These three chapters, Rom. 9, 10, 11 concern God's dealings with Israel. In chapter 9 he shows that Israel's national rejection was not a violation of God's promises to the nation--that the mere fact of their fleshly descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not by itself alone entitle them to the covenant promises--that God had always discriminated among them, and selected whom He would to inherit His blessings; also that God was perfectly within His rights in doing so; and that their own prophets had themselves foretold that only a remnant out of the multitude of Israel would be saved.

      In chapter 10, the apostle proceeded to show that it was not because of any arbitrary decree, but because of her own determined refusal of God's way of salvation that Israel was set aside. (Rom. 9:30-10:21.)

      Our present chapter takes up the question whether that is the final word on the matter. Did God cast off Israel? No one of course would ever have questioned for a moment that individuals of Israel would be received if they turned to Christ, or whether such would be as acceptable and welcome as others who turned to the Lord. That would never have been doubted. It was understood that the gospel was for all, for "whosoever will," yea, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (1:16.) So when he raises the question "Hath God cast off His people?" the apostle refers to the nation as such, not to individuals who from among them would turn to Christ. The question is whether God had for ever given up His special and distinctive relation to that nation, Israel, whom from the first He had brought into existence, which He had created, formed, and made, and chose, that they should fulfil a particular purpose of world-wide blessing. Has He abandoned this purpose? Is that nation, as a nation, cast off for ever? Has the nation of Israel lost for ever its special relation to God? Are they for ever and in every way reduced to a common level with other nations? (For that is all the "casting away" could mean.) The apostle's answer is an emphatic denial. "God forbid _ _ _ God hath not cast off His people whom He foreknew." It will help us here to glance ahead to a few statements he makes in the course of the chapter.

      In v. 11 he raises again the same question with which the chapter began. Grant that they have stumbled (9:32)--"have they stumbled that they might fall?" Again the apostle's answer is "God forbid." The nation did not fall to utter ruin; but their lapse (not the same word in the Greek as that translated "fall" in v. 11) became the occasion in God's providential plan, for sending salvation to the Gentiles. And even that latter He does in order that thereby He may provoke Israel to jealousy. Whatever the reason may be, the great, world-wide blessing depends upon the conversion of this extraordinary people. "For if their fall [their lapse] is the riches of the world, and their loss the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness? _ _ _ For if the casting away of them is the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be but life from the [48] dead?" (vs. 11, 12, 15.) And again: "As touching the gospel they are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election they are beloved for the fathers' sake. For the gifts and the calling of God are not repented of." (vs. 28, 29.)

      In all these verses the apostle is obviously speaking of the people of Israel, the great, temporarily rejected nation, descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The reference is not to the small contingent who out of Israel accepted Christ; still less to the believing Gentiles, but to the nation of Israel--the nation which had stumbled at the stumbling-stone and had fallen, and whose fall had resulted in the spread of the gospel to all the Gentile world; who now, for our sakes, are enemies, but are still beloved for their fathers' sake, and whose national gifts and calling have never been cancelled. Having seen this clearly, let us return to the beginning of our chapter to take it up in order.

      Paul's remark in verse 1, "For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin" is somewhat puzzling. Many commentators take it that Paul puts himself forward as an example and a proof that God had not cast off His people. If that were the case it would seem meaningless. It would prove only that an individual Jew could turn to Christ and be saved--a thing which no one disputed, and which would leave the great question, "Hath God cast off His people?" unanswered so far as the nation of Israel (which is the real subject of the question) is concerned. For this cause some of the weightiest and most scholarly commentaries reject this view, as, e. g., The Bible Commentary (formerly the "Speaker's"); Meyer's; the Expositor's Greek Testament; Alford's; Stifler's; Sanday's. These (excepting Alford) take it that Paul means that being himself a Jew he could not countenance or endorse such a thought. To which Godet, almost indignantly, replies that truth is above national feeling and prejudices. Which is all so; but in this case the national feeling and "prejudice" is not opposed to the truth, but on the truth's side; as Paul presently proceeds to show. No, God has not cast off His people whom He foreknew. The reference in this chapter is throughout to the election of the nation as, a nation, and therefore not in a limited sense to those individuals of His people whom He foreknew, nor again could they possibly refer to the spiritual Israel, as that would oblige a meaning to be given to laos (the people) different from that in v. 1." (Sanday; and so also Godet, Alford, Meyer, Expositor's Greek Testament, Bible Comm.) Then follows the argument of the remnant. Always and always by God's own guarantee and providential watchcare, there is a goodly remnant in Israel, which fact is in turn the guarantee of the nation's continuance. (For unless the Lord had left them such a remnant the whole nation must have perished. Isa. 1:9; Rom. 9:29.) There was such a remnant in Elijah's time, when all seemed hopeless, and the prophet thought he alone was left. There was such a remnant in Paul's time also--not a contingent composed of zealous law-keepers, but a remnant "according to the election of grace," therefore not on the ground of works or merit, but of faith in Christ. But the nation as a whole, [49] all but this elect remnant, were hardened; even as had before been prophesied and written (vs. 7-10).

      From verses 11-15 he shows that this failure of the nation was not final and complete, but served an important purpose in God's plan for the present, namely the "reconciling of the world," which means the offering of free salvation to all the nations (comp. 2 Cor. 5:18-20). This, in order to provoke the faithless nation of Israel to jealousy. And if even their failure was the occasion of such blessing to the Gentile world, what will it mean when the nation turns and is received into God's favor! It will be as life from the dead to all the earth!

      The great figure of the Olive Tree comes in here. (Verses 16-24.)

      In the offering of the "firstfruits" (v. 16; Numb. 15:18-21) "the first of their dough" sanctified all the remaining mass of it, and thus the acceptance of Israel's covenant-fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, implied that their seed, the nation of Israel, is "holy" (i. e. set apart, separated unto Jehovah, Deut. 7:6-8). Now, changing the figure, not to bring out the same truth again, but a new and additional one, he begins to speak of the olive tree, whose branches derive their "holiness" from the holiness of the root. Some of its natural branches (Jews) are broken off, and "contrary to nature," branches from wild olive-trees (Gentiles) are grafted in. What is meant by this olive-tree? Not here the Jewish nation; nor even the "true Israel," or "spiritual Israel," of which the broken-off branches were never a part. For the Gentiles who by faith in Jesus Christ were grafted into the good olive tree, were not incorporated into the nation of Israel, for God made of the two (believing Israelites and believing Gentiles) one new man, neither Jew nor Gentile. Nor could it do, for obvious reasons, to say that this olive-tree is the church. For neither were the Jewish believers originally in the church, nor were the unbelieving Jews broken off from the church, for they never belonged to it. What then is the olive-tree? Simply the covenant of promise. That had belonged particularly to Israel. The Gentiles had been "alienated from the commonwealth of Israel," and "strangers from the covenants of the promise." (Eph. 2:12.) The olive-tree on whose "root" (the covenant fathers) Israel had stood, was never the Gentiles', but Israel's "own olive tree." (v. 24.)

      The rest of the chapter gives us a birds-eye view of the situation and God's gracious plans regarding both Jew and Gentile. It is "a mystery" he says (i. e. a previously unrevealed secret) of which he would not have Gentile Christians ignorant lest they should become wise in their own conceit, (alas, have they not greatly fallen into both the ignorance and the self-conceit?)--namely, that a hardening has befallen the nation of Israel; yet not a total hardening: it is limited both as to extent and time; it is a hardening "in part"; and will continue only "until" a certain time-limit, namely "until the fullness of the Gentiles shall have come in." And so--in this manner, i. e. through the coming in of the "fullness of the Gentiles" and the consequent lifting of the period of hardening--"all Israel shall be [50] saved"--that is Israel, the nation of whom all along he has been speaking, who had been hardened. The apostle is not speaking of those individuals composing the nation who died in their sins and unbelief in times past, but of the nation who shall in all their numbers at last turn to the Lord. That this will not be apart from their individual faith and obedience is evident from verses 23 and 26 (last clause). What this salvation of Israel will mean to the world at large is indicated in vs. 12, 15. What meant by the fullness of the Gentiles coming in? Not the conversion of all Gentiles; yet the coming in of some full number contemplated. Consider Luke 14:22, 23, as a possible explanation; also the similar (but different) expression in Luke 21:24.

      We cannot enter into particular discussion of the rest of the apostle's argument. Verse 28 has already been referred to; v. 29 declares that God has never given up His original purpose concerning Israel, and never will; verses 30 to 32 show that God has used the present disobedience of Israel to send mercy to the formerly disobedient Gentiles; and is using the mercy bestowed on the Gentiles now to extend mercy to Israel. He has allowed both Jew and Gentile to fall into disobedience, that mercy may be granted to both.

      The vision of God's great plan fills him with an ecstasy of adoring wonder; and the discussion of Israel's state which began with so deep a sorrow of heart (9:12) ends here with a shout of praise.

      What is the chief theme of Rom. 11? Has God forever cast off the nation of Israel? When they fell, was their fall complete and forever? What benefit came to the Gentiles through their disobedience? What argument does the apostle make in Rom. 11:12, 15? What is the meaning of the olive-tree? Is Israel's present hardening complete and unlimited? (v. 25.) What limit does he set to it? Memorize vs. 33-36. [51]

[LOR2 48-51]