We are planning a teaching series on Romans for our church community later in the year. To prepare for this, seven or eight people who are gifted in teaching and speaking will meet a few times for a ‘teach-in’ on the letter. I wanted to set the letter in the narrative context of the history of Israel, which increasingly these days is being shown to be a good way of bringing meaning to life, rather than approach the letter as source material for a systematic theology/ethics. But how to do that - without oversimplifying the narrative? I started to map out the story by following some key motifs as laid down in Genesis, and repeated throughout the narrative. Further motifs were added as the story developed, but they all seemed to come back to the ones with which Genesis began. Below is a summary of the findings. If anyone can be bothered to plough through it all, I’d be grateful for feedback - as a way of understanding Romans in particular.
The narrative of Israel and the people of God. Fruitfulness / recovery of Eden motifs
Genesis 1 – God’s purposes for a created world – “fruitful” (Hebrew para) is the key word for its stewards: 1:28 – “be fruitful – increase – fill – subdue – rule”
Genesis 3 – The curse: the creation mandate is still possible, but is tainted with distortion: childbirth becomes painful; relationships become domineering; toil is difficult and often purposeless
Early attempts to restore Eden; Noah: “blessed – fruitful – increase – fill” , Genesis 9:1, 7; the covenant was the guarantee of the recovery Genesis 9:9-17; some obligations were required of the party to whom it was given
Abraham (and Sarah), “Increase v.2 – fruitful v.6 – bless”, Genesis 17:2, 6, 16; the sphere of recovery was now the land of Canaan; the covenant again was the guarantee of recovery Genesis 17:2; circumcision was the sign of the covenant, Genesis 17:9-14; “walk before me and be blameless” was the only other obligation; no further detailed covenant requirements were made
Moses – the land of Canaan is represented again as the sphere of the recovery of Eden; Deuteronomy 1:25 – the fruit of the land is inspected; the blessings of fruitfulness are now attached to obedience to the commands of the covenant, Deuteronomy 28:1-14; curses for disobeying the covenant are added - Deuteronomy 28:15-68, which reverse the covenant promises; exile is added to unfruitfulness, decline, removal of shalom; oppression, inhumanity
Judges – Samuel – Kings – Chronicles bear out the covenant stipulations: blessings/curses, exile
All the way through the narrative, – the echo of the original disobedience reverberates in the lives of the main players
The fruitfulness / barrenness motif continues in the prophets: trust in God produces fruitfulness; Canaan is the new Eden – Jeremiah 2:7a; Israel becomes the defiler of the land – Jeremiah 2:7b; God created Israel as a fruitful olive tree – Jeremiah 11:16a; but because of her breaking of the covenant, Israel will be judged – Jeremiah 11:16b. Trust in man is contrasted with trust in God, a tree which constantly bears fruit – Jeremiah 17:7-8.
Isaiah begins to sketch out an eschatological hope; the outpouring of the Spirit becomes the fulcrum which changes unfruitfulness to fruitfulness – Isaiah 32:15-16; recovery now involves the provision of the eschatological Spirit Isaiah 4:2; (27:2-6;) 37:30-31; 65:21 repeat the theme, as do Ezekiel; Daniel: Hosea; Amos Micah; Habbakkuk; Haggai; Zechariah; Malachi
The ‘fruitful’ motif now abounds in the teaching of Jesus, who came to complete Israel’s story – eg. The good tree and the bad tree – Matthew 7:17-19; 12:33; the sower – Matthew 13:8, 23, 26/Mark 4:7,8,20,28,29; the fig tree – Matthew 21:19, 34; 43; John 12:29; 15:2,4,5,8,16; Gal 5:22; fruit = ‘karpos’
Further motifs – fruitfulness/barrenness; fertile land/wilderness etc.
Fruit / fruitfulness are contrasted with barrenness; fruitful land is contrasted with wilderness;
Land / blessing / fruitfulness motifs are contrasted with exile/ curse/ barrenness motifs (NB the possession / occupation v. dispossession / exile motifs)
Life / righteousness are contrasted with death / sin; blessing is contrasted with curse.
Sin and death, the fatal obstacles to all the recovery movements were now overcome through the death and resurrection of the messiah
Israel’s identity and destiny in restoring Eden. Narrative issues of race/faith; nation/remnant; failure/fulfilment – Israel’s representative
Israel’s destiny in restoring Eden was not guaranteed by race or deeds, but by the covenant promise which preceded both –
- The promise was not dependent on race; the promise was given to Isaac, not Ishmael, though both were the natural descendants of Abraham – Romans 9:6-9
- The inheritance was not dependent on works/deeds; the inheritance was given to Jacob not Esau – even though this was before either “had done anything good or bad” – Romans 9:10-13
God’s elective choice determines the outcome of the promise – not racial or national identity, or adherence to “works of the law” as required by the covenant. The elective choice works with the covenant, but finds a way when Israel fails to observe her side of the covenant – either through lack of heart devotion or failed works.
Israel’s future was to be accomplished by one who represented her: succeeding where she had failed; fulfilling the terms of the covenant.
The reversal of curse, exile, barrenness, death through Jesus, his provision of the Spirit – Israel’s restoration – blessing of Abraham to the world
Jesus comes as the end to the exile – Matthew 1:16-17; the seed of Abraham – Matthew 1:2; the seed of David – Matthew 1:6, where ‘seed’ is the messianic fulfilment of the promise of Abraham and the restoration of David’s monarchy and line. He is also the end to the exile as (a) ‘forgiveness of sins’ – v.21 and (b) ‘God with us’ v.23
The purpose of the covenant – the reversal of the fall, the bringing of the blessing of Abraham to the whole world, could now be accomplished. The blessing is the inclusion of all nations in the people of God, through the Spirit provided by the Messiah, the ‘seed’ of Abraham, the seed of David.
The ‘Spirit’ was given to bring life where there had been death, blessing where there had been curse; fruitfulness for barrenness, inheritance where there had been dispossession and exile
The “Spirit of life” was given to all who trusted in the messiah, and brought their lives into obedience to him – Acts 2:38-39. The good news and summons of the kingdom was to be taken everywhere, to restore creation to its true purpose – ‘the law of the Spirit of life’ replacing ‘the law of sin and death’ – Romans 8:2
The Spirit is associated with ‘the kingdom’ and the restoration of Israel – Acts 1:6 “Are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” :
- The teaching of the kingdom (Acts 1:3) is related to the gift of the Spirit – Acts 1:4-5;
- The gift of the Spirit relates to the restoring of the kingdom to Israel – Acts 1:6;
The narrative in Acts 1 is that of Isaiah – the prophet of the kingdom:
- Isaiah 32:1-20; the fulcrum and turning point is the outpouring of the Spirit from on high v.15 (cp Luke 24:49) – fulfilled as stated by Peter in Acts 2:33
- The power to be witnesses – Acts 1:8a echoes Isaiah 43:10 – Israel’s destiny
- The call to bring restoration from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8b) echoes Isaiah 49:5-6
This too was a beginning, but a decisive ‘beginning of the end’. The provision of the Spirit is a ‘down-payment’ or ‘deposit’ until the full amount is to be received – “the redemption of those who are God’s possession” – Ephesians 1:14, when the ‘spirit of adoption’ – Romans 8:15, encounters the full adoption which includes all the rights of sonship – Romans 8:19, 21, 22. This includes resurrection bodies, new creation environments – new heavens, new earth.
Conclusion
The tree which brought the curse is replaced by the tree which brings blessing, constantly fruitful – Revelation 22:2. The river of life feeds the tree, flowing from the throne of God through the centre of a city, the redeemed community of the people of God. The narrative is completed.
Re: The narrative of Israel and the people of God.
Peter
Brian McLaren’s commentary on Romans, might be of interest…
shalom! - john
eternalpurpose.org.uk
Re: The narrative of Israel and the people of God.
Gosh, John - I really shouldn’t have read this (Brian McLaren’s account of Romans). Not because it challenges me, but because it makes me reach towards the keyboard.
Since writing the above ‘narrative’ - and bear in mind that I have a practical situation looming: a meeting with 8 teachers, who are taking on the task of interpreting Romans to a delightful, quizzical, gullible congregation - I have also been asking myself: What do I believe about Romans which I feel confident enough to talk to the group about - as a kind of anchor for our ‘teach-in’? What will be the spring-board for discussion?
I don’t think the traditional post-Lutheran evangelical interpretation is a bad one - and I do think McLaren caricatures it. This interpretation itself rests on a ‘narrative’, which evangelical theology supplies to arrange the Romans material around. It’s just that it cuts too many corners!
So I have been reading and re-reading N.T.Wright’s paper, from the N.T.Wright homepage, entitled: "Romans and the Theology of Paul" (1995). For me, it avoids some of the simplifications of McLaren’s reading (eg that Jew and Gentile are invited into a new common approach of faith in Jesus, which replaces the Jewish Law; that literally "all Israel" will be saved - amongst many others). Wright has added something to my understanding which I have never really managed to understand before: which is the problem of Israel apparently being ‘set up’ to fail with the Old Covenant. Wright both gives a ‘high’ view of the Torah - that it was Israel’s marriage contract with JHWH - but he also says that the Torah similarly bound Israel to Adam - intentionally so, so that sin might be ‘heaped up’ through the law, and then transferred to Israel’s perfect representative, Jesus. It was always God’s intention to ‘cast aside’ Israel ‘in the flesh’, so that his redeemed community of the Spirit might emerge. Israel was bearing, in herself, both tragedy and triumph.
This leads to the main thrust of Wright’s approach - to uphold (with Paul) the Torah, to show its indispensability in the pathway to redemption. For this reason, Gentiles always owe a debt to the Jews, and should never regard them as representatives of a failed system. But that doesn’t mean that the way the redeemed community is to live today is through Torah observation.
Wright is strongest in asserting that Paul’s motive was to show that God always intended to deal with sin yet maintain his faithfulness to his creation through the covenant - one covenant exposed in developing forms - leading to a ‘new covenant’, which was really the ultimate development of the same covenant. There isn’t enough of this focus for me in McLaren.
Finally, Wright begins his paper with the summary that Romans is: "A Jewish theology for the Gentile world, and a welcome for Gentiles designed to make the Jewish world jealous". A very good summary.
The Lutheran and reformation interpretation of the gospel, and reading of Romans is not a bad one; Wright has raised some issues which, I believe, make better sense of the whole, and avoid the corner-cutting. So I feel I’m going to have to put Wright on the map for our teaching group. I’m less confident about McLaren, but I applaud his desire to focus the faith on a life lived in the now, and also his tracing of the circuitousness of Paul’s flow of thought. But his lack of training as a theologian shows. Incidentally, I am equally untrained (and it no doubt shows), and I was also, like McLaren, trained in English literature!
The big issue for our teaching group, and McLaren makes it his issue as well, is how to make any interpretation of Romans of practical value to people in their lives. A hurdle to overcome is the general prejudice my church no doubt shares with many other post-charismatic churches, that theology is pretty useless, and all we really need is a good experience of God, the Holy Spirit, and some practical guidelines on relationships, and sharing our faith. But to me, theology has to precede all of these issues, as well as show that it is basic to practice.
As for my ‘narrative’ sketched out above - I don’t think it will have immediate bearing on our teaching series, but it is something I will probably take up and develop sometime.
Re: The narrative of Israel and the people of God.
Hello Peter
I applaud the integrity towards this project that is revealed, "between the lines…" of your probings, Peter. I wonder whether the following review / book would be of help (I’m not sure how much research you and your team have time for, but in the longer run…): The quest for Paul’s gospel.
I would agree with you that there is something to be take out of both the McLaren and Wright commentaries on Romans (I’d thought Wright had a commentary upon Romans, but that may be the document you’ve referred to). McLaren’s desire to come and look fresh at the text is interesting and I particularly appreciate his intention to avoid reading the text using the "parenthesis approach" which has traditionally been taken toward the text, especially dispensationalists.
Wright poses difficulties for me with his understanding of Torah. If we understand it as Jewishly as possible, then it is a source of life, not of death, as Paul reposts in Romans to his silent questioner. I can’t do it justice here, but I find NTW’s take on it slightly awry. Not that I would disagree with it having a role in "heaping up sin" but that is it’s role in revealing Israel’s place in Adam, rather than Torah being responsible for that work, if you see what I mean. From a Jewish point of view, it’s an important distinction, which Paul is at pains to make (Romans 7?).
Wright’s idea that God always intended to cast Israel ‘according to the flesh’ is similarly problematical for me. On the one hand, I was thrilled that he posit’s an understanding of Israel as a ransom nation - Israel, God’s son, suffering in common with the Son of God - on behalf of the Gentiles.
But, on the other hand, Israel was always after the flesh, wasn’t it? I think Israel (practically) always means Israel in the NT as well as OT Scripture, and it is not appropriate to transfer that title to Jesus in quite the way he does and certainly not to the new covenant community in the way he does. I find elements of supercessionism (which I consider has been a curse upon the entire church history, with implications re. the Shoah - an idea upheld by serious Holocaust scholars) in this, which is a great shame, because I feel this is partly the very thing he wants to avoid with his commentary - in sympathy with Paul (and Brian!) - something I feel he ultimately fails to achieve.
I understand Wright’s aversion to the idea of a wholescale turning of the Jewish race / Israeli nation to God, as per "Left behind" theology, but, conversely, I cannot help but understand Paul as teaching that a time will come when the hardening upon Israel (after the flesh) is removed. Whatever proportion of Jews come in ("all Israel") be it 10% or 100% it will be a time of great joy and wonder - naturally and spiritually, on earth, as in heaven. The torturous interpreations of several commenators, including Andrew, in CoSoM, upon the term "all Israel" in an attempt to avoid reading it as a simple referece to a (re)turning of the Jewish people is an indication of how averse many are to this idea, however.
I hope you get a hold on what you as a team want to communicate, as a reflection of God’s heart to your church community - at this time.
shalom! - john
eternalpurpose.org.uk