Why does Paul refer to himself as an example?

Explanation:

Paul opens Romans 11:1–36 by asking whether God has rejected his people. He answers this question with By no means! before referring to himself. Specifically, he explains that he is an Israelite, of the tribe of Benjamin. Likely, the reason Paul refers to himself is to show that he is living proof that God has not rejected his people. Has God rejected the Israelites? No, for Paul is an Israelite, and God has not rejected him.

Not only is this a natural interpretation of why Paul refers to himself in Romans 11:1, but it suits the immediate context. In Romans 11:1–2 Paul points to himself as a remnant who has not been rejected by God. In Romans 11:3–4 he further illustrates the notion of a remnant by the example of Elijah and the 7,000 who have not bowed to Baal.³ Then, in Romans 11:5–6 Paul concludes that God has kept a remnant for himself by grace. Paul is a good example of an Israelite who was maintained as a remnant by God’s grace because Paul opposed the church, and yet God saved him. So Paul is an example that God has not rejected his people.⁴

Counterargument:

A closer look at the grammar of Romans 11:1 may overturn this argument. After asking whether God has rejected his people and responding, By no means! Paul opens the next clause with καὶ γὰρ. The force of καί (even) suggests that Paul introduces himself as more than simply a Jew who has not been rejected by God.⁵ A paraphrase can help bring out the emphasis that would imply Paul is more than an example of one who is an Israelite who has not been rejected. Without καί, Paul is saying, For I am an Israelite. Such an answer would imply that Paul is an example of one who is a Jew who has not been rejected by God. But this is not what Paul says. Rather, he writes For even I am an Israelite. The emphasis suggests that Paul is more than a simple example, though it is hard to say precisely what he implies.⁶

Response to counterargument:

The fact is that καί can be taken to add emphasis in a variety of ways that do not rule out Paul using himself as a simple example. For example, if we take the ESV translation, Paul says, For I myself am an Israelite. Such a translation incorporates the force of καί by the term myself, and it highlights that Paul uses himself as an example of an Israelite who is not rejected by God. So the grammar of Romans 11:1 does not overturn but actually supports the fact that Paul uses himself as an example of an Israelite who was not rejected by God.

Explanation:

Paul denies that God rejected his people, before starting a new clause that begins with γάρ (for). This term is often used to offer a reason, so we should expect that what follows is the reason Paul gives for why he can deny that God rejected his people. In other words, we could paraphrase Paul as saying, Has God rejected his people? No, because… So what does Paul follow up γάρ with? That is, what reason does Paul give as evidence that God has not rejected his people? The reason Paul gives that God has not rejected his people is that Paul himself is an Israelite.⁷ Of course, Paul has also accepted the gospel, so God has not rejected the Jews, as evidenced by the fact that Paul, a Jew, is also a Christian.

Counterargument:

While γάρ (for) could be used to offer a reason, it can also denote continuation. That is, what Paul writes continues the thought he began in what precedes. If that is right, Paul may not be giving a reason, but simply noting that as a Jew, he cannot accept the notion that God rejects his people.⁸ In this case, we could paraphrase Paul as follows, Has God rejected his people? No, for I am a Jew, and it is unthinkable for me, as a Jew, to imagine God rejecting his people.

Response to counterargument:

One problem here is that if Paul simply wanted to say that he was a Jew, implying that because of his Jewish background it is unthinkable to him that God would reject his people, there is no reason for him to include γάρ (for). Rather, we would simply expect him to ask, Has God rejected his people? and then answer, No, I am a Jew, implying that such a thought was unimaginable. The inclusion of γάρ adds nuance to Paul’s response, suggesting that he gives a reason that God has not rejected his people.⁹ Of course, the reason is that Paul himself is a Jew and also a Christian. So while this counterargument is not wrong that Paul could simply mean γάρ in the sense of continuation, it is more likely that he uses it to offer a reason.

It is hard to see what the weakness of this interpretation might be. It suits the context and is consistent with the grammar.

Explanation:

The Jews had a special relationship with God. Paul has already explained that God gave their race the laws, and through them was born Jesus Christ (Romans 9:4–5). Thus, the Jews had a unique perspective and authority when speaking about the things that concern God. Likely, the reason Paul refers to himself in Romans 11:1 is to invoke this uniquely Jewish authority. That is, Paul asks whether God has abandoned his people before answering No. He then says that he is a Jew, born of the tribe of Benjamin. The implication is that as a Jew, Paul had a unique perspective on the workings of God, including the fact that it was absurd for him to think that God would abandon his people. As a Jew, Paul knew this was not possible.

Interestingly, this is not the only time Paul refers to his Jewish background in order to support his argument. For example, in his second letter to the Corinthians he defends his authority as an apostle against opponents by pointing out that he too was a Hebrew, an Israelite, and an offspring of Abraham (2 Corinthians 11:22). The statement implies that some used their unique status as Israelites to boast in Corinth, and Paul reminds his audience that he also has reason to boast, since he was also an Israelite. Paul does something similar in Philippians 3:4–6 when he explains that if anyone had confidence in the flesh it was he, given his impeccable Jewish background.¹⁰

So, to affirm that God would not reject his people, Paul reminds his readers that he was a Jew, implying that such a suggestion was absurd.

Counterargument:

The problem here is that Paul announcing his Jewishness does not obviously imply that God would not reject his people. Paul has been explaining that the gospel has gone to the Gentiles, and the Jews have not understood the word preached. So Paul asks, Has God rejected his people? He answers, No, before stating that he is a Jew. Unfortunately, that Paul is a Jew does not obviously imply that God has not rejected his people. For if it was so unthinkable for a Jew that God might reject them, then Paul would not have even raised the question for whether God would reject the Jews.

Further, when Paul refers to himself as an Israelite in 2 Corinthians 11:22 and Philippians 3:4–6, he does not do so in the context of using his Israelite background as an implied authority. Rather, in both cases he seems to be saying that his Israelite background is not relevant to the point.

Explanation:

Paul is caught up in the flow of his own argument and is aware of how his audience might react to the fact that Israel has not obeyed the gospel. The fact that Israel has not obeyed while the Gentiles do might remind Paul and his audience of earlier episodes in Israel’s history when God seemed to reject his people (2 Kings 21:14). Still, Paul is an Israelite, and as such he knows that God is faithful and will not forsake his people.¹¹ So Paul expresses this by saying that he is an Israelite, implying that from the perspective of a Jew, it is absurd to think that God would reject Israel.

Counterargument:

According to this argument, the Israelites have doubted God’s promises in the past and thought that God might reject his people. What Paul says about the gospel implies that God might be rejecting his people again, so Paul says that as an Israelite, he just cannot believe this. The problem is that, as the argument itself admits, there are past instances when Israel thought that God had rejected them. So being an Israelite does not automatically imply that one does not think God would reject them. So it is not the case that simply announcing himself as an Israelite implies that Paul is affirming that God would never reject his people.

Response to counterargument:

The argument here is not that the Israelites never doubted whether or not they were rejected by God. Indeed, this argument admits that Israelites had doubts in the past, and that Paul is addressing such doubts in this letter. Rather, the point is that Paul leans on what they know to be the case as Jews, that regardless of their occasional doubt, they know that God is faithful.

The weakness of this argument is that only if Paul were writing to Jews alone would it make sense for him to refer to himself as a Jew to imply that it is unthinkable for God to abandon his people. For an audience of Jews only might understand such an implication. But we know Paul is writing to Jews and Gentiles in Rome.