Romans 11:1

This extremely interesting chapter concludes Paul's burden of revelation concerning the Jews. What is called the Jewish problem dominates the entire epistle, especially in its relation to the master theme of God's rectitude; but, beginning with Romans 9, Paul began to lay the ground for the revelation of the mystery concerning Israel which was finally stated formally in Romans 11:25.

The key facts which Paul had already established regarding Israel are: (1) they are not all Israel who are of Israel (Romans 9:6), making it clear that there are, and always have been, TWO Israels: (a) the external Israel, the state, the nation, the visible Jewry on earth, and (b) true Israel, called "his people," that is God's people, children of the promise, the seed of Abraham, the people whom he foreknew, etc.; (2) the external Israel God had rejected and hardened, as extensively prophesied by their own prophets, and as just punishment for their rejection of God, climaxed by their stumbling on Christ; and (3) the true Israel are now the redeemed in Christ, but such a fact excludes no one; "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:13). These three important facts about Israel should be kept in view.

For centuries the two Israels had been almost indistinguishable, there being no sharp separation between them, but Paul showed in the beginning of this chapter that the separation had been made, with the true Israel continuing as Christianity, and the "rest" (Romans 11:7) hardened, the latter being the whole of external Judaism. Paul devoted most of the remaining verses to explaining the relationship between the two Israels by the use of several comparisons, and then dramatically stated the mystery in Romans 11:25.

I say then, Did God cast off his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. (Romans 11:1)

Did God cast off his people ... This question regards the true Israel, not the nation, which certainly had been cast off, there being then "no distinction" (Romans 9:12) in the sight of God between either Jews or Gentiles. Paul guarded against confusing the people here mentioned with external Israel by saying immediately that it was "the people whom he foreknew" (Romans 11:2) who were not cast off. Many make the mistake of supposing this to mean that God had not cast off the nation. Even so perceptive a writer as Hodge missed this altogether, saying,

When we consider how many promises were made to the Jewish nation (!), as God's peculiar people; and how often it is said, as in Psalms 94:14, "The Lord will not cast off his people," it is not surprising that the doctrine of the rejection of the Jews, as taught in the preceding chapters, was regarded as inconsistent with the word of God.[1]

Hodge plainly failed to distinguish between nation and people.

Paul refuted the allegation that God had cast off his people by appealing to his own conversion as proof of the validity of God's promise; which fact demonstrates what Paul meant. Paul was not saved through his membership in the Jewish nation at all, but as an individual obedient believer in Christ, such salvation also being available to all who ever lived since Christ came (Jews and Gentiles alike), and upon identical conditions. How could God be supposed to need anything any better than that or any different arrangement?

But the mania regarding the Jewish nation persists. Note what Wuest said:

The covenant of God with Israel, having been NATIONAL, shall ultimately be fulfilled to them as A NATION; not by the gathering in merely of individual Jews, or of all Jews individually, into the Christian Church, - but by the restoration of the Jews, not in unbelief, but as a CHRISTIAN BELIEVING NATION.[2]

Now Paul alleged his own redemption as the fulfillment of God's promise not to cast off his people, but Wuest and many others do not accept Paul's premise. Why? They have incorporated into their reasoning a major premise which is false, that being the opinion that God's covenant was with a nation, state, or race of people. That is not true at all. God's covenant was with the spiritual seed of Abraham, as Paul showed extensively in Romans 9, where he proved that the promise never was to the fleshly seed of Abraham, but to the people "whom he foreknew," the spiritual seed. God's covenant was never with the state, or kingdom, of Israel, nor with any of their kings, AS SUCH. Even the Davidic kingdom was not the earthly state but the spiritual kingdom, upon the throne of which, even now, Christ indeed reigns. As noted at the head of this chapter, the earthly kingdom and the spiritual "people" of the promise were historically indistinguishable for centuries, but Paul here showed the separation as finally precipitated in the first advent of our Lord.

The thought that God ever had any covenant with the ancient kingdom of Israel, in the sense of their state, through any of their kings, is repugnant. The very existence of their line of kings was contrary to God's will, existing with his permission, but not with his approval, as a glance at 1 Samuel 8:7 proves. It was precisely in the events there recorded that Israel "rejected God" from reigning over them; and the great historical rejection of God by the fleshly Israel, in their irrevocable repudiation of God as their king and the elevation of one of themselves to rule over them, was the pivot upon which all their later apostasy turned. The Solomonic empire which they so ardently desired to be restored with its earthly glory was the concept that totally blinded them to the Christ, and which still blinds many as to what is meant by God's "people."

Think of it. If God should be thought of as owing anything at all to the fleshly descendants of Abraham, as viewed separately from the spiritual seed, why does he not owe it also to the Edomites, the Arabians, and the Ishmaelites? "Race," in the sense of fleshly descent, means absolutely nothing to God. And as to that southern portion of the divided kingdom, could there be any justice whatever in making them the recipients of any special dispensation of God's grace, in view of the bitterest denunciations of them pronounced by God through the mouths of their noblest prophets? That southern state, historically identifiable as the present Israel, and also that of Paul's day, could not possibly deserve anything at God's hands which could be viewed as favoring them over the ten northern tribes who were swallowed up in oblivion, because Ezekiel plainly declared the sins of the southern kingdom to have been "more than" those of the kingdom that disappeared (Ezekiel 23:16), even declaring that Judah's sin exceeded that of both Samaria and Sodom.

Thou wast corrupted more than they all (Samaria and Sodom) in thy ways (Ezekiel 16:47).

Now, if nothing but the flesh is considered, if Israel is to be viewed as any people identified with Abraham merely through fleshly descent, why should God have annihilated Sodom and Samaria and have spared Israel whom God himself declared to be worse than either of them? The reasons why God did spare fleshly Israel in preference over the ten tribes, until the historical fulfillment of their mission as flesh-bearers of the Messiah, and the reasons why fleshly Israel is still spared, contrary to all apparent righteousness, appears in the revelation of the great mystery of 1:25. But the fantastic notion that the true Israel now has, or ever will have, any identification with that fleshly remnant is contrary to the scriptures and to all reason.

Lard has observed that

The nation most certainly was cut off, deservedly. As a nation God cast them off; but at the same time, he has retained many individuals in his love, because of their belief in Christ.[3]

The individuals mentioned by Lard are God's "people" in the sense of this verse.

[1] Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 353.

[2] Kenneth S. Wuest, Romans in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955); p. 186.

[3] Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Paul's Letter to Romans (Cincinnati, Ohio: Christian Board of Publication, 1914), p. 345.