Grace
Theological Journal 2.1 (Spring 1981) 115-29
Copyright © 1981 by Grace
Theological Seminary. Cited with permission.
PAUL'S USE OF THE
OLD TESTAMENT IN
ROMANS 9:25-26
JOHN A. BATTLE, JR.
A number of
premillennial writers are now agreeing with amillen-
nialists that a literal
interpretation of OT prophecies concerning
is not justified. They claim that the NT interprets these
prophecies in a
"spiritualized" sense, applying
them to the present church, and conclude
that
the OT provides no proof of a future national conversion of
of a future millennial
kingdom. The quotations of Hosea in Rom
are
cited as a primary example. Most who
hold to the literal interpretation
of prophecy assume that
Paul quotes Hosea by way of analogy only,
without denying a future
fulfillment for
quotes Hosea literally and has
specifically in mind
unbelief and future conversion.
The author prefers the second alternative
and
sees evidence for this interpretation not only in the context of Hosea,
but also in the context of
Romans
9. The background and contexts of the other OT passages cited in
Romans 9 confirm the suggested interpretation. It is concluded
that
the literal interpretation
of OT prophecy not only agrees with Paul’s
normal hermeneutics but helps
greatly in the exegesis of this particular passage.
* * *
Today it is recognized more than ever that one's theology as a
whole is
closely related to one's
hermeneutics. This fact especially comes to the fore in
the study of
eschatology. For decades the dictum has held true that amillennialism
requires an allegorical or
"spiritual" interpretation of biblical prophecy (especially
in the OT), while premillennialism
springs from a more literal interpretation of
those prophecies.
Therefore, it comes as a surprise that a premillennial writer
would favor a
spiritualized
interpretation of OT prophecy. Yet, several premillennialists have
done this, the most prominent being George
Eldon Ladd of Fuller Theological
Seminary. In an interesting
116 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
book on the millennium, in which four
theologians debate each other,1 Ladd
declares himself to be a
premillennialist, but on the basis of only two NT
passages, Rev 20: 1-6, and to a
lesser extent, I Cor 15:23-26.2 Similarly, his
belief in the future national
conversion of
passage, Rom 11:26.3
To support his eschatology Ladd refuses to use the
scores of OT passages dealing
with the messianic kingdom and its blessings.
He believes
that literal interpretation of many of these passages may be
possible, but that it is not
required; he claims that in several cases the NT
itself interprets OT
prophecies in a nonliteral or "spiritualizing" sense. Ladd
concludes that the OT cannot be
used confidently to describe the future
millennial kingdom, or even to
prove its existence:4
The fact is that the New Testament
frequently interprets Old Testament
prophecies in a way not suggested by the Old
Testament context.
This clearly establishes the principle
that the "literal hermeneutic" does
not work.
The Old Testament did not clearly foresee
how its own prophecies were
to be fulfilled. They were fulfilled in ways
quite unforeseen by the Old
Testament itself and
unexpected by the Jews. With
regard to the first
coming of Christ, the Old Testament is
interpreted by the New Testament…..
A nondispensational eschatology forms its theology from the
explicit
teaching of the New Testament. It confesses that
it
cannot be sure how the Old Testament prophecies
of the end are to be
fulfilled.5
THE ARGUMENT SURROUNDING
ROM 9:25-26
To demonstrate that the NT handles the OT in a nonliteral
fashion, Ladd cites four
primary examples: Hos 11: 1 in Matt
7-8 in Matt
8:17 and Acts 8:32-33; Hos 2:23 and 1:10 in Rom
1The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views (ed. Robert G. Clouse;
Downers
Grove: InterVarsity, 1977); the four scholars are G. E. Ladd
(historic premillennialism),
H. A. Hoyt (dispensational premillennialism), L. Boettner
(postmillennialism), and
A. A. Hoekema (amillennialism).
2Ibid., 32-39.
3Ibid., 27-29.
4Ibid., 20-27.
5Ibid., 20, 23, 27; italics his. It should be
noted that many nondispensational
writers disagree with Ladd's position and seek to
follow a grammatical-historical
approach to both the OT and the NT.
6Ibid., 20-27. Ladd could have cited also Amos
9:11-12, quoted in Acts 15:16-17,
a
key passage for those arguing for "spiritualized" exegesis; elsewhere
he does apply it
to the present age, A Theology
of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974)
355. For a more thorough discussion of
this passage from the amillennial
out Rom
passage Paul quotes the OT:
"Even as it says in Hosea, 'I will call
them my people who were not my people, and her
beloved who was
not beloved; and it will be in the place
where it was said to them,
"You
are not my people," there they will be called sons of the living
God.'"
The OT verses quoted by Paul, Hos
future restoration of
of estrangement and judgment caused by
commentators recognize
that Hosea has literal, national
view-particularly, the ten northern
tribes. Furthermore, the predicted
blessings seem to fit perfectly
with the future millennium. Hosea
mphasizes
people, the objects of his
mercy.
But in Rom 9:25-26 Paul quotes these verses in a surprising
manner. V 24 speaks of
"us whom he has called, not from the Jews
only but also from the Gentiles,"
indicating Christians of his day.
Paul then
continues, "as also it says in Hosea," and
quotes these
verses. Many believe that here
he equates the Christian church with
the promised restoration of
pretation of Hosea's prophecy.
Such is Ladd's conclusion:
Paul
deliberately takes these two prophecies about the future of
and applies them to the church. The church,
consisting of Jews and
Gentiles,
has become the people of God. The prophecies of Hosea are
fulfilled in the Christian
church. If this is a "spiritualizing hermeneutic"
so be it. ...It is clearly what the New
Testament does to the Old
Testament prophecies.
Obviously, if Ladd's exegesis is correct, those who hold to a
consistent grammatical-historical
interpretation of Scripture must
modify their position. On the
other hand, the exegesis of the Romans
passage itself must stand
careful scrutiny, especially since issues of
hermeneutics and
theology are involved. This writer believes that a
careful examination of both
passages in their related contexts will
reveal a basic underlying
unity and that a consistent literal interpretation
of Hosea's prophecy is the key to
understanding Paul's meaning in
Romans 9.
_________________________________________________________
viewpoint, see O. T. Allis, Prophecy and the
Church (
and
Reformed, 1955) 145-50, and more recently, A. A. Hoekema, The Bible
and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 209-10.
For an excellent
treatment favoring literal exegesis, see A. A.
MacRae, "The Scientific
Approach to the OT," BSac 110 (1953) 313-16.
7This passage is discussed by Ladd, Meaning of the Millennium,
23-24.
118 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
VARIOUS APPROACHES
TO ROM 9:25-26
Commentators and theologians who seriously discuss this
passage tend to hold one of
three opinions: (1) Paul actually changes
Hosea's meaning
in its OT context to make the prophecy refer
directly and exclusively to his
own times, (2) Paul only uses Hosea's
prophecy as an example or
analogy, applying its principle to his own
times, or (3) Paul employs Hosea's prophecy
literally, with the same
meaning as that evident in the
OT context. Within each approach
there are several variations. Each of these
approaches will be
summarized below.
Changing
Hosea’s meaning
Many look at the seeming discrepancy between Hosea and Paul,
"take the bull by the horns," and declare that Paul
simply changed or
"transformed" Hosea's prophecy. On the critical side,
commentators
often accuse Paul of misusing the OT for his
own ends. For example,
C. H. Dodd
has written:
The verses which follow are extremely difficult in the Greek.
...When
Paul, normally a clear thinker, becomes obscure, it usually means
that
he is
embarrassed by the position he has taken up. It is surely so here.
...It is rather strange that Paul has not observed that this
prophecy
referred to
strange because it would have fitted so admirably the doctrine of the
restoration of
particular prophecy is ill-chosen, it is certainly true that the prophets
did
declare the calling of the Gentiles.8
Likewise
Ernst Kasemann sees Paul disregarding the original sense of
Hosea:
As is his custom Paul understands the sayings as eschatologically
oriented oracles without considering their original sense. ...With
great
audacity he takes the promises to
Gentile-Christians.9
Opposed to this cavalier treatment of Pauline exegesis, many
conservative writers
still feel that Paul basically transforms or
"deepens" Hosea's meaning to refer to the church of his
day.
Although, as
mentioned above, G. E. Ladd takes this approach, it is
8C. H. Dodd, The
Epistle to the Romans (MNTC;
Brothers, 1932) 159-60.
9E. Kasemann, Commentary on Romans,
trans. and ed. from 4th
Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 274.
found most frequently among postmillennialists
or amillennialists,
who naturally favor a more "spiritualizing"
hermeneutic. H. N.
Ridderbos,
for example, calls this passage "a transition in interpretation."10
A number of exegetical points in Romans 9 -11 lend support to
this approach; the following seem to be the
most important:
1) The Gentiles are mentioned immediately before and after
Paul's quotations (vv 24, 30).
2) The xxxx at the beginning of v 27 could well contrast the
tatus of Jews in v 27 with that of Gentiles in vv 25-26.
3) Peter paraphrases Hos 2:23, referring it to his Christian
readers (I Pet
4) The "vessels of wrath" of v 22 seem to be unbelieving
Jews,
while the "vessels of mercy" of v 23
are identified as believing Jews
and Gentiles. Such a contrast is carried out
in Rom 9:30-10:4.
5) The structure citing blessings on the "non-people" in
vv
25-26,
followed by judgment against
preference for the
"non-nation" in 10:19-20, followed by the judgment
against
6) Paul, by the term "jealousy" in
own ministry in the church to the
eschatological promises made to
9-11 seems
to presuppose its relevance for his own day.
Taken together, these arguments give a powerful impetus to
many theologians, who conclude that Paul in
some way changes the
meaning of Hosea's prophecy
from that which is apparent in its
original context. Of course, the
major drawback of this viewpoint is
its conclusion regarding hermeneutics: while
the NT is to be
interpreted (more or less)
literally, the OT is not. Many amillennialists
expand this principle
to all OT prophecy and thereby deny any
future fulfilment
of these prophecies for the nation of
An
argument from analogy
Many commentators, desiring to maintain the integrity of
Hosea's
meaning, and yet convinced that Paul is speaking of
Gentiles,
see in this passage an application of Hosea's prophecy,
but not its total Fulfilment.
Charles Hodge expresses this view well:
10H. Ridderbos, Paul, An Outline of His Theology, trans. J. R. de Witt
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 340.
11On the other hand, Kasemann, Commentary
on Romans, 274,
contrasts
Rom 9:25 with Jub 2: 19, "Behold, I will separate unto Myself
a people from among all the peoples, ...and I will sanctify them
unto Myself
as My people, and will bless
120 GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
The
difficulty with regard to this passage is, that in Hosea it evidently
has reference not to the heathen, but to the
ten tribes. Whereas, Paul
refers it to the Gentiles.
...This difficulty is sometimes gotten over by
giving a different view of the
apostle's object in the citation, and
making it refer to the
restoration of the Jews. But this interpretation is
obviously at variance with the
context. It is more satisfactory to say,
that the ten tribes were in a heathenish
state, relapsed into idolatry,
and, therefore, what was said of them, is of
course applicable to
others in like circumstances,
or of like character. ...This method of
interpreting and
applying Scripture is both common and correct. A
general truth, stated in
reference to a particular class of persons, is to
be considered as intended to apply to all
those whose character and
circumstances are the
same, though the form or words of the original
enunciation may not be applicable
to all embraced within the scope of
the general sentiment.12
Likewise,
Sanday and Headlam say that "
which underlies these words, that God can take
into His covenant
those who were previously cut off from it, to
the calling of the
Gentiles.”13 This approach is followed by Herman A. Hoyt in his
reply to Ladd’s argument:
In passage after passage Ladd insists that the New Testament is
interpreting the Old when the New Testament is simply applying a
principle found in the Old Testament (Hos. 11:1 with Mt.
references identify the church and
saved is
wholly gratuitous. ...It makes such application merely for the
purpose of explaining something that is true of both.14
This approach to Rom 9:25-26 certainly has its advantages. It
strives to do justice to
Hosea's prophecy in its context, and it also
recognizes the apparent force of
the context in Romans concerning
the conversion of Gentiles. In addition, the
introductory formula,
"even as (w[j) it says in Hosea," fits well with an illustration or
analogy
and does not demand that it be the strict fulfillment
of the prophecy.
________________________________________________________
them; ...and they shall be My people and I will be their God."
The Jubilees passage
refers exclusively to national
109 and 105 B.C., APOT
(1913) 2, 6.
12C. Hodge, Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans (rev. ed., 1886;
reprinted;
13W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the
Epistle to the Romans
(ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902) 264; similarly,
J. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965) 38.
14Meaning of the
Millennium, 42-43.
In spite of its attraction, however, the argument for analogy has
some drawbacks. For one thing, Paul normally
interprets OT prophecies
literally, as will be discussed
later in this article. The few examples of
his analogical use of scripture normally come
from non-predictive
portions (as Ps 19:4 in Rom
10:18, or Deut 25:4 in 1 Tim 5:18).
There remains a greater difficulty with this interpretation. The
analogy between the ten tribes
and the Gentiles breaks down at a
critical point. Hodge mentioned
that an analogy is appropriate for
"all those whose character and circumstances are the
same." Certainly
one could identify the "character"
of the idolatrous ten tribes with
that of the Gentiles. Paul no doubt was amazed
by God's mercy
revealed both in God's promises
for adulterous
saving the heathen. But the
"circumstances" of the two groups are
quite different. Romans 1-2 describes the
Gentiles' relation to God as
founded upon creation and
conscience, whereas Romans 2-3 describes
the Jews' relation to God as also one of promise
and covenant. The
covenants with Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob have placed even the
unbelieving Jews in a unique
position in the world (cf. Rom
is because of these covenants that the OT
predicts
(e.g., Lev
26:40-45; Deut 4:29-31). And Paul himself in Romans 9-11
stresses that this restoration
stems from God's special mercy and
covenant-faithfulness to
this major respect Paul does not view the
present salvation of
Gentiles as analogous to the promised future salvation of national
Identity
of meaning
As quoted above, Charles Hodge has said, "This difficulty is
sometimes gotten over by giving a
different view of the apostle's
object in the citation, and
making it refer to the restoration of the
Jews." Actually, very few
commentators have proposed this solution;
as Hodge went on to say, "This
interpretation is obviously at variance
with the context," Nevertheless, one who
has ventured this approach
is Alva J, McClain, who says in his popular
commentary:
A lot of folks think
that this passage refers to the Gentiles. It does
not.
They think Paul made a mistake and quoted from the Old
Testament something that belonged to Jews and applied it to the
Gentiles. He is talking about
was not
my people." God cast
mercy. 15
15A. J. McClain, Romans: The Gospel of God’s Grace (ed. H. A.
Hoyt;
122 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
Unfortunately,
the brief and popular style of McClain's book prevents
a clarification and defense of this
statement. Its major difficulty, as
Hodge has
noted, is the context in Romans 9, which seems to be
speaking about the present,
largely Gentile church. Yet this approach
has the distinct asset of taking Hosea's
prophecy at face value and
maintaining complete harmony
between Hosea and Paul. This writer
believes that the context in
Romans 9 can, and indeed does, fit
together best with this interpretation.
Before proceeding to defend this approach, it would be good to
note another variation of it. Some
commentators believe that Paul
used Hosea in the original sense, but that the
original sense of Hosea
included the salvation of
Gentiles. George N. H. Peters, on one hand,
sees believing Gentiles as incorporated into
the