article32

§26 Salvation to the Ends of the Earth (Rom. 11:11–24)

A skeletal outline of the history of salvation can be found in the call to Abraham in Genesis 12:1–3. It ends with the promise that “all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” The fulfillment of that promise lay conspicuously fallow throughout the OT. Only in Jonah and Second Isaiah is the blessing to the Gentiles again taken up. In Isaiah 49:1–6 the servant is told, “it is too small a thing for you to … restore the tribes of Jacob.… I will make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.” The early church saw that design supremely fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. Salvation had come from the Jews (John 4:22), but it was not limited to them. “First for the Jew, then for the Gentile,” said Paul (1:16). In Paul’s day the final and oft-forgotten promise to Abraham that “all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” had reached fruition in the enormously successful Gentile mission. But ironically, the earlier and seemingly secure parts of the promise—land, nation, name, and blessing—had miscarried, for Jews on the whole had rejected Christ and the gospel.

The present section is devoted to this dilemma. Paul speaks throughout to Gentiles in the second person, whereas Jews are spoken of in the third person. The tone is no longer polemical, but apologetic toward Jews and admonitory toward Gentiles. For the first time since the beginning of Romans 9 Paul quotes nothing in this section from the OT. The passage is dominated by the illustration of the olive tree, which may have been inspired by Isaiah 56:3–8. Nevertheless, more than anywhere else in Romans 9–11, the script here is written by the apostle himself, and in it we come closer to an answer about the place of Jews in salvation history.

11:11–12 / Did the Jews stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? asks Paul (v. 11). His concern is no longer with the remnant of Jewish Christians, but with “the others [who] were hardened” (11:7), i.e., the majority of Jews who rejected the gospel. Were the “spirit of stupor” (11:7) to prevail, it would spell doom for the Jews. As a whole Israel indeed “stumbled over the ‘stumbling stone’ [of Christ]” (9:32; also 11:9), but their stumbling and fall had resulted in a remarkable paradox. Because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious (v. 11). The failure of Jews to enter the kingdom brought by Christ made room for the Gentiles to enter (cf. Acts 18:6). Moreover, Paul understands that the Gentiles’ participation in salvation will create envy in unbelieving Israel and awaken Israel to salvation. Both Jews and Gentiles, in other words, benefit each other, although in quite unexpected ways. Jewish rejection of Christ caused the gospel to be spread with great success among the Gentiles, whereas Gentile acceptance of the gospel would arouse jealousy in Israel and ultimately bring Israel to faith.

Thus, what initially seemed to be a fatal misfire in the divine plan turned out to be the secret of its fulfillment. Verse 12 witnesses to both the irony and the majesty of sovereign grace by a contrast of superlatives. The Jews’ transgression leads not to disaster but to riches for the world; their loss results not in bankruptcy but in riches for the Gentiles; they who are now but a “remnant” (11:5) will become a fullness! The Spirit of God is again hovering over the face of the deep and creating life from chaos.

11:13–16 / In Romans 9–11 Paul speaks to Gentiles about Jews. Here he addresses Gentiles directly in the second person, I am talking to you Gentiles (v. 13). The tone also changes from analysis to exhortation and admonition. As we noted in the Introduction, surely one reason that Paul wrote Romans was to heal the breach between Gentiles and Jews after the latter returned to Rome following their expulsion under Claudius. Verses 13ff. quite probably were penned with this in mind, although the message was certainly not limited to Gentiles in Rome, for the issue was larger than whatever might have been happening in the capital.

Jewish society as a rule regarded Gentiles with condescension and scorn, likening them to tax collectors (Matt. 18:17) or dogs (Mark 7:27). But far from begrudging his apostleship to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:7, 9), Paul gloried in it and highlighted his unique calling. Verse 13 might be translated, “I am the Gentile apostle” (see 1:5, 13). Interestingly, in a passage addressed to Gentile readers Paul accents his mission to the Jews: I make much of my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them (v. 14). By my own people and some of them Paul means unbelieving Israel and the faithful remnant, respectively. Thus, Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles could scarcely be regarded as a betrayal of his people. On the contrary, his tireless mission to the Gentiles had as one intent the salvation of some of the Jews. Herein lay a great paradox: the success of the Gentile mission was essential for the success of the Jewish mission and was part of the fulfillment of God’s purpose for Jews. Gentile Christians, as the illustration of the olive tree will evince, have not replaced Jews; neither can they boast against them. Rather, in addition to procuring their own salvation, their faith and discipleship serve for the eventual salvation of Israel. This is why Paul writes of his hopes for the Jews in a passage addressed to Gentiles. For the present his best service to the Jews is to preach the gospel to the Gentiles.

Verses 15–16 repeat and expand the idea that Israel’s loss is the Gentiles’ gain (v. 12). The idea of verse 15—that the eventual Jewish acceptance of Christ will be life from the dead—is a matter of some debate. One possibility is to regard life from the dead eschatologically, i.e., when all Israel is saved (11:26), then the final consummation and the resurrection of the dead will be at hand. Another possibility is to take the phrase metaphorically (so John 5:24; Luke 15:32) as a reference to salvation: when Jews accept Christ, then their restoration to the purpose of God will transfer them from death to life. The majority of modern commentators follows the first view, seeing in life from the dead a fixed eschatological expression, that when Israel converts en masse to the gospel, the Parousia, the return of Christ, would be imminent. I am inclined, on the other hand, to see it as a reference to the salvation just noted in verses 11 and 14, and thus take it to be more figurative than eschatological. Paul’s topic, after all, is not the end of history and the final judgment, but rather Israel’s enduring place in God’s purpose and Israel’s eventual salvation.

Two metaphors in verse 16—the dough and the root—show that what God has already done with the remnant he will one day do with greater Israel. They are proleptic metaphors pointing to the future. The present numbers of Jewish converts, though small, are the firstfruits of Israel as a whole. The second metaphor of the root introduces and governs the discussion of the olive tree, to which we now turn.

11:17–24 / The analogy of the olive tree is given in full in verse 17: 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. Paul’s horticulture runs counter to normal procedure, for it is the good scion implanted into the wild stock (and not the reverse) which determines a successful graft. The apostle acknowledges that his analogy is “contrary to nature” (v. 24), but it witnesses to the theological truth he intends, that it was as unnatural for God to include Gentiles in salvation promised to Israel as it would be for a farmer to graft useless shoots into a cultured tree.

Some of the elements in the analogy are readily apparent. Both Jews and Gentiles are considered branches. This is stated explicitly in verses 23–24. Gentiles are branches of a wild olive tree engrafted into a cultured olive tree, and disbelieving Jews are natural branches of the cultured olive tree which have been broken off. The passive voice of the verb, have been broken off (v. 17), is doubtlessly a “divine passive,” and, like its counterpart in 11:7 (they were hardened), it means that this has happened according to God’s will. But, as we have noted, Israel is also responsible for its excision from the nourishing sap of the olive root (v. 17), for they were broken off because of unbelief (v. 20). This accords with Paul’s teaching especially in 9:30–10:4 that Israel’s present alienation is due to its rejection of the gospel. As evidence he speaks of the Jews’ “transgression” (v. 11), “loss” (v. 12), and “rejection” (v. 15). But behind the Jewish rejection of Jesus as Messiah is a profound mystery (11:25) which was foreseen and willed by God. The most apparent effect of Israel’s hardening and disbelief is, of course, the inclusion of Gentiles in salvation. Nevertheless, Jewish rejection of Jesus is not the final word, for “God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew” (11:2).

What, then, is the root? One thing is clear: it cannot be the Jewish people, for, according to the analogy, Jews, like Gentiles, are branches. A majority of commentators would identify the root with Abraham, an understanding which has the advantage of having been grounded in the pre-Pauline tradition (1 Enoch 93:2, 8; Jub. 16:26; T. Jud. 24:1, 5; Isa. 11:1; 53:2; Sir. 47:22) and is clearly presupposed in 11:28, “as far as the gospel is concerned, they (unbelieving Jews) are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs (Abraham).” Barth, on the other hand, would identify the root with Christ, but his view has the disadvantage of omitting the work of salvation already begun in Abraham (ch. 4; 11:28). For my part, I am inclined to see the root as a reference to the history of salvation extending from Abraham to Christ, into which both Gentiles and Jews must be engrafted. This is supported by the argument of chapter 4, where Abraham is seen as the bearer of the promise of salvation in Jesus Christ, a promise which can be received only by faith.

It is not physical descent from Abraham, therefore, but participation in the covenant of faith which extends from Abraham to Christ, which characterizes the true Israel. This was essentially the argument of 2:28–29 where Paul distinguished between the outward Jew of circumcision and the inward Jew of the spirit, or of 9:6ff., where he distinguishes between two Israels, one of election and faith in Abraham, and one of mere physical descent from Abraham. The illustration of the olive tree, therefore, is preeminently one of grace. You do not support the root, but the root supports you (v. 18).

There are other offshoots of the illustration worth considering too. Most importantly, the root and branches show how completely Paul identified the Christian church with Israel. The church is not a new plan, but the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16) which grows from and completes the root of Abraham. There is no salvation apart from the root! Whoever desires to be included in God’s saving plan must be grafted into that stock. God did not cut down the tree and plant a new one. He grafted other shoots into the true and eternal root (Eph. 2:1ff.; 1 Cor. 10:1–13)—although not into the place of the former branches! Thus, the church does not replace the synagogue, but is joined to the historic root of Israel extending from Abraham to Christ. This shows that there remains room on the stock for Jews to be grafted again into their former place.

The illustration thus excludes any hint of anti-Semitism. How keenly Karl Barth saw this when he wrote during the Nazi years, “The attack on Judah means the attack on the rock of the work and revelation of God, beside which work and which revelation there is no other” (Dogmatics in Outline, p. 76). To deny that Christianity grows from Israel or that Jesus was a Jew is to lay an ax at the root of the Christian religion. When Gentile Christians deny their OT heritage, they are, according to Paul’s illustration, sawing off the branch on which they sit. Anti-Semitism is a boomerang which will return to lop off the heads of Christians!

Moreover, if Christians are grafted into the root of the history of salvation leading from Abraham to Christ, then any pride on their part is excluded. An express purpose of the illustration is to admonish Gentile believers against arrogance toward not-(yet)-believing Jews. Do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you (v. 18). The power of life is in the root, not in the branches. There is no salvation apart from Jesus the Jew, there is no church which is not an engrafting into and a continuance of God’s work in Israel. There is but one tree, one people of God.

Another offshoot of the illustration pertains to the theme of judgment. Consider … the kindness and sternness of God, says Paul (v. 22). Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either (vv. 20–21). The fear to which Paul appeals is the OT fear of God which, in the words of James Dunn, prevents “faith from deteriorating into presumption” (Romans 9–16, p. 663). Gentile Christians experience the kindness of God because of faith, whereas unrepentant Israel experiences the sternness of God because of disbelief (see Wisd. of Sol. 5:20; 12:19). The analogy of the olive tree brings to fruition the themes of grace and faith which have governed Romans throughout. Gentiles have not been grafted into the root because they are preferred, but simply because of their response of faith to God’s grace. If Gentiles recognize that fact and Jews do not, it is not to the Gentiles’ credit. In their temptation to denigrate Jews Paul sees the danger of spiritual pride, and he warns against it: if God did not spare the natural branches (Jews), is there any reason to suppose that he will spare the wild branches (Gentiles)?

Finally, the olive tree is an illustration of hope. Lest anyone suppose that Jews are condemned and that God’s sternness against them is irrevocable, Paul concludes that God is able to graft them in again (v. 23). He adds, if they do not persist in unbelief, which implies that human free will is also operative in the accomplishment of God’s eternal purpose. But his point stands: it is easier to graft natural branches back into the tree from which they came than to graft wild branches into a different tree. A host organism will more readily accept an organ transplanted from itself (or from a blood relative) than from a stranger. How much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree (v. 24)?

Paul may have been unrealistic to expect in his lifetime what 2,000 years of history have yet to witness, for Jews as a whole have still not turned to the gospel (although the growing number of messianic Jews is very significant). Nevertheless, the church which is truly Christian will continue to pray to that end. Humanly speaking, the prospect of Jews converting to Christianity does not look hopeful, especially in the wake of the church’s shameful record of anti-Semitism over the centuries, and not excluding by and large its record during the ghastly spectre of the Holocaust. Perhaps the hopeful prospect of the olive tree illustration is best viewed from a historical perspective. When compared with the course of humanity on earth, Christianity is a relatively young religion. In contrast to the vast reaches of time which preceded Christ, 2,000 years since his birth are relatively short. If God waited for the fulness of time to send his Son (Gal. 4:4), we must not doubt that he continues to achieve his purpose in history between the first and second advents of his Son. This is the certain hope of Romans 9–11. As Luther noted, just as the sons of Jacob (Israel!) rejected Joseph and sold him into slavery, only years later to reencounter and acknowledge their brother in the most unexpected way, so “it will happen that the Jews who expelled Christ to the Gentiles, where he now reigns, will come to him in the end” (Lectures on Romans, pp. 315–16).