Israel and God’s Plan, Romans 9-11 by Melita Bryan, Kasey McCullom, and Krister White.

Romans 9 (Melita Bryan)

This chapter brings to my mind a good father, who at the sunset of life looks at each of his offspring.  After decades of tending for the needs of his children, teaching them and loving them, this good father knows his children. Imagine this man looking into the eyes of each child and the volumes that would unfold in his mind. Lifetime’s of memory. Successes, failures, tragedies, betrayals, disappointments, pride, greed, contentment, he has seem so much. What must a father think? The sweat and tears. Sleepless nights. The effort of parenting. It is a hugh amount of work, but add to that effort the care and concern that one has for their children to do right and be right.  It is an enormous task.  So many years of hard work.

      If this father is like our Father God who is spoken of in 9^th chapter of Romans, he has great care for those children who have embraced his values and who reflect his spirit. He cares not that they are his biologically, that they have the family nose or knobby knees. He cares that they have the life and soul of the family that is expressed in their values and behavior.  The reward is to the son that carries the traits that are of his own heart and choosing, not those given by a DNA code. And so, when the will is read and the piggy bank is distributed, the father looks around and says in no uncertain terms, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and compassion on whom I will have compassion.”  The end. Period.  “It’s my choice and I am the father.  I do not have to, nor will I, give answer to you children.”  And the father goes on to say, “Further more, I am going to give some to the neighbor’s kids. I will call them mine even if, they are not.” Pointing his long bony finger at his own flesh and blood, he says “I told you guys what to do. You sat at my table and walked by me in the fields.  Day after day I cared for you and taught you my ways and you did not obey.  You spend your time picking over the family rules trying to figure out the system.  But look at the neighbor kids. They peered over the fence and saw a good thing.  They do a better job of reflecting my values than some of my own children.  So boys and girls, the deal is off.  The goods go to the ones who followed my heart, (even if they don’t bear my name.) Those will live under my mercy and I will name them as one of my own, because I am just that big. Done.” 

      “Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only a remnant will be saved.” 

       “And the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” 

      Chapter 8 is for funerals……..chapter 9 is for the reading of the will.

Romans 10 (Kasey McCollum)

One of the key points of Paul's argument in Romans is for a church to reflect God's love there is no room for ethnic division.  If the church is to be faithful, it is to reflect the diversity of God's people by surpassing the dividing walls of race, ethnicity, socio-economics, gender, etc.  This is best seen in the personal greetings in chapter 16 as well as the discussion throughout the book on the relationship between Jew and Greek and Jew and Gentile. 

Authentic discussions about the implications of Romans particularly to relationships with Jews, are hard to come by these days.  There is great anti-Semitism in our cultures and now a great sympathy for Jews in light of the Holocaust.  Chapter 10 is in the heart of the section discussing the relationship between Jews and Gentiles (chapters 9-11) and this section is loaded with significant theological questions.  "Has the word of God failed?" (9:6), "Is God unjust?" (9:14), "Has God rejected his people?" (11).

I am struck by the sense of deep grief Paul feels about the situation of Israel (his own people) at the beginning of chapter 10.  Paul is clearly concerned about he salvation of God's people (and his people).  Paul's understanding of God up to this point does not have room the salvation of Israel and this creates a traumatic experience to which Paul must evaluation his concept of God.  According to Paul at this point, Israel has not met the qualifications for salvation.  Paul is left disoriented.  This disorientation confronts Paul's understanding of God and so raises the crucial questions mentioned earlier.  This is really important to me because I too wrestle with my previous concepts of God when my daily experiences in the world are not congruent.  I have to reevaluate my previous conceptions of God.  This process is not simply an academic correction but a spiritual transformation.  Reading this section of Paul challenges me to face these situations head on, acknowledging the grief that comes with losing a previous image of God in hopes that a new and transformed image will follow.  This process is extremely disorienting, but I hope that like Paul, on the otherside I am able to have a transformed image of God where 'all of Israel will be saved.' 

Romans 11 (Krister White)

To the unsuspecting reader, Romans may appear to be about only a few things (in the order they appear): homosexuality, justification by faith, law & grace, Christ as the second Adam (God’s answer and antidote to the first Adam), etc. It may appear that Paul is merely making a theological statement in this letter, that Paul is writing a general treatise on the nature of Christian faith to a rather generic audience. In my study I have come to the conclusion that nothing could be further from the truth. Romans is, first of all, written to a particular community, most likely a mixed bag of Judeans (Jews) and Greeks (Gentiles) as opposed to only Gentiles or only Judeans. One of the most helpful lenses through which to view Paul’s letter to the Romans is that of an ethnic conflict between two groups. We see this early on in Romans 1 and 2 where Paul exposes the variety of ways that both Gentiles and Jews (Jewish-Christians) fall short of their capacities for God-likeness. As an apostle to the Gentiles, Paul finds himself in a strange situation as it relates to how he reconciles his identity as an ethnic Jew who follows Jesus as the Christ and his role as a proclaimer of the hopeful message of Christ that extends beyond all tribal and cultic boundaries. From my vantage point, chapters 9-11 provide the reader (and Paul’s original audience of listeners) with an intimate portrait of a man genuinely in the throes of inner turmoil about his own identity as a follower of Christ and what it might mean for his own people (ethnic Jews) while also wrestling with the theological difficulties that Christ presents to God’s initial promises to Israel. We see this passion in the beginning of chapter 9 where Paul says in verse 2, “I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart.” This is not simply a theological state of the union address from Paul. This is a personal letter with very personal and communal theological implications.

      Paul engages in all types of theological gymnastics to develop an answer that will satisfy both his own conscience and his audience as it relates to what God is up to from reinterpreting what election means (9:8-11), to asserting God’s freedom to do what God will (9:15-18), to explaining that what God really meant by including Israel in the plan of salvation history had to do with a relatively small population of Israel called the remnant (9:27). Again in 10:1 Paul reveals the personal difficulty he has in writing this letter saying, “my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they (Israel) may be saved.” Near the end of chapter 10 Paul makes it clear that there is a rhyme and reason for the way things have gone down between the Israelites and the Gentiles; namely, by pointing to the situation between the ethnic Jews and Greeks as part of a larger storyline, one that requires the inclusion of the Greeks in order to create jealousy on the part of the Israelites. With the end of this chapter, however, we enter into the meat of Paul’s argument and finally land on the helipad that is the focus of my commentary.     

Chapter 11 begins with an important question from Paul. “I ask then, has God rejected his people?” This is a question with roots in Paul’s own ethnic self-identity that informs the rest of his writing in this chapter. The question for Paul can be traced back to the Judaic understanding of covenant and their experience as the people of the promise. The original promise was initiated by God and did not include stipulations to the relationship. There were no divine prenuptial agreements in God’s initial promises to Abram in Gen. 12, no “if ______ happens, then I may annul this relational contract.” Instead, we see the beginnings of a promise to bless all people through the person who would be called Abraham. God seals this covenant in Gen. 15 by walking between animals that had been split in two. The symbolism of this act says, “If I break my promise to you, let my fate be the same as these animals whom I pass between.” This is not a flippant agreement God is making. This covenant is expanded in Gen. 17 (it now called an everlasting covenant) with the only requirement being the circumcision of all males.

Fast-forward to the middle of the first century. What are we to make of these promises considering that Christ has now come? What does Christ’s birth, life, death, and resurrection mean in light of God’s promises to Israel?

      Paul, determined to hold up both God’s original promises to Israel while also upholding the salvific nature of Jesus Christ, reasons that God upholds the original promise by virtue of applying that promise to a remnant, an elect group who satisfy both criteria. I am referring here to the phenomenon of Jewish followers of Christ. Paul remarks in 11:7, “What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened.” It is safe to assume that Israel refers to ethnic Israel, the group of people as a totality, while the elect are the holy remnant of Jews who believe that Christ is the messiah. The rest who were hardened are presumably the remaining ethnic Jews who continue to attend synagogue but who have broken ties with those who accept Jesus.

      Theologically, I find the language of “hardening” somewhat troubling. Does their hardening come about as a result of their own doing, is it primarily an act of Divine interference, or is it a combination of the two as in the story of Pharaoh and Moses with the ten commandments. As you will recall, there is a moment in the story where it seems like the Pharaoh is ready to relent, but because of his heart’s hardened state he is unable to let the Israelites leave. The scripture that Paul quotes in 11:7 lends itself to the second explanation, that of God overruling the will of the Israelite people.

      So are we to believe that the Israelites are without hope? “[H]ave they stumbled  so as to fall?” as Paul says. The pendulum of Paul’s reasoning seems to swing to the other side in the second half of 11:11 where he responds emphatically, “By no means!” Paul explains that something good can come from Israel’s stumbling, namely the opportunity for the Gentiles and the rest of the world to share in Christ’s salvation. But Paul does not stop there. He adds the clause, “and if their defeat means riches for Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!” (Rom. 11:12) It seems clear to me that here Paul is holding out hope—more than hope— expectation that the full inclusion of the Israelites would take place at some point in the future.

      Beginning in Romans 11:16b-24, Paul uses an interesting analogy to explain the relationship between ethnic Judaism and Gentile Christians. Because I have written about this at length in other places I will refer my readers to a paper written to explore the agricultural imagery utilized by Paul. Rather than being an obscure reference to communities familiar with the practice of grafting roots, Paul’s use of this metaphor is quite intentional and laden with theological and soteriological (having to do with salvation) import. For those interested, I invite you to read this paper as one person’s attempt to understand these verses.  http://theoblogia.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/romans-1116b-24.pdf

      As Paul winds down his argument, the culmination of 3 chapters addressing the difficulties inherent in a belief system and community shaped and informed by traditional ethnic Judaism yet devoted to a person considered to be the messiah, he calls once again for humility (recall his warning to the Jews in his audience in chapter 2) on the part of his audience. The explanation Paul arrives at is at once ambivalent and definitive at the same time. The relationship between Israel and the Gentiles is a mystery. Apparently the hardening of Israel’s collective heart will continue until “the full number of the Gentiles has come in.” What this means is beyond me. What constitutes the full number? It’s not clear. What is clear is Paul’s statement shortly thereafter in Romans 11:26, “And so all Israel will be saved…” My understanding of Paul’s writing that God’s gifts and callings are “irrevocable,” illustrates Paul’s refusal to simply let go of his heritage in his vocation as apostle to the Gentiles. While this is an act of mercy and grace on God’s part, Paul makes it fairly clear that Israel was, is, and will always be the recipient of God’s promise and original covenant. We are, as Krister Stendahl has pointed out so well, guests in the house of Israel. I have attempted to explicate this idea in the following paper on Romans 11:25-26.  http://theoblogia.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/romans-1125-26.pdf

Implications for us today 

      Although I believe that most scripture is inspired and useful for modern day Christians, I would stress that we must first understand the context (social, political, economic) out of which such an address arises. This is first of all a letter from Paul written to a particular community for a particular purpose. Rather than spend time practicing eisegesis, the practice of interpreting a text by reading one’s own ideas into it, we must explore what the text meant when it was written originally (exegesis), how a community would have understood it during that time. In Romans 11, I think Paul is really struggling with his faith from a theological standpoint, a situation that may not be all that uncommon for many of us as we transition into adulthood and try on beliefs and theologies that may diverge from those with which we grew up.

      One thing that this chapter challenges is the ever-prevalent belief in supersessionism within conservative evangelical circles (including but not limited to Churches of Christ). Supersessionism is the belief that Christianity has replaced Judaism as God’s religion of choice and that God’s original covenant with Israel is null and void in light of the advent of Christ. The idea that God would divorce Israel (for that is one image we often see in the Hebrew Scriptures) goes against our common understanding of God as a faithful partner and against numerous scriptural accounts of God’s hesed, God’s faithful, committed, loving kindness toward Israel and all those who have fallen under the umbrella of the blessing that comes from God’s promise to Abram that all nations would be blessed through him.

      I think that Romans 11 also challenges us to embrace humility by recognizing our own history. This is especially pertinent to a group of people birthed as people of the restoration movement. We often fall victim to the belief that we suddenly arrived on the scene through the early church but forget that there were hundreds and hundreds of years separating the birth of the Israelite people and the birth of Christ. In the same way, 1800+ years separated the early church and the movement that spawned the Churches of Christ. Just as we must learn to appreciate that which came before Christ we must learn to humbly recognize those who kept the faith alive in the years preceding the Restoration movement. We stand on the shoulders of those who came before us, whether Jewish, Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc.

      Finally, Paul provides us with an honest portrayal of what the life of faith looks like in practice. It requires struggling with theology, what we believe about the nature of God. If God breaks God’s promises, what might that mean about God’s trustworthiness as it relates to our situation? Do we believe in a God who is the same or in a God who changes God’s mind? Is consistency important when it comes to God? How does Christ fit into this puzzle? I believe we can take solace in Paul’s use of the word mystery. He doesn’t claim to have all the answers, but he attempts to articulate what he considers to be the best explanation that coheres with a theologically responsible view of God that neither trivializes his own conversion nor abandons his history as a member of the Israelite community. In a sentence, Paul is about building a bridge that spans the chasm between Judaism and Christianity. We would do well to emulate such bridge building in our lives. As Paul states in the closing of chapter 11:  “For from him, and through him and to him are all things.”