Think Wink.

The often used Arminian view of Romans 9:1-33 is the say that Paul here is speaking of national privilege or historical task for Israel. To do this, they note that the Old Testament texts that Paul quotes in Romans 9:8-13, 17 refer to the nations of Israel (Isaac and Jacob), Ishmaelites (Ishmael), Edom (Esau), and Egypt (Pharaoh). When one goes into the Old Testament context of some of these citations that Paul uses, one can see that Paul might be suggesting that. In doing so, the application of God’s sovereign election (Romans 9:11) is applied at a national level, not to the individual as the Calvinist reads it. But the question is, does this stand up to the test of Biblical hermeneutics? Is that what Scripture is teaching?

I want to come at this issue from three points. First is the overall flow of Romans 1-11, known as the doctrinal section of Romans. Then I want to look at the more immediate context in two points. First is Romans 9:1-5 and how this influences Romans 9:6-13. Finally I will look at Romans 9:30-33 and how Paul applies the discussion of Romans 9:1-29. 1.) Look at how Romans 9 fits in Romans 1-11; 2.) The connection of Romans 9:1-5 and Romans 9:6-13; 3.) The application found in Romans 9:30-33 of the discussion of God’s Sovereignty in Romans 9:1-29.

1.)Let us first examine the whole flow of Romans 1-11. Romans 1:1-17 is Paul’s introduction to the Roman assembly or gathering or church. He introduces himself and his gospel. Romans 1:18-3:20 is Paul’s condemnation of both Jew and Gentile. Paul says in Romans 3:9 to begin his summary, “we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin.” Romans 3:21-30 introduces us to the idea of God’s righteousness is given to us to save us from his wrath through the death of Christ. Romans 4-5 is Paul’s explanation of justification as the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner and the sinner’s sin to Christ, who pays the debt with his debt for that imputed sin. Romans 6:1-8:25 is Paul’s description of the process of sanctification in the life of the believer. Romans 8:26-39 is Paul’s explanation that because of Christ’s work, we will persevere in our faith. In spite of whatever harm may come to us, Christ will not fail to save us, thus assuring the believer of his salvation because of God’s golden chain of redemption (Romans 8:29-30). Then comes Romans 9. Now if we suppose that the national privilege/historical task is the correct way of understanding this passage, then Paul argues that Israel is blessed because of her status as God’s nation and her historical task (I have never actually heard what an Arminian defines this task as, but that is probably more my ignorance than their inability to communicate). In Romans 10, Paul speaks of his desire to save them and that we should go to them and preach the gospel for all who call upon Yahweh will be saved. Then in Romans 11, we see that for the time being a partial hardening is upon Israel and that she will be saved through a remnant but not until the times of the Gentiles are full.

Now if you will notice, Romans 1-8 is all about salvation. Romans 10-11 is all about salvation. How is it then that Paul has out of nowhere just started speaking about national privilege for 33 verses (some might say 29 verses) and then go back to salvation? This makes no sense! It breaks the flow of argument that Paul has been building through 8 chapters and concludes in two chapters. Romans 9, if one takes the national privilege/historical task hermeneutic, has no place in Romans 9 and does nothing for the letter. It serves no purpose in Paul’s letter. Why would Paul insert an entire chapter if it serves no point?

But if one were to take Romans 9 to apply to individual salvation, namely Israelites, it does not break up the flow of thought. It instead affirms the Gentiles’ faith in the promises of God because of God’s sovereignty in salvation. They can believe the promises of Romans 3:21-8:39 because of God’s sovereignty described in Romans 9:1-33. This view fits the chapter within the context of the letter, which the national privilege/historical task interpretation fails to do.

2.) Now let us look at how Romans 9:1-5 connects to Romans 9:6-13. Both passages read together like this in the ESV,

1 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Notice in Romans 9:1-2 that Paul speaks of “great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart.” Paul is disturbed and broken by something, but what we do not know. It is interesting that Paul follows that great discourse of Romans 8:30-39 and nothing separating him from Christ’s love. He says all of this wonderful blessing and then speaks of sorrow and anguish. So what is this sorrow and anguish? Romans 9:3, “For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” Paul wishes, though given the previous discussion in Romans 8 he knows this is not true, that he could be accursed or anathema from Christ. What is anathema or accursed mean? The place that sheds very interesting light on this Greek term is 1 Corinthians 16:22, “If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed.” Paul is cursing all who do not love the Lord Jesus Christ. In the LXX this Greek term was used to describe an offering to God for destruction. Thus in 1 Corinthians 16, Paul is saying let someone be set apart as an offering to the Lord for destruction. The same is true in Romans 9:3. Paul wishes that he could be set apart for destruction for the sake of his kinsmen according to the flesh, for Israel. The Jews have been set apart by God for destruction. They are damned by God. They have rejected the Messiah and thus are not going to be saved. Now given the context that Paul has spoken in thus far in the letter, he is not speaking of a nation being destroyed, but people going to hell. God’s chosen people are going to hell and Paul would go there, if he could, so that his Jewish kinsmen would not. But notice that this rejection and subsequent anathema by God is in spite of several advantages: identity as Israel, God’s adopted children, God’s shekinah glory, God’s covenant with them in the OT, the law, the tabernacle cult and worship, God’s promises, the patriarchs, the coming of Messiah. In spite of all of this, they rejected Christ and are now damned by God. But also notice that many of these advantages Paul says has been given to the church. The church is the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16), they are God’s adopted Children (Romans 8:14-17; Galatians 3:26-4:7), the glory (Romans 8:21, 29-30), having the covenant (1 Corinthians 11:25) offspring of Abraham (Romans 4:13; Galatians 3:29).

This list of advantages leads Paul to say in Romans 9:6, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed.” Why say that? Because it appears that Israel’s unbelief makes God’s word having fallen. Romans 9:6 and Romans 9:11 parallel each other in that 9:6 is the negative statement of Romans 9:11, or Romans 9:11 is the positive statement of Romans 9:6. Romans 9:6 God’s word does not fall; Romans 9:11 God’s purpose stands. God’s purpose for Israel, his promise to them has not fallen, in spite of what has happened. Paul grounds this sentence in Romans 9:6 with “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” Now to take this as nations it would read, “For not all who are from the nation of Israel is the nation of Israel.” But this doesn’t explain why Israel is perishing and accursed by God. If Paul is saying not every individual Israelite, descended from Abraham, is a true Israelite, then the passage makes sense. Indeed Romans 9:7 affirms this because Paul says not every descendant of Abraham is a descendant of Abraham. God’s word of promise has not failed because it was made to Israel, and not every Jew is Israel. Paul has in mind a physical Israel and a true Israel. Every Jew belongs to the first Israel, but not the true Israel. Then he quotes Genesis 21:12 to show that even though Isaac was Abraham’s son, he was not part of Israel. Same father, but only Isaac was chosen by God. Why? Romans 9:8-9 give the answer that only children of promise are counted as descendants, not children of the flesh. Isaac was born because of God’s promise, as Paul demonstrates by citing Genesis 18:10, Ishmael was born by Abraham and Hagar and Sarah trying to create an heir for Abraham apart from God’s promise.

So we have an Israel of the flesh, those whose parents are Jewish, and we have an Israel born of a promise, as Isaac was born by God’s promise to take a barren womb (death) and create life. But God’s promise was given not to every Israelite who is of Israel by flesh but only those who are Israel by God’s promise, by God’s supernatural work. To drive this point home further, Paul turns to Jacob and Esau in Romans 9:10-13. Paul states in Romans 9:10 that Esau and Jacob were twins, thus having the same parents and birthday. In Romans 9:11, God’s promise, cited in Romans 9:12 from Genesis 25:23, was given before their birth and before the twins had done anything to merit God’s promise, so that God’s promise might be based upon him and his electing purpose and not upon our works for merit. To further this idea, Paul in Romans 9:13 quotes Malachi 1:2-3 citing God’s rejection of Esau and choice of Jacob. To say that Paul is thinking of nations here does not flow from what Paul is thinking in Romans 9:1-5. One must divorce Romans 9:6-13 from Romans 9:1-5 and thus take it out of Paul’s context to arrive at a national privilege/historical task interpretation. Some say that Esau never served Jacob, but I would point them to two things. First, by virtue of selling his birthright to Jacob, he served Jacob, which was customary in that culture. Second, look to Genesis 27:40 where Isaac says to Esau (not the nation of Edom), “you [Esau] shall serve your brother [Jacob].”

3.) Now let us consider Paul’s application of Romans 9:1-29. We have seen that God has chosen who the true Israel would be based upon his sovereign purpose and not because of any merit they might have had (Romans 9:6-13). In Romans 9:14-18, Paul defends God’s righteousness or justice in doing this. He cites Exodus 33:19 to say that God mercies and compassions (the terms are verbs, not nouns; and they are equal to save) who he choses or wills to mercy or compassion. Then he cites Exodus 9:16 to say that they hardens whom he wills. Thus Paul has defended his citation of Malachi 1:2-3, “Jacob I loved, Esau I hated.” God is just to love the one and hate the other because he is displaying the honor of his name (For a full defense of God’s righteousness being his unswerving commitment to always uphold the honor/glory of his name, see John Piper’s The Justification of God). In Romans 9:19-23, Paul is defending God’s right to hold his creation accountable in light of the objection that why can he still find fault if we are obedient to his will. In Romans 9:24-29, Paul cites Hosea 2:23, 1:10 and Isaiah 10:22-23 (cf. Genesis 22:17) and Isaiah 1:9 to demonstrate that not only did God unconditionally and sovereignly call out certain Jewish people to be in the true Israel, but also Gentiles too. God unconditionally chose Gentiles to be a part in this true Israel. So the discussion of God’s sovereignty applies to Gentiles as well, not just Jews.

Now look at Romans 9:30-33 where Paul concludes this section,

30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written, Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.

Paul begins the section with the question, “What shall we say, then?” The word then is very important. It refers to what has just been discussed by Paul. He does this in Romans 9:14 and Romans 6:1. In light of what he has just said about God’s sovereignty, God’s unconditional election, God choosing both Jews and Gentiles, what does that mean? Paul says that Gentiles found the righteousness that comes by faith, despite the fact they were not seeking after it, and that the Jews missed it despite the fact that they were seeking it by the law! They rejected Christ where the Gentiles did not. But this has to tie into God’s election and sovereignty because of the question in Romans 9:33! Some how, God’s sovereign election is the reason why the Jews pursued righteousness by works of the law and missed it and the the Gentiles did not even seek righteousness but found it by faith. But the national privilege/historical tasks interpretation cannot make the connection from Romans 9:1-29 to Romans 9:30-33. It would be inconsistent with their interpretation of the cited OT texts in Romans 9:7-13 to speak of nations and still apply it to individuals when they are wanting to say the whole chapter applies to only to nations! It just doesn’t hold water when one looks at Paul’s application of Romans 9:1-29 in Romans 9:30-33.

Thus I conclude that to interpret Romans 9 as speaking of national privilege/historical task fails to consider the whole context of Romans 1-11, it fails to connect the Jewish plight of condemnation to hell in Romans 9:1-5 with Paul’s answer in Romans 9:6-13, it fails to maintain a consistency in connecting Romans 9:1-29 with Paul’s application in Romans 9:30-33. To view this chapter as speaking of individuals maintains the theme of salvation that is found in Romans 1-8, 10-11. It does not divorce Romans 9:1-5 from Romans 9:6-13. It does also effectively applies the doctrine of Romans 9:1-29 in Romans 9:30-33, as Paul does. While the “nations defense” is an honest approach that tries to keep the text in line with its Old Testament context, if fails to maintain Paul’s context and thus fails to understand Paul.

Related posts:

Peace Part 1

Behind the Scenes of the Incredible Hulk

The Scared King Who Imprisons

No comments