Romans 11 Class Notes


[PDF]Romans 11 Class Notes - Rackcdn.com34fd314d042ccb53d82d-a5c2050bc20e179ba4cc67f087a27f92.r2.cf2.rackcdn.com/...

2 downloads 113 Views 69KB Size

TLC Women’s Bible Study Romans 11 Paul Spurlock 3/27/18

By way of review, the following table summarizes the two most common views on the main teachings in chapters 9-10: VIEW 1

VIEW 2

Ethnic “Israel” & the Remnant of “true Israel” within the broader nation of Israel is the main focus. Although all are saved through Christ alone, a distinction remains between Jews & Gentiles. God is not done with all His plans for ethnic Israel.

Spiritual “Israel” the main focus. All, whether Jew or Gentile, are saved through Christ alone—and no meaningful distinction between Jews & Gentiles remains. God’s dealings with ethnic Israel are fulfilled & complete.

Election unto salvation occurs on an individual basis and was pre-determined before the world began.

Election unto salvation occurs on a corporate basis. The Church was predestined to come to be.

Confessing Jesus as Lord & believing in His resurrection Confessing Jesus as Lord & believing in His resurrection results in salvation. results in salvation.

11:1-5 All agree that God hasn’t “rejected His people.” Surely this question has arisen due to the reality of most Jews still remaining non-Christians in Paul’s day. Paul will continue to argue that God has never rejected His people. He’s disciplined them for disobedience (e.g. the great Exile in Babylon). But He always offers a welcome to those who are true lovers of God. And this group has always been called, as we’ve seen, the “remnant.” In the OT this was comprised of individuals who loved God and followed the Old Covenant. Now, in the NT, it is those individuals who love Jesus and follow Him. On the question of this “rejection” and the salvation of the Jews, “Dispensationalists”1 argue that their salvation has simply been postponed.2 They also argue that Paul’s topic at this point it eschatology. NonDispensationalists argue that Paul is not addressing “who?” will be saved among the “descendant[s] of Abraham” or when, but about the way God saves (all in Christ by faith) and that salvation has always been (as the many OT quotes illustrate) about true faith and not ethnicity or ancestry. Non-Dispensationalists point out that Dispensationalists read “God has not rejected His people, has He?” as “God has not rejected His people permanently, has He?” Adding the notion of permanently conveys the idea that God has “rejected” His people for a time (for just reasons) but, that due to their being Jews by race, He will save them in the future (since, as is complained about in the text, most of the Jews in Paul’s day had not yet come to Jesus—so God must be planning to do so in future to keep His promise). Non-Dispensationalists reject this assumption and note that: 1) “permanently” is not in the text; and 2) Paul is discussing the “present time” (v. 5) of his original audience. They argue that the objectors are missing the point. God’s promise has been, is being and will continue to be fulfilled—but not in the manner

1

Classic Dispensationalism argues that God employs different economies / “dispensations” / eras in which He establishes different standards & expectations in terms of how man is to relate & be reconciled to God. E.g., in the “dispensation of the Law,” God’s people were to relate & be reconciled to Him by obeying the Law. At present, in the “dispensation of Grace,” we are to relate & be reconciled to Him by genuine faith in Christ (hence the Law & all other past dispensations are now obsolete). 2A

minority of Dispensationalists believe that every Israelite who ever lived will be saved simply by being Jewish. But most Dispensationalists do not hold this view and assert instead that this refers to the final generation of Jews living during end times (most turn to Jesus as part of the events that culminate with the return of Christ).

1

the objectors assume. Notice how verse 5 begins with “In the same way” (in other words, God is still saving the remnant just as He has since the days of Elijah and before—by true faith in God). So, again, salvation has come not to those of Jewish descent simply on the basis of being Jewish but based upon coming to Jesus regardless of ancestry. Moreover, Paul is an example himself of God not casting off the Jewish people (he’s a Jew and a Christian). Thus God hasn’t cast off all ethnic Jews; all people— regardless of ethnicity—cast themselves off by rejecting Jesus. —Calvinists argue that since God “foreknew” before creation who would be among “His people” (& who would not), that such a distinction is predetermined. —Non-Calvinists argue that those whom God “foreknew” were simply those who would “love God” throughout history. —Like most prophets, Elijah was probably very sensitive, given to emotional highs & lows and surely hyperbolic here. The point of his mention here is to show that God has always had a remnant of followers, even if their existence was not known or obvious. 11:6 The mention of “works” here likely refers to ceremonial works (religious ritual of the OT Law like circumcision). 11:7-10 Calvinists argue that a plain reading of these verses (along with “God’s gracious choice” in the previous verse) clearly support individual predestination of the saved and unsaved—it is unconditional and irresistible. This is a fair (& popular) interpretation, especially when taken in connection to the Calvinist interpretation of chapter 9. But, the Calvinist view is legitimately challenged by many. The challenge is based on the whole-book context of Romans which repeatedly stresses that salvation is not based on unconditional, predetermined ethnicity nor some other special status but, is based on (the conditional) “whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.” (10:13). Non-Calvinists would interpret these verses as they have with earlier “hardening” and “choosing” texts —that is that God doesn’t prevent individuals from self-hardening; and, He will even use hard hearts for a greater good. Also, we ought to use caution in interpreting these quotes from OT prophetic books, known for hyperbole for dramatic purposes. Additionally, God also “chooses” to save the “inward Jew” / follower of God & Jesus (cf. Jn. 5:39-47 where some Jewish hearers who did not have “the love of God” had hard, “unwilling” hearts—in contrast to other Jewish hearers who did (first disciples)). Interestingly, in 11:9-10, the OT quote (Ps. 69:22-23) is of David—and he’s cursing his own people. This would be consistent with the notion that it seems to be the case that hardening and “stumbl[ing]” were the result of “their transgression” as opposed to a predetermined cause. So, again, mere Jewishness is not a guarantee against falling away or being assured of being predestined for salvation. 11:11-15 As with the “rejection” above (11:1ff.), Dispensationalists understand the “fall” here to also mean not permanently as well. But again, Paul doesn’t say “permanently.” A primary purpose with the falling is that due to Gentiles coming to Jesus that the Jews may become jealous and then change their minds and turn back to God as well. So then, the “fall” of the majority of the Jews in Paul’s day was not necessary (nor providential). 11:14 As an argument against the ideal outcome that every Jew who ever lived would be saved, Paul realistically hopes to “save some of them.”

2

Gentiles were indeed evangelized by the small remnant of Jews initially. But wouldn’t it have been better for the evangelism of the Gentiles if the majority of Jews were the remnant (meaning more evangelists)!? Nevertheless, in the end, God used the minority in spite of the situation. Dispensationalists say these verses are predictive of when the fallen Jews will come back. But note it’s not a clear prediction. Again, Paul is saying that God can use anything for His purposes, even a small remnant. In verse 12, is the last “their” linked to Gentiles (as its antecedent)? It seems so since “Gentiles” is the closest noun to the pronoun “their.” If this is the case, this too runs counter to a prediction of some kind of “fullness of Jews coming in,” as much as we would surely hope for it! 11:16ff. We now encounter Paul’s use of a classic emblem & symbol for Israel: the Olive Tree (cf. Ps. 52:8, Jer. 11:16; Hos. 14:6; Zech. 4). —In Jeremiah 11, the “branches” that were once “beautiful” had become “worthless,” and the Babylonian exile would follow. Here in Romans, “unbelief” results in being “broken off” from true Israel. —The “root” may be God and/or Abraham, Isaac & Jacob…it’s hard to say for sure. But, the point is clear: holiness comes from root—the root ultimately grounded in God! —And now a surprising twist: many Jews are out due to unbelief; Gentiles are in due to belief! —So, “Israel” has been trimmed, added to & thus refigured. In OT times, the majority of Israel were Jews along with some Gentiles. Now, the demographic has been turned on its head. —But, critically, there is still only one “Tree of Israel” (This has led many to conclude that this is clearly not a “replacement” of Israel by the Church—it’s a refiguring of the same one Tree that is synonymous with true Israel, the Church, the people of God (cf. Eph. 2:11-22). Some commentators push back at this view of “Israel” now means “the Church” & vice versa. They argue that although the Church is God’s primary focus at this time in history, He still views Israel as distinct and that He will focus on Israel again, as 11:25 can be seen to teach). 11:19-21 Note the conditional “ifs” to follow. Their presence is used to challenge “OSAS” (“Once Saved Always Saved”) since those who are at one point in time “in” are later “cut off” due to “unbelief.” John 15 uses the same tree (or vine) imagery and seems to teach the same, it is argued. 11:22 “If you continue…[& if you don’t] you will also be cut off” appears to mean to remain in Christ by continuing to believe and trust Him for assurance of salvation and, clearly here applies to both Jew & Gentiles (cf. Rom 8:13; Col. 1:23; Heb 3:6, 14; 2 Tim. 2:12; Rev. 2:7, 3:5). 3 Regardless of whether or not a Christian can lose his/her salvation, the good news is that the condition of non-belief is apparently not unchangeably terminal—repentance is welcomed and possible!! Prodigals can come home! While

3 As

Douglas Moo comments insightfully in his upper-echelon commentary The Epistle to the Romans, p. 707: “Does this then mean that a genuine Christian can lose his faith and thus be eternally condemned? Certainly it is possible to infer this from Paul’s warning. But it is no necessary inference….While the olive tree represents the true, spiritual people of God, those who are said to belong to this tree are not only those who, through their faith, are actually part of the tree but also those who only appear to belong to that tree [In other words, if one looked at all the Jews, it would be hard to fully determine who was in the tree and who was not; appearances could be deceiving]. This is evident from the fact that Paul speaks of unbelieving Jews as having been “cut off” from the tree (v. 17). In reality, these Jews had never been part of the tree at all [due to their apparent lifelong unbelief]; yet to preserve the metaphor he is using, Paul presents them as if they had been. In the same way, then, those Gentiles within the church at Rome—and elsewhere—who appear to be part of God’s people, yet do not continue in faith [or who had never believed], may never have been part of that tree at all.” Everett F. Harrison, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 122 adds: “This should not be understood on an individual basis as though Paul were questioning their personal salvation. The matter in hand is the current Gentile prominence in the church….” (so the focus is on Gentiles as a group and not individuals, just as the Jews were featured as a group when described as “the branches” (vv. 17 & 19)). While surely possible—and we hope the correct interpretation—God saves individuals as opposed to, in an all at once manner, groups. In the end, even Calvinists & Non-Calvinists agree that those who are truly saved are those who “abide” in Christ by faith to the end.

3

some conditions seem virtually impossible to change from our position (Heb. 6:4-6), nothing is impossible with God! (Lk. 1:37). 11:25 Dispensationalists and many others believe that once God had completed His plans of taking the gospel to all Gentiles in the end times that most Jews will embrace Jesus as their Messiah due to, as they see it, the end of the “partial hardening” of their hearts. While all hope this is true(!), it strikes other commentators as untrue. First, they point out that the “hardening” is not explicitly said to end; there’s no mention of “temporary” or “not permanently.” Second, this would be an odd—and even unfair—in the sense that Jews of all other centuries & times who did not live during the final generation would be lost simply for being born at the wrong time (not born in the last generation). 11:26 Again, Calvinists view the “hardening in part” as meaning predestined. Non-Calvinists interpret the phrase to refer to those who refuse to embrace Jesus. Dispensationalists argue that the phrase “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” means that once the time allowed in history by God for Gentiles to be saved ends, then a revival among Jews will ensue. Non-Dispensationalists view “until” not as an end point, but as a point in time in a continuing & ongoing process. 4 For example: (Gen. 8:5) - The water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible. So, then, “until” here does not mark the end of a matter but a point in the process (the water continued to decrease). “All Israel will be saved” (or “thus, in this manner,” not necessarily about when). Most commentators are persuaded that the “all Israel” here refers to an ethnic remnant of Israel within the whole of Israel. A minority think “all Israel” = all in the Olive Tree by faith, regardless of ethnic heritage, as has been the case all along (Israel has never been mono-ethnic, from the “mixed multitude” of the Exodus, Moses’ & Joseph’s non-Hebrew wives, Ruth, & to all who joined Israel by obeying the OT covenants). 11:29 Some, perhaps many, take “irrevocable” to mean God’s promise to ethnic Israel—so again, a future fulfillment is coming! Well, true! But, who are the ones God is “calling”? Again, as 9:24 concurs, the “called” are the “Israel” of faith, regardless of their historical moment or ethnicity. Concerning the gospel, individuals are “enemies” of it due to rejecting it. Regardless of who (Jew or Gentile) was “disobedient” when, all have been and are offered God’s mercy! 11:33-36 These verses serve as a doxology of sorts (as an end of a section that’s been heavy in deep theology and as a lead into the next section that deals with easier to understand & perhaps more practical matters).

4 As

pointed out in the Appendix The Top Three Views on the Question of the Fulfillment of The Promise of Israel’s Salvation, “‘until’ in the Bible does not always mean something has ended; it can also mean until a point in time is reached, with continued actions to follow (e.g., Gen. 8:5, 26:13; Mt. 28:20; Rom. 5:14, 8:22).

4