Romans
9:1-6a
Second rebuttal argument, 9:1-11:36
The tragic riddle of Israel's unbelief
ArgumentPaul has argued that a believer, now excluded from the realm of sin and death and included in the domain of God's grace / righteous reign, by means of faith (Christ's faithfulness + our faith), may fully share in the promised covenant blessings / the fullness of new life in Christ. "The weak" / nomists / members of the circumcision party, have sought to counter this argument. Having dealt with their first argument, namely, that his gospel of grace promotes libertarianism, that it is antinomian, Paul now deals with their second substantive argument, namely, that his gospel is flawed because it has failed to enable Israel to appropriate God's promised blessings in Christ.
In this, Paul's second rebuttal argument against the nomist critique, Paul argues that Israel's failure to appropriate God's promised blessings does not invalidate his word of grace, namely, the gospel mediated by Paul. With respect to Israel, "don't even think for a moment that God's word of grace has malfunctioned!", 9:6a. Many Jews have failed to accept "God's word", the gospel of grace, but this doesn't mean that the gospel is somehow flawed.
Issues
i] Context: See 1:1-7. In this, Paul's fifth rebuttal argument against the nomist critique, Paul introduces the subject of the seeming failure of the gospel of grace, with respect to God's historic people Israel, in 9:1-5: "the plight, v1-3, and the privileges of Israel, v4-5", Dumbrell. He then in v6a sets out his proposition upon which his argument is based; Don't even think for a moment that God's word of grace has malfunctioned. Paul then advances his argument in three steps covering 9:6b-11:32, with a conclusion in 11:33-36. The three elements of Paul's argument are as follows:
•iNot all Jews are part of God's true Israel; it is the remnant according to grace that realises Israel's hope, 9:6b-29;
•iNational Israel is blinded to the gospel by the heresy of nomism; Israel's present condition of unbelief is due to its own pursuit of law-righteousness, 9:30-10:21;
•iInevitably grace will be vindicated in that Israel's present state of unbelief does not annul God's promises - a representative Israel will be saved, 11:1-32.
ii] Background: The Nomist heresy 1:8-15.
iii] Structure: The tragic riddle of Israel's unbelief:
Introduction, v1-5:
The plight of Israel, v1-3;
The privileges of Israel, v4-5.
The Proposition, v6a:
"Don't even think for a moment that
God's word of grace has malfunctioned.
iv] Thesis: See 3:21-31.
v] Interpretation:
Paul's fifth rebuttal argument turns into a major digressio, excursus, the function of which has prompted ongoing debate.
Some commentators treat these chapters as "a kind of postscript", an appendix dealing with the "Jewish question", (Augustine, Sanday and Headlam, Dodd, Lloyd-Jones, Beker, ...).
Most modern commentators argue that these chapters are:
•i"The climax of Romans", Stendhal (Ellison, Sanders, Beker, Moo, Johnson, ...);
•iAn integral element of Paul's advancing argument (Dunn, Barrett, Morris, Fitzmyer [3rd and last element in the doctrinal section of the letter, 1 to 11, "justification and salvation through faith do not contradict God's promises to Israel of old"], Schreiner, Cranfield, Jewett [the 3rd proof, of four proofs, of the gospel as the embodiment of the righteousness of God, namely, "the triumph of divine righteousness in the gospel's mission to Israel and the Gentiles"]);
•iThe key to understanding the letter as a whole; "if we can understand Romans 9-11 correctly, we shall be better able to understand the rest of the letter", O'Neill (Bauer, who argued that these chapters were the hermeneutical centre of the whole epistle). Cranfield argues that "many features of chapters 1 to 8 ... are not understood in full depth until they are seen in the light of chapters 9 to 11". In fact, Morris argues that "Paul's whole argument demands an examination of the Jewish question".
So then, why does Paul's fifth rebuttal argument turn into a major excursus? A number of possibilities have been suggested:
Theological. It is possible that Paul wants to underscore the faithfulness of God to his promises, answering the question "has God's word failed?" which promises seem not to have worked out with regard to Israel, cf., Dunn;
Paul may wish to provide a "more precise identification" of God's new covenant community, the "remnant chosen by grace", which community will indeed include many Jews like Paul, cf., Dumbrell.
Davies thinks that Paul sets out to establish that the children of promise, believers, are the rightful inheritors of the Abrahamic promises and that therefore the legalist believers in Rome are doing themselves a disservice when they align themselves with historic Israel and its attention to the law
Pastoral. Paul may well be prompted more by pastoral concerns than theological ones; the "equality of Jew and Gentile in God's plan", Dumbrell, occasioning a proper regard for Israel and an acceptance of the "weak" (Jewish believers / law-bound believers) by the "strong" (faith-bound believers - mainly Gentiles), cf., ch.14-15.
Personal. Paul may well be emoting, such that his "reflections of the place of Israel in God's purposes", Davies, are driven by his desire that Israel be saved; a problem that was for Paul "of intense personal concern", Bruce. "He came to his own home and his own people received him not. This is the problem Paul wrestles with in chapters 9-11", Hunter.
Apologetic. Jeremias argued that in these chapters Paul is responding to the criticism that he is anti-Jewish. To convince Jews (Jewish believers?) "that his ministry was pro-Jewish as well as pro-Gentile", Osborne, Paul sets out to establish two positive truths, first, "the Gentiles owe their salvation to the rejection of Israel" and second, "in the long term, God's purposes embrace His own people", Black.
It is not hard to imagine that Paul was motivated by all of the above. He is clearly not wanting to increase the divide between "the weak" (nomist believers, most of Jewish stock with some Gentile disciples) and "the strong" (most being Gentiles). He is clearly distressed that his fellow Jews have, for the most part, rejected the gospel. He is also sensitive to the criticism that he is now anti-Jewish. Yet, it is likely that chapters 9-11 serve to advance his argument and that therefore is theological in nature.
It is widely accepted that, having detailed the consequential blessings of justification, Paul now addresses an obvious question: How can we be sure of these promises when the divine Abrahamic promises seem unfulfilled? Has not God abandoned national Israel? If God's covenant promises to Israel are unfulfilled, how can we be sure they will be fulfilled for us, the children of faith? Has not the Abrahamic covenant failed, 9:6a?
Although a valid question, it seems likely that it is not the question addressed by these three chapters. What seems more likely is that we have here a continuation of Paul's refutation of the nomist critique. Paul is engaged in a contest between two gospels and he now determines to vindicate the gospel of grace; he sets out to refute the nomist critique that his gospel has failed with respect to Israel.
Paul's word of grace has made little impact on Judaism, whereas the members of the circumcision party, the nomists, with their commitment to Israel's institutions, particularly the Torah / the law of Moses, were gaining traction, not only in the Jewish community, but amongst Gentile believers. They had even added Pharisee converts to the church in Jerusalem, cf., Acts 15:5. For the nomists, Paul's gospel of righteousness through faith apart from law, not only undermines the pursuit of holiness, and thus blessing, it is divisive and alienates the faithful children of Israel. To this critique Paul declares "don't even think for a moment that God's word of grace ("my gospel"!!!) has malfunctioned!", 9:6a. Israel's failure to accept "God's word", the gospel of grace, has nothing to do with the content of the message itself.
In the following chapters Paul explains in detail why so very few Jews have accepted the gospel:
•iNot all Jews are part of God's true Israel, 9:6b-29;
•iNational Israel's unbelief is driven by the heresy of nomism, 9:30-10:21.
•iIsrael's present state of unbelief does not annul God's promises - Israel is not doomed to final rejection because a representative whole will inevitably be saved, 11:1-32.
vi] Exposition: A simple exposition of this passage may be found in the linked pew-level Sermon Notes.
Text - 9:1
Introduction, v1-5: i] "Paul's sorrow at the apparent rejection of his people (by God)", Hunter. The opening verse is designed to emphasise verse 2. It is an emphatic statement where Paul declares that he is speaking truthfully, a fact confirmed both by his conscience and the Holy Spirit.
en "in [Christ]" - [i speak truth] in [christ, i do not lie]. The preposition may carry a local sense expressing space, "in union with Christ", often extending to "under the authority of Christ" (Christ is "the absolute generator of truth", Cranfield), or accompaniment / association, "in connection with." "As a man who has his being in Christ", Cassirer.
thV suneidhsewV (iV ewV) gen. "[my] conscience" - the conscience [of me]. Genitive as part of a genitive absolute construction. The prefix sun probably gives the sense, "together with my conscience."
summarturoushV (summarturew) gen. pres. part. "confirms it" - bearing witness. The participle with its genitive subject "conscience" forms a genitive absolute construction. It would usually be treated as temporal, "as my conscience testifies", NJB, but here possibly causal, "I am not lying, because ....." The participial clause "my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit", serves as a parenthetical statement, as NIV.
moi dat. pro. "-" - with me. Dative of association; "testifies in support of / witnesses along with", Cranfield.
en + dat. "in the Holy Spirit" - in [holy spirit]. The preposition here is usually taken as instrumental; "under the direction of the Holy Spirit", Barclay, but possibly again accompaniment / association, "in connection with." If "in connection with" the sense is that two witnesses confirm that Paul is speaking the truth, namely, his conscience and the Holy Spirit.
v2
Paul is filled with anguish for the present state of Israel; his fellow Jews had a full and complete place before the living God, but they are now outside of his grace. For Paul, himself a Jew, it is a great loss.
oJti "-" - that. Introducing an object clause / dependent statement of indirect speech expressing what Paul speaks in Christ; "when I say that ...."
moi dat. pro. "I have [great sorrow]" - [there is great grief] to me. Dative of interest, disadvantage, or possession.
adialeiptoV adj. "unceasing" - [and] incessant, continual, unceasing [pain, grief]. There is no distinction between the two phrases "great sorrow" and "unceasing anguish", rather Paul is just using "rhetorically effective doubled expressions", Moo. Paul's anguish for his people is constant, ongoing, and increasing. Obviously the anguish concerns the rejection of Christ as Messiah by the majority of Paul's fellow countryman and thus of God's rejection of national Israel (although not of remnant Israel). "Profound grief", BDAG, with the adjective treated attributively, but of course, it can be taken as a predicate, "my grief is profound."
th/ kardia/ (a) dat. "in [my] heart" - in the heart [of me]. The dative is local, expressing space, metaphorical. "My heart is broken ("a pain that never leaves me", Phillips) and I am in great sorrow", CEV.
v3
Paul states that if it were possible, he would be willing to trade places with his fellow countrymen. He is willing to forfeit his salvation for them. "If I could".... ie., if it were right and according to the will of God. "I would pray" (NIV "wish")..... I would ask this of God. And why this depth of feeling? They are his "brothers", his "own race"; they are members of God's family, but are in rebellion against Him.
gar "for" - for. Not really causal, rather establishing a connection with v2, or possibly an "explanation of", Cranfield. So, best left untranslated. Paul's anguish obviously concerns the damnation ("anathema") facing his fellow Israelites, a damnation which, if it were possible, he would willing turn upon himself - a Moses-like response.
hucomhn (eucomai) imperf. "I could wish" - i was praying, wishing. The sense is debatable since it is unlikely that Paul would actually wish for / pray for his cursing, eg., "I once prayed." The imperfect is best taken as an impossible wish; "I could wish to be cursed from Christ if that were possible, but of course such a wish is impossible", Schreiner, also Cranfield.
einai (eimi) pres. inf. "that [I myself] were" - [myself] to be. Introducing a dependent statement of perception expressing what Paul wished / prayed. The subject of the infinitive, "myself", should be accusative, but sometimes in a personal context the subject takes the nominative case.
anaqema (a) "cursed" - something devoted to destruction, accursed. Predicate accusative of the verb to-be. Devoted to God in the negative sense of being set apart for destruction, and particularly here, of separated from Christ. Paul's desire, if it were possible, namely, to be cursed in place of his fellow Israelites, indicates that his concern is for their salvation, not the future restoration of a historical Israel. See Moo for this issue.
apo + gen. "cut off from" - from, away from [christ]. Expressing the sense of separated from a source / alienated. What Paul is theoretically willing to have happen to himself is obviously the situation facing Israel. Yet, why is Israel cut off? The separation of Israel from the divine is usually expressed in terms of Israel's failure to accept Christ as messiah, which failure is true enough. Yet, Paul defines Israel's problem in the same terms as the problem facing law-bound believers, the nomists. Israel's failure is their failure, a failure to recognise that salvation "depends not on human exertion, but on God who shows mercy", 9:16, cf., 9:30-10:21. It is this heresy which blinds Israel to the presence of God's messiah, Jesus, a heresy which even now blinds law-bound believers to the work of the Spirit in their midst.
uJper + gen. "for the sake of" - on behalf of. Expressing representation / advantage; "on behalf of / for the benefit of"
twn adelfwn (oV) gen. "[my] brothers" - the brothers [of me]. This word is most often used of believers, and if that is intended here, then Paul has in mind believing Jews. Yet, it is more likely, given the context, that "brother Jews" refers to "ethnic Israel." In fact, Paul actually qualifies ("clarifies", Dunn) his unusual use of "brothers" with "my kindred according to the flesh." Paul's anguish is for his "ethnic brothers" ie., "unbelieving Jews" and the judgment they face having rejected Christ as their messiah.
kata + acc. "those of my own race" - [the kinsmen of me] according to [flesh]. Expressing a standard, "in conformity with", or reference / respect, "with respect to their human descent."
oiJtineV pro. "the people of Israel" - who [are israelites]. Paul is probably still qualifying "my brothers."
v4
ii] Paul lists the privileges of his fellow Israelites, v4-5:
First, they are Israelites. This is a religious term denoting the Jews as God's chosen people.
Second, they are a blessed race:
•iTheirs is the adoption as sons - people in a special relationship with God. God is their Father.
•iTheirs the Divine glory. God has manifested himself to his people; He has been personally present with his people.
•iThe covenants, the promised blessings of God. The word "covenants" means the agreements that God has made with his people.
•iThe gift of the Mosaic Law.
•iService to God. Many translations have "worship" here, but the Greek word means "service" - the privilege of serving God.
•iThe promises. All the promises revealed in the scriptures.
Third, "theirs are the patriarchs." They are part of the family God chose to deal with throughout history."
Finally, from the Jewish people came the Messiah, Christ. Paul concludes by making two points about Jesus:
•i"Who is over all". He is Lord, and therefore, our Lord and master. Phil.2:10.
•i"God-blessed forever, Amen." He is blessed of God. The NIV translation is probably not correct. It is unlikely that Paul would confuse his readers by calling Jesus "God over all". Such would imply that Jesus has authority over the Father.
With this list of privileges before Paul, what else can he do but be filled with anguish at the thought that so many of his countrymen had lost everything.
oiJtineV pro. "-" - who [are israelites]. Qualitative; "who by their very nature", Harvey.
w|n gen. pro. "theirs is" - of whom is. The pronoun is adjectival, possessive; "to whom belong."
hJ uiJoqesia (a) "the adoption as sons" - the adoption, sonship. Probably of national Israel's special relationship with the Creator, although as with "brothers" it is a term usually reserved in the NT for believers. This again supports those who argue that Paul is thinking of Jewish believers. God treats them as his sons; "he made them his sons", TEV.
hJ doxa "the divine glory" - [and] the glory (visible presence of an invisible god). God's presence with his people. "God showed them his glory", CEV.
aiJ diaqhkai (h) "the covenants" - [and] the agreements, treaty, covenants. This could be the law, but is most probably the agreements made with Israel through Moses, Abraham, etc. "They have the glory of God and the agreements", NCV = the covenant and its numerous renewals.
hJ nomoqesia (a) "the receiving of the law" - [and] legislation (making or giving law, the body of law). Paul probably means the gift of and possession of, the Mosaic law.
hJ latreia "the temple worship" - [and] the service. "Temple" is not in the Gk. Although the English word "worship" is often used to translate this Greek word, it does not mean worship, ie., worship in the sense of adoration. It is better translated "service", here in the sense of service to God's ordinances. It is true that the Levitical cult is included in these ordinances, but it is service to the ordinance that is implied, and not cultic observances, temple worship, adoration.... "They have lived to serve God under the umbrella of his promises", Junkins.
The confusion of this "service" word with proskunew (worship, adoration, obeisance) has done a great disservice to our understanding of Christian worship. What we are to do when we gather together with Jesus in a Christian service? We have tended to shift adoration to service and inevitably celebration has replaced adoration.
aiJ epaggeliai "the promises" - [and] the promises. Not just the promises made to Abraham etc., but the full range of prophetic promises made to the people of Israel.
v5
w|n gen. pro. "theirs are" - of whom. As in v4.
oiJ patereV (hr roV) "the patriarchs" - are the fathers. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, although probably including all those who were party to the renewing of the covenant agreement.
ex (ek) + gen. "from [them] is traced" - [and] out of, from [whom, them is the christ, messiah]. Expressing source / origin.
to "-" - the one [according to] . The article serves as an adjectivizer turning the prepositional phrase "according to the flesh" into an attributive modifier of "the Christ", "who was according to their flesh" = "theirs is the human stock from which Christ came", Cassirer. "The addition of the article strongly emphasises the limitation", BDF, of Christ's association with Israel - only a fleshly link, not spiritual. The preposition kata, "according to", expresses a standard.
sarka (sarx oV) - "the human ancestry" - the flesh, physical. Speaking of Christ's physical ancestry through the Patriarchs. "The patriarchs are theirs (Israel's), and so too, as far as human descent goes, is Christ himself", Phillips. "Insofar as the material side is concerned", Jewett.
oJ wn (eimi) "who" - the one being. The participle of the verb to-be serves as a substantive, standing in apposition to oJ CristoV, "the Christ." See Sandy and Headlam for an over-the-top dissertation on this tricky clause. Who is "the one being", is it Christ or God? Have we a statement of Christ's deity, as NIV, or at least his divine rule "he who rules as God over all things", Cassirer, or even something like "Christ is God-blessed forever, Amen", or have we here a doxology to God, "may God, supreme over all, be blessed forever", REB? Cranfield takes the view that it refers to Christ, to his lordship. The grammar certainly supports the NIV, although many modern commentators lean more toward a doxology. See Turner p15 for some thoughts on the Greek. He concludes that Paul is saying that "the Messiah is God." Still, as Dodd notes, "even though Paul ascribes to Christ functions and dignities which are consistent with nothing less than deity, yet he pointedly avoids calling him 'God'". The messiah "who is greater than us all, praised by God forever, may it be so!", Junkins.
epi + gen. "over" - over [all]. Spatial, as NIV; "over".
eiV touV aiwnaV (wn wnoV) "forever" - [god blessed] into the ages [amen]. Idiomatic phrase; "for ever and ever!", Barclay. The substantive phrase "God blessed into the ages" stands in apposition to the participle "the one being."
v6a
ii] The proposition to which Paul will argue in chapters 9-11. "Don't even think for a moment that God's word of grace has malfunctioned!." It seems likely that Paul's nomist critics claim that Israel's failure to appropriate God's promised blessings is down to Paul's flawed gospel of grace. In response, Paul claims that the problem does not lie with his gospel, but rather lies with Israel itself.
ouc oiJon de "it is not as though" - not however. A combination of idioms; "it is not as if", Bauer.
oJti "-" - that. Probably epexegetic, explaining what is "not however"; "what I have just said is not to be understood as meaning that ....", Cranfield.
tou qeou (oV) "God's [word]" - [the word] of god. The genitive may be treated as adjectival, possessive, or ablative, source / origin. Paul often uses this phrase with reference to the gospel, but here surely with the more particular sense of "God's gracious purpose of election which has been declared in the bestowal on Israel of the privileges listed in verses 4 and 5", Cranfield, or better, "God's Old Testament word with particular reference to his promises to Israel", Moo. "The declared purpose of God", Sandy and Headlam.
ekpeptwken (piptw) perf. "had failed" - had fallen away from = has failed, come to naught, weakened. Extensive perfect. In the sense that God has failed to keep his promises. "It cannot be said that God broke his promise", CEV.
![[Pumpkin Cottage]](images/cottage1s.gif){kind=small}
lectionarystudies.com