Romans 11:11–24

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. 12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!

13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If 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.

17If 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, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22Consider 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. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After 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!

Original Meaning

God’s Purpose in Israel’s Rejection (11:11–15)

ROMANS 11:11–32 BEGINS exactly the same way as verses 1–10: “Therefore I say” (lit. trans.), followed by a rhetorical question expecting a negative answer and concluding with Paul’s favorite emphatic rejection, me genoito (“By no means!” in 11:1; “Not at all!” in 11:11). In verse 1, Paul asked, in effect, whether Israel’s rejection was total. Now he asks whether their rejection is final: “Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery?” The nearest antecedent for “they” is “the others [who] were hardened” (vv. 7b–10).1 But Paul makes a new start in verse 11, and in verse 12 “their” refers to Israel as whole. Probably, then, Paul’s “they” here individualizes the reference to Israel in verse 7a.2 While Israel at present has not obtained the righteousness they were seeking, Israelites have not for that reason fallen into irretrievable spiritual ruin.

Paul’s purpose in verses 11–32 is to explain why that is not so. Their “transgression” (v. 11) of rejecting God’s grace in Christ has led to salvation for the Gentiles. Paul’s own ministry as portrayed in the book of Acts reveals how this happened historically. Again and again he preached the gospel in a synagogue, meeting with only moderate response and eventually being dismissed. He and his companions then turned to the Gentiles, who generally welcomed their message (see 13:44–47; 14:1–3; 18:4–7; 19:8–10; 28:23–29).

But this pattern was more than a historical accident. As Paul makes clear in Acts by citing Scripture in support and now demonstrates in Romans by revealing God’s purpose behind what has happened, Jewish rejection and Gentile acceptance was God’s plan for the salvation of all the world. In specific answer to his question in verse 11, Paul makes clear that Gentile salvation is not the end of the matter. Borrowing the language of Deuteronomy 32:21 (quoted in Rom. 10:19), Paul affirms that the salvation of Gentiles has the purpose of making Israel “envious” (or “jealous”).

In verse 12, Paul elaborates on the sequence introduced in verse 11. In the first part of the verse, he again refers to widespread Jewish refusal to believe in Christ as “their transgression,” but in the second part he calls it “their loss.” The Greek word for “loss” (hettema) may have a quantitative meaning (“dimunition” in numbers), but probably has a qualitative nuance: “defeat” or “loss.”3 In the same way, “riches for the world”/“riches for the Gentiles” replaces the “salvation” that has come to the Gentiles. But the key elaboration is in the last step. Paul spoke vaguely of Israel being made “envious” (v. 11); now he speaks of “their fullness.”

The Greek word for “fullness” is pleroma, and, like hettema, may have either a quantitative or qualitative meaning. With the former, pleroma would refer to a great number of Jews (TEV “the complete number of Jews”)4; with the latter, to Israel’s restoration to kingdom blessing.5 The latter is the more likely meaning, but the context also suggests that the blessing Israel is to experience comes by way of an increase in the number of Jews who are saved (v. 25).

In verses 13–14, Paul interrupts his sketch of God’s plan for salvation history in order to hint at the practical purpose for what he is saying. He addresses directly the Gentile Christians in the church at Rome to make them realize that God has not abandoned Israel (vv. 17–22, 25), and thus they as Gentiles have no business boasting over their fellow Jewish Christians. What he says about his own ministry in verses 13b–14 serves this same purpose. While God’s original call to him included ministry to both Jews and Gentiles, Paul as “the apostle to the Gentiles” became God’s “point man” in opening up the Gentile world to the gospel. One can therefore imagine Gentile Christians citing Paul’s own focus on Gentiles as further evidence that God has turned his back on Israel. Thus, Paul makes clear that his ministry to Gentiles does not mean that he is unconcerned about his own people. His ultimate purpose in bringing the gospel to Gentiles is to arouse Israel to envy and so “save some of them.”

Verse 15 returns to the main line of argument, as Paul reiterates one more time the salvation-historical sequence that dominates this passage. Israel’s “rejection” is an ambiguous construction: It could refer to Israel’s rejection or “throwing away” (apobole) of God,6 or to God’s rejection of Israel.7 The latter is probably intended, for it makes a better contrast with God’s “acceptance” of Israel later in the verse and fits Paul’s concern to track Israel’s present plight to God’s own purpose. In a structure similar to verse 12, Paul argues from the lesser to the greater. If God’s rejection of Israel has brought “the reconciliation of the world” (see 5:10–11), then “what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?” Far greater blessing than the offer of a new relationship with God for the Gentiles will come when God “accepts” Israel once again.

But what will this blessing be? “Life from the dead” has two possible meanings. It may be a metaphor for renewed spiritual life.8 When the father in the parable of the prodigal son welcomes home his repentant son, he exclaims, “This son of mine was dead and is alive again” (Luke 15:24). Paul refers to believers as people who have been brought “from death to life.” But “life from the dead” probably has a more literal reference. The phrase “from the dead” (ek nekron) refers to the resurrection of the body in forty-six of its forty-seven occurrences in the New Testament (the only exception is Rom. 6:13). Underlying Paul’s sketch of salvation history here is an apocalyptic worldview that focuses on the resurrection of the dead as the last and climactic stage in God’s plan for history.

Thus, Paul suggests that the return of Israel to favor with God will occur at the climax of history, when the dead are raised.9 This likely reference of “life from the dead” constitutes one important reason to think that Paul is describing a linear sequence of acts in salvation history that climax with the return of Christ in glory.

Bridging Contexts

PAUL’S REVERSAL OF an Old Testament eschatological pattern. Paul is depicting in this section the sequence of events that will culminate in the last day, when the dead are raised (v. 15). His focus is eschatological. He wants to help us understand that the current state of affairs in salvation history will change one day. That state of affairs is the same for us as it was for Paul, for we stand with him in the same phase of salvation history.

To be sure, that phase has now lasted for almost two thousand years. But the amount of time between events is not the concern of Scripture. What is critical is the sequence of events. With the first coming of Christ and pouring out of the Spirit accomplished, the next event on the eschatological timetable is the return of Christ in glory and all the events that will accompany that return. That was as true for Paul as it is for us. So we, like him, still await that day when Israel’s unbelief and rejection will be replaced by faith and acceptance. The “natural branches,” Paul confidently expects, will be grafted in once again.

Paul does not, of course, describe this eschatological climax in a vacuum. The Old Testament prophets wrote much about what God would do for both Gentiles and Jews when Messiah came. Jewish writers built on and elaborated these predictions. One prediction that may have particularly influenced Paul’s scheme in verses 11–24 is the so-called “eschatological pilgrimage tradition.” According to this tradition, Israel’s restoration to glory in the end times would stimulate Gentiles to offer themselves and their gifts in the service of Yahweh. The tradition is rooted firmly in the Old Testament (especially Isaiah) but is expressed most clearly in the intertestamental Jewish book Psalms of Solomon (esp. 17:26–46).

He will gather a holy people…. He will have Gentile nations serving him under his yoke, and he will glorify the Lord in (a place) prominent (above) the whole earth. And he will purge Jerusalem (and make it) holy as it was even from the beginning, (for) nations to come from the ends of the earth to see his glory, to bring as gifts her children who had been driven out, and to see the glory of the Lord with which God has glorified her. (Pss. Sol. 17:26, 30–31)12

Paul, in light of his new understanding of events from the gospel, reverses the order of events and spiritualizes the process: Instead of Gentiles coming to worship Yahweh in Jerusalem as a result of Israel’s restoration, Israel is saved in response to the extension of salvation to the Gentiles. To be sure, some scholars question whether the tradition has had much impact on Paul, since he does not quote from the key Old Testament pilgrimage texts.13 But, while not a key text in this tradition, Isaiah 59:20–21, which Paul applies to Israel’s final salvation in 11:26b–27, does contribute to it. So we have, I think, sufficient evidence that the tradition plays some role in Paul’s conception of the end events.

What role does Paul himself play in this eschatological climax? Some scholars think he saw himself as the key instrument in bringing about this climax. His untiring efforts to convert Gentiles and to bring their “riches” to Jerusalem through the collection he was taking on his third missionary journey were to be the events that triggered the final salvation of Israel and the end of history.14 Suffice it to say here that Paul in this passage appears to give himself a much more modest role in these events. His goal is to “arouse my own people to envy and save some of them” (v. 14, italics added). We should not minimize Paul’s role in salvation history, but this verse indicates that he does not think of himself as the agent through whom God would accomplish the “eschatological pilgrimage.”15

The olive tree. Had we been living in the first century, we would have not been surprised for Paul to choose an olive tree as an illustration. The olive tree was the “most widely cultivated fruit tree in the Mediterranean area.”16 But just as significant was the fact that the Old Testament and Jewish writings sometimes compare Israel to an olive tree (e.g., Jer. 11:16; Hos. 14:5–6) and, even more often, to a planting of some kind. The most famous of these is the comparison of Israel to a vineyard in Isaiah 5, which Jesus alludes to in his parable (Matt. 21:33–44 and par.). There is even some evidence that a Jewish synagogue in Rome had the name “of the olive.”17

Thus, Paul’s reference to an olive tree is natural. But what he says about the behavior of the olive tree is anything but natural, and scholars have devoted some energy to figuring out just what he may be trying to communicate by his description of an unusual horticultural procedure. For the practice of grafting branches from a wild, or uncultivated, olive tree into a cultivated one is just the opposite of what farmers were in the habit of doing.

Some interpreters think that Paul here betrays his urban roots—he simply was unacquainted with agriculture.18 Others have come to Paul’s defense, citing obscure ancient sources to prove that farmers did occasionally graft a wild olive shoot into a cultivated tree.19 Still others argue that the whole debate is pointless, since it assumes, wrongly, that the analogy Paul uses must perfectly fit the circumstances of life from which it is drawn.20 But we tentatively suggest that Paul may be deliberately describing a process that is “contrary to nature” (v. 24) in order to hint at the grace of God in bringing the Gentiles to salvation.21 As little as a wild olive shoot would have any right to be grafted into a cultivated tree, so little right do Gentiles have to be given a place in the people of God. This is a procedure “against nature,” one that overturns expectations. But such is precisely the effect of God’s grace!

Contemporary Significance

THE OLIVE TREE imagery that Paul uses in this section teaches two theological truths that have considerable practical significance. We learn something about the nature of the people of God and about the doctrine of eternal security.

The olive tree imagery and the elect people of God. We learn something important about the nature of God’s people. We must be cautious about finding more theology in an analogy than is justified—a practice all too common among interpreters of the Bible. But this much is clear: There is only one olive tree.

What does that olive tree represent? Many claim that it represents Israel—and, as we have seen, the Old Testament used the olive tree to stand for Israel on occasion. But Paul’s “grafting in” and “cutting off” language in this paragraph seems to be referring to salvation. This suggests that we must modify the identification a bit: The olive tree stands for the “true Israel,” the “Israel within an Israel” described in 9:6. In a move anticipated in 9:24–26, where Paul claims that Gentiles as well as Jews have been “called” by God and so become his people, he shows that Gentiles who are saved also belong to this “true Israel.”

Ultimately, therefore, the olive tree imagery shows that there is one people of God. The roots of the tree are planted in Old Testament soil. They are the patriarchs, through whom God acted to call out a people for his own name. The Old Testament people of God was drawn almost entirely from the nation of Israel—although with notable exceptions (e.g., Rahab, Ruth, Uriah). But now, at the turn of the ages, God extends his grace and invites Gentiles to join his people on an equal footing with Jews. At the same time, this new era in salvation history also brings into clearer relief the object of faith for this people: not just God, but God “the three in one.” Faith in Christ, the bringer of salvation, is now necessary. Yet Paul’s imagery makes clear that the turn of the ages did not bring into existence a new people of God. Rather, Gentiles join the already existing people of God, “true Israel.”

From this perspective, then, we see how wrong is the common idea that the church has “replaced” Israel. As a name for the New Testament community of faith, the church is “Israel.” But that people include in its number both Gentiles and Jews. Clearly, therefore, the church cannot replace believing Israel. But neither can it replace unbelieving Israel, for the two belong in different categories. Jewish unbelievers belong by birth to national Israel, and nothing can change that. But the church is a spiritual entity, made up of people from all nations, including Israel.

Moreover, Romans 11 teaches that God still regards with favor national Israel (vv. 2, 28). So we cannot even argue that national Israel has been replaced by the church as the sole place where God is now working out his plan for history. To be sure, the church, not national Israel, is the locus of God’s saving work in history, and to that limited extent, we can speak of the church “replacing” Israel. But as an overall description of the relationship between the church and Israel, a “replacement” theme is not accurate.

How should we react to this theology of the church and Israel? We who are Gentile Christians need to avoid an ethnocentric view of the church that effectively puts Jewish believers on the sidelines. Like the Gentile Christians in Rome, many Christians in our day seem to operate under the assumption that the “church” is equivalent to the Gentiles. It is this equation that often lurks behind the “replacement” model we have just rejected. So many of us have grown up in churches that are overwhelmingly Gentile and think of “Jewish” entirely as a religious category that we have a hard time coming to grips with the Jewish roots and flavor of God’s people.

Our culture fosters the same tendency. The Israeli Supreme Court recently ruled that one cannot be both a citizen of Israel and a Christian. For them, being “Jewish” is incompatible with being a Christian. But we must resist any such dichotomy as foreign to the New Testament. To become a Christian is not to cease to be Jewish; it is, as many messianic Jews emphasize, to become a “completed” Jew. Those of us who are Gentile Christians need to avoid the arrogance that Paul warns about in this paragraph.

While Paul does not address the matter here, Jewish Christians also need to come to grips with the oneness of God’s people. While I recognize the reasons why many Jewish Christians want to form their own worship assemblies, I cannot help but think that it has an unfortunate effect on the unity and richness of the Christian community. To be sure, Paul himself recognized that Jews who became Christians had the right to continue to observe Torah. The Roman Christian community itself may have been divided into Jewish and Gentile house churches. But Paul’s greater concern is that Jewish and Gentile Christians “accept one another” (15:7).

This acceptance means not just to recognize one another’s legitimate claim to be Christian, but to welcome one another in a worship that praises God. The New Testament holds out to us a vision of a community in which matters such as gender, social status, and national origin do not count (Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11). By separating into churches on the basis of national origin, we seem to be running counter to this vision. Thus, just as Gentile Christians need to repent of their own ethnocentrism, so, perhaps, do Jewish Christians.

Ultimately, of course, Paul’s warning to Gentile Christians about their boasting over Jews has implications for anti-Semitism. The idea that God has now “replaced” Israel with the church, coupled with the belief that the Jews were responsible for the death of Christ, has contributed enormously to the anti-Semitism that has had so long and terrible a history. We have already seen that the New Testament does not really countenance the “replacement” idea. But we should also note, in passing, that it offers as little support for the idea that the Jewish people were responsible for the death of Christ.

For one thing, as modern English translations are beginning to recognize, there are many places in the Gospels and Acts where references to “the Jews” clearly refer only to Jewish leaders, or even certain Jewish leaders. More important, we need also to remember that the Jews’ involvement in Jesus’ death was representative of all humanity. The Jewish leaders were the people historically used by God to bring his Son to the cross. But it was the sin of the entire human race that ultimately required that sacrifice. We are all guilty of the blood of Christ’s death, and all of us equally are offered the opportunity to have our sins cleansed by it.

Whatever its causes, anti-Semitism continues to be a problem in the church. We often treat it lightly, making Jewish jokes and calling people who are tight with their money “Jews.” When pressed, we will say that we don’t mean anything by it. But we do. Whether we admit it or not, such ways of speaking foster prejudice in ourselves and pass it on to others. It has no place in a community with Jewish roots and in which all nations are to be welcomed and honored.

The olive tree imagery and eternal security. The olive tree metaphor also touches on the doctrine of eternal security—the doctrine that all genuine Christians will infallibly be saved on the final day of judgment. We have defended this view earlier in this book, arguing that verses such as 5:9–10, 8:29–30, and 8:31–39 teach it. But what are we to make of the warnings of 11:19–22? Paul writes to people who have been “grafted in” to the olive tree, the true people of God. Yet he warns them that they will be “cut off,” taken out of his people, if they do not “continue in his kindness.” Thus, in one and the same letter we have apparently absolute promises of salvation for those who have been justified and reconciled (5:9–10), and a warning to people who have been justified and reconciled that their salvation is not certain.

The tension between these two kinds of text is found throughout the New Testament. Indeed, it is part of the larger interplay of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility that is so difficult to untangle in Scripture. Earlier in chapter 11, for instance, Paul plainly attributed the hardening and rejection of Israel to God (11:7–8). Yet in verse 20, he claims that the Jews were rejected because of their own refusal to believe (cf. also chs. 9–10 for this same tension).

Faced with these two perspectives, we have essentially three options. (1) We can give full credit to both perspectives without resolving the tension. (2) We can acknowledge that God has limited his sovereignty to allow for genuine human decisions (essentially, the Arminian view). (3) We can maintain God’s absolute sovereignty while limiting the freedom of human actions (essentially the Calvinist view).

How do these options work out in the matter of ultimate salvation? If we were to take the first option, we would regard both the promises and the warnings as serving different rhetorical functions. When Paul wants to encourage believers, he assures them that their salvation is certain; when he wants to prod them into action, he warns them they might lose their salvation.22 This view, however, comes perilously close to turning Paul into a contradictory, ad hoc, writer. If we are to preserve the tension while giving Paul credit as a consistent and systematic thinker, we can only resort, I think, to the idea of mystery. Paul teaches both that salvation for the believer is assured and that a believer can lose his or her salvation, and we must leave the reconciliation of the two in the hands of God.

Yet this approach also has its problems, for it comes close to believing an out-and-out contradiction. We surely must acknowledge that God’s thoughts are far beyond ours and that many mysteries will remain in our understanding of the faith. But there is a difference between believing two things we cannot reconcile and believing two things that are contradictory.

Granted the evidence we have, then, I think it is finally impossible to avoid the decision between the traditional Calvinist and Arminian viewpoints on the security of the believer. The Arminian naturally appeals to the kind of warning text we are looking at here, and there are many like this in the New Testament (in Romans, see also 14:15). The warnings in these texts appear to assume that a truly regenerate believer can turn against God and so be lost forever. The Calvinist, by contrast, cites God’s promises to preserve the believer to the end and the eschatological nature of justification. That is, passages such as 5:9–10 appear to teach that God’s justifying verdict is his final and therefore unchangeable verdict.

As I have mentioned before in this commentary, I teach in an institution and attend a church in which both these views are found. I am happy about that situation. Not only does it rightly acknowledge the difficulty of the biblical teaching on the issue; it also means that I will not have to change jobs or churches if I change my view on the subject. For I must say that I think each side can muster some pretty solid arguments.

Nevertheless, at this point at least, I am still in the Calvinist camp. What do I do, then, with the warning in 11:19–22? Some Calvinists argue that Paul is speaking phenomenologically here. Gentile believers who fall away forever were never really grafted into the olive tree to begin with but only appeared to be.23 Others argue that Paul’s warning is directed not to individuals but to Gentiles as a corporate entity.24 Still other Calvinist interpreters suggest that the cutting off of Gentile Christians who turn from God need not be final; like the Jews, they can be grafted back in again and ultimately saved.25

I am not entirely happy with any of these alternatives, though the first has, I think, the most promise. Another way of looking at the warning is to assume that Paul means exactly what he says—that Christians who stop believing will be lost forever—but to question whether Paul thinks that a genuine Christian will, in fact, ever stop believing.26 Such an approach is often criticized because it makes the whole matter “hypothetical”: How can there be a genuine warning if the outcome can never, in fact, happen? I acknowledge this difficulty but suggest that it is part and parcel of the need to maintain both God’s sovereignty and genuine human responsibility in the process of salvation. God infallibly saves, but we are fully responsible to respond to his grace in such a way that that infallible salvation does finally transpire.

Whatever we finally make of the theology of this warning, we must come to grips with the seriousness of Paul’s warning here. Whether Calvinist or Arminian, we all recognize that our response to God’s grace is necessary if we are to be saved. The arrogance and complacency of the Gentile Christians in Rome is all too easy an attitude to fall into—especially for those of us who are Calvinists!

Original Meaning

God’s Purpose and Gentile Arrogance (11:16–24)

IN THIS PARAGRAPH, dominated by the olive tree metaphor, Paul makes more explicit his concern to stifle Gentile arrogance. The salvation-historical sequence we have seen already in verses 11, 12, and 15 is the backbone of the passage.

Verse 16 is transitional. It supports the hope Paul has expressed in verse 15 by arguing that the blessings Israel has already received will lead to even greater blessing in the future. Paul uses two metaphors to make his point, each of which uses the logic of “if the part, then the whole” to anchor Paul’s confidence about a great future for Israel. The first one is drawn from Numbers 15:17–21. The “whole batch” refers to Israel as a whole, but to what does “the part of the dough offered as firstfruits” refer? Since Paul uses the word “firstfruits” (aparche) for the first converts in a region (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:15; 2 Thess. 2:13), he may have in mind the remnant of Jewish Christians of his own day (cf. Rom. 11:7).10 The salvation of the remnant shows that God still considers Israel “holy,” with all the hope that this holiness implies.

In the second image, the “root” almost certainly represents the patriarchs. Jewish authors referred to the patriarchs as the “root” (e.g., 1 Enoch 93:5, 8; Philo, Heir 279), and Paul himself in this context bases Israel’s future hope on God’s promise to the patriarchs (11:28; cf. 9:5). This being the case, it is more likely that “firstfruits” also refers to the patriarchs.11 God’s promise to the patriarchs has not been revoked; their descendants remain “holy.” By this Paul does not mean that all their descendants will be saved. Rather, “holy” (hagios), as in the Old Testament and 1 Corinthians 7:14, means that the people continue to be “set apart” by God for special attention.

This continuing special relationship between God and Israel gives reason to hope for a future spiritual renewal of the people—a hope Paul spells out in verses 23–24. First, however, he exploits the metaphor of root and branches he has just introduced to chastise Gentile Christians.

Paul opens with a conditional sentence (vv. 17–18a) that gets to the heart of his concern. The “if” clause rehearses the sequence of Jewish rejection and Gentile salvation that we have seen so often in this passage. The “natural branches” are, of course, Jews, while the “wild olive shoot” refers to Gentiles. Gentiles were not originally included in the people of God formed via God’s promise to the patriarchs—they do not “naturally” belong to the olive tree. But now that they have been included, they have, Paul affirms in the “then” clause (v. 18a), no reason to boast over Jews. “Those branches” (v. 18) refers to the branches cut off in verse 17, that is, to those Jews in Paul’s day who have not responded to the gospel.

The context reveals that the Gentiles were guilty of an arrogance toward Jews in general that extended to both Old Testament Israel and to Jewish Christians as well. Paul shows why such arrogance is wrong in verses 18b–23. He makes two basic points. (1) Gentile Christians receive the spiritual benefits they enjoy only through the Jews. They have been grafted into the olive tree, the people of God. But the roots of that tree are the Jewish patriarchs. The Gentiles have not “replaced” the Jews in God’s plan. Indeed, only through the Jews do Gentiles have any hope for experiencing the blessings of belonging to God’s people.

(2) Gentile Christians have not earned the right to be grafted into the olive tree. Their arrogance takes the form not only of bragging over Jews but also of boasting in their own accomplishment. Their attitude, so it seems, is that they felt so important and deserving that God removed Jews in order to include them (v. 19). Paul admits that there is some truth in what they say (“granted” in v. 20). As he has himself shown, the rejection of Jews has led to salvation for Gentiles (vv. 11–15). But he also insists that was not because of any merit in the Gentiles themselves that God did what he did. It was, rather, entirely a matter of “faith.”

Jews forfeited their place because they failed to believe, while Gentile Christians have been included because they believed the message (v. 20b). Faith, as Paul has shown earlier in Romans, gives a person no basis for pride, for it is a matter simply of accepting the gracious gift God offers (3:27; 4:3–5). The Gentile Christians, therefore, need to replace their arrogance with fear (11:20b). For while God shows “kindness” to those who stand in faith, he shows “sternness” to those who fall (v. 22a).

Continuing in God’s kindness, then, is not something one can simply take for granted. It is necessary to renew one’s faith every day. Failure to do so means that one will be “cut off”: removed from God’s people and the salvation found only through that relationship (v. 22b). For if God did not scruple to cut off the “natural branches” when they failed to believe the good news, he certainly will not hesitate to cut off the wild olive shoots he has grafted into the tree.

All in all, then, verses 19–22 constitute one of the most serious warnings about continuing in the faith that we have anywhere in the New Testament. We will explore the theological and practical significance of the verses below. But for now we need to stress how they function to counter the egotism that the Gentile Christians in Rome are displaying, not only toward Jews but also to God himself.

After the warning to Gentile Christians, Paul concludes the olive tree imagery with a word of hope for the Jews. Just as Gentile Christians run the risk of being “cut off” if they should stop believing, so Jews can be grafted back in if they turn from unbelief to faith (v. 23). For it is surely easier to graft natural branches back in than to do what God has already done, that is, graft in, “contrary to nature,” wild olive shoots (v. 24). Paul stops short here of predicting that God will graft unbelieving Israel back into the people of God again—but only just short. They prepare the way for the explicit prediction of verse 26.

Bridging Contexts

Contemporary Significance