Irrevocable: Paul's radical vision in Romans 9-11, and why Christianity can't handle it.

Bibliography

Prologue:

About the Author

This volume represents the culmination of a life-long labor of love in the investigation and in-depth study of the Biblical text by Max King.

The journey was quite an unlikely one when you consider its beginnings.

Max was born in the same farmhouse as his three siblings in the hills of West Virginia. His family was hard working and self-supporting, living off the land. He attended a one-room schoolhouse and small mountain church in those hills growing up. The family had no electricity or plumbing. The farm ran by literal horsepower. Homework was done by kerosene lamp.

His love of nature led to becoming president of the local chapter of the Future Farmers of America in high school. He saw himself following in the agrarian footsteps of those who had gone before.

Max’s family attended church three times a week, and sometimes more. When there gospel meetings were in town, they lasted a week to ten days, with attendance each and every night pretty much mandatory. Along the way, Max began bringing messages to his local congregation. Over time, he became an excellent speaker and provocative teacher.

Success in preaching led to full-time employment offers from churches across the state.

Max eventually left his agricultural fields and set out on a spiritual quest that forever changed the course of his life.

After years of self study, he wrote his first groundbreaking book, The Spirit of Prophecy, in 1971. It immediately sent shockwaves throughout his conservative evangelical denomination!

Max had boldly reinterpreted their long-held views on eschatology, the study of apocalypse and ‘last things’ in Scripture. Rather than focus on the future, Max proposed eschatology as a return to the past; specifically the first century generation of Jesus and Paul.

While this volume contained references to the wider field of theological reflection on the subject, for the most part The Spirit of Prophecy was Max’s first attempt to lay out a personal commentary on the Biblical text. He was simply a preacher with a high school diploma offering a solution to what he saw as a multitude of problems in the Amillennial view of eschatology.

Jesus and Paul were reframed as figures heralding the end of one age and the beginning of a new one. It was the advent of a new heaven and earth now—not in the future.

As Max studied through the remainder of the 1970s, he began to read extensively from theologians past and present. He studied the views of Bultmann, Schweitzer, and others doing historical theology. This led to his publishing The Cross and The Parousia in 1987. This work took in a far wider frame of theological thought beyond the fundamentalist roots of his upbringing. It was this volume that expanded Max’s views on Paul, and the specific mission and purpose of his writings. Max began to point toward a unifying trajectory from Jesus to Paul rather than emphasize differences, as many mainline theologians were in the habit of doing. There was considerable expansion of reflection on the resurrection of the dead and its place in soteriology. Paul was interpreted to be inclusive of Israel, but the effects of resurrection life extended to all in Adam. At the same time, he pointed to the ekklesia as a first-fruits harvest, a body existing in the last days, meaning the last days of the Age passing in that generation. The End of this era resulted in the restored reign of God in God’s kingdom. God stood revealed as all in all.

But even as he published The Cross and The Parousia, there were impasses that he could not ignore. While he had written about Paul’s background in Judaism as integral to his mission, there were not satisfactory answers (in his mind) as to how Paul saw the final outcome of Israel in the overall Biblical Narrative.

Never one to back down out of fear, Max came to understand that Paul was speaking to his Gentile audience from a universal viewpoint founded in the promises to Abraham and Abraham’s lineage. Max also knew that the very term universal was anathema to the historical interpretations of most Christian scholars, who had ruled the theological empire for centuries.

After all, Christianity is the world’s largest religion. Its Church was meant to exist as an historical, ongoing entity. Right?

Isn’t it insane to think Paul was revealing a Jesus who did not come to establish another world religion?

Yes and yes, in the minds of many. This is crazy talk! But perhaps it was time that someone should set aside previous paradigms, releasing our anxious grip on assumptions imported to the text from the very earliest centuries forward. Just maybe, this would create room for a Copernican solution to the remaining conundrums facing Pauline studies.

And so, here we are. This volume you hold in your hands – Irrevocable – represents the culmination of Max King’s long journey. After thousands of hours of study, the often-confounding puzzle piece of Romans 9-11 provides answers to the questions Max had entertained for decades, without fear of rejection or condemnation of heresy.

There is nothing at stake here other than an attempt to contribute to the ongoing evolution of understanding about the Biblical text and the Divine-human identity.

This book is not from the worlds of seminary or academia, though it is in dialogue with both. For some, this ‘outsider’ status will be problematic. Yet Max is not intimidated. These pages do not another attempt to preach Christianity to a world that’s heard it all before. For many, this will also be problematic. Yet, Max is willing to risk his standing among those in Christianity.

Max King never set out to write with hopes of pleasing the status quo. Nor will his legacy be one as a popular conference speaker or famous figure. Perhaps ongoing history will show why it was necessary for a no-name outsider to give himself to such an effort.

But he has come to know the peace that surpasses understanding, the fruit of setting out in faith and following a story to its end, no matter what the consequences.

As a son who followed in those footsteps, it is with my deepest gratitude that I offer this work for your consideration.

Where will your journey take you?

Doug King

CEO, Presence International (Presence.tv)

June 2019

#1

Introduction

It hardly needs pointing out that chapters 9-11 of Romans for centuries have been, and continue to be, one of the most problematic sections of Scripture in Pauline interpretation, particularly the concluding section 11:25-32, where Paul unequivocally confirms the salvation of all Israel. As Kasemann observed in his introduction to these three chapters, Probably no larger portion of Paul’s writings can be said to have had a history of exposition which is more a suffering course of misunderstanding, acts of violence, and experimentation with shifting methods and themes.1 Even that might be an understatement, including the one made by another scholar that this section of Paul’s writings is as full of problems as a hedgehog is of prickles.2

If one were to search for common ground of agreement on these three chapters perhaps it would be narrowed to the fact that they consist of 90 verses. Other than that, every section and practically every verse comprising these chapters continue to elude the interpreters’ endeavors to arrive at a consistent and coherent rendition of their purpose, meaning and place within Romans, or for that matter within the whole volume of Paul’s writings and gospel ministry. This is cause for more than just a passing concern. To say the least, it calls into question two thousand years of Pauline interpretations (or developing re-interpretations) that have created the massive religious division and theological discord that characterize our day.

The past two or three decades have seen a plethora of commentaries, articles and monographs published on Romans, particularly on Chapters 9-11. In almost all cases they reflect to one degree or other the theology of the writer’s particular ‘community of faith’ affiliation. This is only natural; however, interpretive biases must be acknowledged and held in abeyance if progress is to be made in returning to the original setting, problems, circumstances, etc. peculiar to Paul’s time that have a bearing on the occasion and structure of his letters.

An added roadblock in Scripture exegesis is the fervent desire in all communities of faith for the Bible to be speaking to us today. However, notwithstanding the nobility of this passion, the cost is too great to allow this to become an overriding concern to the loss or distortion of the original setting and meaning of any New Testament writing. We must not lose sight of the fact that Paul’s letters were written to specific churches with specific problems, concerns and needs, and only when he is read and understood in his own setting (not ours today) is it possible to preserve with any degree of accuracy the original meaning of a given Pauline letter or text. Then, and only then, can true faith and understanding be passed on and safeguarded in the hearts and minds of believers in succeeding generations. Krister Stendahl, for example, pointed out that "we must first read the Bible to find original meanings and allow those meanings to correct our tendencies to read our own views into the original rather than letting the original stand and speak for itself, for there is no greater threat to serious biblical studies than a forced demand for ‘relevance.’ We must have patience and faith enough to listen to and to seek out the original’s meaning. If this is not done, biblical study suffers and may, indeed, come up with faulty conclusions and interpretations."3

Adolf Schatter, in taking issue with interpreters who either reject or at best marginalize the sphere of history in understanding the Bible, is quoted as saying At the hands of the interpreter, the Letter to the Romans ceases to be a letter to the Romans.4 This statement pinpoints a problem that has plagued biblical exegetes from early post-apostolic time, beginning as early as Justin Martyr (110-165), Irenaeus (120-202), Origen (185-254), Eusebius (264-330), Jerome (340-420), Chrysostom (347-407), Augustine (354-430), on down to the reformers, Martin Luther (1483-1546), John Calvin (1509-1564), and their followers. All of these renowned religious leaders shared one common exegetical trait, which was to read Paul from the perspective of their own peculiar time, problems and circumstances rather than first and foremost from the perspective of Paul’s unique historical, covenantal, age-changing, eschatological setting. It is the misunderstanding or rejection of the latter (Paul’s imminent eschatology) that was, and continues to be, the ‘stumbling stone’ in Pauline interpretation. And until Paul’s explicit eschatological stance is understood correctly and admitted into the exegesis of his writings, the meaning and function of chapters 9-11 in Romans will remain a topic unresolved and widely debated. If this appears to be an unreasonable or baseless premise at this point, the reader is urged to stay the course as we work through these three chapters from the perspective of Paul’s total – unsuppressed – eschatological mission and message.

Paul knew both his gospel – the gospel of God5 – and his time – the fullness of time.6 His eschatological time is explicit, for example, in the paraenetic or hortatory section of Romans, chapters 12-15. Paul wrote: Knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light (13:11-12). Later we will show the relevance of Paul’s exhortations in chapters 12-15 to his exposition of the gospel – the promise – of God in chapters 1-11. He is not dealing in 12-15 with ethical conduct in a general sense, as some believe, but with the appropriate conduct and service called for on the part of both believing Gentiles and Jews during the interim period ‘till the end designs of the gospel are consummated in the arrival of the age to come. Resolving the tension between the strong and the weak largely constitutes Paul’s objective and train of thought in chapters 1-11. Those who protest that the strong/weak relational problem at Rome could not possibly justify the volume of teaching in these chapters fail, in my judgment, to see the potential negative impact of this conflict on Paul’s gospel. It betrayed a mind-set on the part of both parties that, left unchecked, would counter the essence and end goal of God’s promise to Abraham concerning the blessing of all nations or families of the earth.7 Paul clearly understood the underlying problem of this conflict; he provides the scope of teaching needed for an informed and effective resolution. Chapters 1-8 set the stage for chapters 9-11 and for Paul’s exhortations in chapters 12-15.

Furthermore, we will have occasion to see that Paul elsewhere had encountered similar misunderstandings, particularly in the church at Corinth. It will be seen that his two Corinthian letters tie in more closely to the challenge that is addressed in Romans, whereas Galatians, contrary to the belief of some, deals with a different challenge even though in both letters each distinctive challenge called for instruction on ‘the promise,’ ‘the law,’ ‘justification by faith’ and ‘Jew-Gentile oneness in Christ.’ Paul addresses the Judaizing challenge in Galatians, whereas in Romans he deals with erroneous conclusions drawn, particularly by Gentile believers, concerning the destiny of unbelieving Israel – conclusions that may have been influenced by a misunderstanding of Paul’s countering the Judaizing doctrine in Galatians. Since both Jewish and Gentile challenges flow out of misunderstandings of Paul’s gospel, his manner of dealing with them in his letters enables him to more fully draw out the meaning and scope of God’s purpose and action in Christ relative to making good God’s promise to Abraham. Therefore, if what Paul says in Romans takes one by surprise, particularly in 9-11, this may betray a one-sided perception of the gospel of God with respect to Jew-Gentile salvation. From this perspective, Paul’s teaching in 9-11 may be as urgent today as then for one’s understanding the full scope and essence of ‘the gospel of God.’

#1.1 The Consequences of Misreading

Paul’s Eschatology

In connection with the above, and to clarify further the approach that is taken in this exposition of Romans 9-11, attention is called to a statement made by H. J. Schoeps. He struck an exegetical nerve in saying:

We should misunderstand the apostle’s letters as a whole, and the governing consciousness from which they sprang, if we failed to recognize that Paul only lives, writes, and preaches, in the unshakable conviction that his generation represents the last generation of mankind. Through Christ’s death on the cross the world too has been crucified (Galatians 6:14) and begins now to pass away. The old aeon is still in force, but it is already crumbling (1 Corinthians 2:6). For upon this generation the end of the ages has come (1 Corinthians10:11). The form of this world is passing away (1 Corinthians 7:31), in fact the old has already faded (2 Corinthians 5:17).8

Schoeps saw correctly both the pervasiveness and the immanence of Paul’s eschatology, but in missing its covenantal orientation and end-time setting he concluded that as it turned out, Paul was mistaken, and that the first generation of Messianic believers did not prove in fact to be the last generation of humanity.9 Consequently, Schoeps maintained, and correctly so, that, The non-eschatological Paul is simply unintelligible, that the delay in the Parousia meant that Paul’s theology was totally flattened and rendered superficial.10 The history of post-apostolic interpretations bears out unintelligibility was in fact the consequences of de-eschatologizing Paul’s teachings. But it was Paul’s interpreters, not Paul, who were in error, believing that the imminent end events in Paul’s teaching failed to take place as taught and anticipated. But this perception undercuts the covenant/historical setting of Paul’s gospel.

Even though Schoeps also embraced the failure or delay view, he makes the valid point that as the result, Paul’s teachings had to be partly surrendered and partly refashioned. He sees this process as eventually giving rise to the early catholic teaching about redemption…for after it had given up the expectation of the Parousia it could no longer understand at all the deepest part of Paul’s message—viz., that the new aeon terminates the reign of the law. Consequently, Schoeps continued, much of the reasoning with which Paul attempted to justify the suspension of the law, especially in respect of Gentile Christians, became untenable.11

The rest is history. The ‘reshaping’ of Paul’s eschatological teaching occurred over a long period of time, leading to his being perceived as the founder of ‘Christianity’ (or a ‘second Christianity’) that is in fact completely alien to his original teachings on the gospel of God… concerning God’s Son Jesus Christ.12 Paul was called and separated unto a gospel that was firmly grounded in God’s covenant with Abraham,13 with Isaac14 and with Jacob.15 The fulfillment of this covenant promise (the blessing of all nations) constituted the sum and substance of Paul’s teachings in the full support and advancement of Jesus’ eschatological mission and message.

Unequivocally, Paul did live, write and preach in the unshakable conviction that his generation was the last generation – not of humanity, however (contra Schoeps), but of Israel’s Old Covenant salvation-history in which God acted in Christ, the One Seed of promise,16 to fulfill the covenant of promise to Abraham. Paul could not have stated this more clearly than he did in Romans 15:7-9 (with his eye on the Jew-Gentile relational problem at Rome):

In a word, accept one another as Christ accepted us, to the glory of God. I mean that Christ became a servant of the Jewish people to maintain the truth of God by making good the promise to the patriarchs, and at the same time to give the Gentiles cause to glorify God for his mercy" (NEB).

Paul knew, and the believers at Rome knew, the time, as seen in 13:11: "And do this, knowing the time…. It was the time of the end, the fullness of time, when God was acting through Christ to fulfill God’s promise to the fathers of Israel. Accordingly, Paul wrote Romans to bring the faith and conduct of believing Jews and Gentiles in line with the gospel’s eschatological time and end-goal unto which he – and they – had been called and separated. The failure of interpreters to see this historical end time and the occasion of Romans is precisely the problem denoted in Schatter’s statement above: At the hands of the interpreter, the Letter to the Romans ceases to be a letter to the Romans." The God of covenant also is the God of salvation-history, and neither can be excluded from Paul’s eschatology.

The objective in this study of Romans is to keep it a letter written to the believing community at Rome rather than permitting its message to remain lost or distorted in the rubble of two thousand years of Pauline reinterpretation due to the failure of interpreters to take Paul’s explicit eschatological teachings seriously, and within the covenantal, historical context of his time. In contrast to the various concepts of eschatology flowing out of ‘church history,’ the view proposed in this writing will be tested and evaluated in light of Old Testament promise and prophecy, and of the time and manner of fulfillment recorded in New Testament writings, which includes John’s pictorial (apocalyptic) "Revelation of Jesus Christ."17 John knew also that the time was at hand for the end events ascribed to Christ’s Parousia.18

#1:2 Back To Paul—But Where From There?

There is a final question (and problem) needing to be briefly noted before engaging in the exposition of Romans 9-11 and its place and function in Romans. This question is raised here at the outset because of its bearing on Paul’s objective in Romans and the path taken in achieving it. In going back beyond the maze of two thousand years of evolving Pauline interpretations to Paul’s time, one is faced with the question: Now what? Where does one go from there?

First, few would question the need to return to apostolic time and teaching in order to have faith that is properly informed. And this noble endeavor has been made repeatedly throughout church history by Paul’s interpreters, sometimes with great resolve and optimism, as the case with the early Reformers. But in every case the same problem is encountered, which is Paul’s explicit, imminent eschatological teaching. How can it be surrendered to Paul’s time and historical setting and have meaning in all succeeding generations?

We saw above in #1.1 that this problem was encountered in the early Post-Apostolic period, as pointed out by Schoeps. Added to Schoeps’ provocative insight is the extensive treatment of this problem in church history by Martin Werner.19 He maintained that The problem of the origin of Christian dogma resides, when considered as a whole, in the question of how the doctrine of the Early Catholic Church derived from Primitive Christianity. Werner asked, What were the factors in Primitive Christianity which caused that faith to be transformed in the Post-Apostolic period into Early Catholicism?20 This question must be addressed, for only when the reinterpretation of apostolic teachings in post-apostolic periods is understood will it be possible to recapture original apostolic meaning and function. It is precisely here that the early Reformation fell short of its primary objective: when leaders of this movement, in returning to Paul, felt compelled to engage in reinterpreting Paul’s eschatological teaching – a revisionist move which, ironically, is what gave rise to the Catholicism they sought to reform in the first place. While there is a difference in Catholic and Protestant interpretations of Paul, the end result is the same—a failure to know what to do with Paul’s pervasive, imminent eschatology. This hermeneutical helplessness holds true of all NT writings as well – texts in the hands of a hapless crowd.21

To shed more light on the intensity and complexity of this problem, let’s look at one of Schweitzer’s statements on this matter. He maintained that, The renewing of Christianity which must come will be a return to the immediacy and intensity of the faith of Early Christianity. Few would disagree with this statement. But it is Schweitzer’s following statement that accents the problem. No doubt a reintegration of Primitive-Christian faith as such is impossible, because it was embodied in temporally conditioned conceptions to which it is impossible for us to return.22

Here Schweitzer is saying that on one hand what is needed—the renewing of Christianity—must come by returning to the faith of Early Christianity, but on the other hand he says that a reintegration of this faith is impossible because it was embodied in temporally conditioned conceptions to which it is impossible for us to return. He made a valid point even though the solution to the problem eluded him as well.

I contend – for the sake of both robust scholarship and robust spiritual formation – that it is both possible and imperative to return to the faith and teaching of Paul’s temporal, end-time gospel setting. It is not, however, possible through a process of reintegration carried through time divorced from its original setting and function. Paul’s eschatology was not designed to be integrated, that is, to be added to something already in existence, such as some form or brand of ‘theology" that might be carried back to Paul. (This point is taken up and expanded below.)

Paul’s eschatological teachings, as temporally conditioned in a clearly marked period of time, cannot be restructured in order to be inserted into later periods of time without suffering a loss or distortion of their original meaning and function. The function of Paul’s eschatology was a once-for-all-time accomplishment of the end goal and design of God’s promise, hence the promise that Christ came to fulfill or to make good (Romans 15:8, NEB). It is this specific function of eschatology and its explicit time frame that must have the interpreter’s undivided attention in going back to Paul.

Furthermore, it is important to see that while Paul’s eschatology cannot be aligned strictly with Christ’s, it nevertheless led the way to the goal that was central in Christ’s eschatology, namely, the coming of the kingdom of God in power in their generation.23

Clearly, Jesus and Paul entertained the same end goal in their eschatology, the difference being that Paul, in virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, is empowered to engage in the kind of eschatological action (mission and message) that functioned to bring to fulfillment that which was central in Christ’s eschatology as recorded in the Gospels.

The failure of interpreters to see the interconnection of Jesus’ and Paul’s end-time teaching has given rise to the unwarranted perception of a Jesus-Paul eschatological discord or disconnect, making Paul appear to be the founder of a second Christianity. But Paul was called of God to reveal Christ,24 not to counter or upstage Christ’s eschatological message and mission. No other meaning or intention can be ascribed to Paul’s eschatological teachings, nor to his participation in Christ’s death and resurrection in his dying and rising with him, than Paul’s revealing of Christ in terms of Christ’s mission to "make good God’s promise to the patriarchs.25 This objective pinpoints the end event and meaning of Christ’s Parousia; the perception that it failed to take place simply betrays a concept of Christ’s Parousia that was neither Christ’s nor Paul’s understanding of it in relation to promise fulfillment.

So it is back to the question and problem posed above. In returning to Paul and being confronted with his imminent eschatology (which can mean only a near, not far-distant, fulfillment), what course of action is incumbent on the interpreter? Reinterpreting or reintegrating action must be ruled out. In the first place one cannot escape the clear implications of Schweitzer’s statement that The whole history of ‘Christianity’ down to the present day, that is to say, the real inner history of it, is based on the delay of the Parousia, the non-occurrence of the Parousia, the abandonment of eschatology, the process and completion of the ‘de-eschatologising’ of religion which has been connected therewith.26

Whether or not one is comfortable with this statement, it cannot be denied that Christianity has been structured or based to a large degree on the belief of a yet-future fulfillment of eschatology as described in New Testament writings. What, then, would be the point in going back to Paul for instruction in matters of faith if he were in error concerning those matters on which Christianity has been based for two thousand years? How could turning back to the writings of a mistaken or deceived Paul provide any legitimate renewing power within the somewhat mangled state of today’s Christianity?

However, if on the other hand Paul was not mistaken, if his and Jesus’ common end goal did not fail to be realized in their generation, it follows that the only logical course of action in returning to Paul is to identify and promote understanding and faith in that which did take place according to the design of God’s purpose and promise as carried out through Christ. That, of course, will necessitate a lot of reconstruction in setting things right in theology. I’d say this ‘truing up’ of theology and practice is long-overdue, putting God and the world of humanity in proper perspective today.

#1.3. Two Crucial Questions

Returning to Paul in the manner referred to above raises two crucial questions, both having a bearing on how Paul should be read and understood in Romans as a whole, and in chapters 9-11 in particular.

First, What is the meaning of ‘salvation’ and its ultimate goal in the eschatology of