Who are Jesus' teachings for?

    According to most Christians, Jesus’ teachings as recorded in the four gospel accounts are useful for all believers. However, hyper-dispensationalists claim that Jesus’ teachings are meant only for ethnic Jews, “the circumcision” (Rom. 15:8), and aren’t applicable to gentiles. I once held strongly to this view, as you can see from earlier posts on my blog. [1] Although I still think a distinction should be drawn between the teachings of Paul and the other apostles — see my recent posts on “Challenges to Dispensationalism” — I don’t think this distinction is as severe as hyper-dispensationalists claim. What does this mean for Jesus’ teachings? Are they for us, or just for ethnic Jews?

    Jesus and Jesus’ teachings

    First, let’s look at Jesus’ own claims about his teachings. In Matthew’s gospel, when he sends out his disciples, he tells them not to go on the road that leads to gentiles, nor to go into Samaritan cities, but “go instead to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:5-6). When speaking to a Phoenician woman, he says, “I was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24). This draws upon the imagery, from the Hebrew Bible, of Israelites as lost sheep without a shepherd (Isa. 53:6; Jer. 23:1-2; 50:6; Ezek. 34:5-6); the Messiah, Jesus, was promised to be a shepherd for these lost sheep (Ezek. 34:23-24). Furthermore, the Johannine Jesus says that salvation is “from the Jews” (Gk: ek tōn ioudaiōn; John 4:22).

    These handful of verses, which are often prooftexted by hyper-dispensationalists, should be read more carefully in their context. Just because Jesus sent his disciples out to Israel doesn’t mean that his teachings aren’t applicable to gentiles; that’s a non sequitur. Later on, he did explicitly dispatch his disciples to “all the gentiles” (Gk: panta ta ethnē; Matt. 28:19), using the same word ethnoi (“nations”) used in 10:5. If his sending of his disciples to Israel alone proves that his teachings are for Israel alone, then his sending of his disciples to all the gentiles proves that his teachings are for gentiles (but really, neither argument is valid).

    In the second instance, the context shows that Jesus was testing the gentile woman’s faith. He refers to the Israelites as “children,” teknoi, while referring to gentiles as “dogs,” kunaria (15:26). The woman answers that even dogs eat crumbs from the table of their master, where the children also eat (15:27). Jesus responds, “O woman, your faith is great!” (15:28) In context, Jesus’ mission to the lost sheep refers not specifically to his teachings, but to his miracles, and in fact he does perform a miracle to heal the gentile woman’s daughter (15:28). This proves that Jesus’ miracles, during his earthly ministry, were primarily for Israel (cf. Matt. 15:29-31), though he was also willing to heal faithful gentiles; it tells us nothing about the usefulness (or lack thereof) of his teachings for gentiles.

    In fact, throughout Matthew’s gospel, Jesus anticipates an expansion of scope for his ministry that will include gentiles. When a faithful gentile comes to him for help, he predicts that many “sons of the kingdom” — that is, Israelites — will be cast out, while “many from east and west” will take their place in the kingdom (Matt. 8:10-12; cf. 22:1-14). Jesus “will announce justice to the gentiles... and in his name gentiles will hope” (12:15-21). Though sent to Israel, he performs a miracle for a gentile woman (15:21-28). The kingdom of God is taken from the Jewish religious leaders and given to “another nation” (Gk: ethnei; 21:33-45). This culminates in Jesus sending his disciples to “all the gentiles” (28:19).

    The same thing is found in the other gospel accounts. Mark records the same incident where Jesus saved a gentile woman’s daughter (7:24-30), and in the long ending, Jesus tells his disciples to go out to “the whole world” (Gk: ton kosmon hapanta) and preach the good news to “every creation” (Gk: pasē tē ktisei; 16:15). In the Luke-Acts corpus, Jesus is said to be both “a light for revelation to gentiles and glory to your people Israel” (Lk. 2:32); he tells his disciples to go first to Jerusalem, then both Judea and Samaria, and finally “to the extreme parts of the earth” (Ac. 1:8), to preach to “all the gentiles, having begun from Jerusalem” (Lk. 24:47). They first preach to diaspora Jews of all nations in Jerusalem (Ac. 2), then to Jews and Greeks across the land (11:19-20), and it’s divinely revealed that God will accept gentiles who “work righteousness” without requiring them to become ethnic Jews (10:9-11:18).

    In the gospel of John, although Jesus says that salvation is “from the Jews” because the temple for worship was in Jerusalem (4:20-22), he anticipates a soon-coming time when true worship will no longer be only in Jerusalem — by extension, salvation will no longer be only “from the Jews” (4:21, 23-24). The Johannine Jesus anticipates the extension of his ministry to “other sheep which aren’t from this fold,” which will become “one flock” (10:16). At the end of his public ministry, “some Greeks” seek Jesus and aren’t turned away (12:20-22). John’s gospel never says anything about the gentiles, ethnoi, explicitly, but it does talk about an expansion of Jesus’ ministry beyond the Jews.

    Paul and Jesus’ teachings

    Jesus anticipated that his ministry would expand beyond ethnic Jews, and even hyper-dispensationalists can’t deny that gentiles who “work righteousness” can be saved under his teachings without becoming ethnic Jews (Ac. 10:34-35). However, they claim that Paul’s audience isn’t under Jesus’ teachings; after all, in his gospel, salvation isn’t dependent upon works at all (e.g., Eph. 2:8-10), which is a legitimate difference between him and the other apostles. But what did Paul have to say about the usefulness of the teachings of Jesus while he was on earth?

    The clearest teaching about this is in the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus). There, Paul says that those who don’t listen to “these things” and “the sound words our Lord Jesus Christ” are “conceited, knowing nothing, having an unhealthy attitude about controversy and disputes over words,” from which come all manner of sins (1 Tim. 6:3-4). The preceding context suggests that Paul is referring to Jesus’ words as recorded in the gospel accounts, because he quotes the exact words of Jesus as recorded in Luke 10:7 (Gk: axios ho ergatēs tou misthou autou), referring to them as “the Scripture” (1 Tim. 5:18). Elsewhere, he says that “every Scripture” is useful for teaching and moral instruction (2 Tim. 3:16-17), which must therefore include Jesus’ teachings in his ministry.

    The best case for strict hyper-dispensationalism could be made if the Pastoral Epistles aren’t actually written by Paul, which is ironic, since hyper-dispensationalists are mostly absolute Biblical inerrantists who must regard the Pastorals as authentic. However, even in Paul’s undisputed epistles, he assumes the usefulness of Jesus’ teachings for his audience.

    In one place, he cites a command of “the Lord” that a husband and wife shouldn’t be divorced, and that the wife should stay unmarried if she is divorced, which Paul considers to be binding on his audience (1 Cor. 7:10-11). This command is found in all three synoptic gospel accounts (Mk. 10:2-12; Matt. 19:3-12; Lk. 16:18). While it’s technically possible that Paul has a different command in mind, one that was revealed only to him, Ockham’s Razor militates against such a possibility. We shouldn’t postulate a second commandment when we know of an identical one from the gospel accounts.

    But didn’t Paul say that Jesus was “a minister of the circumcision” (Rom. 15:8)? Yes, but prooftexting this in favor of hyper-dispensationalism ignores the context. Paul says that “Christ received you... for [Gk: gar] Christ has become a servant of the circumcision, on behalf of the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers, and that the gentiles might glorify God” (15:7-9). He then goes on to cite many Scriptures that prove the gentiles would come to worship God through the Messiah (15:10-12). Paul’s point, therefore, is to show that Christ’s ministry did indeed have the secondary purpose of bringing in the gentiles, though he was primarily a servant of Israel.

    Two different ‘good news’?

    Any unbiased reader of the Scriptures should agree that there are differences between Paul and the other writers of the New Testament. For Jesus and the other apostles, works are a prerequisite of salvation along with faith (Matt. 5:17-20; 16:27; 23:1-3; John 14:15-24; 15:10-12; 2 Pet. 1:10f; 1 John 2:3-6; 5:1-4; Jas. 2:10-24), but for Paul, salvation is by grace through faith alone (Rom. 3:27-28; 4:5; 11:5-6; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8-9; Php. 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:4-5), and works are a result of this (2 Cor. 9:8; Gal. 5:22-25; Eph. 2:10; Php. 1:6; 2:12-13; Tit. 2:11-14; 3:8). For John, the message through which one is saved is simply that Jesus is the Messiah (John 14:15-24; 15:10-12; 20:31; 1 John 2:3-11; 3:18-24; 4:7-5:5), but for Paul, the message through which one is saved is that the Messiah died for our sins and was raised on the third day (1 Cor. 15:1-5; cf. Rom. 10:9).

    Despite these differences, I’m no longer convinced that this requires two entirely separate “good news” or gospels (Gk: euangelion) for Paul and the other apostles. Yes, Paul spoke of “my good news” (Rom. 2:16; 16:25; Eph. 3:1-3; Col. 1:25-26; 2 Tim. 2:8), but he also spoke of “our good news” (2 Cor. 4:3; 1 Thess. 1:5; 2 Thess. 2:14), “the good news of God” (Rom. 1:1; 15:16; 1 Thess. 2:2, 8-9), and most often “the good news of Christ” (Rom. 15:19; 1 Cor. 9:12; 2 Cor. 4:4; 9:13; Gal. 1:7; Phil. 1:27; 1 Thess. 3:2; cf. 2 Thess. 1:8). “The good news of Jesus Christ” is what was also proclaimed by the gospel accounts (Mk. 1:1). Paul says that the same good news was proclaimed by him and the other apostles (1 Cor. 15:1-11). “The good news” is for “every believing-one, Jewish first and also Greek,” not just for some believing-ones (Rom. 1:16).

    Furthermore, hyper-dispensationalists claim that the other apostles must have never truly understood Paul’s gospel — otherwise they would’ve been part of “the body of Christ” and not “the Israel of God.” But Paul himself, though he emphasizes that his good news comes from Christ alone and no other human (Gal. 1:6-12), also says that he “laid before [the other apostles] the good news that I proclaim among the gentiles” to make sure that it wasn’t “for nothing” (2:2). This implies that the other apostles, even if they didn’t preach Paul’s gospel, certainly knew about it. In the same passage, he says that he preached the same faith that he used to persecute (1:22-24), and nowhere indicates that he ever changed what he preached. [2]

    Paul’s gospel is said to have been “a secret” in times past (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:3; Col. 1:26), which hyper-dispensationalists appeal to as proof that it can’t have been taught before him. Yet this “secret” is said to have been contained in the Old Testament prophets (Rom. 16:25-26; cf. Gal. 3:8); his “good news” is “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:1-4). The good news that Paul proclaims was made manifest not by Paul himself, but by “the appearance of our Savior, Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1:9-10; cf. 1 Pet. 1:20).

    How then can we explain the clear differences between Paul and the other apostles? One way is simply to reject absolute Biblical inerrancy; every Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching and moral instruction (2 Tim. 3:16-17), but never claims to be absolutely without error or human influence. Maybe the apostles simply disagreed on comparatively minor issues, like whether works come logically before or after salvation, while agreeing on the larger “good news.” [3] The other possible solution, which I favor, is the one I set forth in my recent post about dispensationalism: perhaps the writings of the other apostles are to God’s people as a whole, while Paul’s writings are to the subset of God’s people who understand the true meaning of Christ’s death and resurrection, who are therefore charged with “the message of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18-20).

    Conclusion

    Hyper-dispensationalists draw a severe distinction between Paul’s teachings and the teachings of Jesus (while he was on earth) and his disciples. This distinction, although supported by some clear differences between Paul and the other apostles, is contradicted in several places by Jesus and Paul themselves. Jesus’ teachings aren’t only for ethnic Jews, but were considered by Paul to be useful for his audience, as well. A sharp distinction between the “good news” preached by Paul and the other apostles can’t be drawn, and the evident differences between Paul and the other apostles can be explained in other ways. For these reasons, even though I used to strongly argue for hyper-dispensationalism, I don’t think it’s a sustainable view in light of the whole testimony of the Scriptures.

______________________________

[1] See my series of posts on the topic of “Pauline Dispensationalism.”

[2] This context suggests that the apparent distinction between a “good news of the uncircumcised” and “of the circumcised” at Gal. 2:7 should be understood as what Wallace calls the “Genitive of Direction” (for which he gives the example of Rom. 8:36, “sheep for slaughter”). Paul was given to preach the good news to the gentiles, while Peter was given to preach it to ethnic Jews. This is supported by the context: he goes on to say (2:8) that the same one (God) was working in Peter “for a commission to the circumcised” (Gk: eis apostolēn tēs peritomēs) and in himself “to the gentiles” (Gk: eis ta ethnē). In the next verse (2:9), he says that he and the other apostles agreed that he should go “to the gentiles” (Gk: eis ta ethnē) and them “to the circumcised” (Gk: eis tēn peritomēn). The emphasis is on the difference in direction, not in type, of the commission.

[3] It’s also possible that — in the case of works — there’s no contradiction at all. Paul may simply be emphasizing the divine point of view, by which our works are the result of God working in us, while the other apostles emphasize the human point of view. The other apostles do also say, in some places, that our works are the result of God and Christ in us (Heb. 8:10-11; 10:14-17; 1 John 4:10-12, 17-19; cf. Deut. 30:6; Jer. 24:7; 31:33-34; Ezek. 11:19-20; 36:26-28).

Warnings against non-universalism

    Non-universalists, both annihilationist and infernalist, often point to passages that suggest a limited scope of salvation (e.g., Matt. 7:13-23) as evidence against universalism. But contrary to this, many times in the gospel accounts, Jesus warns against assuming a limited scope of salvation — in other words, against non-universalism. In fact, this applies to many of the passages that non-universalists themselves point to as evidence for a limited scope of salvation! (Note: Some universalists believe that Paul was the only one to explicitly teach universal salvation; whether or not this is correct, Jesus’ warnings should be seen as paving the way for the explicit doctrine of universal salvation.)

    The debtor’s prison

    Two of Jesus’ parables in the gospel of Matthew use the metaphor of a debtors’ prison. The first is from the sermon on the mount:

Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are on the way to court with him, or your accuser may hand you over to the judge and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny. (Matt. 5:25-26)

This comes in the middle of several ‘Gehenna-sayings’ (5:22, 29-30), which suggests that the prison is a metaphor for Gehenna, a punishment inflicted by God. A parallel passage from the gospel of Luke (12:57-59) is nearly identical to Matthew 5:25-26. In another parable, a king forgives his slave’s debt, but the slave fails to forgive another’s debt to him, so the king throws the slave into the debtors’ prison (18:23-34). Jesus says, “This my heavenly Father will also do to you, if you don’t forgive your brother from your heart” (18:35), which shows that this too is a metaphor for divine punishment.

    Non-universalists typically view these passages as parables of future, hopeless punishment of unbelievers. After all, Jesus says, “You won’t get out until you’ve paid the last penny!” (Matt. 5:26; Lk. 12:59) In ancient debtors’ prisons, it would have been impossible (or nearly so) to pay one’s debt from prison, especially a sum like 10,000 talents (Matt. 18:24, 34).

    However, this ignores what the actual debt is, from the context of the parables. In Matthew 5:25-26 and Luke 12:57-59, the ‘debt’ is a refusal to reconcile with someone that you sinned against. In the longer version of the parable, the ‘debt’ is a refusal to reconcile with someone that sinned against you, even as many as 490 times (Matt. 18:21-22, 35). It follows that the person remains in ‘prison’ as long as they fail to reconcile, but their ‘debt’ is repaid when they reconcile with their enemy, whether it’s someone they sinned against or someone who sinned against them! In none of the parables is there any indication that the ‘judge’ (i.e., God) acts to prevent the ‘debt’ from ever being repaid; on the contrary, God’s justice demands that the ‘debt’ is repaid (Matt. 5:26; 18:34-35; Lk. 12:59).

    Rather than supporting non-universalism, these passages act as a warning against assuming a limited scope of salvation. The point of these parables is that we should forgive and reconcile with everyone — both those whom we’ve sinned against and those who’ve sinned against us — or else God will judge us. If we think that some people will suffer eternally for their sins, and God himself will never forgive and reconcile with them, how could we ever truly reconcile with them? This demands that we should at least be hopeful universalists; we can’t assume that it will ultimately be impossible to reconcile with some people.

    The narrow path

    Non-universalists often appeal to Jesus’ statements about the “narrow path” that “few” will take to find life, in contrast to the “broad path” which “many” will follow to destruction (Matt. 7:13-14; Lk. 13:22-30). At first, these seem to be strong evidence against universal salvation. However, we have to look at the context of both sayings.

    In the second one, Jesus is responding to someone who asks, “Are only a few people being saved?” (Lk. 13:23) He answers that “many” will seek to enter “the narrow door,” but won’t be able (13:24). He then says that, after the Lord closes the door, “you-all” (second person plural) will seek to enter, and claim to be his followers, but will be unable; [1] they will be cast out, but “people from east and west and north and south” (i.e., many gentiles) will enter the kingdom of God (13:25-29). Those who seek to be first will be last (13:30). Jesus is actually rebuking the person who asked the question; he wishes to be one of the “few” who are saved, and claims to be Jesus’ follower, but he’ll be surprised when he’s cast out and many other people enter in. Because he seeks to be first, he’ll be last. [2]

    In a parallel passage from Matthew’s gospel, Jesus says that “many” (Gk: polloi) gentiles — using the same word that describes the “broad way” in Matt. 7:13 and Lk. 13:24 — will enter the kingdom, but the “sons of the kingdom” will be cast out (8:10-12). Matthew 7:13-14 and Luke 13:24-30, therefore, are some of Jesus’ paradoxical sayings. The “many” who follow the broad way and are destroyed are those who wish to be part of the “few” who are saved, while the “few” are, ironically, those who recognize and accept that “many” will be saved. This is actually a warning against assuming a limited scope of salvation.

    This interpretation is supported by the context of Matthew 7:13-14. This part of the sermon on the mount begins with a warning not to judge others, because those who judge will be judged by the same standard (Matt. 7:1-5). Who is Jesus talking about here? Certainly not those who limit the ultimate scope of salvation! He goes on to say that everyone who asks will be given, everyone who seeks will find, and everyone who knocks will have the door opened to them (7:7-11; cf. Lk. 13:25). We should want other people to be treated the way we want to be treated (7:12). Those who claim to be his followers, but are cast out (7:21-23), aren’t those who believe in universal salvation; it’s actually those who fail to accept that many unexpected people will be entering God’s kingdom! (Lk. 13:25-30)

    The eonian sin

    What about the famous “unforgivable sin” passages (Mk. 3:28-29; Matt. 12:31-32)? Jesus says that blasphemy of the holy spirit won’t be forgiven in this aiōn (“age”), nor in the next one, but is actually guilty of “aiōnios sin!” Non-universalists appeal to this passage against universalism, because it appears to promote a hopeless judgment against those who commit a particular sin — although they can’t seem to agree on what exactly this sin is. Let’s look at the context of the passage.

    The passage begins with Jesus healing a demon-possessed man who was both blind and mute (Matt. 12:22-23; Lk. 11:14). The Pharisees, however, claim that he’s casting out demons by the authority of the ruler of demons (Mk. 3:22; Matt. 12:24; Lk. 11:15-16). Jesus denies this, saying that the ruler of demons can’t fight against the demons, and he exorcizes by the spirit of God (Mk. 3:23-26; Matt. 12:25-28; Lk. 11:17-20). To the contrary, he must bind up the ruler of the demons in order to plunder his territory, freeing those within (Mk. 3:27; Matt. 12:29; Lk. 11:21-22). The Pharisees, however, refuse to “gather” with him, and “scatter” instead (Matt. 12:30; Lk. 11:23); this is “blasphemy against the spirit” and won’t be forgiven (Mk. 3:28-30; Matt. 12:31-32; cf. Lk. 12:10).

    What is blasphemy against the spirit? It’s a refusal to believe that Jesus can free those in Satan’s kingdom by the spirit of God. The Pharisees denied this, claiming that he must be freeing those in Satan’s kingdom by Satan’s power; they refuse to “gather” with him. Once again, this is a paradoxical saying of Jesus. The sin that won’t be forgiven is a refusal to accept that every sin will be forgiven (Mk. 3:28; Matt. 12:31); a refusal to believe that God’s power binds up Satan and “plunders” his kingdom, “gathering” those within. This certainly isn’t a warning against believing in universal salvation — once again, it’s actually a warning against assuming a limited scope of salvation!

    But does it mean that the Pharisees will never be forgiven? Not at all! Ironically, claiming that the Pharisees can’t be forgiven, by the power of God, for their blasphemy comes close to committing that sin itself. To say that every blasphemy will be forgiven, but blasphemy against the spirit won’t (Mk. 3:28-29; Matt. 12:31-32; Lk. 12:10), is simply a common idiom that means it’s more difficult to forgive that blasphemy than any other. [3] Jesus’ statement that they won’t be forgiven in this aiōn or the next, that they are guilty of an aiōnios sin, isn’t proof of this either; if they abandon their prideful attitude and accept that Jesus can save unexpected people by God’s spirit, they’re no longer guilty of this aiōnios sin.

    Conclusion

    In this post, we looked at just three lessons from Jesus’ ministry that are often appealed to by non-universalists to support a limited scope of salvation: the ‘debtors’ prison’ parables, the ‘narrow path’ statements, and the ‘unforgivable sin’ pericope. All three of them were found to actually be warnings against assuming a limited scope of salvation! Although Jesus never says explicitly in the synoptic gospels that God will save all people, he does strongly warn against assuming that some people will never be saved. The “narrow path” by which “few” find life is, ironically, the acceptance that “many” unexpected people will enter the kingdom of God. Based on this, every Christian should be at least a hopeful universalist! We shouldn’t assume that anyone, no matter how lost, will never be saved, or we might face God’s judgment ourselves.

______________________________

[1] Grammatically, it’s most plausible that Jesus is addressing those who asked the question when he says, “You-all will begin to stand outside and knock at the door” (Lk. 13:25). He says that these people will address him as “Lord” (Gk: kyrie), which is the same word that the man used to address Jesus in v. 23.

[2] However, the ultimate salvation of the prideful man isn’t precluded by this passage. Jesus says that the door will be closed when they knock, but in the parallel text from Matthew, he says that everyone who knocks will eventually have the door opened to them (Matt. 7:7-8; cf. Lk. 11:9-10). Because they seek to be first, they’ll be “last” (Lk. 13:30), but being last still means they will ultimately enter.

[3] For examples of this idiom, which simply means that one thing is preferable to another (or more important, or more severe, etc.), see Gen. 32:28; 45:7-8; Exod. 16:8; 1 Sam. 8:7; Job 2:10; Jer. 7:22; 16:14-15; Prov. 8:10; Ezek. 16:47; Joel 2:13; Hos. 6:6; Matt. 6:19-20; 9:13; 24:35; Lk. 14:12-13; John 6:27; Acts 5:4; 1 Cor. 1:17.

"Has God rejected his people?": an exegesis of Romans 11:1-36

Part 2: Romans 9:30-10:21

    “God hasn’t rejected his people!”

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.

    Meditating on the Scriptures that he just quoted, especially the last one which contextually speaks of God’s rejection of his rebellious people in favor of the gentiles (Isa. 65-66), Paul briefly wonders if God has fully rejected Israel. His answer is certain: “May it never be!” (Gk: mē genoito) Because he himself is a descendant of Abraham, Israel, and Benjamin, it can’t be that God has rejected all of his people; he must have left for himself a faithful remnant of Israelites, including Paul himself.

Do you not know what the scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars; I alone am left, and they are seeking my life.” But what is the divine reply to him? “I have kept 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. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

    Paul quotes 1 Kings 19:14, 18 to show that God also left a faithful remnant in the time of Elijah, when most of Israel had rebelled against YHWH in favor of Baal. The Israelite remnant now, just as in the past, has been “chosen according to [God’s] grace” (Gk: kata eklogēn charitos). Because the remnant has been chosen “in grace” (Gk: chariti), it isn’t “from works” (Gk: ex ergōn). This continues Paul’s rejection of “a legal righteousness” in favor of “righteousness from faith,” which began at 9:30 and continued through chapter 10; the remnant has received the latter, rather than trying vainly to obtain the former (as rebel Israel has tried to do).

What then? Israel has not achieved what it was pursuing. The elect have achieved it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, “God gave them a sluggish spirit, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.” And David says, “Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them; let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and keep their backs forever bent.”

    Paul returns to an earlier topic: his brethren, rebel Israel, were “hardened” by God (Gk: epōrōthēsan; cf. Rom. 9:14-18) because they failed to (actively) “obtain” (Gk: epetychen) righteousness by faith, whereas the chosen remnant of Israel did (actively) obtain it. The order and verb tenses don’t support the Calvinist interpretation that the reason Israel didn’t obtain it is because God hardened them (although that’s nevertheless a possible reading). Rather, the order suggests that God hardened them because they failed to actively obtain righteousness by faith.

    This point is supported by two more Scripture quotations. Paul combines Isaiah 29:10 and Deuteronomy 29:4 (LXX) to show that God has hardened Israel in the past, so that they were unable to see and hear the truth. He also cites Psalm 69:22-23 to demonstrate God’s continual judgment and hardening of rebel Israel — which seems to be hopeless, as it’s said to continue “forever” (Gk: dia pantos)! Yet the hopelessness of this hardening is contradicted by the context of the first Scripture citation, which says that the rebels in Israel will be given understanding (Isa. 29:22-24).

    “Have they stumbled into a fall?”

So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means! But through their stumbling salvation has come to the gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their stumbling means riches for the world and if their loss means riches for gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!

    Paul, meditating on the Scriptures that he just cited, especially Ps. 69:23 which says that rebel Israel will be hardened “forever” (Gk: dia pantos), wonders if their stumbling is irrevocable (a “fall”). Just as before (11:1), his answer is certain: “May it never be!” (Gk: mē genoito) He rejects his earlier hypothetical, where his brethren were created as “vessels of wrath” for the sole purpose of destruction to show God’s power (9:21-24). Their stumbling was so that the gentiles would be saved, to provoke themselves to jealousy (cf. 10:19; Deut. 32:21). When they are fully included (Gk: to plērōma autōn, lit. “their totality”), the result will be even greater!

Now I am speaking to you gentiles. Inasmuch as I am an apostle to the gentiles, I celebrate my ministry in order to make my own people jealous and thus save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

    Paul illustrates his statement about rebel Israel’s exclusion and future inclusion using his own ministry. As an “apostle of gentiles” (Gk: ethnōn apostolos), his goal is to provoke his rebellious brethren to jealousy and thereby save “some out of them” (Gk: tinas ex autōn). This shows that the purpose of the jealousy mentioned at Rom. 10:18; 11:11 (and Deut. 32:21) is the ultimate salvation of rebel Israel, so their hardening must not be hopeless! Indeed, their acceptance will be “life out of the dead-ones” (Gk: zōē ek nekrōn). This is the resurrection of the dead, which Paul associates in 1 Corinthians 15 with the reconciliation and restoration of God’s enemies, including rebel Israel (see my exegesis of that chapter).

    “Don’t boast over the branches”

If the part of the dough offered as first fruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; and if the root is holy, then the branches also are holy. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted among the others to share the rich root of the olive tree, do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember: you do not support the root, but the root supports you.

    Paul uses a couple of agricultural metaphors to demonstrate that rebel Israel must be restored. The holiness of Lthe firstfruit” (Gk: hē aparchē), in ancient Jewish tradition, made the entire harvest (Gk: to phyrama, lit. “the lump”) holy (Lev. 19:23-25; Num. 15:17-21). Likewise, the holiness of “the root” (Gk: hē rhiza), means that the “branches” (Gk: hoi kladoi), that is, the people of Israel, must also be holy. Because all Israel is holy (set apart), even the rebels in Israel must eventually be restored.

    The identity of the “firstfruit” and “root” is debated. It could refer to Israel’s Messiah, Jesus, who is elsewhere called “the firstfruit of the dead” (Gk: aparchē tōn kekoimēmenōn; 1 Cor. 15:20) and “the root of Jesse” (Gk: hē rhiza tou iessai; Rom. 15:12). It might instead refer to the patriarchs, as Paul later says that rebel Israel is “beloved because of their ancestors” (11:28), and a similar metaphor is used in several Second Temple Jewish texts (Jub. 16.26; 21.24; 1 En. 93.5, 8; Philo, Her. 277-9). Either way, the point is the same: the people of Israel, including rebels, are set apart to God (because of their ancestors or their Messiah), so their rebellion can’t be final.

    Here, as in Jeremiah 11:16-17, the people of Israel are described as an olive tree with broken branches. Paul writes in the second person singular, as though speaking to a single gentile interlocutor (cf. Rom. 2:1-5, 17-27), describing them as a “wild olive tree” (Gk: agrielaios) that was grafted into “the root of the fatness of the the olive tree.” This refers to the gentiles who are in Christ (especially if “the root” is the Messiah), and thereby become partakers in the promises to Israel. We, gentiles in Christ, shouldn’t boast over rebel Israel because they too are branches supported by “the root.”

You will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off on account of unbelief, but you stand on account of belief. So do not become arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen but God’s kindness toward you, if you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

    Even though the “branches” of rebel Israel were broken off, they were broken off “in unbelief” (Gk: tē apistia), and Paul’s gentile interlocutor stands “in belief” (Gk: tē pistei). Their continuation in the olive tree is just as conditional as rebel Israel’s. Some Greek manuscripts add “perhaps” at v. 21, because this verse on its own reads as though God will certainly not spare the gentile interlocutor (Gk: oude sou phisetai, future indicative). However, the next verse makes clear that God cutting off the gentile “branch” is conditioned on their failure to “continue in [his] kindness” (Gk: epimenēs tē chrēstotēti).

And even those of Israel, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.

    The nature of the gentile branch is a “wild olive tree” (Gk: agrielaiou), while the nature of the rebellious Israelite branches is a “cultivated olive tree” (Gk: kallielaion). This shows that, despite appearances, the certainty of rebel Israel’s (eventual) position in Christ is even moreso (Gk: posō mallon) than the (current) position of gentile believers in Christ! Rebel Israel “will be grafted” (Gk: enkentristhēsontai, future indicative) back into the olive tree, even though they have now been cut off due to their failure to believe in the Messiah! Paul further elaborates on this in the coming verses.

    “Thus all Israel will be saved”

I want you to understand this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not claim to be wiser than you are: a hardening has come upon part of Israel until the full number of the gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; he will banish ungodliness from Jacob.” “And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.”

    Paul switches from addressing the single gentile interlocutor to speaking to his entire audience. He exhorts them to understand “this secret” (Gk: to mystērion touto), so that they don’t view themselves self-righteously. The secret is that “part of Israel” (Gk: merous tō israēl) has been hardened, but only until “the totality of the gentiles” (Gk: to plērōma tōn ethnōn) has been saved. Once the mission to the gentiles — the “reconciliation of the world” (11:15) — has been completed, then “all Israel” (Gk: pas israēl) “will be saved” (Gk: sōthēsetai, future indicative) — and the dead will be raised (11:15).

    Many commentators understand “all Israel” to refer to a subset of descendants of Israel, either the believing remnant (11:5-6), or a future generation of Israelites at Christ’s return. However, throughout Romans 9-11, Paul uses “Israel” to refer to rebellious Israel (9:31; 10:19, 21; 11:2, 7), while “all Israel” refers to every descendant of Israel, both the believing remnant and (those who are now) rebellious (9:6). “Israel” refers to just the believing remnant only once (9:6). In the immediate context, “Israel” refers to both the hardened, rebellious Israelites and the believing remnant (“a hardening has happened to part of Israel”). Once the partial hardening stops, then all Israel — truly every descendant of Jacob, whether they are now believers or rebels — will be saved.

    The Scripture quotation that is used to support this conclusion (Isaiah 59:20-21 LXX) also deals with the restoration of rebel Israel. Isaiah speaks about how Israel has rebelled and sinned many times, and “there is no justice” (59:11-15); they are spiritually blind and unable to grasp the truth, therefore “salvation doesn’t reach us” (59:9-10). Yet God will punish the rebellious Israelites, and those who turn from rebellion will be saved by “the redeemer” (59:16-20). Paul applies this to “all Israel,” showing that every Israelite who is now rebellious will turn back to God, when “the Redeemer comes out of Zion.”

As regards the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their ancestors, for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

    Paul refers to them as “enemies according to the gospel” (Gk: kata… to euangelion echthroi; cf. Phil. 3:18-19; 1 Cor. 15:24-28), which confirms that “all Israel will be saved” in the previous paragraph includes rebel Israel, who are now enemies of the gospel. Even though they’re now enemies, they’re still “beloved according to the election, through the patriarchs” (Gk: kata… tēn eklogēn agapētoi dia tous pateras). As he said earlier, the holiness of the firstfruits leads to the holiness of the whole harvest (11:16). Therefore, the rebellion of some descendants of Israel can’t be final, because God’s promises to the patriarchs about their descendants must be fulfilled.

Just as you were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their disobedience, so also they have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they also may now receive mercy. For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.

    Paul reminds his audience that they, too, were once disobedient, but were shown mercy because of rebel Israel’s disobedience (cf. 11:11-15). Thus, the present disobedience of rebel Israel is no serious obstacle to their eventual restoration — indeed, mercy will be shown to them (Gk: hina… eleēthōsin). In fact, this is stated as a general principle about every person: the reason that God “trapped everybody into disobedience” (Gk: synekleisen… tous pantas eis apeitheian) is precisely “so that he may show mercy to everybody” (Gk: hina tous pantas eleēsē). The subjunctive mood of the verb, eleēsē, doesn’t nullify the certainty of this mercy, because hina + subjunctive is used in the NT to describe the certain outcome of an event (for example, see the famous John 3:16). Just as certainly as all people have been disobedient (cf. Rom. 3:9-23), all people, including rebel Israel, will eventually be restored and be shown mercy!

    “From him, and through him, and to him”

O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” “Or who has given a gift to him, to receive a gift in return?”

    Paul now launches into a praise of God’s greatness. Since he began this section of his letter with a lament for his brethren (9:1-5), we might wonder — even if we had only the first and last verses of Romans 9-11 — what caused such a sudden change! If the Calvinist interpretation is correct, and he’s concluded that his brethren are “vessels of wrath” made solely for destruction by no fault of their own, but just to show God’s power, would he have such a change in attitude? Certainly not! Nor would the Arminian interpretation, that at least some in rebel Israel have freely rejected God to such an extent that they will never be restored, be much of a comfort. The universalist interpretation, that everyone in rebel Israel will eventually cease their rebellion and be restored, is the one that best explains the change of heart from Rom. 9:1-5 to 11:33-36.

    Furthermore, the first Scripture quotation (Isaiah 40:13 LXX) that Paul uses to support God’s supreme unknowability actually deals with the restoration of rebel Israel. Isaiah’s point is that if God has carefully created all things (40:12, 21-23, 26); and no one can even comprehend how great his knowledge is (40:13-14); and the nations are like dust compared to him (40:15-17, 23-24); and the pagan gods cannot even compare to him (40:18-20, 25); then surely he’s able to restore and comfort rebel Israel, who were punished by him for their sins! (40:1-11, 27-31)

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

    The end of this doxology further supports the universalist interpretation. Every Christian theist agrees that all things are “from him” (Gk: ex autou), that is, were created by God, and are “through him” (Gk: di’ autou), that is, continue to exist by his power. However, only universalists can truly affirm that all things are also “to him” (Gk: eis autou). Non-universalists believe that the destiny of some people isn’t restoration to God; rather, their destiny is to be destroyed forever (annihilationism) or to continue to exist in rebellion forever (infernalism). For Paul, this picture in which some people exist only as “vessels of wrath” might befit a mere god, who can abandon his creations, but it doesn’t befit the God “from whom, and through whom, and to whom are all things.”

    Conclusion

    Romans 9-11 is Paul’s longest discourse on the present nature and ultimate destiny of his rebellious Israelite brethren. In this section of his letter, he begins with a lament for his brethren (9:1-5), and ends with a praise of God’s greatness (11:33-36). Why the change in attitude? In this cogently-argued discourse, Paul brings together many Scripture quotations to show that the reason Israel has fallen is because they failed to believe in their Messiah, Jesus, when he came (9:31-10:21). They were hardened and (temporarily) lost the promises made to their ancestors, as has happened to them in the past (9:6-22; 11:1-10); the gentiles have been grafted into their place to make them jealous (9:23-30; 11:11-18). Yet their rebellion isn’t final, because they will all be saved — indeed, everyone who is disobedient will be shown mercy! (11:11-32) Together with Paul, let’s praise the God who doesn’t merely create people as vessels of wrath, but intends to bring all people back to him!

"Has God rejected his people?": an exegesis of Romans 9:30-10:21

Part 1: Romans 9:1-29

    “Israel didn’t attain that legal righteousness”

What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith, but Israel, who did strive for the law of righteousness, did not attain that law. Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, “See, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make people stumble, a rock that will make them fall, and whoever trusts in him will not be put to shame.”

    Paul begins a new section of his discourse by summing up what he has found, from the Scriptures, to be true about Israel and the gentiles. While gentiles didn’t seek righteousness, they attained “righteousness from faith” (Gk: dikaiosunēn… ek pisteōs), and Israel, seeking “a legal righteousness” (Gk: nomon dikaiosunēs), didn’t find it. They failed to understand, from their own Scriptures, that they must be saved by their Messiah by “having faith in him” (Gk: pisteuōn ep’ autō; Isa. 28:16 LXX). Once again, however, the context of the Scripture citation supports the restoration of rebel Israel after punishment (Isa. 28:22-29).

Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. For I can testify that they have a zeal for God, but it is not based on knowledge. Not knowing the righteousness of God and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

    Paul’s desire for his brethren, despite his previous worry that they might be “vessels of wrath” created for the sole purpose of destruction (9:21-22), is “for salvation” (Gk: eis sōtērian). They’re zealous about God (Gk: zēlon theou echousin), but their zeal isn’t based on knowledge, because, as argued above, they failed to recognize from their own Scriptures that they must believe in the Messiah (9:32-33). They sought to establish a legal righteousness rather than “the righteousness of God,” which belongs to everyone who believes in the Messiah (cf. Rom. 3:21-26).

    They fail to understand that “Messiah is the telos of the law, for righteousness to every believing-one.” The meaning of telos here is debated, as it could mean that the Messiah is the end-point of the law, or that the Messiah fully consummates the law and brings it about in its ultimate form. Perhaps the correct reading is in between the two: Jesus has authoritatively re-interpreted the law, so that we no longer follow all the Mosaic commandments, but only “the law of Messiah,” which is to love [God and] others as yourself (Rom. 13:8-10; 1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 5:14; 6:2; cf. Matt. 7:12; 22:34-40; John 15:10-17).

Moses writes concerning the righteousness that comes from the law, that “the person who does these things will live by them.” But the righteousness that comes from faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

    To illustrate his point, Paul contrasts “the righteousness from the law” (Gk: tēn dikaiosunēn tēn ek tou nomou) with “righteousness from faith” (Gk: ek pisteōs dikaiosunē) using three Scripture quotations (Lev. 18:5; Deut. 9:4; 30:12-14 LXX). The first shows that, according to the law, one must follow every commandment in order to live (Lev. 18:4-5). In contrast, the other citations show that you don’t need to overexert yourself to follow God’s law — “the word is very near to you” (Deut. 30:14). Paul allegorizes this to apply to Christ, whom we don’t need to up follow to heaven or down to the abyss, because as he says elsewhere, Jesus himself went down to the abyss and up to heaven to save us (Eph. 4:8-10)!

    “The word is near you”

But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim), because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart, leading to righteousness, and one confesses with the mouth, leading to salvation.

    Paul further allegorizes Deut. 30:14 (LXX) by expanding on its statement that the word is “in your mouth and in your heart.” He takes “in your mouth” to refer to one’s confession that “Jesus is Lord” (cf. 1 Cor. 12:3), and “in your heart” to refer to one’s belief that God raised Jesus from the dead. The former leads “into righteousness” (Gk: eis dikaiosunēn), and the latter leads “into salvation” (Gk: eis sōtērian). This is the “righteousness from faith” that Paul’s brethren, the rebel Israelites, have failed to understand and receive.

The scripture says, “No one who believes in him will be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

    Isaiah 28:16 (LXX), previously quoted in Rom. 9:33, is cited again to show that the righteousness and salvation that comes from confession and belief is available to anyone who has faith in Christ (Gk: pas ho pisteuōn ep’ autō), regardless of ethnicity. Joel 2:32 (“everyone who calls… shall be saved”) demonstrates the same thing. This proves that Jesus is indeed “Lord of all people” (Gk: kyrios pantōn), both Jew and gentile, and will save anyone, whether Jew or gentile, who calls on him.

    “Haven’t they heard?”

But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

    Paul wonders again (9:14) whether it’s fair that God has hardened his rebellious brethren. After all, how can they call on Jesus to be saved if they don’t have faith in him, and some have never even heard of him because he hasn’t been proclaimed to them? He quotes Isaiah 52:7 (LXX), which speaks of the “timely” (Gk: horaioi; also translated “beautiful”) arrival of messengers to proclaim salvation to punished, rebel Israel (Isa. 52:3-10). Why hasn’t God proclaimed salvation to the rebellious people of Israel now, like he did back then?

But not all have obeyed the good news, for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ. But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have: “Their voice has gone out to all the earth and their words to the ends of the world.”

    Paul answers his own questions about the fairness of God’s hardening of rebel Israel, using another group of Scripture quotations (Isa. 53:1; Ps. 19:4). These citations show that God has indeed proclaimed salvation to rebel Israel — indeed, to all the people of the earth! — but they’ve refused to believe it. Israel already heard salvation proclaimed to it, “by the word of Messiah” (Gk: dia rhēmatos christou), most likely referring to Jesus’ ministry to the circumcised while he was on earth (cf. Rom. 15:8). The gospel of John (12:37-41) appeals to the same passage from Isaiah to explain Israel’s failure to believe Jesus’ message.

Again I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, “I will use those who are not a nation to make you jealous; with a foolish nation I will provoke you.” Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.” But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”

    Another group of Scripture quotations (Deut. 32:21; Isa. 65:1-2 LXX) are brought in to show that Israel should have understood, from their own Scriptures, that God would show himself to the gentiles, but they’ve been willfully rebellious. His point is further strengthened by the context of his second quotation, in which Isaiah predicts that God will destroy the rebels among his people, while bringing in people from far-off lands to worship him in Jerusalem (66:15-24).

Part 3: Romans 11:1-36

"Has God rejected his people?": an exegesis of Romans 9:1-29

    In this exegetical series, we’ll take an in-depth look at a passage that has been used by proponents of all three major soteriologies (Calvinism, Arminianism, and universalism): Romans 9-11. The main topic of this passage is God’s apparent rejection of his people Israel, but it also deals with the topics of how people are saved and the scope of salvation. Does God desire to save all people, but he’s unable (Arminianism)? Is he able to save all people, but doesn’t desire it (Calvinism)? Or is the salvation of all people both desirable and possible to God (universalism)?

    “I wish that I were accursed!”

I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience confirms it by the Holy Spirit—I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own brothers and sisters, my own flesh and blood.

    Paul begins this section of his letter by lamenting the fall of his brethren, the Israelites, from their previous position. Not only is he sorrowful about their fall, he wishes that he himself were “cut off” (Gk: anathema) and “separated from the Messiah” (Gk: apo tou christou) so that his brethren might be saved! Why does Paul lament their fall so much? This is elaborated in the next few verses.

They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

    The reason that Paul is so saddened by the fall of his brethren is because of the exalted position that, by descent from Israel, belongs to them. They have the “son-adoption” (Gk: huiothesia), as Israel in the Hebrew Bible was the “son of God” (e.g., Hos. 11:1). To them also belong the covenants (probably including at least the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants), the “law-giving” (Gk: nomothesia; cf. Rom. 3:1-2), and the promises, as well as the “religious service” (Gk: latreia; perhaps Paul has Dan. 7:14, 27 LXX in mind, where latreia is given to the personified people of God). They came from the patriarchs, and the Messiah comes from them by the flesh, “the one who is over all” (Gk: ho ōn epi pantōn).

    Some translations (though not the NRSVUE above) translate the end of Romans 9:5 as a doxology to the Messiah, as “the God who is over all, blessed for the ages.” Murray Harris categorizes this as a text which is “highly probable” to refer to Jesus as theos (Jesus as God, pp. 170-2). However, the focus here is on the Messiah “according to the flesh,” his human line of descent. In line with the NRSVUE translators, it’s more likely that Paul is directing this doxology to God the Father, to whom every other doxology in his undisputed letters is addressed (Rom. 1:25; 11:33-36; 16:27; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Gal. 1:4-5: Phil. 4:20; cf. Eph. 1:3; 3:20-21). God is praised as the one who richly blessed Israel with all these gifts. It’s also possible to translate Rom. 9:5b as “God, who is over all, [be] blessed for the ages,” referring to the Father as “God, who is over all” (cf. Eph. 4:6).

    “Not everyone from Israel is Israel”

It is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all those descended from Israel are Israelites, and not all of Abraham’s children are his descendants, but “it is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants. For the word of the promise is this: “About this time I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”

    Paul now begins to explain how most of Israel has lost the blessings described above, if indeed God’s promises haven’t failed. Not everyone descended from Jacob (Israel) is a true “Israelite” (i.e., has the blessings described above), in the same way that not everyone descended from Abraham is counted among his “children” (Gk: tekna). Gen. 21:12 (LXX) and 18:10, 14 (LXX) are quoted to show that Isaac, as opposed to Ishmael, was counted as the true “seed” (Gk: sperma) of Abraham. Note that, in the original context, this wasn’t to the exclusion of Ishamel’s salvation, because God also promised in compassion to make a “great nation” from him, and stayed with him as he grew (Gen. 22:13, 17-21). Rather, it was the covenant and promise (especially being the one from whom the Messiah would descend) that Ishmael was excluded from.

Nor is that all; something similar happened to Rebecca when she had conceived children by one husband, our ancestor Isaac: even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose of election might continue, not by works but by his call) she was told, “The elder shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau.”

    Gen. 25:23 (LXX) and Mal. 1:2-3 (LXX) are quoted as another example of how not all descendants of Abraham are true children: Jacob, and not Esau, was chosen to continue the promise. The “election” (Gk: eklogēn, lit. “calling out”) in view here has nothing to do with the ultimate salvation of individuals, contrary to the Calvinist reading. Any reader of Paul’s letter would have known that Esau reconciled with Jacob (Gen. 32-33), and God promised that Edom (at least a remnant) would eventually be restored (Isa. 34-35; Jer. 49:7-11; Amos 9:12). The topic isn’t who will be saved, but who the recipients of the promises are, as it has been from the beginning of the chapter.

    Some interpreters take Rom. 9:13 (“loved… hated”) to mean that God literally despises certain people, not because of anything they’ve done, but because of his own (arbitrary?) decision. Calvin infamously took this to its greatest extent by proposing that “God is love” only to the elect, whereas to the non-elect, he is in fact hate! This ignores the idiom by which “love… hate” simply means to favor one thing over another (Lk. 14:26; cf. Matt. 10:37). God favored Jacob over Esau by choosing him as the one from whom the Messiah would descend.

What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So it depends not on human will or exertion but on God who shows mercy.

    Paul brings in another Scripture quotation (Exod. 33:19 LXX) to show that God isn’t unjust to favor some people over others in regard to the promises. In the original context, God’s “mercy” and “compassion” to Moses was his willingness to show favoritism by making his glory visible to Moses only (Exod. 33:15-23). This shows that God’s favoritism depends not on “the willing-one” (Gk: tou thelontos), that is, those who want to have the promises, nor on “the running-one” (Gk: tou trechontos), that is, those who work to obtain the promises, but is God’s prerogative alone.

For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I may show my power in you and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.

    Yet another Scripture quotation is brought in (Exod. 9:16 LXX), this time to show that God is able to “harden” (Gk: sklērunei) anyone he wants. In the book of Exodus, God is frequently said to “harden” (LXX: sklērunō) the heart of the pharaoh, so that he doesn’t let the people Israel go free, and this quotation shows that it was in order to show God’s power. This shows that the reason that Paul’s brethren, the Israelites, have been hardened (the original topic of the chapter) is because God “desires” (Gk: thelei) it; and God isn’t unjust to do this! In fact, it’s how he’s always worked, ever since Abraham, ever since he brought Israel out of Egypt.

    “What if there are vessels of wrath?”

You will say to me then, “Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who indeed are you, a human, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, “Why have you made me like this?”

    Paul brings up a possible objection: isn’t it unjust for God to favor certain people, and not others? How can he judge people if it’s his will to harden them? In response, he paraphrases a couple of Scripture citations (Isa. 29:16; 45:9) which compare God to a potter, showing that he may do whatever he wills with his creation. The first of these citations deals with the punishment of rebellious Israel (Isa. 29:1-16), while the second deals with God’s choice of a pagan king, Cyrus, to save the same rebel Israel after they’ve been punished (Isa. 45:1-13).

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction, and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the gentiles?

    Meditating on the Scriptures that he’s cited, Paul wonders: “what if” (Gk: ei de) God created his brethren, the Israelites, “for dishonor” (Gk: eis atimian), the sole purpose of being destroyed in order to demonstrate his power, while creating him and others “for honor” (Gk: eis timēn) and mercy? There are many such rhetorical questions in the letter to the Romans, a few of which are taken as correct, but most are answered in the negative (Rom. 2:3-4, 21-23, 26; 3:1, 3, 5, 9, 27, 29, 31; 4:9-10; 6:1-3, 15-16; 7:1, 7, 13; 8:24, 31-35; 10:18-19; 11:1-2, 11, 34-35; 13:3).

    As an aside, the verb in “made for destruction” (Gk: katērtismena eis apōleian) could be translated in the middle voice (i.e., “they made themselves fit for destruction”) or passive voice (i.e., “they were made fit for destruction [by God]”). Either way, the question is the same: what if Paul’s brethren were made only for destruction, to show God’s power?

    Later on in his discourse, this possibility will be rejected. Although it might be possible for a mere god to create something only for destruction, this doesn’t befit the God “from whom, and through whom, and to whom are all things” (Rom. 11:36). This is foreshadowed in the context of the Scripture citations that Paul used above. The evil ones in Israel will be “cut off” because those who now rebel will be given understanding (Isa. 29:20-24); the vessel of rebel Israel is “smashed so ruthlessly [by God] that among its fragments not a sherd is found,” but he will afterward show mercy (30:12-22). The salvation of rebel Israel, by God through the pagan king Cyrus, is explicitly stated in the context of the second ‘potter’ reference (Isa. 45:1-13).

As he also says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’” “And in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they shall be called children of the living God.” And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the children of Israel were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will execute his sentence on the earth quickly and decisively.” And as Isaiah predicted, “If the Lord of hosts had not left descendants to us, we would have fared like Sodom and been made like Gomorrah.”

    Another group of Scripture quotations is brought in (Hos. 2:23; 1:10; Isa. 10:22-23; 1:9). This time, it’s to support his earlier statement that God has chosen some people out of the gentiles (who were previously “not my people”) to continue his promises, as well as leaving only a remnant from Israel itself. Once again, however, the context of the Scripture citations hints at the ultimate restoration of rebel Israel. Hosea says precisely this, that the rebels in Israel, having been punished, will be restored to God’s people (Hos. 1:4-11; 2:3-23). Isaiah speaks more cryptically, but talks about the punished, rebel daughters of Zion grabbing hold of the believing remnant, so that they’re saved (Isa. 3:16-4:4).

Part 2: Romans 9:30-10:21

"That you may not grieve": an exegesis of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

    In my last exegetical series, we covered 1 Corinthians 15, one of a handful of passages from Paul’s epistles that discuss the future resurrection of the dead. Now we’ll take a look at another passage that covers the same topic: 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. This is much shorter, because unlike 1 Cor. 15, it wasn’t written to believers who explicitly denied the resurrection of the dead; it also reflects an earlier stage in Paul’s ministry, as it was written around AD 50, whereas 1 Corinthians was written around AD 55. Does it support the same conclusion we found in 1 Cor. 15 — that when Christ returns, all people will be raised and subjected to him, so that even God’s enemies who were punished to death will be restored?

    “That you may not grieve”

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope.

    Paul has just exhorted the Thessalonian believers to have more and more love, as they have been taught by God, “for all the brethren,” so that no one is needy and they act as an example for “the outsiders” (1 Thess. 4:9-12). However (Gk: de), even though he wants them to love one another, he doesn’t want them to grieve for “those who have fallen asleep” (Gk: tōn koimōmenōn; an idiom for death). They shouldn’t be ignorant like “those who don’t have hope” (Gk: hoi mē echontes elpida); instead, he’ll tell them the details of the resurrection of the dead, so they have no need to grieve.

    Who are the Thessalonian believers worried about? Is it only the dead believers, or is it everyone who has died (“fallen asleep”)? In the immediately preceding context, the subject is limited to believers — even just the believers “in all Macedonia” (4:10)! On the other hand, in an earlier section of this letter, Paul prays that they would abound in love not just “for one another,” but “for all people” (3:12). Later in the letter, he exhorts them to pursue the good of both “one another” and “all people” (5:15). Based on this, it seems unlikely that Paul would expect them only to grieve for believers and not also unbelievers. Hoi koimōmenoi, “the fallen-asleep-ones,” refers to everyone who has died, not just believers.

For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died.

    Jesus’ resurrection acted as a precursor and confirmation of the future resurrection of the dead, which is something Paul repeats in his later letters (Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 6:14; 15:12-22; 2 Cor. 4:14; Phil. 3:20-21; cf. Rom. 6:4-11; Col. 2:12-13). “If we believe” (Gk: ei pisteuomen) that Jesus died and rose, then “in the same way” (Gk: houtōs) the dead will be raised; God will “bring [them] together with” Jesus, raising them like he did Jesus.

    Some translate tous koimēthentas dia tou iēsou as “those who have fallen asleep in Jesus,” interpreting it as referring to dead believers specifically. However, in Paul’s view, it wasn’t because of Jesus that they died, but because of Adam! Jesus is the one who reverses death, not the one who brings it about (cf. Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:21-22). Thus, “through Jesus” (Gk: dia tou iēsou) must modify the verb axei (“bring”), not the participle koimēthentas (“having fallen asleep”); it’s through Jesus that God raises the dead. If he’d intended to refer specifically to dead believers, he would have written tous koimēthentas (tous) en christō (cf. 1 Cor. 15:18).

    “The dead will rise in Christ first”

For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died.

    Paul declares this next fact “in the word of the Lord” (Gk: en logō kyriou); this has been revealed to him directly by the Lord, not merely his own speculation (cf. 1 Cor. 7:25). Not only will “the fallen-asleep-ones” (Gk: tous koimēthentas) be raised, but “the living-ones” (Gk: hoi zōntes) who survive until Christ’s parousia won’t even precede them! There’s even less reason to grieve for the dead, then, because they’ll actually see the Lord before those who are still alive!

For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

    The Lord’s parousia, his descent from heaven to earth, will be accompanied by three types of fanfare: “a shouted command” (Gk: keleusmati), “the voice of a chief angel” (Gk: phōnē archangelou), and “God’s trumpet” (Gk: salpingi theou). At that time, the dead will be raised “first” (Gk: prōton). Paul’s emphasis here is on the priority of the dead-ones, in line with what he said earlier about the living-ones not preceding the dead-ones. The dead are actually blessed, given priority over the living, so there’s no need to grieve for them.

    Most commentators take hoi nekroi en christō anastēsontai to refer specifically to believers, interpreting en christō (“in Christ”) to modify hoi nekroi (“the dead-ones”). However, this is grammatically implausible, based on how en (tō) christō is used elsewhere in the New Testament. When en (tō) christō modifies a preceding substantive (such as “dead-ones”), the article is always repeated before it, unless the verb “to be” is implicit in the text, which isn’t the case at 1 Thess. 4:16 (Ramelli and Konstan 2007, pp. 581-4). In most cases, en (tō) christō modifies a verb or participle; this is true in the two cases that clearly refer specifically to dead believers (1 Cor. 15:18; Rev. 14:13). It’s best to read en christō in 1 Thess. 4:16 as modifying the verb anastēsontai: “the dead will rise in Christ” (cf. 1 Cor. 15:22).

    This is supported by evidence from the early church. John Chrysostom takes en christō as modifying anastēsontai, which is clear from the way he quotes the verse; at that time all who have died since Adam will rise again, some to fearful judgment (Homily 8 on 1 Thess. [PG 62:440-1]). Cyril of Alexandria inverts the word order to make clear that en christō modifies anastēsontai (Comm. on Luke [PG 72:824A]), and holds that it refers to the resurrection of all (Cat. Lect. 15.21). Gregory of Nyssa, an early universalist, takes 1 Thess. 4:16 to refer to the resurrection and salvation of all people (De opif. hom. 25.11-13). Many other early church fathers simply quote 1 Thess. 4:16 without even including the phrase en christō (Ramelli and Konstan 2007, fn. 24). The few early writers who do limit the scope of “the dead in Christ” have to alter the word order to make it fit their view (Porphyry, frag. 35; Origen, Contra Celsum 5.17).

    “We’ll always be with the Lord”

Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will be with the Lord forever.

    After the dead are raised in Christ, “the living-ones, the remaining-ones” (Gk: hoi zōntes hoi perileipomenoi) will be caught up “together with them,” that is, the dead. We will all be taken “into the air for the meeting of the Lord” (Gk: eis apantēsin tou kyriou eis aera). Many Christians take this to refer to ‘the Rapture,’ when it’s thought that believers will be taken to live in heaven. However, Paul says that we’ll be taken to the “air” (Gk: aera), that is, the place in between the earth and the heavens. Where will we go from there — away into heaven or back to earth?

    To make sense of this, we have to look at the meaning of the phrase eis apantēsin (“to meet”). This word, especially when combined with the parousia (“coming”) of a royal dignitary, typically refers to people coming out to meet someone, in order to bring them back to their place. This is how eis apantēsin is used elsewhere in the New Testament itself (Matt. 25:6ff; Acts 28:15). Although eis apantēsin isn’t a technical term, as it was once thought to be (Cosby 1994, pp. 20-22), it’s still best understood in the context of a dignitary’s coming, and was explicitly interpreted that way by John Chrysostom (Homily on the Ascension; Homily 8 on 1 Thess.). Therefore, when we meet Jesus, we most likely return with him to earth — though we can’t totally discount the possibility that we’ll go to heaven from this passage alone.

    After we meet the Lord, Paul says, “we will be together with the Lord [Gk: syn kyriō] at all times.” Later in this letter, he writes that Jesus died so that whether we’re alert or drowsing now (Gk: eite grēgorōmen eite katheudōmen) “we will live together with him” (Gk: hama syn autō zēsōmen; 1 Thess. 5:10). The alert-ones are believers, who are “sons of light” and “sons of day”; the drowsing-ones are “the others” (Gk: hoi loipoi; cf. 1 Thess. 4:13), unbelievers who won’t escape destruction in the day of the Lord (5:1-8). Yet, though they be destroyed, Jesus died for them too, and they’ll be resurrected and live together with him always!

Therefore encourage one another with these words.

    For Paul, knowing the resurrection of the dead is more than a merely intellectual exercise; it’s the great hope of believers that keeps us from grieving! He exhorts the Thessalonians to “console one another” (Gk: parakaleite allēlous) with this knowledge. After this, he begins to introduce a new topic (using the Greek phrase peri de), the soon-coming day of the Lord which will destroy the drowsing unbelievers (5:1-4). Yet he later returns to the topic of the resurrection, in which both alert believers and now-drowsing unbelievers will live together with the Lord Jesus Christ (5:9-10).

    Conclusion

    1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 is a brief summary of our great hope, the resurrection of the dead, which Paul later discusses in more depth in his letter to the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 15). The scope of the resurrection isn’t explicitly stated in 1 Thess. 4:13-18, although the phrases that Paul uses — “the fallen-asleep-ones,” “the dead-ones,” “the living-ones” — don’t imply any limitation. (“The dead in Christ” is a mistranslation, and actually refers to the fact that the dead-ones will rise “in Christ;” cf. 1 Cor. 15:22.) The wider context of the letter suggests that all people, not just believers, are in view here, even the unbelievers who are destroyed in the day of the Lord (1 Thess. 3:12; 5:10, 15). Thus, just as in 1 Cor. 15, the resurrection is associated with the ultimate restoration of all people, even those punished by God unto death!

"How are the dead raised?": an exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:29-58

Part 1: 1 Corinthians 15:1-28

    “Let’s eat and drink, for tomorrow we die”

Otherwise, what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

    Now that Paul has described the eschatological resurrection, he returns to his argument for the truth of that event. First, he showed that the resurrection of the dead-ones follows from the Corinthians’ belief in Christ’s resurrection out of the dead-ones; now he argues for it based on their actions. Apparently, some of the Corinthians were being baptized on behalf of “the dead-ones” (Gk: tōn nekrōn), which implies a belief in post-mortem salvation in the Corinthian church. (Paul doesn’t explicitly endorse or reject this belief.) But how is this baptism useful at all if the dead-ones will never be raised?

And why are we putting ourselves in danger every hour? I die every day! That is as certain, brothers and sisters, as my boasting of you—a boast that I make in Christ Jesus our Lord. If I fought with wild animals at Ephesus with a merely human perspective, what would I have gained by it? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

    The second argument from the Corinthians’ actions is in regard to the danger that they (and he) put themselves in for Christ. If there’s no resurrection, then there’s no point for them to put themselves in danger. They should maximize their pleasure in this life, because there’s nothing to look forward to after it! Paul quotes Isaiah 22:13 (LXX), which describes the attitude of rebellious Israel in rejoicing when they should be mourning; he’s implicitly indicting his readers, showing them that if they carry their denial of the resurrection to its logical conclusion, they would be just like rebellious Israel.

Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” Sober up, as you rightly ought to, and sin no more, for some people have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.

    After accusing the Corinthians of acting like rebellious Israel (as he did earlier in the same letter; see 1 Cor. 10:1-13), Paul quotes a proverb from the Greek poet Menander’s Thais. Most likely, this is to accuse them of getting their false beliefs about the resurrection from the pagans that they associated with (1 Cor. 8:7-10; 10:14-30; cf. Acts 17:31-32). They’re expected to stop associating with these people, who “have no knowledge of God” and are corrupting the Corinthians’ own beliefs about God.

    “With what kind of body do they come?”

But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” Fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And as for what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.

    Paul anticipates that some of the Corinthians will reject the resurrection because they can’t fathom what kind of body a resurrected person would have. In response, he continues his agricultural metaphor from earlier (vv. 20, 23). If the resurrection of the dead is like a harvest, then the bodies we die in are like seeds that are sown, which will return to life (according to the ancient understanding of plant growth: cf. John 12:34). However, as with seeds, the body that’s raised from the dead isn’t the same as the body that died; it will be much greater.

But God gives it a body as he has chosen and to each kind of seed its own body. Not all flesh is alike, but there is one flesh for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one thing, and that of the earthly is another. There is one glory of the sun and another glory of the moon and another glory of the stars; indeed, star differs from star in glory. So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.

    Continuing his argument, Paul points to the different kinds of bodies that humans and animals have, as well as the differing glory of things on earth and in the heavens, to prove to the Corinthians that it’s plausible that we’ll be resurrected with a different (and more glorious) body. Whereas the human body that is “sown” (continuing the agricultural metaphor) is perishable, dishonorable, weak, and “soulish” (Gk: psychikon), the body that’s raised from the dead will be imperishable, glorious, powerful, and “spiritual” (Gk: pneumatikon). The distinction between “soulish” and “spiritual” doesn’t mean that our resurrection bodies will be incorporeal, but that they won’t have the same sinful desires that they now do, as shown by the contrast between these two terms elsewhere (1 Cor. 2:13-15; Jude 19; cf. Jas. 3:15).

Thus it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the physical and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven. As one of dust, so are those who are of the dust, and as one of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the one of dust, we will also bear the image of the one of heaven.

    Like earlier (v. 22), Paul contrasts Adam, who “became a living soul” (Gk: egeneto... eis psychēn zōsan; Gen. 2:7 LXX), with Christ, who “became a life-giving spirit” (Gk: eis pneuma zōopoioun), in order to illustrate the contrast between our current “soulish” bodies and our future “spiritual” bodies. Some translations (such as the NRSVUE above) unfortunately translate psychikon as “physical,” which makes it seem like our resurrection bodies will be incorporeal. The context refutes this, as it makes clear that these future bodies will be like Christ’s, which is physical with flesh and bones (Lk. 24:39).

    The contrast between “those who are earthy” (Gk: hoi choikoi) and “those who are heavenly” (Gk: hoi epouranioi) makes it seem as though Paul has two groups in mind, perhaps those who believe in this life and those who don’t. Once again, the context contradicts this misreading. The same “all” who now “are dying in Adam” “will be made alive in Christ” (v. 22), and Paul and his audience themselves are “earthy” and will one day be “heavenly” (v. 49). The contrast here isn’t between two groups of people that now exist, but between our current state and our resurrection state, which is the main point of this section of Paul’s argument.

What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

    “Flesh and blood” (Gk: sarx kai haima) is an idiom referring to mortal humans (Matt. 16:17; Eph. 6:12; Heb. 2:14-15; cf. Lev. 17:11, 14 LXX), which is made clear by the parallelism with “perishable” (Gk: phthora). Elsewhere, however, Paul refers to God’s kingdom as a present reality to which God has brought us (Col. 1:13), which is characterized not by physical blessings but by “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:16). Thus, when he states that mortal humans can’t enter God’s kingdom, he isn’t referring to the kingdom as it exists now, but to God’s kingdom in its eschatological, fully realized form, when Christ gives up the kingdom to the Father (vv. 24, 28).

    “Thanks be to God!”

Look, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality.

    Paul says that he’ll reveal a “secret” (Gk: mystērion) to the Corinthians. Not all people will die, but some people will still be alive when the resurrection takes place at the “last trumpet” (cf. 1 Thess. 4:16), and their (living) mortal and perishable bodies will be changed to become immortal and imperishable! As far as I can tell, this fact wasn’t revealed to any writer before Paul. Pre-tribulationists argue that the “secret” is that this resurrection will take place before the tribulation. However, there’s no indication that the timing of the resurrection is in question here; on the contrary, the secret is that “we will not all die.”

When this perishable body puts on imperishability and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

    This is a paraphrase of Isaiah 25:8 (LXX), which actually states, “Death prevailed and swallowed them up” (Gk: katepien ho thanatos ischusas)! In context, Isaiah says that the wicked nations and their rulers and cities will be destroyed and swallowed up by death (25:2, 8), but with the effect that “strong peoples will glorify you, cities of ruthless nations will glorify you” (25:3). God will then bring gladness to all nations and wipe away every tear (25:6-9). Paul applies this quotation to the resurrection; in context, it refers not to the resurrection of believers, but to the restoration of those who were punished even to death by God for their sins!

“Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

    The meaning of the original quotation in context has been reversed again, as it states, “Shall I ransom them from the power of Hades? Shall I redeem them from death? O Death, where are your plagues? O Hades, where is your destruction? Compassion is hidden from my eyes” (Hos. 13:14). This refers to the utter destruction that God was about to bring upon rebellious Israel (13:7-16); yet God will have compassion on them and heal them (14:1-7). Once again, Paul is looking at the context and seeing that God plans to restore the rebels that he has punished, even those he has punished unto death! Therefore, he applies this prophecy to the resurrection of the dead.

    It’s not a coincidence that both of the Old Testament quotations in vv. 54-55 were originally about the punishment of sinners unto death. As seen earlier in this chapter, the resurrection of the dead, for Paul, is inseparable from the subjection and restoration of God’s enemies so that God becomes all in all (vv. 24-28). This necessarily includes the restoration even of those who have been justly destroyed by God! Once death and its “sting,” sin, have been completely removed, there will be no more room for rebellion. This will be the total victory of God, through Jesus Christ, over all his enemies.

Therefore, my beloved brothers and sisters, be steadfast, immovable, always excelling in the work of the Lord because you know that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

    Now that Paul has finished his argument in support of the resurrection, and shown that this resurrection will accomplish the final victory of God over all rebels, he returns to the topic at the beginning of the chapter: for the Corinthians to remain steadfast (vv. 1-2). Whereas he originally exhorted them to remain steadfast in believing the good news, he now exhorts them to remain steadfast in their good works, supporting this exhortation with a paraphrase of Isaiah 65:23 (LXX), “they will not toil in vain.” Paul connects this to his discussion of the resurrection of the dead with the preposition hōste; they should be steadfast in their toil because they have hope in the resurrection.

    Conclusion

    1 Corinthians 15 remains one of the most important, and interesting, chapters of the Bible. It begins with a concise statement of the good news of Christ's death for our sins and resurrection (vv. 1-11), and launches into a defense of the resurrection of the dead (vv. 12-18). The resurrection is defended on pragmatic, ethical, and logical grounds (vv. 29-50). Paul emphasizes that the resurrection of the dead will involve absolutely all people, even God's enemies (who have been punished by him unto death!), who will be subjected to him and no longer continue in rebellion (vv. 20-28, 51-57). Together with him, we can say: Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!