The Justification of God

An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23

Piper, John

• Publisher: Baker Academic
• Year: 1993
• ISBN:
  9781585581580
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Theologie & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblische Studien

John Piper presents a careful, reasoned study of the doctrine of election. He dissects Paul's argument to highlight the picture of God and his righteousness painted in Romans 9. Undergirded by his belief that the sovereignty of God is too precious a part of our faith to dismiss or approach weak-kneed, Piper explores the Greek text and Paul's argument with singular deftness.

2

---

My Kinsmen Are Accursed!

Romans 9:1–5

1. The place of Romans 9:1–5 in the argument

If the main aim of this book is to understand the defense of God’s righteousness in Rom 9:14–23, why devote a whole chapter to Rom 9:1–5? The reason is that Paul’s argument in the chapter is so tightly woven that understanding one stage depends on understanding the others. The justification of God in 9:14–23 can be properly understood only in light of the assertions of 9:6b–13 which have seemed to call God’s righteousness into question. Then again 9:6b–13 is Paul’s effort to show that the word of God has not fallen (9:6a), and this effort can be understood only when we see why and in what sense the word of God has been called into question. This is what Rom 9:1–5 tells us and that is why we must include a chapter on this unit.

Excursus—The place of Romans 9–11 in the epistle

Of course, the whole epistle is woven together so that each part is illuminated somewhat by the others. But every study has its limits. Therefore I will content myself with a brief excursus concerning the recent discussion of the relationship between Rom 1–8 and Rom 9–11, and simply align myself with the view that seems to me to accord best with Paul’s intention.[1] C.H. Dodd is often cited, but less often followed, as a representative of those who stress the independence of Rom 9–11 from Rom 1–8 (Romans, 161). For example, A.M. Hunter, in explicit dependence on Dodd, writes, “Paul may have written this section earlier as a separate discussion of a vexed question. It forms a continuous whole and may be read without reference to the rest of the letter” (Introducing the New Testament, 96).

W.G. Kuemmel has demonstrated the inadequacy of the efforts to account for the presence of Rom 9–11 in the letter on the basis of the personal situation of Paul (e.g. preparing for his defense in Jerusalem[2]) or the concrete problems of the church in Rome (e.g. the presumptuousness of the Jewish Christians[3]). “Why these chapters are found in Romans can only be answered when the theological meaning of the chapters both in connection with the rest of Romans and Pauline theology is explained” (Kuemmel, “Probleme von Roemer 9–11,” 26). Thus the purpose of Rom 9–11 must be explained in relation to the purpose of the whole letter. Kuemmel is right, I think, that no suggested purpose for the letter is more probable than the one implied in 1:10ff and 15:20ff: “Paul writes to this community because in spite of the existence of a Christian community there he feels obligated to preach the gospel there too (1:15), and because he desires the material help of the Romans for his mission plans in Spain and the spiritual help of the Romans for his perseverance in Jerusalem (15:24)” (Kuemmel, 27). Paul aims to lay before this church the Christian gospel which he preaches so that they can see “the grace given to me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God” (15:15f). Since the gospel that he proclaims in Rom 1–8 is the power of God unto salvation “to the Jews first” (1:16) and since the Christ is “descended from David according to the flesh” (1:3) and “there is great value in circumcision” (3:2) and “the faithlessness of the Jews does not nullify the faithfulness of God” (3:3) and a saving promise was made “to Abraham and his descendants” (4:13), the question of Israel’s destiny becomes acute. It grows necessarily out of the exposition of Rom 1–8.

Leenhardt argues that between Rom 1–8 and 9–11 “there is a very close connection; furthermore a real logical necessity compels the apostle to deal with the subject which he now broaches [in Rom 9–11].”[4] A little differently than Leenhardt, but following Goppelt,[5] I see the necessity for Rom 9–11 in this: the hope of the Christian, with which Rom 1–8 came to a climax, is wholly dependent on God’s faithfulness to his word, his call (8:28,30). But, as Gutbrod asks, “Can the new community trust God’s Word when it seems to have failed the Jews?” (TDNT, III, 386). The unbelief of Israel, the chosen people, and their consequent separation from Christ (Rom 9:3) seem to call God’s word into question and thus to jeopardize not only the privileged place of Israel, but also the Christian hope as well.[6] Therefore, in Paul’s view, the theme of Rom 9–11 is not optional; it is essential for the securing of Rom 1–8. This view of Rom 9–11 assumes that Rom 9:6a (God’s word has not fallen) is the main point which Rom 9–11 was written to prove, in view of Israel’s unbelief and rejection.[7] What is at stake ultimately in these chapters is not the fate of Israel; that is penultimate. Ultimately God’s own trustworthiness is at stake.[8] And if God’s word of promise cannot be trusted to stand forever, then all our faith is in vain. Therefore our goal in analyzing Rom 9:1–5 is to see precisely how Paul conceives of the tension between God’s word and the fate of Israel. What is it precisely that makes God’s word appear to have fallen, but, in fact, does not impugn God’s faithfulness at all?

2. Exegesis of Romans 9:1–5

The following division of verse parts aims to highlight the text’s structure and to facilitate precision of reference in the exegesis.

1 a I speak the truth in Christ.

b I do not lie,

c my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit

2 that I have great grief and unceasing pain in my heart.

3 a For I myself could wish to be anathema, separated from Christ

b on behalf of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh,

4 a who are Israelites;

b whose are the sonship (ἡ υἱοθεσία)

and the glory (ἡ δόξα)

and the covenants (αἱ διαθῆκαι)[9]

and the giving of the law (ἡ νομοθεσία)

and the service of worship (ἡ λατρεία)

and the promises (αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι);

5 a whose are the fathers

b and from whom is the Messiah according to the flesh,

c who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.

In Rom 9:1–3 Paul avers his pain over the plight of his people. In 9:4,5 he describes the privileges of “his kinsmen according to the flesh.” The glorious privileges of 9:4,5 stand in vivid contrast to the sorrow of 9:3 and account for its intensity.[10] It is precisely this contrast between the privileges of Paul’s kinsmen in 9:4,5 and their plight in 9:3 which seems to imply that God’s word has fallen. What are these privileges (2.1) and this plight (2.2)?

2.1 The privileges of Paul’s kinsmen, Romans 9:4, 5

The structure of Rom 9:4,5 is tantalizing. It allures us to see intentional patterns, but in places eludes our desire for complete symmetry. The first characteristic of Paul’s kinsmen is that “they are Israelites” (9:4a). This designation is probably intended to resonate with a richness that sums up all the other privileges in 9:4,5. Not only does it stand at the head of the list of privileges, but also grammatically the rest are subordinate to it. Its significance for Paul is unfolded through three relative clauses (ὧν . . . ὧν . . . ἐξ ὧν) whose antecedent in each case is Ἰσραηλῖται.[11] Within the first relative clause (9:4b) six feminine nouns, each connected simply with καί, describe the privileges belonging to the “Israelites.” The formal pattern of these six nouns is visibly (and was audibly) obvious:

ἡ	υἱοθεσία καὶ ἡ	δόξα καὶ αἱ	διαθῆκαι
καὶ ἡ	νομοθεσία καὶ ἡ	λατρεία καὶ αἱ	ἐπαγγελίαι

The list falls into two groups of three with endings corresponding between the first and fourth, second and fifth, third and sixth.[12] This observation alone may be enough to account for the hapax legomenon νομοθεσία (instead of Paul’s usual νόμος which would have matched υἷος but not υἱοθεσία) and for the unusual use of the plural αἱ διαθῆκαι to produce the assonance with αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι.

Two other implications of this structure emerge for interpretation. First, the willingness to choose some words on the basis of rhyme or assonance implies that the meaning may lie more in the total, unified impact of the sixfold group than in the separate, distinct meanings of each member. We will have to test this implication as we analyze the individual members below. Second, since such a symmetrical structure tends to resist alteration and facilitate memory, it suggests that the unit is perhaps traditional rather than created ad hoc for this occasion. The occurrence of the unusual νομοθεσία and the plural διαθῆκαι could also suggest that Paul is here using a traditional Jewish list of privileges. Otto Michel and Lucien Cerfaux have argued for this view.[13]

But since Paul was one of the most creative and seminal theologians of the early church, we should consider seriously whether Rom 9:4 reflects his own selectivity, artistry and theology. This would not have to mean that Paul composed this list of privileges just for this letter. The letter clearly reflects Paul’s give-and-take with Jewish and Greek listeners during his missionary efforts.[14] It would be likely then that if Rom 9:4 is Paul’s own composition, it originated as early as his reflection on the problem of Israel’s rejection (Rom 11:14,15). If this were the case, the intervening years of repeatedly handing on this teaching to various groups would justify calling Rom 9:4 both genuinely Pauline as well as “traditional.”

In fact the arguments that Paul used a Hellenistic-Jewish tradition here are not persuasive. We have already shown that the poetic structure could have easily originated in Paul’s preaching and that therefore the appearance of words not common in Paul need not contradict his authorship since the demands of assonance in the parallel structure can adequately account for the unusual words. Moreover it remains to be proved that the other words, e.g. υἱοθεσία, are used here in a different sense from Paul’s usual usage (Michel). On the contrary, especially υἱοθεσία points to a Pauline origin since the word is used only by him in the New Testament (Rom 8:15,23; 9:4; Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5), does not occur in the LXX, and has virtually no history with a religious meaning prior to Paul.[15] But most important of all is the observation of Ulrich Luz, which has been borne out in my own study, that there simply are no parallels in the Jewish literature of a list of the prerogatives of Israel in anything approximating this form or selection.[16] Therefore, it is more probable that Rom 9:4 reflects Paul’s own art and theology. This will have a significant bearing on the exegesis.

The second relative clause attached to “Israelites” is “whose are the fathers” (ὧν οἱ πατέρες, 9:5a). Structurally the main question here is why πατέρες is introduced with its own relative pronoun (ὧν) rather than simply being added to the list of prerogatives in 9:4b. The answer is probably that as a seventh member of the list it would have destroyed the symmetry of three rhyming pairs, especially since πατέρες is masculine while the other members of the list are all feminine. Moreover, it refers to persons while the other members are all concepts. However, it is not as easy to say something positive about why πατέρες receives its own separate clause. There may be no other significance than what was just said, together with Paul’s desire not to put the patriarchs and the Messiah together in one clause (9:5ab) and thus imply that they are privileges on the same level. But two possible implications of the structure may be suggested. Michel (Roemer, 227 note 2) points out how the trio, Israelites (9:4a) and fathers (9:5a) and Messiah (9:5b), may reveal an intention to move from the many through the few to the one. Another possibility is that after listing the benefits of being Israelites in 9:4b, Paul closes with a kind of structure that brackets Israel’s history: the patriarchs inaugurate Israel and the Messiah brings its history to a climax (see below pp 42–43). Or it may simply be that, in view of the theological significance Paul ascribes to the fathers (11:16,28), he felt the need to include them among Israel’s benefits, and here in 9:5a is where they fit best.

One final observation of form is that the third relative clause (9:5b) differs from the first two (ἐξ ὧν instead of ὧν). The reason for this is so closely related to the meaning of the verse that we will postpone our discussion until the exegesis below (see pp 26–28).

2.11 “Who are Israelites”

It is of utmost importance to notice that the antecedent of οἵτινες is Paul’s kinsmen according to the flesh who are anathema, separated from Christ (9:3); and that this group of unbelievers is even now called Israelites (present tense: 9:4a). The tense of the verb[17] in 9:4a as well as the relationship[18] between 9:1–5 and 9:6a resists every effort (e.g. of Johannes Munck and Lucien Cerfaux) to relegate the prerogatives of Israel to the past.[19] Furthermore, Paul’s bold assertion that the glorious privileges of Israel belong to unbelieving Israel (the antecedent of οἵτινες, 9:4a) resists the effort of Erich Dinkier (“Praedestination,” 88) to argue from 9:6b (“Not all those from Israel are Israel”) that “the promises refer not to the empirical-historical Israel, but to the eschatological Israel” (by which he means the Church, without regard to ethnic origins). Whether the second “Israel” in 9:6b is the Church or the believing portion of empirical-historical Israel, the point there is this: the privileges given to Israel can never be construed to guarantee the salvation of any individual Jew or synagogue of Jews, and therefore the unbelief of Paul’s kinsmen cannot immediately be construed to mean that God’s word of promise has fallen. But in no way does 9:6b exclude the possibility that God’s intention may someday be to save “all Israel” (11:26). And therefore 9:6b does not give us a warrant to construe the privileges of 9:4,5 (against the wording of the text) as the privileges of eschatological Israel (= the Church) to the exclusion of empirical-historical Israel. Why should Dinkier prefer to see a contradiction between Rom 9:1–13 and 11:1–32 than to allow God’s intention for Israel’s future in 11:1–32 to help him see that Rom 9:6b should not be construed to rule out a future for ethnic Israel?

Excursus—The theological unity of Romans 9 and 11

W.G. Kuemmel (“Probleme von Roemer 9–11,” 30f) thinks that “the central problem in the interpretation of Rom 9–11” is whether Paul “destroys or employs conceptions of redemptive history.” He cites Dinkler (“Praedestination,” 97), Luz (Geschichtsverstaendnis, 295, 299) and Guettgemanns (“Heilsgeschichte,” 40, 47, 54, 58) as representatives of the exegetes who tend to emphasize the existential dimension of Paul’s meaning here to the exclusion of the historical. Over against this group Kuemmel finds an “excellent assumption for the interpretation of Rom 9–11” in the emphasis of Kaesemann (“Rechtfertigung und Heilsgeschichte,” 134), Mueller (Gottes Gerechtigkeit, 105) and Stuhlmacher (“Zur Interpretation von Roemer 11, 25–32,” 560) on the indispensably hist...