Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 11:24
For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural [branches,] be grafted into their own olive tree?
24. For if thou, &c.] Cp. on this verse notes on Rom 11:17.
how much more ] i.e. “how much more easily to our conception.” As a fact, the Gentile had been grafted in, and no more than this could happen to the Jew. But the latter fact was antecedently much more likely than the former.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For if thou – If you who are Gentiles.
Wert cut out of – Or, if thou wert of the cutting of the wild olive-tree.
Which is wild by nature – Which is uncultivated and unfruitful. That is, if you were introduced into a state of favor with God from a condition which was one of enmity and hostility to him. The argument here is, that it was in itself as difficult a thing to reclaim them, and change them from opposition to God to friendship, as it would seem difficult or impossible to reclaim and make fruitful the wild olive-tree.
And were graffed contrary to nature – Contrary to your natural habits, thoughts, and practices. There was among the Gentiles no inclination or tendency toward God. This does not mean that they were physically depraved, or that their disposition was literally like the wild olive; but it is used, for the sake of illustration, to show that their moral character and habits were unlike those of the friends of God.
How much more … – The meaning of this whole verse may be thus expressed; If God had mercy on the Gentiles, who were outcasts from his favor, shall he not much rather on those who were so long his people, to whom had been given the promises, and the covenants, and the Law, whose ancestors had been so many of them his friends, and among whom the Messiah was born? In some respects, there are facilities among the Jews for their conversion, which had not existed among the Gentiles. They worship one God; they admit the authority of revelation; they have the Scriptures of the Old Testament; they expect a Messiah; and they have a habit of professed reverence for the will of God.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 24. The olive tree, which is wild by nature] Which is , naturally, wild and barren; for that the wild olive bore no fruit is sufficiently evident from the testimony of the authors who have written on the subject; hence the proverb, more unfruitful than the wild olive. for the Lacedemonians term the wild olive . See SUIDAS. And hence HESYCHIUS interprets , the wild olive, (the word used here by St. Paul,) by , unfruitful: and the reason given in DIOGEN. Proverb. Cent. ii. n. 63, is for the wild olive is an unfruitful tree. On this account the apostle very properly says: Thou wert cut, , out of that olive which is uncultivated, because it is barren: the does not refer here to its being naturally barren; but to its being commonly or customarily permitted to remain so. And that this is the import of the phrase here is evident from the next clause of the verse.
And wert grafted contrary to nature] , contrary to all custom; for a scion taken from a barren or useless tree is scarcely ever known to be grafted into a good stock; but here the Gentiles, a fruitless and sinful race, are grafted on the ancient patriarchal stock. Now, if it was possible to effect such a change in the state and disposition of the Gentiles, who were , Eph 2:12, without God, ATHEISTS, in the world; how much more possible is it, speaking after the manner of men, to bring about a similar change in the Jews, who acknowledge the one, only, and true God, and receive the law and the prophets as a revelation from him. This seems to be the drift of the apostle’s argument.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
He here shows the probability, as well as possibility, of the Jews conversion, because God hath done that which is more unlikely: q.d. If the Gentiles, which were a kind of wild olive branches, were grafted into a good olive tree, the church of God, which is contrary to nature, seeing men use to graft a good scion into a wild stock, (as an apple into a crab), and not a wild scion into a good stock; how much more shall the Jews, which are the natural branches, yea, branches of that olive tree into which the Gentiles are now ingrafted, be grafted into their own olive tree, to which formerly they did belong! According to the custom of grafting which was common amongst them, to graft one tree upon another of the same kind; and grounded on Lev 19:19.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
24. For if thou wert cut“wertcut off”
from the olive tree, which iswild by nature, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a good olivetree; how much more shall these, c.This is just the converseof Ro 11:21: “As theexcision of the merely engrafted Gentiles through unbelief isa thing much more to be expected than was the excision of the naturalIsrael, before it happened so the restoration of Israel, when theyshall be brought to believe in Jesus, is a thing far more in the lineof what we should expect, than the admission of the Gentiles to astanding which they never before enjoyed.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree,…. As the apostle argues the possibility of bringing the Jews into a Gospel church state, from the power of God; so here the probability of it, or the easiness and likelihood of its being performed, from the ingrafting of the Gentiles; who were originally like an olive tree,
which is wild by nature, grows in the field, bears no fruit, and is useless and unprofitable; so they by nature were sinners of the Gentiles, children of wrath, full of unrighteousness, without any fruit of holiness; being not within the pale of the Jewish church and commonwealth; but in the wide field of the world, worthless, and of no account; and yet many were “cut out of” this wild olive tree; were, through the ministration of the Gospel, by the power of divine grace separated from the rest of the world; were effectually called and brought into a Gospel church state; God took out from among them a people for his name. This their being cut out of the wild olive, as it expresses the power and grace of God towards them, it might teach them humility, as it led them to observe their original state and condition:
and wert grafted, contrary to nature, into a good olive tree: for an olive tree being full of fatness, will not admit of ingrafting; nor was it ever usual to ingraft upon olive; hence the Jews say y
, “there is no ingrafting on olives”: besides, it is contrary to nature, use, and custom, to ingraft wild scions, or grafts of any sort into a good stock; but always good scions or grafts into a wild stock, for in wild hungry stocks, grafts grow best: but in the ingrafting of the Gentiles into a Gospel church state, just such a method was taken, as if a wild graft were let into a good stock; so that this ingrafting was not of nature, it was contrary to it; but of pure grace, and, sovereign good will and pleasure; and the apostle’s argument is this, that if the Gentiles, who were originally as a wild olive tree; if some as grafts were taken out from among them, and, quite contrary to their own nature, and the nature of things, were, by the goodness and grace of God, grafted into a good olive, the Gospel church state;
how much more shall these which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? that there is a greater likelihood, and more easily may it be, according to all appearance of things, that the Jews, the natural branches or descendants of Abraham, should be brought into a Gospel church state, which first began among them, and which at first only consisted of some of their nation. The Gospel church is called “their own olive tree”, in allusion to Israel, or the Jewish church, which is often so called in their writings.
“Says z R. Joshua ben Levi, to what are the Israelites like? , “to an olive tree”; to teach them that as the leaves of an olive tree do not fall, neither on sunshine days, nor on rainy days; so the Israelites will never cease, neither in this world, nor in the world to come; and says R. Jochanan, to what are the Israelites like? “to an olive”; to teach thee that as an olive does not send forth its oil, but by the means of pressing, so the Israelites do not return to do good, but by the means of chastisement:”
and says another a of their writers,
“as oil ascendeth above all liquids, and is not mixed with them; so the Israelites ascend above all nations, and are not mixed with them; and there is an intimation that they are even like , “to an olive”, that is pressed or squeezed; for so the Israelites are bruised and afflicted, and yet, notwithstanding all this, they ascend by virtue of the law, which is called “oil olive”.”
It is easy to see from whence this simile is borrowed.
y T. Hieros. Celaim, c. 1. fol. 27. 2. z T. Bab. Menachot, fol. 53. 2. a R. Abraham Seba, Tzeror Hammor, fol. 83. 4.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Contrary to nature ( ). This is the gist of the argument, the power of God to do what is contrary to natural processes. He put the wild olive (Gentile) into the good olive tree (the spiritual Israel) and made the wild olive (contrary to nature) become the good olive (, the garden olive, and in Aristotle and a papyrus).
Into their own olive tree ( ). Dative case. Another argument a fortiori, “how much more” ( ). God can graft the natural Israel back upon the spiritual Israel, if they become willing.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Contrary to nature. See remarks on ver. 17.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “For is thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature,” (ei gar su ek tes kata phusin eksekopes agrielaiou) “For if thou wast cut of the natural wild olive tree, the Gentile heathen,” or separated from your Gentile, idolatrous ways, as the Ephesian brethren also were, Eph 2:1-5; Eph 2:12-13, without spiritual culture.
2) “And wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree,” (kai para physin enekentristhes eis kallielaion) “And against nature was grafted into a cultivated, good olive tree”; into Jesus Christ the root and stock of the Israel chosen of God, and they had been; Act 10:28; Act 10:33-35; Act 10:43; Act 11:17-18; Act 13:47-49; Act 14:27; Act 15:7-11; Act 15:13-17.
3) “How much more shall these,” (poso mallon houtoi) “By how much more (shall) these,” these Jews, who (in their own nature) belong to the good tree, have their connection with it reestablished!
4) “Which be the natural branches,” (hoi kata phusin) “those according to nature (natural branches) of national Israel, the seed of Abraham, after the flesh, with Jewish knowledge and training.
5) “Be graffed into their own olive tree?” (egkentristhesontai te idia elaia) “Will be grafted in their own olive tree?” When the time of regathering has come. Is not God a compassionate, tender, merciful, and restoring God? Paul agreed, if so will he not according his very nature and promises of prophecy reclaim Israel as his own, when they return to him? He will, Deu 29:29; Deu 30:1-10; Psa 2:1-9; Act 1:9-11.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
‘For if you were cut out of what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree, how much more will these, which are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?’
Indeed, Paul points out, in the realm of the spirit the natural branches will ‘take’ better than the branches which were wild, and therefore not so well adapted to the olive tree. While this may not be good horticulture, it is certainly true in the realm of spiritual things. The Jews had at that time the built in advantage of having a greater familiarity with the Scriptures which could only be an aid to them in coming to the Messiah. How easily then would they adapt, as their changed attitude towards their Messiah resulted in the Scriptures that they knew, and that they were brought up on, coming alive to them.
We must once again underline here that if the olive tree in any way represents Israel, and it is difficult to see how it does not in one way or another, then by Paul’s illustration believing Gentiles are seen as becoming a part of Israel. They become Israel just as prior to Christ’s coming Gentile proselytes were seen as becoming a part of Israel. This also ties in with the idea that Jesus is revealed as the representative Who embodied Israel in Himself, in which case Gentiles who become ‘in Christ’ are necessarily made part of Israel in Him. See further on the question of whether the Gentile converts become Israel, the excursus at the end of this chapter.
God’s Final Purpose.
Paul now emphasises that God’s final purpose is that ‘the full number of the Gentiles will be gathered in, in this way all Israel will be saved’. We have seen in context that the elect of Israel at the time have become acceptable to God, i.e. have been saved (Rom 11:5), (and we can therefore assume that that applies to all the elect of Israel through the ages) and that Paul is hopeful for the conversion of ‘some’ more (Rom 11:14), and that salvation has also come to the elect Gentiles (Rom 11:11). Taken together in line with the illustration of the olive tree this would indicate that all ‘elect Israel including elect Gentiles’ have been saved.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Rom 11:24. The olive-tree, which is wild by naturewhich be the natural branches The original in both these places is , and therefore our translators should either have rendered it in the first clause, The natural wild-olive tree, or in the latter, Which are branches by nature. See Heylin.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Rom 11:24 . ] does not serve to assign the reason of . . ., so that the ability of God for that reingrafting would be popularly illustrated from the facility of this process, as according to nature (the ordinary view). Against this it may be decisively urged, that apart from the difficulty which experience attests in the conversion of unbelieving Jews the power of God is the correlative, not of that which is easy, but precisely of that which is difficult, or which humanly speaking appears impossible (Rom 4:21 , Rom 14:4 ; 2Co 9:8 ; Rom 9:22 ; Mat 19:26 ; Luk 1:37 , et al .); and that , as a designation of greater easiness, must have found in the context a more precise explanation to that effect, if it was not intended to express generally, as elsewhere (comp. Phm 1:16 , and the similar use of ), the greater degree of probability or certainty. Rightly, therefore, have Winzer, Progr . 1828, Reiche, Philippi, and Tholuck, referred the to the main thought of the previous verse, to . Yet they should not have taken this as purely co-ordinate with the preceding , but as must always be done with two such apparently parallel instances of as explicative (see on Rom 8:6 ), namely , so that after the brief ground assigned for ( . . .), the same is now yet more fully elucidated in regard to its certainty, and by this elucidation is still further confirmed . To this the confirmatory reference to . in Hofmann substantially amounts.
] Gentile-Christian.
.] out of the wild olive, which is so according to nature , which by nature has grown a wild olive.
] for the grafting, as an artificial proceeding, alters the natural development, and is so far contrary to nature (Rom 1:26 ). The interposition of . brings out more markedly the contrast between and . Very violently the simple words are twisted by Hofmann as follows: is in apposition to ; while for the latter there is to be borrowed from the more general notion of the olive tree , and is the tree, which is so for the branch in a natural manner.
.] into a (not the ) noble olive tree . The word is also found in Aristotle, Plant . i. 6, in contrast to .
] the Jews who have refused to believe.
] sc . , those according to nature . In what respect they are so, the context exhibits, namely, as the original branches of the holy olive tree , whose root the patriarchs are, Rom 11:16 .
.] for they have originally grown upon it, and then have been cut off from it; hence it is still their own olive tree .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches , be graffed into their own olive tree?
Ver. 24. Contrary ] Therefore nature contributes nothing toward the work of conversion.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
24. ] For (proof that, besides God’s undoubted power to re-engraft them, the idea of their being so re-engrafted is not an unreasonable one) if THOU wast cut off from the olive-tree which is by nature wild, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a good olive-tree, how much more shall these, the natural branches, be engrafted in their own olive-tree ? It is a question, as Tholuck remarks, whether and denote merely growth in the natural manner and growth (by engrafting) in an unnatural (i.e. artificial) manner , or that the wild is the nature of the Gentile , and the good olive that of the Jew , so that the sense would be ‘If thou wert cut out of the wild olive which is thine naturally, and wert engrafted contrary to (thy) nature into the good olive, how much more shall these, the natural branches,’ &c. But then the latter part of the sentence does not correspond with the former. We either should expect the to be omitted (as is done in some mss.), or must, with Fritz., place a comma after , and, taking as the relative, construe, ‘How much more these, who shall, agreeably to (their) nature, be grafted,’ &c. Tholuck describes the question as being between a comparison of engrafting and not engrafting , and one of engrafting the congruous and the incongruous : and, on the above ground, decides in favour of the former, signifying merely natural growth , ., unnatural growth , i.e. the growth of the grafted scion . But however this may fit the former part of the sentence, it surely cannot satisfy the requirements of the latter , where the ( ) are described as being engrafted (which would be ) into their own olive-tree. We must at least assume a mixture of the two meanings, the antithesis of and . being rather verbal than logical, as is so common in the writings of the Apostle. Thus in the former case, that of the Gentile, the fact of natural growth is set against that of engrafted growth : whereas in the latter, the fact of congruity of nature ( ) is set against incongruity , as making the re-engrafting more probable.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Rom 11:24 . God’s power to engraft the Jews again into the stock of His people proved a fortiori by comparison with what He has done for the Gentiles. To restore His own is more natural, conceivable, and one may even say easy, than to call those who are not His own. The Gentile Christian (1) was cut , from what is in its own nature an uncultivated olive, with no suitableness for the uses which the olive is intended to subserve, and (2) in violation of nature was engrafted into a good olive; in comparison with this doubly unnatural process one may well argue . . . how much more shall these, the Jews who (in their own nature) belong to the good tree, have their connection with it re-established? Weiss takes as a logical future, and it may be so; but Paul believes in his logic, and has probably in view in the word that actual restoration of the Jews of which he now proceeds to speak.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
if. App-118.
out of. App-104.
olive tree, &c. Read “wild olive tree which is so by (App-104.) nature”.
contrary to. App-104.
good olive tree. Greek. kallielaioa. Only here. It is only in the kingdom of grace that such a process, thus contrary to nature, can be successful.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
24.] For (proof that, besides Gods undoubted power to re-engraft them, the idea of their being so re-engrafted is not an unreasonable one) if THOU wast cut off from the olive-tree which is by nature wild, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a good olive-tree, how much more shall these, the natural branches, be engrafted in their own olive-tree? It is a question, as Tholuck remarks, whether and denote merely growth in the natural manner and growth (by engrafting) in an unnatural (i.e. artificial) manner,-or that the wild is the nature of the Gentile, and the good olive that of the Jew, so that the sense would be-If thou wert cut out of the wild olive which is thine naturally, and wert engrafted contrary to (thy) nature into the good olive, how much more shall these, the natural branches, &c. But then the latter part of the sentence does not correspond with the former. We either should expect the to be omitted (as is done in some mss.), or must, with Fritz., place a comma after , and, taking as the relative, construe, How much more these, who shall, agreeably to (their) nature, be grafted, &c. Tholuck describes the question as being between a comparison of engrafting and not engrafting, and one of engrafting the congruous and the incongruous: and, on the above ground, decides in favour of the former,- signifying merely natural growth, ., unnatural growth, i.e. the growth of the grafted scion. But however this may fit the former part of the sentence, it surely cannot satisfy the requirements of the latter, where the () are described as being engrafted (which would be ) into their own olive-tree. We must at least assume a mixture of the two meanings, the antithesis of and . being rather verbal than logical,-as is so common in the writings of the Apostle. Thus in the former case, that of the Gentile, the fact of natural growth is set against that of engrafted growth: whereas in the latter, the fact of congruity of nature ( ) is set against incongruity,-as making the re-engrafting more probable.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Rom 11:24. , of the wild olive tree) There is as great a distinction between those, who either have not, or have the revealed word, as there is between the wild and cultivated olive-tree.- ) quite contrary to nature, for in the art of gardening, the process of engrafting, which unites two trees of a different nature, commits the soft graft, which is followed by the fruit, to the woody stem: but Paul says, that the graft of the wild olive is inserted into the good olive-tree, in order that it may follow [in consequence partake of] the fatness of the good olive.- , how much more) He gradually comes from that which can be, to that which actually is. The discourse in fact assumes an augmentation of force; formerly Paul demonstrated from the prophets, that in Israel there were more wicked than good men, he now demonstrates in like manner from the prophets, that there will be hereafter more good than wicked men; and while he is drawing forth this statement, he calls it a mystery, fitted to check the pride of the Gentiles, lest they should think that the part assigned to the Jews was to be always inferior.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Rom 11:24
Rom 11:24
For if thou wast cut out of that which is by nature a wild olive tree, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how much more shall these, which are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?-If the Gentiles were cut out of the wild olive tree (the disobedient nations) and were grafted into the good olive tree, how much rather shall these natural branches be grafted back into their own tree? [If the Jews should change their attitude toward God and toward Christ, God can, consistently with the principles of his administration, change his attitude toward them and can graft them into his favor again. He wills not that any should perish, but that all should come to the knowledge of the truth as it is in Christ and be saved. To this end he grafted the wild olive into the good olive.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Rom 11:17, Rom 11:18, Rom 11:30
Reciprocal: Psa 52:8 – like Psa 128:3 – olive plants Isa 6:13 – so the holy Isa 49:21 – seeing Isa 65:8 – General Zec 4:3 – General Zec 10:9 – live Mar 13:20 – for Rom 11:19 – that Heb 9:14 – How
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
:24
Rom 11:24. Graffed contrary to nature. In the grafting process when a graft from one tree is put into the limb of another, the fruit will be like the graft and not that of the tree into which it is inserted. Paul uses the illustration contrary to nature and represents the Gentiles (the wild olive) as being graffed into the tame olive (the Jewish stock). Yet, instead of being required to bear its own natural fruit (wild olive), God counteracts the rule of nature to enable this wild graft to bear tame fruit. That being the case, these Gentile Christians should realize that God would graft the natural branches (the Jews) back into their own stock. The point is the same as was made before, namely, the Gentiles should not be too boastful of their standing.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Rom 11:24. For introduces the entire verse as a proof of the probability that the Jews will ultimately be grafted in again, not of the statement that God is able to graft them in (against Godet). If Gods power is in question, it is needless to prove that he could more easily do one thing than another.
If thou wast, etc. The fact in the case of the Gentiles is stated under the same figure; contrary to nature suggesting, not the greater difficulty, but the antecedent improbability of the fact, All notions of additional life imparted by the grafts are here shown to be foreign to the Apostles thought.
How much more shall these the natural branches (the phrase above rendered by nature), those who sprang from the original patriarchal root. In the former case, that of the Gentile, the fact of natural growth is set against that of engrafted growth: whereas in the latter, the fact of congruity of nature (their own olive tree) is set against incongruity,as making the re-engrafting more probable (Alford). The tree is not merely their own but it is Gods; He remembers His covenant. What is here shown by a figure to be probable, the Apostle next declares will certainly take place.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Rom 11:24. For, &c. As if he had said, And it appears that he will do it, because he has done that which was more unlikely, as being contrary to nature: if thou wert cut out of the tree wild by nature, &c. If thou wert admitted into the family of God, though descended from parents that were strangers and enemies, how much more shall they who were children of the covenant, to whom the promises originally belonged, be taken into covenant with him. In other words, God will not seem to do so wonderful a thing, in restoring them to what might appear the privilege of their birthright, and in saving the seed of Abraham his friend, as he hath done in calling you sinners of the Gentiles, to participate the blessings of which you had not the least notion, and to which you cannot be supposed to have had any imaginable claim. This reasoning is certainly very just; the conversion of the Jews, though it hath not yet happened, appearing much more probable than did the conversion of the Gentiles, before that event took place. Some understand the expression, grafted contrary to nature, as signifying contrary to the usual way of ingrafting; which is, not to insert a wild scion into a good stock, but a good scion into a wild stock, to which it communicates its changing efficacy, causing it to bear good fruit. But that circumstance appears not to have been at all regarded by the apostle; nor was it necessary, as Doddridge justly observes, that the simile taken from ingrafting should hold in all its particulars: and certainly the engagement to humility arises, in a considerable degree, from the circumstances of the ingrafting here supposed being the reverse of that commonly used. Indeed, had the scion been nobler than the stock into which it was inserted, its dependance on it for life and nourishment would have rendered it unreasonable that it should boast against it; how much more when the case was the reverse of that in use, and the wild olive was ingrafted on the good.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 24. There is, in fact, between the Jewish nation and the kingdom of God an essential affinity, a sort of pre-established harmony, so that when the hour has come, their restoration will be accomplished still more easily than the incorporation of the Gentiles.
The words: how much more, seem to us to signify naturally in the context: How much more easily. It is objected, no doubt, that one thing is no easier to God than another. That is true in the physical world; but in the moral world God encounters a factor which He Himself respectsmoral freedom. The Jewish people having been raised up only with a view to the kingdom of God, will not have an organic transformation to undergo in order to return to it; and if it is objected that a Jew is converted with more difficulty than a Gentile, that proves nothing as to the final and collective revolution which will be wrought in the nation at the end of the times. A veil will fall (1Co 3:14-15), and all will be done.
Thus far the apostle has shown the moral congruity of the event which he has in view; now he announces the fact positively, and as matter of express revelation.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
For if thou wast cut out of that which is by nature a wild olive tree, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how much more shall these, which are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? [Here we are referred to nature for the point emphasized in the apostle’s lesson, that we may see that the present system of grace, as operating under the terms of conversion established as the basis of theocratic life in the New Testament, operates in double contradiction to nature. For (1) grafting is unnatural; (2) grafting bad to good is unnatural; for in nature the engraft always changes the juice of the stalk to its own nature, so as to still bear its own fruit. Hence the superior is always grafted into the inferior. But in grace this rule is so changed and operated so “contrary to nature,” that the sap, passing into the tame, natural, superior Jewish branches, yielded corrupt fruit, so that they had to be severed; while the same sap, passing into the wild, grafted, inferior Gentile branches, communicated its fatness to them, so that they yielded good fruit. But as it is an accepted axiomatic premise that even God works more readily, regularly and satisfactorily along the lines of the natural than he does along those of the supernatural and miraculous, so it is unquestionably reasonable to suppose that if the Jew will consent to be grafted in by belief, the sap of his own tree will work more readily for him than it did in Paul’s day for the Gentiles, or wild olive branches which were not of the tree save by the grafting, or union, of belief. “For,” says Chrysostom, “if faith can achieve that which is contrary to nature, much more can it achieve what is according to it.” By age-long, hereditary and educational qualifications the Jew has acquired a natural affinity for, and a pre-established harmony with, all that has come to the world through the promises to Abraham, and in fulfillment of the words of the prophets. In short, the conversion of the Jew of our day is a vastly more reasonable expectation than the conversion of the Gentiles which actually took place in Paul’s day. Let no man, therefore, doubt Paul’s prediction of the ultimate conversion of the Jews. “If God,” says Stuart, “had mercy on the Gentiles, who were outcasts from his favor and strangers to the covenant of his promise, shall he not have mercy on the people whom he has always distinguished as being peculiarly his own, by the bestowment of many important privileges and advantages upon them?”]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by {z} nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a {a} good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural [branches], be graffed into their own olive tree?
(z) Understand nature, not as it was first made, but as it was corrupted in Adam, and so passed on from him to his posterity.
(a) Into the people of the Jews, whom God had sanctified only by his grace: and he speaks of the whole nation, not of any one part.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Here is another of Paul’s "much more" comparisons (Rom 5:9; Rom 5:19; Rom 5:15; Rom 5:17; cf. Luk 11:13). If God did the difficult thing, namely, grafting wild branches (believing Gentiles) onto the trunk (Israel), it should not be hard to believe that He will do the easier thing. The easier thing is restoring the pruned branches of the cultivated tree (unbelieving Jews who will come to faith in Christ) to their former position (as members of Israel).
"The restoration of converted Jews to the Patriarchal communion must from the nature of the case be more natural than the conversion of the heathen." [Note: Liddon, p. 314.]
Obviously the branches formerly broken off do not represent the same individuals as those grafted in in the future. They are Jews who, in the former case, did not believe and, in the latter case, will. The grafting in of Jews will not involve the breaking off of Gentile believers in the future.