Monday, October 15, 2012

Romans Commentary Project, chapter 11



Chapter 11
1 I say then, has God rejected his people? May it not be! For I myself am an Israelite, from the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin
Rejected is aposato, which means “pushed aside.” Read in context of the previous argument of chapter 10. Paul’s point in asking this question, then affirming his own ethnic heritage, is to identify the terms of the “remnant.” So then, can any ethnic Jews be saved?

2 God has not rejected his people which he foreknew. Or do you not know in Elijah what the scripture says, that he pleaded to God on account of Israel?
Paul argues here to the precedent of God’s sparing a holy remnant when Israel as a whole was lost. Foreknew is proegno.

3 Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have destroyed your altars, and I alone am left and they seek my life
Quotation is from 1 Kings 19.

4 But what did the oracle say to him? I have kept to myself seven thousand men, which did not bow a knee to Baal
Oracle is chrematismos.

5 In this way then even in the present time there has become a remnant chosen by grace
Remnant is leimma, chosen eklogen. “In this way” is houtos, which is vitally important to how we understand v. 25. Here, as there, it functions as the conclusion of an argument by demonstrating manner, not time.

6 And if by grace, neither by works, since grace would no longer by grace
The definition of grace precludes the possibility of election by national privilege—works of Torah. Therefore the remnant is not defined in this way, but rather by charitos

7 What then, what Israel sought, this it did not obtain, and the chosen found it, but the rest were hardened
Chosen is again ekloge. As shown in 9:30-31, the unlikely according to birth have found that which ethnic Israel thought it would claim for itself. Note here that what is being “sought” must be covenant membership—dikaiosune; not a personal deliverance from the guilt of sin. Otherwise the remnant language makes no sense.

8 Even as it is written God gave to them a sluggish spirit, eyes not to see, and ears not to hear, until this very day
Echoing Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and of course, Jesus.

9 And David says Let their table be to them unto snares and unto a trap and unto a stumbling block and unto a retribution
Table is trapeza, which would of course have the implication of a ceremonially clean table from which Gentiles were excluded, for a Jew. Stumbling block is skandalon (cause for sin) again and antapodoma is retribution. (An unfavorable ruling in the law court that must be exacted.) The reference is from Ps. 69/35

10 Let their eyes be darkened not to see and their backs bent forever
Ethnic Israel, called to be a light, is gone dark. Ethnic Israel, which told its own story in terms of liberation and freedom, is by its own sin bent under the yoke of slavery again. But the point of this is not to show an absolute condemnation, but rather to define the terms of the remnant.

11 I say then, have they stumbled that they might fall? May it not be! But by their stumble salvation to the Gentiles is come unto their being made jealous
Here Paul makes his case for “some hope yet.” I think this passage is clarified further in the terms of his practical purpose in writing the letter. (Establishing Rome as a missionary base to Spain, as Antioch was to him for Asia Minor.) The following passage is not, as some commentators, a sudden extension of universal salvation back to the Jews after it was retracted in chs. 9-10, but rather a personal note of hope on a deeply painful subject despite the surprising and paradoxical way in which God has acted through the Messiah. Paul doesn’t change his mind in the next 13 verses…rather, upholding his argument throughout the book, he cautions the Roman church against the same mistake by which the Jews excluded themselves. Stumble is eptaisan. Jealous is parazelosai.

12 And if their stumble is riches of the world and their defeat riches of the gentiles, how much more their inclusion
How much more wonderful should it be that a remnant of Jews would be included in the covenant people! This must be told to the Roman church especially in light of the expulsion of the Jews under Claudius, and the retraction of the edict under the newly ascended Nero, which would have brought the Jewish Christians back into an uneasy fellowship with the Gentile Christians in Rome who apparently needed reminding that the gospel was “to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.”

13 And I speak now to you, Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I myself am an apostle to the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry
Here Paul makes his direct plea to the Gentile party The second half of the sentence is a particularly convoluted bit of Greek. The rhetorical force of the men…de relationship with v. 15 is lost in English, but there should be a sense of “since v. 13B&14…then clearly v. 15.” In short, Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, somehow has a unique ministry to the exiled Jews as well by rousing their jealousy at Gentile inclusion.

14 in order to make my flesh (people) jealous and save some of them
Flesh is sarka, “Israel-according-to-the flesh.” Save is soso. Implication is that kai has a thereby or “thus” effect.

15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what would their acceptance be but life from the dead?
If by the rejection of the Messiah (and here you see a reference to everything about the aggregation of sin/trespass in the argument in ch. 7 referenced AND the idea of Jesus as the representative of Israel according to the flesh) is the means of reconciling the world into God’s family, how much more would the resurrection of Israel from their death in sin mean? The sense is, the re-inclusion of Israel must be very desirable.

16 And if the first-portion is holy, also the whole batch. And if the root is holy, also the branches.
First-portion is aparche again. The leavening yeast and the branch-nourishing root are O.T. images of Israel that are carried into the words and teachings of Jesus. It’s a side-note, but worth mentioning that this verse ought to carry into the discussion of the question “to what extent was Paul exposed to the written/oral traditions of Jesus?”

17 And if some of the branches are broken off, and you being a wild olive are grafted in upon them and made in fellowship of the rich olive root
If the Gentiles are grafted in replacing that which was of the desirable olive by “the flesh”

18 Do not boast over the branches. And if you boast do not bear yourselves over the branches, but the root over you
…then they ought not to boast themselves on some sort of privilege over and against those branches which have now been denied access to the root. The proper thing to do is not to compare yourselves to one another, but to recognize the “rich root.” There is no national privilege.

19 Then you would say Branches were broken off that I should be grafted in
Paul acknowledges with a good (Kalos) that this dangerous statement is true.

20 Good. By their faithlessness they were broken off, but you stand in faith. Do not think in pride but in fear.
Faithlessness is apistia, also possibly “disobedience.” Do not be minded (phronei) high, but of fear.

21 For if God did not spare the branches according to nature, neither will he spare you
Paul’s analogy begins to cut across some traditional Protestant thinking about “assurance of salvation,” but when we take his words as we find them their meaning is sobering. God has not and will not let anyone but himself determine the terms for who his people are.

22 See then the kindness and severity of God. On those falling the severity, but on you the kindness of God, if you might remain in kindness, otherwise then you would be cut off
Kindness is chrestoteta and severity is apotomian.

23 And even these (of Israel), if they might not remain in faithlessness, will be grafted in. For God is able to graft them in again
Simply kakeinoi in the beginning of the verse, but the contest implies “of Israel.” Though they have been cut off in God’s severity, God is able (dunatos) to graft them in again. N.B. The text does not say that God will graft them in again. The rest of Paul’s argument about the terms of the covenant people still stands.

24 For if you having been cut off from what is according to nature a wild olive are grafted into a cultivated olive, how much more would these according to nature be grafted onto their own olive.
And how much easier would it be for those which were the covenant people according to its flesh become members of the covenant according to grace since their flesh knows that “sap.”

25 For I do not wish you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery, that you might not be wiser besides yourselves, since a hardening from part has come to Israel until when the fullness of the Gentiles might enter in
Wiser beside yourselves is really “cleverer than you ought to be.” This clearly belongs to the preceding argument: You Gentile Christians ought not to vaunt yourselves over the Jews. The second half of the verse is NOT a future prediction that Paul was suddenly struck with in contradiction to the entire argument of the letter so far. Rather, it is a description of what has already happened and been accomplished through Jesus. The mystery/marvel is what Paul has been explaining. The Jews were hardened in part until the justifying death of the Messiah, at which point the full number (pleroma) of the Gentiles was able to come in. (as was promised to Abraham.)

26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, even as it is written He saving will come from Sion, he will turn ungodliness from Jacob
It is in this way—the coming in of the Gentiles—that All Israel will be saved. What is Paul saying? He is saying that Israel is not defined by the flesh, nor is it defined by the observance of Torah. Rather, in fulfillment to the promises the Covenant God made to Abraham, Israel, which was chosen by grace and justified by faith, shall all be saved in the way that he has described throughout the letter to the Romans. The Gentiles and the remnant are “Israel.” The whole process is God’s way of saving his covenant people; that is the meaning of kai houtos pas Israel sothesetai.

27 And this will be my covenant to them with me, when I take away their sins
The one saving is gone/come (there is no distinction is Gk., but the tense of the verb is undeniable) from Sion, and he has fulfilled the covenant and dealt with sin. This is no apocalyptic prediction, but a description of what Jesus has done.

28 According to the gospel they are enemies to you, but according to election they are beloved on account of their fathers
Paul now draws his conclusions for instructing the Jew-Gentile relations in light of these truths. According to the gospel of grace there is no room for the Jews, but we love them on account of the flesh which they overprize.

29 For the gifts and call of God are irrevocable
They will never lose the gift (charismata) or the call (klesis). Note that klesis is an important technical term in Paul’s “salvation process” as the first step before faith.

30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now you have received mercy in their disobedience
Apeitheia, not apistia. Keep in mind the argument of 9-10 throughout…God used Israel’s disobedience paradoxically to give mercy and deal with sin.

31 In this way they now have disobeyed that, by the mercy given to you, they also now might receive mercy.
Another example of houtos, always as demonstrative of manner, never temporal. The mercy which came through Israel’s disobedience is not out of their reach. They might have it. (Not must)

32 For God has imprisoned all unto disobedience that he might have mercy on all.
There are none that do not need God’s mercy. It is on the terms of his mercy through Jesus that we will receive his dikaiosune.

33 O the depth of the riches and the wisdom and the knowledge of God. How unfathomable are his judgments and unsearchable are his ways
I’ll be treading much more lightly from here out. The rest of the chapter is an epilogue to the section of 9-11, and then 12-16 is largely practical advice in light of the letter’s theological argument.

34 For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?
Is. 40, Job. 15, Jer. 23

35 Or who has given to him even that it will be repaid to him?
Job 41. Note that Paul always denies man’s ability to demand from God.

36 That from him and through him and to him are all things. To him the glory unto eternity, amen.
In his rapture, Paul wrote a Greek sentence without a subject or a verb! But amen, nonetheless!

Friday, October 12, 2012

International Date Night: Switzerland

Tartiflette, Fondue, Toblerone, Lindt, and red wine

It was all delicious, despite the fact that James threw his snotty falling-apart teddy bear into the potato dish. (Steven was hungry, apparently.) This is why we usually start after we put him to bed.