From the MLJ Archive

Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: I think I’d better perhaps read the verses from verse 25 to verse 32 in the 11th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. Romans 11:25 to 32: “For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.”

Now we were dealing in particular last Friday night with verses 30, 31, and 32. And we ended on this note, that the Apostle has worked up to the great statement of verse 32 in which he gives us an explanation of God's great way of salvation, His method in salvation. That is what makes this 32nd verse such an important one. It not only sums up the argument of this chapter, but it does lay down a fundamental proposition which enables one to understand the message of the entire Bible. This is God's way and method in salvation.

It is that He shuts up in unbelief or in disobedience all kinds and classes of men. We interpreted this statement in verse 32 as saying that the “all” refers to Jews and Gentiles. That’s what he’s been dealing with, Jews and Gentiles, Gentiles and Jews. And he says that they, these two great groups, which between them include of course the whole world, that God has shut them up in unbelief, put them in a place out of which they can't come. That's what it means. Hemmed them in, cooped them up in unbelief with the deliberate object and intention that He might show His mercy to both.

As the Apostle explains, there was a time when the Gentiles were shut up in that way, but God showed mercy toward them and brought them out. And He is going, he says, to do exactly the same thing with respect to the Jew. But the thing we must lay hold of is this, that what is emphasized in this procedure is the mercy of God. God has chosen this method in order to bring out that great principle. And He has done so plainly, clearly, in the field of history so that it should be open to all. In other words, there is in this whole section what you may well describe as the Apostle's great philosophy of history, his view of history. Here is a summing up of the whole of God’s method in His dealings with the human race.

Now that's how we left the matter last Friday night. And as I pointed out to you, the Apostle in saying this here is not saying anything new in a sense. He’s just putting it more plainly. He has said it by implication away back early in the Epistle, in chapter three in particular. Take for instance the ninth verse of chapter three: “What then? Are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.” Now that's the object, as we saw a long time ago, of these early chapters, especially the first three chapters. It is to show that Jews and Gentiles are in exactly the same position in unbelief.

Well, now he's just saying that again, but that he tells us here that it is God who hath shut them up in that unbelief. You’ve got the same thing in the 19th verse of the third chapter: “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” That's just the same thing once more. But then again, he's so concerned about this that he repeats it in verses 22 to 24 of this third chapter. He’s talking, he says, about the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference.

No difference, in other words, between the Jew and the Gentile. The fatal error of the Jew was to think there was, and the foolish Gentiles in the church are beginning to fall into the same error. So he has to keep on saying this: no difference, all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. In other words, he has said it before. But here he puts it very plainly and clearly: God has deliberately shut up, concluded, shut up together in unbelief, in disobedience, Gentiles and Jews, in order that He might show mercy upon the two groups in exactly the same way.

Now that's the statement. However, we can't leave it at that for this reason. Obviously, there is great and high doctrine involved here. You can't just say a thing like that and go on, so as to hurry through the Epistle to the Romans. This is staggering, and we must of necessity stop and look at it. Again, I would remind you that it's not the first time the Apostle has said this sort of thing. He's said it before, but it is put in such a form here, as I say, that we must examine it. What he's saying, in other words, is this: that this disobedience that was once the characteristic of the Gentiles and is now at this time when he is writing the characteristic of the Jews, and as I'm reminding you, is still this night, April the 9th, 1965, still the characteristic of the Jews as a whole, as a race, and as a people.

He says that this is the result of God's action. So we must describe it as a judicial disobedience. Now remember that in verse 25, when we dealt with the phrase “that blindness in part is happened to Israel,” we made exactly the same point. I said that was judicial blindness. And even earlier we've seen this same judicial aspect of the matter in verses eight, nine, and 10. “According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear; unto this day. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompense unto them: Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back always.”

Very well, now then, here we are dealing once more with a judicial blindness, judicial disobedience, judicial unbelief. And I say we've got to look at it for this reason: that many stumble at this point and are tempted to say as the disciples you remember said to our Lord when He was preaching to them on one occasion, “This is an hard saying; who can take it?” or “who can bear it?” And you remember that at that point many of them, we are told, went back and walked no more with Him.

Now we are still in the flesh and we are much too like some of those people. When we come across something we don't understand, we say this is an hard saying, who can take it? This is asking too much of us. Many people have stumbled at this kind of statement, this kind of doctrine, and thereby of course have turned their backs upon the truth. And it’s a very serious and a very terrible thing to do. So let us look at this for a moment in a spirit of reverence and a spirit of godly fear. We are looking here into the action of the Almighty God. Let us metaphorically take off our shoes from off our feet, for the ground on which we are standing is holy ground.

What does this mean? Does it mean that God is the author of sin? That God Himself is the author of unbelief or of disobedience? Is that what the Apostle is saying? That's what so many people take it to mean, and they stumble at it. They say this is impossible. And they either dismiss it in terms that the Apostle Paul was just writing his own thoughts here, typical Pharisee, legalist and so on, attributing things to God which may have been true of him and so on. Now that of course is to us unthinkable. That is a complete denial of the whole doctrine of inspiration, and a denial of the fact that the man who is writing even goes out of his way to remind us that this is a revelation that was made to him as an Apostle.

He's been let into the secret of a mystery, not his own thoughts at all. But people foolishly do that sort of thing and do not hesitate—you'll find it in many commentaries—don't hesitate to say that this of course is just wrong and that the Apostle is saying something here that cannot be true of the God of love in whom they believe. I don't waste time on the negative answer to that question, but let's look at it rather in a positive way in order that we may see what exactly the Apostle is teaching us and anxious to convey to us.

Now he is not saying here that God ordains sin in general for the sake of or with a view to redemption. Some people have taken it to mean that. You know what I mean. This problem of sin and of evil is a very great problem. Let’s admit that frankly. God is all-wise, God is holy, God is light, God is all-powerful. Well very well then, the question that people ask is: if that is true, why is man as he is? Where does sin come from? Where does evil come from?

And it is a very great question. Now the temptation in the light of a verse like this is to say that what the Apostle is teaching is that God has created sin in order that He might show forth His own grace and mercy and power to save. But that is unthinkable. God is not the author of evil. God is the eternal antithesis to evil. It is a thought that we of necessity must reject immediately. I say it with reverence: God cannot create evil. God could not have created sin for any purpose. It is impossible. Sin, I say, is always rebellion against God, disobedience of God, the eternal antithesis to God.

So it doesn't mean that. The Apostle is not teaching that God has brought in sin in order that He might show forth the riches of His grace and His amazing mercy. No, he's not saying that. But he is saying this: he is saying that though God is not the author of sin, that nevertheless it is true to say that sin is not outside God's control. That’s what he's saying. He's not only saying that sin is not outside God's control, he is going further and he is saying that God can and has used even sin to serve and to suit His own purpose and to help to bring it to pass.

Now you notice the distinction. He doesn't say God created sin, but he does say that sin having come into the world, God has used it. He can use it and has used it for His own great and glorious purpose and to display the riches of His grace and of His mercy. Now that’s what the Apostle is actually saying. That because sin and unbelief have come in, not created by God, that is entirely man’s responsibility for having listened to the devil. But here it is, here's the fact. Now God, in order to bring His great purpose to pass, has made use of this. And He's made use of it in the sense that at times He has aggravated it in order to bring out still more clearly His mercy and the riches of His grace.

Now there are many statements to this effect in various parts of the scriptures. You’ll find quite a number of them in certain chapters in the book of the prophet Isaiah. Read for yourselves when you go home chapter 45 and you’ll come across that phrase which alarms so many people where we read, “I create evil.” What it means is that He creates evil consequences. He doesn't create evil itself, but He is involved in the consequences of men's sin and evil. He's in control of it all. Even the devil is under the control of God.

Now there are many statements to that effect, but of course we already have come across what is in many ways the classical example and illustration of this whole doctrine in chapter nine in the case of Pharaoh. Verse 17 in chapter nine: “For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.”

That's it. He hardened the heart of Pharaoh. He didn't make Pharaoh an unbeliever and a sinner, but Pharaoh being already that, God hardened him, aggravated it. Why? Well, in order that He might show this great contrast. That's the statement. And here again, the Apostle is saying very much the same thing. And you do remember how in that context in chapter nine the Apostle puts up the case of the objector, “Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?”

And you remember the answer, don't you? Let’s take it to ourselves tonight, those of us who tend to be philosophers and who want to understand fully the mind of God and comprehend all truth: “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?” and so on. And then the illustration of the potter and the clay. Now that, that is I say what the Apostle is actually saying here.

Now this is a staggering doctrine. And you and I, my friends, are in the realm this evening of this great mystery of God and His ways with respect to man. What I never understand is how anybody can be upset by this and get into trouble. What it always affects me in this way: that God gives us the privilege of being allowed to enter at all into these things. He needn’t have done so, He needn’t have told us, but He does. He wants us to understand what He's been doing in history, and this is one of the most wonderful aspects of it all.

Now in order to make this matter perhaps as clear as I can to you, I want to quote to you some words which were written by Professor James Denny, which I think put this matter very well. He puts it like this: “Divine necessity pervades and controls all the freedom of men. It is a divine purpose mastering all the random activity of human wills.” Now what he means by that is this: that God allows a measure of freedom to us, and there is no question about that. Man is responsible, and as we’ve had to emphasize throughout our discussion of these three great chapters, nine, 10, and 11, man is responsible always for his damnation. He's not responsible ever for his salvation, but he's always responsible for his own damnation.

Now God allows this measure of liberty to man. But God is over it all. He allows liberty to the devil, but it’s liberty within limits. You see that in the case of Job, don't you? You read the first chapter of the book of Job. Even the devil is only allowed to do things. God is over all. In other words, this divine necessity is found to be pervading and controlling all the freedom of men. There is a divine purpose which masters all the random activity of human wills.

And then I think Denny has one very good statement. Listen to this sentence: “God subordinates sin to His purpose, but it is not a subordinate element in His purpose.” Now I want you to get hold of that. God subordinates sin, even sin, to His purpose, but sin is not a subordinate element in His purpose. You see, if sin were a subordinate element in God's purpose, well then it would have meant that God is the author and the creator of sin. You mustn't say that sin is a subordinate element in God's purpose, but you must say, and we are told it here by the Apostle, that God can and does subordinate even sin to His own purpose and for the sake of His own great and eternal purpose.

Very well, I am asserting therefore that what the Apostle is teaching us is this: that God presses man's unbelief and disobedience to the very point at which it becomes quite clear that nothing but God's own mercy can ever give us salvation. Now there it is. The Apostle puts this same point in other places with which you are familiar. Here it is if you like in another form. Here's the statement that God takes the sin and the unbelief and the disobedience of mankind, which He is not created, which man is responsible for. But God now, in order to show the riches of His grace, He presses that to such a point that when such people are saved, you’ve got to say there's only one explanation: it is the activity and the power of God.

Here it is in Ephesians 2: “You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.” That's it. And he goes on repeating it there. “God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ,” leading on to the great statement, “By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” For we are His workmanship. In other words, the business of this activity of God is to show that we are entirely what we are because of the mercy of God alone.

He has shut us up in unbelief and disobedience. We cannot get out of it. “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” If you say that you are a Christian because you are such a wonderful man with such an understanding and so on, you're denying the scriptures. Salvation is solely due to the mercy of God. And God has made that clear by shutting up the Gentiles in unbelief, shutting up the Jews in unbelief also.

Now then, there then is this great doctrine at which the Apostle arrives. And it's interesting to notice the way in which he arrives at it. He's concerned about this problem, the present exclusion of the nation of Israel, the coming in of the Gentiles. And here he’s given the explanation and he says: here it is, you see this is the big principle, that's how God acts. His glory is over all, it is all the result of His mercy, and there is nothing of which any one can boast, whatever is his nationality.

All right, now having dealt in that way with the actual statements in this great portion of scripture, we now come to the point in which we must try to establish the exposition that we have been giving. Namely, that what the Apostle is saying here is that a day is coming when the bulk of the nation of Israel is going to believe the gospel. That’s been our contention right through our dealing with this subordinate passage and indeed with the whole of the chapter. But there are people, as I pointed out a few Friday nights back, there are people who don't accept that and don't agree with it, and they hold other views.

There are those, and I think I reminded you that they include the illustrious names of Martin Luther and John Calvin, who disagree with what I've been putting before you and say that “all Israel” means the total number of the elect, both Jews and Gentiles. And then there are others who say no, “all Israel” means the total number of the elect Jews only. What about these two views? It is of course very important, because as I want to try to show you, the view that we hold on this matter will determine why the Apostle ever wrote the great doxology that starts in verse 33.

And remember, whatever exposition you've been holding onto with regard to “all Israel,” it's got to lead you onto this tremendous doxology. So let's look at these two now in the light of our detailed exposition. We've dealt with it phrase by phrase, and then having thus put the facts before you, I think we are now in a position to gather it up and to consider the argument. First, why do I say that this is not a reference to the total number of the elect, both Jews and Gentiles? Well, let me give you the reasons again. I think I've given them to you before, but let for the sake of this summing up, let me put them before you once more.

If you say that the “all Israel” of verse 26 is a reference to the total number of the elect of all nations, including the Jews, well then as I pointed out when we were dealing with it, it means that you're using the word Israel in a different sense in verse 26 from that which it has in verse 25. It's clear that in 25 it is a reference to the nation of Israel. And I'm arguing that the Apostle doesn't suddenly change a meaning like that without telling us that he's doing so.

But says somebody, what about verse six of chapter nine? “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” They say, isn't he using the same word there in two different senses? And my answer is no, he is not. He is not there changing the meaning entirely. All he's showing there is that there is an Israel within the Israel. There are no Gentiles involved there at all. But on this other argument in verse 26, he's brought in Gentiles to Israel and still calls them Israel. The Apostle doesn't do that sort of thing. Then somebody says what about Galatians 6:16 where the Apostle talks about the Israel of God? Quite so, it is the Israel of God and not just Israel. When he's talking about the nation, he says Israel, but when he says the Israel of God, he's letting you know that he's not talking about the nation. He hasn't been discussing the nation in the context of Galatians six at all, and he's giving you this phrase, “the Israel of God,” the people of God. The context I think makes it perfectly plain and clear that it isn't the same thing.

But then my second reason for rejecting this exposition is this: that if all Israel here in verse 26 does mean the total number of the elect, well then in a sense the statement is bathetic. Instead of leading up to a climax, well it becomes something ordinary. It doesn't seem to me to complete the argument. He says, you see in verse 25, “I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery.” This mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits: that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved, and on he goes leading to the doxology.

But if he's merely saying that a number of Jews and Gentiles are going to be saved, well I say there's no climax. It's almost a kind of bathos. Why does he say I'm going to tell you a marvelous thing, a mystery? It's been revealed to me. I'd never thought of it, nobody else has, I'm going to tell you about this. But what's he saying? It seems to me to leave out the mystery and leave out the climax. And of course as I've kept on indicating to you, it in no way accounts for the statement of verse 15. If the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? There's no room for that. It's not there. It's disappeared altogether, and yet that is the greatest thing of all that the Apostle is concerned to say.

Or so finally, my third reason for rejecting that exposition is that it does violence to the whole argument of the entire chapter. The problem at issue not only in this chapter but in chapters nine and 10 is the Jews as a nation. Hath God cast away His people? The nation. That's what he's talking about, that's what he's interested in. And so if it’s just to end by saying that a given number of Jews and Gentiles are going to be saved, well the Apostle hasn't answered the question. It isn't really an answer at all. So we reject that exposition for that reason.

So we come to the second. The second alternative exposition is the one that says all Israel means the total number of the elect Jews. This at any rate has the advantage of not suddenly changing the meaning of Israel in midstream, as it were, without giving any reason for doing so at all. This does recognize that he's talking about Jews. It has that great advantage over the other.

And so it tells us that this means that all Israel is the total number of elect Jews. Now I want to deal with this, and I think I've come to the decision and conclusion that the most convenient way for me to do this is to read to you and to answer at the same time a statement of this particular view of this “all Israel” given by a most excellent modern commentator and writer, William Hendrickson, whose commentaries on John and some of the pastoral epistles and whose excellent book on the book of Revelation, *More Than Conquerors*, no doubt many of you have read and possess and value very highly, as we should value very highly. But at this point I find myself in total disagreement with Hendrickson.

Now he deals with this in a book of his called *The Bible on the Life Hereafter*. And I'm taking it in this form because he has summarized his view under headings: the wrong view of this passage, the right view. And he subdivides the wrong view. Now let's listen to what he’s got to say. He says my objections to this explanation, which is the explanation I've been putting before you, he says my objections to this explanation are as follows. A: it is contrary to the context of Romans 11. See, here's a blank contradiction. I say that the context of Romans 11 makes me say what I've been saying. He says it is contrary to the context of Romans 11.

The context nowhere speaks about national salvation or even about mass salvation. On the contrary, it speaks about mass hardening and remnant salvation. Now this really does astound me for this good reason. He says this chapter speaks about mass hardening and remnant salvation. Quite the reverse of this mass redemption. But what is amazing to me is this: that the Apostle goes out of his way to tell us that the mass hardening is only temporary, is only in part, it’s only for a while. And he keeps on contrasting what is happening for the time being, which is the mass hardening and the remnant salvation, with what is going to happen.

You see, isn't it extraordinary that a man reading the chapter can nevertheless say a thing like this? He says this chapter is not concerned about national salvation or mass salvation; on the contrary, it speaks of mass hardening and remnant salvation. But what the Apostle says is this: at this present time, a mass hardening has happened to Israel, and there is only a remnant salvation. But there's something going to happen. There's my first answer. But let's go on.

B: here's his second reason. He says our Lord nowhere predicted a national conversion of the Jews. Jesus loved the Jews. He Himself was a son of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah. If the Jews are going to be converted in large masses as a sign of the end, one would expect Jesus to have said so, especially when the disciples asked him to tell them about the sign of his coming and of the end of the world. But he said the very opposite. He indicated everywhere that the privileges which once belonged to the ancient covenant people would be transferred to a new nation, namely the church, gathered out of Jews and Gentiles. Luke 19:43-44, Matthew 8:11-12, 21:32.

Well, all right, what about this? Well, here it seems to me there are two answers. He is quite right in saying that our Lord in His teaching as we have it in the Gospels did not deal with this question. But why not? He's arguing here you see on the basis of what is called the argument of silence. But not only that, we have a specific statement from our Lord to this effect, that there were many other things that He had to teach to these disciples. I'm reading out of John 16:12: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.”

There were things that He couldn't teach them before His crucifixion and before the resurrection. They were not clear about His person, they were therefore couldn't possibly be clear about their rejection of Him in the way or what was going to happen. So He didn't pretend to teach them everything. He says specifically there were certain things that He couldn't teach them then, but that giving the Holy Spirit, He would lead them into all truth and that He would reveal unto them things to come.

And here I'm suggesting in Romans 11 we have a perfect illustration of that very thing. He says I'm going to send the Spirit, He will lead you into all truth, He shall tell you things to come. So it was revealed to the Apostle this very prophecy of something that was going to come. Our Lord says He cannot do it at that point, they couldn't bear it, and obviously they couldn't because we read that even after the resurrection, they were still in a state of muddle and of confusion with regard to these matters.

But there is a most interesting statement in Acts 1:6-7 from the very lips of our Lord Himself, which seems to me again to answer Hendrickson. Acts 1:6 and 7: “When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.” You notice that He doesn't say that Israel has no more concern with the kingdom. Doesn't say that. All He says is you mustn't be concerned in times and seasons.

Now if Hendrickson were right, there was a wonderful opportunity for our Lord to say: look here, don't ask about the restoration in any sense of Israel in terms of the kingdom, for Israel is finished as regards the kingdom. He doesn't say that. So that I am suggesting that that is a complete answer to that second objection of Hendrickson.

But let me go on to his third point. C: according to the uniform teaching of Paul, special promises or privileges for this or for that national or racial group, say the Jews or the Dutch or the Americans, do not exist in this new dispensation. Then he refers us to Romans 10:12 and 13, Galatians 3:28, Ephesians 2:14. You know the statements about there are neither Jew nor Gentile, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, male nor female; He hath made of twain one and broken down the middle wall of partition and statements to that effect. And this one we've already looked at in Romans 10:12. Now you see the argument he bases on that is this: according to the uniform teaching of Paul, special promises or privileges for this or that national or racial group do not exist in this new dispensation, and then those are his proofs.

But here there is a very complete answer to him. None of the statements that he quotes has anything whatsoever to do with the matter that is being dealt with in Romans 11. All the Apostle is teaching in those other statements is this: that everybody's got to be saved in the same way. All these other statements are to say this: now the Jews think that they alone are to be saved because they're Jews. It's wrong. From the standpoint of salvation, all have got to come through faith in Christ, Jew and Gentile, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, doesn't matter. There's only one way; salvation is only in Christ and by faith. There is no other. That's what all those statements are saying.

So there's no trouble about that. That isn't what we are concerned with here. The Apostle in this 11th chapter of Romans is saying very plainly and clearly, as Hendrickson says, that everybody’s got to be saved in the same way; it is all by the mercy of God and nobody can claim merit or any goodness in and of himself. But when he goes beyond that to say that God is no longer interested in particular in this or that national or racial group, he is then simply blankly contradicting what the Apostle says. Where? Well, in this chapter, first in verse 16: “If the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.” That's all you remember about the nation of the Jews. That's a purely racial statement. That's true of Jews only and not of Gentiles, as we saw.

Then of course in verse 25: “I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel.” Why does he bother to treat Israel separately if there's no purpose in doing so? If all this has ended, why does he have this great argument about the place of Israel if the statement is true that God no longer looks upon any people in a different way from others? There's no purpose in that statement. And then of course, the statement in verse 26 that “all Israel shall be saved,” but still more important verse 28: “As concerning the gospel, they (the Jews) are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes: For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.”

God still loves these people though at the moment they're enemies from the standpoint of the gospel. Why? Well, because of the fathers. God does take still this special interest in the Jews in the way that we've been indicating, namely that they're going to be brought back as a race into the church through belief and faith in Christ. Certainly, they won't come in in a special way; they won't even have a special position in the church. But they're going to come back because God is still a lover of them for the sake of the fathers.

Now you see, Hendrickson washes that out completely, the very thing that the Apostle has been so concerned to mention in those various verses. But let's go on. D: God, he says—now here's a short sentence, this is his fourth objection—God does not reward disobedience. Exclamation mark. And I’ve added a little sentence of my own to the book: nor obedience either. Listen: God, says Hendrickson, does not reward disobedience, as if to say this other exposition is saying that God is going to reward the disobedience of these Jews. He says this is unthinkable, exclamation mark, God doesn't reward disobedience.

But I’m adding: God doesn’t reward obedience either. What's the whole point of verses 30 to 32? In times past, “ye in times past have not believed, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they may also obtain mercy. For God hath concluded all in disobedience.” And he's not rewarding disobedience. He's concluded all in disobedience in order that He might have mercy upon all. Mercy is not a reward. Mercy is entirely free; mercy is entirely undeserved. He's ignoring completely the essential argument of the great Apostle. He thinks he disposes of my exposition by saying God doesn't reward disobedience. Whoever said he did? No, no, God doesn't reward anything either, disobedience or obedience. It is all of mercy.

Nowhere has anybody ever suggested that God is rewarding anything, leave alone disobedience. You mustn't talk about rewarding when you’re dealing with God's way of salvation. It doesn't come in, shouldn't be mentioned; it's a failure to understand the whole argument. But let me come to his last argument. He says under E, the text Romans 11:26a does not say “and *then* all Israel shall be saved,” as if the Lord will first deal with the Gentiles and when he is through with them will start thinking about the Jews once more. It says, “And *so* all Israel shall be saved.” The meaning of the word “so” must be derived from the context.

And that's exactly what I say. It must be derived from the context and not from some preconceived notion and idea. And the context, as I say, demands that you reject what Hendrickson is saying and that you accept this other exposition that has been put before you. But then turning to the other side, he comes to what he calls “the right view,” and this is what he says. “What the right view is, the context, so it seems to me—I don't want to emphasize that too much, I wonder why he pushed that in, but he did—so it seems to me, makes very clear. Paul in this chapter discusses the question how the promises of God to Israel can be reconciled with the rejection of the greater part of Israel.”

I say in the margin, quite right. The Apostle answers in effect—now then, listen, here's his exposition—you must remember that even during the old dispensation, these promises were intended to be realized only in the lives of true believers. And that is true even today, that is during the new dispensation. He says God did not cast off his people which he foreknew (verse 2), the seven thousand during Elijah's time (verse 4), the remnant according to the election of grace (verse 5).

One might have expected God to punish the Jews by wiping them out completely or by sending upon all of them a hardening. The sin of nailing the Messiah to the cross certainly deserved that much. But the great mystery (see verse 25)—listen, this is the mystery—that this hardening is never complete. In each generation, God gathers out from among the Jews a remnant that will be saved, certain branches that are grafted back into their own olive tree. Note however, never more than certain branches, never more than a remnant.

Now all these remnants put together constitute “all Israel.” Alongside of the process whereby the fullness, that is the full number of elect of the Gentiles, is brought in, occurs also the process whereby all Israel, all the elect from among the Jews, is saved. So that as far as God’s saving activity is concerned, faith-wise as far as man is concerned, all Israel shall be saved. So, and in no other way, hence not as a nation but as a collection of remnants through the ages. Not by continuing in unbelief, but by accepting Christ through living faith. In order to impart that salvation to all Israel, Jesus came into the world.

Now then, what about that? Well, here it seems to me the answer is still more simple. That is Hendrickson's exposition of this great mystery. And you see what his explanation was: that throughout this Christian era, as Gentiles believe, there will always be just a few Jews who will believe in every generation. And that will go on while the gospel is still being preached to the Gentiles, there will always be just a few—he emphasizes this—just a few Jews who will believe. So that when the time comes that the gospel era is finished and the fullness of the Gentiles will have been gathered in, you’ll be able to add up the total number of just this small number of Jews who have believed from age to age and generation to generation and that constitutes “all Israel.”

Now that is his explanation of this great mystery. But you see, the thing is fatuous for this very reason: there was no mystery about that. Everybody knew at this time that a number of Jews had believed. The Apostle tells us that at the beginning of the chapter: “I myself also am an Israelite.” That was known. He also says in verse five, “even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” They knew that. There was no mystery about this.

And yet Paul says he's got a great mystery to show them. But if Hendrickson is right, there was no mystery about it. It was already known. And it’s no mystery to us tonight; we've known that throughout the centuries an occasional Jew has believed the gospel, perhaps two or three in places, and that that is still going on. But we don't need to have a revelation to tell us that, we know that, and we could therefore say ourselves: well this no doubt will go on until the end of this age. Large numbers of Gentiles will believe, but there'll always be a number of Jews who will believe.

You don't need a revelation, a great mystery. It's a well-known fact. You see, the explanation completely fails to account for what Paul calls this great mystery. And again, I must remind you, he completely fails to deal with what we are told in verses 12 and 15. “Now if the falling of them be the riches of the world, if their present fall has led to the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness? If we are getting this benefit now, oh how much more when their fullness comes in?” And then 15, “If the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?”

The most amazing thing that will ever have happened in the long history of the Christian church. Well now, this is a mystery. Nobody could ever have foretold this. But everybody can foretell what we are being told by Hendrickson, that just a few Jews will go on believing and will be grafted back. You see, the mystery is gone and the marvel is gone and the great climax is gone.

In other words, he completely fails to deal with the meaning of the word “fullness” as it is applied to both Jews and Gentiles. And also, he completely misses what is to me the main emphasis of the whole chapter. What's that? It's this: the Apostle is all along contrasting “now” and “then.” This is how it is now, *then* this is going to happen. This is the revelation: now, then. That vanishes in Hendrickson's exposition. All he's got is a continuation of what had already happened. Paul has believed, remnants according to the election of grace have believed, they'll go on doing this in driblets right through. There's no “now” and “then,” it’s just a continuation of what has happened and what is happening.

In other words, he misses entirely the whole object of this chapter and chapters nine, 10, and 11, which is the problem of the mass of the nation of the Jews rejecting the Messiah and outside the church, and the Gentiles and everybody coming in. How do you reconcile this with the promises of God? How do you reconcile this with the purpose of God outlined to the fathers? What is the explanation? He doesn't answer it. All he tells us is this: well there will be a kind of “all Israel,” it'll just be the sum total of these few that have believed from age to age and generation to generation.

I ask you, my friends, do you designate a thing like that as a great mystery? Would that, if that is all, lead to this tremendous doxology: “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.”

It doesn't lead to that. It’s bathos. God on the whole has been defeated and He’s only got a little remnant of the people whom He's created and produced for Himself out of the fathers, to whom He gave those great and glorious promises. No, no, my friends, when you consider the alternative expositions, you surely must come to the conclusion I've come to: that there is only one exposition of this chapter and particularly of this section we've been dealing with, which in any way leads to the glory of the doxology. And it is that at some future time, we don't know when, and I hope to go into this when we resume on April the 30th, but there shall be a tremendous conversion of the mass, the bulk, of the race of Israel.

And when it happens, the church will be so amazed and astonished that it will veritably be like life from the dead. The impossible has happened, and there's only one explanation of it: the mercy of God, and the riches of God's wisdom and grace, passing comprehension, glorious in its wonder, filling us with amazement and astonishment and praise. Amen.

O Lord our God, we again would humbly thank Thee that Thou hast ever given us an opportunity to look into these things. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! O Lord, open our eyes we pray Thee more and more to this that we may glory in it as we ought and ever live to praise Thy name and to tell others of the wonders of Thy grace. And now may the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship and the communion of the Holy Spirit abide and continue with us now this night throughout the remainder of this our short and uncertain earthly life and pilgrimage and ever more. Amen.