One of the privileges of seminary thus far has been the opportunity to study biblical Greek for five semesters at DTS-Houston. The course of instruction is very well laid out and takes a student with no knowledge of Greek (like was the case for me) and bring them to the point where they are interacting confidently with the highest levels of academic biblical scholarship and writing their own critical commentary of biblical passages based on exegesis of the Greek text. No small amount of credit is due to the incredibly talented and knowledgable New Testament department faculty at DTS, in particular Drs. Will Johnston and Ben Simpson at the Houston extension. Their instruction and investment in their students has and continues to pay tremendous dividends in the service of God's kingdom through the faithful study, exegesis, exposition, and declaration of God's word by their current and past students and those who have been blessed by the same.
Personally I had no idea just how valuable this process would be for me when I started this process two years ago. It came to something of a head though one evening a couple weeks ago when I was studying Romans 11:30-32 in preparation for writing my final exegetical paper and found myself overwhelmed with the elegance of the text, the beauty of the content, and the wisdom of our great God as reflected in Paul's declaration of His truths. In celebration of the process, what God has done, and what I have learned, I submit after the break the full text of commentary I have written on Romans 11:25-32 with the hope that while it may be intimidating to someone unfamiliar with biblical Greek, nonetheless the glorious truth of God's Word would shine through and encourage the hearts of His people.
(And just by way of a quick note - any errors noted are mine and mine alone, and should bear no reflection on the excellent instruction of Drs. Johnston and Simpson, nor any other members of the DTS faculty!)
Romans 11:25-32
Interpretive
Translation
For
I do not wish for you all to be ignorant of this truth of God I will make known
to you, in order that you would not consider yourselves wise. The truth I
reveal is that a hardening has come in part to Israel until the full number of
Gentiles has come in to salvation in the kingdom of God, at which time the
entire ethnic nation of Israel will be saved. As it is written, “Christ the
Deliverer will come from heaven, and will remove ungodliness from the
descendants of Jacob, and this will be the fulfillment of my covenant with
them, when I take away their sins.” With regards to the gospel Israel became
enemies of God for the sake of you Gentiles, but with regard to election they
are beloved by God because of God’s promises to their forefathers. For the
gracious gifts to and the calling of Israel by God are something he will not
turn back from. For just as you Gentiles were once disobedient, but now have
been shown mercy in the time of Israel’s disobedience, so also now Israel has
been disobedient in the time of you all being shown mercy so that they might
now be shown mercy. For God has confined all, both Jews and Gentiles, to
disobedience in order that he might have mercy on all, both Jews and Gentiles.
Central
Exegetical Idea
God
will one day save Israel as well as Gentiles after their present disobedience
so that his salvation can be attributed only to his mercy and no other grounds
or claim.
Exegetical
Outline
The timing of Israel’s
future salvation (11:25-26a)
-The reason Paul doesn’t want the Gentiles to be
ignorant of the mystery he will reveal is that they would be inclined toward
conceit over the previous news of God’s redemptive plan for them. (11:25a)
-The content of the mystery is the eschatological
relationship of the duration of the hardness of Israel until the completion of inclusion
of Gentiles in salvation. (11:25b)
-The timing of the hardness of Israel and the
salvation of the Gentiles marks the way in which Israel will ultimately one day
be saved (11:26a).
The scriptural assurance of
Israel’s future salvation (11:26b-27)
-The assurance of a future salvation for Israel is
found in Old Testament writings. (11:26b)
-The agent of Israel’s salvation will be a the
Deliverer from Zion (11:26c)
-The means of Israel’s salvation will be the
Deliverer’s removal of sin and ungodliness from Israel in fulfillment of God’s
covenant with Israel. (11:26d-27)
The covenantal assurance of
Israel’s future salvation (11:28-29)
-The reason Israel was hostile to the gospel was so that
the Gentiles might benefit from that hostility by receiving the gospel
themselves. (11:28a)
-Conversely, the reason Israel is loved by God with
regard to election is because of the original choosing of Israel through her forefathers,
a choosing that God will not go back on. (11:28b-29)
God’s mercy in his salvation
of both Jews and Gentiles (11:30-32)
-The reason Jews have been disobedient like the
Gentiles were is so that they may also be shown mercy like the Gentiles have
been shown mercy by God. (11:30-31)
-The reason God has confined all, Jews and Gentiles
alike, to disobedience is so that he may show mercy to all. (11:32)
Commentary
As Paul wraps up his
discussion of the outworking of God’s redemptive plan for Jews and Gentiles in
Romans 9-11 he concludes with one final truth for Israel. This, he says, is the
revealed mystery that “all Israel will be saved,” a point he offers to keep the
Gentiles from growing proud of their own election in Christ. While it keeps
Gentile pride in check, no doubt for the apostle who started the section in
chapter 9 speaking of his unceasing anguish for his kinsmen this truth also
gives hope and joy in the final workings of God’s plan for saving mercy to be
shown to both Gentile and Jew, without distinction, and only on the grounds of
his gracious mercy in the face of Gentile and Jewish disobedience.
The timing of
Israel’s future salvation (11:25-26a)
While most place a paragraph
break between verses 24 and 25 of chapter 11, there is some good reason to
place 11:25-27 together with vv. 23-24, as there is a continuation of thought
between vv. 25ff and Paul’s discussion in vv. 23-24of how the natural branches
(Israel) of the olive tree could be grafted back in just as much as the wild
branches (Gentiles) have been to this point (Schreiner, BECNT:Romans, 611). Certainly as Paul starts
with γάρ, “for,” in 11:25 he is drawing a connection to the immediate context
of the previous two verses. However, overall he is really going back to the
entire argument of vv. 11-24 as he discusses the overall salvation history for
Gentiles and Jews (cf. Cranfield, ICC:Romans,
2.573; Dunn, Romans, WBC 38B, 2.677;
Moo, NICNT:Romans, 714; Schreiner,
BECNT:Romans, 613). Looking forward,
as γάρ is part of the opening phrase Οὐ γὰρ θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν,
ἀδελφοί, “For I
do not wish for you to be ignorant, brothers,” what is to follow is marked off
as something of import for Paul’s audience to grasp. Paul’s expressed desire
that his audience not be ignorant or unknowing of what he is about to discuss,
along with the vocative ἀδελφοί, give indication of the
significance of what will follow (cf. Rom 1:13; 1 Cor 10:1, 12:1; 2 Cor 1:8; 1
Thess 4:13). In this case, what Paul considers important is τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο, “this mystery,” which he will reveal concerning the Gentiles and
Israel. More will be said momentarily concerning the “mystery.”
The reason Paul gives for why
he would not have the Gentiles be ignorant of the about-to-be-revealed mystery
is ἵνα μὴ ἦτε παρ’ ἑαυτοῖς φρόνιμοι, “in order that you all
might not be wise in your own reckoning” (there is credible manuscript evidence
to suggest that παρά is not original, for more on the textual problem see
Appendix A: [παρ’] ἑαυτοῖς φρόνιμοι). In much of the letter so
far, and particularly in the recent context of chapters 9-11, Paul has spoken
of ways that the Gentiles have been welcomed into the household of God while
the Jews/Israel have failed to grasp the plan of God, have failed to follow him
in faith, and have sought their own righteousness through works, all unto their
own detriment (cf. Rom 2:17-24; 3:9; 4:9-12; 9:1-3, 6-8, 27-28, 30-33; 10:1-4,
18-21; 11:7-10, 11-22). When so much has been promised to Israel and made of
how they are the people of God, to see them “cut off” from the olive tree while
Gentiles have been “grafted in” could seem to the Gentiles to be an affirmation
of them and a rejection of Israel in her present state of unbelief. In Paul’s reckoning
there could be in the minds of the Gentiles unwarranted grounds for boasting
and a sense of “we got it correct” as they mistakenly disregard the fact that
it was only for grace that they were grafted into the family of God (cf. Rom
11:18-20).
As Paul makes reference to τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο, “this mystery,” that he is about to reveal to keep Gentile pride in
check, it is important to note that Paul’s use of μυστήριον and what he refers to by it
are different from the common Greek use of the day and preceding time periods,
and likewise is not similar to how 21st century readers might
perceive it either. It does not refer to mystery cults, rites or secrets
reserved only for the initiated, or teachings/ideas associated with Gnosticism.
Neither does it refer to, as the Concise
Oxford English Dictionary defines it, “something that is difficult or
impossible to understand or explain” (Concise
Oxford English Dictionary, “Mystery”). Rather, when Paul speaks of a μυστήριον he
is referring to an eschatological truth concerning Christ and God’s
salvific-redemptive plan that has been previously concealed but is now being
made known to through those who God has chosen to reveal it by (for more on μυστήριον
see Appendix D: Word Study – μυστήριον).
The mystery that Paul will
explain is best seen as three particular parts: i) the hardening that has come
over Israel, ii) the timing of this hardening in relation to Gentile salvation,
and iii) the future salvation of Israel (cf. Moo, NICNT:Romans, 716; Cranfield, ICC:Romans,
2.574). As the hardening of Israel has already been discussed (cf. 11:7) and
the salvation of Israel has been an ongoing eschatological hope of the Jewish
people, at the heart of the mystery is the timing aspect of the salvation, that
is, after the Gentiles have come in to salvation. This temporal aspect is
important for checking Gentile pride, as the time of their inclusion
over/before Israel is temporary, but a point will come at which “all Israel”
will also be saved.
But for now, Paul explains, πώρωσις
ἀπὸ τῷ Ἰσραὴλ γέγονεν, “a hardening has come in part to Israel.” The word πώρωσις,
“hardening,” is found only twice in the rest of the New Testament, in both
cases referring to a hardening of heart (Mk 3:5, Eph 4:18). Paul’s use of the
verbal cognate πωρόω, “I harden,” in 11:7 to speak of how God has
hardened non-elect Israel points to the fact that here also Paul is speaking of
a divine hardening that has happened to Israel. Concerning the extent/nature of
the hardening, there is some discussion over whether ἀπὸ
μέρους applies
to πώρωσις, Ἰσραήλ, or γέγονεν, and whether any significance can be tied to its
attribution. While Dunn argues that ἀπὸ μέρους, based on Paul’s
other uses of the phrase being adverbial, describes πώρωσις and offers that there is
significance that Paul would think of the hardening as partial over Israel
instead of part of Israel being hardened (Dunn, Romans, WBC 38B, 2.679). On the other hand, Moo also sees the
phrase as adverbial, but attributes it to the verb γέγονεν,
that a “hardening
has come in part,” though he offers that regardless of the phrase’s attribution
the meaning is the same, that there is a numerical limitation to the hardening
of Israel (Moo, NICNT:Romans,
717n28). Syntactically attributing ἀπὸ μέρους to γέγονεν makes more sense, and
follows with the context of the passage. That a hardening has in part come over
Israel mirrors 11:1-10, and as Hodge and Mounce suggested, could also refer to the
temporal aspect of the hardening of Israel, that is, that the hardening has a
duration that is not eternal, a point that Paul follows with immediately following
(cf. Hodge, A Commentary on the Epistle
to the Romans, 587-588, Mounce, NAC:Romans,
224). Attributing to ἀπὸ μέρους is not completely inappropriate either though, as
it has a temporal application in its use in Rom 15:24. The use of γέγονεν,
perfect tense of γίνομαι, fits here as an intensive perfect, where
the hardening has come, but the effect persists to the present (cf. Wallace, ExSyn, 574-575).
This
hardening in Israel will continue, ἄχρι οὗ τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν εἰσέλθῃ, “until the fullness of the
Gentiles has come in.” The use of the temporal marker ἄχρι with the aorist subjunctive
verb εἰσέλθῃ gives ἄχρι the force of “until” and εἰσέλθῃ the place of the referent
occasion of this temporal constraint, that is, the hardness of Israel will
persist until τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν has entered in, that is, into salvation/the
kingdom of God (cf. Wallace, ExSyn,
470, Cranfield, ICC:Romans, 575). The
verb εἰσέρχομαι is not one commonly used by Paul but is more often
seen in the Gospels, where it is in many cases used by Jesus in reference to
entering the kingdom of God. Thus it is possible that Paul is here referencing
language of a tradition that predates him to speak of what is happening as the
Gentiles are being saved (Dunn, Romans,
WBC 38B, 680). The fullness of Gentiles,
τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν, is referring to the number of the Gentiles that
will be saved. While often having a qualitative character to it, here it is
most likely taking on a quantitative meaning, referring to a predetermined
number of Gentiles who are elected unto salvation (Moo, NICNT:Romans, 718-719). A possible alternative
explanation, not widely attested to but posited by Cranfield, might be to think
of τὸ πληρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν to mean “the Gentile world as a whole” (Cranfield,
ICC:Romans, 576). This would not be
to assume that all Gentiles would be saved, but drawing on a comparison with
the use of πλήρωμα referring to Israel in 11:12 (in light of πᾶς Ἰσραήλ
in 11:26), such a reading could mesh well with the claim of Jesus that the
gospel would be proclaimed to all the world (with salvation coming to some number,
cf. Rev 7:9) before the end would come (Mt 24:14). As this meaning is not quite
as strongly attested and ultimately has the same implication as the more traditional
understanding of τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν, it is best to simply think of the phrase as
referring to the full number of Gentiles elected unto salvation.
As Paul introduces the third
element of the mystery he is revealing he begins with the phrase καὶ οὕτως,
“and thus.” While there is perhaps a temporal element to this phrase, it is
better to understand this phrase as saying “in this way/manner” rather than
“and then” (cf. Schriener, BECNT:Romans,
620-621; Moo, NICNT:Romans, 719-720).
This connects the following phrase, πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ σωθήσεται, “all Israel will be
saved,” with the preceding verse. The emphasis of καὶ οὕτως is not that all Israel will
be saved, but that this salvation will follow the salvation of the Gentiles.
But the question then stands, who is πᾶς Ἰσραήλ? While it has been posited
that Israel is the elect Jews and Gentiles (essentially “true Israel,” cf. Rom
9:6b), elect Jews, or ethnic Israel, of these three the explanation that
follows best with the context and Paul’s use of “Israel” is to say that ethnic
Israel is being referred to. Of ethnic Israel πᾶς is referring to the
collective whole, and this is at the point in time following the ingathering of
the Gentiles. Thus the whole of ethnic Israel at the time of the fullness of
the Gentiles having come in will be saved (for more on πᾶς Ἰσραἠλ
see Appendix F:
Who is πᾶς Ἰσραήλ?).
The scriptural assurance of
Israel’s future salvation (11:26b-27)
In keeping with his formula of
referencing back to Scripture to support his claims, Paul says this is καθὼς γέγραπται, “as it is written.” What follows is four lines Paul is quoting from
Isaiah – the first three from Isa 59:20-21 and the last line from Isa 27:9.
These lines are almost direct quotes from the LXX, with the notable exception
that in the first line Paul replaces ἕνεκεν Σιών with ἐκ Σιών, “for the sake of Zion”
with “from Zion.” It is not hard to see how Paul makes a connection between
Isaiah and his current line of thinking, as the context of Isa 59 is one where
Israel is trapped in sin and in the midst of that ἥξει ἐκ/ἕνεκεν
Σιὼν ὁ ῥυόμενος,
“a Deliverer will come from/for the sake of Zion” (Paul/Isaiah’s versions
respectively). Yahweh is likely in Isaiah’s mind as the deliverer, but for Paul
the deliverer is likely Christ. While a few different explanations have been
offered for the change made in 59:20 (ἐκ/ἕνεκεν), it was most likely that
the change by Paul was deliberate. While in Isa 59 Zion refers to Israel, in
Paul’s context, as much as has been said about the deliverance from sin that is
offered to Jews and Gentiles alike (particularly Rom 10:12; cf. Rom 2:10;
3:29-30; 4:11-12; 9:24, 30-33; 10:4), there is not an appropriate referent for
Zion, Israel or otherwise, if still preceded by ἕνεκεν,
“for the sake
of.” With ἐκ, Zion could remain ethnic Israel if Paul is speaking of the first
coming of Christ (cf. Lenski, The
Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 729), however, even
then it doesn’t quite follow as Paul’s context is looking forward to a future
event (both σωθήσεται and ἥξει are predictive futures
relative to Paul’s time of writing), most likely the second coming of Christ.
“Zion” likely then is referring to heaven, or the “heavenly Jerusalem,” as
referenced in 1 Thess 1:10 or Heb 12:22 (Cranfield, ICC:Romans, 2.578; Schriener, BECNT:Romans,
619; Moo, BECNT:Romans, 728; Dunn, Romans, WBC 38B, 682). Thus the
Deliverer is Christ at his second coming, Paul’s change from LXX making this
clear within his present context, and removing any idea that any sort of
primacy may later be returned to Israel (cf. Dunn, Romans, WBC 38B, 682).
When this Deliverer comes, ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβ, “he will take away ungodliness from Jacob.” It is
perhaps fitting that Paul’s only other use of ἀσέβεια, “ungodliness,” in Romans
(and one of only three other uses by him total) is Rom 1:18 where it is used to
speak of the ungodliness that is at the core of the sin issue all mankind has
as discussed in Rom 1:18-3:20. This ungodliness that had caused separation will
thus be removed by the Deliverer as mankind, both Gentile and now Jew, are
restored to God. The name Ἰακώβ refers to Jacob, later
renamed by God “Israel,” from whom the nation derives her name and thus in this
context can be thought of as representative – “the descendants of Jacob.” The
final line that Paul quotes from Isa 59:20-21, καὶ αὕτη
αὐτοῖς ἡ παρ’ ἐμοῦ διαθήκη, “and this will be my covenant with them,” has raised the question of
what covenant Paul is meaning for his present context. It is perhaps best
understood in consideration of the final line of Paul’s Old Testament
reference, ὅταν ἀφέλωμαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν, “when I take away their
sins,” a reference to Isa 27:9b (with the minor changes of making “sins” plural
and changing “his” to “their” sins). It is no surprise that Paul would connect
these two passages considering their similar themes and language – Paul
essentially substitutes in Isa 59:21a, καὶ αὕτη αὐτοῖς ἡ παρ’ ἐμοῦ διαθήκη, “and this will be my covenant with them,” for Isa 27:9a, καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν ἡ εὐλογία αὐτοῦ, “and this will be his blessing,” to make the final
phrase “and this will be my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.”
It is possible that Paul has also in mind the language of Jer 31:34 and the
“new” covenant discussed there as God no longer remembers the sins of Israel,
however ultimately this is more of a final fulfillment of the Abrahamic
covenant. As God removes Israel’s ungodliness, he in particular through
Christ’s coming removes the sin of unbelief (cf. 11:23; Schriener, BECNT:Romans, 620) and Israel’s faith then
becomes the grounds for their saving righteousness much as it was for Abraham
(cf. Rom 4:13, 16). In sum, as he makes known that there will come a day when
all Israel will be saved, Paul references passages from Isaiah pointing to the
fact that Israel’s Deliverer, Jesus Christ, will come again, and in this coming
will remove ungodliness and unbelief from Israel as they are saved in the same
manner as their father Abraham was in the covenant that God originally made
with him, the covenant/promise that was and always is received by faith.
The covenantal assurance of
Israel’s future salvation (11:28-29)
As Paul continues after his Old Testament reference
he has a complete break in thought, as indicated by his lack of a connecting
word. Instead, in verse 28 he presents a pair of parallel statements – κατὰ μὲν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐχθροὶ δι’ ὑμᾶς, “with respect to the
gospel, they are enemies for your sake,” and κατὰ δὲ
τὴν ἐκλογήν ἀγαπητοὶ διὰ τοὺς πατέρας, “but with respect to election, they are beloved on
account of the fathers.” The rhetorical force of the structure here should not
be overlooked, and as Dunn points out “precision of form takes precedence over
precision of meaning” (Dunn, Romans,
WBC 38B, 684). This is particularly the case with the prepositions, where διά
specifically is best translated or understood differently in the two phrases.
In both phrases κατά is communicating relationship, and the referent
pulls from the previous verses, as those spoken of in regards to the gospel and
election are Israel.
Israel is, with regards to τὸ εὐαγγέλιον,
“the gospel,” ἐχθροὶ δι’ ὑμᾶς, “enemies for your sake.”
What Paul likely has in mind by εὐαγγέλιον is the content and message
of the gospel as he considers Israel hostile to it for the benefit of the
Gentiles. While Israel in general was certainly not open to the further spread
of the message of the gospel (consider, for example, Paul’s personal experience
with open hostility to his proclamation of the gospel among the Jews, cf. Acts
13:45-46; 21:27-36), in the context of chapters 9-11 the issue has been
Israel’s rejection of the content of the gospel – “seeking to establish their
own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness” (Rom 10:3b, ESV). So with
regards to the content of the gospel they are ἐχθροί, “enemies.” It may be
argued that based on the parallel between the two halves of this verse, since ἀγαπητοί in
the second half is passive, they are “beloved by God,” then Israel in the first
half must be “enemies from God’s perspective” (Cranfield, ICC:Romans, 580; Schriener, BECNT:Romans, 625). And while certainly Israel
has come under a divine hardening, Paul’s use of ἐχθρός is as often as not active
in nature and it is impossible to completely separate out the hostility from
God toward man and a reciprocal hostility between man and God; such is the case
with Israel as pointed out by Paul throughout the letter (Moo, NICNT:Romans, 731; Dunn, Romans, WBC 38B, 685). This state of hostility to the gospel for
Israel is for the benefit of the Gentiles, as it is through Israel’s hardness
that salvation comes to the Gentiles (Rom 11:11b).
But this is only part, the
less weightier one at that, of the equation, for Paul reinforces that “it is
not as though the word of God has failed” (Rom 9:6b) as he begins the other
half with δέ, “but.” But, κατὰ...τὴν ἐκλογὴν, “according to election,” Israel is ἀγαπητοὶ διὰ τοὺς πατέρας, “beloved on account of the fathers.” The fact that Israel is God’s
chosen people has not changed, even as Israel is hardened in unbelief. They are
“the natural branches” of the olive tree, they are the ones to whom “belong the
adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the
promises” (Rom 9:4). Paul stands confident in the faithfulness of God and his
promises and asserts that though the nation of Israel stands presently as
enemies of God, their election is sure as they are loved by God “because of the
fathers.”
This is not to say, though, that Israel’s election
and beloved status are due in any part to any merit or faith on the part of
their forefathers. Rather, as the next verse points out, ἀμεταμέλητα
γὰρ τὰ χαρίσματα καὶ ἡ κλῆσις τοῦ θεοῦ, “for the gifts and the calling of God are
irrevocable” (11:29). The gifts, χαρίσματα, is likely referring back
to those blessings previously enumerated from Rom 9:4 and the calling, ἡ κλῆσις,
is the special calling from God upon Israel to be his particular people
(Cranfield, ICC:Romans, 581;
Schriener, BECNT:Romans, 626).
Neither of these, the gifts nor the calling, are in any part due to anything
meritorious done by the forefathers of Israel, but are from the gracious hand
of God alone. Rather, Paul’s argument stands on the fact that the gifts and the
calling of God, his election and decision to love Israel, essentially
everything that was promised to the patriarchs through the callings and
covenants are ἀμεταμέλητα, “irrevocable.” This word, ἀμεταμέλητα, is only found in the New
Testament in 1 Cor 7:10, where it carries the weight of being “without regret”
(BDAG, 53; for more detail, see Appendix E: Word Study - ἀμεταμέλητος).
It is quite possible that in using this word, one
that he only uses one other place in the New Testament, Paul has in mind Psalm
105 (LXX), a psalm that from v. 6 onward recounts over and over again the sins
of Israel and God’s judgment on them in their disobedience. But, as v. 43
observes that Israel has been brought low or humbled in their lawlessness, God
gives an ear to their entreaty (v. 44) and he ἐμνήσθη
τῆς διαθήκης αὐτοὶ καὶ μετεμελἠθη κατὰ τὸ πλῆθος τοῦ ἐλέους αὐτοῦ, “remembered his covenant and
relented according to the abundance of his mercy” (Ps 105:45, author’s
translation of the LXX). In light of the covenant (διαθήκης) God has with Israel, he
relents, that is, he turns back or changes his course of action (μετεμελήθη),
in his judgment of them in their disobedience and shows them abundant mercy (ἐλέους). Paul
then writes in Rom 11 about the mercy, ἔλεος, that God will show to
Israel one day in spite of their disobedience (11:26, 31), because of the
covenant, διαθήκη (11:27), he has with them. This God does because his
gifts and calling, his covenants and promises to his people, are ἀμεταμέλητος,
where ἀμεταμέλητος is the adjectival opposite of the verb μεταμέλομαι. Psalm 105 speaks of God turning back from his judgment and
showing mercy to Israel on account of his covenants with them; Rom 11 speaks of
God showing mercy on account of his covenants because he won’t turn back on them, they are irrevocable. Paul thus places ἀμεταμέλητα at the
beginning of the statement for maximum emphasis, as this point, much like
everything else Paul has claimed, is undergirded by the faithfulness of God to
his word, his covenants, his chosen people Israel, and the elect (cf.
Cranfield, ICC:Romans, 582; Dunn, Romans, WBC 38B, 686).
God’s mercy in his salvation
of both Jews and Gentiles (11:30-32)
As Paul comes to the end of
his discussion on God’s salvation plan for Jews and Gentiles he will summarize the
plan with two elegantly arranged parallel statements in vv. 30-31 and then a
final closing thought in v. 32. It is impossible to miss how Paul carefully
structures the contents of 11:30-31, and several commentators have endeavored
to lay out different ways of viewing and analyzing the structure, along with
how it is best understood and interpreted (For more on this see Appendix G:
Interpreting the Structure of 11:30-31). More will be said about structural
considerations and some of the debate associated with this, but for starters it
is sufficient to observe that here, much as in v. 28, Paul is as much or
more-so arranging his discourse for rhetorical effect as he is for strict
meaning or argument (Dunn, Romans,
WBC 38B, 687). And while the section begins with γάρ, “for,” in this case it is
best understood within the overall context and based on the content to be
explanatory rather than introducing something which is a continuation of the
argument from the previous sentence (Schriener, BECNT:Romans, 627n6). Here Paul will use ὥσπερ...οὗτως
καί, “just
as...so also” (beginning v. 30 and 31 respectively) as his logical markers to
lay out a comparative summary of what he has been discussing so far in the
chapter, incorporating elements of Gentile/Jewish disobedience, the mercy shown
them by God, and the temporal interrelatedness of their times of disobedience
and mercy. This temporal aspect is communicated through the use of four
temporal markers used in parallel, ποτε/νῦν, “once/now,” in v. 30 and νῦν/νῦν,
“now/immanent now,” that drive forward the chronological aspect of Paul’s
point. All this culminates in his final point in 11:32 that ultimately while
all have been disobedient, God is able in that to then show his great mercy to
all as well.
Paul starts this section still
addressing the Gentile believers in Rome, pointing out first the historical
reality that ὑμεῖς ποτε ἠπειθήσατε τῷ θεῷ, “you [Gentiles] were once
disobedient to God.” But, he contrasts, νῦν δὲ ἠλεήθητε τῇ
τούτων ἀπειθείᾳ,
“but now you have been shown mercy in their [the Jews’] disobedience.” How best
to interpret/translate the dative phrase τῇ τούτων ἀπειθείᾳ has been a point of some
discussion due to its relationship to the parallel dative phrase in v. 31, τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει, “in the mercy shown to you.” It has been regarded as a dative of
instrument/means (Cranfield, Dunn), dative of cause (Moo, Schriener), or
temporal dative (MHT, 3.243), and in a sense none of these three on the surface
are incorrect compared to the interpretations of other things Paul has said
regarding the relationship between Jewish disobedience and the mercy shown by
God to Gentiles. However, for determining which of these three interpretations
Paul likely means in this context, it is perhaps constructive to consider the
rest of his discourse.
Having laid out the Gentile
side of the situation Paul then turns to address the Jewish perspective. So just as the Gentiles were once disobedient
but now have been shown mercy in the Jews’ disobedience, so also οὗτοι νῦν ἠπείθησαν τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει, “these [the Jews] now have been disobedient in the
mercy shown to you.” While a good number of commentators and translations (e.g.
Cranfield, Hodge, KJV, ESV, NASB, etc.) attribute the dative phrase τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει, “in the mercy shown to you,” to the verb ἐλεηθῶσιν, “[they] may [now] be shown
mercy,” in the following ἵνα clause, consideration of the
arguments for such an adjustment to the inherent structure Paul has in place
are not sufficiently compelling to make such a shift in attribution, and as
such it is best taken with the preceding verb ἠπείθησαν
(for a detailed explanation of this see Appendix G: Interpreting the Structure
of 11:30-31).
Just as with τῇ τούτων ἀπειθείᾳ, the type of dative use that τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει is also is debated. Some, such as Cranfield, argue that it in light of
its parallel form to τῇ τούτων ἀπειθείᾳ it should have the same meaning, in
Cranfield’s case as a dative of instrument/means, in which case the only
appropriate attribution it could have would be to the verb of the ἵνα clause
(no where else does Paul make an argument that Gentile salvation is the means
of Jewish disobedience; cf. Cranfield, ICC:Romans,
585). However, much like the situation in 11:28 where form trumped function, so
also here the rhetorical structure that Paul has laid out takes precedence over
trying to impose a parallel meaning on the two phrases (Dunn, Romans, WBC 38B, 687). Others have taken
the dative to be a dative of advantage (Dunn, Moo, Schriener) or of cause (MHT,
3.242). As with τῇ τούτων ἀπειθείᾳ, there is room to argue for either
interpretation of the dative use and not be contrary to what has been
previously presented by Paul (dative of advantage in particular concurs with
the point of 11:12, 15; cf. Moo, NICNT:Romans,
734).
Regarding both of these
parallel dative phrases, τῇ τούτων ἀπειθείᾳ and τῷ ὑμετέρῳ
ἐλέει, it could
be argued though that they both are actually temporal dative phrases, “at the
time of their disobedience/at the time of the mercy shown to you.” There are three
points that can argue for this reading:
i) While not suggested for either phrase by many (if
any?) commentators, reading these phrases as temporal datives, though perhaps
slightly unconventional, is not completely out of the question. The dative of
time is generally found with nouns that communicate a notion of time (Wallace, ExSyn, 155), and though disobedience and
mercy are not inherently temporal nouns, Paul’s use of temporal markers through
vv. 30-31 to mark off the times of disobedience and mercy for Jews and Gentiles
creates an idea that these characteristics (obedience/disobedience) of the two
groups are distinguished as times or seasons. Furthermore, while it could be
argued that the genitive (kind of time) or accusative (extent of time) case
could be better suited to express time here than the dative of time, which marks
a point in time, it doesn’t follow with how Paul is speaking of time in either
of these two senses. Instead, as the dative marks a point of time in contrast
to a different one (Matt 17:23 – τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, “on the third day,” as
opposed to the second or fourth day, or in contrast to “during the third day”
or “for the duration of the third day” for genitive or accusative cases
respectively), it fits to use this case instead of the genitive or accusative
to describe a time of disobedience for the Jews or Gentiles in contrast to a
time of mercy for them or vice versa.
ii) The temporal aspect is the driving concept through
the argument of vv. 30-31. As was already observed, Paul uses temporal markers
throughout vv. 30-31 to mark off different times of disobedience and mercy
(once/now, now/imminent now). As the verbs and dative phrases find their
contexts within these temporal markers, and the markers are used to establish
the contrast that Paul is seeking to emphasize and explain, the discourse is
pushed forward, and reading the dative phrases as also marking time aligns with
and further reinforces this.
iii) Much of the discourse in this section of the
letter is based on the eschatological timing of periods of God’s redemptive
plan. In the immediate context of the end of chapter 11 Paul is explaining to
Gentiles a “mystery” that illuminates why they are being saved while Israel is
seemingly cut off. The major point of this mystery is that while Israel is
hardened, this is only for a season of time, and this hardness will ultimately
pass and ethnic Israel at that time will be saved. This plays right into the
original question posed in chapter 9 concerning what is happening in the
present state where God is graciously saving Gentiles but seems to have possibly
cast off his covenant people. Paul’s answer to the question “Has the word of
God failed?” is to explain what is presently happening, and how this sets up
what is to come, all ultimately pointing to the ultimate purpose of God. The
explanation of everything is a matter of timing, as Paul points out in these
recapping statements of vv. 30-31. Thus, while other suggested dative uses
simply repeat previously stated ideas and explain the inner workings of what is
going on, a temporal meaning better fits the overall point of this section at
the very end of chapter 11 (vv. 30-32), the review of the big picture of what
Paul is communicating/explaining.
Reading the datives as temporal then results in the
following: “For just as you were once disobedient to God but now have been
shown mercy in the time of their disobedience, so also they now have been
disobedient in the time of the mercy shown to you...” This, Paul says, is ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ νῦν ἐλεηθῶσιν, “in order that they may now be shown mercy.” It is perhaps helpful to
regard the dative phrases as almost parenthetical elements marking the present
time and understand what Paul is essentially saying is “Just as Gentiles were
disobedient but now have been shown mercy (at the present time), so also Jews
now have been disobedient [a reference to their hardening] (at the present
time), in order that they may now be shown mercy (in the future, that is, after
the fullness of Gentiles have come in).
All of this points to v. 32, the ultimate
conclusion/explanation that Paul has been working toward through chapters 9
through 11. Seeing this all as the work of God, he writes συνέκλεισεν
γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τοὺς πάντας εἰσ ἀπείθειαν, ἵνα τοὺς πάντας ἐλεήσῃ, “For God has confined all in
disobedience in order that he may have mercy on all.” While some church fathers
like Chrysostom thought that συνέκλεισεν, “confined,” was best
understood as “convicted,” “condemned,” or “showed” (cf. NPNF 1.11, 493-494),
it rather is best regarded as “confined” or “imprisoned” (BDAG, 952). This
confining, effected by God, is εἰς ἀπείθειαν, “to disobedience,” and is
applied to τοὺς πάντας, “all.” God’s purpose in confining all to
disobedience is ultimately so that all may be shown his mercy: ἵνα τοὺς πάντας ἐλεήσῃ, “in order that all might be shown mercy.” Some debate arises
regarding who is referred to by τοὺς πάντας, “all.” While universalists
see this as advocating their view that one day every single person will be
saved, this is a stretch in light of the context of the discussion of Jews and
Gentiles and the fact that this goes against other passages that assert that
not every single person will be saved. Continuing from v. 31 it is possible
that Paul is speaking specifically of Jews as a collective, however given the
summary nature of vv. 30-32 it is a better explanation to see Paul as
describing that all, Jews and Gentiles without distinction, have been confined
to disobedience, so that all, Jews and Gentiles without distinction, can be
shown mercy.
And such is the great wisdom
and ways of God. Has God’s word to Israel, his chosen people failed? Not at
all! Having the law they sought in the law a righteousness from works of the
law, missing the fact that none are justified through works (Rom 3:20). Thus
when their Messiah comes and his gospel is that through faith men are saved,
which was God’s plan and system all along and the basis for his covenant with
Israel in the first place, the Jews were hardened and thereby confined to
disobedience while grace was shown to the Gentiles who previously were without
direct knowledge of God and without hope in their own disobedience. But all is
not lost for Israel, as this actually serves the purposes and plans of God. As
Israel is in disobedience the Gentiles stream into the family of God, grateful
that God has shown them mercy in spite of their ungodliness and his not having
chosen them initially as his people. So now the Jews, being in their own
disobedience despite having been given “the adoption, the glory, the covenants,
the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises” (Rom 9:4), may be shown
mercy by the God whom they spurned in favor of seeking their own righteousness.
The mercy they are shown then is not so much in light of the fact that Israel
was God’s chosen people, but is predicated solely on the grace of God much as
it was when he chose Israel out of all the nations of the earth in the first
place (cf. Deut 7:6-7; God’s choosing of Abraham’s line was equally unmerited
on Abraham’s part as well!). Thus when Gentiles answer for their status as
children of God their only answer is “it’s all by the mercy of God,” and
likewise Israel, disobedient as she was even as God’s chosen people, may also
only answer “it’s all by the mercy of God.” None then stand before God by
anything other than his gracious mercy, claiming nothing for themselves but
rather joining Paul in his closing doxology “from him and through him and to
him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen” (Rom 11:36).
Application:
-Salvation
is a function of God’s will, timing, and mercy. All have been disobedient and
thus it is only by the grace of God that anyone is saved.
-We
can trust the faithfulness of God, as he does not go back on his word or cast
off those to whom he has made a promise or covenant.
-While
God’s plans are not always clearly evident or apparent, they move forward in
accordance with the counsel of his will and are ultimately for his glory and
the good of those who love him.
Appendix A: [παρ’] ἑαυτοῖς φρόνιμοι (11:25)
As Paul addresses the
primarily Gentile audience concerning what Israel’s place is in God’s
redemptive history he (Paul) advises that he does not want them to be “wise in
their own sight.” Manuscripts vary on the exact wording of this phrase, μὴ ἦτε [παρ’] ἑαυτοῖς φρόνιμοι, regarding which preposition Paul originally wrote (this text matches NA28, some manuscripts have ἐν
instead), if he used a preposition at all (some manuscripts lack a preposition
entirely).
In favor of the NA28 reading, with the preposition παρά, are manuscripts À, C, DP, 33, 1881, along with 𝔐. This
gives it decent early attestation (4th/5th century) along
with some distribution among the Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine text
types. In favor of the proposition ἐν are solid sources A and B
along with minuscule 630. This leaves it with little manuscript support, but
what it does have is early (4th/5th century) and good. Manuscripts
lacking the preposition altogether include P46, F, G, Ψ, 6, 1506, 1739, manuscripts differing from the majority of extant samples,
and support from the Vulgate. This gives this variant the earlies of the
various readings (P46 dates to about 200 AD), however aside from that the
other readings are a bit later (9th century and later). The complete
omission also has some coverage across Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine text
types. In sum, for external evidence there is not as much available to suggest
that ἐν was the original reading, while there are a variety of manuscripts
supporting παρά or the omission of a preposition altogether.
Between these two readings the omission, while having the weight of having the
earliest witness, does not have any other early witnesses, while παρά has
several early witnesses attesting to its presence. Overall, external evidence
is hardly conclusive.
As for internal evidence,
there are ways that scribes could have altered the text either intentionally or
accidentally. It is possible that παρά was added to match the form
of Rom 12:16 and Prov 3:7, which is similar in wording, μὴ ἦτε
παρ’ ἑαυτοῖς φρόνιμοι (11:25) vs. μὴ γίνεσθε φρόνιμοι παρ’ ἑαυτοῖς (12:16) and μὴ ἴσθι φρόνιμος παρὰ σεαυτῷ (Prov 3:7). However, while a
scribe could have Rom 12:16 and Prov 3:7 in mind and adds παρά accordingly,
it is also possible and perhaps more likely that Paul, who regularly references
back to the Old Testament and Septuagint in Romans, could have had it in mind
as well as he penned the original. The use of ἐν, the least-attested to
reading, quite possibly came about from scribes changing παρά to what may have seemed to
be a more suitable preposition, though if παρἀ is an early addition to an
otherwise preposition-less statement the addition of παρά is early, possibly earlier
than the earliest available manuscripts that have it. The reading that lacks a
preposition could quite possibly have been the result of a scribe’s accidental
omission that was replicated from manuscripts as early as P46. From a textual standpoint
unfortunately the meanings of the three different readings are not significant
enough to draw any proper conclusions (this is fortunate from the perspective
of wanting to narrow down what Paul is meaning, regardless of the textual variances).
Overall internal evidence does not offer overly conclusive insights as well
into what the original text read.
Both internal and external
evidence together also make it difficult to determine which reading might have
most likely given rise to the others, though of the three ἐν is probably least likely the
original or to give rise to the other readings. If the lack of a preposition is
original then by the 4th or 5th century either both ἐν and παρά are
showing up as additions, or παρά was possibly added earlier
and ἐν was an edit to that addition. If παρά was
original then by the start of the 3rd century it was already being omitted, and
ἐν was a later
change made to the text. Overall, a choice having to be made, it seems slightly
more plausible that παρά was original, however this is barely favored over
the text lacking a preposition.
Appendix
B: [νῦν] ἐλεηθῶσιν (11:31)
As Paul asserts that the
Gentiles were once in disobedience in order to later be shown mercy, so also
Israel is subjected to disobedience so that they also might be shown mercy. In
these verses (30-31) Paul uses several temporal markers (ποτε, νῦν) to denote the chronology
of his statements, however much debate remains over the authenticity of the
last marker, the possible inclusion of νῦν to mark the time when
Israel is shown mercy. Three main readings are present – νῦν (now) ἐλεηθῶσιν (NA28 text), ὕστερον (finally) ἐλεηθῶσιν,
and simply ἐλεηθῶσιν (lacking any sort of marker).
For external evidence the
manuscript witnesses vary between these three options. The least attested to
variant is ὕστερον, which has manuscripts 33, 365, Sahidic texts, and a few
other witnesses. This leaves it without much in the way of primary witnesses and
based on external evidence it would seem unlikely that ὕστερον is original. In favor of no
temporal marker preceding ἐλεηθῶσιν are manuscripts P46, A, D2, F, G, Ψ, 1739,
1881, and the majority of other witnesses, along with some copies of the
Vulgate. This gives it a very early reading (P46 - 200 AD), along with other
early (5th century) witnesses and some decent distribution across
Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine text-types. Manuscripts containing νῦν include
À, B, both the original and a correction to D, and
1506 along with various other manuscripts and Bohairic texts. This gives it
several early witnesses and some distribution across the Alexandrian and
Western text-types, however there is not as much manuscript support as the lack
of a temporal marker has. Thus based on external evidence it would seem more
likely that the original did not contain anything to qualify the timing of ἐλεηθῶσιν.
Regardless of which reading is
original there are plausible ways that errors could have been introduced in the
copying process, both intentionally and unintentionally. Within the context νῦν is a
somewhat difficult reading, which could have led to scribes either removing it
or changing it to ὕστερον (when the first half of the section has
ποτε/νῦν,
“once/now,” it would seem that a single νῦν in the second half would
suffice or perhaps instead have ὕστερον, giving a “now/finally”
reading). In Codex Claromontanus (DP) the text actually originally
had νῦν only to have a first corrector indicate that it should not be there,
but then a second corrector restore the original. Had there been nothing there
a scribe might have noted the strong parallel structure Paul is using appears
but be incomplete between verses 30 and 31 (...ποτε...νῦν,
...νῦν...______).
Recognizing this structure and knowing that Paul regularly arranges passages in
parallel to one another a scribe might assume that either νῦν or ὕστερον was mistakenly left out. It
doesn’t seem as plausible to think that ὕστερον had been original and then
scribes removed it or changed it to νῦν. If anything, the presence of
ὕστερον in some manuscripts probably stands as a stronger indicator that νῦν was
previously in the text and was “corrected” to ὕστερον due to the difficulty it
presented (NET, 2224n7). Between internal and external evidence there is not
much support for ὕστερον being original, however between νῦν and no
temporal marker internal evidence still does not give a clear-cut
determination. Between these two internal evidence points more strongly toward the
originality of νῦν in light of the consistency that it would maintain
between the two parallel statements of vv. 30 and 31.
While it may appear that νῦν creates
a challenge in the text of v. 31, it can also work from the standpoint of what
Paul is seeking to communicate. While scribes might have difficulty with
“once/now,” followed by “now/now,” where it seems like temporal markers are
repeated instead of letting the third one ride through the rest of the phrase
or following “now” with “finally” to maintain the progression, having a second
now, while maintaining the parallel structure Paul is using, also supports the
eschatological point that Paul is making. Paul presents the time of
disobedience of the Jews as a condition for their being shown mercy, such that
they now, in an eminent sense, may be shown mercy (once the fullness of
Gentiles has come in, cf. 11:25). The point still stands without the νῦν, however
the addition of the second temporal marker in v. 31 reinforces and clarifies
this point. Thus it is likely, based on internal evidence and the overall point
that Paul is making in vv. 30-31, that the νῦν is original.
Appendix
C: Structural Layout
25 Οὐ γὰρ θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο,
ἵνα μὴ ἦτε [παρʼ] ἑαυτοῖς φρόνιμοι,
ὅτι πώρωσις ἀπὸ μέρους τῷ Ἰσραὴλ γέγονεν
ἄχρι οὗ τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν εἰσέλθῃ
26 καὶ οὕτως πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ
σωθήσεται,
καθὼς γέγραπται·
ἥξει ἐκ Σιὼν ὁ ῥυόμενος,
ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβ.
27 καὶ αὕτη αὐτοῖς ἡ παρʼ ἐμοῦ διαθήκη, From Isa 59:20-21a
ὅταν ἀφέλωμαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν. From Isa 27:9b; (Jer 31:33-34)
28 κατὰ μὲν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον
ἐχθροὶ διʼ ὑμᾶς, ἐχθροί = Ἰσραήλ, ὑμᾶς =
Gentiles
κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἐκλογὴν
ἀγαπητοὶ διὰ τοὺς πατέρας· ἀγαπητοί
= Ἰσραήλ
29 ἀμεταμέλητα γὰρ
τὰ χαρίσματα καὶ ἡ κλῆσις τοῦ θεοῦ.
30 ὥσπερ γὰρ ὑμεῖς ποτε ἠπειθήσατε τῷ θεῷ, ὑμεῖς =
Gentiles
νῦν δὲ ἠλεήθητε τῇ τούτων ἀπειθείᾳ,
31 οὕτως καὶ οὗτοι νῦν ἠπείθησαν τῷ ὑμετέρῳ
ἐλέει, ὑμετέρῳ = your
= Gentiles
ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ [νῦν] ἐλεηθῶσιν. αὐτοί = they
= Israel
32 συνέκλεισεν γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τοὺς πάντας εἰς ἀπείθειαν,
ἵνα τοὺς πάντας
ἐλεήσῃ.
Appendix
D: Word Study – μυστήριον (11:25)
When Paul says to the
believers in Rome that he does not want them to ignorant of this, μυστήριον,
“mystery” (which he will then go on to explain), to appreciate what Paul means
it is helpful to consider the context from which μυστήριον comes from and how Paul
ultimately uses it when he addresses churches in his epistles. The New
Testament use of μυστήριον is almost entirely limited to Paul (20 of 27 uses),
however its context and connotation prior to the New Testament differs from
Paul’s meaning, as does contemporary understanding of what constitutes a
“mystery” in today’s usage.
Somewhat unsurprising, it is
difficult to trace out a full background of the use of μυστήριον in Greek culture and
society because by its very nature μυστήριον denotes something that is
secret or concealed. In particular its use was closely associated with various
religious cults, where access to tenets, doctrines, and secrets of the cult
were restricted only to those initiated into the group (M-M, 420; TDNT, 4.803-804). Philosophy would later
pick up on the notion of μυστήριον, though its meaning would
shift from referring to the elements of the cult itself to the secrets
contained therein (TDNT, 4.809).
However, even as the use of μυστήριον makes its way into secular
aspects of culture, its predominant use remains in the realm of cultic
religious organization and practice (TDNT,
4.811). It is within this domain that it was also used in connection with
Gnostic practices and teaching, where again elements of their beliefs were kept
secret, concealed to all but those who had been initiated into their order.
Along the way μυστήριον
finds its way into use in the LXX, appearing 25 times, primarily in the inter-testamental
works, but of particular note in Daniel’s writing. While other uses such as in the
Wisdom of Solomon or in Tobit tend to carry a similar meaning to traditional
uses in religious or secular spheres of the day (LEH LXX Lexicon, μυστἠριον),
in Daniel the use of μυστήριον, eight times entirely in the second chapter, take
on a somewhat different tone, namely that of a secret that has an
eschatological element to it. In Dan 2 King Nebuchadnezzar is seeking from the
wise men of Babylon the explanation of a dream that he has received from God.
This dream, referred to by Daniel (in the LXX) as a μυστήριον, is the revelation from God
of what will come in terms of Nebuchadnezzar’s and future kingdoms. Thus in Dan
2 there is found for the first time a notion of μυστήριον having eschatological
implications concerning events ordained by God to be revealed when and through
whom he chooses (TDNT, 4.814-815).
Coming to the New Testament it
is this connotation found in Daniel, that μυστήριον has an eschatological
element to it, that seems to inform Paul’s use of the word (along with John’s 4
uses in Revelation. The synoptic writers each use it once in the same pericope
of the four soils where it carries more of the older sense of something which
is concealed by God to only then be revealed to the disciples). In fact, in
every case where Paul uses μυστήριον there is some sort of
eschatological element to what he is talking about (TDNT, 4.822). In many cases Paul is speaking of a mystery in terms
of the person, work, and future for those in Christ (e.g. 1 Cor 15:51; Eph
3:3-4; Col 1:27, 2:2, 4:3). At other times, like in Rom 11:25, it has a more
general tone, i.e. not specifically about Christ, but still retains an
eschatological element just the same (e.g. Rom 11:25; Eph 5:32; 2 Thes 2:7). In
any case, what μυστήριον is referring to is something previously concealed
by God but now revealed concerning eschatological truths. It is important to
note that while μυστήριον is frequently translated as its cognate “mystery,”
use of μυστήριον is not to imply that something is unknowable or beyond comprehension
(L&N, 1.344).
So in Paul’s use of μυστήριον
to describe what is happening between the Jews and Gentiles in God’s salvation
history is to say that what he is about to speak of is an eschatological truth
previously concealed by God but now being made know to his people through Paul
his messenger.
Appendix
E: Word Study - ἀμεταμέλητος (11:29)
In Rom 11:29 as Paul discusses
how God will still show mercy to the nation of Israel he states that the gifts
and the calling of God are ἀμεταμέλητα, “irrevocable.” This is a
word that Paul only uses here and 2 Cor 7:10, however digging into the
background of the word can nonetheless give a sense of what Paul is trying to
communicate about the heart of God toward Israel. While ἀμεταμἐλητος is not common in either the
New Testament (2x) or the LXX (0x), its opposite, from which it is derived, μεταμέλομαι,
is a little more frequent, occurring 6 times in the New Testament and 10 times
in the LXX. Both also come up in classical Greek usage as well.
In classical Greek μεταμἐλομαι is
perhaps best viewed in contrast with the similar word μετανοέω. While μετανοέω
has to do with a change of heart/mind toward some sort of sin, essentially a
changed view, μεταμέλομαι pertains more with a change of feeling,
particularly toward a feeling of remorse or regret (TDNT, 4.626). Plato and
Aristotle viewed the concept of μεταμέλομαι with disdain due to the
representation of a lack of internal consistency (TDNT, 4.626), and a number of
classical writers, in keeping with how Socrates characterized happiness, ἡδονὴ ἀμεταμέλητος, “a pleasure that leaves no regret,” would also describe pleasure as ἀμεταμέλητος
along with a host of other qualifiers that gave the sense that ἀμεταμέλητος
carried a notion of completeness or wholeness (TLNT, 1.93).
While ἀμεταμέλητος does not occur in the LXX, μεταμέλομαι is
used 10 times. Describing both God and men, its use primarily relates to an
idea of regret, though it also has in a couple cases a notion of a changing of
mind or action as well. Three passages in particular are perhaps instructive in
considering what Paul may have had in mind in his use of ἀμεταμέλητος. First, in 1 Sam 15:35,
after Saul, God’s chosen king over Israel, failed to kill the king of the
Amalekites as God had commanded it states that as Samuel mourned over Saul,
from whom God was going to take the kingdom of Israel, καὶ
κύριος μετεμελήθη ὅτι ἐβασίλευσεν τὸν Σαοὺλ ἐπὶ Ἰσραήλ, “and the Lord regretted
that he had crowned Saul over Israel.” Later, in Psalm 109, a psalm Jesus and
the writer of Hebrews would take to refer to Jesus as the Christ, the psalmist
writes in v. 4, ὤμοσεν κύριος καὶ οὐ μεταμεληθήσεται, “The Lord swore and will
not regret.” Finally and perhaps most pertinently, in Psalm 105, as he writes
about the disobedience of Israel after God brought them out of Egypt and God’s
judgment of them for the same, the psalmist says that as Israel is humbled and
God gives an ear to their entreaty he ἐμνήσθη τῆς διαθήκης αὐτοῦ
καὶ μετεμελἠθη κατὰ τὸ πλῆθος τοῦ ἐλέους αὐτοῦ, “remembered his covenant and relented
according to the abundance of his mercy” (Ps 105:45, author’s translation). While
“relent” perhaps accurately describes what God is doing in light of the
judgment that Israel is subjected to for their disobedience to him, essentially
God turns back from his judgment or changes from his course of action to
another one, namely mercy.
In the New Testament while μεταμέλομαι
occurs only six times, with one use found in the writer of Hebrews’ quote of Ps
109:4. Aside from Paul’s two uses in 2 Cor 7:8, μεταμέλομαι is used in Matt 21:29, 32,
27:3. The first two uses are by Jesus in the context of the parable of the two
sons sent to work the vineyard in contrast to the religious leaders who would
not believe John the Baptist. The son who initially told his father he would
not work in the field μεταμεληθείς, “changed his mind,” and went anyway, however the
religious leaders, though confronted with the way of righteousness found in
John would not do the same. Matthew 27 speaks of Judas’ remorse over having
betrayed Jesus as he turns back to return the 30 pieces of silver he was paid
for the betrayal. In each of these three cases μεταμἐλομαι could be translated as
having changed one’s mind, and in Paul’s two uses in 2 Cor 7:8 a similar notion
can be assigned. However, Paul’s use here, much like Matt 27, gives a greater
sense of the idea of regret with μεταμέλομαι. As Paul reflects on the
initial grief that his first letter caused the church in Corinth, he initially μετεμελόμην,
“did change [his] mind,” or “did regret it,” but upon hearing the repentance
that came from that grief he no longer μεταμέλομαι, “regrets it,” or “changes
[his] mind.” But what is helpful for understanding the contrasted ἀμεταμέλητος
is that Paul uses it two verses later as he talks about the “godly grief”
experienced by the church in Corinth that led to their repentance. This, he
says in 7:10, produces a repentance that εἰς σωτεηρίαν ἀμεταμέλητον ἐργάζεται,
“brings about unto salvation without regret,” or that one wouldn’t change their
mind about.
A number of translations
render ἀμεταμέλητα in Rom 11:29 as “irrevocable,” regarding the gifts
and calling of God for Israel, and that they are. For God will not change his
mind or regret that which he has covenanted and promised to his people.
Appendix
F: Who is πᾶς Ἰσραήλ? (11:26)
As Paul reveals the final
element of the mystery as he states that πᾶς Ἰσραήλ, “all Israel,” will be
saved. This statement has caused much debate among commentators, centering first
and foremost on the question of who is referred to by “Israel.” In general,
there are three main answers that have been given – i) Israel is “spiritual”
Israel, that is, Jews and Gentiles together, ii) Israel is the elect Jews, and
iii) Israel refers to ethnic Israel.
The idea that Paul is
referring to both Jews and Gentiles is one that has had some degree of traction
through the course of Church history. This idea starts by drawing on various
passages that connect believers with language usually used to speak of the nation
of Israel, including believers being the true reflections of what it means to
be Jews, circumcised, and sons or daughters of Abraham (Rom 2:28-29, 4:1-17;
Phil 3:3; Gal 3:6-9, 26-29, 6:16; Schriener, BECNT:Romans, 614). Within the context supporters of this view point to
Rom 9:6b – “For not all who descended from Israel [ethnic] belong to Israel
[elect]” (ESV). Thinking of Israel in this sense referring to “true Israel,” or
all who are elected unto salvation, this provides a frame of reference for then
considering the “remnant” of (ethnic) Israel that is being saved in 11:1-10 and
the “fullness” of Gentiles being saved in 11:25, culminating in 11:26 declaring
then that “all Israel, elect Jews and Gentiles, will be saved.”
The challenge with this view is
that while it is a biblically true concept that ultimately all the elect Jews
and Gentiles will be saved, this may not necessarily be what Paul had in mind.
For starters, it is not a compelling argument to suggest that even though
throughout Rom 9-11 Paul’s use of “Israel” refers to ethnic Israel, in 11:26 it
refers to not only Jews but also Gentiles. Similarly, even if Paul’s two uses
of Israel in 9:6b have different senses, the context of chapter 11
overwhelmingly points to maintaining a distinction between ethnic Israel and
ethnic Gentiles. These ethnic distinctions are brought out in the immediate
context of the surrounding verses (11:25,28), making the argument that Gentiles
are included in 11:26’s “all Israel,” all the more untenable.
Considering though that in Rom
9-11 “Israel” is used to refer to ethnic Israel, particularly in chapter 11,
and this in contrast with Gentiles, the “Israel” that will be saved according
to 11:26 could then be specifically the elect from within ethnic Israel. This
view is quite unlikely though because the fact that Jews who are elect will be
saved is a point that doesn’t really bear making, particularly as a part of a
“mystery” Paul is revealing (cf. Schriener, BECNT:Romans, 616-617; Cranfield, ICC:Romans,
577; Moo, NICNT:Romans, 721-22). If
anything it is redundant, as the point that God has a remnant of Israel who are
elect and will be saved was previously made in 11:1-10.
While neither of the two other
possibilities is necessarily untrue in the overall picture of God’s saving
plan, they are not as reasonable for explaining what Paul means as the third
option to consider, that “all Israel” refers to ethnic Israel (technically
option two is subsumed by this option, but on the surface does not capture the
full weight of what Paul is meaning to convey). In the immediate context and
the context of the rest of the chapter the emphasis is on the different ways
that salvation history is working out for Gentiles and for Jews. This also can
be thought of as the capstone point of the discussion of chapters 9-11, where
the focus throughout has also been on ethnic Israel and ethnic Gentiles, thus
it would follow that if Paul meant something other than ethnic Israel in 11:26
he would have gone to further lengths to clarify that the sense in which he
spoke of Israel was something other than what he has been referring to in the
previous three chapters. Furthermore, as the content of a mystery that Paul is
revealing, there is nothing particularly novel to be revealed in the first two
explanations for “all Israel,” while the idea that ethnic Israel as a whole
would one day be saved is not a fact that is perhaps self-evident, and thus is
open to being made known through revelation.
So as “Israel” refers to
ethnic Israel, the question then stands whether πᾶς is best thought of as “all”
(collective) or “every” (distributive). Will all of the whole nation of Israel
(perhaps with some number of individual exceptions) be saved, or will every
Israelite be saved? While generally when πᾶς occurs without the article
it usually has a distributive sense, this is not followed consistently (cf.
MHT, 3.199-200; Conybeare and Stock, Grammar,
63). Considering again that the context is focused on Gentiles and Jews as a
whole, here πᾶς Ἰσραήλ is also referring to the Jewish people as a whole.
Thus the fullness of the ethnic nation of Israel will be saved, though not
necessarily every single individual Jew.
The third and final question
then is whether πᾶς Ἰσραήλ is referring to the whole nation of ethnic Israel
for all time or for a specific point in time after the fullness of Gentiles has
come into salvation. While it could be argued that Paul’s use of “all” is not
appropriate if he doesn’t mean “for all time,” there aren’t any other uses of
“all Israel” that mean “for all time” instead of at the particular moment (Moo,
NICNT:Romans, 723). Additionally, if
Paul means that all Israelites throughout history are going to be saved, his
attitude in 9:1-3, where he expresses his great anguish and willingness to be
accursed if it meant that his fellow Israelites wouldn’t be, does not align
with this reading. Thus it makes more sense that Paul means that once the
fullness of Gentiles come in, the whole of ethnic Israel, though not
necessarily every individual, alive at that time will be saved.
Appendix
G: Interpreting the Structure of 11:30-31
As Paul gets to the end of his
discourse on the relationship between Jews and Gentiles and their respective
times of disobedience and mercy, he constructs an elaborately and elegantly
arranged set of parallel statements discussing the interrelatedness of the Jews
and Gentiles in God’s plan to show mercy to all in the midst of the
disobedience of all. In trying to come to a satisfactory understanding of how
best to understand and relate the different elements of the two statements,
along with how best to translate them, there has been some disagreement as to
which interpretation is correct. Much of the discussion centers around the
dative phrases τῇ τούτων ἀπειθείᾳ, “their disobedience,” and τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει, “your [received] mercy” (the dative aspect has been intentionally
left un-interpreted/translated), and which verb the latter dative phrase is
associated with.
That Paul is drawing parallels
between his two statements, which serve essentially as two sides of one assertion,
is unmistakable. The challenge comes when considering the syntax and how to regard
the parallels in light of that. Consider two different ways of structuring the
parallel elements:
v.
30 v.
31
ὑμεῖς οὗτοι
ποτε νῦν (1st)
ἠπειθήσατε τῷ θεῷ ἠπείθησαν
νῦν νῦν
(2nd)
ἠλεήθητε ἐλεηθῶσιν
τῇ τούτων ἀπειθείᾳ τῷ
ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει
Cranfield,
ICC:Romans, 582
v.
30 v.
31
ὥσπερ ὅυτως
καί
ὑμεῖς οὗτοι
ποτε νῦν
ἠπειθήσατε τῷ θεῷ ἠπείθησαν
τῷ
ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει
νῦν δέ ἵνα
καί [νῦν]
ἠλεήθητε ἐλεηθῶσιν
τῇ τούτων ἀπειθείᾳ
Μοο,
NICNT:Romans, 733
(modified
to reflect Greek)
Cranfield displays the parallels in such a way as
to have the key parts in v. 30 listed in the order of the text, then matches up
the corresponding elements alongside. As Paul has structured this all the
elements for v. 31 go in the same order as those in v. 30 with the exception of
the dative phrase τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει, which in the text comes immediately behind ἠπείθησαν,
instead of at the end where Cranfield has it listed. Moo, on the other hand
differs primarily in that he has each column preserve the order of the text
while maintaining alignment with the other half’s counterpart (he also looks
more at logical markers than temporal markers).
At
the same time, considering the four verbs and their associated clauses, a
different layout can also be presented:
30 ὥσπερ
γὰρ ὑμεῖς ποτε ἠπειθήσατε τῷ θεῷ
νῦν
δὲ ἠλεήθητε τῇ τούτων ἀπειθείᾳ
31 οὕτως
καὶ οὗτοι νῦν ἠπείθησαν τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει
ἵνα
καὶ αὐτοὶ (νῦν) ἐλεηθῶσιν
Dunn,
Romans, WBC 38B, 687; following
Wilckens’ layout
In
this format the alignment of elements between the clauses is particularly
evident. What also becomes apparent is the internal chiasmus found in the
second and third clauses:
νῦν δὲ ἠλεήθητε
τῇ τούτων ἀπειθείᾳ
οὗτοι
ἠπείθησαν τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει
It is along these lines, the
parallels and the internal chiasmus, that commentators seem to be most split as
it relates to understanding, interpreting, and translating the dative phrases
at the ends of the second and third clauses. On the one hand, the parallel
elements would seem to point to a parallel in understanding meaning,
particularly as it relates to τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει, “your mercy,” and it’s
relationship to ἠπείθησαν and the following ἵνα clause. Cranfield in
particular gives a detailed argument for ascribing an equivalent dative use to τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει as its parallel phrase τῇ τούτων ἀπειθείᾳ in the preceding clause,
and connecting it then to the ἵνα clause that follows. This
way of reckoning τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει is also reflected in many Bible translations,
including the KJV, NIV, ESV, and NASB. On the other hand, commentators such as
Dunn and Moo, considering the internal chiasmus, instead give that structural
form the greater weight, and thus ascribe differing meanings to the use of the
two dative clauses therein, thus associating τῷ ὑμετέρῳ
ἐλέει with the
verb ἠπείθησαν that immediately precedes it.
The argument for taking τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει with the following ἵνα clause has three main
parts: i) parallel elements and structures in v. 30 and v. 31, ii) parallel
meanings for both dative phrases (τῇ τούτων ἀπειθείᾳ/τῷ ὑμετέρῳ
ἐλέει), and
iii) the connection in the concept presented with how the dative is used in v.
11’s clause τῷ αὐτῶν παραπτώματι ἡ σωτερία τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “through/by means of their
trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles” (cf. Cranfield, ICC:Romans, 582-585). For i), considering
the six parallel elements of vv. 30-31, in v. 30 there is an apparent 3-3
structure present. Considering the balance internal to and between v. 30 and v.
31 this 3-3 balance in v. 30 is only maintained if τῷ ὑμετέρῳ
ἐλέει is taken
with ἐλεηθῶσιν, otherwise, when taken with the preceding verb an unbalanced 4-2
structure is established (Cranfield, ICC:Romans,
584). Drawing on this parallelism, ii), a parallel meaning for the dative
phrases is expected to follow. As most consider τῇ
τούτων ἀπειθείᾳ to
be either a causal dative or an instrumental dative (dative of means), to
ascribe a parallel meaning to τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει when taken with οὗτοι νῦν ἠπείθησαν, “they [Jews] are now disobedient because of/by means of the mercy
shown to you,” results in a reading that stretches the claims Paul makes
earlier in chapter 11. Instead, iii), the sense in which the dative is used in
11:11, dative of means, best provides a framework for how to understand the
dative use at the end of v. 30, “but now you have been shown mercy by means of their
disobedience.” This dative use in the parallel phrase τῷ ὑμετέρῳ
ἐλέει best
accords with association with the ἵνα clause, thus being rendered,
“in order that they might receive mercy by means of the mercy shown to you.”
This reading also accords well back with the end of 11:11 and the assertion
that the mercy shown to Gentiles is for the purpose of provoking the Jews to
jealousy so they might also desire and receive mercy.
The other side of the matter
ascribes greater weight to the overall rhetorical and syntactical structure
than any effort to ascribe rigid parallel alignments and meanings to the
elements of the two statements. As the structure is unmistakable but the meaning
is not so, and considering that had Paul desired to be more explicit with what
he meant he would likely forgo the structural arrangement for greater clarity,
precision of meaning is not then imposed on the statements (cf. Dunn, Romans, WBC 38B, 687). Similarly, much
as with διά in 11:28, where the rhetorical structure seems to strain the clear
meaning when the structure is imposed on said meaning, it is best to appreciate
Paul’s structural and syntactical arrangement over trying to work around the
syntax/structure to serve the perceived meaning. Thus it is argued it makes
more sense to go with the reading most in line with the syntactical flow of the
discourse, where τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει is interpreted with the immediately
preceding verb in connection with the parallel clause from the prior statement
instead of the following verb in a separate clause, and understand the meaning
in light of that structure (Moo, NICNT:Romans,
735).
There are a few issues that
are present with the argument to associate τῷ ὑμετέρῳ
ἐλέει with ἐλεηθῶσιν
in the ἵνα clause. The first issue, that the dative phrase could not be connected
to a verb separated by ἵνα, is perhaps easily dismissed in light of passages
where just such a construction is present, such as 2 Cor 2:4; Gal 2:10; Col
4:16, etc. (Cranfield, ICC:Romans,
584). Another issue with the first argument based on the perceived structure is
that it has somewhat self-defeating aspects. The argument essentially starts
with the idea that the structure, particularly the parallel elements in the two
statements, drives the meaning of those elements. However, this application of
meaning then requires discarding other aspects of the structure, in this case syntax,
to then serve the meaning. This conflict comes about due to the emphasis on the
parallel elements over other structural considerations such as the internal
chiasmus between v. 30 and v. 31. That Paul intentionally used the chiastic
form is more readily apparent than the suggestion that he, in spite of that
chiastic arrangement, intended for τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει to also be understood in
relation to the following ἵνα clause. Additionally, while
it is perhaps true that regarding τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει as a dative of means and
pairing it with ἐλεηθῶσιν results in a reading that is sympathetic with Paul’s
point in 11:11, the same could be said of regarding the same phrase as a dative
of agency, connecting it to ἠπείθησαν, and having a reading
(“they now have been disobedient for the sake of the mercy shown to you”) that
aligns well with the point made in 11:12 and 11:15 (Moo, NICNT:Romans, 734).
Overall, as the arguments for
rearranging the interpretation of elements of the clauses in v. 31 over and
against the innate structure for how Paul arranged the sentence, though having
merit, are not truly decisive, it is hardly compelling to interpreting and
reading 11:30-31 in away other than as it is laid out syntactically.
No comments:
Post a Comment