The Millennium: Pre, Post, or Realized? #7

I now continue the series on millennialism by picking up at verse 13 of Romans chapter 11.

13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry 14 in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. 15 For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?

Verses 12 & 15 are practically identical in their intent. But between those two, Paul describes his ministry as one “to the gentiles” in order that he may “save some of the Jews”.

As for the puzzling illustration of dough in verse 16, some commentators see the relationship between the “firstfruits” and the lump to be symbolic of the relationship of God to Israel as an Old Covenant people that, because of their covenantal relationship the nation is holy because God is holy. The sense in which I think this may be true is that, holiness is transferred to the nation as a whole in that they have a “set-apartness” in regards to other nations; God did not chose Hammurabi of Ishtar and make a nation of his seed, not that they are, in this age and to a man, righteous before God on account of the imputation of Christ’s merit, but that they remain the historical, temporal people of God—even if their relation to God is now characterized by His wrath toward a disobedient and contrary people, some sort of relationship exists nonetheless, as to the future of this relationship there remains great debate. Unlike the Church, the nation of Israel does not enjoy the privilege of having God’s Fatherly love for the Son imputed to every individual in the group, but we know that Paul later goes on to say that, “..in this way, all Israel will be saved.’, which is to say, through partial hardening and jealousy they (the branches that were broken off) will be saved, yet, like the eschatology of the nation, the exact scope of this salvation within the group also remains immersed in debate. As one man once said, “the best interpretation of a prophetic event is its fulfillment.”

16 If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."

Verses 16b-22 I believe are some of the most helpful in gathering insight for understanding the relationship between Israel and the Church. In verse 16 Paul sets up the pruning and grafting metaphor. The Root is obviously Christ, the natural branches are the Jews and the wild branches are gentiles. In his commentary on Romans 11:16, Calvin had this to say,

“The first-fruits which were offered sanctified the whole lump, in like manner the goodness of the juice diffuses itself from the root to the branches; and posterity hold the same connection with their parents from whom they proceed as the lump has with the first-fruits, and the branches with the tree. It is not then a strange thing that the Jews were sanctified in their father. There is here no difficulty if you understand by holiness the spiritual nobility of the nation, and that indeed not belonging to nature, but what proceeded from the covenant.”

The picture here is graphic and quite easily understood. There is an attachment of essence that is described between the root and its branches; at the very least, the characteristic of holiness is transferred from the root into the branches, much like the root of a tree transfers the necessary elements of life to its branches. But some of the branches were broken off so we might conclude, by extension of the metaphor, that the holiness transferred from the root to the branches does not prevent the pruning of certain branches. Perhaps it does, however, necessitate their future grafting back in. The first element of the metaphor is the root, the second is the natural branches, and the third is the wild branches. Notice that these branches, alien to the nature of the olive tree, though we may infer that the fact that they are both olive branches indicates the similarity between all of God’s human creatures, whether they be Jews or gentiles, are not grafted into the place of the natural braches (in effect replacing them, because they are soon to return) nor are the wild branches used to start a different tree in the same garden, but they are grafted in among the other branches, so as to “share in the nourishing root of the olive tree”. We could say that the nourishment Paul has in mind here is that spoken of in Eph. 2:11-22, that the wild branches now enjoy all the benefits from which they were previously alienated, the commonwealth of Israel, the covenant of promises, and hope in the world. Paul often reminds his readers that they, as believers, are a part of the greater whole; we are members of a body and so on. Not that individuality is antithetical to Pauline soteriology, but the cooperate nature of God’s dealings with a covenant people is sometimes over shadowed in modern American individualism. He in effect said in verses 13-15, “…do not forget that you all a part of a bigger picture.” In the great wisdom bestowed on Paul by the Spirit, he realizes that when an oppressed people are finally removed from under the thumb of their oppressor, arrogance and pride seek an opportunity to pounce on the weak; they crouch at the door awaiting an occasion to infect lives with sin. So he is forthright with a condemnation of the pride that might befall gentile Christians as they consider their newly inclusive position with regard to God’s Kingdom.

20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear.

In verse 20b Paul in effect reminds the believing gentiles that fear, rather than pride is the correct response for their inclusion; just as with Abraham and his physical nation, they had no occasion for pride because, among all the nations they were the least, but it was right that they should fear lest the God of all patience rescind His grace in order to display His justice. Likewise, we gentiles should fear our sin and disobedience lest the God who included us let His gracious mercy run dry and replace it with the flood of His justice, which is at all times conceived and distributed in righteousness.

As Paul confirms in verses 19-20a, the natural branches were pruned to make room for the wild branches, but that is only one end of the means of this pruning; coupled with the jealousy that will be caused by the grafting in of the wild branches, the grafting in of the wild branches is a means to the final (final in the context of this metaphor and the specific eschatological events it illustrates) end of the re-grafting of the natural branches, which consequently is a means to the greater blessing of the world. In other words, Paul has in mind a sequence of causal effects: the nation chosen to bless the world through the Messiah, the nation’s rejection of that Messiah, God’s rejection of that nation, God’s acceptance of other nations, the jealousy of that chosen nation, the repentance of that chosen nation, God’s acceptance of their repentance, and the blessing of the whole world as a result of God’s acceptance of their repentance. Paul goes on to reiterate the point that the natural branches were not just broken off just to make room for the grafting in of the wild branches; they did not stumble just so that they might fall, they were broken off because of their unbelief. So too would the wild branches be broken off if they persisted in unbelief.

There will probably be one more post regarding chapter 11, and then I plan to summarize the three views presented in the title of this series and list proponents of each.