That chapters 9-11 form a discrete section of Romans is not disputed. Some have argued in the past that the chapters are a diversion in Paul‘s thought, perhaps even a sermon Paul had spoken.12 Thomas Schreiner, however, notes that such ideas have all but
10In chap. 4, I will argue that Titus 2:13 is the exception, and that Paul does there refer to Jesus as God. That conclusion would be disputed by many, and others would not accept Titus as actually
authored by Paul. For purposes of this summary I will accept for the moment that Rom 9:5 is the only Scripture in which Paul directly refers to Jesus as God.
11Dwight, ―On Romans ix. 5,‖ 23.
12C. H. Dodd, The Epistle to the Romans (London: Hodder and Stoughton), 148-49.
34
vanished today.13 It also appears the present majority opinion is that the place of Israel is not the fundamental idea of the chapters. Instead, the issue is the righteousness or
faithfulness of God.14 That is a fair enough analysis, but many also rightly note that it is the question of the unbelief of Israel that calls forth Paul‘s struggle.15 It is my position that the burning question concerns Israel‘s unbelief, and the answer is developed in the framework of the faithfulness of God.16 As I will argue below, the question of Israel‘s
13Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 469; Brendan Byrne, Romans, Sacra Pagina, vol. 6 (Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 1996), 282.
14So, Johann D. Kim, God, Israel, and the Gentiles: Rhetoric and Situation in Romans 9-11 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 6. Examples of those who understand the righteousness or faithfulness of God to be the central issue include Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans, trans. Carl C.
Rasmussen (London: SCM Press, 1952), 353-60; Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2007), 556; John B. Polhill, Paul and His Letters (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1999), 294;
Krister Stendahl, Final Account: Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 5; Schreiner, Romans, 471; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 226; Byrne, Romans, 282; E. Elizabeth Johnson, ―Romans 9- 11: The Faithfulness and Impartiality of God,‖ in Pauline Theology, vol. 3: Romans, ed. David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 220.
15J. C. Beker, ―The Faithfulness of God and the Priority of Israel in Paul‘s Letter to the Romans,‖ Harvard Theological Review (1986): 10-16; Hans Hübner, Gottes Ich und Israel: Zum Schriftgebrauch des Paulus in Römer 9-11 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 14-15; Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 256; Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 3rd ed. (Zurich: Benzier Verlag and Neukierchener Verlag, 1993), 2:181; N. T. Wright, The Letter to the Romans: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections, in vol. 10 of The Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck (Nashville; Abingdon, 2002), 621; C. E. B.
Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (London: T&T Clark, 1979), 2:446-47; James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9-16, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 38B (Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 1988), 517-19; Douglas J. Moo, ―The Theology of Romans 9-11: A Response to E.
Elizabeth Johnson,‖ in Pauline Theology, vol. 3 Romans, ed. David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 241; Otfried Hofius, ―Zur Auslegung von Römer 9,30-33,‖ in Paulusstudien II (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 161. Contra E. E. Johnson, ―Romans 9-11,‖ 218-20. Johnson finds some reason to think the problem of Jewish unbelief prompts Rom 9-11, but denies the reasons are sufficient. At the same time, Johnson argues that the tension between God‘s faithfulness and impartiality is what brings Paul to the dilemma at the beginning of the chapters. She locates that question in the problem of how it is that God is remaining faithful to Israel if the church is full of Gentiles and the Jews are staying away in droves. So it seems even with her very strong emphasis on the faithfulness and impartiality of God, she acknowledges the issue that raises that question is Israel.
16Nygren is right to argue that there is no theodicy here. To try to defend God is beyond Paul‘s imagination. That is why, after the introductory paragraph, Paul begins the section in which he asserts the freedom of God as creator to choose whom he will. Nygren, Romans, 354-55. Cf. E. E. Johnson, ―Romans 9-11,‖ 218. Contra F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 183. Bruce describes the theodicy in terms of the unbelief of Israel calling into question the whole exposition of the gospel set out in the previous chapters.
35
unbelief confronts the reader in the first sentences of chapter 9.17 Romans 9:1-5 stands as the introduction to chapters 9-11.18 It introduces the issue Paul seeks to resolve in the chapters: the unbelief of Israel.19 In these verses Paul sets forth his lament for his fellow Israelites. The passage follows directly on the heels of 8:31-39, where Paul bursts forth in his lofty proclamation of the love of God and his joy that nothing can separate the
believer from that love. In that passage, believers are more than conquerors who do not succumb to the direst of circumstances and difficulties. The lament here, then, at first glance comes as somewhat of a surprise. In chapter 9 it seems that Paul has lost that unconquerable spirit, and perhaps lost the sense of the love of God that endures through all circumstances. In fact, as he says in verse 3, he could be willing to be separated from Christ on behalf of his kinspeople according to the flesh.
Beyond this introductory passage the reader gains a further clue from 9:6 where it can be inferred that Paul is concerned that the word of God may have failed. If so, it appears to be related to Israel, and whether the reader could rightfully expect that all of Israel should be saved. Paul picks up the lament20 again in 10:1, where his concern over the unbelieving state of Israel becomes clear in his prayer for Israel that they be saved. Similarly in 11:1, 11:11 and 11:23 Paul expresses concern over Israel‘s stumbling and continuing unbelief, although some hope begins to develop in those verses. So within
17As also noted in Martin Rese, ―Die Rettung der Juden nach Römer 11,‖ in L’Apôtre Paul:
Personnalité Style et Conception du Ministére, ed. A. Vanhoye (Leuven: University Press, 1986), 422-23.
Rese argues rightly that Paul was concerned throughout chaps. 9-11 with the pitiable fate of his people, although he goes on to argue that the unbelief of Israel brings into question the righteousness of God.
18So also Jewett, Romans, 556. Kim, God, Israel and the Gentiles, 121, terms the paragraph an exordium.
19Moo, Romans, 554.
20Although it is not within the scope of this work to decide the question, if 9:1-5 is lament, and if, as I will argue, v. 5 does not conclude with a doxology to God, perhaps one should think of all of chaps.
9-11 as lament. Some support for that could perhaps be developed by Paul‘s continuing anguish over the condition of Israel, and by the lack of any real resolution until one nears the end of the chapters beginning with 11:25 and culminating with the doxology in 11:33-36.
36
the chapters there is plenty to show the cause of Paul‘s anguish is the unbelief of Israel. It is logical to infer that the same is the cause of his pain in 9:1-3. Indeed, I will argue below that the reason can actually be inferred in the introduction itself.
This introductory paragraph, then, is called forth by the question of Israel.
Since it stands as the introduction to all of chapters 9-11, and since Paul speaks of his concern throughout the chapters, that must be the issue that calls forth this whole discrete section of Romans. But that question did not first surface here. Paul has already begun introducing the question as early as in 1:16, with his assertion that the gospel is for everyone who believes, but for the Jew first and then the Greek (δύναμισ γὰρ θεοῦ ἐςτιν εἰσ ςωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιςτεύοντι, Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι).21 In the following section (1:18-3:20) Paul shows that all are under sin, whether Jew or Greek, and regardless of possession of the Mosaic Law. The argument concludes with 3:20 that no flesh is justified before God by works of the Law (διότι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ
δικαιωθήςεται πᾶςα ςὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ). But in development of that section, Paul pauses in 3:1-8 in the face of his argument that Jew and Greek are equal, that all are under sin, and the possession of the Law is no advantage, to ask what advantage there is to being a Jew (3:1). Although Paul answers there is much advantage based on having had the oracles of God entrusted to them, the next verse (3:3) introduces the problem that he will take up again in chapters 9-11: if some of the Jews do not believe, does their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God (εἰ ἠπίςτηςάν τινεσ, μὴ ἡ ϊπιςτία αὐτῶν τὴν πίςτιν τοῦ θεοῦ καταργήςει)? The answer is in verse 4: of course not (μὴ γένοιτο). Finally, in 3:10 Paul concludes that the Jews really do not have an advantage because, as he has already shown, all, both Jews and Greeks, are included under sin. Paul‘s brief discussion of the position of Israel here looks forward to chapters 9-11 and his more complete discussion
21Cf. Dunn, Romans 9-16, 520. Dunn thinks the letter revolves around the motif in 1:16; that is, that the Jews had put themselves behind the Gentiles by not accepting Christ.
37
of the problem of the faithfulness of God in the face of Israel‘s unbelief and the ultimate outcome for Israel.
Immediately after his conclusion to 1:18-3:20 in which Paul has shown that all are equally under sin, he proclaims the solution in 3:21-26. The righteousness of God, which has been witnessed by the Law and the prophets, has been revealed and
demonstrated in Jesus Christ for all who believe. In 3:30-31, Paul makes the point that God is one, both God of the Jews and God of the Gentiles. When Paul returns to the question of the Jews and their ultimate salvation in chapters 9-11, he will resolve it in a similar manner. The Christ who is God over all is the key. It is he who has come from Zion and who will ultimately turn aside sin from Zion. Thus, in chapters 9-11 Paul will concern himself more at length with the question that has lurked behind his writing from the beginning of the letter.22 What about Israel? The question is answered in the coming of the redeemer.
The Lament over Israel: 9:1-5
Chapter 9, following closely after 8:31-39, where Paul confessed the
unconquerable love of God in Christ, begins Paul‘s lament over the condition of Israel.
The importance of that lament, which is the point of the analysis of 9:1-5a, is that in verse 4 Paul did not suddenly break into praise for the gifts to Israel, but instead treated the gifts as further reason to lament their unbelief. That will support my later argument that the final phrase is not a doxology.
22While it may go too far, some have been willing to argue that chaps. 9-11 are the culmination of all Paul‘s thought up to that point in the letter, or that it is the prism through which Romans should be read. F. C. Baur saw the whole theology of the letter as nothing but a radical refutation of Judaism and Jewish Christianity. F. C. Baur, The Apostle of Jesus Christ, trans. Allan Menzies (London: Williams and Norgate, 1873; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 349. Cf. N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 234; Krister Stendahl,
―Paul among Jews and Gentiles,‖ in Paul among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1976), 4. Moo, Romans, 551, thinks such an assertion goes beyond Paul‘s intent in Romans. For a history of modern views of the purpose of Rom 9-11, see Bruce Corley, ―The Significance of Romans 9-11:
A Study in Pauline Theology‖ (Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1975), 3-51.
38
The lack of any connecting particle or conjunction, together with the sudden change in tone, marks the shift in Paul‘s argument.23 The paragraph contains Paul‘s strong emotion, requiring an affirmation in verse 1 of his truthfulness. That Paul speaks the truth in Christ is best taken as an affirmation of his truthfulness as one who is a follower of Christ.24 The witness of the conscience does not carry as much weight in the modern world, but Paul mentions the conscience also in 2:15 concerning the Gentiles without the Law: ςυμμαρτυρούςησ αὐτῶν τῆσ ςυνειδήςεωσ καὶ μεταξὺ ϊλλήλων τῶν λογιςμῶν κατηγορούντων ἢ καὶ ϊπολογουμένων.25 Paul seems to use the conscience as a sort of independent witness within or even standing over against himself.26 In addition, Paul calls as his witness the Holy Spirit, in which his conscience bears witness. The Romans can be assured of Paul‘s truthfulness not because of the conscience as an infallible witness, but because his conscience is under the control of the Holy Spirit.27
23F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and rev. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 242.
BDF points out the asyndeton, but they also note that with the differences in the sections, ―a mere conjunction would still be a far cry from a real connection.‖ Cf. Mark A. Seifrid, ―Romans,‖ in
Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 638; Moo, Romans, 555.
24Charles Hodge, Romans (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1993), 269; Frederic Louis Godet, Commentary on Romans (Edinburgh: Messrs Clark, 1883; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977), 338;
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York:
Doubleday, 1992), 543.
25The conscience is an important issue to Paul. The word appears 14 times in his undisputed writings and 6 times more in the remainder of his letters. He shows a great deal of concern for the conscience as guide, but see also 1 Cor 1:12, where Paul calls upon his conscience as affirmation of his integrity.
26Bruce, Romans, 91; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 60; Schreiner, Romans, 479. Christian Maurer locates the etymology of ςυνείδηςισ in ςύνοιδα, one who has knowledge along with another person as an eyewitness who can serve as a witness for the prosecution or the defense. Christian Maurer, ―ςύνοιδα, ςυνείδηςισ,‖ in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971), 7: 899-900. That seems to be the nature of Paul‘s usage here. Contra Byrne, Romans, 286, who argues the conscience is an internal witness to, not a witness along with.
27Schreiner, Romans, 479; Wilckens, Römer, 2:186.
39 Paul’s Anguish over His Kinspeople
The assertion to which Paul must bring such weight of witness is in verse 2.
The content of the truth that Paul speaks is that he has great grief and unceasing pain in his heart. The cause of that grief and pain is developed in verse 3, although, as noted above, it is not directly stated.
The fact that Paul‘s great grief and unceasing pain has to do with his
kinspeople according to the flesh (κατὰ ςάρκα) is thought by some to account for his need to call witnesses to show that he could experience pain and grief on their behalf. Leander Keck somewhat speculatively suggests that if Paul endured the criticism that his ministry to the Gentiles was somehow partially the cause of the unbelieving status of the Jews of his day, or that by taking the gospel to the Gentiles he had abandoned his own
kinspeople, that could account for his strong assertion of truth and the witnesses called to support the truth of the fact that he is actually in great grief and pain on their behalf. 28 While Keck‘s theory could well be correct regarding the reason for the need for the triple attestation of his truthfulness, his argument is unconvincing that chapters 9-11 are a result of such an accusation against Paul. Keck can find no reason for Paul to express concern about the Jews since that mission had been entrusted to Peter.29 But even if Peter had been given responsibility for the Jewish mission, there is no reason to suggest Paul had given up his concern for Israel. Some of Paul‘s concern for the Jews was shown in his care for their well-being expressed in the collection from the Gentile churches for the Jews in Palestine (2 Cor 8-9.) In addition, as can be seen below, Paul not only reported his grief, he expressed a much deeper willingness to suffer loss on behalf of the Jews.
28Leander E. Keck, Romans (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 224-25. Cf. Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 305-06. Watson follows Keck. See also Walter Schmithals, Der Römerbrief: Ein Kommentar (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus-Gerd Mohn, 1988), 328.
29Keck, Romans, 224. Keck does go on to acknowledge the question of whether God had rejected Israel is a second reason that was perhaps more important than Paul‘s concerns for accusations against him (225).
40
The reason for Paul‘s concern is there: They are his kinspeople according to the flesh, and, as he implies here and states later, they are in unbelief. In addition, if Paul were writing to a primarily Gentile audience as suggested by Romans 1:13; 11:13 and 15:15- 16 they would likely not be overly concerned about Jewish accusations against Paul.
While in verse 3 Paul does not make explicit what causes his grief and pain, the cause is nonetheless implicit. The wish that Paul had in mind, is that he become ἀνάθεμα. Paul was thinking of being accursed from Christ (ἀπὸ ηοῦ Χπιζηοῦ), by which he meant separation from Christ, in a manner no doubt consistent with the understanding of being devoted for destruction.30 But he stopped short of that wish. Instead, Paul means he could almost wish, or perhaps he considers his wish hardly attainable.31 Even though Paul stopped short of the final wish to be accursed, it is difficult to understand what could bring him to such a brink, unless it is the unbelief of his kinspeople. For that reason, Paul‘s willingness to undergo accursedness is evidence enough that his concern is the plight of Israel based on their unbelief. Paul‘s willingness to suffer such a fate himself suggests that those for whom he was willing to make the sacrifice suffer the fate of being under the curse themselves.32
30In this case ϊπό is used to denote separation. BDF, 211. The word ϊνάθεμα occurs 6 times in the New Testament, and other than in Acts 23:14, all instances are in the Pauline corpus (the verb form of the same word also appears 4 times in Acts, with the sense of being bound with an oath). In the passage in Acts, the word refers to an oath, as some of the men of Jerusalem had bound themselves with an oath not to eat until they killed Paul. In Paul‘s writings (1Cor 12:3; 16:22; Gal 1:8, 9) the word always has more the meaning of accursed. The word ϊνάθεμα also occurs 26 times in 19 verses in the Septuagint. Other than in the 3 uses in Jdt 16:19 and 2 Macc 2:13; 9:16, ϊνάθεμα translates the Hebrew םשחwhich occurs more than 75 times and means a thing devoted or banished. The thing could be devoted to God, and thereby made holy, or it could be devoted to destruction. So Jackie A. Naude, ―םשח,‖ in The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. William A. VanGemeren, ed. (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1997), 2: 276-77. In the uses of ϊνάθεμα in the canonical books, it is used for devotion to God in Lev 27:28 only. In each of the other instances ϊνάθεμα is used of things devoted for destruction, implying they are accursed. Thus one sees the depth of Paul‘s concern for his people, and their condition.
31BDF, 182.
32So Moo, Romans, 557. Cf. Richard H. Bell, The Irrevocable Call of God: An Inquiry into Paul’s Theology (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 199; Schreiner, Romans, 481; Wilckens, Römer, 2:186.