In vv. 7-10 the spiritually insensitive bulk of Israel, ‘the rest’, are said to be ‘hardened’, a state which Paul attributes to an act of God. As ‘proof’ that that was God’s intention for Israel Paul combines and modifies two OT quotations (Deut. 29:4, Psalm 69:22-23) which contain the phrase ‘eyes that they could not see’ (11:8,10). These he presents as evidence of an intentional ‘hardening’ by God, deliberately punishing the Jews for persistent unbelief. At this stage such a pessimistic note would seem to confirm the suggestion raised in verse one that God has rejected his people.

Despite painting this bleak picture of the Jews’ situation Paul strikes a note of optimism. They had indeed stumbled, but he insists that they had not fallen beyond recovery. Verse 11a identifies the key issue: ‘Is Israel’s rejection final? Having already said (11:1-10) that Israel’s rejection is not total, he now argues that Israel’s rejection is not final (11:11-24) and that restoration is a certainty (11:25-32). Paul has strong words of warning for Gentile believers at Rome who seemed proud that they had received salvation while the Israelites, with the spiritual advantage of the covenants and the promises, had rejected it. Wright (1991, p.247) conjectures as to the reasons for this Gentile attitude and Paul’s annoyance:

‘It is at this point, I believe, that Paul addresses one of the key issues of the entire letter. His mission, he has emphasized from the outset, is ‘to the Jew first and also to the Greek’. He suspects that the Roman church … is only too eager to declare itself a basically gentile organisation perhaps, (and this can only be speculation, but it may be near the mark) in order to clear itself of local suspicion in relation to the capital’s Jewish population, recently expelled and more recently returned. But a church with a theology like that would not provide him with the base that he needs for his continuing mission, in Rome itself and beyond. It would result, as Paul sees only too clearly in light of his Eastern Mediterranean experience, in a drastically split church, with Jewish and Gentile Christians pursuing their separate paths in mutual hostility and recrimination. Instead, in this section and in vv.17-24 he argues with great force that Jews can still be saved, and indeed that it is in the interests of a largely gentile church not to forget the fact.’

Paul must have thought that the Gentile believers at Rome were wondering why the apostle to the Gentiles was devoting such attention to a discussion of the Jews. He tells them (11:13) that he sees his mission to the Gentiles as important for the salvation of Jews. He wanted to ‘exalt’ (11:13) his ministry to the Gentiles in order to move some of his own people to jealousy and bring about their conversion. He warns them against spiritual pride, telling them that the rejection of the gospel by the Jews meant ‘riches for the world’ and that their acceptance would mean ‘life from the dead’.

Employing a metaphor of an olive tree to represent the Jews Paul imagined cultivated branches being broken off (unbelieving Jews) and wild olive branches (Gentiles) being grafted in. He warns the Gentiles that they had not replaced the branches that were broken off and suggests that by trusting in their own efforts they likewise could be broken off. Paul is optimistic (v23) stating that if the Jews believe, they could be grafted back into their own olive tree.

Still addressing Gentile believers, he (11:25-32) describes God’s dealing with Israel as a ‘mystery’ which includes the fact that a ‘hardening’ has come on the unbelieving Israelites. This hardening would end with the completion of the Gentile mission (v25), ‘and so all Israel will be saved’ (v26).

The purpose of this paper is to present a critical analysis of the salvation of ‘all Israel’ in Romans 11:26.Various interpretations have been posed for ‘all Israel’ but most are found, upon analysis, to be variations of one of the following three: the church, the nation or the remnant.

MAJOR ISSUES

Two major interpretative issues relating to verse 26 immediately present themselves. The first is the meaning of ‘all Israel’. Does it refer to ethnic Jews or to the Church (all believers both Jew and Gentile)? The second is the time and manner of Israel’s salvation. Is it a long term process in tandem with the salvation of Gentiles in this era or an eschatological event that will occur in the future and only after the full number of Gentiles has come in? If the latter, will it inaugurate the eternal state or will it usher in the Millennial Kingdom? The disagreement on these issues over the years has led Moo (1996, p.719) to describe the opening words of v.26 as ‘the storm center in the interpretation of Romans 9-11 and of the NT teaching about the Jews and their future.’ The fundamental question is whether Israel has a place in God’s future plans or has instead been replaced by the Church. This paper will therefore seek to examine the three main views on the subject in an attempt to ascertain the identity of ‘all Israel’, the time of all Israel’s salvation and the way in which it is achieved.

‘ALL ISRAEL’ AS THE CHURCH

Some theologians understand ‘all Israel’ in Romans 11:26 to be the Church, which they view as the new spiritual Israel composed of Jews and Gentiles. This treats the phrase as a metaphor and was the view expressed by Calvin (1836, p.475) who maintained:

‘I extend the sense of the word Israel to the whole people of God, and thus interpret it:- When the gentiles shall have entered into the Church, and the Jews, at the same time, shall betake themselves to the obedience of faith…the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be collected from both, will thus be completed.’

More recently this is the position held by Barth (1968) and also by Wright (1991, p.250) who asserts:

‘What Paul is saying is this. God’s method of saving ‘all Israel’ is to harden ethnic Israel (cp.9.14 ff.), i.e., not to judge her at once, so as to create a period of time during which the gentile mission could be undertaken, during the course of which it remains God’s will that the present ‘remnant’ of believing Jews might be enlarged by the process of ‘jealousy’, and consequent faith, described above. This whole process is God’s way of saving his whole people.’

Both Calvin (‘the whole people of God’) and Wright (‘his whole people’) make a valid point that fits with the occasional nature of the Roman epistle. The Roman church was divided and part of Paul’s purpose in writing the letter was to call for unity; a unity that would doubtless serve his own short-term goals but that would also advance the mission of the whole Christian church. Bruce (2000, p.389) comments:

‘Paul was certainly aware of differences in attitude and practice which might set up tensions if brotherly consideration were not exercised; that is why he urges all the groups so earnestly to give one another the same welcome as they had all received from Christ, “for the glory of God”. Thus a sense of spiritual unity would be fostered.’

The readership/audience would have noticed the verbal marker (‘I do not want you to be ignorant…, brothers,’ 11:25)) that introduced the statement ‘all Israel will be saved’ and would have thought back to the opening greeting (‘I do not want you to be unaware, brothers’ 1:13). This formula in Romans 1:13 precedes comments on the salvation of Jew and Gentile alike. Might not its use in Romans 11:25 do likewise?

That it might do is borne out by a glance at some of the OT occurrences of ‘all Israel’. Exodus 18:25 says:

‘He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.’

That all Israel here included Gentiles may be inferred from Exodus 12:38 (‘Many other people went up with them,’). Gentiles were also included in the ‘all Israel’ of Deut 31:11-12:

When all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place he will choose, you shall read this law before them in their hearing. Assemble the people— men, women and children, and the aliens living in your towns — so that they can listen and learn to fear the LORD your God and follow carefully all the words of this law.’

In Deut 29:2 the ‘all Israel’ that was established as ‘his people’ (v.13) included ‘the aliens living in your camps’ (v.11).

It is significant that in Romans 11:1 Paul asks; ‘Did God reject his people?’ It may be that ‘his people’ in 1:11 equates to ‘all Israel’ (11:26a) and to ‘Jacob’ (11:26b).

This thought is further suggested by the use of ‘all’ in the Roman letter. The apostle seems to emphasize the togetherness of Jews and Gentiles throughout and stresses this both negatively, as united under sin (1:18; 2:1; 3:4, 9, 19, 20, 23; 5:12,18; 8:22; 11:32; 14:10), and positively, as united in belief (1:16; 2:10; 3:22; 4:11, 16; 5:18; 9:5; 10:4, 11,12,13; 11:26, 32).

In addition Paul goes on to speak of the ‘strong’ and ‘the weak’ and in that context (15:5-12) to encourage the unity of both Jew and Gentile in the worship of God; using a series of OT quotations (15:9, 10, 11, 12) to back up his point. The unity is stressed even as the letter ends with the two uses of ‘all’ relating to Jew and Gentile in the greetings of chapter 16: ‘all the churches of the Gentiles’ (16:4) and ‘all the churches of Christ’ (16:16).
In the expression ‘And so all Israel will be saved’ Paul may not be thinking nationally or even eschatologically but simply stressing the unity of the people of God in salvation with a view to seeing that unity restored in the Christian community at Rome.

Although interesting and thought-provoking it is difficult to concur with the view that ‘all Israel’ refers to the whole people of God given that it assigns to ‘Israel’ a meaning which is unsupported elsewhere in Romans, or indeed in the New Testament, with the possible but unlikely exception of Galatians 6:16. The term usually refers to Israel as a whole, or is sometimes narrowed down to refer to a part of Israel. It is never widened to include Gentiles. ‘Israel’ is used eleven times in Romans 9-11 (9:6, 27, 31; 10:1, 19, 21; 11: 2, 7, 25) before 11:26 and in each of these occurrences it refers to either ethnic Israel or a part of it, set in contrast with the Gentiles (there is no such contrast in Galatians 6). Having consistently maintained a distinction between ethnic Israel and Gentiles throughout Romans 9-11 and having used it ethnically in the first part of the sentence in v.25 it is unlikely that Paul would make such a fundamental shift in meaning (Jews and Gentiles) in the second part of the sentence in v.26a.

‘ALL ISRAEL’ AS THE NATION

The majority viewpoint is that ‘all Israel’ refers to ethnic Israel as a whole, but not necessarily every individual. Dunn (1988, p.681) offers an interesting definition: ‘a people whose corporate identity and wholeness would not be lost even if in the event there were some (or indeed many) individual exceptions.’

According to this scenario ‘all Israel’ points to the majority of Jews alive on earth just before the Second Coming of Christ who, after the full number of Gentiles has been saved, turn to faith in Christ in a worldwide, large-scale, mass conversion. Cranfield (1985, p.282) sees the salvation of ‘all Israel’ in ‘three successive stages in the divine plan of salvation’; the unbelief of Israel, the completion of the coming in of the Gentiles and the salvation of Israel. He explains (p.282):

‘With regard to this last clause three things must be mentioned. First, ‘thus’ is emphatic; it will be in the circumstances obtaining when the first two stages have been fulfilled, and only so and then, that ‘all Israel shall be saved’. Secondly, the most likely explanation of ‘all Israel’ is that it means the nation of Israel as a whole, though not necessarily including every individual member. Thirdly, we understand ‘shall be saved’ to refer to a restoration of the nation of Israel to God at the end of history, an eschatological event in the strict sense.’

Those supporting this viewpoint point out that Romans 11 begins with Paul’s’ question ‘I ask then: Did God reject his people?’, with the ‘then’ referring back to what has just been stated in 10:19-21 about national disobedience. ‘His people’ is therefore understood as the nation of Israel. Paul’s answer to his own question (‘I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.’) might suggest this as he does not speak in terms of faith in Christ but in terms of his own physical Jewish descent, indicating that he is thinking in national terms.

Paul goes on to speak of the remnant and of the rest who have been hardened. The fact that there is a remnant is seen as a positive sign for the nation of Israel. Moo (1996, p.677) comments: ‘For God’s preservation of a remnant is not only evidence of his present faithfulness to Israel; it is also a pledge of hope for the future of the people.’ The metaphor of the Olive tree (11:16-20) is also seen as pointing to a restoration of national Israel as it emphasizes the corporate nature of Israel’s election in the picture of the root, representing Abraham and the patriarchs, which imparts its character to the branches (as does the lump of dough in 11:16). That God loves Israel because of the patriarchs is explicitly stated in 11:28.

In addition Paul proclaims (11:12) that Israel’s present ‘loss’ will at some future point become ‘fullness’. Whether one interprets these words as quantitative (‘loss’ and ‘full number’) as does Moo (1996, p.688), or qualitative (‘diminishing’ and ‘completion’), the net result is that what is currently defeat will one day become a victory; with added benefits for the world, thus pointing forward to v.26. In v.15 the ‘rejection’ of Israel is contrasted with their future ‘acceptance’, a change of status which will result in ‘life from the dead’ (happy life after resurrection or a time of great spiritual quickening). According to Moo (1996, p.695) ‘These descriptions suggest that “life from the dead” must be an event distinct from Israel’s restoration, involving the whole world, and occurring at the very end of history.’ That the world is a benefactor suggests a future time of blessing, a worldwide spiritual revival, following the conversion of Israel. This requires an extension of history (i.e. an earthly Millennial Kingdom) rather than the Eternal State.

Paul backs up his declaration of the salvation of ‘all Israel’ by a proof text (‘the deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins’) which consists of Isaiah 59:21a linked with Isaiah 27:9. This composite quotation assures the forgiveness of Jacob’s sins and mentions the covenant, which was national.

Assuming that ‘Jacob’ is a synonym for Israel as a nation then the ‘Jacob’ of v.26b must equate to the ‘all Israel’ of v26a. Paul is thus pointing to Israel’s national forgiveness as an indication of national restoration and expressing an eschatological expectation that, following a period of rejection as a result of Israel’s sin, the nation would become the focus of divine action once again.

According to this viewpoint Israel’s national salvation will follow the coming in of the Gentiles (11:25-26a). Proponents usually proceed to construct a timetable for God’s dealings with Israel as a nation and with the Gentile world. The details are not within the remit of this paper but the main elements perhaps deserve a mention in that they relate to the perceived timing of the salvation of ‘all Israel’.

Following the era when the Gentiles are saved (Acts 15:14) the fortunes of Israel will be restored. The nation will have perpetual existence (Jer. 31:38-40) and Jerusalem will be fully controlled by Israelites (Luke 21:24). The latter is closely associated with the Second Coming (Luke 21:24-28) which, the suggestion is, can only occur subsequent to Israel’s conversion (Joel 2:28-32; Acts 3:19-21; Matt.23:39). Zechariah 13:9, when a third of the people will be saved, is set in the Great Tribulation, just before the Lord’s Coming (Zech.14:4) and just before the setting up of the Millennial Kingdom (Zech. 14:9-21). It would therefore appear that the salvation of ‘all Israel’ will occur during the Great Tribulation, just before the Second Coming.

This interpretation, which views Israel’s rejection as partial and temporary, is misleading as the point Paul is emphasizing throughout is that God has not rejected Israel. In spite of ongoing hostility and disobedience and the loss resulting from divine hardening Israel has not been rejected by God.

This viewpoint is also misleading as it suggests a difference between physical Israel and the Church in the matter of salvation and stresses a literal fulfilment of prophecy about Israel. It suggests that there are two distinct people groups belonging to God, Israel and the Church, each with different destinies and posits that all OT prophecies about Israel are for the literal Israel. This view that ‘all Israel ‘ is the nation is problematic for those who believe that the Church is the culmination of God’s saving plan and that it is trans-national and trans-ethnic.

‘ALL ISRAEL’ AS THE REMNANT (ACCUMULATED ELECT OF ISRAEL)

According to this view ‘all Israel’ refers to the elect of ethnic Israel throughout history. Israel will experience a partial hardening to the end of time (‘until the full number of the Gentiles has come in’) but God will always save a remnant of Jews. This view also allows for a large number of Jews turning to Christ at the end of the age but without a national or territorial restoration. The ‘mystery’ in 11:25 is not the fact of the remnant’s salvation but the manner in which they are saved. ‘And so’ (11:26a) means ‘in this manner’ and refers back to the arousal of Jews to envy so that some might turn to Christ for salvation (11:11-13).

This viewpoint is in harmony with the context of Romans 9-11 which, scholars acknowledge, form a unit in Romans. In chapter 9 Paul maintains that God is faithful to his promises in spite of Israel’s rejection of the Messiah Jesus and in v.6 states ‘For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel’ thus showing that God’s promise was not to save Abraham’s descendants on the basis of national identity. The true Israel consists of children of the promise, rather than ethnic Jews. In 10:2 Paul further writes ‘For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,’ again showing that, as regards salvation, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile.

A separate plan of salvation for Israel would run contrary to this assertion. God’s promises are not fulfilled in the nation but in the spiritual remnant. Wright (1991, p.236) highlights the problem of integration:

‘Put simply, the issue is this: if Paul rejects the possibility of a status of special privilege for Jews in chs. 9 and 10, how does he manage, apparently, to reinstate such a position in ch.11? It is this apparent inconsistency that has led many to suggest that the section contains a fundamental self-contradiction, which is then explained either as a resurgence of patriotic sentiment (Dodd) or the vagaries of apocalyptic fantasy (Bultmann). As we have already hinted, the real crux of the issue lies not so much in 11 as a whole, but in 11.25-27; the regular interpretation of that passage as predicting a large-scale last-minute salvation of ‘Israel’, worked out in terms of the chapter as a whole, leads to this charge.’

In the immediate context of ‘all Israel will be saved’ the apostle asked two questions; ‘I ask then: Did God reject his people?’ (11:1) and ‘Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery?’ (11:11). He is not asking if God has dispensed with ethnic Israel as regards a special plan for the future but is asking if the Jews have totally forfeited their past privileges and if there is now any hope that God will continue to save Jews. In answer to the question in v.1 Paul presents his own salvation as proof that God was still saving Jews. His answer relates to the present, not the future.

Paul’s thinking is focussed on the present, not on the long-range future. The contemporary nature of Romans 11 is striking. V5 speaks of ‘the present time’, in which there is a ‘remnant’ (vv2-4) and also those who were ‘hardened’ vv.8-10. Paul ‘exalts’ his ministry (v.13) in order to save people in his own day (v.14). The Gentiles whom he was addressing were his contemporaries and it was the salvation of contemporary Gentiles that he hoped would provoke Jewish contemporaries to jealousy and salvation. His ministry was not to provoke the Jews to jealousy in order to bring about a future mass conversion of ethnic Israel. The branches broken off are contemporary Israelites and the engrafted Gentiles are contemporary. This is explicitly confirmed by the threefold ‘now’ in Paul’s comments in vv. 30-31. It is ‘now’ (in Paul’s day), that Israel is receiving mercy. Das (2003, p.118) maintains that:

‘Paul views Israel’s impending restoration as potentially imminent: “Just as you were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their [Israel’s] disobedience, so they have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you , they too may now receive mercy” (Romans 11:30-31). “Now” is the day of Israel’s salvation. Paul speaks of Israel’s present obtaining of mercy. He hopes, by his own missionary activity to the Gentiles, to bring about the salvation of the Jews (11:14). Perhaps this may explain why he wanted to travel to Spain, the western end of the known (Gentile) world (15:22-24). He may have viewed the creation of a Gentile Christian community in Spain as the final step in completing the “fullness” of Gentile salvation, thereby triggering all Israel’s salvation. By reaching the entire Gentile world, Paul believes he will see the day when God’s plan for Israel will be finally and fully realized.’

Some object to this view on the grounds that ‘Israel’ in v.26 ought to have the same meaning as ‘Israel’ in v.25 which clearly refers to ethnic Israel (the remnant plus the hardened). This, however, appears to be Paul’s pattern of expression as in Romans he has already used ‘Israel’ to refer to both the nation and the elect within the nation (‘For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel’) in 9:6, in one sentence. Wright (1991, p.250) agrees that:

‘It is impermissible to argue that ‘Israel’ cannot change its referent within the space of two verses, so that ‘Israel’ in v. 25 must mean the same as ‘Israel’ in v. 26: Paul actually began the whole section (9.6) with just such a programmatic distinction of two ‘Israels’, and throughout the letter (e.g. 2.25–9) … he has systematically transferred the privileges and attributes of ‘Israel’ to the Messiah and his people.’

CONCLUSION

In Romans 9-11 Paul discussed the failure of Israel to respond to the Christian gospel and addressed the issue of the place of Jews in God’s purposes. The climax of his discussion is reached in 11:26a with the assertion ‘And so all Israel will be saved.’
Paul insisted that Israel’s failure to believe was no indicator of a failure on God’s part to keep his promises. He warned his Gentile readers against arrogance toward Israel and described God’s manner of saving Israel by using saved Gentiles to cause jealousy among remnant Jews, driving them to faith in the Messiah.

Thus a remnant from ethnic Israel will be continue to be saved until the Lord returns, in tandem with believing Gentiles. When the full number of Gentiles has come in so too ‘all Israel’ (the full number of remnant Jews) will have been saved.

Paul’s strange, and some might say absurd (see Käsemann, 1994, p.304), optimism in the face of disappointed hope and his confidence in God’s sovereignty ought to be an encouragement to Christians today. Western society is materialistic and secular. It would appear that the gospel has become powerless. The same anxiety that Paul experienced over this apparent failure remains with us today. Batey (1966, p.228) wisely observes:

‘It is in just such a situation that one finds himself sharing Paul’s basic concern and challenged by his decision for faith. In spite of the evidence around him, the Christian is challenged to affirm with the Apostle that God is and shall be sovereign over the destiny of man. As long as there is disbelief the man of faith seeks through the foolishness of preaching to effect reconciliation. Paul was not naïve, but he looked at defeat and saw final victory.’

There is confidence and optimism to be drawn from this expression of hope by Paul for the salvation of his fellow countrymen through faith in Jesus Christ: ‘and so all Israel will be saved.’

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barth, K. 1968, The Epistle to the Romans, Oxford University Press US

Bateman, H. W. 1999, Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan

Bell, R. H. 1994, Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin & Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9-11, Coronet Books Inc., Philadelphia

Bloomfield, P. 2009, What the Bible Teaches about the Future, Evangelical Press, Carlisle

Borchert, G. L. & Mohrlang, R. 2007, Romans, Galatians (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary), Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Illinois

Brauch, M. T. 1989, Hard Sayings of Paul, Inter-Varsity Press, Nottingham

Bruce, F.F. 2000, Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan

Bryan, C. 2000, A Preface to Romans: Notes on the Epistle in its Literary and Cultural Setting, Oxford University Press US, New York

Byrne, B. 1996, Romans, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota

Calvin, J. 1834, Commentary of the Epistle to the Romans, (trans. by Sibson. F), L. B. Seeley and Sons, London

Cranfield, C.E.B. 1985, Romans, a Shorter Commentary, W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan

Dahl, N. A. 1977, Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission, Augsburg Press, Minneapolis

Das, A. A. 2004, Paul and the Jews, Hendrickson Publishers, Massachusetts

Diprose, R. E. 2000, Israel and the Church – The Origin and Effects of Replacement Theology, Paternoster, Milton Keynes

Donaldson, T.L. 1997, Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World, Fortress Press, Minneapolis

Donfried, K.P. 2002, The Romans Debate, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts

Dunn, J. D.G. 1988, Romans 9-16, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, TN

Dunn, J. D.G. 2006, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids

Edwards, J.R. 1992, Romans, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts

Ellis, P. F. 1982, Seven Pauline Letters, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota

Ellison, H. L. 1976, The Mystery of Israel, Paternoster Press, Exeter

Gadenz, P. T. 2009, Called from the Jews & from the Gentiles: Pauline Ecclesiology in Romans 9-11, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

Harrington, D. J. 2001, The Church according to the New Testament: what the Wisdom and Witness of Early Christianity Teach us Today, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD

Hendriksen, W. 1981, Romans: 9-16, Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh

Hoeksema, H. 2002, Righteous By Faith Alone, Reformed Free Publishing Association, Michigan

Horner, B. E. 2007, Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged, B&H Academic, Nashville

Hunter, A. M. 1955, The Epistle to the Romans, SCM Press, London

Käsemann, E. 1994, Commentary on Romans, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids

Kreloff, S. A. 2006, God’s Plan For Israel – A Study of Romans 9-11, Kress Christian Publications

Lloyd-Jones, D. M. 1999, Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 11 To God’s Glory, Banner of Truth, Edinburgh

Moo, D. 1996, Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary on the New Testament Series, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids

Morris, L. 1988, The Epistle to the Romans, Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids

Munck, J. 1967, Christ & Israel: an Interpretation of Romans 9-11, Fortress Press, Minneapolis

Nanos, M. D. 1996, The Mystery of Romans: the Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter, Fortress Press, Minneapolis

Philip, J. 1987, The Power of God – An Exposition of Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Nicholas Gray Publishing, Glasgow

Robertson, O. P. 2000, The Israel of God – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, P & R Publishing, New Jersey

Sanders, E.P. 1977, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: a Comparison of Patterns of Religion, Fortress Press, Minneapolis

Schnabel, E .J. 2008, Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods, Intervarsity Press, Nottingham

Schreiner, T. 1998, Romans, Baker Books, Grand Rapids

Scott, J.M. 2001, Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives, BRILL, Leiden

Shedd, W. G. T. 1978, Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on Romans, Klock & Klock, Minneapolis

Smith, C. L. 2009, The Jews, Modern Israel and the New Supercessionism- Resources for Christians, King’s Divinity Press, Lampeter, UK

Stendahl, K. 1976, Paul among Jews and Gentiles, and Other Essays, Fortress Press, Minneapolis

Stuhlmacher, P. 1994, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: a Commentary, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky

Thielman, F. 1989, From Plight to Solution: a Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul’s View of the Law in Galatians and Romans, Brill Archive, Leiden

Walters, J.C. 1993, Ethnic Issues in Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Changing Self-definitions in Earliest Roman Christianity, Trinity Press International, Harrisburg Pennsylvania

Witherington III, B. 1998, The Paul Quest: the Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus, Inter-Varsity Press, Westmont, Illinois

Witherington III, B. 2004, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: a Socio-rhetorical Commentary, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids

Wright, N. T. 1991, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology, T & T Clark, Edinburgh

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Aus, R.D. 1979, Paul’s Travel Plans to Spain and the “Full Number of the Gentiles” of Rom. XI 25, Novum Testamentum, Vol.21, pp. 232-262

Batey, R. 1966, So all Israel will be saved: an interpretation of Romans 11:25-32, Interpretation, Vol. 20, pp.218-228

Baxter, A. G. & Ziesler J. A. 1985, Paul and Arboriculture: Romans 11:25-32, Journal For the Study of The New Testament, Vol. 24, pp. 95-123

Cook, M. J. 2006, Paul’s Argument in Romans 9-11, Review and Expositor, Vol. 103, pp. 91-111

Cooper, C. 1978, Romans 11:23, 26, Restoration Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 84-94

Cosgrove, C. H. 1996, Rhetorical Suspense in Romans 9-11: A Study in Polyvalence and Hermeneutical Election, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 115, No. 2, pp. 271-287

Dinkler, E. 1956, The Historical and the Eschatological Israel in Romans Chapters 9-11: A Contribution to the Problem of Pre-Destination and Individual Responsibility, The Journal of Religion, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 109-127

Esler, P. F. 2003, Ancient Oleiculture and Ethnic Differentiation: The Meaning of the Olive Tree Image in Romans 11, Journal For the Study of The New Testament, Vol. 26, pp. 103-124

Getty, M. A. 1988, Paul and the Salvation of Israel: A Perspective on Romans 9-11, CBQ, Vol. 50, pp. 456-469

Glancy, J. 1991, Israel Vs. Israel in Romans 11:25-32, Union Seminary Quarterly Review, Vol. 54, pp.191-203

Johnson, D G. 1984, The Structure and Meaning of Romans 11, CBQ, Vol. 46, pp.91-103

Litwak, K. 2006, One or Two Views of Judaism: Paul in Acts 28 and Romans 11 on Jewish Unbelief, Tyndale Bulletin, Vol. 57, pp. 229-249

Longenecker, B. W. 1989, Different Answers to Different Issues: Israel, The Gentiles and Salvation History in Romans 9-11, Journal For the Study of The New Testament, Vol. 36, pp. 95-123

Merkle, B. L. 2000, Romans 11 and the Future of Ethnic Israel, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. 43, pp. 709-721

Sanders, E. P. 1978, Paul’s Attitude Toward the Jewish People, Union Seminary Quarterly Review, Vol. XXXIII, pp.175-187

Spencer, F.S. 2006, Metaphor, Mystery and the Salvation of Israel in Romans 9-11: Paul’s Appeal to Humility and Doxology, Review and Expositor, Vol. 103, pp. 113-138

Van der Horst, P. W. 2000, “Only then will All Israel be Saved”: A Short Note on the Meaning of kai and οuτως in Romans 11:26, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 119, No. 3, pp. 521-525

Vanlaningham, M.G. 1992, Romans 11:25-27 and the Future of Israel in Paul’s Thought, The Master’s Seminary Journal, Vol.3, pp.141-174

Waymeyer, M. 2005, The Dual Status of Israel in Romans 11:28, The Master’s Seminary Journal, Vol.16, pp.57-71

Zoccali, C. 2008, ‘And so all Israel will be saved’: Competing Interpretations of Romans 11:26 in Pauline Scholarship, Journal For the Study of The New Testament, Vol. 30, pp. 289-318

Ziglar, T. 2003, Understanding Romans 11:26: Baptist Perspectives, Baptist History and Heritage, Vol. Spring 2003, pp. 38-51

Exposition

ROMANS 11:1-24

Posted on 28th Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

Discourse 3 11:1-36

THESIS: God has not rejected those whom he foreknew. 11:1-2

Having shown that righteousness and salvation are by faith in Jesus Christ and having explained God’s sovereignty (chapter 9) and also human responsibility (chapter 10) in the matter, Paul in chapter eleven continues his consideration of the status of Israel in God’s plans. He does this in light of his arguments in chapters 9 and 10; particularly the salvation of Gentiles. Hunter (1955, p.99) says of chapter 11:

‘We now reach the third stage in Paul’s ‘theodicy’. In chapter 9 he argues: ‘God is sovereign and elects whom he wills.’ In chapter 10 he says: ‘This is not the whole truth. God’s judgement on Israel is not arbitrary, for in fact the Jews’ own disobedience led to their downfall.’ But he cannot rest in this sad conclusion, and therefore in chapter 11 he goes on to say, ‘This is not God’s last word. Israel is not doomed to final rejection. Her temporary lapse forms part of God’s great plan. Through Israel’s lapse the Gentiles have found salvation. And Gentile acceptance of the gospel is meant to so move the Jews to jealousy (at seeing their own promised blessings in Gentile hands) that they will ultimately accept what they now reject. And so all Israel will be saved.’

11:1-10 ISRAEL’S HARDENING IS NOT TOTAL

‘I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day.” And David says: “May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them. May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever.” Rom 11:1-10 (NIV)

Having concluded the previous section with a picture of God willing the salvation of a people who reject him Paul addresses the possibility that God has, in turn, rejected Israel. Chapter 11 therefore opens with a rhetorical question: ‘Did God reject his people?’ This question, according to Moo (1996, p. 672, footnote 9), expects a negative answer: ‘God has not rejected his people, has he?’ Paul is aiming to impress upon his readers that although Israel is ‘a disobedient and obstinate people’ (10:21) God has not totally rejected them. He reinforces this by answering his own question with a strong negative; ‘By no means!’ and points to himself as living proof that God is still saving Jews. He underlines that he is himself a Jew by emphasizing that he is ‘an Israelite’, ‘a descendant of Abraham’ and ‘from the tribe of Benjamin’. These three statements underline not only his commitment to the nation as a Jew but also highlight his awareness of his personal place in the remnant.

Having posed the question of v.1 and given a negative answer he then proceeds in v.2 to repeat the point as a positive statement: ‘God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.’ Foreknowledge (proegnoo) has to do with the action of God in marking out for special affection and attention. Moo (1996, p. 674) writes:

‘The temporal prefix, “fore-” (pro), indicates further that God’s choosing of Israel took place before any action or status on the part of Israel that might have qualified her for God’s choice. How could God reject a people whom he in a gracious act of choice had made his own?’

Since ‘his people’ in v.1 refers to Israel as a whole it is unlikely that it would have a different meaning in v.2. It is not therefore to be understood in a restrictive sense (i.e. that God only foreknew the elect remnant) but reflects the OT and wider Jewish corporate sense of election by which God guaranteed blessings for the nation as a whole, but not necessarily the salvation of every individual member. So Paul is emphasizing that God has not rejected ethnic Israel.

In vv. 2-4 Paul gives a further proof of God’s faithfulness to Israel based on the story of Elijah (1 Kings 19:1-18). He takes up this analogy from the past (vv. 2b-4) and applies it to the present in v.5. In Elijah’s day the northern kingdom had gone over to Baal worship to such an extent that the prophet Elijah felt totally alone. After the contest on Carmel (1 Kings 18), his victory experience soon faded. Following death threats from Queen Jezebel, Elijah ran away, travelling until he came to Mount Horeb. Paul (v.3) summarises his prayer from a cave there: ‘Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me.’ God’s answer (v.4) on that occasion was: ‘I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.’

In v.5 Paul cleverly applies the OT story to his teaching about Israel in the present. In Elijah’s day Israel was at such a low spiritual ebb that Elijah considered the situation to be hopeless. God, however, had preserved for himself a remnant (only seven thousand) which was a pledge of hope for the future of the nation. Paul did not wish the audience of his day to draw a similar conclusion to that of Elijah in the face of widespread unbelief on the part of Jews. Just as the defection of the majority to Baal worship in ancient history did not invalidate God’s gracious choice of the nation; neither would the rejection of Jesus as Messiah do so ‘at the present time.’ Paul (vv.5-6) makes it clear that the remnant was chosen on the basis of God’s grace and not because of ethnic identity or meritorious works.

In v.7 Paul deals with the ramifications (‘what then?’) of his teaching on the remnant and says that the ones who did obtain grace were the elect, and the rest were hardened. The irony of the situation is that the majority of Israel had tried unsuccessfully to obtain salvation through good works but only a remnant, because of God’s choosing, obtained it. Paul thus distinguishes three interconnected entities: Israel as a corporate nation; then two groups within national Israel; an elect remnant and those who ‘were hardened’. He views this ‘hardening’ as the action of God.

In vv. 8-10 Paul illustrates the concept of hardening with OT quotations introduced by the words: ‘it is written.’ As ‘proof’ that hardening was God’s intention for Israel Paul combines and modifies Deut. 29:4 and Psalm 69:22-23 which contain the phrase ‘eyes that they could not see’ (11:8;10). He presents this as evidence of an intentional ‘hardening’ by God, punishing the Jews for persistent unbelief. The quotation ‘God has given them a spirit of stupor’ is from Isaiah 29:10 and has the idea of ‘numbness’, suggesting insensitivity to the gospel. In vv. 9-10, he quotes from Psalm 69:22-23 in which David speaks of his enemies saying: ‘may their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever.’ Paul is suggesting that this comes upon the Jews who reject the gospel. They will be blind to the gospel and bent over like a
blind person groping in the dark. Such a pessimistic note would seem at this stage to confirm rather than deny the suggestion in verse one that God has rejected his people. God’s motive for the hardening, however, is revealed in v.11.

VV. 11-24 ISRAEL’S HARDENING HAS FACILITATED THE SALVATION OF THE GENTILES.

‘Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring! I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches. If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!’ Rom 11:19-24 (NIV)

Having shown that the message of the gospel has divided Israel into ‘the remnant’ that attains righteousness by the grace of God and ‘the rest’ who are hardened and excluded from salvation Paul proceeds to show that this is not necessarily a permanent situation. He introduces a novel interpretation of the position of Jews in God’s plan of salvation. Indisputably the majority of the nation had stumbled, but he insists that they had not fallen beyond recovery. Despite the bleak picture he is optimistic. The key issue is stated in v.11: ‘Is Israel’s rejection final? Having already said (11:1-10) that Israel’s rejection is not total; he now argues that Israel’s rejection is not final. He has strong words of warning for Gentile believers at Rome who seemed proud that they had received salvation while the Israelites had rejected it. Wright (1991, p.247) assesses the possible reasons for Paul’s annoyance at their attitude:

‘It is at this point, I believe, that Paul addresses one of the key issues of the entire letter. His mission, he has emphasized from the outset, is ‘to the Jew first and also to the Greek’. He suspects that the Roman church … is only too eager to declare itself a basically gentile organisation perhaps, (and this can only be speculation, but it may be near the mark) in order to clear itself of local suspicion in relation to the capital’s Jewish population, recently expelled and more recently returned. But a church with a theology like that would not provide him with the base that he needs for his continuing mission, in Rome itself and beyond. It would result, as Paul sees only too clearly in light of his Eastern Mediterranean experience, in a drastically split church, with Jewish and Gentile Christians pursuing their separate paths in mutual hostility and recrimination. Instead, in this section and in vv.17-24 he argues with great force that Jews can still be saved, and indeed that it is in the interests of a largely gentile church not to forget the fact.’

In 11:11 Paul harks back to 9:32-33 which speak of Israel’s stumbling over the Messiah and asks ‘Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery?’ and again answers: ‘Not at all!’ Israel has indeed stumbled but Paul rejects any suggestion that the fall is fatal and irretrievable. In fact, in v.11b, he argues that the purpose of their fall, and the subsequent salvation of Gentiles, was to make Israel jealous. When the Jews saw the wonder of salvation in Christ, they would want it for themselves. Paul continues his unusual logic in v.12 by stating that the fall of Israel was actually good for the world.

V.12 speaks of Israel’s ‘transgression’ and ‘loss’ which have resulted in
‘riches for the world’ and ‘riches for the Gentiles.’ The rejection of Jesus as Messiah had been a tragic loss for the Jews. That being the case, says Paul: ‘how much greater riches will their fullness bring?’ Whether one interprets these words as quantitative (‘loss’ and ‘full number’) as does Moo (1996, p.688), or qualitative (‘diminishing’and ‘completion’), the net result is that what is currently defeat will one day become a victory; benefitting the world.

The Gentile believers at Rome were possibly wondering why the apostle to the Gentiles was devoting such attention to a discussion of the Jews so Paul applies the teaching to his own ministry in vv.13-14. Addressing them as ‘you Gentiles,’ he says that his mission to the Gentiles is important for the salvation of Jews. He wants to ‘exalt’ his ministry to the Gentiles in order to move some of his own people to jealousy (an idea introduced in v. 11b) and conversion. Whenever Paul, preached, saw Gentiles converted and live Christian lives that provoked Jews to accept Jesus as Messiah, then his ministry was magnified. The desire to see Jews converted was thus a major motivating factor in his missionary outreach to Gentiles. Paul adds, ‘For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be, but life from the dead?’ If the impact of Jewish rejection by God (or possibly, their rejection of the gospel) was great blessing (reconciliation) to the world, then the thought of the impact of Israel’s acceptance of the gospel is so staggering to Paul that he calls it “life from the dead.”

This controversial phrase may be interpreted literally, as referring to the resurrection at Christ’s return or to the wonderful life after that. This interpretation focuses on the last days and foresees a mass conversion of Gentiles at the end of time; a great spiritual revival that signals the resurrection. Whilst a future mass conversion of Jews would doubtless be a wonderful and desirable phenomenon the text says nothing about that. The context is rather against it since the apostle says (v.13-14) that he is already labouring to see some of his own people saved and bring about their ‘fullness’ (v12b). Thus when the last Jew is saved, and the last Gentile also (v.25), there will be life from the dead, or, the resurrection life. It is not the moment of resurrection that is in view but the glorious state thereafter. ‘Life from the dead’ may also be viewed in a metaphorical sense as referring to great spiritual blessings that enrich the whole world. It is an image denoting the greatest happiness possible.

Paul then uses several metaphors to show that the Jews can never be finally rejected and to warn Gentiles believers against spiritual pride. In v. 16 he refers to the OT practice outlined in Numbers 15:18 – 21 of offering the first piece of dough to the Lord. The first piece stood for the rest. Since God accepted the first piece the rest was holy as well. Paul is applying this concept to Israelite history and implying that since God accepted the patriarchs in spite of their many failings, he will also likewise accept their descendants. V.16 refers similarly to ‘the root’ and says that if it is holy, so are the branches.

THE ALLEGORY OF THE OLIVE TREE

Having mentioned ‘root’ and ‘branches’ Paul goes on to employ (vv.17-14) a long and elaborate allegory about an olive tree, representing the Jews. Paul imagined cultivated branches (unbelieving Jews) being broken off and wild olive branches (Gentiles) being grafted in. He stresses to his Gentiles readers that they had not replaced the branches that were broken off and suggests that by trusting in their own efforts they likewise could be broken off. He expresses optimism (v23) that Jews will believe and be grafted back into their own olive tree.

Paul begins his illustration in v.17 by referring to a cultivated olive tree and wild olive shoots. The olive tree was a familiar symbol of the nation of Israel (Jer. 11:16; Hosea 14:6) and Paul restates the tragic situation of the unbelieving Jews of his day by picturing them as branches that had been broken off the tree. He also pictures wild olive shoots, the Gentiles, as having been grafted onto the olive tree and bearing fruit along with the believing remnant. The newly engrafted Gentiles believers ‘share in the nourishing sap from the olive root.’ Paul’s analogy seems strange in that this was a reversal of the normal process, which was to graft a shoot from a cultivated tree into a wild olive so that it might produce good fruit. Paul, however, is aware that this is ‘contrary to nature’ (v.24), and by this oleicultural inaccuracy may be stressing the miraculous nature of what God is doing in allowing the Gentiles to enjoy the blessings of salvation. His argument depends on the fact that the illustration is unusual.

In v.18 Paul warns the Gentile believers against arrogance and reminds them: ‘You do not support the root, but the root supports you.’ The Gentiles had nothing to boast about as the gospel promises did not originate with them. God gave them to the patriarchs and passed them down through their descendants.

In v.19 Paul anticipates that the Gentiles might justify their feelings of superiority by saying ‘Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.’ He agrees with them that the natural branches (unbelieving Jews) were indeed broken off because of unbelief and that the Gentiles ‘stand by faith.’ Faith is the only basis for a relationship with God and continuance in faith is proof that the graft has taken. He goes on to stress that the fact that the natural branches were broken off and wild ones grafted in is not cause for arrogance but for fear. The reason for this fear is given in v.21: ‘for if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.’ Lloyd-Jones (1999, p.144) contends that just as Paul has been talking about Israel in general so now he is referring to Gentiles in general:

‘He is not now dealing with the elect Gentiles but with the Gentiles in general… He says to the Gentiles that Israel was included in the same way as they now are, but she is now excluded. That has got nothing to do with the elect because, though Israel in general is out, the remnant according to the election of grace is in…The whole argument must be thought of in terms of the general position, as regards Jews and Gentiles.’

Paul concludes the allegory of the olive tree and his warning to the Gentiles in vv.22-24 by suggesting that they consider two attributes of God; ‘his kindness and sternness.’ God’s ‘kindness’ is his will to do a person good, his ‘sternness’ (used only here in the NT) is his justice applied without mercy. One has to do with the grace of God in salvation, the other with his judgment toward unbelievers. Three possible scenarios are outlined:

1) Kindness extended to elect Gentiles.

‘Consider therefore the kindness… of God…to you’. That God, in his sovereignty, had taken wild olive shoots and grafted them into the cultivated olive tree is said by Paul to be a display of kindness. Gentiles had become partakers of God’s promise.

2) Sternness displayed toward rejected Jews or Gentiles.

‘Consider therefore the… sternness of God…to those who fell.’ ‘Kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you also will
be cut off.’ Jews who had rejected Christ had been already cut off; Gentiles are not to boast about that in case God’s kindness is withdrawn.

3) Kindness in restoring Jews to their former position.

‘And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.’

Paul is confident that, providing they do not remain in persistent unbelief, God will restore Jews to their former position. He argues in v.24 that if God can save Gentiles who were from a wild olive tree, how much easier it is for him to save Jews who more naturally belong in the olive tree that began with the patriarchs. Hendriksen (1981, p.376) stresses that:

‘In reading what Paul says about the olive tree there is one very important point that must not be overlooked. The apostle recognizes only one (cultivated) olive tree. In other words the church is one living organism. For Jew and Gentile salvation is the same. It is obtained on the basis of Christ’s atonement, by grace, through faith.’

The emphasis throughout is on God’s sovereignty. The apostle stresses that ‘God is able’ (v.23) and yet at the same time that there are moral conditions associated with being ‘cut off’ and ‘standing’. Divine sovereignty and human responsibility interact. It is interesting that Paul’s conception of divine sovereignty is so flexible that he can state with conviction that both God’s kindness’ and his ‘sternness’ are reversible.

View my posts:

Introduction to Romans chapters 9-11

Romans 9:1-5 Paul’s Lament

Romans 9:6-29

Romans 9:30- 10:21

Romans 11:25-36

Romans 9-11 Bibliography

Exposition

ROMANS 9:30 -10:21

Posted on 27th Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

DISCOURSE 2 ROMANS 9:30 – 10:21

THESIS: Some Gentiles received righteousness but some Jews did not (9:30-31)

9:30-33

‘What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.” Rom 9:30-33 (NIV)

Paul now moves on from divine sovereignty to talk about human responsibility and addresses objections to the fact that God has chosen to save many Gentiles but only some Jews. This is clearly the beginning of a new section as he uses the expression; ‘What then shall we say?’ which often introduces a change of focus in Romans (4:1; 6:1; 7:7; 8:31) and here prompts the audience to think about Israel’s disobedience (10:21). The key word is this discourse is ‘righteousness’ (dikaiosynē) which occurs ten times.

He first mentions the Gentiles who, he says, did not pursue righteousness. How then did some of them ‘obtain’ this status (right standing with God) without having sought it?

Moo (1996, p.619) explains:

‘Paul returns (after using the term to refer to moral righteousness in chaps. 6-8) to the forensic meaning of righteousness that he established in chaps. 1-4: the “right” standing with God that is the product of God’s justifying work in Christ.’

Paul emphasises that this righteousness is ‘by faith’ (9:30), a fact that he has already made clear in 1:16-17 and in 3:21-4:25. Faith is possible on the part of the Gentle as well as the Jew (1:16) and this is why so many Gentiles are being saved.

In v.31 Paul then speaks of the Jews, who pursued a ‘law of righteousness’ but have not attained it. Unlike the Gentiles who ‘obtained’ (katelaben, lay hold of) righteousness, the Jews did not ‘attain’ (efthasen, reach) the goal. The reason Paul gives (v.32) was that they ‘pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works’ and thus ‘stumbled over the “stumbling-stone”.

He quotes from Isaiah 8:14 and 28:16, two passages that mention a ‘stone’, which he conflates to emphasize the negative point about Israel’s fall (he takes up the last part of the quotation again in 10:11 to make the positive point that Christ is the stone). By means of this composite quotation from Isaiah Paul stresses that Israel’s problem is failure to believe on Jesus Christ. He is their obstacle. The image is that of a race in which a runner is so preoccupied with the finishing line that he stumbles over a rock and falls.

10:1-4

‘Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.’ Rom 10:1-4 (NIV)

Having explained in chapter 9 that not all of ethnic Israel will be saved, Paul expresses to the Christians (‘brothers’ 10:1) to whom he is writing his desire that ethnic Israel might be saved. He wants the Christian church to know that he takes no pleasure in the failure of ethnic Israel to attain salvation and stresses his sincerity with a statement of his petition on Israel’s behalf. He did not seem to sense any tension between his teaching on predestination in chapter 9 and his passionate prayer for Israel’s salvation. Divine election does not mean that prayer is neither necessary nor important. That Paul was continuing to pray for the salvation of Israel suggests that he did not accept that their present state of rejection was final.

He begins v.2 with the word ‘for’, thus indicating that he is going to give the reason for his prayer. He says: ‘I can testify about them’, which suggests that he can accurately comment on the matter as a result of his own personal experience. It is because they are ‘zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.’ Their dedication was not in doubt but zeal (fervent devotion and passion) without knowledge is only fanaticism. Zeal alone does not bring salvation. Paul sums up the defectiveness of their understanding in v.3:

‘Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.’

The term ‘God’s righteousness’’ occurs twice in 10:3 and also in 1:17 and in 3:5; 21; 22 (along with references to ‘his righteousness’ in 3:25 and 26). Elsewhere in Paul it occurs only in 2 Corinthians 5:21 although there is a similar expression ‘the righteousness that comes from God’ in Philippians 3:9. Paul links ‘God’s righteousness’ with justification (3:21-26) and views it as God’s gift (5:17). The Jews, however, did not understand that the correct way to attain a righteous
standing before God was to ‘submit’ (10:3). Instead they sought to establish their own righteousness by practising good works. Schreiner (1998, p.544) concludes:

‘The reason, then, that the Jews did not subject themselves to the saving righteousness of God is because they were ignorant of the fact that righteousness was a gift of God’s grace and they mistakenly thought that they could secure their own righteousness by observing the Torah.’

In Romans 10:4 Paul makes an important and much debated statement: ‘Christ is the end of the law so that there might be righteousness for everyone who believes.’ The key terms are: ‘End,’ ‘Law,’ and ‘Righteousness.’ In any discussion of this verse one must try to explain the significance of these terms and identify the relationship of Christ to the law.

END

‘End’ (telos) may refer to a’ termination’/ ‘cessation’ or to a ‘purpose’/’goal.’ It may also refer to an ‘outcome’ (6:21). The three main views of its meaning in 10:4 are:

1) ‘Fulfilment’- All the OT institutions, types and rituals pointed to Christ and were fulfilled in him.

2) ‘Termination’ – The Mosaic Law as a covenant is finished. God’s people today are not bound to it. This view stresses the discontinuity between Christ and the law and is attractive because it bears in mind 7:6 where a release from the law has already been declared, and also the additional statement of 8:1 that all who are in Christ Jesus are no longer under condemnation.

3) ‘Goal’ – The purpose of the law was not to save, but to lead people to faith in Christ.

This does not mean that there was a full revelation of Christ throughout history but rather that God provided some details at various times about the one who would come and, based on the believing response to these revelations about Christ, righteousness was credited (10:6-9). These OT events and prophecies pointed to the coming of the Messiah and all the predictions culminated in him; the one whom Paul referred to as the ‘stone’ (9:33), called ‘Christ’ (10:4) and identified as ‘the Lord Jesus’ (10:9).

LAW

‘Law’ in 10:4 is sometimes taken to refer to law in its general sense but most scholars take it to mean the Law of Moses. The other two verses in the immediate context which mention ‘law’ (9:31; 10:5) would support this interpretation.

It is likely that Paul has in mind the Old Testament (which includes the Mosaic Law), a view which would better suit the idea that telos means ‘goal’. Paul does not distinguish between the Law of Moses and the rest of the OT in chapters 9-11. When, in each of the three chapters he speaks of his hope for the salvation of Israel (9:1-3; 10:1; 11:26), he supports his argument for salvation through faith with quotations from throughout the OT. Just before making the statement of 10:4 he has quoted from Isaiah (9:27; 28; 29; 33) rather than from the Pentateuch which suggests that in Paul’s view there is full agreement between all of the OT and the gospel that he preaches. He is contrasting two views regarding the function of the law. Non-elect Israelites thought of the law as a means of salvation; which was conditional on compliance with its demands (9:31-32). Paul saw the law rather as a body of truth which had to be believed for salvation. For him, Christ was the embodiment of that truth and was its goal.

RIGHTEOUSNESS

‘Righteousness’ is a characteristic of a person. Ziesler (1972, pp.7-8) explains what it might mean:

‘There are two main conceptions of the meaning of the noun. It is usually assumed without argument by Roman Catholic exegetes that it means “justice” in the sense of uprightness, rather than strict distributive justice or even forensic justice in general…The usual Protestant position however has been that righteousness as imputed in justification is real righteousness, which comes from God to man, but for forensic purposes only. Man is not righteous, but he is treated by God as if he were, because he stands clothed in the righteousness of Christ…Thus righteousness from God and justification are the same thing. Both are to do with the granting of a status before God, an undeserved status which in itself is not concerned with ethics, but which has ethical consequences.’

Paul has already taught (Rom. 4:4-5) that righteousness is not based on human effort but is a gift obtained by faith. He shows in 9:30 -10:4 that the Jews viewed the law as a goal in itself rather than realising that the OT pointed to Christ. He uses the OT to show that Christ was, and is, the necessary object of faith for salvation and stresses in 10:4 that the OT law fulfilled its revelatory function until the appearance of Christ, its end goal. He is the focus of salvation history. Moo (1996, p. 640) views v.4 as:

‘The hinge on which the entire section 9:30-10:13 turns. It justifies Paul’s claim that the Jews, by their preoccupation with the law, have missed God’s righteousness (9:30-10:3); for righteousness is now found only in Christ and only through faith in Christ, the one who has brought the law to its climax and thereby ended its reign. It also announces the theme that Paul will expound in 10: 5-13: righteousness by faith in Christ for all who believe.’

10:5-8

‘Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim:’ Rom 10:5-8 (NIV)

In vv. 5-7 Paul contrasts righteousness ‘by faith’ with righteousness ‘by the law’ and uses two OT verses to argue against attempting to establish righteousness by means of the Mosaic Law. In v. 5 he writes: ‘Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law’ and gives a quotation from Leviticus 18:5: ‘The Man who does these things will live by them.’

‘The verse is not speaking about the attainment of eternal life; and Paul clearly does not believe that the OT teaches that righteousness is based on the law (see Rom 4). Paul is not, therefore, claiming that Christ has replaced the old way of salvation – by obedience to the law- with a new one- by faith in Christ.’ Schreiner (1993, p.125) points out that:

This is a righteousness based on works. Many interpret Leviticus 18:5 as promising eternal life, if the standard is met. If one performs the
righteousness of the law he will live. The context of Lev. 18:5, however, has to do with Israel’s obedience to God’s commands in order to prolong their blessings in the Promised Land. Nehemiah used this verse (9:29-30) to explain that their disobedience to the law resulted in their subjugation by hostile nations. Ezekiel (18: 9; 13) refers to the verse when discussing the execution of those who violate certain commandments. Leviticus 18:5 does not therefore refer to eternal life but to obedience to God’s commands in order to stay alive. Moo (1996, p.648) observes:

‘Paul’s statement in v.5 only makes sense if it is assumed that no one can perfectly obey the law. The attempt to gain righteousness by the law is excluded precisely because no one has the ability to put into effect what the law demands.’

Paul does not deal at all here with the impossibility of keeping the law as he has already covered the topic in 3:9-20. He is arguing that the perfect keeping of the law is to be rejected as a viable method of obtaining righteousness because Christ has accomplished all that is required for salvation.

Having stated (10:5) that Moses spoke of ‘righteousness by the law,’ Paul introduces a different and opposing voice in v.6. This is the personified voice of ‘the righteousness that is by faith’ speaking words from Deuteronomy 9:4 and 30:11-14. It seems that Paul has come close to setting up one scripture in opposition to another (since Deuteronomy was also written by Moses).

In his discussion of this controversial use of scripture Schreiner (2002, pp.133-134) quotes Silva who:

‘… notes it is uncommon for NT writers to call into question the interpretation of opponents by setting forth an opposing contextual argument of the text in question. He goes on to say, “Jewish literature contemporary to the New Testament shows a similar hesitation to score points by refuting the opponent’s use of Scripture. And the later rabbinic scholars, as a rule, refuted an argument based on Scripture by counteracting with a different passage, not by demonstrating faulty hermeneutics.” In other words, Paul cites the OT in Rom 10:6-8 to show that obeying the law is not the means of righteousness.’

Paul is explaining that God will not be impressed with human good works when his way of salvation is belief in the gospel. Just as the people to whom Moses spoke (Deut 30:11) had a message that was accessible to them, and not too difficult for them to understand, the same was true of the Israelites of Paul’s generation. They were not required to do the impossible. They did not need to ‘ascend into heaven’ in order to bring Christ down, or to ‘descend into the deep’ (since Christ was already resurrected from the dead). Just as the law had been brought down to the Israelites by Moses so also Jesus, the Messiah, had come down to earth. The message of righteousness by faith was ‘near’ Israel and this was the ‘word of faith’ that Paul was proclaiming.

10:9-10

‘If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.’ Rom 10:9-10 (NIV)

In 10:9 Paul explains what it is that he preaches and the simplicity of the response that it demands. It has to do with the certainty of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Consistent with the order of his quotation from Deuteronomy (‘the word is near you: it is in your mouth and in your heart’) he first mentions confession with the mouth about who Jesus is and then belief in the heart about what God has done.

Hoeksema (2002, p.461) maintains:

‘The resurrection was an act of God. The text does not say, “If you believe that Christ is risen.” Emphatically, the apostle states, “he who believes that God raised Jesus from the dead.” It was an act of God. God did something. And our faith clings ultimately to that act of God…The act of God whereby He raised Jesus from the dead was the act by which he declared us righteous.’

Just as in v.9 the result of belief and confession is salvation so it is likewise in v.10. Here Paul reverses the order of the salvation process (‘it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.’) forming a chiasm. This general statement in v.10 which again underscores that the key element is faith, not works, is a transition leading to Paul’s taking up again the idea of universality mentioned at the end of v.4 ( ‘for everyone who believes’). Since justification and salvation are as a result of faith then one must logically conclude that anyone who exercises faith in Christ will be saved, regardless of ethnicity.

10:11-13

‘As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile —the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Rom 10:11-13 (NIV)

In vv. 11-13 Paul takes up the aforementioned idea of universality and (v.11) quotes Isaiah 28:16, which also underscores the connection between faith and salvation, but adds the words pas ho (everyone) to emphasise the universal nature of the gospel. Everyone who believes in the Lord ‘will not be put to shame’, i.e. deliverance at the time of judgement.’

In v.12 Paul concludes that since salvation is available by faith to all who call on the Lord for help then there is no difference between Jew and Gentile; they all have the same Lord.

In v. 13 he quotes from Joel 2:32 (a verse that in its original context refers to the remnant of Israel); ‘For, everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved’, thus supporting his statement in v.12 by sandwiching it between two OT quotations. The ‘everyone’ of v. 11 and that of v. 13 together back up the expression in v.12 that ‘there is no difference between Jew and Gentile.’ Regardless of race or culture anyone can call in faith upon the Lord for salvation. Upon reading these verses one recalls Paul’s earlier statement of ‘no distinction’ (3:23) in sin and judgment but, as Bassler (1984, p.56) notes, now ‘the emphasis of “no distinction” or impartiality has shifted’.

She continues:

‘In chaps.1-3 it was used as a warrant for the inclusion of Gentiles. Here it supports an argument for the ultimate inclusion of the recalcitrant Jews within the community of faith, so that the total scheme of salvation corresponds to the basic axiom of divine impartiality: “For God has consigned all men to disobedience so that he may have mercy on all” (11:32).

Salvation can be for everyone so how could someone know the gospel without it being preached to them? Although from vv. 14-21 Paul again takes up the situation of Israel and investigates Jewish rejection of the gospel he first speaks of the practicalities involved in a person’s salvation: a preacher must be sent and the message must be preached, heard, and believed.

10:14-17

‘How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.’ Rom 10:14-17 (NIV)

In vv.14-15 he poses a series of four rhetorical questions beginning with ‘How?’ These build upon one another by repetition of the verb at the end of one question at the beginning of the next question. In light of God’s promise that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved(10:13):

1) ‘How then can they call on Him they have not believed in?’

2) ‘How can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?’

3) ‘How can they hear without someone preaching to them?’

4) ‘How can they preach unless they are sent?’

In these four questions Paul sets out the conditions necessary for calling on the name of the Lord and presents the five essential links in the chain of evangelism. These are the basic elements of Christian mission: Sending, Preaching, Hearing, Believing, and Calling. If one of the previous links is missing, Calling does not occur and there is no salvation.

Who is to be evangelized? In 1:16 Paul made it clear that both Jews and Gentiles were to be evangelized. In the context of chapters 9-11 he is
speaking specifically of the evangelism of Jewish people, the priority of which he inferred in 1:16. It is as if he is emphasizing to the believers at Rome (where there were possibly some tensions between Jewish and Gentile Christians) that they ought to be involving themselves in the evangelism of Jews as well as of Gentiles. He quotes loosely (v.15) from Isaiah 52:7 (with perhaps an allusion to Nahum 1:15) noting the beauty of the feet of those who ‘bring good news’. This verse, in its original setting, prophesied the certainty of Israel’s return from Captivity in Babylon. Jews, in spite of their rejection of Christ, still needed to hear the message about Jesus the Messiah. Since Paul is analyzing Jewish rejection of the gospel up to that point in time he goes on to show that in their case all the conditions for salvation have been met; except one.

V.16 points out that even though the gospel is good news, not everyone believes. It says: ‘But not all the Israelites responded to the good news.’ This is an understatement as, in comparison to the Gentles, very few Jews accepted Christ. It does, however, reiterate the concept of the remnant introduced in 9:6; while not all believed, some did. In the case of Israel, this was nothing new. Paul quotes Isaiah 53:1 (‘Lord, who has believed our message?) in support of this and thus identifies the missing link in the chain. Faith was missing.

V.17 is a transitional verse in that it summarizes the argument thus far. It starts with ‘consequently’ or ‘as a result,’ pointing the reader back to 10:8-9 about the expression of faith but also picks up the idea of ‘hearing’ implied in the ‘message’ of Isaiah 53:1 and moves on to the next stage of Paul’s argument.

10:18-21

‘But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: “Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.” Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, “I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.” And Isaiah boldly says, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.” But concerning Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.” Rom 10:18-21 (NIV)

In vv.18-21 Paul entertains and then dismisses two possible reasons for Israel’s rejection of the gospel. He asks two rhetorical questions which expect a positive answer. They thus become an assertion. ‘Did they not hear?’ and ‘Did Israel not understand?’ They had both heard and understood the message. In v18 Paul queries if the problem might be that the Jews had not heard the gospel: ‘But I ask, did they not hear?’ It must be because they have not heard. He answers ‘Of course they did!’ and quotes Psalm 19: 4: ‘their voice has gone out into all the earth and their words to the ends of the world.’ Paul lifts this verse from its original context which speaks of natural revelation and applies it to the special revelation of the gospel. The idea here may be what Bruce (1963, p. 223) terms ‘representative universalism’, meaning that just as the knowledge of God is said to be universal in Psalm 19 so, in Paul’s day, wherever there were communities of Jews in the known world, it could be said that the gospel had been preached. Paul contends that Israel had definitely heard the
gospel.

V.19 begins with a repetition of the ‘I ask’ of v.18 and moves from the possibility that Israel had not heard the message to the possibility that the message had not been understood. Paul quotes this time from both the Law and the prophets, using Moses and Isaiah as representative of each. The quotation from Moses in v.19 is from Deuteronomy 32:21b. The point being made is that historically Israel knew the Commandments, yet their practice did not match their understanding. They had hardly left Egypt and the experience of the power of God when they made a golden calf and worshipped it. Along the way they complained against God and longed for their former life of slavery. Having reached the Promised Land they pursued false gods. It was not a matter of not understanding God’s law. They acted in wilful disobedience to what they knew. As a result God promised to use people who were not a nation, people who did not have understanding, to make Israel envious.

In v.20 Paul, citing Isaiah 65:1, turns to the prophets: ‘Then Isaiah boldly says, “I was found by those who did not seek Me, I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me”.’ The Gentiles were not pursuing God. They were idolaters who did not seek God; rather he made himself known to them in the gospel. This highlights God’s grace in pursuing the Gentiles rather than Gentiles pursuing Him. Those who did not look for God found him; he took the initiative and revealed himself in the gospel. In v.21 Paul comments: ‘But concerning Israel he says’ and continues the quotation from Isaiah (65:2), ‘All day long have I held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.’ The second discourse closes with this thought of a gracious God actively stretching out his hands to the Jews, wanting them to come to him.

In chapter nine Paul attributed Israelite unbelief to God’s election, in chapter ten he attributes it to their own wilful rejection of the gospel message that they had both heard and understood.

View my posts:

Introduction to Romans chapters 9-11

Romans 9:1-5 Paul’s Lament

Romans 9:6-29

Romans 11:1-24

Romans 11:25-36

Romans 9-11 Bibliography

Exposition

ROMANS 9:6-29

Posted on 26th Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

DISCOURSE 1. ROMANS 9:6-29

THESIS : It is not as though God’s word has failed (9:6).

9:6-18

‘It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.” Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad —in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.’ Rom 9:6-18 (NIV)

‘JEW’ AND ‘ISRAEL’

In Romans chapters 1-8 the term ‘Jew’ is used to distinguish between them and Gentiles. Chapter 9:6 introduces an important change in vocabulary; the term ‘Israel’ signalling a shift in emphasis from the Jewish nation (the people who live in the territory of Judea) to ‘Israel’, the covenant people of God. This becomes the foremost term in 9-11.

Dunn (1998, p.506) asserts: ‘In short, “Jew” defines primarily by relation to land and by differentiation from peoples of other lands, whereas “Israel” defines primarily by relation to God.’

In vv.6-18 Paul begins to build his case that salvation is through promise and not through physical descent. He anticipates a question that might arise from the previous section and says: ‘But it is by no means the case that the word of God has failed.’(9:6).

This assertion implies the question: ‘Since Israel as God’s covenant
people had received so many promises and privileges (vv.4-5) why have so few been saved?’ Those to whom God made promises of blessing now oppose the gospel so does Israel’s unbelief mean that God’s word has not taken effect? For Paul that was not the case. God’s word had not failed.

Hübner (1984, p.58) observes:

‘Paul clearly sees that the failure of the people of Israel in its history could prompt a thoughtful person to reflect that God’s word and God’s promise have also lost their force (see also Rom 3:3!) In other words, Israel’s failure is the failure of the divine promise and therefore God’s own failure. The answer Paul gives is surprising: it is not the promise that is problematic but rather what is meant by ‘Israel’. For since the ‘history of Israel’ cannot fail –being something which stands under the promise of God- but the historical Israel has failed, the entity ‘Israel’ must be taken in a new sense so that the divine promise may remain valid.’

Paul attempts to prove his point by introducing the concept of the remnant. He wrote: ‘For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.’ For Paul the remnant does not include Gentile believers but is a rather a true Israel existing within the nation of Israel. He has been clearly focusing on ethnic Israel from the beginning of chapter 9 (‘my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites.’) and there is therefore no indication that what he has in mind is a new spiritual Israel composed of all believers, both Jew and Gentile.

Moo (1996, p.574) comments:

‘Throughout these chapters, Paul carefully distinguishes between Israel and the Jews on one hand and the Gentiles on the other. Only where clear contextual pointers are present can the ethnic focus of Israel be abandoned.’

Paul denies that God ever intended to save all ethnic Israelites. He says that being a Jew, a physical descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is not a guarantee of salvation but that the true Israel is a spiritual, faithful remnant within ethnic Israel. Had God’s promise intended that all ethnic Israelites (all those who are descended from Israel) be saved then indeed his purpose had been frustrated and his word had failed.

Murray (1997, p.10) summarises Paul’s contention that not everyone
who is an ethnic Israelite is a spiritual Israelite as follows:

‘The purpose of this distinction is to show that the covenantal promise of God did not have respect to Israel after the flesh but to this true Israel and that, therefore, the unbelief and rejection of ethnic Israel as a whole in no way interfered with the fulfilment of God’s covenant purpose and promise. The word of God, therefore, has not been violated.’

In vv.7- 13 Paul explains why God did not promise that all ethnic Israelites would form the true people of God. In each of verses 7 and 8 he restates negatively his thesis of v.6 that the children of Abraham are not merely his physical descendants but are the children of the promise. As one might expect Paul points back to the origins of the people group known as ‘the Hebrews’ (Gen 14:13; 40:15) and shows that God’s call of Abraham and the associated promises relate to both ethnic and spiritual Israel. He
supports that distinction by quoting biblical examples of God’s sovereign choice.

ABRAHAM AND HIS TWO SONS

The first example he produces is that of Abraham and his two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. God had promised Abraham that he would be the father of a great nation (Gen. 12:1-3) and that he would have a son (Gen. 15:4-5). Since Sarah was past the age of childbearing she and Abraham decided to fulfil God’s promise by having a son through Sarah’s ‘maidservant’ Hagar and as a result Ishmael was born (Gen. 16). Soon after this God’s covenant with Abraham was sealed by circumcision, a rite in which Ishmael was included (Gen.17:26-27). Ishmael was a physical descendant of Abraham and had been circumcised and was therefore technically a Hebrew. One would expect that the promises would flow through him. Abraham seems to have thought as much in Gen. 17: 18: ‘If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!’ God’s response in Gen. 17:19-20 was as follows: ‘Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.’ Subsequently Sarah bore a son and he was named Isaac (Gen.21:2-3). Paul looks to this story for an explanation of the distinction between physical and spiritual Israel and in Romans 9:7 he quotes Gen. 21:12: ‘It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.’

Having referred back to the establishment of the nation to argue that God has always dealt with Israel by means of sovereign election, Paul goes on to say that God’s choice of Isaac over Ishmael began a pattern of election that still continues. Having first distinguished ‘Israel’ from ‘those who are descended from Israel’ (9:6) Paul now also distinguishes ‘Abraham’s children’ from ‘Abraham’s offspring’ (9:7) and proves that physical descent from Abraham is not a guarantee of inheritance. He proceeds in 9:8 to distinguish between the ‘natural children’ (kata sarka) and ‘the children of the promise’, using the example of Isaac’s children Esau and Jacob.

ESAU AND JACOB

These two were born, not just of the same father, but of the same pregnancy and yet God chose Jacob rather than Esau. Esau was rejected and Jacob chosen long before their birth and before their behaviour. The choice of Jacob was not based on some good deed that he performed as the choice was ‘before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad’ (9:11), nor was it based on physical connection. It was based on election. Paul describes it like this in 9:11: ‘in order that God’s purpose in election might stand’. God brings his purposes to pass and chooses those whom he wills. In the case of Isaac and Ishmael it was a choice between sons of different mothers, in the case of Jacob and Esau it was a choice between twin sons of the same mother. Jacob inherited the promise.

In vv. 22-13 Paul bolsters his argument with two Old Testament quotations; (1) ‘The older will serve the younger’ and (2) ‘Jacob have I loved, but Esau I hated’. He is stressing that God’s election does not necessarily conform to human practice and custom but is always according to his own will. The older son was normally the heir but God chose Abraham’s son Isaac rather than Ishmael. In the case of Isaac’s sons God did not choose Esau but Jacob.

The promise given to Rebecca in Genesis 25:23 would seem to suggest that the election in view is that of ‘nations’ and ‘peoples’. This verse reads:

‘The Lord said to her, ‘Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.’

The second quotation, from Malachi chapter one, originally appears after a statement of God’s love for Israel (Mal 1:2) followed by the assertion that God’s love for Jacob is so strong that his attitude to Esau seems like hate by comparison. Again the original reference is not to individuals as Malachi (1:4) goes on to describe Edom as ‘the Wicked land, a people always under the wrath of the Lord.’

Witherington (2004, p.253) maintains:

‘As the OT context of the saying “Jacob I loved and Esau I hated” (Mal. 1:2-3) shows, the subject there is two nations, not two individuals, and, as we have said, even when individuals are in the picture, it is not their eternal destiny that is spoken of. The quoted verse, then, may speak of God’s elective purposes, but the concern is with the roles they are to play in history, not their personal eternal destiny.’

Moo disagrees. He contends (1996, p. 585):

‘First, Paul suggests that he is thinking of Jacob and Esau as individuals in vv. 10b-11a when he mentions their conception, birth and “works” – language that is not easily applied to nations. Second, several of Paul’s key words and phrases in this passage are words he generally uses elsewhere with reference to the attaining of salvation; and significantly they occur with this sense in texts closely related to this one: “election” (see esp. 11:5,7); “call” (see esp. 8:28); and “[not] of works” (see esp. Rom. 4:2-8 and 11:6). These words are therefore difficult to apply to nations or peoples, for Paul clearly does not believe that peoples or nations –not even Israel- are chosen and called by God for salvation apart from their works.’

He continues (1996, p. 586):

‘The nations denoted by these names, we must remember, have come into existence in and through the individuals who first bore those names. In a context in which Paul begins speaking rather clearly about the individuals rather than the nations, we should not be surprised that he would apply a text that spoke of the nations to individuals who founded and, in a sense, “embodied” them. It is not the issue of how God uses different individuals or nations in accomplishing his purposes that is Paul’s concern but which individuals, and on what basis, belong to God’s covenant people.’

In vv. 14-18 Paul deals with an anticipated objection to his argument of vv. 6-13 in a question and answer format. He is not so much clarifying but rather defending his insistence (v12) that God makes his choices independently of human distinctions. He begins (v14) with ‘What then shall we say? Is God unjust?’ An objector might suggest that when God arbitrarily determines eternal destiny based on nothing but his own
choice, ignoring human claims whether by birth or self effort, then he is irresponsible and unrighteous. God, one might say, must choose people on the basis of moral qualities or else he is unjust.

ILLUSTRATION 1 THE POSITIVE SIDE OF ELECTION

Paul makes his own position (v14) clear by use of a strong negative ‘Not at all!’ before proceeding to give two OT illustrations which he introduces with the word ‘for,’ and from each derives a proof introduced by the word ‘therefore’, The first quotation (v.15) that he presents is from Exodus 33:19. In the book of Exodus the quotation follows the worship of the golden calf, as a result of which the Levites, at God’s insistence, killed three thousand of their idolatrous fellow Israelites (Ex. 32:26-
28). Moses then asked the Lord to show him his glory (Ex. 33:18) after which the Lord said he would cause his ‘goodness’ to pass in front of Moses and proclaim his name ‘the Lord’. Then follows the quotation that Paul cites in Romans 9:15: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion”.

Paul follows this up with v16: ‘It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.’ The subject (‘it’) implied in v.16 is not exactly clear. The reference may be to ‘God’s purpose of election’ (v.12) or, more likely, to God’s ‘bestowal of mercy’ (v15). The point is that nothing man does has any bearing on God’s choice to either withhold or bestow mercy.

God was showing Moses that all the Israelites deserved to die because of their sin against God on that occasion but that God in compassion spared many of them. The nation ought to have been wiped out then but God graciously spared it. Is there unrighteousness with God? Logic works in both directions. Was God unjust when he also spared many Israelites when they deserved to die?

Wright (2002), p. 638) says that:

‘The surprise, in other words, is not that some were allowed to fall by the
wayside, but that any at all were allowed to continue as God’s covenant people, carrying the promises forward to their conclusion.’

Paul shows that election, rather than being unjust, is merciful. Everyone deserves God’s judgement but God is merciful to those elected to salvation. God, in fact, would still be just if he did not choose to spare anyone.

ILLUSTRATION 2 THE NEGATIVE SIDE OF ELECTION

Having thus shown the positive side of election Paul introduces (v.17) his second OT quotation beginning with the word ‘For’ and from it shows (v.18) the negative side. Verse 17 (quoting Ex. 9:16) reads ‘For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. Moo (1996, p.595) suggests that’ raise up’ has ‘the connotation “appoint to a significant role in salvation history”. The comment by Paul (v.18) that ‘therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy and he hardens whom he wants to harden’ relates the ‘raising up’ of Pharaoh to his ‘hardening’.

It is interesting that Paul did not select a quotation from Exodus that explicitly mentions the word ‘hardening’ (Ex. 4:21; 7:3; 9:12). Piper (1993, p. 179) asks: ‘If Paul wanted to infer from an Old Testament quotation that God hardens whom he wills, why did he choose to cite Ex 9:16 in which the word “harden” is missing?’ Perhaps this is because in Ex. 8:15 and 8:32 it is said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. One might therefore infer that it was only then, and as an act of judgement in
response to this that God, in turn, hardened his heart. Paul, it would seem, wished rather to emphasise the sovereign action of God in election.

HARDENING

It is also interesting that in v.18, which restates what was said in v.16 (that God bestows or withholds mercy on whom he wills), ‘hardening’ is not the exact antithesis of ‘mercy’. ‘Mercy’ in this context refers to the bestowal salvation. ‘Hardening’ however, does not mean the infliction of eternal wrath. Paul has chosen his words with precision. At the time of Paul’s writing he considered the unbelieving Jews ‘hardened’ but was confident that they were not necessarily locked in that hopeless situation forever. Paul’s prayer was for their salvation (9:1-3; 10:1; 11:11-14, 28-32).

Some commentators try to keep their options open. Hendriksen (1981, p. 326), for example, maintains:

‘There is no reason to doubt that the hardening of which Pharaoh was the object was final. It was a link in the chain: reprobation – wicked life – hardening – everlasting punishment. This does not mean, however, that divine hardening is always final.’

Piper contends (1993, p.178):

Must we not conclude, therefore, that the hardening in Rom 9:18 has reference, just as the hardening in 11:7, to the action of God whereby a person is left in a condition outside salvation and thus “prepared for destruction” (9:22)?

In a footnote (1993, p.178 no.31), however, he somewhat qualifies this view:

‘This does not imply that the condition sometimes called hardness of heart (Eph 4:18) or mind (2 Cor 3:14) cannot be altered by the merciful revivifying act of God (Eph 2:1-4). But it does imply that God is the one who sovereignly decides who will be shown such mercy and who will be decisively and finally hardened. It is hardening in this decisive sense that meets the demands of the argument in Rom 9:1-18.

It is clear that God did not force Pharaoh to act against his natural bent, but the quotation (Ex. 9:16) chosen by Paul shows that he considered that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart in order to accomplish his will.

ROMANS 9:19-29

‘One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory — even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? As he says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,” and, “In the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’” Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality.” It is just as Isaiah said previously: “Unless the Lord Almighty had left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorrah.” Rom 9:19-29 (NIV)

Once again Paul anticipates the objections and, having just addressed the objection that ‘God is unjust!,’ he now turns his attention to the objection that ‘God is unfair!’ How can it be fair for God to find fault when no one can resist his will? If God hardens a person’s heart, on what basis does he then hold that person accountable for his unbelief? Paul treats this objection as an expression of arrogance against God rather than an honest inquiry and says (v.20): ‘But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?’ and goes on to make his point by using a biblical analogy.

THE POTTER AND THE CLAY

Quoting Isaiah 29:16 he compares the Creator and the creature to a potter
and clay. Only the potter (v.21) has the right to determine what types of vessels to produce. From the same lump of clay he can make a work of art or produce a vessel for common, everyday use. That which he forms has no say in the matter for he can mould it as he chooses. In the same way God can do as he pleases with human beings.

The analogy of the potter and the clay is then carried over into vv. 22-24 which Paul begins with another question: ‘What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-prepared for destruction?’ and continues ‘What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory- even us…? The word ‘choosing’(NIV) or ‘wishing’ may be interpreted in one of two ways:

1) Causally = ‘because he wished’ to display his wrath.

Or:

2) Concessively = ‘though he wished’ to display his wrath.

The latter interpretation fits best with the assertion that God bears ‘with great patience’ the ‘vessels of wrath’. A threefold reason is given for this tolerance:

1) to demonstrate his wrath
2) to make his power known
3) to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy.

The pottery ‘for noble purposes’ (honour) and for ‘common use’ of v.21 are parallel to the ‘vessels of mercy’ and ‘vessels of wrath’ of vv.22-23. These ‘vessels of wrath’ are said to be ‘prepared for destruction’, but of the vessels of mercy it is said ‘whom he prepared in advance for glory’. Paul does not say by whom or by what the ‘vessels of wrath’ are found fit for disposal but does emphasize that it is God who has actively prepared the ‘vessels of mercy’ for glory. In v.24 he states that these ‘vessels of mercy’ are those whom God has called, which includes not only Jews but also Gentiles.

In vv. 25-29 he attempts to demonstrate from the OT scriptures that the salvation of Gentiles had been prophesied long before. He gives two quotations from Hosea (2:23; 1:10) and one from Isaiah (10:22-23). Hosea was addressing the ten Northern Tribes of Israel before the exile to Assyria and proclaiming their rebellious attitude (‘not my people’, ‘not my loved one’) as well as a future restoration (‘my people’, ‘my loved one’, ‘sons of the living God’). Hosea spoke these words to give ethnic Israel hope as the elect and yet, although he does not say so explicitly, Paul was quoting these verses to try to prove that the ‘vessels of mercy’ included Gentiles. Why did Paul cite and apply these verses to people outside ethnic Israel? Perhaps his thinking was typological (one story in scripture used by God to teach about another) and he found the rejection and restoration of Israel analogous to the exclusion and then inclusion of Gentiles in God’s saving plan.

Paul quoted these verses (that in their original context referred to the restoration of Israel after the exile) to prove that Gentiles would be saved but also uses them to point out that a believing remnant of Jews will be saved. None of these scriptures refer to all Israelites being saved and they suit Paul’s purpose well as here he is ambiguous, perhaps deliberately so, with regard to the remnant and its size.

In v.27 he claims to be quoting Isaiah when, in fact, the reference is to Hosea 1:10 which makes no mention of a remnant. Perhaps he is combining this with Isaiah 10:22 to form a composite quotation. Heil (2002, p.706) views it as a ‘combined citation’ and explains that throughout Romans the term ‘Israelite’ (9:4) or ‘Israel’ (9:6, 27, 31; 10:19, 21; 11:2, 7, 25, 26) never refers to a ‘Christ-believing Jew’. It is always used in Romans to refer to Jews who have not yet believed in Christ. He states (2004, p. 707):

‘Grammatically, then, the Isaian quote in 9:27b is best translated and understood as an eventual conditional sentence expressing the hope that if, as is to be expected in accord with God’s promise that the sons of Israel (who presently do not yet believe in Christ) will be as numerous as the sand of the sea, then surely, at least a remnant of this great number will be saved in the future by eventually coming to believe in Christ.’

Verse 28 is likewise obscure. The main idea seems to be that God, having definitely decided that the Israelites will be as numerous as the sand of the sea, will accomplish it on earth. This makes the promise based on it (that at least a remnant will be saved), even more certain. Verse 29, (quoting Isaiah 1:9) is a reminder that although only a remnant will be saved (vv.27-28) the fact that God will save some is an indication of his grace.

In this discourse Paul, it would seem, denies that ethnic Israel is the elect of God (9:6) and maintains that the elect have always been a subgroup within Israel. Election is a matter of God’s sovereignty and does not depend on natural descent or on human efforts. Paul has argued for God’s right to elect as he sees fit. The question and answer format suggests his recognition that his readers would not necessarily find this an easy truth to accept. For Paul, it is God alone who has the right to elect or not to elect. Pharaoh (vv. 16-18) is an example of God choosing not to elect (to harden) and in vv.18-21 this is shown to be legitimate because God is the Creator. When God chooses not to elect some, or even most, he does not transgress his own righteousness because, while those who are elected receive grace (which is undeserved), those who are rejected receive justice (which they deserve). In Paul’s reckoning, God is neither unjust nor unfair. His word has not failed.

View my posts:

Introduction to Romans chapters 9-11

Romans 9:1-5 Paul’s Lament

Romans 9:30- 10:21

Romans 11:1-24

Romans 11:25-36

Romans 9-11 Bibliography

Exposition

ROMANS 9:1-5. PAUL’S LAMENT

Posted on 26th Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

‘I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen’ Romans 9:1-5 (NIV)

Romans chapter nine begins with a personal lament which introduces the problem that Paul intends to address; the failure of Israel to accept the gospel in spite of the privileges with which they had been blessed. This is the first of four times (9:1-5; 10:1-4; 11:1-6; 11:13-14) in chapters 9-11 when Paul involves himself personally at major turning points of the discussion:

a) In 9:1-5, he stresses how much God’s mercy to Israel matters to him – to the extent that he would be willing to be cut off for the sake of his people.

b) In 10:1-4 he bears witness on behalf of Israel that they have good intentions: they have a zeal for God, but it is is not according to knowledge.

c) In 11:1-6 Paul testifies to the faithfulness of God who has, in fact, called a remnant of Israel in Paul himself.

d) In 11:13-14 he says that he glorifies his ministry as apostle to
the Gentiles; this is part of God’s plan to make Israel jealous.

Paul begins this section with a series of double expressions in vv. 1-2 (‘I speak the truth —I am not lying; in Christ – through the Holy Spirit; great sorrow – unceasing anguish’) by which he asserts his honesty and expresses his grief that his fellow Jews are lost.

In v. 1 he sets forth in one sentence a five-fold cumulative assertion of his sincerity:

a) ‘I speak the truth!’

b) ‘I speak the truth in Christ’

c) ‘I speak the truth in Christ – I am not lying’

d) ‘ I speak the truth in Christ – I am not lying, my conscience confirms it’

e) ‘I speak the truth in Christ – I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit’

Paul calls on Christ himself as the one who can vouch for the truthfulness of what he is about to say about Israel and reminds his audience that a second witness, his conscience, is testifying by means of the Holy Spirit. He may have had in mind the OT Law of Evidence which required at least two witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15-16).

Paul (v.2) describes his heartbreak as continual (adialeiptos) and his response to this as a wish (or prayer) that he might be condemned in order that they might be saved. Was Paul speaking in hyperbole or was he serious? Moo (1996, p.558) comments:

‘I prefer, in agreement with most English translations, to ascribe a hypothetical nuance to the imperfect tense; as Cranfield paraphrases, “I would pray (were it permissible for me so to pray and if the fulfilment of such a prayer could benefit them”)’

Since Paul’s giving up of his own salvation was neither possible nor permissible the wish could not be fulfilled. He seems to model himself on Moses (Exodus 30:30-32), who had also at times been badly treated by the Israelites and yet expressed a willingness to sacrifice himself for them. That those for whom Paul is heartbroken are unbelieving Jews is emphasized in v. 3 where their identification as ‘my people’ is modified by ‘those of my own race’ and further in v. 4 by ‘the people
of Israel’. Paul may have been the Apostle to the Gentiles but he was certainly a Jew by race.

In the concluding words of this lament Paul lists eight special privileges given to Israel and bemoans the fact that the Israelites have not benefitted from these spiritual advantages:

1) adoption
2) the glory
3) the covenants
4) the giving of the law
5) the temple worship
6) the promises
7) the patriarchs
8) the Messiah – who was himself a Jew

Thus in verses 1-5 Paul laments the unbelief of his fellow Jews and their failure to take advantage of their unique privileges, and expresses his overwhelming desire for their conversion. This introduces the subject that will occupy him throughout the rest of chapters 9-11; the unbelief of Israel and the question of God’s faithfulness.

See my posts:

Introduction to Romans chapters 9-11

Romans 9-11 Bibliography