Romans 11

Final installment in the Romans make-up. Same old, same old--100 word comment response then at least 2 further comments on the comments of others, done by Tuesday night midnight. Outsiders also welcome to participate.

The three posts are:

Romans 9
Romans 10

and this one:
_________
11:1 Therefore, I say, has God abandoned His people? God forbid! For I also am an Israelite, from the seed of Abraham, [from] the tribe of Benjamin. God has not abandoned His people whom He foreknew...
The mention of foreknowledge hearkens back to the predestination discussion of chapters 8 and 9. Not all from Israel are Israel (9:6). The verses that follow draw on the image of a remnant in the middle of a broader Israel not following Him. This remnant exists "according to the election of grace" (11:5).

The verses from here through 11:10 are similar to Romans 9, hard verses. Election has gone into effect and the rest were hardened, even though Israel was seeking (11:7). The individual implications of election in this passage are logically hard to escape, even if they are not the focus of Paul's comment, for he is distinguishing between those in Israel who are the elect remnant and those in Israel whom God has hardened.

Like I said in a previous post, however, Paul's theology of predeterminism here does not connect to his ethics or missiology. The language functions as after the fact language--we know these are elect and these aren't because, look, these believe and these don't. Further, predeterminism is perhaps a better word than predestination, for Paul goes on to see hope for the future salvation of the hardened. Indeed, they seem predestined if anything for eventual salvation.

11:11-12 Therefore, I say, have they stumbled so that they fall? God forbid! But by their transgression, salvation [has come] to the Gentiles so that they become jealous. And if their transgression is wealth for the world and their loss is wealth for the Gentiles, how much more will their fullness [be]!
The logic here is so strange that it makes us wonder if there is some cultural element to the progress of Paul's thought or if the words just don't quite mean what they seem to be saying. The superficial sense seems to be that God has hardened Israel for the Gentiles to come in. Then Israel will become jealous and will accept Jesus as Messiah. This is scarcely predestination in the Calvinist sense. It does seem to be after-the-fact predeterminism. Whatever happens is God's will and this has happened.

11:13-14 And I speak to you Gentiles. Since I myself am apostle of the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry if somehow I might make my flesh jealous and might save some of them.
This verse makes that point quite clear. If it is all a matter of God's election, then why does Paul seem to put such a high urgency on his efforts and on the possibility that some might become jealous as a result of his ministry? He does not operate as if it is all a matter of God's choosing without any human choice involved.

Of course then we remember the Oedipus cycle from Greek mythology. Perhaps it helps us catch a better glimpse of fate in the ancient world. All the key players of this story fight their fate in the story. King Laius and Oedipus both fight their fate, Laius to be killed by his son and Oedipus to kill his father and marry his mother. Yet precisely in their attempt to avoid their fates, they both find themselves fulfilling it.

So ancient fate did allow for significant wiggle room on the way to its fulfillment. Even the Stoics believed one could resist one's fate, although it was pointless. Whether or not this background is of relevance for understanding Paul's language of predestination, I am not sure.

By the way, I see Romans predominantly written to Gentiles, especially since I am currently inclined to see Romans 16 as a letter recommendation meant for Ephesus. I strongly suspect that the current majority position, which sees Romans written to a mixed Jewish and Gentile audience, draws the Jewish part primarily from the data of Romans 16. The earlier chapters do not, in my opinion, point in that direction (Rom. 2:17 does not address the audience but Paul's imaginary interlocutor).

11:17-24
These verses emphasize my points above that Paul's predeterminism language simply does not function in a Calvinistic way. So 11:20 tells the audience not to boast because they are in--they should rather be afraid, lest God remove them, thus in consequence of their action. Similarly, in 11:23 Paul says that if Israel does not persist in its unbelief, "God is able to graft them in again." This is not predestination. This is God responding to human action.

11:25 For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery, so that you are not arrogant in yourselves. A hardness has come from part of Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles should come in and, therefore, all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

"The rescuer will come out of Zion. He will turn ungodliness from Israel. And this [is the] covenant from me when I take away their sins."

According to the gospel, [they are] enemies because of you, but according to election, [they are] beloved because of the fathers, for the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance... God has imprisoned all people for disobedience that He might have mercy on all.
So Paul seems to say that all Israel will accept Jesus as Messiah around the time that the Messiah returns. God's calling of Israel as His people is not something He can abandon.

These words sound a great deal like universalism, that everyone will be saved in the end. But this idea hardly seems to fit with the bulk of Paul's writing and mission. We should thus be careful about basing any of our theology on 11:32. To do so inevitably results in taking a very unclear verse and using it to skew countless clear ones.

11:33-36
This is a lovely doxology to end the first half of Romans. Interestingly, Paul uses Isaiah 40 here to speak of the unknowability of God, while in 1 Cor. 2:16 he used it to speak of how Christians know the mind of God. It highlights the situational nature of Paul's argumentation.

If we were to ask which use more centrally represents Paul's thought, we should probably pick Romans 11's use. In 1 Cor. 2, Paul is dealing with people who think they are hot stuff in the knowledge department. Paul points out that truly spiritual people (which did not include them) do have the mind of Christ.