The Self-Drawn Portrait of the Apostle Paul. (5)
Posted by Marvin Pagkanlungan on Thursday, May 29, 2014
by Charles H. Welch
#5. His Fervid Patriotism.
“Here we see . . . . . that fervid patriotism which makes him ‘wish that he were himself accursed from Christ for his brethren, his kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites.” (Conybeare and Howson).
It was Nurse Cavell, whose patriotism was sealed with her life’s blood, who was responsible for the famous words: “Patriotism is not enough.” If it is untempered and unguided, patriotism may lead to injustice, blindness, narrowness, and many other excesses. For the Christian to-day who confesses himself a pilgrim and a stranger, patriotism needs purging before it can be used with a good conscience. In Paul’s case, however, no scruples concerning other-worldliness and the common relationship of all men would arise. Israel were a chosen people, and their law a chosen law. Their city was destined to be the hub of the earth, and their priestly kingdom was designed for the blessing of all nations. On the other hand, it was true that the Jews as a whole had allowed their patriotism to degenerate. They hugged to themselves their descent from Abraham as though it were an exclusive privilege, and forgot the connected fact that they were thus chosen so that all families of the earth through them should be blessed. Not so, however, the Apostle to the Gentiles. In the very heart of his epistle to the Romans and with the blessing of the Gentiles in view, he says that his heart’s desire for Israel was “that they might be saved”.
In our exposition of Rom. ix. (Volume XXVII, page 157) we have discussed the Apostle’s intention when he used the words: “I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ” (Rom. ix. 3). Whatever his meaning may have been—whether he really meant that in the spirit of Christ’s great sacrifice he would even be willing to suffer eternal reprobation for Israel’s sake, or whether he fully understood and sympathized with Israel’s rejection of their Messiah, because he himself had in ignorance blasphemed that same Name—whatever may be the true interpretation, one thing is abundantly evident, and that is his most intense longing for Israel’s salvation, and his keen realization of the wonderful privileges that belonged to them (see verses 4 and 5).
At the close of the dispensational section of Romans (xi. 26-36), the Apostle rejoices in that glorious future day when “all Israel shall be saved”, and in verse 33 he speaks of the “depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God”. This is indeed true patriotism—desiring the very best for one’s own people.
The word “patriotism” is derived from pater, “father”. At one time Saul of Tarsus was an “exceeding zealot” for the traditions of his fathers (Gal. i. 14)—a patriotism that was Pharisaic, blind and bigoted. This, however, he had now cast aside with all his self-centred hopes as an Israelite (Phil. iii. 7, 8), and had found a new patria, “the whole family in heaven and earth” (Eph. iii. 15)—and in particular that section of it whose sphere of blessing is far above principalities and powers. At the same time he realized that his kinsmen according to the flesh would one day, by grace, form a part of the patria that would fill earth as well as heaven with the redeemed of Israel and the nations. The “fervid patriotism” of Gal. i. 14 and Acts ix. 1 had been translated into higher and more spiritual terms, and the Apostle found that he could still desire the best for his kinsmen according to the flesh, while at the same time rejoicing in that ministry which set aside the distinction between “Jew and Greek”, and made them “all one in Christ Jesus”.
There was no possibility of Paul ever falling into the snare that has entrapped many to-day. Only recently, in the correspondence columns of a Christian journal, one writer has been seeking to prove that the blessings forfeited by Israel have been transferred to the Church. This is a suggestion that the Apostle would have been the first to repudiate as he does, in effect, with his “God forbid” in Rom. xi. 11.
As Gal. iii. 28, 29 was written some year or two before Rom. ix., it is clear that the higher spiritual teaching entrusted to Paul did not in anyway alter the gifts and calling of God concerning Israel. Since Acts xxviii., however, the “Lo-ammi” condition of Israel has altered the face of things considerably, and the insistence upon the “Jew first” as found in Romans and the Acts is no longer dispensational. Nevertheless it remains true that no one who loves the Scripture written by Israel’s prophets, evangelists and apostles, no one who is saved by the precious blood of the Messiah of Israel, no one who realizes that that one blessed Name is over the whole patria of God whether on earth or in heaven (Eph. iii. 15), but will feel in some degree that same “patriotism” that is so marked a feature in the Apostle’s self-drawn portrait.
-------------------
(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 32, page 174).
---------------------
#5. His Fervid Patriotism.
“Here we see . . . . . that fervid patriotism which makes him ‘wish that he were himself accursed from Christ for his brethren, his kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites.” (Conybeare and Howson).
It was Nurse Cavell, whose patriotism was sealed with her life’s blood, who was responsible for the famous words: “Patriotism is not enough.” If it is untempered and unguided, patriotism may lead to injustice, blindness, narrowness, and many other excesses. For the Christian to-day who confesses himself a pilgrim and a stranger, patriotism needs purging before it can be used with a good conscience. In Paul’s case, however, no scruples concerning other-worldliness and the common relationship of all men would arise. Israel were a chosen people, and their law a chosen law. Their city was destined to be the hub of the earth, and their priestly kingdom was designed for the blessing of all nations. On the other hand, it was true that the Jews as a whole had allowed their patriotism to degenerate. They hugged to themselves their descent from Abraham as though it were an exclusive privilege, and forgot the connected fact that they were thus chosen so that all families of the earth through them should be blessed. Not so, however, the Apostle to the Gentiles. In the very heart of his epistle to the Romans and with the blessing of the Gentiles in view, he says that his heart’s desire for Israel was “that they might be saved”.
In our exposition of Rom. ix. (Volume XXVII, page 157) we have discussed the Apostle’s intention when he used the words: “I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ” (Rom. ix. 3). Whatever his meaning may have been—whether he really meant that in the spirit of Christ’s great sacrifice he would even be willing to suffer eternal reprobation for Israel’s sake, or whether he fully understood and sympathized with Israel’s rejection of their Messiah, because he himself had in ignorance blasphemed that same Name—whatever may be the true interpretation, one thing is abundantly evident, and that is his most intense longing for Israel’s salvation, and his keen realization of the wonderful privileges that belonged to them (see verses 4 and 5).
At the close of the dispensational section of Romans (xi. 26-36), the Apostle rejoices in that glorious future day when “all Israel shall be saved”, and in verse 33 he speaks of the “depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God”. This is indeed true patriotism—desiring the very best for one’s own people.
The word “patriotism” is derived from pater, “father”. At one time Saul of Tarsus was an “exceeding zealot” for the traditions of his fathers (Gal. i. 14)—a patriotism that was Pharisaic, blind and bigoted. This, however, he had now cast aside with all his self-centred hopes as an Israelite (Phil. iii. 7, 8), and had found a new patria, “the whole family in heaven and earth” (Eph. iii. 15)—and in particular that section of it whose sphere of blessing is far above principalities and powers. At the same time he realized that his kinsmen according to the flesh would one day, by grace, form a part of the patria that would fill earth as well as heaven with the redeemed of Israel and the nations. The “fervid patriotism” of Gal. i. 14 and Acts ix. 1 had been translated into higher and more spiritual terms, and the Apostle found that he could still desire the best for his kinsmen according to the flesh, while at the same time rejoicing in that ministry which set aside the distinction between “Jew and Greek”, and made them “all one in Christ Jesus”.
There was no possibility of Paul ever falling into the snare that has entrapped many to-day. Only recently, in the correspondence columns of a Christian journal, one writer has been seeking to prove that the blessings forfeited by Israel have been transferred to the Church. This is a suggestion that the Apostle would have been the first to repudiate as he does, in effect, with his “God forbid” in Rom. xi. 11.
As Gal. iii. 28, 29 was written some year or two before Rom. ix., it is clear that the higher spiritual teaching entrusted to Paul did not in anyway alter the gifts and calling of God concerning Israel. Since Acts xxviii., however, the “Lo-ammi” condition of Israel has altered the face of things considerably, and the insistence upon the “Jew first” as found in Romans and the Acts is no longer dispensational. Nevertheless it remains true that no one who loves the Scripture written by Israel’s prophets, evangelists and apostles, no one who is saved by the precious blood of the Messiah of Israel, no one who realizes that that one blessed Name is over the whole patria of God whether on earth or in heaven (Eph. iii. 15), but will feel in some degree that same “patriotism” that is so marked a feature in the Apostle’s self-drawn portrait.
-------------------
(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 32, page 174).
---------------------
