Professional Documents
Culture Documents
RELATED ISSUES
A. It is often mentioned by commentators that in Romans 9-11 Paul is dealing with
the relationship of the church and Israel, or Israel’s reconciliation with the church. Such
a view, however, is anachronistic and reflects our agenda now that Israel and the church
have, in fact, gone their separate ways. Strictly speaking, the chapters discuss the
interrelationship of the Jewish and Gentile peoples in God’s community, the church.
Paul envisions the Messianic community as an extension of the covenantal promises of
Israel to the Gentiles. The new community is not seen as a displacement of Israel, nor as
an absorption of Israel into the church. Neither is Israel dichotomized from the church.
Thus both dispensationalism, which posits a fundamental division between Israel and
the church, and covenant theology, which merges the two by displacement or absorption
and dissolves the notion of peoplehood with its individualizing and spiritualizing
perspective, do not properly reflect Paul’s thought.
B. The previous paragraph, however, raises the question regarding the New
Testament perspective concerning Israel. Even though {26} this is a complex topic, 1 5 it is
extremely important to appreciate the diversity of the New Testament on this theme and
its historical setting. Paul speaks as an insider on behalf of Israel, and, of all New
Testament writers, is the most positive and the most passionately concerned with Israel.
Later writings 1 6 reflect a very different setting in which the church has become the
successor to Israel and is identified as the ‘New Israel’. The Christian community a few
years after Paul needed to articulate a new identity apart from Judaism. It was also
forced to react to Judaism’s negative evaluation and persecution of the church. In
addition, the growing Gentile church was not immune from anti-Jewish sentiments and
finally became what Paul feared might happen—a movement alienated from its source.
Finally, in the time of Barnabas (A.D. 130) and Justin Martyr (A.D. 150), the term
‘Israel’ was directly applied to the church and the church began to see itself as having
taken over the special privileges formerly ascribed to the people of Israel.
C. It must also be asked whether Paul’s bold assertions regarding the priority of
Israel and its eventual restoration are consistent with the proclamation of universal
salvation to all who believe, without regard for a distinction of peoples. Specifically, it
must be asked whether Paul in Romans 11 reintroduced an ethnic dimension into
Christianity which earlier had been dismissed outright. Paul himself is aware of such
ambiguities and tensions. In rabbinic fashion, he ends with a paradox grounded
ultimately in the grace of God: “. . . in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek and yet a
continued place for the Jewish people as such.” 1 7 P. Minear sums up the problem well:
What are we to believe? Was Paul’s position permeated with hopeless inconsistencies,
stemming from his emotional attachment to Israel? Or was his position based on logical
inferences from the gospel which both then and now defy partisan logic, whether by Jew
or Gentile? I believe the latter to be nearer the truth. But the fact that Paul has not been
able to convince even the best of modern scholarship of that truth should make us aware
that he faced even greater difficulties in convincing the deeply involved partisans in
Rome. 1 8
ROMANS 11 TODAY
Romans 11 has a very powerful and relevant message for us today. If one were to
preach from this text, three important points could be highlighted. (A) God is faithful to
his covenantal promises to all people(s)—even wayward people(s). God will never
rescind his merciful covenant loyalty and will never give up on people (s). But exactly
when {27} and how these promises will be realized is beyond our knowledge.
(B) Paul’s primary burden was not with eschatological speculation but with right
relationships between groups of people at odds with one another. Paul’s vision of God’s
future faithfulness to Israel is used specifically to deal with concrete crises in
relationships and not as an end in itself. The future hope of a broadening inclusion, as
opposed to a narrowing focus, becomes an argument in the present for harmony and
peace, and militates against conceit and prejudice.
In this light, it is also important to note Paul’s positive attitude, as a member of a
fringe group, toward the larger entity. Perhaps the Mennonite Brethren Church has
something to learn from this fact. Such a positive attitude does not mean that we
surrender our distinctives, but rather that we foster dialogue with the hope of eventual
solidarity with the larger people of God (or Mennonite brotherhood).
(C) The end takes the form of God’s mighty victory, in which his persistent mercy
will miraculously overcome human disobedience. While it is proper to affirm with Paul
that all Israel (and if all Israel, the fullness of the Gentile world) will be saved by a
mighty act of God in the end, any further speculation on eschatology is misplaced.
Unfortunately, in our day the Christian public voraciously consumes books on
speculative eschatology. These divert believers from the central focus of the gospel.
Romans 11 and the rest of the New Testament give no grounds for political support of
the present nation of Israel. Such concerns with the secular nation of Israel distract us
from the major truth that the end is essentially God’s mighty victory in which his
persistent mercy will miraculously overcome human disobedience.
O depth of wealth, wisdom, and knowledge in God!
How unsearchable his judgements,
how untraceable his ways!
Who knows the mind of the Lord?
Who has ever been his counselor?
Who has ever made a gift to him,
to receive a gift in return?
Source, Guide, and Goal of all this is—
to him be glory forever! Amen. (11:33-36 NEB)
REFERENCES
1. ‘People’ is singular in this essay, since it is conceptualized biblically as a corporate entity
and not as an aggregate of individuals.
2. This designation is used in order to avoid the historical bias that ‘Christian church’ might
imply and to stress the connection with or context within Judaism. We are talking about
communities of people who believe in Jesus as Messiah and Lord.
3. J. C. Beker, Paul the Apostle (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), p. 331. {28}
4. For similar reconstructions and the view that Romans was addressed to a specific situation
in Rome, see P. S. Minear, The Obedience of Faith (Naperville: Alec R. Allenson, Inc.,
1971); W. Wiefel, “The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman
Christianity,” K. P. Donfried, “False Presuppositions in the Study of Romans,” both in The
Romans Debate (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977); H. W. Bartsch, “The Historical Situation of
Romans,” Encounter 33(1972): 329-339; J. Wood, “The Purpose of Romans,” Evangelical
Quarterly 40(1968): 211-219; P. R. Williams, “Paul’s Purpose in Writing
Romans,” Bibliotheca Sacra 128(1971): 62-67; J. C. Beker, Paul the Apostle, pp. 59-61, 69-
71; E. Kasemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1980), pp. 402-
406.
5. G. Howard, “Romans 3:21-31 and the Inclusion of the Gentiles,” Harvard Theological
Review 63(1970):223-233.
6. ‘His people’ in 11:1 obviously refers to Israel ‘according to the flesh’ (9:3). The designation
‘people of God’ is reserved in Paul to refer to Israel. N. A. Dahl, “The Future of
Israel,” Studies in Paul (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977), p. 146; P. Richardson, Israel in the
Apostolic Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), pp. 70ff.
7. See the excellent article by W. D. Davies, “Paul and the People of Israel,” New Testament
Studies24(1977):4-39.
8. So W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans (New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1896), pp. 309ff., and others following them.
9. Lexical evidence and the context of this text would favor the translation ‘loss’ for apobole (v.
15) and ‘hostility’ for echthroi (v. 28).
10. It has been suggested that the ‘mystery’ refers to either Israel’s partial hardening, the
Gentile salvation, or Israel’s salvation. More likely, however, is the view, for example, of J. C.
Beker, Paul the Apostle, p. 334, that “the mystery is the surprising wavelike or undulating
dynamic of God’s salvation-history, the ‘interdependence’ of God’s dealings with Gentiles
and Jews.”
11. See P. Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church.
12. See A.M. Hunter, Paul and His Predecessors (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961), pp.
98-107; W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, p. 297.
13. The shift in the citation of Isa. 59:20-21 (conflated with Isa. 27:9) in v. 26 from ‘to’ (MT) or
‘for’ (Septuangint) to ‘from Zion’ (cf. Pss. 14:7; 53:6; 130:6-8), namely, the heavenly
Jerusalem, may imply a denial of physical geography as being important. Had Paul wanted
to stress the idea of land, he could have used Isa. 27:6 or 27:12-13 or some other prophetic
text that is explicit about the land.
14. According to E. Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957),
p. 140, Paul ‘deliberately’ used the Septuagint text here which stresses God’s activity in
faithfulness bringing to pass the removal of sin, in contrast to the Massoretic text which
stresses the people actualizing the right condition for the removal of sin. Whether
‘redeemer’ is to be identified with the Messiah or God himself is not clear.
15. For a full discussion, see P. Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church.
16. For example John, Matthew, Luke-Acts.
17. W. D. Davies, “Paul and the People of Israel,” p. 33.
18. P. Minear, The Obedience of Faith, p. 81.