THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 27, Chapter 11 continued
Every now and then a lesson comes along that compels me to preach as much as I teach; this
is one of those. Paul has spent the first 12 verses of Romans chapter 11 summarizing some
significant theological principles he has been carefully constructing since chapter 1. His first
theological principle is that despite the high level of sinning and lack of faithfulness that has
been demonstrated by Israel (and is obvious to any observer) oddly enough God has not cast
aside or rejected the Jewish people as His chosen elect as we might imagine He would. This
bogus claim of some Christian denominations that God has rejected His people Israel is what
has led to the rampant anti-Semitism that has been present for centuries. It is the German
Lutheran Church that has led the way in modern times by claiming that God’s justification for
abandoning His Old Testament people the Hebrews, and bringing onboard (as a replacement)
a new and different people in the New Testament (gentile Christians) is that the Jews killed
Jesus.
While anyone who has read the Gospels can rightfully complain that many Jews, especially the
Jewish religious leadership, were complicit in Yeshua’s execution, it was gentile Romans who
actually whipped Him, nailed Him to a wooden cross, and brutally executed Him. Nonetheless,
whoever wins that ongoing debate over who is most responsible for killing Christ achieves
nothing because both sides are arguing about a red herring. Paul has been explaining that
what the Jews (the Hebrews) have done (good or bad) in the recent or ancient past has no
bearing on the special status God holds for them. How can this be? Because God made His
promise to Israel, going all the way back to Abraham many centuries before there was an
Israel, that they are His elect based on His grace and mercy and not based on Israel’s merit or
their faithfulness. Whether the Jews bear the full weight of Christ’s death, or partial
responsibility or none is completely irrelevant; it plays no role in God’s decision to maintain His
acceptance of them as His chosen people.
The second theological principle Paul has elucidated is that those Jews whose hearts became
stone-like against accepting Yeshua as their Messiah and Lord experienced that hardening
partly because of their own choice to behave wickedly and unfaithfully, and partly because of a
choice by God that affected their minds and thus prevented them from accepting Christ. In fact
Paul pointed out that a kind of divine intervention, which included hardening of hearts, was
nothing new and uses Deuteronomy 29 to prove it. Then he uses the Prophet Isaiah to point
out that it was prophesied that this pattern of God hardening rebellious hearts for His own
purposes would continue. Thus it ought to come as no surprise to anyone that in Paul’s day
God would harden the hearts of some Jews who were refusing to accept Yeshua as their
Messiah. I want to say this a little differently: Paul is saying to Jews and gentiles in Rome that
God hardening even His own people is NOT only a thing of the distant past of Israel’s history,
as in Moses’s day 13 centuries earlier; but such a divine hardening in fact remains as an
active tool in God’s tool box. The proof of it is all those Jews who refused to trust in their
Messiah who have had their hearts hardened by God in response.
1 / 9

If you are paying attention to what Paul is saying then such a claim is pretty sobering. Under
certain circumstances God hardens gentile hearts (as with Pharaoh) and He hardens Jewish
hearts (as with the non-Believing Jews of New Testament times). I don’t know about you, but
this is a characteristic of God that I’m not especially fond of. I of course accept that it is His
choice and He is sovereign to do as He wills it; but that doesn’t mean I have to be comfortable
with it. This is where various and competing theological doctrines with names like
predestination and predetermination stand in opposition to other theological doctrines with
names such as prescience and free will. And of course, as humans do, unyielding stances are
taken on both sides of the issue. Whereas over the past several centuries predestination and
predetermination have dominated Christian theology especially in Europe, in more modern
times free will and prescience (that is, God pre-knows what we’re each going to do or choose)
have gained steam because Westerners just don’t like an attribute of God that takes our
individual destiny out of our own hands. So the goal of the one side is to make God into a stern
and rigid taskmaster who, like a typical European Monarch, uses humans as little more than
disposable pawns in a cosmic chess match; while the goal of the other side is to make God
more like a congenial and cooperative genie in the bottle who is there to make our wishes and
dreams come true if only we’ll approach Him correctly. Paul leaves such a matter as a mystery
and makes no attempt to defend this difficult characteristic of God. Paul merely tells us that on
the one hand our own free will plays an enormous role in our destiny, but on the other hand so
does God’s divine intervention; and His intervention is not necessarily for each person’s
immediate benefit. Often there is a much larger picture in play of which we have no idea.
But rather than keep it to Himself in this particular case God chose to reveal the surprising
reason that He hardened the hearts of many of His own elect against their own Jewish
Messiah, Yeshua. So the third theological principle we learned from Paul is stated in verse 11:
Romans 11:11 CJB
11
"In that case, I say, isn't it that they have stumbled with the result
that they have permanently fallen away?" Heaven forbid! Quite the contrary, it is by
means of their stumbling that the deliverance has come to the Gentiles, in order to
provoke them to jealousy.
Just to be clear: “they” that have stumbled are the hardened Jews, just as “them” who will be
provoked to jealousy are these same hardened Jews. So God reveals that as strange as it may
seem, He reached down from Heaven and intentionally hardened the hearts of thousands,
millions, of His own elect in order that the Gospel would be taken to the gentiles who were
NOT His elect; and this was so that gentiles could also be saved.
But the strangeness of God’s decision doesn’t stop there; the final few words of verse 11 say:
“In order to provoke them (the hardened Jews) to jealousy.” So God has intentionally
hardened the hearts of the majority of Jews in order that gentiles can be saved in huge
numbers. Yet, that, too, had a divine purpose. The now saved gentiles have been given
salvation for the express purpose of provoking to jealousy all those Jews that God hardened so
that they, too, will be saved! I call this phenomenon The Circle of Salvation.
But Paul has even more to say on this subject in Romans 11. Up to now, and for the past few
chapters (at the very least since chapter 7) Paul has been aiming his monologue primarily at
2 / 9

Jews. But now in Romans 11:13 he abruptly changes up and turns primarily towards gentiles.
Open your Bible to Romans 11 and we’ll read from verse 13 to the end.
RE-READ ROMANS CHAPTER 11:13 – end
The opening words of verse 13 make it clear that Paul is refocusing his thoughts towards the
gentiles of the congregation in Rome. And now that we’ve read those remaining verses of
chapter 11 we can see that from the far view Paul’s purpose is to make sure that gentile
Believers understand that just because God hardened so many Jews IN ORDER that gentiles
would be saved, gentiles shouldn’t misunderstand God’s motives for doing so. The goal all
along remains the same: that all Israel would be saved.
Verses 13 and 14 have Paul explaining that even though he indeed is an emissary to gentiles,
he is and remains a Jew. He refers to the Jews as “my own people”; so Paul continues to stay
firmly identified with the Jewish people. For most of us that seems self-evident but to much of
the Church this comes as a surprise. Most often when Paul is depicted in a painting, it is as a
European: whether that is Spanish, English, or French. Often he has a thin pale face, a pointy
mustache and is tall and slender. I have seen precious few depictions of Paul as an olive
skinned, dark haired, brown eyed Hebrew. This is not by accident; there is a sub-conscious
perspective of Paul that has been ingrained within Christianity for at least 18 centuries that
since Paul is the Apostle to the
gentiles, then surely he must have re-identified himself more as a gentile than with his original
Jewish heritage. Never mind that at every turn he speaks of the Jews as “his people” or “his
brethren” or even carefully recounts his personal heritage both from a national and religious
viewpoint as a Jew, and from a tribal viewpoint as a Benjamite. In Philippians 3:5 he even adds
to that by saying that he is a Pharisee.
Philippians 3:4-5 CJB If anyone else thinks he has grounds for putting confidence in
human qualifications, I have better grounds:
5
• b'rit-milah on the eighth day,• by birth
belonging to the people of Isra'el,• from the tribe of Binyamin,• a Hebrew-speaker, with
Hebrew-speaking parents,• in regard to the Torah, a Parush…..
So let’s put aside this nonsensical fantasy that Paul was some kind of a convert to a gentile, or
had any gentile DNA in him whatsoever. He was a Jew through and through and proudly
proclaimed a long Israelite heritage on several occasions, as recorded by his own hand in the
New Testament.
What he is explaining in verse 14 is that even though he has just said that it is God’s purpose
for saved gentiles to provoke unsaved Jews to jealousy and hopefully redemption, Paul at least
partly agreed to this thankless task of evangelizing gentiles (that put him at odds with most of
his own people) in order that he, too, might provoke Jews to jealousy and thus urge them on to
salvation in Yeshua. That is, Paul the Messianic Jew provoking to jealousy traditional Jews. In
verse 15 he expounds upon his reasoning by saying that if Jews casting aside their Messiah
means reconciliation with God for the world, that Jews (in much larger numbers) finally
accepting Yeshua will have an even greater impact! Please notice Paul’s use of the term
3 / 9

“world”. “World” here means non-Jews: gentiles. So here we get a very good definition of
what Paul means by “the world” in his letters. The “world”, for Paul, usually means unsaved
gentiles: pagans. So for Paul the “world” is set over and against the Jewish people in the
sense of non-Jews versus Jews, and in the sense of worshippers of pagan gods versus
worshippers of the God of Israel. But even more, once a gentile becomes saved, he graduates
out of the world and into the Kingdom of God. So for Paul a Believer, including a gentile
Believer, is no longer part of “the world”.
Where would Paul have derived his understanding of what “the world” is? While I have no
proof of it, I think it must have been something that the risen Yeshua showed to Him, likely
through another Believer in Damascus when Paul was first selected and recovering from his
blindness and (no doubt) trauma of meeting the resurrected Messiah. As Believers, it is
common for us to speak about “the world”. But what does Christ mean by it? What does the
New Testament in general mean by the term “the world”? And where as Believers do we fit?
Here is what Christ had to say, at length, in a recorded prayer that Yeshua prayed to the
Father.
John 17:1-18 CJB

1
After Yeshua had said these things, he looked up toward heaven and said, "Father,
the time has come. Glorify your Son, so that the Son may glorify you-

2
just as you gave him authority over all mankind, so that he might give eternal life to all
those whom you have given him.
3
And eternal life is this: to know you, the one true
God, and him whom you sent, Yeshua the Messiah.
4
"I glorified you on earth by
finishing the work you gave me to do.

5
Now, Father, glorify me alongside yourself. Give me the same glory I had with you
before the world existed.
6
"I made your name known to the people you gave me out of
the world. They were yours, you gave them to me, and they have kept your word.
7
Now
they know that everything you have given me is from you,
8
because the words you
gave me I have given to them, and they have received them. They have really come to
know that I came from you, and they have come to trust that you sent me.
9
"I am
praying for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given to me,
because they are yours.

10
Indeed, all I have is yours, and all you have is mine, and in them I have been glorified.

11
Now I am no longer in the world. They are in the world, but I am coming to you. Holy
Father, guard them by the power of your name, which you have given to me, so that
they may be one, just as we are.
12
When I was with them, I guarded them by the power
of your name, which you have given to me; yes, I kept watch over them; and not one of
them was destroyed (except the one meant for destruction, so that the Tanakh might be
fulfilled).

13
But now, I am coming to you; and I say these things while I am still in the world so
4 / 9

that they may have my joy made complete in themselves.
14
"I have given them your
word, and the world hated them, because they do not belong to the world- just as I
myself do not belong to the world.

15
I don't ask you to take them out of the world, but to protect them from the Evil One.
16
They do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world.
17
Set them apart
for holiness by means of the truth- your word is truth.
18
Just as you sent me into the
world, I have sent them into the world.
Clearly the term “the world” has a double meaning. On the one hand “the world” is meant as
the secular people of our day mean it: the total human population of planet Earth and all that
accompanies it. But on the other hand, from a spiritual perspective, “the world” is the unsaved.
So clearly gentiles are part of “the world” UNTIL we become Believers, and then we’re not.
Just as clearly Jews are not, and have never been, part of “the world” as God sees it. And yet,
since Yeshua’s advent, Jews are not as distinct from “the world” as they may have once
thought they were.
Thus Jews and gentile Believers are seen by our Lord as separate from “the world” and
therefore that is how we are to see ourselves. And, folks; this is not an easy place to be so
struggle is to be expected. We are truly hanging suspended; no longer of the world, but still in
the world. Not yet in Heaven, but being asked to live a Heavenly lifestyle while still in this
world. The Good News is that our Savior lived in the same condition as we do so He
understands our predicament and can relate to us; and He is our advocate in Heaven.
In verse 16 Paul is going to use two metaphors to tell the gentiles that despite their good
fortune of being marked for salvation by God, hardened Israel still has a future with Yehoveh.
The imagery that Paul employs is first of all a baked product made of grain, and it is taken from
Numbers 15.
Numbers 15:18-21 CJB
18
"Speak to the people of Isra'el; tell them, 'When you enter the land where I am
bringing you
19
and eat bread produced in the land, you are to set aside a portion as a
gift for ADONAI.

20
Set aside from your first dough a cake as a gift; set it aside as you would set aside a
portion of the grain from the threshing-floor.
21
From your first dough you will give
ADONAI a portion as a gift through all your generations.
Paul is using the theological principle of firstfruits to develop his thought. Numbers 15 speaks
of offering up to God a piece of the bread dough that is made from grain grown and harvested
in the Promised Land. Even to this day, some Jews when baking Challah bread (that special
bread that is made as a tradition for Shabbat) will pinch off a piece of the dough and throw it in
a fire. However, nowhere in Numbers is it implied that the remaining portion of dough becomes
“holy” as Paul says. An error in Paul’s understanding of the Torah? Probably not. One of the
difficulties in interpreting the New Testament, besides the fact that we have Hebrew thought
5 / 9

attempting to be communicated in the Greek language, is that the writings of the New
Testament are not theological treatises that have been vetted by fellow Hebrew scholars, or
are they written for academics of the modern Western world. They were written using common
Jewish cultural terms, idioms, expressions, and manners of speaking usual and standard for
the Jewish communities of that era. Much too often, using much too little knowledge of
Judaism and Jewish culture of that era, very good modern commentators will try to attach a
greater level of precision to the words than are meant.
As an example: in the Gospels, when we find Yeshua either in, or on His way to, Jerusalem for
the 3 Spring Feasts of Passover, Matzah, and Firstfruits, the New Testament accounts will
interchange the terms Passover and Matzah. That is: while technically Passover is the first of
the 3 Feasts and is only a one day feast, it is common in the New Testament to call the entire
series of 3 Spring Feasts “Passover”. Just as common is to refer to the entire series of 3 as
“Matzah”. The writer isn’t confused; it was merely the standard way of speaking among lay
people (Jews) in that era.
We find the same issue with the terms “holy” and “unclean” in the New Testament. Those 2
terms indeed do have, on the one hand, very precise definitions. But on the other hand they
are often used in broad and imprecise ways because that’s how the common Jews of the day
used them. For instance: technically, unclean is a term that is ONLY used to describe
something that is otherwise a permissible item to eat, wear, touch, etc. But, that otherwise
permissible item can no longer be used because due to some kind of error in its handling, the
item has been made ritually unclean. As an example: a piece of lamb to eat is permissible as
food. However, if not handled properly (perhaps not enough blood has been drained from it),
then the lamb is rendered unclean. So what is normally permissible cannot now be used. On
the other hand, if an item is considered as prohibited then the handling of it becomes a moot
subject. For instance: a pig cannot ever be food. Technically a pig is not unclean; it is merely
prohibited to eat under any circumstance. It is not food no matter how it is handled. So whether
something is prohibited, or something is permissible but it has been mishandled and now
rendered unclean, the final result is the same: it can’t be used. Thus in the New Testament
we’ll find that sometimes the term unclean means “ritually impure” according to The Law of
Moses, and other times it merely means “it can’t be touched or used” for whatever reason
and sometimes the reason is far more cultural than Biblical.
The term holy also became used in a similar fashion in the New Testament. There is the
technical meaning for holy that means set apart for God in accordance with the Law of Moses;
it can even mean that only priests can partake of whatever it might be. But in common speech
among Jews it came to mean something that the lay person informally dedicated to God or it is
assigned a religious connotation even if it has nothing to do with any command or regulation
from the Law of Moses. The term “holy” is used in both ways in the New Testament. Let me
give you an illustration. Christians are fond to say about a person that they admire that they are
a “godly” man or woman. We don’t mean this from a technical sense or that they are god-like,
or really have any direct connection to God at all. Rather it just means that they are good,
upright, and not only profess to be religious but live a life that reflects strong moral standards
that exemplify good character similar to what can be found in the Bible. Very likely Paul meant
holy in this sense in reference to the lump and the whole loaf; because certainly otherwise he
6 / 9

is simply incorrect about his claim that the whole loaf becomes ritually holy because a small
piece of the dough is ritually dedicated to God, as the Torah prescribes.
So all Paul was apparently getting at is that if a portion of the whole is holy before God, then it
can be assumed that the entire portion is also holy as opposed to unclean. Then he adds yet
another metaphor with the use of the olive tree (a real favorite among modern Messianic
Jews). He says that if a tree’s roots are holy, then its branches must also be holy since they
are all parts of a whole. All parts of the tree receive the same nourishment from the same
source; its roots. Paul is not talking about any kind of actual Torah defined holiness; rather it is
simply meant as a broad illustration. So we must not try to dissect his examples too far, but
rather just get the general idea he’s trying to impart that all members of a whole are infected
with either the same holiness or they are defiled with the same uncleanness. A tree whose
roots are unclean can’t have holy branches. And, a tree whose roots are holy can’t have
unclean branches. However, the branches can be removed from the tree if they become
diseased; they can be pruned before they infect the other branches or maybe even eventually
kill the roots.
What is the whole loaf of bread an illustration of? What is the olive tree with its branches and
roots illustrating? Both are illustrations of the same thing: the Jewish people (or more
technically, the Hebrew people in total since the Jews are but a remnant of the original Hebrew
people). After introducing the two illustrations of verse 16, in verse 17 Paul takes the metaphor
of the olive tree a bit further when he speaks of grafting a wild olive tree into the trunk of a
cultivated olive tree. The wild olive represents gentiles. The cultivated olive tree represents
Jews. So the image is of something somewhat similar but not quite the same (the wild olive),
being grafted into something that has been carefully cultivated and cared for by a gardener.
I’ve heard horticulturalists try to tear this apart with scientific tests and methods but Paul was
not a horticulturist or even a farmer. This passage was not intended as a lesson on tree
grafting; it was merely a general word picture for use by people of an ancient world where most
worked in agriculture at one task or another and rudimentary grafting was in common use.
Thus continuing with agricultural terms, Paul warns that the wild olive derives a benefit from
being grafted into the cultivated olive; it receives the same care and nourishment that the
cultivated olive receives since the wild olive has been artificially made part of the cultivated
tree. But, the wild olive doesn’t ever convert and become a cultivated olive, or replace the
cultivated olive, and the wild olive should not think that it does. Therefore, using the
grammatical technique called personification (assigning a human attribute to something that
isn’t human), the wild olive should not boast about its good fortune of being attached to the
cultivated olive tree. And especially it should not think that it can become better than the
original, natural, cultivated olive tree.
What is the main reason for the wild olive being cautioned to not get proud? Because the wild
olive branches have been grafted in where some of the natural branches of the cultivated olive
tree were removed. And why were the cultivated olive branches removed from their own tree?
Because they were found to have no trust. Clearly since it is “trust” in Messiah’s faithfulness
that Paul has been preaching since chapter 1, this is what he is speaking of here. Therefore if
some wild olives (gentiles) were grafted onto the cultivated Jewish olive tree, they shouldn’t
7 / 9

expect a different treatment or outcome than the natural branches received. That is, the gentile
branches stay attached only so long as that trust remains sincere, active and alive. The
moment trust ends, the wild olive branches (like the original cultivated branches) are pruned off
of the tree by God and thereby removed from their source of life and sustenance.
There have been never ending debates in theological circles about the roots of the cultivated
olive tree and what they represent and what their nourishment is. It is usual in Christian circles
to say that the roots are Jesus. Sorry, that just doesn’t work for all kinds of reasons. First, the
cultivated olive tree is clearly the Jewish people in general; not Believers per se. Second, the
natural branches of the tree that remain on the tree are Believing Jews, but the trunk and the
root system have always been Jewish (Hebrew). Third, the roots of the Jewish people are the
Patriarchs. But fourth, what makes the Patriarchs the Patriarchs is the covenant of Abraham.
Without that covenant there is no Father Abraham and no line of promise to hand down to
Isaac and then to Jacob. Without the Abrahamic covenant there is no division of the world into
gentiles and Hebrews. And further, whenever Yeshua is described from a horticultural
perspective in the Bible He is not a root; He is either a shoot or a vine. He Himself has a root
that He springs from. And Yeshua’s root is Jacob, through the tribe of Judah, the clan of
Jessie (described in horticultural terms as the stump), and the family of King David.
So here is the unmistakable theological principle that Paul makes; one that much of the
institutional Church has denied and hated for 1800 years. Gentile Believers (Christians) exist
and are sustained spiritually only by being artificially attached to a strong Jewish source, itself
fed from the Covenant of Abraham. Israel’s covenants with God are what make Israel, Israel.
And what makes gentiles saved and forgiven is the goal of those same covenants: Yeshua, of
the family of King David. Christ, the Jew. So when some elements of Christianity demand that
the Old Testament and all it represents is abolished, what is being demanded is that Paul’s
cultivated olive tree that we as Believers are grafted into….the place where we receive our life
and sustenance….. is cut down, and its root system is dug up and destroyed. This is spiritual
suicide.
So as alien branches that have been, by God’s grace, grafted into the natural olive tree (the
Hebrew tree) that God has been cultivating for millennia, what should the attitude of gentile
Christians be? Confident? Arrogant? Superior? Paul gives us that answer in verse 20: “Don’t
be arrogant; on the contrary be terrified!” Why should we be terrified? Verse 21: “For if God
didn’t spare the natural branches, he certainly won’t spare you”. Gentile Believers, we are
foreign objects unnaturally attached to the natural olive tree. If God was willing to prune off
branches that grew naturally from the tree He had so carefully and lovingly cultivated for so
many centuries, but some of those branches became diseased and stopped trusting, how
much quicker will He be to cut off those formerly alien branches that show signs of the same
disease of non-trust? It was God’s gift of mercy to the foreign branches, not to the natural tree,
that we were grafted in.
Paul says in verse 22 that God has two sides of his character to be aware of: a side of
kindness towards those who trust, and a side of severity for those who stop trusting. How do
you stop trusting if you never trusted in the first place? I want to put another dent in the
unscriptural doctrine of once-saved-always-saved. Here is yet another example of God
8 / 9

warning Believers to maintain the trust that saved us or we’ll be removed from God’s
covenants and destroyed. Question: who are the wild olives that are grafted into the cultivated
tree? Are they any and all gentiles…pagans; or are they only Believing gentiles? It is self
evident that they are only Believers. Why would God cut off non-Believing Jews who don’t
trust and replace them with non-Believing gentiles who don’t trust? Besides as Paul says: the
only reason gentiles are grafted in is because of our trust.
So, is the warning that we should maintain that trust or we’ll be cut off the tree just a
hypothetical situation that can’t possibly happen? The once saved always saved doctrine says
it is; says it can’t happen. In fact once saved always saved adherents say that every warning
in the New Testament (and there are several) of a Believer falling away or of the Lord refusing
to recognize them, or blocking their entry into the Kingdom of God can’t actually happen. So
by that reasoning here in Romans 11 we have yet another and this time it is Paul who is
making the hollow threat. If such a thing is impossible, why are we supposed to be terrified of
being removed off the tree? Did we get there accidentally? Why are we to strive to remain in
God’s kindness through our trust if under no circumstance can we let go of our trust and then
our salvation is revoked?
But then comes the part that no doubt Paul was so very anxious to get to. He says this in
verses 23 and 24:
Romans 11:23-24 CJB
23
Moreover, the others, if they do not persist in their lack of
trust, will be grafted in; because God is able to graft them back in.
24
For if you were cut
out of what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated
olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own
olive tree!
Paul says that those hardened Jews (the cut-off branches) WILL be grafted back into their
OWN tree if they will finally trust. So the hardening that God put upon His people will end, and
they will be offered their place back as a branch on the cultivated olive tree because it is their
tree in the first place!
Stony hearts turned to soft hearts that trust. Jews that had their hearts hardened towards
Messiah finally become Believers and are saved. Where have we heard this?
Ezekiel 36:24-28 CJB
24
For I will take you from among the nations, gather you from all the countries, and
return you to your own soil.
25
Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be
clean; I will cleanse you from all your uncleanness and from all your idols.
26
I will give
you a new heart and put a new spirit inside you; I will take the stony heart out of your
flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
27
I will put my Spirit inside you and cause you to live
by my laws, respect my rulings and obey them.
28
You will live in the land I gave to your
ancestors. You will be my people, and I will be your God.
We’ll continue with Romans chapter 11 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9