When was the last time your heart was broken by the unsaved?
Here in Romans 9-11, we have a powerful example of what it feels like to grieve for those who have rejected God. And in Paul's case, the people doing the rejecting are his own people, the Jews. Paul's love and desire for his own people never left him. And when he writes to the multi-cultural church in Rome, he wants to make sure that they know that neither he nor God has given up on Israel.
How gut-wrenching must it have been for Paul, a lifelong Jew, to finally see that Jesus is the real Messiah, only to have the rest of his people reject the very notion. Then, incredibly, Paul finds himself living and ministering amongst the Gentiles, the very people who have always been incapable of living correctly in the eyes of Jews.
The culture shock must have been pretty intense. But it must have been even more shocking, as a Jew, to ever find yourself in the position of looking at a Gentile and saying, "I want what he's got!" Of course, that's exactly what happened.
As you read through Romans 11, notice a few things:
1) Paul uses the OT example of Elijah and the prophets of Baal to show that God intended to keep a faithful "remnant" for Himself in order to make the same point now: God intends to choose some of Israel to receive by grace what they couldn't earn by works. The fact that He allowed some to be hardened is not an argument that God chose some to go to Hell. It's a method by which He helped save those who wouldn't have been saved otherwise by showing how impossible it is to keep the law. And, even despite their hardness, the Jews have not stumbled too far to be rescued by the mysterious grace of God.
2) Because of the stubbornness of the Jews, the Gentiles were allowed to become partakers of the Gospel. And so, the hardened Jews saw that those who had no business being holy were suddenly called holy and "grafted" in to the family of God. Imagine what they must have thought to see idol-worshipping, heathen Gentiles suddenly understand themselves to be "children of God." If the Gentiles could do it, surely the Jews must be able to accept the Messiah. And so, as Paul writes, "salvation came to the Gentiles to make Israel envious."
3) How will God save all of Israel? Could it be that Israel's response to the Gentiles' inclusion will make them turn away from godlessness?
"Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." (11:30-32)
In other words, our disobedience leads to God's mercy. And of course, Paul has already said that this mercy doesn't give us license to sin more. Instead, this mercy leads us to repentence and obedience.
4) And just to make sure that he makes it clear that a) he doesn't fully understand why God is doing what he's doing, and b) it still seems a bit crazy to him, Paul includes his "doxology." "Who has known the mind of the Lord?" "How unsearchable are His judgments." It makes so sense for God's chosen people to reject Him. It makes no sense for idol-worshipping Gentiles to be made holy. And it's crazy that God would use envy to bring His people back to Him.
But when God's heart is broken for His people, He doesn't hesitate to use any means necessary to get them back.
One final note: I totally agree with Gerry about the question of figuring out who's chosen and who's not. That's not our job. Scripture is very clear that Paul doesn't spend any time trying to figure out who's in or who's out. He takes the Gospel to every one without regard of their culture, history, or even their attitudes. And we should do the same.
Welcome.
Welcome to everyone reading through the New Testament in 2007. Each day, there will be a new post for the day's reading. You are invited to share your thoughts about what you've read, by adding comments to that post.
If you'd like a PDF version of the Introduction/Outline to Revelation, click here.
If you'd like a PDF version of the Introduction/Outline to Revelation, click here.
3 comments:
I am in total agreement with everything said but I have an observation on the "One final note" at the end. In Rom 9-11 Paul was desperately trying to figure out election and "who's in and who's out". (Else why would he talk about it so much?) And the answer, sad to him as a Jew, was that the Jews were "out" and the Gentiles were coming "in". The doctrine of "election", as he understood it as a Jew, was being turned on its head. What was going on?
By God's grace and the inspiration of the Spirit Paul was able to make sense of this doctrine. He didn't, and couldn't, cop out and avoid the issue. And, as Tom said, a good part of the answer is that God wants to provoke people of all races to faith, including the Jews.
In our current days may we not play the part of "Israel", being cocksure of our own "election" but failing to see God's work among others who do not look like us.
Robb,
Thanks for your comment. I appreciate your perspective about what Paul is trying to do. I'm not suggesting that Paul was copping out, and I don't think that the Jews as a whole were "out" in his eyes (the remnant discussion suggests that it's not wholesale exclusion). But, as you say, he was painfully aware that many of his brothers rejected Jesus.
I also wasn't suggesting that we should be so convinced of our election that we don't see what's happening among others. In fact, the major problem with those who camp on election too much is that they don't look around at the Kingdom-building opportunities among other peoples and cultures.
I think the point of Paul's discussion here is not as much doctrinal as emotional (although he was certainly describing important doctrine). He is trying to "figure out" election, but it's because of the pain of seeing his family reject the truth, not because he's trying to set out doctrine in the sense of his other epistles (mainly the pastorals). That's what I meant what I said that Paul wasn't trying to figure out who was in and who was out. He already knew who was in and who was out. And the realization that his "family" was out brought out this significant emotion, especailly in the doxology at the end of 11.
I don't think we disagree on this, but I just wanted to clarify the intent of my comment. No matter what his motivation, Paul describes both a difficult doctrine and the real, heart-breaking emotion that comes with watching someone you love reject the truth.
Thanks, Tom; no disagreement was intended.
Interestingly enough I was visiting my son in Pullman, WA last weekend. Sunday morning the preacher jumped right on the topic of election vs free will. He's never been on that topic in the two years my son has been there, so it struck me as quite a "coincidence" that this sermon was waiting for me in Pullman just as we are going through Rom 9-11. So, what do you think: "pre-ordained" or just pure chance?
But the preacher said just about the same thing as you. The 1st century church didn't seem confused by this doctrine; they just thanked God for choosing them, and then proceeded to serve God with all their hearts. At least I think that's what you meant by saying we shouldn't "camp on election" too much.
For my part, I have come to the conclusion that "election" is not supposed to be a complex doctrine. 1st century believers did not conjure up the theology of Augustine or Calvin or Arminius when they heard the word "election". (I suspect they more likely related it to the "chosen" people, Israel.) In my understanding, Paul was using the term in a much more basic way that was relevant to 1st century thinking. If you read the text that way it will make a lot more sense.
We'll see what happens when Ephesians 1 comes around.
Post a Comment