On Creeds and Narrative

The creeds are good - but I wonder how clearly a bullet-point list of truths is capable of telling the story which the gospel tells. 

Someone said that whereas the previous generation learned by points, the current generation learns better by a story.

If someone asked the early Apostles 'what we believe' - would they have just given a list of points - or would they have told a story? A narrative.

I wonder if a 'Statement of Faith' could actually be better presented nowadays as a short-story, a story which includes certain points of truth, rather than just isolating out those points of truth without telling the story. 

I suppose the creeds do tell the gospel-story in its barest essentials. But sometimes the Apostles told that story as part of a larger story; as the climax of an ongoing story - the story of the kingdom; of Israel; of Abraham; of mankind, from the lost paradise on the earth to the restored paradise in the new earth, God dwelling with man again; through Jesus' cross and resurrection; the Spirit being the downpayment on that inheritance.

A list of ingredients is an important part of a recipe - but so is the way it all comes together into the cake. We're not just offering the world a list of ingredients - we're offering them a beautifully-made cake, which is made-up of those ingredients.

The Veil

The veil wasn't there to prevent a Jew from transitioning to the New Covenant. Because they decided not to transition to the New Covenant, the veil remained. 

Making Sense of Bible Prophecy

Just like one exultant Psalm telling the story of Israel, such as Psalm 105, isn't complete without the other side of Israel's story told in Psalm 106, so one prophecy about Israel's future, such as ones telling of Messiah coming to destroy their enemies and reign as King in their midst, isn't complete without other prophecies about Israel, such as the ones which said not all would believe, and that Gentiles would be included.

Both are meant to be read side by side. Kingdom and cross, both.

Why wouldn't it be the same then with New Testament prophecy?

Thoughts About the Psalms of Solomon

1. The Psalms of Solomon show an expectation both that Messiah would shatter Israel's enemies (that's similar imagery to what's found in the canonical Old Testament Scriptures) - and also show that Messiah would achieve that without rallying an army.

That shows that Jewish thinkers could think of imagery similar to the Bible's in not-so-literal terms.

And that means that the way Jesus fulfilled prophecy was not, in all Jewish minds, an impossible way for Bible-prophecy to have been fulfilled.

2. A recurrent theme is a pious man's inner struggle with the law of sin.

This is reflected by Paul, whether knowingly or not, in Romans 7.

Truly by the works of the law shall no man be justified, but the Law was intended as a school master to bring Israel to Christ.

3. Inclusion in God's Messianic salvation was in no way considered automatic upon Jewish ethnicity. Only the righteous could participate. This is reflected by the "they are not all Israel which are of Israel" statement of Paul's in Romans 9.

4. It mentions that a man can take nothing except what God gives him. But it doesn't mean it in the sense that God's sovereignty precludes freewill - rather it means that man cannot by his own will coax God into making concessions regarding his sin.

It talks about God choosing blessings for the righteous - but not in a determinist way, but because man has complied with God.

That is reflected by Paul in Romans 9-11, which talks about God's election, and "who are you to reply against God" not in the sense that denies freewill but in the sense that freewill can't dictate over God and His election and standards.

5. It mentions a man under the law being pricked by God in order to goad his heart into true service.

This is reflected in Acts by the way the Lord spoke to Saul on the road to Damascus.

Conclusions:

There were Jewish ways of thinking, in the backdrop to the first century AD, ways which Paul may have been familiar with, into which the Gospel fits not unnaturally. And it might help shed light on how certain passaged in the New Testament should be understood, particularly Romans, and particularly chapters 9-11.

Some Background to Paul

Regarding:

ACTS 24:14

14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Compare:

PSALMS OF SOLOMON 16:4

4 He pricked me, as a horse is pricked, that I might serve Him,
My savior and helper at all times saved me.

A verse with which Saul, being at the time a Pharisee, may have been familiar.  

First Century Jewry - a Hotbed of Messianic Hope

I've been scanning Jewish sources, looking at the development through the centuries of various Messianic, kingdom, apocalyptic and eschatological concepts, interpretations, hermeneutics and expectations. Pre-exile, exile-period, post-exile, inter-testament period, New Testament period, post-second temple period, even as late as the eighth century BC and on to modern sources. Biblical, extra-canonical and neo-Hebrew sources.  

I've come away with the feeling that the first-century idea that Jesus, the Church, Christianity fulfilled Messianic prophecy - and did so in its non-militaristic, non nationalistic, non political, way - was an idea that actually fit quite a bit more naturally and feasibly among the gamut of Jewish ideas of those times than what many modern Dispensationalists, end-times teachers and Hebrew-Roots people seem to think is possible. 

Admittedly, the Gospel was a radical interpretation of the Messianic hope - but it wasn't so impossibly different from Jewish thinking of the day that no Jew could possibly accept that the Gospel was the fulfilment of that hope. Otherwise Christianity would never have taken off in Jerusalem and in Judea the way it did.

Many Dispensationalists tend to think that Christianity was so impossibly different to Messianic prophecies, different to Jewish expectations of the day, that Christianity must be something other-than, and that the Jewish Messianic aspiration must therefore be something which is yet to begin in future. But first-century Jews were capable of perceiving the Gospel-scheme as the very fulfilment of their Messianic hope - and that they did. They accepted the Gospel as being that, and went on proclaiming the Gospel as being that. If they did not think of the Gospel as fulfilling their expectation, it would never have been accepted the way it was. Not that all of them believed.

And all of that was allowable within the Jewish way of thinking, about God, about the Scriptures, about the Messiah, about the Kingdom. The Jewish mind and Jewish society, by the first century AD, was a hotbed for ideas about the Messianic. Confronted with the resurrection of Jesus, plus seeing miracles, coupled with the wide scope which some of them allowed with regards to the ways they applied apocalyptic texts - it wasn't something completely impossible for them to do to embrace the Gospel scheme of things as being the very fulfilment of their hopes, as being the true explanation of what the Old Testament was really foreseeing. Not impossible at all. 

I also wondered, since Jews had a somewhat broader, looser, more fluid, more open rather than concrete this-or-that way of thinking about Prophecy; and since the Gospel itself was a radical way of applying Prophecy including of apocalyptic prophetic literature, yet not so radical that it wasn't allowable or acceptable - why we then think that a book which Christianity produced - the Book of Revelation - must be interpreted using such a different approach.

The Gospel didn't apply Old Testament prophecies in an entirely straightforward manner, did it - and Jews were okay with that, given the light-bulb moment of the resurrection. Why then would we think that a book, written in the same genre, must now be interpreted in a strictly straightforward manner? Historical Jewish ways of thinking may not have necessitated that approach to such a book, even if our Enlightenment, Modernist, Greek kind of categories of thought do.   

It seemed to me that if instead of always trying to unravel the apocalyptic (such as the Book of Revelation, and parts of the Old Testament) using strict time-lined categories and other types of thinking, we explore using a more chilled-approach - a looser approach - it wouldn't be totally misfitting with the way the Jewish author of the book himself may have been thinking.Interestingly most of my sources weren't Christian sources, mainly Jewish. Jewish thinking, confronted with the truth of the resurrection, was capable of embracing the Gospel precisely as the very fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies in which they hoped. 

The Book of Revelation was written with the same literary approach that the Gospel itself takes to the Old Testament, and is best understood that way. And all of that is entirely Jewish. It isn't so un-Jewish that the Gospel of the grace of God must be thought of as something so entirely unrelated to the Kingdom as if the Kingdom-scheme hasn't in any way already been inaugurated and all that belongs exclusively in the future.

Certainly there is the consummation of the Kingdom still to come: but it's not only for Israel, it's for all mankind; only the born again shall see it; it doesn't involve ritual Judaism - the Gospel is the Gospel of the Kingdom!

So a simple point in all this: the Gospel of Jesus really is it! God saw the end from the beginning. In all ages faith pleases God. Faith is reckoned for righteousness. It's all about JESUS! The cross and resurrection. It's really true. He alone is the way, the truth and the life.

Afterwards when I spoke in tongues a little bit, I began to smile and laugh a bit. And the words of the song bubbled up from within me:

...You stay the same through the ages
Your love never changes

There may be pain in the night
but joy comes in the morning

And when the oceans rage
I don't have to be afraid

Because I know that you love me
Your love never fails...

A Thought About II Cor.5:21 and Election

II CORINTHIANS 5:20,21
20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 
21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

I wonder whether it's not impossible for this being made the righteousness of God to be linked to the mention of reconciliation, and to the positive 'be reconciled' of verses 18-20, rather than it necessarily needing to be a continued explanation of the ambassadorial nature of the apostleship of Paul and his team.

But that aside, if being 'made the righteousness of God' meant not just that God makes a believer righteous with His own righteousness (as part of the action of individual reconciliation), but also that Paul's ambassadorial apostolic ministry embodied God's righteousness (and if righteousness is a status which could knowingly be attributed to God due for example to His faithfulness to His covenant) - then in a similar way, could the fact that we are 'elect' mean not just that God elects this individual or that but that believers in Jesus somehow embody God's election?

So, a concept in which rather than God selectively shining a torchlight of election down from heaven onto this individual and that individual wherever they happen to stand here or there on the ground, but a picture something like that the sunshine is lighting up this part of the ground, while another part of the ground is in shadow of the clouds, and a person steps out from the shadow he's under and into the sunny area where the sunlight now shines on him too - and thus he has joined the company of others there who together embody the election.  

'Plain Reading' of Scripture

Some people self-proclaim that they take the 'plain meaning' of a text, and accuse others of instead doing 'mental gymnastics' with it. And whether someone is taking a plain meaning or not can of course be assessed logically and grammatically. 

But even so, whose 'plain meaning' might they be taking? Because the thing is, the other side also makes the same claim and accusation. We all approach evidence with a worldview, which is informed by our narratives. We also have our own concepts of how a writer should express something if he thought it was true, and we have our own 'rules' about how a reader is therefore allowed to take it. We all do, even empirical scientists.

What we should discipline our minds to do then, is give thought to the author's worldview; to the narratives which informed his worldview; to how the author might have felt it appropriate to write about something, and the ways he would have thought it appropriate for a reader to take such a piece of writing - rather than your way of doing all that, or my way, or a 17th century way, or a 4th century way.

Consider a first-century text in light of first-century ways of written expression and comprehension; specifically the first century Jewish worldview and narratives; and more specifically, first-century Christian ones; and still more specifically, Pauline ones. Otherwise something that he thought was plain enough, mightn't be to us. Or, what we think is plain enough, mightn't even have been intended by him. 

Academia arguably has access to more material that can assist with that task today than what may have been a consideration in 1619. Or maybe not - the discussion is definitely a worthy one. Adding that dimension to New Testament studies since the 20th century hasn't been at all harmful to theological discussion.

Something About the Epistles

The Epistles, along with the Apostles' sermons recorded in Acts, are the plainest source of the Gospel.

But something to remember about the Epistles is that they were letters. Often written on the run, so to speak. They weren't all textbooks, or systematic theologies. They weren't all even a comprehensive presentation of the Gospel, because they were written to churches which had already received the Gospel.

It's like, if you are an estimator or project manager for a construction project, and you send a fellow staff-person some emails about the job. Your emails wouldn't tell the builder everything about the job!

Similarly, the Epistles were letters dealing with some business the writers wanted to deal with - relative to the larger task of the Gospel which had in fact already begun among the readers and was ongoing and which didn't need the letter in order to start and therefore the letters didn't all need to be a comprehensive presentation of the Gospel.

So, in the ministry of the Church today we need to be about the Gospel the way the Apostles were and the way the early churches were - it probably wouldn't be adequate if our ministries consisted only in preaching the matters which some of the Epistles dealt with. Otherwise that would be like a builder dealing only with the matters in your emails instead of dealing with the main set of architectural plans in his possession. Your emails were only to help him implement the drawings. They're not the drawings.

Dare I say, even the Epistle to the Romans wasn't intended to say everything that could be said when the Gospel is first preached to a group of people.

Nowadays a lot of pastoral sermons are topical. And that's kind of like what some of the Epistles were. Topical. But like some of the Epistles, a lot of our sermons today seldom touch on some points required in a fully-fledged presentation of the Gospel.

Even evangelists, and teachers, and prophets. A lot of the preaching is topical. So a congregation can sit through quite a few services without hearing some of the important components of the Gospel. Not that we should stay drinking milk instead of moving on to solid meat.

But somewhere along the line, we need to make sure we're still preaching the Gospel, or enhancing the Gospel. The Gospel which the Apostles preached - not just matters like what their letters dealt with all of the time. Especially when we've always got new people coming to church. The matters some of the letters dealt with were only relevant with regard to the ongoing work of the Gospel. Like polish on a steel machine. The polish only has meaning with regard to the functioning machine. It's not an end in itself.

So, as important as topical preaching is, what was the Apostles' overall Gospel? What sorts of things did the Apostles preach when they first arrived in a city? To derive that, we need to look not only at the Epistles but also at their sermons in Acts, look at the way they applied the history taught in the Gospels, look at the way they applied the predictions in the Old Testament. What was their message? What was their work? The different Epistles only do all that to varying degree. So we need to look at it all. The Epistles and sermons in Acts can be taken more directly than other parts of the Bible, but still look at all the New Testament. Then do what they did. Preach what they preached. And may the advice in their letters help you to carry out that Gospel-work and message better.

Romans 11

Paul didn't say only that the nations had now obtained mercy through Israel's unbelief - he said also that Israel was now receiving mercy through the nations' mercy.

Israel's hardening wasn't only for the nations' benefit - it was also for Israel's own benefit in a way - so that He could have mercy on them too (which was already happening - the remnant and Paul himself being examples).

More Israelis would indeed be grafted in, and quite naturally so, seeing the promises were originally theirs. It was something which was already happening, because Paul used his own ministry as an example of God's attempt at provoking Israelis to jealousy.

It's something God was to continue to do until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in - that is, until the end. God won't shut the door to Israelis before then.

And in that manner God's promise to save "all Israel", which Paul had already defined in chapter 9, will have come to pass. Salvation offered to all - but experienced only by believers - Jews first, and also Gentiles, and at the same time by more and more Jews and most naturally so. 

The Church and Rome

The government in Rome began as a Republic of senators. The government included a debate hall. But the constitution did give the senate power to give to someone the right to act with supreme powers in case of emergency.

The occasion arose where such power was given to someone - to Julius Caesar - originally for a limited number of years. But Caesar didn't seem to want to hand that power back. The senators became uncomfortable: Caesar was acting like a king - the very thing the Republic was designed to avoid. So eventually there was a conspiracy to assassinate Caesar, and the Senate carried it out.

Jesus would have known this history, when He said "he who lives by the sword will die by the sword". The kingdom which Jesus was to set up would be on an entirely different principle.

Anyway human ambition proved stronger than the Roman system could withstand, and what followed was only a line of kings who each called themselves Caesar. Divine status was even attributed to the Caesars.

It's interesting to consider the Book of Revelation in light of that development. A beast rising with seven heads, ten horns, ten kings, in the city of ten mountains, one of which "now is" - a contemporary of John's perhaps.

It's easy to imagine that the overcoming of the Roman Empire, by means of the Messiah, the Gospel, the church, could have been a pertinent hope of early churches. Jesus, and the Book of Revelation assured them that that would happen and showed them how it would happen. And it's a pattern which rung true for each successive generation of the persecuted church. Not that that's all that the Book of Revelation was about. 

Kingdom Culture & Personal Evangelism

I'm a little bit hesitant to express all of this, lest I'm unknowingly the devil's advocate.

But, 'Kingdom culture' is okay with fitting itself within existing culture as far as possible. 

I CORINTHIANS 9:19-23
19For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 
20And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 
21To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 
22To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 
23And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

I PETER 2:13,17

13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

TITUS 2:10

10 ...adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

'Kingdom culture' doesn't only allow one person to be different to another - it makes one person different to another.  

ROMANS 12:6
6Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us...

DEUTERONOMY 28:56
56The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness,The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness...

Therefore evangelism need not always equal only street outreach. It need not always involve only approaching strangers in a shopping centre. Because not only are some people less comfortable doing that than others - but some people are also less comfortable being approached in those circumstances than others. So that type of evangelism seems to reach mainly only a certain subculture - and only a certain subculture is comfortable doing it. And quite often street-witnessers find themselves approaching someone who they instinctively notice might themselves be more comfortable being approached than others might be - therefore often only a certain subculture is targeted. 

By making evangelism only about street outreach, we make evangelism harder for some to do, than others; and we also end-up targeting mainly only some types, but not often others. We narrow it down like that - and then we call that 'the normal Christian life'. But evangelism is broader than that! 

What about the person wearing business attire who looks like he's in a bit of a hurry and who isn't displaying any obvious physical injury. What about people who don't go shopping. What about people who don't linger in parks. And what about people who might need more than a single encounter before they're going to give their life to Jesus. 

Could equating evangelism and the normal Christian life mainly only with approaching complete strangers in shopping centres create feelings of inferiority in some Christians? Christians who, in another setting, with a different target-group, using a different approach that's compatible with that target group, might feel more natural and might even be more effective than the Christian who's comfortable on the streets might be in that setting.

Sure we might need some healing from things which have hampered our personalities from being as bold as they might otherwise naturally be. And sure there are times God calls us to take a leap of faith. But what about also inviting each Christian to find the setting, target group and approach in evangelism for which God has most exactly gifted him. Let him find his 'sweet spot'. His niche. Dare I say, his 'comfort zone'. Let him be him. Doing that would also be part of 'Kingdom culture'.

Bless you!

God and Israel

Manage

Question from someone on Facebook:
What was Paul talking about in verse 6 [Rom 9:6 KJV] 6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel:.... John Edwards?

LikeShow More Reactions

 · Reply · 3 hrs

Remove

John Edwards It's a continuation of Paul explaining the gospel, just as he was doing in chapters 1-8. Continuing his same method, which included anticipating mis-concepts of the gospel, and addressing each as he went along.

And one of Paul's favourite objectives in it all of course, was the unity of the faith, the unity of the church, the unity of the mixed Gentile/Jewish congregation (which was where he was always going with all this, and which was where he ends up at, in chapters 12-15 - unity). 

This particular verse...is found in a section where Paul was dealing particularly with a potential mis-concept which could have threatened to undermine that unity, an attitude which was perhaps more likely in the capital city of Caesar's empire than anywhere else: a mis-concept about Israelis, a theological mis-concept, one which could cause Gentile members of the church to discriminate against Jews.

So part of what Paul was saying here was that the gospel did not at all imply that the promises given to the nation of Israel had failed, or that ethnic Israelis have been somehow brushed aside by God to the extent of an ethnic Israeli being barred from salvation. 

Admittedly there had been widespread unbelief among Israelis, but the fact was that many Jews had believed, and were indeed experiencing the salvation God promised. This company of Israeli believers, Paul calls the true Israel. It was they in whom God's promises had indeed taken their effect. Paul, being himself a Jew, was an example of that very outcome. 

Since salvation could never have come from ethnicity, nor from practising old-Judaism, it had therefore always been God's plan to ultimately centre His salvation around His Son, and for His true people to comprise of believers in His Son. And many Jews were experiencing it. Meanwhile, that represented no unrighteousness at all on God's part, in His dealings with national Israel. 

It was an outcome which had actually brought clarity: it was God's mercy in full-bloom (experienced by believers, both Jews and Gentiles), and it also showed the extent of the depraved state of all mankind, Jews included (who, outside of faith in Messiah, couldn't experience the promised blessing).

All mankind was in reality in the same state of need, spiritually, including Jews, despite their privileged position as custodians of the promise. And in Christ God lifted all, up to the same heavenly blessing. But only through faith in Jesus. Not through Jewish ethnicity. Not by becoming proselytes to Judaism. By Jesus. God chose that the people whom He identifies as His people, were to be the company of people who believed in His Son. Jews and Gentiles.

Nothing had failed. No-one was being discriminated against. Now, the church at Rome can reflect that glorious faith and unity!

Conversation about Romans 9-11

Someone on Facebook asked me:

Group admin So, how would you interpret the following...

15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." 

16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

LikeShow More Reactions

 · Reply · 1 hr

I replied:

Remove

John Edwards Applied to the issue Paul said he was addressing here, it meant that it was not by ethnicity (Jewish) nor by works (of the law) but solely by God's mercy.

Salvation, participation with God's redeemed people was a blessing that ethnicity, and Judaism alone couldn't bring: it derived only from God's mercy.

Mercy which He had always planned ultimately to extend on the basis of faith (irrespective of ethnicity).

Faith in Jesus - since nothing else but God Himself could ever do anything of any saving efficacy (not even Judaism could).

LikeShow More Reactions

 · Reply · 51 mins

Manage

John Edwards It meant that God, in His sovereign, righteous mercy, saves believers because of Jesus (the way He'd always planned to do) - not because of Jewish ethnicity nor Judaism.

LikeShow More Reactions

 · Reply · 40 mins

Manage

John Edwards It meant that it was entirely sovereign and righteous and merciful and consistent with God's character and His Word, with His purpose and promise, the Scriptures, for God to have chosen that His redeemed people would be the company of believers in His Son, not an ethnicity.

LikeShow More Reactions

 · Reply · 34 mins

Manage

John Edwards And God chose to centre His purpose and His redeemed-people around that tag (around Jesus, around faith, not around the tags of Jewishness or Moses' rituals) not because God is arbitrarily limiting who can be saved, but because this is the only way anyone could be saved really (since, as Paul already proved earlier in Romans, both Gentiles and Jews were only sinners - despite Jews having the Law). 

God was therefore in this way making the possibility as wide as wide can be - not arbitrarily limiting it.

What Paul Was Really Saying

A question Paul was 'not' answering in Romans 9-11, was:

"Why do some individuals get saved, and others don't".

That's a question Calvinists disputed with Arminians about, some 15 or more centuries later.

But it wasn't an issue/question which Paul was dealing with in the first century AD, in this passage.

Paul's pet love was always the gospel - the church - and the unity of the faith and fellowship, in mixed Jew and Gentile congregations.

In order to procure and preserve that assuredness and unity, in most cities Paul usually had to deal with Jews who were pressuring Gentiles to become proselytes to Judaism.

But in Italy, in the city of Rome, the capital city of Caesar's empire, there was the opposite tendency: Gentiles having hardened feelings about Jews in general.

(Remember Claudius had previously expelled all Jews from the city. Even though by the time Paul was writing, Jews had filtered back into the city and back into the church there.)

So there's an underlying purpose which Paul had throughout chapters 9-11, and that was to pull the rug on any anti-semitic ideas which Gentile members of the church at Rome might have about Jews in general.

For example, the potential mis-notion that God thought so little about the Jews that He didn't even bother to fulfil His ancient promises to them (9:6); and

The mis-notion that God was basically finished with saving Jews (11:1);

And an attitude of arrogance towards Jews (11:18).

Those were the types of issues and questions which Paul said he was addressing, in chapters 9-11.

The question was not "Why do some individuals get saved, and others don't".

So everything Paul said in these chapters is to be understood as an answer to the issue he was really dealing with - not misunderstood as an answer to other questions which he wasn't asking!

Also, Paul was explaining gospel-truths with regard to Israelis - truths which were already working in the first-century AD. He probably wasn't issuing a prophetic forecast about Israel's future.

It pays to take note of a passage's own stated-questions and answers, rather than read the passage like its intended to answer other questions of our own asking.

It also pays to consider a passage by its place in the overall flow of the Epistle in which it's found, rather than in a vacuum like it isn't connected to the chapters before and after it.

And to consider any background information which the Bible gives us about the situation, from outside the Epistle itself, like from the Book of Acts for example.

When we do that, with Romans 9-11, I think we find it diffuses the whole controversy which Calvinists disputed with Arminians over.

It might also help eliminate some wacky ideas about Israel's future - ideas which really only became popular even later than the Reformation and which may have only stemmed from a mis-reading of the passage.

The simple message of Romans 9-11 was that the mixed Gentile/Jewish church at Rome could enjoy real unity, because God was into saving everyone, through faith, regardless of ethnicity, and without needing to become proselytes to Judaism.

Revelation 12

I'm not convinced the September 2017 constellation was the fulfilment of John's vision. 

He saw a 'great wonder'. Not something barely noticeable.

What he saw he saw in heaven - in the third heaven - not in the earth's atmosphere.

What he saw there wasn't a mere astronomical event. He saw a whole drama unfold, complete with setting, characters and plot. 

The sign he saw there was probably not merely to predict a repeat of the same sign here - rather the sign he saw there likely predicted real events and outcomes here.

What events and outcomes? I wonder whether Revelation 12 is really a picture-form of the larger story of the Saviour and the Church - the Gospel.