ECT Why Rom 11 does not mean a restored Israel

[Interplanner]

If you've read ch 10-11 attentively, you know that Paul would really like to see Israel in the mission of God. There are advantages to that.

There is then the question in the trees and grafting section of 11 about who is really in the 'Israel' that Paul is talking about. The reason there is a distinction from the ethne/race is that faith in Christ alone is what matters now. It is no longer a matter of God doing things with ethnes/races, because he has created his own 'ethne'--those at work in his vineyard, Mt 21. The mission.

The reason Rom 11 does not mean a restored race is at the end of 11 after the 'all Israel saved' and the Isaiah quote that was fulfilled. It is that everything is now done through Christ, through how people related to that historic Gospel. All have been found in sin, and all can be forgiven in that Gospel.

A restored race/ethne and/or land and/or temple would simply have no significance. It has memorial or roots value which is why the non-Christian modern nation seems to be pursuing it, but not as far as the NT is concerned.

This is why Israel's partially hardening (that has always been there--the examples go all the way back to the birth of the people) is for the duration. The sense of Rom 11 on this is not temporary until a change, but for the duration to the end of the world.

If you dont see the mission all through 10 and 11, you may think there is a restored state coming. But what would it have to do with the mission--the preachers--the new covenant Gospel that has come (the Isaiah quote)--the tons of passages about the Gentiles believing?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

For the best exegetical analysis of Romans 9-11, see:

https://www.amazon.com/Justification-God-Exegetical-Theological-Romans-ebook/dp/B008SARAS4

This is not your usual soft and simple John Piper, but rather a thorough examination of Romans 9 (and supporting Biblical books, including Romans 11). It is undoubtedly the best written work on the topic to have appeared in the last hundred years. Warning: it is not for the faint of heart as it is soaked in analysis of the ancient languages and deep theological concepts.

Those that are accustomed to Piper's usual methods of writing and speaking will be quite surprised to see the depths of his analysis at work. It is a 250+ page book that took me almost three months to fully digest, but was well worth the time and effort.

A teaser from the book (footnotes referenced therein are not shown)...

Spoiler

1. “It is not of the one who wills or runs” (Romans 9:16)

Paul uses the word “run” (τρέχω) in 1 Cor 9:24, 26; Gal 2:2; 5:7; Phil 2:16; 2 Thess 3:1. The usage is not uniform in meaning. “Running” can refer to the normal good progress of daily Christian living (Gal 5:7); to the successful spread of the Gospel as the word runs and is glorified in reaching the goal of faith (2 Thess 3:1); and to Paul’s apostolic ministry with all the spiritual effort it involves (1 Cor 9:24–26; Gal 2:2; Phil 2:16). In the latter case it parallels the sport of boxing on the one hand (1 Cor 9:26), and the toil of labor on the other (Phil 2:16)—the former stressing Paul’s reward for finishing his course (cf 2 Tim 4:8) and the latter stressing the happy completion of the thing he was laboring on.

The explicit allusion to the sport of running in 1 Cor 9:24–26 inclines most commentators to construe the “running” of Rom 9:16 as a similar allusion with the focus being on the exertion required to run. But Adolf Schlatter raised a question whether in fact Paul intends any reference to the stadium here (Gerechtigkeit, 300), and Bent Noack (“Celui qui court,” 113–16) and Gerhard Maier (Mensch und freier Wille, 368–70) have developed compelling arguments against an athletic, Hellenistic background and in favor of a Jewish one. Their arguments may be summarized as follows.

1) The immediate and wider context of Rom 9:16 is marked by a distinctly Jewish concern (cf 9:1–5) and there is no hint (excepting the one word “run”) of an athletic metaphor. 2) The phrase, “not of the one who wills neither of the one who runs,” translates back into Hebrew as לאבידהרוצהולאבידהרץ and reveals a possible word play or alliteration between הרוצה and הרץ, which suggests that we do well to consider the use of רוּץ in the Old Testament as the background for Rom 9:16. 3) Psalm 119:32 (LXX 118:32) commends itself readily as an indication of how Paul may have understood “running” here: “I will run the way of your commands.”

In other words, not the physical effort of the Greek games, but the moral resolve to keep the law may well be the background of Paul’s metaphor.1 4) The allusion to “running the way of the commandments” would cohere very closely with Rom 9:30f where the similar word διώκω appears: “the Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness attained righteousness, the righteousness from faith; but Israel, though pursuing a law of righteousness, did not reach the law” (cf also Phil 3:14–15). 5) Noack (115) gives two rabbinic references to confirm the Jewish usage: b. Ber. 28b: “I run and they run; I run toward the life in the world to come, they run toward perdition”; b. Pes. 112a: “Be courageous as the panther, swift as the eagle, run like the deer, and be strong like the lion to do the will of your Father who is in heaven.” 6) Maier (p 53f) argues that Paul expresses himself in conscious opposition to the widespread Pharisaic viewpoint expressed in Ps Sol 9:4f (quoted in Chapter Three, note 59) and Sir 15:14f: “It was [the Lord] who created man in the beginning and he left him in the power of his own inclination.”

The substance of Paul’s response2 falls within the line of thought developed to its logical conclusion in Qumran: “For is man the master of his way? No, a man does not establish his steps, for his justification belongs to God and from his hand comes perfection of way. By his knowledge all things are brought into being, by his purpose every being established, and without him is nothing done” (1 QS 11:10f; cf Chapter Three, notes 57, 58). That Paul’s mind is moving in this thought-world lessens the probability that with the word “run” he has reached for a Greek athletic metaphor rather than a Jewish metaphor of moral attainment. 7)

Finally, Maier (368) correctly observes that verse 16 is “a sharpened repetition of the thesis of predestination in 9:11f.” More specifically, the “not from works but from him who calls” in 9:12 corresponds precisely to “not of him who wills or of him who runs but of God who has mercy” in 9:16. Therefore, we are to understand “willing and running” as an expression of “works” which, according to Rom 9:32, is the way Israel was “pursuing” (i.e., running after) the law. I conclude, therefore, with Noack and Maier that Paul draws his metaphor from a Jewish background in which, for some, human willing and acting in pursuit of the law were regarded as finally decisive in determining God’s merciful blessing.

But we must be careful not to place an unintended limitation on Rom 9:16 as if Paul wanted to say merely that only some willing and running (i.e., “works”) do not initiate God’s decision to show mercy while another kind of willing and running (e.g., the “work of faith”; cf Gal 5:7; 1 Thess 1:3) do initiate God’s decision to show mercy. There are at least three reasons why not just some but all human willing and running are excluded here as determinative in God’s decision to show mercy.

First, the fact that, as we have seen, 9:16 repeats the point of 9:11f proves that all willing is intended in 9:16 since in 9:11 God’s decision to show a special mercy to Jacob and not Esau happened before they were born. Neither the bad willing/running of “works” nor the good willing/running of faith had any influence at all on God’s decision to show mercy.

Second, 9:16 is an inference from Ex 33:19 (“I will have mercy on whomever I have mercy”), but one cannot infer from this text that God’s decision to have mercy is determined by some acts of human willing/running but not others. Such an interpretation would have to be read into the text by those who have already decided that Paul must leave room here for human self-determination. What really follows from “I will have mercy on whomever I have mercy” is precisely what Paul says: not any attitude or act of men, but God alone determines his bestowals of mercy.

Third, the closest analogy in Paul to the phrase οὐ τοῦ θέλοντος οὐδὲ τοῦ τρέχοντος in Rom 9:16 is Phil 2:13: “God is the one who works in you both the willing and the working” (τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν). This text gives the positive counterpart to our text and confirms our interpretation. Man’s willing and running do not determine the bestowal of God’s mercy (9:16); on the contrary, God’s mercy determines man’s willing and working (Phil 2:13). And since the “willing and working” referred to in Phil 2:13 is not evil “works” but the obedience of faith, it follows that the assertion of Rom 9:16 cannot be limited to only some kinds of willing and running. For these three reasons Rom 9:16 should be construed so as to sweep away forever the thought that over against God there is any such thing as human self-determination in Pauline anthropology.3

We may be able to refine our understanding of the juxtaposition of θέλειν and τρέχειν still further. In answer to the question why Paul should mention both of these words one might naturally suggest that “willing” is viewed as the inception of an action (running) and “running” is viewed as the consummation in behavior of a decision or attitude (willing). Thus Paul aims to say that no processes at all in the psycho-physical life of man determine God’s decision to bestow mercy or not. This, I think, is an accurate statement of Paul’s intention. But there may be an added nuance of meaning suggested by Paul’s analogous uses of θέλω elsewhere. In Rom 7:15 Paul says, “What I will this I do not practice, but what I hate this I do” (οὐ γὰρ ὃ θέλω τοῦτο πράσσω, ἀλλʼ ὃ μισῶ τοῦτο ποιῶ; cf Gal 5:17). Here it is evident that Paul knows θέλειν does not always give birth to a deed.

This is a common experience and no surprise to us. But in 2 Cor 8:10, where Paul is urging the believers to lay aside money for the poor saints in Jerusalem, he says, “This is best for you who began a year ago not only to do but also to will” (οὐ μόνον τὸ ποιῆσαι ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ θέλειν). We might have expected just the reverse order. Here Paul treats θέλειν as something over and above ποίειν, something more that makes the ποίειν even better. Evidently θέλειν here stands not for that initial act of will by which all human action is generated but for the cheerful and hearty consent commended in 2 Cor 9: 7. Therefore, it is possible that one could be “running” (i.e., doing good deeds) but not “willing” (i.e., consenting cheerfully to the deed).

If Paul is thinking in these terms in Rom 9:16 then the nuance of meaning not to be overlooked would be: it does not matter whether you perform your deeds with cheer or begrudgingly; God’s decision to bestow mercy or not lies wholly within himself. But the progression from willing to running (“neither of the one who wills nor of the one who runs”) makes this interpretation less than certain.

Piper, John. The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1993. Print.

Highly recommended!

AMR

 

[Danoh]

Hey AMR, hope you are well, dear brother.

Piper strikes me as a works salvationist who struggles with simply coming out and saying that is what he actually is.

He often talks about how that Christ has made possible the conduct becoming of a saint, as a saint, that will allow said saint to get into heaven.

Sounds too RCC and or old school holiness...

It appears he has never been able to reconcile his preaching of the finished work of the Cross with what he has experienced in life and or observed in others.

An unfortunate error in understamding on his part that he then passes on to others through his preaching and writings.

For we walk by faith; and not by sight.

Be well, brother.

 

[Interplanner]

If he doesn't talk about the mission as foremost importance, I will pass on it.

 

[Danoh]

If he doesn't talk about the mission as foremost importance, I will pass on it.

Who cares?

For if he is a works salvationist; his talk of "mission" will be skewed.

:doh:

 

[Interplanner]

Who cares?

For if he is a works salvationist; his talk of "mission" will be skewed.

:doh:

If you don't see the mission in Rom 9-11 as the objective toward which Israel should be working, you will have all kinds of works salvation theories and other mistakes known as D'ism or 2P2P or MAD or other gospels, spirits, Jesuses.

 

[Danoh]

If you don't see the mission in Rom 9-11 as the objective toward which Israel should be working, you will have all kinds of works salvation theories and other mistakes known as D'ism or 2P2P or MAD or other gospels, spirits, Jesuses.

Absolute nonsense on your part - FEW are clearer on the Justification issue than the Mid-Acts Dispy - VERY FEW.

Absolute clarity on the Justification issue is what led to the reemergence of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism and is why Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is so clear on the Justification issue.

And this is not being arrogant.

Rather; it is being adamant on the FINISHED work of Christ ALONE.

 

[Interplanner]

Absolute nonsense on your part - FEW are clearer on the Justification issue than the Mid-Acts Dispy - VERY FEW.

Absolute clarity on the Justification issue is what led to the reemergence of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism and is why Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is so clear on the Justification issue.

...and still don't seem to know what Acts 13 is saying! Or that it is a sermon! Or that there is a climax! Or that it makes a sweeping statement about the promises to Israel! Or about the resurrection! Or justification!

 

[Interplanner]

The problem with MAD Danoh is not just Acts 13, but it's a good test. the problem is number of things they mythologize about the early gospel accounts, possibly even about Isaiah and Psalms. It's the out-of-nowhere mystery problem. The mystery is actually there in the Writings, but veiled without Christ.

As you know, we now have the MADs saying that the Gospels and "early Acts" are Old Covenant or Old Testament. That is really mental. That's why I wrote the thread 'why I stopped seeing Acts 3 as futurist.'

The NIV didn't help by translating Rom16's mystery as 'from the beginning' either. it should be 'for long ages.'

There were others who saw all of it in Christ all through time, but the revived interest in the Law in the IT/Pharisee age made the Law the Savior. As it says in Jn 5:39. BUT THEY TESTIFY OF CHRIST!!! That has the same deep connection as Eph 3:5's 'through the Gospel' where Judaism thought it was through the Law.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Hey AMR, hope you are well, dear brother.

Piper strikes me as a works salvationist who struggles with simply coming out and saying that is what he actually is.

To avoid potential ninth commandment violations I will extend Piper the full measure of assuming he is being misunderstood when he speaks of his so-called present and future justification. I wish he had chosen better terms thus avoiding the backlash that resulted from these words. What I see him simply speaking to is the the justification by faith alone by Christ alone that is made obvious to all at the Judgment when all our words and deeds will in plain view. The fact that we persevered and the fruits of our faith will be plainly seen is the evidence of our rightful once and for all justification that took place when we were regenerated, believed and repented. See here, for example.

AMR

 

[Interplanner]

To avoid potential ninth commandment violations I will extend Piper the full measure of assuming he is being misunderstood when he speaks of his so-called present and future justification. I wish he had chosen better terms thus avoiding the backlash that resulted from these words. What I see him simply speaking to is the the justification by faith alone by Christ alone that is made obvious to all at the Judgment when all our words and deeds will in plain view. The fact that we persevered and the fruits of our faith will be plainly seen is the evidence of our rightful once and for all justification that took place when we were regenerated, believed and repented. See here, for example.

AMR

Justification is not a 'moment' in our lives. That distorts the NT picture pretty badly, and has lots of people chasing through a labyrinth of before, during and after questions that are mistaken.

 

[Danoh]

The Believer's Justification is not based on his or her having persevered.

Piper's problem is his attempting to solve for his dilemma through the same manner of reasoning "at" a thing that has him in his dilemma to begin with.

The exact same manner of reasoning, and reasoning, and reasoning "at" a thing until a James 2 is made to be the sister of a Romans 4 - the very practice so many so erroneously end up believing is how such dilemmas are solved for.

Piper on this issue...

“I know people, and I would say this about myself, for whom the greatest threat to my perseverance and my ultimate salvation is the
slowness of my sanctification. It’s not theoretical questions like ‘Did He rise from the dead?’ or the problem of evil. I’ve got answers. But why I sin against my wife the same at age 62 that I did at age 42 causes me sometimes to doubt my salvation or the power of the Holy Spirit…”

- John Piper, “Why God is Not a Megalomaniac in Demanding to be Worshipped” 60th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society.

I’m suggesting that Paul wants us to think this way: Getting to heaven demands the use of means, and Christ has died to make these means effective for your brothers and sisters. The means include
persevering in faith (“The one who endures to the end will be saved,” Mark 13:13), and fighting sin (“If by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live,” Rom 8:13), and being exhorted by brothers not to lapse into patterns
of sin and unbelief (“exhort one another every day...that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin,” Heb 3:13).

- John Piper, “Do Not Destroy the Work of God (Romans 14:14-23),”
11-6-05 desiringGod.org.

…These are just some of the conditions that the New Testament says we must meet in order to
be saved in the fullest and final sense. We must believe in Jesus and receive him and turn from
our sin and obey him and humble ourselves like little children and love him more than we love
our family, our possessions, or our life. This is what it means to be converted to Christ. This alone is the way of life everlasting.

- John Piper, 2003, pgs. 69-70, Desiring God; Sisters, OR; Multnomah Publishers.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Justification is not a 'moment' in our lives. That distorts the NT picture pretty badly, and has lots of people chasing through a labyrinth of before, during and after questions that are mistaken.

Justification is a one time forensic declaration. To make it more than such is to jump on Rome's treadmill:
http://goo.gl/Cdj3OF

AMR

 

[Interplanner]

Justification is a one time forensic declaration. To make it more than such is to jump on Rome's treadmill:
http://goo.gl/Cdj3OF

AMR

Yes, one time, but to put that within our lives is a mistake. Rom 3: God is both just and the justifier of the person who has faith in Jesus. So he has been offering justification for quite a while. It is not an experience. Granted, it can be quite a mind-blower to realize what he is offering!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Yes, one time, but to put that within our lives is a mistake. Rom 3: God is both just and the justifier of the person who has faith in Jesus. So he has been offering justification for quite a while. It is not an experience. Granted, it can be quite a mind-blower to realize what he is offering!

You will have to unpack the above a wee bit for it to make any sense to me. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

AMR

 

[Danoh]

You will have to unpack the above a wee bit for it to make any sense to me. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

AMR

It appears he is saying that justification is a one time "done and done" - not something one then works at maintaining the done deal status of from that point forward.

One is either justified, or one is not. It is not a process in stages. Neither before nor after one is declared having been made the righteousness of God in His Son.

If so; I concur.

Piper appears confused on the difference between justification and sanctification.

The sanctification is merely the life long issue of living out the justification that becomes the Believer's the moment he trusts that Christ died for his sins...

Whether or not one fails one's wife, or what have you, from time to time, is not an issue of "perhaps I am not saved," but of "perhaps I am not walking in my justified status.."

As Paul put it to the Ephesians...

Ephesians 4:1. This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: 4:19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. 4:20 But ye have not so learned Christ; 4:21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; 4:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. 4:25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

In other words, "be who God has declared you and made you in His Son - Justified - Accepted in the Beloved.

Be that - walk in HIM.

Justification is a one time, done deal.

"You know, wife; I screwed up.. That was not who God has made me in His Son...please accept my apology...you are everything to me in Him..."

No need to "I wonder if perhaps I am not saved..."

Or as that old hymn by Helen Baylor goes...


Thank you Jesus you're the power and the glory
Thank you Jesus you're the never ending story
Thank you Jesus you're my saviour and my Lord
Thank you Jesus you're the father of creation
Thank you Jesus you are mercy and salvation
Thank you Jesus
With your love my broken heart has been restored

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

It appears he is saying that justification is a one time "done and done" - not something one then works at maintaining the done deal status of from that point forward.

One would hope this to be the case.

AMR

 

[Danoh]

One would hope this to be the case.

AMR

Yep

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You will have to unpack the above a wee bit for it to make any sense to me. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

AMR

:up:

So far, Danoh is the only TOLer that understands IP's posts.

 

[Interplanner]

:up:

So far, Danoh is the only TOLer that understands IP's posts.

As for understanding Piper on justification: I believe Danoh is correct; he has confused it with sanctification. Many modern evangelicals have, not appreciating the power and distinction of the issue of sin as debt before going on to talk about personal transformation.

As for the ongoing need, it is needed ongoing. And no one who denies they need justification from their sins is justified. That should be obvious.

If STP is talking about understanding me, then what we expect to hear is a lot of what we understand. When we don't expect to hear a certain thing, we usually don't understand it, even though that is what is being said. The Bible is like that (unexpected) pretty much all through.