VI. THE PROBLEM OF ISRAEL: GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS VINDICATED (9:1–11:36)
OVERVIEW
Chapters 9–11 constitute an obviously self-contained unit within Romans that is distinct from what precedes and follows. Some have even conjectured that these chapters had an existence prior to and independent from their present location in Romans. Because Romans 1–8 contains such a well-connected argument, ending with its glorious and eloquent climax on the wonder of God’s love, some have been tempted to regard the main part of the book as complete and chs. 9–11 as a kind of appendix or parenthesis unnecessary to the whole. Furthermore, some have argued, one may proceed from the end of ch. 8 to the beginning of ch. 12 very smoothly, without noticing the absence of chs. 9–11 at all. But such conclusions miss the fact that these chapters are integral to chs. 1–8. They deal with an issue that, after the argument of chs. 1–8, inevitably must haunt Jewish readers especially, just as it would have haunted Paul the Jewish Christian himself. In light of the argument that Jews and Gentiles are equally in need of the gospel, and in light of widespread unbelief of Jews in the gospel, what are we to conclude about God’s purposes? What does the apparent leveling of the ground on which Jews and Gentiles stand mean as far as God’s promises to Israel are concerned?
In reality, therefore, this major section of the book deals with “unfinished business.” Though Paul has insisted on the priority of the Jews with regard to the gospel (1:16) and has noted in part their advantages (3:1 ff.), he has also been obliged to expose their failure and guilt despite their being the chosen people of God. Those who have been under divine tutelage for centuries in preparation for the coming of the Messiah in large part failed to receive him. Has the purpose of God been frustrated? What does the future hold for this people? The problem faced here was underscored in Paul’s own ministry. He had been faithful in going to the Jew first (cf. 1:16), but in place after place he had been rebuffed by Jewish unbelief. In Rome itself his strenuous effort to win a favorable verdict for the gospel was to prove largely unsuccessful (Ac 28). Was his earlier statement about the power of the gospel (Ro 1:16) too hasty, too optimistic? Or were his own labors among his people inadequate? Paul could not subscribe to either conclusion. He had to face the problem from the standpoint of God’s purposes and ways.
Jews and Gentiles are distinguished in the first three chapters and are still distinguished, as the circumcised and the uncircumcised, in ch. 4. In chs. 5–8 the tension drops out of sight, only to be renewed in chs. 9–11 and brought under searching examination. Notable is the shift in terminology. Though the word “Jew” occurs twice in this section, Paul prefers “Israel,” using it twelve times here and nowhere else in the letter. The reason for the change will be noted later.
In line with the nature of the problem Paul is dealing with, he frequently mentions God in chs. 9–11 (twenty-three times). References to Christ are limited (seven times), and the Holy Spirit has no place except in 9:1.
For all its distinctiveness, this section does not lose continuity with the forgoing material. “Salvation” (cf. 1:16) and “save” are prominent. “Righteousness” (cf. 1:17) is found eleven times; “believe/trust” (cf. 1:16), eight times; and “faith,” six times.
Not only is there a connection with the theme of the letter but also a tie-in with the close of ch. 8; for election, which is treated on an individual basis in 8:28–30, 33, is now viewed from the national perspective of Israel. “Adoption” is an element common to both portions (8:15; 9:4), as is also the concept of “call” or “calling” (8:28–30; five times in ch. 9).
Another feature of these chapters is the liberal use of OT quotations, partly to emphasize the sovereignty of God and his covenantal faithfulness and partly to substantiate the apostle’s view of Israel’s failure. Unfaithfulness to God in OT times finds its parallel in the rejection of his Son in Paul’s times. In that sense, little has changed.
A survey of the movement of thought in these chapters warrants the conclusion that they serve as a species of theodicy. Paul, who has written so penetratingly on the justification of sinners, now turns to write on the justification (vindication) of God himself (cf. 3:3–4). He reminds us that the Almighty is free and sovereign in what he does (ch. 9). Then he turns the discussion to the mistake of the Jews in trying to establish their own righteousness before God in terms of meritorious obedience to law instead of responding to the gospel of Christ by faith. They have not lacked opportunity to hear (ch. 10). So God did not set Israel aside arbitrarily. This matches the great section on condemnation at the beginning of the epistle.
In ch. 11 Paul introduces further considerations that are of the highest order of importance. Paul first calls attention to the fact that Israel’s rejection was not complete, for there was a believing remnant in Paul’s day. This can be seen as corresponding to the discussion of justification in chs. 3–5. Paul then stresses that the rejection is not final, for a mass conversion of Israel will occur, answering roughly to the glorious future pictured in ch. 8. In addition, Paul weaves in the observation that during the time Israel is set aside God continues his work of grace by saving a host of Gentiles. In the end, God is found faithful to his covenantal promises, despite the unfaithfulness of Israel. Moreover, he has turned to good account the failure of the Jews by bringing in the Gentiles during the period of Israel’s hardening. This grand achievement, finally embracing both Jews and Gentiles, leads Paul to conclude with a worshipful note of praise to God for this unfathomable divine wisdom. It is a testimony to the divine mercy (11:32), which along with God’s righteousness provides the insight needed to appreciate his ways. And from later chapters it becomes clear how important these insights should be to the Christian churches of Rome, where there was considerable tension between Gentile and Jewish believers.
Because of the argumentative nature of these chapters, some have described them as presenting the style of a diatribe (so Käsemann). On the other hand, the heavy use of the OT and the extent to which the argument depends on the interpretation of the OT quotations has led others to describe the genre of these chapters as midrash (so E. E. Ellis).
A. Paul’s Sorrow over Israel’s Condition (9:1–5)
1I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit—2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
COMMENTARY
1 The apostle begins on a personal note, expressing his grave concern for his own people. His soul is burdened over their condition in a way similar to the prophets of old. Since to some it seemed that Christianity left Judaism behind (whereas, more accurately put, Christianity is Judaism fulfilled), this sorrow might be interpreted as somewhat less than sincere. Hence the solemn introduction in which he summons two witnesses—his union with Christ, “in Christ,” who is the truth (cf. Eph 4:21), and his “conscience” as aided by the Holy Spirit (cf. Ro 8:16; 2:15).
3 As though this were not enough, he declares himself ready to accept severance from Christ (cf. 8:39) if that would avail to bring his countrymen into the fold of the Savior (cf. Ex 32:32). The phrase “I could wish” faithfully brings out the idiomatic construction used here for stating an impossible wish. Paul could not actually become anathema from Christ (ch. 8 proclaims the impossibility of that). Yet if it were possible, he would gladly make the sacrifice. This readiness takes on poignancy in light of the fact that Paul had suffered the loss of all things in order to gain Christ (Php 3:8). To lose Christ would mean a double loss.
Paul’s longing for the salvation of his people comes out in the way he speaks of them—“my brothers.” To avoid misunderstanding, he has to qualify this by noting that the bond is one of race (“those of my own race”) rather than of a common faith in Christ. But more than a blood relationship is involved, because he goes on to cite the spiritual heritage of his people that he shares with those of them who have not become Christians. This use of “brothers” in reference to non-Christian Jews appears elsewhere (e.g., Ac 2:29; 3:17; 22:1; 28:17).
4 When Paul uses “people of Israel” rather than “Jews,” he apparently wants to emphasize that they are the covenantal people of God different from every other people on earth. This distinctiveness may explain Paul’s avoidance of the term “Israel” when speaking of the church (see TDNT 3:387; such may also be the case even in Gal 6:16 [cf. P. Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1969), 74–84]). It is only when the distinctives of Israel are spelled out that the full implication of the word can be appreciated. Paul had earlier begun to speak of the advantages of his people (Ro 3:2), and now he carries it further. In the forefront in v.4 he puts “the adoption as sons.” The Greek word huiothesia, “adoption as sons” (GK 5625; used also in 8:15), does not occur in the LXX, but the idea is certainly present, especially in Deuteronomy 14:1–2 (cf. Ex 4:22; Hos 11:1). Israel has been granted the status of sons of God by virtue of God’s gracious election to be “his treasured possession.” This explains Israel’s enjoyment of “the glory” that was symbolized by the shekinah, the pillar of cloud that settled over the sanctuary in the wilderness and filled the temple at its dedication (cf. REB, “the glory of the divine presence”).
“The covenants” probably refers to the arrangements God entered into with Abraham, with the nation of Israel at Sinai, and with David, though it is possible that the reference is to the covenant made with Abraham (Ge 15), then renewed with Isaac (Ge 17), and with Jacob (Ge 28). The word “covenant” here implies divine initiative rather than a mutual agreement between equals.
“The receiving of the law” refers, of course, to what was communicated through Moses to the children of Israel at Sinai. In Paul’s time, the nation tended to view the law as its most prized possession (cf. 2:17), the most precious portion of the OT. A closely related item is “the temple worship,” since the sacrificial cultus maintained by the priests is meant, and all this was prescribed in the law. “The promises” have a close relationship to the covenants (cf. Eph 2:12) and represent various aspects of the messianic salvation promised in the OT.
5 The importance of “the patriarchs” can be seen in 11:28, where it is said that Israel is loved “on account of the patriarchs.” These are the fathers to whom the promises were given prior to the giving of the law. God is pleased to identify himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Ex 3:15).
“From them is traced the human ancestry of Christ [= the Messiah]” refers probably to the people of Israel (v.4) rather than the patriarchs. Account is taken of the intervening generations prior to the advent of the Messiah (cf. the genealogies in Matthew and Luke). A subtle distinction is to be noted between “theirs” and “from them.” Israel cannot lay claim to Christ in the same way she can claim the patriarchs, even though he entered the human family as an Israelite (cf. 1:3). Christ is much more than the patriarchs. Only in his earthly origin does he belong to the one nation. Because of his heavenly origin and mission he cannot be claimed exclusively by any segment of the race, seeing he is “God over all,” as the verse goes on to affirm.
But is “God over all” the correct translation? Does this verse refer to Jesus as God? The conclusion is hardly transparently clear. On the ground that elsewhere Paul avoids such a stark identification, despite his high Christology, many scholars reject the traditional rendering, preferring something on the order of the REB’s “May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever!” (so too RSV; but NIV, NRSV, NASB, and KJV take the passage as a reference to Christ as God). The question involves not a matter of text but of punctuation. Since the earliest original manuscripts of the Greek NT have only the most rudimentary punctuation, if any at all, the issue depends entirely on syntax, i.e., the flow of the words and the sense of the passage. Should a full stop be understood following the word sarka (NIV, “human ancestry”; NASB, “flesh”), so that the next words begin a new sentence, a separate doxology? Or should we supply a comma, so that what follows affirms something more about Christ?
Several considerations favor the traditional wording, which understands “who is God over all” as describing Christ. (1) Perhaps most important is the grammatical concord between the noun ho christos and the participial phrase ho ōn, producing a natural order in syntax that applies the participle to Christ. The alternative view, on the other hand, entails taking the participle as referring to a new, not yet expressed subject, involving an abrupt change in subject and resulting in a break in syntax (asyndeton). (2) Furthermore, Metzger, 461, points out that if the passage is taken as “an asyndetic doxology to God the Father, the word ōn is superfluous, for ‘he who is God over all’ is most simply represented by ho epi pantōn theos.” For an excellent study of the punctuation and interpretation of Romans 9:5, see Metzger’s article “The Punctuation of Romans 9:5,” in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament, ed. B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1973), 95–112. The most natural understanding of the participial clause is that it functions as a relative clause. (3) Normally in doxologies the word “praised” is placed before the one who is praised. Here it comes after. (4) Christ’s relationship to Israel on the human side (lit., “according to the flesh”) has been stated in such a way earlier in the verse as to suggest the appropriateness of a complementary statement on the divine side. This is provided by the usual translation but not by the alternative rendering. (5) Since there is no definite article before “God”—it occurs with the forgoing words (lit., “the one being over all”)—Paul is not trying to displace God with Christ but is doing what John does in saying that the Word was God (Jn 1:1), i.e., has the rank of God. Murray Harris rightly notes, “Given the high Christology of the Pauline letters, according to which Jesus shares the divine name and nature, exercises divine functions, and is the object of human faith and adoration, it should generate no surprise if on occasion Paul should refer to Jesus by the generic title theos” (M. J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992], 171, with Harris’s entire discussion [pp. 143–72] being valuable).
NOTES
9:1–11:36 On chs. 9–11, see J. Munck, Christ and Israel: An Interpretation of Romans 9–11 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967); G. R. Beasley-Murray, “The Righteousness of God in the History of Israel and the Nations: Romans 9–11,” RevExp 73 (1976): 437–50; B. Corley, “The Jews, the Future, and God (Romans 9–11),” SwJT 19 (1976–77): 42–56; W. D. Davies, “Paul and the People of Israel,” NTS 24 (1977–78): 4–39; J. W. Aageson, “Scripture and Structure in the Development of the Argument in Romans 9–11,” CBQ 48 (1986): 265–89; J. C. Beker, “The Faithfulness of God and the Priority of Israel in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” HTR 79 (1986): 10–16; B. W. Longenecker, “Different Answers to Different Issues: Israel, the Gentiles and Salvation History in Romans 9–11,” JSNT 36 (1989): 95–123.
4 There is rather good manuscript evidence (P46 B D F G and several ancient versions) for the singular διαθήκη, diathēkē, “covenant” (GK 1347), rather than “covenants.” But this reading can hardly be original, for it would most naturally suggest the Mosaic covenant (2Co 3:6, 14), which would render the next item, the reception of the law, quite unnecessary.
5 An alternative wording has been favored by a few scholars—one arrived at by emendation of the text (transposing the order of ὁ ὢν, ho ōn, to ὢν ὁ, ōn ho), yielding the following: “whose is the God over all, praised forever.” This would make Israel’s possession of the true God her climactic blessing, and it would be a fitting close to the paragraph. However, this conjecture lacks any manuscript authority.
REFLECTIONS
Looking back over vv.1–5, one is bound to conclude from the combination of Paul’s sorrow and the extended enumeration of Israel’s privileges that the subject of his nation’s spiritual condition must have constantly weighed on him. His statement of the advantages of Israel anticipates the fuller discussion of her election and serves to accent the element of tragedy in her current state. A double purpose is served by the culminating statement concerning the Messiah: it not only underscores the blindness of Israel but is also calculated to keep believing Gentiles from gloating over Israel’s fall (11:20), seeing that Israel has been the channel by which God gave Christ to the world.
B. God’s Choice of Israel Based on Election, Not on Natural Generation or Works of Merit (9:6–13)
6It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”
10Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
COMMENTARY
6–9 At once the atmosphere of tragedy is qualified by Paul’s forthright denial that the course of events has taken God by surprise. If there is failure, it must be attributed to humans, not to God, for God cannot fail, nor can his purpose fail. By “the word of God” (v.6) we are to understand “the declared purpose of God” (Sanday and Headlam, 240). This certainly involves the element of promise (cf. vv.8–9).
Paul shows from the OT that God’s saving purpose does not include all who belong to Israel in the biological sense. The distinction he makes is similar to that drawn earlier concerning the use of the term “Jew” (2:28–29). Though unnamed, Ishmael is apparently in view, in contrast to Isaac, his half brother. Paul in v.8 thus draws a contrast between being a descendant of Abraham in a merely physical sense (lit, “children of the flesh”; NIV, “natural children”) and enjoying God’s call to a spiritual destiny by belonging to the godly line of descent (“children of the promise”), which would culminate in the Messiah himself (Gal 3:16). The point is made clear in the words quoted by Paul in v.7: “it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned” (Ge 21:12). It was not true of Isaac that he was born in due course, by natural processes, and that God then acknowledged him for the reason that he belonged to Abraham. Such was the case with Ishmael insofar as it provided a ground for bestowing on him material blessings (Ge 17:20; 21:13). Isaac was unique in that he was the child who was promised (Paul in v.9 quotes words from Ge 18:10). God’s purpose was centered in him before he was born. It was, in fact, God, not a human, who set the time of his birth. Apart from divine enablement of the parents, Isaac would never have been born, for Abraham was impotent and Sarah was no longer able to bear children. Paul here returns to a theme he had already spoken of in 4:18–22, where he stressed Abraham’s faith.
10–12 Something more needs to be said (“not only that,” v.10), for a similar division took place later between the grandsons of Abraham, but one that was perhaps even more important for the history of Israel. It must be noted that the nation of Israel looked back to its origin in Isaac rather than in his half brother Ishmael or his half brothers born to Keturah. After all, it was only natural that the son of promise born to Sarah should be chosen rather than the son of flesh born to Hagar the slave woman. So Paul feels impelled to cite the case of the twin brothers, sons of Isaac and Rebekah, who lacked nothing in the least regarding their parentage. According to ordinary human expectation, they should stand on equal terms before God in his dealings with them. But it was not so. Natural generation from Isaac, the promised seed of Abraham, did not assure them of the same place in the divine economy. God made a distinction between them, indeed before they were born—before their characters had been shaped or any deeds had been performed that might form a basis for evaluation and choice (vv.11–12). Note the language of justification reminiscent of Paul’s arguments earlier in Romans: “not by works but by him who calls” (v.12). The freedom and sovereignty of God were thus safeguarded. He deliberately disturbed the normal pattern of the culture into which the children were born by decreeing that the older, if only by a few minutes, should serve the younger (Paul quotes words from Ge 25:23).
13 What thus happened is “just as it is written” in the book of Malachi. The words quoted from Malachi 1:2–3 address the nation of Israel under the name “Jacob,” and Paul similarly lifts the discussion from what might appear to be a purely personal one to the plane of corporate, national life. God’s love for Jacob and hatred for Esau ought not to be construed as temperamental. Malachi is appealing to the course of history as fulfilling the purpose of God declared long before. Hatred in the ordinary sense will not fit the situation, since God bestowed many blessings on Esau and his descendants. The “hatred” is simply a—perhaps to us strange—way of saying that Esau was not the object of God’s electing purpose (cf. the use of the word “hate” in Lk 14:26, where discipleship is stated to involve “hatred” for one’s own family and one’s own life; they are simply put in a subordinate position when it comes to the preeminent responsibility of following Christ).
NOTES
8 The same contrast between the two sons of Abraham is drawn in Galatians 4:22–31, using again the contrasting language κατὰ σάρκα kata sarka (lit., “according to the flesh”; NIV, “in the ordinary way”), and δἰ ἐπαγγελίας, di’ epangelias (lit., “through the promise”; NIV, “as a result of a promise”). There, however, the focus is more on the two mothers—Hagar, “the slave woman,” and Sarah, “the free woman” (Gal 4:23).
12 Bruce, 193, notes that the prophecy necessarily relates to the descendants of Esau and Jacob, since Esau never rendered service to Jacob, while for lengthy periods the Edomites were in bondage to Israel.
REFLECTIONS
The value of the account of the two brothers is to make clear that in election God does not wait until individuals or nations are developed and then make a choice on the basis of character or achievement. If he did so, this would make a mockery of the concept of election, because it would locate the basis in humanity rather than in God and his purpose. God’s love for Jacob, then, must be coupled with election rather than explained by some worthiness found in him (cf. Dt 7:6–8). Such, too, is the case with the nation of Israel.
C. God’s Freedom to Act in His Own Sovereign Right (9:14–29)
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”
26and,
“It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’
they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”
27Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
“Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
28For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality.”
29It is just as Isaiah said previously:
“Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah.”
COMMENTARY
14 God’s dealings with Jacob and Esau might be challenged as arbitrary on the ground that Esau was the object of injustice. Paul refuses in the strongest language the notion that there is any injustice with God: “Not at all!”
15 To demonstrate that injustice is by no means consistent with God’s character, Paul goes further into the history of Israel, focusing on the “golden calf” incident at Sinai. There the people sinned grievously. If God had acted simply in justice, he could have blotted out his people. Instead, he recalled Moses to the mountain and for a second time gave him the tables of commandments, yet not until he had proclaimed to his servant Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (Ex 33:19). That mercy was seen in sparing a sinful nation.
16 And lest this mercy be construed as depending on a person’s desire or effort, Paul strongly denies any such qualification. Mercy, like grace, stands over against human worth and effort whenever salvation is concerned. It is free because God is not bound to show mercy to any.
17 The thought moves from Moses to Pharaoh, the king of Egypt at the time of the exodus—from the leader of Israel to its oppressor. “The Scripture” is represented as speaking—a vivid reminder that it is God’s word. “I raised you up” is not strictly a reference to Pharaoh’s emergence in history but to God’s providence in sparing him up to that time. Pharaoh deserved death for his oppression and insolence, but his life would not be taken during the series of plagues, so that the full extent of his hardness of heart might be evident and the glory of God in the deliverance of his people enhanced “in all the earth” (cf. Jos 9:9). The fame of this pharaoh actually depended on the mercy of God in sparing him. God can be glorified through those who oppose him, as well as through those who trust and serve him. Human wrath can contribute to the praise and glory of God (cf. Ps 76:10).
18 Paul concludes the Pharaoh episode with this observation: “Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.” He does not so much as bother to indicate that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (cf. Ex 8:15, 32; 9:34)—an evidence of unbelief and rebellion—because he is emphasizing the freedom of God’s action in all cases. The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart can profitably be related to the principle laid down in Romans 1 that God’s method of dealing with those who reject the revelation of himself in nature and history (and in Pharaoh’s case also in miracles) is to abandon them to still greater excess of sin and its consequences (cf. G. K. Beale, “An Exegetical and Theological Consideration of the Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart in Exodus 4–14 and Romans 9,” TJ 5 [1984]: 129–54).
19 Paul, continuing the review of God’s sovereign activity, presents another problem. If God acts unilaterally, according to his own will and purpose, does this not remove all basis for judgment, since man is not in a position to resist the divine will? Why, then, should man be blamed?
20 In reply, Paul first points out the inappropriateness for the creature to talk back to God, as though he had sufficient wisdom to judge the Almighty. The creature must yield to the Creator and not bring him to the bar of his paltry, not to mention sin-affected, wisdom and judgment. (On the whole subject, see Wis 12:12–18.)
21 The illustration of the potter and the clay shows how ridiculous it is to challenge God. Two of Israel’s greatest prophets had made the same point (Isa 29:16; Jer 18:6). Some interpreters have concluded that Paul has in mind the creation. While it is true that Genesis 2:7 contains the word “formed,” which is from the same root word as “potter,” it is clear that Paul envisions the clay as a “given,” and the real problem is what the potter does with the clay, namely, fashion one type of vessel or another. The apostle is insisting on the right of the potter to make whatever type of vessel he chooses. Those made for “noble purposes” are valuable for their beauty and decorative function, while those made for “common use” are not admired, though they are actually more essential to the household than the other ones. Pharaoh was useful in fulfilling God’s purpose. Apart from this, he would not even have appeared on the pages of sacred history.
22–23 In v.22 the crucial problem is to interpret correctly the expression “prepared for destruction.” Is Paul teaching a double predestination? This is improbable, because he avoids involving God in this case, whereas God is involved in showing mercy to the objects of his mercy (v.23). Furthermore, God’s patience in bearing with the objects of his wrath suggests a readiness to receive such on condition of repentance (cf. 2:3–4; 2Pe 3:9). So “prepared for destruction” designates a ripeness of sinfulness that points to judgment unless there is a turning to God, yet God is not made responsible for the sinful condition. The preparation for destruction is the work of human beings, who allow themselves to deteriorate in spite of knowledge and conscience.
There is a remarkable asymmetry in Paul’s (and the NT’s) viewpoint that should keep us from the conclusion of double predestination. Those who are saved are saved only by the mercy of God; those who are lost are lost only because of their refusal to repent. The basic premise, argued earlier in Romans, is that no one, not even the most “righteous,” deserves to be saved. Quite the contrary—all deserve condemnation; that any are saved is the astonishing fact. Precisely for this reason everything depends on the sovereign grace of God. It is worth quoting the words of F. F. Bruce, 191, here:
In point of fact, as appears with blessed clarity later in the present argument [11:25–32], God’s grace is far wider than anyone could have dared to hope, but just because it is grace, no-one is entitled to it, and no-one can demand that God should give an account of the principles on which He bestows His grace, or that He should bestow it otherwise than in fact He does. Grace in its sovereignty may impose conditions, but it cannot be made subject to them.
But God delights to show mercy, and He has lavished it upon men and women beyond counting—from Gentiles and Jews alike.
Presumably, and in view of what follows, when Paul speaks of “objects of [God’s] wrath” (v.22), he has in mind those in Israel who have remained obdurate in opposing the gospel yet are still the objects of the divine long-suffering. In contrast to them are “objects of [God’s] mercy” (v.23), in whom God wills to show the riches of his glory (in contrast to his wrath; cf. John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23 [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983]).
24–25 Those God has prepared for glory include both Jews and Gentiles (v.24), in line with Paul’s previous teaching (1:16; 2:10–11; 3:22) and with the prophetic announcement. The same God who declared to Israel through Amos, “You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth” (Am 3:2), declared through Hosea his freedom to call others to be his people (v.25). In all strictness, this passage from Hosea 2:23 refers to the reversal in Israel’s status from being called “not my people” (Hos 1:9) to being restored, but in both Romans 9:25 and 1 Peter 2:10 the meaning is broadened and applied to the Gentiles, as Romans 2:24 intimates. Gentiles, who are not actually a people but only masses of humanity, are called by the grace of God to a new role—that of joining Israel in being the people of God. This was dramatically happening in Paul’s day. Those once in the category of “not my people” were becoming those who are “my people.”
26 The second quotation is from Hosea 1:10 (omitting the first half of the verse), which refers to the prophesied increase in the number of the people of Israel. Here also the background is the “Lo-Ammi” prophecy of Hosea 1:9, which is now seen to be revoked when Israel will once again be called “sons of the living God.” Since 1 Peter 2:10 uses the Hosea 2:23 passage as applying to Gentiles, Paul’s intimation of a similar application is the more understandable. It is just possible that Paul does not intend the second passage (Hos 1:10) to apply to Gentiles (though this is by no means certain), in which case by the sequence of the passages he may be giving a hint of something developed in ch. 11, namely, the influx of Gentiles during Israel’s temporary rejection, to be followed by the turning of Israel to the Lord in great numbers (11:25–27).
27–29 As Paul has used Scripture to show that it teaches God’s purpose to extend his mercy to Gentiles, so now, returning to the main subject of Israel’s unbelief, he uses Scripture again to make clear that the election of Israel does not preclude her reduction through chastening judgments, yet in the sparing of the remnant his mercy and faithfulness are to be seen. Both quoted passages are from Isaiah. The former anticipates the depletion of the nation by reason of the Assyrian invasion under Sennacherib, described from God’s viewpoint as “the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath!” (Isa 10:5). Without softening his decree and without delay, God will permit the judgment to fall. Jacob, now numerous, will be reduced to a remnant (Isa 10:22). Thus far judgment is emphasized, but the remainder of the sentence underscores the divine mercy—“the remnant [to hypoleimma, GK 5698] will be saved.” The Hebrew text has “will return” (i.e., after deportation). Paul, however, following the LXX, sees the promise of a greater deliverance, for he says, “will be saved.” Even as he wrote, there was a remnant of Israel to be found in the church. In view of the nation’s rejection of Jesus as Israel’s Messiah, Gentile Christians should be grateful for the minority of Jews who have embraced the gospel of Christ and who provide a constant reminder of God’s faithfulness to his people. In Romans 11:5 Paul will return to the theme of the remnant.
Verse 28 continues quoting Isaiah (Isa 10:23) and includes some words from Isaiah 28:22b. The point of this verse is rather unclear. The general sense is to stress that the Lord will accomplish his purpose on the earth, presumably in the salvation of the remnant as well as in judgment. The uncertainty stems from the two participles, which, literally rendered, say “finishing it” and “cutting it short” (see NASB text note). Probably this idea of “cutting short” refers to the limitation of the salvation of Israel to the remnant who have believed in the gospel. If God’s judgment had been unsparing, Paul goes on to note by means of further quotation from Isaiah (Isa 1:9) that the nation would have become as truly wiped out as Sodom and Gomorrah were (v.29). But the divine judgment is tempered by unfailing mercy, of which the remnant is the eloquent proof. This dual theme of the kindness and severity of God comes into focus again at 11:22.
NOTES
26 The question of whether Paul does or does not intend the second passage (Hos 1:10) to apply to Gentiles depends not only on the sense of the passage but also on whether the δέ, de, at the beginning of v.27 should be taken as “and” or as the stronger adversative “but,” the latter suggesting a new subject in view—now Israel rather than the Gentiles.
28 The TR, together with 
(third corrector), D G K P et al., and some ancient versions, has conformed the text more closely to that of the LXX of Isaiah 10:23 by adding missing words, apparently in an effort to make the text more intelligible (cf. KJV, “For he will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth”). Metzger, 462, observes, “It is not credible that Paul, who in ver. 27 does not follow the Septuagint closely, should in ver. 28 have copied verbatim a sentence that is so opaque grammatically.”
D. Israel’s Failure to Attain Righteousness Due to Reliance on Works Rather Than Faith (9:30–10:21)
30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.” 33As it is written:
“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”
10:1Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
5Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: “The man who does these things will live by them.” 6But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7“or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”
16But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” 17Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. 18But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:
“Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.”
19Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says,
“I will make you envious by those who are not a nation;
I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.”
20And Isaiah boldly says,
“I was found by those who did not seek me;
I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.”
21But concerning Israel he says,
“All day long I have held out my hands
to a disobedient and obstinate people.”
COMMENTARY
30–31 The introductory question indicates that here Paul comes to the point of the preceding section and also anticipates much in the following chapter. He presents a strong contrast between the Gentiles and Israel. It is no small irony that the Gentiles, without pursuing righteousness, “obtained” (katelaben, GK 2898) it, namely, the “righteousness that is by faith,” whereas Israel, pursuing righteousness through the law, did not “attain” (ephthasen, GK 5777) it. The Greek has the word “law” (nomos, GK 3795) as the object of “attain” where one expects a repetition of the word “righteousness.” Perhaps we can translate, “has not arrived at the goal of the law,” namely, the law of righteousness in the sense of righteousness gained by means of the law. In view here are the two types of righteousness Paul has introduced earlier (3:19–31; chs. 4 and 5; cf. Php 3:9). There Paul has already shown the impossibility of arriving at righteousness through the law and stressed the fact that righteousness comes through faith. The language of pursuing and obtaining/attaining is an athletic metaphor alluding to a race in which the prize may be thought of as righteousness. From Israel’s point of view, the Gentiles had not run the race but nevertheless shockingly received the prize. As F. F. Bruce, 198, has observed, “It was indeed a hard lesson for them to learn that, in spite of all the privileges which were theirs as Israelites, the divine righteousness could be attained by them only in the same way as it was open to those complete outsiders of Gentiles who had been for ages past shut out from the knowledge of God and His ways.”
Undoubtedly the reference to “a righteousness that is by faith” refers to the status of being justified or declared righteous. At the same time, however, consistent with what we have seen earlier, Paul believes that actual righteousness can and ought to be attained by Christians through the Spirit (cf. 8:4). Again the paradox is stunning: the people who did not have the law attain through Christ the righteousness of the law, while the people who had the law fail to achieve its goal. Gentile success is attributed not to the observance of the works of the law but to their faith. Hardly a passage in the NT is stronger than this one in its exposure of the futility of works as a means of justification (cf. Thomas Schreiner, “Israel’s Failure to Attain Righteousness in Romans 9:30–10:3,” TJ 12 [1991]: 209–20).
32 The words “they stumbled over the ‘stumbling stone’” employ a metaphor from Isaiah 28:16 and 8:14 that is used a number of times to point to the unbelief of Israel. Isaiah 28:16 is again quoted in 1 Peter 2:6, and Paul repeats the last line of it in 10:11, where it serves to make a different point. Christ is both the rejected stone that has become the chief cornerstone (Ps 118:22; cf. Mt 21:42; Ac 4:11; Eph 2:20) as well as the stone of stumbling (cf. Mt 21:42; Lk 20:17–18). The analogy of the race may continue to influence Paul’s thought (see comments at vv.30–31). Absorbed in their own efforts, the Israelites did not recognize in Christ the stone of their prophetic Scripture—the sure foundation for their faith and life—and fell headlong over him. By failing to receive him, they denied also their own election, of which he was the fulfillment and crown.
33 The passage Paul quotes is a combination of Isaiah 8:14 and 28:16. From it we glean that the Lord himself, provided as a foundation stone, was actually to become for Israel a stumbling stone. This became especially true with respect to his cross (1Co 1:23). The misdirection of Israel’s thinking became painfully clear in that the preaching of the cross, the event that was at once the quintessence of sin and the sole hope of salvation, could find no hearing in her as it did among the Gentiles.
10:1 It is perhaps the fact that 10:1 again refers to Paul’s deep concern for his people, in a way reminiscent of the opening of ch. 9, that caused ancient editors to begin a new chapter at this point. Verse 1 hardly marks a break in the thought, however, for key words such as righteousness, law, and faith continue to appear, especially early in the chapter.
Paul has spoken pointedly about Israel’s failure but not censoriously. He has empathy with his countrymen. He knows their plight because their condition was his own condition prior to his conversion. His desire for their salvation is reflected in his going to the Jews first (Ac 13:46; 18:5–6; cf. Ro 1:16) but also in praying to God on their behalf. As earnest as Paul’s praying and preaching must have been, they could not in themselves convert his kinsfolk. God had to move in their hearts.
2 Paradoxically, it is Israel’s “zeal” for God that constitutes their greatest barrier. The apostle knows whereof he speaks, for his zeal in behalf of Judaism had been notorious (Gal 1:14; Ac 22:3). That very zeal so preoccupied him that he felt bound to consider Jesus and his followers as traitors to the faith of his fathers. But he persecuted the Christians in ignorance (1Ti 1:13). Zeal in itself is admirable, but not when it is driven by ignorance. So here he diagnoses the zeal of Israel as lacking in “knowledge” (for Israel’s ignorance, see 1Co 2:7–8; 2Co 3:14–15), i.e., as having the same problem as his own prior zeal.
3 His people have ignored the “righteousness that comes from God” (cf. 1:17). In working so hard to gain a righteous standing before God, seeking “to establish their own,” they have refused submission to God’s righteousness. As Fitzmyer, 582, writes, “Real zeal for God has become in effect disobedience.” By looking forward to v.4, where the law is mentioned, we see that this striving of Israel to achieve their own righteousness was related to their quest for success in meeting the demands of the Mosaic law. Paul is able to analyze their trouble in expert fashion, for he has been over the same route in his spiritual pilgrimage. It was a great day for him when he gave up his cherished righteousness, based on service to the law, in exchange for the righteousness that comes from God and depends on faith (Php 3:9).
4 Israel’s covenantal relation to God and reliance on law keeping do not add up to salvation, since only in and through God’s Messiah is salvation possible (cf. Jn 14:6; Ac 4:12). For this reason, Paul points away from the law and instead to Christ as the way to righteousness for Israel, just as for the Gentiles. The proof that Israel was out of line with respect to the will of God, to the extent of rebelling against him, lies in the fact that when he sent his Son as the bringer of a salvation in full accord with the divine righteousness, the nation rejected him. The same kind of revolution in thinking that was necessary for Paul is required for his people.
Considerable debate has focused on the interpretation of v.4, especially on the intended meaning of the word the NIV translates as “end” (most translations use this word and thus preserve the ambiguity of Paul’s statement; contrast NJB, “the Law has found its fulfilment in Christ”). Just as in English we speak of “the end of the matter” and use the expression “to the end that”—the one expression meaning conclusion or termination, and the other, purpose or goal—the Greek word telos (GK 5465) allows the same dual possibility. Commentators have been seriously divided about which way to take telos in Paul’s statement, though the majority seem to favor the conclusion that Paul here speaks of the termination of the law (e.g., Käsemann, Dodd, Michel, Sanday and Headlam, Nygren, Stuhlmacher, Schreiner). The decisive factor that favors “termination” rather than “purpose” as the main idea is the contrast in 9:30–32 between the law and God’s righteousness (cf. 10:5–6). Though the law is righteous in its requirements, it fails as an instrument of justification (cf. 8:3–4). Paul’s contention regarding the Jews (v.3) is not the incompleteness of their position, which needed the coming of Christ to perfect it, but the basic incorrectness of it, because it entailed an effort to establish righteousness by human effort rather than by acceptance of the divine gift. Also favorable to this understanding is the fact that the law had a certain course to run in God’s economy (see esp. Gal 3:19–25; cf. Lk 16:16), and now with the coming of Christ, the law, having fulfilled its job, has come to an end. The law has been terminated both in a salvation-historical sense and in a soteriological sense (cf. 3:21). Adolf Schlatter (Romans: The Righteousness of God [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995], 213) writes, “God’s righteousness has become manifest in that Christ is the end of the law and thus he also is the end of all of the individual’s own righteousness. For the believer righteousness is brought about precisely because Christ acts apart from the law and takes its place as the individual’s Lord.”
At the same time, the second meaning has some plausibility here, since there is also a sense in which (1) Christ is himself the goal of the law as its fulfillment, and (2) Christ has not brought the law to an end but rather to its goal (examples of those who favor this interpretation include Barth, Cranfield, Fitzmyer, Byrne, and Badenas [see note at 10:4]). If we think of the goal of the law as righteousness and the fact that Paul has argued that the gospel upholds the law because Christians will produce the righteousness of which the law spoke (e.g., 8:4), then we can see how the passage can easily be taken in this way. It also fits with Paul’s teaching about the law as the child-leader to bring human beings to Christ (Gal 3:24).
In fact, surprisingly, both concepts—termination and goal—seem to fit our passage rather well; it is, therefore, tempting to conclude that both ideas are true, namely, that in Christ the law has in one sense been brought to its termination, but in another sense the law has arrived at its intended purpose. A number of commentators who favor the idea of termination also see the possibility of truth in the fulfillment idea (e.g., Barrett, Bruce, Achtemeier, Dunn, Moo, Edwards).
Paul adds a certain qualification to the statement about Christ as “the end of the law so that there may be righteousness.” He is that “for everyone who believes.” This seems to imply that the law is still applicable to those who do not believe: “Those who have not yet passed from the being-in-the-Law to the being-in-Christ, and those who allow themselves to be misled into exchanging the being-in-Christ for the being-under-the-Law, are under the Law and are made to feel its power” (A. Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle [New York: Holt, 1931], 189).
5–8 The thread of the discourse from here through v.13 is a continuation of the emphasis on “everyone who believes”—the last words of v.4. This is developed in two ways: first by showing that the principle of faith is amply set forth in the OT—in fact, in the pages of Moses—and then by expressly indicating, in line with 1:16, that “everyone” includes the Gentiles as well as the Jews.
5 We encounter here a strong contrast between two opposite positions. The first is articulated by Moses (v.5); the second is represented as spoken by the personified “righteousness that is by faith” (v.6). In fact, however, since “righteousness” also echoes material drawn from Moses, Paul pits Moses against Moses. Paul deals first with the law’s insistence on the attainment of righteousness through observing the commandments. He does this by citing a passage from Moses (Lev 18:5) that calls for obedience and performance of the will of God as contained in the statutes and ordinances of Scripture. The unmistakable point is that the one who complies will live.
The textual evidence is divided as to whether the last word in the Greek text of v.5 is a singular pronoun (autē) or a plural pronoun (autois). The NASB follows the singular, which would normally be translated “by it” (so RSV, REB), but specifies the content of the pronoun with the words “by that righteousness.” If the plural is accepted, the translation would be “by them” (so KJV, NRSV, NIV), and the implied antecedent would be “the things written in the law,” as in Galatians 3:12. The difference is very small, and the NASB’s “by that righteousness” makes essentially the same point, i.e., “the righteousness that is by the law,” as earlier in the verse. We are aided in our understanding from the quotation of the same passage in Galatians 3:12: “The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, ‘The man who does these things will live by them.’” In both letters the emphasis falls on doing if one expects to live—the very viewpoint Paul is intent on refuting. Indeed, Paul has firmly shut that door earlier in Romans (cf. 3:20). The dark side of the picture is that a curse rests on the one who fails to meet the law’s demands (cf. Gal 3:10). The upshot of the matter is that because of human weakness and imperfection, the course being pursued by Israel—the attempt to gain righteousness for themselves by law keeping (v.3)—cannot bring life. We must remind ourselves here that Paul believes that Christians will, in fact, produce the righteousness of which the law speaks (cf. 2:13; 6:18; 8:4), but through a totally different dynamic, namely, the power of the indwelling Spirit. Apart from Christ, however, the law of Moses cannot help.
6–7 What is the contrasting view articulated by “the righteousness that is by [lit., “from”] faith”? Now, too, we encounter quotations from Moses (Dt 30:12–14). At first sight, the selection of this portion seems inappropriate, since neither “righteousness” nor “faith” can be found here and since there is heavy emphasis on doing, as in Leviticus 18:5. The passages seem closely related rather than opposed. Indeed, at first we encounter questions asking for the apparently impossible: “Who will ascend into heaven?” and “Who will descend into the deep?” Whereas in view in Deuteronomy is the performance of the commandments (Dt 30:11, “Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach”), Paul cannot resist finding in the questions allusions to the Messiah: “to bring Christ down” (the coming of the Messiah); “to bring Christ up from the dead” (his resurrection). Bruce, 204, suggests that the connection could have been made by Paul if he had associated the passage with wisdom, as does Baruch 3:29–30. The point here is that these Herculean efforts are not necessary. These are the glorious and gracious acts of God in behalf of humanity.
Thus Paul makes his own application of the reference to “heaven” (v.6) in order to emphasize aspects of the gospel. There is no need to try to ascend to heaven to gain spiritual knowledge or acceptance, for Christ has come from heaven to proclaim and effect salvation for the world. He has come within human reach by his incarnation.
In v.7 Paul substitutes “the deep” (NASB, “abyss”) for “the sea” in the Deuteronomy passage, changing the figure from one of distance to one of depth, not to mention the Jewish view of the sea as the abode of evil, which makes the contrast with heaven sharper. This affords opportunity to think of Christ as going down into death as a prelude to resurrection. Apparently lost to us by death, he has been returned to us by resurrection. We have had no part in bringing about the Lord’s resurrection any more than in effecting his incarnation. All has been of God. Our part is to believe. The saving message lies at hand, waiting to be received.
8–10 So, too, righteousness cannot come as the result of Herculean efforts. The reason righteousness is not out of our reach is that it is the gift of God through faith. The whole burden of the passage is to discourage the idea that the doing of God’s will means to aspire after something that is too difficult and out of reach. Through what Christ has accomplished on our behalf, the doing of God’s will is as near as the “mouth” and “heart” (the mouth as the organ to repeat the word of God and turn it back to him in prayer and praise, the heart as the source of desire to please him). It is a matter of confessing and believing, as Paul will explain in the following verses (cf. M. J. Suggs, “‘The Word Is Near You’: Romans 10:6–10 Within the Purpose of the Letter,” in Christian History and Interpretation, ed. W. R. Farmer et al. [Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1967], 289–312; M. A. Seifrid, “Paul’s Approach to the Old Testament in Romans 10:6–8,” TJ 6 [1985]: 3–37).
Building on the Deuteronomy passage, especially its use of “mouth” and “heart,” Paul goes on to speak directly of the content and the availability of the Christian gospel to Jew and Gentile alike (vv.9–13).
Paul identifies the Deuteronomic “word” (rhēma, GK 4839) that is “near you” with “the word of faith” (to rhēma tēs pisteōs [GK 4411]), the gospel preached by Paul (v.8). What is as near to you as your mouth and heart is the possibility of confessing and believing in the gospel. What one may do with one’s mouth is to confess and with one’s heart is to believe (v.9). Thus Paul draws a direct correlation with the Deuteronomy passage, and in effect he finds the dynamic of the gospel in Moses. Salvation, rather than righteousness, is the direct result, but lived righteousness is the result of free salvation.
“Confess” (homologeō, GK 3933) when used of sin means to say the same thing about it that God says; when used in the creedal sense, as here in v.9, it means to say the same thing that other believers say regarding their faith. This was done within the Christian group especially by new converts in connection with their baptism; when it was done “before men” (Mt 10:32) it had a witnessing and an evangelizing function. The oddity that in our passage confession is given prior mention over believing is simply due to Paul’s preservation of the order given in Deuteronomy 30:14, which he had just quoted and where “mouth” is mentioned before “heart” (the order being reversed in the chiasm provided by v.10). The influence of the OT passage is likewise evident in that, whereas it provided a point of contact for citing the resurrection of Jesus (vv.7, 9), there was nothing to provide a basis for mentioning the saving death of Christ (contrast 1Co 15:3–4). The concentration on the resurrection is understandable also when it is recognized that the creedal statement before us pertains to the person of Christ rather than to his redeeming work. “Jesus is Lord” was the earliest declaration of faith fashioned by the church (Ac 2:36; 1Co 12:3). This great truth was recognized first by God in raising his Son from the dead—an act thus far acknowledged by the church but one day to be acknowledged by all (Php 2:11).
It was natural for the church to have a fundamental confession of this sort, since at the beginning it was Jewish/Christian in its composition and therefore had in its background the example of confession in Israel, and no doubt regularly repeated by Jewish Christians, “The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Dt 6:4). The incarnation necessitated the enlargement of the confession to include the Lord Christ: “for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live” (1Co 8:6).
Paul’s statement in vv.9–10 is misunderstood when it is reduced to the claim that one cannot be saved unless by a personal commitment one makes Jesus the Lord of one’s life. That is, of course, true. In this passage, however, Paul is speaking of the objective lordship of Christ, “Jesus is Lord,” which is the very cornerstone for faith, something without which no one could be saved. Intimately connected as it was with the resurrection, which in turn validated the saving death, it proclaimed something that was true no matter whether or not a single soul believed it and built his or her life on it.
The balanced parallelism of v.10 is notable: believing results in justification; confessing results in salvation. These are hardly separable; rather, they form a unity of response to the preaching of the word. Fitzmyer, 588, observes, “Thus to confess Christ as Lord and to believe in him as the risen Lord is one and the same thing.” The heart and mouth of the Christian thus echo the heart and mouth of the Deuteronomy passage (cf. J. D. G. Dunn, “‘Righteousness from the Law’ and ‘Righteousness from Faith’: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture in Romans 10:1–10,” in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament, ed. G. F. Hawthorne and O. Betz [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987], 216–28).
11 Scripture indicates how faith can be transforming for one’s life, replacing fear and hesitation with bold confidence that rests on the sure promises of God. For this purpose Paul uses Isaiah 28:16 (repeating a line he quoted at the close of 9:33): “Anyone who trusts in him [Jesus] will never be put to shame.”
12 This belief and its blessing are open to Jews and Gentiles alike. Whatever “difference” there may be in the two groups in some respects, there is no difference when it comes to the fundamental problem of sin, the need for Christ, and the availability of his salvation (cf. 3:22). The source of their spiritual life is found in “the same Lord,” whose blessings are richly bestowed on all without partiality. The all-embracing blessing is salvation.
13 In support of this Paul cites Joel 2:32. Peter used the same passage in his Pentecost sermon to indicate to his Jewish audience that the door of salvation was open to them all, despite their shared guilt in rejecting the one whom God had sent (Ac 2:21). This calling on the Lord is the echoing within the human heart of the call of God according to his gracious purpose (8:28–30). The prayer promises of Scripture are restricted to the people of God, with one notable exception, namely, that God will hear the cry of any who call on him for salvation. When v.13 is compared with v.9, it becomes evident that the Lord of Joel 2:32 is being identified with the Lord Jesus Christ. Ho kyrios, “the Lord,” in the Hebrew of Joel 2:32 is Yahweh, and thus in effect Paul equates Jesus with Yahweh, an important name of the deity in the OT.
14–15 Now the apostle turns parenthetically to emphasize the importance of those who proclaim the good news of the gospel, and thus by implication the importance of his apostolic ministry. A series of logically connected questions makes the point. A first question is implicit, though not stated, from the fundamental point made in the preceding verse, namely, “How shall they be saved if they cannot call on the name of the Lord?” Paul begins with the next question, in order: “How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in?” Then the sequence follows: “How can they believe . . . [if] they have not heard?” “How can they hear without someone preaching to them?” and finally, “How can they preach unless they are sent?” Is this last question possibly a veiled indication that Paul needs the support of the Romans for his planned evangelistic work in Spain?
Faith, in fact, depends on knowledge. One must hear the gospel before one can be expected either to receive it or reject it. The choice of words is suggestive. To “hear” the message was the one vehicle open to people in that day. The NT had not yet been written so as to be available to the reader, though a few churches had received letters from Paul. There was no visual depiction of the Savior and his mission. The message had to be communicated by word of mouth to the hearing of others. This was as true in the days of the apostles as in the time of the prophets, as a look at the concordance will show.
“Someone preaching,” of course, refers to anyone who proclaims the gospel or witnesses to its truth. Christians are saved to serve, and a paramount element in that service is to bear witness to the saving power of Christ. To be “sent” (v.15) suggests at least two things: that one operates under a higher authority and that one’s message does not originate with oneself but is given by the sending authority. The prophets were those who were sent in these two respects. So was Jesus (cf. Jn 3:34; 7:16). So are Christians in their witness-bearing capacity. The apostles received their commission from the risen Lord as he in turn had been sent by the Father (Jn 20:21). In addressing the Roman church, Paul was careful to state at the very beginning that he was called and set apart for the ministering of the gospel (Ro 1:1).
Is the apostolate alone in view here as representing Christ and his gospel? This is unlikely, judging from what Paul says later about the widespread proclamation of the gospel to the Jews (vv.17–18). The task was too big for a handful of preachers (in this connection, see Ac 8:4; 11:19–20). It is not clear from vv.14–15 whether the sending that is in view here is intended to include the sending out of missionaries by a sponsoring group of believers, as in Acts 13:3. But even if this is not included, it is obviously an integral part of the entire process of the communication of the gospel. In the case of the church at Antioch, the divine and human aspects of the sending were closely bound together (Ac 13:2–3).
Once again, Paul corroborates his statement with words from the prophets, this time Isaiah (52:7), heralding the favor of the Lord to the city of Jerusalem that had lain desolate during the Babylonian captivity (v.15). The tidings are good; the proclamation is one of peace. Paul changes the wording somewhat—the single announcer in Isaiah becomes a company in line with the “they” in his own depiction of gospel messengers in the same verse. If the message to returning Israel in the former days was good news, how much more the promise of eternal salvation in God’s Son!
16 The good news of physical restoration may have been welcome to Israel, but the sad fact is that the spiritual salvation God promised to provide through his Servant and did provide in the fullness of time has met with unbelief. The elation of Isaiah 52:7 (v.15) concerning those who bring the message of good news now meets the reality of unbelief in the exasperation of Isaiah 53:1. The prophet foresaw a repudiation of the message about salvation through a suffering Servant. History has sustained that prophecy in the unbelief of Israel in the crucified Servant-Messiah (cf. 1Co 1:23).
17 Paul now turns two of the questions of v.14 into declarative statements in preparation for what follows: Faith depends on “hearing the message”—i.e., hearing it with understanding and acceptance. And the message is heard “through the word of Christ.” This can mean either the word about Christ (objective genitive) or the word proclaimed by Christ (subjective genitive). The former sense is somewhat favored by the fact that in Isaiah 53, which may still be in Paul’s thought, the Servant is not a proclaimer but a suffering redeemer. On the other hand, the second possibility cannot be ruled out. Barrett, 189, writes, “Christ must be heard either in his own person, or in the person of his preachers, through whom his own word (v. 17) is spoken; otherwise faith in him is impossible.”
18 In his indictment of Israel, Paul is prepared to investigate any possibility that would offer an excuse for the nation’s failure to believe. Could it be, he asks, that they did not hear the gospel? He is writing more than twenty-five years after Pentecost. Not only in Palestine but also out in the dispersion, where he himself has been especially active, the message has been widely and repeatedly heralded, as the book of Acts testifies. Such has been the widespread proclamation of the gospel that Paul is able to compare it hyperbolically to the universal witness of nature (general revelation), quoting from Psalm 19:4, which speaks of the heavens and the firmament as declaring the glory of God “to the ends of the world.” The widespread proclamation of the gospel in the areas where Jews made their home—essentially the Mediterranean basin, where Paul and his helpers had been laboring for some years—was an undeniable fact. Thus Paul’s kinsfolk could hardly claim as their excuse that they had not heard the gospel (cf. Ac 17:6; 21:28). That is not the reason for their failure to believe.
19 There remained the possibility, however, that in spite of hearing the message Israel had not understood it. If this were true, it would be a mitigating factor in explaining their unbelief. But the very form of the question (the initial negative mē, as also in the question of v.18) in the original expects a denial that Israel’s failure results from lack of understanding. Early in Acts (3:17), Peter spoke of the ignorance of his countrymen with respect to the crucifixion. But as time went on, fewer and fewer Jews in proportion to the total population of the nation responded to the gospel, and that lack of response was not due to ignorance. The precedent of the Jews who did respond to the gospel, instead of moving their fellow Jews, apparently only embittered them. Then, as the gospel spread abroad and was received by Gentiles in ever-greater numbers, this served to antagonize them further.
It is over against this situation that Paul quotes Deuteronomy 32:21b, a part of Moses’ song to Israel in which he chides the congregation for perversity and (in Dt 32:21a, not quoted here) voices the complaint of God that the people had provoked him to jealousy by their idolatry. This in turn prompts God to resort to something that is calculated to make Israel jealous (cf. Ro 11:11). It will be done through a people “who are not a nation” (the lō ʾ-ʿam, “no people,” here being reminiscent of the Hosea 2:23 passage Paul quoted in 9:25) and “a nation that has no understanding.” This is to be understood as referring to Gentile response to God and his Word in such a way as to surpass the response of Israel. Exactly such a situation had developed by the time Paul wrote, so the quotation is particularly apt and telling in its effect. Those who lacked special revelation and the moral and religious training God provided for Israel have proved more responsive than the chosen people. The irony that a “non-people” lacking in understanding respond rightly, while the people of God’s covenants respond wrongly, is pursued in the following verses.
20 The quotation from Isaiah 65:1 is clearly intended to parallel what has been declared in the previous passage (Dt 32:21), as is evident from the “first” in v.19. Paul sees in the Isaiah passage an anticipation of what has come to pass in his day. The thought is somewhat similar to the implication in 9:30 that the pagan world, occupied with its own pursuits, was in the main not seeking after God. If there was a religious interest, cults and superstitions abounded to which one could turn.
21 In the next quotation from Isaiah (65:2), the paradoxical situation regarding Israel is set forth. God is the one who keeps seeking, reaching out to his people continually with a plea that Israel return to him in loving obedience, only to be rebuffed. So we may draw the conclusion that the spiritual condition of Israel does not come from a lack of opportunity to hear the gospel or a lack of understanding of its content, but must be traced to a “disobedient and obstinate” spirit such as cropped up in the days of Moses and the days of the prophets. It is the more grievous now because God has spoken his final word in his Son and yet has been rebuffed by those who should have been the most ready to respond.
Not to be missed, however, is the emphasis at the end of ch. 10 on the persevering character of God’s grace and mercy despite the unresponsiveness of Israel: “All day long I have held out my hands.” In ch. 11 it becomes crystal clear that God has not and will not give up on his people. And remarkably, the unbelief of Israel was already anticipated in the OT Scriptures. It should come as no surprise. Indeed, as we are about to find out, it was fully within the plan of God, and this temporary unbelief will not always mark the people of Israel.
NOTES
9:32–33 The most remarkable constellation of “stone” passages is in 1 Peter 2:4–8. The last verse of that passage is particularly relevant to Paul’s argument: Christ became “‘a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.’ They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.”
10:4 On 10:4, see R. Badenas, Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10:4 in Pauline Perspective (JSNTSup 10; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985); C. T. Rhyne, “Nomos dikaiosynēs and the Meaning of Romans 10:4,” CBQ 47 [1985]: 486–99.
5 Manuscripts vary considerably in the wording of the quotation from Leviticus 18:5. Those that have αὐτοῖς, autois, “in [or “by”] them” (P46 [second corrector] D F G and TR) are perhaps influenced by the LXX and by the form of the quotation in Galatians 3:12, where αὐτοῖς, autois, fits the context (cf. the antecedent “everything written in the Book of the Law” in Gal 3:10). Though the witnesses for the singular αὐτῇ, autē, “in [or “by”] it,” are strong (* A B among others), the currently accepted critical text adopts the plural. The difference between the two is, in the end, insignificant.
17 The word for “hearing” (ἀκοή, akoē, GK 198) in this verse is the same word translated “message” in the quotation from Isaiah in v.16. “The word of God” (ῥήματος θεοῦ, rhēmatos theou) is the reading of the TR, but “the word of Christ” (ῥήματος Χριστοῦ, rhēmatos christou) clearly has superior attestation (* B C D* et al.).
E. Israel Not Entirely Rejected; There Is a Remnant of Believers (11:1–10)
OVERVIEW
Thus far Paul has treated the problem of Israel from two standpoints: In ch. 9 he has emphasized the sovereignty of God in choosing this people for himself in a special sense. In ch. 10 he has dealt with Israel’s failure to respond to God’s righteousness, ending with the verdict that she is “a disobedient and obstinate people” (10:21). These two presentations involve a serious tension. We are, therefore, back to the main issue: How are we to understand the problem of Israel’s election and her unbelief? This is the problem with which Paul began: What about the faithfulness of God to his promises? To this question Paul now turns. His answer will dip into Israel’s past, encompass her present, and reveal her future.
1I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3“Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? 4And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
7What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:
“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear,
to this very day.”
9And David says:
“May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever.”
COMMENTARY
1 Preparation for this section has been made—especially in 9:27–29, where the teaching of the OT concerning the remnant is summarized by quotations from Isaiah. That teaching involved both judgment and mercy—judgment on the nation as a whole for its infidelity and wickedness, and mercy on the remnant, who are permitted to escape the judgment and who form the nucleus for a fresh start under the blessing of God.
The opening question, “Did God reject his people?” (based on Ps 94:14) requires that we keep in mind what was made clear early in the discussion—that “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (9:6). The form of Paul’s question expects a negative answer. This negative answer is articulated in the strong formulaic “By no means!” The loss of the bulk of the nation that proved disobedient (both in OT days and at the opening of the gospel period) should not be interpreted as God’s rejection of “his people.” The remnant is in view, as the ensuing paragraph demonstrates.
Why is it that Paul, in repudiating the suggestion that God has rejected his people, injects himself into the discussion as an Israelite descended from Abraham and belonging to the tribe of Benjamin (cf. Php 3:5; 2Co 11:22)? It is unlikely that Paul details his background merely to indicate that he can be expected to handle the subject with fairness to Israel. In fact, he presents himself as the initial, obvious evidence that God has been faithful to his people and thus as the first answer to the question he has just posed.
2–3 Just for that reason, Paul immediately makes the statement “God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew” (cf. 1Sa 12:22). The context and the argument make it clear that in view is the entirety of the nation. And here Paul provides an important antidote to his earlier outburst in 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16; the present passage provides Paul’s considered opinion. For God to reject his people would require repudiation of his deliberate, unilateral choice of Israel. (For the meaning of “foreknew” here, see comments at 8:29.) This is something, however, that God could not do, for it would go against his own word.
Instead of dealing in abstractions, Paul turns to the OT for confirmation—specifically, to the time of Elijah. If ever there was a period of flagrant apostasy it was during the reign of Ahab, when his queen Jezebel promoted the worship of Baal in the court and throughout the land. The situation was so bad that Elijah, in his loneliness, cried out to God against the killing of prophets and destruction of altars (v.3). He even went so far as to suggest that he was the only one left and that he was being hunted down so as to complete the destruction of God’s servants (1Ki 19:10). He knew that other prophets had escaped through the action of Obadiah (1Ki 18:13), but they were in hiding. Elijah had stood alone on Mount Carmel and later fled alone to the desert—an object of pursuit. It is just possible that Paul, likewise persecuted by his own countrymen, felt a special kinship with Elijah, and this may help to account for his mention of himself in v.1.
4 The really important thing is the contrast between the assertion of Elijah—“I am the only one left” (v.3)—and God’s reply, “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal” (v.4; 1Ki 19:18). The fact that in that dark hour so many faithful existed, despite all appearances, provides compelling evidence that God does not permit his own at any time to approach the vanishing point. The sparing of the remnant is inseparably related to the choice of the remnant. The very fact of God’s choice excludes the possibility of his desertion of his own. “God’s answer” (v.4) is literally his “oracle” (chrēmatismos, GK 5977), indicating both its revelatory character and its intrinsic importance. (This “oracle” was given to Elijah at Horeb, the mount of God, the place where God had appeared to Moses to affirm his preservation of Israel in her affliction and his purpose to deliver her from bondage in Egypt; cf. Ex 3; 1Ki 19.)
5 As in the days of Elijah, so now in Paul’s own time the vast majority of Israel had resisted God. This majority had resisted the gospel, and, in spite of their claim of loyalty to God and the law, they rejected the climactic revelation in his Son. Those who had turned to Christ were only “a remnant.” But the matter of numbers is not crucial. What is of the greatest importance is the very existence of the remnant itself. The faithfulness of God rests squarely on this remnant of Jews who have believed the gospel, this remnant, as Paul puts it, “chosen by grace.” The remnant is of such great importance because it is, as Stuhlmacher, 163, points out, “a sign of hope which God has established for all Israel.”
6 In a way fully consistent with Paul’s exposition of the gospel earlier in the letter, Paul stresses that this remnant is constituted not “by works” but “by grace.” If the remnant were to owe its existence to “works,” then Paul concludes that “grace would no longer be grace.” Grace and works are mutually exclusive as a means of establishing relationship to God (cf. Eph 2:8–9). Grace is determinative for salvation, and that grace is exclusive to those who are in Christ. It is those who are chosen who constitute the remnant. The remnant owes its existence solely to the action of God, for “the grace and election of God can never serve as the basis for human pretensions” (Nygren, 398). It is evident, though not expressed, that the existence of the church, far from being contrary to the will of God (as the leaders of Judaism supposed), is actually the present channel of the operation of God’s grace.
7 Israel’s failure again comes to the fore. The tragedy is that Israel did not obtain what it so earnestly sought. There is a clear connection with 9:30–32 and 10:3, which noted the effort of Israel to attain righteousness in God’s sight by their method rather than his. In stark contrast, “the elect” (hē eklogē, GK 1721) obtained righteousness because they did not go about it the wrong way but depended on divine grace. While this was true in the past, Paul is thinking mainly of the present situation (cf. v.5). In distinction from the chosen ones who constitute the remnant, Israel as a whole has become “hardened.” This translates the verb pōroō (GK 4800) rather than sklērynō (GK 5020), which is used in 9:18. The verbs are synonyms, and both are used figuratively of the hardening of hearts. The comparison between present and past, already made on the favorable side between the current remnant according to the election of grace and the seven thousand in Elijah’s time, is now projected to cover the negative aspects of the situation.
8 The failure of the bulk of Israel to attain divine righteousness and their being hardened instead are in line with OT history. Since nothing speaks more bluntly or severely about Israel than Scripture, Paul is able to make his point powerfully through two quotations. In the first of these he weaves together two passages (Isa 29:10 and Dt 29:4), providing illustrations from two periods. In Isaiah, the people are so unresponsive to the message of the prophets that they seem to be in a deep sleep. Isaiah concludes that God sent them “a spirit of stupor.” The emphasis is on the unresponsiveness of Israel, parallel to the unresponsiveness of Israel to the gospel. The Deuteronomy passage stresses the lack of sensory perception—unseeing eyes, unhearing ears. Despite all that the Israelites had seen in the exodus and wilderness wandering, they did not derive a heart of loving trust in God. From the context of both quotations it is clear that God did not give his people deaf ears to mock them any more than he gave them blind eyes to taunt them. What was involved was a judicial punishment for failure to use God-given faculties to perceive his manifested power and to glorify him. At the same time, the sovereignty of God is also mysteriously behind what has happened to Israel both in the past and in the present (cf. Jn 12:39–40).
9–10 David’s imprecation against his enemies in Psalm 69:22–23, as grim a word as can be found, is applied to unbelieving Israel in Paul’s day. This psalm is quoted and alluded to a number of times in the NT in relation both to Jesus and his passion (e.g., Mk 15:23, 36 par.; Jn 2:17; 15:25), and Paul quotes from it again in Romans 15:3. David’s enemies are viewed as the Lord’s enemies as well. How a “table” can become the various things mentioned in the first line of the quotation is unclear. The details are hardly important, however, since the general sense of the passage is clear. David wants his enemies to be ensnared and trapped, to stumble and to experience retribution. He asks for a darkening of their eyes to keep them from seeing, and finally that “their backs be bent”—a metaphor probably indicating subjugation or enslavement, possibly with the law in mind (cf. Paul’s view in Gal 4:24–25).
One problem arises in connection with the final word of the quotation. “Forever” renders dia pantos, which in Greek usage may occasionally mean “forever” but which more commonly means “continually.” The latter sense fits better the following context, where Israel’s obduracy and rejection is not treated as lasting indefinitely, certainly not eternally, but as giving way to a great ingathering of repentant Israel (cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, “The Significance of dia pantos in Romans 11:10,” SE 2 [1964]: 546–50).
NOTES
2 F. F. Bruce, 214, points out that the literal “in Elijah” refers to the section about Elijah in the books of Kings (cf. [lit.] “in the bush” in Mk 12:26, i.e., that part of Exodus).
5 On this verse, see G. F. Hasel, The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah (2d ed.; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews Univ. Press, 1974); R. E. Clements, “‘A Remnant Chosen by Grace’ (Romans 11:5): The Old Testament Background and Origin of the Remnant Concept,” in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on his 70th Birthday, ed. D. A. Hagner and M. J. Harris (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 106–21.
6 For the underlying logic of this verse, see Galatians 2:21. Grace is inseparable from the cross of Christ because it depends on it. The additional words “But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work,” made familiar by the KJV, are found only in relatively late manuscripts (TR) and thus lack sufficient authority to be included in the text.
8 The word for “stupor” (κατάνυξις, katanyxis, GK 2919) means a “pricking” or “stinging,” which apparently was thought of as producing numbness and hence lack of responsiveness. It is intriguing that Paul does not use Isaiah 6:9–10, which was perhaps the most popular passage in the early church to explain the unbelief of the Jews in the gospel (cf., in relation to inability to understand the parables, Mk 4:12 par.; Jn 12:40; Ac 28:26–27).
9 Schreiner, 588–89, mentions five options regarding the symbolism of the table: the cultus; a general sense; God’s bounteous providence; a feast relating to trust in the law; a table set up on the ground.
F. Israel’s Temporary Rejection and the Salvation of Gentiles (11:11–24)
OVERVIEW
Having dealt with the remnant, Paul returns to a consideration of Israel as a whole, insisting that her rejection is not final and that during the period when the nation continues to resist the divine plan centered in the Messiah, God is active in bringing salvation to the Gentiles. The figure of the olive tree emphasizes that Gentile salvation is dependent on Israel’s covenantal relationship to God. Gentiles have to be grafted into the olive tree. The purpose of the Gentile influx into the church is not merely to magnify the grace of God toward outsiders but to evoke envy on the part of Israel as a factor in leading to her ultimate return to God as a people. This, in turn, prepares the way for the climax in 11:25–27.
11Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!
13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.
17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!
COMMENTARY
11 Paul has just cited exceedingly pessimistic-sounding words from the OT. He has also spoken openly about the unresponsiveness of Israel. This leads naturally to an inquiry. What is the result of this hardening? Is it a hopeless situation? Now that the people have eyes that do not see, are they doomed to stumble so as to fall and rise no more? We are back to the problem with which Paul began in ch. 9 and the question he asked in 11:1. Given Israel’s failure to believe, has the word of God been nullified? Paul’s strong denial is again, as in 11:1, “Not at all!” The stumbling is admitted; an irreparable fall is ruled out. This is already a broad hint of the future salvation of Israel that Paul goes on to affirm. Those who stumbled are “the others” of v.7, those not included in the believing remnant. Though the actual Greek words used are different, the language of stumbling recalls the indirect reference to the Messiah in 9:32–33 as the “stumbling stone” and the “rock that makes them fall.”
God is bringing good out of apparent evil. Israel’s stumbling has opened the way for Gentile salvation on such a scale as to make Israel envious (cf. Ac 13:42–47). That envy, though it may involve bitterness, will ultimately contribute to drawing the nation to her Messiah. Paul is dependent on Deuteronomy 32:21 (which he has already quoted in 10:19) for this notion of Israel’s being made jealous of another nation. (Paul’s hope that jealousy could be something that draws Israel to the gospel seems much less likely now, given the history of “Christian” persecution of the Jews climaxing in the Holocaust.)
12 Paul next makes the remarkable statement that Israel’s transgression means “riches for the world”; i.e., the nations in contrast to Israel, as the parallel statement “riches for the Gentiles” makes clear. Parallel to the word “transgression” (paraptōma, GK 4183) is the word “loss” (hēttēma, GK 2488), which is basically a military figure referring to defeat (cf. 1Co 6:7). Like a bright ray of hope, in stark contrast to the “transgression” and “loss” of the present, is the reference to “their fullness” (to plērōma [GK 4445] autōn). Here we encounter the first explicit statement concerning a positive future for Israel. This is a motif that will gather strength as the chapter proceeds. As surely as Israel’s defeat (identified with her stumbling) has brought the riches of God’s grace to the Gentiles on a large scale, the conversion of Israel to her Messiah (v.26) will bring the victory of even greater blessing to the world. The word “fullness” points to the conversion of the nation, meaning the full complement in contrast to the present remnant of Israel. And so it will mark an end to the state of hardening that now characterizes the nation.
13 The next paragraph follows naturally from the preceding, because Paul now applies to his own position and ministry the truth he has stated. He wants the Gentiles in the Roman church to catch the full import of what he is saying. They have viewed him as “an apostle to the Gentiles.” Very well, but they must not suppose that he is unmindful of Israel’s need of the gospel. Far from it. And here we come to an extremely important insight into Paul’s perspective on Israel. He regards his work among the Gentiles not simply as an end in itself but as the means of a greater goal, namely, the conversion of his kinsfolk. James Daane (The Freedom of God [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973], 145) has written, “The Gentiles are not saved merely for their own sake, but for the sake of God’s election of Israel. How unshakable is the faithfulness of God to the nation he has chosen!” The paradox is that the Gentiles are important to the salvation of Israel (cf. v.31). Johannes Munck (Paul and the Salvation of Mankind [Richmond, Va.: John Knox, 1959], 301) captured the point succinctly: “However strange it may sound, the way to the salvation of Israel is by the mission to the Gentiles.”
14 This involves the envy/emulation idea already stated in v.11. Paul hopes that his success in evangelizing the Gentiles will be an aid to “save some of them,” i.e., fellow Israelites (cf. 1Co 9:22). He knows that only Christ can save, but he himself can be the instrument. The word “some” (tinas) is important. It is a clear indication that he does not expect his efforts to bring about the eschatological turning of the nation to the crucified and risen Son of God, when “all Israel will be saved” (v.26). This belongs to the indefinite future. “My own people” is, literally, “my flesh” (mou tēn sarka [GK 4922]; cf. “my kinsmen according to the flesh,” kata sarka, in 9:3 [NASB]). If God could turn him around—this proud Jew who bitterly set himself against Jesus as the Christ—surely through him as God’s instrument others can be won. These others are the firstfruits, who contain in themselves the promise of the ultimate harvest of a nation of believers (cf. v.16).
15 Here we again encounter the tragic paradox (cf. the parallel in v.12): the “rejection” (apobolē, GK 613) of Israel leads to “the reconciliation of the world” (katallagē kosmou [GK 2903, 3180]; for this phrase, see 2Co 5:18–20). In this mysterious way, Israel fulfills her role as servant to the nations. But the rejection of Israel is not the whole story. We have already read of “their fullness” (v.12); now we read of their “acceptance” (proslēmpsis, GK 4691)—the antonym to “rejection,” alluding to what God has in store for Israel. Paul likens this reversal to “life from the dead.” Rather than referring to literal resurrection, Paul uses metaphor to describe the quickening and spiritual life that will come to Israel when she is restored to divine fellowship. As Stuhlmacher, 167, notes, “The redemption of the entire world depends on God’s way with Israel; it is the decisive component of the history of election and salvation!”
16 “Dough offered as firstfruits” translates the single word aparchē (GK 569; lit., “firstfruits”). Because the second half of the comparison uses “whole batch” (phyrama, GK 5878), “firstfruits” is understood to refer to dough. The word “firstfruits” is a rich theological word that anticipates eschatological fulfillment, and here it indicates the remnant of Jewish believers in Jesus as the beginning of eschatology. The key here is to understand the remnant of Israel as the first installment of a greater fulfillment in the future—the conversion of the whole nation, i.e., “the whole batch.” Both are holy (hagia, GK 41) in the primary sense of the word—“separated, consecrated to God.” The grain taken from the fields as the firstfruits was prepared and worked into dough, then baked into a cake for an offering (Nu 15:18–21).
What Paul refers to in the last part of the sentence is a little less clear: “if the root is holy, so are the branches.” In keeping with the immediately preceding words (note the “and” [kai; untranslated in NIV], which ties this clause closely to the preceding), the root here represents the remnant and the branches the rejuvenated Israel of the future. In the immediately following verses (vv.17–24), Paul uses the metaphor in a quite different way, now understanding “root” in reference to the historic Israel, especially its patriarchal foundation.
17–24 Paul continues to use the figure of root and branches, enlarging it to the allegory of the olive tree (cf. P. E. Hughes, “The Olive Tree of Romans XI,” EvQ 20 [1948]: 22–45; W. D. Davies, “Paul and the Gentiles: A Suggestion Concerning Romans 11:13–24,” in Jewish and Pauline Studies [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984], 153–63). In fact, there are two trees, the cultivated olive and the wild olive. Israel is the cultivated olive (cf. Jer 11:16), the Gentiles the wild olive. The breaking off of some of the branches of the former and the grafting in of the branches of the latter represent the present partial rejection of Israel and the corresponding reception of the Gentiles. From this presentation Paul draws two lessons. The first is a warning to the Gentile Christians who may be in danger of repeating the sin of the Jews—boasting of their privileged position (vv.18–21). Even more important is the point that if God, by cutting off the branches of the natural tree, has made room for Gentile believers, how much easier will it be for him to restore the natural branches to their place in the cultivated tree (vv.23–24)! In this way, Paul lays the groundwork for the next stage in the argument. God is not only able to do this—he will do it (vv.25–27).
17 By stating that only “some of the branches have been broken off,” Paul inserts a reminder of the fact that Israel’s rejection is not complete (cf. v.5). “The others” refers to the branches symbolizing the Jewish Christians who rub shoulders with Gentile believers in the church. Both depend on the “nourishing sap from the olive root [rhiza, GK 4844].” Considerable debate has focused on how to identify this root. Second Temple Judaism points to the patriarchs and specifically Abraham as the “root” (T. Jud. 24:5; Jub. 16:26; 1 En. 93:5, 8; Philo, Heir, 279), and we may thus conclude that it refers to the patriarchal base established by God’s covenant (cf. 4:11–12). In view is not ethnic Israel per se but so-called “spiritual Israel,” i.e., those who have responded to God in the exercise of faith. Here we may consider with profit what the apostle says in Ephesians 2:11–22: the Gentiles, once aliens and foreigners, are now fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household. The two are made one in Christ.
18 Here Paul begins to draw practical advice from his analogy: “do not boast over those branches.” These are the broken-off branches mentioned in vv.17, 19. It is after all the root that supports the uncultivated branches. The prior reality of Israel and its relationship with God can never be forgotten: “You do not support the root, but the root supports you.” The concern over Gentile arrogance here reflects the reality of tensions between Jews and Gentiles in the Christian churches of Rome in Paul’s day (cf. chs 14–15). The temptation of Gentile Christians to boast must have been considerable, a kind of anti-Semitism that magnified the sin of the nation of Israel in rejecting Jesus and that saw in Jewish persecution of the church a sure token of an irreparable rift between the nation and her God. But Paul forcefully stresses that Israel’s plight is not to be traced to a change of attitude on the part of God toward her. It is due to her unbelief, a condition noted earlier (3:3). At the same time, the mysterious sovereignty of God stands behind their unbelief. Stuhlmacher, 169, can thus speak of an “involuntary condition of guilt,” noting that “Israel’s present unbelief is ordained by God; Israel cannot and may not yet come to a full understanding of Christ.”
19–21 The only reason Gentile believers have a standing with God is that they have responded to the gospel in faith—the very thing that Israel has hitherto failed to do. It is correct that “branches were broken off” so that new branches could be grafted in (v.19), but just as they were broken off “because of unbelief,” so the fact is that “you stand by faith” (v.20, the position of the words “by faith” making them emphatic). There is, therefore, no room for conceit; indeed the proper attitude is one of humility and fear (v.20), for God will not spare these wild branches if they fall into unbelief, any more than he did the natural ones (v.21).
Paul treats the Gentile element in the church as a unit, addressing it consistently in vv.17–24 with the singular pronoun “you” (sy). The matter in hand is the current Gentile prominence in the church made possible by the rejection of the gospel on the part of the nation of Israel as a whole. Let Gentile Christians beware. Their predominance in the Christian community may not last!
22–23 “Kindness” (chrēstotēs, GK 5983) and “sternness” (apotomia, GK 704) are aspects of the divine nature, the latter experienced by Israel in her present condition, the former being the portion of Gentile believers. But the positions can be reversed, and if this occurs, it will not be due to any fickleness in God but to the nature of the human response. Gentiles can become objects of God’s sternness and Israel can just as easily become the object of his kindness. Once Israel’s unbelief is put away, God is prepared to graft her branches in again (v.23).
24 Paul’s concluding observation has a double value. It helps to explain the curious circumstance that his illustration of the olive tree does not follow the pattern of grafting ordinarily found in the ancient Mediterranean world but is, in fact, the reverse of it. If this is not merely a reference to grafting itself as unnatural, Paul may be granting that his allegory is “contrary to nature” (para physin [GK 5882]). It has often been concluded that Paul’s illustration is foolish because it involves the impossible. But parallels to the odd practice spoken of by Paul do exist.
A further specific matter in which the illustration runs counter to horticulture is the expectation that the natural branches, though broken off, will in fact be grafted in again. In v.24 this is not spoken of as a mere possibility but as a future reality. (Note the future passive tense of the verb, with God as the assumed acting subject.) Paul’s argument is that if it is a hard thing to accept the grafting of wild branches into a cultivated olive tree—yet something that has been accomplished—one should not find it difficult to believe that God can and will also restore the broken-off branches of the cultivated olive tree to their former position. The future restoration of the Jews is in itself a more probable event than had been the introduction of the Gentiles into the church of God (cf. H. P. Liddon, Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans [London: Longman, Green, and Co., 1893], 214).
Since in terms of a literal tree this would be impossible because of the deadness of the branches after they were removed, Paul is indeed talking “contrary to nature.” But he rests his case not on nature but on God’s being “able” (v.23) to do it. With God, nothing is impossible. Inevitably, the branches that will be grafted in are not identical to those that were broken off, but they are also the same in that they are Jews who in the past have been characterized by unbelief. They represent a continuum with the Israel of Paul’s day. It should also be noted that the grafting in again of Israel is not intended to suggest that this involves a supplanting of the Gentiles, but only that both Jew and Gentile now share together the blessings of God’s grace in Christ.
NOTES
15 Fitzmyer rejects interpreting ἡ ἀποβολὴ αὐτῶν, hē apobolē [GK 613] autōn (“their rejection”), as an objective genitive and favors a subjective genitive in both halves of the verse; thus in view is not God’s (temporary) rejection of Israel but rather Israel’s rejection, and subsequent acceptance, of the gospel. But the entire passage is based on a temporary hardening of Israel, and had Paul meant the rejection and acceptance of the gospel, he would probably have specified it.
F. F. Bruce, 216, interprets “life from the dead” as meaning “that Israel’s conversion will be the immediate precursor of the resurrection, to coincide with Christ’s parousia.”
24 Evidence exists that in nineteenth-century Palestine it was customary to reinvigorate a cultivated olive tree “by grafting it with a shoot of the Wild-Olive,” enabling the tree again to bear fruit (William M. Ramsey [citing Theobald Fischer], Pauline and Other Studies [London Hodder & Stoughton, 1906], 223–24).
G. Israel’s Future Salvation (11:25–32)
OVERVIEW
This is the crowning point of the discussion, the climactic goal to which everything in chs. 9–11 has been pointing. The same mercy that has overtaken the Gentiles, who were formerly disobedient, will finally, by God’s sovereign grace, overtake the now disobedient Israel.
25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”
28As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
COMMENTARY
25–27 Now Paul speaks of a “mystery,” lest his readers imagine that either he or they are capable of understanding the course of Israel’s history simply by observation and insight. The term “mystery” (mystērion, GK 3696) as used in the NT does not mean “enigma” but refers to the activity of God in salvation history made known to his people by revelation. Paul is not claiming revelation in the sense of those mentioned in 2 Corinthians 12:4, 7, but presumably revelation in the sense of the guidance of the Spirit. The mystery relates to things hidden in the past (cf. 16:25) but now made known.
The content of the mystery of Israel is stated immediately by Paul. It consists of two parts: (1) Israel’s hardening is partial, both in scope, because of the reality of the remnant, and time, because it is limited in duration, lasting only “until the full number of the Gentiles has come in”; and (2) the salvation of “all Israel” will take place in the future. Bengel, 131, makes this observation: “The call of the Gentiles had been a mystery (16:25). But now the conversion of Israel is likewise a mystery.”
The much-debated expression “all Israel,” when taken in the light of the context, must be understood of the nation of Israel as a whole, in contrast to the present situation when only a remnant have trusted Christ for salvation. The word “all” (pas) is to be understood in a widespread, inclusive way (i.e., the salvation of Israel as a nation) but need not imply the conclusion that every living Jew will be included (cf. R. Batey, “‘So All Israel Will Be Saved’: An Interpretation of Romans 11:25–32,” Int 20 [1966]: 218–28; O. Hofius, “‘All Israel Will Be Saved’: Divine Salvation and Israel’s Deliverance in Romans 9–11,” Princeton Seminary Bulletin Supplementary Issue 1 [1990]: 19–39).
Not all interpreters agree, however, on the meaning of “all Israel.” Some take it not to refer to Israel according to the flesh but rather to so-called “spiritual Israel”—hence the church, including both Jews and Christians. It was the view of Calvin, for example, that the entire company of the redeemed, both Jew and Gentile, is intended. The crucial argument against this view is that the word “Israel” has not been used of Gentiles in these chapters, and it is doubtful that such is the case anywhere in Paul’s writings, with the possible but uncertain exception of Galatians 6:16. There may be grounds for speaking of the church as “the true Israel,” but so far as terminology is concerned, certainly in the discussion in Romans 9–11, “Israel” means the nation or the godly portion of it (cf. 9:6). To be sure, Gentiles are included in the seed of Abraham (4:11–12). Though this concept is applicable to the church at the present time, Paul is speaking of something definitely eschatological, actually to be fulfilled in the future, and he has not used the concept of the seed of Abraham in chs. 9–11. (It appears only in 11:1, where it has a literal, historical connotation.) Just as Paul does not discuss the situation of those Jews who remain unbelievers during this age, so in v.26 he drops from view the Gentiles who have figured in vv.17–24.
Another suggested possibility is that “all Israel” refers to the total number of elect Jews, the aggregate of the godly remnant that exists in each age of the OT and of the church’s history (cf. C. M. Horne, “The Meaning of the Phrase ‘And thus all Israel will be saved,’” JETS 21 [1978]: 331–34). This fails to come to grips with the climactic nature of Paul’s argument, however—in particular the contrast between all Israel and the remnant as set forth, for example, in v.16a, and the necessity for the “fullness” of the Gentiles to be realized before (note “until”) the salvation of Israel. It fails also to explain the use of the word “mystery” in v.25. Murray, 97, has written, “While it is true that all the elect of Israel, the true Israel, will be saved, this is so necessary and patent a truth that to assert the same here would have no particular relevance to what is the apostle’s governing interest in this section of the epistle.” Clearly “all Israel” stands over against “in part,” which allows for the remnant by way of contrast.
The meaning of houtōs, “so,” in v.26 has been much debated. Is it to be taken in a temporal sense (“then”) or in a modal sense (“in this way”)? Those who favor the modal sense believe it supports the view that “all Israel” refers to “spiritual Israel,” i.e., the church. In this manner all Israel—Gentile church and the newly saved Jews—will be saved. On the other hand, the temporal sense fits well. The “so” is apparently intended to correlate with “until” (v.25), thereby acquiring temporal force (cf. 1Co 11:28 for a similar usage of houtōs). The REB rendering here is “once that has happened”; the JB has “then after this” (it is interesting to observe the shift in interpretation in the NJB: “and this is how”). BDAG, 742, notes that the houtōs points forward as a correlative of the following kathōs, “just as,” and thus refers to what follows in the cited Scriptures. According to this understanding, the meaning would be that “all Israel will be saved in the way the Scriptures indicate.”
Does our passage throw light on the time when Israel’s national conversion is to be expected? Certainly not in terms of the “day or hour” (Mt 24:36), but rather in terms of the time when “the full number of the Gentiles has come in” (v.25). It is after the essential completion of the evangelization of the Gentiles that the salvation of the nation of Israel will be accomplished. Some, notably N. T. Wright, do not see this passage as referring to a future large-scale conversion of Jews but rather as a reference to the conversion of Jews that has taken place over history and that continues to take place. Wright concludes, “Paul is envisaging a steady flow of Jews into the church, by grace through faith” (The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991], 249; see his ch. 13, “Christ, the Law and the People of God: The Problem of Romans 9–11,” 231–57). This, however, seems to go against a quite natural reading of the future passive tense of sōthēsetai, “will be saved” (GK 5392), which can be understood as a future widespread turning to Christ. The passive is a so-called divine passive, which assumes God as the acting subject: God will save all Israel.
The salvation that is in view, I should add, is the same as the salvation of Christians. The word “saved” can hardly be understood as a reference to a national-political deliverance distinct from the church’s salvation. The verb sōzō, “save,” is the same word commonly used for Christian salvation. Furthermore, the basis of this salvation of Israel is no different from that of the Gentiles. It is appropriated by faith in Christ and rests on the objective work of the cross. There is for Paul, in Romans and elsewhere, only one way of salvation (contra John G. Gager, Reinventing Paul [New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000], 146). It is not correct, then, to speak of a special way of salvation for Israel entirely apart from faith in Christ (cf. esp. R. Hvalvik, “A Sonderweg for Israel? A Critical Examination of a Current Interpretation of Romans 11:25–27,” JSNT 38 [1990]: 87–107). Stuhlmacher, 174, is right in concluding that “apart from confessing Christ there is therefore no salvation for Israel before God.”
The declaration concerning the future of Israel, made on apostolic authority, is now confirmed by citing Isaiah 59:20–21 and 27:9. The interpretation is somewhat complicated by the fact that the Hebrew has “to Zion” and the LXX, heneken, “for the sake of,” whereas Paul has ek, “from.” Paul appears to alter the LXX text deliberately, perhaps through the influence of Psalm 53:6: “Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion!” The perplexity over the prepositions is largely cleared up by the supposition that Paul has chosen his own wording in order to hint that the conversion of Israel will occur at Messiah’s return, when he will come out of Zion, i.e., from the heavenly Jerusalem (cf. Gal 4:26; 1Th 1:10; Heb 12:22). It is hard to account for the wholesale conversion of Israel in any other way, since the activity of the Spirit of God has not produced any such mass movement of Israel during the course of the present age. It is at least possible that Paul sensed a certain parallel between his own dramatic conversion and what he foresees for his people as a whole. He therefore naturally associates the event with the approach of the eschaton.
The effect on Israel is not at all couched in terms of material prosperity or martial invincibility but purely in spiritual terms. Her “godlessness” will be taken away; her sins will be forgiven. The words “this is my covenant with them,” as well as the mention of forgiveness of sins, suggests that Jeremiah 31:31–34 may have been in the mind of the apostle along with the passages from Isaiah. Stuhlmacher, 173, writes, “It is primarily this salvation of all Israel from the hardening of unbelief that is the goal of salvation history, and not the fact that the Gentiles are already obtaining salvation.”
28–29 Even though in the present the Jews as such are considered (by God) as enemies for the sake of the Gentiles, yet all the time, when viewed from the standpoint of the election of Israel, they are loved by God “on account of the patriarchs” (cf. v.16). This last phrase indicates that behind the fulfillment that awaits Israel is the constancy of God’s faithfulness to the covenants made with the patriarchs. God will not renege on those promises. There is an obvious parallel as well as contrast between “enemies” and “loved.” Nygren, 404, rightly says, “About the unfaithful Jews it can at one time be said that they are ‘enemies’ of God and ‘beloved’ of God.” Likewise, there is a parallel between the words “gospel” and “election,” which forbids taking the latter in the concrete sense of an elect people; rather, it is the purpose or principle of election that is meant.
“God’s gifts” (v.29) are doubtless the special privileges of Israel mentioned in 9:4–5. These bear witness to the reality of the calling—the summons of Israel to a unique place in the purpose of God. The key word in these verses is the word “irrevocable” (ametamelēta, GK 294), which in the Greek is put first in the sentence (v.29) for emphasis. Indeed this word is a key to all of Romans 9–11 and to an adequate Christian view of Israel. This one word cancels out the possibility of supersessionism—the idea that the church has supplanted Israel or taken her place. On the contrary, God’s promises are irrevocable, and time will prove it. Israel, therefore, remains special in God’s eyes. (On this subject, see D. A. Hagner, “A Positive Theology of Judaism from the New Testament,” Svensk exegetisk årsbok 69 [2004]: 6–27.) It should be added that “Romans 9–11 . . . show irrefutably that a Gentile-Christian anti-Semitism can never legitimately be derived from Paul” (Stuhlmacher, 183).
30 God’s purpose must be implemented if it is to be effective. His mercy is the needed factor. Paul is addressing his Gentile readers here. In fact, the “you” (plural) is emphatic, as though to remind Gentile believers (who might be prone to think it strange that God has a glorious future in store for Israel) that they themselves were formerly disobedient to God. It was Jewish disobedience in regard to the gospel that opened the gates of mercy for the Gentiles. It was the recurrence of a characteristic often displayed before. Israel had scarcely become a nation when the people rejected the good news about Canaan and as a result had to face years of wandering in the wilderness (cf. Heb 4:6). The consequence of their disobedience to the gospel (e.g., Ac 14:2; 19:9) was still more tragic, for it meant shutting themselves out of the kingdom. This disobedience was stubborn unbelief, a confirmed negative attitude. Yet at the same time, one must remember that God’s sovereignty lay behind these unusual developments. Especially striking is the irony that good should come out of Israel’s disobedience and that what came should also ultimately become the remedy for Israel’s disobedience: “in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you” (v.31).
31 To warn the Gentiles against being inflated over their present position in grace, Paul advances the reminder that it was the very mercy received by the Gentiles that made the Jews firmer in their disobedience. This is graphically illustrated by the effect of the Jerusalem Council (Ac 15). While it gave marked encouragement to the Gentile mission by its decision, it deepened and strengthened Jewish opposition to the gospel. Yet God does not abandon his chosen people but ever keeps in view his plan for their salvation and continues to extend his mercy. The second “now” in v.31 is somewhat perplexing in the light of the eschatological emphasis in vv.26–27. It may refer to the present salvation of the remnant or it may even be intended to include the future along with the present and so anticipate the ultimate salvation of the nation. This might especially be the case if Paul thought of the eschaton as imminent.
32 The conclusion of the whole matter is that God magnified his mercy by the very fact of disobedience, binding all humanity over to it (cf. 3:9), for the ultimately magnificent goal that he may have mercy on “all” (tous pantas). When Paul considers the work of Christ that conquers evil, he will speak only in universal terms (cf. 5:18). Sin, the enemy of humanity, cannot and does not have the last word (cf. Gal 3:22). Not for the Gentiles. Not for Israel.
H. Praise to God for His Wisdom and His Ways (11:33–36)
OVERVIEW
In view of the solid assurance generated by v.32, it is no wonder that Paul, despite his burden for the Israel of his day, is able at the end of these three chapters to lift his heart in adoring praise to God. In the face of such grand, sweeping, mysterious, and humbling realities, one can only sing to God words such as these. Indeed, this doxological passage is rightly the climactic conclusion to the entire first section of Romans (chs. 1–11).
33Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
34“Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?”
35“Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay him?”
36For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.
COMMENTARY
33 Here Paul clearly speaks out of his heart as a response to the argument he has been pursuing (cf. G. Bornkamm, “The Praise of God: Romans 11.33–36,” in Early Christian Experience [New York: Harper & Row, 1969], 105–11). Even the great apostle had to wonder at the ways of God. At the same time, the thoughts he utters here are not uncommon in the piety of Israel, as the similar passage in Isaiah 55:7–9 shows. There we read, for example: “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the LORD. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.’” And these words occur in a context where the ungodly and sinful person is urged to turn to the Lord and find mercy. God’s plans defy the penetration of the human mind, and his ways surpass our ability to trace them out. There is no measuring of the “wisdom” (sophia, GK 5053) and “knowledge” (gnōsis, GK 1194) possessed by God. Beyond fathoming are his “judgments” (krimata, GK 3210) and his “paths” (hodoi, GK 3847). If these things remain ultimately incomprehensible, the unchanging faithfulness of God to Israel remains clear and unmistakable.
34–35 Paul now strengthens his statement with words drawn from the Scriptures. Verse 34 consists of a quotation of words from the LXX of Isaiah 40:13–14. The source of the words in v.35 is less certain, but they are similar to the Hebrew text of Job 41:11 and 35:7 (though the LXX differs). The point of these scriptural allusions is not difficult to see. The Lord has not been obliged to lean on another for advice (v.34). No one knows enough to be the Lord’s counselor, nor has he ever had to depend on human assistance, which would make him indebted to a human being (v.35). The Lord has infinite resources, and there is no one who can add to them.
36 By means of three prepositions—ek (“from”), dia (“through”), and eis (“to”)—Paul asserts that God is the source, the means, and the goal of all things. The exalted and moving ascription of praise in vv.33–36 has in view God’s plans and operations in the history of salvation affecting the great segments of humankind, Jew and Gentile. That they are true in a wider sense is evident from parallel Pauline passages such as 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Colossians 1:16–17. Perhaps the only suitable way in which to bring Romans 9–11 to an end is with this magnificent doxology. “To him [God] be the glory forever!”