A Critique Of O. Palmer Robertson's Interpretation Of Romans 11
Dr. Robert Dean
These three chapters[Rom 9-11] emphatically forbid us to speak of the Church as having once and forall taken the place of the Jewish people. . . . But the assumption that the Churchhas simply replaced Israel as the people of God is extremely common. . . . Iconfess with shame to having also myself used in print on more than oneoccasion this language of the replacement of Israel by the Church.
In an article originally published in a collectionof papers by the Evangelical Theological Society, O. Palmer Robertson addressesthe question of Israel's future in Romans 11. Robertson states his purpose:
to evaluateexegetically the evidence in this chapter which might be interpreted assupporting the view that God intends in the future to deal with the Jews in away which is distinctively different from the way in which he deals with themcurrently.[2]
It is Robertson's thesis that the numerousreferences to God's present saving work among the Jews are overlooked by manyscholars in their efforts to direct attention to some alleged futurerestoration of Israel to God's soteriological focus. On one hand, he recognizesthat these references to God's present saving activity among the Jews do notpreclude a reference to a future work among Israel. On the other, he believesthat this emphasis should lead to a greater investigation of the passage to discoverif, indeed, there is a legitimate basis for seeing a future for Israel in thetext. However, he finds no such basis in the text. Robertson contends that thepassage describes God's present work of saving the elect of Israel. The purposeof this paper is to evaluate Robertson's arguments to determine, 1) if thefocus of Romans 11 is exclusively the present work of God among the elect ofIsrael, 2) if the exegetical points Robertson makes are valid, and 3) if theyare, if his interpretation of these points is correct.
SinceRobertson divides his discussion of the passage into two major divisions, thispaper will follow his outline. First, he examines the "evidence that Rom. 11deals with God's present intention for ethnic Israel." Second, he examines "possiblereferences in Rom. 11 to God's intention to deal distinctively with ethnicIsrael in the future."
Evidence ThatRomans 11 Deals with
God's Present Intention for Ethnic Israel
In this section of his chapter Robertson argues that there are pervasive referencesin Romans 11 to God's present intentionfor Israel which are not adequately dealt with in most discussions. He arguesthat these references to a present work do not necessarily exclude parallelreferences to some future purpose, but they do warn the exegete againstassuming too hastily that the entirety of Romans 11 deals with Israel'sdistinctive future.[3] While he admits that "mostcommentators are aware of the references in Romans 11 to God's current savingactivity among the Jews,"[4] he goes on to suggest that theirpervasiveness "as well as their significance for the total thrust of thechapter is generally overlooked."[5] With this in mind he examines sixverses which he considers important for establishing his thesis (Rom. 11:1, 5,13, 14, 30, 31). He concludes
The eye of man cannot tell howlarge this number is. But the eye of faith is confident that the full number isbeing realized. For this reason, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to positsome future date at which the remnant will be superseded by the full number.
Beforeevaluating his arguments, the place of the argument of Romans 11 within theoverall structure of the epistle must be examined.
Romans 11 in the Argument ofthe Epistle
Under theinspiration of God the Holy Spirit Paul pens the Epistle to the Romans tovindicate the righteousness of God in His treatment of sinful man by providinga gracious redemption through faith alone in Christ alone. Romans 1:16 is frequentlycited as the key verse in Romans; "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christfor it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jewfirst and also for the Greek." This "gospel" is further explained in the nextverse, "For in it [the gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed from faithto faith . . ." Throughout the epistle Paul relates the Jews/Israel to thistheme: in 1:18-5:21 he relates Israel to the righteousness of God andjustification (2:9-10, 17, 28-29, 3:1, 9, 29); in 6:1-8:17 he relates Israel tothe righteousness of God and sanctification through the contrast of grace andlaw, in 8:18-39 he relates Israel to the righteousness of God andglorification,[7] in 9:1-11:36 he relates Israel to therighteousness of God and its vindication, and in 12:1-16:27, he relates Israelto the righteousness of God and its practical application.[8]
From thisanalysis the integrity of Rom. 9-11 is substantiated. Romans 11 is "fittedintegrally into this unit" asRobertson affirms.[9] Romans 9 demonstrates therighteousness of God in His rejection of national Israel; chapter 10demonstrates that that rejection is based on Israel's corporate neglect of therevelation given to them. Chapter 11 then answers the question, "has God cast awayHis people? The hermeneutical issue is whether or not Paul's answer to thisquestion reveals a distinctive future in God's plan for ethnic, corporateIsrael different from that of the present, "gospel era?" An examination of thetext indicates that a present plan for saving some Israelites is in view, atleast in the first ten verses, but is this the focus of the whole chapter, asRobertson suggests, or does it merely provide the setting for demonstratingthat God's righteousness toward Israel will be vindicated by their yet future,national repentance?
Romans11:1
Inthis verse Paul raises the question, "Has God cast off His people?" Paulresponds to this rhetorical question with his strongest negative, me genoito. Commentators suggest two possible interpretations of Paul's use ofhimself to illustrate his answer.[10] First, since he is an Israelite, hisown acceptance shows that God has not completely rejected Israel. But if thiswere Paul's argument, he could just as easily have pointed to thousands ofsaved Israelites for evidence.[11] Or second, simply that such anassertion would exclude Paul himself, as an Israelite, from God's kingdom.
Robertsonoffers the first of these as the reason for Paul's use of himself; he says Pauloffers himself as "a present trophy of the grace of God."[14] However, the significance heattaches to this is that the argument of this paragraph is on the present workof God among Israel. He also suggests that the lack of a reference to a futurework indicates that Paul has the present in mind. This is very likely. His nextcitation (verse 5) seems to confirm this.
Romans11:5
Robertson'sonly point here is that the reference to "this present time" (en to nunkairo) emphasizes the present position ofIsrael in God's plan. He concludes that because of the present emphasis ofthese verses the first paragraph (Romans 11:1-10) is oriented to the questionof God's dealing with Israel in the present. He affirms that Paul's citation ofthe episode with Elijah (I Kings 19:10-18) is to show that throughout historyGod has always had a remnant. Paul seems to be drawing a comparison between Israel'sformer state of rebellion at the time of Elijah, and the few faithful at thattime, with the rebellious state of Israel at his own present time. In bothcases the nation as a whole had rejected God, nevertheless, because of God'sfaithfulness to His elect nation, there always was and would continue to be aremnant.
Romans11:13, 14
Robertsonasserts that the context indicates that "provoking to jealousy" and the"saving" of some in Israel must be construed as taking place in the presenttime. According to him, Paul is arguing here that he magnifies his ministry sothat Jews will become jealous as they see Gentile believers sharing in theblessings of the Messianic kingdom. He then suggests that this present savingwork is connected to the following verses by the ei gar of verse 15. This would mean that the ones rejected(verse 15) are the same group who have "acceptance" in verse 15 and are to beidentified with the "some saved" in verse 14. This he interprets as Paul'shoped for consequence of his current ministry.[15]
Thisis a critical exegetical move on Robertson's part. By making it, he strengthenshis case that this middle section of the chapter has the current consequencesof Paul's ministry as its focus, not the future. The premillennial view makes adistinction here which is the result of determining the correct antecedent ofthe "their" of verses 11-15. One important exegetical point Robertson fails tomention is that verses 13 and 14 appear to be parenthetical. The ei gar explains verse 12, not verse 14. This is supported bythe parallel thought expressed in these two verses. If this parenthesis can bedemonstrated, then the thrust of this middle section is not the presentdispensation at all. Rather this section serves as a transition from thepresent state of Israel as hardened to its future return to a place ofblessing. A more complete discussion of the implications of this section willbe presented in the section which focuses on a future for Israel.
Romans11:17-24
AgainRobertson asserts that this paragraph concerns itself with the expectation of apositive response of Israel to the present preaching of the Gospel. AlthoughRobertson understands the Israel of 11:1 to refer to corporate Israel,
Healso seems to suggest that the nature of the olive tree is soteriological,unfortunately he does not explain this. The problem this interpretation createsis ignored. If the illustration is of present time salvation of individualsthen the cutting off in verse 22 would indicate a loss of salvation. Althoughhe purports to be deriving exegetical data which supports a present era view ofthis chapter, at this crucial juncture he merely assumes rather thanexegetically demonstrates his conclusion. The identification of these criticalterms awaits the section of the paper which deals with evidence for a futurework.
Romans11:31, 32
Robertson's major point here is theuse of the threefold "now" in these verses. He asserts that this is acomparison between the present work of God among the Gentiles and that amongthe Jews. In the present time, now,Gentiles have received mercy who were previously disobedient. Now Israel isdisobedient. Because of the mercy shown the Gentiles, they may now receivemercy. His point is that this last now, though it has a textual problem,demonstrates that the entire argument is that God has not rejected His people,but is presently showing them mercy.[17]
Thefocus, he claims, is not on a future work among Israel. His argumentsdemonstrate a continued emphasis on God's present work in Israel, but they donot necessarily negate the possibility of a future work.[18] Heconcludes these references are pervasive and significant.[19] Thisevaluation of his argument has shown that there is clearly a reference in thischapter to the present work of God among the Israelites, but this presentemphasis is confined to the first (verses 1‑10) and second (verses 13,14) paragraphs. Robertson has not established his case for a present timeorientation of the remainder of the chapter.
Possible References in Romans 11 to God'sIntention to
Deal Distinctively With Ethnic Israel in the Future
Herein lies the crux of the passage. Thebattleground between the amillennial and the premillennial centers on a futureplan for ethnic Israel (even postmillennialists admit to some future return inGod's plan to ethnic Israel).[20] While recognizing that manyunderstand this passage to refer to a special intention on God's part forIsrael in the future, Robertson suggests that, a more careful examination ofthese portions may lead to a different perspective on the major outlook of thechapter. Several sections in particular deserve special consideration.
Toestablish this he examines Romans 11:1, 2a, 12, 15, 17-24, 25-26a. Hisarguments will be examined, but in order to arrive at a more accurateunderstanding of the verses in question, a selective exegesis of theintervening verses is necessary.
Romans11:1, 2a
Robertsonbegins by contending that Paul's denial of the question, "God has not rejectedHis people, has He?" is "generally understood as indicating that God still mustintend to deal distinctively with Israel in the future."[22]While Robertson is correct that to nuance the question as "Has God cast offethnic Israel with respect to his special plan for their future?" predisposesthe text to a futurist slant, to nuance the question the way he suggests, "HasGod cast off ethnic Israel altogether as they might relate to his purposes ofredemption?" is just as much the product of a certain theologicalpreunderstanding of the text. Both suggestions are determined by one's priorconclusions concerning the nature of the argument in the chapter.
Toframe the question as he suggests emphasizes individual salvation as theprimary thought of the chapter. He further clarifies his understanding of thequestion as, "Is there any hope for the continuation of a saving activity ofGod among the Israelites."[23] By this he clearly means, is it yetpossible that an Israelite can be saved? This points up a major flaw in hisposition. Robertson fails throughout the paper to address clearly whether ornot the Israel mentioned is corporate or individual. By failing to make thisidentification he is able to slip from an individual interpretation over to acorporate sense and back as it fits his argument.[24] Thushe misses the implications and allusions to national promises.
Romans11:1 is clearly talking about corporate Israel, not individual Jews. Robertsonappears to understand this by his repeated use of the term "ethnic Israel."That this is the correct interpretation is clear for the following reasons.First, the lego oun(of verse 1 draws an inference from the alla lego of 10:18, 19 and each of those statements refers to Israel as acorporate, ethnic unit who, as a group, even though some individuals weresaved, rejected God's gracious gift of Jesus as Messiah. Second, the referencesin 11:1 to "His people" and in 11:2 to "His people which he foreknew" indicatea corporate view. It would be impossible for God to reverse His unconditionalelection of the nation. Although there is some debate over whether thisreference is to the nation as a whole considered as elect, or to the electwithin the nation, after reviewing the evidence Murray states:
it is moretenable, therefore, to regard "his people" (v. 1) and "his people which heforeknew" (v. 2) as identical in their reference and the qualifying clause inverse 2 as expressing what is really implied in the designation "his people".If Israel can be called God's "people", it is only that which is implied in"foreknowledge" that warrants the appellation. There should be no difficulty inrecognizing the appropriateness of calling Israel the people whom God foreknew.Israel had been elected and peculiarly loved and thus distinguished from allother nations... It is in this sense that "foreknew" would be used in thiscase.[25]
A third reason that the nation as a whole must bein view is Paul's use of the example from I Kings 19:10-18. After answering thequestion in 11:1, Paul first presented himself as exhibit "A" and then pointedout that the faithful God of Israel would never cast off His special nation, hecompared his present situation to that at the time of Elijah. In Elijah's timealmost the entire nation was in a state of rebellion, Elijah thought he alonewas left, but God instructed him differently. There was a remnant of seventhousand kept by God. As at that former time, so also in Paul's. The nation asa whole has rejected God's offer of salvation through Jesus the Messiah. Whilethe nation as a corporate entity was characterized by rebellion, there werestill those among the nation besides Paul who were kept by God. Even in theworst times of apostasy, God kept a believing remnant in Israel. These are theremnant of 11:5. Paul is not concerned with individual salvation, he isestablishing the point that God continues to work with His chosen covenantpeople.
Robertsoncontends that the answer Paul gives in verses 1-2a focuses only on the condition of Israel in thepresent age. This is true as far as it goes. It seems that in the structure ofthe chapter verses 1-10 only introduces the answer. Robertson fails to noticethe second inferential ou=n ofthe chapter which relates verse 11 back to what has been said in verse 7. Paulestablished the remnant principle in verses 2-5 but shifts his focus to thosenot included in the remnant in verses 11-16. In verse 7, which Robertsonoverlooks, Paul goes on to state that this group which was designated a"remnant" in verse 5 is further designated "those who were chosen in contrastto the rest who were hardened." It is this division of Israel into two groups,the elect of the present age and the hardened of the present age, that becomesthe focus of the next section. Robertson fails even to mention this whichcauses him to completely misinterpret the next paragraph and to force itsapplication into the present period.
Romans11:12-15
BeforeRobertson's arguments concerning these two verse‑are fully discussed therelationship of this paragraph (11:11‑16) to the preceding one (11:1‑10)must be established. Only when this has been done will we be in a position todetermine if Robertson has correctly interpreted the passage.
Asnoted previously, the (oun) of verse 11draws an inference from the previous paragraph. At the beginning of thatparagraph Paul had raised another rhetorical question ti oun "what then?" (11:7) Paul asks, in light of theremnant doctrine and God's faithfulness to His covenant people, what is God'splan for Israel as a corporate entity? Paul had divided them between the elect(remnant) and those who were hardened (11:7). Quotations from Is. 29:10, Dt.24:4 and Psalm 69:23 described and emphasized the hardening that had come uponIsrael. If the chapter had concluded at verse 7 the amillennialist might have astrong argument, unfortunately, Paul continued to write. He goes on to addressthe question about the state of these who were hardened, "I say then, they didnot stumble so as to fall, did they?" (11:11). The antecedent of the "they"would seem to clearly be the non-remnant, the ones "hardened" and described inverses 8-10. Once this identification is made it becomes evident that thesubject of verses 11-15 is the subgroup among corporate Israel who arehardened, not the remnant. The present time (verse 5) has the salvation of theremnant as its focus. The question Paul had raised in 11:1 concerns theultimate fate of the second group, those hardened.
Thewording of the question in verse 11, indicates a final and complete fall. Onesource amplifies it as:
The rejection of Israel then is onlypartial. Yet still there is the great mass of the nation on whom God'sjudgement has come: what of these? Is there no further hope for them? Is thisstumbling of theirs such as will lead to a final and complete fall? By nomeans. It is only temporary, a working out of the Divine purpose.
The combined use of ptaio "stumble"here with pipto "fall" indicates Paul isasking whether or not this hardening, or falling, is irrevocable.
Robertsons treatment of this crucial section focuses on verses 12 and 15. As statedearlier in the discussion of verses 13, 14, it would appear that verses 13 and14 are parenthetical to Paul s main thought in this paragraph. Robertson seemsto suggest this possibility by treating them as a unit, and treating verses 12and 15 as related and parallel. Unfortunately, as at other crucialhermeneutical junctures he fails to specifically address this. This causes himto misinterpret the focus of the paragraph.
Robertson'sargument is that this entire cycle of "falling," "casting away," "fullness,"
Asidefrom his failure to define the subject of these verses as the non-remnant ofverse 7, his position becomes vulnerable at two points. First, his use ofverses 30 and 31 to explain verses 12-15 is suspect. Verses 30-31 appear moreto be a summary of the whole than a specific statement. Second his argument isbased on the identification of the "some" of verse 14 with the ones acceptedin verse 15. Earlier it was briefly noted that verses 13-14 ought to be takenas a parenthetical aside within the thought flow of this paragraph. Threereasons for doing this are: 1) the transgression/failure-fulfillment movementof verse 12 is paralleled by the rejection-acceptance movement in verse 15, asMurray notes:
The"receiving" is contrasted with the "casting away" and must, therefore, mean thereception of Israel again into the favour and blessing of God. In terms of thewhole passage, as noted repeatedly, this must refer to Israel as a whole andimplies that this restoration is commensurate in scale with Israel's rejection,the restoration of the mass of Israel in contrast with the "casting off".
2)The "their" of vs. 15 are rejected people, the "their" of vs. 12 are alsoidentified as failed people, and 3) the failure of both groups provide a meansof blessing to the "world."[31] The reason for the inclusion of thisaside to the Gentiles is to emphasize the importance of this judgment on Israelto them.
Inlight of these arguments Robertson's conclusion that it is "quite appropriateto interpret the 'fulness' and the 'receiving' of Israel from the perspectiveof God's current activity of salvation among the Jews is unacceptable. He notonly fails to correctly identify the group in question, but fails to identifythe relationship of verses 13, 14 to the context which is crucial for theinterpretation of the passage. Further, his discussion about the size andnature of the remnant is deemed irrelevant, for either a small or large remnantis acceptable within a premillennial interpretation.[32] Butno matter how large the remnant it is still a minority among the nation as awhole. The major error here is that his failure to identify the antecedents ofthe plural pronoun "their" causes him to relate the completed number of theremnant to the idea of "fulness."
Robertsontakes the fullness here to refer to the full number of elect Jews, and relatesthis to his interpretation of "all Israel" in verse 26 (see below). This viewis consistent with his soteriological understanding of the passage. However,the context contrasts the fullness of Israel with her position of unbelief,rejection, sin, and loss. Since the passage views Israel as a corporate whole,then the fullness must be viewed as a unity of the nation as opposed to thepresent divisions. Since Israel fell as a nation, they must be restored as anation.
Theuse of pleroma could indicate thecompletion of a number, the completion of God's plan or reaching a fullcomplement. The first nuance would support Robertson's interpretation, althoughthe word might have a broader meaning. The second nuance would refer to futuretime when all of God's covenant promises will be completely fulfilled in Israeland her promised King reigns in Israel (see later on verse 26). The thirdconnotation would be a "fullness" or "wholeness" in contrast to somethingpartial. The solution is found in the context by noting the contrast with their"loss" (hettema, v. 12). The"loss" was corporate and was a removal from the place of blessing, so the"fullness" appears to be a corporate return to the place of blessing. Paul issaying that if the removal of Israel from the place of blessing, and theirdivision into two groups resulted in riches for the Gentiles, how much moreblessing would ensue from their return to a place of blessing and unity.
AlthoughRobertson fails to treat 11:16, its interpretation and relationship to theargument of the passage should be noted. The gar draws an inference from the preceding paragraph and the reference tothe root and branches sets up the illustration to be developed in verses 17‑24.In this statement Paul gives the ground for the restoration of Israel:
St. Paulgives in this verse the grounds of his confidence in the future of Israel. Thisis based upon the holiness of the Patriarchs from whom they are descended andthe consecration to God which has been the result of this holiness. Hisargument is expressed in two different metaphors, both of which however havethe same purpose.[33]
The first figure introduced is of the meal and thefirstfruit. Paul has Num. 15:19-20 in mind:
Then itshall be that when you eat of the food of the land, you shall lift up anoffering to the Lord. Of the first of your dough you shall lift up a cake as anoffering; as the offering of the threshing floor, so you shall lift it up.
"Firstof your dough" is rendered aparchen phuramatos in the LXX which is theterminology Paul uses in Rom. 11. The passage describes the act where theIsraelite was to offer to the Lord a portion of the meal first (first fruits "aparche") which then permitted the free use of the remainderof the meal (phurama). Thesetting apart (hagios) of thefirstfruit set apart the meal from which it was taken.
Fourinterpretations of this are offered. First, the lump represents JewishChristians which are a pledge for the future salvation of the nation. Thisunderstands the firstfruit to represent the Jewish remnant, their salvationsets apart the remainder with a view to the ultimate salvation of all Israel.
The second figure is of the rootand the branches. Root (riza) is usedmetaphorically in Scripture to refer to the origin or ancestry of something.
Theparallelism and emphasis on being set apart indicates the figures should beinterpreted as representing the same thought. Lenski's interpretation issuspect because it is difficult to understand how spiritual descendants ofAbraham, i.e., the branches, can be broken off. This would imply a loss ofsalvation since spiritual descent is based upon faith. So in light of 11:28which states that Israel is "beloved for the sake of the fathers," it is bestto understand the figure of the lump and root as relating to the same thing,the patriarchs, specifically Abraham or the Abrahamic Covenant.[40] ThePatriarchs and their descendants have been set apart to God as a chosen nationthrough whom the blessings of God especially in salvation will be channeled toall mankind.
Theinterpretation of these figures in verse sixteen is crucial to theinterpretation of the olive tree illustration in verses 17-24. In verses 11-16Paul has already stated that the group who have stumbled have not fallenirretrievably. There is a suggestion of a possible future acceptance for them.The ground for that acceptance is their identification with their fathers,specifically Abraham. Their past guarantees their future.[41]
Romans11:17-24
Itis somewhat surprising that Robertson gives this passage the brief treatment hedoes. He notes that it is frequently "considered in terms of a distinctivefuture for ethnic Israel," and that the "figure of regrafting necessarilyimplies corporate inclusion at a future date when God will deal distinctivelywith Israel."[42] One expects, but fails to find, adetailed exegesis or explanation of the elements of the figure. At one placeRobertson seems to suggest the figure represents experiencing the blessings ofthe covenant (which covenant is not specified),[43] buthere he suggests the ingrafting represents the reception of the blessings ofredemption.[44] This would then mean that the figureof being grafted into the olive tree would represent personal salvation and thetree would represents the people of God.[45]
The majorthrust of the apostle's argument about the grafting process is that Israelitesexperience salvation and incorporation among God's people precisely in the samemanner as the Gentiles. Nothing in the figure of ingrafting necessarilycommunicates the idea of a distinctive and corporate inclusion of the Jews atsome future date.[46]
Evaluationof this statement demands an analysis of the olive tree illustration.
Asstated earlier the root of the tree is to be understood as that which setsapart the branches which proceed from it. The root is to be identified as thepatriarch, specifically Abraham, or the Abrahamic covenant. The naturalbranches then represent the physical descendants of Abraham. Their relationshipto the root puts them in the place of blessing rather than as recipients ofsalvation.
Thereare three basic problems which Robertson's view fails to consider. First,throughout this passage the "Israel" and "Gentiles" are used as collectivenouns. Paul has corporate groups in mind, not individuals. In verses 17-24 heshifts from the plural reference to a singular emphatic su. This is a collective singular referring to theGentiles as a whole. So the wild olive branches grafted in are Gentiles as awhole, not individual Gentiles. Second, if the relation to the olive treespeaks of salvation, the Israelites who were saved would then loose theirsalvation by being broken off (v. 17) and the Gentiles could loose salvationwhen they are broken off (v. 22) This is scripturally unsound. Third, thebreaking off of some of the natural branches is reminiscent of Paul's earlierreferences to Israel's being rejected (v. 1), hardened (v. 7), stumbling (v.11), transgression (v. 12), failure (v. 12), failure (v. 12), rejection (v.15). The branches broken off and regrafted would not refer to the elect of v. 7for they are not broken off. Thus the natural branches broken off must refer tothe hardened group of Israelites which are the subject of verses 7-16 and havebeen removed from the place of blessing. Corporately Israel is viewed ashardened, although some are presently being saved. Corporately Israel is nolonger the primary channel of God's blessing to the world.
Forthese reasons, the root must be understood as the blessing of the AbrahamicCovenant, and being a branch in the tree then represents being placed by Godinto the covenant blessings and the primary channel for salvation blessing tothe world. Israel, because of their rejection of Christ and their hardening, ispresently not in the place of blessing as a corporate entity. Gentiles though,the "wild olive branches" are in a place of blessing and the primary recipientsof the blessing of the Abrahamic Covenant during this age, and the ones throughwhom God is blessing the world.
However,Paul strongly warns Gentile believers not to allow this to cause them to becomeproud or arrogant. This is the purpose of the extended metaphor. Paul warns theGentiles that as a corporate entity they now stand in the place of blessingcorporate Israel once held. This is not due to any inherent good in them, butis due exclusively to the grace of God. They are further warned that "if Goddid not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you." (v. 21). Thisstrongly hints of the possibility that if they reject the grace of God towardthem God will remove them from the place of blessing. Further, Paul suggeststhe possibility in verse 23 that if Israel as a nation returns in faith to God,then as a nation they will be returned to a place of blessing within thecovenant.
WhileRobertson is correct that there is nothing in the figure that "communicates theidea of a distinctive and corporate inclusion of the Jews at some future date,"Paul does indicate that possibility which fits with the natural flow of hisargument in this chapter. In the first ten verses he showed that God had nottotally rejected Israel, there was still a remnant. In verses 11-16 he saidthat those hardened would be returned to a place of blessing because of theirrelationship to Abraham and God's faithfulness to his promises. Then in verses17-24 he warns the Gentiles against pride in their new position and suggestsagain the possibility of a future for Israel. It is in the next section, inverses 25-26 that that return is promised.
Romans11:25-26a
Robertsoncorrectly notes that "these verses pinpoint the crux of the controversy."
"Hardeningin part has happened to Israel" (v. 25)Robertson's point in his analysis of this phrase focuses on the apomerous and its function. He claims, Apomerous often is interpreted as having atemporal reference. According to this suggestion the passage would mean: "for awhile hardening has happened to Israel." He states that a temporal usage of apomerous is difficult to substantiate in theNew Testament. So he concludes "the apostle is saying that a part of Israel hasbeen hardened."
UnfortunatelyRobertson does not cite any commentator who asserts a temporal usage of "inpart." This would have been helpful. From the commentaries and articlessurveyed by this writer, no such assertion was found (see bibliography).Therefore, Robertson is correct, but his point is uncontested.
Hardening...until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in (v. 25). Robertson discusses the importance of two points inthis phrase, 1) the nature of the hardening and 2) the precise force of thephrase which is rendered "until" (achris ou). Robertson's contention is that a correctunderstanding of this phrase does not give weight to a distinct future forethnic Israel.
Robertsonspends more than a page discussing hardening which indicates its importance inestablishing his position. However, his conclusion is unclear. He begins with abrief summary of the nature of hardening within Israel (11:7‑10) andwithin the sovereign outworking of God's redemptive plan. He asserts that amongthe numbers of humanity God elects some to salvation and the rest are hardened.This soteriological hardening never ceases. It appears that his argument isthat since God does not cease his hardening of the unregenerate, non-elect ofmankind in general, it is inconsistent to suggest that he will cease hishardening among the unregenerate, non-elect of Israel. This is clearly a caseof reading an a priori deduction intothe text. Since Paul is not focusing on individual salvation, this argument isirrelevant. In fact, Paul states that the ultimate return of blessing to thenations is gracious, just as the first, (11:5-6).
Asthis paper pointed out earlier, Robertson's major error concerning the groupthat is described as hardened in Romans 11 is that he fails to see that it isspecifically that group, not the elect of v. 7, that is the subject of vv.11-24. The hardened of v. 7 are the rejected of v. 15 and the natural branchesbroken off. Paul is looking on the hardened as a group not as individuals. As awhole Israel has been set aside from the primary place of blessing. This doesnot mean that some Israelites are not saved during the present age, that wasPaul's focus in verses 1-10, but that as a corporate unit they are not theprimary recipients or channels of Abrahamic covenantal blessing. They have beenreplaced by the wild olive branches.
Robertsoncontends this does not indicate a future for ethnic Israel because it would beinconsistent in the sovereign plan of God for him to remove the hardening froma group previously hardened. This is a theological deduction that is notsupported by the text. The second and more crucial issue is the "precise forceof the phrase which is rendered 'until' in Rom. 11:25." Robertson argues that achris ou has only a terminus ad quemsignificance:
The leastthat can be said is that this phrase "hardening. . .until" cannot in itselfbear the weight of determining the question as to whether or not Romans 11positively proposes that God shall deal distinctively with ethnic Israel in thefuture in a manner in which he is not dealing with the Jews today.
Thephrase, he contends, only brings matters up to a certain point without indicatingthe state of affairs subsequent to the termination.
Tosupport this he cites Acts 22:4 and Hebrews 4:12 which on the surface indicateonly a finalizing significance. In eschatological contexts, he suggests thissame usage prevails. In support of this further claim he also cites 1 Cor.11:26, Matt. 24:38, and 1 Cor. 15:25. He then quotes J. Jeremias:
Actually,in the New Testament achris ou with theaorist subjunctive without anregularly introduces a reference to reaching the eschatological goal, Rom. 11:25,1 Cor. 15:25; Lk. 21:24."[49]
The constructionhere is achri plus the genitive relativeo` which makes it a conjunctionnot a preposition.[50] The preposition has the idea of"before." But when achris ou is used asa conjunction with the aorist subjunctive, it always has the force of a futureperfect, "until, to the time that."[51]Neither Acts 22:4 nor Hebrews 4:12 uses achri in this sense, so they are not useful forestablishing the point in question.
Robertson's claimis that "until" merely shows conditions up to a certain point. This much iscorrect, but a survey of the context of the passages where the context of allof its uses does envision a state of affairs which reaches a point ofcompletion and then culminates in a change of circumstances, if not a reversalof circumstances. Deere notes that this occurs three times in Revelation and ineach instance achri implies a more thanimplies a change which "occurs after the point to which it refers is reached."
InLuke 1:20 Gabriel is speaking to Zacharias, "And behold, you shall be silentand unable to speak until the day when these things take place." The clearindication from the passage is not merely that Zachariah will remain dumb to acertain point but once that point is reached the temporary condition willchange and he will be able to speak.
InMt. 24:38 (cited by Robertson) and its parallel Luke 17:27 Jesus remarks thatthe people of Noah's day ate and drank "until" Noah entered the ark. Robertsoncomments:
The pointof this assertion is not that a day came in which the people no longer ate anddrank. Instead the point is that they continued with their eating and drinkinguntil their "eschaton" arrived.[53]
While his observation that the main point seems tobe that things continued i.e.,, eating and drinking, up to the point of theflood seems correct. The next verse shows that at that point the people nolonger ate and drank because the flood came and destroyed them all. Theinference is clear that after the "until" the circumstances changed they werereversed.
Thecase is similar in 1 Cor. 11:26. Robertson is correct in his interpretationthat Paul's point was not to stress that a day is coming in which the Lord'sSupper no longer will be celebrated his emphasis was on present observance..But it is still clear from the passage that the Lord's coming changes thesituation and the implication is that the memorial feast will no longer benecessary. 1 Corinthians 15:25 is even more clear. Robertson states:
the stressis not that a day will come in which Christ no longer will reign. Instead thepoint is that he must continue in reigning until the last enemy is subdued atthe resurrection.[54]
An examination of the previous verse though showsthat this is exactly the case; there will be a time when Christ does not reign.The emphasis is that there will be a time when Christ "delivers up the kingdomto the God and Father." Again, the "until" points to a change, even a reversalof circumstances, not merely the end of a period of time.
Themost critical passage for this study due to the similarity of context is leftunmentioned by Robertson. Luke 21:24 states: "and they will fal1 by the edge ofthe sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will betrampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles befulfilled." Again the indication from the context is that after the times ofthe Gentiles are fulfilled, Jerusalem will no longer be trampled underfoot.Once the terminus ad quem is reached,there is a new set of circumstances.
"Andso all Israel shall be saved." (v. 26a)This verse introduces the new set of circumstances. Robertson's contention iswith a reading of the passage as though it were saying: "And then all Israel shall be saved."[55] Insuch an interpretation, the kaihoutos is understood as though it possessedprimarily a temporal significance. Robertson is correct in this analysis, butin his examination of Arndt and Gingrich's lexicon to determine that this hasno temporal significance he should have noted the nuances which are listed.
Thesecond category listed in BDAG fits this passage even better. In many passages houtos refers not to the preceding but to what follows.This is especially true when it introduces spoken or written words (Matt. 2:5;Acts 7:6; 13:34, 47; Rom. 10:6; Hebrews 4:4; it is used this way with kathos in Lk. 24:24; and Phil. 3:17). In this sense thepassage would be read, "And in the way described by these Old Testamentcitations, all Israel shall be saved, just as (kathos) it is written." Israel will experience their fulland final restoration as a result of the coming of the Deliverer (Isa 59:20 andPsa 14:7 quoted in Rom. 11:26) This concurs with Old Testament expectations ofa future restoration (Deut 30:1-5; Zech. 10:6-8; 12:10; 14:2, 5-10; Mal 3-4.
Thesecond issue Robertson addresses from this phrase concerns the nature of "allIsrael." He argues that "all Israel" refers to all the elect of Israel andrefers back to 11:7 for support. For him, all of the elect of Israel will besaved during the present age. The problems with this view is that it istautological, the elect by definition are always saved-the elect of every ageare always saved.
Historically,much ink has been spilled over this one passage and it is beyond the scope ofthis paper to critique each of the five suggested interpretations. Robertsonlists the interpretations as: 1) all ethnic descendants of Abraham, 2) allethnic descendants of Abraham living when God initiates a special working amongthe Jewish people, or 3) the mass or at least the majority of Jews living atthe time of a special saving activity of God, 4) all elect Israelites withinthe community of Israel, or 5) both Jews and Gentiles who together constitutethe church of Christ, the Israel of God. The view Robertson critiques is thefourth view that all Israel refers to the mass or majority of Jews living atthe time the hardening is lifted.
Robertsonraises a problem which he claims "cannot be dismissed very easily."
Robertsonfails to adequately deal with the view that "all Israel" means every Jew at theSecond Advent. By failing to take into account passages which describe themassive Tribulation judgments and deaths as well as the purging judgments ofMessiah at His return, he fails to recognize that only Jews positive to Jesuswarning to flee to the mountains are those available for salvation at the end.Others are destroyed in these judgments (Dan 12:10-12; Mal 3-4). All those leftare those who have trusted in Jesus as Messiah and are thus saved.
Hissecond objection, which in reality must be admitted cannot be a problem for asovereign God, is that it is almost impossible to determine who would be anIsraelite. While this last objection may lack merit, the first is reasonable.Robertson then asserts his case that "all Israel" describes all elect peoplewithin the community of Israel.
By theprocess described in the earlier verses of Romans 11, all elect Jews shall besaved. As particular members of the Jewish community are "moved to jealousy"when they observe Gentiles receiving the promises of the old covenant, they aregrafted into the true community of God.[62]
Thisclearly fits Robertson conclusions on the passage, but does not fit with thedetails of the passage.
Thistime of this salvation is related to the eschatological coming of the Messiah.It occurs (v. 29) when the New Covenant is established with Israel (Jer. 31:31‑34).So the "until" of v. 25, by way of the correlative use of houtos relates the former verse to the eschatologicalestablishment of the covenant with Israel when, as a nation they experiencenational salvation and forgiveness.
Robertsonconcludes by stating that the threefold use of nun in verses 30, 31 indicatesthat just as the Gentiles are now beingshown mercy so at the present time the elect of Israel are being shown mercy.These verses restate the basic ideas of verses 11, 12, 15, 28 that thehardening of a group of Israelites set up a group of Gentiles who weredisobedient to receive mercy, their reception of mercy in turn sets upIsraelites to receive mercy. Both are disobedient, both need mercy. God hasshown all to be in need of sovereign grace. What beautiful symmetry andtheology!
Robertson'sinclusion of the third nun in verse 31 is dubious since it is only attested by a and B, wherease p46, and A, along with the Majoritytext supports its absence.[63] To interpret it as meaning that thesalvation of the disobedient Israelites takes place in the present age, failsfor three reasons. First, it runs foul of the clear teaching with regard to afuture for Israel in the text. Second, it is included in a summary statementthat by nature need not be pressed for that sort of exactness. Third, its usecan be explained on the basis of Paul's understanding of the eschatological aspresent. Cranfield remarks:
The truthis rather that Paul sees the time which begins with the gospel events andextends to the Parousia as a unity. It is all the eschatological now.
Thus,verses 30-32 are a summary of the whole activity of God and not to be taken tomean that all of these events occur in the present time.
Conclusion and Summary
Robertsonhas argued that there are a number of indications in the text of Rom. 11 toGod's present work among ethnic Israel. While this does not necessarily deny afuture work of God among ethnic Israel, for him it strongly suggests that thepassage should be re-evaluated. On the basis of his exegetical work he hasconcluded that the events of God's work among ethnic Israel described in Romans11 should be understood to take place totally within the context of the presentChurch age. An evaluation of Robertson s arguments and evidence suggests thathis position is untenable. In places he ignored critical passages (i.e., Rom.11:7). At other times he failed to identify the antecedents of pronouns, he alsofailed to define the groups in question and to support and define exegeticallythe elements in the olive tree analogy. The detailed exegesis he did offer didnot necessarily support his conclusions (i.e., his work on "until" and "andthus"). It is also suggested that his argument would have been helped if he hadidentified some of the interpretations he was arguing against and if he hadinteracted more specifically with premillennial or dispensational writers. Thepoints covered in this paper seem to clearly demonstrate that the focus ofRomans 11 is that God has not cast away His people and will deal with Israel inthe future in a way that is distinctively different than the way He iscurrently dealing with them.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alford,Henry. Alford's Greek Testament. Vol. 2.London: Rivingtons, n.d. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Guardian Press, 1976.
Barrett,C. K. The Epistle to the Romans. NewYork: Harper and Row, 1957.
Clements,Ronald E. "'A Remnant Chosen by Grace' (Romans 11:5)." in Pauline Studies. ed. Donald A. Hagner and Murray J. Harris. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1980; 106‑121.
Cranfield,C. E. B. A Critical And Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Vol. 2. International Critical Commentary. Ed. J. A.Emerton and C. E. B. Cranfield. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979.
Dunn,James D. G. Romans 9-16. Volume 38B.Word Biblical Commentary. Ed. David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker. Dallas: Word,1988.
Godet,Franz. Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. A. Cusin, trans. in Clark's Foreign TheologicalLibrary. New Series, Vol. VI. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1934.
Haldane,Robert. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans. MacDonald Publishing Company, n.d.
Hendriksen,William. Exposition of Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981.
Hoch,Carl B. "The Significance of the Syn-CompoundsFor Jew Gentile Relationships in the Body of Christ." Journal of theEvangelical Theological Society 25 (June,1982): 175‑183.
Horne,Charles M. "The Meaning of the Phrase 'And Thus A11 Israel Will Be Saved.'" Journalof the Evangelical Theological Society 21(December, 1978): 129-334.
Lenski,R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle To the Romans. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.
Mounce,Robert H. Romans. Volume 27. The NewAmerican Commentary. Ed. E. Ray Clendenen, David S. Dockery. Nashville:Broadman, 1995.
Murray,John. The Epistle to the Romans. Vol. 2.The New International Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.
Newell,William R. Romans. Chicago: Moody Press,1938.
Sanday,William, and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical CommentarY on theEpistle to the Romans. International Critical Commentary. Ed. 5. R. Driver, A. Plummer, and C. A. Briggs.Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902.
Wallis,Wilber B. "Reflections on the History of Premillennial Thought" in Interpretationand History. ed., R. Laird Haris, Swee‑HwaQuek, and J. Robert Vannoy. Singapore: Christian Life Publishers, 1986.
Walvoord,John F. Israel in Prophecy. GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1962.
The Millennial Kingdom. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.
Wiley,Galen W. "A Study of "Mystery" in the New Testament." Grace TheologicalJournal 6 (Fall, 1985): 349‑360.
Witmer,John. "Romans." in The Bible Knowledne Commentary, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Victor, 1988.
Wuest,Kenneth S. Wuest's Word Studies From the Greek New Testament, Vol. I in 3 Vol. ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B.Eerdmans, 1973.
Yeager,Randolph O. The Renaissance New Testament.Vol. 12. Gretna, La.: Pelican Publishing Co., 1983, 69‑117.
Unpublished Papers and Theses
Laing,Howard W. "Israel in the Epistle to the Romans." Unpublished Master's Thesis,Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas Texas, 1962.
Younce,Dale Richard. "An Exegetical Interpretation of the Figure of the Olive Tree ofRomans Eleven." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary,Dallas, Texas, 1963.
In Paul'sfigure of the olive tree, its root and branches Ro 11:16-18. [65]
[2] O. PalmerRobertson, "Is There a Distinctive Future for Ethnic Israel in Romans 11" inStanley N. Gundry and Kenneth S. Kantzer, ed. Perspectives on EvangelicalTheology (Grand Rapids: Baker BookHouse, 1979), 209. This article was later revised and became the sixth chapterin O. Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (Philipsburg: P&R, 2000), 167-192. This paper,which originally critiqued his first version, has been updated to reflect themost recent version of his argument. The original will hereafter be referred toas "Romans 11", the more recent as Israel.
[3] Robertson, Israel, 171.
[4] Ibid., 168
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid., 175.
[7] In 8:18039 Paul introduces vocabularysuch as "elect," and "foreknowledge" which had special meaning for the Jew andare then applied to Israel in Rom 9-11. Paul sets up his discussion of Israelin Romans 9-11 by the question, "Who shall separate us from the love ofChrist?" in 8:35. For the Jewish reader might assume that Israel had once beenassured of God's love but God had removed that love. Such an implication wouldlead to confusion over the permanence and security of salvation.
[8] I am indebted to HowardW. Laing, Israel in the Epistle to the Romans (Unpublished Th.M.thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1962), 12-55, for this breakdown andanalysis.
[9] Robertson, Israel, 168.
[10] Henry Alford, Alford'sGreek Testament (London: Rivingtons,n.d., Reprint: Grand Rapids, Guardian Press, 1976), 2:424.
[11] Alford rejects this for a number ofreasons. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 2:66,notes that this position is held by Luther, Calvin, Hodge, Godet, Liddon,Gaugler, et al.
[12] Murray, Romans, 2:66, cites Meyer, Sanday and Headlam,Gifford as upholding this view. Alford and Wuest agree.
[13] Murray, Romans, 2:67
[14] Robertson, "Romans 11," 168.
[15] Ibid., 169.
[16] Ibid.
[17] The textual evidence for this third"now" is at best evenly split. In the view of this writer Robertson commits anerror by using this as support for his view. "The nu/n (nun) would not greatly affect the sense (the"now" time includes two phases; see on 11:31) and is not inappropriatestructurally, but is still slightly awkward. A clear-cut decision either way isnot possible (Lietzmann, Metzger)." cf., James D. G. Dunn, Vol. 38B, WordBiblical Commentary : Romans 9-16.Word Biblical Commentary, Page 677. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002.
[18] Ibid., 170.
[19] Ibid., 168.
[20] Murray, Romans, 2:84; David Chilton, Days of Vengeance (Fort Worth: Dominion Press, 1987), 128, 388; ParadiseRestored (Fort Worth: Dominion Press,1985), 125‑131. Although postmills emphasize a return it is not a uniquecorporate salvation, for ultimately all nations will be saved, so Israel willjust be one among many nations who are saved, no longer as a distinct covenantpeople.
[21] Robertson, Israel, 171.
[22] Robertson, Israel, 171
[23] Even taking this as individual salvationhas little bearing on the overall issue between amillennialists andpremillennialists.
[24] For example, Robertson repeatedly speaksof "ethnic Israel" yet in the same paragraph and within the same sentence heshifts between a corporate to an individual salvation, cf., 172.
[25] Murray, Romans, 2:68. Murray notes that Hodge, Calvinand Haldane advocate the position that the reference is to the elect withinIsrael; Meyer, Philippi, Liddon, Gifford, Godet, Sanday and Headlam take theother, 67n.
[26] William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, ACritical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902),318.
[27] For the full explanation of thestrengths and weakness of the different views cf.,, C. E. B. Cranfield, ACritical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1979),2:554; Sanday and Headlam, Romans,320; Witmer, "Romans," Bible Knowledge Commentary, John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, ed.(Wheaton: Victor, 1983), 2:483; Contra taken by Murray, Romans, 2:75,76. Murray wants to focus more onthe individuals within the group. However, with the exception of the "some" inverse 14, Paul is not concerned with individuals in this chapter but with God sfuture plan for Israel as a corporate entity.
[28] Although Robertson claims to be quotingthe NASB his Scripture citations do not match KJV NKJV NASB or NIV. He uses"fulness" in place of NASB "fulfillment" and "receiving" in place of NASB"acceptance."
[29] Robertson, Israel, 174.
[30] Murray, Romans, 2:81.
[31] Sanday andHeadlam, Romans, 323; Cranfield, Romans, 2:559; Murray, Romans, 2:80 states "the thought of verse 12 is reiteratedin verse 15."
[32] However, Paul's comparison with theremnant of Elijah's time gives the impression of a small number.
[33] Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 326.
[34] Barrett, Romans, 216; Cranfield, Romans, 2:564.
[35] Barrett, Romans, 216.
[36] R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretationof St. Paul's Epistle To the Romans(Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 703.
[37] Dale Younce, "TheOlive Tree ln Romans 11" (Unpublished ThM. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary,1963), 13‑17; Murray, Romans,2:85; Sanday and Headlam, Romans,326.
[38] James HopeMoulton and George Milligan, The Vocabularv of the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 564. It is used inthe New Testament to refer to the literal root of a plant (Mt. 3:10; Lk. 3:9),the figurative root of a plant (Mt. 13:6,21; Mk. 4:6,17; and the presentpassage), and to the origin of a matter (I Tim. 6:10; Heb. 12:15). In the LXXit is used to refer to the nation Israel (Ps. 80:9; Hosea 14:5; Isa. 37:31;Ezek. 16:3), to the Messiah (Isa. 11:1; 10; 53:2), and to the nations (Ezek.17:6‑9), Assyria (Ezek. 31:7), and to Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:12);William, F Arndt,. Wilbur Gingrich, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer. AGreek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature: A Translation and Adaption of the Fourth Revised and Augmented Edition ofWalter Bauer's Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch Zu Den Schrift En Des NeuenTestaments Und Der Ubrigen Urchristlichen Literatur, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996, c1979), 736. (Herafter, BDAG)
[39] Dale Younce, "TheOlive Tree in Romans 11," 16.
[40] Further support for this is given byCarl Hoch, "The Significance of the Sun‑Compounds," 182; he cites the mention of thepatriarchs and covenants in 9:4,5, the relation of the seed of Abraham to thepromise, 9:7-8; Paul's reference to himself as the "seed of Abraham," (11:1),and the emphasis on Abraham in Rom. 4.
[41] This is a strong argument againstanti-Semitism. Even though the remnant has rejected Christ as Messiah, becausethey are rooted in Abraham, they are still set apart and unique.
[42]Robertson, Israel,175.
[43] Ibid., 170.
[44] Ibid., 175.
[45] Carl Hoch "The Significance of Syn-compounds for Jew Gentile Relationshipsin the Body of Christ" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 25 (June 1982): 182, notes twelvedifferent interpretations for the olive tree in Romans 11. It is beyond thescope of this paper to evaluate each. Although Robertson does not specificallyidentify it as such, he takes the normal amillennial position that the treerepresents the church of God through the ages, what he calls "God's people."
[46] Robertson, Israel, 176.
[47] Robertson, Israel, 176.
[48]Robertson, "Romans 11", 220.
[49] J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words ofJesus (New York: CharlesScribner's Sons, 1966) 253; cited in Robertson, Israel, 220.
[50] BDAG, 160.
[51]JackDeere, "Premillenialism in Revelation 20:4-6," Bibliotheca Sacra, (Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1978), 68.
[52]Ibid.
[53] Robertson Israel, 179-180.
[54] Robertson Israel, 179-180.
[55] Again, one wishesRobertson had cited sources. Works consulted for this paper failed to produceevidence of this.
[56] Dunn,Romans 9-16, s.v., V.26 (Comments)
[57] BDAG, 741
[58] Dunn,Romans 9-16, s.v., V.26 (Comments)
[59] Robertson, Israel, 182.
[60] Robertson, "Romans 11," 223; not statedin Israel.
[61] Robertson, Israel, 183.
[62] Ibid., 186.
[63] Bruce M. Metzger, A TextualCommentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United BibleSocieties' Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition), Second Edition (Stuttgart: DeutscheBibelgesellschaft, 1994). Metzger notes "A preponderance of early and diversewitnesses favors the shorter reading." Yet he nevertheless opts for inclusionin the UBS4, yet in brackets; he identifies it as a "C" reading, which meansthe editors are even less certain of its inclusion than in the earlier UBS2which identified it as a "B" reading.
[64] Cranfield, Romans, 2:586.