The Olive Tree · Israel and the Nations in Romans 9-11

Definition

A theological framework that names the Pauline image of the cultivated olive tree (Romans 11:17-24) and the surrounding argument of Romans 9-11 as the New Testament’s most sustained treatment of the Israel and the nations question. The framework holds that Israel’s election is irrevocable (Rom 11:29: the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable); that the inclusion of gentiles in Israel’s covenant family is the climactic fulfillment (not the replacement) of the Hebrew Bible’s promises to Abraham; and that all Israel will be saved (Rom 11:26) names a future reality God is bringing about through means he has not yet fully disclosed. The framework explicitly refuses supersessionism (the view that the church replaces Israel), replacement theology (the view that the new covenant transfers Israel’s promises to a gentile church), and the double-covenant theology (the view that Jews are saved by one covenant and gentiles by another). It holds that there is one covenant family, grafted from a Jewish root, into which gentile believers enter without becoming ethnic Israel and from which ethnic Israel is not finally cut off. The site reads Romans 9-11 as the climax of Paul’s argument, with Marty Solomon’s Hebrew-context exposition as a primary modern voice.

Key proponents

Modern

Marty Solomon (Bema podcast, Romans series, especially the chapters 9-11 episodes). The single most influential modern voice for the site’s reading. Solomon develops Romans 9-11 inside a Hebrew-context, remnant-and-restoration lens that explicitly refuses supersessionist readings.
N.T. Wright, Climax of the Covenant (Fortress, 1992), Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Fortress, 2013), and Paul for Everyone: Romans Part 2 (WJK, 2004). Develops the Romans 9-11 argument as the climax of Israel’s covenant story in Christ, with gentile inclusion as the fulfillment, not the displacement, of the promises.
Scot McKnight, Reading Romans Backwards (Baylor, 2019) and A New Vision for Israel (Eerdmans, 1999). Reads Romans 9-11 as the narrative leading to peace between Strong (gentile) and Weak (Jewish) house-church members in Rome.
E.P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Fortress, 1983). Sanders’s most direct treatment of the Israel question. His re-description of Second-Temple Judaism as covenantal nomism reshapes how Romans 9-11 can be read.
James D.G. Dunn, Romans 9-16 (WBC 38B, Word, 1988). The standard New Perspective commentary on Romans 9-11.
Beverly Roberts Gaventa, When in Romans (Baker Academic, 2016). Reads Romans 9-11 as the climax of the letter, against the older Protestant tendency to treat chs 9-11 as a parenthesis.
Mark Nanos, The Mystery of Romans (Fortress, 1996) and Reading Romans Within Judaism (Cascade, 2018). The hardest Paul-Within-Judaism reading: Paul addresses gentile believers in chs 9-11, warning them not to develop arrogance toward Israel.
Pamela Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian (HarperOne, 2010). Reads Romans 9-11 inside a thoroughgoing PWJ frame: Israel’s covenant standing is secure; gentile believers join a distinct but parallel relationship with the God of Israel.
Paula Fredriksen, Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle (Yale, 2017). Historicizes the all Israel will be saved claim inside first-century Jewish eschatology.
Krister Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (Fortress, 1976). The foundational essay collection. Stendahl famously challenged the Augustinian-Lutheran reading of Romans 7 and pushed the Israel question of chs 9-11 to the center of the letter.
Timothy Gombis (Romans podcast, 2024-25). Develops Romans 9-11 as the narrative climax of the letter’s argument about God’s faithfulness.
Michael F. Bird, Romans: The Story of God Bible Commentary (Zondervan, 2016). Holds the New Perspective Romans 9-11 reading together with continuing Reformed concerns.
Tim Mackie (BibleProject, Holiness, Election, The People of God video series). Holds Israel’s election as irrevocable and develops the one-people-grafted-from-a-Jewish-root image.
Michael S. Heiser (The Unseen Realm; Reversing Hermon). Develops the divine council and Deuteronomy 32 background to the Israel-and-the-nations distinction.

Premodern witnesses

Genesis 12:1-3 (the call of Abraham), Genesis 15 (the covenant cut), Genesis 17 (the covenant of circumcision), Genesis 18:18 and 22:18 (all the families of the earth will be blessed in you). The Abrahamic foundation of the framework.
Deuteronomy 7:6-8 (Israel’s election is by YHWH’s love and faithfulness to the oath he swore to your fathers, not by any merit). The foundational election-by-grace text.
Deuteronomy 32 (the Song of Moses), especially vv. 8-9: the Most High apportioned the nations . . . but YHWH’s portion was his people. The Hebrew Bible’s foundational text on the Israel-and-the-nations distinction.
The prophets’ future-restoration texts: Isaiah 11:10-12 (the root of Jesse and the gathering of the remnant), Isaiah 60-62 (the gentiles streaming to Zion), Jeremiah 31:31-37 (the new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; Israel as never to be cast off in 31:36-37), Ezekiel 36-37 (the new heart and new spirit and the valley of dry bones), Zechariah 8:20-23 and 14:16-21 (the gentiles taking hold of a Jew’s robe to go with you; the nations going up to Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Booths). The whole Hebrew Bible’s eschatological vision is gentile-inclusion-within-Israel, not gentile-replacement-of-Israel.
Isaiah 49:6 (Israel as a light to the nations). The Hebrew Bible’s foundational vocation for Israel toward the gentiles.
Hosea 1-2 (not my people becoming my people). The text Paul quotes at Rom 9:25-26.
The Qumran community’s Damascus Document and Community Rule. Develops remnant theology: a faithful minority within Israel who hold the covenant truly. Background for Paul’s remnant argument at Rom 9:27, 11:5.
The Acts 15 Jerusalem Council. The earliest Christian-Jewish ruling: gentile believers are not required to become Jews (no circumcision, no full Torah observance), but they are full members of the messianic community. The Council models the one-people-grafted-from-a-Jewish-root logic Paul will develop in Romans 9-11.
Origen (Commentary on Romans). The earliest extensive Christian commentary on Romans 9-11. Origen reads the chapters as a real argument about Israel, not as an abstract treatise on predestination.
John Chrysostom (Homilies on Romans, especially Homilies 16-19 on chs 9-11). Reads the olive tree as a warning against gentile arrogance and a hopeful affirmation of Israel’s eventual return. Closer to the framework’s reading than the later Western tradition.
Augustine (Letter to Asellicus; commentary on Romans 9). Develops the chapters in service of his predestination arguments. Augustine’s reading individualizes the election language and shifts the focus away from the Israel as a people question. The framework recognizes Augustine’s enormous historical weight while distinguishing the Israel-as-a-people reading from the individual-predestination reading.
Aquinas (Commentary on Romans). Holds Augustinian individual-election while preserving the eventual restoration of Israel expectation.
Martin Luther, On the Jews and Their Lies (1543). The tragic exhibit of how Adam-Christology and supersessionism can warp into anti-Judaism. The framework names Luther’s text as a cautionary example of what happens when Romans 9-11’s careful framing is abandoned.
John Calvin (Institutes 3.21-24; Commentary on Romans). Holds Augustinian individual predestination and the eventual restoration of Israel (Calvin reads all Israel at Rom 11:26 as the future ethnic Jewish people).

See How We Read for the longer lineage of this and the other frameworks on this site.

Core insights

Israel’s election is irrevocable. Romans 11:29 is the framework’s structural anchor: the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable (Greek ametamelēta, “without regret, irreversible”). The verb is in the emphatic-present-active. The whole sweep of Romans 9-11 makes the same case: God’s promise to Abraham (Rom 9:6-13), his prerogative of mercy (9:14-24), his raising up of a remnant (9:27-29; 11:5), and his not casting off his people (11:1, 11) hold together as a single argument that Israel’s election is not in question. The framework refuses any reading of the New Testament that cancels or transfers Israel’s election.

The olive tree is cultivated, not replanted. Romans 11:17-24 is the central image. There is one olive tree (the covenant family of Abraham). Some natural branches (unbelieving Israel) have been broken off. Wild branches (gentiles) have been grafted in among the natural branches. The natural branches that were broken off can be grafted back in. Notice what Paul does not say: he does not say a new olive tree was planted. He does not say the original tree was uprooted. There is one tree, and the tree’s root is Jewish (Rom 11:18: you do not support the root, but the root supports you). The grafting-in image is the framework’s most precise refusal of replacement theology.

The remnant is the bridge. Romans 9:27-29 (Isaiah’s remnant) and Romans 11:1-6 (the present-tense remnant chosen by grace) name the faithful Jewish minority who have received the Messiah. The remnant is not the replacement of Israel; it is Israel’s faithful continuity. The whole later New Testament’s vocabulary of the church being grafted into and believing Jews and gentiles together as the people of God runs through the remnant category. Paul himself (Rom 11:1: I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham) is the model of the remnant Jewish believer.

All Israel will be saved refers to ethnic Israel’s eschatological inclusion, not to the church as the new Israel. Romans 11:26 is the framework’s most debated single line. The classical Reformed reading (following Calvin in part) takes all Israel as the elect ethnic Jewish people across history, with a mass conversion of Israel expected at the end of the age. The classical Lutheran reading takes all Israel as the church, with Israel repurposed as the spiritual people of God. The framework holds the ethnic-Israel future inclusion reading as primary, with N.T. Wright, Marty Solomon, and most modern Pauline scholars. The mystery (Greek mystērion) of Rom 11:25 is precisely this: a hardening has come upon part of Israel until the fullness of the gentiles has come in, and so all Israel will be saved. The eschatological sequence is gentile inclusion first, then Israel’s restoration.

The hardening is partial and provisional. Romans 11:25 specifies a hardening has come on part of Israel (Greek apo merous, “in part”). Paul does not say all Israel is hardened, and he does not say the hardening is permanent. The hardening is provisional: it serves the purpose of bringing in the gentiles, after which God’s mercy returns to Israel. Paul’s whole framing is strategic eschatology, not predestination of individuals to damnation.

The jealousy logic of Romans 11:11-14. Paul names a striking pastoral logic: salvation has come to the gentiles to make Israel jealous. The gentile inclusion is not a sign of Israel’s rejection but a provocation meant to draw Israel toward the Messiah. Paul’s apostolic ministry to gentiles (11:13) is simultaneously a ministry oriented to Israel’s eventual return. The two are not opposed; they are coordinated.

Gentile arrogance is the explicit target. Romans 11:17-24 is directly addressed to gentile believers. Do not be arrogant over the branches (11:18). Do not become proud, but stand in awe (11:20). Lest you be wise in your own eyes (11:25). The framework names Christian anti-Judaism and supersessionist arrogance as exactly what Paul warns against. Two millennia of Christian engagement with Israel that has forgotten this warning is the framework’s most painful pastoral exhibit.

God’s faithfulness to Israel is the premise, not the conclusion. Romans 9-11 begins (9:1-5) with Paul’s unceasing anguish for his kinsmen and a recitation of Israel’s privileges (adoption, glory, covenants, law-giving, worship, promises, patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah). Romans 11 ends (11:33-36) with a doxology marveling at God’s wisdom. The whole argument is built on the premise that if God has not been faithful to Israel, the Christian gospel is undermined at its root. Romans 3:3 had already raised the question: if some were unfaithful, will their unfaithfulness nullify the faithfulness of God? Absolutely not! The framework names God’s covenant faithfulness to Israel as a structural pillar of the Christian gospel, not an embarrassing OT loose end.

The framework refuses three errors at once. The site holds the Olive Tree framework against three historical Christian errors:

Supersessionism / replacement theology (the church replaces Israel; Israel’s promises transfer to the gentile church). Paul refuses this in extenso at Romans 9-11.
Two-covenant theology / dual-track salvation (Jews are saved by Sinai, gentiles by Christ, and they are parallel covenants of equal force). Paul also refuses this; he labors precisely to show that the one covenant family includes both, with Christ at its center.
Christian Zionism’s identification of the modern state of Israel with the eschatological all Israel (the political state founded in 1948 fulfills the prophetic promises and the modern state’s policies must therefore be Christianly endorsed). The framework recognizes the theological category of Israel as God’s covenant people without identifying it with any modern political state’s actions, and refuses to weaponize Romans 11 for or against any specific contemporary geopolitical position.

The framework changes how we read the Hebrew Bible itself. When Romans 9-11 is held in view, the Hebrew Bible’s prophetic vision of gentiles streaming to Zion (Isa 2:1-4; 60:1-22; Mic 4:1-5; Zech 8:20-23; 14:16-21) reads as the background of Romans 9-11, not as something Paul replaces. The whole Hebrew Bible’s eschatological hope is gentile inclusion within Israel; the New Testament’s claim is that this inclusion has begun, ahead of schedule, in the Messiah. The continuity is theological, not just rhetorical.

Implications. The framework anchors Romans 9:1-11:36; Galatians 3:6-29 and 4:21-31 (the Abraham argument and the Sarah-Hagar allegory); Galatians 6:16 (the Israel of God phrase); Ephesians 2:11-22 (gentiles brought near; one new humanity from the two; the dividing wall removed); Acts 15:1-35 (the Jerusalem Council); Revelation 7:4-17 (the 144,000 from the twelve tribes and the great multitude from every nation, side by side). The framework also reshapes how the site reads the whole canon: from Abraham forward, the story has always been one covenant family, with the gentile inclusion as the climax, not the supplanting, of God’s promises to Israel.

Where it shows up in Scripture

Genesis 12:1-3; 15; 17; 18:18; 22:18, the Abrahamic promises
Deuteronomy 7:6-8, Israel’s election by grace
Deuteronomy 32:8-9, the Most High apportioned the nations (the divine council background)
Isaiah 2:1-4; 60:1-22; 66:18-23, the gentiles streaming to Zion
Isaiah 49:6, Israel as a light to the nations
Jeremiah 31:31-37, Israel’s eternal covenant standing
Ezekiel 36-37, the new heart and the valley of dry bones
Hosea 1-2; 11:1, not my people becoming my people (quoted Rom 9:25-26)
Micah 4:1-5, the nations flowing to Zion
Zechariah 8:20-23; 14:16-21, the gentiles taking hold of a Jew’s robe; the Feast of Booths kept by the nations
Acts 15:1-35, the Jerusalem Council
Romans 9:1-5, Israel’s privileges
Romans 9:6-29, election, mercy, and the remnant
Romans 10:1-21, Israel did not submit to God’s righteousness
Romans 11:1-10, did God reject his people? Absolutely not!
Romans 11:11-24, the olive tree
Romans 11:25-32, the mystery and all Israel will be saved
Romans 11:33-36, the doxology
Galatians 3:6-29, the Abraham argument
Galatians 4:21-31, the Sarah-Hagar allegory
Galatians 6:16, the Israel of God
Ephesians 2:11-22, the dividing wall removed and one new humanity formed
Revelation 7:4-17, the 144,000 and the great multitude

Common misreadings to avoid

“Romans 9-11 is about individual predestination.” A 1,500-year Western misreading rooted in Augustine’s anti-Pelagian polemic and intensified by Calvin’s Institutes. Paul is not arguing about whether God predestines individual souls to heaven or hell; he is arguing about whether God’s promises to Israel still stand. The whole framework of Romans 9-11 is peoples, not individuals. Modern Pauline scholarship across the spectrum (Wright, Dunn, McKnight, Bird, Sanders, Gaventa) is now in agreement on this point.
“The church has replaced Israel.” Supersessionism. Romans 11:29 explicitly refutes it. Romans 11:17-24’s olive tree image refutes it. The framework names this as the most important Christian theological error of the post-apostolic period, with catastrophic historical consequences for Jewish-Christian relations.
“There are two parallel covenants: one for Jews, one for gentiles.” Dual-track theology. Paul refuses this also. There is one olive tree, one covenant family, with the Messiah at its center. Gentiles enter through the same Messiah; Jews who do not yet recognize Messiah are not on a parallel salvific track but are in the period of hardening that Paul says is partial and provisional (11:25).
“All Israel will be saved means the entire church across history.” The Lutheran spiritualizing reading. Modern scholarship widely rejects this. All Israel at Romans 11:26, in context, refers to the eschatological inclusion of ethnic Israel following the fullness of the gentiles. The framework holds this reading.
“The hardening of Israel is permanent.” Romans 11:25 explicitly says until the fullness of the gentiles has come in. The hardening is provisional and strategic. The framework recognizes that what God is doing now with Israel is not the end of the story.
“Israel’s election justifies any policy of the modern state of Israel.” A Christian Zionist reading. The framework recognizes the theological category of Israel’s election as covenantally real without identifying it with the actions of any modern political state. Romans 9-11 is not a foreign-policy document. Christian engagement with the modern state of Israel must hold theological care for the Jewish people together with prophetic critique of any state’s injustice, including Israel’s.
“Paul is anti-Jewish.” Romans 9:1-5 ends with Paul’s wish that he himself could be cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of his kinsmen. Paul is a Jewish apostle to the gentiles, never an apostle against the Jewish people. The Christian tradition’s frequent assumption of Pauline anti-Judaism reads the modern Christian-versus-Jewish division back into a first-century context where no such division yet existed. Paul, his apostolic colleagues, and the earliest Jesus communities were Jews.
“Christians should evangelize Jews specifically because they need to be saved like everyone else.” A pastorally complicated point. Paul does desire his people’s recognition of Messiah (Rom 10:1). But the framework warns that missions to Jews conducted from a position of Christian supersessionist confidence have produced two millennia of suffering for Jewish communities. The framework calls for evangelical humility with respect to Israel and the recognition that the church’s task is to live as the grafted-in branches such that Israel might be provoked to jealousy (11:11, 14), not to target the Jewish people as a missionary project.

The Olive Tree: Israel and the Nations

Definition

Key proponents

Core insights

Where it shows up in Scripture

Common misreadings to avoid

Further reading