Paul and Romans 9-11

In the history of Christianity there seems to be no more controversial passages of Scripture other than Romans 9-11. For Calvinists this is a favorite proof text for many key doctrines such as unconditional election, unconditional damnation (dually called double predestination), and the denial of any human will in salvation. For non-Calvinists this passage has always seemed to present itself as a problem because of what seems to the undeniable truth that seems to affirm the doctrines that so many non-Calvinists reject. What then is Paul's purpose of Romans 9-11? Is this passage essential to the book of Romans or is it simply an after thought or a tangent? How does this passage fit into the whole of salvation history in the book of Romans and into the entire canon of Scripture?

I believe that this so hotly debated dichotomy can be cleared up with relatively little blood shed. Simply put, in the spirit of the New Perspective, those of the strict Reformed tradition have taken this passage completely and utterly out of its original Pauline context. Romans 9 is typically cited, in the name of Reformed Orthodoxy, to uphold such doctrines as those listed in the above paragraph. It does the passage great harm to quote it to support such ideas anywhere in the realm of individual salvation/condemnation/election. The surrounding context supports no such ideas. If one would simply read the entire passage he or she would find that Paul is speaking of his great pain that his ethnic brothers, the Israelites have rejected their long awaited Messiah, the Messiah he at first rejected as well. From Paul’s writing we can gather that many were probably wondering if God’s promises concerning Israel were simply no longer going to be fulfilled. Paul is quick to answer this question. “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named’” (Rom. 9.6-7). If one reads the entire thought of Romans 9 with this in mind it is clear that the classic Calvinistic proof texts quickly becomes quite another thing for Paul. He is simply demonstrating that God’s Word has not failed; he has not broken his promise but fulfilled it. “And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls"(Rom. 9.10-11). It is clear from context that God’s purpose of election has nothing to do with his supposed arbitrary choice of individuals for salvation, but rather his election of the nation Israel has indeed been upheld in the death and resurrection of her Messiah.

Chapters 10 and 11 also continue to deal with the same topic. Has God failed in his promises to the nation of Israel? “For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness” (Rom. 10.3). NT Wright, in his book What Saint Paul Really Said, describes “the righteousness of God” not as something that God gives to believers, but rather God’s own justice towards his covenant promises. I would have to whole heartedly agree with his definition. Paul is clear then that Israel did not realize God’s own righteousness/faithfulness in what he was doing with them. They had molded God’s covenant into something it was not, namely, their ethnocentric view of justification. Paul is clear here that faith is the “badge”, so to speak, of vindication, not the Law. Paul sums up chapter 10 with his quote of the prophet Isaiah, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.” God’s purpose of his covenant with Israel was not just for them, but so that the entire human race would be offered membership in the covenant. Chapter 11 is simply Paul’s rhetoric to prove this point further. One must only look to the illustration of the grafted branches to see this demonstrated.

So what then is this passage's purpose? It seems as though Paul uses this passage as a key premise in his argument against the ethnocentric obsession with the Law that Israel had. They had defined the covenant on their own terms. They had their own things they wanted to get out of it. But were their desires and God’s desires on the same plain? Obviously they were not. Paul’s purpose was to show that God had not failed in his promises to Abraham, namely that he would be the father of a family that would be characterized by faith. The answer to the question of whether or not this passage is essential is a resounding “YES”. God had now fulfilled his promises. He had now broken down the walls between the Jews and Gentiles and created a family characterized by faith through the faithfulness of the Messiah. And concerning this passage’s place in salvation history: it is right at the center. It is not to be understood as a free floating passage about how God elected some individuals and damned the rest, but as a premise in Paul’s argument that God is faithful to his promises. He was shown to be faithful in reversing the power unleashed in the world by Adam’s sin, by means of the death of his Son. He was shown to be faithful in his promise to Abraham to create a world wide faith family, which he did by the faithfulness of his Son. Paul’s point is simple: above all things, God is faithful.