leave no one behind
“God has not rejected his people.” (Romans 11:2a)
After a call to obedience to the Gospel and a desperate plea for evangelism particularly for those buried under the burden of legalism, the Apostle Paul moved into a discussion of the faithfulness of God while shifting the conversation toward unity within the Church. The eleventh chapter of Romans is profound in its own merit, but the genius of the passage is in how it serves as a compelling transition to the following topics of his letter. The remainder of his correspondence with the church in Rome is focused on the heart of worship centered on genuine love; said in another way, the remainder of Paul’s letter provided a blueprint for true and lasting unity within a diverse church and equates this solidarity with true worship and genuine love. Before making this point, however, before moving into a more practical conversation on the creation of ecclesiastical and societal cohesion, Paul provided the reason why. And, as outlined in the chapter, unity rests on the merciful faithfulness of God, our gratitude for the miraculous wonders of the Gospel, and an understanding of the value of all people.
To begin his transitory passage, Paul began by speaking comfort to his fellow Jews; the previous chapter ended with the historical account is Israel’s stiff-necked response to the beckoning of God to His table of mercy and grace; he wrote a despairing account of a people who knew the character and heart of God revealed through the Law and Prophets, and, yet, chose instead disobedience; he even added that “Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking” (Romans 11:7b). As Paul noted, those who had no foreknowledge of God understood and embraced the Gospel while the people who should have been proclaiming His goodness rejected His mercy. But, despite this truth, Paul comforted the congregation by reminding them of the faithfulness of God. Here, his audience should have been led to remember the truth of Scriptures like Numbers 23:19, Psalm 105:8, Psalm 98:3, Hosea 2:20, and Deuteronomy 7:9 (to name only a few); it is an important message that he also emphasized to Timothy (2 Timothy 2:13).
“I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.” (Romans 11:1-2a)
This argument for the goodness and faithfulness of God continued by noting that even the rebellious ingratitude of the elect was used by the Father for the benefit of the entire world eventually returning to His people, Israel, as a desperate allure. A vital component of the Abrahamic promise was that Israel was to be a blessing for the entire world (a task they refused to engage in by rejecting the Gospel). The fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise found in Genesis 12 (that they may be a blessing to the entire world) was ultimately fulfilled through the coming of Christ, but, in the rejection of the Messiah, in the stubbornness to maintain sacrifice over mercy (Hosea 6:6), in the failure to understand and proclaim the mercy of God to the ends of the earth, in the decision to isolate as the elect instead of going forth to announce the mercy of the God of Heaven (refusing to understand the book of Jonah), Israel refused to maintain their end of the covenant. Despite this, God did not abandon His people or forfeit His covenant. Israel was meant to be a blessing to the Gentiles, but God, in His love, would use the Gentiles to bless Israel and allure her back home.
“So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.” (Romans 11:11)
In this portion of the passage, Paul was continuing to speak to Christian Jews who have so far been the primary audience of his argument; and, he spoke to these Christian Jews about God’s pursuit of both Gentiles (those oblivious of God) and Pharisaic Jews (those rejecting grace and instead relying upon works of law). This presented a vast expansion of diversity within the Church; the obvious implication is in the application of the great commission (Matthew 28:16-20). While it may be clear that those with a Scriptural understanding of the Gospel (when Romans was written: Christian Jews) are called to go out to all the world (to the Gentiles, to those oblivious of Scripture, to those actively hating and rebelling against God), it may not be well understood that the call to evangelism is also directed to those engaged in legalistic religion. The first century church was to leave the borders of Israel to preach the Good News to the Syrians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, and beyond; but, they were also not to neglect preaching the Gospel to the Pharisees, Sadducees, and other religious elites. God wants all to abide in His love and mercy; and, there are tremendous benefits for the Church when we are all welcomed and gathered at His table.
“Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!” (Romans 11:12)
To emphasize the point even further, Paul directed his attention from Christian Jews to the Christian Gentiles also present. For the first time in his correspondence, Paul directly addressed the Christian Gentiles by incorporating them in the mission to preach the freedom of Christ to those unknowingly suffering under legalism. Paul, a former Pharisee himself, throughout Romans expressed his affinity and compassion for this population; those burdened with legalism are the same demographic referenced in Romans 9 in which Paul shared his desire (if it was an available possibility) to surrender his own redemption for the sake of their salvation. Today, common messaging on Romans emphasizes teaching sound theology to the Scripturally ignorant; this is the basis for the “Romans Road” evangelistic method, and there is nothing necessarily wrong with it. Those with no theological understanding must hear the Good News! However, this “Romans Road” perspective is not an accurate representation of Paul’s heart throughout Romans. Paul led the Roman congregation to consider the impact of a mass conversion of those drenched in a deep knowledge of Scripture and the history of God’s people. Paul, himself, was a Pharisee who had the scales removed from his eyes so he could see the truth of Christ and the power of His Gospel; through this redeemed Pharisee the Church was gifted rich and profound theological understanding whose letters stirred controversy in his own time as well as still today in ours. Even with the greatest of imaginations it is difficult to conceptualize an alternate storyline for a first century church armed with a battalion of Apostle Pauls—one was enough to rattle the entire Roman Empire!
“For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?” (Romans 11:15)
With a little more imagination, we, today, should consider the same vision for the modern church. While we can and should interpret this passage literally as applying to modern religious Jews (and the state of Israel itself), we should also imagine it applying to the various sects of Christianity: to Catholics engaged in endless acts of penance, to non-denominational “performance” pastors required to maintain appearances, to Reformed bookworms buried under mountains of doctrine, to all the shame-laden sinners struggling to believe that they even belong in the pews. The modern church is more fragmented and burdened than we may want to admit; most are quick to judge and oppose the ideology of legalism while failing to recognize the presence and implementation of legalism amongst ourselves. Politically liberal Christians are quick to join the cancel culture trend of our day like sheep following wolves to the slaughter; and, while politically conservative Christians are quick to mock the trend, it is easy to make the argument that cancel culture may have originated within the conservative ranks—it was, after all, conservative-minded Puritans who branded sinners with scarlet letters, and it was also conservative-minded traditionalists who were bewildered at the presence of hippies in the pews refusing to wear a tie in church (or shoes). In short, we’re a mess. We’re just as fractured and just as likely to stumble into the snare of legalism as the first century church. We should fervently pursue a church of radical grace: a church in which lifelong attenders are not simply practitioners of rituals but are instead an army of grace-fueled evangelists; a church in which those heavy laden with shame are freed of their legalistic chains; a church in which pastors are released to be honest and daring from the pulpit without having to perform, put on airs, and give cutesy, socially acceptable confessions during sermons (that typically present the pastor in a better light than before as opposed to a fellow ragamuffin); a church in which sins are forgiven, grace is abundant, and the gospel is not only preached but obeyed.
Can we dare to imagine a church in which quiet, lifelong Christians—asleep in the pews since childhood, having heard half a century of sermons, with a lifetime of Scripture spoken over them and written upon their hearts, equipped with a practical knowledge of how to live a Biblically centered life—awoke to the power of the Gospel present in every breath breathed?
Unfortunately, on a personal note, my conversations with Christian traditionalists on living the Gospel are typically met with bewilderment and resistance with most stating that they prefer something “more practical” (as if the Gospel wasn’t practical). These individuals are not ignorant or unknowledgeable—quite the opposite. They simply seem to still be living with scales over their eyes; I hope one day they travel their own Damascus road.
To the first century church, to the gathering of the saints in Rome, Paul urged believers to avoid taking an arrogant stance against each other. But, in reiterating this message from previous passages, he utilized an expansion of Christ’s teaching on abiding in Him. Paul used the farming allegory of grafting to depict the life provided to dead branches by the power of Christ. And, if those who are oblivious Scripture and those living wildly wayward lives can be adopted/grafted into the family of God, then how much sweeter is the awakening for those who know Him, serve Him, and love Him?
“But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches.” (Romans 11:17-18a)
Not allowing himself to stray from the need for unity, Paul continued the point of not being arrogant by reminding those gathered that the ones to whom they were contemptuous remain God’s beloved people. And, it must be understood that this messaging was not a side note in the conversation; instead, it was a foundational truth that will serve as the undertone in later passages concerning the necessity for unity, love, and not flaunting one’s freedom in Christ at the expense of another. He even furthered this point by stating that those who have been discarded by the church, the pharisaic and sadducaic communities, remain forever as the beloved people of God. It is easy to imagine the personal nature in which Paul was making his appeal; while we now refer to this community in generalities, Paul knew their names, spent time in their homes, debated them in the scholarly chambers, broke bread with them, prayed with them—to Paul, these communities were family. There was unfortunately a time in the history of the Church in which the manipulation of Scripture was used to fuel antisemitism; but, this is clearly not the messaging of God’s Word. The heart of Paul’s evangelistic appeal was personal, vulnerable, and compassionate; moreover, his appeal was centered on the faithfulness of God—even to those who rejected Him.
“As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” (Romans 11:28-29)
The chapter rightfully concludes with spontaneous worship praising the goodness of the Father; He is faithful even when we are unfaithful. He does not abandon His people, He does not leave them behind—instead, the Father works all things for the good of those who love Him. And, this includes His plan of redemption for His stubborn people, Israel. Today, a teaching stating that “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” would stir controversy, incite accusations of heresy, and demand further exposition and explanation; quoting this statement from Scripture (with or without citing the reference) would trigger a heated debate of what it means to be saved and remain saved. Test it: go tell your pastor that you have spent all of your Bible study time memorizing Romans 11:29 (“For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable”) and pay attention to the reaction. But here, regardless of the debate, despite other passages in which overly generous explanation was provided, no explanation is provided or deemed necessary. God is faithful to His covenants and sincere in His fervent pursuit of His people; the Father’s promise (“I will be your God, and you will be My people”) is repeated often throughout Scripture (Genesis 17:7, Exodus 6:7, Ezekiel 34:24, Ezekiel 36:28, Jeremiah 7:23, Jeremiah 30:22, Jeremiah 31:33), and it should beg the question for us today as to whom we may be excluding. Like the Apostle Paul, as ambassadors of the Gospel of Christ, the cry of our hearts and the longing of our souls should be that none are left behind.