[I couldn’t think of a good way to break Romans 11 up into two studies. So, I did it all in one study, but have broken it up into two parts because of length. Please see the previous post for a discussion of the major themes and argument structure.]
Explore (continued)
Scriptural Metaphors
Paul grounds his arguments in Scripture, with a particular emphasis on passages using vivid imagery.
Non-Receptivity
In 11.8-10, Paul pulls together texts from all three sections of the Hebrew Bible united around the theme of blindness as a symbol of non-receptivity to God’s message (Kruse 426; Nanos 320; Witherington 266). Romans 11.8 combines a text from Deuteronomy 29.4 about the inability of the people to understand the miracles performed in the Exodus with Isaiah 29.10, which, historically references Judah’s initial salvation from Babylon, but whose wording brings that lack of understanding into the ‘present day’ (Kruse 426; Eberhart). (These texts are also reminiscent of Isaiah 6.9-13). Then 11.9-10 quotes Psalm 69.22-23, in which David prays for his enemies to become so disoriented that even their table — a symbol of sustenance, enjoyment, and comfort — becomes a snare. It’s a curious reference (see Kruse 426f on this), but in the present context it may be that Paul has Israel’s comfort in the blessings of the Law of Moses in mind. Together, these texts from across Israel’s history show a pattern of a strategic dulling of their collective perception that nonetheless furthers God’s purposes and in no way implies a rejection of them by God (SBL).
Stumbling
in 11.11 Paul returns to the stumbling metaphor he’s had in mind since 9.32. Yes, he says, Israel has stumbled, but it has not fallen, that is, fallen “into irrevocable disfavor with God” (Witherington 266). While some commentators (e.g., SBL) suggest the context here may be ancient footraces in which a fall disqualified a participant from finishing the race, the metaphor more generally: as anyone who has walked on icy sidewalks or a forest path knows, slipping or tripping is very different from slipping or tripping and falling!
Paul goes so far as to insist that there was “deeper purpose behind” Israel’s stumbling, placing it under God’s initiative and therefore within God’s greater salvation plans, rather than as something opposed to them (Eberhart; Kruse 428). That purpose, according to Paul, was the acceleration of the spread of the message of God’s Kingdom to the Gentiles. As Acts 13 tells us, Paul only started his Gentile mission after being consistently rebuffed within the synagogues in which he had started his ministry. Inclusion of non-Jews into Israel’s destiny had been a part of Jewish self-understanding since at least the time of Isaiah (e.g., Isaiah 2.3). But whereas the traditional idea would be that Israel would get its act together and the nations would naturally flock to it to learn its wisdom and pay tribute to it, Paul now sees that the story has been flipped: Israel’s stumbling has afforded Gentiles the opportunity to become the shining light and beacon of God’s salvation (Kruse 428). This logic is strange but fits into Jesus’ teaching on and prophetic witness to the great reversal, in which God’s Kingdom overturns all expectations.
But crucially, Israel is still in the race and Paul is convinced it will catch up. To illustrate the continued role for Israel in God’s plans, Paul uses two further metaphors, the second of which he expands on significantly.
The First Share
The first of these metaphors is about the first share of a batch of dough sanctifying the whole. It’s an odd reference that comes from Numbers 15.17-21 (Cf. Leviticus 2.1-3). As part of the general pattern of offering the firstfruits of any kind of harvest to God, the offering of the first ground meal signified the symbolic offering of the whole thing (Kruse 432; Eberhart). While there has been much discussion about what Paul could mean by the reference here, in light of the next metaphor — healthy branches emerging from a healthy root system — it seems best to interpret the firstfruits here as Abraham, the one whom God originally called, to whom God made the promises, and whom Paul has already called the forefather of all who come to God in faith (Romans 4) (Kruse 433). Another possible interpretation is that Paul is referring to the ‘remnant’ ironically as the firstfruit: “the first few Jewish converts are set apart for God [are] a sort of first fruits and so a harbinger of things to come, then the mass of Jews are still ultimately ‘set apart’ or ‘holy’ unto God and set apart for salvation” (Witherington 269).
Olive Tree
Paul then introduces what he will later develop into one of his most famous analogies: the olive tree. It start off simply, in parallel with the previous image: a healthy root system will produce healthy shoots (11.16). But, taken with the image, he builds on it. The Jews who have not accepted the gospel are like branches trimmed from an olive tree (presumably for not bearing fruit, cf. the fig tree Matthew 21.18ff), whereas the non-Jews who have accepted it are like branches from wild olives grafted onto the domesticated tree representing Israel.
It has long been noted that Paul doesn’t seem to have his facts straight here: Since wild olives did not produce oil, it was domesticated branches that were grafted onto the healthier trunks of wild trees — not the other way around. While some have chalked this up to simple ignorance and others have defended him by finding ancient references to the practice as he describes it here, I think it’s best once again to see this as an intentional overturning of expectations (see Eberhart; Witherington 270f; Kruse 435). (In this way it’s not unlike Jesus’ parables, which regularly did this.)
This contravention of expectations doesn’t put either community in good light. Gentiles are compared to useless wild olives whose incorporation into God’s plans is called “contrary to nature” (using the exact same language he used in chapter 1 to talk about sinful sexual behaviour!) (SBL). And, as Witherington notes, the olive tree metaphor is used in the Old Testament (e.g., Jeremiah 11.16 and Hosea 14.6) primarily in contexts of divine judgment (Witherington 270).
At any rate, Paul uses the image here to emphasize to his Gentile readers that they have no cause for boasting over Jews. They have been added on to God’s plans for Israel, and unnaturally so. God can cut them off again just as easily (Eberhart; Witherington 271; Kruse 435; SBL).
God’s Mysterious Plan
All this is for Paul evidence of the great Mystery, and mysteriousness, of God’s plans. This mystery is the third reason for Gentile humility (Eberhart; Witherington 267):
-
- They are saved by grace through faith not because of anything they have done to earn it;
- They are saved inasmuch as God has grafted them into Israel’s story (a story which they can be cut out of again at any time); and now
- Israel’s rejection of the gospel is a vital part of God’s ultimate plans and destiny for the whole world.
Paul has already noted that God has a destiny in store for those he has chosen and foreknown (8.28-30). And while he’s hinted at Israel having a continued role in this plan throughout chapters 9-11, here at the end of chapter 11, he makes it clear: even Israel’s apparent rejection of Jesus and the way of faith and grace is a part of this, big, apocalyptic, plan. Reconciliation has come from Israel in the form of its Messiah, and Israel is still beloved not only for his stake, or for the remnant’s sake, but for its own sake too, as the descendants of Abraham. God’s ultimate plan is to show mercy to everyone (11.32).
Just as we saw with Jesus’ use of apocalyptic language in the series on the parables, here too Paul seems to be flipping it on its head: For God to be enacting a plan from all eternity, and in using language like “the fullness” of the saved, we’re definitely in the realm of Apocalyptic (SBL; Witherington 266f; Eberhart). Yet the great mystery being revealed is ultimately for God to “be merciful to all.” This flips the apocalyptic script.
The chapter, and this section from chapters 9-11, ends in a doxology praising the inexhaustible wisdom and mystery of God’s mercy.
Challenge
As we’ve been reminded often in this series, any discussion today of about Christianity, Jews, and Gentiles is going to be overshadowed by the long and violent history of antisemitism in Christianity. As Eberhart notes, the passage we’ve looked at today, has been used to undergird and defend theologies of supercession and replacement.
This is tragic on a number of levels, but the one I’d like to focus on today is the obvious fact that Paul wrote this passage with the specific purpose of rejecting any sense among non-Jews that they have replaced Israel as God’s chosen people. We have been grafted onto their tree; it is not now our tree, but still theirs by right.
And as we’ve seen, this whole section from chapters 9-11 offers up a bold and inclusive vision of God including as insiders those who were once outsiders (Tonstad 265). Even where language of divine sovereignty and choice is used, it is to promote inclusivity, not exclusivity. We would do well not to follow Augustine and Calvin and allow our curiosity about God’s sovereignty to become austere and severe over and against Paul’s “lavish vision of inclusion” (Tonstad 265).
If nothing else, it’s a reminder how easily we can miss the point of our Scriptures. The New Testament has a big vision — often a much bigger one than most people who call ourselves Christians. We must always be on high alert for ways our own prejudices and limitations may limit God’s message for us.
Expand
While Romans 11’s main point is God’s continued faithfulness and love for Israel, its main message for its Gentile readers, including us, is humility. We ultimately don’t know what God is up to, or how God’s plans are working out in history. So we have no cause for triumphalism towards anyone. It’s a message well worth heeding. Jesus himself taught us that we will be judged by the same standards by which we judge others; we will be forgiven inasmuch as we forgive others; we will be welcomed inasmuch as we welcome others. There is no Christian justification for hatred or violence against anyone. Far less is there for any theology that would cut God’s chosen people out of the continued story of salvation.
I’m reminded of a wise tradition that I learned in my time in the Eastern Orthodox Church that insists that when reading the Scriptures we never cast ourselves in the role of the hero. So in the parable of the Tax Collector and the Pharisee, we think of ourselves as the self-righteous one, not the humble one. Or, when Paul speaks of the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ (as he will in Romans 15), we associate ourselves with the weak. With this in mind, in a passage like this, we might think of ourselves as those who are stumbling in our pursuit of righteousness and in need of grace, while also exploring the ways we are being arrogant in our ‘insider’ status.
These are heady and expansive ideas to be sure.
Summary & Conclusions
In Romans 11, Paul concludes his defense of God’s continued justice towards Jews. Those who have not accepted the gospel are not rejected, but continue to be part of God’s greater designs for the world. This should not lead those of us who have accepted the gospel to arrogant dismissal of them, but to humility and wonder at what is up to that we cannot see.
* For full references, please see the series bibliography.
Matthew Root 