Some of this repeats notes from last week, but then moves beyond.

WHAT ABOUT ISRAEL?
The ringing affirmations of chapter 8, that those who are in Christ cannot be lost to Christ leads directly into Paul?s discussion of Israel in chapter 9. He is not beginning a new topic. He has said that nothing can separate us from Christ, that God will never forsake His elect. But similar promises were also given to Israel. In fact, as Schreiner points out, all the promises that Paul speaks of in Romans 8 were initially given to Israel ?Ethe Spirit, resurrection, sonship, a future inheritance, election by God (cf. 9:4-5). And Yahweh had said that Israel should be confident in His unchanging love for her: ?Be strong and courageous, do not be afraid or tremble at them, for Yahweh your God is the one who goes with you. He will not fail you or forsake you?E(Deuteronomy 31:6). But, as Paul says in anguish at the beginning of Romans 9, this same Israel, ?to whom belongs . . . the promises?E(9:4) is not sharing in the fulfillment of these promises through the Messiah.

The defection of Israel from her Messiah raises two related problems. First, there is the problem of theology proper: What kind of God are we dealing with if Israel is abandoned? How can anyone rely on this God to keep His promises if He hasn?t kept His promises to Israel? Second, there is the problem of assurance: How can we really believe that we cannot be separated from the love of God in Christ when that appears to be what has happened to Israel? How can we be sure that the adoption and the glory and the promises are ours forever when they earlier belonged to Israel yet were lost?

Paul?s answers to these questions occupies him throughout the following three chapters. Let me note several overall perspectives on these chapters. First, the way that Paul constructs the argument of these chapters is striking. As Philip Esler points out, ?A striking feature of chapters 9-11 . . . is that 39 percent of the text consists of scripture quotations, with such frequency being approached nowhere else in the Pauline corpus. In addition, 51 of the 89 scripture quotations in Paul?s letters occur in Romans.?E A number of scholars (notably Hays and Watson) have demonstrated that Paul is fundamentally a theologian of Scripture, and these chapters are among the most thoroughly Scriptural chapters in Paul?s letters. That is no doubt due largely to the topic, which has to do with the question of Israel.

Along similar lines, the tone of these chapters is crucial to note. Paul?s rhetorical stance is very personal. Paul ultimately talks about Israel, or at least some in Israel, as vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, hardened as Pharaoh was hardened at the exodus. But that does not prevent him from anguishing over the apostasy of his people. Esler notes that this personal dimension is stressed not only in the opening verses of chapter 9, but also at the beginning of chapter 10 (?Brethren, my heart?s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation?E and of chapter 11 (?I say then, God has not rejected His people, has he? May it never be!?E. In the middle of chapter 11, in what is one of the key moments in the discussion, Paul again refers to his own ministry (vv. 13-14). This chapter is not a piece of dry and impersonal theology. Paul freely describes his own pain and pity for the nation of Israel. In this, Paul is like Moses and like Jesus. Moses affirmed the justice of God?s punishments of a stiff-necked people, but also pleaded passionately for mercy. Jesus knew that Jerusalem was going to be destroyed, and that the blood of all the martyrs was going to be reckoned to Jerusalem?s account. Yet, that did not prevent him from weeping over the city.

Second, it is important to notice that Paul is dealing with a turn of events in the history of ancient Judaism. He is not talking about a defection from God that would happen many centuries later. And that suggests the likelihood that his answers to the problem of this defection have to do with things that were happening in his time. This is specifically evident in the role of ?jealousy?Ein this passage. Part of his answer to the question of what God is doing to Israel is in terms of Deuteronomy 32. He says that ?by [the Jews?] transgression salvation to the Gentiles, to make them jealous?E(11:11). This is sometimes interpreted as a jealousy that would develop among Jews after centuries of Gentile prosperity. But Paul makes it clear that his own first-century ministry already intends to provoke the Jews to jealousy (11:13-14). In short, these hints suggest that the prophecies he makes here about the Jews pertain to the first generation of the church and not to a conversion of the Jews that is still future to us.

Third, chapter 9 is a classic chapter in Reformed theology, stressing God?s absolute sovereignty over salvation and damnation, over hardening and softening of hearts, over the clay with which He makes His human pottery. Reformed theology is right to come to this passage to meditate on those issues. But we shouldn?t come to chapter 9 as if it were a piece of systematic theology. It is part of Paul?s preaching of the gospel, and his explanation God?s dealings with Israel in the first century. If we come to this passage and formulate a doctrine of decrees without recognizing that Paul?s concern is rooted in events of history, we?ll distort the passage and the doctrine.

ROMANS 9:1-5
Paul makes an apparently abrupt transition at the beginning of chapter 9. Certainly, it is an abrupt transition in tone. From the ecstatic confidence of chapter 8, he moves to the anguish of chapter 9. It is a new and melancholic movement in the symphony that is Romans.

One of the oddities of these opening verses is the lengths to which Paul goes to assure the Romans that he is being truthful about his anguish for the Jews. The first word of the chapter is ?truth?E(Gr. aletheia; literally, ?truth I say?E, and he reiterates the positive claim that he is telling the truth with the negative claim that he is not lying. The phrase ?in Christ?Ewithin this context takes almost the form of an oath ?Ehe is speaking in Christ, in the name of Christ. Commentators point out that Paul often speaks of the Spirit and occasionally of the conscience, but nowhere does he bring them into such close proximity to each other, so that they become ?co-witnesses?E(Gr. summartyreo).

Why does he need to stress this so much? A number of possibilities present themselves. First, he is no doubt responding to the explicit or implicit charge that his ministry among the Gentiles means that he has lost interest in Israel. He is accused in Jerusalem of preaching ?to all men everywhere against our people, and the Law, and this place?E(Acts 21:28), and he makes the most dramatic and solemn response that he can to that false charge. He is not anti-Jewish. He is, as he claims elsewhere, the advocate of true Judaism (cf. Romans 2:28-29). It?s also possible, as NT Wright suggests, that the Roman church experienced an influx of Jews after the death of Claudius in 54 AD (Claudius had driven all Jews from Rome, Acts 18:2). With the Jews returning, Jewish/Gentile tensions within the church might have begun to heat up (this might be in the background of ch. 14). Further, the presence of Jews might well have concerned Gentiles because of the rising tension between Jews and Romans in Palestine. Wright notes: ?by the late 50s there was increasing tension in Judea and Galilee. The crisis over Gaius?s plan to set up his statue in the Temple had passed, but revolutionary fervor had not waned, and successive governors seemed to go out of their way to provoke rebellion. Any Jew hearing news of this would feel involved, even hundreds of miles away across the Mediterranean. Any Gentile Christians in Rome . . . would be eager to distance themselves from any sense of complicity with the impending revolt?E(Rom ans, p. 623). This is of course speculative, but seems a plausible construction of things, particularly if the ?birth pangs?Ethat Paul has mentioned in 8:22 are the same as the birth pangs mentioned in Jesus?EOlivet Discourse.

That?s one oddity. There is another. Paul goes to great lengths to establish the truth of what he says, and he expresses himself in intensely emotional terms, but he never actually tells us what it is he?s in anguish about. He moves from describing his own anguish into expressing his wish to be accursed for the sake of Israel into a description of Israel?s privileges, without once telling us what has provoked his anguish. The answer is obvious, and his anguish is made all the more evident by its absence. It is as if the reality is too painful for him to state, though he does raise the question directly at 11:1.

His anguish is such that he ?could wish?Ethat he himself were ?anathema from Christ?Efor the sake of his fellow Jews. ?Anathema?Eis used in the LXX to translate ?herem,?Ethe Hebrew word describing a war of total destruction or something totally dedicated to Yahweh (Leviticus 27:28; Deuteronomy 7:28; 13:17; Joshua 6:17; 7:11). Something ?devoted?Ecould be devoted to Yahweh?s use, but Paul uses the term negatively (so Schreiner, citing 1 Corinthians 12:3; 16:22; Galatians 1:8-9). Like Moses on the mountain, Paul offers himself in the place of the rebellious people, the people who have begun to sport with idols while Moses is detained on the mountain. Imitating his Lord Jesus, Paul ?could wish?Ethat he would be cut off from Christ if that would be sufficient to save his brothers.

Paul lists the privileges that Israel has received throughout her history. They are ?Israelites,?Ewho bear the name of Jacob their father. And as Israelites they share in multiple privileges. There are 8 items in the list, culminating in the ?eighth,?Ethe Messiah. Interestingly, nearly every one of these items has been already mentioned in Romans, but as gifts to those who are in Christ and not gifts to ethnic Jews. Paul has just finished talking about the adoption given to those who receive the Spirit (8:15, 23), and the glory that will be bestowed on those sons (8:21). This is the first use of the word ?covenant?Ein Romans, but certainly the promises of God are said to be given over to those who are of the faith of Abraham (ch. 4). The Law was given to Israel, but did them no good; rather, those who receive the Spirit and walk in it fulfill the requirement of the law (8:4). Abraham is not father of the circumcision only, or of all the circumcision; he is the father of those who imitate his faith, and Christ of course belongs to those who are in Him.

Schreiner raises the question here and throughout his exposition of whether Paul is talking about historical privileges for Israel or whether Paul is talking about Israel?s eschatological salvation. He answers that ?What torments Paul is that so many of his fellow Jews are unsaved.?E While ?some scholars claim that Paul is concerned only about the historical destiny of Israel in 9:6-23,?ESchreiner stresses that ?the historical destiny that concerns Paul relates to the salvation of Israel. The wording used in 9:6b-29 confirms that the issue at the forefront of Paul?s mind in these verses relates to salvation, not merely to historical destiny?E(Romans, p. 481). It is certainly true that Paul is concerned about something more than the survival or prosperity of an ethnic group, but I think Schreiner?s question is badly framed. The promise to Israel had always been that Yahweh would act to restore humanity within history, and that salvation would involve the transformation of a ruined world into a garden. Paul?s concern (to adopt Schreiner?s language) is not merely that the Jews will not enter the new Jerusalem at the final judgment; he is distressed because now in the present many Jews have failed to embrace what they had been promise and have failed to participate in the great renewal that was accomplished and was being accomplished in Christ.

A great deal of debate has focused on the last part of verse 5, questioning whether Paul here identifies Jesus as God. I can?t enter into the exegetical details, but I agree with Schreiner that many of the objections come down to the objection that Paul never elsewhere calls Jesus God so directly, and therefore he cannot here either. That is a highly tenuous line of argument, and inclines me to think that Paul does refer to Jesus as God. Whether or not he does here, it is clear elsewhere the Paul does believe Jesus to be Yahweh in flesh.

ROMANS 9:6-13
A. Katherine Grieb points out that Paul?s argument in the remainder of Romans 9 tracks the history of Israel, showing that a consistent pattern in dealing with Israel throughout her history. He moves from the patriarchs (vv. 9-13), to the exodus (vv. 14-18), the exile and return (vv. 24-28), and the coming of the Messiah (v. 29). In Grieb?s outline, verses 19-23 are left out, but the use of clay and potter imagery perhaps hearkens specifically to Jeremiah 18, and thus alludes to the immediate pre-exilic period.

Paul reflects on two main situations in the patriarchal period: first, the two sons of Abraham (vv. 6-9), and second the two sons of Isaac (vv. 10-13). Paul?s point in the first instance is to clarify that not everyone who is a ?child of the flesh?Eis a ?child of God?E(v. 8). This is evident in the fact that Abraham had two sons, and only one of them was a ?child of God?Eand a ?child of the promise.?E There is thus a distinction within the fleshly children of Abraham. Paul is dealing with a particular question, namely, the question of physical descent. This is the connotation of ?flesh?Ein verses 3, 5; it is the force of ?ex Israel?Ein verse 6; and it is the meaning of the ?flesh?Ein verse 8. The question is whether everyone who is a ?brother according to the flesh?Eis necessarily part of the group of ?children of God.?E

This line of argument is somewhat obscured by the translation of verse 7a. The NASB has ?neither are they all children because they are Abraham?s descendants” (“seed,” Greek sperma ). This implies that Abraham has ?seed?Ethat are not ?children.?E But the point is really the opposite, and the Greek can be translated: ?neither are they seed of Abraham [which are] all children.?E Paul clearly uses ?seed?Eas interchangeable with ?children of promise?E(v. 8b). Thus, Paul is arguing that not all the children of Abraham count as ?seed?Ein the weighty and near-technical sense that Genesis uses that word (=recipient of promise, bearer of covenant). (There is a similar translation difficulty in verse 6b. The NASB has ?they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.?E But the Greek instead places the ?descent?Efrom Israel at the beginning of the sentence: ?for not all those who are [descended] from Israel, these [are] Israel.?E This at least affects our grasp of the emphasis of the statement; the issue for Paul is that physical descent is not a guarantee that one receives the promises. The question he?s addressing is whether the fact that his ?brothers according to the flesh?Edon?t share in the fulfillment of Israel?s privileges is evidence that the word of God has failed.)

Another crucial issue needs to be kept in mind here as well. The two sons of Abraham are separated in time. Ishmael is the first son, born more than a decade before Isaac. The text often gets spatialized, and Paul is interpreted to be saying that the household of Abraham was a mixed multitude, made up of saved and unsaved. Paul is taken to be describing a static map of the household of Abraham, divided between the Ishmaelite unbelievers and the Isaacite believers. Abraham?s household was no doubt a mixed multitude, but that?s not the story in Genesis. As soon as Isaac is weaned, Ishmael is cast out of the household (Genesis 21). There was barely a time when Abraham?s house contained both Ishmael and Isaac. Paul is making a point about temporal sequen ce , not about spatial mapping. He is saying, as he does elsewhere, that the first son of Abraham was displaced by the second son, and that this second son was the bearer of the promise. In that sense, not all who are descended of Israel are Israel.

At this point, it does not seem that the distinction is one of salvation and damnation. Ishmael was not the carrier of the covenant promise, and he was forced to leave the household of Abraham. But God gave him promises and Genesis 21:20 says ?God was with the lad.?E In fact, as James Jordan has pointed out, Ishmael?s story is a preview of the story of Israel: He leaves his father?s house, goes into the wilderness and nearly dies, receives water in the wilderness and a promise of blessing, and then goes on to have 12 sons (Genesis 21:8-21; 25:16). In Genesis, the distinction of Isaac and Ishmael is not between ?elect to eternal salvation?Ev. ?reprobated to eternal damnation.?E The distinction is between the first and second son, between the first ?Israel?Eand the second ?Israel,?Ethe ?fleshly?EIsrael and the ?spiritual?EIsrael. This is also the way Paul tells the story in Galatians 4, where Ishmael stands for Judaism and Sinai and Isaac stands for the church and the heavenly Jerusalem.

Thus, Paul?s argument with regard to Isaac and Ishmael is that the promises belonged specifically to the second son, Isaac, the son of the promise, the ?resurrected?Eson (cf. Romans 4). ?Israel?Ewas never defined simply as ?descended from Abraham.?E The recipient of the promise was not from the “flesh” but from the promise, the child of the Spirit. To put is another way, the question is, Who is the ?seed?Ethat receives the promise (v. 8)? And Paul?s answer is: Isaac, the second son, the son born not of flesh but of promise (a fact symbolized by his being born after Abraham cut off the ?flesh?Ein circumcision). Thus, the word of God has not failed (v. 6a), because the ?word of promise?Egiven to Sarah (v. 9) comes to pass. Abraham has a miracle child, born by the life-giving word of promise and not by the flesh.

How does Paul want to apply this to the first-century situation? How does this help? Clearly, he is lining up his brothers according to the flesh with Ishmael, the child of the flesh. Just as Ishmael was not a recipient of all the privileges of Israel (adoption, glory, covenants, law, temple, promises, etc) simply by being a fleshly descendant of Abraham, so the ?brothers according to the flesh?Ecannot hope to share in these privileges by virtue of fleshly descent. They share in these promises by being joined to Christ, the true Seed, and being indwelt by the Spirit. God?s promise has not failed because it is clear from the beginning (if we read the Abraham narratives ?allegorically,?EGal 4) that God gives promises not to fleshly children but to children of promise. Paul thus immediately dismisses the possibility that God has somehow failed in His promises. His promises were always directed at a second son, and He has kept the promises He made through a new and greater Isaac, the true Seed of Abraham.

Paul is making a somewhat different point in his second patriarchal example, that of Isaac?s sons Jacob and Esau. He stresses that the two boys were fathered by the same man, and we know from the story that they were twins (though this is not in the Greek text) so that they shared the womb of Rebekah. This is in some respects a different situation from that of Abraham; he was a single father, but his two sons were from different mothers. There was thus, in a sense, a ?fleshly?Edistinction between them, a difference of parentage. That is not the case for Jacob and Esau. They have the same parents. In terms of ?flesh?Ethere was no distinction whatever.

Yet, there is a distinction. What makes the distinction between them, then? Why is one ?seed?Eor ?child of promise?Eand the other merely ?child of flesh?E There is no difference in parentage, no difference in accomplishment (since neither has done either good or bad). What distinguishes the two brothers is only God?s purpose and choice and call (v. 11).

What kind of distinction is in view here? Verse 12 indicates that the choice is in part the choice of which of the two brothers is going to be preeminent, which, to put it into context of the previous verses, is the carrier of the promise, the ?seed.?E But verse 13 takes this further: It is not merely that the older will serve the younger, but rather that God counts the older as an enemy and counts the younger as a son. This clearly applies to Paul?s situation in the first century. The distinction within the flesh of Israel is a distinction between those who are sharing in the fulfillment of God?s promises to Israel and those who do not. And this distinction is not dependent upon the works. It is dependent on God. He is a discriminating God, who distinguishes according to His purpose, His choice, His call.