Approaching such a text as Romans 9 through 11 requires a great deal of contextual understanding regarding the relationship between the Jews and Gentiles who have come under the lordship of Christ Jesus in the New Covenant. After tracing an overview of this controversy in the New Testament, particularly in regards to Paul, we will be able to establish the context and reveal extensive background information in regards to the theological debate concerning this seemingly contentious relationship. After such a survey, one may attempt to reconcile the apparent ethical dilemmas that may arise under the New Covenant regarding this relationship. One must achieve a preliminary understanding from the Biblical text of what has taken place within the first century church and the issues at the time Paul writes his epistle to “all who are beloved of God in Rome ”.
We see one of the first evidences of this controversy as Luke records in Acts 11:1-18 that the circumcised that had come to Christ in Jerusalem questioned Peters communing with the Gentiles . Peter spoke in their defense as he shares his vision and gave witness to the Gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ. The circumcised recognized that God had granted to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life . Later in Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas encounter men who are teaching the believers that unless they are circumcised according to the custom of Moses they cannot be saved . This question led to the meeting of the Jerusalem Council where, after much debate concerning this issue between the Apostles and the elders, Peter tells the council that “God made no distinction between us and them ” in reference to the Gentiles who believed the gospel as they had received the same Holy Spirit as those who were Jewish and believed.
The controversy is seen later in a similar form in Galatians 2 as Paul states that his mission to the Gentiles (or the uncircumcised), as formally recognized by the Jerusalem council, was the same effectual work of God that was taking place within the circumcised . With this prior acknowledgment, Paul then has a just basis to refute Peter for his hypocrisy in removing himself from communion with the Gentiles when the Jews arrived, essentially showing a partiality that God does not show Himself . As a result, Paul can then make the proceeding accusation that Peter and the rest of the Jews with him were not being straightforward about the gospel that Jew and Gentile alike had received the same Spirit of God by faith in Jesus Christ and in turn have become one.
This theme of the two becoming one is also seen by Paul’s address to the Ephesian church in Ephesians 2. Paul says that at one time the Gentiles in the flesh were separate from Christ and excluded from the commonwealth of Israel , but now both Jew and Gentile have been made one in Christ. The wall that divided them has been broken down, making the two one new man by abolishing the enmity between them: the ordinances of the Law that effectively walled out the Gentiles . Gentiles are no longer seen as foreigners or aliens but as fellow citizens of God’s household, which abolishes all former barriers that once separated Jew or Gentile, having access to the father in one Spirit . This theme is attested to throughout Paul’s writings speaking to the churches concerning their identity as the new children of promise, not distinguished by Jew or Greek, but by faith in the Lordship of Christ according to the Spirit, not according to the flesh.
As one might expect from the far-reaching scope of this debate, the Roman church is subject to have similar problems when understanding the concept of the oneness in the people of God, as previously described by Paul to the other churches. As Luke has recorded and as Paul has written extensively about, that oneness is only manifested by the Spirit of God by faith in Christ Jesus. With this preliminary understanding from the Biblical text of what has taken place within the first century church, we can better understand the context in which Paul writes his epistle to the Romans, and more specifically chapters 9 through 11.
Romans 9 through 11 plays a critical role in the New Testament debate regarding the relationship between the Jews and Gentiles who have come under the lordship of Christ Jesus in the New Covenant. The importance of this passage in the debate is seen by the severity of the questions asked in regards to the identity of Israel. Previously, the Jerusalem Council has answered the question of circumcision in regards to the Gentiles for they received the same Spirit, as God demonstrated no partiality; this was obviously evidence that God had accepted them within the community of the children of God. Paul answered the following question, as he has dealt with in other letters, of the divisions that arose within the church due to the law and ethnicity with the tearing down of the wall that divided Jew and Gentile making them one in Spirit by faith in Christ . In Romans we encounter a somewhat different, yet critically important, question pertaining to the heart of the debate. The question posed is a highly critical question regarding God’s faithfulness to the promises He has made to Paul’s kinsmen according to the flesh, the Israelites. Why is the church (recognized in the epistle as the “children of God” ) dominated with such a great Gentile presence and what of the majority of the children of Israel who have not embraced their own king Jesus? Has God forsaken His people? Has the word of God failed ? These are the questions that are addressed within the 9th through 11th chapters of Romans.
A basic grasp of the situation in the Roman church at the time of the epistle may be an aid to understanding the proposed questions brought about in Paul’s discourse. Scholars place the date of the epistle anywhere within the range of 55 to 59 A.D . The church in Rome at this time has possibly experienced problems due to the return of the Jews from their expulsion from Rome by the emperor Claudius in approximately 54 A.D. The Jewish believers would have returned to a Gentile dominated church where there may have been some movement away from its Jewish origins. Along with the already realized tension in Jew/Gentile relations under the New Covenant throughout the churches stretching from Jerusalem to the Greek peninsulas, it is not hard to imagine there were similar debates taking place in Rome, with possible escalation upon the Jewish return. With this context in mind, it may aid in the understanding of these questions dealt with by Paul to the Roman church in Romans 9 through 11 regarding God’s faithfulness to His covenant people, the Jews, and whether His word has failed. In order to understand Paul’s answer to these questions in this passage, we must trace the basis for his argument throughout the whole of the letter, not fallaciously divorcing the discourse from the context of the rest of the book or treating it as merely an excursus to the letter.
An idea crucial to the argument is displayed early on in the text. Paul states that there is no partiality with God as we see in 2:11. He says that everyone who does good by obeying the truth, seen in the context of repentance and faith in the gospel of God, there will be glory, honor, and peace for the Jew first and also to the Greek. This last phrase is important throughout the letter that the power of God for salvation for everyone who believes is to the Jew first. The meaning of this phrase could be summarized in two basic positions: either the Jew, by nature, has priority in God’s salvific plans for the world, or the Jews have been presented the gospel of salvation first as it then carried to the Gentiles. The first position could be described in the sense that salvation itself was meant to be for the ethnic descendants of Jacob, displaying a soteriological hierarchy in which salvation is merely shared with the Gentile nations as they are treated as the, salvifically speaking, second tier citizens of God’s kingdom. The second position could be described in the sense that the gospel began and was brought through the vessel of Israel and now proceeds to the Gentiles in order of God’s salvific plan, where there is no soteriological hierarchy given to either ethnic group as they are equally citizens of God’s kingdom from the derived pattern in which He chose to carry His gospel.
This phrase “to the Jew first and also to the Greek” is used in 1:16 in reference to salvation for all who believe. It is then used in 2:9-10 in reference to tribulation for those who do evil, but glory, honor, and peace to those who do good. Immediately proceeding the phrase’s use in this way, Paul arrives at a conclusion based upon the previous discussion declaring that there is no partiality with God. If the phrase is within the immediate context of describing God as impartial, it would seem contradictory to take the first position of one group (ethnic Jews) taking a position of soteriological hierarchy over another. It is more than likely that Paul has the second option in mind, that all are equal citizens in God’s kingdom as the gospel had begun with the Jews and has now made its way to the Gentiles.
Another ground for the claim that there is no partiality with God is the fact that in Adam all have sinned (5:12). Although the meaning of the “eph o” in 5:12 has been heavily debated , each possible interpretation results in all sinning. The curse of death has come upon all sinners and not solely Jew or Gentile. Paul shows that through the one transgression of Adam, condemnation and death fell upon all men. In return through the one act of righteousness in Christ all men may receive justification and life . The source of mankind’s separation from God is due to sin, not due to ethnically non-Jewish decent. In Paul’s argument, this gives a strong basis for the impartiality of God in His dealings with mankind throughout salvation history.
Another ground for the claim that there is no partiality with God is the fact that all stand condemned under the law (3:9-20). Paul says that the law closes every mouth and the entire world becomes accountable to God because all have transgressed it . The works of the law will justify no flesh because it brings the knowledge of sin . Once again, setting the stage for what is later expounded upon in chapter 5, we see that sin is the source of man’s separation from God and not ethnic decent. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God ”, which in turn places all men on equal soteriological standing with God. How He chooses to bring forth salvation, if first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles, is His prerogative. By no means does it display a partiality in God towards the ethnic people of Israel but merely faithfulness in accordance to His promised plan of the redemption of the nations.
Righteousness is also an issue within the debate between Jew/Gentile relations throughout the book. Even though the Jews had been given the law, by no means did it provide a righteousness from God that would exalt them to a greater standing with Him by means of their ethnic decent. Paul states in 3:21-22 that the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law. Under law, there is no flesh that will be justified, or declared righteous. This righteousness only comes by faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe, for there is no distinction . The ethnic Jew, being a descendant of Abraham, may object to this notion that a Gentile simply by faith can achieve the same justification as that of Abraham. Paul then uses Abraham himself as grounds for the righteousness that is only received by faith in chapter 4. He quotes Genesis 15:6 saying “Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness” before he was even circumcised. Paul does this to show that the Jewish ethnic tradition of circumcision, merely a sign of the righteousness credited by faith , is not the basis of Abraham’s right standing before God, but the basis was truly his faith. We see another theme in the epistle displayed here as Paul says that you are truly a descendant of Abraham if, and only if, you share the same faith as that of Abraham .
As the some of the Jews obviously had misinterpreted their relationship to Abraham and assumed their right standing with God based upon their circumcision, the idea that they had peace with God solely by their ethnic decent must also be false. As we see clearly in 5:1, only those who are justified by faith have peace with God through the Lord Jesus Christ. The descendants of Abraham, who are descendants by faith, are those who are at peace with God.
A major theme throughout Romans that is critical to the argument in Romans 9 through 11, reiterating the theme that there is no partiality with God, is that the designation of Jew or Gentile does not matter in the sense of identity as God’s chosen people. What matters is that one is living “kata sarka (according to the Spirit)” or “kata pneuma (according to the flesh)”. As we have seen early on is that no flesh may be justified before God under the law. Merely circumcision or works of the law, which are of the flesh, may not justify one but it must be by faith, which is of the Spirit. The salvific work of God is incomplete in the flesh, but by the Spirit it is complete. Paul reveals this pivotal concept in the opening of the epistle as He describes the nature of the gospel of God that He promised beforehand through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son . Jesus was born a descendant of David “kata sarka” or “according to the flesh”. Being a descendant of David according to the flesh was only partial fulfillment of the gospel of God as promised, but incomplete in ethnic decent alone. The work of the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation, is only complete when Jesus was declared the Son of God with power as a result of the resurrection of the dead “kata pneuma” or “according to the Spirit”.
In Romans 9:5, Christ is recognized as descended from the fathers in regard to ethnic decent, in line with the context of how Paul addresses His kinsmen the Israelites. Although this is true, as we have previously seen, being according to the flesh is not enough to achieve the promise of the gospel. Paul speaks of His ethnic kinsmen merely as “kata sarka”, synonymous with an incomplete fulfillment of the gospel in them, being not enough in ethnic decent alone to receive any soteriological hierarchy or benefit. We see in Romans 4:1 that Abraham was described as the forefather “according to the flesh” in regards to the circumcision but then later establishes that only if you believe with the faith of Abraham are you truly a descendant. Once again we see that being “according to the flesh” is not enough to truly be recognized as a child of Abraham, therefore sharing in the promises of the gospel that was spoken to him . This is exactly what is stated in 9:7: “nor all they all children because they descended from Abraham”.
Paul comes to the conclusion that the children “according to the flesh” (his kinsmen, or ethnic Jews) are not necessarily the children of God . In chapter 8 we see that the true children of God are those who are led by the Spirit and do not walk “according to the flesh”. They do not place their faith in ethnicity, circumcision, or attempting to follow the law, but they place their faith in Christ. Those who walk “according to the flesh” must die as Paul clearly states in 8:13. He previously said that the mind set on the flesh (who are those who walk “according to the flesh”) is hostile towards God and leads to death . They are not at peace with God as those who are justified by faith , for they are not those walking “according to the Spirit”, in whom are the partakers in the fulfillment of the gospel as seen in the example of Christ and of Abraham.
These Sons of God are not comprised of those who are “according to the flesh” such as ethnic Jews, but of all who are led by the Spirit, putting their faith in Christ and being united with Him in one Spirit. These, by faith, are the ones who are receiving the adoption as sons being recognized as children of God. These are the ones who are receiving the glorification as the glory of God is revealed to them . These are the ones that are receiving promises. These children of God comprised of all who place their faith in Christ and thereby walk “according to the Spirit”, are recognized as those who are called according to His purpose . These who are called were foreknown and predestined to be conformed to Christ’s image and be the firstborn among many brethren . These children of promise were chosen so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand . They cannot be separated from the love of God in Christ for it is He who called and predestined them for His own purposes. Their election by God is just as Paul demonstrates in 9:4-18 that God may have mercy on whom He has mercy and it is not up to the man’s will but to God’s calling. This election is from Jews and Gentiles alike , as is witnessed by the prophet in Hosea saying “I will call those who were not my people my people, and her who was not beloved my beloved. And it shall be in that place where it was said to them you are not my people, there they shall be called Sons of the living God. ”
These are the grounds to which the faithfulness of God to His people Israel might be called into question. As one might notice, the children of God compromised primarily of Gentiles are inheriting the promises that seem to belong to the Israelites “according to the flesh”. The adoption, the glory, and the promises are seeming to be given to this new entity the church and not to the supposed descendants of Abraham, the Israelites, to whom they belong. Has the word of God failed? Paul suggests that it most certainly has not. But in what sense do the promises belong to Israel? They most certainly belong, but as Paul reveals, not all the ethnic Jews who descended from Israel are “Israel”. Paul uses Israel in two senses here. One sense is that of ethnic decent, and the other is of the true children of promise, or children of God, as made clear in 9:8. The children of promise are seen as Israel in its fulfillment. These we have seen previously as Paul dealt with the idea of “kata sarka” and “kata pneuma”. The children “according to the flesh” are not seen as children of God. The children of God are recognized as the true Israel in its “kata pneuma” form, where the gospel is fulfilled and receipt of the promises is guaranteed. It is this Israel, the children of promise as called and elect of God, made up of Jews and Gentiles that receive the promise. Paul defends this concept throughout chapter 9 as he shows that God selects, according to His purposes, which will be the children of promise by faith. This is displayed in chapter 10 as Paul reiterates that the righteousness the Jews wished for is only found by faith. There is no distinction between Jew and Greek, both sharing the same Lord , if they believe and call upon His name as Lord. Paul is very clear that ethnic Israel has heard the gospel and is without excuse in their rejection of it.
Therefore, God has not rejected His people for God is delivering the promises to the Israel in whom the promises belong: those who have faith in Christ. Paul states that God has not rejected ethnic Israel. He supports this claim with the grounds that he himself is an Israelite “according to the flesh” that now is receiving the promises by faith “according to the Spirit”. Paul uses the story of Elijah to support this idea that God is saving a remnant of ethnic Israel that will stay faithful to Him. Paul has already previously stated this by quoting the prophecy in Isaiah 10:22 concerning ethnic Israel where Isaiah states, “…it is the remnant that will be saved.” Their sharing in the promises made to Israel is only on the basis of faith, which in whom God selects for Himself for His own purposes.
We see that only those who believe make up the remnant, the true Israel “according to the Spirit”, that receive salvation. This is evidenced in Paul’s analogy of the olive tree. Those who believe remain in the tree , while those who do not are broken off. Just as the Gentiles believed and were grafted into the tree, so can those ethnic Jews who out of disbelief were broken off, be grafted back in if they repent and believe. As Paul has clarified already that at this time by the reference to the story of Elijah, God is saving a remnant of ethnic Israel who will believe and thus be grafted back in. Thus the partial hardening (only partial due to the already expressed remnant that will be saved) of ethnic Israel has taken place so that the Gentiles may come in, and so all of Israel will be saved. As Paul as previously stated, all those who believe make up the true Israel. So as the remnant of chosen Jews believe (whether by mass conversion or a small percentage is irrelevant) and those chosen from the Gentiles believe, all of Israel will be saved; the true Israel. Both Jew and Gentile were shut up in disobedience so that mercy may be shown to all as we have previously seen in 3:19. This is the revealed mystery of God in Romans 9-11 that those who are chosen to believe from the Gentiles and the remnant of faithful Jews make up the true Israel; the Israel in which God made His promises. Therefore the word of God has not failed and He has been proven faithful to the promises made to Abraham, our father by faith “according to the Spirit”.
Romans chapters 9 through 11 sustain some of the most controversial texts within scripture throughout church history, and consequently so that tradition continues today. This difficult discourse in Paul’s epistle to the Romans has been interpreted in many ways throughout the centuries. In the patristic era, Augustine’s expressed understanding of the theme of Romans 9-11 was that Paul inserted the chapters to expand his teaching of predestination, being in contrast with those of Origen and Chrysostom . Various reformers such as John Calvin at the time of the protestant reformation held the corresponding view of the precedence of predestination and spoke boldly against those who carried a different interpretation as seen in his Institutes of the Christian Religion: “all the ancients, save Augustine, so differ, waver, or speak confusedly on this subject, that almost nothing certain can be derived from their writings .” This interpretation, although well supported in Biblical scholarship throughout history, may not be the chief objective of this text. Through a critical analysis of the text, it is possible to come to alternate conclusions to the theme of this passage, as we have hopefully achieved. One alternate interpretation that I have demonstrated with an alternate conclusion, represented by contemporary and classical scholars alike, is that the predominant theme of Romans 9-11 deals with the faithfulness of God to His promises made to Israel ; or otherwise simply put by James Dunn “God and Israel ” (in contrast of the interpretation of some scholars who claim the theme is “the Church and Israel ”). In my attempt to prove in the preceding endeavor to examine the text of Romans 9-11, it is highly possible that the argument of the theme of God’s faithfulness to His promises made to Israel may take precedence over that of other ideas promoted by some exegetes who see 9-11 as a passage merely to be inserted as an addition to the overall message of Romans as demonstrated by C.H. Dodd , or the idea that the theme speaks centrally of predestination as seen by Augustine or Calvin.
I was reading up on the interpretation of the “spirits in prison” passage in 1Peter 3:19-20 in John H. Elliott’s Anchor Bible Commentary when I realized that one of the primary interpretations held by the church fathers seemed to have been partially rooted in an extant OT textual tradition. As Elliott references a few texts from the fathers (particularly Irenaeus and Justin Martyr) to identify their interpretive tradition, he observes that in their addressing of the descent of Christ, they do not openly refer to or quote 1 Peter 3:19-20, but to a textual tradition seemingly shared by early fathers that is no longer attested to by any biblical manuscripts we have recovered thus far.
I saw Robert S. Fyall’s book, “Now my Eyes have seen You: Images of creation and evil in the book of Job” sitting on my roomates shelf, probably due to my constant talk about creation and the waters. This book is part of the “New Studies in Biblical Theology” series edited by D. A. Carson. A fine addition this makes to the series, unique due to the topic. I thoroughly enjoy any scholarly work done in this area of study (as seen previously by my Levenson post) but this one stood out a bit. The way in which Fyall deals with the sea motif in his forth chapter (“The Raging Sea“), first the texts in Job and then subsequently relating it to the calming of the sea by Jesus in the gospels will be illuminating for many who have not studied the topic (this book having been written primarily for evangelicals). He interracts with the best scholars in the respective fields and deals judiciously with previous work on the topic. I recommend it for those who are interested with OT themes of creation, the Leviathan/sea problem, and God’s dealings with evil.
“Creation and the Persistance of Evil: The Jewish Divine Drama of Omnipotence” has, I have to say, become one of my favorite books in OT Studies. The reason I say this is because it opened up my conservative evangelical mind to the reality of some difficult things in the OT. Granted many conclusions or interpretive decisions that are made in the book may be called into question, he deals with many themes in the Hebrew scriptures that are often read over by mainline evangelicals which are critical to OT theology. Not only this, but the book will help all those who are unfamiliar with the warfare motifs in apocalyptic literature and allow them to begin making connections, not only in the OT genre, but in NT apocalyptic as well. Theologically the Christian may run into some difficulties, but keep the big picture in mind. Levenson is certainly a creative thinker but this is a very important book and there is much to be gleaned from it in terms of the mythopoeic background for many of the polemics in the Hebrew Bible.
When reading the Apostolic Fathers such as 1 Clement as a biblical studies student, my first knee jerk reaction is to read it with the excessively critical lenses of one who is searching for theological trajectories that can be traced from the scriptures to these deuterocanonical texts and do comparative work in order to be able to say something about the authorial conception of God. Last night, to my own amazement I must admit, I did not read the text in this way. I just layed back comfortably in my bed, tired from a long day, and said “hey, why not read some 1 Clement (if you are thinking random, I know)?”
Hope is a hard commodity to come by these days. In a time of economic “crisis”, political turmoil, unstable foreign relations, and even war, many Evangelical Christians have a hard time believing that they have anything to say to the lost and dying world in regards to supplying this precious commodity in the present. After talking to many of these Christians, many tend to retreat to the idea that “well, we will all go to heaven when we die” as if to escape any glimpse of this precious commodity we call hope in the present life. We try to muster up enough looking towards a relatively uncertain post-mortem state in the place we call “heaven” leaving the world to its demise. As Christians with a hope resembling that of a battered child we pray our Presidents and politicians we vote in can give us a glimpse of this precious commodity by implementing policies that will somehow help the nation we live in with its socio-economic and moral distresses. The on-looking pagan world looks for hope and hears of a far off gospel about going to heaven when we die, looks around at the world around them, and sees little need to believe in that which has no real power to change the world. In the Southern Baptist Convention of which church I have been a part of, our own Baptist Faith and Message seems to agree with this frail line of thought. Article 10 on last things reads as such:
The setting of Jesus’ baptism in Luke’s synoptic account varies in a most interesting way than that of the Mark and Matthew. Chapter 3 changes setting from the infancy narratives of John and Jesus, forerunner and Son of the Most High, to the outset of their ministry. We would anticipate what comes next: the preaching and baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus, which is the beginning of the gospel of the Son of God in Mark. This subsequent shift is the case in the narrative of Luke. What is interesting about Luke is the almost abrupt shift from the infancy narrative of chapter 2 to an entirely new setting.
