remnant – 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 9-11 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Posted on 28th Dec 20209th Aug 2025 by writtenexposition

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aageson, J. W. 1993, Written Also for Our Sake: Paul and the Art of Biblical Interpretation, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky

Achtemeir, P. J. 1985, Romans, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky

Barrett, C. K. 1957, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, A & C Black, London

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

Beker, J. C. 1980, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought, T & T Clark, Edinburgh

Bekken, P. J. 2007, The Word Is Near You: A Study of Deuteronomy 30:12-14 In Paul’s Letter to the Romans in a Jewish Context, Walter De Gruyter, Berlin

Blomberg, C. L. 2006, From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts through Revelation, B&H Academic, Nashville

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. 1963, Romans: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale 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. 2002, Romans, a Shorter Commentary, Continuum International Publishing Group, London

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

Das, A. A. 2007, Solving the Romans Debate, Fortress Press, Minneapolis

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. 1998, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, T & T Clark, Edinburgh

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

Eveson, P. H. 1996, The Great Exchange: Justification by Faith Alone – in the Light of Recent Thought, Day One Publications, Epsom, Surrey

Fee, G. D. 1994, God’s Empowering presence: the Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul, Hendrickson Publishers, Massachusetts

Fee, G.D. 2007, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study, Hendrickson Publishers, Massachusetts

Fitzmyer, J. A. 1993, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary, Volume 33 of The Anchor Bible, Doubleday, New York

Fitzmyer, J.A. 2004, Spiritual Exercises Based on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan

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

Gorman, M. J. 2004, Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan

Greenman, J. P. 2005, Reading Romans Through The Centuries: From the Early Church to Karl Barth, Brazos Press, Grand Rapids

Guerra, A. J. 1995, Romans and the Apologetic Tradition: The Purpose, Genre and Audience of Paul’s Letter, Cambridge University Press

Haacker, K. 2003, The Theology of Paul’s letter to the Romans, Cambridge University Press

Hamerton-Kelly, R. G. 1991, Sacred Violence: Paul’s Hermeneutic of the Cross, Augsburg Fortress, Minneapolis

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

Hübner, H. 1984, Law in Paul’s Thought, T & T Clark Ltd., Edinburgh

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

Käsemann, E. 1980, Commentary on Romans, SCM Press Ltd, London

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

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

Longenecker, R. N. 2011, Introducing Romans: Critical Concerns in Paul’s Most Famous Letter, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids

Marshal, I. H. 1969, Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away, Epworth Press, London

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

Mounce, R. H. 1995, Romans, in The New American Commentary, Broadman and Holman Publishers, Nashville, TN.

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

Murray J. 1997, The Epistle to the Romans: the English Text With Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids

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

O’Brien, P. T. 1995, Gospel and Mission in the Writings of Paul: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis, Baker Books, Grand Rapids

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

Piper, J. 1993, The Justification of God- An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23, Baker Books, Grand Rapids

Richards, E. R. 2004, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection, InterVarsity Press, Nottingham

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

Robinson, J. A. T. 1979, Wrestling With Romans, SCM Press, London

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

Schnabel, E .J. 2004, Paul and the Early Church, Vol.2 of Early Christian Mission, Intervarsity Press, Nottingham

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

Schreiner, T. R. 1990, Interpreting the Pauline Epistles, Baker Books, Grand Rapids

Schreiner, T. R. 1993, The Law and its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law, Baker Books, Grand Rapids

Schreiner, T. R. 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

Song, C. 2004, Reading Romans as Diatribe, Peter Lang, New York

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

Stott, J. 1994, Romans: God’s Good News for the World, Intervarsity Press, Nottingham

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

Thiselton, A C. 2009, The Living Paul: An Introduction to the Apostle and His Thought, SPCK, London

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

Watson. F, 2007, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids

Wedderburn, A. J. M. 2004, Reasons for Romans, Continuum International
Publishing Group, London

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

Witherington, 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

Wright, N. T. 1997, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?, Lion Publishing, Oxford

Wright, N. T. 2002, The Letter to the Romans: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. X, Abingdon Press, Nashville

Young, B. H, 1997, Paul the Jewish Theologian: A Pharisee Among Christians, Jews and Gentiles, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts

Ziesler, J. A. 1972, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic And Theological Enquiry, Cambridge University Press

Ziesler, J. A. 1989, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, SCM Press, London

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Abbot, E. 1881, ‘On the Construction of Romans ix: 5’, Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.87-154

Abbot, E. 1883, ‘Recent Discussions of Romans ix: 5’, Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.90-112

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

Bassler, J. M. 1984, ‘Divine Impartiality in Paul’s Letter to the Romans’, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 43-58

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

Beker, J. C. 1986, ‘The Faithfulness of God and the Priority of Israel in Paul’s Letter to the Romans’, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 79, No. 1, pp. 10-16

Byrne, B. 2001, ‘Interpreting Romans Theologically in a Post – “New Perspective” Perspective’, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 94, No. 3, pp. 227-241

Campbell, W.S. 1981, ‘Romans III as a Key to the Structure and Thought of the Letter’, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 23-40

Carson, D. A. 2004, ‘Israel and the Law in Romans 5-11: Interaction with the New Perspective’ in Justification and Variegated Nomism – Vol. 2.- The Paradoxes of Paul, ed. Carson, O’Brien & Seifrid, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids

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

Crafton, J. A. 1990, ‘Paul’s Rhetorical Vision and the Purpose of Romans: Toward a New Understanding’, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 317-339

Cranford, M, 1993, ‘Election and Ethnicity: Paul’s View of Israel in Romans 9.1-13’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Vol. 15, pp. 27-41

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

Eisenbaum, P. 2004, ‘A Remedy for Having Been Born of Woman: Jesus, Gentiles, and Genealogy in Romans’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 123, No. 4, pp. 671-702

Epp, E J. 1986, ‘ Jewish-Gentile Continuity in Paul: Torah and/or Faith? (Romans 9:15)’, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 79, No. 1

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

Fischer, J. A. 1980, ‘Dissent Within a Religious Community: Romans 9–11’, Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology, Vol. 10, pp. 105 – 110

Getty, M.A. 1987, ‘Paul on the Covenants and the Future of Israel’, Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology, Vol. 17, pp. 92 – 99.

Getty, M. A. 1988, ‘Paul and the Salvation of Israel: A Perspective on Romans 9-11’, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 50, pp. 456-469

Gianoulis, G. C. 2009, ‘Is Sonship in Romans 8: 14-17 a Link With Romans 9?’ Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 166, pp. 70-83

Gignac, A. 1999, ‘La Bonne Nouvelle d’Ésaïe au service de l’Évangile de Paul. Rm 10, 14-17 Comme Relecture de Es 52,6-53’, Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, Vol. 28, pp. 345-361

Gignac, A. 2003, ‘Peut-on lire Romains 9 à la suite de Calvin et Barth? Réflexions Herméneutiques à partir du Thème de la Predestination’, Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, Vol.32, pp. 409-428

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

Gordon T. D. 1992, ‘Why Israel did not obtain Torah-Righteousness: A Translation Note on Romans 9:32’, The Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 54, No.1, pp. 163-166

Gould, E. P. 1883, ‘Romans IX – XI’, Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 22-41

Heil, J. P. 2001, ‘Christ, the Termination of the Law (Romans 9:30-10:8)’, CBQ, Vol. 64, pp. 484-498

Heil, J. P. 2002, ‘From Remnant to Seed of Hope for Israel: Romans 9:27-29’, CBQ, Vol. 63, pp. 703-720

Howard, G. E. 1969, ‘Christ the End of the Law: The Meaning of Romans 10:4 ff’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 88, No. 3, pp. 331-337

Jewett, R. 1986, ‘Following the Argument of Romans’, Word and World, Vol.6, No.4, pp. 382-389

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

Kaye, B.N. 1976, ‘”To the Romans and Others” Revisited’ , Novum Testamentum, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 37-77

Kinoshita, J. 1965, ‘Romans: Two Writings Combined: A New Interpretation of the Body of Romans’, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 258-277

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

Paddison, A. 2006, ‘Karl Barth’s Theological Exegesis of Romans 9–11 in the Light of Jewish–Christian Understanding’, Journal For the Study of The New Testament, Vol. 28, pp. 469-488

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

Schreiner, T. R. 1993, ‘Paul’s View of the Law in Romans 10:4-5’, Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 55, pp.113-135

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

Taylor, T. M. 1948, ‘The Place of Origin of Romans’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 67, No. 4, pp. 281-295

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

Westhelle, V. 1984, ‘Paul’s Reconstruction of Theology: Romans 9-14 in Context’, Word and World, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 307-319

Williams, S. K. 1980, ‘The “Righteousness of God” in Romans’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 99, No. 2, pp. 241-290

Worgul, G. S. 1977, ‘Romans 9-11 and Ecclesiology’, Biblical Theology Bulletin, Vol. 7, pp. 99-109

Ziglar, T. 2003, ‘Understanding Romans 11:26: Baptist Perspectives’, Baptist History and Heritage, Vol. Spring 2003, pp. 38-51

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

View my posts:

Introduction to Romans chapters 9-11

Romans 9:1-5 Paul’s Lament

Exposition

ROMANS 11:25-36

Posted on 28th Dec 20202nd Dec 2025 by writtenexposition

DISCOURSE 3 continued

‘I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written: “The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.’ Roman 11:25-32 (NIV)

Throughout this chapter Paul has been developing his argument concerning the status of Israel in the history of salvation. He has just been addressing the possibility that Gentiles might say that God has totally rejected Israel and instead called in the Gentiles. Having insisted that the salvation of Jews is possible, and suggested that it is probable, he now goes on to assert that it is inevitable. Moo (2094, p.198) observes:

‘By common agreement, the pinnacle of Romans 9-11 is reached in 11:22-32, and especially in Paul’s claim that “all Israel will be saved” (11:26a). Here is the final and decisive answer to the question about God’s faithfulness in carrying out his promise to Israel.’

In order that the believers at Rome might not be ignorant of the salvation of ‘all Israel’ and be conceited as a result Paul presents the information to them as a mystery’. Bruce (2000, p.334) observes:

‘Paul’s own sympathies were manifestly engaged in this matter, but he does not present his forecast of Israel’s restoration as the product of wishful thinking but as the substance of a “mystery” – an aspect of the divine purpose formerly concealed but now divulged.’

V.25 mentions ‘a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.’ That Israel was partially hardened’ (or ‘blinded’) could not be the mystery as this has already been mentioned in 11:7 (and hinted at in the ‘stumbled’ of 9:32). Nor could the mystery have been that Israel would be saved as that was widely expected by the Jews. Paul reveals the mystery with the word ‘until’. The reversal of the partial hardening will be when the full number of elect Gentiles has come in. The mystery is that the hardening is temporary (‘until’ v.25) and that it would be ‘so,’ that is, ‘in this way’ (in tandem with Gentile believers, v.26) that ‘all Israel will be saved.’

There are two major interpretative issues relating to v.26. First, what is the meaning of ‘all Israel?’

1. Does it refer to ethnic Jews or to the Church (all believers both Jew and Gentile)?

2. The second is the time and manner of Israel’s salvation. Is it a future
eschatological event subsequent to the coming in of the full number of elect Gentiles or a process occurring throughout history in tandem with the salvation of Gentiles in this age?

The disagreement on these issues by scholars has caused 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.’ Various interpretations have been suggested for ‘all Israel’ but most are variations of one of the following three: the church, the nation or the remnant.

‘All Israel’ as the Church.

Theologians such as Calvin and more recently Barth (1968) and Wright (1991, p.250) interpret ‘all Israel’ in Romans 11:26 metaphorically as the Church, the spiritual Israel composed of Jews and Gentiles. This fits with the likelihood that the church at Rome was divided and that Paul was calling for unity, which would serve his own short-term missionary goals and also advance the mission of the whole Christian church. It is, however, unlikely that ‘all Israel’ refers to the whole people of God as that would
give ‘Israel’ a new meaning which is unsupported elsewhere in Romans.

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’ occurs eleven times in Romans 9-11 (9:6, 27, 31; 10:1, 19, 21; 11: 2, 7, 25) before 11:26 and refers to either ethnic Israel or a part of it, in contrast with the Gentiles. Having maintained a distinction between ethnic Israel and the Gentiles throughout Romans 9-11 and having used it in v.25 to refer to ethnic Israel in contradistinction to Gentiles it is unlikely that Paul would make such a fundamental shift in meaning in v.26a.

‘All Israel’ as the nation.

The majority view is that ‘all Israel’ refers to ethnic Israel, but not necessarily every individual. Dunn (1988, p.681) defines Israel as: ‘a people whose corporate identity and wholeness would not be lost even if in the event there were some (or indeed many) individual exceptions.’ ‘All Israel’ is viewed as the majority of Jews on earth who, after the full number of Gentiles has been saved, accept what Fitzmyer (2004, p.182) terms the ‘parousiac Christ’ in a worldwide, large-scale, mass conversion.

This viewpoint is somewhat 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. This view that ‘all Israel’ is the nation denies that the Church is the culmination of God’s saving plan.

‘All Israel’ as the remnant.

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. ‘All Israel’ will be saved in the same way as Gentiles are being saved: as they believe, throughout the course of history. 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 fits the context of Romans 9-11. In chapter 9 Paul maintains that God is faithful in spite of Israel’s rejection of the Messiah as his promise to save Abraham’s descendants was not on the basis of national identity. The true Israel consists of children of the promise, rather than ethnic Jews. In 10:12 Paul shows that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in the matter of salvation. God’s promises are not fulfilled in the nation but in the believing remnant.

Paul’s is thinking very much of the present, not on the long-range future. Romans chapter 11 is contemporary in nature. In v.5 Paul speaks of ‘the present time’, in which there is a ‘remnant’ (vv.2-4) and also those who were ‘hardened’ vv.8-10. Paul ‘exalts’ his ministry (v.13) in order to ‘save some’ in his own day (v.14). The Gentileswhom he was addressing were his contemporaries and he was hoping that the salvation of contemporary Gentiles would provoke Jewish contemporaries to jealousy and salvation. He was not labouring to provoke the Jews to jealousy in order to bring about a future mass conversion of ethnic Israel. That the Israelite branches broken off are contemporary as are the engrafted Gentiles is confirmed by the threefold ‘now’ in vv. 30-31. It is ‘now’ (in Paul’s day), that Israel is receiving mercy.

Some might object that ‘Israel’ in v.26 should have the same meaning as ‘Israel’ in v.25 which clearly refers to ethnic Israel (the remnant plus the hardened remainder). Paul however, 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) contends 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.’

The climax of Paul’s discussion of God’s faithfulness in spite of Israel’s failure to receive the gospel is the assertion in 11:26a: ‘And so all Israel will be saved.’

In vv. 26-27 Paul supports his statement about the salvation of all Israel with an OT quotation based on Isaiah 59:20-21 and on Isaiah 27:9. Although using it to prove his point about the salvation of ‘all Israel’ Paul deliberately modifies the text and quotes it as ‘the deliverer will come from Zion, rather than ‘to Zion’ thus emphasizing his Messianic interpretation of the verses and identifying Jesus as the deliverer rather than God himself. Some might contend that Paul was writing after the first coming of Christ and was waiting for the deliverer of Israel to come but it is my view that ‘will come’ and ‘will turn’ point to the future from the perspective of the OT prophet, not from Paul’s first century standpoint, and thus refer to what Christ did at his first coming rather than to something that will occur at his second. The verses contain three main assertions:

1) ‘The deliverer will come from Zion.’

2) He will ‘turn godlessness away from Jacob.’

3) This would establish God’s covenant, which promised forgiveness of sins.

Wright (1997, pp. 108-109) views the latter assertion as the climax of Romans 9-11 and, speaking of Israel, claims:

‘When Paul’s fellow Jews rejected Jesus (as Paul did himself to begin with), and when they continue to reject the message about Jesus which Paul proclaims, he sees the underlying reason: they recognize, as he has had to recognize, that it will mean abandoning the idea of a covenant membership which will be inalienably hers and hers alone. So the great argument of Romans 9-11 goes on its way, reaching at its climax the most significant statement, quoting from Jeremiah 31:33 and Isaiah 27:9 – this will be my covenant with them, when I take away their sins (Romans 11:27). … Paul holds firmly to the hope that the renewal of the covenant which has taken place in Jesus the Messiah will be effective not only for Gentiles but also for Jews who will come, as he himself has done, to faith in Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.’

According to proponents of the Dual-Covenant theory the Deliverer is not Christ but God who will deliver Israel from its partial hardening in an independent act of mercy that does not involve acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. Fitzmyer (2004, p.181) explains that:

‘The main reason given for this interpretation is the fact that Christ has not been mentioned so far in chap.11, and indeed not since 10:17. Christ is not being envisaged, then, as the deliverer. Thus the solution to the problem of Israel is sought in an act of God’s mercy manifested toward the Chosen People of old. The “covenant” (11:27) would still be the everlasting covenant between Yahweh and Israel (2 Sam. 23:5). So these words of Paul have been interpreted by K. Stendahl, M. A. Getty, P. Lapide and P. Stuhlmacher.’

Regarding bi-covenantal teaching Zeisler (1989, p. 285-286) observes:

‘It has been suggested that, as Paul never states that they will become Christians, he allows for the possibility that somehow at the End God will bring together those who have followed two different tracks to being his people: the track taken by the remnant and by believing Gentiles, the Christian track; and the track of historical Israel, relying on God’s grace in his ancient covenant with them. This suggestion…is scarcely congruous with Paul’s argument and in particular with his argument towards the end of the olive tree passage. There the broken-off branches were grafted back in precisely when they no longer persisted in their lack of belief, i.e. when they came to faith in Jesus Christ. It is too much to suppose that Paul sees God as having two strategies, one for repentant branches and one for unrepentant branches, cf. Also vv.26f., 31. If that were the case, why should repentance matter?’

The view that there is a ‘Sonderweg’ (separate way) for Israel does not fit with the general thrust of the letter as throughout it Paul insists on salvation through faith in Christ for Jew and Gentile alike (1:16; 4:25; 10:9). Das (2003, p.105) maintains that:

‘Paul simply does not treat God’s salvation of Israel separately from the salvation of Gentiles. In Romans 11:31 he writes:” by means of the mercy shown to you [Gentiles], they, the Jews, will now receive mercy” (see also 11:13-16). The Jews’ reception of mercy by means of the Gentiles’ reception of mercy demonstrates that the two-covenant thesis of separate paths to salvation is simply wrong. The “two-covenant” approach does not explain why the Gentiles must experience mercy in order for the Jews to experience mercy. Paul speaks of one olive tree representing Israel’s heritage as the same tree on which the Gentiles are grafted. He does not speak of two separate trees. Since a single tree represents their respective paths to salvation, the Jews must likewise place their faith in the Jewish Messiah as the fulfilment to which the Mosaic Law had pointed all along.’

Speaking of those Israelites that will be saved (the ‘all Israel’ of v.26) Paul views their relationship to God from two different angles in v.28:

1) As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account.

2) As far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs.

These two parallel clauses contain three word pairs: gospel/election, enemies/loved, and on your account/on account of the patriarchs. The statement ‘as far as election is concerned’ indicates that although they are considered enemies when viewed according to their rejection of the gospel, they are considered beloved when viewed in reference to God’s choice. That v.28 is not a statement of the corporate status of Israel as a nation is clear from v.29, which speaks of an ‘irrevocable call,’ and confirmed by vv. 30-31 in which Paul contrasts saved Jews with the saved Gentiles whom he is addressing.

In vv. 28-32 Paul summarizes the arguments he has made in chapters 9-11:

1) ‘Enemies’: Israel, having rejected the gospel (9:30-10:21), was rejected by God (9:6-29).

2) ‘On your account’: The rejection of the Jews led to the inclusion of the Gentiles (11:11-15)

3) ‘Election’: God has chosen to accept some and reject others which is the theme of chapter 9.

In v.30 Paul further expands on the point made in vv. 11-15 that the disobedience of the Jews has resulted in salvation for the Gentiles and says (v.31) that the Jews have ‘now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy.’ The implication is that while one part of Israel is now disobedient another part (the remnant) is now receiving mercy. Robertson (2000, p.191) agrees:

‘In the end, God’s gracious activity of calling the elect within Israel to salvation is tied to the present hour by Paul’s threefold use of an emphatic “now.” Gentiles now have been shown mercy; Jews now have been disobedient, that they may also now be shown mercy (Romans 1:30-31).’

In v.32 Paul summarizes God’s purpose for both Jew and Gentiles alike: ‘For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.’ The outlook for humanity is hopeless apart from the mercy of God. In view of what Paul has said earlier about punishment (1:18; 2:5-11; 6:21-23; 9:22, 28) ‘mercy on all’ does not mean universal salvation but refers to the fact that God’s mercy will be shown to Jew and Gentile alike. Morris (1988, p.426) contends:

‘Paul is not saying that God predetermined that all should sin, but rather that he has so ordered things that all people, Jew and Gentile alike, being disobedient, show themselves to be sinners (cf. 1:24, 26, 28) and have no other escape than through his mercy.’

11: 33-36 Doxology

From him – Through him – To him

‘Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” “Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?” For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever!’ Rom 11:32-36 (NIV)

In vv. 33-36 theology becomes doxology. Having contemplated God’s inscrutable purposes and plans for the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles the apostle worships and glorifies him for the wisdom which lies behind them. Vv. 34-35 contain a quotation from Isaiah 40:13 and another (slightly modified) from Job 41:11. Together they pose three rhetorical questions, each beginning with ‘Who has’ and each expecting the negative answer ‘No one!’

‘Who has known the mind of the Lord?’

‘Who has been his counselor?’

‘Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?’

No one can understand God, no one can tell God what to do and no one can accuse God of unfairness. Paul ends (v.36) by using the prepositions ‘from’, ‘through’ and ‘to’ in an affirmation that God is the creator, sustainer and goal of creation:

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.

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 11:1-24

Romans 9-11 Bibliography

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 9:6-29

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