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).
No comments:
Post a Comment