The Future Salvation of Israel in Romans 11:11-24

INTRODUCTION

Concerning the second petition of the Lord’s prayer, Question 191 of the Westminster Larger Catechism responds in part: "...we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in...." These words testify that a hopeful expectation of the conversion of the Jewish people has historically been important to Reformed doctrine and piety. However, it is questionable whether Reformed theologians would give comparable prominence to this subject were such a confession drafted today. Many still affirm with Jonathan Edwards that “Nothing is more certainly foretold than this national conversion of the Jews in Romans 11.” Yet neither is it uncommon for contemporary conservative Reformed theologians to argue strongly that “a conversion of Israel at one point in the eschatological end time does not appear from Romans 11.” That such a stark division should exist among learned men of God within the same Christian tradition with essentially the same theological convictions on a matter of no small import is both surprising and significant.

The perspective here offered is that a careful exposition of Romans 11 yields the conclusion that there will be a future conversion of the Jewish people to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Many of the arguments in support of this proposition have understandably focused upon Paul’s words in Romans 11:25-26 and especially on the phrase πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ σωθήσεται. While this is only proper, it is unfortunate that many such discussions concerning the identity of this “Israel” fail to give sufficient attention to Paul’s preceding argument which ultimately determines interpretation of 11:25-26. Specifically, those who wish to interpret “Israel” in 11:26a as referring to elect Jews (or elect Jews and Gentiles) have the insurmountable burden of explaining why this usage of Ἰσραὴλ would immediately follow Paul’s argument in 11:11-24 concerning the hopeful prospect of the conversion of the Jewish nation. Since these prior verses unambiguously hold forth a corporate and national conversion as something likely and desirable, the Apostle’s prophetic pronouncement in 11:24-25 should therefore be interpreted accordingly. Thus, while this study does not purport to be the final word concerning how to understand this part of Scripture, it may be of use in rekindling the hope which captured Paul and our Reformed fathers so as to encourage and challenge believers today.

I. Controversy

It has been well said that the most prominent themes of Romans 1-8 and Romans 9-11 can be summarized as “the justification of man” and “the justification of God” respectively. Following the climactic conclusion of Romans 8, which affirmed the grounds for unshakable confidence concerning the believer’s standing before God on the basis of the finished work of Christ (Rom 8:38-39), the Apostle proceeds to answer a significant objection. What are we to make of the rejection of Christ and His benefits by the majority of the Jewish nation? Since the Jewish nation was God's ancient chosen people, does it not therefore follow that God, in rejecting them, has reneged on his promises? Given this track record, does not the believer in the gospel stand in a tenuous position regardless of what is promised to him in the gospel?

Paul proceeds to offer a powerful systematic demolition of this objection which serves to completely vindicate God's faithfulness in the face of this apparent theological quandary. Thus in 9:1-5 there is basic framing of the problem followed by four responses. The first response (9:6-29) is that God to free to sovereignly save whomever He chooses. Response two (9:1-10:21) is that Israel itself is responsible for rejecting God's grace. Response three (11:1-6) is that a remnant of elect Jews is being saved. Finally, response four (11:11-32) is that God will yet save “all Israel” (11:26a). It is this fourth response, and what this entails, that has been the subject of considerable controversy in the Reformed church and therefore warrants careful analysis.

The focus of this controversy has especially concerned Paul’s words in Romans 26a: καὶ οὕτως πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ σωθήσεται. What is this “all Israel” which will receive salvation? Herman Hoeksema summarizes four conceivable interpretations of this phrase as follows: 1) the entire Jewish nation as it existed Paul’s day and since; 2) the entire Jewish nation at a future point in time; 3) the entire elect Jewish remnant; 4) the entire spiritual Israel consisting of all elect Jews and Gentiles. Hoeksema himself argues strongly for the third interpretation.

It is uncontroversial that vv. 10-11 are concerned with highlighting God’s faithfulness in the salvation of the minority of Jews saved by grace in a manner agreeable to Old Testament precedent and prophecy. Yet the remaining part of the nation that rejected their Messiah is described as undergoing spiritual hardening and judicial punishment: “Israel (Ἰσραήλ) hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.” (11:7) This verse is a clear example of Paul distinguishing between the Jewish nation and the Jewish remnant by ascribing the name of “Israel” to the former. This would seem to imply that Paul uses Ἰσραήλ the same way in 11:26a.

The challenge, however, is that when Paul speaks of this same distinction earlier in his Epistle, he ostensibly refers to the elect remnant and the nation as both “Israel” - albeit in different senses: “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel (Ἰσραήλ), which are of Israel (Ἰσραήλ): Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” (Romans 9:6-7) This fact is used by some commentators to justify interpreting “Israel” in 11:26a as designating a group other than the empirical-historical nation descended from Abraham. Therefore, correctly appraising how Paul perceives the relationship of these two entities in the context immediately preceding 11:26a is vitally important for correct assessment of such interpretations.

It is here contended that dispassionate assessment of Romans 11:11-24 yields the conclusion that Paul never conflates the Jewish nation with the Jewish remnant but rather keeps the two conceptually distinct. Moreover, his consistent refrain in these verses is that the salvation of the Jewish nation is to be hoped for and expected. In this way he prepares his reader to receive the truth in vv. 25-26 that this will certainly come to pass.

II. Exegetical Analysis

As Charles Hodge observes, Romans 11 can be divided into two halves: vv. 1-10 teaches that “the rejection of the Jews was not total” while vv. 11-32 teaches that “this rejection is not final.” These are two distinct arguments that each vindicate God’s faithfulness to His ancient people: the present salvation of an elect remnant of Jews establishes the former proposition and the future salvation of the nation establishes the second. That this is indeed the correct understanding will be demonstrated by closely examining Paul’s argument in vv. 11-14, giving particular attention to vv. 11, 12, 15, and 16.

Romans 11:11

GREEK: Λέγω οὖν μὴ ἔπταισαν ἵνα πέσωσιν μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλὰ τῷ αὐτῶν παραπτώματι ἡ σωτηρία τοῖς ἔθνεσιν εἰς τὸ παραζηλῶσαι αὐτούς

TRANSLATION: I ask then, did not they stumble in order that they might fall? May it never be! But in the trespass of them [is] salvation [come] to the Gentiles to make them jealous.

In v. 11 the wording strongly echoes v. 1:“Hath God cast away his people? God forbid” (AV). The repetition of this formula highlights that both statements introduce distinct arguments that qualify the rejection of Israel in different ways. Having already spoken to the extent of the rejection (not total) he not speaks to its duration (not final).

The inferential conjunction οὖν “signals that what follows is the conclusion or inference from what precedes.” Evidently, Paul anticipates the following question to arise from what he has just argued in vv.1-10 concerning the salvation of the Jewish remnant and the terrible judgment of the nation: “Did not they stumble in order that they might fall?” The question therefore has in view Israel (in distinction from “the election” 11:7), whose apostasy is here pictured metaphorically with the intransitive verb ἔπταισαν. This is an ingressive aorist (which focuses upon Israel’s entrance into its current state) from πταίω which means “to trip” or to “to stumble.” Like in James 2:10, it is here used to denote committing error or sin. While this could seems like an understatement in light of the gravity of the situation that Paul has described, he hereby effectively communicates (in Leon Morris’ words) “there was nothing final in what had happened to Israel thus far.”

The aorist subjunctive πέσωσιν (“might fall”) conveys a possibility rather than a fact. It is important is note that this is to be understood as a stronger term when compared to “stumbled” and so is emphatic. As elsewhere (Hebrews 4:11) it is here used metaphorically to convey “to perish”, “to become miserable”, “to fail to share in Messianic salvation.” These two metaphors describe two conditions: one bad, the other worse. The falling concerns the comparative seriousness of the nation being permanently lost compared to their present condition. As Hodge notes: ““Paul designed it should here he taken emphatically, as expressing irrevocable ruin, in opposition to that which is temporary.” K. L. Schmidt calls this: “a figure for the eternal ruin which threatens to overtake the Jews.”

The ἵνα conjunction, situated as it is in a clause with a subjunctive, could theoretically denote purpose or result. While some commentators have found Divine intention in this clause the fact that ἔπταισαν is an active verb with Israel as the subject and agent means that a ἵνα of purpose would entail that it is the Jews who intended to fall. As this is untenable, it is necessary to conclude that this communicates result so that the question being posed is whether the consequence of Israel’s stumbling is that the nation has fallen so as to rise no more.

That this question begins with the adverb μὴ indicates that Paul anticipates a negative response while the following answer μὴ γένοιτο is an emphatic and uncategorical denial. As Morris says: “For Paul the idea is preposterous.” Moreover, Richard Young categorizes this verb as the “optative of wish or prayer” used in contexts of imprecation and religious devotion and so is to be taken as a pious rejection. He notes that this particular “stereotyped expression” makes fourteen appearances in Paul’s writings and “expresses a strong rejection based on devotion to the truth. The AV paraphrases the expression ‘God forbid,’ a rendering unsurpassed by any modern translation.”

The next proposition is introduced by the adversative conjunction ἀλλὰ to highlight its comparative prominence and truthfulness. Paul response is that the result of Israel’s apostasy has had a different result: “It was not Israel’s downfall but the salvation of the Gentiles that their transgression (παραπτώματι) brought about.” The infinitive παραζηλῶσαι from παραζηλόω (“to provoke to jealousy”) follows εἰς τὸ as an infinitve of purpose referring to the purpose or intention of an action. It has the idea of exciting or stimulating Israel to emulation. Hodge writes: “All the apostle intended to say was, that he hoped the conversion of the Gentiles would be the means of exciting the Jews to seek salvation in the gospel.”

What must not be lost in this analysis is that the statement that salvation came “to the Gentiles” (τοῖς ἔθνεσιν) means that Paul’s argument in v. 11 depends upon the categories of Jews and Gentiles as distinct groups of people in order to be coherent. John Murray summarizes the import of this insight very helpfully:

"The ethnic distinction between the Gentiles and Israel appearing earlier in these chapters (cf. 9:25, 26, 30, 31; 10:19, 20) is here again brought to the forefront. The saving design contemplate ‘to provoke to jealousy’ has in view, therefore, the salvation of Israel viewed in their distinct racial identity. This obviates any contention to the effect that God’s saving design does not embrace Israel as a racial entity distinguished by the place which Israel occupied in the past history of redemption. While it is true that in respect of the privileges accruing from Christ’s accomplishments there is now no longer Jew or Gentile and the Gentiles ‘are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (Eph. 3:6), yet it does not follow that Israel no longer fulfills any particular design in the realization of God’s worldwide saving purpose."

Having found that v. 11 certainly has specifically the Jewish nation in view, it should come as no surprise that the succeeding verses that follow this pattern. In what follows, three “if clauses” in vv. 12, 15 and 16 will be discussed as further evidence that Paul is referring to hope of the restoration of the Jewish nation in the context immediately preceding 11:26a.

Romans 11:12

GREEK: εἰ δὲ τὸ παράπτωμα αὐτῶν πλοῦτος κόσμου καὶ τὸ ἥττημα αὐτῶν πλοῦτος ἐθνῶν πόσῳ μᾶλλον τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτῶν

TRANSLATION: However, if the trespass of them [is] riches of [the] world, and the shortcoming of them [is the] riches of [the] Gentiles, how much more the fullness of them!

Verse 12 (as well as 15 and 16) begins with the εἰ conjunction denoting the protasis of a conditional sentence. The absence of a verb in the protasis necessitates that the implied verb is indicative and therefore constitutes a first class condition in which the premise made by the speaker is assumed to accurately reflect reality. The apodosis supplies the consequence (“how much more the fullness of them”) which follows since this real condition of confrontation (“if the trespass of them [is] riches of [the] world, and the shortcoming of them [is the] riches of [the] Gentiles”) is fulfilled.

In terms of the present line of inquiry, the noun πλήρωμα is of particular importance. It conveys a range of senses depending upon the context, including: “that which makes full,” “that which is full,” or “that which is brought to fullness, completion, sum total.” Those who reject that a national conversion of the Jews is at all in view in Romans 11 generally insist that the use of πλήρωμα in this verse must refer to the total number of the Jewish remnant. Thus Robert Reymond writes:

I would urge that Paul’s intention seems rather to be that just God throughout this age brings the divinely determined full number (τὸ πλήρωμα) of elect Gentiles [v.25] to faith in Christ and thus into the church, so he is also bringing the divinely determined full number (τὸ πλήρωμα) of elect Jews (the ‘remnant,’ ‘all Israel’) also to faith in Christ throughout the same age so that both ‘full numbers’ are reached simultaneously.

However, the unity of the conditional sentence does not allow for all three uses of the plural genitive personal pronoun αὐτῶν to refer to anyone but the same group - the apostate nation specified in v. 11. As John Piper observes: “Here ‘their fullness’ most naturally refers to the same nation as ‘their trespass’ and ‘their shortcoming.’ So ‘their fullness’ refers to the salvation of ‘all Israel’ and is national.” Paul’s argument has consistently and clearly distinguished the remnant from the nation and there would seem to be no reason to conflate the two in this instance.

Precisely identifying what this “fullness” specifies has yielded numerous answers. Morris tentatively writes: “Either the fulfilling of God’s will or the bringing in of the full number of the Jews gives good sense and marks a contrast with the situation in which Paul found himself.” While admitting a range of semantic meaning, Murray persuasively argues:

"Whatever might be the precise term by which to express the import here, it is obvious that the condition or state denoted is one that stands in sharp contrast with the unbelief, the trespass, and the loss characterizing Israel when the apostle wrote. It points, therefore, to a condition marked by antithesis in these respects. This means that Israel is contemplated as characterized by the faith of Christ, by the attainment of righteousness, and by restoration to the blessing of God’s kingdom as conspicuously as Israel then was marked by unbelief, trespass, and loss."

In this way it seems to inescapable that the restoration of the nation of Israel is what is in view in Paul’s argument.

Romans 11:15

GREEK: εἰ γὰρ ἡ ἀποβολὴ αὐτῶν καταλλαγὴ κόσμου τίς ἡ πρόσληψις εἰ μὴ ζωὴ ἐκ νεκρῶν

TRANSLATION: For if the rejection of them [is the] reconciliation of [the] world, what [will be] the acceptance, if not life out from death?

While there is much of theological importance in v. 15 it is important to focus upon those aspects relevant to establishing that it is the Jewish nation, and the not merely the Jewish remnant, which is in the subject of discussion.

Paul is clearly making a statement in parallel to what was said in v. 12 using the same kind of conditional sentence structure. In this protasis he mentions “the rejection” (ἡ ἀποβολὴ) of Israel. Morris calls this “a comprehensive word and can be used of loss by death” as may be indicated in that the only other use of the root in the New Testament denotes death by sinking ship (Acts 27:22). Whereas previous descriptors of the condition of the nation focused upon their own responsibility and culpability, Murray notes this sobering shift: “Now the accent is placed upon the action of God in having cast off Israel. The kingdom of God was taken from them (cf. Matthew 21:43).”

While the word πρόσλημψις only appears in this place in the entire NT, its meaning is sufficiently clear in that it is evidently derived from the verb προσλαμβάνω which conveys “to lay hold of with aggression or initiative.” Moreover, Murray notes that as it is contrasted with ἀποβολὴ which clearly denotes the “attitude, relation and action” of God in terms of a condition that is negative this should be taken in the same sense but denoting a positive condition.

As in v. 12, the plain sense of the passage would seem to be that the one entity to which the pronoun αὐτῶν refers is both rejected and reconciled. In agreement with the preceding context, the same nation of Israel is in view. This demonstrates that the relationship between the Jewish remnant and the Jewish nation in Romans 11 is as follows: whereas vv. 1-10 refers to the salvation of the Jewish remnant, by vv. 11-15 the focus has shifted to the prospects of the Jewish nation of Israel.

Romans 11:16

GREEK: εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀπαρχὴ ἁγία καὶ τὸ φύραμα· καὶ εἰ ἡ ῥίζα ἁγία καὶ οἱ κλάδοι

TRANSLATION: If now the firstfruit [is] holy, the lump [is] also; and if the root [is] holy, the branches [are] also.

In 11:16 Paul uses two different illustrations to communication a single truth: a holy lump and holy branches. The metaphorical “lump” and the metaphorical “branches” in this verse have the same referent: the apostate nation of Israel. In in the preceding context Paul was careful to distinguish between: the Jewish nation which rejected their Messiah and the Jewish remnant which received Him in faith. He referred to this nation of Israel as “my flesh” (11:14) in the context of mourning the unconverted condition of this nation. In the subsequent verse Paul will refer to these branches as “broken off” (11:17) which illustrates the lost condition of the nation which had rejected Christ. The teaching of 11:16 likewise concerns a holiness which belongs to the Jewish nation considered as such and not the Jewish remnant.

The first clause of 11:16 is an allusion to Old Testament ceremonial law: εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀπαρχὴ ἁγία καὶ τὸ φύραμα. The first noun in this clause is ἀπαρχὴ or “firstfruit” which originates from a compound of the preposition ἀπό (meaning: “from”) and ἄρχομαι (meaning “commence” in the sense of begin). It is used in the Greek Septuagint to translate the Hebrew word רֵאשִׁית in passages such as Exodus 23:19 and Exodus 34:26 to denote “the first-fruits of the productions of the earth (both those in a natural state and those prepared for use by hand), which were offered to God.” It is notable that the New Testament sometimes uses ἀπαρχὴ metaphorically in reference to persons consecrated to God in an unprecedented way. Examples include: the first Christian to be converted in Achaia (1 Corinthians 16:15), an early convert from Asia (Romans 16:5), Christians during the Apostolic generation (James 1:18), and Christ Himself whose resurrection precedes the resurrection of all believers (1 Corinthians 15:23).

The second noun in the first clause Φύραμα or “lump” refers to a mass composed of a substance which is mixed with water so as to be kneaded. This is used earlier by Paul in Romans 9:21 to refer to clay, but also in Galatians 5:9 and 1 Corinthians 5:6 to refer to dough for bread. In light of this combination of words the idea in view would appear to be a reference to the “heave offering” enumerated in Numbers 15:19-21, Deuteronomy 18:4 and Nehemiah 10:37. This ceremonial ordinance entails that from the time when the Israelites entered Canaan they were to observe the tradition of offering a cake made from the first portion of dough from the first threshed corn in the season of harvest.

The second clause in Romans 11:16 uses a parallel metaphor of a different character: καὶ εἰ ἡ ῥίζα ἁγία, καὶ οἱ κλάδοι. The two nouns ῥίζα and κλάδοι (“root” and “branches,” respectively) are used elsewhere in the New Testament to describe these parts of a plant (Matthew 13:21; 13:32) while ῥίζα is also used metaphorically to denote a cause, origin or source in 1 Timothy 6:10. That the metaphorical image in view concerns the parts of a plant in their organic relation cannot be disputed.

While interpreters are surprisingly united in recognizing that metaphorical “lump” and the metaphorical “branches” in this verse refer to Israel, there are at least three interpretations of what is meant by the “firstfruit” and “root.” John Gill contends that this has reference to “the first converts among the Jews, under the Gospel dispensation” who share a blood relation to their co-ethnics who rejected the gospel. Hodge rightly notes, however, that this would not support the Apostle’s argument because it would apply with equal force to the Gentile nationalities from which individuals were converted. Herman Hoeksema claims that this has reference to Christ who is referred to by Paul as the “root of Jesse” (Romans 15:12) and that the basis for apostate Israel’s holiness in that they share a blood relationship to Him. The difficulty with this is that, by merit of the word’s range of meaning, Paul plainly uses ῥίζα in opposite senses in Romans 15:12 and 11:16: the root of Jesse has His origin in Jesse whereas the root 11:16 is the origin of the branches. Thus, Hodge sums up the only tenable and most widely accepted interpretation as follows:

“By the first-fruits and the root, may be understood the patriarchs, the forefathers of the Jews; and by the lump and the branches, the residue of the nation, or the Jews as a people…. If they were the peculiar people of God, their descendants may be regarded as his also, since the covenant was not with Abraham only, but also with his seed.”

Thus, Strong’s concordance notes the most natural understanding of these words in such a context: “the progenitors of a race are called ῤίζα, their descendants κλάδοι.”

Hodge aptly summarizes the truth here communicated as “if one portion of the Jewish people is holy, so also is the other.” Such an interpretation also harmonizes with the reference to Israel being beloved “for the fathers’ sake” in 11:28.Thus the Jews as a nation are reckoned ἁγία (“holy”) because of their relationship to the root (to which this same adjective is also applied). While the basic idea of ἅγιος is “different” and especially “different from the world” it is not used in a uniform sense in the New Testament. It can be used variously in one or more of the following senses: God’s attribute of holiness (especially in terms of His worthiness of veneration) (Revelation 4:8); things worthy of reverence because of their connection to God (Acts 7:33); moral uprightness (1 Peter 1:16); or separation to God for a Divine purpose (1 Corinthians 7:14) Given the context it seems that this last idea is exclusively in view.

It is important to Paul’s overall argument that there are not two separate plans of salvation, one for the Christian church that entails faith in Christ and another for the national of Israel apart from Christ. The verses that immediately follow 11:16 (vv.17-24) Paul explains that their blessed position can be illustrated by a parable where branches are transplanted from a worthless “wild olive tree” (11:17) to a “good olive tree” (11:24). Significantly, this good tree is symbolic of a single entity: God’s covenant nation and the Christian church are here contemplated as one living organism existing from the days of Abraham to the generation of the Apostles. The Christian church composed of Gentile as well as Jewish Christians is then portrayed in this parable as presently drawing life from the very root which apostate Israel broke from (v.17) due to their unbelief respecting the Messiah (v.20). Therefore, Paul is teaching that the covenant promises and privileges that God bestowed to Israel’s patriarchs and their descendants are now fulfilled in Christ and possessed by Christians of every race by faith in the gospel (v.20).

In this way Paul teaches that there exists a special Divine favor reserved for the physical descendants of Israel’s patriarchs. Therefore, expositors must be open to interpretations of 11:25-26 that entail a special manifestation of this Divine favor. Nevertheless, whatever salvation is in view in 11:26, it entails incorporation into the one people of God (the Christian church) which alone receives spiritual life through faith in promised Messiah.

CONCLUSION

The unfortunate reality is that while the book of Romans is much beloved by Reformed believers, Paul’s careful treatment of the future of the Jews in the eleventh chapter is arguably not always given sufficient attention in our tradition. This arguably contributes to coldness, indifference or even hostility to the physical offspring of the patriarchs. Such attitudes are totally at odds with the message of the entire Scriptures which consistently emphasize that the Jewish people have an important role in redemptive history, and ought to be the objects of our love and evangelism. If we gave more prayerful attention to Paul’s argument in Romans 11:11-24 this would surely stir believers to greater evangelical zeal towards God’s ancient people.

- Benjamin Hicks

BIBLIOGRPAHY

Dunn, James. Word Biblical Commentary: Romans 9-16. Nashville TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1988.

Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of Jonathan Edwards. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1979.

Gill, John "John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible.” Accessed December 14, 2018. https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/

Hodge, Charles Hodge. A Commentary on Romans. Geneva Series Commentary. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1972.

Herman. Hoeksema. God’s Eternal Good Pleasure. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Reformed Free PubAssociation : Distributed by Kregel Publications, 1979.

John Murray. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

Köstenberger, Andreas J. The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament. Second edition. Nashville, Tennessee: B & H Academic, 2016.

Leon Morris. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Leicester, England: WBEerdmans ; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988.

Piper, John. “Five Reasons I Believe Romans 11:26 Means a Future Conversion for Israel,” Desiring God, February 16, 2012, accessed December 14, 2018, https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/five-reasons-i-believe-romans-11-26-means-a-future-conversion-for-israel.

Piper, John. The Justification of God : An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.

Reymond, Robert L. Paul, Missionary Theologian. Fearn: Mentor, 2000.

Ridderbos, Herman. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: WBEerdmans PubCo, 1975.

Young, Richard A. Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 1994.