No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 January 2009
Of the many problems which trouble interpreters of Romans 9–11, none rises more massively from its pages or casts a more impenetrable shadow than the relationship between Paul's argument in 9:6–13 and his argument in 11:25–31. The issue in both passages is whether God's biblical promises to save Israel have failed (9:6, 11:29), exposing the God of Paul's gospel as untruthful (15:8) and unrighteous (3:5, 10:3). In 9:6–13 Paul denies the charge by defining Israel on the basis of God's choice rather than on the basis of national affiliation. In 11:25–32, however, he denies the charge by pointing forward to a time in which God will fulfill his promises and secure the salvation of all Israel. The problem is that these two defenses of God's faithfulness seem to contradict one another, and the defense in chapter eleven seems not only to contradict the one in chapter nine but to oppose Paul's frequent and emphatic denial in several letters, and especially in Romans, that national Israel has any soteriological advantage over the Gentiles.
1 Harnack, Adolfvon, Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte und zur Abfassungszeit der synoptischen Evangelien (Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Heft 4; Leipzig, 1911) 42–45Google Scholar; Davies, W. D., ‘Paul and the People of Israel’ in Jewish and Pauline Studies (Philadelphia, 1984) 146–152Google Scholar, esp. 149; Dodd, C. H., The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London and Glasgow, 1959) 188, 192Google Scholar; Sanders, E. P., Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia, 1983) 192–198Google Scholar, Paul (Oxford and New York, 1991) 117–128Google Scholar. See also Räisänen, Heikki, ‘Paul, God, and Israel: Romans 9–11 in Recent Research’ in The Social World of Formative Judaism, ed. Neusner, Jacob (Philadelphia, 1988) 178–206.Google Scholar
2 Cranfield, C. E. B., The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh, 1979) 458–461Google Scholar, 472–74, 480–84, 490, 496–98, 500–501, 513, 538, 543–47, 550, 553, 565, 570, 577, 587, 592.
3 Wright, N. T., The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh, 1991) 231–257.Google Scholar
4 Wilckens, Ulrich, Der Brief an die Römer (Röm 6–11) (Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 6.2; Zurich and Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1980) 196–197.Google Scholar
5 Müler, Ulrich B., Prophetie und Predigt im Neuen Testament: Formgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur urchristlichen Prophetie (Studien zum Neuen Testament 10; Gütersloh, 1975) 225–232Google Scholar. Cf. Glombitza, Otto, ‘Apostolische Sorge: Welche Sorge treibt den Apostel Paulus zu den Sätzen Röm. xi 25 ff.?’ NovT 7 (1964–1965) 315Google Scholar and Noack, Bent, ‘Current and Backwater in the Epistle to the Romans’, Studia Theologica 19 (1965) 165–166.Google Scholar
6 Aageson, James W., ‘Scripture and Structure in the Development of the Argument in Romans 9–11’, CBQ 48 (1986) 265–289Google Scholar. See esp. 277–78, 280.
7 (New Haven, 1989).
8 Hays, , Echoes 35.Google Scholar
9 See, for example, Wedderbum, A. J. M., The Reasons for Romans (Edinburgh, 1988) 59Google Scholar; Bruce, F. F., ‘The Romans Debate — Continued’ in The Romans Debate, ed. Donfried, Karl Paul (rev. and exp. ed.; Peabody, Mass., 1991) 182–183Google Scholar; Stuhlmacher, Peter, ‘The Theme of Romans’ in The Romans Debate 336Google Scholar; Campbell, William S., ‘Romans III as a Key to the Structure and Thought of the Letter’ in The Romans Debate 262Google Scholar; and Brown, Raymond E., ‘Rome’ in Brown, Raymond E. and Meier, John P., Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (New York: Paulist Press, 1983) 112–113.Google Scholar
10 Most students of early Christianity in Rome believe that from the beginning the Roman church was Jewish in character. See Dahl, Nils Alstrup, ‘The Future of Israel’ in Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission (Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg, 1977) 139–142Google Scholar; Wedderburn, , Reasons 50–54Google Scholar, 74, 104, 112, and 114; Bruce, F. F., ‘Romans Debate’ 175–194Google Scholar; Brown, , ‘Rome’ 94–113Google Scholar. Paul, however, seems to envision a Gentile majority in the Roman church in 11:13, 19, 24, and 25. This apparent discrepancy is frequently explained by postulating a change in the ethnic and religious situation in the Roman church by the time Paul wrote. Brown, , ‘Rome’ 111–120Google Scholar, however, believes that the church was still predominantlyjewish when Paul wrote Romans and that in these verses Paul was attempting to respond to unflattering rumors which had arisen in Rome after the production of Galatians.
11 Recent notes of caution about considering Romans a letter to Jerusalem rather than to Rome are appropriate; but 15:30–32 demonstrates that it is not a flight of fancy to suggest that Paul's thoughts about Jerusalem have some bearing on the rest of Romans. In 15:30 Paul urges the Romans to ‘strive together with’ him in prayer for the success of his visit to Jerusalem. Although the term sunagonisasthai can mean merely ‘to agree with’ (as injosephus Ant. 12.18) it frequently means, especially in the papyri, ‘to fight alongside in battle’. The use of such a strong term demonstrates how worried Paul was by the prospect of meeting with disapproval and even violence (15:30) in the Holy City.
12 See also Hays, , Echoes 2.Google Scholar
13 Whereas the LXX has ēgapēsa ton lakōb, Paul has written ton lakōb ēgapēsa. Paul's rearrangement stresses the surprising nature of God's selection of jacob when according to cultural expectation and even legal right (see Deut. 21:15–17) Esau deserved God's blessing.
14 Käsemann, Ernst, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids, 1980) 264.Google Scholar
15 Koch, Dietrich-Alexander, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangelinms: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus (Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 69; Tūbingen, 1986) 303–304.Google Scholar
16 The MT of Gen. 21:9 reads simply, ‘And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she [Hagar] had borne for Isaac, joking.’ The LXX, in an attempt to interpret the joking more fully, translates, ‘But Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, who was born to Abraham, making sport with Isaac her son (paizonta meta Isaak tou huiou aules). Paizein frequently means simply ‘to play’, but can also have the meaning ‘to make sport of’. Gen. Rab. 53 interprets the verse in this way.
17 The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York, 1981) 6Google Scholar. See also the comments of Neyrey, Jerome, Paul, in Other Words: A Cultural Reading of His Letters (Louisville, 1990) 64–65.Google Scholar
18 See Coldin, Judah, ‘The Youngest Son or Where Does Genesis 38 Belong’, JBL 96 (1977) 32–33.Google Scholar
19 Goldin, ‘The Youngest Son’ 37, points out that despite Reuben's status as eldest son and his upright character, Jacob preferred Joseph.
20 Translations of Jubilees are from C. Rabin's revision of Charles's, R. H. translation in The Apocryphal Old Testament, ed. Sparks, H. F. D. (Oxford, 1985) 10–139.Google Scholar
21 Philo uses the motif as a hermeneutical link between the story of Esau's loss of his birthright tojacob and Manasseh's loss of his blessing to Ephraim. See Leg. All. III 88–94 and Sobr. 26–29. Barn. 13.1–7 uses it to ‘prove’ that the fulfillment of God's covenant belongs to the younger group of Gentile Christians rather than to the older race of Jews. Cf. Tert. Adv. Jud., 1. For the rabbinic literature, see Goldin, ‘The Youngest Son’, 32–33, and especially notes 36, 37.
22 Wright, , Climax 247–249Google Scholar; Campbell, , ‘Romans III’ 260–264Google Scholar; Wedderburn, , Reasons 90–91.Google Scholar
23 Aageson, , ‘Scripture and Structure’ 285.Google Scholar
24 This does not compromise Paul's contention that salvation comes by faith in Christ alone rather than by means of ethnic origin, for, as 11:23 indicates, the future incorporation of Israel will not happen apart from faith in Jesus Christ.
25 See Dahl, , ‘The Future of Israel’ 157.Google Scholar