~33 min read
Chapter 10
ISRAEL - GOD’S PRESENT BELOVED ENEMY
HILE we have elsewhere considered and upheld the status of the Jewish Christian, that is in terms of his retention of ethnic and national identity, it is also important for us to consider the status of the unbelieving Jew from a Christian perspective. In particular, we raise the questio as to whether the Jew, who does not believe in Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messiah, who i in Christian biblical terms “carnal” and “spiritually uncircumcised” (Rom. 2:25), nevertheless is still recognized by God as a Jew, even if only according to the flesh? We would also press this question further by enquiring as to whether national, unbelieving Israel in this present age is the object of any divine recognition, especially in covenantal terms? In immediately respondin positively to both questions, we would indicate that negative responses pose more than doctrinal difference of opinion. For if today, God has no covenantal interest whatsoever i unbelieving national Israel and the Jews, even in the light of strident opposition to biblic Christianity, then for the Christian this conclusion raises the most profound of ethical considerations. It forces him to reckon with his covenantal repudiation of national Israel and the Jew while at the same time being confronted with Paul’s personal identification with nati Judaism, his passionate pro-Semitism and his model for distinct, loving Jewish evangelism.
Christians are generally agreed that in Romans 11:5 Paul distinguishes the Jewish Christian in terms of being part of “a remnant according to God’s gracious choice” (Rom. 11:5). Even then, some will use the term “Jewish” here at best deferentially while at the same time rejecting any divine ethnic or covenantal meaning with regard to “Jewishness.” Nevertheless, the term “Jewish Christian” stands. But when in Romans 11 Paul writes of “branches broken off . . . the rich root of the olive tree,” and these are clearly unbelieving Jews, then what is their status, if any, in the sight of God? Some would suggest that the only authentic Jew, as part of the remnant in this Christian dispensation, is the Jewish Christian. But if this is so, then what does Paul mean when in Romans 11:18 he exhorts the Gentile Christian, “[D]o not be arrogant toward the branches [broken off],” that is the unbelieving Jews. How could he speak this way if these severe branches had lost all Jewish recognition in the sight of God? Does not the very designation of these “branches broken off” indicate that, for all of their carnality, rebelliousness and unbelief, God still retains a distinctive loving interest in them (Rom. 11:28)?
A. Israel as God’s beloved enemy in Romans 11:28.
For all of the expressed good intentions of those with Reformed and Sovereign Grac convictions, who unwaveringly abide by the unqualified authority of Scripture, it is no always easy, by way of exegesis, to adhere to a confessional standard when one considers the commitment of these same people to a system of biblical truth that is often rigidly tied t a notable historic creedal lineage. Thus when a Christian becomes convinced of this body of Reformed doctrine, that is renowned for adhering to a logical and systematic body of truth, it is inevitable that he will also become immersed in the history of European Christianity, especially during the magisterial sixteenth and on through to the eighteenth century. To be sure, no child of God is immune from pitfalls concerning the logic of his doctrinal system. However belief in biblical Calvinism, euphemistically called the doctrines of grace, although closely rooted in one of the most esteemed expositors of all time, yet also attaches historic and scholastic environment that was and continues to be undergirded by Platonic
W
and Aristotelean thought. Hence there has developed a commitment to systematic Refor theology by many that has tended to assume that this faithful corpus of biblical truth, as interlocking whole, directs us in our exegesis of major texts, with regard to what ever are of doctrine we may study. In other words, the tendency is to assume that the exegesis ha already been masterfully achieved by the Reformed fathers, and thus their eschat equally as dependable as that of the realm of Reformed soteriology.
Thus, on account of the Reformation witnessing a rediscovery of the biblical/Pauline gosp many heirs of this emancipating heritage have tended to assume that the eschatology of era must be an equally authentic recovery according to Scripture. However such a conclusion is fundamentally flawed since the preceding centuries, that upheld replacement/supercessionist, theology with tragic ethical consequences, were follow perpetuity with regard to the same basic Augustinian view of the Church as the supplante of Israel. That is, the traditional conviction of Roman Catholicism, that it became supplanting New Israel, has been perpetuated in the Reformed and Sovereign Gra community, its breach with Rome notwithstanding; there was not biblical recovery according to the first and early second century, but ongoing inheritance that has produce shameful consequences. This is abundantly evident, with some exceptions, in the o exegesis of some more recent commentaries on Romans 11. Certainly John Murray’s brea with Calvin at this point is one of these exceptions. When this writer attended Westminst Theological Seminary in California, he recalls one professor indicating that conside time elapsed between Murray’s release of his two volumes on Romans due to his wrestlin with the exegesis of chapters 9-11 in particular.
1 Nevertheless, in the area of eschatology, by
and large Reformed and Sovereign Grace exegesis has tended to be influenced by systematic theological tradition that must uphold a certain understanding of a pas Scripture, otherwise a crack in the dyke will result in an overwhelming flood of inevitable millennial truth. Dr. S. Lewis Johnson comes to this conclusion in his significant study of Galatians 6:16 when he considers the reasons why those of Reformed conviction strenuously defend their belief that “the Israel of God” is identical with the Christ Church. Refer to Appendix C. With this in mind, we turn to Romans 11:28, another passag which, according to a prima facie assessment, is obviously declaring that God continues have a loving covenant regard for rebellious, alienated national Israel.
- The interpretation of Romans 11:28.
“From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts a calling of God are irrevocable.” Even more literally, we translate: “On the one hand, according to the gospel [tÕ eÙaggšlion, to euangelion], enemies [™cqro…,, echthroi] are for you; on the other hand, according to the election [t¾n ™klog»n, t¯ en eklog¯ en], beloved [¢gaphto…,, agap¯ etoi] they are for the fathers, for irrevocable/not to be regretted, abrogated are the gifts [t¦ car…smata ta charismata] and calling [¹ klÁsij, h ¯ e kl¯esis] of God.” The antithetical parallelism in v. 28 is exact and instructive.
1 Murray’s commentary on Romans 1-8 was published in 1959; his subsequent commentary on Romans 9-1 was published in 1965. While his eventual conclusion anticipated an eschatological “mass” conver Jews being “Israel as a whole,” that is “the theocratic election,” he refrains from using the term “nation” a mention of the territorial implications of his conclusion. Romans, pp. 98, 101.
The interplay that God sovereignly ordains in history between Jew and Gentile, having been finely argued in vs. 11-27, is now brought to a summary conclusion. The absence of a connective with the preceding context only enhances the climactic nature of this truth. Thus the force of argument is climactic here in terms of what precedes. Back of all of Paul’s argument in Romans 11 is God’s “covenant with them [Israel], when I take away their sins,” v. 27, cf. vs. 1, 17, that references the new covenant promise Jeremiah 31:33-34. Here is the fundamental reason as to why “all Israel will be saved,” v. 26, en masse, nationally, eschatologically (Refer to the exegesis of Romans 11 Appendix A). Hence the historic tension between Gentile and Jew will be wondrously resolved in the historic process that God has ordained. On the one hand, according to the present gospel dispensation, “they,” that is the unbelieving Jews, corporate Israel, not the remnant, are “enemies” for the sake of the Gentiles, even the audience in the main that Paul addresses. That is they are “enemies” passively, of God, in parallel with passively being “beloved” of God.
2 On the other hand, from the standpoint of “the
election,” the original, irrevocable choice of national Israel in pure grace according to “forknowledge/ distinguishing forelove,” vs. 1-2 (cf. Ps. 33:11-12; Isa. 41:8-9; 44:1-2; Amos 3:2),
3 “they,” those just designated as “enemies,” hence not the remnant bu
unbelieving national Israel, are at the same time “beloved” on account of the original, irrevocable promise made to “the fathers,” Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
If one is committed to the position that God is no longer covenantally related to national Israel in the present, then how is this verse interpreted? Palmer Robertson, in being aware of the problem here, attempts to identify those “beloved for the sake of the fathers” as being elect Jews, not unbelieving Israel in a national sense.
4 Amillennialist
Lenski is of a similar interpretation, although the overwhelming opinion of most commentators in that, as Barrett concludes, “[t]hey [Israel] are the race [emphas added] whom God elected to be his peculiar people, and their election rests in no way upon their merits or achievements.”
5 Moo also responds,
2 So Cranfield, Morris, Murray, Schreiner, though Moo suggests that both an active and passive sense intended. 3 Here “the election” is descriptive of “they” and thus the nation rather than a reference to the “rem according to God’s gracious choice,” v. 5. So Barrett, Cranfield, Haldane, Hodge, Morris, Murray, Schreiner, contra Lenski. 4 Ibid., p. 190. 5 C. K. Barrett, Romans, p. 225. Likewise, Cranfield, Hodge, Moo, Morris, Murray. Shedd, Schreiner.
On the one hand,
according to the gospel, enemies they [Gentiles] are for you [Jews],
tÕ eÙaggšlion ™cqro…
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
on the other hand, according to the election, beloved they [Jews] are for the fathers;
t¾n ™klog»n ¢gaphto…,
Some think, because of the way that Paul describes election in 9:6b-13—an act by which God brings people into relationship with himself—that Paul must be referring here to the remnant. But a switch in subject in mid-verse, from the Jews who are God’s enemies in th light of the gospel, to Jews who are beloved by God as elect members of the re seems unwarranted.
6
- The eschatological significance of Romans 11:28.
Thus Murray rightly concludes concerning Romans 11:28, “Unfaithful as Israel have been and broken off for that reason, yet God still sustains his peculiar relation of love to them, a relation that will be demonstrated and vindicated in the restoration (vs. 12 15, 26).”
7 Similarly Willem VanGemeren writes: “In the sense of historic and national
continuity, Israel is still the people of God, even in their rejection of Messiah.
8
Likewise David Holwerda declares:
We err if we assume that the significance of the remnant pertains only to the e individuals who constitute the remnant. Paul is not implying that the remnant alo Israel and no one else. If we assume that the people of God in Romans 11:1 is restricted to the elect remnant, we undercut the rest of Paul’s argument. Nowher Romans 11 does the apostle withdraw from unbelieving Jewish Israel the reality of being the people of God or the fact of their election. Instead, Paul points to himself and other Jewish Christians as evidence that God has not withdrawn his grace from Jewish Israel. The remnant is a sign that God is still faithful to his election of Jewish Israel.
9
Now all of these declarations are good as far as they go, even so they do not go very far. Indeed most commentators who agree with Murray, VanGemeren, and Holwerda nevertheless still hold back from expounding upon the ramifications of national Israe being, in the present, a “beloved enemy” in the sight of God. It is as if they sense wh Paul is saying from an exegetical perspective, yet for various presuppositional reason refrain from confessing the outcome of this truth in terms of the course of ch history. That is, while God was graciously dealing with the Gentiles, neverthele unbelieving Jews continued to retain an identity in His sight that in fact the Gentile ha been loathe to confess, but especially in the national and territorial spheres. Again w are faced with this limited, temporal acknowledgment of Jewishness that in fa Jewishness can rightly in no way endure. Granted that there is mystery here, yet for t Christian, who should be a student of history, he cannot easily deny that God continu to evidence a hovering concern over the Hebrew people as a nation concerning whic He is both offended and covenantally gracious. Thus J. C. Ryle explains this inescapable truth as follows.
6 Douglas Moo, Romans, p. 731.
7 Murray, Romans, II, p. 101.
8 Willem VanGemerem, The Progress of Redemption: The Story of Salvation from Creation to the New
Jerusalem, p, 400.
9 David E. Holwerda, Jesus & Israel: One Covenant or Two? p. 164.
I assert then that the Jews are at this moment a peculiar people, and utterly separate from all other people on the face of the earth. They fulfill the prophecy of Hoses: “The children of Israel shall bide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice” (Hos. 3:4). For eighteen hundred years they have been scattered over the globe, without a country, without a government, without a capital city, strangers and aliens everywhere, often fiercely persecuted and vilely treated. Yet to this moment they continue a distinct, isolated and separate nation, far more than any nation on the earth. Now how shall we account for this extraordinary state of things? How shall we explain the unique and peculiar position which the Jewish people occupies in the world? Why is it that, unlike Saxons, and Danes, and Normans, and Flemings, and French, this singular race still floats alone, though broken to pieces like a wreck, on the waters of the globe, amidst its 1500 million inhabitants, and after the lapse of eighteen hundred years is neither destroyed, nor crushed, nor evaporated, nor amalgamated, not lost sight of; but lives to this day as separate and distinct as it was when the arch of Titus was buil Rome? I have not the least idea how questions like these are answered by those who profess to deny the divine authority of Scripture. In all my reading I never met with an honest attempt to answer them from the unhappy camp of unbelievers. In fact it is my firm conviction that among the many difficulties of infidelity there is hardly any one more really insurmountable than the separate continuance of the Jewish nation. It is a burdensome stone which your modern skeptical writers may affect to despise, but cannot lift or remove out of their way. God has many witnesses to the truth of the Bible, if men would only examine them and listen to their evidence. But you may depend on it there is no witness so unanswerable as one who always keeps standing up and living, and moving before the eyes of mankind. That witness is the Jew.
10
Hence in the light of the Paul’s explicit teaching here in Romans 11:28 concerning the present status of unbelieving Israel, a brief confession of Colin Chapman is significant at this point. As the author of Whose Promised Land? which volume, on account of its “replacement theology,” is not appreciated in Jewish Christian circles,
11 he nevertheless
comments:
10 J. C. Ryle, Coming Events And Present Duties, pp. 148-150. 11 David Stern writes: “Let them [Christians] not be taken in by Colin Chapman’s book, Whose Promised Land?, which uses replacement theology as its basis for denying that the Land of Israel is any longer promised by God to the Jews.” Restoring The Jewishness Of The Gospel, p. 40. Chapman denies his subscription to “replacement theology,” explaining that “Gentiles are grafted into Israel (Rom. 11:17-24), which is thereby transformed to become the ‘one new humanity’ (Eph. 2:15).” “Ten questions for a theology of the land,” The Land of Promise, ed. Philip Johnston and Peter Walker, p. 178. Apart from the subtly here whereby Jewishness nevertheless ceases, Stern’s objection is quite valid in the light of Chapman plain statement: “As a Christian, I feel bound to conclude that the promise of the land to Abraham and his descendants ‘a everlasting possession’ does not give the Jews a divine right to possess the land for all time. . . . Could it be that God is challenging the whole Jewish people to think again about their destiny as a people? What is the whole enterprise of settling Jews in the land and setting up a Jewish state doing to the soul of Judaism? Did God really intend that they should be ‘a peculiar people’ for ever and ever?” Whose Promised Land? pp. 226-228. Surely the nuance here is inflammatory!
Unlike some of my Arab and Western Christian friends, I still believe there is something special about the Jewish people. “They are loved on account of the patriarch’s” (R 11:28). But I also believe that the fulfillment of all that was promised to Abraham and his descendants is found in the kingdom of God which came in Jesus .
12
Unfortunately, “something special” is not only left undefined, but also quite inadequa in explaining Paul’s meaning here. This concession is almost grudging since Chapma is quite adamant in his denial of Israel’s national and geographic identity. We grateful for this author’s patronizing honesty at this point in the face of the obvious meaning of such a crucial text of Scripture. Nevertheless, as a whole his boo theologically anti-Semitic.
B. Carnal Israel and the spiritual remnant in God’s dealing with His people in general.
We have already considered the “remnant according to God’s gracious choice” in Roman 11:5 and identified it as those Jewish Christians who are circumcised in both body and so On the other hand we have also seen that the bulk of unbelieving national Israel, althoug carnal in their unbelief, yet according to Romans 11:28 retains national Jewish identity in the sight of God. However, consideration of the historic origins of this truth is necessary with regard to God’s dealings with national Israel in the Old Testament, especially persistent unbelief. The reason for this is that it has sometimes been claimed that the on Jews of the old covenant era were those who were of faith. By extension it is also claimed that in fact unbelieving Jews today, being wholly carnal, are not Jewish in the sight of God in any sense whatsoever.
The doctrine of the remnant in Old Testament Israel has its origin in the idea of somethin left over from a large corporate body, as is suggested in Leviticus 4:27 where, “the L ORD will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations where the Lord drives you.” In this instance Israel as a nation is the remnant. However, th remnant idea also has reference to part of national Israel, that is a relative minority being those who survived judgment and captivity, particularly with reference to the disc mourning, repentant returnees from exile in Babylon (Ezra 9:8, 13-15; Neh. 1:3; Jer. 42:2; 50:19-20; Isa. 10:20-22; 11:11-16). In turn this also anticipates an eschatological remnan with regard to the Diaspora that will be gathered from the four corners of the earth for th Messianic age (Jer. 31:7-8; Mic. 5:7-8; 7:18; Zech. 8:6-12). Hence, in the Old Testament, a a repentant remnant returned to Jerusalem from Babylon that contrasted with the larger of national Israel remaining abroad as the exiled dispersion, so in the present, according Romans 11:5, a remnant, a relatively small number of Jewish Christians, contrasts with th larger part of unbelieving Israel that remains dispersed throughout the world. However th question that must now be asked concerns God’s attitude toward the nation of Israel as a whole during the Babylonian captivity, but particularly with regard to its division accordin to carnal and spiritual lines of demarcation. And the answer that becomes so obviously cl is the fact that while God did distinguish between carnal and spiritual lines of demarcatio He nevertheless regarded even the carnal constituency as retaining national status. Now us consider several Old Testament indications of this truth which is maintained as principle in the New Testament.
12 Colin Chapman, “Ten questions for a theology of the land,” The Land of Promise, ed. Philip Johnston and Peter Walker, p. 178. This book is heavily slanted against any premillennial understanding of Israel and th Jews.
- God’s dealing with carnal Israel in the wilderness and today.
Almost immediately after their redemption from Egypt, the children of Israel repeatedly murmured against God and sinned before they had reached Mt. Sinai (Ex. 15:22-24; 16:1-3; 17:1-3). For this reason the “Law was added because of trangressions” (Gal. 3:19, cf. Jer. 11:7-8). Upon departure from Mt. Sinai the complaining continues (Num. 11:1-12:16) and leads to a point of crisis at Kadesh Barnea. There, as a result of further unbelief and rebellion (Num. 14:1-10), God in His wrath nevertheless heeds the intercession of Moses (Num. 14:11-19) and declares, “I have pardoned them according to your word” (Num. 14:20). However, the resultant discipline is banishment of the original generation from entrance into the Promised Land and consequent wandering in the Sinai wilderness (Num. 14:22-23, 26-37). Even so the “faithful remnant,” namely the households of Joshua and Caleb, as well as the new generation (Num. 14:31), are assured of settlement in Canaan (Num. 14:24, 38). All of this transpired in under two years from the time of Israel’s departure from Egypt. Hence the thirty-eight years that followed saw the nation of Israel wandering in the wilderness, this period commencing with the rebellion of Korah and a resultant plague whereby over 14,700 of God’s people perished (Num. 16:1-50). The actual wilderness wanderings from Kadesh Barnea and eventually back to Kadesh Barnea are briefly recorded in Numbers 15-19. Then Israel proceeded north to the plains of Moab, though murmuring, unbelief, and rebellion continued (Num. 20:1-5; 21:5), especially through the deceitfulness of Balaam that resulted in apostasy and again, judgment by plague with the death of 24,000 of the people of God. This being the case it is hardly possible to say that the new generation was that much better than their fathers. Nevertheless they gained entrance into Promised Land.
Now in this Old Testament setting it is readily obvious that God esteemed Israel after the Spirit and was vexed by Israel after the flesh. We might further say that Israel after the Spirit was the true Israel having circumcision of the heart and of the flesh while Israel after the flesh, having only circumcision of the flesh, was at best carnal Israel. However, it would be totally incorrect to say that Israel after the flesh had no national, indeed territorial, identity in the sight of God. In all of this forty year period there was an overarching national identity on the part of Jehovah which, from the very beginning of Israel’s redemption was based, not upon the Mosaic, but the Abrahamic covenant. To begin with this was clearly established before Moses had even encountered God at the burning bush near Mount Horeb. Then, “God heard their [the children of Israel’s] groaning; and God remembered His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Exod. 2:24). However, once Moses did stand barefooted before God on holy ground, there mention was made to him by Jehovah concerning His covenantal identity through Abraham that Israel, as a people, was to acknowledge (Exod. 3:6, 15-16; 4:5; 6:3). In particular, Moses was instructed to pass on to Israel: “I will be your God; and y shall know that I am the L ORD your God, who brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. I will bring you to the land which I swore to give to you for a possession; I am the L ORD” (Exod. 6:7-8). Even after Israel sinned under the leadership of Aaron by worshipping the golden calf, and Moses’ intercession before God wa accepted, yet we read that “the Lord spoke to Moses, ‘Depart, go up from here, you and the people whom you have brought up from the land of Egypt, to the land which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, ‘To your descendants I will give it’’ (Exod. 33:1). So when Israel was about to cross the Jordan into Canaan, God instructed His people: “It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their [the children of Anak’s] land, but it is becau of the wickedness of these nations that the L ORD your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the L ORD sword to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Know then, it is not because of your righteousness that the L ORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stubborn people” (Deut. 9:
- Significantly, on account of disobedience, Moses also did not inherit the la though upon viewing it from the heights of Mt. Nebo, “the L ORD said to him, ‘This is the land which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, ‘I will give it to your descendants’; I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over (Deut. 34:4). This should be a sufficient indication that those who did not inherit the land ought not be bundled together, in a simplistic sense, as if they represent unbelievers who are wholly carnal.
However, the main point here is that God’s dealing with the nation of Israel merely with the Israel after the Spirit, with the remainder having no identity in the sig of God. Israel after the flesh was still the recipient of God’s covenant interest. Grante it was of this world, so to speak. But this in no way nullifies the fact that G human history had a covenantal interest in the earthly nation of Israel in total, both Spiritual and carnal. So we would conclude that it ought not to surprise us that in this present age, while there is a “[Jewish Christian] remnant according to God’s gracious choice” (Rom. 11:5), this language of necessity demands that there is an unbelieving national Israel that still has God’s offended, yet loving steadfast covenant interest, “f the sake of the fathers” (Rom. 11:28).
In further consideration of the fact that unbelieving national Israel today retains God’ covenantal interest, consider the significant exposition of Dan Gruber with regard to Romans 10:21-11:2.
“
21But as for Israel He [God] says, ‘All the day long I have stretched out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.’
1I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant [seed] of Abraham, of the tribe o Benjamin.
2God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not kno what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God aga Israel?” (Rom. 10:21-11:2). “Israel” in this first verse is physically identified, including the disobedient and obstinate “Israel” in this third verse is also physically identified, including the disobedient and the obstinate, i.e. the un-faithful un-believers. Paul’s identification of himself, in the middle verse, as an Israelite is also an obv physical identification with an “Israel” that includes the disobedient and obstinate. substantiate his claim that he is an Israelite, Paul points out that he is “of the s Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin” (Rom. 11:1). He is referring to his physical descent. For Paul, being “of the tribe of Benjamin” proves that he is an Israelite. This physically identified “Israel” is still; called “His people.” Within “His people,” God has kept for Himself a faithful remnant. The fact that the faithful in Israel are a “remnant of Israel” indicates that there is much more of Israel that is not faithful. Paul makes this quite clear. Otherwise, there could not be a remnant. Had “Israel” signified only the faithful, God’s continual call to Israe throughout the Bible would not have been to repentance, but to perseverance. Paul said, “I could pray that I myself were anathema, separated from Messiah for the sak of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Messiah according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen” (Rom. 9:3-5). It is clear that he is talking about physical, natural Israel. It is impossible to understand his words differently. It is for his unbelieving Jewish brethren that Paul is willing to be anathema. It is from them that Messiah came. It is to them that the adoption, glory, and covenants, etc. belong. It is they who are Israelites.
13
Had “Israel” signified the faithful only, there would have been no need for, and no sense to, Paul’s “unceasing grief and continual sorrow,” nor to his willingness to be accursed for their salvation.
- God’s dealing with carnal Israel in Hosea.
The appropriateness of Hosea for the subject of God’s dealing with Spiritual and carnal Israel is twofold. First, as a prophet to the northern kingdom of Israel, he ministered in times when, although God’s people prospered, yet their religious devotion was at best external (6:4-6; 7:8-10; 8:14; 10:1-2; 12:8; 13:15) and at worst pagan (4:11-14; 6:7-10; 13:1-2). Second, in the light of spiritual declension, indeed spiritual adultery, yet God remained covenantally faithful in being wedded to Israel as a nation (1:10-11; 2:14-23; 3:1-5; 11:8-11; 14:4-8). The prospect was not merely the saving of a remnant fo indeed nowhere in Hosea is a remnant mentioned. Rather it is the nation as a whole that is both an “enemy” of God and “beloved” of God, even as is the case in Romans 11:28. However the triumph of pure grace is such that although God has becom wedded to “an adulterous” people (3:1), and “the sons of Israel will remain for many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar and without ephod or household idols, [yet] afterward the sons of Israel will return and seek the L ORD their God and David their king; and they will come trembling to the Lord and to His goodness in the last days” Hos. 3:4-5). Thus quantitively, the returnees equal the exiles The reason for this illustration of the truth that “all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26) is that, as the prophet concludes concerning the nation as a whole, “I will heal their apostasy, I will love them freely, for My anger has turned away from them” (Ho 14:4).
- God’s dealing with carnal and remnant Israel in Micah.
The appropriateness of Micah for the subject of God’s dealing with Spiritual and carnal Israel is threefold. First, as a prophet primarily ministering to the southern kingdom of Judah, he encountered times that saw the common people harassed by foreign enemies impoverished, and insecure. While the wealthy class and religious establishment fostered carnal security, injustice, and oppression of the poor in particular, at the same time they continued to participate in mere formal religion (2:1-2, 8-9; 3:1-12; 6:6-8, 10-12; 7:1-6). Thus Micah declared that judgment was inevitable (1:5-7; 2:3-5; 6:13-16). Second, in the light of overall spiritual poverty, yet God remained covenanta faithful in view of his inevitable future triumph and redemption through the promised Messiah (5:1-5). Third, unlike Hosea, a distinction is made between a faithful remnant that results from the judgment of captivity (2:12-13; cf. Isa. 10:20-22), and the nation of Israel as a whole that was exiled. Further, in the future, there will be anothe “remnant of Jacob [that] will be among many peoples like dew from the Lord” (5:7-8; cf. Rom. 11:5) having originated from the coming of Messiah (5:1-5). But for the
13 Dan Gruber, The Church and The Jews, pp. 365-366.
present, Micah identifies himself as part of the remnant in his time by means of the confession of sin and the confident assertion, 7But as for me, I will watch expectantly for the L ORD; I will wait for the God of my salvation. My God will hear me. . . .
9I will bear the indignation of the L ORD because I have sinned against Him, until He pleads my case and executes justice for me. H bring me out to the light, and I will see His righteousness (7:7, 9).
Concerning the note of expectation here, Hosea has earlier described the eschatolog hope that anticipates the Messianic age incorporating a regenerate national Is “walking in the name of the L ORD” being headquartered in Jerusalem.
1And it will come about in the last days that the mountain of the house of the L ORD will be established as the chief of the mountains. It will be raised above the hills, an peoples will stream to it.
2Many nations will come and say, “Come and let us go up to the mountain of the L ORD and to the house of the God of Jacob, that He may teach us about His ways and that we may walk in His paths.” For from Zion will go forth the law, even the word of the L ORD from Jerusalem.
3And He will judge between many peoples and render decisions for mighty, distant nations. Then they will hammer their swords plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation will not lift up sword agai nation, and never again will they train for war.
4Each of them will sit under his vine and under his fig tree, with no one to make them afraid, for the mouth of the L ORD of hosts has spoken.
5Though all the peoples walk each in the name of his god, as for us, we will walk in the name of the L ORD our God forever and ever (4:1-5).
This future distinctive glory of national Israel is further expounded at the clos Micah’s prophecy. Here he describes the reversal of circumstances with regard to the Gentiles and God’s children of Jacob. The 16nations will see and be ashamed of all their might. They will put their hand on mouth, their ears will be deaf.
17They will lick the dust like a serpent, like reptiles of the earth. They will come trembling out of their fortresses; to the L ORD our God they will come in dread and they will be afraid before You.
18Who is a God like You, who pardons iniquity and passes over the rebellious act of the remnant of His possession?
14 He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in unchanging love.
19He will again have compassion on us; He will tread our iniquities under foot. Yes, You will cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.
20You will give truth to Jacob and unchanging love to Abraham, which You swore to our forefathers from the days of old (7:16-20).
Clearly national Israel in Micah 4:1-5; 7:14-20 has an identity that is distinct from the nations. It is the people of “Jacob” according to the God’s “unchanging [coven love to Abraham” (7:20). While the Spiritual remnant, that is the exiles who eventual return to Jerusalem, continues as the perpetuated core of the nation, yet God will als continue to acknowledge the carnal remainder that is eventually to be dispers Throughout the centuries subsequent to 70 A.D., there has always been a remnant o the Jews in the Land, notwithstanding Arab dominion. However the dispersion is also described as the remnant (Isa. 11:11; Jer. 23:3). Nevertheless as Scripture abundantl teaches, even the Diaspora is not to be spurned forever (Isa. 11:11; 14:1; Jer. 16:14; 23:3; 24:6-9; Ezek. 37:21, 25; 39:28; Amos 9:14-15; Zech. 10:10). Then, “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will
14 This mention of “the remnant” is most likely illustrative concerning Israel’s past history, that is with refere to God’s incomparable pardoning mercy bestowed in the past upon the exiles who returned from Babylon
mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn” (Zech. 12:10). Then, according to Roman 11:12, 26, the remnant will eventually become part of the “fullness” of Israel when “all Israel will be saved.”
C. Carnal Israel as “Israel after the flesh.”
In Romans 1:3 Jesus Christ is described as being a descendant of David “according to the flesh [kat¦ s£rka, kata sarka]. So in I Corinthians 10:18 NASB, Paul declares, “Look at the nation Israel,” which literally translates, “Look at Israel according to [the] flesh [blšpet tÕn ’Isra¾l kat¦ s£rka, blepete ton Isra¯ el kata sarka].” Here the NASB translation is correct since the secular nation of Israel is designated with regard to its priesthood’s participation in the Mosaic sacrificial system. There is no intended intimation here concerning national Israel’s lack of Spiritual life. However the physical Jewish emblem of circumcision is used in Scripture as a distinguishing feature in the contrasting realms of the flesh and the Spirit. God associated Israel’s unfaithfulness with an “uncircumcised hea (Lev. 26:41). To national Israel circumcised in the flesh, Moses declared:
12Now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require from you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and love Him, and to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. . . .
16So circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer (Deut. 10:12, 16).
Jeremiah similarly exhorted the nation of Judah:
Circumcise yourselves to the Lord and remove the foreskins of your heart, men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, or else My wrath will go forth like fire and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds (Jer . 4:4).
However in all of these instances, there is not the slightest intimation that God ceased to recognize Israel’s national identity, carnality and consequent discipline notwithstanding With this in mind, we consider in some detail Paul’s use of the same dichotomy in Romans 2:25-29.
An observer of Paul’s preceding confrontation with the Jew in Romans 2:17-24 might well ask the question: “How is it possible for the Jew to so shamelessly maintain his proud self-esteem and nationalism in the face of such shameful condemnation by the Gentile?” as in v. 24, “For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” The answer, that really goes without saying, is in a word, “circumcision.” Whereas the current teaching was that, “no person who is circumcised will go down to Gehenna [hell as the lake fire],”
15 so Paul now commences to destroy the religious hypocrite’s last bastion, nam
sacramental/ritual/ covenantal regeneration.
15 Moo, Epistle to the Romans, p. 167; also Hodge, Romans, p. 63.
a. Circumcision is significant, not effecting, Romans 2:25.
- Some background on circumcision. According to Genesis 17:9-14, circumcis was ordained of God as signification of the covenant He had made with Abraham and his seed. For this reason the seed organ was cut. Note that at that same time the name “Abram” meaning “exalted father,” was changed to “Abraham” meaning “father of a multitude” (Gen. 17:5). As a modern conservative Jew puts it, “For Jews circumcision today, as in the past four thousand years, is not a deta of hygiene. It is the old seal of the pledge between Abraham and his Creator, a sign in the flesh, a mark at the source of life.”
16 However, even Jeremiah became
aware that a physically circumcised Hebrew could yet be “uncircumcised o heart” (Jer. 9:25-26).
- Circumcision is “significant,” that is, it is an authentic “sign” when it points to a “practicer of the Law.” But for the lawless, circumcision has no significance and in fact is invalidated; it is not regenerative. Later in 4:9-12, the point will be mad that Abraham was justified through faith, and hence regenerated, before he was circumcised. Therefore Paul is not repudiating circumcision as a sign of national Jewish identity, as 3:1-2 plainly indicates. Rather he is negating a function circumcision that never really existed.
b. Circumcision is significant for the Gentile, Romans 2:26-27.
The implications of this right teaching on circumcision are encouraging for the Gentil Otherwise, he is ipso facto excluded from the favor and grace of God because of an absent physical qualification.
- His obedience is as circumcision, v. 26.
Positing that a Gentile “keeps the righteous requirements of the Law,” thi expression suggests the Mosaic law which an uncircumcised “God-fearer” revere and obeys, such as Cornelius (Acts 10:1-2; cf. 13:26), or a lesser disciple of the God of Israel. How then is he to be regarded? God will reckon circumcision to him, even as any observer ought to do, because God regards the doing o righteousness as the justifying evidence of his sonship. He may not have circumcision of Abraham, but he is nevertheless a child of Abraham because he does “the deeds of Abraham” (John 8:39).
- His obedience shames the transgressor, v. 27.
If a Gentile has a heart for God, a heart that is alive to God, a heart that loves God, a heart that actively pleases God, and thus is circumcised of heart, though he be physically uncircumcised, this man is the judge of the ungodly, circum Jew, since he pronounces shame upon him, he declares his hypocrisy (Matt. 8:5-12, especially vs. 11-12).
16 Herman Wouk, This Is My God, p. 140.
(a) The word “judge” is emphatic here, and it relates to the Jew “having th letter of the Law.” This circumcised religionist has the Bible in his hand and mind, a comprehensive data bank, doctrinal comprehension, but his disgraceful godlessness will ensure severe condemnation by the mere presence of the godly Gentile, without a word being spoken (Phil. 3:2-3).
(b) By way of illustration, in an office situation, the unbaptized member of The Salvation Army who manifests genuine graces of the Spirit will stand out in obvious silent judgment upon the baptized Baptist who manifests the works of the flesh.
c. Circumcision is significant for the real Jew, Romans 2:28-29.
The definition of an authentic Jew, especially for Paul here, is a matter of varyin opinions according to conservative Christians. Some suggest that in this church age, it is the true Christian who is now the real and only spiritual Jew, and that since God has finished forever with Israel as a nation, there is no such thing in His sight as a national Jew. This is not what Paul has in mind here, especially in the light of 3:1-2 (cf.11:1-36; Acts 22:3; Gal. 6:16). A genuine Jew is one who, having been circumcised of the heart, is also circumcised of the flesh, and identifies geographically with those of the s commitment, cf. 9:6. In this respect circumcision has not been abrogated.
- It does not signify a real Jew, v. 28.
A literal translation reads, “For not the one in outward manifestation is a Jew, neither is the one in the outward manifestation of fleshy circumcision.” What is it that essentially identifies a Jew? Negatively, it is not the outward rite of circumcision, even though the rite itself is not nullified (3:1-2; Acts 16:3). At best, circumcision identifies a professing Jew.
- It does signify heart circumcision, v. 29.
The sine qua non of true Jewishness is “heart circumcision” which operation is “by the Spirit,” being more probable than “in the spirit,” though as Morris writes, “either way gives good sense,”
17 (cf. 7:6; II Cor. 3:6-7). In such a case, the true
Jew receives his affirmation of Jewishness from God, which for him is what really matters, and not as was commonly sought in Paul’s time according to “the letter,” the praise of man (John 5:41-44). Above all else, a true Jew has a heart that is made by God, owned of God, and consecrated to God.
17 Morris, Epistle to the Romans, p. 142. “Spirit” is supported by Calvin, Hodge, Moo, Morris, Murray, “spirit” by Haldane, Lloyd-Jones, Shedd.
D. Carnal Israel as a present reality in the personal testimony of Paul.
On several occasions the Apostle Paul declared himself presently to be a Jew. In the temp precincts of Jerusalem, the chained Apostle implored a Roman commander, who h arrested him, that he be allowed to address an enraged Jewish crowd. He argued: “I am a Jew [’Egë e„mi ’Iouda‹oj, Eg¯ o eimi Ioudaios] of Tarsus in Cilicia” (Acts 21:39). His request having been granted, Paul then addressed the crowd in Hebrew, but again declared, “I am Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia” (Acts 22:3). Further, in Romans 11:1 Paul declares that “I am an Israelite,” [™gë ’Israhl…thj e„m…, eg¯ o Isra¯ elit ¯ es eimi]. In all three instances the present tense is significant. Then in Romans 9:3-4 Paul lovingly writes of “my kinsmen according the flesh, who are Israelites [o†tinšj e„sin ’Israhl‹tai, hoitines eisin Isra¯ elitai].” Here again the present tense is used, and concerning this Schreiner comments that “the Jews still ‘a Israelites and that all the blessings named still belong to them.”
18 Hence it is obvious that the
Apostle regards his Jewishness as a present reality, both with regard to himself as a Jewis Christian as well as his unbelieving Jewish brethren. In this acknowledgment that unbelieving Jew has present Jewish validity, Paul clearly associates this, not with m secular convenience, but rather “the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants a the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises” (Rom. 9:4). This is not th language of superceded Judaism.
18 Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, p. 485.