27-Israels final Destiny
Israels final Destiny
There remains but one more section in the doctrinal portion of ‘Romans.’ With this too let us deal and we shall be ended. It is true its teaching has no direct bearing on ‘justification.’ On the other hand, it has very much indeed to do with the general Pauline conception of the will or purpose of God.
We saw in the last section that Israel has been evangelised, but, true to its history, has not heeded nor believed. They are, as Isaiah declared, λαὸς ἀπειθῶν καὶ ἀντιλέγων. ‘Stiffnecked’ is now, as ever, the epithet to describe them. Does then this disregard of God’s great message carry with it the Nation’s rejection? That is the first question we have to ask ourselves.
11:1-6. “I ask then, Can it be God has rejected His people? No, no! Why, I am a son of Israel myself, of Abrahamic descent, of the tribe of Benjamin.1 [Note: Cf. Psalms 94:14 (LXX).] God has not rejected His people, whom He knew of old.2 [Note: Cf. 8:29.] Or, is it that you do not know what the Scripture says, in the story of Elijah, when he pleads with God against Israel; Lord, they have slain Thy prophets and digged down Thine altars, and I only have been left, and they seek my life?3 [Note: 1 Kings 19:10 (rough quotation of LXX).] But what does the solemn answer say to him? I have left for myself seven thousand men, folks that have not bowed the knee to the shameful god.”4 [Note: 1 Kings 19:18 (wide variations from LXX).]
“So, in the present time too, there is a ‘leaving,’ by gracious election. And if it be by grace, then is it not by works; otherwise grace ceases to be itself.” In a definite ‘rejection,’ then, the Apostle will not believe. Holy Writ declares it impossible. Twice over it is said, in Psalm 94 and 1 Samuel 12, that God will not reject His People. In both of these places LXX employs the same verb as here. Moreover, St Paul himself is a son of Israel; and, seeing he is so, the idea of such a ‘rejection’ is to him intensely abhorrent. Does he not belong indeed to the loyal and royal tribe of warlike Benjamin? Here, as in Philippians 3, he plainly lays much stress on this genealogical fact: and surely the tribe of his lineage is a highly appropriate one for this dauntless missionary. The προέγνω, in v. 2, may carry that special sense of ‘know’-‘recognise,’ to wit, almost ‘choose’-that is seen in the Prophet Amos, though there the verb is not compound. Ἐν Ἠλείᾳ means, in the whole section which tells the prophet’s story. There is a Homeric ring about the title. Ἐντυγχάνειν is neutral; the sense of it, hostile or friendly, depends on the preposition, whether ὑπέρ or κατά (in ‘Acts’ once περί), that follows after. Of the two quotations from 1 Kings, the first varies a good deal in the language; the second is widely different from LXX text. That reads, And thou shalt leave behind in Israel seven thousand men, all the knees that have not bent the knee to Baal (τῷ Βάαλ, not τῇ Βάαλ as here), and every mouth that hath not worshipped him. The suggestion in LXX is that these seven thousand only are intended to escape the slaughter to be achieved by the chosen avengers. The Hebrew declares Yet I will leave me. I should gather that the ἐμαυτῷ in our text is distinctly a Pauline addition: yet it has, or seems to have, an important place in the argument, as reinforcing the notion of the ἐκλογὴ χάριτος. However on this we clearly must not lay any undue stress. The τῇ Βάαλ of our text is said to be due to the fact that in the Greek αἰσχύνῃ was substituted for ‘Baal.’ But our LXX text has τῷ. Λεῖμμα is only here-I cannot away with λίμμα-and the spelling of ‘B,’ at least, is not a thing to trouble about. The conclusion we have so far reached is that here is no rejection: the discerning eye only notes the working of that ‘election,’ of which we have spoken before. Verse 6 is one of those ‘appendix-like’ statements of which St Paul is so fond. The οὐκέτι ἐξ ἔργων, one would say, applies far more definitely to the ἐκλογή that is now than to that which we may find in 1 Kings 19. For there the ‘seven thousand’ were left behind precisely for this, that they had not been false to their God or forsaken Him for Baal. However, the κατʼ ἐκλογὴν χάριτος may only belong to the ‘now’ and not to the ‘then’ at all. The resemblance may lie merely in the smallness of the number of the ‘faithful’ who are ‘left.’
We proceed to apply the analogy afforded by the O.T. ‘remnant’ to the conditions now obtaining with regard to Israel and the new Revelation 11:7-8. “How then? What Israel seeks after, that they did not attain.1 [Note: Cf. 10:2.] It was the elect attained it; the rest were hardened (In heart), as it says in Holy Writ, God has given them a spirit of confusion; eyes that cannot see, and ears that cannot hear, until this very day.” The ἐκλογή means the body of people ‘elected.’ The scripture referred to in v. 8 appears to be a blend of several passages. In Deuteronomy 29:4 there is something like it. And the Lord our God hath not given you an heart to understand and eyes to see and ears to hear until this day.
Here however is no mention of the πνεῦμα κατανύξεως. That is derived from Isaiah 29:10, For the Lord hath made you drunk (?) with the spirit of κατάνυξις (in our English, the spirit of deep slumber); and Psalms 60:3, ‘thou hast made us drink the wine of κατάνυξις’ (in the English, wine of staggering or astonishment). There seems to be a possibility that κατάνυξις was confused with the verb κατανυστάζειν. Its own peculiar verb is only found in the passive in LXX. It seems to mean ‘be paralysed.’ in Acts 2:37 “were pricked to the heart” is clearly wrong. It obviously means “were astounded.” Ὀψθαλμοὺς τοῦ μὴ βλέπειν means, I think, “eyes of not seeing.” it may, of course, be the common infinitive of purpose with τοῦ. Our Lord Himself quoted Isaiah (6:9, 10) to the same general effect as the ‘conflate’ quotation here. The citation from ‘David’ which follows appears to centre round one special phrase, ‘Let their eyes be darkened.’
11:9, 10. “And David says, Let their table become a snare and a θήρα and a trap and a recompense for them.1 [Note: Psalms 69:23-24 (exact LXX).] Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see; and their back bow thou down continually.”
Originally it is spoken of the enemies of God’s servant. Spiritual blindness is the penalty which invariably waits upon the unfaithful heart. At the opening of the chapter the question was “Has God rejected His people?” The answer to that was No, only the unfaithful. All the time there has been a ‘remnant,’ and a ‘remnant’ there still is. This ‘remnant’ is the ‘election.’ The rest have been punished with blindness.
Now another question is asked which is closely akin. If they have fallen, as they have, is it with a fall irreparable? To this again the answer ‘yes’ is as impossible as to the other. After all, they are God’s people. Moreover, behind their ‘fall’ can be seen a gracious Purpose. Their calamity has been the Gentiles’ opportunity.
11:11. “Again, can it be they have stumbled to their fall? Oh, surely not! Rather by their stumbling has come salvation for the Gentiles-with the result of arousing them to jealousy.”1 [Note: Cf. 10:19.]
If the ἵνα, in ἵνα πέσωσι, expresses a purpose, it ought to be the purpose of the subject of ἔπταισαν. We shall do well, then, to regard it as ‘result’-call it ‘ecbatic’ if you like-and not confuse our minds with the thought that a ‘purpose’ lurks behind everything that is. Παράπτωμα plainly is correlative to ἔπταισαν, whereas πτῶμα would answer to πεσεῖν. That is, παράπτωμα signifies something less than a fatal ‘fall.’ Though the syntax of the verse is obscure, the meaning is plain enough. The subject of παραζηλῶσαι one would apprehend to be the σωτηρία of the Gentiles. The next verse is rendered difficult by questions of vocabulary. Ἤττημα is not easy, but πλήρωμα is bewildering. The perplexity culminates in this; are ἤττημα and πλήρωμα balancing terms? Is ἥττημα, that is to say, “shortage,” and πλήρωμα the antithesis of “shortage”-whatever that may be? Or, does ἥττημα simply mean “failure” (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:7, which is not exactly parallel), and is πλήρωμα itself entirely independent of it? Ἥττημα may be in line with παράπτωμα or with πλήρωμα. But who shall decide with which? For myself, I am inclined to the latter alternative.
11:12. “If the stumbling of Israel be the great gain of the world, and if the Gentiles are enriched because Israel fell short; how much grander shall it be when their numbers are full!”
Πλήρωμα means ‘completion,’ the ‘completion’ of a definite number. In this sense we could have it in the plural; it belongs to the form of the word to be susceptible of that. In the Gospels each basket has its separate πλήρωμα. But we have no English word that I know of to represent it adequately. Nor have we for this πλήρωμα. Our rendering will be at best but a bungled matter.
11:13, 14. “It is to you, Gentiles, I am speaking. So far as I am, I say, Apostle of the Gentiles, I make the most of my ministry. In the hope I may rouse to jealousy my own flesh and blood, and may save some of them.”
If any passage in the Epistle be decisive for a Gentile preponderance in the Church at Rome, it would be this; ὑμῖν … τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. I do not think the μὲν οὖν is ‘corrective.’ St Paul is not only a missionary to the Gentiles but to Israel as well. The μέν regards that. The οὖν is, I think, of the resumptive type. A ‘ministry’ δοξάζεται, not when one exalts its dignity and importance, but when one makes the most of it. It is not before the world the office is made much of, but in the speaker’s mind. He sets store by it; he works at it; he gives himself to it: but all the while he knows in so doing he is not untrue to his nation. It will all tend to hasten on the glorious consummation for which he yearns. Israel was set aside for a time; and the Gentiles gained greatly by it: some day he will be taken back-clasped to God’s heart-and what will that imply? Here once more the vocabulary is fruitful in questionings. Obviously ἀποβολή is not ἄπωσις-for that idea we have definitely set aside. In Acts 27:22 it merely means ‘loss.’ The verb means to ‘throw aside’ (of a cloak), and to ‘lay aside’ (of a quality, παρρησία). The vulgate says amissio, which possibly signifies ‘loss.’ Both ἀποβολή and πρόσληψις are from the point of view of God. Ζωὴ ἐκ νεκρῶν again, is a highly doubtful phrase. I should say it must be figurative. After all, the Gentiles’ salvation in no way depends upon Israel: but it will be inconceivably enhanced and glorified by Israel’s restoration.
Therefore I would paraphrase:
11:15. “For if the loss of them meant the world’s reconciliation; what shall their taking home be, but a very resurrection?” At this point, mentally, we must make a little Insertion. It would run somehow like this, ‘When all is said and done, it is they that are the ἀπαρχή, which consecrates all the ψύραμα; it is they who are the “root” from which the branches spring.’ Otherwise, we can only appreciate the new thought of the writer by a very forced translation.
11:16. “It is, if the ‘first fruit’ (of the dough) be holy, that the whole baking is holy too; it is, if the root be holy, the branches are holy too.”
And, even then, we should have to add; ‘And mind, you are but of the ψύραμα; you are but among the branches.’
There follows the well-known image of the ‘wild olive’ graft upon the fruitful tree, a proceeding, as S. observes, in itself entirely non-natural. So strongly is the Apostle convinced of Israel’s priority in the matter of God’s favour.
Ἀγριελαιος and καλλιελαιος are Aristotelian terms. Ἐκκλάειν simply means to ‘break,’ or ‘tear,’ off.
11:17-24. “If some of the branches were broken off, and you being but wild olive were engrafted among the branches, and became with them a sharer in the stock, the source of the olive’s richness, then glory not over the (rejected) branches. If you do, remember this; it is not you who bear the stock, but the stock that bears you. You will say, The branches were broken off that I might be grafted in. True. They were broken off because they disbelieved; while you-you stand by faith. My friend, be not highminded, but fear. If God did not spare the natural branches. He will not spare you either. Mark, then, in God both kindliness and severity. On them that fell is severity; on you is kindliness-provided you cling to that kindliness. Otherwise, you too will be sacrificed. And they, too, if they do not stay on in unbelief, will be engrafted; for God is able to engraft them once again. For if you were cut off from the naturally wild olive, and were set as a graft in the fruitful, how much more shall these, which are naturally part and parcel of the olive, be engrafted in their own tree?”
Apart from the curiousness of the whole image, the verses explain themselves. Olives grow to a fabulous age, and grafting, it would seem, is essential to their fertility; though nobody grafts, of course, a good tree from a wild one. Ἐκκλάειν is not technical. The ἐν αὐτοῖς is curious: it means the branches left, not the branches that are broken off. Ῥίζα is more than ‘root.’ Καλῶς recognises the truth of what the Gentiles urge. Τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ and τῇ πίστει are slightly varying datives. The first is plainly of ‘cause,’ the latter is nearer ‘manner.’ The πεσόντας in v. 22 is odd, because it is the very word deliberately discarded just above. Ἐπιμείνῃς τῇ χρηστότητι is, as we see from the phrase below, for all intents equivalent to ἐπιμείνῃς τῇ πίστει. One ‘stays on’ in God’s kindness by persistent exercise of faith. The ἐκκόπτειν’s, of v. 22 and v. 24, are different. For the former we should have expected ἐκκλάειν to be used. In the one case it is a process of ‘unkindness’; and in the other of ‘kindness.’ In the παρὰ ψύσιν of v. 24 is the kernel of the whole figure.
11:25-29. “For I would have you know, my brothers, this solemn truth, that you may not think yourselves wise. A partial hardening has befallen Israel, till the full number of the Gentiles shall have entered (into the Kingdom). And, when that has befallen, all Israel shall be saved. As Holy Scripture says; There shall come from Sion the deliverer, and shall turn away from Jacob impieties. For this shall be with them my Covenant, in the day when I shall take away their sins.”1 [Note: Cf. St Luke 21:24.]
“So far as the Gospel goes, they are (God’s) enemies for your sake: but in regard to the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”
There can be no question that, for Gentile believers, there is a prodigious temptation to look on themselves as ψρόνιμοι (cf. St Matthew 25:2) in contrast to Israel’s foolishness. Only, consideration forbids it. There is a μυστήριον involved; and μνστήριον, in this place, comes very near the sense with which we use ‘mystery.’ It is a truth a man could never possibly know save by revelation. The πλήρωμα of the Gentiles’ would seem to imply that, in the writer’s thought, there is a definite number of Gentiles awaiting salvation-a number only known to the mind of the Most High. When that number is achieved (οὕτω), there will be ‘saving’ for πᾶς Ἰσραήλ. The latter phrase is rightly interpreted, “Israel, as a whole.” In the quotation, which is a free one, there is an amazing variety of reading. St Paul says ἐκ; the LXX ἔνεκεν; the Hebrew ‘to.’ All, obviously, make good sense, but the divergence is very startling. The LXX text of Isaiah (59:20) says, And there shall come for Sion’s sake the deliverer, And shall turn away impieties from Jacob, and this is for them my Covenant.… The clause “When I shall take away …” is borrowed from Isaiah 27. There it reads “his sin.” The fidelity of God to His promises is a commonplace in O.T. In vv. 30 and 31, though ἀπειθεῖν must be rendered ‘disobey,’ yet the sense of ‘disbelief,’ ‘unfaith’ is not far in the background. The datives in v. 31 are a well-known difficulty.
11:30-32. “For as you once disobeyed God, and now have received mercy, thanks to their disobedience; so they too have now disobeyed, that, when you have received mercy, they also may meet with mercy. For God has made all disobedient alike, that on all He may have mercy.”
Here indeed is a spacious hope. Good out of evil is portended on the very largest scale.
Coming to lesser matters, let me say that the second νῦν, in v. 31, is greatly better away. One gathers that the ‘disobedience’ of the Gentiles first befell in point of time; then came Israel’s ‘disobedience,’ distinguished as later by νῦν. It belongs to the same period as the ‘mercy’ of the Gentiles. Both are νῦν. But we do not want a third, for the final ‘mercy’ of all-which is not yet. After ἠπείθησαν should be a comma (v. 31). The τῇ τούτων ἀπειθείᾳ is a semi-causal dative. Τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει has nothing of ‘cause-meaning’ in it. I have rendered it in the way which, I think, best expresses the sense. It represents indeed a ‘dative of attendant circumstance’ (equivalent to ‘with yon visited in mercy’). The συνέκλεισεν metaphor is better disregarded in English. In Galatians 3:22 we have had it before. The whole statement must be taken not too literally. God does not ‘make’ men sinners. Somehow, in unknown ways, ‘sin’ does subserve His purposes. In so far, God συνέκλεισεν. The whole doctrinal section closes with a very exultant paean, in which the Apostle celebrates the glories of the knowledge of the Christian revelation. In the course of it he employs the same Scripture he had used in the first letter to Corinth. In 1 Corinthians 2:16 we read “For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct Him?” Combining the citation here and that there in one saying, we have the whole of the text of Isaiah 40:13. Τίς ἔγνω νοῦν Κυρίου καὶ τίς αὐτοῦ σύμβουλος ἐγένετο, ὅς συμβιβᾷ αὐτόν; In 1 Corinthians there is appended the highly significant statement, “But we have the mind of Christ.” That must be taken to throw some light on the passage here. For the question naturally rises, Is this wisdom and this knowledge the wisdom and the knowledge that are in the All-wise; or are they the wisdom and knowledge that form the Christian σοψία, communicated to men by the Holy Spirit of God? The latter seems to me to be infinitely more likely. A passage In ‘Colossians’ (2:2, 3) lends further confirmation. That says, “that their hearts may be comforted συμβιβασθέντες ἐν ἀγάπῃ καὶ εἰς πᾶν πλοῦτος τῆς πληροφορίας τῆς συνέσεως, εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐν ᾧ εἰσὶν πάντες οἱ θησαυροὶ τῆς σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως ἀπόκρυφοι.” In these words it seems to be suggested that he who has knowledge of Christ is admitted to the stores of wisdom which are hidden away in Christ. Furthermore, the passage shows that our ‘riches’ refers to ‘wisdom,’ and not to grace or mercy.
11:33-36. “O unfathomable wealth of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways beyond tracing out! Aye, who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counsellor?1 [Note: Isaiah 40:13.] Or who hath given Him first and shall be recompensed?”2 [Note: Job 41:11.] (Here the text of Job, in our English, runs, Who hath first given to Me, that I should repay him?) “For from Him, and through Him, and unto Him are all things. To Him be Glory for ever and ever, Amen.” In the very last verse of all there have been who have sought to trace some reference to the Trinity. And ἐκ, truly, does suggest ‘Fatherhood’; while διά is the preposition appropriate to the Redeemer; but the εἰς is absolutely decisive against any such underlying meaning. To put it in more modern forms, what we should say would be this:
‘He is the universal Origin, and He the moving Power, and He the End.’ The εἰς αὐτόν would seem to point to that teaching which we find in 1 Corinthians 15:28. There the goal of the whole process of creation and regeneration is declared to be nothing but this, ἵνα ᾖ ὁ Θεὸς πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν. There is a ‘wealth’ indeed in a wisdom and a knowledge which can see as far as that.