You are on page 1of 19

Romans 9-11

I am speaking the truth in ChristI am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spiritthat I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. (Rom 9.1-5)

Paul is grieved at the failure of the Jewish people to believe in their Messiah. Indeed, his grief tells us that their failure to believe is something that warrants grief: they are not, as some hold, granted covenant status by virtue of their ethnicity. If that were the case, why would Pauls grief be such? Why would he wish himself accursed for their sake if this werent a big deal? Paul lists a series of Jewish privileges which, as we see throughout Romans up to this point, have been transferred to the Jews representative Messiah and, through him, to all those who are in him, be they Jewish or Gentile. Sonship, glory, covenants, law, worship, promises, patriarchs: all of these have been put upon the Israel that is Israel in Jesus Christ. The climax of all these benefits is the fleshly lineage of Christ: the Jews are the people of Messiah, but they are this only according to the flesh. This Messiah, as Paul points out, is God over all, Jew and Gentile together. At the core of the Jewish privileges is the lineage of Christ, who takes Israels vocation and destiny and encapsulates it in himself. He is Gods means of salvation not just for Israel but also for the entire world. Israel, by clinging to her ancestral privilege, by assuming that ancestry guarantees covenant membership, is denying the point of her calling altogether. Israel was chosen to be the means through which salvation came into the world, and she failed, so her representative did what she couldnt. God promised Abraham a worldwide family, and God is the God of the whole world rather than just Israel (or hed simply be some sort of tribal deity).
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but Through Isaac shall your offspring be named. This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son. And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or

badin order that Gods purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who callsshe was told, The older will serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. (Rom 9.6-13)

Paul anticipates the concern: Since Gentiles are now being accepted into Gods covenant, and if Israel isnt guaranteed covenant membership by virtue of her ancestral lineage, then hasnt God been unfaithful to the covenant? The fact of Gentiles finding covenant membership while Israelites dont truly does render this question valid, but only if the assumption behind it all is correct. The assumption is that Israel is Gods special, chosen people, chosen and loved by God, and that this choosing is a choosing of them over against all others unto salvation. The point of their calling, however, was not so they could be smug in their confidence of covenant membership with God: the whole point of God choosing them was to bring healing to the world through them, but instead of doing this they only added to the worlds problems by trying to hide their light under a bushel in the worst possible way. Now Paul seeks to reorient their thinking and to show how this isnt God being unfaithful to the covenant but, rather, being faithful to the covenant, albeit in an unexpected way. Paul does this through going back in time and tracing the history of Israel, some of her significant benchmarks, as good Jewish writers often did, to address Gods present dealings with his people and make sense of that. Paul starts off with Abraham, whom he has already addressed in Romans 4. Paul points out that God never promised that all of Abrahams descendents would enjoy covenant membership: all down the line, so-to-speak, covenant membership was narrowed down more and more: the lineage continued through Isaac but not Ishmael, through Jacob and not Esau. At the very beginning of Jewish history there was already a sort of double Israel, an Israel according to the flesh and an Israel according to the promise. What matters is grace, not race: in Romans 4 we see that the true seed of Abraham isnt some winnowed-down subset of ethnic Israel but a worldwide family comprised of those who are Abrahams children by virtue of Gods promise rather than ethnicity. Pauls point here, it must be emphasized, is NOT that Isaac was chosen for salvation and Ishmael wasnt, or that Jacob was chosen and Esau was rejected. The point is that Gods plan was to winnow down the lineage to a certain point (Jesus) and to fulfill his promises through that single descendant. The line narrows and narrows to Christ and then blooms outwards into the world. The implication of this is that covenant membership has never been about ones bloodline; bloodline determined the path that would mark out Gods chosen people (chosen for service unto the world, not for salvation) that would lead to Christ; but membership in Gods covenant was according to faith in the pattern of Abraham (Rom 4.11-12, 16-17).

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on Gods part? By no means! For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (Rom 9.14-18)

Does this winnowing-down of Abrahams seed render God unjust? While none of the Jews of Pauls day would fight for covenant membership for Ishmael or Esaus descendants, it is problematic for the Jewish worldview if this same principle is still in motion. Thus far Paul has implied, in this chapter and especially in Romans 4, that those Jews who reject Christ are no better off than Ishmael and Esau, descendants according to the flesh but not descendants according to the promise. Paul, again, isnt looking at election from a Reformed point-of-view. Hes addressing the winnowing-down of the chosen people, corporate Israel. And this winnowing-down isnt a narrowing of the righteous fold but Gods overarching plans for the healing and restoration of the cosmos moving forward. Paul moves forward from Abraham to the Exodus and, specifically, to the Golden Calf: Israel rebelled against God after her deliverance from slavery in Egypt, and Moses plead to God on her behalf. God exercised judgment against the rebellious people, and 3000 died; but in Exodus 32, Moses pleads for the people, pointing out their lineage and the promise he made to Abraham. God thus did not judge all of them as judgment demanded, but he showed mercy to some so that the line would continue. Gods judgment on Israel after the Golden Calf cannot be claimed to be unjust, despite the fact that these people were ethnically part of the covenant; and Paul is pointing out that God is Judge and there is no injustice in judgment; but he continued the line not because the people deserved it or merited it but solely because of his mercy. This isnt about individual Israelites being saved over others; its about the promises rolling along despite the peoples unfaithfulness. It is God being faithful to his promises when his people remain, obstinately, unfaithful. And why is Pharaoh brought into the picture? Again, this is all about the Exodus and God being faithful to his covenant, not about Israel being shown mercy and Pharaoh being hardened. Pharaoh, despite his evil, was used by God for the advancement of Gods promises to Abraham. Gods faithfulness to the covenant promises is seen not only in him showing mercy when Israel did not deserve it but also using the evil of the world to bring the promises about: thus has God been unjust? Has he been unfaithful to his covenant promises? In absolutely no way!
You will say to me then, Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will? But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is

molded say to its molder, Why have you made me like this? Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for gloryeven us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea, Those who were not my people I will call my people, and her who was not beloved I will call beloved. And in the very place where it was said to them, You are not my people, there they will be called sons of the living God. And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay. And as Isaiah predicted, If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring, we would have been like Sodom and become like Gomorrah. (Rom 9.19-29)

Paul now employs O.T. imagery to emphasize that whats happening in his own day (the rejection of the Messiah by the majority of the Jews) isnt absent of the purposes of God as foretold by the prophets, but, rather, this is precisely what was prophesied. God hasnt been unfaithful to his promises, but has, in Christ, fulfilled them completely. This section begins with the bit about Pharaoh in the background. Having used Pharaoh and his evil to accomplish his purposes of rolling along with the promise in the Exodus, a question is poised: If God is using Pharaoh all along, then why does he find fault with him? Why does he judge him? Here we dovetail into the Potter & The Clay analogy, which isnt about God deciding, rather arbitrarily, to save some and condemn others. Here Pharaohor, rather, Egypt, as he was the headis viewed as a vessel of wrath prepared for destruction; but God is patient in his judgment of Egypt, so that he can make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy. The vessels of mercy here points to Israel, Gods covenant people (and, post-Christ, to all those who are in him, regardless of ethnicity); a vessel isnt just something that holds something but something that holds something in order to give it to others. God is entirely just in using Pharaoh to bring about his covenant promises for the vessels of mercy, and the language Paul uses emphasizes that Israels privileged status isnt one about what they have unto themselves but what theyve been given by God for the world. And this is where things get dicey. Israel failed to see that she was chosen for some larger purpose greater than herself, that she was chosen to be the harbinger of Gods healing, restoration, and rejuvenation into the world. God sees that the way to save the world is to call a people, to enter into covenant with them, and use them to deal with the worlds evil; but Israel became part of the problem, and the solution (which

God planned all along) was Messiah, the one who would represent Israel and do what Israel was supposed to do but couldnt do. Hosea looks forward to the ultimate purpose of Israels calling, Gods kingdom spreading throughout the world; but Israel has missed all of this, and as she clings to her privileged status and assumed covenant membership by virtue of that status (and, in doing so, refusing to recognize Jesus as Messiah), she remains condemned. But has God, then, been unfaithful to Israel? Certainly not: for a remnant exists, blessed with covenant status by virtue of being children of the promise in league with Abraham. That Israel stands condemned comes as no surprise: her own Scriptures spoke of judgment and mercy, of exile and restoration, of her own continual disobedience and need for repentance. The restoration blooms to life in those who respond appropriately to their Messiah.
What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame. (Rom 9.30-33)

Since the beginning of Romans 9, Paul has been retelling the story of Israel through significant benchmarks in her history: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (vv.6-13), the Exodus and the Golden Calf incident (Moses & Pharaoh in vv.14-18), and then he moved on to the prophets, who consistently warned the Israelites that their failure to live by the covenant stipulations laid out in Deuteronomy 28-30 would result in the judgment of exile with the only glimmer of hope being that of a remnant (vv.19-29). At this point, Paul has reached the present day for his contemporary Israelites: they viewed themselves still in exile, despite being in their homeland (since they were ruled over by pagans), and they were awaiting the hoped-for 2nd Exodus which would be marked by a renewal of the covenant and the beginning of a new era in history. This catching up involves a synopsis of sorts of the current situation, which is what we find in the latter verses of Romans 9. Paul uses the Greek word dikaiosyne again and again throughout these verses; in English its translated righteousness or something similar, and it invokes images of purity, of holiness, of some sort of personal characteristic. Mainstream evangelicalism would read these texts as if they were saying that while Jews sought to be holy and pure by obeying the Law, the Gentiles had Christs holiness imputed to them because they responded to him in faith. However, what the word righteousness means to us, and what the word dikaiosyne would mean to its original speakers/hearers, are different. We would do well to listen to the word as they would hear it. To ancient Jews, the word dikaiosyne spoke of covenant membership, of being in right standing with God by virtue of being

in his covenant. It wasnt about someones personal characteristics but about a persons position or status before God. Thus the text could be read, What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue covenant membership have found it, that is, a covenant membership that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to covenant membership did not succeed in reaching their goal of covenant membership. Why? Because they did not pursue covenant membership by faith, but as if they could attain it by works. Gentiles were not looking for covenant membership but found it; Israel, on the hunt for it, missed it altogether. This is what Paul means when he says that by pursuing a law of covenantal membership, they didnt attain to that law. And why? Because they were focusing on works. The problem, keep in mind, isnt the Law. Pauls already established throughout Romans that the Law is holy, just, and good. The problem, as we see in 8.3, lies not with the Law but with the Israelites: the Law was weakened through the flesh. Despite the holy, just, and good nature of the Law, Israel remains in Adam and subject to the same condition as the rest of humanity. So when Israel tries to attain the privileges and blessings of covenant membership by adherence to the Law, that attempt is undercut from the get-go by her own Adamic nature. By embracing the Law, the Israelites are embracing that very thing which declares them to be transgressors, lawbreakers, sinners, on the same footing as all those pagans outside Gods covenant. Israel failed to see that Gods purpose wasnt for Israel but through Israel, and she took the Law to be the charter by which she was staked out over against all those pagans as Gods covenant family. Israel clung to the Law to preserve her own covenant membership rather than letting her chosenness carry her forward into the world. Israel marked herself out from the world by adhering to the Law, by clinging to those works which served as boundary-markers separating her from the pagans. Paul isnt saying that Israelites were trying to be good enough for God by obeying the Law, or that they believed the only way to be saved was to be wholly perfect in Lawful obedience; no, hes pointing out that instead of being the lights of the world and the salt of the earth, they prided themselves in their identity and sought covenant membership through fastening themselves to Jewish identity via such things as Jewish dietary customs, circumcision, and observing certain holy days. It was by such things, such works of the Law, that one could identify the true members of Gods covenant. Pauls point is clear: this thinking is flawed and misses the point. Covenant membership has always been by faith, even before circumcision or the giving of the Law itself; and Gentiles, who put their faith in Christ, are thus finding covenant membership while prideful Jews, who put their trust in their works, find themselves cut off from Gods covenant, in no better standing than those awful pagans they mock and despise.

And what are we to make of Pauls echo of Isaiah 28? Paul has already established the reason for the Jews failure to embrace Messiah, her own solipsistic understanding of herself and her mission. Because of this, they have stumbled over the Messiah. Pauls use of Isaiah 28 isnt to say, This is whats happened, but to emphasize that even this failure of the Jews wasnt outside Gods purposes. Isaiah prophesied about all this happening, emphasizing that God himself placed the stumbling stone in Zion. How this fits into Gods sovereign plan is given in Romans 11, the climax of all that Paul is writing here. But here we simply have the prophets and their indication that this hardening (as Paul will call it) that has fallen upon Israel remains part of Gods plan and the fulfillment of his covenant promises to Abraham. The very fact that this is incorporated, if not orchestrated, into Gods plan is indicative of the fact that Israels chosenness isnt about Israel but about Gods master purposes.
Brothers, my hearts desire and prayer to God for [those Israelites who reject Christ] is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to Gods righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Romans 10.1-4)

Echoing the beginning of Romans 9, Paul writes again about how deeply he wants his fellow Israelites to acknowledge and respond appropriately to Messiah. Despite the chapter break between chapters 9 and 10, Paul continues with the pattern of thought laid down in the latter verses of Romans 9. Paul knows full well how zealous and devoted they are, that their problem is not like that of the pagans who do not hold monotheistic ideals, or embrace certain codes of conduct befitting human beings. Zealous she is, but its a zealousness that is not according to knowledge. Paul, formerly belonging to the Pharisee camp and having been steeped in such zeal that led him to mortally persecute the early church, understands quite well the Jewish dilemma. The Israelites zeal is without knowledge because its misdirected from the get-go: Israel has failed to understand what it means to be chosen, what it means to be elect, and theyve seemed to have forgotten that Gods plan all along wasnt to gather an isolated community for himself to exalt over all the others peoples, but to gather a people to himself so that they may carry Gods standard forward into the wider world. Theyd forgotten that they were chosen for the benefit of the world rather than simply for their own sakes or even simply for Gods good pleasure. Paul says that they are ignorant of Gods righteousness: that is, they were seeking to establish covenant membership through membership in Israel. They relied on works of the Law and their proud Israelite heritage to keep them cloistered in Gods covenant. Pauls statement here can be read, For, being ignorant of what covenant membership is all about, and seeking to establish their covenant membership in all the wrong ways, they didnt submit to Gods prescription for covenant membership. From the Israelite standpoint of covenant membership being guaranteed by works of

the Law and Israelite distinctiveness, its no surprise that they rejected Jesus, who not only questioned Jewish boundary-markers but flagrantly opposed them. From their perspective, Jesus showed himself to be an enemy of God and his followers threats to the purity of Gods people. Such thinking is misleading, as Paul soon discovered on the Damascus Road, but it made sense to the convictions of mainstream Israel. Thus Israel stumbled over Christ, and even stumbled over the Law due to her misunderstanding of it, in her obsession with works of the Law, those things differentiating Israel from her pagan neighbors; Israels rejection of her Messiah is the logical and understandable outworking of her misunderstanding of the Law, her eager attempt to make it a charter guaranteeing national privilege and covenant membership. To put it another way, God did choose Israel and was bound by his promises to Abraham to bless the nations through her. But Israel was as much, if not more-so, a part of the problem as everyone else, and in classic human fashion she took her choosing to be all about her. She took her calling and reworked it into a prideful stance and sought to safeguard that special status through the works of the Law that showed her superiority over everyone else. Jesus, threatening the very boundarymarkers that were so critical to Jewish identity, and openly inviting even pagans to share in Gods covenant, went against the very grain of Jewish belief and selfunderstanding. To embrace Jesus was to detach from Israel, and by doing so to detach from covenant membership. This is, at the least, how most Israel would understand those embracing Christ, and the devout thing to do, in loyalty to God and in loyalty to his chosen people Israel, would be to fight tooth-and-nail against Jesus and those claiming his name. But Paul writes (in a way we can understand), Messiah is the culmination of the Law, so that there will be covenant membership for all who believe. The Greek word for end in 10.4 is telos, which carries the dual meanings of end and goal: ultimately, Pauls point is that the story of God and his faithfulness to Israel reaches its intended destination in Jesus the Messiah. It isnt, again, that the Law is bad, but it isnt validated in the sense that Israel took it. The Torah wasnt meant to last forever; it was given for specific reasons and for a specific time, and when that time has come to an end, the Torah has thus reached its goal (and, consequently, the end of its reign). The Torah didnt fail; rather, it reached its intended goal! It accomplished its job, reaching a head in Christ. The Torah was given as a temporary means of administration over the Israelite people, but when Christ did what he was destined to do (doing what Israel was supposed to do but couldnt do, i.e. bringing Gods healing and restoration forward into the world), the Torah was abolished: its reign has ended, its purpose has been reached, its time is up. The long purposes of God through his covenant with Israel reach fulfillment in Messiah, and in Christ Gods purposes for Israel and for the world meet. Christ is, in this sense, the climax of the covenant.

But how, really, does all this work? The point of the covenant was to bring to the world all that it had lost in the Fall recorded in Genesis 3; the aim of Israels calling, and consequently her vocation, was to be the people through whom Gods healing, restoration, and justice came to bear on the world. Israel was as much a part of the problem as everyone else and failed time and time again; Jesus, the Truest Israelite, did what Israel couldnt do. It is through Jesus that Gods healing flows into the world. The Law was given as a sort of covenant document and charter for ethnic Israel, keeping her united and unassimilated into the pagan nations, and it also revealed how deeply she was also a part of the problem. The Torah was there, like the pillars of cloud and fire in the wilderness, to keep Israel on track until the appointed time; with the advent of Christ, the Torahs goal is fulfilled, and in this way Christ is both the end and goal (the telos) of the Law.
For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. But the righteousness based on faith says, Do not say in your heart, Who will ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down) or Who will descend into the abyss? (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame. For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. (Romans 10.5-13)

Here we have what many find to be the most confusing words of Romans 9-11, and understandably so. Having scripted Israels history up to the present day, Paul now looks backwards to Deuteronomy 30 to show how this is precisely what God had in mind all along. This text is about how, through Christ and the preaching of the gospel, Israel is transformed from being an ethnic, fleshly people into a worldwide family, precisely that worldwide family God promised Abraham from the beginning. Paul quotes Moses in Deuteronomy 30, but this quotation isnt to be understood as a prooftext for some point hes making but as an echo: Deuteronomy 27-30 is all about the covenantal responsibilities God places on Israel with the assured results of both obedience and disobedience, and in these chapters both exile for disobedience and restoration out of that exile are promised. Exile here isnt some arbitrary punishment for Israels rebellion but the inevitable result of her idolatry. In Genesis 3, the result of mankinds rebellion is being kicked out of the Garden; when Israel recapitulates Adam & Eves sin in their own rebellion and idolatry, they faced the same fate: theyre kicked out of the Garden (exile). What God has promised to do with creation (subjected to its own exile with the promise of restoration in the future), God enacts within the Israelite

people themselves: their rebellion leads to exile, but the story doesnt end there. There remains the promise and hope of restoration. Restoration is promised because exile must be undone for Gods plans to unfold as hes determined; the restoration Moses points to in Deuteronomy 30 is the same restoration prophesied by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Pauls point is that all of these prophecies have come to fulfillment in the crucified and resurrected Messiah. The question driving all of thisHas God been unfaithful to his covenant promises?is answered by understanding the history of Gods dealings with Israel, along with understanding where Christ fits in. Jesus isnt some afterthought or Plan B: hes the Plan A, the Master Plan, what God had engineered from the beginning. What Christ has done, in his death and resurrection, is to bring Gods covenant purposes to their intended goal: having promised Abraham a worldwide family, that promise comes to fruition. In Christs sacrifice and defeat of evil on the cross and in his resurrection, the new covenant is established (or, in other language, the covenant is renewed), and the logical result is that Gentiles are now invited into the renewed covenant. Exile has reached its end; Israel has been delivered, albeit not in the way suspected; Jesus, taking Israels place and doing and being what she was supposed to do and be all along, brings about the renewal of the covenant for both Jews and Gentiles. This is the point Pauls ramming home: all the echoes throughout this text (Deuteronomy 30, Joel 3.5 in 10.13, and Isaiah 52.7 in 10.15) are all about the new covenant. Christ is the telos of the Law and the renewal of the covenant, which Israel yearned and hoped for all along, and now that its come, both Jews and Gentiles are invited into this new covenant established by Christ. At the beginning of this text, Paul quotes Leviticus 18.5, saying that the one who does the commandments shall live by them. But what does this mean? Popular readings take it to mean that theres some sort of balance, where if you do good enough youll merit life; stricter readings take this to mean, If you obey the Law perfectly, youll have salvation, which gives credence to how no one can merit salvation because, somewhere along the line, weve all sinned and done so grievously. Paying attention to the context, however, shows us that Paul is thinking of covenant renewal, that which he echoes from Deuteronomy 30. This doing of the Law isnt difficult; it doesnt take someone marching into heaven or plunging into the depths of the sea to get it right. This doing of the Law, Pauls saying, is fulfilled whenever someone hears the gospel and believes in Christ. Thus, for Paul, doing the Law takes on a new shape: it involves confessing that Jesus is Lord (acknowledging that he really is the worlds true King and the embodiment of God, and aligning yourself with him over against other would-be kings and rulers) and believing in your heart that God raised him from the dead. Thus, in a strange way, when people put their loyalty in Jesus (the language of confession here isnt reminiscent of Catholic confessions of sin but of one where someone commits themselves to a king) and believe in their heart that God raised him from the dead, they are indeed doing what the Law demanded all along, and thus

theyre displaying the badges of covenant renewal. Thus those who will not be put to shame (a quotation of Isaiah 28.16 and an echo of Romans 9.33) arent those who, like the stubborn and misguided Israelites, cling to the badges of the works of the Law but, rather, those who see that Israels purpose has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ and respond in faith and repentance.
How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us? So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world. But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry. Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me. But of Israel he says, All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people. (Romans 10.14-21)

With the ingathering of Gentiles into the covenant, another charge may be made against Gods faithfulness to the covenant: if God has been faithful, then why has the majority of Israel rejected her Messiah? Paul doesnt go into some sort of defense of preaching as much as hes emphasizing that the Israelites have indeed heard the gospel; like the Gentiles, theyve been given ample opportunity to embrace Christ and find covenant membership. His long line of Old Testament echoes emphasizes two important points about Israels rejection of her Messiah. First, it isnt due to Gods unfaithfulness. God has been faithful to his covenant as he promised, and he has invited Israel into the fold. But Israel, in her classic fashion, is obstinate in her rebellion despite Gods countless appeals. Throughout Israelite history, theres the constant theme of Israel outright rebelling against God despite his warnings, his pleas, his admonitions, and (sometimes) his downright begging for their repentance. The theme is continued in the present day: Israel remains entrenched in her rebellion. It isnt that the gospel is complex or hard to understand; even unlearned and foolish pagans understand it well enough. The difference is that Israel continues in her faithlessness whereas Gentiles embrace the grace and mercy to be found in the worlds Messiah. Second, Israels rejection of the Messiah is not some strange occurrence but what has been predicted by the prophets all along. That Israel would reject her own Messiah isnt simply some tragic twist in the story but what God knew would happen from the getgo. Her own pride, her own obsession with her national privilege as Gods chosen

people, has gotten in the way of her acknowledgement of the Messiah. Paul, in Romans 11.1-10, takes this a step further: this isnt just some prophesied event that puts a dent in Gods plan but something God is using for the ongoing fulfillment of his covenant promises.
I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life. But what is Gods reply to him? I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal. So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day. And David says, Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them; let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs forever. (Romans 11.1-10)

As Gentiles flock into Gods covenant, disheartened Jews might ask, Has God forgotten us? This heart-wrenching question isnt necessarily derived out of some sense of Jewish privilege; that God chose Israel is at the heart of the covenant, and the disbelieving majority makes the question valid. Paul tackles the question from two fronts: first, he gives himself as an example. He is an Israelite, and he is part of Gods covenant. He goes on to say that there remains a remnant of the faithful, of whom hes a part. The concept of the remnant is his second way of answering the question: he echoes the Old Testament narrative in 1 Kings 19 where the prophet Elijah asks the very same question of God. Elijah had taken part in a contest against the prophets of Baal, and after winning, he had the Baal prophets slaughtered. Queen Jezebel, wife to King Ahab, heard of this and put a death warrant on Elijahs head. The prophet fled and cried out to God, bathing in his loneliness and believing that he was the only one left who was devoted to God. God declared to Elijah that he was not alone, that there remained a remnant in Israel, seven thousand who hadnt turned to worshipping the false gods Jezebel had introduced. Paul uses this story as an illustration (so too), pointing out that in the current time, many Jews (albeit a minority) had turned to Christ. This remnant, Paul says, was chosen by grace. Chosen By Grace. What does this mean? For hundreds of years Christians have read this text in the lamplight of either Calvin or Arminius. Calvin advocated an idea not original to him that God chose, from the beginning of time, those individuals whom he would save, and by his grace he saved them. Thus the remnant consists precisely of those whom God chose before the creation of the world to be his people cut from the

people of Israel. Others say that this certainly cant be, and they take sides with Arminius: this remnant chose from their own volition to put their faith in Christ, and thus God showed them grace by choosing them for their faith. We must understand, however, that Paul wasnt familiar with either Calvin or Arminius, and those theological thought-patterns (known as Calvinism on the one hand and Arminianism on the other) wouldve been wholly foreign to Paul. Paul isnt writing from the basis of either standpoint; it can be assumed that Paul probably clung to the general Jewish consensus of the day that (a) mankind has the ability to choose and responsibility for those things chosen, and, quite paradoxically, (b) God remains sovereign and is in complete control of everything. The point here isnt Calvinism or Arminianism but that God has not rejected the Jews, and this is shown by both Paul as a member of the new covenant and by other Jewish people like him. Those who belong to the remnant truly are chosen by grace, over against chosen by race, works of the law, or anything else. Pauls point is that the remnant exists as the remnant precisely because of grace, not because theres a few Jews out there who attained covenant membership via some sort of ethnic or national privilege. Having shown that God certainly hasnt rejected his people, Paul now addresses the fate of those within Israel who have rejected their Messiah. What are we to make of them? Paul says that the rest are hardened. In Jewish apocalyptic thoughtpatterns, hardening is what happens when people consistently refuse the grace and patience of God, and this hardening serves as a sort of prelude to the final judgment. Remember: this text needs to be read in light of what the phrases and terms would mean to the Jewish people, not what they might mean to us today. It isnt that God purposefully went about hardening peoples hearts regardless of their inclinations or motives; in Romans 9.14-18, Paul spoke of hardening in relation to Pharaoh, and a quick overlook of the story in Exodus shows us that Pharaoh hardened his own heart time and time again, and God ratified that. In the same vein, when the Jewish people rejected Christ, God hardened their hearts: he exponentially increased the hardening they had begun. Paul echoes a flurry of Old Testament passages (Deuteronomy 29.4 and Isaiah 29.10), giving the symptoms of this hardening: its a spiritual drowsiness, a blindness, a deafness. Then Paul quotes Psalm 69.22-23, giving the cause of this hardening: their table became a snare and a trap for them. The table here probably refers to the Law itself, or the works of the Law so prized by the Jewish people (circumcision, dietary restrictions, and certain Holy Days) that marked them out from their unchosen pagan neighbors. Israels obsession over the Law, her own obsession over her nationalistic privilege, has made her spiritually drowsy, blind, and deaf: she has failed to understand her role in Gods overarching cosmic plans, has in her own inwardlyfocused pride forgotten all along that it hasnt been about Gods plans for her but Gods plans for the world through her. This is the same song Pauls sung throughout Romans 9-11 thus far: the Jewish people missed the forest for the trees, and in doing

so theyve cut themselves off from the new covenant. It isnt that God has cut them off: theyve done this themselves. They put their dedication and commitment upon the Law and their status as Gods chosen people rather than upon God, who is Lord not just of Israel but of the world.
So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. (Romans 11.11-16)

Having written that the rest of the Jews have been hardened, Paul now emphasizes that this hardening isnt final. There remains hope! Those who have rejected Christ have indeed been hardened, but they havent been hardened to the point of being beyond Gods saving graces. Throughout this text, Paul establishes that the Israelites rejection of Messiah is, in a sense, the acting out of Adams sin, and by doing this the gospel has been made available to the world. It isnt that Gods preferences have switched or that Israels been cast off forever; whereas Gentiles entering the covenant is like some sort of creation ex nihilo, Jews entering Gods covenant is something more: it is, purely and simply, resurrection. Pauls ministry to the Gentiles has within it a hidden agenda of sorts, testifying to the fact that Jews arent beyond hope: it is Pauls desire that the ingathering of Gentiles into Gods covenant will inspire the hardened Israelites to release their grip on the Law and open themselves up to Christ. Paul is after this resurrection of the Jewish people, hoping that his missionary efforts will make hardened Israels heart burn with envy and jealousy, cutting through them to the point that they relinquish their own self-obsession and come to terms with the God who is Lord of both Jews and Gentiles. Paul goes on to give two illustrations emphasizing his hope that these hardened Israelites will come to Christ. The first is from Numbers 15.20: according to Jewish law, the first dough from the harvest needed to be offered to God, and then the rest of the harvest would be holy. This first piece of dough refers to the remnant, and it holds the hope and promise of the rest of the Jews (the lump) being sanctified, i.e. coming into the covenant through faith in Christ. The second illustration, The Olive Tree, is given in 11.17-24.

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in. That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but Gods kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 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. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree. (Romans 11.17-24)

In the ancient Mediterranean world, olive tree farmers would often take the fruitful branches of cultivated olive trees and graft them into wild, strong olive trees yielding little fruit. The aim, of course, was to make olive trees more fruitful. Paul takes this agricultural practice and turns it on its head: here its the wild, unfruitful branches (the Gentiles) being grafted into the fruitful, cultivated olive tree (the Jewish people). Pauls point is to warn the Gentile Christians away from a sense of vaunted superiority over the unbelieving Jews, those branches who have been cut off because of their disbelief. Gentile Christians priding themselves over unbelieving Jews fall into the same trap that has ensnared Israel, an inverted sense of national privilege. God has chosen us over unbelieving Jews! Gentile Christians might proclaim, smug in their own position within Gods covenant, perhaps believing that the one God, into whose family they came by grace, was no longer intending to save anyone but Gentiles. Paul tears apart any sense of Gentile pride, pointing out that they are the wild branches grafted into the cultivated olive tree, and if disbelieving Jews could be cut off from the tree, how much more so could Gentile Christians be cut off if they disavow their faith. Paul holds out hope for unbelieving Jews: if they do not remain in unbelief, they will be grafted back into the cultivated olive tree, experiencing the resurrection of the previous passage. Throughout all the warnings to Gentile Christians in this passage warnings against false feelings of superiority, arrogance, and abandoning Christthis remains, first and foremost, an answer to the question presented earlier in the chapter: Is there any hope for hardened Israel? That unbelieving Jews, cut from the olive tree, can be grafted back in if they give up their grip on the Law and their own pride and embrace Christ, is a declarative YES to the question.
Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: 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, as it is written, The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish

ungodliness from Jacob; and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins. (Romans 11.25-27)

This text has often been read to declare that there will be a great event in the future where large numbers of Jews will be saved at the last minute, with or without faith in Christ. This is because, of course, of Gods righteousness, his covenant faithfulness. Because he is faithful even when Israel is faithless, he is bound by his own nature to perform this apocalyptic act. If this is the case, then a large number of questions are raised: At what point in history will this take place? Will it happen right before Christs second coming? Is it something thats happening now, slowly taking place as Jews convert to Christianity? Is Paul the prophet of the modern state of Israel? Does this mean that Gods covenant with Israel remains in effect, so that God has two covenants of salvation at work: one for ethnic Israel and one (the Jesus-route) for Gentiles? A further question arises: Why is Paul so flatly contradicting himself? Throughout Romans hes emphasized, void of hesitation and without mincing words, that (a) Jews are on no better footing before God than Gentiles, and (b) salvation is through Christ alone, to the point that unbelieving Jews stand cut off from the olive tree. That this is a serious question is reflected in the solutions proposed; frighteningly, the ones that make the most sense involve (a) Pauls half-buried patriotic fervor returning to the surface, or (b) nothing short of fantastical, wishful thinking on Pauls part. Others will say that this is a new mystery revealed to Paul in the course of writing the letter, so that everything hes written about ethnic Israel being in the dock is torn asunder by this new divine revelation (though one has to wonder why Paul, sensing the gravity of this revelation, wouldnt rewrite his letter before sending it out). Those wishing to preserve the rest of Pauls writings on the subject concede that there certainly is a contradiction and attribute these verses to a corruption in the original text, some foreign snippet being stuck onto the tail-end of the chapter at a later date; thus this is unoriginal to Paul and he stands innocent of the self-contradiction. But if we can say that Paul isnt referring to some massive, end-time, eschatological event about the ingathering of physical Israel into the new covenant, then we can breathe a deep sigh of relief as these questions and issues crumble away. The whole perspective ignores the preceding chapters of Romans where Paul makes it clear that there is no covenant membership, no salvation, for those who put their trust on ethnic privilege, the Jewish people included. In the preceding verses, Paul has told the Gentile Christians that they mustnt pride themselves over unbelieving Jews. A reason for this is the mystery Paul gives in these verses: instead of immediately judging those who had rejected the Messiah, God has allowed a period of hardening during which his salvation will flood throughout the world, and after this period there will be judgment. Its during this time that the Gentiles are coming into Gods covenant, and this is precisely how God is saving all Israel. The Greek word autos is often taken as then, indicating a chronological sequence: first the Gentiles enter Gods covenant, and then all Israel is saved; but it can also mean, and makes more sense, if it isnt indicating a

subsequent event but a consequential event: The fullness of the Gentiles come into Gods covenant, and thus all Israel will be saved. The phrase all Israel is connected to the inclusion of the fullness of the Gentiles, so that Gentiles are partakers of this all Israel. This means, then, that the all Israel Paul speaks of isnt just all Jews. Those insisting that Pauls writing about ethnic Israel assume that Pauls referent of Israel cant change in the span of two verses, and thus the Israel in v.25 must be the same as the Israel in v.26. But throughout the letter Paul has done just that; even the beginning of this entire section began with such a distinction in 9.6. Elsewhere in the letter (e.g. 2.25-29, 3.2-11), Paul has taken the privileges, responsibilities, and characteristics of Israel and transferred them to Christ and his people. That Pauls well at home with polemical redefinitions is evidenced in Galatians 6.16 and Philippians 3.2ff: the church itself is described as the circumcision, a total reworking of the Jewish phrase. Indeed, such polemical redefining of classic Jewish terms, phrases, and self-identification is beloved by most New Testament authors; this would be, really, nothing out of the ordinary. In lieu of this, one can either say, in accordance with what Paul has written elsewhere, that Israel in v.26 refers to the Israel redefined around Christ, regardless of ones social and ethnic identity; or that, in contradiction with what Paul writes elsewhere, all Israel refers to ethnic Israel. If the former is the case, then the text makes perfect sense. If the latter is correct, weve got a lot of problems to deal with. If all Israel is Israel redefined around Christ, then what is Paul predicting in the Old Testament echoes in 26b-27? This has often been read as a prediction of Christs second coming, when (its assumed) this lastminute, large-scale salvation of ethnic Israel will take place. But a closer examination of the text in light of Pauls redefinition of Israel in 26a tells a different story. The Old Testament quotations come from three different places in Isaiah and from Jeremiah 31. All of these passages are about Gods action on the other side of judgment, the end of exile, the inauguration of the new covenant, and the restoration of Israel. Paul performs a sort of midrash (a Jewish rethinking of classical interpretations and texts in light of new developments) and combines Isaiah 59.20ff and Isaiah 2.3 to create a new prediction that the Deliverer will come from (rather than on behalf) of Zion. The Deliverer in Jewish thought was the Law, but Paul now makes the Deliverer Christ, because what the Law couldnt do, Christ did and the Spirit does. While the Law came for the benefit of Zion, now the Deliverer goes out from Zion and, consequently, into the world, for the benefit of the world. These Old Testament quotations explain how all Israel is saved: the gospel going out to the ends of the earth, or in more succinct terms, the Gentile Mission. This is what Abrahams worldwide family is all about, this is what God had in mind all along, this is how God is being faithful to his covenant promises. This new covenant isnt a covenant where God validates the ethnic pride and privilege of the Jewish people but one where sin is

finally and fully dealt with. Isaiah 27, which Paul echoes both in quotation and by his own similar use of the olive tree allegory in the previous verses, isnt about ethnic Israel being applauded as she stands but about forgiveness of sins coming at the end of exile. And this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins. In Christ, Jeremiah 31.34 comes to fruition, and it keeps coming to fruition: the Greek wording indicates that this is a recurring action, so that whenever God takes away their sins (whenever Jews come to believe in Christ and thus partake in the new covenant), at that very moment the age-old promises to the patriarchs are reaffirmed. Thus Paul isnt saying that at the end of this present age, right before Christs second advent, there will be a successful worldwide evangelism of Jews, or that Jews have a privileged place in their own covenant running parallel to the Gentile one. Rather, Pauls saying that ethnic Israel is hardened but not without hope, and Gods covenant with the patriarchs is reaffirmed when Jewish unbelievers convert and are consequently grafted back into the olive tree. More than that, Paul is saying that Israel, the covenant people reworked around Messiah, will be saved at the end of the Gentile mission. This is happening as Christ and the Spirit go out from Zion and into the wider world. This has been the point of the covenant all along, Gods divine plan and promises to Abraham and the Jewish people coming to pass, and in light of this, Gentile Christians must not vault themselves over unbelieving Jews, mustnt consider themselves better off. There remains hope for hardened Israel, but not a hope respective of national privilege, and their entering the covenant isnt a creation ex nihilo but a resurrection from the dead.
As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. (Romans 11.28-32)

Keeping in mind all that Pauls written thus far, this text cannot be read to mean that, somehow, ethnic Israel is guaranteed salvation. Gods plan all along, to create a worldwide family of Abraham, doesnt exclude physical Israel: they dont have any sort of foot in to the new covenant, but they arent at any disadvantage. Outside Christ, all are dead in their trespasses and sins, all are in the flesh, children of Adam in desperate need of redemption. All, Jew and Gentile alike, must come to redemption through Christ, must partake in his death and resurrection. Pauls saying that the Jewish people arent rejected, that God hasnt forgotten about them; as their disobedience before Christ resulted in the cross and resurrection bringing mercy to the Gentiles, so the mercy God gives Gentiles serve to make disobedient Israel jealous so that she comes to embrace Gods mercy. This isnt some end-time event but

something happening now as Jews enter the covenant, by grace and through faith. Throughout Romans 9-11 Paul tells us how God has been faithful to his covenant, is being faithful to his covenant, and will be faithful to his covenant. Bringing this all together, the doxology at the end of Romans 11 (vv.33-36) is more than fitting:

Oh, the depths of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

Israelites forgot what it meant to be chosen, what it meant to be elect. It wasnt about being personally chosen by God so that you could boast in covenant membership and feel better about yourself. God didnt choose them just because it brought him pleasure. Their choosing, their calling, was rooted in purpose, a purpose that went beyond them to the wider world. Christians, who are elect, can learn from this: we are chosen by God not for our own sakes, not even solely for Gods sake, but for the sake of the wider world.

You might also like