Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23
    The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23
    The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23
    Ebook507 pages6 hours

    The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23

    By John Piper

    4.5/5

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    John Piper presents a careful, reasoned study of the doctrine of election. He dissects Paul's argument to highlight the picture of God and his righteousness painted in Romans 9. Undergirded by his belief that the sovereignty of God is too precious a part of our faith to dismiss or approach weak-kneed, Piper explores the Greek text and Paul's argument with singular deftness.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherBaker Publishing Group
    Release dateFeb 1, 1993
    ISBN9781585581580
    The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23
    Author

    John Piper

     John Piper is founder and lead teacher of desiringGod.org and chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary. He served for thirty-three years as a pastor at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and is the author of more than fifty books, including Desiring God; Don’t Waste Your Life; and Providence. 

    Read more from John Piper

    Related to The Justification of God

    Related ebooks

    Christianity For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      God’s Power in Weakness

      May 18, 2020

      God’s Power in Weakness
      1 min read

    • Article

      Word Search

      Dec 30, 2022

      Word Search
      3 min read

    • Article

      Stepping Into The Book Of Romans

      Oct 2, 2020

      The New Testament book of Romans is a copy of a letter written by the Apostle Paul to the church in Rome, sometime around the end of 58AD while he was in Corinth. He had never been to the Roman church before, although he had desired to do so for a lo

      2 min read

    • Article

      Ask Val

      Oct 30, 2020

      Ask Val
      2 min read

    • Article

      Letters To The Editor

      Aug 19, 2019

      Thank you for your wonderfully illustrated Biblical series of articles that you regularly publish. I find that I can’t concentrate like I used to, and love the short, precise, and factual articles. I have learnt so much from reading them. I was fasci

      7 min read

    • Article

      3 Points To Ponder On Godly Men

      Jun 16, 2023

      I was recently asked to be a speaker at a men’s conference. In my preparation, I received a word from God that really challenged me. I knew that this would be hard for the men to hear and petitioned God to change the message He had dropped in my hear

      2 min read

    • Article

      Ask Val

      Oct 27, 2023

      Ask Val
      2 min read

    • Article

      Ask Val

      Dec 30, 2019

      Ask Val
      2 min read

    • Article

      Word Search

      Jul 22, 2022

      Word Search
      2 min read

    • Article

      The Godly Responsibilities of Husbands & Fathers

      Dec 30, 2019

      A major problem in our country today is the malfunction or non-function of men as husbands and fathers. Some men try hard but don’t get it right; some don’t try at all – they are bachelor boys whose wives are no more that servants to care for the hom

      4 min read

    • Article

      The Lost Language of Lament

      Jul 30, 2021

      The Lost Language of Lament
      3 min read

    • Article

      Ask Val

      Aug 25, 2023

      Ask Val
      2 min read

    • Article

      Ask Val

      Jun 24, 2022

      Ask Val
      2 min read

    • Article

      Word Search

      Aug 26, 2022

      Word Search
      2 min read

    • Article

      Ask Val

      Sep 23, 2022

      Ask Val
      2 min read

    • Article

      Ask Val

      Mar 10, 2023

      Ask Val
      2 min read

    • Article

      A Burden On The Heart Of The Believer “I Charge You Therefore, Preach The Word!”

      Oct 21, 2019

      Most of us would recognise that the last words of a great and godly man or woman before their death would likely be words of great value. Words to consider and ponder. Jesus’ seven statements from the Cross are of that category and are thus recorded

      5 min read

    • Article

      Leaving a Lasting Legacy

      Nov 19, 2021

      Leaving a Lasting Legacy
      3 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for The Justification of God

    4.5/5

    49 ratings2 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 5/5
      This has to be the best study of Romans 9 that i have ever read, if you plan to Preach or Teach on Romans 9 you have to read this book and digest it
    • 5/5
      Great book that blows away the silly humanistic straw man arguments of Arminianism.

    Book preview

    The Justification of God - John Piper

    © 1993 by John Piper

    Published by Baker Academic

    a division of Baker Publishing Group

    P.O. Box 6287

    Grand Rapids, Michigan 49516-6287

    www.bakeracademic.com

    Ebook edition created 2012

    Ebook corrections 02.17.2015

    All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.

    Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is on file at the Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

    ISBN 978-1-5855-8158-0

    To Daniel Payton Fuller, priceless friend

    Contents

    Cover

    Title Page

    Copyright Page

    Dedication

    Preface

    Abbreviations

    I.  Introduction

    II.  My Kinsmen Are Accursed! Romans 9:1–5

    1. The place of Romans 9:1–5 in the argument

    Excursus—The place of Romans 9–11 in the epistle

    2. Exegesis of Romans 9:1–5

    2.1 The privileges of Paul’s kinsmen: Romans 9:4, 5

    2.11 Who are Israelites

    Excursus—The theological unity of Romans 9 and 11

    2.12 To whom belongs the sonship

    2.13 And the glory

    2.14 And the covenants

    2.15 And the giving of the law

    2.16 And the service of worship

    2.17 And the promises

    2.18 To whom belong the fathers

    2.19 And from whom is the Messiah . . .

    2.2 The plight of Paul’s kinsmen: Romans 9:1–3

    2.3 Summary

    III. The Purpose that Accords with Election: Romans 9:6–13

    1. Orientation

    2. Romans 9:6a

    3. The purpose of God which remains

    3.1 God’s means of maintaining his purpose: predestination

    Excursus—The time of God’s choice

    3.2 Predestination of whom to what? Individuals versus nations, eternal destinies versus historical tasks

    3.21 Restating the argument for corporate election to historical tasks

    3.22 Critique of the foregoing position and argument for an alternative

    3.221 The significance of Romans 9:1–5

    3.222 The significance of Romans 9:6b

    3.223 The vocabulary and structure of Romans 9:6b–8

    3.224 The significance of Romans 9:14–23

    3.225 Jewish antecedents of Paul’s teaching

    4. Conclusion

    IV. Exodus 33:19 in Its Old Testament Context

    1. The problem

    2. The text

    3. The context of Exodus 32–34

    4. The context of Exodus 33:12–34:9

    5. The grammar and vocabulary of Exodus 33:19cd

    6. The glory, goodness and name of Yahweh in relation to Exodus 33:19cd

    7. Conclusion

    V.  The Justification of God: Romans 9:14–18 (Part I)

    1. The text and the problem

    2. There is no unrighteousness with God, is there? (Romans 9:14b)

    Excursus—’Αδικία in Paul

    3. The defense of God’s righteousness in predestination

    VI. The Righteousness of God in the Old Testament

    1. The question and method

    2. Norm versus relationship

    3. Is God’s righteousness always a saving gift?

    4. An alternative interpretation

    Excursus—Implications for human righteousness

    5. Conclusion

    VII.  The Righteousness of God in Romans 3:1–8

    1. Purpose and orientation

    2. The text

    3. The position of the opponents

    4. Paul’s position and the function of Romans 3:4b

    VIII. The Righteousness of God in Romans 3:25, 26

    1. The text and the thesis

    2. The use of tradition in Romans 3:24–26

    3. Critique of the prevailing view

    4. An alternative interpretation of Romans 3:25, 26

    IX. The Justification of God: Romans 9:14–18 (Part II)

    1. It is not of the one who wills or runs (Romans 9:16)

    2. The scope of God’s freedom in Romans 9:16

    3. The γάρ of Romans 9:17

    4. The hardening of Pharaoh in the Old Testament context

    Excursus—The vocabulary of hardening in Exodus 4–14

    5. Whom he wills he hardens (Romans 9:18b)

    5.1 The freedom of God to harden

    5.2 The meaning of hardening

    6. The justification of God

    X. The Rights and Purposes of the Creator: Romans 9:19–23

    1. Delimiting the text

    2. Preliminary exposition of Romans 9:19–23

    3. Has the objector in Romans 9:19 interpreted Paul correctly?

    4. The authority of the Creator: Romans 9:20, 21

    4.1 The traditions behind Romans 9:20, 21

    4.2 The context of Romans 9:20, 21

    4.3 The metaphor of potter and vessels

    4.4 Summary

    5. Four problems in Romans 9:22,23

    5.1 The logical relationships of the clauses

    5.2 God’s patience with the vessels of wrath

    5.3 Fitted for destruction

    5.4 The justification of God in his ultimate purpose

    XI. Conclusion

    Bibliography

    Index of Passages Cited

    Index of Authors

    Index of Subjects

    Other Books by Author

    Notes

    Back Cover

    Preface

    Ten years have passed since I wrote the first Preface to this book. During that time I have devoted myself mainly to preaching to one congregation, Bethlehem Baptist Church. The book was written in the context of rigorous academic discipline as I was teaching Biblical Studies at Bethel College, St. Paul. But now for over ten years the thesis has been lived and preached and loved in the context of day-to-day ministry in downtown Minneapolis.

    Nothing I have read in the reviews and nothing I have experienced in the ministry has convinced me that the exegesis or conclusion of this book is false. On the contrary, further reflection and experience have sent the roots of God’s sovereignty deeper than ever into my soul and my ministry and the life of our congregation.

    Our common theme in worship is the infinite worth of God and his purpose to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy (Rom 9:23). Our confidence in evangelism comes from God’s freedom to have mercy on whomever he wills (Rom 9:18). Our commitment to world missions is fueled by the passion of God to exert his sovereign power so that [his] name may be proclaimed in all the earth (Rom 9:17). And the ground of our conviction that God is reliable in all of life is this: No matter what heart-wrenching perplexities we face, it is not as though the word of God has failed (Rom 9:6).

    There is a great advantage to writing a new preface after ten years. I am able to give at least a partial answer to the question: What sort of theology and what spirit of ministry would grow out of such an exegesis of Rom 9? Not that this settles the question of truth. But often such practical questions linger as the final obstacle when argumentation has done all it can do.

    The answer I have given is found in the ministry of our church and in four books: Desiring God (Multnomah Press, 1986), The Pleasures of God (Multnomah Press, 1991), The Supremacy of God in Preaching (Baker Book House, 1990) and Let the Nations Be Glad: The Supremacy of God in Missions (Baker Book House, 1993). These books are the unfolding of the vision of God’s sovereignty in Rom 9 for theology, life and ministry. For any who wonders what the fruit of The Justification of God tastes like, I would direct them to these books and invite them to Bethlehem.

    In the process of preparing the book for its new edition, Steve Griffith has earned my respect and gratitude for his labor of love. He took the initiative to push the book back into circulation and he took on the difficult task of reformatting a document laden with Greek and Hebrew.

    Again my friend Carol Steinbach has devoted her eagle editorial eye to making the text as clean and smooth and intelligible as possible. She has also compiled fresh indexes for this second edition. Philemon Yong and Mark Reasoner helped me comb through the Greek and Hebrew, and corrected dozens of typing mistakes I had missed.

    My wife Noël continues to stand by me in all the travail and triumphs of parenting four sons and shepherding the flock of God, and publishing the good news of God’s delight in being God. We stand frail, needy and secure on the sovereign freedom of God’s grace.

    I exult once more in dedicating the book to Daniel Payton Fuller whose great work Unity of the Bible (Zondervan, 1992) is now published. Almost 25 years ago I was swept into the love and labor of serious, painstaking, exhilarating exegesis by this man’s classes in seminary. Everything I have preached or written is owing in great measure to the inspiration and exegetical discipline I absorbed from Daniel Fuller.

    My prayer, as the book is released again, is that it might serve the great purpose of God expressed in Rom 9:23, to make known the riches of his glory.

    John Piper

    June 1993

    Abbreviations

    1

    Introduction

    This study was conceived as an attempt to understand how Paul defends the righteousness of God in Rom 9:14–23. It has thus involved a broader effort to grasp what Paul means by the righteousness of God, and has necessarily raised the subordinate question of election and predestination. On this latter issue I have tried to answer with as much exegetical integrity as I can two crucial questions: Does election in Rom 9:1–23 concern nations or individuals? And does it concern historical roles or eternal destinies?

    I do not consider my conclusions novel from a historical viewpoint. Nevertheless, with regard to both the righteousness of God and the election of men, the conclusions are not in vogue today, and so exegetical explanation and defense are needed.

    It has become evident to me over the years that one of the devices used to take the sting out of Rom 9 is the fostering of a certain stereotype. The stereotype is that if a work focuses on Rom 9 and deals with predestination, then it may be discounted as too limited in its scope and blinded by its dogmatic concerns to the larger redemptive-historical issues. When a work is thus branded, it may be safely set aside. In this way the troublesome chapter is usually spared the penetrating analysis that other less troublesome texts enjoy among scholarly monographs.

    But this book bears witness to my conviction that one can, with care, deal with Rom 9:1–23 without losing sight of its larger textual and historical context and without forcing it to answer dogmatic questions for which it was never intended. In following Paul’s argument here I have tried to employ the care and precision which is the mark of critical exegesis on other texts, but which often is replaced by imprecise and unsupported generalizations on this theologically explosive section of Scripture.

    One may legitimately question the wisdom of limiting the monograph to Rom 9:1–23 (especially since verse 23 ends in the middle of a sentence), but I have tried to show in Chapter Ten (Section 1) the rationale for this limitation and how it does conform to the structure of Paul’s argument. And would it not mean an end to all careful scholarship if it were not possible to focus on one tree without losing sight of the forest?

    With regard to secondary literature, I have tried at every crucial point to make the alternative interpretations clear by interacting with competent exegetes and theologians who see things differently than I do. I hope that I have not misrepresented anyone’s view, for that would not only be discourteous, but would also weaken my own case. I do not offer a systematic history of the interpretation of Rom 9, but for this commend the works of K.H. Schelkle, V. Weber, E. Weber, W. Beyschlag, and J. Morison listed in the bibliography.

    To understand the structure of the book’s argument the following observations may be helpful. The starting point of my reflections was the question how (and if) Rom 9:15ff was intended by Paul to demonstrate the righteousness of God. Romans 9:14 asserts that there is no unrighteousness with God, and verse 15 seems to give the basis for this assertion: For to Moses[God] says: ‘I will have mercy on whomever I have mercy and I will have compassion on whomever I have compassion’ (Ex 33:19). In order to answer the question how (and if) Paul was defending God’s righteousness, I had to find out what it was in Rom 9:1–13 that seemed to call God’s righteousness into question (Chapters Two and Three) and what the supporting quote from Ex 33:19 meant in its Old Testament context (Chapter Four). With those questions answered, my analysis of Rom 9:14–18 could begin (Chapter Five). But to test my emerging hypothesis about Paul’s argument it became necessary to ask more precisely what Paul actually meant by God’s righteousness. To answer this question I devoted a chapter to the righteousness of God in the Old Testament (Chapter Six) and two chapters to Paul’s understanding of divine righteousness in Rom 3:1–8 (Chapter Seven) and Rom 3:25,26 (Chapter Eight). On the basis of these analyses I returned to complete the analysis of Rom 9:14–18 (Chapter Nine). Then (in Chapter Ten) I tried to follow Paul’s justification of God through to its climax in Rom 9:23. The final chapter is a concluding summary of the argument and some of its implications.

    The reader who desires to know my exegetical and theological conclusions before reading the supporting arguments may consult Chapter Eleven.

    2

    My Kinsmen Are Accursed!

    Romans 9:1–5

    1. The place of Romans 9:1–5 in the argument

    If the main aim of this book is to understand the defense of God’s righteousness in Rom 9:14–23, why devote a whole chapter to Rom 9:1–5? The reason is that Paul’s argument in the chapter is so tightly woven that understanding one stage depends on understanding the others. The justification of God in 9:14–23 can be properly understood only in light of the assertions of 9:6b–13 which have seemed to call God’s righteousness into question. Then again 9:6b–13 is Paul’s effort to show that the word of God has not fallen (9:6a), and this effort can be understood only when we see why and in what sense the word of God has been called into question. This is what Rom 9:1–5 tells us and that is why we must include a chapter on this unit.

    Excursus—The place of Romans 9–11 in the epistle

    Of course, the whole epistle is woven together so that each part is illuminated somewhat by the others. But every study has its limits. Therefore I will content myself with a brief excursus concerning the recent discussion of the relationship between Rom 1–8 and Rom 9–11, and simply align myself with the view that seems to me to accord best with Paul’s intention.[1] C.H. Dodd is often cited, but less often followed, as a representative of those who stress the independence of Rom 9–11 from Rom 1–8 (Romans, 161). For example, A.M. Hunter, in explicit dependence on Dodd, writes, Paul may have written this section earlier as a separate discussion of a vexed question. It forms a continuous whole and may be read without reference to the rest of the letter (Introducing the New Testament, 96).

    W.G. Kuemmel has demonstrated the inadequacy of the efforts to account for the presence of Rom 9–11 in the letter on the basis of the personal situation of Paul (e.g. preparing for his defense in Jerusalem[2]) or the concrete problems of the church in Rome (e.g. the presumptuousness of the Jewish Christians[3]). Why these chapters are found in Romans can only be answered when the theological meaning of the chapters both in connection with the rest of Romans and Pauline theology is explained (Kuemmel, Probleme von Roemer 9–11, 26). Thus the purpose of Rom 9–11 must be explained in relation to the purpose of the whole letter. Kuemmel is right, I think, that no suggested purpose for the letter is more probable than the one implied in 1:10ff and 15:20ff: "Paul writes to this community because in spite of the existence of a Christian community there he feels obligated to preach the gospel there too (1:15), and because he desires the material help of the Romans for his mission plans in Spain and the spiritual help of the Romans for his perseverance in Jerusalem (15:24) (Kuemmel, 27). Paul aims to lay before this church the Christian gospel which he preaches so that they can see the grace given to me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God (15:15f). Since the gospel that he proclaims in Rom 1–8 is the power of God unto salvation to the Jews first (1:16) and since the Christ is descended from David according to the flesh (1:3) and there is great value in circumcision (3:2) and the faithlessness of the Jews does not nullify the faithfulness of God (3:3) and a saving promise was made to Abraham and his descendants" (4:13), the question of Israel’s destiny becomes acute. It grows necessarily out of the exposition of Rom 1–8.

    Leenhardt argues that between Rom 1–8 and 9–11 there is a very close connection; furthermore a real logical necessity compels the apostle to deal with the subject which he now broaches [in Rom 9–11].[4] A little differently than Leenhardt, but following Goppelt,[5] I see the necessity for Rom 9–11 in this: the hope of the Christian, with which Rom 1–8 came to a climax, is wholly dependent on God’s faithfulness to his word, his call (8:28,30). But, as Gutbrod asks, Can the new community trust God’s Word when it seems to have failed the Jews? (TDNT, III, 386). The unbelief of Israel, the chosen people, and their consequent separation from Christ (Rom 9:3) seem to call God’s word into question and thus to jeopardize not only the privileged place of Israel, but also the Christian hope as well.[6] Therefore, in Paul’s view, the theme of Rom 9–11 is not optional; it is essential for the securing of Rom 1–8. This view of Rom 9–11 assumes that Rom 9:6a (God’s word has not fallen) is the main point which Rom 9–11 was written to prove, in view of Israel’s unbelief and rejection.[7] What is at stake ultimately in these chapters is not the fate of Israel; that is penultimate. Ultimately God’s own trustworthiness is at stake.[8] And if God’s word of promise cannot be trusted to stand forever, then all our faith is in vain. Therefore our goal in analyzing Rom 9:1–5 is to see precisely how Paul conceives of the tension between God’s word and the fate of Israel. What is it precisely that makes God’s word appear to have fallen, but, in fact, does not impugn God’s faithfulness at all?

    2. Exegesis of Romans 9:1–5

    The following division of verse parts aims to highlight the text’s structure and to facilitate precision of reference in the exegesis.

    1  a  I speak the truth in Christ.

    b  I do not lie,

    c  my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit

    2  that I have great grief and unceasing pain in my heart.

    3  a  For I myself could wish to be anathema, separated from Christ

    b  on behalf of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh,

    4  a  who are Israelites;

    b  whose are the sonship (ἡ υἱοθεσία)

    and the glory (ἡ δόξα)

    and the covenants (αἱ διαθῆκαι)[9]

    and the giving of the law (ἡ νομοθεσία)

    and the service of worship (ἡ λατρεία)

    and the promises (αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι);

    5  a  whose are the fathers

    b  and from whom is the Messiah according to the flesh,

    c  who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.

    In Rom 9:1–3 Paul avers his pain over the plight of his people. In 9:4,5 he describes the privileges of his kinsmen according to the flesh. The glorious privileges of 9:4,5 stand in vivid contrast to the sorrow of 9:3 and account for its intensity.[10] It is precisely this contrast between the privileges of Paul’s kinsmen in 9:4,5 and their plight in 9:3 which seems to imply that God’s word has fallen. What are these privileges (2.1) and this plight (2.2)?

    2.1 The privileges of Paul’s kinsmen, Romans 9:4, 5

    The structure of Rom 9:4,5 is tantalizing. It allures us to see intentional patterns, but in places eludes our desire for complete symmetry. The first characteristic of Paul’s kinsmen is that they are Israelites (9:4a). This designation is probably intended to resonate with a richness that sums up all the other privileges in 9:4,5. Not only does it stand at the head of the list of privileges, but also grammatically the rest are subordinate to it. Its significance for Paul is unfolded through three relative clauses (ὧν . . . ὧν . . . ἐξ ὧν) whose antecedent in each case is  Ἰσραηλῖται.[11] Within the first relative clause (9:4b) six feminine nouns, each connected simply with καί, describe the privileges belonging to the Israelites. The formal pattern of these six nouns is visibly (and was audibly) obvious:

    The list falls into two groups of three with endings corresponding between the first and fourth, second and fifth, third and sixth.[12] This observation alone may be enough to account for the hapax legomenon νομοθεσία (instead of Paul’s usual νόμος which would have matched υἷος but not υἱοθεσία) and for the unusual use of the plural αἱ διαθῆκαι to produce the assonance with αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι.

    Two other implications of this structure emerge for interpretation. First, the willingness to choose some words on the basis of rhyme or assonance implies that the meaning may lie more in the total, unified impact of the sixfold group than in the separate, distinct meanings of each member. We will have to test this implication as we analyze the individual members below. Second, since such a symmetrical structure tends to resist alteration and facilitate memory, it suggests that the unit is perhaps traditional rather than created ad hoc for this occasion. The occurrence of the unusual νομοθεσία and the plural διαθῆκαι could also suggest that Paul is here using a traditional Jewish list of privileges. Otto Michel and Lucien Cerfaux have argued for this view.[13]

    But since Paul was one of the most creative and seminal theologians of the early church, we should consider seriously whether Rom 9:4 reflects his own selectivity, artistry and theology. This would not have to mean that Paul composed this list of privileges just for this letter. The letter clearly reflects Paul’s give-and-take with Jewish and Greek listeners during his missionary efforts.[14] It would be likely then that if Rom 9:4 is Paul’s own composition, it originated as early as his reflection on the problem of Israel’s rejection (Rom 11:14,15). If this were the case, the intervening years of repeatedly handing on this teaching to various groups would justify calling Rom 9:4 both genuinely Pauline as well as traditional.

    In fact the arguments that Paul used a Hellenistic-Jewish tradition here are not persuasive. We have already shown that the poetic structure could have easily originated in Paul’s preaching and that therefore the appearance of words not common in Paul need not contradict his authorship since the demands of assonance in the parallel structure can adequately account for the unusual words. Moreover it remains to be proved that the other words, e.g. υἱοθεσία, are used here in a different sense from Paul’s usual usage (Michel). On the contrary, especially υἱοθεσία points to a Pauline origin since the word is used only by him in the New Testament (Rom 8:15,23; 9:4; Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5), does not occur in the LXX, and has virtually no history with a religious meaning prior to Paul.[15] But most important of all is the observation of Ulrich Luz, which has been borne out in my own study, that there simply are no parallels in the Jewish literature of a list of the prerogatives of Israel in anything approximating this form or selection.[16] Therefore, it is more probable that Rom 9:4 reflects Paul’s own art and theology. This will have a significant bearing on the exegesis.

    The second relative clause attached to Israelites is whose are the fathers (ὧν οἱ πατέρες, 9:5a). Structurally the main question here is why πατέρες is introduced with its own relative pronoun (ὧν) rather than simply being added to the list of prerogatives in 9:4b. The answer is probably that as a seventh member of the list it would have destroyed the symmetry of three rhyming pairs, especially since πατέρες is masculine while the other members of the list are all feminine. Moreover, it refers to persons while the other members are all concepts. However, it is not as easy to say something positive about why πατέρες receives its own separate clause. There may be no other significance than what was just said, together with Paul’s desire not to put the patriarchs and the Messiah together in one clause (9:5ab) and thus imply that they are privileges on the same level. But two possible implications of the structure may be suggested. Michel (Roemer, 227 note 2) points out how the trio, Israelites (9:4a) and fathers (9:5a) and Messiah (9:5b), may reveal an intention to move from the many through the few to the one. Another possibility is that after listing the benefits of being Israelites in 9:4b, Paul closes with a kind of structure that brackets Israel’s history: the patriarchs inaugurate Israel and the Messiah brings its history to a climax (see below pp 42–43). Or it may simply be that, in view of the theological significance Paul ascribes to the fathers (11:16,28), he felt the need to include them among Israel’s benefits, and here in 9:5a is where they fit best.

    One final observation of form is that the third relative clause (9:5b) differs from the first two (ἐξ ὧν instead of ὧν). The reason for this is so closely related to the meaning of the verse that we will postpone our discussion until the exegesis below (see pp 26–28).

    2.11 Who are Israelites

    It is of utmost importance to notice that the antecedent of οἵτινες is Paul’s kinsmen according to the flesh who are anathema, separated from Christ (9:3); and that this group of unbelievers is even now called Israelites (present tense: 9:4a). The tense of the verb[17] in 9:4a as well as the relationship[18] between 9:1–5 and 9:6a resists every effort (e.g. of Johannes Munck and Lucien Cerfaux) to relegate the prerogatives of Israel to the past.[19] Furthermore, Paul’s bold assertion that the glorious privileges of Israel belong to unbelieving Israel (the antecedent of οἵτινες, 9:4a) resists the effort of Erich Dinkier (Praedestination, 88) to argue from 9:6b (Not all those from Israel are Israel) that the promises refer not to the empirical-historical Israel, but to the eschatological Israel (by which he means the Church, without regard to ethnic origins). Whether the second Israel in 9:6b is the Church or the believing portion of empirical-historical Israel, the point there is this: the privileges given to Israel can never be construed to guarantee the salvation of any individual Jew or synagogue of Jews, and therefore the unbelief of Paul’s kinsmen cannot immediately be construed to mean that God’s word of promise has fallen. But in no way does 9:6b exclude the possibility that God’s intention may someday be to save all Israel (11:26). And therefore 9:6b does not give us a warrant to construe the privileges of 9:4,5 (against the wording of the text) as the privileges of eschatological Israel (= the Church) to the exclusion of empirical-historical Israel. Why should Dinkier prefer to see a contradiction between Rom 9:1–13 and 11:1–32 than to allow God’s intention for Israel’s future in 11:1–32 to help him see that Rom 9:6b should not be construed to rule out a future for ethnic Israel?

    Excursus—The theological unity of Romans 9 and 11

    W.G. Kuemmel (Probleme von Roemer 9–11, 30f) thinks that the central problem in the interpretation of Rom 9–11 is whether Paul destroys or employs conceptions of redemptive history. He cites Dinkler (Praedestination, 97), Luz (Geschichtsverstaendnis, 295, 299) and Guettgemanns (Heilsgeschichte, 40, 47, 54, 58) as representatives of the exegetes who tend to emphasize the existential dimension of Paul’s meaning here to the exclusion of the historical. Over against this group Kuemmel finds an excellent assumption for the interpretation of Rom 9–11 in the emphasis of Kaesemann (Rechtfertigung und Heilsgeschichte, 134), Mueller (Gottes Gerechtigkeit, 105) and Stuhlmacher (Zur Interpretation von Roemer 11, 25–32, 560) on the indispensably historical, linear dimension of the doctrine of justification. It seems to me also, especially in view of Rom 9–11, that the latter view is more faithful to Paul’s intention. But rather than address the issue of existence vs history in general, I aim in this excursus to treat an offshoot of it, namely, the theological unity of Rom 9 and 11. The question of unity is related to the larger hermeneutical question because Rom 9 seems to support the first view mentioned above, while Rom 11 seems to support the second.

    Dinkler (Praedestination, 90) argues that there is an unresolvable contradiction between Rom 9:6–13 and 11:1–32. His position is akin to Bultmann’s (Geschichte und Eschatologie, 101), though he does not say, as Bultmann does, that Paul’s effort to preserve a future for historical Israel springs from his speculative fantasy (Bultmann, Theology, II, 132). In Dinkler’s words: "The analysis of the three chapters shows that there is a decisive contradiction between 9:6–13 and 11:1–32. In chapter 9 the theological problem of the rejection of the elect people is resolved by means of a reinterpretation of the term ‘Israel,’ namely by introducing an eschatological understanding of the term. This is different from chapter 11 where the historical role of ethnic Israel continues as an enduring entity of redemptive history. According to chapter 9 the promises belong not to the historical people of Israel but to the eschatological ἐκλογή. According to chapter 11 the promises are still the inalienable possession of the historical people of Israel (my emphasis). He grants that the contradiction is somewhat meliorated by the fact that Paul does not claim every individual Israelite has a share in the promise and that the end-time generation will be saved only on the basis of the electing call of God. Nevertheless there remains a theological contradiction, because it is precisely because of the promise, because of the past election of the people Israel, that the historical people must be saved" (91).

    I agree with Dinkier that in Rom 11:1–32 the Israel that will be saved (11:26) is historical Israel and not merely the Church as the Israel of God (Gal 6:16). But why this must contradict Rom 9:6ff I cannot see. His argument proceeds at two levels. First he argues that the second Israel in Rom 9:6b ("Not all those from Israel are Israel) refers not to a remnant of Jewish Christians but to eschatological Israel, the Church consisting of Jew and Gentile. His support (88 note 19) is fourfold: 1) The following verses 7 and 8 say explicitly that the promise of God, not natural descent, is decisive for sonship. 2) Already in 2:28 the term ‘Jew’ was interpreted dialectically, and in chapter 4 Abraham was shown to be the father of all believers. 3) Galatians 6:16 refers  Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ to the church in general. 4) The dialectical use of  Ἰουδαῖος and  Ἰσραὴλ is only the logical consequence of Rom 1:18–3:2 and corresponds to the thesis expressed in Gal 3:28. This is an entirely feasible view of the second Israel" in 9:6b even though 9:7–13 does seem to restrict its focus to election within historical Israel.

    So let us suppose for now that Dinkier is right about 9:6b. Then Paul would be saying that even though historical Israel for the most part is accursed (see below, Section 2.2), God’s Word of promise has not fallen (9:6a) because the people to whom the promises belong are not all the Israelites but only the people whom God elects freely, both Jew and Greek (9:6b). Those who have the faith of Abraham are children of Abraham (Gal 3:7) and thus heirs according to promise (Gal 3:29). But I ask, why does this contradict the divine intention sovereignly to bring the end-time generation of

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1