OpenTheo
00:00
00:00

Romans 11

Romans
RomansSteve Gregg

In "Romans 11," Steve Gregg provides a theological interpretation of Paul's discussion of Israel in his letter to the Romans. Gregg argues that Paul is clarifying the definition of Israel and that both Jews and Gentiles are saved through their faith in Christ. Paul uses the imagery of the olive tree to illustrate that the Church is the true Israel, and that salvation is conditional for both Jews and Gentiles. Gregg emphasizes the importance of grace and humility towards the Jewish people, and ultimately gives glory to God for His unsearchable wisdom and grace.

Share

Transcript

When we come to Romans 11, we come to, in many respects, the climax of this section, Romans 9 through 11. We spent a good portion of time in chapter 9 setting this up. One of the things that detained us in chapter 9 is the red herring in popular theology that Paul, in Romans 9, goes off on a tangent about unconditional election and Calvinism, which, as I argued, he does not.
But we had to look at those verses through the eyes of a very large portion of Christian scholars, commentators, and pastors,
and show what needed to be seen differently there. That detained us longer than we would otherwise have been detained there. But we did see in chapter 9 that he began talking about Israel, and that is what he's still talking about.
He's winding up his discussion.
At the end of this chapter, or almost at the end, he's going to say, and thus, all Israel will be saved. With the emphasis on thus, in this way.
That all Israel would be saved is predicted in the Old Testament.
We read many scriptures, when we're looking at chapter 9, from the Old Testament that said Israel will be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation, and equivalent things to that. Promises in the Old Testament were that Israel would be saved, and Paul is arguing that the Word of God has not failed to take effect, because, of course, the prophecy has come true, and is coming true as we speak, as more and more of Israel is being saved.
And in the end, it'll turn out that all Israel will be saved in this way. The emphasis of Romans 11.26 is the way in which this prophecy is fulfilled. Contrary to that, what I've just said, the dispensational view is that he's not talking about the way Israel will be saved, but the time that Israel will be saved.
They don't believe that it's only a small portion of Israel being saved as now, but rather that the majority, if not all, the Jews will be saved at a time in the future. And that the prophecies in Isaiah that Israel will be saved have not yet been fulfilled, that the Word of God, as it were, has not taken effect, though Paul said in Romans 9.6 that it has. But they say it has not.
It has been postponed. The time will come when the nation of Israel as a whole will be saved, according to these prophecies.
And they believe that that's what Paul is going to say in this chapter.
So, realize the two entirely different ways this chapter can be read. The question at the beginning of the chapter is, I say then, has God cast away His people? And he says, certainly not. Okay, many dispensationalists say, see, Paul said that God has not cast away His people.
And yet dispensationalists will argue that He has at the moment, but He hasn't permanently. That God has temporarily set Israel aside while He deals with the church in this dispensation. But at the rapture of the church, this dispensation will end, and God will then resume His activities with Israel, and He has not permanently cast them aside, only temporarily.
So the assumption they have is that Paul's question, has God cast away His people? First of all, let's talk about ethnic Israel, has His people. And secondly, that you should insert somewhere a word like permanently. Has God permanently cast them away? Now, of course, Paul doesn't ask whether it's permanent.
He just asked if God has cast them away. And according to dispensational teachers, He has actually for the time being. But since they believe He will later reverse His policy toward Israel, and save them all on a racial basis, which He has never done previously, and is not doing now.
But they believe He will. Therefore, His people are ethnic Israel. Paul's brethren that he is so mournful about at the beginning of chapter 9. And that God has not permanently cast them away.
And so, all the way through this chapter, they're going to be reading some kind of a message in here, that Israel is temporarily, mostly cast away. But later, they will almost all be saved. Now, even dispensationalists say, not necessarily every last Jew.
I've heard dispensationalists who do believe every last Jewish person is included in all Israel who will be saved. Others say, well, no, this is a slight hyperbole. It just means a vast number of Jews will be saved.
But still, there will be a remnant. However, the dispensationalists views this chapter as saying, Paul is asking if there is or is not a future for ethnic Israel. Is there no future for them? Yes, there is a future for them.
Has God cast them off? Certainly not. He will save them eventually when he's done bringing in the Gentiles. And after the rapture of the church, he'll save Israel.
All Israel will be saved. In the meantime, they observe, Paul says there is a remnant of people who are saved of Israel. But that's just a token.
That's just sort of a down payment on the whole nation. And the fact that there is a remnant of them saved is argument that they will all be saved. Now, one could reasonably ask, wait a minute, how does that argument work? If there are a few Israelites saved today, and the majority of them die and go to hell, how is that some kind of a demonstration that God has a commitment to that ethnic group? How does the saving of a remnant of them now in any way argue for a saving of all of them later? Since all of them who would be saved later on this scene are not even born yet, and most of the living Jews today will die and go to hell, is this some argument for God specifically favoring them as a race? Why would only saving a remnant of them now bespeak God changing His policy later and saving more than a mere remnant of them? All of them, and on a different basis.
Because those who are saved now are clearly saved only because they have faith in Christ, not because they're Jewish. And yet, if all Israels be saved, meaning ethnic, they are going to be in that category because they are ethnic Israel. Of course, they're not saying they'll be saved without Christ.
What they're saying is the Jews will come to Christ. When they see Him coming, they'll all turn to Him and weep for Him as for an only begotten Son, and so forth, they argue. But the point here is they will all turn to Christ because they are Israel.
That is, God is going to see to it that a future generation of Israel will certainly be saved through Christ, though He has not determined that any other previous generation of Israel will all be saved through Christ. Only a remnant. And the suggestion that Paul is arguing this way suggests that Paul is given leave of his logical capacity.
That, hey, we have a remnant of Jews saved today. That proves He's going to save them all in a future generation. Does it? How so? How does that argument work? I don't really see that there's a connection there.
Now, it may be, well, it may really be true that God is going to save all the Jews someday, and that in the meantime He's saved a remnant, but the salvation of the remnant right now would not be a logical argument for the other. We could have it by direct revelation from Paul or from God that there will be a salvation of all the Jews someday, but it doesn't follow logically from the fact that there are some Jews and not many saved today. So, this is how the dispensationalist sees this passage.
It's largely about eschatology. The non-dispensationalist sees it as we've been seeing Romans 9 and 10. It's not about the end times, it's about the present time.
It's about how God is saving, how God is fulfilling His promises to save Israel. And what Paul has said, the way he's done it is by redefining Israel. Or maybe not redefining, but just clarifying the definition of Israel.
It's always been this way. The remnant of Israel has always been the only Israel that God's promises are for. And that being so, He is saving Israel, the remnant.
He's also saving Gentiles who are being grafted into the same olive tree, and thus all Israel, the Jew and the Gentile branches, are being saved. This way all Israel will be saved, not just the Jewish part of Israel, but the Gentile part too. This is what he's arguing.
It's the method of saving Israel, it's not the timing. He's not discussing something that will happen later, so much as something that is going on now as a fulfillment of His promise to save Israel. Today and in previous generations and in future generations, all who are coming to Christ are Israel and are being saved.
In this way, when history has reached its end, all who are Israel, Gentiles and Jews who belong to Christ, who have ever lived, are saved, the full Israel. Now, this is, I say, the non-dispensational view, which is obviously the view I hold. And therefore, I'm going to be arguing somewhat against the dispensational view, and I do so without any animus toward Israel.
It's not like I don't want all Israel to be saved as an ethnic group. Paul wanted them saved, and so do I, and so does any Christian. In fact, I want all people to be saved, not just Jews.
But Paul obviously did not assume that Israel would be saved. That's why we talk about, I would wish myself a curse from Christ for their salvation if that would do it. He obviously does not consider that it's a done deal, that it's a guarantee.
Why would he even talk about making such a sacrifice to get them saved if they're going to be saved anyway? And why would he be arguing that only a remnant will be saved in the earlier portion, and that Gentiles will be saved with them on the same basis? Or why would he change his tune here? Because dispensationalists believe that God has different dispensations, in which he does indeed change his tune. He deals with mankind on different principles and different dispensations. In the dispensation of the church age of grace, he's only saving a remnant of Israel, including Gentiles.
But when this dispensation ends, God changes his whole policy, and changes, in a sense, himself in a way, because now suddenly race matters to him when it never has in his previous lifetime or in history. So anyway, I don't see dispensationalism as the most reasonable view, but let's just actually see what Paul says, and not necessarily anything we would impose upon him. Clearly what he says in chapter 11 is going to follow naturally from chapters 9 and 10, and it's been not difficult to see what he said there.
I think he says the same here, but he says, I say then, has God cast away his people? Certainly not, for I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away his people whom he foreknew. Now, whom did he foreknow? This is a term Paul used back in Romans chapter 8, didn't he? In Romans 8, 29.
Whom he foreknew, the very same phrase, whom he foreknew, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son. Well, who's that? The Christians. God has not cast away his people, but many Jews are not his people.
Of course he has not cast off his people. He has not cast off the Christians. He has not cast off the ones that he foreknew.
And Paul gives himself as an example. I'm a Christian and a Jew. I'm an Israelite.
It's clear that God hasn't thrown away the Jews completely.
There are some who are Christians among them, like me, he says. You see, the question, has God cast off his people? It doesn't mean permanently.
Has God cast off his people permanently?
But has God cast off his people? Absolutely. No, there are some of his people, the Jews, whom he foreknew, and he hasn't cast them off. He's not talking about what will happen, what has happened.
God has not cast off the ones that he foreknew. He has saved them, in other words. He has saved Israel, the true Israel.
I'm an example, Paul says. I'm one of them. Now, if he was arguing the question, has God thrown away the Jews permanently, and will change, and he says, well, I'm a Jew, what would that have to do with answering that question? He emphasizes, I'm of the tribe of Israel, I'm of the tribe of Benjamin.
Okay, nice to tell us that, Paul, but what in the world does that have to do with making your point? If you're trying to say, no, in the future, God's going to save all Israel, fine, say it. But don't argue it by saying, I'm a Jew, I'm saved. Yeah, what's the logical connection there? With someday God's going to save all the Jews.
But if he's saying, God has not cast off every last Jew, he has some that are Christians. I'm one. It's clear he's saying, he hasn't cast off all Jews, because there are some among them who are not only children of the flesh, but also children of the promise, like Paul says, like me, and others.
And he's going to go on also, a little further, in verse 5, he's going to say, even so then, at this present time, there is a remnant according to the election of grace. Paul is not here talking about future, he's talking about the present time. He's not asking about the future or answering about the future.
He's asking about the present time and answering about the present time. Has God a new plan for Israel that's different than now in the future? Well, if so, he doesn't mention it. If you ask me whether God has cast off all the Jews, no, not all of them.
There's a remnant now, and there always will be, and always was. There was in Elijah's day, he makes that point, as we shall see. But there is now too.
He says in verse 2, Elijah was part of such a small remnant that he couldn't even identify others. I alone am left. I have to say that Elijah was using hyperbole there, because there were other sons of the prophets that he himself supervised in five different cities of Israel.
Elijah would make the rounds to the sons of the prophets and lead them, and they certainly were not bowing the knee to Baal. So when he says, I alone am left, I'm the only prophet left, it's hyperbole. There were a lot of prophets, and there's not many left.
I'm one of the very, very, very, very few. That's what he means, I alone am left. This kind of hyperbole is very common in Scripture.
And God says, no, actually, there's more than you think. What does the divine response to him say? He says, I have reserved for myself 7,000 men who have not bowed the knee to Baal. So the remnant is bigger than you think.
The statement of Elijah is in 1 Kings 19, verses 10 and 14. And the response of God, where he says, I've reserved for myself 7,000 men who have not bowed the knee to Baal, that's later in the same chapter, 1 Kings 19, 18. Paul says, even so, then, at this present time, there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
And if by grace, then it is no longer of works. And I believe, of course, works here primarily means ritual works, circumcision and the like. It's no longer the Jews' privilege, the unique Jewish privilege.
It's grace to all. Otherwise, grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace.
Otherwise, work is no longer work. Now, this last line is not in many of the translations, and rightly so. Otherwise, work is no longer work.
I've never been able to make sense of that line, and very few modern translations would include it at all. Apparently, it is not in all the manuscripts, and I think it doesn't belong there. The sentence should end, it is no longer grace, period.
The statement, otherwise, work is no longer work, I've never seen any sense in that particular line. And I'm glad I don't have to comment on it, because it isn't necessarily part of the original. The point he's making is, if God was going to save people by their works, then what they do, rather than what God does, is going to be what saves them, at least partially.
Whereas it's by grace, it's not earned, it's not owed. Paul has made this very same point, in almost the same words, back in Romans chapter 4. So, he's not really in new territory here, he's just again amplifying things that have come up and been explained earlier. In chapter 4 of Romans, he said, in verse 4, Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace, but debt.
But to him who does not work, but believes on him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted to him for righteousness. So, he said, if you work for it, and you get saved for your work, then it's owed to you, it's not grace. That's what he's saying here too, same thing, different words.
If it's by grace, then it no longer works, otherwise grace isn't grace. The point here is, Israel all has the circumcision going for them. They all are, for the most part, following the ritual laws.
If that's what gets brownie points with God, then they're all in. But they aren't all in, because they don't all come to him on the basis of the covenant of grace. They don't all believe in the Messiah.
He has not cast off all Jews, but he has cast off the ones that are seeking it by works. But the ones who are the remnant by grace, they are accepted. What then, verse 7, Israel has not obtained what it seeks, but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were hardened, just as this is written.
God has given them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see, ears that they should not hear, to this very day. Okay, the quote is from Isaiah 29.10 and 13. God has hardened their hearts.
He said earlier about Pharaoh that God hardened his heart, and God hardens whoever he wants to. The generation that Jesus came to were specifically hardened, except for the remnant. Now, we need to understand that God didn't decide necessarily who would be in the remnant and who wouldn't.
Before Jesus came, there already were people who were faithful Jews. They were part of the remnant. They, because they were part of the remnant, were permitted to recognize Christ and become his disciples.
Before Christ came, there was also a majority of Jewish people who were not part of the faithful remnant. They were not lovers of God, apparently. Jesus said that to the Pharisees.
I know you, that you have no love for God in you, in John 5. And it's hard for us to imagine that most of the Jews wouldn't love God. I mean, there was a great amount of religion among them, but that's how Jesus assessed it. We aren't there.
We haven't met them.
Apparently, Israel was in a pretty bad spiritual state at the time Jesus came. And God judged them by hardening their hearts, giving them a spirit of stupor so they wouldn't see.
Jesus said this very thing when he was asked, why do you speak to them in parables? In Matthew 13, he said, because seeing they may see and not perceive, hearing they may hear and not understand. And then it's fulfilled, the words of Isaiah the prophet, that like Isaiah's generation was apostate, so the generation of Jews in Jesus' day was largely apostate. And therefore, just as he hardened Pharaoh's heart because Pharaoh had done enough to deserve it, so he hardened this generation's heart because they had done enough to deserve it.
They were under God's judgment, and so many of them were hardened. And he says there in verse 7, what then Israel has not obtained, that is the ethnic Israel has not obtained what it seeks, but the elect, which would be of course the remnant he mentioned earlier, have obtained it, and the rest were hardened. So just as he shows mercy on whom he will and hardens whom he will, as he said in chapter 9, he has hardened those that deserve to be hardened in Israel, and they're not coming.
Their hearts are hard. Others have obtained salvation, the elect, the true Israel, the remnant, the Christian Jews. I might just comment on this word elect because he uses it a few times here.
He said earlier in chapter 9 that the choice of Jacob over Esau was that the purpose of God according to election might stand not of works, but of him who calls. God's election means his choice. He chose Jacob over Esau.
Some people, every time they see the word election, they want it to be, you know, prehistoric election. Before the earth was founded, God elected certain people to be saved, certain people to be lost. Paul doesn't always mean that.
In fact, I don't think he ever means that specifically when he talks about election.
He does sometimes mean people who are saved are the elect. Jacob being chosen might or might not have been saved.
He was, but it didn't matter.
That's not the way he was elected. He was elected in a different sense.
But the elect that he's talking about here are the believing remnant of Israel, so they are saved. But the elect means what? They were chosen. Now, the Calvinists would say they were chosen before they were born, so they came to faith and became the faithful remnant because God had elected them to do so.
It was inevitable that these ones and no others would be in the elect remnant because God made that choice before the foundation of the world. On the other hand, there's no reason to see it that way unless you're importing Calvinistic ideas. It's as easy to say because they are the faithful remnant, God has chosen them.
There were chosen people who were faithful to God, who God chose to reveal Christ to. Remember when Jesus said to his disciples, who do you say I am? And Peter said, you're the Christ, the son of the living God. Jesus said, blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, my Father has revealed this to you.
You can only know this by revelation, but you happen to be one of the faithful remnant, and so my Father has opened your eyes to recognize me as the Messiah. We have every reason to believe this is true of every Jewish person who came to understand Christ was the Messiah when he was here. God revealed it to them.
Why did he do that? Because they were already part of the faithful remnant. Think of Simeon and Anna in the temple when Jesus was a baby. Simeon was the old man God said he wouldn't die before he saw the Messiah.
Anna was spending her night and day in the temple fasting and praying and associating with people who were looking for the redemption of Israel. These were old people at the time Jesus was born, but they were already part of the faithful remnant, not because of faith in Christ. They'd lived most of their life before he was even born, but they were faithful in terms of faith toward God otherwise.
And when he came, what? God revealed to them that he's the Messiah. Simeon knew by inspiration. Anna did too, that this was the Messiah.
So the faithful remnant existed as a faithful remnant before Jesus came. And God chose those ones to come to the Messiah. This is what Jesus meant in John when he again and again talked about those that the Father has given me.
Again, reading John 6 as a Calvinist, Calvinists believe that those that the Father has given refers to the total number of the elect throughout all history are the ones that God has given him. But actually Jesus indicates that the ones that God has given him are the ones that were already God's people before Jesus showed up. And God has revealed to them who Jesus is, so they come to him.
He says, all that the Father has given me will come to me. Well, who are these people that the Father has given to him? Well, if you look over at John 17, verse 6, Jesus says, he's praying, says, I have manifested your name to the men whom you have given me out of the world. They were yours and you gave them to me and they've kept your word.
Notice, the ones that the Father has given me, he's not talking about some group of people past, present, and future throughout all history that are the elect. He's talking about people who were already at the time Jesus came, before they were given to Jesus, they already were God's people. They were the faithful remnant of Israel.
Mary and Joseph, Elizabeth and Zacharias, Simeon and Anna, and many others of that generation and before were the faithful remnant. And those who happened to their lifetime overlap the coming of Christ, God drew them to Christ. God showed the faithful remnant because they were his, that he gave them to Christ.
This is not talking about some total of elect or the ones that God gave, but the particular people that came to Jesus while he was here on the earth had previously been God's people on other terms before he came. Still on faith, but they hadn't known Jesus yet, but God reveals Jesus to those who are the faithful. They were the ones he chose to bring into the church, into Christ, because they were already faithful.
To say they were elect is not to say they were unconditionally elect, and that's the point I'm making. Calvinists like to use Romans 9 and Jacob and Esau to talk about unconditional election, but as I pointed out, that's not talking about this doctrine. Whenever the Bible talks about elect, as it does say in verse 11, an election for salvation, it's made clear, well, I should say it's not made clear that it's unconditional.
It's never stated to be unconditional. That can be read into it, but he doesn't say it. The people are elect because of the grace of God, they're chosen to be in Christ.
But who were they before? They were God's people already, these Jews who are part of that remnant. And so the others were hardened and given ears that cannot hear. Now, verse 9, and David says, let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a recompense to them.
Let their eyes be darkened that they may not see and bow down their back always. This is Psalm 69, verses 22 and 23, which is one of the imprecatory Psalms. David wishing these curses on Jews.
He was not talking about Gentiles in this song, talking about Jewish people, his own countrymen who were antagonistic toward God. Well, Paul is basically saying, well, most Jews are still in that camp. But David said about them applies to them too.
And so part of what David said in verse 10 is, let their eyes be darkened that they may not see. And that's the part that causes Paul to quote this particular Psalm. Because he's saying their eyes are darkened, as David said, and as Isaiah said.
Okay, verse 11. I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not. But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.
Now, if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness. For I speak to you, Gentiles, inasmuch as I am an apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry. If by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.
For if their being cast away is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? Now, from this point, he goes on and talks about the olive tree and the branches. Another part, a very clear part of his thought here. But this part is not as clear.
There's a little bit of ambiguity. I'll tell you how most people understand it, especially those influenced by dispensationalism. When he says, I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not.
They seem to think this means that they should fall permanently. Once again, the idea is, is this a permanent condition? And the answer to the dispensationalist says, no, it's going to change. They're all going to be saved.
But again, Paul doesn't indicate that he's asking a question about permanency. He just says, have they stumbled so that they might fall? In other words, is God causing them to stumble just for the sake of making them fall? Is there nothing else that he's after? He says, no, there's something more to it. There's more purpose to it than just that.
The purpose is that through their fall, the Gentiles might be reached. And then the Jews could be made jealous through God's acceptance of the Gentiles. So for their jealousy, God has reached the Gentiles.
He has reached the Gentiles largely through the fall of Israel. Now, some may conclude that Israel had to fall in order that the Gentiles would be saved. There's nothing suggested specifically about that.
It just happens that the Jews did fall, and God exploited that to reach the Gentiles. Because of the persecution of the Christians in Jerusalem, the apostles were scattered out to Gentile regions. And therefore, the Jews' rejection of Christianity worked out to promote the evangelization of the Gentiles.
That's what has actually happened. Some people say, well, what if the Jews hadn't rejected Christ? What if they had accepted him? Would then the Gentiles not be saved? Well, think about it. Part of the Jews, the disciples, did come to Christ.
The remnant came to Christ. And what happened? He commissioned them to go to all the nations. So the Gentiles were in fact evangelized by that remnant of Israel that believed in him.
What if that remnant had included every last Jew? God would have still given the Great Commission, and they still would have gone out to get the Gentiles. In other words, if every Jew had accepted Christ, this would not prevent Gentile evangelism. If anything, it might have made it increase because there would be a larger number of Jewish disciples to go out.
But even though it was a sub-ideal situation, and not all the Jews did accept Christ, and many of them did stumble and fall, that did not prevent God from using their fall as a means of propelling the Jewish church out of their comfort zone and into the Gentile world. They would have gone eventually anyway, but God used the persecution there in Jerusalem by the Jewish people as a means of making them go out. If that had not happened, he could have gotten them to go out some other way.
The fact that God did it one way doesn't mean that it could only have been done that way. But Paul is saying, is the fall of Israel, is that all there is? Is there fall and end in itself? Did God just harden them so they'll fall, and he just wants them to see them go down? That's all? No, he doesn't delight to see people fall. He has used it.
They have fallen, and a purpose of God has been promoted through it, because he has exploited their fall to bring Gentiles in. And that itself could bring Jews back. As they see Gentiles being saved, it may cause the Jews to be jealous and say, how come those people are enjoying a relationship with our God? And frankly, we're not.
That jealousy might cause them to come to Christ too. It is not predicted that it will. It is simply said, this is something that is a possibility, that the jealousy that they feel toward the Gentiles, of course, may in some way result in the conversion of some of them too.
Now, there's two verses that are particularly unclear, but which are usually thought to be clear, verse 12 and verse 15. Now, if their fall, of course he's referring to Israel, those who have rejected Christ, is riches for the world, and he apparently means Gentile world, because he talks about how through their fall, salvation has come to the Gentiles. So, if it's true, if the fall of Israel has been riches to the Gentile world, and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness? Now, in verse 15 it says, for if their being cast away is reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? Now, these two verses are thought by dispensationalists to be predictive of a time when those who have fallen will in fact now be accepted, will come back, that Israel in the last days will be saved, and that these verses are saying so.
They fell, God got great mileage out of their fall, think of the mileage you'll get out of their acceptance when they come back. Technically, he doesn't make a prediction about this. He's saying, if this is so, imagine this development.
If God can use a Jew's unbelief, think how much more he can use a Jew's belief. If Jews don't believe in Christ, he still gets the world evangelized that way, just think how much he can get done by a Jew believing. He is not predicting that all the Jews will believe, but rather that it'd be a great thing if they do.
It's not that God doesn't want them to, and if they do, certainly that's got to be a better scene than if they don't. Their rejection of Christ, their being cast away has been something that even that God could use for good. He could certainly use their coming to him better, and many Jews do come to him, and that is better than their rejecting him.
He's not predicting en masse that the Jews will come. He's just saying, most Jews have not, imagine if they did. Think of how good that could be.
Now, that is one way to see these verses, and it would not in any way be making a prediction about how many Jews will come, but just that if they do, that's better than if they don't. God will get more mileage out of that even. There's another way to see it.
I've never heard anyone suggest it, and therefore it may not be true, but I have all kinds of thoughts I've never heard anyone suggest, and sometimes the more I think about them, the more I think they could be true. In verse 12, he says, Now if there, that is Israel's fall, is the richest for the world, the Gentile world, and if there, that is Israel's failure, is richest for the Gentiles, how much more there, that is the Gentiles' fullness. The last there is in proximity closer to Gentiles than Jews.
If, in fact, the fall of the Jews is bringing in the fullness of the Gentiles, how much more will the fullness of the Gentiles coming in accomplish? Now, one reason for thinking this is that there's only one other place that talks about fullness in this passage, and it is the fullness of the Gentiles. In verse 25, later on, he says, I don't desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion that hardening in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. Paul does, in this passage, speak of the fullness of the Gentiles coming in.
He never, ever speaks clearly of the fullness of the Jews coming in. He doesn't predict it. Unless it is in, of course, verse 12, but that's just the point.
We can't beg the question and say, well, here he's talking about Israel. Is he? The last noun before the pronoun there at the end of verse 12 is Gentiles. And so he's saying, if God has made such use of the fall of Jews, how much more use can he make of the Gentiles' fullness coming in? So, Israel's failure is richest for the Gentiles.
How much more will the Gentiles' fullness be? That is a way it can be understood. So, you can take it, I believe you can see a case for either way. And likewise, verse 15, for if there, that is, Israel's being cast away as rich as the reconciling for the world, that is, the Gentile world, what will there, that is, the Gentile world's acceptance be but life from the dead? The last there in verse 15 and in verse 12 could be a reference to the closest noun to that pronoun, which in each case is going to be the Gentile world.
Their fullness, their acceptance is going to be great. And how much more could this be anticipated when you realize what God can accomplish through even people rejecting him, like the Jews. How much more can he accomplish through the full number of Gentiles coming in and accepting him? So, there is a possibility that these verses are really talking about the fullness of the Gentiles, not of the Jews.
But if we don't, if that's too radical, too different, too counterintuitive or whatever, then we needn't go there. We can simply understand it by saying, if God can use the fall of the Jews, how much more can he use their accepting of Christ? And Jews are accepting Christ all the time. Every day there's Jews somewhere in the world accepting Christ.
And he can use that a lot more than he can use them being in rebellion against him. In any case, the argument that Paul is making does not translate into any predictions about an en masse conversion of Jews someday. Any Jews that do come to Christ, God can use that even more than them being in rebellion against Christ.
But that's just a fact, you know, that's always true. It's not about something necessarily in the future. And in verse 14, he says, If by any means, oh, this is verse 13, the verse I was looking for earlier.
I was looking in chapter 15. I was in the wrong place. For I speak to you Gentiles, verse 13, inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry.
If by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. And I emphasize that I'm sent to the Gentiles. Why? Because the Jews hate it when I say that.
You can see the book of Acts, that whenever Paul mentioned to a Jewish audience that he was sent to the Gentiles, they wanted to stone him to death. Like, you turncoat, you're one of us, and you're going to those Gentiles instead of to us. You're, you know, that made them angry.
He says, I emphasize this, I magnify this fact that I am an apostle to the Gentiles. It makes the Jews mad. It makes them jealous.
I'm hoping that this reaction on their part might lead them to finally say, you know, maybe we should get in on this along with the Gentiles. Anyway, he's hoping that this may save some. Notice he doesn't have any confidence that all will be saved.
He said, I'm hoping that by this means I might be able to save some of them. Paul never argues that every last Jew is going to be saved, but I hope to save as many as I can. And one of the ways I do it is by making them jealous, by talking about me being an apostle to the Gentiles, not to them.
And verse 16 now comes to the new material, and this is where Paul's meaning becomes crystal clear. Though it can still be missed by those determined to see something else. For if the first fruit is holy, the lump is also holy.
If the root is holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches, but if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
Well said, because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.
Therefore consider the goodness and the severity of God on those who fell severity, but toward you goodness. If you continue in His goodness, otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in.
That's an if there. For God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut out of the olive tree, which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into the good olive tree, how much more will these, who are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? Of course, that's on the same basis of the if in the previous verse.
If they don't abide in unbelief, how much more will they do so? Be added. For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that hardening in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, or in this way.
Thus, all Israel will be saved. As it is written, the Deliverer will come out of Zion, and he will turn away ungodliness from Jacob. For this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.
Now, we could keep reading, and we should, but we need to take some time out to look at this olive tree thing. This picture of the olive tree is not an innovation on Paul's part. It comes right out of the Old Testament.
An olive tree is an emblem of the nation of Israel. And, in fact, not only an olive tree, but the olive tree with the branches broken off, as he speaks of, is an emblem from the Old Testament. In Jeremiah chapter 11, speaking of the fact that many of the Jews have been taken away into Babylon, but not all.
The Jewish nation is an olive tree, and the Jews who were taken away to Babylon have their branches of this tree been removed. That's the imagery here. And it says in Jeremiah 11, 16, The Lord called your name Green Olive Tree.
Lovely and of good fruit. But with the noise of a great tumult, he has kindled a fire in it, and its branches are broken. Now, to speak of Israel as an olive tree with broken branches informs Paul's use of this illustration.
He's going to talk about an olive tree. He's going to talk about branches broken off, but he's going to talk about other branches grafted in in their place. The branches broken off, clearly, are the Jewish members of the tree who are cut off because they were not believers in Christ.
This means that the only Jewish branches remaining on the tree are the believing Jews, the believing remnant. The ones who didn't believe are broken off. They're not there anymore.
Then the Gentiles are branches from an old wild olive tree. They're grafted in. So we have what? We have believing Jews and believing Gentiles comprising this tree.
What is the tree? It's Israel. But when you combine the Jewish and the Gentile believers, what do you have, really? You have the church. Essentially, the church is Israel.
The believing Jews, the remnant, and the believing Gentiles grafted together in with them make up this organism, this tree, which is Israel. But it also makes up what we call the church, quite obviously. Now, he says in verse 16, if the first fruit is holy, the lump is holy.
That is, if you dedicate a portion of your bread to God, as holy to the Lord, it stands as an emblem for the entire lump of dough. And if the root is holy, and here's where he gets into the tree image, if the root of the tree is holy, so are the branches of the tree. All right.
The root is possibly God himself, or maybe Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He doesn't specify what the root of the tree is. Humanly speaking, it's the fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
More divinely speaking, of course, God is the root of it. But the important thing is, whatever it is that makes Israel holy is at its root. And it's either its relationship with God, or its descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or whatever.
The holiness of the tree comes from its root and extends to every branch on the tree. So the branches are the holy people in the holy tree, in the holy nation. However, there's a surprising composition of the branches of this tree.
Because originally, of course, Israel was made up of Jews. But now a lot of people who are Jews are not in Israel. He's made that point from the beginning of his argument in Romans 9. They are not all Israel who are of Israel.
So some of these branches that are Jewish are not really part of the tree anymore. Why? Because they didn't believe. They're cut off because of their unbelief.
So a Jew who is not a believer in Christ is not part of Israel. Not part of the tree, the olive tree Israel. There are branches that have been broken off.
What is left then on the tree is the Jewish believers. They're the only ones that were not broken off. So Israel now is trimmed back to simply the faithful remnant.
The Jews who believe, they are still holy. The branches on the tree are holy, but a lot of the branches aren't on the tree anymore. The branches that still belong to the tree and still tap into the root and its holiness are believing Jews.
The Jewish remnant. The Jewish church, of course. But then there's other branches grafted in.
Gentile branches. And they, as he says, partake of the root and the fatness of the olive tree at the end of verse 17. We Gentiles who believe by faith have been grafted into Israel, into the tree.
And we partake of the root. Remember, if the root is holy, the branches are holy. Well, we're branches now.
And the holiness and the fatness of that tree, the life of that tree is in us too. So Israel has been reconfigured. Now, in Old Testament times, of course, there were always Jews and Gentiles in Israel.
A Gentile could become a proselyte. A Jew could become apostate. And therefore, it never was the case that all Jews were really accepted as Israel or that all Gentiles were excluded.
However, it was clearly the case that in Old Testament times, the majority of those faithful to God were of Jewish extraction. And the Gentile converts were of a minority. All that has changed here is the demographics.
It is still the case, as it always was, that Israel was comprised of Jews and Gentiles who were faithful to God. In the Old Testament, it was never different than that. A Jew or a Gentile faithful to God was Israel.
A Jew or a Gentile not faithful to God was not Israel. This is still true. Paul is not saying anything radically different.
What he is pointing out, though, is, of course, we are now in a situation where the majority of Jews are unbelievers and not part of Israel. And the majority of those branches in the tree are not Jews but Gentiles. There has been a shift.
The percentage of Gentiles has increased in the tree and the percentage of Jews decreased, but it is still what it always was. The believing Jews and Gentiles are the tree. They are Israel.
The church, then, is Israel. It is not a replacement for Israel. Some people call this replacement theology as if the church replaced Israel.
What is replaced? Branches are replaced. Unbelieving Jewish branches are cut off and believing Gentiles have come in to replace them. But the church does not replace Israel.
The tree is the same tree all along. It is not like the tree of Israel was uprooted and a new tree of Christianity was planted. It is that certain individuals who are unbelievers have been removed and replaced with individuals who are believers.
There is some replacement here, but it is not what some people misrepresent it as. It is not saying the church replaces Israel. It is that the church and Israel are the same thing.
It is just that some Gentile believers have been added and replaced Jewish unbelievers. It has not changed who the tree is. It is all Israel.
It is all the church beginning to end. It says, then, and this would address another controversy, not just the Israel controversy, but the eternal security controversy. Because it says you Gentiles who have been added in might feel cocky toward the Jews because a lot of them have been cut off and you are now the majority here in the church in Rome.
You are the biggest majority. Are you Gentiles? So you might think you are better than the Jews. Don't get too cocky because they were broken off because of their unbelief.
You can be broken off because of your unbelief if you happen to fall into that. He says, remember, verse 18, you are not supporting the root. The root supports you.
You need to still hang on to that root. You are not the source of your own salvation. The root is.
It is supporting you. You will say, then, branches, verse 19, were broken off that I might be grafted in. True, true enough.
Because of unbelief, they were broken off and you are standing because you are not in unbelief because you have faith. Faith is the factor that connects you to Israel. Unbelief is that which excludes you from Israel.
But don't be haughty. But fear, for God did not spare. If God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.
It would seem the natural branches would seemingly by nature have the higher claim to be on the tree than foreign branches. And if He didn't keep the natural branches around, why would He keep the foreign branches around if they commit the same atrocity of unbelief? So He is saying you Gentiles who are now attached could be cut off too. A Gentile could lose their salvation just like the Jews who are cut off are not saved.
So a Gentile that is cut off would not be saved either. He says in verse 22, Consider therefore the goodness and the severity of God on those who fell severity. But on you goodness, if you continue in His goodness.
Paul in a number of places used the expression if you continue. It's a condition for salvation that you must continue. Jesus said you must abide in me.
Every branch that abides, that means remains or continues to be in me will bear fruit. Any branch that does not continue to be in me will be thrown away, withered and burned Jesus said in John 15, 1-6. So here also, if you continue in Christ, then you'll continue to have goodness toward you.
Just like the Jews did when they were faithful. But when they're unfaithful, they're cut off. So will you be if you're unfaithful.
It makes it very clear. Salvation is conditional. Not only for the Jew, but for the Gentile.
Anybody who believes is in. Anyone who does not believe is out. And if you're a believer now and you're participating in the fatness and the root of the olive tree, well and good, but you better make sure you still do.
If you continue in his goodness, you'll find his goodness continues toward you. But if you fall away like they do, well, you have no special position unconditionally any more than they did. He says, you'll also be cut off.
He says at the end of verse 22. If you don't continue, you'll be cut off like they were. Verse 23, and they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in.
That any Jew who wants to be saved can be grafted in. When he says they, he doesn't mean the whole nation and mass will be grafted in. He's saying they, the Jews, as individuals, just like Gentiles as individuals.
If they believe, they'll be put back in. It's not like their situation is necessarily terminal. They can come back.
They can repent, and if they do, they'll be put in just like you were. This is not talking about the conversion of the whole nation. This is simply saying the Jew that's been cut off doesn't have to consider that he can't come back.
He can. None of these conditions are unconditionally permanent. You were a Gentile.
You were not in the tree, but that changed when you believed. It can change again if you come into unbelief. You won't be on it again.
They were on the tree, but they were cut off. That changed because of unbelief. But if that changes again, if they don't continue in unbelief, they can be put on.
The whole point is there's one thing only that determines whether you're on the tree at any given moment. Are you trusting God? Do you have unbelief or faith? Faith is the connection to God and to the true Israel. So he says in verse 24, so if you were cut out of an olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into the good olive tree, how much more will these, who are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? Of course they will.
If God could graft a wild olive tree by faith, he can graft a natural branch back on by faith. But this is not a prediction about any percentages. This is just saying, as he said in the previous verse, if they don't remain in unbelief, they can be brought in.
How much more is God able to do that? And how much more certainly will he do that for the natural branches if they don't remain in unbelief than for us? Now the big verses that many people have trouble with is verse 25 and 26. I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that hardening in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and so all Israel will be saved, as it is written. And he quotes from Isaiah.
The deliverer will come from Zion, and he will turn away ungodliness from Jacob, for this is the covenant with them, my covenant with them, when I take away their sins. This is obviously talking about the new covenant, when God takes away the sins, shedding of blood, this is the new covenant, my blood, Jesus said. So, when Jesus made the new covenant with the remnant of Israel, this was the deliverer coming and turning away ungodliness from Jacob.
That is the remnant of Jacob. But all of Jacob, all the true Jacob, will be saved. In what way? In the way described in verse 25.
Now the way this is too popularly understood by dispensationalists and those who are simply influenced by them, because I've heard this argument even from people who aren't technically dispensational, but they just, apparently they haven't thought in any categories different than dispensationalists do on this. They think it's saying that a temporary hardening has happened to Israel. Remember, they wanted to insert the idea of temporary in verse 1 of this chapter.
Has God permanently cast off his people? No. But the word permanent isn't in there, because he's not talking about chronology. Likewise, they want to insert the idea of temporary.
That temporary hardness has happened to Israel until the Gentiles are coming. Then, another temporal word, all Israel will be saved. You see, this is how the dispensationalists understand this fate of the Jews and the Gentiles.
That God has temporarily put the Jews aside, bring in the Gentiles. When he's done that, he'll then bring the Jews in again. So you need to have something like the word temporary hardness.
Hardening has happened. And then you have to have then, like after that, all Israel will be saved, in order to make Paul say what the dispensationalists say. Unfortunately for their position, he says neither of those things.
He simply says hardening in part has happened to Israel. What does he mean by that? Some Jews are hardened and some aren't. He doesn't say whether this will continue to be true or not.
That's not his thought. He's not thinking about that. He has already told us that part of them were hardened back in verse 7. He said, What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks, the elect have obtained it, and the rest were hardened.
That's the hardening in part. The rest who are not the remnant, they were hardened. So part of the nation of Israel was hardened, not all of it.
And now what? This is a fact through the entire age of the church until the whole Gentile world is heard and the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. So the condition of hardening, partial hardening of Jews, is permanent as long as Gentiles are coming in. He says until the fullness of the Gentiles come in.
This is the process that's going on for 2,000 years. Now is he saying something's then going to change after the fullness of the Gentiles come in, then something else is going to happen, like then Israel's going to stop being hardened and start being saved? That's what the dispensational reads, but he doesn't say that. He just speaks of the fullness of the Gentiles being coming in, and he doesn't speak of any other point beyond that.
Why? Because no doubt Gentiles will be coming in right to the last day. Otherwise we have to assume that Gentiles will stop being saved for a period of time, and then after that short period of time when no one's being saved, Jesus will come. But the Gentiles, no doubt, will have opportunity to come in until Jesus returns, and therefore the fullness of the Gentiles being come in means right up until the last day, until the last Gentile has been converted.
What's after that? Well, the second coming of Christ, not the conversion of Israel. And in fact, he says, he does not say, and then all Israel be saved as if he's given a sequence of events. He says, and thus, so, all Israel be saved.
The word in Greek means in this way. So instead of talking about what order of events, he's talking about the method. How is God fulfilling the promise that he would save all Israel? He said he would.
Here's how he does it. By taking the Jews who believe, taking the Gentiles who believe, putting them in one tree, one Israel, and that whole tree is saved. All Israel is saved.
The Jewish branches, the Gentile branches, they all participate in the holiness and fatness of the tree, the root and the fatness of the tree. And therefore, all Israel, all the olive tree, gets all of its proper branches. All the believers, Jews and Gentiles, they are the believing branches, they are the olive tree, they are Israel in this way by God, you know, only taking that portion of Israel that believes, hardening the rest, bringing in the fullness of the believing Gentiles, that's the method by which God is fulfilling his promise to save all Israel.
All Israel, including the Gentile Israelites. And he quotes Isaiah there about Christ turning ungodliness from Jacob. Of course, Jesus did that and he did make that new covenant that Isaiah speaks of there in the upper room with his disciples.
The passage is Isaiah 59, 20 and 21 that he quotes. Now quickly, we're out of time, but let's just take these last few verses. Concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election, they are beloved for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
Some say, now this very clearly says that God is still going to save all Israel because he says they are still beloved. Concerning the gospel, they are enemies, but concerning the election, they are beloved for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts and the callings of God, and he did call Israel back in the Old Testament, are irrevocable. His call on Israel is not revoked.
True. True, that. But who are the called? Who are the ones that this calling applies to? Paul is already told this back in Romans 9 in the beginning of this discussion.
Romans 9, 24 Even us whom he has called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. Paul is not using the called to mean just Jews and all Jews. Throughout the whole discussion, he's made very clear it's some of the Jews and some Gentiles.
The ones he's called are both Jews and Gentiles, the true Israel. And it's true that God did make a call and a promise and offer gifts to Israel. And now we have discovered who Israel is.
It's Jews and Gentiles who believe in the Messiah. And these gifts have not been revoked. God has not failed to keep his promise.
The gift he promised Israel has been given to Israel and has not been revoked because he has in fact saved all those who believe in Christ whether Jew or Gentile. They are the true Israel. Now when he says concerning the gospel they're enemies for your sake, clearly he means the unbelieving Jews are enemies.
But concerning the election, well, who are they? The election are, well, we read about them in verse 7. What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks but the election have obtained it. It says elect in the New King James. It's the same word here.
The election have obtained it. The election are the remnant of Israel. The election is a word that refers to the remnant of Israel.
So, concerning the gospel, the majority of Israel are enemies. But the remnant, the election, are beloved for the sake of the fathers. God, in honor of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, because of his love for them, did save a remnant of their offspring.
And there is that remnant that has saved the election, the elect ones. And so God has not revoked his gifts and callings upon Abraham and his seed. He has fulfilled it but in a different way than the average Jew thinks about it.
He says, for as you were once disobedient to God yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy for God has committed them all under disobedience that he might have mercy on all. Now, I think what he's saying here is this. You had your time to be in the dark so that he might show mercy to you.
During that time, the Jews were kind of seeing themselves as belonging to God on their merits. But now, they have shown their demerit. They've shown that they need mercy too.
They're not saved by virtue of their works and their merits. They have been unbelievers too. Now, it is evident they need mercy.
God can show mercy on all, Jews and Gentiles. At one time, a certain Jewish mentality would have said, yeah, if God saves Gentiles, that's mercy for sure because they don't deserve it. If he saves Jews, well, that's different.
We're circumcised. We kind of have a ticket. It'd be wrong for him to deny us entrance.
But he's saying, no, the Jews themselves have now had their turn to be disobedient so that his saving of them would also be on the basis of mercy. I don't know if this is a major point for Paul, but it's his way of saying, you know, you need to be interested in the salvation of the Jews that he could show mercy to them through your influence. After all, at one time, their disobedience led to your salvation.
Well, you kind of owe to them then for them to find mercy through you and they've been disobedient so they need mercy. It's kind of not always easy to see how central some of these statements are to Paul's general argument, but we can see that it's not unrelated. He says, Oh, the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God, how unsearchable are his judgments and his ways past finding out for who is known the mind of the Lord or who has become his counselor or who is first given to him and it shall be repaid him for of him and through him and to him are all things to whom be glory forever.
Amen. Now, this is an interesting sort of a doxology, which is the way Paul often closes out a major section of his letter. In this case, the theological section.
Chapters 1 through 11 deal with theological questions, especially with reference to God, Israel, Gentiles, justification, faith, those kinds of things. But he's going to turn in chapter 12 to an entirely different type of chapters. He's going to be given instructions, practical things, and Paul does this in many of his epistles and sometimes ends the, he sometimes ends the theological portion by giving some kind of a doxology, marveling at how amazing God's grace is that we've been considering.
And it's on the basis of that in chapter 12, verse 1, he says, I beseech you therefore by the mercies of God. In other words, by these tremendous, unsearchable grace and mercy that he's given that we've been talking about. In view of that, let me give you some instructions of the proper way to respond.
Present your body as a living sacrifice to God, holy, acceptable, and so forth. So in chapter 12, he now turns from his lengthy discussion of theology, which occupied 11 chapters, to a few chapters, which are very compressed with instructions of a practical sort about living a holy life. And we'll have to stop there.

Series by Steve Gregg

Gospel of Luke
Gospel of Luke
In this 32-part series, Steve Gregg provides in-depth commentary and historical context on each chapter of the Gospel of Luke, shedding new light on i
Micah
Micah
Steve Gregg provides a verse-by-verse analysis and teaching on the book of Micah, exploring the prophet's prophecies of God's judgment, the birthplace
Strategies for Unity
Strategies for Unity
"Strategies for Unity" is a 4-part series discussing the importance of Christian unity, overcoming division, promoting positive relationships, and pri
Ephesians
Ephesians
In this 10-part series, Steve Gregg provides verse by verse teachings and insights through the book of Ephesians, emphasizing themes such as submissio
Is Calvinism Biblical? (Debate)
Is Calvinism Biblical? (Debate)
Steve Gregg and Douglas Wilson engage in a multi-part debate about the biblical basis of Calvinism. They discuss predestination, God's sovereignty and
Revelation
Revelation
In this 19-part series, Steve Gregg offers a verse-by-verse analysis of the book of Revelation, discussing topics such as heavenly worship, the renewa
Message For The Young
Message For The Young
In this 6-part series, Steve Gregg emphasizes the importance of pursuing godliness and avoiding sinful behavior as a Christian, encouraging listeners
Obadiah
Obadiah
Steve Gregg provides a thorough examination of the book of Obadiah, exploring the conflict between Israel and Edom and how it relates to divine judgem
1 John
1 John
Steve Gregg teaches verse by verse through the book of 1 John, providing commentary and insights on topics such as walking in the light and love of Go
Judges
Judges
Steve Gregg teaches verse by verse through the Book of Judges in this 16-part series, exploring its historical and cultural context and highlighting t
More Series by Steve Gregg

More on OpenTheo

Can You Really Say Evil Is Just a Privation of Good?
Can You Really Say Evil Is Just a Privation of Good?
#STRask
April 21, 2025
Questions about whether one can legitimately say evil is a privation of good, how the Bible can say sin and death entered the world at the fall if ang
Michael Egnor and Denyse O'Leary: The Immortal Mind
Michael Egnor and Denyse O'Leary: The Immortal Mind
Knight & Rose Show
May 31, 2025
Wintery Knight and Desert Rose interview Dr. Michael Egnor and Denyse O'Leary about their new book "The Immortal Mind". They discuss how scientific ev
Is Morality Determined by Society?
Is Morality Determined by Society?
#STRask
June 26, 2025
Questions about how to respond to someone who says morality is determined by society, whether our evolutionary biology causes us to think it’s objecti
Jay Richards: Economics, Gender Ideology and MAHA
Jay Richards: Economics, Gender Ideology and MAHA
Knight & Rose Show
April 19, 2025
Wintery Knight and Desert Rose welcome Heritage Foundation policy expert Dr. Jay Richards to discuss policy and culture. Jay explains how economic fre
Licona vs. Fales: A Debate in 4 Parts – Part Three: The Meaning of Miracle Stories
Licona vs. Fales: A Debate in 4 Parts – Part Three: The Meaning of Miracle Stories
Risen Jesus
June 11, 2025
In this episode, we hear from Dr. Evan Fales as he presents his case against the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection and responds to Dr. Licona’s writi
What Evidence Can I Give for Objective Morality?
What Evidence Can I Give for Objective Morality?
#STRask
June 23, 2025
Questions about how to respond to someone who’s asking for evidence for objective morality, what to say to atheists who counter the moral argument for
What Should I Say to Someone Who Believes Zodiac Signs Determine Personality?
What Should I Say to Someone Who Believes Zodiac Signs Determine Personality?
#STRask
June 5, 2025
Questions about how to respond to a family member who believes Zodiac signs determine personality and what to say to a co-worker who believes aliens c
Can God Be Real and Personal to Me If the Sign Gifts of the Spirit Are Rare?
Can God Be Real and Personal to Me If the Sign Gifts of the Spirit Are Rare?
#STRask
April 10, 2025
Questions about disappointment that the sign gifts of the Spirit seem rare, non-existent, or fake, whether or not believers can squelch the Holy Spiri
What Should I Teach My Students About Worldviews?
What Should I Teach My Students About Worldviews?
#STRask
June 2, 2025
Question about how to go about teaching students about worldviews, what a worldview is, how to identify one, how to show that the Christian worldview
Licona and Martin: A Dialogue on Jesus' Claim of Divinity
Licona and Martin: A Dialogue on Jesus' Claim of Divinity
Risen Jesus
May 14, 2025
In this episode, Dr. Mike Licona and Dr. Dale Martin discuss their differing views of Jesus’ claim of divinity. Licona proposes that “it is more proba
Jesus' Fate: Resurrection or Rescue? Michael Licona vs Ali Ataie
Jesus' Fate: Resurrection or Rescue? Michael Licona vs Ali Ataie
Risen Jesus
April 9, 2025
Muslim professor Dr. Ali Ataie, a scholar of biblical hermeneutics, asserts that before the formation of the biblical canon, Christians did not believ
The Biblical View of Abortion with Tom Pennington
The Biblical View of Abortion with Tom Pennington
Life and Books and Everything
May 5, 2025
What does the Bible say about life in the womb? When does life begin? What about personhood? What has the church taught about abortion over the centur
Bible Study: Choices and Character in James, Part 1
Bible Study: Choices and Character in James, Part 1
Knight & Rose Show
June 21, 2025
Wintery Knight and Desert Rose explore chapters 1 and 2 of the Book of James. They discuss the book's author, James, the brother of Jesus, and his mar
What Discernment Skills Should We Develop to Make Sure We’re Getting Wise Answers from AI?
What Discernment Skills Should We Develop to Make Sure We’re Getting Wise Answers from AI?
#STRask
April 3, 2025
Questions about what discernment skills we should develop to make sure we’re getting wise answers from AI, and how to overcome confirmation bias when
Is It Wrong to Feel Satisfaction at the Thought of Some Atheists Being Humbled Before Christ?
Is It Wrong to Feel Satisfaction at the Thought of Some Atheists Being Humbled Before Christ?
#STRask
June 9, 2025
Questions about whether it’s wrong to feel a sense of satisfaction at the thought of some atheists being humbled before Christ when their time comes,