Posted in Exposition

KING JOSIAH OF JUDAH in 2 Chronicles

READING: 2 Chronicles chapters 34-35

DIVISION

34:1-2 Opening Formula

34:3-5 Josiah’s religious purification of Jerusalem and Judah in his 12th regnal year

34:6-7 The extension of his activities to the northern tribal areas of Manasseh, Ephraim, Simeon, Naphtali, all Israel

34:8-18 Temple repairs and the finding of a torah scroll

34:19-28 Huldah’s oracle

34:29-32 Covenant-making

34:33 A summary verse

35:1-19 The Passover Celebration

35:20-27 The Death of King Josiah

THE JOSIAH ACCOUNT IN 2 CHRONICLES 34-35

34:1-2 Opening Formula

As in 2 Kings this introductory formula introduces the king and profiles his reign. Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign and the length of his reign was thirty-one years (640-609 BCE). He is commended for doing what was right in the sight of YHWH and like 2 Kgs 22:2 his name is linked with that of his ancestor David. The opening formula in 2 Kings gives us three facts; 1) his age at accession 2) the number of years he reigned 3) his mother’s name. The latter piece of information is not mentioned by the Chronicler. In both 2 Kings 22:2 and 2 Chron 34:2 Josiah is said to have deviated ‘neither to the right hand, nor to the left.’ Both formulae therefore immediately link Josiah to the book of Deuteronomy, where it is said that the model king should make a copy of the torah and read it all his life so that ‘he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left.’

See my post: ‘King Josiah of Judah in 2 Kings

34:3-5 Josiah’s religious purification of Jerusalem and Judah in his 12th year

Unlike the Kings account which seems unconcerned with chronology and telescopes the main events of Josiah’s career into just one year (his eighteenth), the Chronicler is at pains to emphasize that his reforms were a step-by-step process. According to 2 Chronicles 34:3 he had a religious awakening during his eighth regnal year (633/2 BCE) while he was still young (about 16 years of age). It was then that he began to seek YHWH. It does not seem that his advisers, whoever they were, during the early part of his reign were concerned to guide him in the ways of the Lord. Presumably, for the first sixteen years of his life, those advising him were pro-Assyrian, and his religious policies would therefore have been similar to those pursued by his father Amon. We are not told why it took him four years of ‘seeking after’ the Lord before launching his campaign to rid the land of idolatry in the twelth year of his reign. 2 Kings has the purge initiated following the discovery of a torah scroll in the Temple in his eighteenth year (621 BCE). Here in 2 Chronicles the reforms begin in his twelth year – a full six years before the discovery of the law-book. This sequence of events is the most noticeable difference between the accounts of 2 Kgs 22-23 and 2 Chron 34-35.

In his twelth year (c. 628 BCE), at age twenty, he began a purge aimed at ridding Judah and Jerusalem of the high places, the groves, the carved idols and the cast images and restoring the pure worship of YHWH. Verses 3b-5 give a fuller explanation of what he did in Jerusalem and Judah. He personally supervised the destruction of places of idolatry, of the images themselves and of objects related to their worship. The high places must have been those which his grandfather Manasseh had rebuilt but at which the people only sacrificed to YHWH (33:3, 17). Verse 4 clearly states that the altars of the Baals were destroyed by him and that, as part of the same event, so were the images that were located high above them. It is not clear what these images were, possibly they had something to do with sun worship. The Chronicler does not record him purging the Jerusalem Temple, this had already been done by Manasseh ( 33:15-16). The purification of the temple mentioned in v. 8 would have been to sanctify it again through rituals after the completion of restoration works.

Verses 4b and 5 tell us that Josiah desecrated the graves of the idolatrous priests and burned their bones upon their altars. This was a crime for which the prophet Amos had denounced the king of Moab (Amos 2:1), yet the Chronicler passes no comment upon it. (cp. another passage about the disrespectful treatment of bones Jer 8:1-3). Perhaps this was seen as posthumous punishment for the idolaters, cremation being the punishment meted out to those regarded as false priests in Num16:35. Cremation is also prescribed as a punishment in Lev 20:14; 21:9 and Josh 7:25.

34:6-7 The extension of Josiah’s activities to the northern tribal areas of Manasseh, Ephraim, Simeon, Naphtali, all Israel

Taking advantage of Assyrian weakness at that time Josiah extended his campaign against idolatry into the territory that had been the Northern kingdom of Israel but was then part of the Assyrian empire. Although the Bible says little about his military exploits Josiah must have been strong enough to act independently and recover this territory from Assyrian control. The religious purge he conducted there was just as thorough as that in Judah:

‘In the towns of Manasseh, Ephraim and Simeon, as far as Naphtali, and in the ruins around them, he tore down the altars and the Asherah poles and crushed the idols to powder and cut to pieces all the incense altars throughout Israel. Then he went back to Jerusalem.’ 2 Chron 34:6-7 (NIV)

Thus Josiah set out on a personal, fanatical crusade against idolatry which, as clarified in 2 Kings 23:4-20, was implemented in three stages; 1) Judah and Jerusalem 2) Bethel 3) the towns of Samaria. Apart from the plural subject (they) at the beginning of v.4, the Chronicler, in 34:3-7, portrays Josiah himself as the one who toured the country systematically demolishing and burning;

he began to purge, he cut down, he broke..made dust, strewed, he burnt, so did he, when he had broken.’

2 Chron 34:4 and 2 Kgs 23:16 actually place him on site supervising the destruction.

34:8-18 Temple repairs and the finding of a torah scroll

The Chronicler comes now to the eighteenth year of Josiah which features so prominently in the 2 Kings account of his reign and relates the story of the finding of ‘a book of the law of the Lord given by Moses’ during restoration work on the Temple. Before this work by Josiah there seems to have been few changes made to the Temple since its construction by Solomon more than three hundred years earlier except;

* Some repairs by King Jehoash (2 Kgs 12:5-17).

* King Jotham built the upper gate of the temple (2 Kgs 15:35)

* King Ahaz made some structural changes on account of the king of Assyria (2 Kgs 16:17-18)

When money that had been given by people visiting the temple was brought out Hilkiah the priest found the law-book. This money appears to have been collected in large collection chests situated near the altar and watched over (2 Kgs 12:10; 22:4) by the ‘keepers of the threshold’ (Levites stationed at the door). Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan the scribe who told Josiah about it while reporting on the finances of the Temple restoration project. Shaphan then read ‘out of it’ to the king who was greatly affected by what he heard and instructed a committee to inquire of the Lord concerning the book.

34:19-28 Huldah’s oracle and 34:29-32 Covenant-making

For comments on the above topics see my post: ‘King Josiah of Judah in 2 Kings

34:33 A summary verse

This verse emphasizes the role of the king in the religious purges and emphasizes that he ‘made’ the people serve the Lord. Compelled by Josiah, the commitment of the people to YHWH was superficial, there had been no inner change; they were still idolators at heart. Is it any wonder that his reforms had no permanent results, but died along with him? The Chronicler adds a comment of his own: ‘And all his days they departed not from following the Lord, the God of their fathers.’ There was no open idolatry for the rest of Josiah’s reign.

35:1-19 The Passover Celebration see also 1 Esdras 1:1-22

This Passover celebration, expressing renewed commitment to YHWH, is given prominence in the Chronicles account whereas it is mentioned but briefly in 2 Kings 23:21-23. Prior to this families would have observed the Passover in their own homes. This Passover, however was a public celebration in Jerusalem (35:1), in accordance with Deut 16:1-5. According to the Chronicler, there had never been a Passover like it (35:18). Much the same was said of Hezekiah’s Passover (2 Chron 30:26). From v.1 we learn that Josiah held it on the 14th day of the first month (Nisan). That was the correct date; Hezekiah’s celebration had been held a month later, on the 14th of the second month (2 Chron 30:15), and had lasted for two weeks rather than one (2 Chron 30:23).

By way of preparation for the great Passover Josiah set in motion the Temple service. For some reason he had to ‘urge’ the priests to take up their duties. He also organised the Levites, changing their responsibilities since they no longer carried the ark, see point a). They were to assist the priests in the Temple worship and in flaying the sacrificial animals. They are identified in v. 3 as teachers in Israel, a role formerly fulfilled by the priests (Jer 18:18; Hos 4:6) The obligations of the Levites are listed as:

a) To take the Ark of the Covenant back to its place in the Temple (35:3). It must have been stored elsewhere while the renovations were ongoing. It would no longer be a burden upon their shoulders i.e. its location in the Temple would be permanent so other duties would be allocated to them (35:11).

b) To serve the Lord their God and his people Israel (35:3).

c) To arrange themselves by families into divisions as appointed and decreed by David and Solomon (35:4)

d) To stand in the holy place in groups representing the subdivisions of each family(35:5)

e) To slaughter the Passover lambs (35:6)

f) To consecrate themselves (35:6)

g) To prepare the lambs for their fellow-Israelites (35:6).

THE SACRIFICIAL ANIMALS

The king, representing the nation and as the leading worshipper of YHWH, the national God, was the major supplier of animals for sacrifice. For this Passover he is said to have contributed 30,000 flock animals (lambs and kids) and 3000 bullocks.

2600 small animals and 300 oxen were willingly supplied by three men ( Hilkiah, Zechariah, Jehiel) who, all at the one time, shared the title ‘chief of the Temple.’ In other references to this position only one official bore the title (1 Chron 9:11; 2 Chron 31:13; Neh 11;11).

Other chiefs (named in v.9) donated 5000 small animals and 500 oxen. The sacrificial victims therefore numbered 41,400; 37,600 small animals and 3800 large animals.

35:10-19 With the priests and Levites in appointed stations the Passover began. The Levites slaughtered the sacrificial animals and passed the blood on to the priests who sprinkled it upon the altar. As this was a public Passover the blood could not be sprinkled on the side posts and upper door posts of family homes (Ex 12:7). The Levites butchered the cattle and prepared the pieces for the burnt offerings. They also roasted the Passover and boiled the consecrated offerings – distributing the cooked meat among the people. Since the priests were busy with the burnt offerings they and the Levites did not partake until later. The musicians and doorkeepers (Temple security) participated without having to leave their posts. Th Chronicler gives an extravagantly positive assessment of the occasion saying that there was never a Passover like it.

It is interesting to read, compare and contrast the major biblical Passovers:

1. In Egypt – at the Exodus. Exod 12;1-51

2. At Sinai. Num 9:1-5

3. In Canaan. Josh 5:10-12

4. Hezekiah’s Passover. 2 Chron 30:1-27

5. Josiah’s Passover 2 Kgs 23:21-23; 2 Chron 35:1-19

6. After the return from exile. Ezra 6:19-21

35:20-27 The Death of King Josiah

We are told nothing about the final thirteen years of King Josiah’s life. His death as a result of a confrontation with Pharaoh Neco at Megiddo is recorded. He was buried in one of the royal tombs and mourned by all Judah and Jerusalem, including the prophet Jeremiah who wrote a lament for him. In 2 Chronicles Jeremiah is mentioned here (35;25) and also in 36:12, 22, and 22. We know from an oracle pronounced against Shallum (Jehoahaz), a son of Josiah, that Jeremiah considered Josiah to be a just man:

‘Shalt thou reign, because thou closest thyself in cedar? did not thy father eat and drink, and do judgment and justice, and then it was well with him? He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well with him: was not this to know me? saith the LORD.’ Jer 22:15-16

See my posts:

King Josiah of Judah in 2 Kings

The Death of King Josiah of Judah

King Josiah of Judah – Bibliography

Posted in Exposition

1 PETER – OUTLINE

1 PETER  – CHRISTIAN HOPE IN TIME OF TRIAL.

OUTLINE OF FIRST PETER


CHAPTER 1


1: 1-2Greeting


1:3-9The work of salvation


1:10-12The witness of revelation


1:13-25The holy life – ‘gird up’



CHAPTER 2


2: 1-3The holy life – ‘grow up’


2:4-12The chosen stone and a chosen generation


2:13-17Submission to government


2:18-25Submission at work



CHAPTER 3


3:1-7Submission in the home


3:8-12Principles of godly living


3:13-22Suffering for righteousness’ sake



CHAPTER 4


4:1-6Suffering as Christ suffered


4:7-19Suffering as a Christian



CHAPTER 5


5:1-4Exhortation to elders


5:5-7Exhortation to laity


5:8-11A warning about the adversary


5: 12-14Farewell and personal greetings

1 PETER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1 PETER – INTRODUCTION

1 PETER 1:1-2 – COMMENTS

1 PETER – 1:3-12 – COMMENTS

1 PETER 1:13 – 2:3 – COMMENTS

1 PETER 2:4-10 – COMMENTS

1 PETER 2:11-17 – COMMENTS

1 PETER 2:18-25 – COMMENTS

1 PETER 3:1-12 – COMMENTS

1 PETER 3:13-17 – COMMENTS

1 PETER 3:18-22 THE SPIRITS IN PRISON

1 PETER 4:1-6 THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THE DEAD

1 PETER 4:7-19 LIVING WITH ‘THE END’ IN VIEW

1 PETER 5:1-4 – EXHORTATION TO ELDERS

1 PETER 5:5-14 – CLOSING WORDS

Posted in Exposition

(3) THE PRESBYTER-BISHOP IN THE PASTORAL EPISTLES – CONCLUSION AND  BIBLIOGRAPHY

SUMMATION

What is most striking about the qualifications for a presbyter-bishop in 1 Timothy and Titus is their simplicity. They are not vocational qualifications; formal training or academic attainment are not required. One would expect the characteristics to be true of any Christian; apart from the exceptions that a presbyter-bishop must be male, able to teach and not be a recent convert. Both lists begin with the qualifications of being ‘blameless’ and ‘the husband of one wife’ but the remainder seem to be in no set order.

They encompass the presbyter-bishop’s personal situation (able to teach, not a recent convert, a good reputation with outsiders), his family set-up (husband of one wife, managing own household well, having faithful children) and and also moral characteristics which are listed both positively and negatively. A suitable candidate will be never be perfect but these characteristics prove that his life is marked by self-control and by moral and spiritual integrity.

RESPECTING PRESBYTER-BISHOPS

‘The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honour’

According to 1Tim 5:17 church members are to count presbyter-bishops who discharge their responsibilities well as worthy of respect. ‘Honour’ does not necessarily include remuneration (1 Tim 6:1) but the use of the cognate verb in verse 3 and the scripture quotations in v 18 make it clear that Paul had economic assistance in mind rather than just verbal appreciation. ‘Double’ does not indicate a salary scale based on how well an elder performs but rather suggests that an elder has double honour when the respect due to his position is supplemented by the added respect he receives for faithful service.

PROTECTING AND DISCIPLINING PRESBYTER-BISHOPS

Having mentioned those who manage well Paul then contemplates the possibility that some will fail in their duties. He is careful to ensure that presbyter-bishops are protected from false accusations, and insists (1 Tim 5:19) that the Old Testament standard of justice must be applied. Charges must not be entertained unless supported by at least two witnesses. Verse 20 states that ‘those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.’ This is generally understood to refer to sinning elders who are to be ‘rebuked before all’, presumably in the presence of the entire congregation rather than before all the other elders. However, I am inclined to the view that ‘those who are sinning’ refers not only to elders but equally also to those who persist in levelling unsubstantiated false charges against an elder and who must be publicly exposed as a result.

CONCLUSION

In the New Testament the terms presbuteros (elder) and episkopos (bishop) are used interchangeably and can refer to the same person. ‘Presbyter’ laid emphasis on the dignity of the office, ‘bishop’ on the duties. A plurality of presbyter-bishops was the norm in every church. Presbyter-bishops are important for the proper ordering of congregations (Titus 1:5) and fulfil an important role in the administration of church affairs, in teaching, in discipline and in guarding against false doctrine. The qualifications prescribed for presbyter-bishops in 1 Timothy and Titus indicate that they are to be an example to the congregation in their home, in their relationships, and in their personal conduct. They must be above reproach; in everything displaying self-control and highly regarded by unbelievers. Men like this in church leadership are a valuable asset to a Christian assembly and essential to its spiritual health.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen J. 1983, ‘1 Timothy’ in What the Bible Teaches, John Ritchie Ltd. Kilmarnock

Beckwith R. 2003, Elders in Every City; The Origin and Role of the Ordained Ministry, Paternoster Press

Brown R E. 1984, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind, Paulist Press

Campbell R. A. 2004, Elders: Seniority Within Earliest Christianity, Continuum International

Eyres L.A. 1975, The Elders of the Church, P&R Publishing, Phillipsburg

Getz G. A. 2003, Elders and Leaders: God’s Plan for Leading the Church, Moody Publishers, Chicago

Hammett, J.S. 2005, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology, Kregel Academic, Grand Rapids

Helyer L. A. 2002, Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period: A Guide for New Testament Students, InterVarsity Press

Hendriksen W. (1957) 2007, ‘Thessalonians, the Pastorals and Hebrews’ in the New Testament Commentary, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids

Hiebert, D. E. 1957, First Timothy in the Everyman’s Bible Commentary, Moody Press, Chicago

Hopko, T. 1999, Women and the Priesthood, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press

Knight G. W. 1992, The Pastoral Epistles in The New International Greek Testament Commentary, Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids

Lacey, N. 1985, God’s Plan for The Local Church, Grace Publications, London

Marshall I H. 1999, The Pastoral Epistles in the International Critical Commentary, T & T Clark

Merkle, B L. 2008, 40 Questions About Elders and Deacons, Kregel Academic, Grand Rapids

Mounce, W D. 2000, Pastoral Epistles in Word Biblical Commentary, Thomas Nelson Inc.

Nichols, T L. 1997, That All May Be One: Hierarchy and Participation in the Church, Liturgical Press

Ramsay, W. M. (1909) 1966 Historical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids

Strauch A. 1995, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, Lewis and Roth Publishers, Colorado Springs

West D.E. 1983, ‘Titus’ in What the Bible Teaches, John Ritchie Ltd. Kilmarnock

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Köstenberger A. J. 2003, ‘Hermeneutical and Exegetical Challenges in Interpreting the Pastoral Epistles’, The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Vol. 7, No. 3

Köstenberger A. J. 2006, ‘The New Testament Pattern of Church Government’, Midwestern Journal of Theology, Vol. 4, No. 2

Harvey A. E. 1982, ‘”The Workman is Worthy of His Hire”: Fortunes of a Proverb in the Early Church’, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 24, No. 3

Mappes D. A. 1997, ‘The “Elder” in the Old and New Testaments’, Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 154, No. 613

Mappes D. A. 1997, ‘The New Testament Elder, Overseer and Pastor’, Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 154, No. 614

Mappes D. A. 1997, ‘The Discipline of a Sinning Elder’, Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 154, No. 615

Mappes D. A. 1997, ‘The “Laying on of Hands” of Elders,’ Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 154, No. 616

Mappes D. A. 1999, ‘The Heresy Paul Opposed in 1 Timothy,’ Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 156, No. 624

Posted in Exposition

(2) THE PRESBYTER-BISHOP IN THE PASTORAL EPISTLES – QUALIFICATIONS

This post sets out the eight characteristics of a presbyter-bishop that are listed in both 1 Timothy and Titus, the seven characteristics unique to 1 Timothy and the seven unique to Titus.

QUALIFICATIONSIN 1 TIMOTHY3: 2-7



KJVNIVGREEK WORD



BlamelessAbove reproachanepileptos
Husband of one wifeFaithful to his wifeun andra
VigilantTemperatenephaleos
SoberSelf-controlledsophron
Of good behaviourRespectablekosmios
Given to hospitalityHospitablephiloxenos
Apt to teachAble to teachdidactikos
Not given to wineNot given to drunkennessparoinos
No strikerNot violentplektes
Not greedy of filthy lucren/aaphilargyros
PatientGentleepieikes
Not a brawlerNot quarrelsomeamachos
Not covetousNot a lover of moneyaphilargyros
Ruleth well his own houseManage his own family well
Not a noviceNot a recent convertneophitos
Have a good reportA good reputationmarturia

QUALIFICATIONSIN TITUS 1: 6-9



KJVNIVGREEK WORD



Blameless v6 & v7Above reproachanegkletos
Husband of one wifeFaithful to his wifeun andra
Having faithful childrenWhose children believe
Not selfwilledNot overbearingauthades
Not soon angryNot quick-temperedorgilos
Not given to wineNot given to drunkennessparoinos
No strikerNot violentplektes
Not given to filthy lucreNot pursuing dishonest gainaischrokerdes
A lover of hospitalityHospitablephiloxenos
A lover of good menOne who loves what is goodphilagathos
SoberSelf-controlledsophron
JustUprightdikaios
HolyHolyhosios
TemperateDisciplinedegkrate
Holding fast the faithful wordHold firmly to the trustworthy message

EIGHT CHARACTERISTICS IN BOTH 1 TIMOTHY AND TITUS

1) ‘Above reproach’ (anepileptos) 1 Tim 3:2 ‘Blameless’ (anegketos) Titus 1:6

This is a general qualification meaning that the candidate has a good reputation because his character and conduct are free from moral or spiritual accusations. Most commentators describe this qualification as ‘overarching’ or ‘all-embracing’.

2) ‘Husband of one wife’ (un andra) 1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:6

In both 1 Timothy and Titus Paul places ‘husband of one wife’ second in the list of qualifications and uses the expression three other times in the Pastoral Epistles (once in reverse, ‘wife of one man’); 1 Tim 3:2, 12, 1Tim 5:9, Titus 1:6. Exactly what he meant by this is unclear but the four main interpretations of this requirement are as follows:

a) A presbyter-bishop must be married.

This interpretation would seem to contradict the teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 regarding the advantages of singleness in the service of the Lord and it therefore seems unlikely that the apostle is insisting that a presbyter-bishop must be a man who has a wife.

b) A presbyter-bishop must be a man who marries only once. Some have taught that it means that a widowed presbyter-bishop cannot remarry and others that he cannot be divorced and remarry. Towner, quoted by Strauch (1995 p192), says: ‘the point is not how often one can be married, nor precisely what constitutes a legitimate marriage … but rather how one conducts himself in his marriage.’

c) A presbyter-bishop must be monogamous.

Some have argued that Paul’s intention was to prohibit polygamy but according to Mounce (2000, p171) there is no evidence that polygamy was practised among Christians at this time and he points out that assuming that the same interpretation holds true in reverse (when applied to widows, ‘the wife of one man’ 1 Tim 5:9) then there is certainly no evidence of polyandry.

d) A presbyter-bishop must be faithful in the marital realm.

According to this interpretation the apostle Paul was dealing with moral purity and emphasizing faithful, monogamous marriage. This represents a positive statement that a man who has the reputation of being faithful to his wife can be trusted in other areas of life that require integrity and honesty. A presbyter-bishop who has an exclusive relationship with his wife is therefore seen as a suitable candidate for oversight and is deemed to be ‘above reproach.’

3) ‘Managing own family well’ 1 Tim 3:4-5 ‘Having faithful children’ Titus 1:6

The apostle Paul here saw a parallel between the family and the church. He reckoned that a man’s ability to lead and control his family was an accurate indication of his ability to relate to and lead others in the church. One might ask if, as a result of these requirements relating to the family situation, was it considered necessary for a candidate to have more than one child and also for those children to be professing believers?

Just as it is unlikely that a presbyter-bishop had to have a wife, so it follows that an overseer was not required to have a family. If an overseer was married, he was to be faithful to that one woman. If an overseer had a family, then the behaviour of the children was taken into account when assessing his ability to lead the church.

Regarding the question of the children being believers the discussion hinges on the translation of pistos in Titus 1:6 (‘having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly’) which, according to Strauch (1995, p229) ‘can be translated either actively as “believing” (1 Tim 6:2) or passively as “faithful,” “trustworthy,” or “dutiful” (2 Tim 2:2).’ Merkle (2008, p132-133) concedes that the meaning is ambiguous but favours its translation as “faithful” for the following reasons:

a) The words “not accused of riot or unruly” qualify the type of faithfulness that the writer had in mind. ‘Paul is referring to the behavior of the child (“faithful”), not to the status of the child (“believing”).’

b) In view of the fact that the church in Ephesus was longer established and more mature than the church in Crete would Paul have placed a ‘more restrictive burden on the less mature church?’ Is it likely that he would have required a presbyter-bishop in Crete to have children who believed but those in Ephesus to have children who were just to “be in subjection” (1 Tim 3:4)?

c) The view that all of an elder’s children must be professing believers raises more questions than it answers. What if a child is not old enough to understand the gospel and believe? Does the father have to wait? What if one child out of several does not believe? Does that disqualify the father from serving as a presbyter-bishop?

d) The general teaching of the Bible is that salvation is of the Lord and not by any human effort. For example: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9) It is the responsibility of Christian parents to bring up children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4) but there have been many good parents who have done so only to see their children reject their teaching and take a different direction. The apostle Paul would not have required of a father something over which he had no control.

Getz (2003, p169) understands this requirement, especially the words “not accused of riot or unruly”, to refer, not to small children or adolescents, but to grown-up older children who, even though they might have rejected Christianity, would not have embraced the pagan lifestyle but lived moral and upright lives as a result of the good upbringing and influence of their father. He bases this on the use of the word teknon (child) which elsewhere in the Pastoral Epistles refers to grown children. He quotes 1 Timothy 5:4, where the reference is to children who ought to be caring for a widowed mother. Knight (1992, p161) discusses this but concludes that the qualification ‘in subjection’ (1 Tim 3:4) ‘indicates that the “children” in view are those under authority and therefore those not yet of age’.

The arguments put forward by Merkle are very convincing but Getz’s interpretation is interesting and merits consideration.

4) “Self-controlled” (sophron) 1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:8

This word means “sound in mind” and can also be translated sober, sensible, prudent or discreet. As church leaders are sometimes called upon to make difficult decisions discretion is a vital attribute when handling people and problems.

5) “Hospitable” (philoxenos) 1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:8

The presbyter-bishop’s home must be open to believers so that he can more easily build relationships and minister to their spiritual needs.

6) “Not a drunkard” (paroinos) 1 Tim 3:3; Titus 1:7

This is a negative qualification which relates to the abuse of alcohol. It disqualifies from church oversight anyone addicted to alcohol (or, by extension, other substances) as that would indicate a lack of self-control. A presbyter-bishop with a “drink problem” would be a stumbling block to others and bring the assembly into disrepute.

7) “Not violent” (plektes) 1 Tim 3:3, Titus 1:7

A presbyter-bishop must not be prone to verbal or physical assault on other people but must be able to handle church tensions and interpersonal conflicts calmly.

8) “Not a lover of money” (aphilargyros) 1 Tim 3:3, “Not pursuing dishonest gain” (aischrokerdes) Titus 1:7

Someone who would be prepared to use his position for personal profit is unfit for oversight. Leaders would most likely have access to assembly funds and must therefore be trustworthy in financial matters.

SEVEN CHARACTERISTICS UNIQUE TO 1 TIMOTHY

1 ) “Temperate” (nephaleos) 3:2

This can refer to temperance in the use of alcoholic drinks but here it probably refers to mental sobriety. The presbyter-bishop must be clear in his thinking and alert to issues relating to spirituality and morality.

2) “Respectable” (kosmios) 3:2

This word suggests proper behaviour and orderliness.

3) “Able to teach” (didactikos) 3:2

This word is used only here and in 2 Timothy 2:24 in Paul’s writings. One who meets this requirement would not only know the scriptures but also have the ability to communicate them effectively.

4) “Gentle” (epieikes) 3:3

Mounce (2000, p176) quotes Hawthorne who says that ‘it is one of the truly great Greek words that is almost untranslatable.’ It suggests someone who is fair, reasonable and who does not always demand his full rights.

5 ) “Not quarrelsome” (amachos) 3:3

This describes someone who will not involve himself in heated arguments and petty disputes.

6) “Not a recent convert” (neophitos) 3:6

Christians need time to learn and mature before undertaking leadership responsibilities. Paul says that someone appointed prematurely to a leadership role is likely to succumb to the sin of pride, as did Satan.

7) “Having a good reputation” (marturia) 3:7

The list of requirements for bishops in 1 Timothy 3 began with the need for a good reputation among believers (above reproach) and it now ends with the need for a good reputation among unbelievers.

SEVEN CHARACTERISTICS UNIQUE TO TITUS

1) “Not overbearing” (authades) 1:7

The presbyter-bishop must not be arrogant. He must not push his personal agenda or advance his own views, preferences and policies.

2) “Not quick-tempered” (orgilos) 1:7

A quick-tempered man is likely to have problems with self-control.

3) “Loves what is good” (philagathos) 1:8

Marshall (1999, P163) translates this as ‘loving what is good’ or ‘loving good people’. A person’s friends and associates are a good indicator of his character and interests.

4) “Just” (dikaios) 1:8

This characteristic involves fairness in dealings with others.

5) “Holy” (hosios) 1:8

A presbyter-bishop must be devoted to the Lord and his work.

6) “Disciplined” (egkrate) 1:8

This word again emphasizes the necessity for self-control.

7) “Holding firmly to the trustworthy message” 1:9

This final requirement in Titus fits the candidate to carry out the two main functions of eldership which are stated in the same verse: ‘so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.’

Posted in Exposition

(1) THE PRESBYTER-BISHOP IN THE PASTORAL EPISTLES – INTRODUCTION

A local church is not just any gathering of Christians but a group of people (1) who meet recognising Christ as the authoritative Head of the church and (2) whose main aim to please God. It is not therefore free to organise itself as it pleases but must follow the biblical pattern: its membership must be recognised, regenerate, subject to discipline and have authorised leaders. When discussing church polity (government), we are speaking of the roles, duties and qualifications of those in leadership positions. This article focuses on one of the New Testament leadership groups, that of Presbyter-Bishop, as seen in the Pastoral Epistles.

THE PASTORAL EPISTLES

The term ‘Pastoral Epistles’ designates three New Testament letters; 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Although addressed to individuals, they are much more than personal, private letters since they deal with matters of church government. This article is written from a conservative perspective and assumes that the three letters are by the Apostle Paul and addressed to the historical Timothy and Titus. They were his co-workers whom he had left in Ephesus and Crete for a limited period in order to carry out some tasks (1 Tim 1:3, 6:20, 2 Tim 4:13, 21 and Titus 1:5, 3:12). All three letters are characterised by two main concerns that are identified by Knight (1992, p.10):

(1) ‘Paul warns Timothy and Titus about a false teaching and exhorts them to stand against it;

(2) Paul gives instructions to the Christians of Ephesus and Crete, through Timothy and Titus, concerning their conduct and church life. In 1 Timothy and Titus the latter includes instructions as to what sort of men are to be appointed to church leadership (1 Tim 3:1- 13; Tit 1:5-9; cf. 2 Tim 2:2).’

The requirements relating to appointment to church leadership in Ephesus and Crete are similar, yet the circumstances differ. In Ephesus, overseers already existed (Acts 20:17) and Timothy was to add to their number. Titus was to ensure that elders were appointed in Crete.

PROBLEMS IN THE CHURCHES

EPHESUS

By the time Paul made his third visit to Ephesus (cf. Acts 18-20) the church had become influenced by false teachers. His reaction was to excommunicate two of them (1 Tim 1:20) and then move on into Macedonia leaving Timothy to correct the error and help the church. Paul then wrote Timothy an authoritative letter (1 Timothy) explaining how he was to discharge his duties, how to deal with false teachers and outlining how the assembly was to conduct itself as the ‘household of God.’ Essential to this conduct was the quality, reputation and behaviour of its spiritual leaders.

The Ephesian church had already been governed by elders for some years but there were problems. Some had become false teachers and those who had not done so had failed to counteract the false doctrine and its effect. Paul therefore addressed the spiritual, moral and personal qualifications of presbyter-bishops in his letter to Timothy.

CRETE

It is unclear if Paul had previously planted churches on the island of Crete or if they had been established before he arrived but it seems that in either case no elders had been appointed. Therefore, on leaving Crete, Paul left Titus behind temporarily to ensure that elders were appointed. Paul also wrote to Titus authorising him to ‘straighten out what was left unfinished’ (Tit 1:5) in every church.

That Paul should leave Timothy and Titus behind in order to temporarily administer the churches shows his commitment to the establishment of good leadership and gives us a glimpse into the management and actual situation in the early churches.


BACKGROUND OF “ELDER” AND “OVERSEER”

presbuteros

It is important to attempt to understand the origin and usage of the terms presbyter and bishop. According to Merkle (2008, p.61-63) the term for elder (zaqen) in the Old Testament refers either to someone who has entered old age or to a community leader who carries out various functions. It usually occurs in the plural referring to a collective body. Merkle identifies three roles in which the elders of Israel functioned they served the nation.

1. They were a representative body which represented the people in religious or political activities.

2. After the exile, they were, along with the governor, the ruling body in Jerusalem (Ezra 5:5, 6:7, 14).

3. They had a judicial function (Deuteronomy 19:12, 21:3, 22:15). The translators of the Septuagint preferred the Greek word presbuteros to translate zaqen, using it 127 times out of 184.

In the Gospels presbuteros usually refers to the chief priests or scribes whom Jesus encountered but in Acts presbuteros refers not only to the Jewish leaders but also to the Christian elders. The latter designation first occurs in Acts 11:30 with no explanation of the new use of the term given by the author.

According to Mappes (1997, Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 154, No. 613, p.88) scholars such as Lightfoot argued that this absence of definition ‘was because of the counterpart of elders in synagogues’. Mappes agrees that church eldership was based on eldership in synagogues but points out that there is disagreement among scholars on the similarities between the two and notes the ‘paucity of information regarding the synagogue elder’. On the basis that it is known that synagogue elders functioned as a ‘collegium’, that they were responsible for the well-being of the people, that they had authority and were responsible for the care and communication of the scriptures he concludes that ‘while the synagogal eldership did influence church eldership, the influence was of a general nature.’

Campbell (2004, p.21f) argues that there is no difference between Christian elders and Jewish elders because in each case the designation is just a cultural reference to someone who was respected in the community. He notes that ‘Israelite society was tribal and patriarchal’ and that at each level (tribes, clans and families) leadership was given to the senior males whose functions were accordingly ‘deliberative, representative and judicial’. He emphasises (2004, p.25) that “elders” is a collective term for the leadership and that ‘the word “elder” never occurs in the singular, referring to an officeholder’.

episkopos

Regarding the origin of the term episkopos Mounce (2000, p.165) says that the issue is “shrouded in mystery”. Merkle (2008, p72), identifies three views of origin: as (1) the Old Testament (Isaiah 60:17b) (2) the Greek Societies, or (3) the Jewish mbaqqer (spiritual leader) of the Qumran community but again admits a ‘paucity of evidence.’ One must therefore conclude that how the title arose is uncertain.

ONE ROLE OR TWO?

In any discussion of New Testament church leadership the issue of terminology arises. In the Pastoral Epistles two terms are used; presbuteros (“elder”) and episkopos (“bishop”). Beckwith (2003, p.46ff), commenting on the appointment of presbyters by Paul and Barnabas in the first Gentile churches and referring to Paul’s meeting with the presbyters of Ephesus recorded in Acts chapter 20 says:

‘These are presbyters whom, in accordance with his policy, he had doubtless appointed himself on one of his visits to Ephesus earlier in his second missionary journey. It is here, in verse 28, that we first find presbyters called by their other name of episkopoi, bishops or overseers. Elsewhere in the New Testament, presbyters are referred to in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. 5:17, 19; Tit 1:5), in James 5:14 and in 1 Peter 5:1, and, by their other name of ‘bishops’, in the Pastoral Epistles again (1 Tim 3:1f; Tit 1:7) and in Philippians 1:1. As presbyters they taught, and as bishops they exercised oversight.’

Having pointed out that the two titles are interchangeable Beckwith henceforth refers to the Christian ‘Presbyter-Bishop’, an appropriate and convenient designation that is therefore used in the title and body of this paper.

The emphasis on this dual role of teaching and oversight in the Pastoral Epistles has led some to say that two separate offices are in view; one a ministry of teaching, the other a ministry of ruling. An early exponent of this viewpoint was Calvin (1548, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom.html) who wrote of 1 Timothy 5:17:

‘We may learn from this, that there were at that time two kinds of elders; for all were not ordained to teach. The words plainly mean, that there were some who “ruled well” and honourably, but who did not hold the office of teachers.’

The following reasons have been offered in support of this view:

1) In the Pastoral Epistles “bishop” is always in the singular, whereas (with the exception of 1 Tim 5:19) “the presbyters” is always in the plural.

2) The use of the definite article “(“the”) in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:7 (ton episkopon) suggests that one bishop is above the presbyters.

3) All bishops are responsible to teach (1 Tim 3:2, Tit 1:7) but not all presbyters have this responsibility (1 Tim 5:17).

4) It is unlikely that two separate terms would refer to the one office.

The following have been presented in support of the view that the two terms are synonymous:

1) That the terms are clearly used interchangeably may be demonstrated in three texts; Acts 20:17-19, Titus 1:5, 7, 1 Peter 5:1-2.

2) If presbyter and bishop are two separate offices one would expect Paul to give a list of qualifications for each. In 1 Timothy 1:3-7 and in Titus 1:7-9 the necessary qualifications for bishops are given but presbyters are also mentioned in 1 Timothy (5:17-25) and in Titus (1:5). If presbyter is a distinct office from bishop one would expect the qualifications for such to be clearly stated.

3) According to the Pastoral Epistles presbyters and bishops have the same functions; they both rule (manage) and teach. 1 Timothy 3:4-5 states that a bishop must rule his own household before he is fit to take care of the church. 1 Timothy 5:17 mentions presbyters who “rule well”. Similarly, in 1 Timothy 3:2 a bishop must be ‘apt to teach’ and 1 Timothy 5:17 refers to presbyters who ‘labour in preaching and teaching’.

4) Two distinct offices are not required in order to carry out different functions of
eldership/oversight.

On balance it seems more likely that the two terms represented the same office and that ‘elder’ has more the holder’s character in view, whereas ‘overseer’ his function. It is likely that at first the Christian Jewish assemblies favoured the term presbuteros and the Gentile congregations the term episkopos but that in the course of time both came to be used to describe the church leaders.

A PLURALITY OF PRESBYTER-BISHOPS

The New Testament does not legislate for a specific number of presbyter-bishops in any given congregation but it does clearly envisage a plurality of overseers in every local assembly (Acts 14:23, 15:22, 20:17, Philippians 1:1, James 5:14, 1 Peter 5:1). This was also true of the assemblies in Ephesus and Crete. In 1 Timothy 5:17 Paul refers to ‘the elders who direct the affairs of the church well’ and told Titus (1:5) to ‘appoint elders in every town as I directed you.’ “Elders” is plural and “in every town” is singular, thus indicating multiple elders serving each church on Crete. Plurality of leadership within even small assemblies makes good sense as it ensures accountability, mutual support and shared experience from qualified men.

A NOBLE TASK/DESIRING THE OFFICE

The apostle introduces his list of qualifications for ‘overseership’ in 1 Timothy with the formula ‘faithful is the saying’. ‘Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task’ (1 Timothy 3:1). This is one of five such sayings in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim1:15, 3:1, 4:9; 2 Tim 2:11; Titus 3:8).

‘Overseership’ or ‘the office of a bishop’(KJV) translates the Greek
word episcope and ‘it represents the position and function of an overseer’ (Strauch, 1995, p186).

‘Noble’ or ‘fine’ translates the word ‘kalos’ and has the idea of ‘excellent’ or ‘worthwhile’.

It is not known where the saying originated but it does suggest that there was a widespread view that oversight of a local assembly was a noble work. Paul is here commending the role of presbyter-bishop as significant and worthy of respect and appreciation on the part of the congregation. Such a fine work demanded a special type of person.

Paul’s requirements that a bishop be ‘the husband of one wife’ (1 Tim 3), and that a woman must not exercise authority in the church (1 Tim 2) make it clear that candidature for the role of presbyter-bishop was open only to males. Getz (2003, p123ff) argues that this is because Paul followed the “Household Model”, viewing the family as a prototype for the church. There was thus a strong emphasis on male leadership with a requirement for presbyter-bishops to be men who manage their own families well (1 Tim 3:4-5).

Paul is drawing an analogy between the role of husband and the role of elder. If a man displays incompetence in the management of his own children at home how would he be a suitable candidate for the additional challenges of leading the church? Just as a husband is to lead his wife and a father is to lead his family, so qualified presbyter-bishops are to lead the family of God; the local church.

Those qualified to undertake this ‘noble task’ would be obvious to all from ongoing evaluation of their life and work. This is the thrust of 1 Timothy 3:10, ‘And let these [deacons] also [like the overseers] first be tested’, of which Allen (1983, p.22) says: ‘Here it is not a period of probation or a formal examination….but a constant observation and scrutiny of the man and the work he is already doing.’

APPOINTING PRESBYTER-BISHOPS

The only verb in the Pastoral Epistles that conveys the idea of appointing is
kathistemi’ in Titus 1:5 where Titus is told to ‘appoint elders’ but this verse does not expand on the formalities surrounding the installation of presbyter-bishops. There appears to be no hint of ordination as we know it today although some understand ‘Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands’ in 1 Timothy 5:22 as referring to formal appointment to office rather than to restoration of the repentant offenders of verse 20.

Someone who aspired to the task of oversight (1 Tim 3:1) and matched the
qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 would have been publicly chosen either by the congregation or selected by the existing presbyter-bishops fulfilling their scriptural role in ‘managing’ the local church (1 Tim 3:5, 5:17).

Posted in General

ARE YOU READY?

No-one knows what lies ahead in 2021 but Christians need not be taken unawares. How prepared are we in the following areas? Are we:

I. READY TO ANSWER (1 Peter 3:15)

‘But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear’

II. READY TO PREACH (Romans 1:15)

‘So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.’

III. READY TO DISTRIBUTE (1 Timothy 6:17-18)

‘Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy: That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate:’

IV. READY TO SUFFER AND/OR DIE FOR THE LORD (Acts 21:13; 2 Tim 4:6 )

‘Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.’

‘For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.’

V. READY TO FEED THE FLOCK (1 Peter 5: 2)

‘Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof , not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;’

VII. READY FOR HEAVEN (Matthew 25:10)

‘the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.’

What know I of the coming year
Or what ’twill bring to me
Whether it’s close will find me here
Or in eternity?

Posted in Exposition

ROMANS 9-11 BIBLIOGRAPHY


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aageson, J. W. 1993, Written Also for Our Sake: Paul and the Art of Biblical Interpretation, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky

Achtemeir, P. J. 1985, Romans, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky

Barrett, C. K. 1957, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, A & C Black, London

Barth, K. 1968, The Epistle to the Romans, Oxford University Press US

Bateman, H. W. 1999, Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan

Bell, R. H. 1994, Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin & Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9-11, Coronet Books Inc., Philadelphia

Beker, J. C. 1980, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought, T & T Clark, Edinburgh

Bekken, P. J. 2007, The Word Is Near You: A Study of Deuteronomy 30:12-14 In Paul’s Letter to the Romans in a Jewish Context, Walter De Gruyter, Berlin

Blomberg, C. L. 2006, From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts through Revelation, B&H Academic, Nashville

Bloomfield, P. 2009, What the Bible Teaches about the Future, Evangelical Press, Carlisle

Borchert, G. L. & Mohrlang, R. 2007, Romans, Galatians (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary), Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Illinois

Brauch, M. T. 1989, Hard Sayings of Paul, Inter-Varsity Press, Nottingham

Bruce, F. F. 1963, Romans: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Press, Nottingham

Bruce, F.F. 2000, Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan

Bryan, C. 2000, A Preface to Romans: Notes on the Epistle in its Literary and Cultural Setting, Oxford University Press US, New York

Byrne, B. 1996, Romans, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota

Calvin, J. 1834, Commentary of the Epistle to the Romans, (trans. by Sibson. F), L. B. Seeley and Sons, London

Cranfield, C.E.B. 2002, Romans, a Shorter Commentary, Continuum International Publishing Group, London

Dahl, N. A. 1977, Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission, Augsburg Press, Minneapolis

Das, A. A. 2004, Paul and the Jews, Hendrickson Publishers, Massachusetts

Das, A. A. 2007, Solving the Romans Debate, Fortress Press, Minneapolis

Diprose, R. E. 2000, Israel and the Church – The Origin and Effects of Replacement Theology, Paternoster, Milton Keynes

Donaldson, T.L. 1997, Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World, Fortress Press, Minneapolis

Donfried, K.P. 2002, The Romans Debate, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts

Dunn, J. D.G. 1988, Romans 9-16, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, TN

Dunn, J. D.G. 1998, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, T & T Clark, Edinburgh

Edwards, J.R. 1992, Romans, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts

Ellis, P. F. 1982, Seven Pauline Letters, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota

Ellison, H. L. 1976, The Mystery of Israel, Paternoster Press, Exeter

Eveson, P. H. 1996, The Great Exchange: Justification by Faith Alone – in the Light of Recent Thought, Day One Publications, Epsom, Surrey

Fee, G. D. 1994, God’s Empowering presence: the Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul, Hendrickson Publishers, Massachusetts

Fee, G.D. 2007, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study, Hendrickson Publishers, Massachusetts

Fitzmyer, J. A. 1993, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary, Volume 33 of The Anchor Bible, Doubleday, New York

Fitzmyer, J.A. 2004, Spiritual Exercises Based on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan

Gadenz, P. T. 2009, Called from the Jews & from the Gentiles: Pauline Ecclesiology in Romans 9-11, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

Gorman, M. J. 2004, Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan

Greenman, J. P. 2005, Reading Romans Through The Centuries: From the Early Church to Karl Barth, Brazos Press, Grand Rapids

Guerra, A. J. 1995, Romans and the Apologetic Tradition: The Purpose, Genre and Audience of Paul’s Letter, Cambridge University Press

Haacker, K. 2003, The Theology of Paul’s letter to the Romans, Cambridge University Press

Hamerton-Kelly, R. G. 1991, Sacred Violence: Paul’s Hermeneutic of the Cross, Augsburg Fortress, Minneapolis

Harrington, D. J. 2001, The Church according to the New Testament: What the Wisdom and Witness of Early Christianity Teach us Today, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD

Hendriksen, W. 1981, Romans: 9-16, Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh

Hoeksema, H. 2002, Righteous By Faith Alone, Reformed Free Publishing Association, Michigan

Horner, B. E. 2007, Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged, B&H Academic, Nashville

Hübner, H. 1984, Law in Paul’s Thought, T & T Clark Ltd., Edinburgh

Hunter, A. M. 1955, The Epistle to the Romans, SCM Press, London

Käsemann, E. 1980, Commentary on Romans, SCM Press Ltd, London

Kreloff, S. A. 2006, God’s Plan For Israel – A Study of Romans 9-11, Kress Christian Publications, The Woodlands, Texas

Lloyd-Jones, D. M. 1999, Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 11 To God’s Glory, Banner of Truth, Edinburgh

Longenecker, R. N. 2011, Introducing Romans: Critical Concerns in Paul’s Most Famous Letter, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids

Marshal, I. H. 1969, Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away, Epworth Press, London

Moo, D. 1996, Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary on the New Testament Series, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids

Morris, L. 1988, The Epistle to the Romans, Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids

Mounce, R. H. 1995, Romans, in The New American Commentary, Broadman and Holman Publishers, Nashville, TN.

Munck, J. 1967, Christ & Israel: an Interpretation of Romans 9-11, Fortress Press, Minneapolis

Murray J. 1997, The Epistle to the Romans: the English Text With Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids

Nanos, M. D. 1996, The Mystery of Romans: the Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter, Fortress Press, Minneapolis

O’Brien, P. T. 1995, Gospel and Mission in the Writings of Paul: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis, Baker Books, Grand Rapids

Philip, J. 1987, The Power of God – An Exposition of Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Nicholas Gray Publishing, Glasgow

Piper, J. 1993, The Justification of God- An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23, Baker Books, Grand Rapids

Richards, E. R. 2004, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection, InterVarsity Press, Nottingham

Robertson, O. P. 2000, The Israel of God – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, P & R Publishing, New Jersey

Robinson, J. A. T. 1979, Wrestling With Romans, SCM Press, London

Sanders, E.P. 1977, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: a Comparison of Patterns of Religion, Fortress Press, Minneapolis

Schnabel, E .J. 2004, Paul and the Early Church, Vol.2 of Early Christian Mission, Intervarsity Press, Nottingham

Schnabel, E .J. 2008, Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods, Intervarsity Press, Nottingham

Schreiner, T. R. 1990, Interpreting the Pauline Epistles, Baker Books, Grand Rapids

Schreiner, T. R. 1993, The Law and its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law, Baker Books, Grand Rapids

Schreiner, T. R. 1998, Romans, Baker Books, Grand Rapids

Scott, J.M. 2001, Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives, BRILL, Leiden

Shedd, W. G. T. 1978, Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on Romans, Klock & Klock, Minneapolis

Smith, C. L. 2009, The Jews, Modern Israel and the New Supercessionism- Resources for Christians, King’s Divinity Press, Lampeter, UK

Song, C. 2004, Reading Romans as Diatribe, Peter Lang, New York

Stendahl, K. 1976, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, and Other Essays, Fortress Press, Minneapolis

Stott, J. 1994, Romans: God’s Good News for the World, Intervarsity Press, Nottingham

Stuhlmacher, P. 1994, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: a Commentary, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky

Thielman, F. 1989, From Plight to Solution: a Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul’s View of the Law in Galatians and Romans, Brill Archive, Leiden

Thiselton, A C. 2009, The Living Paul: An Introduction to the Apostle and His Thought, SPCK, London

Walters, J.C. 1993, Ethnic Issues in Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Changing Self-definitions in Earliest Roman Christianity, Trinity Press International, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Watson. F, 2007, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids

Wedderburn, A. J. M. 2004, Reasons for Romans, Continuum International
Publishing Group, London

Witherington, B. 1998, The Paul Quest: the Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus, Inter-Varsity Press, Westmont, Illinois

Witherington, B. 2004, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: a Socio-rhetorical Commentary, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids

Wright, N. T. 1991, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology, T & T Clark, Edinburgh

Wright, N. T. 1997, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?, Lion Publishing, Oxford

Wright, N. T. 2002, The Letter to the Romans: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. X, Abingdon Press, Nashville

Young, B. H, 1997, Paul the Jewish Theologian: A Pharisee Among Christians, Jews and Gentiles, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts

Ziesler, J. A. 1972, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic And Theological Enquiry, Cambridge University Press

Ziesler, J. A. 1989, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, SCM Press, London


JOURNAL ARTICLES


Abbot, E. 1881, ‘On the Construction of Romans ix: 5’, Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.87-154

Abbot, E. 1883, ‘Recent Discussions of Romans ix: 5’, Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.90-112

Aus, R.D. 1979, ‘Paul’s Travel Plans to Spain and the “Full Number of the Gentiles” of Rom. XI 25’, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 21, pp. 232-262

Bassler, J. M. 1984, ‘Divine Impartiality in Paul’s Letter to the Romans’, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 43-58

Batey, R. 1966, ‘So all Israel will be saved: an interpretation of Romans 11:25-32’, Interpretation, Vol. 20, pp.218-228

Baxter, A. G. & Ziesler, J. A. 1985, ‘Paul and Arboriculture: Romans 11:25-32’, Journal For the Study of The New Testament, Vol. 24, pp. 95-123

Beker, J. C. 1986, ‘The Faithfulness of God and the Priority of Israel in Paul’s Letter to the Romans’, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 79, No. 1, pp. 10-16

Byrne, B. 2001, ‘Interpreting Romans Theologically in a Post – “New Perspective” Perspective’, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 94, No. 3, pp. 227-241

Campbell, W.S. 1981, ‘Romans III as a Key to the Structure and Thought of the Letter’, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 23-40

Carson, D. A. 2004, ‘Israel and the Law in Romans 5-11: Interaction with the New Perspective’ in Justification and Variegated Nomism – Vol. 2.- The Paradoxes of Paul, ed. Carson, O’Brien & Seifrid, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids

Cook, M. J. 2006, ‘Paul’s Argument in Romans 9-11’, Review and Expositor, Vol. 103, pp. 91-111

Cooper, C. 1978, ‘Romans 11:23, 26’, Restoration Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 84-94

Cosgrove, C. H. 1996, ‘Rhetorical Suspense in Romans 9-11: A Study in Polyvalence and Hermeneutical Election’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 115, No. 2, pp. 271-287

Crafton, J. A. 1990, ‘Paul’s Rhetorical Vision and the Purpose of Romans: Toward a New Understanding’, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 317-339

Cranford, M, 1993, ‘Election and Ethnicity: Paul’s View of Israel in Romans 9.1-13’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Vol. 15, pp. 27-41

Dinkler, E. 1956, ‘The Historical and the Eschatological Israel in Romans Chapters 9-11: A Contribution to the Problem of Pre-Destination and Individual Responsibility’, The Journal of Religion, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 109-127

Eisenbaum, P. 2004, ‘A Remedy for Having Been Born of Woman: Jesus, Gentiles, and Genealogy in Romans’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 123, No. 4, pp. 671-702

Epp, E J. 1986, ‘ Jewish-Gentile Continuity in Paul: Torah and/or Faith? (Romans 9:15)’, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 79, No. 1

Esler, P. F. 2003, ‘Ancient Oleiculture and Ethnic Differentiation: The Meaning of the Olive Tree Image in Romans 11’, Journal For the Study of The New Testament, Vol. 26, pp. 103-124

Fischer, J. A. 1980, ‘Dissent Within a Religious Community: Romans 9–11’, Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology, Vol. 10, pp. 105 – 110

Getty, M.A. 1987, ‘Paul on the Covenants and the Future of Israel’, Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology, Vol. 17, pp. 92 – 99.

Getty, M. A. 1988, ‘Paul and the Salvation of Israel: A Perspective on Romans 9-11’, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 50, pp. 456-469

Gianoulis, G. C. 2009, ‘Is Sonship in Romans 8: 14-17 a Link With Romans 9?’ Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 166, pp. 70-83

Gignac, A. 1999, ‘La Bonne Nouvelle d’Ésaïe au service de l’Évangile de Paul. Rm 10, 14-17 Comme Relecture de Es 52,6-53’, Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, Vol. 28, pp. 345-361

Gignac, A. 2003, ‘Peut-on lire Romains 9 à la suite de Calvin et Barth? Réflexions Herméneutiques à partir du Thème de la Predestination’, Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, Vol.32, pp. 409-428

Glancy, J. 1991, ‘Israel Vs. Israel in Romans 11:25-32’, Union Seminary Quarterly Review, Vol. 54, pp.191-203

Gordon T. D. 1992, ‘Why Israel did not obtain Torah-Righteousness: A Translation Note on Romans 9:32’, The Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 54, No.1, pp. 163-166

Gould, E. P. 1883, ‘Romans IX – XI’, Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 22-41

Heil, J. P. 2001, ‘Christ, the Termination of the Law (Romans 9:30-10:8)’, CBQ, Vol. 64, pp. 484-498

Heil, J. P. 2002, ‘From Remnant to Seed of Hope for Israel: Romans 9:27-29’, CBQ, Vol. 63, pp. 703-720

Howard, G. E. 1969, ‘Christ the End of the Law: The Meaning of Romans 10:4 ff’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 88, No. 3, pp. 331-337

Jewett, R. 1986, ‘Following the Argument of Romans’, Word and World, Vol.6, No.4, pp. 382-389

Johnson, D. G. 1984, ‘The Structure and Meaning of Romans 11’, CBQ, Vol. 46, pp. 91-103

Kaye, B.N. 1976, ‘”To the Romans and Others” Revisited’ , Novum Testamentum, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 37-77

Kinoshita, J. 1965, ‘Romans: Two Writings Combined: A New Interpretation of the Body of Romans’, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 258-277

Litwak, K. 2006, ‘One or Two Views of Judaism: Paul in Acts 28 and Romans 11 on Jewish Unbelief’, Tyndale Bulletin, Vol. 57, pp. 229-249

Longenecker, B. W. 1989, ‘Different Answers to Different Issues: Israel, The Gentiles and Salvation History in Romans 9-11’, Journal For the Study of The New Testament, Vol. 36, pp. 95-123

Merkle, B. L. 2000, Romans 11 and the Future of Ethnic Israel, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. 43, pp. 709-721

Paddison, A. 2006, ‘Karl Barth’s Theological Exegesis of Romans 9–11 in the Light of Jewish–Christian Understanding’, Journal For the Study of The New Testament, Vol. 28, pp. 469-488

Sanders, E. P. 1978, ‘Paul’s Attitude Toward the Jewish People’, Union Seminary Quarterly Review, Vol. XXXIII, pp.175-187

Schreiner, T. R. 1993, ‘Paul’s View of the Law in Romans 10:4-5’, Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 55, pp.113-135

Spencer, F.S. 2006, ‘Metaphor, Mystery and the Salvation of Israel in Romans 9-11: Paul’s Appeal to Humility and Doxology’, Review and Expositor, Vol. 103, pp. 113-138

Taylor, T. M. 1948, ‘The Place of Origin of Romans’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 67, No. 4, pp. 281-295

Van der Horst, P. W. 2000, ‘”Only then will All Israel be Saved”: A Short Note on the Meaning of kai and οuτως in Romans 11:26’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 119, No. 3, pp. 521-525

Vanlaningham, M.G. 1992, ‘Romans 11:25-27 and the Future of Israel in Paul’s Thought’, The Master’s Seminary Journal, Vol.3, pp.141-174

Waymeyer, M. 2005, ‘The Dual Status of Israel in Romans 11:28’, The Master’s Seminary Journal, Vol.16, pp. 57-71

Westhelle, V. 1984, ‘Paul’s Reconstruction of Theology: Romans 9-14 in Context’, Word and World, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 307-319

Williams, S. K. 1980, ‘The “Righteousness of God” in Romans’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 99, No. 2, pp. 241-290

Worgul, G. S. 1977, ‘Romans 9-11 and Ecclesiology’, Biblical Theology Bulletin, Vol. 7, pp. 99-109

Ziglar, T. 2003, ‘Understanding Romans 11:26: Baptist Perspectives’, Baptist History and Heritage, Vol. Spring 2003, pp. 38-51

Zoccali, C. 2008, ‘‘And so all Israel will be saved’: Competing Interpretations of Romans 11:26 in Pauline Scholarship’, Journal For the Study of The New Testament, Vol. 30, pp. 289-318

View my posts:

Introduction to Romans chapters 9-11

Romans 9:1-5 Paul’s Lament

Romans 9:6-29

Romans 9:30- 10:21

Romans 11:1-24

Romans 11:25-36

Posted in Exposition

ROMANS 11:25-36

DISCOURSE 3 continued

‘I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number 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 turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.’ Roman 11:25-32 (NIV)

Throughout this chapter Paul has been developing his argument concerning the status of Israel in the history of salvation. He has just been addressing the possibility that Gentiles might say that God has totally rejected Israel and instead called in the Gentiles. Having insisted that the salvation of Jews is possible, and suggested that it is probable, he now goes on to assert that it is inevitable. Moo (2094, p.198) observes:

‘By common agreement, the pinnacle of Romans 9-11 is reached in 11:22-32, and especially in Paul’s claim that “all Israel will be saved” (11:26a). Here is the final and decisive answer to the question about God’s faithfulness in carrying out his promise to Israel.’

In order that the believers at Rome might not be ignorant of the salvation of ‘all Israel’ and be conceited as a result Paul presents the information to them as a mystery’. Bruce (2000, p.334) observes:

‘Paul’s own sympathies were manifestly engaged in this matter, but he does not present his forecast of Israel’s restoration as the product of wishful thinking but as the substance of a “mystery” – an aspect of the divine purpose formerly concealed but now divulged.’

V.25 mentions ‘a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.’ That Israel was partially hardened’ (or ‘blinded’) could not be the mystery as this has already been mentioned in 11:7 (and hinted at in the ‘stumbled’ of 9:32). Nor could the mystery have been that Israel would be saved as that was widely expected by the Jews. Paul reveals the mystery with the word ‘until’. The reversal of the partial hardening will be when the full number of elect Gentiles has come in. The mystery is that the hardening is temporary (‘until’ v.25) and that it would be ‘so,’ that is, ‘in this way’ (in tandem with Gentile believers, v.26) that ‘all Israel will be saved.’

There are two major interpretative issues relating to v.26. First, what is the meaning of ‘all Israel?’

1. Does it refer to ethnic Jews or to the Church (all believers both Jew and Gentile)?

2. The second is the time and manner of Israel’s salvation. Is it a future
eschatological event subsequent to the coming in of the full number of elect Gentiles or a process occurring throughout history in tandem with the salvation of Gentiles in this age?

The disagreement on these issues by scholars has caused Moo (1996, p.719) to describe the opening words of v.26 as ‘the storm center in the interpretation of Romans 9-11 and of the NT teaching about the Jews and their future.’ Various interpretations have been suggested for ‘all Israel’ but most are variations of one of the following three: the church, the nation or the remnant.

All Israel’ as the Church.

Theologians such as Calvin and more recently Barth (1968) and Wright (1991, p.250) interpret ‘all Israel’ in Romans 11:26 metaphorically as the Church, the spiritual Israel composed of Jews and Gentiles. This fits with the likelihood that the church at Rome was divided and that Paul was calling for unity, which would serve his own short-term missionary goals and also advance the mission of the whole Christian church. It is, however, unlikely that ‘all Israel’ refers to the whole people of God as that would
give ‘Israel’ a new meaning which is unsupported elsewhere in Romans.

The term usually refers to Israel as a whole, or is sometimes narrowed down to refer to a part of Israel. It is never widened to include Gentiles. ‘Israel’ occurs eleven times in Romans 9-11 (9:6, 27, 31; 10:1, 19, 21; 11: 2, 7, 25) before 11:26 and refers to either ethnic Israel or a part of it, in contrast with the Gentiles. Having maintained a distinction between ethnic Israel and the Gentiles throughout Romans 9-11 and having used it in v.25 to refer to ethnic Israel in contradistinction to Gentiles it is unlikely that Paul would make such a fundamental shift in meaning in v.26a.

All Israel’ as the nation.

The majority view is that ‘all Israel’ refers to ethnic Israel, but not necessarily every individual. Dunn (1988, p.681) defines Israel as: ‘a people whose corporate identity and wholeness would not be lost even if in the event there were some (or indeed many) individual exceptions.’ ‘All Israel’ is viewed as the majority of Jews on earth who, after the full number of Gentiles has been saved, accept what Fitzmyer (2004, p.182) terms the ‘parousiac Christ’ in a worldwide, large-scale, mass conversion.

This viewpoint is somewhat misleading as it suggests a difference between physical Israel and the Church in the matter of salvation and stresses a literal fulfilment of prophecy about Israel. This view that ‘all Israel’ is the nation denies that the Church is the culmination of God’s saving plan.

All Israel’ as the remnant.

According to this view ‘all Israel’ refers to the elect of ethnic Israel throughout history. Israel will experience a partial hardening to the end of time (‘until the full number of the Gentiles has come in’) but God will always save a remnant of Jews. ‘All Israel’ will be saved in the same way as Gentiles are being saved: as they believe, throughout the course of history. The ‘mystery’ in 11:25 is not the fact of the remnant’s salvation but the manner in which they are saved. ‘And so’ (11:26a) means ‘in this manner’ and refers back to the arousal of Jews to envy so that some might turn to Christ for salvation (11:11-13).

This viewpoint fits the context of Romans 9-11. In chapter 9 Paul maintains that God is faithful in spite of Israel’s rejection of the Messiah as his promise to save Abraham’s descendants was not on the basis of national identity. The true Israel consists of children of the promise, rather than ethnic Jews. In 10:12 Paul shows that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in the matter of salvation. God’s promises are not fulfilled in the nation but in the believing remnant.

Paul’s is thinking very much of the present, not on the long-range future. Romans chapter 11 is contemporary in nature. In v.5 Paul speaks of ‘the present time’, in which there is a ‘remnant’ (vv.2-4) and also those who were ‘hardened’ vv.8-10. Paul ‘exalts’ his ministry (v.13) in order to ‘save some’ in his own day (v.14). The Gentileswhom he was addressing were his contemporaries and he was hoping that the salvation of contemporary Gentiles would provoke Jewish contemporaries to jealousy and salvation. He was not labouring to provoke the Jews to jealousy in order to bring about a future mass conversion of ethnic Israel. That the Israelite branches broken off are contemporary as are the engrafted Gentiles is confirmed by the threefold ‘now’ in vv. 30-31. It is ‘now’ (in Paul’s day), that Israel is receiving mercy.

Some might object that ‘Israel’ in v.26 should have the same meaning as ‘Israel’ in v.25 which clearly refers to ethnic Israel (the remnant plus the hardened remainder). Paul however, has already used ‘Israel’ to refer to both the nation and the elect within the nation (‘For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel’) in 9:6, in one sentence. Wright (1991, p.250) contends that:

‘It is impermissible to argue that ‘Israel’ cannot change its referent within the space of two verses, so that ‘Israel’ in v. 25 must mean the same as ‘Israel’ in v. 26: Paul actually began the whole section (9.6) with just such a programmatic distinction of two ‘Israels’, and throughout the letter (e.g. 2.25-9) … he has systematically transferred the privileges and attributes of ‘Israel’ to the Messiah and his people.’

The climax of Paul’s discussion of God’s faithfulness in spite of Israel’s failure to receive the gospel is the assertion in 11:26a: ‘And so all Israel will be saved.’

In vv. 26-27 Paul supports his statement about the salvation of all Israel with an OT quotation based on Isaiah 59:20-21 and on Isaiah 27:9. Although using it to prove his point about the salvation of ‘all Israel’ Paul deliberately modifies the text and quotes it as ‘the deliverer will come from Zion, rather than ‘to Zion’ thus emphasizing his Messianic interpretation of the verses and identifying Jesus as the deliverer rather than God himself. Some might contend that Paul was writing after the first coming of Christ and was waiting for the deliverer of Israel to come but it is my view that ‘will come’ and ‘will turn’ point to the future from the perspective of the OT prophet, not from Paul’s first century standpoint, and thus refer to what Christ did at his first coming rather than to something that will occur at his second. The verses contain three main assertions:

1) ‘The deliverer will come from Zion.’

2) He will ‘turn godlessness away from Jacob.’

3) This would establish God’s covenant, which promised forgiveness of sins.

Wright (1997, pp. 108-109) views the latter assertion as the climax of Romans 9-11 and, speaking of Israel, claims:

‘When Paul’s fellow Jews rejected Jesus (as Paul did himself to begin with), and when they continue to reject the message about Jesus which Paul proclaims, he sees the underlying reason: they recognize, as he has had to recognize, that it will mean abandoning the idea of a covenant membership which will be inalienably hers and hers alone. So the great argument of Romans 9-11 goes on its way, reaching at its climax the most significant statement, quoting from Jeremiah 31:33 and Isaiah 27:9 – this will be my covenant with them, when I take away their sins (Romans 11:27). … Paul holds firmly to the hope that the renewal of the covenant which has taken place in Jesus the Messiah will be effective not only for Gentiles but also for Jews who will come, as he himself has done, to faith in Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.’

According to proponents of the Dual-Covenant theory the Deliverer is not Christ but God who will deliver Israel from its partial hardening in an independent act of mercy that does not involve acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. Fitzmyer (2004, p.181) explains that:

‘The main reason given for this interpretation is the fact that Christ has not been mentioned so far in chap.11, and indeed not since 10:17. Christ is not being envisaged, then, as the deliverer. Thus the solution to the problem of Israel is sought in an act of God’s mercy manifested toward the Chosen People of old. The “covenant” (11:27) would still be the everlasting covenant between Yahweh and Israel (2 Sam. 23:5). So these words of Paul have been interpreted by K. Stendahl, M. A. Getty, P. Lapide and P. Stuhlmacher.’

Regarding bi-covenantal teaching Zeisler (1989, p. 285-286) observes:

‘It has been suggested that, as Paul never states that they will become Christians, he allows for the possibility that somehow at the End God will bring together those who have followed two different tracks to being his people: the track taken by the remnant and by believing Gentiles, the Christian track; and the track of historical Israel, relying on God’s grace in his ancient covenant with them. This suggestion…is scarcely congruous with Paul’s argument and in particular with his argument towards the end of the olive tree passage. There the broken-off branches were grafted back in precisely when they no longer persisted in their lack of belief, i.e. when they came to faith in Jesus Christ. It is too much to suppose that Paul sees God as having two strategies, one for repentant branches and one for unrepentant branches, cf. Also vv.26f., 31. If that were the case, why should repentance matter?’

The view that there is a ‘Sonderweg’ (separate way) for Israel does not fit with the general thrust of the letter as throughout it Paul insists on salvation through faith in Christ for Jew and Gentile alike (1:16; 4:25; 10:9). Das (2003, p.105) maintains that:

‘Paul simply does not treat God’s salvation of Israel separately from the salvation of Gentiles. In Romans 11:31 he writes:” by means of the mercy shown to you [Gentiles], they, the Jews, will now receive mercy” (see also 11:13-16). The Jews’ reception of mercy by means of the Gentiles’ reception of mercy demonstrates that the two-covenant thesis of separate paths to salvation is simply wrong. The “two-covenant” approach does not explain why the Gentiles must experience mercy in order for the Jews to experience mercy. Paul speaks of one olive tree representing Israel’s heritage as the same tree on which the Gentiles are grafted. He does not speak of two separate trees. Since a single tree represents their respective paths to salvation, the Jews must likewise place their faith in the Jewish Messiah as the fulfilment to which the Mosaic Law had pointed all along.’

Speaking of those Israelites that will be saved (the ‘all Israel’ of v.26) Paul views their relationship to God from two different angles in v.28:

1) As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account.

2) As far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs.

These two parallel clauses contain three word pairs: gospel/election, enemies/loved, and on your account/on account of the patriarchs. The statement ‘as far as election is concerned’ indicates that although they are considered enemies when viewed according to their rejection of the gospel, they are considered beloved when viewed in reference to God’s choice. That v.28 is not a statement of the corporate status of Israel as a nation is clear from v.29, which speaks of an ‘irrevocable call,’ and confirmed by vv. 30-31 in which Paul contrasts saved Jews with the saved Gentiles whom he is addressing.

In vv. 28-32 Paul summarizes the arguments he has made in chapters 9-11:

1) ‘Enemies’: Israel, having rejected the gospel (9:30-10:21), was rejected by God (9:6-29).

2) ‘On your account’: The rejection of the Jews led to the inclusion of the Gentiles (11:11-15)

3) ‘Election’: God has chosen to accept some and reject others which is the theme of chapter 9.

In v.30 Paul further expands on the point made in vv. 11-15 that the disobedience of the Jews has resulted in salvation for the Gentiles and says (v.31) that the Jews have ‘now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy.’ The implication is that while one part of Israel is now disobedient another part (the remnant) is now receiving mercy. Robertson (2000, p.191) agrees:

‘In the end, God’s gracious activity of calling the elect within Israel to salvation is tied to the present hour by Paul’s threefold use of an emphatic “now.” Gentiles now have been shown mercy; Jews now have been disobedient, that they may also now be shown mercy (Romans 1:30-31).’

In v.32 Paul summarizes God’s purpose for both Jew and Gentiles alike: ‘For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.’ The outlook for humanity is hopeless apart from the mercy of God. In view of what Paul has said earlier about punishment (1:18; 2:5-11; 6:21-23; 9:22, 28) ‘mercy on all’ does not mean universal salvation but refers to the fact that God’s mercy will be shown to Jew and Gentile alike. Morris (1988, p.426) contends:

‘Paul is not saying that God predetermined that all should sin, but rather that he has so ordered things that all people, Jew and Gentile alike, being disobedient, show themselves to be sinners (cf. 1:24, 26, 28) and have no other escape than through his mercy.’

11: 33-36 Doxology

From him – Through him – To him

‘Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” “Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?” For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever!’ Rom 11:32-36 (NIV)

In vv. 33-36 theology becomes doxology. Having contemplated God’s inscrutable purposes and plans for the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles the apostle worships and glorifies him for the wisdom which lies behind them. Vv. 34-35 contain a quotation from Isaiah 40:13 and another (slightly modified) from Job 41:11. Together they pose three rhetorical questions, each beginning with ‘Who has’ and each expecting the negative answer ‘No one!’

‘Who has known the mind of the Lord?’

‘Who has been his counselor?’

‘Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?’

No one can understand God, no one can tell God what to do and no one can accuse God of unfairness. Paul ends (v.36) by using the prepositions ‘from’, ‘through’ and ‘to’ in an affirmation that God is the creator, sustainer and goal of creation:

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.

View my posts:

Introduction to Romans chapters 9-11

Romans 9:1-5 Paul’s Lament

Romans 9:6-29

Romans 9:30- 10:21

Romans 11:1-24

Romans 9-11 Bibliography

Posted in Exposition

ROMANS 11:1-24

Discourse 3 11:1-36

THESIS: God has not rejected those whom he foreknew. 11:1-2

Having shown that righteousness and salvation are by faith in Jesus Christ and having explained God’s sovereignty (chapter 9) and also human responsibility (chapter 10) in the matter, Paul in chapter eleven continues his consideration of the status of Israel in God’s plans. He does this in light of his arguments in chapters 9 and 10; particularly the salvation of Gentiles. Hunter (1955, p.99) says of chapter 11:

‘We now reach the third stage in Paul’s ‘theodicy’. In chapter 9 he argues: ‘God is sovereign and elects whom he wills.’ In chapter 10 he says: ‘This is not the whole truth. God’s judgement on Israel is not arbitrary, for in fact the Jews’ own disobedience led to their downfall.’ But he cannot rest in this sad conclusion, and therefore in chapter 11 he goes on to say, ‘This is not God’s last word. Israel is not doomed to final rejection. Her temporary lapse forms part of God’s great plan. Through Israel’s lapse the Gentiles have found salvation. And Gentile acceptance of the gospel is meant to so move the Jews to jealousy (at seeing their own promised blessings in Gentile hands) that they will ultimately accept what they now reject. And so all Israel will be saved.’

11:1-10 ISRAEL’S HARDENING IS NOT TOTAL

‘I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day.” And David says: “May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them. May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever.” Rom 11:1-10 (NIV)

Having concluded the previous section with a picture of God willing the salvation of a people who reject him Paul addresses the possibility that God has, in turn, rejected Israel. Chapter 11 therefore opens with a rhetorical question: ‘Did God reject his people?’ This question, according to Moo (1996, p. 672, footnote 9), expects a negative answer: ‘God has not rejected his people, has he?’ Paul is aiming to impress upon his readers that although Israel is ‘a disobedient and obstinate people’ (10:21) God has not totally rejected them. He reinforces this by answering his own question with a strong negative; ‘By no means!’ and points to himself as living proof that God is still saving Jews. He underlines that he is himself a Jew by emphasizing that he is ‘an Israelite’, ‘a descendant of Abraham’ and ‘from the tribe of Benjamin’. These three statements underline not only his commitment to the nation as a Jew but also highlight his awareness of his personal place in the remnant.

Having posed the question of v.1 and given a negative answer he then proceeds in v.2 to repeat the point as a positive statement: ‘God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.’ Foreknowledge (proegnoo) has to do with the action of God in marking out for special affection and attention. Moo (1996, p. 674) writes:

‘The temporal prefix, “fore-” (pro), indicates further that God’s choosing of Israel took place before any action or status on the part of Israel that might have qualified her for God’s choice. How could God reject a people whom he in a gracious act of choice had made his own?’

Since ‘his people’ in v.1 refers to Israel as a whole it is unlikely that it would have a different meaning in v.2. It is not therefore to be understood in a restrictive sense (i.e. that God only foreknew the elect remnant) but reflects the OT and wider Jewish corporate sense of election by which God guaranteed blessings for the nation as a whole, but not necessarily the salvation of every individual member. So Paul is emphasizing that God has not rejected ethnic Israel.

In vv. 2-4 Paul gives a further proof of God’s faithfulness to Israel based on the story of Elijah (1 Kings 19:1-18). He takes up this analogy from the past (vv. 2b-4) and applies it to the present in v.5. In Elijah’s day the northern kingdom had gone over to Baal worship to such an extent that the prophet Elijah felt totally alone. After the contest on Carmel (1 Kings 18), his victory experience soon faded. Following death threats from Queen Jezebel, Elijah ran away, travelling until he came to Mount Horeb. Paul (v.3) summarises his prayer from a cave there: ‘Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me.’ God’s answer (v.4) on that occasion was: ‘I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.’

In v.5 Paul cleverly applies the OT story to his teaching about Israel in the present. In Elijah’s day Israel was at such a low spiritual ebb that Elijah considered the situation to be hopeless. God, however, had preserved for himself a remnant (only seven thousand) which was a pledge of hope for the future of the nation. Paul did not wish the audience of his day to draw a similar conclusion to that of Elijah in the face of widespread unbelief on the part of Jews. Just as the defection of the majority to Baal worship in ancient history did not invalidate God’s gracious choice of the nation; neither would the rejection of Jesus as Messiah do so ‘at the present time.’ Paul (vv.5-6) makes it clear that the remnant was chosen on the basis of God’s grace and not because of ethnic identity or meritorious works.

In v.7 Paul deals with the ramifications (‘what then?’) of his teaching on the remnant and says that the ones who did obtain grace were the elect, and the rest were hardened. The irony of the situation is that the majority of Israel had tried unsuccessfully to obtain salvation through good works but only a remnant, because of God’s choosing, obtained it. Paul thus distinguishes three interconnected entities: Israel as a corporate nation; then two groups within national Israel; an elect remnant and those who ‘were hardened’. He views this ‘hardening’ as the action of God.

In vv. 8-10 Paul illustrates the concept of hardening with OT quotations introduced by the words: ‘it is written.’ As ‘proof’ that hardening was God’s intention for Israel Paul combines and modifies Deut. 29:4 and Psalm 69:22-23 which contain the phrase ‘eyes that they could not see’ (11:8;10). He presents this as evidence of an intentional ‘hardening’ by God, punishing the Jews for persistent unbelief. The quotation ‘God has given them a spirit of stupor’ is from Isaiah 29:10 and has the idea of ‘numbness’, suggesting insensitivity to the gospel. In vv. 9-10, he quotes from Psalm 69:22-23 in which David speaks of his enemies saying: ‘may their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever.’ Paul is suggesting that this comes upon the Jews who reject the gospel. They will be blind to the gospel and bent over like a
blind person groping in the dark. Such a pessimistic note would seem at this stage to confirm rather than deny the suggestion in verse one that God has rejected his people. God’s motive for the hardening, however, is revealed in v.11.

VV. 11-24 ISRAEL’S HARDENING HAS FACILITATED THE SALVATION OF THE GENTILES.

‘Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring! I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches. If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!’ Rom 11:19-24 (NIV)

Having shown that the message of the gospel has divided Israel into ‘the remnant’ that attains righteousness by the grace of God and ‘the rest’ who are hardened and excluded from salvation Paul proceeds to show that this is not necessarily a permanent situation. He introduces a novel interpretation of the position of Jews in God’s plan of salvation. Indisputably the majority of the nation had stumbled, but he insists that they had not fallen beyond recovery. Despite the bleak picture he is optimistic. The key issue is stated in v.11: ‘Is Israel’s rejection final? Having already said (11:1-10) that Israel’s rejection is not total; he now argues that Israel’s rejection is not final. He has strong words of warning for Gentile believers at Rome who seemed proud that they had received salvation while the Israelites had rejected it. Wright (1991, p.247) assesses the possible reasons for Paul’s annoyance at their attitude:

‘It is at this point, I believe, that Paul addresses one of the key issues of the entire letter. His mission, he has emphasized from the outset, is ‘to the Jew first and also to the Greek’. He suspects that the Roman church … is only too eager to declare itself a basically gentile organisation perhaps, (and this can only be speculation, but it may be near the mark) in order to clear itself of local suspicion in relation to the capital’s Jewish population, recently expelled and more recently returned. But a church with a theology like that would not provide him with the base that he needs for his continuing mission, in Rome itself and beyond. It would result, as Paul sees only too clearly in light of his Eastern Mediterranean experience, in a drastically split church, with Jewish and Gentile Christians pursuing their separate paths in mutual hostility and recrimination. Instead, in this section and in vv.17-24 he argues with great force that Jews can still be saved, and indeed that it is in the interests of a largely gentile church not to forget the fact.’

In 11:11 Paul harks back to 9:32-33 which speak of Israel’s stumbling over the Messiah and asks ‘Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery?’ and again answers: ‘Not at all!’ Israel has indeed stumbled but Paul rejects any suggestion that the fall is fatal and irretrievable. In fact, in v.11b, he argues that the purpose of their fall, and the subsequent salvation of Gentiles, was to make Israel jealous. When the Jews saw the wonder of salvation in Christ, they would want it for themselves. Paul continues his unusual logic in v.12 by stating that the fall of Israel was actually good for the world.

V.12 speaks of Israel’s ‘transgression’ and ‘loss’ which have resulted in
‘riches for the world’ and ‘riches for the Gentiles.’ The rejection of Jesus as Messiah had been a tragic loss for the Jews. That being the case, says Paul: ‘how much greater riches will their fullness bring?’ Whether one interprets these words as quantitative (‘loss’ and ‘full number’) as does Moo (1996, p.688), or qualitative (‘diminishing’and ‘completion’), the net result is that what is currently defeat will one day become a victory; benefitting the world.

The Gentile believers at Rome were possibly wondering why the apostle to the Gentiles was devoting such attention to a discussion of the Jews so Paul applies the teaching to his own ministry in vv.13-14. Addressing them as ‘you Gentiles,’ he says that his mission to the Gentiles is important for the salvation of Jews. He wants to ‘exalt’ his ministry to the Gentiles in order to move some of his own people to jealousy (an idea introduced in v. 11b) and conversion. Whenever Paul, preached, saw Gentiles converted and live Christian lives that provoked Jews to accept Jesus as Messiah, then his ministry was magnified. The desire to see Jews converted was thus a major motivating factor in his missionary outreach to Gentiles. Paul adds, ‘For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be, but life from the dead?’ If the impact of Jewish rejection by God (or possibly, their rejection of the gospel) was great blessing (reconciliation) to the world, then the thought of the impact of Israel’s acceptance of the gospel is so staggering to Paul that he calls it “life from the dead.”

This controversial phrase may be interpreted literally, as referring to the resurrection at Christ’s return or to the wonderful life after that. This interpretation focuses on the last days and foresees a mass conversion of Gentiles at the end of time; a great spiritual revival that signals the resurrection. Whilst a future mass conversion of Jews would doubtless be a wonderful and desirable phenomenon the text says nothing about that. The context is rather against it since the apostle says (v.13-14) that he is already labouring to see some of his own people saved and bring about their ‘fullness’ (v12b). Thus when the last Jew is saved, and the last Gentile also (v.25), there will be life from the dead, or, the resurrection life. It is not the moment of resurrection that is in view but the glorious state thereafter. ‘Life from the dead’ may also be viewed in a metaphorical sense as referring to great spiritual blessings that enrich the whole world. It is an image denoting the greatest happiness possible.

Paul then uses several metaphors to show that the Jews can never be finally rejected and to warn Gentiles believers against spiritual pride. In v. 16 he refers to the OT practice outlined in Numbers 15:18 – 21 of offering the first piece of dough to the Lord. The first piece stood for the rest. Since God accepted the first piece the rest was holy as well. Paul is applying this concept to Israelite history and implying that since God accepted the patriarchs in spite of their many failings, he will also likewise accept their descendants. V.16 refers similarly to ‘the root’ and says that if it is holy, so are the branches.

THE ALLEGORY OF THE OLIVE TREE

Having mentioned ‘root’ and ‘branches’ Paul goes on to employ (vv.17-14) a long and elaborate allegory about an olive tree, representing the Jews. Paul imagined cultivated branches (unbelieving Jews) being broken off and wild olive branches (Gentiles) being grafted in. He stresses to his Gentiles readers that they had not replaced the branches that were broken off and suggests that by trusting in their own efforts they likewise could be broken off. He expresses optimism (v23) that Jews will believe and be grafted back into their own olive tree.

Paul begins his illustration in v.17 by referring to a cultivated olive tree and wild olive shoots. The olive tree was a familiar symbol of the nation of Israel (Jer. 11:16; Hosea 14:6) and Paul restates the tragic situation of the unbelieving Jews of his day by picturing them as branches that had been broken off the tree. He also pictures wild olive shoots, the Gentiles, as having been grafted onto the olive tree and bearing fruit along with the believing remnant. The newly engrafted Gentiles believers ‘share in the nourishing sap from the olive root.’ Paul’s analogy seems strange in that this was a reversal of the normal process, which was to graft a shoot from a cultivated tree into a wild olive so that it might produce good fruit. Paul, however, is aware that this is ‘contrary to nature’ (v.24), and by this oleicultural inaccuracy may be stressing the miraculous nature of what God is doing in allowing the Gentiles to enjoy the blessings of salvation. His argument depends on the fact that the illustration is unusual.

In v.18 Paul warns the Gentile believers against arrogance and reminds them: ‘You do not support the root, but the root supports you.’ The Gentiles had nothing to boast about as the gospel promises did not originate with them. God gave them to the patriarchs and passed them down through their descendants.

In v.19 Paul anticipates that the Gentiles might justify their feelings of superiority by saying ‘Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.’ He agrees with them that the natural branches (unbelieving Jews) were indeed broken off because of unbelief and that the Gentiles ‘stand by faith.’ Faith is the only basis for a relationship with God and continuance in faith is proof that the graft has taken. He goes on to stress that the fact that the natural branches were broken off and wild ones grafted in is not cause for arrogance but for fear. The reason for this fear is given in v.21: ‘for if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.’ Lloyd-Jones (1999, p.144) contends that just as Paul has been talking about Israel in general so now he is referring to Gentiles in general:

‘He is not now dealing with the elect Gentiles but with the Gentiles in general… He says to the Gentiles that Israel was included in the same way as they now are, but she is now excluded. That has got nothing to do with the elect because, though Israel in general is out, the remnant according to the election of grace is in…The whole argument must be thought of in terms of the general position, as regards Jews and Gentiles.’

Paul concludes the allegory of the olive tree and his warning to the Gentiles in vv.22-24 by suggesting that they consider two attributes of God; ‘his kindness and sternness.’ God’s ‘kindness’ is his will to do a person good, his ‘sternness’ (used only here in the NT) is his justice applied without mercy. One has to do with the grace of God in salvation, the other with his judgment toward unbelievers. Three possible scenarios are outlined:

1) Kindness extended to elect Gentiles.

‘Consider therefore the kindness… of God…to you’. That God, in his sovereignty, had taken wild olive shoots and grafted them into the cultivated olive tree is said by Paul to be a display of kindness. Gentiles had become partakers of God’s promise.

2) Sternness displayed toward rejected Jews or Gentiles.

‘Consider therefore the… sternness of God…to those who fell.’ ‘Kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you also will
be cut off.’ Jews who had rejected Christ had been already cut off; Gentiles are not to boast about that in case God’s kindness is withdrawn.

3) Kindness in restoring Jews to their former position.

‘And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.’

Paul is confident that, providing they do not remain in persistent unbelief, God will restore Jews to their former position. He argues in v.24 that if God can save Gentiles who were from a wild olive tree, how much easier it is for him to save Jews who more naturally belong in the olive tree that began with the patriarchs. Hendriksen (1981, p.376) stresses that:

‘In reading what Paul says about the olive tree there is one very important point that must not be overlooked. The apostle recognizes only one (cultivated) olive tree. In other words the church is one living organism. For Jew and Gentile salvation is the same. It is obtained on the basis of Christ’s atonement, by grace, through faith.’

The emphasis throughout is on God’s sovereignty. The apostle stresses that ‘God is able’ (v.23) and yet at the same time that there are moral conditions associated with being ‘cut off’ and ‘standing’. Divine sovereignty and human responsibility interact. It is interesting that Paul’s conception of divine sovereignty is so flexible that he can state with conviction that both God’s kindness’ and his ‘sternness’ are reversible.

View my posts:

Introduction to Romans chapters 9-11

Romans 9:1-5 Paul’s Lament

Romans 9:6-29

Romans 9:30- 10:21

Romans 11:25-36

Romans 9-11 Bibliography

Posted in Exposition

ROMANS 9:30 -10:21

DISCOURSE 2   ROMANS 9:30 – 10:21

THESIS: Some Gentiles received righteousness but some Jews did not (9:30-31)

9:30-33

‘What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.” Rom 9:30-33 (NIV)


Paul now moves on from divine sovereignty to talk about human responsibility and addresses objections to the fact that God has chosen to save many Gentiles but only some Jews. This is clearly the beginning of a new section as he uses the expression; ‘What then shall we say?’ which often introduces a change of focus in Romans (4:1; 6:1; 7:7; 8:31) and here prompts the audience to think about Israel’s disobedience (10:21). The key word is this discourse is ‘righteousness’ (dikaiosynē) which occurs ten times.

He first mentions the Gentiles who, he says, did not pursue righteousness. How then did some of them ‘obtain’ this status (right standing with God) without having sought it?

Moo (1996, p.619) explains:

‘Paul returns (after using the term to refer to moral righteousness in chaps. 6-8) to the forensic meaning of righteousness that he established in chaps. 1-4: the “right” standing with God that is the product of God’s justifying work in Christ.’

Paul emphasises that this righteousness is ‘by faith’ (9:30), a fact that he has already made clear in 1:16-17 and in 3:21-4:25. Faith is possible on the part of the Gentle as well as the Jew (1:16) and this is why so many Gentiles are being saved.

In v.31 Paul then speaks of the Jews, who pursued a ‘law of righteousness’ but have not attained it. Unlike the Gentiles who ‘obtained’ (katelaben, lay hold of) righteousness, the Jews did not ‘attain’ (efthasen, reach) the goal. The reason Paul gives  (v.32) was that they ‘pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works’ and thus ‘stumbled over the “stumbling-stone”.

He quotes from Isaiah 8:14 and 28:16, two passages that mention a ‘stone’, which he conflates to emphasize the negative point about Israel’s fall (he takes up the last part of the quotation again in 10:11 to make the positive point that Christ is the stone). By means of this composite quotation from Isaiah Paul stresses that Israel’s problem is failure to believe on Jesus Christ. He is their obstacle. The image is that of a race in which a runner is so preoccupied with the finishing line that he stumbles over a rock and falls.

10:1-4

‘Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.’ Rom 10:1-4 (NIV)


Having explained in chapter 9 that not all of ethnic Israel will be saved, Paul expresses to the Christians (‘brothers’ 10:1) to whom he is writing his desire that ethnic Israel might be saved. He wants the Christian church to know that he takes no pleasure in the failure of ethnic Israel to attain salvation and stresses his sincerity with a statement of his petition on Israel’s behalf. He did not seem to sense any tension between his teaching on predestination in chapter 9 and his passionate prayer for Israel’s salvation. Divine election does not mean that prayer is neither necessary nor important. That Paul was continuing to pray for the salvation of Israel suggests that he did not accept that their present state of rejection was final.

He begins v.2 with the word ‘for’, thus indicating that he is going to give the reason for his prayer. He says: ‘I can testify about them’, which suggests that he can  accurately comment on the matter as a result of his own personal experience. It is because they are ‘zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.’ Their dedication was not in doubt but zeal (fervent devotion and passion) without knowledge is only fanaticism. Zeal alone does not bring salvation. Paul sums up the defectiveness of their understanding in v.3:

‘Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.’

The term ‘God’s righteousness’’ occurs twice in 10:3 and also in 1:17 and in 3:5; 21; 22 (along with references to ‘his righteousness’ in 3:25 and 26). Elsewhere in Paul it occurs only in 2 Corinthians 5:21 although there is a similar expression ‘the righteousness that comes from God’ in Philippians 3:9. Paul links ‘God’s righteousness’ with justification (3:21-26) and views it as God’s gift (5:17). The Jews, however, did not understand that the correct way to attain a righteous
standing before God was to ‘submit’ (10:3). Instead they sought to establish their own righteousness by practising good works. Schreiner (1998, p.544) concludes:

‘The reason, then, that the Jews did not subject themselves to the saving righteousness of God is because they were ignorant of the fact that righteousness was a gift of God’s grace and they mistakenly thought that they could secure their own righteousness by observing the Torah.’

In Romans 10:4 Paul makes an important and much debated statement: ‘Christ is the end of the law so that there might be righteousness for everyone who believes.’ The key terms are: ‘End,’ ‘Law,’ and ‘Righteousness.’ In any discussion of this verse one must try to explain the significance of these terms and identify the relationship of  Christ to the law.

END

‘End’ (telos) may refer to a’ termination’/ ‘cessation’ or to a ‘purpose’/’goal.’ It may also refer to an ‘outcome’ (6:21). The three main views of its meaning in 10:4 are:

1) ‘Fulfilment’- All the OT institutions, types and rituals pointed to Christ and were fulfilled in him.

2) ‘Termination’ – The Mosaic Law as a covenant is finished. God’s people today are not bound to it. This view stresses the discontinuity between Christ and the law and is attractive because it bears in mind 7:6 where a release from the law has already been declared, and also the additional statement of 8:1 that all who are in Christ Jesus are no longer under condemnation.

3) ‘Goal’ – The purpose of the law was not to save, but to lead people to faith in Christ.

This does not mean that there was a full revelation of Christ throughout history but rather that God provided some details at various times about the one who would come and, based on the believing response to these revelations about Christ, righteousness was credited (10:6-9). These OT events and prophecies pointed to the coming of the Messiah and all the predictions culminated in him; the one whom Paul referred to as the ‘stone’ (9:33), called ‘Christ’ (10:4) and identified as ‘the Lord Jesus’ (10:9).

LAW

‘Law’ in 10:4 is sometimes taken to refer to law in its general sense but most scholars take it to mean the Law of Moses. The other two verses in the immediate context which mention ‘law’ (9:31; 10:5) would support this interpretation.

It is likely that Paul has in mind the Old Testament (which includes the Mosaic Law), a view which would better suit the idea that telos means ‘goal’. Paul does not distinguish between the Law of Moses and the rest of the OT in chapters 9-11. When, in each of the three chapters he speaks of his hope for the salvation of Israel (9:1-3; 10:1; 11:26), he supports his argument for salvation through faith with quotations from throughout the OT.  Just before making the statement of 10:4 he has quoted from Isaiah (9:27; 28; 29; 33) rather than from the Pentateuch which suggests that in Paul’s view there is full agreement between all of the OT and the gospel that he preaches. He is contrasting two views regarding the function of the law. Non-elect Israelites thought of the law as a means of salvation; which was conditional on compliance with its demands (9:31-32). Paul saw the law rather as a body of truth which had to be believed for salvation. For him, Christ was the embodiment of that truth and was its goal.

RIGHTEOUSNESS

‘Righteousness’ is a characteristic of a person. Ziesler (1972, pp.7-8) explains what it might mean:

‘There are two main conceptions of the meaning of the noun. It is usually assumed without argument by Roman Catholic exegetes that it means “justice” in the sense of uprightness, rather than strict distributive justice or even forensic justice in general…The usual Protestant position however has been that righteousness as imputed in justification is real righteousness, which comes from God to man, but for forensic purposes only. Man is not righteous, but he is treated by God as if he were, because he stands clothed in the righteousness of Christ…Thus righteousness from God and justification are the same thing. Both are to do with the granting of a status before God, an undeserved status which in itself is not concerned with ethics, but which has ethical consequences.’

Paul has already taught (Rom. 4:4-5) that righteousness is not based on human effort but is a gift obtained by faith. He shows in 9:30 -10:4 that the Jews viewed the law as a goal in itself rather than realising that the OT pointed to Christ. He uses the OT to show that Christ was, and is, the necessary object of faith for salvation and stresses in 10:4 that the OT law fulfilled its revelatory function until the appearance of Christ, its end goal. He is the focus of salvation history. Moo (1996, p. 640) views v.4 as:

‘The hinge on which the entire section 9:30-10:13 turns. It justifies Paul’s claim that the Jews, by their preoccupation with the law, have missed God’s righteousness (9:30-10:3); for righteousness is now found only in Christ and only through faith in Christ, the one who has brought the law to its climax and thereby ended its reign. It also announces the theme that Paul will expound in 10: 5-13: righteousness by faith in Christ for all who believe.’

10:5-8

‘Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” But the righteousness that is by 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 deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim:’ Rom 10:5-8 (NIV)

In vv. 5-7 Paul contrasts righteousness ‘by faith’ with righteousness ‘by the law’ and uses two OT verses to argue against attempting to establish righteousness by means of the Mosaic Law. In v. 5 he writes: ‘Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law’ and gives a quotation from Leviticus 18:5: ‘The Man who does these things will live by them.’

‘The verse is not speaking about the attainment of eternal life; and Paul clearly does not believe that the OT teaches that righteousness is based on the law (see Rom 4). Paul is not, therefore, claiming that Christ has replaced the old way of salvation – by obedience to the law- with a new one- by faith in Christ.’ Schreiner (1993, p.125) points out that:

This is a righteousness based on works. Many interpret Leviticus 18:5 as promising eternal life, if the standard is met. If one performs the
righteousness of the law he will live. The context of Lev. 18:5, however, has to do with Israel’s obedience to God’s commands in order to prolong their blessings in the Promised Land. Nehemiah used this verse (9:29-30) to explain that their disobedience to the law resulted in their subjugation by hostile nations. Ezekiel (18: 9; 13) refers to the verse when discussing the execution of those who violate certain commandments. Leviticus 18:5 does not therefore refer to eternal life but to obedience to God’s commands in order to stay alive. Moo (1996, p.648) observes:

‘Paul’s statement in v.5 only makes sense if it is assumed that no one can perfectly obey the law. The attempt to gain righteousness by the law is excluded precisely because no one has the ability to put into effect what the law demands.’

Paul does not deal at all here with the impossibility of keeping the law as he has already covered the topic in 3:9-20. He is arguing that the perfect keeping of the law is to be rejected as a viable method of obtaining righteousness because Christ has accomplished all that is required for salvation.

Having stated (10:5) that Moses spoke of ‘righteousness by the law,’ Paul introduces a different and opposing voice in v.6. This is the personified voice of ‘the righteousness that is by faith’ speaking words from Deuteronomy 9:4 and 30:11-14. It seems that Paul has come close to setting up one scripture in opposition to another (since Deuteronomy was also  written by Moses).

In his discussion of this controversial use of scripture Schreiner (2002, pp.133-134) quotes Silva who:

‘… notes it is uncommon for NT writers to call into question the interpretation of opponents by setting forth an opposing contextual argument of the text in question. He goes on to say, “Jewish literature contemporary to the New Testament shows a similar hesitation to score points by refuting the opponent’s use of Scripture. And the later rabbinic scholars, as a rule, refuted an argument based on Scripture by counteracting with a different passage, not by demonstrating faulty hermeneutics.” In other words, Paul cites the OT in Rom 10:6-8 to show that obeying the law is not the means of righteousness.’

Paul is explaining that God will not be impressed with human good works when his way of salvation is belief in the gospel. Just as the people to whom Moses spoke (Deut 30:11) had a message that was accessible to them, and not too difficult for them to understand, the same was true of the Israelites of Paul’s generation. They were not required to do the impossible. They did not need to ‘ascend into heaven’ in order to bring Christ down, or to ‘descend into the deep’ (since Christ was already resurrected from the dead). Just as the law had been brought down to the Israelites by Moses so also Jesus, the Messiah, had come down to earth. The message of righteousness by faith was ‘near’ Israel and this was the ‘word of faith’ that Paul was proclaiming.

10:9-10

‘If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.’ Rom 10:9-10 (NIV)

In 10:9 Paul explains what it is that he preaches and the simplicity of the response that it demands. It has to do with the certainty of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Consistent with the order of his quotation from Deuteronomy (‘the word is near you: it is in your mouth and in your heart’) he first mentions confession with the mouth about who Jesus is and then belief in the heart about what God has done.

Hoeksema (2002, p.461) maintains:

‘The resurrection was an act of God. The text does not say, “If you believe that Christ is risen.” Emphatically, the apostle states, “he who believes that God raised Jesus from the dead.” It was an act of God. God did something. And our faith clings ultimately to that act of God…The act of God whereby He raised Jesus from the dead was the act by which he declared us righteous.’

Just as in v.9 the result of belief and confession is salvation so it is likewise in v.10. Here Paul reverses the order of the salvation process (‘it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.’) forming a chiasm. This general statement in v.10 which again underscores that the key element is faith, not works, is a transition leading to Paul’s taking up again the idea of universality mentioned at the end of v.4 ( ‘for everyone who believes’). Since justification and salvation are as a result of faith then one must logically conclude that anyone who exercises faith in Christ will be saved, regardless of ethnicity.

10:11-13

‘As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile —the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Rom 10:11-13 (NIV)

In vv. 11-13 Paul takes up the aforementioned idea of universality and (v.11) quotes Isaiah 28:16, which also underscores the connection between faith and salvation, but adds the words pas ho (everyone) to emphasise the universal nature of the gospel. Everyone who believes in the Lord ‘will not be put to shame’, i.e. deliverance at the time of judgement.’

In v.12 Paul concludes that since salvation is available by faith to all who call on the Lord for help then there is no difference between Jew and Gentile; they all have the same Lord.

In v. 13 he quotes from Joel 2:32 (a verse that in its original context refers to the remnant of Israel); ‘For, everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved’, thus supporting his statement in v.12 by sandwiching it between two OT quotations. The ‘everyone’ of v. 11 and that of v. 13 together back up the expression in v.12 that ‘there is no difference between Jew and Gentile.’ Regardless of race or culture anyone can call in faith upon the Lord for salvation. Upon reading these verses one recalls Paul’s earlier statement of ‘no distinction’ (3:23) in sin and judgment but, as Bassler (1984, p.56) notes, now ‘the emphasis of “no distinction” or impartiality has shifted’.

She continues:

‘In chaps.1-3 it was used as a warrant for the inclusion of Gentiles. Here it supports an argument for the ultimate inclusion of the recalcitrant Jews within the community of faith, so that the total scheme of salvation corresponds to the basic axiom of divine impartiality: “For God has consigned all men to disobedience so that he may have mercy on all” (11:32).

Salvation can be for everyone so how could someone know the gospel without it being preached to them? Although from vv. 14-21 Paul again takes up the situation of Israel and investigates Jewish rejection of the gospel he first speaks of the practicalities involved in a person’s salvation: a preacher must be sent and the message must be preached, heard, and believed.

10:14-17

‘How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.’ Rom 10:14-17 (NIV)

In vv.14-15 he poses a series of four rhetorical questions beginning with ‘How?’ These build upon one another by repetition of the verb at the end of one question at the beginning of the next question. In light of God’s promise that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved(10:13):

1) ‘How then can they call on Him they have not believed in?’

2) ‘How can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?’

3) ‘How can they hear without someone preaching to them?’

4) ‘How can they preach unless they are sent?’

In these four questions Paul sets out the conditions necessary for calling on the name of the Lord and presents the five essential links in the chain of evangelism. These are the basic elements of Christian mission: Sending, Preaching, Hearing, Believing, and Calling. If one of the previous links is missing, Calling does not occur and there is no salvation.

Who is to be evangelized? In 1:16 Paul made it clear that both Jews and Gentiles were to be evangelized. In the context of chapters 9-11 he is
speaking specifically of the evangelism of Jewish people, the priority of which he inferred in 1:16. It is as if he is emphasizing to the believers at Rome (where there were possibly some tensions between Jewish and Gentile Christians) that they ought to be involving themselves in the evangelism of Jews as well as of Gentiles. He quotes loosely (v.15) from Isaiah 52:7 (with perhaps an allusion to Nahum 1:15) noting the beauty of the feet of those who ‘bring good news’. This verse, in its original setting, prophesied the certainty of Israel’s return from Captivity in Babylon. Jews, in spite of their rejection of Christ, still needed to hear the message about Jesus the Messiah. Since Paul is analyzing Jewish rejection of the gospel up to that point in time he goes on to show that in their case all the conditions for salvation have been met; except one.

V.16 points out that even though the gospel is good news, not everyone believes. It says: ‘But not all the Israelites responded to the good news.’ This is an understatement as, in comparison to the Gentles, very few Jews accepted Christ. It does, however, reiterate the concept of the remnant introduced in 9:6; while not all believed, some did. In the case of Israel, this was nothing new. Paul quotes Isaiah 53:1 (‘Lord, who has believed our message?) in support of this and thus identifies the missing link in the chain. Faith was missing.

V.17 is a transitional verse in that it summarizes the argument thus far. It starts with ‘consequently’ or ‘as a result,’ pointing the reader back to 10:8-9 about the expression of faith but also picks up the idea of ‘hearing’ implied in the ‘message’ of Isaiah 53:1 and moves on to the next stage of Paul’s argument.

10:18-21

‘But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: “Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.” Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, “I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.” And Isaiah boldly says, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.” But concerning Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.” Rom 10:18-21 (NIV)


In vv.18-21 Paul entertains and then dismisses two possible reasons for Israel’s rejection of the gospel. He asks two rhetorical questions which expect a positive answer. They thus become an assertion. ‘Did they not hear?’ and ‘Did Israel not understand?’ They had both heard and understood the message. In v18 Paul queries if the problem might be that the Jews had not heard the gospel: ‘But I ask, did they not hear?’ It must be because they have not heard. He answers ‘Of course they did!’ and quotes Psalm 19: 4: ‘their voice has gone out into all the earth and their words to the ends of the world.’ Paul lifts this verse from its original context which speaks of natural revelation and applies it to the special revelation of the gospel. The idea here may be what Bruce (1963, p. 223) terms ‘representative universalism’, meaning that just as the knowledge of God is said to be universal in Psalm 19 so, in Paul’s day, wherever there were communities of Jews in the known world, it could be said that the gospel had been preached. Paul contends that Israel had definitely heard the
gospel.

V.19 begins with a repetition of the ‘I ask’ of v.18 and moves from the possibility that Israel had not heard the message to the possibility that the message had not been understood. Paul quotes this time from both the Law and the prophets, using Moses and Isaiah as representative of each. The quotation from Moses in v.19 is from Deuteronomy 32:21b. The point being made is that historically Israel knew the Commandments, yet their practice did not match their understanding. They had hardly left Egypt and the experience of the power of God when they made a golden calf and worshipped it. Along the way they complained against God and longed for their former life of slavery. Having reached the Promised Land they pursued false gods. It was not a matter of not understanding God’s law. They acted in wilful disobedience to what they knew. As a result God promised to use people who were not a nation, people who did not have understanding, to make Israel envious.

In v.20 Paul, citing Isaiah 65:1, turns to the prophets: ‘Then Isaiah boldly says, “I was found by those who did not seek Me, I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me”.’ The Gentiles were not pursuing God. They were idolaters who did not seek God; rather he made himself known to them in the gospel. This highlights God’s grace in pursuing the Gentiles rather than Gentiles pursuing Him. Those who did not look for God found him; he took the initiative and revealed himself in the gospel. In v.21 Paul comments: ‘But concerning Israel he says’ and continues the quotation from Isaiah (65:2), ‘All day long have I held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.’ The second discourse closes with this thought of a gracious God actively stretching out his hands to the Jews, wanting them to come to him.

In chapter nine Paul attributed Israelite unbelief to God’s election, in chapter ten he attributes it to their own wilful rejection of the gospel message that they had both heard and understood.

View my posts:

Introduction to Romans chapters 9-11

Romans 9:1-5 Paul’s Lament

Romans 9:6-29

Romans 11:1-24

Romans 11:25-36

Romans 9-11 Bibliography

Posted in Exposition

ROMANS 9:6-29

DISCOURSE 1.   ROMANS 9:6-29

THESIS : It is not as though God’s word has failed (9:6).

9:6-18

‘It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.” Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad —in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.’ Rom 9:6-18 (NIV)

JEW’ AND ‘ISRAEL’

In Romans chapters 1-8 the term ‘Jew’ is used to distinguish between them and Gentiles. Chapter 9:6 introduces an important change in vocabulary; the term ‘Israel’ signalling a shift in emphasis from the Jewish nation (the people who live in the territory of Judea) to ‘Israel’, the covenant people of God. This becomes the foremost term in 9-11.

Dunn (1998, p.506) asserts: ‘In short, “Jew” defines primarily by relation to land and by differentiation from peoples of other lands, whereas “Israel” defines primarily by relation to God.’

In vv.6-18 Paul begins to build his case that salvation is through promise and not through physical descent. He anticipates a question that might arise from the previous section and says: ‘But it is by no means the case that the word of God has failed.’(9:6).

This assertion implies the question: ‘Since Israel as God’s covenant
people had received so many promises and privileges (vv.4-5) why have so few been saved?’ Those to whom God made promises of blessing now oppose the gospel so does Israel’s unbelief mean that God’s word has not taken effect? For Paul that was not the case. God’s word had not failed.

Hübner (1984, p.58) observes:

‘Paul clearly sees that the failure of the people of Israel in its history could prompt a thoughtful person to reflect that God’s word and God’s promise have also lost their force (see also Rom 3:3!) In other words, Israel’s failure is the failure of the divine promise and therefore God’s own failure. The answer Paul gives is surprising: it is not the promise that is problematic but rather what is meant by ‘Israel’. For since the ‘history of Israel’ cannot fail –being something which stands under the promise of God- but the historical Israel has failed, the entity ‘Israel’ must be taken in a new sense so that the divine promise may remain valid.’

Paul attempts to prove his point by introducing the concept of the remnant. He wrote: ‘For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.’ For Paul the remnant does not include Gentile believers but is a rather a true Israel existing within the nation of Israel. He has been clearly focusing on ethnic Israel from the beginning of chapter 9 (‘my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites.’) and there is therefore no indication that what he has in mind is a new spiritual Israel composed of all believers, both Jew and Gentile.

Moo (1996, p.574) comments:

‘Throughout these chapters, Paul carefully distinguishes between Israel and the Jews on one hand and the Gentiles on the other. Only where clear contextual pointers are present can the ethnic focus of Israel be abandoned.’

Paul denies that God ever intended to save all ethnic Israelites. He says that being a Jew, a physical descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is not a guarantee of salvation but that the true Israel is a spiritual, faithful remnant within ethnic Israel. Had God’s promise intended that all ethnic Israelites (all those who are descended from Israel) be saved then indeed his purpose had been frustrated and his word had failed.

Murray (1997, p.10) summarises Paul’s contention that not everyone
who is an ethnic Israelite is a spiritual Israelite as follows:

‘The purpose of this distinction is to show that the covenantal promise of God did not have respect to Israel after the flesh but to this true Israel and that, therefore, the unbelief and rejection of ethnic Israel as a whole in no way interfered with the fulfilment of God’s covenant purpose and promise. The word of God, therefore, has not been violated.’

In vv.7- 13 Paul explains why God did not promise that all ethnic Israelites would form the true people of God. In each of verses 7 and 8 he restates negatively his thesis of v.6 that the children of Abraham are not merely his physical descendants but are the children of the promise. As one might expect Paul points back to the origins of the people group known as ‘the Hebrews’ (Gen 14:13; 40:15) and shows that God’s call of Abraham and the associated promises relate to both ethnic and spiritual Israel. He
supports that distinction by quoting biblical examples of God’s sovereign choice.

ABRAHAM AND HIS TWO SONS

The first example he produces is that of Abraham and his two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. God had promised Abraham that he would be the father of a great nation (Gen. 12:1-3) and that he would have a son (Gen. 15:4-5). Since Sarah was past the age of childbearing she and Abraham decided to fulfil God’s promise by having a son through Sarah’s ‘maidservant’ Hagar and as a result Ishmael was born (Gen. 16). Soon after this God’s covenant with Abraham was sealed by circumcision, a rite in which Ishmael was included (Gen.17:26-27). Ishmael was a physical descendant of Abraham and had been circumcised and was therefore technically a Hebrew. One would expect that the promises would flow through him. Abraham seems to have thought as much in Gen. 17: 18: ‘If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!’ God’s response in Gen. 17:19-20 was as follows: ‘Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.’ Subsequently Sarah bore a son and he was named Isaac (Gen.21:2-3). Paul looks to this story for an explanation of the distinction between physical and spiritual Israel and in Romans 9:7 he quotes Gen. 21:12: ‘It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.’

Having referred back to the establishment of the nation to argue that God has always dealt with Israel by means of sovereign election, Paul goes on to say that God’s choice of Isaac over Ishmael began a pattern of election that still continues. Having first distinguished ‘Israel’ from ‘those who are descended from Israel’ (9:6) Paul now also distinguishes ‘Abraham’s children’ from ‘Abraham’s offspring’ (9:7) and proves that physical descent from Abraham is not a guarantee of inheritance. He proceeds in 9:8 to distinguish between the ‘natural children’ (kata sarka) and ‘the children of the promise’, using the example of Isaac’s children Esau and Jacob.

ESAU AND JACOB

These two were born, not just of the same father, but of the same pregnancy and yet God chose Jacob rather than Esau. Esau was rejected and Jacob chosen long before their birth and before their behaviour. The choice of Jacob was not based on some good deed that he performed as the choice was ‘before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad’ (9:11), nor was it based on physical connection. It was based on election. Paul describes it like this in 9:11: ‘in order that God’s purpose in election might stand’. God brings his purposes to pass and chooses those whom he wills. In the case of Isaac and Ishmael it was a choice between sons of different mothers, in the case of Jacob and Esau it was a choice between twin sons of the same mother. Jacob inherited the promise.

In vv. 22-13 Paul bolsters his argument with two Old Testament quotations; (1) ‘The older will serve the younger’ and (2) ‘Jacob have I loved, but Esau I hated’. He is stressing that God’s election does not necessarily conform to human practice and custom but is always according to his own will. The older son was normally the heir but God chose Abraham’s son Isaac rather than Ishmael. In the case of Isaac’s sons God did not choose Esau but Jacob.

The promise given to Rebecca in Genesis 25:23 would seem to suggest that the election in view is that of ‘nations’ and ‘peoples’. This verse reads:


‘The Lord said to her, ‘Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.’


The second quotation, from Malachi chapter one, originally appears after a statement of God’s love for Israel (Mal 1:2) followed by the assertion that God’s love for Jacob is so strong that his attitude to Esau seems like hate by comparison. Again the original reference is not to individuals as Malachi (1:4) goes on to describe Edom as ‘the Wicked land, a people always under the wrath of the Lord.’

Witherington (2004, p.253) maintains:

‘As the OT context of the saying “Jacob I loved and Esau I hated” (Mal. 1:2-3) shows, the subject there is two nations, not two individuals, and, as we have said, even when individuals are in the picture, it is not their eternal destiny that is spoken of. The quoted verse, then, may speak of God’s elective purposes, but the concern is with the roles they are to play in history, not their personal eternal destiny.’

Moo disagrees. He contends (1996, p. 585):

‘First, Paul suggests that he is thinking of Jacob and Esau as individuals in vv. 10b-11a when he mentions their conception, birth and “works” – language that is not easily applied to nations. Second, several of Paul’s key words and phrases in this passage are words he generally uses elsewhere with reference to the attaining of salvation; and significantly they occur with this sense in texts closely related to this one: “election” (see esp. 11:5,7); “call” (see esp. 8:28); and “[not] of works” (see esp. Rom. 4:2-8 and 11:6). These words are therefore difficult to apply to nations or peoples, for Paul clearly does not believe that peoples or nations –not even Israel- are chosen and called by God for salvation apart from their works.’

He continues (1996, p. 586):

‘The nations denoted by these names, we must remember, have come into existence in and through the individuals who first bore those names. In a context in which Paul begins speaking rather clearly about the individuals rather than the nations, we should not be surprised that he would apply a text that spoke of the nations to individuals who founded and, in a sense,  “embodied” them. It is not the issue of how God uses different individuals or nations in accomplishing his purposes that is Paul’s concern but which individuals, and on what basis, belong to God’s covenant people.’


In vv. 14-18 Paul deals with an anticipated objection to his argument of vv. 6-13 in a question and answer format. He is not so much clarifying but rather defending his insistence (v12) that God makes his choices independently of human distinctions. He begins (v14) with ‘What then shall we say? Is God unjust?’ An objector might suggest that when God arbitrarily determines eternal destiny based on nothing but his own
choice, ignoring human claims whether by birth or self effort, then he is irresponsible and unrighteous. God, one might say, must choose people on the basis of moral qualities or else he is unjust.

ILLUSTRATION 1 THE POSITIVE SIDE OF ELECTION

Paul makes his own position (v14) clear by use of a strong negative ‘Not at all!’ before proceeding to give two OT illustrations which he introduces with the word ‘for,’ and from each derives a proof introduced by the word ‘therefore’, The first quotation (v.15) that he presents is from Exodus 33:19. In the book of Exodus the quotation follows the worship of the golden calf, as a result of which the Levites, at God’s insistence, killed three thousand of their idolatrous fellow Israelites (Ex. 32:26-
28). Moses then asked the Lord to show him his glory (Ex. 33:18) after which the Lord said he would cause his ‘goodness’ to pass in front of Moses and proclaim his name ‘the Lord’. Then follows the quotation that Paul cites in Romans 9:15: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion”.

Paul follows this up with v16: ‘It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.’ The subject (‘it’) implied in v.16 is not exactly clear. The reference may be to ‘God’s purpose of election’ (v.12) or, more likely, to God’s ‘bestowal of mercy’ (v15). The point is that nothing man does has any bearing on God’s choice to either withhold or bestow mercy.

God was showing Moses that all the Israelites deserved to die because of their sin against God on that occasion but that God in compassion spared many of them. The nation ought to have been wiped out then but God graciously spared it. Is there unrighteousness with God? Logic works in both directions. Was God unjust when he also spared many Israelites when they deserved to die?

Wright (2002), p. 638) says that:

‘The surprise, in other words, is not that some were allowed to fall by the
wayside, but that any at all were allowed to continue as God’s covenant people, carrying the promises forward to their conclusion.’

Paul shows that election, rather than being unjust, is merciful. Everyone deserves God’s judgement but God is merciful to those elected to salvation. God, in fact, would still be just if he did not choose to spare anyone.

ILLUSTRATION 2     THE NEGATIVE SIDE OF ELECTION

Having thus shown the positive side of election Paul introduces (v.17) his second OT quotation beginning with the word ‘For’ and from it shows (v.18) the negative side. Verse 17 (quoting Ex. 9:16) reads ‘For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. Moo (1996, p.595) suggests that’ raise up’ has ‘the connotation “appoint to a significant role in salvation history”. The comment by Paul (v.18) that ‘therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy and he hardens whom he wants to harden’ relates the ‘raising up’ of Pharaoh to his ‘hardening’.

It is interesting that Paul did not select a quotation from Exodus that explicitly mentions the word ‘hardening’ (Ex. 4:21; 7:3; 9:12). Piper (1993, p. 179) asks: ‘If Paul wanted to infer from an Old Testament quotation that God hardens whom he wills, why did he choose to cite Ex 9:16 in which the word “harden” is missing?’ Perhaps this is because in Ex. 8:15 and 8:32 it is said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. One might therefore infer that it was only then, and as an act of judgement in
response to this that God, in turn, hardened his heart. Paul, it would seem, wished rather to emphasise the sovereign action of God in election.

HARDENING

It is also interesting that in v.18, which restates what was said in v.16 (that God bestows or withholds mercy on whom he wills), ‘hardening’ is not the exact antithesis of ‘mercy’. ‘Mercy’ in this context refers to the bestowal salvation. ‘Hardening’ however, does not mean the infliction of eternal wrath. Paul has chosen his words with precision. At the time of Paul’s writing he considered the unbelieving Jews ‘hardened’ but was confident that they were not necessarily locked in that hopeless situation forever. Paul’s prayer was for their salvation (9:1-3; 10:1; 11:11-14, 28-32).

Some commentators try to keep their options open. Hendriksen (1981, p. 326), for example, maintains:

‘There is no reason to doubt that the hardening of which Pharaoh was the object was final. It was a link in the chain: reprobation – wicked life – hardening – everlasting punishment. This does not mean, however, that divine hardening is always final.’

Piper contends (1993, p.178):

Must we not conclude, therefore, that the hardening in Rom 9:18 has reference, just as the hardening in 11:7, to the action of God whereby a person is left in a condition outside salvation and thus “prepared for destruction” (9:22)?

In a footnote (1993, p.178 no.31), however, he somewhat qualifies this view:

‘This does not imply that the condition sometimes called hardness of heart (Eph 4:18) or mind (2 Cor 3:14) cannot be altered by the merciful revivifying act of God (Eph 2:1-4). But it does imply that God is the one who sovereignly decides who will be shown such mercy and who will be decisively and finally hardened. It is hardening in this decisive sense that meets the demands of the argument in Rom 9:1-18.

It is clear that God did not force Pharaoh to act against his natural bent, but the quotation (Ex. 9:16) chosen by Paul shows that he considered that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart in order to accomplish his will.

ROMANS 9:19-29

‘One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory — even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? As he says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,” and, “In the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’” Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality.” It is just as Isaiah said previously: “Unless the Lord Almighty had left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorrah.” Rom 9:19-29 (NIV)


Once again Paul anticipates the objections and, having just addressed the objection that ‘God is unjust!,’ he now turns his attention to the objection that ‘God is unfair!’ How can it be fair for God to find fault when no one can resist his will? If God hardens a person’s heart, on what basis does he then hold that person accountable for his unbelief? Paul treats this objection as an expression of arrogance against God rather than an honest inquiry and says (v.20): ‘But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?’ and goes on to make his point by using a biblical analogy.

THE POTTER AND THE CLAY

Quoting Isaiah 29:16 he compares the Creator and the creature to a potter
and clay. Only the potter (v.21) has the right to determine what types of vessels to produce. From the same lump of clay he can make a work of art or produce a vessel for common, everyday use. That which he forms has no say in the matter for he can mould it as he chooses. In the same way God can do as he pleases with human beings.

The analogy of the potter and the clay is then carried over into vv. 22-24 which Paul begins with another question: ‘What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-prepared for destruction?’ and continues ‘What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory- even us…? The word ‘choosing’(NIV) or ‘wishing’ may be interpreted in one of two ways:

1) Causally = ‘because he wished’ to display his wrath.

Or:

2) Concessively = ‘though he wished’ to display his wrath.

The latter interpretation fits best with the assertion that God bears ‘with great patience’ the ‘vessels of wrath’. A threefold reason is given for this tolerance:

1) to demonstrate his wrath
2) to make his power known
3) to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy.

The pottery ‘for noble purposes’ (honour) and for ‘common use’ of v.21 are parallel to the ‘vessels of mercy’ and ‘vessels of wrath’ of vv.22-23. These ‘vessels of wrath’ are said to be ‘prepared for destruction’, but of the vessels of mercy it is said ‘whom he prepared in advance for glory’. Paul does not say by whom or by what the ‘vessels of wrath’ are found fit for disposal but does emphasize that it is God who has actively prepared the ‘vessels of mercy’ for glory. In v.24 he states that these ‘vessels of mercy’ are those whom God has called, which includes not only Jews but also Gentiles.

In vv. 25-29 he attempts to demonstrate from the OT scriptures that the salvation of Gentiles had been prophesied long before. He gives two quotations from Hosea (2:23; 1:10) and one from Isaiah (10:22-23). Hosea was addressing the ten Northern Tribes of Israel before the exile to Assyria and proclaiming their rebellious attitude (‘not my people’, ‘not my loved one’) as well as a future restoration (‘my people’, ‘my loved one’, ‘sons of the living God’). Hosea spoke these words to give ethnic Israel hope as the elect and yet, although he does not say so explicitly, Paul was quoting these verses to try to prove that the ‘vessels of mercy’ included Gentiles. Why did Paul cite and apply these verses to people outside ethnic Israel? Perhaps his thinking was typological (one story in scripture used by God to teach about another) and he found the rejection and restoration of Israel analogous to the exclusion and then inclusion of Gentiles in God’s saving plan.

Paul quoted these verses (that in their original context referred to the restoration of Israel after the exile) to prove that Gentiles would be saved but also uses them to point out that a believing remnant of Jews will be saved. None of these scriptures refer to all Israelites being saved and they suit Paul’s purpose well as here he is ambiguous, perhaps deliberately so, with regard to the remnant and its size.

In v.27 he claims to be quoting Isaiah when, in fact, the reference is to Hosea 1:10 which makes no mention of a remnant. Perhaps he is combining this with Isaiah 10:22 to form a composite quotation. Heil (2002, p.706) views it as a ‘combined citation’ and explains that throughout Romans the term ‘Israelite’ (9:4) or ‘Israel’ (9:6, 27, 31; 10:19, 21; 11:2, 7, 25, 26) never refers to a ‘Christ-believing Jew’. It is always used in Romans to refer to Jews who have not yet believed in Christ. He states (2004, p. 707):

‘Grammatically, then, the Isaian quote in 9:27b is best translated and understood as an eventual conditional sentence expressing the hope that if, as is to be expected in accord with God’s promise that the sons of Israel (who presently do not yet believe in Christ) will be as numerous as the sand of the sea, then surely, at least a remnant of this great number will be saved in the future by eventually coming to believe in Christ.’

Verse 28 is likewise obscure. The main idea seems to be that God, having definitely decided that the Israelites will be as numerous as the sand of the sea, will accomplish it on earth. This makes the promise based on it (that at least a remnant will be saved), even more certain. Verse 29, (quoting Isaiah 1:9) is a reminder that although only a remnant will be saved (vv.27-28) the fact that God will save some is an indication of his grace.

In this discourse Paul, it would seem, denies that ethnic Israel is the elect of God (9:6) and maintains that the elect have always been a subgroup within Israel. Election is a matter of God’s sovereignty and does not depend on natural descent or on human efforts. Paul has argued for God’s right to elect as he sees fit. The question and answer format suggests his recognition that his readers would not necessarily find this an easy truth to accept. For Paul, it is God alone who has the right to elect or not to elect. Pharaoh (vv. 16-18) is an example of God choosing not to elect (to harden) and in vv.18-21 this is shown to be legitimate because God is the Creator. When God chooses not to elect some, or even most, he does not transgress his own righteousness because, while those who are elected receive grace (which is undeserved), those who are rejected receive justice (which they deserve). In Paul’s reckoning, God is neither unjust nor unfair. His word has not failed.

View my posts:

Introduction to Romans chapters 9-11

Romans 9:1-5 Paul’s Lament

Romans 9:30- 10:21

Romans 11:1-24

Romans 11:25-36

Romans 9-11 Bibliography

Posted in Exposition

ROMANS 9:1-5. PAUL’S LAMENT



‘I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen’ Romans 9:1-5 (NIV)


Romans chapter nine begins with a personal lament which introduces the problem that Paul intends to address; the failure of Israel to accept the gospel in spite of the privileges with which they had been blessed. This is the first of four times (9:1-5; 10:1-4; 11:1-6; 11:13-14) in chapters 9-11 when Paul involves himself personally at major turning points of the discussion:


a) In 9:1-5, he stresses how much God’s mercy to Israel matters to him – to the extent that he would be willing to be cut off for the sake of his people.


b) In 10:1-4 he bears witness on behalf of Israel that they have good intentions: they have a zeal for God, but it is is not according to knowledge.

c) In 11:1-6 Paul testifies to the faithfulness of God who has, in fact, called a remnant of Israel in Paul himself.

d) In 11:13-14 he says that he glorifies his ministry as apostle to
the Gentiles; this is part of God’s plan to make Israel jealous.


Paul begins this section with a series of double expressions in vv. 1-2 (‘I speak the truth —I am not lying; in Christ – through the Holy Spirit; great sorrow – unceasing anguish’) by which he asserts his honesty and expresses his grief that his fellow Jews are lost.

In v. 1 he sets forth in one sentence a five-fold cumulative assertion of his sincerity:

a) ‘I speak the truth!’

b) ‘I speak the truth in Christ’

c) ‘I speak the truth in Christ – I am not lying’

d) ‘ I speak the truth in Christ – I am not lying, my conscience confirms it’

e) ‘I speak the truth in Christ – I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit’

Paul calls on Christ himself as the one who can vouch for the truthfulness of what he is about to say about Israel and reminds his audience that a second witness, his conscience, is testifying by means of the Holy Spirit. He may have had in mind the OT Law of Evidence which required at least two witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15-16).

Paul (v.2) describes his heartbreak as continual (adialeiptos) and his response to this as a wish (or prayer) that he might be condemned in order that they might be saved. Was Paul speaking in hyperbole or was he serious? Moo (1996, p.558) comments:

‘I prefer, in agreement with most English translations, to ascribe a hypothetical nuance to the imperfect tense; as Cranfield paraphrases, “I would pray (were it permissible for me so to pray and if the fulfilment of such a prayer could benefit them”)’

Since Paul’s giving up of his own salvation was neither possible nor permissible the wish could not be fulfilled. He seems to model himself on Moses (Exodus 30:30-32), who had also at times been badly treated by the Israelites and yet expressed a willingness to sacrifice himself for them. That those for whom Paul is heartbroken are unbelieving Jews is emphasized in v. 3 where their identification as ‘my people’ is modified by ‘those of my own race’ and further in v. 4 by ‘the people
of Israel’. Paul may have been the Apostle to the Gentiles but he was certainly a Jew by race.

In the concluding words of this lament Paul lists eight special privileges given to Israel and bemoans the fact that the Israelites have not benefitted from these spiritual advantages:

1) adoption
2) the glory
3) the covenants
4) the giving of the law
5) the temple worship
6) the promises
7) the patriarchs
8) the Messiah – who was himself a Jew

Thus in verses 1-5 Paul laments the unbelief of his fellow Jews and their failure to take advantage of their unique privileges, and expresses his overwhelming desire for their conversion. This introduces the subject that will occupy him throughout the rest of chapters 9-11; the unbelief of Israel and the question of God’s faithfulness.

See my posts:

Introduction to Romans chapters 9-11

Romans 9:6-29

Romans 9:30- 10:21

Romans 11:1-24

Romans 11:25-36

Romans 9-11 Bibliography

Posted in Exposition

INTRODUCTION TO ROMANS CHAPTERS 9-11



The Apostle Paul had an interest in the church at Rome even though he had not been its founder and did not usually preach the gospel where Christ was already named (15:20), nevertheless in Romans 1:8-13 and 15: 23 he expressed his wish to visit the believers there. Why did he write to them and why did he want to visit?

We cannot know for sure why Paul wrote his letter since it seems that there were no urgent doctrinal issues requiring correction. Romans 1:11-16 and 15:23-29, however, would suggest that Paul wrote mainly to inform the Roman Christians of, and involve them in, his future missionary plans. He wished to encourage them in the faith and, after finishing his work in Asia Minor and Greece, move farther west to evangelize Spain.

In the key verses of the letter (1:15-17) Paul expresses his eagerness to preach the gospel and states that it is ‘the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.’ The issue of the salvation of Israel is not addressed in the first eight chapters as Paul waited to deal with it later in the letter. He did so in Romans chapters 9-11, one of the most challenging sections in the Pauline writings.

Many of the major topics raised by chapters 9-11 are still subjects of theological debate. Not only are the contents of the unit 9-11 in dispute, there is also disagreement regarding the place of the chapters in the overall theme of the epistle. Some scholars argue that the section is a digression, an excursus unrelated to the theme of the letter (e.g. Dodd). Others view it as an integral part of Paul’s argument (e.g. Cranfield, Dunn, Morris, Moo, Schreiner, Stulmacher), perhaps even the climax of the Epistle (e.g Munck, Fitzmyer, Wright, Witherington).

Romans 9-11 is neither an excursus nor afterthought but to claim that it is the climax of the letter is an overstatement. It is an integral part of Romans as there are thematic links with chapters 1-8. It takes up the themes about God’s impartiality in chapters 1-3, Abraham in chapter 4, and predestination in chapter 8. The traditional view of Romans as a textbook of Christian theology takes Romans 9-11 as an appendix to the argument of chapters 1-8 and sees it as a new section of the letter dealing with a new theme; the place of Israel in salvation history.

A BRIEF OUTLINE OF ROMANS

1:1-17 The gospel reveals God’s righteousness through faith.

1:18-3:20 God’s righteousness is revealed in wrath against sinful humanity.

3:21-4:25 Justification is righteousness as a result of faith alone, not by the law.

5: -8:39 Justification liberates a person from the condemnation of the law to serve God.

9:1-11:36 The problem of Israel. The rejection of the Jews and the inclusion of the Gentiles.

12:1 – 15:13 The Christian life. The law is fulfilled through love.

15:14 – 16:23 Paul asks for help to extend his gospel ministry.

16:25-27 Concluding doxology. God wants all nations to obey the gospel.


A SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT OF ROMANS CHAPTERS 9-11


In Romans chapter eight Paul calls those who believe in Jesus Christ ‘saints’ v.27; ‘called’ v.28; and ‘chosen’ v.33. The Jews would traditionally have reserved these terms for themselves. That raises the question as to whether the privileges implied by these descriptions have now been transferred from Israel to the Christian church.


Paul had just expounded the benefits of the new Christian faith and now turns to address the embarrassing problem that the majority of Jews had
rejected Jesus as Messiah. Those to whom God had made the promises
were precisely those who were rejecting the gospel. This might raise doubts in the Christian believers about God’s trustworthiness and faithfulness. If God has not fulfilled promises made to Israel, then how could the church be confident that the promises will be fulfilled for them?


Paul addresses the integrity of God’s dealings with Israel and defends God’s righteousness. He insists that God has spared the nation in the past (chapter 9), has provided salvation for it in the present (chapter 10) and will work out his plans for it in the future (chapter 11).

Following an introduction in 9:1-5, Romans 9-11 has three discourses that deal with three main theses. The discourses are:

Discourse 1 9:6 – 9:29 This ends with an OT quotation.

Discourse 2 9:30 – 10:21 This ends with OT quotations.

Discourse 3 11:1-36 This ends with a doxology.


THESIS 1

It is not as though God’s word has failed. 9:6

What is the explanation for the rejection of the gospel by the majority of Jews? Has God’s word (his promises to Israel) failed? Paul struggles to explain why Israel has rejected the Messiah. Despite what might seem evidence to the contrary, Paul does not accept that God’s word has failed snd so he comes up with an ingenious solution. He redefines the true Israel as a sub-group within ethnic Israel (9:6).

He makes a distinction (9:8) between ‘the children of the flesh’ (Israelites by birth) and the ‘children of the promise’ (Israelites by God’s election) and interprets Old Testament verses to show that the fulfilment of the promises was not based on physical descent or merit gained by works. He maintains that God is not unrighteous because he shows mercy to whomever he wishes, and in his sovereignty, has extended his mercy to Gentiles. No-one can do anything to change this; God’s election is gratuitous.

THESIS 2

Some Gentiles received righteousness but some Jews did not. 9:30-31

Paul deals with the pursuit of a ‘law of righteousness’ by Jews who were not elect and their stumbling at the same time over the cornerstone laid in Zion (the Messiah). In 10:1 his prayer is that Jews might be saved. He says that they are currently pursuing righteousness but not according to knowledge which would have pointed them to Christ for righteousness (10:4).

Christ, whom they rejected, is the end of the Law for righteousness to whoever believes. Righteousness is not to be pursued but is by faith (‘confessed with the mouth and believed in the heart’ (10:9). In 10:16 Paul says that it is just like the time of Isaiah because the message of the gospel has been preached, but all have not obeyed. The section ends (10:17-21) with two rhetorical questions: ‘Has everyone heard?’ ‘Did Israel know?’ The answer to each must be ‘Yes!’ According to both Moses and Isaiah, Israel heard, but most did not accept the message.

THESIS 3

God has not rejected those whom he foreknew. 11:1-2

What does the future hold for Jews? Paul admits that Israel has stumbled but maintains that it is not beyond recovery. He offers his own testimony and the story of Elijah as evidence and then expands on the concept of a remnant.

He claims that just as God brought Gentiles to faith because of the transgression of Israel so he will use the Gentiles to draw Jews to himself. In 11:13-24, he uses metaphorical language (the olive tree) to address the Gentile members of the Roman church and warn them against pride in their current ‘grafted-in’ status since it is a work of God and does not depend on man.

Paul winds down the third discourse and the whole unit (chapters 9-11) in vv. 11:25-32. He declares that ‘all Israel will be saved’ and states that God pronounced all disobedient so that he could have mercy on all. The section ends with a doxology extolling God’s incomprehensible wisdom, knowledge, justice, and sovereignty in the working out salvation.

View my posts:

Romans 9:1-5 Paul’s Lament

Romans 9:6-29

Romans 9:30- 10:21

Romans 11:1-24

Romans 11:25-36

Romans 9-11 Bibliography

Posted in Roman names

SILVANUS

Roman name: Silvanus

Greek form of a Jewish name: Silas

‘And some of them [Thessalonian Jews] were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.’ Acts 17:4 ESV

‘Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ…’. 1Thess 1:1 ESV

Silvanus/Silas was one of the most influential figures in the early Christian church and yet he seems to have maintained a low profile; perhaps preferring to work quietly and effectively without drawing undue attention to himself. The Bible gives few personal details; only that he was a leading member of the Jerusalem assembly (Acts 15:22), that he was a prophet (Acts 15:32), and that he had Roman citizenship (Acts 16:37–38). His name occurs 17 times. He is called Silas in the Acts of the Apostles (15:22, 27, 32, 34, 40; 16:19, 25, 29; 17:4, 10, 14, 15; 18:5) and in the Epistles he is referred to by his Roman name Silvanus ( 2 Cor 1:19; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1; 1 Pet 5:12).

THE EARLY SPREAD OF THE GOSPEL: A SURVEY

The first half of the Acts of the Apostles details the gradual spread of Christianity from Jerusalem. Acts 2:1-8:3 records phenomenal growth accompanied by persecution, mainly from the Jews as they did not regard Jesus as the Messiah and were angry that the Christians were undermining their beliefs. Luke viewed the stoning of Stephen in chapter 7 as a catalyst for the widespread ill-treatment of Christians. As a result, they dispersed throughout the empire, which, ironically, helped accelerate the spread of the gospel (Acts 8:3-4,11:19). Herod Agrippa 1 (King of Judea 41-44 CE) co-operated with the Jewish authorities in persecuting the early believers (Acts 12:1-2) and had John’s brother James put to death. He also made a failed attempt to execute Peter (Acts 12:1-19). Acts 8:4-13 tells of a successful preaching campaign by Philip in Samaria and a visit there by Peter and John also (8:14-25). Philip continued to Gaza (8:26) and from there to the seaside town of Azotus (8:40). After leaving Azotus he preached in various locations as he travelled 60 miles up the coast to Caesarea Maritima (8:40), the provincial capital of Roman Palestine. 

In chapter 9 we learn that Paul preached to the Jews at Damascus shortly after his conversion, but having met with antagonism, left for Jerusalem where he joined the church. He preached to Grecians (Greek-speaking Jews) but, after again experiencing opposition, left and returned to his home town of Tarsus in Asia Minor. By that time, according to a summary by Luke (Acts 9:31), there were Christian churches throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria. Meanwhile, Peter was busy evangelizing away from Jerusalem. He travelled to the coastal area where he healed Aeneas at Lydda, and then to Joppa to raise Dorcas from the dead before proceeding to Caesarea where he met the Roman centurion Cornelius (Acts 9:32-11:18) who, along with other Gentiles, believed and was ‘baptized in the name of the Lord’ (10:47-48). 

Acts chapters 11:19 – 15:35 focus on Antioch, where believers were first nicknamed ‘Christians’ (11:26). Luke is careful to emphasize the strong connection between the Gentile church at Antioch and the older Jewish church at Jerusalem. People from Cyprus and Cyrene left Jerusalem as a result of the persecution following Stephen’s death and brought Christianity to Antioch (11:19-20). The Jerusalem church, receiving news of this outreach to Gentiles in Antioch, sent Barnabas to support and encourage the believers. He then brought Paul to Antioch to spend a year helping him teach the Christians (Acts 11:19-26). Later the assembly at Antioch commended Barnabas and Paul to missionary service (Acts 13:1-5; 14:26) and sent them to Cyprus, Lycaonia and Pamphylia (Acts 13–14) on what is traditionally called Paul’s ‘First Missionary Journey.’ 

THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL

Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch and remained there ‘a long time’ (Acts 14:28) until, about 49 CE, a problem arose when ‘certain men… came down from Judea’ teaching that: ‘Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved’ (Acts 15:1). These men thought that the promises of salvation were to the Jews as a nation. Just as Judaism allowed for a few individual exceptions (proselytes) so too, they must have thought, did the Christian faith (e.g. Gentiles like the Ethiopian Eunuch and Cornelius). It would not have occurred to them that the gospel could be for the Gentiles as a group. They, therefore, considered it necessary that the few believers from a pagan background observe the Mosaic law, including the rite of circumcision. 

One can imagine that this teaching must have caused uncertainty in the minds of Christians of non-Jewish origin. Paul and Barnabas, however, who had already preached in Gentile areas without imposing Jewish rites upon the believers, would have none of it. They realized that the very essence of Christianity was at stake. The gospel was not just for Jews but was a universal message of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, without additional demands. They had presented this same message to Jew and Gentile alike. After much discussion, the assembly at Antioch decided to send Paul, Barnabas and a few others to Jerusalem to meet the elders and apostles and seek a resolution of the problem. The issue boiled down to this: ‘Is anything more needed for salvation than faith in Jesus Christ?’

At the meeting, presided over (15:13) by James the Lord’s brother (Gal 1:19), Peter described how converted Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit just as Jewish Christians had (Acts 15:9-11). Paul and Barnabas also reported (15:12) the signs and wonders that God had performed through them among the Gentiles. James made the concluding speech (15:13-21).

Realizing that the issue was highly significant, the apostles and elders decided to write not only to the church at Antioch but also to the Gentile churches in Syria and Cilicia, which had been established by missionaries (Paul and Barnabas) sent out from Antioch. The striking thing in the letter is that the Jewish leadership of the Jerusalem church officially addressed the Gentile converts as ‘brothers:’

‘The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.’ Acts 15:23

For Jews to call Gentiles ‘brethren,’ not because of blood relationship but because they shared the same faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, was hugely significant. The Jerusalem Council did not require Gentile believers to observe the rituals of the Mosaic law but requested that they avoid idolatry, unchastity and murder. The ‘brothers’ were not only to believe but also expected to behave.

The content of the letter was so weighty that oral confirmation was thought necessary. Two ‘chosen men’ (15:25) accompanied Paul and Barnabas to explain the conclusions reached by the Jerusalem Council and handle questions from the Gentiles. One of these delegates was Judas Barsabas. The other was Silas. 

SILVANUS/SILAS

Silas appears on the scene at this crucial stage in the history of the church. He and Judas Barsabas seem to have been involved in the composition of the letter (15:23), which they then delivered to Antioch and taught the believers there. Silas ‘exhorted the brethren with many words and confirmed (strengthened) them’ (15:32). This approach contrasts sharply with the harmful legacy of the legalists who had ‘troubled [the believers] with words, unsettling [their] minds’ (15:24 ESV). People like Silas, who can preach Jesus Christ clearly (2 Cor 1:19), teach believers to distinguish truth from error and encourage them in their faith, are much needed in today’s church.

After a while, Judas returned to Jerusalem while Silas stayed on at Antioch, teaching alongside Paul and Barnabas. Paul suggested to Barnabas that they ought to go and visit the assemblies in Syria and Cilicia which also were addressees of the Jerusalem letter. Unfortunately, Paul and Barnabas had a disagreement that resulted in each going his separate way. Paul then chose Silas to accompany him on the proposed trip.

SILVANUS THE MISSIONARY

Silas was a suitable choice because he was equally at ease with the Jewish and the Gentile wings of the church. He was a Jew with impeccable credentials as a leader (15:22) of the Jewish church at Jerusalem which had sent him as one of two trusted delegates to Gentile believers following the Jerusalem Council. On the other hand, he was a Roman citizen (16:37), had a Roman name (Silvanus) and spoke fluent Greek. He functioned well in Gentile churches (15:32-35), with his ministry among them much appreciated. Although Jewish, he welcomed the idea of missionary activity in pagan areas and was willing to endure persecution and hardship for the sake of the gospel (16:22-23). Together with Paul, he visited the assemblies in Syria and Cilicia (15:41), thus completing the instructions of the Jerusalem Council. Again, Silas produced good results as ‘the churches [were] established in the faith and increased in number daily’ (Acts 16:5).

This tour of Syria and Cilicia turned out to be just the initial stage of what we usually refer to as ‘Paul’s Second Missionary Journey.’ Paul, Silas and Timothy (16:1-3) then began to receive divine route guidance (16:6, 7, 9-10) which directed them away from Asia and caused them to take the Christian message to Europe. 

They set sail from Troas and landed in Macedonia where they preached the gospel in the cities of Philippi, Thessalonica and Beroea. Silas and Timothy remained at Beroea while Paul continued to Athens, from where he sent for them to join him (17:14-15). Timothy arrived at Athens with news of persecution in Thessalonica, so Paul sent him back there with a message of encouragement (1 Thess 3:1-6). Paul then left Athens and went to Corinth (18:1). Silas must also have gone back, perhaps to Philippi, for he and Timothy met up in Macedonia before re-joining Paul in Corinth (18:5). The three missionaries preached the gospel in Corinth (2 Cor 1:19), from where they jointly wrote two letters to the assembly at Thessalonica (1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1).

Paul eventually left Corinth and sailed to Ephesus, then on to Syria (probably landing at Tyre) before taking a short voyage down the coast to Caesarea. He went up from there and ‘greeted the church’ (at Jerusalem?) before returning to his base at Antioch (Acts 18:18-22). We do not know at what point Silas left Paul. 

SILVANUS AND PETER

We do know that Silas/Silvanus continued to work for the Lord because there is a reference to him in 1 Peter, a book written about ten or twelve years after the end of the Second Missionary Journey:

‘By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.’ 1 Pet 1:5

After leaving Paul’s mission team, Silas must have joined forces with the apostle Peter, eventually working with him in Rome (1 Pet 5:13 – if ‘Babylon’ is a code word for ‘Rome’). Peter held him in high regard and accounted him ‘a faithful brother’, considering Silas/Silvanus qualified to write on his behalf. That Peter wrote ‘by Silvanus’ could mean several things: 

a) That Silvanus was responsible for drafting the letter on Peter’s behalf. Peter would have told him what he wanted to say, and Silvanus would have set out Peter’s thoughts and ideas in writing.

b) Silvanus was the amanuensis who wrote down what Peter dictated.

c) Silvanus was the person who would act as the bearer of the letter.

A) is the most likely meaning because of the literary nature of the Greek of 1 Peter. Some scholars consider it too refined to have been written by a Galilean fisherman who had not had a formal education. Silvanus may have managed Peter’s correspondence, presenting Peter’s spoken Greek in a more polished and technically correct written form. Peter was writing this letter to Christians in Asia Minor (1 Peter 1:1) whom he had not met. Silvanus would therefore have been an ideal helper as he had been to that area (Acts 15:41; 18:5) and had previously co-written two apostolic letters (1 & 2 Thessalonians).

SUMMATION 

i. Silvanus was well-known and respected as a leader in the early church (Acts 15:22). He was not only highly esteemed by the assembly at Jerusalem but also by those in Antioch, Philippi, Thessalonica, Beroea and Corinth. Perhaps he was known to Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1) as well.

ii. As evidenced by his performance as a delegate of the Jerusalem church after the Jerusalem Council and in his later service as a missionary, Silvanus was a level-headed person and endowed with wisdom and tact. He was able to fit in with Christians of different backgrounds and outlooks yet had strong convictions and the ability to preach and explain the doctrines of the gospel to others.

iii. Although he was recognized as a leading brother in the Jerusalem church, we do not read that Silvanus forced his ideas upon the Jerusalem Council. Once it made its decision and appointed him as a delegate, Silas simply got on with the job. Later, when Paul ‘chose’ him as his missionary companion Silvanus was willing to ‘play second fiddle’ to Paul for the sake of the gospel. He was, therefore, a humble-minded Christian who was happy to work alongside and serve others in the Lord’s work.

iv. Silvanus was willing to endure hardship for the sake of the gospel. Along with Paul, he was brutally (1 Thess 2:2) and illegally (Acts 16:38) treated at Philippi. Despite the insults and injuries received, he was able to pray and sing praises to God in the gaol and willing to point the prison officer to Christ.

We must not forget that, despite his humble attitude, Silvanus was an important man in his own right. As a NT prophet, he was with the apostles in the front ranks of importance in the church (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 2:20; 3:5; 4:11) and, exercising his gift, spoke words of exhortation and encouragement from God before the completion of the New Testament scriptures. Silvanus, in fact, was co-author of at least three (1 & 2 Thessalonians; 1 Peter) of the inspired books in that collection. We can never match his achievements for the Lord, but it would be worthwhile to emulate his humble attitude, his flexibility towards other Christians with a different theological outlook and his dedication to the gospel ministry.

Posted in Exposition

(5) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.



FATHER AND SON

In 1:14 the glory of Jesus is described as ‘the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father.’ The major claim in this Gospel is that that Jesus came from and returned to God.
This claim is so important that those who reject the son do not honour and obey the Father who sent him. Those who believe in Jesus believe in the one who sent him (12:44). On this theme the Prologue makes a fundamental statement (1:18);


‘No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.’


The ‘only-begotten son’ (KJV) has seen God since only he was pre-existent with the Father before the creation of the world. This experience of seeing the Father only belongs to the One who has come from God – the incarnate Logos (3:11; 3:32; 5:37; 7:29; 8:42; 16:28).


The relationship between the Father and the Son is characterized by love (3:35; 5:20; 15:9; 17:24) and the intimacy is such that the Father continues to be present with the Son while he is on earth (8:29; 16:32). The pre-existent relationship is so close that it is described as a dwelling of one within the other (10:38; 14:10; 17:21) but the subordination of the son to the Father is emphasized. The son is viewed as having been sent on a mission initiated by the Father, and is therefore accountable to him (3:17; 4:34; 5:23; 6:38; 7:28; 8:29, 12:44, 14:24). He is dependent on and obedient to the Father who gives him things (3:34; 5:22, 26, 27, 36; 17:24; 12:49; 17:8; 18:11), and people (6:37, 17:6). The son says that he can do nothing on his own initiative but only as instructed by his Father. (5:19, 30; 8:28). Lincoln (2005, p.65) comments:

‘However, the language of dependency of the Son on the Father- ‘the Son can do nothing on his own’- stresses not so much the subordination of the former to the latter as the total alignment of the wills and activities of the two (cf. 5:19,30; 8:28; 12:59-50).’

The paradox that is developed throughout John’s Gospel is that while the Son is subordinate to the Father, it is this that makes him equal with the Father, not just equal but truly one with the Father. Jesus applies two interesting titles to himself in the Gospel. The first is ‘Son of Man’ (1:51; 3:13-14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 12:23; 13:31), the second is the ‘Son’ or ‘Son of God’ (1:14, 34, 49; 3:16-18; 5:19-26; 8:36; 9:35; 10:36; 11:27; 17:1; 19:7; 20:31). The title “Son of God” connected Jesus with the being of God himself. He is God and he is with God. He is equal to God but also dependent on God. As son he does only what the Father wants him to do and only speaks what he hears from the Father. As Logos he is the expression of God but he does not point to himself, only to his Father. As Son he reveals God and enables human beings to have a relationship with God.

THE SUPERIORITY OF THE REVELATION IN CHRIST TO THAT ON WHICH JUDAISM IS BASED

The Gospel of John is firmly grounded on the Old Testament. The connection between Moses and Jesus is stated towards the end of the Prologue (1:16-18):

‘From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.’

Lincoln (2005, p.75) aptly sums up the implications of these verses:

‘In the prologue not only is the grace and truth previously associated with the glory of Yahweh in the covenant with Moses (cf. Exod. 34.6) now associated with the glory of the incarnate Logos (1.14), but a contrast can also be made between the two – ‘the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came into being through Jesus Christ’ (1.17). This is not a denial that before the coming of the Logos the law was previously an expression of Yahweh’s grace and truth. It is rather an assertion on the part of believers in Jesus that now they have seen the fullness of grace and truth in the Logos’s glory, these qualities need no longer be sought in the law.’

The Prologue thus ends as it began; with a statement of the deity of Christ. Verses 1 and 18 mirror one another as in each the Son is called ‘God’, is viewed as the expression (logos) or revealer of God and is described as being intimate with God (‘with God’ and ‘at the Father’s side’).

CONCLUSION

Most of these main themes and leading ideas in the Prologue continue throughout the Fourth Gospel but ‘Logos’, the key term in the Prologue, does not appear (as a Christological title). The Prologue contains the substance of the Gospel, which explains the religious significance of Jesus. He is the pre-existent Logos, the source of existence, life and light, who became a human being and lived on earth. He was witnessed to by John the Baptist, was generally rejected by his own people but was received by some, to whom he gave authority to become God’s children. God previously revealed himself in a limited way in the law, but the Logos, Jesus Christ, was the ultimate self-expression of God.

(1) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

(2) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

(3) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

(4) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

(6) THEMES IN THE PROLOGUE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.