Any New Testament passages stating or implying an eschatological future for physical Israel are significant because they would have been written after Israel’s rejection of their Messiah, and would indicate that God did not view Israel’s rejection as final. While Romans 11:1‑36 is not the only teaching of the New Testament on this subject, it is the most explicit statement to the effect that God still intends to fulfill His promises to Israel.
(Romans 11:1-36) I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. (2) God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? (3) “Lord, THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE.” (4) But what is the divine response to him? “I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL.” (5) In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice. (6) But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. (7) What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; (8) just as it is written, “GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR, EYES TO SEE NOT AND EARS TO HEAR NOT, DOWN TO THIS VERY DAY.” (9) And David says, “LET THEIR TABLE BECOME A SNARE AND A TRAP, AND A STUMBLING BLOCK AND A RETRIBUTION TO THEM. (10) LET THEIR EYES BE DARKENED TO SEE NOT, AND BEND THEIR BACKS FOREVER.” (11) I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. (12) Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! (13) But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, (14) if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them. (15) For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? (16) If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too. (17) But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, (18) do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. (19) You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” (20) Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith Do not be conceited, but fear; (21) for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. (22) Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. (23) And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. (24) For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? (25) For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; (26) and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, “THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB. (27) THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS.” (28) From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; (29) for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. (30) For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, (31) so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. (32) For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. (33) Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! (34) For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? (35) Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? (36) For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen. [NASB]
Having written the most extensive treatise on salvation contained within the pages of the New Testament, and having established the fact that Jew and Gentile have equal access to God (10:11-13), Paul anticipates what would be a logical question in the minds of his readers: If it is so that the gospel has now gone to the world, and there is now, in the post-Cross (New Testament) era no distinction between Jew and Gentile, how does this truth fit with the promise made to Abraham and his physical seed? In other words: Is the gospel going to the world to be interpreted as an indication that God no longer intends to fulfill the promise made to Abraham and his descendants? (Of course the perceptive reader will no doubt realize that this question would have never been anticipated except for the fact that both the Apostle and his readers were very well aware of the fact that God did make a covenant with Abraham and his physical seed, and that the general expectation was for a literal fulfillment.) The question Paul poses is a logical one in light of the covenanted promises and prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures. One would think that Paul’s answer would have been understood by now; unfortunately, some interpreters seem to be stricken with the same theological perplexity that Paul anticipated in his Roman readers. Paul’s answer to the question is an unequivocal, “No!” No—what? “No,”—God has not rejected his people Israel. Some might suggest that Paul’s answer is nothing more than a summation of what he had said previously (i.e., that since there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile—Jews still have equal access to God). However, that is not at all what Paul is saying. Why would Paul argue passionately that individual Jews could be saved? No one in the early church questioned that individual Jews could be saved. In fact, the earliest church was composed exclusively of Jews. All of the Apostles, including Paul were Jews. To suggest that Paul is merely continuing his argument of equal access to the gospel is patently absurd. He is not talking about the possibility of individual Jews coming to salvation; he is talking about the disposition of the nation before God. It is interesting to note that Paul nowhere in this chapter refers to individual Jews (other than himself), but he does refer to “Israel” four times (vv. 1,2,7,26), to “the people” twice (vv. 1,2), and to “Jacob” (“Jacob” is synonymous with “Israel,” cf. v. 26), all of which are references to the corporate body—that is, physical Israel. Now, let’s get the question Paul anticipated, and its answer, straight. The question is not, “Do Jews still have access to God by faith in Christ”—a patently absurd question. The question is: Has God rejected His people i.e., the ones whom He “foreknew” (proegnō is a reference to the covenant relationship, cf. Amos 3:2). The answer is “No” (v. 1), and it is restated in verse 2.
Having asked the anticipated question and given its answer, Paul in his characteristic style moves next to the explanation. His first argument is the same as our second argument above; that is, that history proves Israel’s disobedience and lack of faith has not invalidated the covenant (vv. 2-6). As proof, Paul appeals to the Old Testament Scriptures. He quotes 1 Kings 19:10 in which Elijah complained to God that Israel in its spiritually degenerated state had forsaken the covenant, torn down God’s alters, and killed His prophets. Nevertheless, in spite of all that, God did not abandon Israel. Why? Paul says it was because God had a “remnant” according to His grace. In other words, the fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham and his seed is not based upon works (i.e., Israel’s righteousness), but upon God’s grace and His choice in election. Paul goes on to develop this point further in verses 6-9. In fact, he establishes from the Old Testament that God himself was the source of Israel’s spiritual stupor and blindness (vv. 7-10). How are we to understand this? Clearly Paul is indicating that God allowed Israel to stumble into spiritual darkness for a purpose—that He might manifest to them that their election as a nation is solely by grace.
Paul now repeats his original question in a different way. He asks: “Did they [Israel] stumble (eptaisan from ptaiō = “to stagger” or “stumble” –a recoverable misstep; metaphorically, “a blunder”) so as to fall (pesōsin from piptō = “to fall into ruin”— irrecoverably)? It was an acknowledged fact that Israel had stumbled; the question Paul addresses here is: Did this stumbling result in Israel’s complete and irrecoverable fall (i.e., in this case, their disinheritance by God)? Paul’s answer is a definitive—“No!” (“May it never be” [mē genoito] is the Greek equivalent of the English expression, “absolutely not!”) Paul’s explanation of what happened, and why it happened, is that Israel’s transgression has resulted in the salvation of the Gentiles. (This, incidentally, illustrates a clear dispensational transition between the Old and New Testament economies.) Secondly, Paul informs us that God had a purpose in allowing Israel to stumble, and in the gospel being carried directly to the Gentiles; it was to provoke Israel to jealousy (i.e., that they too as a people might desire to be in right relation to God). In verse 12 Paul reflects on the blessedness of Israel coming to God in the future. If God brought salvation to the world out of Israel’s spiritual failure, what will He bring out of their acceptance of Him? Paul develops this thought further in verse 15, where he says that Israel’s acceptance will result in “life from the dead”—possibly a reference to the physical resurrection promised to Israel in the last days (cf. Dan. 12:1‑3, also Rev. 20:4). Interestingly, this resurrection is said to occur at the beginning of the millennium, shortly after Israel’s national conversion during the tribulation period, the literal interpretation of which is consistent only with premillennialism.
How is it that Israel could have failed so miserably and yet, as a nation, not have forfeited their right to the promises under the Abrahamic covenant? Paul’s answer is fourfold. First, because Israel’s calling is according to God’s grace. Just as individual sinners have no merit in which to boast of their own personal salvation, but are brought to God through His own divine election, so the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham and to his descendants is on the same basis—how could it be otherwise? This point, Paul has already established in verses 2-10.
Secondly, we must expand our view of Israel to include the “root” from whence they came. Paul says in verse 16, “For if the first piece of dough be holy, the lump is also; and if the root be holy, the branches are too.” He now gives us an analogy. He says that Israel stands before God, with respect to the promises, with the same standing that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had. Obviously, he is not talking about personal salvation. Covenant relationship and salvation are two entirely distinct matters. Those who are the descendants of the chosen line (descending from Abraham through Jacob [Israel]) are the physically elect line. Whether or not individuals within that elect line exercise faith unto salvation and enter into the blessings of the covenant is a matter of spiritual election. In order for the covenant to be fulfilled, there must be both a physically and spiritually elect people, but the fact that Israel as a nation has not responded to God in faith does not abrogate their physical election, or the validity of the promises. It merely abates the fulfillment until the spiritual condition is met. This is the consistent teaching of both the Old and New Testaments.
Third, the right to the promises has not been forfeited because Israel’s hardening is only partial and temporary (vv. 17‑27). Paul warns the Roman Christians not to assume an attitude of “superiority” over the branches that were broken off (i.e., Israel in its [then] present state of unbelief), after all, he says, they (the Gentile believers) are not the natural branches, they are engrafted “wild” branches from another, uncultivated tree; they may partake of the sap of the root, but they are not the natural branches and should never lose sight of the fact that the root supports them, not they the root. We could well say that those who deny the continued validity of God’s covenant with Israel undercut their own standing. Such is the nature of covenantalism; in its arrogance that the Church has now supplanted Israel, it does precisely what Paul here warns the Church not to do. Paul even anticipated such a response (v. 19), and again repeats his warning, “…you stand by faith. Do not be conceited [mē hupsēla phronei = “do not exalt yourselves in your own minds”], but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you.” This introduces an interesting concept: If God broke off Israel, He can certainly break off the church if it becomes faithless—referring, of course to the visible church, not the true body of Christ.) Indeed, God can re-engraft Israel if they do not remain in unbelief (vv. 23-24). How would any of this discussion in Romans 11 make sense if “Israel” and “the Church” now formed the same metaphysical entity as covenantalists maintain? What Paul has stated as a mere possibility in verses 17-24 (i.e., that Israel could be grafted back into the tree), he now declares to be a future certainty (vv. 25‑27). He reveals to his readers a mystery in order to keep their egos in check. The mystery, which it appears is still hidden from some, is that Israel’s hardening is only partial (apo merous = “of [or from] a part”) and temporary (until such time as the “fullness of the Gentiles comes in”) cf. v. 25. Once the fullness of the Gentiles comes in (i.e., once God’s purpose for the Church age is complete) “all Israel will be saved.” (This seems to be a summation of truths derived from various portions of the Old Testament rather than a quotation as indicated in some translations.) Paul’s assertion that Israel will undergo a national conversion in the future is consistent with many Old Testament passages (Isa. 44:1-5, 21-23; Jer. 3:15; 23:14-18; 31:1, 27-34; Ez. 11:19-20; 20:1-44; 36:25-32; 37:11-14, 21-28; 43:6-9; Hos. 6:1-3; 14:4-8; Joel 2:12-17, 38-32; Mic. 7:18-20; Zech. 13:7-9), and this truth forms a major part of the basis of premillennialism. The truth that Paul reveals here, that God has a future planned for Israel in which the nation will come to faith and which will result in the covenant being fulfilled to them (verse 27 specifically mentions the covenant), evidences that promises were made to Abraham’s physical seed, and that those promises have never been revoked or forfeited. Furthermore, the conception of the future given in this passage is precisely that of historic premillennialism—not covenantalism.
The fourth reason that the right to the promises has not been forfeited is because God’s gifts to and calling of Israel are irrevocable (vv. 28-29). Although at the time this letter was written, Israel was (and remains to this day) in rejection of the gospel (v. 28), they are nonetheless, according to God’s choice (eklogē = “election”), beloved for the sake of the fathers to whom the promises were made. Let’s stop and think about this for a moment. It is sometimes argued that this statement is simply referring to elect Jews within the Church, but Paul cannot be referring to elect Jews within the Church since he states that from the standpoint of the gospel “they are enemies.” Clearly, he was referring to a people [Israel] who at the time he wrote were not saved—who, in fact, had rejected the gospel; and he states that despite their current spiritual condition, they are still (according to God’s election) “beloved,” because of their fathers. Finally, Paul completes his thought in verse 29 with these words, “for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” The preposition (gar = “for”) links this clause as being a continuation of the previous thought. Where does this line of reasoning lead us? Simply to this: The gifts and the calling of God, once given, will not be rescinded. This doesn’t mean that God may not discontinue temporary endowments as we see happen in the case of Saul in the Old Testament. Such endowments were not “gifts” and never intended as permanent works. What Paul’s statement means is that God will never take back a “gift;” and there can be no doubt that God’s promise to Abraham constituted an eternal gift, as Paul himself clearly implies here, and which is expressly stated by God in the giving of the promise (Gen. 13:15; 17:7,9,19). Paul concludes his line of argumentation by comparing the present disobedience of Israel to the former disobedience of the Gentiles, neither of which can be seen as a final disposition. God previously shut up the Gentiles in their disobedience in order to show them mercy (by bringing them to the end of themselves) and he is now doing the same with Israel (vv. 30-32). If this seems somewhat incredible, it seemed incredible to Paul too, for in vv. 33-36 he breaks out into a doxology of the unsearchable and inscrutable ways of God!
Adapted from: Who is the Seed of Abraham,
Copyright 2005, by Sam A. Smith
All rights reserved.
Published at: http://prophecy.biblicalreader.com