Romans 11:26 and Politics

Preamble

It is no doubt true that one's political commitments effects how one reads the New Testament.  I believe this is especially true in regard to Romans 11:26 and the modern state of Israel.  I contend that parties to the debate about the meaning of "all Israel will be saved" sometimes let their politics seep into their exegesis.  Christian Zionists tend to see "all Israel" as ethnic Israel and those angry at Christian Zionist's for their blind support for the state of Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinians tend to view "all Israel" as the Church. Be that as it may, I want to give my take on this passage and how it might or might not relate to the modern state of Israel.  My basic conclusion is that Paul has said enough before verse 26 to claim the ethnic Israel plays a part in Paul's eschatology.

Romans 11

I first want to present an argument that 11:26 does refer to ethnic Israel as its primary meaning.  The structure of chapter 11 revolves around the questions Paul asks: "has God rejected his people" (v. 1) and "have they stumbled so as to fall? (v. 11).  That the chapter has to do with ethnic Israel is clear by theses questions and the number of clear references to ethnic Israel:

• His people (vs. 1,2)
• Israel (vs. 2,7,25)
• [those of] my flesh (v.14)
• lump (v.16)
• branches (v.16,17,18,19,21)
• natural branches (v.24)
• Jacob (v.26b)

This laundry list is meant to point out that v.26 is clearly embedded in a discussion of Israel.  Those who think that "all Israel" in v.26 is the Church have to basically claim that vs. 25-27 or 25-32 are summarizing a larger argument and in this larger argument Paul does include Gentiles in "Israel" (see 9:24).  My point is that even if "all Israel" includes Gentiles here it is also true that Paul is emphasizing ethnic Israel's salvation in this verse and in this section.  I think this is bolstered by the scripture from Isaiah 59 in v.26b that mentions Jacob, which even if includes Gentiles in Paul's mind, I think here pertains to ethnic Israel.  Paul's point is that God is able to banish ethnic Israel's ungodliness.  Note the symmetry between v.25, 26b and v.27 which sandwich v.26a:

v.25 hardness in part to Israel has happened
v.26b he will turn away ungodliness from Jacob
v.27 when I take away the sins of them

Therefore, I think that verse 26 is meant to emphasize Jewish ability to be grafted back in.  It is hard to view vs.25-7 as purely summary unless vs.28-32 are also summary but these verses also discuss ethnic Israel as distinct from Gentiles.

Now I want to argue that it is not really decisive if v.26a refers to ethnic Israel or not.  There are four main stages in Romans 11.

1. Jewish disobedience
2. Gentile salvation
3. Jewish salvation
4. Consequences of Jewish salvation

There are also the transitions between these stages that I will describe thus:

• (1)- (2) It is not exactly clear how (1) leads to (2) but a popular conjecture is that according to Acts when the Jews rejected the Gospel, the preachers turned to the Gentiles (Acts 11:19-21; 13:45-48; 18:6; 19:8-10; 28:23-29).
• (2)- (3) It is Jewish jealousy that drives this transition (10:19 [Deut. 32:21]; 11:14).
• (3)- (4) Stage four is only mentioned twice (11:12 and 11:15) and Paul does not give us details how Jewish salvation is beneficial.  However, it is precisely this stage that I think has important theological consequences. 

Christological Role

Many scholars have noted the similarity between 5:10 and 11:15:

5:10: For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, we will be saved by his life.

11:15: For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead.

Paul is describing Israel in Christological terms.  This, I contend, shows that ethnic Israel does have a role in Paul's eschatology.  Even though there is no difference between Jew and Gentile in the sense of membership, that does not mean there cannot be a difference in role--as one scholar has put it: "unity does not mean uniformity" (this should have already been clear in Paul's body of Christ metaphor).

Therefore, a role can be found for ethnic Israel even if one sees Paul as including Gentiles in "Israel", even if the mystery of 11:25 is not new, even if Israel has to believe in Jesus to be saved, even if there is no necessary connection with the Parousia (though reference to the dead and the fullness-of-Gentiles-already-accomplished hints at this) etc.  The "fullness" mentioned in 11:12 relates to "all Israel" in 11:26.

State of Israel

None of this, or course, has any necessary relationship to the modern State of Israel, which is as of right now not believing in Jesus.  However, given the Christological role that Paul hints at for Israel, I find it interesting that the two major Jewish event in the twentieth century come very close to death/resurrection vocabulary: holocaust/birth of Israel.  This is just a conjecture but maybe the delay in the Kingdom of God on earth is related to the continuing Jewish unbelief/unfullness of Gentile making Jew jealous.  Given how much God values free will, his patience is amazing. 

Be that as it may, I think I have shown that Paul does have a role for Israel even if he didn't (and we don't) know exactly what that role was (is).     

Ephesians 2:8-9

Preamble

Ephesians 2:8-9 is probably on the Mt. Rushmore of Bible passages for American Evangelical Christians.  BibleGateway.com once compiled the 100 most read Bible verses and Ephesians 2:8 came in 11th and 2:9 came in 28th (2:10 came in 37th). In my humble opinion, however, this passage is by and large misinterpreted.

Ephesians 2:8-9

For by grace you have been save through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God--not the result of works, so that no one may boast.

The topic of this blog concerns the meaning of "through faith".  Most Evangelicals think this faith is our faith, but I will argue that the faith in question is Jesus' faithfulness, that is, Jesus' obedient death on the cross.

Strategy

I will first relate Ephesians 2:18 to 3:12.  Then I will relate both to 2:8, while drawing on 2:13 and 16 and Colossians 1:20.

Ephesians 2:18 and 3:12

2:18: because through him we have the access

3:12: in whom we have boldness and access in confidence through the faith of(in) him 

In both 2:18 and 3:12 access to the Father is mentioned and how Jesus made that happen.  The grounds in 3:12 are already stated in the verse itself, it is "through the faith of(in) him".  Now, I have purposely left the translation of "of(in)" vague so as not to prejudice the argument.  It could mean our faith in Jesus, or it could mean Jesus' faith(fulness), that is, his obedience.  However, it is when we determine the grounds for the access mentioned in 2:18 that I think everything falls into place for arguing that it is Jesus' faith(fulness).

Since 2:18 does not mention the grounds for access we have to look for it in the context.  The best candidate seems to be 2:13: "But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ."  The grounds of access here is "the blood of Christ".  In 2:16, reconciliation in "through the cross".  Colossians 1:20 has "and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of the cross."  The argument from here is simple: the grounds of access simply have nothing to do with our faith but with Jesus' faithful death on the cross where he shed his blood.

Ephesians 2:8-9 revisited

The common language and themes shared between 2:8-9 and 3:12 and 2:18 argue strongly that we are saved by Jesus' faithful death on the cross and not by our faith.  If it was our faith then why would 2:8 add "and this is not of yourselves"?  If it was by our faith it would be of ourselves.

Theological Upshot

This discussion (which basically comes from Paul Foster) sheds light on the pistis Christou debate in Paul and argues for the subjective genitive. We are saved by something Jesus did, not by our faith.  Our faith has a role, no doubt, but not in the way most evangelicals think.

"It is has been accomplished" and the Resurrection

Preamble:

The Greek word for "has been accomplished" (tetelestai) appears twice in the New Testament--both in John 19 (vss. 28 and 30).  Many Christians gloss this to mean that Jesus paid in full the debt of human sin trading off a particular meaning of telelestai in the commercial realm having to do with the satisfaction of debt.  I don't think this is what it means in John and this has important ramifications.

John 19:28-30:

28After this, aware that all was now finished [tetelestai], in order to bring the Scripture to its complete fulfillment, Jesus said, "I am thirsty."  29There was at hand a jar full of common wine, so they struck a sponge soaked in this wine on some hyssop and raised it to his lips.  30When Jesus tool the wine, he exclaimed, "It is finished [tetelestai]"; and bowing his head, he handed over his spirit.

The "all" in verse 28 most likely refers to all that the Father had given Jesus to do (see 4:34; 5:36; and 17:4).  Importantly, the "all" includes activity that goes beyond merely Jesus' sacrificial death.  It makes sense to claim that Jesus thought of his death as the end of his earthly mission and viewed this mission as having been foretold in Scripture--it is the Father's mission after all.  Luke/Acts also views 1) Jesus' death, 2) telos, 3) Scripture fulfilled as a triad (see Luke 18:31; 22:37; and Acts 13:29).

The Resurrection:

However, Jesus did not view his death as his end.  The Gospel sees Jesus' death as his departure to the Father (for example see 13:1--mention here is made of Jesus loving his own to the end [telos]). Jesus says that he lays down his life that [hina] he might take it up (10:17).  It is clear that Jesus views his resurrection has part of what God planned (15:18; 17:5).  It is interesting that eternal life is mentioned in close approximation to those text which mention Jesus completion of God's plan (4:34/4:36; 5:36/5:39; 17:4/17:3).

Theological Upshot:

"It is accomplished" refers to more than Jesus' atoning death.  Rather, it refers to Jesus' whole mission which included returning to the Father and giving the Spirit (7:39).  When Jesus' says that he must be lifted up (3:14; 8:28; 12:32) he most likely includes the resurrection/ascension in that lifting.  The death of Jesus is not the end!      

Jesus Violent in Temple?

Preamble

I will argue that Jesus' action in the temple is not only nonviolent, but that Jesus was demonstrating against violence (among other things).

Cleansing the Temple

The synoptic Gospels have Jesus driving/throwing out the ones buying and selling in the temple.  Mark and Matthew add that he overturned the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves.  Mark adds that he would not let anyone carry things through the temple.  John's Gospel has Jesus throwing everyone out, including coin dealers and those selling oxen, sheep and doves.  He does this with a whip made of rope.  He pours out the coins and overturns the tables.  He finally orders those selling doves to leave.

Why did Jesus do this?

On the assumption that Jesus was cleansing the temple, we have to conclude that Jesus' violent actions were symbolic in the sense that he did not succeed in permanently altering the temple modus operandi.  Arguments that Jesus would have needed a small army to permanently alter the temple modus operandi or that he would have been arrested if he had tried have at least some weight.  Therefore, the weight of evidence points to these actions as symbolic.

Given the prophetic precedence of symbolic action (nakedness [Isaiah 20:1-6]; smashed pot [Jeremiah 19:1-15]; brick [Ezekiel 4:1-17]) it would not be strange at all for Jesus to enact a symbolic event.  But what did Jesus' mean by this symbolism?  Was it just that he was against what was going on in the temple?

Symbol of Destruction

There is one solid fact that we have regarding Jesus' relation to the temple and that is destruction.

• The gospel of Mark sandwiches Jesus' action in the temple (Mk 11:15-19) with the fig tree incident (Mk 11:12-14 and 11:20-24).  This strongly suggests that the destruction of the fig tree is related to the incident in the temple.
• Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple (Mk 13:2//Mt 24:1-3; cf. Jn 2:19).
• Jesus is accused of claiming the intent to destroy the temple (Mk 14:58//Mt 26:61).
• Jesus is taunted for his supposed statement regarding the temple's destruction (Mk 15:29//Mt 27:40).
• Stephen is accused of mentioning Jesus' destructive statements (Acts 6:13-14).

I conclude that Jesus did say something about the destruction of the temple and this bolsters the hypothesis that what Jesus did in the temple was a symbol of destruction.

Proof Texts (Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11)

The question is whether we can jibe the hypothesis that Jesus was symbolizing the temple's destruction with his actions with the words he says.  To answer this we have to state the reason for the temple's destruction and that is the nations' disobedience (not just the temple merchants' corruption, though that would be included).  This of course relates directly with the fig tree incident. Seen in this way, the texts, Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11, fit the bill.  The Isaiah passage is close to passages critical of Israel's disobedience (Isaiah 56:9-12; 57:1-21) and the Jeremiah passage is part of the famous sermon against the temple.  In the Jeremiah passage, Israel's violence is included in the list of disobedience (murder).

The "robbers" in Jesus' quote from Jeremiah (Gk. lestes; Heb. parisim) better means those who use violence to rob (bandits/brigands).

The hypothesis thus receives ample confirmation.  Jesus was enacting a symbolic destruction of the temple and the reason was because of Jerusalem's overall condition of disobedience.  Therefore, Jesus' actions included a critique of Jerusalem's violence and perhaps militant violent stance against Rome.

Theological Upshot

Jesus' action is the temple (or his action against the fig tree) cannot be flippantly used to condone violence on the part of Christians.  Jesus was symbolizing an event that would be undertaken by Rome and not himself!  Therefore, the violence we see done by Jesus cannot by any means justify Christians using violence to punish.  Vengeance is mine says the Lord.