Steven
E. Runge, High Definition Commentary: Romans
(Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014), 185
Romans 11
Romans 11:1–10
In chapters 9 and 10, Paul treats Israel as a nation. He mentions the remnant within the nation (9:27), but even his references to the sub-group of Israel that is truly “Israel” (9:6–7) portray them collectively, as a single, homogenous group. Paul seeks to unequivocally convince his audience that Israel’s decisions have dramatically affected their prospects for salvation. His arguments provide the foundation for his concluding remarks about Israel in this chapter—every facet of his argument has been building to this point.
But perhaps one unintended consequence of referring to Israel only as a collective is overstatement. In 10:3, when Paul claims Israel pursued a righteousness on their own terms rather than God’s, he paints too broadly. After all, there are Jewish believers in Rome who, like Paul, have abandoned this pursuit; thus there are individual members of the nation who have obtained God’s righteousness by faith. Paul’s goal up to this point has been not to get sidetracked by the minutiae, but to introduce all of the principles that explain the history and the expectations. Now with the pieces in place, Paul ties everything together into a single, coherent eschatological plan.
For the first time in the letter, Paul supports his claims by testifying to his own experience. Despite describing Israel’s unresponsiveness, he holds himself up as living proof of God’s faithfulness to Israel in regards to salvation (11:1). He rejects the notion that God has turned against His people, but he does so with a very important caveat—the phrase “whom He foreknew”—to delineate whom he means by “Israel.” Based on what follows—and on Paul’s careful qualifications about the identity of “Israel” from God’s standpoint—“whom He foreknew” reinforces Paul’s consistent claim that God’s redemption of Israel has always entailed something other than all Abraham’s physical descendants.
Rejected by God? This question becomes the big idea for the rest of the chapter. Paul’s answer builds on his claim in 9:6–8 that Israel should not be seen as a monolithic whole. It is the believing members of the nation who are considered heirs of the promise, not just Abraham’s physical descendants (4:12).
The question of whether God has rejected Israel—the big idea for the rest of the chapter—seems quite logical based on Paul’s collective description of the nation as stubborn and unwilling to submit to the righteousness of God. But at the same time, he has hinted that this is not the whole picture; some remnant or subgroup does respond in faith to the gospel. Having cited himself in 11:1b as one of the faithful, Paul turns to the Old Testament to further support his claim. His quotations from 1 Kings 19 also begin with a similarly bleak outlook, as Elijah claims he alone is the remaining prophet of the Lord. What a brilliant citation! Just as it might appear to Paul’s readers that God has rejected His people, so it appeared to Elijah that he was the only prophet left. In Romans 11:4 Paul skillfully asks a rhetorical question to highlight the unexpected turn of events—things are not as they appear. Just as God preserved a remnant in Elijah’s day, so He has selected a remnant in Paul’s day (11:5). Most significant is that this selection is based on grace, not works (11:5b–6). If God considered any other factor than His own sovereign election, then grace would no longer be grace.
Rejected by God? Paul adds an important qualifier to his declaration that God has not rejected Israel: “whom He foreknew.” Such a statement might be taken as a thematic flourish, but Paul follows up with several Old Testament examples of remnants within Israel being saved. Thus, “Israel, whom He foreknew” should be understood as a believing subset within the larger nation.
Thus, Paul reveals that the situation is more complex than he sketched out in 10:2–3. He is not saying that all Gentiles have responded and all of Israel has not. Paul shifts from generalities to specific detail in describing his understanding of God’s plan for the nation of Israel.
In Romans 4:12 Paul introduced the idea that not all of Abraham’s descendants are actually heirs of God’s promise to the patriarch. What’s more, even uncircumcised Gentiles who respond in faith like some of Abraham’s genetic descendants, are also counted heirs of the promise. This is the first occasion in Romans that Paul has explicitly portrayed God’s chosen people as a mixed group of Gentiles and a subset of the nation of Israel, all of whom have responded in faith.
He created another portrait in Romans 9:6–7 to drive home this same point, but with more focus on the remnant of Israel. Paul made three statements there that reinforce the claim in 4:12. Understanding God’s historic plan for the nation of Israel (and all peoples) demands that we recognize the distinctions God has made throughout Scripture. Regarding salvation, Paul consistently pictures Israel—both in Romans and in his selection of Old Testament quotations—as something other than a homogenous block of humanity.
Finally in 11:7, Paul shifts his discussion to how the nation and the remnant relate to each other. Some in Israel sought after righteousness but were hardened, whereas “the elect” found what they sought through faith. So who are the elect? Paul uses the same Greek word in Romans 9:11 to describe God’s activity of election—His selection of “the children of promise” rather than all descendants of Abraham (9:8–13). Paul uses a related form of the word in 8:33 to question who will bring a charge against God’s elect. So we find the concept of God’s “elect” people occurring along with references to those who have responded in faith apart from works of any kind. The reference in 8:33 undoubtedly would include Gentile believers rather than Jews alone, the same mixed group of believers referenced in 4:12. Paul offers a practical example of election in 9:14–18, even though he does not explicitly use the term. There he uses God’s act of raising up and hardening Pharaoh to illustrate the principles he outlines. Here he casts election as God showing mercy and compassion on whomever He chooses.
Paul also mentions “hardening” in 9:18, though it is a different Greek word than 11:7. We can understand hardening in a couple of ways. One is to see God doing something that is absolutely beyond a person’s control to change; we see this in the analogy of the potter and vessel in Romans 9:21. But there is another sense, one we see in the Exodus story, of a person hardening their own heart as a consequence of their choice not to obey or submit to some authority. Exodus 8:15, 32; and 9:34 describe Pharaoh hardening his own heart. We’ve all done the same thing when we have refused to submit to authority.
But in Exodus 10:1, we find God described as the one hardening Pharaoh’s heart. So which is it? I am inclined to say both. If God were not somehow involved, it would undermine His sovereign control. On the other hand, the hardening of one’s heart is easily understood as a consequence of the choice to reject obedience and submission to God. Until the heart is humbled and broken, it is natural for it to remain hardened.
Returning to the references in Romans, in both cases the hardening leads the person to reject God’s authority. We have something of a chicken vs. egg debate here. Whichever the case, Paul makes an important point: What could be considered disobedience at one level (the individual’s rejection of God’s plan) is actually obedience to a larger purpose on another level. The apostle provides two rationales for hardening: making God’s power known (9:17, 22) and making the riches of His glory known (9:23). Paul provides a more explicit description of God’s purpose for hardening later in this chapter.