The Narrow Path Ministries

For your consideration and discussion...

The phrase of Rom 11:26 "In this way all Israel will be saved" should be read (at least as an exeriment) as the start of a new conclusion rather than as the last steps of a sequence of events listed in verse 25.

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob

Notwithstanding the conventional phrasing assigned to the phrase and despite possible typical analysis based upon the Greek words, the only idea that makes sense is that Paul was restating the whole message of either the first 11 chapters or at least of chapters 9 to 11.

So as a separate conclusion then we have Paul saying:

All Israel shall be saved as seen in scripture:
1) Christ shall come ouf of Zion (vs 26)
2) He shall turn ungodliness away from Jacob (vs 26)
3) "I will take away their sins" (vs 27)
4) The Judeaens have been your enemies, but there were the chosen among them (vs 28)
5) God was working His plan of mercy (vs 30-32)

Verse 26 then makes sense as a simple explanation of the benefits to the Israel bloodline of promise (the remnant). Christ did come. He did turn away ungodliness from Jacob. He took away their sins (plus He took away sins of Gentiles -- at least in our conventional way of thinking).

Then the last two entries was Paul's pleading for the Roman believers to stop boasting against the Jews (and to show mercy instead) even if the Jews had been opposing the new believers (i.e., followers of "The Way").



Blessings in Christ,

Mike

The weakness of having verse 26 as the next event subsequent to stuff in verse 25 or the result of verse 25 is that the ideas of verse 25 become new undefined ideas thrown in at the last minute.

The "blindness of Israel" becomes a long term event rather than that defined by scripture -- that the people would not understand Jesus. (Isa 6:9-11) There is also a further exploration of this blindness in the article on the Fulfillment of Gen 3:15

The "fullness of the Gentiles" becomes an undefined concept rather than matching with Luke 21:24's mention of the time of the Gentiles.

Luk 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. (KJV)

But the essence of verses 26-27is about prophecies of the gift of Christ Jesus through the cross.
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins

The whole flow of Romans 9 to 11 was to show that God was in the final stages of fulfilling His promise to Israel and that the Roman believers should also act in accord with God's show of mercy to Israel. It would be a great flaw in argumentive technique if Paul were to complete the flow of three chapters worth of material by changing the topic so drastically as to speak of events a hundred years away (or longer).

Paul usually explains in the immediate context what he means in a particular passage. For example, in Romans 2:9-10 Paul says that on Judgment Day God will give tribulation and torment to everyone who does bad things, both Jew, FIRST, and Greek, and that He will give glory, honor and peace to everyone who does good things, both Jew, FIRST, and Greek. Does this phrase "both Jew, FIRST, and Greek" mean that God will judge Jews before He judges Greeks, treating them differently? If this was what the phrase meant, then this would be inconsistent with the idea that "everyone" is judged according to what he has done, which implies that no one is treated differently. Sure enough, in verse 2:11 Paul explains that what he means in verses 2:9-10 by the phrase "both Jew, FIRST, and Greek" is that there is "no partiality with God," no difference. So obviously what Paul means by "both Jew, FIRST, and Greek" is not that God will judge Jews first and Greeks second, treating them differently, but that God will NOT treat them differently: "no partiality." Paul says, "Jew, FIRST," not because Jews are special but because they are not special. The typical unsaved Jew thought that being a Jew automatically made him invulnerable to the judgment of God. He considered himself to be special. As Paul rhetorically asks in verse 2:3, "Do you think that you will escape the judgment of God?" As he says in verses 2:17-25, "... you are confident that you yourself are a guide and a light and a corrector and a teacher," when in fact you are a "transgressor" and "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." So the phrase "both Jew, FIRST, and Greek" is Paul's response to the incorrect notion among unsaved Jews that there is a Jewish exemption from God's judgment. The word "FIRST" means "NO Jewish exemption."

Likewise, what Paul means in Romans 2:13, where he states that the doers of the law will be made/declared righteous in the Judgment, is explained in 2:14-15, where he describes Gentiles automatically doing what the law of God says to do (love), even though they do not have the law (the letter), the reason being that the law of God is written in their hearts (by the Spirit). Paul is describing saved Gentiles, Christians, in whose hearts the law of God (love) is written by the indwelling Spirit. What Paul says here in 2:13-15 is consistent with what he later says in 8:7-9, where he states that only Christians are able to do what the law of God says to do (love), which they do by the power of the indwelling Spirit of God. Christians are doers of God's law (love), because they are indwelt by God's Spirit, whereas non-Christians are not doers of God's law (love), because they are not indwell by God's Spirit. The people who do well in the Judgment of God in 2:5-16 are Christians. They receive "eternal life" (2:7 and 5:21). In Paul's Gospel, only Christians are righteous. If non-Christians could be righteous, then there would be no need to believe in Christ. In Paul's Gospel, everyone is unrighteous until they believe in Christ, at which point they become righteous through Christ and are able to do what is right through the power of the indwelling Spirit of Christ. Anyone who interprets anything that Paul says in Romans as meaning that he thinks that righteousness exists outside of Christ has misunderstood Paul's Gospel as it is explained in his epistle to the Romans.

Likewise, what Paul means in Romans 11:26 is explained in verse 11:25, which in turn is analogized in verses 11:16-24. Paul analogizes "Israel" in 11:25 as the "tree" in 11:16-24. He states in 11:16-24/11:25 that part of the tree/Israel does not believe in Christ and is broken off / excluded from the part of the tree/Israel that believes in Him until the believing Gentiles have been engrafted / have entered into the part of the tree/Israel that believes in Him, after which the part of the tree/Israel that had not believed in Him likewise will believe in Him and likewise will be re-grafted / will enter into the part of the tree/Israel that believes in Him, at which point all of the tree/Israel will have been saved by believing in Christ. Then he says in 11:26 that "in this manner (in this stated sequence) all Israel (both parts of Israel) will be saved." Paul divides "Israel" into two parts in 11:25. One part of "Israel" believes in Christ. This is the "Israel" that he describes in 9:6-8. The other part of "Israel" does not believe in Him. This is the "Israel" that he describes in 9:31-32 and 11:7. Paul says in 11:16-26 that this division of "Israel" into two parts is not permanent. Once the Gentiles have entered into the part of Israel that believes, then the part of Israel that had not believed likewise will believe and likewise will enter into the part of Israel that believes, at which point all Israel (both parts of Israel) will have been saved. The "all" in 11:26 means "both" (both parts of Israel), just as the "all" in 11:32 means "both" (both you who have received mercy as a result of their disobedience and they who will then receive mercy as a result of your mercy [11:30-31]), "all" (both) thus receiving "mercy" (11:32).

That would be a more or less conventional explanation of Rom 11:26. But several problems make that explanation unlikely.

Two are in the interpretation of Rom 11:25. If the blindness isn't that which was to occur during the time of Jesus, as described in Matt 13:13 then you must be speaking of a different blindness. If the fullness of the Gentiles isn't something more like Luke 21:24, then the phrase has had no definition elsewhere in scripture. Both of these problems then would be new topics added in at the end of Paul's effort to stop the Gentiles from boasting.

The worst problem in my estimation is to think that the Gentiles are part of Israel when Paul never said that the Olive Tree is Israel. Such idea might have worked if Paul hadn't specifically shown that his plea was for his countrymen, also known as Israel. Paul's writing would suggest that the Romans (Gentile believers in Rome) would accept the "title" of being Israel when in reality the Romans despised the Jews and were boasting against the Jews (i.e. the problem being addressed in the Olive Tree discussion).

But if the suggestion about Rom 11:26 being the start of the full conclusion doesn't help as a concept. Just put it on the shelf for evaulation on another day.

mikew wrote:The worst problem in my estimation is to think that the Gentiles are part of Israel when Paul never said that the Olive Tree is Israel.

What makes that the "worst problem", Mike? Indeed, is there a problem with that view, and if so, what is it? (Unless, of course, one means by "Israel" national Israel.

As I see it the Olive Tree consists of the True Israel, the remnant, the only Israel God ever recognized. During the times of ancient Israel there was always a remnant. Sometimes they were very few in number. Only a remnant entered the promised land. The rest were destroyed. In the days of Jesus, the remnant consisted of His disciples, a small number. Some who were once part of the remnant, but who didn't submit to the Lordship of the Messiah when He appeared, were broken off the Olive Tree. Paul speaks of gentiles who can be grafted into the Olive tree, gentiles who are disciples of Christ.

Paidion wrote: What makes that the "worst problem", Mike? Indeed, is there a problem with that view, and if so, what is it? (Unless, of course, one means by "Israel" national Israel.

As I see it the Olive Tree consists of the True Israel, the remnant, the only Israel God ever recognized. During the times of ancient Israel there was always a remnant. Sometimes they were very few in number. Only a remnant entered the promised land. The rest were destroyed. In the days of Jesus, the remnant consisted of His disciples, a small number. Some who were once part of the remnant, but who didn't submit to the Lordship of the Messiah when He appeared, were broken off the Olive Tree. Paul speaks of gentiles who can be grafted into the Olive tree, gentiles who are disciples of Christ.

The confusion of saying Gentiles are part of Israel would first be that it destroys Paul's purpose in chapters 9 to 11. Paul was trying to stop the boasting against Jews (the Israel bloodline) lest the even the remnant (those Jews who did come to Christ at the time) be reluctant to become believers due to the negative attitude of the Romans.

God's promise was made to a man, Israel, and to a bloodline, the descendants of Jacob. Paul's argument was to say God had been faithful to Israel (Jacob). The way God was faithful was cause "Israel" was only applicable to a subset of the bloodline of Jacob, those of the promise. Then at the time of Christ these were specifically called the remnant (Rom 9:27, Isa 10:22, Rom 11:5) in whom the promise was being fulfilled.
It would be the oddest sort of deferment of this promise if it were assumed that the Gentiles were included in the text of Isa 10:22. It would take away Paul's argument for the faithfulness of God.
Anyhow, Isa 10:22 was for to the Jews, not the the nations. Even in Isa 10:21 there is clarification that "Israel" is equivalent to "Jacob"

Isa 10:21-22 The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God.
For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return; the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness.

The Gentiles can't be "thy people Israel" and then be the remnant. And the Gentiles can't return to God cause they never had been of God.

I don't quite understand the desire or reason for assigning any other sense to Israel than of the bloodline narrowed, at the time of Christ, to the bloodline who accepted Jesus.

mikew:

That would be a more or less conventional explanation of Rom 11:26. But several problems make that explanation unlikely. Two are in the interpretation of Rom 11:25. If the blindness isn't that which was to occur during the time of Jesus, as described in Matt 13:13 then you must be speaking of a different blindness. If the fullness of the Gentiles isn't something more like Luke 21:24, then the phrase has had no definition elsewhere in scripture. Both of these problems then would be new topics added in at the end of Paul's effort to stop the Gentiles from boasting.


Jim:

Why would anyone travel out of chapter 11 of Romans and even out of Romans itself and even out of everything that Paul wrote to seek in Matthew and Luke a context for what Paul says in Romans 11:25? The context and definition of any phrase is found in the immediate text, not in a different book written by a different author. Paul is explaining in Romans 11 why so many Gentiles and so few Jews have been saved at the time that he is writing his epistle to the Romans, which is near the end of his third and final missionary journey, which is at least 30 years after the cross. The imbalance is so great that one is tempted to wonder whether God has forsaken the Jews in favor of the Gentiles, as stated in 11:1. You won’t find this discussed anywhere in the Gospels, and yet you are claiming that the context of what Paul says in Romans 11:25 is not what he says in Romans 11 but what Jesus is quoted in Matthew and Luke to have said before he went to the cross. In Matthew 13:13, Jesus quotes Isaiah to explain the failure of the Jews to understand his parables. In Romans 11:8, Paul quotes Isaiah to explain the failure of most Jews to believe the Gospel after the cross. Paul says in 11:7 that they’ve been hardened, and he says in 11:25 that a hardness has happened to them until the fullness of the Gentiles has entered. The entrance of the fullness of the Gentiles is discussed in 11:16-24 (the engrafting of the Gentiles into the believing part of the tree), not in Luke 21:24, where the trampling of Jerusalem by the Gentiles is a completely different discussion.


mikew:

The worst problem in my estimation is to think that the Gentiles are part of Israel when Paul never said that the Olive Tree is Israel.


Jim:

The unbelieving part of the tree in 11:16-24 is unbelieving Jews, as is the unbelieving part of Israel in 11:25. The believing part of the tree in 11:16-24 is believing Jews, as is the believing part of Israel in 11:25. The engrafted Gentiles in 11:16-24 are believing Gentiles, as are the entering Gentiles in 11:25. The same people are in view both in the tree in 11:16-24 and in Israel in 11:25, and the same logic is applied to them both in 11:16-24 and in 11:25. If the same people and the same logic are applied to both the tree in 11:16-24 and Israel in 11:25, then Israel in 11:25 has to be the tree in 11:16-24. It can’t be anything else.


mikew:

Such idea might have worked if Paul hadn't specifically shown that his plea was for his countrymen, also known as Israel. Paul's writing would suggest that the Romans (Gentile believers in Rome) would accept the "title" of being Israel when in reality the Romans despised the Jews and were boasting against the Jews (i.e. the problem being addressed in the Olive Tree discussion).


Jim:

I don’t know what your point is here. Paul specifically states in 11:16-24 that the tree in which the Gentiles have been engrafted is the Jews’ tree, and that once the Gentiles have been engrafted, then the unbelieving Jews will believe and be re-grafted into their own tree to join the other believing Jews and the believing Gentiles in the Jews’ tree. That’s why there is no reason for the believing Gentiles to boast against the unbelieving Jews. He says the same thing in 11:25. The unbelieving Jews will be hardened in unbelief only until the fullness of the Gentiles has entered (has been engrafted). Then they too will believe and join them (will be re-grafted).

Jim,
Welcome to the forum. You are providing a decent argument for your stance.
Of course the idea of this topic is to let people consider that Paul intended Rom 11:26 as the start of a new conclusion rather than finishing something about the grafting in of Jews.

Jim1 wrote: Why would anyone travel out of chapter 11 of Romans and even out of Romans itself and even out of everything that Paul wrote to seek in Matthew and Luke a context for what Paul says in Romans 11:25? The context and definition of any phrase is found in the immediate text, not in a different book written by a different author.

Luke was a traveling partner with Paul, so it isn't far to travel. Don't you think that various books of the Bible could address similar issues of prophecy? How do you even get started reading the Book of Romans if you don't know what is in Matthew? Was Paul the only one to prophesy of the blindness of Israel?

Jim1 wrote: Paul is explaining in Romans 11 why so many Gentiles and so few Jews have been saved at the time that he is writing his epistle to the Romans, which is near the end of his third and final missionary journey, which is at least 30 years after the cross. The imbalance is so great that one is tempted to wonder whether God has forsaken the Jews in favor of the Gentiles, as stated in 11:1. You won’t find this discussed anywhere in the Gospels,

You have some good observations about the numbers differences here.

Jim1 wrote: and yet you are claiming that the context of what Paul says in Romans 11:25 is not what he says in Romans 11 but what Jesus is quoted in Matthew and Luke to have said before he went to the cross.
In Matthew 13:13, Jesus quotes Isaiah to explain the failure of the Jews to understand his parables.

Here's some of Isaiah 6
6:9 He said, “Go, and tell this people,
‘You hear indeed,
but don’t understand;
and you see indeed,
but don’t perceive.’
6:10 Make the heart of this people fat.
Make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes;
lest they see with their eyes,
and hear with their ears,
and understand with their heart,
and turn again, and be healed.”

6:11 Then I said, “Lord, how long?”

He answered,
“Until cities are waste without inhabitant,
and houses without man,
and the land becomes utterly waste,
6:12 And Yahweh has removed men far away,
and the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land.

Wasn't Paul relying on such prophesy from the Old Testament. Didn't the Bereans study the Old Testament to see if the things said of Jesus were true?

Jim1 wrote: In Romans 11:8, Paul quotes Isaiah to explain the failure of most Jews to believe the Gospel after the cross. Paul says in 11:7 that they’ve been hardened, and he says in 11:25 that a hardness has happened to them until the fullness of the Gentiles has entered. The entrance of the fullness of the Gentiles is discussed in 11:16-24 (the engrafting of the Gentiles into the believing part of the tree), not in Luke 21:24, where the trampling of Jerusalem by the Gentiles is a completely different discussion.

Why is Paul quoting Isaiah 29:10 if the propecies of Isaiah aren't applicable to the time frame of Romans? If Isaiah 29:10 is applicable, then what other parts of Isaiah are applicable?

29:10 For Yahweh has poured out on you a spirit of deep sleep, and has closed your eyes, the prophets; and he has covered your heads, the seers. 29:11 All vision has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one who is educated, saying, “Read this, please”; and he says, “I can’t, for it is sealed:” 29:12 and the book is delivered to one who is not educated, saying, “Read this, please”; and he says, “I can’t read.” 29:13 The Lord said, “Because this people draws near with their mouth and with their lips to honor me, but they have removed their heart far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment of men which has been taught

If Isa 6 is applicable also, the blindness was prophesied before the trampling. Isa 29:13 was fulfilled at the time of Jesus. These are pointing to fulfillment at at that time.

Jim1 wrote: mikew:
The worst problem in my estimation is to think that the Gentiles are part of Israel when Paul never said that the Olive Tree is Israel.

Jim:
The unbelieving part of the tree in 11:16-24 is unbelieving Jews, as is the unbelieving part of Israel in 11:25. The believing part of the tree in 11:16-24 is believing Jews, as is the believing part of Israel in 11:25. The engrafted Gentiles in 11:16-24 are believing Gentiles, as are the entering Gentiles in 11:25.

Okay. this much of what you said makes sense.

Jim1 wrote: The same people are in view both in the tree in 11:16-24 and in Israel in 11:25, and the same logic is applied to them both in 11:16-24 and in 11:25. If the same people and the same logic are applied to both the tree in 11:16-24 and Israel in 11:25, then Israel in 11:25 has to be the tree in 11:16-24. It can’t be anything else.

This part doesn't make sense. How did the tree become Israel?
If the tree were Israel, the the Gentiles were blinded, the saved were blinded, until the fulness of Gentiles came in. If the tree were the true Israel, then branches of the True Israel were being broken off to make room for the Gentiles.
Can you explain how Paul avoids this confusion, in your estimation of what Paul is saying?

Jim1 wrote: mikew:
Such idea might have worked if Paul hadn't specifically shown that his plea was for his countrymen, also known as Israel. Paul's writing would suggest that the Romans (Gentile believers in Rome) would accept the "title" of being Israel when in reality the Romans despised the Jews and were boasting against the Jews (i.e. the problem being addressed in the Olive Tree discussion).

Jim:
I don’t know what your point is here. Paul specifically states in 11:16-24 that the tree in which the Gentiles have been engrafted is the Jews’ tree,

Paul was just loosely speaking of the tree as being the people of God. This is the best sense of the analogy without the analogy falling apart immediately.

Jim1 wrote: and that once the Gentiles have been engrafted, then the unbelieving Jews will believe and be re-grafted into their own tree to join the other believing Jews and the believing Gentiles in the Jews’ tree.

So what does a Gentile believer turn into when he is in the Jews' tree?

Jim1 wrote: That’s why there is no reason for the believing Gentiles to boast against the unbelieving Jews. He says the same thing in 11:25. The unbelieving Jews will be hardened in unbelief only until the fullness of the Gentiles has entered (has been engrafted). Then they too will believe and join them (will be re-grafted).

I think you missed Rom 11:18 "don't boast against the branches"
Now if you are saying that there is no logical basis for Gentiles to boast against Jews, then your thinking is in agreement with what Paul was telling the Romans.

mikew:

... idea of this topic is to let people consider that Paul intended Rom 11:26 as the start of a new conclusion rather than finishing something about the grafting in of Jews.


Jim:

Paul starts talking about the Gentiles being saved first to make the Jews jealous in Romans 10:19. He is still talking about it in 11:7-12. He is still talking about it in 11:16-24 (the broken off branches are re-grafted when they believe after the believing Gentiles are engrafted). He is still talking about it in 11:25 (the hardness/unbelief of the unbelieving part of Israel ceases once the fullness of the Gentiles has entered). He states that it is in this sequence that all Israel (both parts) is to be saved in 11:26. He is still talking about it in 11:30-32 (the unbelieving Jews believe and receive mercy after the Gentiles believe and receive mercy, all (both) receiving mercy in this stated sequence. There is no change in the message (the fullness of the Gentiles is to be saved before the fullness of the Jews is to be saved) between 10:19 and 11:32. It’s the same message throughout.


mikew:

Luke was a traveling partner with Paul, so it isn't far to travel. Don't you think that various books of the Bible could address similar issues of prophecy? How do you even get started reading the Book of Romans if you don't know what is in Matthew? Was Paul the only one to prophesy of the blindness of Israel?


Jim:

The discussion in Romans 11 is the fullness of the Gentiles preceding the fullness of the Jews in being saved and “entering” through belief in Christ. The discussion in Luke 21:24 is the trampling of Jerusalem by the Gentiles. These are two different discussions. No, it is not reasonable to try to find the context of what Paul says in Romans 11:25 in what Jesus says in Luke 21:24. The context of what Paul says in Romans 11:25 is what he says throughout chapter 11 in general and what he says in verse 11:16-24 in particular.


mikew (previous):

If the blindness isn't that which was to occur during the time of Jesus, as described in Matt 13:13 then you must be speaking of a different blindness.


Jim (response):

In Matthew 13:13, Jesus quotes Isaiah to explain the failure of the Jews to understand his parables. In Romans 11:8, Paul quotes Isaiah to explain the failure of most Jews to believe the Gospel after the cross.


mikew (response):

Why is Paul quoting Isaiah 29:10 if the prophecies of Isaiah aren't applicable to the time frame of Romans? If Isaiah 29:10 is applicable, then what other parts of Isaiah are applicable? If Isa 6 is applicable also, the blindness was prophesied before the trampling. Isa 29:13 was fulfilled at the time of Jesus. These are pointing to fulfillment at that time.


Jim (this message):

I repeat, in Matthew 13:13, Jesus quotes Isaiah to explain the failure of the Jews to understand his parables, whereas in Romans 11:8, Paul quotes Isaiah to explain the failure of most Jews to believe the Gospel after the cross. These are two different discussions to which the same Isaiah passage is applied by two different people at two different times. Jesus is not talking about the election having received what Israel (the unbelieving part of Israel [most Jews]) has not received 30 years after the cross, and Paul is not talking about the Jews not understanding the parables of Jesus prior to the cross. The fact that the same Isaiah passage (describing the Jews’ inability to see and hear) is applied to both discussions does not make these two different discussions the same discussion.


mikew:

If the tree were Israel, then the Gentiles were blinded, the saved were blinded, until the fulness of Gentiles came in. If the tree were the true Israel, then branches of the True Israel were being broken off to make room for the Gentiles. Can you explain how Paul avoids this confusion, in your estimation of what Paul is saying?

Jim:

Paul says in 11:16-24 that the unbelieving part of the tree (unbelieving Jews) is broken off from the believing part of the tree (believing Jews) until the believing Gentiles are engrafted to join the believing Jews in the believing part of the tree, after which the broken off, unbelieving part of the tree likewise believes and likewise is re-grafted to join the other believing Jews and the believing Gentiles in the believing part of the tree. So I don’t know what you mean when you say that the Gentiles are blinded.

Paul doesn’t say anything about the Gentiles being blinded. He says that if they don’t continue in belief, then they will be broken off. It’s a warning, not a prediction. Paul does not say that the Gentiles will stop believing. As Paul states in 11:30-32, the Gentiles receive mercy as a result of the disobedience of the unbelieving Jews, and then the unbelieving Jews believe and receive mercy as a result of the mercy of the Gentiles. Nothing is said about the Gentiles losing their mercy.


Jim (previous):

I don’t know what your point is here. Paul specifically states in 11:16-24 that the tree in which the Gentiles have been engrafted is the Jews’ tree.


mikew (response):

Paul was just loosely speaking of the tree as being the people of God. This is the best sense of the analogy without the analogy falling apart immediately.


Jim:

There is nothing lose about it. Paul says that believing non-natural (Gentile) branches are engrafted among the believing natural (Jewish) branches in the believing part of the tree (11:17 and 11:24). Paul makes it very clear that it’s the Jews’ tree into which the Gentiles are engrafted “contrary to nature” as fellow branches. Belief in Christ places Gentiles together with Jews in the Jewish tree.

The unbelieving Jews are not the people of God. As Paul states in 9:6-8, the reason that unbelieving Jews are excluded from the believing Israel (the part of Israel that believes in Christ) is that they are NOT the children of God. In 11:1-6, Paul’s proof that God has not thrown away His people is that some Jews believe in Christ. These are the people of God. In 9:25-29, after identifying Christians, both Greek and Jew, as the vessels of God’s mercy in 9:22-24, Paul cites Hosea and Isaiah in describing the people of God. The Gentiles who believe become the people of God, and the Jews who believe, who are the saved remnant of Israel, are the people of God. In 1 Peter 2:10, Peter says that Christians are the people of God.

But even though the unbelieving Jews are not the people of God until they believe in Christ, Paul still says in Romans 11:24 that the believing part of the tree, in which both Gentile and Jewish believers reside, is the unbelieving Jews’ own tree. It’s a Jewish tree. Paul says that one day, once the fullness of the Gentiles has entered, the unbelieving Jews will believe and will enter (be re-grafted) into the believing part of their own Jewish tree.


mikew:

So what does a Gentile believer turn into when he is in the Jews' tree?


Jim:

The children of the promise (Romans 4:16 and 9:8), the children of God (8:16 and 9:8), the vessels of mercy (9:23-24), the people of God (9:25-26).

When the unbelieving Jews are excluded from the believing part of the tree in 11:16-24, they are excluded from the believing Israel in 9:6-8. When the unbelieving Jews believe and are re-grafted into the believing part of the tree in 11:16-24, they will enter into the believing Israel in 9:6-8. Where are the believing Gentiles in all of this? They are in the believing part of the tree in 11:16-24, that is, in the believing Israel in 9:6-8. As Paul says, the citizens of this believing Israel in 9:6-8 are the children of the promise (9:8), the children of God (9:8). Who are the children of the promise? They are all Christians (4:16). Who are the children of God? They are all Christians (8:16).

Jim,

Its good to have gone through this exercise with you. We don't seem to be coming to closer agreement. But that's ok. It certainly isn't required.

Anyhow, the idea of this topic is to let people consider that Paul intended Rom 11:26 as the start of a new conclusion rather than finishing something about the grafting in of Jews and Gentiles.

For curiosity sake, to understand a little better where you were coming from, what was the purpose Paul was trying to achieve either just in Romans 11 or in Romans 9 to 11 (if you see this as one unified purpose)?