God’s Relation to Israel: Israel’s fall (preaching resource for 8/2/26)
 |
| “Apostle Paul,” by Lievens (PublicDomain via Wikimedia Commons) |
Introduction
Romans chapters 9-11 address relations between Jews and Gentiles, and particularly the position of the Jews with respect to God’s purposes revealed in the gospel. How could God’s chosen people fail to recognize their Messiah? How could their unresponsiveness be reconciled with God's covenant and promises? How did the conversion of the Gentiles, and Paul's unique mission as an apostle to the Gentiles fit in with God's plan? And what was God's future purpose for both Jews and Gentiles? Each chapter handles a different aspect of God's relation to Israel—this post exegetes Chapter 9, which deals with Israel’s fall from the historic (past) perspective of her privileges, and her hardening.
Israel’s privileges
Romans 9:1-5
Paul begins chapter 9 with a forceful affirmation: *I speak the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscious confirms it in the Holy Spirit* (1). What is this truth? It concerns his love for his people Israel who have rejected Christ. They cause him *great sorrow and unceasing anguish of heart* (2). They are his *brothers* of his *own race*—membership of the Christian brotherhood and of God's 'holy nation' does not cancel natural ties of family and nationality. *I could wish*, he continues, *that* for their sake *I myself were cursed (anathema) and cut off from Christ* (3). Though Paul knows that his salvation is secure, this is how much anguish he feels over his unbelieving kinsmen—an anguish that is particularly deep as he considers Israel’s eight unique privileges as God’s chosen nation.
Theirs is…
1. *The adoption of sons*, since God has said 'Israel is my firstborn son' (Ex.4:22) and 'I am Israel's father' (Je.31:9)
2. *The divine glory*, namely the visible splendor of God, which filled first the tabernacle (Ex.29:42), and then the temple (1Ki. 8:10) and which came to be permanently localized in the inner sanctuary (2Sa. 6:2; Heb.9:5)
3. *The covenants*, especially God's foundation covenant with Abraham, but also its multiple renewals and elaborations to Isaac and Jacob, Moses (Ex.24:8) and David (2 Sam.23:5)
4. *The receiving of the law*, the revelation of God's will for Israel spoken by his voice and written with his finger (Deut. 4:7)
5. *The temple worship* comprising all the prescribed regulations for the priesthood and sacrifices
6. *The promises* (4), particularly those relating to the coming of the Messiah as God's prophet, priest and King.
7. *The patriarchs*, not only Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but also the progenitors of the twelve tribes and other great figures such as Moses, Joshua, Samuel and David
8. And above all, *from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ* (5a), literally 'the Christ according to the flesh', whose genealogy Matthew traces back to Abraham, and Luke to Adam. Of this Christ, Paul exclaims that he *is God over all, for ever praised! Amen*. Though some consider this exclamation to be a reference to the Father, Paul certainly considered Jesus, like the Father, to be divine.
Israel’s hardening
Romans 9:6-33
Why did Israel, so highly favored with these eight privileges, not recognize and welcome her Messiah Jesus when he came? And how can these privileges be reconciled with Israel’s 'hardening'? Paul addresses these concerns by asking and answering four questions:
1. Has God's promise failed? (6-13)
It might appear that God's promise to bless Israel had failed. But Israel's failure was her own; it was not due to the failure of God's word (6a). *For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel* (6b). That is, there have always been two Israels: those physically descended from Israel (Jacob) and his spiritual progeny. God's promise was addressed to the latter, who had received it.
He refers to two Old Testament situations to prove his point. The first concerns Abraham's family. Just as not all who are descended from Israel are Israel, so not all who are descended from Abraham are *Abraham's children*--his true offspring. *On the contrary*, as Scripture says, *'it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned'* (7), and not through Abraham's other son Ishmael. *In other words*, who are *God's children*, who can also be designated *Abraham's offspring?* It is not *the natural children*, literally 'the children of the flesh', but *the children of the promise*, who were born as a result of God's promise (8). And this was the wording of the promise: '*At the appointed time I will return, an Sarah will have a son'* (9) (Gen. 18:10, 14).
Paul’s second illustration is Isaac and his two sons Jacob and Esau. God chose Jacob, not Esau to be the recipient of this promises. God's decision had nothing to do with any eligibility in the boys themselves, for there was nothing to distinguish them from one another. They had the same mother (Rebecca), the same father (Isaac) (10), and moreover they were twins. *Yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad*, God had made his decision and revealed it to their mother. This was deliberate, *in order that God's purpose in election* (his eternal purpose which operates according to the principle of election), *might stand* (11). God's choice (election) of Isaac (not Ishmael), and of Jacob (not Esau), did not originate in them or in any *works* they may have done, but in the mind and will of *him who calls* (12a). To clinch his point, Paul quotes two Scriptures referring to Jacob and Esau. The first declares that '*The older will serve the younger*' (12b, Gen. 25:23), putting Jacob above Esau.
2. Is God unjust? (14-18)
Is God’s election of one and his passing over of another a breach of justice? *What then shall we say? Is God unjust?* Paul's immediate retort is *not at all!* (14). He then goes on to explain: *for he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion'* (15). Thus Paul's way of defending God's justice is to proclaim his mercy. It sounds like a complete non sequitur, but it is not. It simply indicates that the question itself is misconceived, because the basis on which God deals savingly with sinners is not according to his justice but according to his mercy. For salvation *does not...depend on man's desire or effort*, that is, on anything we want or strive for, *but on God's mercy* (16).
Having quoted God's word to Moses (15), Paul quotes his word to Pharaoh: *'I raised you up for this very purpose*, that is, 'brought you on the stage of history', *that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth'* (17). Indeed, the refrain in the narrative of Pharaoh and the plagues is 'so that you may know there is no-one like the Lord our God' (Ex. 8:10). Paul sees these divine words to Moses and Pharaoh, both recorded in Exodus, as complementary, and sums them up in verse 18: *Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy* (the message to Moses), *and he hardens whom he wants to harden* (the message to Pharaoh). Neither here nor anywhere else is God said to harden anyone who had not first hardened himself. That Pharaoh hardened his own heart against God and refused to humble himself is made plain in the story (Ex. 4:42ff). So God's hardening of him was a judicial act, abandoning him to his own stubbornness (Ex. 4:21), much as God's wrath against the ungodly is expressed by 'giving them over' to their own depravity (1:24, 26, 28).
So God is not unjust. All human beings are sinful and guilty in God's sight (3:9, 19), so that nobody deserves to be saved. If therefore God hardens some, he is not being unjust, for that is what their sin deserves. If, on the other hand, he has compassion on some, he is not being unjust, for he is dealing with them in mercy. The wonder is not that some are saved and others not, but that anybody is saved at all. For we deserve nothing at God's hand but judgment. If we receive what we deserve (which is judgment), or if we receive what we do not deserve (which is mercy), in neither case is God unjust. If therefore anybody is lost, the blame is theirs, but if anybody is saved, the credit is God's.
3. Why does God still blame us? (19-29)
But if salvation is due entirely to God's will and if we can not resist his will, *one of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?'* (19). In other words, is it fair of God to hold us accountable to him when he makes the decisions? To this question Paul makes three responses, all of which concern who God is:
a. First, *God has the right of a potter over his clay* (20-21)
Paul's first response is to pose three counter questions which all concern our identity. They ask whether we know who we are (*Who are you, O man...?* 20a), what kind of relationship we think exists between us and God, and what attitude to him we consider appropriate to this relationship. Moreover, all three counter-questions emphasize the chasm between all unregenerate human beings and God (20a), between a crafted object and the craftsman (between *what is formed* and *him who formed it*, 20b), and between a *lump of clay* and *the potter* who is shaping it (21). Since this is the relationship between us and God, do we really think it fitting for a human being to *talk back to God* (20a), for an object of art to ask the artist why he has made it as he has (20b), or for a pot to challenge the potter's right to shape the same lump of clay into a pottery for different uses (21)?
In referring to the potter, Paul is alluding to two texts in Isaiah. The first contains God's striking complaint to Israel, 'You turn things upside down.' That is, refusing to allow God to be God, they even attempt to reverse the roles, as if the potter had become the pot and the pot the potter (Is. 29:16). In the second text God pronounces a 'woe' to 'him who quarrels with his Maker', to him who is himself only a potsherd, yet challenges the potter to explain what he is making (Is. 45:9). What is Paul condemning here? He is not wishing to stifle genuine questions. After all, he has been asking and answering questions throughout the chapter and indeed the whole letter. Rather it is the God-defying rebel that Paul is censuring. Paul's emphasis is that just as the potter has the right to shape his clay into vessels for different purposes, so God has the right to deal with fallen humanity according to both his wrath and his mercy, as he has argued in verses 10-18. It is not suggested that God has the right to create sinful beings in order to punish them, but rather that he has the right to deal with sinful beings according to his good pleasure—either to pardon or to punish them.
b. Secondly, *God reveals himself as he is* (22-23)
In considering God’s action with Israel, we must realize that God is always self-consistent and never self-contradictory. Verses 22 and 23, which are parallel to each other, plainly express this truth. The word that is common to both is the verb 'to make known'. Verse 22 speaks of the revelation of God's *wrath* and *power...to the objects of his wrath*, and verse 23 of the revelation of *the riches of his glory...to the objects of his mercy*. The NIV also makes both verses begin with the same rhetorical question (*What if God...? What if he...?*), which in both cases is left unanswered. Their meaning is clear, however. Paul is implying that if God acts in perfect accordance with his wrath and mercy, there can be no possible objection.
Although the structure of the two verses is the same, there are significant differences to be noted. First, God is said to bear *with great patience the objects of his wrath*, instead of visiting it upon evildoers immediately. The implication seems to be that his forbearance in delaying the hour of judgment will not only keep the door of opportunity open longer, but also make the ultimate outpouring of his wrath the more dreadful. Secondly, although Paul describes the objects of God's mercy as those *whom he prepared in advance for glory* (23), he describes the objects of God's wrath simply as *prepared for destruction*, ready and ripe for it, without indicating the agency responsible for this preparation. Certainly God has never 'prepared' anybody for destruction—it is by their own evildoing that they prepare themselves for destruction.
There is a third difference between verses 22 and 23. Although they are complementary, the NIV seems to be right in making verse 23 dependent on verse 22: *What if God, choosing to show his wrath...bore with great patience the objects of his wrath...? What if he did this in order to make the riches of his glory known...?* The double question implies that this is indeed what God did. That is, the revelation of his wrath to the objects of his wrath was with a view to the revelation of his glory to the objects of his mercy. The pre-eminent disclosure will be of the riches of God's glory; and the glory of his grace will shine the more brightly against the somber background of his wrath. 'Glory' is of course shorthand for the final destiny of the redeemed, in which the splendor of God will be shown to and in them, as first they are transformed and then the universe (8:18).
So God's two actions, summed up in verse 18 as 'showing mercy' and 'hardening', have now been traced back to his character. It is because he is who he is that he does what he does. And although this does not solve the ultimate mystery why he prepares some people in advance for glory and allows others to prepare themselves for destruction, yet both are revelations of God , of his patience and wrath in judgment and above all of his glory and mercy in salvation.
c. Thirdly, God *foretold these things in Scripture* (24-29)
Among the objects of God's mercy, Paul now includes *even us*, himself and his readers, *whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles* (24). For God's way of dealing with Jews and Gentiles was another illustration of his 'purpose in election' (11) and had been clearly foretold in Old Testament Scripture. In verses 25-26 Paul quotes two texts from Hosea, to explain God's amazing inclusion of the Gentiles, and then in verses 27-29 two texts from Isaiah, to explain his equally amazing reduction of Jewish inclusion to a remnant.
The background to the Hosea texts was Hosea's marriage to his 'adulterous wife', Gomer, together with their three children whose names symbolized God's judgment on the unfaithful northern kingdom of Israel. He told them to call their second child, a daughter, 'Lo Ruhamah' (not loved') because, he said, 'I will no longer show love to the house of Israel' (Hos.1:6). He then told them to call their third child, a boy, 'Lo-Ammi' ('not my people') because, he added, 'you are not my people, and I am not your God' (Hos.1:9). Yet God went on to promise that he would reverse the situation of rejection implicit in the children's names. These are the texts Paul quotes: (25) '*I will call them "my people" who are not my people; and I will call her "my loved one" who is not my loved one'*, (Hos. 2:23)*, and (26) '*It will happen in the very place where it was said to them, "You are not my people," they will be called "sons of the living God"* (Hos. 1:10).
Paul applies these prophecies to the inclusion of the Gentiles which is a marvelous reversal of fortunes by God's mercy. The outsiders have been welcomed inside, the aliens have become citizens and the strangers are now beloved members of the family.
Next Paul turns to Isaiah and to the exclusion of the Jews, apart from a remnant. The 'sinful nation' has forsaken Yahweh and has been judged through an Assyrian invasion, so that the whole country lies desolate and only a few survivors are left (Is.1:4). God goes on to promise, however, that Assyria will be punished for its arrogance, and that a believing remnant will return to the Lord (Is. 10:12). Indeed, the name of Isaiah's son symbolized this promise, as Shear-Jashub means 'a remnant will return' (Is.7:3) (27). *Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: 'Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved (28). For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality' (Is.10:22) (29). It is just as Isaiah said previously: 'Unless the Lord Almighty had left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorrah.*'
The significance of both texts lies in the contrast they contain between the majority and the minority. In verse 27 (quoting Is. 10:22) it is said that *the number of Israelites* will be *like the sand by the sea*. This was God's promise to Abraham after his surrender of Isaac, although he added the second metaphor, 'as the stars in the sky' (Gen.22:17). But in comparison with the countless number of Israelites, like stars and grains of sand, only a remnant would be saved, the Israel within Israel (6). Similarly, in verse 29, out of the total destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah only a handful was spared, in fact only Lot and his two daughters.
By bringing the Hosea and Isaiah texts together, Paul provides Old Testament warrant for his vision. On the one hand, God has called us, he writes, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles (24). So there is a fundamental Jewish-Gentile solidarity in God's new society. On the other hand, Paul is conscious of the serious imbalance between the size of the Gentile participation and the size of the Jewish participation in the redeemed community. As Hosea prophesied, multitudes of Gentiles, formally disenfranchised, have now been welcomed as the people of God. As Isaiah prophesied, however, the Jewish membership was only a remnant of the nation, so small in fact as to constitute not the inclusion of Israel but its exclusion, not its acceptance but its 'rejection' (11:15). Jesus himself had foretold this situation, when he said: 'I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside...' (Mt.8:11).
4. What then shall we conclude? (30-33)
Paul's fourth and final question, repeated from verse 14, is addressed to himself. In the light of the argument he has been developing, what conclusion would it be legitimate to draw? In particular, faced with the unbelief of the majority of Israel and the minority status of believing Israel, how have these things come about? The situation is completely topsy-turvy. On the one hand, *the Gentiles* (better 'Gentiles' without the definite article), *who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith* (30). To describe pagans as 'not pursuing righteousness' is a major understatement. Most of them are godless and self-centered, going their own way, lovers of themselves, of money and pleasure, rather than lovers of God and of goodness (2 Tim. 3:1). Nevertheless, they obtained what they did not pursue. Indeed, when they heard the gospel of justification by faith, the Holy Spirit worked in them so powerfully that they 'laid hold' of it almost with violence by faith.
*But Israel*, on the other hand, *who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it* (31). Israel was imbued with a religious and moral zeal which some would call fanaticism. Why, then, did they not 'attain' it? The reason is that they were pursuing an impossible goal. Paul anticipates what he will say in the next verse by setting over against the Gentiles' *righteousness* that is by faith what he calls *a law of righteousness*, which must be a reference to the Torah (with its Old Covenant) as a law to be obeyed. Here, then, is Paul's description of the upside-down religious situation of his day. The Jews who pursued righteousness through the Law of Moses never reached it; the Gentiles who did not pursue it laid hold of it apart from the Law through faith.
But why was this so? And with regard to the Jews who did not arrive, *why not*? Significantly, Paul's answer on this occasion makes no reference to God's 'purpose in election' (11), but instead attributes Israel's failure to arrive to her own folly: *because they pursued it not by faith* (which is how the Gentiles laid hold of it, 30) *but as if it were by works*, that is, as if the accumulation of works-righteousness through the Law was God's way of salvation. *So they stumbled over the 'stumbling-stone' (32)*. What Paul means by this is not in doubt, since he uses the same imagery (although a different vocabulary) elsewhere. In particular, he calls the proclamation of Christ crucified 'a stumbling-block to Jews' (1 Cor. 1:23), and refers also to 'the offence of the cross' (Gal.5:11). And why do people stumble over the cross? Because it undermines our self-righteousness. For 'if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing' (Gal.2:21). If we could gain a righteous standing before God by our obedience to his law, why should Christ have bothered to die?
The fact that Christ died for our sins is proof positive that we cannot save ourselves. But to make this humiliating confession is an intolerable offence to our pride. So instead of humbling ourselves, we 'stumble over the stumbling-stone'—a situation which Paul confirms from Scripture, quoting from Isaiah 28:16 and 8:14 *See, I lay in Zion a stone a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes then fall and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame*. God himself has laid down this solid rock or stone and it is, of course, Jesus Christ who applied to himself the prophecy of Psalm 118: 'the stone the builders rejected has become the capstone' (Ps. 118:22; Mk. 12:10). In addition 'no-one can lay any foundation other than one already laid, which is Jesus Christ' (1 Cor. 3:11). So everybody (whether Jew or Gentile) has to decide how to relate to this rock which God has laid down. There are only two possibilities: one is to put our trust in him, to take him as the foundation of our lives and build on him. The other is to resist him, and so to stumble and fall. Sadly, most of Israel, historically, has done the latter.
Summary
We now conclude with a summary of Paul’s argument in this chapter:
1. The reality of both Israel's privilege and her prejudice present a great paradox (1-5). How can her unbelief be explained?
2. It is not because God is unfaithful to his promises, for he has kept his word in relation to the Israel within Israel (6-13).
3. It is not because God is unjust in his 'purpose according to election', for neither his having mercy on some nor his hardening of others is incompatible with his justice (14-18).
4. It is not because God is unfair to blame Israel or hold human beings accountable, for we should not answer him back, and in any case he has acted according to his own character and according to Old Testament prophecy (19-29).
5. It is rather because Israel is proud, pursuing righteousness in the wrong way, by works instead of faith, and so has stumbled over the stumbling-block of the cross (30-33).
Thus this chapter about Israel's unbelief begins with God's purpose of election (6-29) and concludes by attributing Israel's fall to her own pride (30-33). Paul will delve into these matters further in the next two chapters.