reformed blogging.

Romans 9-11 has been the subject of much controversy within Evangelicalism. Some hold to a replacement theology and claim that Israel does not mean physical Israel at all, but refers solely to the Church. Still others, on the opposite side of the spectrum, identify Israel with the physical nation of Israel while dismissing any reference to the New Testament Church as mere allegory. Earlier this month I posted a quote from Christopher J.H. Wright’s book Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament regarding this topic which opted for a view of Israel as an expansion of the “remnant” within Israel, since “not all Israel is Israel”.

It is evident that godly men exist on both sides of the camp. Even in view of Church history one is able to see that various time periods have shown influxes in certain eschatological views. An example of this is Old Princeton and the Puritans who, for the most part, held to Postmillenial convictions, a view that is almost entirely overlooked in the contemporary evangelical scene. The early Church Father’s likewise displayed a varying range in eschatalogy evinced in Tertullian who held to a Chilialistic or Premillenial view to Augustine who leaned towards Amilleniallism. So, there really is a lot of difficulty in claiming any one particular eschatalogical view to be historically orthodox. Yet difficulty in understanding Scripture’s teaching on eschatology (or any doctrine for that matter) is never reason to give up on it.

Having stated that much, the issue has been on my mind much. Wrestling with passages in the New Testament that, on the one hand, seem to indicate a complete fulfillment of the Old Testament promises in the person and work of Christ, and on the other, those which seem to point to an existing place for physical Israel (namely Romans 9-11).

I’ve been trying to mentally work out Romans 9-11 and thought I’d give it a go here.

I begin at the ends of Romans 8 where Paul speaks of the unchanging love of God in Christ Jesus, a love that will keep believers with Christ until the end. The problem arises, however, in the next chapter. Paul presents the tension in 9:1-5, the question being, God’s word to Israel. How is God’s unchanging love evinced with them? Has God not kept His promise? or as Paul puts it, “Has the word of God failed?” In verse 6 Paul answers that the word of God has not failed. Why is it that it has not failed?

For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring… it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. (9:6-8)

Paul’s response to the tension of God’s supposed rejection of Israel is not that God will keep His promise to every single physical Israelite, but that not all Israel is, in fact, Israel. The children of Abraham were children according to God’s election and promise, not according to the flesh. Thus in verses 12-13, Paul speaks of God’s love for Jacob and hatred for Esau. This was before they were born, so that God’s sovereign and gracious election would be clearly demonstrated.

The rest of chapter 9 certainly speaks of God’s election, but to what purpose? To show that God’s election of the remnant is according to His gracious will rather than according to flesh or works. In addition to the fact that only an elected remnant from among the Jews are saved, in verse 30 Paul now includes the Gentiles:

What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone… (9:30-33)

So it is made clear, that God’s word has not failed. It has not failed, not because God will save every physical Israelite, but because not all Israel are Israel. From the beginning true Israel was never based merely on ethnic origin, but on faith. Yes, God chose a physical people. God chose Israel and Paul even states clearly that:

They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. (9:4-5)

But in the same vein, Paul is able to say, very explicitly, that “not all who are descended from Israel belong… not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring…” What are we to make of this? On the one hand he clearly acknowledge their physical identity and even has great anguish for them, yet in the following verses he clearly states that despite their being Abraham’s offspring they are not all his children.

In chapter 10 Paul, having spoken of the Gentiles inheriting what the Israelites did not, goes back to his desire for his physical brothers. In 10:1-4, however, there seems to be no indication or promise that these physical Israelites will be saved. Why? Because they seek righteousness not by faith, but by their own works. “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (10:4). They are not counted as children of God because they are not descendants of Abraham according to the seed who is Christ (Gal. 3:16). The rest of the chapter speaks of righteousness based on faith. That all who believe in the Lord and call upon His name will be saved. This “salvation” referred to in this passage is what physical Israel, those who were not of the remnant, are missing out on, and what the Gentiles, by faith, are entering into. This gospel message must go out to all the Gentiles and be preached, says Paul. But again, he returns to Israel. While the rest of the Gentiles hear and believe, what of physical Israel? “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.” (10:21) They still are not part of the remnant!

In Romans 11, Paul asks a slightly different question. In chapter 9 he asks whether God’s word has failed, the answer is an emphatic no, God has not failed because God’s promise to Israel stands and the Gentiles are receiving the promise of Abraham, they are all being saved by faith. Though not all physical Israel are inheriting this salvation, this is no problem for Paul since God’s promise was to Abraham’s children, who are children not by flesh, but by faith. Here, then, he asks whether God has rejected His people. Again, the answer is in the negative, “By no means!” Paul responds that he is himself “an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.” He is clearly referring to his physical lineage! No, God has not rejected Israel, and Israel can still inherit this salvation (that the non-remnant are currently not inheriting) by faith! Paul himself is evidence that God is still allowing physical Israel to be part of this remnant, this seed of Abraham, the true children of promise. And rather than point to future fulfillment as some would have it, Paul rather points again to this idea of a remnant. He cites 1 Kings 19:10, stating that even in the days of Elijah God did not save all of physical Israel, but extended His promise to the remnant. And the rest he hardened by His own sovereign will. Why did he harden the rest? So that he might demonstrate his mercy. Because through the failure of the Israelites salvation has come to the Gentiles. How so? Well, up until Christ’s incarnation true religion was in Israel only. To them (as mentioned earlier) was given the Law and the prophets and the promise, etc. Yet, again and again they proved to be failures, constantly turning away from God and rejecting His prophets. What was the result of this? God needed to send His Son who would write the Laws on their hearts rather than give it to them merely externally. Thus, was Christ sent, and with Christ came the fulfillment of the Law, what the Israelites failed to do, Christ did. His “exodus” from Egypt, His baptism, His temptation in the wilderness, all these incidents point to a fulfillment of what Israel failed to do. Christ perfectly obeyed the Law and took on our sins. He faced the wrath of God and to us, by faith, is given His imputed righteousness. All this Christ did, because the Israelites did not and because we, as sinful humans under the Law, could not.

Finally, perhaps, the most important passage in all of this, the conclusion of chapter 11. In verses 25-27 there is an indication of a partial hardening that has taken place among Israel. This is evident because so many of them are not only rejecting the gospel, but persecuting the Church of Christ. This will be “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” This does not go against, but rather supports the idea of the remnant, and depicts the pattern of God in relation to Israel throughout redemptive history. This is the reason why some began to wonder in the beginning of chapters 9 and 10 whether God’s word had failed, and whether God rejected Israel. And this hardening of the Jews, evident especially throughout Christ’s life, death and resurrection, and in the early Church, will remain until that fullness comes in. And in this way, that is, in physical Israel being partially hardened until all the Gentiles come in, will “all Israel be saved.” In verse 26 Paul gives the definite answer to both questions found in chapters 9 and 10. All Israel will be saved, but one must recognize that “all Israel” are not all Israel according to the flesh, but according to faith. God has not rejected Israel, but has sought to save them in this manner, so that the remnant Israel will join with the Gentiles who are the seed of Abraham by faith in Christ, and so “all Israel (the remnant) will be saved” and God’s word will be shown true.

Verses 28-32 seem to go back to the fact that God has not rejected Israel. Paul is clearly speaking of Physical Israel in verse 28, “As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” What does this mean? That God will not forsake all of Israel, remember the hardening is partial. This is indicative of God’s plan to save all whom He has elected, all who have now been “consigned to disobedience in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy.” The reference to “all” is, contextually speaking, not all without exception. For not all people everywhere who are consigned to disobedience are shown a saving mercy. Rather, it is in regards to all the elect. It is all without distinction not all without exception. The problem enters when Paul’s statement that God has not rejected Israel is taken to mean that He has accepted all of them. What Paul seems to mean is that God has not rejected Israel entirely, but in accordance with Old Testament history, a remnant still remains, and the remnant will be saved. Thus a partial hardening.

So God’s word has not failed, His promise stands and is fulfilled in the remnant, those who are, in Christ, the seed of Abraham. God has not rejected Israel. Rather, God has expanded the remnant to still include Israelites (such as Paul) as well as Gentiles. And we are now, by faith in Christ, Abraham’s seed. The true people of God does not consist of a Church that has replaced physical Israel since it never was physical Israel to begin with, but in a Church that has expanded on the remnant which includes both Jews and Gentiles. So Paul continues to work to preach salvation to the Gentiles, as well as to incite jealousy in his fellow Jews that they may likewise inherit the kingdom. What’s the whole point of Romans 9-11? As mentioned in the earlier post, through such an understanding of the passage we are able to discern the basis for Paul’s theology of history and missions.

So how does this all come together? God’s promise finds its fulfillment in the remnant. Thus the physical people of Israel will not all see the kingdom of heaven, nor is there any reason to expect a future kingdom for physical Israel. Since now in Christ “there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all bestowing his riches on all who call on Him” (10:12). The people of God are one. In this sense there is continuity with the Old Testament. God’s remnant within physical Israel has expanded to include Gentiles. These people consist of Christ’s body, and these are the promised “seed of Abraham.” God’s promises to Israel in the Old Testament find fulfillment in Christ and are applied to believers.

A few nights ago I had a difficult time falling asleep, I don’t know why but Harry Emerson Fosdick’s sermon “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” was on my mind. I had only heard mention of it through various biographies and in relation to Old Princeton and especially J. Gresham Machen, but never actually read it so I decided to do just that.

In reading Fosdick’s message I was surprised to find how pertinent it is to today. One would not be surprised to hear the main thrust of his message echoed in many of today’s emerging churches. Some have even commented on this movement saying that it is the old Liberalism in new clothes. The connection between today’s emerging Church and yesterday’s Liberalism quickly becomes apparent in reading through Fodick’s message. Though Fosdick denies a good number of Fundamental doctrines (included in this is the historicity of certain miracles, the virgin birth, the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, a “special theory” of the atonement) the main point of his message is built on a supposed tension between doctrine and unity within the Church. To him, of course, Christianity is not about doctrines but about furthering the “cause of Jesus Christ” (how one can distinguish the two is beyond me) and any controversy over “uncertain” doctrines will be no help to such a cause. The problem, however, is that once you do away with all these supposedly “uncertain” doctrines, you have no Christianity left.

Rather than point out Fosdick’s error regarding each of these fundamental doctrines, I think we will find some value in considering Fosdick’s assertion of what we ought to do instead since his exhortation is not uncommon today. Quickly, here is the context of the Fundemenalist controvery: the Fundamentalists wanted Liberal or Modernists within the Church who were denying what all of what Christianity consists of, namely doctrines to stop calling themselves Christians. The presupposition of the Liberals was that Christianity is more about following an example, showing “Christian love” to one another rather than a religion based on doctrines (hence they had no difficulty doing away with the historicity of events described in Scripture). While it is certainly true that we ought to follow Christ’s example, this is not the core of Christianity. To reduce Christianity to mere doing, to an imperative while neglecting the great indicative is to revert back to works based righteousness, or to become like every other religion. Christianity is a religion that is founded upon belief in historical events. This is because it is not about what we did or what we do, but about what God did, namely sending His Son. All our obedience, then, is based on this indicative. Any obedience that is not from faith in what Christ has done is disobedience. That is why mere moralism will never get anyone into heaven, because it is not from faith, but is still based on man motivated works.]

Fosdick’s passage was based on Acts 5 (which shows that one can preach from the Bible without actually preaching its message). He appealed to Gamaliel’s counsel to the Sanhedrin, namely, to leave the Christians alone since God would get rid of them if they were not truly from Him. The problem with such an application of this passage is manifold:

1. The rest of Scripture is ignored. I’m thinking mainly of the Epistles wherein constant warning is given to purge the Church of false teachers and to beware of unorthodox doctrine. (See Romans - Revelation).
2. Gameliel was not a Christian, he was a Jew, the Sanhedrin was not the Church, they were Jewish religious leaders.
3. On one side there were the non-Christian Jews and the other side were the Christians. Gamaliel is advising the Sanhedrin to allow the Christians to exist and to do what they’re doing. This has nothing to do with the Church. The Fundamentalists weren’t persecuting the Liberals (as the Jews were doing to the early Church), they just wanted them to have integrity. Christians are not to persecute others for their beliefs, yet when such beliefs enter the Church it is to be done away with in order to protect the Church. A better example would probably be Paul’s relation to the Christian Judaizers. They were within the Church but preached no true gospel and thus Paul desired to expel them from the Church. However, Christians never went out of their way to the Jews to kick them out of the world. Likewise, Fundamentalists simply wanted a Church free from soul-destroying moralism. They wanted to keep the gospel pure and unadulterated.

Fosdick sets up the intolerant Fundamentalists up against the “tolerant” Liberals. We see a similar antithesis between those in the Church today who would maintain historic Christian doctrines and those who would rather “be like Christ.” The problem with the latter group is that to be like Christ on any foundation other than the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, ends up being sheer legalism. In seeking the “weightier matters of the Law” Fosdick forgets the gospel of Christ entirely and Liberalism becomes just another type of Pharisaic legalism.

Fosdick concludes:

If, during the war, when the nations were wrestling upon the very brink of hell and at times all seemed lost, you chanced to hear two men in an altercation about some minor matter of sectarian denominationalism, could you restrain your indignation? You said, “What can you do with folks like this who, in the face of colossal issues, play with the tiddledywinks and peccadillos of religion?” So, now, when from the terrific questions of this generation one is called away by the noise of this Fundamentalist controversy, he thinks it almost unforgivable that men should tithe mint and anise and cummin, and quarrel over them, when the world is perishing for the lack of the weightier matters of the law, justice, and mercy, and faith. . . .

Where is salvation for man but in the gospel of Christ? And what is the gospel but a historical account of what God has done, a proposition that needs to be believed. In the great battle for the doctrines of Christianity the Fundamentalists did not strain at a gnat and swallow a camel, rather they sought to maintain the very foundation of that which is necessary if anyone is to be saved. Such a battle continues to be waged today and we must lose no ground to those who argue for a “Christ-like” love while seeking to sneak in a false gospel through the back door.

The final goal again is God himself, for he can never come to an end in creation but can only rest in himself. God reveals himself for his own sake: to delight in the glorification of his own attributes. But on the journey towards this final end we do after all encounter the creature, particularly the human being, who serves as an instrument to bring to manifestation the glory of God’s name before the eyes of God. Precisely in order to reach this final goal, the glorification of God’s name, special revelation must strive to the end of re-creating the whole person after God’s image and likeness and thus to transform that person into a mirror of God’s attributes and perfections. Hence the object of revelation cannot only be to teach human beings, to illuminate their intellects (rationalism), or to prompt them to practice virtue (moralism), or to arouse religious sensations in them (mysticism). God’s aim in special revelation is both much deeper and reaches much farther. It is none other than to redeem human beings in their totality of body and soul with all their capacities and powers; to redeem not only individual isolated human beings but humanity as an organic whole. Finally, the goal is to redeem not just humanity apart from all the other creatures but along with humanity to wrest heaven and earth, in a word, the whole world in its organic interconnectedness, from the power of sin and again to cause the glory of God to shine forth from every creature… it is the whole person and the whole cosmos at whose salvation and restoration God is aiming at in his revelation… For God has consigned all human beings under sin that he might have mercy upon all (Rom. 5:15f.; 11:32; Gal. 3:22).
- Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics (Volume I): Prolegomena, 346.

If, however, the pursuit of science is both subjectively and objectively restricted, the only outcome will be that people will seek the satisfaction of their metaphysical needs in other ways. Kant took the road of practical reason; Comte introduced the cult of humanity, consecrating himself as its high priest; and Spencer humbly bowed down before “The Unknowable.” In one way or another–including even spiritism, magic, and theosophy–they all seek compensation for what science will not give them. And religion, along with all spiritual knowledge, having first been shamefully dismissed through the front door, is again admitted through the back door but now frequently in the form of superstition… the inevitable result is that science is then left, undefended and unarmed, to materialism… despite the great promises made and the still greater expectations entertained, empiricism and rationalism in this century ended up in mere materialism and illusionism…
- Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics (Volume I): Prolegomena, 222.

Three great men: Archibald Alexander, Samuel Miller and Charles Hodge all consider Thomas Halyburton’s Memoirs to be “the best specimens of religious biography extant” and Archibald Alexander says that “there is no production of the kind.” So I got it and am currently reading it. It is good. Halyburton’s genuine struggles are displayed for all to see. Manifest in his Memoirs are not only his wrestlings with sin before his conversion, but also those that he found himself grieving over after conversion. The book came at a providential time and is a fresh, fresh reminder of the efficacy of the gospel, particularly the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s active righteousness. Here’s a quote! Tolle lege!

Here, in my opinion, lies one of the greatest secrets of practical godliness, and the highest attainment in close walking with God–to come daily and wash, and yet to keep as great a value for this discovery of forgiveness as if it were once only to be got, and no more. Indeed, the more we see of it, the more we should value it; but our carnal hearts, on the contrary, turn formal, and count it a common thing. That which is our daily allowance we value little, and we are fond of novelties and dainties.
- Thomas Halyburton, Memoirs, 147.

Romans 9-11 seems to be a hard passage for various theological systems. People who adhere to a strict replacement theology have to deal with the constant mention of the Jews not being rejected nor forgotten, while strict literalists have to deal with the fact that even in the Old Testament not all Israel was Israel. And these are issues that just scratch the surface. Christopher J.H. Wright mentions the passage in his book Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament and speaks of the unfortunate neglect of this passage by many who focus on the first 8 chapters of Romans and treat 9-11 as “a mere parenthesis or afterthought.” Wright asserts that the later chapters are “critical to understanding Paul’s whole theology of history and mission.” So, while acknowledging of God’s promise to the Jews, Wright also recognizes that many of the Jews during the early Church rejected the gospel (something Paul wrestles with in this chapter). His solution is not to say that the Church replaces Israel so that Israel has no part in God’s plan, but that the “remnant” is expanded to include the Gentiles. 

…Unless Paul can show that God had not failed Israel, all his talk about salvation for the Gentiles would be hollow and baseless.
    So Paul sets out to prove two affirmations: that God’s promise had not failed (Rom. 9:6), and that God had not rejected Israel (11:1-2). He does so by pointing out that even in the Old Testament not all Israelites were among those who truly responded to God. The prophets spoke of a remnant, through and to whom God would fulfill his promises. That remnant to whom Paul himself belonged, now included both Gentiles and Jews who believed in the Messiah Jesus and received God’s righteousness by faith. Gentile believers, therefore, were not some new people to whom God had transferred his favours. Rather they were like wild olive shoots that had been grafted on to the original stock. They had in fact become part of Israel. And that grafting in of the Gentile nations was nothing less than the original purpose of God in calling Israel in the first place. It was by that means, in that way, that ‘all Israel will be saved’.
- Christopher J.H. Wright, Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament, 170-1. 

Though all may not agree with Wright’s interpretation of the passage, it is something to think about. I finished the book tonight and I heartily recommend it. I also purchased what some have referred to as Wright’s “magnum opus,” The Mission of God, and, while reading Knowing Jesus, was able to discern some hints of what to expect in the bigger book. 

In Princeton Seminary David Calhoun lists a dozen devotional books B.B. Warfield recommended as “indispensable” to his students. As one who is constantly on the lookout for book recommendations by doctrinally sound men, I thought others might also benefit from this list, especially as it comes from a theological giant who J. Gresham Machen referred to as “the greatest man I have known.” 

Augustine’s Confessions; The Imitation of Christ; the Theolgia Germnica; Bishop Andrewes’ Private Devotions; Jeremy Taylor’s Life of Christ; Richard Baxter’s The Saints’ Everlasting Rest; Samuel Rutherford’s Letters; John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress; Sir Thomas Browne’s Religio Medici; William Law’s Serious Call; John Newton’s Cardiphonia; Bishop Thomas Wilson’s Sacra Privata.

Also: he added “two or three others which have peculiar interest to… Princetonians… and which I am sure are worthy of association with them”: Jonathan Edwards’ Treatise Concerning Religious Affections, Archibald Alexander’s Thoughts on Religious Experience, and Charles Hodge’s Way of life.

And finally, Warfield says, “that the second and third volumes of Dr. Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom have in them more food for your spiritual life–are ‘more directly, richly and evangelically devotional’–than any other book, apart from the Bible, in existence.”
- Princeton Seminary (Volume II): The Majestic Testimony, 324. 

…I have come to see with greater and greater clearness that consistent Christianity is the easiest Christianity to defend, and that consistent Christianity–the only thoroughly Biblical Christianity–is found in the Reformed Faith.
- J. Gresham Machen, from David B. Calhoun, Princeton Seminary (Volume II): The Majestic Testimony, 226.

Notice, however, that He, who in sovereign goodness and love has chosen you without being moved to such a decree by your good works or faith; who never deviates in His goodness and love; who concluded you in sin that He might have mercy upon you (Rom. 11:33); and who most certainly glorifies those whom He has elected unto salvation, will therefore not reject you for your remaining sin over which you grieve. Therefore, stand firm in faith, do not succumb to the multitude of remaining enemies, but rather focus upon this eternal decree, the perfect atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the covenant of grace. Rest in these, and although sin must continue to grieve you, do not let it cause you to be discouraged. - Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service (Volume I), 249.

Such is our God, who not only is all-sufficient in Himself but who with His all-sufficiency can fill and saturate the soul to such an overflowing measure that it has need of nothing else but to have God as its portion. The soul so favored is filled with such light, love, and happiness, that it desires nothing but this. “Whom have I in heaven but Thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside Thee” (Psa. 73:25).
- Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service (Volume I), 91.