(This was a paper I wrote for my Greek 3 class under Prof Alvin Jimenez of ASCM)
Introduction
Among all New Testament sources, Romans 9 is the passage most used by theologians to make their strong points on predestination issues. It is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.” What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! (Romans 9:13-14, NASB). This is a statement that keeps our mouth shut whenever we try to argue against God determining who will be saved and who will be condemned, who will be loved and who will be hated, who will be taken care of by His mighty hands and who will be punished. We may complain, “It is harsh and wretched that God should seek His glory in my misery,” Luther said in his commentary of Romans. And he went on to answer his own argument in favor of predestination, “Note how the voice of the flesh is always saying ‘my,’ ‘my’; get rid of this ‘my’ and rather say: ‘Glory to Thee, O Lord!’ and you will be saved.” However, although these verses tell very much truth on God’s preordained plans, the message of God’s ελεος in all His plans is the one to be further considered.
Some also use this passage to classify who the elect people of God are. At some degree interpreters’ considerations fall into two extremes. Gentiles replaced the Jews before the sight of God, on one hand; and Jews and Gentiles are two distinct peoples of God in the church, on the other. But the text shows how both are under the mercies of God and that is what makes them be elected not necessarily to salvation, but to fulfill the purposes of God for His glory to be proclaimed through out the whole world.
This paper is committed not to theologically support the doctrine of predestination and election. God’s enduring plan since the Old Testament in connection with His ελεος (verb: ελεειν) in the light of Romans 9-11 is the focus of this study. Throughout the various sections below, the textual analysis, the literary-contextual relations and other exegetical efforts is dealt with. A conclusion and other theological comments by this writer are also in the scope of this paper.
Textual Criticism
Variants among the Greek Manuscripts
Before the text of this thesis should be presented, it is so reasonable to let the Greek text be analytically assessed first. It would make the literal translation of the text be maintained prior to some judgments if the variations have bearings to the interpretation or to the flow of thoughts. The aim is to be faithful to what was and is believed to be the original presentation of the statements. However, only some problematic portions would be analyzed yet it would show and justify the outcome of the translation below.
The first to be dealt with in this portion is the omission of ουν in verse 19, which is said to be found in the primary Alexandrian MS B (P46) as included in the question τί ετι εμέμφεται;. It is supported by the western uncials D, F, G but contrasted by the majority text and secondary Alexandrian uncials A and Ψ.[1] The exclusion may have probably been due to the copyists desire to make it parallel to a vast expression of τί ουν found in Romans (3:1, 9; 4:1; 6:1, 15; 7:7; 8:31; 9:14, 30; 11:7). So it is just considered an addition to the original.[2] It is also probable that the repetition of ουν was avoided since it precedes Ερεῖς ουν μοι·.[3]
In the translation to be presented it has been included to make it visible to the reader, nevertheless, it is placed far from the neighboring ουν. It seems that it would not make any difference whether it is present or not. It is just for the sake of possible readership.
One minor issue is the omission of μενοῦνγε on some manuscripts such as the original D, the later western tradition (F, G) and P46.[4] In the translation, the problem of positioning μενοῦνγε after a vocative is resolved.
Verse 23 has a καὶ ἵνα phrase at its beginning in the original Greek text as witnessed by the primary Alexandrian uncial B. The omission of καὶ on some translations is probably to make a straightforward sense of the sentence.[5] However, for some scholars the problematic word should appear for some considerations.[6] This writer actually supports its omission in order not to disrupt the strong statement of Paul.
Another variation in verse 28 is apparent when looked at some manuscripts. The whole ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, ὅτι λόγον συντετμημένον might be a possible insertion by copyists who considered it as a direct quotation from the Septuagint in Isaiah 10:22-23.[7] But Metzger considered this not credible since the epistle writer appears not to have followed closely the Septuagint in the previous verse.[8] The preference of this translation shows likewise.
A translation of the text for the thesis now follows.
Text Established Using Textual Criticism[9]
(14)What then shall we say? Is there injustice with God? Certainly not! (15)For to Moses He says, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (16)So then it is not of the man who wills, nor of him who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, (17)“For this very purpose I raised you up that I might display my power in you and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth. (18 )So then He has mercy on whom He wills and He hardens whom He wills.
(19)You will then say to me, “Why does He still find fault then? For who resists His will?” (20)But rather, who are you to answer back to God, O man?[10] The thing molded does not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this?” (21)Or does the potter not have the right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? (22)But what if God, although willing to show His wrath and to make known His power, bore with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, (23)(and) in order to make known the riches of His glory vessels of mercy which He prepared beforehand to glory, (24)that which He has also called us not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles. (25)As He says also in Hosea, “I will call those who were not my people, ‘my people’, and her who was not beloved, ‘beloved’.” (26)And “it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, “You are not my people,” they shall be called ‘sons of the living God’.” (27)But Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the sons of Israel be like the sand of the sea, only[11] the remnant will be saved. (28 )For the Lord will execute His word on earth entirely and hastily[12].” (29)And just as Isaiah foretold, “Unless the Lord of hosts had left for us a seed, we would have become as Sodom and been made like Gomorrah.”
(30)What then shall we say? That Gentiles who do not pursue righteousness attained righteousness, the righteousness (but) which is by faith, (31)but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at such a law. (32)Why? Because it is not by faith but as if it is by works. They stumbled over the stone of stumbling, (33)just as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and the one who believes on it will not be put to shame.
Literary-Contextual Analysis
Intermediate Context
The immediate context that precedes the section of this thesis is in a sense patterned to the main theme stated in Romans 1:16-17 that has a phrase “… to the Jew first and also to the Greek”.[13] Paul, although in deep anguish because of Israel’s rejection of the gospel of Christ, first emphasized how the gospel is much related to the Jews in 9:1-5. It seems that in his opening of the epistle in 1:1-4, he introduced Christ’s relation to David, to the prophets and to the Holy Scriptures which would probably mean that the gospel cannot be properly understood apart from Israel.[14] “Then what advantage has the Jew?” as a question raised in 3:1, is answered in some detail in these first verses of Romans 9.
Paul started his discourse with extreme solemnity and anguish. He sympathized with his people through these words: ᾿Αλήθειαν λέγω ἐν Χριστῷ, οὐ ψεύδομαι, συμμαρτυρούσης μοι τῆς συνειδήσεώς μου ἐν Πνεύματι ῾Αγίῳ. The clauses “I speak the truth” and “I am not lying” (negatively)[15]; plus “in Christ” and “in the Holy Spirit” shows his deep sincerity of what he really feels.[16] He was not just trying to persuade his readers that he was falsely accused of indifference for his people in preaching the gospel of mercy to the Gentiles. In fact he stated some reasons and argued about the election of Israel which is somehow a thesis to be challenged by an upcoming antithesis (which is the focus of this study). There are four relative clauses of Israel’s privileges to underline the sadness of their unbelief to the gospel.[17] (1) “who are Israelites”, (2) “whose are the adoption… and the promises”, (3) “whose are the patriarchs” (4) “and from whom so as far as the flesh is concerned is the Christ…”.[18] Fitzmyer and Dunn (with Zeisler) considers the seven classic prerogatives Paul apparently had in mind directly from the Old Testament: (1) “firstborn son” (Exod 4:22); (2) the “glorious” presence of God (Exod 15:6, 11); (3) the “covenants” made with Abraham (Gen 15:18), Isaac (Gen 26:3-5), Moses (Exod 24:7-8); (4) the giving of the (Torah) “instruction” (Exod 20:1); (5) the awesome worship of Yahweh in the Temple (Exod 25-31); (6) the “promises” made to Abraham (Gen 12:2), Isaac (Gen 26:3-5), Jacob (Gen 28:13-14); and the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob themselves. [19] These are the ‘septet’[20] privileges which is a strong case that the Divine Promise of Old is very much related to the Jews plus the fact that from them comes the natural descent of the Christ (v. 5). Therefore, to preach a gospel that casts them out would appear that God’s faithfulness is compromised and a strong appeal is presupposed to arise that led Paul to explain further starting verse 6 and followed up by the thesis of this paper starting at verse 14.
In the following section (vv. 6-13)[21], Paul’s initial response to this matter on how he would relate the Divine Promise of Old to God’s mercy is to make distinctions between ἐξ ᾿Ισραήλ (those from Israel) and ᾿Ισραήλ (Israel), between Abraham’s τέκνα and his σπέρμα.[22] “For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants” (9:6-7, NASB). But does this argument mean that those who are “Israel within Israel” (i.e. the Jews who received the gospel by faith) are the only ones in the scope of God’s mercy? Cranfield (with the limits of the acquired resources for this paper) is the only one who commented in a straightforward way that this is very wrong!![23] Not that they do not see God’s mercy to those who are outside “Israel within Israel”, most commentators just focused on the critical concept of election and those who receive the gospel by faith. They just looked at the inner circle that the promises of God are all through out fulfilled through the covenant people of God in the New Testament.
The succeeding verses that talk about God choosing Isaac and, eventually Jacob against Esau (vv. 7-13) should be read in its context. Although the descendants by Isaac were chosen and not the ones by Ishmael, it is to be carefully noted that the narrative account in Gen 21:13, 17-21 explicitly shows God’s mercy to Ishmael.[24] Furthermore, since the case of Isaac and Ishmael is less conclusive because they had the same father but different mothers, Paul moved to the more intense election of Jacob against Esau wherein the two had the same parents. The election of Jacob, apart from human works (v. 11), does not also encourage the message of deprivation of God’s mercy on Esau if taken into the context of the Old Testament such as Deut. 23:7 that says, “You shall not detest an Edomite, for he is your brother.”[25]
This writer concedes with Cranfield and Dunn that not being chosen to play a positive role in God’s special purpose does not mean exclusion from the embrace God’s ελεος.[26] However, it should be a caution that such ‘anti anti-Semitism’ themes might lead to false conclusions if it is overly stated. It tends to create the concept of God’s two chosen people – Jews and Christians.
Wider Literary Context
Romans 9:14-33 should not stand alone if it is to be read. Not even the whole chapter could be independently interpreted apart from its wider literary context. It is just a part of the series discussions on chapters 9 to 11 regarding men’s unbelief (specifically, of Israel which would eventually be a warning to the Gentiles in 11:17-24) and God’s faithfulness and mercy in fulfilling His entire plan. There is a tendency to read the text of this thesis in an ‘unPauline’ sense and just assert doctrinal biases if it is to be taken out from this wider literary context.[27] Considering these three chapters as a whole major section and its connection to the chapters, prior and subsequent to it, some might say that it is just an inserted excursus of Paul’s deep emotional involvement in the matter of the Jews’ destiny.[28] However, a more diligent look to it suggests that it is an integral amplification of the main theme, again, stated in Romans 1:16-17.
This whole section is considered by Fitzmyer as the Part C of the epistle to the Romans. It is considered to be an apologetic (defensive) not polemic (offensive). It deals not with Judaizers, just as in Galatians, but with Jews and their relation to the gospel.[29] With these statements, this writer definitely agrees. But with Kasemann, Fitzmyer also agrees that the “doctrine of justification” dominates this whole section.[30] However, this seems not much plausible. The “doctrine of justification” has been dealt with thoroughly through Romans 1-8. Although it is still consistently imposed in this section, it stands independently from justification as its main theme. It seems like Paul is apologetically explaining some misconceptions that might have arisen regarding the discussed justification. Morris, in agreement with Cranfield, is right as he argues that the keyword of these whole three chapters is the verb “to have mercy” as it relates to the sovereignty of God ever since the Old covenant and not just the concept of Christ in his saving activity.[31] And also, it should be stressed that the use of ᾿Ιουδαίου compared to ᾿Ισραήλ is a great lesser[32] which might mean a distinction that ‘Israel’ may have been redefined by Paul in this section to harmonize the Divine Promise of Old the gospel of mercy.
Book Context
In Relation to Romans 1-11
Though Romans 9-11 stands independently with the fact that it has its own central theme, it should not be overlooked that it is a discourse that arose in complementary to the gospel Paul exclaimed from Romans 1-8. In fact, he has been preparing for this discussion all along considering 3:1-9; 21-31 because obvious objection would arise.[33] The previous statements before 9-11 declare the certainty of God’s purpose. But since the very reliability of God appears to be in question with regards to the Jews’ exclusion because of their rejection of the gospel, Paul’s explanation concerning His promises and His sovereign mercy has become urgent. Some views are that: (1) it is just an excursion of Paul’s feelings on the structure; (2) theological assertion (specifically, of predestination) (3) while few scholars say that it is an inner contradiction.[34] However, this writer believes none of these. It is very obvious that the transition is a part of the theme development in Romans as an urgent address to both Jews ad Gentiles.[35]
In Relation to the Whole Book of Romans
With all that has been stated in the immediate context, the wider-literary context and its relation to chapters 1-11, it is sound reason to say that the inclusion of this entire section (chapters 9-11) makes a fuller and profounder sense of the gospel to the Jews and to the Gentiles. In contrast to chapters 1-8 only, the extended discussion until chapter 11 gives a more satisfactory theological basis for the upcoming moral exhortations in chapters 12-15.[36]
Exegesis on the Text
Methodology of the Section
The Section’s Rhetoric[37]
In order for the reader to understand fully how Paul communicated in the passage of this thesis, the way of his style in persuading should be understood. It should be noted that Paul has a habit of discussing without worrying about false implications that might arise in the future. The presence of a number of some ουν ‘s in Romans (3:1, 9; 4:1; 5:1; 6:1, 12, 15; 7:7, 13; 8:12, 31; 9:14; 11:1, 11; 12:1) testify to that. He is much concerned with the present discourse[38] and not to what the readers (e.g. modern, the Holocaust) might end up thinking. He also sometimes distracts from his main argument that makes present an unparalleled number of OT texts (e.g. vv27-28 is problematic, even in the textual criticism). And lastly, he seems unaware of generalizing election and predestination of Israel that somehow results to various extreme doctrines by some readers. In fact, Paul is concerned with nations and not with individuals.[39]
In spite of these things that have been said about Paul’s way of rhetoric (his lapses in particular), it is evident that he is capable of bringing the readers to his side of the argument. His usual hypothetical questions, in the question-and-answer style of the diatribe starting with Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; (cf. Romans 3:5; 6:1; 7:7), would definitely bring the readers to agree with him to a strong objection (μὴ γένοιτο.) that has to be taken seriously.[40] With this rhetorical device he started the section’s thought flow.
Intentionally or unintentionally, an anacoluthon can be observed along the flow of the text. Verse 24 is debated among commentators of Romans if it should go with vv.14-23 or vv.25-29. It is considered to be as really attributed to Paul – ‘the Pauline anacoluthon’.[41] An ‘anacoluthon’ is a “grammatical phenomenon whereby the author lost track of his or her syntax” or simply a “broken or irregular syntactical construction”.[42] (The translation above does not separate vv.14-23 and vv.25-29 to show that this writer does not see any disruption on Paul’s chains of thought.)
The Section’s Division and Thought Flow
Romans 14-23, indicates two specific questions that challenges God’s mercy. First, “Is not God unjust to choose some and rejects others?”(v. 14). Second, “How can people be blamed for rejecting God if He Himself determines the rejection?” (v.19). These questions are inevitable in every message of God’s sovereignty as a challenge to His merciful and faithful character.
A certain parallelism[43] was used to answer the challenging question in v.14:
14 Is there injustice with God?
(A) 15 (Certainly not!!) because He says to Moses
16 Therefore, it does not depend on man’s desire or effort
but on God’s mercy (ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἐλεοῦντος Θεοῦ.)
(B) 17 (Certainly not!!) because Scripture says to Pharaoh…
18 Therefore, God wants to have mercy on whom
He wants to have mercy (ὃν θέλει ἐλεεῖ)
The other challenging question in v.19 was answered through some ‘protological’ thinking (logical explanation from primitive thoughts)[44]. Paul gives an analogy on something that no one can argue and talk back to God as He fulfills His purpose. He used even indocility to carry out His plan:
(A) vv. 17-18 Pharaoh’s heart was hardened – brought good out of evil
(B) v.19 Then why does God still blame us? (the big question)
(B)’ v.20 Why did you make me like this? (the big question)
(A)’ vv. 22-23 Pot molded by the Potter – ‘vases of wrath’ and ‘vases of mercy’
Another chiasm[45] could be found that appears to be a conclusion in the relation of God’s ελεος to the Divine Promise of Old:
(A) v.24 God calls Jews
(B) v.24 God calls Gentiles
(B)’ vv.25-26 OT confirmation of God’s call of Gentiles
(A)’ v.27-29 OT confirmation of God’s call of Jews
Romans 9:30-33, is a climactic ending of the chapter that righteousness is by faith and not a law of righteousness, a misconception of Israel. It is also a bridging passage for the ongoing discourse on the unbelief of men and the faithfulness of God.
Commentary Regarding the Thesis
This commentary does not intend to walkthrough all exegetical issues found in Romans 9:14-33. Some exegetical implications, structures and syntax have already been dealt with in the various sections of this paper. The scope now in this portion is only to discuss the thesis on the relation of God’s given mercy and his enduring promises to His elect people, the Israel. This is actually an antithesis against the misconception of the Jews regarding God’s plan.
Having the book context in mind, Paul starts with something sentimental in chapter 9. How could this be, wherein he almost had a climactic finish in the previous chapter?! It is because though there is the definiteness that nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus (8:39), Paul’s message since the beginning of the epistle threatens most of the Jews to be cut away from God because of their unbelief. The transition is reasonable because there is a need to explain what becomes of the everlasting covenant of God with His people. To put in the right context, the placing of Romans 9:14-33 together with its whole context tells about the placing of Israel in God’s plan of election not apart from His mercy. Paul wants to emphasize that the gospel stands in continuity with the Old Testament.
Romans 9:14-23
As already mentioned, Paul’s use of the diatribe might have led his readers to be persuaded right away. Jews would never be comfortable to say that God is unjust!! Furthermore, Paul’s use of Scripture regarding the sovereignty of God made his argument even more credible. His interpretation of history regarding the Pharaoh that they know in Scripture (v.17; cf. Exod 9:16) is as clear as history itself. However this time, there is the transference of imagery from Pharaoh to Israel, who like the Pharaoh rejected God’s words of deliverance for His people.[46] Another image that was used by Paul was the potter and the clay. C.H. Dodd considers this as the weakest point in the epistle because a man is not a pot[47] and obstinate objections arise in his mind. But the argument is not weak at all. In fact, ‘the potter and the clay’ was an imagery (not just of the Jews but also of ancient Egypt and some neighboring nations)[48] where Moses might have gotten the idea of man being fashioned (Gen 2:7) apart from his own will; and thus the analogy is strong that the mercy of God cannot be subject to anything outside His own free grace, not even to the human will.
Most scholars consulted for this paper made the point that Israel, in the analogy of Pharaoh, does not suggest that Israel is outside the will of God and therefore outside the purpose of His mercy. Paul made mention of ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ φυράματος ποιῆσαι ὃ μὲν εἰς τιμὴν σκεῦος, ὃ δὲ εἰς ἀτιμίαν (v.21) – that some are made for honor while some for dishonor. The placing of those who rejected the gospel may be an ignoble one, but it is within God’s mercy and not outside of it.[49] Fitzmyer, though in agreement with this, considered not just the message of mercy but yoked it with the message of God’s sovereignty[50] and suggests that it is the very intention of God. Kasemann even argues that the succeeding translation on verse 23 has a participle which is neither casual nor concessive but modal, and that the rendering should be ‘with the purpose’.[51] (The translation of ἵνα somehow supports the argument.)
It would be unfair to say that the scholars who stressed God’s mercy did not deal with God’s sovereignty, for indeed, they dealt with it rigorously. However, in doing this, they tried to settle with issues of theodicy. Fitzmyer is right in saying that in the context, Paul “does not try to argue the question of theodicy; he simply rejects it.”[52] God is sovereign of all and no argument to that!! His mercy is not to be reconciled with issues of theodicy. It is to be understood in the light of His ultimate supremacy. As clay, Israel could never question God why in their unbelief He turned to the Gentiles. Besides, it is not contrary to God’s direction of history. Their call and indocility were foreseen.[53]
Romans 9:24-29
If Romans 9:14-23 starts with a diatribe style of rhetoric, this section now starts with an ‘anacoluthon’. Morris stated three views[54] regarding the broken syntactical construction: (1) new beginning; (2) us as apposition with ‘vessels of mercy’; and (3) relative pronoun whom (or which as this writer translates it) suggests a relative clause. The latter is considered in the translation above to present Paul’s discourse of continuous statements from 9:14-29.
This portion provides the chiastic structure shown above with the message of God’s call for both Jews and Gentiles and the affirmation of both calls with the support of Old Testament texts. Verse 27 speaks about the remnant of Israel which will be saved, ἐὰν ᾖ ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν υἱῶν ᾿Ισραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης, τὸ κατάλειμμα σωθήσεται. Some considers this passage as a message with a ‘threatening voice’ of being cut off, but Kasemann sees it as an ‘inspired, proclamatory speech’[55] It would be better viewed as a proclamatory speech of salvation to make it intact with the message of God’s inclusion of the Gentiles as His ‘beloved people’ (vv.25-26).
Romans 9:30-33
What follows now is a half technique of Paul’s diatribe. Dunn considers it a half question, half statement Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν;.[56] This time he does not bring his readers to agree with him in a strong negative objection. Instead, he shifts from the standpoint of God concerning Israel’s relation to His divine promise of Old to the standpoint of human responsibility.[57] However, this standpoint does not suggest works righteousness. It speaks that Paul understands ‘righteousness’ as a covenant word. It is something that no one can pursue, not even the Gentiles through nature. It is a righteousness acquired as one puts his faith in Christ. This is the stumbling block to the Jews who strive for legal righteousness.[58] Paul was again leading to a discourse of the gospel of justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. No other arguments are made regarding this matter.
Verses 30-33 is a bridging part from chapter 9 to chapter 10. In fact, the three verses are preferred by many Bible commentators to be included in the thought flow of the initial verses of chapter 10. But the message is clear. Israel, although to them were the law given, they have stumbled in their pursuit of uprightness – a message to be understood alone in the light of His mercy. A message that as Barrett rightly observed throughout Romans 1-8, tells us about the “attribute of God which is occasionally described as love but more characteristically as mercy.”[59]
Conclusion
Thus, scholars deal with the issue differently. Cranfield, Fitzmyer, Moo and Zeisler obviously consider that being outside of the elect does not necessarily mean they are out of God’s mercy. They are still part of God’s embrace and He will still carry out His plan through good or bad vessel. Kasemann gives special affinity to Israel as the community under promise while discussing the supreme electing process of God. Dunn, and again Moo, have their explicit way to distinguish that “the Jews” and Israel are not synonymous. Israel, indeed, has been redefined in the course of chapter 9-11. Moreover, Morris explains just the same way with others that the message of predestination in this context is dealing with election to service and not to eternal salvation.
To integrate it, it would more likely be sound to conclude that the message of God’s mercy is somewhat distinct from the message of justification. If all people are embraced by God’s mercy, as stressed by Cranfield as a summary of the scholars’ voices:
…Ishmael as well as Isaac, Esau as well as Jacob, Pharaoh as well as Moses, the vessels of wrath as well as the vessels of mercy, that is the mass of unbelieving Jews (and unbelieving Gentiles too) as well as the believing Church of Jews and Gentiles, stand within – and not without – the embrace of the divine mercy.[60]
…then it is more appropriate to say that God fulfills His divine plan because of His everlasting mercy, but being justified by faith is a different story!!
On Some Theological Assertions
As the writer sees it, this section of Romans affect Christian theology in a way that if faithful Biblical exegesis is compromised, areas of Soteriology, Ecclesiology and Christology would be distorted.
A superficial look on the passage of Romans 9 would suggest a strong case on the doctrine of predestination of individuals or even of double predestination. It should not be systematized too much. The message is about God’s mercy on all peoples and not about an eschatological final destination, although it eventually leads there.
So much rejection of the Jews would lead to anti-Semitism that triggered the Holocaust in history while a misconception on having too high a regard of the Jews would divide the church into two chosen people of God – Jews and Christians. We are not even encouraged to make Jews out of ourselves. There is only one church with Christ as the head – a union of redeemed Jews and Gentiles.
Most of all, in reading the passage, we should not compromise certain area of Christology. Just as Israel was the firstborn of God (Exodus 4:22) in the Old Covenant, Jesus Christ now was declared the firstborn among many brethren (Romans 8:29) even before the discussion of Romans 9-11. Therefore we are grafted to Christ and not to Israel. Nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord!!
In his Biblical exegesis of Romans 9-11, Cranfield was influenced by the theological assertions of Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics II/2, pp.1-506. He said that,
The doctrine of election, if it is to be faithful to Scripture, must not begin in an abstract way, either from the concept of an electing God or from the concept of an elected man, but ‘must begin concretely with the acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as both the electing God and elected man’.[61]
[1] Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 589.
[2] C.E.B. Cranfield, Romans 9-16, vol. 2 (ICC; Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark Ltd., [1979]1981), 489.
[3] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 589.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Bruce M. Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (West Germany: United Bible Societies, 1975), 523.
[6] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 589; See also James D.G. Dunn, Romans IX-XVI, vol. 38B (WBC; Dallas, Texas: WordBooks Publishers, 1988), 550.
[7] Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 523; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 589.
[8] Ibid.
[9] This is the result of an aimed literal translation and of the textual criticism that has been done. The Italicized words or phrases are provisions to smoothen or to make a complete sense out of some sentences. Words inside some parentheses indicate that the exclusion of the words is possible.
[10] Although the Greek text suggests that μενοῦνγε, ὦ ἄνθρωπε is adjacently arranged, ‘O man’ is intentionally separated to present the text more emphatic and to at least smoothen the translation.
[11] This is an obvious insertion. But the context requires stressing the burden of the passage. See Cranfield, Dunn; See also Morris, Kasemann, Zeisler. Modern translations, such as the NIV and the ESV, also opt to insert the word.
[12] This is the author’s own translation of ‘cutting short’ to make it parallel with its associate word συντελέω that is translated ‘entirely’ or completely.
[13] C.E.B. Cranfield, Romans: A Shorter Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985), 214.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 556.
[16] Cranfield, Romans, 217-18.
[17] Cranfield, Romans, 220-22; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 560.
[18] Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the New Testament Greek (England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 249. The relative clauses emphasize connectivity which stands together among the clauses that is with theological significance.
[19] Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1993), 545-48; James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1998), 503-504; John Zeisler, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (TPINCT; London: Trinity Press International, 1989), 236-38.
[20] Term used by Fitzmyer, Romans.
[21] Scholars subdivided Romans 9 differently but Cranfield, Romans 9-16, vol. 2; Dunn, Romans IX-XVI, vol. 38B; Fitzmyer, Romans; and Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988 ) interconnected verses 6-13 with verse 14 and its following verses. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans; and Ernst Kasemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publising Co., 1980) divided it from sections but dependence from one section to another is evidential. This is one reason that this writer inevitably discusses the ‘immediate context’ at such length.
[22] Cranfield, Romans, 227-28; Fitzmyer, Romans, 558-59.
[23] Cranfield, Romans, 228-32.
[24] Ibid., 228-29.
[25] Ibid., 229-31.
[26] Cranfield, Romans, 229; Dunn, Romans IX-XVI, vol. 38B, 568-69. For a lengthy discussion on the New Testament against anti-Semitism, see also James D.G. Dunn, Jews and Christians: The Parting of Ways AD 70-135 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publising Co., 1992), 177-211.
[27] Kasemann, Commentary on Romans, 253-56.
[28] Cranfield , Romans, 214.
[29] Fitzmyer, Romans, 541.
[30] Ibid. in agreement with Kasemann’s Perspectives, 75.
[31] Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 345; Cranfield , Romans, 215.
[32] Dunn, Jews and Christians, 183-87; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 574.; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 345.
[33] Fitzmyer, Romans, 539.
[34] Ibid., 540.
[35] Ibid., 540.
[36] Cranfield, Romans, 215.
[37] Ideas are more on Fitzmyer’s comment, Romans, 542.
[38] Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 305.
[39] Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 501.
[40] C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, (USA: Harper & Row Publishers, 1957), 185; Kasemann, Commentary on Romans, 267;Cranfield, Romans 9-16, vol. 2, 481-82.
[41] Fitzmyer, Romans, 572.
[42] Porter, Idioms of the New Testament Greek, 184 and 91 respectively.
[43] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 594.
[44] Fitzmyer, Romans, 568-70.
[45] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 611 (direct quotation).
[46] Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 186-87.
[47] As quoted by Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 188.
[48] Fitzmyer, Romans , 565.
[49] Cranfield, Romans, 227, 238-241; Dunn, Romans IX-XVI, vol. 38B, 564-67 ; Fitzmyer, Romans, 568-70; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 602-03.
[50] Fitzmyer, Romans, 565.
[51] Zeisler, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 246-47 as he states Kasemann’s point. See also Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 605-06.
[52] Fitzmyer, Romans, 565.
[53] Fitzmyer, Romans, 565. This is an obvious theological assertion by Fitzmyer himself and this writer acknowledges the strong argument.
[54] Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 369.
[55] Ibid., 371; Kasemann, Commentary on Romans, 275.
[56] Dunn, Romans IX-XVI, vol. 38B, 592.
[57] F.F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (TNTC; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963), 198; [57] Fitzmyer, Romans, 576.
[58] Ibid.
[59] Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 186. Emphasis mine.
[60] Cranfield, Romans, 227.
[61] Cranfield, Romans, 216.
