Tag: hardening

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