I say, God does not cast out His people, does He?
Paul in Romans 11:1
Israel has always been a stumbling block for theologians. This is not new. Even in biblical times, there were many questions about Israel. Paul opens Romans 11 with the question, “Surely God does not cast away His people?”(Rom 11:1). In doing so, he raises a question in his own time that could have arisen from the last chapter. The apostle not only tries to convey his own explanations and concerns, but also wants to put himself in his audience’s shoes and anticipate their questions if possible. That is what is happening here.
Chapters 9-11 in Romans deal with Israel. This was an important issue of the time, primarily for the Jews in the community. They had a long history as “God’s people” and were well acquainted with the promises for Israel and the messianic task for Israel as the prophets had spoken about it. If one wants to understand the New Testament, these ideas should be known – because they were for the Jews at that time.
Then Jesus appears, as the promised Messiah. However, he is executed by the Romans, at the insistence of the Jewish religious leaders. After three days, Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples, who asked him, “Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?”(Acts 1:6). This, then, was what Jesus and his disciples had been talking about for years. Didn’t Jesus begin his proclamation with “Turn your mind, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”? This was the kingdom of which the prophets had spoken.
Today, people often think that the whole New Testament speaks only of today’s church. However, this is demonstrably not the case. Israel is an important theme, as is the promised kingdom for Israel, which Matthew calls the “kingdom of heaven.” Jesus and the 12 apostles dealt with Israel and with this promised kingdom for Israel. That is why the question came to Jesus after the resurrection, whether now the kingdom will be restored for Israel. A church of all nations, as we know it today, was not yet a topic in the New Testament at that time. This comes later in Acts when Paul, as an apostle to the nations(Rom 11:13) steps on the scene. Until then, the believers from the nations are only guests of the covenant promise (cf. the removal from this status in a late letter of Paul, Eph 2:11-18).
One could outline the time of Acts as a transitional period. At the beginning it is still about the 12 apostles and the kingdom for Israel(Acts 1:6). At the end of Acts, Paul goes to the nations(Acts 28:28). In between lies a development and a time with many questions. The Letter to the Romans is written in this transitional period and addresses questions about the position of Israel.
Israel’s expectation of a kingdom was not fulfilled in Jesus’ day. Jesus Himself leaves the realization to His God and Father(Acts 1:7). This postpones the promise, so to speak. It does not take place today, but later.
When Paul enters the stage, he is the 13th Apostle. He is not one of the 12. That is a statement of great consequence. The 12 apostles fulfill a different task than Paul. Examples: The 12 apostles will judge the 12 tribes of Israel in the future(Matt 19:28). Paul has no place there. Likewise, in the case of the heavenly Jerusalem, “The wall of the city had 12 foundations, and on them were the 12 names of the 12 apostles of the Lamb”(Rev 21:14). Paul is not there either.
So, on the basis of the textual testimony, one cannot claim that the New Testament and all the apostles always speak of the same thing. This is demonstrably not the case. There are the Twelve Apostles on the one hand and there is Paul on the other. This has meaning. We do well to interpret each of the above assignments and tasks in their own context and not to infer from our understanding. With this, we gain clarity about the text. We are getting closer to the Bible.
The most important difference of Paul lies in his task to the nations. Peter had to be persuaded with several visions to approach Cornelius, even though he was a proselyte(Acts 10). This was not a “Gentile”, but someone who was very close to the Jewish people and Jewish expectation, as we can see from the text. Cornelius was what is called a “proselyte from the gate” (someone who was inclined to the people and religion, but not circumcised). Peter had great difficulty with the fact that Cornelius was not a Jew. But Cornelius was not a “pure heathen”. However, this was a huge hurdle for Peter. Hence the visions that would lead him to contact Cornelius. None of the 12 apostles turned directly to the nations in the same way as Paul (This is not changed by the so-called “Great Commission”, which has not been carried out until today: “Mission or evangelism? Checked the mission command“).
Back to Paul. Paul steps onto the stage. He receives “his gospel” directly by revelation from Jesus Christ(Gal 1:11-12, cf. Rom 16:25-26). His gospel and audience are different than the prophets ever talked about. There is something completely new for the nations. Although the prophets also had a salvation for all nations in mind, this was via the mediatorial role of Israel, which was to fulfill a “royal priesthood” (for the other nations). Peter, as one of the Twelve, and with an assignment for Israel(Gal. 2:7-9), spoke of this expectation for Israel as follows:
“But you are a chosen race, a ‘royal priesthood,’ a ‘holy nation,’ a people for His appropriation, that you may proclaim the virtues of Him who called you out of darkness into His amazing light, who were once a ‘non-people’ (Hos 1:9) but are now God’s people (Hos 2:23) who once had not obtained mercy, but now obtain mercy.”
1Pet 2:9-10
This letter and text is readily referred to today’s church. Peter, however, is speaking to the “chosen emigrants in the dispersion”(1Pet 1:1). This is the Jewish Diaspora. He does the same as James(Jas 1:1). Their gospel was explicitly the “gospel of the circumcision”(Gal 2:7-9). If we insert such clear indications from the text, and read these things with the indications from the context, some texts of the Bible get a different meaning than the traditional one. The gain is that you are closer to Scripture.
If we recognize these differences, we can also better understand why the time of Acts was a transitional time. It was also something of a time of self-discovery. This applies, on the one hand, to the church in Jerusalem with the 12 apostles, all of whom remained in expectation of Israel’s kingdom (cf. Peter in Acts 2:36). On the other hand, this also applies to the churches, in which Paul gave a place to many nations uncircumcised and without law. This was unheard of and new. No wonder there were many questions about it.
So, in Romans, Paul first laid out the core of the gospel for the church from all nations (chapters 1-8). However, this was a challenge for the Jewish believers within the community. What was now with Israel? What happened next for Israel? Has God cast away His people? That is the question why it is going here (chapters 9-11).
Paul takes the trouble to describe the new situation for Israel in three chapters. He explains what happens to the expectation from the whole nation of Israel and how believers in the church can see their position.
“I’ve never heard it said that way before!”
This interpretation comes from a dispensationalist approach. It tries to use data from the text for a better understanding, realizing that not everything is valid at the same time, but differences in the text are justified and have meaning. This approach tries to interpret the text first in its own context, and only in a second step to learn from it. More in-depth articles below.
A dispensationalist view recognizes that while everything is written “for” us to learn from, it does not all speak “of us.” What is not written directly to us is in a different context, possibly with different rules, different audiences, and a different expectation. We cannot blindly throw everything together in the Bible without doing violence to the text.
Everything is for us, but not everything speaks of us.
What is this important for? The point is to understand what is meant directly for us. Examples: Jesus healed people, why doesn’t he heal me? A dispensationalism can take such a question and see a context to Bible verses. Thus, it can be shown why these biblical passages rather do / rather do not speak of today’s church. It can also be seen why Jesus healed people and why not all people were healed.
Other keywords with meaning: food commandments, circumcision, healing, salvation, kingdom, blessing, and many more. They are all used throughout the Bible, but contexts and target groups change and so does the scope of the statements. This has direct consequences for the self-understanding for today.
This paper, for example, outlined a development in the New Testament. In my opinion, this development can be seen in the text and as a result one can think more differentiated about the New Testament and about what faith means.
