Chapter 10: Mercy on All (Romans 11:25–36) | The Restoration of All Things

Romans 9 through 11 is one of the most contested stretches of the New Testament. People on every side of the debate quote it. Calvinists find unconditional election there. Arminians find resistible grace. And critics of the larger hope insist that it proves God sorts some for mercy and others for wrath, with the sorting permanent.

So before we fight about the parts, I want you to notice where Paul's argument lands.

After three chapters of wrestling with Israel's unbelief, after the hardening and the olive tree and the mystery of the ages, Paul arrives here:

Read that again, slowly. The same "all" who were shut up under disobedience are the "all" on whom God will have mercy. And the next thing out of Paul's mouth is not a qualification. It is not a warning. It is a song:

That is where the argument goes. The chapter many readers treat as the Bible's strongest case against the larger hope ends in a doxology so full of mercy it can only sing. I want to show you why that ending is not an accident. It is the point.¹

The Text in Context

The key passage is Romans 11:25–36. But to hear it properly, we need to feel the weight of where it sits. Paul has been asking a painful question since chapter 9: Has God rejected His own people, Israel? If the gospel is true and most of Israel has not believed, has God's promise failed?

That question drives all three chapters. And in chapter 11, Paul finally gives his answer. Let me set the full passage in front of you:

First, notice the word "until" (Greek achri, "up to the point when") in verse 25. The hardening is partial, and it has an expiration date. It lasts "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." This is not a permanent sorting. It is a stage in a plan.²

Second, notice "fullness" (Greek plērōma, "the complete number, the full total"). Paul uses this word twice in chapter 11. In verse 12 he speaks of Israel's future "fullness" or "full inclusion" (NRSV). In verse 25 he speaks of the "fullness of the Gentiles." The word means the complete number, not a partial selection.³

Third, look at the structure of verses 30–32. Paul sets up a careful parallel. The Gentiles were once disobedient but have now received mercy. Israel is now disobedient so that they too may receive mercy. Then verse 32 pulls the lens all the way back. God has consigned all to disobedience so that He may have mercy on all. The word "all" (Greek tous pantas, "the all," with the definite article) appears in both halves. The scope of the disobedience matches the scope of the mercy.⁴

Fourth, the purpose clause. The word "that" (Greek hina) introduces a purpose, not merely a wish. God consigned all to disobedience in order that He may have mercy on all. The disobedience serves the mercy. The imprisonment has a door, and the door opens.⁵

The Heart of the Case

1. The Exegetical Move: The Parallel “All … All”

The most important feature of Romans 11:32 is one you can see without knowing any Greek. The verse says the same thing twice, from two different angles. All were consigned to disobedience. All will receive mercy. The two "all"s are tied together by the purpose clause "that" (Greek hina). The first "all" sets the scope. The second "all" inherits it.

This is the same pattern we saw in Romans 5:18. Paul says there, "as one trespass led to condemnation for all people, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all people" (for the full treatment, see Chapter 4). The logic in both passages works the same way. If the "all" in the first half really means everyone, then the "all" in the second half must mean everyone too. Otherwise the parallel collapses.⁶

Does anyone deny that all people have been shut up under disobedience? Romans 3:23 already settled that: "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." If the first "all" of Romans 11:32 covers every human being, then the second "all" covers every human being as well. God means to have mercy on the same group He confined. That is what the verse says.⁷

I want to press this point, because it matters. The standard move for limiting this verse is to say that "all" means "all kinds" (Jews and Gentiles both), not "all without exception." I will address that reading in the counter-objections section. But for now, notice the strain that reading creates. Paul does not say, "God has consigned some from every group to disobedience." He says God consigned all. The word is not qualified. And the purpose that follows is that He may have mercy on the same unqualified "all."⁸

2. The Argument-Arc Move: Romans 9–11 as One Movement

To feel the force of Romans 11:32, you have to understand where it sits in Paul's argument. Romans 9–11 is a single unit. It asks one question and gives one answer.

The question, stated plainly in 9:6, is: "Has the word of God failed?" Israel was God's chosen people. Most of Israel has not believed in the Messiah. Does this mean God's promises broke? Paul's answer, given across three chapters, is a firm no. And the reason it is no turns out to be very good news for everyone.⁹

Here is the arc, traced in broad strokes. In chapter 9, Paul wrestles with God's sovereign freedom. He picks up the hard cases of Jacob and Esau, Pharaoh and the potter's vessels. (We will look at those texts closely in Chapter 28.) In chapter 10, he laments Israel's refusal of the gospel. In chapter 11, he reveals "the mystery" (11:25): Israel's hardening is partial and temporary. It serves a purpose. And the purpose is mercy.

George Sidney Hurd rightly insists that we must read Romans 9 through 11 as one sustained argument, not as three separate chapters we can mine for proof texts. The election Paul discusses in chapter 9 "does not result in the eternal exclusion of the non-elect," Hurd writes. Instead, it "addresses the temporal setting aside of Israel in order to bring salvation to the Gentiles."¹⁰

Watch how Paul builds this case. In 11:1, he asks, "Has God rejected his people?" and answers immediately: "By no means!" In 11:11, he asks whether Israel "stumbled in order to fall." Again: "By no means!" Their stumbling brought riches to the Gentiles. And if their stumbling brought riches, "how much more will their full inclusion bring!" (11:12, ESV).¹¹

That phrase "full inclusion" translates the Greek plērōma, the same word that appears in verse 25 for "the fullness of the Gentiles." As the commentator J.B. Lightfoot observed, the word means "the full tale, the entire number or quantity." It stands opposed to Israel's present fall and "evidently means their complete restoration to the favour of God."¹²

Then comes the olive tree (11:17–24). Branches were broken off (unbelieving Israel), and wild branches were grafted in (believing Gentiles). Robin Parry notes that the scholar Mark Nanos has argued persuasively that the standard translation "broken off" may even be too strong. The Greek may better be rendered "bent aside" or "damaged," with the branches still attached to the root. Whether broken off or bent aside, Paul's point runs the same direction: these branches are the natural ones, and God is able to graft them back in, or reinvigorate them, "how much more readily" (11:24). Paul warns the Gentile believers not to boast. The image is not of permanent rejection. It is of pruning for the sake of future growth.¹³

Next Paul reveals the "mystery" (11:25–26). A partial hardening has come upon Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. "And in this way all Israel will be saved." The hardening is temporary. It serves the wider plan. And the plan ends in "all Israel" being saved.¹⁴

Before Paul reaches the climax, he makes a point that cuts against every reading that treats Israel's setting aside as permanent. "The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (11:29). The Greek word is ametamelēta: "not subject to regret, not to be taken back." If God called Israel, that calling stands. If God gave Israel promises, those promises hold. No amount of disobedience can cancel what God has given.¹⁵

Then comes the careful symmetry of verses 30 and 31. The Gentiles were once disobedient but have now received mercy because of Israel's disobedience. Israel is now disobedient so that they too may receive the same mercy. Notice the word "too." Not "some of them." Not "a remnant from among them." They too will receive the same mercy the Gentiles received. Hurd sees Paul's "as-so" formula here as a demand for equal treatment on both sides.¹⁶

The argument then reaches its climax in verse 32. "God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all." This sentence does not appear out of nowhere. It is the conclusion of everything Paul has built across three chapters. The trajectory lands on universal mercy.¹⁷

3. The Doxology Move: Where the Argument Ends

What comes after Romans 11:32 is as important as the verse itself. Paul does not add a caveat. He does not say, "But of course, only some of these 'all' will actually respond." He sings.

I believe this doxology is the emotional proof of where the argument has arrived. Paul is not singing about a partial salvation. He is overwhelmed by a mercy so vast, so wise, so beyond human calculation, that the only proper response is worship. The God who shut everyone up in disobedience has revealed His hidden plan: mercy on all. And Paul falls to his knees.¹⁸

Notice the final phrase: "from him and through him and to him are all things." All things come from God. All things are sustained by God. And all things return to God. The direction of the "all" is homeward. This echoes the great "all in all" passage of 1 Corinthians 15:28 (see Chapter 5), and the reconciliation of "all things" in Colossians 1:20 (see Chapter 6). Across Paul's letters, the arc bends the same way. All things come from God. All things go back to God. Nothing is lost.¹⁹

Try reading this passage on the assumption that most of humanity will never receive this mercy. On that reading, Paul has just said, "God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all." But he means only some. The doxology then becomes a celebration of God's wisdom in saving a fraction of those He imprisoned. Can that sustain the weight of "unsearchable" and "inscrutable"? I do not think so. The song only makes sense if the mercy is as wide as Paul says it is.²⁰

4. The Whole-Canon Move: Judgment in Service of Mercy

Romans 11:32 is not a lonely verse. It fits a pattern that runs through the whole Bible. God judges in order to heal. He tears down in order to build back up. He confines in order to free.

We saw this pattern in Chapter 2, where we traced the mercy texts: "His anger is but for a moment, and his favor is for a lifetime" (Psalm 30:5). "He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in steadfast love" (Micah 7:18). "For the Lord will not cast off forever, but, though he cause grief, he will have compassion" (Lamentations 3:31–32). The pattern is wrath for a season, mercy as the destination.²¹

Romans 11:32 takes this pattern and gives it its sharpest expression. God did not simply allow disobedience. He consigned all to it (the verb synekleisen means "shut up together, imprisoned"). That sounds harsh. But the purpose clause tells you why: so that He might have mercy on all. The imprisonment was never the goal. The mercy was always the goal. The confinement serves the compassion.

This connects directly to what Paul wrote in Romans 5:18–19, where the condemnation of all through Adam serves the justification of all through Christ (see Chapter 4). The same logic is at work: universal sin is the dark backdrop against which universal grace shines. "Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more" (Romans 5:20). In chapter 11, Paul reveals the mechanism: God locked everyone in the prison of sin so that the door of mercy could open for everyone.²²

This is not a God who takes pleasure in wrath. This is the God who tells Ezekiel, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked" (Ezekiel 33:11). His severity is real. But it is a surgeon's severity, not an executioner's.²³

5. The Constructive Move: Severity as the Servant of Mercy

Romans 11 reveals that God's hardening of Israel and His setting aside of portions of humanity are not the final word. They are instruments of a mercy that is wider than anyone expected. The severity is real. Paul uses the word "severity" (Greek apotomia) explicitly in 11:22: "Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you." But even that verse carries a condition: "provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off." The warning applies to everyone. And so does the promise: "And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again" (11:23).²⁴

The olive tree is a living image of God's method. Branches break off. Branches graft in. But the tree itself endures. And the gardener who has the power to break off has the power to graft in again. In fact, Paul says, He will graft them in "how much more readily" (11:24). The movement of the tree is toward fullness, not toward emptiness.²⁵

Here is the constructive point. "Mercy on all" does not mean that God's severity is an illusion. The hardening is real. The broken branches are real. Sin has real consequences. But the severity is in service of the mercy. The all who fell are the all who are raised. The all who were imprisoned are the all who go free. God's judgments are not His last word. His last word is the doxology.

Kirk MacGregor, in Molinist Philosophical and Theological Ventures, reads Romans 11:30–32 in exactly this way. He notes that God desires to have mercy "which in the context of Romans 11 is salvific mercy," on all, whether Jew or Gentile. The mercy Paul describes is not generic kindness. It is saving mercy, the kind that rescues from sin and death.²⁶

I want to pause and say what makes this passage so striking. Many of the hope texts we have studied so far could, on a narrow reading, be explained away one at a time. "All" could mean "all kinds." "Every knee" could mean "forced submission." "Draw all" could mean "draw all types." But when you reach Romans 11:32 at the end of the Romans 9–11 argument, the escape routes close. Paul has been building this case across three chapters. He has traced Israel's hardening, the Gentiles' grafting in, the olive tree's future fullness, the irrevocable gifts of God, and the as-so formula of verses 30–31. The "all" of verse 32 is not an isolated word dropped into a sentence. It is the summit of a mountain Paul has been climbing. To read it as less than universal requires you to ignore the whole trail that led there.²⁷

This is the hope of Romans 11. God's plan for the ages has a shape, and the shape is mercy. Israel was hardened so that the Gentiles might come in. The Gentiles came in so that Israel might be provoked to return. And the whole drama of disobedience and mercy was arranged so that, in the end, God might have mercy on all. Every twist in the story serves the same destination. Not a single soul is written off.²⁸

Engagement with Specific Scholars

George Sidney Hurd's reading of Romans 9–11 in The Universal Solution is central to this chapter. Hurd insists that the election Paul discusses in these chapters is "temporal" in nature and does not result in the "eternal exclusion of the non-elect." He reads the olive tree as proof that God's plan includes the re-grafting of every broken branch. He highlights the symmetry of verses 30–31, where the disobedience of each group serves the mercy shown to the other. And he argues that verse 32 is Paul's grand summary of the whole epistle. The mercy of Romans 11 is not a new idea for Paul; it is the conclusion everything has been building toward.²⁹

Hunter Coates, in Grace Abounds, draws attention to the olive tree's holiness. The believing remnant makes the whole tree holy (11:16). That holiness extends outward, not inward. As Coates puts it, "all the rejected vessels, Esau and other vessels of wrath will become vessels of mercy when Jesus returns and takes away all sins." He notes that the leading Pauline scholar Douglas Campbell, who does not consider Paul an explicit universalist at all points, nevertheless concludes that Paul was "implicitly a universalist" in his treatment of unbelieving Israel. In Campbell's words: "In the contest between divine benevolence and human recalcitrance fought out in the space that is the human race, God will win. All humanity will be saved."³⁰

David Bentley Hart's reading of Romans 9–11 in That All Shall Be Saved is characteristically sharp. Hart argues that chapter 11 is the "radiant answer" that dispels the "shadows" of Paul's hard language in chapter 9. On Hart's reading, "there is no final illustrative division between vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy" because "all are vessels of wrath precisely so that all may be made vessels of mercy." He adds that the Reformed attempt to read "all" and "fullness" as referring only to "the tiny number of the elect" is "absurd." Paul, Hart insists, "is utterly and unwaveringly clear that it is precisely those not called forth, those who are not the 'elect,' those who have instead been allowed to stumble, who still will never be allowed to fall."³¹

On the other side, James De Young, in Exposing Universalism (ch. 9), presses the case that Romans 11:32 does not teach what universalists claim. He acknowledges the verse's force, calling it "one of the strongest texts attractive to universalism," and noting that Origen himself cited it. But De Young argues that "in light of the context the second 'all' cannot be everyone, including the wicked in hell, but must be interpreted to mean all who believe, whether Jews or Gentiles." He adds that finding universalism in this verse "contradicts the particularity that Paul has defended throughout much of Romans." De Young also turns the "irrevocable" gifts of verse 29 against the universalist reading: if the elect are already determined, and that decision is irrevocable, how can it be "later recanted, changed, or annulled, so as to include all"? I will state and answer these readings in the next section.³²

Thomas Talbott, in The Inescapable Love of God, argues that the logic of Romans 11:32 cannot be escaped. He traces Paul's argument through the entire three-chapter unit and concludes that Romans 11:32 is "the culmination of a theological argument that begins in chapter 9 and extends through chapter 11." The argument, Talbott contends, is "an explicit argument against limited election, against the pernicious idea that God restricts his mercy to a chosen few." The early stages (in chapter 9) may sound harsh. But no one who follows Paul to his conclusion "will likely confuse the severity of God's mercy with the absence of mercy."³³

Talbott presses the point about the parallel "all"s with special clarity. He writes that "the parallelism is even more important than the scope of 'all.'" What matters is that the very ones whom God shuts up to disobedience are the ones to whom He is merciful. "His former act is but the first expression of the latter, and the latter is the goal of the former." Talbott also cites the New Testament scholar James D. G. Dunn, who summarized Paul's point this way: "God hardens some in order to save all; he confines all to disobedience in order to show mercy to all."⁴⁴

Robin Parry (writing as Gregory MacDonald) reaches a similar conclusion in The Evangelical Universalist, but by a different route. Parry reads the election of Israel as temporary in its current division. He draws on the work of Sven Hillert, who has argued at length that Paul's distinction between "the elect" and "the rest" is only a "temporary category, dividing believers from non-believers in the present age." On this reading, unbelieving Israel's current condition is not permanent rejection but something more like a wound that is healing. God has been "stern" with them, Parry writes, but "even God's severity was part of a strategy to show mercy to all, including those to whom he had been severe."⁴⁵

Parry also highlights the significance of the remnant. He notes, with Andrew Das, that "throughout the Hebrew Bible the remnant within Israel has always been a sign of hope for Israel as a whole." The present remnant of believing Jews is not the end of the story. It is the firstfruits. The firstfruits are offered to God as a sign that the whole crop is His, and as a promise that in due course the rest of the crop will be gathered in. This is exactly what Paul argues in 11:16: "If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump."⁴⁶

Counter-Objections

Two objections to this reading carry real weight. Let me state each at full strength and then answer it.

Objection 1: “All” Means “All Kinds,” Not “All Without Exception”

This is the most common limiting reading. De Young argues in Exposing Universalism that the second "all" in Romans 11:32 must be read in light of Paul's broader argument. His central claim is that "the second 'all' cannot be everyone, including the wicked in hell, but must be interpreted to mean all who believe, whether Jews or Gentiles." He offers a second way of reading the verse as well: "God's mercy has been shown to all in the sense of providing Christ as an atonement for all, offering salvation to all … but only those who accept the offer of salvation will experience it." On either reading, Paul's point is about ethnic inclusion (Gentiles too receive grace) or about an atonement available to all but effective only for those who believe. The verse makes no claim about every individual being saved.³⁴

I take this seriously. Paul is certainly making a point about Jews and Gentiles. The whole context is about the relationship between Israel and the nations. But the "all kinds" reading does not survive the parallel.

Look again at verse 32. If the second "all" means "all kinds," then the first "all" must also mean "all kinds." That would make Paul say: "God has consigned all kinds of people to disobedience." But has God only shut up all categories in sin, or has He shut up all people in sin? No one reads the first half as "all kinds." Everyone reads it as "all without exception." Every human being has sinned. Once you grant the first "all" its natural scope, the second "all" inherits the same scope.³⁵

This is the same argument we traced in Chapter 4 with Romans 5:18. The parallel demands symmetry. You cannot give one "all" a universal scope and shrink the other without breaking the sentence. Paul uses the same word, in the same verse, connected by a purpose clause. The burden of proof falls on the one who says the two "all"s mean different things.³⁶

Objection 2: “All Israel” Does Not Mean Every Individual

A second objection focuses on verse 26: "And in this way all Israel will be saved." Some interpreters read "all Israel" as the elect remnant, or as ethnic Israel as a whole at a certain point in history, not as every individual Israelite who ever lived. If "all Israel" does not mean every individual, the argument goes, then "mercy on all" in verse 32 need not mean every individual either. De Young adds a pointed question of his own: if the "fullness" of both Jews and Gentiles takes place at the end of this age, "how can a completeness be made more complete?" He also turns the irrevocability of God's gifts against the universalist reading, asking: "If the elect are determined for this era, and this decision is irrevocable, how can this decision be later recanted, changed, or annulled, so as to include all?"³⁷

I want to be honest: the meaning of "all Israel" in verse 26 is a genuinely debated question. Scholars disagree about whether it means ethnic Israel, spiritual Israel (Jews and Gentiles together), or the full number of elect Jews. Parry sorts the options into four: (a) the church as spiritual Israel (Calvin, Wright); (b) elect Jews only (Bengel); (c) the whole nation but not every individual member (Barrett, Cranfield, Das); and (d) the whole nation including every member (Bell). He considers option (a) unlikely, since every other use of "Israel" in Romans 9 through 11 refers to ethnic Israel, and a sudden unannounced switch would only confuse the reader. The argument favors some form of (c) or (d). This is a live exegetical discussion, and I do not pretend it is simple.³⁸

But here is the key point. The scope of "mercy on all" in verse 32 does not depend on the resolution of the "all Israel" question. Verse 32 is broader than verse 26. Verse 26 speaks about Israel. Verse 32 speaks about everyone. Paul has moved from the particular (Israel's salvation) to the universal (God's mercy on all people). Even if "all Israel" in verse 26 refers to ethnic Israel as a whole rather than to every individual, verse 32 opens the lens wider. And the doxology that follows confirms the universal scope: "from him and through him and to him are all things" (11:36).³⁹

There is also this: the argument of verses 30–31 pushes toward individual scope. Paul draws a careful parallel. "Just as you" (Gentile believers) were disobedient but received mercy, "so they too" (disobedient Jews) may receive mercy. The "as-so" structure demands that both sides match. If real, individual Gentiles received real, individual mercy, then real, individual Jews will receive the same mercy. And verse 32 generalizes this to all.⁴⁰

The great Baptist commentator John Gill, no universalist himself, saw the force of this argument. He concluded that since the unbelief of the Gentiles was no bar to their receiving mercy, "it cannot be thought, that the present blindness, hardness of heart, enmity, and unbelief, which now attend the Jews, can be any obstacle to their obtaining mercy in the same way the Gentiles have; but as the one has been, the other also will be." If even a critic of universalism reads the passage this way, the text itself is pushing hard in the direction of universal mercy.⁴¹

One final point. The phrase "for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (11:29) stands behind both of these objections like a wall. If God's gifts and calling cannot be taken back, then neither "all Israel" nor "mercy on all" can be read as conditional promises that might fail. God called Israel. That call stands. God promised mercy. That promise holds. The word "irrevocable" closes every escape route.⁴²

Conclusion and the Boundary

Here is where we have arrived. Romans 11:32 is the destination of Paul's three-chapter argument about Israel, the nations, and the purposes of God. The hardening of Israel is temporary. The setting aside of the nations is temporary. The disobedience of all is temporary. And it all serves one end: mercy on all.

The doxology that follows is Paul's own response to this truth. He does not qualify it. He does not hedge it. He worships. And the final phrase of his song points every created thing back to God: "from him and through him and to him are all things."

I believe Paul means what he says. The all who are confined are the all who go free. The all who sinned are the all who receive grace. God's severity is real, but it is a servant, not a master. His mercy is the master. And the mercy reaches as far as the sin.

Think about what this means for someone who has watched a loved one walk away from the faith. The fear is that the walking-away is the final word. The fear is that disobedience, once chosen, becomes a prison with no exit. But Romans 11 says that disobedience was never the destination. It was a stage. God consigned all to it so that He could show mercy to all. The prison was always temporary. The door was always going to open.

That does not make the disobedience safe. The broken branches suffer for their unbelief. The hardening is painful. Sin costs. But the pain is not pointless. It serves a mercy that is wider than the pain. The gardener who cut the branches has the power to graft them back. And Paul says He will.

When Paul finishes, he does not call for a vote. He does not ask whether the reader agrees. He simply says, "To him be glory forever. Amen." That is how certainty sounds when it meets grace. Not triumphalism. Not presumption. Just worship, because the mercy is that good and that wide.

This is one more voice in the growing chorus. We have heard the two Adams (Romans 5:18), God all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28), the reconciliation of all things (Colossians 1:20), every knee and tongue (Philippians 2:10–11), the drawing of all (John 12:32), the Savior of all (1 Timothy 4:10). And now: mercy on all. Each voice is distinct. Together they sing the same song. God's purpose is to save, and His mercy reaches everyone.⁴³

In the next chapter, we will hear one more voice: the propitiation that covers not just our sins, but "the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2). The scope keeps widening. The hope keeps building. And the cumulative case (see Chapter 30) grows stronger with every text.

Notes

↑ 1. The literary unit of Romans 9–11 is widely recognized as a self-contained theological argument within the epistle. See C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, vol. 2, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979), 445–588; Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 547–735.

↑ 2. The Greek achri hou ("until") in Romans 11:25 introduces a temporal limit. The hardening lasts "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." On the function of achri with the subjunctive as a terminus, see BDAG, s.v. αχρι, 2.

↑ 3. BDAG, s.v. πλήρωμα: "that which fills, full number, totality." J.B. Lightfoot defines plērōma here as "the full tale, the entire number or quantity." Cited in David Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, 2nd ed., on Romans 11:12. Albert Barnes likewise takes plērōma as standing "opposed to their fall and their diminution" and meaning "their complete restoration to the favour of God." Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: Romans, on 11:12.

↑ 4. The article tous with pantas in Romans 11:32 makes the "all" definite: "the all." This is not a vague "people in general" but a definite group already in view. See Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 625–26.

↑ 5. The hina clause is one of purpose. God confined all to disobedience in order that He might show mercy to all. On hina as a purpose conjunction, see Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 471–74.

↑ 6. The parallel structure of Romans 11:32 mirrors that of Romans 5:18. In both verses the scope of condemnation or disobedience in the first clause determines the scope of justification or mercy in the second. See the full treatment in Chapter 4. Kronen and Reitan observe that the "plain sense" of both Romans 5:18–19 and Romans 11:32, taken without prior theological commitments, is that all are saved. They note that "these passages can be interpreted in ways that defy their immediate universalist meanings," but that such interpretations "clearly defy the plain sense of these passages." John Kronen and Eric Reitan, God's Final Victory: A Comparative Philosophical Case for Universalism (New York: Continuum, 2011), 57–58.

↑ 7. Romans 3:9–23 is Paul's universal indictment: "all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin" (3:9); "all have sinned" (3:23). The first "all" of 11:32 recalls this indictment directly. George Sidney Hurd, The Universal Solution, ch. 2.

↑ 8. The "all kinds" reading is a standard Reformed hermeneutical move. It appears in John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, on 11:32. De Young, Exposing Universalism, ch. 9, argues that the second "all" in 11:32 "must be interpreted to mean all who believe, whether Jews or Gentiles," and that reading it otherwise "contradicts the particularity that Paul has defended throughout much of Romans." For the universalist rebuttal, see Hurd, The Universal Solution, ch. 2; and Hart, That All Shall Be Saved, 97–101.

↑ 9. On "Has the word of God failed?" (Romans 9:6) as the governing question of the three-chapter unit, see N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 231–57; Cranfield, Romans, vol. 2, 447.

↑ 10. Hurd, The Universal Solution, ch. 2, "The Temporal Nature of God's Election in Romans 9–11."

↑ 11. Paul's rhetorical questions in Romans 11:1 and 11:11 are both answered with mē genoito ("By no means!"), his strongest negative formula. See Robert Jewett, Romans, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 655–56, 670–71.

↑ 12. J.B. Lightfoot, on Romans 11:12, cited in Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, 2nd ed. Barnes agrees: plērōma "evidently means their complete restoration to the favour of God; their recovery from unbelief and apostasy." Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: Romans, on 11:12.

↑ 13. The olive tree image (Romans 11:17–24) has sometimes been read as a portrait of permanent rejection. But Paul's own point is the opposite: God can graft the broken branches back in, and will do so "how much more readily" because they are natural branches. See Moo, Romans, 707–9. Mark Nanos has argued that the standard translation "broken off" is too strong and that the Greek better depicts branches "bent aside" or "damaged," still attached to the root. See Nanos, Reading Romans Within Judaism, ch. 6, discussed in Robin Parry [Gregory MacDonald], The Evangelical Universalist, 3rd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012), 95.

↑ 14. On the "mystery" (mystērion) of Romans 11:25–26 and the "until" clause marking the temporary limit of Israel's hardening, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 619–23.

↑ 15. The Greek ametamelēta (Romans 11:29) means "irrevocable, not to be regretted." BDAG glosses it as "not to be regretted, without regret." Paul's point is that God's gifts and calling to Israel cannot be withdrawn. Cranfield, Romans, vol. 2, 580–81.

↑ 16. Hurd, The Universal Solution, ch. 2. Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, 2nd ed., draws the same conclusion about Paul's "as-so" formula: "both sides of his argument must be equal." If the Gentiles received full mercy, the Jews will receive the same full mercy.

↑ 17. Hurd, The Universal Solution, ch. 2: Paul's summary in 11:32–36 "reaches a crescendo in which Paul is overwhelmed as he sums up God's glorious plan for the ages."

↑ 18. The doxology of 11:33–36 draws on Isaiah 40:13 ("Who has known the mind of the Lord?") and Job 41:11 ("Who has first given to him, that he might be repaid?"). Paul applies these Old Testament texts to the mystery of mercy on all.

↑ 19. The phrase "from him and through him and to him are all things" (ex autou kai di' autou kai eis auton ta panta, Romans 11:36) recalls Colossians 1:16–17 and 1 Corinthians 8:6. The eis auton ("to him") marks the final destination of "all things" as God Himself. See Chapter 5 and Chapter 6.

↑ 20. Hart makes a similar point: the doxology only makes sense if the mercy is genuinely universal. Hart, That All Shall Be Saved, 99.

↑ 21. For the Old Testament pattern of judgment-in-service-of-mercy, see Psalm 30:5; Micah 7:18; Lamentations 3:31–33; Isaiah 54:7–8. The full treatment appears in Chapter 2.

↑ 22. On the connection between Romans 5:20 ("where sin increased, grace abounded all the more") and 11:32, see Cranfield, Romans, vol. 2, 587–88.

↑ 23. Ezekiel 18:23, 32; 33:11. See the full treatment of the character-of-God question in Chapter 2.

↑ 24. The word apotomia ("severity, rigor") appears in the New Testament only in Romans 11:22. Paul uses it alongside chrēstotēs ("kindness") to paint a portrait of a God whose severity is not opposed to His kindness but works alongside it.

↑ 25. Hunter Coates emphasizes that the olive tree imagery shows that "even if some branches have refused to believe and were consequently ripped off, [the tree] is made holy in total through the firstfruit, the believing remnant, being holy." Coates, Grace Abounds, ch. 7.

↑ 26. Kirk R. MacGregor, Molinist Philosophical and Theological Ventures, ch. 5. MacGregor treats Romans 11:30–32 as evidence of God's universal salvific will, noting that the "mercy" in view is specifically "salvific mercy (vv. 11–12, 25–26)," not merely temporal provision.

↑ 27. The cumulative force of the hope texts across Part One is treated fully in Chapter 30. But even within Paul's own letters, the pattern is clear: the "all" of Romans 5:18, the "all in all" of 1 Corinthians 15:28, the "all things" of Colossians 1:20, and the "mercy on all" of Romans 11:32 are the same claim from different angles.

↑ 28. Burnfield traces this reading of Romans 11 through early patristic sources and notes the Rabbinic parallel: one "most remarkable comment" in the Yalkut on Isaiah 9:1 "represent[s] the Messiah as willingly taking upon Himself all these sufferings, on condition that all Israel … should be saved." Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, 2nd ed., citing Alfred Edersheim.

↑ 29. Hurd, The Universal Solution, ch. 2. See also the discussion of Romans 9:11–16 on election and partiality.

↑ 30. Coates, Grace Abounds, ch. 7, citing Douglas A. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). The Campbell quotation is taken from Coates's discussion.

↑ 31. Hart, That All Shall Be Saved, 97–101. Hart's treatment of Romans 9–11 is among the most incisive available.

↑ 32. De Young, Exposing Universalism, ch. 9, "The Appeal to Texts with 'All' and 'Whole,'" under "The Challenge of Romans 10–11 for Universalism." De Young concedes that Romans 11 "contains one of the strongest texts attractive to universalism" and notes that "it is the verse that Origen cited to justify universalism." His treatment offers two limiting readings of the second "all": either it means "all who believe, whether Jews or Gentiles," or it means God has offered mercy to all but "only those who accept the offer of salvation will experience it." He also argues that finding universalism here "contradicts the particularity that Paul has defended throughout much of Romans: it is only by faith that one is justified and discovered among the elect remnant."

↑ 33. Thomas Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014), ch. 5. Talbott writes: "Romans 11:32, where Paul declared the full extent of God's mercy, is the culmination of a theological argument that begins in chapter 9 and extends through chapter 11. It is here that Paul took up the problem of Jewish unbelief and systematically defended his view that, contrary to what many of his own kin believed, God has every right to extend his mercy to all human beings, including Gentiles. But though his argument as a whole is an explicit argument against limited election, against the pernicious idea that God restricts his mercy to a chosen few, the irony is that many commentators have interpreted the early stages of his argument (in chapter 9) as precisely an argument for such a restriction."

↑ 34. The "all kinds" / "all without distinction" reading has a long Reformed pedigree. See Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, on 11:32. De Young, Exposing Universalism, ch. 9, offers two forms of this reading. On the first, the second "all" refers to "all who believe, whether Jews or Gentiles." On the second, "God's mercy has been shown to all in the sense of providing Christ as an atonement for all, offering salvation to all (note the context which refers to God's offer of salvation to the Gentiles), but only those who accept the offer of salvation will experience it." He also emphasizes that "Paul never hints anywhere that the mercy of God is experienced by any after death. The whole book deals with what people do with the knowledge of God before they die."

↑ 35. Hurd presses this parallel argument: "If the 'all' of the second group is not the same 'all' in the first group, then it wouldn't make sense to use the parallel comparison." Hurd, The Universal Solution, ch. 2.

↑ 36. The burden-of-proof principle in parallel constructions is widely acknowledged in Greek grammar. When the same word appears in both clauses of a symmetrical statement, the default reading gives it the same scope in both. See Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 371–72.

↑ 37. For the range of views on "all Israel" in Romans 11:26, see Moo, Romans, 720–24; Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, 248–51; Fitzmyer, Romans, 623. De Young presses two further arguments in Exposing Universalism, ch. 9. First, the completeness argument: once the "fullness" of the Gentiles has come in and "all Israel" is saved at the end of this age, "how can a completeness be made more complete?" Second, the irrevocability argument: since God's "gifts and calling" are irrevocable (v. 29), "if the elect are determined for this era, and this decision is irrevocable, how can this decision be later recanted, changed, or annulled, so as to include all?"

↑ 38. For the four views, see Parry, The Evangelical Universalist, 3rd ed., 101–2, who sorts them as options (a)–(d). On the range of scholarly opinion, see also Moo, Romans, 720–24; Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, 248–51; Fitzmyer, Romans, 623. Richard Bell argues for a "diachronic" reading (all Israel throughout history, not merely those alive at the parousia), and Parry follows him on this point; see Bell, "Universal Salvation in Romans?" cited in Parry, 102. My point is not to resolve the question definitively but to show that the universalist reading of 11:32 does not depend on resolving it one way.

↑ 39. The "from him and through him and to him are all things" of Romans 11:36 echoes the Stoic ek, dia, eis formula but transforms it into Jewish-Christian monotheism. On its cosmological scope, see Jewett, Romans, 713–14.

↑ 40. Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, 2nd ed.: Paul's "as-so" formula demands that "both sides of his argument must be equal." If individual Gentiles received individual mercy, individual Jews will receive the same. Cf. the parallel formula in Romans 5:18 (see Chapter 4).

↑ 41. John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, on Romans 11:30–31. Cited in Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, 2nd ed. Gill was a Particular Baptist and five-point Calvinist; the universalist conclusion is not his, but his reading of the passage's internal logic illustrates how strong the parallel is.

↑ 42. On the connection between the irrevocability of God's gifts (11:29) and the scope of His mercy (11:32), see Moo, Romans, 730–31. Hurd, The Universal Solution, ch. 2, makes the same connection: "God has not rejected His elect nation of Israel. … The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."

↑ 43. For the cumulative case across all the hope texts treated in Part One, see Chapter 30.

↑ 44. Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, 2nd ed., ch. 5. Talbott writes: "According to Paul, the very ones whom God 'shuts up' to disobedience—whom he blinds, or hardens, or cuts off for a season—are those to whom he is merciful; his former act is but the first expression of the latter, and the latter is the goal of the former." For the Dunn quotation, see James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, WBC 38B (Dallas: Word, 1988), 696.

↑ 45. Robin Parry [Gregory MacDonald], The Evangelical Universalist, 3rd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012), 98–100. The Hillert reference is to Sven Hillert, Limited and Universal Salvation: A Text-Oriented and Hermeneutical Study of Two Perspectives in Paul, ConBNT 31 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1999), ch. 3. Parry also notes the Dunn observation: "what was important in 9:14–24 becomes clear at last: that God's outreach in wrath is bound up within his purpose of mercy" (Dunn, Romans 9–16, 668).

↑ 46. Parry, The Evangelical Universalist, 3rd ed., 100–101, citing Andrew Das, Paul and the Jews (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 108. The firstfruits imagery comes from Romans 11:16, where Paul writes: "If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump; and if the root is holy, so are the branches."