Romans 11:1-2a; 29-32 Commentary

In a text that Paul packs with observations that can be hard to interpret (some of which the Revised Common Lectionary deftly sidesteps), few are more difficult than verse 32’s “God has bound [synekleisen*] everyone [pantos] over to disobedience [apeitheian].” Even preachers who look to the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) may find little help in its “God has imprisoned all in disobedience.”

Preachers who publicly read this Sunday’s entire Epistolary Lesson might choose to largely skim over verse 32. But those who do so deprive Jesus’ friends of hearing what’s arguably the book of Romans’ “punchline” in verse 32. As a result, wise preachers will listen for the Spirit’s leading as they weigh supplementing this Sunday’s Epistolary Lesson reading with at least verses 25-28 and 33-36.

As we preach Romans 11:1-2a and 29-32 we might want to note that it’s part of Paul’s ongoing exploration of the deep mystery and source of pain that is widespread Jewish rejection of Jesus as Messiah. “Not all the Israelites accepted the good news,” he grieves in Romans10:16.

This lament leads almost directly into Romans 11:1’s, “Did God reject [aposato] his people?” The Spirit may use this rhetorical question to open the way for an exposition of verse 32. That verse begins with a thorny issue that is the interpretation of God’s synekleisen (binding over) of all people to apeitheian (“disobedience”).

Part of the challenge of interpreting synekleisen is the rarity of its biblical use. It appears only here and in Galatians 3:22. BibleHub.com translates synekleisen as “to shut together.” Most English translations of the Scriptures see in this a hint of imprisonment.

But, of course, most orthodox Christians are nervous about claims God imprisons people in the sin that God so passionately hates. We profess that since God’s will is for God’s people to be holy, any disobedience in which people are imprisoned is that which we’ve chosen for ourselves. We would surmise, then, that God’s imprisonment of us in sin refers to the way God allowed us to choose our natural hatred for God and our neighbor.

Synekleisen’s translation’s challenges suggests an exploration of the Greek word might well focus on the universality of human disobedience. After all, we sense some of Paul’s Roman readers assume only Jewish people have chosen the prison that is disobedience.

The apostle, however, insists pantas (“everyone”) has chosen this mess. Yes, Jews’ disobedience is highly visible, particularly to Paul and his Jewish contemporaries. But it’s almost as if the apostle wants his readers to remember that all gentiles and Jews have imprisoned ourselves in disobedience. He asserts all people have locked ourselves in the same prison.

This lament opens the way for verse 32’s great news that is, perhaps unsurprisingly, also somewhat hard to interpret. There, after all, Paul goes on to sing, “God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on [eleese] them all [pantas].” In doing so the apostle professes that just as God allowed all people to disobey God, God also shows mercy to all people. In fact, the apostle insists, God allowed all people to disobey God precisely in order to show mercy to all people.

But that may lead Christians who love our unbelieving neighbors to wonder if verse 32 suggest God will save all people. Most Christians profess the leap from God’s compassion for everyone to God’s salvation of everyone is too great. It’s a bit analogous to the leap required for moving from God’s desire that everyone be saved to God’s actual rescuing of all. The Scriptures insist the only bridge between God’s compassion and salvation is God’s grace that we receive with our faith in Jesus Christ.

Jesus’ friends join God in longing for all people to be saved. But while we pray and work for the salvation of all, we humbly submit to the Scriptures’ insistence that those who would be saved receive God’s grace with their faith in Jesus Christ.

This points to a second question Romans 11:32 raises: “Wouldn’t it have been less damaging had God shown mercy not because of disobedience?” Preachers might humbly note that God showed mercy first of all because of God’s Son Jesus Christ’s obedience. Only in the light of that costly obedience did God graciously open the way to showing mercy to all disobedient people.

In fact, preachers might note the theological move Paul makes in Romans 11. He has spent much of the previous two and-a-half chapters exploring Jewish rejection of Jesus as Messiah. Yet at the end of this Sunday’s Epistolary Lesson it’s as if the apostle peeks over his shoulder at gentiles and says, “You no more deserve God’s mercy than Jews do. What’s more, they receive God’s mercy no less than you do”

That’s a reason why Romans 11’s grace is such gospel for all people. While it largely focuses on God’s determination to rescue Jewish people, it insists God desires the salvation of all people. So the Spirit inspires Paul to answer verse 1’s “Did God reject [aposato] his people [laon auto]?” with a virtual shout: “By no means [me genoito]!”

The Message artfully paraphrases this as “Does this mean that God is so fed up with Israel that he’ll have nothing more to do with them? Hardly.” Or as the NLT paraphrases Paul’s answer, “Of course not.”

The apostle echoes this profession with verse 2a’s “God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew [proegno].” While proegno may sound like it has predestinarian overtones, Paul seems to be largely focusing on God’s longstanding knowledge of and relationship with the people of Israel. Jewish people were no Johnny-come-lately to God’s plans to rescue the world. God was deeply involved in Israel’s life right from the time God called Abraham to go to the land of promise.

Here is more great grace. God meets Israel’s faithlessness with God’s faithfulness that God has shown her for generations. While Israel has largely given up on Jesus as Messiah, God has not given up on Israel with whom God has been intimately involved for thousands of years. While most Jews want nothing to do with Jesus, God remains vitally interested in and committed to their eternal well-being.

To underline this persistent faithfulness, Paul offers himself as an example of God’s faithful response to Jewish faithlessness. “I am an Israelite myself,” he reminds his readers in verses 1b-2. “A descendant [ek spermatos] of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.” It’s as if the apostle says, “If you need an example of God’s persistence determination to rescue the people of Israel, you need look no farther than me.”

After all, “God’s gifts [charismata] and his call [klesis],” as Paul sings in verse 29, “are irrevocable [ametameleta].” God graced God’s Jewish people with the kinds of gifts the apostle mentions in Romans 10. What’s more, God called God’s Jewish people, especially through their priests (at their best) and their prophets.

While Jews often ignored those graces, Paul insists they are ametameleta (“irrevocable”). God didn’t stop sharing God’s gifts and call with Israel just because she largely refused to view them as coming from God. No, God continues to be generous with God’s blessings and summons to a faithful reception of God’s grace.

Implicit in this assertion is God’s summons to God’s adopted children to continue to share the gospel with those who don’t yet believe in Jesus Christ, gentile and Jew alike. The Jews who have befriended me have heard about Jesus. But few of them have yet met him in the Christians with whom they interact.

So Jesus’ friends and followers continue to introduce unbelievers to Jesus by our words and, especially, our actions. Since God’s call to people is irrevocable, our work and prayers on their behalf is persistent. After all, as long as people who have imprisoned themselves in disobedience have life, Christians have hope they’ll receive God’s amazing grace with their faith in Jesus Christ.

*I have here and elsewhere added in brackets the Greek words for the English words the NIV translation uses.

Illustration

Jennifer Weiner’s January 17, 2015, New York Times article “Mean Girls in the Retirement Home” suggests not even advancing age automatically frees us from our prison that is disobedience. She writes, “When I was young and innocent — say, last summer — the idea of 90-year-olds in pecking orders, picking on those at the bottom, was a joke. Everyone knew that the real danger to the elderly came from unscrupulous relatives, con artists or abusive caregivers….

“The notion that a threat to seniors is their peers is usually played for laughs … Like the poor are always with us, that mean girls stay mean — they just start wearing support hose and dentures…

“A recent Cornell University study by Karl Pillemer [shows] that aggression among residents in nursing homes is widespread and ‘extremely high rates of conflict and violence’ are common. According to the study’s news release, one in five residents was involved in at least one ‘negative and aggressive encounter’ with another resident during a four-week period.

“Sixteen percent were cursed or yelled at; 6 percent were hit, kicked or bitten; 1 percent were victims of ‘sexual incidents, such as exposing one’s genitals, touching other residents, or attempting to gain sexual favors;’ and 10.5 percent dealt with other residents’ entering their rooms uninvited, or rummaging through their belongings…

“What transforms with age are the criteria for judgment: not looks, not wealth, not the once-coveted ability to drive at night. When you get to be Nanna’s age, you’re reduced to a number — the younger the better. Even in a residence for the elderly, the 80-somethings will still be cold to the 95-year-olds.

“Now 99, my Nanna is completely cognizant of what’s going on. Her memory, both short- and long-term, is excellent. But once her new neighbors heard her age, they knew they didn’t want her at their table.”