A great post from Michael Jensen today about Abraham, Sarah, doubt and faith (I’m presuming it was originally a Moore College chapel sermon):
The Doubting Believer I – Abram & Sarai
An excerpt:
The story of Abram illustrates for us that faith is not heroic. It might seem strange that the New Testament presents doubting Abraham as an exemplar of faith. In Romans 4, his faith is offered as the great outflanking manoeuvre in the historic pattern of God’s justification of his people – he believed, and his faith was credited to him as righteousness. In Hebrews 11, he is listed in the roll call of the faithful forerunners of those who now believe.
But in being an example of faith, Abraham is not a hero of faith. Faith is not some virtue like courage which deserves credit by being righteousness. Biblical faith is a hearing of the word of God as the word of God. Now this word of God is always spoken to us in the midst of a life in which it is contested and disputed, and even flatly denied. It is a word about ninety-year old women having babies, or bedraggled slaves becoming great nations, or about the dead coming back to life. There is always with this word of God that we receive another way of looking at it. As word about the future, as a promise, it never comes to us as a completely fulfilled word. There is always a gap. And so we should not be shocked or dismayed when our questions start to fill that gap: how is God going to bring his word to pass? What is God’s plan in this bleak circumstance? Why are so few people responding to the gospel at the moment? What proof can I have of God’s commitment to his promises? This side of the end of all things, Christian faith will always be attended by these questions.
So why believe? In his shambolic way, against all hope, Abraham believed, though the evidence of his body ‘as good as dead’ contradicted the promise he heard. Why?
Because the character of God has its own inner logic. The word of God rings true to who God is as he reveals himself to us in the history of salvation. It is the evidence of what God actually does that compels us to believe. The truth that we receive when we belief is not deducible in the ordinary sense, or calculable, or even possible as we recognise it. It does not follow natural laws. But it is consistent with the miracle that there is something rather than nothing. Abraham was ‘fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised’.
Part of a series on Romans 9-11
Outline
When God lets you down…
- God’s word is being preached (Rom 11:1-4)
- God’s word has not failed (Rom 11:5-10)
- God’s word will achieve greater things (Rom 11:11-15)
- God’s word cannot be taken for granted (Rom 11:16-24)
- God’s word will be fulfilled (Rom 11:25-32)
- God’s ways are greater than we can imagine (Rom 11:33-36)
Part of a series on Romans 9-11
Outline
- The doorknocker
- The gospel that is preached (Rom 10:1-13)
- Israel’s problem (Rom 10:1-3, Rom 10:5)
- Christ is the end of the law (Rom 10:4, Rom 10:6-8)
- Believing and speaking (Rom 10:9-10)
- For everyone who calls (Rom 10:11-13)
- The preachers of the gospel (Rom 10:14-21)
- Paul’s success (Rom 10:14-18)
- Israel’s failure (Rom 10:19-21)
- Problem solved?
Part of a series on Romans 9-11
Outline
- Paul’s anguish (Rom 9:1-3)
- Israel’s privileges (Rom 9:4)
- Israel’s purpose (Rom 9:5)
- Israel’s existence constantly depends on God’s calling (Rom 9:6-13)
- Israel, an instrument in God’s hands (Rom 9:14-23)
- Israel’s existence constantly depends on God’s calling (Rom 9:24-29)
- Israel’s failure and God’s plan (Rom 9:30-33)
A short while ago I wrote a post claiming that Paul doesn’t ever teach that the Gentiles are included in Israel. I said:
Gentiles don’t need to be included in Israel. In fact, the opposite is true; we Gentiles are saved by faith in Christ without being included in Israel. That’s one of the apostle Paul’s big points in Romans and Galatians … Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians are united, not in Israel, but in the promises to Abraham and ultimately in Christ.
The natural counter to this claim is: “What about the allegory of the olive tree in Romans 11? Doesn’t that clearly assume that the Gentiles join Israel?” This question is based on a common assumption that the olive tree in Romans 11:17-24 refers to Israel, and that the image of the Gentiles being “grafted in” to this olive tree (e.g. 11:17) must therefore refer to the Gentiles joining Israel. That is, the olive-tree analogy is commonly read ecclesiologically.
But really, this ecclesiological reading of the olive tree doesn’t work when you start to read the passage carefully. I think that it makes far more sense to read the olive tree theologically (with, of course, implications for both Israel and the Gentiles). That is, the all-important root of the olive tree in Romans 11:17-24 doesn’t stand for Israel, but for God’s promises of salvation (and I think especially his promises to Abraham, who is not only the father of Israel but the father of many nations, see Romans 4).
I’ve just read an article by Nikolaus Walter which makes this point very clearly. Since the article is in German, I thought I’d translate some of the key points for English readers:
When interpreting an allegory, we must always be controlled by the question: What does the author probably want to say in the given context, and what lies beyond his immediate horizon? The main problem for the interpretation of Romans 11:17-24 seems to me to be the question: Who or what is Paul speaking about when he talks about the olive tree with its root, trunk and “sap”; i.e. the olive tree along with the “fatness” which proceeds from the root, which is of course the distinguishing honour of the olive tree and makes it suitable as an allegory of salvation?
[pp. 179-180]
In my opinion the olive tree, or the trunk, and particularly the root, “is” not = Israel, despite Jeremiah 11:16 ff. For “Israel” is in fact what has branched out of the olive tree, which currently–by virtue of its non-acceptance of Christ Jesus–is in its greater part excluded from the olive tree (Rom 11:25 b).
[p. 180]
If the cultivated olive tree, its root and the fat which flows from it into the branches (or fruits!) (Rom 11:17) is to point concretely at anything, then it points above all to God–to his election and promises and the grace of salvation which flows out from him–but it should not be immediately identified with Israel as a people. Israel, which until now has been that which branches out of the olive tree, has grown on this cultivated olive tree; it has its own history of God and salvation in its past and as its foundation; however it “is” not itself this foundation; the root, the trunk, the fat.
(pp. 180-181)
And now they [the Gentiles] are through God’s salvific action in Christ planted not in Israel, but rather they are included in the salvific activity of the God of Israel.
(p. 181)
The often-applied sentance Rom 11:18 b does not imply that the Gentile Christians are supported by Israel as their “root”. Rather, what is actually said to the Gentile Christians is that they should not boast with respect to the now-broken-off branches, i.e. with respect to Israel; for even they, the Gentile Christians, “support” not the root, but rather are supported by it (but not by the broken-off branches); i.e. they have not become branches on the olive tree and participated in its “fat” by their own power, but rather they are “supported” by God and his gracious election enacted in Jesus Christ, just as formerly Israel was and also yet again will be.
(pp. 181-182)
Walter, Nikolaus. “Zur Interpretation von Römer 9-11.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 81 (1984): 172-195.
This is a follow-up to my previous post: What does “all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26) mean?
Often those who argue for the “eschatological miracle” option in Romans 11:26 (i.e. a wholesale turning of the Jewish people to Christ when he returns) point to the decisive significance of the word “until” in Romans 11:25:
… a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until (ἄχρι οὗ) the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved … (Rom 11:25b-26a)
The claim is that the word “until” necessarily implies a subsequent change of circumstances. According to this claim, a plain reading of verse 25 must assume that when Paul uses the word “until”, he is implying that the partial hardening will be taken away from Israel when the fullness of the Gentile has come in (i.e. at the parousia / return of Christ). Hence, when Paul says “in this way” in verse 26, he is pointing back to the clear implication of verse 25: i.e. the way in which all Israel will be saved is that when Jesus returns, the partial hardening will be taken away from Israel.
But this ain’t necessarily so. Let’s just assume for the moment that this claim is true. That is, let’s assume that when somebody in New Testament Greek says: “X happens until Y”, they are necessarily implying that X stops at point Y.
Now let’s read another part of the Bible with this assumption in mind. It’s Stephen’s speech to the Sanhedrin in Acts 7:
But as the time of the promise drew near, which God had granted to Abraham, the people increased and multiplied in Egypt until (ἄχρι οὗ) there arose over Egypt another king who did not know Joseph. (Acts 7:17-18)
OK, so that means Stephen is trying to communicate to the Sanhedrin that the population growth of God’s people ceased when a new king arose over Egypt? I.e. Stephen wants them to know that ignorant Pharaohs cause Hebrew fertility to plummet or stabilise? Well … actually, no. His point simply is that during the time between Abraham’s descendants entering Egypt and the time when God was about to fulfil his promise to bring them to worship him in the land of Canaan, they multiplied a lot. This multiplication is particularly significant during the period of slavery, because it shows God’s faithfulness to give Abraham offspring, and it also provides the obvious reason why the Pharaoh was so keen to expose the Hebrew infants. The phrase “X happened until Y” is not trying to make a point about the cessation of X after Y. It is merely saying that, for the purposes of the story, X was particularly significant during the period up to and including Y.
This shows that there is a problem with our assumption. Hence it shows that this particular argument for the “eschatological miracle”, (i.e. the assumption that there is a particular necessary implication of the word “until”), is unfounded. Paul might just be using the word “until” to claim that the partial hardening of Israel is particularly significant for gentile salvation, without implying anything about the timing of its removal.
Of course, this doesn’t rule out the eschatological miracle. But it does show that the question has to be resolved by looking at the context of Romans 11:25-26, not by focussing on one particular word. And to my mind, Zoccali’s article puts forward a strong case from the context that the “eschatological miracle” is not the best reading of Romans 11:25-26. Hence, I reiterate my commendation of his article.
PS Zoccali uses 1 Cor 11:26 to make a similar point; see “‘And So All Israel will be Saved’: Competing Interpretations of Romans 11.26 in Pauline Scholarship.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30, no. 3 (2008): 289-318, here page 306. While 1 Cor 11:26 is another Pauline text dealing with the Parousia (and therefore an obvious place to go), I think that there are ambiguities here which might be a problem for his argument–i.e. some people might in fact argue that Paul is implying that the Lord’s Supper will cease at the Parousia. So I’ve chosen Acts 7:17-18 instead, which I think is less ambiguous.
One of the best articles I’ve read on what Paul meant when he said “all Israel will be saved” is by Christopher Zoccali, “‘And So All Israel will be Saved’: Competing Interpretations of Romans 11.26 in Pauline Scholarship.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30, no. 3 (2008): 289-318.
Zoccali argues, compellingly to my mind, that “all Israel” refers to “the complete number of elect from the historical/empirical nation”; that is, it is describing the process from the resurrection of Jesus to his return whereby a significant number of Jews are provoked to jealousy by the gentiles’ generally positive response to the preaching of the gospel and so come to trust in Jesus as their own Messiah.
Zoccali list four main alternatives to this view, and shows the problems with each of them:
- The “eschatological miracle”; i.e. a wholesale turning of the Jewish people to Christ when he returns. This is the majority view today amongst commentators and scholars.
- “Israel” actually means “the church”, composed of Jew and Gentile, e.g. Calvin, Barth and N. T. Wright.
- Paul is simply envisaging the resolution of a specific anomalous situation in the Roman church (Nanos).
- The “two covenant” interpretation, which holds that all Israel will be saved through the Sinai covenant irrespective of faith in Christ, e.g. Gaston and Stowers.
Here are a couple of exegetical points he makes:
- “a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (11:25) doesn’t necessarily imply that this hardening will be taken away in a miraculous act at the end of time. In the context of chapter 11, it’s making a statement about the significance of the hardening of Israel; that it is allowing for Gentile salvation by opening up a period of time during which this salvation can occur.
- The phrase καὶ οὔτως (11:26) means what it normally means, “and in this way”. It doesn’t mean “and then”. If Paul had meant to say “and then”, he would have written καὶ τότε
The whole article is worth a read if you’re planning to preach on Romans 11 or if you want to chase up the issue further. Even if you disagree with him, he summarises the issues and the main options very clearly.
Μὴ γένοιτο! No way! Gentiles don’t need to be included in Israel. In fact, the opposite is true; we Gentiles are saved by faith in Christ without being included in Israel. That’s one of the apostle Paul’s big points in Romans and Galatians.
We are, of course, included in the promises given to Abraham (Rom 4:11, 16; Gal 3:7). But being a child of Abraham is not the same as being a member of Israel. That’s why Paul says that Abraham is the Father of many nations (Rom 4:17-18), not that Abraham is the father of one nation, Israel, that has somehow been redefined or expanded to include other nations. Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians are united, not in Israel, but in the promises to Abraham and ultimately in Christ.
The idea that the Gentiles are included in Israel is one of the (if not the) fundamental exegetical mistakes of the New Perspective on Paul.
PS that’s probably why Paul almost always speaks of the church using familial terms, such as “children” and “sons”, rather than political terms (i.e. as a “people”, which is a political word).
Gadenz, Pablo T. Called from the Jews and from the Gentiles: Pauline Ecclesiology in Romans 9–11. Edited by Jörg Frey, WUNT II.267. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009, esp. page 82.
Of course not. Jesus, referring to his upcoming death, said:
I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!
(Luke 12:50)
There’s no evidence that Jesus got wet when he died.
Paul said of the Israelites,
For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea …
(1 Cor 10:1-2)
The Israelites were baptized, but they didn’t get wet. In fact, the Israelites’ dryness is a pretty significant feature of the story of the Exodus. 1 Peter 3:20-21 talks about another time when not getting wet was the key factor in salvation (i.e. the time of Noah and the flood), and links this episode to “baptism”.
My point is that when we read the word βαπτίζω / βαπτισμός / βάπτισμα in the Bible, we shouldn’t rule out the possibility that it’s referring to a non-aqueous “immersion” into something or somebody. Of course, sometimes it’s obvious that the baptism actually involves water, and the baptisee gets wet (e.g. Luke 3:3, 16; and so therefore almost certainly Acts 2:38). But the literal use of water, as we have seen, is not always implied in the use of the word.
In other words, sometimes it’s better to actually translate the word-group βαπτι-* (as, e.g., “immersion”, which has a large semantic range in English) rather than merely transliterate it (as “baptism”, which has a much more specific and narrow semantic range).
I’m saying this because I think that people are often too quick to assume that Paul is talking about a Christian rite of initiation involving water when he talks about “baptism” in Romans 6:3-4 and Galatians 3:27.
Here’s something I’d like to say:
I’ve just picked up a copy of Douglas A. Campbell’s The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009). Initially, I was a bit daunted. It’s a very big and scary book, running to 1218 pages. But I’ve just realised that I don’t need to read it all to understand its meaning! I have a theory about the book, that makes more and more sense the more I think about it. The book can’t be Doug Campbell’s own position. It’s too full of overly complicated theories and uncalled-for denunciations. On my reading of Campbell, his whole book is actually a presentation of the position of one of his opponents, whom he wants to discredit simply by quoting at length. Campbell’s own position only truly shines through in his very last, highly ironic, sentence, where he sums up his opponent: “It seems that beyond our European conceits, the real Paul awaits us.”
Did I say that?
|
|
