Steven
E. Runge, High Definition Commentary: Romans
(Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014), 185
Romans 11:11–24
Paul’s present discussion of election and hardening provides the most detailed account so far of his understanding of God’s larger plan. After offering supporting Scripture in verses 8–10 for the division of Israel into the elect and the hardened, he returns to yet another idea mentioned earlier in the letter: provoking to jealousy (see 10:19). God’s hardening of some portion of the nation is not a malicious act. The disobedience of hardened Israel opened the way for salvation to come to the Gentiles so that Israel might be provoked to jealousy (11:11).
But wasn’t it God’s plan all along—through His promise to Abraham—for salvation to be extended to the Gentiles? Yes, but from Paul’s perspective, Israel’s efforts to establish a righteousness of their own (10:3) had a secondary effect—excluding the Gentiles, essentially thwarting God’s original plan. Contrary to what was expected from the promise to Abraham—that all the nations would be blessed through him (Gen 12:3)—Abraham’s descendants did not embrace God’s plan of righteousness by faith (Rom 9:30–31), except for a believing remnant. The disobedience of the rest led to a hardening of their hearts to the gospel (11:7), but God leverages the situation to ensure His original plan of salvation is carried out. Not only does the gospel go forth as originally intended, God uses the Gentiles’ positive response to provoke Israel to jealousy (11:11).
Provoked to Jealousy: The Gentiles’ acceptance of the gospel fulfills God’s promise to Abraham that the nations will be blessed through his offspring. But Paul states that the Gentiles’ response is also meant to provoke Israel, so that more Jews would believe.
In fact, the enfolding of the Gentiles provides a provocative incentive for Israel to respond like the Gentiles did. Nothing is lost or wasted—all things are indeed working together for the good of those who love God and who are called according to His purposes (8:28).
As mentioned when we looked at Romans 9, it may have seemed as though Paul is standing with the Gentiles and poking a finger at the Jews (e.g., 2:17–24). If Paul has picked a side in the debate, so far it would seem he is rooting for the Gentiles against the Jews. But Romans 11:13 marks a significant shift, with Paul “switching sides,” as it were. He has not been playing favorites, but rather has been working to correct misconceptions about the gospel. Most of the focus thus far has been on Jewish misconceptions, but now he shifts to addressing misconceptions that may be held by the Gentiles.
Romans 3 vs. Romans 9: In the earlier chapters of Romans, Paul primarily addressed Jewish misconceptions about the relationship of the gospel to the law and to Gentiles. It may even have seemed like he was siding with the Gentiles. This situation changed in 9:1, and again here in 11:13, not because Paul has switched sides, but because he begins addressing Gentile misconceptions about the gospel and Israel.
Although Paul sees himself as an apostle called to reach the Gentiles, he is unequivocal about the Gentiles’ need to appreciate their role in the larger scheme of things. So far Paul has used the Gentiles as a foil to deconstruct Jewish arguments for ethnic superiority; however, this may well have had an unintended effect. In addition to humbling the Jews a bit, Paul’s argument may have emboldened Gentiles to think of themselves more highly than they ought—just as the Jews had done. After all, if Gentiles could potentially keep a law written on their hearts (2:14–15) and be considered true descendants of Abraham on the basis of faith rather than lineage (4:12), wouldn’t this be a basis for boasting? Consider: The Jews had both the law and the lineage but couldn’t achieve righteousness, whereas the Gentiles had neither and yet seem to have pleased God. But Israel being hardened so as to give the Gentiles an opportunity to respond does not mean they have supplanted Israel. In fact Paul argues quite the opposite in verse 15. The Gentiles have been enfolded with believing Israel and are dependent on Israel.
Paul uses the analogy of an olive tree in 11:17–24 to describe his understanding of this relationship. Israel is pictured as a cultivated olive tree, expected to bear good fruit at the harvest. But branches are broken off, with no explanation until we get to verse 20. There, Paul’s concern is focused on making room for the Gentiles rather than with implying the tree’s lack of fruitfulness. New branches—the Gentiles—are grafted onto the tree. Paul characterizes these as wild olive branches rather than cultivated ones, creating a different expectation for fruit-bearing compared to the cultivated branches of the tree.
Grafted In: To help the Gentiles understand their dependence on Israel for the gospel, Paul uses the analogy of a branch of a wild olive tree being grafted onto a cultivated tree. But it is not the end of the story.
The branch analogy reinforces the notion that the grafted branch is utterly dependent on the tree and its roots for nourishment. In verse 18 Paul prohibits the Gentiles from boasting since, in this analogy, they are dependent on Israel rather than the other way round. He wards off another potential boast in 11:19. The cultivated branches were not broken off because of the Gentiles’ belief but because of the unbelief of a portion of Israel.
Grafted In: The next portion of the analogy is Paul warning the Gentiles who have been grafted in not to become arrogant because branches were broken off on their behalf.
This fact should not be taken as reason for boasting or confidence, but as a reason to fear. As Paul points out in verse 21, this principle cuts both ways: If God didn’t spare the native, cultivated branches, He will not be any more inclined to spare the wild ones that have been grafted in. Theoretically speaking, God could just as easily cut off the Gentiles if they stumble. The analogy here is not of individuals, but of Israel vs. the Gentiles.
Grafted In: Paul warns that just as God broke off the native branches to make room for the wild branch of Gentile believers, God can easily break the wild branch off and regraft the native one.
Paul issues a rather frightening threat here, one that must be reconciled with the larger teaching of Romans. He doesn’t suggest a loss of individual salvation, but he focuses instead on encouraging the Gentiles to humility based on the possibility that God would not tolerate their unbelief any more than He did for the nation of Israel. His admonition in 1 Corinthians 10:12 comes to mind: “Therefore, the one who thinks that he stands must watch out lest he fall.” What does Paul mean by the term “fall” or the phrase “not being spared”? Neither text is clear, but both provide enormous incentive not to find out. My dad used to provide the same kind of incentive by telling me to behave “or else.…” Or else what? Well, on a few memorable occasions I pushed too far and found out the hard way that “or else” was not a good choice. Paul uses the same kind of rhetorical threat to eradicate any basis for the Gentiles to boast. In this way, he emphasizes that humble belief is the appropriate response.
Paul’s olive tree analogy leads to his summary in verse 22 and the contrasting picture of God that it paints. The analogy testifies to God’s great kindness to graft in those who believe, even those who are by nature wild and uncultivated. At the same time it testifies to His wrath, breaking off His chosen people, whom He has cultivated and preserved over the centuries, unless they turn from their unbelief to obedience (11:23). Even the new ones grafted in are not beyond breaking off (11:22) because there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. Because salvation is on the basis of grace through faith, both have equal potential to be grafted in (again) or to be broken off (11:24). Paul’s argument is best understood as a rhetorical threat, but one that we must not ignore. Again we see that Paul portrays Israel as an entire nation, not as an unbelieving portion and a believing remnant. The branch was removed based on unbelief, so we can trust that the believing remnant has not been removed. Even though this analogy provides more nuanced distinctions between believing and unbelieving Israel, Paul also treats the Gentiles as an entire people group—as though all are responding obediently to God’s free gift.
Paul does not handle every detail explicitly in every passage. He simply provides illustrations that must be reconciled and integrated with what he has already argued. Salvation is by grace through faith; it always has been and always will be. Despite the grafting analogy taking a national or ethnic perspective (i.e., as Jew and Gentile), the Gentiles are no more a homogenous group than Israel—and this is why Paul is able to raise the possibility of the wild branch being broken off again. He is not talking about an individual’s loss of salvation, but the national/ethnic means God uses to accomplish His grand plan of salvation for all of humanity.
Paul wants both groups to understand his motivation for reaching out to the Gentiles. As he states in 11:13–14, he provokes Israel to jealousy in hopes that they too would respond to the gospel. This is the big idea of the section; most all the rest is elaboration and support.