Romans 11.19-Paul Presents An Argument Of A Hypothetical Gentile Christian Who Seeks To Justify Assuming Arrogant Superiority Over The Jews
Wenstrom Bible Ministries
Pastor-Teacher Bill Wenstrom
Tuesday July 21, 2009
Romans: Romans 11:19-Paul Presents An Argument Of A Hypothetical Gentile Christian Who Seeks To Justify Assuming Arrogant Superiority Over The Jews
Lesson # 371
Please turn in your Bibles to Romans 11:16.
This evening we will study Romans 11:19, in which Paul once again employs a diatribe style by presenting an argument of a hypothetical Gentile Christian who seeks to justify assuming arrogant superiority over both saved and unsaved Jews.
Romans 11:16, “If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too.”
Romans 11:17, “But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree.”
Romans 11:18, “Do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.”
Romans 11:19, “You will say then, ‘Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.’”
Romans 11:20-21, “Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.”
In Romans 11:19, Paul once again employs a diatribe style by presenting an argument of a hypothetical Gentile Christian who seeks to justify assuming arrogant superiority over both saved and unsaved Jews.
In Romans 11:19, Paul presents an imaginary dialogue with a hypothetical Gentile Christian who sought to justify assuming arrogant superiority over the Jews.
In Romans 11:20, he answers this argument by first acknowledging the fact that unsaved Jews were rejected by God for their unbelief in His Son Jesus Christ.
However, he then reminds his hypothetical Gentile Christian that he stands by his faith in Christ, thus he is not to be conceited but fear God.
Then, in Romans 11:21 he gives the reason why Gentile should not be conceited but fear God, namely if God did not spare the natural branches, unsaved Jews and he didn’t because of their unbelief, then He will not spare unsaved Gentiles either.
Romans 11:19, “You will say then, ‘Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.’”
“You will say” is the second person singular future active indicative form of the verb ereo (e)revw) (er-eh-o), which means, “to contend” since Paul is assuming the position of a hypothetical Gentile Christian who seeks to justify assuming arrogant superiority over both saved and unsaved Jews.
“Then” is the “inferential” use of the post-positive conjunction oun (ou@n) (oon), which denotes that the statement that appears in Romans 11:19 is the result of an inference that could be implied from Paul’s teaching in Romans 11:17.
Paul taught in Romans 11:17 that branches (Jews) were broken off (rejected by God) and Gentiles (wild olive) were grafted into the olive tree in their place.
“Branches” is the noun klados (klavdo$) (klad-os), which refers to the unsaved Jews as indicated by the verb that follows it, namely ekklao, “were broken off” that signifies that God has rejected these Jews for their unbelief.
“Were broken off” is the verb ekklao (e)kklavw) (ek-klah-o), which is used to describe God’s rejection of those Jews who rejected His Son Jesus Christ as their Savior by not exercising faith in Him.
“So that I might be grafted in” is composed of the conjunction hina (i%na) (hee-nah), “so that” and the personal pronoun ego (e)gwv) (eg-o), “I” and the verb enkentrizo (e)gkentrivzw) (eng-ken-trid-zo), “might be grafted in.”
The verb enkentrizo is used in a metaphorical sense of Paul’s Gentile Christian readers being united with Jewish Christians.
The personal pronoun ego, “I” refers to a hypothetical Gentile Christian and is used to emphasize a contrast between the hypothetical saved Gentile’s arrogant comparison of himself with unsaved Jews.
The conjunction hina, “so that” is employed with the subjunctive mood of the verb enkentrizo in order to form a purpose clause, which emphasizes that God’s purpose in rejecting Jews was to graft Gentiles in, with the implication that God prefers the Gentiles to the Jews, which is false.
In Romans 11:19-21, Paul is seeking to prevent what took place among his fellow Jews, namely, they erroneously and presumptuously believed that they merited being the covenant people of God, and inheriting the promises made to the patriarchs.
They erroneously and presumptuously thought that they merited receiving the Temple service, the Shekinah glory, the giving of the Law, the adoption as sons, the covenants, Old Testament Scriptures and being descendants of the patriarchs.
They erroneously and presumptuously thought that they merited the fact that the Messiah would be like them, Jewish.
Therefore, Paul in Romans 11:19-21 is seeking to prevent this type of arrogance that was in the Jew from taking place among Gentile Christians.
Paul does not want his Gentile Christians to assume arrogant superiority over the Jews just as the Jews assumed arrogant superiority over the Gentiles because of their many privileges bestowed upon them.
He also does not want Gentile Christians to have a racial prejudice towards the Jews just as the Jews had towards the Gentiles.
In Romans 11:19-21, Paul is also emphasizing with his Gentile Christian readers in Rome that they do not merit their salvation and thus there is no room for arrogance towards either unsaved or saved Jews since they were saved based on the merits of Christ!
Also, Paul does not want his Gentile Christian readers in Rome to erroneously assume that they merit their salvation since God’s faithfulness to the promises of the Abrahamic covenant made it possible for them to get saved in the first place.
In these verses, he is seeking to destroy the erroneous and false attitude that Gentile Christians or the church has replaced Israel, which is called “replacement theology” or “supersessionism.”
Replacement theology or a some call it “supersessionism” is based on two major premises: (1) the nation of Israel has somehow completed or forfeited its status as the people of God and will never again possess a unique role or function apart from the church; and (2) the church is now the true Israel that has permanently replaced or superseded national Israel as the people of God.
Michael J. Vlach lists several variations of supersessionism, i.e. replacement theology: (1) punitive or retributive: This emphasizes that God has rejected Israel for her disobedience and punishment by God as the reason for its displacement as the people of God. (2) economic: This view teaches that Israel is replaced by the church because her role in the history of redemption expired with the coming of Jesus and the establishment of the church. (3) structural: This view is a hermeneutical approach and refers to the narrative logic of the standard model whereby it renders the Hebrew Scriptures largely indecisive for shaping Christian convictions about how God’s works as Consummator and as Redeemer engage humankind in universal and enduring ways and thus ignores or removes the Hebrew Scriptures of the OT from having a voice. (The Master’s Seminary Journal, volume 20, number 1, pages 59-64)
Therefore, replacement theology or supersessionism denies that the nation of Israel has absolutely no future whatsoever in the plan of God.
Now, those who adhere to this view believe there will be a future “salvation” of Israel, but this salvation does not mean a “restoration” of Israel.
The difference between a salvation of Israel and a restoration of that nation is that salvation means simply that many Jews will believe in Christ and be saved while on the other hand restoration involves Israel being replanted in Palestine and given a role and mission to the nations.
A restoration of Israel means that the nation will have a role and a place of prominence that is not shared with any other group including the church.
Dispensationalists accept both concepts and believe Israel as a nation will be saved and they also believe Israel will be restored to a place of prominence among the nations.
Now, some supersessionists do not believe in either a salvation or restoration of Israel while some believe in a salvation of Israel but do not believe in a restoration of that nation.
No supersessionist believes in a restoration of Israel and is the major factor that distinguishes them from dispensationalists.
Replacement theology is refuted by Paul’s teaching in Romans 9-11.
In Romans 9:27-29, he teaches that God has emphatically not rejected the nation of Israel as manifested by the fact that He set asides for Himself as He did in the days of Elijah a remnant of Jewish believers throughout every part of history.
In Romans 11:1-6, he teaches that God has emphatically not rejected the nation of Israel as manifested by the fact that He set asides for Himself as He did in the days of Elijah a remnant of Jewish believers throughout every part of history.
Furthermore, replacement theology is refuted by the nature of the Abrahamic, Palestinian, Davidic and New covenants, which are all unconditional meaning that their fulfillment is not based upon the faithfulness of Israel but rather they are based on the faithfulness of God.