Jeffrey Dale Professor Ritivoiu Advanced Expository Writing May 6, 2013 THE REMNANT OF ROMANS 11 The role of Israel

in the modern world is a subject of discussion not only among politicians, but also among theologians. Some see a fulfillment of Bible prophecy in the 1948 establishment of the State of Israel. Many also see a divine hand at work in the success this vulnerable nation has enjoyed. The crucial question to be answered is what role Israel currently has in Gods eternal plan. This paper will not attempt to give a complete answer to the question, but will rather provide an exegetical foundation for making an informed decision. The passage to be examined is Rom. 11:1-10, and the specific issue to be addressed is the identity of the remnant in that passage. It will be shown that this remnant consists of Jews who put their faith in Jesus, the Messiah. The Background for the Passage: The Old Testament In his remnant exposition in Romans 11, Paul draws heavily on the OT concept of remnant. It is therefore imperative to examine the OT usage. Gerhard Hasel claims in his study The Remnant that it is one of the major theological motifs of the OT.1 The widespread nature of this theme is perhaps even indicated by the fact that, according to Ganoune Diop, this theme in Hebrew is basically represented by several derivatives of six different roots.2 While remnant can have a variety of meanings depending on the

Gerhard F. Hasel, The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1972), vii. 2 Ganoune Diop, The Remnant Concept as Defined by Amos, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 7/2 (Autumn 1996): 67.

context, Lester V. Meyer provides a definition of the term that applies generally in an article in The Anchor Bible Dictionary: What is left of a community after it undergoes a catastrophe.3 In light of this definition, it is not surprising that Hasel finds the Hebrew flood story to contain the earliest explicit reference to this motif [the remnant] in the Old Testament.4 The flood could be considered the first great catastrophe for the human race, and Noah and his family emerged from this catastrophe as the remnant, the only survivors. This is what Gen. 7:23 describes: Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark (emphasis supplied). Hasel also sees the remnant motif in other pericopes in Genesis, namely the Abraham-Lot narrative (Gen. 18:22-23), the Jacob-Esau narrative (Gen. 32:8), and the Joseph narrative (Gen. 45:7).5 The next major use of the remnant concept is in the Elijah narratives of Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18) and Mount Horeb (1 Kings 19). On Mount Carmel, Elijah saw himself as a remnant: I alone am left a prophet of the Lord, but Baals prophets are 450 men. (1 Kings 18:22). Hasel notes the significance of this statement: It indicates that Elijah is the only surviving prophet of Yahweh, who publically stood up for Yahwism at the time when the life of each prophet of Yahweh was threatened.6 Elijah considered himself to be the only one remaining in support of Israels God, and he boldly embraced the task of standing up for Him.
3

Lester V. Meyer, Remnant, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 5, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 669. 4 Hasel, 141. 5 See Ibid., 147-159. 6 Ibid., 164.

It is important to note that the remnant in this context was a spiritual one. While the remnant does essentially always have a spiritual component to it, in many cases there is also a physical catastrophe (such as the flood) that leaves a remnant. But in this instance, the remnant is not the result of anything physical. The only catastrophe is a spiritual onethe nations rejection of Yahwehand the remnant consists of the prophet who has remained faithful to Yahweh. While Elijah bravely stood up for Yahweh on Mount Carmel, just a short time later he fled in fear on a journey that ended at Mount Horeb, a significant mountain in Israels history. To the twice repeated question of God, What are you doing here, Elijah? (1 Kings 19:9, 13), Elijah twice gave the same answer: I have been very zealous for the Lord, the God of hosts; for the sons of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, torn down Your altars and killed Your prophets with the sword. And I alone am left; and they seek my life, to take it away. (verses 10, 14). In this instance he again refers to himself as a remnant (I alone am left), but it is in the context of fleeing rather than boldly defending the cause of God. In Gods answer to Elijah, He demonstrates that he will bring about judgment by commanding Elijah to anoint agents He has chosen to execute the judgment (verses 1517). Then He concludes with the statement, Yet I will leave 7,000 in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal and every mouth that has not kissed him. (verse 18). This actually refers to a future remnant after judgment has been executed. Hasel notes two purposes of the statement: Firstly, Elijah is not the only remnant, because there will be seven thousand more loyal worshipers of Yahweh. Secondly, it makes clear that the destructive

judgment despite its terrible nature and despite Israels apostasy will not lead to complete annihilation of Israel.7 Although the remnant motif can be seen throughout Scripture, it finds its fullest expression in the prophetic writings, as Kenneth Mulzac notes: The prophets have the most to say concerning the remnant.8 The concept of a remnant was especially relevant for them, because they lived at the time surrounding the exile. God raised up the prophets, one after another, to warn first Israel and then Judah that their rejection of Yahweh would bring his judgment upon them. The prophets called for repentance to avert the calamity. But beyond the judgment, which became a reality in the exile, they also presented a picture of hope, which included the existence of a remnant. Micah, for example, envisioned that at the time when a ruler would come from Bethlehem Ephrathah (as he described in Mic. 5:2) a remnant would exist: Then the remnant of Jacob will be among many peoples like dew from the Lord, like showers on vegetation which do not wait for man or delay for the sons of men. (Micah 5:7) From his perspective, the remnant would be in existence, not because of their own moral goodness, but because of Gods mercy and forgiveness: Who is a God like You, who pardons iniquity and passes over the rebellious act of the remnant of His possession? He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in unchanging love. (Mic. 7:18). Zephaniah believed that the remnant, although previously rebellious, would become humble and as a result would be purified: But I will leave among you a humble and lowly people, and they will take refuge in the name of the Lord. The remnant of Israel will do no wrong and tell no lies, nor will a deceitful tongue be found in their mouths; for they will feed and lie down with no one to make them tremble. (Zeph. 3:12-13)
7 8

Ibid., 169. Kenneth D. Mulzac, Remnant, in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. David Noel Freedman (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 1117.

Jeremiah uses the remnant concept in various contexts. When Nebuchadnezzar overthrew Jerusalem and most of the people were exiled, some of the poorest people who had nothing were left behind in the land of Judah (Jer. 39:10). These who were left behind constituted, in a practical sense, a remnant for Judah (Jer. 40:11). But it a more theological sense, it was actually those who had been exiled, but would one day return, who were the remnant. Even before the Jerusalem was destroyed Yahweh had promised through Jeremiah: Then I Myself will gather the remnant of My flock out of all the countries where I have driven them and bring them back to their pasture, and they will be fruitful and multiply (Jer. 23:3). When the exiles finally did return, they saw in themselves at least a partial fulfillment of this and other promises. The prophet Haggai, who ministered at that time, referred to them as all the remnant of the people (Hag. 1:12, 14). Some time later Ezra, a priest and a scribe, offered a prayer that emphasized the remnant motif: But now for a brief moment grace has been shown from the Lord our God, to leave us an escaped remnant and to give us a peg in His holy place, that our God may enlighten our eyes and grant us a little reviving in our bondage. (Ezra 9:8) After all that has come upon us for our evil deeds and our great guilt, since You our God have requited us less than our iniquities deserve, and have given us an escaped remnant as this, shall we again break Your commandments and intermarry with the peoples who commit these abominations? Would You not be angry with us to the point of destruction, until there is no remnant nor any who escape? O Lord God of Israel, You are righteous, for we have been left an escaped remnant, as it is this day; behold, we are before You in our guilt, for no one can stand before You because of this. (verses 13-15) It should be noted that his concept of the remnant of returned exiles was that they were in existence only because of the mercy of God. In summary, the usage of the remnant concept in the OT is widespread and multifaceted. It is present from the very beginning of the OT, but its prevalence increases until

it becomes a dominant motif in the period surrounding the exile. It is sometimes used in a strictly spiritual sense, but often a literal dimension is present as well. In essentially all cases, however, it refers to a group that survives a catastrophe based on the mercy of God. The Context of the Passage: Romans 9-11 The remnant passage of Romans 11 has as its context Romans 9-11, which is a distinct section of Romans but is also closely related to the main themes of the letter. The view of Romans that has become deeply entrenched in Christian thought is that its main point was to show how a person can find peace with God and be saved. Recent scholarship, however, has moved toward a different conclusion: Pauls main focus is actually not on humans but on God. Specifically, the main theme of Romans seems to be the righteousness of God, which refers to not a righteousness which he bestows on others, but rather the righteousness which he possesses. Chapters 9-11 fit very well within that paradigm. Paul structured this section around several important questions. What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? (Rom. 9:14). I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? (Rom. 11:1). I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? (Rom. 11:11) The answer Paul gives to all three of these questions is, May it never be! These questions reveal Pauls purpose in writing these chapters. He is dealing with the issues of the covenant and Gods faithfulness to it. He is addressing the question of whether God has remained true to his promises for Israel. Romans 9 begins with Paul expressing his great sorrow: I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have

great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart (verses 1-2). This comes in direct contrast to his exclamation of victory in the previous chapter, in which he states that nothing shall be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ (Rom. 8:37-39). In this chapter, however, he expresses sorrow because many of his Israelite brethren are separated from Christ. This is implied in his statement, For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites (Rom. 9:3-4). His explanation immediately following demonstrates how incongruous the situation is. Israel has a whole history leading up to the Messiah, but now many Israelites are separated from the Messiah when he has come. To whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. (verses 4-5) This situation makes it appear that Gods word has failed. Paul answers that with the assertion, But it is not as though the word of God has failed (verse 6). This is the whole theme he is discussing, the question he is trying to answer: Has God been faithful to His word? He addresses the issue of the apparent failure of Gods word throughout the rest of the chapter, and he does it by telling the story of Israels history. N. T. Wright explains, Paul has been telling the story precisely of Israel and the covenant, beginning with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Romans 9:6-13), and continuing to Moses and Pharaoh and the episode of the golden calf (Romans 9:14-18). He then carries on to the period of the prophets, the period (that is) when God warned his people that failure to live by the covenant would mean the judgment of exile with the prospect only of a remnant (Romans 9:19-29).9

N. T. Wright, Justification: Gods Plan & Pauls Vision (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 241.

This chapter of Romans is really a narrative describing how God has been faithful to the covenant throughout Israels history. In other words, it is not just a series of proof texts for the purpose of teaching the doctrine of predestination that are strung together in an order that just happens to follow the outline of history. In demonstrating that Gods word has not failed, Paul starts with Abraham. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abrahams descendants, but: through Isaac your descendants will be named. (verses 6-7). Pauls point is that it was never just about physical descent, but about the promise of God. Wright explains, God never promised Abraham that all his physical offspring would be within the covenant. There is already a double Israel: in 6b there is a true Israel, the Israel of promise.10 In other words, there was always an Israel within Israel, and true Israel was based on the word of promise (see verses 8-9). Paul makes a similar point in the next few verses as he tells the story of Isaac, and then Jacob. He demonstrates that Israel as the people of God was is based not on human actions but on Gods sovereign choice (verses 10-13). After telling the story of these patriarchs, Paul moves on to the time of the exodus. He speaks of Gods hardening of Pharaoh and his mercy on his people, even in their rebellion in the golden calf incident (verses 14-17). This indicates Gods commitment to the covenant. So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires (verse 18). This leads to a discussion of Gods judgment by means of the common OT metaphor (see Isa. 29:16; 45:9; 64:8; Jer. 18:1-10) of the potter and the clay (Rom. 9:19-

10

N.T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 238 (italics in original).

23). Paul speaks of vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy, and concludes that the latter group is even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles (verse 24). This is a redefinition of Gods people, but it is once again based on His calling, as Paul demonstrates by quoting Hosea: I will call those who were not My people, My people, And her who was not beloved, beloved. And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, you are not My people, There they shall be called sons of the living God (verses 25-26). In their original context in Hosea, these verses referred to Israel returning from exile. But here Paul applies them to both Jews and Gentiles becoming the people of God. This suggests that in Pauls theology, Christ was viewed as bringing a true end to the exile through the events of his life, death, and resurrection. Paul was not alone in believing that the exile had continued even after the Jews return to Palestine from Babylon; many in his day saw the exile as still ongoing. Wright explains this in speaking of Pauls view of the exile: As we know from other contemporary retellings of Israels story, that brought matters more or less up to date, with many Jews still regarding themselves as in the exilic period and awaiting the new exodus that would produce covenant renewal and all the long-promised and long-awaited blessings.11 After quoting the passage from Hosea, Paul quotes two others from the prophetic writings regarding the exile, and this is where he introduces the remnant concept. Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, Though the number of the sons of Israel be like the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved; for the Lord will execute His word on the earth, thoroughly and quickly (verses 27-28). This passage is very related to the previous onethe first words in it (though the number of the sons of Israel be like the
11

Wright, Justification, 241.

sand of the sea) appear in Hosea just before the portion of Hosea he quoted. And he immediately quotes another passage from Isaiah: Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left to us a posterity, we would have become like Sodom, and would have resembled Gomorrah (verse 29). While the first of these two Isaiah passages explicitly mentions the remnant, the second one no less contains the same motif (left to us a posterity). This is what Paul is saying: when the exile came to its true end, only a remnant of Israel came out of it, in fulfillment of Scripture. But also in fulfillment of Scripture, Gentiles who had previously not been the people of God were being accepted among his people. All of this demonstrated that, going back to verse 6, Gods word had not failed. All throughout Israels history there had been a remnant based on Gods mercy, and it was the same in Pauls day. This brings Paul to the point where he can make an initial conclusion, which he introduces with the question, What shall we say then? (verse 30). He gives the answer: That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works (verses 30-32). This was something that was not a surprise to God; it had been in His word all along. There was a stone that was laid in Zion that to some would be a stone of stumbling; others who put faith in would not be put to shame (verse 33). In Romans 10 Paul expands on his statement at the end of Romans 9 contrasting the Gentiles attainment of righteousness with Israels failure to attain it. He explains that they [Israelites] have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge (verse 2).

This lack of knowledge consists of not knowing about Gods righteousness and seeking to establish their own (verse 3). Their own must refer to righteousness that is in some way related to the law, because Pauls response is, For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes (verse 4). Paul brings a passage from Deuteronomy 30 which speaks of covenant renewal into the discussion.12 He applies the phrase about the word being in a persons mouth and heart to the confession with the mouth and belief with the heart that takes place with the word of faith that he preaches (verses 8-10). He also concludes that if these are the signs of being part of the covenant, than Gentiles can be part of this renewed covenant just as easily as Jews (verses 11-13). This leads to the imperative of evangelism (verses 14-21). The Remnant Passage: Gods Plan for Israel In the OT, the remnant concept culminated with its use by the prophets in the time of the exile. In Rom. 9:27-29, Paul introduces the concept in that same context. After explaining the present situation of both Jews and Gentiles in chapter 10, he comes back to the main themes of the section with a question: I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? To this question he gives a clear answer: May it never be! (Rom. 11:1). It is clear from the reason he then gives for his answer that what he is asking is whether God has completely rejected his people, or as N. T. Wright puts it, Can any Jews be saved?13 His response is this: For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin (verse 1). He himself is evidence enough that God has not completely rejected Israel.

12 13

See Ibid., 240-245. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, 247 (italics in original).

Paul then restates the question in terms of a conclusive statement: God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew (verse 2). Wright points out that this must be a deliberate echo of 1 Sam. 12:22 (For the Lord will not abandon His people), in which another Saul, from the tribe of Benjamin, was in himself evidence that God had not forsaken his people.14 In continuing to build his case that Israel still has a place in Gods plan, Paul expands the horizon from himself to others through the use of one of the remnant references in the Elijah narrative: Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? Lord, they have killed Your prophets, they have torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life. But what is the divine response to him? I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal. (verses 2-4) Paul seems to have in mind the similarity to his own situation as he references this narrative. James Dunn explains, He clearly sees himself in a position very similar to that of Elijah at Horebnot for the first time had an Israelite taken a stand which seemed to isolate him from and put him on the defensive over against the rest of Israel.15 Just like Elijah, he was the only one (in verse 1) providing evidence that God did not reject his peoplehe was the remnant. But also like Elijah, he was not the only remnant. He makes this comparison in the next verse: In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to Gods gracious choice (verse 5). There is one noticeable difference between Pauls quotation and the OT passage. The original suggested a future remnant (as discussed previously), but katelipon here is in the aorist tense. Dunn suggests that Paul may have been quoting from memory because
14 15

Ibid., 247, note 39. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9-16, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 38B (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1988), 645.

the Greek [in this quotation] shows no dependence on the LXX, and is only slightly closer to the MT.16 It could be that Paul wanted to simply refer to the action as a whole rather than specifying a particular time for it because his main point is that God did not reject his people. He himself was the initail evidence of that, and the reference to Elijah demonstrates the existence of a larger remnant. As to the identity of this remnant at the present time, it should be clear by now that it refers to the portion of ethnic Israel that believes in Jesus as the Messiah. The question at the beginning of the chapter dealt with Gods people, and it is clear from Pauls response (For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin) that he is speaking of physical, rather than spiritual, descendants of Abraham. Paul now says that a remnant of that group exists, and to remain part of any group a person must have been part of it initially. The mention of the remnant being in existence at the present time [en tw/ nu:n kairw:/] is likely a reference back to Romans 3 (where the same expression is used). It is a reference to the recent events surrounding the life and death of Jesus that brought the Jewish nation to a climactic point. Jesus became, as Paul said at the end of chapter 9, the stone set up in Zion that some stumbled over and others put their faith in. This event was the final catastrophic conclusion to the exile, and only a remnant from among Israel was left standing. Paul next makes the statement, But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace (Rom. 11:6). This makes sense in light of the OT usage of the remnant motif. The remnant was always a group that remained, not because of their own morality, but because of Yahwehs mercy and grace.
16

Ibid., 636.

This discussion brings Paul to somewhat of a conclusion, and one which is very similar to his summary statement at the end of Romans 9. Dunn refers to it as a rephrasing of 9:31.17 This is the conclusion: What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened (Rom. 11:6). Paul develops three categories here: Israel, those who were chosen, and the rest. Israel seems to refer to the nation as a whole, and those who were chosen [hJ ejklogh;] must the same as the remnant, since the remnants existence is according to Gods gracious choice [kat ejklogh;n carito] (verse 5). The rest, then, is those in Israel who are not part of the remnant, and they were hardened. Paul then introduces two OT quotations to explain this hardening that has taken place (verses 8-10). To summarize these first ten verses of Romans 11, the main point Paul is demonstrating is that God has not rejected his people, the nation of Israel. Even though the nation as a whole failed to obtain what it was seeking, a remnant obtained it. This remnant consists of Israelites who responded to the climactic events of the present time with faith in Israels Messiah. Conclusion In the OT, the remnant motif was used extensively, particularly in the context of the exile. In the theology of Paul, the remnant found expression within the same context. He viewed Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, as bringing a true end to the exile, and those Jews who responded to their Messiah as the remnant. Israel still had a place in Gods plan; he had not rejected his people. A Gentile church was not to replace Israel either. Rather, in fulfillment of Hoseas prophecy, Gentiles were now being called to be part of Gods

17

Ibid., 639.

people. These considerations suggest that, contrary to the role many envision today for the modern nation, Israel was not replaced by the church only to be restored as Gods people in the end. Further study of Romans 11 might be beneficial in order to determine whether the rest of the chapter supports or negates these concepts already suggested.